"I think that the gay lifestyle has, obviously, many features to it that may be unique to it" -Chris Matthews

(emphasis mine)

I recall a leading member of the old Compuserve Townhall Forum (before it was a hard core Heritage asset) asking people what was meant by the "gay lifestyle". I believe the words were, "Please define what is meant by the term "gay lifestyle)."

Do you recall if that guy ever got an answer to his perfectly legitimate question.

and immediately strip Holy Joe Leiberman (I-TelAviv) of any and all committee assignments he current holds.

If the Republicans want him, let them have him.

Reid's next step should be infront of a microphone on the Capitol steps announcing....."Who's next?"

"* Recission of Habeas Corpus -- not for American citizens and US residents. Happily that right has been re-affirmed."

and you STILL have not answered my question about how you will prove you are an American citizen and thus enjoy habeas protections when you are declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" by Bush or his "designee" and thrown in some hole somewhere where the CIA can twist your balls off while at the same time denying you legal representation.

Why do you continue to duck this question, Shooter, ol Pal?

"Actually I did, by citing the Supreme Court case that makes it illegal. But you want to say it COULD happen. Sure, and the Pope COULD be part of the Mafia, and aliens from outer space could be living among us and commenting on this forum. Come back when you have something real to consider, rather than an open ended campfire story."

Sorry about that Shooter, ol Pal, but the bill passed last year took care of that "minor" problem. Try again.

How are you going to prove you are a citizen when they have your ass in Gitmo and won't allow access? Until and unless you prove you are a citizen, what they are doing is legal and if you can't prove you're a citizen, your ass is grass.

That, my friend, is the current state of the law.

David Vitter has never been charged with breaking the law and, unlike Craig, David Vitter has never admitted breaking the law.

He has admitted to a grevious sin, but not to breaking any law.

"What Vitter admitted to -- hiring prostitutes in Washington -- is illegal."

As far as I know, Vitter has never admitted to hiring prostitutes - either in Washington or any place else. He was very specific in his press conference when he only admitted to committing a sin, but he, to my knowledge, has never, ever specifically admitted using the services of a prostitute.

"This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible. Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there - with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way."

"Does anyone in America besides Congress oppose term limits?"

Yes. Whoever voted for their current representative probably opposes term limits.

I'd guess that many (if not most) people want term limits but they don't want them to apply to "their" congressman if he is of their political pursuasion.

I understand where you are coming from and far be it for me to defend Vitter but the question was whether Vitter ever admitted breaking a law and he did not do so.

Craig, when he pled guilty, admitted breaking a law and thus that one is a no-brainer. Vitter, on the other hand, admitted breaking only "God's law" (he sinned) and he wasn't even specific in that regard.

The problem, as I see it, is that some folks confuse what is God's and what is Ceasar's.

Holy Matrimony is God's and marriage is Ceasar's .... and the Religious Right wants it both ways.