so says RJR, purporting to speak for Republicans and Christians.

Any Republicans or Christians step up to say different?

Or are Republicans and Christians all America-hating, constitution-destroying, doctor-killing, school-wrecking reactionaries?

Secular humanism is destroying this country. As is typical, you give yourself away by victimizing the abortion doctor, not the murdered child. Side with the criminal. America hating? That would be the liberals who blame us first and dont want to defend ourselves . School wrecking? The liberals want to control our schools. I dont want my first grade son learning about alternative life styles. Nor do I want him sitting in a library next to some sex pervert on the internet looking at porn, because you dont want to offend anyone.  The constitution? Your "so called" illegal wiretapping helped save 10 planes from being up blown this summer.Interrogation of terror suspects is key to our changing world. Im sorry if they dont have all of the comforts of home. WAKE UP!!!! I dont speak for all Christians, but liberals are frightened by people of faith. I also dont think abortion doctors should at all be harmed, but they should be shut down, no question. Separation of church and state is just a fancy way for liberals to keep faith as far away from the mainstream as possible. Like I said, the rights of a sexual predator should be protected ahead of anyone of faith. And, this year, its time to say Merry Christmas, not Happy Holidays. God forbid we should "offend" anyone. Thank God the left is a shrinking minority in this country

Nowhere in the Constitution are the words "Seperation of Church and State".  That is from the Federalists Papers.  The Constitution states that there can not be a national religion.  People are free to worship how they see fit.  

The Constitution was written by very religious men.  I doubt liberals are very interested in its original intent at this point.  Less God and more abortions.  You're definitely reading their mind.

But:  if you don't believe in the constitution, then  you don't believe in the authority of the courts to interpret the law, and you don't consider the constitution part of the law, just a sort of wall ornament, then why cite judicial precedent that you don't accept?  You know, Marbury vs Madison?  Those goddamned liberal judges again, ever since 1803.

So it really doesn't make sense to talk to people (like yourself) about the consitution if they don't accept it as authority, any more than it makes sense to cite the Bible as authority to people who don't recognize it.

See, the beauty of religion is that there's no 3rd party to limit what it means.  All you have to do is go crazy and threaten violence (God said it and I believe it and that ends it - said what to who when and how?), and people leave you alone.  The constitution has that problem, it's hard to get excited about if you have to enforce it thru the courts.

Yeah, these guys were religious.  They knew to keep religion out of business and government, because they were mostly the descendants of religious refugees, and knew how churches were used primarily to justify irrationality and wars.

-- Modified on 10/27/2006 3:39:09 PM

Big difference there.  Most liberal "contributions" (affirmative action, abortion) came from the courts and not the legislature.  That is a spit in the eye to the Constitution.

I find it repulsive when liberals wrap themselves around the Constitution.  They have done everything in their power to bypass it or pervert its meaning.

original intent?....In other words, you'd rather have judges legislate from the grave as opposed to the bench, because that's basically what original intent means, looking at what judges dead for 200+ years meant...

I think of the creepy guy who played the "Voice of London" character in the outstanding film "V for Vendeta"....His character in that movie resembled a Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell type & he used the term "Godlessness", numerous times....

fucking old are you? You appear to long for the 1850s. Have you always hated America? You certainly seem to hate what America became after 1936.

BTW, have you ever actually read any reported case?  Name & citation?  If I can get you to dig up findlaw, it's worth it.

he doesn't know WTF he's talking about

you must hate your neighbors who put the law in place.   You're not willing to abide by the law, because you're unpatriotic and un-American, and figure you know better than anybody else.

Give me a link to this 10 plane plot that was broken up by illegal wiretapping.  Ann "Fag Hag" COulter, right?  Were the pilots gay, too?

for that matter, give us a definition of "law".

Reo you really subscribe to the Scalia philosophy of

I'll take Thomas Jefferson over Ruth Bader Ghinsburg anyday.

That was a movie based on a comic book.  Should I retort with a quote from "The Fantastic 4"?

FYI, I heard that Larry Wachowski has become a post-op tranny.  If you've never seen it, you should rent "Bound".  It was their frst movie and Gina Gershon does some serious lezbo stuff in it.

-- Modified on 10/27/2006 8:00:07 PM

and wasn't even a constitutional delegate.

I'm assuming you're trying to say, in your ham-handed and ignorant way, that you thought he wrote the constitution, and you figure that it can be frozen in time, ie, any president can look at it and resolve any dispute, sorta like they used to do in Europe - "l'etat, c'est moi".

The reason you think that is because the idea appeals to you, and you have no concept of how law is actually administered, and for that matter, you have no concept of history.

For one example, how do you get around the original constitutional allocation of representatives on the ratio of counting 5 slaves as 3 freemen - now isn't that endorsement of slavery?

So, for example, let's talk about law affecting birth control, something that did not exist in Thomas Jefferson's time as we know it today.  The Federal courts have held that, by and large, it's none of the government's goddamned business.  what's more, the courts have held that's the general assumption for most sex practices, including miscegenation and sodomy.

Is this what you object to?  Do you think the Founding Fathers meant for govt to be peering into people's bedrooms?  

Because I don't.   I think that the people who wrote the bill of rights (and it was not just the authors, but also every person who agreed to it) wanted govt to keep its nose out of issues where it had no legitimate business that benefited the nation; and that individuals were to be allowed basic dignity in every case.

So are you gonna get out your ouija board and consult Tom about this?  Because maybe Sally Hemmings might have something to say about that particular issue, you know?  And I think Tom was probably the sort of fellow who would have respected that opinion.


Look, I don't want to cram so many facts and ideas in your head that you're disqualified from being a  Republican, but you might think about it, ya know?

-- Modified on 10/27/2006 10:26:33 PM

After all, they made all the precedents.

Abortion is regulated by state law.  Always was, and probably always will be.

When the TX abortion law was challenged in Roe vs. Wade, the SCt put limits on state regulation.  Why?  Bob, read the decision yourself.  You can find it on the net, and I'm sure if you're interested, you can learn to RTFM before you shoot your mouth off, EVEN IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN.

Affirmative action was not the result of any judicial decision.   Brown vs Board of Education eliminated separate schools.  That is not affirmative action.

AA arose out of legislative and executive policies.   In fact, it has been frequently challenged and somewhat limited in courts.

But always remember, you're a Republican, and you can;t let facts get in the way of a good story.

"Should I retort with a quote from "The Fantastic 4"?

Actually, how about using the movie "Sin City" for your retort, LOL...

The Wachowski Bros. needed a decent movie as the Matrix SEQUELS were awful in my opinion, but they hit a home run with "V" as that was a powerful film w/some great performances...

please educate us.   We're so anxious to hear political theory from a fellow so thoroughly disconnected from any verifiable facts.

Please explain this for us.  I haven't had a good laugh for a while.

Sorry.  I didn't notice the argument you were having with yourself down here on this thread.  Are you winning?

Abortion is regulated by state law?  Name the state where abortion is illegal?  What was the law that the federal legislature created to make abortion legal throughout all 50 states?  BTW, Mr. Genius.  That is the conservative argument.  It should be a state issue.  It used to be decided by state legislatures (representatives of the people) until judges realised that the Constitution clearly stated thet the unborn should die when convenient.  

Are you aware of the U of Michigan?  Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion of how affirmative action was an important educational tool.  Not the legality or constitutionality.  Another judge deciding what was best for society and not what was in the law.  This allowed it to continue.  This was recent history.

You're a typical liberal washout.  Shouldn't you have grandchildren or something to take up your time rather than making a fool of yourself on a daily basis?

So you haven't actually read Roe v Wade, have you?  So you don't know that the court specified the circumstances that a state may regulate abortion, which in fact covers the circumstances of most abortions?  And your argument that it's covered by Federal statute in fact contradicts your thesis that judges create your problems?

And you are still too obtuse to figure out that the decision you cite is precisely what I said, a court decision reviewing legislative & executive action?  And have you ever heard of Bakke?

What you reactionaries have figured out is that judges rarely fight back, and that you can count on the work they do to bore the people you pander to, anyway.   That's what you need to win, is targets whose hands are tied.

Let's hear some answers.  You can start anywehere.

So I see you dropped your affir. action argument.  Good.  One down, one to go.

What planet do you live on?  Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal throughout all 50 states.  It was illegal in some states before the decision.  The court created a law that the Senate or House did not vote on.  That's it.  End of story.  You're ignorance is shocking.  States are very limited in their restriction.  

Let me say this again slowly.  There was NEVER, EVER a law passed by the Federal legislature that legalized abortion throughout the nation.  It was a state issue and the Supreme Court didn't like ELECTED REPRESENATIVES to make this decision.  They created a law on their own.  

