March 23rd, 2007 12:14 pm
Here’s the text of the House Surrender Bill that just passed.
It includes:
$140,000,000 to pay farmers for livestock and fruit destroyed in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
$120,000,000 to research “the consequences of Hurricane Katrina on the shrimp and menhaden fishing industries.”
$25,000,000 to “growers and first handlers, as defined by the Secretary, of fresh spinach that were unable to market spinach crops as a result of the Food and Drug Administration Public Health Advisory issued on September 14, 2006.
$74,000,000 for “the payment of storage, handling, and other associated costs for the 2007 crop of peanuts.”
$400,000,000 for domestic “wildland fire suppression activities.”
$200,000,000 for “low-income home energy assistance.”
…and a provision to raise the minimum wage to $7.25.
I get it now, the Democrats’ war plan is to create so much pork, the muslim terrorists will be forced to leave us alone. It’s the perfect plan!
UPDATE:
Rep. Mike Spence sums it up well: “Spinach, shrimp, peanuts and shellfish? That’s not a war funding bill, that’s the salad bar at Denny’s.” (hat tip: Michelle)
UPDATE 2:
Bush responds… I’m glad to see the President Bush I voted for finally showing back up…
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Texas Rainmaker is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Graphics by: Margolis Media Works | Style by: Lisa Sabin - E.Webscapes
Dems Pass Pork-Laden Cut And Run Bill
House Democrats barely passed this bill:
A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powe…
…
Trackback by Iowa Voice — 12:31 pm
Bush Hammers Party of Defeat
The disgusting Democrats are kvelling over giving aid and comfort to the enemy, but President Bush came out firing, and rightly so.
Trackback by JammieWearingFool — 1:18 pm
It’s Pence, not Spence. Trust me … I vote for him every chance I get.
Keep up the good work … love the blog.
Comment by smithre2 — 7:45 am
I don’t understand why a bill to bring the trops home would be loaded with all these things that have NOTHING to do with Iraq.
Honestly, if a bill is entitled ” Bring The Troops Home” it should be illeagle to hide all this other stuff inside of it.
In the Eddie Murphy movie “The Distinguished Gentleman” there is a sene where three representitives run into a school tour right after a vote, and none of the three know what it was that they just voted on. Made for a good joke in the movie, but it looks like it really happens. Especially when a bill can have all these hidden items in it.
What a joke.
Comment by MrCynic1 — 1:35 pm
They loaded with pork to bribe the liberals who were opposing on the grounds the surrender date wasn’t early enough. I wonder how much of this “budget” they’ll request in cash, to hide in William Jefferson’s freezer.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 1:50 pm
Dear Tex,
Your disengenuousness on everything from the attorney scandal, to global warming, to this pork package is simply stunning. Is there anything that you don’t simply blindly pull the GOP party line on? The Bush you voted for is “finally back”? Why put it this way? Because he is finally standing up to pork? After years of having his own way with his (and the GOP’s) own special pork projects? What is more and more clear after 6 years of Republican control of both the presidency and Congress is that the right is just as committed to their own pet pork projects as the left, they just happen to be different pork projects. Crying fowl that somthing is big government pork - as a means of quashing something you simply don’t like - or that doesn’t fill your own wallet — isn’t going to wash anymore.
As for the Gonzales U.S. attorney scandal - you say nothing of the fact that this firing of attorneys is completely different - in a very important way - then what Clinton did. It is the very fact that he only fired a select few attorneys which is suspect. You can’t clear Gonzalez’s name by saying at least he didn’t fire as many as dear old Bill. This doesn’t wash. Fire all. Fire none. These decisions would be consistant. It is only firing SOME that makes the action suspicious. That you don’t address this salient fact points to your disengenuousness when it conmes to discussing this (and every other) issue. You simply don’t have a self-consciously critical cell in your brain, do you?
Comment by djernigan — 10:36 pm
And on another note - the reason we are fighting Muslim extremists in Iraq is BECAUSE of Bush’s invasion of Iraq. There were very few Muslim extremists in Iraq when Sadam was in power. And would be very few even today if he had managed the invasion in any kind of competant way.
