Rajan Zed, from the Indian Association of Northern Nevada, was obviously not a Christian and some Christians in the gallery were obviously not happy about that.
Take a look:
Before he had a chance to speak, a Christian in the gallery piously intoned:
Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight!According to TPMCafe:
Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), serving as the presiding officer for the morning, immediately ordered them taken away — though they continued to yell at the Hindu cleric as they were headed out the door, shouting out phrases such as, "No Lord but Jesus Christ!" and "There's only one true God!"You can hear the protestor continue:
This is an abomination! We shall have no other Gods before You. You are the one true God.Later in the day, Flip Bentham, Director of Operation Save America/Operation Rescue, issued the following press release:
There's more background material here. But all you really need to know is found in these words:Theology Moved to the Senate and was Arrested
Theology has moved from the church house onto the floor of the United States Senate, and has been arrested.
WASHINGTON, July 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- Ante Pavkovic, Kathy Pavkovic, and Kristen Sugar were all arrested in the chambers of the United States Senate as that chamber was violated by a false Hindu god. The Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer placing the false god of Hinduism on a level playing field with the One True God, Jesus Christ. This would never have been allowed by our Founding Fathers.
"Not one Senator had the backbone to stand as our Founding Fathers stood. They stood on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! There were three in the audience with the courage to stand and proclaim, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' They were immediately removed from the chambers, arrested, and are in jail now. God bless those who stand for Jesus as we know that He stands for them." Rev. Flip Benham, Director, Operation Save America/Operation Rescue
"When you stand up and are arrested, and the Hindu is allowed to go free, this country has gone upside-down," Benham added — though when asked, he later clarified that he does not believe people of other religions should be arrested for their beliefs. "Now, why are Hindus allowed here? Why are Muslims allowed here? Because we are a nation that's free, built upon the principles of almighty God."Maybe Hitchens is right: Religion Poisons Everything. Or maybe this is closer:
Americans United for Separation of Church and Stat's Executive Director Barry W. Lynn said that the protest "shows the intolerance of many religious right activists. They say they want more religion in the public square, but it's clear they mean only their religion."See? There's a reason for the separation of Church and State.
39 comments:
it is scary and frustrating
and it should be taken seriously.
David, do me a favor and look up the words "separation of church and state" in the constitution. Let me know if you find it.
You can't? Oh that's right, it's not there.
Enough said.
These people who claim to be godly wouldn't know Jesus if they tripped over him.
I am so very proud of Bob Casey for showing dignity and respect in the face of such hate.
And to Brado-Lord of the Losers-I give you the 1st amendment of the US Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
We are a nation of all religions and those who think their God is better than other people's God will most likely find themselves in a really hot place some day.
Those folks yelling were very out of line and rude.
TrollBraden, do me a favor and look up the words "unitary executive" in the Constitution. Let me know if you find it.
You can't? Oh that's right, it's not there.
Enough said.
Oh, you meant "Unitary executive theory?"
From Wikipedia:
"In American political and legal discourse, the unitary executive theory is a controversial theory of Constitutional interpretation that addresses aspects of the separation of powers. The theory argues for strict limits to the power of Congress to divest the President of control of the executive branch."
A theory, Maria. A freakin' theory. Would you please present some factual information next time? At least what I said IS fact. I can't speak for what referred me to, though.
And finally, what you just said in response to me has to do with Separation of Church and State NOT being in the Constitution means...?
Lame try, no cigar.
Enough said, indeed.
Not that Master Lie will understand this, but:
As many of us know, James Madison was the father of the Constitution. He was also a protege of a certain Thos. Jefferson -- no slouch he -- who wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
Of course, neither Mr. Jefferson nor Mr. Madison could stand up to Master Lie in a Constitutional debate, but I throw this out there anyhow.
Actually Democrats-lie, the phrase "separation of church and state" came from a letter that was drafted by none other than President Thomas Jefferson in 1802.
Now interestingly these people who decided to invoke the "principles" of our founding forefathers as god fearing men didn't do their research.
