2010: Return of the Whigs

November 3, 2010 at 5:23 pm 453 comments

I’m well-known for saying that at current rate and speed, the Republican party is on target to be the Whigs of the 21st century. Based on last night’s election results my prognosis may have been premature. Then again, was it? If you listened to the victory speeches of Rand Paul and Marco Rubio you did not hear the defiant declaration of Bush-era Republicans returning to the helm. On the contrary, you heard a rejection of a political party that had lost its way. Rand indicated he was going to make the Senate “deliberate” on a thing or two. Marco reminded his audience that last night was not a vote FOR the Republican party but rather a rejection of the current leadership.

After listening to a good six hours of talking heads (yes I’m obsessive) I came away with a few perspectives on last night’s mid-term results which I shall share in no particular order:

(For the most part) Nutjubs, Racists, and Misfits Need Not Apply

A few weeks ago MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow mourned the demise of the “macaca moment”. It was her assertion that the type of gaffe that could destroy a candidate the way “macaca” destroyed candidate George Allen in 2008, seemed to go unnoticed and completely forgiven in 2010. Alas Rachel was being a bit melodramatic. One thing we learned last night was that if you send pornographic photos via email (Carl Paladino), use blatantly racist campaign ads (Sharron Angle), declare that you are not a witch (Christine O’Donnell), dress up like a Nazi on the weekends (Rich Iott) or can barely complete a sentence in an interview, with a sex-offender accusation pending against you (Alvin Greene) then you are not going to be elected dog catcher by Americans in 2010. I cannot overestimate what a relief this was to me as I watched the results come in last night.

It’s The Economy Stupid

Liberals will burn me in effigy for saying this but if last night taught us anything it was that we wasted eighteen months on health care reform that most of the nation didn’t want when we should have had a full court press on job creation. Before you stick your pin in my voodoo doll, let me distill this for you. I walk up to you and say I am going to ensure that your employer can provide you with health care and that you cannot be rejected for pre-existing conditions. Your reply, “that’s fine and dandy but I don’t have an employer. I haven’t worked in two years. I’m about to lose my house.” And then I say “but I insist it’s your right to have good health care!” Then I wonder why you don’t vote for my ass in the next election.

There are those who say there is never a “good time” to introduce health care reform. That may be but I can damn sure tell you there are some particularly bad times to do it. If Obama presided over a booming economy, he would have still encountered philosophical opposition to HCR but at least he could have made it  a reasonable priority. Whether or not it makes sense, people prioritize earning enough money to keep their home over good health. That is a social and political reality that the Obama administration, most liberals, and I ignored. Yes, I admit it. I fell in love with the Utopian idea of health care for everyone. I did so ignoring my own underemployment. I was a fool. We liberals paid a price for our principles last night and I’m not at all sure it was worth it.

Some Hispanics, Our Youth and Minnesotans Have Got to Go

If you don’t know when you’re being insulted, you deserve everything that’s coming to you. 30% of Hispanic voters in Nevada voted for Sharron Angle after she portrayed them as a criminal threat to law abiding white folks. Guess what 30%? That makes you a bunch of nimrods, oh pardon me, estupidos! Marco Rubio was right to call out Harry Reid when he wondered aloud how any Hispanic could vote for a Republican. Harry should have wondered how any of them could vote for Sharron Angle.

Apparently our young voter count was lower than expected. You know what? All I hear the Tea Party Movement and other conservatives say is how terrible it is to leave all this debt to the younger generations.  Well, I don’t feel one shred of remorse today. They came out in droves in 2008 to vote for the rock star like it was some friggin’ edition of “American Idol”. Now when policy and our future is at stake, they had better things to do. Until the lazy selfish bastards stop texting their BFF’s while watching the latest installment of “Jersey Shore” and get out and do their civic duty by voting, they can choke on my debt.

Finally, Minnesota. What to do about Minnesota? OK I know they like colorful characters. Just look at Prince or Jesse Ventura. And yes I can forgive them for electing Michele Bachmann the first time. But now that we know what a show-boating brain-dead, rhetorically dangerous woman this is, how in the name of all that is good and decent, could she be re-elected? There is only one solution but I will limit this solution only to the sixth congressional district of Minnesota because unlike the average conservative Islamaphobe, I don’t smear the whole with the faults of the few. The solution is that the sixth district of Minnesota must be sold to Canada. I don’t know how much we’d get for it, but it would certainly help bring down the deficit that Ms. Bachmann is so fired up about.

Two Lib Losses that Don’t Upset Me That Much

A good number of our lib heroes survived last night with nary a scratch. Icons like Barney Frank (yeah conservatives … SUCK IT), Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Barbara Boxer and that other boxer from Searchlight, Nevada, Harry Reid. Even that old example of political decay, Charlie Rangel lived to see another day. However there are two losses that don’t have me all that bothered. The first is Alan Grayson from Florida. I have maintained almost from the beginning that Grayson was all show and no substance. In a political climate where there is too much heat and too little light, Grayson generated a lot of the former. Was it great for catharsis? Damn straight it was! Did it move the ball forward in any meaningful way? Not one bit. Grayson was doing an audition to replace Ed Schultz on MSNBC but he was doing it on the tax payer’s dime. I’m not shedding a lot of tears that the audition was canceled.

The other loss that I almost cheered was that of Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania. When Sestak unseated party-switcher Arlen Specter for the Senatorial nomination he made a huge self-righteous ruckus about how the Obama administration tried to buy him off so he wouldn’t run. Honest-Abe Sestak rejected the “bribes”. All this did was fire up the “impeachment” advocates claiming that Obama had authorized political dirty tricks for which he should be punished. A good Democrat would have kept his big fat mouth shut but no, Joe had to prove to everyone what a virtuous guy he was. I nearly vomited at the time and I found him equally obnoxious in his concession speech last night. By the way, his daughter was obnoxious too …

Most Obnoxious Performance on Election Night

That award goes to Joe Sestak’s daughter Alex. Yes, I know I’ve been beaten up on this blog in the past for prodding at politician’s families but I’m sorry, this kid needed a good swift kick in the ass. As Joe attempted to give his concession speech, not five seconds would go by without Alex interrupting him with some pithy comment. Her mother smiled ear to ear with that look you’ve seen on mothers who mistake their children’s rudeness for “just being precocious”. Joe seemed slightly less amused and I was expecting him any minute to scream “I JUST LOST THE MOST IMPORTANT POLITICAL RACE OF MY LIFE …. WOULD YOU SHUT THE F**K UP?????” Instead, Joe just grinned and carried on. At the end of his speech he lifted his “little girl” up in the air and for a split second, I thought he was gonna throw her into the crowd like Alice Cooper throwing a chicken into a mosh pit. No such luck.

Later in the week, I’ll share my thoughts on where progressives should go from here.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

About these ads

Entry filed under: Politics, Social commentary, Wordpress Political Blogs. Tags: , , , , , , , , , .

Be Careful What You Ask For George W. Bush: Delusion Points

453 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Alfie  |  November 3, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    Well Rutherford congrats on a really good post,superior to some progressive analysis I saw elsewhere.

    I hope you’ll shelve the Whig thing and keep an open mind that some of the winners last night will put their best foot forward.I’d also ask you to take an open mind stance on how much promise the GOP actually has going for it…..[let me allow your bile to dribble downwards to your guts]

    Seriously 3 headlining female governors 2 of other than Wonder Bread silver background, should be on your fairness radar to counter your Bachmann/Palin gig.

    Rubio is an excellent example of why I have never bought the whole Latino’s will crush the GOP. The simple truth is that the majority of Hispanics are more willing to be active,mentally engaged and fair in making political decisions. Don’t take this the wrong way but US Hispanics have learned that the political one party irrelevancy testified by blacks is not the way to go.

    As far as Barney Frank and “suck it” being in the same sentence,well I’ll refrain from getting all Freudian on ya. Seriously though he actually presented a queen scene as he witnessed he won but entered into irrelevancy. He came off as bitter and pissy. He is pathetic and will not figure well in the next two years of politicking.I kinda hope Manchin will ask him to hold up a book at the joint caucus.

  • 2. Alfie  |  November 3, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    I follow up of sorts on one item. Iott.
    He lost in a seriously BLUE district. There is some question if the district will get redrawn. If it does you may want to take note of the party that will be holding the redraw pens.
    There truly are many angles to this mid-term election.I look forward to your follow-ups.

  • 3. dead rabbit  |  November 3, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    Rutherford, do hold Barny Frank responsible in the slightest when it comes to Fanny and the housing melt down.

    He’s a hero of yours, eh?

  • 4. dead rabbit  |  November 3, 2010 at 6:01 pm

    R, nice pass on the Charlie R constituents.

    Isa sorry boss, Isa be votin da man Tamny tells mes to votes fo, ma’am. Isa Sambo and Isa votes.

  • 5. Tex Taylor  |  November 3, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    # Note – posted time. :smile:

    363. Tex Taylor | November 3, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    Want to know what Rutherford is doing right now? He’s putting on the game face with an upcoming article. It will be a little apology, a stab at honesty, followed by five paragraphs of spinning insults of Tea Partiers highlighted wtih…

    We got Sharron Angle and Chrstine O’Donnell. And that restored sanity.

    You watch…bet it comes up this evening.

    I missed Palin and underestimated the time (due to outrage) that this would be posted. Oh well, 3 out of four ain’t bad. I can read his mind (almost).

  • 6. Tex Taylor  |  November 3, 2010 at 6:24 pm

    Obnoxious Performance on Election Night

    Wrong. The most obnoxious performance of the night was Butch Maddow – she’s neither young, cute or pretty.

    After Bachmann shoved it up the collective ass of MSNBC, where they chuckled like school boys, but off camera were burnt toast, Maddow was ticked on camera.

    Butch was insulted that Michelle Bachmann would have the unmitigated gall to insinuate NBC/MSNBC was “in the tank for Obama”. And she was serious.

    I sat there and laughed at her idiocy. She actually thinks she is objective in her reporting?

    It would be like Sean Hannity getting mad about someone insisting “being in the tank” for a Republican candidate.

    Butch, embrace yourself…and straighten the jock strap.

  • 7. Tex Taylor  |  November 3, 2010 at 6:51 pm

    Rutherford,

    Can you help get Juan Williams his job back at NPR? He’s making liberals look ignorant, even if they are. Roger Ailes may have done this purposely. Williams has been so bad since Obama got his butt ripped, that he’s going to pieces.

    I’ve now seen Juan schooled, and I mean schooled, twice on FOX in less than 24 hours. Do you know how dumb Juan is compared to Charles Krauthammer? It wasn’t a fair fight.

  • 8. dead rabbit  |  November 3, 2010 at 8:08 pm

    I really hope the House Republicans don’t start yapping about impeachment.

  • 9. Tex Taylor  |  November 3, 2010 at 8:20 pm

    At PJM, the question was posed as to “What Should Obama Do Next.”

    My suggestion:

    i>I think Obama should get “angry”, punish his enemies, get more shrill, push any all egregious left-wing issues he can, with emphasis on the demands of bay area Californians, maybe even declare martial law effective immediately.

    Perhaps he can have a little tryst in the Oval Office with someone a 1/3 his age and ban Happy Meals across the country.

    And I would tell Obama to hurry and be as loud and nasty as possible about all of it, claiming racism in the process. And continue the continual mantra of it’s Bush’s fault.

    And I would simply warn the Republicans, you’ve been told what to do. And you better not take one backward step in doing so.

  • 10. dead rabbit  |  November 3, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    What’s up with Utah? I was shocked how blue that state is. Latino or Indian vote? I don’t get it.

    The Upper Peninsula went from almost all blue to all red. They were always in the same guise as West Virginia coal minor union Dems, except we hardly have any iron ore mines left. I have a feeling it will be Red for a long time.

  • 11. Tex Taylor  |  November 3, 2010 at 8:42 pm

    You want a real answer Rabbit what Republicans should do? A specific answer before I begin to make myself more scarce here?

    First, the obvious – work to continue the Bush tax cuts. In conjunction, work toward decreasing corporate tax rates – no tax credits; rates. No game playing, creating incentive for small and large business.

    Second, begin process toward elimination of the Dept. of Education and Dept. of Energy, big cuts in Dept. of Transportation and Homeland Security. Propose to defund a portion of Defense – with emphasis on major cuts in California and Washington (Boeing and GE).

    Third, and this is the big one – put Obama on the defensive. Force the majority Senate’s hand about fiscal responsibility. Several pseudo-blue Senators are on the ballot in two years and probably go with the majority house, fearing for their lives. This forces Obama to veto proposals. Near the top of the list is to defund is definitely this:

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp1011213

    Put the pressure and the spotlight on Obama now, acting both professionally and without seeking spotlight.

    I’ve got a hundred more, including educating Obama’s miserable foreign failures, which are even more egregious than his public policies.

    The wins were massive last night – most of them behind the scenes in state legislatures. Conservatives have The One by the balls, but they must do it with animosity and vitriol. Walk softly and carry a big state.

  • 12. Tex Taylor  |  November 3, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    D.R.,

    Misleading – Utah is one of the most Conservative states. Look at Oklahoma and you’ll understand. If you look at the map, it would appear OK to be almost half blue – we have on Conservative Dimocratic district that is huge in area – small in populace.

    Most Republican candidates won here last night by 3-1 margins.

  • 13. Tex Taylor  |  November 3, 2010 at 8:48 pm

    without animosity – sorry, watching FOX, and loving it Graychin.

    Like your team winning the playoffs – now on to the Super Bowl.

  • 14. Alfie  |  November 3, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    Tex follow up to your link:

    http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/1103_post_election_health_care_aaron.aspx

    Hank Aaron Phd is an a$$0

  • 15. Tex Taylor  |  November 3, 2010 at 9:11 pm

    Rabbit,

    Here’s one suggestion. I don’t necessarily agree with of these, but there are possibilities of balancing the budget…many of these are very good.

    And it’s in Esquire magazine ironically.

    http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/federal-budget-statistics-1110

  • 16. Tex Taylor  |  November 3, 2010 at 9:20 pm

    Alfie,

    I’ll tell you this – and I am absolutely sure of this too, because I’ve talked to health care professionals in the know. With all the spin of extended care, no maximums, no “pre” limitations, this Healthcare sounds pretty good in many aspects.

    But…

    Obamacare is a bureaucratic nightmare, which will not only increase costs significantly, but will interfere with the practice of health care.

    If you didn’t see this video (and naturally Dingell won), it does an excellent job of explaining only one of the huge shortcomings of the bill.

  • 17. dead rabbit  |  November 3, 2010 at 9:49 pm

    Tex, I agree with your strategy.

  • 18. Tex Taylor  |  November 3, 2010 at 10:12 pm

    Damn, who ever knew Newt Gingrich was funny? Here’s Obama’s first term and speech today paraphrased in a nutshell by Newt:

    During 2008, Obama promised the American pubic he was going to take us Disney World if we elected him pilot. And many got excited and cast him a favorable ballot. And we got on his plane. And on the flight there, Pilot Obama announced to us that he and the co-pilots had decided the way we were going to arrive there was to crash the plane into the parking lot.
    :lol: :lol:

  • 19. dead rabbit  |  November 3, 2010 at 10:48 pm

    Tex, you forgot one thing.

    Republicans must start raising hell over securing our border.

    These Libs simply compartmentalize the violent death of minorities. I’ve seen it my whole life and I see it on this blog.

    If the status quo produces votes, they don’t care if their policy disrupts society to the point where motherfuckers are shot dead daily.

    However, we’re talking mass graves, thousands murdered and maybe millions exploited in an anarchy ridden land comparable to the Pakistani Tribal Area.

    For human rights reasons and desperately needed national security, the GOP better start playing hard ball. Who cares if Greychin types mindlessly bray racism like a donkey.

  • 20. Tex Taylor  |  November 3, 2010 at 10:56 pm

    Hey Rabbit, you’re right. But before I agree with you, I want you guys to enjoy yourselves.

    And I dedicate this to both Rutherford and Graychin:

    http://www.therightscoop.com/glenn-beck-happy-days-are-here-again

    Enjoy boys!!!

  • 21. Hucking Fypocrites  |  November 3, 2010 at 10:58 pm

    “Republicans must start raising hell over securing our border.”

    Now that we have control of the purse strings, one of the first orders of business should be to cut federal aid to any city or state that has a sanctuary policy.

    If Obama won’t do his job, the House must do it for him.

  • 22. Tex Taylor  |  November 3, 2010 at 11:09 pm

    Now to Mexico.

    Can anybody on God’s green earth tell me what is preventing us from taking back our border through military force?

    Our border guards outgunned? Okay. I’ll bet these Mexican drug cartels don’t have access to Abrams tanks and Cobra helicopters. Why the hell aren’t we blowing them to kingdom come?

    Are our politicians so gutless that they are afraid to defend its citizens in Laredo or El Paso? This is ridiculous.

  • 23. Tex Taylor  |  November 3, 2010 at 11:16 pm

    Bye the way Graychin. Remember 48 hours ago when you told me E.J. Dionne IS NEVER ON COUNTDOWN with Keith Ogremann?

    Make that twice this week – I”m watching Keith now.

    And Rutherford, because you are my friend and I’ve added one more viewer to MSNBC than the ten they already had this week, can I give you some friendly advice to pass to all your friends, and if possible your pal Obama.

    You guys need to take Michael Moore, Rachel Maddow, Eugene Robinson, and Keith Olbermann’s advice. It was a communication’s problem – no doubt. You need to get your message out louder – even if more shrill.

    If Obama would have simply punished his enemies instead of his natural bipartisan nature, no doubt the vote would have gone better.

    Put Plan ‘B’ into practice man. Bear down. Keep the faith. Push the progressive agenda with more gusto.

    Just trying to help man. :sad:

  • 24. Tex Taylor  |  November 3, 2010 at 11:32 pm

    Hey Huck, I’ve got a California question.

    Is the San Diego area still considered moderately conservative? And Orange County?

    Besides those two, are there any conservative areas within 25 miles of the coast?

  • 25. Rutherford  |  November 4, 2010 at 12:19 am

    In Gray’s defense it was I who said Dionne was hardly ever on “Countdown” and this week the mofo is making a liar out of me. Twice this week already.

    Ahhhh Tex, forget Olbermann’s plan B. You need to watch Ed Schultz. LOL That dude is royally pissed. Obama’s presser today did nothing to improve Ed’s spirits.

    I must admit …. and I know Tex this gives you a tingle, Obama looked like a defeated man today. He’s in a helluva fix. Try to make nice with Boehner and lose all the progressives or double down on far left stuff and give the Tea Party all the ammo they need. It looks almost like a no-win situation.

    BTW, dontcha all love how the MSM keeps talking about the great way Clinton and the GOP congress cooperated in the late 90’s. Why is it they never mention that the dude was impeached???? If that is cooperation, I’d hate to see an adversarial environment. :-(

  • 26. Tex Taylor  |  November 4, 2010 at 12:55 am

    Oh well,my motto is if you’re going to accuse somebody and can’t accuse El Bomba, falsely accuse Graychin – he’s deserving of any scorn imaginable. :wink: You guys run together for me anymore, so I apologize to Graychin for mixing you two.

    I must admit …. and I know Tex this gives you a tingle, Obama looked like a defeated man today.

    Unlike “much of America” (cough cough), I don’t like Obama – forgetting for a minute his insidious policies. And I don’t think I’m alone. I believe off camera, Barack is a malignant narcissist and a nasty piece of work in the Wright mold. I’ve thought that from the start.

    The land will heal? What kind of a man says crap like that but a megalomaniac? Columns on stage? We are the ones? What’s that say about people who fawn over him? Good grief, that is most pathetic weakness I think I’ve ever witnessed in people.

    But I’ve polluted your blog long enough with opinion day in and day out, and meant what I said. It’s time to grow up – and it has been fun. You have to let me hang around for a day or two to gloat and I have appreciated the leniency.

    I like you, but when I read your Twitter account, it’s like two different people. The irreligious mockery is not something I find personally edifying, nor will I condone.

    Believe it or not, I can actually ratchet it up a notch or two. Scary, hey? But I am not sure that’s real healthy to do day in and day out. And I’m not pulling a Chen on you! :smile:

  • 27. graychin  |  November 4, 2010 at 1:02 am

    A few points before bedtime:

    “(For the most part) Nutjubs, Racists, and Misfits Need Not Apply”

    That may apply in general elections, but they seem to be entirely welcome in the new Whig Republican party. How did those people get nominated in the first place. And what about the new Florida governor, Rick Scott? He’s the former CEO of Columbia/HCA who presided over the largest Medicare fraud in history? What kind of credential is that for political leadership?

    And then there’s David Vitter….

    “It’s the economy, stupid.”

    Indeed it is. It always is. But it’s a much better campaign issue when you’re on the outside criticizing the opposition for its mismanagement of the economy. The voters don’t care about excuses like “it’s the fault of Bush and the Republicans.” All they care about is now.

    First – If Obama had focused 110% of his attention on the economy for the past two years, what else could this administration have accomplished with the economy? The only possible answer is “not much.” The stimulus was too small from the git-go, but it was the best that could be had in the face of total Republican obstruction.

    You may recall that during the Iran hostage crisis, Jimmy Carter imprisoned himself in the White House for the duration – like that would actually do some good. Big mistake. If a president can’t work on more than one issue at a time, he shouldn’t have the job. If he won’t TRY to work on more than one issue at a time, then he should never have run.

    Second – If Health Care hadn’t passed during these two years, then it wouldn’t have happened for another generation. Anyone can put off hard problems until manaña. But Obama and his allies delivered on a major campaign issue. It was the right thing to do, even if it wasn’t to the Democrats’ electoral advantage.

    Rutherford, what is the point of electoral success? More electoral success? If you think so, than you should join the Mitch McConnell fan club. It takes actual balls to stand up and do the right thing, even if the other side has such effective PR that people can be convinced that it’s bad when they actually like all the parts.

    I’m not at all convinced that it’s the case (because it IS the economy, stupid) but what if health care DID cause the Republican successes yesterday? If you’re only about winning elections, your just another crummy politician. But if you’re there about public service, then grow a pair and serve the public.

    I know that Tex is obsessed with Rachel Maddow’s sexuality and looks (what’s up with that anyway?), and therefore can’t pay attention when she is talking. But she had a truly profound commentary on Monday night. I’ll just quote a small piece here, but you really ought to read the whole thing:

    “The record of legislative achievement of the last 21 months was not designed to win the midterm elections and it will not win the midterm elections. The pendulum will swing back toward the Republicans and we’ll go back to divided government again. The legislative agenda of the last 21 months was policy, not politics. It was designed to get stuff done for the country. And in that sense, it’s an investment in long-term political reward, not short-term political reward, as Democrats expect after a list of accomplishments like this to be judged as the party that took on problems when it had the chance, even if they had to pay a short-term political price.

    “The political capital that Democrats accumulated over the last two elections was spent in these last 21 months. And it was spent on policy, hard votes with long-time horizons that don’t translate into killing the other party in the next election.”

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026430.php

    Maybe it’s my age (probably not as old as some of you think), but age does help you to take the long view. If anything characterizes the Whigs Republicans, it’s hubris – the kind that brings you down surprisingly quickly. Remember Newt?

    I’m still a “glass half full” kind of guy, and I’m optimistic about the next six years of the Obama Administration. The economy will continue to improve as we dig out of the hole that Bush left for us. The wars overseas will wind down (this is what worries me most!) When people start enjoying their health care, they won’t much like the people who want to take it away.

    So Rutherford – lighten up. Yesterday was bad, but we’re still in the game. It’s only the end of the first quarter in a long season.

  • 28. Tex Taylor  |  November 4, 2010 at 1:35 am

    “The record of legislative achievement of the last 21 months was not designed to win the midterm elections and it will not win the midterm elections. The pendulum will swing back toward the Republicans and we’ll go back to divided government again. The legislative agenda of the last 21 months was policy, not politics. It was designed to get stuff done for the country. And in that sense, it’s an investment in long-term political reward, not short-term political reward, as Democrats expect after a list of accomplishments like this to be judged as the party that took on problems when it had the chance, even if they had to pay a short-term political price.

    “The political capital that Democrats accumulated over the last two elections was spent in these last 21 months. And it was spent on policy, hard votes with long-time horizons that don’t translate into killing the other party in the next election.”

    Wonderful spin on Ms. Butch’s behalf, but complete bullshit. Did she have a cheer leader outfit on when she gave that? Hooray!

    I give her kudos for not gagging while saying it, if she did. Rutherford’s got a much better handle on reality than you do Graychin. Though he doesn’t recognize this either, all the last 21 months have really accomplished is to expose the predictable failure of progressive politics. Obama’s policies are not America’s policies. If that wasn’t demonstrated last night, then you really are clueless. The real slaughter was intrastate – not interstate. You just watched a generation of build up destroyed in one evening.

    And if you believe for a second that ‘Rachel Maddow actually believes in the heart of hearts what she just stated, your even more naive and shallow than even I had imagined. This from the woman who was aghast that a politician hinted that MSNBC “in the tank” for Obama last night? That wasn’t just naive – that was downright idiotic.

    You’re may be somewhat intelligent Graychin – but you’re anything but wise.

  • 29. Hucking Fypocrites  |  November 4, 2010 at 2:09 am

    “Hey Huck, I’ve got a California question…”

    Sorry Tex, I don’t really know the answer to either. I’m not all that in touch with California’s political geography. I know the area I live in is considered somewhat conservative, but we’re much more than 25 miles from the coast.

  • 30. graychin  |  November 4, 2010 at 2:28 am

    Tex I know that it surpasses your understanding, but most people are not as cynical as you are.

  • 31. Rutherford  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:21 am

    The irreligious mockery

    Mmmm, I find that one puzzling. Mockery … definitely. But I’m not sure I make any more religious hits on Twitter than I do here.

    Don’t forget, 140 characters leaves no room for subtlety. And … as immature as it sounds (it’s more like high school than what you’d expect from a 50 year old man), one of the goals of a good “tweet” is to get “retweeted” and usually only tough tweets get retweeted.

    Well, I’m torn Tex … on the one hand I do hope you’re overestimating your ability to stay off the board since I have a great time sparring (and very rarely agreeing) with you. On the other hand, there is nothing better for the mind body and soul than to be doing real work that you enjoy, so to that extent I do hope you find a job that keeps you occupied during the day. (It also makes doing without the Mrs. that much easier.) :-)

  • 32. Tex Taylor  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:56 am

    Tex I know that it surpasses your understanding, but most people are not as cynical as you are.

    Anybody that thinks objective truth comes out of Estrogen Central, being Maddow the most masculine of the effeminate bunch, doesn’t have a whole lot of leeway about judging cynicism. Cynicism is all that MSNBC is.

    I watched the pentagram of progressive thought the other night (Maddow, Olbermann, O’Donnell, Robinson, and Matthews) more than I watched FOX News, delighted in their misery. But I did watch and I did listen. Maddow was the smartest of the bunch, Robinson the dumbest – I mean brick dumb).

