If a Conservative Reaches High Court, say goodbye to Bill of Rights (1 Viewer)

[Billo_Really]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that extreme right conservatives are anti-American. They practice, on a daily basis: censorship, restrictions of personal liberties and freedom of speech, slander, condoning torture, justifying illegal aggression on sovereign nations, blind faith in their leaders and the immoral act of forcing their religion on others at tax payers expense. And they are without a doubt, the biggest hypocrits on the planet.

If they get a judicial seat on the high court, you can say good-bye to life as you know it. It has already started with passage of the Patriot Act, electronic voting, and the un-ending state of fear they keep this country in with lies, half-truths and character assasinations. They refuse to listen to anyone with a different view. Check out various "conservative only" message boards on the internet. There is not a lot of mental health in these clubs. Its like a guy that hangs with buddies that don't know any girls, and then he complains that he can't get a date. Conservatives just want to be with there own kind, and lose the ability to communicate with others. Which is in part, contributing to Americas low standard around the world.

Not all are so anti-American. But enough of them are in government now that it is affecting what this country was founded on. If a extreme conservative reaches the High Court, the nail in the coffin of liberty will be driven in for years to come.

 

[cnredd]

That was a very well constructed MINORITY view....

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by cnredd:
That was a very well constructed MINORITY view....

Thank you. You won't be saying that this time next year.

 

[Stherngntlmn]

I said goodbye to the bill of rights the second the Supreme Court ruled that "Freedom of Religion" meant "Seperation of Church and State" AKA "Freedom from Religion"

 

[LaMidRighter]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that extreme right conservatives are anti-American.

All ideological extremists are anti American, as well as special interest groups, these are collectives of people who by their very nature want there will or desires to be enforced by law. It is no more fair to attack extreme conservatives without mentioning the other side. Also, extreme liberals have already attacked property rights, attack peoples finances through horrendous taxes, they have ruined farmers using the courts to deny them needed water to save a fish(this is a real case in California), attack anyone who openly practices their religion.

They practice, on a daily basis: censorship, restrictions of personal liberties and freedom of speech,

Really, how about the PMRC hearings of the eighties(a Democrat and Republican initiative), political correctness, hate-crime legislation(a redundancy since you don't commit crimes out of love, regardless of the victim), banning individual prayer groups in schools, attacks on the Boy Scouts, proposed internet usage taxes, and the list goes further.

slander,

Don't go here, Hillary accused our side of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" Dean calling us all liars(along with democrat supporters) along with lazy, exploitative, and racist. We also have the great stuff from Durbin concerning our troops, and multiple attacks from the party every chance they get.

condoning torture

Not even worthy of discussion because that in itself is slanderous against the right, but here goes torture and interrogation are two different things, there have been few torturous acts short of a little discomfort used to interrogate suspects and those guilty of said torturous acts have been punished.,

justifying illegal aggression on sovereign nations,

They are not illegal acts of aggression to begin with, they were justified, and if you are referring to us acting against the U.N.'s wishes, that is not a pre-requisite to congress declaring a war, read up on it from a non partisan source.

blind faith in their leaders and the immoral act of forcing their religion on others at tax payers expense. And they are without a doubt, the biggest hypocrits on the planet.

You've been speaking the Democrat party line throughout this post, so pot, there's a message from the kettle.....

If they get a judicial seat on the high court, you can say good-bye to life as you know it.

That's why a few turncoats from conservative appointments AND Clinton's justices voted on behalf of New London in the eminant domain case, that sounds like liberals destroying a constitutionally protected right to me.

It has already started with passage of the Patriot Act, electronic voting, and the un-ending state of fear they keep this country in with lies, half-truths and character assasinations.

More party line rhetoric, yes, the Patriot Act does need to be refined in that it could be abused as is, I agree, but that fortunately has not happened yet, electronic voting is up to the particular precinct that approved it, so it is not a conservative/liberal issue, if you have it and don't trust it, petition your local government or vote absentee, the left has used fear for years with rhetoric, ads, and propaganda claiming that conservatives want to starve the poor, lynch minorities, deprive gays or even kill them, destroy S. Security, and more, they also use the "class/race" cards every chance they get, all untrue, and all fearmongering.

