Mike Luckovich

By Andy

January 6, 2006 06:59 AM | Link to this

Sometimes “ethics” makes the cartoon, sometimes it doesn’t:

Feds indict Bill Campbell

By AntiRadical

January 6, 2006 07:01 AM | Link to this

This is great. Perude and ML have given us a variant on the concept of “Paper Tiger”. Like the stuffed “watch-dog”, Republi-Radicals look and sound good but it’s just an illusion.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 07:27 AM | Link to this

Since Georgia has had nothing but Republicans in office since the days of reconstruction maybe it’s time to clean hou. .. .. What? Never mind.

By AntiRadical

January 6, 2006 07:46 AM | Link to this

Republicans ARE better administrators. Tom Murphy and the other GA Dems had been trying to rope in Teddy Lee (EX Sec of GA Ethics Commission) for 16 years. It took a Republican Governor to ferret out the nuts ‘n bolts of packing the commission with “bought and paid for” appointees to do it for him. Dems and Reps rejoice, “we’re free” to get down to the real business of politics, GRAFT!

By KW

January 6, 2006 07:52 AM | Link to this

Ethics?!?!? What ethics? Not ethics in government? I can personally attest that to trying to be ethical gets you nowhere! No good deed ever goes unpunished. It seems like the biggest screw-ups only get away with it and these so-called ethics committees/boards should be called character assasination squads because that’s about all they’re really good for.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 08:11 AM | Link to this

The trickle down theory applies to corruption. Start at the federal level, to set an example, then to state and then to city level. Most are criminals and belong in prison. Send them to the Gulf Coast for some community service.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this

getalife,

Isn’t sending corrupt politicians to Louisiana sort of like making heroin addicts work in the poppy fields?

By getalife

January 6, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this

RW,

What are you doing up so early?

Good point, they had to stand in front of the bulldozers to keep the city from knocking down their houses. The city is anxious to get rid of the lower ninth ward but they got a court order to stop it for now.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this

getalife,

I have no idea. I’m going back to bed see you a little later.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 6, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this

Republicans are better administrators?

Do you live, drive, breathe, eat, drink, send kids to school, in the same Georgia I do?

By PinkoAndy

January 6, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this

A little light reading for our neocom friends from Paul Cummins, on the [www.Huffingtonpost.com] blog. Nope, no comment needed…

The following list is, in my opinion, the Bush legacy. It is offered without footnotes, without elaboration or argument, but simply as a list. Perhaps by gathering together these twenty disparate (yet, I believe, related) items, the legacy will be seen for the mean-spirited, unenlightened, arrogant, plutocratic-cronyistic agenda that it is. Never in American history, I believe, has such a disastrous set of principles been enacted.

Each of the twenty has far reaching, negative consequences. 1. Tax cuts leading to massive, unprecedented deficits 2. Preemptive wars against non-aggressive nations 3. Sanctioning of torture 4. De-regulation of environment protections 5. Weakening of the separation of church and state 6. Exempting the gun industry from lawsuits 7. Weakening of individual privacy protections 8. Rejection of international organizations - U.N., World Court, etc. 9. Increased hatred of the U.S.A. in Islamic countries 10. Increase in terrorist attacks since 9/11 11. Neglect of poverty in the U.S.A. and abroad 12. Shifting the tax burden from wealthy corporations and individuals to wage earners 13. Reducing (hoping to abolish) estate taxes thus creating “a permanent aristocracy” in America 14. Furthering anti-intellectualism - a president who admittedly does not read and is embarrassingly inarticulate 15. Increased military spending; hostility to spending for social services 16. Increased number of Americans without health care 17. Rejection of minimum wage increases - five consecutive years 18. Applying the principle of awarding lucrative contracts to crony companies without competitive bidding 19. Attempts to privatize Social Security 20. Four consecutive years of increases in the percentage of Americans living in poverty Fortunately, the American public seems to be waking up, and perhaps the nation will begin to reverse the Bush assaults upon reason, sustainability, equity, and posterity.

By Eric

January 6, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

Bravo, Pinko! Very well said.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

Good ole Pat

By Andy

January 6, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

blogger: If any one of the 20 items on your list was even remotely true, not over exaggerated or was the responsibility of the Bush Administration to begin with, maybe they would be worth commenting on. But, as I’ve been told, it’s better not to encourage paranoid psychotics for such actions could cause them to flare up. So let me just ease away from here…

By Andy

January 6, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

Well, maybe Murtha isn’t confused after all, he is speaking loud and clear for the pinkos:

Appearing at a town meeting in Arlington, Virginia, with fellow Democratic Rep. James Moran, Murtha said, “A year ago, I said we can’t win this militarily, and I got all kinds of criticism.” Now, Murtha told the strongly antiwar audience, “I worry about a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there’s a victory when I think it should be a redeployment as quickly as possible and let the Iraqis handle the whole thing.”

This is a really good thing to know, if one of your concerns in life is to identify all of America’s enemies. It sure seems like a natural trait of an enemy would be to hope against American victory in Iraq. We, on the right, appreciate your assistance in clarifying these matters.

By finch

January 6, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

PinkoAndy, I wish you’d change your name. You don’t have to agree with Andy the Original, but at least take the high road. He’s always worth the read, even when he gets moody.

That aside, the HuffPost commentary is worth checking out.

Read it and laugh. Or weep. Or get angry. Whatever.

Meanwhile… what’s this?

“Isn’t sending corrupt politicians to Louisiana sort of like making heroin addicts work in the poppy fields?”

I wish you’d stop making me laugh, RW. I might start to like you or something. :)

How’re the plans for the “Smokey and the Bandit” remake coming?

By Andy

January 6, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

This from a stupid pinko liberal old man that openly advocates for America’s defeat:

Asked whether he would support an impeachment inquiry, Murtha continued: “Well, I’m not even sure that I have enough facts to support that at this point. There’s only one reason for impeachment as far as I’m concerned, and that’s treason and treasonous acts. That’s very complicated, not something I can answer. I hesitated to say anything about Nixon until the very end when I heard the tapes, so that’s not something I would say anything about at this stage.”

Would any of you other pinkos like to get this old fool a copy of the Constitution and let him read up on what constitutes an “act of treason?” Maybe help him with a little self evaluation?

By getalife

January 6, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

The loudest, longest applause of the evening came not after any statement by Murtha or Moran but after a member of the audience said that “Bush and his cronies” had been “criminally negligent” in the run-up to the war in Iraq. “My question is simple,” the man continued. “With this criminal negligence going on, why shouldn’t you impeach Bush/Cheney?”

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 6, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this

Pinko Andy: Great Post!

Would you consider marriage to my youngest daughter? I’d be proud to have you as a son in law.

And all the pretty pink grandbabies!

And to help the right with their clarification:

NBC, “The Today Show”, 8/30/04

MATT LAUER: You said to me a second ago, one of the things you’ll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war of ter—on terror? For example, in the next four years?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I have never said we can win it in four years.

MATT LAUER: No, I’m just saying, can we win it? Do you say that?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I don’t—I don’t think we can win it.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

Criminal

By getalife

January 6, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this

Criminals

By AntiRadical

January 6, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

I see, Andy, it doesn’t matter if there IS something from our Iraqi misadventure to call a victory, just as long as it “looks like” there is one. You’re only concern seems to be that Murtha/Dem rhetoric might influence what a Republican initiative might “look like”. Are we a little paranoid? If we can’t win let’s at least throw up some smoke to manipulate the weak minded into “thinking” we did or might have if only…, right? How appropriate to the toon posted. Just another phony victory flag to wave like the stuffed watchdog above.

By Andy

January 6, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

The meeting, which attracted an overflow crowd, was promoted by the Internet activist group MoveOn.org, which said that “Congressman Moran has extended a special invitation to MoveOn members in his district and nearby.”

The loudest, longest applause of the evening came not after any statement by Murtha or Moran but after a member of the audience said that “Bush and his cronies” had been “criminally negligent” in the run-up to the war in Iraq. “My question is simple,” the man continued. “With this criminal negligence going on, why shouldn’t you impeach Bush/Cheney?”

That’s nice, getalife, advocate for America’s defeat. Just a nice quiet gathering of Anti American traitors, just like the old days.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

11 more and civil war

By getalife

January 6, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

Mr. Murtha is right. What a waste. Criminals.

By Andy

January 6, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

Sent to both of my Congressman and soon to be addressed to whoever else I can think of:

Why would this statement not initiate an article of impeachment or a censure measure against Representative John Murtha? “I worry about a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there’s a victory when I think it should be a redeployment as quickly as possible and let the Iraqis handle the whole thing.” How much more of this open, subversive anti American advocacy is going to be allowed to occur in a time of war? Do you realize your lack of action is emboldening America’s enemies?

Please feel free to cut and paste this message into the contact section of your local representatives webpage.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

The local representatives are criminals but you go ahead and keep following these criminals until they get locked up.

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

This is how bad it has gotten for the Democratic Party. They elected a man as the head of their party that only about 10% of Americans agree with. He got hammered during the primaries and makes an idiotic comment at least twice a month. Now they are openly recruiting pro-life and pro-second amendment candidates to run for Congress and the Senate. This begs the question, if a Democrat gets elected that is pro-life and pro-gun rights, who does that really help? That is how bad it has gotten.

By AntiRadical

January 6, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

Sure, Andy, let’s always impeach anyone who might open their mouth and disagree mit der Furher!

By finch

January 6, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

It’s apparent that, no matter what you think of President Bush, he is not guilty of treason. For that matter, neither is Congressman Murtha. Federal courts have generally defined treason as the act of actively bearing arms against your country, actively spying against your country, or actively giving material aid and comfort (not just written or verbal support) to such active traitors.

Of course, new cases and new rulings could change all this.

Read more here.

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

getalife, you should be smart enough to know that most politicians are corrupt and that goes for both sides. We are goign to be hearing alot more about this.

By AntiRadical

January 6, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

Ricky are you seriously complaining that the Democratic party is finally starting to show some concern for the values expressed by main stream America? Are you that partisan?

By BigDaddy

January 6, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

PinkoAndy, thank you for the cut and paste political info from Mr. Cummins, according to his bio, a schoomarm and a poet. Some of his arguments have merit, others do not. Let’s a little look, shall we?

1) Tax cuts leading to massive, unprecedented deficits. Okay, first of all, they are unprecendeted in total dollars, but not as a percentage of GDP. The record still belongs to FDR during WWII. Second, it’s not the tax cuts that created the deficits. The tax cuts have actually increased tax revenue, so obviously they are not the problem. The real culprit is the out of control spending habits of Congress. For failure to demonstrate any spending restraint himself, and for failure to exhibit any leadership over Congress, President Bush deserves blame, but let’s attribute it correctly - it’s not the tax cuts, it’s the spending.

2) Pre-emptive wars against non-aggressive nations - he’s right on the pre-emptive portion, but it’s not like the US invaded Iceland. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan could be considered to be “non-aggressive”.

3) Sanctioning of torture - a fairly partisan portrayal of what has actually occurred.

4) De-regulation of environmental protections - I’m not an environmental engineer, so I’ll ask Scooter to address this issue. Mr. Cummins may be right to some degree. Some of those rollbacks, though (such as mercury emissions and powerplant emissions) have been of executive orders that Clinton signed on his last day in office - not exactly de-regulation.

5) Weakening of church and state - without citing any examples, this is just a rote “progressive” complaint.

6) Exempting the gun industry from lawsuits - what exactly is the problem with shielding a legal industry from suits that are filed only with the hope that the industry will settle out of court (because the suit has 0% chance of success before a jury)? The most vociferous opponents of this legislation have been trial lawyers, who have a vested interest in their repeal.

7) Weakening of individual privacy protections - I agree with Mr. Cummins here, with DARPA, enaction of HIPAA, the Patriot Act, and the NSA, there have been undeniable infringements on personal privacy, regardless of the stated reasons for those violations.

8) Rejection of international organizations - since the UN has proven to be more corrupt than Congress, that organization marginalized itself, not the other way around. But instead of kicking the UN out of Turtle Bay, President Bush sent in John Bolton to help reform that odious organization. The World Court is a similar organization designed to undermine the US - why should we support that? And don’t even get me started on the worthless Kyoto Treaty.

9) Increased hatred of the USA in Islamic countries - Didn’t they hate us before? Isn’t that why the US was targeted overseas for terrorist attacks dating back to the Carter administration? The difference is now, President Bush is meeting the terrorist threat head-on (regardless of how you personally feel about the effort).

10) Increase in terrorist attacks since 9/11 - leaving the attacks in Iraq out of the equation, I believe the numbers are fairly even pre-9/11 and post 9/11. Many of those post-9/11 attacks occured as a reaction to Afghanistan, a war which nearly everyone supported.

11) Neglect of poverty in the USA and abroad - without citation, this is another rote “progressive” complaint against any conservative administration (and the Bush administration is not exactly conservative).

12) Shifting the tax from wealthy corporation and individuals to wage earners - economically speaking, this is an insipid argument, as corporation don’t pay taxes, they merely act as tax collectors. Consumers ultimately pay all taxes, even those assigned to corporations - it’s a cost of business that must be passed on.

13) Reducing (hoping to abolish) estate taxes - since the earnings of that individual have already been taxed, this is a form of double taxation and should be rendered Unconstitutional. The bleatings of a “permenant aristocracy” may play for the crowd, but the numbers don’t back that assessment up. Most of these “estates” are small family businesses, farms and homes that aren’t worth much more than a million dollars.

14)Furthering anti-intellectualism - this is an obvious partisan slap from an intellectual “elite” poet and schoolmarm. Even if it might be true.

15)Increased military spending; hostility to spending on social services - to the first part, we’re at war, and as such, I would expect military spending to increase. As to the second part, how I only wished he showed a fraction of the contempt that I have for spending on social services. Maybe then he’d veto a spending plan and address issue #1 above.

16) Increased number of American without healthcare - how is it the job of the President to provide healthcare to American citizens? That’s neither in the Constitution, nor in the Presidential Oath.

17) Rejection of minimum wage increases - for the record, minimum wage increases are economically a bad idea. Leaving that aside, that’s a Congressional issue, not a Presidential issue.

18) No-bid contracts - guilty as charged, just like every other President. Unfortunately, there are less than a handful of companies in the world that can do the work of companies like Halliburton. No easy solution to this dilemna.

19) Attempts to privatize Social Security - I have a major problem with President Bush’s attempts at SS privatization - namely that he didn’t “attempt” hard enough. The impetus behind this idea, that of an “ownership society” is economically sound, and this would have been a boon to every single working American. He should be ashamed that he did not expend more political capital to make this a reality.

20)Increasing number of Americans living in poverty - these numbers are highly fungible to begin with. Much poverty has also been wrought as a result of natural disasters beyond the scope of control of anyone.

