Bazaar, Bizarre, Bizarro
In a bizarre turn of events, Brittney posed nude on the cover of Bazaar. In a bizarrer turn of events, Bizarro Brittney took over the Bizarro World Bank. I wish Bizarro Brittney took over this world’s World Bank. Hell, at this point I’d even take the real Brittney.
Damn you Paul Wolf o’Witless!
One day we’re going to find out that that guy was the sith lord we were looking for, and then where will we be?
Regarding yesterday’s SC decision…while I am glad to see a branch of the F govt at least questioning our peerless leader, I wonder what difference this makes, or if it is even a good idea. I wonder if it wasn’t for Abu Grabass – would there be this intensified human rights/due process investigation directed at Gitmo…
One probably has less to do with the other than I would like to believe, I try to question the missteps of the IROCK war at every opportunity. Yet for those dumbass blue ties who argue with me over IROCK lemme say – the frontline of terrorism was A-Stan…and may now become the Mog. What’s your guy doing about that?
What I like the most about the decision is I can now make the case to my liberal friends that the SC has not become the g bushy rubber stamp they have feared since Judge Ito and Mr. Roberts have copped a squat there. Robbie rightly took no role in the opinion or dissents of the court since he was part of the appellate court that upheld Hamdennnnnnnn. I don’t know if this is good judicial behavior on Robbie’s part or if he had to – jeanz? Anybody? – of course I teach some of this shit, I should know.
But then, I’m an idiot. What do I know?
Ironically, because I am such a dumbass, the bigger decision to me was that the SC upheld the TX redistricting plan with the exception of (I think) one district and Latino representation. One NPR commentator was quick to suggest that this may help the D’s in at least one upcoming race but I wouldn’t be so sure. If there is one thing that the R’s have managed to do in the last 15 years is open the tent, at least at the grass roots level.
Whatever do I mean by this?
No doubt the Prez and his Veep Curly are polarizing figures. Policy wise however, there is open debate among the R’s on international (and more importantly) domestic issues in a way that is not apparent among the D’s. The most recent example of how the D’s are lacking in this regard (and it may be more than perception) came from the Sultan. He reminded us of recent statements by Senator BO about the importance of opening the D tent to religious voters. The Sultan applauded this…and I do, to a degree. Is this an honest opening of the tent or is it more like – ‘we need the Jesus vote what’re we gonna do to get it?’
What do I mean by this?
In the BO v. AK debates during the senatorial race there was one spot where AK stole the show. Let me preface this by saying I would never vote for AK, precisely because he has spent much of his life studying the same things I have. Anyone who has done that should be kept as far away from politics as humanly possible.
BO was on the defensive because AK was touting himself as the candidate for religious voters. BO’s response was basically how dare you question my personal religious beliefs. That is inappropriate.
AK, who was the superior debater (at least on this question – on many others he is dumber than me – that’s really dumb – and his position on homosexuals led him to humiliation and deserved scorn) but AK got BO to admit that he was a man of religious conviction but that conviction was separate from his stance on public policy…
Sultan may cheer – and probably most of the readers of this crappy blog would cheer the Senator’s response… but this is emblematic of the D’s problem in bringing religious voters back. Serious believers tend to not separate policy and faith in this way.
When AK further pushed BO in the realm of abortion (and I am not saying I agree with AK and the emphasis he put on abortion in the campaign) – but he showed our Senator’s lack of knowledge regarding the differences in numbers of abortions by race. AK, as per usual, went way too far and referred to it as a holocaust among black babies. But this was the one portion of all three debates where BO had a sort of a hommina hommina hommmmina moment.
The point AK tried to drive home was that BO was concerned with issues of race that he deemed important, and religious when it suited him
Zing!
I voted for BO. I like BO. But he will have a substance problem if he thinks he is the man who can open the tent for the D’s on domestic/cultural issues.
There is real debate among the R’s on abortion…even at the national conventions. There is real difference among them on things like embryonic stem cell research see Sen. Sam Brown-baby-got-no-Back vs. the Specter Detector from PA. Lively debate! Real debate over immigration coming from different direction – many of us want the D’s to get united – I had a dear friend say ‘Why don’t we (the D’s) have someone like Rushhh Limpdick?’ – to which I responded in horror – WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE ELSE WANT SOMEONE LIKE THAT!
I’d like to think the Sen. from IL learned something from this debate. I don’t know what kind of Pres he would make. However, to pick up on something the DC Liar said in the previous post - Hell, I’m not sure what kind of Senator he is. Gook luck to us all.
Damn you Paul Wolf o’Witless!
One day we’re going to find out that that guy was the sith lord we were looking for, and then where will we be?
Regarding yesterday’s SC decision…while I am glad to see a branch of the F govt at least questioning our peerless leader, I wonder what difference this makes, or if it is even a good idea. I wonder if it wasn’t for Abu Grabass – would there be this intensified human rights/due process investigation directed at Gitmo…
One probably has less to do with the other than I would like to believe, I try to question the missteps of the IROCK war at every opportunity. Yet for those dumbass blue ties who argue with me over IROCK lemme say – the frontline of terrorism was A-Stan…and may now become the Mog. What’s your guy doing about that?
What I like the most about the decision is I can now make the case to my liberal friends that the SC has not become the g bushy rubber stamp they have feared since Judge Ito and Mr. Roberts have copped a squat there. Robbie rightly took no role in the opinion or dissents of the court since he was part of the appellate court that upheld Hamdennnnnnnn. I don’t know if this is good judicial behavior on Robbie’s part or if he had to – jeanz? Anybody? – of course I teach some of this shit, I should know.
But then, I’m an idiot. What do I know?
Ironically, because I am such a dumbass, the bigger decision to me was that the SC upheld the TX redistricting plan with the exception of (I think) one district and Latino representation. One NPR commentator was quick to suggest that this may help the D’s in at least one upcoming race but I wouldn’t be so sure. If there is one thing that the R’s have managed to do in the last 15 years is open the tent, at least at the grass roots level.
Whatever do I mean by this?
No doubt the Prez and his Veep Curly are polarizing figures. Policy wise however, there is open debate among the R’s on international (and more importantly) domestic issues in a way that is not apparent among the D’s. The most recent example of how the D’s are lacking in this regard (and it may be more than perception) came from the Sultan. He reminded us of recent statements by Senator BO about the importance of opening the D tent to religious voters. The Sultan applauded this…and I do, to a degree. Is this an honest opening of the tent or is it more like – ‘we need the Jesus vote what’re we gonna do to get it?’
What do I mean by this?
In the BO v. AK debates during the senatorial race there was one spot where AK stole the show. Let me preface this by saying I would never vote for AK, precisely because he has spent much of his life studying the same things I have. Anyone who has done that should be kept as far away from politics as humanly possible.
BO was on the defensive because AK was touting himself as the candidate for religious voters. BO’s response was basically how dare you question my personal religious beliefs. That is inappropriate.
AK, who was the superior debater (at least on this question – on many others he is dumber than me – that’s really dumb – and his position on homosexuals led him to humiliation and deserved scorn) but AK got BO to admit that he was a man of religious conviction but that conviction was separate from his stance on public policy…
Sultan may cheer – and probably most of the readers of this crappy blog would cheer the Senator’s response… but this is emblematic of the D’s problem in bringing religious voters back. Serious believers tend to not separate policy and faith in this way.
When AK further pushed BO in the realm of abortion (and I am not saying I agree with AK and the emphasis he put on abortion in the campaign) – but he showed our Senator’s lack of knowledge regarding the differences in numbers of abortions by race. AK, as per usual, went way too far and referred to it as a holocaust among black babies. But this was the one portion of all three debates where BO had a sort of a hommina hommina hommmmina moment.
The point AK tried to drive home was that BO was concerned with issues of race that he deemed important, and religious when it suited him
Zing!
I voted for BO. I like BO. But he will have a substance problem if he thinks he is the man who can open the tent for the D’s on domestic/cultural issues.
There is real debate among the R’s on abortion…even at the national conventions. There is real difference among them on things like embryonic stem cell research see Sen. Sam Brown-baby-got-no-Back vs. the Specter Detector from PA. Lively debate! Real debate over immigration coming from different direction – many of us want the D’s to get united – I had a dear friend say ‘Why don’t we (the D’s) have someone like Rushhh Limpdick?’ – to which I responded in horror – WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE ELSE WANT SOMEONE LIKE THAT!
I’d like to think the Sen. from IL learned something from this debate. I don’t know what kind of Pres he would make. However, to pick up on something the DC Liar said in the previous post - Hell, I’m not sure what kind of Senator he is. Gook luck to us all.
posted by edP | 7:49 AM
10 Comments:
Every judge has the ethical obligation to avoid "the appearance of impropriety" - but exactly what that means is an unsettled question. Take that and add the hubbub over Alito's slipshod handling of Vanguard recusals and you put Robbie in a tough spot. He was right to decline participation. I also think he was betting the case would come out his way even without his vote.
He bet wrong
"Serious believers tend to not separate policy and faith in this way." You're right. This is the thing Alan Keyes and all the hair on fire right wingers won't accept, and it's what gives them strength and limits their appeal. BO's speech was mainly directed at the left, reminding them that the ideals of the progressive agenda are Christian based, and therefore they should be embraced as kindrid spirits rather than dismissed. He partly blames this liberal attitude for allowing the extremists like Falwell and Robertson to hold sway. In BO's recent speech he stated the right needs to "accept some ground rules for collaboration". No can do. The intractability of the far right on issues makes an open debate impossible. You can't debate a guy who doesn't have the capacity to factor variables into an issue as complex as running a society. He appealed for reason in the debate about religion and public policy by saying 'context matters'. He's damn right. It sure as hell matters when you bomb Iraq without provocation for example. At the same time, I don't think Keyes would refuse life saving embryonic stem cell therapy. Wait, didn't he have cancer recently? I'm sure his faith healer did a bang up job. He's a twat.
Re: Steener forgetting to log off of Blogger - DOUBLE AAAAAARRRRRGGGGG!!!
Re: me being an idiot and not logging off and logging in properly - ugh.
You don't have to be a "hair on fire" right winger to see if a leader is careful to separate their faith from their approach to policy - their faith doesn't mean much - and they are just a lair of a different kind. AK may be a twat, but he highlights an interesting problem for so-called progressive politicians who call on liberals to be more inclusive of people of faith.
Oh and Steener the reason for abbr's and nicknames - I don't want people who are googling a serious political leader like BA to accidently come across my mindless ramblings - these thoughts are for our entertainment purposes only - it's entertaining to see how much of a know-nothing boob I am
BO On balancing the importance of one's personal faith and the need for the separation of church and state:
"For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it. In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that."
Ed, I agree with your point, but you shouldn't use AK to illustrate it. For one, his views don't represent the moderate Christian majority. If he speaks of a black Holocaust, he should bear some responsibility not just to call out the girls having the abortions, but the politicians for allowing such an environment to exist where an abortion is the only option. Context matters. Absolutists like AK don't take into account the full ramifications of their views, which may have unintended negative consequences that are more anti-Christian than the act they wanted to prohibit. It's the same problem the RCC has with AIDS in Africa because of their dumbheaded stance on condoms.
Glad to see we are on the same page with most of these things Sultan - I wasn't using AK to illustrate the position - rather, if Keyes can get BO into a little trouble in a shitty debate that only me and Ron Majors are watching...what's gonna happen when he gets in with a serious candidate?
I think my point (and this is separate from DC Liar's criticism) is that BO needs at least until 2012 to do something - and get a bit more seasoning
Do NOT make the joke I think you are going to make here Mr. DC Liar!
I am probably wrong...I would've been one of those people who told Mario Cuomomomomomomom not to run in 1992 against g daddy. We might've had 8 years of economic prosperity under a leader who embraced real or more real prog values (not Yes) than Bubba...just think where we'd be now?
Maybe the optomism of the Sultan and others is a good thing. Again, never confuse the thoughts of a student of the history of political philosophy for actual political knowledge
best regards, nice info cosmetic surgeons and cleveland clinic http://www.filtering-parental-control-software-for-linux.info/Parental-television-control.html Fishing walleye on the connecticut river Medical malpractice lawyer buffalo
Post a Comment
<< Home