They refuse to listen to anyone with a different view.

Completely untrue, just because your message is not accepted doesn't mean it hasn't been heard, conservatives speak together about many things extreme liberals and others complain about and mostly think it is panicky, incorrect, and sometimes dishonest(sometimes), and if liberals might be right about something, we'll discuss that too and see if we can add something, when's the last time the left did that, remember, George W. Bush has been president for 5 years now.

Check out various "conservative only" message boards on the internet. There is not a lot of mental health in these clubs. Its like a guy that hangs with buddies that don't know any girls, and then he complains that he can't get a date.

Once again, liberals do the exact same thing in some instances so that is not a fair statement, in fact, I have seen both ends of the spectrum and trust me, the liberal only boards are just as bad.

Conservatives just want to be with there own kind, and lose the ability to communicate with others. Which is in part, contributing to Americas low standard around the world.

That is generalizing, I have many liberal friends and while I don't agree with them much of the time many of them are very nice people that I debate with or just talk about other issues, sometimes I get another perspective on an idea solution I'll be contemplating and it helps me to find an even better solution, open minded liberals are very valuable, but no closed minded extremist can be

Not all are so anti-American. But enough of them are in government now that it is affecting what this country was founded on. If a extreme conservative reaches the High Court, the nail in the coffin of liberty will be driven in for years to come.

I can agree with that, but, keep in mind that any justice that would misinterpret the constitution whether purposefully or just through sheer ignorance can be dangerous. Many times bad rulings have come through an extended interpretation or just plain semantics and spells trouble. We need strict constructionist judges who would ignore their own ideology for the better good of what this country stands for.

 

[Shye]

The extreme right wing conservatives are nazis. just read some of these Qoutes
They make me ashamed of being an Americian

 

[LaMidRighter]

Alright, I agree with most of what you said here, but I have some issues. Democrats are pushing for what I call petty censorship, the type you get out of bored housewives of senators who have nothing better to do with their time.

Very fair point, here's the deal though, like anything else in life petty things lead to bigger and bolder abuses, petty censorship opens the door to political censorship(such as McCain-Feingold)

The censorship from republicans is more along the lines of silencing opposition, which is much worse.

To be completely honest, most of the time we laugh at the comments that extremists say on both sides because it is so utterly ridiculous and....well....petty, but every once in awhile behaviors and language cross the line, most of the reason these attempts at censorship occur is so that things can start moving again, and honest debate is rarely assualted, but things have gotten personal, dishonest, and even nasty lately.

And the ban on prayer groups in school I'm assuming is moreso a ban on school sponsored clubs for prayer. I think if a bunch of kids huddled in a student center and prayed it'd be fine. But that's an assumption, if I'm wrong, the perpetrators were idiots.

I don't remember the specifics to be honest, but either way I believe in their right to express their religion freely with their peers(qualifications like during "down time", or strictly voluntary could be a fair mandate however).

Alright, as you should know by my sports preferences, **** Durbin is one of my senators, and has been for a long time, so I understand what he does pretty well. He is really liberal, but when it came to those comments I'm assuming you're talking about, you are just falling in line with partisan bullshit spin, completely missing out on the actual meat and potatoes of that speech.

I can see how you would interpret it as such, but seriously I listened to his words without the commentary and formed my own opinion, he offended me and I feel is guilty of slander(many other countries would have called it treason)

He was saying that those actions aren't American actions, that we're supposed to be the good guys, but we're doing **** that is similar to what bad guys do.

That is his opinion, unfortunately, however, history doesn't back him up, since the beginning we have done whatever necessary to win wars and eliminate the threat of the bad guys, even at times becoming worse than them, this time, however, we have done nothing equivalent in scale to their actions.

He would never say anything intended to be interpretted as an insult towards the troops.

Even giving him the benefit of the doubt he got caught up in grandstanding and he paid a price, not unlike many conservative and other liberal senators who have been either misinterpreted or even worse, slammed by the opposition.

Here in Illinois we love the troops and support the troops unendingly, and we take quite a bit of offense when something that our senator says is completely misconstued into something to the contrary.

I'm glad to hear you all support and love the troups, but I seriously think Durbin got caught by his own political move, I could be wrong however.

This is the part where I expect better from you. There is a difference between torture and interrogation, and ******* on someone and their holy book, tying them up in the fetal position in the nude and turning the temperature up to over 100 degrees and down to below 60, and so on and so forth is torture. I know you also believe in the ideal that is America, and so I am disappointed that you're willing to sacrifice it cause you're scared.

I'm not going to pretend to be perfect here, firstly, I don't want them treated this way out of fear, because I do not fear cowards and disgusting sub-human creatures such as these, I want our troops to get the information they need by whatever means necessary and if they hold out to warrant "necessary" then I feel a little well deserved and justified payback(my opinion) is served.

Actually I have heard that they were illegal, since we went in there for the reason of self defense and there was no threat (nor any particular reason to suspect a threat). And you know that that's true (plus, as a libertarian, wouldn't you be opposed to the war, since it is being funded with the tax dollars of a nation that a sizable proportion did not support?)

A formal declaration of war by congress is a legal standing, the problem most people have is that they forget to factor that we may be wrong about the intelligence but don't know yet(it isn't illigitimate to be wrong), the other mistake is that many firmly believe we are beholden to the U.N.

Yeah, but you can't say that the republicans associated with THIS particular administration have the best records as far as civil liberties and human rights.

I really haven't seen anything that would make me think they were any more dangerous than liberals; if you are of another opinion we'll have to discuss info.

I'm personally more afraid of the republicans solely because I do know they tend to blur the line on the seperation of church and state, and they don't really respect civil liberties.

This is not entirely true, Billo was right about the free speech issues to an extent but other than that, "SOChAS" was created through interpretive law, the first guarantees a freedom of but not from religion(and by that I don't mean you must pick one, I mean that you don't have the right to silence practitioners) also, as far as civil rights goes, Republicans introduced anti-lynching legislation which many Democrats refused to sign, many of the civil rights firsts including the abolition of slavery came from Republican leadership, also, Republicans stand up for property, gun ownership, and economic rights which are all included in our civil liberties and many of which the Dems do not support

I mean, christ, Gonzales called teh Geneva Convention "quaint", and the right wing thinks he's too liberal?

I think what he meant is that it's a nice theory but war gets ugly, really, we are the only one's in this conflict that are resigned to the accords, the enemy has free reign over their choice of attack and methodology.

I'm not too nervous about this, because typically justices have learned to rise to the occasion, and as long as everyone stays on their toes, this will be no different.

Once again, history doesn't always agree, there was just the E.D. case from three weeks ago, and Plessy V. Ferguson(seperate but equal) bad law which took many years and Brown V. Board of Education to fix. Justices are human beings also and subject to all of the failings of those they rule, hopefully, we can get those that rise above, but it could be the other way around.

 

[Alex]

If right-wing conservatives get their way, our civil liberties will be destroyed. They believe that their morals are the only way people should live and have no problem imposing them on anyone. They are very narrow-minded this way. I do believe that a moderate-conservative judge will be appointed though. Bush has too much to lose otherwise. He wants bills passed (social security for example) and that will be very difficult if he does not please both liberals and conservatives.

 

[Connecticutter]

If right-wing conservatives get their way, our civil liberties will be destroyed. They believe that their morals are the only way people should live and have no problem imposing them on anyone.

Who believes this?

If we get a judge who actually followed the bill of rights, that judge would be considered a right-wing conservative. How about campaign finance and the first ammendment? Any mention of the second ammendment is considered far-right. Oh, yeah, then there's the fifth ammendment which only the conservatives bothered to read in the recent eminent domain case.

 

[Pacridge]

The extreme right wing conservatives are nazis. just read some of these Qoutes
They make me ashamed of being an Americian

One could easily go find quotes from the far left that make it look just as awful couldn't they?

Would you then be just as ashamed?

 

[LaMidRighter]

I'm mainly talking about things like free speech zones, and also Bill Frist's love of stopping debate in the senate.

I understand where you are coming from, however, I feel that Democrats use the free speech argument selectively, like the Republicans. I believe all speech that on it's face doesn't create an imminent danger to society(a very small category mind you) should be protected. Example: Off color language is offensive to many, but it by itself cannot cause harm to someone's physical being, also, using terms to categorize a group, some are offensive in intent, some are indirectly offensive because of changes in acceptability(usually one small sub group or a bunch of white professors making the change) these are pet projects on the Democrat hit lists whereas obscenity and pornagraphy are attacked by fringe Republicans(neither case is right, opinions and standards differ individually and behavior not overly damaging to others should be left alone). As far as political speech goes, we should expect those we elect to conduct themselves in a more dignified manner, after all they are supposed to be the "best and brightest"(yeah, I know, it don't always happen that way), I stand up for Democrats rights to spew their opinions, what I don't like are the hollow blanket observations they throw around, and much of the unfounded or unbacked "debate", alot of their rhetoric is used to obstruct a process they cannot win, so it is Frists job to keep things rolling, I don't think it is to just shut up an annoyance, of course, like all opinions, this is subject to interpretation.

I completely agree, 100%, if kids want to pray in school, that's fine, but it can't be school sanctioned and it can't be at any other time than free time.

This is where it gets a bit tricky, I notice many attacks from the other side that say just the act of allowing it would be sanctioning it, many attacks say the boy scouts should not be allowed to meet on school grounds because they are a christian organization. On the flip side of this, the ACLU and left have been utilizing the *(edit for wrong predecent)Seperation of Ch&S)* but equal clause created in the 1950's by the SCOTUS to remove christianity from schools systematically, however, some extreme left states like Cali have gone to curriculi stressing the desire to teach Islam in schools, this also would violate the "seperation of church and state" clause but is used in the context of "world education", this is grossly unfair but is not even touched by the circuit courts, the SCOTUS, the school boards, the Federal government, or even those christians who are essentially forced to listen to this as a requirement for an education, this is overtly sanctioned religion.

I think that it's all a matter of interpretation. Although he might've been a little quick to drop the Nazi comment, I think that was moreso trying to bring up something that most people have, at the very least, a basic understanding of, while if he brought up a more accurate comparison, it would be less likely the majority of people would know what he was talking about. The overall message was the same though.

I disagree with the message and I think it was irresponsible.

True, the truth doesn't live up to the ideal, but the ideal still remains, and people who believe in the ideal that we're SUPPOSED to be the good guys taking the high road have a responsibility to hold those in charge to that standard, however unrealistic that those in charge will listen may be.

While the ideal is a great one reality doesn't always allow for the practice of it.

It's true, what happened to Durbin wasn't new, and it definately isn't only something done to Democrats (remember Larry Flint bringing down Bob Barr?), but that doesn't make it ok.

It doesn't, but bad behavior does bring about a backlash, when the left consistently attacks the right, a practice that has in the past damaged many careers, the human response for payback kicks in, is it wrong, yes, but sometimes also partly deserved.

It was legal as far as American law goes, but illegal as far as international law goes.

International law is somewhat of a joke to begin with.

Alright, but let's not forget that the democrats were a very different party then, as were the republicans. Also, keep in mind that it was republican Strom Thurmond who filibustered, by himself, some major civil rights bill, and ran on the platform of segregation.

Absolutely true, and I actually kept that in mind when bringing the point up, I feel though that the Democrats changed their tune when all Americans were given the right to vote and many southern states have sizeable minority voting blocks, it may not be the case that the switch was political but does seem that way, also, don't forget that the Dems still had plenty of segregationists in the ranks during and after that switch, some of which are still serving in D.C. today, not that I'm contradicting, just stating that they both made their mistakes.

But as far as democrats go, they can **** themselves, I only care about civil liberties, and I don't give a **** who protects them, as long as they are protected, and right now the republicans have shown no interest in protecting them, and the democrats have shown a little, which is still better in my book.

I disagree with that, some behaviors by people do offend me, but I would not take their liberty to do them away, both parties would strip a liberty in the name of a Special Interest Group in a heartbeat, I really haven't seen the Dems protect enough rights to justify the one's they step on to say they are any better than the Republicans, it's pretty much pick which one's you want to lose right now.

And as far as SOChAS, I don't believe that a seperation of church and state means a removal of church period. I believe that it belongs out of politics. I believe people's beliefs are their own business, and I believe that the first ammendment backs me up on that.

The argument has raged on since the founding of this nation and will probably never be solved, the problem is that much of the current abuse and controversy comes from a single SCOTUS decision.

I also think that those trying to override that are unamerican, because they are trying to make law enforce their personal religious values on others, which is not what America's about!

Most of the complaints I hear from the religious side is that they just want people to leave their religious expression alone.

I know, it comes with experience. They tend to get better with time, and realize their role.

I don't see why they would change activist behavior, there is no compelling reason for them to do so since it is a lifetime appointment, public opinion means nothing because unless they do something really horrible they cannot be removed.

The thing is these people work very closely with the constitution for the vast majority of their adult lives, and so typically they end up with a great respect for it.

Not always the case, an ideologue will do whatever insures they get their way.

 

[Stherngntlmn]

Well, do you believe that if someone wants to live completely free from religion that they have that right?

They have a right to believe whatever they want, but that right should not infringe upon any legal practice of another's religion, public or otherwise.

 

[Stherngntlmn]

The original "freedom of religion" amendment was only intended to prevent a "church of england" type situation where the government becomes the hierarchy of religion. It was never intended to force the termination of any religious referals on any public grounds or by any government department. The concept of "Seperation of church and state" was first stated in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to a church that he had a disagreement with, the concept was never found in any official government document until the supreme court decision of Roe V Wade.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Yeah, and I don't particularly trust Bill Frist's interpretation, because it's been shown that his interpretations of things change based on whatever the republicans want his interpretation to be. I think that it would be far better to defend freedom of speech to a fault over trying to regulate it to a fault, and as a libertarian, I expect you to back me up on this.

yes and no on the backup. Frist is pretty solid in his stances, things change pretty rapidly on the floor and I interpret any change he makes as acts of protocol, that is, to get things started again. Of course, we will have to leave this up to personal views.

True, but isn't it also fair to say that we, as Americans, already have a grasp on the fundementals of christianity, and yet we don't have such a grasp on Islam? And considering the sheer size of Islam, wouldn't you say it would be good if the youth growing up today had at least some working knowledge on this faith, so they could at least have the most basic understanding of it, and thus a portion of the world that may soon outnumber the Christians?

Here's the thing, I'm not arguing that teaching basics from another view would necessarily be a bad thing, but I used the example to point out the hypocrisy of those who would ban religion and all of it's mentions but back Islamic teachings in schools.

Education about religion I believe should be able to happen in history or current events based classes, just because it would take an idiot to believe that religion has no effect on current events, or had no effect on history

I agree that idiots are typically those intolerant of others beliefs, but unfortunately, this is the state of government and has been for decades, the rich idiots(en masse) are taking over.

I believe the preaching of any faith in school is wrong, but the ignoring of any religion is foolish.

I don't, I think as long as all are invited to participate or allowed to leave if in disagreement then it isn't "state sponsored" in the least, to me, forcing those who are intolerant to participate would be the only appropriate complaint.

The teachers should talk about these faiths unbiasedly, and mention them when neccisary to teach what is trying to be taught.

Teachers are human too and subject to all of the faults that come with it, including bias, I don't see how we can blame a teacher for thier beliefs or minor faults.

Then I'm just gonna have to disagree with you. I think it was fantastic what he said, and I thought it was spineless of him to give any apology whatsoever.

Fair enough. I personally wanted Durbin censured at least, but if you saw good in what he said, then we will definitely have to disagree.

I disagree on it being deserved. I don't think anyone deserves that sort of backlash for saying something that most people didn't understand. I think that this sort of dirty politics, although nothing new, is outdated, and I don't know about you, but I'm ****ing sick of it, and that goes to both sides of the aisle.

I mean, of course, deserved by the group that participates, not just one individual. What I mean about this backlash is that since 2000 the Dems have never conceeded their losses, Senators have wasted valuable time on the floor by complaining about Florida, alleged voter fraud(may have happened, but both sides share guilt in all elections) and the supreme court having to intervene(which was caused by a state court overstepping it's own state charter) senators and congressmen have continuously flamed the president and visciously attacked at every chance with hollow charges and other dirty tricks. Enough was finally enough and Durbin just happened to make an outrageous statement at the wrong time, but yes, both sides are guilty.

I beg to differ. Without international law then legally speaking no one can do any wrong. I find it hypocritical to believe that international law is a joke, but then not believe in anarchy. Without international law genocide could be legal, because what if that country passed a law saying that genocide is legal. Essentially, by that logic, any country with any corrupt or ideologic government could do whatever the **** they wanted.

The problem with international law is that it needs a strong and unified body to enforce it, we have a body in the U.N. but it fails miserably in both of the necessary categories for enforcement.

Yeah, they're all pretty much ****ing wastes of space as far as I'm concerned. I know that the democrats aren't much better with civil liberties than the republicans, it basically gets down to the fact that they're not as enthusiastic about taking them away.

Like I said earlier, their enthusiasm all depends on which liberties they agree with, Dems want to grab guns out of citizens hands, liberals want more government control of property(including money) and they want more control over private business and investment, along with safety issues(even over personal decisions) and environmental issues(which are already legislated to bloated proportions IMHO) like I said, pick the one's that are important and vote your conscience.

I just want the republicans to lose either the congress or the presidency, I'm really indifferent to which. I'm just ****ing sick of one party rule, especially when the only parties are republican and democrat.

I fear little, but this generation of Democrats re-gaining any power scares the living @#$% out of me, I think if a viable third and fourth party could force these jerks back into constitutionally correct thinking, then that would be the preferrable situation, even if the third and fourth parties could not take any seats or the White House if they could just make enough of a blip on the electoral radar to swing a couple of results that would still be a good thing.

Hey, I have no problem with their religious expression as long as they keep it in the realm of THEIR religious expression, and don't try to make it OUR religious expression.

I agree, and that is the gist of the seperation clause, but, it was not meant, as Sthrngntlmn pointed out, to ban the free exercise of on government property, sure, a school shouldn't be able to expel a Baptist or Muslim student for refusing to say a Catholic invocation and vice versa, but, if different invocations are offered and if these also include a moment of silence to make Atheists and Nihilists happy, then to me, it is fair and balanced, however, those offended by different views being entertained should simply take a break from the prayer or moment and go smoke or have a drink of water or something. It almost sounds like I contradicted the agreement, but I agree in that no-one should try to force feed a religion to anyone else, in the bible belt I see that behavior alot, but no one should on the reverse end of this pendulum, have the right to silence a peaceful offering of message(even something as volitile as politics and religion).

The government and religion need to be seperate, and I really honestly feel that those who disagree with me are unAmerican facists.

It all depends on the degree of disagreement, I don't think that law should be made saying that one religion is acceptable legally in our country, but, I also don't believe that even on government property that any religion should be silenced.

America is based on freedom, and those who would rather remove it than improve it are just ****ing dead to me (thus why I've written off so many democrats).

This is why we could go on and on about the Freedom of Religion the only way the liberals can enforce the seperation clause is to deny the freedom of those who want to practice religion on government property or to tell a community that they cannot represent a religion that they own a massive majority on.

I think that typically ideologues appointed to the court tend to realize the sheer importance of their position and realize that personal politics are really insignificant when it comes to upholding the constitution. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but with the VAST majority of candidates it wouldn't happen.

This I don't agree with, Idealogues do not have respect for the constitution to begin with, they are of the mind that they know what's best for the nation and different opinions be damned, this is the kind of mind that will not put aside personal politics for the sake of constitutionally protected liberty.

 

[Konstantine]

Thank you. You won't be saying that this time next year.

Democrats will be swept into power in Washington come election 2005!

 

[cnredd]

Democrats will be swept into power in Washington come election 2005!

uuuuuhhhhhh......who's gonna tell him?

 

[Alex]

uuuuuhhhhhh......who's gonna tell him?

I was going to, but I thought I would give him some time to fix it himself. LOL.

 

[Billo_Really]

Origianally posted by Konstantine:
Democrats will be swept into power in Washington come election 2005 [+3=2008] !

I don't want to see Democrats in power either. I think we need equal amounts of both to keep each other honest. What you have right now, is not healthy for anyone.

 

[Alex]

I don't want to see Democrats in power either. I think we need equal amounts of both to keep each other honest. What you have right now, is not healthy for anyone.

I think he was talking about both houses of congress. Aren't they both up for election next year?

 

[Konstantine]

uuuuuhhhhhh......who's gonna tell him?

Clearly, I was serious!

 

[Pacridge]

Clearly, I was serious!

Welcome to debate politics!

Who's going to be in what office in 2005?

 

[RightinNYC]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that extreme right conservatives are anti-American.

Ah, unsupported generalizations. What a great opening.

They practice, on a daily basis: censorship, restrictions of personal liberties and freedom of speech,

Right. Just like the recent marijuana case where it was the three MOST CONSERVATIVE justices who sided with the medical patients personal liberties and it was the liberal judges who denied her the right to treat herself? And what censorship?

slander,

At least its not libel, like this post.

condoning torture,

Oy. Not worth debating.

justifying illegal aggression on sovereign nations,

Yea, like when the Iraq war was authorized by a party line vote. Oh wait, nope.

blind faith in their leaders

Not only a republican trait...

and the immoral act of forcing their religion on others at tax payers expense.

such as?

And they are without a doubt, the biggest hypocrits on the planet

hahahahahahahaha.

If they get a judicial seat on the high court, you can say good-bye to life as you know it.

adios.

It has already started with passage of the Patriot Act, electronic voting,

What does electronic voting have to do with it? Oh, you're one of those nutjobs who is convinced bush stole the election through diebold. right.

and the un-ending state of fear they keep this country in with lies, half-truths and character assasinations.

Thank god for the democrats who wont rest until we're back in a state of complacency and lax security where we can be attacked again.

They refuse to listen to anyone with a different view. Check out various "conservative only" message boards on the internet. There is not a lot of mental health in these clubs. Its like a guy that hangs with buddies that don't know any girls, and then he complains that he can't get a date.

www.democraticunderground.com

Conservatives just want to be with there own kind, and lose the ability to communicate with others. Which is in part, contributing to Americas low standard around the world.

Really? Why did I attend one of the most liberal schools in the country then? Because always having to defend your views makes you smarter. There's really no evidence whatsoever to support your claim.

Not all are so anti-American.

Oh, thank you for being so kind.

But enough of them are in government now that it is affecting what this country was founded on. If a extreme conservative reaches the High Court, the nail in the coffin of liberty will be driven in for years to come.

*tear*

That was beautiful.

A load of crap, but a pretty one nonetheless.

 

[RightinNYC]

I think he was talking about both houses of congress. Aren't they both up for election next year?

all the reps. and 1/3 of the senators.

The numbers aren't looking good for the Dems. They have many more seats than the Reps to defend, and there were several key retirements. 2006 will probably be another gain for the Reps.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by RightatNYU:
That was beautiful.

A load of crap, but a pretty one nonetheless.

I am a beauty to behold.

 

[RightinNYC]

I am a beauty to behold.

any other response?