atrios.blogspot.com/2006_02_19_atrios_archive.html#1140715...
That's a hell of a jump to make: Judicial review=abortion rights.
Perhaps he's on the right track though. Why give them democracy at all? In 200 years they might end up electing themselves a Bush and what kind of mess would they be in then? Better to just scrap the whole thing.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Monday, February 20, 2006
Oops...
www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2006/02/19/bidenIWont...
I didn't know Biden was in such a bad situation...
I didn't know Biden was in such a bad situation...
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Wow, Republican hypocrisy, who knew?...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11283911
Wow, you'd think after awhile all the hypocrisy and lying from the Republicans wouldn't surprise me so much but yet it always does. These are the people who run our country, they control all three branches of government. Starr was, and still is, a huge part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. He wasted years and millions of taxpayer dollars pursuing a personal vendetta against Clinton for the Republicans. And the worst part is that the whole Clinton investigation was supposed to be about perjury and lying. I guess it's only a bad thing if the Democrats are doing it. I hope they nail him to the wall, Clinton lost his license to practice law in his home state and he didn't really do anything wrong other than have an affair with a consenting adult and lie about it to protect his family. If this is proven, the least that should happen is for Starr to lose his license and really that should only be the beginning. If they gain a conviction he should do hard time.
Wow, you'd think after awhile all the hypocrisy and lying from the Republicans wouldn't surprise me so much but yet it always does. These are the people who run our country, they control all three branches of government. Starr was, and still is, a huge part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. He wasted years and millions of taxpayer dollars pursuing a personal vendetta against Clinton for the Republicans. And the worst part is that the whole Clinton investigation was supposed to be about perjury and lying. I guess it's only a bad thing if the Democrats are doing it. I hope they nail him to the wall, Clinton lost his license to practice law in his home state and he didn't really do anything wrong other than have an affair with a consenting adult and lie about it to protect his family. If this is proven, the least that should happen is for Starr to lose his license and really that should only be the beginning. If they gain a conviction he should do hard time.
Oh that Ann...
www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/ann-coulter-at-cpac...
Oh that Ann, such a kidder.
Last I checked joking about killing an ex President and five of the nine Supreme Court Justices breaks a few laws. But of course she's a Republican so nothing will come of it. I wonder if they'll be in such a forgiving mood if anybody makes this joke about Bush after he's finally out of office? Or if they'd have been so forgiving if someone had said this of Reagan? I think that person would find themselves in jail (or Guantanamo jailed as an enemy combatant).
Coulter on the Holocaust:
"Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and the NY Times have made submissions."
Oh yeah, those NY Timers and Ted Rall. Ann on the other hand only calls for terrorists destroying the NY Times building (and the Supreme Court), and not Israel, so that's ok I guess.
In typical Republican fashion Frist refuses to denounce her comment giving a bullshit reason. They told him what she said, there is no legitimate reason for someone to call Arabs ragheads, it's an easy call. Just as there's no legitimate reason for a white person to call a black person the n word, Frist can't exactly hide against the claim that she could have meant it in a non-insulting way (and besides, this is the woman who called for the entire Arab world to be forcibly converted to Christianity so we all know what she meant (and even Bill with his supposed medical degree should know what she meant).
Oh that Ann, such a kidder.
Last I checked joking about killing an ex President and five of the nine Supreme Court Justices breaks a few laws. But of course she's a Republican so nothing will come of it. I wonder if they'll be in such a forgiving mood if anybody makes this joke about Bush after he's finally out of office? Or if they'd have been so forgiving if someone had said this of Reagan? I think that person would find themselves in jail (or Guantanamo jailed as an enemy combatant).
Coulter on the Holocaust:
"Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and the NY Times have made submissions."
Oh yeah, those NY Timers and Ted Rall. Ann on the other hand only calls for terrorists destroying the NY Times building (and the Supreme Court), and not Israel, so that's ok I guess.
In typical Republican fashion Frist refuses to denounce her comment giving a bullshit reason. They told him what she said, there is no legitimate reason for someone to call Arabs ragheads, it's an easy call. Just as there's no legitimate reason for a white person to call a black person the n word, Frist can't exactly hide against the claim that she could have meant it in a non-insulting way (and besides, this is the woman who called for the entire Arab world to be forcibly converted to Christianity so we all know what she meant (and even Bill with his supposed medical degree should know what she meant).
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Huzza what?...
mediamatters.org/items/200602090005
Seriously, this guy thinks Jimmy Carter's a "waste of skin"? What world is he living on? Carter has done more as an ex-President than any in modern history. What was Reagan doing before he died? What has Bush I done other than make millions off his political connections and occasionally help out in a crisis to look good (and I'm sure he'll soon be joined by his son). The closest we have to Carter is Clinton and even his accomplishments pale in comparison to Carter. Not only does he help build houses for Habitat (he even has his own yearly work project that helps build houses across the globe) but he also helps contribute to the cause of peace all around the world. Just because Beck's idea of being a worthwhile human being doesn't involve actually helping anyone who's not a millionaire doesn't mean he can honestly call Carter a useless waste of skin. I disagree with Bush, he's contributed absolutely nothing to the future wellbeing of this world or its people, but I can't honestly say he's never done anything of note.
Seriously, this guy thinks Jimmy Carter's a "waste of skin"? What world is he living on? Carter has done more as an ex-President than any in modern history. What was Reagan doing before he died? What has Bush I done other than make millions off his political connections and occasionally help out in a crisis to look good (and I'm sure he'll soon be joined by his son). The closest we have to Carter is Clinton and even his accomplishments pale in comparison to Carter. Not only does he help build houses for Habitat (he even has his own yearly work project that helps build houses across the globe) but he also helps contribute to the cause of peace all around the world. Just because Beck's idea of being a worthwhile human being doesn't involve actually helping anyone who's not a millionaire doesn't mean he can honestly call Carter a useless waste of skin. I disagree with Bush, he's contributed absolutely nothing to the future wellbeing of this world or its people, but I can't honestly say he's never done anything of note.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Call it a long hiatus...
Wow, it's been a long time since I posted last. That Coulter post was the first one since November. Events have conspired to keep me away.
www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3637038.html
In recent news I missed mentioning the passing of Coretta Scott King. This nation has truly lost a great American, one of the best we've ever had. She managed to leave a huge mark for good on this country and she will be missed.
www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3637038.html
In recent news I missed mentioning the passing of Coretta Scott King. This nation has truly lost a great American, one of the best we've ever had. She managed to leave a huge mark for good on this country and she will be missed.
Crazy Ann strikes again...
www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2006/01/04/...
I so enjoy reading Ann Coulter's articles, it gives me a great amount of insight into the thought patterns of the "mainstream" right. It's also fun to watch the rantings of a woman who thinks her own right to vote should be taken away (go ahead Ann, nobody's forcing you to vote).
In pointing out that an insignificant number of Bush Administration warrants were rejected or changed (around 3% of the total, I bet most lawyers would kill for a success rate like that in court) she brings up a good question (I'm sure it's purely accidental), why is the FISA court suddenly rejecting and amending warrants? Was the court suddenly bought out by the ACLU? Did someone slip some LSD into their tea that morning? Or perhaps Bush's requests have been so off the wall, so beyond the pale of reasonable search and seizure, that this court that never rejected a warrant suddenly rejected one.
I think this little fact speaks far more about the criminal nature of the Bush Administration than it does the court.
By the way, she brings up another interesting quandary (again, purely by accident I'm sure). She seems to think it's ok to break the law in violation of an explicit court order if you don't agree with the court's decision. So I guess she'd have been fine with Al Gore taking up residence in the White House, after the famous debacle that was Bush v. Gore in 2000, because he didn't agree with the court's decision (maybe she'd even be willing to take on his case, she is a lawyer after all. One can only imagine what law school granted her a diploma but nevertheless she is still a lawyer).
If the President doesn't have to follow court orders, from a court that sides with him far more than any court has ever sided with a specific plaintiff ever in the history of the world, why should anyone have to follow a court order ever? Why should the Judiciary exist at all as a branch of government, or a check on legislative and executive power, if it can be ignored at will?
I so enjoy reading Ann Coulter's articles, it gives me a great amount of insight into the thought patterns of the "mainstream" right. It's also fun to watch the rantings of a woman who thinks her own right to vote should be taken away (go ahead Ann, nobody's forcing you to vote).
In pointing out that an insignificant number of Bush Administration warrants were rejected or changed (around 3% of the total, I bet most lawyers would kill for a success rate like that in court) she brings up a good question (I'm sure it's purely accidental), why is the FISA court suddenly rejecting and amending warrants? Was the court suddenly bought out by the ACLU? Did someone slip some LSD into their tea that morning? Or perhaps Bush's requests have been so off the wall, so beyond the pale of reasonable search and seizure, that this court that never rejected a warrant suddenly rejected one.
I think this little fact speaks far more about the criminal nature of the Bush Administration than it does the court.
By the way, she brings up another interesting quandary (again, purely by accident I'm sure). She seems to think it's ok to break the law in violation of an explicit court order if you don't agree with the court's decision. So I guess she'd have been fine with Al Gore taking up residence in the White House, after the famous debacle that was Bush v. Gore in 2000, because he didn't agree with the court's decision (maybe she'd even be willing to take on his case, she is a lawyer after all. One can only imagine what law school granted her a diploma but nevertheless she is still a lawyer).
If the President doesn't have to follow court orders, from a court that sides with him far more than any court has ever sided with a specific plaintiff ever in the history of the world, why should anyone have to follow a court order ever? Why should the Judiciary exist at all as a branch of government, or a check on legislative and executive power, if it can be ignored at will?
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)