Alito on notice:
By on Dec 20th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
Alito on notice:
Samuel Alito “was warned yesterday” by Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the chairman and vice-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, “that he will be expected to comment on the revelation that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without seeking a court order.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
He will be questioned . . . yeah, but then the Rethugs will confirm him . . .
Culture of Criminality reigns!
December 20th, 2005 at 1:39 pmTalk about no right answer!
December 20th, 2005 at 1:42 pmWow, it’s coming fast and furious now. Could domestic spying finally be the turning point? Which is to say: why hasn’t it turned before now?
December 20th, 2005 at 1:42 pmnot only will he be asked, he should be compelled to answer…
December 20th, 2005 at 1:43 pmThis should be an excellent line of questioning. I will be interested to hear his answer. My guess is he will not answer them or he will lie in order to be confirmed.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:43 pmThere is only one right answer. Unfortunately its not going to be popular with people who nominated him. So he is going to do the next best thing: No Comment(or something on those lines). He should be grilled on this though and made to answer.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:46 pmWhile researching more on Bush’s criminal actions in the NSA issue last night I came across Federalist #67 and the issue of advise and consent as well as recess appointments. These obviously apply to Alito, Bolton, and Bush’s approach to obtaining absolute power in this area as well.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:48 pmThis should be an excellent line of questioning. I will be interested to hear his answer. My guess is he will not answer them or he will lie in order to be confirmed.
He won’t answer … likely, he could hear a case in the future (when he’s on the SCOTUS) that is relevant to this issue.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:48 pmIf Alito won’t answer a question on whether he’ll protect the constitution, he’s unworthy to serve – just like republican politicians and their apologists! They’re all unamerican traiterous fools!
December 20th, 2005 at 1:49 pmAlito needs to be asked about the Bush administrations claims to unchecked and absolute power during wartime. He needs to be asked about whether the “commander in chief” clause trumps any and all other aspects of The Constitution as the Bush administration claims.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:49 pmHe has to answer. I’ll bet he withdraws.
From Kos:
Bush, 2004:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:54 pmThis is quite a quandry, if not unprecedented. Should admitted criminals even be allowed to nominate judges?!
December 20th, 2005 at 1:56 pmIf during a job interview you answered “No comment”, do you think you would get the job? So, why should these guys? Answer the questions on how you’re going to perform on the job or don’t accept the nomination in the first place.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:59 pmWhy is it so difficult for this administration to follow the letter of the law, let alone just tell the truth? Are they all so collectively greedy and paranoid that they have to circumvent the Constitution and lie? What is wrong with these people? Why do they have this sense of entitlement over and above the law and the rest of the people that populate this country? So much for things being by, of, and for the people.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:00 pmhe’ll answer, but there’ll be no specifics or substance to the answer… it’ll be a dodge…
December 20th, 2005 at 2:01 pmThe general reasoning, unbelievable, is that by responding to a question specifically, they prejudice themselves against future cases.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:02 pm#7
December 20th, 2005 at 2:02 pmMaking recess appointments is not illegal you moron! Reagan made 243, Bush Sr. made 77 and Clinton made 140. Bush is claiming no more absolute power than any previous president. Just get over it!
What about the standard Republican stonewall, sorry I can’t comment on any case which might come before me.
Yeah, I’m not going to try that in any job interview!
December 20th, 2005 at 2:03 pmI just love how liberals just think that history began in January 2001 and that there are no precedents for anything that Bush does.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:03 pmThis is an effective strategy to kill his nomination. It has an appeal to some conservative Republicans, specifically the extent of the power of the president. What is also nice is that Alito has, in his opinions, been very accomodating to the President.
If you combine this with abortion you’ll gather enough votes to stop the ‘nuclear option’. You could probably defeat him on an up or down vote if he can be suitably exposed.
The interesting part about the Supreme Court nomination is why Alito was chosen instead of Gonzales. Any guesses?:)
December 20th, 2005 at 2:04 pmI’m no liberal (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
December 20th, 2005 at 2:05 pmHe has to answer basic questions such as what the constitution says about presidential powers. If he refuses to answer such basic questions he won’t be confirmed. He’ll likely hedge and go into some detail on the broad powers of the president but refuse to answer anything involving the extent of the president’s power to ignore intelligence laws.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:06 pmRepublicans are already sweating the images of Alito strip searching 10 year old girls and shooting teenagers in the back while putting his nose in people’s naked business. He’ll get squeezed out.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:09 pmIt’s so much fun to watch the freaks and trolls come undone. More!! More!! Too many scandals coming fast and furiously and they start to spin so fast they get dizzy and drill themselves into the ground!
