Oh, that’s right -you only defended racial profiling and the singling out of swarthy males for searches. Like in this comment:

I believe thorough searches and fact-checking of younger Arab/Persian/olive passengers would lessen the likelihood of more air tragedies. Is it foolproof – NO, but evidence demonstrates, saf-ER. I don’t expect it to be MORE cost effective OR convenient – ONLY a “progressive” would mention “cost and convenience” at a time like this…..
Comment by mighty aphrodite — August 16, 2006 @ 3:34 pm

Or in this comment:

How many plots would have been foiled without some type of profiling??? I agree that Muslims come in a variety of appearances – so do Catholics and Baptists. So what! Currently, the Arab appearing Muslim seems to be hatching the plots and,[...] when the Black Muslims, Indo-Muslims, etc. start jumping onboard the United’s “Jihad Express” we can adjust our strategy.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — August 16, 2006 @ 5:01 pm

Of course, you do have my sincere and heartfelt apology for misrepresenting your statements. You didn’t mean separate lines, only singling out for searches based on skin color and ethnic likeness -aka racial profiling.

Now I know you meant they should be searched while in the same general line, no need to separate them from the general public.

Then there’s, “. I’m due in a conference at 1:30…..” [choose one]

1. All my Children;
2. Bold and the Beautiful; or,
3. Days of our Lives
(http://online.tvguide.com/listings/flatgrid.aspx)

******Good day, DaveESQ, “The blush trest”??? That sounds a bit like pornography – you’ll recognize it when you see it…

I posted my response to you – if you did not agree with my argument or if my post was dropped by an administrator, I don’t know – nor do I care… As I mentioned before, visiting this post-modern prog site is a charitable form of community service – compassionate and thoughtful conservatives WORRY that your eyes will begin to glaze over with the constant diet of, “WE HATE GEO. BUSH…. and his evil minions…” so we endeavor to break the painful monotony….

P.S. Mercifully, your contention about being “eaten alive in the courtroom” generally demonstrates a lack of trial experience. (I’m not saying you’re not the greatest patent attorney or nuisance letter writer in history.) Great litigators know their case, their opponents case and the IMPORTANCE of relating to a jury. (And the funny thing, juries HATE lawyers who are condescending a$$h*les – they seem to like people most like themselves…we call it “mirroring the jury”.) Hope this tip conmes in handy. I’m due in a conference at 1:30…..

To rw (no. 104), she was not involved as a member or a trustee of a party to the litigation. You should read the original article before posting. She was on the board (one of 50 board members, mind you), of an entirely different, unaffiliated organization, the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan, that, on ONE occasion, gave a tiny percentage of its annual donations to the Michigan chapter of the ACLU (which was, indeed, on the the plaintiffs in this case), for purposes entirely unrelated to the subject matter of the case.

I’ve been a lawyer for more years than I can remember, but I’ve got to tell you – if this is your argument, it doesn’t pass what I call the “blush” test.

Nor is there any “appearance of impropriety” here, at least without any proof that she was aware of the prior grant to the Michigan ACLU, was involved in the decision to make that grant (which accounted for less than 1% of her foundation’s donations that year), or any other OBJECTIVE FACTUAL EVIDENCE that her involvement in that foundation resulted in any bias whatsoever.

By the way, I’m still waiting for your friend Mighty A to respond to my questions from last night …

Look into the history of the Bushes. One last thing they did nothing to stop a terrorist attack so-called over the Atlantic. The bombs the so- called terrorist were to make could ever be made in a bathroom. Bush and Blair know that so they are just blatanly lying. Read sheeple and get off your asses.

*******Dear Grgrrrrrr, Unfortunate people suffering from diminished capacity deserve our patience – otherwise, I would be forced to point out what a LIAR you are – and that would be unfair to the rest of those with such limited retention abilities.

I did NOT advocate separate check in lines for Muslims. On 22 Aug. ‘06 I posted:

“Previously I suggested “search-free flights”. ANYONE (White, Arab, Black, Asian, etc.) can opt to board “search-free flights”. Law-abiding Muslims who object to capricious searches, progressives who wish to identify with the downtrodden, and terrorists who wish to carry out a militant form of jihad, can fly unfettered. Any of you who wish to travel with those who have subjected themselves and their baggage to searches, please be patient while we screen you and your fellow passengers. For the rest of you, Good LUCK and Bon Voyage…..”

Of course, I ACCEPT your heartfelt and SINCERE apology for mischaracterizing my statement…..Not all of us round the learning curve…..

Now, we have a decision the Repubs don’t like, and all of that is thrown out the window.

How does this work? How are these people able to get away with just MAKING STUFF UP?