posted on August 20, 2005 03:32:33 PM new
I'm talking about Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and that crew. You don't hear much from them these days, not that that's a bad thing, I just wonder if they've finally given up?
posted on August 20, 2005 03:39:13 PM new
LOL....I'm sure you're correct.
They've probably all run off and joined the moveon.org radicals.
They're probably getting ready to support kerry's nomination for the party's 2008 ticket.
Or maybe they've decided that since the liberals want to turn America into a socialist country that they'll just join them....why keep fighting the good fight?
posted on August 20, 2005 04:33:41 PM newI just wonder if they've finally given up?
I doubt (but I don't know for sure) that they have given up on Christianity, if that is what you meant. Seems like they are staying out of the political stuff though doesn't it?
posted on August 20, 2005 04:49:50 PM new
I think it's just that there are no elections for them to try influence. Chances are good they'll start reappearing early next year.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 20, 2005 07:31:22 PM new
Maybe they don't want to be identified with the Fascist DemoncRATs........
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper." --Robert E. Lee
posted on August 20, 2005 10:17:15 PM new
Piinthesky - I think KD's just a little confused at which American party chooses to 'do things underground'.
[in the dark, dreary, musty and damp, hidden away places underground.
While the republican put their goals on the table and ask the dems to bring their too, for discussion. Only one big problem.....the dems have NO ideas to bring.
So they 'plot' their next attack on the party in power.....underground.
It's the dem that have 'gone underground', not the repubicans. And helen knows about 'going underground' all to well. I believe she recently used their site to try and make a point here about something.
www.democratsunderground.com
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 21, 2005 06:07:32 AM new
Kraft, they just took another form.
NASHVILLE, Aug. 14 -- Prominent conservative political and religious leaders called Sunday night for Senate approval of Supreme Court nominees who will vote to end the constitutional right to abortion, against recognition of same-sex marriage and for fewer restrictions on religious expression in public places.
The Supreme Court has sanctioned "the right to kill unborn children" and opened the door to legalized "homosexual sodomy," declared Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which co-sponsored "Justice Sunday II."
James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, told the 2,200 mostly white people in Two Rivers Baptist Church: "It doesn't matter what we think. The court rules." The Supreme Court, he said in a video broadcast, has created "an oligarchy. It's the government by the few."
Rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork warned that the high court has defined homosexuality as "a constitutional right . . . and once homosexuality is defined as a constitutional right, there is nothing the states can do about it, nothing the people can do about it."
The event was billed as an attempt to awaken Christians to the importance of appointments to the Supreme Court, but it also served as a televised rally supporting President Bush's nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. Conservative leaders here said they hope Roberts will be the first of three or more Supreme Court justices to be chosen by Bush, whose confirmations would fundamentally alter the high court.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said "activist courts" are imposing "state-sanctioned same-sex marriage" and "partial-birth abortion" and are "ridding the public square of any mention of our nation's religious heritage" in what amounts to "judicial supremacy, judicial autocracy."
In Supreme Court rulings, DeLay said, "rights are invented out of whole cloth. Long-standing traditions are found to be unconstitutional. Moral values that have defined the progress of human civilization for millennia are cast aside in favor of those espoused by a handful of unelected, lifetime-appointed judges."
The mega-church just across the highway from the Grand Ole Opry was packed, and the speeches were televised to other churches, on some local and cable stations and on four Christian television networks.
DeLay was the star in a procession of speakers that included former senator Zell Miller (D-Ga.), Prison Fellowship Ministries founder Chuck Colson and Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly.
Miller criticized the court because it "removed prayer from our public schools . . . legalized the barbaric killing of unborn babies, and it is ready to discard like an outdated hula hoop the universal institution of marriage between a man and a woman."
Speakers compared the civil rights movement of the 1960s to demands now by Christian groups for restoration of traditional morality. "It's time we move to the front of the bus and that we take command of the wheel," said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League.
Liberal religious leaders denounced Justice Sunday at a news conference. "The people who are putting together Justice Sunday seem to be far more interested in power than in justice," said Barry Lynn, head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "They now control the White House and the Congress. This is an effort to guarantee they will control the courts as well."
The purpose of Justice Sunday is to "help Christians who care about judicial activism to better understand what judges who legislate from the bench have done to the country," Perkins said. The case against judicial activism is "a very easy case to make," requiring only the citing of court rulings against school prayer and liberalizing the treatment of gays and the abortion rights case Roe v. Wade .
