newest nominee for the SCFollow

Angry? Hell, that's dinner table conversation where I come from. I would never use "****" in an angry sentence.

I am no one. But I bet I'm closer than you would like to admit. Besides, after doing a little reading and seeing your little anti-war post whining about a deployment, I've changed my mind. You're worse than the pre-pubes we get in here. You take the cash from the G in peace time, with his cushy little military job and no threat of war, then ***** about him having to serve his time when the note comes due. Pathetic. At least the pre-pubes have a reason to be ignorant c'unts. You choose to be this way.

Again, who are you to say why my husband is or isn't in the military. I was not complaining about a deployment, I was complaining about a deployment back to back, and in particular choosing my husband when there are people around who want to go who have more time left in and who are not married. I think that what this war is doing to families is crap (what any war does to families is crap), and that people who are not around the military don't fully understand that. If the government is going to do this to people, they had better have a good excuse. They don't.

And honestly? If they would let him go today, we would jump on it. Even without the threat of deployment in December.

I may not know everything there is to know about politics, but my head is not buried in the sand and I am not an idiot. However, I do not want to further hijack this discussion about the SC to argue with you, because more than likely it will just go nowhere.

Nope, and nor will you. The thing about confirmation hearings is they can't comment on cases that may come up. We won't know how she stands till she starts hearing cases: if she's confirmed.

Well, then, seriously, what's the frickin point? They're able to test someone's judgment based on past actions alone? She's never been a judge before! We might as well get Tommy Lasorda in there; he's better looking.

Isn't that the same way that cheney got to be VP?

Yes. It comes from all our empty heads.

She gave $1,000 to Al Gore's campaign in 1988. The conservatives are fairly upset with the nomination. It's either brilliant acting, feigning disappointment, or perhaps the Republicans will vote to not confirm along with the Democrats. It's all in all a very politically savy nomination, Texas Hold 'Em style. Miers on the flop. But who knows what would come down the river or what Bush has face down. The interesting questions are: 1.) Are the Democrats stupid enough to filibuster her? ["the nuclear option" would almost certainly be used on a second nomination after a filibuster] 2) Was she smart enough to hide her political views for the majority of her life?/Does Bush know them well enough?

Odds are she gets more votes then the recent Chief Justice Roberts did. It's just gonna be awhile before we know if she's moderate swing like Connors, a moderate push to the right, or a big push to the right. Only then will we know if a weak Bush pushed a weak (to the right) nominee or a slick Bush played a brilliant poker hand. I say Advantage Bush for the simple fact he's won so often by being underestimated by the Left.

Prediction: Confirmed 92-8.

and here I thought Bush was finding his picks in the zoo.

Well the fundamental problem is too few believe in freedom anymore.
The Left are all socialists who want the government to run the economy, take over health care, redistribute 100% of everyone's income, etc. The Right want to impose their values on everyone, ban abortion, fight wars on drugs and terrorism, etc.

"Live and let live" is dead. The simple fact is it's nobody's business if a woman wants to take a morning after pill just as it's nobody's business how much money one makes. The hypocricy is absurd all around on both sides.

The Left has failed to see the consequences of advocating government compliance spies in the workplace deducting taxes from your paychecks; than they sure as hell can do the same thing in the bedroom. Don't force people who are morally opposed to gay sexuality let alone gay marriage to subsidize it by making gay marriage benefits paid for by taxes. That's just as bad as putting anti-sodomy laws back on the books. End taxpayer subsidation for all marriage, period. Stop the silly moralization of being opposed to using force to fight terrorism in the middle east while simultaneously having no compunction using force to take through taxation etc. from your neighbors' at home. And that's exactly what is smelled by the general electorate every time the left uses the word "poor".

But no, the government prints dollar bills at will, spends with no restraint, is constantly looking for more, more, more, benefits big business through monopoly patent and copyright grants which make small minorities wealthy while the vast majority are worse off than they otherwise would be. Those that want their kids to get a religious education cannot do so because their means of doing so are taxed away to pay for public schools. If the government can force you to pay for a public school system than the government can forcefully decide what exactly will be taught in that system. Don't complain if bible textbooks become part of the curriculum replacing the theory of evolution if you are in favor of a public school system in the first place.

It's up to everyone: do you want a society where action is voluntary or a society where action is involuntary? Free trade is voluntary. Taxation is involuntary. Consensual sex is voluntary. Rape is involuntary. It's that clear cut. It's that simple. A society that criminalizes non compliant taxation is just as egregious as one that criminalizes sodomy, or being Jewish, or whatever. Everybody needs to get the &#^# out of everybody elses wallets and bedrooms. And that's it.

But if you agreed with that, you'd be a Libertarian, and not an enemy of freedom like both the Republicans and Democrats are.

Illogic...overload....brain...bleeding.

Taxation is on par with rape. Who knew?