December 20th, 2005 at 2:09 pmI am a liberal and am well aware that the Bush administrations claim of absolute and unchecked power goes back to King George and the divine right of Kings.
I think there was a little war or something over that wasn’t there?
December 20th, 2005 at 2:11 pmJames,
December 20th, 2005 at 2:12 pmRoberts did that by proclaiming he was an “umpire”-which is a metaphoric misrepresentation. Only Biden called him on it. It goes back to the fundamental paradox with Alito: He’s damned either way with his opinion about the Bush spying.
recess appointments aren’t forbidden, just a bad idea… case in point, John “I publicly disparage the international body I work with” Bolton…
December 20th, 2005 at 2:13 pmYou all making some assumptions that polling will probably not back up. Most Americans approve of this to stop terror. Alito can say whatever he wants, he will be confirmed. Specter knows this.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:24 pm#25
December 20th, 2005 at 2:28 pmI just don’t know where liberals get off these days talking about the absolute power of the Bush administration. Look back in history when the dems controlled both houses of congress and the presidency, who stacked the courts with liberal minded judges. In addition to that, they controlled and still control much of today, the mainstream media. How is that not absolute power?
Andy,
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2005/ 12/ 20/ approval-drops/ trackback/
All the while I’m having a one gift policy Christmas and the gas bill just more than doubled and I just found out Bush has been lying and breaking the law “for my own good”. You’re a stooge.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:29 pmIf during a job interview you answered “No commentâ€, do you think you would get the job? So, why should these guys?
If my answers could effect my future performance on that job to the extent that at times I wouldn’t be able to do the job I was hired for, then no comment is perfectly appropriate. It was appropriate when RBG did it, when Roberts did it, and when Alito will do it. Otherwise, it’s a popularity contest on the Supreme Court … since when did we start thinking that a qualifier for sitting on the SCOTUS is that the candidate agree with what we/I think?
December 20th, 2005 at 2:30 pmI am not a fan of any prospective judge saying they won’t comment on a subject that may be brought before them in a court case. I know that judges from both sides of the aisle have used that reason to not answer questions. I just don’t support that as an adequate reason.
Any person, judge or not, has their own preconcieved notions about things. judges, by their very job description, are expected to put those feelings aside and let the nuances of a case decide it’s outcome. Not ignoring what they want but not letting what they want over-rule previous law and precident.
Just my thinking.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:32 pm29
-The media is liberal
-One indictment is a good thing
-Blame Clinton
-WMD
-”I have political capitol”
-I support the troops!
-support war good, anti war bad
on and on and on and on and on…
December 20th, 2005 at 2:32 pmIf alito can’t confirm he’ll protect the constitution, then he like GeoMetro don’t deserve to call themselves american, much less supreme court justices!
December 20th, 2005 at 2:33 pm#29 – great points. #30 – liberals want to debate how best to fight terrorists. We believe spying on them without their knowledge is one way. You don’t. Take it the polls and see what happens. Here’s a hint – most people disagree with you.
Conservatives are just happy Bush is explaining why this is necessary. Everyone knows Democrats are liars and can’t be trusted. Why would they all sit on this story except to defeat the Patriot Act. That will be huge issue in the left’s further demise next year.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:33 pm#29 Mainstream media? Are you kidding me. NY Times held off on the story for a year, while they knew about it before elections. And if that was known, Kerry probably would have won, you idiot. And then you would be blaming Kerry for bad elections in Iraq. As I told you in my previous post, your language resonates those who supported grandpa Stalin. Maybe you should move to Russia and kiss Putin and let democracy go on in this country.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:33 pm31
Beacause Alito is a police state fanatic and Bush is a law breaker. You will not do anymore black shoe…
December 20th, 2005 at 2:35 pm#36 – that is where the left doesn’t get it. NOBODY and I mean nobody, except liberals think liberals can better fight the War on Terror than Bush. While you are busy fighting for terrorist’s rights, Bush fights them.
The backlash against this story is going to hurt like the left has never seen. This is a divided country and conservatives have been lazy. Nothing like this to remind how important it is to defeat Democrats next fall (again…)
December 20th, 2005 at 2:37 pmAndy in DE, if we are at war and we need new ways to fight, let’s change laws and make it permanent. You have the majority. But no, you prefer secret ways, right? Which means you know you would not get majority on this. You and the other lunatic should move to some country where people love their dictators and trust them. This is where you belong. Most people here live in America, where there are rights and freedoms and where we do not trust and we do not love our government unconditionally. Wow, GOP has really changed. A bunch of freaks wanting to be in charge. Same as communists, no difference.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:38 pm#31 Giacomo… you can theorize all day long, but know that if you said ‘no comment’ in a real job interview, you’d be done.
I think this partly explains where we differ in perspective. You like to consider the theory, and I prefer to approach it with pure, unadulterated reality. In fact, I think it explains a lot about the whole left v. right battle.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:38 pm#35
Actually, most people agree with us. Rememberthe outrage followingthe Terry Schiavo case when the Neocons wanted to get involved in regulating these private decisions? Why do you think that was? Becaue we value our privacy… Besides, it’s in the Constitution, Andy. Have you ever read it?
December 20th, 2005 at 2:40 pmAndy,
December 20th, 2005 at 2:41 pmBush is a dog. It’s the role he likes. The Dems let him do it. Now his baffoon behavior is doing permanent damage to the Republican Party. You know it. It’s why you’re here. Check the scoreboard. Go outside. Make some new friends.
Me no speak English!
December 20th, 2005 at 2:41 pmGood point, unbelievable. There’s a fundamental reason 85% of the country is Christian, but they don’t want Christianity in the hands of their leader. Same goes for police power. I’ll raise my kids and keep my street safe thank you.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:43 pm#39 – actually liberals who are the commies, but now they are now reduced to sympathizing with people who killed 3000 Americans.
#41 – conservatives tried to stop a brain dead girl from murdered by her husband. Similar to the left’s crocodile tears for Tookie except Terri wasn’t a vicious murderer – a requirement of anyone hoping to get the left’s sympathy.
Remember this important week when you lose traction in next year’s campaign. Thankfully, Johnathan Alter is pushing impeachment. That will be the final nail in your coffin. Thank you.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:45 pmSee Andy? You JUST took yourself out of the equation. You equated “liberals” with terrorists and seperatists with murderers. Got news for you. NOONE likes commies. Or fascists. Esp. middle class regular folks who want to be left alone, like myself.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:50 pmIt’s no wonder you’re so quick to break laws when confronted with dissent.
#46 – yawn. We’ll see what happens next fall. If the GOP was smart, they’ll confirm Alito using the constitutional option and let Democrats further implode. The mo is swinging away from the pro-terrorist left and towards the pro-American right. You guys never know how to keep your fat traps shut. Freedom of speech is a WONDERFUL thing.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:52 pm#35 – that is the most idiotic thing I’ve read yet.
I am all in favor of spying on terrorists. That is not the question. I have no problems with wiretaps on Americans suspected of criminal actions. Consequently I think the White House and Department of Justice and NSA phones ought to be tapped.
The issue is solely and completely that the Bush administration is not following the law in doing this wiretapping. FISA is a well written law that allows for every possible provision the administration would need LEGALLY.
The Bush administration is arguing that they do not have to obey the law.
Is this what you guys defending them believe?
Do you believe that the President and the rest of the executive branch are not required to follow the laws and Constitution of the United States?
That is the issue here.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:53 pmCuriously, Andy sounds just like IRI.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:55 pmThis should be interesting.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:56 pm.
I’ll remind you, Andy. One of THE KEY incidents in the downfall of this administration was when Rove called New Yorkers terrorist sympathizers. Do you not learn from history? Don’t you understand your bipolar message is dead already?! You’re a piece of work, man.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:56 pmHe’ll probably try to duck the question like Roberts, saying that he can’t comment on something that he may have to decide from the bench of the Supreme Court.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:56 pmRead the Bush quote post #11. That’s all the pros and cons need to know.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:58 pmApril 20, 2004
President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It’s vital. And others will describe what that means.
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:59 pmhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/r…20040420- 2.html
#45
#41 – conservatives tried to stop a brain dead girl from murdered by her husband. Similar to the left’s crocodile tears for Tookie except Terri wasn’t a vicious murderer – a requirement of anyone hoping to get the left’s sympathy.
Your ignorance is astounding… The woman was dead… it was a machine that kept her body functioning. I’m sure you’re a zealot, so you can take comofrt in the fact that Neil Boortz said that this machine was actually interfering with God’span that Terri should have died fifteen years earlier. When the tube was removed, she died. No one killed her. Her body could not sustain life. But this is not teh issue. the issue is privacy, and I have a feeling you’d be the biggest squealer if the governemt came into your livingroom and told you how to live your life.
And for Stanley Williams, what about all of your God grants forgiveness and the Bible says thou shalt not kill arguments?
December 20th, 2005 at 3:03 pm#48 – if White House lawyers thought otherwise, they would have passed a bill when President Bush was at 90% approval. The President wants to beat the terrorists so he confided his Congress of his plans. The authorization to war also makes this legal. To try and get him on a technicality when you damn well his heart is – beyond the pale, but to be expected.
AND #51 – the key downfall of the left has been their penchant for putting politics above the war. Started in 2002 with homeland security, then in 2004 when Kerry’s platform was is a liar, and it looks to be the theme of 2006. What is equal in these scenarios? Democrats always lose miserably at the polls.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:04 pmFreedom of speech is a WONDERFUL thing.
Comment by Andy in DE — December 20, 2005 @ 2:52 pm
Remember that when Bush takes it away from you, it was we liberals who were trying to save your right to spout lunacy and hate.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:04 pm#55 – you just proved my point!!! Starve a brain dead girl to death against the wishes of her parents and family, but worry about Tookie’s redemption. IF Tookie is redeemed, then he is with his maker. AND don’t use the ten commandments when they are inconvenient. Thou shalt not kill never stopped liberals from defending (and funding) partial birth abortion.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:06 pm#49
Curiously, Andy sounds just like IRI.
Comment by Keith H. — December 20, 2005 @ 2:55 pm
Yeah, I think we’re discovering that there are maybe three or four trolls total among the twenty-five or so screen names they post. As honest as ever!
December 20th, 2005 at 3:07 pm#55
December 20th, 2005 at 3:10 pmIf you feel that strongly about the death penalty, then why have anyone on death row? Just let them all go I say. I’ll bet each has repented to God so they are all innocent. As far as Teri goes, how do you kill an innocent person? If you believe that Tookie should have been spared, then why not Teri? Her parents were willing to assume the custody and care for her. What would be the harm in that? I just don’t understand the left? They are whacked and imploding.
#58 - you just proved my point!!! Starve a brain dead girl to death against the wishes of her parents and family, but worry about Tookie’s redemption. IF Tookie is redeemed, then he is with his maker. AND don’t use the ten commandments when they are inconvenient. Thou shalt not kill never stopped liberals from defending (and funding) partial birth abortion.
Comment by Andy in DE — December 20, 2005 @ 3:06 pm
No, I dispelled your lunacy. Terri was not murdered. She died. She was put on a machine that kept her body functioning as if she were still alive.
For the record, I don’t believe in any god(s). I just know that you zealots do, and like to throw it back at you. Figures you have your own interpretation. Why don’t you go write your own Bible to match. There are only 16 versions in print…
December 20th, 2005 at 3:11 pm#55
If you feel that strongly about the death penalty, then why have anyone on death row? Just let them all go I say. I’ll bet each has repented to God so they are all innocent. As far as Teri goes, how do you kill an innocent person? If you believe that Tookie should have been spared, then why not Teri? Her parents were willing to assume the custody and care for her. What would be the harm in that? I just don’t understand the left? They are whacked and imploding.
Comment by . — December 20, 2005 @ 3:10 pm
Amazing how you go from A to Z without ever acknowledging B thur Y, Really, I commend you. You take such absolute extremes in black and white that you fail to even see the shades of grey in bewteen. We live in between those absolutes…
We didn’t advocate releasing Stanley Williams from jail. To say we don’t condone his death is not saying he should be liberated entirely. The leap you make is staggerly moronic. How do you people function in the world?
December 20th, 2005 at 3:15 pm#61
December 20th, 2005 at 3:16 pmSo you don’t believe in any afterlife? No God? What about all of the near-death experiences? All fiction right? You don’t believe that there is a supreme being? Read the book “Brief History of Everything”. Its fascinating. You’ll discover how improbable life really is if you can expand your mind.
This should be good. I can’t wait to hear his answer.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:16 pm#56 – So are you refusing to answer the question?
Do you believe that the President and the rest of the executive branch are not required to follow the laws and Constitution of the United States?
Or are you stating that you believe the President’s argument that he is not required to follow the laws and Constitution of the United States?
Which is it?
December 20th, 2005 at 3:20 pm#63
#61
So you don’t believe in any afterlife? No God? What about all of the near-death experiences? All fiction right? You don’t believe that there is a supreme being? Read the book “Brief History of Everythingâ€. Its fascinating. You’ll discover how improbable life really is if you can expand your mind.
Comment by . — December 20, 2005 @ 3:16 pm
Nope. It’s all nonsense that does not make sense with the universe we live in.
Who created your god? I mean, if creation is the premise than he had to have a creator, and so on and so on and so on. You can say he just exists, but that wouldn’t be creation. And if a God could just exist, then so could the universe.
Now, the system we live in is the result of billions of years of evolution, which, unlike your invisible idol, is visible everywhere. Take the human body for instance. There is a serious lack of intelligent design in our anatomy. But, you would have ahd to have studied anatomy to know that. Our eyes (retina is behind the optic nerve, not intelligently in front of it like exists in other life forms), the bones are an engineering disaster, the appendix has no function, the coccyx is a tail bone (we have no tail), and we possess pseudo genes (genes that exist but do not function).
The beauty in the system is the result of billions of years of trial and error and evolution. The system may be beautiful, but it is not perfect, and it is not created.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:22 pmDon Wise has created the ‘theory of incompetent design’ based off of the same ‘quakery’ that christians used to ‘disprove’ god created everything intelligently. It’s quite interesting.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/8/141418/264
Science is what we know, religion is for what we don’t know. Religion is not an excuse to remain ignorant of the first – and yet this is exactly where the ignorant conservative lives. In excuses.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:25 pm#63
What about all of the near-death experiences?
Near death? I’d be impressedif there were after death experiences. My mother had a near death experience. It was the version of unplugging the television set. Nothing more.
The Will to survive is not a good companion to a consciousness of the world. It makes us fear our own ends… and therefore create fables to appease the fact that this life is all there is.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:25 pm#68
December 20th, 2005 at 3:30 pmI’m sorry to hear about your mother. I hope she is feeling better. I will pray for your soul and hope that you will eventually come to find God.
I guess #56 is unable to defend the President’s claim to absolute and unchecked power during wartime. I can well imagine that it would be difficult to defend a position that says that any American citizen is immune from obeying the law and the Constitution of the United States of America.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:34 pm#69
Don’t waste your energy. I grew up Christian. I know the promises and the stories. I’ve read the Bible. This was a conscious and deliberate choice and I am happier than I ever was before. I’m also more ethical and humane and people like me more. No chance you’ll convert me back. Christianity was imposed on me at birth. Atheism is my liberation from that life of self-hatred, fear and judgment. So, no thanks. I like thinking for myself too much.
But thanks for the thoughts about my mom. It happened when she was a child. She’s in her sixties now.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:42 pm#70
In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has “inherent authority” to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress’s decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.
“The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes,” Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, “and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.”
“It is important to understand,” Gorelick continued, “that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities.”
Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against “a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.”
December 20th, 2005 at 3:42 pm#72 – weak, very weak.
First – is clearly refuted on this very website just a couple threads up
Second – doesn’t answer the question I asked.
Do you believe that the President and the rest of the executive branch are not required to follow the laws and Constitution of the United States?
That is the argument that the bush administration is using. I’m not making this up. That is their argument. They argue that in times of war the Commander in Chief clause trumps everything else in The Constitution and US Law and therefore makes the President above the law.
Do you believe that the President and the rest of the executive branch are not required to follow the laws and Constitution of the United States?
December 20th, 2005 at 4:05 pm#63
What about all of the near-death experiences?
near death experiences can be triggered with a simple set of E-M waves beamed to someone. it’s related to specific mis-firing in the brain that often comes with head trauma or other illnesses. that’s the difference between religion and science, religion seeks to ‘explain’ things, not just except them blindly, ignorantly, and with prejudice and bias that always exists in religion.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:20 pmLet me correct that last thing I wrote – I typed to fast…
that’s the difference between religion and science, science seeks to ‘explain’ things, not just except them blindly, ignorantly, and with prejudice and bias that always exists in religion.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:30 pm#47 Andy in DE – Democrats imploding? Where have you been this year? In a cave? Come on, if you’re going to post here, at least keep reality separate from your delusions. Your remarks in general here are nasty, and this is the true sign of someone who cannot win an argument with reason, but instead takes to bullying. The “yawn” should be directed at yourself.
December 20th, 2005 at 6:08 pmI am sorry they gave him a heads up. He should be compelled to answer and if he refuses, he should not be accepted — but that hasn’t stopped Republicans yet, so he may be appointed in the end. Less than 35% of Americans support his appointment? No matter. The Republicans are in power and they will bow down, kiss the feet and do the bidding of His Royal Highness, George Bush.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:02 pmSclito needs to get anserin lessons from Scottie M.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:33 pm