I rarely post a letter here, but do enjoy watching right-wingers make fools of themselves. You take the cake. You truly are an exceptional moron.

Please provide a citation to proof that Obama told Walpin to resign or he was going to fire him immediately without giving 30 days notice to Congress.

Thanks!

It is quite amusing to watch conservatives bemoan the USSC as activist and left-wing, and to call exsiting precedent (Roe v. Wade, etc.) as wrong. Strangely enough, and I won't speculate to what this phenomenon should be attributed to, when a decision like Ricci comes down, the court is "right" and justice prevails. One day a panel of activist hacks, the next purveyors of justice! Perversely ironic!

I always love the argument, "You may not agree with what he says, but at least he believes it 100%". This was the same statement made about Bush. It is like saying you can't fault me for believing 1+1=3, because I believe it with the utmost conviction. Talk about relativism. Subjugating the truth to subjective belief, the very thing conservatives rail against!

Unfortunately, I really could not understand your first sentence. Nothing you said in defense of Scheuer speaks to the validity of his statements. Although someone has no reason to lie, does not mean that the opinions they have are by default correct. Nor does the fact that he criticizes both parties somehow lend credence to his arguments.

"He has yet to be proven not credible with any of his statements. That to me is the winning arguement. One that warrants consideration of his opinions."

Again I am not sure that this makes any sense either. It does not seem he has been proved credible, either. Further, what is the winning argument? The fact that his predictions about the future have not yet been proved not credible?

Also, someone who goes on Glenn Beck surely has some horse in the race, or a donkey, at least.

Liberty, here is your non-partisan, truth-seeking patriot suggesting that President Obama does not want to protect the United States:

COLMES: You don’t think the President of the United States, Barack Obama, cares about protecting this country.

SCHEUER: No, I don’t. Because I don’t think he realizes what the world is like outside the United States. [...]

COLMES: You don’t think he wants to protect the country?

SCHEUER: I don’t think he can, sir. [...]

COLMES: He doesn’t want to protect the country?

SCHEUER: Not if it costs votes.

Certainly seems like an unbiased, fact-based assessment to me.

I am sure this has probably already been said, but this article stinks of high school, existential angst. As if the mourning of MJ has something to do with mourning the innocent deaths in Afghanistan! It makes me wonder who is most deserving of being mourned in this implied hierarchy of grief and suffering. Surely, the author could shame himself by finding an even more vulnerable, victimized group whose suffering eclipses that of innocent victims in Afghanistan, and if he does, I expect him to shift his grief exclusively to them.

I think you are right on in your assessment that the Obama administration seeks to create the illusion of due process, only to legitimize the underlying policy of indefinite detention.

This is not a phenomenon that is new to the justice system of the United States. It reminds me of the Post Conviction Relief Act in Pennsylvania as it pertains to capital cases. Ostensibly in place to provide people convicted of capital murder, PCRA relief is rarely granted, and in the few cases it is, the PA Supreme Court, in stilted, poorly written opinions overturns the lower court. The PCRA process gives the illusion of justice, and lends a superficial legitimacy to a judicial process that is built on inequity.

However, like the Obama administration, it allows the powers that be to point to the "process" afforded individuals, albeit one that is substantively dysfunctional, and in most cases, pre-ordained. One word comes to mind when an Obama official says that even if a person is acquitted at trial the administration will likely still detain that person indefinitely: absurd. Sounds like a Kafka novel.

I suppose it would have been perfectly ok to have said to Clarence Thomas, "What you talkin' about, Willis?", since it has become part of the American vernacular.

Just some samples from our egalitarian virtue001 (this took 5 minutest to find):

you're sounding awfully perimenopausal today. Could yesterday's primary results have something to do with it?5-7-08

Jimmy G ripped you a new one yesterday, dogface. He picked your stack of lies clean and got to the truth.

"It ain't over till Cankles cackles...

Now poor old Hillary will have to scratch and claw, which will only make her more unattractive. I sure hope she doesn't resort to that shrill fingernails-on-the-blackboard caterwauling" 1-4-2008

"I couldn't agree with Mike Barnicle more. How Joan interprets this as a statement designed to "dance on Hillary's grave" is a rather transparent testament to her dogged (or should I say lap dog) support of the Hildabeast"1-7-2008

Joan, as you witness Obama supporters booing and jeering the Hildabeast as she gives her acceptance speech. 1-18-2008

She's just so nineties. The pants suit. The caterwauling. The unguided missile of a husband. The scandals. The baggage. Oy vey. Enough already. 2-22-08

The Hildabeast is dead. But she refuses to lie down. Which is delightful news for John McCain. Because day by day Hillary plods on, destroying the party and cackling about it. 3-29-08

Yeah, THAT'S what we need in the White House next year -- a dumpy, cackling psychotic in a pants suit and her albatross of a husband!3-29-08