John Roberts -- Proud Racist

[tk2kewl]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscort194389378aug19,0,3268909.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

Conservative Memos

BY TOM BRUNE
WASHINGTON BUREAU

August 19, 2005

WASHINGTON - In internal White House memos written in the 1980s, John G. Roberts often showed his conservative edge, offering critical assessments of government programs for women and minorities, making jokes about Hispanics and discussing how to "defund the left."

<snip>

In some memos, for example, he made jokes about Hispanics and women. For a 1983 Reagan interview in Spanish Today, he said, "I think this audience would be pleased that we are trying to grant legal status to their illegal amigos."

He also joked in 1982 about Kickapoo Indians, saying "a group of them made Newsweek by choosing to live in squalid conditions beneath the International Bridge in Eagle Pass, Texas, rather than their Mexican homeland."

In a 1984 memo advising on how to respond to an eccentric letter to his boss, Fred Fielding, asking if all property had been placed in a public trust, Roberts began, "One Ramon L. Rivera of Los Angeles (where else?) ... "

<snip>


...more at link...

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscort194389378aug19,0,3268909.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

[wake.up.america]

1. It just goes to show you intelligence does not always come from a book.

A racist is one of the lowest forms of life.

[I concur]

6. Didn't he grow up...

...in a lily white community of Indiana? Why are so many Democrats supporting him?

[progressivebydesign]

2. And will his anti-minority, anti-woman views reach the MSM??

I mean.. will anyone hear about this? No. Because most people, sadly enuff, get their news from Faux or CNN, who don't want them to hear it.

[tk2kewl]

16. demand that they report it

send an email

[electropop]

32. Oh, but he's a "moderate" bigot.

Whatever that is. Pro-corporate, anti-everybody-else nutcase. I guess that's the new "moderate."

[tk2kewl]

40. ... as long as you do the dirty work with a smile and never look mean

... then you're a moderate? :shrug:

[journalist3072]

3. Another troubling quote from the memos....

In 1983, John Roberts supported a national ID card.

So why did he support a national ID card? He said such a program might help counter the the "real threat to our social fabric posed by uncontrolled immigration."

Immigration is a threat to our social fabric? Could that be because John Roberts is worried he might become a minority?

He also told the Reagan Administration to tread lightly before supporting The Fifty States Project. He chided the Fifty States Project for addressing "perceived problems of gender discrimination."

He also pontificated on whether "encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."

I'm covering all of this on my blog: http://progressiveminds.bloghi.com

[tk2kewl]

5. I am glad you are on it!

This guy is the Grand Dragon and he doesn't even try to hide behind the hood.

[journalist3072]

7. Exactly!

When I realized he said uncontrolled immigration was a threat to our social fabric, I knew instantly what he meant! He's concerned that with people of color coming here to the U.S. in massive numbers, he will become a minority! It's all about protecting his status as a White man in his country!

[tk2kewl]

9. Another excellent observation by TahitiNut in LBN ...

The fact that Roberts would write these comments in memos to his superiors clearly indicates that the memos' audience shared his sentiment. This was a young Roberts trying to impress his Repuke bosses.

edit: spelling

[journalist3072]

11. That is hitting the nail on the head....

That is absolutely correct.

[long_green]

34. Dang right. At that time Roberts was just a young man...

on his way up. He saw perfectly clearly how to get along in the horrid racist Reagan era and he enthusiastically joined in.

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

41. Translation: "real threat to GOP posed by uncontrolled immigration"

[ck4829]

4. That will make Roberts a Hero...

to the RW'ers.

[tk2kewl]

12. The real RWers (KKK) are not the ones who we expect to change

but there are plenty of decent americans (dare I say on both sides of the isle) who won't stand for this. Bush's base are the haters; they will not change their minds.

[ck4829]

13. Exactly

In my dictionary, Conservative are people on the other side that may be our political opponents, but at the same time we can consider them to be our friends, and we can say that they are concerned about America.

RW'ers are the 'Liberals are Traitors', KKK Lovers, Freepers, Dobson worshipping, Bush before America, kind of people

[LeftyDarthBrodie]

21. I third that

we should all try to restrain ourselves from calling these people "conservatives." Although I disagree with Barry Goldwater (just an example) on almost everything, he did support a separation of church and state and reproductive right's (I believe), I would never support him politically. I might give in to calling these people "Reagan Conservatives" because he is the one who turned from principle to religious,miltary and corporate authoritarianism.

[ewagner]

8. If these memos are on the record

then he is a proven racist.

[journalist3072]

10. These are legit memos...

He wrote them during his time in the Reagan administration, as he was advising the Administration on certain issues.

[tk2kewl]

18. and so are his overlords

he said these things to try and impress :puke:

[Kindigger]

14. But people can change!

That was the OLD Roberts, just as we have the new and improved "alcohol free" *


:sarcasm:

[tk2kewl]

15. If that's the case then he should be made to stand on the Senate floor

and state: "Yes, I was a racists. The things I said and did on behalf of the Reagan Administration and Bush I Administration were hateful and damaging to American. I swear before God as my witness and on my children's lives that I will do all I can to uphold the right of every American, regardless of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation to the pursuit of happiness and to equal protection under the law."

[understandinglife]

26. For starters, and then he should make crystal clear commitments to ...

... a literal interpretation of the Constitution and to meticulous separation of church and state and robust protection of women from any government interference in their personal health and wellness decisions.

Short of that -- send the dude back to his law firm.


Peace.

[A Simple Game]

33. Aren't his blond children adopted from South America.

Hummmm, racist, and adopts blond children from South America. Why does the word Aryan(sp) come to mind?

[tk2kewl]

17. kickie

:kick:

[KingFlorez]

19. My mother sensed he was racist

So many Democrats are supporting him, because their afraid of the GOP. Bush is really dragging us down, nominating racists to the court.

[tk2kewl]

20. have you noticed how much more racism and hate has bubbled up...

around the country in the last few years? this admin has given the green light to hateful behavior. there was a Tyson plant, for gods sakes, that locked the employee restroom, hung a "whites only" sign on the door and gave keys only to the white employees.

[KingFlorez]

22. I've noticed

We cannot have a government who reinforces peoples ignorances and prejudices and that is exactly what this administration is doing.

[tk2kewl]

23. Did you see this story...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4326689

a mixed race couple from a neighborhood near my own was run out of town :(

[KingFlorez]

25. I hadn't seen that

But I think it's disgusting that people can be run out of their home in a country that's suppose to be free.

[fortyfeetunder]

76. that crap started during the Reagan administration

Roberts' revelations through his writings clearly showed such racist and sexist behavior was not only tolerated but rewarded, as evidenced through his SCOTUS nomination.

[bliss_eternal]

47. Anyone that was once aligned w/Reagan is more than likely

racist, among other things that I have no provocation to get into at this time.

Your mother is a wise woman.

[Connie_Corleone]

24. KICK!!

[justjones]

27. Huh? I just saw a headline for an article on MSN....

stating "Roberts has been planning his high court career since age 19" or something to that effect. So, he has been planning his career since the age of 19, yet saw no problem with writing racist shit in official governmental memos that would one day be released to the public. You know why? Because he knows the people in charge agree with his fucked up sentiments.

Do you know what this information is going to do to Roberts? Not a cotton-picking thing.

[tk2kewl]

28. We need to put the pressure on the Democrats in the Senate

to make what your statement the issue. Not only is Roberts a racist but so are those that support his nomination.

[dxstone]

29. Racist, sexist, corporate shill...

And the most feared reaver on the high seas!



NOTE: if you don't 'get' this, you haven't seen The Princess Bride.
Go rent it. Right now.
Go!... and sin no more!
:silly:
d

[lonestarnot]

30. Also proud to keep women out of law school!

[melody]

31. and so it goes...

The RW call for "balance" on the court is revealed to be what we always knew it was...one moron just like them to battle all those snobby smart people.

[MissMarple]

35. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, I tried to be fair.

I guess what I really need to be is more cynical, harder edged, less forgiving, but wouldn't that make me more like them?

[bliss_eternal]

43. Not necessarily...

But I don't know that you have to be more cynical or harder edged as you said. Why would this be necessary?

Just look at the facts--at who this man is and what he stands for. How does seeing him for who and what he is, imply cynicism or a hard edge?

:hi:

I don't know if it makes me cynical, I just don't trust this crew (admin.). I hoped THEY would be open minded and fairer than they have shown themselves capable of being. They didn't. They blew it.
We're just looking at the facts...

[rucky]

36. Does La Raza know about this? n /t

[appal_jack]

37. democrats ought to begin...

...with the assumption that anyone nominated by * is a racist, sexist, corporate-power-mongering war criminal. In 5+ years have circumstances ever proven otherwise? Why can't Dem. Senators learn?!?!

I remember some Dem Congresswoman (can't remember who though) speaking on some MSM news "analysis' tv show (can't remember which), just after John Ashcroft was confirmed as AG in 2001. The host asked a question about some Dem's breaking ranks and helping to confirm him (or was it the failure to filibuster? - can't remember which again), and the Congresswoman made lame excuses about how the (insufficient) nay votes were a "shot across the bow" warning * that he ought not nominate such rw'ers again.

I remember screaming at the tv that confirming fascist assholes is no way to send shots across bows. That Dems were getting duped, and that this country was on a steep slope, skidding toward martial law, and dammit, I wanted an opposition party that OPPOSED fascism. I quit watching many MSM news "analysis" shows shortly thereafter, in order to save a few shreds of remaining calm and sanity.

Four years down and into this skid, I have no patience for any Dem who gives * the slightest benefit of consideration. * is a war criminal, as was his father, as are all the Reaganites and Nixonites and Bushistas surrounding him. * nominations deserve outright rejections, with a side order of intense scrutiny, just to prove to the rest of the world what lies inside the minds and souls of these neo-Cons.

All that said, many kudos are due to Reid and Leahy and any other Dem Senator who has helped stand firm on at least the release of these Roberts papers. In my mind, they are heroes for standing up even this much this late in the (end)game.

I only hope that continued pressure to release these papers is step one in a sustained and successful filibuster of Roberts, and every cretin that * tosses up thereafter.

-app

[bliss_eternal]

44. Very well said, app_farmer_rb.

You've stated feelings I have on this topic,as well. Thank you.

Edited to add, welcome to DU! :hi:

[rateyes]

38. And, IMO, unethical, too!

What else would you call not recusing yourself from a case as sensitive as whether or not detainees could be tried by military tribunals, giving the opinion the administration wanted, all while you were interviewing for a lifetime appt. to SCOTUS?

That's a big deal, along with all this other stuff. And, we need to hold OUR (Democrats) Senators feet to the fire on this one.

[rateyes]

39. What comes from your mouth, when noone but

your buddies are listening, reveals quite clearly what's in the heart. The Dems in the Senate need to get to work on this guy.

[ClintonTyree]

42. I'm NOT being a Roberts apologist here.......

but I can remember myself as a young man saying things as bad or worse than this about people. There was a time in my life when this type of behavior was accepted as the norm for my particular group of friends. You'd always try to suck up to the BIGGEST bigoted asshole by being a bigoted asshole yourself. Of course, that doesn't make it right. I started to see through the hate later in life and here I am today, living proof that people CAN change.
I'm sure Roberts just wanted to be accepted into the "old boy's club" as well. He was a young man with "that lean and hungry look upon his face", trying to fit in with all of his "heroes". I'm NOT saying that it's right, but who among has hasn't erred in their lives? :shrug:
Although we can get some bearing on his present and future ideology from his past, I don't think that a person's past should be the sole criteria for judgment of their present and future ideology.
That being said, and fully expecting to be beaten around the head and face for this, ;) I think our Democratic leaders should make their decisions based upon multiple criteria, not just one. The Cons don't seem to be all that endeared with him either. Some think he's not "right enough".
I'm probably wrong, he probably HASN'T changed an iota from his youth, and he's probably going to be another Antonin Scalia, but I'm not going to jump up and down on his shit for something he said 25 years ago.
Fire away! :)

[sellitman]

45. There is a Patten forming here.

A Patten of being a sexist, racist holier than thou Right wing turd. His history is part of his make up. I am NOT comfortable with this man being appointed for life.

NOT, NOT,NOT, NOT,
NOT, NOT,NOT, NOT,
NOT, NOT,
NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT,
NOT, NOT,NOT, NOT,
NOT, NOT,NOT, NOT,
NOT, NOT,

[ClintonTyree]

48. So, by that logic...........

I'd still be a racist in your eyes?

I'm not saying he's NOT still a racist, what I'm saying is that people CAN change. Judging someone by something they said 20+ years ago is not fair in my opinion.

Like I said, I'm NOT being an apologist for Roberts. I'm not comfortable with him either and I'm sure if he's confirmed he'll toe the Reich-wing line and legislate from the bench.

All I'm saying is, don't judge someone by something that was said or happened in the distant past. Mmm'k? ;)

[bliss_eternal]

50. No, wrong. You are owning what you said,

and admitting that it was wrong. Is there ANYTHING about this guy that is saying he is sorry, or regrets these views?

I don't think there is. But if there is, I am open to reviewing it and being corrected (of course).

So by that logic, why should we NOT judge him by what he said or has happened in the 'distant past.' All anyone has in these cases is what the person has done in their life toward preparing for this particular position.

The fact that you use yourself in an argument about this guy, doesn't seem appropriate. It really isn't the same thing at all.

Why do you feel the it's necessary to defend the past of someone that doesn't feel the need to defend his views at all?

I'm frankly a bit uncomfortable arguing (or debating) with someone that could defend a racist, sexist, civil rights destroyer at any level. Sorry--just being honest.

[ClintonTyree]

53. Forget it.........

it's not worth arguing about. Like I posted below, I guess I'm just getting sick of all the hate, everywhere. Peace. :)

[bliss_eternal]

54. Then stop defending hate, intolerance and bigotry.

If you are so sick of hate, don't defend those that practice it.

Maybe you should think about who's really hating here. Why are those that are standing up to hatred, hateful, in your eyes? And again, why are you defending an obviously intolerant and bigoted man?

Think about that.

Peace,yourself.

[ClintonTyree]

67. Find ONE quote in my posts where I "defended Roberts".

Can't do it, huh? :eyes: There are many people on DU that have filled their hearts with so much hate as to be indistinguishable from the rabid right. Hate, in ANY form is a useless and counterproductive emotion. Activism, I have nothing against that. Will I continue to write letters to NOT have Roberts confirmed? Yes I will, and I'll continue my efforts to have those in the White House removed from office as well. I NEVER SAID he was a good man or choice for the SC.
I commented on the level of HATE from some people over something he said 20+ years ago. That's all. End of story.
If you want to fill your heart with hate, be my guest. I see little difference in the hate from the left or the right lately. But we scream "we're RIGHT, they're WRONG". The other side says the same damned thing. Hate is hate, and I for one have had my fill of hate.
Hate away. Let me know how that works out for you.

[bliss_eternal]

46. Let's keep in mind that the difference between Roberts and

you having these kinds of opinions, is that this guy is running for a lifetime seat on the Supreme court.

While I agree that a person's past is not always an indication of their future, there is nothing about this guy that says he is different. He is not apologizing or even owning these views. It's just this tidy little secret that the Gop and the bushies are trying to keep to themselves because they know we will go ape-shit over it.

There have been no apologies or even acknowledgments of this guy's past 'views' because he is not ashamed or embarrassed that he said or did these things(completely unlike you). He STILL thinks and feels this way--look at his views on abortion, women's rights and his work with Reagan. Heck, look at his work with Starr.

If dude or anyone representing him came forward OWNING any of this and saying, he no longer feels this way--it's one thing. That is not the case. This guy is still racist, sexist and wanting to take us all back to the days long gone by.

Just because you can see the error of your prior ways, doesn't mean this guy has. You are on a board for Dems. He is running for a seat that would give him a great deal of power over a great many people's rights.

I mean no offense by this, but maybe you'd feel differently if you were gay, minority or a woman and someone was threatening your place in society.

[ClintonTyree]

51. I never said he HAD changed..........

I said that no one should be judged by their past mistakes. Period. Don't read too much more into what I said than what's really there.
I see people in this site that are HATING someone for something they said 20+ years ago. If he's STILL saying the same things now, sure, there's no way he should sit on that bench for life. And I've seen nothing from him that even hints he's changed one iota from his youth.
I'm simply stating that this amount of venom and hate for someone that made these remarks 20+ years ago is ludicrous. If you're hating him for what he's said, or even NOT said, lately, then hate away.
I guess I'm just getting a little sick of all the hate, on BOTH sides of the political spectrum. The divisiveness in this country is driving me crazy. Maybe I should take a "time out" for a while. :shrug:

[bliss_eternal]

57. Look, ClintonTyee--I mean no disrespect...

I didn't say you said he had changed. I merely pointed out that this is a big difference between the two of you.

It seems you are confusing this hateful guy, with YOUR OWN past of trying to appeal to bigots. I could be wrong and out of line,if I am I am sincerely sorry.

Your situation and his are completely and totally different. Anyone that confused you with your past would be very short sighted. When someone is running for a place that governs our country, we have NOTHING ELSE to judge them by, but what they have stood for up to this point in time.

Yes, people here are angry, and it may look like hatred to you. I don't see it that way. I see people that are angry that a group of men have taken this country back a good fifty or so years in terms of progress. We are entitled to be angry. Anger in situations like this are good and healthy because from that anger comes change.

I haven't seen anyone on this thread say anything about hate other than the hate this guy, and this administration has perpetuated and has spread to the entire u.s.

This is particularly scary if one happens to be a member of a group that is targeted by this guys intolerance. Can you frame it from that perspective? Can you see how horrible all of this may be for women, for diverse communities, etc.?

Maybe you should take a break if all you see is hate when people are expressing their malcontent with this agenda of intolerance. I'm sorry that I upset you, and hope you can consider another perspective on this issue...

[ClintonTyree]

68. Hey, no hard feelings.

We're all in this together. I just sick of the hate. It's eating me up. I'll never stop fighting injustice and the likes of george bush. However, I refuse to fill my heart with hate in doing so. It injures the soul. Let's agree to disagree about this and move on. Peace!

[bliss_eternal]

77. I understand--no hard feelings on my end, either.

:hi:

I appreciate your response. I am sincerely sorry that I upset you and that we had a tough time understanding one another's perspectives. I was kind of harsh with you, and I do apologize for that.

Hope to see you around DU--maybe next thread we'll be on the same side of the argument! ;)

:pals:

Enjoy the rest of your weekend!

[tk2kewl]

55. see this post...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4396888&mesg_id=4397367

[bliss_eternal]

49. I think we need to storm the MSM w/this information...

flood them with it--demanding that they report it. Flood them the way we flooded the supporters of that stupid Kerry documentary, prior to the elections in Nov.

Out of all the media outlets, someone is bound to report it with our insistence.

[journalist3072]

60. You're right!

This should be the top story in the news this evening!

[Swamp Rat]

52. John Roberts – Proud Nazi Reptile from Outer Space

[bliss_eternal]

58. Hi Swamp Rat!

:hi:

Always good to see you!

[Swamp Rat]

61. Way'at bliss_eternal!!!

:hi:

[Albert Cirrus]

56. Reason #1,894,193

1,894,193 or more reasons why these conservatives are turning back the clock.

[journalist3072]

59. Another thought that has occurred to me

If John Roberts believes there is no fundamental right to be free from discrimination, does that mean he believes that discrimination should be tolerated in the workplace?

Myself and a few of the other African-American workers in my office were called "The Black Caucus" (behind our backs) my our racist Deputy Director.

Does he believe that kind of behavior is acceptable because I don't have a fundamental right to be free from discrimination?

[bliss_eternal]

62. This is exactly the kind of thing that worries me.

As it stands now, this administration has made it a little less 'scary' for people to voice their intolerances, and in some cases to be outright threatening, discriminating, abusive, etc. This IS NOT ok.

No one should be calling you guys anything behind your backs--that's bulls****!

Oh, and I think the answer to your question is yes, he would find that behaviour acceptable. I get the sense that this guy is part of that 'old boy's network.' The groups that want to bring back the good old days, when you could tell a 'black' or 'mexican' or 'woman' joke--because it's all in good fun, right?

:grr:

[journalist3072]

64. You hit the nail on the head! Big time!

I absolutely think John Roberts would find workplace discrimination, like the kind we experienced in my office, just A ok! No problemo!

It also shows why the Bush Crime Team has been fighting so hard against these papers being released. They know what's in them.

[bliss_eternal]

65. Then those of us that know how important it is, must

spread the word. It's imperative. There's too much at stake. The party can't sell out the needs and rights of the few, to appease the fears of the many.

Anyone with any sort of conscience that is really paying attention knows that we can't allow this all to go on uncontested. We just can't....

[KamaAina]

63. To hell with the Extreme Court! Let's give him OxyRush's air slot!

"Tune in to the John Roberts Show. All the bigotry, without the drug abuse."

[Czolgosz]

66. So, in summary, Roberts is a racist, sexist, unethical, right-wing judicia

activist.

The racist and sexist issues seem well covered in this thread already, but don't forget his ethical breaches.

For example, Roberts was engaged in secret job interviews with top Bush Administration officials, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while Gonzales' Department of Justice was arguing the Hamden case (a critical civil rights case) before Roberts. This is a gross ethical violation. Judges have a legal duty to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Roberts failed this test miserably. To put this in context, one party (Hamdan) before the DC Circuit Court was arguing for his very liberty while one of the three judges selected to decide the case was job-hunting with the opposite party (the Bush Administration). Actually, it was much worse than "job-hunting" because Roberts was engaging in secret meetings designed to show the Bush adminsitration he was Bush's man for appointment to serve as one of the nine most powerful judges in America. Roberts ruled in favor of Bush (no surprise). Unquestionably, Roberts should have recused himself from this historic and precedent-creating case. Roberts is ethically unqualified to serve on the Supreme Court. This lack of ethics fits well with Roberts's lie about his role in the right-wing federalist Society. Remember, Roberts denied having ever been a member of the Federalist Society, a group of right-wing lawyers devoted to an extremist view of the Constitution that would deny the federal government power to regulate corporate misconduct on the national level. Contrary to Roberts’s statements, he is listed in the Federalist Society's 1997-1998 leadership Directory as serving on its Steering Committee.

Also, don't forget that Roberts's radical out-of-the-mainstream judicial activism would turn back the clock 70 years with respect to ignoring well established legal precedents. Many of Roberts’s critics have focused on the anti-environmental aspect of his dissenting opinion in Rancho Viejo v. Norton, a case where he disagreed with the rest of the (very conservative) DC Circuit Court because he would have rejected the use of the Endangered Species Act to protect a threatened habitat. On its face, this dissenting opinion shows a lack of respect for the environment, but the reasoning behind this opinion shows a more troubling lack of respect for Congress’s regulatory authority. Roberts would have rejected the use of the Endangered Species Act in the Rancho Viejo case based on an extremist view that Congress lacks constitutional authority to regulate anything that does not directly affect interstate commerce. 70 years ago, back before the New Deal, there was a vigorous debate in the courts about the scope of the Constitution’s “commerce clause” and Congress’s authority to regulate actions in the various states. The New Deal legislation and the many court decisions which approved that legislation resolved the debate about the scope of the commerce clause. Since then, this broad interpretation of Congress’s authority to regulate actions in the states has been used to lift the country out of depression, to pass labor protections, racial desegregation, civil rights, and consumer safety laws among other important and well-established legal standards. Roberts’s dissent in the Rancho Viejo case confirms that he would turn the clock back 70 years to the narrow interpretation of the commerce clause that was rejected decades ago and by thousands of legal decisions. Imagine an America where Congress could not impose child work standards or environmental regulations or racial equality unless the parties being regulated sought to violate the standards while actually crossing state lines for business purposes. That is the America Roberts envisions.

ROBERTS IS BORK WITH A BETTER HAIRCUT!

[Skittles]

69. Like Scalia and Thomas, not fit to be any kind of judge

let alone a Supreme Court judge.

[DeepModem Mom]

70. Hey, MSM, wake up -- this should disqualify this smart-ass! nt

[suegeo]

71. If I were into ass kicking as a means of problem solving...

"Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."

If I were into ass kicking as a means of problem solving, I'd say some of them there housewives who turned to lawyering should kick Roberts' ass. Snotty little punk that he is.

But since I'm not, just some kicking of his mental ass is called for. Should be an easy win for us girls.

[bliss_eternal]

72. I think you could take him.

Usually bullies can't fight worth a damn anyway. ;)

[GoreDean2008]

73. Doesn't Surprise Me

I knew from the beginning that you cannot trust Bush's Supreme Court nominee, regardless of the nice facade he puts on his face.

[DeepModem Mom]

74. Kick!

[AuntPatsy]

75. This should not go quietly under or ignored, there are so many

important issues these days, lets try to keep them all in the forefront, it shouldn't be too hard with all the valuable and highly intelligent minds that visit this site...