passed away at home this evening.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 03, 2005 08:42 PM | Email ThisUnfortunately for us, the real fighting will begin, as if we haven't heard enough of the garbage in the last 48 hours over Katrina!
Posted by: sgmmac on September 3, 2005 09:29 PMHe was an amazing man.
May God give him rest and his family - comfort and peace.
Posted by: Deborah on September 3, 2005 09:56 PMThere is a lengthy dialogue on this issue in American politics since the Civil War. While the GOP used to pride itself as "the party of Lincoln," guess which side it's on now? Literacy tests and the cracker techniques of the past are a bit too crude these days. Anyone with a sense of history can see where the insinuation and mau-mauing at this site comes from, however.
Posted by: bartelby on September 4, 2005 12:03 AM
NC= No Class.
1. "..first notches on his judicial/political belt was intimidating Latino voters in his early days as a GOP activist in Arizona."
2. ".. That's become SOP for the party these days, of course (Kathleen Harris, etc.)."
3. ".. While I'm sure that means nothing to true believers, if you have any interest in history and equity, you might look into why the Voting Rights Act was enacted."
4. "..There is a lengthy dialogue on this issue in American politics since the Civil War."
5. "..While the GOP used to pride itself as "the party of Lincoln," guess which side it's on now?"
6. "..Literacy tests and the cracker techniques of the past are a bit too crude these days. Anyone with a sense of history can see where the insinuation and mau-mauing at this site comes from, however."
You are so left-wing that you have no understanding that our most important right that of the vote and it most be protected at all costs from dilution.
Posted by: timman on September 4, 2005 01:05 AMIt's war time.
Posted by: Sailor Republica on September 4, 2005 01:19 AMOr how the Dem social programs have made the births out of wedlock in the minority community skyrocket. Or how the rules make it very difficult for men to stay in welfare homes, creating major portions of the population without birth fathers in the homes. Which just happens to be one of the key indicators in predicting the chance of success/failure in life.
Also funny that you use the phrase “true believers” in conjunction with people that are pragmatic, honest, and concerned about our country. Seems pretty clear that it’s a matter of projection on your part. It’s not our fault that you can’t understand how it’s wise to abandon failed policies, even when they conflict with your normative beliefs.
“insinuation and mau-mauing” “Literacy tests and the cracker techniques.” Let me give it to you straight pal. You haven’t got a clue. Your biggest danger isn’t Republicans or Conservatives. It’s you.
Jeeeeeeze. Where do these people get this stuff? Seems like it would tough to just make it up as you go.
OK, B-man…here’s an assignment for you. Read through the stuff of Teddy Kennedy, Dean and/or Kerry, and try to find a coherent economic analysis of any important issue, and report back. I know that it won’t matter to you, but it does to people that do critical thinking. Happy hunting. Take plenty of bread crumbs.
That should keep us Bartelby-free for several election cycles, minimum.
Hint: Don’t waste time on Gore’s stuff. Years would turn into decades…
Foxtrot Oscar.
Wrong place.
Wrong time.
I wish you had but the wit, but alas you have neither knowledge nor temperament to be taken for nothing more than a fool and a knave.
Posted by: JCM on September 4, 2005 07:38 AMFor I can already hear the sirene's call of the
LEFT, who will now argue that although Rehnquist
was a conservative. What the court really needs
in another "moderate" to correctly guide the
court.
Pax vobiscum et requiescat in pace.
Posted by: Cheryl on September 4, 2005 10:56 AMDidn't take them long to do so for Katrina, Cindy Sheehan, etc.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 4, 2005 01:41 PMAll I can say about your plans now is: FAT CHANCE, CHARLIE!!! The gig is up and the realities of what happens when you get your way is seared into the American psyche. You'll be very lucky indeed if you survive this debacle---which you CREATED YOURSELVES. Not even the'BLOSSOM can spin this in any direction but a complete spiral downward. You had your moment to strut on the world's stage and if you won't get off voluntarily, there's always the hook....
Posted by: headless lucy on September 4, 2005 03:39 PMBy your use of the word "cracker" as a racist pejorative, you evidently think that the "liberal techniques" of racism and race baiting are okay.
Better work on your techniques, as those old liberal techniques are indeed quite crude.
.....and what was that Nixon was talking about with his, "SOUTHERN STRATEGY"? It was to give formerly Democratic racists the political home they were looking for and found in the Republican Party---- where they remain to this day under the guise of : THE RELIGEOUS RIGHT!!! Y'all sold your souls to the DEBBIL.... And the whole world knows...
Posted by: headless lucy on September 4, 2005 05:52 PMJudge Rehnquist was an honorable jurist and he actually used the US Constitution as the founding fathers intended it to be used, unlike Ginsberg, Breyer and the rest of those beholden to the ACLU. Hopefully, a replacement (Scalia) who will adequately fill his shoes will be selected.
Headless Dufus - the Republicans actually had more to do with passing the Civil Rights Bill than the Democrats did, even though there was a Democrat President - one of the most corrupt ones (LBJ) ever.. Read credible history books instead of your revisionist history pablum. The theme song of the Democrats these days appears to be 'Synpathy for the Devil" - they are great at whining about anything the President does (he has screwed up some) but they never come up with any viable solutions.
Posted by: KS on September 4, 2005 07:13 PMThe Democrats were pretty split, it was actually the Republicans that voted almost unanomously for it that carried it.
Posted by: michael on September 4, 2005 09:13 PMTo Lucy and her ilk, let the battle begin.
NARAL lovin, kool-aid drinkin socialists that you are.
I say Scalia for Chief Justice, Roberts without little more than some whining from Ted K, John K, and Chuckie Schumer.
Let's see if Ted Olsen is available for the vacancy and hope Ginsberg finds need to step down before 08
I can dream can't I?
You've never been wrong, eh? Guess we'll see about that this month, won't we?
What a worthless pus-head you are. God, you are the number one reason why Liberals should be considered traitors and shot.
Posted by: ERNurse on September 4, 2005 11:22 PMI have even given them suggested wording like:
No State nor Congress shall make any law restricting a woman's right to kill her unborn child.
or
An unplanned pregnancy can be traumatic, the right of a woman to kill her unborn child shall not be abridged.
Surprisingly, none of them have embraced my suggestion. Wonder why? Maybe they want to strike "unborn".
Posted by: JC Bob on September 5, 2005 07:16 AMAnd just think, completely funded by the now defunct Soviet Union.
So, when was the last time you Leftists were right about anything? Yep, Socialism (that includes Communism) is such a great political philosophy; as long as you are part of the government. And wasn't the Great Society a stunning success. Wasn't it great that welfare created generations of the underclass who have not the least idea of how to take care of themselves.
Posted by: JC Bob on September 5, 2005 07:33 AMBut this is different. To take the occasion of the public mourning over the loss of a long-time public servant to defame that person is utterly contemptible. Even in war there is a measure of respect for the fallen and the grieving for the loss by the survivors. That you would do this is below exhibiting the craven and despicable behavior we’ve come to expect from you. I don’t even know what the right word is, as I’ve never had occasion to search for it before. I’m not sure that I’d want to know.
In my opinion, you’ve voted yourself off the island.
It sounded better when Twain said it. But, I'm pleased to see that you, "Baghdad Bob", found a new home and calling!
"I'm just here to add a little drama..."
I always suspected that HL was a drama queen.
Posted by: FlyingTigress on September 5, 2005 09:10 AM
Keep bloviating your sympathy to the devil and exposing the enemy within...
Posted by: KS on September 5, 2005 10:31 AM
Arguing with crazy people will make you insane.
Know thy enemy. Lucy represents them, and like the rest of them, her time draws near. The sheepdogs will find her.
Posted by: ERNurse on September 5, 2005 07:27 PMHistory is not defamation. I'm sure that Byrd's obituary will mention his KKK membership, and Clinton's his sexual dalliances. And justly so. None of us should be afraid of the truth.
In response to the question re citations, check below.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dean/20041022.html
"In 1986, former Assistant United States Attorney James Brosnahan (today a noted San Francisco trial attorney) testified - based on an investigation the Justice Department had dispatched him to conduct - that as a young Phoenix attorney, Justice William Rehnquist had been part of conservative Republicans' 1962 efforts to disqualify black and Hispanic voters who showed up to vote. Brosnahan's testimony was supported by no less than fourteen additional witnesses. Rehnquist nevertheless became Chief Justice - thanks to the continued support of conservative Republicans."
That's John W. Dean speaking, not me.
Posted by: bartelby on September 5, 2005 11:37 PMRed herring at 12-O'Clock Low! Fox one! Herring destroyed.
Posted by: ERNurse on September 6, 2005 09:14 AMDean notes breathlessly that the election of 2004 was to be marked with nasty GOP tricks. I have a question: which side was it that created fake documents in an attempt to persaude te American peple that President Bush was AWOL? Let's see... that would be the Democrats.
I guess it isn't a dirty trick unless Republicans pull it.
And oh, let's see... Dean bemoans the GOP's predilection for hyperscrutinizing votes and voters. I wonder of it has anything to do with the Democrats' predilection for carrying fraudulent voters on their rolls- as was the case in Florida, Michigan, and right here in Washington? Once robbed, twice vigilant.
You know, Bartleby, if you're going to cite a source, you ought to at least cite one that has fewer holes in it. Then again, I am not surprised. Liberals never put forth the effort to check your facts. And you never expect clear-thinking people to examine what you say.
Developmental Psychologists call your condition "preoperational egocentrism." It is manifested in your case like this: if you don't check the facts, certainly nobody else will, either. So you clap your hands over your eyes so you can't see the truth, and since you can't see it, you reason that we can't either.
You need to be more objective with your sources if you expect to be taken seriously.
Posted by: ERNurse on September 6, 2005 09:31 AMWhat disgusting little POS's these trolls are to besmirch the memory of a man before he's even in the ground. Not at all surprising, but repellant all the same.
Posted by: alphabet soup on September 6, 2005 11:22 AMThank you for the detailed response.
Discrediting John W. Dean because of his present political views seems a tad laughable. While Dean has become more sensible with age, he experienced the ugly particulars of GOP skulduggery up close and personal. Indeed, he was the first one to actually come clean on Watergate. You may regard that as a bad thing; we'll see what history says. His article was published at findlaw.com. While you may consider anything to the center of Ann Coulter a dubious source, I'll let you impugn it on your own time. If you find errors or omissions, they're fair game for discussion.
Confirmation hearings are a matter of public record. If you expect every journalistic account to name every witness (much less provide weblinks; remember WR's hearings occurred in 1986), I'm not sure what planet you're living on. If the assertion is wrong, it should be easily correctable.
As to the implication that Democrats were responsible for the bogus Bush National Guard documents -- apply your own standards. Has any source been established? If so, please provide the cite. In any event, I've heard no serious refutation of the SUBSTANCE of the docs, that GWB was AWOL. Which leads to Red Herrings, a label with which you curiously tar my argument. The provenance of the CBS-Bush docs was truly a red herring.
William Safire defines a red herring as "a side issue that draws attention away from the main issue." That's a textbook definition for the CBS docs. No one ever refuted the substance of the argument. Frat Boy, later Uber Chicken Hawk, GWB, simply WAS NOT THERE. The bogus docs simply changed the focus of debate. If I were a GOP slimemeister I would be drooling at such a maneuver.
Finally, ER Nurse, if you are genuinely interested in comparing facts I would love to exchange thoughts. I dislike the ad hominem nonsense that occurs both here and at HA, whether it's from the right or the left. I prefer reasoned dialogue. I do not claim that all lefties are saints, or all righties demons. Maybe I'm wrong about a few things, maybe you are right. If you are interested in genuine dialogue and evidence -- rather than partisan smears and personal attacks -- I vigorously invite you to, as your Chicken Hawk puppet sez, "bring it on."
How many vets spoke out against the President? One disgruntled old boob with a personal axe to grind.
That said, back to the topic.
Posted by: ERNurse on September 7, 2005 12:12 AMSane people judge evidence based on reliability. Deeming John W. Dean’s word as trustworthy especially acknowledging his present political views would indeed be laughable. Dean admitted his culpability only because he would otherwise be legally and personally destroyed by his subterfuge. That he wrote his book for money is no shame in itself, but neither does it evidence trustwrothiness or reliability. To the contrary-stupid.
Bartlbie says ”I dislike the ad hominem nonsense that occurs both here and at HA, whether it's from the right or the left. I prefer reasoned dialogue.” Then says absently ”as your Chicken Hawk puppet sez, "bring it on."
Bartlebie, if you ever have any “reasoned dialogue,” why not "bring it on." Otherwise continue to show us what a self advised, ill educated, little read, liberal relies on for satisfaction and happiness. It is interesting that you express belief in the Bush AWOL bosh, because it clearly underscores the simplicity with which you “reason.” You obviously feel that bullshit is persuasive. How nice for you, and easy too.
Chief Justice Rehnquist was a very good man, and he did none of the bad things you or any of your scummy liberal buddies accuse him of. His knowledge of the Constitution and his interest and efforts to protect it from liberal scumbags like you surpassed all of you without your notice. Preposterously through the cynical prejudices of your party, your eyes were shaded by the shadows of Lenin and Marx, and your simple sophistry now speaks for itself.