Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Nonsense. Nobody on the Rabid Right gives a shit about Miers' qualifications. The Right's sole concern is the same as the Left's - they don't know how she'll vote on Roe.

The Right's been fucked over by GOP Presidents who put pro-Roe judges on the bench twice already and doesn't want to get fucked again. Stop bullshitting about how you're concerned about her qualifications. You'd put a donkey on the SCOTUS if its trainers could assure you it would vote against Roe.

I disagree. I assume Bush is not telling the truth when he says he has never discussed abortion with him. I also assume that she has told him she is anti-RvW and would overturn it. That's not my litmus test and I think soime of the commentators are making a more principled argument too. She is not qualified. Period. She could promise to overturn Roe v Wade. Pour a couple of bottles of 85 Lafitte Rothschilde down my gullet and blow me till the cows come home, npi, and I still wouldn't support the nominiation. But I understand that it's hard for a leftie to understand principle.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
We never discussed rape. Possibly because that is something we both know we agree is an absolute wrong. But you misrepresented where we stand on murder.

You took the position that killing is an absolute wrong. Yet you also claimed that you did not oppose the war in Iraq.

I asked you how you can argue that killing is an absolute wrong, but support a war at the same time.

Your response was that the killers would have to answer for their sins, but that was God's prerogative and not yours.

Which brings me to my next questions.

1. Will Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the command structure behind the war be punished for their sins? If so, then why should we as a people respect or support these sinners?

2. How about the grunts in the streets? Will they be punished for their sins? Why should we as taxpayers be foreced to pay for this sin? Why should we respect these killers?

Consult Dianetics. Or ask your Ouija board.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Fucking pussy terrorist-sympathizer.

"Ping! Pow!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
We never discussed rape. Possibly because that is something we both know we agree is an absolute wrong. But you misrepresented where we stand on murder.

You took the position that killing is an absolute wrong. Yet you also claimed that you did not oppose the war in Iraq.

I asked you how you can argue that killing is an absolute wrong, but support a war at the same time.

Your response was that the killers would have to answer for their sins, but that was God's prerogative and not yours.

Which brings me to my next questions.

1. Will Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the command structure behind the war be punished for their sins? If so, then why should we as a people respect or support these sinners?

2. How about the grunts in the streets? Will they be punished for their sins? Why should we as taxpayers be foreced to pay for this sin? Why should we respect these killers?

Perhaps we are in the early innings of the apocalypse. I am thankful we are on the right side.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
But I understand that it's hard for a leftie to understand principle.

Is this comment directed to the leftie leadership, lefties in general, or lefties in general except for the ones that are "some of your best friends"?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
He might also have pictures of them having secret meetings with the Tooth Fairy.

Is that the code name for their RedChinese handler?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Okay, here is another example of where you're confusing me. KIlling is an absolute right, but you are implying that you would use deadly force to protect your property. How can you call yourself aa good person when you are prepared to do wrong?

What "murderers" are you talking about?

Kennedy for one. Clintons are suspect for two.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I disagree. I assume Bush is not telling the truth when he says he has never discussed abortion with him. I also assume that she has told him she is anti-RvW and would overturn it. That's not my litmus test and I think soime of the commentators are making a more principled argument too. She is not qualified. Period. She could promise to overturn Roe v Wade. Pour a couple of bottles of 85 Lafitte Rothschilde down my gullet and blow me till the cows come home, npi, and I still wouldn't support the nominiation. But I understand that it's hard for a leftie to understand principle.

I had this argument with someone about Scalia decisions- plebecite- my point was so what that he's smart, he needs to write dumber so the rest of us can understand why we have to let people get abortions or whatever.

Why do we limit the supreme Court to great minds when its mostly the dumb people at the impact edge of the law the Court makes?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Either he was sane, or he found an Internet chat-board where he could spout similar crap.

I left DC when Clinton arrived. Again, I have principles that I can't compromise.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I disagree. I assume Bush is not telling the truth when he says he has never discussed abortion with him. I also assume that she has told him she is anti-RvW and would overturn it. That's not my litmus test and I think soime of the commentators are making a more principled argument too. She is not qualified. Period. She could promise to overturn Roe v Wade. Pour a couple of bottles of 85 Lafitte Rothschilde down my gullet and blow me till the cows come home, npi, and I still wouldn't support the nominiation. But I understand that it's hard for a leftie to understand principle.

Principles, principle, principles... you wield that word like Bush uses "progress."

Any position can be a principled stance, depending on the speaker's values. I think your right wing social views are looney tunes - card carrying crazy. Given that, what added value does calling your silly position a "principle" add to it? You're trying to create moral high ground for yourself using your own very twisted morals as a baseline. Perhaps thats why Wonk's been slapping you around. You argue from a position of superiority that exists nowhere but between your ears.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It is certainly possible. He should have asked someone before giving away $3 million. At the end of the day, his undisclosed assumptions do not constitute a restriction on the gift.

I don't disagree with that and I am not arguing the legalities, but I can imagine that if you completely piss off a $3M dollar donor, the cost of keeping that donation (assuming no litigation) may ultimately be more than $3M, i.e. lost future money from various donor sources. I don't know the finances of this school, but I do know a little bit about private schools and development campaigns and $3M donors tend to run in packs of other potential donors, so appeasement might not be a bad thing.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Back to the "Clinton is a murderer" song? It's been awhile.

But does this mean that you are no longer too much of a fucking pussy to come right out and say (on an anonymous chatboard) that you believe Clinton actually murdered, or directed the murder, of someone?

It means I can't deny that they are people of interest.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Club - balls. Penske - no balls.

I gave my answer above. I have made my position clear on the rape, once you a rape someone, I am not sure how much farther your morality and/or humanity has to sink before you kill someone.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I had this argument with someone about Scalia decisions- plebecite- my point was so what that he's smart, he needs to write dumber so the rest of us can understand why we have to let people get abortions or whatever.

Why do we limit the supreme Court to great minds when its mostly the dumb people at the impact edge of the law the Court makes?

We don't. Scalia is Exhibit A.

I recall him saying a few years back at Georgetown that judges should allow their religion to inform their decisions. Thats not smart from a scholarly or common sense perspective. Only a fool utters a view so likely to be met with criticism. And only a fool allows the teeachings of mysticism to meedle with the application of the laws of the state.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Just so I'm clear on this...Am I one of those American Leftists, or am one of the "some of my best friends are American Leftists" American Leftists?

Not as far as I know. Yes, although despite the give and take, you may be more of an actual moderate.