the freepers are gonna throw a hissy
Court says flag pledge violates Constitution
A California atheist who last year lost a Supreme Court fight to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance on Wednesday won an initial round as he revived his cause in the courts.
In the Wednesday decision, Judge Lawrence Karlton said: "The court concludes that it is bound by the Ninth Circuit's previous determination that the school district's policy with regard to the pledge is an unconstitutional violation of the children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Posted by idiosynchronic at September 16, 2005 06:50 AMDid anyone hear Sen. Brownback of Kansas questioning John Roberts? Brownback talked about how proud he was of his state of Kansas because the desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education had come out of Kansas. Ummm, has anyone told him that the Board of Ed of Topeka was on the wrong side of the issue? That a taxpayer funded entity in his state was arguing for segregation?
Posted by CG at September 16, 2005 07:14 AMDo you think perhaps Rep. Weldon has a bit of an exaggeration problem?
A Pentagon employee was ordered to destroy documents that identified Mohamed Atta as a terrorist two years before the 2001 attacks, a congressman said Thursday.
The employee is prepared to testify next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee and was expected to identify the person who ordered him to destroy the large volume of documents, said Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa.
Weldon declined to identify the employee, citing confidentiality matters. Weldon described the documents as “2.5 terabytes” — as much as one-fourth of all the printed materials in the Library of Congress, he added.
LOL!
This quote, from the comments section of "Crooks and Liars" is a remarkably honest assessment of the left's position.
"I used to have compassion for the poor, but I no longer do. After awhile, people have to take responsibility for their actions, which include voting against one's interests, which the poor do quite well. If the poor get so angry because they think we're elitists who try to baby them and tell them what's best for them, fine, let them all rot. All I care about anymore is the environment and avoiding war. If the poor want to vote against social programs, fine, more power to them and more money in my pocket. Schmucks."
mickeyd | 09.16.05 - 12:47 am | #
Hang you heads in shame.
Posted by j.west at September 16, 2005 07:46 AMIs it possible to set up up so that the continuations of front page stories don't lead to a page with a skinny little column in a sea of white space? If the follow on is very long it makes for tedious reading and most likely discourages readers from carrying on.
If I'm really interested in reading something I've resorted to selecting everything and pasting it into a text editor where I can control the width.
Posted by fly at September 16, 2005 07:58 AMj. west,
How lame can you get? How old are you 14? Guilt by assocication was discreited during the McCarthy era and even as far back as the Salem witch trials. You can do better than this.
Posted by rlp at September 16, 2005 08:00 AM
rlp,
Guilt by association?
If it wasn't for guilt by association the democrats would have no platform at all.
Give me a break.
Posted by j.west at September 16, 2005 08:08 AMJ.west,
Why should anyone other than mickeyd hang their heads in shame?
Or are you opposed to allowing those on the fringe to freely express their opinions?
Posted by snark at September 16, 2005 08:13 AMcause i say so snark
Posted by j.west at September 16, 2005 08:26 AMI see we have someone stealing names here.
The "cause i say so snark" comment was not mine.
To the point, the "people voting against their own economic interest" arguement was a cornerstone of the democrat '04 campaign.
Posted by j.west at September 16, 2005 08:37 AMOh yes! jwest once again shows its brilliance with its above mickeyd comment.
Let's apply its thought processes and lesson here.
jwest post comments here at The Leftcoaster. Then it is also true that what jwest posts here is representative of all people commenting at this site.
Posted by at September 16, 2005 08:38 AMsnark,
You are correct that all liberals should not be painted with the same brush.
I apologize for doing that. (Sincerely, by the way) Some liberals are truly crazier than others and they should not all be lumped into the same group.
So, can we agree that the reverse should also be true? I'll agree that there are some batshit crazy conservatives on the loose, but I'll stick around to argue that Bush is not one of them.
Posted by j.west at September 16, 2005 09:01 AMJust out of curiosity, would anyone who cares to reply as to what blogs they read regularly?
I'm interested primarily in what right wing sites liberals read.
As one on the right, I regularly visit dKos, Crooks & Liars, TLC and Huffington.
Posted by j.west at September 16, 2005 09:15 AMfly, good suggestion. I'll work on this and see what we can come up with.
Posted by Mary at September 16, 2005 09:15 AM"Give me a break"
j.west,
Why should I? If you're going to bring grade school reasoning to a site that tends toward the college level you're going to get hammered, if not by me than by someone else.
It's one thing to have a thought provoking opposite opinion like muckdog has been known to bring, but elementary school thinking needs to stay on the playground.
Bring your "A" game next time.
Posted by rlp at September 16, 2005 09:49 AM9/11...iraq..katrina...just how much of this mans judgement and leadership can this country stand...
Posted by dennis at September 16, 2005 10:14 AMI check Redstate and sometimes Powerline.
Posted by CG at September 16, 2005 10:25 AMrlp,
Your comments show an arrogance of thought rarely found outside the walls of our universities.
Keep lashing out when you feel powerless. Don't try to understand different positions - you know you're right and there is no point discussing it.
If "trolls" appear to question your pre-conceived assumptions, plead with the others in your echo chamber to "make the bad man go away".
What a sad little life you must lead.
Posted by j.west at September 16, 2005 10:31 AMshorter jwest:
I know you are but what am I.
west why not stick to right wing sites instead of making an ass out of yourself here? asswipe..
Posted by headxray at September 16, 2005 10:51 AMYour comments show an arrogance of thought rarely found outside the walls of our universities.
j.west,
I'll refer you back to your comment of 7:46 am.
Posted by snark at September 16, 2005 11:13 AMsnark,
My remark casting the shadow of that crazed left wing bigot over your entire community was uncalled for, but certainly not an arrogance of thought.
rlp's comments show a lack of preparedness to attack or defend positions based on reason. By decending to personal attacks when he can't argue an idea, he displayed the arrogance of one who believes that regardless of the facts he must be right.
Posted by j.west at September 16, 2005 11:30 AMYou can rationalize it any way you wnat j.west. I don't really care.
:)
Posted by snark at September 16, 2005 11:36 AMWhat I would love to know is who confirmed j. west to sit in judgement of anything? He's fast to point the finger of blame, but slow to justify anything he says.
j,. just admit that you're on the GOP payroll, and we can accord you the disrespect you deserve.
Posted by pessimist at September 16, 2005 11:39 AMshorter jwest:
But he/she (rlp) started it!
My remark casting the shadow of that crazed left wing bigot over your entire community was uncalled for, but certainly not an arrogance of thought.
First, I was going to bring this up earlier but I didn't because thought it was self evident:how do you know that crazed lefty is really not just a rightist pretending to be from the left. Do you know that person? It does not read like one who has a liberal outlook on things. Anyone can say "I used to care for the poor"
rlp's comments show a lack of preparedness to attack or defend positions based on reason. By decending to personal attacks when he can't argue an idea, he displayed the arrogance of one who believes that regardless of the facts he must be right.
What do you think my whole point is? You've already retracted the original point and admitted that it was uncalled for. It's now apparent that I'm dealing with a slower pupal than I thought. I should have known as much when you could not reply to my examples on economic performance and the presidents.
rlp,
That particular poster has established his democrat "props" through many posts on Crooks and Liars.
I did apologize for painting the entire left with a snarky comment (no offense, snark), but the point remained. Many, not all, on the left complained that blacks were voting against their economic interest if they voted republican.
On the country's economic performance under different administrations, I thought we covered that ground. We both presented our general views and they didn't agree. If you're looking for some kind of post for post dual with matching links reviewing the entire fiscal performance of past presidents with the proper backup data on cause and effect, I'll pass.
Not that I would lose, mind you, but who has that sort of time?
Posted by j.west at September 16, 2005 01:59 PMshorter jwest:
I said I screwed and up what more do you want, but that commenter I quoted has proven him/herself to be a credentialed liberal based on my reading/judgement of his/her past comments. mickeyd is responsible for causing me to get burned here.
Besides who has time for this reality based debating with credible fact based and sourced references/links. I'd rather just come here and spout or cut and paste the winger talking points and opinions I learn from Faux News or the freeperville websites I frequent.
Posted by emal at September 16, 2005 02:19 PMemal,
You're probably right. Karl Rove planted mickeyd on that thread as a sleeper, so that after his 1000th "Bush sucks" post he would have the credibility to bring down the entire democrat party with his less-than-delicate comment.
And on the economic arguement, you can't really want to cover all that ground, chapter and verse, do you?
Posted by j.west at September 16, 2005 02:27 PMUntil this "mickeyd" is elected head of the DNC, his opinions don't mean anything. It'd be like quoting the head of the Cardboard Appreciation Society; it makes no difference.
Posted by DukeRevolution at September 16, 2005 02:58 PMIf you're looking for some kind of post for post dual with matching links reviewing the entire fiscal performance of past presidents with the proper backup data on cause and effect, I'll pass.
Not that I would lose, mind you, but who has that sort of time?
Facts are funny things aren't they? LOL
westroll is far too busy entertaining on other threads to look up any fact. westroll is also unable to deal with the typing involved in actually adding a link to comments. westroll has a job to do. westroll has become (or has always been -- who knows how many comments he has racked up) very adept at admitting that his initial comment is crap, apologizing, and then changing the topic in order to toss out another falacious argument.
westroll sits in anticipation, clicking madly to see if anyone has reacted to the stink-bombs in every comment. Then westroll becomes simply giddy and responds with even more seemingly reasoned comments.
But those are stinky too.
My contribution to the open thread is this: If you watched The News Hour tonight, please do not think that we think like the good rev. Ed Young. At least after he stated that "Houston" couldn't handle the evacuees, he corrected that in fact it was his own personal opinion. I live here too and all of my friends, co-workers and the mayor himself, disagree with Ed Young.
Posted by dorita at September 16, 2005 05:18 PM