Pat Robertson dips out of the kool-aid again!
- Thread starter Incognito
- Start date
- Status
galeninjapan
Banned
What do we call politcal fan boys?
enjoy bell woods
Banned
I think Pat Robertson deserves his own threads.
Guy's on a completely level than Lonestar's other subjects.
Guy's on a completely level than Lonestar's other subjects.
Fragamemnon
Member
Wow, that is some real wingnuttery there. Liberal judiciary being more of a threat to America than the Civil War? Insane.
It was inevitable, given our current political climate, that 2008 Republican presidential hopefuls would start one-upping themselves to gain favor with the talibaptists for the critical cracker belt primaries. I don't think that they realise just how little this sizeable faction of the party has gotten from the party, as a whole, and how much they'd start demanding once they saw that the candidates were coming to them instead of the other way around.
It was inevitable, given our current political climate, that 2008 Republican presidential hopefuls would start one-upping themselves to gain favor with the talibaptists for the critical cracker belt primaries. I don't think that they realise just how little this sizeable faction of the party has gotten from the party, as a whole, and how much they'd start demanding once they saw that the candidates were coming to them instead of the other way around.
Context. Context. Context.
It's so easy for you to dismiss these remarks as ludicrous but you can't even comprehend his point of view.
(I shouldn't have to say anything about terrorists because there has been so much discusison about it already but to sum up: terrorists can only directly affect a few in order to influence the many. They try to impart fear on a nation by threatening the lives of the random. Their only weapon is fear. And fear has yet to take this country down. This may represent the only thing you can thank Frank Roosevelt for IMO.)
I can't personally justify the comparison to the Civil War because that literally did tear apart America .. but then again its closure made future civil wars (in America) almost impossibly unlikely (thereby making the union stronger, like how breaking a leg in youth makes it stronger and less likely to break later on in life). Nazi Germay and Japan (clearly a reference to World War II) didn't directly affect America until late in the War. And Japan, the instigator of our involvement, had no chance of doing any kind of lasting damage to us.
America has only ever been directly threatened by the Civil War, the Cold War and ourselves. Say what you will about the legislature but we vote these guys in with regularity and individually, congressmen have little power to affect the greater government. The president is a slave to the party and also has limitied tenure. In contrast, the Supreme court weilds both an axe over the legislative branch as well as a larger pen. They can cut down any legislation as well as reinterpret any law. And with only a handful of these people, each with an unlimited tenureship, if you believe that their actions are harmful to the fabric of American society (as some do) then it is not ludicrous to claim that these few have as much power to affect America in them than do past wars fought on foreign soil.
Think about abortion. The country is divided roughly 50-50 on the issue (of course, it varies depending on what/how the question is posed) and is the closest thing we have to a conflict-inducing issue. The Civil War was not fought because of slavery but because of underlying "distinct visions of society that had emerged by the mid-nineteenth century in the North and in the South."
The same could be said to have been occurring over the last half century between the less easily demarcated divisions in the nation separating social conservatives and social liberals (not so simple as red vs blue). Right now the institution that can most readily turn nation against nation is the Supreme Court. And they have thus far made the playing field ripe for such a battle. Christian conservatives constantly feel nervous about anything going up for consideration by the Supreme Court.. not that each decision has gone against them but sufficiently enough to suggest that the Court has little concern for the biblical.
For a people that believe that the welfare of a nation (especially this nation) rests on the graces of God rather than the legal squabbles of lawyers it's a troublesome problem.
*Disclaimer: I didn't watch the interview at all. I have no idea what the context of the comments were. I'm just trying to defuse any knee-jerk reactions of people have as little idea as I do concerning where this came from. I know I'm inviting some kind of debate.. or lack thereof.. mostly attacks to my intelligence, education, etc. And I won't be responding.
It's so easy for you to dismiss these remarks as ludicrous but you can't even comprehend his point of view.
(I shouldn't have to say anything about terrorists because there has been so much discusison about it already but to sum up: terrorists can only directly affect a few in order to influence the many. They try to impart fear on a nation by threatening the lives of the random. Their only weapon is fear. And fear has yet to take this country down. This may represent the only thing you can thank Frank Roosevelt for IMO.)
