<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why the Non-Coverage of the Supreme Court Nomination?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:49:09 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy Pierce</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why/comment-page-1/#comment-55876</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy Pierce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:13:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why-2/#comment-55876</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m trying to figure out how three conservatives, two moderates, and four liberals makes a conservative court. It just doesn&#039;t. There hasn&#039;t been a conservative Supreme Court since before FDR almost singlehandedly replaced the whole SCOTUS with liberals. There was never a time when there was a whole court appointed by him, but Truman replaced the last Republican appointee not too long after FDR died, and the Republican appointees since then haven&#039;t all been conservatives despite the fact that Democratic nominees have all been liberal. This will actually be the first time there has even been a balanced court since FDR. It still won&#039;t be a conservative court when it moves from 4-2-3 to 4-1-4, but it will be a move from a clearly liberal court to a clearly balanced or moderate court, with Justice Kennedy ultimately determining the course of many of the important decisions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m trying to figure out how three conservatives, two moderates, and four liberals makes a conservative court. It just doesn&#8217;t. There hasn&#8217;t been a conservative Supreme Court since before FDR almost singlehandedly replaced the whole SCOTUS with liberals. There was never a time when there was a whole court appointed by him, but Truman replaced the last Republican appointee not too long after FDR died, and the Republican appointees since then haven&#8217;t all been conservatives despite the fact that Democratic nominees have all been liberal. This will actually be the first time there has even been a balanced court since FDR. It still won&#8217;t be a conservative court when it moves from 4-2-3 to 4-1-4, but it will be a move from a clearly liberal court to a clearly balanced or moderate court, with Justice Kennedy ultimately determining the course of many of the important decisions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Baklava</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why/comment-page-1/#comment-55870</link>
		<dc:creator>Baklava</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why-2/#comment-55870</guid>
		<description>Hey, I&#039;ll take that one. Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, I&#8217;ll take that one. Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RedBeard</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why/comment-page-1/#comment-55859</link>
		<dc:creator>RedBeard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:15:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why-2/#comment-55859</guid>
		<description>Bak, you&#039;re a rhetorical powerhouse.  I like that in a  person.  :D

As for Ray, I can&#039;t quite figure out his political leanings, but I agree that there is a question.  Perhaps he&#039;s a Buchananite.  Ol&#039; Pat used to be a conservative, but in recent years has gone around the back of the scenery, banged about a bit, and emerged on stage as a sort of a confused and angry right-wing liberal.  ;)

Part of the problem with Ray&#039;s question was that I assumed he was talking about the general election, not the primaries.  But even in the primaries I&#039;ll support a moderate conservative who can win the general election against a Democrat instead of a true-blue conservative who can&#039;t win.  Half a loaf, and all that. 

Btw, just as an aside, I like Ronda Storms, but without any qualifiers about her gender, one way or another.  I like her because she&#039;s usually right on the issues.   </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bak, you&#8217;re a rhetorical powerhouse.  I like that in a  person.  <img src='http://lashawnbarber.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':D' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>As for Ray, I can&#8217;t quite figure out his political leanings, but I agree that there is a question.  Perhaps he&#8217;s a Buchananite.  Ol&#8217; Pat used to be a conservative, but in recent years has gone around the back of the scenery, banged about a bit, and emerged on stage as a sort of a confused and angry right-wing liberal.  <img src='http://lashawnbarber.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Part of the problem with Ray&#8217;s question was that I assumed he was talking about the general election, not the primaries.  But even in the primaries I&#8217;ll support a moderate conservative who can win the general election against a Democrat instead of a true-blue conservative who can&#8217;t win.  Half a loaf, and all that. </p>
<p>Btw, just as an aside, I like Ronda Storms, but without any qualifiers about her gender, one way or another.  I like her because she&#8217;s usually right on the issues.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why/comment-page-1/#comment-55856</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:01:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why-2/#comment-55856</guid>
		<description>Bak, I was wanting to say something about Raymond&#039;s derogatory terms and low esteem of women in general.  Thanks for speaking out.

&lt;em&gt;Didn&#039;t catch that earlier.  :( - Admin&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bak, I was wanting to say something about Raymond&#8217;s derogatory terms and low esteem of women in general.  Thanks for speaking out.</p>
<p><em>Didn&#8217;t catch that earlier.  <img src='http://lashawnbarber.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' />  &#8211; Admin</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Baklava</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why/comment-page-1/#comment-55852</link>
		<dc:creator>Baklava</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:36:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why-2/#comment-55852</guid>
		<description>Raymond wrote, &quot;Sorry for the trickeration.&quot;

Trickeration doesn&#039;t matter.

RedBeard and I probably think similarly and I will not hand the security of this nation to the Democrat leadership. While I disagree with the President and Republican senators on some issues.. I well know that on MANY MORE issues I disagree with the Democrat leadership. You&#039;ll never get 100% agreement. 

Heck. You&#039;ll never find a candidate to take up your alternative border security policy. Therefore you&#039;ll NEVER have anyone to vote for.

While RedBeard and I will move this country forward towards the future, you will be sure to make this nation less safe (by ensuring people who are weak on security get into office). 

How&#039;s that for rhetoric. More responsible I&#039;d say. 

BTW, Your comments on the other thread about &quot;broads&quot; and on this thread about not usually voting for women makes you someone that I am not fond of. I believe and I&#039;ll state again that you probably are a liberal plant. There is no way that you are a conservative with the best interest in moving conservativism forward. Period.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Raymond wrote, &#8220;Sorry for the trickeration.&#8221;</p>
<p>Trickeration doesn&#8217;t matter.</p>
<p>RedBeard and I probably think similarly and I will not hand the security of this nation to the Democrat leadership. While I disagree with the President and Republican senators on some issues.. I well know that on MANY MORE issues I disagree with the Democrat leadership. You&#8217;ll never get 100% agreement. </p>
<p>Heck. You&#8217;ll never find a candidate to take up your alternative border security policy. Therefore you&#8217;ll NEVER have anyone to vote for.</p>
<p>While RedBeard and I will move this country forward towards the future, you will be sure to make this nation less safe (by ensuring people who are weak on security get into office). </p>
<p>How&#8217;s that for rhetoric. More responsible I&#8217;d say. </p>
<p>BTW, Your comments on the other thread about &#8220;broads&#8221; and on this thread about not usually voting for women makes you someone that I am not fond of. I believe and I&#8217;ll state again that you probably are a liberal plant. There is no way that you are a conservative with the best interest in moving conservativism forward. Period.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raymond</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why/comment-page-1/#comment-55824</link>
		<dc:creator>Raymond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:57:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why-2/#comment-55824</guid>
		<description>Redbeard my friend, then repectfully, you are part of the problem.  By posing that question, I was trying to see how many so-called &quot;fed-up&quot; people are actually going to support a GOP challenger!

Sorry for the trickeration.  In no way did I ever want anyone to think that I would ever vote for a Democrat, but I wanted to see who was going to support the spineless, pink panty wearing, ignore-the-people, GOP incumbents as opposed to going out and working hard for a true conservative challenger who is willing to sign a strict recall contract if he doesn&#039;t do as he is told when he gets to DC.

Voting for a Democrat my man was NEVER an option.

