Thinking Right

By Mid-South Philosopher

November 15, 2006 08:07 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

Now let me get this straight…

A “political extremist” is one suspected of holding “conservative” views.

A “judicial activist” is one suspected of holding “liberal” views.

We want “constitutional originalists” on the Supreme Court so long as their “original” interpretations of our Constitution are found to agree with our “neo-conservative” values.

We are against national health care or socialized medicine because we don’t want government to “intrude” into our lives unless the area of the “intrusion” involves selective medical procedures or the use of alternative “medications”, which, of course, are everyone’s business.

We want to insure the rights of every person to freedom of thought and expression so long as the thoughts and expressions are “liberally” expressed and politically correct.

We tout the notion of vouchers so that parents can have “choice” as to the school environment of their children, but we think nothing about robbing non-parents in order to pay for the education of the offspring of the procreators.

Makes perfect sense to the Bush/Pelosi mindset.

There is not one iota of difference between the “totalitarian” tendencies of the conservatives and liberals…the operative word being “tendencies.” Each side believes they have the best way for you and me to live, and each side is determined to do everything in their power to make sure we live as they suggest!

A plague on all of their houses!

By CJ

November 15, 2006 08:15 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Thanks for pointing out that the GOP blocked Clinton’s judicial nominees. However, the magnitude was much greater than you indicate. In fact, 35 percent of Clinton’s appeals court nominees were blocked without a vote in the Judiciary Committee while the GOP controlled the Senate from 1995 to 2000. It’s not as if they held the hearings and voted these nominees down. 50 nominees weren’t even granted a hearing and six who had hearings still weren’t voted on. Then, when Bush was elected, many of these empty chairs were filled by Bush-appointed judges.

Pretty slick don’t you think? The GOP (under Orrin Hatch) prevents more than a third of Clinton nominees from even getting voted on in committee. Then they have the gall to complain about the injustice of Democrats threatening to filibuster on a tiny fraction of their nominees.

Having said that, these judicial nominees and Bolton should not be confirmed. Thankfully, that’s unlikely to happen.

By jbmlaw

November 15, 2006 08:24 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Ever since Kelo conservative judges are unbeatable with the public. President Bush can nominate sound conservatives (forgive the redundancy) with no risk; in fact, senate failure to approve such judges will cost Harry Reid his job. (By the way, what do you call an idiot senator who decries the purported lack of intelligence of the only black member of the supreme court, then issues a press release to honor Martin LUTHOR King?)

Bolton has been the best appointee to the disreputable United Nations since Jeanne Kirkpatrick, maybe since William F. Buckley, Jr. So obviously the ethically challenged Murthacrats will not approve the one fellow who could clean it up.

By White Jesus

November 15, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this

My guess is “No” “.”

Start nominating qualified people for the jobs, then we would see his own party support his choices.

Oh, Dusty the Clown asked the other day what other company is large enough to do everything that Haliburton gets no bid contratcs for…. James the engineer’s company..URS…sorry for calling you out James if you read this.

By DebbieDoRight

November 15, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this

Bolton is the best person to start WWIII with his great lack of tact, common sense, and ideals.

Bolton for the UN? Why not just let Dubya’s friend Brownie (ex FEMA Director michael brown), do it? I’m sure he’d do a much better job.

By Andy

November 15, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this

The only reason any of Bush’s appellate nominatees have a chance is because the Iraqi Survey Group delayed publication of it’s findings till next month. That’s a dead giveaway about what’s in that report: cut and run is the only option. If Baker leaks any of that, forget any Bush appellate judges. Look at the timing of OJ’s “How I did it, If I did it”.Ten years ago, I predicted OJ’s book about how he did it, plus expect a movie. I called it.

Anyway, the public wont be paying attention to the Judge Roy Beans that Bush is pushing.

Bush is publishing a book entitled, “If I had ever said, ‘Stay the Course’, how I would have intoned the message…..”

I’m writing a book, “If I ever did actually say, “I do”, it wouldn’t have been with you, Fatina.”

By DebbieDoRight

November 15, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this

Haliburton’s Dirty Little Secrets (and other tawdry tales) Vol. 1:

Now, conservatives are faulting President Clinton for selling light water reactors to North Korea under the agreement, but in doing so, they overlook Donald Rumsfeld’s role in the deal.

Rumsfeld was the only American to sit on the board of a company which a few years ago sold two light water reactors to North Korea

Source Newsweek Feb. 2003

By Chazman

November 15, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this

(By the way, what do you call an idiot senator who decries the purported lack of intelligence of the only black member of the supreme court, then issues a press release to honor Martin LUTHOR King?)

jbmlaw - these two have nothing to do with each other whatsoever. If this Senator, or idiot Senator as you say, decried the lack of intelligence of the only black member of the Supreme Court (I don’t know what he said, but I’ll take your word on it), what does that have to do with MLK? Are you saying if he questions the intelligence of Thomas, there is no legitamate way he can honor MLK or believe MLK to be an honorable man? Or if he honors MLK, then he should never question the intelligence of any other black man, such as Thomas? They are two different men in two different generations.

By DebbieDoRight

November 15, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

You mean OJ didn’t do it?!? But IF he had done it he’d know exactly how it was done?!? Amazing!!! It’s amazing how much a person can be blinded by ignorance, (Dubya: hint, hint)

By Southern Democrat

November 15, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

Good morning friends,

I hope my conservative friends on this blog have gotten over the shock of last Tuesday and are ready to work with saner, moderate middle of the Democratic Party (which I think will be the voice of the party). Some of the best legislation to come out of Congress of late came during the Clinton presidency when he was forced to work with a Republican Congress.

Mr. Wooten, however, seems to have the same mentality as President Clinton and his coterie did when they were granting pardons left and right while packing up the White House… it’s not right and it’s contrary to the will of the people.

I don’t know if anyone else on here has had the misfortune of having to deal with Judge Boyle, but I can tell you that there is a very good reason his nomination has been stalled. Judge Boyle is, ironically, the definition of an activist judge as he continually ignores Supreme Court precedent and his reversal rate in the conservative 4th Circuit is appalling. Further, Judge Boyle has, on several occasions, presided over cases in which he has held stock in one of the parties involved. I do not think that conservatives want to rally around Judge Boyle, honestly.

Acting Ambassador Bolton is a joke. He has continued his practice of running his office like a dictatorship, squelching dissent, intimidating those who work for him as well as those he is supposed to work with. As the new Secretary General enters office in January, we need a new ambassador that demonstrates we are willing to work with the United Nations and help it implement much needed reform.

By @@

November 15, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this

Jim: There are two topics you often present which leave my mind wonderi…nevermind, they just leave my mind because I lack interest. They’re the judiciary and economics.

I do, however, leave it open to learn from other, more knowledgeable, posters here.

I will say that the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they considered the inherent nature of man in considering how the judiciary should operate. For that reason, I am inclined to view conservative judges in a more favorable light. They’re more apt to apply the precautionary principle, which is something that I have come to value greatly.

Liberal judges? Their tendency is to put a check by feel-good legislation. On balance, a conservative judge is going to question whether feel-good legislation serves the population as a whole, or if it serves only a fraction of the whole.

John Bolton? I say YES, YES, YES. By all means, YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pardon my “Harry met ^^^ Sally moment.

Oh….Political Foreskin lost this (c=3) over at Luckovich’s yesterday. I thought he might need it.

By Andy

November 15, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this

Hey, So Dem, will you knock off the bold type? It comes in a pattern that is inducing epileptic fits in hemophiliacs…

I myself have this metal plate…..

Just blog, and quit trying to put on a dog and pony show.

Honestly.

By Chazman

November 15, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

In Mr. Wooten’s article, he could have saved alot of space and time if he would have just typed, “When it comes to confirming judicial nominees, the Democrats shouldn’t do to the Republicans what the Republicans did to the Democrats a few years ago.” That would have summed it up in one sentence.

