A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
1- everyone forgets that the Senate has an independant that votes R on terrorism issues.

2- if passed it won't be signed for at least the next few years.

3- if voted on EVERY Dem who votes for it will be at risk in 08 (maybe not conyers and Pelosi, but the others)

I won't give a flip about Dems' reelection chances when I'm on that plane that's nosediving into the earth, or into other people.

Conyers should be shot. And Ellison is going to be trouble - he is already carried away by his own ego. Word is he has a bit of domestic trouble history, as well.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
[if airport security personnel question passengers who are disproportionately Muslim or of Middle Eastern descent, this alone would constitute a presumptive violation of the law]

If nothing else, this is ridiculous. Again with the belief that one can just tell, from observation, with 100% accuracy, who is muslim and who isn't. Does Keith Ellison look muslim?

And how is who among the questioned is what religion going to be determined? Is the government going to require all questioned passengers to declare their religion? Or will the TSA keep track itself (and then not ask about religion and mark down "unknown")? If not, does CAIR get to determine when "too many" muslims get questioned? And, how ever the determination gets made as to how many muslims have been subject to additional search/questions, isn't the TSA's way around it just to inconvenience a whole bunch of whiteys to balance out the proportions? This is just such a bureaucratic clusterfuck of a proposal that it's pointless.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
If nothing else, this is ridiculous. Again with the belief that one can just tell, from observation, with 100% accuracy, who is muslim and who isn't. Does Keith Ellison look muslim?

And how is who among the questioned is what religion going to be determined? Is the government going to require all questioned passengers to declare their religion? Or will the TSA keep track itself (and then not ask about religion and mark down "unknown")? If not, does CAIR get to determine when "too many" muslims get questioned? And, how ever the determination gets made as to how many muslims have been subject to additional search/questions, isn't the TSA's way around it just to inconvenience a whole bunch of whiteys to balance out the proportions? This is just such a bureaucratic clusterfuck of a proposal that it's pointless.

in michigan a law just passed banning using race for giving preference in school admission etc. Word is the schools will focus on providing extra points based upon zip code. maybe we can profile based upon number of vowels in the last name?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
However, I still find your preference of Scalia over Bork surprising. I don't see Scalia as a strict constructionist (I am sure that will send Slave into an epileptic seizure) but as an activist judge who just pushes for conservative policies from the bench as opposed to liberal policies. Do you think Bork would fit into that catagory?

One of the problems I have with Bork was the fact that the guy can't grow a beard yet he didn't (doesn't?) shave. What is up with that? If a beard just won't come in full, don't grow one at all or you end up looking really creepy. How hard is it to understand that?

I agree with you that Scalia is not a strict consructionist. He is an arrogant, ultra-conservative, intellectually dishonest jurist who pushes his own view of a conservative agenda while claiming to be more ideologically pure than anyone else.

I dislike Bork because he is not only ultra-conservative, but he is also a whore. I'll never forgive him for the Saturday Night Massacre, and I don't think he should ever have been confirmed as a federal judge at any level.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Who is this Medved character anyway? Where did he come from? The guy seems to be a theocrat. I may be on crack, but I could swear I once saw him do a show as a film critic. Why does he get so much ink?

I'm not positive, but I don't think they're the same guy. I'm pretty sure this Medved is a professor in California, maybe at the think tank at Stanford.

ETA I stand corrected.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
maybe we can profile based upon number of vowels in the last name?

Absolute number or ratio to consonants?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Absolute number or ratio to consonants?

ratio. and double weight if there's an "i" and an "a."

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ratio. and double weight if there's an "i" and an "a."

So, for profiling purposes, Chinaski is the same as bin Laden?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
So, for profiling purposes, Chinaski is the same as bin Laden?

Well, he does describe himself as "swarthy."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
So, for profiling purposes, Chinaski is the same as bin Laden?

more so. the double "i' is almost grounds for a search warrent. but it's long been okay to profile Italians.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
How so? From the reports I've seen, just looks like he entered into an agreement which might (if the new governor allows it to stand, which appears unlikely) increase Romney's costs for having his gardening done. Or do you have inside info on the immigration status of Romney's household help?

Maybe I have read this wrong, but it seems to me that Romney hired a gardening firm to do his gardening work. He did not hire any illegal aliens. The Gardeining firm was not an illegal alien nor were its owners. So therefore, it seems to me Romney is about as guilty of hiring illegal aliens as someone who buys fruit since the company that sells the fruit hires illegals to do their picking.

If he had hired a illegal alien as a nanny, picked these guys up off a street corner, or hired them directly, that is one thing but he hired a gardening company that in turn hired the illegals. That seems to take the "busted" and "gotcha" that Ty was referring to out of the whole scenario.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
If nothing else, this is ridiculous. Again with the belief that one can just tell, from observation, with 100% accuracy, who is muslim and who isn't. Does Keith Ellison look muslim?

And how is who among the questioned is what religion going to be determined? Is the government going to require all questioned passengers to declare their religion? Or will the TSA keep track itself (and then not ask about religion and mark down "unknown")? If not, does CAIR get to determine when "too many" muslims get questioned? And, how ever the determination gets made as to how many muslims have been subject to additional search/questions, isn't the TSA's way around it just to inconvenience a whole bunch of whiteys to balance out the proportions? This is just such a bureaucratic clusterfuck of a proposal that it's pointless.

If there was any justice in the universe Pelosi and Conyers will be on the next plane that is hijacked.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky
Maybe I have read this wrong, but it seems to me that Romney hired a gardening firm to do his gardening work. He did not hire any illegal aliens. The Gardeining firm was not an illegal alien nor were its owners. So therefore, it seems to me Romney is about as guilty of hiring illegal aliens as someone who buys fruit since the company that sells the fruit hires illegals to do their picking.

If he had hired a illegal alien as a nanny, picked these guys up off a street corner, or hired them directly, that is one thing but he hired a gardening company that in turn hired the illegals. That seems to take the "busted" and "gotcha" that Ty was referring to out of the whole scenario.

Okay. Hadn't seen that and didn't look for old news. Only Romney + illegals stories that are new relate to his agreement (as Mass Gov.) with the INS, so I thought you were refering to something related to that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
If there was any justice in the universe Pelosi and Conyers will be on the next plane that is hijacked.

we've been through this. planes won't be hijacked anymore. blown up sure, but no way anyone who can fight will let non-specific peoples take over a plane ever again.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I even prefer Scalia to Bork. And I view Scalia as one of the most dangerous men in America.

How is that? Scalia has basically zero control in the Supreme Court, which itself has limited authority to do much.