Atlanta Opinion

By James Stephenson

January 5, 2006 06:46 AM | Link to this

Hey, You forget to put a donkey up there.

Before it is all said and done, there will be Democrats indicted as well.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 06:48 AM | Link to this

Well, now that’s what I call service, you guys are only about 8 hours late this morning. As I was saying earlier, this is one of the most original ground breaking cartoon masterpieces of the year 2006. If we weren’t just 5 days into the New Year, I would nominate this thought provoker for some kind of award.

Who would have ever guessed that cartoon boy and the AJC would make this a wholly Republican owned scandal, carefully failing to mention the myraid democrat involvement? I wonder why they would do that? Do they have some stake in the success of the democrat party or the failure of the Republicans? They aren’t trying to influence the outcome of this yet to be undertaken investigation, are they? Isn’t that a form of corruption in itself?

By candide

January 5, 2006 07:08 AM | Link to this

Since the basic motor of a free market economy and philosophy of government is greed, why the surprise? The GOP has always stood for creed, corruption, demagoguery, and incipient fascism. Not to mention racism and Christian moronics.

It is more than appropriate that the most Republican part of the country is the Deep South.

By AntiRadical

January 5, 2006 07:41 AM | Link to this

Republicans p**, moaned, and for eight years tried everything in their power to discredit and tarnish the previous opposing party administration. Can any of us ever forget their endless facination with f****** during MonicaGate? Didn’t that just reek of integrity? Now that “c’mon backs” are in order, though, they want to call this intense scrutiny a “form of corruption”. Now, we should be professional and coldly examine the issues. Funny thing is that the Democrats will, for the most part, probably do just that. It’s up to people like ML to hold Republican feet to the fire by reminding us of their true nature.

“My administration has been calling upon all the leaders in the — in the Middle East to do everything they can to stop the violence, to tell the different parties involved that peace will never happen.” —George W. Bush, Crawford, Texas, Aug, 13, 2001

Well, the “Mental Midget” got that one right. Too bad he nevers hears the crap that comes out of his mouth.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 07:57 AM | Link to this

Sens. Clinton, Schumer Want Defense Dollars for Donors

New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer have asked the Pentagon to spend $123 million for New York projects that the Department of Defense didn’t ask for – many of them benefiting the lawmakers’ campaign contributors.

$5 million to STIDD Systems of Greenport, whose president gave $2,500 to the Friends of Hillary political action committee in May. The company makes seating for military vessels.

$8 million to the defense contracting firm DRS Technologies and its electronic warfare and network systems program in western New York. The firm’s political action committee gave $8,000 to Friends of Schumer and $30,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which Schumer chairs. The company also gave Clinton’s political action committee $2,000.

Hypocrisy-n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By AntiRadical

January 5, 2006 08:00 AM | Link to this

Hypocrisy: Haliburton!

By Andy

January 5, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this

AntiR: Exactly what I’m talking about, thanks for your help!: Michael Moore owns Halliburton!

Hypocrisy-n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By Mike

January 5, 2006 08:17 AM | Link to this

I’m quite comfortable that the current Congressional scandal will involve some Democrats.

Democrats are going to be the ones that clean up the fricking mess.

By gttim

January 5, 2006 08:26 AM | Link to this

Abramoff was a former president of the College Republicans, a confederate of Ralph Reed, a buddy of Tom “Bug Killer” Delay, and has fully supported on Republicans his entire life. His campaign contributions have gone 100% to Republicans. Some of his clients have donated to Democrats, but at a much lower percenage of overall contributions than before becoming involved with Abramoff and Delay’s money machine. As much as the press and the GOP is trying to spin it, this is all about the corruption, greed and thirst for power of the Republicans. After thinking they were above the law for so many years, it is good to see them getting caught. My only compaint is that people involved with corrupting the government should spend more time in prison.

All the wingnnut Republicans thought Clinton having an affair was so bad now try and say corruption of government, torture, war on lies, and failing to follow the constitution is not so bad. That is hypocrisy. Family values indeed!

By Andy

January 5, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this

Here’s another mess you can try to clean up, Mikey:

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito received an unanimous well- qualified rating from the American Bar Association on Wednesday, giving his nomination momentum as the Senate prepares for confirmation hearings next week.

This one would mark the end of democratic power in government, other than the modern day version of holding your breath and turning red, the filibuster.

Hypocrisy-n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this

Oh, there’s no doubt that some Democrats will be implicated as well… after all, corruption is the only truly bipartisan issue.

But it won’t be NEARLY to the degree that the Republican plutocrats will be exposed for the hypocritical scam-mongers they are. This, on top of Bush’s lawbreaking, should make for great fun in the weeks and months ahead. Get some popcorn.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this

I just love the smell of truth in the morning-His campaign contributions have gone 100% to Republicans- nice try, gttim, but even the AJC had to give up on that one- RETURNING CASH

Hypocrisy-n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By Pinko Liberal

January 5, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this

Brian - you are absolutely correct.

Andy - you’re getting the definition right but the word is wrong.

Republicanism: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this

I’m going to have my box of popcorn too, watching the Bush Justice Department investigate this scandal, as they should, and not obstruct it like the Clinton justice department did- the FBI agents described Justice Department lawyers overseeing the (campaign finance) probe as “nonaggressive prosecutors who sought to impede or delay the investigation with ludicrous restrictions.”

Hypocrisy-n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this

SPECTER AND TORICELLI REFUSE TO DISCUSS ON ABC’S “THIS WEEK” THE MAJOR ILLEGALITIES OF THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE SCANDAL {1997}

Hypocrisy-n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this

Well, well: I get to kill two birds with one stone- WHILE CLINTON/GORE RAISED MONEY SADDAM AND OTHERS WERE BUILDING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND CHINA AND RUSSIA WERE HELPING THEM

Hypocrisy-n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

Obstructing we will go, obstructing we will go, Hi Ho: It is important to note that FBI Investigators about to perform a search on Charlie Trie’s home were denied a warrant by Justice Department officials. This allowed Trie to remove a number of documents from his residence and have them shredded. It wasn’t until several months later that the justice department granted investigators the right to search Trie’s home and recover the few documents that had not been shredded. It was these documents that led to Trie’s indictment. The Justice department’s lack of cooperation—until a certain number of documents had been shredded, raises questions as to whether the Justice department itself was not engaged in obstruction of justice. This issue is discussed further in a worldnet daily article that quotes sworn testimony by many players in the investigation, available here

Hypocrisy-n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By WhatABlast

January 5, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this

While I appreciate the timely topical humor of the GOP’s hands caught in the cookie jar, I also believe it is only a matter of these people just having to have been caught.

No party in Washington has a monopoly on corruption, as far as history has shown.

By Scooter

January 5, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this

Buenos diaz, I have to go out and get my work ready for the storms, so I just stopped in for a quicky. Abramoff, is certainly a slime ball and a Republicrat. I say republicrat because now that government is getting its hands on the power of dependency, prescription drug entitlement, there will be government contracts to dish out for favors. Dependency favors on top of the ones hidden in this crazy corrupt tax code.

Reviewing the statements in the near scroll, it seems that many of the government lovers want to cast all Conservatives in with this Republicrat? Power can and does corrupt all types of people, warehouse workers, cashiers to CEOs, and the vast majority of politicians.

feverously supporting a party that wouldn’t even think about individual liberty over our stolen Social Security money. As long as gov’t has control of it it will be corrupted, simple as that and the dems showed the parties colors, not just one guy.

Just something to chew on, I’m headin to the shopping cart and plastic bag creeks.

By Scooter

January 5, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this

Oh yeah, the cartoon is typically 100% one sided and narrow minded.

By sickoftheneocons

January 5, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

Scooter were you audited some time in the near past? You sure have come down hard on the tax code in the past few weeks (don’t worry, I completely agree with you, our current system sucks).

By Ricky

January 5, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

I see my good buddy candide is out accusing people of being racsists and making fun of the Christians again. This cartoon could be for either party. Hopefully with the Abramoff scandal, we can uncover some of the dirty politicians in DC and get rid of them. There are people on both sides that are going to fall because of this and I think that is a good thing

By Porky

January 5, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

Republicans should not make any attempt to defend any of their own linked to this scandal. Nor should they accuse the Democrats of hypocrisy. Rather, it should be noted that the existence of corruption within a party does not dilute the value of its ideas. Republicans should applaud the shedding of those that discredit their ideas, and rejoice that once free from that yoke, their ideas will still stand strong and remain unchallenged from the left.

By ATL Resident

January 5, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

LOL - Andy’s has passive/aggresive meter turned up to 11. Must’ve struck a nerve.

This scandal should come as know suprise to anyone who knows how the Repubs operate. Big on rhetoric, small on “walking it like they talk it”. Good thing they’re restoring faith and honor to Washingon.

Yes, it’s true the Elephants don’t have the monopoly on naked greed (though I’m sure they’d like to), but let’s not kid ourselves. This guy Abramoff has been a Repub operative from the word go so it’s not surprising the lengths that they are the ones stumbling over themselves in their efforts to distance themselves from him…

By Andy

January 5, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

What’s up, Ricky Retardo? You had a chance to go through all of my posts this morning and see if they conform to your lofty standards? Should I route them to you first for approval?

By Ricky

January 5, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

Porky, you make a good point. I don’t care what party someone belongs to, if they are corrupt or have broken a law get rid of them

By Harry Lovelace

January 5, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

Do you like my pants?

By Porky

January 5, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

candide illustrates an excellent point, that the state should reign supreme even over God. Isn’t that the reasoning that brought us corruption in the first place?

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 5, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

You bring the popcorn, I’ll bring the Junior Mints. This is a circus I’m really going to enjoy watching.

By sickoftheneocons

January 5, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this

Very inspirational Porky…

By finch

January 5, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

Mike is good for another smile, as usual. He’s venomously partisan, as usual. I’m sure a few more Democrats will be found to have dipped into some Abramoff cookie jars, too.