You should go back to night school and get your GED before you try to argue with me again.  Duhhhh!

Perhaps numbers will help.  So follow the numbers:

1)  You said liberal programs were the creation of judges.

2) You could only cite 2 examples, affirmative action & abortion.  It's very hard to work with your imagination if you don't tell us what's in there.  

3)  Affirmative action was the creation of the legislature and executive, largely the civil rights act of 1964.   That it was disputed in the courts and upheld in any part does not mean it was  created by any judge.

3)  You obviously did not even read the digest of the decision you cited, nor the better known Bakke.

4)  Abortion has always been regulated by state law.   When a TX statute was challenged in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court limited but did not eliminate the legislative role in regulating abortion.   Read the decision.  COme back and we can test your reading comprehension.

5)  For that matter, it should be obvious to a thinking person (not meaning to exclude you) that "cause" of any political issue goes back to the interaction of many political agencies with many other issues; and the idea of blaming "liberal judges" is pretty obtuse, and depends on ignorance of the constitution and US politics.   Of course, reactionaries do it largely because the judiciary simply does not fight back.  That is the conservative way - rail against the people who don't fight back.  If there were little girls in the streets, conservatives would attack them.

6) Bob, look:  persisting in an obtuse argument doesn't make you right.   The Pope rolled over Galileo the 1st time, but only because Galileo was only a scientist, who didn't give a shit about the politics.  But not everybody is so mellow.  We're sick and tired of ignorant-ass Republicans fucking up the country because their skills are limited to shouting smarter people down.

7) RTFM, Bob.

don't think we don't notice all the other questions - all very obvious and basic issues - that you're dodging.  

For example, to define law.  You say here, "the court created a law that the Senate or House did not vote on."

You moron, no legislature votes on ANY court decision.   WHOSE ignorance is shocking?  

And what makes this a "law" that doesn't make every divorce a "law"?  Well, nothing.  COURTS MAKE LAW.  That's what they do.  So does every sheriff and civil servant, from the county recorder to the president.  So does every legislative body, from the local mosquito control district to the Senate.

BUT because you are ignorant, we don't let you into most of these processes.  It's for your own good, Bob.  Your brain would melt down.  In fact, I'm getting pretty close to melting you down here, but I'm only in it for the laughs.

Next thing to laugh about is conservative support of evangelicals, notably the 2 Stooges, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.   These fuckers are ignorant frauds and traitors, but it's really hard for a normal to believe that anybody would actually send money to morons who say that teaching evolution is risking a city, because when God sends terrorists or floods because of the fags in town, then God's gonna ignore you when you beg him to lay off.

But conservatives believe that shit.

Bob, you guys don't get it.  Who has a GED?  Not your posse.  First of all, if God does shit like that, he's not doing you any favors, and there's really no reason for him to lay off.  2nd, have you noticed where your offerings of green money go?  Is pat Fedexing them to Heaven or something?  No, he's sending them to Zaire to buy diamonds.  Isn't that weird?

So we won't even talk about the possibility that floods might be caused by water, or terrorist attacks might be caused by criminal assholes, and God's just been asleep at the wheel the last 4 billion years.

Look, Bob, why don't you fellows just shut up and get back to plucking those chickens?

Liberals are a shrinking minority, thank God. How ignorant

YOU'RE talking about ignorant?  YOU'RE talking to me?  You're talking to ME?

Truly the ravings of a simpleton.  

Legislative bodies vote on bills.  A majority vote makes it a law.  A court decision became a law.  A law that was created by 9 JUDGES as opposed to hundreds on elected representatives. That's a no-no. I never implied anyone was supposed to vote on a court decision.  Your stupidity knows no limits.

Here's your homework assignment Jack.  Take three lithium and rent Schoolhouse Rock.  They will give you the civics lesson you so sorely need.

WTF am I asking YOU for?  You obviously don't know.

Bob, statutes are not the only form of law.  If you want to define it that way, then tell us all exactly what statute any court has ever established.

Bob, get a clue.  I can't imagine what might penetrate that skull of yours, but your brain is not functioning normally.  It's not excluding contradictory data, and you're not recognizing.

Bob, the bullshit arguments about judges creating law is what I hear from people who haven't been off their Oklahoma range since they dropped out of 10th grade.   Stop getting your legal information from  your dropout Baptist deacon.  

Get back to me when you have some basic idea of what law is all about.