What do SMU, Rice, Fordham, U.S. Military Academy, U.S. Naval Academy and Duke have in common?
They all used to be nationally ranked, nationally recognized college football programs that are now little more than cannon fodder for the present stable of football machines. Fordham, perenially a ranked team back in the '30s and '40s, is now a Div. I-AA program.
Could Arkansas be going that way, big enough to be a Div I-A school, but never again to be a big-time football school?
Time will tell, I guess. I don't think Houston Nutt can be the person needed, though.
70-17.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Boy, am I disappointed.
I got very discouraged listening to John Roberts answer Chuck Schumer's questions regarding the Commerce Clause and congressional power.
When asked by Schumer whether the Congress is entitled to great deference with respect to its findings of fact that a purely local activity, even when it is not dealing in commercial activity, has a substantial impact on interstate commerce, Roberts said <yes!
I hate that!
Congress has been given way too much deference over the years in legislating where the Constitution gives it no power. The whole point behind Lopez and Morrison is that Congress cannot simply cannot stack a pile of paper a mile high showing how having a gun within 1000 feet of school has an effect on students' ability to learn which affects their ability to get a job later on which has a cumulative effect on interestate commerce, or how rape, forever a local mattter, affects women and that affects their ability to earn and spend, ad infinitum, and that has a cumulative effect on interstate commerce, blah blah blah, and that that gives Congress the right to intrude in local matters.
And then Schumer brings up Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), and both smile and nod to each other about how solid a case that was. Oh, yes, Roberts says, the cumulative effects test in a commercial activity is cool.
Twaddle. That case marked the starting line of Congress' further entanglement into virtually every area of people's lives. And for what? "Oh, we need national solutions for national problems." Horsenuts! To the extent that that if what the Founders believed that, they certainly wouldn't have agreed to the Leviathan that the national government has become thanks to this Silly Putty view of the Commerce Clause.
I don't necessarily think we need to go back to the Lochner era, but Lopez and Morrison were the first attempts to put the brakes on the ever-expanding (and unconstitutionally expanding) national government. I do not get a sense that Roberts gets this.
And so it goes so frustratingly on.
When asked by Schumer whether the Congress is entitled to great deference with respect to its findings of fact that a purely local activity, even when it is not dealing in commercial activity, has a substantial impact on interstate commerce, Roberts said <yes!
I hate that!
Congress has been given way too much deference over the years in legislating where the Constitution gives it no power. The whole point behind Lopez and Morrison is that Congress cannot simply cannot stack a pile of paper a mile high showing how having a gun within 1000 feet of school has an effect on students' ability to learn which affects their ability to get a job later on which has a cumulative effect on interestate commerce, or how rape, forever a local mattter, affects women and that affects their ability to earn and spend, ad infinitum, and that has a cumulative effect on interstate commerce, blah blah blah, and that that gives Congress the right to intrude in local matters.
And then Schumer brings up Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), and both smile and nod to each other about how solid a case that was. Oh, yes, Roberts says, the cumulative effects test in a commercial activity is cool.
Twaddle. That case marked the starting line of Congress' further entanglement into virtually every area of people's lives. And for what? "Oh, we need national solutions for national problems." Horsenuts! To the extent that that if what the Founders believed that, they certainly wouldn't have agreed to the Leviathan that the national government has become thanks to this Silly Putty view of the Commerce Clause.
I don't necessarily think we need to go back to the Lochner era, but Lopez and Morrison were the first attempts to put the brakes on the ever-expanding (and unconstitutionally expanding) national government. I do not get a sense that Roberts gets this.
And so it goes so frustratingly on.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
The Arkansas Razorbacks quiz
The Arkansas Razorbacks Quiz
What's the difference between the Arkansas Razorbacks and the Taliban?
The Taliban has a passing game.
What do the Arkansas Razorbacks and Billy Graham have in common?
They both can make 70,000 people stand up and yell "Oh, God!"
How do you keep a Arkansas Razorbacks player out of your yard?
Paint it to look like an end zone.
Where do you go in Fayetteville in case of a tornado?
Reynolds Stadium - they never get a touchdown there.