Harry R. Jackson Jr., senior pastor at Hope Christian Church in College Park, Md., said the "Christian community is experiencing a new unity around the moral values that we share because of common faith." Jackson, who is black, said that appointing judges who will strictly interpret the Constitution is advantageous to blacks. "If justice matters to anybody in America, it matters to minorities and to people who have historically been at the bottom of the barrel" who will not have "to deal with a maverick judge changing the law at the last minute."
Just wait until we start see the activist conservative judges and the policies they wish to "create"
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on August 21, 2005 06:09:43 AM new
twigsilver, I think you are right and it is the reason democrats are having such a hard time being elected; they are have moved so far left as to be in the communist/socialist side of the line and most Americans know these ideals are wrong.
posted on August 21, 2005 06:51:24 AM new
Ron - I don't think democrats have moved anywhere near as far to the left as the conservative media machine would have you believe. The problem is that conservatives groups have picked the most oliberal edges and then portayed them as the norm much as earlier this week in this very forum Linda dubbed Cindy Schaffer as a spokesperson for the democratic party.
I think the 2006 elections are going to be very interesting. With Bush having such a low approval rating he's not going to be doing a great deal of good on the campaign trail. I think it will be a good barometer of where the public stands and probably of who will be viable presidential candidates.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 21, 2005 06:54:29 AM new
::House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said "activist courts" are imposing "state-sanctioned same-sex marriage" and "partial-birth abortion" and are "ridding the public square of any mention of our nation's religious heritage" in what amounts to "judicial supremacy, judicial autocracy."::
So in other words, they want states rights to be strengthened ... unless of course the state is going to do something they disagree with. Could someone please explain why the conservative movement thinks that the states are responsible enough to decide abortion issues but not marital?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
Pat Robertson is calling for Americans to murder Hugo Chavez.
"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," ."We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
Maybe Pat should give his good buddy George a few pointers on how to break international law.
posted on August 23, 2005 06:03:54 AM new
We shall see how far the Federal government is going to go along with states rights, as some states are not going follow NCLB any longer.
It is a shame helen we do follow that law, think of where OBL would be now. But of course it would be wrong.
Fenix, I do think next years elections will be exciting and close. However I don't see much if any change to the current Congress. I think President Bush will sit in the background.
Ron
[ edited by WashingtoneBayer on Aug 23, 2005 06:06 AM ]
posted on August 23, 2005 06:46:44 AM new "It is a shame helen we do follow that law, think of where OBL would be now. But of course it would be wrong."
After 9/11 assassinating Osama bin Laden would be considerably less "wrong" than waging a preemptive attack on a country that was not involved in that terrorism and by doing so, killing over 1800 American soldiers along with thousands of innocent Iraq citizens....spending billions to trash a country.
But protecting Israel and establishing a base of operation in the Mideast was the goal of the Bush administration neocons. Osama bin Laden was left to plan his next attack on the U.S. ---probably in the form of a nuclear -- dirty bomb attack.
That's how the Bush "war on terrorism" goes...a complete failure.
posted on August 23, 2005 06:57:01 AM new
"But protecting Israel and establishing a base of operation in the Mideast was the goal of the Bush administration neocons."
"That's how the Bush "war on terrorism" goes...a complete failure."
Those were SOME of the goals of the Bush administration (as well as building a democracy right in the middle of that mess), but how are they a failure? Israel is still there and we have estabkished bases in Iraq.
--------------------------------------
Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum sonatur.
posted on August 23, 2005 06:59:07 AM new
And I just heard about the Pat Robertson comment on the radio. I rushed right here to the RT cause I KNEW that'd come up. I mustv'e laughed for five minutes after hearing that
--------------------------------------
Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum sonatur.
posted on August 23, 2005 07:05:04 AM new
This is a very interesting transcript of the 60 Minutes interview (Aug.21, 2005) of CIA Agent Michael Scheuer....Bin Laden Expert Steps Forward
Right or wrong, he says Muslims are beginning to view the United States as a colonial power with Israel as its surrogate, and with a military presence in three of the holiest places in Islam: the Arabian peninsula, Iraq, and Jerusalem. And he says it is time to review and debate American policy in the region, even our relationship with Israel.
"No one wants to abandon the Israelis. But I think the perception is, and I think it's probably an accurate perception, that the tail is leading the dog - that we are giving the Israelis carte blanche ability to exercise whatever they want to do in their area," says Scheuer. "And if that's what the American people want, then that's what the policy should be, of course. But the idea that anything in the United States is too sensitive to discuss or too dangerous to discuss is really, I think, absurd."
posted on August 23, 2005 08:05:21 AM new
fenix - Who's Cindy Schaffer?
