Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rick Perry

Charles0103
Posts: 523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:37:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So, Texas Governor Rick Perry is considering a run for the White House. I actually think he has a decent shot of the Republican nomination. So, what are your thoughts on Perry?
"And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened." Jesus in Luke 11:9-10
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:42:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 6:37:14 PM, Charles0103 wrote:
So, Texas Governor Rick Perry is considering a run for the White House. I actually think he has a decent shot of the Republican nomination. So, what are your thoughts on Perry?:

He's a neo-conservative douchebag who, in an official capacity as Governor of my state, called for a national prayer meeting in Houston. Of course, that's entirely unconstitutional, so he's been served with a federal lawsuit over.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:45:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 6:42:32 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/18/2011 6:37:14 PM, Charles0103 wrote:
So, Texas Governor Rick Perry is considering a run for the White House. I actually think he has a decent shot of the Republican nomination. So, what are your thoughts on Perry?:

He's a neo-conservative douchebag who, in an official capacity as Governor of my state, called for a national prayer meeting in Houston. Of course, that's entirely unconstitutional, so he's been served with a federal lawsuit over.

Quickly scanning both the US and Texas constitutions, I see nothing forbidding a Governor from calling for a national prayer meeting. What makes you think the act is unconstitutional?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:52:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 6:45:21 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/18/2011 6:42:32 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/18/2011 6:37:14 PM, Charles0103 wrote:
So, Texas Governor Rick Perry is considering a run for the White House. I actually think he has a decent shot of the Republican nomination. So, what are your thoughts on Perry?:

He's a neo-conservative douchebag who, in an official capacity as Governor of my state, called for a national prayer meeting in Houston. Of course, that's entirely unconstitutional, so he's been served with a federal lawsuit over.

Quickly scanning both the US and Texas constitutions, I see nothing forbidding a Governor from calling for a national prayer meeting. What makes you think the act is unconstitutional?:

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. No government official can show preferential treatment or endorsement to any specific religion.

http://www.pottsmerc.com...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:57:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 6:42:32 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/18/2011 6:37:14 PM, Charles0103 wrote:
So, Texas Governor Rick Perry is considering a run for the White House. I actually think he has a decent shot of the Republican nomination. So, what are your thoughts on Perry?:

He's a neo-conservative douchebag who, in an official capacity as Governor of my state, called for a national prayer meeting in Houston. Of course, that's entirely unconstitutional, so he's been served with a federal lawsuit over.

Totally. Uch, I hope he doesn't get the nom. Over him or Romney, though, I honesy do not know who I would choose. Romney would probably be more of big government fiscal policies; Perry would probably be worse for social policies. Oh god, please let Ron Paul get the nomination or I may not vote this year...
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:58:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Rick Perry is a career politician. He bases his policies off of what will progress him most professionally and not what Texas actually needs. I believe he would do the same as President, put himself and the wants of the influential above what our nation needs to be done.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 7:03:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 6:52:13 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/18/2011 6:45:21 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/18/2011 6:42:32 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/18/2011 6:37:14 PM, Charles0103 wrote:
So, Texas Governor Rick Perry is considering a run for the White House. I actually think he has a decent shot of the Republican nomination. So, what are your thoughts on Perry?:

He's a neo-conservative douchebag who, in an official capacity as Governor of my state, called for a national prayer meeting in Houston. Of course, that's entirely unconstitutional, so he's been served with a federal lawsuit over.

Quickly scanning both the US and Texas constitutions, I see nothing forbidding a Governor from calling for a national prayer meeting. What makes you think the act is unconstitutional?:

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. No government official can show preferential treatment or endorsement to any specific religion.

I don't see how you get that interpretation from a clause starting with "Congress shall pass no law..." Perry is not a part of Congress, and he did not pass any laws.

http://www.pottsmerc.com...

"Perry's proclamation, at least, is constitutional under current law."
Your source contradicts you.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 7:07:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Rick Perry is Bilderberg New World Order Global Fascist Dictatorship nonsense.

Anyone who supports Rick Perry is an idiot.

"Speaking on the Alex Jones Show yesterday, Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul agreed that Perry should be investigated for a potential violation of the Logan Act. ...Paul said that Perry's [Bilderberg] attendance was "A sign that he's involved in the international conspiracy."

http://www.prisonplanet.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 7:25:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 7:07:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Rick Perry is Bilderberg New World Order Global Fascist Dictatorship nonsense.

Anyone who supports Rick Perry is an idiot.

"Speaking on the Alex Jones Show yesterday, Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul agreed that Perry should be investigated for a potential violation of the Logan Act. ...Paul said that Perry's [Bilderberg] attendance was "A sign that he's involved in the international conspiracy."

http://www.prisonplanet.com...

Your website's YouTube video doesn't even contain the quote. Why not present an actual video of Ron Paul saying what you claim he said.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 7:26:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't see how you get that interpretation from a clause starting with "Congress shall pass no law..." Perry is not a part of Congress, and he did not pass any laws.:

Governors authority are all delegated, specifically, by the US Constitution. While governors operate as heads of their particular state, they are under the overaching umbrella of the Constitution, which is what makes the federal government able to authorize martial law and usurp the state in times of extreme crisis.

Article One of the Constitution makes it clear that all government within the US cannot usurp the Constitution, including governors of each respective state.

If this provision was only held to Congress (federal lawmakers), then there would not be bans on religious affiliations within any branch of government except the Senate. As it stands, every federal agency has to abide by the Constitution, which is why you can't find crucifixes displayed in the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, or any other federal building for that matter.

The Governor of every state is beholden to the Constitution, and it applies to the entirety of the government.

http://www.pottsmerc.com...

"Perry's proclamation, at least, is constitutional under current law."

Your source contradicts you.:

So it did, but I contend it for the reasons outlined above.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 7:34:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
And as you can see here, his call for prayer was not even done as a private citizen, but used within the authority of an official capacity. He even specifically gives preferential treatment to Judeo-Christianity.

Totally inappropriate...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 7:35:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 7:26:43 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I don't see how you get that interpretation from a clause starting with "Congress shall pass no law..." Perry is not a part of Congress, and he did not pass any laws.:

Governors authority are all delegated, specifically, by the US Constitution. While governors operate as heads of their particular state, they are under the overaching umbrella of the Constitution, which is what makes the federal government able to authorize martial law and usurp the state in times of extreme crisis.

Governors existed before the federal government did, so that really doesn't make any sense.

Article One of the Constitution makes it clear that all government within the US cannot usurp the Constitution, including governors of each respective state.

If this provision was only held to Congress (federal lawmakers), then there would not be bans on religious affiliations within any branch of government except the Senate.

Well, the provision only mentions Congress; therefore, it only restricts Congress.

As it stands, every federal agency has to abide by the Constitution, which is why you can't find crucifixes displayed in the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, or any other federal building for that matter.

Because Congress may pass no law regarding an establishment of religion, people in the Dept. of Veterans Affairs may not display crucifixes? That's a non sequitur.

The Governor of every state is beholden to the Constitution, and it applies to the entirety of the government.

Except, obviously, the parts of the Constitution that specify exactly what branch of government is being restricted. If the Constitution states that the states may not do certain things, this does not mean that the federal government cannot do those things; why doesn't the same principle apply in reverse?

http://www.pottsmerc.com...

"Perry's proclamation, at least, is constitutional under current law."

Your source contradicts you.

So it did, but I contend it for the reasons outlined above.

Your contentions are blatantly wrong, then.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 7:36:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 7:34:33 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
And as you can see here, his call for prayer was not even done as a private citizen, but used within the authority of an official capacity. He even specifically gives preferential treatment to Judeo-Christianity.

Totally inappropriate...

As inappropriate as you may find it, it does nothing to violate any relevant constitutional text.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 7:37:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 7:25:12 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/18/2011 7:07:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Rick Perry is Bilderberg New World Order Global Fascist Dictatorship nonsense.

Anyone who supports Rick Perry is an idiot.

"Speaking on the Alex Jones Show yesterday, Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul agreed that Perry should be investigated for a potential violation of the Logan Act. ...Paul said that Perry's [Bilderberg] attendance was "A sign that he's involved in the international conspiracy."

http://www.prisonplanet.com...

Your website's YouTube video doesn't even contain the quote. Why not present an actual video of Ron Paul saying what you claim he said.

The article contains the quote. The article is from the very source that gave the interview of Ron Paul where he said the quote.

If I put forth a quote contained in a Washington Post article you wouldn't be asking for a Youtube video of where the quote was said. I guess quotes weren't ever verified before Youtube existed?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 7:38:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 7:36:05 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/18/2011 7:34:33 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
And as you can see here, his call for prayer was not even done as a private citizen, but used within the authority of an official capacity. He even specifically gives preferential treatment to Judeo-Christianity.

Totally inappropriate...

As inappropriate as you may find it, it does nothing to violate any relevant constitutional text.

It would be more appropriate to ask Americans to spend a moment singing a popular rap song.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 7:43:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 7:37:32 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/18/2011 7:25:12 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/18/2011 7:07:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Rick Perry is Bilderberg New World Order Global Fascist Dictatorship nonsense.

Anyone who supports Rick Perry is an idiot.

"Speaking on the Alex Jones Show yesterday, Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul agreed that Perry should be investigated for a potential violation of the Logan Act. ...Paul said that Perry's [Bilderberg] attendance was "A sign that he's involved in the international conspiracy."

http://www.prisonplanet.com...

Your website's YouTube video doesn't even contain the quote. Why not present an actual video of Ron Paul saying what you claim he said.

The article contains the quote. The article is from the very source that gave the interview of Ron Paul where he said the quote.

Then why doesn't it contain a video of its own interview?

If I put forth a quote contained in a Washington Post article you wouldn't be asking for a Youtube video of where the quote was said.

If Ron Paul was acknowledging the existence of an international conspiracy, I very much would like a video, although it needn't be YouTube.

I guess quotes weren't ever verified before Youtube existed?

Not verified to today's standards, no.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 7:46:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 7:25:12 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/18/2011 7:07:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Rick Perry is Bilderberg New World Order Global Fascist Dictatorship nonsense.

Anyone who supports Rick Perry is an idiot.

"Speaking on the Alex Jones Show yesterday, Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul agreed that Perry should be investigated for a potential violation of the Logan Act. ...Paul said that Perry's [Bilderberg] attendance was "A sign that he's involved in the international conspiracy."

http://www.prisonplanet.com...

Your website's YouTube video doesn't even contain the quote. Why not present an actual video of Ron Paul saying what you claim he said.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 7:50:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Governors existed before the federal government did, so that really doesn't make any sense.:

Under the King of England, which is null and void once independence was established.

Well, the provision only mentions Congress; therefore, it only restricts Congress.:

Then the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Militia, by the same token. I doubt you agree with that extremely narrow interpretation.

Because Congress may pass no law regarding an establishment of religion, people in the Dept. of Veterans Affairs may not display crucifixes? That's a non sequitur.:

Are you saying that the US Constitution, or more specifically, the very First Amendment, only applies to the US Senate? If not, then it's not a non-sequitur.

Except, obviously, the parts of the Constitution that specify exactly what branch of government is being restricted. If the Constitution states that the states may not do certain things, this does not mean that the federal government cannot do those things; why doesn't the same principle apply in reverse?:

Yes, and Article One clearly dilineates and appropriates what a governor can and cannot do. And over and over again when we see these religious suits filed, they are continually upheld by judges and magistrates.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 7:52:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 7:36:05 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/18/2011 7:34:33 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
And as you can see here, his call for prayer was not even done as a private citizen, but used within the authority of an official capacity. He even specifically gives preferential treatment to Judeo-Christianity.

Totally inappropriate...

As inappropriate as you may find it, it does nothing to violate any relevant constitutional text.:

So if a Muslim governor, in his official capacity, called for a day of prayer to Allah in the name of Mohammed, you would say that it's totally Constitutional?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 9:24:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 7:50:04 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Governors existed before the federal government did, so that really doesn't make any sense.:

Under the King of England, which is null and void once independence was established.

While the colonies jointly declared independence, they did not automatically form a national government until later. England even recognized the independence of several states, not a single new country. The governors most definitely retained power.

Well, the provision only mentions Congress; therefore, it only restricts Congress.:

Then the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Militia, by the same token. I doubt you agree with that extremely narrow interpretation.

No; the 2nd Amendment states that because militias are important, the people have an inalienable right to bear arms. It does not say that militias have the inalienable right to bear arms. This is basic interpretation of sentences.

Because Congress may pass no law regarding an establishment of religion, people in the Dept. of Veterans Affairs may not display crucifixes? That's a non sequitur.:

Are you saying that the US Constitution, or more specifically, the very First Amendment, only applies to the US Senate?

Well, the Senate and the House, as they make up the Congress.

If not, then it's not a non-sequitur.

But it is, so it is a non-sequitur.

Except, obviously, the parts of the Constitution that specify exactly what branch of government is being restricted. If the Constitution states that the states may not do certain things, this does not mean that the federal government cannot do those things; why doesn't the same principle apply in reverse?:

Yes, and Article One clearly dilineates and appropriates what a governor can and cannot do. And over and over again when we see these religious suits filed, they are continually upheld by judges and magistrates.

Then the judges misinterpreted the Constitution, and I wasn't even aware of any American political position called "magistrate."
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 9:25:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 7:52:24 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/18/2011 7:36:05 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/18/2011 7:34:33 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
And as you can see here, his call for prayer was not even done as a private citizen, but used within the authority of an official capacity. He even specifically gives preferential treatment to Judeo-Christianity.

Totally inappropriate...

As inappropriate as you may find it, it does nothing to violate any relevant constitutional text.:

So if a Muslim governor, in his official capacity, called for a day of prayer to Allah in the name of Mohammed, you would say that it's totally Constitutional?

It would be constitutional, yes.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 9:46:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That said, prayer is a minor issue, and it's not like Obama cares about the Constitution more.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 9:48:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 9:46:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That said, prayer is a minor issue, and it's not like Obama cares about the Constitution more.

I agree. Unless Sharia law gets traction in America, a theocracy is the remotest of our problems of power abuse.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 9:49:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 9:48:35 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:46:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That said, prayer is a minor issue, and it's not like Obama cares about the Constitution more.

I agree. Unless Sharia law gets traction in America, a theocracy is the remotest of our problems of power abuse.

Why would Sharia get traction, except insofar as certain private contracts might specify that they are governed under it?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 9:53:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 9:49:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Why would Sharia get traction, except insofar as certain private contracts might specify that they are governed under it?

just some scary gossip....

http://bigpeace.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 10:17:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
1. PRO-SHARIAH MISSION: With Kagan's direction, Harvard's Islamic Legal Studies Program developed a mission statement (here on 9/2008, also 6/2009) dedicated "to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law as one of the world's major legal systems."
Not "as a good legal system."

But – when Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $20 million to the Islamic Legal Studies Program in December 2005 – Kagan accepted it; after all, the Saudi royal family had funded the program since its inception, to establish the moral and legal equivalency between Shariah law and U.S. Constitutional law.
Undemonstrated program agenda, regardless of what bin Talal's motive may have been.

"that the princes are immune from petitioners' claims"
This is true. There is nothing she can do about it. The unilateral declaration of a war of damage recovery against foreign funders of terrorism from multiple countries by a court, which is what this amounts to, violates separation of powers. If Congress wants to do it, great. Accusing Kagan of Sharia sympathy on the grounds of arguing against the judiciary creating an international incident and probably a domestic revolution is stupid regardless of the merits of such a revolution.

On March 16, 2008, Feldman published his controversial article "Why Shariah" in the New York Times Magazine, which promoted "Islamists" - the Muslim Brotherhood – as a progressive democratic party, and promoted Shariah as a model not just for Muslim-majority countries but for all: "In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world…"
Simply a non sequitir. The quoted statement does not advocate implementing Sharia throughout the world.

Nor does hiring a professor require full agreement with their every view-- unless it's a conservative professor and you're a typical college dean, but that's a different question :P.

On May 1, 2007, Kagan initiated a lecture series on Shariah Law, named for Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanhuri, a legal scholar who had drafted constitutions throughout the Middle East between the 1930s and 1960s. There are literally dozens of legal reformers throughout the Muslim world that she could have chosen; but she chose al-Sanhuri.

Sanhuri's entire career was dedicated to making sure that the civil and criminal legal codes throughout the Middle East were Shariah-compliant.
Sounds like good demonstration that she hired someone with appropriate subject-matter expertise for the lecture series.

On November 19, 2008, Elena Kagan presented the Harvard Law School Medal of Freedom to Iftikhar Chaudhry, the controversial Chief Justice of Pakistan.
And Kissinger got a Nobel Peace Prize. She was a law school dean looking for a symbol of judicial independence in the wake of Pakistan declaring martial law. Had she done it in a slower Pakistan news cycle it would be more reasonable to read it as a broader endorsement of his policies.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 2:48:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 9:46:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That said, prayer is a minor issue, and it's not like Obama cares about the Constitution more.

Obama wipes his @$$ with the constitution, anything Perry has done pales in comparison to how blatantly our so called constitutional scholar has disregarded and broken the law of our land. I recognize that Perry is a neocon career politician as much as the next rationally thinking human being but there are more important problems to point out than this, especially when, as many comments on this thread have proven, the unconstitutionality of his call for prayer is sketchy at best. More important is the motivation behind calling for a day of prayer in the first place, and how that kind of thinking would impact our country in other policies in the first place....
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 2:53:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/19/2011 2:48:48 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:46:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That said, prayer is a minor issue, and it's not like Obama cares about the Constitution more.

Obama wipes his @$$ with the constitution, anything Perry has done pales in comparison to how blatantly our so called constitutional scholar has disregarded and broken the law of our land. I recognize that Perry is a neocon career politician as much as the next rationally thinking human being but there are more important problems to point out than this, especially when, as many comments on this thread have proven, the unconstitutionality of his call for prayer is sketchy at best. More important is the motivation behind calling for a day of prayer in the first place, and how that kind of thinking would impact our country in other policies in the first place....

Sorry if I portrayed Christians or religious people in general as bad or wrong, that was targeted at neocons who would gladly inject their personal philosophy into every policy they could because they see it as some God given obligation or whatever... You know, the typical neoconservative, religious right kind of crap.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 2:56:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 9:48:35 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I agree. Unless Sharia law gets traction in America, a theocracy is the remotest of our problems of power abuse.

Dominionists are far more likely in America.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 3:00:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 9:48:35 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:46:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That said, prayer is a minor issue, and it's not like Obama cares about the Constitution more.

I agree. Unless Sharia law gets traction in America, a theocracy is the remotest of our problems of power abuse.

I don't know, I mean it pretty much boils down to whether you care more about economic or social liberties, because let's face it... Theocracy means the death of social liberties.