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this

Dear Mr. Wooten,

At times, you speak sense. At times you don’t. This is one of the times when politics seem to have clouded your vision. You utter not a single word about the capability or competency of these people, merely that they support your particular view of the world. That would be sufficient unto itself for saying “let’s hold off on these guys and see if we can’t find some competent people out there who owe loyalty to neither party.”

By Fat Fuzzy Gay Guy

November 15, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

Chazman, you clearly do not understand.

When Republicans blocked Democratic nominees, the Repubs were being patriotic.

When Democrats block Republican nominees, the Demos are being traitors.

C’mon, get with Jim’s Program of “Fearless Leader NewSpeak”.

By Advisor

November 15, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

I am suprised that in his long years of being an a*****, no one has punched Bolton out. Surely some junior State Department flunky could see the handwritting on the wall concerning his career. Better yet, the un folks have diplomatic immunity, so perhaps the un ambassador of say Iran could just punch away on the big mouthed biggot. Sure he would be expelled from the un, but he would return to Iran as a hero for putting a fist in a FatAssed American biggots mouth. Bolton is a p***, a chickenhawk who has been known to stalk women, and I believe once got beat up by a woman he was stalking, imho, of course.

By Bemused Humanist

November 15, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

Dear Mr. Wooten,

I thought it would be wise to provide some facts to accompany all the “Truth” we read on this blog.

Let’s define judicial activism as the act of striking down a Congressional law. Prior to 1991, the Supreme Court did this very infrequently, about once every two years. From 1994 to 2005, Congressional laws were struck down an amazing 64 times.

Who were these terrible activist judges who were thwarting the Will of the People?

According the two Yale researchers, the top judicial activists (by percentage of times they voted to overturn Congress) are:

Thomas 65.6% Kennedy 64.1% Scalia 56.8% Rehnquist 46.9%

The judge with the smallest percentage was Stephen Breyer, with only 28.1%.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html?ex=1278302400&en=0e5fac7774080327&ei=5090(http://www.ajc.com)

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

As usual the arrogant corrupt fascist demoNcrat afterbirth, even with very narrow control of the senate, will only willingly approve nominees that their far left wants. There is NO attempt by demoNcrats to allow a GOP president his nominees and the pinkos sneer at, undermine,obfuscate and use any tactic to stop any reasonable attempt by Bush to get his wholly competent, decent appointees nominated. Often after many years of trying. Its time the GOP finally stood up to these scum and pushed through ALL - or as many as posssible - of Bush’s stalled nominees. Pussyfooting around with the leftist filth gets no one anywhere. It hands added power to the cut and run cowards.

Bolton is undeniably the finest UN Ambassador for many decades. He’s the ONLY member of the administration who fully understands how the corrupt and largely worthless, racist, anti-American org. works. Bolton knows how to treat the UN and how to deal with the innate anti-white/western and (often) anti-semitic hysteria there.

The demoNcrats have almost stopped lying about “bi-partisan” co-operation. Hilariously its only a taken a few days for their cynical glib purely media buzz lies to be exposed. If they really wanted to work with the GOP and do what’s best for America then the corrupt far left house chairman nominees feminazi botoxPelosi is eagerly signalling would be nowhere to be seen. And the likes of Jane Harman would be quietly left to take over come late January.

Two years of the far left running things and the demoNcrats are back to square one - deservedly out of power and endlessly bickering.

Lets hope that LIEberman does swap parties in January after the shameful way he was treated by the hysterical fascist left in his party. LIEberman should become the demoNcrat Jeffers. Imagine just how gleefully hilarious that would be.

By Chazman

November 15, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

My bad, Fat Fuzzy Gay Guy. I should have known better.

By DebbieDoRight

November 15, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

Twisted Truth: Do u like anybody?

By DebbieDoRight

November 15, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

Other Bolton policy highlights:

Speaking before an audience at the Heritage Foundation in May 2002, Bolton argued that Cuba should be included among the axis of evil countries because of its development of biowarfare capacity. Cuba is world renowned for its biomedical industry, but according to Bolton the industry was concealing a WMD project. He charged that Cuba has “at least a limited offensive biological warfare research development effort” and that it has “provided dual-use technology to other rogue states.”

Providing no evidence for his allegations, Bolton said that Cuba was involved in the sales of illicit biowarfare technology in part as a way to boost its cash-short economy. Other administration officials, when pressed, declined to support Bolton’s accusations (David Ignatius, “Bolton’s Biggest Problem,” Washington Post, April 22, 2005).

Bolton never complied with congressional demands to provide documentation on the Cuban assertion, and the CIA effectively blocked Bolton’s appearance before the Senate regarding his allegations about Syria’s weapons of mass destruction. A congressional investigation of Cuba’s alleged WMD program found no evidence to back Bolton’s assertions (Jim Lobe, “North Korea Won’t Recognize State Dep’t. Ideologue,” Inter Press Service, August 4, 2003).

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

@ bewildered humanscum

Clearly this dickweed’s intellectual honesty is as laughable as his inability to post the “truth”. Given that most of the laws on the ‘congressional books’ are still as a result of decades of one party rule by the party of (leftist) hate its only natural that GOP leaning justices will take the opportunity to use measured judicious judgment in over turning them.

Add to this the rulings of the insanely leftist Kalifornia fed appeal court which is reversed @ 75% of the time - and other very liberal state supreme courts - e.g. FL, CA etc and its clear why liberals bleat and whine about SCOTUS standing up for judicial reason.

such pathetic leftist bluster is too funny … still LMFAO

By Redneck Convert

November 15, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

Well, the missus is over-eating again big-time. She got upset when she saw a news report about the new librul leaders of Congress. Finally, she said, “Why, it’s a bunch of n———!”—I won’t use the word here cause we are supposed to say Those People these days. Only, us good Georgia Republicans know what she meant and we share her thought.

I’m 100% with Wooten on getting conservative judges approved and John Bolton confirmed for the UN. We need to keep Those People in their place. Else next thing we know, we’ll be paying taxes for welfare queens again, like we did before welfare reform. And prices will go way up if the courts take a side against big business. And murderers and rapists will be walking free, instead of getting the execution they deserve. Our beautiful white women down here will be manhandled by the brutes among Those People.

I’m sick of this harping about John Bolton. If our guy in the UN can’t give a middle finger to those commies there once in a while, what kind of wimp is he? Forget about nice. We’ve been nice long enough. Bolton needs to keep telling the UN how worthless it is and how sick the members are. That’s the only way to get it to change. Who needs friends when you got the best army in the world? Like Stalin said when an adviser pointed out that the Pope might not like something he was going to do. Stalin replied, “And how many divisions does the Pope have?”

Well, it’s back to my beer run for me. I got about 30 deliverys to make today. I’ll be checking in once in a while to see TFTT, jbmlaw, Dusty, Van, Realist, Markus, and other God’s People give the libruls what for.

By Van

November 15, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this

The Democrats will not allow any qualified person nominated by the President to be confirmed.

They will play the playground bully and block most if not all nominations.

There will be no pretense of bi-partisanship. It will be - you were mean to me, so I will be mean back -

By Andy

November 15, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

Time4daturd proves Darwin’s theory: Language was invented when monkeys first split the infinitive.

(as opposed to splitting the atom and stuff)

TFTT: aren’t you legally bound to register as a sex offender when you visit this blog?

I am so reporting you.

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

ritalin debbie

I see you’re still very amusingly unable to proffer any meaningful deep conceptual thinking - I guess that highly experimental HRT course you’ve been on has taken its toll!!

By Bemused Humanist

November 15, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

Dear Mr Wooten:

Mr. Truth posts “Given that most of the laws on then ‘congressional books’ (sic) are still as a result of one party rule by the party of (leftist) hate …”

This is a totally unsupported statement which is completely inaccurate for the study period (1994-2005).

The great theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, when confronted with a paper that he felt was in totally error, would sum up the argument as “not even wrong.” Reading the right-wing “arguments” on this blog makes one want to respond in much the same manner.

By getalife

November 15, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

Jim is starring today at “Whacky Wootens”.

Here are the highlights:

A political extremist, of course, is one suspected of holding conservative views.

Too funny.

Confirming United Nations Ambassador John Bolton in the lame-duck session is vital.

Jim’s in la, la land. He does not have the votes. Arrogance and bully tactics have done enough damage. Need a real diplomat.

By CJ

November 15, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Sorry to stray off topic, but I have news.

As most people who don’t get their news from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News probably know, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was democratically elected twice and is up for re-election next month. Polls show that he currently holds a double-digit lead against his closest opponent.

Well, it’s now coming to light that after the Bush-approved military coup against Chavez failed in 2002, the White House began to direct taxpayer funds, via the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), to anti-Chavez political organizations inside Venezuela. Despite President Bush’s pro-freedom rhetoric, this so-called aid is but another demonstration of his contempt for free and fair elections and his contempt for the electorate in Venezuela (and his contempt for American taxpayers). Bush’s interference in Nicaraguan elections backfired last week by helping to return Daniel Ortega to power. Now, Bush’s incompetent meddling has only served to help bolster Chavez’s popularity in Venezuela.

Let’s review recent history – President Bush approved of a military coup against democratically-elected Chavez. Bush directs taxpayer money appropriated for foreign aid (economic and humanitarian assistance) to influence elections in Venezuela. Chavez calls Bush the devil…huh.

Here are a couple of related facts about USAID.

Fun Fact No. 1: USAID’s current Administrator is Randall Tobias. Tobias is a Bush appointed abstinence-only zealot and anti-generic drug plutocrat who is a former CEO of pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly.

Fun Fact No. 2: When Tobias came on board, Condoleezza Rice folded USAID into her State Department, where of course, the Agency’s agenda can be under the watchful eye of a politically-motivated Secretary of State.

Friends, it’s okay to cry.

By Michael

November 15, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this

The difference between republicans and democrats is the difference between a pit bull and a collie. Either one of them will bite you, one just looks cuter before it tears your arm off.

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

If I recall what I learned in grammer school correctly, the first words spoken were “Honey, do…”

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

I see the Foley/Studds loving hate pig rednekkks is now posting as andy pandy.

talking of monkeys rednekkks - (apologies for publicly ventilating your mothers choice of sperm bank material) presumably you now know to peel a banana before you eat one. Aping monkeys is the ONLY way rednekkks learns these days - given that the Emory primate unit has taken to treating rednekkks like a non-magic mushroom - keeping him in the dark and feeding him (Bush hating leftist) bullsh!t.

By JK

November 15, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

There will be no pretense of bi-partisanship. It will be - you were mean to me, so I will be mean back

Van, if YOU were an advisor (instead of a critic) how would YOU advise them to handle it? Would you say, “Prove you can play nice even though they blocked everything your party tried to do, shut down your every idea saying you had none, and even turned off your microphones so you couldn’t even speak in committiees. Give the Repubs whatever they want as a show of good faith!” And if they did so, would you then call them a bunch of panty-waist spineless weenies for making nice to the people who did nothing but bully THEM when they were in power?

How does this work in the very special Van world of diplomacy? Just curiuous.

By Andy

November 15, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

Redneck, “how many divisions does the pope have?”

Stalin didn’t say that, Yogi Berra did, and he was referring to the expansion baseball divisions that sent the cardinals, not the pope, to St. Louis.

I dont mind you schtooping every reference you ever made, but try to edit down to 25 words or less; you take up too much space and it ruins the blog for others.

And try to blog more evil….a little evil….little?

By DebbieDoRight

November 15, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

Twisted Truth: U r too easy!! Huge centrist smirk

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

JK,

I think the American people can overturn the Democrats just as rapidly in 2008 as they did the Republicans in 2006 if they don’t play nice. I think the American electorate is tired of corruption, lies, misdirection, deceit, and the whole list of Republican misdeeds. If the Democrats act like Republicans, we’ll have another red tide in ‘08.

By JoeD

November 15, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

Is it possible that some of these people are not qualified to be judges? As a lawyer, I run across politically appointed judges every day who are not qualified. The Democrats have pretty much let Bush have his way with them on judicial nominees. Even if they hold up 5 remaining nominees, Bush has gotten most of what he wants. We will be saddled with ultra-conservative judges for years to come. And as loathe as I am to admit I read TFTT’s posts, her comment on the laws being found unconstitutional by the current court shows the hypocrosy of the right. If they are reversing long standing laws, no matter who passed them, then they are activists legislating from the bench. They are substituting their opinions for those of the legislature on matters that were long ago decided by the people and probably other courts, including other Supreme Courts. As for Bolton, the last word used to describe him is diplomatic. Most of the other words can’t be printed. He needs to go. He never should have been there in the first place. Bush can’t even get the lame duck GOP Senators to vote for him.

By Peter

November 15, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

HA HA HA…JIM Wooten……..so you lost the election, and now want to push through more of the same agenda that lost you the election…..better do it quickly before anyone realizes it will never happen with INTELLIGENT minded folks now coming in this January!

HA HA HA HA HA……..what a joke!

Jim you are a huge JOKE!!!!!

So much for BEING AMERICAN…….are you sure you are not a Traitor?

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

bewildered humanscum’s abject dishonesty is the pinko gift that keeps on giving.

Clearly given the lengthy process involved in “kicking” …huge unnedumacaaated smirk legal challenges all the way up through the appeals process to SCOTUS the laws “overturned” in the first part of the notably (politically) very NARROWLY defined period would have been largely if not wholly perpetrated by the party of leftist hate.

humanscum, as expected also utterly ignores the FACTUAL matter of the level of reversal of pinko infested lower courts, which again as I clearly stated, adds to the seemingly high numbers. REAL funny how the far leftist Bryer doesn’t vote to abrogate leftist power/legislation, and humanscum seems to assert (at least implicitly) that this is a good thing.

another blindingly obvious point that humanscum IGNORES is that implicit in humanscum’s extremely limited and wholly worthless partisan rant is a pathetic failure to contrast the “overturnings” by the much more liberal SCOTUS during the party of hate’s decades of rule.

One naturally assumes (without bothering to google it - cos who really gives a F?) that SCOTUS back then was much more politically self serving and unquestioning of liberal legislation. Which clearly makes humanscum’s lame hateful leftist point increasingly redundant. I.E. GOP justices objected to leftist legislation, or long standing legislation which was enacted in very different times … BIG FREAKING SURPRISE!!

perhaps human scum would also pitch an equally stupid sullen moronic hissy fit if the demonCrat racists who noisily and vehemently opposed the civil rights act in the 1960’s had not been opposed by the GOP.

Its fooking hilarious to see sad small minded wankers like this actually post such blindingly obvious drivel and try and make a tedious and utterly pointless political point out of it!!

I want to publicly thank humanscum for being anally petty enough to transcribe a minor typo error of mine and give it the full monty supercilious treatment. nice one humanscum!!

By Chazman

November 15, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

Trash says:

ritalin debbie

I see you’re still very amusingly unable to proffer any meaningful deep conceptual thinking.

Now let’s see what Trash says in the next post:

talking of monkeys rednekkks - (apologies for publicly ventilating your mothers choice of sperm bank material) presumably you now know to peel a banana before you eat one. Aping monkeys is the ONLY way rednekkks learns these days - given that the Emory primate unit has taken to treating rednekkks like a non-magic mushroom - keeping him in the dark and feeding him (Bush hating leftist) bullsh!t.

Debbie, you really should look at and study the above “meaningful deep conceptual thinking” Trash has given us in this post so you can learn from him, seeing how deep and conceptual it was.

C’mon Debbie. You can do better.

Prediction: Trash will next post how I “bit” and fell right into his trap of responding to him. Yet when he responds to someone else, it never seems to be that way. So predictable.

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

ritalin debbie

abusing you is indeed a real pleasure -cheers for providing so many moronic opportunities.

By DebbieDoRight

November 15, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

Is twisted truth a boy or a girl? Hmmmm I keep reading posts that call hiim/her both. Ok there’s only one way to find out I’ll go to the source.

Quick Twisted Truth, who would you rather kiss?

A. Marilyn Manson

B. Janet Reno

PS: Death is not an option!!

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

November 15, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

If you think tftt/tommy is easy, you should meet her mother…

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

JoeD(1043),

I’m not totally sure that Bush pays much attention to any qualification other than their voting record.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

November 15, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

Given the new political climate, the GOP ought to think about renaming themselves.

How about the Dixiecrats?

Better yet, why don’t you clowns just secede again?

Buh-bye!

By JoeD

November 15, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

It sounds like a lot of people on this blog, foremost JWooten, suffer from the delusion that just because a judge doesn’t find the way they would, that judge must be an activist, or a traitor, or “politically self-serving”. Every court makes mistakes, and every court injects some of their personal bias and experience into a decision. But that does not make what they do illegal, immoral or wrong. This kind of thinking, which is a standard part of this administration (you’re either fur us or agin us) leads to the type of partisan rancor that has riven this country. We all need to accept that we will not agree with everything that our President, Congress, Governor, State Legislature and Courts will do, and that they are not the enemy. Some things go the way we want them to, some don’t. But don’t label them as traitors, unpatriotic, activist, etc. That just distracts from the issues that should be discussed.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

November 15, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

[Dixie, alas, never dies…Strom Thurmond’s former butt boy now new Minority Leader - click here to puke] (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/15/congress.leaders.ap/index.html)

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

Joe you sad wittle wanker (so cleverly and wittily calling me a “she”) - surely as a mature educated responsible NON SEXIST officer of the court you are supposed to be above such puerile name calling. Obviously I just enjoy handing it back!!

there are equally numerous demoNcrat judges who are not “qualified” or who are there because of racial preferences/minority political appointments, leftist gubernatorial appointees, unopposed judges in heavily liberal districts etc. then there are the liberal judges who hand out 60 day sentences to evil child rapists in VT or only probation to serial child molestors in OH … and on and on.

the fact that you ONLY, in a very shrill tone, decry GOP judges shows us how one sided and utterly dishonest you are.

as for your patheitc bollocks about GOP judges being activists from the bench - utter horsesh!t. If leftist laws, or any laws are unjust, oppressive, racist against whites, are unjust against business or segments of society, or go way to far in various areas then they should be overturned or modified. Many older laws are no longer relevant to the modern era or need to be modified for modern times.

leftist judges in CA and elsewhere have attempted to undermine or just blocked legitimate legal election results on propositions that leftist dont like but can’t prevent in free voting … especially on immigration matters.

I LOVE IT WHEN YOU LEFTIES HUMILIATE YOURSELVES ON HERE WITH SUCH PATHETIC IGNORANT BLATANT ONE SIDED BIAS!!

By Andy

November 15, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

BTW: did anyone notice how obsequiously Andy stopped using italics in his manifesto blogs?

I commented once or twice that it was hard to read, and the chump was so afraid that he might lose the 3 finger-probes who actually read anything he writes, that he fell for it, and stopped using italics.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

what a dope. what a fallguy. what a total chumpwad.

I love it.

Sighted moron. Sank same.

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

JoeD,

Good for you. I doubt that this blog has ever had such good sense posted. Hang in there.

By CJ

November 15, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

Van, JK and Diogenes inspired me to clarify the last paragraph in my 8:15 post. I might have seemed to have implied exactly what Van is suggesting — that Democrats should railroad Bush nominees because Republicans railroaded Clinton nominees. Actually, I meant that these nominees shouldn’t be confirmed because of their records (Southern Democrat spells it out nicely at 8:56).

Diogenes is right – Democrats won’t retain control for very long if it’s just more of the same. Unlike what happened under Republican control, the new Senate Judiciary Committee should hold speedy hearings on every one of Bush’s judicial nominees and have the courtesy of putting these nominees to a vote. However, no committee member is obligated to vote yes for any nominee they find objectionable.

Here’s an educational editorial from TheCarpetBaggerReport.com dated 7/23/03. I agree with this guy:

“I saw, via Tapped, that Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is planning to schedule hearings on six Bush judicial nominees for federal courts in Michigan despite opposition from both of Michigan’s senators — Carl Levin (D) and Debbie Stabenow (D).

Why is this important? Because for years, senators could place indefinite holds called “blue slips” on judicial nominees to federal courts in their home state. So, for example, if President Clinton nominated someone to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and one of Utah’s senators opposed the nominee, that senator could blue slip the nominee and stop consideration of that judge.

When Bush became president, Hatch, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, decided he wanted to change the blue slip rule. Instead of allowing one senator from a state to block a nominee, Hatch required both senators from the same state to raise opposition. This, of course, made it significantly harder for Dems to block Bush’s choices for the federal bench.

Bush, however, recently selected six conservative judicial nominees for courts in Michigan — four for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and two for the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan — all of whom generated blue slips from both of Michigan’s senators.

Hatch’s response? The rule is changing again — no more blue slip holds on judicial nominees.

In explaining why he was simply ignoring the objections of both Michigan senators, Hatch said, “To my knowledge, at no time during these extensive consultations have you articulated any specific objections to any of the nominees for the Michigan vacancies.”

That may be true, but since when does that matter? When Republicans were blocking Clinton nominees — with one blue slip instead of two — Hatch didn’t require “specific objections to the nominees” to enforce the rule. As usual when it comes to congressional Republicans, rules are meant to be bent or broken as long as it suits their purposes.

I should note, in the interests of fairness, that I have always found the blue slip policy to be ridiculous. It seems capricious and undemocratic for senators of either party to block a judicial nominee simply because the judge will sit on a bench in that senator’s home state.”

That may suggest that I somehow approve of Hatch’s newfangled change of heart, but it’s not that simple. I may agree that blue slips are unfair, but I also believe that there shouldn’t be one strict standard applied to President Clinton and a different, easier standard applied to Bush. If Republicans could block Clinton nominees with one blue slip, it’s absurd that Hatch is repeatedly changing the policy to make it easier for Bush to stack the courts with right-wing ideologues.”

By Bemused Humanist

November 15, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

Dear Mr. Wooten,

At the risk of feeling sullied, I have tried to distill some sort of intelligent argument out of Mr. Truth’s puerile morass of vitriol. It seems he is holding that due to the lengthy appeals process, the laws overturned by Thomas, Scalia et. al, were passed by Democrats. Nowhere in the article is this stated explicitly or implicitly – it mentions Social Security, church and state, campaign finance, not, say, the CCC of Roosevelt’s day. To infer that the laws are all old ones passed by Democrats is a inferential error on his part.

For sake of argument, assume they are old laws. That would support the view that Thomas et. al are activists as they have overturned long-standing statutes, as JoeD so sagaciously pointed out.

The article makes clear that until the advent of the 1994 Court, overturning Congressional laws was extremely rare. It states that between 1791 and 1858 only two such instances occurred! This versus 64 during the 1994-2005 study period.

Finally, Appeals Court rulings have no bearing on the data presented. The study metric is percentage of times a Justice voted to overturn Congressional law – irrespective of whether an Appeals Court got it “right” or ”wrong.”

Surely there is one intelligent conservative on this blog that can challenge the finding that the Court’s right-wingers are the most activist. Perhaps Mr. Jbmlaw would like to try?

By Curious Observer

November 15, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

I once had a moronic business law professor insist that political leanings on the bench had nothing to do with the findings of the Supreme Court.

I wonder if that guy has been able to find the way to his own bathroom over the past thirty years.

Be proud of yourself, Georgia State University, for hiring such an imbecile.

By Van

November 15, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

JK,

To judge nominees based on qualifications and not political criteria.

Bolton has proven himself with the UN.

After the obstructions during the Clinton administration and the obstructions during the first term of W, why would the democrats want to continue this bitter fight?

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

Death is not an option!!

in your case ritalin debbie its way over due!! OUCH!! (big smirk) … goad goad

I obviously wouldn’t kiss Ms Monroe’s skeleton as I am NOT a necrophiliac - unlike yourself it seems, nor would I ever kiss an aggressive hideously ugly corrupt butch FL lesbian.

M Manson is just another sick liberal freak show that needs to be put down.

P.S. Please tell your younger sister I can’t ever kiss her again (once was enough) as her herpes sores are just too gross.

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

puerile morass of vitriol.

glad I p!ssed you off so easily humanscum.

your lame point is still utterly redundant though. The politics implicitly involved is blatantly obvious to all intellectually honest non-lefties and you are just moronically and gutlessly ignoring it!

you essentially have NO point, as I’ve pointed out quite politely twice now - you just pompously post your specious sullen legalese in the vain hope you can intimdate folks with your haughty snotty bollocks - it doesn’t work!!

but you are anal enough to keep coming back - which is a good thing for the entertainment of the rest of us.

By DebbieDoRight

November 15, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

ritalin debbie — abusing you is indeed a real pleasure -cheers for providing so many moronic opportunities.

“Moronic” — so true. so true.

By CJ

November 15, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

Van,

Democrats filibustered 10 out our of 218 Bush nominees. The vast majority of the 208 nominees that were confirmed received bipartisan support.

Democrats in the minority don’t filibuster judicial nominees because they are, as you say, “bitter”. They do it only when they have strong objections to their records and/or qualifications.

So, your 10:06 observation that “Democrats will not allow any qualified person nominated by the President to be confirmed” is a right-wing myth. They have and they will.

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this

ritalin debbie is unsurprisingly in p!ss poor form today … what else is new? … smirk

By JoeD

November 15, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

Truth, i do apologize for calling you she. That was an oversight and a mistake. Sorry for that. s for the rest, this is why I said I was loathe to admit I read your posts. However, I fail to see how my post was shrill or biased. First, I was commenting on Jim’s comments at the top of the blog, very specific to the 5 stalled nominations. Second, I was noting that Dubya has gotten his way to this point. third, I was raising the possibility that some of the nominees might not be qualified for the post that they have been nominated for. I didn’t insult anyone, except Bolton, who is not a judge. You can’t post without trotting out as many insults as possible. I was noting the hypocrisy of the right, not personally insulting you, when it comes to activist judges. They are only activists if they rule against conservative interests. I see no reason to respond to you further. Please feel free to spew whatever invective you have left. I will not be reading anything else you post today.

By DebbieDoRight

November 15, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

OK so, you won’t kiss a man and you won’t kiss a woman, (however, according to you; you once kissed your sister who was riddled with herpes sores EEeewwwww).

So that leaves what? Bestiality? How will I EVER find out if I’m insulting you by calling you a girly boy if you won’t tell me if you’re a boy or a girl?!? Heavy sigh………..

By JK

November 15, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

I agree that the Democrats should act in the best interests of the people of this country, and not in the best interests of themselves and building a power monopoly ala the Republicans. I agree that THAT is what people wanted when we voted last week: a Congress that actually does its freaking JOB for a change.

Nonetheless, if we look at the history of “playing nice” in recent decades, what has it yielded for those playing nice, and who exactly took the advantage? Dems played nice and approved 95% of the nominees, and were lambasted by every blowhard at full volume for being obstructionists. Repubs refused to “play nice” with Clinton, and took control of the whole damn country.

Saying “play nice” is one thing. Respecting those who do is another. Food for thought.

By Peter

November 15, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

HA HA HA to all you WRONGRepublicans……gee come January………..

Who will be in charge say Something happens to both the President and VP?

HA HA HA………

Beig WRONG should be the headline of this Blog!

All you WRONGS are still out for YOURSELVES like little children!

By Van

November 15, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

CJ,

I hope you are right. I am not holding my breath though.

By Sabrina

November 15, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

Hey Jim Wooten,

They should GO OUT with their heads held high and do something GOOD for all people and political parties. Why would you ask that the Repubs walk their last Green Mile, by taking desperate actions? If you couldn’t get these people confirmed in the last two years, why would you waste your last few weeks trying to do so?

I thought you were smarter than that, Jim. I guess your party is a lot more desperate than they let on.

Dead men walking……….

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

dishonest joe runs away from the facts… he sneers at ONLY GOP judges and when factually challenged pitches a hissy fit and takes his now deflated ball home …

“being saddled with ultra-conservative judges for years” is pretty shrill bubba - and inaccurate, most of Bush’s picks have been mainstream conservatives - you are SO FAR to the left that you simply can’t be honest!!

TYPICAL LIBERAL WANKER!!

By Curious Observer

November 15, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

I see that ol’ Trent “It woulda been good if we had kept segregation” Lott has beaten out Lamar Alexander for the No. 2 Senate Republican leadership post.

The hypocrisy of Republicans never ceases to amaze me. If court rulings uphold their positions, why, those are judges willing to uphold the Constitution. Otherwise, it’s a case of “activist judges” trying to write their own laws.

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

with ritalin debbie we now need to add ILLITERACY to the long list of cyber crimes…

it was YOUR sister I won’t kiss no more honey bunch!!

do let us know when your current sex change procedure actually becomes definitive - one way (gender) or the other (gedditt??) - there’s a good IT.

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

JK,

Your comment, “I agree that THAT is what people wanted when we voted last week: a Congress that actually does its freaking JOB for a change” is right. Have we forgotten that so soon?

The red tide is held back by nothing more than the electorate’s desire to see the balance of power work.

By harold

November 15, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

Confirming United Nations Ambassador John Bolton…is vital?

Ok, now Harold KNOWS wooten is Troll #1. There is no doubt anymore! His column and this blog apparently are written just for income.

Either that or the AJC only runs his column to make conservatives look dumb.

By DebbieDoRight

November 15, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

I don’t have any sisters, that’s why I KNEW you had to be talking about yours!!!

Oh well, you big hairy he/she — I guess you’ve got me now!! Wow, I am soooo broken up about the fact that from now on, stray animals are not safe in the city of Atlanta with the Beast Master running around trying to harness a date.

You little, itty, bitty can’t be seen without a magnifying glass wanker you!!! smoochies!

By Van

November 15, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

Curious Observer,

Typical spin - Trent Lott never said that - he said something to the effect, that it would have been good if you were elected”

Shameful twisting of the truth, not even as bad as that Byrd speech regarding the N - word

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

Got to go shelf books. Bye now.

By Political Foreskin

November 15, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

I have to talk about Wooten’s column today. He starts out very dry, with mostly data about politically expediency.

Then, in paragraph two, the tone changes. Jim writes with a sardonic sarcasm that sours into bitterness as he claims, “..the liberal custom is to twist the voting record of appellate nominees…..liberals consider conservative views to be extremists views…” (sic)

Yet there is a strange twist to paragraph two. Wooten invokes the Bushspeak of thumpin’ (sic). Now, I’ve heard the word thumpin used only in the context of “bible thumping”, where a preacher is shouting out “Listen to the word of the Lord!” as he hits a bible with the back of his hand.

The GOP certainly got more than a thumpin. In truth, they got fifty lashes from cat-o-nine tails which is usually reserved for drunken sailors (hic).

Now the twist in paragraph two is the juxtaposition of Bushspeak between the vitriolic hand wringing about liberals. He put the word thumping in quotes. That implies that Bush himself should share the brunt of Jim’s partisan wrath.

Finally, didn’t anyone notice that Jim offered 3 Bush choices and then only delineated 2?

What is the 3rd choice? How about Bush resigns. Ditto cheney. Let President Pelosi run the country. I like the sound of that. I like the sound of that music real good.

By Political Foreskin

November 15, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

Dammit Van, Trent Lott didn’t say that. Yogi Berra did. He was talkin’ ‘bout how why the two party system is better than the one party system: cause it’s twice as good.

I dont mind you abusing journalistic license to make a point, but when you stray from acceptable protocol then I’ll call you on it every single time.

Believe it……or not. (a moment of silence for Jack Palance)

And aren’t you ashamed for wandering so far from the topic with this Trent Lott dribbish? I mean, dont you have any minimum standards of thought discipline? Do you have to swing at everything?

Let it go…….easy, boy. A good man’s got to know his own limitations.

Word.

By JoeD

November 15, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

And PF, let’s not forget the use of the word “suspected”. As if there was some doubt that the stalled nominees might not be conservatives. Bush has put up some moderates, but for the most part his nominees are conservative, some more so than others. There is no suspicion involved. If they were only “suspected of being conservatives”, why would you be calling for their confirmation, Jim?

By @@

November 15, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

Political Foreskin:

Here you go (c=3), you keep losing it between here and Luckovich’s.

By DebbieDoRight

November 15, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

Dammit Van, Trent Lott didn’t say that. Yogi Berra did.

ROTFLMAO!!!

By Middle America

November 15, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

Not just no, but HELL NO to John Bolton being confirmed for anything besides head-janitor. I’ll tell you why. Nobody who was involved in counting ballots in Florida from 2000 that led to Bush Jr. winning the election, should be allowed to serve at such a high level of government. If you go back and look at the tape of all the re-count mess, who do you see holding ballots up in the air and determining how the votes were meant to be cast? John Bolton, cheesy mustache and all. Now I’m not suggesting he did something underhanded. But how a person goes from a ballot counter, to Ambassador to the United Nations is beyond me. It just reeks of impropriety. Not to mention that the guy is about as diplomatic as George W. is smart.

As for the judicial nominees, if you are describing them as conservative, then they aren’t very good judges. A judge is supposed to be impartial and followers of the law. If you can slap a label on a nominee as liberal or conservative, then they don’t belong. You accuse liberal judges of activism. I would describe conservative judges as blinded by religion and would ignore the law altogether.

The country is tired of an all red government in every branch. Get over yourself Wooten.

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

time for the truth is in the five points Marta bathroom giving free BJ’s to old, wrinkled black guys! Praise Jesus, time for the truth is a queer.

By DebbieDoRight

November 15, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

Lott said, “I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.” Thurmond, then governor of South Carolina, was the presidential nominee of the breakaway Dixiecrat Party in 1948. He carried Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and his home state. He declared during his campaign against Democrat Harry S. Truman, who supported civil rights legislation, and Republican Thomas Dewey: “All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches.”

He forgot about the black women that were in his bed though……….

By Middle America

November 15, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

Hey, is that guy Brown from FEMA available? Maybe he can be the Ambassador. Or how about Paul Bremer? What’s he doing now? Is he available to be a justice?

No one that W. has picked for anything has been qualified or good at their job, outside of Colin Powell, and we see how he was bounced for being right about Iraq.

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

now now ritalin debbie - there’s NO need to go all spiteful about your younger sister just because she publicly disowned you after you were caught stalking Bob Barr and demanding he start a torrid affair with you.

I also wanted to say how sorry I was to discover your chest has to be measured with a magnetic (builders) level. (gedditt??)

By Bold:**time for the truth**

November 15, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

Bold:time for the truth is an obese 50 something shoeshine boy at five points

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

November 15, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

Debbie, Strom didn’t want blacks in the swimming pools either - yet evidently Strom liked swimmin’ in the sheets with the black girls! A miscegenationist segregationist! How silly is that - how stupid is that - how SOUTHRON is that????

(The Pope, too, is an ardent miscegenationist, just not two-faced about it…)

Lawdy Lawdy!

By Bold:**time for the truth**

November 15, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

Did Bold:time for the truth ever tell you about the time he used too much skin tanning cream? He was so dark, Angelie Jolie adopted him. All was well until he asked her to stop bottle feeding him. When he was denied the nipple, he turned to the dick.

By Political Foreskin

November 15, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

That’s right, Debbie Do Right (may I fantasize about you being a “mountee”?)

Ignorance and Hypocrisy are conjugal siblings.

That’s why Andy and RW, @@, TFTT, and Dorkus and all the other silted loin chaffings who blog for the Right and who infect this page can only be treated by epidemiologists with bleach and antibiotics.

They are vermin. Exterminate them all. That’s what she (lady liberty) said last tuesday night.

By getalife

November 15, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

Well “crusty the clown” told us Lott was retired.

Will she admit this obvious mistake?

Don’t bet on it.

She is today’s star of “Wacky Wooten’s”

By Pawn Vannity

November 15, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

Realist, Redneck Convert, Dusty, Barbara, TFTT, Markus, jbm and all my other fellow conservatives! That evil lib, GOD, is up his old tricks again. He’s trying to destroy our homes in the south with his tornadoes ripping through our mobile homes! Call your family and tell them to anker down, GOD is angry at us again! And unlike Katrina…we all know his tornadoes hath no warning.

By Advisor

November 15, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

Debbie ment to say Trent was retarded, not retired. Course, in gov service, there ain’t much difference, especially now a days.

By Nathan B. Forrest

November 15, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

Come - ride with me, Georgia conservatives!

Clean your sheets first, please. Especially you Woo-ten Klanners.

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

the CLEAREST UNEQUIVOCAL PROOF that you’re getting to the yellow bellied leftist afterbirth is when they start posting anonymous homosexual/personal abuse about you.

jolly well done indeed - you must be justly very proud of your scintillating cyber cowardice. at least do me the honour of posting under your real/original user name so I know who to comedically skewer!!

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

unhinged foreskin … time for you to immediately JUMP under that speeding MARTA bus.

cheers - hope you enjoy the ever so fleeting media coverage.

By **GOD**

November 15, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

Thou shalt not vote for a neo-con, ever!

By Political Foreskin

November 15, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

Look, if you trolls think you’re funny, you can prove it to yourselves, at all of the five or six open mike comedy clubs in atlanta. Open mike comedy is the dirt track nascar of showbiz. It’s the most difficult venue there is, because the audience is half comedians, and half civilians. There’s an atmosphere of total disrespect and you get maybe fifteen seconds to grab them and if you dont get a laugh and keep them laughing, then you’ll drown in front of 100 peoples. Then you’ll know you’re not funny. As I think we all know anyway, but who am I to judge a budding Seinfeld like @@ or Dusty, or Dorkus McGee. (it’s most important that you know whether you’re funny or not if you want to be respected as a writer, because otherwise you write your horrid dribbish without knowing that people dont bother reading one single word of it, and they dont, believe me, TTFT, Dusty, @@, RW, and Dorkus McGee, you trolls might read your own facebook/myspace chatroom chit but nobody else does.)

Trolls blog to themselves. No one else cares.

You horrid trolls.

By Bold:**time for the truth**

November 15, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

suck harder time for the truth, Markus has to go potty soon!

By Joe L

November 15, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

I love how all the Repubs are clamoring for the Dems to play fair. I tell you why, because if the Dems “play fair” it will take decades to undue the ridiculous damage they have done to our country, our government, and our civil liberties. The Dems need to first worry about UNdoing all the damage the right-wing neocons did before worrying about playing fair.

No centrist government is going to maintain control long in this razor thin separation. All it takes is some small momentum change at the right moment and government is going to swing to the other side. If that other side is going to use whatever time it has to ram through all it’s extreme positions, the centrist group will lose ground over time even if they maintain control 75% of the time.

Until BOTH parties show they will be centrist (which the power hungry bullying Repubs never have) each party should focus on undoing what the other party did and putting through their most extreme legislation. That’s the only way any middle ground will truly be reached.

By Political Foreskin

November 15, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

I gotta say I really like Debbie do Right of the Mountee’s restraint. She’s serves up the perfect ballast for me and she’s easy to riff off of. She’s the best straight man on the blog, and I say that with all due respect. Debbie Do Right of the Mountees!

By **GOD**

November 15, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

Bolton is giving free BJ’s to ugly old arab men in the UN Parking lot today from 3 to 5 pm. First come, first served.

By Pawn Vannity

November 15, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

TFTT is a yuck mouth, descendant of neanderthal, knuckle dragging, whiny a* titty baby, with a mouth so ragged that his tongue appears to be in jail, chester the child molester, people stalking, limp wristed, flat footed, platypus belly, 300 lb, 12 sandwich eating, brainiac, wordsmith, Euro who I’d love to meet and possibly get to know better. I think I’m in love!

By @@

November 15, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

Is it any wonder Political Foreskin is envious of the loin chaffing conservatives here.

I guess it’s because his (c=3) is always detached, loose, dropped, unhinged, w-h-a-t-e-v-e-r!!!

Hold onto it PoliFore!!! Bobbitt’s doctor is probably still in practice.

By ARTC

November 15, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

Jim. Just what is it that you don’t get? The American people spoke loudly and clearly in the last election. We don’t want more of Bush’s agenda or more of his right wing appointees. To try to steamroll his nominees through at this point is just more of this administration’s total disregard for the American public. It’s time for W to start listening. Look what not listening has already done to the republican party. Go ahead Jim. Drive another nail in the GOP coffin. The American people are not taking it anymore.

By HARDLY

November 15, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

No Jim, I must wholeheartedly disagree here: “A political extremist, of course, is one suspected of holding conservative views.”

Sadly in today’s environment, it’s one who is supected of holding any liberal views.

If only we had some balance..

By Pawn Vannity

November 15, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

@@

As long as you keep PoFo’s (c=3) in your mouth he would keep track of it. IMHO.

And since you are the holder of everybody’s (c=3)Here’s rarringt’s (c====3) You got a good “head” on you. You give good “brain”. You are very generous with your “knowledge”

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

ultra deranged foreskin cretinously and dishonestly predicktably calls a number of centre-right folks “trolls” -yet its own execrable obsessive sadly almost unremitting putridly puerile pukey plebian prolish conversation with itself is infinitely more “trollish” than anyone else on here.

yet hypocritically unhinged foreskin utterly ignores the long over due for a post natal abortion queer obsessed leftist “trolls” with which it presumably (politically at least) agrees with.

you aren’t the tiniest bit funny, clever, original etc herpes ridden foreskin … ordinarily you aren’t even worth insulting, BUT ITS P!SSING DOWN WITH RAIN so I’m just a tad bored.

In summation - you are quite the saddest little self absorbed dogturd on here.

please F_ OFF NOW - there’s a good mutt dog!

By @@

November 15, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

OMG, Political Foreskin is toting more than one? A collection?

Jeez, does anybody here really want to know where this guy goes or what he does after dark?

Dahmer, Jeffrey?

By **GOD**

November 15, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

YOU ARE SO GOING TO HELL, time for truth. You will burn in the eternal fires of damnation. Why you might ask? for your bad spelling mostly, but your lying racist views, insults to my angels, and general stupidity also count against you. Be Gone, Evil Spirit

By DebbieDoRight

November 15, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

That’s right, Debbie Do Right (may I fantasize about you being a “mountee”?)

ROTFLMAO!! Too funny!! However, I’m already “mounted” to DudleyDoRight, but thanks for the visual — it’ll serve to spice me and Dudley’s s3x life!! You’re the only who got that!

Twisted Truth: I’m shocked, shocked! that you’d think that Debbie is flat chested!!! Why I proudly wear my flag on my 36C’s every parade!! And me and Bob Barr EEEeeeeewwwwww!!! moderate throwing up in the toilet

By @@

November 15, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

Political Foreskin a/k/a/ in his own mind God:

How much intelligence, or lack thereof, does it take to start your sentences with a capital letter?

YOU ARE SO GOING TO HELL, time for truth. You will burn in the eternal fires of damnation. Why you might ask? for your bad spelling mostly, but your lying racist views, insults to my angels, and general stupidity also count against you. Be Gone, Evil Spirit

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

@@

Apparently even Dahmer passed on dealing with unhinged foreskin when Dahmer was offered foreskin for the night in his cell as part of a top secret pre-trial guilty plea deal by prosecutors. Dahmer told prosecutors something along the lines of “they weren’t going to “**ing poison him with that oedipus obsessed billy goat strutting molestor” .

see foreskin - it is possible for conservatives to descend to your level - albeit fleetingly.

By Pawn Vannity

November 15, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

Is Bob Barr one of Those People?

By God

November 15, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

U so dumb @@, there are a whole host of angels against you. May the demons visit your sleep every night.

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

ritalin debbie … clearly you must have had some quite recent serious medicare funded silicon injections since the last time you were processed at the Fulton County jail - I based my earlier observations on a couple of years old photo - my bad.

By Chazman

November 15, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Dang, this blog is spinning out of control today. I’m afraid to jump in…….

By Pullitical Porkskin

November 15, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

PoFo’s got fantasies all right…

Just like BTK.

By @@

November 15, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

Political Foreskin a/k/a/ in his own mind God:

It’s become, all too obvious that you are possessed by demons.

Add another to that list.

Ping…Ping…Ping…

By DebbieDoRight

November 15, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

ritalin debbie … clearly you must have had some quite recent serious medicare funded silicon injections

Medicare is for older americans!! I’m barely 32!! Honestly, you’re better than that Twisted Truth — such shoddy one-up-man-ship.

you were processed at the Fulton County jail - I based my earlier observations on a couple of years old photo - my bad.

That was YOU in the cell with me!! OMG Twisted Truth!! You really ARE a she/he!!

SIDEBAR: I want to thank you though for what you did for me by taking on Big Martha’s, (and her gang’s) advances saving me from being the cell block’s piece of as$!! At the time I thought you were being noble, now I know that you just enjoy freaky stuff like that!

Thank God for you Twisted Truth; Thank God for you. You freak you!!!

By Ah Break Wind

November 15, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

@@ just needs an A in front to read A@@. Now that is what I call truth in advertising. Ping on that, BUTT boy @@.

By jbmlaw

November 15, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

Dear Chazman @ 8:53, your critique was fair, but I fear my joke flew past, apologies for my obscurity. Dirty Harry is not the sharpest tool in the shed, and for reasons that defy common sense, around a year ago he offered some bizarre and unfounded comments about Thomas’s intelligence. So when the Nevada genius published a press release misspelling the name of the great Georgian orator, I thought it worth picking some nits. That’s all. In all honesty, a mispelling would not invalidate a well-founded critique of Justice Thomas’s work, but that original critique was nothing more than slander and epithet. As I have previously acknowledged, I regard Mr. Thomas’s work favorably; he writes without pretense. I note my friend Southern Democrat disagrees with my assessment.

Dear Bemused @ 9:40, your definitional flaw is your assumption that everything the Congress does is permitted by the Constitution, and thus the judiciary errs when it disagrees. Correlation is zero. An activist judge is one who legislates from the bench, not one who prevents the congress from legislating. In your example, the restraint on free speech in McCain Feingold, although obviously unconstitutional, must be affirmed if a judge is to be “nonactivist.” Suggest you re-evaluate your source data.

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

YOU ARE SO GOING TO HELL, time for truth. You will burn in the eternal fires of damnation. Why you might ask? for your bad spelling mostly, but your lying racist views, insults to my angels, and general stupidity also count against you. Be Gone, Evil Spirit

WE LOVE YOU SATAN WE DO … WE LOVE YOU SATAN WE DO … WE LOVE YOU SATAN WE DO - OH SATAN WE LOVE YOU!! …huge right wing demonic smirk

“HELL” - now you’ve really lost it love … I have NO intention of ever living in France or Australia.

As for “angels” … what kind of new agey pathetic bollocks is that?

If anyone is “possessed” its a nutter that writes gobshiite like this!!

Try reading Richard Dawkins’ superb The God Delusion - it will clarify/identify most if not all of your dogmatic hangups and deranged imbecilic superstition.

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

ritalin Debbie …

actually snookums I was your rather unwilling bail bondsman that night and you still owe me some of that $500 bond I posted for you after that unfortunate jealous/scorned lover incident you rather noisily, (nakedly) and messily instigated at the flea bitten lesbian primate centre at Zoo Atlanta.

By @@

November 15, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

Political Foreskin:

MY critique…

By Ah Break Wind November 15, 2006 03:17 PM

@@ just needs an A in front to read A@@. Now that is what I call truth in advertising. Ping on that, BUTT boy @@.

You certainly did break wind with that useless attempt. It failed to sting, but it sure did smell.

By DebbieDoRight

November 15, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

There’s a flea bitten lesbian primate centre at Zoo Atlanta? Girlfriend/boyfriend, how did YOU know that?!! You’re such a big freaky hairy thing. You go girl/boy, you go.

By GRCleft

November 15, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw @3:19 “I regard Mr. Thomas’s work favorably; he writes without pretense.”

Wish we could say the same about you.

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

it was actually just a light hearted joke at your expense bunnykins ritalin!

your doltish responses are still almost as embarassing and unfunny as unhinged foreskin’s.

HUGE SMRIK looks like corrupt land deal Dingy H Reid is on the Abramoff prosecutors radar - couldn’t happen to a (very) much more deserving corrupt demoNcrat.

By jbmlaw

November 15, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Dear GRCleft @ 3:49, I understand your perspective. There are two threads in this blog every day, one for academics, such as MidSouth Philosopher, Southern Democrat, Chazman. There is a second thread that is mostly trash talk and exchange of epithets. You are not expected on the former thread, and of course you will not find me with you on the latter.

By time for the truth

November 15, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Now Satan Karville says the party of hate should dump the nutter Dean - over abject incompetence … the RATS are hilariously starting to eat one another!!

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/washington/washington/entries/2006/11/15/carvillesaysd.html

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

November 15, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

Remember, Jim, that picture I sent you of tftt/tommy from London?

Debbie - tftt/tommy was an English butt monkey before he came to the US - he worked for an organ grinder over there, if you get my drift…

By Bemused Humanist

November 15, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

Mr. jbmlaw @ 3:19,

However you care to parse words, overturning Congressional law is “legislating from the bench,” in the same way as Congress repealing a law it previously passed is “legislating.” Again, I point out the previous Courts did so sparingly, but the 1994-2005 Rehnquist Court (coterminous with Republican Congresses) did so profligately.

And what is “obviously unconstitutional” to you and Justice Thomas may not be so to me and Justice Breyer. Are you contending there was a huge increase in “obviously unconstitutional” legislation passed by Republicans since 1994? Isn’t it a more reasonable explanation that Scalia/Thomas are actively abrogating duely enacted legislation based on their own “activist” judicial philosophy?

Nice Try.

— B.H.

By @@

November 15, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw:

You are not expected on the former thread, and of course you will not find me with you on the latter.

My apologies for being in the latter with Political Foreskin today. He threw down the gauntlet a couple of days ago, and I am here to pick it up and smack him around with it.

I agree with TFTT. It’s raining outside and I have nothing better to do than to play with this skiddish mouse.

Just talk around us heathens. :-)

By CJ

November 15, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw @3:19, “Bemused Humanist…your definitional flaw is your assumption that everything the Congress does is permitted by the Constitution… An activist judge is one who legislates from the bench, not one who prevents the congress from legislating.”

Of course, Bemused Humanist never wrote or implied that judicial activism has anything to do with “preventing Congress from legislating”, nor did he write or imply that everything Congress does is permitted by the Constitution. In addition, Mr. Humanist did not take a position either in favor of or against judicial activism in his 9:40 post. He simply stated facts.

The definition of judicial activism provided by BH, “the act of striking down a Congressional law”, isn’t his definition. It’s everyone’s definition (including jbm’s heroes on the right). jbmlaw simply restated it (“legislating from the bench”) using standard right-wing phrasing.

No — jmblaw is well aware that BH’s post was factually correct, inconvenient as it is. Unfortunately, in jbmLand, spin always trumps facts.

P.S. to Mr. Law: That was an interesting post at 3:58. First you compliment lack of pretense, and then half an hour later, you justify your own (lumping yourself in with your betters in the process). Focus man. Focus.

By god

November 15, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

Get a job @@ and tftt, you lazy bums, and stop loafing on the internut. Letting your inner nut run free at the keyboard does not make you an intellectual, rather it makes you much like the boob running around with a sign in the rain, demanding the world acknowledge you. I bet you are both government employees with little supervision and no accountability, perhaps even one and the same deranged creature. Soon, perhaps very soon, your cozy little world will come to pieces, and you will be left wondering what happened.

By Advisor

November 15, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

All laws must meet the minimum requirements set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Any law that violates the Constitution can and should be struck down by the courts. Otherwise, from time to time, fanatical idiots will control the congress and the execution branch, and pass laws that strip Americans of the basic rights guaranteed by the founding fathers in the constitution. The past six years can be considered such times.

By Advisor

November 15, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

Note that @@ and tftt stoped posting at ~4:16, they must work 8-4:30 government jobs and now are commuting to their homes.

By @@

November 15, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

I see Political Foreskin has, at least, acknowledged his “lower case” status. He is now a “little god.

Satisfaction will be mine when you are nothing more than a * with nothing more to say.

If I may borrow from TFTT…

A Hugely Wide Cheshire Smirk

By @@

November 15, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this

Hey Advisor to E.T.:

Phone home, I’ll answer!

By CJ

November 15, 2006 05:13 PM | Link to this

In case anybody missed it, let me summarize the Bemused Humanist’s findings:

So-called conservatives gnash and wail about “liberal activist judges”, while in fact, their icons Antoine Scalia and Clarence Thomas are two of the top three judicial activists sitting on the Supreme Court today (Republican appointee Kennedy rounding out the top three).

For me, hypocrisy is the word that comes to mind.

By CJ

November 15, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this

Judicial restraint is an approach that favors giving Congress a wide berth, and to the extent possible, letting legislation stand. Judicial activists, as previously defined, are characterized by the extent that laws are overturned.

Advisor is absolutely correct. It isn’t the Supreme Court’s job to give deference to legislators. Seeking to “legislate from the bench”, as the right likes to say, is also outside the job description. The Supreme Court is supposed to determine whether or not legislation is constitutional. If so, it should stand. Otherwise, it should be overturned – regardless of any gnashing and wailing that might ensue as a result.

By jbmlaw

November 15, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this

Dear CJ @4:44, you wrote “Of course, Bemused Humanist never wrote or implied that judicial activism has anything to do with “preventing Congress from legislating” “. Bemused @ 9:40 wrote “According the two Yale researchers, the top judicial activists (by percentage of times they voted to overturn Congress) are …” Thus my post pointing out the flawed definition. Reading is a practiced skill.

By Bemused Humanist

November 19, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

Oops … it requires a login for the NY Times select … anyway, it is a quite laudatory portrait of Friedman’s greatness as an economist by a colleague who didn’t share his politics.