----------------------
Scheuer says in May 2003, Osama bin Laden secured a fatwa - an Islamic decree - from a Saudi sheik saying he would be justified in using nuclear weapons against Americans, in retaliation for Muslims who have died.
I seriously doubt bin laden's going to get 'respect' from many American's, Australian's or Britian's. He might do what he does best....murder innocents but people don't tend to give 'respect' to their enemies nor those they fear. Their more likely to want them dead.
---
I did see this gentleman interviewed and it was really informative and interesting to hear his opinions and listen to what he has learned. I was really surprised to hear we had at least ten chances to take binladen out before 9-11.
---
And that alone re-enforced my belief/position in pre-emptively attacking those who threaten our Nation....just as we did in Iraq.
-----------
And for those who don't know....there were liberals here stating we should have used 'other' methods....to take saddam out, rather than going to war. So there are people, probably on both sides of the aisle, who would rather use that method than loosing the lives of our Armed Forces. They didn't have a problem trying to take out President Bush1.
-------------
So, helen, do YOU "respect" bin laden??
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 23, 2005 08:16:03 AM new
That's what I love about the Christian Right..they believe God tells them who should be "taken out" and what lottery numbers to choose..
Oh.. the irony.. preach love, and pass the hat for contributions for the assignation of Chavez..
posted on August 23, 2005 08:24:32 AM new
fenix - [i]Could someone please explain why the conservative movement thinks that the states are responsible enough to decide abortion issues but not marital[/]?
I don't think the 'whole' conservative movement thinks that way....but I'll tell you how I see them differently and I've heard others mention the same thing.
Abortion support or lack thereof would be MUCH different in different parts of the US. Say...liberal CA vs. the Bible Belt areas. One can see where abortion is more accepted than others. States would have the right to choose for themselves....rather than the Fed gov. making it the same for all states.
Consequences? Few.
Gay marriage - Not as accept in the US as is abortion. But again different areas feeling much differently about yes or no. Most states have voted against gay marriage.
Consequences?
Multiple. Because of all the legal issues and moving from one state to another....ie: you were married in Mass. but because of say a job transfer you now live and work in a state that doesn't recognize [legally] gay marriages so are their marital 'rights' respected.
Too many different problems when a few states allow gay marriage and most others don't. Do you force the states that don't allow gay marriage to honor the decision of what another state decided?
So, personally, I see a federal law more of a necessity, to keep the 'confusion' level to a minimum than I do on the abortion issue.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 23, 2005 08:28:12 AM new "I seriously doubt bin laden's going to get 'respect' from many American's, Australian's or Britian's.
You are using a definition of the word "respect" in which approval is indicated. Of course, that's not Scheuer's meaning. Osama bin Laden's dangerous power should not be dismissed or ignored. Unless an effort is made to understand his motive and thinking, we will, without a doubt, suffer again from his diabolical methods. Waging a war against terrorism in Iraq where there were no terrorists originally, simply served to ratchet up Al Qaeda hostility thereby marshalling more terrorists recruits for Osama bin Laden.
Unless you understand the motives of your enemy, you will never be able to counter terrorism throughout the world.
posted on August 23, 2005 08:29:53 AM new
Ron - I'm not clear on your mention of the NCLB issue.
It's always been my understanding that it's a voluntary program....not forced at all. The states can decide whether they do or don't want to participate.
So I personally don't see it being a problem if some choose to opt-out.
posted on August 23, 2005 08:38:00 AM new
You didn't answer my question helen. Do you or don't you 'respect' binladen?
Our government and most people people who have read binladen's statements already know and understand his reasons. That's been VERY clear for a long time. But see, we don't agree with him, so NOTHING's going to change. That includes most democrats, with the expection of people like you who think 'understanding him' is going to change anything, and most republicans and most from other parties.
So answer my question. Don't tell me how I should change my 'definition' of what the word 'respect' means.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 23, 2005 08:42:27 AM newthey believe God tells them who should be "taken out"
Yes, and isn't it odd that when an opinion from an atheist/secularist is stated....no one says:
they don't believe in God but still feel they have the right to speak their mind.
An opinion is an opinion....no matter how the person formed their own opinion. Because the godless do the same thing...as those of religion do.
Reminds me of when you read a newpaper article lately. If the person is a conservative...or leans right...it's ALWAYS mentioned. But if the person is a liberal or even futher left....no mention is made of their political leaning. Pure bias, imo.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
