In a just society, opposing the president's nominees because you simply dislike him and without any other real reason would be an almost criminal action.
Posted by Al at July 29, 2005 12:10 PMLookit me, I'm first!
Hey, Steve, it looks like your comments are malfunctioning again - what's that gibberish that keeps getting dropped? All I can make out is Al...what's that mean, a liar? a louse? what?
Posted by iamcoyote at July 29, 2005 12:20 PMThank you for making the linkage between Biden and Bush's upcoming recess appointment. Without Biden's vote on the credit debacle the White House never would have had the guts to push Bolton's nomination through. (Why the rest of the world doesn't see these things is beyond me.)
Posted by Loyal Lefty at July 29, 2005 12:25 PMAl, please name a single human who has opposed Roberts simply because they hate Bush? And might I add, this constant effort to make anyone who disagrees with Bush a "hater" is truly juvenile. There are legitimate reasons to disagree with almost everything that Bush has ever done, regardless of your political affiliation. And disagreeing with the president in a democratic society is part of the very definition of "democracy."
Posted by ann at July 29, 2005 12:38 PMAl, please name a single human who has opposed Roberts simply because they hate Bush?
I would say that hating Bush is a sufficient, but not necessary, cause of my opposition to Roberts.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 29, 2005 12:45 PMYou see, Matt DAvis at least had the guts to admit he opposes Roberts because he hates Bush.
Posted by Al at July 29, 2005 01:02 PMAl, I am sure no one (GOP) hated Clinton or his nominees? AL I guess You must be 5 years old or younger because you act like no one every said bad things about or hated Clinton.
Posted by goose1 at July 29, 2005 01:20 PMAl, I am sure no one (GOP) hated Clinton or his nominees? AL I guess You must be 5 years old or younger because you act like no one every said bad things about or hated Clinton.
The difference being that Clinton's presidency was a wholly criminal enterprise.
Posted by Al at July 29, 2005 01:27 PMThe difference being that Clinton's presidency was a wholly criminal enterprise.
You misspelled "Bush's".
Posted by Doug at July 29, 2005 01:33 PMAl, go fuck yourself.
Lying asshole...
Why do liberals always have to resort to abuse instead of rational argument? This is why conservatives win. We appeal to the intellect.
Posted by Al at July 29, 2005 01:40 PMMatt wrote...
I would say that hating Bush is a sufficient, but not necessary, cause of my opposition to Roberts.
For me, I would say it's not a cause, per se, but it's a pretty big clue as to Roberts' nature. And so I would default to "oppose" based on that, until any real evidence to the contrary emerges.
So far... nothing.
Posted by Doug at July 29, 2005 01:40 PMNo, I don't oppose Roberts because I hate Bush.
I oppose Roberts because I hate Rove.
Al, Explain How Clinton was a criminal. DID he or his friends make money off a war? Did he have convicted criminals working ing his cabinet?
Posted by goose1 at July 29, 2005 01:51 PMWe appeal to the intellect.
hahahahahahahaha
I oppose Bush because I hate Al.
Posted by iamcoyote at July 29, 2005 01:52 PMWhy do liberals always have to resort to abuse instead of rational argument? This is why conservatives win. We appeal to the intellect.
Don't you just hate the conservative elite? They think they are so much better than the working class just because they inherited money! They got to go to better colleges just because Daddy gave money to build a new library or sports center. They are so out of touch with middle America.
Posted by ann at July 29, 2005 01:57 PMI'll be the first to praise a few of the things that happened during the Clinton administration.
- NAFTA and GATT.
- Roth IRAs. Never pay taxes again on investments in Roth IRA accounts.
- Eliminating the source tax.
- Eliminating capital gains on real estate sales.
- Rejecting Kyoto.
Brilliant! I think his biggest miss during his 8 years was not addressing any energy alternives to oil.
I doubt the Bolton appointment would impact the Roberts hearings, which are scheduled to begin Sept 6th. Of course, most of America will be paying attention to the baseball playoffs and the beginning of the NFL season.
Go Raiders!
In a just society, opposing the president's nominees because you simply dislike him and without any other real reason would be an almost criminal action.
Perhaps, if by "just" you refer to a society that imposes your judgements on everyone, harshly and instantly. Of course, if it's someone else's judgement that's being imposed, you will eventually find yourself the victim of what you would consider "injustice".
That is why, instead, we live in a free society. As in freedom of speech, for example. Which, judging by your statement, you don't have a lot of faith in.
This is why conservatives win. We appeal to the intellect.
Oh man, that's the funniest thing I've read today.
Although I have to admit -- it takes a certain amount of intellect in order to accomplish the sort of abusive manipulation that conservatives have been using to win these past few decades. I mean, to appeal to people's basest instincts, such as fear ("9/11!! 9/11!") and hate ("homo marriages! homo marriages!"), then turn right around and claim to be appealing to intellect, knowing that if you shout it loud and often enough, a sadly large number of people will beleive it unquestioningly... I mean, that takes a lot of effort and a fair bit of talent to pull off. I've got to hand it to you...
Above Al sez,
"In a just society, opposing the president's nominees because you simply dislike him and without any other real reason would be an almost criminal action".
It's a two way street Al,
In a just society, supporting the president's nominees because you simply like him and without any other real reason would be an almost criminal action.
Although I have to admit -- it takes a certain amount of intellect in order to accomplish the sort of abusive manipulation that conservatives have been using to win these past few decades.
Yeah, but you only need a small group of bright people... and a whole lot of parrots.
Then throw in the basic fact that it is far easier to convince people to be selfish than it is to convey to them the benefits that accrue from having civil society and curbs on abusive action by both corporations and government.
Almost everyone is in favor of monarchy if they get to be the monarch.
Posted by Daniel Maskit at July 29, 2005 03:17 PMAlmost everyone is in favor of monarchy if they get to be the monarch.
Are you talking about the CA Legislature? Wouldn't be nice to be a politician in an environment where you get to pick and choose your voters? It also means that you could spend your campaign war chest on beer and hookers instead of campaigning. Sweet.
Posted by muckdog at July 29, 2005 04:00 PMAre you talking about the CA Legislature? Wouldn't be nice to be a politician in an environment where you get to pick and choose your voters?
This is tiresome. The implication that in some way the districting in California is more egregious than the districting in, say, Texas, is absurd.
And at least in California there appears to be bipartisan support for improving the districting process.
No, I was talking about the myth of social mobility which the right uses to sucker people into supporting an agenda that will benefit a tiny portion of them, but be harmful to the rest.
Posted by Daniel Maskit at July 29, 2005 04:05 PMAl, has no one brought this little gem to your ideologically impaired worldview?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
ABOUT FRIGGIN TIME! If they refuse to vote then the President has the right to act.
Posted by Cyber Sarge at July 29, 2005 06:24 PMSure, Cyber Sarge, he can install another liar and felon into a high government post. Lord knows he's done it several times already.
Posted by Steve Soto at July 29, 2005 07:38 PMSeems a lot of folks think he has the right to do as he wishes. They even place him beyond the Law and the Constitution.
My loyalty is to the Republic and not the fucking idiot and sycophants who are allowed to "guide us with their wisdom".
Let's be point blank here. ANYONE Bush appoints is 1) Corrupt 2) Incompetant 3) Clueless 4) To Well Paid (or Compensated)
The Cheerleading and facile arguments in support of this fool make me feel like I am watching someone give "Strike-Anywhere" Matches to a toddler wandering around in a Meth Lab.
When did the "Executive" become more important than the "Republic"?
Who is the Fool? One who follows a dream, or one who follows the "leader"?
Just Askin'
i've given up on waiting for that extremely depraved thing that would start the "all out fight". with 15 dems signing CAFTA it appears that as long as we think dem or rep then theyve got us no matter what.
Posted by bryan at July 29, 2005 10:29 PMWhy do liberals always have to resort to abuse instead of rational argument? This is why conservatives win. We appeal to the intellect.
Oh, give me a fucking break!
Posted by at July 30, 2005 01:27 AMal
who in the clinton administration was ever convicted of a crime?
Posted by dennis at July 30, 2005 09:29 AM