Oddly, history is unsure if Jefferson was even a Christian or if he was a simple deist (which he claimed to be, but that may have been only for political reasons).
Also since Jefferson was first a VP that means that he also served in the very same Senate Chambers where this unacceptable behavior took place.
I consider myself to be a religious person, but the last thing I will ever do is force my own religion on someone else. I do, however, like the historical practice an opening prayer in Congress and only hope that it continues to be diversified .
You people are missing the point. Where do the words "Separation Of Church and State" exist in the Constitution?
No where.
Don't come back to me with what words people wrote which do not exist in the Constitution. The words "separation of church and state" are NOT in the Constitution, so what John and Jason said is totally irrelevant.
Jason, you speak of a letter, not the Constitution.
Would you two care to try again, or will you point fingers at me John, and say that I am the one who stands wrong?
Facts are facts, and the fact remains: Separation of Church and State are not in the Constitution.
Actually, Jason, there is no doubt that Jefferson was NOT a Christian. He actually re-wrote the New Testament and removed all the miracles from it, because he considered Jesus to be a man to be studied and emulated rather than worshipped. I'll be happy to supply chapter and verse (pun very much intended) on this if you'd like. A good place to start would be "American Sphynx" by Joseph Ellis. John Adams, of course, claimed that Jefferson was an atheist, although this is difficult to justify. Jefferson clearly believed in some sort of deity.
Many of the Founders were not Christians, were lukewarm Christians, or were Christian for appearances only. This includes Washington (who never mentions god as an adult in his writings), John Adams himself ("I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"), and Ben Franklin ("scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself") among many others.
Master Lie is correct in stating that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution. Neither does the word "handgun" appear, but try to take away his Saturday Night Special. Nor does the Constitution specify that the Vice President succeed the President upon the death of the latter. The Constitution does not explicitly give the courts the ability to declare a law Unconstitutional, either. And nowhere does it allow nor disallow "separate but equal" treatment for minorites.
It is therefore somewhat surprising to find that Master Lie is correct about something, but not a bit surprising to find him irrelevant.
And although that is not nearly enough said, it is all to be said for now.
There is no need to be a jerk. I've now read this article twice and not once did I read that "separation of church and state" is in the constitution. Not once! The you, Democrats-lie, are the only person who mentioned the Constitution and Separation of Church and State in the same sentence.
The two times that it is mentioned are once as part of a name of an organization, People United for Separation of Church and State, and the second time is when Dayvoe asserts his opinion that there is cause for Separation of Church and State (the political theory as you so kindly pointed out)
However, if you want to be picky, the Amendment to the Constitution-- as part of the Bill of Rights is... FREEDOM OF RELIGION. And I quote here, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I don't know if it is just me, but that sounds like people can believe in what ever they chose to (I would say this includes, but is not limited to the Separation of Church and State).
Enough said, period!
Saw this earlier today, and -- this is not an exageration -- I literally wanted to vomit. Casey did the best he could here, but I do wish he would have had access to another microphone.
It was just disgusting.
Shitrock:
"What you just said, is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard, at no point where you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it"
I think the above quote pretty much applies to everything you just said.
TrollBraden,
The phrase "separation of powers" is no where in the Constitution and yet, we refer to it all the time, the same way that we refer to "separation of Church and State." Same with "checks and balances."
These are principles found in the Constitution, yet they are never mentioned by name in the Constitution.
The jury is still out if you are either too dense or have swallowed too much Kool-Aid to understand this.
Maria:
There's not getting through to you.
We're gonna agree to disagree. You might as well drop it.
I wish to compliment Master Lie on the perspicacity and specificity with which he demolished my previous comment.
Point by point and fact by fact, his logic and wit completely wrecked my argument. And not once did he even hint at the sort of personal attack of which he so justifiably complains from time to time.
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it
As if that were possible for some of us in this room...
One other thing that the Constitution does not mention is the size of the Supreme Court.
