Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 11-12-2002, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


quote:
Of Bush's 32 nominees to the appeals court, the Senate confirmed only 14, or 44 percent. During comparable periods--the first two years of a presidency--the Senate typically has confirmed a much higher percentage of appeals court nominees. (For Ronald Reagan, it was 95 percent; George H.W. Bush, 96 percent; and Bill Clinton, 85 percent.) What especially irritates Bush is the lack of hearings: On November 15, no fewer than 15 of his appeals court nominees will have waited in vain for more than a year to have hearings scheduled.

<a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/895pgqhl.asp" target="_blank">Right Wing Source</a>

Talk about lying with statistics. The first two years of Clinton's presidency, he had a Senate controlled by the same party. For most of the first two years of Bush's presidency, he didn't. Those periods are hardly comparable.

Toto · 11-12-2002, 06:08 PM

Here's one link. I don't have time to research this fully:

<a href="http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/units/research/archive/fedjudg.htm" target="_blank">STUDY FINDS UNPRECEDENTED DELAY IN APPOINTING FEDERAL JUDGES</a>

This is dated 8/25/99

Quote:

A new study suggests that U.S. Senate confirmation of federal judges has slowed to an unprecedented pace, contributing to a shortage of judges in federal courts.

The hostile political environment between President Bill Clinton, who nominates judges, and the Republican-controlled Senate, which confirms them, is the major reason for the delay, said Elliot Slotnick, co-author of the study and professor of political science at Ohio State University.

While friction in divided governments is common, the current situation in confirming judges is worse than usual, Slotnick said.

A case in point: The study found that the 1992 Democrat-controlled Senate took an average of 92 days to hold hearings on Republican President George Bush's nominations for district judges. But last year the Republican Senate took an average of 160 days to hold hearings on Clinton's nominees, Slotnick said.

"The Senate hasn't completely stopped acting on judicial
nominations, but there seems to be a crisis of unprecedented delays in moving the nominations along," he said.

. . .

Slotnick said the delays don't seem to be because Clinton is nominating people that are too liberal to be confirmed by Senate Republicans. In fact, Clinton has been very pragmatic, he said, in nominating moderates -- even a limited number of Republicans -- to the federal bench. This tendency has increased in Clinton's second term. For example, the study found that the proportion of Republicans Clinton appointed during the first half of his second term was about triple that of his first term.

This suggests that the Clinton administration, to a limited extent, felt obliged to accommodate some Republican senators, an inevitable bowing to the reality of a Republican stranglehold on the confirmation process," Slotnick said.

Clinton has also nominated a higher proportion of judges who have received the American Bar Association's highest rating than did Presidents Bush, Reagan or Carter, the study showed.

Clinton's nominations have actually disappointed many left-leaning Democrats who believe he should be pursuing a more liberal agenda in lower-court nominations, he said.

"In interviews I have done, Clinton administration officials admitted there has been, on occasion, a cost-benefit calculation when deciding whom to nominate to the federal bench," Slotnick said. "They consider whether a particular person could be confirmed by the Senate, and if so, at what cost. They are making some very pragmatic choices."

The current battle between Clinton and Senate Republicans is the result, in part, of "the politicization of lower court judgeships that has occurred over the past several decades," Slotnick explained. Richard Nixon made judgeships an issue by seeking out demonstrably conservative candidates as part of his campaign to restore "law and order" in the country. Jimmy Carter raised the issue as well by stating, from a liberal perspective, that he would not nominate judges unless they had a "demonstrated commitment to equal justice." Ronald Reagan got attention by screening judicial candidates for their specific views on a variety of social issues, particularly abortion.

"Until relatively recently, however, the presumption had always been that the president nominates lower-court judges and, barring some significant red flag issue, Senate confirmation was routine," Slotnick said. "That no longer seems to be the case."
. . .

Layman · 11-12-2002, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:


Talk about lying with statistics. The first two years of Clinton's presidency, he had a Senate controlled by the same party. For most of the first two years of Bush's presidency, he didn't. Those periods are hardly comparable.

No, the numbers do not lie. No President has ever been as stymied in his first two years of office as Bush II has. It is completely unprecedented.

Buffman · 11-12-2002, 11:26 PM

Layman

Democrats have played a much more obstructionist game than the Republicans and even then themselves with Reagan and Bush I. The facts:

I see! Only you have the "right" facts. So the links I provided weren't factual. I guess you think they must all be lies? Interesting!

What testimony? Your previous posts was just a summation of your own opinion.

<a href="http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryLocalmoore17w.htm" target="_blank">http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryLocalmoore17w.htm</a>

Please try to read the entire article. My opinion did not put those words in Moore's mouth any more than your opinion can take them out.

So again. Where did Bush call himself a fundamentalist?---At most I saw Bush described once as an evangelical. That is not the same thing as a fundamentalist.

I am wrong and you are correct. He describes himself as an "evangelical" Christian...whatever that is. Why don't you enlighten me? How does an evangelical Christian, who was "Born Again," differ from the fundamentalist Christian who is "Born Again" versus the Catholic Christian who is merely baptized and confirmed? I'm afraid it all does get pretty confusing for me trying to determine which Christian Sect/Denomination is the only "right" one. The fact that you claim that you only found Bush described "once" as an evangelical would seem to indicate that you haven't attempted to determine what his actual Christian faith belief (religious faith philosophy) really is. I believe that I can say that he believes in the supernatural and miracles even though he may not have personally have said that he does. I bet he even believes in virgin births, resurrections, global floods, vengeful gods, angels, devils, burning bushes, walking on water, changing water into wine, talking snakes, etc. Do you believe in those?

I was not aware they voted on anything like being "overtly sectarian fundamentalist Christians." Which votes were those? Or are you using conservative as a proxy for "overtly sectarian fundamentalist Christians"?

That is a fair and meaningful question. Yes! I am using conservative as a proxy to mean "overtly sectarian fundamentalist Christian" when that conservative (Republican or Democrat), or liberal (Democrat or Republican), votes for any bill/act/resolution that lends support to breaking down the separation between church and state.

It was a very close race. The sympathy vote put Carnahan over the top. Note that she did not win in her own right.

True.

Nothing. Why? Do you think that there should be a religious test for holding the office of Supreme Court justice?

(Now that was funny! Do you sincerely think that someone would ever admit it? Especially the people in this administration. They just love secrets. How long did they know about the N.Korean nuclear weapons development before the news broke...after the vote on Iraq?)

I said he was a "respected Senator." I was pointing to the fact that approving a nomination to the President's cabinent is not the same thing as approving a nomination to the Supreme Court. I was also pointing out that Ashcroft's familiarity and friendship with the Senators voting on his nomination probably helped his case. Which would be rare for the Supreme Court.

I read similar articles that speculated that that was the case. Of course I read most of those in the conservative media outlets. And do you suppose "Ashcroft's familiarity and friendship with Senators," especially those in the majority party of like religious philosophies, might give him an edge were he to be nominated? Thank you for elaborating on my point.

Not sure what your point is. Just more evidence that that its hard to predict Supreme Court behavior.

(This [SCOTUS] gets a little more complicated.) One problem with posts such as ours is their tendency to expand into many areas which are better examined as single items/issues. One need only make a simple claim to force a considerable amount of background research be done and information gathered in order to respond accurately and meaningfully. Too often I have been making the error of assuming that the person to whom I am addressing my remarks has a background of information comparable to my own regarding the issue in question. That isn't necessarily a bad thing when both individuals are seeking to present the most accurate info available to each other in order to bring the greatest degree of knowledge to bear on the issue. However, it can become quite something else when each person suspects the other of some ulterior, hidden, agenda.

In the instance of my SCOTUS remark concerning the presidential election of 2000, I am of the opinion that conservatives have been concerned by what they label "an activist, liberal, judiciary." One that tends to create law rather than simply interpret it as written. I could, were I willing to take the necessary time, list a number of cases where the conservatives believe that the high court has erred simply because of this alleged "judicial activism." Yet, when this current court elected to overturn the Florida Supreme Court's ruling, I did not hear any protests of judicial activism. Why not? Historically, conservatives have normally been on the side of State's Rights and have condemned Federal government interference. I thought you would instantly grasp that point. Evidently you did not and that is my error. I assumed something that has yet to be placed in evidence.

And not to many people were surprised by the Vouchers decision. Although many of us were very happy.

