Christine Todd Whitman's Book Takes on Conservative Republicans - Page 2

MMMMMM · #11 01-04-2005, 01:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Tell that to the current administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, what has the current administration done that conflicts with the First Amendment, or what has it done to establish theocracy?

Answer: Nada.

Verdict: Hogwash.

Record one more insult to rationality.

lastchance · #12 01-04-2005, 01:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, more irrational and more hyperbolic as well. That statement would fit well on adios' list of top 40 had it emanated from a well-known source.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you admit your fear of a foreign sleeper entering the White House if Americans allowed foreign-born citizens to enter the White House is irrational?

I agree though, CORed's statement was definitely full of hyperbole. Tone it down a helluva LOT, and it makes some sense though.

Abortion rights, abstinence-only sex ed., gay marriage, giving to churches, school prayer, even censorship etc. "Moral values" in the last election (I think you can assume that has a faith-based connotation to it).

Christian values can and do enter the equation when making up laws and appropriating funds, and for those of us non-Christians, that can get somewhat scary.

Of course, if you tone down your point a LOT as well, it is true that allegiance to another country would be a factor if a non-American born person was to govern.

MMMMMM · #13 01-04-2005, 02:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, more irrational and more hyperbolic as well. That statement would fit well on adios' list of top 40 had it emanated from a well-known source.

------------------------------------------------------------
So you admit your fear of a foreign sleeper entering the White House if Americans allowed foreign-born citizens to enter the White House is irrational?

[/ QUOTE ]

No; and that isn't a literal interpretation of the above.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree though, CORed's statement was definitely full of hyperbole. Tone it down a helluva LOT, and it makes some sense though.

Abortion rights, abstinence-only sex ed., gay marriage, giving to churches, school prayer, even censorship etc. "Moral values" in the last election (I think you can assume that has a faith-based connotation to it).

Christian values can and do enter the equation when making up laws and appropriating funds, and for those of us non-Christians, that can get somewhat scary.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of that has anything to do with theocracy.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, if you tone down your point a LOT as well, it is true that allegiance to another country would be a factor if a non-American born person was to govern.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point exactly. What if we had to go to war with that country? And do you guys really think that cloak-and-dagger, espionage, and sleeper agents only exist in novels?

Cyrus · #14 01-04-2005, 03:33 AM

I give you "Blinded By The Right", written by ex-conservative star David Brock.

An eye opener.

zaxx19 · #15 01-04-2005, 01:47 PM

Either way Im wondering which prominent GOP leader has proposed a "theocracy" or anything close to it. This kind of hyperbole is not only insulting to social right wingers (I do not count myself as one) but just not accurate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That type of hyperbole is an affront to all thinking persons.

Post Extras:

WTF are you liberal monkeys even saying...since the election you are like a twitching dying man spitting out occassional insults on the administration. " Iraq.....Christian....Social Security..." Do you guys realize how little traction among the undecided type voters this crap has....oh wait forget it, proceed as usual Id hate to help you win any elections with some tips.

lastchance · #16 01-04-2005, 10:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, if you tone down your point a LOT as well, it is true that allegiance to another country would be a factor if a non-American born person was to govern.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point exactly. What if we had to go to war with that country? And do you guys really think that cloak-and-dagger, espionage, and sleeper agents only exist in novels?

[/ QUOTE ]
Theocracy is a given. I do not think that we would go to war on England, France, China, the Soviet Union, India or Pakistan any time in the next 50-100 years, let alone the maximum 8 year limit right now.

Also, it would be a most impressive feat to get a sleeper into the White House right now, do you not agree? Also, a spy could simply move here and have a baby here to make them grow up as a sleeper agent.

Really, sleeper agents right now = guys working $10,000 jobs trying to learn how to fly planes or something like that.

Cloak and dagger doesn't exist anymore. Spies aren't deadly assassins, they're clerks and secretaries.

BTW, foreign nationals can become Senators, Supreme Court Judges, Cabinet Members... Any one of those could be as dangerous as a President in a sleeper.

Either way, I've sorta hijacked this thread. Go me! :P

ACPlayer · #17 01-05-2005, 02:04 AM

Sorry, but I am (almost) a teetotaller. Perhaps that is the problem. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But seriously, you need to take MMMMMM's advice about reading too much into posts. I think we should all always tell our government that the consititution rules.

However, the administration should also, IMO, stay out of court cases involving the word GOD, the ten commandments, etc. There is no reason for them to be filing amicus briefs in such cases (on either side)- let the judiciary handle them. Violates the amendment that 6M quoted for us.

I just finished Fury by Rushdie a pretty good book. Not necessarily a rush out and get it but still a good read. Before that I read a very early Wodehouse that I had never read (his schoolboy days books), not nearly as good as psmith's doings but not bad at all.

MMMMMM · #18 01-05-2005, 02:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no reason for them to be filing amicus briefs in such cases (on either side)- let the judiciary handle them. Violates the amendment that 6M quoted for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious but how does that violate the First Amendment? The establishment clause is very specific: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Are you claiming Congress is somehow making a law with amicus briefs, or what, exactly?

ACPlayer · #19 01-05-2005, 02:37 AM

As I told Zeno, take your own advice and quit reading into words then is written.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

ACPlayer · #20 01-05-2005, 02:41 AM

Well, you are perhaps correct that the words dont include the Executive branch.

However, as law specially these days, is both the enactment of the legislation and precedents. Influencing precedent, unless there is a particular reason(such as impacting national securityetc), to do so is tantamount to creating law. To maintain the spirit of separation of church and state, the govt should refrain from filing Amicus briefs.