Senators Demand Dobson & Rove Reveal Details Of “Confidential” Miers Conversation
Senators Demand Dobson & Rove Reveal Details Of “Confidential” Miers Conversation
Last week, right-wing Focus on the Family head James Dobson said that his support for Harriet Miers was in part due to “confidential” information he had received during a phone conversation with Karl Rove.
This morning on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called on Rove and Dobson to make public the details of their talk. He also announced that Dobson will likely be called to testify about the conversation before the Senate Judiciary Commitee:
SEN. SCHUMER: That is no way to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. For that nominee to refuse to answer questions to the American public, and then have someone supporting her do all this whispering saying ‘She’s okay, here is what she believes,’ is unfair. So as a result, I believe that we ought to call James Dobson as a witness at the Senate Judiciary hearing and find out what kind of assurances he has received. If those assurances are good enough for James Dobson, then all of America ought to hear them. … I believe my Democratic colleagues will go along and we will have James Dobson as a witness. Additionally, I think Karl Rove ought to let the public know what kind of assurances he gave James Dobson. This is not a game of wink and whisper. This is serious business.
Demonstrating the gravity of situation — that Rove may have given Dobson assurances of how Miers would vote on an upcoming case — Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) repeated Schumer’s call on ABC’s “This Week”:
SPECTER: If there is something which bears upon a precondition as to how a nominee is going to vote, I think that’s a matter that ought to be known by the Judiciary Committee and the American people.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So let me clarify here. You will call Dr. Dobson and Karl Rove to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee?
SPECTER: I haven’t made up a witness list, but I have done something unprecedented. I have divided the 30 witnesses equally between the Democrats and Republicans. Maybe that’s a witness that Pat Leahy will want to call.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Leahy —
SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Now, wait a minute. If Pat Leahy doesn’t call him, Arlen Specter may. I want to know what all the facts are. I’m very fact-oriented, and if Dr. Dobson knows something that he shouldn’t know or something that I ought to know, I’m going to find out.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
47 Responses to “Senators Demand Dobson & Rove Reveal Details Of “Confidential” Miers Conversation”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Good Day all, Just more of the same oh, same oh. Secret’s.? Lies.? Cover up’s? Private phone call’s.? Arm twisting.? Hay, their still working hard to stack the court’s and house of cards. Gees! Where’s my program, oh here it is with my roll of plastic and tape………Blessings
October 9th, 2005 at 4:56 pmOne question re: Specter’s statement: what could ROve have said that he “shouldn’t have said”?
October 9th, 2005 at 5:06 pmI think this controversy may be drummed up to take the focus of the infighting on the right. If you watched This Week, you saw that George posted the transcript of Dobson’s radio show — he’s still going on and on about this conversation. He won’t shut up about it. Presumably if there was something risky about this issue, Rove would have called and told him to shush. But the fact that he is going on, and that Specter is addressing it, suggests that they’d rather talk about Miers’ suspected Roe v. Wade assurances (which give hope to the right-wing base) than the points being addressed by Kristol, Buchanan, etc.
October 9th, 2005 at 5:09 pmFinally the responsible, if there is such an animal, repugs are divorcing themselves from the Bushco. Isn’t it amazing how fast they can move when they can see the crack closing upon their behind? With all the Presidential records DUHbya holds you would think the Repubs would be pushing to extend the term limits instead of leaving him out to dry.
Check out the Presidential Trivial Quiz at http://www.storytimedols.net/mmff.tml
Warning to trolls: the quiz could be dangerous to your intelligence.
October 9th, 2005 at 5:13 pmThis is so disgusting that they gave information to that James Dotson and not all American. I hope Spencer
October 9th, 2005 at 5:13 pmdoes call Dobson and Rove for witnesses. The probability of them telling anything is unlikely. They are dirt bags.
The “H” “L” you say! Sorry, try
October 9th, 2005 at 5:17 pmhttp://www.storytimedolls.net/mmff.html
#4 The page can not be displayed.
October 9th, 2005 at 5:18 pmSorry #4 it came up now.
October 9th, 2005 at 5:25 pmThey have no more money so the pols have no more use for them. Too radical for the GOP, who just used them as “useful idiots” and the Dems don’t want them, so screw them.
Once powerful Christian Coalition teeters on insolvency
Jesus may love you. Everyone else thinks you’re an asshole.
October 9th, 2005 at 6:02 pmClyde tR:
October 9th, 2005 at 6:03 pmThat is hysterically funny!
