Mike Luckovich

By RW-(the original)

January 9, 2006 09:05 PM | Link to this

ml must have taken the bet with Ricky. Too bad Ricky you can’t trust a scribbler with Bush derangement syndrome.

By Midori

January 9, 2006 09:06 PM | Link to this

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

On “T” once again, Mike :)

By finch

January 9, 2006 09:18 PM | Link to this

This would have been funnier if Darth Cheney had been hiding behind Bush’s throne. Er, chair.

By RW-(the original)

January 9, 2006 09:33 PM | Link to this

That’s a throne? Er, chair? I thought it was a dry marker board to start laying out the plans for invading Iran.

By getalife

January 9, 2006 09:34 PM | Link to this

All Hail the King!

By finch

January 9, 2006 09:59 PM | Link to this

Hey, getalife! Who the hell is that supposed to be behind King Bush in your link? Mick Jagger??

By getalife

January 9, 2006 10:11 PM | Link to this

finch,

That is Bush’s oil buddy Tony Blair!

By RW-(the original)

January 9, 2006 10:35 PM | Link to this

getalife,

If that’s not Mick Jagger, it has to be Jimmy Carter. I guess it must be a moonbat cartoon rule that you make the leader of your own country look the worst of anyone, this one must have thought John Howard came from some outback version of Bedrock.

By Ricky

January 9, 2006 10:43 PM | Link to this

How embarrassed do you think the AARP is for having named Harry Belafonte their “Man of the Year” after his remarks this weekend. Shows what kind of organization they have become

By Dusty

January 9, 2006 10:48 PM | Link to this

Good old anti-war, anti-Bush Luckovich, still out in left field trying to excite the liberal losers. Getting sorta boring. The faithful applaud his poor little pictures routinely. Too bad liberals don’t have even one other thing to applaud.

By RW-(the original)

January 9, 2006 10:50 PM | Link to this

Ricky,

How much did ml snooker you for by falling back on the same old lame King George idea instead of going after Alito? “getalife” linked a better cartoon and it was seven months old.

By Dusty

January 9, 2006 11:17 PM | Link to this

RW,

Things are a little slow tonight. Maybe we should ponder the great questions of life, such as:

Is finch really the Grinch?

Is Mrs. Godzilla related to Hogzilla?

Only the Shadow knows.

By RW-(the original)

January 9, 2006 11:25 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

I think “finch” and “Mrs. Godzilla” are the same person and they/it are always lurking in the shadows.

Just over three hours to go for Cindy to win the Fiskie for 2005. The only question is can she get to 50%.

By Dusty

January 9, 2006 11:54 PM | Link to this

RW

Looks like a sure thing to me. Cindy for Idiotarian of the Year, or something. (I hope you didn’t “pad” the vote.) I want these liberals to get all the honors they deserve.

G’nite.

By RW-(the original)

January 9, 2006 11:54 PM | Link to this

From tomorrow’s vent:

Bush wiretapped Mike Luckovich’s house, and all the secret agents could hear was the sound of a cartoonist beating a dead horse.

and

Mike Luckovich is the Dan Rather of the printed media.

ml, what did you do to the vent guy?

By RW-(the original)

January 9, 2006 11:58 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

That would be an extremely hard vote to pad. Charles runs a tight ship over there.

The Idiotarian Award can only be won once in a lifetime, so Mama Moonbat needed to win this one. Jimmy Carter won the first one and Michael Moore took the honor last year.

By Dusty

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

RW,

Had to go check those Vents. Have you been contributing to the Vent, RW? Uh huh

Mama Moonbat for #1. She’s a real winner! Charles knows how to pick ‘em.

Sweet dreams!

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 12:11 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

I promise they weren’t mine. I think the vent has my IP blocked.

Goodnight!

By Peecee

January 10, 2006 12:16 AM | Link to this

Well, that explains it1 After seeing the number of those who liked the “King” cartoon vs those who didn’t proves that liberals are the only ones keeping the Al Jazzera Chronical in business! No wonder it toped the list for major newspapers losing the most circulation in 2004! I can’t wait to see how much further down the list they rate in 2005. No wonder Luckovitch has won the “AHOY” award for 10 years running!

By candide

January 10, 2006 03:21 AM | Link to this

To have a president with the dimness and arrogance of Bush is to feel truly humiliated. I wish we deserved better.

By Andy

January 10, 2006 04:38 AM | Link to this

What’s up with these bald guys that always inhabit the cartoon boy universe? And why are they the supposed “smart” ones, the “keepers” of the president who would otherwise harm himself? Is he trying to project a world of intelligent bald people? That old hair line isn’t receding is it?

I know what it is! Cartoon boy’s mind sucks so bad it pulling his hair into his skull cavity!

By Andy

January 10, 2006 04:52 AM | Link to this

Something unusual happened on the way to this week’s nomination hearings for Judge Samuel Alito: Reporters scoffed at the ridiculousness of Sen. Ted Kennedy. Notably, one columnist called his antics “meandering and listless” and suggested Mr. Kennedy is beyond his prime.

You could expand that paragraph to include the whole entire democratic party. Well, O.K. one step at a time…

By AntiRadical

January 10, 2006 06:17 AM | Link to this

Too bad President Bush rarely seems willing to accept the Imperial “responsibility” that comes with Imperial “authority”. The buck NEVER stops on the desks of the NeoCons. It’s always the same EXCUSE; “Clinton did it, too.”

By Andy

January 10, 2006 06:48 AM | Link to this

AntiR: That’s an awfully childish excuse. If you ignore campaign finance irregularities for decades and then, all of a sudden, start cracking down, why wouldn’t previous unprosecuted criminal involvement be fair game? Especially when a former Attorney General obstructed the investigation.

And if every person who has been president since the telephone was invented has authorized wiretaps, why would it be a crime now that Chimpy is in office?

You pinkos have got sour grapes, that’s the real issue. No matter how hard you whine or bit-ch, Bush just keeps driving on, making America better. Deal with it, losers!

By Ricky

January 10, 2006 07:12 AM | Link to this

You can tell ml is running out of ideas since he is continuing to use the same old tired ideas for his cartoon. Why not make a joke about Harry Bellafonte. That would be pretty easy.

By Ricky

January 10, 2006 07:20 AM | Link to this

So ml will make fun of nut job Pat Robertson, but not nut job Harry Belafonte? Ml’s claim that he is a “moderate Democrat” are becoming more and more laughable every day. He has become one of those people that is filled with hate for the current administration

By Scooter

January 10, 2006 07:39 AM | Link to this

A moderate democrat is the same as a patient socialist. We can take the bullet train to socialism and vote democrat or the slow scenic route by voting republicrat. Take your pick.

By Ricky

January 10, 2006 07:57 AM | Link to this

Heres an interesting read on Sen Teddy Kennedy: In Monday’s hearings, Massachusetts Democrat Ted Kennedy expressed concern over an “academic study,” which he said showed that Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito ruled against individual rights in 84 percent of his dissents — arguing that “average Americans have had a hard time getting a fair shake” in Alito’s courtroom. National Review reports, however, that Kennedy himself commissioned the study by liberal University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein. What Kennedy did not mention is that in addition to his statistical conclusions, Professor Sunstein also found that “Judge Alito’s opinions are carefully reasoned, well-done, attentive to law, lawyerly, and unfailingly respectful to his colleagues,” adding, “the law, fairly interpreted, could well be taken to support” Alito’s view.

By Andy

January 10, 2006 08:00 AM | Link to this

Mexico Demands U.S. Allow More Immigration

I’d be willing to trade them 1 million pinkos for 2 million Mexicans any day of the week. It’s a win- win situation.

By finch

January 10, 2006 08:02 AM | Link to this

Ricky, Pat Robertson has a daily TV show that reaches 10s of millions. Harry Belafonte is a has-been lounge singer.

Big difference.

By Ricky

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

finch, while I agree that Pat Robertson has a bigger audience, my point is that ml always tries to argue that he is fair on whom he decides to attack in his cartoon and obviously he isn’t. He has down many cartoons about his buddy King George and many on the Patriot Act and its suppossed evils. But he won’t do one when the Senate Minority Leader brags that he killed the Patriot Act? Or when the DNC Chair says the war in Iraq is unwinnable? Hey maybe ml just agrees with those two and doesn’t realize what a joke they are. Once again, I would love to see him come on here and actually debate with us instead of hiding behind his crayon.

By AntiRadical

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

An America so deeply divided by partisan politics that it allows a Socialist power block to form right under our noses in South America may be a “better” America to you. Not me. Indeed the “Clinton did it, too” excuse is “childish”. Why do you use it so much? You seem to think that I am not in favor of prosecuting Dems. One of the few positive things that can be said about the current administration is that it ain’t Kerry or Dean (much bigger Chimps). Sadly, I’m sure we both realize by now that the Republicans are probably going to “take a bath” in this current corruption scandal. Happily, I don’t think the American public really cares if their leaders are corrupt or not as long as they’re effective, so in the end it will all be about nothing, anyway.

By Wilma Lamb

January 10, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this

You must be doing SOMETHING right Mike, your poll numbers keep going up and Bush,s is tanking again after his Santa Claus “bump” Wilma Lamb

By Ricky

January 10, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this

AntiRadical, the socialist power block is part of the natural evolution of democracy in those countries that are learning how to live with freedom. Socialism will fail it always does. The Clinton did it too excuse is lame, you are right. Clinton was a terrible president, no doubt about it. and while Bush has done well in fighting terrorism in my opinion, he hasn’t done that well domestically. Neither are great presidents. Hopefully next time we will hit a homerun with the president we elect

By AntiRadical

January 10, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this

After today’s economic report sinks in (market has finally almost returned to Clinton era activity- >11,000), Bush’s poll numbers may well surprise you, Wilma. Sadly, Alcoa’s lackluster performance is killing the market today, though.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 10, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this

That hurts. Penalty flag on that.I’m actually pretty tight for an old broad! Also, I don’t lurk. I observe.

This pinko, will be part of the Revolution against the new Mad King George. Go Mike!

By finch

January 10, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this

George W. Bush—April 20, 2004: “Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires—-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”

George W. Bush, July 14, 2004: “A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can’t move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.”

What is to be done with a President who lies? Especially one who lies when he doesn’t even have to?

“We know now what he knew then: This was a lie.

“Want to guess how long it takes to get a warrant to eavesdrop? … In extraordinary circumstances, investigators can listen in for up to 72 hours without a warrant. You know how many warrant requests were submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Court last year? According to The [New York] Times, 1,754. How many were rejected? None.”

What a stupid, shallow, petty man.

By Brian Curtis

January 10, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this

The cartoon’s pretty solidly on-target. I don’t think anyone can dispute Bush’s disdain for accountability or the balance of powers.

By getalife

January 10, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

Scandals Force Closure Of Major Lobbying Firm

Alexander Strategy Group, known for its ties to Abramoff and DeLay, was fatally damaged by publicity surrounding corruption investigations.

By getalife

January 10, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this

For the House GOP, A Belated Evolution

By Jay not jay

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

finch, I guess Jerry Springer would be a rep for the Democratic Party as well, he reaches millions: Jerry, Jerry, Jerry

By AntiRadical

January 10, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this

Ricky: At one time I shared your optimism. Now, I see that Socialism is a continual threat that I don’t think will ever go away. As long as there are lazy and dishonest people, they will always try to vote themselves “free bread and circuses”. Capitalism has seen such great success in recent decades that we are being lulled into complacency. We think we have won and the fight is over(NOT). The ugly head of Socialism requires constant pruning, I’m afraid, and we are totally ignoring it at present in this hemisphere. It is the greatest failure of the Bush administration that it misjudged the nature of the greatest threat to America and so thoroughly overextended the efforts of the Armed services that we can no longer best protect our country, even if we woke up and smelled the coffee.

PS- Anybody notice that America may have gotten it’s first home-soil IED at Starbucks, San Francisco, yesterday? Will be interesting to see if there are terrorist ties and if the war is coming home in a way we didn’t expect.

By Kurtis R.E. Segars

January 10, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

Wow, must be a slow Bush-bashing day. That’s the best Mike can do. How about a cartoon of Ted Kennedy writing a new children’s book on how to still be a Senator after you killed someone?

