Comments on: Democrats: Can’t Even End the War On Christmas

By: MufsMom

MufsMom — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:09:12 +0000

Well, this is wonderful-we have no other problems facing us and I am sure the Founding Fathers are so proud they are dancing a jig in the afterlife. Oh, wait, that’s the sound of them spinning in their graves. Never mind. Great leadership there, Nanc.

By: Truffle

Truffle — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 04:11:52 +0000

The resolution is much ado over nothing. And so is the furor over it.

By: Alexander

Alexander — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 02:47:57 +0000

Apparently, like Christ….Christmas divides like a sword as well.

Yes, that’s right, the truth divides.

By: Patrickson

Patrickson — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 02:21:37 +0000

Best. Headline. Ever.

By: PetePierce

PetePierce — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:03:30 +0000

Huckabee–the candidate who makes you think what the devil would do

By: PetePierce

PetePierce — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:02:41 +0000

It’s beginning to look a lot like George III, King of England in ole Wiretap America.

The house didn’t just uphold Christmas, it upheld Christianity in a country where a quaint dead document pushed Separation of Church and State. We used to have a Constitution with a First Amendment that said they were to be separated, although the words “separation of church and state” aren’t in it literally, and either Madison or Hamilton depending on which scholar you beleeve wrote in one Federalist Paper.

“In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as for religious rights.”

In Article VI, paragraph 3, the Constituion states that state and federal office holders “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Pretty appropriate in a Presidential Campaign where the President will in all likelyhood be decided in Iowa on Jan. 3 in the Democratic primary (although some believe New Hampshire and South Carolina could matter if the Hill robot wins in Iowa, and the two leading Republican candidates in Iowa are arguing about whose brother Satan is.

One of them,the Mittster, has affirmed his religious tolerance by banning Muslims from the imaginary Cabinet he’ll never appoint, even though there is a Muslim in Congress, and possibly more than one.

I know when I assess a Presidential prospect, the first thing I need to drill is who the hell does he think Satan is a brother to as Iowa leader Mike Huckaby puts focuses important attention. And the questions eminate from there. What kind of SUV would Satan drive, and would he drag race his brother? Nothing like Satan as the focus of a Presidential campaign.

By: GregB

GregB — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:52:28 +0000

Now that we have the important matters of Turkish conduct in the early 1900’s and the sanctity of Christmas out of the way, maybe we can address some minor issues like the Iraq war or the destruction of the US constitution.

-G

By: Arnie

Arnie — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:42:43 +0000

Thank you for your insights, fwiw I am in accordance with your stand and think your “gift” at the 21st showed respect for the day it was.

By: angie

angie — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:32:32 +0000

oh boy– that quote from Scott was from 2005 according to the link– I never knew they tried it before.

well, I guess he’s not changed his mind ’cause he voted no again.

(things have only gotten worse anyway)

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:27:57 +0000

OT But I think that Mukasey may not be able to oversee any investigation on the Zubaydah tapes. Seems that as Judge Mukasey he signed off on the FISA warrants that allowed the FBI to surveil Jose Padilla. And as a major, triggering, bit of evidence offered to him to allow that investigation the DOJ used the confessions of Abu Zubaydah. Remember that Padilla was tried in US Courts and is a US Citizen…he’s not a foreign enemy combatant.

Those confessions had to be voluntarily offered to be legal. Thus the DOJ either foisted illegally obtained confessions onto Mukasey…OR he knew that they were obtained through water torture. In either case he is NOT an uninterested party. He is a witness.

Furthermore, Mukasey was the one who ruled against Padilla bringing Zubaydah into court to testify about how they may have been tortured to offer up his name. He said there was no evidence of coercion in the confession. Well now there is!

Mukasey needs to start the process to appoint a Special Prosecutor! Mukasey knows that he has to withdraw from decision-making on this.