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
"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.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."
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!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.
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.
vauge said:The men and women from the bench are gaining more control over this nation than our own congress and president.
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.
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."
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!
Wow! Thank you!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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.You then go on and suggest that we have to "reevaluate our judicial system". Exactly what do you have in mind?
Here is another thread on the subject, argexpat.They're so numerous yet I never see them presented. Please give me actual instances of this supposed overstepping of authority by "activist" judges.
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.
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.
RightatNYU said:Good thing thats not a blanket unsupported statement with no historical backing based on fearmongering.
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
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!
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.
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.
early2it said:I will respond since you seem to earnestly desire I do.
Let me clarify, you are right it was not much longer in content just hyperbole.
I should care how my complaints are seen by others why?
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.
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.
If which "it" is not explicit in the Constitution?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.
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.
Who is Pat Robertson? According to the World Book, this is who: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!
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."Fantasea said:Pat, and those of that ilk, should be ignored by the media. But that will never happen, will it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?