beausox Posted June 10, 2005 Author Posted June 10, 2005 But at least he seems to have an active imagination. Of course, given that he can't discriminate between fiction and non-fiction... 355268[/snapback] someday you'll graduate from complete dependence on ad hominem attacks and actually have a point other than sophomoric humor
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 10, 2005 Posted June 10, 2005 someday you'll graduate from complete dependence on ad hominem attacks and actually have a point other than sophomoric humor 355440[/snapback] Au contraire, mon petit tete de pommes de terre. I don't rely on ad hominem attacks. I just don't bother expending any more effort on you than ad hominem attacks.
Reuben Gant Posted June 10, 2005 Posted June 10, 2005 Au contraire, mon petit tete de pommes de terre. 355453[/snapback] On the Contrary, My little Head of Potato?? them ad hominem attacks keep getting more and more brutal
/dev/null Posted June 10, 2005 Posted June 10, 2005 On the Contrary, My little Head of Potato?? them ad hominem attacks keep getting more and more brutal 355504[/snapback] hey, thats monsieur petit tete de pommes de terre to you buddy!
Reuben Gant Posted June 10, 2005 Posted June 10, 2005 hey, thats monsieur petit tete de pommes de terre to you buddy! 355508[/snapback]
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 10, 2005 Posted June 10, 2005 On the Contrary, My little Head of Potato?? them ad hominem attacks keep getting more and more brutal 355504[/snapback] "My little potato head", actually. Though you're correct with the little translation.
beausox Posted June 11, 2005 Author Posted June 11, 2005 On the Contrary, My little Head of Potato?? them ad hominem attacks keep getting more and more brutal 355504[/snapback] A multi well at least bi- lingual insult. Such improvement!! Keep indicting yourself.
Ghost of BiB Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 A multi well at least bi- lingual insult. Such improvement!! Keep indicting yourself. 355795[/snapback] Go play with the short pants crowd.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 A multi well at least bi- lingual insult. Such improvement!! Keep indicting yourself. 355795[/snapback] Indicting myself? You're a wart. Why would you expect me to take you seriously?
Alaska Darin Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 Indicting myself? You're a wart. Why would you expect me to take you seriously? 355829[/snapback] I'm guessing mostly because he himself does. Which makes it funnier, to be honest.
beausox Posted June 11, 2005 Author Posted June 11, 2005 Indicting myself? You're a wart. Why would you expect me to take you seriously? 355829[/snapback] What kind of wart? There are so many after all. My favorite is the scrafulous kind but a big dark one perched on my nose perhaps does have its allure. To be just a common wart does not suit me. Please, please make me a wart of some distinction.
Terry Tate Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 I'm still coming across some interesting articles on this subject. Among them, a story linked by the Marijuana Policy Project (guess what they are in favor of) of a Dallas Morning News story of Oct 20, 1999 - Bush Backs States' Rights on Marijuana. Though he opposed medical marijuana use, he supported states' right to make their own decision (which is exactly what Justice O'Conner just said in her dissent). Yet, when elected, President Bush had AG Ashcroft prosecute the war on drugs, which this latest Supreme Court case is a result of. On the other hand, he nominated Janice Rogers Brown, who is definitely in favor of limited government, to a post that's often a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. It's going to be interesting to see how the next couple SC vacancies get filled. It will certainly be easy to tell who's in favor of limited government, and who is not.
Chilly Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 I'm still coming across some interesting articles on this subject. Among them, a story linked by the Marijuana Policy Project (guess what they are in favor of) of a Dallas Morning News story of Oct 20, 1999 - Bush Backs States' Rights on Marijuana. Though he opposed medical marijuana use, he supported states' right to make their own decision (which is exactly what Justice O'Conner just said in her dissent). Yet, when elected, President Bush had AG Ashcroft prosecute the war on drugs, which this latest Supreme Court case is a result of. On the other hand, he nominated Janice Rogers Brown, who is definitely in favor of limited government, to a post that's often a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. It's going to be interesting to see how the next couple SC vacancies get filled. It will certainly be easy to tell who's in favor of limited government, and who is not. 356676[/snapback] I'm shocked. No really I am. Okay, I'm not. Part of the reason I liked Bush before 2000.
Terry Tate Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 I'm shocked. No really I am. Okay, I'm not. Part of the reason I liked Bush before 2000. 356682[/snapback] That's funny, because I didn't. I only began supporting him after he was elected. Strange how that worked out, huh?
Chilly Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 That's funny, because I didn't. I only began supporting him after he was elected. Strange how that worked out, huh? 356686[/snapback] Yes it is.
beausox Posted June 13, 2005 Author Posted June 13, 2005 I'm still coming across some interesting articles on this subject. Among them, a story linked by the Marijuana Policy Project (guess what they are in favor of) of a Dallas Morning News story of Oct 20, 1999 - Bush Backs States' Rights on Marijuana. Though he opposed medical marijuana use, he supported states' right to make their own decision (which is exactly what Justice O'Conner just said in her dissent). Yet, when elected, President Bush had AG Ashcroft prosecute the war on drugs, which this latest Supreme Court case is a result of. On the other hand, he nominated Janice Rogers Brown, who is definitely in favor of limited government, to a post that's often a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. It's going to be interesting to see how the next couple SC vacancies get filled. It will certainly be easy to tell who's in favor of limited government, and who is not. 356676[/snapback] Oh! Back to the topic. States Rights has been the bane of Liberal interpretation; Federalism has made Conservatives wary. Rehnquist is rumored to be stepping down at end of this term. Replacing him would be politically easy especially if Scalia takes helm. Scalia and a Scalia clone would not be difficult to get through the Senate. Dems will attempt to get their pound of flesh and come up 15 ozs short. The real battle begins with Sandra Day O'Connor. She, emphasis she, is considered the swing vote. It is her seat over which the Dems will go to the wall. It will be interesting if Bush nominates Janice Rogers Brown for O'Connor. I can see Teddy Kennedy's jowls in full flare
Recommended Posts