Hot and Republican - does it get any better?

[RuMR]

This is the best thread ever.

[cracked]

Seven pages in less than 24 hours! jja doesn't spray much, but when he does....OMG!

[JoshK]

I haven't read the spray folder much lately, but had to jump in on this one too!

[Loose_Brie]

For those of you who are not familiar with a guy named Thomas Jefferson, here's what he said.

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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 & State.

 

But what would he know about the constitution.

[jjd]

How the hell did this turn from a thread fantasizing about plugging a couple of Bushes to a goddamn pissing match about abortion?

 

Anyway, my two cents:

All of you bible banging fire and brimstone fucking Rapture obsessed god squad holier than thou jesus freaks need to mind your own business. If you don't believe abortion is right, don't have one or don't impregnate a woman who might have one. That is a decision for you and your mate to decide. I don't give a damn what you do, just don't try to impose your morals on the rest of us. You do not and should not have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body, period. If you don't believe in the right to privacy, you can take your seat on the nuckle dragger wagon with your buddy Robert Bork. You deserve each other. You are free to continue worshipping your invisible man while the rest of us do our own thing. I won't intrude on your right to believe in Jesus, Buddha, Allah, 8' tall aliens with 7 eyes, or any other deity as long as you leave the rest of us alone.

[JoshK]

Thankfully the trend is slowly leaning towards a less religous society. Europe is well ahead of us. After witnessing the "wonders" of religion they are now referred to by many Anthropologist as a "Post-christian society" Their church attendance numbers are staggeringly low and a fraaction of what they are in the U.S. Obviously this has taken the greater part of 2 centuries, many wars, and plenty of bloodshed to manifest itself.

 

Do we think there is any way to push the Islamic world along this path in some accelerated manor, knowing what we do now? Or do we have to deal with heavily religious and agressive socities in that corner of the world for hundreds of years to come?

[jja]

When evaluating an argument against the consitution, like any historic document, you must take context into account. This is exactly what we have a supreme court for. Go read a selection of their rulings over the past 100 years and you'll find example after example of rulings made based on how the document needs to be re-interpreted for modern society.

 

NO Thanks !!

I'll take my constitution dead thankyou. This whole living constitution, re-interpretation for modern times stuff is rationalization for activists that can't get the country to agree with them in a democratic way, so instead they get activitist judges to re-interpret the constitution instead.

 

If you want change - pass a law, if you want fundamental change - pass a constitutional ammendment. qed.

[jja]

Thankfully the trend is slowly leaning towards a less religous society. Europe is well ahead of us. After witnessing the "wonders" of religion they are now referred to by many Anthropologist as a "Post-christian society" Their church attendance numbers are staggeringly low and a fraaction of what they are in the U.S. Obviously this has taken the greater part of 2 centuries, many wars, and plenty of bloodshed to manifest itself.

 

Do we think there is any way to push the Islamic world along this path in some accelerated manor, knowing what we do now? Or do we have to deal with heavily religious and agressive socities in that corner of the world for hundreds of years to come?

 

Anti religious bigotry is the last form of acceptable discrimination left in a PC world ... sigh.

[JoshK]

Thankfully the trend is slowly leaning towards a less religous society. Europe is well ahead of us. After witnessing the "wonders" of religion they are now referred to by many Anthropologist as a "Post-christian society" Their church attendance numbers are staggeringly low and a fraaction of what they are in the U.S. Obviously this has taken the greater part of 2 centuries, many wars, and plenty of bloodshed to manifest itself.

 

Do we think there is any way to push the Islamic world along this path in some accelerated manor, knowing what we do now? Or do we have to deal with heavily religious and agressive socities in that corner of the world for hundreds of years to come?

 

Anti religious bigotry is the last form of acceptable discrimination left in a PC world ... sigh.

 

That is not bigotry at all. I don't want a religous SOCIETY, meaning a government and society based on religion. I don't give a fuck what people do on their own time and for their own beliefs.

 

It's analogous to me saying I dont want a "white" or "black" society.

[JoshK]

When evaluating an argument against the consitution, like any historic document, you must take context into account. This is exactly what we have a supreme court for. Go read a selection of their rulings over the past 100 years and you'll find example after example of rulings made based on how the document needs to be re-interpreted for modern society.

 

NO Thanks !!

I'll take my constitution dead thankyou. This whole living constitution, re-interpretation for modern times stuff is rationalization for activists that can't get the country to agree with them in a democratic way, so instead they get activitist judges to re-interpret the constitution instead.

 

If you want change - pass a law, if you want fundamental change - pass a constitutional ammendment. qed.

 

So the supreme court is almost always comprised of "activist judges"?? Whatever, that is so stupid it doesn't even warrant discussion.

 

In fact, the very thing you ask for is impossible. There are places in the consitution that, like it or not, can be interpreted in many different ways. You obviously have a different interpretation of the curch and state clause than do others, Thomas Jefferson included. But like brie said, what does good ol TJ know?

