Some leftie bloggers are crackpots :)

[bitkahuna]

(Glad the hard left is keen on diminishing the relevance of the Democratic party still further. You go Liza!)


September 29, 2005
Twenty-one Democrats vote to confirm John Roberts? Meet "The Dominionists' 21"
by Liza Sabater (http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/003468.html)

Today starts the purging of the Democratic Party.

As far as I am concerned, these 21 senators that voted for Roberts have to be weakened, contested and more pointedly, voted out of office in 2006. Ken Salazar [Sen. Colorado] has shown to be a Republican plant within the Democratic Party. That man has to go BIG TIME. What Chaffee is to NARAL, Salazar is to the Dems.

These 21 senators become hostage of Republicans in their states and have gladly partaken of the political Stockholm Syndrome that has moved the Democratic Party away of its core values. Lieberman? The next Zel Miller and in a hartbeat.

These bozos have to go.

The Independent Jeff Jeffords (Vermont) also voted for Roberts. His vote was the most unexpected to me.

What was amiss from the public conversation about Roberts? Everything that is amiss from the public conversation about reproductive rights, the right to privacy and the 9th Amendment.

Roe v. Wade will not be stricken out of the books in one blow because that is part of the dominionists agenda. They're not interested in doing it that way. They are interested in weaking constitutional rights one blow at a time. What they want is to restrict constitutional interpretation and Roberts is the perfect candidate to make that happen as Chief Justice. They want the US Constitution to be about limiting not just freedoms but free will.

The dominionists have won.

If Democrats don't get this aspect of the dominionists agenda, they do not deserve to represent the interests of the Democratic Party at all. So I ask you, how do you want to take these mother***********s down?

Posted by Liza Sabater in 2006 Congressional Elections, Accountability, Democrats, John Roberts, Roe vs. Wade, SCOTUS, Supreme Court
Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati Cosmos



(This is the list of Dem. senators who voted FOR Roberts)

# Max Baucus, Montana
# Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico
# Robert Byrd, West Virginia
# Kent Conrad, North Dakota
# Tom Carper, Delaware
# Christopher Dodd, Connecticut
# Byron Dorgan, North Dakota
# Russ Feingold, Wisconsin
# Tim Johnson, South Dakota
# Herb Kohl, Wisconsin
# Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
# Patrick Leahy, Vermont
# Carl Levin, Michigan
# Joe Lieberman, Connecticut
# Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas
# Patty Murray of Washington
# Ben Nelson, Nebraska
# Bill Nelson, Florida
# Mark Pryor, Arkansas
# Ken Salazar, Colorado
# Roy Wyden, ,Oregon

[Lil4X]

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

(This is the list of Dem. senators who voted FOR Roberts)

# Max Baucus, Montana
# Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico
# Robert Byrd, West Virginia
# Kent Conrad, North Dakota
# Tom Carper, Delaware
# Christopher Dodd, Connecticut
# Byron Dorgan, North Dakota
# Russ Feingold, Wisconsin
# Tim Johnson, South Dakota
# Herb Kohl, Wisconsin
# Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
# Patrick Leahy, Vermont
# Carl Levin, Michigan
# Joe Lieberman, Connecticut
# Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas
# Patty Murray of Washington
# Ben Nelson, Nebraska
# Bill Nelson, Florida
# Mark Pryor, Arkansas
# Ken Salazar, Colorado
# Roy Wyden, ,Oregon

Interesting that so many "Red State" Democrats voted for Justice Roberts' confirmation. Twelve of the twenty-one, by my count broke with the party line to vote the interests of their constituents.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/...mapredblue.png

[link13]

This country is getting scary. Freedom of religion is being replaced by mandated christianity. Freedom of speech is a joke now. The FCC has made sure of that. I would expect that people would be alarmed and would speak out in favor of their rights.

Based o your comment, red states

More often than not, the vocal people in terms of policy have been coming from the evangelical christian sector of society . The Howard Stern Show gets censored. All shows get censored.

Here's a suggestion (I'm sure you've heard it before). If you don't like it, don't listen.

I hate the Republican party, despite the fact that I make good money and am conservative with my fnances, because they are enslaved to evangelical christians. For me, boht parties are castrated, but your idiot fans will still be able to observe their massive bodies at the beach.

[drink300]

Originally Posted by link13

This country is getting scary. Freedom of religion is being replaced by mandated christianity. Freedom of speech is a joke now. The FCC has made sure of that. I would expect that people would be alarmed and would speak out in favor of their rights.

You got it. I will speak out in favor of MY rights. Here is the law, so pay attention:

As long as Congress makes no law regarding the free practice of religion, then no rights are being violated and all laws are being upheld. That is the law of the land, take it or leave it.
There is no such thing as separation of Church and State and all secular progressivists just need to learn to deal with it, because thier stance has no backing by any original founding document of this country / anything pre-dating 1950.

Originally Posted by link13

Here's a suggestion (I'm sure you've heard it before). If you don't like it, don't listen.

Here's a suggestion for you and all humanistic secular progressivists like you...if you don't like the Ten Commandments outside a courthouse, don't look at them. And if you don't like "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, don't say it. You cannot and will not take away MY rights to worship God publicly, and you cannot take away a local municipalitie's right to display a Judeo-Christian monument just because you don't want to see it or hear about it.

Originally Posted by link13

I hate the Republican party, despite the fact that I make good money and am conservative with my fnances, because they are enslaved to evangelical christians. For me, boht parties are castrated, but your idiot fans will still be able to observe their massive bodies at the beach.

Ummm...OK then....


drink300

[MoFunk]

# Joe Lieberman, Connecticut

i'm a little surprised by this.

[Matters]

Originally Posted by Lil4X

Interesting that so many "Red State" Democrats voted for Justice Roberts' confirmation. Twelve of the twenty-one, by my count broke with the party line to vote the interests of their constituents.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/...mapredblue.png

Wow look at that map! Sorry to break from subject. But that really speaks volumes that map.

[Matters]

Originally Posted by drink300

humanistic secular progressivists like you...if you don't like the Ten Commandments outside a courthouse, don't look at them. And if you don't like "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, don't say it. You cannot and will not take away MY rights to worship God publicly, and you cannot take away a local municipalitie's right to display a Judeo-Christian monument just because you don't want to see it or hear about it. drink300

What's the definition or character traits of a "humanist secular progressivist"?

Hey, if you are cool with there being no laws regarding the practise of religion, then why should other religions miss out on putting their little plaque outside the courthouse too. The Hindus and the Bhuddists shouldn't miss out should they?

In fact how about we put a copy of the central tenants of every religion outside the courthouse
Or, and this is the easy way, how about no-one puts a plaque espousing their religious beliefs outside the court?

Because wouldn't it be more important that they live their lives in the spirit of their religion and do good works rather than worry about a plaque? I seem to remember, from my religious studies, that JC was more worried about helping people (especially the wicked and non-believers) then going around pointing the finger at them about their non-compliance with the 10 commandments.

But whilst we are putting in the 10 commandments can we add the other important old-testament rules such as:

1. allowing your Hebrew servant to go free after six years; but not if his wife has children because you get to keep them Exodus 21:4;
2. Do no allow a soceress to live Exodus 22:18;
3. If a thief is too poor to make good his restitution then he must be sold to pay for his theft Exodus 22:3;

Take a good look at Exodus and Leviticus there are heaps of other great laws that surely should not be overlooked.

[drink300]

Originally Posted by Matters

What's the definition or character traits of a "humanist secular progressivist"?

Hey, if you are cool with there being no laws regarding the practise of religion, then why should other religions miss out on putting their little plaque outside the courthouse too. The Hindus and the Bhuddists shouldn't miss out should they?

In fact how about we put a copy of the central tenants of every religion outside the courthouse
Or, and this is the easy way, how about no-one puts a plaque espousing their religious beliefs outside the court?

Because wouldn't it be more important that they live their lives in the spirit of their religion and do good works rather than worry about a plaque? I seem to remember, from my religious studies, that JC was more worried about helping people (especially the wicked and non-believers) then going around pointing the finger at them about their non-compliance with the 10 commandments.

But whilst we are putting in the 10 commandments can we add the other important old-testament rules such as:

1. allowing your Hebrew servant to go free after six years; but not if his wife has children because you get to keep them Exodus 21:4;
2. Do no allow a soceress to live Exodus 22:18;
3. If a thief is too poor to make good his restitution then he must be sold to pay for his theft Exodus 22:3;

Take a good look at Exodus and Leviticus there are heaps of other great laws that surely should not be overlooked.

The definition of a secular progressivist is this ( this is from my own point of view): A person who wishes to move the U.S. progressively toward a more secular society, free of Gods, religion, worship, and eventually morals. Secular progressivist start small by challenging simple things like "In God We Trust" on currency, "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, etc..., but their ultimate goal is a society free of morality so they can do what they want, when they want without being told what to do by any moral code or higher intelligent being (God).

Now, onto the points:

A. The ten commandments are the basis for all modern law in the U.S. and in many parts of the world (but that is an entirely different debate). If I remember correctly, it is the ten commandments on the supreme court entrance doors, not the code of Hammurabi, or laws of Islam or any others.

B. If a particular municipality wants to put buddhist tenants on the front law of their courthose, that should be their decision. If they decided on that, I wouldn't fight them or have any problem with it. I belive in religious tolerance here in the US. That iswhy I do not want the Federal Government telling my city what they can and can't place on their lawn. My whole point is that the US GOVERNMENT should NOT INTERFERE with the practices of state and local governments.

C. If you are trying to make an argument that there are ridiculous laws in the Old Testament, I will not disagree - there are. But the only laws specifically written by the hand of God were the ten commandments. The other 600+/- laws were created by the Jews for their own internal governing purposes. That is why we do not display them on the lawn of the courthouse.

D. You should study the Bible. Because if you did, you would know that Jesus did not come to do away with the law, he came to fufill it. But he still expects us all to honor and respect His original commandments. Not to be saved, of course, but as a show of honor and obedience to Him. And FYI...He DID point fingers and blatently uncovered sin...just read about his tyrade in the Temple. Point #1 you made is totally out of context. If you read the ENTIRE verse and everything surrounding it, you will see a different story. Here is the verse in it's entirety:

..."If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. "

Lastly, point #3 does not make the Jews look bad necessarily. Slave trading and ownership was extremely common in those days. Some slaves were literally business partners with their masters. They got to keep their own families, homes and night life. But during the day, they were forced to work for the master to pay off their debt. From a historical perspective, it's not what you'd expect at all.

drink300

[Matters]

Fair enough.

But I would point out that: 1) the Lord was addressing the Israelites when he gave the 10 commandments; 2) that just after he made the thunder and lightning he had a conversation with Moses where he told Moses further laws to be set down before the Israelites which included the Hebrew Servants thing as well as laws on Personal Injuries; Protection of Property; Laws of Justice and Mercy; Sabbath Laws etc (if one reads it literally it all took place at Mt Sinai at the same time);
3) yeah he over-turned the tables in the temple because they were using as a market and a place for lending but I can't identifiy one of the ten commandments that apply to that conduct, but, nonetheless he was definitely displeased: still doesn't change the fact in my mind that he was overwhelmingly a guy who would rather help than point fingers - that's my point...helping people through good works was a far more important means of spreading his message for him than waiving his finger; 4) yeah that was my point and i knew that the master gets to keep the children; 5) yes i agree I should study the bible more; and
6) my last and final point is, I am a supporter of living by the 10 commandments, but I always try to remeber Matthew 7:1-5:

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.”

[drink300]

Originally Posted by Matters

Fair enough.

But I would point out that: 1) the Lord was addressing the Israelites when he gave the 10 commandments; 2) that just after he made the thunder and lightning he had a conversation with Moses where he told Moses further laws to be set down before the Israelites which included the Hebrew Servants thing as well as laws on Personal Injuries; Protection of Property; Laws of Justice and Mercy; Sabbath Laws etc (if one reads it literally it all took place at Mt Sinai at the same time);
3) yeah he over-turned the tables in the temple because they were using as a market and a place for lending but I can't identifiy one of the ten commandments that apply to that conduct, but, nonetheless he was definitely displeased: still doesn't change the fact in my mind that he was overwhelmingly a guy who would rather help than point fingers - that's my point...helping people through good works was a far more important means of spreading his message for him than waiving his finger; 4) yeah that was my point and i knew that the master gets to keep the children; 5) yes i agree I should study the bible more; and
6) my last and final point is, I am a supporter of living by the 10 commandments, but I always try to remeber Matthew 7:1-5:

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.”

OK, so I think we do agree on some points. That's good. :-)

Matthew 7:1-5 is often used as a cop-out by those who have no excuse for thier actions and want to prohibit Christians from "casting judgment". It's almost like fighting fire with fire. If the person "being judged" can condemn the Christian for judging, he effectively transfers blame from himself to the Christian using Jesus' own words. I don't think this is necessarily what you are attempting to do here, but the practice is so common here in the U.S. that I am frankly fed up with it. Homosexuals, theives, abortion-rights activists, and other "classic Biblical sinners" use this tactic more often than necessary. Therefore, I will attempt to clarify this passage using the knowledge I have gleaned from numerous Biblical commentaries on the subject.

This teaching by Jesus cannot possibly forbid all judging of any kind, for the moral distinctions drawn in the Sermon on the Mount require that decisive judments be made. Jesus himself speaks of certain individuals as pigs and dogs. Elsewhere in the New Testament, Jesus demands that people make "right judgments" (John 7:24, 1st John 4:1, Gal 1:8-9, Phil 3:2, etc.).

All of this makes it clear that some kinds of judging are not only legitimate, but mandated. What Jesus is trying to prevent is a constant and cancerous judgmental attitude on the part of Christians. God wants us to judge fairly and in the proper circumstances. This especially applies to Christians who are committing the same sins as they are attempting to judge others for committing.

I've never had an adulterous affair, for instance, so I can help my Christian brothers who might be committing this sin, by pointing out the sin and helping him remove the "speck" from their eye. Christians are also commanded to provide an equal measure of mercy and justice. If I am to point out my brother's sin, I am supposed to help him, not just point fingers. This means assistance through prayer, ministering and friendship, IMHO.

This does not mean, though, that I cannot point out the clear and blatent sins being committed everyday around me. I believe, for instance, that homosexuals should be welcomed into the Christian church with open arms and forgiven for their past transgressions. But if they do not repent and they continually to blatently live a homosecual lifestyle, they need to be shown their sin by the congregation and offered assistance to overcome it. If they refuse help and continue in their sins, they should be turned away from the church. Dark and light have no business congregating with one another.

So, to summarize, Jesus does not condemn all judgment. But He warns men against judging others in the same manner as thier own sin. He wants us to be forgiving and merciful too. We should accept sinners of all types into the fold, but if they refuse to turn away from their sins, they are not truly Christians, now are they?

Secular progressivists want to be able to do whatever they want, without consequences or judgment. I will not stand for this. I might have improrelt classified you in this case, and if so, I apologize. BUt from an overall perspective, Jesus told Christians that we are the "salt of the earth". He also says that "if a good man does nothing, evil will prevail". I won't stand by and watch evil prevail in an unabated fashion any longer here in the U.S.

drink300

[drink300]

Originally Posted by Liza Sabater

If Democrats don't get this aspect of the dominionists agenda, they do not deserve to represent the interests of the Democratic Party at all. So I ask you, how do you want to take these mother***********s down?

ROFL!!!! :-)

I say we tar and feather them, Liza. Or better yet, beat them with rods and crucify them.
The possibilities are endless.

And to think, I almost mistakenly voted straight-ticket "Dominionist" in the voting booth last year. Whew..that was a close one! They need to get rid of those damn chads...

drink300

[sha4000]

are we in church now?????

[bitkahuna]

Originally Posted by drink300

The definition of a secular progressivist is this ( this is from my own point of view): A person who wishes to move the U.S. progressively toward a more secular society, free of Gods, religion, worship, and eventually morals. Secular progressivist start small by challenging simple things like "In God We Trust" on currency, "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, etc..., but their ultimate goal is a society free of morality so they can do what they want, when they want without being told what to do by any moral code or higher intelligent being (God).

Sorry, but this is WAY off base. Those opposed to governmental promotion of religion are never opposed to private worship or expressions of faith.

About In God We Trust or Under God, even though I don't believe in a concious deity in the Christian sense, I equate God to the universe, so I have no problem using those terms.

About being opposed to morality - which definition do you mean? Here's a few from dictionary.com:

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.

I don't think any reasonable person would be opposed to any of these though although 2 depends on the extent of its interpretation. You've said however the only Christian biblical 'law' is the 10 commandments, and again, reasonable people (including those not religious) don't think the 10 commandments are wrong!

B. If a particular municipality wants to put buddhist tenants on the front law of their courthose, that should be their decision. If they decided on that, I wouldn't fight them or have any problem with it. I belive in religious tolerance here in the US. That iswhy I do not want the Federal Government telling my city what they can and can't place on their lawn. My whole point is that the US GOVERNMENT should NOT INTERFERE with the practices of state and local governments.

I think this is a terrible idea. It will only result in one or more enclaves that push a religious viewpoint that is dangerous (like radical Islam for example!).

Private, non-government sponsored worship is fine. Everything else? Nyuh uh .

[sha4000]

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

Sorry, but this is WAY off base. Those opposed to governmental promotion of religion are never opposed to private worship or expressions of faith.

About In God We Trust or Under God, even though I don't believe in a concious deity in the Christian sense, I equate God to the universe, so I have no problem using those terms.

About being opposed to morality - which definition do you mean? Here's a few from dictionary.com:

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.

I don't think any reasonable person would be opposed to any of these though although 2 depends on the extent of its interpretation. You've said however the only Christian biblical 'law' is the 10 commandments, and again, reasonable people (including those not religious) don't think the 10 commandments are wrong!



I think this is a terrible idea. It will only result in one or more enclaves that push a religious viewpoint that is dangerous (like radical Islam for example!).

Private, non-government sponsored worship is fine. Everything else? Nyuh uh .

this is well said bit i wanted to respond but ive bee enough religous debates to know that they go on and on.........

[drink300]

Originally Posted by sha4000

this is well said bit i wanted to respond but ive bee enough religous debates to know that they go on and on.........

I'm not going to go on and on, because my point is not to debate. There is nothing really to debate. We have certain laws and we are not going to change those laws by debating them. My point was to simply point out that, here in the US, our laws allow local municipalities to decide what they want to display on their property. They can do as they please and that is the law. As long as congress does not interfere, everything is kosher.

drink300