What’s even funnier, though, is the rabid, foaming at the mouth reaction here from the cons, aka “the usual gang of idiots”. When they start linking to 9 year old press releases from con “think” tanks, you know Mike’s hit the motherlode. I’m positive he gets almost sadistic pleasure out of reading rants that can basically be summed up in 5 words:

“But Clinton (or Democrats in general) did it toooooo!!!”

Too funny for words!

By Andy

January 5, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

ATL/ Porky: Before you resume your victory dance you should look at my 8:44 post. I agree that this should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, for everyone involved, dem or Republican.

By leroy

January 5, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this

“Republicans should applaud the shedding of those that discredit their ideas, and rejoice that once free from that yoke, their ideas will still stand strong and remain unchallenged from the left.”

I’m applauding and rejoicing myself these days, and I’m not even a Republican…

By Porky

January 5, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

The goal was not to inspire, but simply to illuminate the nature of our modern state. If the government wasn’t in the business of redistributing wealth and controlling individual freedom through targeted taxes & exemptions, then most of these types of scandals would never even exist.

By WhatABlast

January 5, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

Everytime I see Abramoff on the news, he strikes me as more than a little weird, dressing Mafioso-style the first day, then with a suit and a ballcap the next day. Does he think he’s a movie star or is it a subtle statement to the way the press handles court events?

By AntiRadical

January 5, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

Bush’s re-election campaign has now pledged to give back $6,000 in Abramoff graft but Tracey Schmidt, Republican National Committee spokeswoman, said that more than $100,000 that Abramoff raised from other donors as a “pioneer” for the Bush-Cheney election campaign would be RETAINED.

“The legislature’s job is to write law. It’s the executive branch’s job to interpret law.” —George W. Bush, Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000

Well the President doesn’t know what the Judicial and Executive branches of government are reasponsible for but you can’t say he doesn’t know the difference between $6,000 and $100,000. Maybe the “Mental Midget” IS a good businessman. Show him the money, baby!

By Andy

January 5, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

Flip: Questioned about the donations last month by “Fox News Sunday’s” Chris Wallace, Harry Reid immediately turned testy. “Don’t try to say I received money from Abramoff. I’ve never met the man, don’t know anything,” he insisted.

Flop: “I’ll repeat, Abramoff gave me no money. His firm gave me no money. He may have worked [at] a firm where people have given me money.”

Hypocrisy-n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By sickoftheneocons

January 5, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

Andy, I’m pretty sure that EVERYONE on the blog has, so far, agreed with you that both Dems and Repubs are corrupt, O.K.!

By AntiRadical

January 5, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

Hypocrisy: Ignoring your own shortcomings by trying to divert attention to something else.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

Sicko: Are we talking about the same blog?

By candide

January 5, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

It’s not necessary to make fun of Christians and Christianity. The idea of talking to a dead Jew as if he were alive is so ridiculous that Christians are the laughing stock of human history.

By Porky

January 5, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this

“Hypocrisy: Ignoring your own shortcomings by trying to divert attention to something else.”

AntiRadical,

Are you refering to Republicans, Democrats, or yourself?

By Harry Lovelace

January 5, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

Sir Andy, I have been checking up on the discussions for some time. I’m sure you see the lefties framing the discussion. You can’t use comparisans to Clinton and Abramoff’s few truly illegal acts represent most of the chicken hawk, neocon, fascist party. I’ll enjoy watching you tame their flaming hatred and generalizations.

By Mike Caldwell

January 5, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

If their are no indian reservations in Georgia and Jack Abramoff was not a resident of this state….why did Saxby Chambliss take money from him? For that matter, who else has the Senator taken money from that he does not represent?

By Porky

January 5, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

“It’s not necessary to make fun of Christians and Christianity. The idea of talking to a dead Jew as if he were alive is so ridiculous that Christians are the laughing stock of human history.”

No, candide. Communists like you are the laughing stock of human history.

By AntiRadical

January 5, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

Referring to the Neo-Con mantra of always saying “but the Dems did it too”, Porky. You would think they are trying to emulate their “rivals”.

By sickoftheneocons

January 5, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Yes, same blog Andy, James Stepehenson’s 6:46 a.m. post, Mike’s post at 8:17 a.m., Brian Curtis’s post at 8:32 a.m., WhataBlast’s post at 8:58 a.m., ATL Resident’s post at 9:23 a.m., Ricky’s post at 9:24 a.m., Finch’s post at 9:27 a.m. ALL say, to some degree, that Dems and Republicans are both corrupt, only the degree is different.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

The ones involved are criminals and should be locked up. They can pay back their debt to society by working on cleaning up the Gulf Coast.

By Porky

January 5, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

AntiRadical,

Democrats take money from special interests to influence the regulation of business. Republicans take money from special interests to influence the deregulation of business.

The difference is slight.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

I’m going to enjoy myself too, Mike Caldwell, watching the Bush Justice Department investigate this scandal, as they should, and not obstruct it like the Clinton justice department did- the FBI agents described Justice Department lawyers overseeing the (campaign finance) probe as “nonaggressive prosecutors who sought to impede or delay the investigation with ludicrous restrictions.�?

Hypocrisy-n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By sickoftheneocons

January 5, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

Ludicruous restrictions…funny, kinda like those restrictions on letting people with opposing views in on his press conferences, pretty much all of his public appearances. Kinda like those restrictions?

By Porky

January 5, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

“Ludicruous restrictions…funny, kinda like those restrictions on letting people with opposing views in on his press conferences, pretty much all of his public appearances. Kinda like those restrictions?”

Apples & oranges, sick.

By AntiRadical

January 5, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Porky: Would have to disagree. I think they both take whatever money they can get their grubby little paws around (with rare exceptions). You won’t see either of these two groups getting behind term limits or meaningful graft elimination. Our society has in fact legitimatized graft through the use of PACs, lobbyists, and other influence buying mechanisms. Left to the Dems and Reps, there will never exist an America that is free of corruption.

By Porky

January 5, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

AntiRadical,

“Left to the Dems and Reps, there will never exist an America that is free of corruption.”

I think that was my point. However, I respectfully disagree with the argument for term limits & anti-graft legislation. The only way to eliminate corruption in the federal government is to limit the power thereof.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

Let us not forget, these are the same people who write the laws of the land. I say, if guilty, they should get the maximum sentence along with working to clean up New Orleans or the Gulf Coast.

By Gil

January 5, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

Perhaps the cartoonist would tell us who is the only former Congressman now in jail for corruption in office? Hint: He is not a Republican.

By finch

January 5, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

I hope everyone takes the time to read the Wikipedia article on “Chinagate” so thoughtfully provided by long time contributor Andy.

It shows that the exchange of military equipment and secrets for political support or just plain cash also took place during the Reagan and Bush One years. It certainly wasn’t limited to the Clinton administration.

Not that there’s anything right with that.

By AntiRadical

January 5, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this

Porky: Best way to limit power is with the purse string. Reduce taxes, eliminate graft, stop entitlements, and hamstring efforts to return them with term limits on representatives. You can’t just shut down the white market side of politics without addressing the black market side as well. Like trying to carry water in a collander.

By Harry Lovealce

January 5, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

I’m with getalife ship to nawlins, then to prison!

By Andy

January 5, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

By sickoftheneocons

January 5, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

Andy, I’m pretty sure that EVERYONE on the blog has, so far, agreed with you that both Dems and Repubs are corrupt, O.K.!

Sicko: have you seen the cartoon yet ^^^?

Hypocrisy-n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By sickoftheneocons

January 5, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

You must be kidding…

By Andy

January 5, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

Democrats Benefited from Abramoff Contributions, Too

(CNSNews.com) - The National Republican Senatorial Committee said Wednesday that 40 of 45 members of the Senate Democrat Caucus have taken money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, his associates and Indian tribe clients.

Hypocrisy-n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

Hey Duke, take these orange bags and start in the lower ninth ward. Move it boy!

By Daniel

January 5, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

Somehow the partisan hacks on this blog can’t find America’s best interest. They show us the problem. They do not care for all of America. They care only for themselves. Look what their greed has done in WVA. Big dogs, they only want their own bowl full.

By Lord Help Us

January 5, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this

In this scandal many of you are correct…there is Republican AND Democrat involvement.

Unfortunately for the wingnuts, it’s about 99% Republican and 1% Democrat.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

But the look on the elephant’s face caught in all the cookie jars is funny. To be fair, it should be Uncle Sam.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

Unfortunately for the wingnuts, it’s about 99% Republican and 1% Democrat.

By Harry Lovelace

January 5, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

Daniel, way to politicize a tragedy. Paul Wellstone Funeral?

By Andy

January 5, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

Ooops:

Hypocrisy-n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By sct

January 5, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

Right you are Daniel, this is not a partisan issue. The issue is how greed has turned our representitive goverment into a joke. Both parties listen more to lobbyists representing big business than they do to the people.

When one party does get caught in the cookie jar they can easily claim the intellectually dishonest “he did it first” defense. Nothing changes and the corruption continues.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

“Unfortunately for the wingnuts, it’s about 99% Republican and 1% Democrat.”:

Among those named by the NRSC as the worst examples of “Democrat hypocrisy” for taking money from Abramoff and his associates are: Sen. Byron Dorgan, (D-N.D.) who received at least $79,300; Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who received at least $45,750; Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who received at least $68,941 and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who received at least $6,250.

Hypocrisy-n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By Daniel

January 5, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

Shove it Harry. Four US died is Iraq yesterday. 50 Iraqi’s died, as well. Put your politics where the sun don’t shine. Your nothing but a rat apoplogists for these greedy cowards. That incompetent bum in the White House had a lobbyist in charge of mine safety. That’s politics.

By Lord Help Us

January 5, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

A link to…nowhere (brilliant)

Let’s see who has been indicted or plead guilty so far in this scandal. Abramoff - Republican; Scanlon - Republican; Kidan - Republican.

And

Who is ‘Representative #1’ in the indictment of Abamoff? Ney - Republican.

Looks like 100% GOP to me…Any Democrats indicted in this scandal??

By Ricky

January 5, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

Lord Help Us, do you really content that no Democrat took dirty money from Abramoff? Harry Reid has said he did, along with Byron Morgan and Patrick Kennedy among others. You would think this would be an issue that most everyone could agree on, corruption is bad. If you are taking bribes or part of a quid pro quo, you should be kicked out of office and thrown in jail. I don’t care what party you are in. Thats the problem with ml’s cartoon. He frames this as a partisan issue and its not. Most reasonable people know that. I would love to see ml open a blog where he would actually interact with the people who post here. I think we would find that very interesting. My bet is that he would simply present the Democratic talking points. But we will never know I guess.

By Dusty

January 5, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

Well, what do you know? The AJC reports today that Georgians in poll favor Bush (Section B1). The poll found 49% favor Bush’s position. Unfortunately, AJC is a liberal newspaper not representing the south, but has on its payroll liberal, antiwar cartoonist Mike Luckovich. Don’t expect any “donkey” mishaps in his cartoons. He is true to his AJC calling, if nothing else.

So, liberals, while you sit in your little circle around the campfire singing “Kum ba yah” and eating popcorn, don’t let smoke get in your eyes. Abramoff loves diversity and he is rolling off some familiar names. Does Kennedy ring a bell? Get more salt and butter for the popcorn. You are going to need it.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

“Kum ba yah�?

By JB

January 5, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

i’m not sure if i get it or not. maybe it’d have made more sense if ML drew multiple irons in the fire and someone getting their fingers burned. correct me if i’m wrong but is it not a general policy of democratic platforms to tax and spend. unless ML is trying to suggest that the current administration has overspent and the country is broke again, then well, what else is new? every adminstration in the past 50 years has given away much significant amounts of our tax money to foreign governments to be our friends. then we have governments like egypt that becomes a haven for airline captain wannabes who think their flightplan to paradise goes through a nyc highrise. i’m not advocating a return to isolationism, which contributed to the great depression but let’s face facts, we can’t keep spending money on “nation building” in Iraq, giving jobs away to China and other lower-cost nations and opening our doors to illegal immigrants who don’t pay taxes but enjoy many benefits of tax payers such as schools, federal assistance and medical care. i don’t think this is a democrat or republican issue anymore it’s become a rich and powerful vs poor, where most of us fall into the latter category.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Bush is involved

But I give him credit for meeting with ex Secretary of States and diplomats to discuss Iraq.

By Daniel

January 5, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

The Secretary of State meeting is brilliant. Better late than never. Let’s hope some good comes from this.

By sct

January 5, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

Do you approve or disapprove of President Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq? Approve………………51 percent

Disapprove …………..45 percent

Not sure………………4 percent

Are you kidding? Only 51% of seeing red Georgia approves of Bush’s handling of the war? Take into account the margin of error and it could be virtually even. Dusty, are you saying the AJC can’t take the position that half of all Georgia does? The kind of press you want is more like the Soviet Pravada, where the government prints what it wants you to hear.

By Nikole

January 5, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

Candide- Politically, I usually feel what you’re saying, so know that I won’t be laughing at you while you burn in hell.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

sct: I’m with Dusty on this one. Very few Conservatives waste money on this mindless pinko rag. This poll can be seen as a slam for the President, even some libs are on board with him.

If Rush Limbaugh held a poll at his web site asking “Do you think a pinko should be in charge of national security?” how do you think the results would come out?

By Dusty

January 5, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

sct,

What we are now getting from the editorial department of the AJC is more like the Soviet Pravada. With 66% of the editorials being written by consummate liberals, or 75% if you want to count Luckovich, do you really think we are getting “balanced” opinions? Throwing in a few reprints from other journalists doesn’t do it. The AJC is owned by a wealthy Democrat and the newspaper is paying its dues in many ways, from headlines, wording, pictures and the editorials. So who is getting what they want to hear? Liberals, my friend, in a conservative state. No balance. Just bluff.

By sct

January 5, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

Andy, I don’t think Fox News is “fair and balanced”, but I do think their polling is. The Georgia poll was done by Zogby, frequently used by the WSJ.

Why don’t you people crying for a more conservative AJC just start your own newspaper instead of whining about it? Surely since Georgia is 90% conservative there should be no problem attracting investors and readership. All the Georgia corporations could help. You would think Bernie and Marcus would be willing to fund something so vital. Since Pravada no longer exists maybe you could use the name.

Stop complaining and do something about it, put up or shut up.

By candide

January 5, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

Nikole: there is neither heaven nor hell, God nor Satan. There is life on earth and then it’s over. So many will be disappointed, deluded, dismayed -==- but then, they won’t know it.

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

That IS balance, actually; balance against the blatantly pro-coporate (and often rightwing) media that infests the rest of our nation.

Moreover, liberalism goes hand-in-hand with better education; so is it any wonder that the more smart, educated people you find (as in a newspaper business), the more liberal opinions you encounter?

But don’t worry too much about it; the ownership remains solidly corporate and enjoys distracting us with the give-and-take between Republicans and Democrats, as though there’s a lot of practical difference between them on anything but social issues.

By Harry Lovelace

January 5, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

daniel baby, do you really want me to shove it](http://bigqueer.com/uploads/gaybombpenis.jpg)? Don’t be lying to me. I do love you and your freinds for defending the UN’s respect, it’s good for the conservative movement. Keep discrediting our allies, good.

Come on down and see Mr. Harry.

By hh

January 5, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

“It is not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the Left. Our job is to remove them from power permanently.”

Jack A. Abramoff

By Andy

January 5, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Stop complaining and do something about it, put up or shut up.

That’s nice, another liberal standard at work: censorship.

I don’t see what the big deal is, instead of having a token Conservative columnist every blue moon, why not try to attract a 50/50 split? Wouldn’t it be better for business?

O.K. back to reality, the AJC is a mouthpiece of the democratic party, anyone should be able to see that. It’s the demographic area that we are in, stupid. If Atlanta and it’s pinko masses didn’t exist, the AJC would print the freaking American flag on the front page everyday, cartoon boy and Cynthia Tucker would be servers in the company cafeteria.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

Candide has hit on the origins of the most famous pinko question ever, one that has been pondered all through lib history: What is the meaning of life?- These stupid liberals, as always, make things so much more complicated then they need to be.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

Jack A. Abramoff, remove the A. and the Abram and add gate. What do you get?

Giving back the money is not good enough for me. There should be reform and an end to lobbyist and special interest groups.

By Scooter

January 5, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

Brian, May I ask you some questions? If so, government gets its power from people who depend on it, yes or no? Children are young malleable minds that must be formed into responsible adults, yes ot no? How strong is the NEA and other teachers unions and who do they contribute to? Who do unions vote for? If the government gets it power from people who depend on it, why do you want that same government educating the children? That would be a conflict of interest in the evil cprporate world, but you don’t have a problem if government does it?

Andy, How does that hypocrisy definition go?

Hail to the journalism major, because they are so knowledgeable. Brian if you see those people as intelligent leaders it doesn’t say much for your peers. But, I am sure you and your friends are fine people, just a little shortsighted.

By jfc

January 5, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

Yo Andy. What does it say about someone who spends so much of his time ranting about a “mindless pinko rag”? Why don’t you try reading the Constitution of the United States? You might find it educational and even tell your neocon friends about it.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

That is a good point Scooter. What are we teaching our kids by our example?

To lie, steal and kill.

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

Scooter, you’ve actually hit on a decent point. Government control of education is not ideal… until you compare it with every other option.

Certainly it’s in the government’s best interests to make sure inquisitive children don’t grow into inquisitive adults who are willing to challenge the system.

But if the alternative is to turn them over to people who have fanatical agendas (parochial schools) or no teaching skills whatsoever (homeschooling)… and if the quality of education they receive is then determined SOLELY by how wealthy their parents are… well, how is that an improvement?

Kinda like democracy: “The worst system of government in the world, except for every other.”

By Andy

January 5, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

But if the alternative is to turn them over to people who have fanatical agendas (parochial schools) or no teaching skills whatsoever (homeschooling)… and if the quality of education they receive is then determined SOLELY by how wealthy their parents are… well, how is that an improvement?

No, obviously public school educated Brian, It better for our kids to learn queer studies, oral sex administration and pregnancy management, you freakin kook.

By Scooter

January 5, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

getalife, unfortunately this is a world of man and man can be corrupted. So, we aren’t necessarily teaching to do those things, so much as we are teaching that in the real world, sometimes it is kill or be killed, not see a lie and get swindled and always watch out for a thief.

The democratic teachers unions teach don’t worry so much about the table of elements, or math, just take some riddlin and feel good about yourself. Then they grom up aand get robbed or swindled and turn into corporate hater like Brian C.

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

Then how come I can spell and use complete sentences?

By Scooter

January 5, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Brian, why should the government have the right to choose what a parent “hands their child over” to? Is it freedom to keep parents kids sequestered into a conflicted system of government education? Does creating more victims through government education help the democratic party?

And true democracy is mob democracy, we are a constittutional republic, which you and the other leftists out there are dragging into a Constitutional democracy. When and if you succeed the nation will be a big bankrupting itself country like California was. This will be partially thanks to the intellectual journalist you seem to admire so much.

By Scooter

January 5, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Brian,

Spelling never protected me from any of the negative forces of the world. maybe you are depending intellectual qualities?

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

by finch 9:27 What’s even funnier, though, is the rabid, foaming at the mouth reaction here from the cons, aka “the usual gang of idiots�?. When they start linking to 9 year old press releases from con “think�? tanks, you know Mike’s hit the motherlode. I’m positive he gets almost sadistic pleasure out of reading rants that can basically be summed up in 5 words:

“But Clinton (or Democrats in general) did it toooooo!!!�?

by finch 10:14 It shows that the exchange of military equipment and secrets for political support or just plain cash also took place during the Reagan and Bush One years. It certainly wasn’t limited to the Clinton administration.

Andy I’ve misplaced my dictionary, do you have a definition for the above example?

By Scooter

January 5, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Sorry, haste makes waste. Imeant to say you were possibly depending too much on book smarts to get you through. Common sense workds real good. Was that proper grammer?

By Michael H.

January 5, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

I certainly agree with your comments about the media Brian. If there is a bias in the electronic media it is on the right and quite a contrast to the media of other Western democratic countries in which they are much more willing to critique and stand up to elected officials as well as inform.

The press conference in which the creation of Fox television was announced featured the new president in the former Reagan and Bush media advisor, financed by the media mogul of the globe in Rupert Murdoch, virtually asserted that it was being established as a right wing “counterbalance.” However, the real purpose of its creation, as a professor at Illinois insightfully noted, was to collapse the distinction between fact and opinion. The intended result is every ignorant blowhard on the right from Limbaugh to O’Reilly and their fans can hold views and make assertions with no evidential support and yet somehow believe their views are just as credible as someone who actually reads widely and critically evaluates all their sources. (One study which surveyed the knowledge of those who were voting in the 2004 election showed that Fox viewers were the least informed and those who watched PBS and listened to NPR were the best informed. Even taking into account the potentially confounding variables such as the high level of formal education of the NPR/PBS audience, who also tend to utilize other sources, and the lower educational level of the Fox viewers as a group, the failure is in the network to report and inform and instead to indoctrinate and promote the GOP’s views. So, we can have a judgments like those expressed here which claim that corruption is equally present in both parties instead of looking at the evidence which stands to the contrary. There is no such moral or legal equivalency. There is nothing on the democratic side to match Watergate, Iran-Contra, and this latest mess. After spending ages investigating the pseudo-Whitewater issue and turning up nothing, those possessed of the “persecuting spirit�? as Hawthorne described the Puritans, spent $40 million exposing an inconsequential affair which cost no lives and had no bearing on public policy. (While ignoring the affairs of the House speaker Gingrich, Hyde, Livingstone, and other Republican hypocrites.) There may be a few Democrats involved in this latest attempt to buy democracy but the evidence points to much more substantial participation by Republicans, including the local Ralph Reed, former head of the “Christian�? Coalition and Bush’s campaign manager for the southeast. This whole affair will be very interesting as it unfolds, and Fox’s attempts to “spin�? it as well.

By Scooter

January 5, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

Oh heavens, lunch is over and digging up contradictions of theirs will be too time consuming for multi tasking. Ignore the intelligencce about Iraq, but act on the August 6th, Presidential Daily Brief. Right?

By Scooter

January 5, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

Brian, I have to head out. It is possible that Michael H. distracted from the contradiction and conflict of government education. But, enter what you want I promise I will come back and respond to it.

By Scooter

January 5, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

Michael H., Bye

By Mike

January 5, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

Well for once I am in total agreement (slap me silly) with Andy and his posse. Corruption is not the exclusive property of any party. If it is weighted toward one or the other I would imagine that the party in power is more heavily courted overall. Some of the scandals of the past hit the dems hard during times when they held the most power. The system itself by nature is corrupt.

By finch

January 5, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

No hypocricy here.

It’s hilarious to see how much cons like the “Clinton did it toooo!” argument. You see, if a Democrat does it, it’s a crime. But if a con does it, it’s not a crime, or it’s just a little slip, because Democrats do it too. “By golly, so what if I robbed the orphanage? He did it too, and got away with it!” Cons think this logic explains and even justifies the shenanigans of their peers in elected offices.

It doesn’t, of course. A crime is a crime.

“Clinton did it toooooo!”

snicker.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

Lunch bag fundraiser

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

Scooter: I’m not sure what point you were trying to make about education.

Government doesn’t have the “right” to decide how children are educated so much as an obligation to… as voted by We the People. (I do like a Constitutional democracy, yes I do.)

The purpose of public education is to ensure that every child gets a good, and equal, start in life to ensure equal opportunities for all. And leaving it up to the whims and wealth of individual families doesn’t accomplish that.

As for your concerns about keeping kids “sequestered, conflicted, and victims”…? Huh? What on earth are you talking about?

And how does this lead to the nation “bankrupting itself”? It seems that the globalized corporations and corrupt politicians (aha! forgot about those, didn’t we?) are already doing that for us.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

You can post here

By Out here

January 5, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

by Scooter;

“The democratic teachers unions teach don’t worry so much about the table of elements, or math, just take some riddlin and feel good about yourself. Then they grom up aand get robbed or swindled and turn into corporate hater like Brian C.”

I think he was saying that is the start.

By Dusty

January 5, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

Oh no, Michael H. is back. Our pseudo French liberal sorta-professor of voluminous words is preaching his ultra-lite version of the news media. Let’s see—the news media of western democratic countries is SO much better than American. So what’s new, Michael? Did they throw you out of France again? But let us continue his analysis. Liberals are SO much smarter than conservatives and never manufacture scandals (Whitewater was pure innocence!). So (sniff, sniff) that proves that all liberals are innocent as lambs and smarter than the average yokel (conservatives, of course).

God bless America! We even put up with the snobs.

By Midori

January 5, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

During impeachment, I must have missed all those Democrats taking the airwaves denouncing Clinton’s “affair” because ___ was doing it, too.

____ = Hyde, Gingrich, Livingstone, Barr, etc.

I love the smell of irony in the morning, er, afternoon.

By finch

January 5, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

Why aren’t there more conservative newspapers? Because conservative newspapers don’t sell. Conservative investors, aware of this readership void, don’t bother backing conservative newspapers, unless they are both extremely wealthy and extremely partisan. What sane media sugar daddy wants to back an enterprise that’s virtually guaranteed never to make a profit?

A fine example of this is the Moonie Times. One billion dollars in losses and still counting. Another is the New York Post, which barely breaks even and is the weakest link in Rupert Murdoch’s empire.

This is why Murdoch and other con media barons invest heavily in broadcasting. Fox News is a prime example.

Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that mainstream cons in the US are big fans of Fox, Rush, Hannity, etc., making for stunning profits.

But these same cons avoid print like avian flu. This includes right-wing blogs, which like all political blogs have stunningly small audiences, considering the size of their potential readership (anyone with a computer and Internet access).

The obvious conclusion is that most cons either can’t, or won’t read.

By Midori

January 5, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

excuse me — denouncing=defending.

By alb

January 5, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

To me, this appears to be a drawing by a biased idiot.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

Midori,

Would you please stop that? I’m having algebra flashbacks.

By Dusty

January 5, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

Midori,

It isn’t irony you smell. It is the same old leftover liberal stew you serve us every day.

By Midori

January 5, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

Dusty, Dusty, he’s our man!!!

He he can’t think, NO ONE can!!!

By Midori

January 5, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

LOL

RW — I see what you mean :)

By Midori

January 5, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

[I hereby nominate Dusty for this coveted award for 2005](http://www.rackjite.com/s**.htm}

By finch

January 5, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

Dang! RW, I may disagree with you much of the time, but you are a funny SOBee….

Algebra flashbacks! ROFL!

By getalife

January 5, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

This is a better place to post and let Washington know how you feel about corruption

By Midori

January 5, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

dammit — let’s try that again:

I hereby nominate Dusty for this coveted award for 2005

By Midori

January 5, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

You’re right, Finch.

RW can be pretty funny.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

.

by finch Jan.4 6:07—And why must you stoop to name-calling? It kind of detracts from your position.

by finch Jan. 5 9:27—What’s even funnier, though, is the rabid, foaming at the mouth reaction here from the cons, aka “the usual gang of idiots�?.

Is that hypocrisy, or as you call it hypocricy, or are you alerting us that your arguments aren’t worth reading?

On another note, next time you sit down to sip that mint tea you libs love so much with your neighbor would you ask why he specifically exempted Indian tribes from McCain/Feingold?

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

Do you guys have to be nice while I’m in the middle of composing a post like the last one?

By sickoftheneocons

January 5, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

Mind if I solicit a little info. from members of the blog? In September, I’ll be making a trip to Ukraine and Russia for a one year term to teach ESL classes. Has anyone been over there lately and, if so, do you have any helpful info?

By Tom Frykman

January 5, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

And the cartoon depicting the 13 Democrats, including Queen Bee Hillary, taking the cash will appear when?

By Dusty

January 5, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

Midori,

I guess you will have to spell it out. As Finch reports, poor old conservatives can’t even read, ‘specially when the link won’t come up. I don’t want to miss any honors.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

Tom Frykman,

This isn’t the cartoon you’re looking for, but close.

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

Sick: Sorry, can’t help you. I’ve never been there.

Michael H: Some good points there, especially about the true purpose of Faux News. I don’t agree that corruption is entirely in the Republican camp, but it’s definitely weighted in that direction.

By finch

January 5, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

RW, to me there’s a difference between general labels (cons, pinkos, usual gang of idiots) and individual anti-honorifics.

Of course, that’s just me.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

sickof…,

I would have thought “Brian Curtis” could have helped for sure with his views on government education coming right out of the communist manifesto.

I would suggest posting on some blogs with a wider readership. Maybe kos or lgf, lgf usually opens registration in the late afternoon/early evening on weekends if you aren’t already registered to post there. (If you want good information I would suggest a different screen name and ask on an open thread.)

I don’t know how the discussion threads work on the left sites, but I’m sure someone here can help.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

finch,

I agree with most of that, in fact I said almost the same thing yesterday,glad to have been of assistance.

By RE

January 5, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

Michael H.

Very well thought out post, I think you hit upon something there. This country is divided now because of not just a difference of opinion, which is good for debate and for the country, but there is now a complete split in reality. I have been thinking about the term “marketplace of ideas” and that is what the news has become. With the increased access to the web, a person can find nearly any idea validated by one website/blog/pundit or another. Nearly any idea you have, or would like to think can be supported…want to think 9-11 was all Clintons fault, you can find a website supporting that. If you think 9-11 was all Bush’s fault, there are websites supporting that as well. The idea of jounalism, of divining the truth, of reporting facts is no longer the standard, in fact it is very hard to know what to believe anymore. I suppose this is capitalism entering the media, the most popular ideas and stories will become truth not because of their validity, but through the volume of repetition. Of course this works the other way too, you can discredit any story now based upon who is reporting it. A story unfavorable to Bush reported in the NYT is immediately discredited due to a supposed liberal bias, reguardless of weather the story is true or not. The largest problem for the people of this country, and perhaps the best tactic of the politicians is in discrediting the media.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

Here is one reporter that sees what happens in front of them and then reports that.

What a concept! Malia Zimmerman needs a bigger gig.

By Michael H.

January 5, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

Well, Dusty, I see you have no argument for any sort of claim, just the usual substitute in the form of personal attack. I’m not French, never even been to France, though it wouldn’t make the slightest difference to the truth or falsity of anything that I said. Indeed, most of the mainstream media in Europe is better than in the United States, they vote at higher rates, and generally are better informed. If you doubt that then actually do a little reading. Whitewater was nothing and you gave no evidence to the contrary. If you would like the citation to the study that I mentioned that revealed the ignorance of Fox voters I will provide it, though I am sure you will find some excuse not to read it, namely, you disagree with the findings or it’s from a “liberal academic.” (What is it about “liberal” and “academic” that seems to create such intellectual insecurity among the talk show, scream television audience?)

To pun from George Bernard Shaw, those that can argue do, those who can’t, engage in ad hominem abuse. e.g. commies, pinkos, freedom fries, libs, French, etc. You guys are a caricature and good entertainment. If you didn’t exist someone would have to make you up.

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

RE: Another good point; with the Fox and fellow-traveling fascists working hard to muddy the waters, they can plausibly defend or claim anything and dredge up ‘proof’ to support it.

Journalism is really on the decline. There was a great motto for reporters I heard back in the 80s: “If you don’t end each day with at least one CEO or Congressman mad at you, you’re not doing your job.”

Another maxim for real reporting: “Journalism is reporting what someone doesn’t want known; everything else is publicity.”

By RE

January 5, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

No Rw, see that is an opinion piece. I know it is not just you, most people cannot tell the difference between opinion and reporting.

By Eric

January 5, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

If anyone knows the meaning of hypocrisy…. Everyone, say “thank you” to Andy.

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

Wow… Is anyone dumb enough to believe that Zimmerman is actually doing some reporting with that screed?

Heck, she blows the pretense of objectivity right there in the subtitle… before she even gets to the column!

Nice try, but it’s another right-wing opinion column, not “reporting what’s right in front of you.”

She doesn’t even let the readers draw their own conclusions, instead “helpfully” providing the lessons they should learn from her diatribe. Unsurprisingly, they’re the same attitude she came in with. Net transfer of information: zero. Zimmerman’s another right-wing screecher, not a reporter.

By Out Here

January 5, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

I think it is all about information overload. The mind is certainly a wonderful thing, but it can only know so much. It is when so much information is coming in so quickly, the mind has to choose what to learn. The average person will choose to seek out the information that fits their beliefs rather than actually remember what happened. Objectivity is truly becoming a scarce quality, along with humility.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

John McCain proposal on lobbyist reform

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

RE,

OK, let’s go with some of the speech then.

“If you don’t want the war machine to invade your island, don’t let it happen,” said Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son died in Iraq and who gained international attention for staging an anti-war demonstration outside Bush’s ranch in Texas. Cindy Sheehan

The island in question is Oahu and you guys are wasting your time talking about invading Iran or North Korea.

By Miguel de la familia Robinson

January 5, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

I love reading Andy’s copy-and-pasted definition of hypocrisy… and yet, there isn’t a picture of Ralph Reed next to it, nor a link either…hmmm.

…Why is that?

PS - Thank you SO much for drilling me on this already overused word.

By RE

January 5, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

YES, that would be reporting RW. Time, place, setting, what was said. That is jounalism. What she did was editorialize. The piece was all opinion interspersed with quotes. THAT is an opinion piece, not a report.

By Dick Chapwick

January 5, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

Michael H,

You say European news papers are better because more people get out and vote.

“Indeed, most of the mainstream media in Europe is better than in the United States, they vote at higher rates, and generally are better informed.”

Of course they do they have higher dependency levels. Informed? I would be curious to see a cmparison of inventions, from medicine to technology, coming out of semi socialist countries and ours.

Show me a link to that study that showed Fox Voters being beneath the city elites. I’ll discuss it with you there smart guy.

Liberal acedemics? Liberal academics that have never survived in a truly competitive evironment do not warrant that much respect and admiration. Only a few of them do really important research, the remainder indoctrinate and stifle conservative thought with their grading powers.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Just what we need, John McCain reforming anything else.

By RE

January 5, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Actually RW, I think you have proven my point. Many people only seek out what confirms the beliefs they already hold, and cannot understand the difference between news and opinion. Nothing I say will change your views, because your reality is vastly different than my own. I try to diversify my news sources to have a more well rounded view, and I am sure you would discredit many of those sources out of hand. It seems apparent that you seek out news to reenforce your existing views as well, I imagine you do not live in Hawaii and were linked to that story by a conservative web site.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

RE,

I checked the FAQ’s and you have not been appointed blog monitor. I do have one tiny point of agreement with you, these days the line between straight news and opinion is blurred.

Of course that was a straight opinion piece. Don’t you pay any attention to the playful jousting, especially with links, that goes on here?

Now on the one hand, in spite of you having no idea how well read I am or where I get my actual news, you tell me to seek out more sources, but you also tell me not to pay any attention to anything that doesn’t happen in my figurative backyard.

Interesting case study you make.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

RW,

You still upset over the torture thing? He is a Republican.

By RE

January 5, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

No RW, I am not giving you any advise, nor am I a monitor in any respect. It does seem to me that you do seek out forums that will confirm your opinions. Out of curiosity, where did you come across that story?

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

getalife,

No, McCain/Feingold. Campaign finance is more s-crewed up than ever since that. I also find it odd that Indian tribes were specifically excluded and McCain does quite a bit of work with them and takes a lot of money from them.

I would say he is a RINO

By Out Here

January 5, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

RE, is it is the left that allows themselves to be misinformed. But, their emotion of hatred clouds their reasoning. Either that or their naivety allows them to think society can give some people, al little fish, and it will produce saciety of fisherman.

From those according to their abilities, to those according to their needs, wasn’t successful because it hadn’t been tried by people as smart as American liberals. Is that right?

Liberal policies stifle the freedom of business and investment, hence the overall economy.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

RE,

I think I got the link from democraticunderground and it isn’t very difficult to find stories that bolster my opinion that Cindy Sheehan is a loon.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

It has taken us from Tribal reservations across America to luxury sports boxes here in town, from a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware to a sniper workshop in Israel, and beyond. It involves tens of millions of dollars that we know about, and likely more that we do not.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

finch’s neighbor for President?

By RE

January 5, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

Interesting, you start off assuming only the left is misinformed, and then spin off into some diatribe about socialist policy. How exactally would a person’s views on welfare or unemployment lead them to be misinformed about other topics, such as war or corruption?

We can get into a debate about the level of governmental regulation in private business and corporations if you would like, but I would still like to know how only the “left” is being misinformed

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

getalife,

finch’s neighbor for peaceful retirement to Arizona has a better ring to it, do you think finch would move with him?

By getalife

January 5, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

RW,

McCain is hated by the Republicans so he must be the right person for the job.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

getalife,

If we’re dipping into Arizona, how about J.D. Hayworth?

I’m out for now, check you later.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

What is it about “liberal�? and “academic�? that seems to create such intellectual insecurity among the talk show, scream television audience?

Anybody else ever wonder why the only people who define a pinko as a “liberal academic” is the pinko himself?

So Michael H. tell me about the pinko intelligentsia, recite for me all of their bold, insightful agendas. Remind me of their plans for a brave new world, a government better than any government before. Awe us with how you scholars are going to lead the U.S.A. into the next century, keep us the leaders of the world.

I’m waiting….

What, you geniuses don’t have any ideas???? No clue on what you believe in?? Just a bunch of hot air about how smart you are? Sit around all day whining and moaning about what the Republicans are doing is a sign of brilliance?

Really?

Hypocrisy-n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By Dusty

January 5, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

OH, my, Michael H. and Brian, may this humble and ignorant conservative speak to you. I am so sorry that we conservatives are so lacking but we do seem to have one inate ability. That is—WE CAN ELECT PRESIDENTS. That is why this country has a strong President George W. Bush who just happens to have two degrees from prestigious universities. Just thought you might have forgotten.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

J.D. is a flip flopper : Hayworth acknowledges that he once did support the idea of a temporary-worker program

And he talks just like Rrruuussshhh. Plus he is involved in Jack@#$gate

By sct

January 5, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

Hypocrisy-n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Wow Andy, you have described a “family values” Republican perfectly. Good job.

By Michael H.

January 5, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

RE, Here is a great example of your claim that: “ The largest problem for the people of this country, and perhaps the best tactic of the politicians is in discrediting the media.�?

On “Face the Nation,�? Sunday, March 14, 2004, Bob Schieffer had Thomas Friedman and Donald Rumsfeld on his program. Shieffer was asking Rumsfeld about the implications of the absence of WMD in Iraq. The following is verbatim:

SCHIEFFER: The—the president ordered this invasion, as the world knows, because he said there were weapons of mass destruction, and he said they posed a threat to this country. Knowing what we now know, Mr. Secretary, do you think it was still wise to take this invasion? Did Iraq pose an immediate threat to this country?

RUMSFELD: Well, you’re the—you and a few other critics are the only people I’ve heard use the phrase `immediate threat.’ I didn’t. The president didn’t. And it’s become kind of folklore that that’s—that’s what’s happened. The president went…

SCHIEFFER: You’re saying that nobody in the administration said that?

Sec. RUMSFELD: I—I can’t speak for nobody—everybody in the administration and say nobody said that. SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn’t say that? The…

Sec. RUMSFELD: Not—if—if you have any citations, I’d like to see ‘em.

Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says some have argued that the nu'--this is you speaking--that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.’

Sec. RUMSFELD: And—and…

Mr. FRIEDMAN: It was close to imminent.

Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.’

Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It—my view of—of the situation was that he—he had—we—we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that—that we believed and we still do not know—we will know. David Kay said we’re about 85 percent there. I don’t know if that’s the right percentage. But the Iraqi Survey Group—we’ve got 1,200 people out there looking. It’s a country the size of California. He could have hidden his—enough chemical or biol—enough biological weapons in the hole that—that we found Saddam Hussein in to kill tens of thousands of people. So—so it’s not as though we have certainty today…

So, Rumsfeld, in his attempt to blame the media, had to eat his own words since Friedman brought transcripts of his previous comments with him. And we all know, at least those of us who read, instead of watching the political Alice in Wonderland interpretations of Fox and the other propagandists that those 1200 people concluded there was nothing there. At least Colin Powell had the integrity to admit it and leave the administration.

By Out Here

January 5, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this

RE, you got me on semantics. I should have said the left allows themselves to become more misinformed. At least misinformed on the big stuff like societal success and preservation of that success. Maybe, they are just naive, short sighted or real caring with other peoples’ money?

They darn sure don’t have any humility and like to talk/shout down to people. Wasn’t it the DNC that caged the protesters at their convention this last election?

By getalife

January 5, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

At least Colin Powell had the integrity to admit it and leave the administration

Yes indeed, and this

By Midori

January 5, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

OH — You mean misinformed like this?

By Michael H.

January 5, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

Dusty and Andy continue to make my case for me, namely that most ordinary American conservatives, like their idols Limbaugh, Hannity, and O’Reilly, cannot give an argument, just personal abuse, so there is no content to respond to from their posts.

By Scooter

January 5, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

Imminent threat was never said by the President, that was another misinformation piece by the MSM. Here is the link Jay Bookman ointed me to, when the AJC allowed him to debate his writings](http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/). Now, I envite the truly well informed and objective Americans to read the transcript and not take the snippets of others. Someone tell me where he said “imminent threat” and you cannot exclude more than five sentences before and after the phrase.

By Daniel

January 5, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

sct, you hit the nail on the head. These rat cowards will always send some one else to fight their battles. No Abramoff on the front lines. No Bu$h in this one, thank you.

By Midori

January 5, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

or, are we just plain stupid?

By getalife

January 5, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

Out Here,

The RNC locked them up

By Michael H.

January 5, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this

Dick Chapwick,

No, I did not claim that the quality of the European media “caused” a high participation rate in elections among their citizenry. And it is the case that the United States almost always has the lowest voter turnout of the Western democracies, (never having achieved even 50% in conservative Georgia by the way.)
I claimed that their media, in general, were better than that of the U.S. at this time. The comparison of inventions has nothing to do with news media or whether ordinary citizens are informed. That comment is just an example of your ideology being invoked in a place in which it has no relevance.

There was nothing about “city elites�? in my post either, that is just a pejorative phrase on your part, not mine. You might make a slight effort to read and understand what someone claimed before you write a response.

Alan Ryan, a professor at Oxford university and one of the most highly regarded political and legal scholars in the Western world, mentioned the study with the claim about Fox, and he discussed the general ignorance of American voters in the NY Review of Books, Oct 21, 2004, vol 51, no. 16, in reviewing of a work by the political scientists Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin, called Deliberation Day. The original study was produced by The Program on International Policy Attitudes, a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland, School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland. You can find it and many other studies at their website.

I don’t know why anyone who has devoted even a handful of hours to watching Fox News, their opinion programs, and PBS, and listening to NPR would be surprised at the results.

You comment about “truly competitive environment,” is completely irrelevant to scholarship and to university research in the social sciences in particular. And the remarks which followed that were wholly unsupported and merely an ideologically constructed stereotype that exists in the minds of many American conservatives and has thing to do with academic life.

I never said I was a “smart guy,�? by the way, but I will say I am clearly a lot smarter and better read than you, Andy, and Dusty, though that is saying nothing. When you clowns dish out abuse, don’t be surprised if it is returned.

By RE

January 5, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this

Actually, it was both the RNC and DNC that caged protestors, coordinated through the secret service. I understand why the secret service did this, but yes it does look bad.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0721-14.htm

So far as shouting down critics, was that sarcasm?

Hannity, O’Rielly, Limbaugh, Coulter….

By Andy

January 5, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this

Michael H.: I gave you a chance to prove to us all how smart you are. Just share one idea the liberals have. You’re the one who’s spent the whole entire afternoon high fiving yourself, not me. All I’ve heard from you is how bad the Republicans are. Come on genius, dazzle us with your vast knowledge.

By RE

January 5, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

Here is another link to cages in NY during the RNC convention:

http://www.pixelpress.org/medina/theo_arrest.html

By getalife

January 5, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

RE,

but yes it does look bad.

Freedom?

By Daniel

January 5, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

You are. It was Blair who said they would be (presumably, in Britain) in 40 minutes. They will lie. Then be deceitful, Then distort. You are also a patriot. These people only care about a “win” for their side. They are unamerican. The “victory” for them is the prsidency. And, if that hurts America, tough. They are the closest thing to fascism we have ever seen.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

Michael H.: I gave you a chance to prove to us all how smart you are. Just share one idea the liberals have. You’re the one who’s spent the whole entire afternoon high fiving yourself, not me. All I’ve heard from you is how bad the Republicans are. Come on genius, dazzle us with your vast knowledge.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

Pat does it again!

By getalife

January 5, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

Better one on Pat today

By candide

January 5, 2006 05:13 PM | Link to this

Pat Robertson just said that Ariel Sharon is being punished by God for divinding up the land of Israel. If Pat knows what God is thinking, how come he doesn’t know that God is preparing a hot place in hell for hypocrites and scoundrels like him?

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 05:14 PM | Link to this

Midori,

Thanks for the link, that’s one of the few 2003 stories using the discredited University of Maryland study that I hadn’t seen.

If I do a study asking people if they believe Hawaii is a foreign country and I predetermined that the answer was yes, then I would say the most informed people were the ones that believed that. That means Cindy Sheehan now becomes one of the most informed people around so I could extrapolate that to say Michael Moore readers are the most informed.

That is the way that “study” was conducted and it was done in 2003.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this

Jack Cafferty just said he needs to take a vow of silence.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 05:17 PM | Link to this

getalife,

CNN is advocating restrictions on freedom of speech now? Someone do another study!

By Scooter

January 5, 2006 05:18 PM | Link to this

RE, you can blow that towards somebody else, cause I aint smokin it. I used to be one of those protesters now I’m just a tattooed conservative who realizes the power that dependency affords government.

Michael H. doesn’t seem to fear dependent societies, possibly because he doesn’t realize it is easier to herd dependent people than it is free people. He will talk about europeans and American voting rates without calculationg in the effect of dependency. Michael, when people are allowed to become more dependent on government of course they will vote. Look at the democrats and their dependent minions, they come out after death or as cartoon charecters. The selective learning everyone was talking about while I was in the field Europeans are the intellectual elitist that run governmets that carry double digit unemployment rates, but Michael could fix that I’ll bet.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

RW,

Jack has his own opinion, very funny man.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I bet “RE” can’t figure out how I knew Jack works for CNN.

By RE

January 5, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this

RW, you prove my point again

If something comes out the harms your belief, you discredit it without basis. If they were only out to get Fox News, why would they ask about several others sources as well.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this

RW,

Good one, for balance tune in every once in a while and check out the Alito commercials.

By Daniel

January 5, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this

Like corporate dependency on borrowed government money?

By getalife

January 5, 2006 05:25 PM | Link to this

Conservative News Network.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 05:28 PM | Link to this

Michael H.: I’m still waiting… Let me guess, you pinkos have to commission a college study to figure out what ideas you have? How many millions will you waste getting somebody to tell you things you should know on your own?

I still can’t figure out how someone can crown themselves King Genius based upon an entire afternoon of Republicans this, Republicans that. It even got old to them after awhile, I caught that Europe is better than we are, trying to break up the monotony of their droning scorecard of how Conservatives won’t fall in line with their immoral ideas and we have fake studies to prove it.

Hypocrisy-n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 05:33 PM | Link to this

RW,

I hit the political blog world tour today on corruption and man my finger is tired.

/rimshot.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 05:35 PM | Link to this

RE,

Where did I say they were “out to get” Fox News?

Go read the study yourself, they used a very liberal predetermined response to the questions, many times when the answer couldn’t be known at the time the study was done. They then used whether you agreed with their predetermined answers to determine how informed you were. Sorry if you don’t like facts.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 05:38 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Pace yourself, this will be around awhile.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this

RW,

I hope so, you know how I feel about corruption and hope Mike stays on it too.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 05:42 PM | Link to this

There is no excuse for this, Robertson is pathetic:

The Reverend Pat Robertson says Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s massive stroke could be God’s punishment for giving up Israeli territory.

By Daniel

January 5, 2006 05:44 PM | Link to this

Thank you, Andy. There is hope for you.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 05:44 PM | Link to this

getalife,

NOTE TO THE HUMORLESS ONES: STOP HERE .

.

If it gets too bad we could always bomb Iran as a distraction.

By Scooter

January 5, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this

Daniel, corporate dependency or welfare is another made up term to fuel the lefts need for envy and animosity. The economy depends on small business, Stock Market and corporate jobs. How can you take away money from someone you need a job ftrom? Simple, the left loves government.

Not to mention, Corporations recieve their money/revenue, to pay taxes, by selling products. So, liberal policies also work to increase the price of goods to a point they are unattainable for the average Joe, only the elite. If you don’t know too much about economics don’t act like you do. Just say you are a socialist or you want to heavily regulate the free market.

Borrowed money? I’m glad Japan, China and other foreign nations believe in the US more than you and the left. Remember, it is the debt holders interest to see that investment mature, not demise. Go see if Daily Kos is giving econ/finance lessons.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 05:47 PM | Link to this

They also said that giving blood thinners after his first stroke was wrong but that is the first thing they give you to stop further clots. I have inside information on this subject.

