Atlanta Opinion

By RW-(the original)

January 3, 2006 09:19 PM | Link to this

ml, I would ask if your employers care that you don’t seem have more than one thought in your head for months at a time, but I’ve been seeing Bookman write the exact same article for three years. At least you can draw, nice touch turning the Presidents head into a “W”.

By Whatablast

January 3, 2006 09:24 PM | Link to this

Molly had it right. W’s second term is like tying the chicken the dog killed round it’s neck until it rots, keeping the dog from ever wanting chicken again. Hopefully it’ll keep Americans from wanting another Bush in Washington.

By RW-(the original)

January 3, 2006 09:27 PM | Link to this

The next time Molly gets something right will be the first time.

By Brian Curtis

January 3, 2006 09:34 PM | Link to this

FINALLY! It’s about time someone pointed out the contempt Bush has been showing for the Constitution he swore to uphold. You can tell from his whiny little tantrums, he just doesn’t like democracy; it keeps interfering with him always getting his way.

What a bratty little crybaby he is. He needs a time out.

By RW-(the original)

January 3, 2006 09:49 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

Did you miss this?

I didn’t think so.

By Objective Observer

January 3, 2006 09:54 PM | Link to this

Yep, GW has certainly been weighted down by the democrats in his second term. If the chicken represents the democrats, I just want everyone to know that my dog eats “roadkill”.

By Dusty

January 3, 2006 09:55 PM | Link to this

I am sitting here looking at this cartoon and wondering, “Could this actually be drawn by an American citizen?” I didn’t think an American would stoop this low. But I was wrong. This is about as low as you can get in the newspaper world. Obviously, that is where Luckovich wants to be.

It isn’t Congress that needs to step in. The publisher of AJC should say that enough is enough. When a newspaper turns into a propaganda tool, it has gone outside the standards of journalism. But then again, AJC doesn’t seem to have any standards.

By Jay not jay

January 3, 2006 10:10 PM | Link to this

Whatablast, here’s the only Chicken that I have seen.

By Objective Observer

January 3, 2006 10:14 PM | Link to this

Jaynot: Man I wish we had his address just so I could send him that picture. It would be even better if “the chicken” was being chased by a pig.

By RW-(the original)

January 3, 2006 10:16 PM | Link to this

The UN has finally found their calling

Many sturgeon species are suffering “serious population declines,” said the U.N. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES.

I wonder why it’s not UNCITESWFF?

By AntiRadical

January 3, 2006 10:19 PM | Link to this

The President as a kid playing with matches and Congressional oversight as irresponsible parents. Nice toon ML. I do think this whole spying/covert-ops thing has been blown way out of proportion to the actual deeds, though (except Valerie Plame which I find despicable). Kinda like Monica Lewinsky and Whitewater. Bush really ain’t Big Brother, afterall; this domestic spying may not be associated with political retribution/enemy silencing like Plame was. Not enough info or revelations of onerous abuse have been exposed for the outcry being heard.

By RW-(the original)

January 3, 2006 10:25 PM | Link to this

AntiRadical,

Welcome aboard, I never would have pegged you as someone else that finds Valerie Plame despicable.

.

/save it, i know what you meant

By Objective Observer

January 3, 2006 10:27 PM | Link to this

Anti: Speculation on Mark Twain’s response to the question: Why did the chicken cross the road? “The news of it’s crossing has been greatly exaggerated.”

By Objective Observer

January 3, 2006 10:33 PM | Link to this

William F. Buckley Jr. states a trip to the U.N.= A trip to the zoo, but now it’s a trip to the botanical garden?

By AntiRadical

January 3, 2006 10:39 PM | Link to this

RW- Thanks for greeting. Plame may be despicable. Look at her line of work. Even more despicable are person/s who outed covert agent for political gain/maneuvering. We can only hope President not involved and that Scooter Libby just had his own “bad idea”.

By RW-(the original)

January 3, 2006 10:42 PM | Link to this

What’s all this talk of chickens?

By AntiRadical

January 3, 2006 10:55 PM | Link to this

Thanks RW. Chickens just what I needed. I go to sleep with a smile on my face. See ya’ll on the flip side.

By RW-(the original)

January 3, 2006 10:57 PM | Link to this

AntiRadical,

I guess I put too much space before the (/save it). Refresh my memory how many people has Fitzgerald indicted for outing a covert agent? (hint—the answer is 0)

Where has it been determined that said agent had covert status?

Should a President allow the entire government to be undermined by a lying political hack just so the name of the aforementioned agent, who was instrumental in setting up said husband/hack’s trip in the first place, be kept secret? Especially when said lying hack claimed to have been sent by the Vice-President.

By Dusty

January 3, 2006 11:03 PM | Link to this

Well, RW,

There’s talk of chicken but I’m still thinking of one big SKUNK. Maybe Marion will post soon and tell us how sweet his cartoon is and what a big laugh she got. Or was that Brian Curtis? He’s always a big laugh.

Anyway, I am stepping carefully through the chicken yard and heading for the land of Nod. G’nite.

By RW-(the original)

January 3, 2006 11:06 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

No that’s Marion.

“Mike I just love your cartoon, it so perfectly tells the world what is happening. Your drawings are the joy of my life, why do you let these mean people talk.”

/Marion of Texas off

Goodnight.

By dubya

January 3, 2006 11:51 PM | Link to this

Bushista’s scam is coming apart at the seams. The murderous Iraq adventure. The WMD gross lies. The wiretaps expose. The scum with whom he surrounds himself are now ratting each other out. And this is just the beginning. Each new day will grow more beautiful with new revelations. And the lowlifes who worship this ugly little goon will only grow more hateful. God, it’s great!! Just sit back and watch it unfold.

By Scott

January 3, 2006 11:54 PM | Link to this

And poor RW will continue his homoerotic ways.

By finch

January 4, 2006 12:18 AM | Link to this

Good morning, FOM! (Fans Of Mike) What a great ‘toon!

How many folks has Fitzgerald indicted for outing a CIA agent? The jury, quite literally, is still out. Oh, and Plame’s husband never said Darth Cheney sent him. Another con lie, darnit!

Meanwhile, BushCo’s clever efforts to negate the Bill Of Rights continue:

This courtesy of the Rocky Mountain News

“‘Give me liberty or give me death,’ Patrick Henry defiantly declared at the dawn of the American republic. In the light of recent comments from some of America’s present-day leaders, it appears that Henry was laboring under a misapprehension.”

“Updated for contemporary use, Henry’s quote would read, ‘Give me liberty, or give me a slight theoretical decrease in the already microscopic risk I face from terrorism. On second thought, forget about liberty.’”

Even if every wiretap and intercept unilaterally authorized by the White House was legit, you have to wonder why it bypassed a secret court that would have rubber stamped them. BushCo is either stupid or evil. Pick one.

“It’s both politically impossible and morally disgusting to expect one group of Americans (our soldiers) to exhibit stoic courage and extreme self-sacrifice, while the rest of us are encouraged (by BushCo) to be fear-ridden compulsive shoppers who squeal with outrage when, for example, it’s suggested that we might forgo a tax cut in order to pay to properly equip the soldiers who protect us”.

Sleep tight!

By Smug Canadian

January 4, 2006 12:29 AM | Link to this

Too bad there was no chubby intern love involved, then it’d more entertaining and impeachable.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 12:58 AM | Link to this

finch,

How many folks has Fitzgerald indicted for outing a CIA agent? The jury, quite literally, is still out.

No it isn’t. The answer is most definitely 0.

Do they teach tense at Cornell? Although I seem to recall learning about such things much earlier.

Oh, and Plame’s husband never said Darth Cheney sent him. Another con lie, darnit!

From the New York Times, ringleaders of the vast right wing conspiracy. Nicholas Kristoff, no less.

May 6, 2003 – A New York Times columnist writes the first account of Wilson’ s trip, but not naming him: “I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger . In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong.�? (” Missing In Action: Truth, �? New York Times, Op-ed, May 2003).

By AntiRadical

January 4, 2006 01:14 AM | Link to this

“It’s in our country’s interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm’s way.” —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

Is this some kind of Freudian slip? Afterall, the missteps in Afghanistan/Iraq have galvanized support for Bin Laden and kept him safe, secure, and “out of harm’s way”! At least the President does what he says he will do.

By Flibberdigibbit

January 4, 2006 01:19 AM | Link to this

There’s an old saying that “even the devil can quote scripture”. If true, what might be said about patriotism-pimping politicians?

By Andy

January 4, 2006 04:45 AM | Link to this

Secret services say Iran is trying to assemble a nuclear missile

Bet they don’t aim it at the Constitution?

By Andy

January 4, 2006 04:50 AM | Link to this

We will truly have passed the point of no return. What will future generations think of us, that we drifted on past the warning signs, preoccupied with library records and with giving foreign terrorists the same legal rights as American citizens?

By Andy

January 4, 2006 05:17 AM | Link to this

One has only to watch the Sunday morning liberal love-fests to witness this strange phenomenon; a weird kind of reverse Schadenfreude whereby the left actually obtains enjoyment from its electoral losses by projecting its own self-defeating methods onto conservatives.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 05:31 AM | Link to this

Mark Steyn knows about pinkos:

That’s what the war’s about: our lack of civilizational confidence. As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: “Civilizations die from suicide, not murder”—as can be seen throughout much of “the Western world” right now. The progressive agenda—lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism—is collectively the real suicide bomb.

By Objective Observer

January 4, 2006 06:27 AM | Link to this

Anti: Please don’t ask me to address GW’s command of the english language. It would be painful for me to do so. Maybe there is a subversive writing his speeches. How many people do we know who insist on using the word “irregardless”?

By Brian Curtis

January 4, 2006 07:43 AM | Link to this

Ahhh, Dusty. So you can’t imagine an American citizen criticizing the President?

It’s pretty clear you can’t imagine what America is about, either. Perhaps you’d be happier in a state that already has a king, so you can bow down in comfort.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 08:06 AM | Link to this

Brian C., can you imagine an America where people are truly free and that means free to fail? An America where gubment isn’t expected to save everyone from their own foolish mistakes. If you liberals continue to minimize the consequences to poor decision making you will remove the need to learn from those mistakes. You all call that progress?

By Joe Roman

January 4, 2006 08:12 AM | Link to this

Have y’all seen Bob Barr’s essay in Time Magazine? It’s good to see respect for The Constitutuion can bring people as far apart politically as Barr and me together. Maybe the Twerp-In-Chief is a “uniter not a divider” after all, but not in the way he pretended to be.

By Joe Roman

January 4, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this

How long will it be until it finally soaks in? The bush administration will use 9/11 and the “war on terror” as blanket excuses for absolutely anything from incompetence to naked power grabs. Maybe we should change the national slogan from “E Plurbus Unum” to “There’s A Sucker Born Every Minute”.

By GWB

January 4, 2006 08:45 AM | Link to this

I agree with Dusty that the AJC should eliminate Luckovitch! My suggestion would be to hire the Lincoln Group to tell the AJC what to print. Control of the press is essential to my style of democracy. You are a true American Dusty.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this

Joe, funny thing is that all people will not be a misled as you, by the income redistribution party. How long will it take for the people to realize the democrats want to bury their heads in the sand, prosecute terrorist, and continue redistributing wealth to buy votes? How long will it take for the people to realize it doesn’t take a leader to divide the nation with class warfare, envy and animosity towards the acheivers?

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this

GWB, the terrorist appreciate you.

By finch

January 4, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this

RW,

Wilson has never said that Darth Cheney, or even Darth’s office directly asked him to go to Niger.

From his original column

*”In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report… *”

Show me where CIA officials denied asking him to go to Niger, and you may have a point.

You’re welcome.

By GWB

January 4, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

F%$ BOB BARR! THAT F^$^#@ PINKO BETTER SHUT HIS PIE HOLE BEFORE I DETAIN HIS A@&. HIS CONSTITUTION LOVIN B&^% S*%# HAS NO PLACE IN MY AMERICA! GET OUT OF MY WAY BOB BARR OR I WILL HAVE YOU DETAINED AND TORTURED! YOU HEAR ME BOY?

By Brian Curtis

January 4, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this

Scooter: And your rant has exactly what to do with Bush’s contempt for the Constitution?

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this

finch, show me where Valerie Plame was undercover within the last five years. My understanding was, it was common knowledge that Valerie worked at the CIA. Heck, I even remember Media Matters for America using that argument when they were trying to counter the “he never used her name” argument. They went out and found how a Google search would reveal several things about old Valerie.

By Brian Curtis

January 4, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

Here’s a comment from that commie-pinko, Bob Barr:

“If you’re always attacking your accusers, the debate becomes one of Democrat vs. Republican, rather than right vs. wrong. Anyone who questions the legality of the decision to wiretap thousands of Americans unlawfully is attacked, as either an enabler of terrorists or a bitter partisan trying to distract a president at war.”

Bush wiretapping without a warrant is, quite simply, wrong and illegal. This is not a right vs. left issue. He broke the freakin’ law and violated the Constitution.

Whining about how criticism of King George’s crimes is “just what the terrorists want” is a distraction, and it’s not gonna work. Bush is a criminal and deserves to be treated as such, no matter how appalled Dusty is at the thought of Americans actually disagreeing with his action.

By gttim

January 4, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

Funny, Luckovich’s cartoons almost always get a 80% or higher approval rating, which is twice Bush’s approval rating. The vast majority seem to like him!

And to the small number of wingnuts who feel the need to post repeatedly just remember that your repeated page views to see if anybody has responded to your moronic comments make the AJC money! Keep it up!

And how has Bush and the GOP done on security? (From Dkos)

1) Osama is free and forgotten.

2) Iraq is now the biggest terrorist training ground in the world.

3) Our military is bogged down fighting the wrong war.

4) The 9/11 Commission’s recommendations are being ignored.

5) The Homeland Security budget is being spent on pork.

6) The (bipartisan) 9/11 Commission gave Bush a “D” for efforts to stop terrorists from getting their hands on nuclear bombs.

7) Most of the world now hates us.

Not to mention spying on Americans, trying to justify torture, outing a CIA agent for political gain, letting a male prostitute pretend journalist into press conferences with the president, and corruption of the highest order with GOP moneybags Abramoff pleading guilty to federal and state charges and about to testify against Delay and scores of other Republicans.

Are we glad the adults from the “family values” party is in office?

By Wilma Lamb

January 4, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this

Bush is trampling all over our constitution with his famous Dubya cowboy boots and is a threat to our rights and freedom. Ever since Hammarubi drew up the first code of laws thousands of years ago, what was done in a preceeding case governs the decision in this case. Unscrupulus rulers could look back on this action. There are already foot kissers who are defending his action, not looking forward to see they could be a victim in the future. IMPEACH IMPEACH Wilma Lamb

By GWB

January 4, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

Thank you Scooter! Yes, I know that the terrorist appreciate me. I have given them the stage upon which to showcase themselves to the world. At the same time I have insured that we have an enemy to fight and hate perpetually as dictated in the teachings of brother Leo Strauss. My neoconservative mentor Dick Cheney also tells me that the world cannot be a desirable place in which to live without wars to fight. Yes, Scooter, they appreciate me. I have done what they could never have done for themselves. And at the same time I have made the world a better place for everybody. And good soldiers of the neoconservative movement such as you, Dusty, RW, and Andy will insure that democracy according to George will perpetuate itself. At least until 2008.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

December 28, 2005—Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

If anybody is wondering where the b-imbo 23% is at, I found them!

By GWB

January 4, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

gttim! Shhhhhhhhh. Don’t tell those morons, I mean good Americans that they are putting money in the pockets of the AJC. If they go away I will have no one here to spread my neoconservative views. AND BY GOD IF YOU DON’T STOP IT gttim, I WILL DETAIN AND TORTURE YOU RIGHT ALONG WITH BOB BARR!

By Andy

January 4, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

You freakin pinkos are like that weirdo standing on the street corner preaching about the end of the world. You are an embarrassment to yourselves, your political party and to your families. The country, however, is unfazed by your actions, judging from the results of the last 12 national elections. Keep up the good work, you losers.

By Syd

January 4, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

Have any of you read the 4th admendment? It clearly states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…”. The key word is “unreasonable”. If one is making phone calls to terrorists, you bet you should be expected to be searched, wiretapped, etc. The last time you went through security at Hartsfield and the TSA searched, scanned your bag, did you complain that they did not have a warrent?

By GWB

January 4, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

I got to do something for google. Without them I would not have enough soldiers here to fight my war on the constitution, uh, I mean terrorists. Scooter,Andy,RW,Dusty. Keep doing those google searches and when all the dust has settled I will see what I can do to get you a real brain. Maybe Abramoff can help me with that. Or the Wizard of OZ maybe.

By candide

January 4, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

The American people need to step in and put Bush out!

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

finch,

Two posts in 8 hours? What is going to happen to the meme that the “finch” is too important for real time debate?

Now would be a good time to apply your “prove he didn’t say it” standard. Kristoff, in May 2003, certainly thought the VP was involved and his unnamed source almost had to be Wilson. Then again, it is the New York Times and Bookseller so maybe they made the whole thing up.

If Fitzgerald ever gets around to a full investigation of all parties maybe we can get to the bottom this CIA plot to bring down a sitting US President.

Excerpts to follow

On July 6, 2003, the New York Times published an op-ed by former Amb. Joseph Wilson, who not only revealed he had been sent to Niger by the CIA to investigate the uranium purchase, but also continued the theme that ran through the unnamed source articles, that the trip was at Vice President Dick Cheney’s request. Wilson claimed he had reported to the CIA that such a purchase was “highly doubtful�? and accused the Bush Administration of having “twisted�? intelligence “to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.�?

Savvy Washington journalists scratched their collective heads, questioning, “Why Wilson?�? Why would the Vice President send a person to Niger on a mission about WMD who was not an expert in that subject, had never served in a senior capacity in Niger, had not worked for the CIA, and was known to oppose the White House Iraq policy? Wilson, in addition to all that, was known around town as a grandstander and a bit of a flake.

The “Why Wilson�? question was being asked by the Washington Post, New York Times, Time Magazine, and columnists such as Novak. Reporters were not the only ones asking. Cheney was surprised that Wilson had claimed the mission was at his request since it was not true. It probably was not a pleasant call that went from Cheney’s office to then CIA Director George Tenet.

Perhaps Tenet was also asked why a person sent on such a sensitive mission, unlike the rest of us, did not have to sign a confidentiality agreement and was permitted to publish an account of that mission. Was the CIA trying to put the blame on the White House for the State of the Union misstep?

Now why would you throw this silly request into the mix?

Show me where CIA officials denied asking him to go to Niger, and you may have a point.

My words are ^ ^ ^ right up there stating that the CIA did send Wilson. Unless you are now making the claim that Valerie Plame never worked for the CIA, with you one never knows what wacky theory may come out next.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

GWB: So freedom of information is the problem now? Don’t you wish you could just censor all of those who disagree with you? Wouldn’t the world be a much better place where pinkos could freely undermine their government without worry or care?

By The Sad Truth

January 4, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

Syd:

You may be willing to give up your rights, but I, for one, am not. If we dispose of the rights that make America great, then the terrorists have won.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

When the dust has settled, hopefully, a LEADER will have worked to stabalize the Middle-East and helped to illustrate that America is a country of liberators. Not the cause of the Middle-East’s problems. The dictatorial rulers of the region are the cause and we will remove them if they violate cease fire agreements. It is just that the left desn’t feel republicrats should enforce those agreement, or they don’t think the agreements and resolutions need to be taken seriously.

By GWB

January 4, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

Andy. When your unemployment runs out give DeLay a call. He can help you out. 1-800-IMN-JAIL. Thanks for being such a good AmeriCONed Andy.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

The sad truth is, the president is working to preserve your rights from being taken away by Wahabi Islamist.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Does “gttim’s” post seem familiar? It’s pretty sad when you’re two days behind ml.

By GWB

January 4, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

Hmmm. Bring down a sitting president. Thanks RW. They did that to Nixon when he was losing it and unfit to lead. Yep. I better do something before that happens to me. DICK! See that we detain and torture someone before that idea gains traction. Thanks RW. You are also a good AmeriCONed.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

GWB: When your mommy puts you to bed for your afternoon nap, be sure that you check the closets to make sure there are no SECRET SERVICE! agents hiding in there. And unplug the phone from the wall, just because it is hung up don’t mean that BUSH! can’t still hear you, you paranoid pervert.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

Usama is not terrorism, terrorism resides in the hopelessness created by Middle-Eastern dictators, and we are fighting that, you ninnies.

By GWB

January 4, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

Thanks for the advice Andy. You have learned well. It is the same one I use to scare the masses. Watch out for the terrorists that hide behind every bush. You are a true AmeriCONed Andy. Keep up the good work.

By GWB

January 4, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

Yeh, all the Wahabi Islamists! That’s exactly why I attacked a secular state.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

Well the screaming front page headline on the AJC-Fishwrapper edition is enough to make you sick.

Reporter: Governor are you hearing the same rumors we are?

Governor: Yes.

Reporter to editors: It’s confirmed, run the story!

bdart@ajc.com for anyone that would like to express your praise to Bob Dart for his impeccable reporting skill.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

GWB: You mean like the terrorists that knocked those two gigantic buildings over in New York, that you apparently didn’t notice. Oh man, it was a terrible day, nearly 3000 people died.

So tell me about the horrors of wiretapping, b-imbo.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

A secular state that was hated in the region and had to portray itself as being big and bad, hence the faulty intelligence and Clinton’s Tenet saying it was a slam dunk. A secular government that had violated over thirteen UN Resolutions within twelve years. But, hey that’s no problem because you hate Bush?

By GWB

January 4, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

HELL YEH I NOTICED! It is exactly what I needed to get me and Dick’s neocon agenda rolling at warp speed. It allowed me to create a nation conned. Neo-conned that is. Keep up the good work Andy. You are a great AmeriCONed.

By AntiRadical

January 4, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this

Scooter: You’re absolutely right regarding Middle Eastern dictators. Unfortunately, we have supported a great number of them ourselves (Shah of Iran and his “death squads”, not to mention our support of Hussein and Bin Laden themselves when they suited our purposes). Sadly, the President, himself, made Bin Laden the “face of terror”. Now that he has been standing with his d*ck in his hand for three years, his Osama rhetoric has dissappeared, hasn’t it. If we hadn’t supported so many of our own “dictators”, we might have something to say along those lines but since we have, it just sounds facetious.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this

GWB: What, no horrors of wiretapping to report? The way you hysterical pinkos are flipping out, I thought I was going to hear all kinds of terrible stories. Are there none to tell?

By Michael H.

January 4, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

The extraordinary lack of sophstication of conservatives who post here never ceases to amaze me. When one wonders whether our political culture has been dumbed down by talk back radio, scream television, attack ads, and shrill politicians we need look no further than the postings and letters to the editor by conservatives. They inhabit a political Alice in Wonderland which has virtually no points of contact with reality.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

GWB, if I was a child I could impersonate Terry McAuliffe or Clinton and say; I know it was our policy to enforce those darn cease fire agreements, but We just need to misplacef the hatred and burden of proof from Saddam and place it on our opposition. So we can get back to making excuses for people failures, “leading�? to socialism and more income redistribution.

By ATL in the NYC

January 4, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

I have 2 questions, with no agenda other than seeing them discussed (hopefully without personal attacks on me or those involved in the discourse):

1.) While the liberation of the people of Iraq is without question a noble cause, particularly due to the Baathist oppression of ethnic minorities and the rights of women, why do we not use similar shows of force and/or soft power against the dictatorial regimes of Latin America? Surely Cuba has proven its ability to gain weapons of mass destruction, Argentina has shown a willingness to harbor terrorists (the large former Nazi population), they produce the vast majority of narcotics (which kill many, many more people than terrorism), and they perform unspeakable acts on their own people.

2.) Why do many on the left and right use 9/11 as a rallying cry for the war in Iraq and other questionable actions while the vast majority of citizens in New York City and Washington, D.C. disagree with those policies? Just as many liberals are guilty of trying to tell the poor and underprivileged “what’s good for them,” isn’t this a case of the neo-cons and others trying to tell those who watched the Towers be attacked in 1993 and 2001 and live with the daily stress of knowing an attack could come at any time, “what’s good for them”?

By GWB

January 4, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

Shhhh! Andy we have enough of that talk going on. Watch your loose lips. They sink ships you know. Make your self useful Boy and stir up some terrorist mania for me.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

Anti radical, We did support some of those dictators, but you realize the world is full of evil peiople, other than Bush, and some times we have to suppoirt the lesser of two evils. Remember communism and hostage takings? Are you an isolationist?

By Andy

January 4, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

O.K. GWB, if you don’t have any wiretap bedtime horror stories to share with us, let me put everybody to sleep with some tales of the terrorists. LONDON, July 7 — The twisted, smoking wreckage of a red double-decker bus. The sidewalks slick with blood and body parts. Dozens of wounded people screaming in agony or stunned into silence.- We wouldn’t want to prevent that from happening here, now would we, pinko?

By Andy

January 4, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

ATL in NYC: #1- Are you suggesting we attack Cuba? #2- If the terrorists ability to communicate and attack this country is severely damaged or destroyed, why wouldn’t this be a good thing?

By GWB

January 4, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

You’re becomming a pest boy! Don’t get on my list! Me,Dick,Carl, and the boys have got to figure a way to make this Abramoff thing a national security issue. Classify it Top Secret Gallactical Compartmentalized Only Me Dick Carl Can See. Then we can put him on a jet and whisk him away before he gets his constitutional right to spill it on all of us. Don’t p% me off Andy!

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

ATL in NYC, your first point, because they have not invaded foreign neighbors with Chemical and biological weapons. Nor have they violated some 15 UN resolutions, over fifteen years, demanding they disclose the whereabouts of the WMDs we knew they had. Also, the narcotics SA countries produce wouldn’t be so lucrative if they were legalized.

Your second assumes that the jihadist war is against those two places, NYC and Washington, alone. We think that UN resolutions have to have a real meaning, not just empty threats. That is if the UN is supposed to be more functional than embezzling money from starving Iraqis.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

The pinkos that post on this site are like that weirdo standing on the street corner preaching about the end of the world. You are an embarrassment to yourselves, your political party and to your families. The country, however, is unfazed by your actions, judging from the results of the last 12 national elections. Keep up the good work, you losers.

By Brian Curtis

January 4, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

And the ONLY way to prevent terrorist attacks is to let the President break the law whenever he feels like it.

Riiiight. Anyone dumb enough to fall for that one—other than Andy, of course?

By Michael H.

January 4, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

Scooter immediately provided more evidence for my claims regarding conservatives. Give them enough rope and they hang themselves via their own ignorance and inability to construct even a semblance of an argument.

Is it possible to lower the content of political discourse any more than the Limbaugh’s and his chorusers such as Scooter have succeeded in doing?

Read the Dueffler report alongside Bush’s 2003 State of the Union (remember the uranium yellowcake claim?) and Powell’s presentation to the U.N. and see how many WMD claims made by this administration as their justification for going to war were true. None. And they knew better.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this

GWB, if Abrahmoff actually did defraud those indian tribes, he should be buried under the prison, with only his fannie seeing sunlight. Bring a little pleasure to the general population, you know what I mean.

By ATL in the NYC

January 4, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

Andy,

Not suggesting anything, much less that we attack Cuba, just that while I certainly agree with the arguments to liberate Iraq (except the imminent threat to the U.S. - I never bought that), I think those same arguments apply to nations even closer to us that have shown a predilection for not advancing the causes of freedom.

I think it is certainly a good thing to do everything we can to impair any terrorists’ ability to do anything, but that “everything” must be within reason. As someone who lives in NYC, I value my freedom to do as I please, but do so knowing that an attack might come. I am willing to trade the risk of an attack, particularly via suicide bomber, for the freedom I love. The only way to truly prevent an attack would come with an unbearable price on our freedoms and would bring the economy to a grinding halt. I just don’t like it when senators and representatives from Texas, Utah, South Carolina, etc., talk about “Don’t forget 9/11!” and “This is in direct response to 9/11!” I haven’t forgotten and I still don’t understand the connection.

By GWB

January 4, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

There is something you can do for me though Andy. When you are down at the soup kitchen today, do something to liven things up for me. Do something to those homeless guys. That will get even the pinkos on board my war on terror. Afterwards I will call Sonny and get your unemployment benefits extended until 2008.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

Michael H.: I agree completely that Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame have absolutely no credibility what so ever, with their yellow cake/ mint julep tea fantasy. I’m pretty sure the administration no longer listens to kooks like them after that fiasco. Thanks for reminding everybody.

By AntiRadical

January 4, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

Scooter: I definitely agree. Lesser of two evils I can live with but let’s not forget that the lesser of the two is still evil and we supported it. My gripe is that I feel we have done this on many occasions when we could have sought a third non-evil ally to accomplish our purposes. We have often chosen the “easy way out” and our integrity in the eyes of the world has suffered greatly, thereby.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis: So what laws has George Bush broken? Would you care to share this information with us, seeing how you are the only one in the world that seems to know of any?

By Andy

January 4, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

GWB: Say what? Do something to those homeless guys. That will get even the pinkos on board my war on terror.

By GWB

January 4, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

As much as I would love jack up that guy down in Cuba, unfortunately there is no oil there. I would have a hard time getting Dick and his “friends” on board for that one. Besides. The place gets blowed away every couple of months. I got too much of that kind of thing right here at home. And we all know that we can’t risk wasting the resources I need to spread my neocon empire from pole to pole on crap here at home. Forget sea to shining sea. I’m talkin important stuff here.

By Joe Roman

January 4, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

If compulsively changing the subject every time this administration blunders caused cancer, all the wingnuts would be dead within months. How idiots like “Scooter” can counter arguments about the constitutionality of unwarranted eavesdropping by talking about “income redistribution” is quite beyond absurd. Unfortunately, a sizable segment of the public and the media seems to fall for it every time.

By Sooter

January 4, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

Michael H, Good try my man. Have you read the Kay and Duelffer reports, or do you just take the media’s snippets as full text. If you read them you would have seen that Saddam was pursuing the end of sanctions, through Oil for Food Corruption maybe, so that he could restart his WMD programs. Wilson never said Iraq did not try to acquire yellow cake from Niger, he simply said it would have been too difficult to succeed. Anti Radical, enforcing UN resolutions is not the easy way out and our image was pretty good when we were the only ones fighting the spread of communism. Who should we have supporte dwhen Russia was attacking Afghanistan?

By Andy

January 4, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this

ATL in NYC: You seem reasonable, hear me out. We were attacked on 9/11 by Islamic Fascism. It went by the name of Al Qaeda that day. Most any other day it could fall under the name of, for example only, Hamas, the sword of the truth brigade, etc, etc. To answer your point specifically, we were not attacked by Latin American fascism.

To extend my explanation, if you think attacking Afghanistan and finding Bin Laden is all we have to do to prevent any more terrorist attacks from occuring, then I’m wasting my breath. We have to destroy these terrorists where ever they are and we needn’t look ant further than Iran to find our next mission.

By AntiRadical

January 4, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

GWB: You’re not the President. The President talks like this-

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.” —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

“Those who enter the country illegally violate the law.” —George W. Bush, Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

“I can only speak to myself.” —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

By ATL in the NYC

January 4, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

Andy,

I certainly agree that we are under a serious threat from Islamic radicals. One thing that the media completely ignores is that close to one-quarter of all nations in Africa have either an active Islamic insurgency or a full-blown civil war against Islamic fundamentalists… this reminds me of the Cold War, except this one is way too hot for my liking.

I am not so naive to think that locating Bin Laden ends the terrorist threat, but I just think that attacking Iraq and not having a better plan for stabilizing the country than what we went with is not the most effective way to reduce the threat. Whatever the reasons we’re there, we now MUST succeed, and my wife and I pray every day for the poor soldiers, Marines, and sailors who are over there with bullseyes on their chests, making easier targets for the terrorists than us in New York. I just hope that their brave sacrifice is helping the overall situation, the responsibility of leaders and policymakers.

By GWB

January 4, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

ATL in the NYC. Unfortunately I don’t have enough time left to deal with those pesky Carribean and Latin American countries. Some of those Latin American democracies are getting a little pesky and need to quit electing people that I don’t like. I just can’t figure out yet how to sell regime change in democratic nations to the American people. If someone would just blow up El Paso I could blame it on the Zapatistas and claim that they were supported by Venezuela,Bolivia, Brazil, and Mexico. As for Cuba. My brother Jeb doesn’t need me stirring up problems for him in Florida until after we figure out how he can succeed me here in Washington.

By GWB

January 4, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Now that Dick and Carl have their marching orders for today with that Abramoff thing, I am going to take the rest of the day off and read a good book and have a few “sarspirillas”. The book is called Dick and Jane. My favorite character is Spot. That Spot,he sure can run!

Andy,you great AmeriCONed. Giterdone for me down at the soup kitchen today and I will insure that you live off the taxpayers dime until 2008. Don’t let it be said that ole W doesn’t repay a favor. If you don’t believe it just ask the boys from big oil. They’ll tell you what a great guy I am.

By AntiRadical

January 4, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

“But Iraq has — have got people there that are willing to kill, and they’re hard-nosed killers. And we will work with the Iraqis to secure their future.” —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

Maybe the President wants to “secure the future” of “hard-nosed killers” in order to protect his voting base. Maybe he’s just intellectually challenged!

By Andy

January 4, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

Ummm: The democrat choice for the presidency- “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.�?

By Spike

January 4, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Good heavens! I see where someone referred to George Bush and his father, “Bail Out Bush,” as “a couple of common dirtbags.” I think that’s terrible. And improper too. It’s a dreadful insult to common dirtbags everywhere!

By Mike

January 4, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

When DOES your unemployment check run out Andy?

By AntiRadical

January 4, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

Wow! Both 2000 Presidential candidates were dumb as a board. Surprise, surprise, surprise. Isn’t it funny that the election with the two most brainless candidates of all American history was the election that the American public chose to come out and vote for?

By Eric

January 4, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

Dusty, Andy and the rest of the brain tumors here absolutely cannot stand it that Mike is so right about their beloved idiot, president. He’s right on target with each and every effort. Hurray for Mike Luckovich! He’s an American treasure. How refreshing that he has the courage to stand up and speak the truth in this era of government oppression. You’re a hero, Mike! Keep turning up the heat. It’s just a matter of time until Bush and company are driven from office and the nightmare will finally be over.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

What’s the matter Mike? Am I spoiling all the fun for you Benedict Arnold pinkos? Would you like it if I left you in peace so that you can undermine your government without the benefit of the truth interrupting your fun?

Why does the pinko argument always come around to talking about government handouts? Is that the only thing they have experience with. It sure seems like it’s the first thought they form.

By Phil

January 4, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

Looks like ANDY, charter member of the local “Castrated Crew,” has gotten off to an early start today. All settled in for another day of whatever useless lives he and RW, Big Mommy, etc. live. How pathetic they are. Examples of “Democracy & Freedom” on the march. The Land of The Little People.

By SarahConnah

January 4, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

From a Maureen Dowd column

He (Bush)left the ranch for a brief visit at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, where he kidded in a way that again showed his jarring lack of empathy with the amputees from Iraq and Afghanistan: “As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself - not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch. As a matter of fact, the colonel asked if I needed first aid when she first saw me. I was able to avoid any major surgical operations here, but thanks for your compassion, colonel.”

By Mike

January 4, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

Andy is ALL THE TIME Phil. He is either unemployed, is really Luckovitch or another employee of the AJC, or he is stealing a paycheck from his employer spending all of his time blogging.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

AntiR: That was a 2004 presidential candidate, you b-imbo.

Eric: Government oppression? How could a sissy pinko living in the United States of America know anything about government oppression? Don’t they teach you silly libs about places like China in school anymore? No wonder Georgia is 50th in SAT’s.

By AntiRadical

January 4, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

Thanks for the post, Sarah. That sh*t makes me mad!

By Mike

January 4, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

Which is it Andy?

By Brian Curtis

January 4, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this

Wow… Andy’s right! George Bush isn’t quite as bad as Mao Tse-Tung! (Though less intelligent.) What a wonderful accomplishment; I’m sure proud to have HIM as a leader, yessir.

The fascists are doing double-time on their stupidity today….

By Andy

January 4, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

Mike is a simpleton pinko who finds it nearly impossible to occasionally glance at a blog discussion and respond to it every once in a while, without it completely consuming his entire little liberal existence. He must have went to public school in Georgia. With basic functions such as these creating such challenges for him, it does not surprise me that he knows all about unemployment benefits.

By AntiRadical

January 4, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

Andy: You’re right- Kerry was 2004. Is there really any difference between Gore/Kerry? Gore wasn’t the brightest bulb in the pack, either.

By Mike

January 4, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

Andy,the reason I’m getting around to government handouts is I just wonder how much longer the taxpayers will be supporting your 24/7 blogging. Of course, according to Leo Straus the neocons need a welfare state to foist their agenda on the populace. Is that your role in the cause Andy? To be one of the welfare recipients? If that is the case, you are really keeping up your end of the agenda.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

Brian: Would you like to share with us your little secret or are we supposed to guess what the hell you are talkng about?

By Andy

January 4, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

SarahConnah: So when you pinkos are protesting out front of Walter Reed calling the wounded soldiers baby killers and shaming them because of their wounds, you see this as soothing and patriotic to the troops that you libs “support?”

Code Pink Continues Protest Of Walter Reed

By Andy

January 4, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

Mike: How much did you earn last year? You do know what a W-2 is, don’t you. Did you have any capital gains to report?

By Mike

January 4, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

WOW Andy. The truth always seems to get you in a particularly nasty mood.

Gotta go. For those of us who work, lunch hour is over. You oughta try it sometime Andy. It pays alot better than blogging on unemployment. Of course theres always the possibility that you are really a “pinko”. You know. An employee of the AJC.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

Guess what Pinko Mike: Now I’m going to tune into Rush Limbaugh for the next 3 hours, since you are so fascinated with my life. Feel free to listen yourself, you could almost tell your little lib friends that you walked a mile in my shoes. Plus you might just learn something for a change.

By Michael H.

January 4, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Sooter, Indeed I have read the whole report and have it in my files. I also read the report in conjunction with the transcript of Powell and Bush’s state of the union speech. I suggest you do the same.

I would also note that Mark Danner’s award winning article in the New York Review of Books and his other writings have dealt with these claims in detail showing how virtually all of the Bush administration’s assertions about possession of WMD and the nuclear weapons program have since been falsified. And what matters are the major findings and they went against everything the Bush administration argued. Again, I invite you to reread them, or actually read the a first time instead of trying to bluff your way through.

I never said anything about Wilson, but I suggest that you read what he has written since, including his book. The Bush administration itself admitted that the documents they relied upon were crude forgeries, though not until after they invaded Iraq. In the meantime, Harper’s Magazine published the original documents alongside original documents from the office in question. They were crude beyond belief.

But as Reagan famously said, “Facts are stubborn things.�? Especially for a supporter of Bush and his policies.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

Something I don’t understand, I sure would like to have it explained, where do these libs get off calling me pinko, Howard Dean and an employee of the AJC? Are they in over their heads? Is this all too much for them that they can’t sort these kind of things out on their own?

By WORKINGSTIFF

January 4, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

Since Mike is off the blog EARNING A LIVING I will try to answer for him. I know what a W-2 is and I also know that all any one has to do to know what yours says is to go to the Georgia Department of Labor site to see what an unemplyment check pays. You need to get a life and a JOB you pitiful little welfare weasel.

By SarahConnah

January 4, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Andy you are so typical of the right wing wacko’s. I post a true event and you go off into a fantasy land trip. You and your ilk are more dangerous than the imbecile in Crawford you goosestep with. Just where do you buy those jackboots anyway? Get…a…grip!

By Andy

January 4, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Look you silly pinkos: Government benefits are not the only thing out there, just because they encompass your entire life experience. This may come as a surprise to you losers but people can be retired, on vacation, work at home, rich beyond their wildest beliefs. When you judge somebody based solely on your knowledge of life you are pegging yourself for all to see. Losers.

By Nikole

January 4, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

How do we know that we have won the war against terror?

By SarahConnah

January 4, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

To Nikole: When The Bush Reich has been impeached and sits in a defendants dockett in The Hague, victory will be ours! Curtsie!

By Andy

January 4, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

SarahConner: I post a link that details the Code Pink protest of Walter Reed, you posted nothing, zero.-I post a true event and you go off into a fantasy land trip Where is your link? Moron Dud? That’s all you have?

By WORKINGSTIFF

January 4, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

Let me guess. Obviously you couldn’t have been on vacation for all these months so that one is out. You could possibly be retired,but I doubt it. Obviously you are too stupid to be rich beyond your wildest dreams. So I will go out on a limb and say that you work at home blogging for whatever that UE check is.

By SarahConnah

January 4, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Just for the record. It’s spelled “Connah”. Make a note clown boy. C-O-N-N-A-H Or are fact’s just too messy? Curtsie…LMAO!

By Andy

January 4, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

WORKINGSTIFF <——— Maybe you earned this name because you are unsucessful or maybe even a failure, you reckon? Or is it George Bush’s fault that you are a loser, just like everything else you blame in your sorry a-ss little life?

By WORKINGSTIFF

January 4, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

I just get up and go to work everyday and pay my bills with honestly made money. Try it sometime Andy. Besides that my wife is a Psychologist and that helps.

By Aunt Mary

January 4, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

Mike: I enjoy your cartoons so much. I only wish you did one each day of the week instead of only five.

I am a conservative in many ways but try to be open minded as to what is happening in the world. You always cut straight to the point of the matter and don’t p*** foot around. Thanks for your straight forward approach.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

I have been asking the following question for moons and moons, have only gotten one response. The response was; caus ethey didn’t attack us during those twelve years. That illustrates that some on the left will require more civilian dfeaths before they act.

So, the question is; Why do liberals not seem to have a problem with Saddam not living up to the cease-fire agreement that stipulated he disclose the wherabouts of the WMDs we helped him get in the 80’s?

I think that is a fair question.

By WORKINGSTIFF

January 4, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

Being willing to clean here, and maybe you will do the same, I AM retired. From the military. And I just love messing with mindless little goose stepping wannabes like you Andy. Morons like you are the reason governments are able to steal the freedoms that people have shed lots of blood to insure. Twits like you are the greatest assets that those who want to REAllY take our freedoms have in there arsenal.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

Andy, go easy on the working stiff. My daddy always told me; “Boy, you can either spend your time standing here making excuses, or you can spend it out there making progress”. But, I grew up and found that “progressives” spend their time making excuses for everyone elses failures and it confused me. Until I realized how politicians seek teh power of dependency through a corrupt tax code that chases businesses into foreign tax shelters. Since that realization I will be ignorantly conservative till the day I die. The socuialist will probably grow out of it, or they will drag the nation into the mediocrity that France and Germany enjoy.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

It tells you how weak the argument of the left is when they have to make me the issue. They can’t give facts, present evidence or even discuss ideas because they have none. I’m the problem.

By Flashback

January 4, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

Maybe Andy should walk a mile in the shoes of one of those guys he likes to talk about in Walter Reed. And when he gets one of them seperated from the rest of him by an IED he can then talk about walking a mile in someone elses shoes. Of course we all know that Andy doesn’t care if 52,000 more young men and women die and several million more of them get maimed for another war that looks hauntingly similar to Vietnam.

By goldkngt

January 4, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

The people of this state routinely demonize liberals; calling them sub human, less than intelligent neanderthals that are not worthy of mercy or compassion in any capacity.

I am a moderate, raised with conservative values. I hold true to my values, and one of them is that honorable behavior and honesty matter. When those who make these statements hold their leaders accountable, or hold to the same standard that they hold ‘liberals’ to, I will take them seriously.

*Fillibustering nominees is bad for Democrats but OK for Republicans.

*The news is biased and lies, unless it is Fox news, in which case they tell us what we want to hear so then its ok.

*The government is at war with Religion, but its ok to burn down/beat up/hurt people whose philosphies we disagree with like Evolutionists, Pagans and all those other ‘devil worshiping scum’

*States rights matter and the Republican party is the party of State’s rights even though the Federal government puts all of the cost of No Child Left Behind on the states and doesn’t pay for it.

*”The Republican Party is the Party of Ideas, while all the Democrats do is Whine” even though they can’t bring up an argument without mentioning Ted Kennedy or Jane Fonda, both issues that are 30 years old.

*Term limits are vitally important to a healthy congress until the Republicans control it.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

Flashback, good argument for a child. How about this, you and I can’t talk about taxes and the rich until we are in the highest tax bracket. Or, you can talk about race issues unless you do 80% of your grocery shopping at a Citi-Kroger.

Just sit down and let this president fight terrorism, like Regaen fought communism over the cries of the critics of his time. Criticism is easy leading is hard.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

Maybe Flashback should walk a mile in the shoes of one of those guys he likes to talk about in World Trade Center. And when he gets one of them seperated from the rest of him by an airplane missile he can then talk about walking a mile in someone elses shoes. Of course we all know that Flashback doesn’t care if 3,000 more young men, women and children die and several million more of them get maimed for another attack that looks hauntingly similar to 9/11.

By goldkngt55

January 4, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

“Sit down, shut up, what do you think this is, a democracy or something? There is a war on son! There are vital government contracts to be awarded to my friends! We’re fighting terrorist. YOU might be a terrorist!

Talking bad about the soldiers during the war is unpatriotic! The president is the commander in chief! The commander in chief is a soldier! So talking bad about the president is talking bad about soldiers which is unpatriotic! If you’re unpatriotic during time of war, that’s sedition! Sedition is treason! If you’re a traitor you should be shot! Do you want to be shot son? Then sit down and shut up and let the Commander In Chief do his job.”

By Al Davis

January 4, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

Reading through today’s posts I see that Andy is worshipping at the feet of that doctor shopping, pill popping junkie hypocrite Rush Limbaugh. But I am sure that he will come back soon spouting his usual world according to Rush neocon propoganda. Yep. Andy and Rush. Just prooves the old adage that birds of a feather flock together. To all of you THINKING Americans, have a nice day. I second the motion that Andy get a job a becomes something other than a drain on the taxpaying people of Georgia.

By Nikole

January 4, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

How do we know when the war against terror has been won?

By goldkngt55

January 4, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

Maybe Flashback should walk in the shoes of the FBI counterterrorism expert that no one would listen to who was in the World Trade Center the day it was destroyed so we’d know why he quit the FBI.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

gldkngt,

all of your points illustrate that you are not any sort of conservative or you just don’t know that republicrats held nominees in committee, not filibustered.

You want criticism, Terry Schiavo, prescription drug entitlement program, border and port security. I could go on, but I won’t because I am constantly forced to defend teh pres against half of these nitwhit criticisms that are perpetuated by the media and the left (if you can tell the difference).

Also, Fox News is certainly slanted slightly right, but the MSM will show very little bad news for dems and all for the republicrats. We had fortty years of that type coverage and it took Fox News and Talk Radio to defeat the brainwashing that some are still victims of.

By goldkngt

January 4, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

“Haha! Look at those stupid people in Washington D.C.! Can you believe they elected a crack snorting mayor to office again after he was caught on camera? They just think it was all a conspiracy by the government…what idiots!”

“Can you believe what those liberal idiots are trying to frame Rush for? They bribed his doctor to get him hopped up on pills and then try to get some crazy political prosecutor to frog march him through the courts! Stupid liberals.”

By Flashback

January 4, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Unfortunately one of mine already is seperated from the rest of me. Maybe that is why I think that it shouldn’t happen to millions more.

By goldkngt

January 4, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

I said I was a moderate, not a conservative.

And my apologies. It is quite obvious there is a difference between holding up a nominee forever in comittee and holding them up on the full floor of the Senate.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

golgkngt: You are a sub human, less than intelligent neanderthal that is not worthy of mercy or compassion in any capacity.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed Senate confirmation 96-3 plus or minus.

Fox News was created in response to the pinko media bias of ABS, C B.S., PMSNBC, National Pinko Radio, etc.

Show me one “evolutionist” that the ACLU has sued.

How are your Federal tax dollars different from your State tax dollars? Federal is a different country than State?

We should not have anymore free elections? If the people want to “limit terms” shouldn’t they decide?

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

Nikole, we will never know. W ehave to try to over the long term reduce the factories/dictatorships that produce terrorist. That’s why catching UBL will do nothing.

By SG

January 4, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

With the mountain of information available to those of us with access to the internet, it is distressing to read the continuing “head in the sand” attitude of many of the “conservatives” in this and other blogs. There really is no longer any excuse, it is time to wake up and face the ugly truth….the current administration is despotic.

By goldkngt

January 4, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

Me sub human. Me wonder why me should listen to Andy then?

Me sorry, me not know that passing Ruth Bader Ginsburg make up for dozens of other judiciaries not passed.

Me no say ACLU good. Me not agree with u, so me must be liberal scum and sub human. Me sorry. Me move back to franz like gud scum sucking liberal flag burning scum so u can have America.

Free elections gud. Me suggest to france that they have them. Me suggest to them they use Blackboxes from Diebold.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

SG: It all depends on what you access on the “internet” to determine if you have your head up your a-ss. Look at the cartoon, clown- December 28, 2005—Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

By goldkngt

January 4, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

Me amazed! Us subhumans have not discovered fire, but Andy has discovered STATISTICS.

Statistics amazing! Say whatever u want say! 64% of Americans believe NSA spying on them good idea! Wow!

Me suggest to prezident of France he do this. Wait. NSA probably already doing it! Wow. That easy for me.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

It was a joke, bozo.

By goldkngt

January 4, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

The people of this state routinely demonize liberals; calling them sub human, less than intelligent neanderthals that are not worthy of mercy or compassion in any capacity.

By goldkngt55

January 4, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

Hi kids! Its goldkngt the clown here?

Wanna hear a joke?

How does a liberal communist pinko media news commentator define ‘democracy’?

He rounds up a bunch of his friends and has them all clap and nod at everything he says on television!

Wakawakawaka! I’ve got a million of em!

By Andy

January 4, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

You’re right, goldkngt: We should trust our national security to the whim of hysterical pinkos who can’t control their childish feminine feelings. Great idea.

By Midori

January 4, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

Goldknight — you’re f*cking KILLING me.

My stomach hurts from laughing so much.

ROLF!!!!!!!!!

By Brian Curtis

January 4, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

So now the ACLU should be suing evolutionists? Ha! For WHAT? Trying to teach facts and logic in the public churches or something?

What a maroon….

By Dr R

January 4, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

It dawns on me how Luckovich’s images of Bush have changed over the years. He started out big-eared a silly, but he grew taller and less bizarre-looking after 9-11. Either ML was more impressed with his leadership then or just felt it was “unpatriotic” to draw the president in such a way during a national crisis. Now he’s back to drawing him as a simian-looking child with gargantuan ears. Could it be that ML’s views of Bush are ebbing and flowing with popular opinion?

By Daniel

January 4, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

We need to fashion an effective defense for the Abramoff crooks in government. Here goes: 1)The liberals made me do it. If that doesn’t work, then: 2)The pinko’s made me do it. Ok, ok, that might not work. Then they need to go all out. 3) The pinko, libs, and commies made me do it. There you go!

By Andy

January 4, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

Brian: Would you like to share with us your little secret or are we supposed to guess what the hell you are talkng about?

By Alma

January 4, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

So are you saying that we should trust our fate to you Andy?

By goldkngt

January 4, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

My apologies Andy. You’re right. Why did I not realize that my childish feminine feelings had overcome my reason before?

I feel quite confident trusting our national security to you Andy. After all, you’ve listened to my arguments and countered them with rational, well thought out dialog. So I’m going to follow your example of self control, and self control myself away from this enlightened conversation.

[PS, this means you win because you can make another response that shows how stupid I am and I’m not going to respond to you.]

By Midori

January 4, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

Daniel — you forgot the mother of all GOP excuses —

BILL CLINTON DID IT, SO WHY CAN’T WE???

By Andy

January 4, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

HA HA HA, we’re all laughing with Midori:

By JD

January 2, 2006 07:16 PM | Link to this

Midori,

Do you ever read anything other than Leftist propaganda? The links you submitted give a better view of you than anything you write. After all, my 6th grade daughter could make a better argument than the tripe you have placed here.

Again, the only Left position is “Bush is bad�? - no ideas, no solutions, no plan for combatting terrorism. Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are two empty suits and an even more vacuous skirt. Oh, I forgot the de facto leaders, Kerry, Kennedy and the Clintons. Now you have a group that any soft-headed Liberal can be very proud to follow.

By Daniel

January 4, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

Look, I wish these guys were getting laid, the nation would be better off.

By Dr R

January 4, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

I need the Bush Bashers to help me out here because I’m confused: One post in here refers to his “schemes” to undermine the Constitution, fitting the image of Bush as a dark, sinister force bent on destroying life as we know it. The other image is that of a dull-witted child who defers to Dick Cheney and can’t form a coherent sentence. Since those two images seem to be at odds, tell me which you believe is more accurate: Bush as Evil Incarnate or Bush as Manipulated Simp? You really can’t have it both ways, you know.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

I got an even better idea than trusting me with our nation’s security, you silly uneducated pinkos. Let’s trust our elected leaders! They got the majority! You are the losers! Thank God!

By AntiRadical

January 4, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

Bolivia’s new Socialist “President”, Evo Morales, said today in a speech denouncing free-market economies that he and Hugo Chavez (Venezuelan’s Socialist leader) were uniting in a “fight against neo-liberalism and imperialism”. Looks like the Neo-Cons have a new best friend in Chavez; he’s obviously somebody who can silence those pesky “liberal” pinkos.

Meanwhile, where are we? Standing in Iraq, pulling our pud, with no ability to engage our most immediate enemies ‘cause we ain’t got the troops left to protect ourselves. Now don’t that just make you feel all warm and cozy?

“We are going to change Bolivia. We are going to change Latin America. This movement is not only in Bolivia; Fidel in Cuba and Hugo in Venezuela are logging triumphs in social movements and leftist policies.”- Evo Morales, Bolivian President-Elect, 1/3/06

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

Dr. R, they won’t understand you, you have to talk in Hyena

By Thomas

January 4, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

Mike —

Really good one today. Pretty much says it all. Bush out of control with his trampling of the constitution and a congress (both Democrat and Republican) generally apathetic to the whole problem as they go about their own personal lives.

Glad AJC has you on board.

I have come to the conclusion that the majority of the GOP Republican Party is now composed of Mobsters with a Gestapo agenda.

I say “Mobsters” due to Abramoff and friends influincing our government and their ties with casinos and the murder of “SunCruz Casinos”, “Miami Subs” Gus. I apologize for such direct statements to the GOP die hards here, but where there is smoke there is fire, and there are way too many coincidences here. These guys are laundering and moving money around with so many coverups,and this implicates most of the GOP as having direct and indirect ties to Gangsters. I wonder how long it will be until the religeous right will actually realize they were politically used by Mobsters to expand and and help create a monopoly on the Indian Gambling Industry by the Mob?

And then there is this agenda to destroy our rights. Yes one by one to protect us (from ourselves?) there are now Gestapo like investigations into “OUR” lives and restrictions on the everyday American citizens. Individual rights are being decayed at an unprecedented rate. Library records and wiretapping is just the tip of the iceburg. Although “P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act” anachranism sounds uhm - well - Patriotic, when you look at it closer it is literally an anachronism that means absolute control by use of spy tools.

Just remember - “We Are the People” just as the US Constitution states. and We the People” should control the governement, not the other way around. And those that would “give up” and “Surrender” their rights are the true un-patriotic ones in this country as they fail in their constitutional duty to defend their rights! Never Surrender your liberties to despotism and Bush and Company are asking us to do just that. And of course its all in the name of a false Patriotism.

And if its all the same to you - I’ll keep fighting for my rights, Freedoms, Privacy, and personal privledges, as an individual even if it means I must protect my constitutional rights from the very President himself! One of our rights is the right to protest, and I do protest this administration and its hidden agenda as they heinously use America for their own profiteering!

Tom

-=-

‘Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for “lack of patriotism” and “endangering the country”. It works the same in every country.’ Quote by: - Herman Goering - (Hitler’s “ReichMarschall” - at the “Nuremberg Trials”)

The “Democratic” glory of the “Roman Republic” lasted a little over 200 years until the people gave up their rights during a national crisis and then became the “Roman Empire”. One must now wonder if the same fate is now befalling the people of the American Republic.

-=-

By Johnnie Cochran

January 4, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

But if the defense is 1)the neocons made me do it. or 2)the anti-constitution jackboots made me do it. or 3)all of the above. That will be the truth. And if you know the truth, the truth will set you free. In the end Jack will be freed and the rest of the jackals will get DeLaid.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

Daniel, How about we limit the amount of power the government has over people. If people weren’t allowed to depend on government, how much power would it have?

I checked and saw that nobody has answered my question.

By Jesus

January 4, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

By Andy

January 4, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

AntiR: Looks like the Neo-Cons have a new best friend in Chavez; he’s obviously somebody who can silence those pesky “liberal�? pinkos.

Why would we need him when we have the majority of the American people “silencing” the pinkos for us with their votes?

By Daniel

January 4, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

There are some great posts. Government power should and must be limited. That is why these crooks are not conservatives! The greatest explosion of government power, and size, intrusion and expense has occurred in the last five years!

By Midori

January 4, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

I’m glad that you’re laughing with me, Andy.

I knew you’d lighten up sooner or later.

Must have been because you’ve finally told the truth about your feelings about this “war”.

Yes, it is all for oil.

how the hell did our oil get under the Iraqi’s feet?

I didn’t respond to that jackass that night because I tire of trying to talk civilly to such uncivilized and ignorant individuals.

Besides, I had better things to do.

You look pretty pathetic having to resort to posting one of your “posse’s” nonsensical rants from 2 nights ago.

The “left” has several positions other than “Bush is Bad”.

he’s a dishonest moron, a intellectual midget, a thief, a bloodthirsty ghoul. an incompetent boob. The list goes on.

Yet he gives you guys a hard on. Go figure.

You people keep yelling that the “left” has no ideas - yet when they are presented either in Congress or on this board, they are shouted down by your and your neanderthal posse.

That crap gets tiring after a while.

it’s funny that you call what my side presents as “propaganda”.

I fully disagree — that’s all you and your ilk push. Ad nauseum.

You, JD, and your other nose picking, Bush cheering, drooling maggots are so good at your projection.

yet when someone calls you out and throws it in your face, you childishly start with the twisting of words, facts, etc.

Happy New Year — both to you AND JD.

By Dr R

January 4, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

Nope, not gonna talk down to folks even if they can’t grasp my nuance (though I will revert to colloquialisms like ‘gonna’ just to keep you on your toes).

Next question in our exercise: Suppose you hear news tomorrow that terrorists have attacked in a major U.S. city, say by bombing a commuter train. We learn that the attack was conducted by an al-Qaida group inside the U.S., orchestrated by legal immigrants or even citizens that had ties with the Big Guy in his cave-quarters somewhere in Pushtan. Some research shows that spying on these individuals would have been considered illegal under current U.S. law, so there was no way to ferret out their intents. What would your reaction be? I won’t speak for you, but I know what the hue and cry would be from the Democratic leadership: “Why didn’t Bush do something?” Because in the minds of liberals (I say that as description, not with a sneer to insult), the government is responsible for our safety, security and livelihood. I find it a bit incongruous that those who believe in government now choose not to trust it when it comes to security.

As a libertarian, I believe I am at least consistent: No, the White House should not break the law to protect us because freedom is more important than security. And I’ll say that after we’re attacked because I don’t think the government is, or should be, all powerful to protect us.

By JB

January 4, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

Proof that nothing ever changes. A whole new year but right here are the same idiot leftist sissys foaming at the mouth and whining about how evil the President, republicans and Christians are. Come on, let’s hear one of you losers “we support the troops but we don’t support the war” and some of the other horse$#it you picked up from Michael Moore and the other retards like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Bwabwa Stwisand and Skin-head O’Conner.

Andy, don’t worry about these dumb@$$ people. God has a job for them too. They (leftist, pinko, anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-God) will be perfect to clear out the mine-fields and diffuse a few toe-poppers and IEDs when the fight comes to our doorstep. They wanted to be human shields for the Iraqis, let ‘em catch a bullet for the good old USA if they truly support our troops and love our land!

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

Anti Radical, certainly you aren’t suggesting we premptively straike a sovereign nation (Bolivia or Venezuala when it fits your purpose, right.

Those countries are going to play income redistribution witht heir oil and drug money. But if we wouldlegalize drugs they would have less money. When we have fuel cell cars they will have even less money.

It’s been the same as always, the liberals don’t think UN Resolutions should be taken seriously, but we can’t offend the UN as they are our allies (yeah right!).

By Alma

January 4, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

Good idea Scooter. So when to we depose Bush? After all, this administration is consolidating absolute control over we the people.

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

Just throw a Samsonite out there and let’s see if they can break it up.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

See, I knew I could get a rise out of Midori.

By Daniel

January 4, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

Some of you need to get laid.

By JB

January 4, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

Rise out of Midori? Better hurry Andy before she takes another prozac and becomes somebody else like that dumb-$#it persona Malachi she uses!

By Andy

January 4, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

JB: If war ever comes to our doorstep you’d better not get in the way of these pinkos, they’ll run your a-ss over on their way out of here. These sissies couldn’t fight, they’re afraid of their own government, for God’s sake. It’s really shameful, embarrassing.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

Daniel, I agree witht he growing of government, but you avoided the power that dependency affords government. The prescription drug entitlement program will be huge once theprivate sector starts dumping their burden onto the gubment. Demcrats have absolutely nooooo problenm with people being dependent on other peoples taxes. Heck it is their “leadership” style. Yes, the republicrats are becoming just as bad because they have, over the years, given into the democrats but the dems have never given into the free market ideas. That is why we may be doomed to socialism.

By Dr R

January 4, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

Your words: Bush is … a dishonest moron, a intellectual midget, a thief, a bloodthirsty ghoul. an incompetent boob.

Whew! Does he also rape baby seals? Whatever happened to “I disagree with our president’s politics and his agenda for our nation.”

Bush has a BA from Yale, an MBA from Harvard, has run several businesses, unseated a popular governor and was re-elected with 65 percent of the vote, and was elected (yes, elected) president twice. If that’s the resume of a “moron,” sign me up.

I often disagree with the president, and I am disappointed with many aspects of his term. I also disagree with other politicians, but I can’t see myself stooping to the type of vindictive insults I see here (well, Ted Kennedy is a lying, murdering, fat-bottomed drunk, but he’s the exception).

By AntiRadical

January 4, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

Andy: So the reason you rail against the “liberals” all day is that they are silent? You wish it were so but you know it’s not. So, what’s gonna be your position when the Republicans LOSE an election? Will the nimrods then be your idols ‘cause THEY won?

By Daniel

January 4, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

Look, you’re just a fat delusional coward who sits in front of the computer all day and makes things up. You are like the government. But, the American people have it with you bums. Ah, ok, I feel better now. I’m off to my workout. Adios!

By Michael H.

January 4, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

Here is a better question.

Why did Bush retain the claim about buying uranium yellowcake from Africa (Niger)after receiving two memos months in advance and a call from Tenet warning them that the claim was “highly dubious”?

Too mislead the American public? Heaven forbid that one even suggest such a thing.

By JB

January 4, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

Andy: won’t have to worry about them running us down. they’ll be too busy lining up to spread-eagle for their new masters.

Know the true definition of a libertarian? someone who can’t get the moderate fence pole out of their @$$.

By kimberly

January 4, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

Scooter, may I?

The question: Why do liberals not seem to have a problem with Saddam not living up to the cease-fire agreement that stipulated he disclose the wherabouts of the WMDs we helped him get in the 80’s? I will try to answer your question, and the subsequent question as to why no one is answering your question. First: “liberals do not SEEM to have a problem with Saddam….�? Who says we (the people to whom you attach a label though you do not know us) didn’t have a problem with that? That’s your assumption; perhaps it SEEMS that way because you aren’t listening to people you label. Personally, I was never comfortable with the idea of any crazed dictator having WMDs. I was never comfortable with the officials in my government giving weapons to Middle Eastern governments. I was never comfortable with the covert arms deals, nor the resulting pardons that prevented us from learning the truth. Regarding Saddam in 2003, I was more comfortable with the ongoing UN inspections and so forth than I was with sending our troops to invade a country that didn’t attack us at a time when we had not yet captured the people who DID attack us. Does that mean I had no problem with any of it? No. You have misperceived our (the people you label) feelings, which is why, I believe, no one answered to your satisfaction. Do I feel safer-er now? Nope. Sorry, but I don’t. Hope this helps.

By Dr R

January 4, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

Any grown-ups out there? Anyone not on recess from ninth grade? If so, let’s use our brains and respond to the scenario I offered a few posts back: Terror attack, al-Qaida ties, spying illegal. Who do you blame? C’mon, I won’t bite …

By Andy

January 4, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

AntiR: I said the voters were silencing the pinkos with their votes. This is true. If you would care to show me any serious national elections you have won in, let’s say, the last 26 years, I’ll be willing to listen. (Clinton didn’t win the majority, so save it.)

If the Republicans lose an election (now I’m giggling just like Midori,) I’ll let you know how I reacted to it. First, shouldn’t the democrats come up with a platform and some sane coherent candidates?

By JB

January 4, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

oooh, the evil republicans are spying on americans. hmmm, let’s think about that for a second. hmmm, believe that J Edgar was a democrat (very liberal but just not so pretty in his evening gowns) AND for those of you new to the world of reality the f’n NSA had a charter to conduct domestic spy operations long before George W became govenor of Tx. Just how stupid are you people?

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

Sorry Dr R, you talk too reasonable for these folks…

By Andy

January 4, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

Michael H.: Tenet, Clinton appointee, said WMD was a “slam dunk.” Why do you have to lie?

By Dr R

January 4, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

Evidently. Care to engage? I love to debate reasonable folks I disagree with. Sadly, there are too many who fit only the latter description.

By JB

January 4, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

let’s hear some more whining about the incorrect intelligence provided to our President. let’s think about that a second…Nope don’t need a second. It was that idiot Bill Clinton who cut the budget for the intielligence agencies and left us blind and without any foreign assets. You people really are dumb aren’t you?

By DumbDetector

January 4, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

About as stupid as you are JB.

By Thomas

January 4, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

Saddam and Rummy in happier days? -

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rumsfeld_saddam.gif

When the good ol’ Republicans helped boost him into power to fight the evil Iranians who took out our good Iranian Shaw that we had also propped up to fight the evil Russians. Oh and who was it that also trained Bin Laden to fight evil Russians in Afghanistan too? We reap what we sow and we have sowed wars all over the world.

Oh — and wasn’t the deal shown it that there picture was that we were to supply him (Saddam) with (ahem) weapons including limited chemical weapons? Of course us Suthun’ Liberals had an issue with Saddam! We generally have an issue with any propped up dictator or WarMonger. We also had an issue with giving him our High Tech Toys that could be used to kill us!

By Dusty

January 4, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

Well, Andy, what a novel idea: Let’s trust our elected leaders!

There’s a thundering herd out today. They would trample the country just to get the president. Forget standards, honor, decency. They make up their own code of disloyalty and call it patriotism. That is the latest version of the Democratic platform—-anything goes to get ‘em! Luckovich is a prime example.

By Dr R

January 4, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

Kimberley, thank God, an intelligent adult. Let me ask you this: Do you think Saddam would have allowed UN inspectors back in had Bush not pointed our guns at his head? Problem is, even with inspectors there was dissembling and deception; too many times the Baathists were moving a step ahead of the UN teams to dismantle and conceal whatever processes were under way. I agree we could have waited a bit longer; in fact, some European nations proposed a six-month window to allow inspections to proceed before deciding to invade. I doubt we would have learned much more than we know now simply because Saddam wasn’t cooperating and it’s impossible to find everything that he may have been up to in a country that size.

And I posed this yesterday: At what point would Israel have decided not to wait on the world to act but done so itself? Then we would have had a world war on our hands. I contend that much of our military presence in the middle east is designed to keep Israel from fighting its own battles and inviting armageddon. Your thoughts?

By Machiavelli

January 4, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

And on the 6th day Leo Strauss made Andy,RW,Dusty,JB, and Jay not jay. On the 7th day he rested. No more neocon morons were needed until 2000. On January 1st, 2000 he partied.

By AntiRadical

January 4, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Andy: Are you seriously suggesting that there have been no Democratic Senators or Reresentatives in the past 26 years who have not won by a majority? Don’t think the President made the majority mark either, you know, so would call he and Slick Willy even in that respect. Don’t know about you but I see a very strong vocal liberal/conservative voice in America. Radicals on both sides are just louder and more organized, not more numerous. In case you missed it, the President just barely was elected to office at all. I hardly think that the nimrods have been “silenced”. If the President doesn’t play the “troop reduction” trump card, you may see the election losses that you so fear in the next poll. If he does, he alienates his “hawk” base of support. Looks to me like the President is painting himself into a lose/lose scenario.

By Yogi Berra

January 4, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

What do Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein have in common?

By Andy

January 4, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

The National Security Plan For The Pinko Return To Power In 2006

-Draft the Bush twins, send them to the front.

-Ratify the terrorist’s rights amendment to the Constitution.

-Using the newly found “right” in the Constitution to confiscate private property, seize the five star hotels in Miami Beach and move the terrorist detainees into them. Provide room service.

-Burn the flag!

-Negotiate! (Hold up, with who? O.K. let’s hold this one until later.)

-Make Murtha the Chief War Pinko.

-Withdraw!

By JB

January 4, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

Draft the Bush twins? Maybe for a spread in playboy.

If anyone needs to be removed from office it’s that idiot Murtha. I’m ashamed to say that sorry b@$tard was in my beloved Marine Corps.

BTW, the liberal sissys made it ok to burn our flag long time ago. Hopefully, the Congress will come to its collective senses and add to the 2nd ammendment that affords us the right to keep and bear arms and authorize the use of deadly force to prevent any of you liberal @$$holes who’d burn the American flag.

By Dr R

January 4, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

Sigh … getting any points across in here is like debating with Larry, Curly and Moe. Nothing but pies in the face.

By scooter

January 4, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, I respect your answer but it shows something and am sorry that you get offended when I say liberals. I am a proud conservative and you can label me that, but don’t call me ignorant, spoon fed or any of the other things that the left calls conservatives (and I am not saying you do). Would you prefer we call you progressive, isn’t that the new name of socialist in American politics.

To your answer and I quote with appreciation, “Regarding Saddam in 2003, I was more comfortable with the ongoing UN inspections and so forth than I was with sending our troops to invade a country that didn’t attack us at a time when we had not yet captured the people who DID attack us�?. Granted, had we not invaded we would have never known that the Oil for Food Program was being used to buy votes on the UN Security Council. But, you would prefer that program to continue to try and enforce our cease fire agreement, that’s interesting but obvious. Further, you seem to think that if we caught UBL we would slow terrorism, or you think we aren’t capturing Al-Qieda terrorist, or not enough of them.

We have set a standard that we mean what we say and we will not run from every Mogadishu. Speaking of Mogadishu, Al Franken has some of those “Black Hawk down�? Rangers on his program now.

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

Dr R, They can’t debate reason with you at this point. I only have time to come here a for a few min. while I work. I’ll catch you later, although we probably won’t have that much to argue about.

By Dr R

January 4, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

Answer to Saddam and Noriega: They both are dictators who had been propped up by U.S. policy. It happens; we sometimes have to pick the lesser of two evils in a given part of the world, and they turn on us. Buyer’s regret, call it. In the complex puzzle of geopolitics, there isn’t always a good guy in a white hat we can back, so we have to hold our nose and choose. That was the case with Saddam. We made the b—tard, and in turn, we had to break him.

By sickoftheneocons

January 4, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

The National Security Plan to Keep Bush in Power in 2006:

Draft only those who can not afford to contribute to his political party.
Come up with his own version of the U.S. Constitution.
Use the “right” to drill for oil in a natural preserve to lessen or dependence on foreign oil for all of six months.
Have another 2000 flags lowered to half-mast in honor of another 2000 fallen troops in Iraq.
Negotiate with those pesky North Koreans who have unabashedly let on that they most certainly DO have WMD’s and don’t mind pointing them right at us.
Elevate himself to Supreme Ruler of All He Surveys
Allow all those “guest worker” (and who knows how many terrorists) into our country from the Mexican border with a hardy “Olay!”

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this

Sick, who is the President drafting right now? Your point about contributing to his political party is a joke. Have you ever been to ANWAR? Would you really mind using about 3% of its total area? What is your solution to N. Korea? I will agree with you that he has failed on the immigration policy. That is the issue no politician wants to touch for pc reasons.

By Dr R

January 4, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

Um, since when do we have to keep a president in power in the middle of his term? The 2004 election doesn’t expire in a couple more years, Skippy. We’re stuck with GWB, for better or worse.

By Machiavelli

January 4, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

That has some merit Dr R. On the other hand,maybe the fastest way to win our war on terror is to let the Isrealis win theirs. At least they understand that the war on terror is not won by wholesale invasion. It is won in the shadows.

Yogi Berra. Manuel Noriega and Saddam were both on our payroll. They both outlived their usefulness. Noriega was convenient at the time and a convenient experiment to test the receptiveness of the American people to what was then neoconservatism in its infancy. The cold war was over. The Soviets were no longer seen as the enemy and neocons have to have an enemy. So tag! Noriega was it. Saddam was still our boy in 89. (does anyone remember how furious our government was when the Isrealis took out his nuclear reactors in 85?) Then Saddam really got stupid and invaded Kuwait. Miraculously the neocons were handed their next villian on a siver platter, much like they were handed 9/11. And since then as we all know, the ideas of Leo Strauss reign supreme in within our present administration. And oh. The last thing they have in common is incarceration.

By kimberly

January 4, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

Dr R, thanks for asking. Like I said, I was never comfortable with the dispensing to or possession of WMDs to crazy dictators. But I don’t think the way our executive branch handled this “crisis” was warranted or wise. I am flawed in that I pay attention. Troops were pulled from Afghanistan. Bin Laden went from priority one to “I just don’t think about him that much” at the same time we were told “OMYGOD Saddam is going to nuke us any MINUTE if we don’t strike NOW.” Meanwhile, Generals were being demoted and booted from the strategy room for saying, “Um… this isn’t a good plan, Sir. We’ll need more men to accomplish this.” Since then, our national treasury is emptying out into the pockets of Hallibuton executives and OOOOOPS, we can’t find the audit trail on that last $9 billion — a news story that was buried at the same time some “Christian” group was demanding our collective outrage at Sponge Bob (the cartoon) in every media outlet in the country for three solid weeks! The point to this rambling is that, based on my observations, I don’t TRUST my government, and I don’t TRUST their motivations, when too many things just don’t make sense. And many of their defenders on this board (Coulter wannabees) do nothing to encourage my trust, faith, or respect.

By AntiRadical

January 4, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

“The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off.” —George W. Bush, second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

The President has degrees from Yale and Harvard? Guess my state school degree is better than I thought!

By JB

January 4, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

Ok, as much as it pains me to agree with a liberal, I have to agree w/ sicko on the “guest worker” program. But, sticking up a wall along the southern US is a waste of time and money. Putting more border guards down there without allowing them to shoot back is likewise a waste of time. God forbid, we annex Mexico. Can’t round ‘em up and ship them back to Mexico and send them the bill. Besides, Bush backed CAFTA which is the dumbest trade move since Clinton’s NAFTA!

HOWEVER, it was Clinton who passified North Korea with free oil and food when they rattled their saber. SHould’ve just said f’em let’em. They’ll come back to reality when hunger sets in. Now, they’ve ammassed enough arms to overrun the 38th parallel.

By sickoftheneocons

January 4, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

Hey Ricky, just a little satirical response to Andy’s bulletin from a few minutes ago. My suggestions are based in reality as much as his are. Just having some fun. BTW, the things that really bother me about this administration actually have nothing to do with Iraq, I’m actually in agreement with the administration on that one. The only two things that REALLY bug me are immigration and the WHOLESALE spending spree that has been ongoing for the last 5 years.

By goldkngt55

January 4, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

The appearance of a rational arguement does not carry with it the capacity to be flexible in thinking.

Reason dictates the ability to change ones understanding based on the facts presented.

Reason means wanting to see the truth when it presents itself.

Therefore, reason must counter a question with a question:

If the definition of true evil is a man who is to all appearances just, supporting the very ideals that make up that which a proper Christian nation, how does the deliberate subversion of thought through repetitive argument serve justice?

How does hiding the truth serve reason?

What does it matter if a UN resolution, did, in fact justify intervention in Iraq if it is done for evil reasons?

At what point do you question your own beliefs? At what point do you decide that the truth is more important than your desire to feel that you are superior?

How does appearing to be rational matter when no one is listening to rational dialog?

Emotional arguments are only countered by emotional arguments. Rational arguments require the ability to be willing to compromise, to have a shared system of beliefs and to regard the person with whom you are conversing with respect.

If you think that the person you are talking with is sub human, is beneath you, is juvinile, is ‘in the 9th grade’, then you are not going to have a rational conversation with that person. You are not going to listen to what they have to say.

It is possible that you can regurgitate their words in an IRRATIONAL format, but the application of humor shows this fallacy for the truth that it is: No amount of repetition of an illogical argument can ever convince someone who is truly open to the truth. Wheras, some who is not interested in the truth, but only wishes to feel safe in an unsafe world, a world that is changing all around them, a world that no longer respects this nation as it once did, a world that sees hypocracy and does not automatically leap to America’s beck and call, will listen to nothing.

I do believe in America. I believe in the constitution. I KNOW that this country is better than any other on the face of the Earth. You talk of South America? I was IN Venezuela when Chavez tried to take over the government the first time, and now the people there have welcomed him with open arms because he tells them what they want to hear. They are willing to sell their freedom for safety.

You say that the majority elected President Bush? Really? How do you know that? You don’t really question things. You don’t want to believe that the election in Florida or the election in Ohio could be fixed. You don’t believe it because you don’t want it to be true. You don’t want to believe that your democracy was taken away quietly. You have firm faith in the American system that it would never be allowed to happen.

Guess what? I do to. I believe in the American system too. But the system is slow. It takes time. It has taken 5 years for the truth to come out and the prosecutions to start. It will take 20 years for the documents that have been sealed to be released and the lies that are being told to come to light.

Bush did not go to war in Iraq to preserve the rule of law for the United Nations, because otherwise he would not have selected Jonathan Bolton (who hates it) to be the ambassador to the UN.

If Bush respected International Law, he would not ignore the Kyoto treaty. He would not ignore the ICC treaty (even though the US government uses it indirectly).

Do not use the argument that the war in Iraq is justified because we had UN sanction, because Bush does not respect the UN. Do not pretend you are trying to have a rational argument when you simply want justification for opinions that you have already founded. If you wanted to have a rational conversation, you would not be here.

Political cartoons are about humor and they are about emotion. They are succesful at changing opinion, because they appeal to people’s beliefs, not their rational thoughts.

And they are making you angry because you know that it is true.

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

Machiavelli, you continue to throw around the term neo-con like most of the media does. You, like them, don’t really understand what it means. Most of the people that are called neo-cons don’t consider themselves neo-cons and they state that their policy ideas don’t flow from the same thought process as Strauss. Not to mention that neo-con refers to someone that has changed their ideology from that of the left to the right. The US was made that Isreal bombed the reactors because they didn’t talk to anyone about it in the first place. The Reagan administration was glad that they were destroyed they just weren’t happy Israel did it without telling anyone.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

Machiavelli, Did the neocons need an enemy to offer individual liberty over our Social Security accounts. Or, did the left need an insatiable appettite for goveernment dependence to first say there was no problem till 2042, then refuse to even talk about it if individual liberty accounts were not taken off the table. That was repulsive that the super enlightened dems couldn’t come up with an idea to overcome the transition cost, they wouldn’t even try. But they do love a straw man.

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, what generals were demoted or booted from the strategy room as you suggest. I have seen this rumor put forth many times and the DoD and most of the generals usually named, firmly deny that. I was just wondering if you had any names.

By Dr R

January 4, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

It’s healthy not to trust the government, whoever is running it. Historically, power tends to corrupt most when the citizenry is asleep at the switch. These bozos work for us, and need to be reminded of it constantly. So for that, I applaud you.

I think any decision to hold off on deposing Saddam would have been temporary. He eventually had to go. We could have taken him in ‘91, but the Arab coalition backing us was too squeamish about the notion, and the Pentagon wasn’t totally on board. And the problem with turning Israel loose is that it won’t try to limit civilian casualties and conduct a limited engagement; it will bomb the beejesus out of anybody in a turban. Then the other Muslim nations will respond in kind, Russia and China will pick sides, and we’ll have World War III on our hands for sure. Best to keep Israel in a box and take on the fight ourselves, however unpleasant that task may be.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

sickof…,

The military is very representative of America across all socio-economic lines, there’s a link on yesterday’s WaPo spam entry.

Maybe the President is using the version of the Constitution that is in print, rather than the “living breathing” version.

If we want to drill for some of our own oil perhaps we should use your route and get the courts to find some mystical right. We sure aren’t doing any of this drilling you describe.

I very much hope you are wrong on this and I suspect you do to, but just wanted to resort to throwing around body counts as an emotional tool.

North Korea has to be negotiated with in a multi-lateral format with meaningful consequences, a bi-lateral agreement with no oversight has proved to be the wrong approach.

The Supreme Ruler point is absurd, but most on the left would finally like him then.

And on your last point we fully agree, if there is truly an issue that someone in government had better get serious about right it;s our borders and the invasion we are currently experiencing.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

Sicko: My suggestions are based in reality as much as his are.- Get real. Everything I listed, except for that 5 star hotel crack, has been floated by one of you kooks at one time or another. You’ve got nothing right, not even the term that GWB was elected for.

By JB

January 4, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

I too have been in l’amerique sud and it sux! However, if you think that elections were never rigged before you’re wrong. The 2000 Bush fiasco occurred when the liberals deliberately screwed up the vote because they knew they’d lose in a fair election. Kennedy’s father bought votes and rigged the vote. So it’s happened here before.

By sickoftheneocons

January 4, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

On the wire-tapping thing, the only question I have is why didn’t they just get the warrants? I could care less that the NSA is spying on domestic targets, why did they break with procedure? They say that there wasn’t time but you can get a warrant retroactive to the spying afterward. If time was such a factor, just get them later. The question remains “Why didn’t they just get the d-amn warrants?” This whole hullaballu could have been averted if they would have done so.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

goldkngt55,

I don’t know if you are talking to me or not. But, I don’t like the UN either so I am not pretending like I do. I am illustrating the point that the left will in one breath say that we cannot alienate the UN because they are our allies. But, then without realizing they say that UN Resolutions don’t nee to be enforced. They seem to be very opportunistic in their arguments.

