SuperJerk

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/09/kat...e.ap/index.html I wish we'd known about this 5 years ago.

Bitching about other religions getting equal treatment is a great way to start a thread! If your name is MrRant....

I'm confused by the "not what he wanted out of the segment" comment, since the only reason Torrie's on TV is to grab the attention of channel surfers by wearing outifts that show off her body. Did the segment not do that?

Wait a second... Um... ...What????

Not always true, sometimes conservatism fucks over all but the very rich. But yeah, by and large, it looks out for the middle class. I don't know if I'd throw white or male in all the time, though. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I thought I covered my ass by using the words "tends to".

Well who the fuck doesn't like THAT?

Interesting point, but I think the President probably believes that having two consecutive African-American Secretaries of State insulates him from any and all criticism on the issue of race. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bush isn't the only one who thinks that. Appointing an African-American to a prominent position is the political equivalent of saying "some of my best friends are black".

From the sound of things, my decision to drop Raw still seems like a good one.

Get over it. We're the wave of the future. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Doing something that has been done for decades is the 'wave of the future'? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Indeed. As a philosophy, conservatism exists primarily as a justification for prolonging the existing power structure. That is not to say they are always wrong, but tend to be skeptical of any ideas that would shift the power structure. Where conservatives get is right is when they defend something that is done right and should not be changed, or when they demonstrate how things were done better at some point in the past. Conservatives get it wrong when they simply defend something that doesn't work because it promotes their own interests. This board is composed mainly of middle class white males. Conservatism, although not actually a racist philosophy, tends to protect the interests of middle class white males. Hence the prominence of conservatives and their ideals on this board. Some of the people on this board who appear to be conservative would be more accurately be described as libertarian. Libertarians hold fast to a philosophy of government non-interference. This is similar to conservatism because it protects the existing power structure, but differs in areas of greater emphasis on civil liberties over the so-called "common good".

Hurricane Helms needs new theme music by Katrina and the Waves.

Where have you been? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not watching UPN. By "Publicity" I meant entertainment media coverage, not paid advertising.

http://www.factcheck.org/article344.html

Because comics should only appeal to ten year olds of the 1960s? Those characters he mentioned were ridicules ideas that just don't work here in 2005.

I think people were hoping for someone a little more...fair-minded.

That's because the dumbass you were arguing with typed Stevens when he meant to type Souter. Also, TheAntoninDC>>>>>>my light bulb joke >>>>>Czech's light bulb joke that made no sense. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/05/rob...tion/index.html The fuck?

Changing the subject... Here's a fun read: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167240,00.html Bush authorized FEMA to act over a week ago.

Here's another one: How many strict constructionists does it take to change a light bulb? The Constitution does not address the changing of lightbulbs, and because there were no lightbulbs in 1789, we have no power to act on this matter.

Scalia's philosphy can be be summed up with a quote from "America: the Book":

I'm waiting <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You were waiting for...? FYI: "Sacred bond" was term made up by Czech. I used the more-accurate term "cultural bond", which absolutely does exist amongst most African-Americans due to a shared cultural history and similar experiences.

Fuck the looters. I just want them to be sure and shoot the rapists and the snipers.

It looks like he's praying for constipation relief.

I don't see anywhere in the article where Gonzales suggests porn is a bigger threat than terrorism.

Stop to consider how many Republican Senators there are who are far more liberal than the Bush Administration. The Senate Republicans are NOT a solid unit of conservatives ideologues, and many would have no problem voting to confirm someone who isn't as conservative as Scalia or even Thomas. Yes, many conservatives hate him, but conservatives do not make up a majority of the Senate.

Do you not get that racial discrimination still happens today? I'm not accusing you of doing it, but generations of powerful whites HAVE done it, and continue to do it. That's a good point. There are plenty of examples of other black people besides Kayne West who are willing to excuse criminal activity because the accused is black. An unfortunate side effect of being held down by the white establishment for 400 years is refusing to trust the white establishment even when it is doing the right thing. I've never said I agree with West's comments (because I certainly do not), but I understand why he said it.

Stevens or Kennedy? Riiight. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What part of "my money's on Scalia" did you not fucking understand? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ahem... FUCK YOU. My belief is that Stevens and Kennedy have ZERO chance of even getting nominated, let alone accepted. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well then your belief is wrong. In no way do two long-serving Associate Justices have "zero chance" of being confirmed by the Senate. I'll admit the chances of them being nominated are unlikely, but their confirmation would be easier than Scalia or Thomas, who are lightning-rods of controversy. Especially considering both Stevens and Kennedy were appointed by Republican presidents. First you contradict me for something I didn't say, now you're showing your apparently VAST ignorance by completely overlooking the qualifications of two Justices who are respected moderates. That's pretty pathetic reasoning.