Article

2004-04-05 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2004-04-05 22:40|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 One question: When are they going to stop calling burger flippers "manufacturing" jobs?

Posted by Zenster 2004-04-05 11:04:37 PM|| 2004-04-05 11:04:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 I have a better one for you, Dumpster, explain
this position again for us, providing proof:

"Jen, only when and if he is ever properly elected will I then be grudgingly obliged to address him as you wish I would. His intentional blurring of the separation between church and state while simultaneously attempting to constitutionalize discrimination gets nothing but scorn from me.

Thank goodness we live in a country where we can disagree on this matter. Please know that you indeed have the privilege to dislike me for what I say, that is entirely your right. Understand one thing though, I don't do this to intentionally anger or offend you or anybody else.

As a proud American I cannot abide the White House's ham-fisted tampering with both the duties of executive office or our beloved constitution. Whatever proper intransigence might be shown for terrorism (as is demanded of all worthy commander in chiefs) still in no way confers any right to enshrine religious commandment as constitutional law, especially not in a nation wholly founded upon secular ideals. This is what he's attempting and my own ethicality demands that I consider it to be nothing less than malfeasance of office. Hence my scorn."

I find you to be a pointless poster. Your antipathy toward Bush is dangerous for America and the Free World. Your position makes all of your anti-terrorism comments purely disingenuous blather - for your "President" Gore and your obvious support for Skeery would empower people who have no clue and would leave us open to the terror you claim to eschew. It's a position that outweighs the value of your comments manyfold. You're simply a dangerous idiotarian.

Posted by .com 2004-04-05 11:33:21 PM|| 2004-04-05 11:33:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 As a proud American I cannot abide the White House's ham-fisted tampering with both the duties of executive office or our beloved constitution. Whatever proper intransigence might be shown for terrorism (as is demanded of all worthy commander in chiefs) still in no way confers any right to enshrine religious commandment as constitutional law, especially not in a nation wholly founded upon secular ideals. This is what he's attempting and my own ethicality demands that I consider it to be nothing less than malfeasance of office. Hence my scorn."

Furthering com's comment with this quote.... I need some help here. Explain please, what "enshrine religious commandment as constitutional law" really means. Which part of the constitution do you refer to? I seem to be totally enjoying all my constitutional rights. Haven't had anyone ringing my doorbell, or banging down my door lately, hauling me off to jail for no reason. Just ain't happening!

And this part: "This is what he's attempting and my own ethicality demands that I consider it to be nothing less than malfeasance of office." Huh? You got some down to earth examples, or, are these just some big "words of the day" you gathered from a hat and strung them together?

Hey, I'm plain spoken here. Get specific, and maybe I can begin to study your side, maybe even finding some merit in it. But, until you give me something to really chew on, like facts... well, I, too, know how to use a Thesaurus!

Posted by Sherry 2004-04-05 11:53:42 PM|| 2004-04-05 11:53:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 for your "President" Gore and your obvious support for Skeery

.com, you need to show specific instances to back up your claims.

Sherry, the DOMA is discriminatory and represents Biblical interpretation being paraded around as law. Attempting to integrate this into America's secular constitution is in direct conflict with anti-discrimination laws already on the books.

The "Office of Faith Based Giving" represents a significant blurring of church and state.

America came to greatness without this sort of parochial legislation or institutionalizing of religion in government. I'd like to see it kept that way.

Posted by Zenster 2004-04-06 12:17:21 AM|| 2004-04-06 12:17:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 America came to greatness without this sort of parochial legislation or institutionalizing of religion in government. I'd like to see it kept that way.
No. Just plain no. The founders of this nation were prolific in their mention of God Almighty and the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. NOTHING is spoken in a vacuum, and the founders' world was full of religious meaning and portent. In fact, it was the fervent religious teaching of the 1600s and 1700s that gave way to the cry for liberty from tyranny in 1776. Every word of the US Constitution, every word, must necessarily be read from the point of view of the framers and the populace at large that adopted that Constitution as the moral and political blueprint of this nation. We have religious liberty enshrined in the US Constitution only because religious liberty is an inherently Judeo-Christian concept.

Posted by cingold 2004-04-06 12:39:09 AM|| 2004-04-06 12:39:09 AM|| Front Page Top

23:57 Zenster
23:57 Zenster
23:54 Zenster
23:54 Zenster
23:30 Zenster
23:30 Zenster
01:24 Frank
01:24 Frank
01:22 James TROLL
01:11 Baker TROLL
09:08 rkb
04:55 Super Hose
03:48 Pete Stanley
03:17 Super Hose
02:54 Murat
01:15 .com
01:06 .com
00:52 Alaska Paul on the Road
00:39 cingold
00:24 WhiteHouseDetox
00:18 ex-lib
00:17 Zenster
00:13 phil_b
00:04 Alaska Paul on the Road