White flag?
 

Reid looks like he's about to take a beating a la DeLay, so his approval may not mean much.

White flag?
 

But who is going to object? Does Bush not have as much influence on his own party?

The moniker is also not self-chosen; it is deliberately denigrating. Most Bible thumpers (of which I am not one, nor do I approve of the true "thumping") and those who are often lumped in with them do regularly read and contemplate the Bible.

White flag?
 

Sometimes I don't know you at all.

I understand that it had to stop. But the person who had to be the stop should have recognized, and others (i.e. Reagan, or at least his advisors) should have recognized, that he was taking one for the team and was effectively ending his political career advancement. No way he was getting on the Court, regardless of the wackiness of his writings.

I don't blame Bork (too much) for his role in Watergate and much as I blame Reagan for nominating him. This should surprise no one.

Moral Relativist?
 

I think moral relativism to the point where obvious right and wrong are muted into a dull shade of gray is wrong and deplorable. The dimwits under Clinton and their allies in the PC armies of the leftist loonies from Hollyweird, Bezerkely and Seattle have succeeded in this blurring, somewhat. I welcomed W's moral clarity, albeit more moralistic than my personal leanings, as a counterweight to these unwashed doofi.

I pray to the babyjesuschristsuperstar that W's clarity, however faux it may have been continues to guide in our crusades against the Islamofacists, the homocide bombers, the big government tax and spenders and the culture of death. Here and abroad.

White flag?
 

2. And while I supported him at the time and think his nomination was prejudicially shortchanged, I am glad he is not on the court today, although I wish it could have been accomplished differently, like he was approved but then died from the excitement of the swearing in.

White flag?
 

I've not heard that. What's he done?

I disagree. Many who are lumped in with them do regualraly read and contemplate the bible, but I have known too many bible thumpers to agree with your assertion that they actually read the book they use to beat people up with. Note that reading the same 30 passages that support your world view over and over again do not really count.

White flag?
 

I'm not sure that I would say
Home ownership is really "investment."
If you need to tap your savings,
It's hard to sell and live in Ma's basement.

It's not that I think home ownership
I just another form of spending:
But it's not stocks, bonds or deposits,
And is worryingly mired in lending.

If you want a better target
For income tax deduction,
I'd deduct tuition, to broadly
Stimulate economic production.



ed to improve meter

Would that you and the other libs here took this advice to heart, I mean beyond the bible reading.

White flag?
 

I may be forgetting the confirmation hearings give the passage of time, but I don't remember this as the main issue that all the rhetorical posturing was about. Maybe I wasn't tuned into the process enough at the time. When NOW and NARAL and TK talked about a land of back alley abortions and no civil rights it was all code for Watergate?

My experience is that committed born again christians (like the one W. claims to be) know their bible. I have studied the bible a great deal and often impressed with the "thumpers" knowledge.

I support the babyjesuschristsuperstar unreservedly and do righteous battle with the culture of death and moral relativists in his name, but I don't read the bible. Except when its excerpted in the Wall Street Journal or the Sunday NYTimes.

eta: does "A Child's First Bible Story Book" count?

Give Peace a Chance
 

I don't agree. If I think that the US had a strategic interest in going to war to spread democracy in the middle east or whatever else, I can still think that Bush messed up by misrepresenting the evidence on WMDs and claiming that WMDs was the main reason for war.

Why? Because I don't have the hubris to think that, just because I might think that a war is otherwise justified, that the rest of the country would agree with me. YMMV.


Bush's lies, or as you put it "what happened", had policy ramifications -- as you said. In my view, they made the costs higher. If we are looking at this as a cost-benefits question (including economic, strategic, and moral costs and benefits), rather than as a moral absolute ("war is bad"), then anything that had policy ramifications necessarily has something to do with whether going to war, in the fashion in which we went to war, was a good move.



If that's the case, then you cannot possibly think that Bush and the Admin didn't lie. Shit, Rumsfeld said we'd be gone in less than six months.

White flag?
 

Nor did O'Connor or Rehnquist.