REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Brilliant article by Rush Limbaugh

POSTED BY: SKYWALKEN
UPDATED: Friday, October 28, 2005 05:37
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6093
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:53 AM

SKYWALKEN


Rush Limbaugh has written a great article titled, "Holding Court: There's a crackdown over Miers, not a crackup." It's about the conservative reaction to President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers.

It's a good read:

Quote:

I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.

We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our principles. And that's the nature of our current debate over the nomination of Harriet Miers. Will she respect the Constitution? Will she be an originalist who will accept the limited role of the judiciary to interpret and uphold it, and leave the elected branches--we, the people--to set public policy? Given the extraordinary power the Supreme Court has seized from the representative parts of our government, this is no small matter. Roe v. Wade is a primary example of judicial activism. Regardless of one's position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their pro-abortion views on the nation. The Constitution empowers the people, through their elected representatives in Congress or the state legislatures, to make this decision.

Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of us. The court has conferred due process rights on terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay and benefits on illegal immigrants. It has ruled that animated cyberspace child pornography is protected speech, but certain broadcast ads aired before elections are illegal; it has held that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public building, but they can be displayed outside a public building; and the court has invented rationales to skirt the Constitution, such as using foreign law to strike down juvenile death penalty statutes in over a dozen states.

For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct threat to our Constitution and our form of government. The framers didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative republic. Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. We've witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more assurances this time--some proof. The left, on the other hand, sees the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda. They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda. So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat. It's time to call them on it. And that's what many of us had hoped and expected when the president made his nomination.

Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate among conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the right. They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of the GOP. They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's term and gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual, liberals don't understand conservatives and never will.

The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement. This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified in our objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had knockdown battles within the GOP. The result: Ronald Reagan won two massive landslides.

The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean; billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new propagandists like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton. And its favorite son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill Clinton.

The Democratic Party today is split over the war and a host of cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion. It wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. It can't decide what message to convey to the American people or how to convey it. And even its once- reliable allies in the big media aren't as influential in promoting the party and its agenda as they were in the past. The new media--talk radio, the Internet and cable TV--not only have a growing following, but have helped expose the bias and falsehoods of the big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News and the forged National Guard documents. Hence, circulation and audience is down, and dropping.

The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its presumed glory years. They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam, the entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate and Hurricane Katrina as the Great Depression. Beyond looking to the past for their salvation, the problem is that they continue to deceive even themselves. None of their comparisons are true. Meanwhile, we conservatives will continue to focus on making history.



If the genius Ann Coulter runs in 2008, Limbaugh should be her running mate. This conservative would take Coulter and Limbaugh any day over Bush and Cheney.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 12:44 PM

DARKJESTER


Rush is one of THE conservative voices in America today. You cannot write him off, or ignore him. The man has a remarkable mind.
I disagree with almost everything he says (especially his disparagement of liberals like me - I'm sure he wouldn't like my "truth about conservatives" speech either!) but the man is intelligent, articulate, and believes what he says. I give him points, and respect, for that.

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 12:59 PM

REALLYKAYLEE


integrity. it's what matters most in a (wo)man running for president. somehow i think we're a little better off with bush and cheney than coulter and limbaugh.




shakespeare: more words than God.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 1:06 PM

HOWARD


Do you people even realise how outside of
the USA the notion of anyone listening to
the likes of Rush Limbaugh is enough to
make millions of people die from laughing
so hard???!!!!

Its like Americans who believe FOX NEWS;
Europeans, Canadians, Mexicans etc don't
know whether to laugh or cry over the
madness of it!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 1:12 PM

KNIBBLET


What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg?
One's a flaming nazi gasbag and the other a durigible.

In the words of the flaming nazi gasbag: "Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of us."

If you don't like abortion - don't have one.

Keep your friggin hands and religion off my ovaries. Keep your prudish narrow-minded bigotry out of my bedroom and shut the hell up about your addictive need for superstition and how your favorite made up deity can beat up someone else's favorite made up deity.

Stop pretending to be the saviour of the downtrodden when what you're really after is more of what makes the world go round ... money, power and oil.

I used to be such a 'born again' prig. Once I gave up the idea on that train that never comes, I've been so much happier.

For those who found my comments offensive: I'm betting I'm offended more by the hubris of the current administration.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 1:25 PM

REALLYKAYLEE


"it's not a problem . . . 'cause it's not."

all-
don't make the crack up BETWEEN the parties any greater. issues are enough for that- personal attacks just make things messy.

shakespeare: more words than God.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 1:58 PM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:

Originally posted by Skywalken:
Rush Limbaugh has written a great article titled, "Holding Court: There's a crackdown over Miers, not a crackup." It's about the conservative reaction to President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers.

It's a good read:

Quote:

I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them.



I was laughing so hard by the time I got to this point that I had to stop here, so I have to admit I couldn't finish the whole article. Let me see if I get this right:

Rush is proud of his philosophy, that conservatives never hide their true beliefs, and that he is confident in his principles.

Sooooooooooo, why did a man who claimed for years that drug abusers should be given life imprisonment and that the ACLU was horrible for America get caught abusing Oxycontin, doctor shopping, and finally have to turn to the ACLU for help in defending himself from charges that he himself petitioned on-air for?

Sorry, after those shenannigans, Rush could tell me the sky was blue and water was wet and I'd go get a second opinion. He did get one thing right though. "Unapologetic." Because I don't think he's ever apologized for any of his blatant hypocrisies.

7%

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 3:14 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


This was brought to my mind only by the word “originalist” in an article about the Supreme Court and is thus slightly tangential

Does anyone else find it odd that it is traditionally those who strongly support the right to bear arms as a result of the Second Amendment that talk about the value of originalism?

By definition an originalist is one who follows the original intent of the constitution, by the English language:
Quote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

the intent of the Second Amendment was to strengthen a well regulated militia. As such an originalist in the Supreme Court would be forced to decide that either:
a) The Militia should be reinstated
b) The right to bear arms is not protected by the Second Amendment at this time

The National Guard does its job quite nicely and, to my knowledge, it is not in the power of the court to reinstate the militia anyway. As such an originalist in the court would be forced to overturn any gun rights claimed to result from the second amendment.

To some this seems the best of all possible outcomes, to others it seems the loss of one of the most important rights. Regardless of your position on the matter I think it’s clear that what a Second Amendment supporter does not want is an originalist in the Supreme Court reading the second amendment.

-

The way this is written it might give the impression that I am against the right to bear arms, I’m not. I just see this as an odd little quirk, one of many present on all sides of American politics. No matter how hard I try I can not see it as anything other than people want a judge in office who takes an originalist reading of their job, but a liberal (not in the political sense) reading of the issues.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 4:28 AM

CONSCIENCE


Quote:

Originally posted by Knibblet:
If you don't like abortion - don't have one.



That argument is exactly like a slave owner saying, "if you don't like slavery - don't own a slave."

Damn, you baby killing supporters are such incompassionate morons!

Any honest neurologist will tell you that a human fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. This is probably a conservatively late estimate, but it is scientifically solid. Elements of the pain-conveying system (spino-thalamic system) begin to be assembled at 7 weeks; enough development has occurred by 12-14 weeks that some pain perception is likely, and continues to build through the second trimester. By 20 weeks, the spino- thalamic system is fully established and connected.

There are three different indicators providing evidence that the fetus feels pain.

1. Anatomical
- pain receptors spread over the body in stages: 8-16 weeks
- pain impulse connections in the spinal cord link up and reach the thalamus (the brain's reception center): 7-20 weeks (summarized by Anand, K.J.S., Atlanta)

2. Physiological/Hormonal
- fetuses withdraw from painful stimulation
- two types of stress hormones, normally released by adults subjected to pain, are released by adults subjected to pain, are releases in massive amounts by the fetus subjected to a needle puncture to draw a blood sample:
(a) from 19 weeks onward (N. Fisk; London, England)
(b) from 16 weeks onward (J. Partch; Kiel, Germany)

3. Behavioral
- withdraw from pain
- change in vital signs

A 20-30 week old fetus actually will feel more pain than an adult. The period between 20-30 weeks is a uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop.

Below is a graphical represenation depicting this mis-match in pain detection and pain modification:



Dr. Paul Ranalli is a neurologist at the University of Toronto and acting president of the de Veber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research. He is also Vice-President of Canadian Physicians For Life.

In testimony before the House Constitution Subcommittee, Professor Robert White confirmed that the 'fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain.... Without question, all of this is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure."

http://www.physiciansforlife.ca

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 4:49 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Howard:
Do you people even realise how outside of
the USA the notion of anyone listening to
the likes of Rush Limbaugh is enough to
make millions of people die from laughing
so hard???!!!!



Aw, go suck on a mango, amigo.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 4:52 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Knibblet:
What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg?
One's a flaming nazi gasbag and the other a durigible.

In the words of the flaming nazi gasbag: "Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of us."

If you don't like abortion - don't have one.

Keep your friggin hands and religion off my ovaries. Keep your prudish narrow-minded bigotry out of my bedroom and shut the hell up about your addictive need for superstition and how your favorite made up deity can beat up someone else's favorite made up deity.

Stop pretending to be the saviour of the downtrodden when what you're really after is more of what makes the world go round ... money, power and oil.

I used to be such a 'born again' prig. Once I gave up the idea on that train that never comes, I've been so much happier.

For those who found my comments offensive: I'm betting I'm offended more by the hubris of the current administration.




Hmmm...offensive anyone? Nothing like unintelligent ad hominem attacks to bolster your case.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 5:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Any honest neurologist will tell you that a human fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. This is probably a conservatively late estimate, but it is scientifically solid. Elements of the pain-conveying system (spino-thalamic system) begin to be assembled at 7 weeks; enough development has occurred by 12-14 weeks that some pain perception is likely, and continues to build through the second trimester. By 20 weeks, the spino- thalamic system is fully established and connected.
And yet there are many honest neurologists who say this is not so. However. let's assume for the sake of argument that you are correct and a fetus feels pain. Does this mean that you have no objections to abortions before approximately 14 weeks, or to abortions performed where the fetus is anesthetized?

If you still object to abortions under those conditions then your argument is perhaps a little dishonest and does not reveal your true opinion. I would be happy to discuss this, but only if it's an honest discussion.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 5:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

KNIBBLET: What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg? One's a flaming nazi gasbag and the other a durigible.

CAUSAL: Hmmm...offensive anyone? Nothing like unintelligent ad hominem attacks to bolster your case.

Offensive??? Hell no! I spewed coffee all over the monitor when I read this, and ran around the lab repeating the joke to everyone who could understand it through the chuckling!

Thanks for the laugh Knibblet!

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 7:07 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

Thanks for the laugh Knibblet!




That was a good line. I chuckled myself. I also laughed at the thought of Howard and millions of fer-ners dying laughing because some of us listen to Rush.

Good lines both. Good lines is all they have. They can't oppose Rush on the merits of his ideas. Personal attacks are all they can muster. Don't forget, he's fat too.

Liberals have won one out of five national elections in the last 10 years (two of the last 25). And that one was really a draw, since the Republicans kept control of the Congress. That was because Ronald Reagan and his philosophical successors like Limbaugh, have spent decades educating the American people about conservatism. Until the liberals can articulate ideas that appeal to the majority of Americans across the entire nation (not just in Kerry and Kennedy's worker's parasise), they will continue to lose.