Ladies and Gentlemen;
Our troll has taken up a tired old argument that the words "separation of church and state aren't found in the constitution."
Well neither is the word "God" or the phrase "school prayer."
What does the constitution say about religion? Well, apart from the above mentioned 1st Amendment (and thanks to those who posted it), there's the part banning religious tests. It's Article VI:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
And that's about it.
By the way, Article VI also contains the part about how treaties are the Supreme Law of the land.
Well get a gander at this treaty. Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (1796-7)says:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...
By the way, the treaty was ratified unanimously in the Senate and signed into law by John Adams. You'd think that if the founding fathers actually thought we were a "Christian Nation" there'd be some dissent. But there wasn't.
Kinda puts the kibosh on any rational discussion about the US being a christian nation, huh?
To Democrats-Lie...
For the last time, will one of you stupid rightwing fucks read a fucking history book and get a clue as to who our Founding Fathers were.
First, our Founders - men like Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Franklin - were products of the Enlightenment. They believed in reason, not boogie-boogie witchcraft.
That, of course, is what the Enlightenment was - the goal was to stamp out superstitions and suppress the fantasies of religious loons, through science and reason. They had enlightenment educations. In many ways, they rebelled against the nutter Puritans that many of them descended from.
The author Nathaniel Hawthorne is a prime example. The entire point of The Scarlet Letter is that it is not ok for people to impose their religious views and persecutions on others.
Our Founders feared the tyranny of the majority, which is why it was so important to them to preserve the civil liberties of the minority.
Separation of Church and State, as far as we know, first appeared as a phrase in a letter by Th. Jefferson, wherein he informed the Danbury Baptists that the First Amendment created a wall between Church and State. The phrase was next used by the Supreme Court in 1878 and has been referenced by the court more than 25 times.
It's part of our legal history, you fuck. It's precedent, long ago established by the Supreme Court - then again, American Talibaners like yourself don't really care much for our courts.
From the Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom(written by Jefferson) -
"... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
James Madison argued for a complete separation of church and state.
From wiki -
"Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote, and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."
The notion comes from John Locke - another prominent Enlightenment fellow - and an enormous influence on the development of our Constitution.
What people like you have been trying to do is re-write history. Just like Republicans have spent the last 40 years telling everyone the government doesn't work - of course it doesn't when you put in a bunch of jackass GOPers who don't believe in government. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Christians are not persecuted in this country, nor have they ever been. In fact, it is mostly Christians who have harassed people who came to this country, risking everything, so that they could practice their Buddhism or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam.
So, fuck off...no one is stopping you from going to church. No one is stopping you from prayer. In fact, you'd do well to refer to the Bible and the words of Jesus when he talks about people who make displays of their religions:
"Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in Heaven"
"So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you..."
"And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others...whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret."
What ever happened to that Jesus? I guess he didn't hate gay people enough or Muslims or something.
But, you, Democrats-lie, are a Christian hypocrite. You are the worst kind of Christian, and there are far too many of you. You've so warped that religion that it's not even recognizable anymore.
As Joseph Campbell once replied when asked if Jesus would recognize his followers if he returned, "No. He wouldn't."
Our Founders feared people that thought like you, who wanted to impose their morality, their religion, their views on other people. They didn't like people like you.
And you know what words you won't find in the Constitution or the Declaration, or any of our founding documents for that matter - Jesus, God, Christianity, Bible, rapture, born-again, saved.
I am so tired of this un-American crap that the rightwing vomits up. And that is exactly what it is - un-fucking-American.
Go wave your flag, D-lie.
how horrifying. I had the same reaction as the Admiral: extreme nausea.
Whenever I hear people wonder how Iraq can be in such a state of chaos (religious and otherwise), I think of how little it would take to push this country over the edge into the same chaos. This video makes me worry we're closer than I thought.
Still can't admit that "Separation Of Church And State" is not in the Constitution eh, Jaywillie? So what do you do, you stereotype me, and spit your liberal venom at me. How typical. But of course, that's okay, because you're a Democrat, and when you're a Democrat, it's just different. When you're a Democrat, it's okay to attack. Well fine, you can have a taste of your own medicine:
You used the term term "rightwing."
Excuse me, but the term "rightwing" didn't exist until people like you showed up and coined the term.
If my being an American labels me as a "rightwing" to you, then so be it. I can't speak for most of the liberal Democrats like you being Americans though, especially given your so called support of our troops in harms way.
You got that, Mr. Harry The-War-Is-A-Failure-While-Our-Troops-Are-In-Harms-Way-Reid?
You and those like you may not support the war, but the least you can do is support the troops by wishing them victory in accomplishing their mission and to come home safely.
Sadly, all the liberal left can do is call the war a "failure," all while the enemy watches what is being said over here.
If I were the enemy, I'd be laughing my sorry butt off as I watched the liberal left in the USA practically wish my own victory to come to pass.
And I am un-American? Please.
Do yourself a favor, do not lecture me on what a true American is, because you aint' it, except in citizenship status only. Your heart is about as American as Clinton didn't inhale.
Jesus is not in the Constitution, either. What's your point?
"Your heart is about as American as Clinton didn't inhale."
They absolutely cannot have an argument without bringing up Clinton.
It must be part of the secret oath they take, or what they reply after receiving their sacrement of drinking the Kool-Aid.
Here is the text of the first amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Pretty damn clear that the people that wrote the constitution didn't think that our's is a "Christian nation." Pretty clear that they wanted religion to remain in private life, and not interfere with public life.
None of the founding fathers were very religious. Adams was the most religious of them all, and even he wasn't a fundamentalist about it. Jefferson was an agnostic. The higher power that they spoke of in their writings was more metaphysical, and more like what is today called karma.
But I guess some idiot had to take Jerry Falwell's place. Next thing we now, they'll be a bunch of people protesting the teletubbies because they're part of a "radical homosexual plot."
Here's my take: the people that spew this crap don't understand the message of the Bible and the context of the time it was written in. The Bible is, at its core, a pacifist and socialist document. God shows us through Jesus how to live (above all tolerance, to turn the other cheek, to walk among the leopards, to heal the sick, to feed the hungry, and not to fight...which is what Jesus' death was all about).
The Bible itself, as we know it, came into being about a hundred years after Jesus' death. There were political considerations that probably effected its content. Nero had just let Rome burn while he was having an orgy. And the Christians, then a radical insurgent movement, needed something to be against. And that's where we got all the social crap that isn't really relevant to the underlying message of the bible.
I believe in God. I believe in Jesus. But I don't think that he cares what language or way you express your worship. I don't think he's going to come down to earth and blow up the US Senate because they dared to allow a Hindu to lead a prayer. I think that he wants us to live as justly as possible. And I don't believe that he cares if people are gay or not.
I'm tired of these radical right wing nuts giving religion a bad name. It's crass, and shameless, politics masked as "faith."
No, they have to bring up Clinton.
Call it "liberal venom." Fine. If defending western liberal democratic values(which is what our country is founded on) is wrong, then I'm guilty and I'll never apologize for it.
But that argument is absolutely revolting. I'm sorry. It is so violently un-American, in my opinion, to argue that there is no separation of church and state. It goes against the grain of everything our country is founded on.
I simply cannot respect people who make that argument. Sorry. Won't happen. Not on my watch. I will not watch right-wing zealouts destroy every pillar of liberal western democracy that this country was built on. I will not tolerate them sacrificing reason to fanaticism. I will not stand down in the face of those who favor oppression and repression and stand there waving the flag all the while.
You, D-lie, clearly have no respect for the legal traditions and judicial history of our country. Nor do you exhibit any appreciation for the genius of men like Jefferson, Madison, etc and show no respect for the words they wrote.
People who use your argument toss out the Founders and say how ashamed they'd be. But any cursory examination of the historical documents and literature they wrote destroys every supposition conservatives put forth to this effort. There is simply no basis for it.
As for being a liberal Democrat, your godddamn right I am.
