Those crazy kids on Facebook.
 

The Ron Paul lunatics are methodically spamming every poll on the internet.

In a way, it's impressive how organized they appear to be.

Those crazy kids on Facebook.
 

Maybe more people want to go back to the gold standard than previously realized.

Those crazy kids on Facebook.
 

When did we go off of the gold standard? Is it now a silver standard?

In my opionion, there wasn't much of a question.

But I still thought the whole investigation, and process, and the impeachment, was a horrible thing for the Country.

S_A_M

P.S. For Libby, I really have no idea if he's guilty, but I think its a damn shame that the whole thing happened, and that a basically decent man who was almost certainly following orders (when he did the underlying Plame leak) is going to jail.

Why yes. It's called "impeachment."

What was even more horrible for our country and our profession was that we had a President, who was also a lawyer, who perjured himself and sought to obstruct justice before a Federal judge. How sad. Hank, do they do teach ethics at Yale?

Southern Charm
 

Yankees and ethics! Pshaw.

To imagine that our nation's highest law enforcement official would perjure himself, or engage in wanton conflicts of interest, or seek political advantage in the administration of justice! Back home, we'd apply generous amounts of "justice" to anyone who behaved like this.

He was prosecuted by a U.S. Attorney (appointed by George W. Bush), convicted by a jury, and sentenced by a federal judge (also appointed by George W. Bush) who said that the evidence of his guilt was "overwhelming." Have you not been paying attention, or were you waiting for something more before you make up your mind? If so, what? A confession?

but if an appeals court overturns all that it could still be horribly biased misuse of the Judicial system, right?

One could have easily said the same thing about the esteemed junior Senator from New York (nee co-POTUS), except Ken Starr was too much of a pussy to indict her.

Yes. There's a presumption, but it's rebuttable.

I can imagine that S_A_M doesn't like to form a view as to whether anyone convicted of a crime is actually guilty, and that he is merely applying that agnosticism here. But I caught a whiff of Creeping Broderism, and the notion that since you have lefties saying he's guilty and conservatives protesting his innocence, the truth should be somewhere in the middle.

Those crazy kids on Facebook.
 

National Journal's ranking's of the GOP hopefuls, via Wonkette:

http://wonkette.com/assets/resources...06/aronnat.jpg

(a) I wasn't looking for a debate. just making an observation.

(b) I haven't been waiting for anything more, or looking to make up my mind, because I don't really, honestly care. (So, I guess that counts as not paying attention.)

(c) Those things you said make it more likely that he was guilty than if they had not happened (especially the judge's view). That said, I have enough training and experience with our system not to think that a jury verdict (either way) necessarily has much to do with the truth.

S_A_M

(a) No, that's surely not it.

(b) No, that's not it. I truly don't care too much, and I find it sort of odd that people do.

I was happy when it was hurting the Administration, because I like that on general principles, but that said:

While I think lying or otherwise obstructing justice is a bad thing, and has to be punished, I can get much more exercised about any number of "blue collar" crimes than I do about whether or not some well-off middle-age jackass, of whatever political persuasion, lies under oath -- especially in what is, essentially, a political case.

S_A_M

Goddamned fucking Phelps family puts me in a position where I actually feel the need to defend their actions. Or at least object to their jailing. I hate those people with the passion of a thousand hot firey suns, but...