Look at Ohio. Here we have a Republican Governor with the lowest approval rating in history and two Senators who are disliked from Erie to the Ohio. Are any of these seats vulnerable to democrats. Ask anyone outside Ohio and the answer is yes, send money. Here in the state, however, the answer is a deafening NO. We may not be voting for those guys, but we sure aint voting for your guys, so the Republicans will put up someone better and keep control, Democrats will spend millions and do no better then they did last time or spend much less and do no worse.

The reason is that the American voting public has been saturated with liberal and conservative ideas. They know the difference and they're choosing accordingly. Even the West Wing, a science fiction show about 'honost demorcrats', ackowledges how little the party has in common with the average Democratic voter, much less the populace in general.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 7:08 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

KNIBBLET: What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg? One's a flaming nazi gasbag and the other a durigible.

CAUSAL: Hmmm...offensive anyone? Nothing like unintelligent ad hominem attacks to bolster your case.

Offensive??? Hell no! I spewed coffee all over the monitor when I read this, and ran around the lab repeating the joke to everyone who could understand it through the chuckling!

Thanks for the laugh Knibblet!

Please don't think they give a shit.



Actually, I thought the joke was pretty funny, myself. I consider myself right of center, but I still can't stand Limbaugh. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that the thread title is the first time I've ever seen the words "Limbaugh" and "genius" in the same sentence.

However. I do take umbrage to all the other shit she spewed out there. I can't imagine something more offensive than the whole made-up deity thing.

I just had to defend myself against the allegation that I was in some way supporting/defending/endorsing Limbaugh.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 8:54 AM

DIETCOKE


Quote:

Originally posted by reallykaylee:
integrity. it's what matters most in a (wo)man running for president. somehow i think we're a little better off with bush and cheney than coulter and limbaugh.




shakespeare: more words than God.



Yep. I have to agree with you that I think we're better off with Bush and Cheney. Rush I think is too pompus and rude in his delivery and does not speak for all Republicans.

Some of us Republicans believe in the that a woman has a right to choose, and that gay marriage is fine.

NY/NJ Browncoats: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firefly_nyc

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 9:58 AM

MIKEYMO


Quote:


Look at Ohio. Here we have a Republican Governor with the lowest approval rating in history and two Senators who are disliked from Erie to the Ohio. Are any of these seats vulnerable to democrats. Ask anyone outside Ohio and the answer is yes, send money. Here in the state, however, the answer is a deafening NO. We may not be voting for those guys, but we sure aint voting for your guys, so the Republicans will put up someone better and keep control, Democrats will spend millions and do no better then they did last time or spend much less and do no worse.


Actually, the senators aren't all that disliked, mostly because they show their independence from the Republican Party from time to time. Voinovich's remarks about Bolton earned him some of the highest praise any politician in Ohio's gotten in years -- he also won reelection in 2004 with about 62% of the vote (the fact that the Dems ran such a nobody against him is proof that he isn't considered vulnerable by any stretch of the imagination). He's very much in the mold of McCain. Mike DeWine broke ranks with ANWAR, and while he's more vulnerable, it's mostly because of the rampant corruption in the Ohio Republican Party rather than his own record.

Gotta say, I wouldn't bet on continued Republican dominance in '06, Hero. Granted, it's largely because of how badly the Republicans have been screwing up, rather than popular support for the Ohio Democratic Party.

Assuming the race for Gov. is between Blackwell and Strickland (the current front-runners), I think Strickland will win by an impressive margin. The major reason Bush carried the state was because of high turnout for him in rural areas, where Strickland is likely to either break even or win outright over Blackwell. Blackwell's far-right stances and his relative distance from the party establishment will probably win him the Republican nomination, but I don't think he has a chance in hell in the general. In short, there'll probably be some Ohio house cleaning come '06.


"Be ashamed to die before you have scored some victory for humanity." -- Horace Mann

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 10:09 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Conscience:


A 20-30 week old fetus actually will feel more pain than an adult. The period between 20-30 weeks is a uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop.


