My inbox

October 06, 2005 Category: Uncategorized

Tags: , ,

By: johnnyb

I found this in my inbox:


Dear John,




Today, President Bush announced his choice to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as the next Supreme Court Justice: Harriet Miers. Ms. Miers is the third woman to be nominated for the Supreme Court, and like Justice O’Connor is a legal trailblazer. Ms. Miers is an extremely well-qualified and fair-minded individual who is committed to interpreting the law instead of legislating from the bench.

President Bush selected Ms. Miers after embarking on a thorough and deliberate thought process. This confirmation however promises to be much more contentious than the confirmation of Judge John Roberts. Before Ms. Miers was even announced many Democrat groups said they would oppose her. They have no interest in giving Ms. Miers a fair hearing or vote. They are promising to throw every punch, make every accusation and pressure every Senator to oppose this nominee no matter what her qualifications may be. We have to be prepared to counter their actions and that is why Harriet Miers needs your help.

To ensure Ms. Miers is confirmed by the U.S. Senate, I need you to do three things.

1. Call your Senators. Tell them Harriet Miers has your support and deserves theirs.

2. Sign our petition in support of the timely confirmation of Harriet Miers.

3. Call talk radio, write a letter to the editor of your local paper and tell your friends and neighbors why you support the President’s choice.

Harriet Miers has a record that demonstrates a commitment to faithfully applying the Constitution. For more information on the nominee, go to www.gop.com.

In the coming years and decades, the decisions the Supreme Court makes will greatly affect all of our lives. We need a jurist on the court who will not legislate from the bench, who will approach cases with an open mind and who will be fair. Ms. Miers is that jurist. Call your Senators. Tell them to vote yes on the confirmation of Harriet Miers.

Sincerely,

Ken Mehlman,
RNC Chairman

I don’t remember getting one of these for the Roberts nomination.

Posted at 11:23 am by Johnny B

Posted by Reagan_Gahagan @ 10/06/2005 12:32 PM PDT
I got the same email from Mehlman and the RNC. I am doing the exact opposite of what he asks.


Posted by John Broussard @ 10/06/2005 01:05 PM PDT
I don’t even know how I got on the list. Ashcroft must have been reading my emails or something. The Republican party is losing my support left and right. The Senators are a bunch of “jackholes”, and W is catering to them far too much.


Posted by Reagan_Gahagan @ 10/06/2005 02:54 PM PDT
I just called both of my Senators to tell them not to vote for Ms. Miers. After I told their secretaries to tell the Senator to vote no, Vitter’s secretary took down all of my contact information, and Landrieu’s secretary just didn’t give a $hit.


Posted by Jordan @ 10/06/2005 03:46 PM PDT
I would hate it if she’s confirmed and turns out to be another Warren, Souter, etc.
But… do you really think we’ll get a more conservative candidate if the Dem’s are “successful” in thwarting this nomination? Whoever is advising W might even run further to the middle.


Posted by Johnny B @ 10/06/2005 10:05 PM PDT
Harry Reid has already signed off on her, essentially. At the DailyKos they said this nomination has the fingerprints of Laura Bush all over it, and that the Dems could be in a worse position. It’s lazy and weak on behalf of the administration. In this way Bush really backed conservatives in a corner. Jordan, you are right to say that this may be as good as it gets, and that Meiers might be better than a second choice. What kind of proposition is this for Republicans? It’s no mistake W gives a rousing speech about war days after this nomination. What good will be her loyalty to W be in three years?

Who would Jesus "Take Out"?

August 24, 2005 Category: Uncategorized

Tags: , ,

By: johnnyb

Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Who would Jesus “Take Out”?
I know it is a slow news cycle, Israel finished pulling out of Gaza and everything, Cindy Sheehan pulled out of Crawford, and CNN et al. have to put something out there. I know the angle here. But hasn’t Pat Robertson lost his marbles? I never liked this guy. Maybe I lived too close to Baton Rouge and saw too much Jimmy Swaggart to give any televangelist much love. Pat Robertson and company don’t represent white Christians any more than Jesse Jackson represents black Christians. The Republican party needs to appreciate this or guys like Bill Richardson (D) will appeal to their voters pretty soon.

This morning I saw the full comment in full context in video. Now CNN has all this “analysis” instead (I hate when they do that). I’m sure the video is out there somewhere. Robertson basically want to send the CIA down to take out Chavez in Venezuala to “avoid a war”. What the hell? The only person talking about this is Chavez himself, to get the Venezualans on his side against America and ignore the fact that they are all still poor. Nobody is talking about this right now. Venezuala is still selling oil to us, and all Chavez’s talk has really been just talk. All of this plays into Chavez’s hands.

Where in the bible does it say to assassinate people you don’t like?
Off camera, it was rumoured that Pat Robertson mentioned that he slept with Chavez’s wife and that his (Pat’s) “Fo-fo makes sho yo (Chavez) kids don’t grow.” Pat also says he intends to make Chavez famous on the next WWE RAW.

Posted at 11:47 pm by Johnny B

Posted by BP @ 08/24/2005 11:45 AM PDT
LMAO…

I’m with you on the televangelists…I don’t think they are good spokesmen for the “right-wingers”, because the true modern conservative is also a true classic liberal and believes in the establishment AND free exercise clauses of the first amendment.

Although…I would hesitate to throw Pat in with Jimmy, however, to defend Pat he is not SIMPLY a televangelist, but a news anchor for a news network (CBN) which is at least OPEN about its slant. And let me tell you it makes Fox News look quite “fair and balanced”–it’s enough to drive me crazy, so I’m sure it would make the math professors and film students of the world pull their hair out. However, Pat has as much right to give his wacko opinions as James Carville on CNN does.

But…that’s the problem…he’s posing as a journalist, when he clearly has an agenda (like Carville, Begala, etc.) But for the most part, I prefer the Billy Graham approach to politics: Make sure you’re buddy buddy with whoever is in power, stick to the preaching, and stay out of journalism.

Or more simply put…politics, sure…journalism, no.


Posted by Jordan @ 08/31/2005 01:00 AM PDT
“Hit ‘em up” Pat.
“Die slo mothafucka.”
“Gonna let the West side ride tonight.”


Posted by J f Z @ 09/05/2005 03:38 PM PDT
[click name for entry] Wow! We both wrote about the same thing, with the same title, too! Heh. I stuck in a few links that might interest you.


Posted by Brandon Starr @ 09/05/2005 09:52 PM PDT
Chavez is still selling oil to the U.S.–for now. He’s in deep talks with China to supply them with oil in the future.

Liberal Words I hate

August 16, 2005 Category: Uncategorized

Tags: , ,

By: johnnyb

“Awareness”: a perfectly good word forever ruined by liberalism. Whenever you hear a presentation or read a paper in which the words, “The goal of this project is to raise awareness…” start calculating new tax deductions.

Posted at 11:35 pm by Johnny B

Posted by Logipundit @ 09/15/2005 11:57 PM PDT
I’ve got my CPA working overtime already.

Maybe we should write a paper to raise awareness on the wastefullness of academic pursuits for the sake of academic pursuit.

One of these days I’m going to do a full post on why the space program is a dismal failure, and always will be unless our PURPOSE is more than “knowledge” and “exploration”.

The problem with “awareness” is that the only people that give a flying flip about academic “awareness” campaigns are other academics.


Posted by Rothell @ 09/16/2005 12:34 PM PDT
You guys crack me up. “Awareness” had never struck me as a particularly liberal word. But, Broussard, if that’s what you think, then consider words that for me have lost their value in contemporary Republican rhetoric.

“Freedom.” Bush loves to use this word. It is like kryptnonite to the evil “TERRORISTS!” That’s what they want to “destroy.” Yeah. That always made sense to me. Bad guys rubbing their hands together, hatching plots to blow up the world because the idea of “freedom” just drives them bonkers.

Other words: “destroy,” “victorious,” “resolved.” These typically come straight from the horse’s mouth, George W. Bush, whose speeches might go well as narration for a Rocky movie but not as real speech pertaining to our own reality.

My favorite, though, is “terrorist.” Acts of “terrorism” have been a military strategy since the invention of war. That is a fact, not my opinion. Did the United States (and its allies, particularly Britain) drop bombs on hundreds of villages and cities in Germany during Worlds War 2? Yes. Did we do the same in Vietnam? Yes. Fact: we dropped more bombs on a New Jersey-sized country than all the bombs dropped on Europe combined in the second worlds war. What do we call that? Well the U.S. government doesn’t want to call that terrorism! But is it?
(I hate to write this because these are dark days when you cannot openly discuss acts of criminality under U.S. government direction without fearing some Bush cronie is going to come and arrest you.)
The plane-hijackers and suicide-bombers are terrorists. But that word should mean little to people who can think for themselves, because its sad but true that the U.S. has got blood on its hands too.


Posted by Logipundit @ 09/16/2005 06:46 PM PDT
Hey Rothell,

Real quick, remind me of your address.

Just…uh…curious.


Posted by Logipundit @ 09/16/2005 07:03 PM PDT
speaking of words…here’s a reason to be selective of what Thesaurus you buy…kind of interesting.

http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2005/09/07/rogets-arab

Oh and by the way, here’s some other words that I feel that the left has hijacked:

“choice”–basic right applied only to women and only to the right to have an abortion…no choice of schools, or religions, or anything else.

“progressive”–making sure that every single aspect of the “great society” is completely unchanged from it’s original structure established in the mid 1960’s.

“nuanced”– a form of logic and reason carefully crafted to fall in line with every left-leaning thought conceived since the dawn of birth control.

“enlightened”–atheist

“intellectual”–atheist

“priveleged”–those who pay taxes

I could go on and on…we should write a dictionary.


Posted by Logipundit @ 09/16/2005 07:16 PM PDT
OH and by the way…it’s interesting you mention the word “terrorist”. I really don’t really see the problem with the word as a practical matter.

If I was German when we were bombing Dresden, I might indeed have called the US terrorists. And if I were a VietCong soldier, I may have indeed called the US military terrorists…but what’s your point? Are you saying it’s a matter of perspective? Of course it is.

Would you rather we use less generic words?

How about Islamic terrorists? Or Muslim extremists? Or ragheads? What do you want? I think terrorist is the most politically correct, practical, and precise term for the people that we are indeed fighting against. Maybe they call us terrorists, too, but what difference does that make?

The whole world has been using the word terrorism since at least the 70s, and even the most politically left have to acknowledge that there is a certain type of violence or fighting or whatever you call it that can be easily defined as terrorism.

Anyway, I’m having trouble getting your point, but that’s OK…I know you really don’t need one. It was indeed a great way to remind us all that the US is still evil and imperialistic, and I sure appreciate the reminder.


Posted by john broussard @ 09/17/2005 08:54 AM PDT
Rothell,
I had thought about “terrorist” and “freedom” too. Those are fair points in that the value of the words is kind of lost for now, but #1 You’ll get no sympathy for German villagers from me. WWI was much to a more inconclusive standstill, and twenty years later there was another war. Bombing into submission was a policy is the price the Germans had to pay. #2 It was the rise of communism, not American bombing, that drove massive Vietnamese immigration. As the bad as the former was, you got to question which is worse. If America wins the war the Vietnamese would be about a million times better off…they were truly the losers there.


Posted by john broussard @ 09/17/2005 10:12 AM PDT
Hey Rothell,

What’s your take on the German election?
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1134885