Only if you consider stopping a brutal madman who was systematically starving, imprisoning, torturing, and murdering millions of people while doing his darndest to keep and build weapons to facilitate his doing it to more to be all of those.

Then again, what am I saying? I’m talking to liberals who cover up said dictator imprisoning and torturing the infant and toddler children of political dissidents and call it “dealing peace”.

2. That it’s better for gay people to support a political party that wants to subjugate gay people via a Constitutional Amendment? And the twin idea that it’s good for gay people to always slam the one party that has brought them every single gain they have ever made?

As opposed to supporting a political party that also wants to subjugate gay people via constitutional amendments and who supports a candidate who wants to remove equality in the one state where gays currently have it? You and yours deem that “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

3. Your idea that we needed the Terri’s Law charade foisted upon us by your party and president?

Just because you think death should be the default for the innocent and those unable to protect themselves doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t disagree.

4. Your idea that Social Security would be better off privatized?

Of course it would be. Look at Democrats like Corzine and Kerry who are billionaires because of their private investments.

5. Your idea that tax cuts for the wealthy make sense, given that we’re now saddled with 2 Trillion more in debt than when your ideas were first put into action? And your related idea that paying 15-20% in debt service is smart and not a drain on national resources? (See, some of us are actually a little more true-blue conservative than you are.)

It makes more sense than cutting taxes and increasing Federal entitlements by trillions of dollars, which was John Kerry’s entire economic platform.

6. Your idea that it’s OK for one party to prevent a vote on a SC nominee but not OK for the other party to do the same? Or your idea that it’s OK for a president to put justify a SC nomination on the basis of the nominee’s religion?

Nothing wrong with the majority party doing it; the problem comes when a moonbat minority attempts to use the rules in a way in which they were never intended.

Meanwhile, discrimination based on religion or religious affiliation is against the law in this country. Funny how liberals like yourself argue in favor of it constantly, saying that a person is unqualified because of their religion.

Given how much time you spend on this blog, it’s amazing how little you understand of gay Republicans, indeed, how little you understand of the GOP.

Now, sugar, I know you also want the site to be serious, so let’s take a break from the merrymaking and be serious and start addressing the “ideas” you feel we don’t give enough attention to. Where do we start? Want to start with your idea…

1. That the war on Iraq was necessary, justified, and noble?

2. That it’s better for gay people to support a political party that wants to subjugate gay people via a Constitutional Amendment? And the twin idea that it’s good for gay people to always slam the one party that has brought them every single gain they have ever made?

3. Your idea that we needed the Terri’s Law charade foisted upon us by your party and president?

4. Your idea that Social Security would be better off privatized?

5. Your idea that tax cuts for the wealthy make sense, given that we’re now saddled with 2 Trillion more in debt than when your ideas were first put into action? And your related idea that paying 15-20% in debt service is smart and not a drain on national resources? (See, some of us are actually a little more true-blue conservative than you are.)

6. Your idea that it’s OK for one party to prevent a vote on a SC nominee but not OK for the other party to do the same? Or your idea that it’s OK for a president to put justify a SC nomination on the basis of the nominee’s religion?

We could on and on about your ideas. Where do you want to start?

Love, Pussy.

How about addressing this comment I just laughed out loud from SNL:

It seems the Republican party has reversed it’s opinion and participated in a second term abortion.
(Then they flashed a picture of Harriet)

I had tears running down my cheeks.
I never thought SNL could be funny again.

Oh, I forgot the repeated slogans:

You are a hated minority in your own party and you vilify your own kind.

I return you to business as usual.

Love, Pussy

As soon as you start whining as much about THAT namecalling, Kevin, then we might believe what you’re saying.

Why do you stoop to name calling? name calling is the childish, angry response un-educated people use when they’re unable to make a intelligent comment. I picture you balling up your fists and seeing your eyebrows furrow really hard as you try to come up with a response.

Pardon me for not using the exact, perfect information in my statement about Clinton’s judicial nominees…check out #35 for the specific ways that Republicans stopped judicial nominees from even reaching floor.

Thanks for the GOOD laugh! Nothing like some levity when needed!

Either way is still about the opposing party using every “TRICK” in thier bag to block a sitting presidents judicial nominee that they have strong philisophical differences with.

I say to BOTH parties — THE PRESIDENT won the election, it’s his CHOICE. Give them a up or down vote. (By President, I mean generic Repub or Dem)

You can understand why I was confused. It’s easy to mistake someone for a leftist when they distort historical reality to justify an inaccurate talking point.

Please DON’T call me “Leftist”! Believe it or not, I HATE the Dem’s MORE than I hate the Repub’s.

Good news though. After four years of blockading by democrats (especially Senator Lenin and Dingbat Debby Stabenow), our family friend was approved to the Sixth Circuit 97-0 yesterday.

http://kurlander.blogspot.com/2005/10/levin-levin-bo-bevin-aw-screw-it.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/25/opinion/main683182.shtml

[Quote]
“All this changed in 1996. Rather than openly challenge President Clinton’s nominees on the floor, Republicans decided to deny them Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Between 1996 and 2000, 20 of Bill Clinton’s appeals-court nominees were denied hearings, including Elena Kagan, now dean of the Harvard Law School, and many other women and minorities. In 1999, Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch refused to hold hearings for almost six months on any of 16 circuit-court and 31 district-court nominations Clinton had sent up. Three appeals-court nominees who did manage to obtain a hearing in Clinton’s second term were denied a committee vote, including Allen R. Snyder, a distinguished Washington lawyer, Clinton White House aide, and former Rehnquist law clerk, who drew lavish praise at his hearing — but never got a committee vote. Some 45 district-court nominees were also denied hearings, and two more were afforded hearings but not a committee vote. “

And VdaK… on the GOP filli-buster of Clinton era nominees… Michigan’s own brave war hawk liberal, Sen YosemiteSam Levin, said that his sister-in-law nominee was indeed sort of, kind of, almost filli-busted by the SenGOP in the waning moments of the Clinton era. OK, no vote. OK, no motion. OK, no blue slip. OK, no plan to. BUT IT STILL COUNTS. ” Just because it wasn’t reality doesn’t make it so” –Sen Ted Kennedy.

This is a touchy subject for me. One of the blockaded Bush judges is a close family friend and a wonderful lady.