As for supporting the troops, I love every single one of them and I hope for nothing more than the day they are returned to their families and the people who love them and freed from the bloody, violent, brutal, unnecessary war our fool of President conned us into.
Actually, we welcomed home my brother-in-law in February. He was stationed in Tikrit.
Surprisingly, my pinko-communist-tied-dyed-FM-type-ass is descending from a long line of people who have served this country going back to the Civil War, when my great-great grandfather, the son of a German immigrant, fought for the Union.
My grandmother was stationed with a Med Evac unit in WWII, where her three brothers also served. Her older brother served in WWI.
And another in Korea. Another great uncle distinguised himself during WWII by securing a bridge during the campaign in Italy. He even got a medal.
My uncle served in Vietnam, my father the National Guard during the early 60's.
Both my mother and grandmother worked in the Veterans Administration as nurses, both for more than 60 years combined. You could say I've seen a side of war that most Republicans/conservatives/rightwing nutters don't like to talk about.
I have numerous cousins and friends who served and still serve.
My politics were largely influenced by Grandmother who served in WWII. She was an FDR Democrat and even in her 80's she saw straight through Reagan's bullshit.
That's about how American I am.
As to our enemies, well, their pretty fucking glad Republicans have been in charge. For one, no one has done anything to secure our ports. Then again, it's only been 6 years since 9/11. We still only inspect less than 5% of the cargo that comes into this country(btw - suitcase nukes - not feasible - ask a scientist, they know things).
Nevermind that the reports out today state very clearly that Al Qaeda has likely regained it's pre-9/11 strength. The various elements we face in Iraq(of which Al Qaeda makes up very little - approx. 1000-2000) are all reported as gaining strength.
The Iraqi government, despite the surge, is about to collapse. Turkey is threatening to invade Northern Iraq to take out the Kurds, the one ethnic group in Iraq that likes us(btw - do a little history on Western involvement in the middle east going back to the beginning of the last century until the present day and you might understand why they don't trust us).
Pakistan is in chaos and Musharraf's government could topple. We've sent Iran into bunker mode, so we can't possible even begin to approach that problem diplomatically.
If tornadoes in Kansas and hurricane Katrina are any evidence, so much of our National Guard equipment and personnel are in Iraq that we can't even respond to minor disasters effectively - how the fuck do we respond to a terrorist attack?
And, of course, the war in Iraq doesn't seem to have done much to prevent terrorists from striking all around the world. Why don't you aks our British allies what they think about the war? They're likely to quote Dick Cheney to you.
In fact, this war hasn't done anything to stop terrorism. Terrorist acts are at their highest levels in years. Terrorist recruitment at this point is probably out-pacing our own recruitment thanks to this war.
The surge has resulted in one of the deadliest periods for American soldiers and has proven uneffective. The Green Zone's not secure. Baghdad's a warzone. The Iraqi government didn't meet any of the benchmarks, despite what the President says.
Guess we should have grabbed Bin Laden at Tora Bora, eh?
Of course, if you were a student of history, you might refer to Bin Laden's strategy against the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan and the CIA provided bin Laden with top level training to recruit and lead a group of Islamic rebels known as muhajideen. Clearly out-numbered and out-gunned, the only alternative is to adopt a guerilla campaign(think Ethan Allen or Gen. Longstreet and the period when the Confederate Army moved north into PA). Hit and run. Bog them down. Make it a quagmire. Bleed them economically. Make it a financial strain.
There's no need for traditional victories. It's the same strategy our enemies have in Iraq. bin Laden wanted nothing more than to get us involved in an intractable Middle East conflict. The right decision and the one that was practical, possible and probable was Afghanistan - but we've pulled so many troops/resources from there that opium production has skyrocketed and outside Kabul the land is controlled largely by - the Taliban and warlords once again.
See, this is a Republican failure. Democrats - liberal Democrats - liberated Europe, Northern Africa and most of the Pacific in about 4 years. And they faced a foe that was far more potent, far better organized and far more dangerous.
