• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

More Republican Judicial Hate Mongering

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The politburo of the GOP has issued an encyclical: Thou shalt scapegoat the judges! And so the Republican brownshirts mobilize into action. Christo-fascist media demagogue and amatuer psychic Pat Robertson calls federal judges "a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists."

"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down.

"Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."​

Now all we need do is wait for the inevitable bombing of a federal courthouse by one of Robertson's dimented born-again Christian lemmings. That'll show those evil, worse-than-Nazis-and-terrorists liberal judges! God bless Pat Robertson!
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
6,061
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I do believe the following quote is very accurate. If the current trend continues - we will soon have to reevaluate our judicial system. The men and women from the bench are gaining more control over this nation than our own congress and president. This was not what our founding fathers were concerened about. Thomas Jefferson warned of this as well.

"I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."
A more serious threat than Al Qaeda? That is a rediculous analogy, but I do understand the point he was attempting to make.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
vauge said:
I do believe the following quote is very accurate. If the current trend continues - we will soon have to reevaluate our judicial system.

"I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."
You take one sentence from his diatribe and shrug off the rest as incidental? How could you? This is a man who is totally delusional. I watched him live last week and you had to see the stutter in his speech, the awkwardness of his body language. Robertson is deeply troubled, with absolutely diminished mental capacity, no joke, I mean it, seriously ill.

You then go on and suggest that we have to "reevaluate our judicial system". Exactly what do you have in mind?

The troubling trend is the continuing suggestion of a judicial coup d'etat by the Rapture Right. People like Texas Senator John Cornyn stands up on the floor of the Senate Chamber and insanely ties two separate and unconnected events in court rooms to "activist judges" and then goes on to say he can see how it leads to violence! Are you not disturbed by a Senator who is so out of touch with reality (from Texas, big shocker there) that he not only is clueless about what's happening in the real world but that he also is inciting people to violence? What exactly did this miscreant say?
I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence.
Loony tunes! The case in Chicago where the judge's husband & mother were killed had zero to do with politics. The killer was pissed because the judge refused to hear his civil lawsuit! The incident in Atlanta was nothing more than a convict trying to escape, no way he was making any sort of political statement! He was being tried for a violent crime!

It's this sort of purposeful distortion that gets Democrat's blood boiling because inevitably those on the Rapture Right will believe this guy! To them it's "gospel." To me, and to anyone with any sense of reality either Cornyn is the stupidest senator in quite awhile or he's a calculating, manipulating truth twister whose purposely distorting facts to serve the Rapture Rights' political agenda...
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vauge said:
I do believe the following quote is very accurate. If the current trend continues - we will soon have to reevaluate our judicial system.
And what is this current trend that worries you so much? That judges are applying the Constitution in a rational, objective way to the cases brought before them? That's their job. What's the alternative to an independent judiciary? One beholden to politicians and the whims of the masses? Any number of corrupt third-world dictators would agree with you. If you go up before a judge, which would you prefer: that he or she decide your case based on a fair application of the law, or whether his decision will anger a two-bit politician and lose him his job?

vauge said:
The men and women from the bench are gaining more control over this nation than our own congress and president.
I hope so, since they're trained to be rational and dispassionate, and are the only bulwark against a Republican controled government run amok. But please give me a concrete example of this.



vauge said:
I do believe the following quote is very accurate... A more serious threat than Al Qaeda? That is a rediculous analogy, but I do understand the point he was attempting to make.
You realize that these two statements are completely contradictory. First the quote is accurate, meaning judges are worse than Nazis and terrorists, then it's a ridiculous analogy. I agree with the latter, and add that it's also dangerous. (What do you do with Nazis and terrorists? Why, you kill them, of course.) If Michael Moore had called the Bush administration worse than Nazis, you Republicans would be going ape sh*t.
 
Last edited:

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I agree and disagree.
I agree that the following is a bit over the top.
argexpat said:
Christo-fascist media demagogue and amatuer psychic Pat Robertson calls federal judges "a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists."
I am going to have to wash my mouth out with soap, but I agree with Champ too. :shock: This is just nutty if it happened.
Champ said:
The troubling trend is the continuing suggestion of a judicial coup d'etat by the Rapture Right. People like Texas Senator John Cornyn stands up on the floor of the Senate Chamber and insanely ties two separate and unconnected events in court rooms to "activist judges" and then goes on to say he can see how it leads to violence!
I disagree that there isn't any problem with activist Judges. There are too many instances where the Court have overstepped their authority.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Squawker said:
I am going to have to wash my mouth out with soap, but I agree with Champ too. :shock: This is just nutty if it happened.
Wow! Thank you!
Squawker said:
I disagree that there isn't any problem with activist Judges. There are too many instances where the Court have overstepped their authority.
Yes, and no. I think that at any time there are going to be "controversial" judges and decisions, but most of the time they get it right. Kind of like a baseball umpire, he's almost always right, but when he's wrong the instant replay is there to expose him.

