-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Theocrats: 'Judges who believe in the living constitution should be impeached.'
- Thread starter Incognito
- Start date
- Status
it's funny that they say things like "if republicans in congress don't do what we want they will be held accountabe in the next election" (ok they didn't exactly say that) because who else are these right-wing extremest going to vote for? Democrats? :lol :lol
I'm just waiting for the more moderate republicans to step up and say, "nope, we aren't going to force christianity, nor any religion, down peoples throats and there's nothing you can do about it. What? vote Democrat? you're not kidding anyone."
The sad thing is, the same thing holds true for Democracts and African Americans, except the Dems have stopped listening to them altogether.
I'm just waiting for the more moderate republicans to step up and say, "nope, we aren't going to force christianity, nor any religion, down peoples throats and there's nothing you can do about it. What? vote Democrat? you're not kidding anyone."
The sad thing is, the same thing holds true for Democracts and African Americans, except the Dems have stopped listening to them altogether.
Hitokage said:
I long for that day to. Unfortunately, I have no hope that it will hapen soo. The Republican party essentially signed a contract with the devil when they decided that their strategy would consist of the support of fundies, and I'm sure that included the true conservatives. How many moderates were horrified by the extremisim but continued the ride the wave anyway?
Jill Sandwich
the turds of Optimus Prime
I read the title as 'Thundercats' then wished it did involve them when I started reading
Well look at what happened to Senator Jeffords. The guy was a staunch republican, albeit a moderate one. He opposed one of the early bills that Bush wanted passed, Rove came out and said that he better not disgrace the Republican party by showing himself on the White House steps again, and next thing you know, he's left the Republican party.
This trend may have started in 1994, but it was definitely accellerated by Dubya. Rove is a dirty political mastermind (not Bush, surprisingly.... he's even said on numerous occasions during the election that he supports civil unions for gays) and proved it when he lowballed John McCain during the 2000 Primaries. The vote was in Virginia or Georgia, and McCain was smoking the shit out of Bush in the numbers leading up to the vote (something like 60/40-ish). Day before the vote, rumors 'leak' about McCain having a bastard black kid. In the south... you can imagine how quickly McCain lost that primary and thus lost his name on the ticket.
Personally, I'd say that was the day that this neo-conservative, dirty rhetoric bullshit form of politics took precedent. 9/11 was just a doorway to give the administration what they really wanted. The worst part about this is that most of these politicians don't believe this shit, either. Delay, who was so strongly spoken out about the Schiavo case, pulled the plug on his dad 12 years ago. They're just manipulating the people with the power and the will to make their voices heard (neo-conservative/fascist assholes) for their own ends.
This trend may have started in 1994, but it was definitely accellerated by Dubya. Rove is a dirty political mastermind (not Bush, surprisingly.... he's even said on numerous occasions during the election that he supports civil unions for gays) and proved it when he lowballed John McCain during the 2000 Primaries. The vote was in Virginia or Georgia, and McCain was smoking the shit out of Bush in the numbers leading up to the vote (something like 60/40-ish). Day before the vote, rumors 'leak' about McCain having a bastard black kid. In the south... you can imagine how quickly McCain lost that primary and thus lost his name on the ticket.
Personally, I'd say that was the day that this neo-conservative, dirty rhetoric bullshit form of politics took precedent. 9/11 was just a doorway to give the administration what they really wanted. The worst part about this is that most of these politicians don't believe this shit, either. Delay, who was so strongly spoken out about the Schiavo case, pulled the plug on his dad 12 years ago. They're just manipulating the people with the power and the will to make their voices heard (neo-conservative/fascist assholes) for their own ends.
Loki said:Ah, an oblique allusion to Godwin's law-- does that count towards the thread's closure or not?
haha... well, I didn't mean to deliberately compare it to Germany. I could have just as easily used 1920's Italy or 1960's USSR... any real fascistic regime (legally speaking, not economically speaking.) It's just that Germany is the one that I heard the historian talking about, so I figured to go with that country as opposed to some other country and fabricate the quote.
whytemyke said:
Actually, no you couldn't have. At least, you'd be hard pressed to make the connection with 1960s USSR. I wouldn't say that the Soviet regime post-World War II demonstrated much popular and patriotic enthusiasm, and it could probably be argued that Italy didn't have the same patriotic enthusiasm as either 1930s Germany, or America today.
Not that I approve of the comparison either, mind you ;P
I hate these people.
The good news is that America generally does too as you can see Bush's and especially Congress's approval ratings hitting record lows.
We really need a balanced Congress, and moderate Republican/Democrat in the White House.
The Judiciary branch is the only one of the 3 branches with any sanity left.
The good news is that America generally does too as you can see Bush's and especially Congress's approval ratings hitting record lows.
We really need a balanced Congress, and moderate Republican/Democrat in the White House.
The Judiciary branch is the only one of the 3 branches with any sanity left.