Why doesn't Little Rock have a Div 1A football team?
Because then Fayetteville would want one.
Why was Houston Nutt upset when the Razorback playbook was stolen?
Because he hadn't finished coloring it.
What's the difference between the Arkansas Razorbacks and a dollar bill?
You can still get four quarters out of a dollar bill. (Think the Vanderbilt game.)
What do you call 47 people sitting around a TV watching the Bowl Championship Series?
The Arkansas Razorbacks.
What do the Arkansas Razorbacks and possums have in common?
Both play dead at home and get killed on the road.
(pinched and modified from here.
What's the difference between the Arkansas Razorbacks and the Taliban?
The Taliban has a passing game.
What do the Arkansas Razorbacks and Billy Graham have in common?
They both can make 70,000 people stand up and yell "Oh, God!"
How do you keep a Arkansas Razorbacks player out of your yard?
Paint it to look like an end zone.
Where do you go in Fayetteville in case of a tornado?
Reynolds Stadium - they never get a touchdown there.
Why doesn't Little Rock have a Div 1A football team?
Because then Fayetteville would want one.
Why was Houston Nutt upset when the Razorback playbook was stolen?
Because he hadn't finished coloring it.
What's the difference between the Arkansas Razorbacks and a dollar bill?
You can still get four quarters out of a dollar bill. (Think the Vanderbilt game.)
What do you call 47 people sitting around a TV watching the Bowl Championship Series?
The Arkansas Razorbacks.
What do the Arkansas Razorbacks and possums have in common?
Both play dead at home and get killed on the road.
(pinched and modified from here.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
I wish
I worked for myself, or was independently wealthy, or was getting paid for this blog (as you can see from the low counter number, no one reads it). Then I could have live-blogged all day on the Roberts hearing.
But I've had a long day, I didn't get to see any of the hearings (I'm just watching the replay even now), and all of the professional bloggers or those with jobs that allow considerably more time to devote to blogging have sucked up all of the oxygen on the story.
C'mon, folks, just give me some money.
I'm tired. I'm going to bed.
N.B.: Roberts' smooth lawyering style has given despair to both the left and the right. The left is sure that Roberts is just another Scalia or Thomas by failing to say outright, "No, I would never vote to overturn Roe!" The right is becoming more afraid that's he's another Souter by all of his lawyerly non-speak about stare decisis and the expectations of the people and all that.
I'm afraid he'll be more of a Souter than a Scalia. I think there must be something in the air conditioning in Washington that, once you become unaccountable and unanswerable to anyone and live in a veritable cloistered atmosphere, you tend to drift to a more liberal way of thinking, the Constitution as written be damned.
The Commerce Clause does NOT permit the federal government to do anything it wishes. C'mon, Jack-man. Just say it!
But I've had a long day, I didn't get to see any of the hearings (I'm just watching the replay even now), and all of the professional bloggers or those with jobs that allow considerably more time to devote to blogging have sucked up all of the oxygen on the story.
C'mon, folks, just give me some money.
I'm tired. I'm going to bed.
N.B.: Roberts' smooth lawyering style has given despair to both the left and the right. The left is sure that Roberts is just another Scalia or Thomas by failing to say outright, "No, I would never vote to overturn Roe!" The right is becoming more afraid that's he's another Souter by all of his lawyerly non-speak about stare decisis and the expectations of the people and all that.
I'm afraid he'll be more of a Souter than a Scalia. I think there must be something in the air conditioning in Washington that, once you become unaccountable and unanswerable to anyone and live in a veritable cloistered atmosphere, you tend to drift to a more liberal way of thinking, the Constitution as written be damned.
The Commerce Clause does NOT permit the federal government to do anything it wishes. C'mon, Jack-man. Just say it!
Monday, September 12, 2005
Oh, this is rich!
LA Times columnist Ron Brownstein actually suggests that President Bush nominate (snicker, snort) a Democrat to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.
As bloody if. That someone would actually offer such a proposition is just plain moonbatty.
This is more of that "we gotta have ideological balance on the Court" claptrap.
Brownstein has the temerity to assert the following lickspittle:
Brownstein the Dreamer then uses the Eisenhower experience in nominating William Brennan as an example Bush could (should?) follow.
(Note that Brownstein can't find any examples of such crossover more recent than the Eisenhower Administration, 50 years ago.)
Name me one Democrat who would seriously consider naming a Republican to the Supreme Court, all in the name of "unity" or "ideological balance."
Oh, well. I guess when you're a liberal Democrat so far removed from power your have to use a telesscope to see it, any port in a storm will do. Might as well make the suggestion. Whaddya got to lose?
UPDATE: The bloggers over at Confirm Them also mentioned this funny column.
As bloody if. That someone would actually offer such a proposition is just plain moonbatty.
This is more of that "we gotta have ideological balance on the Court" claptrap.
Brownstein has the temerity to assert the following lickspittle:
Much of this history seems directly on point today. Like Truman, Bush faces a lopsided partisan imbalance on the court (if he names a Republican to succeed O'Connor, the GOP will hold seven of the nine seats).Brownstein is only technically correct. Seven of the nine would have been appointed by Republican presidents, but if anyone believes that Stevens (Ford) or Souter (Bush 41) or even all of the time Kennedy (Reagan) are by any stretch of the imagination conservative, then he's just plain nutty. Or is on something. Just because one is appointed by a Republican doesn't mean squat. I will bet that if Bush 41 had it do to over again, he would NOT nominate Souter the second time 'round.
Brownstein the Dreamer then uses the Eisenhower experience in nominating William Brennan as an example Bush could (should?) follow.
Eisenhower thought he could broaden his political appeal by reaching across party lines, and he encouraged his attorney general, Herbert Brownell, to find someone conservative, Catholic and a Democrat. Two out of three isn't bad: Brownell came back with William J. Brennan Jr., a Catholic Democrat who proved to be a liberal titan during his more than 33 years on the court.All the more reason for Bush to NOT take Brownstein's advice.
(Note that Brownstein can't find any examples of such crossover more recent than the Eisenhower Administration, 50 years ago.)
Name me one Democrat who would seriously consider naming a Republican to the Supreme Court, all in the name of "unity" or "ideological balance."
Oh, well. I guess when you're a liberal Democrat so far removed from power your have to use a telesscope to see it, any port in a storm will do. Might as well make the suggestion. Whaddya got to lose?
UPDATE: The bloggers over at Confirm Them also mentioned this funny column.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
For September 11, 2001
(moment of silence)
Lord God Almighty, who hast made all peoples of the earth for thy glory, to serve thee in freedom and peace: Grant to the people of our country a zeal for justice and the strength of forbearance, that we may use our liberty in accordance with thy gracious will; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
O Judge of the nations, we remember before you with grateful hearts the men and women of our country who in the day of decision ventured much for the liberties we now enjoy. Grant that we may not rest until all of the people of this land the benefits of true freedom and gladly accept its disciplines. This we ask in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
O God, the protector of all that trust in thee, without whom nothing is strong, nothing is holy; Increase and multiply upon us thy mercy; that, thou being our ruler and guide, we may so pass through things temporal, that we finally lose not the things eternal. Grant this, O heavenly Father, for the sake of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
O God, who seest that in this warfare we are seeking to serve thee, and yet in the waging of it must needs do many things that are an offence against thy love; Accept we pray thee, our imperfect offering. Arm us with thy Spirit that our warfare may further the victory of thy justice and truth; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Almighty God, Father of mercies and giver of all comfort; Deal graciously, we pray thee, with all those who mourn, that, casting every care on thee, they may know the consolation of thy love; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
(The first prayer can be found here and the last four come from A Prayer Book for Soldiers and Sailors from WWII.
Click here too.
Lord God Almighty, who hast made all peoples of the earth for thy glory, to serve thee in freedom and peace: Grant to the people of our country a zeal for justice and the strength of forbearance, that we may use our liberty in accordance with thy gracious will; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
O Judge of the nations, we remember before you with grateful hearts the men and women of our country who in the day of decision ventured much for the liberties we now enjoy. Grant that we may not rest until all of the people of this land the benefits of true freedom and gladly accept its disciplines. This we ask in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
O God, the protector of all that trust in thee, without whom nothing is strong, nothing is holy; Increase and multiply upon us thy mercy; that, thou being our ruler and guide, we may so pass through things temporal, that we finally lose not the things eternal. Grant this, O heavenly Father, for the sake of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
O God, who seest that in this warfare we are seeking to serve thee, and yet in the waging of it must needs do many things that are an offence against thy love; Accept we pray thee, our imperfect offering. Arm us with thy Spirit that our warfare may further the victory of thy justice and truth; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Almighty God, Father of mercies and giver of all comfort; Deal graciously, we pray thee, with all those who mourn, that, casting every care on thee, they may know the consolation of thy love; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
(The first prayer can be found here and the last four come from A Prayer Book for Soldiers and Sailors from WWII.
Click here too.
Friday, September 09, 2005
Recommended reading
This is some good stuff explaining to the "Civics for Dummies" crowd why the federal government legally can't do what everyone thinks it should have done in the wake of Katrina.
Besides, the blog's name, Strange Women Lying in Ponds, is pretty cool.
Listen here.
Besides, the blog's name, Strange Women Lying in Ponds, is pretty cool.
Listen here.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Now, this has to be the most asinine thing I've seen since Tuesday.
We've heard all the knocks against John Roberts, he's anti-civil rights, anti-woman, anti-this, anti-that (and worst of all, has been associated with the dreaded Federalist Society), blah blah blah. But this has to be the most ridiculous, asinine, and egregious waste of perfectly good newsprint (or bandwidth): John Roberts is too perfect.
Richard Cohen, obviously at a loss to find something substantive to criticize him for (one supposes because all of the substantive arguments just haven't panned out for 'em), comes up with this example of unrivaled moonbattiness.
Cohen concludes with this:
Richard Cohen, obviously at a loss to find something substantive to criticize him for (one supposes because all of the substantive arguments just haven't panned out for 'em), comes up with this example of unrivaled moonbattiness.
I wish that John Roberts had a touch of my incompetence. . . . His record is appallingly free of failure.Appallingly free of failure. Let that one sink in for a moment.
Cohen concludes with this:
If I had a vote in the Senate, I would not deny it to Roberts based on his lack of tough times -- nor, for that matter, would I have granted one to Clarence Thomas, who had plenty of them. But when it comes to civil rights, to women's rights, to workers' rights, to gay rights and to the plight of the poor, I would prefer that Roberts had had his moment of failure. He will lead one branch of the government. I wish he knew more about all of the people.The snottyness of liberals knows no bounds. It even extends to those who are actually better than they.
Did I not say it yesterday?!?
I said it yesterday in listing the various things I blame for all of the post-Katrina sturm und drang. I blame, in part, our "CSI" culture.
Here's Arianna Huffington making my point.
I just wonder (sometimes it keeps me up nights): What colour is the sky in the moonbats' world?
Here's Arianna Huffington making my point.
Look, if we've learned anything from watching shows like CSI, Law & Order, and their endless progeny, it's that you can't let a crime scene grow cold. You've got to start collecting and analyzing the evidence while the DNA is still fresh and let David Caruso or Vincent D'Onofrio start sweating the perps while the passions are still running high.Spare me! A crime? Pray, what penal statutes were violated in all this (unless you want to count Louisiana's Homeland Security Department specifically preventing the Red Cross from delivering supplies to the Superdome or NO convention center)?
I just wonder (sometimes it keeps me up nights): What colour is the sky in the moonbats' world?
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
My blame game.
Everyone in Politicalville is talking about whom to blame for Katrina and its effects. The Lefties want all of the blame to lay squarely at the feet of President Bush, and want him impeached. (Don't believe me? Go check out the moonbats over at DU. I'm too tired to link; you can go find it your bloody self.) The Righties want most of the blame placed on Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin. I'm getting sick of it. I'll tell you where the blame truly lies, and let thhat be the end of it.
The blame lies in our instant society. Our "microwave, high-speed internet, instant communication, instant coffee, how dare you make me wait, I want it now" society. We have become so accustomed to getting what we want, and getting when we want it, and raising holy cain when we don't. Does anyone understand what it takes to mobilise the federal government in men and material (and materiel)? It doesn't happen overnight. A behemoth like the federal government can't just "spring into action" like that. That's why state and local governments are supposed to be the first responders because they can act more quickly in the face of a disaster. (That's why, I have seen reported, that Mayor Nagin purportedly told his citizens that if they chose to stay to not expect any help for the first 48-72 hours.) So when the federal government doesn't swoop down immediately and save the day like like some sort of governmental Batman, our people get outraged.
The blame lies in our "CSI" entertainment culture. People have grown accustomed to seeing teevee and movie actors do incredible (and totally unrealisitic) things with men and technology that we expect that government in the real world to do the same. (I know I've seen this argument somwhere, NRO perhaps, in the context of juries who fault criminal prosecutors for not having hi-tech DNA or other lab analyses.) "We have all of this technology and are the richest country in the world; why can't we do 'X'? Why can't we use all of our technology and know-how to make the world a utopia where no one ever need suffer again?" "If Harrison Ford can single-handedly defeat a group of armed terrorists who have taken over Air Force One, using nothing but guns and guts and flying great airplanes, and do it all in two hours, why can't we protect people from natural disasters?" Our expectations are way too unrealistic.
I blame Franklin Roosevelt and the rest of New Dealers who, perhaps unwittingly, planted the seed that has firmly teken root that government is and should be the solution to our problems; that there's no problem that the government can't fix. "Why doesn't the government do this; why doesn't the government do that?" We have created a dependency nation. We expect government to solve all of our problems and we get mad when it doesn't. Setting aside constitutional issues and our system of dual-sovereignty, people today seem to place their faith in the almighty power of government the way the ancients used to in their sun god, moon god, rain god, and no-dirty-wax-build-up god. Government is here to protect us from enemies (human enemies), foreign and domestic, and to generally keep order. Government's power is greatly diminished in the face of an immense natural disaster (that is, unless you don't mind waiting a few days and weeks and months). People no longer see "Uncle Sam," they see "Mommy" that they want to hold their hands, kiss their foreheads and make everything better. I blame people who won't do for themselves, expecting "Mommy" (or Batman) to come save them from their foolish mistakes. People who can't do for themselves will, unfortunately, have to suffer in the short-term until help can arrive unless those who can lend a hand.
I jointly blame the immediately aforementioned New Dealers, our courts, and our nation's general lack of knowledge of basic civics for being completely ignorant about how our federalist system works. The national government does not have the constitutional authority to swoop down into a sovereign state and take over, not without that state's government ceding that authority or without the president declaring martial law in the face of an insurrection. Of course people expect that the federal government can come and go and do as it will wherever it will. They've seen it happen all too often and the courts have allowed it (just ask Mr. Filburn). But that's not how our system is designed.
I blame myopic, two-faced people who want to grant government all power to do "X" and then express horrors if government takes all power.
I blame people who live in disaster-prone areas and then cry for aid when disaster hits. Do it if your want to; pay the price for your choice. I live in a tornado prone area (although we haven't had one in years, thank God). If I get whacked by a tornado, I have to make do with whatever provision I have made for myself. If I live on the Atlantic seaboard or Gulf Coast, I should expect to be hammered by a hurricane, and I should make provisions. If I live by a river bank, I should expect it to flood from time to time. If I live on a fault, I should expect earthquakes. If I live on an unstable hillside or bluff, I should expect mudslides. You get the picture. You don't want to take those risks or adequately prepare yourself for them? Go live in an area that doesn't experience those natural phenomena.
That's who I blame. Now let us never speak of it again.
The blame lies in our instant society. Our "microwave, high-speed internet, instant communication, instant coffee, how dare you make me wait, I want it now" society. We have become so accustomed to getting what we want, and getting when we want it, and raising holy cain when we don't. Does anyone understand what it takes to mobilise the federal government in men and material (and materiel)? It doesn't happen overnight. A behemoth like the federal government can't just "spring into action" like that. That's why state and local governments are supposed to be the first responders because they can act more quickly in the face of a disaster. (That's why, I have seen reported, that Mayor Nagin purportedly told his citizens that if they chose to stay to not expect any help for the first 48-72 hours.) So when the federal government doesn't swoop down immediately and save the day like like some sort of governmental Batman, our people get outraged.
The blame lies in our "CSI" entertainment culture. People have grown accustomed to seeing teevee and movie actors do incredible (and totally unrealisitic) things with men and technology that we expect that government in the real world to do the same. (I know I've seen this argument somwhere, NRO perhaps, in the context of juries who fault criminal prosecutors for not having hi-tech DNA or other lab analyses.) "We have all of this technology and are the richest country in the world; why can't we do 'X'? Why can't we use all of our technology and know-how to make the world a utopia where no one ever need suffer again?" "If Harrison Ford can single-handedly defeat a group of armed terrorists who have taken over Air Force One, using nothing but guns and guts and flying great airplanes, and do it all in two hours, why can't we protect people from natural disasters?" Our expectations are way too unrealistic.
I blame Franklin Roosevelt and the rest of New Dealers who, perhaps unwittingly, planted the seed that has firmly teken root that government is and should be the solution to our problems; that there's no problem that the government can't fix. "Why doesn't the government do this; why doesn't the government do that?" We have created a dependency nation. We expect government to solve all of our problems and we get mad when it doesn't. Setting aside constitutional issues and our system of dual-sovereignty, people today seem to place their faith in the almighty power of government the way the ancients used to in their sun god, moon god, rain god, and no-dirty-wax-build-up god. Government is here to protect us from enemies (human enemies), foreign and domestic, and to generally keep order. Government's power is greatly diminished in the face of an immense natural disaster (that is, unless you don't mind waiting a few days and weeks and months). People no longer see "Uncle Sam," they see "Mommy" that they want to hold their hands, kiss their foreheads and make everything better. I blame people who won't do for themselves, expecting "Mommy" (or Batman) to come save them from their foolish mistakes. People who can't do for themselves will, unfortunately, have to suffer in the short-term until help can arrive unless those who can lend a hand.
I jointly blame the immediately aforementioned New Dealers, our courts, and our nation's general lack of knowledge of basic civics for being completely ignorant about how our federalist system works. The national government does not have the constitutional authority to swoop down into a sovereign state and take over, not without that state's government ceding that authority or without the president declaring martial law in the face of an insurrection. Of course people expect that the federal government can come and go and do as it will wherever it will. They've seen it happen all too often and the courts have allowed it (just ask Mr. Filburn). But that's not how our system is designed.
I blame myopic, two-faced people who want to grant government all power to do "X" and then express horrors if government takes all power.
I blame people who live in disaster-prone areas and then cry for aid when disaster hits. Do it if your want to; pay the price for your choice. I live in a tornado prone area (although we haven't had one in years, thank God). If I get whacked by a tornado, I have to make do with whatever provision I have made for myself. If I live on the Atlantic seaboard or Gulf Coast, I should expect to be hammered by a hurricane, and I should make provisions. If I live by a river bank, I should expect it to flood from time to time. If I live on a fault, I should expect earthquakes. If I live on an unstable hillside or bluff, I should expect mudslides. You get the picture. You don't want to take those risks or adequately prepare yourself for them? Go live in an area that doesn't experience those natural phenomena.
That's who I blame. Now let us never speak of it again.
Saturday, September 03, 2005
William Hubbs Rehnquist, R.I.P
Chief Justice Rehnquist has died. Very sad. He was a brilliant legal scholar and was quite right in his views of federalism and the proper constitutional limits of central government power. I'll write more about him later.
Now, if you hear the news that the chief justice has died and your first thought is about impeaching the president and vice president, you just might be a DUer. Some examples from DU's thread on Rehnquist's passing.
Then there's this gem of sheer moonbattiness:
How about this:
Now here's a post on a thread about the passing of the chief justice. Except this post never mentions Justice Rehnquist. It does, however, as I guess every DU thread must at some point, blame the coming end of the world on George W. Bush.
Again, I thought this was the thread about the passing of the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Sheesh.
Then there are the outright haters.
Words cannot express.
Of course, no DU thread would be complete without the conspiracy theorists worming their way in.
One wonders if they would say these same things outside the echo chamber.
Now, if you hear the news that the chief justice has died and your first thought is about impeaching the president and vice president, you just might be a DUer. Some examples from DU's thread on Rehnquist's passing.
Contact your lawmakers and demand his immediate impeachment (and Cheney's, too)And immediately following:
GET * OUT of the Whitehouse! FROG MARCH HIM!
Then there's this gem of sheer moonbattiness:
THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION SHORT OF CIVIL WAR.I thought the LLL hated war. I better check with Mother Cindy about that.
Retake Congress in 2006, impeach Bush and Cheney and use a resignation and appointment strategy to get either Gore or Kerry to be Speaker of the House. One of them can then appoint the other as Vice-President. Then pack the court like Roosevelt tried to. Otherwise, it's fascism or civil war or fascism and civil war.
How about this:
Dems Must Fight for the Life of the Nation - NOW!I swear, I'm not making this stuff up.
Bush has never been weaker! He is vulnerable. The Democrats must now find courage and fight against any Bush appointment. First things first - Democrats and loyal American Republicans in the Senate must demand that the entire Bush Administration resign now for gross crimminal [sic] negligence for the Iraq War and the lack of preparation and response to Katrina. The blood of thousands of Americans killed and maimed in Iraq and on the Gulf Coast is on their hands. 9/11, Iraq and Katrina happended on the Bush Administration watch - whether from ignorance, incompetence, arrogance or crimminal [sic] malfeasance, the results are the same. They must be held accountable and forced to resign in disgrace. They are killing us and the country cannot wait for a Democratic Congress after the 2006 election and possible impeachment. The Bushies,all of them, every elected and appointed member of that administration must be shown the door, NOW!
The Democrats must not cooperate, compromise or give-in to anything from this corrupt, immoral, deadly administration. We must fight them on every front and persist with resolve until they are gone!
We need to push for impeachment now more than ever. The meme should be "if a man would kill poor people in New Orleans for politics, why should we allow him to appoint TWO judges for the Supreme Court." Eben the Repubs are beginning to bandond ship, so it is possible.Stop it, please! Yer killin' me!
Impeachment should be the major thrust of the Sept 24th protest. Forget the zillion-and-a-half issues that ANSWER brings to the fore. Impeachment due to incompetence should be the message. We have more than enough evidence.
And a moratorium on all political appointments until then. It is clear from Bush's appointmnt of Brown as head of FEMA. That guy is as useless as [teats] on a bull.
Now here's a post on a thread about the passing of the chief justice. Except this post never mentions Justice Rehnquist. It does, however, as I guess every DU thread must at some point, blame the coming end of the world on George W. Bush.
Even some republicans would vote for [impeachment] now. My only hesitation, is there a real chance of winning any election from now on? I begin to doubt it since the republicans control the legislature, the courts, the executive, and most importantly, the voting machines. Some of us have foreseen insurrection in our future for the last four years. It looms large now.
That having been said I wonder if it really matters at this point. The economy will take a possibly fatal blow from the disaster at the gulf coast. Not only NO was destroyed, Biloxi and other cities were cut off at the knees. This will certainly be a belly blow to the economy. The lack of sufficient petroleum will also have a drastic effect. And don't forget the fact that Iran is starting it's own oil market and diversifying into the euro among other currencies, so the dollar will no longer be the fiat currency of trade. And that will HURT!
Then there's global warming. With arctic ice disappearing at such an alarming rate it can't be long before the salinity of the north atlantic goes low enough that the atlantic conveyor is turned off. At that point it's Katie bar the Door. No one knows the results of that except that europe will get cold. And we can be sure that the weather here will not be the same. Those areas that we depend on for growing food won't support that anymore. Where our sustenance will come from is anyone's guess.
As you can tell, I'm not very positive about our future. And I blame it all on George W. Bush.
Some call him the Anti-Christ.
Not me.
I call him Shiva, Destroyer of Nations.
Again, I thought this was the thread about the passing of the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Sheesh.
Then there are the outright haters.
Sorry. No respect.
Spit on him and his family. You think differently?
Words cannot express.
Of course, no DU thread would be complete without the conspiracy theorists worming their way in.
How soon do we get the autopsy results to check for "carcinogens"...
Makes one wonder it [sic] his death was "hastened"... Hope they do a full checkup in detail on this and that Fitzgerald gets to see the results!
One wonders if they would say these same things outside the echo chamber.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Now I'm getting mad
The liberals are absolutely giddy over the carnage wrought by Katrina. Not for the despair it has brought to the people of the Gulf Coast, per se, but because they have yet another bludgeon they hope to use against the administration, Republicans, and essentially anyone who is not one of them.
Don't believe me? Read this.
Or this.
The libs are as excited about this as they claimed Bush was about 9-11.
The Brad Blog, another LLL site.
Andrew Waldon over at Moonbat Central was spot on with this observation:
Thus, we are already hearing the peanut gallery screaming, "See? Global Warming!" "See? Bush cut taxes for the rich and cut funding for the levee projects!" "It's all his fault! Everything is always his fault!"
An aside: About that middle thing. It is true that the Bush Administration cut (cut or simply reduced the rate of growth? With the way the word "cut" has been abused in Washington, you can never be too sure) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers levee project funds. But so did the Clinton Administration. It just hasn't been a high priority within the Beltway.
AP Analysis: Politicians Failed Storm Victims. Politicians of both stripes, mind you.
Anyway, the libs' desparation is clearly showing as they try to use anything, even a major tragedy, to weaken the Bush Administration. If they keep it up, they'll only end up weakening themselves.
Don't believe me? Read this.
We can justifiably criticize * [Read, President Bush -- ed.] all we want - even the MSM is on board - and we cannot be accused of being unpatriotic or not supporting our troops.
Or this.
bush gassed his own people through his malicious neglect and contempt.
The libs are as excited about this as they claimed Bush was about 9-11.
But let us make one thing clear: We WILL politicize this issue.
The Republicans did not shirk from making political use of 9/11, and we should not shirk from reminding the country that Bush turned what should have been a mere problem into Ragnarok.
Conservatives may accuse us of lacking taste if we use this sad occasion to point out sadder facts of political life. Cable news pundits will try to pretend that now is not the time for partisan politics.
If they say that, screw 'em.
If the Bush-voters want Californians and New Yorkers and other blue staters to fork over dough, then they damn well had better take our words as well. Republican policies caused this catastrophe. Force them to hear that message -- again and again. That message is the price of the charity they now demand.
The Brad Blog, another LLL site.
Andrew Waldon over at Moonbat Central was spot on with this observation:
For Moonbats, everything is about them and their politics. So it comes naturally that this hurricane is just another political prop to use in arguing for their favorite scheme or ideological “nuance.” Just as communism (and fascism) consist of self-appointed bureaucrats who impose themselves over everyone else–Moonbats out of power seek to use any and all disasters to impose their ideology on the rest of us.
Thus, we are already hearing the peanut gallery screaming, "See? Global Warming!" "See? Bush cut taxes for the rich and cut funding for the levee projects!" "It's all his fault! Everything is always his fault!"
An aside: About that middle thing. It is true that the Bush Administration cut (cut or simply reduced the rate of growth? With the way the word "cut" has been abused in Washington, you can never be too sure) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers levee project funds. But so did the Clinton Administration. It just hasn't been a high priority within the Beltway.
Both the Bush and Clinton administrations proposed budgets that low-balled the needs. Local politicians grabbed whatever money they could and declared victory. And the public didn't exactly demand tax increases to pay for flood-control and hurricane-protection projects.
AP Analysis: Politicians Failed Storm Victims. Politicians of both stripes, mind you.
Anyway, the libs' desparation is clearly showing as they try to use anything, even a major tragedy, to weaken the Bush Administration. If they keep it up, they'll only end up weakening themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