And what proof do you offer that not too many were surprised by the Voucher decision? How much personal effort have you invested in understanding all the ramifications of that decision? Do you know how many private schools there are in this country? (Approx.27,000) Do you know how many students attend them? (Approx. 5.3 million) Here are some additional 1999-2000 statistics for your review and edification. There are 8,102 Catholic private schools with 2.548 million students; 13, 268 other religious private schools with 1.871 million students; and 5,853 non-sectarian private schools with 0.842 million students. Do you think that taxpayer money should be used to promote the religious dogma and well being one faith belief with which others do not agree? (And please spare me any discussion about how the public school system is failing to educate our children unless you have done a careful analysis of such a contention.)

<a href="http://www.feaweb.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid= 2299" target="_blank">Florida Education Association on Vouchers</a>

Is vouchers more code word for "overty sectarian fundamentalist Christians"?

No! However, "overtly sectarian Christian" will do nicely...with a considerable amount of background information required to support my contention.

I was not aware that there was such a judicial philosophy. Or that Presidents inquired as to the religous faith of Supreme Court nominees. What is your evidence for either?

So, are you saying that there is no liberal or conservative judicial philosophy? Why do you suppose so many religious and non-religious conservatives have been claiming that there is a liberal bias? And why has GWB claimed that he will nominate people with a conservative bias? And exactly how do you think he will be able to determine that bias? Get real!

Yada yada yada. There is a precedent here of Presidential inability to "control" the Supreme Court by appointments.

Appointments? Just like the precedent for Church-State Separation? (Perhaps I need to explain further to help you understand. It is part of the current government agenda to change precedent by controlling appointments/nominations/selections/elections/promotions/publicity/ propaganda/and the lives of every American. It started long before 9/11, but that religious horror gave this administration the perfect opportunity for its assault on our constitutional liberties. First was the U.S. Patriot Act of 2001 that was rushed through Congress in approximately 34 days with little, if any, debate.

<a href="http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html" target="_blank">Electronic Frontier Foundation Analysis Of The Provisions Of The USA PATRIOT Act
</a>

<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/usapatriot020701.html" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/usapatriot020701.html</a>

<a href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew40.htm" target="_blank">http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew40.htm</a>

Now comes the Homeland Security Act. Why? Weren't we secure before? How many ten-of-billions were spent prior to 9/11 to secure our homeland? Apparently they were simply thrown down a rat hole or wound up in some corporate, off-shore, bank account, or worse...ENRONWorldCom stock. If you are unable, or unwilling, to see that our entire intelligence community failed to prevent 9/11, then I suspect that you will rush to go fight with our Army in Iraq to prevent Saddam from attacking America while Osama bin Laden et al make more videotapes and blow up more people.

That is an unreasonable inrepretation on your part. Not Bush's fault. (Ref: The double speak allegation.)

Prove me wrong! I would be thrilled if you could. (Care to review Carl Rove's or Joyce Meyer's recent "Road to Victory words?)

Obviously you are talking out of your posterier. You have assumed that "conservative" means Christian. That's ridiculous. I'm sure that the Revs. Sharpton and Jackson would dispute this with you. Or Senator Kerry, a devout Catholic. Or Senator Clinton, a devout Methodist.

(That's far better than to have to keep wiping off your Plexiglass belly button in order to see where you are going.) You are wrong! I see Christian fundamentalists (and some evangelicals) as nothing but conservatives. I view Christians as members of every political party and no party at all. Thank you for making my case for me again. In case you are unfamiliar with many of my previous posts over the last two years, I am an equal opportunity supernatural faith belief basher. It merely happens that the group of Christians now in charge of our country happen to be religious extremists as well as conservatives...just as the Muslims in Afghanistan were controlled by the Talban extremist conservatives. IMHO, people whose minds are conditioned to believe in the inerrancy of superstitions and myths are quite capable of committing the most horrendous of inhuman deeds. That is not to say that some people who are non-believers are any less capable of such dastardly deeds. However, just because humans are capable of such atrocities, does not mean that I am not going to resist those that are most likely to have a more immediate and direct impact on the Constitution I swore to uphold and defend.

I could just as easily claim that the entire civil rights movement is a religiously inspired attempt to impose a religious viewpoint on America. And my evidence is direct, verifiable, and plenty of circumstantial thrown in. Most of the important leaders of that movement were Reverends and worked through churches to accomplish their political ends. The case is much stronger here than it is for Bush's "conservative" Judge preference.

In retrospect, agreed, but with a caveat. The civil rights movement succeeded because it was correcting an injustice. An injustice imposed on one group of Christian people by another group of Christian people simply because of the amount of melanin in the first group's pigmentation. Hardly what I would call a "religious" viewpoint. Biologically and ethically correct, yes! Religiously and morally correct, no! Supposedly the Christian conflict in moral viewpoints was decided by the Civil War.

