ALITO WIFE LEAVES HEARING IN TEARS AFTER DEM ATTACK

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

If Ginsburg was approved by such a majority because she answered in a direct manner, and you draw no distinction between the directness of Ginsburg's and Alito's answers, how do you predict 25-30 votes less for Alito?

this spot is a very critical one, it is the swing vote on this court. ginsburg wasn't near as pivital.

and it's an election year...

You said earlier that a party line vote on Alito would be "business as usual" for Washington, that nothing has changed in 50 years. The votes on Ginsburg and Breyer prove otherwise.

no, I said the committee hearings were "business as usual". didn't mention anything about a "party line vote".

here's some others. Whatever you want to read of this list, 22 votes against, or 35 votes against such qualified candidates as Alito and Roberts is not the norm.


Roberts 78-22
Thomas was 52-48
Kennedy was 97-0
Bork was Borked 42-58
Scalia was 98-0
O'Connor was 99-0
Stevens was 98-0
Rehnquist was 68-26

IMO alito is qualified, he was nominated by the pres and unless there is a critical flaw, a compelling reason, the senate should defer to the pres's selection and confirm.

he isn't what I want to see on the court tho. he is a very narrow thinker in many ways, and he's chosen the wrong course on a couple of occasions. the failure to recuse himself on the vanguard case, after he assured the confirmation committee that he would, reveal a defect IMO. the pandering in his job applications.

so the bottom line is to get similar votes as rehnquist might be about as good as alito (and the pres) should hope for.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

this spot is a very critical one, it is the swing vote on this court. ginsburg wasn't near as pivital.

and it's an election year...

Oh, so when you said Ginsburg might have received such a majority due to the directness of her answers, what you really meant was that the voters didn't care because it wasn't a swing vote or an election year? What, they didn't think she'd be judicially or politically important? (and presumably nor were any of the other (near)unanimous confirmations?) Please.

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I would say that it is business as usual, which is to say that nothing has changed in washington over the last 50 years

"it" in the above two sentences refers to "when the vote falls along straight party lines."

First, how can you say your response here does not refer to the vote itself?
Second, are you suggesting that the vote is not part of the confirmation process?
Third, if the confirmation process is the same as it's been for the past however many years, why would the voters vote differently? Are they voting on the nominee or not?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Mavie is really an intelligent guy but he just can't bring himself to admit what a pathetic excuse for an honest political party his dems have become. They are willing to blow up any and all institutions to try and get Ted Kennedy back in charge of the the Senate Judicial Panel.

I guess you're right, dude. I mean, I know he's intelligent, but I suppose he is in denial about the state of his pathetic, failed, bitter party.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Oh, so when you said Ginsburg might have received such a majority due to the directness of her answers, what you really meant was that the voters didn't care because it wasn't a swing vote or an election year? What, they didn't think she'd be judicially or politically important? (and presumably nor were any of the other (near)unanimous confirmations?) Please.

the affirmation of ginsburg was due to her credentials, her abilities, and her responses to the committee's questions being acceptable. she was and is no "radical activist"...

IMO alito is viewed as sitting in a special position, a different one as it were due to the balance of the court resting on that specific spot. the swing vote does make a difference, as does the fact that it is an election year. voters have a short memory.

all the justices are important. all the confirmation hearings are important. if the makeup of the court was different, if alito wasn't the swing vote (as o'connor has been many times) I'd expect the senate vote to be different than I predict it wil be.

you don't see alito's spot as a swing vote? you don't view o'connor as the pivotal vote, and hence her replacement occupying a similar special importance? as you said "please"

"it" in the above two sentences refers to "when the vote falls along straight party lines."

First, how can you say your response here does not refer to the vote itself?
Second, are you suggesting that the vote is not part of the confirmation process?
Third, if the confirmation process is the same as it's been for the past however many years, why would the voters vote differently? Are they voting on the nominee or not?

my mistake, i didn't go back and re-read the post.

I believe the committee will fall along mostly party lines.

If your point is that washington has become more partisan over the last half century, I would agree.

I also see this particular nomination, as discussed above in its importance to the decisions in the future, as emphasising a somewhat uniqueness.

[kg_veteran]

she was and is no "radical activist"...

The term "radical" certainly depends upon your perspective, but I think most people would agree that the ACLU is an activist organization, and Ginsburg was head of the Womens Rights Project for the ACLU when she was an attorney there in the 1970's. Given that the ACLU was (and is) on the liberal fringe of American politics, I think the term "radical" also is accurate and applies...

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The term "radical" certainly depends upon your perspective, but I think most people would agree that the ACLU is an activist organization, and Ginsburg was head of the Womens Rights Project for the ACLU when she was an attorney there in the 1970's. Given that the ACLU was (and is) on the liberal fringe of American politics, I think the term "radical" also is accurate and applies...

the aclu is "on the liberal fringe" only if one views the preservation of american's civil rights as only a "liberal" cause, and those who seek to maintain those rights as on the "fringe".

IMO working to preserve individual rights from encroachment by the state is anything but "radical", it is the bedrock of american political thought.

I'm surprised that you view the conservative wing of american politics as against the preservation of our civil rights...

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the aclu is "on the liberal fringe" only if one views the preservation of american's civil rights as only a "liberal" cause, and those who seek to maintain those rights as on the "fringe".

That's where you and I differ. You think that the ACLU is about preservation of civil rights; I think they are about promotion of an agenda. For instance, they want freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. They fight for the freedom of a woman to abort but not the freedom of her child to live. If you are a pornographer, you should have freedom of speech, but not if you are a student at a Texas high school football game who wants to pray before kickoff.

I am strongly in favor of civil rights and don't like seeing those rights infringed, but I also could not disagree more with many of the positions taken by the ACLU.

NOTE: This is not to say that the ACLU has never taken the correct position on an issue or done anything noble or noteworthy. It's simply to say that many times, they haven't.

IMO working to preserve individual rights from encroachment by the state is anything but "radical", it is the bedrock of american political thought.

I'm surprised that you view the conservative wing of american politics as against the preservation of our civil rights...

Typical Mavdog. It's really not very becoming of you to put words in my mouth.

The ACLU promotes a lot more than individual rights, although I don't expect you to be able to recognize that.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

That's where you and I differ. You think that the ACLU is about preservation of civil rights; I think they are about promotion of an agenda. For instance, they want freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. They fight for the freedom of a woman to abort but not the freedom of her child to live. If you are a pornographer, you should have freedom of speech, but not if you are a student at a Texas high school football game who wants to pray before kickoff.

you're correct, the aclu DOES have an agenda. that agenda is the preservation of the individual right to not be trampled. the right of the individual to embrace a religion that is not the majority, and to be free from having that majority religion forced upon the individual. the pornographer has right of free speeh, and those who want the pornographer's work have the right to that as well.

what they don't have iis the right to force others to participate in the pornography, just like that texas high school student has the right to their religion and to pray before kickoff, but not the right to force others to participate.

I fail to understand what argument can be made that the texas high school student has a right and a need to pray in a public manner rather than private.

I am strongly in favor of civil rights and don't like seeing those rights infringed, but I also could not disagree more with many of the positions taken by the ACLU.

I expect that you truly are an advocate of individual rights. the aclu is established for that very goal.

NOTE: This is not to say that the ACLU has never taken the correct position on an issue or done anything noble or noteworthy. It's simply to say that many times, they haven't.

there are times that one has to hold their nose while defending the rights of say the nazis to be nazis. that is when it's difficult, but the right must be protected and defended nevertheless.

Typical Mavdog. It's really not very becoming of you to put words in my mouth.

The ACLU promotes a lot more than individual rights, although I don't expect you to be able to recognize that.

no, they were your words. the defense of civil rights is neither "liberal" nor "radical".

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you're correct, the aclu DOES have an agenda. that agenda is the preservation of the individual right to not be trampled.

Nope, it goes far beyond that.

the right of the individual to embrace a religion that is not the majority, and to be free from having that majority religion forced upon the individual.

The lengths to which the ACLU goes to exclude religion from the public arena go far beyond trying to protect people from having religion "forced on them."

the pornographer has right of free speeh, and those who want the pornographer's work have the right to that as well.

what they don't have iis the right to force others to participate in the pornography, just like that texas high school student has the right to their religion and to pray before kickoff, but not the right to force others to participate.

I'm not sure you understand how prayer works.

That high school student has the right to pray publicly, and that does not constitute forcing religion on people. It constitutes that high school student's right to freedom of speech and religious expression.

I fail to understand what argument can be made that the texas high school student has a right and a need to pray in a public manner rather than private.

Right to pray publicly? Um, that's called freedom of religious expression.

Need to pray publicly? Again, freedom of religious expression. Who are you to dictate what I need to do because of my faith?

I expect that you truly are an advocate of individual rights. the aclu is established for that very goal.

That is its stated goal, true.

no, they were your words. the defense of civil rights is neither "liberal" nor "radical".

The term I used was liberal, and the ACLU most certainly is. By contrast, a good example of a conservative organization that is dedicated to defense of civil rights is the Rutherford Institute.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Nope, it goes far beyond that.

The lengths to which the ACLU goes to exclude religion from the public arena go far beyond trying to protect people from having religion "forced on them."

I'm not sure you understand how prayer works.

That high school student has the right to pray publicly, and that does not constitute forcing religion on people. It constitutes that high school student's right to freedom of speech and religious expression.

Right to pray publicly? Um, that's called freedom of religious expression.

Need to pray publicly? Again, freedom of religious expression. Who are you to dictate what I need to do because of my faith?

What "right" does the student have to get on a public address system at a high school game and vocally pray?

does the prayer "work" because it's over a PA system? no, if that is how you define "how prayer works" then it is you who I suggest doesn't understand "how prayer works".

that is the "publicly" praying that isn't protected. that isn't "freedom of religious expression", that is forcing the beliefs of the student on all those who are forced to hear the prayers.

one's "faith" shouldn't rest on the need to pray into a PA system. the student can pray, they can even do so aloud if they wish, they don't have the right to broadcast that out unless the event is one of a religious nature.

each citizen has the right to pray, each citizen has the right to not be forced to listen to someone's religious expression when they wish to attend a public non-religious event...such as a high school football game.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

What "right" does the student have to get on a public address system at a high school game and vocally pray?

In the case I'm referring to, the student had been elected as chaplain of the student council.

does the prayer "work" because it's over a PA system? no, if that is how you define "how prayer works" then it is you who I suggest doesn't understand "how prayer works".

Would you quit with this debate tactic already? This makes about the 4th post in a row where you've responded by creating a strawman and knocking it down. I suppose I could say, "Mavdog, are you saying that you like watching young boys kiss older men? If you do, I'd suggest that you are a pervert."

Anyway, you don't know how prayer works because when I pray out loud, even in your presence, that doesn't mean you are participating in the prayer.

that is the "publicly" praying that isn't protected. that isn't "freedom of religious expression", that is forcing the beliefs of the student on all those who are forced to hear the prayers.

The student was in an elected position (elected by the students) as a chaplain. If a Muslim had been elected, they could have prayed to Allah.

You are so programmed by the liberal mindset that you actually believe the nonsense you say. If I pray in your presence, am I somehow forcing my belief in God and Jesus Christ on you? Give me a break.

one's "faith" shouldn't rest on the need to pray into a PA system.

I agree with that, but you're missing the point. Government should not make the determination what does and doesn't constitute a valid form of religious expression unless one person is somehow infringing upon the rights of another to religiously express themselves.

the student can pray, they can even do so aloud if they wish, they don't have the right to broadcast that out unless the event is one of a religious nature.

I disagree. The dissenting few have the right not to be forced to worship a god they don't believe in, but they don't have the right to silence the freedom of speech and religious expression of those who do believe.

each citizen has the right to pray, each citizen has the right to not be forced to listen to someone's religious expression when they wish to attend a public non-religious event...such as a high school football game.

The dissenter does not have the right to silence the majority.

[kg_veteran]

By the way, thanks for abandoning the nonsensical position that the ACLU is not liberal.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

In the case I'm referring to, the student had been elected as chaplain of the student council.

this isn't a student council meeting. the fact that the student was elected as chaplain of the student council should have no bearing on if there is a right to broadcast a prayer over the pa system at a football game.

Would you quit with this debate tactic already? This makes about the 4th post in a row where you've responded by creating a strawman and knocking it down. I suppose I could say, "Mavdog, are you saying that you like watching young boys kiss older men? If you do, I'd suggest that you are a pervert."

you don't like ridiculous comments such as "I'm not sure you understand how prayer works" thrown back at you? then don't make the comments in the first place.

Anyway, you don't know how prayer works because when I pray out loud, even in your presence, that doesn't mean you are participating in the prayer.

the question is not if the student can pray out loud, they can. they do not have the right to go on the pa system, in an official manner, and push their prayer upon the entire group who are NOT assembled to hear a religious expression but to attend a sporting event.

The student was in an elected position (elected by the students) as a chaplain. If a Muslim had been elected, they could have prayed to Allah.

yes, at the student council meeting they could, the issue is not the student council meetings.

You are so programmed by the liberal mindset that you actually believe the nonsense you say. If I pray in your presence, am I somehow forcing my belief in God and Jesus Christ on you? Give me a break.

no, if you choose to pray in my presence I have the right to leave.

if however you are given control of the non-religious event and use that control to force me to participate in the prayer (which is done by my mere presence at the event once the public prayer begins), that has crossed the line. you have now violated my right to not participate in your religious act.

I agree with that, but you're missing the point. Government should not make the determination what does and doesn't constitute a valid form of religious expression unless one person is somehow infringing upon the rights of another to religiously express themselves.

or to infringe upon the rights of another to NOT religiously express themselves. the individual retains their right to expression, they just do not have the right to express themselves in a manner that forces another to become involved.

I disagree. The dissenting few have the right not to be forced to worship a god they don't believe in, but they don't have the right to silence the freedom of speech and religious expression of those who do believe.

The dissenter does not have the right to silence the majority.

the constitution establishes the rights of all americans, and especially the rights of the minority to not have the majority run over their rights.

the student has the right to their prayer. they do not have the right to force that prayer upon everybody at the non-religious event. the majority is not silenced in any manner.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

this isn't a student council meeting. the fact that the student was elected as chaplain of the student council should have no bearing on if there is a right to broadcast a prayer over the pa system at a football game.

That's a silly argument. The student council is elected by the entire student body and represents the entire student body.

you don't like ridiculous comments such as "I'm not sure you understand how prayer works" thrown back at you? then don't make the comments in the first place.

If you took offense then I apologize. The reason I said that is that you said a person who prays is forcing others to participate in the prayer. That's untrue.

no, if you choose to pray in my presence I have the right to leave.

Exactly, and if the offended student didn't like the prayer, they could have done the same.

if however you are given control of the non-religious event and use that control to force me to participate in the prayer (which is done by my mere presence at the event once the public prayer begins), that has crossed the line. you have now violated my right to not participate in your religious act.

That's where you're wrong. No one is forced to participate in anything.

or to infringe upon the rights of another to NOT religiously express themselves. the individual retains their right to expression, they just do not have the right to express themselves in a manner that forces another to become involved.

And again, if praying in someone's presence forced them to become involved, I might agree with you.

the constitution establishes the rights of all americans, and especially the rights of the minority to not have the majority run over their rights.

Sure, but we clearly disagree on what the rights of the minority are. The minority does not have the right to silence the majority.

the student has the right to their prayer. they do not have the right to force that prayer upon everybody at the non-religious event. the majority is not silenced in any manner.

Sure they are. I'm not sure how you can argue that the student wasn't silenced.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

By the way, thanks for abandoning the nonsensical position that the ACLU is not liberal.

the aclu has defended people of the entire political spectrum, from nazi's to anarchists, from deeply religious to non-religious. the only common theme is the protection of each citizen's individual rights.

the better question is why the defense of individual rights is viewed as "liberal', or why the majority of the members of the aclu see themselves as liberal.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

That's a silly argument. The student council is elected by the entire student body and represents the entire student body.

no, the silly argument is to say that the individual was elected as a chaplain of a group and therefore has the right to control an event, an event that is not about that group, and use it for their own religious expression.

If you took offense then I apologize. The reason I said that is that you said a person who prays is forcing others to participate in the prayer. That's untrue.

you misunderstood. my point is that by seizing control of the event, using the pa system to broadcast their prayer, is forcing others to participate.

again, why does a person need to broadcast their prayer to be praying? can't the individual pray without using the pa system/ can't they say their prayer out loud without the use of the pa system? can't they pray without subjecting all the attendee's of the non-religious event to the person's religion? after all, the people attending didn't intend to be at a religious event, and it isn't a religious event.

Exactly, and if the offended student didn't like the prayer, they could have done the same [leave].

really? if the student who is offended is a player on the field, do they have the burden of leaving so they aren't forced to participate? what of the members of the band, is it your position that they should not attend? does the right of the student to broadcast their prayer at a non-religious event trump the right of the student who doesn't wish to participate in the broadcast of the prayer to attend? surely not. absolutely not.

That's where you're wrong. No one is forced to participate in anything.

so the player who doesn't believe in the religion of the student who is broadcasting his faith should be forced to leave? they should be forced to put their hands over their head and mumble to themselves?
ridiculous.
by broadcasting their prayer they are forcing everyone in attendance to participate.

And again, if praying in someone's presence forced them to become involved, I might agree with you.

it's not "praying in someone's presence", that is an individual's right. it is controlling the event, using the pa system to broadcast the prayer, where the line is crossed.

Sure, but we clearly disagree on what the rights of the minority are. The minority does not have the right to silence the majority.

as we agree that the individual has the right to pray, and do so out loud, just how is that individual silenced?

Sure they are. I'm not sure how you can argue that the student wasn't silenced.

easy, the student could pray, could do so out loud, but they shouldn't do so in control of the event and on the pa system and broadcast the prayer to people who have no choice but leave or participate.

[kg_veteran]

You keep saying that defense of individual rights is viewed as "liberal". I provided you with an example of a conservative organization (The Rutherford Institute) that defends civil liberties.

It is not the defense of civil liberties that is liberal; it is the ACLU's view of what our civil liberties should and shouldn't be that is liberal.

I agree with you that the ACLU has defended Nazis and have sided with people who they personally disagreed with. Heck, they even sided with Rush Limbaugh in his personal case. That doesn't mean, however, that they aren't liberal. It only takes looking at the issues they have focused on and their positions on those issues to realize that what I'm telling you is true.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, the silly argument is to say that the individual was elected as a chaplain of a group and therefore has the right to control an event, an event that is not about that group, and use it for their own religious expression.

you misunderstood. my point is that by seizing control of the event, using the pa system to broadcast their prayer, is forcing others to participate.

again, why does a person need to broadcast their prayer to be praying? can't the individual pray without using the pa system/ can't they say their prayer out loud without the use of the pa system? can't they pray without subjecting all the attendee's of the non-religious event to the person's religion? after all, the people attending didn't intend to be at a religious event, and it isn't a religious event.

really? if the student who is offended is a player on the field, do they have the burden of leaving so they aren't forced to participate? what of the members of the band, is it your position that they should not attend? does the right of the student to broadcast their prayer at a non-religious event trump the right of the student who doesn't wish to participate in the broadcast of the prayer to attend? surely not. absolutely not.

so the player who doesn't believe in the religion of the student who is broadcasting his faith should be forced to leave? they should be forced to put their hands over their head and mumble to themselves?
ridiculous.

by broadcasting their prayer they are forcing everyone in attendance to participate.

it's not "praying in someone's presence", that is an individual's right. it is controlling the event, using the pa system to broadcast the prayer, where the line is crossed.

as we agree that the individual has the right to pray, and do so out loud, just how is that individual silenced?

easy, the student could pray, could do so out loud, but they shouldn't do so in control of the event and on the pa system and broadcast the prayer to people who have no choice but leave or participate.

You and I are not going to agree on this topic, so I'll move on.

Do you think that President Bush should be allowed to talk about prayer and God and those sorts of things in his addresses to the citizens of this country (typically given on TV or radio)?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

You keep saying that defense of individual rights is viewed as "liberal". I provided you with an example of a conservative organization (The Rutherford Institute) that defends civil liberties.

It is not the defense of civil liberties that is liberal; it is the ACLU's view of what our civil liberties should and shouldn't be that is liberal.

I agree with you that the ACLU has defended Nazis and have sided with people who they personally disagreed with. Heck, they even sided with Rush Limbaugh in his personal case. That doesn't mean, however, that they aren't liberal. It only takes looking at the issues they have focused on and their positions on those issues to realize that what I'm telling you is true.

no, i keep saying that the defense of civil rights is NOT liberal or conservative.

I'm all for a liberal view of our civil liberties. we have the right unless that right is specifically taken away. that sure seems to be the philosophy of our nation's founders, don't you think?

perhaps the high total of issues perceived as "liberal" that the aclu has "focused on" reveals a lot about who needs defending...

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

You and I are not going to agree on this topic, so I'll move on.

Do you think that President Bush should be allowed to talk about prayer and God and those sorts of things in his addresses to the citizens of this country (typically given on TV or radio)?

sure, he can invoke whoever and whatever he wishes.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, i keep saying that the defense of civil rights is NOT liberal or conservative.

Then I agree. The proof is that both liberal groups (like the ACLU) and conservative groups (like the Rutherford Institute) can have as their stated goal the preservation of individual liberties.

sure, he can invoke whoever and whatever he wishes.

Don't you think that by doing that Bush is forcing others to participate in his religious beliefs/practices?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Don't you think that by doing that Bush is forcing others to participate in his religious beliefs/practices?

no. the mere mention of god doesn't make the speech a prayer.

now, the invoking of god in speeches imo isn't too bright when we are in a fight against religious extremist. by using a religious reference there is a connotation of the conflict being a war among religions, which it is not. it is a war against extremist and terorist.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no. the mere mention of god doesn't make the speech a prayer.

Nice dodge.

Isn't Bush forcing others to participate in his religious beliefs and practices by making them listen to his opinion that God's gift to the world is democracy, and by talking about how he prays for people and how people pray for him?

Using your standards, I think he is.

now, the invoking of god in speeches imo isn't too bright when we are in a fight against religious extremist. by using a religious reference there is a connotation of the conflict being a war among religions, which it is not. it is a war against extremist and terorist.

For there to be a connotation of a war among religions, Bush would have to say "Christianity is good; Islam is bad."

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Nice dodge.

Isn't Bush forcing others to participate in his religious beliefs and practices by making them listen to his opinion that God's gift to the world is democracy, and by talking about how he prays for people and how people pray for him?

Using your standards, I think he is.

what standards would that be?

is bush praying? no.
is talk about prayer praying? no, if that were the case we've been praying for a couple of days.
you're point isn't valid.

For there to be a connotation of a war among religions, Bush would have to say "Christianity is good; Islam is bad."

no, that isn't a connotation, that's a literal statement.

I just don't see that it is our best interests to invoke a deity into a discussion of the war on terror. we want the islam world to denounce the radicals among them, and mentioning one's religion in the battle, to call it a "crusade" only helps the creibility of the radical's insistence of a holy war.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

what standards would that be?

is bush praying? no.
is talk about prayer praying? no, if that were the case we've been praying for a couple of days.
you're point isn't valid.

I'm glad that you feel that religion can only be established by the government when prayer is involved.

We'll use your example: prayer. If George Bush offered up a prayer during the State of the Union address, do you think that would be forcing American citizens to participate in his religious beliefs/practices?

no, that isn't a connotation, that's a literal statement.

I just don't see that it is our best interests to invoke a deity into a discussion of the war on terror. we want the islam world to denounce the radicals among them, and mentioning one's religion in the battle, to call it a "crusade" only helps the creibility of the radical's insistence of a holy war.

Talking about God doesn't connote in any way that there is a religious war involved. That's ludicrous.

Who has called the War in Iraq a "crusade" in the religious sense?

Also, I enjoy how you insinuate that mentioning God implies radicalism. It is revealing about your point of view.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I'm glad that you feel that religion can only be established by the government when prayer is involved.

We'll use your example: prayer. If George Bush offered up a prayer during the State of the Union address, do you think that would be forcing American citizens to participate in his religious beliefs/practices?

it would sure show a lack of respect for many americans.

Talking about God doesn't connote in any way that there is a religious war involved. That's ludicrous.

Who has called the War in Iraq a "crusade" in the religious sense?

invoking god into the speeches on the war on terror adss that connotation.

it's funny about words like :crusade". that have deeper meaning to some than to others. bush should not use it in his speeches.

Also, I enjoy how you insinuate that mentioning God implies radicalism. It is revealing about your point of view.

huh?
reference please.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

invoking god into the speeches on the war on terror adss that connotation.

it's funny about words like :crusade". that have deeper meaning to some than to others. bush should not use it in his speeches.

I guess you'd have to link me to a specific speech where you see that connotation.

Re: crusade, I don't care if he uses the term or not. To imply that it has a religious meaning in the sense it was used 1,000 years ago is just silly and political correctness to the nth degree.

huh?
reference please.

Read your own posts, Mavdog!

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Re: crusade, I don't care if he uses the term or not. To imply that it has a religious meaning in the sense it was used 1,000 years ago is just silly and political correctness to the nth degree.

Not directed at Mavdog... but lots more liberals (especially at Universities) sure are getting into speech codes lately, aren't they?

bb doubleplusgood

Dig!

[Mavdog]

rhylan I do agree that there has been a drift towards intolerance of other's views, especially by some of the more liberal elements at some universities.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I guess you'd have to link me to a specific speech where you see that connotation.

Re: crusade, I don't care if he uses the term or not. To imply that it has a religious meaning in the sense it was used 1,000 years ago is just silly and political correctness to the nth degree.

it's not that you or I see the connotation, we're of the same view that the war is against terrorists. it's the muslims outside our country that will misconstrue its use. best to not use it.

Read your own posts, Mavdog!

well, i wrote them and I don't see any context of my equating mentioning god and radicalism. you made the claim, so where is it?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it's not that you or I see the connotation, we're of the same view that the war is against terrorists. it's the muslims outside our country that will misconstrue its use. best to not use it.

So have you been consulting with muslims outside our country to determine that they will misconstrue the term? Or are you just speculating?

well, i wrote them and I don't see any context of my equating mentioning god and radicalism. you made the claim, so where is it?

Fair enough. You say you didn't mean that, so be it.

[Mavdog]

is it speculation to read their writings where they express the connotation?

[Usually Lurkin]

we shouldn't use words that might offend those who's stated goal is to kill us all?
I suppose we also shouldn't publish cartoons of Mohammed.
Or disallow them the right to pray out loud at public events where everyone can hear them.
That would offend them, too.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

we shouldn't use words that might offend those who's stated goal is to kill us all?

those are not the people that matters. they've already chosen their course.

[Drbio]

Fair enough. You say you didn't mean that, so be it.

Mavdog consistently fails to give the same courtesy because he knows how to read minds, infer others meanings, and interpret what one person said to fit his agenda. It was nice of you to let him off the mat though.

[Epitome22]

"Anyday now I'm expecting to see this renamed the "Republican Party Lovers and Apologists Forum." "

Unfortunately it already is that in all but name. I know Republicans value intellectual honesty as much as anyone else; unfortunately for many of the contributors of this forum, 'politics' takes a very special precedent.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Epitome22

"Anyday now I'm expecting to see this renamed the "Republican Party Lovers and Apologists Forum." "

Unfortunately it already is that in all but name. I know Republicans value intellectual honesty as much as anyone else; unfortunately for many of the contributors of this forum, 'politics' takes a very special precedent.

Deep brotha' deep intellectual fact-based post.

[dude1394]

Well, well, well. Who woulda' thought it. The democrats goose-in-step to vote against alito on the judiciary committee.

[Drbio]

I listened to some of them on CNN interviews. Even with like-minded liberal interviewers, you could tell the dem senators didn't even believe their own fabricated reasons for voting against Alito. It's pathetic what that party has become.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Drbio

I listened to some of them on CNN interviews. Even with like-minded liberal interviewers, you could tell the dem senators didn't even believe their own fabricated reasons for voting against Alito. It's pathetic what that party has become.

It really is pathetic and disturbing. They seem like petulant children who are willing to have the baby cut in half if it will get them theirs.

I've voted for democrats before but the party now is just not a responsible party imo.