NRO II
 

Why would you throw out a line like this?

I admit, happily, that many members of the MSM are biased, including Fox.

I want a shot at redemption/I need a photo opportunity
 

2. The choice is very symbolic. Like last time the choice of a Pole was intended to support the human rights movement there and in the rest of Eastern Europe. Picking a former Hitler youth guy just adds a layer of explaining/ answer dodging. And, as Sidd insightfully notes, there is no big deal with not picking a German for a hundred years or so.

I want a shot at redemption/I need a photo opportunity
 

We're thinking it was a specific and explicit warning to the transgressing priests of North America, reminding them of how Hitler thought to solve the pedophile problem.

We're also thinking the problem really starts to fade now . . .

NRO II
 

For a laugh. Sue me, I'm cheap.


I've only seen you and the other Rs on this board, and everywhere else, use "MSM" as a surrogate for "that fucking Liberal Media."

I want a shot at redemption/I need a photo opportunity
 

If that was their thinking, they would have made a plaintiffs' lawyer the Pope. The threat of big judgments seems to be getting the Church's attention a whole lot better than, say, the fear of burning in Hell for eternity that anyone who allows the rape of children to continue should have.


Man, can you imagine how great a Pope Johnny Cochran would have made? "If it's the Lord's Day, you must pray!"

Reason 876 that I hate Republicans. (spree: Austin American Statesman)

Because the scourge of gay foster parents keeps us all up at night.

"It's a learned behavior, and I think a child . . . ought to have the opportunity to be presented to a traditional family as such," Talton said. "And if they choose to be homosexual or lesbian, then that's their choice when they turn 18."

Grrr.

I need to stop paying attention to what my state legislature does.

I want a shot at redemption/I need a photo opportunity
 

Right. Name me one pedo priest who's opened his wallet. No, the fear needs to be far more personal than that.

I want a shot at redemption/I need a photo opportunity
 

As I said, the threat of big judgments is getting the Church to pay attention. (i.e. -- not any individual priest.)

Presumably the priests believe in things like Hell, eternal damnation, torture and agony and fire and brimstone and devils with pitchforks. If that wasn't personal enough to get them to stop raping little boys, I doubt anything else would do the trick.

Those Scourges
 

And to the Pope too.
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/images.../ratzinger.gif

I want a shot at redemption/I need a photo opportunity
 

Never mind. Better for IM.

I want a shot at redemption/I need a photo opportunity
 

God knows they raped the boys. The pope can't damn them to hell.

I want a shot at redemption/I need a photo opportunity
 

Presumably that defense would work for non-priest pedophiles as well? "Your honor, although my client has admitted guilt, he should be released on his own recognizance to await his eternal judgment at the hands of the Almighty."

I want a shot at redemption/I need a photo opportunity
 

Wasn't that the basic argument that kept Clinton from being impeached?

I want a shot at redemption/I need a photo opportunity
 

Close. He was released to Hilary, whch is its own form of eternal judgment, I suppose.

In other news, judges are even saying that maybe Hank's interpretation of Delay was right:

"As a judge I have to be very careful about going outside the "four corners" of the record before me in deciding a case. Clearly, some internet research is appropriate--Lexis-Nexis. But, if I tried to resolve a factual dispute in the record by doing my own research I believe I would overstepped the bounds of my ethics. That is the parties jobs and they have burdens of proof to meet. The judge is the finder of fact and is not supposed to be the developer of fact.

Especially appellant judges, who are to review the record before them as developed at the lower level. These judges are not supposed to be supplementing or developing the facts. A judges role is similar to that of a jury--to review the facts presented. It is improper for a juror to do research on factual issues and it might also be for a judge. Thus, a blanket condemnation of Mr. Delay's comments is not necessarily appropriate."

(From The Corner.)

Suppose you're Denny Hastert. Ready for a vote is an intelligence reform bill that you think is an important step to make the nation safer from terrorist attacks. It has plenty of Democratic support, but only 45% of the GOP House members support it. The alternative favored by the majority of the GOP House members cannot pass -- too many Republicans and Democrats oppose it. Everyone agrees that doing nothing is a terrible idea.

Do you let the intelligence reform bill favored by the majority of House members but a minority of GOP House members (including you) come to a vote, knowing that it will pass even though a majority of GOP House members oppose it? Or do you place GOP unity before national security, and prevent a vote?