Progressive: “We’re honest men having a reasonable discussion.”
Regressive: ” You’re saying I’m unreasonable. You’re dishonest!”

Progressive: Make Peace Not War!
Regressive: Make War Not Peace!

Progressive: Let Freedom Ring!*
Repressive: *that is only in the “free speech” zone with a conditional use permit, after determining whether such action may violate the “Patriot” Act definition of terrorism or treason thereby posing a potential threat to national security.

Bless us all all the time.

especially me – Neil

Liberal means you think, are open to change, and care about facts.

Conservative means you ‘think’ you already know the answer, therefore you don’t care about the facts, listening or changing.

Just a suggestion.

The main issue here was whether or not Frist has knowledge of the value of his stocks in what is allegedly a blind trust. From the evidence, it appears that Frist was updated on the stocks on a regular basis, so it is questionable at best that he had “no earthly idea” regarding how much he had.

A bigger issue, it seems to me, is where Frist claimed he got his information. His contention is that he used “publicly available” information as the basis for selling his stock. This seems pretty unrealistic. His family started the company, Frist has major holdings in it, and the only information he has is from “public” sources? He does not receive any information whatsoever regarding the company’s viability? Again, this seems very far-fetched.

Regarding wwallace, I cannot understand all the invective people are directing his way. Let’s stick to dealing with arguments, shall we?

Some examples of IRIs moderation:

“I hate the French, they pretty much invented the Filthy Left.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — October 1, 2005 @ 10:28 pm
Hey, what does a Mexcian know about ethics anyway?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — September 25, 2005 @ 12:41 pm
I think the lesson here is that if you can’t say something nice about the Negro in New Orleans, don’t say anything at all.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — September 7, 2005 @ 9:43 am
[Mexican corruption] is a problem but nothing a little Puritan Fundamentalist Christianity couldn’t cure. Ever notice that everything the Catholics touch turns to shit?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — September 22, 2005 @ 2:17 pm
Left wing non religious Jews are the problem. Period. I wonder if the Germans had the same problem with y’all?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — October 20, 2005 @ 4:04 pm
There’s nothing wrong with the South that a few thousand dangling from the nearest light pole Leftists wouldn’t cure.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — September 4, 2005 @ 1:08 pm
We need more women in the kitchen cooking dinner.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — November 1, 2005 @ 2:47 pm
[Women should NOT vote] Because they f e e l , they don’t think. There are exceptions to the rule and they all agree with me.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — November 2, 2005 @ 5:39 pm ”

IRI exercising moderation? ROTFLMAO

By Doug Thompson
Capitol Hill Blue
12-9-5

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine ­ in the end ­ if something is legal or right.

Every federal official ­ including the President ­ who takes an oath of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a “living document.”

“”Oh, how I hate the phrase we have-a ‘living document,’” Scalia says. “We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete’s sake.”

As a judge, Scalia says, “I don’t have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it’s better than anything else.”

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a “union between a man and woman.” Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

“We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,” Scalia warns. “Don’t think that it’s a one-way street.”

And don’t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just “a goddamned piece of paper.”
© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

Disclaimer

Email This Article

MainPage
http://www.rense.com

This Site Served by TheHostPros