I have tried to talk some sanity into it, but

You can only beat the FARTS out of a dead horse for so long. And

You just can’t FIX STUPID.

I agree 100%. Anybody that can’t see there is a cofflict of interest in this situation is ethically challenge.

It would seem that discussion about the impact of decisions would be more productive if they were to be conducted independently, then the consensus opinion was weighed against the parties’ policies.

Of course, I would anticipate that more people would just arrive at your opinion, so perhaps you’re already doing this. Our own PM (John Howard) is Bush’s lap dog, so is less exposed than Bush. No less culpable though, and embarrasingly incapable of original thought.

Many of the progressive folks here fault the Dems for their problems, as well as the republicans. We wanted to get Bush out in ‘04, but we were offered a Republican-lite candidate. Trying to get an Independant voted in is next to impossible. SO, we have a real problem with the Dems voting republican on a lot of things. We are in a real bind over here. People that are speaking out against Bush are comingout of the woodwork, which I say “It’s about time!”

We can keep working at getting him out of office. I don’t believe that impeachment is enough. Bush is guilty of war crimes. He needs to go to jail with the rest of his cronies. But alas, they can all pardon each other. Bastards!

Open your eyes. This isn’t about you – it’s about the whole world. You have a global responsibility to impeach Bush. His lies have resulted in thousands dying, yet you impeached Clinton for a cum-stained dress? Is anyone awake over there?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/08/desire-v-duty-on-supreme-court.html

Comment by Johanan Raatz — August 26, 2005 @ 5:15 pm

This needs to be de-propagandized. Even the most radical leftists today have more in common with the American political landscape of the late 40’s and early 50s than any of these extremist radicals on the right. People like Roberts and the FedSoc were once investigated by the FBI, like the JBS, and formed terrorist groups like the Posse Comitatus and the Freemen. The left has drifted so far to the right, along with politics in general, to call it radical or extremist is the hieght of absurdity.

Rewrite:

I understand what the Democrats problem is with John Roberts. An extremist like Roberts will be able to undo 200 years of precedent, eliminate the independent judiciary, making the supreme court an appendage of the one party state, by overturning Marbury v. Madison, the true goal of the extremist activists at the FedSoc.

This part is so convoluted it needs no real rewrite. It’s just absurd.

Now from what I remember part of the reason the Democrats lost in 2000 was the liberal, activist court (LMAO!) and partly because they were becoming too extremist or at least being controlled by an extremist faction within their own party. It is not in the countries best interest or in their best interest to oppose this guy unless the Democrats want to be seen as extremists who wish to maintain an imbalance on the high court.

Comment by Johanan Raatz — August 26, 2005 @ 5:15 pm

Whatever the right suggests you do, do the exact opposite.

Just heard from a friend in Washington. Apparently Bruce Reed (DLC guy) is penning an op-ed to be published in Sunday’s Wash Post which will blast Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war movement. Brace yourselves!

Spare us! The DLC? What a Joke! Worse than the GOP and RNC. No one listens to them, anyway. BTW, is your last name Breckinridge?

http://members.tripod.com/~myrasite/contents.html

the problem here is that although it is certainly possible to wear two hats, it is also certainly a conflict of interest. no matter how honorable the head may be. in Rotunda’s case, he not only was wearing two hats, but he failed to disclose that he was wearing one of them. a truly “standup guy” would have been upfront about it. that omission on his part is more than enough to discredit his views in the area of ethics, and especially on the subject of Roberts.

A country of free people would be a country full of people with their own individual values, and those values would be treated with respect and dignity by everyone. That doesn’t mean that we can’t disagree, it means that we have to respect each others rights to be who they are, no matter whom that is.

As soon as people begin to think that we all must have the same values as everyone else, and then use the words like “patriotism” to define them, then it is those very people who box in freedom.

Being a patriotic American has nothing to do with saluting the flag, or singing the national anthem. It has nothing to do with supporting our troops, or believing in our elected officials.

A patriotic American is one that believes in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, AND that that means that every single individual has the right to define what makes them happy, and how they want to pursue it. If that means that they want to own a huge organization that dominates the global market, then fine. If that means that they want to climb trees and keep people from cutting them down, because they believe in preserving natural resources, great. If that means that they are gay and want to marry someone of the same sex, so be it. They have the right to do what they wish, be who they are, and believe what they believe, without interference, within the limits of the laws that are written around these very same principles.

One, who believes in this, is a patriotic American. Communists have a place in America; Jews have a place in America; Black Panthers have a place in America; people who could care less about any issue have a place in America; Nazi’s have a place in America. These are all people with ideals, and beliefs, and as long as they stay within the law, which means that they don’t impede on my rights or yours to be who we wish, think what we want, then they are patriotic Americans.