Acceptable Propaganda & Removal of Filibuster/Judges

Get Prepared for the your new fascist government, Americans (Note: Exaggeration)

The media is apart of the purple shining armor metallic war machine which is encompassing our nation. Many of you have wondered why the Terri Schiavo case had the media gouging each other over coverage 24/7. The reason is quite clear now. Firstly, it was to divert attention from failing foreign relations. Secondly, the preparation to take out the filibuster which is a way to derail any democrat party opposition. Thirdly, they knew the Judges could only rule in favor of written law on Terri Schiavo, because Judges interpret the law and cannot make a decision based on sympathy.

The third is giving them the opportunity to blame judges and to eradicate judges that do not support the Republican agenda. The second is giving the Republicans nearly unlimited power and eradicating checks & balances.

Now, lets looks at the propaganda. In this Yahoo! News report it says:

"According to a flier for the Louisville, Ky., event, it will focus on how judicial filibusters are being used "against people of faith." The telecast is being organized by the Family Research Council."

----------------


The propaganda is starting with fringe Christian groups and will likely spread to other areas. Propaganda is like water being poured over active electric, the water spread rapidly while causing sparks. Propaganda spreads rapidly by causing sparks in people's emotions, similiar.

The reason I've wrote all this is because I just saw the commercial on TV about removing judges, it repeated the same aspects of the Family Research Council's flier.




Also, this Reuters Report is very interesting about the holy people in Washington D.C. and how they view the ethics of propaganda. Notice it was a unholy Democrat which made the bill. (Representative Byrd)

[edit on 15-4-2005 by Enigmatic_Messiah]

And it's weird. According to this poster citing the NY Times article on the Family Research Council's joint efforts with the GOP, it appears he thinks even reporting the truth is "liberal" propaganda.

Can't win for trying huh?

Originally posted by RANT
And it's weird. According to this poster citing the NY Times article on the Family Research Council's joint efforts with the GOP, it appears he thinks even reporting the truth is "liberal" propaganda.

Can't win for trying huh?

I was unaware of that post, but this one fits with the political conspiracies forum because it is a conspiracy to take-over the congress. It also corresponds with the news media playing a lead role in the process, unknowingly except for the board members of the corporations which own the news media.

[edit on 15-4-2005 by Enigmatic_Messiah]

"Manufacturing propaganda is a blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars," Byrd said on the Senate floor. "Propaganda efforts such as these are not the stuff for a republic such as ours."



Another reason propaganda from many networks is not averted is because a political party controls the FCC which eliminates all recourse for the type of propaganda we are noticing.---My words

[edit on 15-4-2005 by Enigmatic_Messiah]

RANT we both know there's no hope for people like Edsinger, the only cure is for America to finally go down the drain, then there will be a reality check

I'd appreciate only U.S. citizens responses because we understand the political system and our domestic current events better than outsiders. Not that outsiders can't, but it is better for the discussion to have citizens involved in the United States to respond.
We (U.S. Citizens) generally don't appreciate responses such as the one above, please refrain from comments such as.


LOL! I'm not a -.-.-.- rententive person but I really want a good discussion without the crude opinions of our country. If you haven't figured it our yet, we don't care about your opinion of us. We are a soverign nation that can make decisions on our own and we can be trusted with the alliances we sign.






[edit on 15-4-2005 by Enigmatic_Messiah]

How do we combat this?
Not to sound like a hysteric but this cannot be tolerated and something must be done. As a nonchristian with no intentions of converting I am very concerned about the prospect of living in a nation run by the "shariah" laws of christianity.
I am truly at a loss for word on this topic and I am increasingly vexed by this issue. When ever I hear the term "activist judge" my blood curdles and I get the urge to engage in a serious old testament style stoning of the propagandists responsible for this perversion of the publics views on the judiciary branch. Was I the only person paying attention in government class? Interperting law is the job of the judicial branch if they say something violates the constitution they're not being activists they're doing they're job!

boogymans right that is their job

also
the judicial system is being slowly torn apart it seems...

i may be wrong but , it seems like the Executive and Legislative branches are overpowering the Judicial branch lately

i hope im wrong

please someone prove me wrong

Originally posted by Enigmatic_Messiah
Thirdly, they knew the Judges could only rule in favor of written law on Terri Schiavo, because Judges interpret the law and cannot make a decision based on sympathy.

Nah. You weren't the only person paying attention in government class but all the other fools weren't, and now we are suffering because of that.

And it's revolting.


More confuse, conquer and divide, wedge politics.

And I really don't understand how a completely ethics free party led by Tom DeLay has a say on anything to do with morality?

Or why the press won't get one seering legitimate question in to DeLay, Bush or even McClellan about this fake fundie jihad?

Pope porn deathwatch blackout? Are we so politically (read as "Christian") correct now we can't even call the jackasses out?

I'd appreciate only U.S. citizens responses because we understand the political system and our domestic current events better than outsiders. Not that outsiders can't, but it is better for the discussion to have citizens involved in the United States to respond.
We (U.S. Citizens) generally don't appreciate responses such as the one above, please refrain from comments such as.

cant take a little outside criticism? you do know on a variety of issues it is a good thing to get an outside and detached viewpoint. its not a US forum man, its international, if you cant deal with it you're at the wrong site. I have opinions too and I should be able to state them. Oh besides you dont speak for US citizens, your just one american, i could go find a US citizen right now if i wanted to who would be all fine with me commenting about US politics. People like you usually get my blood boiling but I can retain my courtesy.

I know the US political system better than tens of millions of americans, I find it incredulous that you say that someone would know more about politics better just because they are citizens of the US. I watch american news channels, I watch american shows, I listen to american talkback and I read daily about american politics on the internet and in the newspaper. I really think that there is at least one US citizen that is less qualified than I am to even dare comment on your little exclusive club here .

Originally posted by Enigmatic_Messiah
I'd appreciate only U.S. citizens responses because we understand the political system and our domestic current events better than outsiders. Not that outsiders can't, but it is better for the discussion to have citizens involved in the United States to respond.

As a canadian, I can positively say that living here is like living in an apartment over a couple who have the cops called on them every other day they're brawling so hard. Trust me... we know what's going on south of the border. Hell, we get Fox, CNN, and all that other patriotic BS that y'all float into the air. As for your treaties comment, that's just another example of the whole amerika-uber-alles, fingers in the ears attitude we see so much of. As for your 'keeps treaties' comment, whatever happened to NAFTA?

Now that I'm done ranting, let's get back to the issue at hand. We are starting to get this problem up here- religious influence over state affairs. In fact, it's more than that. It's an active attempt to use voters' religion to influence the way they vote. Aside from the Terry Schiavo case, there is also the issue of same-sex marriage. It is a deliberate effort on the part of conservatives to draw attention to an issue that does not require it, in an effort to hide their political failings.

It almost seems like the West is mimicing the East and trying to brew up their own homespun fundementalism.

DE

Right..so, Christian groups are going to be targeted by this site now too, I see? Why is that?

The U.S. IS a Christian nation. The Majority are Christian, therefore making it a Christian nation.

I think the truth is being reversed here. Morals and ethics should always be part of the law, without them what would we have? Souless leaders who care nothing about the people, that's what.

-wD

Ethics are relative to law, morals are not. morals come from religion. Ethics are universal. While christians are a majority, that does not give them the right to press their views on the rest of the nation.

DE

Article IV of the U.S. Constituion includes this:

... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Sen. Schumer said this regarding judge Pryor as a reason to vote against him: "[he has] very, very deeply held views."

If the Democratiic Senators are actually filibustering these judges due to their religious faith, something that is supported by statements made some Senators, they are imposing an illegal, unconstitutional religious test and they must be stopped.

Originally posted by drfunk
cant take a little outside criticism?

Ofcourse I can take outside criticism but I'd rather not have it coming from a bunch of smug twerp that doesn't understand the issues and the direct influence they have here. I'm tired of the elitest attitude your type have and the nonsense about USA always commiting atrocitity's. Every country has & does, and it isn't just militarily. You can cause atrocity's with currency & loans, such as in Africa. All western nations are guilty of causing atrocity's.

I know the US political system better than tens of millions of americans, I find it incredulous that you say that someone would know more about politics better just because they are citizens of the US.

Yes, I do know the system better than you. You have no idea the direct result of bankruptcy legislation that will be in effect within six months, do you? The direct effect the government has on my daily affairs is the reason I know more about my political system than you do. For instance, if you watch the History Channel and they have a program about Hitler, does it make you an expert on Hitler? Duh! No, it does not!

[edit on 16-4-2005 by Enigmatic_Messiah]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
If the Democratiic Senators are actually filibustering these judges due to their religious faith, something that is supported by statements made some Senators, they are imposing an illegal, unconstitutional religious test and they must be stopped.

It is legitimate to do that if they (judges) are interpreting the Bible into the courts and not the law. If the judicial branch used the Bible to decide the law, which some try, we'd have the "eye for an eye" being the law of the land.

[edit on 16-4-2005 by Enigmatic_Messiah]

The nominees in question are being opposed because they are not fit for office, but perhaps they are all Christian because the majority of all judges nominated throughout history have been Christian. The 205 judges confirmed to the Federal bench during the Bush presidency are predominately Christian. It isn't a matter of Democrats selectively weeding out Christians--nearly ALL or the nominees are Christian. There is no assault on Christian judges or Christianity. It only seems that way because these nominees are bonafide radical lunatics.

DeLay is holding this tent revival to divert attention from his own issues with the man upstairs. If ever there was an instance of the pot calling the kettle black...

And yes, there are a majority of Christians in the United States, but there are specific rules put in place by the Constitution, namely establishing an independent judiciary, to prevent tyranny of the majority. The reason why democracies fail is because the majority feels that it has the license to lord over minorities. In order for a democracy to be successful, society has to have the ability to put in place laws that are fair and reasonable--not laws that make life intolerable for everyone but the majority.

On Pryor, Schumer was most likely referring to his deeply held views that render him prejudiced against homosexuals--particularly as he provided a dissenting opinion in Lawrence & Garner v State of Texas that overturned Bowers v Hardwick, which upheld that it was illegal for homosexuals to have consensual sex in the privacy of one's home in Texas. Hello??? That rarely enforced law that NO ONE believes should be a LAW was still on the books in Texas in 2003--and this moron believes that it should still be illegal? Perhaps this view stems from his religious beliefs, but are we kidding here? If he used the same standards to upheld a ruling on an arcane law regarding heterosexual sex, such as the law in Utah that still renders premarital and oral sex a felony--I'll bet that public opinion would be much different. Could you imagine the public backlash if some judge used the excuse that he was "just upholding and enforcing the law" when he was telling married men what their wife could or couldn't do in the bedroom--or telling consenting adults that it was illegal for them to have sex?

I think that liberal and conservative men alike would unite in rendering anyone that attempted to make oral sex illegal to Uzbekistan to have their extremities boiled in oil.

But a guy that believes that it is ok to tell homosexuals that they can't have sex is fit to be a federal judge?

But perhaps Schumer was referring to Pryor's deeply held views that women shouldn't be given equal opportunity in state-run military schools, as evidenced by his declaring the Supreme Court's ruling that called it unconstitutional to deny women admission to the Virginia Military Institute "antidemocratic and insesitive to federalism." Or perhaps his deeply held view that handcuffing prisoners to an outdoor hitching post for seven hours in the hot sun without water or bathroom breaks doesn't constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Or perhaps it was his other rulings and opinions that argued against Constitutional protections in cases that involved age discrimination, protections for rape victims, racial minorities, gay rights, and school prayer.

Among other things, making it illegal for homosexuals to have consensual sex in the privacy of their own home, as Mr. Pryor believes should be illegal, would make life intolerable for many people. Even if this isn't your lifestyle, if you can't keep your religious beliefs from the courtroom, you are not fit to serve as a federal judge. Is this an assault on his Christian beliefs? No. He is trying to restrict religious freedom for minorities--his sins do not translate to crimes under the Constitution.

Madison states in Federalist 51, his excellent essay on the need for each branch of government be as independent as possible to keep government honest ("If men were angels, no government would be necessary."),

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

www.constitution.org...

What is so disturbing about what the Conservative Republicans are attempting to do is that it steps into our personal business. They are attempting to mandate Christian beliefs into everyone's life--from how a woman can obtain birth control to forcing words into childrens mouths at school to what we can pay to watch on cable television. While the majority of Christians may invite these changes, for those who are not Christians, this represents restriction on freedom, is intolerable and tyranny--tyranny of the majority.

read the story here

ed. to shorten link w/BB code

[edit on 16-4-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

Out of over 200 Bush appointments the Democrats, Moderates and other non crazy people want to question and oppose a grand total of a dozen using the long standing filibuster tradition (which the GOP also wants to nuke). :shk:

You can bet your bottom dollar at least 80 to 90% of the unopposed 180 some judges are Christian too, but that's not really the issue is it? Of course not. It's just that 12 are buck nuts crazy, unqualified and freaking dangerous.

But Frist is lending his name anyway to this SwiftBoat/Dobson synergy group (think SpongeBob in 'Nam) broadcast on Sunday April 24 into thousands of churches in America.

You heard right. Our government broadcasting their anti-Democratic party message into Church congregtions on Sunday like a political pep rally to hijack the judiciary unopposed.

Not only should the fact Dobson makes money of GOP led FBCI, claims tax expempt status as a "charity" and is thick as theives with the GOP anyway concern you... but now Frist/DeLay are broadcasting into Churches?

And the Schiavo/Pope obsessed media thinks it's just darling.

It may not really be the End Times, but it's the end of America alright.

You have voted lmgnyc for the Way Above Top Secret award.

DE