Comments by "" (@TheDavidlloydjones) on "NBC News"
channel.
-
15
-
14
-
11
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
I don't think that "wife of an ex-President," particularly an ex-President with spectacular sex baggage, is the best qualification for the Presidency.
Since the Republican charge was the Democrats' boast -- "Eight more years of Obama" -- Joe would have been the better candidate.
Next time around everybody should strive to field the best candidate they can.
For the Democrats, Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) looks awfully good to me: the future of American politics depends upon smashing the Evangelical-GOP machine and realigning the parties. The Clinton-Obama New Democrats are a perfectly sound conservative party, but there is nobody on the left, and a howling mob of fools occupying the GOP.
Stabenow is the person most responsible for the current farm program -- half way toward repairing the income support of the Red States. She understands the big issue -- that what was perfectly sound when the Socialist Party proposed it in 1920 was only passable by the time Eisenhower enacted it in 1953 -- and total lunacy today, when the largest farmer in America is called "Coca-Cola Limited," and the second largest is some guy called Archer-Daniels-Midland.
Half of all Evangelicals don't vote. This is not because they are stupid or lazy. It's because they think the whole thing is a load of what they shovel out of the barn.
At the same time, the two most important Christians in American politics in the past hundred years have been Rebekkah Baines and Ms Lil Gordy, LBJ's and Jimmy Carter's mothers. Both solid Evangelicals -- but of the type who read their Bibles to find out about Jesus. They didn't listen to talk radio to hear the latest from the paid GOP staffs in the church offices down in Dallas and Tulsa.
Cheers,
-dlj.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Laura,
That's not true. There's no doubt that he's a dummy, a lazy time-server, and that he perjured himself at his Senate Confirmation hearings.
It is wrong, however, to say that he has been ineffective. The Federalist Society has a lot of members who are dolts, thugs, and clowns, with a light sprinkling of fascists. It also has a few -- a large minority -- who are principled conservatives, and a few more who are just-for-fun fans of the original Jennings Randolph.
Many of these latter two groups are highly intelligent -- and a numbskull like Thomas still has to have clerks. For a bright young conservative of the Bill Buckley variety, a spell of writing judgements for Justice Thomas can be fun, challenging, a chance to put right-wing dogma into circulation at the least and on the books at best. It's also good on the resume if you're headed for big corporate law.
I used to read Supreme Court judgements, sometimes for work, scurrying over to the Supreme Court to pick them up off that little table where they release them (on I forget which day of the week it was: it's 48 years now) and sometimes just out of interest. I've read them desultorily over the past few years. All of Clarence Thomas's office's output is really first-class work.
I don't think he did it, and I don't think his dog did it unless dogs regurgitate homework they've eaten. Because of his ideological position he has attracted some good minds. His clerks have included some really fine and competent people.
Don't take your enemy for granted, Laura.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1