And the nation - at that time - responded to the call of their President because they trusted him, they had faith in him. He didn't try to take away from them like Republicans want to do now. He didn't want to take away Social Security; he wanted them to have it. He wouldn't take away there healthcare; he'd make sure they had access to it. He wouldn't cut Pell grants; he'd really help the poor and middle class kids who can't afford college.
But the funny thing is, this President who wanted to do so much for the people he loved, the American people, well, this liberal Democrat(you could probably call him a socialist) after everything he tried to do for them, when the country was attacked, he spoke truthfully to them and they responded. They rallied to their President because he had been there for them; he wasn't the one who had pulled the rug out from under them.
That was the other guy...with the big fat "R" beside his name, who represented the party of hate, of fear, of greed, of violence, of false values, of division, of demogoguery; the guys who never do anything, they just take...more and more for themselves.
You know, maybe if Republicans didn't try to fuck the American people up the ass so many different ways, they might have stuck by you in the war. Then again, all they've done is ship their sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, off to a war with no end and no military solution; a war that is exacerbated by the very presence of US armed forces; a war that never had to happen.
What I hear from you, D-lie, is alot of fear. It's what I hear a lot of from most conservatives - it's what's really behind their words.
Well, a liberal Democrat once said something that I always thought was pretty important and very American -
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself"
You're afraid of other people's religions, of their lifestyles, of their customs, because they might be different from yours. You think you pray to the one true God and everyone else is wrong. They're all going to burn in hell. When you argue that "separation of Church and State" doesn't exist as an American value established by our Consitition, only because you cannot decipher the meaning James Madison intended, you're arguing for intolerance. You want to oppress people who aren't Christian. You want to make their kids say your prayers in our schools. When's the last time you heard about a Jehovah's Witness getting hell for refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance?
I am just so sick of conservatives/Republicans. There time has come and gone. They have wrecked this country and I really just have no patience for these childish, misinformed, revisionist arguments. This crap just has to be outright dismissed.
And on that...I've rambled on far too long.
Maria:
"They absolutely cannot have an argument without bringing up Clinton.
It must be part of the secret oath they take, or what they reply after receiving their sacrement of drinking the Kool-Aid."
Speak of Kool-Aid, you must be drinking from the same glass because of your obsession with bringing up things which have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. And let's not forget the liberal obsession with Rove, and Libby. Kool Aid? Hah!
I merely mention the fact that the term "Separation Of Church and State" does not exist in the Constitution and you libs jump all over me like I am snorting milk out of my nose all of your print outs from the DailyKos.
In the immortal words of Jack Nicholson:
"You can't handle the truth!"
Which pretty much should be the mottot of today's modern liberal Democrat.
"If tornadoes in Kansas and hurricane Katrina are any evidence, so much of our National Guard equipment and personnel are in Iraq that we can't even respond to minor disasters effectively - how the fuck do we respond to a terrorist attack?
You are referring to the Gov. Of Kansas who had the phone call with Howard Dean when he told her to "make use of this opportunity" even though enough equipment was already on hand to deal with that disaster? You should do your homework. Jim Quinn made this public and the Democratic National Committe sent him a cease and desist order. Quinn told them to shove that order up where the sun doesn't shine. From then on, the Democrats said nothing. Why? Because it was the truth and the Democrats know it. They used a scare tactic on Quinn to try to shut him him up, and when he didn't comply, they left.
Nnnnexxxt:
And, of course, the war in Iraq doesn't seem to have done much to prevent terrorists from striking all around the world. Why don't you aks our British allies what they think about the war? They're likely to quote Dick Cheney to you.
You mean like the way we haven't been hit by another terrorist attack here in the United States since 9/11? Our British allies are big enough to take care of themselves, and you should ask them why they are in denial about this being a war on terror, too. In fact, they do not call it that anymore. And since when it is our fault they do not do enough to protect themselves? We seem to be doing pretty well over here considering the fact we haven't had an attack since 9/11. Has it occured to you that the terrorists are all over the world? Where do you get your faulty information?
