Spineless
So today the Republicans in congress decided to preemptively shield Tom DeLay's job, you know, just in case he gets indicted.
So that's the motivation for changing the rules, which until today would have put DeLay's position in jeopardy if he were indicted.
But who put that rule in place in the first place? Oh yeah, the Republicans, back in 1993, when they wanted to specifically remove key Democrats (the GOP was in a minority then).
Hypocrites. Cowards. Fuckwits.
Comments
So now it's activist District Attorneys? What's next activist cops? Gee, I guess I'd rather have my president screw an intern that the House Majority screw an entire state. (and by proxy the nation)
Posted by: Lee(Skittles) | November 18, 2004 07:04 AM
Lee, funny how you neglected to mention activist judges that overrule state laws to suit their needs and disregard what the people in the state actually want (gay marriage). I'm not saying I agree with what the people want, but can you honestly say it's ok to just ignore the people after you asked them to vote?
as for Tom Delay, get back to me when he's convicted. until then, quick whining. innocent until proven guilty, dear.
Posted by: girl | November 18, 2004 10:36 AM
Girl, I think you're missing the point. The Republicans PUT that rule in place in order to go Democrat-hunting.
Now they turn around and say it's a partisan thing that can be abused?
They have no shame.
And FYI, the judges interpreted the constitution and could find no reason why same-sex marriages could not occur, given that the MA constitution opts to treat people fairly. Just like they did for civil rights.
And get it right, it's not "gay" marriage, it's same-sex marriage. They won't ask you if you're gay if you try to go marry a female.
Nice try, though.
Posted by: GodOfBiscuits | November 18, 2004 10:44 AM
gay, bisexual, whatever. you knew what I meant.
and Democrat hunting? do elaborate, please.
Posted by: girl | November 18, 2004 10:47 AM
The devil is in the details, 'girl'. It's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage. If the "conservatives" want to point out to me that the marriage laws aren't discriminatory because I am free to marry a female, they don't also get to call it 'gay marriage'.
Why is it that conservatives online always want to pull this "buy time and make the other guy use google"?
Go look up the rule yourself. Go see the climate in which it was created. Go see the people the republicans in congress (then a minority) wanted to lynch with this "rule" that now they think is "unfair".
for christ's sake, do your own goddamn legwork. I did mine.
Posted by: GodOfBiscuits | November 18, 2004 10:54 AM
settle down, man. it was just a fucking question. are your panties in a bind or what? I wanted to know what YOU personally meant by the comment. if I was honestly that interested in the details, I'd go google it. I wanted your personal opinion, not a snotty retort b/c you can't be bothered to explain yourself.
as for same sex marriage, MA is not the only state to have the people's vote overturned. prior to the big election, it was voted on in Louisiana. not more than a week later, it was overturned. I'm just asking, what's the point of asking people to vote if their vote doesn't really matter? to be honest with you, I'm all for whoever wants to get married, getting married. I don't give a shit, but I'm also not a typical voter. I'm not a registered Republican, nor am I morally conservative. if you took the time to go read anything about me, you'd see that. I'm a centrist.
Posted by: girl | November 18, 2004 11:04 AM
One of the fundamental reasons for a judiciary that is removed from public opinion is the concept of "tyrrany of the majority".
Tyrrany of the Majority is also the reason why the Framers chose a representative government, and created a bicameral congress.
For example, people in Alabama or Mississippi don't get to decide that they are in favor of abridging the rights of African-Americans.
which part of:
"But who put that rule in place in the first place? Oh yeah, the Republicans, back in 1993, when they wanted to specifically remove key Democrats (the GOP was in a minority then)."
didn't clue you in as to what i meant by Democrat-hunting?
Posted by: GodOfBiscuits | November 18, 2004 11:10 AM
evidently I didn't put two and two together. my bad. you're still a grump though. :P
Posted by: girl | November 18, 2004 11:16 AM
I'm sorry. It's been a day of dealing with right-wing assholes.
Seriously, I'm sorry.
Posted by: GodOfBiscuits | November 18, 2004 11:22 AM
no need to be. I'm a bitch all the time (sometimes I mean it, sometimes I don't). not to mention I'm pretty guilty of getting into immature flame wars when I'm in a stupid mood. water off a duck's back.
I know very few of the people (personally) I come into contact with via their blogs so their opinions actually mean very little to me in the long run. I engage in debate, have a little fun (sometimes at other people's expense) and then move along. what matters most to me is my family and my relationship, not what anonymous blog folk think. for me, it's been a matter of putting things into perspective. I can completely disagree with the politics of someone and still think they're a decent human being (for the most part. sometimes...) ;)
Posted by: girl | November 18, 2004 11:28 AM
Most people don't take kindly to assholes like you, girl. Being shallow and stupid are not redeeming qualities.
Posted by: nunya | November 19, 2004 01:42 AM
hey mr. biscuit... your comments have been hijacked. fun.
Posted by: jennie | November 19, 2004 02:18 AM
I didn't hijack anything. I was having a conversation until numbnuts the stalker came along. he just can't get enough of me. I'm flattered, really.
Posted by: girl | November 19, 2004 02:55 AM
you're right jennie, perhaps we can take the discourse back and encourage the kids to play nice or at least take it to some seedy alley and out of this nice smart blog.
Posted by: Lee(Skittles) | November 19, 2004 03:29 AM
Girl - Assuming you truly are bi and not a "bi-fadual" (girls who claim they are bi just to attract guys, but have never actually done anything), then I liken you to a small group in WW2 Germany were considered Jews for Hitler. They were as the name implies, a group that supported the same guy who wanted them exterminated. You are no different in being a big supporter for BushCo. If you honestly do not think the Repubs are anti-homosexual, then you really need to come to a reality check.
And for someone who doesn't seem to "care what people think out on the blog" you certainly have a lot to say about it, especially about me over at Dogs Knot. I am neither flattered nor interested. I don't date goth chicks or people who think they are vampires.
Posted by: nunya | November 19, 2004 05:35 AM
Girl. You're right. DeLay, born again god-ridden Dobsonite that his is innocent until proven guilty. Check your history book though, when they went to impeach Clinton had he been convicted in a court of law? Had he even been indicted? Actually, no he'd just been under continuous investigation by a Repub controlled House for so long with an unlimited budget that they managed to find a stain on a cocktail dress.
With unlimited funds, a staff, and 8 years they could probably put just about anyone on trial and yet the only thing they made stick was something already stuck to fabric.
There is no such thing as a activist judge. Judges interpret the law, and they can have their interpretation overuled by higher courts. Perhaps what changes over time is the innate prejudice and stupidity of the serving bench.
If you're interested in the results of "activist" judges, take a look at the Alabama constitution. As recently as 4 years ago it still banned interracial marriage. And the repeal only won by 58/41% margin. That means over 40% of voting Alabamans thought interracial marriage was something worth banning. Aren't you glad we live in such enlightened times?
I for one thank [insert power here] that the constitution of Alabama was unenforceable, something ruled by the activist judges of our US Supreme court in 1967.
Posted by: Lee (Skittles) | November 19, 2004 06:31 AM
I hate typos. "he is," not "his". note to self, proofread. god-ridden Dobsonite that he is...
Posted by: Lee (Skittles) | November 19, 2004 06:33 AM
It is only ever "activism" to repubs when the judges rule on something that does not benefit them or fit into their idea of law. Amazing that the same exact judges on the supreme court bench are activists when determining abortion law, but are merely
interpreating the law" when deciding to overtyurn a states decision on vote recounts that ultimately dtermine a presidential election.
Repubs want their cake and eat it too. That is apparent in this Delay debacle. Don't like the rules? Just change them.
Posted by: nunya | November 19, 2004 07:16 AM
and before girl or anyone who jumps on me about my post dragging her out - consider this - she is acting all high and mighty about herself as if she is such a wonderful and calm debater and respectful of GOB's opinion and person - yet, look at the date of her last post here. 11:28pm, Nov 18th. Where she makes it sound as if she is so understanding of GOB, yet, A little over an hour later, she posts this over at Dogs Knot
Gordon! stop posting pictures of GOB's mom!
Posted by girl at November 19, 2004 12:51 AM
Now, you want to not only talk about a flaming hipocrite but a true asshole, I present to you - Girl.
Posted by: nunya | November 19, 2004 07:22 AM
nunya, if you do not email me (privately) and prove who you are, I'm going to ban you. There are ways of establishing your identity without spambots finding out.
These are my terms. Don't like them, don't post.
Posted by: GodOfBiscuits | November 19, 2004 08:11 AM
Nunya, you know have absolutely nothing to say to you (especially about my personal life since it's none of your fucking business) so why do you bother? you claim to know so much about me, all from reading a blog. you follow me all of the internet, looking for a fight and time and time again, you get shot down and made to look like what you are, an desperate asshole. give it up, man. it's getting old. go take care of that family of yours that you're so insistent that you have instead of acting like every liberal's internet cheering squad. anyone that would honestly want you on their side ought to take a step back and analyze that choice a hell of a lot.
Posted by: girl | November 19, 2004 10:57 AM
Notice she isn't denying her little comment, either.
You know why you are easy to figure out girl? Two reason - you are young and you are shallow.
Posted by: nunya | November 19, 2004 11:38 AM
for once, Nunya, you're right about something. I am young and I've never denied being shallow or self-centered. congratulations, Einstein.
Posted by: girl | November 19, 2004 12:24 PM
bad to see I'm not the only one who has to resort to threats of and and actual bannings of particpants. its a drag that dialogue on the internet so often degenerates into irrelevant flaming.
Posted by: cul | November 20, 2004 02:36 AM
God I miss netnews.... soc.motss, alt.sex, what ever happened to a real flame war? These kids today. [insert creaking back noise and gum flapping]
Posted by: Lee(Skittles) | November 20, 2004 07:00 AM
Dog's Knot and, unfortunately, a thousand other sites are breeding grounds for people who refuse to own their comments, who can't even be bothered with self-responsibility.
Start with Geoff and Gordon, there. They make up postings and then when you call 'em on it, you're a whiner and they're "just joking".
On the other hand, say that Geoff is a flip-flopper for switching from reasonable Demo to vituperative Republican and he'll be all over you. His alter ego, Gordon, will never contact you directly with substantive comments and instead email your boyfriend.
They're slime, but worse, they're breeders of more slime.
We just have to live with that, and hope their fever breaks before the world does.
Posted by: GodOfBiscuits | November 20, 2004 10:26 AM
nunya is a troll. He came to my site too.
Posted by: myke | November 20, 2004 12:31 PM