The pain you refer to cannot be comprehended by a brain that undeveloped. It's akin to you touching a piece of ice without looking, and retracting before you've even decided whether it's hot OR cold.
Should you never kill a bug, because it reacts to 'pain'?
A developing fetus is like a bus to the world. What, you missed that one due to an abortion? Catch the next one, stupid.
How many people born and alive must suffer agonizing mental or physical pain their whole lives? Only THEY CAN comprehend every single moment.
I know what's next: "How would YOU feel if you had been aborted at 20 weeks, huh?"
The answer: Probably not much at all; AND, I'd be too busy lookin' for the next bus to dwell on it anyway.

Let's focus on caring for the people who make it here.

Life IS pain, get over it Chrisisall

P.S. Where can I git my hands on one of them 'pain modifyin' systems you talkin' about? I never got one!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 10:19 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Skywalken:
Rush Limbaugh has written a great article titled, "Holding Court: There's a crackdown over Miers, not a crackup."

Don't be too impressed. That's the drugs talkin'.

Chrisisall on pain medication for his hangnail

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 1:10 PM

RICKKER


Bwahhahhahahaa. That was the funninest thing I've read in a while. The whole tax cut hting I love it. Who got the tax break? The wealthy and corporations. Freedom of speach? yea, right anti-Bush/Republican = anti-american. All Rush has ever done is preach his beliefs as fact and blatently ignoring what anyone else has to say. Everything the Right has said they would do and what they did were rairly the same thing. Never in Bush Jr.s terms. Everything they do is for their religion. MONEY. The religious right is so wrong it's well its funny. These "Christians" follow the Republicans because they hate. I personally detest abortion. I will fight for someones right to choose. I won't even start on my beliefs on gays and gay marrage. We need to start over Both parties arr corrupted. We need to find a new way of thinking that is neither just one way or another. We need to be able to work together and find compromise on what is best for everyone. That is rairly found in one persons point of view. I am a Christian, just not "God fearing". Oh yea, Didn't Rush pop pain pills like candy. Whata hero.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 2:31 PM

CANTTAKESKY


I started laughing when I saw the words "brilliant" and "Limbaugh" in the same line.

My hubby and I have a conspiracy theory that Limbaugh is actually a liberal shill pretending to be conservative, very badly, in order to discredit everything conservative. It's the best explanation we can come up with for how he still has a job--cause he sure isn't helping his own cause.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 24, 2005 3:01 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I can't imagine something more offensive than the whole made-up deity thing.
I assume ALL deities are made up, don't you? I more or less toss Jove and Minerva into the same bag as the ocelot god, Harvey, Jaweh, Moloch, Tiamat, and Shiva. I guess I'm just an equal-opportunity offender.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:14 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:
By definition an originalist is one who follows the original intent of the constitution, by the English language:
Quote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

the intent of the Second Amendment was to strengthen a well regulated militia. As such an originalist in the Supreme Court would be forced to decide that either:
a) The Militia should be reinstated
b) The right to bear arms is not protected by the Second Amendment at this time

The National Guard does its job quite nicely and, to my knowledge, it is not in the power of the court to reinstate the militia anyway. As such an originalist in the court would be forced to overturn any gun rights claimed to result from the second amendment.

If you assume that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” actually means that the right should be infringed then you might have a point. But that’s not what it says. It says that since the framers of the Constitution believed that the states should have a Well Regulated Militia then the people should have the Constitutional right to form that Militia. What you are saying is since the people have not necessarily formed that Militia that the right should be taken away, but no where in the Constitution does it say that a right is lost if it is not exercised. So an originalist would insist that the right to keep and bear arms exists whether or not modern societies views the right necessary or not.

On another point, I would say this quite clearly defines the Postmodern Conservative philosophy as I’ve understood it.

“Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.”

And if those outside the US (or inside the US) wish to despise Americans for holding such beliefs, I think they should have such freedom.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 3:54 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I more or less toss Jove and Minerva into the same bag as the ocelot god, Harvey, Jaweh, Moloch, Tiamat, and Shiva.

Say what you want about the rest, but please don't dis Shiva!!
I have a personal relationship with her, you know.
You know Signy, not everything's a joke! I'm secure in my belief, but when people make fun of Shiva, she sometimes instructs me to do some damage!!
(She speaks through my cat)

Hey! Little angels...gettin' all bendy....

Anyway, let's try to be a little more tolerant, okay?

Chrisisall, respectin' everyone's right to believe stupid s**t....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 4:25 AM

ROCKETJOCK


Quote:

Originally posted by Conscience:


Any honest neurologist will tell you that a human fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks.



As a reminder, Roe V Wade established a right to abortion only during the first trimester. That's twelve weeks, not twenty. They were trying to set a compromise position, one that reasonable people could differ over but accept.

But even so, the ability to feel pain is not the primary criteria for humanity. A dog can feel pain. So can a white rat. So can a cockroach. Some have even argued that plants can feel pain.

The conservative viewpoint in this area is that the embryo is human at the moment of conception; this is based not upon logic or scientific knowledge, but upon a religious dogma, one not shared by all religions even within Christianity. (As an example, Hinduism states that the soul (prana) enters the infant with its first breath (also prana).

I'll admit, at some point in the gestation process the fetus crosses a line, and becomes human. I don't know where that line is. But it's pretty obvious it's further on than twelve weeks.

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 4:33 AM

ROCKETJOCK


Quote:

Originally posted by Skywalken:
: We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in... a color-blind society...



Huh? Excuse me, I was born in the fifties and grew up in the sixties. Back then, racial equality was a crazy liberal daydream. J. Edgar Hoover, you might recall, worked on the principal that the Civil Rights Movement received its orders direct from Moscow, since obviously Negroes couldn't have possibly organized the thing themselves.

And before anyone accuses me of being Liberal, let me announce that I'm a registered Libertarian, and them's fighting words, podner.

"You cant enslave a free man; the worst you can do is kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:14 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

I can't imagine something more offensive than the whole made-up deity thing.
I assume ALL deities are made up, don't you? I more or less toss Jove and Minerva into the same bag as the ocelot god, Harvey, Jaweh, Moloch, Tiamat, and Shiva. I guess I'm just an equal-opportunity offender.



What you happen to believe isn't what's eating at me, see. It's only common decency to allow others the dignity of their own opinions, even (especially) when those opinions contradict your own. So from that point of view, I've no problem at all that you and Knibblet think that all deities are made up. As an individual with a lifelong love of philosophy, that's an opinion I respect a great deal because much serious thought has gone into by many great thinkers. What gets me, though, about Knibblet's original post was not her assertion that all deities were made up. It was her absolute insistence upon it and the implication that those who believe in said deities were imbecilic "prigs". Now, she's all entitled to her own opinion. But what she said was assinine and childish, not so much for the content but for the bald-faced insensitivity to anyone on the board who happened to be a theist.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:56 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by RocketJock:
Huh? Excuse me, I was born in the fifties and grew up in the sixties. Back then, racial equality was a crazy liberal daydream. J. Edgar Hoover, you might recall, worked on the principal that the Civil Rights Movement received its orders direct from Moscow, since obviously Negroes couldn't have possibly organized the thing themselves.

Yeah, and obviously Postmodern Liberals are smelly drug addicted communist hippies, because 45 years ago some were.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 5:30 AM

HARDWARE


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:
By definition an originalist is one who follows the original intent of the constitution, by the English language:
Quote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

the intent of the Second Amendment was to strengthen a well regulated militia. As such an originalist in the Supreme Court would be forced to decide that either:
a) The Militia should be reinstated
b) The right to bear arms is not protected by the Second Amendment at this time

The National Guard does its job quite nicely and, to my knowledge, it is not in the power of the court to reinstate the militia anyway. As such an originalist in the court would be forced to overturn any gun rights claimed to result from the second amendment.

If you assume that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” actually means that the right should be infringed then you might have a point. But that’s not what it says. It says that since the framers of the Constitution believed that the states should have a Well Regulated Militia then the people should have the Constitutional right to form that Militia. What you are saying is since the people have not necessarily formed that Militia that the right should be taken away, but no where in the Constitution does it say that a right is lost if it is not exercised. So an originalist would insist that the right to keep and bear arms exists whether or not modern societies views the right necessary or not.

On another point, I would say this quite clearly defines the Postmodern Conservative philosophy as I’ve understood it.

“Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.”

And if those outside the US (or inside the US) wish to despise Americans for holding such beliefs, I think they should have such freedom.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.



Actually, if you look at the preamble to the Constitution it pretty clearly underlines what the 2nd ammendment is all about;
Quote:


2.2 That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
2.3 Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
2.4 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.


The founding fathers intended for the means to throw off a corrupt and despotic government, or form a militia, be available to the people. In any event, concentrating on the definition of the word "right" or "people" if disingenuous. The power to possess arms belongs to the people, not the government.

In the year 2005 we have seen monstrous attacks on the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th ammendments in the Kelo and Reich decisions and the handling of hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. I never thought I'd live to see the courts and government wipe their asses with the Bill of Rights. Right now you could march the representative, executive and judicial branches into the showers and all I'd say is good riddance to bad rubbish.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 28, 2005 5:37 AM

DREAMTROVE


I'm going to say well said, Rush. I occassionally have problems with Rush, I'm not sure he's the conservative he claims to be. He is too often spouting a Bush line or one of his corporate sponsors, but maybe this is a sign he's coming around. I have to disagree with one post, If Ann Coulter were running in a primary against George W. Bush, she'd get my vote. I also have to disagree with Rush on Reagan. Reagan in the primary was a fierce fight because it was a hostile take over. Reagan's campaign was assembled by a marriage of the social democrats and christian right. If someone needs a source, just check wikipedia, I'm sure they'll bear that out. Anyway, that split was ended by a compromise making Bush Sr. the VP. A similar split in the 90s cost us two elections. I think that the right is not as stable as Rush likes to believe, but I agree it's not splitting up right now. I think the moderates and the wingnuts are teaming up to oppose the neocons, and they will win. When they do, the neocons will have a choice to either support the new republican leadership, or become democrats.

A note to democrats, I don't envy you if the neocons come to join your side again. You know this will have happened if Hillary Clinton is on your ticket in '08. I hope someone here gets what

I've been trying to say, which is Cheney and Clinton are old buds, and members of the same inner circle. They were both members of neocon think tanks, and they worked extensively and corruptly together in the 90s.

Everyone who is getting mad at Bush because he's a conservative or supporting him for that reason is missing the point.

In Bush/Cheney, Cheney wears the pants, and Cheney is Clinton. If this were an all right wing forum I'd just call Cheney a stealth leftie and leave it at that, but in deference to democrats I'll agree to settle on Cheney/Clinton are an it-thing which has invaded politics.

Also, PS. I don't think it's productive to have left/right bashing. The arguments: 'Damn liberals' and 'Damn conservatives' aren't going to get us anywhere. I get that liberals care about a set of issues, and they think that a certain set of solutions will solve those issues. I happen to disagree on both counts, but I get that's what they care about. If I want to argue with liberals I'm not going to say "oh give it up and join the right or get out." I'm probably going to say "Don't elect Hillary Clinton if that's what you want, because Hillary is married to Bill who is a member of the trilateral commission, and buds with most of the neocons, hence, Hillary is a neocon, and it will be exactly like re-electing Bush, only afterwards instead of the majority of the assault on the lock step mirror image policies coming from kneejerk liberals it will be coming from kneejerk conservatives."


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts
Tucker Carlson
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:24 - 132 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL