Aug 31, 2005
Link to Madeleine's "Bush 404 Error" Message Page
its freaking hysterical..Madeleine Begun Kane aka MadKane is funny and intelligent and I will read her daily from here on out.. the link to the 404 Error message page is here.
Huffington post..read it..
Arianna has a post up regarding Cindy's end to her vigil in Crawford,TX. Its a good read and I recommend it to everyone. The link is in the title.
Aug 25, 2005
Reprint of an Emai I recieved today from MoveOn.org
Seven Democratic women senators have developed an innovative approach to bringing the grassroots into this process. They've set up a website to collect questions from you to ask during the hearings, and they will personally deliver your questions to the entire Judiciary Committee. This is a great chance to weigh-in directly and make sure the issues you care about most are given the attention they require. You can post the questions you want John Roberts to answer online at:
http://www.democrats.gov/askroberts
Initial press reports about Roberts mostly rehashed White House spin about his likable personality. But over the last several weeks momentum has been building in the case against Roberts. He's been caught falsely denying his active membership in the far-right Federalist Society1 and hiding his work as a corporate lobbyist doing things like blocking honest labeling requirements for skin care products.2 Over 50,000 pages of information released from his time as a political appointee in the Reagan administration have shed even more light on his efforts to thwart fair treatment for women, minorities and the disabled.3 Meanwhile, the White House is refusing to turn over public records on Roberts' time as Deputy Solicitor General in the first Bush administration.4
Just this morning, People for the American Way, a major civil rights and civil liberties advocacy group, joined the dozens of organizations officially opposing Roberts' nomination. Their new report gives an excellent overview of the ways Roberts threatens basic civil rights, privacy, the environment and workers. Here's an excerpt from the executive summary:
John Roberts has spent much of the past two decades in political and legal positions of great influence. The public record that has been revealed over recent weeks demonstrates that Roberts has consistently advocated positions that would undermine Americans' fundamental rights and liberties under the Constitution and federal law. The confirmation of John Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor would bring dramatic change, move the Supreme Court significantly to the right, and shift the balance of the court to the great and lasting detriment of Americans and the constitutional principles and legal safeguards that protect their families and communities. We urge senators to vote against his confirmation.
You can read the entire report at:
http://www.SaveTheCourt.org/opposition-report
Bush is hoping to deceive the country by sneaking this far-right nominee through on a flood of rhetoric while hiding the facts. The Senate hearings are our best opportunity to make sure that doesn't happen by putting the issues plainly in front of the American people—but only if our senators rise to the occasion. Posting a question for Roberts is a great way to show that we are counting on our representatives to get the facts out, and that we care about getting to the truth.
Your questions can focus on any issue you want in plain language, like:
Will Roberts protect Congress' constitutional authority to fight discrimination?
Does Roberts believe the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy?
Will Roberts protect our First Amendment rights like free speech and separation of church and state over right-wing ideology?
Please take a minute to post whatever questions you most want to ask during the upcoming hearings to ensure the American people get the facts we deserve.
http://www.democrats.gov/askroberts
Thanks for all that you do,
—Ben, Tanya, Marika, Adam and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team Wednesday, August 24th 2005
P.S. Below is the executive summary of the new PFAW report:
Executive Summary of the People For the American Way Report in Opposition to the Confirmation of Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts
The record of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts demonstrates that his confirmation to the nation's highest court would undermine Americans' rights and freedoms and limit the role of the federal courts in upholding them. People For the American Way calls on the Senate to reject John Roberts' nomination.
The opinions he has issued during his short tenure on the federal bench, the documents from his tenure in senior positions in the Reagan Administration, and what we know of Roberts' tenure as principal deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration, combine to make a compelling case against confirmation.
For much of the past 25 years, Roberts worked to impede or undermine progress toward realizing the Constitution's promise of equal justice under law. He has been an active participant in efforts to advance a legal and judicial ideology grounded in a narrow view of constitutional rights and a restricted role for the federal courts in protecting and enforcing them. As a federal judge, he has indicated support for an approach to the Constitution that would undermine the authority of Congress to take action for the common good in areas such as environmental protection.
As special assistant to the Attorney General in the Reagan Administration, and later as a key legal strategist in the Reagan White House counsel's office, Roberts was an aggressive participant in the administration's attempts to restrict fundamental constitutional and civil rights. In fact, Roberts often came down to the right of ultraconservative legal luminaries, including Robert Bork, William Bradford Reynolds, and Ted Olson.
He supported the legality of radical proposals to strip the courts of jurisdiction over certain school desegregation remedies, abortion, and school prayer. He denigrated what he referred to as the "so-called" right to privacy, resisted attempts to fully restore the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act, and worked against measures aimed at increasing gender equity. As the Washington Post has reported, at times he was "derisive, using words such as 'purported' and 'perceived' to describe discrimination against women."
When Roberts became top deputy to solicitor general Kenneth W. Starr in 1989, he continued to advance a right-wing agenda. He urged the Court to limit the remedies women could seek when their rights under Title IX were violated. And he asked the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, saying it has "no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution."
In his limited time as a federal appeals court judge, Roberts has shown enormous deference to the executive branch, with a broad and expansive view of presidential power that threatens the system of checks and balances. A key dissent by Roberts suggests that he has embraced the ideology of a legal and political movement that seeks to weaken Congress' ability to protect Americans' rights and interests, potentially threatening decades of progress made since the New Deal in safeguarding air, water, and public health, and protecting individual rights and liberties. Among the aspects of Roberts' record documented in this report:
Roberts supported a restrictive interpretation of the scope of civil rights laws banning gender discrimination in publicly funded school programs, including athletics, a position that would have restricted the reach and enforcement of other important civil rights laws as well.
Roberts played an important role in an unsuccessful Reagan Administration effort to make it harder to prove violations of the Voting Rights Act.
Roberts referred dismissively to the "so-called 'right to privacy;'" his record strongly suggests that he does not believe that the Constitution guarantees or protects a right to privacy, a position that threatens reproductive choice, gay rights, and families' medical decision-making. He signed a brief on behalf of the first Bush Administration arguing that "[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."
Roberts' record indicates he would allow government endorsement of and favoritism towards religion. His confirmation could open the door to a range of activities that threaten religious liberty, including coercive religious practices in public schools.
Roberts took the position that Congress could constitutionally strip the Supreme Court of the authority to rule on cases regarding school prayer, abortion, and other issues, a position to the right of that advanced by Theodore Olson and adopted by the Reagan administration.
Roberts criticized the Supreme Court for overturning a Texas law designed to keep undocumented immigrant children from getting a public education.
While in the White House, Roberts urged that the administration should "go slowly" on proposed fair housing legislation, claiming that such legislation represented "government intrusion."
As a judge Roberts has signaled that he subscribes to the ideas of the new "federalism" that would limit the federal government's power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to act on behalf of the common good. In Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, Roberts issued a troubling dissent from a decision upholding the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act. Roberts's dissent suggested that Congress lacked the power under the Commerce Clause to protect endangered species in this case. The consequences of such a radical view, if held by a Supreme Court majority, would extend far beyond the Endangered Species Act to whole areas of Congressional authority, including such longstanding programs as Medicare and Social Security.
Roberts has written that affirmative action programs were bound to fail because they required "recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates"; and as deputy Solicitor General he unsuccessfully opposed a federal government agency's affirmative action program designed to diversify media ownership.
The White House has broken with precedent and unfortunately continues to deny the Senate access to key documents from Roberts' time as second-in-command to Ken Starr in the solicitor general's office in the Bush I Administration. In the absence of such documents, we must assume that the views expressed in the briefs Roberts signed during his tenure are in fact his own.
Conclusion
John Roberts has spent much of the past two decades in political and legal positions of great influence. The public record that has been revealed over recent weeks demonstrates that Roberts has consistently advocated positions that would undermine Americans' fundamental rights and liberties under the Constitution and federal law. The confirmation of John Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor would bring dramatic change, move the Supreme Court significantly to the right, and shift the balance of the court to the great and lasting detriment of Americans and the constitutional principles and legal safeguards that protect their families and communities. We urge senators to vote against his confirmation.
Sources:
1 The Washington Post, "Roberts Listed in Federalist Society '97-98 Directory," July 25th 2005http://www.moveon.org/r?r=812
2 The Los Angeles Times, "Nominee Admits he Registered as Lobbyist" August 4th 2005http://www.moveon.org/r?r=849
3 The Washington Post, "Roberts Charter Member of the Reagan Vanguard" August 1st 2005 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=848
4 Fox News, "DNC Files FOIA Request for Roberts Documents" August 22nd 2005http://www.moveon.org/r?r=847
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTIONNot authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
http://www.democrats.gov/askroberts
Initial press reports about Roberts mostly rehashed White House spin about his likable personality. But over the last several weeks momentum has been building in the case against Roberts. He's been caught falsely denying his active membership in the far-right Federalist Society1 and hiding his work as a corporate lobbyist doing things like blocking honest labeling requirements for skin care products.2 Over 50,000 pages of information released from his time as a political appointee in the Reagan administration have shed even more light on his efforts to thwart fair treatment for women, minorities and the disabled.3 Meanwhile, the White House is refusing to turn over public records on Roberts' time as Deputy Solicitor General in the first Bush administration.4
Just this morning, People for the American Way, a major civil rights and civil liberties advocacy group, joined the dozens of organizations officially opposing Roberts' nomination. Their new report gives an excellent overview of the ways Roberts threatens basic civil rights, privacy, the environment and workers. Here's an excerpt from the executive summary:
John Roberts has spent much of the past two decades in political and legal positions of great influence. The public record that has been revealed over recent weeks demonstrates that Roberts has consistently advocated positions that would undermine Americans' fundamental rights and liberties under the Constitution and federal law. The confirmation of John Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor would bring dramatic change, move the Supreme Court significantly to the right, and shift the balance of the court to the great and lasting detriment of Americans and the constitutional principles and legal safeguards that protect their families and communities. We urge senators to vote against his confirmation.
You can read the entire report at:
http://www.SaveTheCourt.org/opposition-report
Bush is hoping to deceive the country by sneaking this far-right nominee through on a flood of rhetoric while hiding the facts. The Senate hearings are our best opportunity to make sure that doesn't happen by putting the issues plainly in front of the American people—but only if our senators rise to the occasion. Posting a question for Roberts is a great way to show that we are counting on our representatives to get the facts out, and that we care about getting to the truth.
Your questions can focus on any issue you want in plain language, like:
Will Roberts protect Congress' constitutional authority to fight discrimination?
Does Roberts believe the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy?
Will Roberts protect our First Amendment rights like free speech and separation of church and state over right-wing ideology?
Please take a minute to post whatever questions you most want to ask during the upcoming hearings to ensure the American people get the facts we deserve.
http://www.democrats.gov/askroberts
Thanks for all that you do,
—Ben, Tanya, Marika, Adam and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team Wednesday, August 24th 2005
P.S. Below is the executive summary of the new PFAW report:
Executive Summary of the People For the American Way Report in Opposition to the Confirmation of Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts
The record of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts demonstrates that his confirmation to the nation's highest court would undermine Americans' rights and freedoms and limit the role of the federal courts in upholding them. People For the American Way calls on the Senate to reject John Roberts' nomination.
The opinions he has issued during his short tenure on the federal bench, the documents from his tenure in senior positions in the Reagan Administration, and what we know of Roberts' tenure as principal deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration, combine to make a compelling case against confirmation.
For much of the past 25 years, Roberts worked to impede or undermine progress toward realizing the Constitution's promise of equal justice under law. He has been an active participant in efforts to advance a legal and judicial ideology grounded in a narrow view of constitutional rights and a restricted role for the federal courts in protecting and enforcing them. As a federal judge, he has indicated support for an approach to the Constitution that would undermine the authority of Congress to take action for the common good in areas such as environmental protection.
As special assistant to the Attorney General in the Reagan Administration, and later as a key legal strategist in the Reagan White House counsel's office, Roberts was an aggressive participant in the administration's attempts to restrict fundamental constitutional and civil rights. In fact, Roberts often came down to the right of ultraconservative legal luminaries, including Robert Bork, William Bradford Reynolds, and Ted Olson.
He supported the legality of radical proposals to strip the courts of jurisdiction over certain school desegregation remedies, abortion, and school prayer. He denigrated what he referred to as the "so-called" right to privacy, resisted attempts to fully restore the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act, and worked against measures aimed at increasing gender equity. As the Washington Post has reported, at times he was "derisive, using words such as 'purported' and 'perceived' to describe discrimination against women."
When Roberts became top deputy to solicitor general Kenneth W. Starr in 1989, he continued to advance a right-wing agenda. He urged the Court to limit the remedies women could seek when their rights under Title IX were violated. And he asked the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, saying it has "no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution."
In his limited time as a federal appeals court judge, Roberts has shown enormous deference to the executive branch, with a broad and expansive view of presidential power that threatens the system of checks and balances. A key dissent by Roberts suggests that he has embraced the ideology of a legal and political movement that seeks to weaken Congress' ability to protect Americans' rights and interests, potentially threatening decades of progress made since the New Deal in safeguarding air, water, and public health, and protecting individual rights and liberties. Among the aspects of Roberts' record documented in this report:
Roberts supported a restrictive interpretation of the scope of civil rights laws banning gender discrimination in publicly funded school programs, including athletics, a position that would have restricted the reach and enforcement of other important civil rights laws as well.
Roberts played an important role in an unsuccessful Reagan Administration effort to make it harder to prove violations of the Voting Rights Act.
Roberts referred dismissively to the "so-called 'right to privacy;'" his record strongly suggests that he does not believe that the Constitution guarantees or protects a right to privacy, a position that threatens reproductive choice, gay rights, and families' medical decision-making. He signed a brief on behalf of the first Bush Administration arguing that "[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."
Roberts' record indicates he would allow government endorsement of and favoritism towards religion. His confirmation could open the door to a range of activities that threaten religious liberty, including coercive religious practices in public schools.
Roberts took the position that Congress could constitutionally strip the Supreme Court of the authority to rule on cases regarding school prayer, abortion, and other issues, a position to the right of that advanced by Theodore Olson and adopted by the Reagan administration.
Roberts criticized the Supreme Court for overturning a Texas law designed to keep undocumented immigrant children from getting a public education.
While in the White House, Roberts urged that the administration should "go slowly" on proposed fair housing legislation, claiming that such legislation represented "government intrusion."