The system is working, and because you don't like certain decisions or trends that does not mean it's broken. The great thing about our judicial system is that it is not beholden to anyone since they serve for life...
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Squawker said:
I disagree that there isn't any problem with activist Judges. There are too many instances where the Court have overstepped their authority.
They're so numerous yet I never see them presented. Please give me actual instances of this supposed overstepping of authority by "activist" judges.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
6,061
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
argexpat said:
They're so numerous yet I never see them presented. Please give me actual instances of this supposed overstepping of authority by "activist" judges.
roeVwade - there was no evidence to support that life begins at conception (at the time) so they opted it was to be settled at a later date then said ok to abortions. That has resulted in 50million+ American deaths plus redefining what life really is. They refused to see the evidence either way. It is time that it is reevaltuated per the order. Fearful liberals do no support this action because they have been blinded by what they believe is a "right".

Did you know that a Justice of the peace does not even have to have a college education?

You then go on and suggest that we have to "reevaluate our judicial system". Exactly what do you have in mind?
The judical system was ment to keep an EYE on the other branches. Not change the law. For instance, if it is not explicit in the constitution or laws then the judge needs to rule them out - not state what should be done.

Recently, there was a 13 year old girl that was pregnate. She was an orphan and the state was her guardian. The law expicitly states that Texas WILL NOT pay for an abortion of kids that the state is thier legal guardian. She went to court - the judge said it was ok as birth could be harmful to the 13 year old. I am still looking for the link.

There were 2 recently. One in Florida and one in Texas.
 
Last edited:

bellisaurius

New member
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Location
chicago
On the main topic: the conservative in me dislikes any drastic action involving any of the branches of government. The law of unintended consequences seems like a bigger worry than a couple of judicial oversteps that can be corrected with legislative action, as long as our rights (even though some are pseudo constitutional -as Scalia points out-, such as a right to privacy.) aren't invaded.

Funny, but didn't the last person to play with the judiciary, Roosevelt, end up with egg on his face for the effort?

As to Pat's comments, I almost consider them an act of sedition.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'll stick my head into this argument really quickly and get back out. Number one, activism isn't limited to liberal judges. Number two, the vast majority of the judges in this country have been appointed by republican presidents, which means that that group most likely leans to the right.

and one thing that vauge said...wade wasn't decided on the basis of fact but on the basis of a person's right to privacy. the fact that life does or does not begin at conception was not what the court decided. it never defined what life is, merely what a woman's right to privacy is. now many conservatives argue that this means that the court accepted that life did not begin at conception and thus they decided innacurately, but they didn't need to decide on this issue at this point, merely whether the girl had the right to have an abortion. they found she did thanks to her right to privacy, not the right to kill a fetus.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
argexpat said:
They're so numerous yet I never see them presented. Please give me actual instances of this supposed overstepping of authority by "activist" judges.
You and I got into a debate about this on another thread, and I stated no less than a dozen examples of judges overstepping their constitutional powers.
 

early2it

New member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I think Pat Robertson was right in saying there is a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda but I think it is Christians not judges.

Actually I think religion in general is the greatest threat humanity faces today.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
early2it said:
I think Pat Robertson was right in saying there is a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda but I think it is Christians not judges.

Actually I think religion in general is the greatest threat humanity faces today.
Good thing thats not a blanket unsupported statement with no historical backing based on fearmongering.
 

early2it

New member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
RightatNYU said:
Good thing thats not a blanket unsupported statement with no historical backing based on fearmongering.
I’m fearmongering because I point out the undeniable fact of over 1000 years of history which demonstrates the demonic brutal nature of the Christian religion.

I guess in your world view fearmongering is what people are doing when they state any opinion which differs from yours.

The truth is Islam posses little threat to America. We have the power to melt Mecca and Medina into a pile of steaming slag in any given hour of the day.

Christianity on the other hand cannot be exercised without our own destruction in the process.

But what matter is it any way, you don’t believe we should see the Christian religion as a threat just all the other religions. By the way you could call me a Christian, I believe Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God, I would never call myself a Christian however because I wouldn’t want anyone to think I have any thing to do with organized religion.

