So, Rick, your message to people, like myself, who felt that Miers' nomination was a slap in the face on three separate grounds (cronyism, lack of qualifications, and lack of a coherent, conservative JUDICIAL philosophy - as amply demonstrated by her ridiculously poorly written-and-reasoned writings and speeches as head of the Texas Bar) is that we should have simply accepted Bush's screw up in silence??? And, in opposing, on principle, a BAD nomination, WE'RE at fault, not Bush for making a horrendous nomination in the first place?????
What color is the sky on your planet?Comment Posted By Flagwaver On 28.10.2005 @ 14:07
Again, if Bush's War on Terror is a "failure," what, oh brilliant one, is the "right" solution to Fundamenalist Islamic terrorism??? I'm going to assume that you are one of those "nuanced" Neville Chamberlain fans, no?Comment Posted By Flagwaver On 7.07.2005 @ 13:31
I am trying (without success, so far) to figure out if you are a tool, or simply a fool. What ARE "the changes necessary to beat back terrorism" in your oh-so-humble opinion?
Rick Moran is right - the War on Terror, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, is successful to date - not complete, but clearly going in our favor. Don't you bother to LISTEN to the words of the enemy? What have OBL's and Zarqawi's comments been about the war in Iraq? Why do you not take their words at face value?
Could it POSSIBLY be that you are simply an anti-Bush, anti-Western, "liberal" idiot? No, that COULDN'T be it, could it?
Effing tools.Comment Posted By Flagwaver On 7.07.2005 @ 12:30
We are obviously NOT on the same wavelength, here. I like your blog, and I tend to agree with and respect most of your views, so I want to make an effort to "bridge the gap."
I agree that TRULY intimidating judges with whom you disagree - by, for example, threatening their wives and children, or their home, or damaging or threatening to damage their personal property, or threatening or making and implied threat to their person. BAD JUJU.
I think YOU would agree that PROTESTING the decisions of a judge you disagree with is PRECISELY what the Founding Fathers were seeking to protect when they wrote the First Amendment.
So, where does one cross the line between "intimidation" and "protest"?? IMNSHO, it is inherent in the definitions of "intimidation" and "threat." ALthough neither REQUIRE illegality, there is certainly a sense, particularly in the definition of "threat" of violence or illegality.
If a Congressman votes for legislation requiring a 50 yard "protest free" zone around all abortion clinics, is it proper to picket their house? If not, why not? If a judge sentences a convicted child molester to probation, would you consider it "improper intimidation" to write a letter to the State Corrections Board suggesting that the miscreant serve his probation in the Judge's neighborhood? Again, why?
Clement may be a nutjob - but he's a clever nutjob. He is doing NOTHING more sinister than an irate parent writing a letter to the Corrections Board suggesting that, if a judge is going to release a pedophile on the community, it should be in the JUDGE's community. Such protest is neither "intimidation," nor is it improper.
Frankly, PARTICULARLY in the case of judges, who do not have to face the ballot box, I'd like to see a lot MORE of such protest. They SHOULD get a feel for what their judicial idiocy sometimes inflicts on the rest of us.Comment Posted By Flagwaver On 29.06.2005 @ 20:26
I have to agree with Sue, for a VARIETY of reasons. First, "good for the goose, good for the gander." If Souter TRULY believes that his idiot ruling in Kelo is "just," WHY should it not apply to him as equally as to any other landowner?? Do you NOT believe that there will be many actions by developers, in response to Kelo, similar to Clements'??? If you don't, I have a few bridges I'd like to sell you. If OTHER landowners will be receiving this kind of joy, shouldn't Souter, as an architect of this disaster, share it along with them.
Second, dude, this is called "free speech," and if Souter (and you) doesn't like it - well, as they say in Tijuana, "los frijoles duros."
Third, this is NOT intimidation - and that accusation is almost as overheated as the "Gitmo = Auschwitz" rhetoric of the moonbat left. MY Webster's Online defines intimidation as "The act of making timid or fearful or of deterring BY THREATS." My Webster's also defines a threat as "The expression of an intention TO INFLICT EVIL OR INJURY on another." Now, HOW can this be a threat?? Is Souter (and are you) claiming that such a taking is an "evil or injury"??? If so, then why in hell did he vote with the majority to authorize such? Or, if this action is simply a VALID EXERCISE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT POWER, then HOW can it be a "threat"??????
If I said I was going to go to his house and burn it down, THAT would be a threat. Having his house taken is simply having him hoist on his own petard. Which, mind you, is not a bad idea.
Sorry, you're simply WRONG - and your sympathies are badly misplaced.Comment Posted By Flagwaver On 29.06.2005 @ 17:45
"It may feel good to envision a â€œJust Desserts Cafeâ€ on property owned by one of the architects of the execrable Kelo decision. But somehow, I donâ€™t think Justice Souter feels very good about it."
Well, I, for one, would HOPE "Justice" Souter doesn't feel very good about it. He should feel like shit . . . but I doubt he does. I'm sure his statist little heart fairly beats with pride at the brave new world his enlightened jurisprudence has ushered in.
And I have to concur with some of the other posters - if making judges feel the "bite" of their pronouncements is "intimidation," then it's intimidation that we need a LOT more of. Just like when the "Contract with America" made Congress subject to all of the dipshit laws they pass for us businesspeople to contend with.Comment Posted By Flagwaver On 28.06.2005 @ 21:59
Pages (1) :