Anyone care to tally up the scorecard there? Perhaps Mr. Cummins should stick to writing poetry and disciplining fourth-graders. I don’t think his political acumen is quite up to snuff…

By The Bible

January 6, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

Matthew 23-30

[23] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. [24] Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. [25] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. [26] Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. [27] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. [28] Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. [29] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, [30] And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

By Andy

January 6, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

or actively giving material aid and comfort

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

AntiRadical, no quite the opposite. I am encouraged that they are finally realizing that is why they have been losing elections. I think that it will only make the country stronger. I am just suprised they are openly stating this. Those two issues used to be bedrock Dem ideas, but now they are moving more towards the right side of the political spectrum. I think that is good because it more closely resembles where America stands right now.

By The Bible

January 6, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

Matthew 3: 15-21

[15] Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. [16] Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? [17] Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. [19] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. [20] Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. [21] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

By finch

January 6, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

“Sent to both of my Congressman and soon to be addressed to whoever else I can think of”

So, Andy. You have two Congressmen, eh? There’s your representative in the House, then there’s your two Senators…

That’s one.. and two.. and umm, er…

By BigDaddy

January 6, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

finch, filming for Smokey and the Bandit - the New Millenium starts next weekend. I think the plotline is based around a roadtrip to N’Awlins to pick up crawdads for a displaced Mardi Gras hoopla in Villa Rica.

What do you think we should drive - a vintage Trans AM, or go new school with something else - Viper maybe?

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

finch, most people have a state and national congressman.

By ShadowMarch

January 6, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

Any man can quote the bible, because every man uses it for his own convenient purposes.

But the first test for me to see whether I pay attention to you or not is…are you so wrapped up in your own truth that you never question it? Are you so confident about calling others hypocrits that you never concede a point about your own position?

Moses, Peter and all the greatest of prophets made mistakes. In Christian theology, only one person did not make mistakes.

If someone is so confident about their own position that they believe God is on their side, that is a pretty good indicator to me that they’re in for a rude shock.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

Ricky,

Yes, they are all corrupt, the difference now is they will be caught and held accountable. Maybe, we the people will get the government we deserve and pay for.

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

getalife, I don’t think they are all corrupt. Some like McCain and Liberman appear to be principled. However they are many like DeLay, Schumer, et al that are in the pocket of the interest groups. Hopefully they will be caught and thrown out of office.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

Ricky,

Reid and some decided to not return the money. I hope McCain is not involved but I think it will reach a point where they will have to prove they are not corrupt to the voters. There will be sites dedicated to this scandal.

By BigDaddy

January 6, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

getalife, Ricky, BigDaddy hopes that this Abramoff scandal will expose a heap of violations from both sides of the political aisle. Both parties need a cleansing (both for different reasons). Gerrymandering on a federal and state level is such that it is highly difficult to unseat an incumbent but for gross ethical violations.

We as citizens should demand better from our represenatives than the mess of spending-mad pols with whom we have saddled ourselves.

By AntiRadical

January 6, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

We’re on the same page on this one, Ricky. You may not be old enough to have experienced the continual evolution of political parties. For instance, the Republican party was considered very liberal at the time of it’s inception pre-civil war. It’s not surprising at all that the Dems are “evolving” to bring themselves more in line with majority opinion. Same happened to the Reps after Nixon. You might say that Nixonian corruption was responsible for the supposed “lilly white”, “family valued” Republican party presentation of the present and their adoption of Friedman economic philosophy. Next, you will see the Reps leaning more “centrist” as well. This is a good thing.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

Big Daddy,

I agree. It needs to happen with our government and the UN.

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

getalife, you are right about sites being dedicated to this and people from both sides will try to make it a partisan thing even though its not. There might be more Republicans invovled but its not like theres no Dems either. I am surprised Reid didn’t return the money. You would think the minority leader would try to set the example. BigDaddy, I hope you are right and we get rid of a bunch of these guys who have done nothing in life except work in Congress. They have no idea how to help those of us back home. We need to get rid of the one-trick ponies like Schumer(good God how many times is he going to be on TV talking about Alito, and you know he has already decided to vote no) and Stevens(how much pork do you really need in Alaska)

By getalife

January 6, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

I think they should resign if indicted like Libby and Duke. It would be better for them to be locked up instead of relying on the voters to vote them out.

By finch

January 6, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

“or actively giving material aid and comfort”

That’s right. Actively giving material aid and comfort involves housing, feeding, clothing and arming foreign powers or militants who seek the destruction of the US.

Merely questioning military activity or even foreign policy may be odious to many, but it’s not treasonous.

By the way, under this definition, Jane Fonda was probably guilty of treason, since I’m sure her infamous Hanoi trip added a few bucks into Ho Chi Minh’s checking account.

But that’s another story….

By Scooter

January 6, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

Getalife and Ricky, the politticians are the power brokers and will never police themselves, nor will their appointees turn on them. If people want power back to the people they should take an open minded, objective and deep look into the Fairtax.

No more favors for the politicians to dole out. No more corruptable tax code for business to run from. No more poor hating their employers and dividing America with envy and animosity. No more drug dealers and pimps not paying taxes. Foreigners will pay taxes. Prices of goods will drop by removing the tax variable from all production/costs functions. There are more upsides I just don’t have the time.

Be warned, without envy and animosity the current democratic party could not survive, so be skeptical of you sources of opinion.

Getalife, I was wondering while out last night; Do your doctors see blogging as a good therapy, do they even know or mention it? Seems like it would be good therapy for your situation?

Sorry, I was just coming in for a sniper statement to uncloud my brain and make sure it still works.

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

getalife, thats a hard question, becuase if someone resigns when indicted and then is found innocent, that kinda of defeats the purpose. At the same time these guys should be held to a higher standard. Its good to see that at least some people on this page can have a reasonable discussion.

By kimberly

January 6, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

I was unsure of the facts on lobbyists and affiliation, so I did some research. In 2003, The Washington Monthly reported this:

It took the 2000 elections, which gave Republicans the White House and Congress, to completely change the climate. In the months after, Santorum became the Senate’s point man on K Street and launched his Tuesday meetings. Working on the outside, Norquist accelerated what he calls the “K Street Project,” a database intended to track the party affiliation, Hill experience, and political giving of every lobbyist in town. With Democrats out of power, these efforts are bearing fruit. Slowly, the GOP is marginalizing Democratic lobbyists and populating K Street with loyal Republicans. (DeLay alone has placed a dozen of his aides at key lobbying and trade association jobs in the last few years—“graduates of the DeLay school,” as they are known.) Already, the GOP and some of its key private-sector allies, such as PhRMA, have become indistinguishable.

If you do some research on the K Street Project, I think you’ll see that lobbyists like Abramoff are indeed affiliated with one party or another.

By finch

January 6, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

Ricky, every American has 3 voting members of Congress, two Senators and a Represenative, unless he or she lives in DC, Puerto Rico, etc.

People sending messages on the Iraq war to state lawmakers are wasting their time.

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, noone is arguing that lobbyist aren’t associated to one party or the other. Tom Daschle is a lobbyist. What we are saying is that both parties have corrupt individuals in them. Lobbying isn’t an evil thing. The ones that do it legally and morally right are just advocating a certain position. It becomes a problem when they are bribing congressmen or when congressmen vote whichever way the lobbyists wants them too. See Schumer and DeLay et al. That is why we need principled people in Congress.

By finch

January 6, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

Applause for your post on the power of lobbyists, kimberly. It’s all highly partisan politics.

Every American should take a walk along K Street around Farragut Square. You can smell the money.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

Scooter,

My doctors say I should rehab my brain by information overload by blogging, surfing, reading, TV, movies. They do a lot of scans but no change. It does give me something to do and keeps my brain active. Unfortunately, the damage is irreversable. My left side is gone but it could be worse. I do not think Sharon will make it although Dick Clark is a good example.

By Andy

January 6, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

Funny, no word “material” in this reading:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

Of course lobbying is a partisan endeavor. You have the abortion lobbyists, the gun lobbyist, the environmental lobbyists, etc. The point is they are dirty on both sides. For example take a look at Chuck Shuchmers speeches on Roberts and Alito. They are carbon copies of the talking points from moveon, NARAL, etc. You know there is no way he is ever going to vote for a Republican nominated justice. He is in the pocket of those groups. Just like DeLay is in the pockets of NRA. That is what we need to clean up.

By kimberly

January 6, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

Thanks, finch. I think it’s disgusting. Whenever I write my representatives, I feel that it’s necessary to remind them that they actually work for, and took an oath to serve, the PEOPLE they represent, and the general welfare (as stated in the Consitution), and NOT their party or anyone else. Sadly, the guys in Washington all seem to think it’s one big Frat Party. Brother Bluto says vote for this one, against that one, and trot this pie chart out for the C-SPAN cameras on Tuesday. Kegger on Friday!

By BigDaddy

January 6, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

I’d take half a getalife over the vast majority of regulars on this board. getalife, things could be worse, though - check out this guy’s t-shirt…

By ShadowMarch

January 6, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

From Wikipedia-

“A parrot is a bird belonging to the family Psittacidae. Parrots have a characteristic curved beak shape with the upper mandible having slight mobility in the joint with the skull and a generally erect stance.”

Furthermore

“Many species can imitate human speech or other sounds, and at least one researcher, Irene Pepperberg, has made controversial claims for the learning ability of one species; an African Grey Parrot Alex, has been trained to use words to identify objects, describe them, count them, and even answer complex questions such as “How many red squares?” (with over 80% accuracy). Other scholars claim that parrots are only repeating words with no idea of their meanings and point to Pepperberg’s results as being nothing but an expression of operant conditioning.”

By getalife

January 6, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

BD,

Life is good

By Scooter

January 6, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Getalife, good deal. You certainly are committed to your rehab and I’m confident it will pay off for you, however minimal a payoff it may be. Stay strong. Do you have a “C** Strong” bracelet from Lance Armstrong’s “Live Strong” campaign ,if not you should get one.

Anyone who complains about politicians having to much power and continues to give them more responsibilities/power over the people and protects this communist progressive tax code… well, they are creating their own gripe.

By PinkoAndy

January 6, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

Well BigDaddy, Thank you sincerely for your comments. I have no problem with spirited and reasoned debate, and I respect your right to disagree. Bravo.

Of course I still think your wrong, and you rely mostly on talking points, but that’s what makes the US great.

I agree with your comments on numbers 6 and 7, but that’s it. Every other one of the points we see philosophically differently. I think that Liberals and Conservatives (true conservatives, not neocons and the current admin) have more in common, and can work on each one of these issues so that a mutually agreeable solution can come to be.

I have a meeting soon so I’ll just address a few… 1) Tax cuts. When someone making $100 Million dollars a year pays a frational percentage from someone making $40K? Of course they pay more total dollars. They made more total dollars.

8) The jury is still out on whether the UN is more corrupt than Congress ;-)

9) There were groups that hated us before, but after 9-11 we had lots of sympathy and support from Islamic nations. After invading Iraq in the slipshod, unilateral way that we did and we’ve become the best recruiters for Al Queda on earth.

13) There have been Democratic proposals to protect small business owners and farmers, but Republicans want all or nothing. There is no middle ground with the Reps.

16) Universal Healthcare would be the best thing to ever happen to the US economy, ever. I know we’ll disagree, but I always wonder how those HMO’s always seem to build themselves new buildings…?

17) Minimum wage increases would allow low income workers to better support themselves, and rely less on “Social Services�.

19) Social Security… do you really want the stockbroker industry, with all of their lobbyist might (see #8) to manage your retirement? The SSA manages just fine.

Gotta go. Life’s good when debate is real.

BTW- I used to be Andy’sDontwannabe, but our buddy Andy named me Pinko.
I’m a loud, proud Pinko Liberal, Randi Rhodes fan and former Jesse Ventura voter (well, that’s another story).
Off to work!

By getalife

January 6, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

Scooter,

Yes I do, Lance is the man, an icon in the bicycle world. Thanks.

You sure do like the fair tax. I will have to read up on it.

By finch

January 6, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

Andy, you’re right. The word “material” is not in the Constitution’s definition of treason. But that’s what the courts have ruled.

So called “thought crimes” aren’t crimes. You can talk trash all you want about the US. That’s legal. Just don’t follow through.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with your 2 Congressmen.

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

PinkoAndy, do you not remember the Arab countries that had people dancing in the streets after the 9/11 attacks? They hated us before and will continue to hate us for religious reasons and because of cultural reasons. Minimum wage increases are fine for big corporations but they hurt small business. Many times they have to cut jobs due to the wage increase. Universal Healthcare is a pipe dream. Take a look at Canada system, it just doesn’t work that well. People wait months for routine surgeries. The governemnt needs to do a better job of providing incentives for small businesses to provide health care for their employees. Why not give people a choice about Social Security? They don’t have to use private accounts, but let the individual choose. Individuals are almost always better at managing money than the government. We probably have a philosophical difference on tax cuts, but why punish people for being successful? The richest 5% of Americans pay about 50% of all tax revenue. That doesn’t seem fair to me. Why not have a flat tax of 15-20% that everyone pays the same. We would take in the same amount of money without all the loopholes and we would stop wasting money on the IRS. We will probably never convince each other to change our minds, but I enjoy the discussion

By Scooter

January 6, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

Getalife, please do, I have been studyng it for six years now, so ask me questions if you want. There is also a Fairtax Yahoo Group, maybe you could do some rehab there?

By getalife

January 6, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

Scooter,

Thanks, I will. I pounded the corruption issue yesterday in the blog world. Lots of fun.

By BigDaddy

January 6, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

PinkoAndy, thanks for the feedback, I was beginning to worry that no one would take the bait. As Mr. Cummins cited nothing in his arguments, I did not see any reason to bust out the hard numbers.

As to the tax cuts issue - I don’t see what your point is - could you clarify that, please?

9) you may be right, but long-term democratic reform in the Middle East would curtail the overall levels of violence. It is an overall audacious and progressive plan, and it is way too early to judge its efficacy.

13) estate taxes - as I mentioned, it is a form of double taxation for any estate, regardless of the size, and hence Unconstitutional.

16) I work in healthcare and have long studied healthcare economics, and let me tell you unequivocally that Universal healthcare would be a national travesty. The system we have is not so hot either, though, and is in need of massive reform. I’d be happy to discuss remedies with you as you’d like.

17) Minimum wage increases act to increase unemployment rates. Upon further examination of effects of minimum wage increases, you would see that, as well as that most minimum wage earners earn the minimum wage for less than 12 months - their hourly rates are increased more rapidly than mine, I assure you.

19) SS reform. No, I want individuals to manage their own retirement. As of now I’m expecting a negative return on my social security “investment”. Historical long-term stock market returns are approximately 12% (a “spider” fund is a purchase of a fraction of the entire market). Which is a better investment?