I don’t know what this fact means we should do vis-a-vis Iraq. Certainly cutting and running isn’t fair really to anyone (especially all of the decent Iraqi’s - which reminds me, why don’t YOU want to cut and run). But again, your commmitement to ignoring this fact betrays a bias which makes you hardly even worth communicating with.
Comment by djernigan — 10:41 pm
“But again, your commmitement to ignoring this fact betrays a bias which makes you hardly even worth communicating with.”
And yet, here you are… doing it.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 11:04 pm
Yes - shame on me. And yet here you are, continuing to ignore the obvious.
So - one throw away line by ME absolves YOU of any responsibility to reply to reasonable issues with your posisition? Gee - I guess I am the one who will have to learn to be more careful.
Comment by djernigan — 11:17 pm
“So - one throw away line by ME absolves YOU of any responsibility to reply to reasonable issues with your posisition?”
Ok, princess, I’ll humor you.
“As for the Gonzales U.S. attorney scandal - you say nothing of the fact that this firing of attorneys is completely different - in a very important way - then what Clinton did.”
You’re correct. The 8 were fired for cause. The 93 fired by Reno’s Justice Department were not.
“Crying fowl that somthing is big government pork - as a means of quashing something you simply don’t like - or that doesn’t fill your own wallet — isn’t going to wash anymore.”
I’m not crying fowl over the fact Congress pass a pork-laden bill, that would be like crying fowl over a Democrat being a hypocrite - it’s too common to really be a surprise. What I’m criticizing is the fact that this was a supplemental appropriations bill to provide more supplies for our troops fighting a war and Democrats are playing politics with it by adding all this crap to get the utlra left wingers on board… without regard to the fact it may slow down needed supplies to our troops (because it won’t pass). But then again, the lack of troop support from Democrats is so common, maybe I shouldn’t act like its any surprise either. I guess you got me there.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 5:20 am
So - the disengenuousness continues. For Cause? Please, pray tell? What was the cause of their firing? Pull, pull, pull the party line as hard as you can - and you won’t pull a rabbit out of a hat on this one. CAUSE?!?! You have got to be kidding. This ought to be good. You show me cause, and I gurantee I can refute it.
Also - you completely go out of you way to misunderstand and misrrepresent my other point about pork. The Republicans have loading every miliary bodget with pork since Bush got into office and you bloody well know it. Do I approve of the pork in this bill? Of course not. All I am asking for is a little consistency on your part. But no — pull, pull, pull that party line.
Comment by djernigan — 6:30 am
[…] Texas Rainmaker […]
Pingback by Right Voices » Blog Archive » Democrats Defend Their Pork Packaging — 7:07 pm
“…pull, pull, pull that party line.”
So, djernigan, what party line do you pull? (That’s rhetorical - because the answer is blindingly obvious!)
Comment by Old Soldier — 7:12 pm
“So - the disengenuousness continues. For Cause? Please, pray tell? What was the cause of their firing? Pull, pull, pull the party line as hard as you can - and you won’t pull a rabbit out of a hat on this one. CAUSE?!?! You have got to be kidding. This ought to be good. You show me cause, and I gurantee I can refute it.”
How about you prove they weren’t fired for cause.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 9:18 pm
Hey there Tex,
If you really want to go on pretending that there is something more unusual about Clinton firing all 93 U.S. attorneys upon entering the White House — even though both Reagan, Bush Senior, and the current president did very nearly the same thing upon entering the White House http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-talking23mar23,1,3006952.story — then there is with George Bush only firing 8 mid-way through his second term (even though prior to this incident only 5 U.S. attorneys had failed to complete their term in the last twenty five years) – and you want to base your pretense (and, yes, I am quite certain that you really know better) on the claim that these 8 were fired “for cause” – then it seems to me fairly self-evident that the burden really is in your court. Were Clinton’s actions political? Of course they were. As were Reagan’s. As were Bush Senior’s. But at least in these cases it was politics as usual. With Bush, rather, we get politics unusual (surprise, surprise). And if you claim otherwise, you should put up or shut up.
But okay, okay. Have it your way. Give me a day or two to get my ducks in a row, and I will provide you with proof.
For now, why not read up on the issue – so that you can quit acting like you haven’t done so already. Start with this quote:
“Six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department ranked in the top third among their peers for the number of prosecutions filed last year, according to an analysis of federal records. In addition, five of the eight were among the government’s top performers in winning convictions.”
From this AP article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/prosecutors_performance
Of course, if you want to graduate to the big leagues, why not respond to this article by Sydney Blumenthal:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/03/22/attorneys/index.html
Take care,
Your own special princess.
Comment by djernigan — 10:09 am
This from the NY Post sums up the Clintons’ firing of 93 attorneys:
But that doesn’t alter the fact that even Schumer, if pressed, would have to concede that U.S. Attorneys are political employees - and, as such, they serve strictly at the pleasure of the president.
And surely Schumer remembers when President Bill Clinton and his attorney general, Janet Reno, ordered all 93 prosecutors to resign in one fell swoop.
Democrats had no problem with that. Nor did any of them complain when it became clear that that decision had been made with White House input.
Indeed, suspicion quickly focused on the fact that among those dismissed was the U.S. attorney who had just advised Reno that he was within 30 days of making the “critical decision” of whether to indict a powerful key Clinton ally, Rep. Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois.
Speculation was widespread that firing the rest of the prosecutors was simply cover, that the White House wanted to buy time for Rostenkowski - who eventually served 15 months in prison - to help push the Clinton agenda through Congress.
Yet did Democrats threaten to hold high-drama hearings then?
No.
Sorry, jernigan, but if it was good enough for you when Bubba did it, it’s gonna have to be good enough for you when Dubya does it. You can’t have it both ways.
Comment by crushliberalism — 10:10 am
crushliberalism
Please read back through the thread. I certainly understand this silly little argument of yours - and have responded to it. Selectively firing 8 mid-tenure is something very different than firing 93 - which every president since Reagan has done. If you don’t have anything to add to the debate, why say anything at all? And I thought Tex was bad. Sheesh.
Comment by djernigan — 10:46 am
djernigan,
It’s been stipulated by both sides that it’s natural for the President of the U.S. to replace federal prosecutors. Whether it’s done one at a time, 8 at a time or 93 at a time is up to the administration. You claim Reagan and Bush did the same thing as Clinton and you’re flat out wrong. Sure, Reagan (and Jimmy Carter, too) eventually replaced all the U.S. attorneys, but they let them serve out their terms and replaced them as their terms expired. They didn’t do a single-swoop, mass firing.
By the way, all of the attorneys in question here were Bush-appointees, not holdovers from a previous administration… making this case even less about replacing the appointees of political rivals for one’s own cronies.
My claim is that the release of the attorneys in this case is well within the rules (no nuances needed) and entirely proper.
If you’re going to toe the DNC party line that somethings amiss, it’s YOU that needs to prove otherwise.
But here’s some help:
Carol Lam, who was a Democrat and appointed in 2002 by Bush, by the way, was at odds with the administration in how to prosecute immigration and weapons cases. Sure, she prosecuted Duke Cunningham (which is what it appears Dems are relying on to generate a scandal), but if this was politically related to that (which Dianne Feinstein has acknowledged no linkage) then why wouldn’t they fire her BEFORE Cunningham was convicted? You know, like Bill Clinton’s clearing of attorneys prosecuting/investigating his political allies?
John McKay, also appointed by President Bush… and a Republican, was fired as a result “lax oversight” of the 2004 Washington State election in which Democrat Christine Gregoire swindled her way into office.
Kevin Ryan was investigating Apple/Steve Jobs and the stock backdating scandal. Jobs was an advisor to John Kerry in 2004. Ryan’s release (which Ryan called a “mutually agreeable decision”) only means it’s even more unlikely Jobs won’t be prosecuted anytime soon. Where’s the political advantage to Bush in that?
Daniel Bogdon was release for being “indecisive, secretive and insular” and his subpar performance appears to have led to three major cases he was prosecuting being dismissed. (One was a $14 million securities fraud case where he failed to provide the defense with documents)
David Iglesias was quoted as saying, after his release, ” ultimately am OK with that. We all take these jobs knowing we serve at the pleasure of the president.”
Let me know if you need more ducks for your row.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 10:47 am
Dear Tex,
The difference between how Clinton dealt with holdover U.S. attorneys – and how Reagan and the Bushes did – is much more a difference in degree than a difference in kind. Yes, Clinton did fire all of his (in March, not January) at the same time. While Reagan and Bush let them leave more at their own pace (but not at the end of their terms as you claim – whatever that even means – please read the LA Times article – apparently most were gone by April).
Bush selectively firing 8 attorneys mid-way through his second term is, however, clearly a difference in kind. It is completely unprecedented for attorneys to leave in the middle of term, let alone to be fired in this way. And the fact that they were his own appointees should make this more surprising to the critical thinker, not less surprising. Clinton not only didn’t fire any of his own appointees, he didn’t fire any appointees chosen by a Democrat. You ask me to show something amiss. This is the something I show you which appears to be amiss.
Moreover, I think this something amiss raises the following question – why were these specific attorneys fired, if not for political reasons. You say “for cause.” Now, that you say “for cause” seems to suggest that you do (or at least did) recognize an anomaly. That you recognize that something is indeed — different. That there is something which should be address - to which your answer is “for cause.” It suggests to me that this is the answer you provide which should appease me – and which puts everything back into a coherent defensible package in support of the president. In essence, you are saying “Sure – perhaps this looks a bit strange. But there’s no fire here. These attorneys were dismissed for cause.” Now, if this is indeed your answer to the fact that something looks amiss – then you should be able to show what this “cause” was (granted, at some point I should perhaps say why I think they were fired, but it doesn’t seem we have reached that point in the discussion yet. I have claimed no explanation. You have. The balls in your court to put up or shut up.).
Moreover, in this context I find it especially strange that you had nothing to say about the following quote from the AP:
“Six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department ranked in the top third among their peers for the number of prosecutions filed last year, according to an analysis of federal records. In addition, five of the eight were among the government’s top performers in winning convictions.”
Perhaps it is because of this quote that in your most recent post you have returned to the point that there was simply nothing amiss in Bush’s actions. It is almost as if – not being able to show cause – you have reverted back to the argument that nothing was amiss. So – which is your defense Tex? That there is nothing out of the ordinary in what Bush has done? Or that even if something looks a bit amiss, it’s really just that these 8 attorneys deserved to be fired. I must say, both smell a bit fishy to me.
Comment by djernigan — 11:50 am
Try reading comment #18.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 11:54 am
I certainly understand this silly little argument of yours - and have responded to it.
Really? Where did you admit that Bubba fired attorneys in order to stall an impending investigation of an FOB (Friend Of Bill’s) that was close to completion in order to install a crony? I must have missed that admission.
Fire all. Fire none. These decisions would be consistant.(sic)
I wasn’t aware that consistency was required when presidents fired attorneys. My bad. Thanks for the tip.
It is only firing SOME that makes the action suspicious.
In which case, virtually every president has acted “suspiciously” in that regard.
Sorry, slapnut, but you absolutely positively can NOT have it both ways. What Bubba did was unprecedented (the 100% firings, not diddling interns with stogies…in case there was any confusion). He did it for purely political reasons, to help a pal out who was being investigated. Hey, that’s his prerogative…as it is also Bush’s prerogative for firing attorneys who refused to vigorously pursue vote fraud investigations (among other reasons, which “Tex” laid out for you).
Dude, give it a rest. Your arguments are weaker than Ted Kennedy’s liver.
Comment by crushliberalism — 11:58 am
“Tex” and crushliberalism are my Heroes.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it hippie.
Comment by SgtTaylor — 6:22 pm
Wow Tex - In 18 You find cause for the firing of 2 out of 8? You say nothing of the fact that most of these attorneys were performing swimmingly. Your other points have NOTHING to do with cause. They move beyond cause to speculating about how you might respond should I start speculating about cause. The insularity of you world must be very comforting.
BUT - since you think that finding cause for 2 of 8 somehow supports your position - I will respond to the two. McKay and Bogdon are defended agains your slander here: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16683949.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation
And here - http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070321/NEWS18/70321008 — where Ensign (R) of Nevada defends Bogdon.
So - to repeat - “which is your defense Tex? That there is nothing out of the ordinary in what Bush has done? Or that even if something looks a bit amiss, it’s really just that these 8 attorneys deserved to be fired. I must say, both smell a bit fishy to me.”
Comment by djernigan — 7:21 pm
OK crushliberalism. Let me then concede a point (albeit regarding something I haven’t even addressed). That is - yes - Clinton’s firing of all U.S. attorneys simultaneously is different enough in degree from what Reagan and Bush did to warrant some speculation. I understand that. However, this fact does not negate the observation that what Bush has done vis-a-vis these 8 attorneys is even more out of the norm than what Clinton did. And so warrants an even greater ammount of speculation. Moreover, Clinton’s situation is in the past. Bush’s has just happened. My point - if what Clinton did deserves some speculation, Bush deserves even more — since it is so much more out of the ordinary.
Finally - I really don’t mean to bait and switch here. But I think the fact that Gonzalez so clearly lied about what took place makes the whole situation even more worthy of speculation. And the fact that the Patiot Act changes things so that Bush can appoint temporary U.S. Attorneys - makes it even more worthy of specualation. Add all this together - and speculation about why these attorneys - why now — begins to seem a pretty reasonable question. I haven’t moved on to speculation. I leave this to Congress. My real motivation here is to respond to the right wing spin machine’s position that congressional inquiry is somehow inconsistent because there wasn’t such inquiry when Clinton fired 93 U.S. attorneys. My answer - there is much more smoke in this case - which provides for a greater liklihood that there is indeed a fire.
And oh - I’m sorry - I almost forgot - but “I wasn’t aware that consistency was required for Congress to hold an inquiry.”
Comment by djernigan — 7:50 pm
djernigan,
Debating with you is like debating with a brick wall, except that a brick wall would probably find a clue sooner.
*I* don’t have a defense. This isn’t something *I’ve* been accused of. I have a position, which is shared by folks on both sides of the political aisle… that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. They are political positions of law enforcement. Thus, if a President wants to remove a U.S. attorney and replace him with a political ally, he’s well within the proper bounds to do so… even if the move is politically motivated (like Clinton’s was). I’m saying there is no scandal here for that very reason.
“I will respond to the two. McKay and Bogdon are defended agains your slander here”
When it’s in written form, it’s libel. It would help your arguments have some credibility if you showed basic knowledge in common terms… (besides, my comments do not rise to the standard of defamation, anyway)
“You say nothing of the fact that most of these attorneys were performing swimmingly”
Here’s a quote from the article you cited:
Even if they’re good at prosecuting the cases they’re taking, if they’re not taking the cases that advance the national policy, they may have performance-related issues and the administration may decide to replace them with prosecutors who will prosecute the cases the administration thinks should have priority.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 7:51 pm
In my orevious ppost I should have said “so that Bush can appoint temporary U.S. Attorneys WITHOU CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL”
Comment by djernigan — 7:53 pm
In response to comment #24. You try to do a nice job of flipping the issue from cause and effect to effect then cause. I’m not proactively arguing that Clinton’s actions were improper. In fact, I’m arguing that he was well within his rights to replace U.S. attorneys… like any President is.
My problem is the fact that the Democrats who are trying to manufacture yet another fake scandal are some of the same people who did not have a problem when a President of their own party took the same or similar actions.
Trying to parse this out a level of degree of impropriety doesn’t suit your argument well, either. That’s typical moral relativism we’ve come to expect from the Left, but it doesn’t help. Either you think Presidents have the right to replace U.S. attorneys as they see fit or you don’t. What Jonathan (crushliberalism) is suggesting is that you’re trying to argue alternative positions based solely on the actor’s party affiliation.
Question: Do you agree or disagree that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President?
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 7:59 pm
Slander? Libel? Pish posh. Now you’re just being a snob to evade the issue. If you know what I mean - then get on with the debate. No- I’m not a lawyer. So friggin’ what. Common useage trumps linguistic absolutism every time, or do you know anything about the history of the english language. Oh. I’m sorry. Now I’m being a relativist about language. Pish posh.
