The Bigotry Rule

| | Comments (62) | TrackBacks (0)

Recent discussions here reveal that some of our participants have forgotten, likely as a result of advanced age, an important finding from last year. Please allow me to recap the NOVA TownHall Directive Regarding "Bigotry:"


The charge of "bigotry," 99.99 percent of the time, is leveled by individuals who are either A) liars, or B) morons. And according to these individuals, nearly all NOVA TownHall bloggers are bigots.

By reading the sentence above, you hereby assent to the Directive.


Now, can we all please just move on?

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Bigotry Rule.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/964

62 Comments

zimzo said:

No one has called anyone here a bigot, Joe, so I don't know what you are talking about.

Then we should all be as happy as clams! What a day.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

HA! After a lengthy discussion about Ann Coulter's "fagot" joke, you say,

"New Rule: anyone who says something looks like bigotry is a moron or a liar"

way to push for a more honest understanding of the ideas and attitudes driving American politics!

Want to move on? Let's talk about Walter Reed, or illegal spying on citizens, ...or just stay on the Ann Coulter merry-go-round until these stories blow over, or until someone manages to dig up another account of an undocumented worker driving without a license.

Kevin said:

SPMM, I had a post fully planned out for the FBI scandal but I've lost inertia like never before.

It was going to start something like this:

"You'd think that as a 'liberal' (an ascribed label) I'd be happy as a clam to point out that the FBI did exactly what 'liberals' said they were going to do with the Patriot Act. Happy to point out that . . ." and so on.

Then there was going to be another one I was going to start, the title of which was going to be: "4 White Males Presume to Address 'Black' Issues; 'Black' Readers Surprisingly Silent"

And then just a real brief bit on this link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6545249

Instead I bought all new beer ingredients, my face sticky with malted steam, and I'll be damned if I don't get 5 gallons out of it this go round. In honor of not being able to get over having gone into Iraq in the first place, I'm brewing an Extra Special Bitter!

zimzo said:

I'm sorry, Joe. I realize now I made a terrible mistake when I said no one accused anyone of being a bigot. I looked back at our conversation on the previous thread and it turns out that one person did accuse someone else of being bigoted. In fact, he was the only person in the entire thread who said unequivocally that someone else was bigoted.

That person, Joe, was you.

You said I was "bigoted against Republicans." Now, I wouldn't go so far as to say that you are a liar or a moron necessarily because I don't believe in making such aritrary rules about what people should and shouldn't be allowed to say. You obviously feel differently and must be pretty embarrassed now to have revealed yourself to be either a liar or a moron under your own rubric. But I wonder what led you to make this strange (and now embarrassing) pronouncement in the first place. Do you believe bigotry doesn't exist? If not, what happened to it and when did it end precisely?

Finally, what was the reason for making this particular speech code? Are you afraid that someone might call you a bigot? Are you planning to lay down similar rules forbidding someone from calling another person a liar or a moron (although I think you might be guilty of that as well)? Of course, I'm not calling you liar or a moron. You called yourself that.

Jack said:

"I think part of this is a deep suspicion that conservative America has hateful bigotry hiding just below the surface."

And then we go on to guilt by association. Then say, "We didn't call anyone here a bigot!"

Classic.

Yes, Zimzo, to the extent I was actually calling you bigoted I am certainly a moron - although some people might read the whole "You say Che Guevara, I say Torquemada" comment as less than serious.

My reason for the current post was the extended "here's why people might interpret such and such as bigotry" argument you have been making. I fully realize this argument is not the equivalent of calling anyone a bigot. The argument sort of went on and on though, and as Jack highlights above, it seemed a good time to state this position.

I am trying to change the subject, in short, because it seems a little tired. Guess it won't be that easy.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

not that I have a passion for parsing sentences, per se, but the statement of mine that you pasted above speaks to the fact that there is a *suspicion* of bigotry in conservative thought.

It isn't an example of someone calling anyone a bigot.

My point was that this suspicion does exist. The fact that it's (apparently) commonplace for conservatives to have to defend their points of view against accusations of bigotry is evidence of that.

whether it's justified or not, coulter's comment does nothing in the way of helping conservatives escape this PR problem.

You might say that accusing conservatives of bigotry is just a liberal tactic, but in fact it isn't just a tactic, it's something that many people believe, many people (rightly or wrongly) see ann coulter's comments as an affirmation of these beliefs, and it's something that conservatives would be wiser to address than suppress.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

hey, that post about was a response to Jack

zimzo said:

Fiddle-dee-dee. War, war, war. This war talk's spoiling all the fun at every party this spring. I get so bored I could scream.
--Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With The Wind (as played by Joe Budzinski)

"The fact that it's
(apparently) commonplace for conservatives to have to defend their points of view against accusations of bigotry is evidence of that."

I see what you are saying, I think: But you realize how it reads?

I suppose if I had really wanted to change the subject I would have taken Kevin's route ... rather than write a post about bigotry. Well done, sir.

Yeah, I guess I lack seriousness about the "war." Am I AWOL in the 21st century war on bigotry?

Hardly. Rather, I am a conscientous objector. I am morally compelled to sit out pointless arguments.

But far be it from me to deny others the right to gird themselves and march into battle.

zimzo said:

Seems to me this just begs the question of why you are so anxious, even desperate, to change the subject. What is it about bigotry that bores you so? What are you afraid of?

Oh yes, I am desperate and frightened to death when I see 5 million words of argument on the topic following the 50 million here in the past.

Along the same lines, Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit had me hiding under the covers for a week.

zimzo said:

Interesting that you should bring up Hegel's The Phenomenology of the Spirit in this context. Hegel would say that you can only achieve self-consciousness if you recognize the consciousness of the Other. Without Mutual Recognition between the Self and Other neither can achive self-consciousness. Hence, your inability to see anything from the perspective of someone who is black or gay manifests itself in your own inability to see yourself very clearly, which leads you to attempt to cut off debate because of your fear of glimpsing your true self. The more you are dragged into a discussion of these issues, the more your own lack of self-awareness becomes acutely evident.

That's what Hegel would say. Scarlett would just say, "Fiddle-dee-dee."

Robin said:

Joe, I thought better of you than this. This sounds like a 12-year-old's response. "If you call me a bigot, well you're just...stupid, yeah, you're really dumb." Come on now, I know you are a grown up, I've seen your picture. Surely we can all have a decent grown-up conversation without resorting to this. Now don't make me turn this blog around!

The fact is that there have been times here when blatant and not so blatant bigotry has been on this blog. If it is brought out in the open, then it can be discussed and perhaps defused. Or am I just being too logical here?

Kevin, save me one of those beers Sugar. I could really use one.

Kevin said:

Just one, Robin? You can have more!

Zim, I gotta be honest, here. . .your perception of Joe is not precisely accurate. He takes the perspective of others quite often, and is adept at it. Though I did get a kick out of the first Scarlett reference.

Robin, you are missing the context, apparently. The longstanding problem here has been some of our visiting lefties attempt to label anyone who disagrees with them as bigots ... and I refuse to play that game.

Zimzo, Hegel is boring as crap. That's the full-length version, not the clift notes.

Although, he'd certainly have appreciated one as all-knowing as yourself.

Jack said:

So people keep accusing conservatives of being bigots, and then say, "My point was that this suspicion does exist. The fact that it's (apparently) commonplace for conservatives to have to defend their points of view against accusations of bigotry is evidence of that."

Basically, the suspicion exists because liberals use the accusation in lieu of coherent arguments, which they lack.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

Jack,

the suspicion exists because, among other things, when Ann coulter uses the word "fagot" in a "joke" a room full of conservatives will laugh and cheer.

say what you will, but the argument is coherent.

Joe:

"attempt to label anyone who disagrees with them as bigots"

I don't think this is accurate at all. This "conservatives are bigots" thing has only come up when you've suggested that undocumented people are actually staging an invasion of the US, announced in the midst of an anti-gay marriage campaign that gays just creep you out, or rushed to the defense of the use of the word "fagot" as a playful jest.

General, well, tabulating the sum total of my existence, apart from these three scenarios: What else is there?

Seriously, I don't think this is exactly true. I think the conservatives are bigots meme has come up in various contexts here.

You and Zimzo came down pretty hard on the girl who talked about her problems with illegal immigrants in her yard, if I recall correctly. (She is actually a liberal, but the main point remains).

It was insinuated I was a "homophobe" for many reasons - I think my specific statement that gay SEX seemed gross to me was a tiny aspect of that overall conversation.

But I am willing to leave this whole topic behind - which I think I have made clear - if only YOU can do so.

If I did not know better I'd suspect a key raison d'etre of conservativism is, in your view, to set the continuous benchmark for bigotry.

If we were not bigots, then how in the world could we be conservatives?

But, I admit, I'm clinging to stereotypes based on conversations we all had months ago.

Robin said:

No Joe, I got the context. I understand the frustration. Liberals are oft times painted as bleeding hearts, tax and spend etc. Is it true for every Dem. No, absolutley not. Is every conservative a bigot. Again, no absolutely not. However,as a recipient of some rather vile words on this very site I can say that I view name-callers as not worth the time. There are some folks on here that seem to take great delight in baiting people and,Joe, it isn't just "lefties".

Kevin, I'll take 2 of those beers.

Kevin said:

Absolutely, Dear.

Jack said:

So, Puffy, why do liberals not get such accusations when a liberal refers to someone as a faggot?

stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

Jack,

you find me a reasonably recent example of a prominent "liberal" calling someone a fagot and I'll send you a dozen roses.

Joe,

"If I did not know better I'd suspect a key raison d'etre of conservativism is, in your view, to set the continuous benchmark for bigotry."

...thankfully you (unlike some) are able to distinguish between suspicion and reality!

Jack said:

Wasn't there one just last year?

Stay Puft,

Although Zimzo tried to skirt the issue that's exactly what I did in the original post.

http://www.novatownhall.com/blog/2007/03/resolved_its_ok_to_call_john_e.php

A Democratic candidate for Senate and a sitting Democratic governor are both much higher profile than Ann Coulter, I'm sure you will agree, and both carry a much higher degree of the "imprimatur" of the party and the liberal establishment. Neither, as far as I know, caught even a whiff of opprobrium from the establishment for using what amount to equivalent gay slurs.

The point I was making is there is a total double standard - everyone goes apeshit at the hint of a conservative using edgy language. That's why I say, BS to this whole "bigotry" issue. That's all it is, friends.

zimzo said:

Sorry, Joe, but Franken's use of the term "butt boy," though stupid and distasteful, in an interview is not really analogous to Ann Coulter's calling someone a "faggot" at the leading conference of conservatives. It's about as offensive as calling someone an "Uncle Tom" (another term I wouldn't use) versus calling someone the n-word.
Although it really shouldn't be used, it was used, for example, by conservative Tucker Carlson during his famous Crossfire debate with Jon Stewart:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html

It is also wrong to attempt to use perceived effeminacy as a way of attacking male candidates, as has been done by a number of people against John Edwards, including here on this blog, when Jacob referred to John Edwards as a "girlie man."

But this is also not analogous to what Ann Coulter did as has been almost universally recognized by everyone apparently but you.

It's one thing to posture yourself as being a "maverick" and it's another thing to be completely clueless about something that is patently obvious to everyone.

Daretosay you are wrong, Zimzo. Franken's and Kaine's offenses against gay political correctness are not analogous but worse. These are comments by Democratic party officials.

The comments from Coulter are from someone who not only is not a party official, but has frequently advised against giving money to the GOP.

The Democrats have a lot to answer for; the Republicans have zilch to answer for.

If pointing out hypocrisy makes me a "maverick" then, sure, I would deal with the label. But I'm no maverick. I'm just a voice of reason.

zimzo said:

In your desperation to distract attention from the vileness Coulter's remarks by once again making the "everybody does it so it's OK" defense (is that also the morality you think people should teach their children?) at least try to stick to the facts. Al Franken was not a "Demomocratic party official" when he made his remark and is not now. Nor was the blogger you linked to who claimed that Kilgore's mannerisms were "effeminate" a Democratic Party Official. (Kaine didn't say that so your implication that he was somehow gay-baiting someone because someone on his campaign set up a website that implied Kilgore was weak which is somehow related to a blogger's claim that he is effeminate is a stretch at best). Either way no reasonable person could see either of those examples as anything like calling someone a "faggot."

Here would be an analogous situation, Joe. Someone standing in front of a prominent conference of liberals and calling someone a faggot and everyone in the crowd cheering. If you believe that it is even possible for that to happen, then you are really living in a dream world.

