McCain Has Bigger Problems....

[jillian]

In 1492 Columbus sailed the blue…
In 1492 the Muslim Kingdom of Granada fell to Ferdinand and Isabella.



That was a treaty of peace and friendship. What do you think should happen when the peace is broken?

Dude... read. There was no enmity between us and Arabs when this country was formed. So what parsley said was a lie and was nuts.

Who broke the peace? All Arabs? 16 Saudis?? Who?

 

[Ravi]

It'd be wonderful if all this religious nonsense would accomplish getting religion out of politics.

 

[jillian]

It'd be wonderful if all this religious nonsense would accomplish getting religion out of politics.

I don't think anything will get relgion per se out of politics. Nor do I necessarily think it should as there are issues people care about that are of particular moment to a particular group or groups. Plus religious organizations, Churches, Synagogues, etc., have always been rallying points for political change, such as during the civil rights' era. It's only fairly recently that the radicals have raised their ugly heads.

What I don't think can ever happen is for the religious nuts or any stripe to enact their religious tenets into law.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Dude... read. There was no enmity between us and Arabs when this country was formed. So what parsley said was a lie and was nuts.

Who broke the peace? All Arabs? 16 Saudis?? Who?

I know you've heard of the Barbary Coast Wars. Yes, we've had problems with the Muslims back in the 1700's too, when we were first born, not so much in the religious context. Jefferson had a copy of the Koran and was actually studying them to see what he was dealing with.

Barbary Pirates and declaration of war, 1801

 

[jillian]

I know you've heard of the Barbary Coast Wars. Yes, we've had problems with the Muslims back in the 1700's too, when we were first born, not so much in the religious context. Jefferson had a copy of the Koran and was actually studying them to see what he was dealing with.

Barbary Pirates and declaration of war, 1801

So you think what the nutcase said about this country being the intended staging ground for his pretend Christian holy war is hunky dory?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

So you think what the nutcase said about this country being the intended staging ground for his pretend Christian holy war is hunky dory?

I'm sorry, which nutcase, there are several?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Dude... read. There was no enmity between us and Arabs when this country was formed. So what parsley said was a lie and was nuts.

Read your own article doofus. There most certainly was enmity between Spain and Islam at the time Christopher Columbus discovered America…which I pointed out. FYI Columbus sailed from Spain - the expedition was funded by Spain. What Parsley said is far from being nuts as you claim. Here I'll even quote the part that Parsley said about Columbus:

"Parsley is not shy about his desire to obliterate Islam. In Silent No More, he notes—approvingly—that Christopher Columbus shared the same goal: "It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America." He urges his readers to realize that a confrontation between Christianity and Islam is unavoidable: "We find now we have no choice. The time has come." And he has bad news: "We may already be losing the battle. As I scan the world, I find that Islam is responsible for more pain, more bloodshed, and more devastation than nearly any other force on earth at this moment." "

Who broke the peace? All Arabs? 16 Saudis?? Who?

Islamofascists...muslims who wish to violently take over the world and institutute Islam....per the Koran.

 

[Eightball]

"To The Shores Of Tripoli.........".......That's part of the Marine Hymn, isn't it?

Seems our Marines once had some important business in Tripoli? What years was that? I think it dates way back towards our country's early years?

Isn't Tripoli......an Arab city........and probably Muslim?

Could someone fill me in on the significance of "To The Shores Of Tripoli........" meaning in the Marine hymn? Was this referring to some U.S. historical battle to do with the area where Tripoli is located?

Could this possibly dash the idea that Islam had no threatening signifcance or importance to our country in it's infancy?

I do remember that there were some important naval actions by our country in it's infancy towards some Arab countries piracy against our merchant vessels traveling to Northern Africa.

 

[Paulie]

I don't think anything will get relgion per se out of politics. Nor do I necessarily think it should as there are issues people care about that are of particular moment to a particular group or groups. Plus religious organizations, Churches, Synagogues, etc., have always been rallying points for political change, such as during the civil rights' era. It's only fairly recently that the radicals have raised their ugly heads.

What I don't think can ever happen is for the religious nuts or any stripe to enact their religious tenets into law.

Do you believe in the seperation of church and state, or is that a "constructionist" position which has been beaten down by a body of caselaw?

 

[jillian]

Do you believe in the seperation of church and state, or is that a "constructionist" position which has been beaten down by a body of caselaw?

There's no such thing as a "constructionist" postion. Do you mean strict constructionist... there's no such thing as that either, but it's the proper term.

Have you been reading my posts?

You ask me the strangest things sometimes.

I am however capable of knowing the difference between a church organizing something like the march on selma and a rally in front of the supreme court trying to take away my right to reproductive choice because their religious views don't like that type of choice. Can you see the difference?

 

[Paulie]

There's no such thing as a "constructionist" postion. Do you mean strict constructionist... there's no such thing as that either, but it's the proper term.

Have you been reading my posts?

You ask me the strangest things sometimes.

I am however capable of knowing the difference between a church organizing something like the march on selma and a rally in front of the supreme court trying to take away my right to reproductive choice because their religious views don't like that type of choice. Can you see the difference?

jillian you are the one who throws the constructionist term around, I was just asking you a question. Usually you combat the constitution's intent, so I was just wondering your position on church and state seperation, that's all.

I wasn't being facetious, so if that was perceived by the way I worded that, I apologize in advance.

 

[jillian]

jillian you are the one who throws the constructionist term around, I was just asking you a question. Usually you combat the constitution's intent, so I was just wondering your position on church and state seperation, that's all.

I wasn't being facetious, so if that was perceived by the way I worded that, I apologize in advance.

It was. So apology accepted and apology for snippy response extended.

The reason I get snippy about it is the whole "strict constructionist" perversion has been something that has been misused to advance the states' rights, religious right and anti-new deal agendas of the right wing. The term itself was initially used in a decision addressing first amendment infringement and a liberal justice (I believe it was Brennan, actually) said that the words of the first amendment should be strictly construed to mean that govenment can't touch freedom of speech (which is what I recall the case was about).

It wasn't ever intended to be a back door means to stick it to individuals or push the power back to the states.

What I believe is that the constiution was to be construed most broadly in favor of individual rigts... whether marriage; reproductive choice; the right to choose te particular consenting adult with whom to have a relationship; the right of me and my family to participate in a minority religion without having my child indoctrinated in the "majority" religion while at public school; etc.

I also happen to believe that such individual rights and their protection by the constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with what government is allowed to do under the necessary and proper clause or the commerce clause. Those are totally separate issues, but I believe the general welfare provisions of the constitution makes them broadly construed as well.

See the difference.

The above is also what I happened to be taught and learned in all of my constitutional studies...

Now, I don't claim any briliance in constitutional construction. But I do know enough to know how much I don't know. The first and most basic case anyone is taught in a con law class is Marbury v Madison. Why? Because there is nothing in the constitution that says specifically that the court can nullify a statute. Yet, without that ability, the constitution would have no teeth and would be words on a page. So, from day one, we have never "strictly construed" the Constitution.

And when I hear people who know nothing about the Constitution and the body of caselaw that makes it up (like the rush-bots and coultergeists and their progeny) reduce it to a pile of garbage that any guy on the street thinks he knows the exact meaning of without a day of study... without a day of education... without a day of thought...

it frustrates me no end.

 

[jreeves]

It was. So apology accepted and apology for snippy response extended.

The reason I get snippy about it is the whole "strict constructionist" perversion has been something that has been misused to advance the states' rights, religious right and anti-new deal agendas of the right wing. The term itself was initially used in a decision addressing first amendment infringement and a liberal justice (I believe it was Brennan, actually) said that the words of the first amendment should be strictly construed to mean that govenment can't touch freedom of speech (which is what I recall the case was about).

It wasn't ever intended to be a back door means to stick it to individuals or push the power back to the states.

What I believe is that the constiution was to be construed most broadly in favor of individual rigts... whether marriage; reproductive choice; the right to choose te particular consenting adult with whom to have a relationship; the right of me and my family to participate in a minority religion without having my child indoctrinated in the "majority" religion while at public school; etc.

I also happen to believe that such individual rights and their protection by the constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with what government is allowed to do under the necessary and proper clause or the commerce clause. Those are totally separate issues, but I believe the general welfare provisions of the constitution makes them broadly construed as well.

See the difference.

The above is also what I happened to be taught and learned in all of my constitutional studies...

Now, I don't claim any briliance in constitutional construction. But I do know enough to know how much I don't know. The first and most basic case anyone is taught in a con law class is Marbury v Madison. Why? Because there is nothing in the constitution that says specifically that the court can nullify a statute. Yet, without that ability, the constitution would have no teeth and would be words on a page. So, from day one, we have never "strictly construed" the Constitution.

And when I hear people who know nothing about the Constitution and the body of caselaw that makes it up (like the rush-bots and coultergeists and their progeny) reduce it to a pile of garbage that any guy on the street thinks he knows the exact meaning of without a day of study... without a day of education... without a day of thought...

it frustrates me no end.

What does this have to do with Obama disliking whites? Oh wait that's the point of all this nonsense.

 

[Zoomie1980]

I'm fairly comfortable with this particular article. And I don't really feel the need to debate it with you since it could be etched in stone and that wouldn't matter to you.

Cheers.

How can anyone ever be "comfortable" with anything written in the NY Times anymore after all their journalistic catastrophes over the past 10 years. This one media outlet alone has set the standards of professional journalism back 50 years. It continues to say everything about you that you are so willing to accept anything that fits your view of the world as being "viable".

 

[Zoomie1980]

It was. So apology accepted and apology for snippy response extended.

The reason I get snippy about it is the whole "strict constructionist" perversion has been something that has been misused to advance the states' rights, religious right and anti-new deal agendas of the right wing. The term itself was initially used in a decision addressing first amendment infringement and a liberal justice (I believe it was Brennan, actually) said that the words of the first amendment should be strictly construed to mean that govenment can't touch freedom of speech (which is what I recall the case was about).

It wasn't ever intended to be a back door means to stick it to individuals or push the power back to the states.

What I believe is that the constiution was to be construed most broadly in favor of individual rigts... whether marriage; reproductive choice; the right to choose te particular consenting adult with whom to have a relationship; the right of me and my family to participate in a minority religion without having my child indoctrinated in the "majority" religion while at public school; etc.

I also happen to believe that such individual rights and their protection by the constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with what government is allowed to do under the necessary and proper clause or the commerce clause. Those are totally separate issues, but I believe the general welfare provisions of the constitution makes them broadly construed as well.

See the difference.

The above is also what I happened to be taught and learned in all of my constitutional studies...

Now, I don't claim any briliance in constitutional construction. But I do know enough to know how much I don't know. The first and most basic case anyone is taught in a con law class is Marbury v Madison. Why? Because there is nothing in the constitution that says specifically that the court can nullify a statute. Yet, without that ability, the constitution would have no teeth and would be words on a page. So, from day one, we have never "strictly construed" the Constitution.

And when I hear people who know nothing about the Constitution and the body of caselaw that makes it up (like the rush-bots and coultergeists and their progeny) reduce it to a pile of garbage that any guy on the street thinks he knows the exact meaning of without a day of study... without a day of education... without a day of thought...

it frustrates me no end.

No, what you have is a highly selective viewport on the constitution and what passes for "rights".

I too, believe one cannot legislate morality and that the state has no say over personal relationships, reproductive choices, etc.... But I wonder if you have the same zeal to protect my right to own weaponry...and yes, I own a LOT of advance weaponry.

I also have a "right" to keep what I have earned through my own hard work, self reliance, and self-betterment and not have it siphoned off to give to some slack-wad who chose not to educate himself or better himself in any way.

 

[eots]

No, what you have is a highly selective viewport on the constitution and what passes for "rights".

I too, believe one cannot legislate morality and that the state has no say over personal relationships, reproductive choices, etc.... But I wonder if you have the same zeal to protect my right to own weaponry...and yes, I own a LOT of advance weaponry.

I

also have a "right" to keep what I have earned through my own hard work, self reliance, and self-betterment and not have it siphoned off to give to some slack-wad who chose not to educate himself or better himself in any way.

the slack wads you refer to ? that would be the federal reserve and the world banks correct ?

 

[jillian]

No, what you have is a highly selective viewport on the constitution and what passes for "rights".

I too, believe one cannot legislate morality and that the state has no say over personal relationships, reproductive choices, etc.... But I wonder if you have the same zeal to protect my right to own weaponry...and yes, I own a LOT of advance weaponry.

I also have a "right" to keep what I have earned through my own hard work, self reliance, and self-betterment and not have it siphoned off to give to some slack-wad who chose not to educate himself or better himself in any way.

I don't have a selective viewpoint on rights or the constitution.

For the record. Guns aren't my issue. They don't particularly interest me. But my positoin is there are reasonable things to do to keep guns from getting into the hands of mentally ill people and criminals. That said, the people who hate the 2nd amendment really have to suck it up b/c it exists in the same was as the other amendments.

That answer your question?

As for anyone choosing not to make it, there are always going to be abuses.. but it isn't the norm.

 

[Gunny]

First he alligned himself with the good ole rev who said the Catholic Church is "the great whore" ... now it's the toon who thinks this country was created to fight a holy war... (and the right wing loonies complain about Obama's "ties")

Nutters...



http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html

And, yes, I know it's mother jones, but the "liberal" media has been kind to McCain and so far only MSNBC has mentioned it.

I'm sorry, but if Obama's pastor was a conservative, you lefties'd be having a collective stroke at the garbage he spews. Just goes to show it isn't about religion; rather, it's about partisan politics.

I saw a clip of one of this guy's sermons on TV the other night and it was scary as Hell. He's a lying sack of shit, and he's got sheep following his dumb ass.

 

[jillian]

I'm sorry, but if Obama's pastor was a conservative, you lefties'd be having a collective stroke at the garbage he spews. Just goes to show it isn't about religion; rather, it's about partisan politics.

I saw a clip of one of this guy's sermons on TV the other night and it was scary as Hell. He's a lying sack of shit, and he's got sheep following his dumb ass.

I think you know that most of what Obama's guy says I chalk up to angry dude, but it won't affect our public policies. There's only one comment he made that I'd like to hear Obama speak to because it DOES go to our public policy.

As for McCain, the people he sucks up to DO want their nutty little beliefs enacted into law and DO go to our public policy. Mostly, this country can't take another 4 years of focusing on the religious right's agenda when there are real issues before us.

That said, I'd like them all to get down to discussing what they would do if they have the top spot.

 

[Zoomie1980]

I don't have a selective viewpoint on rights or the constitution.

For the record. Guns aren't my issue. They don't particularly interest me. But my positoin is there are reasonable things to do to keep guns from getting into the hands of mentally ill people and criminals. That said, the people who hate the 2nd amendment really have to suck it up b/c it exists in the same was as the other amendments.

That answer your question?

As for anyone choosing not to make it, there are always going to be abuses.. but it isn't the norm.

Actually...yes, you did.....