Leahy: Supreme Court now an ‘arm of the Republican party.’
By on Aug 2nd, 2007 at 11:06 am
Leahy: Supreme Court now an ‘arm of the Republican party.’
In an interview with the Politico, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said that Chief Justice John Roberts “has made the court an arm of the Republican Party.” The senator voted to confirm Roberts “because he knew Roberts was going to be confirmed anyway and did not want a party-line vote that would encourage Roberts to believe that he was ‘an appointment of the Republican Party.’ But that is what has happened anyway, Leahy said.” (More on the court’s right-wing shift HERE.)
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
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
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
Kinda feel like a dumbshit for voting for confirmation, huh>?
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:07 amLeahy is losing his f-ing mind! No wonder Cheney was taken back!
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:11 amSo let me get this straight: Leahy didn’t want Roberts to be confirmed, but he voted for him anyway? A true Democrat!
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:12 amWe feel sorry for you to admit that you are complicit in this act. Either fix it, or retire. This is a huge insult to the people of this country
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:12 amRoberts told the Judiciary Committee what they wanted to hear. Whether he was telling the truth or not didn’t enter into the equation. Republicans lie to Congress (and the American public) as a matter of course.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:12 amIf you give these criminals an inch, it’s a sign of weakness. Sometimes, aggression must be met with overwhelming aggression. This is where the dems have failed. There is no bipartisanship, there is no consensus, there is no “being reasonable” with these thugs.
The dems have failed to realize the depth to which the thugs have sunk and will continue to sink, nor their commitment to destroying the government of the USA. Make no mistake, when Grover Norquist says he wants to make the US Government small and weak enough to drown it in the bathtub, it’s not rhetorical.
We’ve brought our best debaters to a gunfight.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:14 amLeahy deserves a “Duh” for this. It also shows how votes are used in manners other than what the public would think. I believed that my representative would vote for or against something based on his/her convictions and support from their constituants. Not to go along with the crowd in congress.
I have more respect for the lone congressmen/women that stand on principle.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:15 amWhy is the BBC reporting Voter Caging letters being sent out The Republican Party to Black Students at their Residence Halls after summer semester is over, but weeks before Fall Semester begins? Why is the Justice Department investigating non existant voter Fraud and announcing indictments within days of an election and then having them thrown out as unsubstantiated after the election?
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:16 amWhy were the Federal Prosecutors Fired?
Because the Republican’s control The Supreme Court and they know they have to steal elections. The Bork Treason or 1975, followed by The Ken Starr Treason of 1996, The Rhenquist/Scalia/Thomas Treason of 2000, followed the Strickland/Ohio Treason of 2004 will be followed by The Roberts Treason of 2008.
they need to understand & LEARN that *THATS WHAT HAPPENS ANYWAY*…so dont support it!!!!
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:17 amHe’s only upset because the court isn’t an arm of the Democrat Party.
Is there a point to this thread?
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:18 am#8. What are you, 12 years old? How about adding something to the dialogue?
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:19 amIf you give these criminals an inch, it’s a sign of weakness. Sometimes, aggression must be met with overwhelming aggression. This is where the dems have failed. There is no bipartisanship, there is no consensus, there is no “being reasonable†with these thugs.
The dems have failed to realize the depth to which the thugs have sunk and will continue to sink, nor their commitment to destroying the government of the USA. Make no mistake, when Grover Norquist says he wants to make the US Government small and weak enough to drown it in the bathtub, it’s not rhetorical.
We’ve brought our best debaters to a gunfight.
Comment by Marcus Aruelius — August 2, 2007 @ 11:14 am
That post was definitely worth repeating! Democratic Party – are you listening?! The time is way past for the gloves TO COME OFF!!!
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:19 amunless you’re the head of a Fortune 500 company, or the head of a multinational conglomerate, I’d suggest you STFU and start standing up for your own interests. You are a sucker. PT Barnum called, he’s looking for you.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:19 amif you don’t see the point, you must be blind. Keep telling yourself that voting against your own best interests, is what you need to do for yourself. That’ll work. See you on the bread line.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:22 am#10. It’s conservatives who have threatened to murder judges, not liberals. AND, you hillbillies own all the guns anyway. Hahaha!
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:23 amWow – someone sure likes telling everyone to Go Cheney Yourself! Must do well in social settings…
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:23 amtypical evangelical repuglican bullshit. if someone else commits a crim WE can commit crimes. your ethical and moral compass are broken dickhead.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:24 amLooks like “enough already” has the mental capacity of a four-year-old. Typical.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:24 amWe know dead people voted in King County that year!!!
Comment by enough already — August 2, 2007 @ 11:20 am
Despite the absurd claims by all the shrill republicans, they were never able to prove any dead person voted in King County, or that anything more then a handful of ballots were unofficial.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:24 amGore should never have conceded. He should have gone balls to the wall and fought like he’s never fought before.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:24 amAND Bush v. Gore was Al Gore’s fault
Um, Bush was the one who initiated the lawsuit, genius.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:25 amMichael Savage thinks Roberts’ seizure was a result of Democrats doing “something” to cause it. Maybe Leahy sneaked up behind him and yelled, “BOO!”
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:26 amAND after Roe is overturned, my money is a liberal attempt to murder conservative justices. I guarantee you thugs are capable of it.
Comment by enough already — August 2, 2007 @ 11:17 am
Maybe Cheney will invite them over for quail hunting.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:26 amenough already,
Thanks for your thoughtful posts.
It’s refreshing to hear clear-headed comments at TP.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:27 am“It was totally out of hand.”
Comment by enough already — August 2, 2007 @ 11:22 am
How so? Please site the decisions which you have found so “out of hand”. You’ve mentioned that incredibly rare PBA but nothing else
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:29 amWow – someone sure likes telling everyone to Go Cheney Yourself! Must do well in social settings…
Comment by margaret — August 2, 2007 @ 11:23 am
Isn’t it amazing? These nutjobs have the SCOTUS doing what they *think* they want the court to do, and STILL they’re unhappy and bitter.
Jeebus….
I’m gone for the day! Yay!!
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:29 amSo, exactly what good will come to you from your assinine support of a group to which you don’t, and to which you will never, belong? Look into a mirror and straight into your own eyes, and repeat this: I was wrong about everything.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:29 amI just sent Sen Leahy a note, He’s my sen, told him his excuse was pathetic.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:30 amWell for decades it use to be the arm of the liberals in the Democratic party….oh well.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:31 amenough already
There are 2 sitting justices who were Democrat nominees. Every other judge was appointed by a Republican.
Not only that, since 1969 only those 2 judges on the Supreme Court were nominated by non-Republicans.
The facts do not agree with your propaganda.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:31 amMichael Savage thinks Roberts’ seizure was a result of Democrats doing “something†to cause it. Maybe Leahy sneaked up behind him and yelled, “BOO!â€
Comment by Candyce
It was the secret signal decoder ring laser that they hit him from the super-stealth invisible jet plane that took off earlier in the day from that secret Democrat bat cave, hidden in Armpit, Missouri.
shhhh…. don’t tell the Republicans.
Yeah that’s what happened….. =P
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:32 amSomeone should tell Leahy that you are supposed to vote whether you think the candidate is honorable or not to sit on the Supreme Court bench. Using the vote to make a “point” or “extend a feeling” is stupidity that bites you in the arse.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:32 am“my money is a liberal attempt to murder conservative justices. I guarantee you thugs are capable of it.” – - I see you’ve swallowed Michael Savage’s contention that Democrats were behind Roberts’ seizure. Enjoy your extended stay in fantasyland.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:32 am#8 – “Quit crying. The Court has long been an arm of the liberal establishment – it was so far left that Democrats had to shy away from it.” Comment by enough already — August 2, 2007 @ 11:15 am
And your proof for this calumny?
I’m sure you’ll complain loudly when the SC votes to remove your first amendment rights in favor of big business.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:32 amIsn’t it Bush Republican Ann Coulter who called for the poisoning of Justice Stevens creme brulee?
Oh, sorry, I must be projecting.
-GSD
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:32 am#37 – “Well for decades it use to be the arm of the liberals in the Democratic party….oh well.” Comment by Tracy — August 2, 2007 @ 11:31 am
And your proof for this calumny?
Let me guess, you don’t have any proof, just unconfirmed assertions.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:34 amI don’t understand the logic seen in this comment thread of: “liberals are immoral, therefore it’s ok that conservatives are immoral”. It’s the same logic of: “Clinton was a bad president, so it’s ok that Bush is a bad president”. Hellooooooo. We should strive to be moral. We should strive for ZERO corruption. Lying is wrong.
I just don’t get it. When Group A fails, they blame it on Group B. When Group B fails, they blame it on Group A. Then everyone argues over the details. We are all in the same group. When a republican fails, then ALL OF US FAIL. When a democrat fails, then ALL OF US FAIL. When one congressman is corrupt, then it’s ALL OUR FAULT.
Enough bickering.
~Sean
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:34 amSO MUCH FOR POSITIVE ACTION!
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:35 am#30 – “It’s refreshing to hear clear-headed comments at TP.” Comment by Ringo — August 2, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Since not a single clear-headed comment comes from you at all.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:35 am“Whah! Leahy was mean to Roberts after Roberts had a seizure”.
Look for this meme to show up on right wing blogs very shortly as the rightwingers mount a Swift Boat counter attack on Leahy.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:36 amLeahy’s just deciding now that SCOTUS is an arm of the Republican Party? After the Senate Dems voted unanimously to confirm Scalia, gave 11 votes to Thomas, (which was the deciding factor in his confirmation, since he was only approved by 4 votes), and pooh-poohed any notion of blocking the Alito and Roberts confirmations? The veteran Democrats in both the House and Senate, (with the possible exception of Ted Kennedy), are a neurotic, vacillating, politically tone-deaf and sad group
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:36 amDemocrat Soldier
Particularly seen as the decades he is talking about – had the Democrat nominees as being the minority on the supreme court.
And if you don’t believe me Tracy, go look it up yourself, after all, I am sure you are not a outright liar now are you? /sarcasm
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:36 amI think it’s time for this country to take a time out.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:36 amThoughtful? Clear-headed?
Circle jerk much?
Comment by Luis M — August 2, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Compared to the usual feces that litter these threads from wingtards, those are thoughtful and clear-headed. Just shows how desperate they are now.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:36 amenough already
5 out of 7 are Republicans. Since 1969 only those 2 have been nominated by non-Republicans.
So take your propaganda, your lies, and your brainless assertions, and shove them right where you keep your gerbil, because we aren’t buying it.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:38 amLeahy showed no leadership…
You vote your conscious,regardless.
You hear these days also representatives and Senator saying we will not impeach,like Speaker Pulosi and Senator Biden..because we don’t have the vote.
Does the Constitution say…You impeach only when you have the ‘votes’, or because ‘crimes have been committed’?.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:39 amWe know dead people voted in King County that year!!!
enuf
Are you like the kid in Sixth Sense, you can see dead people??
Why didn’t the FBI think there was a case?
What do you know that the FBI didn’t?
Tell it to Bruce Willis. Oh, wait, he’s dead too!
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:40 amwell, here’s some good news… i didn’t see that TP covered this:
House Votes to Overturn Court on Pay
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; 4:51 PM
WASHINGTON — The House voted Tuesday to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision limiting the time that workers have to sue their employers for pay discrimination.
The Bush administration has threatened to veto the legislation, pushed almost entirely by Democrats.
The House voted 225-199 to restart the statute of limitations for pay discrimination lawsuits each time an employee gets a paycheck affected by sexism or racism, repudiating a decision by the high court’s five most conservative justices.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:41 am[...]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073101085.html
.
AND after Roe is overturned, my money is a liberal attempt to murder conservative justices. I guarantee you thugs are capable of it.
Comment by enough already — August 2, 2007 @ 11:17 am
This comment is a very sick accusation — sicker than most trolls would post. In case you haven’t noticed, we “thugs” are working within our constitutional system to bring about change and reclaim our country from the crooks who have hijacked it. We “thugs” aren’t the ones referring to the constitution as a “g-d d-mn piece of paper”, we aren’t the ones obstructing justice, we aren’t the ones outing covert agents, we aren’t the ones trampling the civil rights of Americans.
Unless you can provide evidence that liberals murder officials in order to effect change or even some proof to back up your guarantee that we are “capable of it”, I request you apologize for that outrageous remark.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:45 am“The public seems to have noticed the shift. The percentage who said the court is “too conservative” grew from 19 percent to 31 percent in the past two years, while those who said it is “generally balanced in its decisions” declined from 55 percent to 47 percent.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800645.html?hpid=topnews
Spin the numbers however your fancy takes you Mr enough, the trend is clear.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:46 amenough already, when you quote only the portion of polls that appear to support your view, you lost credibility. Let’s look at the latest ABC poll on the matter.
WASHINGTON, July 28 (UPI) — The percentage of U.S. voters who think the Supreme Court is too conservative has jumped from 19 percent to 31 percent in two years, a new poll found.
The shift follows President George W. Bush’s nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, which has changed the ideological balance on the court. Since July 2005, the percentage of people who describe the court as “generally balanced in its decisions” has fallen from 55 percent to 47 percent, The Washington Post-ABC poll found.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:47 amAND after Roe is overturned, my money is a liberal attempt to murder conservative justices. I guarantee you thugs are capable of it.
Comment by enough already — August 2, 2007 @ 11:17 am
Ann Coulter’s certainly willing to do it. Oh wait, she’s a fascist not a liberal… sorry.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:48 am#55 – lol!!! The Court can just rule it unconstitutional. Sucks not to get your way, doesn’t it?
Comment by enough already — August 2, 2007 @ 11:43 am
On what grounds? Name an amendment or provision which says that Congress cannot change civil non-constitutional law, or that shows this change to be unconstitutional.
Oh, wait, I forgot, you are an American the same way you are a Christian, you haven’t actually read what the law or the Bible says, you just like to pretend to believe in them.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:48 amTerrytheTurtle,
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:48 amThe numbers are shifting because of Leftist Propagan from the media and Blogs!
Despite the absurd claims by all the shrill republicans, they were never able to prove any dead person voted in King County, or that anything more then a handful of ballots were unofficial.
Comment by krazny
And the person certifying the election results was . . . a Republican.
The conservatives can’t stand that they lost and have been whining about cheating ever since the election. And then they mock liberals who complain about the shady dealings in 2000. Cry baby hypocrites, the Republics are.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:49 amwant a little cheese with that whine
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:49 amWhy do you Lefties complaijn about everything?
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:49 amYou’re all a miserable lot!
I think it’s time for this country to take a time out.
Comment by Arroyo — August 2, 2007 @ 11:36 am
———–
Did you look forward to daddy spanking you?
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:50 amenough already with enough already. His post at 53 says it all. He doesn’t care about actual justice from the highest court in the land. He wants to screw the other guy.
I am encouraged to see dissappointment in Leahy from the solid posters here. No lock step blind following.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:50 amThe shift follows President George W. Bush’s nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, which has changed the ideological balance on the court. Since July 2005, the percentage of people who describe the court as “generally balanced in its decisions†has fallen from 55 percent to 47 percent, The Washington Post-ABC poll found.
Comment by Candyce
The shift matches the increasingly-conservative decisions issuing from SCOTUS. The numbers being pointed to by the conservatrons are based on decisions prior to the most recent session.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:51 amAND yes, when Roe is overturned, I fully expect the left to go nuts and assasination will be on the table. I am sure of it.
Comment by enough already
Sorry, it is only right wing nutjobs, like your hero Ann Coulter, that call for the killing of Supreme Court Judges, not “liberals”.
you are a lying piece of crap, dimwit.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:51 amComment by enough already — August 2, 2007 @ 11:42 am
#
The SCOTUS has been owned and operated by the republicans for almost 30 years. What makes you think they would overturn Roe v Wade this decade? Also, what would that accomplish? Many states had similar laws locally on the books before Roe, which BTW was a right to privacy case.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:53 amTerrytheTurtle,
The numbers are shifting because of Leftist Propagan from the media and Blogs!
Comment by Ghidorah — August 2, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Wow, would that statement would be backed up by a host of sourced references, right? It must be or I would have to conclude you are full of sh*t. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and wait for your sources.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:54 amWayne,
All yo do is complain everyday.
