If 42% of the American public feel we should impeach Bush if it's proven he lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, I'm thinking he's going to have a hell of a hard time getting a Supreme Court nominee through.
Posted by ann at July 1, 2005 08:11 AMAnn, I'd like to think so, except that the American public is rather removed from the proceedings, and probably doesn't see how the Court's makeup really has an effect on their lives. And as evidenced by other recent events, like the Schiavo case, the actions of "representatives" in Washington are sometimes hardly representative.
(Also, that poll contains an awfully big "if" Bush can be proven to be a liar...)
Posted by Kaleefornian at July 1, 2005 08:26 AMWell the summer just got a lot hotter inside the Beltway.
Sort of inconsiderate of O'Connor to announce just before the Holiday. That means all the wingnut shills have to cancel their 4th of July activities of faux-patriotism and exaggerated display of flag waving, and get busy sorting through that long list of nominees and determine which candidate would eradicate Roe v. Wade the most effectively. All the while, factoring in who would also set American law back about 100 years AND demonstrate they can put corporate interests above ordinary citizens. I guess there's no rest for the weary.
Posted by Jason at July 1, 2005 08:27 AMatrios has linked to this guy, who's a sane texas republican judge. OTOH, the "sane" part probably precludes his nomination. still, who knows?
Posted by benjoya at July 1, 2005 08:27 AMNo more compromises!!!!! Let the Dems know.
Posted by Ron In Portland at July 1, 2005 08:29 AMFight it like you mean it? You mean like the way the progressive left saddled Kerry with the gay marriage issue going into the '04 election, thereby galvanizing the evangelicals and putting Bush back in office so he can make the next two or three or four supreme court appointments?
Sorry, but the time for being smart was last year, and you failed the test. So fuck all of you. You're going to get what you deserve, and I hate you for it.
"lets fight this like we mean it."
AMEN!!!!
This is the most critical and important fight of our lives! Presidents are temporary, Supreme Court Justices are for LIFE and shape policy, law, and national identity for GENERATIONS!
We have to fight for our rights like our lives depend on it; I would argue they do depend on it!
Posted by gary at July 1, 2005 08:58 AMBut we don't mean it. At least the Senate Dems don't. They signified as much with that compromise that's already allowed some real crazies to sit on the federal bench. For them to turn and fight now would take more than a 180 degree turn around, because they've already ceded the field. I don't think they have much fight left in them.
Posted by Terrance at July 1, 2005 09:22 AMYou mean like the way the progressive left saddled Kerry with the gay marriage issue going into the '04 election...
Look, those were court decisions. There wasn't much that the progressive left could do about them once they were out there.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 1, 2005 09:33 AMi cant wait to hear you kooky liberals scream!!!
=O)
go dubya!
Posted by moderate republican at July 1, 2005 09:52 AMAlberto Gonzales will get the nod.
Sorry, but the time for being smart was last year, and you failed the test. So fuck all of you. You're going to get what you deserve, and I hate you for it.
The past is an academic exercise. We're stuck in the present, and not that "new reality" present either. We're discussing what the devil is going to happen, and how we may effect that process. "Fuck all of you" is neither a suggestion nor a solution.
What have you done? Have you purchased a ream of paper, typed a statement of why the idiot son of George Bush is not acting as a Christian, listed the impeachable offenses he's committed including condoning torture of humans, and then printed, tri-folded, and stuffed them under the windshield wipers of cars during a Sunday morning assembly of god service while the morons inside listen to their fundamentalist whore shill for the administration? Have you protested? Have you organized something like this, the September 6th march on Washington??
If you think the only time for being "smart" was last year, you're being dumber than a Red State mother feeding her children Red Hots and Cola for breakfast. Get your head out of your ass and do something. Bitch and complain all you want, but do something.
Posted by phidipides at July 1, 2005 10:08 AMi cant wait to hear you kooky liberals scream!!!
The hallmark of a republican. Revelling in the discomfort of their fellow countrymen.
Your parents should be proud.
Posted by muckcat at July 1, 2005 10:14 AMmoderate republican
way to be ignored by your party. do you get them coffee, too?
Posted by benjoya at July 1, 2005 10:15 AMSorry, but the time for being smart was last year, and you failed the test. . . You're going to get what you deserve, and I hate you for it.
Where've I heard that dismissive line of crap before?
This has obviously gotten the trolls out of their lairs. They always seem to get more obnoxious when the pusch comes to shove or something really bad is in the offing.
Posted by idiosynchronic at July 1, 2005 10:37 AMi cant wait to hear you kooky liberals scream!!!
Well, well.... you'll have to go look somewhere else for kooks because all the liberals here (and everywhere) turned out to be totally correct in their pre Iraq War fears concerning Mr. Ima War Preznit's Lies and his kooky flower throwing cake-walk fanstasies about Iraq. NO wmd or Al Qaeda ties...check, 300 billion dollars and counting, check, 1740 Americans dead and counting..check, 100 thousands injured and counting, check,Quagmire and civil war and recruiting tool for real terrorist... check ,...and the frosting awfully bitter...
I posted comments below how I feel Junior Mr. Divider not a Uniter will nominate a radical extremist and will drive people away (just like with Schiavo) from his party hopefully in time for the 06 election. Junior is an unpopular president.
The bosses are cutting us loose early today.
Enjoy the long weekend eveyone.
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.
- Judge Learned Hand
I'm sure it will take at least 20 years of debate before any decision is made.
Incrementalism and delay, part of the intelligent legacy left to us by our Forefathers. Part of the reason the idiot son of George Bush hasn't completely fucked things up beyond all belief. Just partially.
I never thought I would see the convergence of Impeachment, Scotus, and a war, and all at the same time. Interesting, indeed!
Posted by phidipides at July 1, 2005 11:06 AMwhat battle?? Bush has a majority in the Senate. He will get whomever he wants.
Posted by T22 at July 1, 2005 11:45 AMPom,
Hilarious comment. And dead-on accurate. This has been my point on a dozen blogs (the time to be smart was at election time) and all I've received is vicious personal attacks from the same kids who DID NOT SHOW UP TO VOTE. And they still rant and rave about the gay marriage issue - ha! If they had any brains, they would never mention it again.
Not that Kerry would have been anything but an embarrassment.
Yes, the gay marriage fiasco was an absolute CHECKMATE by the GOP operatives, who took the issue and rubbed it in the face of millions of bible thumping Americans, right before the election. No wonder they showed up in droves and turned the tide decisively toward the GOP. Senate & house - clean sweep.
Ouch. Sort of funny, really. Now we hear pathetic bleats from ignorant Dems who whine about obstructing the administration on this new issue. Too late!!
The barn has already burned down. The ashes are cold. The time to call the fire department has long passed.
Posted by Bones at July 1, 2005 11:52 AMPom & Bones,
So, what you're saying is the Dems would have been smart to alienate a huge chunk of voters during campaign season. Fuck them gays, right?
You know what's hilarious? A couple of stupid ass greens running around chiding youngsters for not voting when the greens just threw away their votes in 2000 and 2004 letting the shrub get close enuff to finesse the elections.
But you're not really greens, are you? You're GOP operatives dispatched like flying monkeys to the progressive blogs to giggle and insult for a bit o' kibble from the Rovester, right??
Posted by Laura at July 1, 2005 12:40 PMLaura,
Your first sentence is a typo, right?
If not, I'm unsure how you could be so confused about my statement. (or Pom's)
Let me try again. The GOP operatives are very intelligent folks. They seized the opportunity to capitalize on the gay marriage issue. It was GOLDEN. Here you had a majority of Americans stongly opposed to gay marriage. Yet, liberal judges were allowing it in certain locales.
A perfect political opportunity arose for the GOP. Thus, for weeks before the election, we were "treated" to video clips of freshly married, flamboyant gay men french kissing on the court house steps (with a few thick-armed bull dykes smooching for good measure)
You see, Laura, the GOP operatives understand what that does to the psyche of the typical bible thumping voter. (even if you don't)
Thus, the masses were galvanized to leave their couches & barbeques, to get out there and vote. Sure, there were other issues, but this one was a slam dunk.
As a result, we have a GOP administration, with a solid majority in both houses. Helluva job there, Dems.
Something tells me we are going to see this same scenario repeated in a couple of years. You and your friends will still be mad, still missing the point, and still cursing a new GOP president. Maybe Newt?
Posted by Bones at July 1, 2005 01:13 PM**The GOP operatives are very intelligent folks. They seized the opportunity to capitalize on the gay marriage issue.**
Okay, bones, I'll go slow for you: No...fucking...shit.
**Yet, liberal judges were allowing it in certain locales.**
And yet it's the Dems' fault, you say. HMM.
**Thus, for weeks before the election, we were "treated" to video clips of freshly married, flamboyant gay men french kissing on the court house steps (with a few thick-armed bull dykes smooching for good measure)**
I think what we really have here is some misplaced anger stemming from homophobia, don't you?
Neocon friends of mine (I am one also) agree that that if there are two Supreme Court nominations in the remainder of Pres. Bush's term this will be the most important domestic issue decided, and that there should be an absolute and utter expenditure of political capital to get two strict constructionists on the Court.
I think that the recent decision upholding eminent domain abuse mobilized less-active conservatives to action on the dual front of state legislation/ federal juduciary. We think we have seen the high water mark of judicial activism in this, and are actively seeking to produce a sucktide to reverse it.
Packing the Court? Absolutely; FDR did it unabashedly.
Re the filibuster: Call that bluff. Like in chess, a threat is usually worse than its execution. We can nullify the privilege of a filibuster if we want, and failing that, no filibuster holds up action long- the single individual seantor with the floor must remain standing, and within reason, talk continuously. I dont think any filibuster has consumed quite 2 days of Senate floortime.
We have the Presidency, the Congress, most of the Governors and legislatures, and now its time to mop up the last die-hards. We might even get around to making professorships and NPR priorities, should we run too low on targets.
Posted by Marcus Agrippa at July 1, 2005 02:36 PMTo correct my previous post: upon reflection, I am a paleocon, though a former socialist. This is completely in accordance with Chirchill's dictum.
Posted by Marcus Agrippa at July 1, 2005 02:38 PMTo correct my previous post: upon reflection, I am a paleocon, though a former socialist. This is completely in accordance with Churchill's dictum.
Posted by Marcus Agrippa at July 1, 2005 02:40 PMWarning blog-whoring ahead.
Expect there to be much voaltile rhetoric from both side about what sort of appointment there should be. Expect to see lots of single-issue leftists insisting that the focus be only on preserving their one issue.
If we can get past issues, and move on to philosophy we might be in a better place. Don't talk about Roe. Don't talk about gay rights. Don't talk about the environment. Yes, I think those are all important. But we need something unifying.
Talk about the need for a justice who views the Constitution as a living document that needs to be continually reinterpreted. Keep it simple. Clearly delineate a difference with the administration. Ask people if they want to go back to the 18th century as the administration desires, or forward to the 21st. Paint Bush as a dangerous reactionary. Then use the issues as illustrations, but not causes.
More along these lines at (hey, I warned you on this one): Cybrpnk's Rantings
Posted by Daniel Maskit at July 1, 2005 02:42 PMLaura,
I didn't really expect you to understand. That's why the Rove/Cheney/McClellan/Bush types have such an easy time of it. While you speculate & lecture people on their "homophobia", the GOP is having their way with you, again and again and again.
Whether you understand it or not, the vast majority of Americans are xtians. Most of them do not believe gay couples should be allowed to be married.
What I think of gays or what you think of gays is not relevant. If asked, I would tell you that I simply don't care. Whether gays marry or not is about number 48 on the priority list for me. I could speak for days on what I think the important issues are, without ever mentioning gays.
From a political strategy standpoint, though, the gay marriage is custom made for the GOP planners. Rest assured, it will rear it's ugly head again, starting about July of 2008. By November of 2008, it will REALLY be in the news, as the GOP-leaning talking heads will be bringing it up at every opportunity.
Do you understand any of this?
Posted by Bones at July 1, 2005 03:04 PMI think that the left would be truly smart to turn the gay marriage issue on it's head. Instead of talking about whether or not the government should allow gay marriage, start asking the question 'why is the government in the marriage business at all?' Clearly people feel very strongly about marriage as an institution, and clearly many people associate marriage with their religious practice. Given this, why doesn't the government just deal with civil unions, which should be open to everyone, and leave marriage to the churches, temples, mosques, etc.? The phrase 'sanctity of marriage' is a clear indication that this is a religious issue, and thus something that government should stay out of.
The beauty of this is that it plays very well with the conservative desire for less government. What better way to protect marriage than to remove it from the clutches of big government?
Get rid of the legal benefits (and penalties) for being married. Allow people to specify their next of kin for inheritance, visitation, and benefits outside of marriage. Leave the definition of marriage to each individual member of the clergy.
This also has the benefit of making the difference among clergy work for the left, not against it. It is much harder for the conservative right to argue that they have the right to dictate the practices of liberal clergy than it is for them to claim the right to dictate to government.
2008? Who knows what will be an issue in 2008. First of all, the Dem nominee can look at the GOP nominee and say "You had the Senate, the house and the Presidency and didn't do that so why should anyone think that you should do it now?"
Posted by Ga6thDem at July 1, 2005 04:02 PMLaura,
Your defenses of the progressive left have been predictable and weak. The point of an election is winning, not making yourself feel good. By making themselves feel good, vocal proponents of gay marriage (which I support) not only lost the election of 2004, they spurred various states to enact laws preventing such marriages. As to your disgusting attempt to label another blogger here as homophobic, you've embarrassed yourself greatly.
The progressive left is and has been shortsighted. They wanted Dean, but because they ended up with Kerry - who was a liberal's liberal - they decided they needed to bust Kerry's ass and whip him in line. And by doing so they made it impossible for him to win.
Next time you're looking at a Dem candidate you don't like, ask yourself what the price will be if the other party's candidate wins. Because that's the price you and the progressive left are going to be paying for the next two decades in the courts.
Posted by Gander at July 1, 2005 04:05 PMI get what you're trying to say, bones, but I was waiting for you to actually say it: The Dems need to stop defending gay rights if they want to win. Just say it. Might as well dump abortion rights, too, huh? And start pandering to the evangelicals and corporations, and forget about the environment. And then the Dems would win because they'd be Republicans. You know, the guys who exploit everyday Americans' fears and prejudices to win at any cost. The ones like Marcus above who don't care if my country is destroyed as long as they have control of the world.
Well, I don't agree with that, so I started messing with you. Because really, how stupid is it for someone to come onto an established political blog and sound the alarm that the GOP has a mighty powerful noise machine? As I said before: No...fucking...shit. And if it wasn't gays, it would have been abortion, or something else. Sure, the Dems don't have a noise machine, yet. I'm going to try to help build one, even if it seems futile. What are you doing for this country besides whining about what should have been and who's to blame?
Posted by Laura at July 1, 2005 04:47 PMLaura, instead of questioning the Dem's support for gay rights, we should all be asking ourselves why it is that the militant gays in SF choose to hurt their cause with the "in your face" side shows they display on the courthouse steps every presidental election. That turn off of the average american voter plays right into the hands of Carl Rove and the Repulications.
Instead, the gays should take a page out of the Religious Right of Pat Robertson's and Jerry Falwell's new playbook. Wait until AFTER the election and get what you want from the left wing of the Democratic party. Quietly. Without upsetting the voters in the middle. If I didn't know better, I would think that the Mayor of SF was a secret Republican agent, just trying to upset the swing voters with his BS. That gay marriage crap put Bush in office a second term.
Lets face it. The Dems need the voters in the middle and we don't need the militant gays on the left to keep helping the far right element in this country to turn them homophobic and away from the mainstream in the Democratic party.
Posted by Hank at July 1, 2005 05:18 PMTo correct my previous post: upon reflection, I am a paleocon, though a former socialist. This is completely in accordance with Chirchill's dictum.
I've been keeping notes for when we get back in power. You oughta see what we're going to do with that Patriot Act you leave us.
The GOP operatives are very intelligent folks.
No. Evil. Operatives like you are subtle, but none too bright. How do you get around the entire election issue without mentioning things like the Swiftboats Cocksucker-Veterans? Me thinks I smell me a neo-con technician. Gad zooks! Hast thou puffed at the mighty flaccid scabbard of yond king? Et tu, Pom?!
Gays will do just fine on the next agenda. The center is coming back strongly, meaning the extreme TaliEbanFundis screwed their agenda by...well, being so damned screwey.
As a result, we have a GOP administration, with a solid majority in both houses. Helluva job there, Dems.
Diebold. Supremes. Nuff said. Won't happen again. We promise. Oh yes indeed, we do promise.
Posted by phidipides at July 1, 2005 05:40 PMThanks, philipides, what you said.
Hey, guys, Pom, bones, Gander, Hank, even Marcus. Great tag team effort. But just a tip, you'll want to spread it out a bit more so it doesn't seem so obvious.
Well, I'm bored. 'Night.
Posted by Laura at July 1, 2005 06:40 PMLaura,
FYI: I'm a centrist with liberal leanings. If there's ever a pandemic in this country, I hope it kills only Republicans. But just because I'm on your 'side' most of the time, that doesn't mean I have to agree with you when you fuck things up for me - like you have by putting gay rights ahead of almost everything else. Winning matters. Everything else is bullshit. If you can't find a tactical way to support gay rights and win an election at the same time, then you're the fuck-up, not the average voter.
Posted by Pom at July 1, 2005 06:46 PMIf you can't find a tactical way to support gay rights and win an election at the same time, then you're the fuck-up, not the average voter.
It's the best tactical message of all. Being gay is being human. Nothing more. You're loading a huge right of center sentiment on a simple issue.
I'm a centrist with liberal leanings.
That's like saying you're a social liberal. What does it mean?
Aw, man, Pom. Sorry you got the grave shift. But seriously, what's the off code, because your processor is in repetition mode. Just because you write "I'm a centrist with liberal leanings," doesn't mean anyone believes you.
Shove off, you've been tagged.
Posted by Laura at July 1, 2005 07:15 PMPorn,
Just FYI. If you don't fall in line to Howard Dean's preaching, you must be an evil Republican to many on this board. It's so hard to argue with someone on one of the Dems talking points unless they can be easily demonized and dismissed. Otherwise, too much thought would be required of the anitRushes of the world. Remember you must believe everything or you will not be in the reality based community. Pass the Kool Aid please
Posted by at July 1, 2005 07:54 PMWow.
Divide and conquer. No problem. GOP victories far into the future....
Posted by Bones at July 1, 2005 09:26 PMPorn,
How exactly did Kerry or the leadership in the Democratic Party push gay marriage? They didn't. The Massachusetts Supreme Court did, and Kerry opposed it. This absolutely was a Karl Rove dirty trick. Get out all the Bible thumping bigots who hide their hatred behind "Christianity". In another not so distant world it would be the blacks, who the same so-called Christian base hates with equal passion. So what were the Dems supposed to do? How much were they supposed to bend over backwards to distance themselves from the MA Supreme Court or from the Mayor of San Francisco, a city with a 25% gay population?
This is a straw man argument anyway. Kerry lost because he had no message other than "I'm not Bush". It was all 9/11, "can Kerry really be trusted to make decisions on Iraq? (an open question even if you despise Bush's handling of the war) and Kerry's unlikeable personality. Incredibly, over 48% of Americans voted for a man ONLY because they despised the incumbent. That has never happened before. Gay marriage may have helped with get-out-the-vote in the bigoted community but it wasn't the deciding factor at all.
Posted by Elrod at July 1, 2005 10:09 PMElrod,
Congrats on a well-written post. You simultaneously hit several nails on the head.
I get a kick out of the Dems having the SF gays on their side. It's sort of like being on the high school volleyball team and having three fat girls who hide their face when the ball comes at them, and simply let the ball hit them in the face.
Hard to score points with some team members tripping you up at every turn.
Everything you said about kerry was right on the money. I challenged folks on a local forum for 3 months to say one positive thing about Kerry. None could. "He's not Bush" was the only comment, repeated hundreds of times, with only a slight variation of words.
Posted by Bones at July 1, 2005 10:39 PMGod, these new centrist trollbots are even more annoying than our traditional far-right trollbots.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 2, 2005 05:24 AMMatt,
Thank you for making the case that the progressive left would rather be a marginalized and petulent political force than ever do anything to win an election. If you ever wonder why people like me hate you with such passion, and I mean blood-letting passion, now you know.
I'd rather fight the Repugs any day than watch you motherfuckers sell out the Dem Party again.
Posted by Pom at July 2, 2005 07:39 AM**and I mean blood-letting passion**
Was that a threat?
Posted by iamcoyote at July 2, 2005 07:49 AM
iamacoyote,
"Was that a threat?"
That's very macho of you. No, it wasn't a threat, it was an attempt to express how utterly I despite the far-left. If it helps frame matters more clearly, I find you as deranged as I do the far-right. You are equals in my mind, both hell-bent on ideological purity at the expense of reason, sanity, security and freedom.
If every member of the far-left and far-right were to suddenly drop dead, I would be a happy man.
Posted by Pom at July 2, 2005 08:52 AMNot macho, Pom, but concern. Clearly you have anger issues, and you and your cohorts seem to be lashing out wildly at gays, progressives and anyone else that doesn't agree with you. Your post above suggests that you'd be willing to do violence to folks you perceive to be against you. I was just wondering if you might not benefit from professional intervention before you actually do harm to yourself or, most importantly, others.
Posted by iamcoyote at July 2, 2005 09:23 AMIf every member of the far-left and far-right were to suddenly drop dead, I would be a happy man.
Gay rights is not a far left cause, stupid. So we're far left for supporting gay rights? What a riduculous and stupid fucking comment. You show complete and total ignorance of what the party is about. You hate gays. Good. Enjoy your bigotry. But since you can't get us to hate gays also you think there is something wrong with us. What the fuck is your problem?
Gays did not lose the election dumbshit. Get over it. Read. Google. Do fucking something. By your idiot logic the 48 million who voted Kerry voted for gay rights.
Get your head out of your ass. It was not about gays.
Again, you fail to mention voter fraud, Swift-fuckers for injustice, lies from the GOP...you just lay it all on gays. Stupid fuck. What a stupid fuck. Are your children fucking stupid too? Geesh! Go to San Francisco and get a blowjob from a gay biker and get over your teenage aversion to homosexuality. No one cares who you had sex with when you were 15. Just because you think the thoughts doesn't mean you are bad. Stop displacing (that's Freud, you ignorant wretch).
If you ever wonder why people like me hate you with such passion, and I mean blood-letting passion, now you know.
Because you are a neo-con. Everything you say yells neo-con. Put your finger up your ass and smell the shit you put out. That's neo-con. We all know the stench.
Posted by phidipides at July 2, 2005 09:41 AMphidipides-
Fortunately for us, you will not have the opportunity to cry out "Nike!" anytime soon, like within a generation. At least not in any meaningful way.
Probably fortunate for you too, considering the precedent.
Posted by Marcus Agrippa at July 2, 2005 12:59 PM"Clearly you have anger issues..."
This is too funny. Which part of the political spectrum is always talking about getting a spine, or showing some balls, paying people back?
"you and your cohorts seem to be lashing out wildly at gays, progressives and anyone else that doesn't agree with you."
I'm FOR gay marriage - or at least civil unions. But I'm AGAINST putting the issue at the top of the political checklist during a presidential election, because that gets the opposition worked up. Do any of you understand the difference between taking an absolute ideological stand, and actually winning elections so you can change the way the world is? Does this ever enter into you mind, or are you too concerned about selling out to consider winning?
If there's any consistency on the far left it's embodied by pussy posts like the one above from Phidipides, or earlier comments from Laura, which seek to turn any question of the cause of gay marriage into de fact homophobia. Well fuck all of you for polarizing the discussion, and using right-wing ideological tactics to quash debate. The paranoia on the left is incredible, as evidenced by the fact that no one here can imagine that I am anything but evil incarnate. It's like talking to an insane asylum.
Posted by Pom at July 2, 2005 01:10 PMHey, Pom's taking crazy pills! Obey my dog! heehee
Posted by Laura at July 2, 2005 01:24 PMIf you ever wonder why people like me hate you with such passion, and I mean blood-letting passion, now you know.
Blood-letting passion? Cool. Drop me an email, and I'll tell you how to get here so we can duel to the death.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 2, 2005 01:49 PMWell fuck all of you for polarizing the discussion, and using right-wing ideological tactics to quash debate.
I seem to remember you saying something along the lines of: Sorry, but the time for being smart was last year, and you failed the test. So fuck all of you. You're going to get what you deserve, and I hate you for it.
And that's not quashing debate? What part of this is not the quashing part?
Blood-letting passion? Cool. Drop me an email, and I'll tell you how to get here so we can duel to the death.
Wait! I want to get some popcorn and beer. This is getting interesting!
If there's any consistency on the far left it's embodied by pussy posts like the one above from Phidipides,
Gad! I've been impugned! Is there to be no respite from the continual comparisons between myself and a va-heena? I must repair to the study and compose an apt soliloqy in response to those whose rapier'like wits would so mightily slash at my wizened head. "Reynauldo! Another Gin and Tonic. Then find my face slapping glove and charge the dueling pistols. A scalliwag of the most scurrilous sort just insulted my honor, and the honor of all va-heenas, everywhere!"
Posted by phidipides at July 2, 2005 02:26 PMAnd I'll be your second, sirs. Honor must always be avenged.
Posted by Laura at July 2, 2005 02:50 PMHey, what's with the comments? Is this another DOS attack? It's fookin' annoying.
Posted by Laura at July 2, 2005 02:55 PM