Yeah. That was my point. Your statement was nothing more than one persons' paranoid opinion.

Do you have a medical degree? From that kind of repetitious, back-handed, insult, I sincerely doubt that you have any degree from an accredited institution. If you do, I sincerely hope they aren't overly embarrassed by your debating skills.

The question is absurd and makes no point whatsoever, except perhaps to those who share your paranoia and simply substitute "overly sectarian fundamentalist Christian" everytime they hear the word "conservative."

Do you practice being addle-brained or does it just come naturally? How many times must I tell you before it sinks in? Fundamentalist Christians took over control of the Republican (Conservative) Party. Any Republican Conservative Christian who does not get the financial and organizational support of the (and for your benefit) radical/extremist/fundamentalist Christians is going to face an uphill battle to be elected/re-elected. Got it! I certainly hope so...for everyone's sake.

I have a political viewpoint. I want those in power who share it. I do not like it when Demoracts are in power. Does that make them illegitimate rulers? No. They are legitimate by the fact of their election. That would go for Muslims, Catholics, or "overtly sectarian fundemantalist Christians."

I have understood that from all your previous posts in these various forums. I care about our Constitution and the ideological precepts within its words...first. Whichever political party upholds/supports/advances those precepts is the party that will most likely garner my confidence and support. What is very distressing to me, and to many thoughtful Christians, is the fact that it was primarily the non-Anglican Christians who were the most outspoken in support of Church-State separation during the ratification period of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. In my opinion, the more radical fundamentalist Christians of today are the very ones that gained the most religious freedom in this country because of that document. Yet now they are the ones blindly following the false prophets of biblical interpretations.

I'm much more knowledgeable about the "religious right" than most of you. I'm much more knowledgeabout about conservative and libertarian interest groups who are actually working on these issues than you guys are. I was a member of the Federalist Society. I've met and chatted with William Rehnquist, Nino Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Robert Bork. Heck, I was a chapter president in law school. And I've worked with the Institute for Justice and chaufferred Clint Bolick around in my won care. So yeah, I think I know a lot about these issues. Real experience rather than simple demonization of the opposition.

So why are you here? To educate the poor, ill-informed, masses?--- Real experience? Based on what you have just revealed, I sincerely doubt you know what a "real" experience is. It sure as hell isn't chauffering people around in a car or chatting someone up a few times. I was president of many organizations. So? I have worked many places. So? What do you know about the world's religions? What do you know about War? For that matter, what do you really "know" about politics? You only seem to know how to call folks paranoid because they don't fall to their knees and kiss your conservative ring...or ceremonial gavel given to you by the members of your law school chapter of Conservative Bigots Anonymous. The only person I can see, other than my buddies Radorth and fromtheright, doing any demonization of the conservative viewpoint is you. And you are doing an absolutely bang-up job of it. Congratulations! Keep up the good work!

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]

Buffman · 11-12-2002, 11:37 PM

Layman

...No President has ever been as stymied in his first two years of office as Bush II has. It is completely unprecedented.

(Two years? When did Jim Jeffords become an Independent?) Perhaps GWB should have tried to nominate a few Moderates instead of primarily Conservative ideologues.

Toto · 11-12-2002, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


No, the numbers do not lie. No President has ever been as stymied in his first two years of office as Bush II has. It is completely unprecedented.

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Bush lost the popular vote, and would have lost the election if every vote in Florida had been counted and the Supreme Court had not cravenly intervened. That is unprecedented (and Bush v. Gore can't be used as precedent for anything by its own terms.)

He was not stymied enough.

Layman · 11-13-2002, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:


<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Bush lost the popular vote, and would have lost the election if every vote in Florida had been counted and the Supreme Court had not cravenly intervened. That is unprecedented (and Bush v. Gore can't be used as precedent for anything by its own terms.)

He was not stymied enough.

Well the sarcastic violin player is appropriate for you here. Because you are the one crying about the election. I was simply pointing out that Bush II's judicial nominations have faced an unprecedented delaying and obstructionist Congress. You now seem to accept that but claim its justified because you are still upset about the electoral college victory of Bush II.

Maybe you should pay attention to the lesson the democrats learned in the midterms. Whining about the Florida 2000 and the "President Select" will only cost your more elections in the future.

So as far as I am concerned, you may continue with the whining.

Toto · 11-13-2002, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


. . . I was simply pointing out that Bush II's judicial nominations have faced an unprecedented delaying and obstructionist Congress. You now seem to accept that but claim its justified . . .

Hi Layman, perhaps you missed my earlier post citing an article from 1999 detailing the unprecendented extent to which Republicans obstructed and delayed Clinton's appointments. That's the reason Bush has so many vacancies to fill.

Your partisan attempt to paint the Democrats as evil and Republicans as moral just does not wash for anyone who reads the newspapers.

dangin · 11-13-2002, 10:24 AM

If only Bushie II could be stymied further. I dread the america he has the power to make now. But like his father, he will screw it up. Actually his dad had a brain or two, which makes them considerably different.

11-12-2002, 11:26 PM	#44
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Layman Democrats have played a much more obstructionist game than the Republicans and even then themselves with Reagan and Bush I. The facts: I see! Only you have the "right" facts. So the links I provided weren't factual. I guess you think they must all be lies? Interesting! What testimony? Your previous posts was just a summation of your own opinion. <a href="http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryLocalmoore17w.htm" target="_blank">http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryLocalmoore17w.htm</a> Please try to read the entire article. My opinion did not put those words in Moore's mouth any more than your opinion can take them out. So again. Where did Bush call himself a fundamentalist?---At most I saw Bush described once as an evangelical. That is not the same thing as a fundamentalist. I am wrong and you are correct. He describes himself as an "evangelical" Christian...whatever that is. Why don't you enlighten me? How does an evangelical Christian, who was "Born Again," differ from the fundamentalist Christian who is "Born Again" versus the Catholic Christian who is merely baptized and confirmed? I'm afraid it all does get pretty confusing for me trying to determine which Christian Sect/Denomination is the only "right" one. The fact that you claim that you only found Bush described "once" as an evangelical would seem to indicate that you haven't attempted to determine what his actual Christian faith belief (religious faith philosophy) really is. I believe that I can say that he believes in the supernatural and miracles even though he may not have personally have said that he does. I bet he even believes in virgin births, resurrections, global floods, vengeful gods, angels, devils, burning bushes, walking on water, changing water into wine, talking snakes, etc. Do you believe in those? I was not aware they voted on anything like being "overtly sectarian fundamentalist Christians." Which votes were those? Or are you using conservative as a proxy for "overtly sectarian fundamentalist Christians"? That is a fair and meaningful question. Yes! I am using conservative as a proxy to mean "overtly sectarian fundamentalist Christian" when that conservative (Republican or Democrat), or liberal (Democrat or Republican), votes for any bill/act/resolution that lends support to breaking down the separation between church and state. It was a very close race. The sympathy vote put Carnahan over the top. Note that she did not win in her own right. True. Nothing. Why? Do you think that there should be a religious test for holding the office of Supreme Court justice? (Now that was funny! Do you sincerely think that someone would ever admit it? Especially the people in this administration. They just love secrets. How long did they know about the N.Korean nuclear weapons development before the news broke...after the vote on Iraq?) I said he was a "respected Senator." I was pointing to the fact that approving a nomination to the President's cabinent is not the same thing as approving a nomination to the Supreme Court. I was also pointing out that Ashcroft's familiarity and friendship with the Senators voting on his nomination probably helped his case. Which would be rare for the Supreme Court. I read similar articles that speculated that that was the case. Of course I read most of those in the conservative media outlets. And do you suppose "Ashcroft's familiarity and friendship with Senators," especially those in the majority party of like religious philosophies, might give him an edge were he to be nominated? Thank you for elaborating on my point. Not sure what your point is. Just more evidence that that its hard to predict Supreme Court behavior. (This [SCOTUS] gets a little more complicated.) One problem with posts such as ours is their tendency to expand into many areas which are better examined as single items/issues. One need only make a simple claim to force a considerable amount of background research be done and information gathered in order to respond accurately and meaningfully. Too often I have been making the error of assuming that the person to whom I am addressing my remarks has a background of information comparable to my own regarding the issue in question. That isn't necessarily a bad thing when both individuals are seeking to present the most accurate info available to each other in order to bring the greatest degree of knowledge to bear on the issue. However, it can become quite something else when each person suspects the other of some ulterior, hidden, agenda. In the instance of my SCOTUS remark concerning the presidential election of 2000, I am of the opinion that conservatives have been concerned by what they label "an activist, liberal, judiciary." One that tends to create law rather than simply interpret it as written. I could, were I willing to take the necessary time, list a number of cases where the conservatives believe that the high court has erred simply because of this alleged "judicial activism." Yet, when this current court elected to overturn the Florida Supreme Court's ruling, I did not hear any protests of judicial activism. Why not? Historically, conservatives have normally been on the side of State's Rights and have condemned Federal government interference. I thought you would instantly grasp that point. Evidently you did not and that is my error. I assumed something that has yet to be placed in evidence. And not to many people were surprised by the Vouchers decision. Although many of us were very happy. And what proof do you offer that not too many were surprised by the Voucher decision? How much personal effort have you invested in understanding all the ramifications of that decision? Do you know how many private schools there are in this country? (Approx.27,000) Do you know how many students attend them? (Approx. 5.3 million) Here are some additional 1999-2000 statistics for your review and edification. There are 8,102 Catholic private schools with 2.548 million students; 13, 268 other religious private schools with 1.871 million students; and 5,853 non-sectarian private schools with 0.842 million students. Do you think that taxpayer money should be used to promote the religious dogma and well being one faith belief with which others do not agree? (And please spare me any discussion about how the public school system is failing to educate our children unless you have done a careful analysis of such a contention.) <a href="http://www.feaweb.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid= 2299" target="_blank">Florida Education Association on Vouchers</a> Is vouchers more code word for "overty sectarian fundamentalist Christians"? No! However, "overtly sectarian Christian" will do nicely...with a considerable amount of background information required to support my contention. I was not aware that there was such a judicial philosophy. Or that Presidents inquired as to the religous faith of Supreme Court nominees. What is your evidence for either? So, are you saying that there is no liberal or conservative judicial philosophy? Why do you suppose so many religious and non-religious conservatives have been claiming that there is a liberal bias? And why has GWB claimed that he will nominate people with a conservative bias? And exactly how do you think he will be able to determine that bias? Get real! Yada yada yada. There is a precedent here of Presidential inability to "control" the Supreme Court by appointments. Appointments? Just like the precedent for Church-State Separation? (Perhaps I need to explain further to help you understand. It is part of the current government agenda to change precedent by controlling appointments/nominations/selections/elections/promotions/publicity/ propaganda/and the lives of every American. It started long before 9/11, but that religious horror gave this administration the perfect opportunity for its assault on our constitutional liberties. First was the U.S. Patriot Act of 2001 that was rushed through Congress in approximately 34 days with little, if any, debate. <a href="http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html" target="_blank">Electronic Frontier Foundation Analysis Of The Provisions Of The USA PATRIOT Act </a> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/usapatriot020701.html" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/usapatriot020701.html</a> <a href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew40.htm" target="_blank">http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew40.htm</a> Now comes the Homeland Security Act. Why? Weren't we secure before? How many ten-of-billions were spent prior to 9/11 to secure our homeland? Apparently they were simply thrown down a rat hole or wound up in some corporate, off-shore, bank account, or worse...ENRONWorldCom stock. If you are unable, or unwilling, to see that our entire intelligence community failed to prevent 9/11, then I suspect that you will rush to go fight with our Army in Iraq to prevent Saddam from attacking America while Osama bin Laden et al make more videotapes and blow up more people. That is an unreasonable inrepretation on your part. Not Bush's fault. (Ref: The double speak allegation.) Prove me wrong! I would be thrilled if you could. (Care to review Carl Rove's or Joyce Meyer's recent "Road to Victory words?) Obviously you are talking out of your posterier. You have assumed that "conservative" means Christian. That's ridiculous. I'm sure that the Revs. Sharpton and Jackson would dispute this with you. Or Senator Kerry, a devout Catholic. Or Senator Clinton, a devout Methodist. (That's far better than to have to keep wiping off your Plexiglass belly button in order to see where you are going.) You are wrong! I see Christian fundamentalists (and some evangelicals) as nothing but conservatives. I view Christians as members of every political party and no party at all. Thank you for making my case for me again. In case you are unfamiliar with many of my previous posts over the last two years, I am an equal opportunity supernatural faith belief basher. It merely happens that the group of Christians now in charge of our country happen to be religious extremists as well as conservatives...just as the Muslims in Afghanistan were controlled by the Talban extremist conservatives. IMHO, people whose minds are conditioned to believe in the inerrancy of superstitions and myths are quite capable of committing the most horrendous of inhuman deeds. That is not to say that some people who are non-believers are any less capable of such dastardly deeds. However, just because humans are capable of such atrocities, does not mean that I am not going to resist those that are most likely to have a more immediate and direct impact on the Constitution I swore to uphold and defend. I could just as easily claim that the entire civil rights movement is a religiously inspired attempt to impose a religious viewpoint on America. And my evidence is direct, verifiable, and plenty of circumstantial thrown in. Most of the important leaders of that movement were Reverends and worked through churches to accomplish their political ends. The case is much stronger here than it is for Bush's "conservative" Judge preference. In retrospect, agreed, but with a caveat. The civil rights movement succeeded because it was correcting an injustice. An injustice imposed on one group of Christian people by another group of Christian people simply because of the amount of melanin in the first group's pigmentation. Hardly what I would call a "religious" viewpoint. Biologically and ethically correct, yes! Religiously and morally correct, no! Supposedly the Christian conflict in moral viewpoints was decided by the Civil War. Yeah. That was my point. Your statement was nothing more than one persons' paranoid opinion. Do you have a medical degree? From that kind of repetitious, back-handed, insult, I sincerely doubt that you have any degree from an accredited institution. If you do, I sincerely hope they aren't overly embarrassed by your debating skills. The question is absurd and makes no point whatsoever, except perhaps to those who share your paranoia and simply substitute "overly sectarian fundamentalist Christian" everytime they hear the word "conservative." Do you practice being addle-brained or does it just come naturally? How many times must I tell you before it sinks in? Fundamentalist Christians took over control of the Republican (Conservative) Party. Any Republican Conservative Christian who does not get the financial and organizational support of the (and for your benefit) radical/extremist/fundamentalist Christians is going to face an uphill battle to be elected/re-elected. Got it! I certainly hope so...for everyone's sake. I have a political viewpoint. I want those in power who share it. I do not like it when Demoracts are in power. Does that make them illegitimate rulers? No. They are legitimate by the fact of their election. That would go for Muslims, Catholics, or "overtly sectarian fundemantalist Christians." I have understood that from all your previous posts in these various forums. I care about our Constitution and the ideological precepts within its words...first. Whichever political party upholds/supports/advances those precepts is the party that will most likely garner my confidence and support. What is very distressing to me, and to many thoughtful Christians, is the fact that it was primarily the non-Anglican Christians who were the most outspoken in support of Church-State separation during the ratification period of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. In my opinion, the more radical fundamentalist Christians of today are the very ones that gained the most religious freedom in this country because of that document. Yet now they are the ones blindly following the false prophets of biblical interpretations. I'm much more knowledgeable about the "religious right" than most of you. I'm much more knowledgeabout about conservative and libertarian interest groups who are actually working on these issues than you guys are. I was a member of the Federalist Society. I've met and chatted with William Rehnquist, Nino Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Robert Bork. Heck, I was a chapter president in law school. And I've worked with the Institute for Justice and chaufferred Clint Bolick around in my won care. So yeah, I think I know a lot about these issues. Real experience rather than simple demonization of the opposition. So why are you here? To educate the poor, ill-informed, masses?--- Real experience? Based on what you have just revealed, I sincerely doubt you know what a "real" experience is. It sure as hell isn't chauffering people around in a car or chatting someone up a few times. I was president of many organizations. So? I have worked many places. So? What do you know about the world's religions? What do you know about War? For that matter, what do you really "know" about politics? You only seem to know how to call folks paranoid because they don't fall to their knees and kiss your conservative ring...or ceremonial gavel given to you by the members of your law school chapter of Conservative Bigots Anonymous. The only person I can see, other than my buddies Radorth and fromtheright, doing any demonization of the conservative viewpoint is you. And you are doing an absolutely bang-up job of it. Congratulations! Keep up the good work! [ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-12-2002, 11:37 PM	#45
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Layman ...No President has ever been as stymied in his first two years of office as Bush II has. It is completely unprecedented. (Two years? When did Jim Jeffords become an Independent?) Perhaps GWB should have tried to nominate a few Moderates instead of primarily Conservative ideologues.

11-13-2002, 10:24 AM	#49
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	If only Bushie II could be stymied further. I dread the america he has the power to make now. But like his father, he will screw it up. Actually his dad had a brain or two, which makes them considerably different.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.