Former representative William Dannemeyer (R-Calif.) followed Schlafly, saying the country's "principal problem" is not Iraq or the federal budget but whether "we as a people acknowledge that God exists."
I hate to break it to them, but the God they are referring to in the Bible doesn't need people to acknowledge His existance to get stuff done.
I love this:
Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment." To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," Schlafly said that Kennedy had not met the "good behavior" requirement for office and that "Congress ought to talk about impeachment."
Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.
The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem."
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused about how a perception that judges are making political decisions could lead people to "engage in violence."
"I am 23 years old, and I am what a feminist looks like. Ever since I learned to embrace my feminist nature, I found great joy in threatening men's lives, flicking off frat brothers and plotting the patriarchy's death. I hate men because they are men"
"Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."
He must love satan because he wants to strike down completely obsolete, prudish laws that are blatantly unconstitutional and could easily provide grounds for legal persecution of homosexuals. Damn satanist.
so now we're talking about barbra boxer, barbara lee and carol moseley braun?
dude, c'mon, you lobbed it up there.
if you want me to be serious, post something that isn't obviously some temporarily insane people floating some assinine ideas. I guess we could debate if they're only temporarily insane.
I don't really have anything to add to the debate, but I do have an observation to make.
In the interest of serving equality, I think we need a catchy, piquish label for left-leaning folks to contrast "frother". The first few times I saw that term used, it was kinda funny...but now it is overused to the point of becoming passé. I propose "tucker" as in "dick-tucker". I think it captures the simple essence of the liberal male just as frother does the conservative one. What do you all think?
I am confused. some one explain this situation in blatent terms. When they say conservative, do they mean republican conservative or religouise conservative ( dont say both)
In the interest of serving equality, I think we need a catchy, piquish label for left-leaning folks to contrast "frother". The first few times I saw that term used, it was kinda funny...but now it is overused to the point of becoming passé. I propose "tucker" as in "dick-tucker". I think it captures the simple essence of the liberal male just as frother does the conservative one. What do you all think?
I don't really have anything to add to the debate, but I do have an observation to make.
In the interest of serving equality, I think we need a catchy, piquish label for left-leaning folks to contrast "frother". The first few times I saw that term used, it was kinda funny...but now it is overused to the point of becoming passé. I propose "tucker" as in "dick-tucker". I think it captures the simple essence of the liberal male just as frother does the conservative one. What do you all think?
i don't have that, but i do have an activist judiciary who don't understand the meaning of hyperbole freeing the way for legalizing open threats against the CIC:
SAN FRANCISCOA federal appeals court Friday overturned an inmates conviction for writing a crude, rambling letter endorsing President Bushs death at the hands of terrorists two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The letter from Oregon State Penitentiary prisoner Jonathan Lincoln, who was charged with threatening the president and given an 18-month sentence last year, read, in part: You will die too George W Bush real Soon they Promised That you would Long Live Bin Laden.
Corrections officials intercepted the letter; Lincoln had been serving a 46-month sentence for robbery.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the letter was protected under the First Amendment, calling it Lincolns crude and offensive method of stating a political opposition to the president. The court noted such political hyperbole does not constitute a threat.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.