But they’d happily detain an American President for waterboarding a known terrorist to save innocent lives:
George Bush could face arrest abroad after his frank admissions on waterboarding, generic viagra cialis a leading human rights lawyers has claimed.
33 comments November 10th, 2010
…the electorate was informed, cialis medical inspired, sildenafil and passionate.
But when Republicans win the voters were ignorant, gullible, and fearful.
It’s a stale narrative and untrue. Just ask Democratic Senator Evan Bayh:
…don’t blame the voters. They aren’t stupid or addled by fear. They are skeptical about government efficacy, worried about the deficit and angry that Democrats placed other priorities above their main concern: economic growth.
11 comments November 4th, 2010
I cringe whenever a politician says something along the lines of “we’re going to take our country back” or “we just took our country back.”
America does not belong to the Right or Left. Having temporary custodianship of a public office does not mean your side is more legitimate or deserving. Go ahead, viagra generic fight over the direction of the country. Argue about which approaches are more likely to solve our common problems. Wrestle over the ways and means. But quit claiming that you’re taking the country back.
It never belonged to you in the first place.
At least, no more so than it belonged to everyone else.
2 comments November 3rd, 2010
Sanity has been restored:
On historic night, viagra generic click Republicans sweep House Democrats from power – CSMonitor.com
13 comments November 3rd, 2010
I literally never thought I’d see this happen: Wisconsin only state where Democrats lost governor, cialis generic site Senate seat, Legislature.
6 comments November 2nd, 2010
I’ve been hearing a lot lately from the media and the President that it’s irrational to base your vote on an emotion like anger.
I’m sure “hope, cialis generic click ” on the other hand, is still a perfectly rational emotion to base your vote on.
12 comments November 2nd, 2010
…if the difference between being called “extreme” and being called a “maverick” comes down to whether you have an “R” or a “D” after your name.
4 comments October 27th, 2010
…when you don’t recognize the difference between fear and anger?
President Obama voiced one theory a few days ago, viagra usa treatment behind closed doors at a fundraiser saying, pharm “part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, pills and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared. and the country is scared, and they have good reason to be.”
5 comments October 23rd, 2010
…but legal professor Ann Althouse already wrote what I wanted to say:
The reporters aren’t presenting the quotes in a reliable fashion. And we need to begin with stark clarity that the text of the Establishment Clause is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
So let’s look at the reporting:
“Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked while Democrat Chris Coons, generic viagra sovaldi sale an attorney, recipe sat a few feet away.
Plainly, healing the Constitution does not say “separation of church and state,” so there’s nothing stupid there. It’s provocative, because many people like that gloss on the text.
Coons responded that O’Donnell’s question “reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. … The First Amendment establishes a separation.”
He’s talking about interpretations of the text, and she was talking about the text. What we’re hearing is 2 individuals talking past each other.
She interrupted to say, “The First Amendment does? … So you’re telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase ‘separation of church and state,’ is in the First Amendment?”
She’s telling him to pay attention to her limited point about the text.
He noted again the First Amendment’s ban on establishment of religion.
Ah, here’s where I hate reporters. Give me the quote. I don’t think Coons quite gets it. Ah. Here. He says: “Government shall make no establishment of religion.”
O’Donnell reacts: “That’s in the First Amendment?” And, in fact, it’s not. The First Amendment doesn’t say “government.” It says “Congress.” And since the discussion is about what local school boards can do, the difference is highly significant.
Also, it isn’t “shall make no establishment of religion.” It’s “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” There’s a lot one could say about the difference between those 2 phrases, and I won’t belabor it here. Suffice it to say that it was not stupid for O’Donnell to say “That’s in the First Amendment?” — because it’s not. Coons was presenting a version of what’s in the cases interpreting the text, not the text itself.
The 2 were talking past each other, trying to look good and make the other look bad. It is a disagreement about law between 2 individuals who are not running for judge. It’s not detailed legal analysis. It’s a political debate and this is a political disagreement. An important one, no doubt. But it can’t be resolved by laughing at one person and calling her an idiot, something I find quite repellent.
3 comments October 20th, 2010