Slouching Towards Gomorrah

apple0154 said:
Excerpt from wiki: "He then attacks a variety of social, cultural, and political experiences as evidence of American cultural decline and degeneracy. Among these are affirmative action, increased violence in and sexualization of mass media, the legalization of abortion, pressure to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia, feminism and the decline of religion."

The guy is a crack pot. Wacko.
Click to expand...

Out of all those I would only really disagree with his stance on abortion although as with so many things the truth is much more complex than the myths. I already said at the outset that I didn't agree with everything he said but as usual you seemed to have missed that.


In his five days of testimony -- the longest confirmation hearing for any Supreme Court nominee since hearings began in 1939 -- Bork surprised everyone. He modified many of his most controversial views. Whereas in 1971 he had argued that constitutional protection of free speech applied only to that which was political in nature, in 1987 he conceded that First Amendment guarantees applied to news, opinion, literature and more. He had claimed that the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should apply only to racial and not gender discrimination; during the hearing he stated that equal protection should in fact apply also to women. Bork's approach to the hearing was in keeping with the decision by the White House to avoid an ideological fight and tout the nominee as a moderate. This soft sell did not sit well with Bork's supporters, his detractors, or the undecided senators.
Click to expand...

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id320.htm
 
bravo said:
The CIA killed his brothers ?....Are you really that sick, lad.....off your meds maybe.....

Were they on the "grassy noll" with G. Bush and Cheney that day in Texas...????

It must really suck to be you or even like you.
Click to expand...

Hard to say. I wasn't there. Were you?
 
Rune said:
Why do you care about ancient history, especially not your own? Have you never fucked anything up? Why aren't you ranting about the CIA or whoever killing his brothers?
Why don't you just shut up?
Click to expand...

Why do try to avoid answering awkward questions?
 
Rune said:
Why do you suck dicks?
Click to expand...

Do you really think that makes you look smart? Ted Kennedy real crime in many people's eyes was not the accident but the cover up for which he never accounted for, even when dying. Now tell me which bit of that did I not understand? Maybe it has something to do with the Skull and Bones?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Do you really think that makes you look smart? Ted Kennedy real crime in many people's eyes was not the accident but the cover up for which he never accounted for, even when dying. Now tell me which bit of that did I not understand? Maybe it has something to do with the Skull and Bones?
Click to expand...


According to the responses you're getting, you might just chalk up a win in this debate an move on.....thats what I've done....

Poor pRune is dismissed....
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I don't disagree that Robert Bork erred towards conservatism but he was shot down by that toerag Ted Kennedy. That he wasn't even allowed to remain in politics after causing the death of Mary Jo Kopechne is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Okay and this has what to do with the subject? What was that about sloganising and agitprop? Is the whole issue about the partisan battle between Kennedy and Bork? Ohhh.... then this thread is just stupid.
 
I guess Mary Jo must have deserved what she got, because she chose to associate with the likes of the Kennedys. Is that the general concensus of this thread?
 
Rune said:
Bork's Record

The Supreme Court for a number of years had been equally divided among justices who supported an activist role in matters of social policy—such as affirmative action and women's rights—and those who preferred to interpret the Constitution strictly, basing many of their decisions on arguments that the Court should not step into legislative and political affairs, which rested with the two other branches of government. Powell had been widely considered the pivotal justice in decisions affecting those considerations, siding frequently with the “activists.” Bork, in contrast, was a conservative. His statements on abortion and the role of the federal courts and his decisions on the appeals court suggested he would have tilted the Supreme Court to the right.
Bork's four years as U.S. solicitor general had thrust him into the spotlight. Following President Nixon's order, Bork fired special Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox in 1973, after Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus resigned their offices rather than fire Cox. The incident quickly became known as the “Saturday night massacre” and prompted the introduction of impeachment resolutions against Nixon.
Bork left the Justice Department in 1977 to teach at Yale University. In 1981 he returned to Washington, where he practiced law until Reagan appointed him to the appeals court in 1982. Bork remained in the public eye through provocative interviews, extensive legal writings, and congressional testimony. In a 1981 appearance before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, for example, Bork said that the high Court's 1973 Roe v. Wadedecision, which established a constitutional right to abortion, was “an unconstitutional decision, a serious and wholly unjustifiable usurpation of state legislative authority. [The decision] is by no means the only example of such unconstitutional behavior by the Supreme Court.”
The Court majority had premised the Roe decision on a right of privacy, a doctrine Bork rejected in a 1984 decision upholding a Navy policy prohibiting homosexual activity. Dissenters on the appeals court challenged his conclusion, contending that Bork was substituting his “preferences for the constitutional principles established by the Supreme Court.”
Earlier in his career, Bork had criticized the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren, a Court that was responsible for historic civil rights advances and new protections for the rights of criminal defendants. Chastising the Court for “judicial activism,” Bork wrote in 1977
Page 719
page_arrow.gif
that “We have also damaged law, and created disrespect for it, through our failure to observe the distinction, essential to democracy, between judges and legislators.” Bork continued, “The era of the Warren Court was, in my opinion, deeply harmful to the prestige of law.”

http://www.cqpress.com/incontext/SupremeCourt/bork_confirmation.htm

Yeah, he's a real winner, Tom, lol.
Click to expand...

bork is a jerk and an example of why conservatives are slowly but steadily losing ground in this nation
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Do you really think that makes you look smart? Ted Kennedy real crime in many people's eyes was not the accident but the cover up for which he never accounted for, even when dying. Now tell me which bit of that did I not understand? Maybe it has something to do with the Skull and Bones?
Click to expand...

Sure. Right after you tell me why you changed the topic in your own thread (to my satifaction).
 
Rune said:
Sure. Right after you tell me why you changed the topic in your own thread (to my satifaction).
Click to expand...

I pointed out that much of the controversy surrounding Bork emanated from Ted Kennedy. I never said he was a saint, in fact he was quite reactionary in earlier life yet he changed quite significantly over time. You tell me that we shouldn't judge Kennedy for his earlier transgressions yet you are unable to afford the same luxury for Bork. Anyway I was talking exclusively about his 1996 book, yet you choose to ignore that completely. I agree with much of what he says apart from his views on abortion, I would also say there is a place for affirmative action but only for a period of time and not in perpetuity.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I pointed out that much of the controversy surrounding Bork emanated from Ted Kennedy. I never said he was a saint, in fact he was quite reactionary in earlier life yet he changed quite significantly over time. You tell me that we shouldn't judge Kennedy for his earlier transgressions yet you are unable to afford the same luxury for Bork. Anyway I was talking exclusively about his 1996 book, yet you choose to ignore that completely. I agree with much of what he says apart from his views on abortion, I would also say there is a place for affirmative action but only for a period of time and not in perpetuity.
Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining why we don't get along.
 
Rune said:
Thanks for explaining why we don't get along.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with Mott on occasion but we don't fall out because of it. Now you claim to have high intelligence so why don't you expand upon your usual practice of giving one word answers and explain your reasoning?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Out of all those I would only really disagree with his stance on abortion although as with so many things the truth is much more complex than the myths. I already said at the outset that I didn't agree with everything he said but as usual you seemed to have missed that.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss that. There is a lot more than his views on abortion that are badly skewed. Pressure to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia. He insists one live and suffer. One does not have the right to obtain assistance to end their misery. Talk about being "owned". He wouldn't know freedom if he fell over it.

Feminism. Their actions have contributed to the freedom of many, not just women. Ending sexual discrimination against women also led to ending sexual discrimination against gays.

The decline of religion. The decline of religion has freed people, as well. Something as common place as buying alcohol on a Sunday. Not everyone has Friday night and Saturday off. The shift worker may desire to go clubbing on a Sunday as he gets Sunday and Monday off. And then there's the birth control issue and sex, in general. Organized religion belongs in the garbage can. And just for the record, due to personal experiences, I do believe in some sort of "higher power" whether it's an actual being or some, as yet not understood, part of nature. The audacity of any man or woman to claim they speak for God is about as vile as vile can be. And as for Jesus I wasn't there so I can't comment on what may have been a fictional character.

As noted, "In his five days of testimony -- the longest confirmation hearing for any Supreme Court nominee since hearings began in 1939 -- Bork surprised everyone. He modified many of his most controversial views." Modified his views. A polite way of saying one lies? If there's one trait that's universal to Repubs that's the one and Romney flat out abuses it. :lol:




http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id320.htm[/QUOTE]
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I don't agree with Mott on occasion but we don't fall out because of it. Now you claim to have high intelligence so why don't you expand upon your usual practice of giving one word answers and explain your reasoning?
Click to expand...

Why, are you going to respond this time?

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...uching-Towards-Gomorrah&p=1083077#post1083077

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...uching-Towards-Gomorrah&p=1083083#post1083083

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...uching-Towards-Gomorrah&p=1083090#post1083090
 
apple0154 said:
I didn't miss that. There is a lot more than his views on abortion that are badly skewed. Pressure to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia. He insists one live and suffer. One does not have the right to obtain assistance to end their misery. Talk about being "owned". He wouldn't know freedom if he fell over it.

Feminism. Their actions have contributed to the freedom of many, not just women. Ending sexual discrimination against women also led to ending sexual discrimination against gays.

The decline of religion. The decline of religion has freed people, as well. Something as common place as buying alcohol on a Sunday. Not everyone has Friday night and Saturday off. The shift worker may desire to go clubbing on a Sunday as he gets Sunday and Monday off. And then there's the birth control issue and sex, in general. Organized religion belongs in the garbage can. And just for the record, due to personal experiences, I do believe in some sort of "higher power" whether it's an actual being or some, as yet not understood, part of nature. The audacity of any man or woman to claim they speak for God is about as vile as vile can be. And as for Jesus I wasn't there so I can't comment on what may have been a fictional character.

As noted, "In his five days of testimony -- the longest confirmation hearing for any Supreme Court nominee since hearings began in 1939 -- Bork surprised everyone. He modified many of his most controversial views." Modified his views. A polite way of saying one lies? If there's one trait that's universal to Repubs that's the one and Romney flat out abuses it. :lol:




http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id320.htm
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

I do not agree with euthanasia, which I consider a slippery slope to a Logan's Run type society. Maybe I missed something but I don't see anywhere where he is against equality and I am quite vehemently against your intolerant attitude to religion, that is quite a totalitarian attitude and I speak as an agnostic. Marx said that religion is the opium of the people, I'd far rather they have that than actual opium. I suggest that you go to other parts of the world especially former communist countries like Poland and the Czech Republic and ask them about religious repression. Go to Thailand and see that without Buddhism the whole country would just fall apart with rampant materialism.
 
Rune said:
Why, are you going to respond this time?

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...uching-Towards-Gomorrah&p=1083077#post1083077

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...uching-Towards-Gomorrah&p=1083083#post1083083

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...uching-Towards-Gomorrah&p=1083090#post1083090
Click to expand...

It is fairly obvious to me that you've never travelled outside the US, you might learn something if you went to some third world countries and see how many people live, both men and women. Americajn are probably the most risk adverse, materialistic and whiniest society on the planet and won't be content until every other society ends up the same way.
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
It is fairly obvious to me that you've never travelled outside the US, you might learn something if you went to some third world countries and see how many people live, both men and women. Americajn are probably the most risk adverse, materialistic and whiniest society on the planet and won't be content until every other society ends up the same way.
Click to expand...

It is fairly obvious to me that you refuse to debate the actual content of your OP, opting instead to variously change the subject or focus on the perceived defficiences of the opposition. If you decide to respond to my prior posts, let me know.

By the way, you couldn't be more incorrect. I left the US 3 times already this year alone, and extensively in my youth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top