I can't personally justify the comparison to the Civil War because that literally did tear apart America .. but then again its closure made future civil wars (in America) almost impossibly unlikely (thereby making the union stronger, like how breaking a leg in youth makes it stronger and less likely to break later on in life). Nazi Germay and Japan (clearly a reference to World War II) didn't directly affect America until late in the War. And Japan, the instigator of our involvement, had no chance of doing any kind of lasting damage to us.
America has only ever been directly threatened by the Civil War, the Cold War and ourselves. Say what you will about the legislature but we vote these guys in with regularity and individually, congressmen have little power to affect the greater government. The president is a slave to the party and also has limitied tenure. In contrast, the Supreme court weilds both an axe over the legislative branch as well as a larger pen. They can cut down any legislation as well as reinterpret any law. And with only a handful of these people, each with an unlimited tenureship, if you believe that their actions are harmful to the fabric of American society (as some do) then it is not ludicrous to claim that these few have as much power to affect America in them than do past wars fought on foreign soil.
Think about abortion. The country is divided roughly 50-50 on the issue (of course, it varies depending on what/how the question is posed) and is the closest thing we have to a conflict-inducing issue. The Civil War was not fought because of slavery but because of underlying "distinct visions of society that had emerged by the mid-nineteenth century in the North and in the South."
The same could be said to have been occurring over the last half century between the less easily demarcated divisions in the nation separating social conservatives and social liberals (not so simple as red vs blue). Right now the institution that can most readily turn nation against nation is the Supreme Court. And they have thus far made the playing field ripe for such a battle. Christian conservatives constantly feel nervous about anything going up for consideration by the Supreme Court.. not that each decision has gone against them but sufficiently enough to suggest that the Court has little concern for the biblical.
For a people that believe that the welfare of a nation (especially this nation) rests on the graces of God rather than the legal squabbles of lawyers it's a troublesome problem.
*Disclaimer: I didn't watch the interview at all. I have no idea what the context of the comments were. I'm just trying to defuse any knee-jerk reactions of people have as little idea as I do concerning where this came from. I know I'm inviting some kind of debate.. or lack thereof.. mostly attacks to my intelligence, education, etc. And I won't be responding.
But the Court *shouldn't* have any concern for the biblical. And if that is the source of the problem then 'distinct vision of society' pretty much sums up the situation perfectly and isn't being instigated by the courts in any way (which is how I read that paragraph of yours) as it is just carrying out its duties.Iceman said:
Iceman said:
Well, a hearty "Who cares?" and "Tough shit," is all I can say. The Supreme Court, despite token religious symbolism here and there, is designed to uphold the laws of the Constitution, determine when laws betray the word and spirit of the document, and keep the balance between the powers. The Bible isn't our law, it's a religous book and should be kept as far away from the laws that govern us as possible.
cubicle47b
Member
Hmm, I was under the impression that there were 5 conservative judges on the supreme court as opposed to 4 liberals (7 of them being appointed by Republicans). Is it that they actually do a decent job and aren't lackeys to either party (or religion) or...?
I'm really asking, not making a point.
I'm really asking, not making a point.
videogamer
Banned
Terrorists, with pretty much just one event, were able to set the stage for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Sure, the terrorists did not set out the mandate to do these things, but the people in charge took 9/11 as an impetus to do these things. Also, I think it would be arguable that the terrorists after 9/11 have been able to affect the political process afterwards. First, remember the behaviour and actions of the leaders after the attack. Second, look at how the American voters voted. Many cited "security" as their reason for voting in Bush.Iceman said:
Link?
Sure, the internment camps, baby boom, GI bill, and all those things associated with WWII had no effect on the US. Maybe we can count the UN being the product of Nazi Germany and Japan too. Of course, he said "threat", but you also chose to use the word "affect" so I think that it's fair to mention the other affects of WWII.
You can also argue that the president holds the bully pulpit and is able to move the party in the direction he sees fit. They have usually chosen or are influencial in choosing the party's future leaders.
I quote xsarien.
Can't comprehend his point of view? I'm pretty sure most of us understand it just fine.
He's an absolutely batshit insane waste of flesh hell-bent on brainwashing anybody dense enough to listen to him for more than thirty seconds and still take him seriously.
I understand that just fine.
He's an absolutely batshit insane waste of flesh hell-bent on brainwashing anybody dense enough to listen to him for more than thirty seconds and still take him seriously.
I understand that just fine.
ManDudeChild
Member
galeninjapan said:
Partistan Pricks?
cubicle47b said:
Remember, the latest round of anti-judge screeching came about because a parade of judges *refused* to ignore state and federal law, precedents, and the openly stated intentions of congress in the Schiavo case. The word "liberal" is really just used to get people riled up and motivated - the same as phrases like "activist judges", "secular humanists", and so forth. The real issue is that they aren't ruling the exact way that conservatives (especially conservative christians) want them to.
Incognito said:
That just sounds so wrong...
Iceman said:
But really, it was fought because the North *really* wanted to keep the southern states in the Union, and the southern states were terrified that the northern states would force them to free the slaves, to the point that they fled the union. And regardless, how could "activist judges" pose a greater threat to the United stated than states rushing to secede from the United States. That just makes no damn sense.
videogamer
Banned
Are you sharing a room? And this internet access... is it with a computer or is it one of those nasty TV-based internet things?Incognito said:
Get off your high horse Iceman. That's the worst knee jerk and most hypocritical bit of damage control I've seen from you thus far.
I can't imagine a context in which he can be quoted by the media where those kinds of comments can be viewed favourably. If he was joking around with friends or some such, whatever...
The only context that needs to be placed is how much of a douche Pat Robertson and his supporters are.
I can't imagine a context in which he can be quoted by the media where those kinds of comments can be viewed favourably. If he was joking around with friends or some such, whatever...
The only context that needs to be placed is how much of a douche Pat Robertson and his supporters are.
Iceman said:
you want to know why the judiciary has so much power? Well, I'm going to tell you is the most siple terms possible because a forum is no place to write an essay. The reason the judiciary is so powerful these days is that congress wants it to be.
These days political battle aren't fought through the electorate, they're fought through courts and agencies with a combination of legislative commitees, interest groups, and governament agencies. The reason things are like this is that the people on the commitees are voted into office by the people in the interest groups/corporate america and government agencies. SO, we end up with a government where all the voters do is choose who fighting, not the fights themeselves. The legislative branch does not want large voter turn out these days because 1) they may lose the next election if new voters are brought it, it's easier to predict the outcome when the same people vote in every election 2) the interest groups/corporate america don't want to lose the electoral power that they have over the politicians right now so they don't want to do anything to help get people to vote.
Ok, now we have a situation where we can very likely predict the outcome of elections and we effectively have a stalemate in congress (things have shifted to the conservatives for now but things change). Instead of congress fighting their battles through voter turnout, these day they fight it through, the media, and more importantly through the courts, that is why the courts have so much power.
It has nothing to do with one party or the other, they both are to blame.
actually, if you are interested in my post at all you should read Politics by Other Means by Benjamin Ginsberg and Martin Shefter:
Here's a clip of the interview.
And since were talking about Robertson here's a behind the scenes clip of an old interview with Robertson on Larry King.
And since were talking about Robertson here's a behind the scenes clip of an old interview with Robertson on Larry King.
Hitokage said:
me?
well, the judiciary has always had it's hand in the law. I mean, the judges interpret what congress passed into law and if congress didn't like the interpretation they amended or re-drafted the law.
Now, however, the parties in congress are largely dependant on the judiciary in fighting their political battles, ie: destroy the opposition party so that they can enact their party's agenda, mostly because of the reasons I stated above. So, the increase in power and importance of the judiciary has been much more dramatic in the last 30 years than it was in the first 200. It comes as no surprise that the judiciary has used this power to legislate from the bench much more often and in much more dramatic ways.
videogamer
Banned
Outpatient? Or is this a newer hospital? When I used to volunteer at two different hospitals, the patients rarely had their own rooms. Well, maybe except around major holidays like New Year's when people decide to delay/take their surgery early so they don't get stuck in the hospital during the major holiday season.Incognito said:
Hmm... ok, I see what you're getting at now. Still, one shouldn't forget that the highest law that the courts must uphold before all else is the constitution... yet various factions as of late have indeed made a point to test its slightly vague nature, and by that I mean to include issues on both sides such as gay rights and christian reconstructionists.max_cool said:
videogamer
Banned
Ah Robertson responds to Lautenberg
- Status