• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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.

Time for Dems to start lying again!

Contrarian said:
Well it's debateable that he was elected "by the people" the first time!
Click to expand...
What can I say? I completely agree.

You still didn't address the thought of inflaming a "Holy War"... can you not see how envoking the word of the Christian God for every decision MIGHT incite Islamic fundamentalists in their Jihad? It should be easy to comprehend especially since it has managed to tick off almost everyone in Europe. Just ask some of our forum colleagues from the EU...
Click to expand...
Look, it's a little late in the game to be worrying now about any inflamation don't you think? If we didn't want the Arab nations pissed at us, bombing the hell out of them and then going in with troops probably wasn't the better way to go. Whether it is considered a "Holy War" or not, it's still a war. I may be wrong, but I do not think he has attributed every decision he has come to as the direct word of God. But I personally woudn't put it past him. But, by necessity, he still has to be given the right to do it. Now whether he ought to or not, well, that's for each of us to decide (and you and I stand on very similar ground I think), but the fact is that we must maintain that he does have the right to say this, because he too is a citizen of the US. I do think it is in the best interest of the whole world to act in the will of God. I think it is incredibly detremental to everyone in the world to claim that you are doing something that God willed of you when that is not the case. Where does all of this lie? I don't even wanna begin to guess where Bush actually stands with God.
 
Contrarian said:
You still didn't address the thought of inflaming a "Holy War"... can you not see how envoking the word of the Christian God for every decision MIGHT incite Islamic fundamentalists in their Jihad? It should be easy to comprehend especially since it has managed to tick off almost everyone in Europe. Just ask some of our forum colleagues from the EU...
Click to expand...
If Bush was FORCING his belief in God to the United States - then yes - I would agree. But, he is not. He only states that he talks to the man upstairs for wisdom and he listens.
Big difference. Arab nations FORCE their belief system on the people - Bush and the US do not. Again, you are making this ant hill into a mountain. It also sounds like you are also attempting to invoke political correctness on a man's religion.

Islamic fundamentalists will try everything they can muster to go against Christians. What Bush says or does is irrelivant to what they believe is justification for a Jihad. Which truely is against DEMOCRACY - not neccesarily the US or Christians in general.
 
vauge said:
If Bush was FORCING his belief in God to the United States - then yes - I would agree. But, he is not. He only states that he talks to the man upstairs for wisdom and he listens.
Big difference. Arab nations FORCE their belief system on the people - Bush and the US do not. Again, you are making this ant hill into a mountain. It also sounds like you are also attempting to invoke political correctness on a man's religion.

Islamic fundamentalists will try everything they can muster to go against Christians. What Bush says or does is irrelivant to what they believe is justification for a Jihad. Which truely is against DEMOCRACY - not neccesarily the US or Christians in general.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. He is forcing his ideology onto this nation through actions such as the current move to change the Senate rules for filibuster etc. The move is designed to remove jusices who are ruling according to the Constitution which supports the concept of a pluralistic secular government as opposed to a wing of the religious right. The fact is that just as many judges who were appointed by Clinton, never made it out of the Judiciary Committee. This action is designed to FORCE the will of the relgious right on everyone... and Bush is directly behind it.

It is not an ant hill.

With respect to Islam, I totally agree with you that they see Christianity as a mortal enemy worth attacking at every step. So doesn't it make sense that this conflict not be established as a war between Christians and Muslims? Isn't it more correctly a war between people who worship freedom over tyranny and totalitarianism? Isn't it best to DOWN PLAY any religious aspect to avoid the connotation of an old fashioned religious war? Aren't you sick of people being killed merely because they believe in one book over another?

Why make it worse? What is to be gained?
 
Contrarian said:
I respectfully disagree. He is forcing his ideology onto this nation through actions such as the current move to change the Senate rules for filibuster etc. The move is designed to remove jusices who are ruling according to the Constitution which supports the concept of a pluralistic secular government as opposed to a wing of the religious right. The fact is that just as many judges who were appointed by Clinton, never made it out of the Judiciary Committee. This action is designed to FORCE the will of the relgious right on everyone... and Bush is directly behind it.
Click to expand...
The Senate is doing this, Bush is mearly supporting it.

So now we get down to the core of the matter - it's all of the right wing not Bush himself.

The right wing conspiracy is not attempting to rule "unconstitutionally". We do not want to create new laws based on judges ideologies and personal take on the sitituations.

The truth is that judges have more power over congress and the President himself. This should not be the case - it is supposed to be equal. Any Joe can say that a situtation is not constitutional. Every concievable situtation is not in it. A true and quality judge could rule that established traditions do not warrant new actions or new laws from the bench - then turn it over to congress to evalutate and create those new laws. Unfortunatly today the "unconstitutional stamp" is getting used way too often.
 
There's an old Italian saying that translated say.. "The reason for a fork, is so that your hands don't get dirty"... Bush is not just President, he is head of the GOP, the Conservative Right... he (and his guys) is directing this as sure as Benedictine is Pope.

You just said: "The right wing conspiracy is not attempting to rule "unconstitutionally". We do not want to create new laws based on judges ideologies...."

I didn't know you were a card carrying member of the vast "right wing conspiracy"! :mrgreen: YOU most certainly are trying to do so! Didn't you see Frist on TV? Didn't you tune into the conference to remove judges who make rulings which do not adhere to "Christian values"? You missed some great reality TV!

The role of the Judiciary is to be independent of Congress. To rule on the Constitution and laws as they are written. The complexity of the LAW is that it needs to be interpreted. This is the reason why their are MULTIPLE judges on the Supreme Court(s) who render independent opinions and then VOTE on the courts decision... THIS IS CALLED DEMOCRACY! If you let the Congress interpret the LAW after it is already made, you are allowing them to POLITICIZE the law. This is BAD regardless of who is in power at the time.

The proble we have right now is that both the Executive and Legislative branchs have one party in power... no checks and balances. If the Judicial branch is them hijacked, we have a serious problem... FOR EVERYONE.

WHen Clinton's Judicial nominees were squashed in 1995 (I believe) there was a severe political backlash.... BUT NO ONE ATTEMPTED TO CHANGE THE RULES OF SENATE PROCEDURE. The filibuster was designed to protect the rights of the minority... and one day, the GOP will once again find it self in the back seat... it always happens and it will again
 
Thats for sure, they seem to tell the truth about 10% of the time, and thats about it.
 
Both parties used to be honorable, now neither are. Rather sad. But with people like DeLay in charge...you wanna talk about honor and integrity, great guy to start with.
 
The Democrats never stopped lying but that is a common trait to all politicians anyway. The democrats do not have a monopoly on liars. The republicans are just as guilty. It is just a matter of which facts are spun at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom