I used Chris Rock's name because he explained it the best. He talked about folks making decisions before hearing the whole issue. Conservatives supporting Roberts because someone in the republican party says they should, Liberals against him because they heard he's a conservative.

I'd like to think I'm able to hear both sides of an issue before making a decision. And in many cases just using common sense to decide what makes sense to me.

When I hear that the president is in big trouble because he wanted a little extra nookie. It kind of perks my ears. Doesn't seem to me that anyone, other then Hillary is being hurt in the process.

But what really gets my goat is all the money, time and other resources that were spent in an effort to prosecute him. And we not have issues that cost lives, many, many lives, and those same folks that yelled and screamed before, are strangely silent now.



>~Snip
>
>>I don't consider myself a member of any political party. As Chris Rock has stated, on some issues I'm conservative, on some I'm more liberal. I like to look at the issue and make a decision.
>
>FWIW. I heard from someone, I think it was Bob Williams, president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a free market public policy research organization in Olympia, say that whatever money LA authorities did receive from the federal gov't were not used for fortifying the levies. Lot of the funds, earmarked for the levies, some how were used for things like building gambling casinos and other "special" projects.
>
>Yeah so you're right. There's plenty of blame to go around. But in this case, I think it should start with the state and local authorities.
>
>You don't have to use Chris Rock's (of all people) name to justify your political stance. It very obvious which way you lean. Be proud. :=)
>
>Chris Rock nuetral? ... uh maybe, but his hate for Bush runs deep.