You can rest assured that I already fired the GOP elected officials as they stand now.  I can think of only one who may get my vote.  Her name is Ronda Storms.  She is a true conservative county commissioner in Hillsborough County (Tampa.  She offered a bill in response to Tampa Public Libraries putting up highly offensive displays in the main areas of Tampa&#039;s Public libraries to celebrate &quot;gay pride month.&quot;  The backlash was immediate.  Her bill to deny funding, support and recognition of gay activites passed 6-1.  I usually don&#039;t vote for women (of any party), but I think I may give her a vote this time.  Based on her other accomplishments, she is a true conservative.  I&#039;d love to send her to DC to pimp slap Snowe and Collins.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Redbeard my friend, then repectfully, you are part of the problem.  By posing that question, I was trying to see how many so-called &#8220;fed-up&#8221; people are actually going to support a GOP challenger!</p>
<p>Sorry for the trickeration.  In no way did I ever want anyone to think that I would ever vote for a Democrat, but I wanted to see who was going to support the spineless, pink panty wearing, ignore-the-people, GOP incumbents as opposed to going out and working hard for a true conservative challenger who is willing to sign a strict recall contract if he doesn&#8217;t do as he is told when he gets to DC.</p>
<p>Voting for a Democrat my man was NEVER an option.</p>
<p>You can rest assured that I already fired the GOP elected officials as they stand now.  I can think of only one who may get my vote.  Her name is Ronda Storms.  She is a true conservative county commissioner in Hillsborough County (Tampa.  She offered a bill in response to Tampa Public Libraries putting up highly offensive displays in the main areas of Tampa&#8217;s Public libraries to celebrate &#8220;gay pride month.&#8221;  The backlash was immediate.  Her bill to deny funding, support and recognition of gay activites passed 6-1.  I usually don&#8217;t vote for women (of any party), but I think I may give her a vote this time.  Based on her other accomplishments, she is a true conservative.  I&#8217;d love to send her to DC to pimp slap Snowe and Collins.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RedBeard</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why/comment-page-1/#comment-55818</link>
		<dc:creator>RedBeard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:39:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why-2/#comment-55818</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s an easy one, Raymond.  I&#039;ll most likely vote for GOP incumbents because, bad as they might be, the Dem opposition is guaranteed to be worse.  Voting for the lesser of evils is a valid plan.  Sad, but necessary and valid.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s an easy one, Raymond.  I&#8217;ll most likely vote for GOP incumbents because, bad as they might be, the Dem opposition is guaranteed to be worse.  Voting for the lesser of evils is a valid plan.  Sad, but necessary and valid.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raymond</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why/comment-page-1/#comment-55804</link>
		<dc:creator>Raymond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:12:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why-2/#comment-55804</guid>
		<description>Presidential, Congressional and GOP Senate Scorecard to date.  The following grades indicate how officials YOU elected are performing:

- Presidential leadership on the War on islam:  D

- Presidential conduct of Iraq battle operations: D+

- Presidential integrity:  A

- Presidential and GOP leadership on stopping illegal immigration:  F-

- Presidenttial leadership on Veteran&#039;s Affairs: B-

- Presidential leadership on race relations:  A

- House GOP Congressional performance in working for the what the people have asked for: A

- GOP Senatorial effectiveness:  F-

- GOP Senatorial Courage and Conviction:  F

- GOP Seantorial performance in working for the what the people have asked for:  F

- Quality of laws passed by GOP Senate Leaders: C-

- Handling and confronting of Democrat minority opposition in the Senate: F

- GOP Senate protection of Christianity, its symbols and ability to practive freely:  F

- GOP Senate jurisdictional oversight and review:  F

- GOP behaving as a true conservative entity:  F-

- GOP leadership on the economy:  C+

- GOP leadership on taxes: B-

- GOP Senate leadership on trade policy:  F

- GOP candidate for President in 2008: F-

- GOP Senate leadership on slapping down gay rights and gay marriage:  B

Now, this how they stack up in my eyes.  If you agree, will you please explain how you could possibly even be thinking about voting for a GOP incumbent in 2006 or &#039;08?



</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Presidential, Congressional and GOP Senate Scorecard to date.  The following grades indicate how officials YOU elected are performing:</p>
<p>- Presidential leadership on the War on islam:  D</p>
<p>- Presidential conduct of Iraq battle operations: D+</p>
<p>- Presidential integrity:  A</p>
<p>- Presidential and GOP leadership on stopping illegal immigration:  F-</p>
<p>- Presidenttial leadership on Veteran&#8217;s Affairs: B-</p>
<p>- Presidential leadership on race relations:  A</p>
<p>- House GOP Congressional performance in working for the what the people have asked for: A</p>
<p>- GOP Senatorial effectiveness:  F-</p>
<p>- GOP Senatorial Courage and Conviction:  F</p>
<p>- GOP Seantorial performance in working for the what the people have asked for:  F</p>
<p>- Quality of laws passed by GOP Senate Leaders: C-</p>
<p>- Handling and confronting of Democrat minority opposition in the Senate: F</p>
<p>- GOP Senate protection of Christianity, its symbols and ability to practive freely:  F</p>
<p>- GOP Senate jurisdictional oversight and review:  F</p>
<p>- GOP behaving as a true conservative entity:  F-</p>
<p>- GOP leadership on the economy:  C+</p>
<p>- GOP leadership on taxes: B-</p>
<p>- GOP Senate leadership on trade policy:  F</p>
<p>- GOP candidate for President in 2008: F-</p>
<p>- GOP Senate leadership on slapping down gay rights and gay marriage:  B</p>
<p>Now, this how they stack up in my eyes.  If you agree, will you please explain how you could possibly even be thinking about voting for a GOP incumbent in 2006 or &#8216;08?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RedBeard</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why/comment-page-1/#comment-55802</link>
		<dc:creator>RedBeard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:46:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why-2/#comment-55802</guid>
		<description>Justin, why do you think it&#039;s worse to let the states decide the abortion issue than to allow the feds to decide?  It&#039;s much more likely that many states will act to curtail the use of abortion as birth control than to think the feds will do so, thereby resulting in a net loss for the abortion pushers.  That&#039;s a good thing.  

From a purely legal standpoint, the most urgent concern is the misuse of the Constitution by Roe v. Wade.  Overturning that lousy decision will immediately throw the matter back to the states, so that is the battleground, by default.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Justin, why do you think it&#8217;s worse to let the states decide the abortion issue than to allow the feds to decide?  It&#8217;s much more likely that many states will act to curtail the use of abortion as birth control than to think the feds will do so, thereby resulting in a net loss for the abortion pushers.  That&#8217;s a good thing.  </p>
<p>From a purely legal standpoint, the most urgent concern is the misuse of the Constitution by Roe v. Wade.  Overturning that lousy decision will immediately throw the matter back to the states, so that is the battleground, by default.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raymond</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why/comment-page-1/#comment-55766</link>
		<dc:creator>Raymond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:18:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why-2/#comment-55766</guid>
		<description>The best way to defeat wayward elected officials is for the people to get up off their sorry rears and write strong, iron clad, enforceable, recall provisions.

If the person you elect doesn&#039;t do what he is told to do then he comes home to go to work for a living.

Simple.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The best way to defeat wayward elected officials is for the people to get up off their sorry rears and write strong, iron clad, enforceable, recall provisions.</p>
<p>If the person you elect doesn&#8217;t do what he is told to do then he comes home to go to work for a living.</p>
<p>Simple.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pajama Hadin</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why/comment-page-1/#comment-55739</link>
		<dc:creator>Pajama Hadin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:19:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why-2/#comment-55739</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Mao Games and Judicial Tyranny&lt;/strong&gt;


The card game Mao


&quot;Card games belonging to the Eights group have been popular with college students for the last 25 years or more. Part of their attraction is the ease with which increasingly elaborate rules can be added; success in these games...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Mao Games and Judicial Tyranny</strong></p>
<p>The card game Mao</p>
<p>&#8220;Card games belonging to the Eights group have been popular with college students for the last 25 years or more. Part of their attraction is the ease with which increasingly elaborate rules can be added; success in these games&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin Crandall</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why/comment-page-1/#comment-55736</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin Crandall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 02:54:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why-2/#comment-55736</guid>
		<description>La Shawn,

Can I get you to rethink this comment?

&quot;Child killing is still â€œlaw of the landâ€ (Child killing as state law is just as atrocious, but the power to decide yea or nay belongs to the states)&quot;

Is child killing &quot;power&quot; really something that states should decide?  Should the state decide if the handicapped can be killed?  Should the state decide if Jews should be killed?

If we really believe abortion is the murder of a child (which it is), then it isn&#039;t something the states have a right to decide.  They *have* the duty to protect those children.  I don&#039;t think most of us &quot;pro-lifers&quot; really stop to think what it would mean if we truly believed that those where small children being tortured and murdered.

I guess it comes down to the classic example.  A rino has the power to charge through a china shop, that doesn&#039;t mean it has the authority.

What do you think?

Justin
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>La Shawn,</p>
<p>Can I get you to rethink this comment?</p>
<p>&#8220;Child killing is still â€œlaw of the landâ€ (Child killing as state law is just as atrocious, but the power to decide yea or nay belongs to the states)&#8221;</p>
<p>Is child killing &#8220;power&#8221; really something that states should decide?  Should the state decide if the handicapped can be killed?  Should the state decide if Jews should be killed?</p>
<p>If we really believe abortion is the murder of a child (which it is), then it isn&#8217;t something the states have a right to decide.  They *have* the duty to protect those children.  I don&#8217;t think most of us &#8220;pro-lifers&#8221; really stop to think what it would mean if we truly believed that those where small children being tortured and murdered.</p>
<p>I guess it comes down to the classic example.  A rino has the power to charge through a china shop, that doesn&#8217;t mean it has the authority.</p>
<p>What do you think?</p>
<p>Justin</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why/comment-page-1/#comment-55729</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why-2/#comment-55729</guid>
		<description>Raymond, I&#039;m there with you regarding the original selection of senators who are supposed to represent their home state &amp; governnor.  

Unfortunately, under the guise of giving voice to the people, these &#039;boardmembers&#039; have succeeded in creating a perpetual/long-tenured shadow government that seeks to upsurp the proper role of the CEO &amp; his Chairman of the board (Veep).  

Years later, we now operate under the notion that a Senator trumps the governor and that they may even make or break a governor.  And we wonder about our broken system of states rights and federalism?  If a senator doesn&#039;t like his governor, he only needs to go over his head to speak directly to the people -- well actually intrastate, interstate, extrastate and even multinationl corporations, lobbies, NGOs etc.

Forget term limits, bring back the original -- tho I&#039;d settle for term limits as opposed to this current parade of incumbent napoleons.  The latest McCainism -- regarding a proposal for congressional oversight and control of gitmo -- has me fit to be tied. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Raymond, I&#8217;m there with you regarding the original selection of senators who are supposed to represent their home state &amp; governnor.  </p>
<p>Unfortunately, under the guise of giving voice to the people, these &#8216;boardmembers&#8217; have succeeded in creating a perpetual/long-tenured shadow government that seeks to upsurp the proper role of the CEO &amp; his Chairman of the board (Veep).  </p>
<p>Years later, we now operate under the notion that a Senator trumps the governor and that they may even make or break a governor.  And we wonder about our broken system of states rights and federalism?  If a senator doesn&#8217;t like his governor, he only needs to go over his head to speak directly to the people &#8212; well actually intrastate, interstate, extrastate and even multinationl corporations, lobbies, NGOs etc.</p>
<p>Forget term limits, bring back the original &#8212; tho I&#8217;d settle for term limits as opposed to this current parade of incumbent napoleons.  The latest McCainism &#8212; regarding a proposal for congressional oversight and control of gitmo &#8212; has me fit to be tied. <img src='http://lashawnbarber.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jan brauner</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why/comment-page-1/#comment-55722</link>
		<dc:creator>jan brauner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:49:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why-2/#comment-55722</guid>
		<description>Raymond;

I take it that you don&#039;t care for Ms. Hillary....I concur with your sentiments and think she would be very dangerous for America.  She is not, never has been, and never will be, a centrist.....To be totally honest with you, I am devastated by the damage that our beautiful country has undergone during the two and a half decades that I was overseas. We, the people, need to seize our country back from those who would sell it for a cheap piece of silver.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Raymond;</p>
<p>I take it that you don&#8217;t care for Ms. Hillary&#8230;.I concur with your sentiments and think she would be very dangerous for America.  She is not, never has been, and never will be, a centrist&#8230;..To be totally honest with you, I am devastated by the damage that our beautiful country has undergone during the two and a half decades that I was overseas. We, the people, need to seize our country back from those who would sell it for a cheap piece of silver.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raymond</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why/comment-page-1/#comment-55712</link>
		<dc:creator>Raymond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:29:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/why-2/#comment-55712</guid>
		<description>I actually hope the Democrats make a scene with this nominee.  I think even public school &quot;educated&quot; people understand now that the courts and certainly not nine, old, sick, morons should be telling the rest of us how to live.  We have elected morons for that.

I sincerely feel that most Americans are fed up with the Democrats&#039; childish whining, hysterics, obstructionism, lack of leadership and standing for absolutely nothing of worth.  Nothing American anyway.

This would be just another show that demostrates they have no principle nor honor and why they are not mature enough to run the country.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actually hope the Democrats make a scene with this nominee.  I think even public school &#8220;educated&#8221; people understand now that the courts and certainly not nine, old, sick, morons should be telling the rest of us how to live.  We have elected morons for that.</p>
<p>I sincerely feel that most Americans are fed up with the Democrats&#8217; childish whining, hysterics, obstructionism, lack of leadership and standing for absolutely nothing of worth.  Nothing American anyway.</p>
<p>This would be just another show that demostrates they have no principle nor honor and why they are not mature enough to run the country.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
