Mike Luckovich

By Andy

January 13, 2006 09:35 PM | Link to this

Jack Abramoff Lobbying and Political Contributions, 1999 - 2006

Why would the Republican accuse the teller when he has so many others to blame?

By Andy

January 13, 2006 09:40 PM | Link to this

Democratic Senatorial Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Patty Murray, D-Wash., Democratic National Committee, Charles P. Rangel, D-NY, Patrick Kennedy, D-RI, Harry Reid D-Nevada, Byron Dorgan D-Helmet Head, Tooooommmmmm Daschle, D-SD, Brad Carson D-OKLA, (fingers hurt..)

By RW-(the original)

January 13, 2006 09:54 PM | Link to this

Andy,

Do you think it’s possible for ml to be so isolated that he actually believes this?

ml, how about a cartoon of you in a bubble, or an iceblock, or whatever that was before.

By getalife

January 13, 2006 09:59 PM | Link to this

Your link shows Abrahamoff donated to Republicans only!

The culture of corruption has spent a lot of time at the bank and hope they spend a lot of time in prison.

By Jay not jay

January 13, 2006 10:03 PM | Link to this

I think Lucko may be moonlighting and scribbling for this magazine

By Midori

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

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

TOO FUNNY!!!!

Great one, Mike!!!

By Midori

January 13, 2006 10:18 PM | Link to this

snicker

By Jay not jay

January 13, 2006 10:22 PM | Link to this

Gee go wonder, corruption in politics, that’s a new one…Audit all of them.

By Mike Parker

January 13, 2006 10:36 PM | Link to this

Don’t forget the Democrats who printed the money.

Oh, the Democrats who made the paper the money was printed on.

Yeah! The Democrats that mixed the ink!

Yes! The Democrats that processed the wood pulp into paper.

The Democrats that cut down the tree, drove the truck, planted the tree, …

Did we slander enough Democrats yet?

Now that we’re done blaming the out of office Democrats for selling flavors, can we get back to putting prison stripes on Republicans who think our justice system is a joke?

By Jay not jay

January 13, 2006 10:39 PM | Link to this

Is that Democrat fight song at MoveOn?

By RW-(the original)

January 13, 2006 10:42 PM | Link to this

Jay not jay,

I think you sing it to the tune of “Look for the Union Label”, that song that AlGore’s mom sang him to sleep with.

I always thought was weird since he was in his twenties when it was written.

By Midori

January 13, 2006 10:45 PM | Link to this

Yes, Jay.

We copied it from the Republican song at the Heritage Foundation.

By Jay not jay

January 13, 2006 10:47 PM | Link to this

Oh no, someone scratch their finger nails across a chalk board, quickly.

By R-BOB

January 13, 2006 10:48 PM | Link to this

A cartoon by Mike is about as predicable as the ending of a redneck joke……

It’s only funny to those without taste.

By Midori

January 13, 2006 10:48 PM | Link to this

or, better yet, RW: we like Barbara Bush’s lyrics that she sang to W better

By Midori

January 13, 2006 10:51 PM | Link to this

anyone got a knife? we need to cut the rope that has R-Bob bound quickly.

You know, the rope that has him tied up so that he’s forced to read this cartoon.

I’m a compassionate liberal, you see.

By RW-(the original)

January 13, 2006 10:52 PM | Link to this

Midori,

You’re about as compassionate as a suicide bomber.

By getalife

January 13, 2006 10:57 PM | Link to this

Midori,

Check out #2 for Barbara

By RW-(the original)

January 13, 2006 11:39 PM | Link to this

E-mail evidence suggests that both Abramoff and a colleague made trips to Las Vegas during the time they were dealing with the Texas tribe. In fact, one e-mail from Abramoff indicates that he was to visit “Nevada” before traveling to meet with tribal leaders.

Officials are reportedly focusing on this. After all, there are powerful, deep-pocketed gaming interests in Las Vegas, of course.

If accounts are true, Abramoff and his team would be asking the Tiguas — whose casino was to be left with no customers — to shell out millions of dollars in consulting and lobbying fees, plus campaign contributions.

By Jay not jay

January 13, 2006 11:56 PM | Link to this

Wow! How do they keep electing this guy?

“Kennedy earned C grades at the private Milton Academy, but was admitted to Harvard as a “legacy” — his father and older brothers had attended there, so the younger and dimmer Kennedy’s admission was virtually assured. While attending, he was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once for paying a classmate to cheat for him.”

http://www.nndb.com/people/623/000023554/

By Liberal Texas Democrat

January 14, 2006 05:54 AM | Link to this

Conversing with Republicans is like raising children. One finds one self so often saying, “and if little Timmy Democrat jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge does that mean you have to jump too?”

By Andy

January 14, 2006 06:05 AM | Link to this

Liberal Texas Democrat: So who jumped off the bridge? Anyway, if a Republican is found guilty he should get a jail cell but if a democrat is caught he should (fill in the blank, please.)

I’m just curious.

By Andy

January 14, 2006 06:09 AM | Link to this

Bush: Iran Poses a Grave Threat

Notice how he didn’t say “imminent?” Could you hysterics write this down so we can save some time a year or so from now?

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 06:33 AM | Link to this

Andy: Here you go:

By Mike Parker January 13, 2006 10:36 PM

Now that we’re done blaming the out of office Democrats for selling flavors, can we get back to putting prison stripes on Republicans who think our justice system is a joke?

Obviously, ignorance is bliss!!!

By Andy

January 14, 2006 06:34 AM | Link to this

Check this out:

Look at the litter box liner page A13, middle blurb under “Nation In Brief” titled “Man jailed half his life cleared by DNA.” Now look at this link, go all the way to the second to last sentence. This story is a year old or better.

Now reference the more recent and more pertinent story DNA tests confirm man executed in 1992 was guilty, which the AJC makes no mention of in their “news” paper.

What they are doing is headline swapping the news to make it appear the way they want it to be seen. It looks to the average reader as though DNA testing has cleared another death row inmate. Which is what the pinkos at the AJC want everyone to think.

finch: What was it you were telling me about slanted and biased news sources?

By Andy

January 14, 2006 06:53 AM | Link to this

OO: Now that we’re done blaming the out of office Democrats for selling flavors - Chief Daschle wasn’t the only one on the long 4 page list, there’s a bunch of them still in office.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 07:20 AM | Link to this

It is selective Andy, and appeals to those that are uninformed. Shedding light on the truth is painful for them and requires displaced blame to justify their past commitment.

The conservatives (many on the site) are holding their own accountable. That is to be admired, however, for many liberals here, not all, that fails to be recognized.

I’m not a big fan of O’Reilly, but I do admire his refusal to allow spin. He is mad about the liberal judge’s refusal to protect children from sexual predators. Who can disagree with that?

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 07:39 AM | Link to this

Make that plural - judges’.

By Andy

January 14, 2006 07:44 AM | Link to this

House weighs Ney as a liability

If the Washington Times put it out there then it must be true. Another example of the Republicans doing the right thing, just as Objective Observer so correctly pointed out. It just goes to show you who the adults are.

By Andy

January 14, 2006 07:57 AM | Link to this

The source said under the current climate in Washington people are presumed guilty until proven innocent, so Mr. Ney, while expecting to be eventually exonerated, is weighing how much of a distraction the stories about him are for fellow Republicans right now.

*DeLay’s, Reed’s pride preceded Abramoff’s fall

Reed and DeLay are the sort of men who believe the rules don’t apply to them, that the morality they preach to others is not meant to contain their own grubby ambitions, that they are somehow exempt from the common decency that ought to apply to all. In other words, theirs is the sin of pride — a human failing that doesn’t merit as much attention from today’s public moralizers as it should.- Cynthia Tucker, 1/9/06

Hang them, your Honor, please, please hang them.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 08:18 AM | Link to this

Not that anybody is interested, but I am attempting to assemble a floor lamp which was made in China, with instructions in Spanish. No instructions in English. I’m feeling very excluded in my U.S.A.. I have left over pieces. Oh well….

By Andy

January 14, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this

Like I was saying:

Some environmentalists are as clueless. Even as Russian and African polluters frantically pump without American-style regulations, these well-meaning activists argue we should not drill responsibly in small areas in Alaska and offshore to feed our own appetite. If the left pushed nuclear power and more drilling, and the right pushed more mandatory efficiency standards and alternative fuels, the United States could cut its imports and collapse the world price.

Imagine the dividends to America that transcend even scaling down our trade imbalances. Cash-hungry failed foreign nations would now have fewer resources to aid terrorists like al Qaeda or Hezbollah, or even to fund anti-Western madrassas. The Arab Street would have to blame its own elites for mismanagement rather than Western bogeymen. And it would be far easier to curb weapons of mass destruction if madmen lacked the oil to pay for them.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the Man.

By Andy

January 14, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this

Thanks to new DNA tests, we now have confirmation that executed murderer Roger Keith Coleman killed his 19-year-old sister-in-law, Wanda McCoy, in 1981. This means anti-death penalty activists still haven’t been able to find a case where the system is known to have sent an innocent person to his death.

It won’t stop them from lying about it, though…..

By Eric

January 14, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this

Now that 65 percent of the country is finally seeing the light and has discovered that W stands for weasel and 90 percent of the country understands that Cheney is actually Darth Vader, they’re trotting out Laura to try and make the administration look human. It’s too late dumb-ss. There’s nothing Laura can do for you now. When she sits there and tells the world how great her hubby is, it just makes her look as dumb as he is.

By Andy

January 14, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this

The popularity of thug culture is among the most serious of modern-day threats to black America, far more dangerous than any lingering institutional racism

This is probably the hardest thing I’ve ever done in my entire life but, seeing how I am an upstanding Conservative and also an adult, I must applaud Cynthia Tucker’s Sunday column. This is something that we should all agree on, with the likes of that little lovey Eminem singing about killing his mother, is one of the larger problems for our nation’s future. We cannot glorify violence and lawlessness without reaping what we sow. Kudos, Cynthia!

By getalife

January 14, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this

The culture of corruption has done far more damage than Eminem has ever dreamed about.

Sheese.

By Andy

January 14, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

getalife: So our children shooting eachother to death in the streets is the moral equivalent of bribe taking in your little pinko world?

By getalife

January 14, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this

Bombing innocent civilians so defense contractors can get rich and for oil is immoral in my world. But in your wingnut world, you follow the the criminals blindly and call yourself a Christian.

Hypocrite!

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this

Andy: I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding Tucker’s column. She also had one months back commending some female college students for their protest of “gangsta rap’s” demeaning of women in their lyrics. Going back to work on my lamp.

Getalife: Our youth is our single most important resource, and we want to better prepare them for dealing with corruption.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

OO,

The President and the party in power should set an example for the children. I do not think that the culture of corruption is setting a fine example unless you want them to lie, cheat and kill.

But what do I know, I have a fried brain right Andy!

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

Getalife: Today’s youth pay little attention to politics, but their music is their bible. Your brain is finely tuned to your passion (COC).

By getalife

January 14, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

Think about the children watching everything going on in the world and tell me. Is Eminem really setting a bad example? Or is it our government, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, Rush, Bill, etc…

Hate breeds hate!

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Getalife: Did I get that right (COC)? That sounds bad when I spell it out. Oh, there was one time when they were paying attention to politics. “Oral Sex is not sexual intercourse.” Thank you Bill Clinton. They hone in on those things which interest them.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

Getalife: There is no hate in my heart, or yours. Are you grumpy today? Anything I can say to help?

By getalife

January 14, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

OO,

Today’s youth does watch a lot of television and does hear a lot of hate usually out of their parents mouths. They are paying attention and will follow their example.

You are right, I am grumpy. I will take a break and talk to you later.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

Again, not that anyone is interested, but 2 hrs. 15 mins. later, my lamp is assembled with 15 leftover pieces. Have I seen the light? That remains to be seen. Wish me luck! Zzzzzaaaaaaaaap.

By Ricky

January 14, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

I really wonder if ml believes this cartoon? Does he really think no Dems are involved in illegal lobbying?

By Propaul

January 14, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Mike draw one showing Bill Curry going to Alabama after coaching his Alma Mater (GT).And he wants to be GT AD? Then show how the GT Faithful accept more mediocre choices. Go Jackets!

By M.S.

January 14, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

Mike,don’t you read your own newspaper? Let me help. Indeed, at the DNC’s executive committee meeting in Washington in early June, Dean publicly acknowledged that some congressional Democrats had urged him to tone down his “culture of corruption” rhetoric because they did not want to get caught up in the same ethics probe as DeLay. But Dean said he would not hold back.

“We have not spoken about moral values in this party for a long time,” Dean said. “The truth is, we’re Democrats because of our moral values. It’s a moral value to make sure that kids don’t go to bed hungry at night. … It is a moral value not to go out on golf trips paid for by lobbyists.”

Dean was alluding to the allegations that Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff paid travel expenses related to a trip to London and Scotland by DeLay in late May and early June of 2000 in violation of congressional ethics rules.

But in recent months, with Abramoff the subject of a criminal investigation, there have been media accounts and studies by watchdog groups that raise questions about the conduct of Democratic House members:

•?The Washington Post reported that Abramoff paid at least a portion of the expenses of Democratic Reps. James Clyburn of South Carolina and Bennie Thompson of Mississippi in the mid-1990s.

•?The Associated Press reported that at least 43 House members and dozens of congressional aides failed to publicly report travel financed by special interests until DeLay’s trips were scrutinized. Most notably, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland disclosed 12 trips, the oldest dating back to 1997.

•?The Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group, in a study of public records of every congressional trip between January 2000 and mid-2004 sponsored by non-profit organizations, found that seven of the top 10 trip-takers were Democrats.

“Howard Dean is pretty much out there on his own [among Democrats] in trying to take on the ‘culture of corruption,’ ” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the Committee for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the nonpartisan group that drafted the complaint Bell filed against DeLay in June 2004.

“The Democrats [in the House] talk a good game, but that’s all,” she added.

“They’re afraid to do anything that could blow back on them. They’re all about the boys and girls club that Congress is.”

No one eager to complain

Atlanta constitution 07/04/05

By Joe Roman

January 14, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

Wingnuts trying to tar Democrats for the Abramoff scandal is like blaming the server after getting food poisoning at a restaurant. This one belongs exclusively to the Republicans. How many of you will visit Delay in prison?

By getalife

January 14, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

OO,

Check out my new blog

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

getalife,

Very deep thoughts on your blog today!

By getalife

January 14, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

RW,

Short and to the point. Very informative.

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

getalife,

Except it’s not very true. Typical liberal propaganda!

I hit “next blog” from yours and went to a Spanish language site, maybe OO can find out where the rest of her lamp parts go.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

Getalife: You seem back to your usual self, and that is not an “a*****”. I visited, but could not register. You require an e-mail address. Did Big Daddy put you up to this? You have not signed on as “Procurement Officer”, have you?

By getalife

January 14, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

RW,

I wonder if she can go to the manufacturer’s website, put in the model number and convert the instructions to english. It maybe the chinese way of sticking it to the man.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

OO,

We are going to use it when they say “get a room” and for Big Daddy’s links.

Sorry, rough night.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

Ooooo! Private and perverted conversation, but now everybody knows.

My lamp parts are “nuts”, I think…. I have determined that they are not essential in my endeavor. I shall apply them here so as not to be wasteful. 0 down, 15 to go. Pay attention.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

Getalife: Like R.W., you are very easy to forgive.

By SherryVL

January 14, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

Hearing Repubs saying things like “some Democrats took the money, too!” is like an admission that “some Dems are as sleazy as we are!” Poor little sleazy Repubs… such victims in this criminal case!

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

SherryVL,

In spite of your snarkiness, that is sort of what we are saying. If a politician is involved in illegal activity they should stand trial and face the consequences. Party is immaterial.

I think it’s much more insidious that Democrats keep saying, “We’re not in power you can’t look at us.”

By getalife

January 14, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

New and improved blog, click on the link

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

Naahhh! Doesn’t qualify for “nutdum”, due to self acknowledgement. Still 0 down 15 to go.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

Getalife: Much improved, and accurate too.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

Okay, how about this one?

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Getalife: You tricked me!!! That wasn’t nice. You are a man…

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Getalife: Keep it up, I may have to slap “a nut” on you.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

OO,

I’ll be good.

By getalife

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

OO,

I am half the man I used to be.

/hat tip to Stone Temple Pilots.

By Andy

January 14, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

getalife: You going to put an “Eminem for World Peace” link on your site? Something we can go study and learn how not to be a bloodthirsty neocon warmonger? Maybe bust out in a Iranian Nuclear Rap?

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

Getalife: You, R.W. and some of the other guys are really into rock. I had to google “Stone Temple Pilots”. I’m more of a Bob Dylan/Paul Simon fan. Oh my God, I might be a liberal. 0 down 15 to go.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

Andy,

Iranian nuclear rap is being done by China who depends on their oil. The other countries who trade with Iran will be an obstacle to this problem and their crazy President knows this.

A dissident is here

/hat tip to Pearl Jam.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

M.L. is still serving leftovers. That is the same lady from the 2 previous toons. Mother? Girlfriend? Wife? Other woman? He certainly is fond of her, whoever she is.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

OO,

He always makes the elephant look angry. I wonder why the elephant is not happy?

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Somebody left a request on your blog.

Objective Observer,

Isn’t Paul Simon that Democrat that always wore a bow tie?

By getalife

January 14, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

RW,

Very funny, now you need to start one so I can leave a comment. It is free and easy and you could make money on advertising. Pretty cool.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

R.W.: No, he’s that other democrat (I presume), the “You Ain’t Heavy, You My Brother”, guy. Andy’s rap version.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

Getalife: Your brain must be on full tilt. I couldn’t have set up my own blog site. My technological skills are limited to what R.W. has taught me. I still have a lot to learn, but my bulbs are dim. On my lamp too.

By getalife

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

OO,

It is pretty easy, RW should be able to teach you. It uses templates so you just fill in the blanks. Bob Dylan and Paul Simon, you are a lib or in Andy’s words, pinko lib.

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Here you go.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

Getalife: In my heart I am liberal, but in my mind, I am conservative. That is what allows me to be “OO”. Sometimes I feel like a nut, sometimes I don’t. Where is everybody, I have “nuts” to distribute. 0 down, 15 to go.

It’s going to be hit & miss today. I’m trying to catch up around the house. Point me in the right direction when you spot one (a nut), just in case I’m busy when they post. Be objective now.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

Show Offs! Here’s mine:

My name is Objective Observer, my name says it all.

Hit me with 21 (words or less):

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

You could probably spot all the nuts you need in this one convenient stop.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

Squeeeeeeeeze Play! Oh my heart, oh my head. OO faints from the stress. Kurplunk!!!!!

By getalife

January 14, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

RW,

I left you a comment about my grandfather. Nice blog short and to the point.

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I saw your comment, what’s going on with yours? It won’t let you read comments now.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

RW, It is under construction. Another free porn site so I can make some more money. Just kidding, I am posting my puppies later.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

Here you go, puppies!

By getalife

January 14, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

RW,

Butterscotch is big. I guess he or she eats a lot of cheese.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this

I guess men must be playing “little boy’s games” somewhere. Oh well, “nut” @ 12:48.

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Nice puppies! Butterscotch is a she and she eats just about anything.

Objective Observer,

Are you down to 14 now?

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

Getalife: How cute, both of them.

R.W.: I thought you were talking rat terrier! Aaahhh, I know you must love him/her. A very special kind of love indeed.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

Yes. 1 down, 14 to go.

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

They make great pets, but they have way too short a life span. Next time you hear about something causing cancer in rats, be a little suspicious of the report. I’m convinced that every rat get cancer no matter what they are subjected to.

Butterscotch is a Mama’s rat, though.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

I had a hamster once, used to hold and pet him/her until it yawned one day and I saw it’s teeth. Just baby talked to it through the cage after that. Does Butterscoth have loooonnnng teeth?

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

They have very sharp teeth, but they are very good with them. I had one named “Katie” that could bite a hole in a plastic hairbrush, but could also take a spaghetti noodle and pull it off your plate without breaking it.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

R.W.: Worthwhile information.

Note to self: Rats have very adept teeth. Steer clear, but offer lots of baby talk just in case they get loose.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

I posted a picture of my late grandmother at a homecoming game in Paris Texas. The man on the left is coach Gene Stallings. My Mom went to school with him and I got to watch a cowboy game from the sideline when he coached the defensive backs for the cowboys.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

Getalife: What does the banner that your Grandmother is wearing say?

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

Drats! My table umbrella has been blown into my pool. Dawn my ski clothes and dive, dive, dive. Brrrrrrrrr!

By getalife

January 14, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

OO,

It says Wildcat fan. She went to all the sports games of Paris High for many years so they honored her for the homecoming game.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

OO, Ski clothes, pool, you must have big money. No wonder you are a Republican. You like them big tax cuts don’t you?

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

Getalife: That was c-c-cooooold. Ski clothes purchased at discount stores. Pool, a must have for someone who lives for summer and sun & garden tomatoes. Tax cuts are great. I’m much better at managing my money than the government is. I have more to do good for others. Not wealthy. Would I be cleaning my own house and working if I were?

Besides, you’re from Vegas, everybody has a pool in Vegas, don’t they?

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

Getalife: I never said I was a Republican. Have voted both tickets. Vote for the “man” not the party. In all honesty, I will probably vote Republican until I see someone worthwhile from the Democrats (moderate) or Libertarians. Probably be a long wait though. I’m hoping to be voting for a woman in ‘08. Wanna take a guess?

Are you a straight Democrat? I’ll still respect you in the morning.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

OO,

Very nice. Yes, there are alot of pools in Vegas. After high school, I went back and lived a couple of years there with my Dad, worked out and laid by the pool everyday, out drinking every night. Too much fun, never could keep up with the old man though.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

OO,

I am shocked, shocked you think I am a Pinko lib. You know I do not follow any party, they are both corrupted by lobbyists. I am an independent thinker and leaning towards McCain to clean up the mess. I think he will do the right thing in the period to be called recovery.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

Getalife: I sense that you are a little melancholy today. Is everything O.K.?

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this

Getalife: I guess I spoke too soon. You are back and in fine form. I am right there with you on corruption, and lobbyists to bring temptation. Good men/women can resist. I, however, have difficulty. It is my fun-loving nature I guess.

Remember who you are talking to. I am not Andy, it’s OO here.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

Where are all the nuts, wing or otherwise? I have inventory waiting to distribute. I gave the first one to myself for screwing up on the attribution to the song. I was anxious I guess. I accept the award with great humility.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

OO,

Sorry, I am not a Democrat. The two parties reminds me of two kids on the playground playing dodge ball. They are only human and there is too much temptation. They do make a pretty good living on their salary every year and there is greed involved.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this

RW,

Put Butterscotch down and type something. OO has inventory for you.

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Talking about Butterscotch reminded me she needed food and snacks, I’m back now.

Objective Observer,

I thought you meant someone else had posted the 12:48, that was brutal. Although if you look up that song “He ain’t Heavy…” you find multiple artists and multiple people taking writing credit.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this

I was singing it while cleaning, and the voice became familiar, and it wasn’t Paul’s. I stand corrected by….well me. Good job OO.

By buff

January 14, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this

getalife

John McCain, sheesh, I would vote for the Hildebeast first, well, maybe not that drastic

By AntiRadical

January 14, 2006 05:32 PM | Link to this

Lobbyists tend to “have contact” primarily with one party or the other but not equally both. Issues requiring the representation of a lobbyist tend to be in some way controversial and thereby political (one side or the other needs convincing). Just because Abramhoff didn’t shuffle money and favors to Dems in the same measure as he did Reps, doesn’t mean that Dems are not as corrupt (or even more so). It just means that one of THEIR lobbyists hasn’t got caught red-handed, yet. What I think of when I look at this stuff is that probably less than 0.1% of graft ever gets caught and held accountable. So what did the other 99.9% buy????? Don’t that just give ya a warm feelin’ all over.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 05:34 PM | Link to this

buff,

Good game on, where is your blog?

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 05:39 PM | Link to this

People in Europe tend to eat American horses, guess what it’s George Bush’s fault.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 05:51 PM | Link to this

Interview with Mrs. Bush;

Do you feel like crying sometimes with all the bad things said about your husband?

Oh no, no, I know he is a complete idiot and so does he. Have you ever heard him speak? LOL

By Ricky

January 14, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this

You usually post pretty good jokes getalife, that one was pretty bad

By getalife

January 14, 2006 05:55 PM | Link to this

Ricky,

He was joking about his rhetoric in the Merkel press conference. He does have a good sense of humor.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

I was trying to earn one of OO’s awards.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this

O.K. Getalife, will you accept it with the same grace and humility I did? If so….. Screw It! Now it’s you and me. 2 down, 13 to go.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 06:07 PM | Link to this

Oh, Thank you. I will like to thank ml for posting this blog. OO for giving me this award. I accept with humilty.

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this

13 left huh, that lamp must of been chock full of nuts

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 06:17 PM | Link to this

Not nuts perse, little round thingys with teeth, but nuts to me. They’re mine and I’ll call them what I want.

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 06:19 PM | Link to this

Hi getalife, Objective Observer and RW, I was just stopping by the lounge before I go out. Looks like all is well, peaceful. I guess you could screw one of those nuts on me.

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

Are you a little obsessed with teeth today?

By getalife

January 14, 2006 06:22 PM | Link to this

Those are wingnuts

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 06:22 PM | Link to this

Ooops, at second glance, that sounded bad…

By buff

January 14, 2006 06:22 PM | Link to this

getalife

I donothve a blog, yes great game

By Ricky

January 14, 2006 06:23 PM | Link to this

You see the usual name callers aren’t here and we can actually have a friendly conversation

By getalife

January 14, 2006 06:25 PM | Link to this

buff,

RW, now you have two students.

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 06:25 PM | Link to this

Jay not jay,

Be careful, I think she has these.

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 06:27 PM | Link to this

Ricky,

The funny thing is that when they show up they’ll say we are the name callers.

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 06:27 PM | Link to this

Whooa RW, those look brutal, please be gentle OO.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 06:27 PM | Link to this

Yes, little round thingys with teeth.

By Ricky

January 14, 2006 06:28 PM | Link to this

RW, yep you are correct

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 06:29 PM | Link to this

Getalife: Wingnuts have ears. My nuts have teeth. R.W.’s rat has teeth. Jaynot has not earned a nut, and I don’t expect he will.

This rich b*** is going back to mopping. I’m checking in though.

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 06:30 PM | Link to this

Shhhh RW, don’t russle them up. You must be very, very, quiet.

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 06:31 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

Maybe you should have dried off after your swim so you wouldn’t have so much mopping to do.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 06:32 PM | Link to this

OO,

My nuts have teeth

Like this?

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 06:33 PM | Link to this

OO, don’t feel bad, I got to spend the day laying tile in the laundry room. Fun, fun.

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 06:35 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Those were mine, thief.

Impeach getalife!

By getalife

January 14, 2006 06:37 PM | Link to this

RW,

I am corrupt! Nuts with teeth! That deserves another nut.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 06:43 PM | Link to this

That’s them. But, once again, they’re mine, I couldn’t find where they went, and I’m calling them nuts. Besides what fun is a lock wash award. “Screw It” makes me feel powerful.

I’m perplexed, my kitchen floor was nasty, but my mop water is not. I’ll have to ponder that mystery.

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 06:44 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Those things are $.75 a dozen, no wonder OO is calling herself a rich something with alot of asterisks.

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 06:48 PM | Link to this

I have never heard of such a thing, but apparently Gore’s days in Tennessee taught him how to hypnotize chickens

I don’t think PETA would appreciate this though.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 06:51 PM | Link to this

Jaynot: That sounds like voodoo to me. I’d gladly give a nut to Gore, but then he already is one.

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 06:52 PM | Link to this

Jay not jay,

Icons of the liberal left are doing quite a few strange animal tricks lately.

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 06:53 PM | Link to this

lol, good stuff

By RE

January 14, 2006 06:55 PM | Link to this

Hey guys,

Call me a pinko lib, but we just attacked and killed 18 people from pakistan, a soverign nation and a some what reluctant ally. I think we may get a lot of heat for this attack.

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 06:55 PM | Link to this

I saw those links the other day you guys provided with the cats/dogs singing songs. That was hiliarious. Can you get those to a bunch of different songs?

By getalife

January 14, 2006 06:56 PM | Link to this

cluck, cluck’ and he’s out,â€? Mr. Gore said.

He is out alright.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 06:58 PM | Link to this

I am still trying to get over “my nuts have teeth.”

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 06:58 PM | Link to this

Jay not jay,

There’s a bunch of them here

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 06:59 PM | Link to this

RE, we wouldn’t call you a pinko lib. They are just trying to find the chicken Osama like everyone wants.

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 07:00 PM | Link to this

Thanks, RW

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 07:02 PM | Link to this

Jay not jay,

You’re welcome. I don’t think the Led Zeppelin Viking Kitties are on that site, but they are posted on the last couple of threads.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 07:02 PM | Link to this

Butterscotch is in a band?

By RE

January 14, 2006 07:03 PM | Link to this

And I am with you, but if Mexico attacked a texas border town and 18 US citizens were killed while trying to eliminate a drug lord, I am sure we would have a problem with it.

By Jay not jay

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

Donkeys ride chicken?

By getalife

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

RE,

Those unmanned drones should make them paranoid for their little meetings.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 07:12 PM | Link to this

Oh, elephants yes

By RE

January 14, 2006 07:15 PM | Link to this

paranoid, yes…but unfortunatly, we hit people on the wrong side of the border. And if we got him, I don’t think it would be an issue. This is a tough conflict we are in right now. If this pushes Pakistan away from us, we will be in a much worse situation.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 07:17 PM | Link to this

Wasn’t this the second attack in Pakistan?

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 07:20 PM | Link to this

That’s true RE, but we constantly slip over the border to do “recon” missions. I am sure Musharraf will look the other way.

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 07:27 PM | Link to this

getalife, that would have been even funnier if they would have pasted W’s face onto Pavarotti’s

By getalife

January 14, 2006 07:31 PM | Link to this

I figured ya’ll would like that one. I tried to bring back a link on the Pakistan bombing, they are not happy and are demonstrating. ml computer does not like ABC news.

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 07:36 PM | Link to this

I had that problem the other day as well with an ABC link. I thought Jay not jay had been banned for a second there.

Maybe they want you to use a WSB link?

By getalife

January 14, 2006 07:37 PM | Link to this

Here it is

Front page.

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 07:38 PM | Link to this

great, maybe they came close to catching the chicken and they are getting anxious.

By RE

January 14, 2006 07:39 PM | Link to this

It isn’t musharaff, it is the people of pakistan I am worried about. This is a border region, and we did go in for good reason, but who has any idea about who was or was not killed. If it is the Al Qeada plannig group that got killed, hey, no problem. If it is some innocent family in Pakistan, we may lose Pakistan as an ally. If anything, it makes me appreciate the difficult situation Bush and the admin. is put in. There is never a clear answer on intelligence. But we are judged by the consequences, not the intentions. I don’t think this story is over yet.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 07:46 PM | Link to this

RE,

Yes, the story said 800 to 900 went on a rampage, looted and torched some buildings. They will catch some heat on this one.

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 07:46 PM | Link to this

RE, no the story probably won’t be over if the media can play it right. The fact is, the people in this region are not allies to us or to Pakistan’s government for that matter.

By RE

January 14, 2006 07:52 PM | Link to this

Ever watch a football game, and see the coach go for it on fourth down instead of punt. Even if you don’t like the coach, and even if they don’t get the first down, you have to respect the balls to go for it. I don’t blame bush or anyone else for the choice, but I think we are going to catch hell for it.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 07:54 PM | Link to this

least 11 militants had been killed in the attack.

May be not too much heat.

By buff

January 14, 2006 07:59 PM | Link to this

getalife

Who you picking in game two?

I am going to the sofa in front of the firepalce

See y’all tomorrow

Where is Midori, at an orgy? :)

Bouht a new pick ‘em up truck today

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 08:01 PM | Link to this

RE, maybe, but I don’t see why ONE of them wouldn’t want to cash in on the bounty and live in the lap of luxury here in the US. I wonder where the guy that narked on Saddam’s son’s are now? Probably sitting on the beach in Maui.

By Andy

January 14, 2006 08:01 PM | Link to this

Rep. Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, formerly one of the most hawkish Democrats in Congress, met on Jan. 5 with representatives of the militant antiwar organization, Code Pink.

Murtha, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, has moved deeper into the antiwar protest movement over the past two months since advocating removal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Code Pink, at a mock war crimes tribunal in Istanbul June 27, signed a declaration that the Iraqi insurgency “deserved the support of people everywhere who care for justice and freedom.” The document also rejected as illegitimate any democratic government left behind in Iraq.

Code Pink’s website currently shows Murtha with his arms around Gael Murphy, the organization’s co-founder, and Allison Yorra, its Washington coordinator. Murphy was one of the protesters arrested for disrupting the 2004 Republican National Convention.

Nice.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 08:02 PM | Link to this

buff,

New England for a fourpeat. What kind of truck?

By RE

January 14, 2006 08:03 PM | Link to this

Go Panthers. Carolina will dominate in Chicago.

By Andy

January 14, 2006 08:09 PM | Link to this

So we got the Seahawks and the Bears for the NFC Championship, I see the Bears advancing to the Super Bowl on the back of Thomas Jones and that defense. Right now I see them playing Indie, it’s too close to call for the trophy.

By buff

January 14, 2006 08:11 PM | Link to this

get

Naw, NE will go down, and I predict Pittsburgh will give Indy all they want, but…..Denver may beat NE

Bought a 2006 Dodge F1500 4X diesel with 12,000 miles

A goofy kid bought it and it was about to be repossessed; in over his head

So, I took his loan, he made a BIG down payment, and traded him an old Nissan truck I use to haul mulch, and gave him a tiny bit of cash

After we signed the contract, my son, a shyster (lawyer) said I should be arrested for taking advantage of the kid

I did get a hell of a deal, but, free will and all…………

Oh, well. beautiful truck, but I will regret giving him the 1K

By getalife

January 14, 2006 08:13 PM | Link to this

Murtha is a dirty old man

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 08:13 PM | Link to this

Brian Urlacher is the man!

By buff

January 14, 2006 08:15 PM | Link to this

J m J Yes, BU is a stud

Kind of reminds me of me (in my dreams)

By getalife

January 14, 2006 08:18 PM | Link to this

buff,

What a deal, you won’t regret it, you got a new truck to haul your mulch.

Patriots rule!

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 08:19 PM | Link to this

A sucker is born every minute, to be taken advantage of my car dealers and Buffs. But did he learn his lesson?

By Andy

January 14, 2006 08:23 PM | Link to this

JJ: Don’t forget about Alex Brown, Lance Briggs, Nathan Vasher, Charles Tillman, Mike Brown, Adewale Ogunleye, Chris Harris…

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 08:28 PM | Link to this

Andy, that D’ is badas-s. They made the Falcons look like schoolboys.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 08:33 PM | Link to this

Urlacher crushed the Falcons. He was having fun and Vick was hating it.

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 08:40 PM | Link to this

Attn Mike Vick: Watch out for Vince Young!

