Escape from Elba
Exiles of the New York Times
April 25, 2018, 12:35:51 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: As you may have noticed, this is a very old backup, I'm still working through restoring the site.  Don't be surprised if you post and it all goes missing....
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Poll
Question: What should be done to lower gas prices?
Allow drilling off shore and in Alaska
Allow drilling off shore, but not Alaska
Develop more oil from the lands the oil companies already have.
Take over Iraq and Iran
None of the above

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 1245
  Print  
Author Topic: Bush Administration  (Read 114376 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
samiinh
Guest

« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2007, 06:11:40 PM »

So, he is another who robs the poor to enrich the already rich. That explains the deaths of the infants and the malnutrition of their mothers.

But I guarantee you he would be against a woman's right to choose.
Logged
weezo
Poll Manager
Superhero Member
****
Posts: 3431


Resue when he was a cute little kitten


View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #16 on: April 23, 2007, 08:30:03 PM »

Oh, yes. Those babies are so precious, he starves them to death!
Logged
samiinh
Guest

« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2007, 09:44:55 AM »

I sent this to the local paper this morning:

To the NH Congressional Delegation:

I write because I am appalled by what is happening to our soldiers in Iraq.  Eighty-five dead just this month; nine killed in one attack.  The time has come to end this violent, immoral war.  President Bush has failed miserably as a commander-in-chief.  The mission, never stated clearly nor understood, is a disaster.  The Iraqi people want us to leave.  The Iraqi government will never stand up as long as we continue pouring our resources and our soldiers into this hell hole.

If the president will not listen to the American People, then it is time to begin his impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.  Too many people have died to assuage his ego.  Bring the troops home now.  Your vote to end the war will be watched by your constituents in New Hampshire.  Do the right thing and end this now.
Logged
weezo
Poll Manager
Superhero Member
****
Posts: 3431


Resue when he was a cute little kitten


View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2007, 12:52:53 PM »

Sami,

I hope the NH delegation listens to you. Maybe I should do the same here in Virginia. It's a good idea. Every time I hear of more deaths I think of the mothers, wives and children who will see their sons and daughters never again.
Logged
samiinh
Guest

« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2007, 01:32:36 PM »

Sami,

I hope the NH delegation listens to you. Maybe I should do the same here in Virginia. It's a good idea. Every time I hear of more deaths I think of the mothers, wives and children who will see their sons and daughters never again.


It is so awful to lose a child.  I lost my son in 1986.  He was 22 years old and in the US Navy.  His was an accidental death, not a combat death.  Still, a day doesn't go by without his being in my head.
Logged
samiinh
Guest

« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2007, 01:53:21 PM »

I don't mean to spam the forum, but I thought this was rather important from Amerblog.com:

There's a growing brouhaha over the fact that some commentators have noted that 5 of the 9 US Supreme Court justices are Catholic, and all 5 sided against a woman's right to choose in their latest decision released last week.

    "All five justices in the majority in Gonzales are Catholic," wrote Geoffrey Stone, now a professor at the [University of Chicago] law school, in a faculty blog. "The four justices who either are Protestant or Jewish all voted in accord with settled precedent. It is mortifying to have to point this out. But it is too obvious, and too telling to ignore."

Catholic advocacy groups (I suspect conservative ones), and conservative shock jocks like Laura Ingraham, are outraged, though it's not exactly clear about what. They claim that such observations - namely, that one's faith may influence one's decisions in life and on the job, bigoted. They're also upset with Rosie O'Donnell (though this tends to be simply because she's a lesbian and a Democrat - conservatives don't think lesbians, nor Democrats, should be permitted in public life):

    You know what concerns me?" O'Donnell asked last week on ABC's "The View." "How many Supreme Court judges are Catholic?"

    "Five," said host Barbara Walters.

    "Five," O'Donnell said. "How about separation of church and state in America?"

    Walters counseled against drawing conclusions, saying, "We cannot assume that they did it because they're Catholic."

    But O'Donnell had more to say.

    "If men could get pregnant," O'Donnell said, "abortion would be a sacrament."

And here is how shock jock Laura Ingraham responded:

    "'The View's' Rosie O'Donnell continues on her tear down the path of the Rich and Unhinged, this time with an anti-Catholic rant against the Supreme Court," Ingraham wrote on her Web site. "Could she ever get away with denigrating the Muslim faith this way?"

Well, first off, conservatives denigrate Islam every single day and still have their jobs - from the former president of the Southern Baptist Convention who called Muhammad a "demon-possessed pedophile," to Franklin Graham who called Islam evil, to conservative CNN hosts who have labeled all Muslim-Americans as terrorists. So Ingraham should spare us the crocodile tears about how Muslims get away with everything. They're attacked left and right by Ingraham's buddies every single day, with impunity.

But getting to Ingraham's larger point, that mentioning the separation of church and state, and the issue as to whether one's Catholic faith influences a judge's decision, is "bigotry," how so? What exactly about that point is bigoted? Clearly standing up for the doctrine of the separation of church and state isn't bigoted. Then Ingraham must mean that it is ludicrous to suggest that a Catholic, or any judge of faith, would let their faith influence their court decisions. I think it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise, and actually rather religion-phobic to boot. Is Ingraham suggesting that Christians somehow check their morality at the door when they get on the job? That we won't murder, covet our neighbor's wife, cheat or steal at home, but on the job we'll do it because, you know, we check our religion-based morality at the door from 9-5? That's absurd. And it also has a deny-me-three-times quality to it. Yet that is exactly what the Catholic activists are now claiming - that their faith would never influence any decisions they'd make in their lives. Huh?

    "The Supreme Court did not 'follow marching orders' from the Vatican or the bishops in the United States," [James] Cella [president of the Catholic-based organization Fidelis] said. "Instead, the court deferred to deliberative judgment of the people's elected representatives protected by the Constitution."

Again, that's absurd. And we know it's absurd because the religious right and conservative Catholics have been trying to get their people in positions of power for years. Why? Because of their SAT scores or because of their faith? Uh, duh. Of course conservative Christians want their own people in positions of power. They believe - they KNOW - that their religious beliefs form the basis of their morality, and their morality forms the basis of their daily actions and decisions on the job. Yet now they'd have us believe that it's simply not true.

And to revisit the quote above about no one taking marching orders from the Vatican or the American bishops. Then why do the Vatican and the American bishops GIVE such marching orders to American politicians and the voting public, if no one is expected to follow them, and if such marching orders are somehow bigoted? Catholic leaders have told their followers how to vote based on their religion:

    Galvanized by battles against same-sex marriage and stem cell research and alarmed at the prospect of a President Kerry - who is Catholic but supports abortion rights - these bishops and like-minded Catholic groups are blanketing churches with guides identifying abortion, gay marriage and the stem cell debate as among a handful of "non-negotiable issues."

Or this:

    In an interview in his residence here, Archbishop Chaput said a vote for a candidate like Mr. Kerry who supports abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research would be a sin that must be confessed before receiving Communion.

    "If you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil?" he asked. "And if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes."

Yes, no marching orders from that Catholic bishop. Then there was the time that the American Catholic bishops said that presidential candidate John Kerry couldn't receive communion:

    This spring, a handful of bishops, including Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, proclaimed that Catholic presidential candidate John Kerry should not present himself for Communion because his public votes defy the core teachings of his church. Kerry is an adamantly pro-choice Democrat who says he personally opposes abortion.

Yes, no attempt to influence politics there.

Far-right conservatives can't have it both ways. They can't demand that their elected and appointed officials obey church doctrine on the job, then turn around and call anyone a bigot who notes that those elected and appointed officials are obeying church doctrine on the job. And let's not forget that the entire basis of the religious right in America, and conservatives generally, is a world-view based on the Bible AND a political view that demands that Biblical norms be enacted in legislation. The first thing that comes out of their mouths when debating civil rights legislation for gays and lesbians is God. Yet, if we note that fact, we're the bigots.

So which one is it? Do far-right conservatives agree or disagree with the church, and religious right activists, telling our political and judicial leaders how to act on the job?
Logged
whiskeypriest
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2698


Life is skittles and life is beer.


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2007, 03:16:24 PM »

Quote
There's a growing brouhaha over the fact that some commentators have noted that 5 of the 9 US Supreme Court justices are Catholic, and all 5 sided against a woman's right to choose in their latest decision released last week.
I doubt Catholicism, particularly, had anything to do with it.  They were selected becuase of their opposition to Roe, not their religion. 

Logged

What does it matter?  All is grace.
samiinh
Guest

« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2007, 04:02:28 PM »

I do find it unsettling to have 5 members of the Roman Catholic Church sitting on the SCOTUS.  How many are Opus Dei?
Logged
liquidsilver
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2060


Herpes, the gift that keeps on giving.


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #23 on: April 24, 2007, 04:09:18 PM »

I do find it unsettling to have 5 members of the Roman Catholic Church sitting on the SCOTUS. 

Why?
Logged

"I hate listening to peoples dreams. It's like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody's having sex, I just don't care."
whiskeypriest
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2698


Life is skittles and life is beer.


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #24 on: April 24, 2007, 04:25:31 PM »

I do find it unsettling to have 5 members of the Roman Catholic Church sitting on the SCOTUS.  How many are Opus Dei?
Why not ask how many of the Court's jews subscribe to the Protocols?  Because it would be just as ignorant and bigoted to do so.

In my lifetime, ignorant anti-Catholic sentiment came close to denying a man the presidency.  It has not entirely disappeared.

Roman Catholics cut across all political lines.  Always have, always will.  You will even find Roman Catholics who are generally reliably liberal on almost every issue who are uneasily in the conservative camp on one or more issues.  Dennis Kucinich, for instance, who opposed abortion as recently as 2002.
Logged

What does it matter?  All is grace.
samiinh
Guest

« Reply #25 on: April 24, 2007, 04:26:48 PM »

Basically, 5 or the 9 being catholic, is not representative of the nation as a whole.  Four of them are extremist in their views.  One is a fence sitter.  I just find that a bit unnerving.
Logged
liquidsilver
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2060


Herpes, the gift that keeps on giving.


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #26 on: April 24, 2007, 04:34:31 PM »

Do really think its a good idea to discriminate who should and shouldn't be appointed to the Supreme Court based on their religion?

Logged

"I hate listening to peoples dreams. It's like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody's having sex, I just don't care."
prairiepop
Guest

« Reply #27 on: April 24, 2007, 05:00:18 PM »

The softball questions asked of each of the new SCOTUS justices appointed by Bush failed to elicit anything resembling their position on Roe v Wade--but surely no one at this point should be at all surprised at how they have voted.  Nor should we be surprised at how they WILL vote in future.  While I don't believe that Opus Dei is in charge of SCOTUS, I do believe that darker days will come through their decisions.  Like most human beings faced with moral theology dilemmas, those fatal five will undoubtedly vote along the lines of their Catholic consciences...against which there can be no objection, after all.  We've lost the "separation of Church and State" battle...Rev. Dobson's law school graduates are thick on the ground--a few RC's are in the mix, seasoned with AIPAC for zest and topped off by who got them their gigs for life--what's not to love? 
Logged
samiinh
Guest

« Reply #28 on: April 24, 2007, 05:47:54 PM »

The softball questions asked of each of the new SCOTUS justices appointed by Bush failed to elicit anything resembling their position on Roe v Wade--but surely no one at this point should be at all surprised at how they have voted.  Nor should we be surprised at how they WILL vote in future.  While I don't believe that Opus Dei is in charge of SCOTUS, I do believe that darker days will come through their decisions.  Like most human beings faced with moral theology dilemmas, those fatal five will undoubtedly vote along the lines of their Catholic consciences...against which there can be no objection, after all.  We've lost the "separation of Church and State" battle...Rev. Dobson's law school graduates are thick on the ground--a few RC's are in the mix, seasoned with AIPAC for zest and topped off by who got them their gigs for life--what's not to love? 

Actually, the 150 attorneys that you refer to are from Pat Robertson's School of Law, not the charming Mr. Dobsons.  I'm not even sure he is a ordained minister.  His training was in child psychology, I believe.  I agree with you, though, that the court has been thrown to the religious right with the Bush appointments.
Logged
prairiepop
Guest

« Reply #29 on: April 24, 2007, 06:06:27 PM »

Thanks for the correction on the law school...it must be said, however, that it is difficult to distinguish between Robertson and Dobson...white? [check] beady-eyed & negatory? [check] misogynist? [check] Born Against anything that isn't one of the above? [check-check-check].  I'm not copping out on my mini-me error, pilgrim...I'm just saying that if you've seen one, you've seen the other.  If you see them both on the same podium...head for the woods.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 1245
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!