Dru Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 More on the top of a page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 she wears too much make-up. she's not qualified It's a texas thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 she wears too much make-up. she's not qualified It's a texas thing. Â it doesn't matter. i was just judging her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 she wears too much make-up. she's not qualified It's a texas thing. it doesn't matter. i was just judging her. Just showing my openhearted, understanding and carrying nature Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 God told me I should invade Iraq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 What a moron we have. It's embarassing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 God told me I should invade Iraq When did you move to Alberta? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TREETOAD Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 Maybe if someone bought him a new puppy it would take his mind off all this other stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knelson Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Maybe if someone bought him a new puppy it would take his mind off all this other stuff. Â OK. I'll bite... I've seen reference to it enough times now... Â So, you got a new puppy, eh? What happened to the last dog? (...he asks bravely, while reading his signature line...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 It's truly annoying that Oregon voters passed the physician assisted suicide TWICE yet it's still being challenged in court. Do they think voters are morons? Â Are we not holding our Representatives and Senators accountable? I've heard in two cases where Congress has the obligation to deal with issues but has failed to do so. One is the medical marijuana issue and the other is the assisted-suicide issue (Oregon's Death with Dignity Act). Do we expect our judges to legislate these issues? Â That's not their job and the Supreme Court ruling in the recent medical marijuana case indicated this, as will their ruling (or stated opinions) on the assisted-suicide case concur. Why hasn't Congress provided a remedy? Â Even Al Gore has stated his concern for Congress' absence in dealing with issues. One of the only avenues left for the expression of public or political ideas on television is through the purchase of advertising, usually in 30-second chunks. These short commercials are now the principal form of communication between candidates and voters. As a result, our elected officials now spend all of their time raising money to purchase these ads. Â That is why the House and Senate campaign committees now search for candidates who are multi-millionaires and can buy the ads with their own personal resources. As one consequence, the halls of Congress are now filling up with the wealthy. Â Campaign finance reform, however well it is drafted, often misses the main point: so long as the only means of engaging in political dialogue is through purchasing expensive television advertising, money will continue by one means or another to dominate American politics. And ideas will no longer mediate between wealth and power. What is happening is that our Congressmen are spending their time at fundraisers to amass 'war chests' to push through their next campaign. They're not dealing with the 'all' of the issues. Read the article. Gore, for instance, makes important points concerning the decision to go to war, one that Congress basically forfeited to the president. Â This is non-partisan. This is the corrosive effect of money and power over character and duty among men and women of both parties. The McCain-Feingold reform law didn't go far enough. Just look at the continuing saga of the Jack Abramhoff affair. Â Vote the bastards out!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman_Clyde Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Probaly sarcasm. Â If not, Josh's opinion on the relvance of her looks is his own anyway. Â The queen of cc.com political correctness feminine' giving a pass to a fellow liberal who has just excersized judgement on a woman based solely on her perceived unattractiveness. Â Priceless! Â Yep. The hypocrisy of liberals never ceases to amaze me. Who cares what the woman looks like - she should be judged by her qualifications and job performance. Looks are irrelevant, remember? And, since Joshie is a liberal, other liberals will look the other way at his remark - like the feminists regarding Bubbas abuse of power with an intern. Â Although I cringed when I read Josh's original remark-- it's unfair to judge her in this way, such a remark makes you look catty and gives ammo to the opposition, etc.-- the fact is that appearance does matter in politics. Having spent three years in DC, on the fringes of politics, I can tell you that people will stoop to most any cruelty in their grasping for power. It seems to bring out the primitive side of people. Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 I find it surprising that it's some Democrats that are speaking up for her and that some conservative Republicans are opposing her. I think the lack of a public record (or at least one that goes beyond lawyer-client privilege or executive privilege) will make things difficult in the confirmation process. Even the Republicans don't know where she stands on some issues and her past has indicated that her views have evolved, i.e., are not set in stone. Maybe she will support Republican values in the economic realm but in the social realm will not be to their liking. Don't know how much influence her religion will play but it shouldn't straitjacket her ability to reason. Seems that, who was it Kennedy, was a devout Catholic, but it did not hinder his ability to form an opinion concerning abortion. Â No, if someone wants to oppose her it would be on the basis that she has no constitutional law experience. She has dealt extensively with legal issues but she is not steeped in the tradition of the Constitution, as I understand her background. Â But yeah, looks (photogenic) and eloquence are important politically but less so here. Of course, as a justice her ability to reason is paramount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Apparently most of you didn't read my reply that said I WAS KIDDING WITH THE REMARK ABOUT HER LOOKS. Jesus tits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Apparently most of you didn't read my reply that said I WAS KIDDING WITH THE REMARK ABOUT HER LOOKS. Jesus tits. Â Didn't you get the memo, Josh? Liberals are not allowed to have a sense of humor. Â BTW the SC already has one unattractive woman on it, so the quota is filled. I say we get another Scalia instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 But yeah, looks (photogenic) and eloquence are important politically but less so here. Of course, as a justice her ability to reason is paramount. Â Well, apparently neither looks OR an ability to reason are required for the presidency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwalling Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Yes he does GOD DAMNIT GOD DAMNIT ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunglehead Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Apparently most of you didn't read my reply that said I WAS KIDDING WITH THE REMARK ABOUT HER LOOKS. Jesus tits. Â I knew you were kidding. I thought it was pretty fucking obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted October 20, 2005 Author Share Posted October 20, 2005 A guy in my office says that yesterday there was an article where they were saying that Rove told Bush about their involvement in leaking Valeri Plame's identity back in 2003, and Bush was "livid." Did anybody read the article? How does it square with Bush saying, in September, 2003, Â I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. Â Or McClellan's saying he knew that Rove was not involved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TREETOAD Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 http://www.yeeguy.com/freefall/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.