• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

BULLETIN: Jingoistic Republicans attack McDermott for supporting Court/Constitution

jj

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
21,382
He left out "under God" when he did the pledge, and now the Republicans are attempting to incite religious discrimination because he supports the Constitution and the Federal Court system.

Who will reply? Who will support freedom? Who will support the tyranny of the majority?
 
Re: BULLETIN: Jingoistic Republicans attack McDermott for supporting Court/Constitution

jj said:
He left out "under God" when he did the pledge, and now the Republicans are attempting to incite religious discrimination because he supports the Constitution and the Federal Court system.


Or you know, he could have just not led the pledge if he was going to pull a jackass stunt like that. I don't think under god should be in the pledge, i dont there should even be a pledge, but I think you should be ashamed for becoming a useful idiot so quickly on this.

Edited to add the following spoof:

BULLETIN: Easily led moron defends a-hole congressmen from other a-hole congressmen trying to secure their religious voter base.
 
Re: Re: BULLETIN: Jingoistic Republicans attack McDermott for supporting Court/Constitution

corplinx said:

Or you know, he could have just not led the pledge if he was going to pull a jackass stunt like that. I don't think under god should be in the pledge, i dont there should even be a pledge, but I think you should be ashamed for becoming a useful idiot so quickly on this.
McDermott is a buffoon in general, and this event did nothing to dispel that notion. Still, I'm curious why you're up in arms about it? (I agree about god and the pledge.)
 
Re: Re: BULLETIN: Jingoistic Republicans attack McDermott for supporting Court/Constitution

corplinx said:



Or you know, he could have just not led the pledge if he was going to pull a jackass stunt like that.

Well, I think McDermott is a bit off, too, but I think that when he stands on principle, which is what I see him doing here, it's just a tad lame to use the term you use to describe it.

What do you propose he should do? Just quietly say what they want?

You know as well as I do if he wouldn't say the pledge, we'd all be hearing stuff like "McDermott isn't loyal".

You KNOW, Corps, you KNOW your suggestion is a load of bollocks. All we'd see is a different excuse for the republiguns to attack.

I don't think under god should be in the pledge, i dont there should even be a pledge,

Well, then, why aren't you supporting somebody who actually acts on their position?

but I think you should be ashamed for becoming a useful idiot so quickly on this.

Corps, honey, nobody's leading me. I'm just paralleling the fecal material you right-wing bigots spout. If you don't like how I sound, learn how to spew your own stuff a bit more civilly.

By the way, now we have an extraordinary assertion on your part, the "useful idiot". Your arguements prior have suggested very strongly that you think I'm not useful (since I won't follow your totalitarian rantings), and very few people think I'm an idiot.

Do you have some extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary assertion? I'm skeptical. Can you provide some evidence?

Edited to add the following spoof:

BULLETIN: Easily led moron defends a-hole congressmen from other a-hole congressmen trying to secure their religious voter base.
Or, perhaps:

BULLETIN: Ad-hominem spewing hit-rhetorician from the Republigun party reflexively defends their totalitarian, unconstitutional position even though he personally doesn't agree with it!
 
Re: Re: Re: BULLETIN: Jingoistic Republicans attack McDermott for supporting Court/Constitution

varwoche said:

McDermott is a buffoon in general, and this event did nothing to dispel that notion.

Yeah, and he's my buffoon, too, sigh. I live in his district. Of course, we can tell from the gravy handed out that we all take quite a bit of damage from his behavior. Interesting, that function of congress, screw the other party's part of the country. How very American, eh, to "use the big stick" and use your bully-power to hurt the other guy. Just like the idiot Shrub's trying to shut down Kerry's campaign before it started. Seems like the present rightwing bigots can't stand freedom at all, doesn't it?
(Note, they aren't alone in this, but they are the dominant bullies at the minute, so they have my attention.)

Still, I'm curious why you're up in arms about it? (I agree about god and the pledge.)
You mean me, or Corplinx?

I'm just showing the anti-freedom, anti-constitution, anti-court attitude that the present radical-reactionary republican party demonstrates.

The present republican party quite obviously hates this country, they think we're too free to disagree with them, and just like Corplinx shows in his response, they will smear anyone who even dares to suggest that they might be wrong.

It's that simple, if you dare to disagree at all, the bullies come out and start calling you names. They continue to do so, like BobK and Rockook and the like, willfully lying about what you said over and over, in a willful, concious attempt to cause actual harm to the individual's reputation, if you so much as DARE to suggest that a right-wing republican might not be the best thing since sliced bread. That' show it works, even here on this board.

The evidence is all over this politics board, and is incontrovertable. Rockook's deliberate lies in the astrophysics thread, lies that he ceased in a cowardly and ignomious manner when he discovered that my identity of "jj" is actually who I really am. BobbyK's willfully misinterpretation of what I said in the draft-doger thread, Jacko's soliticitation of a sound-byte that could be deliberately misrepresented, Corplinx' portrayal of those who dare to disagree with the tyranny of the masses as doing "jack*ss stunts", they're all cut from the same cloth.

They are all, simply put, freedom-hating bullying, they are all concious, willful, dishonest, totalitarian attempts at silencing dissent, no more and no less.

The behavior of a lunatic like Rockook suggests that we aren't too far from some kind of "krystalnacht" against those who speak out against the totalitarian schemes of the american right, in that the repeated, obvious lies are made shamelessly and with the idea that they will never be taken to task, that they are completely invulnerable from any responsibility for their atrocious behavior.

Bullies, one and all. That's just what we have running the country today, people who say "do it my way because I have the gun".

Corpse, you've become nothing but a freedom-hating bully. I hope you like yourself, because I once thought there was a bit of principle hiding in there somewhere, but you've gone and become no better than BobbyK or Rockook.
 
Just shows the discontent of American politicians towards the entire class of Atheists, when even an innocent representative get criticized for some as little as omitting the phrase.

Accident or not, it was HIS Pledge of Allegiance.

Or is the Pledge of Allegiance not a pledge of allegiance anymore?

Newdow should use this in his case. It shows how easily any Atheist that would omit 'under God' could come under attack from the society for merely following his/her constitutionally protected religious beliefs. All because of a government decision to add 'under God' into the Pledge.
 
Luke T. said:
Sounds like we are not one nation...indivisible, eh? :D
The nation is indivisible. The citizens are free to tear each other apart, though. (metaphorically, mostly) ;)
 
So let's review. Conservatives/Republicans say that kids in school are to recite the pledge but are allowed to omit the phrase voluntarily if it offends them or their religion.

Yet an adult is NOT allowed to omit that particular phrase.

Hmm, I question their true intentions here.

Lurker
 
A spokesman for Rep. Jim McDermott said yesterday that the Washington Democrat thinks he made a mistake in omitting the words "under God" as he led the House in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance on Tuesday.
Mike DeCesare said Mr. McDermott told him that as a child he had learned the Pledge without the phrase "under God." The phrase was added in 1954.
"Basically, he caught himself up," Mr. DeCesare said, adding that Mr. McDermott had been unsure whether to include the phrase while the 2002 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being reviewed by the Supreme Court.
"Today he says, 'I should have said it,' because the Pledge has been amended, and in the future, he will do that," Mr. DeCesare said. "Basically, it was the wrong time to have a question in your thoughts."

So. He's either lying now, or he's senile. Makes him perfectly qualified to be a Congressman. :)


Source.

Since even he admits he was wrong, were the people who criticized him correct?
 
I found a jingoistic nutball at WorldNetDaily.

Congressman Jim McDermott is a traitor. I told him so myself on a Seattle radio station just prior to the Iraq war after the seven-term Democrat blatantly sided with Saddam Hussein instead of the United States. On Tuesday, McDermott's hatred of America and America's God surfaced once again as he led the Pledge of Allegiance on the floor of Congress minus the words "under God."

I love this part:

McDermott himself is not an atheist. He claims attendance at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral in Seattle, hardly a Christian church.



:confused:
 
Luke T. said:
I found a jingoistic nutball at WorldNetDaily.

Did you find any of the quotes that showed up in last night's newspaper from some of the republigun leaders? While they aren't quite as schizophrenic as this nutball you found, they really show how sure these people are that they have the upper hand, and have it via the tyranny of the majority.

I'd quote some, but I recycled the paper last night, and frankly, I think we've all seen some of the attack dogs barking on TV, yes?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: BULLETIN: Jingoistic Republicans attack McDermott for supporting Court/Constitution

jj said:

You mean me, or Corplinx?

I'm just showing the anti-freedom, anti-constitution, anti-court attitude that the present radical-reactionary republican party demonstrates.
I meant corplinx getting up in arms about your post.

Redmond is in McDermott's district? Is this one of those discontiguous districts?

(I may not like him but I'd vote for him.)
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BULLETIN: Jingoistic Republicans attack McDermott for supporting Court/Constitut

varwoche said:
Redmond is in McDermott's district? Is this one of those discontiguous districts?

Good question, actually, I haven't seen his name on a ballot yet, but I haven't been here that long. I have answered a phone poll about him vs. a couple of republowguns run by the republiblowguns who assumed I was in his district, but you know, I haven't actually seen any evidence of that yet...

(I may not like him but I'd vote for him.)

Might be wrong, he might not be "mine", just near me.

DOH.

I might vote for him, too, except that now he's run screaming from what he did. My vote, if any, at this point, would be to avoid installing another right-wing totalitiarian.
 
I think if I were in Congress and I were leading the pledge, I'd leave in "under God," but take out "indivisible" just to see if anyone notices.
 
shanek said:
I think if I were in Congress and I were leading the pledge, I'd leave in "under God," but take out "indivisible" just to see if anyone notices.
You'd probably get applause from the southerners if anyone noticed at all.
 
Luke T. said:
McDermott himself is not an atheist. He claims attendance at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral in Seattle, hardly a Christian church.

:confused:

kookoo.gif
 

Back
Top Bottom