By Daniel

January 5, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this

Scooter: When does it end? Do we borrow forever? Is the interest a problem? What ever happened to the balanced budget? Conservative? It would be nice. By the way, I am a small businessman. Watch this: when Bush leaves he’ll call for a balanced budget.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this

RW,

Wait until OO reads last night’s thread.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

Andy,

The funny thing is most of us think Robertson is a nut case same for O’Reilly, but it doesn’t stop the enlightened ones up ^ ^ ^ up there from saying all we do is march in lockstep with them.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Maybe she read it and isn’t talking to us anymore. I hope she’s OK.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 05:54 PM | Link to this

RW,

Me too, she said she was going back to work and probably too tired to put up with us.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 05:54 PM | Link to this

This too is pathetic.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 05:57 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Could be, maybe she had more time for us during the Holidays and we just got used to it.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

RW: I have been known to bring up Sheehan on occasion…. (-:

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 06:02 PM | Link to this

Andy,

You may want to stay off David Letterman’s show for awhile then. When do you think we are going to storm the beaches of Waikiki?

By Daniel

January 5, 2006 06:02 PM | Link to this

Look: If no Fiscal Conservative comes to my rescue, I’m going to my work-out.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 06:03 PM | Link to this

Daniel,

Go for three miles, you can do it.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 06:07 PM | Link to this

getalife,

If Daniel goes three miles a day he can be at your place in a little over five months.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this

like this guy

By Dusty

January 5, 2006 06:13 PM | Link to this

Ariel Sharon is a man who loves his country and has worked for peace in the region. I admire his resoluteness against all odds.

Robertson speaks only for himself. Certainly not for me.

By Daniel

January 5, 2006 06:17 PM | Link to this

I’m outta here.

By RE

January 5, 2006 06:20 PM | Link to this

Read it.

Lets begin:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMediaOct03/IraqMediaOct03_rpt.pdf

The study asked three questions and measured the response. This was then correlated with which media they were exposed to. the three questions were:

Since the war in Iraq has ended, is it your impression that the US has or has not found weapons of mass destruction?

Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in iraq that sadam hussien was working closely with al queda?

Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do your think:

The majority of people favor the US having gone to War

or

The majority of people do not favor the US having gone to war

Many people also responded that opinion was evenly split.

How are any of those questions Biased or leading? All of these answers were known and now confirmed, how can you discredit this?

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 06:23 PM | Link to this

At 1:59 today “sickoftheneocons” makes a request and at 4:58 Cox & Forkum comes through

By sct

January 5, 2006 06:26 PM | Link to this

Its funny how you conservatives try to distance yourselves from Pat Robertson. The same ones that try to attach a “Sheehan” or a “Ted Kennedy” label to anyone that dares speak against your supreme ruler.

By Scooter

January 5, 2006 06:27 PM | Link to this

Daniel, are you running yet? In your objective and intelectual search for information did you happen to see that John Snow and Alan Greenspan are going to pressure China to revalue its currency. Since you rail against corporations, you must be I econ or finance expert and know how that will help. I don’t have you pegged as a nitwhit know it all.

I doubt John Stewart will mention it, but we’ll see.

But, seriously, I’m glad foreign governments believe in America more than you and the left do.

Oh well, I am off to the Somber Reptile, corner of Marrieta St. and Northside Drive, for that person I envited to meet me the other day. Just tell them you want to cal Scooter a Chicken Hawk, Neocon, it’ll be fun.

By Butch

January 5, 2006 06:27 PM | Link to this

Another 5 GI’s slaughtered so far today in Bush’s Iraq playpen. This from a guy who spent his entire high school and college days as a CHEERLEADER! How much more murder from this punk before we hang him and his crime partners?

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 06:31 PM | Link to this

RE,

Your URL doesn’t work try linking. That University of Maryland has far more than those three questions. The farther you go into it the more you find, I guess the elitists don’t like the full picture. Pity.

By RE

January 5, 2006 06:32 PM | Link to this

Careful what you say Butch, That could be construed as a threat.

You might have to deal with a wiretap, siezure without trial, or maybe rendition to Syria

Carefull

By Scooter

January 5, 2006 06:33 PM | Link to this

RE, there are three types of lies. Lies , damn lies and statistics. Polls fall into the statistics category.

Did they ask how many people trust the UN to ensure their countries safety, of course not it didn’t fit their preconcieved agenda. The MSM misinforms people and then you cite polls to us, that is weak bro.

By Paul

January 5, 2006 06:34 PM | Link to this

Scooter is more than a chickenhawk. He’s a “sled” for all the bigger boys. If anyone ever gave him a “look,” he’d die of fright. Just another coward of the past 2 generations. Grew up watching too much TV. A typical Repub troglodyte. Borr-ing.

By Scooter

January 5, 2006 06:35 PM | Link to this

Butch, you rock brother. Scream it from the corner.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 06:37 PM | Link to this

How are any of those questions Biased or leading? All of these answers were known and now confirmed, how can you discredit this?

Very easily. We all know what the pinko answers are for the questions, that’s for sure. It doesn’t mean they are correct.

We found artillery shells filled with sarin nerve gas. How do you, oh wise pinko, classify those shells? Party favors?

There are many, many known instances of Al Qaeda and Iraq working closely together. Zarqawi was in Iraq before the US invaded.

The world should really pay attention to their own problems and make arrangements to come here to the United States where it is safe from Islamic Fascism. Other than that, they can kiss my a-ss. Germany can have France, no more rescues.

If you want to find out how the “majority” feels why don’t you check and see who the President is?

Hypocrisy-n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By RE

January 5, 2006 06:38 PM | Link to this

Read it RW, page 15 of 23, the analysis of the differences in response focused on these 3 questions. Yes they did ask more than those questions, but the breakdown of news rankings was complied using the results of these 3 questions. I guess you don’t like a full picture either

By Paul

January 5, 2006 06:40 PM | Link to this

Good for you, BRIAN. So accurate and well-stated. But don’t waste too much of your time on these Repub Punkos. Arguing with ignorance is almost always a waste.

By Scooter

January 5, 2006 06:44 PM | Link to this

Paul, do you feel safe in the internet. I have a tattoo of the trail of tears on my left forearm. Will I see you at the reptile tonight, so we can look at each other? I’ll bet not. But, now I am really heading over.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 06:45 PM | Link to this

RE,

Did you miss the part about the URL not working? And why, exactly, are you so interested in a 2003 study that asked questions that you yourself say the answers to are only now confirmed?

Although I think you could live in a cave and know that world opinion was against us. Are they sure people that missed that one were coherent enough to be counted?

By getalife

January 5, 2006 06:53 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

What is the reptile?

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 06:55 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I think Scooter has headed out, to this place

By Jesus

January 5, 2006 06:59 PM | Link to this

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

By getalife

January 5, 2006 07:02 PM | Link to this

I liked the Tabernacle for live music.

By RE

January 5, 2006 07:07 PM | Link to this

RW, this is the report You referenced and then discounted. I am trying to see what justification you have for discounting it, other than liberals did it. I think the reason is that you will not acknowledge that your views may be flawed. Just saying something is not valid does not make it so.

Andy,

So we went to Iraq for a few shells? Is that your answer. Shells dated from back in the Mid 80s by the way, wonder where he got them from. Any reports of these connections between al qeada and saddam I would love to see.

By getalife

January 5, 2006 07:08 PM | Link to this

Lost my hearing at ACDC and Soundgarden at the fox, Nirvana at the Omni and Korn at Phillips arena. I use to attend all the concerts.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 07:20 PM | Link to this

RE: Here you go. Enjoy.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2006 07:30 PM | Link to this

RE,

I wasn’t the one that originally referenced it today, we have gone through it here before. It’s a completely boring non-issue. Anytime you take a survey of people that close to any event you will be able to make something like this study just by taking a look at what some people are more likely to agree with. Liberals, in some weird vendetta against Fox News, are always referring to this particular study.

I think anyone that limits their sources are risking being hopelessly misinformed. Depending on the issue I’m sure you could come up a simplistic set of questions to show the same.

If you ask whether forged documents were used to discredit President Bush’s Guard service, I think you would be able to say CBS viewers are the most misinformed, closely followed by ABC and NBC. Would that mean Fox viewers are the most informed people around? Of course not.

That would be just as absurd a study and one that is only used to stereotype a group of people as ignorant. The only difference is there wouldn’t be a “gazillion” articles in conservative publications citing it as a scientific study.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 07:44 PM | Link to this

Ummm, yeah:

The Democrats underestimate the intelligence of the voting public. The public wants a plan, not just a list of why the opponent stinks. However, modern Democrats especially seem to think that mudslinging will somehow win elections. As long as the left has the Paul Krugmans of this world writing that the American people are too dumb to make decisions about their healthcare, they can look forward to their continued defeat.

By RE

January 5, 2006 07:44 PM | Link to this

Hi Andy,

Thank you, it is convincing.

I crossed it with the 9-11 report though:

(NOTICE: The 9/11 Commission Report released July 22 contradicts thespeculation about Shakir’s identity. Buried in Footnote 49 of Ch. 6:

Commission Report: Mihdhar was met at the Kuala Lumpur airport by Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi national. Reports that he was a lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi Fedayeen have turned out to be incorrect. They were based on a confusion of Shakir’s identity with that of an Iraqi Fedayeen colonel with a similar name, who was later (in September 2001) in Iraq at the same time Shakir was in police custody in Qatar.)

I would still be open to the possibility to you being correct of course, but I wouldn’t start a war on this information or anything

By Andy

January 5, 2006 07:53 PM | Link to this

RE: Let’s simplify. Was Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war or not? What does the 9/11 com have to say about that?

By RE

January 5, 2006 07:58 PM | Link to this

He was, he was just not part of al queda until after we invaded.

However, Bush passed over the fact that the relationship between bin Laden and the Iraqi insurgents – to the extent one existed at all before – grew much closer after the US invaded Iraq. Insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi did not announce his formal allegiance with bin Laden until October, 2004. It was only then that Zarqawi changed the name of his group from “Unification and Holy War Group” to “al Qaeda in Iraq.”

In summary, we found nothing false in what Bush said, only that his facts were few and selective.

—by Brooks Jackson & Jennifer L. Ernst

Researched by Matthew Barge, Kevin Collins & Jordan Grossman

By Andy

January 5, 2006 08:03 PM | Link to this

RE: Time Out. Where did he get injured at before he boogied to Baghdad?

By RE

January 5, 2006 08:05 PM | Link to this

The 9-11 report makes no mention of zarqawi at all

By RE

January 5, 2006 08:07 PM | Link to this

I am not saying he was not in Iraq, I am not saying he was not a terrorist, I am saying he was not part of Al Qaeda until after we invaded.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 08:08 PM | Link to this

RE: Don’t change the subject, I could care less what Pinko, Pinko and Myers says anyway. Where did Zarqawi get injured at?

By RE

January 5, 2006 08:10 PM | Link to this

you tell me, where was he injured?

By getalife

January 5, 2006 08:15 PM | Link to this

Asked about the reports al-Zarqawi had been wounded, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, “I don’t know.”

By Andy

January 5, 2006 08:20 PM | Link to this

You see how these pinkos are? This whole entire afternoon was this grandstanding super intelligence festival, with them droning on about their superiority. I practically had to beg them for a sample of their vast knowledge, did I not? Finally, one of them nuts up and it takes me less then 5 minutes to wear him out.

Now, that he’s backed into the corner, we get word games, committee meeting minutes, social studies, any pinko mind sex that they can drag out and hide behind.

Zarqawi was injured by a U.S. bombing raid in Afghanistan. Yes, the same Afghanistan that we attacked because…. That’s where Al Qaeda was at! Once Zarqawi received his wound, he ran straight to….. Iraq, where he can be found today.

Maybe if Zarqawi had run to Washington, D.C. and became a member of the 9/11 commission, like Jamie Gorelick did, we would be able to say Al Qaeda didn’t cooperate with Iraq.

Hypocrisy-n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By Andy

January 5, 2006 08:30 PM | Link to this

A “Senior” Al Qaeda official, in 2003 before the war, he was:

Sources: Senior al Qaeda official may have been in Iraq

By getalife

January 5, 2006 08:31 PM | Link to this

Here is the new and approved one

By That's right!

January 5, 2006 08:35 PM | Link to this

Andy may be right.

“Claims of harm to Zarqawi have changed over time. Early in 2002, there were unverified reports from Afghan Northern Alliance members that Zarqawi had been killed by a missile attack in Afghanistan. Many news sources repeated the claim. Later, Kurdish groups claimed that Zarqawi had not died in the missile strike, but had been severely injured, and went to Baghdad in 2002…In 2004, Newsweek reported that some “senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad” had come to believe that he still had his original legs.[20]. Knight Ridder later reported that the leg amputation was something “officials now acknowledge was incorrect,” though it’s possible this was merely a restatement of the Newsweek report”

also on that link;

“There are reports that in the mid-1990s, Zarqawi travelled to Europe and started the al-Tawhid militant organization, a group dedicated to installing an Islamic regime in Jordan.”

Who believes Newsweek?

By Andy

January 5, 2006 08:38 PM | Link to this

Dear World: Now is the time to prove that we learned from our mistakes with Adolf Hitler. Remember how many people would have lived if we had slaughtered that little pervert back in 38 or so? Well, here’s are chance to show our wisdom: Iranian President Hopes Sharon Perishes Before it’s too late!

By getalife

January 5, 2006 08:42 PM | Link to this

Send Pat to assassinate him.

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 09:37 PM | Link to this

Yes, if even the hardcore neocon nuts are embarrassed by Pat Robertson now, it’s time to tell good ol’ “God Is My Hit-Man” Pat to put up or shut up.

WE don’t do assassinations, Pat; you want somebody taken out, YOU do it.

By Washington State

January 6, 2006 02:44 AM | Link to this

Mike, Do you think average hard core Republican really cares? Despite the takeover of the lobbying industry by Republicans in the last 10 years, they will try and bury it with obfuscation. Do a google on K Street and see how often the word Democrat comes up.

By Andy

January 6, 2006 05:05 AM | Link to this

In August 2001, instructors at a flight school in Minneapolis became suspicious of Zacharias Moussaoui, a French national of Moroccan descent who want to fly airplanes but didn’t want to learn how to land them. They tipped off the FBI, which arrested Moussaoui on an immigration violation.

Among Moussaoui’s possessions was a computer. Minneapolis agents wanted to go into the hard drive to check for contacts or other information. Doing so, however, required that FBI headquarters in Washington apply for a search warrant before a federal judge. Schooled in the latest niceties of contemporary law enforcement, the Washington office responded that there was no “probable cause” for conducting a search. “All you’ve got is a guy with an expired visa who’s taking flight lessons,” they said. “Where’s the crime?”

The Minneapolis office responded that it would be good to find out exactly what was going on before Moussaoui “took an airplane and flew it into the World Trade Center.” Their pleas had no impact. Only after September 11th did FBI officials finally look into Moussaoui’s computer, where they found information linking him to both the Hamburg cell that planned the attack and to its leader, Mohammed Atta.

By Andy

January 6, 2006 05:14 AM | Link to this

According to the Times/Schumer logic, every disaffected civil servant should be permitted to divulge national security secrets if his motives are to expose a program he believes illegal or not in the best interests of the country. But does this not put the leaker in the position of Supreme Judge of our nation’s national security? Who determines the “legality” or propriety of a top secret program? The President? The Courts? Congress? The leaker?

By Chris Edwards

January 6, 2006 06:19 AM | Link to this

Typical and predictable hypocrisy from a left-wing zealot. Just one more example that AJC is no longer a newspaper, but a propoganda device for the democratic party.

By AntiRadical

January 6, 2006 06:51 AM | Link to this

If George W. Bush got a blo-job from Monica Lexinsky on the Whitehouse lawn it would be OK with Republi-Radicals ‘cause “Clinton did it too” (He MUST be their Hero for them to wish to emulate him so much). You have to be impressed with the level of smokescreening from the ultimate spin machine, though (don’t look at us, look at Slick Willy/Hillary/or Overseas somewhere). With both houses of Congress contolled by the primary offending party, I think it should be relatively easy to avoid responsiblity, though. Neocons do hate to be bothered with those pesky character traits of responsibility and honesty, don’t they?

PS- Clinton has been out of office for 6 years, now. With bad economic numbers we hear “Oh, we inherited that from Clinton”. When the numbers are good, then “the Presidents economic strategy is responsible”. When a group “waffles” back and forth like that it only means that they are liars. Republi-Radicals have lost all legitimacy in my book.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 6, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this

The Bush Administration is multi-tasking! While keeping their hands in the cookie jar, the Snooper in Chief made a bunch of recess appointments. More incompetent, inappropriate, cronies.

So he’s stealing our cookies, but dropping more “Brownie’s”.

Georgie, your doing a Heck of a job!

By Steve SC

January 6, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

According to an article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Judge Alito has long been on the record as saying that he thinks that when the President makes comments about a law as he’s signing it, that’s what the law means as far as he is concerned. If the President can’t cut the deficit any other way, why not just lay off everyone in the legislative and judicial branches and let the President do what he likes?

By Michael H.

January 6, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

The responses to the PIPA study from RW, Scooter, Andy and the others were predictable and entertaining, as well as predictably stupid. And RE provided the legitimate responses and questions.

Whenever this kind of conservative, in contrast with those conservatives who are intellectually honest, disagrees with the findings of a study, they trot out the claims of “bias” which they cannot substantiate, or “discredited,” along with a host of utterly irrelevant comments about statistics, mixed in with the inevitable ad hominem abuse, and somehow think that these collection amounts to an argument.

When PIPA surveyed Bush and Kerry supporters prior to the election in October, 2004, and after the release of the Duelffer report, not to mention that the lack of evidence was being pointed out by experts prior to that, 72% of Bush supporters continued to believe that Iraq had actual WMD or a major program for developing them.

“Confirmation bias and ignorance” should be the motto of the Bushies and those who watch Fox. Facts mean nothing for the Alices lost in their political Wonderland.

By Michael H.

January 6, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

And for the person who claimed that George Bush never used the words “imminient” or “immediate” do you not remember, or was it not reported on Fox?

Bush claimed, without receiving CIA clearance, in a speech made in the Rose Garden in September 2002, and in a radio address that same month that “Iraq could launch a biological or chemical attack forty-five minutes after the order is given.”

Sounds close to imminent doesn’t it? And I guess the use of those words and synonyms by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and Powell somehow don’t matter.

And last note, nothing was taken out of context in the Rumsfeld-Friedman exchange. Rumsfeld had every opportunity to explain himself and could not. You can find the entire conservation at the website and read it for yourself and attempt to “spin” it.

Why don’t you guys just give it up? You either care nothing about the truth in your zeal to support “W” or you are too stupid to evaluate evidence. I think both are true.

By Brian Curtis

January 6, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

Present some evidence, and watch them run away, Michael. I guess we know who really embraces “cut-and-run” tactics….

By Midori

January 6, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

Bravo, Michael H.

Fine job.

Damn fine job.

By Washington State

January 7, 2006 03:09 AM | Link to this

Bribery is strictly prohibited in Exodus 23:8 and Job 36:18, which specifically warns: “Be careful that no one entices you by riches; do not let a large bribe turn you aside.” I wonder whether people really understand what they profess to believe in or they just don’t care.

By Scooter

January 7, 2006 08:20 PM | Link to this

Michael, It was I who still does not beleive that Bush said Imminent threat. I’m not calling you a ,but I would have to read the transcript of the speech you speak of and I haven’t found it yet. You may be able to just state something and Brian C profess it as the truth that makes conservaives run, but I reaearch things for myself. Even though you snidely say, did Fox News not say that (does it make you feel big). On a side note, I do remember something along those lines being said, but I also remember him saying they could use those to attack Isreal not us.

Why don’t you all just say you wish the UN was still in there watching Saddam.

By hterrya

January 17, 2006 08:06 AM | Link to this

As of today, the vote in favor of this cartoon is 719 (87.90%) to 99 (12.10%), yet the number of comments by die-hard self-labeled “conservatives” trying to explain away this huge scandal far outweighs the number of persons who know that a so-called Democrat who would take money from a person like Abramoff would be no Democrat at all.

When my children used to excuse their anti-social behavior by claiming that others were doing it as well, I pointed out the need for taking personal responsibility for their actions. The GOP should do the same.

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!

In the cookie jar

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!

In the cookie jar

Comments

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Advertising

AJC Sites