Boogie said:
Oh, I'd say you could easily make a lot of comparisons to the two, ESPECIALLY Italy. The USSR one might be a little bit further fetched, as the people were literally forced into feigning patriotism as opposed to legitimately believing in it, but for the most part the Italians really did have such a degree of Patriotism around 1928 that they had no problem converting to a very authoritarian, military based society, using religion to support their actions. If you look at America, the laws (like it or not) are becoming more and more authoritarian every year (started with gun control, now spreading into censorship, transportation, etc... even how we're making it so that by 2008 you'll have to have a passport to get into and out of American from Canada), we obviously revolve our society around what our military does, and the religion one is obvious. I'd actually say the comparison to Italy in 1928 is a lot easier to make than one to Germany in 1935, as the Germans became nationalists and turned their blame inward on a minority, while the Italians united to blame their problems on an outside enemy, adding to their xenophobia and keeping them bonded as a nation.
Hahaha, well, I didn't say it was bonded for long. Only under Mussolini, and only until he dragged them into an unpopular war.
The Daily Show a couple nights ago had a funny remark:
Jon: "So how are things going in Italy right now?"
Ed: "You know, Jon, the Italians are known for their organizational skills."
The Daily Show a couple nights ago had a funny remark:
Jon: "So how are things going in Italy right now?"
Ed: "You know, Jon, the Italians are known for their organizational skills."
Ninchilla said:
They'll be crucified, of course.
*shrug* I'm actually surprised that people didn't see this coming. Zealots are always screeching about how they're persecuted because there are other people around, how their favorite book should be used as the basis of everything, and so forth. The typical fundy is really no different (although it's worth pointing out that not all fundamentalists are like this). Add in one congressman with a severe ethics problem, and you have a lot of grandstanding that probably won't amount to much. They're worth watching, of course, but it doesn't look like the average person wants their lives dictated by wild-eyed fanatics.
Besides the fact that the entire article is colored a shade completely off. Judges aren't law makers. If the Consitution gets changed it is up to the Congress and States in the Union to change them, not some liberal judges.
Democrats are also abusing the filibuster repeatedly. It isn't just like its once or twice. Its over and over and over. If that law gets changed, it will be the fault of the Democrats. They should have used it more wisely. Instead of filibustering judges like the minority being appointed.
Democrats are also abusing the filibuster repeatedly. It isn't just like its once or twice. Its over and over and over. If that law gets changed, it will be the fault of the Democrats. They should have used it more wisely. Instead of filibustering judges like the minority being appointed.
brooklyngooner
Member
ecliptic said:
Sigh...why is it always the junior members...
Mercury Fred
Banned
Because their "logic" tends to get them banned before losing the junior tag?brooklyngooner said:
maharg said:
it's no use arguing maharg, people like that don't take things like "facts" and "logic" into account when making arguments. If you turn out to be right, he'll just make some ad hominem attack like "only a flag-burning, baby-killing liberal would say things that mean you hate America as much as you do" and go on his merry way.
maharg: Actually, none of Clinton's nominees were filibustered. There were other procedural blocks they used.
For example, they used a "blue slip" rule where if a judge was nominated, both Senators from that judge's home state would have to return blue slips saying they supported the nomination. Also, I think it took at least one vote from a minority party member in the judicial committee before the judge was brought up before the whole Senate, even if the majority party had enough votes.
Now that Republicans are in control, they got rid of those rules. So the Democrats had to find a different tool to do the same thing Republicans did under Clinton, and that's the filibuster.
Hitokage, G4life98: The roots are in Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign. That actually was people "taking back the Republican party," and it's given us Reagan, Bush, and the current Congress.
Here's a good piece on why otherwise sane people remain in the Republican party, caucusing with total nutjobs.
whytemyke: You really obviously don't know what neoconservative means. Please read this before you use the term again.
For example, they used a "blue slip" rule where if a judge was nominated, both Senators from that judge's home state would have to return blue slips saying they supported the nomination. Also, I think it took at least one vote from a minority party member in the judicial committee before the judge was brought up before the whole Senate, even if the majority party had enough votes.
Now that Republicans are in control, they got rid of those rules. So the Democrats had to find a different tool to do the same thing Republicans did under Clinton, and that's the filibuster.
Hitokage, G4life98: The roots are in Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign. That actually was people "taking back the Republican party," and it's given us Reagan, Bush, and the current Congress.
Here's a good piece on why otherwise sane people remain in the Republican party, caucusing with total nutjobs.
whytemyke: You really obviously don't know what neoconservative means. Please read this before you use the term again.
Don't worry Mandark, I know very well what the term neoconservative means. It generally represents a trend in modern conservatives which, instead of embracing traditional conservative values, they reach out and show a common contempt at international law and support the use of military intervention in order to maintain the power of the nation.
If Machiavelli were alive today, he'd be a neocon.
Tell me how you think I obviously don't know what the term neocon means, because I think that every recent instance of my using it can be totally defended and shown to be in line with not only your sites definition of neoconservatism, but many other definitions as well, such as about.com or wikipedia.
My problem with your sources definition of neoconservatism is that I wouldn't classify it simply as a theoretical sphere of influence such as realism or idealism, but more of a political ideology, such as socialism, libertarianism and typical conservatism (or paleoconservatism as some places are calling it.)
I dunno... maybe you read what I wrote poorly, or I was ineffective in my communicational method of saying my message, but I really do not believe I've used the neocon label ineffectively here.
If Machiavelli were alive today, he'd be a neocon.
Tell me how you think I obviously don't know what the term neocon means, because I think that every recent instance of my using it can be totally defended and shown to be in line with not only your sites definition of neoconservatism, but many other definitions as well, such as about.com or wikipedia.
My problem with your sources definition of neoconservatism is that I wouldn't classify it simply as a theoretical sphere of influence such as realism or idealism, but more of a political ideology, such as socialism, libertarianism and typical conservatism (or paleoconservatism as some places are calling it.)
I dunno... maybe you read what I wrote poorly, or I was ineffective in my communicational method of saying my message, but I really do not believe I've used the neocon label ineffectively here.
Mistake on my part. I was remembering this post by teh_pwn in a recent thread on basically the same topic, and for some reason assumed it was yours. Sorry.
Reading over your post again, I'd still say you're coming pretty close to the "neoconservative is anything dirty" generalization that waters down the word. The racist smear job on McCain had nothing to do with any particular ideology, nor did the misinformation campaign building up to Iraq, for that matter. Both have long-standing precedents pretty far removed from neoconservatism.
Reading over your post again, I'd still say you're coming pretty close to the "neoconservative is anything dirty" generalization that waters down the word. The racist smear job on McCain had nothing to do with any particular ideology, nor did the misinformation campaign building up to Iraq, for that matter. Both have long-standing precedents pretty far removed from neoconservatism.
Yeah, I can see how you'd make that distinction from what I wrote, but I wouldn't call neoconservatives dirty schemers or anything like that. When I made the reference, I was only meaning to say the two as different adjectives for the administration, rather than as using 'neoconservatism' to describe 'dirty schemers' or whatever I said. You get the point. All I merely was trying to say is that these neocons in the White House have been using dirty politics the likes of which would make Tammany Hall smile in pride.
I try to keep a fair approach to all political ideologies. It's hard to do sometimes, though. There was a line in 13 Days (a great movie, btw) where JFK was talking about the likes of LeMay (who I consider one of the most evil people in American history; firebombing of Dresden, Bay of Pigs, and trying to invade Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis were all his plans), and he said "...at the end of the day, they may be right."
Ah well. You get my point with all this.
I try to keep a fair approach to all political ideologies. It's hard to do sometimes, though. There was a line in 13 Days (a great movie, btw) where JFK was talking about the likes of LeMay (who I consider one of the most evil people in American history; firebombing of Dresden, Bay of Pigs, and trying to invade Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis were all his plans), and he said "...at the end of the day, they may be right."
Ah well. You get my point with all this.
And I still don't like neoconservatives. They've taken control of the Republican party and call themselves conservatives when they've increased government size and have had no fiscal responsibility. They're trying to control the media and are sensationalists.
They try to bypass laws for things like the Shiavo case just because they don't understand the concept of PVS and the idea of the right to die. They try to enforce their so-called moral values on everyone while ignoring countless indepedent doctors that have diagnosed PVS and countless court orders rejecting tube reinsertion on the basis that Shiavo wanted to die and had no chance of recovery.
Meanwhile the plug is being pulled everyday. But they don't care. They're sensationalist drama queens that raped Terri Shiavo's privacy and wishes for political gain. A black baby in Texas had its plug pulled against the wishes its mother under a law that was created under Bush's governing term. But nobody gives a damn.
They try to bypass laws for things like the Shiavo case just because they don't understand the concept of PVS and the idea of the right to die. They try to enforce their so-called moral values on everyone while ignoring countless indepedent doctors that have diagnosed PVS and countless court orders rejecting tube reinsertion on the basis that Shiavo wanted to die and had no chance of recovery.
Meanwhile the plug is being pulled everyday. But they don't care. They're sensationalist drama queens that raped Terri Shiavo's privacy and wishes for political gain. A black baby in Texas had its plug pulled against the wishes its mother under a law that was created under Bush's governing term. But nobody gives a damn.
Space Age Playboy
Banned
I have nothing to add, except that this needs to be repeated in bold for emphasis.
teh_pwn said:
Christoff Yurievich
Member
really? when? I had no idea such a thing happened.teh_pwn said:
Space Age Playboy
Banned
Not surprising since the family was black. The media only gives attention to white news stories.
ConfusingJazz
Member
Space Age Playboy said:
...or stories the GOP can rally around. I think it has more to do with the fact that Karl Rove didn't send his Troops of Spin, and that Democrats don't have any.
I heard it on TV somewhere about a week ago.
I did a google search and came up with this. Not sure if the source is that great.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=20398&mode=nested
Sounds like the baby didn't have great chances. Then again, it probably had hundreds of times more chances of making it than Terri Shiavo.
I did a google search and came up with this. Not sure if the source is that great.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=20398&mode=nested
Sounds like the baby didn't have great chances. Then again, it probably had hundreds of times more chances of making it than Terri Shiavo.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked