Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The one [and only] area where our "big tent" HAS been united is on appointed state' rights/federalist jurists. The putrid decisions [possibly] expanding the Takings Clause and the nonsensical jibberish involving the Establishment Clause will only further embolden the federalist side to insist on new Justices not beholden to Hollywood, George Soros, Babs and the PC police.

People on th right want both Kennedy and O'Connor dead after this term. A bit extreme, I think. But their opinions boggle the mind.

Within the next 6 months, expect the following:

1) Thomas (unfortunately, not Scalia) tapped for CJ after Rehnquist resigns;

2) The Reps to go "nuclear" on the Dems illegal fillibuster tactics, especially after they broke the "compromise" less than 28 hours later by refusing a vote on Bolton;

3) Bush taps - and gets tapped - 2 new SCOTUS Judges by 2007;

4) Stevens and/or Ginsberg both retire due to illness/death right before the 2008 election; It becomes the decisive POTUS issue (more so than Iraq, a nuclear North Korea, renegade China, or the resurgent Soviet Union of non-elected Putin)

FWIW - I hope I'm wrong on #4

The tent is cclearly not united. How can a Federalist President force his Justice Dept to pursue a case against states' rights to regulate marijana use within their borders? How is that not directly contradictory to everything states' rights stands for? I know this does not include you, but many in your party are FINOs - federalists in name only. They scream about states' rights on issues regarding religious expression which they favor, but when the federalism would allow the states to do something they don't like, they admit their hypocrisy and scream for federal intervention. You can't have it both ways. You can't cry for the ten commandments on the courthousse steps on one hand and then demand a federal amendment defining marriage on the other. I agree that the states should control drugs, abortion and the definition of marriage. I'm no fan of consistency, but in this circumstance, its the only way to be fair and intellectually honest in the administration of our laws. Picking and chooisng what the states can and can't do based on the insane ideologies of the looniest mouths in your party makes a mockery of the whole states' rights issue. You can't be a full of steamin shit shit hypocrite and advocate anything effectively.

The article in which NR tried to "explain" hypocrisy" is in the recent issue with Mitt Romney on the cover. The article has the word "hypocrisy" in it, so it shouldn't be hard to find.

will your federalist judges bless federal laws to take away my pr0n, impose restrictions on the bill of rights, keep the elderly off teh reefer and limit my right to take the back road if i'm fortunate enough to find a skanky chick at lotus who's smitten by my big law awesomeness?

if not, i'm all for it.
taking souter's land

[Valentine]

Words can't describe the feelings that I have after listening to the Liar-in-Chief's speech tonight. It was like listening to one of his fellow sociopaths who talk to themselves on the streets. Sadly, it's like the old joke; "How do you know he's lying? His lips are moving." He talked about how hard the road ahead is- but it's not hard for him to send soldiers to die for his lies- it's not his blood. Remember that since President Moron stood on the aircraft carrier deck with the padded crotch jumpsuit (it had to be padded because he has no balls of his own) and announced that combat operations were over, 1700+ soldiers have died. The idiot goes on to talk about the atrocities commited by the enemy. There are tens of thousands of Innocent Iraqis who have lost family members who might be able to talk about atrocities also. I could go on (and on) picking his speech apart line by line, and show that virtually everything he said is a lie, in many cases proven by the government's own statements. LIE: WMDs. LIE:Iraq connection to 9-11. LIE: Saddam's connection to 9-11. Towards the end of his speech, Bush says "We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves." So why aren't Bush's daughters carrying a rifle? Because Daddy is a chickenshit. Bush went AWOL. Cheney never served, nor did Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, Richard Pearle, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Condi Rice, John Bolton, Bill Bennett, Tom DeLay, Jeb Bush, Trent Lott, Ted Nugent and many more people who have no problem ordering our kids to go and die, or go on TV and tell the country how great this war is. IF YOU THINK WE SHOULD BE FIGHTING IN IRAQ, MARCH YOUR ASS DOWN TO THE NEAREST RECRUITING STATION AND PUT YOUR ASS WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS, OR SHUT THE HELL UP!! The only thing that President Spineless said that made any sense at all is that we need to support our troops. I agree- bring 'em home!!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Tahir Ashrafi, a religious affairs adviser for Punjab province, said the 17 men had been cleared by Pakistani intelligence agencies after thorough interrogation and "have not been found to be involved in any kind of terrorist activity."

He said all the men signed statements saying they wouldn't join any anti-state activity.

However, one of the freed men, Khalil-ur Rahman, 21, from the eastern town of Gujrat, said he wouldn't hesitate to fight again. "If I get a chance to fight jihad again, I will definitely go. I will not miss it," he said.

This is a good example of a news story constructed exactly backward with the wrong headline. The correct headline for this story is:

Detainee Freed From Guantanamo Bay Vows to Kill Again

Miss a chance to whip up more Anti-American hatred with a Koran desecration story? As If.[/list]
link

Much as I hate the Blame the Media meme, I have to say this:

2.

This is a bullshit story. The Koran-desecration stuff is stupid (does anyone understand that it would be a good idea not to piss off another few millions Muslims with unnecessary and childish antics?). But it's not the story.

But perhaps the real headline should read

US Releases Known Jihadi to Appease Pakistani Friends

or

Pakistani Intelligence As Dumb As Ours

I mean, why did they release this guy? (And don't give me some "it's the Dems fault" bullshit).

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Valentine
Words can't describe the feelings that I have after listening to the Liar-in-Chief's speech tonight.

Two thousand dead troops.
Chaos. And Osama? Free.
Quick! Yell 9-1-1!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Much as I hate the Blame the Media meme, I have to say this:

2.

This is a bullshit story. The Koran-desecration stuff is stupid (does anyone understand that it would be a good idea not to piss off another few millions Muslims with unnecessary and childish antics?). But it's not the story.

But perhaps the real headline should read

US Releases Known Jihadi to Appease Pakistani Friends

or

Pakistani Intelligence As Dumb As Ours

I mean, why did they release this guy?

Obviously because the liberal coalitions conspiracy is working.

A good title would be:

Liberal and Democrat Appeasers Obtain Release of Terrorist to Facilitate More Murder of Americans

Doesn't surprise me, its consistent with the Democrats support of the homocidal Palestinians.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Valentine
Words can't describe the feelings that I have after listening to the Liar-in-Chief's speech tonight. It was like listening to one of his fellow sociopaths who talk to themselves on the streets. Sadly, it's like the old joke; "How do you know he's lying? His lips are moving." He talked about how hard the road ahead is- but it's not hard for him to send soldiers to die for his lies- it's not his blood. Remember that since President Moron stood on the aircraft carrier deck with the padded crotch jumpsuit (it had to be padded because he has no balls of his own) and announced that combat operations were over, 1700+ soldiers have died. The idiot goes on to talk about the atrocities commited by the enemy. There are tens of thousands of Innocent Iraqis who have lost family members who might be able to talk about atrocities also. I could go on (and on) picking his speech apart line by line, and show that virtually everything he said is a lie, in many cases proven by the government's own statements. LIE: WMDs. LIE:Iraq connection to 9-11. LIE: Saddam's connection to 9-11. Towards the end of his speech, Bush says "We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves." So why aren't Bush's daughters carrying a rifle? Because Daddy is a chickenshit. Bush went AWOL. Cheney never served, nor did Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, Richard Pearle, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Condi Rice, John Bolton, Bill Bennett, Tom DeLay, Jeb Bush, Trent Lott, Ted Nugent and many more people who have no problem ordering our kids to go and die, or go on TV and tell the country how great this war is. IF YOU THINK WE SHOULD BE FIGHTING IN IRAQ, MARCH YOUR ASS DOWN TO THE NEAREST RECRUITING STATION AND PUT YOUR ASS WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS, OR SHUT THE HELL UP!! The only thing that President Spineless said that made any sense at all is that we need to support our troops. I agree- bring 'em home!!

What Bush should have said was:

Right War, right time, right place and in deference to the referendum this nation held on the issue last November I will prosecute it towards its desired and acheivable end, Democracy in Iraq. To the naysaying nattering nabobs of negativity, I say Monsieur Kerry lost but I am sure his bon amie Jacques Chirac would welcome y'all with open arms. Say hi to Babs for me.

Next up, tax cuts and personal SS overall.

Thank you and God Bless.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The one [and only] area where our "big tent" HAS been united is on appointed state' rights/federalist jurists. The putrid decisions [possibly] expanding the Takings Clause and the nonsensical jibberish involving the Establishment Clause will only further embolden the federalist side to insist on new Justices not beholden to Hollywood, George Soros, Babs and the PC police.

I disagree with the result in the recent eminent domain case, but didn't the decision state that if states didn't like the result, they were free to legislate around it? There's talk of changing the laws in Texas to prevent a similar situation.

Damn liberal federalist judges.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
What Bush should have said was:

Right War, right time, right place and in deference to the referendum this nation held on the issue last November I will prosecute it towards its desired and acheivable end, Democracy in Iraq. To the naysaying nattering nabobs of negativity, I say Monsieur Kerry lost but I am sure his bon amie Jacques Chirac would welcome y'all with open arms. Say hi to Babs for me.

Next up, tax cuts and personal SS overall.

Thank you and God Bless.

He would have said that, but there are too many words there he can't pronounce.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I disagree with the result in the recent eminent domain case, but didn't the decision state that if states didn't like the result, they were free to legislate around it? There's talk of changing the laws in Texas to prevent a similar situation.

Damn liberal federalist judges.

And if your state fails to enact such legislation, then you can move.

Slave 1:15.




eta: Personally I think it's a god-awful decision and one of those instances where I look at what the USSC has done and think "that's what our Constitution means?"

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
What Bush should have said was:

Right War, right time, right place and in deference to the referendum this nation held on the issue last November I will prosecute it towards its desired and acheivable end, Democracy in Iraq. To the naysaying nattering nabobs of negativity, I say Monsieur Kerry lost but I am sure his bon amie Jacques Chirac would welcome y'all with open arms. Say hi to Babs for me.

Next up, tax cuts and personal SS overall.

Thank you and God Bless.

I thought that was basically what he said -- except you have to add "9/11" every third word.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And if your state fails to enact such legislation, then you can move.

Slave 1:15.

To France?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I disagree with the result in the recent eminent domain case, but didn't the decision state that if states didn't like the result, they were free to legislate around it? There's talk of changing the laws in Texas to prevent a similar situation.

Damn liberal federalist judges.

Federalism shouldn't be anyone's beef in analyzing Kelo:

"For more than a century, our public use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power." p 12-13.

"To effectuate this plan, the City has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development." p 13.

“'When the legislature’s purpose is legitimate and its means are not irrational, our casesmake clear that empirical debates over the wisdom oftakings—no less than debates over the wisdom of other kinds of socioeconomic legislation—are not to be carried out in the federal courts.'” Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 242.20" p. 17

"We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose 'public use' requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domainstatutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised." p. 19

"This Court’s authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City’s proposed condemnations are for a 'public use' within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution." p. 19

I personally don't think that the proposed condemnations are for "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, but abandonment of federalism couldn't possibly be argued in this decision.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by AliHajiSheik
To France?

No, to a state that will.

Look, I'm just the student of federalism. Slave is the master -- ask him.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
How can a Federalist President force his Justice Dept to pursue a case against states' rights to regulate marijana use within their borders? How is that not directly contradictory to everything states' rights stands for? I know this does not include you, but many in your party are FINOs - federalists in name only. They scream about states' rights on issues regarding religious expression which they favor, but when the federalism would allow the states to do something they don't like, they admit their hypocrisy and scream for federal intervention. You can't have it both ways. You can't cry for the ten commandments on the courthousse steps on one hand and then demand a federal amendment defining marriage on the other. I agree that the states should control drugs, abortion and the definition of marriage. I'm no fan of consistency, but in this circumstance, its the only way to be fair and intellectually honest in the administration of our laws. Picking and chooisng what the states can and can't do based on the insane ideologies of the looniest mouths in your party makes a mockery of the whole states' rights issue. You can't be a full of steamin shit shit hypocrite and advocate anything effectively.

A big fat 2. From an ideaological standpoint, the GOP is a total joke.