I’m a proud Libertarian, though many have questioned my credentials. Kudos for voting for Governor Jesse - that was fun. Too bad he couldn’t get the brothels legalized; I’d have moved to Minnesota for sure…

By A Libertarian

January 6, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

“I’m a proud Libertarian” LOL!!!!!

More like a proud Bush groupie.

By BigDaddy

January 6, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

Here comes the little troll now… See, I told you.

A Lib - do you ever actually read anything I write, or do you just start foaming at the mouth when you see my screen name? Do you have anything of value to bring to the table? Since the answer is always “no”, do you have anything that is at least mildly humorous to bring to the table? Since the answer to that query is always “no”, could you do us all a favor and stop marginalizing the Libertarian Party with your clubhouse admittance policies?

By A Libertarian

January 6, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

OK, here is something humorous……

Big Daddy is a libertarian.

LOL!!!!

By getalife

January 6, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

Too bad he couldn’t get the brothels legalized;

They are legal outside of the city limits of Vegas.

By ShadowMarch

January 6, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

Feed The Trolls (Borrowed from Disney)

Early each day to the steps of Saint Paul’s The little old troll woman comes In her own special way to the people she call, “Come, buy my bags full of crumbs Come feed the little trolls, Show them you care And you’ll be glad if you do Their young ones are hungry Their nests are so bare All it takes is tuppence from you Feed the trolls, tuppence a bag Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag Feed the trolls,” that’s what she cries While overhead, her trolls fill the skies

All around the cathedral the saints and apostles Look down as she sells her wares Although you can’t see it, You know they are smiling Each time someone shows that he cares

Though her words are simple and few Listen, listen, she’s calling to you “Feed the trolls, tuppence a bag Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag”

Though her words are simple and few Listen, listen, she’s calling to you “Feed the trolls, tuppence a bag Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag”

By Out Here

January 6, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

Dance when you notice the cameras.

By Out Here

January 6, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

I have to take it before a liberal gets it;

Dunce when you here the news

By Dusty

January 6, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

Er, troll lady, would you please come out of the shadows and tell me what you are talking about. Guess I haven’t had enough coffee today but there are so many trolls, oh so many. So many nice insults! So much bru ha ha! Etc, etc, etc, .. Would you be so kind as to pinpoint your “point”?

RW, where are youuuu?

By ShadowMarch

January 6, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

From Wikipedia about “Ender’s Game”

“Peter, at the age of 12, convinces Valentine to use their parents’ network identities (and eventually their own) to submit to the world great and influential writings under the names of Locke (Peter) and Demosthenes (Valentine). Together they keep the world united, gain respect, and are paid handsomely for their columns.”

They do this by taking diametrically opposed positions and influencing the debate by collaborating about the question.

To quote Orwell

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

By kimberly

January 6, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

Shadow, that quote is from a Rage Against the Machine song. {;->

By ShadowMarch

January 6, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Last Quote

George Washington-“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally”

I speak in riddles so that those who do not want to understand cannot.

I speak with clarity so that those who are truly looking can understand that sometimes they are asking the wrong question.

“Seeing is believing” - Weird Ghost Hobo Thing from “The Polar Express”.

In other words….ranting against people with whom you have no idea what their true background, agenda, experience or ulterior motive is an excellent way to feel good, but a complete waste of your time for anything else. An unedited vent.

There is, of course, a lot more to what I said too, but that’s a good starting point.

By Lol

January 6, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Yes troll lady explain. Dusty is concerned that his/her role here as head troll may be in jeopardy. Although Dusty really has nothing to worry about.

Dusty: 2,318 posts on this blog. Only 17 of those were not trolling or propping up RW, and had value.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

Mass graves for the pump and the price is set

Who controls the past now controls the future Who controls the present now controls the past Who controls the past now controls the future Who controls the present now?

Now testify

By Dusty

January 6, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

Shadowy,

He who controls the posts controls the blog. Obviously they don’t mind the present smoke and fire. I’m trying to think what Smokey the Bear said but it escapes me. Maybe it was “I can’t BEAR this.” Or was that Abramoff? I think I need some diametrical collaboration.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

I like this one

By finch

January 6, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

ShadowMarch, “Ender’s Game” is a cool science fiction book, and Orson Scott Card is a great writer. But his fantasy world where kids use something like the Web to turn society on it’s head doesn’t look anything like our reality. Even adults can’t pull that off. Not yet, anyways.

That’s what makes free speeech so great. It allows anyone to pitch ideas. So what if most of those ideas are riddled with lapses in logic, misinformation, outright lies and other such tomfoolery? Those will be justifiably turned into garden mulch.

The few that survive might actually make a difference.

That’s why I so love the First Amendment. It gives folks like you, me, Andy, AntiRadical, BigDaddy, kimberly, getalife, midori, RW and everbody else here the opportunity to sometimes make utter fools of ourselves, while (maybe) we actually learn something in the process.

Speaking of which, thanks to BigDaddy and Pinko for the downright civil (for this place) debate on the HuffPost commentary by Mr. Cummins.

By Lol

January 6, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

Make that 17 out of 2,319.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

Bush just said Hastert is doing a heck of a job. Doh!

By Dusty

January 6, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

Lo and behold,

Thanks for the diametrical collaboration. I am glad to know that you are such a successful counter, even beyond TEN.

But thanks for the compilation. Who would have thought it? Now I know why these blogs are thriving. I shall try to be even more helpful.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

Government does not create wealth. Huh? Really? No

Criminals.

By Daniel

January 6, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

Thirty-five Iraq War vets are runnning for Federal office, either Congress or the Senate. There is hope.

By Daniel

January 6, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

Somebody bite. How many R’s? ; how many D’s?

By kimberly

January 6, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

Daniel, how many of those 35 Iraq war vets are running for office as Republicans?

BTW, to answer an earlier question, Dusty is a She-troll.

By Daniel

January 6, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

Kimberly: I thought you would never ask! 33/2; D to R.

By Midori

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

Daniel,

I think at least one or two of those vets are Republicans

By Scooter

January 6, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

Shadow March, is this you? Are you ordinarily mad?

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

Daniel, does that surprise you? Think about it for a minute. What types of people are more likely to run? I would say people that are unhappy about the current administration. So it makes sense to me that most would be Democrats. Also, military members that are pleased with the current administration are more likely to stay in the military and continue to serve. I don’t think you can draw any underlying conclusions from those numbers although I know you would like to.

By kimberly

January 6, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

So then, let’s be clear: what you’re saying is this: 33 of 35 Iraqi war vets running for office are running as Democrats? And this information can be verified through any number of news sources? Wow. I guess the AJC blog posters who claim that Dems don’t serve this country are um… what’s the word… WRONG!

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

kimberly, I don’t recall many people saying Dems don’t serve their country. Obviously that is false. I will say that the military is overwhelming conservative. Just look at the percentage that voted for Bush. Just because someone is in the opposite political party doesn’t mean you can’t respect them for serving their country. I deeply respect guys like Murtha and others that have served. I just don’t necessarily agree with them thats all

By Daniel

January 6, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

Yes, that is the fact. Many are former Guardsmen and women. Go to Tammy Duckworth for Congress. Tammy lost both legs and an arm in Iraq. She was a helicopter pilot. She is running for Congress from Illinois. I do not care to read into this. But I will say. Democracy works best with “Checks and Balances”. We are prosperous as a result. When one faction of one party has too much power, we suffer. We’re suffering right now. The cowards there now need to look at Tammy.

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

Daniel, why do you insist on calling them cowards? I saw an interview with Tammy about 12 months ago when she was in Walter Reed, she is very well spoken and seems to be intelligent. Her opinion on the war has changed a lot since then, but that might have to do with her being out of the Army now. Only she knows. What will be interesting to see is how many of these guys/girls win. One has lost already and I think he is running for the Senate now in Ohio. Can’t remember his name off the top of my head. But that will be an interesting portion of the election to keep an eye on.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

I would say this is disrepectful

By finch

January 6, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

This is so good I gotta share it.

While folks of all political stripes here at Mike’s place are slamming Jack Abramoff and his bipartisan cronys for their dirty euchre politics, a bastion of right wing journalism remains silent. The Wall Street Journal, a conservative newspaper that actually makes a profit, and that took great delight in spotlighting every wrinkle, real or imagined in the Clinton administration, hasn’t said jack editorially about Jack.

Now THIS is hypocricy!

Meanwhile, according to a Nexus search by Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz, neither O’Reilly nor Hannity has mentioned Abramoff on Fox this week.

Not once.

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

You are right getalife, that is pretty bad

By Daniel

January 6, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

Paul Hackett. But, Ricky, here is my point. Leadership by example. If these people believe in this war, let them send their families, their children, their nephews and neices. Few R’s that I know are sending their kids to this war. To support this war and expect someone else’s kid to fight and die is pure cowardice. This is why this effort will fail. Not the claptrap you hear from the government.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

Did you read the comments?

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

finch, both O’Reilly and Hannity had segments on Abramoff two nights ago. You want to talk about hyprocrisy, how about the ACLU fighting against searches on the New York Subway, but having a sign in their lobby stating that you will be searched when you enter their building. Pretty funny huh. The ACLU has become nothing more than a political action group. Just look at the three full page ads it has taken out in the NY Times the past couple of weeks.

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

Daniel, did you espouse this same arguement when Clinton sent troops to Bosnia, Somalia, and Kosovo. Did you want the leading Democrats to send their children then? What about the Dems that supported this war? Do you want the ones that voted for it to send their children? Do you want Chelsea over there? You can’t make that arguement with out including both sides of the political spectrum. And please don’t say we need a draft. That would be the worst thing to happen to our military

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry to have missed most of the day so far, I’ve been trying to get over my incredible awe of “AntiRadical”

We’re on the same page on this one, Ricky. You may not be old enough to have experienced the continual evolution of political parties. For instance, the Republican party was considered very liberal at the time of it’s inception pre-civil war.

To have been aware enough through personal experience, as to the proclivities of the political parties pre-civil war “AntiRadical” has to be about 160 years old. I am truly impressed.

finch,

I had Cynthia McKinney for awhile, I’m pretty sure I had 2 Congresspeople at the time.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

The right’s position of “well the Dems did it too” is vary lame. They should talk about it and fix it. At least some charities are getting some of the money.

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

getalife, both sides use that arguement. Sometimes it is valid though, when people complain about something the R’s are doing but said nothing when the D’s did. I am not talking about breaking the law mind you.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

RW,

About time you got up. Now, I need a nap, my spelling is bad.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this

Ricky,

I don’t like much about the ACLU, but there is a huge difference between fighting government searches to enter a public place and private searches to enter a private building. I disagree with them on this particular issue, but there is no hypocrisy, on their part, in your example.

(Now if I could only find a definition for hypocrisy.)

By Daniel

January 6, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

Yes, yes, a thousand times: YES. We live in a democracy. “Of, by and for the people”, remember. Read our history. The geniuses who founded our Nation said it: “To this we commit our wealth, lives and sacred honor…” George Washington was a soldier who knew about fighting and killing first hand. My view is that if we as a Democracy are at war; all of us need to commit to that task. Five Americans died yesterday. Their families know of their deaths, their friends know. What is the national sacrifice to this war effort? What is the sacrifice of the protected? Should the rest stand around and pretend? This government is packed with rat cowards. We desperately need a change. America will be the better for it.

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

RW, I think there is simply because they are advocating one position and then actually practicing another. I understand the difference between gov’t doing it and private sector, but it is still hypocritical in my mind

By getalife

January 6, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

Ricky,

Yes, they are both involved but should be discussing how to fix it like McCain’s new proposal.

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

Well Daniel, I disagree with you on this, but I respect your opinion. Just out of curiosity though, what do you think you should sacrifice for this war? I am not trying to be a smart a* just wondering since you make the point that we should all be committed to the task?

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

finch,

Being from Chicago maybe you can help me with this. I saw Tammy Duckworth being interviewed. She was asked why she was running in a different district than where she lives. She said she identified more with the people of the other district. She was then asked if she was moving and she said no.

Everybody seems OK with it, so is there some Illinois law that let’s you run wherever you want?

By Ricky

January 6, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

getalife, I agree with you on that. Too many times those in Washington do nothing but talk about a problem, never actually doing anything to fix it.

By Dusty

January 6, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

Ah, a lovefest between Daniel and Kimberly with Midori as cheerleader. Even the losing team has to put up a good front. Ricky is standing resolute and holding his own.

As to the present line of thought or whatever is being presented, Democratic Iraqi war vets are running for Congress. Who cares about their political party? Let us hope, that if they are elected, they will be as strong, intelligent and honest as President George W. Bush.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I’m with you on reform, but does McCain have to be involved? God knows what shady groups he’ll stick us with, we might end up with a government run exclusively by Taos, New Mexico art dealers. Or worse yet he may defer to neighbors.

By Daniel

January 6, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

Ricky, I am a vet. One of my kids wants to go. So far, I have convinced him to wait. I believe in “Mandatory National Service”. Not a military draft, necessarily. Everyone, all of us, should perform some national service. As it they say, “Freedam is not free”. But, not to worry. The greedy b*stards in this government lack the moral courage to enact MNS. I am not a partisan. America will be the stronger for it. Yes, all of us should commit to the task. How do you feel? None, repeat NONE, of the children of this government are in service! By government, I mean ALL, Dems, Reps. Liberals, Conservatives, ALL. If leadership by example means anything to you; tell us what you feel?

By RE

January 6, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

Strong, intelligent, and honest as George Bush…..actually lets hope they may be a little more intelligent and honest

By Jesus

January 6, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

By getalife

January 6, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

RW, You mean finch, you two are getting along better. Looks like they are starting to tall about it

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I thought you were going to take a nap. finch is McCains neighbor? I’m shocked, shocked.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

RW,

Yes nap time. Hold the fort.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I’m heading back out, someone else will have to hold the fort. Looks like “Dusty” has them stirred up.

Maybe someone can go save “Michael H” from talking to himself on yesterday’s thread.

By Michael H.

January 6, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

Obviously, I’m not RW. And if you and your buddies want to read the final refutation of your ad hoc, laughable attempts to respond, go back and read them. Though I think RE did enough already.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

Michael H,

I think you only read what you want to see. Maybe RE’s point is valid, he just attributes it to the wrong group.

Your refutation is as laughable as the study itself.

I’m out, enjoy!

By Michael H.

January 6, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

“W” strong, intelligent, and honest”?

Sometimes one horse laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms. (H.L. HL Menchen)

By RE

January 6, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

I thought I was being pretty thorough, I guess not thorough enough. I will try harder next time, I would like us all to at least agree on the past and draw our own conclusions from it.

By BigDaddy

January 6, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

Too bad he couldn’t get the brothels legalized - BigDaddy

They are legal outside of the city limits of Vegas - getalife

getalife, how might you know that? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you. And ready to take a trip…

By getalife

January 6, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

Big Daddy,

I plead the fifth on that one.

By Michael H.

January 6, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

RE,

I thought that you were quite thorough yesterday. These guys cannot be reached by reason, argument, evidence of any kind, or remedial education. The failing is entirely theirs.

Notice, as always with these characters, that RW, offered no argument, no content, just sarcasm. It’s like attempting to argue with a child, and a young one at that.

By Ricky

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

Daniel, I served two tours in Iraq myself and have given serious consideration to the MNS as you mentioned. I think it would be good for all 18 yr olds to give two years of their life to public service. And it doesn’t have to be the militray. It could be the Peace Corps, Diplomatic Corps, etc. I think it would benefit both the country and the individuals involved. As for your statement that none of the government officials have children serving, I think I remember reading that a Congressman had a son serving in Iraq. I am not saying that is enough, in fact it illusrtates that it is not even close to enough. Well it has been a good discussion with you. I am always glad to find that there are grown ups here that are not entirely partisan.

By kimberly

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

Ricky, I seem to remember Clinton’s Americorps program, which was not mandatory, but through which young people could serve in such capacities and receive college money incentives or something. I thought it was a good way to encourage young people to become involved in something beyond themselves.

By Dusty

January 6, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

RW,

Hurry back. Michael H. has lowered himself from the lofty climes of academe to the dastardly levels of blogs. From silly to syllogisms. Took him three posts to tell us how childish we are. My teddy bear and I were insulted.

NEWS FLASH—finch may live in Atlanta. McKinney & Fonda were seen moving his furniture.

By Andy

January 6, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

Sent to two of my Congressman and soon to be addressed, er scratch that, sent to whoever else I could think of:

Why would this statement not initiate an article of impeachment or a censure measure against Representative John Murtha? “I worry about a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there’s a victory when I think it should be a redeployment as quickly as possible and let the Iraqis handle the whole thing.� How much more of this open, subversive anti American advocacy is going to be allowed to occur in a time of war? Do you realize your lack of action is emboldening America’s enemies?

Please feel free to cut and paste this message into the contact section of your local representatives webpage.

Impeach Murtha, traitor.

By finch

January 6, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

Ye Gods, RW? You’re from Chicago, too?? I must have missed that.

As to residency requirements for Congress, I think Representatives have to live in the state they represent, but not their district, but I’ll have to check on that…

By RE

January 6, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

So Andy, I guess any suggestion as to the handeling of the war aside from the one advocated by the president would be considered treason?

Just a question here, do you really think that there is someone in Iraq debating weather or not to plant an IED on the road, but what Mutha said pushed him into action?

By Andy

January 6, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

You know, certain posters on here have brought up the fact that some of the better newspapers, for instance the Washington Times, do a lot of good work for their readers without overcharging for their services, like the AJC does. This causes them to occasionally run their business in the red. Now, you can go to their website and, for free, receive the same content that a full paying subscriber has access to. They don’t hide behind a subscriber wall like the NY Times does, they truly do function as a public service, instead of just saying they do.

My point being, being able to receive the truth from the Washington Times, without the pinko agenda being shoved down my throat, has been a valuable service to me and has saved me time as I don’t have to verify their content like you would with a lib paper. I have been receiving this valuable service for free, and could go on like this, but I have chosen to help them by subscribing to their National Weekly Edition for a pittance of $59.95 a year. This is a small token of appreciation for the very worthwhile product that many of us turn to for information. I would hope that you could also help them in this small way, if at all possible, look here for details.

By Dusty

January 6, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

Andy,

I am not sure that impeachment would be right for Murtha. I feel that mental impairment might be a better diagnosis. Truly. The man has gone from patriot and defender to the likes of a traitor. It sounds like dementia. I wish he would check into Walter Reid before he says any more. This is a sad case with more causes than we know about.

By kimberly

January 6, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

RE, you’ll get no reasonable discourse from him. He hates Murtha for being a REAL man — one with the ‘nads stand up and speak truth, though it be unpopular and out of step amongst his goose-stepping colleagues.

By Andy

January 6, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

RE: You know, it would be greatly appreciated if you would make some type of effort to keep yourself informed of current events. I realize you pinkos like to take the credit of being brilliant without actually having to learn anything, so I’ve even taken the time to include the pertinent information in my posts. For instance, this is from this morning:

Appearing at a town meeting in Arlington, Virginia, with fellow Democratic Rep. James Moran, Murtha said, “A year ago, I said we can’t win this militarily, and I got all kinds of criticism.� Now, Murtha told the strongly antiwar audience, “I worry about a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there’s a victory when I think it should be a redeployment as quickly as possible and let the Iraqis handle the whole thing.�

This is open and subversive advocating of American defeat. Period. He is hoping for our Armed Forces to lose in Iraq for political gain or maybe some depraved mental sickness he has, I have no idea. All I know is that if I were an enemy of the United States, I would be greatly comforted and motivated by the things this stupid pervert old man has been saying. It needs to stop, one way or the other. We have troops in the field and he is motivating their sworn enemies.

By Jay not jay

January 6, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

It seems the libs believe that the liberal news outlets are only out “for the good of man” and never to get out a story for any kind of profit, while the right leaning news outlets are just for herding of the neocons.

By Andy

January 6, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

He hates Murtha for being a REAL man- Well, actually I hate him because of things like this- There’s your “real MAN” for ya.

By Andy

January 6, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

So all of you libs agree with the “Real MAN” Murtha? Do you too hope America loses in Iraq?

By sickoftheneocons

January 6, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

Has there been any kind of release on the results of the Dec. 15 elections?

By getalife

January 6, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

“I like guys who got five deferments and (have) never been there and send people to war, and then don’t like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done,” Murtha said.

I think this is Daniel’s point.

Yes kimberly, a real man.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

“The US cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home.”

John Murtha, Democratic Congressman

Now its Mission Accomplished!

By Jay not jay

January 6, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

If Murtha is so right, then why aren’t all the other Dems in Congress jumping up on their chairs and cheering for the same thing?

By quoting

January 6, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

yes, Pat Robertson is batsh!t crazy.

By Mr. Godzilla

January 6, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this

Dear Mrs Godzilla, Our daughter is not marrying a pinko

By ShadowMarch

January 6, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

Speak up and this will happen to you.

By kimberly

January 6, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

Jay not jay, ‘Cause too many of them are wussies who rolled over, trying to appease, trying to find some centrist middle ground, trying to work with their collegues in a bi-partisan manner. Slowly, they’re starting to realize that doesn’t work. The bully will kick sand in your eyes no matter how nice you play. Thank goodness some of them are waking up to that fact!

By getalife

January 6, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

Jay,

They have no backbone and worry about their political future. Murtha was right, it is political now.

By Jay not jay

January 6, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

Really? they are trying to work bi-partisan? Could have fooled me.

By ShadowMarch

January 6, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

1+1=2. 1/2 of 2 is 1.

1+1001=1002. 1/2 of 1002 is 501.

By kimberly

January 6, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

Okay, let me break it down s-l-o-w-l-y, Einstien. The party that has the majority makes the committees. They let minority members ON the committees, but they don’t let them DO anything. The minority members try to make nice becaue they have NO POWER, so they try to appease the majority so they can at least have some participation. This doesn’t work. I watched Sensenbrenner on C-SPAN shut off a minority member’s microphone and walk out IN THE MIDDLE of a hearing before business was concluded, even though it was completely against the rules of the committe and of the hearing. Why? Becaues he’s a BULLY. He doesn’t HAVE to play by the rules. Watch the big tub o’ rancid lard on C-SPAN sometime. (No spin, just a camera and a mike.)

You say the Democrats are not trying to be bi-partisan? Is your definition of bi-partican rolling over and agreeing every single time? I think a congressman who argues a different point on behalf of the people he represents is doing his JOB. The Republicans call a man an “obstructionist” for doing his JOB, because they are BULLIES.

By finch

January 6, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

RW, it was with tremendous sympathy that I learned that Cynthia McKinney once represented you in Congress. She’s such a looney.

If there is a hell, and a special corner for lawmakers, McKinney will be linked for all eternity by a 3 foot chain to this former California Congressman.

I see the defender of the Moonie Times is still beating his drum. Yes, you can get free access to it. Even free emails. I don’t know how I got on it’s mailing list, but I am. In fact, I can’t get off it! Tenacious little buggers.

“This causes them to occasionally run their business in the red.”

Occasionally?? In 23 years, the Moonie Times has never made a dime. That’s because (almost) nobody pays to read it.

For a look at what all politically savvy Washingtonians of all stripes read, there’s the Washington Post, the paper with 7 times the circulation of it’s money hemmorraging, flatulent, one-trick pony rival. It’s contents are entirely free, and registration is easy.

Try it, you’ll like it.

By RE

January 6, 2006 05:17 PM | Link to this

Andy,

So far as current events go, I do try to stay informed, what you put down has nothing in it other than Murtha’s assesment of what is happening in Iraq.

Here is a thought, how about you tell me what victory in Iraq is. I would really like to understand your point of view, and please no rhetoric or diatribes. I would like us to have some type of victory in Iraq, but I cannot think of any possible outcome beneficial for the US. Yes, we overthrew a dictator, and now we have a democratically elected government, although it is a fundemental islamic party that claimed a mojority of the votes, which I would not see as a step forward. Also, in the places that are more secure, such as in the north and south, the peace is being kept not by US troops or by a national Iraqi Military, but by tribal militias such as the peshmerga Kurds in the North and the Iranian backed Shia in the South. I think the only country who is coming out ahead from this conflict will be Iran, who will now have a much greater influence over Iraq, a long time enemy, in addition to greater access to seaports and oil. Iraq will most likely devolve into civil was in the next few years, and I son’t see how any amount of US involvement will put a stop to that.

Please, no rhetoric

By kimberly

January 6, 2006 05:34 PM | Link to this

RE, I’d love to hear it too. (Theme from Jeopardy plays….)

By Dusty

January 6, 2006 05:36 PM | Link to this

Anyone who cannot see what we have accomplished in Iraq either wants to be blind or is blind and deaf. Our troops have done great things for the Iraqis and for us. They are training an army and police to protect and established the Iraqis own country. There is the foundation for democracy. The cost is great. But the cost of cut & run would be far greater in lives and money. Americans are not accustomed to being cowards and we are not going to start now. Have pity on an old man (Murtha) but don’t follow him into a ditch. This is a war that we are winning.

By RE

January 6, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this

What is this victory?

How will we stop a civil war in Iraq?

By getalife

January 6, 2006 05:43 PM | Link to this

Talk about pity, now they blame Mr. Murtha for not meeting recruitment goals. Pitiful.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this

finch,

I’m not from Chicago, unless you count the week I spent around Wrigley and at Harry Carey’s one day. That’s why I asked you.

By kimberly

January 6, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this

You’re right Dusty. Americans HAVE done good things in Iraq. More often than not, Americans do good things.

The question remains: what constitutes “Victory?” How will we know when that has happened? And more importantly, HOW does it benefit the United States (of America, not of Halliburton) to retain our presence there? How many billions does this cost every month? I’m still wondering why I’m supposed to feel safer when the military bases are closing down HERE, and we’re building more than a dozen THERE. How can we be strong when all our money goes THERE and not HERE?

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this

RE,

How will we stop a civil war in Iraq?

One way is to not to follow Mothra’s advice to cut-and-run until their security forces are ready. I think you guys want a civil war just so you can blame the President.

By kimberly

January 6, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

RW, you really didn’t answer the question. You instead presumed to know what other people want. Can you answer the question? Other defenders of this war are having trouble answering it too, so don’t feel bad.

By RE

January 6, 2006 05:57 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, I think the cost is a little over 1 Billion per week, but I am not certain.

The idea of democracy is one I support, however it does not make a nation more or less peaceful. In many instances, democracy works counter to stability by allowing the most radical elements valid representation, for proof look to Egypt and Palastine where the more radical parties are gaining control. Having an Iraq as a soverign valid democratically elected country is a good thing in general, but if the government they elect is a radical Islamic anti-american government, that is not a step forward.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 06:04 PM | Link to this

This just in : Duke was wearing a wire for the FBI.

By Andy

January 6, 2006 06:05 PM | Link to this

RE: What are you talking about, no rhetoric? Murtha openly calls for the defeat of the United States in Iraq and you tell me to stop with the rhetoric? Do you people realize how far gone you are? This is not normal by any stretch of the imagination to wish for the defeat of the country you live in. I’m serious, you people should look into forming a focus group if that’s what it takes to identify your sickness. Think about it for a minute.

As far as victory, I hope Kimberly hasn’t wet her pants in anticipation, we have already achieved our goals, so figuratively speaking, we have already won. Saddam has been removed from power and his threat to the United States has been neutralized. If you clowns really want to complain about a freely elected government, especially after you accused us of meddling in their affairs, go right ahead.

Victory in the war on terror is an entirely different matter. Contrary to pinko belief, Afghanistan and Bin Laden were not the only game in town. Bush is right, we may never “win” this war. All we can do is bait the fanatics out on to the battlefield and slaughter them wholesale. We are doing quite a good job of this right now. No attacks on the homeland, Zarqawi crying like a baby about his predicament.

It still leaves the terrorist sponsor states to be dealt with. Iran, Syria maybe a few more if they don’t get the message. Until they stand down, this war could last for centuries. If they get tired of being invaded and slaughtered, we could achieve victory by the end of the decade.

That help?

Impeach Murtha!

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 06:07 PM | Link to this

kimberly,

Yes, it’s the same plan as most of our military and their Commander in Chief. Stay in place and continue training the Iraqi security forces until they can handle things themselves.

By Andy

January 6, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this

Speaking of bullies: I just told the RNC, who I usually don’t mind giving a hunnard or two every now and again, that if they ever want to see any more of my money, Murtha either has to be censured, imprisoned or shot, any of these are fine with me. Last time I threatened them like that, they ditched Harriet Myers. If Murtha owes any of you money, you might want to get it from him before long.

Impeach Murtha!

By getalife

January 6, 2006 06:14 PM | Link to this

Back to ethics, this is funny

By getalife

January 6, 2006 06:17 PM | Link to this

New GOP talking point : Murtha.

Does anybody else see how weak that is?

By getalife

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

Here is a new talking point : Jack Abramoff and Duke wearing a wire.

By Midori

January 6, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

what’s with Bush always playing dressup?

By Andy

January 6, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

THE DRUDGE REPORT has learned from exclusive sources that Senate Democrats have put into place a plan that includes one last push to take down the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito as he heads into his confirmation hearing next week…. MORE… Senate Democrats intend to zero in on Alito’s alleged membership to an organization, a witness will claim, that was sexist, racist and out-of-the-mainstream on a variety of issues… MORE…

He was a member of the Boy Scouts! He wants America to win in Iraq!

Impeach Murtha!

By getalife

January 6, 2006 06:24 PM | Link to this

Like this

By kimberly

January 6, 2006 06:34 PM | Link to this

Andy, you and I have something in common. I told the DNC if they wanted any more of MY money, they’d have to put Howard Dean in charge. Hey, they DID! If your boys listen to YOU, then we can high-five each other on our amazing scope of influence. Cooool!

Still, thanks for totally illustrating my earlier point about bullies. I suppose you’ll kick some more sand in my face now if it’ll make you feel manly.

So… are you saying that we’ve already won in Iraq, so we should spend billions more for years and years and roll around the globe invading and killing people? Is that what you’re saying? War forever?

By Midori

January 6, 2006 06:34 PM | Link to this

Well, some one has some credibility

By RE

January 6, 2006 06:37 PM | Link to this

Ask for an answer on victory in Iraq, get half thought out circuitous statements regurgitating RNC talking points.

Here is the problem: We already won in Iraq, Militarally there is nothing left to win. But we are still there trying to nation build. We are now fighting an insurgency without support from a majority of the Iraqi people. There is no victory for us in Iraq because we have nothing to win. There is no outside force to defeat, the insurgency is internal. Please someone tell me how this will not decay into civil war.

About the war on terrorism, we are now in an open ended shooting war against not a nation but an idea. How will any army defeat an idea? As a corallary to that, we now have a president who believes that the law does not apply to him because it is a time of war. When exactally would some of these war powers he has end if the war on terrorism goes on for the next 10 years?

By Jay not jay

January 6, 2006 06:40 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, if the people you elect aren’t doing their job because they are getting pushed around by BULLIES, maybe you should elect someone with some cahones then.

By Andy

January 6, 2006 06:44 PM | Link to this

Kimberly: What do you want me to tell you? That those 3000 people weren’t incinerated at their desks while innocently at work? That Bin Laden’s fatwa still needs 3,997,000 American lives to be taken before they consider us “even?”

Maybe that Iranian dude is just joking about his A bomb and wanting Israel wiped off the map. This could be his harmless way of impressing Iranian chicks, you reckon?

By Andy

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

RE: I’ve been hearing about the Iraqi civil war now for 16 years, ever since Desert Storm. The only time it came close to happening is when Saddam was gassing those Kurdish villages. He’s gone now, relax.

We are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, not Iraqi citizens. These kooks are hardcore, much like anti American pinkos, if we don’t fight them there, why would there hatred subside? They will come to us, they already have.

Aren’t you listening to me? Instead of dismissing my teachings as “talking points” you really should fact check them on the internet, keep an open mind. You might learn about state sponsors of terror, how they brainwash poor uneducated males, teaching them to hate, turning them into suicide bombers and the like.

Impeach Murtha!

By RE

January 6, 2006 07:01 PM | Link to this

The iraqi civil war never happened because ther was a dictator running the country. Oppresive regimes tend to quell insurection fairly well, I would not advocate it, but it is effective. For examples look to what happened after the fall of the USSR in eastern europe. Now there is no dictator, we are trying to keep together a country whose boundries were drawn by the UK after WW2. The Kurds have always been separtists, and the shia and sunni influence has always been at odds, the meeting point of the two factions has always been in Iraq. This country will not stay together no matter how much you pray or salute the flag, history is against you.

So we are now fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. I thought is was the pro saddamists, then it was the bathists and “dead enders” Al Qaeda did not have a presence in Iraq before we went in, certainly not in anywhere near the numbers they have now. I guess the only piece of luck in all this is that the insurgency is in its last throws.

nite all

By ChickenHawk Bush

January 6, 2006 07:05 PM | Link to this

Now the government is opening your private mail.

We are giving up our rights because people like Andy are scared.

By Andy

January 6, 2006 07:09 PM | Link to this

RE: The dictator usually is the one who starts the civil war, Vietnam, Korea, Angola, to name a few. This particular dictator has been absent from the scene for 2 and a half years, when you reckon the party will get started?

Impeach Murtha!

By Dusty

January 6, 2006 07:13 PM | Link to this

Sometimes when I read these posts I wonder if liberals have all slipped over into fantasy land. Candide is showing a man in a red mask at a subway station and calling him Bush. Kimberly is impressed with Howard Dean who has been a loser before. RE thinks we are not spending money anywhere but Iraq and implies that Haliburton, one of the few American companies large enough to handle Iraq projects, is somehow crooked. Meanwhile, Murtha turns on his country and Democrats applaud. You can call that the patriotism of dissent. I call it what it is ANTI-AMERICANISM. Our troops don’t deserve that but you are giving it to them. And I guess you are proud of yourselves. Losers all!

By Andy

January 6, 2006 07:14 PM | Link to this

Taken directly from ChickenHawk Pinkos link: Goodman is no stranger to mail snooping; as an officer during World War II he was responsible for reading all outgoing mail of the men in his command and censoring any passages that might provide clues as to his unit’s position.

Impeach Murtha!

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 07:21 PM | Link to this

Dusty and/or Andy,

How do you stay awake through a reading of a post by “RE” or “Michael H”?

By ChickenHawk Bush

January 6, 2006 07:24 PM | Link to this

reading all outgoing mail of the men in his command

A third grader could tell you the military has different rules than a private citizen.

Just read where a 9 month old baby is on the no-fly list, I sure feel safer, in fact because of that Andy its probably safe to come out from under your bed.

By Daniel

January 6, 2006 07:24 PM | Link to this

Except that Rep. Murtha didn’t turn on his country. He turned on the lying cowards in government. In so doing he is a great American patriot. By the by, John Murtha, in my opinion, did not say what he said alone. He had to have spoken with a number of our Generals. Fortunately, critical mass has shifted. You partisan hacks will have to learn to live with it.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 07:32 PM | Link to this

ChickenHB,

A spokesman for the Customs and Border Protection division said he couldn’t speak directly to Goodman’s case but acknowledged that the agency can, will and does open mail coming to U.S. citizens that originates from a foreign country whenever it’s deemed necessary.

“All mail originating outside the United States Customs territory that is to be delivered inside the U.S. Customs territory is subject to Customs examination,� says the CBP Web site. That includes personal correspondence. “All mail means ‘all mail,’� said John Mohan, a CBP spokesman, emphasizing the point.

Do you advocate doing away with the customs office? How about Border patrol?

Don’t you think you are misrepresenting your story just a little bit?

By getalife

January 6, 2006 07:33 PM | Link to this

Murtha for President!

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 07:34 PM | Link to this

Chickenhawk Bush: Do you not find it coincidental that stories of mail tampering, no-fly lists and the like are surfacing only after the NYT story? The timing on this makes it far too convenient for me to find it believable.

The story on the author above, who has been placed on a no-fly list just does not seem credible to me in that there are so many books out bashing President Bush, and those authors are probably in the air as we speak. Come on, use your head. The media SCARES me.

By Andy

January 6, 2006 07:34 PM | Link to this

A third grader knows that the Philippines is shot through with Al Qaeda, too, bozo. That doesn’t stop you or PMSNBC from freaking over a mail peak. Did they bust the guy and throw him in a dudgeon? We are at war just the same as those soldiers in WW II. If you just have to break the law, if it is impossible for you to restrain your base depravity, then don’t write a letter or make a phone call, clown.

Ted Kennedy was on a no fly list, which I agreed with. Let him swim! (two points.)

Impeach Murtha!

RW: You can add ChickenHawk Pinko to your list of a-sses.

By Dusty

January 6, 2006 07:37 PM | Link to this

I see. Everybody in our government can be classified as lying cowards. That is what you think of Americans. And Murtha is the only one who has talked to Generals. And the President and the Commander-in-Chief has not talked to Generals?? You might add that you think this country is totally rotten, right? You haven’t said one thing that shows support of America. And what do YOU call that? I’ll try to be nice and call you losers instead of turncoats.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 07:40 PM | Link to this

Andy,

Is ChickenHP the one on the right?

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 07:42 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

You’ve had us worried young lady!

By Daniel

January 6, 2006 07:42 PM | Link to this

Just when I begin to think you may be human you go and say something dog stupid! You partisan hacks can’t get out of your own way. We are not in a war like WW2. Some of us are. But you yellow bellied cowards aren’t. In the Big One the nation had leadership. Today we have fat toads who send other peoples kids to die so Abramoff and you scum bags can make money. But take heart. The great America will arise. I hope you live long enough to see what America is really like. There are 35 Iraq war vets running for federal office.

By ChickenHawk Bush

January 6, 2006 07:46 PM | Link to this

The war on terror is open ended, I guess that means we can through all of our rights out the window.

The new “FREEDOM”.

The government can put you on a no-fly list and you don’t have the right to question that authority.

The government can open your private mail.

Whats the old saying…Give me liberty unless we’re scared.

The government can tap your phone without a warrant.

The government can find out what books you read.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 07:48 PM | Link to this

Yes OO,

Where have you been?

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 07:48 PM | Link to this

CHB,

Are you related to Chicken Little by any chance?

By Jay not jay

January 6, 2006 07:49 PM | Link to this

OO, the media is their Bible, they can’t read into common sense

By ChickenHawk Bush

January 6, 2006 07:53 PM | Link to this

I finally realized why RW and Andy post here 24/7, They are too scared to go outside.

By Daniel

January 6, 2006 07:57 PM | Link to this

Bu$h is a lying rat who has betrayed America. He sends other peoples kids to die so he can stay rich. He’s peeing on you and you think it’s raining champagne. He’s a scum bag dishonest rat politician who only cares for himself and money. He’s a yellow bellied two faced lying b*stard. But, it’s Friday night. Turn off your computer and do something productive for a change.

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 07:59 PM | Link to this

ChickenHawk Bush: R.W. is afraid of only one thing, and that’s ME, for now.

By ChickenHawk Bush

January 6, 2006 08:01 PM | Link to this

BREAKING NEWS!

A 2 year old toddler threw his bottle while on board an American Airlines flight. Terror alert level raised to code RED.

By Scooter

January 6, 2006 08:04 PM | Link to this

A two year old throws a fit? It’s gonna make a good democrat.

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 08:05 PM | Link to this

ChickenHawk Bush: Please tell me that this is your contribution to humor.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 08:06 PM | Link to this

Uh Oh, What did I do now, OO?

By getalife

January 6, 2006 08:09 PM | Link to this

It was Big Daddy

By Jay not jay

January 6, 2006 08:10 PM | Link to this

Daniel, maybe you should take a look at this: rat bastard

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 08:10 PM | Link to this

R.W.: You wouldn’t want me to link to a previous thread and otherwise destroy the civilized conversation going on here, now would you?

By ChickenHawk Bush

January 6, 2006 08:10 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer, sorry it was an attempt at humor. The sad part is you had to ask. Its almost believable these days.

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 08:12 PM | Link to this

ChickenHawk Bush: And therein lies my point regarding the media. Enjoyed the humor, thanks. Scotter’s response was good too.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 08:13 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

Are you talking about when BigDaddy and getalife were being rude? I’m pretty sure I stood up for your honor, but I also think the link should stay right where it is.

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 08:16 PM | Link to this

Getalife: I thought you said you would never be done with me, and then you give me away. I’m hurt I tell you, hurt.

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 08:18 PM | Link to this

R.W.: I will have to go back and see how you voted before I can let you off my hook.

By Daniel

January 6, 2006 08:18 PM | Link to this

JNJ: I did. Many of us wanted to believe that wet lying dog. Most American’s want to believe their president. He has betrayed America. I fear things are going to get much, much worse. This is the most corrupt government in our history.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 08:20 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

Whew, I’m fairly certain I’m safe on that one.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 08:20 PM | Link to this

OO, I told them we would be in trouble but Big Daddy is a bad influence.

By ChickenHawk Bush

January 6, 2006 08:21 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer, indeed Scooters response was great!

As for the media, we are all attracted to our own bias. Fox, CNN, AJC, WSJ, Rush, LA Times, Hannity,………………

By Simon

January 6, 2006 08:25 PM | Link to this

Pat Robertson. For so many decades one of the Republicans’ proudest spokespeople. Pat Robertson - a typical Republiscum “Man of God.” Don’t you just LOVE it???

This is the very same God who constantly speaks directly to Bush and his worshipers. Undeniable. “Democracy & Freedom Are On The March!!”

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 08:28 PM | Link to this

R.W.: I revisited, and you appeared to be a willing instigator.

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 08:33 PM | Link to this

ChickenHawk Bush: I agree, but common sense needs to be applied, especially in the midst of great controversy. One should be as suspicious of the media as they should be watchful of the government.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 08:34 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

Impossible!!! I demand a recount or re-review!!! I tried to ease BigDaddy away from the subject, even when I had to resort to changing the spelling of “poll” to “pole” to throw him off.

Don’t make me go all “Algore” here. (scroll down that one)

By Jay not jay

January 6, 2006 08:35 PM | Link to this

Daniel, you want to believe he lied, but if he did, have your representative get their sorry butt up and call for the articles of impeachment.

Simon: Pat Robertson is a spokesman for no one…Who cares what the idiot says. Its just another story that’s getting way too much coverage because it fits their leftist agenda of making the right look like idiots.

By getalife

January 6, 2006 08:36 PM | Link to this

I am fickle

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 08:38 PM | Link to this

R.W./Getalife: I have not forgotten JayNot, he certainly voted in favor of…….

I’m waiting for Big Daddy, I have something special for him.

By Jay not jay

January 6, 2006 08:41 PM | Link to this

Sorry OO, BigDaddy is a very persuasive talker…

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 08:43 PM | Link to this

Simon,

Isn’t it funny when Governor Crazy Howie M.D., says something nuts you guys say “he doesn’t speak for all of us”. He’s only the DNC Chairman. Pat Robertson is a private citizen and is free to be just as idiotic as he wants.

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 08:45 PM | Link to this

JayNot: I agree, Big Daddy is veerrry persuasive, that is why I am prepared to give him what he desires.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 08:49 PM | Link to this

I think an objective Objective Observer would clearly see that I did not vote and that “Jay not jay” was so persuaded by the wiles of “BigDaddy” that he voted twice.

Not to throw Jay under the bus, of course.

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 08:51 PM | Link to this

R.W.: You know Big Daddy well enough to realize that your misspelling of “poll” to “pole” was probably mistaken as a compliment to our Big Daddy.

By ChickenHawk Bush

January 6, 2006 08:52 PM | Link to this

Simon, RW is the first to start throwing around the Cindy Sheehan lable to anyone that doesn’t agree with him. She too is a private citizen, but that doesn’t stop his hypocrisy.

By Jay not jay

January 6, 2006 08:53 PM | Link to this

Yes in BigDaddy’s defense, he did call a vote. I am GUILTY!

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 08:54 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

BigDaddy did make mention of the Freudian slip, but I wasn’t sure he meant the spelling or a bizarre game of dress up. (Kind of like the AL Gore link I just sent you)

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 08:56 PM | Link to this

JayNot: You are mistaken, there is no defense for Big Daddy. I await……..

Feel free to post while I wait.

By Andy

January 6, 2006 08:58 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry, I nodded off when Simon weighed in, releasing all of his fog: For so many decades one of the Republicans’ proudest spokespeople.- Gee, when did all of this happen? As I remember it, he ran for President at one time and got thoroughly trounced early in the Republican primaries. And this was before he released any of his recent vile hate speeches.

Howard Dean, on the other hand, has doubled up Robertson on the stupid statements, and the pinkos have given him the keys to the city. Anybody remember the “hotel wait staff” tirade or do you libs just hope that goes away?

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

By Jay not jay

January 6, 2006 08:58 PM | Link to this

Big Daddy may be trying to trick us by posing as Chicken Hawk?

Naaa… j/k

By ChickenHawk Bush

January 6, 2006 09:00 PM | Link to this

You Bush fans love to distance yourselves from the likes of Pat Robertson and at the same time scream bloody murder over the liberal media. Robertson has tons of influence. His 700 club program is seen by millions each day. As does Rush, Fox News, and so on. Your liberal media chant is wearing thin.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 09:00 PM | Link to this

Chicken Little,

When have I ever said Cindy Sheehan speaks for all Democrats?

Mama Moonbat is quite free to run around saying what she says and I am free not to ignore it. Unless, of course, you are saying she does speak for all Democrats. If that’s the case Republicans may have to start looking for a new opposition party.

BTW, Crazy Howie has the right to say all the things he says as well, but he does speak for Democrats when he says them, whether they like it or not.

By Jay not jay

January 6, 2006 09:01 PM | Link to this

Chicken, what liberal media outfit tells you the freaking 700 club has tons of influence?

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 09:05 PM | Link to this

R.W.: I have used that terminology frequently of late, but have inserted names other than Gore’s in front of it.

Once that ranting idiot lost the bid for President, I vowed never to think of him again. Well, let me rephrase, we know he lost the election, but he still fails to acknowledge that he did.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 09:08 PM | Link to this

Chicken Little,

There is some truth to that, but there is also some evidence to suggest that Robertson is not quite as marginalized a figure as conservatives would like to believe. His main forum, the television program The 700 Club, is available in nearly all of the country on the ABC Family Channel, FamilyNet, the Trinity Broadcasting Network, and some broadcast stations. According to Nielsen Media Research, The 700 Club, aired each weekday, has averaged 863,000 viewers in the last year. While that is not enough to call it a popular program, it is still a significant audience. It is, for example, more than the average primetime audience for CNN last month — 713,000 viewers — or MSNBC, which averaged 280,000 viewers in prime time. It is also greater than the viewership of CNBC and Headline News.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 09:11 PM | Link to this

Oops, the rest of the article

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 09:11 PM | Link to this

ChickenHawk Bush: Although right now, I may not appear to be a believer in the faith, I am, but Pat Robertson concerns me, and operates independent of believers such as myself, and I am confident that most of the faithful agree with me.

By Midori

January 6, 2006 09:20 PM | Link to this

Gore was a ranting idiot, eh?

You think that’s because he didn’t speak “Texan”??

Isn’t that the language Bush wants people to speak, as outlined in his speech today?

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 09:31 PM | Link to this

Midori: My focus on Gore was after the election when he delayed the vote count for an unprecedented length of time. His paranoid voter conspiracy theories are what created the great divide which we are seeing today. He disappeared from public view for some time following his final concession and returned looking a little insane.

I have family members who voted for him though and we still love each other. I guess you and I can agree to disagree, and I remain fond of you for reasons only you, myself and R.W. know about. Let’s not argue.

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 09:38 PM | Link to this

Midori: If you are talking about Bush’s command of the english language, I am inclined to agree with you. However, my command of the same is probably lacking, so who am I to criticize.

By sct

January 6, 2006 09:39 PM | Link to this

From the Robertson article RW referenced above.

Figures like James Dobson have eclipsed Robertson in political influence,…….

James Dobson, Focus on the Family tells us how to convert our gay children:

Meanwhile, the boy’s father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son’s maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a p***, just like his, only bigger.

James Dobson http://www.family.org/docstudy/newsletters/a0021043.cfm

It just keeps getting kookier with you Republicans. Remember if you fear your child is gay show him your big pen-is! That will do the trick! Imagine that, Dobson eclipses Robertson’s influence.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 09:49 PM | Link to this

Let’s see Pat Robertson at the time of those ratings averaged 863,000 viewers and as “sct” points out James Dobson has eclipsed him in influence. I know a few Democrats that watch the 700 Club, but leaving that aside and pretending that those two have a flock of about 2 million Republicans.

All Republicans???? or about 3% of Republican voters?

By ChickenHawk Bush

January 6, 2006 09:49 PM | Link to this

• He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a p*, just like his, only bigger.*

Of course the “liberal media” will never report on Dobson’s tactics. Can you imagine the AJC printing his conversion methods, yet this guy also has great influence.

By Jay not jay

January 6, 2006 09:50 PM | Link to this

sct, cool it. If you link some crap like that to Republicans, you are not seeing clearly at all. How did you find such as creepy quote? Maybe that is what has blurred your vision…

By sct

January 6, 2006 10:10 PM | Link to this

Jay, read the article that RW posted. Are you implying the likes of Dobson, Reed, and Robertson have no influence on the Republican party? Ever heard of the Christian Coalition? Family values? Are you living under a rock?

James Dobson’s Focus on the Family is very popular with Republicans. That quote comes directly from his website. You want that quote censored?

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 10:11 PM | Link to this

sct/ChickenHawk: Neither do I agree with James Dobson on this particular observation. However, some of his writings as they relate to the nuclear family are worthwhile.

I know parents who raise their children based on his principles of family. Their children will grow up, leave home and become independent thinkers like all children do.

We don’t clone ourselves in our children.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 10:16 PM | Link to this

sct,

I think you are vastly overestimating the influence factor and to say that anyone that agrees with anything Robertson, Dobson, or Reed says means they have to agree with everything they say is patently absurd.

Do you know anyone that you agree with 100% of the time?

It is nice to see you appreciate the wisdom of Byron York, though.

By sct

January 6, 2006 10:19 PM | Link to this

So OO, the liberal media has all this influence on people but parents don’t have much influence on their children?

By Jay not jay

January 6, 2006 10:21 PM | Link to this

No, but very little.
Yes. Yes. No. No, but I don’t think your kookie quote has anthing to do with Republicans.

By sct

January 6, 2006 10:22 PM | Link to this

So RW, the liberal media has all this influence on people but religion doesn’t have much influence on their flock?

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 10:26 PM | Link to this

sct: Sad, but true on both counts.

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 10:31 PM | Link to this

sct: I know your second post was to R.W., but, ditto. You are beginning to see the light. The majority of the faithful have been misrepresented by the liberal media and the likes of Robertson, Falwell, and, to a degree, Dobson.

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 10:35 PM | Link to this

sct,

You have taken Robertson added Dobson then added Reed and now changed it all to religion. As you add and modify the subject of your question you will certainly change the answer and add influence.

That being said I think people are influenced by all their surroundings and interactions. If you and I were friends I imagine we would disagree on almost anything political, but I know you would have some positive influence on my life and I would hope to reciprocate. I would consider it a d-amn shame to lose that just because we also had points of disagreement.

As for the media, I and UCLA are in agreement that they are quite liberal. That does not translate into them having huge influence, these days their influence shrinks by the day much as Pat Robertson’s does.

By Jay not jay

January 6, 2006 10:58 PM | Link to this

Crickets Chirping

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 11:05 PM | Link to this

JayNot: To implore, but ignore?

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 11:10 PM | Link to this

Jay not jay,

Maybe we need to work on another movie, I’m thinking “Brokeback University-Academia Gone Wild” starring “Michael H” and “RE”.

Although the classics are more fun and we really need BigDaddy’s input to spoof the gay cowboy flick.

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 11:17 PM | Link to this

R.W.: I did scroll down on your Al Gore link and enjoyed it. I really to believe the man was an idiot (sorry Midori). He only had a few marbles to begin with, but he lost them after his bid for the Presidency. Now nothing rattles when he shakes his head.

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 11:19 PM | Link to this

Oops! to=do. I’m too tired to wait on Big Daddy. I’m off to bed. I’ll get him when I see him.

You do know that I am just yanking your chain don’t you?

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 11:19 PM | Link to this

OO,

Nice outfit too, don’t you think?

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 11:20 PM | Link to this

Absolutely!

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 11:23 PM | Link to this

OO,

Of course I do, BigDaddy and getalife were discussing legal brothels earlier so that could be it, they both seem to be missing. You may have to lay in wait on a new thread for the BigFish though.

By Jay not jay

January 6, 2006 11:25 PM | Link to this

RW, that’s true, that would be a good match but chicken and sct may want challenge them given the looks of their research.

By Objective Observer

January 6, 2006 11:25 PM | Link to this

Goodnight R.W.

By Jay not jay

January 6, 2006 11:27 PM | Link to this

Good night RW and OO, you must always implore

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2006 11:34 PM | Link to this

Goodnight OO, Goodnight Jaynj, Goodnight John Boy……

Of course I slept all day, so if the boys ever get back from the brothel please check in!

By Andy

January 7, 2006 07:18 AM | Link to this

The President barnstorms for the economy.

Bush touts economy

The AJC barnstorms against it.

December job tally disappoints

So here is the AJC and their resident financial genius Michael E. Kanell’s, who must be looking to unseat Paul Krugman as chief kook, logic as to why 108,000 new jobs is a bad thing: It was half of November’s. Remember, these guys write for the business section, as supposed economic experts. What month do businesses normally hire a bunch of people to help with the Christmas rush? And when do they lay them off?

Impeach Murtha!

By AntiRadical

January 7, 2006 07:46 AM | Link to this

Since this toon is about ethics, let’s take a look at those ethical traits of “Truthfulness”, “Consistency” and “Integrity” as relates to our President (the political “figurehead” of our country and government).

“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.” —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

Now there, wasn’t that honest, consistent, and just brimming with integrity?

By Mike

January 7, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this

If you want to see something close to unbelievable got to MSN and watch The “Kim Jong Il Bodygaurd Training” video. It is there now. It is amazing.

By Andy

January 7, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this

John Kerry discussing John Edwards during the democrat primaries: “This isn’t the time for on-the-job training”

John Kerry, well, I don’t know what you would call, I have no experience with such matters, but John Kerry “on” John Edwards after choosing him for some OJT as the VEEP: Do all pinko running mates do this?

Impeach Murtha!

By Andy

January 7, 2006 08:39 AM | Link to this

John Kerry during the early days of the 2004 presidential race: Loudly denouncing “Benedict Arnold CEOs” for their policy of outsourcing US jobs overseas.

After numerous conflicts with this statement were brought to John’s attention, Mr. Kerry had this to say: But the Benedict Arnold line applied, you know, I called a couple of times to **overzealous speechwriters and said “look that’s not what I’m saying.”

Impeach Murtha!

By Andy

January 7, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this

Hiilary before the Iraq war (10/10/02):

“Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people.”

Hillary after the Iraq war (11/29/05):

“If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed,” Clinton said

Hillary the next day on the Iraq war (11/30/05):

“I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the president and his administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war,” the New York senator said in a lengthy letter to thousands of people who have written her about the war.

Impeach Murtha!

By getalife

January 7, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

Americans Said to Meet Rebels, Exploiting Rift

Traitors!

Murtha for President!

By getalife

January 7, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

Basis for Spying in U.S. Is Doubted

Impeach Bush/Cheney!

Murtha for President!

By Michael H.

January 7, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

An extraordinarily high level of political discourse present in these last few posts.

By Andy

January 7, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

getalife@9:40: This is absolutely fantastic news. Thanks for sharing it with us-

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 6 - American officials are talking with local Iraqi insurgent leaders to exploit a rift that has opened between homegrown insurgents and radical groups like Al Qaeda, and to draw the local leaders into the political process, according to a Western diplomat, an Iraqi political leader and an Iraqi insurgent leader. Clashes between Iraqi groups and Al Qaeda have broken out in several cities across the Sunni Triangle, including Taji, Yusefiya, Qaim and Ramadi, and they appear to have intensified in recent months, according to interviews with insurgents and with American and Iraqi officials.

Excellent! We all agree on one thing, Al Qaeda sucks. Well, I can’t speak for John Murtha on that one.

Impeach Murtha!

By getalife

January 7, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

Good old Pat

Right Winger!

Murtha for President!

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

getalife,

The next Presidential election is in 2008, how old is Mothra?

By getalife

January 7, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

Andy,

If we are talking to the insurgents to enter the political arena, Murtha was right!

Al Qaeda sucks

Murtha for President!

By getalife

January 7, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

RW,

I am biased. He looks and talks like my granfather.

Murtha for President!

By Andy

January 7, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

Here’s some of the crap that is being passed off as “education” in some of America’s institutes of higher learning (better known for their false studies of Conservatives):

In the piece, the Native American rights activist argues that the 3,000 people killed in the World Trade Center attacks worked for “the mighty engine of profit,� Ward Churchill said, calling them “little Eichmanns,�

As least Robertson’s stupid hate speech isn’t purposely being shoved down the throats of our children.

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

Impeach Murtha!

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

getalife,

Good enough. I hope Mothra doesn’t get caught up in the Botox craze the Dems are so fond of though. Did you see Kerry in Andy’s 8:39 link?

By Andy

January 7, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

getalife: If we are talking to the insurgents to enter the political arena, Murtha was right! So if every label the pinkos use is correct in your shallow, unrealistic, force fed world, do you agree that the Trade Center victims were “little Eichmanns?”

(“Insurgening” against Al Qaeda? Is this not so simplistic? So mind numbingly stupid?)

Impeach Murtha!

By candide

January 7, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

Pat Robertson has nothing to lose. So he is now proposing that Jack Abramoff be sent to Israel to become its new prime minister. Jack is just as tough as Ariel Sharon, is younger and in better health, although his torso does seem to resemble Sharon’s a bit too much.

Anyone like Robertson who reads the Bible as if it were anything more than fairy tales deserves what he gets. But the dumb a….ses who listen to Robertson — the evangelical community of fools and knaves — what can we say of them? They should all be incarcerated in mental wards.

By Andy

January 7, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

Check out some of these beliefs, belonging to a “professor” in one of America’s institutes of higher “education.”

While were on the subject of kooks…

Impeach Murtha!

By Brian Curtis

January 7, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

Well, let’s sum it up so far…

Nobody on the pro-war side can answer RE’s question about stopping a civil war. RW tried but kept sidetracking into talking points.

Andy can’t answer the question—or ANY question, for that matter—because he’s too busy screeching that any criticism of the president is treason. (I assume he plans to turn himself in for ever criticizing Clinton….)

And Dusty checks in occasionally to remind us that criticism of the administration is inherently “anti-American.” That if you can’t say anything good about lying, corrupt politicians, you obviously have nothing good to say about America.

Funny, funny stuff. Remember to treat these deluded folks with kindness and pity, folks; they’re terrorized, and when the terrorists have defeated you, you can’t think straight.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

Speaking of people with so much Botox nothing moves but their eyebrows:

“She said, ‘Today the Congress of the United States will vote on a reckless, irresponsible tax plan that will undermine opportunity in our country,’ ” Mr. Bush recalled. “Since that congresswoman had uttered those words, the economy has added more than 4.5 million new jobs.”

By getalife

January 7, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

Andy,

“little Eichmanns?â€? No, they were victims of OBL’s terriorist plot. God Bless them.

RW,

I doubt Mr. Murtha would get Botox. Kerry had to do something with that mug.

Murtha for President!

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

You may not like the plan to stabilize Iraq and prevent a civil war, but it is the plan not a talking point.

If you want chaos and immediate civil war follow Mothra’s advice and surrender.

By Andy

January 7, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis: And which civil war are you talking about? The one in America that ended in 1865? The Angolan civil war?

Oh, I get it. This is some stupid pinko mind sex game, we’re supposed to stop a civil war in Iraq that hasn’t even started yet and if it is going to start, you sure would think that 3 years would be plenty. Maybe the timing isn’t just right, yet, you reckon, clown?

Impeach Murtha!

By getalife

January 7, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

Remember the pretzel, scroll down for a picture of the drunk criminal.

Murtha for President!

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

getalife,

I guess he did, do you have any idea why he painted himself orange for this debate?

By Andy

January 7, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

getalife: So if the “insurgents” are “insurging” against the Al Qaeda “insurgents” where do the pinko “insurgents” here in America fit in? Who gets to play the Patriots in all this (not football)? Who’s the enemy? Conservatives?

By finch

January 7, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

There you go again!

It’s a classic response from a certain con. Pat Robertson’s lunatic pronouncements are no worse than Ward Campbell’s sociopathic rants.

Which loosely translates into:

“But Clinton did it toooooooo… “

Since I think Campbell is a freak, is it okay if I tell Robertson he can bite me?

By getalife

January 7, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

RW,

Because he is a clown?

Andy,

There is a new war and the enemy is corruption!

Lock up the criminals!

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

finch,

Could you provide some background on this Ward Campbell fellow?

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

finch,

Never mind, I found her

By getalife

January 7, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

Lets start with this guy

Duke wore a wire in front of defense contractors. Doh!

Lock up the criminals!

By finch

January 7, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

Hi, RW…

Good clown shot of Kerry, although you have to wonder. Bad makeup? Bad photo? Photoshop victim?

Let’s check out this GOP politician:

[Was this photo of Katherine Harris doctored? Or just show her with a terrible makeup job?(http://www.mikeditto.com/archives/katherine_harris.jpg)

I’ll be honest. I don’t have a clue. But inquiring minds would like to know.

By finch

January 7, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

Dang. Better have that second cup of coffee. Write my 2 Congressmen. Or something.

Ward Churchill. Thanks, RW. Funny link, too.

Speaking of links,

Katherine Harris

Gotta admit, she looks like hell.

By BigDaddy

January 7, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

finch, that picture of Katherine Harris looks like the over-the-hill denizen of the bordello getalife and I just visited - the Moonlight Bunny Ranch.

To her credit, she has a never-say-die attitude, even as frightening as she is…

By finch

January 7, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

Gotta agree with that BigDaddy. And truth be told, Katherine would have never gotten the notoriety for that bad makeup/photo if she’d just kept her trap shut.

So, when do we get the lowdown on the Moonlight Bunny Ranch? Is it true you thought the bunnys were so ugly, you actually made them pay you for lapdances?

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

Strange concept, the Secretary of State sworn to uphold the election laws of her State is supposed to “keep her trap shut” when people start changing all the rules after the game has been played.

By getalife

January 7, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

And this one to be patriotic

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

Suddenly Air Force Amy is showing up everywhere.

By getalife

January 7, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

I saw Wild Bill at that one!

By BigDaddy

January 7, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

finch, a gentleman never kisses and tells. Now if we could just find a gentleman…

By Andy

January 7, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Let’s see:

We can talk about Pat Robertson.

We can’t talk about Ward Campbell (whoever the hell he is.)

We can talk about Katherine Harris.

We can’t write numerical errors.

We can rewrite the Constitution!- By finch January 6, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this It’s apparent that, no matter what you think of President Bush, he is not guilty of treason. For that matter, neither is Congressman Murtha. Federal courts have generally defined treason as the act of actively bearing arms against your country, actively spying against your country, or actively giving material aid and comfort (not just written or verbal support) to such active traitors.

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

Impeach Murtha!

By getalife

January 7, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

BD,

I think OO is looking for you. She is going to give you what you desire.

By BigDaddy

January 7, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

I saw that last night. I’m preparing myself for a verbal beat down…

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

Andy,

Let’s talk about this Ward Campbell.

Free Tookie!

By getalife

January 7, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

BD,

I knew I was in trouble when I said ‘Should” but she says I am “fickle”.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

It may be more than verbal, she knows where you keep your hoses, lotions, and baskets.

By BigDaddy

January 7, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

getalife, all I know is that I expect OO to blindfold me, lightly whip me with a cat o’ nine tails or just come straight out and give me a tongue lashing. Either way, I’m girding my loins…

So to speak…

By Joe Roman

January 7, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

I know I’m late, but unlike some others who shall remain nameless, I have other things to do. ANYWAY, the “ccokie jar” number was one of the funniest editorial cartoons I have seen in many a moon. Way to go, Mike!

By kimberly

January 7, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

RW, please explain this ETHICAL quagmire to me:

If you are a state’s Secretary of State, in charge of ensuring a fair and honest election for everyone in that state, while AT THE SAME TIME, on the committe to elect one candidate over the other…

If this is NOT a blatant conflict of interest, then please tell us what exactly WOULD constitute a conflict of interest with regard to this particular job? Seriously… WHAT WOULD if not THAT? It’s been five years and no one has answered that question for me. I would be SO GRATEFUL!

By Objective Observer

January 7, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

If you are reading this post for political discussion, may I suggest that you move on, for this one may become too personal for you to view.

Big Daddy: I have been waiting for you. Imagine my surprise when I return home from the job which is my personal passion (working with developmentally delayed children) only to find that my passion exists also on this frequented site.

Wasn’t it you who threatened Phil with:

Anyone here is fair game. But do it when they are currently posting on the board. To do otherwise demonstrates classlessness and cowardice. It also invites horrific retribution.

However, I don’t see you as classless or cowardly, and it is only on rare, very rare occasions that I deliver retribution. It is a difference I appreciate between the sexes.

Speaking of differences between the sexes, for you and I, we have one thing in common. I was not shocked to discover your fetishes. Let’s see, foot, voyeurism and minimal undergarments.

Allow me to share with you the fixation that I have with my own feet. I tend to them regularly, warm baths, careful exfoliation, adornment with jewelry (7 toe rings and one anklet). Many of the toe rings are of custom designs, delicate and silver. The nails are painted various shades of either pastels or vibrant colors, depending on my mood. Men and women alike have commented favorably on their appearance. In the summer, they are tan because I am a worshipper of the sun, and that is without tan lines, I might add. They support legs which, too, are well cared for and are somewhat longer than they should be.

As to your second fetish, voyeurism, I am only accomodating above. I have no need for the objects that have been lost which you posted. Your third and last fetish, scanty undergarments. I searched for pictures on some of the sites which you clearly enjoy visiting. I am now being unundated with spam from those sites. I will address their obliteration from my computer posthaste.

Having said all this, I plan on offering you a view into my life, “me in my dirty little thongs”. Are you ready?

By BigDaddy

January 7, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

OO, BigDaddy was born ready.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

kimberly,

I personally think it is a conflict of interest, that doesn’t mean that the election laws that were in place before the election should be retroactively changed when one candidate isn’t happy with the result.

As for ETHICAL quagmire, you would have to cite an actual ethics violation to support anything close to that.

By Objective Observer

January 7, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

Big Daddy: For your viewing pleasure, be sure to scroll down for the full effect. Also feel free to get up close and personal although the screen may tend to zap your oral fixation. here you go

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

I’m just going to slip quietly out the side door. bye

By getalife

January 7, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

D’oh

By BigDaddy

January 7, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

OO, would you like to borrow a razor? Yuk! I bet those scab-riddled hooves taste worse than rotten eggs scrambled with Limburger.

Of course, for you, I’m willing to make an exception…

By Objective Observer

January 7, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Big Daddy: Have at ‘em, they are soooooo nasty, just like you. I am a firm believer that one cannot be either offended or hurt without their permission. No one ever has my permission to do so. I also believe that when you first start to dissipate the energy—bound to the past and start to use it Now, you may start to feel high on life. I am always and will always be about the fun.

If all involved were smiling during the exchange, then the besmirching of my virtue served a good purpose and set up an opportunity for me to have even more fun.

By BigDaddy

January 7, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

RW, don’t you go anywhere. A move like that reminds me of a college buddy of mine who loved to start bar fights and then move aside while BigDaddy cleaned up his messes…

Of course, BigDaddy did start this mess…

By getalife

January 7, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

I retract and say “should not”.

By Objective Observer

January 7, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

Big Daddy: Stinky cheeses, another one of my passions. Stilton imported from England is sent to me regularly by my previous minister. Yuummmmmmm!!!

By BigDaddy

January 7, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

OO, I sincerely doubt that anyone could have possible construed the aforementioned exchange as serious in the least. If they did, they are not people with whom we would ever choose to associate anyway.

I knew you’d be a good sport or I never would have put your name out there for besmirchment. We were just missing you is all and were speculating as to your whereabouts. I knew I was in trouble well before I posted all that - I just can’t help myself - the little red cartoon devil on my shoulder frequently beats all hell out of the better angel of my good nature.

By Objective Observer

January 7, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

Hey, where did all the other posters go?

Getalife: You and I are back on, it’s safe to approach me from my left, because I have a tendency to attack from my right side. I think that all can say that Objective Observer is a good sport.

By BigDaddy

January 7, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

OO, BigDaddy loves Stilton, Roquefort and all manners of Gorgonzola. All with a bottle of 20-yr. tawny.

Have you ever tried Cadi Urgelia? It’s a Spanish cheese, semi-hard, that’s fabulous at room temp, but even better melted over baguette rounds. Enjoy with a good Cote du Rhone. I think I might today!

By getalife

January 7, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

OO,

Very good and fun too. I retracted my statement so I guess I am a flip flopper

By Objective Observer

January 7, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

Big Daddy: Enjoyed your response to “Pinko Andy” earlier. I am in total agreement that you won the debate. That is the quality I admire in you, but the fun-loving side is irresistable.

By BigDaddy

January 7, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

OO, if BigDaddy had a nickel for every time he was told he was irresistable, he might have a dime by now…

By Objective Observer

January 7, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

Can’t drink wine, and prefer my cheeses soft. But melted sounds good. Would that be warm and gooey. J/K

By Family Values

January 7, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - Embattled Rep. Tom DeLay decided Saturday to give up his post as House majority leader, clearing the way for new leadership elections among House Republicans eager to shed the taint of scandal, two officials said.

By Objective Observer

January 7, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

R.W.: Come back, the coast is clear.

By Washington State

January 7, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

Looks like DeLay’s worldview is about to change for good. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - About two dozen Republicans have agreed to sign a petition that calls for an election to permanently replace Rep.Tom DeLay as majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, aides said on Friday, dealing another blow to the indicted Texan’s political future. Fifty signatures would be needed to require the 231-member House Republican conference to hold an election, which could come within weeks, they said.

“We have commitments for about 25 signatures. The letter calls for a leadership election for a permanent majority leader,” said Matthew Specht, a spokesman for Rep. Jeff Flake (news, bio, voting record), a conservative Arizona Republican.

A source close to House Republicans, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of DeLay’s situation, told Reuters that the signatures were being collected from conservative and moderate Republicans. The source said Rep. Charles Bass (news, bio, voting record), a New Hampshire moderate, was working closely with Flake.

DeLay has been trying to fool the Christian right into believing that he is a true believer, repeatedly claiming a worldview that is Christian to the core. Now that Abramoff is starting to sing, it is beginning to look like a lot of the Christianity was for show. What’s that definition of hypocricy that keeps appearing here?

By getalife

January 7, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

I like this one

RW cut and ran.

By getalife

January 7, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

This just in : DeLay resigns!

By Ricky

January 7, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

As a conservative, I am glad that some Republicans are getting enough balls to have a vote now for new leadership. We need to move on from DeLay and get a fresh start. Although he did a good job as leader, it is time for some new blood. Look for for Rep Pence, he is my under the radar prediction

By AntiRadical

January 7, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

“Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.” —George W. Bush, Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004

This is one of those areas in which the President and I are in total accord. If I’d known that malpractice reform had these perks, I’d have been behind it all along!!

By BigDaddy

January 7, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

getalife, I don’t drink nearly as much white as I used to, but that’s always been a solid choice. Another that’s fantastic, but very hard to find is a Domain Cassis. It’s from a little town about half an hour outside of Marseilles. Fantastic with bouillabaise.

As to French reds - with steak, I’ll take a big Chateauneuf du Pape (Vieux Telegraph is a personal fave), or I like a St. Emilion Bordeaux. Unless someone else is paying, then we move on up to Chateau Margaux…

By Objective Observer

January 7, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Getalife: “Taking one for “The Gipper” and if found guilty, I hope his punishment is forthcoming.

By getalife

January 7, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

BD,

I use to work at a liquor store when I was going to school. I tried many wines at wine festivals and at the store. One time , the owner broke out a bottle of Rothschild.

Looking back on that job, I would say it was the best place to work.

By getalife

January 7, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

OO,

I have declared war and the enemy is corruption!

By Dusty

January 7, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Good afternoon, hope I am not interrupting any great thoughts of the moment. I don’t have any great ones myself but….

OO, your work with developmentally delayed children and Big Daddy is commendable.

RW, I think your debate with the Green Tea Gore WON Club is going well.

For my good friends Brian and Michael H., if you don’t know one good thing about this country and the government, then you are ANTI-AMERICAN. If you aren’t for us, then you’re for somebody else. (They like to be reminded.)

See ya!

By BigDaddy

January 7, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

getalife, I squirreled away a bottle of Mouton Rothschild many years ago. I’m looking for an occassion to pop that. Maybe when I move into my new pad early next month…

By Washington State

January 7, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Getalife, Have you tried the wines from out here in the Northwest. Oregon has some great Pinot Gris and Noir.

By Objective Observer

January 7, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

Getalife: Term limits. I believe that corruption abounds, but then many replacements have already been involved at the local & state levels, and bring their corruptive tactics with them to the federal halls. What to do, what to do?

By BigDaddy

January 7, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Washington State, I’ve had a couple Pinot Noirs from Oregon and was very impressed, though I cannot remember any labels. Any recommendations?

Dusty - the terms BigDaddy and developmentally-delayed children are redundant…

By Washington State

January 7, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Ricky, The problem goes much deeper than DeLay. The Christian movement in this country has been subverted for political purposes. The most obvious example was the manipulation of Christian activists in Louisiana and Texas by Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition, who said he was helping them fight gambling when he was actually using them to promote Indian casinos (and to make a few million bucks for himself).

By Washington State

January 7, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy, Most of the good ones are from small vineyards that are hard to find outside of the Northwest. The Willamette valley in Oregon has the best, so if you can find any from there, its worth a try. It’s hard to make a bad one when you start with the right grapes.

By finch

January 7, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

RW, my comment about Katherine Harris keeping her trap shut had nothing to do with her job as Florida’s Secretary of State and Al Gore’s White House defeat. That’s history and I don’t even want to go there.

I linked her picture in response to your link of John Kerry in what appears to be orange clown paint.

I was referring to her loud complaints that the media had been photoshopping her pictures to make her look butt-ugly. I still think that she did protesteth way too much.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

I’m baaaccckkk! That d-amn Mothra kidnapped me.

getalife,

I love Pouilly Fuisse, but we have a more English sounding name for it that begins: Fuzzy

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

finch,

If you noticed the Kerry in clown face is from CNN and unless they and every network was in on it, Kerry actually did that to himself. I wonder what demographic he was going for?

By getalife

January 7, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

Sorry I am in rehab, this nurse is killing me, be back later.

By Washington State

January 7, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

RW, Not that it matters one bit except to show how dependent we have become on t.v. for our news, but there are professional makeup people who work on everyone appearing on t.v. for all but the most candid shots. Most people don’t have a clue how they will appear under the lights and on camera. They have to trust that the pros know their job.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

Washington State,

Snoqualmie (I think) Vineyards has some nice wines, is that Washington or Oregon?

By Washington State

January 7, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

Wow! I was looking out my window and this huge bald eagle swooped down and started bothering a flock of ducks right in front of my house. I am outa here. It is too nice a day to sit in front of a computer screen. Have fun beating each other up.

By Washington State

January 7, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

RW, Yeah, Snoqualmie is in Washington State. Nice job on the spelling. They have some decent wines, but the stuff they ship from the bigger vineyards is not so good. Willamette Valley is probably a better bet if you are from outside the Northwest.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

Washington State,

The thing that was weird about Kerry is it wasn’t just a makeup job for the debate. He turned orange for about a week during the campaign and swore he had just gotten a tan tossing the football around his campaign plane. I’m pretty sure it was some serious tanning bed time, he hadn’t tanned like that when he was windsurfing in the summer.

By Washington State

January 7, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

RW, Maybe he fell asleep in the tanning bed :P Either way, it hardly matters. Abe Lincoln was supposed to be one of the ugliest men alive at the time.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

Washington State,

I thought Kerry had a better chance when he did have the Lincoln look.

By finch

January 7, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

RW, I’m inclined to think Kerry used one of those suntan-in-a-tube creams. No way that’s a sunlamp burn.

As for Katherine Harris? She’s a lesson to women everywhere. Do NOT apply makeup with a trowel.

And WS is right. It’s a shame that looks matter so much. But they do.

By Washington State

January 7, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

Nah, I doubt we would ever elect anyone who wasn’t photogenic. Those 30 second soundbites that preceed every election wouldn’t go over so well if the candidate were butt ugly. Cya later. Going out to see if that eagle catches dinner.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

finch,

In all seriousness, I think the suddenly missing craters and the instant tan were especially bad for Kerry, because he was already fighting off the image of being a phony.

I agree with you, that does look more like a spray on job. Maybe Macco, paint job and crater repair in one stop!

By Objective Observer

January 7, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

R.W.: Where did you run off to. Surely you knew that fun was my objective. No need to cut and run like Getalife accused you of doing.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

Post office, bank, Tower, and Publix. When did we get married? Although with the description ^ ^ ^ up there I wouldn’t stay gone long.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

ml, Since you have finally drawn a funny cartoon for tomorrow why won’t you post it?

By Objective Observer

January 7, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

R.W.: With all that I see you deal with on this site, you can stomach anything. I don’t know why you would think that I would post anything that was not palatable. Or maybe I would!

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

I was referring to this description:

Allow me to share with you the fixation that I have with my own feet. I tend to them regularly, warm baths, careful exfoliation, adornment with jewelry (7 toe rings and one anklet). Many of the toe rings are of custom designs, delicate and silver. The nails are painted various shades of either pastels or vibrant colors, depending on my mood. Men and women alike have commented favorably on their appearance. In the summer, they are tan because I am a worshipper of the sun, and that is without tan lines, I might add. They support legs which, too, are well cared for and are somewhat longer than they should be.

Which I found quite palatable and more than a little erotic.

By getalife

January 7, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

Stop right there, I want to know right now……..

By Objective Observer

January 7, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

R.W.: Just approaching Big Daddy from his point of interest. Just as I was unoffended, I’m certain he wasn’t either. I can go toe to toe (excuse the pun) with guys on issues of this nature. And me being a “church lady”. It just goes to show, we have been misrepresented.

I wish you hadn’t put it out there again for all to see, I warned people off and they seemed to listen. But you are too easy to forgive, so consider it done.

By Simon

January 7, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

George Bush, Pat Robertson, Cal Thomas, Jerry Falwell, Newt Gingrich, Robert Novak, Pat Buchanan, other long standing heroes of the Republican Party, are truly leading the struggle for morality and goodness both at home and in the Middle East. “Democracy & Freedom On The Move.”

There are many ways in which to measure their success. One accurate and truthful method is to observe the increasing stench of the corpses of American kids in Iraq. Sure and certain.

Stand proud, all you little punks who put this crazed alcoholic weakling in the White House!

By getalife

January 7, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

We are at war with corruption. Guess what, Dems too!

By finch

January 7, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

Quite a scattershot swipe at the GOP there, Simon. It’s like putting Hillary, Murtha, Leiberman, Dowd and Teddy in the same boat.

Dowd and Teddy in the same boat? Can I sell tickets?

Actually, there are times when Cal Thomas and Pat Buchanan make sense.

I can’t believe I wrote that.

By Hank

January 7, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

SIMON. Thank you, Sir.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

Who are you and what have you done with “finch”? We may not like him much, but he’s ours d-amnit.

By getalife

January 7, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

finch,

Stop typing and step away from the keyboard. RW is starting to have an effect on you. Do not follow the criminals.

Murtha for President!

By getalife

January 7, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

RW,

ml, Since you have finally drawn a funny cartoon for tomorrow why won’t you post it?

Corruption?

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

If I had added to and sent that cut and paste job and sent it to a certain publication with a story that began, I never thought this would happen to me…, would I be forgiven as long as I changed your name to Vanessa.

By finch

January 7, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

RW, if I told you I used to work with Buchanan, and that in spite of his politics (which mostly, but not always bother me), he’s a really, really nice guy…

Would you still speak to me in the morning?

I do regret that I never had a beer with Pat and my former neighbor, er… whatisname….

By Objective Observer

January 7, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

Getalife: May I ask you a question. My conscience bothers me. I worked in the office of my local elected Commissioners for quite some time. Corrupt doesn’t even begin to define them. I had up close and personal view.

Now the Chairman of the Board most definitely held office with a conflict of interest (developer) glaring for all to see. But has continued in office here for 35 years. Voters are not bright.

However, I use my personal relationship (friends only) to achieve goals on zoning issues and he has never failed me to this day. What does that make me?

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

I guess if I worded the letter as craftily as that last post there is no worry of publication anyway.

getalife,

It’s a guy in a checkout line buying hemorrhoid cream, he turns to Pat Robertson who’s standing behind him in line and says, “It’s not ‘God’s Punishment’ and mind your own business!”

By Dusty

January 7, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

Big Daddy, I never think of you in terms of redundancy. But maybe a little neglect. On your wine list you did not mention the nectar of the gods, Manischevitz. That, with the heavenly ambrosia Claxton fruitcake, excels in epicurian delight. Can’t see why my family thinks I have dropped to the lowest estate of the vineyard.

By getalife

January 7, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

Tell me more and I will have the criminals locked up, then they can’t be reelected.

As for you, since you are an asset to the community with the work you do, I will let you slide.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

finch,

I’ve had a beer with Jimmy Carter so I wouldn’t sweat the Buchanan thing.

By Objective Observer

January 7, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

R.W.: “Never naughty, always nice.” Be my guest, but change the name to “Mia” more exotic.

By getalife

January 7, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

RW,

Yes, that is very funny!

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Have you tried a nice vintage from the “Boone’s Farm Vineyard” lately?

By getalife

January 7, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

OO,

But you are going to have to wear a wire like Duke!

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

That was my name in the story. Oh well, back to my writer’s room.

By Objective Observer

January 7, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Getalife: You mean there is a degree that can be applied to corruption. Interesting! I am redeemed. Thank you.

By Objective Observer

January 7, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

Getalife: I could never turn on him, it’s a loyalty thing. I can only hope that the voting public becomes wiser.

By Objective Observer

January 7, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

Getalife: If that nurse was too mean to you, I’ll come up there, kick her a*, and then do things my way. What’s your room # again?

By getalife

January 7, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Mad Dog 20/20.

By getalife

January 7, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

OO,

I am back home. She is very nice, a neighbor. I went to the hospital for more scans and I glow in the dark.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Mia,

I have a few errands to run, let me leave you with the ending of the story.

….as Mia and I got out of the hot tub we saw that we had been watched, the beautiful Island girl said that was the most wonderful thing she had ever seen, you might call her an objective observer.

By Objective Observer

January 7, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this

R.W.: Lovely!!! I’m off on errands also.

Getalife: You are glowing, but not because of any treatments.

By getalife

January 7, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Thanks, have fun.

By getalife

January 7, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this

I thought you were joking RW. Mike’s new cartoon, very funny

By finch

January 7, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

RW, Dusty, Wash, getalife… As long as we’re talking fruit of the vine, you might want to check out this site.

Non vintages with distinct personalities.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this

getalife,

So ml is giving us a hand-me-down from Friday’s Washington Post and he still won’t put it up here.

ml,

This is the chance you’ve been waiting for, even Andy might not rip you for this one, post the new cartoon.

{and don’t hold me to that Andy comment)

By getalife

January 7, 2006 05:13 PM | Link to this

RW,

I think he did one for Ga. and one for the national audience.

By Dusty

January 7, 2006 05:18 PM | Link to this

Where is ml’s new cartoon?

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this

getalife,

It’s the same one, I’ve got a copy of tomorrows paper.

I just had a pretty interesting e-mail conversation with the guy that wrote the s-crewed up miner story, he says the Governor was running around yelling “a miracle has happened” and “believe in miracles” and such. I wonder why they won’t print that in the paper to take some heat off of them? hmmm…Could it be less than true?

By getalife

January 7, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this

Right here

By Dusty

January 7, 2006 05:25 PM | Link to this

Aw finch,

That list didn’t even include Manischevitz. I guess “good taste” has gone out of style.

By getalife

January 7, 2006 05:31 PM | Link to this

RW,

That is interesting, I think it was an accident due the the lightning storm and some miscommunication. They should print the truth.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 05:32 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

That list “finch” put up makes Manischevitz seem downright… well I don’t know the term

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 05:39 PM | Link to this

getalife,

We were mainly discussing how the story hit the streets the next morning with a banner headline saying, 12 MINERS ALIVE, with no confirmation.

For what it’s worth he says it’s the biggest reporting mistake he’s ever made, so he isn’t trying to wash his hands of the whole thing.

The official story from the Governor’s office is that a reporter asked if he had heard the same things they had heard and he said yes. He says that is all he said to press, no stories of him running down the hill proclaiming miracles have been printed that I know of.

By Dusty

January 7, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this

Nectareous, RW and not on the list!

By the way, Boone FARM?? Never. I only patronize Boone PLANTATION, next to the polo fields. The still is right behind the B & B. The radiators give their product a zip that even Manischevitz doesn’t have.

By getalife

January 7, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

RW,

That is a bad mistake but I think others made the same mistake. I was watching Anderson Cooper live at the mine and he was having major problems getting answers on what was happenning. There were different versions of the story.

By finch

January 7, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this

The major problem I have with the coal mine “survivors” bulletin isn’t the idea that it was first reported by some grunt official (mine? government?) in error, and both reporters and miner families accepted it immediately without confirmation by someone responsible.

It’s the FACT that people who knew the truth, probably both government and mine owner, sat on it for several hours while the town cheered, church bells rang, etc.

There was a major, major fluster-cluck here.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 05:53 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

This is different [Boone}(http://www.ibiblio.org/moonshine/make/make.html), but it comes with recipes.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I agree everyone made the same mistake, but he is the one that wrote the story in the AJC and I was complaining about the AJC.

By Dusty

January 7, 2006 05:57 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Thanks for the link. That is funny. RW mentioned something earlier. I thought he was telling us a good one. Guess I need some more Manischevitz.

Did you read Angela Tuck’s piece today in AJC about the miners? Seems AJC had already gone to press when they found out the truth. Sad, sad story.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

Boone Sorry.

By finch

January 7, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this

RW, that moonshine site is a hoot. Tops mine.

Here’s the link for those who don’t feel like cutting and pasting.

By getalife

January 7, 2006 06:04 PM | Link to this

RW,

D’oh. The AJC, there are better outlets.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 06:05 PM | Link to this

finch,

I agree with that, they said they didn’t have a complete story (i.e. 1 dead, 2 dead, all dead etc) so they didn’t want to go with unconfirmed information to the families to refute a different unconfirmed story.

I’m sure it was a tough call, I think I would done what you suggest and not what they did.

One interesting point Dart brought up was that they didn’t actually have confirmation that he miners were even trapped in the mine until they were found. He said they could just as well have been at the beach. It’s a shame they weren’t.

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I think you are missing my point, when I saw a second story (the one Dusty is talking about)in the AJC today alluding to confirmation from the Governor of WVA without saying what that confirmation was I decided to ask a few questions. Who else am I going to ask?

By Andy

January 7, 2006 06:12 PM | Link to this

We got another lame shot at religion on line 2. And no, I didn’t find it funny, or at least I didn’t let on….

Impeach Murtha!

By RW-(the original)

January 7, 2006 06:18 PM | Link to this

Andy,

We’ve already posted his newly offered scribbling twice over here.

By Andy

January 7, 2006 06:25 PM | Link to this

RW: I may have gotten a sneak preview.

Impeach Murtha!