Nnnneeext:
In fact, this war hasn't done anything to stop terrorism. Terrorist acts are at their highest levels in years. Terrorist recruitment at this point is probably out-pacing our own recruitment thanks to this war."
It hasn't? Especially since we're fighting the terrorism on terrorism's home turf, instead of fighting it here at home. But, if you liberals had your way, we'd be fighting it at home because of your passion with declaring our efforts in the middle east a failure.
And please, do not bring up the military service of your family/cousins, them serving in the military does not justify your liberal mentality; although I do thank them for their service.
You just wasted perfectly good keystrokes on accomplishing absolutely nothing.
You just wasted perfectly good keystrokes on accomplishing absolutely nothing.
Sadly correct once again, Master Lie. 'Twere ever thus when attempting to reason with those who have no reason.
Not sure which was more ridiculous: Braden's argument or that he thought that raising the issue of whether the phrase "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution (for the record, IT'S NOT) means anything at all.
Wow...D-lie...you have know clue what you're talking about whatsoever.
People like you are exactly why this country is screwed.
Kansas - why don't you call up the man in charge of the National Guard in Kansas who said he could't respond to even a minor disaster like the tornadoes they recently?
That story about Howard Dean is completely fabricated. In fact, Kathy Sebelius, the Gov. of Kansas, was a Republican once, until about 2 years ago, when nearly the entire GOP leadership in Kansas collapsed because of defections to the Democratic Party because they were sick of how far to the right the Republican Party had gone.
Here's a tip - Jim Quinn=Full of Shit. Seriously, ten years ago the dude was rambling on about a secret UN army being trained to invade the US, black helicopters, orders written on the back of street signs...yeah, I'm quite familiar with Jim Quinn. And, frankly, I don't get my news from someone that was the second half of Quinn and Banana in the Morning.
As for my family serving, I have ever right to mention it when you impugn my patriotism. People like you think that you can just sully are love for this country, but the truth is that liberals put their lives on the line for this country just as much as anyone else. My politics were shaped by those who have served and spent their lives caring for Veterans.
Interesting that you don't deny wanting to impose your religion on other people. Interesting that you don't stand up and defend the rights of other people to practice their face.
It's also very interesting to hear what you say about the Brits. The Brits fucking get it, which you don't.
And the fact that they do get attacked, does matter, because this war was sold as the Central front on the war and you would think that after nearly 5 years, if it was effective, terrorist attaacks would be down, not up. You can't fight a war on a "tactic."
And that's great we haven't had another attack; too bad the one that killed 3,000 people happened on George W. Bush's watch. But you'll blame Clinton for that, obviously. Right?
Notice too how he can't refute that US intelligence reported just the other day that Al Qaeda is back to it's pre-9/11 strength. I guess that's an indication that it's working, huh?
All you off D-lie are the same tired responses that the administration gives, stupid bumper sticker slogans like, "We'll fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Explain exactly how the war is keeping them from coming over here? Seriously. Especially when, according to our own military, Al Qaeda numbers barely 1000 strong in Iraq. How is that exactly keeping them over there?
But just like a conservative/rightwing nutter, he doesn't care what effect his war is having on other people. He doesn't give a shit about the 4,000 who were killed for a war built on false pretenses. He doesn't care about the 25,000+ that have wounded, many of them seriously, who come home to Republicans that what to cut their VA benefits, who stored them away in a dilapidated Walter Reed. He doesn't care about the 10,000's of innocent Iraqi civilians that have died. He doesn't care about our allies and when they get attacked. With friends like that, who needs Islamic terrorists?
The only arguments you have, D-lie, are empty rhetoric - "Fight them over there," "We haven't been attacked since," blah blah blah...actually, I guess it's not that surprising you would quote Jim Quinn.
But this debate is beyond you. You know nothing about the history, traditions and values of our country. You can stand there and wave your flag and spout your reactionary viewpoints, but each one is like spitting on what the flag you love so much stands for. You don't know anything about military history. You don't know anything about the history of the Middle East and Western involvement in that region and what effect it's had. You'd do well to take a lesson from the Brits, who might know a thing or two more about dealing with terrorism since they dealth with the IRA all those years.
Of course, they never panicked. They didn't start stripping away habeus corpus and illegally wiretapping their own citizens. They didn't hold people in secret prisons. They didn't start invading countries. They didn't resort to torture(btw advance interrogation techniques was term first used by the Nazi's). And they didn't use it to scare the British people to get their way.
Jaywillie... Thanks for the great history lesson. I'm a terrible student of history and I really learned something from your responses.
DL - you truly are insane. I'm starting to feel bad for you. You have proven adept at getting people here a little hot and heavy, which I guess is worth something, but generally speaking I think you need to follow the advice of the fictional Jerry Seinfeld (he's Jewish - is that OK?) to George:
"You really need some help. A regular psychiatrist couldn't even help you. You need to go to, like, Vienna or something. You know what I mean? You need to get involved at the university level, like where Freud studied, and have all those people looking at you and checking up on you. That's the kind of help you need. Not the once-a-week for eighty bucks, no. You need a team. A team of psychiatrists working around the clock, thinking about you, having conferences, observing you -- like the way they did with the elephant man. That's what I'm talking about, because that's the only way you're going to get better."
Jaywillie:
You can't handle the truth!
That's the bottom line, given your liberal venom you just hissed at me.
Perhaps you'd like a one-way ticket to Communist China, where the Government there can take good care of you with all of their government-controlled programs.
Seriously, don't have a stroke. You'll be fine.
Do you get the feeling that Mr. D-L will end up on the evening news someday doing a perp walk?
Can someone get this guy pyschiatric help before he's crouching in a bell tower surrounded by the SWAT team?
Oh, D-lie, there you are.
I missed you, buddy.
Yeah, I can't handle the truth...LOL. That's pretty good.
Dude, look. I've hosed you. I've so completely eviscerated(big word) every argument(not that they were very good) that you tossed out that, at this point, for me to continuing gutting your intellect is an act of sadism.
And are conservatives so unimaginative that the best they can come up with is that "Why don't you move to China crap"? Don't answer that. It's rhetorical(another big word for you, D-lie).
But see...I love my country. I know what my country stands for. You have no clue. You think you do, because you wave a flag and support the President no matter what and hate fags and people who aren't Christians and probably single mothers and...well, I think everyone can moro or less figure out just how much of a biggot you are.
And I hate to break it to you, but since you're probably sitting there whacking off to pictures of Ann Coulter anyway, you happen to live in a country with quite a few government controlled programs. See, you probably thought we were a straight capitalist society...but like most Western democracies, we a mixture of that and SOCIALISM...ooh! There's a word you afraid of.
And where's the liberal venom? Is that what you say to everyone who offers cogent points to counter your flimsy, solipsistic and silly arguments?
Dude, there's not a thing I said you can refute. You just don't have the capacity. When I said this debate was beyond you, I was trying to do you a favor. You're in way over your head dealing with me. You just can't keep up. Sorry. I don't mean to hurt your feelings or come off as a complete jerk, but it's just not within you to go toe-to-toe with me in a debate.
You ain't ever met a liberal like me.
But please keep stopping by. I do enjoy this.
Jaywillie:
Just got back from vacation and surfed the lib blogs. Eliminate the fuck you conservative crap and I'll look forward to debating you. The rest of the libs on this blog are too kooky now, and can't keep up with any debate.
C'mon back and frequent this blog.
Forget it, X. He'll make you look just as silly as all we kooky latte-drinkin', Volvo-drivin', tree-huggin', yankee-lovin', celery-eatin', yoghurt-slurpin', beard-growin', America-hatin' libs do every time you gin up the nerve to show up here.
Wow X-Ranger we could team up and be friends, like the power rangers of the new real America.
You are my kind of guy, it a totally heterosexual way of course!
Post a Comment