When you say here that, “[h]e turned away from such divisive issues as the constitutional amendment barring gay marriage”, you’re just spewing lies. That’s not a phrase I’d just toss around either. If you don’t believe me, check it out for yourself. Please help our cause a little more, and stop spreading false information.

You’re once again wrong, this time on your assessment of Judge Bork.

He isn’t a nut case anymore than Ginsburg or Brennan or White; he was simply a too-cerebral, free-thinking intellectual equivalent on the judical side of a Russel Kirk on the political philosophy side. I can understand YOU likely didn’t comprehend his observations, but that’s hardly an indictment, now is it?

If that and his willlingness to follow a direct Presidential order, lawfully given, is prima facia for being a nut case… well, we need to have you work on your parameters of nut case.

No, Judge Bork was savaged. He was caught unaware and unprepared for the reception TeddyK’s Senate buds gave him… and the WH failed to support him when it mattered. At least the WH learned the lesson in time to save Justice Thomas from the pillory.

And my advice to anyone who doesn’t like being labeled a leftist would be … don’t be a leftist.

Sage, common sense, advice — not unlike “if you don’t want STDs or a baby, keep your pants on.”

Somehow, common sense evades liberals.

Just to let you know, Robert Bork was and still is a nut case. He was the only official in the Nixon “Justice” Department who was willing to fire the special counsel Cox in the Saturday Night Masacre. The AG resigned in response to Nixon’s demands, the Depubty AG resigned, and Bork, third in line, carried out Nixon’s orders.

Bork

Single-payer health care is an Islamo-fascist plot? I had no idea.

Not to be too Hegelian but it’s all a big, long historical process…like everything.

The Dems/Left will come back one day, for example. But hopefully, defeat after defeat after defeat (for their moonbattery) will have forced them to dig deeper and come up with something better than the nuttiness they offer at present.

It may take 5, 10, 20 years. It’s partly a process of natural selection (the long string of defeats killing off the moonbats “progressively”, hah hah, so that ultimately the few sensible ones are the only ones left standing).

OK, now I’m way OT… will shut up.

Real briefly (because I know we have covered this ground before), SSM is actually a small change to the definition of marriage. No larger a change than when they broke down and allowed different races to marry, or (reaching back to 17th-century Europe) different social classes. The basic legal structure remains: mutually exclusive, primary union of 2 adults. So polygamy isn’t included.

But - you are right about this part - it is up to the SSM advocates to make that clear, or to cut the wackos from their midst. And they haven’t done so.

And HBO is launching a new series premised on polygamy. Additionally, the Canadian government has recommended extending plural marriage rights, there has been at least one plural marriage in the Netherlands, and polygamy advocates in the USA are working on legal challenges to marriage laws modeled after the same challenges raised by same-sex marriage advocates.

We should, at a minimum, be honest enough to admit that changing the definition of marriage necessarily raises the issue of what else could be defined as marriage. It was very, very dishonest to deny the link, and it places SSM advocates on the defenses now that they’ve been shown to be dishonest about that point.

I agree with Matt’s meaning. Yes Roberts got 78 votes in the end; but only because he showed himself to be so incredibly deserving and excellent. He earned the 78 votes the hard way, in the face of TREMENDOUS ugly, nutty opposition.

I think (or hope) that the Roberts - Alito confirmations have forever put “borking” behind us. They have exposed to the center, the mainstream - yes, the real and actual MODERATES - of the American people, the real workings of the Left “borking” process and how ugly and nutty it is.

I’d like more people on the left to recognize that good intentions are not enough. President Johnson’s “Great Society” public housing projects like Chicago’s infamous Cabrinni Green were built with the good intention of housing the poor but, for too many reasons to list here, was a disaster. This was clearly an experiment in socialism and it failed. The lefts tendency to want to socialize everything from housing to education to medicine should worry us all. If you guys want to help others go ahead and volunteer, donate money, help your neighbor, and urge others to join you. But don’t make it the job of the federal government . After all, a Communist is just a socialist who really means it. It’s an unsustainable system. Take a look at what happened to the former Soviet Union. I don’t want to take a single step down that road.

I’d like you guys on the left to recognize that you’re part of a continuum used by unfriendly influences to undermine our country. If you think that’s an outlandish assertion just take a look at Sheehan and Chavez. You’re party has real problems. Please fix them for the sake of our country.

For the record: I’m glad Newsom did what he did with gay marriage.

I’m in favor of gay marriage. And I agree 100% with the conservatives here, that we need to ENGAGE AND GRADUALLY WIN THE MESSY STATE-BY-STATE DEBATE, rather than have unelected judges ram gay marriage down people’s throats. On that account, I understand why people think Newsom was wrong.

But I think there was a symbolic or conceptual hurdle for the pro-marriage forces to overcome. Before Newsom, gay marriage simply was “not thinkable” to the American mainstream. Now it is. The mainstream may still not like it. They many still need a lot of persuading, over many years to come. But at least the debate has begun. Gay marriage is openly discussed on TV. The “sting” or “weirdness” of saying the words is gone. As much as any legal steps (Massachusetts or whatever), I give credit for that positive (in the very long run) development to Newsom’s Lefty theatrics.

Which brings me to my second point. “Leftist” is not an epithet. raj, believing “leftist” is an epithet is 100% your cross to carry; 100% the creation or projection of your own mind. You will (or should) notice above that I just used Lefty in a positive context. Deal with it. It’s a legitimate descriptive term; you (raj) just don’t want to admit or acknowledge what is being accurately described by it.

Now, let me ask, for someone like you who loves to ramble incessantly about all things Euro-centrist and play the condescending professor without portfolio, why do you not focus in on the debate rather than run slipshod over all? I asked you earlier to revisit your assessment about “Leader of the Free World” and distance yourself from the silly Wiki cite you offered in defense… you asked for a reference. I gaveth the King his pleasure. Did you conform or submit? Nooo.

On this small point, as far as I can tell –quoting the professor el conscendo, “As far as I can tell, you have no evidence, and you have no argument.” Hmm, go away to your Euro-sensible world Raj. Somehow I think you never left it. And take away one thing: under Republican leadership, America is stronger, more resolute, and the world follows our instruction and adopts our culture where free markets rule. It’s all about leadership, vision, freedom, and hope.

And that will stick in your craw until your last muttering breath. I like that image.

That low ebb couldn’t have been reached without the entrenched partisan hacks operating in TeddyK’s and PattieLeahy’s offices.

“Oh, but Roberts just sailed through”… right.

I don’t think terms like Leftist or Liberal are epithets anymore than Right or Conservative or Catholic or Wolverine or American are slurs.

You probably could have ended after your third word quoted above, but let me ask you this. Why do you and like-minded people here throw “leftest” and “liberal” out so wontonly, instead of meeting the points with which you disagree, with evidence? As far as I can tell, you have no evidence, and you have no argument. From what I have seen here, and on other conservative web sites, gay or straight, it’s all about “I. I, I, me, me me.” That’s fine with me because we’ll be emigrating to a civilized country in the near future, and we won’t have to put up with the likes of you.

I’m a perfect conservative. It’s all about me.

/sarcasm

Kerry got trounced? Do I detect a bit of historical revisionism there? He got 48% of the popular vote — which I realize doesn’t matter in a pseudo-democracy like the U.S., but the fact remains that he received more actual votes than Li’l George did, four years earlier. In fact, he even got more votes than Gore did!

BTW, Condi Rice has said she’s not running for President in 2008. We should take her at her word, shouldn’t we? (Or were you looking ahead to 2012 or 2016?)

Re: “Democrat victimized constituencies,” nothing says “victim” more than the stentorian bleats of people who control the entire power apparatus of the U.S. and are still mortally affronted about the very existence of an opposition — no matter how tired, impoverished, and out-of-touch. I mean, your friends in the G.O.P. have the White House, the House, the Senate, and now the Supreme Court. Not to mention K Street and large swathes of the media (despite incessant propaganda to the contrary), and I suspect that a poll of Fortune 500 CEO’s would reveal a marked lack of support for the Democratic Party.

So what more do you want?

Well, I’d love to stick around and chew the halal-slaughtered mutton fat with y’all, but it’s past midnight here in the United New Caliphate of Eurabistan, and I want to be first in line at the mosque tomorrow morning when the imam hands out the rocks for the weekly kaffir-stoning.