    Maddow is smooth, but her attempts at humor fall incredibly flat, she’s a rank propagandist and unbelievably paranoid and superficial. Let’s not forget, she’s got a history of failing shows – she’s a niche player which a show losing audience. I say this with absolute certainty, though Maddow was desperately attempting to put on the happy face, she was seething. That’s not cynicism – that’s reality.

    This was confirmed to me when Michelle Bachmann insulted Chrissie Matthews, and I mean in a nanosecond, when the camera switched, Maddow went off before abruptly before being cut off by Matthews. Matthews stilll rules the roost being the old hand, even if the least popular of the MSNBC hosts.

    But honestly Graychin, I do hope you continue to believe that. It will make it that much easier to destroy your ideas, which were rejected almost in their entirety night before last.

    In a way, this is a compliment to the dyke. Butch Maddow is smart enough to understand that. Apparently, you are not.

  • 33. graychin  |  November 4, 2010 at 11:12 am

    “Anybody that thinks objective truth comes out of Estrogen Central, being Maddow the most masculine of the effeminate bunch…”

    Any comment that starts off like that has zero probability of containing anything worth reading. So I didn’t.

  • 34. dead rabbit  |  November 4, 2010 at 11:28 am

    Greychin is the only one allowed to use hyperbole. Never forget that, everyone.

    What exactly happened to the rebellious nature of the 60’s generation? You guys used to defy government. Now you’re stooges for the government. We just need to trust Greychin and Dear Leader with trillions of dollars. How dare we be cynics. Never mind if the Stim failed by the Administration’s own standards. Trust.

    Never mind most of the nation hates Obama care. Trust.

    Trust. Trust the smart ones. Trust the Leader.

  • 35. graychin  |  November 4, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    Rabbit, you’ve got me all wrong – as happens so very often in here.

    Trust the government? Like hell! The “Patriot Act” is an abomination. The ” war on drugs” is idiotic. The Asian wars on which we are squandering trillions are misguided (Afghanistan) or downright stupid (Iraq). The police are corrupt. State government in my state is out to do us actual harm. How in the hell did you get the idea that I “trust the government”?

    You call what Tex said ” hyperbole? That’s a stretch, but can we at least agree that it is purposefully offensive hyperbole?

  • 36. Tex Taylor  |  November 4, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    Rabbit, you need to forgive Graychin. He should have been put to pasture years ago, for no other reason than we simply can’t depend on him to consistently carry his opinions. Mr. Pragmatic would better be defined as Mr. Inconsistent.

    Trust the government? Like hell! The “Patriot Act” is an abomination. The ” war on drugs” is idiotic. The Asian wars on which we are squandering trillions are misguided (Afghanistan) or downright stupid (Iraq). The police are corrupt. State government in my state is out to do us actual harm. How in the hell did you get the idea that I “trust the government”?

    Graychin: My post office is excellent and we desperately need Obama Care to manage 17% of the economy. We needed a bigger stimulus. We need more government regulation and we need to give more money to failing public education, even if giving more money didn’t work the first time. It was because we didn’t give enough money to government.

    Mr. Pragmatic really needs to be described as Mr. Mealy-Mouthed. :wink:

  • 37. Tex Taylor  |  November 4, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    Graychin,

    We feel your pain…

  • 38. Tex Taylor  |  November 4, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    Rabbit, a simple example of how deluded Graychin is. Though most people get more Conservative as they get older, Graychin seems the contrarian as he gets more and more unhinged in the secular humanism of liberal politic.

    In our State Votes Tuesday in OK, we had a proposition called SQ 744. Briefly, it was a proposed constitutional amendment that would peg the annual education budget in Oklahoma to the regional average per pupil expenditure in six neighboring states. It’s push, in large part, was pushed by outside sources, including the NEA.

    In Oklahoma state tax increases require a super majority + of the vote to pass. That is not going to happen, so the monies, estimated at $1.7 billion, would have had to come from other state sources – roads, fire, police, state agencies. Even the do nothing, milquetoast Dim Gov. of the state and his wife (a former teacher) said please don’t do it. It’s a terrible idea.

    The final tally was that 82% of Oklahoma citizens rejected the measure. Care to guess who one of the 18% of cone heads voting yes on this abomination of a proposal was?

  • 39. Tex Taylor  |  November 4, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    Want to see six minutes of the insufferable Rachel Madcow in a happier day? Want to witness terms like teabagging, astroturfing, fringe blow up in a horse’s ass face? Rachel “Butch” Maddow at her absolute finest moment (snicker):

  • 40. Tex Taylor  |  November 4, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    Teabag this Graychin…

    Although a few Tea Party stars such as Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle lost, the movement itself proved broadly appealing: Exit polls showed that four in 10 voters considered themselves supporters of the Tea Party, and, according to NBC, 113 of the 129 candidates for the House of Representatives who associated themselves with it won.

  • 41. Tex Taylor  |  November 4, 2010 at 2:09 pm

    Snicker…so much good stuff today as I read during lunch. I just had to share…

    Is there collusion between Alan Grayson and MSNBC? (tee hee)

    I just loved this one…

    http://johnnydollar.us/files/101027grayson.php

  • 42. Tex Taylor  |  November 4, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    Here “R”. You’ll enjoy this one. I don’t know how anybody can’t find this one funny.

    Alvin Greene Crashes His Own Campaign Reception, Scarfs Down Hors D’oeuvres,

    http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/11/alvin-greene-crashes-his-own-campaign.html

  • 43. graychin  |  November 4, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    Here is an overlooked tidbit from the exit polls:

    Obama’s job performance: 45% favorable, 54% unfavorable
    Democratic Party: favorable 43%, unfavorable 52%
    Republican Party: favorable 41%, unfavorable 53 %

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010-midterms-political-price-economic-pain/story?id=12041739

    Exit polls only survey the people who took the trouble to vote, and who voted on election day.

    Given that I would have responded “unfavorable” if asked about Obama’s job performance, I’m not sure what to make of what those percentages mean for his prospects for re-election. I can’t imagine myself supporting his Republican opponent, no matter who he (or she!) is.

    But Republicans should take little comfort in knowing that their party, which succeeded well if not wildly on Tuesday, is no more popular than Obama and the Democrats. Now they have their chance in the House to show us what they can and will do. The whole world is watching.

  • 44. an800lbgorilla  |  November 4, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    Well, while the world watches…

    (Telegraph)- Americans may have fallen out of love with Barack Obama, but the president of the United States is still an object of affection for the Chinese, who have remodelled him as a blow-up sex doll.

    It’s nice to see someone other than us getting fucked for a change.
    ;)

  • 45. Tex Taylor  |  November 4, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    Well, only one thing can be determined for sure as of last Tuesday.

    Exit polls, or no exit polls, which I think I could easily explain, what we witnessed was an “almost’ absolute repudiation of Obama and his policies. The vote was entirely about Obama and his Dimocratic majority Congress. That’s the exit poll that counts.

    And being I would have given the “Republican” party a big disapproval for cowardice and RINOism, consider my vote a shot across the bow to either squeeze the life out of Obama and the liberals, or pack your bags and we will find somebody that will.

    I think it safe to wager from the results that there were a lot more of Tex types Tuesday than there were of Graychin. A lot more.

    And that is really the only poll that counts.

    The Republican party is now on trial to grab a set…compromise is for losers and they better start playing to win.

  • 46. graychin  |  November 4, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    Who was it who said “If anything characterizes the Republicans, it’s hubris – the kind that brings you down surprisingly quickly.”

    Oh – it was me.

    Republicans weren’t so fond of compromise during the past two years when they actually WERE losers. All they did was obstruct and whine about things being “crammed down their throats.”

    I hope that Republicans take Tex’s advice and turn their backs on every opportunity for compromise while they control 1/3 of the legislative machinery. That would hasten their departure for the Land of the Whigs more than anything.

    Is John “hell no you can’t!” Boehner the sort of politician who understands the art of political compromise? I’m betting against it. He’s Newt without the charm.

  • 47. an800lbgorilla  |  November 4, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    Grayson just went on MSLSD and said that the Dems lost because they’ve been compromising too much. He also said he lost because of the national mood- it had nothing to do with him. In fact, he said that had the rest of the party carried their water, and that he didn’t have to do it himself, then they would have done much better.

    Delusional…

  • 48. Tex Taylor  |  November 4, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    Gorilla,

    Grayson is not the only Gray that is delusional.

    Who was it who said “If anything characterizes the Republicans, it’s hubris – the kind that brings you down surprisingly quickly.”

    Oh – it was me.

    This from the number one fan of the megalomaniac called Obama, who promised He Was The One? Who would stem the tide, and calm the seas, who would heal the earth, and be our first post-racial President? Peace on earth, good will toward man? The man who stood before stages with columns, in essence proclaiming himself not only President, but king of the world?

    And Grayson and Graychin believe it is Republicans with hubris?

    Laugh at them. Damn right it was the party of NO. And Tuesday, the were joined by another 60% of the country that said loud and clear “HELL NO!”

    Wait until hyperinflation begins to rear its ugly head, the dollar drops about 20%, and the bread you paid $2.00 for today, cost $4.00 for tomorrow.

    Let’s just hope this time the American middle finger is pointed at the right people.

  • 49. Tex Taylor  |  November 4, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    By the way Graychin,

    What you would call hubris, I would call critical thinking and simple common sense. You want Europe Nanny, about the same time Greece and France burn, and the rest of the European people run from failed policy. The very kind you want America to adopt.

    You are frankly out of your mind. And I can’t believe how cocky you’ve become when the last 48 hours just exposed how incredibly poorly your predictive skills are…

    You don’t even have the good sense to be embarrassed and admit failure. You’re like Danger Barch of Million Dollar Baby fame. You just got your ass kicked and you’re back for another beating.:roll:

    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2004_Million_Dollar_Baby/2004_million_dollar_baby_030.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.allmoviephoto.com/photo/2004_million_dollar_baby_030.html&usg=__a8Q33pM0KhTDBogt6Kpl_cf0mvE=&h=852&w=1280&sz=106&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=6XTKGCmWTjlFwM:&tbnh=140&tbnw=203&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddanger%2Bbarch%2Bmillion%2Bdollar%2Bbaby%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D600%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=142&vpy=94&dur=704&hovh=140&hovw=210&tx=157&ty=108&ei=4QzTTKvtAYqksQOPr9HoCg&oei=4QzTTKvtAYqksQOPr9HoCg&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=14&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0

  • 50. El Tigre  |  November 4, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    “If anything characterizes the Republicans, it’s hubris – the kind that brings you down surprisingly quickly.”

    Yeah. That’s what the country was thinking on Tuesday when they took down the . . . ummm. . .

    Who’s hubris brought who down quickly?

    I’m with Tex. The dems need to ramp it up. Louder, nastier, mock and ridicule anyone that doesn’t drink Obama’s bath water. Scream racism, blame Bush, beat your own chests and poke everyone else’s. More vigor. Obviously only you get it!

  • 51. Tex Taylor  |  November 4, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    Right on Tigre!!!

    And Graychin make your message as loud and shrill clear as you can make it. It was a communications problem, and you’ve got to get the message out. Never forget it was George Bush that got us into this mess.

    Punish your enemies. Remember, the country acted stupidly. You might even have to declare martial law in large swaths of the country.

    Ban Happy Meals with fruit cups for the kids. You and Obama are in charge. You’re going to have to get nastier, tougher, bend the rules when required. It’s that important.

    And never forget every stinkin’ bit of it was racist to the core.

  • 52. dead rabbit  |  November 4, 2010 at 5:55 pm

    PRINT PRINT PRINT PRINT PRINT PRINT!

    There is no way out, citizens!

    PRINT PRINT PRINT

    And Greychin thinks Government should have spent more! More Stim????

    They are printing like banshees and he says more!

    We will pay for Wall-street and Obama Spending one way or the other.

    Audit the Fed and lets have this collapse right now, like men.

  • 53. an800lbgorilla  |  November 4, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    Ed Schultz is shitting himself as we speak. Hehehehehehe!!!

  • 54. an800lbgorilla  |  November 4, 2010 at 6:16 pm

  • 55. Tex Taylor  |  November 4, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    To prove how disconnected the Rutherford Lawson and Graychin Grayson types really are, let’s not forget that we were told not only Conservativism dead, but we had to be listened to the new message.

    Well here’s the biggest winner Tuesday night Mr. Rutherford Lawson: RUSH LIMBAUGH. You heard it.

    http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/03/the-winner-rush-limbaugh

    “The Benedict Arnolds, Backstabbers, Bruti, and Bums” of the conservative movement like David Frum, Mike Murphy, Kathleen Parker, and Christopher Buckley have been laid to waste.

    Good riddance – and I told you so… :wink:

  • 56. an800lbgorilla  |  November 4, 2010 at 6:37 pm

    Hmmmmm…

    Gay men, lesbians and bisexuals made up 3 percent of those casting ballots in House races on Tuesday, and 31 percent of them voted Republican. By itself, that number is amazing, especially when you consider that way too many people think being gay and voting Democratic are one in the same.

  • 57. graychin  |  November 4, 2010 at 6:40 pm

    Anyone who EVER claimed that conservatism is dead is NOT a Graychin type!

    Someone is having hallucinations again.

    Why is it so hard for you guys to address ME instead of some stupid caricature?

  • 58. graychin  |  November 4, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    There you go again.

    Who said that being gay and voting Democratic are one and the same?

    Not me.

  • 59. Tex Taylor  |  November 4, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    Ask yourself this: had Obama enjoyed a 60-seat gain after his “enemies” talk, would he now have called for a new era of political healing and harmony? The notion that stonewalling conservatives derailed a successful president is adolescent.- Victor Davis Hanson

  • 60. Tex Taylor  |  November 4, 2010 at 6:52 pm

    Of the 21 incumbent Democrats in 2012, nine are in deep-blue “safe” states and their seats are likely to remain Democrat even in the case of retirements (Feinstein-CA and Akaka-HI lead that potential list). Four more are in normally Democratic states that shifted to the GOP in the 2010 cycle — Stabenow-MI, Klobuchar-MN, Menendez-NJ and Bingaman-NM — and as such could be considered as possible takeover targets. Assuming Herb Kohl (who will be 77 in 2012) retires, you can likely add an open seat in Wisconsin to that count — but realistically, those seats would only be in danger of flipping in a really big GOP year.

    There are seven incumbent Democratic senators up for re-election in 2012 who are, today, in serious trouble: Nelson-FL, McCaskill-MO, Tester-MT, Nelson-NE, Conrad-ND, Brown-OH and Webb-VA. Most if not all of the above, if they had been on the ballot Tuesday, would probably have lost to a GOP opponent — and they know it.

    Rubbing my hands…

  • 61. Tex Taylor  |  November 4, 2010 at 11:02 pm

    Devastation: GOP Picks Up 680 State Leg. Seats

    I don’t think Dims have any idea of what just happened Tuesday night. They are wiping their brow about saving the Senate? :smile:

    Republicans picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures — the most in the modern era. To put that number in perspective: In the 1994 GOP wave, Republicans picked up 472 seats

    http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/11/devastation-gop.php

  • 62. an800lbgorilla  |  November 4, 2010 at 11:22 pm

    Yeah, I looked at the state races in my analysis of the election. Just posted it. Dick Morris seems to think that based on the redistricting, it could be another ten years before the Dems control the house again.

    I won’t go that far, but then again, Dick was the one who called wave before anyone else.

  • 63. Hucking Fypocrites  |  November 5, 2010 at 12:06 am

    Well I don’t know about anyone else, but I am relieved to know that the people tasked with running our economy are consulting with comedians from Comedy Central about how to pull us out of the abyss.

  • 64. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 12:18 am

    Huck,

    What Rabbit touched on today with the Fed in Rabbit humor is actually the most terrifying news since Obama was elected.

    This is exactly what Bernacke said he wouldn’t do less than a year ago. Quantitative easing II – sounds so mild and soothing, just print money to buy your own debt. Until you find out your 401k account is worth 80% of what it was six weeks before, without the amount changing not one iota.

    Honestly, I think the inmates are running the asylum in both Washington and NYC.

    We may doomed with or without Obama – Obama just speeds up the process.

  • 65. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 12:56 am

    1. I’ve got some corporate rage brewing which I shall unleash in a blog post in the near future.

    2. Ahhhh Tex … I see you’re up to your old tricks. Found your comment on Sandi’s blog under one of your pseudonyms. I’ll be interested to read her post-election analysis. She hasn’t written one yet. I may have to wait until the show on Sunday to find out.

    3. What do you get if you take very moderate Senator-elect Joe Manchin from West Virginia and combine him with ultra-liberal soon-to-be ex Representative Alan Grayson from Florida?

    You get GRAY-CHIN!!!!

    Graychin for Vice President in 2012!!! :-)

  • 66. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 1:10 am

    Ahhhh Tex … I see you’re up to your old tricks. Found your comment on Sandi’s blog under one of your pseudonyms. I’ll be interested to read her post-election analysis. She hasn’t written one yet. I may have to wait until the show on Sunday to find out.

    I know you won’t believe this, but it is the truth. I used that name specifically because I knew that you and Graychin would know exactly who it was that left that nice compliment.

    What Graychin may not realize is the name Keyboard Cowboy came from Dear Rabbit, who called me that one night in a heated debate at the Chen’s blog. It was so fitting and I thought so humorous, I grabbed it.

    I refrained from the using the best description of your co-host the stupid, stinking …. because I’ve never used that word on a blog before. I was close and I was looking for the crusher. Being that I knew she was so pissed over the election, I took one step back.

    And that is exactly what she is. You can pass that along to her – on your radio show hopefully. I’d love to call up and call her that, but I knew you’d smite me before it went over the network. :smile:

  • 67. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 1:28 am

    Man Killed on Golf Course

    A foursome of guys is waiting at the men’s tee while a foursome of women is hitting from the ladies’ tee. The ladies are taking their time.

    When the final lady is ready to hit her ball, she hacks it 10 feet. Then she goes over and whiffs it completely. Then she hacks it another ten feet and finally hacks it another five feet.

    She looks up at the patiently waiting men and says apologetically, “I guess all those fucking lessons I took over the winter didn’t help.”

    One of the men immediately responds, “Well, there you have it. You should have taken golf lessons instead!”

  • 68. Hucking Fypocrites  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:08 am

    Good thing “liberals” aren’t telling people what they can and can’t eat.

    Oh wait….

  • 69. El Tigre  |  November 5, 2010 at 8:16 am

    R, it’s time to talk about Rengal and Waters. The dems postponed out of political convenience. Swamp draining time. Time for a new post. The stars are aligned.

  • 70. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Huck, my only question is how could a city so gay ban Happy meals? :-)

  • 71. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 9:58 am

    I’m not fired up enough about this to devote a blog post to it but I’d like you guys (BiW and El Tigre in particular) to take a look at YellowDog’s latest blog post on Prop 755 (no Sharia law) in OK. I made the following comment over there and I’d be interested in a “legal” opinion:

    Dog, I have mixed feelings about this one. If the OK proposition does indeed call for ignoring international law, then ignorance is the right word to apply here. However, as a layman, I would argue Sharia law is not covered by international law, nor is it recognized as international law. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    Furthermore, I see the establishment clause as working both ways. To allow US court decisions to be based on Sharia law is to allow the govt to favor Islam over other religions. We don’t currently adjudicate based on the Ten Commandments so why should we do so based on Sharia law?

    Don’t get me wrong … I think the proposition is preposterous just on the face of it. There is as much chance of Sharia law being the law of the land in the US (much less Oklahoma) as there is a chance of a pig flying out of my butt. On those grounds alone OK follows AZ in being an embarrassment to the nation.

  • 72. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Here’s another example of liberals telling us what we can eat and drink:

    After Dec. 3, a trendy caffeinated alcoholic drink blamed for hospitalizing college students will no longer be delivered to Oklahoma.

    The Oklahoma ABLE Commission placed a moratorium Wednesday on the canned drink called Four Loko and other pre-mixed caffeinated alcoholic drinks.

    Four Loko, an alcoholic energy drink, will no longer be delivered to Oklahoma. Ap photo

    Gov. Brad Henry and other state leaders said in a Sunday article in The Oklahoman that the drink should be banned because of health concerns.

    On Tuesday, a large Oklahoma broker stepped forward to say deliveries to the state will cease.

    http://newsok.com/commission-bans-delivery-of-alcoholic-energy-drinks/article/3511462

  • 73. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 10:29 am

    Another one of our eternal arguments. What is the proper role of government in protecting the safety and health of its citizens?

  • 74. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Am I the only one that remembers this?

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Argues Foreign Laws Should Have Influence On American Laws

  • 75. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 10:58 am

    Tex here is where I have a problem. I don’t view Sharia law as a foreign law. I view it as “religious law”. As I have said before, the single point at which Islam and I part ways is its desire to enforce religious doctrine explicitly over the state. Unlike you and your fellow conservatives, I do consistently oppose separation of church and state. Sharia law violates this and is a non-starter in my book.

    Ginsburg was NOT making a defense of Sharia law.

  • 76. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 11:10 am

    If we ban Sharia law from the courts (as we should), don’t we also have to ban other religious law like the Ten Commandments?

    In Oklahoma, it is illegal for car dealers to sell cars on Sunday. What’s the deal with that?

  • 77. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 11:15 am

    Rutherford, you answered your own illogical conclusion with your own answer.

    Sharia is not just simply religious. Consider what you just said – law. And yes, sharia is the court of law for many Muslim countries – Saudi Arabia being the most obvious. It is not just the law. It is the way of life. Your so inconsistent in your application and standards of religion, I do wonder sometimes in your open mindedness in demanding “tolerance”, that your brains fell out.

    Here, you go on and on on the Rutherford Lawson blog about the fear of theocracy, and then when a real theocracy stares you in the face, you minimize it.

    If I may use an analogy near and dear to Graychin’s heart, it would be as if Christians now demanded that Deuteronomy the law of the land and not the Constitution, and if you didn’t accept the Laws of Deuteronomy, you would be hanged for your transgressions.

    Find me anything in the Koran that says anything along the lines of “Render unto Caesar’s what is Caesars” and maybe you can change my mind.

    A preemptive shot across the bow? Absolutely. The chances of it could never happen in our lifetimes? Britain and France said the same things ten years ago.

  • 78. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 11:16 am

    your/you’re

  • 79. El Tigre  |  November 5, 2010 at 11:49 am

    R, you are asking me to read that drivel at YellowDog’s blog? Aye chihuahua. Painful.

    I’ll have to be on hold for a while with it. Yellowdog’s analysis is so scatter-shot and so confused concepts to support the usual lame talking points, to unravel will be an undertaking. Stay tuned. Maybe BiW bail me out since he’s probably forgotten more constitutional law than I ever knew (despite having taught undergraduate courses on it — sheesh).

    And frankly, I know nothing of the prop other than what was said here. What happens in OK is about as relevant as Chris Matthews in my opinion and I am still waiting for the wave of white hate groups and violence predicted by G-chin and Yellowdog.

    Are you being paid for generating hits on G-chin’s and Yellowdog’s chatroom. . . I mean blog?

  • 80. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 11:49 am

    Tex, I’m glad you mentioned Deuteronomy. We might as well ban all that stuff in Deuteronomy from the courts while we’re at it. There are whole communities in New York State of Hasidic Jews.

    But we didn’t ban Deuteronomy, even though those Hasidic Jews get pretty aggressive sometimes too. Don’t they need a shot across the bow, just like the Muslims?

    Ironically, the “English only” amendment that Oklahoma passed the other day makes an exception for Native American languages! A very few of the old-timers still use the old Indian languages at home, especially in this part of the state, but you won’t find many Indians who don’t read and write English.

    It probably makes more sense to call that state question the “anything but Spanish” amendment.

  • 81. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 11:53 am

    It seems unlikely that international law would come up in any matter before the courts of any state – such as Oklahoma. But when the United States enters into a treaty, are we not bound under the law by the provisions of that treaty?

    I really don’t understand the “conservative” hysteria over the appearance of international law in American courts. What the deal here?

  • 82. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 11:56 am

    “What happens in OK is about as relevant as Chris Matthews in my opinion…”

    Haven’t you heard the old saying: “As Oklahoma goes, so goes the nation.” :D

  • 83. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 11:58 am

    I can see easily how international law would be properly applied in federal court. A treaty is a law that has been passed by Congress (2/3 of the Senate, in accordance with the Constituton) and signed by the President.

    So why doesn’t a law like that belong in Federal court?

  • 84. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 11:59 am

    BiW … my condolences to you on the election of Patty Murray. Another notch in my belt. ;-)

  • 85. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    But we didn’t ban Deuteronomy, even though those Hasidic Jews get pretty aggressive sometimes too. Don’t they need a shot across the bow, just like the Muslims?

    Should we legalize polygamy Graychin?

    We didn’t ban Deuteronomy because its application is irrelevant. Can you point to me where demands have been made (and approved) that applicable American law would come under jurisprudence of Deuteronomy and not the Constitution?

    Because that is exactly what is happening in many European countries where law is being usurped. Worse, it is even suggested by idiots like Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, who “argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.”

    Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable’

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm

    I guess you and Rutherford didn’t take my suggest to watch the documentary “The Third Jihad?” You should. It’s produced by a real “moderate Muslim” that you tell me represents the American Muslims.

    Then come back and tell me we have “nothing” to worry about.

  • 86. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    Funny, how the irreligious secularists that frequent this board suddenly become concerned about government infringing on “religious rights” when the issue does not concern Christians.

    One other note: I’ve noticed when both amusement and consternation that these close elections by the narrowest of margins continue to favor Dimocrats.

    I would say the statistical odds of flipping a coin 20 times and getting tails 20 times pretty much sums up the honesty of these election boards across the nation.

    That’s something else the Tea Party needs to address in the next election.

  • 87. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    I have to agree with Gray on the international law thing. It probably highlights why we better be damn careful entering into treaties with Muslim countries.

    Gray, believe me, as I think I said, I don’t want our country run on the Ten Commandments or Deuteronomy any more than I do Sharia law.

    A caller to my “radio” show, Oscar, is from the UK and he has warned me in no uncertain terms what will befall me if I ignore the threat of Islam, I’ll say this ….. when I see credible evidence of any court in this country swaying to Sharia, I will come out adamantly against it. Until then, it’s just more American Islamaphobia.

    P.S. Gray, car dealers being prohibited from Sunday sales is a far cry from stoning your daughter for getting uppity. We do have to be careful with false equivalencies.

  • 88. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    One other note: I’ve noticed when both amusement and consternation that these close elections by the narrowest of margins continue to favor Dimocrats.

    What can I say Tex? Sanity is the tie breaker. ;-)

  • 89. El Tigre  |  November 5, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    OK should just use Las Vegas’ catch phrase for itself.

  • 90. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    Tigre judging from the number of comments, I’d say this is much more of a “chat room” than a blog when compared to The Great Spot. I’m not sure whether that’s a defense of Gray/Dog or not. It is what it is.

  • 91. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    :roll: The Great Spot. :roll:

    If that is not the most misappropriate name for that pack of goons, loons, goosesteppers, and thieves (all two of them) I’ve ever seen on the net, I’ll vote for Obama in 2012.

    It’s neither blog or chat room. It’s an abortion with possibly the most dimwitted moderator in the entire universe. I’m frankly shocked Graychin would share his “power” with LuLu.

