August 16, 2006
Bravo, Nicole Kidman!
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
h/t Wizbang
Posted by: annika at
08:26 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"We need to support democratic societies and stop terrorism at all costs."
Common sense statements like this are going to get her uninvited to the Left-wing Hollywood cocktail circuit.
Posted by: Blu at August 16, 2006 10:44 PM (K0h0f)
2
The partial list of those signing this shocked the hell out of me. I'd like to see the complete list.
Posted by: TBinSTL at August 17, 2006 02:19 AM (bYmT0)
3
You think this could get any one of these airheads to say something nice about George Bush and his steadfast support of Israel?
Nah.
Posted by: shelly at August 17, 2006 04:21 AM (ZGpMS)
4
Well that's certainly refreshing, isn't it?
Posted by: Rob at August 17, 2006 05:30 AM (9DumO)
5
In related news, the ACLU managed to handpick some federal judge that ruled that Wiretapping Progam "unconstitutional."
"At all costs" except,however, when it offends the sensibilities of liberals who think all Americans should be able to have contact with AQ and other terrorist organizations.
Liberals are hazardous to our health and will get people killed.
Posted by: Blu at August 17, 2006 09:47 AM (j8oa6)
6
More on the judge who made this silly ruling.
Her name is Anna Diggs Taylor. Yeah, you guessed it: A Carter appointee, which is almost enough said. It gets better; she an affirmative action selection. Diggs Taylor is a black female, who also is part of the "Gender and Racial Ethnic Fairness Task Forces for the Sixth Circuit." Well, isn't that nice. What-fucking-ever. Hopefully, the Bushies will appeal, and this will get to the Supreme Court where hopefully the adults can rule correctly - that is if Kennedy can manage to find his cajones.
Posted by: Blu at August 17, 2006 10:04 AM (j8oa6)
7
Actually, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will review this priro to the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Blu at August 17, 2006 11:33 AM (j8oa6)
8
They pick them by filing a bunch of cases and then dismissing the ones that go to tough judges...old trick, but it keeps working.
Posted by: shelly at August 17, 2006 01:35 PM (vFS/o)
9
If the ACLU didn't do something that I liked once or twice every decade, I might actually dislike them more than the NAA(L)CP.
Posted by: Blu at August 17, 2006 01:57 PM (j8oa6)
10
HH has a great post on this topic: http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/4ed4fdfe-7b5b-444c-9f92-06b57e5e9eeb
He also rightly points out what an embarrassment Jimmy Carter (past and present) is.
Posted by: Blu at August 17, 2006 05:42 PM (K0h0f)
11
Maybe this will make it popular to be patriotic again??? Wouldn't that be nice! ha!
Posted by: beth at August 17, 2006 08:16 PM (X6tm3)
12
Blu,
All they have to do is get a warrant from some hand picked reactioary ignorant slug of a affirmative action (RW style) Bush appointee so what's the fucking problem? To call those who oppose what may be unconstitutional behavior soft on "Terror" is puerile pandering. Blu, unlike you, there are fine people in this country who don't bow to the god of "expediency and the consequences be damned if you save my sorry as from those who hate me and envy my freedoms!". Your moment in history Blu, mine as well, is but a fleeting gnat crap of time.
Posted by: strawman at August 18, 2006 07:57 AM (tuy00)
13
Straw,
All that you said may be true, but she is just wrong on the law. Read the post that I linked. It definitely editorilizes, but it also goes into the case law relevant to this issue. (I think that we've had this specific discussion before.) This judge (like many liberals judges)ignores precedent and the Constitution. Her opinion is basically...well her opinion...sans Constitutional justification or precedent.
I can see where you are coming from - this is one of those issues where I don't think the people who disagree with me are totally crazy. I just think they are wrong.
Now, the issue of affirmative action judges....ahh fuck it. That's along discussion....
Posted by: Blu at August 18, 2006 10:54 AM (K0h0f)
14
Blu,
Even if the case law supports it, it is wrong. Its like free speech; protects almost all that you can utter but there is still plenty you should never say. (others have said this with more grace but you get the gist.)
Posted by: strawman at August 18, 2006 01:28 PM (tuy00)
17kb generated in CPU 0.0201, elapsed 0.0683 seconds.
61 queries taking 0.0576 seconds, 145 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
61 queries taking 0.0576 seconds, 145 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