As a judge Roberts has signaled that he subscribes to the ideas of the new "federalism" that would limit the federal government's power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to act on behalf of the common good. In Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, Roberts issued a troubling dissent from a decision upholding the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act. Roberts's dissent suggested that Congress lacked the power under the Commerce Clause to protect endangered species in this case. The consequences of such a radical view, if held by a Supreme Court majority, would extend far beyond the Endangered Species Act to whole areas of Congressional authority, including such longstanding programs as Medicare and Social Security.
Roberts has written that affirmative action programs were bound to fail because they required "recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates"; and as deputy Solicitor General he unsuccessfully opposed a federal government agency's affirmative action program designed to diversify media ownership.
The White House has broken with precedent and unfortunately continues to deny the Senate access to key documents from Roberts' time as second-in-command to Ken Starr in the solicitor general's office in the Bush I Administration. In the absence of such documents, we must assume that the views expressed in the briefs Roberts signed during his tenure are in fact his own.
Conclusion
John Roberts has spent much of the past two decades in political and legal positions of great influence. The public record that has been revealed over recent weeks demonstrates that Roberts has consistently advocated positions that would undermine Americans' fundamental rights and liberties under the Constitution and federal law. The confirmation of John Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor would bring dramatic change, move the Supreme Court significantly to the right, and shift the balance of the court to the great and lasting detriment of Americans and the constitutional principles and legal safeguards that protect their families and communities. We urge senators to vote against his confirmation.
Sources:
1 The Washington Post, "Roberts Listed in Federalist Society '97-98 Directory," July 25th 2005http://www.moveon.org/r?r=812
2 The Los Angeles Times, "Nominee Admits he Registered as Lobbyist" August 4th 2005http://www.moveon.org/r?r=849
3 The Washington Post, "Roberts Charter Member of the Reagan Vanguard" August 1st 2005 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=848
4 Fox News, "DNC Files FOIA Request for Roberts Documents" August 22nd 2005http://www.moveon.org/r?r=847
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTIONNot authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
The Brac Boyz tell the Pentagon to use real math..
I am sure that folks will know tomorrow which bases in their areas are affected..if at all..but the BRAC boyz..for Base Relignment and Closure, refused to shut down the two largest bases offered up by the pentagon, Groton CT and Portsmouth in ME stating the government bean counters are full of shit in their savings analysis..jeez THIS is a shock..the bean counters stated if all the bases they want closed were actually closed it would save the government roughly 2.5 Billion a year for the next 20 years..the brac boyz seriously doubt all these savings will ever come to fruition since they are mostly moving people and ops from one base to another....the only real savings will be in property maintenance and upkeep. Fucking Jeb Bush got his way, but really, he had a good idea and sadly it sucked for Virginia Beach who is now losing a big bunch of jets to Jeb..oh fucking well...a base is a base is a base...yes thousands of civilians are employed at these bases and in the case of South Dakota, Ellsworth is the second largest employer in the state. I have no real opinion on closing all these bases, I just hope to god they know what the fuck they are doing. Thank GOD the boyz from BRAC are watch-dogging those fucktards at the Pentagon. It's a good article in my humble opinion, I think folks should take a gander, its only two pages for gods sake..it shows how the commitee reasons out some of the bullshit the Pentagon has been trying to feed them over the last few months..the link is embedded in the title of the post..
Aug 22, 2005
Darwin vs. Intelligent Design
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense. - Tom Clancy.
The religious right is still attempting to include their hypothesis "Intelligent Design" into all school curriculums..I strongly oppose this since the hypothesis has nothing based in proof, merely their "explanation".
Unlike creationists, design proponents accept many of the conclusions of modern science. They agree with cosmologists that the age of the universe is 13.6 billion years, not fewer than 10,000 years, as a literal reading of the Bible would suggest. They accept that mutation and natural selection, the central mechanisms of evolution, have acted on the natural world in small ways, for example, leading to the decay of eyes in certain salamanders that live underground.
Some intelligent design advocates even accept common descent, the notion that all species came from a common ancestor, a central tenet of evolution.
Although a vast majority of scientists accept evolution, the Discovery Institute, a research group in Seattle that has emerged as a clearinghouse for the intelligent design movement, says that 404 scientists, including 70 biologists, have signed a petition saying they are skeptical of Darwinism.Big friggin deal, people can be skeptical all they want. There is scientific basis for all of Darwin's theories, unlike the "Intelligent Design" bullshit.
A direct quote from the article:"Despite its use of scientific language and the fact that some design advocates are scientists, they say, the design approach has so far offered only philosophical objections to evolution, not any positive evidence for the intervention of a designer."
We need to keep this crap out of the school systems. Bushie however will work to include it before his tenure ends..you can bet the bank on that.
The link is in the title, its a good read if your so inclined, its about 4 pages long.
The religious right is still attempting to include their hypothesis "Intelligent Design" into all school curriculums..I strongly oppose this since the hypothesis has nothing based in proof, merely their "explanation".
Unlike creationists, design proponents accept many of the conclusions of modern science. They agree with cosmologists that the age of the universe is 13.6 billion years, not fewer than 10,000 years, as a literal reading of the Bible would suggest. They accept that mutation and natural selection, the central mechanisms of evolution, have acted on the natural world in small ways, for example, leading to the decay of eyes in certain salamanders that live underground.
Some intelligent design advocates even accept common descent, the notion that all species came from a common ancestor, a central tenet of evolution.
Although a vast majority of scientists accept evolution, the Discovery Institute, a research group in Seattle that has emerged as a clearinghouse for the intelligent design movement, says that 404 scientists, including 70 biologists, have signed a petition saying they are skeptical of Darwinism.Big friggin deal, people can be skeptical all they want. There is scientific basis for all of Darwin's theories, unlike the "Intelligent Design" bullshit.
A direct quote from the article:"Despite its use of scientific language and the fact that some design advocates are scientists, they say, the design approach has so far offered only philosophical objections to evolution, not any positive evidence for the intervention of a designer."
We need to keep this crap out of the school systems. Bushie however will work to include it before his tenure ends..you can bet the bank on that.
The link is in the title, its a good read if your so inclined, its about 4 pages long.
Aug 21, 2005
One of THEIR own uses the "V" word..
Today is Sunday, a high holy day for those that believe in such things..I like to watch Face the Nation or the ABC version, This Week..
Today, one of those guys..a Republican was on..Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel..he compared the Iraq war to.....drum roll please...THE VIETNAM WAR..he is a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee and possible presidential candidate in 2008. Sounds like he's trying to distance himself from this debacle dont ya think???
A direct quote from the decorated Vietnam vet himself:"What I think the White House does not yet understand and some of my colleagues, is the dam has broken on this (Iraq) policy,We are locked into a bogged down problem not unsimilar or dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam. The longer we stay the more problems we are going to have,"" YA SURE BOUT THAT CHUCKY???
sorry for the caps but this is rich..very rich..and something I have said from day one..VIETNAM...those that do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them..i dont recall who said that, but its friggin true..
all it takes is one guy to stand up and open his yap..live and in living color..glad it happened..bout damn time..of course the W team leaped into action denouncing him and so did a few other Repub's..I don't care..its out there now..the V word..from someone who would know..
Get us the Fuck Out Now...
Today, one of those guys..a Republican was on..Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel..he compared the Iraq war to.....drum roll please...THE VIETNAM WAR..he is a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee and possible presidential candidate in 2008. Sounds like he's trying to distance himself from this debacle dont ya think???
A direct quote from the decorated Vietnam vet himself:"What I think the White House does not yet understand and some of my colleagues, is the dam has broken on this (Iraq) policy,We are locked into a bogged down problem not unsimilar or dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam. The longer we stay the more problems we are going to have,"" YA SURE BOUT THAT CHUCKY???
sorry for the caps but this is rich..very rich..and something I have said from day one..VIETNAM...those that do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them..i dont recall who said that, but its friggin true..
all it takes is one guy to stand up and open his yap..live and in living color..glad it happened..bout damn time..of course the W team leaped into action denouncing him and so did a few other Repub's..I don't care..its out there now..the V word..from someone who would know..
Get us the Fuck Out Now...
Aug 16, 2005
Bush "downplays" the Iraqi's inability to approve a constitution
Like this is freaking news eh? On both counts..bush downplays everything unless its something the christian right wants AND that a country that hates their citizens based on race and/or religion can not agree on a constitution..
I love this quote from bushie today:"Their efforts are a tribute to democracy and an example that difficult problems can be solved peacefully through debate, negotiation, and compromise,". GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK DUDE..is the american public really buying this sound bite?
Conde tossed in her two cents as well:"We are witnessing democracy at work in Iraq," she told reporters. "They have achieved a lot and they have generated considerable momentum toward the completion of their constitution."
How long has this country been trying to, in the words of Rodney King, "get along"..um..forever! If they fail, parliament will face a dissolution crisis and the prospect of new elections in an atmosphere poisoned by sectarian and ethnic strife....ya think? They have been fighting amongst themselves since the first iraqi took a gander at the next door neighbor so to speak..nothing has changed just because we threw our weight around and kicked Saddam out. Rumsfield cant change this, Bushie or Conde can't change this..no one can change how these folks solve their problems..you can kill every single solitary one of the racist leaders in that hell hole of a country and you will always have another religious leader taking up the slack...
but they are on their way...so say the talking heads out of D.C...right...and thats Brad Pitt laying next to me on the left...
I love this quote from bushie today:"Their efforts are a tribute to democracy and an example that difficult problems can be solved peacefully through debate, negotiation, and compromise,". GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK DUDE..is the american public really buying this sound bite?
Conde tossed in her two cents as well:"We are witnessing democracy at work in Iraq," she told reporters. "They have achieved a lot and they have generated considerable momentum toward the completion of their constitution."
How long has this country been trying to, in the words of Rodney King, "get along"..um..forever! If they fail, parliament will face a dissolution crisis and the prospect of new elections in an atmosphere poisoned by sectarian and ethnic strife....ya think? They have been fighting amongst themselves since the first iraqi took a gander at the next door neighbor so to speak..nothing has changed just because we threw our weight around and kicked Saddam out. Rumsfield cant change this, Bushie or Conde can't change this..no one can change how these folks solve their problems..you can kill every single solitary one of the racist leaders in that hell hole of a country and you will always have another religious leader taking up the slack...
but they are on their way...so say the talking heads out of D.C...right...and thats Brad Pitt laying next to me on the left...
Aug 13, 2005
Fucktard of the Week candidates..
First I nominate that former lobbyist Jack Abramoff...he really impressed the bible thumping crowd by being indicted this week on fraud charges involving his purchase of a fleet of gambling boats from a businessman who was slain amid bitter wrangling over the sale of said fleet. Now they do not have any evidence he capped Fort Lauderdale businessman, Konstantinos Boulis but jeez, the irony is awful funny here...in any case other than forging documents and checks to show he actually HAD some of his own money to buy the gambling boats, Jackass Abramoff is also a well known figure in the Tom Delay debacle..you remember Tom, he has a shit load of ethics allegations against him..two republicans once again proving that you dont have to be honest and ethical to be pro jesus and pro right to life, you just pander to those that are..Tommy calls Jackass one of his "closest and dearest friends"..i bet he is...
The Florida indictment accuses Mr. Jackass and his partner in the boat deal Mr. Kidan of fraud in the creation of what prosecutors described as a counterfeit document reflecting a $23 million wire transfer, which purports to be to the now deceased Mr. Boulis.After receiving the wire transfer document, the indictment said, the lenders provided Jackass and Mr. Kidan with $60 million in loans toward the purchase. The sumbitch never put in a DIME of his own cash towards the purchase of the gambling boats..guess he saves that to buy off Tommy DeLay...ya think?
My second choice for FOTW is the Judge Marcus Gordon. He released that lovely individual Edgar Ray Killen who was recently convicted of the 1964 killings of three civil rights workers:James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner. Edgar was the head of the local KKK and organized the group that killed the three men. It only took 41 years to bring this racist to trial and eventual conviction only to have the honorable judge gordon release him because he is a "sick" old man and not a flight risk..evidently Edgar bitched about the medical staff and treatment he received whilst in prison taking the stand and complaining of a lack of medical care since he entered the Central Mississippi prison in Pearl, though he acknowledged that he had been seen by doctors. I would like to quote him here:"They checked me through the line like a cattle auction," he said. "I'm very unhappy with the treatment I've received." Jesus Christ in a thong..what did the sumbitch expect? HE"S IN PRISON..where he belonged for the last 41 friggin years..
So sportsfans..those are my picks..anyone can nominate someone for FOTW..feel free to post someone else in a comment..or pick from my two choices..there are plenty more but its late and i gotta hit the sack..
The Florida indictment accuses Mr. Jackass and his partner in the boat deal Mr. Kidan of fraud in the creation of what prosecutors described as a counterfeit document reflecting a $23 million wire transfer, which purports to be to the now deceased Mr. Boulis.After receiving the wire transfer document, the indictment said, the lenders provided Jackass and Mr. Kidan with $60 million in loans toward the purchase. The sumbitch never put in a DIME of his own cash towards the purchase of the gambling boats..guess he saves that to buy off Tommy DeLay...ya think?
My second choice for FOTW is the Judge Marcus Gordon. He released that lovely individual Edgar Ray Killen who was recently convicted of the 1964 killings of three civil rights workers:James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner. Edgar was the head of the local KKK and organized the group that killed the three men. It only took 41 years to bring this racist to trial and eventual conviction only to have the honorable judge gordon release him because he is a "sick" old man and not a flight risk..evidently Edgar bitched about the medical staff and treatment he received whilst in prison taking the stand and complaining of a lack of medical care since he entered the Central Mississippi prison in Pearl, though he acknowledged that he had been seen by doctors. I would like to quote him here:"They checked me through the line like a cattle auction," he said. "I'm very unhappy with the treatment I've received." Jesus Christ in a thong..what did the sumbitch expect? HE"S IN PRISON..where he belonged for the last 41 friggin years..
So sportsfans..those are my picks..anyone can nominate someone for FOTW..feel free to post someone else in a comment..or pick from my two choices..there are plenty more but its late and i gotta hit the sack..
Aug 7, 2005
Link to Rocky Mt.News article on Roberts and gay rights case heard before the Supreme Court
All I want from the man is to be impartial when hearing cases..I DO NOT have to be impartial..he does...this seems to show that he can be impartial..lets hope...
Rocky Mountain News
John RobertsRoberts helped foes of gay law
Nominee advised Dubofsky on appeal of Amendment 2
By Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain NewsAugust 5, 2005
When Colorado lawyer Jean Dubofsky argued before the U.S. Supreme Court against a law banning legal protections based on sexual orientation, she had an especially helpful behind-the-scenes coach.
"He was probably the most helpful person I spoke with about the argument itself," Dubofsky said Thursday.
He was John Roberts, now President Bush's nominee to replace retiring Sandra Day O'Connor on the nation's highest court.
He has the backing of some groups that supported Amendment 2, which Roberts helped Dubofsky defeat.
Dubofsky won her case, persuading the justices to rule 6-3 in 1996 that Amendment 2, which prohibited cities from enacting laws protecting homosexuals against discrimination, was unconstitutional.
Dubofsky, who had never appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court, said she went to Washington, D.C., in advance of oral arguments to seek the advice of a lawyers who had experience before the high court.
"I really wanted to talk to people who either had clerked for conservative judges or had been involved in arguing before the court many times," she said.
Many people told her she had to talk to Roberts.
At the time, he was a partner in the law firm Hogan & Hartson, which assisted with the case against Amendment 2 as "pro bono" work - a charitable donation of time and labor.
Roberts had clerked for Chief Justice William Rehn-quist. And, as an appellate specialist, he had argued numerous times before the justices.
The Los Angeles Times reported Thursday that Roberts did not include his work on the case against Amendment 2 in his written response to a Senate Judiciary Committee request that he describe his pro bono work.
Dubofsky said Roberts was particularly helpful in two ways.
He warned her to be prepared to explain in detail how the Colorado Supreme Court had ruled on Amendment 2. And he told her to be ready for Justice Antonin Scalia to ask for specific cases the state's high court had cited when it ruled Amendment 2 unconstitutional.
Scalia did ask for specific case citations, Dubofsky said.
Roberts also urged her to remember that she needed five votes, which meant she had to think not only of how the liberal justices might view the case, but also how the conservative justices likely would look at it.
"It was such clear advice that turned out to be so correct, it sort of pales beside a lot of advice I got from other people with respect to the argument itself," Dubofsky said.
Roberts didn't help draft pleadings or devise legal arguments. But he was part of a mock court that fired questions at Dubofsky to help her prepare for the real thing.
During the mock court session, Roberts asked her a question that Rehnquist asked during the real argument, Dubofsky said.
He also asked her tough questions in the style of Scalia, she said.
"So what he was doing for me was giving me a very realistic view of what the Supreme Court would think about this case," she said.
In the end, Rehnquist, Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas voted to uphold Amendment 2.
Dubofsky said Roberts never disclosed his own view of Amendment 2, and that his help on her case didn't mean he would have voted to overturn it had he been on the Supreme Court at the time.
"I think he's very good at arguing whatever side of a case his client wants him to argue," she said.
Judicious counsel
U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts helped Colorado lawyer Jean Dubofsky successfully argue before the high court against a state law banning legal protections based on sexual orientation.
Copyright 2005, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.
Rocky Mountain News
John RobertsRoberts helped foes of gay law
Nominee advised Dubofsky on appeal of Amendment 2
By Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain NewsAugust 5, 2005
When Colorado lawyer Jean Dubofsky argued before the U.S. Supreme Court against a law banning legal protections based on sexual orientation, she had an especially helpful behind-the-scenes coach.
"He was probably the most helpful person I spoke with about the argument itself," Dubofsky said Thursday.
He was John Roberts, now President Bush's nominee to replace retiring Sandra Day O'Connor on the nation's highest court.
He has the backing of some groups that supported Amendment 2, which Roberts helped Dubofsky defeat.
Dubofsky won her case, persuading the justices to rule 6-3 in 1996 that Amendment 2, which prohibited cities from enacting laws protecting homosexuals against discrimination, was unconstitutional.
Dubofsky, who had never appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court, said she went to Washington, D.C., in advance of oral arguments to seek the advice of a lawyers who had experience before the high court.
"I really wanted to talk to people who either had clerked for conservative judges or had been involved in arguing before the court many times," she said.
Many people told her she had to talk to Roberts.
At the time, he was a partner in the law firm Hogan & Hartson, which assisted with the case against Amendment 2 as "pro bono" work - a charitable donation of time and labor.
Roberts had clerked for Chief Justice William Rehn-quist. And, as an appellate specialist, he had argued numerous times before the justices.
The Los Angeles Times reported Thursday that Roberts did not include his work on the case against Amendment 2 in his written response to a Senate Judiciary Committee request that he describe his pro bono work.
Dubofsky said Roberts was particularly helpful in two ways.
He warned her to be prepared to explain in detail how the Colorado Supreme Court had ruled on Amendment 2. And he told her to be ready for Justice Antonin Scalia to ask for specific cases the state's high court had cited when it ruled Amendment 2 unconstitutional.
Scalia did ask for specific case citations, Dubofsky said.
Roberts also urged her to remember that she needed five votes, which meant she had to think not only of how the liberal justices might view the case, but also how the conservative justices likely would look at it.
"It was such clear advice that turned out to be so correct, it sort of pales beside a lot of advice I got from other people with respect to the argument itself," Dubofsky said.
Roberts didn't help draft pleadings or devise legal arguments. But he was part of a mock court that fired questions at Dubofsky to help her prepare for the real thing.
During the mock court session, Roberts asked her a question that Rehnquist asked during the real argument, Dubofsky said.
He also asked her tough questions in the style of Scalia, she said.
"So what he was doing for me was giving me a very realistic view of what the Supreme Court would think about this case," she said.
In the end, Rehnquist, Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas voted to uphold Amendment 2.
Dubofsky said Roberts never disclosed his own view of Amendment 2, and that his help on her case didn't mean he would have voted to overturn it had he been on the Supreme Court at the time.
"I think he's very good at arguing whatever side of a case his client wants him to argue," she said.
Judicious counsel
U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts helped Colorado lawyer Jean Dubofsky successfully argue before the high court against a state law banning legal protections based on sexual orientation.
Copyright 2005, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.
Mr.Roberts..is he going to be fair and impartial?
I read Karen Zipdrive's blog today..she makes an excellent case for actually SUPPORTING Mr.Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court...she reprinted an article from the LA Times regarding Roberts ProBono work for gay rights..yes..THAT John Roberts! Evidently the man can separate his personal views and giving his client the best representation available. As long as the man can be impartial i have no problem with him being one of the boys on the S.C. I would however think that Bushie is a wee bit pissed off at the mere thought of his Supreme Court Nom being a fighter for the gay rights movement..which makes me smile even more! It impressed me quite abit and if anyone cares to read her post on it the link is over to the right>>>>>>> god you have no idea how that pained me to type..over to the right..anyways..please check out her blog if you haven't already..she is fantastic, she is clear, concise and just a tad smartalecky..gotta love that in a woman..i do anyways..
Aug 2, 2005
Holy mother of GOD..cheney and rove interviewed the Supreme Court Nom..
This article just made my day..of course I nearly tossed my cookies when i saw who Bushie entrusted to interview the new clown prince of the supreme court..none other than: Dicky Cheney and Karl fucktard Rove. This really makes me feel all warm and fuzzy....NOT! The brothers grimm spoke with Roberts on May 3rd, they were figuring that the head cheese would be stepping down, not Sandra..The NY Times article also includes links to the 83 page"essay" that Roberts wrote in response to the 10 page questionaire from the Senate Judiciary Committee. The sumbitch is anything but brief evidently..this is not a bad thing i guess, being long winded..I will have to read his response this weekend..i dont have two hours to go over it now. The link to the article is embedded in the post title..enjoy!
Aug 1, 2005
Sex, lies and audiotapes..Our Fucktards of the Week Winner!
This story has all the makings of a sordid B Movie plot..and its all true. Thats the scary part. A reporter secretly tapes a phone call from a politico that seconds later commits suicide in the reporters newspapers lobby..the reporter tells his bosses of the taped convo and later that evening gets the boot.. The newspaper had the nads to publish parts of the illegally taped convo prior to canning the reporter..can anyone tell me who is wrong in this whole mess? Does anyone care? The media gets to police itself which to me is like letting the fox guard the henhouse. The newspaper then says its firing the reporter for doing something illegal (taping the convo without the politicians conscent is illegal in Fla. as well as alot of states) that reflects negatively on the paper as a whole. REFLECTS NEGATIVELY ON THE PAPER? GIVE ME A BREAK YOU FUCKTARDS!The link to the NY Times article is embedded in the title..if you read it i would LOVE to hear your opinion on this shit..cuz its all shit as far as I am concerned. The reporter is a piece of shit because he said he knew the guy was on the edge of suicide when he pushed the record button.. the paper is a rag because they published parts of a desperate mans last convo, THEN fired the guy who taped it.
The politician was a real jerkwad, but that doesn't give anyone the right to make money off his action..blowing your brains to hell and doing it in public is sad enough for his family to deal with. The guy was out of time apparently and felt he had no other options..when you dance with the devil ..shit happens...coke and male hookers will bring out the worst in anyone when done to excess,as this pol apparently did..
The politician was a real jerkwad, but that doesn't give anyone the right to make money off his action..blowing your brains to hell and doing it in public is sad enough for his family to deal with. The guy was out of time apparently and felt he had no other options..when you dance with the devil ..shit happens...coke and male hookers will bring out the worst in anyone when done to excess,as this pol apparently did..
Bushie pulls a fast one..Appoints Bolton whilst congress is on summer recess
I knew he would do it..i should of put money on it when i was in vegas last week..
The assclown Bolton will now be in the UN until the new Congress is sworn in Jan.2007..what a fucker..lets see how many countries Bolton will intimidate,harass,threaten and demean while there..should be interesting at the very least...sadly messed up at the most..
The assclown Bolton will now be in the UN until the new Congress is sworn in Jan.2007..what a fucker..lets see how many countries Bolton will intimidate,harass,threaten and demean while there..should be interesting at the very least...sadly messed up at the most..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)