    Yeller Dawg disseminating truth in opinion? Carrying on dialogue with coherent thought? The Baghdad Bob of the internet? ** GUFFAW **

  • 92. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    Well Tex, discerning shades of “gray” (pardon the pun) has never been your strong point. I will say this for the Great Spot, it is not of one voice. Gray actually is the moderate one there, with YellowDog being more the radical liberal.

    I kinda view The Great Spot as Gray getting his chocolate in Dog’s peanut butter or vice versa. The result can be a yummy peanut butter cup. :-)

  • 93. Hucking Fypocrites  |  November 5, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    “Here’s another example of liberals telling us what we can eat and drink:…”

    Yeah, this is a good comparison to my comment because too many kids have been hospitalized from eating Happy Meals.

  • 94. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    Well Tex, discerning shades of “gray” (pardon the pun) has never been your strong point.

    :smile: Maybe. But if that is my shortcoming, better that than never seeing leaving the spectrum of only gray and black (pardon the pun).

  • 95. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    I kinda view The Great Spot as Gray getting his chocolate in Dog’s peanut butter or vice versa. The result can be a yummy peanut butter cup.

    One scrapped from the street with tread marks in the wrapper

  • 96. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    Rutherford,

    I don’t normally make suggestions for personal enlightenment for you because your skull 6″ thick, but if you’re really interested in the truth about sharia in America, I’ll say this for the third time.

    You desperately need to watch “The Third Jihad.” And you can trust me on this – produced from a real moderate Muslim which you will see immediately. This is a show every American should watch. The show opens with the message of radical Muslims represent a fraction of Muslims – but they still exist in large numbers – right here in America.

  • 97. an800lbgorilla  |  November 5, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    I kinda view The Great Spot as Gray getting his chocolate in Dog’s peanut butter or vice versa. The result can be a yummy peanut butter cup.” – R

    Do you have any idea how gay this sounds? Not that its inaccurate, I’m sure Dog is sticking his peanut in Gray’s chocolate all the time…

  • 98. El Tigre  |  November 5, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    “Tigre judging from the number of comments, I’d say this is much more of a “chat room” than a blog when compared to The Great Spot. I’m not sure whether that’s a defense of Gray/Dog or not. It is what it is.”

    Yep. That’s a defense of Gray and Dog — the only two commentators on their own site. And you’ve removed all doubt that you’re getting paid.

    At least you don’t delete, and do take a stab at the issues rather than cutting and pasting stupid shit from Daily Kos. Yours comes from MSNBC! ;-)

    Editors note: smiley corrected

  • 99. El Tigre  |  November 5, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    (damn it, I screwed up my winking smiley guy even after you directed me to the not-so-secret code).

  • 100. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    Tigre,

    It’s easier just to remember the words…

    “:smile:”
    “:wink:”
    “:sad:”
    “:mad:”

  • 101. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    Like
    :smile: :wink: :sad: :mad:

    without the quotes.

    That’s what friends are for… :twisted:

  • 102. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    I’m not fired up enough about this to devote a blog post to it but I’d like you guys (BiW and El Tigre in particular) to take a look at YellowDog’s latest blog post on Prop 755 (no Sharia law) in OK. I made the following comment over there and I’d be interested in a “legal” opinion:

    Listen. I just got done with a physical this morning. I’m about two pints low, I feel like a pincusion, I’m pissed off, and I think my prostate is bruised. This probably isn’t the best time to ask me to take one for the team. However, if I feel better when I get home this evening, and my haz-mat suit doesn’t have any tears in it, I might go take a look.

  • 103. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    BiW … my condolences to you on the election of Patty Murray. Another notch in my belt.

    Yeah. I’m not sure what the King County Elections Board has against Rossi, but they do seem to dig up the necessary votes to defeat him when they need to.

    Still, we know that the next governor’s race is gonna be our AG, Rob McKenna against Jay Inslee. The fraud will be undeniable in that race…McKenna could have a brainectomy and still wipe the floor with Inslee in a debate.

  • 104. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    Should we legalize polygamy Graychin?

    No – that’s a step in the wrong direction. I would get the government completely OUT of the business of deciding who can and can not get married.

    The state should recognize all civil unions between consenting adults, and mind its own business about who is and is not qualified to enter into this or that union.

    See – I’m opposed to Big Government. Why aren’t you? :D

  • 105. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    …how the irreligious secularists that frequent this board suddenly become concerned about government infringing on “religious rights” when the issue does not concern Christians.”

    I am not an “irreligious secularist.” But I will get equally concerned when Big Government attempts to disadvantage or infringe upon the “religious rights” of Christians with respect to other religions.

    However, Christians aren’t exactly a persecuted minority in America, and especially not in Oklahoma.

  • 106. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    The state should recognize all civil unions between consenting adults, and mind its own business about who is and is not qualified to enter into this or that union.

    Great! I’m opposed to Big government too. You tell all your gay and cheery friends they can marry anybody they want.

    As long as we refer to them as civil unions. If they want to marry, that’s great too. Your boyfriends have every right to marry any woman they want.

    Unlike you, I’m not opposed to Big God. :wink:

  • 107. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    (Elections are) something else the Tea Party needs to address in the next election.

    Indeed. You guys need to keep erecting as many obstacles to voting as possible. Call up Hans von Spakovsky. He has some EXCELLENT ideas for doing exactly that.

  • 108. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    However, Christians aren’t exactly a persecuted minority in America, and especially not in Oklahoma.

    Not yet. And we plan on keeping it that way.

    But to not refer to yourself as irreligious secularist? That’s Yeller Dawg quality parody, right?

  • 109. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    Gray, car dealers being prohibited from Sunday sales is a far cry from stoning your daughter for getting uppity. We do have to be careful with false equivalencies.

    Rutherford, I meant no equivalence. I was only making the point that some existing laws are based on arbitrary Judeo-Christian injunctions that have no purpose other than a religious one.

    And yet some people get their undergarments in a bunch over the mere mention of Islamic law.

  • 110. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    BiW I am convinced that particularly if a woman does your prostate exam, you are screwed. The last woman who did mine almost shoved her finger so far up I gagged on it. I seriously wanted to crack my cane across her head when she was done. :evil:

  • 111. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    Graychin, we know that much of Dimocrat party, and certainly the Dimocratic machine, like you is corrupt. The last two days have proven that (again). We know that we have to win elections by 3-5% points in many parts of the country. Statistical chance bears that out. I said as much Tuesday.

    It’s why I consider you not just a mindless, political opponent, but the enemy. If I could legally and morally waste your type, I would do so without hesitation. Yeah, I think you’re that bad.

    By the way, I do owe you a huge thank you Graychin. I can’t tell you how happy I am that you Dims have convinced Nancy Pelosi to run for minority leader. That’s the best news in the last 48 hours.

  • 112. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    Tex: Who produced “The Third Jihad”?

    Knowing the source helps me to decide whether a “documentary” is factual – or merely mindless propaganda.

    I went to the website, and the people behind it seem to be keeping their identities secret. Aren’t they proud of their work? Or do the fear that the Muslims will come for them if they crawl out from under their beds?

  • 113. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    That’s what friends are for… :twisted:

    LOL but you never actually included “:twisted:” in your list!!! LOL Keeping that one for yourself heh? :twisted:

  • 114. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    “I kinda view The Great Spot as Gray getting his chocolate in Dog’s peanut butter or vice versa. The result can be a yummy peanut butter cup.” – R

    Do you have any idea how gay this sounds? Not that its inaccurate, I’m sure Dog is sticking his peanut in Gray’s chocolate all the time…

    The Ape is another one (in addition to Tex) who seems to have Gay On The Brain much of the time.

    What’s the deal, guys?

  • 115. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:42 pm

    The 3rd Jihad:

    The film, which is narrated by devout Muslim American Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, opens with the following statement: “This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radical. This film is about them.”

  • 116. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    Gorilla, thanks to you I may never be able to eat a Reeses again. :-(

  • 117. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    The Ape is another one (in addition to Tex) who seems to have Gay On The Brain much of the time.

    Is this the same man that continues to bring up civil unions about every third or forth post? Graychin, you sure you don’t plug the DC outlet on occasion? :roll:

    Rutherford, you caught me. :twisted:

    Didn’t give this one away either :evil:

  • 118. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    Tex you’ll be happy to know the 30 minute excerpt of The Third Jihad is queued up in my browser and I’ll watch it when I get a chance. I haven’t found any “unabridged” copies of it on the net. If you know of one, link please.

  • 119. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    Rutherford,

    I can’t believe I’ve gone through the effort to find my Alfred E. Obama gravatar, and you don’t even make mention of my hard work.

    You’re a graceless host. :smile:

  • 120. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    I am also glad to see Nancy Pelosi running for minority leader. She was a highly effective Speaker.

    It’s almost funny how much effort the right-wing noise machine has demonized Pelosi. Most hard-core Republicans hate her, but can’t articulate a single reason why – except that she is from San Francisco.

    And we all know what THAT means! Right, Tex? Right, Ape?
    :D

  • 121. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    You know Bro,

    Tex you’ll be happy to know the 30 minute excerpt of The Third Jihad is queued up in my browser and I’ll watch it when I get a chance. I haven’t found any “unabridged” copies of it on the net. If you know of one, link please.

    I did stream that on NetFlix – if I find a copy, I’ll send you the link. It’s well worth the watch.

  • 122. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    Ahhhh I never before noticed the diff between :twisted: and :evil: (that’s “:evil:” Tigre). I guess I need better glasses. :-)

  • 123. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    Now I know who narrates “The Third Jihad.”

    It’s producers remain hidden in the shadows.

  • 124. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    LOL Tex I did notice your gravatar and found it quite amusing being an old MAD Magazine fan, but I simply wasn’t going to encourage you.

  • 125. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    Big Gavel Pelosi? Military flight, millionaire Pelosi, complete with family parties on the military planes on the taxpayer dime? Last I read, that cost us millions of bucks too.

    It’s almost funny how much effort the right-wing noise machine has demonized Pelosi. Most hard-core Republicans hate her.

    Try and remember so do 92% of the people calling themselves Independent.

    Do me a favor Graychin and make absolutely sure you push for that. Remember, it was a communications problem.

  • 126. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    OK Tex … you said the magic word “Netflix”. I’ll stream the bad boy myself when I get a chance and I won’t bother with the abridged version.

  • 127. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    Oops – Keith Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely without pay by MSNBC for making campaign contributions to Democrats. He failed to get them “approved” first. Really!

    Now – about those million-dollar contributions to Republicans from the “fair and balanced” network….

  • 128. an800lbgorilla  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    Its Christmas. The Dems, after getting their ass thoroughly kicked, will present once more the trifecta of liberal leadership: Obama-Reid-Pelosi.

    Does it get better than this?

  • 129. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Keith Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely without pay by MSNBC for making campaign contributions to Democrats.

    Sh*t! My wife had read he admitted to the campaign contributions but we had not heard about any consequences.

    Dumb move by MSNBC ….. partly because Fox finances the GOP and second because “Countdown” is a real hoot.

    Don’t expect Tex to comment too soon on this … he’s still cleaning up his keyboard from the ejaculate.

  • 130. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    Rutherford, I wish I could un-read your last sentence. 8-0

  • 131. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    Harry Reid has never been one of my favorites. He has all the charisma of Ben Stein. But he did a great job of herding the cats in the Senate during the past two years.

    I’m glad that he will be back too.

  • 132. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    Oops – Keith Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely without pay by MSNBC for making campaign contributions to Democrats. He failed to get them “approved” first. Really!

    I don’t suppose there’s anyway we could follow that up with a first class hanging, could we?

    Oh, that’s better than sex. You’ re right Rutherford – it’s a bitch to type with one hand. Ooooooooowwwwwwwwhhhhhhhh….

  • 133. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    I’ve got to admit, with all the egregious crap Queef Ogremann has done, this is what passes for outrageous behavior at MSNBC?

    A campaign donation. Kind of like Al Capone and tax evasion…they were looking to cap his ass.
    :lol:

  • 134. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    I guess that MSNBC didn’t want its on-air personnel showing favoritism to Democrats. :D

  • 135. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 5, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    Harry Reid has never been one of my favorites. He has all the charisma of Ben Stein.

    Without any of the intellect or wit.

    I’ve got to admit, with all the egregious crap Queef Ogremann has done, this is what passes for outrageous behavior at MSNBC?

    They had to open up a prime time slot, or Ed Schultz was going to blow the place up.

  • 136. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    There are two ways to look at this MSNBC folly. Either you get pissed (as I am right now) that they refuse to play by the same rules as their political prime-time opponents who singlehandedly campaign on air for the GOP.

    OR

    You give MSNBC kudos for having standards in the first place and sticking to them.

    Unfortunately the conservative shadow of Comcast looms over this event. To this day I maintain that it was not coincidence that Comcast moved MSNBC off my basic cable and onto the converter box while leaving Fox on basic cable. They are conservative pricks. If I were really a man of my convictions I’d switch to the Dish. :-(

  • 137. dead rabbit  |  November 5, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    For the record, even if I’m 100 percent in agreement with any thing you guys say, none of you motherfuckers are yummy.

  • 138. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 5, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    There are two ways to look at this MSNBC folly. Either you get pissed (as I am right now) that they refuse to play by the same rules as their political prime-time opponents who singlehandedly campaign on air for the GOP.

    Unlike Chrissy “tingles” Matthews and his on-air slobbering all over Obama’s crotch, or just about all the rest of the MSNBC faces.

    Comcast is a business, and they probably looked at the pathetic bottomline and decided that they were going to have to make money somehow from that white elephant (RRRRAAAAACCCCIIIISSSSTTTTT!!!!!)

    I do have to give MSNBC credit. By rotating Gene Robinson into the programming, they findly found a person of color. If they put some effort into it, maybe next time they can find one who can actually think.

  • 139. Hucking Fypocrites  |  November 5, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    “You guys need to keep erecting as many obstacles to voting as possible.”

    That’s because we have this silly notion that it should be limited to American citizens.

    ” Republicans hate her, but can’t articulate a single reason why…”

    Her massively liberal agenda that she pushed through the House after secret and exclusive meetings might have just a little bit to do with it, you think?

    Or maybe it was her demonization of anyone–including average citizens–who didn’t agree with that agenda and practice?

    Or her hypocrisy regarding transparency and ethics in congress?

    Or her endless hyperbole?

    Did I articulate enough or shall I keep going?

  • 140. El Tigre  |  November 5, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    Olbermann was biased?

    MSNBC has standards?

    One in ten don’t mind the prostate exam?

    Who knew? :roll:

    Editors note: Yet another smiley corrected. :-) It’s “:roll:” Tigre.

  • 141. El Tigre  |  November 5, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    Doh! :evil:

  • 142. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    You give MSNBC kudos for having standards in the first place and sticking to them.

    I’ll take that option, Rutherford. Final answer.

    The conservative shadow of Comcast looms over this event. To this day I maintain that it was not coincidence that Comcast moved MSNBC off my basic cable and onto the converter box while leaving Fox on basic cable. They are conservative pricks.

    Wrong, Rutherford. Comcast / NBC is part of the “lamestream liberal media.” Don’t you know anything? Only Faux News is “fair and balanced.” :D

    Seriously, most of our news comes ultimately from Republicorp. ABC is Disney without the mouse ears. CBS is controlled by Viacom.

    Dish Network and Direct TV are both free-standing public companies – for now. They attempted a merger with each other about 5-10 years ago, but it fell through.

    Any questions?

  • 143. Hucking Fypocrites  |  November 5, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    I love how Rahm got thrown under the bus today.

    It’s all his fault democrats got their asses kicked.

    Obama is still clueless about what Americans want….

  • 144. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    I do have to give MSNBC credit. By rotating Gene Robinson into the programming, they findly found a person of color. If they put some effort into it, maybe next time they can find one who can actually think.

    Man, Robinson is brick, ain’t he? Pulitizer Prize winner. :roll:

    Al Gore of the Nobel Science Award Winner Quality.

  • 145. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    Tigre, I don’t know who is funnier. You or Cosby.

    “:roll:”

    A little humor for the weekend. Good, clean humor. I still think this guy is one of the two or three funniest humans on earth. My wife is right there with him.

  • 146. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    Huck:

    You are leagues ahead of most people who claim to hate Pelosi. You can actually name a few allegations against her.

    The new Congress is certain to do a lot better in all of those areas. I’m sure you agree.

  • 147. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    Anybody ever remember Nancy Pelosi talking about The Word? HA HA HA HA HA…

    Reminded me of Larry Flynt talking about Born Again!!!

  • 148. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    Interesting –

    In 2006, Joe Scarborough contributed $4,200 to Derrick Kitts, a Republican congressional candidate in Oregon, apparently in violation of NBC of network policy.

    And what was the network’s response at the time?

    A spokesperson for NBC, Jeremy Gaines, replied to questions sent to Scarborough. “Yes, he did make a donation to Derrick Kitts. Kitts is an old friend of Joe’s. Joe hosts an opinion program and is not a news reporter.” And Olbermann IS a news reporter?

    That was it. No consequences for Scarborough.

    If Olbermann gets fired, I see a HUGE payday in his future.

    Do you think Faux might hire him, like they did with Juan Williams?

    If Olbermann gets fired

  • 149. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 5, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    Do you think Faux might hire him, like they did with Juan Williams?

    No. While I’ve joked about it being his dastardly plan (and not a desperate ploy to find himself on a network where someone might accidentally watch him, FOX is first and foremost, a business. If they wanted to cut their viewership, all they have to do is give Shep Smith more airtime.

  • 150. El Tigre  |  November 5, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    “Tigre, I don’t know who is funnier. You or Cosby.”

    That’s mighty high praise, Tex.

    After watching Nancy “The Word” Pelosi, I think we know who the real comedian is. Hi-Larious.

  • 151. El Tigre  |  November 5, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    MSNBC had to have wanted to get rid of Olbermann for other reasons. His formulaic shtick is tired — and dated. I wonder if he represents the end of the sneering, sarcastic lib that defines MSNBC. Journalistic integrity at MSNBC? Now there’s an oxymoron.

  • 152. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    Great Cos video Tex … I watched it twice, still haven’t stopped laughing. “North, South Carolina” …. who needs Abbott and Costello when you’ve got this? :lol:

  • 153. Rutherford  |  November 5, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    Here’s a real wild theory. Maybe Jon Stewart killed “Countdown” the way he killed “Crossfire” a few years ago?

    Just this past Monday, based on the Rally to Restore Sanity, Olbermann announced he was dropping his “Worst Person in the World” segment. Maybe Stewart’s criticism of MSNBC last weekend made the climate right to boot Keith?

    Mmmmmmmmm

  • 154. an800lbgorilla  |  November 5, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    R, some context please.

    News Corp is the Parent company of Fox News. Fox News didn’t politically contribute, News Corp did.

    General Electric is the Parent company of MSNBC.

    If you want to maintain some integrity, then I expect you’ll be throwing GE under the bus next, especially since Jeff Immelt has gotten all kinds of special treatment and perks from this White House- one he has supported greatly.

    If you are looking for political corruption, then THIS is where you need to direct your ire…

  • 155. El Tigre  |  November 5, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    Watched it twice myself. Cos is the undisputed King. Great find. :smile:

  • 156. an800lbgorilla  |  November 5, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    Well, my guess is that this provided an opportunity prior to Comcast take over. MSNBC sucks ass and Comcast is going to want to fix it. My guess is that they would have wanted to start with Doughboy Ed, but Olberdouche provided an out.

  • 157. dead rabbit  |  November 5, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    I’m guessing GE is just fine with Rutherford.

  • 158. an800lbgorilla  |  November 5, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    So am i…

  • 159. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    I don’t know if you if guys have seen the movie “Secretariat” yet. I’m old enough to remember the entire story and am familiar with all of the characters, because it such a rarity – a magnificent sport’s hero without baggage. Plus I always liked Mrs. Tweedy (Penny Chenery).

    Anyway, I still haven’t seen it because every time my wife comes home, something comes up and we don’t get to go.

    When she was home last, I was explaining I didn’ t know how good the movie would be because the local movie “guru” had hammered it for not focusing on the horse.

    If you knew my wife this would be funnier, but you’ll get the idea of her humor…..

    Tex: Yeah, I don’t know how good the movie is going to be because Michael Smith in the T-World said only mediocre – didn’t focus on the horse enough.

    Mrs. Tex What? What did he think it was going to be? A remake of Mr. Ed, or something?

  • 160. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    “Here’s a real wild theory. Maybe Jon Stewart killed “Countdown” the way he killed “Crossfire” a few years ago?”

    Not so wild, Rutherford. The same thing had occurred to me.

    I’ll bet that Olbermann and the suits in the executive suite don’t get along very well, and that’s what this is all about. Olbermann’s ego is oversized, to say the least.

    Wouldn’t Olbermann light up those Sunday talk shows on Faux? Juan Williams just says stupid stuff and puts everyone to sleep.

  • 161. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 6:25 pm

    How do you make a movie that focuses on a horse anyway? Do horses have much of an inner life? Unfulfilled ambitions? Childhood sweethearts that they meet in a Starbucks years later?

    Some movie critics are really dumb.

  • 162. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    How do you make a movie that focuses on a horse anyway? Do horses have much of an inner life? Unfulfilled ambitions? Childhood sweethearts that they meet in a Starbucks years later?

    Some movie critics are really dumb.

    You got that right. You’re old enough to remember that Graychin – I don’t know if you’re a horse racing fan. I’m not, but there was something so special about this animal, you couldn’t help but watch it.

    I still consider this after too many years as the greatest “athletic” performance I ever witnessed. And I’ve about seen them all in one regard or another. I can still remember sitting with my friends weeping, because you really did feel like you were watching something almost supernatural. What a cool story. It really did captivate the entire nation.

  • 163. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    Rutherford, how can you watch this lowbrow crap night after night? Is it voyeurism, titillating, or really your natural inclination?

    Dem pollster: What Obama really needs is an Oklahoma City moment

    Yeah, that’s what we need. Matthews doesn’t hesitate a minute. If we could just carry bleeding and dead babies from a building, and Obama could connect, everything will be okay.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/05/dem-pollster-what-obama-really-needs-is-an-oklahoma-city-moment/

  • 164. El Tigre  |  November 5, 2010 at 8:32 pm

    Okay. I tried to bite by looking at Oklahoma’s SQ 755. For the life of me, I can’t understand what purpose it serves. There again, I can’t find the actual text of the proposed amendment or to balance against the existing State Constitution.

    The dumbed down internet articles/blogs repeatedly refer to a NJ state trial court ruling on a domestic violence petition where the judge found that the defendant lacked the intent to commit a sexual crime against his wife because he thought he was justified in demanding sex from her under Sharia law. The articles indicate that the trial court was reveresed. As I understand it, this is the type of evil to be dispelled through the proposed amendment.

    So far, so dumb. Am I mistaken R?

  • 165. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 9:13 pm

    I remember a lot of hoopla around Secretariat, but I’m not enough of a horse racing fan to have been interested in much more about him than that he won the triple crown once.

    I had some fun this afternoon with a caller from the NRA! First, she greeted me with “HI, IGNATIUS, HOW ARE YOU THIS AFTERNOON” when no one calls me by my legal name (which is not Ignatius), not even my mother.

    She asked me if I was a supporter of our Second Amendment rights, and I said “Absolutely! And of the rights in the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights as well.” She asked if I was a gun owner. I said yes. And I am.

    Then she said “Did you know that the United Nations is trying to take away our guns? And that President Obama supports it? I gave a hearty laugh and said “That’s the silliest thing I ever heard.” She continued to insist that it was true, and I continued to say that it was a ridiculous thing to worry about in any case.

    Finally I cut her short and said “Look – there’s no reason for either of us to be wasting our time here. I’m not going to be sending any money to the NRA to keep the United Nations from taking our guns away. OK? ”

    She thanked me and told me to have a nice day. I wished her the same, and then advised her: “Keep your head down.”

    Honestly, do people really BELIEVE that the UN and Obama are conspiring to “take our guns away”? Is that really an effective message for building NRA membership and raising money? Apparently so. More effective than keeping tenuous contact with reality, anyway.

    What have all those people who were stockpiling ammo right before the inauguration two years ago done with all that ammo? Are they still accumulating it in preparation for the Final Showdown when Obama comes to pry their guns out of their cold, dead hands?

    Is this how a responsible organization trolls for members? Isn’t this stuff just nucking futz, or is it just me (as usual)?

  • 166. dead rabbit  |  November 5, 2010 at 9:29 pm

    Ahh….day light saving time ends. An extra hour on the weekend and the official start of my drinking season.

    So, the insurance company called. My car is totally wrecked. I can’t use a car loan right now because doing so could screw up my mortgage modification. Plus, I would think my credit is in the tank now. I’m off the financial grid.

    I’m one of those lucky people with a good friend for a mechanic. He forces me to hang out in his garage in return for him fixing anything for 100 bucks. So, I can get away with driving beat up cars. I think I’m going to buy an old Bronco.

    What a sad world we live in. Can’t go buy a car with cash without bringing a couple dudes strapped with gats. There is no way I’m showing up with 4 grand without some fire power. It’s like buying a horse during the days of Billy the Kid.

    And now from the softer side of the Rabbit, I give you music from an album made by a Swedish female pop singer in Pakistan.

  • 167. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 9:32 pm

    Obama needs “an Oklahoma City moment”? That’s nucking futz also.

    GWB had an Oklahoma City moment on 9/11/01. He got some short-term political gain from it, but I don’t think that the aftermath will be a credit to his legacy when all the dust has settled.

    Tiger, no one ever claimed that our SQ 755 made any sense. But it went after the grave threat of Sharia law coming to Oklahoma, so that was good enough for 70% our voters.

    The lawsuit filed today asking for an injunction against 755 is here:

    http://ztruth.typepad.com/files/argument-1.pdf

  • 168. El Tigre  |  November 5, 2010 at 9:32 pm

    I quit. I tried to unravel the cryptic post I now see was a cut and paste of a Salon (post without attribution). Yellow Dog offers nothing other than his/her usual circular outrage (without examining the consequences of his logic). R, SQ 755 seems to include “recognition” of international AND Sharia law (whatever the hell that means — to afford it no dignity???).

    Anyway, I’m too tired to try and understand what is being posited. But for the record, my legal opinion is that YelloDog still hasn’t formulated an original thought or resisted the urge to plagarize anything. G-chin is guilty of aiding and abetting. They should both be put away for their crimes against humanity.

  • 169. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 9:40 pm

    , do people really BELIEVE that the UN and
    Obama are conspiring to “take our guns away”? Is that really an effective message for building NRA membership and raising money? Apparently so. More effective than keeping tenuous contact with reality, anyway.

    Snicker…ironic. I got an application to NRA this week, a free sticker, and an offer for a tote bag (which actually looked pretty nice) for $25 year fee.

    I didn’t get a New World Order phone call.

    I do know one person that has actually increased his earnings substantially since Broke Obama elected President – my niece’s husband.

    He’s a gun and ammo dealer in the higher end stuff – $1,000 bucks and up. When he stays over through Oklahoma, my home becomes Fort Tex – laser guided targeting, large caliber.

    He held one up for me and said, “This would vaporize somebody’s head.” And I don’t think he was kidding. :smile:

  • 170. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 9:42 pm

    The Dog posted an excellent link to a Salon article about the legal arguments against Oklahoma’s anti-Sharia Law amendment:

    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/04/cair_challenges_sharia_law_ban/index.html

  • 171. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    Tigre,

    For some reason, most people keep forgetting what Ruth Bader Ginsburg has stated. Sharia law wasn’t the only thing on the ballot.

    And I included her video from above talking about adopting and using international law.

  • 172. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 9:49 pm

    Man, that Salon article was a dog. Is that all they’ve got?

    Establishment clause and the like? Good. It’s time for a discussion about whether sharia a religion or a law. And I contend all if Islam is not religion, but law – the premise being submission to the Moon god…

    Sorry, but “Islamic Law” is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. I’m proud my little state has magnified the issue and drawn CAIR out to the light. We already know CAIR is at the very least a terrorist sympathizing org, and probably a front for financing Hamas and Hezbollah.

  • 173. El Tigre  |  November 5, 2010 at 9:50 pm

    I read the brief you linked to until I couldn’t take it anymore, G-chin. Without exaggeration, that is the worst, most unilluminating, unpersuasive brief I’ve read in years. That’s saying a lot. Did Yellowdog ghost write it?

  • 174. El Tigre  |  November 5, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    Sorry Tex. I’ll admit I hadn’t gotten to your video. I’m still trying to understand what Yellowdog’s “excellent post” is all about other than a laypersons bullet points about a topic bereft of analysis.

  • 175. El Tigre  |  November 5, 2010 at 9:59 pm

    Perhaps courts should be permitted to recognize jihad as a lawful objective and let the terrosists free?

  • 176. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 10:04 pm

    More than you wanted to know about CAIR….front organization for terrorism. :smile:

    Here Graychin. This may chap your ass, as it the Doctor from The Third Jihad I mentioned, but the intent is not to chap (this time). He really is very good and you should watch the documentary. It’s not woeful propaganda and it only takes one hour.

    http://www.aifdemocracy.org/news.php?id=6302

  • 177. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 10:09 pm

    Interesting…and why this Muslim thinks SQ 755 absolute and necessary.

  • 178. El Tigre  |  November 5, 2010 at 10:20 pm

    Tex, I’m carving some time to watch 3rd Jihad tommorrow. With that much of an endorsement, how could I miss.

    G-chin, I’ll wager that motion is tossed for lack of standing anyway.

  • 179. dead rabbit  |  November 5, 2010 at 10:22 pm

    Liberals refuse to see the following time line for what it is:

    Post Wars of Religion: Birth of the modern nation state. Conflict was driven by the best interests of the state and alliances were formed on the basis of national expediency.
    Post French Revolution: Rise of the ideologies. Political ideology was the driving force of conflict. Monarchy vs. Democracy which lead into Fascism vs. Communism/Democracy climaxing with the Cold War of Communism vs. Democracy
    Post Cold War/Imperialism: Civilizations are the main actors. Cultural differences are the driving factor of conflict.

    The main players: The West, The Islamic World, Japan, Orthodox World (Russia), the Latin World, China, India, Black Africa.

    Globalism only makes the conflict more acute. The great conflict of the next 100 years? Islam vs. the West.

    We are incompatible. We rub shoulders too much. We are both threatened by one another.
    I forget who I stole all this from. But the writer predicted the current geopolitical climate today in ’94.

  • 180. dead rabbit  |  November 5, 2010 at 10:23 pm

    Liberals refuse to see the following time line for what it is:

    Post Wars of Religion:

    Birth of the modern nation state. Conflict was driven by the best interests of the state and alliances were formed on the basis of national expediency.

    Post French Revolution:

    Rise of the ideologies. Political ideology was the driving force of conflict. Monarchy vs. Democracy which lead into Fascism vs. Communism/Democracy climaxing with the Cold War of Communism vs. Democracy

    Post Cold War/Imperialism:

    Civilizations are the main actors. Cultural differences are the driving factor of conflict.

    The main players: The West, The Islamic World, Japan, Orthodox World (Russia), the Latin World, China, India, Black Africa.

    Globalism only makes the conflict more acute. The great conflict of the next 100 years? Islam vs. the West.

    We are incompatible. Ask France and Germany.

    We rub shoulders too much. We are both threatened by one another.

    I forget who I stole all this from. But the writer predicted the current geopolitical climate today in ’94.

  • 181. dead rabbit  |  November 5, 2010 at 10:23 pm

    oops

  • 182. graychin  |  November 5, 2010 at 10:30 pm

    Tiger:

    Lack of standing? Who WOULD have standing? Anyone?

  • 183. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 10:33 pm

    I very much admire Dr. Zuhdi Jasser – he is a moderate Muslim; a very brave Muslim that I’m afraid not enough people are listening to in the name of political correctness.

    That You Tube video I posted is excellent. I could have substituted Christian for Muslim and said much the same thing.

  • 184. Tex Taylor  |  November 5, 2010 at 11:00 pm

    Hey Rutherford,

    You going to “tweet” her? LOL!

    http://twitter.com/AnnCoulter

    AnnCoulter‘s having too much fun on Twitter:

    Olberdork indefinitely suspended????? very sad. I will miss watching the pompous, know-nothing fruitcake.

    I can’t believe they’d treat a graduate of Cornell’s agricultural college this way.

    (LOL!)

    Great – now, how are we supposed to know who the Worst Person in the World is? Thanks, MSNBC!

  • 185. Hucking Fypocrites  |  November 6, 2010 at 1:01 am

    “Civilizations are the main actors. Cultural differences are the driving factor of conflict.”

    Someone’s been reading too much Huntington….
    ;)

  • 186. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 6, 2010 at 1:13 am

    I’m not fired up enough about this to devote a blog post to it but I’d like you guys (BiW and El Tigre in particular) to take a look at YellowDog’s latest blog post on Prop 755 (no Sharia law) in OK. I made the following comment over there and I’d be interested in a “legal” opinion:

    Done.

    http://threesurethingsoflife.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/you-can-be-ruled-by-our-law-or-you-can-submit-to-theirs/

    And R? You owe me a beer.

  • 187. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 6, 2010 at 1:16 am

    The Dog posted an excellent link to a Salon article about the legal arguments against Oklahoma’s anti-Sharia Law amendment:

    Now you tell me. I spent 20 minutes of my life that I’ll never get back trying to find that article, as it was the only one I found with that much detail about how CAIR planned to attack the amendment.

  • 188. Hucking Fypocrites  |  November 6, 2010 at 1:21 am

    “Maybe Stewart’s criticism of MSNBC last weekend made the climate right to boot Keith?”

    I’m starting to think Jon Stewart is the leader of the entire liberal establishment—including the politicians.

    I suspect he’s going to be sitting in on foreign policy briefings next week.

  • 189. dead rabbit  |  November 6, 2010 at 9:29 am

    Hucking, I do believe that was the guy! Good call!

  • 190. graychin  |  November 6, 2010 at 9:34 am

    Black = White:

    You’re welcome.

    And your learned opinion about Oklahoma’s crusade against Sharia law is……?

    (While you’re at it – have you come to a conclusion about whether the FDA is constitutional? You already said that the Commerce Clause was used wrongly to justify it. Was there another way for it to pass constitutional muster, or must we abolish it when we restore America to the original intent of the Founders?)

  • 191. graychin  |  November 6, 2010 at 9:51 am

    I’m starting to think Jon Stewart is the leader of the entire liberal establishment—including the politicians.

    It wouldn’t be the first time that an entertainer filled that role in America, and not just for the liberal side. Consider the role of Will Rogers in the 1930’s. Of course he might be considered a flaming liberal today. Remember his famous quotation: “I don’t belong to any organized political party – I’m a Democrat.”

    John Wayne was a leading cheerleader for the Vietnam debacle, and right-leaning types still honor his fictional persona on entire walls of restaurants in places like Langley, Oklahoma.

    In more recent times, comedians Carson, Leno and Letterman have had important influences on political discourse. So have Bill Maher and Dennis Miller. (It’s nice to get a “conservative” comedian in there. I think that there aren’t many “conservative” comedians because conservatives tend to be humorless. O’Reilly comes pretty close, but unintentionally.)

    I read yesterday that Jon Stewart’s ratings are better than either Leno or Letterman. More young people get their news from Stewart than from any other source. And his viewers are better informed than Faux viewers. Perhaps because he talks about reality instead of making shit up?

    And you can’t deny Stewart’s power and incredible cleverness. He eviscerated Clucker Tarlson and the whole CNN Crossfire concept, and single-handedly took the show off the air in his single appearance there. He drew far more people to the Capitol Mall than the esteemed Glenn Beck. And he undercut Olbermann’s shtick so thoroughly with his “restore sanity” meme that it may have been Olbermann’s total undoing.

    He may have no credentials or experience, but I would much rather have Stewart leading my party than Sarah Palin – who is THE leading contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

  • 192. graychin  |  November 6, 2010 at 10:15 am

    This is interesting, and something about which I am totally ignorant. But perhaps we should find out more about the subject before we pontificate:

    Marjan Seirafi-Pour (said) her position is that Muslims believe Sharia is God’s law, but differ as to what exactly it entails. She said the measure should have addressed fiqh law, which covers Islamic rules in relation to actions.

    “Whoever put this state question together did not have enough information so the terminology itself is wrong,” she said. “Fiqh is Islamic law. Sharia is the conduct of Muslims in their daily life. As a Muslim, I practice Sharia every day, every moment of my waking hours, no matter where I live.”

    “When the question is wrong, the people of Oklahoma voted on something that is totally wrong,” she said. “Anybody who goes out there to find Sharia law they cannot find anything because there is no such thing as Sharia law.”

    http://newsok.com/ok-governors-council-takes-no-stand-on-sq-755/article/3511847

  • 193. tex taylor  |  November 6, 2010 at 10:29 am

    India experiences the lameness of El Bomba! :lol:

    Obama to use teleprompter for Hindi speech

    “We thought Obama is a trained orator and skilled in the art of mass address with his continuous eye contact,” an official, who did not wish to be identified because of security restrictions, said.

  • 194. tex taylor  |  November 6, 2010 at 10:37 am

    Elites Once Again Demonstrate Their Truly Ignorant Nature (aka NYT)

    http://aidwatchers.com/2010/11/david-brooks-illustrates-how-clueless-easterners-can-be-without-local-knowledge-about-my-midwest/

  • 195. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 6, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    And your learned opinion about Oklahoma’s crusade against Sharia law is……?

    Since reading comment 186 was obviously too difficult for you, I will repost the link, just for you:

    http://threesurethingsoflife.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/you-can-be-ruled-by-our-law-or-you-can-submit-to-theirs/

    As for the question of whether it was correct to use Sharia Law as the term, I will point out that the State of Oklahoma was kind enough to define what it meant by the term on the ballot:

    “Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.”

    (While you’re at it – have you come to a conclusion about whether the FDA is constitutional? You already said that the Commerce Clause was used wrongly to justify it. Was there another way for it to pass constitutional muster, or must we abolish it when we restore America to the original intent of the Founders?)

    I know you think you’re being clever, but the fact of the matter is that the FDA is not the result of a single act, but a series of legislative acts over the course of years…some apparently rooted in the Commerce Clause, some not. I know you think I have nothing better to do than to entertain you by researching such issues for you, but I do have a full-time job, two children, and other projects which actually hold some interest for me. I may actually focus deeply on the question again, but my tentative answer is anything rooted in early 20th century progressive legislation and based on the Commerce Clause is indeed suspect. As for its efficacy, I suppose it is debatable. I seem to recall tainted Tylenol that they were pretty ineffectual over, and most recently, a tainted tomato scare that cost tomato farmers millions, as well as other businesses that used to tomatoes over the course of months before someone finally thought to look at cilantro, and onions that had often been coupled with the tomatoes. But they have certainly done a wonderful job putting an artisan cheese maker out of business protecting the public from tainted cheese that never left the production facility. Great Job!

  • 196. graychin  |  November 6, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Earlier, you said:

    apparently, the Commerce Clause was considered to be the Constitutional authority for the act that gave rise to the FDA. I say “apparently”, because this was the conclusion stated by the commentaries; the actual wording of the legislation gave no statement of authority for the law itself.

    It was actually the first misuse (but not the last) of the Commerce Clause perpetrated by progressives.

    Based on that statement from you, I thought that asking your opinion about the constitutionality of the FDA was a fair question that wouldn’t require extensive research – the creation of the FDA being based on a “misuse” of the Commerce Clause. I think that my question was straightforward and not “clever,” so don’t get your undergarments all in a bunch over it.

    You can really be a pompous ass sometimes. Even more pompous than me! :D

  • 197. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 6, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    Even more pompous than me!

    The only person who can accomplish that is President Obama, but only because it is second nature to him. The rest of us would have to actually try, and we would still fall short.

  • 198. Hucking Fypocrites  |  November 6, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    Fiqh is Islamic jurisprudence that is based on Shari’a law. It is the practice of applying sharia. So 1 is like a noun, while the other is a verb.

    Sharia is based on the Koran (which Muslims believe comes from God), various hadith (records of the sayings and deeds of Muhammad, which may reflect God, but are not seen as being of him), Sunna (Islamic tradition as a whole), and ijtihad (interpretation of all of those sources). And there are different versions.

    So saying sharia comes from God is overgeneralizing and oversimplifying it. It can be said it applies to daily life mainly because the laws within it are applied to daily life, just like our laws are. That doesn’t mean it isn’t law.

  • 199. tex taylor  |  November 6, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    Barack Obama is the most arrogant man that I have ever met in my life. ~ Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York

  • 200. graychin  |  November 6, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    Quote as reported by Rupert Murdoch! :D

  • 201. Alfie  |  November 6, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    The OK Sharia Law thing is over the top populism but not without some merit. If you look in some European countries most notably England you’ll see where Muslims attempt to have civil law issues “litigated” via the application of Sharia. The US has had some hints at this and in the USA and England folks are quick to point to some Hasidic entities that have some rights along these lines.
    Sad to say but the reality is there are Islamic extremists who want very badly to inject their will on society under the guise of Allah’s will. Likewise this is how otherwise pretty fair minded adherents of Islam jump on board and support the actions of groups like CAIR and others.
    Equally sad is that in the united States as we move away from Founding principles,and by that I DON’T mean white or male etc.,we need to insert specific language to protect our nation. Kind of the flip side of how we apparently needed the Civil Rights Amendments to make us obey a pretty clear Constitutional and Declaration of Independence matter.

  • 202. Alfie  |  November 6, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    I wonder if CAIR and others will try to point to Oklahomas Native American population in the pursuit of their “rights”

  • 203. dead rabbit  |  November 6, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    I will never for the life of me understand why the hitherto Classical Liberal Economist endorsed Obama.

    Oh well.

    Anyways, they had a nice little piece on the Tea Party. After contrasting the well behaved Tea Party people to the vandals in France (who torch cars over a two year bump in retirement), they rip on the Rutherford types who spent the better part of a year slandering them. (Astro-turf, racist, corporate)

    The Economist then went on to give some good old fashion props to American exceptionalism.

    “”In how many other countries would a powerful populist movement demand less of government, rather than endlessly and expensively more?”

    Only right here in America, baby, that’s where.

    Sure enough, the editorial goes on to question if Tea Party candidates can make the leap from the lofty campaign to the real world. But you know what, not once was there even a single reference to the sexual act of dipping a man’s testicles on another person’s face. Greychin would have remained bored and flaccid.

  • 204. dead rabbit  |  November 6, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    Sharia Law doesn’t suck becomes it may or may not come solely from the Islamic version of God. It sucks because it is barbaric and sexist. Lets not lose sight of what Sharia Law looks like everywhere it is implemented. It’s a “Fiqh-ed” up situation.

  • 205. dead rabbit  |  November 6, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    because….my computer screen is from a 1995 Gateway. I can’t see!!!!!

  • 206. El Tigre  |  November 6, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    G-chin asks, “Lack of standing? Who WOULD have standing? Anyone?”

    Good question. If you have the fortitude reade the following seminal opinion for a detailed analysis of standing.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=95-974

    The problem may exist on both sides of the case in the event the governer or attorney general decline to litigate.

    The only tangible basis I saw for standing in this case (sufficient harm to create a justiciable stake in the outocme) appears to come from a will this guy drafted relying on rules of consitruction of Shairia law for descent, the same effect that could be mirrored without refernce to Sharia. I imagine he’d have to die to obtain standing becuase no court has refused to enforce his will (probate) as a result of the amendement, nor could they until he dies. In that event the heirs or nominated personal representative of his estate might arguably have standing.

    However, standing is a dicey analysis generally known to be in the eye of the beholder (reviewing court) to pratitioners. If a court wants to hear a case, it will usually stretch to find standing by abondoning its logical limitations. Of course the opposite is true too. At the state court level, the “we calls them likes we see them” approach is even more pronounced.

    To test the amendment, I think we’ll first need a trial court ruling applying the amendment in reaching its decision in an actual controversy (as opposed to answering an abstract question, as here, that really amounts to an advisory opinion — one that doesn’t resolve anything other than the curiosity of potential future litigants). Then the case could go up for appellate review.

    But I could be wrong.

    Now it’s half time, so I can watch Tex’s videos.

  • 207. El Tigre  |  November 6, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    BiW, I read your psot. Excellent work. You did a hell of a lot more to unravel than I’d be willing to commit to the subject.

    Alfie, I agree. The more consideration I give to it, the less I reject the apparent basis for the amendment. Europe provides ripe examples of what happens through creep. There’s a lot going on here. However, the proponents Google retrieved for me were so inarticulate, it is obvious that the amendment is rooted in populist sentiment.

  • 208. El Tigre  |  November 6, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    Sorry for the typos guys. I’m typing with one hand. Arrggg.

  • 209. graychin  |  November 6, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    Black = White:

    I read your blog post about Oklahoma’s Sharia Law constitutional amendment. To this lay person, it reads not so much like a judge’s evaluation of the issues, but like a brief in defense of the question. Clearly you are used to writing as an advocate and not as a judge.

    Here I go again reading “plain language,” but when a state question singles out one specific religious law for special discriminatory attention (Sharia) while leaving other religious law untouched (Judeo-Christian), isn’t that a species of making all the other unmentioned religions “established” religions? Do you really think that the First Amendment’s Establishment clause permits government to erect barriers for one religion’s laws that do not exist for other religions? True, the question may “establish” no religion, but it is hardly government neutrality towards all religions. Clearly you won’t agree with me, but I believe that the Founders intended that no religion would be favored over another when they drafted the Establishment clause.

  • 210. Keyboard Cowboy  |  November 6, 2010 at 9:05 pm

    while leaving other religious law untouched (Judeo-Christian),

    Aren’t you the one always bloviating about our Constitution being completely secular? That our laws really based on Greece, or Sumerian, or anything besides “Judeo-Christian?” That the Establishment Clause requires a separation of church and state?

    You should have been the first on board to vote for the proposition – and you would have it had read “Deuteronomy, or Mormon, or something along those lines..

    But…………..

    Predictably, if you could use it to slam our overwhelmingly “CHRISTIAN” nation, you’ll find the excuse.

    Your double standards and “Judeo-Christian” bigotry are ever worse than Rutherford’s Graychin Grayson. Besides, no need to preface sharia with religion, because that is not how the proposition read.

    It simply says sharia law.

  • 211. Keyboard Cowboy  |  November 6, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    :lol:

    Sorry Rutherford. I meant to change my address with the name Keyboard Cowboy to gig the Graychin and screwed up.

    My mistake.

  • 212. graychin  |  November 6, 2010 at 9:25 pm

    Tiger:

    Something doesn’t smell right to this non-lawyer.

    A state might pass a clearly unconstitutional law, and there may be no way to challenge it unless and until someone is harmed by it. Because until then, no one has “standing” to challenge the law. So someone has to suffer harm before a court will even hear the case. I understand that this is the law. But it ain’t right.

    There is another situation (in Oklahoma, of course) in which the state legislature has decreed that disabled students may require school districts to give them vouchers to attend special schools. Several school districts have decided to defy the law, and wait to be sued by affected students. Why defy the law? Because they won’t have standing to make the argument of unconstitutionality against the law unless and until someone sues them to force them to follow it. If they comply with the law, the districts will never have an opportunity to force the court to rule on the constitutionality of the law.

  • 213. graychin  |  November 6, 2010 at 9:26 pm

    What ARE you doing with your other hand?? :D

  • 214. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 6, 2010 at 9:29 pm

    Chin,

    Thanks for the insightless analysis. I didn’t write it for you, as no answer but the one you desire will satisfy you. I wrote it because Rutherford asked for an opinion. However, if I had written it as an advocate, I’d get C-. You don’t point out potential problems or talk about alternatives, unless the net effect of the each of the alternatives still brings you to a favorable result for your client. That clearly is not the case here. It was written the same way I would advise a client who came to me with it and asked for an opinion.

    However, there is a critical point, that you predictably ignored, that being that no one has any right to expect our judiciary to make any ruling based on laws that were never passed by our duly-elected legislatures, whether or not you believe that being prevented from doing so disfavors a religion. As a practioner, I can tell you that if I wrote a will incorporating the “Hyperchristanists Out to Steal Greychin’s Peace Of Mind” Handbook, instead of incorporating by reference the precepts set forth in the Koran, I have done a really shitty job in drafting the will, and I deserve to be sued for malpractice. What Mr. Muneer did is no different.

  • 215. El Tigre  |  November 6, 2010 at 9:30 pm

    Still thinking about Tuesday! :smile:

  • 216. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 6, 2010 at 9:33 pm

    A state might pass a clearly unconstitutional law, and there may be no way to challenge it unless and until someone is harmed by it.

    Now its “clearly unconstitutional”. I forgot. There is no need for people to go to law school. There are no need for judges. All we have to do is ask the Chin, ’cause he slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

  • 217. El Tigre  |  November 6, 2010 at 9:52 pm

    G-chin. It is right. Standing is very right. It ensures that issues are fairly litigated, but those with an actual interest in the outcome. The opposite is absurd. Any idiot, including you, could pick any issue you’d like and obtain a ruling? First, the Courts would never reach actual cases. Second, idiots, much as yourself, could make arguments in furtherance of or against a law with all of the depth that you attacked BiW’s analysis and we’d be stuck with the results.

    BiW, you did a better job extracting whatever undeveloped arguments Yellowdog copied nerbatim on his post. That’s why I was ripping out my hair trying to respond to Rutherford’s question/challenge. That “excellent post” said nothing. It merely grabbed the headings from arguments in that weak-ass brief, blurted them out, and left a bunch of imponderables without a nexus. If you’ve captured their arguments, I think you got it right. They don’t work. Why that bothers G-chin is beyond me. But there aagin, he thought it an “excellent link.”

    I’ve got larger concerns from a due process standpoint.

    I’ve also wondered why a constitutional amendment to its jurisdicitonal provisions.

    I’ve wondered G-chin, what offends? Do you WANT our courts to ackowledge/incorporate Sharia’s draconian punishment, mysogeny, intolerance and religious views in our precedent? Gee. Which side strokes your self-serving sense of enlightenment and tolerance? Taking up for offended muslims or offended women and gays. Hmmmm. . . WWOD? (what would Olbermann do).

  • 218. Tex Taylor  |  November 6, 2010 at 10:26 pm

    How decisive was the National referendum on Obama/Reid/Pelosi

    Devastating…muwahahahahahahaha

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/the_statelevel_tsunami.html

    Not bad for a regional philosophy, hey Gray?

  • 219. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 6, 2010 at 10:53 pm

    you did a better job extracting whatever undeveloped arguments Yellowdog copied nerbatim on his post.

    I realize that it was likely a typo, but “nerbatim” made me laugh out loud. And I needed it. Thank you.

  • 220. Rutherford  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:00 am

    BiW, thanks for answering my query with a full post. I’ll spend some time tomorrow (Sunday) digesting it.

    OK gang, if you haven’t already, turn those clocks back! :shock:

  • 221. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:01 am

    I’ve got larger concerns from a due process standpoint.

    Honestly, because I was considering the CAIR attacks and not the other procedural angles, I didn’t consider it. You’re concerns?

    I’ve also wondered why a constitutional amendment to its jurisdicitonal provisions.

    Well, it isn’t the way that I would have done it, but that is the way to remove a court from jurisdiction. I remember that discussion in Con Law II, as a way to remove intelligence matters from the SCOTUS jurisdiction.

  • 222. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:36 am

    “Do you WANT our courts to ackowledge/incorporate Sharia’s draconian punishment, mysogeny, intolerance and religious views in our precedent?”

    What a stupid question.

    There’s some pretty awful stuff in the Old Testament about stoning people and and such, but Oklahoma isn’t nervous about that. Only about Sharia. Why the double standard?

  • 223. dead rabbit  |  November 7, 2010 at 2:50 am

    Who would ever think we’d see the day when so called liberal progressives defend a code of law which has recently been interpreted to include public spankings for the horrible crime of female ice cream consumption in public.

    Greychin, is Sharia Law implemented in several places through out the world, deemed acceptable by a lot of people and fucking depraved?

    If your answer is yes, then why don’t you skip the long winded attempts at being a cultural relativist and just admit that the Oklahoma law makes you queasy because it has a nasty un-P.C. taste.

    It sucks coming to terms with the fact that another culture is barbaric.

    I can see making the argument that the Oklahoma law is needlessly provocative. Fair enough.

    Comparing Sharia law to some of the Old Testament influences in Western law would be funny if women were not being disgustingly tortured right now as we speak because of it.

    And you’re the same dude who felt a sarcastic comment about sexism was so disgusting. Sharia Law is a crime against humanity!

    It’s unbelievable to me that the gravitational pull of political correctness warps you to such a degree.

    Such a caring man as yourself, who fully invests himself in gender equality, should have weekly blog updates citing the opression of women in the Islamic world. But, nary a peep.

  • 224. Alfie  |  November 7, 2010 at 9:06 am

    I think gray is playing a game just to play.
    Graychin….do you believe two “consenting” Muslims in Tulsa should have the right to have a divorce decreed and their property divided by the local imam?

  • 225. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 9:18 am

    “What a stupid question.”

    What a stupid answer. I don’t know what you’re arguing for G-chin. You’re the one criticising BiW post as biased.

    Where are you coming from on this numb nut? Do you have a point?

    WWOD?

  • 226. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 9:22 am

    G-chin. I have a challenege. You address the arguments. We all know you’re a layperson (and a lot of other things). Tell us what your thoughts are. I promise not to blame you for not being a lwayer. Just have a thought other than a subject beyond tacit or explicit accusations of racism and bigotry. Showcase your brilliance on this subject.

  • 227. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 9:27 am

    BiW, I’ll get you miy due process thoughts after some coffee. I want to think them through a little. Intitally, it struck me that the trial judge that denied the domestic violence retraining order had misapplied the evidentiary basis for the defense. And if the TRO standards in NJ are the same for domestic violence cases like they are here in Georgia, I don’t see how the “intent” angle the articles imply was removed by the defendant’s religious beliefs could have made it around the code itself. I should probably read the appellate court opinion, perhaps it’s addressed there. . .

  • 228. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 10:39 am

    My opposition to our SQ 755 is NOT based on my admiration for Sharia law. I don’t know much about the contents of Sharia law, and what I do know, much of which may come from fearmongers like Tex, I don’t like. Now – CAN YOU GUYS PLEASE STOP WITH THAT RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT? Do I really need to remind you that in the bible the Lord Himself commanded that a guy be stoned to death for gathering firewood on the sabbath?

    Here’s my point: I object to the citizens of Oklahoma singling out one body of religious law for special disapproval by our state constitution while ignoring (or winking at) all the others. If the question had been worded such that the courts were forbidden to reference Sharia law, Judeo-Christian law, and any other law contained in a religious tradition and not presently codified in federal and state law, then there would have been nothing wrong with the question in my opinion.

    To me this is like saying that the state will not recognize marriages performed by Islamic clergy, but Christian clergy are approved.

  • 229. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 10:50 am

    “I object to the citizens of Oklahoma singling out one body of religious law for special disapproval by our state constitution while ignoring (or winking at) all the others.”

    Why?

    “If the question had been worded such that the courts were forbidden to reference Sharia law, Judeo-Christian law, and any other law contained in a religious tradition and not presently codified in federal and state law[.]”

    I thought it did.

  • 230. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:00 am

    Greychin, is Sharia Law implemented in several places through out the world, deemed acceptable by a lot of people and fucking depraved?

    Could you rephrase the question? I don’t quite understand it. Did you leave out some words?

    Sharia Law is a crime against humanity!

    I hope that this isn’t too much cultural relativity for you, but surely you know that some nations, particularly in Europe, believe that some actions under American law constitute crimes against humanity. Examples: execution of the underage and the mentally retarded. Imprisoning more of its population than any other nation on earth (with the possible exception of China.) Waterboarding and “extraordinary rendition” as policies of the state. Holding prisoners without charges based on secret evidence in a legal “black hole” offshore in order to deprive them of any access to any legal proceeding whatsoever.

    Graychin….do you believe two “consenting” Muslims in Tulsa should have the right to have a divorce decreed and their property divided by the local imam?

    (You’re going to love this answer.) Yes!

    I have said previously that government should get entirely OUT of the marriage business. It should recognize civil unions, including marriage, between any consenting adults. The terms of a “marriage” should be determined by the parties to the civil union in accordance with their religious practice, whatever it happens to be. Clergy should be empowered to perform civil unions which would also be recognized as “marriage” under the parties’ chosen religious tradition.

    If a couple in a civil union wants a dissolution of the contract (“divorce”) and they want the terms determined by their local Imam (or Rabbi, or Baptist preacher, or Catholic bishop), or if the terms of their religious marriage require that kind of divorce settlement, then why should the state butt in? Why deny them that avenue if that is their choice? What business is it of yours or mine?

    I would emphasize that no one should be barred from seeking a “divorce” in civil court for a state-recognized civil union, and to have their property divided by a judge rather than by an imam, rabbi, bishop, or Baptist preacher, unless their marriage contract has the standing of a pre-nuptial agreement. If a valid prenup requires division of property by an imam, rabbi, bishop or Baptist preacher, should the state butt in on the imam just because we don’t like Sharia law?

  • 231. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Tiger, I thought that it did NOT bar the courts from considering all religious law. Just Islamic and international law. Am I wrong? It makes a big difference, doesn’t it?

    Barring all religious law from the courts would have been a non-starter in Oklahoma, where a clear majority thinks that all of our laws are based on the Ten Commandments and Judaic law – and would hang the Ten Commandments in every courtroom if the ACLU would hold still for it.

  • 232. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:10 am

    G-chin. I have a challenege. You address the arguments. We all know you’re a layperson (and a lot of other things). Tell us what your thoughts are. I promise not to blame you for not being a lwayer. Just have a thought other than a subject beyond tacit or explicit accusations of racism and bigotry. Showcase your brilliance on this subject.

    No brilliance here, smartass, but hopefully a bit of common sense. Am I doing better?

    I’ll try, if you will try to stop accusing me of wanting “Sharia’s draconian punishment, mysogeny, intolerance and religious views in our precedent?” I’m not a lawyer, but I know “argumentative” when I see it. I don’t want ANY religious tradition’s “draconian punishment, mysogeny, intolerance and religious views” in our courts. Can you hear me now?

    Is the term “ethnocentric” one that you are willing to wear in this discussion? Cultural absolutism as opposed to cultural relativism?

  • 233. Alfie  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:13 am

    Well Graychin I don’t hate your answer and in fact view it as having some glimmer of intelligent discussion.
    When you say:

    I would emphasize that no one should be barred from seeking a “divorce” in civil court for a state-recognized civil union, and to have their property divided by a judge rather than by an imam, rabbi, bishop, or Baptist preacher, unless their marriage contract has the standing of a pre-nuptial agreement.

    That’s just it. I don’t care if you’re Mormon,Amish or Muslim the facts are clear that one isn’tfree to make such decisions in those settings.

  • 234. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:15 am

    Tiger @ 229:

    Is “why” just a rhetorical question?

    Or can you really not understand why “singling out one body of religious law for special disapproval by our state constitution while ignoring (or winking at) all the others” does violence to both the First Amendment (“establishment”) and Fourteenth Amenement “equal protection”)?

    Or are you coming from the perspective that we have always been and must remain a “Christian nation” as opposed to (perhaps still) a predominately Christian nation?

  • 235. Alfie  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:17 am

    If a valid prenup requires division of property by an imam, rabbi, bishop or Baptist preacher, should the state butt in on the imam just because we don’t like Sharia law?

    YES!!! A pre-nup is a civil law contract that gels well with Western law and thought but not necessarily beliefs. Pre-nups kinda fly in the face of standing Judeo-Christian principles and for that matter Islamic teachings.Like it or hate it the Abrahamic faiths do indeed kind of like the idea of love and commitment.

  • 236. Tex Taylor  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:19 am

    Tex = Fear monger… :smile:

    Graychin just lost a series of elections in Oklahoma by a vote of 4-1, 3-1, 3-1. If I’m a fear monger, I’m in great company.

    Courts and public schools are really the last bastion of progressive stroke – Obama was an anomaly.

    It’s pretty obvious to me that the public school victim mantra has about run its course. Unions are no longer so excused for poor performance and that situation is being more adequately addressed across the nation.

    I really believe more emphasis should be placed on our court system, which has also been perverted by the Graychin type lackeys.

    Let’s hope staring Jan 2011, we rid ourselves of the perversion and sickness there too. Iowa may have started a trend this week.

  • 237. dead rabbit  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:20 am

    I went back and re-read my question to make sure I didn’t pull a sensico.

    My question is valid as it stands.

    Is Sharia law a reality in many places?

    Is there a global movement to install Sharia law in more places?

    Is it barbaric?

    Are you really making the argument that Sharia law is on equal footing with American law? If so, I’m taking my ball and going home.

  • 238. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:21 am

    Alfie:

    Are you saying that if my spouse and I enter into a pre-nuptial agreement that in the event of divorce our property will be divided by a lawyer, a CPA, a bank officer, or a family friend rather than by a judge in court, that the contract would not be enforceable? Or are you saying that it SHOULD not be enforceable?

    Are you saying that if such a contract would be enforceable, that you could not use an Imam, Rabbi, Bishop, or Baptist preacher as the family friend?

    Perhaps one of our learned attorney commenters would weigh in on this point.

  • 239. dead rabbit  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:27 am

    I am respectfully requesting Rutherford to lift the ban on Elric. I was wrong about the need for Elric.

    When it comes to the point where “liberals” act as apologists for a system responsible for such perverse oppression, I now know the Oklahoma Law was needed. Thanks for changing my mind, Greychin.

  • 240. Tex Taylor  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:27 am

    Obama still isn’t getting it. First, it wasn’t his policies but lack of communication. I pray he continues this meme, and in fact advertises loudly as much.

    But I believe Obama has surpassed himself….

    Obama regrets distortion of Islam to justify violence

    http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article872701.ece

    A few radical extremists…

    Good grief neo-pagan progressives like Obama are clueless. This ought to go over big in a Hindu country that has been at war with “a few” radical Muslims for hundreds of years.

  • 241. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:31 am

    Rabbit: I still don’t understand your original question as it is worded, but I’ll take stabs at your more recent series of questions.

    Is Sharia law a reality in many places? Yes, particularly in Muslim countries.

    Is there a global movement to install Sharia law in more places? No doubt, since there is a global movement to spread the Islamic faith.

    Is it barbaric? I hear that some of it is, but apparently Sharia law varies from one jurisdiction to another. If we actually looked beyond the fearmongering stories about it, we might be surprised to find that much of it is enlightened and humane. (I consider some of American law to be barbaric – just saying….)

    Are you really making the argument that Sharia law is on equal footing with American law? If so, I’m taking my ball and going home. Of course Sharia law is not on an equal footing with American law, nor should it be. I don’t want the courts using ANY religious law, thereby making an “establishment” of that religion.

    But I think that fear in the hearts of 70% of Oklahomans that Sharia law could creep into Oklahoma’s courts is beyond stupid, and beyond ignorant. It’s ridiculous. Tex, if the shoe fits then wear it.

  • 242. Alfie  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:32 am

    GC I think we’re possibly confusing each others points.
    A pre nup gets its ummph from it being a recognized civil law contract. I’m not against them and could care less who arbitrates them per se,they are what they are.
    What I’m against is that church rules of any faith are allowed to trump rights of anyone,this cannot be allowed.
    The teachings of a religion and specifically that in a local setting of a Mosque, Synagogue,or Church setting cannot be allowed to run roughshod over the law. Teachings and pressures from within those circles WILL and DO prevent citizens from enjoying their lawful rights.

  • 243. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:33 am

    I should add that since the First Amendment of America’s Constitution forbids an “establishment” of religion, we already have a firm prohibition against adoption of Sharia law in the US unless state legislatures or Congress vote to incorporate parts of Sharia law into the body of civil law.

  • 244. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:35 am

    Alfie: I think that you just repeated what I have been saying.

  • 245. Alfie  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:38 am

    I think we’re at least running parallel.I’m curious though when you say:

    …unless state legislatures or Congress vote to incorporate parts of Sharia law into the body of civil law.

    Isn’t that exactly what the OK law prevents even if it wasn’t its perceived intent?

  • 246. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:42 am

    Show me one case where the Ten Commandments and Judaic law set the precedent in an American Court. Displaying the ten commandments is a different argument. We don’t even require “so help me god” when a witness is sworn in anymore. Instead, it’s “do you swear or affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole truth etc. — however I appear regularly in rural Georgia courts where the witness is still asked to place their hand on a bible. Now this is different that recognizing cannonical “law” or any other religious “law.”

    Let’s get back to the amendment — and your explanation as to why it’s a problem. Criticising your neighbors beliefs as to the source of our laws doesn’t address the issue. Most everyone, including myself, hacknowledge that the amendment is rooted in populism. In fact, it’s proponents referred to it as a preemptive strike. We know. Everyone’s a bigot but you. Got it.

    The question doesn’t appear to be whether we recognize the exsitence of other authority, but whether we apply it directly or as an appendage to our own laws.

    You’re the one yelling from atop the soapbox.

    A couple of other points. The state does not require religious recognition of the marriage. All that matters is a marriage license and ceremony — even secular. You can have the justice of the peace conduct it.

    So too with the divorce. If Both parties consent to terms of a divorce settlement based on the advice or direction of their Imam, priest, rabbi or wheomever, the state will not butt in unless, for reasons independent of the settlement, unless questions of custody or the rights of children are involved. As for the amendment itself, according to BiW’s post it includes “The courts shall not look into the legal precepts of other nations and cultures.” (I still don’t know exactly what that means).

    Should the courts require or permit female circumcision over the objections of one of the parents having submitteted to the religious laws of another culture? Obviously not. Why would that be G-chin?

  • 247. Tex Taylor  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:42 am

    But I think that fear in the hearts of 70% of Oklahomans that Sharia law could creep into Oklahoma’s courts is beyond stupid, and beyond ignorant. It’s ridiculous. Tex, if the shoe fits then wear it.

    Of course, you’re the same man that told conservatism was dead too less than two years ago. I haven’t found you much of a judge of (1) macroeconomics (2) politics (3) religion (4) company you keep – Yeller Dawg comes to mind.

    Kind of like just “a few” radical Muslims in one or two (countries) here or there. Like say, Saudi Arabia.

    Graychin, you are living proof of intellect without wisdom. Man, proclaiming himself wise, the fool. In a few but important ways, I find you one of the dumbest and weakest men on earth, and truthfully I’m sorry to say that.

    You are really just a slave to political correctness and a testament to Useful Idiots all over the world. No wonder you’re an Obama groupie.

  • 248. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:50 am

    ” …unless state legislatures or Congress vote to incorporate parts of Sharia law into the body of civil law.”

    Isn’t that exactly what the OK law prevents even if it wasn’t its perceived intent?

    Not at all. I don’t know enough about Sharia law to give a sensible example, but if the Oklahoma legislature passed a law requiring women to wear head scarves, then the law couldn’t be overturned just because Sharia law happened to say the same thing. I suspect that Sharia law also has some prohibitions against stealing, but that wouldn’t void Oklahoma’s laws against same.

  • 249. dead rabbit  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:51 am

    Greychin, find me one place where Sharia law is not utterly oppressive, excessively violent and completely sexist. One place.

  • 250. Tex Taylor  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:52 am

    I still think I’m the only one that remembers this, and why it is necessary to send a shot across the ship of legal fools. This proposition was long overdue. And this isn’t some insignificant rube saying this…

    Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Makes Shocking Statements…

    Passing phase Graychin! Get it?

  • 251. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 11:59 am

    “Tiger @ 229:

    Is “why” just a rhetorical question?”

    No. I want you to offer an analysis rather than critcisim of BiW’s as not being that of a jurist. I thought he did a good job. However, you haven’t explained your outrage though. Perhaps it’s well-founded. I’d like to know. Keep in mind the source of most of our laws (that’d be Merry Old England for the most part).

  • 252. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    Show me one case where the Ten Commandments and Judaic law set the precedent in an American Court.

    I can’t. Probably because of the First Amendment.

    including myself, hacknowledge that the amendment is rooted in populism.

    You have an odd definition of populism that you have there. I usually think of populism as the larger population rising up against the rich and powerful, or against “elites.” But I digress….

    The question doesn’t appear to be whether we recognize the exsitence of other authority, but whether we apply it directly or as an appendage to our own laws.

    Exactly right. Didn’t I say that?

    “The courts shall not look into the legal precepts of other nations and cultures.” (I still don’t know exactly what that means).

    Neither does anyone else.

    Should the courts require or permit female circumcision over the objections of one of the parents having submitteted to the religious laws of another culture?

    Of course not. Another stupid argumentative question. The state has a valid interest in protecting children from the insane religious practices of their parents. Members of some Christian sects have been prosecuted for allowing their kids to die without medical attention, thinking they could pray the kids back to health. And rightly so.

  • 253. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    “Rightly so” that the parents were prosecuted – not that they let their kid die.

    I’m starting to feel like you guys are determined to argue with me, even though I am agreeing with most of what you say.

  • 254. dead rabbit  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    Greychin, the fact you “don’t know enough about Sharia law” makes you a fraud. You choose ignorance because the truth would be too much of a challenge for you.

    You are living proof the Oklahoma law is necessary. Maybe it will force more liberals to put their global glasses on and learn about the unspeakable acts of terrorism inflicted on women in the name of Sharia law.

  • 255. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    G-chin at 252 — then what is your problem with it? Good God man. You are incapable of backing-up even valid points. Stop running away from every point. The “argumentative” question was an attempt to get at your logic — although it seems obvious there really is none.

    All of this derived from your [Yellowdog's] post. Remember?

    Look at 252. You have said absolutely nothing.

  • 256. Hucking Fypocrites  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    I hate to throw a monkey wrench into the discussion, but can not two people agree to settle their differences with the use of a mediator, rather than going to a traditional court? Is this not something that is done? (not sarcasm, but a genuine question)

    Couldn’t an imam be that mediator? And could he not base his decision on Sharia law?

    Trust me. I am not defending or advocating sharia. As I
    have said many times, I don’t want anyone’s religion telling me what to do.

  • 257. Tex Taylor  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    The state has a valid interest in protecting children from the insane religious practices of their parents but not in protecting the unborn children in the womb being slaughtered, as abortion rights sacrosanct.

    Mealy-mouthed neo-paganry and slave to political correctness. Modern day Baal worshiper.

  • 258. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    There are so many things to learn about that I feel like studying Sharia law, which will never come to Oklahoma with or without our state question, would be a total waste of my time. It’s also a total waste of your time. Sharia law is not coming to America, and especially not to Oklahoma.

    When our state legislature passes a bill permitting circumcision of infant females, I’ll take it all back and admit that I was wrong. I’ll also admit the error of my ways when “unspeakable acts of terrorism inflicted on women” become legal anywhere in the United States. Like denying them the right to vote or own property, as the Founding Fathers intended.

  • 259. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    Couldn’t an imam be that mediator? And could he not base his decision on Sharia law?

    Absolutley. Not only is there a policy of favoring resolution of disputes, it can be done on most any terms selected by the parties.

    Howevr, you have confused “mediation” for “arbitration.” A mediator doesn’t adjudicate disputes. An Arbitrator does and under the right circumstances the arbiotrator’s “decision” is subject to review based on abuse of established legal principals.

  • 260. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    Huck – welcome aboard! Thanks for engaging that thought process!

    Finally, someone is making a post that is more than arguing for the sake of arguing.

    I knew that Tex could be counted on to bring up abortion as a red herring in this discussion. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that Sharia law prohibits all abortions.

  • 261. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    Tiger: I agree with #259 on all counts.

  • 262. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    “Like denying them the right to vote or own property, as the Founding Fathers intended.”

    Cured by constitutional amendment.

  • 263. Hucking Fypocrites  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    El Tigre…

    So a mediator might listen to a dispute and offer unbinding ways at settling it, while an arbitrator actually gives binding resolutions that usually have to have a basis in (our) law?

    Makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

  • 264. Tex Taylor  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    Graychin desperately needs to read Londonistan…Graychin Hadad, lift off thy veil of ignorance – cables and crane included. At least of the veils…

    Melanie Phillips shows how Britain’s imperial policy of “benign neglect” towards radical Islamist groups in the 1980s and 1990s came close to malign complicity in the activities of some of the most determined terrorist organizations ever to emerge in Europe.

  • 265. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    G-chin, has it occured to you that some here don’t necessarily favor the amendment? Can’t you see that I haven’t figuredout exactly what its purpose is despite having said so? You see every comment as an attack rather than Socratic method. Again, it was YOUR blog that gave birth to this discussion.

  • 266. dead rabbit  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    Sharia law doesn’t prohibit all abortions.

  • 267. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Tiger @ 255:

    Quoting Huck, “As I have said many times, I don’t want anyone’s religion telling me what to do.” Amen, brother.

    My problem with our moronic state question is that I believe that it violates both the First and Fourteenth Amendments by giving one species of religious law special status in secular law (although that special status is a disadvantage and not an advantage). The Bill of Rights is important to me, and I will not support any law or government action that damages it. That includes singling out Sharia law for special disfavored status, holding “detainees” indefinitely without charges or process of law, and damage done to the Fourth Amendment by the “patriot” act. And any number of other things too. (I don’t mean to introduce red herrings here like Tex did with abortion, but you get the idea now, I hope.)

    In no way does it mean that I like or support Sharia law, just as when the ACLU defends rights of free speech and assembly for neo-Nazis it does not imply that they support the views of neo-Nazis.

    Is this really so hard to understand?

  • 268. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    “So a mediator might listen to a dispute and offer unbinding ways at settling it, while an arbitrator actually gives binding resolutions that usually have to have a basis in (our) law?”

    Yes. A “mediator” facilitates settlement negotiations. The object is for the parties to “voluntarily” agree to a binding agreement settling theoir claims. Mediators can (and frequently do) employ damn near every method of pursuasion to get the parties to settlement — including extra-judicial reasons e.g. costs, morality, religious beliefs, psychological effects etc. Either party can walk away from mediaition and proceed in the courts.

    Arbitration, however, does require a binding decision from an arbitrator applying substantive law (rather than procedural which is what makes it different from the courts). Sharia law as the basis for a decision would never be accepeted (no sooner than the 10 commandments would).

  • 269. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    “Again, it was YOUR blog that gave birth to this discussion.”

    It takes two to tango.

    When you suggest that I might support female circumcision, I think that goes well beyond the Socratic method and seems more like an attack. I don’t recall Socrates being that – provocative, using fighting words in his gentle questions.

  • 270. Tex Taylor  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    Is this really so hard to understand?

    Yes – you should have voted for it., being it actually supports the Establishment Clause. Now you have your wall you’ve been seeking all your life. We grant you your wish with 70% approval.

    You should start a petition for proposal 666 against Deuteronomy Graychin. :wink:

  • 271. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    “Is this really so hard to understand?”

    No. You rely on platitudes that sound like “fairness” rather than explaining the first and fourteenth amendments you claim are abused in each of your examples.

    But, I did ask for your thoughts without beating you up for a lay opinion. You miss the mark, but I can tell that’s because you don’t fully understand them from a lawyer’s perspective. You really ought to try listening rather than lecturing. (just kidding. that’s impossible for a lib).

  • 272. Hucking Fypocrites  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    “Sharia law doesn’t prohibit all abortions.”

    I am relatively certain that it does prohibit abortions if there are no issues of health or danger to the mother by being pregnant.

    But I am not going to dig through sharia laws to back that up, so I sure won’t argue it.

    I am also relatively certain that FGM is not a part of sharia law.

  • 273. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    ” I think that goes well beyond the Socratic method and seems more like an attack.”

    Again, you did not reqd or deliberatley chose to ignore what I wrote. At 246, I said:

    “Should the courts require or permit female circumcision over the objections of one of the parents having submitteted to the religious laws of another culture? Obviously not. Why would that be G-chin?”

    As usual, you either name call or characterize everything you don’t wnat to address as an attack.

  • 274. Tex Taylor  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    “Lawyers shouldn’t argue with mathematicians about math, any more than mathematicians should argue with lawyers about the color of Satan’s bedsheets.”

  • 275. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Huck, I didn’t say FGM was based on Sharia. I used it as an example that G-chin now refers to as “fighting words.” :roll:

  • 276. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    “Lawyers shouldn’t argue with mathematicians about math, any more than mathematicians should argue with lawyers about the color of Satan’s bedsheets.”

    Good one.

  • 277. Tex Taylor  |  November 7, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    I usually substitute liberal for lawyer. :wink: Graychin being a sterling example of interior decorator.

  • 278. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    Tex, @ 270: in a way, what you’ve said is what I am trying to get G-chin to refute. I won’t hold my breath.

  • 279. Tex Taylor  |  November 7, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    Tigre,

    Graychin is a shining example of what those sharia compliant would call candidate for Dhimmi. Yeller Dawg would be a textbook case for what most Muslims would refer to as Dhummi.

    Add the two together, create a blog, and the production results in One & A Half Useful Idiot’s Blog, aka euphemistically called “The Great Spot” WordPress blog.

    Prop 755 is only one of hundreds of issues that Graychin’s conclusions wholly inconsistent with his supportive reasoning and his previous arguments. The invariable conclusions that Graychin formulates only consistent with only one real principle – humanism from the progressive bent.

    I completely understand how Graychin reaches his conclusions, misguided as they are.

  • 280. dead rabbit  |  November 7, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    Hucking, I’m pretty sure Sharia law pleads the 5th when it comes to abortion.

  • 281. Hucking Fypocrites  |  November 7, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    So to open up another can of contention….

    This is the kind of shit that leaves me little pity for Israel. They ask for some of what they get, and in this case…all of it.

    (CNN) — Israeli police officers razed a mosque they said was built illegally in the southern city of Rahat as residents hurled rocks at them.

    Permits or not. Right or wrong. This is just stupid (and typical) provocation (in which both sides engage), which is probably also what was intended by building the mosque in the first place.

    As usual, Israel is taking the bait.

  • 282. Hucking Fypocrites  |  November 7, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    “I’m pretty sure Sharia law pleads the 5th when it comes to abortion.”

    Maybe it’s above their pay grade…

  • 283. dead rabbit  |  November 7, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    “When you suggest that I might support female circumcision, I think that goes well beyond the Socratic method and seems more like an attack. I don’t recall Socrates being that – provocative, using fighting words in his gentle questions.”-Greychin

    Your silence and ignorance on Sharia law is, in my opinion, de facto support for horrible oppression against women through out the world. Your constant attempts at dismissing the realities of Sharia law by trying to find commonalities in Western law is one of the reasons thousands of women are imprisoned and tortured today.

    The left has the most powerful and respected voice when it comes to human rights, making the silence all the more a travesty. Thus, Greychin is guilty of gross negligence in my opinion. One of the reasons a little girl will get her clitoris ripped off is, in fact, because of Greychin.

    Now go ahead Greychin, go back to policing the conversation at the water cooler.

    4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

  • 284. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    Would someone explain to me how banning Sharia law from the courts – but not any other religious law – supports the Establishment clause? And keeps the concept of “equal protection” intact?

    As I said earlier, I am confident that if the SQ had banned ALL religious law from being considered in the courts, the provision would have gone down in flames last week. I would have voted FOR it, but a lot of people who disagree with Tiger and me (“I don’t want anyone’s religion telling me what to do”) would have voted against it for being anti-Christian.

  • 285. dead rabbit  |  November 7, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    Pointless banter:

    The neighborhood I grew up in was dominated by Hindu businesses servicing other Hindus. They didn’t live in my neighborhood but they owned dozens of stores and restaurants.

    The most beautiful woman I had ever seen in my life was a Hindu. I saw her coming out of a little Hindu appliance store in full garb. Perhaps I was being an “Orientalist” or flooded with ” love of the exotic,” but the woman took my breath away. I remember I went back up to that store front probably 5 or 6 times, hoping to see her again.

  • 286. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    I know that most (not all) lawyers know more about the law than I do, and I respect that.

    But I get pretty irritated when someone hides behind his law school diploma and tries to tells me things like that interstate commerce in food and drugs is not interstate commerce the way the Founders meant it. Or that the people who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment used the word “person” when they MEANT to say “citizen,” although they used both of those words earlier in the same section. Or that warrantless eavesdropping doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment in cases of national security, for some reason.

    I get pretty irritated when someone hiding behind a law school diploma makes fun of my interpretation of “plain” language based on that kind of nonsensical pettifoggery.

    I won’t try to correct a mathematician about the topography of n-dimensional space, but if he tries to tell me that 2 + 2 really equals five because of some obscurity, I’m going to request that he return to Planet Earth if he wants me to listen to what he is saying. (Quantum theory and cosmology are mind-bending enough without lawyers trying to put themselves on that high plane when they read the Constitution. )

    I won’t attempt to correct a rocket scientist about rocket science, but if a rocket scientist tries to tell me that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that all those fossils and dating techniques were put there by God to test our faith, then I’m calling bullshit every time.