By JB

January 4, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Andy: Now you know perfectly well that liberals don’t go to 5-star hotels for crack. Marion Berry was busted at Motel 6! And Slick Willy only sucked and just said no to swallowing…oops, I meant inhaling.

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Sick, they didn’t get the warrants because the administration didn’t believe they needed them based on precedence. Bill Clinton didn’t use the FISA when he was monitoring Aldrige Ames and in several other “national security” issues. It is funny to look back now at the Washington Post article then and compare it to how the characterize how Bush is using it. Quite comical really.

By kimberly

January 4, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

YES, thank you! What goldkngt55 said. I actually care about what’s TRUE, and get yelled at and called names by people who want me to believe what THEY want to believe. What you WANT to believe has nothing whatsoever to do with what is actually true. Geeeezzz, anyone who has been married knows THAT!

By Andy

January 4, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

NSA agent listening to deceased Osama: I’m going to fly a plane into click.

NSA agent hangs up phone, goes and gets a FISA warrant.

NSA agent, with FISA warrant, picks up phone, hears dial tone.

Any questions, Sicko?

By Machiavelli

January 4, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

Kim Jong Il has actually conducted tests of Rodong missiles. You definately don’t test guidance systems if you don’t plan on having payloads. Unlike Saddam,this guy has the toys and the mindset to play with them.

So why not get Kim? Here’s a guy with the toys and some of the worst human rights issues on this earth. The perfect target. Why not? 1) The stakes are too high for the chicken hawks. Fighting an enemy that can put 5,000,000 hardcore,well trained troops in the field is too rich for the neocons blood. 2) There is no payday for the buds in a country that doesn’t even have leaves on the trees anymore because the starving masses had to eat it. 3) Last but not least. Kim has no OIL.

Saddam was the perfect target at the perfect time with the perfect economic incentives.

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

kimberly, do you really believe that the elections in 2000 and 2004 were rigged? The only reason Clinton signed the Kyoto treaty was for political leaverage. He knew it would never get ratified, most of the Dems weren’t going to vote for it. Maybe what YOU want to believe has nothing to do with the truth. Have you considered that?

By Dr R

January 4, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Gold-whatever, I’m not angry at a cartoon; I welcome dissenting opinions and defend Luckovich (and everyone’s) right to disagree with the White House. And I don’t believe I’m rationalizing to defend Bush. For my part, I believe he has failed on many fronts, but my general defense of the war in Iraq is based on the situation as I see it, not the person in power. I realize there are many who will defend anything “their guy” does and critize anything “the other guy” does. Well, I don’t have a “guy,” so I’m basing my judgements on what I perceive to be reality.

You, on the other hand, sound a bit like one of those conspiracy theorists who assumes every policy decision is based on some nefarious scheme from shadowy figures behind the throne. Maybe, but I need hard evidence. One of the reassuring notions about our politicians is that they are lousy at keeping secrets and maintaining clandestine ops. People said the same thing about FDR, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, etc. For all the speculation, we have the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Watergate and Bill’s Hummergate. Pretty short list for all the alleged dark conspiracies haunting the halls of government. You read too many Robert Ludlum novels, dude. I don’t think most politicans are bright enough to pull off a repeal of democracy; in this case, I hope I’m right.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

sickof….,

Since you the most normal person that’s brought that up maybe you can answer this.

If these warrants are simply a rubber stamp that you can get at any time on anyone for any reason, why do you care if there is a warrant?

By AntiRadical

January 4, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Hey, the administration “thinks” (not). Isn’t that a shocker!

By JB

January 4, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Why not go after Kim Jong? Simple, same reason we had to settle at the 38th, China. At this point, China really doesn’t need us much any more and is looking to start a pi$$ing contest so they can over-run Taiwan not to mention the age-old bone they have to pick with Japan.

By Machiavelli

January 4, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this

So Ricky. It is OK for us to unilaterally do whatever we please, but not the Isrealis?

By sickoftheneocons

January 4, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this

Yes, the question remains because you still haven’t answered it Andy…since you can get the warrant AFTER the spying is CONCLUDED when time is a factor, why didn’t they do so? To say that they begin their spying and then have to stop to get the warrant is absurd because they could have continued to spy and gotten the warrant AFTERWARD. The question remains. Sorry Ricky, it’s already been established that Clinton acted within the boundaries of FISA when those taps were authorized.

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this

Machivelli, you continue to dodge the question about your definition of neo-con being false. Show me how the so called “chicken-hawks” have benefited from the oil in Iraq. That arguement is so tired and false it is just annoying now. During Desert Storm, the Iraqi Army was thought to be one of the most well trained and disciplined armies in the world and they folded like a cheap whore. The N Koreans are much the same in that most of their army is made up of conscripts who don’t like their country. I am not saying it would be easy, but we would no doubt win. Don;t you ever get tired of trotting out the same old “neo-con” and “chicken hawk” arguements? By the way, were LBJ and Bill Clinton chicken-hawks for sending troops into combat or does that term only apply to politicians you don’t like.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

Anti-Radical - congratulations! You’ve successfully demonstrated that President Bush is not eloquent! Truly ground-breaking…

By Andy

January 4, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

Saddam was the perfect target at the perfect time with the perfect economic incentives.

I agree, Machiavelli, Bush has remarkable foreign policy skills.

As for your clown question about us supporting Saddam in the eighties, you do know that his army was slaughtering Iranians wholesale, right? Reagan, God Bless His Soul, liked that idea and helped fund some of the killing. Reagan was also a genius. Since Iran had the stronger army we also got a bunch of dead Saddamites. Score one for the good guys (that’s us, you pinkos.) No body bags coming home, either.

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Machivelli, we are not acting unilaterlly in Iraq. Again, another falsehood put forth by the left. We had a UN resolution that the left loves so much and around 20 countries that have put troops into Iraq with us. Again, you are just propogating a lie.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

sickoftheneocons - I’m with you, if it is within the laws to obtain a warrant ex post facto, then it should have been done.

RW, to answer your rubber-stamp question - why not do it? To get the warrants after the fact legitimizes the operation, whereas we now see what failing to obtain warrants has wrought: “progressive” hand-wringing (though I realize that is redundant…)

By JB

January 4, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

Isreal cannot act unilaterally because the US would cut off its foreign aid. Is this fair? Nope. Just the way it goes when you need big brother to help defend you. Here’s a nasty scenario for you to consider, if Saddam had been removed by someone else and Iraq suddenly became friends with Iran and Trashcanistan then we’d really have been up $#it creek.

By kimberly

January 4, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

Ricky, General Eric Shinseki, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

Sicko: Put the pipe down and slowly back away.-To say that they begin their spying and then have to stop to get the warrant is absurd because they could have continued to spy and gotten the warrant AFTERWARD.- So what are you pinkos wigging about?

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

JB Isreal most certainly acted unilateraly when they bombed Iraq’s nuclear power plant.

By sickoftheneocons

January 4, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

RW, I don’t care if they get the warrant or not, what I do care about is WHY they didn’t when they just as easily could have. I’m more concerned with the WHY than the fact that they didn’t.

By Machiavelli

January 4, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

Anyone that wants to know beyond a shadow of a doubt what neo-conservatives are need only do a search for Leo Straus or Irving Kristol and you will have the definitive answer,much to the chagrin of, as Midori says, Andy’s neanderthal posse. After you go there you will also know who the Strauss/Kristol disciples are within the Bush administration and see very clearly their vision for the United States. Don’t believe me or the posse. Check for yourself and the posse will never be able to deny the neocon leanings of the Bushies ever again.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

Dr R - I’ve enjoyed your posts and the maturity you try to bring to the board. I hope you can maintain that level, because I can promise you that it becomes exceedingly difficult when there are nitwits out there, such as Eric, Paul and Phil, that conduct drive-by slanders.

Good luck to you and post on!

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

With all due respect answering “why?” with “why not?” doesn’t work, I tried that in a philosophy class once. Besides couldn’t you at least let one of the moonbats take a shot at the hypothetical first?

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, again that rumor has been proven to be false. His tour was up. He has personally refuted that charge several times, as has the DOD. It is the same bs line the right tried to use on Wesley Clark. Its just not true.

By AntiRadical

January 4, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy: I don’t expect eloquence, but I would like it if the President didn’t make an absolute fool of himself (and us all) every single day! “I’m honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein.” —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004

By JB

January 4, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

Why bother with a warrant? Since when should we extend the rights of citizens to those who would destroy this country? Besides, the NSA listens in to everyone anyway!!! If you don’t want big brother to hold it against you then don’t be subversive!

By goldkngt

January 4, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

I was not refering my comments to you. Strange as it might seem, I sense something in your arguments that I respect. There is no rationality to it. I do not agree with your opinions, but I sense resonance that I accord a due and honest patriot, not someone who simply wants to be one.

Dr.R,

The only the thing you did that I was directly addressing was the ‘people who are not in the 9th grade’. I felt that touched my feeble attempts at humor and so felt the need to explain why I was resorting to such methods.

My posts were of a generic nature and not posted to someone in particular. Generally speaking, when I address someone, I address them directly.

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

AntiRadical, you are really grasping for straws now. So Bush isn’t the most eloquent. Who cares. Jimmy Carter was pretty bad too. I know you don’t want to pick on him though because he was a Dem. And by the way it is possible to shake the hand of someone who had a hand cut off. Most people have two hands.

By Machiavelli

January 4, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this

So we hold a gun to the head of the Isreal? We deter them from taking action to protect their security? But we stand in front of the world and tell everyone else that we have that right whether they like it or not?

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this

RW, sorry to spoil your fun. Actually, I had a history professor years ago who regaled our class with a tale of a philosophy class he had when us was an undergrad. The final exam counted for 100% of the class and consisted of one word: “Why?”

Upon (probably not-so-sober) reflection, and watching the rest of his class furiously attack their blue books, he jotted down, “Why not?” and turned in his test. He got an “A” in the class.

I have no idea why I just wrote all that…

By JB

January 4, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

Machavelli: don’t you wish. if you don’t respect our President, our country or our way of life, TAKE YOUR @$$ TO CANADA!! Better yet, go to Iran or Korea and run that hole under your nose with some of the garbage you’ve posted here. You’d be lucky if they only castrated you, which might be a good idea so you won’t contaminate the rest of the world.

By goldkngt55

January 4, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

Sorry Dr,

To address one other point.

Conspiracy theories?

I turn your arguement back around. If they were truly COMPOTENT at their conspiracy, we would never have found out anything about it.

I agree that human beings make mistakes.

It is not a huge leap of logic to believe that Bush, who has SAID his highest chosen value is loyalty, would seek to direct financial rewards to his friends.

It is not a huge leap of logic to believe that a man who values his family would want to kill the man who tried to have his father Assasinated.

It is also not a huge leap of logic to believe that a man who was relaxing in his ranch while millions of DEMOCRATIC voters in New Orleans drown would use the full weight of the government to go to war with Saddam Hussain to take him out.

I AGREE that we had justification to go to war with Saddam because of the UN resolution. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a sociopath running the country.

That he is a sociopath with the most sophisticated media manipulation organization this side of Boss Tweed is the part that is frightening.

You call me paranoid? Well if I am then paranoia is looking pretty rational to me.

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

Machivelli, you can tell you are losing the arguement because you aren’t even making sense anymore. You say we are acting unilaterally, we most assuredly are not. Did Isreal act unilaterally when they bombed Iraq’s nuclear power plant? Yes they did. Was the US upset about it? Officially yes, but in reality we were just as happy that nuclear reactor was gone. Yes we helped Saddam against Iran, but we knew he was a bad guy too. At the time he was the lesser of two evils.

By goldkngt55

January 4, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

And yes….Boss Tweed was a Democrat. So was Heuy Long. So were dozens upon dozens of other corrupt politicians.

That doesn’t mean Bush didn’t learn from them.

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

goldkngt55, at least you are amusing. You again or propogating a flat out lie. Millions of people didn’t drown in New Orleans, let alone millions of Democratic voters. About half the people that died were living in upper middle class neighborhoods on the Lake that strongly supported Bush. I don’t know why I am even taking the time to respond to your conspiracy theories, but like I said you are good for a laugh

By Dr R

January 4, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

Well, in turn my comment wasn’t directed at you but the teenagers in here on both sides just calling each other names. We clearly have two levels of discourse going on in here; I’ll try to limit mine to the higher level, as some of you seem to appreciate it, and I thank you.

Let’s address the “Bush as a tongue-tied moron” argument. Yeah, the guy is hardly eloquent when he’s off the prompter, I’ll grant. By all accounts, he is much more engaged and enlightened when meeting with people one on one. I think his distrust of the media causes him so much discomfort that he isn’t himself when speaking off the cuff, which is why we get the malaprops.

Then again, maybe I’m rationalizing this time. Maybe he is a dunce. Hard to figure how you get to the Oval without some smarts, though.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

My why/whynot didn’t happen any more your history prof., either that or every “academic” around has a story of getting an “A” for that. I bet Snopes would help.

sickof… (this part is for you too) As far as the warrants go, my inclination is they probably should get them, but we still don’t know what they were for. The FISA court has been anything but a rubber stamp for the Bush administration. They have modified or denied about 197 warrant requests as opposed to about 5 under Clinton. That could be a result of many more requests or just plain hostility to Republicans that the courts seem to have.

There could also be a matter of protecting foreign government sources that are allowing certain wiretaps that originate from their countries.

By AntiRadical

January 4, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

Ricky: Since Carter was my least favorite President (even beating out Clinton) I would welcome any insight I don’t already have into his shortcomings. “I” care that the president of my country gives the impression that he is brain damaged. Makes us all look like imbeciles instead of just him. Destroys our credibility. Again, we’re not speaking of eloquence; we’re speaking of simple intelligible communication that the President appears to be incapable of!

“See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don’t attack each other. Free nations don’t develop weapons of mass destruction.” —George W. Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

Funny, I thought the USA almost single-handedly has developed more WMDs than any other country on the face of the Earth. Guess we must not be a “free nation”.

By kimberly

January 4, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

Ricky, you have no idea what I WANT to believe, but I’ll tell you:

I want to believe that the American people have more loyalty “to the Republic for which it stands” than they do to the piece of cloth we salute, and that their loyalty is to this democratic republic and the principles on which it was founded, even though they have not always held true for all our citizens. But what I see is an America where people care more about sticking up for “their guy” than they do for truth, honor, justice, or principles. I see an America where it has become okay to slander the character of anyone who disagrees with your opinion, even if you have no actual facts with which to justify it, and to call them godless heathen communists, and so forth, instead of dealing honestly with real problems. I see a populace that thinks winning is more important than what can be achieved, and who LIVES for the moment after the game when they can slam their opponents head on the ground and say “Ha Ha!” Whatever happened to “good game” and a handshake? Again, what I want to believe is NOT what I see. Who can show me any different? A handful of my fellow (insert-derogatory-label-of-the-day), but that’s about it.

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

Your right anti-radical we aren’t a free nation. The more you post the more you show yourself to be a radical. I guess England, France, and Israel aren’t really free either. What a joke.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

RW - are you doubting the honor and veracity of my ages-ago history professor? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you! And outraged!

Anyway, I get over these things pretty quick…

Say, have you seen Objective Observer today? I have a Nintendo DS I’m trying to unload. Though there is a price…

By AntiRadical

January 4, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

You’re right Ricky, this president IS a joke!

By Machiavelli

January 4, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

Well JB. I finally must have struck a nerve asking some logical questions and asking others not to trust me or you. Look it up for themselves. Sorry bout that JB.

As for the Canada thing. No can do. In 68 I was in Vietnam. AFTER graduating from a little military school north of NYC. Did some time in Korea too. Spent 21 years of my life defending your right to like Mr. Bush and my right not to. I also reserve the right to come down to your level. F*&% you JB. You don’t seem to understand that everyone in this country has a right to their opinions. To you and those of your ilk freedom of thought and speech only applies to you.

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, you are right about the political climate, it is terrible. Slanderous and flat out lies are thrown around with no regard anymore. We will see more of that during Alito’s nomination. I prefer actual debates than to name calling and accusations. I think most of normal Americans do too. I do believe winning is important, but not at the expense of personal integrity or honor. In short, I think we both have a lot in common. We just have different political views. I think we would both like to see a return to the days when real issues were debated without name calling and the spending of millions of dollars by special interests groups on both sides to try and demonzie your opponent.

By sickoftheneocons

January 4, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

RW what is your source for the 197 denials under Bush’s watch by the FISA court? According the the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Federation of America Scientists, since the year 2000, there have been just 4 denials out of 6650 applications.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

I’m guessing that you already gotten over it by the time I hit post.

Last I saw Objective Observer she and getalife were getting a room.

By Dr R

January 4, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

Pretty cool, Kimberly. You are wise, young one. Even though some of us disagree, I bet we could carve out the moderate free thinkers from this blog and form a pretty good political party of our own, don’t you think? Lying weasels like DeLay and Pelosi and all their rabid, Kool-Aid stained followers would be unwelcome. Even when we differ on policy, we would settle it like ladies and gentlemen (as I recall, Jefferson and Hamilton never came to blows or insults over their historic clashes).

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

sickof…,

I’ll have to dig that up and don’t have time now, but I’ll post it for you wherever the most current conversation is or at the end of any dead thread you choose.

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Dr R, I am with you and Kimberly. I would love to see actual debate without the demogogurery that has dominated Congress for the past 25 years. I wished we could get rid of 90% of them and start over with new elections.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

sickof…,

I notice you say “denials” I said “denials or modifications” so that could be the difference.

By JB

January 4, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

Machiavelli. I highly doubt that you were in Vietnam and the only time you did in Korea was probably in a back street boom-boom bar where you were probably dressed up like a little girly for the sailor boys.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

DR R, if I recall correctly, Alexander Hamilton was killed in a very historic duel with Aaron Burr. Though it has been awhile since I read Founding Brothers (and thus cannot recall precisely the provocations for said duel), this does illustrate that this country has a long-standing penchant for coming to blows for political reasons. Though, I suppose that is how gentlemen did settle disagreements in those days…

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

RW - I saw how they were playing footsie and making out. I was sooooo grossed out!

By sickoftheneocons

January 4, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

RW, I delved a little deeper into the study I quoted earlier and you are correct, 182 applications were modified and subsequently approved between 2002 and 2004.

By DumbDetector

January 4, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

JB proves that when when he can’t compete he sinks to the lowest common denominator. You just got punked JB.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

I’m beginning to think you are an impostor.

Anyway, I get over these things pretty quick

I saw how they were playing footsie and making out

I would expect:

Anyway, Bigdaddy gets over these things pretty quick

and

BigDaddy saw how they were playing footsie and making out

By DumbDetector

January 4, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

There was a moron here not long ago that called himself Jarhead. JB just used the exact thing on Machiavelli that Jarhead used on someone else.

By Dr R

January 4, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

Yeah, but Aaron Burr was the Bill O’Reilly of his day. Only with real weapons. Even then, those old duels were more gentlemanly than the kind of shoutfest political debates we see today. Best to shake hands and shoot a guy than call him un-American ‘cuz you don’t like his brand o’politics. (Sorry to be so gender-specific here, ladies, but they didn’t let y’all take part back then.)

OK, Kumba-yas aside, I never got an answer to one of my original queries from my very bright, very affable progressive friends. So I try again: Terror attack on a U.S. subway. Al-Qaida linked to U.S. operatives, citizens and legal immigrants. Spying on them deemed out of bounds. Where do you point the fingers then? Does White House bear blame or is our freedom worth the cost in human life?

By JB

January 4, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

dumb (what an appropriate name). you and machavellia remind me of an idiot that used to post here using the name malachi. all of your posts sound exactly the same. then again, he would also switch off and post under colkurtz and likewise claimed to have served in vietnam and grenada but was at a complete loss to provide his unit designation or any other information that someone who’d actaully been there could readily provide.

By sickoftheneocons

January 4, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

RW, you may also be correct about the numbers in that during Reagan’s 8 years in office all 4613 applications were approved, all 2218 under Bush, Sr. were approved and all 5052 applications for warrants under Clinton were approved. The current Bush administration has applied, in 5 years, much more than Reagan or Clinton did in 8 years.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

RW - sorry, BigDaddy must be off his game today. Right now BigDaddy is thinking that JB’s last post cleared the room faster than a f@arting elephant. I guess we’re all waiting around for Machiavelli’s rejoinder.

Somedays, this place is just like rubber-necking at a car crash… Actually, most days…

By AntiJB

January 4, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

JB obviously can’t compete.

By JB

January 4, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

your point?

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

sickof…,

I would think that either means a little event in 2001 caused more concern or GW Bush is going through the courts more than his predecessors.

I’m out for awhile, something about gaseous pachyderms.

By Brian Curtis

January 4, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

Dr. R: I’ll answer. Yes, our freedom is worth the cost in human life. Safety purchased at the price of freedom is worthless.

By DumbDetector

January 4, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

NOW I GET IT! When Machiavelli defended Israel’s right to defend itself is when JB lost it and sunk to name calling and insults. Maybe JB is anti-semitic and defending the rights of Israel caused him to snap. Regardless. When Machiavelli ask people to look up neoconservatism for themselves and compare it to the Bush administration JB did what the “neanderthal posse” (thank you for that one Midori) always does and sank to vicious personal attacks.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

DumbDetector, let me assure you that vicious personal attacks are not the sole province of the right. On this board, they come from all sides. (I say this as one who has been targeted by drive-by “progressive” slanders).

Andy, can you call me a pinko just once? I want to feel balance in being insulted…

By Dr R

January 4, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

Good answer, and I agree. Yet I think some of our friends want it both ways. You will hear from some who blame the government for not “connecting the dots” before 9-11 to prevent the attacks. These same folks will seek redemption and answers if, God forbid, we are attacked again. But what is Bush doing, in effect, but “connecting the dots” the way the Tom Kean commission and others have urged? Like you, I think we should resist such Big Brother tactics to head off the bad guys, yet there are some who seem to want it both ways.

By finch

January 4, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

RW, unlike you, I have a life. I can’t constantly monitor this site. Mea culpa.

There’s no proof Plame wasn’t undercover CIA when she was allegedly “outed”. There’s no proof that she was. There’s no proof Wilson was sent to Niger after Darth Cheney’s office asked yellowcake questions. There’s now proof that he wasn’t.

That’s why my neighbor Pat “love those takeout pizzas” Fitzgerald (a Chicago boy, like me) still has the grand jury cooking. We shall see, won’t we?

But I drift off topic.

Rampant, mindless, intrusive government is a core threat to liberty. Classic conservatives (as opposed to cons) know this. So did 91 year old Frank Wilkinson, who died Monday. He had the nerve, the NERVE to join the Communist Party in 1942, when the US and Stalin were allies. His life was “destroyed” by Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy. He was hounded by the FBI for decades. He got the last laugh after he sued under the Freedom of Information Act in 1986.

Read all about it.

Here’s the money quote:

“Eventually, there were 132,000 documents covering 38 years of surveillance, including detailed reports of Mr. Wilkinson’s travel arrangements and speaking schedules.

“A federal judge ordered the F.B.I. to stop spying on Mr. Wilkinson and to never do it again.”

What an incredible waste of taxpayer time, money, and TRUST.

Now, this may be your America. But it’s not mine.

Cheers!

By Midori

January 4, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

Andy,

I just don’t suffer fools kindly — it gets real old and stupid after awhile.

How bout that Dave Letterman?

Andy — are you as fair and balanced as O’Reilly?

By Midori

January 4, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

Finch — for some reason they expect everyone to post on this blog as much as they do.

Some of us really do have lives, in spite of the current administration’s intent on diminishing the quality of it.

By JB

January 4, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

Dumb: Anti-semite. That’s a good one. I’ll have to let my wife know that. Isreal has every right to defend itself and should. Unfortunatly, almost every administration since 1948 has pressured Isreal to restrain itself and even tried to keep the Mossad under control from assasinating @$$holes who despirately needed to meet Alah. I don’t think it’s fair but that’s the way it is. Now, as for my comments to Machiavelli, so what? I’m calling him a fraud and still don’t believe that he served in Vietnam just like I don’t believe the person posting under Col Kurtz ever served either. The posting of jarhed i’m not familiar with and must have been away that day. I do however get a little testy with people who continually post partial truths and believe everything that is spoon fed to them from the press and feel they have a God given right to burn the flag or suppress the rights of Christians. If you don’t like it here in the US then leave is the point I made and will still make. You’ll never find another place on the planet like it is here in the US not even in Amsterdam. I’ve found that people who complain the most are the one’s who burn the flag, don’t vote, never served in the military and are quick to criticize for the actions or inactions of the government.

By DumbDetector

January 4, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

You’re right Big Daddy. The insults and personal attacks come from both sides. I just wonder what snapped JB. There was starting to be at least some intelligent points being made by both sides and all of a sudden JB just lost it. Don’t know if it was about Israel or just debating why Iraq and not N. Korea. But something happened that he couldn’t handle. Any ideas?

By sickoftheneocons

January 4, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

Remember this RW, In 25 years, Bush, Jr.’s administration is the ONLY one to have applications for warrants denied…it may not mean a thing or, when taken in conjunction with the fact that he was circumventing the process altogther, may mean something.

By RE

January 4, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

about the whole Plame undercover thing, I thought this had been covered already.

It really does not matter what a tv pundit thinks of the law or status of Plame, the CIA initiated the investigation, so apparently they believed she was covert. Now, unless you have a more definitive source as to someones CIA status than the CIA, please move to the next topic

By DumbDetector

January 4, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

JB all the did was ask people to do a search for Leo Strauss or Irving Kristol and then decide for themselves what to believe. What was so wrong with that. And you attacked the guy before he said one word about Vietnam. Something just doesn’t jive. You snapped for apparently no reason. The guy made some good points about N. Korea.

By Steve SC

January 4, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

JB has proven that he will insult anyone with a better service than his own (Murtha, Machiavelli). That’s usually a sign of combat envy.

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

JB is just like Midori, Malachi, ThisJustin and the others that just want to hurl lies and personnaly insult people. It brings nothing to the debate and just makes that person look immature and stupid.

By Amelia

January 4, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this

I admit that I have been lurking here for several hours and I don’t understand why JB attacked someone that was making some good points and contributing to the blog. Maybe that is why this blog seems to die on the vine so often. Nothing is so destructive to discourse as the personal attacks. And DumbDetector is right JB. You attacked the guy for some point he made way before he said a word about Vietnam.

By Midori

January 4, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

Why can’t you post on Michelle Malkin’s blog?

Anyone can post on this blog.

I’m just askin………

By Midori

January 4, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

And what are you like, Ricky?

where’s Lucy?

She trying to deport you back to Cuba?

You’re p** off because you’re always wrong.

Yet that doesn’t stop you from posting the exact same crap day after day.

Eat me, Twit.

By Al Davis

January 4, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

Amelia, JB is just one of those fascists that can’t stand the fact that people have views that don’t agree with his. Pardon the name calling but JB is an intellectually challenged moron that gets in over his head and the only mechanism he has then is his moronic outburst and personal attacks. Freedom of speech and the right to an opinion is not for you,me, or machiavelli. Only JB. But he takes the pious, pompous, sanctimonious position that he is a true American. Sorry about the attack on ole JB, but he deserves to be treated as he treats others.

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

Midori, thank you for proving my point for me. You just did exactly what JB did.

By Midori

January 4, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

Ricky,

what were you saying about “insulting” people?

Note that you beat me to it this time.

Gonna mark it on your calender?

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this

Lets see if people will say the same thing about Midori as they did JB for personal attacking me.

By Midori

January 4, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

Note, Twit, that I was responding to your lame, everyday attack.

I remember when I first started posting on this blog — you came out of the gate calling me stupid and other such names.

and I’m supposed to sit back and take it.

that’s your problem.

you want to spread your garbage unchallenged.

I’m not the one, son.

I’m not the one.

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

I have said that you are the same as JB and Andy and the rest of the people that like to call names instead of debate the issues. I have seen you make some pretty outlandish remarks on here and seen you call people every name in the book. I am just calling them like I see them. But if it makes you feel better you can keep calling me names.

By Midori

January 4, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

Exhibit A:

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

JB is just like Midori, Malachi, ThisJustin and the others that just want to hurl lies and personnaly insult people. It brings nothing to the debate and just makes that person look immature and stupid

So, it’s ok for you to call me names. That makes you are real intellectual? A REAL man?

yet, I’m less than human for responding to your insults.

Yeah, right.

Only in Ricky Bizarro World.

Twit.

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

I didn’t call you a name, I simply stated that you act like JB. People were saying he was insulting someone for no reason. I just posted that I have seen you and Andy and the others do the exact same things. Thats all.

By Midori

January 4, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

Ricky — I’ve seen the same from you.

The difference between you and me is that I don’t try to act like the board nanny.

And I’ll debate you when you get the wax out of your ears, the lies out of your brain, and the insults out of your mouth.

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this

Midori, you continue to insult me in every post, yet you say we are the same. You are proving yourself wrong.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this

Ricky, man: Were you standing to close to a howitzer when it went off? Are we talking brain damage discharge from the military, here? Maybe a section 8? Nobody needs you sitting in judgement of them. When were you appointed the freaking moderator of this blog? Close your retarded little mouth.

By Porky

January 4, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

I think ML hit this one right on the head. Congress usually does a much better job of destroying the Constitution than the President.

By Ricky

January 4, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

And Andy joins the group of people that are proving my point for me. Look man all I am saying is that this is a microcism of what is wrong with our political debate in America. People would rather posts insults and flat out lies than really debate issues. Now I am going to go to a meeting with a client, but feel free to flame away on me and tell me I am not a good American, etc.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

All I know is that when Rassmussen calls it 64% in favor, 23% against, leaving 13% undecided, you can pretty much call it a 70/30 issue in favor of Bush. That means there are a bunch of pinkos that don’t even agree with you pinkos on this one. You might want to consider changing the subject, finding something you are a little stronger on, like abortion maybe, draw another cartoon.

By Marion of Texas

January 4, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

Kudos to goldkngt55, kimberly, and Dr R for trying to raise the level of the discussion on this blog to a debate of the issues rather than a diatribe against one group or another. And, Ricky, please get real. You have lobbed numerous insults at several of us whom you have tagged as Dems/liberals/anti-Bush. Don’t be a hypocrite. But if you intend to discuss issues in a rational, calm fashion from today forward, then … well, kudos to you, too.

By Amelia

January 4, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

All it takes to stop that is for the people on this blog that want to talk like intelligent human beings to police it themselves and not feed into it. It seems that that is the only reason some people come here. Kind of a way that they can have some power by taking away the pleasure of the talk from other people.

By Al Davis

January 4, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this

JB I remember colkurtz and nobody ever asked him any of those things. I think you are putting out more B*S&#@ to cover your own screwed up behavior. Steve SC has you pegged anyway. Combat envy he called it. You proved yourself today JB. After today even your former allies know you are full of s*&^.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

What doesn’t this psycho understand? I didn’t say the first freaking thing to him in over 2 months and all of a sudden he’s gonna go spastic on me?

Look, Ricky, it’s Bellevue on line one. They’re wondering when you are going to come back from your furlough? Your like 3 days late already man. Way to go, you and John Hinkley, screw up your chance at unsupervised visits. Do they need to send the bus or are you gonna make it back on your own?

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

Well, so far I have gotten two responses for my question and I commend both Kimberly and, I think it was somebody going by Andy Dontwannabe (AD) that responded. Assuming it was AD, his answer was because Iraq had not attacked us during those twelve years. This illustrates that Americans must die before some will enforce resolutions and cease fire agreements. Part of Kimberly’s answer was, she was happy with the UN continuing into its thirteenth year of attempting to control Saddam. She was content with the actions of the, unknown at the time, corrupt Oil for Food Program to continue doing what it did. This part also denies the fact that both the Duelfer and Kay Reports stated Saddam was working to end sanctions so he could reconstitute his programs. The other part of Kimberly’s, was that she would have preferred we focus all of our efforts on fighting Al-Qieda. The second part assumes the elite Special Forces are not currently hunting down Al-Qieda, or they are not doing a good enough job.

Those two responses don’t look so good, would anyone else like to give it a stab? Here is the question;

Why does the left not seem to have a problem with Saddam violating some 13 – 17 UN Resolutions, over twelve years, all demanding he disclose the whereabouts of the WMDs we helped him get?

By Andy

January 4, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this

Amelia: Look at the cartoon ^^^^. Some people don’t get “pleasure” from some sorry a-ss drawing our president as a child burning up the Constitution. It sort of sets the tone for the whole “discussion,” if you can follow me. Look within, pinko.

By Amelia

January 4, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

Ricky is taking the high road Andy. Can’t you do the same? Everyone here would probably like to talk without the venom. If Bill Clinton and Bush the 1st can coexist to get something positive done people here should at least be able to talk.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 05:09 PM | Link to this

Al Davis: So when are you going to contribute something to the discussion? JB maybe a little harsh but at least he doesn’t sit up in here critiquing everybody else, without anything to share. Do you get paid to moderate this blog or is it your hobby?

By Amelia

January 4, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this

Whether one agrees or not the right to that expression is what makes this America and not Cuba.

By Marion of Texas

January 4, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this

Scooter, here on Planet Earth, the UN Inspections were being conducted prior to the US’s initial attack on Bagdad on March 18, 2003. These inspections showed (1) there were no WMD’s; and (2) There was no evidence of a new program to reinstitute making WMD’s. Also, Iraq first obtained WMD’s from (drum roll, please) US in the 1980’s when Saddam Hussein was our “friend”.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this

Amelia: So everybody has to take the “high road” except the liberals, eh? At least you are being consistent, hypocrisy wise that is. My experience with this “why can’t we all get along” nonsense is that 5 minutes later some pinko will be calling Bush a shrub or Hitler. Why bother?

By Al Davis

January 4, 2006 05:13 PM | Link to this

No Andy. It just takes an a&* to deal with an A#$. When everyone else drops the BS so will I. Until then what is good for the goose will have to work for the gander.

By sickoftheneocons

January 4, 2006 05:13 PM | Link to this

“Compliance with inspections becomes nonsensical were the military invasion of Iraq a foregone conclusion. An inevitable attack gives Iraq nothing to work towards and therefore gives it no reason to comply with demands for inspection.”

-Hans Blix, Iraqi WMD and the U.N. Plan of Action, May 10, 2002.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 05:16 PM | Link to this

finch, poor poor pitiful, finch,

After two weeks you finally come up with a name. A name from the HOUSE Committee on Un-American activities. Please refer me to when Tailgunner Joe crossed over and began running House investigations.

There’s no proof Wilson was sent to Niger after Darth Cheney’s office asked yellowcake questions. There’s now proof that he wasn’t.

It’s not like you to provide evidence that your man Wilson is a bald faced liar. Thanks.

By Marion of Texas

January 4, 2006 05:16 PM | Link to this

Andy, if you would quit attacking various posters, perhaps they would participate more.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 05:17 PM | Link to this

Marion of Texas, those inspectors were removed prior to the 1998 Operation Desert Fox and were not allowed back in until Bush pushed. Then Bush decided that was not good enough he gave Saddam and his sons 48 hours to leave power. they didn’t we invaded and when standing in Saddam’s palaces the mission was accomplished. Bush Gave a speech on teh deck of the Abraham Lincoln and said it would be long hard road to transform Iraq into a representative government. But, that sign forced people to convieniently forget that part.

Also, didn’t I say (drum roll please) we helped him get… let me see. yup there it is …13 – 17 UN Resolutions, over twelve years, all demanding he disclose the whereabouts of the WMDs we helped him get. How many years would you have given Iraq after 9/11?

By Andy

January 4, 2006 05:18 PM | Link to this

JB I remember colkurtz and nobody ever asked him any of those things. I think you are putting out more BS&#@ to cover your own screwed up behavior. Steve SC has you pegged anyway. Combat envy he called it. You proved yourself today JB. After today even your former allies know you are full of s&^.

Whether one agrees or not the right to that expression is what makes this America and not Cuba.

Ricky is taking the high road Andy. Can’t you do the same? Everyone here would probably like to talk without the venom. If Bill Clinton and Bush the 1st can coexist to get something positive done people here should at least be able to talk.

So which one is it? You can’t make up your mind in a span of minutes.

By Amelia

January 4, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

Just because one does it everyone else should do it too? How am I being a hipocrite? I haven’t expressed anything other than the fact that the liberals/conservatives or rebublicans/democrats should be able to speak without all the venom.

By finch

January 4, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this

“Why does the left not seem to have a problem with Saddam violating some 13 – 17 UN Resolutions, over twelve years, all demanding he disclose the whereabouts of the WMDs we helped him get?”

Scooter, the answer is simple.

These were UN, not US resolutions, that Iraq under Saddam was apparently defying.

But it was the US, and NOT the UN that insisted massive military intervention was necessary.

The UN, which negotiated the 1991 Gulf War cease fire, decided an action like the 4/2003 invasion was not advisable at that time. The US defied the UN and attacked.

So… are we a nation of laws, or not?

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this

Oh yeah Marion, South West Attlanta may not qualify as Earth to some people, but it is where I be stayin. That snide here on earth comment… was that realy necessary in higher discourse?

By Andy

January 4, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this

Marion: Who’s asking for participation? I said the cartoonist started it with his name calling, it’s fine with me to be rude in response, I don’t plan on changing my attitude until I see respect for the President. What I’m wondering is why the hypocrisy, whining and moaning about other’s behaviour all of a sudden?

By Marion of Texas

January 4, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this

Scooter, the UN Inspections which had been restarted were showing that there were no WMD’s. Then Bush changed the terms. Then, we began bombing Bagdad. I was paying attention. The current loss of lives of US service men and women in Iraq: 2182. The number of WMD’s found: 0.

By DumbDetector

January 4, 2006 05:25 PM | Link to this

What in the world did that last post of yours mean Andy? Do you have some vested interest in keeping people from actually discussing issues in this blog?

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this

finch, this is fun. The UN decided that action was not advisable at the time, nice. Didn’t we find the Oil for Food Program to be on the take? Don’t four nations in the Security Concil have veto power over any military action? Hmmm. trust the UN, I don’t think I want to.

By Marion of Texas

January 4, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this

Andy, funny thing about our Constitution. We have freedom of speech. We have freedom of the press. We can criticize our president when we disagree with him. Over and over again. But we can also be civil to one another. By the way, I love Mike Luckovich’s cartoons. I think they are brilliant commentaries on the foibles of the current administration. And just because you don’t like his cartoons, I am not going to call you names or insult your intelligence. I am just going to try to say how much I admire Mike’s delightful, funny, and incisive cartoons. Now, are you going to start on the attack or just accept that you and I totally disagree and never will agree on the current administration. (By the way, “Pointing and Giggling” is one of my favorite cartoons.)

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 05:30 PM | Link to this

Marion, are we loosing site of the fact that both the Kay and Duelfer reports said Saddam was working towards ending sanctions (thru the Oil for Food Program) so he could reconstitute his programs? I read the reports themselves rather than allowing someone else to cherry pick them for me, did you?

By sickoftheneocons

January 4, 2006 05:32 PM | Link to this

Scooter, there were actually only 2 U.N. resolutions demanding disclosure and disarmament, they were Resolutions 687 and 707, the other resolutions were just condemnations of Iraq in general and Saddam Hussein in particular when they didn’t comply.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 05:33 PM | Link to this

Marion, one more thing, how long did we fart around in the Security Council and what might Saddam have been doing during that time?

By DumbDetector

January 4, 2006 05:33 PM | Link to this

What is it that you don’t understand Andy. In America we have the right not to respect the president if he hasn’t earned it. And that is at the descretion of each person to decide that for themselves whether he has or hasn’t. In America we have unique freedoms to express ourselves. Are you trying to say that we shouldn’t have those freedoms. When we are not free to express what we feel then we also reside in a totalitarian state. Besides. Bush is a big boy and he knows what goes with the territory just like anyone else that takes the job has known. He just doesn’t handle the criticism as well. When we lose the freedom to criticise him we will no longer be America.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 05:34 PM | Link to this

sickof, good point, sorry. But do they not count as spitting in the face of the UN?

By finch

January 4, 2006 05:35 PM | Link to this

RW, details, details… “Tail Gunner” was part of the same cabal that included the HUAAC. Lives were destroyed. Get over it.

BushCo wiretaps on suspected terrorists wouldn’t be an issue if simple laws and a rubberstamp court hsn’t been ignored. The truth hurts, but it’s the truth. Get over it.

The US invasion of Iraq was unjustified. A bloody, expensive mistake. Iraq was tromping on UN agreements, not ones with the US. It was up to the UN to authorize the use of force. It didn’t. Get over it.

Ann Coulter, the Moonie Times, and tunnel-vision cons are not America’s friends. Accept it.

Cheers!

By Andy

January 4, 2006 05:36 PM | Link to this

Like I said, hypocrisy. I’ve got 200 posts from this afternoon where you silly pinkos are saying that we are being rude or whatever, telling us to shut up. And now you think I’m saying to shut up. This is mental, you can’t keep track of what you say over a few minutes?

Amelia: Whether one agrees or not the right to that expression is what makes this America and not Cuba.

Amelia: Ricky is taking the high road Andy. Can’t you do the same? Everyone here would probably like to talk without the venom. If Bill Clinton and Bush the 1st can coexist to get something positive done people here should at least be able to talk.

By kimberly

January 4, 2006 05:38 PM | Link to this

Scooter, at 5:01, you misquoted me. I did NOT say I was happy with the UN continuing into its thirteenth year of attempting to control Saddam, or content with the actions of the, unknown at the time, corrupt Oil for Food Program to continue doing what it did. I said I was more comfortable with the UN handling Saddam than with the under-manned, poorly-planned invasion of a nation that had not attacked us, especially when we had very REAL enemies elsewhere.

Don’t twist MY words to make your point, which is essentially: it was okay to defy the UN to invade a country as punishment for defying the UN. Give me a break.

By goldkngt

January 4, 2006 05:39 PM | Link to this

First, for the record, let me state that ‘millions of people dying in New Orleans’ was hyperbole. I apologize for using it.

My opinion, and it is only my opinion, is that what I saw on television was feigned remorse for the camera not genuine empathy.

That opinion, given the tone that the forum has returned to is obviously meaningless.

The inevitable outcome of failure to respect one’s opponent in a Democracy is either tyranny or civil war. If you reduce your foe to a mindless less than human person, the rhetoric will inevitably result in bloodshed.

This is the problem in Iraq right now….and it is becoming the problem here. My thoughts obviously are not enough to change it…let us hope that someone, somewhere else is, becuase elsewise we are surely surely doomed.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this

finch,

I’m overwhelmed by the magnitude of facts you provide. From now on I think all issues should be decided by you and you alone.

I might even decide to become a brain-dead moonbat like you, do I have to go to Cornell for that or can I just babble about my neighbors?

By Amelia

January 4, 2006 05:41 PM | Link to this

Most people do respect the office of the presidency no matter who sits in it. In America everyone gets to decide whether or not they like or respect the man sitting in it. I have tremendous respect for former President George H.W. Bush. He always conducted himself with dignity and in return he was respected across the globe and still is. I just wish the son was a little more like the father.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 05:42 PM | Link to this

Return to civility; “Ann Coulter, the Moonie Times, and tunnel-vision cons are not America’s friends. Accept it.”

I wish the UN was as respectable and honorable as you all seem to think it is. I think it is an opportunity for third world dictators and despotes to have more say in the world than they should. Why would Syria and Cuba have been seated on the Human Rights Commission. Lets just sub-contract our national security with the great and noble UN, yeah

By kimberly

January 4, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this

Amelia, I agree with you, and I DID until a couple of years ago. This is now the first time in my life that I do not. And it’s not because of some metaphorical “kool-aid” or reading letters in the AJC. It’s from what I’ve seen and heard with my own eyes. Don’t trust him. Don’t belive a word from his lips. Don’t believe he cares about any of us. Sorry, I just don’t, and yes, it is depressing.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 05:46 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, get off your darn high horse. I linked to your statement so people could see for themselves.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 05:46 PM | Link to this

Did I say hypocrisy?

By goldkngt

January 4, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

“Haha! Look at those stupid people in Washington D.C.! Can you believe they elected a crack snorting mayor to office again after he was caught on camera? They just think it was all a conspiracy by the government…what idiots!�?

“Can you believe what those liberal idiots are trying to frame Rush for? They bribed his doctor to get him hopped up on pills and then try to get some crazy political prosecutor to frog march him through the courts! Stupid liberals.�?

By sickoftheneocons

January 4, 2006 05:47 PM | Link to this

Let’s say, for a moment, that WMD’s were found in Iraq…What I’d like to know is what kind of projection capabilities they had? How far could they spread these WMD’s and would they have the will to use them externally? Specifically speaking of nuclear weapons (not biological or chemical), as far as I can recall the U.S., France, the UK, Russia, China, India and Pakistan are the only countries with confirmed nuclear weapons. We suspect North Korea and Isreal have them and we suspect that Iran may be developing them and we know that South Africa had them but destroyed their arsenal. Of all of these countries, only we have actually used them on another country. So the questions remains, IF Iraq had WMD’s would they use them on an external force?

By Amelia

January 4, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

I am not 200 other posters Andy. I can only speak for myself. I am me and don’t mind being challenged on what I personally and specifically say. So challenge me on those things please.

By goldkngt55

January 4, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this

Andy, there will come a time when you will realize the difference between my attempts at showing the vitriol you were using and the need to use civil discourse.

I am not a perfect man, nor I pretend to be, but humor is a powerful weapon. Civil discourse is also a powerful weapon. The true question is ultimately what is the motive behind the action?

My motives were to mirror in hope that I would be heard…

Only you know your motives, but I know that my perceptions of them are not good at all. Indeed, I have yet to see anyone who even agrees with your position defend you.

Proof of my inperfection lies in this response. I swore I would cease to respond to you. This is my mistake…..as was posting here at all in the first place in the hopes that I could make the blind see.

I will not make that mistake again.

By ChickenHawk Bush

January 4, 2006 05:53 PM | Link to this

It may be easier to respect Bush if he himself was a President of the people and not the President of his supporters. I am an old man and this is the first time in my life that I feel that a President is not my President. This President is too scared to talk in front of crowds that don’t drink his Kool-aid. Respect is always earned, not demanded.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

Indeed, I have yet to see anyone who even agrees with your position defend you.- How much you want to bet? You might want to research your statements before you go patting yourself on the back.

I call people pinkos and get accused of hating. Look it up in the dictionary before you get all high and mighty, all righteous with me.

By sickoftheneocons

January 4, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

Why haven’t we invaded Iran yet? After all, we think they are violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that they signed and could easily “become an imminent threat” so why haven’t we invaded?

By Andy

January 4, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this

These pinkos are slam hypocrites. They think they can impugn our President and just because they think it is fuzzy and cute, they get to tell everybody else how to act. Not.

By kimberly

January 4, 2006 06:02 PM | Link to this

Scooter, did I wake up in China this morning? Did we get married last night? If NO, then don’t tell me what to do. I’ll ride and darned horse I please. But thank you for the suggestion just the same.

By DumbDetector

January 4, 2006 06:03 PM | Link to this

That is a good point ChickenHawk Bush. But this Abramoff thing just might show us to what extent our entire givernment and not just the President has been coopted and purchased by “supporters.” This Abramoff thing couldn’t have come at a better time.

By kimberly

January 4, 2006 06:06 PM | Link to this

Abramoff donated substantial cash to Johnny Isakson, Saxby Chambliss, and my particular congressman — maybe yours too. Perhaps they need some letters from their constituents this week reminding them for whom they actually work. They seem to forget that…

By Amelia

January 4, 2006 06:06 PM | Link to this

Hello Kimberly. Maybe 2008 will bring you someone that you can again respect.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 06:07 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, wow you really are sensitive. I was trying to tell you I linked to it, ease up. Oh sorry, I told you what to do. Please ease up?

By finch

January 4, 2006 06:07 PM | Link to this

RW, does this mean you’ll dismiss arguments by my fellow Cornell alum, Ann Coulter?

One can only hope!

And why must you stoop to name-calling? It kind of detracts from your position.

By kimberly

January 4, 2006 06:08 PM | Link to this

Thanks Amelia. I truly hope so.

By Scooter

January 4, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, if Abramoff defrauded those Indian tribes that should earn him 30 years under prison. Can we agree on something before I go to my second job, where I will be unable to post?

By Andy

January 4, 2006 06:11 PM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - Senators Clinton and Schumer are asking the Pentagon to spend $123 million of its wartime budget for New York projects that the Department of Defense didn’t ask for - but that in many cases are linked to the senators’ campaign contributors.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 06:12 PM | Link to this

finch,

You said I had no position, so what difference does it make? Besides I use “moonbat” as a term of endearment, much as my good friend Andy, whose position I defend entirely, uses “pinko”.

OK, “brain-dead moonbat” doesn’t sound as nice, but be open minded. All Cornell grads don’t turn out like you. See-Coulter,Ann.

By DumbDetector

January 4, 2006 06:14 PM | Link to this

There are actually a few more people here all of a sudden. Are the winds of change blowing in this blog. Is it just me or is Andy not being allowed to dominate the blog all of a sudden. When Andy behaves badly we can all just talk with each other and ignore him until he behaves like a human.

By kimberly

January 4, 2006 06:15 PM | Link to this

Agreed, Scooter. I’m off to my second job soon, too. Abramoff did more than defraud some Indians, though. He subverted the public trust for profit, which is not as bad as being an elected official and subverting the public trust for profit. I hope he sings for real, and doesn’t just offer up one or two sacrificial schmoes and protect the rest.

By Amelia

January 4, 2006 06:18 PM | Link to this

Maybe the guilty ones will get to do some righteous time behind bars. They will all look good in stripes.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 06:23 PM | Link to this

Sounds like you hope to me, Dumba-ss. <——being rude again! Don’t talk to me!

By Mike

January 4, 2006 06:25 PM | Link to this

The quick deal with Abramoff will let us see who needs to be sent home in the midterm elections. Unless they have been placed in cuffs by then and are already gone. Some of them may take the Duke Cunningham route and quit first.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 06:31 PM | Link to this

Andy,

What’s up? I’m guessing these moonbats couldn’t ignore you if they wanted to. They are like moths and you must appear to them as a 500watt bulb.

I wonder if they will figure out that simply taking money from a slimeball isn’t against the law? That standard will probably apply to one side, anyway.

By Amelia

January 4, 2006 06:33 PM | Link to this

George Washington warned us. Dwight Eisenhower warned us. The Jack Abramoffs have gotten away with buying representation for profit because we have let those guys do it. When we find out what and who turned their backs on those who elected them for personal gain, 1st we get rid of them. Then we make sure that it never happens again. Making sure of it is up to us.

By Mike

January 4, 2006 06:36 PM | Link to this

Anybody want to bet that before Abramoff gets to spill the beans, an investigation of who told on him will have started?

By DumbDetector

January 4, 2006 06:40 PM | Link to this

I want a ringside seat for this brawl. When DeLay,Abramoff,and all the other jackals start ripping each other apart I want to savor every bloody minute. We will all get to see that indeed, there is no honor among thieves.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 06:40 PM | Link to this

RW: I just posted the names of two perfect candidates for the Federal penitentiary, but in reality they won’t even get asked about their impropriety. But all of their pinko constituency will endlessly bang on about Abramoff, taking advantage of the unknowns, at least until Harry Reid gets busted out. Then Abramoff will become Saint Pinko.

I once considered using moonbat instead of pinko, but I found it to be too clinical. It doesn’t quite define their degeneracy quite the way pinko does. Moonbat is an effective tool especially when combined with “fever swamps.”

By kimberly

January 4, 2006 06:40 PM | Link to this

No, taking money from a slimeball is not against the law, RW. But um… how many slimeballs have you known that give money away without expecting something nasty in return? Let ‘em be nasty on their own time, not when executing their legislative duties to the citizens of this country.

By Amelia

January 4, 2006 06:43 PM | Link to this

I think that we all believe in equal opportunity incarceration for thieves Andy. It’s not a republican/democrat issue.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 06:45 PM | Link to this

Mary Steyn has posted a book at WSJ Opinion, but it’s a good book:

That’s the wonderful thing about multiculturalism: You can choose which side of the war you want to fight on. When the draft card arrives, just tick “home team” or “enemy,” according to taste.

By Mike

January 4, 2006 06:47 PM | Link to this

One of the loopholes that lobbyist and the legislative branch created for themselves is the fact that when lobbyists declare their financial dealings they do not have to be specific. They just say that they gave money to the congress,senate,etc. Close that loophole. Make them declare the name of the person they lobbied and gave money to. When we know who took what and at the same time know what issues are hot and how they voted we will start to see how we the people are getting the shaft and the crooks are3 getting the gold.

By getalife

January 4, 2006 06:49 PM | Link to this

About a month ago, I submitted an idea to the local Representatives to use inmates to help clean up the Gulf Coast. It is happenning but I would like to take it a step further. All politicians guilty of corruption be sent to the Gulf Coast to clean up and help pay back their debt to society along with some major prison time.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 06:52 PM | Link to this

Amelia: Why is the mainstream addressing this as a Republican Scandal? I hear what you are saying and I agree. But what’s up with the adults? Anybody who’s paid the slightest attention to this deal knows that Patrick Kennedy and Reid among others took money from Abramoff. It’s like I said earlier, I don’t set the tone of this blog or debate, I just take advantage of it.

By Midori

January 4, 2006 06:52 PM | Link to this

When Andy behaves badly we can all just talk with each other and ignore him until he behaves like a human.

I suspect Andy is so testy because he seriously needs to get laid.

He needs someone who gets him to sing something other than The Star Spangled Banner when he reaches his “goal”

By DumbDetector

January 4, 2006 06:53 PM | Link to this

Heads up folks! Certain people here are trying to turn the Abramoff thing into a Dem against Repub thing, which will get us right back where they want us. (hurling insults)

Andy keeps trying to steer us back toward Iraq or some subject that pits us against one another instead of against crooked politicians. Maybe we can all agree that crooked politicians are a huge threat to our freedom and take a little time to go after them.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 06:55 PM | Link to this

Mike: It’s not about whether you recieved money, it’s about what you gave in return for that donation. If someone just took a donation, it’s legally fine. But if they used their influence to give something in return, like Hillary and Schumer tried to do, that’s where the legality will set in.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 06:55 PM | Link to this

kimberly,

Trust me, I want anyone proven to have illegally taken bribes or that is shown to have had a quid pro quo agreement to be punished accordingly. I just want it proved or admitted to first.

By Midori

January 4, 2006 06:56 PM | Link to this

RW — RE: “moonbat”

would you get offended if I called you a redneck?

By Andy

January 4, 2006 06:57 PM | Link to this

Another Steyn Trinket:

So the jihadists are for the most part doing no more than giving us a prod in the rear as we sleepwalk to the cliff. When I say “sleepwalk,” it’s not because we’re a blasé culture. On the contrary, one of the clearest signs of our decline is the way we expend so much energy worrying about the wrong things.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 06:58 PM | Link to this

Andy,

I keep waiting for the outcry over harvesting records to obtain Michael Steele’s SSN and using it to pull his credit file. Schumer needs to have his feet held to the fire over that one too.

By Mike

January 4, 2006 06:58 PM | Link to this

Great idea getalife. But wouldn’t that deprive the crooks of repaying favors to the people that bought them with the lucrative contracts that are being doled out as patronage. But in a perfect world the idea is great.

By Midori

January 4, 2006 07:01 PM | Link to this

Andy — they (Kennedy and Reid) didn’t take money from Abramoff — they took money from Indian tribes.

U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy is one of the leading recipients of campaign contributions from Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist who has pleaded guilty to corruption charges.

Sean Richardson, Kennedy’s chief of staff, said Abramoff has never lobbied Kennedy, and Kennedy has not received any campaign contributions directly from Abramoff, according to the Federal Election Commission. “None of this — not a single penny of it — had anything to do with Jack Abramoff,” Richardson said. “We don’t believe he’s ever met Jack Abramoff.”

http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhodeisland/articles/2006/01/04/kennedyamongleadingrecipientsofconvictedlobbyistsclients/

eid received $6,500 from Abramoff’s associates at the Greenberg Traurig law and lobbying firm from 1999 through 2004, The Washington Post reported Friday.

During the same period, Reid received $40,500 from Indian tribes that were Abramoff clients, the paper reported based on research of federal records.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Jun-04-Sat-2005/news/26662729.html

By Daniel

January 4, 2006 07:01 PM | Link to this

No, that’s just what he is. The government is peeing on him and he’s running around with his mouth open thinking it’s raining champagne. These partisan rat cowards are unamerican. Their interest is solely in themselves, if that hurts America, tough. They care only for the ascendency of Bu$h, to the detriment of the USA. These puke hole coward rats will never denounce one of their own. But the rest of us can take great pride in the justice system to corner and convict these thieves. There is more to come. Things are going to get much, much worse. We are only at the tip of the ice berg. Sinclair Lewis said in 1930 “When fascism comes to America it will come with a cross in one hand and an American flag in the other”. You can see that right here.

By getalife

January 4, 2006 07:01 PM | Link to this

This is a great opportunity to get corruption out of government. This issue should be discussed on all blogs over and over again.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 07:01 PM | Link to this

Midori,

No, but in what way is “redneck” analogous to “moonbat”?

By Andy

January 4, 2006 07:02 PM | Link to this

Midori: I have no idea what your sexual preference is, man or woman-I suspect Andy is so testy because he seriously needs to get laid.- but one night with me and you would forget all about them.

By Amelia

January 4, 2006 07:02 PM | Link to this

Well we don’t have to follow blindly along behind the “mainstream people” now do we Andy. I think we all know that there are going to be crooked pols on both sides.

By Midori

January 4, 2006 07:06 PM | Link to this

I report; you decide

By Midori

January 4, 2006 07:08 PM | Link to this

andy!!!

you charmer you!!!!! :)

By Andy

January 4, 2006 07:09 PM | Link to this

I just tied Reid and Kennedy to this Republican scandal and both Midori and Daniel freaked out. This is what you call reasonable discourse, Amelia?

By Mike

January 4, 2006 07:09 PM | Link to this

Anybody willing to bet that in a short while we will back down in the gutter rolling around in the sewerage again instead of discussing crooked pols.

By getalife

January 4, 2006 07:10 PM | Link to this

Will you two get a room?

/hat tip to RW

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 07:11 PM | Link to this

getalife,

How did things go today?

By getalife

January 4, 2006 07:12 PM | Link to this

Reid is from my home state but if he is found guilty, send all of them to the Gulf Coast for some community service.

By Amelia

January 4, 2006 07:13 PM | Link to this

I am just a poster here. Not a referee. As for Reid and Kennedy,if the crook shoe fits both of them need to wear it. It is not a partisan issue.

By getalife

January 4, 2006 07:15 PM | Link to this

RW,

Lots of tests, I am radioactive and full of drugs.

By Mike

January 4, 2006 07:17 PM | Link to this

Reid tried to hide his ties to gambling and then attempted to tap dance all around the issue when he got nailed raking in the pot. As a result he is probably dead in the water in his desire to be Lt. Governor.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 07:18 PM | Link to this

getalife,

So nothing has changed but the tests, we already knew you were radioavtive and you’ve linked to your drugs.

What have you done with Objective Observer?

By Andy

January 4, 2006 07:19 PM | Link to this

Amelia: Amen. Would it be too much to ask for the media and others to see it the same way? Right now, nobody , except Abramoff, really knows anything.

By getalife

January 4, 2006 07:19 PM | Link to this

RW,

OO is missing? Check with Big Daddy.

By Daniel

January 4, 2006 07:21 PM | Link to this

The usual partisan bovine claptrap is tiresome. Every crooked bstard linked to this Abramoff thing should be locked up for a long time. What is it about “Thou shalt not steal” that bothers you. The fact that these happen to be bible thumping creeps is your problem.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 07:22 PM | Link to this

getalife,

BigDaddy was here earlier saying you had her. Sounds like a BigDaddy smokescreen to me.

ALRIGHT BIGDADDY, Bring back OO.

By Amelia

January 4, 2006 07:23 PM | Link to this

No not too much at all Andy. We all know that the media is going to spin it their way, be it Fox,CNN, or whatever outlet. That is where it is up to us to use our brains to think for ourselves and make this a true equal opportunity issue. Dem or Repub. If they did the crime,they do the time. And good riddance to all of them.

By getalife

January 4, 2006 07:25 PM | Link to this

RW,

Yes, I saw his link earlier. He cracks me up.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 07:26 PM | Link to this

Daniel,

As far as I can tell everyone here right now on both sides say that the guilty should be punished in the Abramoff mess.

Who are you talking to?

By getalife

January 4, 2006 07:28 PM | Link to this

Hey, we all agree on something.

By Daniel

January 4, 2006 07:29 PM | Link to this

The next guy through the door.

By Amelia

January 4, 2006 07:35 PM | Link to this

Daniel if they are thumping the bible and stealing while trying to con the man upstairs they will be getting a double dose of retribution when it is all said and done. And if this is not a dem vs repub issue neither is it one between the sinners and saints. A crook is a crook is a crook and I have yet to see hauling a bible into the court room save anyone yet. And furthermore the religious people here have that right and I am sure that to them someone who is trying to use religion to cover their tracks will be double dirty in the end.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 07:37 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I missed the link earlier, that’s hilarious. I had no idea OO was so inclined.

By getalife

January 4, 2006 07:39 PM | Link to this

Andy likes Midori. I see a change coming and if that could happen, anything is possible.

By Amelia

January 4, 2006 07:40 PM | Link to this

I have to go but I have really enjoyed talking with EVERYONE here tonight. You are all good people and contribute to what makes America great and unique. Night all!

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 07:44 PM | Link to this

Hi Daniel, have a good workout today?

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 07:44 PM | Link to this

Goodnight Amelia!

By getalife

January 4, 2006 07:45 PM | Link to this

Goodnight Amelia!

By Daniel

January 4, 2006 07:46 PM | Link to this

Great! Ran two+ miles. Not bad for a senior. I am working my way up to three miles.

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 07:48 PM | Link to this

Wow, that’s good for a 17 or 18 year old.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 07:49 PM | Link to this

Nite, Amelia, will see ya.

By Mike

January 4, 2006 07:52 PM | Link to this

Goodnight Amelia! See ya again soon.

WOW! If Andy and Midori make peace we will all know that anything is possible in America. And while true that we don’t have to always agree or hold regular lovefests, at the end of the day we can feel one thing in common. We are all Americans and we are all free to have our “discussions”. And that should unite us even when we disagree.

By getalife

January 4, 2006 07:58 PM | Link to this

The Unites States of America is heading in the right direction. Troop withdrawal, corruption addressed, illegal immigration addressed, Andy likes Midori and Big Daddy, well lets stop there.

By getalife

January 4, 2006 08:00 PM | Link to this

Unites=United. Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 08:05 PM | Link to this

Amen getalife, you’re a good man.

By getalife

January 4, 2006 08:08 PM | Link to this

There are good people on this blog. Some agree to disagree but overall, good people.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 08:10 PM | Link to this

Speaking of good people, here’s [Ann}(http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=11286&o=ANN001)!

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 08:18 PM | Link to this

She’s here too!

By getalife

January 4, 2006 08:22 PM | Link to this

Okay, we got an answer to ml’s why?

Now, why no warrant? Good spin by Ann but did not answer the question.

By Andy

January 4, 2006 08:24 PM | Link to this

I wonder why hardly anybody has crowded into cartoon boy’s Dog Bush’s Humor Out thread? It’s got nine whole posts, only one of them references me (big Phil shadow boxing, as usual.) Maybe we are starting to become a more moderate group of people, although I’m not sure about the cats laying with the dogs just quite yet. Problem is, what will we do with ML if we become civil towards each other?

By getalife

January 4, 2006 08:28 PM | Link to this

I bet he will not do a Bush drawing today and do one on lobbyistgate.

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 08:32 PM | Link to this

That would never happen Andy. They will have another story lined up the day before the current one runs dry…

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 08:33 PM | Link to this

Haiku for “getalife’s favorite scandal

Lobbyist gate is

A little too much to say

I say casino

By getalife

January 4, 2006 08:36 PM | Link to this

How about Jackoffgate?

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 08:42 PM | Link to this

getalife, are you and Objective Observer finished with your dalliance yet?

By getalife

January 4, 2006 08:44 PM | Link to this

BD,

She is all yours. I can’t match your last link.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 08:46 PM | Link to this

getalife,

What kind of name is that for a gate? Are you having fond memories of the Starr report.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 08:47 PM | Link to this

getalife, I just hope she hasn’t fallen prey to this marauding bunch of “progressives” (ie, clowns)…

By getalife

January 4, 2006 08:48 PM | Link to this

BD, Here you go

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 08:51 PM | Link to this

getalife, thank you, that site will give me minutes of enjoyment…

By getalife

January 4, 2006 08:52 PM | Link to this

Bill the clown

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 09:00 PM | Link to this

getalife, that is even worse. Surely, you don’t think he’s the ringleader of this “progressive” clown posse! (though he is a likely candidate)

By getalife

January 4, 2006 09:04 PM | Link to this

BD,

Did you read your clown link?

Wild Bill would love it.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 09:08 PM | Link to this

getalife, you notice that clown group is around the DC area, don’t you? Conicidence? I think not. Maybe I’ll join, new information has just come to my attention that makes me want to move to Maryland post-haste…

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 09:09 PM | Link to this

No, it’s the Insane Clown Posse

By Midori

January 4, 2006 09:11 PM | Link to this

Y0U GUYS ARE KILLING ME!!!!

Stop picking on me and Andy’s “forbidden love” :)

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 09:12 PM | Link to this

Whoaaaa…wrong link, my Ctrl-C isn’t working too well, sorry.. Insane Clown Posse

By getalife

January 4, 2006 09:13 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

DC is pretty wild, I think Wild Bill got it started but what is that in the picture?

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 09:14 PM | Link to this

Midori, you and Andy truly have a love that dare not speak its name…

If I were you, I’d call tops quick…

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 09:16 PM | Link to this

There truly is evidence of Andy and Midori together

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 09:17 PM | Link to this

Jay not jay, I prefered your first link.

getalife, which pic - from your link or BigDaddy’s?

By getalife

January 4, 2006 09:19 PM | Link to this

Midori: I have no idea what your sexual preference is, man or woman-I suspect Andy is so testy because he seriously needs to get laid.- but one night with me and you would forget all about them.

By getalife

January 4, 2006 09:20 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy’s sugar daddy.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 09:20 PM | Link to this

RW - they do make a handsome couple

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 09:23 PM | Link to this

getalife, click on the VoxAngelicus link in the top left to see his profile. Scroll down to Additional Information to find his true location. Apparently this group is much more successful than one would think…

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 09:24 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

Don’t they though!

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 09:26 PM | Link to this

Okay, I think I know what Objective Observer is up to. But I’m hesistant to post her dirty laundry. I’m willing to take a poll, though.

Should I, or shouldn’t I?

By getalife

January 4, 2006 09:26 PM | Link to this

raunchy, rude, abrasive, coarse, and downright fun!

Too funny!

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 09:27 PM | Link to this

Jay not jay,

Considering the subject of the column, the name of the first link was also appropriate.

By getalife

January 4, 2006 09:28 PM | Link to this

Should

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 09:28 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

I’ve heard that about you.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 09:32 PM | Link to this

That’s one vote for “Should”

Anyone else have any input for BigDaddy?

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 09:32 PM | Link to this

I know, I was hoping Midori would say something…

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 09:34 PM | Link to this

Definately Should

By Midori

January 4, 2006 09:34 PM | Link to this

RW - About the “moonbat/redneck” thing.

An insult is an insult is an insult.

whether it be racial, political, or sexual orientation.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 09:35 PM | Link to this

I’m willing to take a pole, though.BD

Anyone else have any input for BigDaddy?

Just where is this headed?

By getalife

January 4, 2006 09:36 PM | Link to this

raunchy, rude, abrasive, coarse, and downright fun!

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 09:37 PM | Link to this

Bring IT!

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 09:37 PM | Link to this

RW, was that your Freudian slip or mine?

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 09:42 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy has learned through his contacts at the NSA that Objective Observer has lost something and is desperately seeking relief…

(OO, please forgive me - I just can’t help myself)

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 09:42 PM | Link to this

Midori,

In political blogspeak I hardly think either moonbat or wingnut is really an insult. I also don’t favor free speech being outlawed because someone decides a particular word offends them.

When a term becomes generally accepted as offensive to a large segment of people then good taste should dictate. I don’t know if redneck is there, it doesn’t offend me, but I don’t use or hear it often outside of Jeff Foxworthy jokes.

Speech codes should never dictate.

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 09:48 PM | Link to this

ohhhh!!…OO is gonna’ take down BigDaddy

By getalife

January 4, 2006 09:49 PM | Link to this

Big reward with happy ending!

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 09:50 PM | Link to this

I’ve been furiously calling cab companies lost and found all day.

I’m in so much trouble…

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 09:52 PM | Link to this

Have you checked here

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 09:54 PM | Link to this

well getalife, if you’re lucky, no one will ever find those items to cash in a reward.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 09:54 PM | Link to this

RW, that van is just a front - it’s where I keep my hoses, my lotion and my baskets…

(BigDaddy sure is quite the entrepreneur, no?)

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 09:55 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

I think Tex is looking for you on whatever that is above this thread.

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 09:56 PM | Link to this

You better watch out BigDaddy, candide may pop in here anytime and take a liking to you.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 09:57 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

That find was a pure stroke of luck, just type, taxi lost and found, into google.

By getalife

January 4, 2006 09:59 PM | Link to this

Peter is a trip

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 10:05 PM | Link to this

getalife, I love that clip (and that show - even though the creator is an unabashed wacky leftie)

Jay not jay, I don’t mind if candide takes a shining to BigDaddy - BigDaddy has enough love to go around. I spread it like Christmas cheer - only stickier…

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 10:10 PM | Link to this

Ah yes, “Hot_Girl 29” is still following me around through the magic of “getalife’s” links.

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 10:12 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy, you might start a quarrel between she and rushncap, that could be interesting CAT FIGHT!!!

By getalife

January 4, 2006 10:12 PM | Link to this

PICS of Girls from Lafayette!!

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 10:14 PM | Link to this

Jay not jay, that’s emblematic of what I just did to Phil over on the new thread…

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 10:22 PM | Link to this

No, BigDaddy, you would be the cat in this one against “Big Dog Phil” Bam

By getalife

January 4, 2006 10:24 PM | Link to this

That is one bad cat! Big Daddy does bring it.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 10:28 PM | Link to this

getalife, BigDaddy does what BigDaddy can. And BigDaddy is just getting warmed up. I can do much, much worse than that - a far cry from assailling these @ssclowns with taunts of “pinko” isn’t it?

By getalife

January 4, 2006 10:32 PM | Link to this

Yes, why do they hit and run like that?

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 10:34 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Can you picture any of them actually trying to discuss something?

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 10:37 PM | Link to this

getalife, in the short time I’ve been posting here, have you ever known me to call someone names? As a rule, I don’t do it, because it doesn’t do anything other than wreck credibility.

There is a caveat - when faced with someone who resorts to doing serial hit-and-runs like that, one is compelled to defend one’s honor. And BigDaddy plays for keeps.

Bear-baiting can be dangerous…

By getalife

January 4, 2006 10:38 PM | Link to this

Big Daddy and sodapants team up against Phil and Tex. USC versus Texas.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 10:42 PM | Link to this

getalife, BigDaddy’s from Texas. Tex doesn’t deserve the moniker. Probably an Okie who wants to sound tougher…

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 10:44 PM | Link to this

EARLY VEGAS ODDS:

Off the board, no book is going to take action on a mismatch like that.

OFF SHORE ODDS:

BigDaddy/sodapants 1:500,000

By getalife

January 4, 2006 10:44 PM | Link to this

Have you ever heard of Lake Dallas?

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 10:46 PM | Link to this

getalife, I’m not familiar with it. Someplace you’re interested in? I know some folks back in Big D who may know more…

By getalife

January 4, 2006 10:52 PM | Link to this

I used to live there, small town on the lake. Use to play football with the Atkinson boys better known as The Von Erics (wrestlers) good athletes. I lived in Richardson and my brother is in Dallas and sister in Paris.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 10:56 PM | Link to this

getalife, the famous rasslin’ Von Erics from the Texas wrestling league of the 80s? That’s awesome. I was born in San Antonio at Ft. Sam Houston and later went to SMU.

By getalife

January 4, 2006 10:59 PM | Link to this

Yep, them boys were strong and could hit. I guess you are for Texas.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 11:02 PM | Link to this

getalife, I couldn’t imagine cheering for much of anything from Cali. I even prefer South American wines…

By getalife

January 4, 2006 11:06 PM | Link to this

I use to travel to Cali alot. Napa valley is fun. Born in Vegas so I am torn but hoping Texas will win. Great game.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 11:10 PM | Link to this

Speaking of wines - there is actually a decent Texas winery in Lubbock - Llano Estacado. The first time it was ever recommended to me in Dallas, I thought it was a joke, but I was very pleasantly surprised. Ended up buying a few cases (since long gone, sigh). No one here can get it, and thanks to the booze lobby, they won’t send me any either.

Thank you big government!

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 11:14 PM | Link to this

RW, if you are still there, don’t you think there are plenty of other Abramoff’s out there and a domino effect could start that could smash the currently happy Bush Haters even worse? Why only Abramoff? He’s the only crook they could find??

By getalife

January 4, 2006 11:14 PM | Link to this

There is hope, maybe they will ban the lobby due to Jackgate.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 11:22 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

Sounds like a good time for yet another Hollywood remake.

BigDaddy and RW star in Smokey and the Bandit-New Millennium. Can these happy-go-lucky bloggers get to Lubbock and back to Georgia with a truckload of wine. Watch as Objective Observer drops rushncap at the altar and joins in the fun as she secretly searches for getalife.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 11:24 PM | Link to this

RW, I’m in! I’ll pick up the Trans Am tomorrow. Who will be cast in Jackie Gleason’s role?

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 11:25 PM | Link to this

Jay not jay,

Wait until they start getting to the bottom of how many brand spanking new Indian tribes were created in the Clinton years. This will not be nearly as much fun as they seem to be thinking now.

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 11:27 PM | Link to this

Yes, my thoughts as well, I’m sure paper shredders are burning the midnight oil everwhere.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 11:28 PM | Link to this

what happened to foreign devil? I thought I was making progress…

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 11:29 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

For plot-line continuity it will have to be rushncap’s dad Tex.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 11:33 PM | Link to this

RW, good enough, and easily foiled…

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 11:36 PM | Link to this

I don’t know, we may be able to get finch to play “Sheriff Buford T. Justice- Let me have a diablo sandwich, a Dr. Pepper, and make it fast, I’m in a g.d. hurry”

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 11:38 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

Drive-bys won’t help Tex now, especially roaming the country side day and night with rushncap. (He may not know the difference like we do.)

foreign devil can be written in to the sequel when, for some bizarre reason, we head North.

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 11:41 PM | Link to this

Jay not jay,

finch is more of a Sheriff Branford.

Sheriff Branford: The fact that you are a sheriff is not germane to the situation.

Buford T. Justice: The gd d-amn Germans got nothin’ to do with it.*

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 11:44 PM | Link to this

RW, Tex would definitely become confused by rushncap’s rapid lunar-induced mood swings.

I guess we could go to Montreal. You know, for foreign relations and all…

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 11:47 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

Indeed! This time the boys try to make it through all three levels at Club Wanda’s without attracting the wrong kind of Canadian Mounties.

By BigDaddy

January 4, 2006 11:50 PM | Link to this

RW, a little Southern charm is just what those ice-bound harlots need to thaw their frigid French hearts. Bonjour sounds so much nicer with a Southern accent than a French-Canadian one…

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 11:57 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

The top level at Wanda’s speaks an international language. Kind of a physical Esperanto.

Cindi’s on the other hand features Miss Russia, should we let him tag along?

By finch

January 4, 2006 11:57 PM | Link to this

RW, Jay not jay.. ROTFLMAO!

You like me! You really like me!!!

By Jay not jay

January 4, 2006 11:58 PM | Link to this

Oh gee, look what happens when you let the Iraqis vote. Why call for a complete pullout before their elections? Hmm?

By RW-(the original)

January 4, 2006 11:59 PM | Link to this

finch,

That is not germane to the situation. lol

By BigDaddy

January 5, 2006 12:04 AM | Link to this

RW, let’s bring Jay not jay. And finch, too! He’s a swell fella who I’m sure could appreciate the talents on display at said establishments. finch, you in?

By Jay not jay

January 5, 2006 12:09 AM | Link to this

finch good one, but one more,

“And don’t go home, and don’t go to eat, and don’t play with yourself. It wouldn’t look nice on my highway.”

By BigDaddy

January 5, 2006 12:10 AM | Link to this

RW, upon further reflection, we may have to help assist the rebuilding of New Orleans instead of playing with those funny-money Canadian dollars.

I’m getting ready to reopen. You know getalife will be in…

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 12:13 AM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

We have to fit “Jay not jay” into the mix somewhere. Since “finch” gets left behind in Mew Millennium as Sheriff Branford he will have to be recast for the sequel. I’m thinking snobbish French doorman at Wanda’s that we later befriend and fix up with Miss Nude Russia.

By finch

January 5, 2006 12:15 AM | Link to this

Big Daddy, I was born ready….

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 12:17 AM | Link to this

CALL REWRITE:

Snobbish French doorman “finch” is befriended and brought back to manage BigDaddy’s err… emporium in New Orleans.

By BigDaddy

January 5, 2006 12:18 AM | Link to this

finch, saddle up, it’s going to be a (repeatedly) bumpy ride.

RW, can we just cast Geezus as Sherriff Branford? He could do that with his eyes closed. Snotty French doorperson could be done by candide? Hell, I’m just throwing names out now…

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 12:21 AM | Link to this

Longhorns up 3 with 19 seconds left.

and who said “snotty”?

By BigDaddy

January 5, 2006 12:21 AM | Link to this

Hoom ‘em Horns!

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 12:24 AM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

If the first generation of Smokey and the Bandit classics is a guide, anybody can play any part in any location after the first one.

By BigDaddy

January 5, 2006 12:26 AM | Link to this

RW - word to that. In the words of that pop-culture genius, Ryan Seacrest, BigDaddy out…

By Jay not jay

January 5, 2006 12:28 AM | Link to this

Just let me play Fred, please

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 12:35 AM | Link to this

Jay not jay,

If you insist

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 12:39 AM | Link to this

BTW, has anybody ever heard Ryan Seacrest say,”BigDaddy out”?

By Jay not jay

January 5, 2006 12:43 AM | Link to this

Fred

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 12:49 AM | Link to this

Basset Hound

Country of origin

France

How come it always comes back to France? No wonder you didn’t mention playing Fred until we were heading to Montreal.

By Jay not jay

January 5, 2006 12:58 AM | Link to this

They take credit for everything, but don’t be fooled.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 01:04 AM | Link to this

Look, the first Fred I put up has a part too:

When Smokey and the Bandit first aired on American network television in the early 1980s, censors were faced with the challenge of toning down the raw language of the original film. For this purpose, they overdubbed dialogue deemed offensive, which was (and remains) common practice. Unfortunately, the original actors were unavailable, therefore substitutes were used. In the case of Jackie Gleason’s character, a voice actor with a noticeably higher voice was used and in some scenes in both this film and the TV version of Part II, a considerable amount of Gleason’s dialogue was re-recorded by this uncredited actor. The most noted change made for network broadcast was the replacing of Buford’s often-spoken phrase “sumbitch” (a contraction of “son-of-a-b***”; usually in reference to his son) with the nonsense phrase “scum bum”. This phrase achieved a level of popularity with children. The TV prints of the first two Bandit films are still shown regularly on television, although a few TV stations aired the unedited version in recent years.

It is believed the uncredited voice actor is Henry Corden, who is best known for doing the voice of Fred Flintstone in the 1970s and 1980s.

By Jay not jay

January 5, 2006 01:11 AM | Link to this

RW, you are a sly “sumbitch”!

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 01:19 AM | Link to this

Wouldn’t that be “scum bum”, but in a slightly higher voice? This is a family blog you know.

By Jay not jay

January 5, 2006 01:31 AM | Link to this

I know RW, but these kids here have heard everything, and after they say it that way 56 times, you want to hear the “real thing”

By Jay not jay

January 5, 2006 01:51 AM | Link to this

Quote of the day, (ear muffs for the kids)

by our sweet Midori,

[Everybody Duck!!](By Midori

January 4, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

And what are you like, Ricky?

where’s Lucy?

She trying to deport you back to Cuba?

You’re p** off because you’re always wrong.

Yet that doesn’t stop you from posting the exact same crap day after day.

Eat me, Twit.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 02:02 AM | Link to this

Jay not jay,

The following are from Silver Streak, guess where the censors came in:

George Caldwell: You stupid, ignorant son of a b-itch, dumb ba-stard. J-esus Ch-rist. I’ve met some dumb b-astards in my time but you outdo them all.

and

George Caldwell: A P-ussy? A P-ussy? Can we go now?

.

If you said A p_? A P_? collect your prize. The other runs uncensored.

By Jay not jay

January 5, 2006 02:12 AM | Link to this

It’s beyond me who they assign to run that nonscence…

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 02:26 AM | Link to this

Today’s Gaggle

and in other nonsensical news

Jon Stewart to host this year’s Oscars.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 06:34 AM | Link to this

Gosh: Who would have ever figured that cartoon boy and the AJC would make the Abramoff scandal into a wholly Republican owned industry? That only elephants break the rules? They even bought Harry Reid’s excuse hook, line and sinker, giving him a pass to just float on away from it all. We’ll reel him back in.

It’s a real original ground breaking cartoon, though. You have to buy today’s litter box liner to see it for some reason, either cartoon boy fell asleep marveling over his masterpiece and forgot to post it or he’s through with this blog and all of it’s uncontrollable revealing of the truth.

By RW-(the original)

January 13, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this

Test:

To pussyfoot around

or

You pussyfoot around

Mike Luckovich

Mike Luckovich

What's on this page →

Categories

Browse and Buy cartoons

Buy Mike's new book

Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. M-F

Recent entries

RSS feed

Comment Removal Request

Access Atlanta Blogs

News & Features

Opinion

Health

Sports

AJCJobs Blog

Ajcpets Blogs

Evening Edge Blog

Luckovich cartoon changes address!

Protecting our rights

Comments

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Advertising

AJC Sites

Special Reports

Blogs

Opinion

Blogs

Topics

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Topics

Features

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Mike Luckovich

Mike Luckovich

What's on this page →

Categories

Browse and Buy cartoons

Buy Mike's new book

Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. M-F

Recent entries

RSS feed

Comment Removal Request

Access Atlanta Blogs

News & Features

Opinion

Health

Sports

AJCJobs Blog

Ajcpets Blogs

Evening Edge Blog

Luckovich cartoon changes address!

Protecting our rights

Comments

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Advertising

AJC Sites