these men must be stopped... - DPChallenge Forums

08/25/2004 11:21:53 PM · #51

Originally posted by SoCal69:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by SoCal69:
It really is interesting to note that those who lean heavily toward the left tend to believe strongly in the First Amendment, but only when it serves their interests. As soon as it conflicts with their viewpoints, the First Amendment seems to fly out the window. Let's stop being so hypocritical and allow all people to exercise their rights, regardless of their position.

***Not true, SoCal. It's when a specialized group wants to take over the machinery of government of the country, change it's laws and dictate how to live is when we have to be very alert to what they are trying to do. Perhaps you missed the Pat Robertson quote I posted above. There seems to be a concerted effort by the CR to change our government to a theocracy. I'm all for the people of this country having their first amendment rights and being able to live life the way they want to (as long as it doesn't impact on the rest negatively and doesn't impact on the structure of our form of government.

All you have shown me is this group exercising their first amendment rights under the US Constitution. Regardless of what their underlying motives are, why is it deploreable to you that they are expressing themselves in the same manner as anyone else? Many things that many extreme left or right groups say or do can impact on our lives in a variety of ways, but you have not shown me anything more than an organization exercising its right to freedom of speech. Point out what it is they have done beyond exercising that right. Yes, we must be alert, but that holds true all the time, not just when dealing with the Christian right, but also with the ACLU, NAACP, and all other left and right extremist groups.

***I don't think the CR has been expressing themselves in the same manner as anyone else. They have hugh sums of money, which they've gotten from their millions of followers by means of hiding their true agendas behind a cloak religiousity. In Pat Robertson's case, there have been questionable business practices with people like Charles Taylor, who has been condemned by both the US and the UN for aiding and funding terrorism. Then there was "Operation Blessing" to help the refugees of Ruwanda. Pat Robertson raised millions of dollars from his loyal followers for the purpose of helping, but instead the money was used for diamond mining in through a company owned by Robertson, the African Development Corporation. There have been other
shady business practices as well, that have hidden behind the cloak of religiosity. It's also very possible, that lists compiled by the Christian Coalition has been used for business schemes, as well as, providing to the campaign to elect Bush for president in 2000 their hugh mailing lists. I wonder how many other republican candidates they have done that with? I also wonder if that's illegal.

Robertson is a sham and probably reads the financial pages a lot more than he reads the Bible.

08/25/2004 11:40:33 PM · #52

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

***There's nothing hypocritical about this issue. What groups on the left are you saying are trying to take over the government? As far as I know, the left, which I would say I'm part of, are trying to be part of the legal/political machinery and have a say, not take over the government. They want equal say and equal consideration by their political leaders, not for the purpose of control over the governmental apperatus, such as has been stated by Pat Robertson.

Oh, but you are being hypocritical. Are you saying that they are not allowed to state their agendas because you find them offensive? That is sure what it sounds like. Regardless of their agenda, their purpose or their ultimate goals, the U.S. Constitution protects their right to express themselves, just as it protects your right to do the same. So far, all you have shown is that they have made statements, nothing more. As such, that speech is protected. Whether you are stating you intend to change the structure of our government or that you have some secret fetish for Care Bears, you have the right to express yourself. The mere fact that you find it offensive does not change the protection it is afforded, so long as it does not advocate criminal actions or incite violence.

08/25/2004 11:47:46 PM · #53

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

First off, I do agree that many of these Christian Right figureheads are shams and more interested in wealth and power than they are the gospel which they purport to preach.

Now, are you saying that for their speech to be protected, it must be expressed in exactly the same manner as everyone else?? Yes, they have huge sums of money and a huge following. However, the fact that they hold a fair amount of clout does not render their speech any less protected than yours. As for questionable practices... if they have committed criminal acts, they should be prosecuted. However, referring to "questionable" and "shady" practices is nothing more than an exercise in speculation and innuendo. So far, you have not disputed the basic fact, which is this organization has made an expression of ideals through speech, and unless you can convince me that the First Amendment may be applied discriminatorily, you must submit to the simple concept that their statements are protected as free speech.

08/25/2004 11:52:23 PM · #54

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Isn't there supposed to be seperation of church and state in the US? I think there is.

No, although that is what the ACLU and other such groups have led you to believe... You should actually read the text of the amendment.

***Why don't you tell me what the amendment says regarding seperation of church and state?

[/quote]

Actually, it says nothing about "separation of church and state." It simply states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The emphasis is obviously mine. I don't see anything regarding separation of church and state. That phrase, by the way, is very vague and susceptible to many interpretations. Perhaps you should enlighten us as to what you believe separation of church and state entails.

08/25/2004 11:57:28 PM · #55

Originally posted by SoCal69:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
***There's nothing hypocritical about this issue. What groups on the left are you saying are trying to take over the government? As far as I know, the left, which I would say I'm part of, are trying to be part of the legal/political machinery and have a say, not take over the government. They want equal say and equal consideration by their political leaders, not for the purpose of control over the governmental apperatus, such as has been stated by Pat Robertson.

Oh, but you are being hypocritical. Are you saying that they are not allowed to state their agendas because you find them offensive? That is sure what it sounds like. Regardless of their agenda, their purpose or their ultimate goals, the U.S. Constitution protects their right to express themselves, just as it protects your right to do the same. So far, all you have shown is that they have made statements, nothing more. As such, that speech is protected. Whether you are stating you intend to change the structure of our government or that you have some secret fetish for Care Bears, you have the right to express yourself. The mere fact that you find it offensive does not change the protection it is afforded, so long as it does not advocate criminal actions or incite violence.

***Providing lists to republican candidates obtained from their followers, I have read, would be illegal according to the FEC. Obtaining money from your followers for the stated purpose of one agenda and applying those monies to another is illegal.

You still haven't showed me how the ACLU has been trying to take over the government.

08/26/2004 12:22:58 AM · #56

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Even assuming that this can be proven and they can be prosecuted, how does this affect their right to free speech under the first amendment?

08/26/2004 12:32:45 AM · #57

Originally posted by SoCal69:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

***Providing lists to republican candidates obtained from their followers, I have read, would be illegal according to the FEC. Obtaining money from your followers for the stated purpose of one agenda and applying those monies to another is illegal.

Even assuming that this can be proven and they can be prosecuted, how does this affect their right to free speech under the first amendment?

***I am not making the argument to stop their free speech. It seems to go further than speech for the CR leaders, though. If what is alleged is true (providing lists of their followers to republican candidates such as the president, according to the FEC, this is illegal and not a free speech issue, imo. If it's true that Pat Robertson diverted funds to personal business ventures collected from his followers that they contributed with the intention to go towards relief efforts of the refugees from Ruwanda, then that too is illegal. Not a free speech issue, from what I can see. I don't deny the Christian Right their right to free speech.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

08/26/2004 10:54:14 AM · #58

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I am not making the argument to stop their free speech.

Read again what you wrote:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

What is the purpose of the Christian Right trying to take over the government anyway? That is an important question as to why religion has to have a say politically? Are there other religious groups in the US that are trying the same thing?

As far as the democratic question goes, the way I see it is that when the CR groups, and there are a number of them, have enormous finances, as well as, access to major media, as they do say with the Christian Broadcast network and other mass media outlets to spread the political gospel, and have access, because of the aforementioned, to the highest politicians of our country like no other groups do, except for big business, then I would hardly say that is democratic.

In addition, if a group wants to take over the machinery of government and change it's legal and political structures to further their own aims and goals as to the way people should live their lives, then I would hardly say that's democratic, as well.

Isn't there supposed to be seperation of church and state in the US? I think there is.

Actually, the 1st amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
It seems that you want to prohibit speech based on the speaker's agenda.

And

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I'm all for the people of this country having their first amendment rights and being able to live life the way they want to (as long as it doesn't impact on the rest negatively and doesn't impact on the structure of our form of government.

Again, it seems that your support of "free speech" is limited to those whose agenda agrees with your beliefs.

Ron

Message edited by author 2004-08-26 10:59:39.

08/26/2004 11:01:25 AM · #59

The following is taken from this article published by AlterNet:
The Christian Taliban

A list of Bush appointees to key health and reproductive governmental positions given to Christian Fundamentalists:

"Dr. Alma Golden: appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of Population Affairs. A Texas pediatrician, she is a longtime proponent of abstinence as the only acceptable means of birth control. Dr. Golden declared that henceforth the department would stress "abstinence-only" as the solution to unwanted pregnancies, not just for teens, but unmarried adults as well."

"Tom Coburn: Former Republican congressman and anti-condom crusader. Appointed co-chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS. While in congress Coburn tried to force condom manufacturers to label condoms as "ineffective" against the spread of sexually transmitted infections. "I will challenge the national focus on condom use to prevent the spread of HIV," Coburn said upon his appointment."