Do they have a secret handshake too? Rove and Dobson have a secret conversation about a national matter, then Dobson hints about it, (it’s OK, folks, wink, wink) and says he’s confident Miers will be a good judge. Well EXCUUUSE ME! The Senate is the body providing advice and consent; insiders will have to be required to say what they know.
October 9th, 2005 at 6:20 pmJerks like Dobson and Robertson (Did you see that ass today on CNN?) are so conceited, so taken away by their own egos that they think this SCOTUS information is like Kramden and Norton’s secret password at the lodge.
Sen Specter said Mier should be given a chance — what does he mean “chance?” This is a lifetime appointment — there are no do-overs.
October 9th, 2005 at 6:40 pmCongragulations to the Bloggers for making people be responsible for what they say. Don’t let the religious-right just say whatever they want without having to be accountable. The statements that people like Dobson and Bennet make would never see the light of day if it werent’ for you.
October 9th, 2005 at 6:46 pmThe Statue of Liberty in a burqua… Too funny (and too close), Clyde.
October 9th, 2005 at 7:39 pm#10, #4
Marie,
Thanks for the compliment on my web page.
When I started the page it was just for a little comic relief as most of us, at times, tend to take ourselves and our politics too seriously. I thought I could lighten the moment at times with a little subtle slap at the man for which I have absolutely no respect and could, if he were worth my time and energy, easily detest. The trivia quiz started as just another little funny thing that I thought might get a laugh or two. The sad part of the story is that when it all came together I recognized how serious and dangerous it all is. To believe that one man, in just one and a half terms as President of the United States could make such a mockery of over two hundred years of History and every man, great or not so great, that held the office before him is frightening. In a little over four years we have allowed our Government and our Country to be placed in the same situation as the citizens of Germany in the 1930’s. We no longer have a president, we have a self-styled despotic dictator with a supporting cast of criminal sycophants.
I will not guarantee the accuracy of all the statements as some are stated as absolutes which could be debated on the basis of percentage or per capita but I will guarantee that, in my opinion, the items on that trivia quiz could be used as a Bill of Particulars, that per se, would lead to the impeachment of G. W. Bush, and company.
October 9th, 2005 at 7:47 pmOn Sunday night, former FBI head Louis Freeh will introduce his salacious new Clinton tell-all book, My FBI, on CBS 60 Minutes. For Freeh, the book is an opportunity not only to cash in, but to lash out. Scolded by the 9/11 Commission and savaged by the critics of his tenure at FBI, Freeh is now getting a chance to tell his side of the story. It’s too bad he doesn’t seem to be telling the truth.
For the full story, see:
“Freeh at Last: Revenge and Revisionism at the FBI.”
October 9th, 2005 at 8:28 pm#16
October 9th, 2005 at 9:00 pmWe are in total agreement. Where’s the rest of the population? GWB is probably the worst president in US history. Others may have been bad, but dubya is dangerous to us at home and globally.
#17, AA
October 9th, 2005 at 9:05 pmI watched the CBS story, thinking I was going to be really angry about its likely one-sided angle, but I am not as angry as I thought I’d be. He is obviously promoting his book, and some of his claims were outrageous and self-serving, some were challenged by Clinton people, and some by historical fact, as well as by Wallace. Freeh didn’t end up looking all that great - more like a guy who is selling a book and taking an opportunity to throw off some blame.
There are only two topics that I believe are off limits in the Senate confirmation hearings for any justice.
1) Anything that falls under attorney-client privilege. That is a right reserved for all Americans, and Miers should not be required to reveal anything discussed in that context.
2) Any questions regarding how Miers would vote on a specific issue. Each case that comes before the Supreme Court must be reviewed on its own merits. Asking Miers - or any other judicial nominee - how they intend to vote without hearing the details of that case is both improper and absurd.
Beyond those two conditions, however, anything else is fair game. Now, what I want to hear most is Miers’ views on how the constitution should be interpreted. What I am looking for in a Supreme Court justice is an originalist. I am looking for someone that will interpret the constitution as it was written. I do not want to see a justice on the bench that believes the constitution is a “living, breathing document” that must be interpreted for relevance to today’s society. Rather, I want someone that believes the constitution is a document that must be taken as written since it has a mechanism in place to amend it as necessary. In short, I do not want a justice on the bench that will legislate from that bench.
Does Miers fit the bill? I honestly don’t know. But then, that is what the Senate confirmation hearings are intended to find out.
October 9th, 2005 at 10:11 pmThe american people have a right to know how Miers will interpret the constitution. She does not have that kind of experience. The Supreme Court is for all Americans not just the right wing religious nuts.
October 9th, 2005 at 10:19 pm#20
“There are only two topics that I believe are off limits in the Senate confirmation hearings for any justice.”
“2) Any questions regarding how Miers would vote on a specific issue.”
Then why have any confirmation hearing at all. Just let Bush appoint her to the Supreme Court.
October 9th, 2005 at 10:23 pmSpudgeBoy You are right the confirmation hearings are to ask her questions. If there wasn’t a confirmation hearing a president could put anyone in and the senators would not have no say. I personally believe the people should vote who gets on the Supreme Court.
October 9th, 2005 at 10:31 pmRon
October 9th, 2005 at 10:55 pmGee, that whole Attourney-Client thing, do you think thats why the Client picked her? So no questions about Bush’s background can be asked? So if she doesn’t recuse herself the Client can benefit? Just throwing it out.
Secondly, if we can’t ask someone how they would vote or what they think of the major issues of the time, why bother? If the Democrats and Miers are just going to jack us off on this, why should taxpayer’s money be wasted?
Given the tone of our administration and present house, senate and judicery, why have any house and senate at all. Maybe we should fire all of them, every senator and house rep. No benefits either, no retirement. I wish that were possible. Do you have any idea how much money that would generate.? I bet a tidy sum. If it is going to continue like this we don’t need any of them anyway. Why have them when we are being run by a dictatorship.? The money saved could be used to get rid of our loans to china and help the Katrina victoms and vetrans. Time to raise hell with all these guy’s that are allowing this crap to happen. Make them aware we are prepaired to vote them out. Sure hope the guilty are prosacuted. It would seem to me many on both sides know about all this..Blessings
October 9th, 2005 at 11:56 pmGee Ron, I guess Brown vs. Board of Ed, Roe, and other decisions of privacy and equal rights was “legislating”. I want a living constitution - as times change so must laws. The FF’s could nver control or regulate commerce, speech, etc. the way it is today. The constitution should NEVER be dead.
October 10th, 2005 at 11:29 amA laundry list of thoughts and expressions which raise questions about Israel’s role in world events is about to become FORBIDEN TO DISCUSS IN THE UNTITED STATES.
Your urgent attention is required.
http://www.truthtellers.org/ alerts/ departofantisemitsm.html
Comment by plunger —
Yeah, Google Rev. Ted Pike of Clackamas, OR. And find all of Tom Metzger’s friends in the white sheets with swastikas all over them, and their tin foil hats.
October 10th, 2005 at 12:44 pmThey should ban that idiot. If you flush him, you will need a plunger. He’s full of shit. We have so many desperate tin foil hat wearing wingers that frequent this site.
October 10th, 2005 at 12:47 pm“Shaking Campus Liberalism” Video
Learn How to Bring Christian Values Back on Campus
Order it Now
Only $23.95!
http://www.truthtellers.org/campus.html
Nice, Plunger. Sod off, bitch.
October 10th, 2005 at 12:48 pm#27 - LWordLover - I’d settle for a “contitutional” Constitution - not a “hocus-pocus” one. How about a contitutional ruling that does NOT promote a particular religion - BUT does not oppose religion. (Atheists, humanists and ‘Christian’ leftists DO NOT have the right NOT to be offended!!) (The left has demonstrated the tolerance needed by the majority of Americans if viewing a crucifix in urine or dung and magazine cutouts of vaginas is considered “art”.) If conservatives are offended by the “art” of shock artists, my advice is ‘don’t buy a ticket’. Same goes advice for the atheists, agnostics etc. - if you’re offended by a cross, menorah, crescent, etc. - get over it. How about a constitution where US law is cited - rather than Euro-law? The overturning of Plessy v. Ferguson was NOT decided on the “nowhere to be found” but oft touted “right to privacy”. Since some folks view abortion as killing kids and others don’t - perhaps we should re-think our homicide laws - some people are inconventient, incontinent or incompetent and others aren’t. And if I kill an inconvenient someone in the “privacy of home” is it REALLY murder??
October 10th, 2005 at 3:27 pm“I’d settle for a “contitutional†Constitution - not a “hocus-pocus†one. How about a contitutional ruling that does NOT promote a particular religion - BUT does not oppose religion. (Atheists, humanists and ‘Christian’ leftists DO NOT have the right NOT to be offended!!)”
And Christians do not have a right to be offended by Athiests, Humanists, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism - and yet you are. The problem is that like all reichwingers you are the intolerant and claim others are persecuting you. You dominate society and when you force your religious ignorance and bigotry on others, and they resist, you say the others are the bigots. It’s stupid blind hatred on your part - but then again an offensive beast like you knows know other way.
” (The left has demonstrated the tolerance needed by the majority of Americans if viewing a crucifix in urine or dung and magazine cutouts of vaginas is considered “artâ€.) ”
Why not, you wish to consider torture and murder acceptable - to me you are the truly offensive creature!
“If conservatives are offended by the “art†of shock artists, my advice is ‘don’t buy a ticket’. Same goes advice for the atheists, agnostics etc. - if you’re offended by a cross, menorah, crescent, etc. - get over it. ”
Well you’re obviously offended by those who don’t accept your persecution - you should get over it. After all, can’t you go to your church to find those things? Why do you have to inflict them on me?
“How about a constitution where US law is cited - rather than Euro-law? The overturning of Plessy v. Ferguson was NOT decided on the “nowhere to be found†but oft touted “right to privacyâ€. Since some folks view abortion as killing kids and others don’t - perhaps we should re-think our homicide laws - some people are inconventient, incontinent or incompetent and others aren’t. And if I kill an inconvenient someone in the “privacy of home†is it REALLY murder??”
The fact you want to justify killing anyone when you talk about needing a constitution that embraces religion shows what a right wing terrorist you really are. You’re an insane moron!
October 10th, 2005 at 4:23 pmAnd while we’re on the constitution.
The First Amendment
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
Article VI, Section 3
“…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
From Jefferson’s biography:
“…an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ…the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’”
Jefferson’s “The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom”:
“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry….The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Additional quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
“They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the alter of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
“I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”
“In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”
“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear….Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue on the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you.”
“Christianity…[has become] the most perverted system that ever shone on man….Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.”
“…that our civil rights have no dependence on religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry.”
James Madison (the fourth President of the United States)
Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments:
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise….During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”
Additional quote from James Madison:
“Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
Benjamin Franklin
From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“My parents had given me betimes religious impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.”
From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“…Some books against Deism fell into my hands….It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”
Thomas Paine
From The Age of Reason, pp. 89:
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of….Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them all.”
From The Age of Reason:
“All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
From The Age of Reason:
“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.”
From The Age of Reason:
“What is it the Bible teaches us? — rapine, cruelty, and murder.”
From The Age of Reason:
“Loving of enemies is another dogma of feigned morality, and has beside no meaning….Those who preach the doctrine of loving their enemies are in general the greatest prosecutors, and they act consistently by so doing; for the doctrine is hypocritical, and it is natural that hypocrisy should act the reverse of what it preaches.”
From The Age of Reason:
“The Bible was established altogether by the sword, and that in the worst use of it — not to terrify but to extirpate.”
Additional quote from Thomas Paine:
“It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.”
Ethan Allen
From Religion of the American Enlightenment:
October 10th, 2005 at 4:56 pm“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”
This calling on Dobson by the democrats can, and will, backfire on them.
For that very reason wingnuttia, knowing the above, will call Dobson to the committee.
How can it backfire?
About 30 of the 55 resucknic wingnut pukes are disciples of Dobson. They love and adore the nut. They are on his mailing lists, his e-mail lists, they take his phone calls day and night. They donaate money to him because, my dear folks, they know that their fate as a senator lies in his hands.
Oh I know, he opposed Specter and it did not work. But folks, Specter is from a blue state. I am talking about the red-state senators, you know, the ones that are the real crooks in this country. You know, the alkys in the Senate. You know, the ones who go to bed at night thinking about molesting little girls and playing with their little chi-chis. Those senators just absolutely adore Dobson, for their own selfish reasons. They, along with Dobson, then go out on the weekends and rent porno movies.
Dobsons appearance at the committee will only give backbone to the theocratic ignoramouses from the south.
October 10th, 2005 at 5:38 pmFor that reason, I think it will backfire on the dems if they are the ones who brings nut Dobson in.
Tread carefully on this Miers nomination. If the pugs are saying they dont like her then it is safe to assume that they love her.
This could be a ploy for a quick confirmation. We know she’s a right wing extremist or she wouldnt be friends with Bushie.
Don’t confirm Dems, the pugs are using reverse pyschology on this one.
October 10th, 2005 at 9:08 pmI agree Pablo. Dobson does not deserve an opinion in this matter. He will do nothing but lie anyway.
October 10th, 2005 at 9:10 pmRepublicans = Hypocrisy.
Republicans lie, cheat, steal… Let’s think back to a few examples of just THE LAST FIVE YEARS…
– Rush Limbaugh says all drug users should be put in jail… yet WON’T go to jail after being proven a drug addict.
– Tom DeLay trumpets he represents the “good morals” of America, but has been charged with crime, after crime, after crime, after crime. He never says he didn’t do the crime, just that the charges are unfounded. Nice and slimy. Isnt’ that what Nixon said?
– Bill Frist, another “moral-ist” who has shamed others for their acts, but doesn’t seem to be smart enough to understand that “insider trading” is a federal crime. (Either that, or he’s just another Republican liar.)
– Dick Cheney. Okay, c’mon… even to the reddest of you red state people. How can you support this guy? How many billions of dollars does this man’s former companies have to bilk out of our country in overinflated prices before it offends you? Iraq not bad enough? Does it honestly not sicken you that Cheney’s “buddies” have already overcharged us for New Orleans clean-up? (And for you dullards, yes, that means YOU will be paying for all of that with your taxes.)
– James Dobson. Do you really think our forefathers gave up their lives so some preacher could whisper innuendo about a Supreme Court justice?
Seriously, Republicans… how can you even begin to stomach your party?
And if that’s not enough, for all of you that still love Bush, but aren’t in the .0005% that is actually benefitting from his policies — how much has Bush put into your retirement account?
Fill up your gas tank, read the paper and learn a little about the latest numbers of brave soliders who have died in Iraq, and then please, extoll his virtues.
I dare you.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:09 amLobbyists for Christ
The Boston Globe occasionally publishes impressive series on the DC political process. Last October’s series on corporate lobbying actually inspired me to start looking into these issues in greater detail, indirectly leading to this blog. It’s har…
October 11th, 2005 at 4:35 amAnybody besides me starting to wonder whether there’s more than meets the eye to the ‘relationship’ between the President and his nominee? Some absurd speculation here: http://www.hairytruth.blogspot.com
October 11th, 2005 at 12:00 pmAtheists and Humanists - believe what you want - go where the “evidence” points you. My favourite “recovering” atheist was the mathematician, Descartes. Now that guy knew how to hedge his bets!
October 11th, 2005 at 12:28 pmHere’s what has the Right’s panties in a bunch:
Today on Eyewitness Muse, a scientific shocker: Study: Euthanizing Right-wing Pundits would Solve Global Warming
October 11th, 2005 at 12:46 pmMighty Aphrodite
October 11th, 2005 at 2:57 pm(sorry, off topic) Descartes was a Catholic (though after his death the Roman Catholic Church put his books on the “forbidden Reading” list). His philosophical approach (and the one that derived, “I think therefore I am.”) was to doubt EVERYTHING. Question all things, to include the evidence of your senses. Did you mean “Pascal”? (As in “Pascal’s Wager”)
You idiots really do represent the worst of liberal America. The truth about 90% of liberals is that while they spout off about their tolerance for all people and lifestyle choices, they are really the most close-minded of all. As for Ryan Neat, it’s interesting that you take someone else’s argument and twist it around to say that he/she supports murder, child pornography, and a state-sponsored religion. What post were you reading? The argument was that just as Christians should not be able to legislate against everything they find offensive and against their beliefs, so too, atheists, muslims, agnostics, libertarians, buddhists, and christian scientists shouldn’t be able to legislate through the court system against everything that is contrary to their beliefs or way of thinking. Also, as to the argument that the court system should treat the constitution as a general vague guideline subject to a judge’s personal feelings on the issue–could you show me exactly where in the Constitution segregation was established? I didn’t know the supreme court used white out on the Constitution when they used a decision to overturn a practice that was completely against the literal interpretation of the constitution–i.e. your religion, race, hair color, etc. does not prevent you from enjoying the same rights/privileges as everyone else living in our country. I would think you liberal idiots would agree in the face of two more conservative judges taking supreme court seats soon, that appointed officials should not be given the power to amend the constitution and overturn laws that were voted on by ELECTED officials. But then again, what does my opinion matter, if I disagree with you, I must be a racist, Christian, child molesting pervert.
October 14th, 2005 at 10:50 am[…] Senators become suspicious of any assurances offered to Dobson and others and consider issuing supoenas for Dobson’s testimony (and others’). […]
October 21st, 2005 at 12:09 pmporno video
Of Michigan,Ann Arbor discussed the endoscope in early 50’s. When fully recovered, the patient will be instructed when to resume his/her
March 26th, 2008 at 7:03 amfamily dependence advice relationship
relationship advice and sex
April 1st, 2008 at 9:07 amRorie
Did you get this off MSN?
April 6th, 2008 at 8:14 amCash Advance Loans
Instant cash advance can be a nice and convenient choice to cash flow advocate on the internet.
April 7th, 2008 at 7:32 amConsolidation Loan
Basic consolidation services debt loan advice that lends essential debt.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:10 am