Nomination of judges

Originally posted by rwingett
The Republicans are in league with the Christian right, who are among the worst enemies of civilzation. The Republicans provide the Christian fundamentalists access to the political arena and a veneer of respectability that they would otherwise lack. Their utter defeat is a matter of the greatest importance if civilization is to move forward. Failure would ...[text shortened]... not from foreign terrorists, but from domestic Christian Fundamentalists. They are enemy no. 1.

So without the Christian right the Republican party would be "OK"?

Originally posted by whodey
So without the Christian right the Republican party would be "OK"?

No, they just wouldn't be the personification of evil. An Eisenhower style Republican would still be a bad thing, but perhaps not catastrophic.

Originally posted by rwingett
Don't you think that's a little extreme?

Much like Your post, eh? Get it?

F. GRANNY.

Originally posted by whodey
I just wanted to know from the liberals out there ahead of time, are you OK with the Republicans filibustering against the nominations of judges from a liberal president like Hillary in the near future the way that the liberals have filibustered against the nomination of Bush appointed judges? Is turn about fair play or is fairness only deemed fair if it fav ...[text shortened]... iberal now a days so they will probably be head over heels in love with the Hillary nominations.

What other systems are available for appointing judges?

It seems to me having political parties appoint them doesn't seem to lead to objectivity.

Originally posted by whodey
I just wanted to know from the liberals out there ahead of time, are you OK with the Republicans filibustering against the nominations of judges from a liberal president like Hillary in the near future the way that the liberals have filibustered against the nomination of Bush appointed judges? Is turn about fair play or is fairness only deemed fair if it fav ...[text shortened]... iberal now a days so they will probably be head over heels in love with the Hillary nominations.

Of course. And, unlike those scumbags a few years, we won't threaten to change the friggin constitution when we don't get our way.

Here's hoping we can elect some more dem's and not have to worry about all. Oh and maybe Scalia and Thomas can have a mild, but job-disqualifying, accident. Then we can harvest fetuses for the next 50 years! How else are we gonna get those fresh stem cells?

🙂

Originally posted by smw6869
Much like Your post, eh? Get it?

F. GRANNY.

Like my post? What are you talking about? There was nothing extreme about my post.

Originally posted by rwingett
No, they just wouldn't be the personification of evil. An Eisenhower style Republican would still be a bad thing, but perhaps not catastrophic.

OK, so I think I am getting to the bottom of things. The Christian right are the pure evil because you view them as wanting to have moral authoritarian control over you, correct? Next comes Eisenhower style Republicanism? What the heck is that?

Originally posted by whodey
OK, so I think I am getting to the bottom of things. The Christian right are the pure evil because you view them as wanting to have moral authoritarian control over you, correct? Next comes Eisenhower style Republicanism? What the heck is that?

That was the Republican Party before the Christian right infiltrated it. Republicans of that era were extremely moderate by today's standards. Even Nixon (despite all his personal failings). Look at some of the legislation he ushered in. Not exactly "Republican" by today's warped standards. Since then the Republican Party has been obsessed with two goals: undoing the New Deal, and making America a Christian theocracy. For years, the Republicans pandered to the latter constituency so they could enact the first goal, but that's coming back to haunt them as now the theocrats are holding greater and greater sway within the party. And if we want an example of a theocracy in action, we need look no further than Iran, or the Taliban run Afghanistan. Just substitute 'Christianity' for 'Islam' and you know what we're in for if the Christian right prevails.

Originally posted by rwingett
That was the Republican Party before the Christian right infiltrated it. Republicans of that era were extremely moderate by today's standards. Even Nixon (despite all his personal failings). Look at some of the legislation he ushered in. Not exactly "Republican" by today's warped standards. Since then the Republican Party has been obsessed with two goals: u ...[text shortened]... istianity' for 'Islam' and you know what we're in for if the Christian right prevails.

interesting, when do you think the moral majority took over? Do you think it started with Regan ('cause I think Bush Sr could of cared less)or is it when they took control of congress in the mid '90's. Any way you look at it, it is a recent developement. Do you think it paralles the rise of Islamic power as maybe a backlash?

Originally posted by StTito
interesting, when do you think the moral majority took over? Do you think it started with Regan ('cause I think Bush Sr could of cared less)or is it when they took control of congress in the mid '90's. Any way you look at it, it is a recent developement. Do you think it paralles the rise of Islamic power as maybe a backlash?

I think you see the first signs of it as early as the Goldwater era. But by the time of Reagan, the Christian takeover of the Republican Party was well underway. Hopefully that tide has crested, though, and there will be a backlash the other way. Hopefully a majority of the people (both Christian and secular) will realize that mixing politics with religion makes for both bad politics and bad religion.

Originally posted by rwingett
I think you see the first signs of it as early as the Goldwater era. But by the time of Reagan, the Christian takeover of the Republican Party was well underway. Hopefully that tide has crested, though, and there will be a backlash the other way. Hopefully a majority of the people (both Christian and secular) will realize that mixing politics with religion makes for both bad politics and bad religion.

So every one should be able to be a political creature except Christians? I thought politics is simply part of our makeup? I dare say that standing up for your beliefs and trying to force a theocracy down the throats of the masses are two different things. I am not saying that there are those who may be trying to do so, rather, I am saying that the majority I believe have no intention of creating a theocracy. For example, if you think that ending abortion rights as we know them today is creating a theocracy I would have to object most vehemently.

Originally posted by whodey
So every one should be able to be a political creature except Christians? I thought politics is simply part of our makeup? I dare say that standing up for your beliefs and trying to force a theocracy down the throats of the masses are two different things. I am not saying that there are those who may be trying to do so, rather, I am saying that the majorit ...[text shortened]... ion rights as we know them today is creating a theocracy I would have to object most vehemently.

We've been through this before. You're beginning to bore me now. There have been plenty of religious Presidents who have been able to keep their personal religious beliefs from interfering with their jobs. Their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution must take precedence over their allegiance to the bible while they're on the job. If you can't do that then you're not fit for public office. If you think you're being "oppressed" because of that, then that's just too bad.

Originally posted by telerion
How else are we gonna get those fresh stem cells?

Also, hepatotoxin-free virgin foetus liver makes a fine pâté.

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
Also, hepatotoxin-free virgin foetus liver makes a fine pâté.

Hey ChroniclyLeakyMarkOnAGrandFowl,

How the heck are ya? Long time no hear from you.

My poor old parenchymal cells have taken a beating over the years, but not so severly as to exceed the trauma I imposed on the old liver in my constant "fall" from grace while bounding from the limns of various philosophical trees and various branches of mathematics. But then chimps shouldn't climb. Or use math. 🙂

Originally posted by rwingett
We've been through this before. You're beginning to bore me now. There have been plenty of religious Presidents who have been able to keep their personal religious beliefs from interfering with their jobs. Their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution must take precedence over their allegiance to the bible while they're on the job. If you can't do that then you ffice. If you think you're being "oppressed" because of that, then that's just too bad.

Well we can't have me boring you can we? Apologies.

I would just like to say that ANY belief system can get in the way of "doing their job" as President. It really is a question of doing their job correctly, no? However, in your world those who are fundamentalists are incapable of doing thier jobs because of their beliefs. Therefore, I think what you have here is a fundaphobia.