You’re a miserable soul!
Get a life!
U 2 Chris L!
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:55 amh to the izzo,
What up?!
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:56 amLOL the republicans won’t overturn Roe Vs. Wade, it is way to easy of a wedge issue to get the sheep in line.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:56 amwe’ll have a chance to see that in the next couple years. After we defeat Hitlery at the polls in 2008, we’ll get another good conservative on there.
Comment by enough already — August 2, 2007 @ 11:52 am
#
Yes, because you did so well in the 2006 elections, right? As long as the republicans continue the mantra of staying in Iraq for the next 50 years and attacking Iran, the democrats won’t even have to campaign. The repubs are doing all their work for them.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:57 ammissmolly – how does it feel to have someone to say that about you?
Comment by enough already — August 2, 2007 @ 11:47 am
If I made a baseless accusation that a person or group of people would murder somebody with NO evidence whatsoever, I would expect others on this forum to call me on it.
I have said a lot of things about Bush, about Cheney, and about all our our elected and appointed officials (from both parties). But I keep it on the topic of the thread, or in direct response to another post. And I often provide links to back up what I say. I believe you will find most people who post here at TP will say my posts are fair.
And I have NEVER claimed that Republicans would murder Democrats to hold onto power or for any other political reason.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:57 amwell shit sakes, Pat – you sat there and let/watched them do it, since the Reagan Administration. Maybe Pat shouldn’t be reminding us of something that he should have made part of his mission statement decades ago: “preventing wild-eyed reactionary zealots from stacking the Supreme Court with yes-men”.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:59 amTerrytheTurtle, asking for sources works as good as Troll-B-Gone.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 pmenough already – If you’re sick of the truth you hear on this site, I have a simple solutionFeed your fantasies at Little Green Footballs or NRO or Fixed News, etc. You’ll be more comfortable among your fellow mouthbreathers.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:01 pmComment by Ghidorah
This troll is too stupid to even respond to.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:01 pmTerryturtle,
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:02 pmYou guys control The Congress, The Internet, The media, Hollywood and next year Hillary will win.
Stop complaining you guys have built up the apparatus for Stalinist Stae.
You’re gonna run things for at least 50 years!
With all that propaganda you’ll silence Conservatives and Libertarians for at least 2 generations.
Then when you become corrupt with power, your system will collapse like the Soviet Union.
Enjoy your Totalitarian power comimg!
LOL the republicans won’t overturn Roe Vs. Wade, it is way to easy of a wedge issue to get the sheep in line.
Comment by krazny — August 2, 2007 @ 11:56 am
Exactly. They’d have to find a new boogeyman. Besides, if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it would galvanize a whole ‘nother layer of voters who are pretty much resting in dormant apathy right now. It would be a long time before Repubs would be a force to be reckoned with again.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:02 pmLeahy,
There was a time when I had the utmost respect for you. No more, arsehole!
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:02 pmTerrytheTurtle,
The numbers are shifting because of Leftist Propagan from the media and Blogs!
Comment by Ghidorah — August 2, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Wow, would that statement would be backed up by a host of sourced references, right? It must be or I would have to conclude you are full of sh*t. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and wait for your sources.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle
The three heads of Ghidorah will be consulting with Mothra and getting right back to you.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:02 pmwhy are all those republican guys child molesters, whoremongers, and wifebeaters? why are all those repulican guys going to jail? why are all those republican congressmen and senators under investigation?
i’d guess that, for powerful republicans, kinky sex and easy (if perhaps illegal) money are actually “family values”
nice.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:02 pmWayne,
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:03 pmTypical Leftist attitude.
If someone disagree their stupid.
Smearing,
Stalinism at it’s best!
tom baker ,
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:04 pmYeah democrats never do anything wrong!
Ban the Republican party!
Wayne,
Typical Leftist attitude.
If someone disagree their stupid.
Smearing,
Stalinism at it’s best!
Comment by King Ghidorah
I think Zooey is out for the day, so someone needs to step up!
Shut up, you piss-soaked troll! AKA The Joker
Get a life.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:05 pmDespite the absurd claims by all the shrill republicans, they were never able to prove any dead person voted in King County, or that anything more then a handful of ballots were unofficial.
Comment by krazny — August 2, 2007 @ 11:24 am
And the U.S. Attorney in King County at the time was John McKay, a Republican and a Bush appointee. You can bet that if there was any voter fraud going on, he would have latched onto it like a pit bull. But he didn’t find any. And he eventually lost his job (one of the fired USAs) because the White House was unhappy with him for not “finding” any voter fraud.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:05 pmdid not want a party-line vote that would encourage Roberts to believe that he was ‘an appointment of the Republican Party.’
AYFKM? Pat, Pat, Pat. You know damn well their lifetime appointments allow them to vote however they want. It’s not like SCOTUS justices divide their votes on cases proportionally to the votes they received for confirmation.
I hope you learned your lesson. Stand your ground to the bullies and the people have your back.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:06 pmWell said. The situation has, unfortunately, moved past bickering.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:06 pmOne of the unique checks and balances of our system is in how the court swings over long periods of time.
The Warren Court certainly swung to the left on civil rights and personal privacy issues.
Now the Roberts court will swing to the right, perhaps even overturning Roe. But don’t count on it. One of the cornerstones of the conservative judicial mentality is to lean heavily on precedent, overturning such rulings is heresy to a “strict constructionist” jurist.
If no more appointments are made by Republicans over the next 12 18 years that the Dems will hold the white house, the makup of the court will swing back to be more in line with the public’s views.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:06 pmRick Ross
I have another question for you:
When called on their shit, why do you Republicans always try to play the victim?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:08 pmgummitch,
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:09 pmYou get a life.
All you do is complain and whine all day.
I’m not this Joker by the way.
I haven’t post here in months since this is a very depressing site.
I’m back and still see the sam losers complaining!
Ha what losers get lives!
Enough already is becoming unhinged because her heros are going down ..down ..down..
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:10 pmUhhh…in case no one has told you…you’re being robbed, and your rights are being curtailed. If you don’t want to do something about it, that’s fine – you can hold the door for the robbers. Just don’t complain when you finally realize how badly you have been abused and how long you allowed it to continue.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:11 pmThe numbers are shifting because of Leftist Propagan from the media and Blogs!
Comment by Ghidorah
He’s right, in that most progressives are pro pagan, but wow, I didn’t know the blogs had so much influence, I’m flattered and puffered up like a puffin!
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:11 pm“One of the cornerstones of the conservative judicial mentality is to lean heavily on precedent, overturning such rulings is heresy to a “strict constructionist†jurist.”
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:12 pmThis is nothing more than a conservative talking point. The majority on this new court have already shown they rule based on politics and then find their reasoning in case law.
“Uhhh…in case no one has told you…you’re being robbed, and your rights are being curtailed.”
I’m being robbed?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah !
What a joke!
I have more money than ever!
Not having rights!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Why is this blog still up?
Why is Congress controlled by Dems?
You’re a paranoid loser!
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:13 pm“Now the Roberts court will swing to the right, perhaps even overturning Roe. But don’t count on it. One of the cornerstones of the conservative judicial mentality is to lean heavily on precedent, overturning such rulings is heresy to a “strict constructionist†jurist.”
Bush v Gore exposed that scam. They’re only “strict constructionists” when it serves their political purposes.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:13 pmThe numbers are shifting because of Leftist Propagan from the media and Blogs!
Comment by Ghidorah
Blogs? huh? lmao!
and media, huh? Like…uhm…Murdick perhaps?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:13 pmIt is not a court anymore if it is going to be influenced by either party ideologies.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:14 pmJudges should not play the political parties game,or we,the people, are going to be in big trouble.
Court should remain simply a court. It benefits all us if it stays that way.
“Now the Roberts court will swing to the right, perhaps even overturning Roe. But don’t count on it. One of the cornerstones of the conservative judicial mentality is to lean heavily on precedent, overturning such rulings is heresy to a “strict constructionist†jurist.â€
Bush v Gore exposed that scam. They’re only “strict constructionists†when it serves their political purposes.
Comment by barfly
The Roberts Court has hardly leaned heavily on precedent. Typical conservative activist judiciary.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:14 pmComment by Jesus swallows the 2nd coming
Shouldn’t that be Jesus’ followers swallow the second coming?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:15 pmRepublicans Can’t Govern, – I agree fully that the nominees just told Congress what they wanted to hear. I’d go so far as to say the current system to get confirmed is to lie your teeth off, and then forget anything you said after the confirmation.
Question though: Admittedly as the Congress was asking hypothetical and philosophical questions, it would be hard to actually nail them down on the fact that they were talking platitudes.
What recourse do we have when someone lies about their philosophy and gets nominated ?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:16 pmThat proves the system is broken and in need of immediate repair.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:16 pmMarcus Aruelius,
What wrong with having Money?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:18 pmIs that why your Boy Sen Schumer is blocking a Bi-Partisan plan to increase taxes on Hedge Fund Managers?
“I have more money than ever!”
Comment by King Ghidorah
Man-whoring for republican bowsers must pay well…
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:18 pmWhile Leahy’s gullibility is impressive, his comment shows why Gonzales needs to be impeached, and activity solely up to the Congress and not dependent on either the executive or courts.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:18 pmTerryturtle,
You guys control The Congress, The Internet, The media, Hollywood and next year Hillary will win.
Stop complaining you guys have built up the apparatus for Stalinist Stae.
You’re gonna run things for at least 50 years!
With all that propaganda you’ll silence Conservatives and Libertarians for at least 2 generations.
Then when you become corrupt with power, your system will collapse like the Soviet Union.
Enjoy your Totalitarian power comimg!
Comment by Ghidorah — August 2, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Oh well, I guess the answer was ‘full of sh*t’ after all. BTW, that’s a dust bunny under your bed, not a communist.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:20 pm————–
I got news for ya’ folks.
Bush & Cheney aren’t leaving office ….
Prepare yourselves.
————–
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:21 pmbarfly ,
How about getting a skill and make money using it!
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:22 pmHow about Network Security or the Medical field?
That’s a thought!
While Leahy’s gullibility is impressive, his comment shows why Gonzales needs to be impeached by William Neuhauser
How so?
I see this as Leahy making yet another attempt to divide the people.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:22 pmTerrytheTurtle,
Yes I’m full of it because I just explain the Power and Organization of the Left.
As a Libertarian I wish we had power like that.
Be happy you guys are on the verge of power!
You’ll have total control!
I forgot to mention, you have control of the Education System too!
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:24 pm“How about getting a skill and make money using it!”
Shake your money-maker, King!
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:24 pmI didn’t mean to imply that the Roberts/Alito wing of the NeoColon party actually lived up to the “strict constructionist” tag they folded over their shoulders, but I don’t think Roe is going to get overturned..
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:25 pmhere’s an interesting link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902306.html
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:25 pmbarfly,
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:26 pmYou’re just a complaining loser!
A nobody!
A roach is held in more esteem than you!
How so?
I see this as Leahy making yet another attempt to divide the people.
Comment by Gorgias
Shut up, PiPPy.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:26 pm“As a Libertarian I wish we had power like that.”
Another Republican in drag, too ashamed to own up to his boneheaded past support for a ideological scam?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:26 pmA roach is held in more esteem than you!
Comment by King Ghidorah
Smoke’em if you’got’em, King…
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:27 pmI’m a registred Libertarian and have vote for that Party for the last 11 years.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:27 pmI voted for Michael Badnarik in 2004!
Idiot!
So pippy/pissy/puppy was voting when he was 7 years old.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:28 pm“Smoke’em if you’got’em, King”
I’m currently working.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:28 pmI smoke my Herb after work before Dinner!
RUCerious,
Who’s Pippy?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:29 pmI’m 32.
With the votes Roberts had it would not have made a difference anyway. It’s like Satan getting in the Church it happens. Now Roberts is seen for who he really is. I noticed his wife never went to the hospital to see her husband when he had the seizure or did she come there to pick him up. As for that vacation it was reported he had a guest but it wasn’t his wife. So much for those family values. Like Fingers Foley, Pastor Haggard, Senator Vitter and others who show only one side of who they really are then the truth comes out. Roberts was used to put Satan’s law in the Supreme Court and it’s now 5 for Satan and 4 for Christians. There’s only one problem that could get in the Republicans way of control GOD. Even Roberts the youngest on the Supreme Court doesn’t know when his number is up. Roberts was given a second chance to correct his mistakes let’s hope it takes it. As for Leahy being stupid well look at how Bush/Cheney/Rove trick Americans buy twice stealing the election. Yes Americans were played for fools too the only problem is we will have to pay heavy for that mistake.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:29 pmA roach is held in more esteem than you!
Comment by King Ghidorah
Sounds like you have smoked too many roaches this morning.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:30 pmwhy don’t you go away Joker.
Oh, do you live in South Florida??
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:31 pmI’m a registred Libertarian and have vote for that Party for the last 11 years.
I voted for Michael Badnarik in 2004!
Idiot!
Comment by King Ghidorah — August 2, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
Nothing like a Republican troll who is ashamed of being a Republican. Your shame, Ghidorah, says more about your Republican gods then any of us liberals could ever manage.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:32 pmBruce wayne
Are obseesed with Batman?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:32 pmYou keep calling me Joker!
What next I’m the Penguin or the Riddlere?
You read too many comic books!
OK, last one:
“I’m a registred Libertarian and have vote for that Party for the last 11 years.”
And this is the Internet, Baby, where anyone on a comments thread can claim anything. What a rookie.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:33 pmfrom wiki
King Ghidorah is also one of the daikaiju most often mind controlled; it acts completely autonomously in three movies, in other appearances being controlled for most of its screen time by aliens.
This explains a lot of the posts today.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:34 pmBruce Gorton ,
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:35 pmCan you prove I’m a Republican?
Do you think it’s just Republicans who are against the Left’s Internationalist Globalist New World?
There are plenty of Patriots who know what’s up and your One World incedious plans!
The Dems and Reps are 2 sides of the same monster.
Your ignorance to such obviousness speaks volumes.
Keeo dreaming about the so called 2 Party system fool!
RUCerious ,
So you get it.
See Ghidorah represents the American system. You have 2 parties, one on the Left the other on the Right control by the Globalist New World Order crowd.
That’s middle head.
Off topic,
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:37 pmDid you see the last Godzilla movie.
Final Wars?
No, I just think your mind is being controlled by aliens.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:38 pmNot only is it the arm of the republican party but also a good part of the leg and a small chunk of the spleen.
Cry all you want, this is how the system was devised to work, its why the POTUS does the nominating.
The only reason the libs are pissed is because they love to legislate through the courts, and this court isnt their broad brush.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:39 pmdon’t tell the Republicans.
Yeah that’s what happened….. =P
Comment by Wayne — August 2, 2007 @ 11:32 am
And it was all financed by George Soros and directed by Michael Moore!!!
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 pmLeft’s Internationalist Globalist New World?
Comment by King Ghidorah — August 2, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
Why is it, that the same people who view all liberals as pot smoking hippies, also think they somehow have it together enough to form some sort of international conspiracy?
Secondly I believe it was Bush Senior who brought up the “New World Orderâ„¢”
Anyway have fun with you tinfoil hat and cheetos KG
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 pmThe only reason the libs are pissed is because they love to legislate through the courts, and this court isnt their broad brush.
Comment by Clammer of the Shell — August 2, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
Dishonest sttement. Just hyperbole. Ignore.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:41 pmNothing wrong with having money. On the other hand, trolls (or suddenly, upper-middle class drinkers of kool aid) with a lot of money is a clear indication that the system is broken. Are you a hedge fund manager? No? Then why would you care? Do you feel that the hedge fund managers are being picked on? Are they paying a fair tax, compared to you and me?
How do you propose the “conservatives” (haha) pay for the bloated government they have spawned? No taxes? Borrow more from China? What is the utopia you are looking for, and do you assume that you will be among those who benefit, should that utopia come to pass?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:41 pmTerrytheTurtle,
Yes I’m full of it because I just explain the Power and Organization of the Left.
As a Libertarian I wish we had power like that.
Be happy you guys are on the verge of power!
You’ll have total control!