Plus I think it is really to late to stop what the Busheviks have started. We have no choice now but to widen the war and that is certain to bring total economic collapse even if we go nuclear and end it we would never recover.

If you believe all this is fearmongering fine. It is just my opinion. I’m not afraid of other peoples ideas not even yours so why be afraid of mine.

Ervin
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
early2it said:
I’m fearmongering because I point out the undeniable fact of over 1000 years of history which demonstrates the demonic brutal nature of the Christian religion.

I guess in your world view fearmongering is what people are doing when they state any opinion which differs from yours.

The truth is Islam posses little threat to America. We have the power to melt Mecca and Medina into a pile of steaming slag in any given hour of the day.

Christianity on the other hand cannot be exercised without our own destruction in the process.

But what matter is it any way, you don’t believe we should see the Christian religion as a threat just all the other religions. By the way you could call me a Christian, I believe Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God, I would never call myself a Christian however because I wouldn’t want anyone to think I have any thing to do with organized religion.

Plus I think it is really to late to stop what the Busheviks have started. We have no choice now but to widen the war and that is certain to bring total economic collapse even if we go nuclear and end it we would never recover.

If you believe all this is fearmongering fine. It is just my opinion. I’m not afraid of other peoples ideas not even yours so why be afraid of mine.

Ervin

1) Is there any particular reason why you claim Christianity has been a "demonic brutal religion" for 1000 years instead of 2000? Just curious.

2) What "historical evidence" are you speaking of? Over the past 2000 years, the number of people who have died because of religion PALES in comparison to those killed by communism, fascism, civil war, or any other cause for war.

3) Your logic chain "Islam poses little threat because we can destroy Mecca easily" is fallacious. Would destroying Mecca destroy Islam? No. When jihadists kill our troops in Israel, do we respond by attacking Medina? No. Completely unrelated factors.

4) Contrary to (ignorant) popular belief, the army in Iraq isn't just made up of Christians, and to say this is a "Christian war" implies that you have little to no understanding of the subject.

5) "But what matter is it any way, you don’t believe we should see the Christian religion as a threat just all the other religions."

Actually, no. I DON'T see ANY religion as a significant threat. I see extremism as a threat, but that would be prevalent with or without the religion. Religion, historically, is not a leading cause of death and war.

6) "Plus I think it is really to late to stop what the Busheviks have started."

Bushevik. That's a good one. Now why don't you make a reference to Hitler, and then we'll have fulfilled all the requirements of an anti-Bush rant.

7)"We have no choice now but to widen the war and that is certain to bring total economic collapse even if we go nuclear and end it we would never recover."

Well, I'd be sure to notify all the best political analysts and economists that you've discovered what's going to happen. It's not as if that's a simplistic view.

8 ) "I guess in your world view fearmongering is what people are doing when they state any opinion which differs from yours."

Well, firstly, I was just making fun of the title of this thread, but secondly, when you make sensationalistic remarks like "Actually I think religion in general is the greatest threat humanity faces today" you DO come across as a bit of a fearmonger. Stir up the troops against the threat of religion! We must fight!
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That was really well said, RightatNYU. :applaud
 

early2it

New member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
RightatNYU said:
1) Is there any particular reason why you claim Christianity has been a "demonic brutal religion" for 1000 years instead of 2000? Just curious.

2) What "historical evidence" are you speaking of? Over the past 2000 years, the number of people who have died because of religion PALES in comparison to those killed by communism, fascism, civil war, or any other cause for war.

3) Your logic chain "Islam poses little threat because we can destroy Mecca easily" is fallacious. Would destroying Mecca destroy Islam? No. When jihadists kill our troops in Israel, do we respond by attacking Medina? No. Completely unrelated factors.

4) Contrary to (ignorant) popular belief, the army in Iraq isn't just made up of Christians, and to say this is a "Christian war" implies that you have little to no understanding of the subject.

5) "But what matter is it any way, you don’t believe we should see the Christian religion as a threat just all the other religions."

Actually, no. I DON'T see ANY religion as a significant threat. I see extremism as a threat, but that would be prevalent with or without the religion. Religion, historically, is not a leading cause of death and war.

6) "Plus I think it is really to late to stop what the Busheviks have started."

Bushevik. That's a good one. Now why don't you make a reference to Hitler, and then we'll have fulfilled all the requirements of an anti-Bush rant.

7)"We have no choice now but to widen the war and that is certain to bring total economic collapse even if we go nuclear and end it we would never recover."

Well, I'd be sure to notify all the best political analysts and economists that you've discovered what's going to happen. It's not as if that's a simplistic view.

8 ) "I guess in your world view fearmongering is what people are doing when they state any opinion which differs from yours."

Well, firstly, I was just making fun of the title of this thread, but secondly, when you make sensationalistic remarks like "Actually I think religion in general is the greatest threat humanity faces today" you DO come across as a bit of a fearmonger. Stir up the troops against the threat of religion! We must fight!
RightatNYU,

Wow thats a lot of words. Does my opinion of religion or the future of America threaten you some how, cause you sure spent a lot of effort trying to tell me how wrong I am.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that the logic of any idea or theory has any effect on whether the notion is correct or incorrect?

If you do you must be a conservative so I have no interest in swaying you to my way of thinking. I am not a conservative but to paraphrase a famous one, I’m right and that’s all that really matters.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
early2it said:
RightatNYU,

Wow thats a lot of words. Does my opinion of religion or the future of America threaten you some how, cause you sure spent a lot of effort trying to tell me how wrong I am.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that the logic of any idea or theory has any effect on whether the notion is correct or incorrect?

If you do you must be a conservative so I have no interest in swaying you to my way of thinking. I am not a conservative but to paraphrase a famous one, I’m right and that’s all that really matters.
It wasn't much longer than your post which I was responding to. Also, complaining about the length and thoroughness of a response on a debating website would be seen by many as a sign that you don't have a response.

The logic of a theory doesn't necessarily have an effect on whether the notion is correct. It just means that that's not why, and that the two are unrelated, so it was foolish to group the two originally. Also, what notion are you implying that I misjudged as incorrect? I'd love to hear where I was wrong.

And what might your way of thinking be? And why would you say I am a conservative, aside from the obvious name? What precipitated your revelation?
 

early2it

New member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I will respond since you seem to earnestly desire I do.

RightatNYU said:
It wasn't much longer than your post which I was responding to.

Response:
Let me clarify, you are right it was not much longer in content just hyperbole.

RightatNYU said:
Also, complaining about the length and thoroughness of a response on a debating website would be seen by many as a sign that you don't have a response.

Response:
I should care how my complaints are seen by others why?

RightatNYU said:
The logic of a theory doesn't necessarily have an effect on whether the notion is correct. It just means that that's not why, and that the two are unrelated, so it was foolish to group the two originally. Also, what notion are you implying that I misjudged as incorrect? I'd love to hear where I was wrong.

Response:
The reason I asked what you thought about logic was to determine where you were coming from. There is no debating with people who trust in logic to be there guide in defining what is or is not true.

Take Rush Limbaugh for instance. One of his undeniable truths is that the natural yearning of the human spirit is to be free. Why does he believe such a silly idea? How did he come to such a ridiculous conclusion? Well, he claims to have done it through logic and reasoning and he readily and often presents those thoughts as proof that his assertions are not only correct but true to the degree of being Gods mind on the subject.

I am happy to debate you on an issue but before I do what is the point if you are not going to consider even the possibility that your premise may be wrong which I find to be the typical conservative attitude.

I would not debate Rush on the logic of his argument I am certain that he has very sound logic with regard to his claim about freedom being the natural yearning of the human spirit I would simply say, that is nonsense no matter how wonderfully logical his argument.

My opinion is that logic means nothing. Pick a premise any premise and I can find a logical argument for it or against it and in the end ask me what the truth is and if I am a liar I will tell you.

RightatNYU said:
And what might your way of thinking be? And why would you say I am a conservative, aside from the obvious name?

Response:
See my last response.

RightatNYU said:
What precipitated your revelation?

Response:
Revelation is more reliable than reason. Debate that a while.

To get back to the subject at hand I think the whole thing with the judges is conservative hate mongering. I would just go a little further and call it organized religious Christian conservative hate mongering.

I spent over 20 years in a cult and all I did was study the bible so forgive me for all the biblical religious references and such It is the only way I know of communicating.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
early2it said:
I will respond since you seem to earnestly desire I do.
Not that excited.


Let me clarify, you are right it was not much longer in content just hyperbole.
Well, I'd have called it "content" but that's just me.


I should care how my complaints are seen by others why?
Because it weakens your argument.


The reason I asked what you thought about logic was to determine where you were coming from. There is no debating with people who trust in logic to be there guide in defining what is or is not true.

Take Rush Limbaugh for instance. One of his undeniable truths is that the natural yearning of the human spirit is to be free. Why does he believe such a silly idea? How did he come to such a ridiculous conclusion? Well, he claims to have done it through logic and reasoning and he readily and often presents those thoughts as proof that his assertions are not only correct but true to the degree of being Gods mind on the subject.

I am happy to debate you on an issue but before I do what is the point if you are not going to consider even the possibility that your premise may be wrong which I find to be the typical conservative attitude.

I would not debate Rush on the logic of his argument I am certain that he has very sound logic with regard to his claim about freedom being the natural yearning of the human spirit I would simply say, that is nonsense no matter how wonderfully logical his argument.

My opinion is that logic means nothing. Pick a premise any premise and I can find a logical argument for it or against it and in the end ask me what the truth is and if I am a liar I will tell you.
Are you kidding me? You completely refuse the power of logic to make sense of anything in the world? How on earth could you be that foolish?

Revelation is more reliable than reason. Debate that a while.

To get back to the subject at hand I think the whole thing with the judges is conservative hate mongering. I would just go a little further and call it organized religious Christian conservative hate mongering.

I spent over 20 years in a cult and all I did was study the bible so forgive me for all the biblical religious references and such It is the only way I know of communicating.
Oh. Well, I guess that answers my previous question.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think that there's more at work than merely selfless protection of the US Constitution.
Take the general right to make a contract in relation to one's business[LOCHNER v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) ]. Not expressly covered in the Constitution yet hard to hear anyone complaining about judicial activism re this one. Same failure to follow strict constructionism, yet dissimilar response.









Second,
vauge said:
... if it is not explicit in the constitution or laws then the judge needs to rule them out - not state what should be done.
If which "it" is not explicit in the Constitution?
Not knowing exactly what you're talking about, I'm not entirely sure if this's gemane to your point or not; however, IIRC, the Tenth Ammendment is intentionally broad.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
On that same site Justice Holmes gave his dissenting opinion. I always find the dissent more useful in determining the validity of the ruling.
Some of these laws embody convictions or prejudices which judges are likely to share. Some may not. But a Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the state or of laissez faire. [198 U.S. 45, 76] It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel, and even shocking, ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
argexpat said:
The politburo of the GOP has issued an encyclical: Thou shalt scapegoat the judges! And so the Republican brownshirts mobilize into action. Christo-fascist media demagogue and amatuer psychic Pat Robertson calls federal judges "a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists."

"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down.

"Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."​

Now all we need do is wait for the inevitable bombing of a federal courthouse by one of Robertson's dimented born-again Christian lemmings. That'll show those evil, worse-than-Nazis-and-terrorists liberal judges! God bless Pat Robertson!
Who is Pat Robertson? According to the World Book, this is who:

Robertson, Pat (1930-...), is a United States religious, political, and business leader. He regularly appears on television, promoting Christian doctrines.

Marion Gordon Robertson, nicknamed Pat, was born in Lexington, Virginia. His father, A. Willis Robertson, was a Democratic senator from Virginia from 1946 to 1966. Pat Robertson received a bachelor's degree from Washington and Lee University in 1950, a law degree from Yale Law School in 1955, and a Master of Divinity degree from New York Theological Seminary in 1959. Robertson was ordained a Southern Baptist minister in 1961.

In 1960, Robertson established the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), a nonprofit radio and television network specializing in religious programming. He served as CBN's president until 1986, when he became the network's chief executive officer. In 1977, he founded CBN (now Regent) University in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and now serves as its chancellor.

In 1987, Robertson announced his candidacy for the 1988 Republican presidential nomination. In his campaign, he supported school prayer, a balanced federal budget, and a ban on abortion. But he lost the nomination to George H. W. Bush, who was later elected president. In 1989, Robertson founded the Christian Coalition, a conservative political organization. He served as head of the organization in 1989 and from 1999 to 2001.

Robertson is also a successful investor. His holdings include a California oil refinery and a hotel and conference center in Virginia.


To me, he appears to be simply a preacher turned capitalist who tried his hand at politics and enjoys the limelight which the socialist-lib-dems and their media apologists shine upon him whenever they feel the need to churn things up for the Administration or the Republican Party.

Knowing exactly how he will respond to questions makes it easy for the Stephenopolous type of 'interrogators' to compile a list of sound bites with which to torment the Administration. Good old Pat is reliable and never fails to deliver, does he?

Pat, and those of that ilk, should be ignored by the media. But that will never happen, will it?
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Fantasea said:
Pat, and those of that ilk, should be ignored by the media. But that will never happen, will it?
The man goes on national TV and says that judges in the USA are more dangerous to Americans than "Bearded Terrorists Flying into a building."

No more crazy than the people on this board who claim Saddam was a bigger threat to us than OBL and his boys....so should we ignore them too?
 
Top Bottom