|
|
It's like 105 out there, with a heat index of 120. Delivering pizzas ain't fun in that, I tell you what.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/30/BL2006063000383.htmlSo, Senator and Democratic pretty boy Barack Obama gave a speech last week about "the importance of religion in the public square and how Democrats should not be seen as hostile to organized religion." For some reason, that didn't sit too well with a few people, one of them is this shining example of logical superiority: "I disagree strongly with everything he said in the article. If this man ever gets to be a presidential or VP nominee I'll change parties. Hell, I'll start my own party. I won't be a member of a party actively trying to get evangelicals into the fold, period." Congrats, buddy. You've officially thrown all that you believe in because you missed the point. I wonder why it is that people have the idea that Democrats are hostile towards organized religion... Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of organized religion, but I understand what Obama is saying. He's saying, "You know, religion is not all Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell. I mean seriously, it's not all as bad as people say". he did not, and I repeat did not say evangelicals are good. If he meant that, he would be up there giving the commencement speech at Liberty University along with John "we shouldn't be pandering to the Pat Robertsons or Jerry Falwells of the world" McCain. Perhaps these people have forgotten that the Dems are on a 6 year losing streak. They have net gained not one congressional seat or anything since 2000. I know for a fact "Anyone but Bush's puppets" 2006 won't work. Or do I have to remind you of 2004 and Kerry? Really, what is this hostility towards religion in general? You'd think Jesus went and shot their dogs or something.
Thu, Jun. 29th, 2006, 02:02 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062900928.htmlThe Supreme Court today delivered a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration over its plans to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, ruling that the commissions violate U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions governing the treatment of war prisoners.
In a 5-3 decision, the court said the trials were not authorized by any act of Congress and that their structure and procedures violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.It says Roberts recused himself, but he was one of the appeals court judges who heard this case. I don't think he would be allowed to decide again anyway. Writing the majority opinion, Stevens said, "we conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions." He said four justices also found that the offense attributed to Hamdan is not one that can be tried by a military commission under the laws of war.The scores were: dissent: Thomas Alito Scalia Not that surprising. All the other justices were in the majority. The Dissenters pretty much claimed this would hurt the "War on Terror". In a concurring opinion, Breyer strongly disputed the dissenters' assertion that today's ruling would, as Thomas wrote, "sorely hamper the president's ability to defeat a new and deadly enemy."
"The Court's conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a 'blank check,' Breyer wrote. "Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary."Congress did not give Bush a blank check. Instead, Bush stole their identities and drained the account.
The Few, the Dishonorable, the MarinesAfter an investigation, the killings of 24 Iraqi civilians was an unprovoked Marine shooting spree in November. That and there were payments to the victims families just after the shootings. Looks like a cover up
Snubster, a site shown to me by spoonerpsu. Now you can have your very own lists, Like Stephen Colbert.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603240007This is like two kids at recess mad because both want Jesus on their team, and a fight breaks out. Why would Jesus want to get into politics? Wouldn't campaign finance reform bore the God out of him? If you see anyone using Jesus for political purposes, liberal or conservative, please do the right thing. Hit them with a blunt, hard object.
Bill O'Reilly likes to call people he does not like "Kool-Aid Drinkers". I don't understand what that means. I like kool-aid. I've got a pitcher of it in my refrigerator...
Could someone shed some light into this subject?
Scott McClellan is a Teddy Ruxpin in a nice suit.
Governor signs abortion ban into lawJust throw away women's rights to try to get a precedent overturned? Just forget about rape and incest? I weep for South Dakota residents with an IQ of more than 14...
Well, I haven't, but Fox is. Tonight, at 8:00 PM, the last 4 episodes of Arrested Development will air on Fox. It's future is unsure, perhaps Showtime will be it's new home.
I can't believe it. Arrested Development is the funniest show I have seen in a number of years, and I can't seem to get any of my friends to watch it. Dammit, why is it that the good shows can't seem to get support, but Friends can get like 9 seasons and 16 spin offs?
Well, watch it. Or I will be mad.
Alito Sworn In as Supreme Court JusticeWell, 17 Democrats voted against a filibuster, but also against Alito.
If i find a list of them, I will post it, under the name, "List of
Senators who have no balls, and take it like a bitch". I do not
doubt Alito had qualifications for the High Court, but I think his
opinions are going to move America back into the 19th century over the
next quarter century. And I do not know who I am more mad at,
the Neo-Conservatives and Religious Fundamentalists, or the Democrats
who can't seem to unite at all for a common purpose. Good Luck in 2006, I think I'll go have a drink...
Saturday was my last day working at Kohl's. I go in, and I find out that I need change, of all kinds. I do the change form thing, but the money in the bag, and got the change lady to do the change run(for some reason, they don't allow the cashiers to go on the change run, even when the people at the office check to make sure everything is good). She comes back with my change, but I asked for a roll of dimes, and didn't get it. I got a small zip-lock bag full of dimes. I asked her if it had 50, the normal amount in a roll of dimes. She said it was correct, and stated to walk by. I then thanked her for the dimebag. She didn't get it, but the other cashiers I was working with at the time cracked up.
That was probably the wittiest remark I will ever make. Sun, Jan. 1st, 2006, 03:46 pm Zzzzzz...
God, I am bored.
I work at Kohl's for Xmas break. I am a cashier. It's ok, I need the money. Monday, I perhaps met the worst person I could ever meet in line. Due to a mishap in customer service, her things were not held, and she had to find them again. Ok, that sucks. But she gets in line, and cops this attitude toward me. I am working the fastest that I can. She starts giving me shit, like it's my fault she's late and that I put her shit back. Anyway, after raising a hissy fit about the customer service, she glares at me while I tell her that our gift boxes are sold out. We have no more in the store. She then yells at me because of that. She demands me to find more, as if I am the Lord God Yahweh, and I can say "Let there be gift boxes", and the universe will have to bend to my will. She finally left in a huff, ruining my shift, and holding up the line. The spirit of Xmas is in all of us. Not the peace on earth, goodwill towards men, part, but the part about arguing over a dollar in the price of a leather jacket, fighting over a certain video game. So, I will give a toast to Jesus. If You're coming back to this place, hurry the fuck up.
It's been 25 years today since John Lennon was shot... Why would someone shoot a musician? And why would someone shoot someone in the back?
|