Off message
 

Don't hold your breath.

http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/paro...ld_comfort.jpg

Off message
 

My answer depends on the length of Eisner's summer vacation.

Off message
 

Off message
 

Bush took responsibility for the fed failure, the loss of life was directly primarily caused by Nagin's and Blanco's failures. The fact that you cannot see the difference once again exposes the lack of any objectivity on the left. Otoh, Ty is responisble for the failure, he said so.

Ty, when will you be stepping down from your mod post? RT, can Hank take his place?

Off message
 

I don't know what this is supposed to mean? Do you agree or disagree that Ty should step down for Blanco's and Nagin's failures?

Off message
 

Hey, I think it's great. I just figured you guys would be concerned that somebody fell out of line.

Off message
 

I:

(a) thought it was funny;
(b) thought it applied to your entire collection of posts (which, just like Michael Bolton's collection, I celebrate).

In the spotlight losing my religion.....
 

I think he said there's one in there, but he did not say how extensive it was and in what circumstances the government could abridge that right. No rights are absolute, so absent a definition of the contours of the right, it's an empty statement

As for Roe, he said it was precedent and entitled to respect as such. He didn't outline (or at least I didn't see it) in what circumstances stare decisis doesn't carry the day. Lochner was good law once too.

In the spotlight losing my religion.....
 

Are you talking state sovereign immunity or federal sovereign immunity? With states, a lot of it is now defined by statute under state law, so for the most part it's irrelevant. As for federal laws abrogating state sovereign immunity, while it was once an interesting question, now it's essentially a statutory drafting question (isn't it?) and Congress can either abrogate it or not, with courts deciding only whether they did or didn't, and applying a default rule of it didn't. Don't get me started on the 11th amendment, because 11th amendment jurisprudence has almost nothing to do with the 11th amendment's text or purpose. Instead it's judicial activism used to strike down laws on a basis for which there are 5+ votes to do so (whereas the proper basis--the 10th amendment--has supplied, at least most recently, only 4 votes, at best).

Off message
 

No, of course not, and that's disingenuous. There's fault all around, and I haven't yet said anything about the relative faults here. But only one of fed, state and local has yet to admit any of that, much less take responsibility.

You prefer that leaders go the route we see far too often, parsing words and doling out blame while never quite doing anything either productive, useful or remedial?

Off message
 

No, I always expect Bush to fulfill his role as a responsible adult leader and so far he has not let me down. I know he is doing the hard work, and it is hard. He's working hard. I have faith.

Off message
 

I'd prefer they did their jobs and got kicked the fuck out when they didn't. But hey, I'm just kooky like that.

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/image...lottsporch.gif

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/gywo.metoo.gif

Off message
 

Ha. It's posts like this and that which ensure that on the day when we finally race, just prior to going by you (and dropping you hard), I will give you a pat on the shoulder and say "nice job, keep it up, you're almost there".

Off message
 

You mean like Michael Brown? Who at state and local has gotten fired yet?

Off message
 

As much as I believe the man has already suffered enough by losing his precious Brownie, I would be willing to advocate throwing the Vice President to the wolves as well if someone will write me that reparations check for those slaves you Northerner's "freed".