By buff

January 14, 2006 08:42 PM | Link to this

O-O

My wife is what a call “a bleeding heart conservative” She thinks i should give him more money to “be fair”

To me, “screw that”

We know the kid, a neighbor, but he cane to me

Now, I can negotiate like an Arab trader, so the Bride says I should give him some more money

My argument is that I helped him out, he now has a paid for workable vehicle

I don’t know, I have to think on the deal

It was so sweet I could not turn it down

What do y’all think: Should I “be fair” and give the kid 2k, or more?

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 08:42 PM | Link to this

OO, are you done with domestics? Pop a beer and have a seat in the lounge.

By Jay not jay

January 14, 2006 08:44 PM | Link to this

No buff, I don’t think so. Hard lessons are the best lesson learned right?

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 08:48 PM | Link to this

Buff: I vote no. The best learned lessons are sometimes the hardest taught. If his Dad is bigger than you, just don’t answer the door when he comes a knockin. Better yet, tell the Dad you gave him $2,000 and let the kid explain his way out of that one.

I’m in a lying, cheating mood tonight. Sorry Getalife. Close personal relationships with corrupt County politicians.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 08:54 PM | Link to this

I am shocked, shocked I say.

buff,

Do you really want to hear the wife bring up this sublect over and over until you cave. Do yourself a favor and pay the man

By buff

January 14, 2006 08:56 PM | Link to this

OO

Is there any other kind of county official?

By buff

January 14, 2006 08:59 PM | Link to this

I played strong safety in high school, and I was pretty good; loved to hit. I even got a scholarship offer from a CRAPPY state college in Arkansas

But, that Urlacher reminds me of Lawrence Taylor; one defensive player controlling the game

I was going to hit the sofa, but with the wife a chick party, I may just have another spot of Makers Mark

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 09:00 PM | Link to this

No Buff, don’t the kid will grow up thinking that he can repeat the same mistakes over and over expecting a different outcome. What is that called? Insanity! Don’t condemn that poor young man to a life of insanity. He deserves better.

Start practicing your selective hearing skills now, to avoid the accusations from your wife. You’ll feel better, and there will be peace, literally.

By buff

January 14, 2006 09:01 PM | Link to this

get

Naw, I married way above my pay grade. She NEVER nags

By Midori

January 14, 2006 09:02 PM | Link to this

Well,

good evening, everyone.

I’m in a foul mood. My team lost. ):

not that it was unexpected. they had zero offense.

pout

By getalife

January 14, 2006 09:04 PM | Link to this

buff,

You are a lucky man.

Hello Midori.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 09:04 PM | Link to this

My county politicians have probably raked in more than all the Abramoff recipients put together. The one with the biggest wallet is my friend. Once again, sorry Getalife.

By Midori

January 14, 2006 09:05 PM | Link to this

Buff is a regular he-man, isn’t he? :)

Hi, Getalife.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 09:06 PM | Link to this

buff,

Check out my old truck, it had a hemi

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 09:07 PM | Link to this

buff,

If the kid’s truck was about to be repossessed you’ve already done him a favor. They would have put it up for auction based on what was owed and sold it for less than that. So he was already going to lose his down payment and then he was going to get a bill for whatever they lost on the auction sale not to mention saving his credit rating from showing the repossession.

By Midori

January 14, 2006 09:08 PM | Link to this

How about that wind last night?

It knocked my power out.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 09:12 PM | Link to this

R.W.: Why did your advice sound so much nicer than mine?

By getalife

January 14, 2006 09:13 PM | Link to this

Because you are corrupt.

By buff

January 14, 2006 09:13 PM | Link to this

O-O

OK, no $ for the kid

Getalife, yes, VERY LUCKY in marriage, far more than I deserve

Midori, sorry I was pulling for the Native Americans (why am I so PC tonight?) I need to be more ANGRY WASP. Maybe it was TODAY’S good fortune

Midori

What is a babe like you doing home on Saturday night?

Well,

my blogger friends. I am glad to say tonight’s dialogue has been MUCH more fun

G’nite, finally off to the sofa with some booze

Getalife, Ne is GOING DOWN!!!!!!!!!

By getalife

January 14, 2006 09:15 PM | Link to this

Not!

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 09:16 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Maybe he meant Ney.

By getalife

January 14, 2006 09:21 PM | Link to this

RW,

DeLay.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 09:21 PM | Link to this

Getalife:

By getalife January 14, 2006 09:13 PM | Link to this Because you are corrupt.

Sorry, only one award per person and it looks like I’ll be going to bed without bestowing anymore honors. I was feeling so mischievious too.

By finch

January 14, 2006 09:27 PM | Link to this

What a friendly place this evening! Somebody slip xanax into the water supply? (grin!)

Kinda sorry to see the Redskins (there, I said it. Redskins) lose. I like Joe Gibbs.

Fearing a Bears loss tomorrow. Panthers are hungry again.

getalife, RW… nice blogs. Nice pics anyway.. as someone hinted somewhere, now there’s a room folks can go to. winkwink.

And I liked ml’s toon!

By Midori

January 14, 2006 09:30 PM | Link to this

Kinda sorry to see the Redskins (there, I said it. Redskins) lose. I like Joe Gibbs.

I’m with you all the way there, Finch.

By Objective Observer

January 14, 2006 09:33 PM | Link to this

Finch: Are you from the U.K.?

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 09:41 PM | Link to this

Help me out with this one, I just got an E-mail from the DNC about having a watch party for the State of the Union that said this:

Besides connecting with your friends and neighbors to discuss the state of our nation, you and your guests can join a nationwide conference call with Governor Howard Dean, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, offering immediate reaction and opportunities for rapid response.

Are they trying to encourage or discourage these parties?

By Midori

January 14, 2006 10:06 PM | Link to this

RW, we plan a game of “Telephone Twister”. Take a look at our game board

By getalife

January 14, 2006 10:11 PM | Link to this

RW,

What are you doing getting an email from the DNC, you work for the RNC. Spy.

Midori,

Put your mouse arrow on DeLay and it crashes, in your link.

By finch

January 14, 2006 10:18 PM | Link to this

Nope, OO.. I’ve spent a fair amount of time in the UK, but I’ve never lived there… multiple residences for me, including Chicago, NYC, DC, SF, Atlanta and now.. somewhere in the swamps of SC….

Gotta try Midori’s link now…

By RW-(the original)

January 14, 2006 10:20 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I think they just like me.

Midori,

You’re game board is missing the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, the grassy knoll, and Mothra.

By Andy

January 15, 2006 06:44 AM | Link to this

I know how to cheer you pinkos up:

Could a pill erase grim memories?

Just think, Alito really didn’t make Kennedy look like a jackleg idiot, Bush really isn’t the President, we’re making love in Iraq not war. This could be good for everybody.

By Andy

January 15, 2006 07:19 AM | Link to this

Congratulations to all of the nuclear power kooks- Nuclear Power Critics Taking Long View- While you use scare tactics to frighten everybody away from something you are too stupid to even understand, 100,000 people a year continue to die because of the smog belching coal burning plants.

Not to mention the billions of energy dollars we could keep in our pockets.

Does the hysteria of the left ever come down on the right side of history or not wind up killing millions of people?

By AntiRadical

January 15, 2006 07:21 AM | Link to this

“As one of those opportunities, we hope that you will again actively support efforts to pass a bill restructuring the electric industry in Texas.”- Ken Lay, Pres of ENRON to then Governor, George W. Bush, 11/16/98

“Linda and I very much want to thank you for the ‘Tejano Santa’ print by Sam Coronado print with your signatures and the official seal. It was thoughtful of you to send it to us, and it is a gift we will treasure.”- Ken Lay, Pres of ENRON to then Governor, George W. Bush, 12/21/99

There are many politicians in bed with industry moguls and other influence peddlers. Most inhabit that gray area just inside the absolute letter of the law. They may be “legal”, but hardly uncorrupted. I strongly suspect that if we were to eliminate all corruption in American government, that there would be no American government left.

By Andy

January 15, 2006 07:38 AM | Link to this

In Paul Krugman’s, Ny Times Economic Conspiracy Theory Kook, own words:

1. What did I do? In early 1999 I was asked to serve on a panel that offered Enron executives briefings on economic and political issues. As far as I knew at the time, they genuinely wanted to learn something. I resigned from that board in the fall of 1999, when I accepted an offer to write for the New York Times.

2. What was I paid? It turns out that I was actually paid $37,500 - the last quarterly payment did not take place, because of my early resignation from the board.

To advise a company that soon went bankrupt on economic issues.

By jpm

January 15, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

The talking point memo got out fast on this one. No republican will comment on K-Street w/o countering that the Dems are just as guilty too.

But it doesn’t make sense, Abramoff was a DeLay creation, why would they funnel money to the opposition party?

By Andy

January 15, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

So this is the democrat response for the hundreds of thousands of dollars they took from the same Indian tribes that Jack Abramoff represented: The Republicans won’t kill themselves. Wahhhhhh. It’s typical.

Hillary influences military spending in favor of campaign contributors and THAT’S NOT A CRIME, YOU REPUBLICAN SCUMBAG!

Harry Reid, who just so happens to represent Las Vegas, has accepted Abramoff client contributions and has influence legislation in favor of the casinos but THAT’S NOT A CRIME YOU REPUBLICAN SCUMBAG!

I hear that we want to clean up corruption in government, but I see that “we” want to clean up Republicans in government.

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

men·tal- (mntl) adj.- Of, relating to, or affected by a disorder of the mind.

By buff

January 15, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

Andy

right on about the hypocrisy

Fellow bloggers

Chucky-sucky Schumer is scheduled to make a rare appearance (sarcasm for you leftists) in front of a camera in a few on FoxNews Sunday. It will be hilarious to watch that scumbag try to justify voting against Alito

By buff

January 15, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

What do y’all think the chances are that bill Campbell will be convicted of corruption?

For you non-locals, he is the former crooked mayor (yes, I am biased)of Atlanta

By buff

January 15, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

Oooooohhh

Looks like the UN Security Council is going to “take up” Iran and its nuclear program

Can you imagine the fright in Tehran over the UN “getting tough”

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Big butts are obstacles to effective healthcare. Uhoh! Will this be grounds for medical malpractice suits. It’s your butt, how did it get that way?

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

The U.N. “getting tough” is a contradictory statement.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

Mark Warner (D-VA) is on with Snufalufagus talking about how he could be a good President because of his strong support of the military and the fact that Virginia has more military installations per capita than any other state. (I wonder if that’s even true)

He did recently send a letter to returning Virginia guard troops thanking them for their service in Iraq. Of course, they had been in Afghanistan.

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

Albert Brooks “Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World” coming to theaters near you. Now that is an interesting strategy. I, for one, think it could work. “Live, Laugh & Love.” Easy, just do it.

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

R.W.: You are covert (DNC member) aren’t you? I’ll check out his credentials. A woman would be nice. Hillary is something else!

By RW-(the original)

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

Objective Observer,

You did notice that I was making fun of the fact that he didn’t even know where Virginia troops had been serving, didn’t you?

If not, I’ll have to make my sarcasm more overt.

By buff

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

RW

Warner is a closet liberal. He tries to come across as a Sam Nunn type, but I don’t buy it

However, he could give the Hildebeast problems

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

R.W.: I did notice, but God knows I have to be forgiving of mistakes such as that under the present administration. I can usually spot your sarcasm, but not always.

Haven’t you referred others to Gov. Warner’s site before? I remember visiting. I do learn here, but mischief is my main objective.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

I sure don’t think I’ve referred anybody to his site. The only two things I know about him are the fact that he sent 100 Virginia soldiers a form letter and didn’t bother to check where they had served and that he tried in his last days in office to outlaw the death penalty by proving that an innocent man had been executed in 1992. That backfired on him when his handpicked lab in Canada came back saying justice had been served.

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

R.W.: Ethics and efficiency are good characteristics for a politician. His claim to fame at the state level seems to be his “succession planning” program. I’m not sure that would play out in Washington. It will be interesting to see how subsequent Governors perform under his legacy of “succession planning.”

I’ll follow though. I am, afterall, Objective, right?

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

R.W.: You know what, I think it was Finch. I’m pretty sure it was.

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

R.W.: Now let’s get serious here. What about the strategy of “Finding Comedy in the Muslim World”, sometimes things don’t have to be so complicated, do they? I want what I want, simplicity!

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

Are men on T.V. slapping each other on the butts again today? I appear to be talking to nobody, and that can’t be good.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

He does look like someone the finch would be a fan of. That Albert Brooks movie looks pretty good. I suspect a Jewish man doing man-on-the-street interviews in Muslim areas was a little nerve wracking.

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

Come on R.W., tell me it could work. Pleeeaaaase! Bringing the two together, for a good laugh. Everybody lightens up and enjoys each moment. Pleeeaaaaaase!

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

A philosophical moment!

Everybody loves to indulge themselves in the fantasy called,

“Somebody is making me unhappy.”

The truth is that an instant of NOW went by and

you chose to be unhappy.

That’s the way it works.

There’s no one kicking you in the a* to make you unhappy.

You do it to you.

You’ve always done it to yourself.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Where are you?????

By buff

January 15, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

O-O

Yep, it is up to each individual whether he/she is happy

I think too many people let others decide their state of mind

By Scooter

January 15, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

OO, the truth hurts and political correctness has banned constructive criticism, so you had best stop your philosophical ramblings.

Just a warning, you will bring out the rabid!

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

Scooter: I have awards to distribute. I have to go out though, so I may miss a few.

Like R.W., I’ve been waiting for Getalife. He had a bad night Friday. I’m hoping all is well.

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Oh, by the way, I do acknowledge that happiness can be found in the debate for some, and I’m O.K. with that.

By Scooter

January 15, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this

Does anyone know what OO meant by getalife had a “bad night” friday?

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Scooter: It was self-professed. He came on grumpy and declared he had a bad night. I assumed restless. He was in fine form yesterday though. We had fun as usual.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

I don’t know about Friday, but he seemed a little down yesterday morning. Later on he seemed fine and put up some pictures on his blog. Now his blog is empty and he hasn’t been here today.

By Scooter

January 15, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

OO, thanks. I had actualy gone back to check and affirm he was osting last night. I thought bad was medical. Every man/person deserves the opportunity to leave the wet air of LA and return to some Nevada brand breathing.

By getalife

January 15, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

Why are my ears burning? Not to worry, I am alive and kicking corruption to the curb. Problem is like AntiRadical said, elininate corruption and there will be nobody left in Washington.

Thanks for caring!

By Scooter

January 15, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

Church perhaps?

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

Getalife: You………, where have you been? I have put off my errands, waiting for you. I demand that you check in every morning by 9:00. You get a nut! Screw it on.

Three down, 12 to go.

By Scooter

January 15, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

getalife, have you taken away any power lately?

By getalife

January 15, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

Will do OO. Go do your errands, I will be here. Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don’t.

Power to the people!

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I put a link to your blog on mine. You need to put something there in case my thousands of readers click over. (I may be slightly exaggerating the readership!)

By Andy

January 15, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Iran to Hold Conference on Validity of Holocaust

I got an idea. How about if the United States holds a conference on the validity of Iran?

By getalife

January 15, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

RW,

It is under construction, still playing aound with it. I will put my puppies back up. I will link back to yours.

With your fan base, you should advertise and get paid.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I don’t think anybody, but finch err….seneca has been there. Besides that advertising option says it picks ads based on your blog content. I have Butterscotch and Viking kitties up, so I’m guessing I would be covered up with pet store ads.

By getalife

January 15, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

RW,

Butterscotch and Vikings, candy and football should have some advertisers avaiable along with Petsmart.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

getalife,

With the Vikings there maybe I would get an adult cruise line ad.

By getalife

January 15, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

RW,

Just checked out your new blog and left a comment. No Ann link??? No Rush link???Fox News???

I got some work to do and try to keep up.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I couldn’t get the code for links to work on the other template. How did I forget to put Rush up there? I’ll go fix that.

By getalife

January 15, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

RW,

Yes, then you will get cash from their advertisers.

I am going to link all the corrupt politicians and get some of their cash.

Wait, that would make me corrupt or would it?

By RW-(the original)

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

getalife,

I put Rush up there, maybe I can get pharmaceutical ads now.

By getalife

January 15, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

RW,

You are getting into big money now.

I am going after the oil companies.

By Andy

January 15, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

Look, we’re still blaming Clinton:

A decade after he vetoed legislation that would have opened up a small part of Alaska’s oil-and-gas-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to exploration, Bill Clinton deserves his share of the blame for the fact that U.S. dependency on foreign oil has increased in recent years significantly more than it otherwise would have.

On the margin, the million barrels per day of ANWR oil that would now be flowing to the lower 48 represents a wasted opportunity. The cost of that decision can be measured by the fact that current oil prices are hovering at $63 per barrel, increasing the nation’s import bill at an annual rate of $23 billion. Meanwhile, U.S. oil production since Hurricane Katrina has averaged only 4.4 million barrels per day, which, in the absence of ANWR output, is one-third (or 2.2 million barrels) below the 1995 level of daily output.

To add it up for you pinkos, that comes out to $63,000,000 a day. We could buy an awful lot of Caribou happiness for $63,000,000 a day. I’m talking about a personal trainer, a barge full of oats and hotel room in the Juno Hilton for each animal. Thanks a lot you silly liberals.

By finch

January 15, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

It’s true, I have been giving Mark Warner the occasional high five here. I like him, and not just because I once voted for him. I think he’d give Hillary and the GOP a real run for their money. I am not a Hillary fan.

RW, I’m afraid you’ve misrepresented Mark’s position on capitol punishment. In 8 years as governor, he’s commuted one death sentence… to life imprisonment.

Earlier this month, he did offer defenders of Roger Coleman, executed in 1992 for killing his sister-in-law, the chance to postumously clear his name. DNA testing proved he was guilty.

I would hardly say that Warner’s record indicates he’s soft on capital punishment.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this

finch,

We wouldn’t want anyone misrepresenting anyone’s position, now would we?

Call it editorial license on my part, I’m not a news source like the Washington Times, you know.

By Danielle

January 15, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

Hey everyone, I was going to post on the freedom page, but it seems that its closed, so yea, but theres another page thats open now, so if yall wanted to post on here its a blog where there isnt any name calling, its not my page, but I know the person that set it up, so if you post on there, dont think its me.

I wanted to say thanks to everyone, so if yall had seen the drawing and posted thanks.

Jeff (the original), Im proud of you for finding a way to join the services, and you will be in my prayers.

Thanks everyone.

By finch

January 15, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

My bad, RW…

I should have said that the MSM hasn’t been clear about Warner’s take on the death penalty. Maybe lots of folks think he’s even into blanket clemencies, but that’s Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, whom I’m pretty sure is NOT running for President.

At any rate, I wasn’t critizing you!

By the way, it’s really neat seeing how you and getalife are building your websites. Who knows, you guys could make a living doing that!

By Andy

January 15, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

Thank You, Danielle!

By getalife

January 15, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

I have decided to make my blog about Paris

Just kidding, under contruction. I will link to your Danielle if you don’t mind.

By getalife

January 15, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

RW,

You know you picked the best template for links and I can’t use the same one.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this

getalife,

It says you can copy the code into any of the templates, but these “blogspot” things are a pain beyond basic posting.

By RW-(the original)

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

Danielle,

You should post back here too, it hasn’t been nearly as brutal as it was around the time your drawing was up.

getalife,

The template that Danielle’s friend used is different than mine and has the same link code.

By kimberly

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

Andy, you’re not the only one who can multiply. Paul Wolfowitz said back in 2003 that we can pump TWO MILLION BARRELLS A DAY from the oil fields in Iraq. Hey, WHAT THE HECK IS OUR OIL DOING UNDER THEIR SAND? Anyway, at $63 per barrell, that’s $126 million dollars a DAY. We could buy and awful lot of body armor and armored vehicles to support our troops for $126 million a day.

By getalife

January 15, 2006 05:20 PM | Link to this

RW,

Yes, I have been playing with the code to see what changes, gives me a headache.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 05:35 PM | Link to this

getalife,

The one you are using now has the same code, the only way I’ve figured out to edit it is to go into the template area, scroll down to the sidebar section and copy the pattern and insert the url where it says EDITME! and what you want to name it where it says edit-me.

By getalife

January 15, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this

RW,

Ouch my head, I think I will take a break.

Here is the new blog without links

Constantly under construction!

By getalife

January 15, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this

RW,

Showoff!

I like that Butterscotch(the original)

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 05:57 PM | Link to this

I have wondered about you Danielle. Hope all is well. If you have been viewing over here, please know that the only trouble I make over here is all in fun, and sometimes in bad taste. I am hopelessly harmless.

I’ll check on your site periodically.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Are you sure those puppies aren’t corrupt? One of them looks like they are saying, “give me a treat or I’m going to keep licking the kid.”

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this

I think you guys are being given the cold shoulder or everyone left town for a three-day weekend. Getalife, you and R.W. are making me feel less than adequate with your expertise in blog sites.

By finch

January 15, 2006 06:04 PM | Link to this

getalife, RW, Danielle.. tell us the truth.

What do you really want to do to the sadists who intented HTML??

By getalife

January 15, 2006 06:05 PM | Link to this

RW,

That’s Ruby, a female german shepherd, she is big now. Rock is a mess. They play fight all day with each other.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 06:07 PM | Link to this

finch,

I don’t think I can post that here.

getalife,

Is the new template “jellyfish”?

By getalife

January 15, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this

RW,

I think so, I just picked the one with links but you got the best one. Red is for Republican and mine is for Indepedent.

By getalife

January 15, 2006 06:20 PM | Link to this

OO and finch,

The blog HTML is alot of trial and error and in my case alot of errors. RW seems to have it down pretty well.

By Andy

January 15, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

Kimberly: Now you pinkos want us to go to war for oil? And libs say that I give them a headache.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

getalife,

This looks like the one you are using. if it’s the same one the sidebar link section is near the bottom of the code section.

By Midori

January 15, 2006 06:23 PM | Link to this

Andy,

we’ve already gone to war for oil.

“Pinkos” had nothing to do with that decision.

By Andy

January 15, 2006 06:26 PM | Link to this

This is legendary stuff from Mark Steyn:

It seems unfair that only Sam Alito should get to play this game. Couldn’t somebody develop some software you could stick in your DVD and play “Senate Confirmation” at home? You’d sit on the sofa and a hologram of Joe Biden with eerily lifelike adjustable hair would hector you for hours on end for being uncooperative — ”C’mon, old buddy, throw me a bone here, willya?” — while your spouse bursts into tears and flees in terror.

The media did their best to neutralize the impact of this pitiful spectacle, with expert commentators on hand to assure us that smart fellows like Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden were only going through the motions for the sake of all that MoveOn.org fund-raising gravy.

By Andy

January 15, 2006 06:30 PM | Link to this

Midori: So when do we start getting this oil?

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 06:45 PM | Link to this

Bob Ney temporarily steps down as Chair to House Administrative Committee.

By getalife

January 15, 2006 06:49 PM | Link to this

RW,

Got it, thanks

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 06:58 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Good deal! I better put up some ads so I can collect some of that cash from the Congressman sites you’ll be exposing.

By Midori

January 15, 2006 06:59 PM | Link to this

For anyone who cares, Rep. Murtha is coming up on 60 Minutes

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 07:01 PM | Link to this

Midori,

Is he going to confess?

By getalife

January 15, 2006 07:16 PM | Link to this

Murtha for President! I got to put that on my blog!

By buff

January 15, 2006 07:17 PM | Link to this

Kimberly

I perused some of yesterday’s posts and have a query. Do you believe in the philosophy:

“From each according to his MEANS. to each according to his NEEDS”

You sound very socialistic, but seen not to want to admit your beliefs. you try to come across a a mainstream American. What is your political philosophy

By Andy

January 15, 2006 07:18 PM | Link to this

Thank You Congressman Murtha!

By Danielle

January 15, 2006 07:18 PM | Link to this

RW I think ur right, its not nearly as brutal as when my drawing was up, but my life has once again been taken over of being a normal teen, obsesing with makeup, prom, and of course the “oh-mi-gosh” girl conversations about boyfriends.

OO I think youd be proud, I have gone back to a more normal life, but twice this week I got to school with a letter waiting for me, apparently people decided they would write me letters and send them to my school, and I get them. They are all nice letters, and its really nice that people took the time to write to me.

Andy, some one actually wrote to me asking if I would like to have prints made to be sold, I dont know wheather or not its going to happen.

Its been intersting, but life is once again getting ever more normal, and I think I should be thankful for that. I know one of my teachers had decided to see how long I was on that blog for one day, and he said I was on for over nine hours responding, and so, its been fun though, and I really have learned a lot from it. GOD Bless!!

By Andy

January 15, 2006 07:23 PM | Link to this

Danielle: I clipped your letter to the editor, framed it and it is hanging on my wall.

By Danielle

January 15, 2006 07:30 PM | Link to this

Thanks Andy, several people I know have, one letter that I got, a lady that I dont even know wrote, saying how proud she was, and that she couldnt have been more proud of me if Id been her own daughter. Its been pretty neat hearing the responses, even the bad ones.

But like I have said Freedom is what allows us to be able to have different opinions.

GOD Bless!

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 07:38 PM | Link to this

Well now I’m all misty eyed. May the best of everything be yours for the asking Danielle.

By Marion of Texas

January 15, 2006 07:43 PM | Link to this

Another good hard-hitting cartoon, Mike Luckovich!

And in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr., I want to ask everyone who reads this board to please remember what he stood for: Peace and Justice.

This great man said, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.”

By Danielle

January 15, 2006 07:44 PM | Link to this

Thanks Objective Observer. Its been amazing, I should find out this week or the next about having copies sold of my orginal. speaking of orginal has anyone heard from Jeff (the orginal —hence me thinking of it) I tried to see if hes been on since he said he was going to join the service, and havent seen him. Ive gone back and read most of the posts on the blog, its still amazing how many people responded! and most of them were kind, some not agreeing but polite, then theres a few that are quite rude.

GOB Bless!!

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 07:55 PM | Link to this

Danielle: No I can’t say as I have seen Jeff except for a couple of posts. If he is in your prayers though, he is well attended to. Enjoy your youth.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 08:00 PM | Link to this

Danielle,

Glad to hear you’re settling back into the normal teen routine. Those are special years. Now, go clean your room!

Objective Observer,

I want to nominate Marion of Texas for one of your awards. That ubiquitous opening line of hers deserves one.

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 08:10 PM | Link to this

I don’t think so R.W.. Art is subjective afterall.

By Danielle

January 15, 2006 08:12 PM | Link to this

RW: golly I get told that a lot!! but for once my room is clean!!! yay! and I even organized (….some what…..), lol. But I am going to have to go in a few moments. I’ve been typing on here while looking at prom dess styles, and thinking of a topic for the next speech I must give in speech class. What can I say, I like to multitask, it seems like I get more done that way!!

GOD Bless!!

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 08:28 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

My point exactly. How can the same first line apply to every cartoon ml ever draws? But, if you want to be stingy with the lamp post awards it’s your business.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 08:35 PM | Link to this

Danielle,

Giving speeches, a clean and (some what) organized room…..it’s a good thing you mentioned the prom dress or it would be hard to picture you as a teenager.

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 08:42 PM | Link to this

R.W.: I’m watching “24”. Got a thing going on with Keifer Sutherland. Marion can’t help her lack of creative writing skills. I considered for a moment the use of the term “hard-hitting.” Implication of intended violence, but……..I don’t think so. I am stingy.

And please try to remember, my awards are nuts with teeth.

By Danielle

January 15, 2006 08:48 PM | Link to this

RW, I guess I am not what youd call youre “normal” teen, but then again my idea of a “organized room” is all my cloths in the dresser (not always folded nice and neat), shoes all in the bottom of my closet, books all in a stack next to my bed, my cds all over my desk, along with all my art stuff. So dont get the idea of me having my room spotless, but at least you can walk through it and not wonder…eww what did I just step on…

Prom dresses, yea thats what Im now trying to figure out, I can not stand the dresses that are all like skin tight, I guess my idea is like the Disney idea of the amazing ball room dresses. And I still have no idea what color I want!! And its funny because I havent even thought about who Im going with!! lol. I think I may be doing this in the wrong order but oh well!!

Okay now Im afraid I must go and deal with phyics. Alas centricical rotation awaits. Along with all its momentum.

GOD Bless!!

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 08:57 PM | Link to this

Danielle,

Good luck with the physics. I think you are doing the prom thing in the exact right order. Once you have the perfect style and color, then you can decide what date would fit!

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 09:00 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

Do you think Kiefer is really a complete moonbat like his Dad or more like Jack Bauer?

By getalife

January 15, 2006 09:15 PM | Link to this

Jack is one bad man!

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 09:19 PM | Link to this

R.W.: Well I’m not sure about Keifer. Story has it that he wanted to make it on his own without his Dad’s influence. Lived on his own and out of his car from age 16. But the story could be wrong.

It really makes no difference to me whether he’s a moonbat. I don’t want to discuss his politics. Just kidding.

What has happened to everybody. You know all things, tell me. If everybody is out of town until Tuesday, then I’m holding these nuts for naught.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 09:28 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

Those lock wa…..errr nuts with teeth will last for ages so there’s no need to give them out now.

I’m watching the History channel and taking potshots at Walter Cronkite.

Why is Desperate Housewives on the History channel tonight?

By getalife

January 15, 2006 09:35 PM | Link to this

RW,

Walter Cronkite, why are you bashing a news legend?

And Murtha

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 09:43 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Somebody has spammed you already.

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 09:44 PM | Link to this

Getalife: Did you watch Murtha on 60 Minutes? Do you think his opinion would be different if he had fought in a war that had been won. WWII maybe.

And what is Dan RatherNot doing on 60 Minutes? I don’t normally watch it, but I thought he was gone from view.

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 09:46 PM | Link to this

I checked out your blog sites. Looking for some Brokeback Mountain hanky panky, I was!

By getalife

January 15, 2006 09:48 PM | Link to this

RW,

I know I made the comments without login so I will get a lot of spam.

OO,

I was watching the game but read what he was going to talk about.

Murtha for President!

By getalife

January 15, 2006 09:51 PM | Link to this

Brokebank Mountain

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 09:53 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

I’m shocked, shocked

By getalife

January 15, 2006 09:54 PM | Link to this

So who is seneca?

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 09:55 PM | Link to this

Sooooo, there are grown men playing little boy games on T.V. Slapping butt and bumping boobs. Funny chicken strutting dances after touchdowns. Those type of antics cause me to develop a puzzled look on my face.

Used to watch, but I enjoy individual competitions, or individual competitions for the collective team.

By Objective Observer

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

Getalife: Priceless. Better than anything ml does.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 10:05 PM | Link to this

OO,

I’m having trouble reconciling your 9:46 with your 9:55.

By finch

January 15, 2006 10:06 PM | Link to this

getalife, I could tell you, but then I’d have to kill you.

But seriously, finch was already taken at bloggers.

I’m upset that the Bears lost, but the best team won. On to Seattle, Panthers.

By getalife

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

OO,

ml has his own style but cares about the right wingers like you care about football.

finch,

I am thinking Seattle and Denver in the Super Bowl.

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 10:16 PM | Link to this

R.W.: I can see why! I guess I’m just a contradiction within myself. I get to watch Keifer again tomorrow night.

I watch the History Channel in bed. Have you seen the one that follows the life of John Wayne with written quotes and comments on the screen and then goes into the demise of the American Auto Industry taken over by overseas imports. No dialogue. I like that one.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 10:23 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

I haven’t seen that one. I don’t really watch the History channel that much when Eva Longoria isn’t on. Late night I like Court TV.

By getalife

January 15, 2006 10:27 PM | Link to this

Ahh, Court TV. The culture of corruption will be staring on that show very soon!

By Objective Observer

January 15, 2006 10:28 PM | Link to this

Well I am surprised R.W. Not that you like to watch Eva, but that you don’t watch the History Channel on a regular basis.

I’m off to bed, my feet are like ice cubes. I can’t wait for summer.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 10:29 PM | Link to this

finch,

Are you self-censoring on my blog now? and thanks.

getalife,

I’ll take Carolina and Pittsburgh. Taunting begins Thursday!

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 10:31 PM | Link to this

OO,

If you would stay out of the pool when it’s 20 degrees maybe your feet would warm up.

Goodnight!

By getalife

January 15, 2006 10:33 PM | Link to this

Goodnight OO.

RW,

Thanks for the help on my blog.

Goodnight.

By RW-(the original)

January 15, 2006 10:38 PM | Link to this

getalife,

You’re welcome. One thing odd about the way they do the link code, if you copy and paste it in it puts an extra space on your page between links. I’ve had to type in each line to keep that from happening.

Goodnight, and remember to check in with OO in the AM. (Sounds like a radio show)

By Greg

January 15, 2006 10:53 PM | Link to this

Come on Mike, you know that there are many Democrats that are on the take just as there are Republicans. ALL of government is on the take and if they are not is because they have no tbeen approched yet. Why not draw some cartoons that depict the TRUTH for a change!

By Greg

January 15, 2006 10:57 PM | Link to this

What about Harry Reid? Hiliary Clinton? Both of them have taken money from the corrupt lobbyist as well. Why don’t you talk about them?

By Midori

January 15, 2006 11:16 PM | Link to this

Here, Greg. Connect the dots

By Clem

January 15, 2006 11:43 PM | Link to this

ANOTHER brilliant intellectual and heroic move by the Bushista regime! This one in Pakistan. Soon ALL the world will despise us - and rightly so. Instead of just 80%. Much thanks to you punk wingnuts who put this slime in office.

By finch

January 15, 2006 11:54 PM | Link to this

Greg, Jack Abramoff personally never contributed anything to Democratic lawmakers.

Not a single dollar.

It’s true that organizations that were clients of Abramoff’s operation gave some cash to Democrats, but the bulk of their contributions went to GOP interests, according to Bloomberg.com.

Capitol Hill cons are being disingenuous when they argue Democrats were stuffing themselves just as much as Republicans at the Abramoff trough.

And Democrats never got those neat golfing excursions to Scotland or shopping trips to London.

Midori is right. Connect the dots.

Most posters here are also right when they say that wherever and whenever the dust settles here, those found guilty of accepting illegal payoffs should be punished, no matter what their political affiliation is.

By Connie Maschera

January 16, 2006 12:35 AM | Link to this

Has anybody thought to ask Johnny Isakson what favors he performed for the $2000 donation he received from Jack Abramoff in October 2003 and another $2000 from Pamela Abramoff, also October 2003?
Also Saxby Chambliss received $2000 from Abramoff in November 2002. Phil Gingey received $500 from Abramoff in October 2002. I wonder if they happened to be voting on any Indian issues around those times. If they were, how did they vote? Does anyone know?

By Andy

January 16, 2006 04:45 AM | Link to this

It shows how little certain people here know when they say things like “Democrats never got those neat golfing excursions.” Since when is taking a golf trip illegal? What statute are these charges going to come under? When is Tiger Woods going to answer for his misdeeds?

Taking a bribe for influencing legislation in favor of the Indian tribes is the root of all evil here. It doesn’t matter where you got the bribe money from, your Granddad could have been an Indian, it is what you did with it.

By The Sad Truth

January 16, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

Andy: This post makes even less sense than most of your others. What the heck are you takling about? Now you’re accusing Tiger Woods of taking money from Abramoff? Huh?

You are really out there, dude.

By getalife

January 16, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

Just checking in OO.

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Thank you!

By blogger

January 16, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

Andy lied, nobody died, but he’s a complete idiot.

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 Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

[Screw one one}(http://www.jalanes.com/IBS/SimpleCat/product/ASP/product-id/254553.html) at 11:43 P.M. 1/5/06 for casting aspertions on the intellect of others while conveniently avoiding all the facts.

Over-zealous concern for the disobliging opinions of others.

Excessive and unwarranted name calling.

Congratulations!

By Andy

January 16, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

Aaawwwwww, isn’t that cute, Blogger/ Pinko is still hung up on me. What’s the matter sweetheart, are you upset that I haven’t been posting today leaving you with nothing to do in your sorry little life? Have I left you alone with all of your emptiness?Masturbating over my past posts will only get you so far, won’t it?

I guess this one will help keep you busy for a couple of hours, straining your little mind on comprehending my greatness. I know you want to grow up and be just like me, but sorry, punka-ss, you ain’t qualified.

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

Screw one one @ 11:43 P.M. for:

Casting aspersions on the intellect of others while conveniently avoiding all of the facts.

Over-zealous concern for the disobliging opinions of others.

Excessive and unwarranted name calling.

Congratulations! 4 down 11 to go.

By finch

January 16, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

OO, nuts to YOU!! (just kidding)

getalife, I have bookmarked both your blog and RW’s. I promise to be polite!

Murtha for…. something.

By getalife

January 16, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

D’oh!

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

I considered an award for 11:12 A.M., but those Christmas leftovers should have been thrown out long ago. He is in danger of suffering serious botulism.

By getalife

January 16, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

OO,

The Screw It awards are bigger than the Golden Globes. I am honored you gave me one.

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

Getalife: Anything for you luv.

By Jay not jay

January 16, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

OO, 11:12 probably needs 3 or 4, but since you only have a limited number to give out it would be better not to waste them.

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

JayNot: I could have awarded one for masochism, but to each his own.

By Jay not jay

January 16, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

There will be plenty of other opportunities, maybe you can find someone for the “Lifetime Achievement Award” at the end.

By getalife

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

finch,

I thanked you for your links last night on my blog, so I will give you a “getalife link award”.

Also, added anybody can post comments, so you do not have to be nice(cussing allowed).

By finch

January 16, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Aw shucks, getalife!

Your tip of the hat is humbly acknowledged here and here.

PS- I’m not really the cussing type anyway…

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

For R.W.’s arrival: Jack Bauer posts on News Busters. He is not a moonbat, so we’re good to go, Keifer and I.

In recognition of MLK’s birthday (yesterday), I had a dream last night after watching two hours of “Twenty-four”.

Did you know that the rights to MLK’s “I Had A Dream” speech are under protection of the family. Well, there goes his legacy intended for future generations. Would that be in the interest of greed.

By getalife

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

OO,

Where is RW? Butterscotch may need groceries.

FYI, I have to back to the hospital for more outpatient work so I will be out of commission tomorrow.

By BigDaddy

January 16, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

OO, what happened in the last 10 minutes of 24 last night? Damn DVR missed it because of the length of the football game preceeding it…

By Andy

January 16, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

AlGore, while speaking on behalf of our country’s enemies, sez: A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. (I knew you guys could use a good laugh, you’re welcome.)

On this particular Martin Luther King Day, it is especially important to recall that for the last several years of his life, Dr. King was illegally wiretapped-one of hundreds of thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government during this period. Republicans aren’t allowed to blame democrats but Algore can blame the democrats who wiretapped King to cast blame on Republicans, by some weird type of association.

A commitment to openness, truthfulness and accountability also helps our country avoid many serious mistakes. Recently, for example, we learned from recently classified declassified documents that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized the tragic Vietnam war, was actually based on false information. Again, blaming the democrats who “lied” about the Gulf of Tonkin to cast guilt on Republicans by some pinko idea of association, 42 years in the past.

Can’t this freak find any past Republican wrongdoing to use in his little game? Well of course he can’t.

The President and I agree on one thing. The threat from terrorism is all too real. So, let’s look the other way, act like we don’t notice the big bomb they’re carrying with them, Al. This is a pinko copout, much like “we support the troops.”

I can’t bare to read any more of his rambling silly speech, go here if you must.

By kimberly

January 16, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy, for the last 10 minutes of last night’s 24, Jack Bauer remained the hottest fictional male character of all time.

By blogger

January 16, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

Typical “well this guy (either someone 30 years ago, Clinton, etc.) did it, too” from Andy, which, in his hallucinations, makes it okay for the object of his wet dreams, Mr. Bush, to break the law…over and over again.

By GWB

January 16, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

Damn, my approval ratings keep dropping. Now they’re below 40%.

By finch

January 16, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

The argument that Gore, in today’s speech, is blaming MLK wiretaps and the Gulf of Tonkin on Republicans is laughably specious.

No, it’s worse than that. It’s just plain false.

Nowhere does he mention a political party.

What Al describes are incidents in which the US government trampled on citizen rights and lied to the country.

Just as the Bush administration is doing now.

Cons who are busy worshipping at the altar of paranoia are protesting WAY too much.

Investigate Bush. Murtha for President.

By BigDaddy

January 16, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

kimberly, I agree, he is quite dreamy and makes me want to mount a horse to tend to the (wanton) needs of a flock of sheep, but that didn’t exactly shed any light on the last ten minutes, did it?

Did the terrorists shoot down the Russian president’s helicopter?

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

Big Daddy: Who follows the plot? I just sit there and fantasize. The very fact that you chose to watch grown men slapping each other on the butts and bumping pecs is very telling.

In all honesty, someone stopped by and distracted me. I never thought that would be possible, but conclusion is on tonight. Two nights of Keifer, I don’t deserve such a yummy delight.

By Andy

January 16, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

finch: What I was saying, and you prove my point for me, is that Gore and you pinkos are too stupid to realize that he is bringing up democratic misdeeds to blame Republicans with. Is this all to hard to put together? Let’s do it slow.

Gulf of Tonkin was bad, democrats did it, Republicans are bad. Al Gore said that, not Andy.

Pinkos spy on MLK, pinkos bad, Republicans are bad because of what pinko did. Am I going to fast for you, finch?

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

The ladies seem preoccupied see if this helps.

By kimberly

January 16, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

No, the helicopter landed and the Russian Prez and his missus got out. BUT… aacccckk… Jack put the boy with his mother at the lil’ airport… the one from the clue hidden in Palmer’s encrypted chapter… he told the boy and the mother who he was, gave them the address to CTU, and said, “Go there and tell them I sent you.” What should we tell them, the woman asked? “The truth,” he said. He went into the airport and found the room from the clue.. lost baggage or something (it moves quickly you know) and grabbed the guy and and demanded to know what was going down, and the guy popped an instant death capsule in his mouth, and Jack tried to get it out, but the guy died anyway… MEANWHILE, the boy and his mom are in the car, and the boy said, LOOK at those guys getting out of that van, something isn’t right, I have to warn Jack, and he jumps out and runs into the airport. Mom tries to run after him, but you can’t just leave your car in the driveway outside the airport and they stop her. The boy gets inside the terminal right before the badguys, wearing explodable vests, shoot the place up and take everybody hostage. Something about the impending summit-treaty thing… Scenes from tonight: the boy becomes candidate number one for on-camera execution, and Jack swears he won’t let that happen.

By blogger

January 16, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

“to fast?” hardly.

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

Big Daddy: The helicopter landed, the Russian president got off and was talking to that whiny U.S. V.P. Conclusion tonight.

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

Kimberly: You are very detailed. Did you know that there is a Jack Bauer that posts over on News Busters? Could it be? We can fantasize can’t we.

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

Thank you R.W. A still photo. Yummmmmmmm.

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

So the formerly authoritative New York Times has published a picture distributed around the world on the home page of its website, using a prop which must have been artfully placed to create a false dramatic impression of cruel incompetence on the part of US forces. Not only did the editors lack the basic knowledge necessary to detect the fake, they didn’t bother to run the photo past anyone with such knowledge before exposing the world to it.

The picture with its correction

By BigDaddy

January 16, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

kimberly, thank you, that was very thourough. Now, BigDaddy’s ready for tonight.

OO, the only reason you’re taking shots at men slapping each other on the rump and bumping nipples is that you weren’t the meat in their sandwich…

Gotcha!

By Andy

January 16, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

Doesn’t everybody just love it when some little pinko attaches himself to your leg, like some amorous dog (I wouldn’t know about no dog personally, I seen it happen.) Remember how you wonder what the hell you did to deserve the dog’s attention, right before you drop kick him about 100 yards down range? Is there something internally f’ed up in the dog’s mind that he would fall in love with your leg?

Why are you stalking me blogger? Are you some kind of freak?

By finch

January 16, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

“Republicans are bad. Al Gore said that, not Andy.”

A certain con here left his logic chips in his other lunchbox. Only he would read Gore’s speech and see it riddled with the word “Republican”. Funny, no one else does.

Then again, maybe he’s suffering from a horribly guilty conscience.

Paranoia’s a B!TCH!!!! Snicker.

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

Andy,

You don’t suppose “blogger” is really “Ingi” and is missing that special someone, do you?

By blogger

January 16, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

Andy, which branch of the government is the Attorney General in?

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

Big Daddy: Yes you did.

There was a pass on the last post, but screwed at 11:12 for:

Failure to bring anything worthy of discussion.

Casting aspersions on one’s sexual activity without actually being present in the bedroom to confirm.

Finch: Be careful, (1:34), I frown heavily on one who supports “Lies of Omission.”

By sickoftheneocons

January 16, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

Happy MLK, Jr. day everybody! I see we are honoring the man with more non-violent discourse, except for Andy wanting to drop kick dogs! Oh, I’m very surprised you right-wingers aren’t just splooging all over yourselves because there was no injunction granted to stop prayer during Cobb County Commission hearings. Congratulations!

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

Oops! 5 down, 10 to go.

By Andy

January 16, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

Anybody else in here have trouble understanding the meaning of Algore’s speech and the purpose of his accusations? If not, would you mind helping finch with the basic understanding of today’s political situation? I know I ask a lot but consider it a worthwhile public service.

While you are explaining the two party system and it’s inherent rivalry, please make note of the hypocrisy of Algore’s insinuations considering that him and Bubba turned our county’s spy satellites onto the citizens of Oklahoma right after the bombing of the Murrow Federal Building. Thank you.

By sickoftheneocons

January 16, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

Not that there’s anything wrong with that…

By kimberly

January 16, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy, if y’all are talking about football, I’m with you. LUUUUV to watch the subtle demonstrations of affection on the field. Yumm.

By finch

January 16, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

RW, misidentifying an artillery shell shown in a photo doesn’t change the fact that the US attacked a Pakistani village, killing at least 17 people; apparently civilians all.

Now what’s more important in this story?

1)- The fact that there was an American Predator strike based on obviously flawed intellegence that killed a bunch of non-combatants? And now a whole slew of Pakistanis (i. e. potential terrorists) are really ticked off?

or 2)- the fact that the New York Times misidentified a piece of ordnance?

Me, I’m going for choice number 1.

By Andy

January 16, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

sicko: The only one splooging in here is blogger now that he has seen my leg. I have no idea why he is so aroused. I must be someone special to you pinkos.

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

Kimberly: I disagree, it displays latent tendencies which men don’t want to acknowledge. Just kidding guys.

Don’t mistake me for “redneck”, but bull-riding, now that is where the soft leather chaps meet their furry predecessor. All male. Insane, but male.

By Andy

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

finch: Put me down for #2.

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Finch: Wasn’t Al Zawahiri invited to dinner at that location? Facts on those hit is still under investigation.

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

finch,

I guess in your world that was just an honest mistake on the part of the New York Times. I think they deliberately run anything they can to drive world opinion against the US just because of their hatred of President Bush.

There was NO compelling reason to run that picture without any verification and you trying to justify it for them says more about you than them. We already know they are beyond help, we’re still holding out hope for you.

By sickoftheneocons

January 16, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

What are you worried about Finch? It’s a coin toss on who we’re gonna invade next in the name of freedom and democracy any way… Will it be Iran or Pakistan? Maybe we’re just softening them up for our next invasion, who knows…

By getalife

January 16, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

Great, now Iran has to watch Fox News.

By Andy

January 16, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

RW: Not only that but the anti American lies of the press have unnecessarily prolonged this conflict by motivating our enemies. Anybody who gets killed at this late stage of the game the fault rests solely on these pinkos and their media.

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

Andy,

I forced three cups of coffee down and managed to read all of Big Al’s speech. It turns out he realizes what a great job President Bush is doing.

I mentioned that along with cause for concern, there is reason for hope. As I stand here today, I am filled with optimism that America is on the eve of a golden age in which the vitality of our democracy will be re-established and will flourish more vibrantly than ever. Indeed I can feel it in this hall.

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

getalife,

If even the Mullahs can figure out what a bogus source CNN is, why can’t you?

btw, I put a link to Pravda on my site if you suddenly feel the need to check the latest weather report in Moscow.

By getalife

January 16, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this

RW,

Well I am watching CNN and they are describing what a fiasco the new medicare prescription program is.

What do you expect with the coc involved?

Go here to ban the coc

Shameless plug!

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Nice pictures of Ney, is that really his official website picture?

By Andy

January 16, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

RW: Even Algore realized the previous 3 hours of his speech were ridiculous and had to qualify it. It’s his way of saying “I spoke therefore things will be better but I’m not sure how.”

By getalife

January 16, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

RW,

Yes, you can see how much he has changed since joining the coc.

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

Getalife: I won’t fret over your absence tomorrow. Good luck!

Your site is looking very good, I have to tilt my head slightly left to read though.

These people aren’t hanging around long enough for me to do my job.

By finch

January 16, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

RW,

I don’t think the NYTimes deliberately twisted the caption for that photo. I could be wrong.

But what if they did? Other photos of the attacks aftermath are in papers and on TV around the world. So are stories about needless deaths resulting from apparently bungled US intelligence. The fact that there was a military strike is indisputable. Questions about the justification for it are inevitable.

But to place the blame for the rising anger over this attack on a photo on the NYT website gives it, and the paper, far too much importance.

If you truly think a NYT photo caption is more important than the attack itself, then I’m afraid you can’t see the forest for the trees.

By Andy

January 16, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this

finch: This war would done be over with if the enemy didn’t have the hope of people like you, Murtha and the NY Times winning it for them right here in the good old USA. They think they can just wait us out, they’re counting on you. What’s the matter, you don’t like blood on your hands?

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

finch,

It’s not the caption as much as the mindset that says, “Look a picture of a little Pakistani child being terrorized by the evil US military, let’s run it”, that bothers me and it certainly isn’t a one time goof on the part of the Times.

The actual pictures of the military strike are another story. I don’t recall ever seeing damage quite as spread out from a hellfire missile strike. If I’m right then two possibilities are we either used a heavier weapon and not an attack from a drone or there was a fair amount of explosives stored in our target.

By RE

January 16, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

No matter what your feelings on GWB might be, you cannot blame him for the attack in Pakistan. We took a shot, and missed. Now we have to deal with the consequences, but I would not fault GWB on this one.

Let me get this straight, The war in Iraq is still going on because of what the NYT prints? Have you really lost it. You don’t think decades if not centuries of sectarian violence between the shia, sunnis, and kurds could be prolonging this? How about a constittution that will give most of the oil to local authority in the shia and kurd regions, while leaving the sunnis without oil revenue or access to a seaport.

Your right, too much to think about, lets blame the media instead.

By sickoftheneocons

January 16, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

Ah yes, clandestine weapons depot must be the answer, based on RW’s expertise on the effects of hellfire missiles, but way to couch it in an either or kind of way.

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

sickof….,

I have zero expertise, but I have seen news footage of the attacks as well as others that didn’t have that widespread damage.

Maybe it’s just the poor construction techniques or the position of the houses on the side of the mountain, but come on dead cows laying all over the place from a precision missile attack on a house?

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

Big Daddy: Just in case you drop in, and to let you know that I rebound rather quickly (Gotcha!), I wanted to give you this for your news digs.

For obvious reasons, I’m thinking you won’t be needing my help. Good luck!

By sickoftheneocons

January 16, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Perhaps the house had a large propane tank? Perhaps the cows were house pets…hehe…maybe… ah who the h-e-l-l knows?

By sickoftheneocons

January 16, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

point is, how are our friends in the Middle East going to take it? Those dirty Americans killed those innocent Pakistanis…that’s how…

By RE

January 16, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

Hey, bush poll numbers are back under 40%….Maybe he needs a few more campaign speeches.

By Jay not jay

January 16, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Sick, That’s what they are going to think regardless. We can’t be worried all the time about angering these “innocents”. Otherwise we may as well quit looking.

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

Jay not jay,

I get a good laugh out of the people that are so concerned about what everybody else thinks of us, especially when they say we should ravage the countryside anywhere in the world searching for OBL.

By sickoftheneocons

January 16, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

Come on Jay, the people in the twin towers were innocents, weren’t you “angered” when they were killed?

By Jay not jay

January 16, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

Yep, you can’t win either way. Kinda convenient.

By sickoftheneocons

January 16, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

“Ravage the countryside?”

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

R.W.: Like this?

By Objective Observer January 16, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

Screw one one @ 11:43 P.M. for:

Over-zealous concern for the disobliging opinions of others.

By Jay not jay

January 16, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

Sick, I’m saying the hut they blew up probably were not “innocents”

By BigDaddy

January 16, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

OO, did you just award me a highly-coveted Wingnut Award?

RW - show me the way to your blog…

By sickoftheneocons

January 16, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

I really hope that is the case Jay because things like this are what drive those Muslims sitting on the fence to fall in the yard of the radicals.

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

OO,

Is that “screw one one” some strange code?

BigDaddy,

Did you need a gateway to Pravda?

By Jay not jay

January 16, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

Sick, that is true, but they are going to believe whatever they want to believe. I guess it comes down to if we are going to try to find these guys with our own resources or just sit around and wait for Pakistanis to do something.

The liberal rants going on around here lately seem to point toward taking the troops from Iraq and using them for this purpose. I think some of our Arab innocents may have a strong opinion about that too.

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

Big Daddy: Never! You are far to intelligent to deserve one. They are “nuts with teeth,” why is that so hard for everybody to remember.

R.W.: I can always rely on you to straighten me out. That is supposed to be “Screw One On”. I think I have done very well indeed.

By sickoftheneocons

January 16, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

Anybody wanna speculate as to when we’re gonna see the election results?

By BigDaddy

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

OO, and thanks for the link to furnish my new pad. I’ve created a checklist of some of the more crucial items:

1) Entertainment - when BigDaddy moves, BigDaddy is upgrading to a massive 73” rear-projection HDTV, and is having surround-sound speakers built into the walls and ceiling. As far as board games, baby oil and Twister are all BigDaddy needs…

2) Couch - I have four, my favorite I’ve had since I was a callow youth - the quintessential bachelor’s black leather sofa. But with the new pad will come a new, big sectional - I was shopping for one this weekend.

3) Coffee table - check, with many interesting and provocative magazines and books. Not necessarily “thought-provoking”, but definitely provocative…

4) Live plants - check, rubber plants, ficus (or is it ficuseseses, or is it fici, or is it like deer?), and a couple phalaenopsis.

5) Framed photos - mostly just cut-outs from the old issues of “thought-provoking” periodicals on the coffee table…

6) Framed art - see #5, but add “pin-ups”

7) Music - Goth chicks dig GWAR. And they get freaky…

8) Atmosphere lighting - black lights and lava lamps count?

9) Bathroom - couple of em. I hardly use them, though. BigDaddy likes to water the garden…

10) Extra new toothbrush - why? Mine’s three years old and works fine…

11) Big, Fluffy pillows - why? That’s what overly-endowed females are for…

12) Condoms - make great water ballons

13) Non-alcoholic beverages - huh?

14) A vacuum cleaner - BigDaddy has heard of such things. What are they?

One other thing that all men should know, particularly bachelors, is how to cook at least one thing really well, and how to cook at least five things well enough to impress a broad the second time she swings by for grub.

By BigDaddy

January 16, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

RW, how much traffic are you getting so far? Interesting comments so far, by the way…

By BigDaddy

January 16, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

OO, I forgot wine - Franzia. Always Franzia…

By BigDaddy

January 16, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

sickoftheneocons, are you referring to the upcoming mid-term elections, are to the next presidential elections?

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

Big Daddy: Lava lamps may prove to be a little distracting. Women are easily mesmerized, taking attention away from the task at hand.

Sharing a toothbrush is a deal breaker.

Maybe a live plant or two, just to feed our need to nurture, unless you want all that for yourself.

Vacuum cleaners suck! I’m well aware of where this statement may lead.

Sounds like you are off to a good start.

By BigDaddy

January 16, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

OO, you are twisted. What time shall I expect you for Franzia and oily Twister? You bring the vacuum, and I’ll bring a new toothbrush…

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

Aaaahh Big Daddy, it is best we remain worthy adversaries, and I am clearly at a disadvantage. But surrender is a word not found in my vocabulary. Thanks for the invite.

By BigDaddy

January 16, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

OO, I have the perfect song for you: “Manifesto No. 1” by Shooter Jennings (son of Waylon). The chorus is:

“Let your hair down,

Get out of that skirt,

but leave them high heels on.

I’ll be in the back

Of my black Cadillac,

When Jesus finally comes

To call His children home.”

What’s even better is it’s set to gospel music…

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

Has anybody read M. Steyn’s column in “The Ledger”, “There’s No Alternative to Bush”? Third page, bottom…concluded on page 4. Interview with Rummy in Der Spiegel. Funny!

By getalife

January 16, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

BD,

What are you doing to that poor girl?

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

Something to keep in mind while furnishing.

By getalife

January 16, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

Girl

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

Oops! Missed your song lyrics. Set to gospel would weigh on my conscience. I stay in hot water anyway.

Getalife: One of those girls looks like the blonde Bush twin.

R.W.: What about the History Channel, how does that fare?

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

OO,

The History Channel doesn’t really fare well when trying to share air time with a slide show of lovely ladies and BigDaddy with a strange balloon tied to his head.

I wish I could get one of those coveted “Wingnut Awards”.

By getalife

January 16, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

OO,

Drunkin’ Fish/SUBZERO/Big Daddy’s was the name of the link, so he will have to tell you if that was a Bush twin, if he can remember.

By Andy

January 16, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this

New Orleans Mayor Says God Mad at U.S.

Mr. Robertson, meet Mr. Nagin. Mr. Nagin, Mr. Robertson.

And the cartoon will be when?

NEW ORLEANS — Mayor Ray Nagin told a crowd gathered at City Hall on Monday for a march honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. that New Orleans will be “chocolate” again.

It don’t get no stupider than this, although RE is sure trying hard. This Nagin dude must have gotten really stoned today in honor of Dr. King.

Is it me or should it really even matter what color the people that move back into New Orleans are? Are we trying to propagate the racist victim class or are we trying to MoveOn.org from our sullied past?

By Peter Wirhun

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

Come on now…….what is the percentage of Lawyers in office…….I really don’t know but I bet it is above 95%…..so does anyone really trust lawyers, from either party…..why hasn’t anyone mentioned Congress just voted themselves a pay raise…….why not, do you know of any Congressmaen that are not already millionares………also what is the amount of time they need to serve before they get thier full pay for the rest of thier life……..is it one or more terms? So does anyone really wonder why they don’t care what happens to your Social Security……heck the $350 Billion they spend foolishly in Iraq surely would have saved that…….but is anyone really noticing……I wonder what happened to the 1.5 billion the accounting office can’t seem to locate in reguards to theis Iraq war……things that make you go HHHHHMmmmmmmmmmmmm…….and what really is the difference between the two parties? Hey as long as either is in power does anyone really think there will be a change?

HA HA HA……we are a Democratic Society…….yes JOKE #1

By Andy

January 16, 2006 05:14 PM | Link to this

“Old” Arnie’s getting the “hang” of things..

Aging California Inmate to Be Executed

By AntiRadical

January 16, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this

Good tune ML but I’m tired of it now. Sadly, if you want to label one party or the other the “most corrupt” (as if “least corrupt” is any great distinguishing attribute), you only have to “Show me the money, baby”. Which political party has unquestionably had the largest campaign and support funding for years and years and years? Doesn’t that really say it all?

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 05:26 PM | Link to this

For all you fans of 24 an upcoming episode has been leaked.

By kimberly

January 16, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this

Good point, Peter. I do think there are inherent differences between the supporters of each major party in terms of philosophy, the things we rank as important, and the things we care about. But those actually holding office: there’s not that much difference. If there were, the Dems wouldn’t be so spineless, letting the Repugs trample all over our rights. But they don’t care. They got the moolah in their pockets. So that leaves us regular folks to fight each other in the trenches over ideology — which in the end will make no difference anyway.

By kimberly

January 16, 2006 05:30 PM | Link to this

RW, leaking is unAmerican.

By getalife

January 16, 2006 05:30 PM | Link to this

I have to put this clock on my blog

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 05:32 PM | Link to this

I had no idea Clarence Thomas could be so “straightforward”. Good for him. In today’s society an inch quickly turns into a mile.

R.W.: Thanks for the foreplay.

By getalife

January 16, 2006 05:32 PM | Link to this

1099 days to go, Lord help us!

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 05:33 PM | Link to this

getalife,

When you put that on your blog you should change the wording to “Until Condoleeza Rice becomes President.”

By kimberly

January 16, 2006 05:35 PM | Link to this

getalife, isn’t the “rapture” expected before then? I mean, isn’t that why the environment is no longer something we’re trying to protect? We’re all gonna be someplace else anyway.

By getalife

January 16, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this

RW,

Condi has no backbone. Now Powell was a different story

In August 2002 Powell warned the president, “You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people. You will own all their hopes, aspirations and problems. You’ll own it all

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 05:38 PM | Link to this

kimberly,

It looks like views on leaking is also subjective.

By getalife

January 16, 2006 05:39 PM | Link to this

Wrong link

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this

More Pakistani outrage

By getalife

January 16, 2006 05:43 PM | Link to this

kimberly,

Yes, the future does not look good but remember only 1099 more days and maybe there will be change for the better. There is always hope.

By kimberly

January 16, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this

RW, Dude, I was being facetious. Do you really think our petty daily squabbling matters? Except for a very SMALL percentage of the American population, we’re all screwed the same. The only difference is at what time, precisely, the floor drops out from under each of us, and at whom we’ll be pointing our fingers on the way down.

KNOW WHY? ‘Cause Jack Bauer isn’t real, that’s why.

By Andy

January 16, 2006 05:46 PM | Link to this

RW: I think since the pinkos gave Bush “unchecked and unlimited powers” he should repeal the 22nd amendment and stay being the president forever. That would be awesome.

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 05:47 PM | Link to this

kimberly,babe, I saw your facetiousness and raised it with sarcasm. Nice attitude!

By kimberly

January 16, 2006 05:51 PM | Link to this

May I please enjoy my ‘tude whilst I still can? For soon, the jack-booted Andys will arrive, on order of King George, drag me from my children, and burn me at the stake for being “pink” — even though it’s what a woman was created to be. {;->

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 05:51 PM | Link to this

Andy,

As long as it doesn’t apply to past Presidents it works for me.

Although televised debates between Bill and Hill could be very entertaining.

By RE

January 16, 2006 05:53 PM | Link to this

I am pretty sure there are not many people out there who would realy want to be the next president. Imagine having to clean up this enormous foriegn debt, try to reestablish some credibility in the world, and stem the tide of anti-americanism found in most countries. The damage Bush has done will take decades to repair.

By kimberly

January 16, 2006 05:53 PM | Link to this

Confession: I actually wrote to Newt (three timing)Gingrich in 1998 and asked him to repeal the 22nd amendment so my darling Bill could be president forever. Um… can you believe he never answered ANY of my letters? I mean, that’s just rude.

By getalife

January 16, 2006 05:57 PM | Link to this

You must ban corruption before you can clean up the mess!

Have I no shame?

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this

Thanks R.W. for the More Pakistani Outrage link. I was about to believe the dinner invitation was a figment of my imagination, which deterred me from showing up for the festivities. Whew!

Sometimes my slowness serves me well.

By getalife

January 16, 2006 06:00 PM | Link to this

RE,

They will call it recovery if kimberly is not correct.

By Scooter

January 16, 2006 06:03 PM | Link to this

Some could say Bush is cleanng up a mess. Did the economy wait till Bush was sworn in before it went south? Were the CEO’s by the book until Bush? Poorly in some areas perhaps.

By RE

January 16, 2006 06:04 PM | Link to this

He could technically get around the 22nd admendment just by using his plenary powers that the war on terror gives him. None of the other laws or consititutional admendments apply to him, why should this one.

By kimberly

January 16, 2006 06:07 PM | Link to this

Yes, he IS! That’s why he’s spent so much time clearing brush down on the ranch. It was a real mess! Can’t fix that from some desk, you know. Thank GOODNESS he’s put so much time and effort into it!

By RE

January 16, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this

The economy did go south after bush began instituting his policies, then 9-11 happened which really shook things up. Is there any area or indicator of the economy now that is better than it was in 2000?

By n8dogg@hotmail.com

January 16, 2006 06:11 PM | Link to this

Yeah I know, the president that spends the most time EVER on vacation. He never entertains ANY foreign leaders, just sits there and sleeps like Reagan. This president isn’t getting anythong done, the left is just hysterical.

By Scooter

January 16, 2006 06:16 PM | Link to this

RE, you remember the unemployment rate (6.4%?) and how the left screamed those tax cuts would do nothing. Try 4.9%

By Scooter

January 16, 2006 06:20 PM | Link to this

RE, oh yeah. What policies of Bush’s, before 9/11, caused the economy togo south and allowed Enron to start cooking the books. I can’t wait for your response.

By Andy

January 16, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

President Clinton’s Summer Vacation Reading List

He didn’t list the Kama Sutra “Tantric” version but I’m pretty sure that got some presidential attention.

By Andy

January 16, 2006 06:24 PM | Link to this

1999- A recent inspection of one profligate start-up company found venture cash had been burned

By getalife

January 16, 2006 06:24 PM | Link to this

I have a really hard time trusting any numbers or information coming from the coc. How do you know these numbers have not been doctored by somone in the coc? Looks like an Enron statement to me.

By kimberly

January 16, 2006 06:25 PM | Link to this

HAHAHAHA! Scooter thinks we don’t understand UE statistics! TOO funny. Yep, those numbers reflect active claims filed THAT week. Like we don’t know that when you run out of weeks, you can’t collect anymore for that year, and are not counted in the stats. Or that when you lose your regular salaried job, and run out of weeks at $250 or so, you are free to take two or three lower-paying, part-time jobs to try to make up for the salaried position you lost to INDIA or someplace, the unemployment stats, and the associated PR spin, don’t even look at you, cause DUDE: you don’t matter anymore! Hahaha! Yes SIR, there ARE more jobs… if you’re a highly-trained buggy pusher, Wal-Mart can give you 20 hours a week with no benefits.

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 06:26 PM | Link to this

All those 1998 and 1999 books, how did he miss this one?

1999 book Monica’s Story

By kimberly

January 16, 2006 06:29 PM | Link to this

If you resent a man for having a well-functioning s-x organ, and the personality to do something with it, what does that say about you? Just wondering.

By RE

January 16, 2006 06:31 PM | Link to this

In case you were wondering, the last time in the clinton years the unemployment rate was up to 4.9% was back in 1997. From 4/97 until 12/00 the rate was between 4.9% and 3.9%. Thanks for the link though, but you should have read the archived stats as well.

By Scooter

January 16, 2006 06:33 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, what I do know is you and your type have done nothing but complain and say the UN was doing a fine job. Does your nuance explain away such a large improvement.

What policies RE? Kimberly cannot distract from your personaly demonstrated, miguided hatred.

Getalife, you know I want to take the power away from all politicians. The power to social engineer is a great and emmense power.

By getalife

January 16, 2006 06:35 PM | Link to this

Bill is the man

Hilliary: Bill, what have you been doing?

Bill: Nutten honey.

By Andy

January 16, 2006 06:35 PM | Link to this

Kimberly: When you are President, terrorism first, “well functioning sex organ” second. I can think of 3000 or so people that would have appreciated that policy.

By finch

January 16, 2006 06:37 PM | Link to this

Thumbs up to what getalife and kimberly say about Labor Department jobless numbers. They are questionable at best. And if everyone is so happily employed, why are they feeling so blue about their economic prospects?

RW, interesting point about what weapons were used in Pakistan, and if (just maybe) something on the ground that was definitely non-US blew up. We shall see!

By RE

January 16, 2006 06:40 PM | Link to this

didn’t 9-11 happen on bush’s watch, you know after Ashcroft shifted the Justice department AWAY from counterterrorism activities.

By Scooter

January 16, 2006 06:40 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, certainly you weren’t assuming I had a problem with Slick Willie having a viable sexual organ? I all about that, I loved how Kid Rock sang about feeling up a sterwadess with Ole Bill. We know for sure he knew what he was lying about and many on the left can admit no fault of Clinton. But they are not brainashed.

By Midori

January 16, 2006 06:41 PM | Link to this

When you are President, terrorism first, “well functioning sex organ� second

My personal opinion: If Bush’s worked, or funtioned well, perhaps we wouldn’t be in so much trouble.

By kimberly

January 16, 2006 06:42 PM | Link to this

Scoot Hunny, please don’t lump me in with others when you know me NOT. I have been pointedly silent on the issue of the UN, although that seems to be your hot button. Why? Because unlike some people here, I don’t claim to know everything, nor do I state my opinion on everything. I DO know about unemployment claims, however. And I DO know people who have been “underemployed” — struggling hand to mouth, for years. And I DO know that lots & lots of big American companies have been sending decent steady jobs overseas where they can pay less, and avoid a good portion of their tax obligation to this nation, the one that allowed them to be successful in the first place. I also know that my congressman has no problem with this, although he does seem to be angry with immigrants for taking good leaf-blowing jobs away from struggling Americans.

By getalife

January 16, 2006 06:44 PM | Link to this

Bush needs some of the new “mother’s little helper”

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 06:46 PM | Link to this

Screw one on at 5:45 P.M., 5:51 P.M., 5:53 P.M., 6:07 P.M., 6:25 P.M., and 6:29 P.M. for:

Incoherent and disconnected ranting.

Congratulations! 6 Down 9 To Go

By Andy

January 16, 2006 06:47 PM | Link to this

Midori: Have you ever seen Laura Bush not smiling? Or ever heard of her throwing a lamp at her “husband” like Bubba’s “wife” did?

RE: So if Clinton had withdrew from Monica, Gennifer or who ever the head bimbo was instead of Somalia and defeated the terrorists then, maybe that would have prevented 9/11?

By RE

January 16, 2006 06:49 PM | Link to this

Or maybe 9-11 could have been prevented if we didn’t shift priorities AWAY from counterterrorism after Bush got in office. I am sure we are much safer by cracking down on xxxfilms

By kimberly

January 16, 2006 06:51 PM | Link to this

Dude, if the highest “special prosecutor” in the land, with unlimited resources and a mandate to find SOMETHING - ANY kind of dirt on you, spent three years and $70 million rooting through every check you ever wrote for a loaf of bread, and all he could find after all that time and money was a “zipper issue,” then I WOULD SO TRUST YOU WITH MY LIFE! Ken Starr PROVED Clinton could be trusted! Honest. (And YES, a gentleman lies to protect his women. Like, DUH!)

Outta here. Y’all have fun with your stud bashing.

By Scooter

January 16, 2006 06:54 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, just assume this is the internet and lumping can be percieved but there is no need for offense.

Jobs going overseas to avoid a overly beuracratic tax code perhaps. check it out, and take the burden off of business and place it on consumption. You will promote reuse of goods and illegal immigrants will pay their “fair share”.

By Andy

January 16, 2006 06:54 PM | Link to this

RE: The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission),

Even they acknowledged that the planning for 9/11 started in the 1990’s.

By getalife

January 16, 2006 06:54 PM | Link to this

5,260,000 hits

I think they lost that war.

By RE

January 16, 2006 06:56 PM | Link to this

I never said that they were good at winning wars, just starting them

By getalife

January 16, 2006 06:58 PM | Link to this

Come on OO,

I deserve at least one more.

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 06:58 PM | Link to this

Screw one on at 1:48 for:

Thinking it was possible to engage at some level of normalcy.

Congratulations and thank you! 7 Down 8 To Go.

7

By getalife

January 16, 2006 07:02 PM | Link to this

What?

Bill Clinton, porn and viagra.

Surely I have been robbed!

By Scooter

January 16, 2006 07:08 PM | Link to this

getalife, there is new corruption being released. Its been obstructed for some time and cost tens of miliions but don’t tell kimberly. Perhaps you will link to it from your blog?

By getalife

January 16, 2006 07:14 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

Anything with Fox News goes on RW’s blog?

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 07:19 PM | Link to this

Getalife: Come on now. More fuel for the fire, it’s gonna be a “big bonfire”. Doesn’t the thought of it make you feel all warm and cozy. It works for me.

By RE

January 16, 2006 07:20 PM | Link to this

Wow Andy, after reading excerpts of the report, it is amazing how inept the administration was after it took control. Read sections 6.2-6.5. Clinton was involved and took Al- Qeada seriously, working daily with Tennent, Burger, and Clarke to identify and stop their planning. Then after the election, counterterrorism is really put aside, Cheney is made to head up a commision on terrorism in May and never manages to get together 1 meeting, not 1. Clarke gets demoted and none of his concerns are passed along, Rice makes sure he obeys proper chain of command instead of reacting to the terrorist threat. When you read it, it really is damning how incompetent this administration really is. I used to think no one is really to blame for 9-11 but the terrorists, but after reading about how Bush changed priorities away from counterterrorism, it really seems like they had no idea what they were doing

Thanks Andy, you made a believer out of me

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 07:22 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I thought you wanted to end corruption. Democrat Senators and Clinton lawyers have been fighting to keep the Barrett report from ever being released. As it is the 400 page report is coming out Thursday with 100 pages redacted.

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 07:23 PM | Link to this

Getalife: Just saw your 6:58 post. Get out Big Daddy’s screen scrubber young man. No nuts.

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 07:27 PM | Link to this

R.W.: Neither will you be receiving awards, for you, too, are far too intelligent and diplomatic to deserve one. Unless, of course, you go off the deep end like Kimberly and I don’t see that happening. I hope not anyway.

By getalife

January 16, 2006 07:30 PM | Link to this

RW,

Corruption is corruption, you know I am not a Democrat. Now is the time for reform. Ban corruption and the rest will fall into place.

OO,

Big Daddy is a bad influence on me. I will try to be good.

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 07:32 PM | Link to this

RE,

Maybe they did listen to Clarke. After all he is the one that said Osama and Sadaam were so tight that if we put too much heat on the Taliban Osama would “boogie to Baghdad.”

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 07:36 PM | Link to this

OO,

How about these nuts and I’ll supply the teeth myself?

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 07:42 PM | Link to this

R.W.: I have a confession to make. I miss so much of what your links have to offer because…….I haven’t been able to locate the speakers for my computer. I am soooo ashamed!

I will though, and go back to listen to each one, Viking Kitties especially. The visual was so cute, I hope Led Zepplin can add even more.

By Andy

January 16, 2006 07:42 PM | Link to this

RE: That’s pretty funny man. You must have missed the part in there where KSM also wanted to hit Chicago, L.A., San Francisco and a whole lot of other places. A 20 plane 9/11 is what Al Qaeda had planned with KSM landing in Los Angeles and making demands on the pervert, I mean president Clinton. When Bush got into office they had to scale the operation back to almost nothing.

Let’s see. Pinko sore losers try to sue to get the presidency. Bush not permitted to begin cabinet selections until January 20th, 2001. Spends the next month filling cabinet and administration posts. Starts to do a top down investigation of current terror fighting procedures, states that he doesn’t want to hit any more camels in the a-ss with cruise missiles. Starts rooting out all of the pinkos at CIA, begins to replacing them with competent people. 9/11 happens.

Yep, that makes it all BUSH’S FAULT!.

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 07:48 PM | Link to this

Da*@it Andy, quit shedding light on the truth. It’s blinding.

By Scooter

January 16, 2006 07:49 PM | Link to this

RE, I don’t havemuch time but I went through some of sections 6.2 and saw this;

While Clarke strongly favored giving the CIA more money for counterterrorism, he differed sharply with the CIA’s managers about where it should come from. They insisted that the CIA had been shortchanged ever since the end of the Cold War. Their ability to perform any mission, counterterrorism included, they argued, depended on preserving what they had, restoring what they had lost since the beginning of the 1990s, and building from there—with across-the-board recruitment and training of new case officers, and the reopening of closed stations. To finance the counterterrorism effort,Tenet had gone to congressional leaders after the 1998 embassy bombings and persuaded them to give the CIA a special supplemental appropriation. Now, in the aftermath of the millennium alert,Tenet wanted a boost in overall funds for the CIA and another supplemental appropriation specifically for counterterrorism.

maybe you missed it?

Good thing Bush got the BRAC process completed huh, its something?

By RE

January 16, 2006 08:00 PM | Link to this

nope, read that part too scooter. Your right in the early 90’s after the soviet union fell, a lot of funding had to be redirected, and in many parts cut back. I think we called that the peace dividend back then. The threat shifted.

Andy, way to go stretching to make excuses for GWB. I know taking responsibility is not in his nature, but it is pretty hard to push this off on someone else.

He is president He controls the justice department(CIA-FBI-NSA) He failed to protect the country

what did I miss?

By Andy

January 16, 2006 08:03 PM | Link to this

RE: what did I miss? The 1990’s? The Clinton presidency?

By RE

January 16, 2006 08:06 PM | Link to this

I thought this took place in 2001, am I mistaken. 9 months in should be long enough to take responsibility

By Andy

January 16, 2006 08:15 PM | Link to this

RE: O.K. let’s try this from the very beginning:

2.1 A DECLARATION OF WAR In February 1998, the 40-year-old Saudi exile Usama Bin Ladin and a fugitive Egyptian physician,Ayman al Zawahiri, arranged from their Afghan headquarters for an Arabic newspaper in London to publish what they termed a fatwa issued in the name of a “World Islamic Front.�A fatwa is normally an interpretation of Islamic law by a respected Islamic authority,but neither Bin Ladin, Zawahiri, nor the three others who signed this statement were scholars of Islamic law. Claiming that America had declared war against God and his messenger, they called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the “individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.� Three months later, when interviewed in Afghanistan by ABC-TV, Bin Ladin enlarged on these themes. 2 He claimed it was more important for Muslims to kill Americans than to kill other infidels.“

Now here’s the money quote:

KSM acknowledges formally joining al Qaeda, in late 1998 or 1999, and states that soon afterward, Bin Ladin also made the decision to support his proposal to attack the United States using commercial airplanes as weapons.

By RE

January 16, 2006 08:17 PM | Link to this

and carried it out in 2001, when bush was president.

By Washington State

January 16, 2006 08:25 PM | Link to this

Partisan politics put the blinders on the Bush administration. Rather than listen to a “pinko” (as I so often here Republicans in here referring to their fellow citizens with whom they disagree), Republican administration officials chose to ignore anything that was brought to their attention by a Clinton holdover. We are all paying the price for that colossal blunder.

By RE

January 16, 2006 08:27 PM | Link to this

Travel time to mars was 7 months for the mars rover. A woman can make a baby in 9 months. How long is it before an administration takes responsibility?

By Andy

January 16, 2006 08:30 PM | Link to this

Washington State: Even if I agree with a pinko they are still pinkos. Nothing can change that.

I like the uniqueness of your little theory there on the national security brilliance of the Clinton Administration, I say unique because you and RE are the only ones in the whole entire world to share those same beliefs. Drive on with your bad self. Write a book. Stand on the street corner and shout it to the world.

By RE

January 16, 2006 08:33 PM | Link to this

Just stick to making fun of teddy kennedy, I know you are more comfortable with that. I just wanted to hear when and if the Bush administration takes responsibility for what happens in our country. ok, we can drop the subject, I know it makes you uncomfortable when confronted with things outside of what you already believe.

By Andy

January 16, 2006 08:35 PM | Link to this

My goodness: Clinton was president when terrorists blew a hole in the side of a warship and killed 17 sailors. His chief pinko came back and said that the attack wasn’t provocative enough. What a brilliant statement that turned out to be. Al Qaeda went right back to the drawing board and came up with something for Clinton and his clown pinko crew’s a-ss.

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 08:38 PM | Link to this

Washington State,

Republican administration officials chose to ignore anything that was brought to their attention by a Clinton holdover.

See: Tenet, George (Iraq, WMD etc.)

Now aren’t we being told all the time how foolish it was to listen to that Clinton holdover. It’s pretty easy to figure out who should have been listened to after the fact.

By RE

January 16, 2006 08:41 PM | Link to this

I know I know, it was all clintons fault, no matter when it happened. a guy in a raft in Yemen is the same thing as hijacking 4 planes in the US. One is in Yemen, could you even find that on a map? The other is New York and Washington D.C. That is our backyard he let this happen in.

By Andy

January 16, 2006 08:50 PM | Link to this

Isn’t it just great to be a pinko? I gives you the ability to make silly, idiotic statements like “Bush didn’t do enough to prevent 9/11.” And then 5 minutes later you can come back with even more stupidity “Bush listens in on the phone conversations of terrorists, WHY THE HORROR!”

I’ll bet you have to pay dues to be a pinko, with such a magical existence you get to live because of it.

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 08:52 PM | Link to this

RE

That is our backyard he let this happen in.

That’s beyond pinko, that’s full on moonbat territory. Tell Cynthia hi for us.

By RE

January 16, 2006 08:52 PM | Link to this

I am sorry, do you say when a president takes responsibility for what happens in his country is yet? Now the first WTC attack took place after Clinton was in office for about 4 weeks, and I hold him responsible for that. Just give me a time frame so I can understand.

By Jay not jay

January 16, 2006 08:53 PM | Link to this

RE: “That is our back yard he let this happen in.”

I assume you are referring to Bush?

Nice, that’s the kind of bs statements that make your side look silly.

By Jay not jay

January 16, 2006 08:55 PM | Link to this

Sorry RW, I guess you beat me to it.

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 08:57 PM | Link to this

Jay not jay,

That statement deserved to have more than one light shining on it.

By RE

January 16, 2006 08:58 PM | Link to this

Was there some type of signing statement when he entered office like there was with the tortue bill? Was he not required to take responsibility for 12 months or something. Just wondering

By RE

January 16, 2006 09:04 PM | Link to this

Hey Jay, on Silly bs statements:

RE: So if Clinton had withdrew from Monica, Gennifer or who ever the head bimbo was instead of Somalia and defeated the terrorists then, maybe that would have prevented 9/11?

does this qualify?

By Jay not jay

January 16, 2006 09:08 PM | Link to this

RE: Why do you want to lay all the blame on one man? Either of the WTC attacks would have happened regardless who was in office, don’t you think?

By Jay not jay

January 16, 2006 09:10 PM | Link to this

Depends on what that was in response to…

By RE

January 16, 2006 09:13 PM | Link to this

Most likely, but quite often I hear all the blame being shifted to a man out of office for 9 months. I am sure the plans were there for the attack for years in advance, but I do think that because the transition was from Dem to Rep, there was more of a shake up on partisan bias and much of the former policy was scrapped for ideological reasons.

By finch

January 16, 2006 09:15 PM | Link to this

“finch: This war would done be over with if the enemy didn’t have the hope of people like you, Murtha and the NY Times winning it for them right here in the good old USA. They think they can just wait us out, they’re counting on you. What’s the matter, you don’t like blood on your hands?”

Well. The needless, pointless invasion of Iraq has cost more than 2000 American lives and 30,000 (Bush’s estimate) Iraqis.

Now, just who has blood on their hands?

And it’s illogical to blame Clinton for 9/11 because he didn’t act on intelligence while exonerating Bush for not acting on the exact, same intelligence.

Specifically, on August 6, 2001, President Bush virtually ignored the terror alert contained in a Presidential Daily Briefing, as reported by FOX News.

Bush was apparently too busy clearing brush at his Crawford, Texas ranch to be bothered by such trivial warnings.

Not that he hadn’t been warned earlier. Oh, he had! He most definitely had been warned.

I know. You just hate being confused by facts.

By RE

January 16, 2006 09:15 PM | Link to this

6:47pm if you want to look at context

By RE

January 16, 2006 09:19 PM | Link to this

Bush was clearing brush CLinton was mowing bush….

never thought of it that way

By Jay not jay

January 16, 2006 09:24 PM | Link to this

RE I assume the repsonse was in reference to this:

By RE

January 16, 2006 06:40 PM | Link to this

didn’t 9-11 happen on bush’s watch, you know after Ashcroft shifted the Justice department AWAY from counterterrorism activities.

You can blame all day, but it’s really pointless now isn’t it. Blaming Bush for 9/11 is just a wet dream and most people are sick of hearing the whining. Except the McKinney constituency maybe.

By RE

January 16, 2006 09:30 PM | Link to this

In response to this: y Andy

January 16, 2006 06:35 PM | Link to this

Kimberly: When you are President, terrorism first, “well functioning sex organ� second. I can think of 3000 or so people that would have appreciated that policy

By getalife

January 16, 2006 09:36 PM | Link to this

“I suppose that DeLay was simply a much more inviting target for the [Democrats], so Hastert is left alone,” said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). “Maybe people will start focusing on Hastert now.”

I am really starting to like this Republican.

By Jay not jay

January 16, 2006 09:47 PM | Link to this

Andy, I don’t know what it is about your leg today… Can you please put it away? j/k

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 09:47 PM | Link to this

finch,

Here is the relevant portion of that August 6 PDB your side likes to make such a big deal of.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

This part had nothing to do with what actually happened, but is probably good information. What do you want to do to monitor “Muslim-American” youths without violating their civil liberties?

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ‘Umar’ Abd aI-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

This portion mentioned hijacking for the purpose of a hostage/prisoner swap. What would you have the President do with this information?

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

This seems like good information since it used the word hijacking and New York in the same paragraph, however the hijackings were expected to be the aforementioned hostage/prisoner swap, Federal buildings were not necessarily the targets, and New York referred to the whole State.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

This paragraph would seem comforting that the proper steps were being taken prior to 9/11. “70 full field investigations” doesn’t sound like nothing is being done and again they refer to attacks with explosives.

Bob Kerrey says we should have attacked Afghanistan in advance. Maybe so, but if we did and got attacked anyway Bush would be blamed for provoking the attack and if we didn’t he would be savaged for attacking a sovereign nation that was no threat to us at home. (If you don’t believe that last part pick up any news report and change the name Iraq to Afghanistan.)

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 09:57 PM | Link to this

Strange I suddenly feel very “Michael H-like”.

By finch

January 16, 2006 10:25 PM | Link to this

RW,

That’s a generally fair analysis of the 8-6-01 report to the President, although it begs the question, “Why did Bush do what Clinton critics say Clinton did? Which was nothing?” This is where the “Clinton did it too” argument really falls flat.

Since OBL had already been linked to the embassy and USS Cole bombings in Africa, and the Khobar Tower bombing in Saudi Arabia, and the CIA knew he was in Taliban ruled Afghanistan, invading Afghanistan prior to 9-11, as Kerrey reccommended would have been a great idea. At least Bush had the cajones to hit the Taliban a month after 9-11. Better late than never.

I’m not budging from my argument that the Iraq invasion was/is a terrible mistake and a waste. Now we’re stuck to that damn tarbaby, and I wish to hell the US could surgically extricate itself. Meanwhile, the US occupation there and seemingly scattershot Hellfire missle attacks in Pakistan are only inspiring more mujahadeen wannabees.

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2006 10:43 PM | Link to this

finch,

If I were President I would think that last paragraph says that things were being done. It only became apparent that they were not the right things a few weeks later.

Iraq may be a mistake or it may spur the most lasting transformation possible in the Middle East, either way there won’t be a future terror attack by Saddam Hussein that people can use to say Bush should have known Saddam was a threat and done something to prevent it.

By Objective Observer

January 16, 2006 10:46 PM | Link to this

Excellent!!

By Washington State

January 16, 2006 11:27 PM | Link to this

Andy, Here’s one for you: http://nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html?ei=5094&en=95535dcb34270fd6&hp=&ex=1137474000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print All the info gained by indiscriminate, illegal eavesdropping hasn’t done anything except overwhelm the agencies responsible with sorting through it. As for me being the only one who thinks that the Bush administration ignored warnings about bin Laden because they came from ‘pinko’ democrats who had been in place under Clinton, you have a remarkable ability to see things through your own filter. You are a prime exhibit of what is wrong with this country. One half thinks the other half is dead wrong and brain dead. That is the true definition of partisanship. Just because a lot of liberals and more and more conservatives think that the Bush administration is crazed doesn’t mean we think all Republicans are crazy. We just worry about the ones who still blindly support Bush and label any opposition as ‘pinko.’ (By the way, are you still fighting the cold war or have you joined the twentieth first century war on terrorism? It’s hard to tell from reading your posts.)

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 01:01 AM | Link to this

A “finch” inspired blog post.

Thanks, finch!

By Washington State

January 17, 2006 01:19 AM | Link to this

RW, I like it. But it doesn’t deal with those Muslims taking flying lessons on passenger plane simulators who were reported by local field agents and then ignored. I am not saying Bush was responsible, but bureaurcratic inertia seems to be bipartisan. Matter of fact, I can’t see anything Bush has done with Homeland Security except create more bureaucracy.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 01:46 AM | Link to this

Washington State,

The post at the other site deals strictly with the PDB. I agree that following the advice of the FBI field agent that wanted Zacharias Mousawi’s computer searched really could have stopped the 9/11 attacks.

Bureaucracy kept that from happening and that has been “fixed” by replacing it with different bureaucracy.

I’m a Reagan Republican so I would like to see a lot less Government in the areas it doesn’t belong, but the one place Federal Government does belong is national security.

By Washington State

January 17, 2006 01:58 AM | Link to this

RW, I think you have to add something to that. “Effective” bureaucracy, not just bureaucracy. So far, all I have seen is a lot of words. But if New Orleans is any indication of how the new HSA functions, we are in just as deep as ever. I can tell you from the point of view of a first responder in the medical field, for all the words, the funding has been cut to the bone and the bureaucracy is worse than ever. God help us if we ever do have a serious biological attack. We aren’t anywhere near ready. Last year’s debacle with the flu vaccine is just the tip of the iceberg.

By physicsdawg

January 17, 2006 02:18 AM | Link to this

I see two extremes when it comes to protecting ourselves from terrorist attack:
1) Try to root out all terrorists around the world. OBL, and any others that target the USA specifically. or
2) Let the rest of the world do what it wants, and protect only within our borders.
Both have many pros, but so many cons, that either seems like a really bad idea. #1, you end up with many screaming that we’re warmongers, overextending ourselves and depleteting our “homeland” defense, etc. From a “liberal” perspective, there’s no way to win because we are making so many in the world angry, we’re “breeding new terrorists.” From a “conservative” perspective, where do you draw the line? We have many self preserving reasons to try and force Iran, North Korea into line, as well as justfication for Iraq & Taliban. The toll on troops and taxpayers would be too enormous. (It’s quite large already, i’m sure we all agree.)
#2 Seems to be what most of the left wants, but “Whoa!” that can’t include ethnic profiling, actually keeping people out of our country, or listening to people’s conversations! You either in or out, fellas. But, didn’t we try this isolationist thing for a long time, and it didn’t work. Hitler & Japan still threated our way of life, and we kept our head is the sand a long time on that one, hoping it would go away. Should we have just defended Pearl Harbor better, or had massive escorts for our Atlantic merchant ships? That won’t work. So Then there is the vast area between them. How about a little compromise. You know, we don’t have to “make legal” every “undocumented worker”/illegal alien, before we decide to stop any more from coming in. Stopping cold anyone coming into this country illegally will* protect us from attacks. We can leave out the other decision, meaning: This doesn’t mean we plan to round up all illegals/undocumented and send them back. And it doesn’t mean we have to give them all papers, and promise they are safe from ever being deported. This is just one example, but others would extend to foreign policy (making war if you have to) I think Afghanistan **was necessary. I also think Iraq was necessary. That reveals my political slant, for those wondering… BUT, I will say Invading Iraq wouldn’t be neccessary, if UN had the balls to back up what it said for 10 years. We know France hasn’t had any since Napoleon left office. The bottom line is the UN and Euro-weenies could have sheltered Saddam if they had kept him in line. (analogy: as a parent, if you want to protect your child, teach them to behave.) So maybe a nice compromise would be to A) seek the UN’s approval more. B) Reform the UN, so their approval means a damn. (what I think John Bolton’s appointment has a chance of doing.)
Just a few thoughts, because I could not sleep…

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 02:18 AM | Link to this

Washington State,

There was a reason I put “fixed” in scare quotes. I don’t think the Federal Government had any place in real time Katrina response, much less a first response.

With respect to your expertise in the area, last years “flu vaccine debacle” is a completely fabricated problem. I do agree with you that we aren’t ready for a widespread biological attack, although my inclination would be to try to prevent the attack rather than deem it inevitable and stockpile medication.

By physicsdawg

January 17, 2006 02:22 AM | Link to this

well, got the asterix for bold all screwed up on that one…

By Washington State

January 17, 2006 02:52 AM | Link to this

RW, From where I sat, last year’s flu debacle was just that, a debacle. I should send you copies of the all the memos I got from the government on the flu vaccine. It turned out to be a non-crisis, but it had the whole government running around like a bunch of chickens without heads. Now imagine it had been a real crisis and you begin to get some idea of why I am worried about our “new” bureaucracy. As for prevention vs. treatment, they are two sides of the same coin. You need to have both in place. Prevention is always better, but when it doesn’t work, you need a backup in place.

By Joe Roman

January 17, 2006 05:08 AM | Link to this

I’ve got a third way, physicsdawg. Conduct a foreign policy based on respecting other nations, other religions, cultures, peoples and other ideologies. Strive to create a world so economically connected that official actions would be sure to generate results that would damage the agressor as much as attacked. If some still won’t play nice, bomb them back to the stone age with B-52s and B-2s attacking from 50,000 feet. If the situation still looks like troops may be required, bomb some more. If no one is left alive, there is no need to put troops on the ground. Plus, everybody would be likely to play nice from then on. Our half-ased measures “bringing democracy” to Iraq should have followed this method or not been attempted at all. Bush’s methods are good if the goal is to get American troops and Iraqi sympathizers killed. Otherwise, they are a joke.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 05:26 AM | Link to this

Washington State: I believe the real problem with America may be people like you making stupid statements about things you don’t even understand:

[In modern times, the 1947 National Security Act contained no provision for congressional oversight of presidential national-security actions. In 1968 Congress enacted the Safe Streets Act, providing that nothing in the act “shall limit the power of the President to take such actions as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities.”}(http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110007823)

When President Carter signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978, his attorney general noted that it did not “take away the power of the president under the Constitution,” and in 1994, when President Clinton expanded FISA, his administration agreed. As constitutional scholar Robert Turner noted in The Wall Street Journal last month, “Section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that in a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance ‘without a court order.’”

In 1980 the Carter administration argued in the Truong case that the government could conduct domestic, warrantless wiretaps of conversations between a U.S. and a Vietnamese citizen who had been passing on U.S. military intelligence to the North Vietnamese. The Supreme Court agreed.

And in 2002 the FISA court said that the president has “inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance.”

By Andy

January 17, 2006 05:31 AM | Link to this

Washington State: I believe the real problem with America may be people like you making stupid statements about things you don’t even understand:

In modern times, the 1947 National Security Act contained no provision for congressional oversight of presidential national-security actions. In 1968 Congress enacted the Safe Streets Act, providing that nothing in the act “shall limit the power of the President to take such actions as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities.�

When President Carter signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978, his attorney general noted that it did not “take away the power of the president under the Constitution,� and in 1994, when President Clinton expanded FISA, his administration agreed. As constitutional scholar Robert Turner noted in The Wall Street Journal last month, “Section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that in a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance ‘without a court order.’�

In 1980 the Carter administration argued in the Truong case that the government could conduct domestic, warrantless wiretaps of conversations between a U.S. and a Vietnamese citizen who had been passing on U.S. military intelligence to the North Vietnamese. The Supreme Court agreed.

And in 2002 the FISA court said that the president has “inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance.�

By Andy

January 17, 2006 06:07 AM | Link to this

As if to prove my point about how pinkos shouldn’t have anything to say about our protection, here comes the AJC editorial board:

Yes, Georgia state Sen. Greg Goggans (R-Douglas) and Senate President Pro Tem Eric Johnson (R-Savannah) have introduced their own “stand your ground” bill, which declares that a person has “the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm.”

Can anybody guess which side they came down in favor of? Not only that, they think you should be ridiculed for protecting yourself and not wanting to be slaughtered. Seriously.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 06:24 AM | Link to this

Can Hollywood be any less legitimate?

‘Brokeback Mountain’ Leads Globes With 4 Awards

Television winners included Geena Davis for best drama series actress as the U.S. president in “Commander in Chief,”

I wonder why Michael Moore didn’t win anything? Oh, that’s right, he’s still living off all of the pinko money he got from “morphodite 911.”

By AntiRadical

January 17, 2006 06:34 AM | Link to this

*”Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.” —George W. Bush, to FEMA director Michael Brown, who resigned 10 days later amid criticism over his job performance, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005 *

Isn’t it funny that in handling Katrina relief we view the President as being embarrassingly ineffective, but in viewing his Iraq performance we imagine that he is wiser than the military advisors he ignored to trump up a war based on phony (lack of) intelligence regarding WMDs. These days, the Administration just hints that the reason for the war was that Hussein was just a bad guy and really not that he had WMDs, afterall. The WMD red herring was really just for our own good though, right? Citizens certainly can’t be expected to make sound judgements from truthful data; we need to be fed the data that is good for us. Isn’t it great to be LIED to!!!!

By Andy

January 17, 2006 06:55 AM | Link to this

AntiR: Really?

Sarin: 1st WMD found in Iraq

Suspected Mobile Bio-Weapons Labs Discovered in Iraq

In the words of “brilliant” Clinton CIA director George Tenet: “George, how confident are you?” the president asked Tenet, in an exchange depicted in Bob Woodward’s book “Plan of Attack.” “Don’t worry, it’s a slam-dunk,” Tenet said.

I guess it all depends on what the meaning of “no” is.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 07:53 AM | Link to this

Didn’t we learn about sanctions during the “brilliant” superior national security superchief Clinton Administration? When are we going to start bombing these people?

So what can be done? Right now, Iran can count on at least two Security Council vetoes against any meaningful action by the “international community”.

So any Western strategy that takes time is in the regime’s favour. After all, President Ahmaggedonouttahere’s formative experience was his participation in the seizure of the US embassy in Teheran in 1979. I believe it was Andrei Gromyko who remarked that, if the students had pulled the same stunt at the Soviet embassy, Teheran would have been a crater by lunchtime.

By finch

January 17, 2006 08:01 AM | Link to this

Mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq??

A flat-out lie.

*”An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist.”

Truth is such a pesky thing.

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 08:05 AM | Link to this

Two Security Council vetoes? Not from our allies! We can’t allienate the wonderfull and honorable UN!

Free “member states” have to love that veto provision if they have UN loving liberals in their midst.

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 08:09 AM | Link to this

Didn’t the Kay and Duelfer Reports state Saddam was mastering Multi-use technologies?

By AntiRadical

January 17, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this

Sorry Andy but the Sarin shell was found long after Hussein ousted and was rigged as an IED. I don’t think anyone believes that it was connected to Hussein but was instead brought in by extremists we attracted to Iraq with our unjustified occupation and lack of civil control, thereafter. One shell does not make “weaponS of mass destruction”, anyway does it. The supposed bio-weapons labs have long been refuted (by the admins own experts). The administration sure did look long and hard but never found any WMDs. Anyone with common sense knows that if WMDs really were found the fact would be trumpeted around the world. Don’t know about anyone else, but I never heard the horns. You really can’t have it both ways; either the administration was lying to us or it was just plain wrong. Take your pick! Nice shot at diversion from the truth, though.

“We all thought there was weapons there, Robin. My opponent thought there was weapons there.” —George W. Bush, second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

Sounds to me like the President is saying that there were no weapons there afterall, doesn’t it? So, was he lying when he said there WERE WMDs or was he lying when he said there WEREN’T. I see where the NeoCons get their “Dems did it too” mantra; from the President himself. The buck never stops here!!!

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this

If he thought there were WMDs there and he said there were not, that would be a lie. If he didn’t think there were WMDs there and said there were, it was a lie. If he stuck his wee wee in some lady and said he didn’t it was a lie.

If I could have come through high school under the new definition of sexual relations, none of your daughters would be safe, that is for sure.

Those fools who believed the Earth was flat were all liars?

By Wilma Lamb

January 17, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this

Mike I LOVE today’s cartoon. The Repubs think if they can find “ties” to a Democrat it makes their corruption ok. I can only imagine what the media and the disloyal opposition would be yammering if Gore had been elected instead of selected in 2000 or Kerry was elected in 04. Wilma Lamb

By AntiRadical

January 17, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this

Like I implied Scooter; either the President is a liar or a very poor leader who acts hastily without good intelligence because of his poor choices of appointees to advise him. If you don’t think he’s a liar; you must think he is a fool.

By Nevermind

January 17, 2006 08:39 AM | Link to this

Great toon Mike..even though it continues to be a bitter pill for the radical right to swallow, this is a Republican SCANDAL of giant proportions. Let them continue to attempt projecting their guilt onto pretty much anyone else. We will see how all of this shakes out, won’t we? AH YES.

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this

Anti radical, those are the only to solutions you can come up with?

Perhaps he thought, after 9/11 was no time to keep the UN in charge, for its thirteenth year, of enforcing a 1991 cease fire agreement that demanded a ruthless dictator disclose the wherabouts of the WMDs we helped him procure. Maybe the left sees a prime time to display their blind hatred with endless criticisms with the advantage of hindsight.

They are like the worlds best hindsight jockies riding for the charitable cause of socialism.

I am not going through all of the reasons, as I am going to go beat my head against a pole.

All politicians are crooked, the left just chooses to ignore half of the problem and gives gubment more power to control the lives of Americans, by sheltering them from their own liberties.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this

production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons

You’ve got to be kidding me, right? Does anyone else know about the Hindenburg? It’s not like they sell hydrogen in bulk tanks or anything.

You pinkos are something else.

By AntiRadical

January 17, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

Scooter: I agree that there were many valid reasons to oust Hussein. Problem is the President said that HIS reason was WMDs. I think he did so because he knew the valid reasons you speak of wouldn’t be sufficient to manipulate world or American opinion enough for him to engage in a war that he thought he would gain political capital from. If that is the case then he is a LIAR. If it is not, the only other expanation is that he “act(ed) hastily without good intelligence because of his poor choices of appointees to advise him”.

PS- If his “real” reasons were other than WMDs and he said the reason was WMDs (he did); he is a LIAR.

By Pink Salmon

January 17, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

It’s maddening how the Repubs would insinutate that the Dems would be involved in any kind of payoffs or corruption in politics. These Bush lovers are so stupid.

By Ricky

January 17, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

AntiRadical, you make some invalid points in your arguement. You say he acts hastily without without good intel because of his poor choice of appointees. Well George Tenet, who decided what intel to bring to the President, was not a Bush appointee. So that arguement goes out the window.

By Ricky

January 17, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

Did everyone see the comment good ole Ray Nagin made yesterday? That guy is really out in the left fied. Doug Brinkley even speculated that Nagin has had a couple of nervous breakdowns since the hurrican and is mental unstable. What do you think would happen if a white mayor said his town should be a white town? I can only imagine the public outcry. Do you think MLK would have been happy to see those comments made on the day honoring all the good work he did?

By sickoftheneocons

January 17, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

Nagin was a moron before the hurricanes, he remains a moron afterward…pure and simple. Throw Blanco in there as well…

By AntiRadical

January 17, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

Ricky: Bush had the power and authority to appoint anyone he wished to replace Tenet if he did not accept him as part of his administration. Problem with your argument is that the President made no attempt to replace Tenet, valued, and accepted his advice. Maybe I should have said that the President just accepted a lot of bad advice (from whomever), an act for which HE ALONE is RESPONSIBLE. Don’t ya’ just hate that “R” word!!!

PS- As I said, I think this to be the least likely scenario. I think the President was lying in order to manipulate. Only he will ever truely know for sure, of course, the rest of us are left to guess based on the accumulated evidence of his intelligence and character.

“As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself — not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch. As a matter of fact, the Colonel asked if I needed first aid when she first saw me. I was able to avoid any major surgical operations here, but thanks for your compassion, Colonel.” —George W. Bush, after visiting with wounded veterans from the Amputee Care Center of Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, Jan. 1, 2006

Yeh, the President has loads of character, doesn’t he? (intelligence, too)

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

There were other reasons given, you only chose to hear the WMD one.

Like when Bush gave his speech under the “Misison Accomplished� banner;

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We’re bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We’re pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime who will be held to account for their crimes. We’ve begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.

We are helping to rebuild Iraq where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by and for the Iraqi people.

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq..

Did you choose to focus on the “Mission Accomplished” banner and ignore what was said?

Possibly, you are another opportunistic lefty who insist the threat become imminent so you can criticize the president for not doing anything? Or maybe you are a lefty who thinks Bush should have ignored all of the world’s evidence on Saddam’s WMDs, not to mention ignoring the fact that the burden of proof was placed on Saddam, but he should have jumped all over that August 6 PDB? Who knows maybe you aren’t a lefty at all?

By sickoftheneocons

January 17, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

Are we STILL rehashing the reasons for going to Iraq? Good God, what’s the point? The simple fact of the matter is: WE’RE THERE! Whatever the impetus for going in the first place, we have a stated objective now, so let’s accomplish the objective and move on!

By finch

January 17, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

you’re SO right, sickoftheneocons. Hindsight is 20-20, and it really doesn’t matter now how we got into Iraq. Time to figure out a real exit strategy.

But what exactly is our stated objective?

By Andy

January 17, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

finch: This isn’t Bush’s plan to fill balloons with hydrogen, so you probably weren’t aware of it:

President Outlines Strategy for Victory in Iraq- 2003

Up, up and away in my beautiful, my beautiful balloon… