Comments Posted By david
Displaying 61 To 70 Of 72 Comments
ITALIAN TV TO SHOW MARINE'S USE OF PHOSPHORUS IN TAKING FALLUJAH
Make love not war. Or just kill a republican, either way i'll be happy.
Comment Posted By david On 10.11.2005 @ 16:47
TOOTING MY OWN HORN SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO
We could start with the thought that Bush felt he should keep Clinton's CIA director even after 9/11. How timid is that? Is Bush really in charge of the government? Right now it looks to me like Soros, Kerry and their friends are running things behind the scenes. Maybe this is why Kofi hasn't resigned. He's in charge too. And Carter sure knows how to speak up. Clinton, of course, is too busy with other things to be of much help. But Bush and Cheney are looking more and more like two guys on a island. I was going to say they look like the guys at the alamo. But those guys, although outnumbered, at least knew how to fight back.
Comment Posted By David On 8.11.2005 @ 10:35
FITZGERALD TO SHOOT THE HORSE AFTER THE BARN DOOR WAS ALREADY CLOSED
"it is now almost certain that no laws were broken in outing Valerie Plame – although a despicable act in and of itself for which the perpetrators should be fired forthwith."
Doesn't follow. What was despicable about the Plame "outing"? It in no way increased her threat level (she had been "compromised" for years and non-operative for nearly as long). She and her hubby were conspiring to sell a lie they had _apparently_ set up from the gitgo. That was certainly hunky dory, eh?
:-)
Yeh, now I see it. The "outing" of Plame didn't include an intro to Dr. Tarr and Mr. Fether, along with "rail transport" outa town, for Val and Joe. Now that I'd agree was despicable.
heh
As to the presidential term. *sigh* There's no answer. I tend to agree with LargeBill's comment, but then... voters can be such asses, sometimes, and imagine being stuck with a Carter for three terms.
Where are you when we need you, Ronald Reagan?
Heck. I'd settle for Herbert Hoover.
Comment Posted By David On 19.10.2005 @ 13:29
"And the fault, dear Brutus, is not in the Congress but in ourselves."
Amen, Brother Heretic. Preach on.
Comment Posted By David On 19.10.2005 @ 13:33
She is doing the only thing she knows to do, embarasing herself on national TV and hope that somebody listens and cares. Numbers don't matter if they are the right numbers.
Comment Posted By david On 23.09.2005 @ 14:11
Fantastic! Dittos. You should run for the Library of Congress! (smile).
Is there a webblog Ph.D.we can award to you, Sir?
Mr. Satire
Comment Posted By David On 6.09.2005 @ 01:08
Well, somebody has to say it:
Maybe the Nazis will burn all the crosses for Cindy.
Comment Posted By David On 28.08.2005 @ 17:58
Darn, I can't believe you beat me in coining the term - "Chickendove." What's wrong with me? (smile)
Well, congratulations on your wonderful sense of humor.
Mr. Satire.
Comment Posted By David On 23.08.2005 @ 20:05
IS INTIMIDATION OF THE JUDICIARY THE ANSWER?
Rick:
Thanks for your explanatory note. I heard the instigator of the "Lost Liberty Hotel" plan was a libertarian, and I'm not surprised he is very strongly anti-big-government.
I agree that unlawful intimidation of judges is wrong. But this is not unlawful intimidation. Based on Souter's vote on Kelo, this kind of action is now lawful. It is very, very distasteful, but it is no more so for Souter than it was for the residents of New London, some of whom have lived in their (now-condemned) homes for considerably longer than the eminent Justice has lived in his.
It is sad that some judges must be hoist on their own legalistic petards before they will read the law as it is written, and but aside their policy preferences for those of the duly elected legislative bodies -- but if that is what must be done, so be it.
I for one will stay at the Lost Liberty Hotel when it is built, and I will toast the man who bulids it.
Comment Posted By David On 29.06.2005 @ 19:11
"...Do we really want to practice this kind of intimidation against judges..."
"Intimidation"? Rather, an introduction to the world they create with their rulings.
Were it up to me, I'd like to see ways devised to have judges (and justices) _directly_ experience the consequences of as many of their rulings as possible, especially where they amend longstanding principles or create new law *ex nihilo*.
Sure, Clements may be, as you assert, a loon, but that has nothing to do with impeaching his idea of having Souter experience the consequences of his actions. Starting your argument against the "takings" ploy by Clements with an *ad hominem* argument only weakens your argument further, IMO. That your strongest argument boils down to a weak, "I don't like it when judges have to live with the consequences of the actions" is not strengthened by equating the "talkings" ploy by Clements with death threats on other judges.
The two are not in any way, shape, fashion or form equivalent or even close order approximations.
One (death threats and acts of violence) is abhorant, vile. The other (Souter being hoist on his own petard) is simple ironic justice.
Comment Posted By David On 29.06.2005 @ 11:42