By getalife

January 10, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

I think someone was upset of the price of coffee there.

By Dusty

January 10, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

Ah, dear liberals, why don’t you write a book “Willie Wonker’s Woeful Ways” and claim it is Bush. You don’t have a single thing to claim for liberal fame. Your representatives in Congress are spinning around like loose tops trying to find SOMETHING to bounce off on. In the meantime, Americans KNOW how strong the president is and haven’t forgotten his strength in tough times. They are now watching liberals in Congress do their clown act over Alito. Another brave show that amounts to the usual political comedy.

By SarahConnah

January 10, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

Ask your collective selves this one question: Would King George XIIIL be on his throne today without the attacks of 9/11? And this follow-up: Who then, benifited the most from the “sacrafice” of 3000 innocent Americans? If you have engaged a human gift called ‘common sence’…I rest my case!

Curtsie!

By hh

January 10, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

How about “Jail You” for war crimes, chimp.

By Eric

January 10, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

Did ya ever notice the poll? Almost everyone likes Mikes cartoons. There are only a handful of morons who don’t, Andy, Dusty, etc… Keep turning up the heat Mike. You rock!

By Dusty

January 10, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this

I can only hope that Sarah and hh have “rested their case” since neither one made any sense.

By Dusty

January 10, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

And then there is Eric, full of “rocks”. Is it recess time or something?

By Jay not jay

January 10, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Dusty, Jerry Springer is probably coming on soon, they are getting all “riled” up.

By getalife

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

Sadly, we are not playing checkers

No, it is not a game. You can show proof and facts to some people but they will still blindly follow the criminals.

All hail the King!

By Ricky

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

Just out of curiosity, what war crimes do people think Bush has been a part of?

By finch

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

The last time I checked, Jerry Springer hadn’t suggested the assassination of one foreign leader, nor had he suggested God’s anger felled another…

Let’s just all agree that Robertson is an embarrassment to the country, and leave it at that….

By Ricky

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

finch, that is one thing I can agree with you on. Robertson is an absolute joke.

By candide

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

Tis not enough, my friends, to agree that Pat Robertson is a joke. His way of thinking is that of millions of our fellow citizens, whose brains have been eroded by bible reading, hymn singing, and church going. We must pull out root and branch every vestige of Christianity in this land. (Islam and Judaism as well)

By Jay not jay

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

ditto, finch and Ricky

By Jay not jay

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

candide, how can such a thing be accomplished?

By Ricky

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

candide, your contention that all Christians believe the same as Pat Robertson is patently false. The vast majority of Christians are good people that wish no ill on anybody. Robertson is an extremist, not the norm

By Dusty

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

Candide,

Gather your wits together and tell us what eroded your brain.

By Daniel

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

American Christians are bloodthirsty and greedy.

By Michael H.

January 10, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

Andy,

Each time you attempt to respond you make my case stronger, namely that you are wholly incapable of giving an argument, making a case for or against any claim, and can do nothing but engage in personal abuse, e.g., “pinkos, kooks,� and other silliness. (What rational person would think that “I’m not going to respond to anymore of you pinkos because I’m better than you are.� is anything other than childish abuse and an excuse for the inability to argue.)

I think you meant “academicâ€? and not “collegiateâ€? because “collegiateâ€? refers to the undergraduate affairs of a college and not social scientific work or peer reviewed academic journals. The study I cited is not “fake,â€? indeed, as I noted, it was recently cited by Alan Ryan of Oxford who is one of the foremost political and legal philosophers in the Western world and I think he would know better than a semi-literate like you what constitutes fraud in social science research. (But I suppose that you are satisfied with just dismissing him and anyone who disagrees with you as a “pinko.”)

If you were referring to Pat Robertson as “mentally deranged and inconsequential individual� I might agree with the former characterization, though I think he is more likely a religious zealot rather than merely deranged. He is hardly “inconsequential,� a claim refuted by the evidence presented in the post which you didn’t bother to note because it didn’t suit your ideology or pre-existing views.

You’re certainly not “better than� anyone who posts here, but you are one of the dumbest of the lot and you furnish the evidence for that every time you attempt to write anything here.

By Ronnie

January 10, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

Bush could also do a little writing his book could be titled ” How I evaded the draft, then deserted my post, killed 2500 Americans, 30,000 Iraqi’s, helped my Big Oil company Friends gouge America, ruined the economy and still have millions of Lemmings following me around” and it all could be written in Pig Latin.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

finch,

10’s of millions?????? The ratings we found on the other thread said the average audience was 863,000. Now if you assume the show is new 5 days a week 52 weeks a year and the 863,000 viewers are different every day, you could claim that Robertson reaches 224,380,000. Of course. How much influence do you think ‘ol Pat has on these one time viewers?

Just to be safe, let’s take David Brock’s advice and not allow any speech we disagree with, pesky First amendment be damned.

By Scooter

January 10, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

RW, Media Matters for America is a great site. Where else can you go to see someone act intelligent by questioning polls and statistics. They used to allow blogging, as I blogged there, but nipped that as it is a site to correct CONSERVATIVE misinformation and the links were hurting Mr. Brock’s power play.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

Scooter,

It is telling that Media Research Center’s, Newsbusters allows blogging for those that want to dispute their points of view or their characterization of a story.

By Jay not jay

January 10, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

The stupid thing about all this Robertson nonsense is why do they give him so much press for making outlandish statements?

If Jerry Springer made such a statement, you think that would get as much consideration?

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

“No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we’re here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people … support your revolution,” Belafonte told Venezuela President Hugo Chavez Sunday in Caracas.

That would be Harry Belafonte, chief spokesman for all Democrats, or at least the ones that claim Pat Robertson represents Republicans.

By ShadowMarch

January 10, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

I can quote too.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

Come to think of it Harry and “finch” must use the same tallyman.

By finch

January 10, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

RW,

As someone who thinks Belafonte and Robertson may be suffering from the same delusions, I can only say…. touche!

I underestimated Pat Robertson’s potential audience, though. His presence on cable and satellite reaches well over 100 million homes. My 10s of millions was, ummm, conservative.

The number actually watching him is another story. But it’s safe to assume that the 863,000 souls who tune him in daily are far more than the number of people listening to Harry Belafonte’s apolitical songs, and certainly more than those listening to Harry’s political pronouncements.

Of course, the bottom line is, BOTH of these fruitcakes should be ignored. Except Harry when he’s singing. He can carry a tune.

By Scooter

January 10, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Harry B. can carry deez.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

finch,

I seem to remember a photo layout of a very fine looking Belafonte daughter, as well.

OK, we could go with “Jay not jay” and let Jerry Springer be your spokesman, but why bother when you already have Gov. Crazy Howie M.D.

By M.S.

January 10, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

Robertson’s comments were stupid and they made the front page of the AJC. Belafonte’s comment’s were treasonist but they hardly made a ripple.

By getalife

January 10, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

If Jack is Satan, what would his buddies be called.

Surely not Christians!

By Ricky

January 10, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

getalife, what did you expect. anytime someone is involved in a scandal, people run as far away from him as possible.

By getalife

January 10, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

Ricky,

They can cut and run from the issue but some are on board for change.

I saw Rep. Flake on CNN admit the GOP was a culture of corruption and want the guilty prosecuted to get back some trust of the American people.

I think the Republicans should take his lead and get on board.

By M.S.

January 10, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

And about this “king George” business,all the guy did was spy on some terro I mean “American citizens” whose name and phone numbers happend to be on the speed dials of captured terrorist. If you want to complain about a power grab how about liberal groups who run out and find some Clinton federal judge to overturn the will of the people every time they dont get there way at the ballot box.

By Scooter

January 10, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

geatlife, have you looked into the tax code that would remove the vast majority of poltiticians’ power, hence corruption?

By ShadowMarch

January 10, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

How do you know thats all they did?

If there is no judicial oversight of the process

If whistleblowers are fired and harassed

If anyone who leaks to the press is prosecuted by the Justice Department

How do you know?

If you are on the outside, everything is secret and under the rubric of ‘National Security’

If you are on the inside, how do you let anyone know without being destroyed?

By RE

January 10, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

MS, I don’t remember spying on US citizens without a warrent being part of the debate in the 2004 elections.

By Daniel

January 10, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

getalife: Also check Rep Jones from NC. He was the original “Freedomfries” guy! And, by the way, a “real” Christian. He has attended all the funerals of the Iraqi war dead from NC. He has contacted all the families of the war dead from outside NC. He is an honest person. As my old grandmother told me: “Actions speak louder than words”. Flake and Jones offer hope.

By getalife

January 10, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

Not yet but I will. Anything that will remove corruption is worth looking into.

With the GOP in power, I doubt they will do anything about taxes except make the tax cuts permanent.

By Andy

January 10, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

Michael H.: First I would like to say that I greatly appreciate your reply to my post. I do not take your response lightly as I can tell that you put a lot of effort into it, judging from the amount of time, 22 hours, it took you to respond.

I apologize for my a-ssumption that I was conversing to someone who had at least a rudimentary command of the English language and it’s myriad uses. I accidentally placed to much faith in your ability to understand when you were being mocked:

mock- v. mocked, mock·ing, mocks- To mimic, as in sport or derision.

By Andy January 9, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this I’m not going to respond to anymore of you pinkos because I’m better than you are. From now on, you just get to sit there and listen to me tell everybody how smart I am. Well, maybe I will…

As anyone who frequents this blog can tell you, I am a modest individual and would normally shy away from making such claims, given that it is rather haughty to talk about something you can’t readily prove. This was not my intention at all, in fact, I was ridiculing you, in my own special way, by pointing out how egotistical, long winded, boring and monotonous your posts were. Unfortunately, nothing has changed since then.

col·le·giate- adj.- Of, relating to, or held to resemble a college

I think, despite your protests, that I will stay with my original description. To call this fake study “academic” would be to take liberty with the truth and I only think it fair if we would be honest with each other. It is a typical ruse of a college professor or university related organization to extort monies in the form of grants from the Federal Government by claiming to be studying something of value. The avenues in which to receive this ill gotten funding are easier to negotiate at a university than as would be encountered by a private interest group, since the university already has it’s accreditation in place. Thus, you will find a high number of pinko “intellects” living on the federal dole while hiding amongst the university’s credentials. To keep their purpose visible and to pass muster they must make up, from whole clothe, various liberal studies, which is the depth of their familiarity: hence we get fake social science research being done on red state America.

These “scams” do serve a higher purpose, however limited it may be, soothing the massive egos of you so called intellects by falsely proclaiming your superior knowledge. It also provides you liberals with a red state ettiquette road map of how to act when you are among those in the “fly over states;” We all remember John Kerry and his now famous words:”Let me git one dem license’s.”

I find it quite amusing, that amongst all of your bluster and snobbish claims, to see you still dragging this fake study around behind you. Is this your sole and most prized possession?

As for Pat Robertson being an “influential” figure, why is it the only time we hear from Pat is in the pinko media? It seems as though he may have a profound influence on, not Conservative, but on you liberals. Speaking for the Republicans, with full confidence that they will agree with me, we are mature enough to understand that sometimes well meaning individuals will lose control of their mental faculties and that, even though their statements are seen as vile and reprehensible, we must look at their origination and not their composition. I do not see as many Conservatives ridiculing, let’s say, Cindy Sheehan, as there are lining up to have their fun with Pat and his accompanying Religion, an ever favorite target of pinko scorn. Almost every “mainstream” media immediately reports his kooky statements, while you have to do some serious investigative work to find similar statements from Cindy. It’s the adult in us.

So Michael, in closing, I must put forth the following question; when are you going to move beyond making me the issue and start sharing with us some of the ideas and agenda of your democratic party? Or do you have any? It may seem like the high road to you but methinks sitting around all day complaining about Conservatives is rather simplistic.

By getalife

January 10, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

Daniel,

Good for Rep. Jones. Any politician on board to fight corruption may deserve to stay in office.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

getalife,

This is what Jeff Flake actually did say.

Congressman Jeff Flake, who’s pushed aggressively for new Republican leadership in the House and for new congressional lobbying curbs, joins me tonight from Washington (sic). Congressman, you’ve been working for months to replace DeLay. It’s happened. Is this a victory for you now that he’s stepped aside? REP. JEFF FLAKE (R), ARIZONA: Well, what we’ve got to do is get down to the business of actually having an agenda that will move us ahead. I think we need to understand that we’ve done some things wrong, that we’ve allowed a culture to develop that isn’t healthy. And we’ve got to move ahead and correct that. It’s not going to happen just with putting more curbs on lobbyists. We have to recognize that we need to put our own House in order.

Transcript begins about halfway down

And Scooter is right about the Fairtax, implementing HR25/S25 would solve most of these problems overnight.

By Daniel

January 10, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

Cindy gave a son to the war effort. What have you given? What is your sacrifice?

By getalife

January 10, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

Andy and Michael H.,

Just get to the point.

This is not the Alito hearings!

By RW-(the original)

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

I can’t wait until Thursday afternoon when we get the rebuttal from “Michael H”.

By Ricky

January 10, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

Daniel, yes Cindy gave a son. I have given 18 months of my life in Iraq, along with several good friends. I have no problem with her protesting the war. That is part of living in a democratic society. Where she loses credibility is with her fringe statements. And why don’t the mothers of fallen soldiers who still support the war in Iraq get put on TV all the time?

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

The WSJ agrees, at least in part, with Cynthia McKinney

Key members of the relevant Congressional oversight committees were informed at least 12 times. The chief judges of the FISA court knew about it. The process was routinely reviewed by Justice Department lawyers and by the Attorney General himself. And the President examined and reauthorized the program every 45 days or so.

In short, if there were any real abuses going on here, there were plenty of people in the loop and able to blow the whistle. Instead, we’ve only heard from people who, for reasons of partisanship or ignorance of the President’s Constitutional war-fighting powers, object to warrantless surveillance per se. Dressing up such a separation of powers dispute in the language of scandal, as is happening now, serves no one but our common enemies.

Although those excerpts aren’t the part where they agree.

By Daniel

January 10, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

Ricky: The mother’s and families of our war dead can do whatever they want, whenever they want. They’ve earned it. The others don’t act because they don’t want to. I enlisted at 17. Most American families are sick at this government and this misbegotten war. We wanted to believe our president, now we can’t.

By ShadowMarch

January 10, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

{Insert 2 hour brief about the brand of toe nail clippers being used by the insurgents}Ohbythewaywemightbelisteningtooneortwosmallphonecallswithoutawarrant(broadcast at subsonics only a whale could hear){Insert two hour brief about analysis of the link taken from the uniforms of Guantonamo Detainees.}

This is not oversight.

Nor do I agree with the sources that say the FISA court was informed.

By getalife

January 10, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

Ricky,

I already thanked you for your service but I will do it again, thank you.

Are you still enlisted?

By Dusty

January 10, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

Andy,

Is that really you? Something seems amiss. Are you punishing us, like Michael H. does, with lengthy somnolent encyclicals? Good point, getalife. Short is sweet.

By getalife

January 10, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

All that rhetoric for this : methinks sitting around all day complaining about Conservatives is rather simplistic

By getalife

January 10, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

Senator Biden, just ask a question please!

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

I wonder why Hillary doesn’t care about what our troops think?

This wouldn’t be sheer political opportunism, would it?

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

That last post was supposed to have a link to this story, but ml’s computer has decided that Hillary Clinton stories are offensive. ml is losing control as can be seen from today’s vent.

Jan. 10, 2006 — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called the Bush administration “incompetent” when it came to protecting the troops in combat and called the lack of adequate body armor for soldiers and Marines “unforgivable.”

By Andy

January 10, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

Dusty/ getalife: Agreed. But in this particular case, I waz provoked:

By Michael H. January 10, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this Andy, Each time you attempt to respond you make my case stronger, namely that you are wholly incapable of giving an argument, making a case for or against any claim, and can do nothing but engage in personal abuse, e.g., “pinkos, kooks,� and other silliness.

I just had to show this kook, Michael H., university refugee, who probably never ventured far off campus, that he is, that long winded jaunts through the dictionary are not the sole possession of the “intellectual” left. I’ll make every attempt to not let it happen again.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Where was Biden going with that crazy story about Diane Fienstein’s glasses?

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

Andy,

Don’t let Dusty and getalife deter your efforts, much like a satirical essay in the Onion, your post made it’s point with the added benefit of being readable and entertaining.

Let Andy Type!

By getalife

January 10, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

He is an blowhard idiot. Why didn’t you tell me about this? : from the conservative national review By Mike Luckovich | Tuesday, January 10, 2006, 01:09 PM The Atlanta Journal-Constitution The Abramoff Scandal It’s the Republicans, stupid.

By Brian Curtis

January 10, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

“ML’s losing it” seems to be one of the most fervent and recurring fantasies on this blog… along with the notion that an editorial cartoonist should be making even-handed attacks on everyone in public office. (I’m sure Fox News and Townhall.com take the same pains to be bipartisan, right?)

Unfortunately, we Bush opponents have some powerful allies—logic and evidence—on our side. “All Bush did was break the law!” is a pretty damn weak defense, even from the diehard “patriots” who want to shield this sniveling crybaby from all the consequences of his crimes and failures.

The tide has turned against the Bush administration, fascists; you may want to detach from their putrid underbelly before they sink too far for you to swim back.

By getalife

January 10, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

Andy(Biden) get to the point!

By Scooter

January 10, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

getalife, hit me up when you get into it.

Also, I agree the republicrats will not do much in the arena of tax reform. Especially now they have gotten involved in vote purchasing with the dems. Fact is, noooo politician will willingly enact something that will limit their power over American citizens. Dependency affords immense power to government and it will be the self dependent people who change the dreadful path this country is currently on.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

I know you like to blow in and blow out of here, much in the manner of a 90’s era intern and might be babbling on about anything, but in case your “ML”S losing it” comment is in response to my post you may need to sharpen your skills in the subtlety of argument.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

From today’s vent:

Bush wiretapped Mike Luckovich’s house, and all the secret agents could hear was the sound of a cartoonist beating a dead horse.

and

Mike Luckovich is the Dan Rather of the printed media.

By Dusty

January 10, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

Andy & RW,

Let Andy type. I just wanted to be sure it was the real Andy. Guess I have gotten spoiled with the usual concise, straight to the point posts. Mea culpa and all that stuff!

By Ricky

January 10, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis, your entire post is weak. You claim you have logic and evidence on your side. I have seen you exhibit very little logic in your rambling posts. When did Bush break the law? You provide no specific evidence. You also lose credibility when you start calling names, but we have been over that many times. You have to admit that ml seems to be hitting the same themes on his cartoon lately?

By Daniel

January 10, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

Bush broke the law when he failed to get warrants for the multitude of wiretaps over the last five years. FISA, Federal Investigation Security Act requires a warrant before government wiretaps. There is even a after-event capacity in the Act. If there is an emergency the government may tap immediately; then ask for the warrant within 72 hours. After 9/11 the government went berserk. They began to seek taps indiscriminately. The FISA Court began to deny the government. That’s when Bush went ballistic and decided to tap on his own ignoring the law. “King George” by ml is on the mark. You can look it up.

By Scooter

January 10, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Hatred is blinding. Don’t be a hater.

Lets see what Google says;

A Google search for “George W. Bush” Hitler returned 1,930,000 hits. Wow, that’s a lot of hate.

By Daniel

January 10, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

FISA: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, mea culpa.

By Ricky

January 10, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Daniel, that is your opinion that he broke the law. If it was that cut and dry he would already be charged. He hasn’t. If it is reviewed by Congress or the Courts and deemed to be illegal then he should be thrown out of office and into jail. However, until then he is innocent.

By RE

January 10, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

So is Ricky calling for an impeachment hearing?

By Ricky

January 10, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

RE, no I am not calling for an impeachment hearing, nice try though. What I am saying is that Congress or the Courts(which I prefer) should review the decision making process that was used to determine that they could wiretap the phone calls without warrants.

By Daniel

January 10, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

Ricky: Of course. FISA requires warrants. He didn’t get them. Why did the government snoop on the Vegetarians? I don’t think, however, that he should be thrown out of office, or, impeached, for that matter. The Republican Party is dangerously out of control. It badly needs Christianity. It needs to reform itself. Help is on the way. This Abramoff thing has legs. We can watch and report on it here.

By Ricky

January 10, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

Daniel, you are missing the point. We all know FISA requires warrants. What the administration is contending is that it doesn’t need to go before FISA in matters of national security. Thats what needs to be reviewed to see if it is legal. Good lawyers have made convinicing arguements both ways. We will have to wait and see what happens.

By Daniel

January 10, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

Ok, but why did the government, indeed, go to the FISA Court, at all!? The government chose to ignore the Court when it began to deny. Why did Bush lie? He said in May 2004 that the government always got warrants before a tap. In fact, he had been secretly tapping vegans for years!

By RE

January 10, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Ricky,

Article one, section 3

It outlines that the senate will have oversite of presidential trials. That would be the review of if this was or was not a crime. How exactallt would the decision making process they used alter the law?

4th amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Is there something unclear in there? You did see the spot requiring a warrent I hope.

By Ricky

January 10, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

Daniel, once again you are stretching the facts to fit your agenda. The FISA court was established in the 70’s, so the government had been going to them for a quarter century. From the administrations point of view, after the terrorist attacks and the country moving to a state of war, the powers of the President changed. I don’t know if that is legal, that needs to be reviewed. It would appear that his statement about the wire taps was false, however I can understand a President not wanting to give up any information on a top secret program. And he was tapping any vegans. The FBI was watching some of the environmental groups because some of their members had links to violent environmental groups and were linked to the violent protests of the WTO in Seattle a couple of years back.

By Objective Observer

January 10, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

The bar must be set low at the AJC or lying on the ground possibly; because this cartoon has nothing that would justify a paycheck. I wonder how much this guy gets paid.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

RE,

Article one, section 3 provides for an impeachment trial by the Senate. You can’t get there without articles of impeachment being approved by the House, and you can’t get to that point without evidence being presented to justify debate on articles of impeachment.

Why don’t you just call for summary execution on your say so?

By RE

January 10, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

Yes, a trial RW, an execution would be a sentence carried out after a trial. I am glad to see you are on board for doing this constitutionally though. If no law was broken, then there should not be a problem with impeachment proceeding beginning.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

RE,

I am for doing things constitutionally. Obviously you are not, since you think you should just run to the Senate and start a trial.

By Daniel

January 10, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

Ricky: They all went to FISA from the git-go. When FISA began to deny them warrants, they stopped going. FISA denied due to the fact that they wanted to snoop on Americans, I.e. not foreign surveillance.) I do not trust Bush. If indeed there was am emergency situation; why not place the tap at once, and then got to FISA? The reason is simple. These rats don’t want a paper trail.

By Ricky

January 10, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

RE, I know that you are not going to agree with my point of view on this and the logic of my arguement. Let the courts review the facts of the case. Then we can go from there. I understand the 4th Amendment, thanks for writing it out for me though. Do you consider it unreasonable to tap the phones of people calling overseas to al Qaeda members or people connected to terrorist organizations? The amendment states no unreasonable searches and seizures and no warrants issues without probable cause.

By physicsDawg

January 10, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

this cartoon has nothing that would justify a paycheck. I wonder how much this guy gets paid.
I hate ML’s pandering to the Left. But, O.O., have you seen his drawing skill? That looked just like Pat Robertson the other day!

By RE

January 10, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Not sure which dictionary you are using, and I do not mean that as a jab at you, as I understand impeachment:

Impeachment Impeachment, in the U.S. and Great Britain, proceeding by a legislature for the removal from office of a public official charged with misconduct in office. Impeachment comprises both the act of formulating the accusation and the resulting trial of the charges; it is frequently but erroneously taken to mean only the removal from office of an accused public official. An impeachment trial may result in either an acquittal or in a verdict of guilty. In the latter case the impeached official is removed from office; if the charges warrant such action, the official is also remanded to the proper authorities for trial before a court

So the act of bringing charges and gathering evidence is part of the impeachment proceeding. IF no crime or breach of law occured, this will be a great oppertunity for GWB to show the nation he was correct in his actions.

By Dusty

January 10, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

RW,

I think RE is going to appoint himself to the Supreme Court. Why bother with Alito when you’ve got RE? Save us all that trouble.

By RE

January 10, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

I completely agree that anyone talking to al qeada in the US should be under investigation, infact there is a whole court set up just for this purpose. The question is why not use a legal method instead of an illegal method by avoiding the court?

By Ricky

January 10, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

RE, many of the left contend that FISA was hardly ever disproving the warrants so why would Bush not go. Not you are saying the stopped going because they were getting denied. Which one is it?

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

He would fit in well with the “left wing” of the Supreme court, since he has now chosen to throw out our Constitutional process in favor of a dictionary.

By RE

January 10, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

I cannot appoint myself to the supreme court, it would be unconstitutional. Thanks for the support though

By Daniel

January 10, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

No, it is not unreasonable to tap al Qaeda. All of us assume the FISA Court would have approved THAT warrant. There is no showing that was the case. These goons are tapping Americans with neither a warrant nor probable cause. Here’s the problem: Government is way too powerful, way out-of-control, way too under the magical spell of “moolah” and way too big. Ricky, we gain nothing by spying on Americans in violation of basic American principles; while pretending to export Democracy abroad.

By Dusty

January 10, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

Uh oh, consider yourself guilty until proven innocent.

By Ricky

January 10, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

RE, again you are misunderstanding the Bush arguement. And again I am not saying the are right, I am just saying this is their arguement. They are saying that due to being at war, they do not need a warrant to listen in on people that are conversing with those that we are at war against.

By physicsDawg

January 10, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

I agree with the lack of a paper trail idea. Whether it happened or not, I don’t know. But haven’t you heard the marital saying (usually for husbands): “It’s easier to ask for forgivness than permission”?

By RE

January 10, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

Just trying to define terms as they appear in the constitution, if you have a better definition, please tell me. Perhaps you can outline the constitutional process on impeachment if I have misstated it.

By getalife

January 10, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

Saying Bush wiretapped Mike’s house proves he should be impeached for breaking the law.

Unless Bush got a warrant, but as self appointed King, he says he does not need a warrant.

Criminal!

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

RE,

You could read my 4:05 post, keeping in mind that I started at your premise and worked backward toward reality.

By Dusty

January 10, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

Bush wiretapped Mike’s house? Did Alice step into Wonderland through the mirror? Did the Vent turn into a blog? I think I will have some Manischevitz before dinner and straighten all this out.

By Ricky

January 10, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this

RE and Daniel, you guys both missed the point of Bush’s arguement. His is based on the war powers of a President, not the FISA court. Not saying it is right, we don’t know that yet, but we shall see

By getalife

January 10, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Just saying how weak the Mike bashing on the vent is and how did that get published in the AJC liberal newspaper anyway?

By RE

January 10, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

ok, I may be misinformed, could you explain to me the proper process of an impeachment hearing?

RIcky,

I understand more where you are coming from now, and what I question is when do war powers come into effect. Articles of war were not drawn up by the legistlature (wes an authorization to use force was passed, I know). So currently we have the situation where the executive branch can declare it’s own wars and grant power unto itself without any check or oversite. Please remember, we are not in a shooting war with any country, we are at war with an idea. Our track record has not been very good in this case, wars on poverty, drugs, cancer….etc have proved to be very long and rarely turn out with a clear victory. How much power would you afford the executive branch in these wars?

By Ricky

January 10, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

RE, the adminstration contends that we the passing of the authorization to use force and the subsequent decision too, it put the country at war. Not your normal war declaration as you pointed out, but Bush has continually said this is not your normal war. So I don’t think they declared war on their own. As for the oversite, the President has said the AG and the DOJ both approved of these measures. And we are at war with more than an idea, we are at worth with the cowardly human beings who carry out that idea through the slaughter of innocent civilians.

By RE

January 10, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

The AG is an executive branch appointiee. The department of Justice is set up under the executive branch. I don’t consider it any type of oversite if all the parties reviewing this were under the same administration.

Yes, there are horrible people who wish to do harm to US citizens, but the actual act of war and the powers conveyed with that are what we are talking about. Would you be comfortable with these powers being extended for the next 20 years or so, a lot of different presidents will walk though the doors of the white house in that time.

By David200

January 10, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

Could someone provide a link to a published claim about these attempts to get warrants and having them rejected? I haven’t read anything about that. Secondly, if these attempted warrants were rejected and the wiretaps were still put in place, I’m pretty sure that’s the definition of an illegal wiretap, guys. I think that’s call prima facia evidence, isn’t it?

By Ricky

January 10, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

RE, agreed that the AG is a political nominee. However, the DOJ is not a totally political animal. It is the same as the CIA or FBI. I am comfortable with MY government doing what it needs to keep me and my family safe from terrorists. That is their number 1 responsibility, the safety of the American citizens.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

RE,

On the off chance you are serious I’ll try.

First any member of the House can file an article of impeachment and seek co-sponsors just like any legislative item. There is one right now filed by John Conyers with six co-sponsors. It would be rare to get any real traction on that without overwhelming evidence. Usually you would want a recommendation to come from the Judiciary committee.

In either case, once you have enough evidence and support of House members you will be able to present your articles and evidence on the House floor. (For those of you that think President Bush should be impeached talk to your Representative in the House, if there is really a groundswell for it that’s the way to get it moving.)

Once your case has been debated on the House floor it will be voted on. If approved the President is now impeached. At that point an impeachment trial would be held in the Senate and presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The President will then be acquitted or convicted. If convicted the only recourse is removal from office and disqualification from holding office in the future.

None of this has anything to do with a criminal proceeding and does not mean that a criminal charge can’t then be brought.

By RE

January 10, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

Thank you very much RW, I do appreciate it.

So if I understand this correctly, there would need to be sufficient support in the house to bring this to a vote before the senate would actually hold the proceedings.

Now for a criminal trial, I imagine that one of the aggrieved must bring charges first, or can this be done by a local DA?

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this

RE,

After all that you still ask that???

Good Lord, THE HOUSE HAS TO APPROVE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BEFORE THE SENATE CAN HAVE A TRIAL.