I forgot to mention, you have control of the Education System too!
Comment by King Ghidorah — August 2, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
What’s the ‘you guys’ BS? I think one has to be American to be a Democrat, yes? Stop generalizing, you are simply not informed enough to comment on me as ‘you guys’.
“Dr. dr. help me please, I know youll understand
Theres a time device inside of me, Im a self-destructin man
Theres a red, under my bed
And theres a little green man in my head
And he said, youre not goin crazy, youre just a bit sad
cause theres a man in ya, knawin ya, tearin ya into two.
Silly boy ya self-destroyer.
Paranoia, the destroyer”
Libertarian is another name for simply paranoid…. see I can build strawman too.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:42 pmWhy is it, that the same people who view all liberals as pot smoking hippies, also think they somehow have it together enough to form some sort of international conspiracy?
Why is it that the same people who view Bush as a total dunce also think he somehow has it together enough to form some sort of international conspiracy?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:45 pmWhy is it that the same people who view Bush as a total dunce also think he somehow has it together enough to form some sort of international conspiracy?
Comment by Clammer of the Shell — August 2, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
We don’t think he has it together enough. We think he’s the unwitting shill for the conspiracy.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:48 pmhey!
anybody learning anything from this trooll?
how long will you let this go on?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:49 pmjust curious…
…
Why is it that the same people who view Bush as a total dunce also think he somehow has it together enough to form some sort of international conspiracy?
Comment by Clammer of the Shell — August 2, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
I don’t think he has some international conspiracy going. I think he is a dunce. I don’t think he is even that interested in being president. He does have some rather nasty and corrupt people surrounding him however. Who do have the wherewithal to do some nasty things, and a puppet of a president who won’t say no to them.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:49 pmHow can leahy sleep atnight with all that guilt? He was one of the “yeas” when the votes were counted. Progressives around the country should be supporting alternative parties as these two main ones just don’t care about reason or the American people. It is always politics first with these people.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:49 pmEveryone, please stop feeding the trolls. That’s why they’re here with their idiotic ramblings. Ignore them and they will go away.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:52 pmIt’s so sad that Leahy is the Dem leader in this time of crisis; he’s so clearly not up to the job.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:53 pmClammer of the Shell sez:
Chimpy’s role is quite limited, which you would understand readily enough if you weren’t so busy trying to be deliberately obtuse.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:53 pmI don’t think he has some international conspiracy going.
Then you are out of line with the 33% of dems who believe Bush concocted and carried-out the 911 attacks, that he bombed the N.O. levees, that he plans to conquer the world, etc.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:54 pmThen you are out of line with the 33% of dems who believe Bush concocted and carried-out the 911 attacks, that he bombed the N.O. levees, that he plans to conquer the world, etc.
Comment by Clammer of the Shell — August 2, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Source? Link?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:55 pmChimpy’s role is quite limited, which you would understand readily enough if you weren’t so busy trying to be deliberately obtuse.
Sorry, I have trouble keeping all the frothing, liberal conspiracies straight…there are so many and so little time to keep up.
You are a dolt, now get back to your crib!
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:55 pmShut up, PiPPy.
Comment by gummitch — August 2, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
————————————–
If you don’t want to address the facts, then don’t say anything. We are trying to have a productive debate here and your comment does not contribute.
By the way, who’s PiPPy?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 pmTP, the quality of your trolls is frankly p_ss-poor, please send me my money back – I am not entertained at all.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 pmThen you are out of line with the 33% of dems who believe blah blah blah, insert dumbass comment here…
Comment by Clammer of the Shell — August 2, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
The percentage of people who believe Bush planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks is probably closer to 5%. I know you want to believe it is higher as it reinforces your world view, but maybe clearing your head and trying some reality would be a good idea.
As for Global Village Vs. New World Order, which one sounds more sinister to you?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:58 pmNot only that but 42% of dems have said they agree with terrorism if the end goal is to end injustice.
Whatever the hell that means.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:58 pmkaty ~ You’re right…. *sigh*
Those aliens just don’t give up , do they.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:59 pmNot only that but 42% of dems have said they agree with terrorism if the end goal is to end injustice.
Whatever the hell that means.
Comment by Clammer of the Shell — August 2, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Source? Link?
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:00 pmClammer of the Shell sez:
Straw Man. Very few people who believe in some sort of a government conspiracy regarding 9/11 believe that Chimpy played any part greater than that of distracting front man. Nice try, though.
And the tossing in of “bombing the levees” and “taking over the world” was quite good too. Your attempts at misinformation and distortion are truly top-notch.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:00 pmNot only that but 42% of dems have said they agree with terrorism if the end goal is to end injustice.
Whatever the hell that means.
Comment by Clammer of the Shell — August 2, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:01 pm——–
It means that 42% of dems are admitted hypocrites. They will agree to use unjust means to end injustice!!! Classic liberal hypocrisy!
Clammer of the Shell sez:
Ooh…and you were doing so well, too…shame.
Thanks for showing your true colors, so we now know we needn’t take you seriously any longer.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:02 pmIt means that 42% of dems are admitted hypocrites. They will agree to use unjust means to end injustice!!! Classic liberal hypocrisy!
Comment by Gorgias — August 2, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Sort of like those patriotic American freedom fighters we teach the kids about eh?
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:03 pmdbadass sez:
Indeed. The American revolutionaries were considered by England to be criminals, traitors, and terrorists.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:06 pmTerrytheTurtle,
What is it.
The truth hurts that your beloved Democratic Party is controlled by the same Internationalists as the Reps!
I have a tissue for your tears!
Comment by King Ghidorah — August 2, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
Stupidity is ignorance coming around again for a second try. How many laps around are you going to take? One wonders why you torture yourself so. Well actually no one doesn’t wonder.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:07 pmYou guys really should know better than to reply to a troll like King Ghidorah and expect to get anywhere. Haven’t we learned?
You cannot argue against an irrational position and win, but you can legitimize that position by making it appear to be worthy of rebuttal.
Just because a troll waves a red flag, it doesn’t you have to charge it.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 pmSort of like those patriotic American freedom fighters we teach the kids about eh?
Comment by dbadass — August 2, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
—————————————————————–
Not at all.
The American freedom fighters attacked the British military. Acts of terror are directed at innocent civilians in order to influence political change. The American freedom fighters did not attack innocent British civilians.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:11 pmYou guys really should know better than to reply to a troll like King Ghidorah and expect to get anywhere. Haven’t we learned?
F that noise, the “king” has nothing on Godzilla.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:14 pmThe American freedom fighters attacked the British military. Acts of terror are directed at innocent civilians in order to influence political change. The American freedom fighters did not attack innocent British civilians.
Comment by Gorgias — August 2, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
You might want to ask the loyalists.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:15 pmOn the Denver’s Craigslist board, there’s a conservative troll who starts all his message subjects with ‘bs’ and ends his message with some variant of ‘ yourself with a rake.’ We call him BS and Rakeboy. This Ghidorah sounds just like him.
Ghidorah? You’re not Libertarian if you disagree with the Left. Libertarian shares elements in common with the Left (social freedoms — i.e. the right to do anything you want in the privacy of your own home) and elements in common with the Right (fiscal freedoms — i.e. the right to do anything you want in the privacy of your own business). If you were truely Libertarian, you’d not be spouting about how the Liberals control the press (you’d know better) or the courts (you’d definitely know better). You’d not be supporting Conservatives (the Religious Right is as antithetical to a Libertarian as the Nanny-State Left is). You, sir, are no Libertarian. Don’t presume to call yourself one.
Independents in general have many issues with both parties. I myself am a card carrying member of no party. I’m registered Unaffiliated here in Colorado. I call it like I see it for Democrats (I still laugh at William “Frozen Assets” Jefferson on a regular basis) and Republicans (I’m sorry. I can’t laugh at Abramoff, Delay, et al.) There will be a time that Democrats need to take a break, but after the last 7 years, this Social Libertarian/Fiscal Moderate has had enough of the scummary in the Republican Party.
Don’t dare sully the Libertarian movement with your attempt at identifying yourself as a member. You’re about as much a member of the Libertarian movement as a member of Fox News is a newscaster.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:19 pmYou might want to ask the loyalists.
Comment by dbadass — August 2, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:20 pm——————————–
Loyalists openly sided with the British, as such, the Patriots and the British both recognized them as actors in the American War for Independence. They are not considered innocent civilians, for they could have remained neutral. Instead they sided with the British, and became the enemy of American Patriots.
Loyalists openly sided with the British, as such, the Patriots and the British both recognized them as actors in the American War for Independence. They are not considered innocent civilians, for they could have remained neutral. Instead they sided with the British, and became the enemy of American Patriots.
Comment by Gorgias — August 2, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
So any regular Joe anywhere within the US, Afganistan, Iraqi, or wherever else who is innocent of any acts but feels the welfare of themselves and their families is best served by the any group which is in opposition to US military actions is fair game? Does this very logic not make it acceptable to attack any civilian population?
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:26 pmThe American freedom fighters did not attack innocent British civilians.
Comment by Gorgias
You definately need to read more history, and not the books issued to elementary school that have so many errors.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:31 pmSo any regular Joe anywhere within the US, Afganistan, Iraqi, or wherever else who is innocent of any acts but feels the welfare of themselves and their families is best served by the any group which is in opposition to US military actions is fair game?
Rephrase please.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:33 pmSHAMEFUL! How could the guy say that!? It must be a misprint or some kind of out of context something or other. It’s too freakin’ stupid to be true!!!
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:33 pmYou definately need to read more history, and not the books issued to elementary school that have so many errors.
Comment by Wayne — August 2, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
————————
Oh yes, how could I not have remembered the horrible acts of terror committed in London?
Gee… thanks, Wayne!
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:36 pmWayne,
All yo do is complain everyday.
You’re a miserable soul!
Get a life!
U 2 Chris L!
Comment by Ghidorah — August 2, 2007 @ 11:55 am
h to the izzo,
What up?!
Comment by Gorgias — August 2, 2007 @ 11:56 am
_______________________________
First, the troll breaks wind. Then, he pi**es into it. Such talent.
A troll by anyother name
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:36 pmis still stupid.
Rephrase please.
Comment by Gorgias — August 2, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Sorry that was sort of convoluted. If a civilian let’s say a fellow with two small children and a lovely wife feels that their best interest lie with the Al-Sadr’s ideas or those of the Taliban, or yearn for the stability of the Saddam years in that they personally were better off, would they qualify as justifiable targets as per your explaination of British Loyalists
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:38 pmNot the republican party per se…only the rabid right wing neocons.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:38 pm“The senator voted to confirm Roberts “because he knew Roberts was going to be confirmed anyway and did not want a party-line vote that would encourage Roberts to believe that he was ‘an appointment of the Republican Party.’”"
…WHAT?
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:41 pmOh yes, how could I not have remembered the horrible acts of terror committed in London?
Gee… thanks, Wayne!
Comment by Gorgias — August 2, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
Wayne,
Why London? Were the Colonies not the under the “legal” control of the crown?
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:42 pmComment by dbadass — August 2, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
I am saying that targeting those who defy the stated laws (e.g. don’t do business with the British), is not an act of terrorism.
If a group of neutral innocent civilians were all slaughtered by a group of militants, in order to send a message to the political powers of certain nation, that would be considered an act of terrorism.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:45 pmYou’re about as much a member of the Libertarian movement as a member of Fox News is a newscaster.
Comment by Jeremy – 2 — August 2, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
Ouch! Perhaps the cruelest statement I’ve read all morning.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:50 pmGorgias
Except the law of the land at the time was that the Brits ruled America. The rebels didn’t have the authority to tell the American people who they could, or could not trade with. It was a British colony, and thus the law, as you so put it, would have more likely been “Don’t aid and abet people who are comitting high treason.”
You do not like it, but that is precisely what the rebels were doing, they were comitting an act of treason against their lawful government, and if England had won that war, England would have been perfectly within its rights to execute them.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:53 pmgod damn I love that man. How many here wished him a happy birthday durring the first gonzo hearings besides me?
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:55 pmOh yes, how could I not have remembered the horrible acts of terror committed in London?
Gee… thanks, Wayne!
Comment by Gorgias
John Paul Jones, he harried and attacked British ships off the coast of England and Ireland for the Revolution. He was declared a pirate and basically a terrorist by the British. John Paul Jones took part of the fight to England’s shore.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:56 pmYou do not like it, but that is precisely what the rebels were doing, they were comitting an act of treason against their lawful government, and if England had won that war, England would have been perfectly within its rights to execute them.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — August 2, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
————-
I’m fine with all of that.
I am saying that the American Patriots were not “terrorists” because they did not target innocent civilians (for they targeted the British militias and Loyalists) in order to influence political change.
Treason… definitely.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:56 pmTerrorism… no.
The American freedom fighters attacked the British military.
Comment by Gorgias — August 2, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
“American freedom fighters”? Weren’t they actually Brits, by an large, trying to cleve off from the Crown? In 1776, damned few of those guys were “American born”, yet. Jest pointin’ it out…”
Actually, the real “American freedom fighters’ would have been the Indians, and they were already losing big.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:57 pmAre the four losers running TP still worshiping George Soros at the Kos Convention? There has been nothing relevant posted so I will change topic without reservation.
I want to make sure I understand what is happening to the Democratic Front Runners. It appears they are trying to “outhawk” eachother. If Cheney or Lieberman was saying these things they would be skewered. It appears you have only two candidates left for ‘08 that support your anti anti-terrorism stance: Breck Girl John Edwards and nut-case Dennis Kucinich.
Here is Obama and Clinton trying to outdo eachother. First Obama:
Clinton’s response:
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Comment by Eric — August 2, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Don’t reply to this fool. His post makes no sense.
DON’T FEED THIS TROLL! DON’T FEED THIS TROLL!
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:02 pmGorgias
Except the loyalists included innocent civilians. Not everyone in America wanted to be free of the Brits.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:02 pmJohn Paul Jones, he harried and attacked British ships off the coast of England and Ireland for the Revolution.
But those ships were not Cruise-liners filled with wealthy Englishmen on vacation! He was fighting the British Navy.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:02 pm“American freedom fighters’
Ooh did somebody rent “Red Dawn” again?
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:03 pmBut those ships were not Cruise-liners filled with wealthy Englishmen on vacation! He was fighting the British Navy.
Comment by Gorgias
Bzzzzt. Thanks for playing. British merchant ships, PiPPy.
And you’d have better cover if you stopped using the names of Greek philosophers whenever one of your other logins is banned.
Idiot.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:05 pmI am saying that targeting those who defy the stated laws (e.g. don’t do business with the British), is not an act of terrorism.
Sorry guy. My thoughtful response has been lost for reasons unknown. It had nothing I would consider censorable but whatever. I quess Cogwell’s gogs are substandard.
Anyway, How could any “law” you describe be “legal” if in fact the Crown was the accepted authority in the Colonies. Seems to me the followers of your “law” would be “lawbreakers” and the Loyalists would be” law abiders”. If the answer is “colonialism” then you must support all of the “freedom actions” which have been pursued by the ANC, FARC, ETA, etal
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:06 pmComment by Eric — August 2, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Don’t reply to this fool. His post makes no sense.
DON’T FEED THIS TROLL! DON’T FEED THIS TROLL!
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
Yes, but, he’s decided that he’s in charge of content. If he gets bored with the current topic or lack of topic, we all need to respond to him.
He has the authoritay!
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:06 pmTreason… definitely.
Terrorism… no.
Comment by Gorgias
Sorry, the British considered the Americans terrorists, especially calling the Boston Tea Party a terrorist act. They also called the troops that fought with guerrilla tactics learned in the French/Indian wars terrorists.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:07 pmComment by Bruce Gorton — August 2, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
The point I am arguing is that the Patriots were not “terrorists.” In that, they did not indiscriminately kill civilians as a symbolic act in order to influence the British Parliment/King.
The neutral colonists were not threatened or killed by the Patriots, but the open Loyalists were considered the enemy, and as such, they would have been subjected to tar and feathers and other such repercussions.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:09 pmWasn’t the little boy who was asked how he would feel to have a 10 ton weight dropped upon him in the classic Python skit named Eric? Least he had the sense to respond ” I’d like Raquel Welch dropped on me.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:12 pmComment by Wayne — August 2, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
I don’t know how the word was defined back then, however, today those acts do not qualify as acts of terror.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:13 pmThe neutral colonists were not threatened or killed by the Patriots, but the open Loyalists were considered the enemy, and as such, they would have been subjected to tar and feathers and other such repercussions.
Comment by Gorgias — August 2, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
So are we back at my question as to what consitutes an individual for consideration as an “enemy”?
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:13 pmGorgias
Which would have been an act of terrorism, in that it was aimed at intimidating other loyalist civillians into not protesting the revolution.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:14 pmI don’t know how the word was defined back then, however, today those acts do not qualify as acts of terror.
Comment by Gorgias — August 2, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
Yes they do. What would you call it if Al Qaeada targetted America’s trade ships, and say, stole a shipment of gold that was headed to America?
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:17 pmI don’t know how the word was defined back then, however, today those acts do not qualify as acts of terror.
Comment by Gorgias
“Terrorism” is an entirely subjective term. Invariably, the definition is shaped to make one’s own violence legitimate and the other person’s violence as illegitimate “terrorism.”
When the US military destroys a village in Afghanistan, it’s “collateral damage” and everyone understands that civilians die in war. When an Afghani attacks an American convoy, he’s a “terrorist” by definition.
This is a pretty relevant quotation from Wikipedia:
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Bruce: Do you read history? Your analogy is the worst. Al Qaeada compared to American Patriots? Why don’t we start with the fact that AQ aren’t Americans, don’t look like us, don’t have the same religion….etc., need I really go on? What a horrible analogy. See if you can try again.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:21 pmComment by gummitch — August 2, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
Indeed! Take care all. Work calls. Best Gorgias! King Ghidorah is still a Godzilla “Lunchable”
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:22 pm- test – post -
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:23 pmOkay, for some reason TP will not let my speak about “the enemy”
dbadass, all I will say is that the concept of the “enemy” is also subjective, and it depends on the context. For example, is this a personal enemy, religious, national, etc.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:24 pmThis website is on the fritz. Those losers need to come back from their convention
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:25 pmComment by The Republic of Stupidity — August 2, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
You are guaranteed to remain in your republic of stupidity of you dont wake up and realize that Obama and Hillary are sellouts. They are of the same cloth as the neo-cons in their pursuit of Fascist corporate and (socialist) government power and corruption.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:25 pmAnd your posittive words of encouragement is just what they need to hear to come running back so Eric can spew some more.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:27 pmComment by Gorgias — August 2, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
We agree which is why concrete ideology driven thinkers are primitive at best. Sorry about your posting problems, seems everyones having them
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:27 pmThis is a pretty relevant quotation from Wikipedia:
Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the “only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violenceâ€.
Comment by gummitch — August 2, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
Let’s also not forget that American Colonists also made a habit of targetting commanding British officers during battles…something which, at the time, was against the understood rules of war. By today’s standards, I believe that this would make the colonists “unlawful combatants.”
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:28 pmSorry about the triple post TP delay threw me off.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:28 pmTRoS: Actually, not responding to Eric’s line of bull$#!+ is a bad idea.
Make no mistake. This is the first volley of a salvo of bull identical to the salvo of bull they launched at Clinton over his attempt to kill bin Laden. Either prepare yourself to defend against it now, or watch your candidate turned President slimed by it in 2009. They know they’re going to lose (crowing about victory in ‘08 aside), so they’re ramping up for what will be a very vocal minority in 09 and beyond. In 2012, when we moderates are put off by your party’s nanny-state extremes, you don’t want your chance sunk by your inability to deal with the trolling on the airwaves and internet.
In response to Eric:
No, of course we wouldn’t be coming down on Bush and Cheney if they’d argued for going into Pakistan and getting the F**ker who hit us in 2001. But you see, when he had that chance back in 2002 and 2003, he chose to go after his personal foe instead. Clinton and Obama are just talking about what they’d do if they’re given the reigns in 09, what your boy should have done in ‘03. Had he done that, we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. And had he done that, you’d possibly be part of the 58%ers, not the 28%ers. *smirk*
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:34 pmBut those ships were not Cruise-liners filled with wealthy Englishmen on vacation! He was fighting the British Navy.
Comment by Gorgias
Actually he attacked British merchant ships and British Navy. Go read that history as I suggested.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:42 pmActually he attacked British merchant ships and British Navy. Go read that history as I suggested.
Comment by Wayne
Well, we know that ain’t gonna happen.
Read?
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:01 pmFirst off Jeremy – “They” and “your candidate” is way off the mark – quite making assumptions. I’m laughing at both parties right now.
Second: TP wouldn’t be coming down on Bush and Cheney my ass. What a total dishonest lie and you know it. Your hatred towards Bush has caused you blurred vision of world events. US Foreign Policy was criticized when it identified Iraq, Iran and N. Korea as the largest threats. Two out of three of those threats have been taken down (N. Korea has eliminated Nuclear program and of course Think Communist says nothing about that success). Afghanistan and Pakistan are our allies right now and they are using their forces to battle terrorism – not solely American forces. This is a good thing. By intervening without permission as Obama suggests would be to destabilize his internal support and eliminate him as a leader only to be filled by someone less friendly to America (maybe a TP staffer).
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:16 pmObama and Clinton want to send MORE troops into Afghanistan and Pakistan but make no mention what the vacuum in Iraq would do. What lame rhetoric. I’m at least encouraged that Democrats are finally seeing the light on the fight on terrorism. Most of us agree that is a good thing (except for the conspiracists that think GW blew up the Trade Towers that makes up about 25% on this website). As long as you continue to think that Iraq should be vacated we have a non-starter. If you suggest a phased removal of troops from Iraq to Afghan. and Pak. as things stabilize in Iraq, then I’m willing to listen.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:16 pmErr, Leahy? Have you forgotten the current turds Ginsberg and Breyer, and all those past Eisenhower/Johnson/Nixon turds?
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:43 pmActually he attacked British merchant ships and British Navy. Go read that history as I suggested.
Comment by Wayne — August 2, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
————————————————————–
Even so, we have established that “the enemy” is pretty much a subjective term. If those merchant ships were part of the exploitation of the colonies, then JPJ would not necessarily be considered a “terrorist” (however, that term too is subjective).
A comparable situation might be the bombing of munitions factories that employ civilians. Would that be considered an act of terror? To some it would, others it would not.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:53 pmHow so? Please site the decisions which you have found so “out of handâ€. You’ve mentioned that incredibly rare PBA but nothing else
Comment by dbadass — August 2, 2007 @ 11:29 am
Let’s start with the eminent domain rule, signed onto by the 4 liberal justices and waffling Kennedy.
And then let’s talk about the multitude of Texas Death penalty cases that keep getting overturned by the same 5.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:04 pmNewsflash! Mr. P’s webpage says yesterday’s bridge destruction was done by a HRClinton front group!
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:09 pmre: #217
That’s: Americaphile.blogspot.com
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:12 pmComment by Keith G — August 2, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Oh, really? I thought Darth Cheney pulled a Magneto from Xmen 3.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:13 pmComment by Keith G — August 2, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
I don’t have a webpage.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:39 pmAnd then let’s talk about the multitude of Texas Death penalty cases that keep getting overturned by the same 5.
Comment by m12
That “multitude” says more about the state of justice in Texas than it does anything about SCOTUS. No other state would have a “multitude” of cases to overturn.
However, this is utter b.s. In the 2006-2007 session, the Supreme Court overturned three Texas executions and issued a stay in one. During 2006, Texas executed 24 people.
By what definition of “multitude” do you make a statement like that? Or did you forget that actual data was readily available?
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:51 pmNewsflash! Mr. P’s webpage says yesterday’s bridge destruction was done by a HRClinton front group!
Comment by Keith G
I don’t have a webpage.
Comment by Gorgias
Busted.
PiPPy, you are such a loser!
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:52 pmBusted.
Busted?
I confessed!
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:18 pmGorgeous Mr. Pee Philonous,
If americaphile.blogspot.com is not written by you, then every single word, capitalization, expression, and punctuation you have ever posted here is plaigarized from whoever wrote it. The former is easier to believe.
Since rightwingers call everyone on this site conspiracy nuts (for instance the murder of Pat Tillman)—-would you please comment on your site saying the bridge collapse was done by a group fronting for HRClinton?
If you rightwing trolls each only used one name (instead of dozens), then everyone would realize how few of you there are!
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:50 pmI can’t blame Leahey for voting for Roberts. After all, it wasn’t like Bush was going to nominate a liberal if the senate voted down Roberts. And Roberts looked like the most reasonable fella Bush was going to put out there.
He was well spoken, articulate, intelligent, highly educated and knew his stuff during the confirmation hearings.
All traits lacking in any other Bush nominee for any position, anywhere.
Roberts seemed like a gift at the time.
Now we know better.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:55 pmI gotta agree with BartleBee.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:59 pm#36
Comment by Democrat Soldier — August 2, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Kinda what TP just did by starting this thread…i.e. unconfirmed assertions.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:18 pmThat “multitude†says more about the state of justice in Texas than it does anything about SCOTUS. No other state would have a “multitude†of cases to overturn.
However, this is utter b.s. In the 2006-2007 session, the Supreme Court overturned three Texas executions and issued a stay in one. During 2006, Texas executed 24 people.
Didn’t lefties say something about the judgement of a jury and the Libby pardon? Yet the lefties on the Supreme Court apparently did it 3 times, this year…
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:24 pm#42
Comment by Bruce Gorton — August 2, 2007 @ 11:36 am
“Particularly seen as the decades he is talking about – had the Democrat nominees as being the minority on the supreme court.”
David Souter is a big liberal and Bush Sr. nominated him. Whether a Democrat or Republican nominate a justice doesn’t mean much.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:24 pmOh, and gummich, have you forgotten how these same lefties overturned precedent on the death penalty for those under 18? So much for stare decisis!
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:26 pmComment by Keith G — August 2, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Nah. It’s just a coincidence.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:45 pmIf Leahy believes this then he should call for IMPEACHMENT OF THE CHIEF FACIST OF THE USELESS SCOTUS!!!
THE RULE OF LAW?
Haahahahaaahahah!!! Hahahh~!! haahahah ahhhahahah !!!!
Phuck the rule of law. If the scumbag in the White House is unaccoutable then so am I!!!
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:44 pm“We feel sorry for you to admit that you are complicit in this act.
Comment by oldtree — August 2, 2007″
Complicit? In what? What has Roberts done wrong?
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:18 pm“I think Zooey is out for the day, so someone needs to step up!
Comment by gummitch — August 2, 2007″
Step in and do what? Call people names who she doesn’t agree with? If you people look up to this dope, there’s no hope for you!
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:25 pmTracy
Who nominated them says one hell of a lot, and certainly points out that your “Lib’rul courts” theory is based on the fact that you are a bunch of morons, who can just never quite accept it when someone holds you accountable for your screwups.
You squeal about the media being “lib’rul” because it holds you accountable. You squeal about Hollywood being “lib’rul” because it shows you up for being precisely what you are. You squeal about scientists being “lib’rul” because they reveal facts which don’t fit your convenient little ideology.
You squeal about history professors being “lib’rul” because they do not make things up about your favourite little anarchist Ronnie being born on Krypton. You squeal about TV being “lib’rul” because the odd occassional show highlights very conservative hypocrisy.
You squeal about the internet as being “lib’rul” because the majority of people on the internet, don’t buy your crap.
All you conservatives have are your “lib’rul” conspiracy theories and frankly, we don’t believe it any more, because frankly if there are that many “lib’ruls” out there then the only way you could have won in 2000, 2002, and 2004 is via vote fraud.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:59 amFDL poster said that Politico article on Leahy was a snakepit of rwingnuts. Go make posts supporting Leahy who stood up to cheney with the country was still hysterical over 911 and the blogs were not a news source force as they are now.
Leahy is one courageous man and according to Rush Holt’s site the FBI refuses to brief Congress still on the Anthrax attacks.
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:20 am“Sorry, it is only right wing nutjobs, like your hero Ann Coulter, that call for the killing of Supreme Court Judges, not “liberalsâ€.
Comment by Wayne — August 2, 2007 @ 11:51 am”
And it’s only liberal nutjobs who actually do murder our soldiers who return from Iraq, sit in tin-foil covered shacks and mail bombs to people (killing and wounding them), stick spikes in trees so loggers are injured or killed when their chain saws hit them, burn down housing developments under construction, destroy “gas guzzling” SUV at car dealerships, plot to blow up Glen Canyon Dam to drain Lake Powell, etc. etc. I’ve got more if you need it.
There’s a huge difference between the rantings of a conservative humourist, however distatful, and the actual actions of the fringe left.
As for Leahy’s explaination for his Justice Roberts vote: It just shows how internally conflicted one must be to be a leading Democrat these days. You know you should do what’s right for the country, but you still feel the need to placate the kook left…. thus, it’s “Pretzel Time!!” Of course, it’s easy for someone to do these kind of contortions when they have no spine.
Next point:
“Uhhh…in case no one has told you…you’re being robbed, and your rights are being curtailed. If you don’t want to do something about it, that’s fine – you can hold the door for the robbers. Just don’t complain when you finally realize how badly you have been abused and how long you allowed it to continue.
Comment by Marcus Aruelius — August 2, 2007 @ 12:11 pm”
Let’s see, since President Bush was elected, my taxes have been lowered, so I get to keep more of my hard-earned pay, AND my rights have actually increased while I have lost none of them. Let’s see…if that’s your definition of “being robbed”, then please! Rob me more! Rob me more!
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:21 amO. Bigfoot
And it’s only liberal nutjobs who actually do murder our soldiers who return from Iraq, sit in tin-foil covered shacks and mail bombs to people (killing and wounding them), stick spikes in trees so loggers are injured or killed when their chain saws hit them, burn down housing developments under construction, destroy “gas guzzling†SUV at car dealerships, plot to blow up Glen Canyon Dam to drain Lake Powell, etc. etc. I’ve got more if you need it.
A man who names himself after an urban myth then goes on to spread urban myths. How ironic.
How about you actually back up your claims Bigfoot, or are you, *gasp* lying just like every other conservative seems to do when backed into a corner.
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:00 am“How about you actually back up your claims Bigfoot, or are you, *gasp* lying just like every other conservative seems to do when backed into a corner.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — August 3, 2007 ”
Can you provide an example or two?
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:09 pmI guess that old concept of standing up for what is right is simply because it’s right, like the Geneva Convention, is now quaint as well. Good work, Senator, good work.
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:19 pmmichael
For my claims?
I don’t have to. Read the thread, you have guys squealing about how the courts have always been liberal (So the example has already been provided for me.)
Another example is the continued squealing about liberal media you get from guys like paul.
Global warming is a serious example of conservatives accusing scientists of having a liberal bias. Liberal colleges is another example.
Plus, the liberal Hollywood myth is about as old as Hollywood. There is also a liberal media myth, a liberal music myth, and recently, a liberal internet myth.
At this point I am just waiting until word of mouth gets painted as a medium with a liberal bias because it looks like it is about the only form of human communication which hasn’t been painted that way yet.
Seriously what gets me about you Yanks is you take this shit seriously.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:32 ammichael
As it seems to not let me post in full: As an example from Britain (Which shows it isn’t just American conservatives)
A while back the BNP, Britain’s arch-conservative party, was raising a huge stink-up over a Muslim mosque being built for a extreme sect of Muslims within the olympic village, with taxpayers money, by the British government.
The truth of the story is as follows: The mosque itself was located a mile outside the village, already existed (the plan was actually just to renovate it), it was going to be funded using private donations, the idea hadn’t even been submitted for planning approval yet, and, obviously, it wasn’t an extreme branch of Islam planning the whole thing.
Other examples include the WMD claims that landed America in Iraq, Ann Coulter’s claims on the New York Times, a certain pundit’s claims of one of his shows winning a Peabody award instead of a polk award (Which it only won after he left that show) etc…
August 4th, 2007 at 3:31 amAs Noam Chomsky has stated, the Dems are not an opposition party. They are more like a go-along, lead me party. At least the Repukes are an aggressive opposition party.
August 4th, 2007 at 12:27 pm