"Dr. Joseph McIlhaney, Jr.: Appointed to Coburn on the HIV and AIDS advisory council. McIlhaney has a long and well-documented history of disseminating misleading data on condom failure rates. He was appointed in spite of the fact that in 1995 Governor George W. Bush's own Texas Commissioner of Health openly denounced McIhaney's anti-condom propaganda and his professional credibility."

"Dr. W. David Hager: Appointed to the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Dr. Hager served as spokesperson for the Christian Medical Association. He authored the book, As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now, and co-authored a book that recommended scripture readings and prayers to relieve the symptoms of PMS. Dr. Hager opposes prescribing contraceptives to unmarried women and spearheaded a petition drive by the Christian Medical Association to revoke the FDA's approval of mifepristone, the so-called "morning after pill."

"Dr. Joseph B. Stanford: Also appointed to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Dr. Stanford is on record for his belief that the only acceptable form of contraception, besides abstinence, is the all-natural "rhythm method." Dr. Stanford refuses to prescribe contraceptives, stating that "(modern) medicine is permeated with attitudes toward sexuality and fertility that are incompatible with Christian values of the sanctity of life, marriage, and procreation, attitudes that both reflect and perpetuate the recreational approach to sexuality found in our secular culture."

"Susan A. Crockett: The third Christian fundamentalist appointed to the same FDA committee. Crockett served as a board member of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. She co-authored, "Using Hormone Contraceptives is a Decision Involving Science, Scripture, and Conscience" in the book, The Reproductive Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality, Reproductive Technologies and the Family. The book was edited by Dr. Hager."

"When the hot issue of stem-cell research came up, President Bush dismissed two members of his Council on Bioethics who had each strongly supported the use of embryonic stem cells in research. They were replaced by three new members who, as the pro-life Family Research Council reported, "fall more in line with the President's pro-life views."

The Bush White House also began a campaign to remvove offending material regarding reproductive issues from governmental web sites which included:

"Scientific data on condom use, long available on government health Web sites, was removed and replaced by sermons on abstinence and alarmist propaganda that exaggerated the risks of condom use."

"The phrase "reproductive health" was expunged and replaced with the vague terms "related clinical preventive health services" and "related preventive health services."

"Links to non-governmental family planning resources were deleted."

"Web sites at the Centers of Disease Control and National Institute of Health were cleared of scientific studies and materials relating to abortion and condom use."

"At the CDC results from a peer-reviewed study showing that education about condom use did not result in increased sexual activity or sex at younger age, were deleted from the Web site."

"The NIH's Web site was cleaned of FAQ's on condom effectiveness and a sexuality education curriculum called "Programs that Work."

08/26/2004 11:21:31 AM · #60

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I am not making the argument to stop their free speech.

Read again what you wrote:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
What is the purpose of the Christian Right trying to take over the government anyway? That is an important question as to why religion has to have a say politically? Are there other religious groups in the US that are trying the same thing?

As far as the democratic question goes, the way I see it is that when the CR groups, and there are a number of them, have enormous finances, as well as, access to major media, as they do say with the Christian Broadcast network and other mass media outlets to spread the political gospel, and have access, because of the aforementioned, to the highest politicians of our country like no other groups do, except for big business, then I would hardly say that is democratic.

In addition, if a group wants to take over the machinery of government and change it's legal and political structures to further their own aims and goals as to the way people should live their lives, then I would hardly say that's democratic, as well.

Isn't there supposed to be seperation of church and state in the US? I think there is.

Actually, the 1st amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
It seems that you want to prohibit speech based on the speaker's agenda.

And

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I'm all for the people of this country having their first amendment rights and being able to live life the way they want to (as long as it doesn't impact on the rest negatively and doesn't impact on the structure of our form of government.

Again, it seems that your support of "free speech" is limited to those whose agenda agrees with your beliefs.

Ron

The real issues here, Ron, are that the CR want to take away the rights of people to exercise their free speech. An example of this would be the president's issuing an executive order, a gag order right after he took office, that prohibits family planning councilors from even discussing abortion with their clients.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

08/26/2004 11:47:05 AM · #61

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

And THAT is a reason to deny them the Constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech? I don't think so.

An executive order prohibiting non-governmental family planning councilors from even discussing abortion with their clients would be unconstitutional. However, to prohibit such discussions in GOVERNMENT facilities would NOT be. While free speech IS guaranteed, an individual's continued employment by those whose speech guidelines he/she violates is NOT guaranteed.

Not to mention the fact that such executive orders can only be issued by those who are elected BY THE PEOPLE, exercising their voting rights. If they elect the type of person who would issue such orders, it is THEIR fault for voting without being informed.

Ron

mrorange002

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

08/26/2004 11:54:39 AM · #62

Originally posted by RonB:

Not to mention the fact that such executive orders can only be issued by those who are elected BY THE PEOPLE, exercising their voting rights. If they elect the type of person who would issue such orders, it is THEIR fault for voting without being informed.

Ron

Yeah, it's to bad GW Bush wasn't elected "by the people" but instead he was elected by the courts.

Al Gore TOTAL VOTES: 50,999,897 48.38%
GW Bush TOTAL VOTES: 50,456,002 47.87%

you CAN find this information on the Federal Election Commision of the United States Government website at:
//www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

08/26/2004 12:19:54 PM · #63

That the Constitution has erected a wall of separation between Church and State is a fact indisputable to all but revisionists.

The ONLY people who still lamely try to promote the argument that this wall does not exist, are the people about which this thread began - the Falwell religo-activists.

(They are easy to identify - they will always tell you this is a "Christian" nation.):D

So - here is my conundrum:

Since the Falwellians strive to abrogate the separation clause of the 1st amendment, rendering the amendment null and void.... doesn't that mean that they therefore renege on their other 1st amendments protections, too?

Why should they be entitled to the right of free assembly when they espouse the abrogation of the 1st amendment?

If there was a group called " The New World Order Citizens Information Institute" who's mission in life was to train lawyers to accomplish reforms to immediately turn ownership of all media over to the ruling government party in order to insure complete censorship of all information to the public, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

Should they be stopped?

Isn't a deliberate attempt to subvert the Constitution a deed which is might be viewed as treasonous, antiAmerican, antifreedom, antidemocratic?

Isn't the whole frickin' point of the Constitution that certain civil liberties are SO important to the operation of a free state and the liberty of its people that they are inviolate?

Should the Falwellians be stopped, too?

Olympus 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 M.Zuiko Digital ED

08/26/2004 12:28:26 PM · #64

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

***Could not have said it better myself! Wonderfully put.

jonr

Olympus OM-D E-M5

08/26/2004 12:43:52 PM · #65

I put dumbasses like Falwell in the same category as any other religion extremist. That includes Islamic terrorists...

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/26/2004 12:53:20 PM · #66

The Anti-Defamation League's policy on mixing religion and politics as stated on their web site: FAQ's

"ADL reaffirmed its opposition to appeals to religious, racial, or ethnic bias in political campaigns and reaffirmed its opposition to the solicitation of group support on the basis of religion, race, or ethnic background, by candidates themselves or by committees constituted expressly for that purpose."

"ADL also resolved that voters should be encouraged to make their decisions based upon their assessment of the qualifications and political positions of candidates, not their religiosity. Furthermore, voters should not be made to feel inferior, or left out of the process, because they are in a religious minority."

"In December 1999, ADL wrote to each major-party presidential candidate expressing the Leagueâ��s concern about excessive religious speech in election-season political discourse."

"ADL supports religious expression and recognizes that most Americans have strong religious beliefs. The agency, like Thomas Jefferson, believes, however, that the best way to protect religion and to safeguard religious freedom is to keep church and state separate. The United States is the most religious country in the industrialized world precisely because there is a high wall of separation between church and state."

"We feel very strongly that appealing to voters along religious lines, or belief in God, is contrary to the American ideal. The United States is made up of many different types of people from different backgrounds and different faiths -- including individuals who do not believe in any god -- and none of our citizens, including atheistic Americans, should be made to feel outside of the electoral or political process."

"Voters should be encouraged to make their decisions based upon their assessment of the qualifications and political positions of candidates, not their religiosity."

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

08/26/2004 01:03:56 PM · #67

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by RonB:
Not to mention the fact that such executive orders can only be issued by those who are elected BY THE PEOPLE, exercising their voting rights. If they elect the type of person who would issue such orders, it is THEIR fault for voting without being informed.

Ron

Yeah, it's to bad GW Bush wasn't elected "by the people" but instead he was elected by the courts.

Al Gore TOTAL VOTES: 50,999,897 48.38%
GW Bush TOTAL VOTES: 50,456,002 47.87%

you CAN find this information on the Federal Election Commision of the United States Government website at:
//www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

It never ceases to amaze me how the left wants to pick and choose what laws are to be followed in the U.S. and how little they actually know of Constitutional law.
For example: the JUDICIAL branch - that is the Supreme Court, has NO power to ELECT anyone to any position. Neither do either of the other two branches. ELECTION to office is the prerogative of THE PEOPLE through the casting of their ballots ( the Vote ). In the U.S., the voters DO NOT VOTE for the PRESIDENT directly - they actually vote to choose representatives to the electoral college. Those representatives are the one who actually elect the President. Some states say that ALL representatives from their state must cast their ballots for the same candidate; other states say that representatives from their state must cast their ballots for candidates in the same ratio as the popular vote cast on behalf of such candidates. That is the way our Presidential election works - and the way it WORKED in 2000. All the Supreme Court did was to hold that the Florida Supreme Court did not uphold the "equal protection" and "due process" clauses of the Constitution in their recount decision - as a result, the legally acceptable Florida popular vote, and thus all of its electoral votes, went to GEORGE BUSH - and HE WON the national electoral vote - so GET OVER IT.

GW Bush Electoral Votes: 271
Al Gore Electoral Votes: 266

Winner: GW Bush

But you already knew all that, didn't you?

Ron

Spork99

OM System OM-1

08/26/2004 01:36:31 PM · #68

Originally posted by RonB:

Some states say that ALL representatives from their state must cast their ballots for the same candidate; other states say that representatives from their state must cast their ballots for candidates in the same ratio as the popular vote cast on behalf of such candidates.

Currently only Maine and Nebraska use this system to allocate the electoral votes from the congressional districts based on percentage of popular vote. The electoral votes for the Senate seats for those states are both awarded to the overall winner of the popular vote. All the other states award their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis.

Colorado has a measure on the ballot for November that would affect the way Colorado's electoral votes are distributed for the November election. This would change them from a winner-take-all state to allocating those votes the same way that Maine and Nebraska do. This measure will be voted on at the same time and by the same voters who are voting for president. It is interesting to note that had this system been in place just in Colorado for the 2000 election, Gore would have won.

Here's a column from this week's Newsweek that discusses this.

To me, it seems screwy that it's not standard between the states and even more screwy to change how it's done at the same time voters are votine for president.

MadMordegon

08/26/2004 01:45:45 PM · #69

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:
Some states say that ALL representatives from their state must cast their ballots for the same candidate; other states say that representatives from their state must cast their ballots for candidates in the same ratio as the popular vote cast on behalf of such candidates.

Currently only Maine and Nebraska use this system to allocate the electoral votes from the congressional districts based on percentage of popular vote. The electoral votes for the Senate seats for those states are both awarded to the overall winner of the popular vote. All the other states award their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis.

Colorado has a measure on the ballot for November that would affect the way Colorado's electoral votes are distributed for the November election. This would change them from a winner-take-all state to allocating those votes the same way that Maine and Nebraska do. This measure will be voted on at the same time and by the same voters who are voting for president. It is interesting to note that had this system been in place just in Colorado for the 2000 election, Gore would have won.

Here's a column from this week's Newsweek that discusses this.

To me, it seems screwy that it's not standard between the states and even more screwy to change how it's done at the same time voters are votine for president.

Interesting information, thanks.

08/26/2004 02:07:25 PM · #70

Originally posted by RonB:

All the Supreme Court did was to hold that the Florida Supreme Court did not uphold the "equal protection" and "due process" clauses of the Constitution in their recount decision - as a result, the legally acceptable Florida popular vote, and thus all of its electoral votes, went to GEORGE BUSH - and HE WON the national electoral vote - so GET OVER IT.

Ron

Mere innuendo, RonB, mere innuendo. Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

Bush stole the Florida vote with the help of the Supreme Court and his brother Jeb.

(According to BBC reporters, James Baker actually bragged that he had "fixed the Florida election" to impress a roomful of Russian bigwigs he was trying to woo.)

Much has been written on the improper felon scrub lists, which are still an issue today, ( thousands of votes for Gore), the documented voter intimidations in black-dominated districts, hundreds of improper military ballots accepted for Bush ( Gore's mistake), the ridiculous results from butterfly ballots and hanging chads which had no correlation to exit polling, the huge discrepancies between republican and democratic district's ballot discard rates.

But make no mistake about it.

The Supreme court had the power and USED it to (s)ELECT Bush president with the most perverted, detestable, shameful ruling perhaps in its entire history.

What the court said was that because different systems with different error rates and different subjective criteria were used in different precincts - NOBODY was going to get a correct recount. And so, no actual recount was done. The process - if you could call it that - stopped cold.

And please, do NOT try to tell me that all the votes were already recounted. In truth, many votes had not even been counted the FIRST time.

The fact is that when recounts were conducted by several media outlets there were quite a few different ways to interpret the votes on hanging chads, write-ins etc according to Florida state and local county laws. Under every LEGAL scenario , *IF* all the ballots were counted - as they should have been, don't you think??....

Al Gore won Florida, and its electoral votes.

What was the headline in every newspaper in the country? "Bush would have won election"!!! Because they found a single interpretation , not supported by law, but used in the two contested counties - all made moot by the Supremes- which woould have given Bush a few more votes.

So.... if there was a statewide recount, (as there should have been if Bush's 527(!) committeee didn't contest the mandatory statewide recount and somehow got away with it)... Gore wins.

Remove the illegal military ballots which never should have been accepted.... Gore wins more.

Remove the illegal absentee ballots processed illegally in Katherine harris' office by Bush activists..... Gore wins more.

Add in the votes of the 70,000 or so people illegally removed from the ballot rolls..... Gore wins by thousands more

You get the picture.

So, when you use the favorite phrase of Radical Right and say "Get Over IT", what exactly do you want me to get over?

That the Supreme Court subverted democracy and stole the election from the majority of people in the entire country? I will NEVER get over that. I don't think any true patriot could.

That the brother of the candidate fixed the election deliberatly and illegally and nothing has been done? I will NOT get over that until he goes to prison for it.

That in the closest election of our time, the candidate who lost the popular vote, actually fought against a full and fair recount of all the votes in Florida and the media allowed him to even pitch the idea? I will never get over that one either until we eventually restore balance and integrity to journalism in this banana republic.

If you research what really took place, and realize that instead of a fair, full counting of votes we got a horrific partisan nightmare, one can only marvel at how shrewd was the manipulation of public opinion, that had thrown so many good Americans off-course from our long-standing notion of basic fair play.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

08/26/2004 02:23:21 PM · #71

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Much has been written on the improper felon scrub lists, which are still an issue today, ( thousands of votes for Gore)

because only convicted felons would vote for Gore ?

08/26/2004 02:36:24 PM · #72

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The real issues here, Ron, are that the CR want to take away the rights of people to exercise their free speech. An example of this would be the president's issuing an executive order, a gag order right after he took office, that prohibits family planning councilors from even discussing abortion with their clients.

And THAT is a reason to deny them the Constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech? I don't think so.

An executive order prohibiting non-governmental family planning councilors from even discussing abortion with their clients would be unconstitutional. However, to prohibit such discussions in GOVERNMENT facilities would NOT be. While free speech IS guaranteed, an individual's continued employment by those whose speech guidelines he/she violates is NOT guaranteed.

Not to mention the fact that such executive orders can only be issued by those who are elected BY THE PEOPLE, exercising their voting rights. If they elect the type of person who would issue such orders, it is THEIR fault for voting without being informed.

Ron

***Again, I'm not advocating restricting the free speech of the Christian Right leadership or its members. Trying to influence people through public discourse and media is one thing, but a totally different matter when political influence is gained through financial leverage and the promise of large populations based on religiousity. Especially when some of that money has been gotten illegally through CR followers who believed they were giving for one cause (Ruwandan relief) and the money was used for other personal and financial reasons (diamond mining and dealings with UN/US declared terrorist Charles Taylor).

When I asked the question above, Why does a religious organization such as the CR need to have a say politically in the US, I was asking more of a rhetorical question meaning that I would like to know why an organization that supposedly has god on it's side needs to have political connections and power? The question was not intended to imply that the CR should not have freedom of speech.

08/26/2004 02:51:46 PM · #73

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Much has been written on the improper felon scrub lists, which are still an issue today, ( thousands of votes for Gore)

because only convicted felons would vote for Gore ?

Not just convicted felons, but all heinous criminals even if they have not been caught are either democratic voters, or members of the Bush administration, a much smaller number. Just kidding. :D

Are you making a joke, or would you like a fuller explanation of the felon scrub list?

Message edited by author 2004-08-26 14:55:52.

08/26/2004 03:00:38 PM · #74

People were on that list that had no criminal record, but whose names were the same or similar to felons from other states. I believe it was Jeb Bush and Katheryn Harris that pushed for those lists.