Ok. Yes. US attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the president (but when did I deny this exsactly?. But as has been noted many times in the last weeks by commentators on both sides of the political divide - this doesn’t mean that the president’s interactions with U.S. Attorneys cannot ammount to obstruction of justice.
Moreover - I never talked about “level of improrpiety” Your right - at least legally, an action is either legal or illegal. However, determining whether or not to pursue a particular case or not does require making a judgmeent call based on the facts available. The police don’t pursue every claim that a law has been broken - but only those where the evidence at hand points to something amiss. Prosecutors are even pickier - pursuing those they think they can win. This is just good use of resources. The more smoke - the more likley that there is a fire. I take this as a fact. And in this case - there is a lot of smoke. I also take this as a fact. But I certainly don’t mean to suggest that the fact that there is a lot of smoke makes Bush more guilty then Clinton - but, rather, that he is more deserving of investigation. Tell me that DA’s around the country don’t make this type of judgement call all the time. When they do - are they moral relativists? Whose the brick wall now??
Comment by djernigan — 9:19 pm
“Ok. Yes. US attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the president (but when did I deny this exsactly?.”
When you continue to beat this non-scandal dead horse. They’re political appointees that can be removed at any time, for any reason.
You keep referring to smoke, but you’ve got nothing. But for the sake of argument, let’s just assume you’re correct and this was all a big politically-driven project. SO WHAT? They’re political appointees who can be (and are often) replaced by other political appointees when an adminstration thinks it’s the right time.
“And the fact that the Patiot Act changes things so that Bush can appoint temporary U.S. Attorneys - makes it even more worthy of specualation.”
You mean the Patriot Act that was voted for by 48 Democrat Senators and 145 Democrats in the House. Yeah, it presents a lot of “smoke” that the Bush administration might’ve taken action under a bipartisan law approved by an overwhelming majority of the opposition party…
“Prosecutors are even pickier - pursuing those they think they can win. This is just good use of resources.”
Agreed. And when the prosecutors don’t take cases their superiors in the Executive branch think they should, they “pursue other career opportunities”.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 9:54 pm
Dearest Tex,
When I say something was amiss - you divert by saying the U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president (as if to suggest that even if something were amiss, it would be irrelevant since the attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president).
When I say that even while serving at the pleasure of the president - there is at least the possibility that obstruction of justice could accrue as a result of the relationship between the president and these attorneys - you divert by saying that nothing was amiss (as if to suggest that even if obstruction of justice were theoretically possible, it doesn’t apply in this case because nothing was amiss).
This of course forces me to restate what was amiss (if you look back through the blog you will see that I have listed a number of anomalies about the current dismissal that you haven’t even addressed – chief among them being how rare it is for U.S. Attorneys not to serve out the appointing president’s term), only to have you remind me that the attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president (admit it – in response to my above parenthetical – you once again responded in this same way in your head).
Could you at least try to address one issue at a time — and quit conflating the two. I may be a brick wall, but it is you who keeps pushing the discussion in a never ending circle.
And now - to play the hurt princess part just for a moment - while I at least try to give and take and bend with the discussion (I admitted that something was a bit fishy with Clinton, and (partly) agreed with you that the U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president) you haven’t budged a bit. Well - I guess that could just be because I am wrong on every issue, and you are ever so smart that you don’t have to bend. But. . . I am pretty sure that I showed how you misrepresented me as a moral relativist, but instead of any type of concession on your part, I get the following diversion:
“Prosecutors are even pickier - pursuing those they think they can win. This is just good use of resources.”
Agreed. And when the prosecutors don’t take cases their superiors in the Executive branch think they should, they “pursue other career opportunities”.
No mention here that you might have mislabeled me a moral relativist - and no consequent return to the point you were able to ignore by labeling me a moral relativist. Instead, you spin my statement to a different purpose. So - I ask again. Who is the brick wall? Of course it’s your webpage. You can be a brick wall if you want to.
Forever Your Princess.
Comment by djernigan — 11:38 pm
[…] …and 535 members of Congress want to waste the rest. […]
Pingback by Texas Rainmaker » Tax Day is Upon Us… — 8:57 am