 

The other obvious one is the 2nd amendment. Any sane person realizes it was not intented to arm the populace against each other with fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers.

 

Wait, am I thinking of somebody else, or are you a lawyer? Based on your arguments it seems like I am remembering wrong. There are a lot of two and three letter names on here starting with a "J"

[Loose_Brie]

When evaluating an argument against the consitution, like any historic document, you must take context into account. This is exactly what we have a supreme court for. Go read a selection of their rulings over the past 100 years and you'll find example after example of rulings made based on how the document needs to be re-interpreted for modern society.

 

NO Thanks !!

I'll take my constitution dead thankyou. This whole living constitution, re-interpretation for modern times stuff is rationalization for activists that can't get the country to agree with them in a democratic way, so instead they get activitist judges to re-interpret the constitution instead.

 

If you want change - pass a law, if you want fundamental change - pass a constitutional ammendment. qed.

 

Definition of an activist judge. A judge with a different opinion than yours.

[jja]

No I'm not a lawyer but I play one on tv. And I am the original 3 letter avatar, check my "regged on" date, certatinly I'm the first "j.." But If you get confused on who's who you can just check back to spray in November, I'll be the one gloating

 

 

.. and in my experience people that say it isn't worth their time to present an opposing argument, usually don't have a good one

[JoshK]

There is no argument to the statement about activist judges. I generally believe their open to be more valuable than yours, and I guess you wont change my mind about that. I'm not sure what "point" will prove if they are activists or not in somebody's view.

[Off_White]

GregW said:

Oh, fuck off, you bitter shrew. You know I'm not bitter, so don't even pull that shit. I've been nice to you, so don't make me hit below the belt. 'mkay? We all know that women trap men into impregnating them by batting their eyelashes, doing that hair-flip thing, and asking us to do odd jobs around their apartment in trade for home-cooked meals. It's a scientific fact, deal with it.

 

Hmmm, I think this more about the character of the women who find you attractive than any intrinsic characteristic of the gender.

[Bronco]

i am not bitter and the statement certainly wasn't uncalled for. you raised the specter of the abortion issue. i called you out on it.

 

No, you called out a five year old girl. That's cowardly. You also suggest I might see a potential abortion differently if it was my grandchild being considered. That's just personally offensive and would be to anyone with a heart. I guess I know where you stand.

 

You and your kind can have all the abortions you want as far as I'm concerned.

[jja]

Enough politics already, I wanna look at republican babes ...

 

 

Here's everyone's favorite right wing fire brand, Miss Ann Coulter

 

 

 

For the more brainy types out there I present Miss Laura Ingraham, Lawyer, former SC clerk, fox news commentator, and radio talk show host.

 

 

 

And how could I leave out a representative of the fox news babes, in all her info-tainment glory, here's Laurie Dhue.

 

 

 

And lastly back for an encore appearance, in my bid to extend the olive branch of bi-partisanship, Miss Eleanor Mondale - knowing exactly what to do with that cigar

 

[ashw_justin]

C'mon man we're dipping a little low in the barrel now aren't we?

 

Is Britney a republican?

Edited April 22, 2004 by ashw_justin

[jja]

Ok, how's this for top flight republican action, Miss Shannon Dougherty - the 90210 ice princess herself

 

“I'm a Republican...I'm a big supporter of President Bush.”- SD

 

 

[JoshK]

Ann Coulter is *not* attractive. I find her repulsive. The rest of them tho.

 

Alright, this was a lovely conversation, but I'm to climb some shit!

[cracked]

Ann Coulter is *not* attractive. I find her repulsive.

R U Ghey?

I'm to climb some shit!

Shuddup! F'in college students! Oh, wait, I think I'm missing something here.....

 

Well, I'm off to study some shit!

[Fairweather]

Fuck it all. I just wanted Kucinich for pres with Perot as his running mate. They're a perfect match!!

 

I've listened to Kucinich speak several times, and while his vision of America is 180 degrees from mine I must say that I honestly respect the man. He's articulate, intelligent, POLITE, knows what he believes, and does not waver or waffle.

 

Kucinich is a true patriot and an honest, civil alternative to GWBush. Too bad he's so wrong on so many ideas. I really like his persona.

[ashw_justin]

Yeah by coincidence I happened to be in Tucson when he spoke there. I couldn't help thinking that he reminded me in many ways, both politically and physically, like Perot... 'cept less of whack-job...

Edited April 22, 2004 by ashw_justin

[marylou]

This is the best thread ever.

 

Definitely right up there.

[ashw_justin]

 

Hello.

 

My name is Lauren Bush. I have unbuttoned the top two buttons of my blouse, exposing my bra the view of the audience, to symbolize my desire to feed all of the hungry children of the world from my generous bosom.

 

Thank You.

[jjd]