Sorry for yelling. As for your other question if it is a crime a DA can ask for an indictment, if it is a civil action you need an aggrieved party.

By RE

January 10, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this

Ricky, Within the DOJ this would go through the office of legal counsel, so I do agree that most of the DOJ is not appointed, the office of legal counsel, Harriet Miers, certainly is

By RE

January 10, 2006 05:16 PM | Link to this

Rw, thank you

By RE

January 10, 2006 05:20 PM | Link to this

a little snipet from the confirmation hearings: Specter, who plans to hold a hearing on the domestic spying program next month, asked Alito if he agreed with a statement by Justice O’Connor in a separate case that “a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens.”

“Absolutely,” Alito responded. “That’s a very important principle. Our Constitution applies in times of peace and in times of war, and it protects the rights of Americans under all circumstances.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, sparred with Alito over the administration’s policies on torturing prisoners and domestic spying.

“If the Congress passed a law prohibiting torture,” Leahy asked, could the president “immunize people from prosecution if they violated our laws on torture?”

Alito said, “No person in this country is above the law and that includes the president and the Supreme Court.”

By blogger

January 10, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this

Michael H., for all of Andy’s alleged command of the English language and the way he constantly pats himself on the back for his non-existent knowledge and insight, see the exchange below for the truth about how much this idiot knows about anything. He doesn’t even know the basics of our federal government, and you expect to have an intelligent political debate with him? You’re dealing with a guy who is completely stupid, so you should probably quit wasting anymore of your time with him. I did when I realized the extent (or lack thereof) of his mental capacity.

By Andy

December 26, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

blogger: What branch of government does the Attorney General belong to?

By blogger

December 26, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

Andy, why don’t you do some research for once if you don’t know?

By Andy

December 26, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

The Judiciary. Bush had the Attorney General review his actions. Bill Clinton had Jamie Gorelick, his deputy Attorney General review his wiretapping surveillance. Why do you say that it hasn’t been reviewed for legality by the Judicial Branch if it has been? Are you just going with the impeach Bush line, like some silly sap?

By blogger

December 26, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

Andy, gee, I always thought that the Attorney General is a member of the President’s cabinet who serves at the pleasure of the President, and is a member of the Executive Branch of government? Did you just say that the Attorney General is a member of the Judicial Branch of government???????

By Andy

December 26, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

It figures, I’m dealing with a lightweight, a hysterical one at that.

The Attorney General compromises the Justice Department, specifically- the Attorney General was to be “learned in the law� with the duty “to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States in other words a member of the Judiciary.

It should have been easy for you when I tipped Bill Clinton’s use of Jamie Gorelick to review the legality of his surveillance activities. You must not be capable of complex reasoning. Do you get all your ideas from Michael Moore? Why am I discussing this with you and not him? Wouldn’t it save time?

By Andy

January 10, 2006 05:28 PM | Link to this

It tells you how shallow and bizarre the argument of the pinkos is when they have to make me the issue. I am the center of their lives; they hang on every word I say. If I were to mistakenly say that Iraq was a province of Canada we would never hear another peep from them about WMD. From this day forward it would be- ANDY LIED! CHILDREN DIED! I’m humbled by the honor, knowing that I have so many pinkos waiting for me to speak.

Especially from this blogger/ pinko/ I Wish I Was Andy/ Pinko Andy freak who seems to have devoted his entire existence to my every move.

By RE

January 10, 2006 05:38 PM | Link to this

Check out WEB MD: understanding Psycosis

Delusions are fixed beliefs from which the individual cannot be shaken, despite obvious contradictory evidence. For instance, someone may have a delusion that he or she is a celebrity or famous religious or political figure, despite the fact that this is not true.

of course I am sure half the people in here will think the other half suffers from this.

By Andy

January 10, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

RE: You sound like you’ve undertaken a self prognosis. This is good; admitting the problem is always the first step to treating it. May I suggest you check out www.health.gov or maybe HealthWeb, these are both excellent places to reference for information that may help you with your battle.

Good Luck!

By RE

January 10, 2006 06:03 PM | Link to this

“I am the center of their lives; they hang on every word I say. “

you are right, I am the one who is dillusional

By Mr. Godzilla

January 10, 2006 06:27 PM | Link to this

To the BOZO who referred to Mrs Godzilla as “Mrs. Hogzilla. Surely you must be refering to your wife, as Mrs. Godzilla is a beautiful, intelligent lady and mother, that if you weren’t stuck with your beast, would be proud as I am to call her my wife, as I am.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 06:45 PM | Link to this

Mr. Gozilla,

Since no one referred to “Mrs. Godzilla” as “Mrs. Hogzilla”, who might be the BOZO?

All the comments are up ^ ^ ^ there for your perusal.

By Mr. Godzilla

January 10, 2006 07:53 PM | Link to this

Dear Dusty, Please refer to your earlier post, a relationship is inferred. By the way Bozo, it is Mr. Godzilla, not Gozilla. You must have attended a few classes at Tech!!!

By Mrs.Godzilla

January 10, 2006 07:59 PM | Link to this

Mr. G: I’ll make ya’ a turkey sandwich, double pepper, after the trusty white stallion is safely put up.

RW: 1-9-06 11:17PM He’s defending my honor.

He’s a good republican husband. (He DOES lurk!) Besides, I met BOZO once. Never got to play the Grand Prize Game though. Nice Man. Paid a lot of taxes. Raised a nice family.Probably a Republican. Everybody liked him.

What’s with the thing for red wigs and big feet?

STOP ALITO!

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 08:49 PM | Link to this

Mr. & Mrs. Godzilla,

Sorry about the missing “d”. Dusty spelled it right by the way. I guess it was awfully insensitive of me tying you to “finch”.

Lighten up, please! We’re all friends here.

By Mrs.Godzilla

January 10, 2006 09:05 PM | Link to this

Yes, Including my new friend Finch.

Such a lovely pen-name!

By Kevin

January 11, 2006 05:23 AM | Link to this

Mike is he asking to be sovereign over the US, the World or Kingdom of Heaven? Sometimes I get confused.

By Whitey

January 12, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

Picture this:

President Clinton is sitting in the chair. Clinton says “BLOW ME”. and the man sitting down says “Sadly, he really means it!”