Fnally, as we have said again and again but you just can't seem to understand, which is why we must repeat it and repeat it despite the danger of boring you with your notoriously short attention span, the reason Coulter's remark got the attention it did is that it reinforces the impression of most people that conservatives have an animosity toward gay people and the fact that virtually all of their positions on gay issues are completely antithetical to gays is not merely a coincidence but a manifestation of the homophoboa that festers in the heart of conservatism.

I don't know if you are truly unable to understand that, are temporarily incapacitated by some sort of horrible case of denial or are being completely disingenuous when you claim not to realize this.

Nice try, Zimzo. "Demomocratic" leaders have made the same or worse statements than this single conservative commentator, and you Dems gloss over them.

Your uncharacteristic misspelling tells me I have hit a nerve.

Why is it so hard to accept the truth that hard edged rhetoric comes from both sides, and both sides are morally equal in the debate? Once that is acknowledged, we must argue on the merits of the issue rather than on the integrity of the debaters. Since your side is so clearly wanting in the latter area, I fully expect our future discussions will be more substantive.

zimzo said:

Again, Joe, give me an example of a Democratic or liberal leader at a large political meeting of Democrats or liberals calling someone a faggot or using a similar slur insulting someone's race, ethnic orgin or sexual orientation and getting applauded and cheered for it.

There is no "moral equivalence" between calling someone a "faggot" and "hard-edged rhetoric" used by either side. To say so diminishes both sides. As far as arguing issues, we have certainly done that in this discussion if you haven't been paying attention. I listed a whole host of issues that make blacks and gays suspicious of the motives of conservatives, which is why the animosity in her remark rang true for most people. The sum total of your response so far has been endless repetition of the falacious idea that "everybody does it" and stamping your feet with boredom and putting your fingers in your ears trying to change the subject.

Yes, my unintentional spelling error was funny, though not as revelatory as you think, especially since voters will be asking in the next election, "What did you do in the war, Daddy?"

OK, Zim, I'll grant no blonde, beautiful liberal women have made the same statements as Ann Coulter, and all I have to confront you with are Democratic leaders and elected officials. Touche.

With regard to gay-baiting, certainly I'm not saying everybody does it: I'm just saying your high ranking personnel do it.

zimzo said:

Once again, Joe, which high-ranking Democratic personnel engage in gay baiting?

When has any Democrat, blonde or not, stood in front of the party faithful and used a slur on someone's sexual orientation or even race or ethnic origin.

Simply saying that it happens all the time over and over again does not make it so.

And even if you could come up with an example, how does that make it right?

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

ok, Joe. We haven't been talking about democrats and republicans, but liberals and conservatives. Ann coulter is nationally recognized and seen as a fairly prominent voice within conservative America. Dispite his party affiliation, Your governor, (who apparently called someone a duck, which is apparently equivalent to coulter's comment in your mind) is hardly an important liberal voice. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Obviously none of this is going anywhere. Your side of the argument is about as reasonable as saying, "just because I'm pro-slavery doesn't mean I'm racist!"

"Just because I'm creeped out by gay sex, have waged a campaign against gay marriage (for the children), and think it's just fine for people to make "fagot" jokes, it doesn't mean I'm a homophobe!"

My politics tend to fall left of center, but I try and I think I'm fairly good at seeing where the "other side" is coming from. but on this one... I don't understand why you'd choose to make a stand in defense of her stupid joke.

If your governor really did win election by implying that his opponent was effeminate, that sucks. What's BS is that anyone would consider this sort of thing acceptable in any context.

whatever

Zimzo, a sitting governor and candidate for Senate. Is there an echo in here? Interesting mode of argument you have there: You must be a barrel of laughs at parties.

Stay Puft, thank you for at least reading what I wrote. I disagree comepletely with your assessment that Coulter somehow represents MORE than the two examples I gave, being as how she holds nor seeks no office. But as you say, whatever.

I did NOT wage a campaign against gay marriage, now did I? I got wrapped up in some comments after I stated my view. And I did NOT "make a stand" for Ann Coulter. I "wrote a post" about it last week.

Give me at least the credit of trying to move to another topic the day before yesterday.

zimzo said:

I guess you think if you repeat something ridiculous and untrue over and over again it will suddenly seem plausible and true.

1) Al Franken called Norm Coleman a "butt boy" in October 2006 before he was an announced candidate for Senate. Someone set up a website for Kaine comparing his opponent to a duck while he was running for Governor. They were not "a sitting governor and candidate for Senate" when at the time of their alleged offenses as you falsely claim.

2) Neither calling someone "butt boy" or calling someone a duck is anything like using the slur "faggot," Just as calling someone an Uncle Tom is not the same as using the n-word.

3) No one cheered these alleged offenses at the time they were made as large numbers of conservatives cheered Coulter's remark at CPAC.

4) For the above reasons there was no media furor about their alleged offenses.

5) Neither Franken or Kaine have a long history of making extremely offensive remarks as Coulter does.

6) Liberals do not take mostly anti-gay positions as conservatives do, which is why Coulter's remarks were thought to be revealing of something disturbing with conservatism itself.

7) Even if all of the above were not true how would that in any way justify her remark? Is "everybody does it" the ultimate moral arbiter in your book?

And while granted, you were not as an impassioned supporter of the anti-gay marriage amendment as, say, Soph, you did support it, you did argue in favor of it and you are the proprietor of this website which pushed this amendment. You have also made a series of strange anti-gay remarks yourself always invoking the blood libel that gays are somehow dangerous to children, which is particularly offensive.

As far as your defense of Coulter, it started with a post likening her to an angel after she made the remark. When I called you on it, you attacked me personally. You made many subsequent comments defending her, wrote an overlong post justifying what she said, made more comments, wrote another post falsely accusing us of calling you a bigot, tried to shut off discussion when that was unmasked and have now for the last series of comments repeated a justification for her that even you must know doesn't wash, and then you have the gall to claim that none of this constitutes making a stand for Coulter.

None of this makes you look very good, but I suppose you must realize that, too.

This is sounding increasingly desperate Zimzo. In poker a "tell" is some unconscious physical indicator of one's hand. Your tell is, when you go off topic and ad hominem we can deduce you are losing the argument. My "blood libel" again, eh?

I don't think there's very much I could do to "look good" in your book, amigo, is there? Consequently, in effect that amounts to a compliment.

zimzo said:

It's only because I do see good in you, Joe, that I have expended as much effort as I have in trying to save you from embarrassing yourself further. Alas, to no avail. I have made my case and you have made yours, such as it is, and so at this point people can decide for themselves if you have made any sense since I have nothing further to add. I will make one prediction, though. Coulter will continue to be accepted by conservatives and she will make another outrageous remark that will turn off more people to conservatism and you will defend her again. I'm willing to bet all my chips on that one.

Jack said:

Actually, I think "Butt Boy" is worse than "faggot." The fact is, liberals get a pass, and conservatives do not.

Just look at the firing of the federal prosecutors. They were fired for not doing their jobs. Clinton, however, fired ALL of the prosecutors, but now we have a call from up-Chuck Schumer for the A.G. to resign.

Same with Stubbs, who had sex with a male page, and remained in office. Foley did NOT have sex with anyone, and he's gone.

stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

jack, you're comparing Coulter's slur to inside-the-beltway political maneuvering. It's apples to oranges.

Joe, what's it matter whose holding elected office? We've been talking about the conservative constituency, not the republican party. Maybe it's less apparent to people in virginia, but as an outsider I can tell you that in the rest of the country Ann Coulter is a much more important voice of conservativism than Tim Kline is for the left. Frankly, I've never heard anything your gov. has had to say about anything. When was the last time he made an appearance on a talk show as a representative of the left? Have his words ever carried any weight in the national arena? No. Have Ann Coulter's? I think so. So I guess I'd have to disagree completely with you when you say,

"I disagree comepletely with your assessment that Coulter somehow represents MORE than the two examples I gave, being as how she holds nor seeks no office"

que sera sera

stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

besides, Clinton replaced the prosecutors when he took office, which is something every president does. right?

he didn't fire them in the middle of his term. That's not standard practice. If it was, I think Gonzalez would have pointed that out rather than apologizing.

Kevin said:

"you are the proprietor of this website which pushed this amendment"

In all fairness, Joe is the proprietor of a website that, had 2 liberals any grassroots connections to PACs, would also be pushing their agendas. . .theoretically.

Hmmm. Come to think of it, maybe I'll start my own grassroots movement and use this website to push the agenda. . . Something like the "National Party to Prove Official English Law Useless".

I just finished the last bottle of Superman Was Black last night. Jeepers, was that a fine beer.

Kevin said:

I'm glad you liked it! It was a doozy. This one has been a lot less drama. I like that!

Jack said:

"jack, you're comparing Coulter's slur to inside-the-beltway political maneuvering. It's apples to oranges."

Typical liberal -- just say it's not comparable, and move on.

Jack said:

No, Puffy, it is NOT normal to fire all the prosecutors upon taking office.

stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

"typical liberal"?? Jack, seriously...


as to your 2nd comment,

"Look, by law and by Constitution [sic], these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and traditionally are given a four year term. And Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys. When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys — there are some still left from the Clinton era in place. We have appointed a total of I think128 U.S. attorneys — that is to say the original 93, plus replaced some, some have served 4 years, some served less, most have served more. Clinton did 123. I mean, this is normal and ordinary."

-Karl Rove

Jack said:

Since they serve at the pleasure of the President, why is there a problem with Bush's firing a few who do not please him?

stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

well, if a new president replaces all the prosecutors across the board at the beginning of his term, he's not sending the message to that they better "play ball" or else loose their jobs.

If that standard is replaced with a new one in which presidents regularly fire prosecutors throughout his term, it sends the message that they better toe the line or else loose their jobs. It's replacing competence with loyalty as the key determinant in who holds these jobs, which seems like an unnecessary politicization of the whole thing, doesn't it?

used to be that a pres. had to go through congress if they wanted to replace attorneys, but the AG went ahead and did this one under a new authority granted to him under the patriot act which (surprise) no one else was aware of until now.

Now of course the opposition's going to jump all over this, that's politics. But it does kind of seem like a dumb move on the AG's part, and the extent to which the dems are able to run with this can be seen as a measure of how fed up people are with the admin., which is most often seen as either incompetent or shady.

Jack said:

Simply put, they were not doing their jobs. (Anyway, if competence is the only criterion, then there would be no need to fire all of them at the beginning of one's term.)

A president SHOULD fire the incompetent and those who are ignoring their duty.

The fact is, the liberals will make mountains out of mole hills for ANY opportunity to attack Bush, then they accuse Bush of playing politics.

stay puft marshmallow man said:

all or most of the fired prosecutors received positive job performance reviews.

piecemeal firings sets up a different dynamic than dismissing all of them at the beginning of a term. Is this the kind of system you want in place when a democratic admin. is in office?

"The fact is, the liberals will make mountains out of mole hills for ANY opportunity to attack Bush, then they accuse Bush of playing politics."

...does the name Ken Star mean anything to you??

Jack said:

So if they had fired ALL of them, it would have been OK?

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

...I think it would have been better, because it wouldn't give the impression that a handful are being singled out for political reasons.

Jack said:

They're POLITICAL APPOINTEES!! Why should they NOT be fired for political reasons?

stay puft said:

well, that's the party line, isn't it? And technically, because of the patriot act, firing them in this way isn't breaking any laws. But this method of dismissing prosecutors for political reasons in the middle of a term is unprecedented.

The question is, is this a precedent we're comfortable with setting?

To me, it seems like an unnecessary step toward politicization of the judiciary. And in my opinion, the less political the judiciary is the better. Do you agree?

Jack said:

Uh, puffy, their PROSECUTORS, not JUDGES. As for "politicization of the judiciary," how about what the Demonrats (darn, mistyped it AGAIN) have done with Bush's nominees to the federal bench and the Supreme Court?

The Republicans allowed an ACLU lawyer through with hardly an objection (97-3). Do you think the Demonrats would do that for an NRA lawyer?

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

oh, ok, the democrats started it.

will you please stop using what democrats do as an excuse for what republi-big fat idiot-cans (oops, typo) do?

so I suppose you feel justified in doing whatever you want as long as you can point to someone who's done something worse if you get caught. "Hey, I was just stealing a candy bar from the checkout line, charles manson killed a bunch of people!"

if everyone thought like that the world would be a pretty shitty place!

Jack said:

In the case of "politicizing the judiciary," the Republicans DON'T do it, the Democrats do. Then Democrats, such as yourself, accuse the Republicans of doing it.

stay puft marshmallow man said:

ok Jack

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Recent Comments

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM