September 29, 2005
-
Sworn In
"John Roberts was sworn in as the 17th chief justice of the United States on Thursday, taking his oath at a White House ceremony attended by President Bush and other justices of the Supreme Court."
"Bush said it was 'a very meaningful event in the life of our nation' _ almost 19 years to the day since the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist took his oath in the same room at the White House, the East Room."
Comments (30)
Let's just hope he doesn't go Souter on us.
Let's hope that we actually get an intelligent Supreme Court now after the next appointment goes through. Prepare for a change people......I have a good feeling that America might be going back to the way it should be.
I'm taking bets that the right-wing will be dissatisfied within two years.
Done. Next!
Actually Neo, I'll take that too. I'm sure that we'll get fucked again, but I'm hopefull -- never hurts to be optimistic.
He'll be interesting.
so Bimmer... how should America be?
Oh I don't know, maybe following those two pesky things called the constitution and capitalism?
want to explain how we are not following either of these two pesky things?
Altshift. Do you think the emminent domain ruling from last year follows the constitution? It may follow capitalism, but one would be hard pressed to say it's constitutional... Just curious...
^^^^^^^^^ That was just one example of how we're not following the consitution. As for how we're not following capitalism -- ever hear of welfare? social security? medicaid? medicare? 'tax credits'? Yea, that's just the tip of the iceberg on our wonderful downward spiral into socialism.
sends- I don't think it follows the constitution... what I was looking for was an agenda of setting things straight from bimmer...
explain how social welfare programs are unconstitutional
My God! A conservative judge who is honest, intelligent and humble. The libs could never breed such a man! And, ooh, ooh - "W" is about to appoint another conservative.
Wow, Hillary, Dean, Kerry, Schumer, Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, hey! - whoever is in charge around here - what are we going to do??
No problem. It'll just make our voters madder. What? Yes, here's how.
If they put God back, our secular, moral relativist voters will go postal.
If they reverse the Roe vs Wade ruling, our angry feminist voters who are left over from the "free love and drugs" generation will freak out.
If they outlaw gay marriages, our gay voters will be livid.
If they ease drilling regulations and open up our own oil sources our environmentalist extremists will yell.
But what will we do if the Reps still keep on winning elections?
Hmmmmmmm. We'll figure something out. Call out the "brains" of the party. Who's that? You know - Jackson, Sharpton, Farakhan, Moore, the Hollywood crowd, the rappers, the felons - the liberal intelligencia! Maybe they will figure out a new way for us to yell and whine for what we want.
God bless America.
"explain how social welfare programs are unconstitutional"
Never said they weren't, I said they were against capitalism (you know, that silly economic idea that made us the richest country in the world).
but we are not a pure capitalistic country, correct?
"If they ease drilling regulations and open up our own oil sources our environmentalist extremists will yell."
-It hardly takes an "extremist" to oppose things such as drilling in a wildlife refuge or cutting back on pollution controls. Rather, it merely takes someone with an environmental conscience. It seems as though these lax standards on environmental protection introduce the conservative version of moral relativism.
"but we are not a pure capitalistic country, correct?"
-Gold star for Mr. AltShift!
"but we are not a pure capitalistic country, correct?"
Not since liberals had the run of the White House for most of the past century, no. We used to be though, back when other countries respected us.
"It hardly takes an "extremist" to oppose things such as drilling in a wildlife refuge or cutting back on pollution controls. Rather, it merely takes someone with an environmental conscience."
See, the part of the wildlife refuge they want to dwell is in a barren wasteland without a single thing living there. Also, anyone who thinks we're going to destroy the planet needs a reality check.
Nicely done but wrong... there have been commercial regulations in place in this country since the founding, we've never been a pure capitialistic economy... besides that, are you advocating no labor laws whatsoever?
Yeah, WSR... a reality check... like the toxins in the air, soil and water isn't destroying the planet and the inhabitants...
Maybe instead of labelling them extremists, I should have said something inane and liberal like, those terrible conservatives don't want clean air, they want pollution, they are in cahouts with the drug companies to sell asthma drugs, they want our children to have trouble breathing, they want to kill our babies, they probably have a deal with Halliburton, etc., etc. Does that sound better?
It should, that's the way the libs do their standard demagoguing.
Here's a new whine that you guys can start singing while America tries to free itself from foreign oil and its irrational citizens. Ooh, ooh the caribou! What will all those Arabs do? Sell their oil to who knows who. Ooh, ooh the caribou!
BTW - in order to be consistent - those extremist environmentalists who are concerned about the release of CO2 into the atmosphere should start protesting a few sources: cows and all other living animals who expel CO2, all volcano eruptions and with a real consideration for their fellow Americans, they might even consider holding their own breath! Every little bit helps.
God bless this incredible country.
"See, the part of the wildlife refuge they want to dwell is in a barren wasteland without a single thing living there. Also, anyone who thinks we're going to destroy the planet needs a reality check."
-You know what else is a barren wasteland? Death Valley. Would you be willing to drill there too? What about Yosemite? There is already a reservoir there, since the valley it destroyed "wasn't as nice" as the other one.
"I should have said something inane and liberal like, those terrible conservatives don't want clean air, they want pollution"
-No, not really. You should have said something silly and uninformed like "economic development and business interests should be put before the environment." Do you know anything about wetlands reclamation and the impact this has when hurricanes come along?
"in order to be consistent - those extremist environmentalists who are concerned about the release of CO2"
-My mistake, I didn't realize that was all they were concerned with.
"into the atmosphere should start protesting a few sources: cows and all other living animals who expel CO2, all volcano eruptions and with a real consideration for their fellow Americans, they might even consider holding their own breath! Every little bit helps."
-Your argument is completely fallacious. Good luck with that.
"Nicely done but wrong... there have been commercial regulations in place in this country since the founding, we've never been a pure capitialistic economy... besides that, are you advocating no labor laws whatsoever?"
Nicely thought, but wrong argument. I'm talking capitalism vs. socialism. Capitalism can allow for regulations, so like I said, wrong argument. Back when this country was founded people were expected to work for a living, not sit on their ass.
As for "like the toxins in the air, soil and water isn't destroying the planet and the inhabitants..."
Can they kill people in large quantities? Sure, but even without a single environut to make laws, the chances of them getting to that level aren't too great. You be surprised how well animals can adapt -- yes, humans are animals and yes, you did forget your beloved "evolution" there. As for destroying the planet, it's physically impossible. We may be able to make it inhospitible to mammals, but life's been almost totally eradicated off the planet more than once in history, so to think we have the ability to destroy the earth entirely is pure arrogance and stupidity.
"Your argument is completely fallacious. Good luck with that."
Wow, yet another liberal who can't grasp when he's being mocked. Just like when that one guy took Ann Coulter seriously when she said "Oh yes, God commanded us to rape the earth" -- she was mocking the environut she was talking to. Jeez people, get a dictionary and look up the word mockery.
"Nicely thought, but wrong argument. I'm talking capitalism vs. socialism. Capitalism can allow for regulations, so like I said, wrong argument. Back when this country was founded people were expected to work for a living, not sit on their ass."
Wrong... pure capitalism is without regulations...
"Can they kill people in large quantities? Sure, but even without a single environut to make laws, the chances of them getting to that level aren't too great. You be surprised how well animals can adapt -- yes, humans are animals and yes, you did forget your beloved "evolution" there. As for destroying the planet, it's physically impossible. We may be able to make it inhospitible to mammals, but life's been almost totally eradicated off the planet more than once in history, so to think we have the ability to destroy the earth entirely is pure arrogance and stupidity."
This has to go up there with one of the most worthless replies I have ever seen... you have no clue how much damage has been done through the release of pesticides, toxic waste, chemicals in the food supply and water... not mention the toxins released in the air that effects everyone... I am not talking about just animals but also humans... so I did not forget about evolution... and just for the record, did I say that we were going to "destroy the earth entirely?" Do you really think that the enviromental laws are uncalled for? Do you really think that we should just repeal them and let the chips fall where they may?
Hi "Bimmer"
I respect your energy and tenacity. Go to it, man. I just can't take too much more of the "elitists" in this discussion.
Suffice it to say, "Ooh, ooh, the sky is falling!" It seems to be a standard refrain for the apologists for anti-capitalist and pro-socialist ideas.
BTW - regarding Air America's (liberal) demise on talk radio. I did a small, informal survey right here on Xanga. Our liberal friends who have blogs seem to have a similar problem. They attract very little audience for their thoughts on their own blogs. They find their real action here on conservative blogs where they can moan and groan to their heart's content.
God bless America.
"Wrong... pure capitalism is without regulations..."
No, that's called laissez faire capitalism. There's many forms of capitalism. We learned about laissez faire back when I was in oh..7th grade?
As for the "damage caused by pesticides, toxic waste, etc", I'm well aware that water and such can be polluted -- but condemning industries which create all those jobs liberals bitch that we don't have and create affordable products for the poor people that liberals constantly bitch about isn't going to solve anything. There's ways to get around that such as fusion, but liberals will probably condemn that too once it gets mentioned as being put into use in America.
"I am not talking about just animals but also humans... "
Did you miss "You be surprised how well animals can adapt -- yes, humans are animals " in my comment before?
laissez faire capitalism is considered pure capitalism since there are restrictions or regulations... yes, there are many forms of capitalism which was not the content of the comments...
As far as enviromentalism, you sounded as if you were talking about taking away all the regulations... this I have a problem with...
should be: laissez faire capitalism is considered pure capitalism since there are NO restrictions or regulations...
sorry for any confusion
"As far as enviromentalism, you sounded as if you were talking about taking away all the regulations... this I have a problem with..."
No, I'm just saying that you (collective 'you') have to be reasonable about the trade off of pollution and the products / jobs we get in return from it.
Bimmer-
"Wow, yet another liberal who can't grasp when he's being mocked."
-I guess I prefer to resort to facts rather than mockery to make my points. But I guess that's easier when a) I know what I'm talking about, and b) I have data to back up my position.
"You be surprised how well animals can adapt -- yes, humans are animals and yes, you did forget your beloved "evolution" there. As for destroying the planet, it's physically impossible."
-Once more you are displaying your limited understanding of evolution. And show me how wetlands creatures adapt when their habitat is reclaimed for parking lots and subdivisions? Some animals adapt - ie, squirrel and pigeon. Others die away. A fine example of the latter is the bald eagle. Remember how close that one came? What do you think caused that, anyway? Should the eagle have merely adapted to endure pesticides?
"but condemning industries which create all those jobs liberals bitch that we don't have and create affordable products for the poor people that liberals constantly bitch about isn't going to solve anything."
-You seem to think that a lot of those industries are self sustaining. What is the point of creating jobs in logging (our national forests) when soon those trees will run out anyway? Sounds like those people need to stop their bitching and find alternative gainful employment. Oh, and very few affordable products "for poor people" are manufactured in this country.
" be reasonable about the trade off of pollution and the products / jobs we get in return from it."
-I don't see a lot of trade off. And trust me, I'm looking.
Boymarine-
"I just can't take too much more of the "elitists" in this discussion."
-Finally!
Comments are closed.