    And so it is with you lawyers.

    You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. You really don’t.

  • 287. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    For the record, I have no idea what color Satan’s bedsheets are, or whether Satan even possesses a bed.

  • 288. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    Tex says, “The invariable conclusions that Graychin formulates only consistent with only one real principle – humanism from the progressive bent.”

    But how did he hit the humanistic progressive bent?

    As Rabbitt says, ”

    “The left has the most powerful and respected voice when it comes to human rights, making the silence all the more a travesty.”

    A catch 22 for G-chin. He wants to accuse the proponents of the amendment of racism and bigotry. . . in opposing the malignant adoption of an oppressive, tyranical and inhumane code. A paradox. Again, WWOD???

    The amusing part is that, when it comes to intellectual honesty, G-chin’s dissembling on the subject is so telling. None exists. (“fighting words” my ass).

    Glad I didn’t refer to the muslim “community” so we would have to again circumnavigate the globe in search of a point — I mean, substantiation for a false accusation of racism and bigotry.

  • 289. Tex Taylor  |  November 7, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. You really don’t.

    You do when your head is firmly inserted in your large intestine.

    If I’m forced to choose between two people that hold professional degrees in law and negotiate in court vis-a-vis a retired humanist of unknown purpose in Aryan, OK, that is to decide for me what the intent of a law is, then I’ll call bullshit on the humanist each and every time.

    You don’t need a humanist to decipher the intent religious edict – especially when prevalent history concerning sharia law encircles the globe.. You really don’t.

    2008 Presidential Election Results

    McCain – 77 Counties – Obama Zero Counties.

    Like I said, “most” Oklahomans are prescient: Enough said.

  • 290. dead rabbit  |  November 7, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. You really don’t.”

    I agree with you. Who cares what the lawyers say. Rejoice that Oklahoma has legislation that will bring to light the horrors of Sharia Law. At the very least, I suspect you are going to research what Sharia law means for people living under it. This is a good thing.

    *************************************************************************
    Constitution of Plant X: No farm animals are to ever be allowed on the Senate.

    Individual Law passed in Planet X: Horses are not allowed to be on the Senate.

    Whats the big fucking deal other then worrying about hurting the feelings of horses?

    You spend you whole weekend worrying about this.

  • 291. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. You really don’t.”

    And so it is with G-chin’s arguments.

    Ignorance is indeed bliss.

  • 292. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 7, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    So much red meat, so little time before church.

    If a couple in a civil union wants a dissolution of the contract (“divorce”) and they want the terms determined by their local Imam (or Rabbi, or Baptist preacher, or Catholic bishop), or if the terms of their religious marriage require that kind of divorce settlement, then why should the state butt in? Why deny them that avenue if that is their choice? What business is it of yours or mine?

    Its our business because inevitably, one party or both will look to government to exercise legal authority to enforce the conditions of the split.

    Having had the displeasure of doing divorces for the first three years of practice, I can tell you that the amicable, well-behaved split is a myth. I saw precisely ONE.

    The rule is that you can count on one party or both misbehaving, and at least one hearing where that malfactor will get a dressing-down from a pissed off judge or commissioner.

    But tell me, Chin. Why would a woman want to have her divorce ajudicated by an imam? We already know hw women are treated under Sharia law. If I was a woman, a citizen, and my husband wanted our divorce to be determined under principles that treat me like something you might have to wipe off your shoe vs. the American system, which grants me a number of actual rights, I know my answer would be “Hell NO!” What do you do for her, Chin? Do you deny her the due process she is OWED as a citizen?

    It might be a nice round of intellectual masturbation for you, Chin, but one of the major reasons the courts exist is to provide peaceful conflict resolution. If you take divorce out of the courts’ jurisdiction, you will get dead bodies. I’ve filed enough protective orders to know how it ends without court oversight.

    As for Sharia never coming here, the point is that it already has. The New Jersey case is but one example. And the fact that the woman had to go through the appeals process to get the to protections that our law is supposed to guarantee is a travesty.

    However, just to show you that it is indeed a topic within domestic legal circles, I offer you this:

    http://taxes-stupidity-and-death.blogspot.com/2007/11/dhimitudecoming-to-attorney-near-you.html

  • 294. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    Tiger, I don’t understand the point of your comment at 288.

    Tex applies a label to me (“humanist progressive”) as if that proves something. What is the point?

    My “Catch 22″ thinking is exactly what I referred to earlier. When the ACLU opposes government suppression of neo-Nazi groups, the irony is that neo-Nazis would be the first ones to suspend the Bill of Rights that the ACLU reveres and fights for. But the ACLU is exactly right to do that.

    This is how I feel about 70% of the voters in Oklahoma singling out just one version of ancient and barbaric religious law and not all of them. Clearly, if we put the Bill of Rights up for a vote in Oklahoma, a majority of the ten would be voted down. I’m confident that the Second Amendment would survive, however – especially if they took out all that foolishness about militias.

    First they came for the Muslims…..

    And Tiger – at least one point has soaked into your skull: the so-called “Muslim community” in America is so diverse that it makes no sense to talk about it as a homogenized Threat to the American Way of Life. It’s harder to judge people as individuals than to just accept the common stereotype of a group with which they are identified.

    You do that with me, too. Lumping me in EVERY DAMN DAY with your stereotype of “liberals” and “the left.”

  • 295. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    BiW, you’re pissing up a rope with G-chin. He don’t need no faincy lawya tellin’ him what way the wind blows. . .

  • 296. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    G-chin, dems fightin’ words!

    My point is clear. I decline your invitation to step through the looking glass.

  • 297. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    “Why would a woman want to have her divorce ajudicated by an imam?”

    Beats me. Some silly religious notion, I suppose. Are you prepared to permit the State to tell her that she can’t do that, even if she wants to?

    I frame my question in terms of a pre-nuptial agreement. Would I deny a woman her rights to have a court grant her the statutory property rights to marital property, just because she signed a pre-nuptial agreement?

    I guess I would. Wouldn’t you?

  • 298. dead rabbit  |  November 7, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    I’ve said this before. I am becoming dumb. If the brain is not used, it gets mushy.

    Add all the drugs I did as a young lad, and the Rabbit might very well be turning into Gumby. I need to start reading again. Get into the intellectual gym. My concentration is deplorable. My lexicon is shrinking to “sensico” levels.

    Part of the problem is that I have no structure. I’m interested in a million different things.

    Just as I followed through with my fatwa of losing 25 pounds while getting stronger, it’s time my brain catches up with my brawn.

    And who better to turn to then the wind bags at this site.

    I am requesting each one you assign me a book to read. Yes, even Greychin. I will read it no matter what. The first person who responds to this plea for intellectual help will be the first book I read and so on. It can be on anything.

    Come on you blabbering wind bags, make the Rabbit a smarty pants.

  • 299. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 2:54 pm

    Special providence: American foreign policy and how it changed the world by Walter Russell Mead.

  • 300. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    (since I was the first, will you introduce me to your dealer?)

  • 301. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    If I understand the “imminent threat” of Sharia law in America, based on what I find on The Google…

    One idiotic judge in New Jersey made one idiotic decision applying Sharia law that was soon overturned on appeal. This has thrown Faux News and its viewers into a tizzy and whipped up a whole lot of hysteria among people who never did trust those danged Muslims to begin with.

    Is the legal precedent for Creeping Sharia Law more serious than that?

    It’s a lot like the “persecuted minority” Christian mentality that takes one bad decision by an assistant principal somewhere, soon overturned when more sensible and knowledgeable heads prevail, and then laims that God in under attack in the public schools. Yes, the “threat” of Sharia law in America is a LOT like that.

    Interstate Commerce ╪ interstate commerce: I followed your link to your blog, but it appears to be just an oversized image of a magazine cover. Is there some actual information available about this grave threat for us poor, ignorant non-lawyers?

  • 302. dead rabbit  |  November 7, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    “My “Catch 22″ thinking is exactly what I referred to earlier. When the ACLU opposes government suppression of neo-Nazi groups, the irony is that neo-Nazis would be the first ones to suspend the Bill of Rights that the ACLU reveres and fights for. But the ACLU is exactly right to do that. “-greychin

    Your confusing free speech with a law code. You would have a a legal problem with your local government passing a law outlawing totalitarian government and genocide? Silly, maybe. But who cares?

  • 303. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    “You do that with me, too. Lumping me in EVERY DAMN DAY with your stereotype of “liberals” and “the left.”

    What the hell are you talking about Mr. “Scary Black Man” who knows my world views? Examples please.

  • 304. dead rabbit  |  November 7, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    “Special providence: American foreign policy and how it changed the world by Walter Russell Mead.”

    As for my drug dealer…I make my own. I’m about to brew my first Belgian Triple Ale. I converted 3 kegs for an outdoor brewing system that can make 25 gallons. I just need a welder for a few things.

    Done deal. Going to Amazon right now.

  • 306. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    Rabbit – my suggestion is neither a weighty tome nor a liberal screed:

    The Demon-Haunted World – science as a candle in the dark – by Carl Sagan.

  • 307. dead rabbit  |  November 7, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    Got it used for 18 bucks. Looks interesting.

  • 308. dead rabbit  |  November 7, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    The Demon-Haunted World – science as a candle in the dark

    done deal..going to amazon. It will be my second book I read.

  • 309. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    It’s been a while, but I used to quite bit of brewing myself. If I could locate a 25 gallon supply of Belgian Triple I’d. . . well. . . . enter rehab with a smile on my face.

  • 310. dead rabbit  |  November 7, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    I got the Sagan book for 3 bucks!

  • 311. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    For fun:

    http://www.vlrc.org/articles/70.html

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Becraft/larry2.htm

  • 312. dead rabbit  |  November 7, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    Tigre….did you do all grain brewing? All grain brewing is where it’s at. it truly is a blank canvas for making anything you want, down to the most minute of details. And it tastes so much better. But, it’s an 8 hour brew day. I’m exhausted when I’m done. It also makes me talk to myself like a weirdo.

    I can honestly say I learned more about science brewing beer then I ever did in school. Yeast fascinates me to know end.

  • 313. dead rabbit  |  November 7, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    no end

  • 314. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    That’s a well-spent three bucks. And I’m taking bets that you will enjoy it a lot more than the one on American foreign policy.

  • 315. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    If you want fiction, the most enjoyable fiction read I have had in decades is Cryptonomicon, by Neal Stephenson.

  • 316. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    Rabbit, yeah, after a lot of mash that ultimately became turpentine, I got a few good ones together (I could never control the temperatures properly). Double Bocks and Octoberfest became signatures (of course, I gave the awards to myself). I Iove the toasted grains to fiinish.

    Funny you talk about learning science through the brew process. Same with me. Maybe it’s the incentives that make the learning fun.

  • 317. El Tigre  |  November 7, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    If you haven’t tried lagering, give it a try. Your patience will pay handsome dividends when you got it right. But it’ll call you to task if your mash ain’t no good. There’s no covering the inconsitencies like with the ales.

    Then have a Drew Estate No. 9 or T-52 (or La Flor Double Ligaro) with it. Alah Akbar!

  • 318. Tex Taylor  |  November 7, 2010 at 6:05 pm

    Stolen from a poster over on the Reason Magazine boards, re: Potential MSNBC Replacements for Olbermann’s Show:

    “Crossfire… with Alvin Greene and Meghan McCain!”

    Snicker…

  • 319. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 7, 2010 at 6:21 pm

    “Why would a woman want to have her divorce ajudicated by an imam?”

    Beats me. Some silly religious notion, I suppose. Are you prepared to permit the State to tell her that she can’t do that, even if she wants to?

    Yes, because we do not ceed state authority to eccumenical authorities in this matter.

    I frame my question in terms of a pre-nuptial agreement. Would I deny a woman her rights to have a court grant her the statutory property rights to marital property, just because she signed a pre-nuptial agreement?

    I guess I would. Wouldn’t you?

    I hate to break it to you, but courts decide every day that they will not enforce pre-nuptial agreements, and in most cases, with very good cause, just as they will also refuse to enforce other contracts that are brought before them.

    Many states, like the one I practice in have an entire laundry list of factors that they apply to these agreements, and even then, in some cases, they simply will refuse to enforce such agreements.

    But I guess the courts shouldn’t be concerned with whether such agreements are inherently inequitable, and simply allow such results because one religion mandates such a result, right? Maybe you think it is ok for our courts to uphold a result based on the tenants of one religion because that religion not only approves of the practice and sets forth guidlines for it?

    I’m sorry. The law according to Greychin looks very different than the jurisprudence that actually exists.

  • 320. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 7, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    Interstate Commerce ╪ interstate commerce:

    Your petulence could give my five-year old a run for his money.

    I only gave you the sections in the Federalist Papers, in which the authors of the Constitution themselves explained it in terms so simple that you have to make up your mind NOT to understand it as they explained it.

    A simple search on most search engines will bring you to the earliest cases, which also set forth the principles of what they meant. Reading a bit further will bring you to the cases that show an unprecidented expansion of federal power based on defining damn near anything as interstate commerce. Wickard v. Filburn demonstrates one of the most indefensible examples based on “the plain language” that you invoke only when it suits you. In truth, there are only two instances in the last 70 years when even the SCOTUS as a body has brought themselves to say “We aren’t going to contort ourselves to the degree necessary to uphold that application.”
    Perhaps instead of being a whiney little bitch, you could use a decent search engine, do the reading, educate yourself and then we could have an intelligent discussion on the topic. Until then, your childishness makes you come across as a very small person.

    I followed your link to your blog, but it appears to be just an oversized image of a magazine cover. Is there some actual information available about this grave threat for us poor, ignorant non-lawyers?

    You are ignorant because you choose to be, which is why you get my scorn instead of my respect. In this case, since you seem incapable of finding a clue, even if it is stapled to the back of your hand: Take the name of the publication, and the caption on the cover and type both into a BING search window.

    However, the reason I posted it was to demonstrate that Shariah Law is already a topic of discussion in legal circles…it really is happening, whether you have heard of it or not. The article itself offends only in the lie it is prefaced on (that legal practioners are “scrambling” to understand Shariah) and the implication that practioners have to help reconcile the requirements of Shariah with the law, rather than the idea that muslims have to reconcile themselves to our laws, just like Chistians, Jews, Hindus, Bhudists, Zoroastrians, Rastafarians, and…

  • 321. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 7:35 pm

    I’m a brewer too – mostly a former brewer. I don’t do it as much now as I used to, because there are so many wonderful beers with some character now you could hardly find in the US 20 or 25 years ago.

    One of my friends asked to come over and watch me brew a batch about five years ago, and I showed him some of little tricks to make things easier. He really got into brewing, and now he is making really excellent stuff. Better than I ever did.

  • 322. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 7:40 pm

    Geez, B =W. You’re even more silly and pompous today than usual.

    On my humble blog, I post a “link” if I want to refer people to an article. It’s this really cool “hypertext” stuff.

    Honestly, I thought that the magazine cover with the story title WAS your point. I’m sorry that you didn’t have anything more productive to do today than rag on me for not using The Google or The Bing or whatever to search out the article to which you referred obliquely.

    But you HAVE tried to send me on snipe hunts before…. :D

  • 323. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 7, 2010 at 7:52 pm

    But I get pretty irritated when someone hides behind his law school diploma and tries to tells me things like that interstate commerce in food and drugs is not interstate commerce the way the Founders meant it.

    And I get pretty irritated when someone with no training or obvious practical understanding of the philosophy of law, and is oblivious to the history of its application decides that he knows better than those who do. But since you’ve decided that you’re an expert, Chin, explain to us the concept of federalism, and then explain to me how the application of the Commerce Clause to anything Congress says it applies to strengthens or weakens the concept of federalism as it applies to the the relationship between the states and the Federal government, especially when this application has often interfered with and or co-opted legitimate state authorities. Progressives enjoy bitching about the system being in need of improvement because to things that they think don’t work; while ignoring the role they played in thwarting the design of that system and hoping that the rest of us do too. I much prefer it when you guys actually screw up and admit that your aim is a strong national government with nearly unlimited power. It isn’t good for the individual, or civil ilberties, but the good news is that if you get what you want, you likely won’t have much opportunity to reflect upon it.

  • 324. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 7, 2010 at 8:03 pm

    Honestly, I thought that the magazine cover with the story title WAS your point.

    Sure you did. That’s why you asked for more information:

    I followed your link to your blog, but it appears to be just an oversized image of a magazine cover. Is there some actual information available about this grave threat for us poor, ignorant non-lawyers?

    Especially since I was making the point that I was citing to to show that Shariah is a topic of discussion in domestic legal circles, just as I said before posting the link:

    However, just to show you that it is indeed a topic within domestic legal circles, I offer you this:

    Tell someone else that you didn’t backpedal. I’m not buying.

  • 325. graychin  |  November 7, 2010 at 8:13 pm

    “…we do not ceed state authority to eccumenical authorities in this matter.”

    Thus sayeth the Lord? This sounds like you are even more of a Wall of Separation extremist than most.

    I’m certain that most states have standards that prenups must meet in order to be enforceable, in the interest of protecting both parties from abuse. But this Establishment Clause enthusiast sees no problem with allowing parties to a civil union to designate ecclesiastical (not “ecumenical”) authorities to mediate the terms of a divorce. To arbitrarily ban such a thing seems too much to me like Big Government sticking its nose in where it doesn’t belong.

  • 326. Alfie  |  November 7, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    Am I the only one confused by graychin? Just when I think I know where he’s going he types some other stuff.
    graychin helps me out bro…

    You believe pre-nups are religious in nature?
    A church wedding should somehow negate ones tax status benefits?
    You call yourself an “establishment clause enthusiast” yet are pro civil union AND pro theologic law being applicable???

  • 327. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 7, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    I’m certain that most states have standards that prenups must meet in order to be enforceable, in the interest of protecting both parties from abuse. But this Establishment Clause enthusiast sees no problem with allowing parties to a civil union to designate ecclesiastical (not “ecumenical”) authorities to mediate the terms of a divorce. To arbitrarily ban such a thing seems too much to me like Big Government sticking its nose in where it doesn’t belong.

    Except that the act of official recognition of a “civil union” is itself “Big Government” sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong, if we accept your viewpoint.

    As a practical matter, what religions, other than Islam, would want to preside over a split between followers? And if you can find one, how is a state grant of authority to do so NOT an establishment of religion inconsistant with how the Establishment Clause has been applied since the 1940s to the present?

    Go ahead. Point at your mobius strip and tell me you aren’t advocating prezel logic.

  • 328. dead rabbit  |  November 7, 2010 at 9:24 pm

    Greychin seems to be running in argumentative circles. He’s throwing everything but the kitchen sink in order to smoke screen a reality that Liberals don’t give a damn about the female victims of Sharia law. They prove it everyday with their deafening silence.

  • 329. Rutherford  |  November 7, 2010 at 9:31 pm

    I am respectfully requesting Rutherford to lift the ban on Elric. I was wrong about the need for Elric.

    For the record, there is no current ban on Elric. Ban was actually lifted last Christmas day in an act of Christian brotherhood ( :lol: ). He knows this and has chosen not to return. This is what I call the best of both worlds. I don’t have to be accused of being a fascist and I don’t have to put up with his neurotic ass. :-)

  • 330. Rutherford  |  November 7, 2010 at 9:40 pm

    I’ve got a lot of comments to read through as you guys really hammered WordPress today. BUT let me say this:

    As much as I hate Islamaphobia I think we tread down a bordering-on-nutty intellectual road when we create a false equivalency between Judeo-Christian biblical law and Sharia. I am not aware of any modern day country justifying their barbaric legal system with the Bible. Sharia law is practiced TODAY as if we had not emerged from the stone age (no pun intended).

    My ONLY objection to the OK law from the little I know of it, is that it makes a law out of a non-starter. Our culture in this country is so well inoculated against Sharia I cannot imagine it taking hold here in my wildest dreams. “It happened in the UK so be afraid, be very afraid” just doesn’t move me. Maybe my head is in the sand but I think it’s much ado about nothing.

    With that said (as I think I said before) the day any court in this country is convinced to decide a case based on Sharia, is the day when some serious legislative sh*t has to come down.

    I don’t go for organized religions of any kind but they are fine and dandy with me so long as they stay on the religious side of the fence and don’t go sauntering over into the “State” side of the fence.

    Gray I get your point about the need for all religions to be kicked out of the courts but you also must acknowledge that Sharia is “special”. It’s really barbaric sh*t that is going down TODAY as we speak. It is not benign.

  • 331. Tex Taylor  |  November 7, 2010 at 9:44 pm

    I think I’ve figured out why the two and one-half progressives on this board, the blog owner and the 1 1/2 useful idiots from “The Great Spot”, are so sympathetic of a religion that has declared war on America.

    See, Muslims are the only religious group in the world that can be claim to victims of violence and discrimination while being the perpetrators of the violence and discrimination.

    And the more I think about it, that’s how similar to how libs act.

    LIbs fvck things up to the nth degree, and then claim to be the only ones that can fix the fvck ups they created.

    Okay, this is starting to make a little more sense.

  • 332. Rutherford  |  November 8, 2010 at 12:24 am

    OK Rabbit, two suggestions:

    “Game Change” by Mark Halperin and John Heileman (but it is an account of the 2008 campaign by two exemplars of the lame stream media, so you might want to pass)

    “The Zen of Social Media Marketing” by Shama Kabani (this one will introduce you a bit to my world off The Rutherford Lawson Blog)

    And of course, for all your Amazon book purchases I recommend shopping at The 4 Your Anewsment Shopper which provides me with a nice kickback! :-)

  • 333. Tex Taylor  |  November 8, 2010 at 12:30 am

    Congratulations Libs,

    You’ve finally started to run good, experienced military off with your loathing of the military, your unwinnable wars that our won, your elected officials who continually defame and berate military members.

    Why I quit… Desert Storm vet explains decision to leave Air Force after 22 years

    http://www.dailyinterlake.com/article_dbcfb820-e9f6-11df-9f3f-001cc4c002e0.html

    Thank you John Kerry, Bill Clinton and Harry Reid. Each of you has earned your turn at submitting yourself to the moon god.

  • 334. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:01 am

    You believe pre-nups are religious in nature?

    Most are not. But why couldn’t they be if parties wanted to bring some kind of silly religious doctrine into their union?

    A church wedding should somehow negate ones tax status benefits?

    Huh? What did I say to imply that? What I said is that the State should get out of the marriage business and sanction civil unions only. If people want to convert their union to a “marriage” as defined by their own religious tradition, then go for it. Without penalty as to tax status, or anything else.

    You call yourself an “establishment clause enthusiast” yet are pro civil union AND pro theologic law being applicable???

    I am pro theologic law being applicable if – and only if – that is what the parties want and agree to, perhaps in a pre-nuptial agreement. “Nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.”

  • 335. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:22 am

    Gray, I get your point about the need for all religions to be kicked out of the courts but you also must acknowledge that Sharia is “special”. It’s really barbaric sh*t that is going down TODAY as we speak. It is not benign.

    Rutherford –

    I never said, and do not believe, that Sharia Law is necessarily benign, although I do believe that the specifics of it vary widely from one place to another. Oklahomans voted against the horrific scare stories about Sharia that people like Tex are spreading in chain emails. Sharia is the subject of one of the RWNM’s current “all fear all the time” campaigns.

    But let’s assume for the discussion’s sake that that Sharia is particularly horrific, and definitely has a growing foothold in America. What is the Constitutional response?

    We already have every tool that we need. I’m sure that some of our lawyer friends will tell us why the First Amendment doesn’t say what it says, but because of the Establishment clause NO religious law can override the civil law in any court. (A deranged judge in New Jersey is NOT proof of the power and influence of Muslims and Sharia, no matter how much the fearmongers want to make it so.)

    But the Oklahoma response is UNconstitutional. It bars only one body of religious law – Sharia – and not other religious law. As I said before, I am sure that Oklahomans would have voted the question down if they thought that it meant barring the Bible from court forever.

    The offense here is the same as with the government’s apparent freedom to engage in warrantless eavesdropping after 9/11 in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Both show willingness to toss out the Bill of Rights whenever we feel a threat – real or imagined. That road leads to a very bad place.

    As for the “specialness” of Sharia – it is not. What it is – is about 350 years behind the times. It hasn’t evolved as much as Western thought. Only 150 years ago we were quoting the Bible to justify human slavery and all that went with it. Only 150 years ago we were still denying women the right to own property and to vote. “The Scarlet Letter” was written only 150 years ago.

    This is not a false equivalence. And even if it is, that is a judgment for individuals to make, not for state constitutions. The State may not pick and choose between competing religious ideologies.

  • 336. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:28 am

    The world’s shortest indefinite suspension is coming to an end! Keith Olbermann will be back on the air on Tuesday in his usual time slot.

    Here is the tweet from him earlier this evening:

    Greetings From Exile! A quick, overwhelmed, stunned THANK YOU for support that feels like a global hug & obviously left me tweetless XO

    Perhaps we will find out more as the story develops, but I read one rumor that claimed he was suspended for refusing to apologize on-air for the making the contributions, not for making the contributions themselves.

    In every profession, disrespecting the suits is the only unforgivable sin.

  • 337. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:43 am

    Except that the act of official recognition of a “civil union” is itself “Big Government” sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong, if we accept your viewpoint.

    That’s a silly argument, Counselor. Marriage, aka Civil Union, is first and foremost a legal contract. Of course the government belongs in it. In our system, the government adjudicates contractual disputes through the mechanism of the courts. I just believe that the government’s nose should be withdrawn about six inches, and not be involved in deciding who may and may not “marry.”

    As a practical matter, what religions, other than Islam, would want to preside over a split between followers? And if you can find one, how is a state grant of authority to do so NOT an establishment of religion inconsistant with how the Establishment Clause has been applied since the 1940s to the present?

    I don’t know much about the marriage customs of other religions, but I seem to recall that the LDS church has practiced some “unusual” marriage customs in the past. Perhaps LDS would have desired more say about marriage than the state permitted it?

    But you are arguing with someone besides me again. I never advocated granting authority over marriage to any religion WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED CONSENT OF THE PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGE!!!!! I would never consent to such a thing for myself, and I would recommend against it for all others, but does the State really have a right to keep people from entering into the kind of civil union or “marriage” contracts that they desire? From whence does that state authority over marriage come from? Where can we find that in the Constitution?

    I see no problem with the Establishment clause if the law granted parties to civil unions the right to have their contract ratified under terms of the religious tradition OF THEIR CHOICE. That is the “free exercise” part. But the “establishment” clause IS violated when the State says “This religion is OK – but not THAT one, because this one is good, but THAT one is bad.

  • 338. Alfie  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:53 am

    Thanks for the clarification graychin at 334.
    I think my last on this thread will be as follows.
    Sharia is interwoven into the practice of Islam but one can still oppose it,as in the case of OK,and not be attacking or supporting religions.Asserting sovereignty is a good and necessary thing in any society. In the USA we must do so to assure assimilation of our immigrants and our unity.

    As for a final word on the post itself. Given some of the history of Rutherford and the use of the term Whig I find it quite tasty that things are what they are. 2012 is looking pretty good to me at this early stage. For sure there will be some bumps in the road but I’m thinking the GOP is here to stay.

  • 339. Tex Taylor  |  November 8, 2010 at 9:23 am

    One of Rutherford’s special desserts is to give example of Republicans eating their own. Remember all the David Frum suggestions from Rutherford? Can we now say for the record David Frum’s importance to anything is moot Rutherford?

    Watch the “progressive” and “socialist” turn on each other. Tuesday night changed a great many things… :twisted:

    http://www.breitbart.tv/liberal-civil-war-breaks-out-on-msnbc-progressive-greenwald-vs-socialist-odonnell/

  • 340. Tex Taylor  |  November 8, 2010 at 9:31 am

    Just to demonstrate how intellectually dishonest Graychin Grayson is, and now he carries his profound penchant for exaggeration, hyperbole, and outright lying from his own feckless blog to here, I’ll juxtapose an earlier post I made at BIC’s with Graychin’s claim that:

    Oklahomans voted against the horrific scare stories about Sharia that people like Tex are spreading in chain emails.

    Sorry Graychin…these are not chain emails, but facts.

    ———————

    My little state (actually big state/fewer people) continues to show its superior wisdom, as indicated first by it rejecting candidate Barack Obama for President by a vote of 2-1, with the county count being McCain 77, Obama 0 in the 2008 Presidential election.

    Backwards? I’d call that prescient. :wink:

    If I may speak for the vast majority of Oklahomans, we have had a few minor skirmishes down here about people hiding behind their religious customs concerning driver’s licenses, demands for halal food, Ramadan breaks, and the like – nothing major. Yet…

    However, there seems to be a growing anti-government sentiment prevalent among many leaders in the Tulsa Islamic community. In addition a few years back, the Islamic Society threatened one of their own flock about writing to the Tulsa World and condemning support of international terrorism.

    http://www.batesline.com/archives/2006/11/tulsa-muslim-wh.html

    For example, here we have Alison Moore, spokeswoman for the Islamic Society of Tulsa, praising Anwar al-Awlaki. Great, hey? Check about the 5 minute mark.

    Demonstrating our profound tolerance and humanity, SQ 755 was necessary to prevent an imminent beat down. I think America would find Oklahomans have less tolerance for political correctness (except for idiots like Graychin and Yeller Dawg), bad mouthing America, and threats than much of America.

    Consider SQ 755 nipping a growing problem in the bud and a notice to Ruth Bader Gingsburg that we don’t believe courts should look to the law of other countries for guidance when deciding cases.

    Our Constitution works just fine.

  • 341. Tex Taylor  |  November 8, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Not with a bang or a whimper but with a display of unbelievable presidential smallness…”

    http://www.breitbart.tv/krauthammer-on-obamas-divisive-rhetoric-this-is-how-the-great-post-racial-promise-of-obama-ends/

    So the man who hung at Wright’s church for 20 years is not so much above the fray after all…

  • 342. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 10:25 am

    Tex finds his “facts” at brietbart.

    ‘Nuff said.

  • 343. Tex Taylor  |  November 8, 2010 at 10:45 am

    Graychin Grayson attacks the provider but not the facts…Grayson is also an avid NPR listener and MSNBC watcher.

    One thing I haven’t noticed Grayson as you blather on. You haven’t made much about getting your collective ass handed to last Tuesday night, and your progressive politics once again being summarily rejected.

    Dawg got your tongue?

    ‘Nuff said.

  • 344. Rutherford  |  November 8, 2010 at 10:58 am

    What it is – is about 350 years behind the times.

    Exactly Gray … that is what makes it “special”. While other cultures have progressed and adapted their religious interpretations in kind, Islam when it comes to Sharia, has not adapted. It is as I said earlier stuck in the stone age.

    I was thinking about this some more last night and I think the argument may be more a cultural argument than a strictly religious one. The reason I find the OK law so preposterous is that the more ruthless aspects of Sharia are so antithetical to American culture that I cannot imagine them gaining a foot-hold here.

    What I think deserves further study is why exactly is the UK in the position it is in right now? They don’t have a Sharia problem simply out of tolerance. There have to be other factors. Have they “ghetto-ized” their Muslims such that there is an insular quality about them …. no light gets in? Here in the States, while I don’t doubt certain neighborhoods are predominantly Muslim (in Michigan perhaps), main stream media is so ubiquitous that no Muslim can live in a bubble here. Heck … the only way the Amish “protect” themselves from outside influence is to shun modern technology.

    My point is … what factors make a culture susceptible to changing from a secular government to a theology? And could that ever happen in this country considering how ingrained separation of church and state is here?

    P.S. BiW … I’ll have to dig up the quote that I heard over the weekend but Jefferson did indeed use the phrase in his letters as he was lauding the first amendment. :-)

  • 345. Rutherford  |  November 8, 2010 at 11:01 am

    In every profession, disrespecting the suits is the only unforgivable sin.

    Amen brother!

  • 346. Rutherford  |  November 8, 2010 at 11:08 am

    For sure there will be some bumps in the road but I’m thinking the GOP is here to stay.

    For what it’s worth, Andrea Mitchell agrees with you. On The Chris Matthews Show yesterday, she said in a round-about way that Obama will be a one term President. OUCH

  • 347. Rutherford  |  November 8, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Tex, my friend, there will be a good deal of cannibalism in the coming months and it won’t be limited to Dem’s. The Rand Paul faction is going to smash head on into the GOP establishment and it will be bloody unless the Paul contingent caves immediately. :-)

  • 348. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Birthers Confront the Rubio-Jindal Paradox

    This article is long, but addresses an ongoing discussion I have been having with Black = White. Perhaps he will care to read it and take time to comment on it?

    Or not.

  • 349. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 11:24 am

    “what factors make a culture susceptible to changing from a secular government to a theology?”

    The United States of America was the first nation-state on Planet earth that attempted to separate church and state within its very founding document. On the other hand, the United Kingdom has had the Church of England as its Established Church since 1534. France became officially “secular” only in 1905.

    To my knowledge, history offers no examples of nations changing form a secular government to a theology theocracy short of overthrowing the secular government through revolution. Perhaps Iran offers and example of such a revolutionary change to theocracy.

    My own opinion is that governments don’t evolve easily from secular to religious. The trend in most of the Western world has been for governments to become increasingly secular in practice, even while they may conveniently ignore the existence of mostly-empty state-sponsored churches. America is the only example I can think of in which a secular government is being seriously assaulted by attempts to break down that “wall of separation,” and of course there is serious opposition to that assault from the likes of me and the ACLU.

    Of course these assaults come almost entirely from non-Muslims.

  • 350. Rutherford  |  November 8, 2010 at 11:26 am

    Gray … you are eternal optimist. Do you really think BiW would ever allow Daily Kos to be in his browser history? To BiW that’s like having hard-core porn in your history file. :-)

  • 351. Rutherford  |  November 8, 2010 at 11:32 am

    theology vs theocracy … yup, sorry I slipped.

    As for the assaults coming almost entirely from non-Muslims, I think there is a reason for that. Non-Muslims know they can get away with it. They know that debate might ensue but the outrage will be of the polite variety. If Muslims REALLY made an attempt to turn us into a theocracy, there would be blood in the streets … and most Muslims know it.

    I don’t think this makes Muslims any less desirous of a theocracy than Christians. It’s just a matter of knowing what you’re up against.

  • 352. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 11:32 am

    From Jim Robinson of Free Republic:

    I’ve given everyone fair warning. There will be no support for Romney on FR. Even if I have to boot every last RomneyBot from our forum. If Romney somehow becomes the nominee, FR will probably become a ghost town because I will run full time video ads telling the truth about his abortionist/statist story and they’ll be his own words straight from his horse’s ass!

    http://www.first-draft.com/2010/11/today-on-tommy-ts-obsession-with-the-freeperati-trouble-in-paradise-edition.html

    Looks like cannibalism to me. Rutherford, do you need for me to pick up some more popcorn at the store? I’d hate to run out as we kick back to enjoy watching the the bloodletting?

  • 353. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 11:38 am

    My browser is set to clear my history every time the browser closes. I keep only a few persistent cookies – all the other cookies get cleared as well.

    It’s not that I have porn in my history – I don’t. I just like to keep things neat and streamlined.

    So B = W, whaddya say? Man up and visit Daily Kos? :D

  • 354. Rutherford  |  November 8, 2010 at 11:40 am

    A gem of a quote from the article that BiW probably will not read:

    Herbert Hoover – probably engineered the Great Depression out of deference to his Canadian mother, the intent being to ruin our country and lay us prostrate before the Brutes of Ottawa, in a manner very similar to the way Barack Obama plans on handing us over to Nairobi.

    Yes if only the wingnut blogosphere existed in 1929. I can see the headline now “Hoover wants to destroy America due to his Canadian colonialist tendencies.” ROTFLMAO

  • 355. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    P.S. BiW … I’ll have to dig up the quote that I heard over the weekend but Jefferson did indeed use the phrase in his letters as he was lauding the first amendment.

    Which phrase? “Wall of separation between church and state”?

    It was in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. And before you slobber all over yourself attributing the concept to Jefferson, I suggest you read up on George Mason and the Constitution of the State of Virginia that he wrote, as well as the reasons why.

    I don’t have time to read anything long this morning. I have a lot to do in the next three days, but…
    The United States of America was the first nation-state on Planet earth that attempted to separate church and state within its very founding document.

    That’s curious. I don’t recall any thing regarding separation of church and state in the Declaration of Independence. I guess that’s the kind of mistake that I’d expect when the difference between a charter and bylaws is not really taught in publick screwls anymore.

    Herbert Hoover – probably engineered the Great Depression out of deference to his Canadian mother, the intent being to ruin our country and lay us prostrate before the Brutes of Ottawa, in a manner very similar to the way Barack Obama plans on handing us over to Nairobi.

    Do you have any idea how funny this sounds to me? I interned in the Canadian House of Commons in the Summer of 1993. “Brute of Ottawa” indeed. This is the same nation that allowed a province to be held hostage to an unprising on an first nations reservation a handful of years ago. This is the same nation that conceeded to the demands of a bunch of grubby habitants and forced bilingualism on an entire nation in order to placate a small but bitchy minority in the eastern central part of the country. You’re really better off thinking of them as some painfully polite people with a few good bands who like us, but are a little paranoid about us at the same time.

    Chin, I’m still waiting for your explanation of federalism and how Congress applying the Commerce Clause to whatever it sees fit preserves or erodes federalism, and why you think that it a good thing. Come on, Chin. For once make an argument that you actually have to think about, rather than just repeating whatever the KOStards or Butch Maddow tell you.

  • 356. Rutherford  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    Do you have any idea how funny this sounds to me?

    Well of course it’s funny. It’s a shame the birthers don’t find the same humor in their preposterous charges against our currently sitting President. :roll:

  • 357. Rutherford  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    Well I hope you all have set your DVR’s for tonight’s interview of George Dubbya. We’ll be seeing a lot of him in the next couple of weeks as he tries to sell his book.

    I’ll be watching with an open mind. I’d like any excuse to forgive the doofus for what he did to this country in 8 years. Sadly, the early clips are not encouraging. Bush says Saddam’s behavior was not consistent with someone who did NOT have WMD’s. But then Matt Lauer asks how you can draw that conclusion when you’ve already stated Saddam is a madman? Bush’s answer made no sense to me.

    Should be interesting.

  • 358. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    Only 150 years ago we were quoting the Bible to justify human slavery and all that went with it.

    Who is “we”, Tonto?
    Some people did, and quite a few people did not. Many of the northern Abolitionists opposed the practice on religious grounds, as did the loudest and most consistent voice against it in the House of Representatives of that era, John Quincy Adams.

    That’s a silly argument, Counselor. Marriage, aka Civil Union, is first and foremost a legal contract. Of course the government belongs in it. In our system, the government adjudicates contractual disputes through the mechanism of the courts. I just believe that the government’s nose should be withdrawn about six inches, and not be involved in deciding who may and may not “marry.”

    I suppose I should refrain from again addressing something you have repeatedly displayed a marked lack of curiousity in, and simply rejoice that we have finally settled upon something, anything, where you think less government involvement is a good thing.

    I don’t know much about the marriage customs of other religions, but I seem to recall that the LDS church has practiced some “unusual” marriage customs in the past. Perhaps LDS would have desired more say about marriage than the state permitted it?

    Having been raised RLDS, I seem to recall that they would definately be one sect that would not want to preside over the separation of a union bewteen their members. They frown on it more than most other sects in this country, but again, because the very act of union implicates so many legal questions, such as legal liability and contract with creditors, the state does have an interest in regulating the process, especially when pre-nups are often a source of conflict where one or both parties come to the state, seeking legal or equitable relief.

  • 359. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    Well I hope you all have set your DVR’s for tonight’s interview of George Dubbya. We’ll be seeing a lot of him in the next couple of weeks as he tries to sell his book

    Nope. Monday night is all about TOP GEAR in my house.

  • 360. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    …KOStards or Butch Maddow…

    I hate to see you sinking to the level of Tex Taylor. The more name-calling, the weaker the argument. Can’t you do better than that?

    I’m still waiting for your explanation of federalism and how Congress applying the Commerce Clause to whatever it sees fit preserves or erodes federalism, and why you think that it a good thing.

    I’m not sure what you want here. The question sounds more than a little argumentative rather than one in search of an answer. In any case, I’m sure that you have noticed by now that I believe your pinched and restricted vision of the Commerce Clause to be ridiculous. Apparently 100 years or so of court decisions agree with me and not with you. I’m not like Tex in believing that the majority can’t be wrong – I only bring that up in case you try to flash your law school diploma at me again.

    “Preserves” or “erodes” federalism? I think that a choice between “preserving” and “eroding” federalism is a false one. We have a federal system, and there is no “erosion” of it anywhere in sight. I have no issue like you do with a more powerful federal government than existed in 1789.

    I see American federalism as having evolved and adapted to a world changing at a rapid and accelerating rate. As we have discussed before, I believe that the Constitution is, and must be, a living document and not a dead letter.

    In a more integrated and interdependent society than existed in the horse-and-buggy days of 1789, more and more matters inevitably will have crept into the realm of “interstate commerce.” But again, it is utter nonsense for you to try (in the face of 100 years of legal precedent to the contrary) to redefine “interstate commerce” out of existence as a solution to your dislike of the “plain language” of the Commerce Clause.

    I have been negligent in failing to call bullshit before now on your characterization of the Declaration of Independence as the “charter” and the Constitution as the “bylaws.” The Constitution is the law of the land – not the Declaration. You don’t put a litany of King George’s abuses in a proper charter. The Declaration remains what it always was – a Declaration of Independence.

    Here is a real question for you, not an argumentative one: Is the Declaration cited very often in cases involving constitutional law? If not, why?

  • 361. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    we have finally settled upon something, anything, where you think less government involvement is a good thing.

    You haven’t been paying attention. You dislike government meddling in “interstate commerce.” I dislike government meddling in matters of civil liberties. Always have.

  • 362. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    “Only 150 years ago we were quoting the Bible to justify human slavery and all that went with it.”

    Who is “we”, Tonto? Some people did, and quite a few people did not.

    By “we” I meant some Americans, in justifying what was the law of the land embedded in our Constitution. All Americans never agree on anything.

    Would it be fair to say about Sharia law that some Muslims support its more barbaric provisions, and quite a few do not?

  • 363. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    Rutherford –

    During the 2008 Democratic and Republican debates before the presidential nominations were settled, one of my favorite bloggers would write posts on the morning after intra-party debates titled “I watch the debates – so you don’t have to.”

    So I appreciate your sacrifice in being willing to watch GWB on your teevee this week attempting to re-write history.

    I hope to God that SOMEONE will have the balls to ask him if he has a different answer yet to the question of whether he made any mistakes during his presidency. And whether he really meant “no” when he said that in an interview at the time.

    I also hope they ask him if he has any plans for overseas travel – and if not, why? :D

  • 364. Tex Taylor  |  November 8, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    Rutherford,

    Just try to remember that “Dubbya” now beats El Bongo the Witchdoctor in the hypothetical head to head matchup.

    It took exactly 21 months for you and your ilk to go from the Whitehouse, to the shit house. :wink:

    Between that and you consistently making the wrong-headed predictions, I’m laughing now officially laughing at you.

    I think you personally have entered the anger phase – I listened to some more of your conversation with “The Skank” and it was even more pitiful than normal – part grief, part tooth, part bewilderment.

    But I still like your sexy Demi Moore voice….here’s my impression of Skank’s dialogoue. ” Well, Rutherford, well, now, I think, well, what really happened, I think, well…”

    Spit it out woman, spit it out!

    Also note that Fake O hasn’t reared her hideous head since the election either. She’s still in the overwhelming disappointment stage; you in the anger; Skank in the bewilderment and shock; Graychin Grayson is the defiant inevitable loser mode; Yeller Dawg doesn’t know the election happened yet.

    Fascinating to watch libs go through their death ritual.

  • 365. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    Oh my – now is Tex predicting the death of liberalism in America?

    That’s even sillier than predicting the death of conservatism.

    You can’t have yin without yang, and vice verca.

  • 366. Rutherford  |  November 8, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    Tex, I’m probably the only lib left who appreciates your twisted sense of humor.

    I don’t know how much of the show you listened to but I’m surprised you didn’t mention our guest Oscar from the UK. Quite frankly, I could talk to that dude the entire hour. Sandi sent me a private message to cut him off …. she felt he was going long. Fortunately he was about done anyway cos I had no desire to cut him prematurely. Oscar could deliver the worst news on the planet in that smooth Brit accent of his and you’d stay calm as a cucumber. He calls us “leftie wefties” — ROTFLMAO. He tried to get Sandi to give him a virtual kiss which she begrudgingly obliged after an awkward pause. LOL

    part grief, part tooth, part bewilderment.

    Part tooth? What was that about?

    P.S. Tex, thanks for getting ChenZhen to come out from under the rock but have you noticed he’s still engaged in the sophomoric blog wars with LGF? Sometimes I wonder if he’s not really a 14 year old high school student.

  • 367. Rutherford  |  November 8, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    Oh BTW, Tex …. I think it’s pretty safe to say Fakename2 probably got tired of being your punching bag. One consequence of my refusal to censor is that some folks simply won’t put up with the abuse and simply read here without contributing.

    While I disagree with 90% or so of what Cathy (on BiW’s blog) has to say, the old fashioned part of me stops me from calling her an ugly whore who can’t find a man, etc. etc. I’ve even resisted the urge of telling her she reminds me of Peggy Noonan, which is not a compliment. I would contend that an objective party would find your rhetoric against lib females to be far more abusive than against males.

    I only wish Fakename2 could understand that if your wife read any of your stuff, she’d kick your ass so hard, you’d find yourself across the lunch table from Nancy Pelosi taking in a beautiful view of the Golden Gate bridge. :twisted:

  • 368. Tex Taylor  |  November 8, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    You could hear Ms. Smarmy’s teeth grind for the entire 10 minutes I listened – it did my heart good to realize Sandi Sue was eternally constipated – like Graychin.

    You are a piece of work “R”. :lol: Angry, but still lucid. Your guest host on the other hand…

    I left a message with the General – I don’t know about Mr. Chen, but like you I do find him amusing and conniving. How can you not like a guy like that?

  • 369. Tex Taylor  |  November 8, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    Oh BTW, Tex …. I think it’s pretty safe to say Fakename2 probably got tired of being your punching bag.

    A proverbial coward and lightweight. She deserved to be bitch slapped. But I didn’t call her a whore! Now that’s not fair.

    I called Fake something far worse – Graychin with small tits. :lol:

  • 370. Tex Taylor  |  November 8, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    Grayson,

    Oh my – now is Tex predicting the death of liberalism in America?

    Where did I say that you lying sack? tsk tsk.

    We couldn’t anymore get rid of liberalism than we can get rid of cockroaches, maggots and mosquitoes. God put you here to be a plague upon the earth in our sinful nature.

  • 371. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    Breaking news:

    A federal judge on Monday issued an order temporarily blocking certification of the election results for (an Oklahoma) state question banning the use of Shariah law.

    http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20101108_11_0_OKLAHO357431

  • 372. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    Where did I say that you lying sack? tsk tsk.

    What did you mean by “Fascinating to watch libs go through their death ritual” at #364?

  • 373. Tex Taylor  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of the Western District granted the order requested by Muneer Awad, executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

    Excellent candidate for impeachment. The fact she’s a Bongo fan and a hyphenated man-hater, and the fact Miles-LaGrange was appointed by the serial rapist former President William “Slick Willy” Clinton will make her impeachment all the more satisfying…

    We’ll make her life miserable in the mean time. :wink: I would suggest Ms. Miles-Lagrange look at the three Iowa justices frogmarched to the curb last week. That way, she can get a gander of her future…I think the day of activist judges may be next on the list for removal. :wink:

  • 374. Tex Taylor  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    What did you mean by “Fascinating to watch libs go through their death ritual” at #364?

    The mourning, followed by anger, followed by excuse making, followed by wailing and gnashing of teeth liberals go through upon being bounced from their religious political realm. It’s a thing of beauty.

  • 375. Tex Taylor  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    Here’s a classic liberal federal judge and now “DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN” in action.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings

    But where is Miles-Lagrange going to run? North Tulsa? :smile:

  • 376. Tex Taylor  |  November 8, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    Hey Graychin. I’ve got a serious question.

    What are you few libs left in Oklahoma going to do if 70% of Oklahomans, about 2.5 million adults say in unison, “we don’t recognize your authority Judge Miles-LaGrange. You can kiss our collective ass…”?

    What would you do to stop it? Arrest us all? You can’t keep thugs from kicking in front doors right now. You think the National Guard is going to be sympathetic to your cause and shoot mommy and daddy who just voted for SQ 755 when we march up the federal court house steps? I got this great feeling the big guns are going to be turned on you.

    I hope we get a chance to put that to the test…I’m stoked! :smile: You goose steppers just keep adding gasoline to the simmering fire. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh….we”ll hang that boulder around your necks in the next election too.

  • 377. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    Tex @ 373::

    Hadn’t you heard? Iowa Supremes are subject to ballot recall, but Federal judges have lifetime appointments.

    What are you few libs left in Oklahoma going to do if 70% of Oklahomans, about 2.5 million adults say in unison, “we don’t recognize your authority Judge Miles-LaGrange. You can kiss our collective ass…”?

    Absolutely nothing. Piss into the wind all you like. Your silly ban on Sharia law will continue to be null and void.

    Perhaps it will occur to one or more of you morons to APPEAL. That is the usual next step when you don’t like a judge’s decision. Take it all the way to the United States Supreme Court if you like, assuming that any higher courts see any reason to hear an appeal of an obviously correct decision finding this abomination to be unconstitutional.

  • 378. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 6:21 pm

    Why all the violent imagery with you today? “Death throes”? The National Guard shooting people? “Big guns” turned on me? “Simmering fire”? “Boulders around” our necks?

    Someone seems not to be enjoying his “great victory” last Tuesday as much as we might expect. :D

  • 379. El Tigre  |  November 8, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    As the Wolf said in Pulp Fiction, “Well, let’s not start sucking each other’s dicks quite yet.”

    The court ruling is on a TRO — not a preliminary injunction. There has been no hearing on the merits. The quotes in the article belong to the petitioner.

    The standard for the grant of relief at this stage is extremely low. And it’s possible that the order was issued ex parte (without formal opposition) despite the comments of counsel opposing quoted in the article. The point being that its doubtful that an examination of the merits of the petition has been made.

    The hearing on the preliminary injunction barring certification pending a resolution is on November 22nd according to the article. The ruling here was probably issued because certification would occur before the hearing could be heard and perhaps render any decision moot and the alleged harm inflicted.

    So you know, a temporary restraining order (TRO) is typically issued in circumstances where immediate action is called for. Courts often issue “TRO’s” based on affidavits from a person whose interests are about to be harmed — without a determination on the merits and accepting the averments made as true.

    On the other hand, a preliminary injunction is issued only after the other side has been given an opportunity to reply and be heard, and has either consented to maintain the status quo or not made a sufficient showing to defeat the plaintiff’s claims.

    A permanent injunction is typically issued after a full trial of the merits, or on the consent or default of the other side.

    (of course, our resident legal scholar — or weathervane — surely knew this already)

    In any event R and G-chin, zip your flies.

  • 380. El Tigre  |  November 8, 2010 at 6:25 pm

    “Perhaps it will occur to one or more of you morons to APPEAL. That is the usual next step when you don’t like a judge’s decision. Take it all the way to the United States Supreme Court if you like, assuming that any higher courts see any reason to hear an appeal of an obviously correct decision finding this abomination to be unconstitutional.”

    You’ll need an appealable ruling first.

  • 381. an800lbgorilla  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:03 pm

    (DC Examiner)- Jake Tapper flags this priceless exchange from Obama’s meeting with CEOs in India. The president is talking to Spice Jet founder Bhupendra Kansagra, and it’s pretty telling glimpse into the President’s mindset:

    MR. KANSAGRA: Thank you. Welcome, Mr. President, to India. As a fellow Kenyan, I’m very proud to see that you have made

    THE PRESIDENT: Made something of myself.

    MR. KANSAGRA: — India as the focus of your drive for exports out.

  • 382. an800lbgorilla  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:07 pm

    E-G-O

  • 383. El Tigre  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    Narcissistic Personality Disorder

  • 384. Tex Taylor  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:27 pm

    Hadn’t you heard? Iowa Supremes are subject to ballot recall, but Federal judges have lifetime appointments.

    Boy Graychin, you’re even slower than I thought. Do you think I provided that nice picture of Alcee Hastings for nothing? He thought he had a “lifetime” appointment too. That’s why I used the word impeached dummy.

    Not violent by any stretch. I’m thoroughly enjoying how stupid your predictions were two years ago and in reminding you of them. You’re never right on anything. I’m was just stating you don’t carry any clout.

    Now I have secretly fantasized what it would be like to gut your fat ass, with your head mounted on my living room wall – complete with apple in mouth. :smile: I’ll admit that much.

  • 385. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:49 pm

    Yes, I thought that you provided Alcee Hastings for nothing. No allegations of impeachable behavior have been made against Miles-Lagrange.

    I can’t think of a single thing that the two have in common.

    Oh – wait…..

  • 386. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:55 pm

    (of course, our resident legal scholar — or weathervane — surely knew this already)

    Actually – I did. I know that a preliminary injunction doesn’t mean much in terms of the long-term future of the Sharia Fear amendment. I just posted that link because we had been discussing, and because I knew it would make Tex go ballistic. (Was I right about that, or what?) :D

  • 387. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:57 pm

    You’ll need an appealable ruling first.

    Tiger – It isn’t ME who will need an appealable ruling in this matter! :D

  • 388. graychin  |  November 8, 2010 at 7:59 pm

    Now I have secretly fantasized what it would be like to gut your fat ass, with your head mounted on my living room wall – complete with apple in mouth. :smile: I’ll admit that much.

    You really are a sick fuck, aren’t you?

  • 389. Tex Taylor  |  November 8, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    You really are a sick fuck, aren’t you?

    :twisted: Oh, you can’t imagine what else I’ve envisioned for your imminent demise. :twisted:

    But you’re wrong about this pissing me off – this contest is perfect. A perverted Clinton turd, stomping on a fair and contested vote in the State of Oklahoma? Surely you jest? I live for these kind of battles.

  • 390. Tex Taylor  |  November 8, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    I can’t think of a single thing that the two have in common.
    Oh – wait…..

    Of course! It’s racist! Like the election. We all acted stupidly like the Boston police.

  • 391. El Tigre  |  November 8, 2010 at 9:02 pm

    “I know that a preliminary injunction doesn’t mean much.”

    TRO, Clarence Darrow. It means even less. Its intended to maintain the status quo pending a determination on a preliminary inunction. Of course you knew that too I’m sure.

  • 392. El Tigre  |  November 8, 2010 at 9:06 pm

    “Tiger – It isn’t ME who will need an appealable ruling in this matter!”

    Yeah. You’ll have won this one. Quite a victory! Congratulations!

  • 393. dead rabbit  |  November 8, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    dude….I can’t go on with it anymore. I am Oscar.

  • 394. El Tigre  |  November 8, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    Rabbitt, we already knew.

    -Kilroy

  • 395. El Tigre  |  November 8, 2010 at 9:32 pm

    So the Olbermann thing was all for show. Who’d have guessed?

  • 396. Rutherford  |  November 8, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    Rabbit, while your impersonation of a disappointed ultra-liberal was impeccable, I just don’t buy that you could pull off Oscar. There is just NO WAY. Besides, he has a yet to be produced show of his own on BTR.

    But I have no doubt based on politics that he is your brother from another mother. :-)

  • 397. Rutherford  |  November 8, 2010 at 9:42 pm

    The “Olbermann thing” was NBC brass playing “who has the bigger dick.”

    Some folks never get out of high school.

  • 398. dead rabbit  |  November 8, 2010 at 9:46 pm

    Yeah, my BTR gig was a nice touch.

  • 399. an800lbgorilla  |  November 8, 2010 at 9:53 pm

    Really, so the fact that he, who claims to be a journalist, donated to candidates he interveiwed on his show has no impact on his abilitity to objectively analyze the situation.

    If it wasn’t for double standards, the left wouldn’t have any standards…

  • 400. Tex Taylor  |  November 8, 2010 at 10:42 pm

    “Grief Counselors” Visit The Offices Of Emotionally Distraught Congressional Democrats

    http://www.businessinsider.com/grief-counselors-visit-the-offices-of-emotionally-distraught-congressional-democrats-2010-11

    Good Lawd this political party is pathetic. ** GUFFAW **

  • 401. an800lbgorilla  |  November 8, 2010 at 11:05 pm

    New thread R…

  • 402. an800lbgorilla  |  November 8, 2010 at 11:11 pm

    Top Gear is in rare form this evening. Dear God that bike was awesome, if not awkward…

  • 403. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 8, 2010 at 11:14 pm

    I see American federalism as having evolved and adapted to a world changing at a rapid and accelerating rate. As we have discussed before, I believe that the Constitution is, and must be, a living document and not a dead letter.

    American “federalism” is shrinking on an almost daily basis, and would be virtually unrecognizable to the men who tried to secure it when they drafted the Constitution.

    I never said that the Constitution is a dead letter; on the contrary, it outlines the division of power among the branches of the federal government, and the federal government and the 57 states, and reserves all others to the citizens themselves.

    I have been negligent in failing to call bullshit before now on your characterization of the Declaration of Independence as the “charter” and the Constitution as the “bylaws.” The Constitution is the law of the land – not the Declaration. You don’t put a litany of King George’s abuses in a proper charter. The Declaration remains what it always was – a Declaration of Independence.

    You contemplate something from ignorance , and announce it the world yet again. A charter is a grant from authority that brings an enitity into being. It does not direct the governance of the entity. The modern-day equivalent would be a corporation’s articles of incorporation. The Constitution, like corporate bylaws, set forth the rules for the governance of the entity, including who is to do what, and in what fashion, and like bylaws, the method for changing them is by amendment, according to the processes set forth in the bylaws. As for whether or not it is a “proper charter”, the answer is there is nothing from presenting other information in such a document; indeed I have had clients who also wanted to state other information other that that which is necessary for the Articles to be operative. As I have stated, it is a charter like no other, but the United States of America came into being with the execution of that document.

    Here is a real question for you, not an argumentative one: Is the Declaration cited very often in cases involving constitutional law? If not, why?

    “Often” is a term you do not define, however, there are over 100 US Supreme Court cases which cite the Declaration of Independence. However, this is my favorite:

    http://www.historycentral.com/amistad/amistad.html

    Do we need to all chip in to get you instruction on how to use a search engine?

    …KOStards or Butch Maddow…

    I hate to see you sinking to the level of Tex Taylor. The more name-calling, the weaker the argument. Can’t you do better than that?

    Please. Markos shills for whichever lefty “interest group” is willing to keep him in lattes and Levis, and things like this demonstrate why Butch Maddow has zero cred with anyone sporting more than three functioning braincells:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txjXBx9-2c0&feature=player_embedded

    THAT’S rank hypocrisy you can smell before you even have the bitter morsels pass your lips.

  • 404. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 8, 2010 at 11:33 pm

    In a more integrated and interdependent society than existed in the horse-and-buggy days of 1789, more and more matters inevitably will have crept into the realm of “interstate commerce.” But again, it is utter nonsense for you to try (in the face of 100 years of legal precedent to the contrary) to redefine “interstate commerce” out of existence as a solution to your dislike of the “plain language” of the Commerce Clause.

    I’m sorry, I don’t find wishcasting and ignorance to be very convincing. And the fundamental weakness in your whole evolving bullshit argument is that if all it takes is someone to decide that something should actually be interpreted and applied more broadly than its drafters intended (and again, you would understand this better if you truly understood that federalism means that the Federal government is not the first and last word on what ever it decides it is), then we are no longer a nation of laws. The implication of what you advocate for should really disturb you if you are the staunch defender of civil liberties that you pretend to be.

    Quit arguing from ignorance. Read the actual decision in Wickard v. Filburn, not a summary, the actual decision…read that and tell us how it makes sense…look at it critically through your “defender of civil liberties” glasses and justify, clearly, and cogently how that result makes ANY sense at all.

  • 405. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 8, 2010 at 11:39 pm

    While I disagree with 90% or so of what Cathy (on BiW’s blog) has to say, the old fashioned part of me stops me from calling her an ugly whore who can’t find a man, etc. etc. I’ve even resisted the urge of telling her she reminds me of Peggy Noonan, which is not a compliment.

    And then there is the fact that Cathy can and does make intelligent arguments about the topic at hand, rather than whining, and appealing to the blog owner to censor someone who says things she doesn’t like.

    Well, that and the fact that if her husband wouldn’t defend her honor, she’s perfectly capable of doing it herself. Six. Tightly grouped. Center mass. Not that she’d ever resort to that. She’s perfectly capable of eating your lunch in a debate any day of the week.

  • 406. Rutherford  |  November 9, 2010 at 12:14 am

    BiW, mmmmm good video on MSNBC “fundraising”. You conveniently focus on Maddow’s assertion that MSNBC is news while Fox is a political org. You ignore the bigger point she was making (which is actually reinforced by your video) that Olbermann did nothing unusual when compared to Fox news … AND as your video points out … when compared to even MSNBC.

    Look, anyone who says MSNBC is not biased is smoking dope. However I will maintain to my last breath that the percentage of truth one gets from a night of lib MSNBC shows is higher than that of Fox.

  • 407. an800lbgorilla  |  November 9, 2010 at 12:21 am

  • 408. an800lbgorilla  |  November 9, 2010 at 12:22 am

    Prove it.

  • 409. Rutherford  |  November 9, 2010 at 12:27 am

    LOL BiW one of the reasons I maintain a small modicum of anonymity is to protect myself from Annie Oakley’s like Cathy, but then in all seriousness, I don’t think she is anywhere near unglued enough to take advantage of 2nd amendment remedies. ;-)

    While Cathy doesn’t call on the blog owner to censor, she actually does take offense rather easily. I barely got a word out of my mouth in our last exchange without being accused of condescension …. at least I think that was the accusation. That’s fine.One thing I like about Cathy is she is a defined personalty. No subterfuge there. I can choose to debate or not, but I do know what I’m getting into.

    As for Fakename2, I don’t recall any request from her to censor. She just wondered how I tolerate some of the more locker-room moments on this board. Everyone’s got different tolerance levels. I no more fault her for hers than I fault those with a thicker skin.

    I think FN and Sensico demonstrate why we call them the fairer sex. I’d actually welcome an acid tongued lib chick to come in here and shake things up a bit. I can always hope.

  • 410. an800lbgorilla  |  November 9, 2010 at 12:28 am

    Sensico was/is a fucking idiot. Please…

  • 411. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 9, 2010 at 12:35 am

    Look, anyone who says MSNBC is not biased is smoking dope. However I will maintain to my last breath that the percentage of truth one gets from a night of lib MSNBC shows is higher than that of Fox.

    I’d offer you a cigarette, but you wouldn’t have enough breath to take a drag.

  • 412. Rutherford  |  November 9, 2010 at 12:37 am

    Ah G I see you’re in rare form tonight. I must admit the juicemedia clip (while dated) was a lot of fun. I corrected the embed for you so folks can enjoy it without leaving the page. :-)

  • 413. an800lbgorilla  |  November 9, 2010 at 12:39 am

    BiW, he has an amazing gag reflex though…

  • 414. an800lbgorilla  |  November 9, 2010 at 12:39 am

    Thanks R.
    ;)

  • 415. Rutherford  |  November 9, 2010 at 12:45 am

    I assume “Prove it” was in reference to MSNBC’s batting average on fact vs Fox. Well obviously hard to prove but the most recent anecdotal evidence is Fox promulgating the foolishness about “Obama’s wasteful trip to India”. This is not a one-off for Fox. Fox on a regular basis gins up non-stories for the benefit of the ill-informed.

    I understand folks turning to IBD or National Review for a conservative viewpoint, but Fox is a political “National Enquirer”, often just plain embarrassing.

    I also find it very unfair to call a college kid a “f*cking idiot”. I would not expect the average college kid to be able to handle the likes of the RL Blog regulars. I give Sensico loads of credit for just showing up here and I love the fact that she’s not the least bit unnerved by the gang. I wish she would visit more often.

  • 416. Rutherford  |  November 9, 2010 at 12:48 am

    BiW, he has an amazing gag reflex though…

    G, shame on you telling our little secrets outside of school. :oops:

  • 417. an800lbgorilla  |  November 9, 2010 at 12:55 am

    Since I am, according to you on the left, a Tea Bagger, and in light of R’s fantastical extracurricular daydreams, what does that make you R?

    I was a sailor, a sailor who sailed the Far East. I can take this down, pardon the pun, channels you might not appreciate.
    ;)

  • 418. El Tigre  |  November 9, 2010 at 9:10 am

    If you think Fox or any other network is more biased than MSNBC you’re delusional. Like Tex, I tune into MSNBC to laugh when the left is in a fix. Chris Matthews with Bachman was priceless.

    R, bias comes from what is not reported as much as what is. Nobody here needs to locate clips from when Bush was in office to see how journ-o-lis-tic MSNBC really is. Stop the hilarity.

    So, Maddow was just pointing out that what Fox does is okay so it should be for Olbermann and MSNBC too? Really? That’s like justifying Obama’s unprecedented spending by looking to the Bush adminsitration’s spending. . . . wait a minute. . . (Sometimes at marvel at the powers of rationalization).

  • 419. El Tigre  |  November 9, 2010 at 9:27 am

    BTW, my all time favorite: “Until the lazy selfish bastards stop texting their BFF’s while watching the latest installment of “Jersey Shore” and get out and do their civic duty by voting, they can choke on my debt.”

    Yeah. That’ll show the bastards that didn’t come out in droves to support more debt being heaped on. Let’m have it R. Punish thse whiny little bastards to show the right how compassionate you are.

    Do you think the little dipshits might have been let down by the big dipshits? Perhaps the left should consider some introspection. . . Just kidding. That’d be the mature thing to do. Back to Maddow and the tired name calling and attacks on Fox.

    Actually R, notwithstanding what I said here, this post does make a pass at introspection (half-assed as it might be). What gives with Mr. Hyde thing on your tweets and Blog Radio program?

  • 420. Tex Taylor  |  November 9, 2010 at 10:45 am

    Rutherford, I’ve never witnessed such a combination of gifted and naivety in all my life.

    Fake has done everything in her feeble power to have both you and Hippie ban me. When someone comes in time after time and makes the “suggestion” that you should not be tolerating my type, what do you think this nag is requesting? Good grief man!

    P.S. – I put that to the test the other day at her blog to congratulate her on her “successes” concerning Floridian politics. I was even nice, respectful, quoted facts, and incognito. No vulgarity, no nastiness – just a criticism of Obama policies. Stricken from history. :lol: Did it out of curiosity to put my theory of her phenomenal weakness to the test.

    She’s lame Rutherford. Not even cringe worthy…not dumb like Sensico – but incredibly weak.

  • 421. graychin  |  November 9, 2010 at 10:47 am

    “Until the lazy selfish bastards stop texting their BFF’s while watching the latest installment of “Jersey Shore” and get out and do their civic duty by voting, they can choke on my debt.”

    I thought that was one of Rutherford’s best lines ever.

    Why DON’T younger people vote in higher numbers? I have rarely if ever missed an election since I was 21, and I would have voted at 18 if I could have back then. After all, younger people will be around a lot longer to suffer/enjoy the consequences of elections than we middle-aged/older people will.

  • 422. El Tigre  |  November 9, 2010 at 10:54 am

    “Why DON’T younger people vote in higher numbers?”

    After the dipshit that got elected proved to be exactly what anyone with a brais would’ve predicted, I doubt the “lazy selfish bastards” will ever return.

    You guys kill me. Pretending to scratch your heads as to why Tuesday went the way it did.

    WWOD?

  • 423. graychin  |  November 9, 2010 at 10:55 am

    As for the accuracy of Faux News, Joe Manchin of West Virginla is NOT switching parties.

    Additionally, a Senate Republican leadership aide said GOP leaders made no such offer. Manchin and the Senate GOP aide were reacting to a FoxNews.com story posted earlier in the day. The report indicated that leaders were trying to entice Manchin to switch parties by offering sweeteners, such as support for favored legislation, and that he was considering the offer.

    http://www.rollcall.com/news/-200356-1.html

  • 424. El Tigre  |  November 9, 2010 at 10:58 am

    Now that I think about it, it’s becuase the lazy selfish bastards are racists and bigots too. You should accuse them of it. There’s no other explanation.

  • 425. Tex Taylor  |  November 9, 2010 at 11:06 am

    De Facto Shariah Law in America

    Sharia creep in the U.S….and I have a much bigger laundry list than this lady mentions.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/de_facto_shariah_law_in_americ.html

    And Rutherford, I do hope you’ve seen the You Tube Video that busts Butch Madcow for false advertisement concerning FOX News. Exposed as both liar and fool again. :wink:

  • 426. El Tigre  |  November 9, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    Ahhhh, Rabbit, now I see:

    http://imstilloscar.com/

  • 427. Tex Taylor  |  November 9, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    Little Johnny is back

    HOW TO SELL TOOTHBRUSHES

    The kids filed back into class Monday morning. They were very excited. Their weekend assignment was to sell something, then give a talk on productive salesmanship.

    Little Sally led off: “I sold girl scout cookies and I made $30,” she said proudly, “My sales approach was to appeal to the customer’s civil spirit and I credit that approach for my obvious success.”

    “Very good,” said the teacher.

    Little Jenny was next:

    “I sold magazines,” she said, “I made $45 and I explained to everyone that magazines would keep them up on current events.”

    “Very good, Jenny,” said the teacher..

    Eventually, it was Little Johnny’s turn.

    The teacher held her breath …

    Little Johnny walked to the front of the classroom and dumped a box full of cash on the teacher’s desk. “$2,467,” he said.

    “$2,467!” cried the teacher, “What in the world were you selling?”

    “Toothbrushes,” said Little Johnny.

    “Toothbrushes!” echoed the teacher, “How could you possibly sell enough tooth brushes to make that much money?”

    “I found the busiest corner in town,” said Little Johnny, “I set up a Dip & Chip stand and gave everybody who walked by a free sample.”

    They all said the same thing, “Hey, this tastes like dog shit!”

    Then I would say, “It is dog shit. Wanna buy a toothbrush?”

    I used the governmental approach of giving you something shitty for free, and then making you pay to get the taste out of your mouth.”

  • 428. Rutherford  |  November 9, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    And Rutherford, I do hope you’ve seen the You Tube Video that busts Butch Madcow for false advertisement concerning FOX News.

    Addressed this already … see #406.

  • 429. Rutherford  |  November 9, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    Amusing Little Johnny story.

    As for American Thinker … LOL I gag every time I type that name. Has there ever been a more ironically named publication? :lol:

    Tex there is a simple answer to the problem posed in the AmerThinker article and John Lennon said it quite succinctly:

    “And no religion too.” — “Imagine”, John Lennon.

  • 430. Rutherford  |  November 9, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    Tigre, had young voters turned out in large numbers and voted GOP, then I would have had an entirely different bone to pick with them, but what angers me more than their voting GOP is their not voting at all.

    So you’re disappointed with Obama? Then get off your ass and do something about it. 2010 proved one thing … that youth did not vote for Obama out of any true political conviction. It was American Idol, nothing more nothing less. And THAT is disgusting.

  • 431. Tex Taylor  |  November 9, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    However I will maintain to my last breath that the percentage of truth one gets from a night of lib MSNBC shows is higher than that of Fox…

    failing to recognize 80% of America doesn’t agree with me.

  • 432. Rutherford  |  November 9, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    2010 proved one thing … that youth in 2008 did not vote for Obama out of any true political conviction.

    Corrected it.

  • 433. Tex Taylor  |  November 9, 2010 at 4:42 pm

    Tex there is a simple answer to the problem posed in the AmerThinker article and John Lennon said it quite succinctly:

    “And no religion too.” — “Imagine”, John Lennon.

    John is dead, his fate determined. He forgot to wish “and no death too.” :wink:

  • 434. Tex Taylor  |  November 9, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    Rutherford, you are right. The youth Obama vote in 2008 was not based on logic, reason or beauty. There was no rhyme or reason for the vote. Libs like Grayson Graychin have always misunderstood that.

    American Idol, it was. ~ yoda

  • 435. El Tigre  |  November 9, 2010 at 7:15 pm

    R @ 430, I know you see the paradox in what you wrote. I know you do. Bummed out that the reason Obama was elected in the first place was superficial, and your angry it wasn’t done again for the same reasons. Useful idiots, huh? Even they let you down.

    Bummer. No one got their pony or free trip to Disney. Obama just ain’t cool anymore. Kinda dorky really.

    Or it could be latent racism. . .

  • 436. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  November 9, 2010 at 8:44 pm

    2010 proved one thing … that youth did not vote for Obama out of any true political conviction.

    And that is being young and dumb will no longer justify belief in Skittle-shitting unicorns, and no Jedi mind trick will convince them that this is the Hopenchange they were voting for.

  • 437. Tex Taylor  |  November 9, 2010 at 9:17 pm

    Here’s one of the dumbest of bricks that appears on “FAUX” News often. I think O’Reilly brings him on so we can laugh at his leftist stupidity. By the way, using Hill’s logic, doesn’t this immediately rule out Stump Clinton too? She looked like a damn pumpkin in a picture I saw this morning.

    http://www.breitbart.tv/marc-lamont-hill-christie-too-fat-to-get-elected-president/

  • 438. Tex Taylor  |  November 9, 2010 at 9:25 pm

    Looks like ACORN opened up under new name:

    http://www.n2nma.org/

    Calls for massive voter fraud in Massachusetts. I suspect the same thing was happening in Nevada too.

    If they can’t stuff the ballot box, they can’t win. Really as simple as that.

  • 439. Tex Taylor  |  November 9, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    Best cartoon I’ve seen in weeks – makes Bruce Plante look like a rank amateur, hey Grayson? But then any sixth grade artist can do the same.

    The GOPFather

  • 440. El Tigre  |  November 9, 2010 at 10:46 pm

    “Skittle-shitting unicorns.” LMAO.

    R, looks like they’re catching on:

  • 441. Tex Taylor  |  November 9, 2010 at 11:06 pm

    Tigre,
    :lol: Where did you find that? I’m with the kids.

    I’ve now been to DisneyWorld four times (and enjoyed it once).

    DisneyLand is 3rd world…I got propositioned for cocaine and fake Rolex watches in the parking lot. What a POS…

    And the only ride we could get on was “It’s a Small World” as the lines miles long and the body funk rancid. It was 97 degrees outside. I bet we rode Small World 10 times (my children were 3 and 5). It took years to get that tune out of my head.

    Da Da Da De Da, Da Da Da De Da, Da Da Da De Da, De, Da, Da, Da, Da, Da Da Da De Da, Da Da Da,….over and over and over again. Twirl around, and start the tune over.

  • 442. an800lbgorilla  |  November 9, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    You fucking prick… da da da de da…

  • 443. Rutherford  |  November 9, 2010 at 11:19 pm

    Regarding #439, Tex you can thank me for the embed (something I actually learned over at Gray’s blog :-) ) Unfortunately, you guys can’t do it but I can with some WordPress host magic. In the future, if time allows, if I notice you guys link to an image, I’ll try to go in and edit it for embedding. :-)

    P.S. The cartoon is clever.

  • 444. Rutherford  |  November 9, 2010 at 11:24 pm

    Tigre, I sure hope they aren’t relatives of yours cos that looks like the dysfunctional family from hell. I couldn’t even figure out the gender of the “hooded” one. :-)

  • 445. Rutherford  |  November 9, 2010 at 11:28 pm

    Here you go G …. this should help get it out of your head. One of the Coop’s best of all time!!!

  • 446. El Tigre  |  November 9, 2010 at 11:32 pm

    It was emailed to me.

    Actually, I love Disney World. Never went as kid, and reluctantly went as an adult. Had a great time (drinking my way around the world at Epcot mostly). I think the water parks kick ass. Now that it’s within driving distance I’ve been with my kids twice. Never been anywhere other than casino that does a better job of separating you from your money.

    I kind of felt for the mom. But hell, maybe it was cruel trick. Dick’s house might really be the shit.

    10 times? I was suicidal after one trip on that small world ride.

    Fake rolex, cocaine and Disney. Ahhh. The tri-fecta of losing track of time and money.

  • 447. El Tigre  |  November 9, 2010 at 11:53 pm

    R, if I had relatives that lookied like that, I’d damn sure never admit it. You got the little girl learning to count money. She’ll have a promising career as stripper later in life. Mohawk boy? Lookout Deniro. Once he learns to run a handgun on a slide under his shirt sleeve, Jodie Foster ought to just lay low. As for the “hooded one,” the day he comes knockin’ at your door I know he’ll be carrying a sickle.

    Mercifully mom didn’t turn the camera on herself.

  • 448. Tex Taylor  |  November 10, 2010 at 12:15 am

    Gorilla,

    I’ve gotten incredibly bored in the evenings and just for grins, I turned on the incomparable horse’s ass Queef Olbermann.

    And he’s got some ugly chick with a gap in her front teeth that would allow her to eat apples through a picket fence.

    And she just made this statement of “fact.” She said, “How does Obama’s terrorist policy stacked up? Queef, Obama has killed more Al-Queda with drone strikes in the last 18 months than George Bush’s strategy killed Al-Queda in his last four years.”

    And I got to thinking, WTF? The surge was during the last four years of the Bush Administration. Do we have thousands of Drones reigning hell fire from the skies daily and we’re not hearing anything about it, or is this gap-toothed hag lying thru her teeth?

  • 449. Tex Taylor  |  November 10, 2010 at 12:40 am

    Looks like America doesn’t have a monopoly on PC. Good grief…

    City’s anti-racism campaign fights ‘white privilege’

    http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmonton/2010/11/07/16019641.html#/news/edmonton/2010/11/07/pf-16019641.html

  • 450. an800lbgorilla  |  November 10, 2010 at 12:43 am

    I suppose it could be splitting hairs, but insurgents generally are not considered terrorists, so the volume of enemy combatants killed in Iraq and Afgfhanistan would not technically count. However, I think she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about for a couple of reasons.

    The success of the surge freed up assets, which were then diverted to Afghanistan. It takes time to develop the environment that can support CT ops. Those efforts began before Obama came into office, so he’s enjoying the fruits of what the previous administration set in motion.

    Yeah, in a relative sense, we’re killing more bad guys associated with historical al-Qaeda networks, but we’ve been just as active in targeting the franchise organizations.

    There’s one exception- al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). This reformed in Yemen a few years ago and wasn’t at the forefront of CT ops. Well, now it is, and it has come to being predominantly on Obama’s watch- Ft. Hood shooting, Christmas Day bombing and now the Yemeni Mail Bombs. From a pure Obama approach to CT, this is about a clean a slate for measurement as you can get.

  • 451. Tex Taylor  |  November 10, 2010 at 12:58 am

    Thanks Gorilla. I heard that and thought this is more lib dreaming.

    Speaking of libs, some of them are so distraught over last Tuesday night’s election, they are calling for this:

    Ted Rall Calls for Armed Socialist Revolution

    Buwahahahahahahaha…

    Ted Rall? The dork Ted Rall? That weasel couldn’t hold a gun. I hope he picks me as the first target. I’ll take advantage of the “Make My Day” law that we’ve got here in Oklahoma. :wink:

  • 452. an800lbgorilla  |  November 10, 2010 at 1:12 am

    Did you see Madow and Schultz jerk each other off earlier? The epitome of the blind leading the blind. I can only pray that the Dems actually listen to these idiots…

  • 453. Rutherford  |  November 10, 2010 at 1:27 am

    All I can say Tex is keep watching Olbermann …. you might actually learn something. ;-)

    New thread gang!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


November 2010
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  
Bookmark and Share

Categories

Rutherford on Twitter

  • Eh @MajorCBS why did u let Peter King off the hook? Congress did NOT authorize action in Syria. They let Obama twist in the wind 1 hour ago
  • LOL @cptime Clarence, I noticed your Twitter handle on "Up" yesterday and did a double take. U gave me my laugh 4 the day. Thank u 17 hours ago
  • Note to NYC police: maybe it's time to stop roughing up the disabled and obese? You've killed two unarmed fat guys recently. Enough? 1 day ago
  • Would you please stop the friggin music during Mika's newscast? What's wrong with u people? @Morning_Joe 3 days ago
  • Eh @JoeNBC Saddam and Osama don't belong in same sentence. Saddam was despot not terrorist 4 days ago

The Rutherford Lawson Blog is a member of

WordPress Political Blogger

My Sister Site

Town Called Dobson Daily Preview
AddThis Feed Button
http://www.blog4mobile.com/

Recent BlogCatalog Readers

View My Profile View My Profile View My Profile

Archives


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 711 other followers

%d bloggers like this: