Do as we say...

Just because I want to fire up pettyfog this morning...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060601740.html

Can someone from God's Own Party explain to me why it's EVIL when we Dems threaten a filibuster but it's perfectly alright to filibuster someone appointed by YOUR OWN PARTY'S PRESIDENT for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual position they are being appointed to?

Oh wait, that's right... Brownback has to make the wingnuts happy...

 

Exactly right! And that is exactly the motivation... vote-buying! Something the Dems NEVER do.. chortle!

But, here's where I get back to the "it all ties together" theme.....

Yes, I was around and politically aware during Roe v Wade. Which took the legality of abortion out of State jurisdiction.
And when those who were against abortion argued that it would inevitably lead to what essentially was 'infanticide' (late-term), they were met with whoops of derision from the left.."Alarmist, scare tactics!" was the refrain.

Well, guess what!
Whether I am anti-abortion (I am, because I have seen the effect on friends and co-workers) or not, that was rightly a States Rights issue. It would do no good for me to ALSO say I am AGAINST repeal of Roe v Wade (I am that, also) at this point.. because those with mindsets based on single issue causes refuse to see how slippery slopes are made.

For further evidence of 'slippery slope' I only have to point to the recent SC decision on medical marijuana!
Libs ONLY like states rights when it's cutting edge 'progressive'... well how can you apply the law ONLY when it suits you, unless you are activist?

Yes, the court was painted into a corner on this... it is ridiculous on the face... but if a farmer has to pay taxes, or penalties, on his home-grown wheat served on his own table, because the government says it is subject to Interstate Commerce regulations, then pandora is out of the box.

Thus, Clarence Thomas, the favorite whipping boy of the Kennedy/Kerry Libs, is the staunch defender of a states right to allow medicinal use of the killer weed.

That Brownback is a grandstanding idiot, and the position has nothing to do with personal belief about abortion rights, makes him no less credible than, say, Teddy Kennedy and his stand on his nephew's pet theme... IE, Windpower is good but not in Nantucket!

Oh, how the world turns

 

RE: Re: Do as we say...

As an aside, it isnt clear to me how his state voters will react to that.

But, as an Ohioan, I can tell you that the recent "put the camera on me" performances of DeWine and Voinovich have put them in some jeopardy.

What DeWine failed to consider is that John Kasich has been simply standing in the wings waiting for a chance at the little twerp. DeWine has brought some pork money into Ohio.. but if that was all we wanted, we would have begged John Glenn to stay on.
Meantime, DeWine, whose family was made comfy by the Ag industry, pissed off a LOT of farmers by an environmentally-positioned land grab which severely reduced the value of about 200 large family farms. And that wasnt the only sticker.

If Repub voters only cared about Abortion Rights issues, then DeWine would be back in comfortably as Kasich is less outspoken on that issue by far.. but we arent only focussed on that.
We want a guy who doesnt HAVE to appease to get on camera, and didnt have to go "Law and Order" gonzo to get into politics in the first place...and Kasich is already there.

 

RE: Re: Do as we say...

Speaking of Ohio... how's CoinGate going for you guys? I'm surprised the state party hasn't packed up in shame...

I think what I found most interesting about the article was that it was a security position, appointed by the President, and put "on hold" procedurally by a GOoPer... has the President lost all credibility within his own party? Or has the FRC and AFA really gotten Brownback/Frist/et al. by the balls that they can force them to go against a Presidential nominee?

 

Simple... they've been in power so long they think they're Democrats and this'll all blow over.

Taft was in deep doo-doo with his own party, anyway. He let the tax stuff get out of hand...like Clinton, he rode the waves of the nineties boom and, now, is in a hard place.
----

And yeah... it's just grandstanding, like I said... the Pres, BTW is in no rush to
deal with the core zealots... Like Hillary, he'll let the minions do that. Suddenly though, an "understanding" will be reached and her nom will go to the floor. That's how it works.

 

In my HUMBLE opinion, our system has failed us.

We've broke it.

 

Yep.... that's why everyone who gets the advantage of a decision for their OWN special interest(s) should think twice.

AND why some like Thomas and Janice Rogers Brown are so adamant about strict interpretation.

you HAVE to look at the whole picture!

The "Great Society" is a good example of legislative "Ooops" to look back on.

Libs got substantial welfare improvements -WIC- through because CONSERVATIVES added the long-range killer... households with able-bodied males did not qualify.

Now I would bet that most of the CONSERVATIVES who insisted on that wish they hadnt. At the Least it created multi-generational welfare dependence in a nation where, given all the other "enlightenments" it shouldnt or needn't have!
-AND/BECAUSE-
It destroyed one of the two bulwarks of the black community... FAMILY!

Now the second -church community- is also under attack.

 

My brain hurts now.

 

i've learnt so many new words since i started reading Pettyfog's posts!!

So, pardon my ignorance, but I can't get my head around the fact that there is such a strong correlation between religion and politics in America. Pettyfog, care to explain how all that works then?

 

*rubs hands together*

I can't WAIT to hear this one!

 

Well, MWII... it's just an old custom of american politics... kissing babies, and saying 'Amen!'

It would require an essay to explain it all.. and that would STILL only be a start... but let's suffice to say that many americans take their religious beliefs seriously.. and things have changed quite a lot from the OLD days where a Presyterian might not want his daughter to even DATE a Catholic.. there is much more ecumenism...

But the thing isnt about Religion... it's about the change in meaning of "Separation of Church and State".

The original intent was their be no "Anglican" Church for the US (ie 'Church of America')... that Maryland could be Catholic and Massachusetts could be Protestant (imagine that!) and that Pennsylvania could be Quaker... and all of that could happen without infighting over the tenets of those churches.

Primarily the thrust was that church communities were free to practice without the strictures and bias held against them in England and other parts of Europe.

But to get back to it.. it's not about the religions.. it's about the values PRACTICED by the believers.

As to the fights over the symbology... the extremes gone to by the ACLU to abolish ANY sign of the Cross is what creates the rallying points... witness the removal of the cross from the seal of Los Angeles. LA was FOUNDED by missionaries.. it owes every bit of it's founding history to the missions.

Ridiculous posturing by those who feel "uncomfortable" with the symbol... wonder if they sue against garlic cloves next!

 

wow...

i actually agree with you on this one... I dont have gripes about the national anthem and the way people feel about that... after all the "words" under God were added in the IKE (crap, forgot about the Brit), Eisenhower administration...

So if you want to remove something that wasnt there and has no particular reason to be there than go ahead and fight for it.

But yeah, your right, LA was founded mostly by missionaires, therefor the cross is not a religious symbol, as far as LA goes, but a part of symbolic history. The flag is supposed to tell a brief story as far as the states go.

My problem with the system is the lack of accordance with the fact that MANY citizens have religion but dont take it seriously, and many are agnostic or atheist... what ever the number or the percentages maybe its gotta be a consideration when it comes to this church and state crap.

All I am really asking is for them to take my rights away and give me a reason somewhere along the lines of "Its really really bad so we voted, NO" not so much, "JESUS thinks your all sinners therefor we feel inclined to push our country in the direction of GOD" OR "God spoke to me last night and said your all idiots, women should wear berkas and only men should work... bitches"

 

This is disturbing...again we agree - sorta.

Under God was inserted while I was in Grade school and it always felt awkward, and a little disturbing, to me, (Even though I went to church every Sunday) because I knew WHY it was put in there.
Had nothing to do with God.. it was a statement to the communists and socialists among us.

And it was disturbing, not because I was worried about offending Commies, but because it was like taking the Lord's name in vain.

But AGAIN I will point out that only the most rabid fundamentalists want to roll back to the old days of "Blue Laws"... just dont want always to be giving way as in the past.

In almost all conservative churches, free will is preached.

And that's NOT the same as Sha'ria!

 

Petty ... Regarding the Separation of Church and State, don't you feel that the founding fathers were (somewhat) naive, or too idealistic in their wishes?
To seperate State and Church was an ideal, an unworkable one at that, especially taking into account their want of all States to remain together in unison and union.
A case in point would be polygamy. From my (limited) knowledge on the subject, I believe this is practised by one main religion(?), the Mormons mainly in Utah. I recall from the Christian marriage service that, to paraphrase, I would take one wife and no others, and that is the main theme for most western religions. If the founders truly wishes the total separation of Church and State, then maybe such religious practices (as above) should be accepted by all States. I accept that the only time one may actually break the law when dealing with Polygamy is to register a subsequent marriage, rather than actually go through the ceremony itself, the problem occurs when the Federal Law dealing with marriage, tax breaks, Insurance, etc, comes into play, and fails to aknowledge polygamous marriages for such benefits. Thus, the State (Federal or local government in this case), does impose it's will upon all religeous orders, and, as such, the term Separation of Church and State has been trodden on since time immemorial.
Before anyone jumps on the soap box and decides my own views for me, NO, I do not practise or even endorse Polygamy. I am a Christian (CoE) and proud of it. I just like it when I get the devil in me and I can act as his advocate!!!

 

A good point ot pontificate on... let's remember that the prime REASON for the Church and State prohibition WAS the CoE!!

Remembering why this land was settled in the first place... had nothing to do with Anti-Christian... had to do WITH enforcement of Religious observation BY the governemtn.

Indeed look to Jesus' "Render unto Caesar.. and unto God" for the true definiton of the separation. Jesus was NOT a fomenter against Rome.. he was a "rebel" against his own religious hierarchy. And it was the priests that brought Rome into it.

The shame of Pilate was that Roman JUSTICE WAS corrupted by catering to the 'church' and 'mob'.

And no.. that is NOT what the "Religious Right" wants; liberality.. True Liberalism, that is.. is catching and DOES enlighten.

Mormonism is an anomaly, but note it has been accepted by The LDS that they, indeed, must 'render unto Caesar' when it comes to conflicting law.

And the breakaway sects and Poly-husbands are really only prosecuted when there is ample evidence of abuse.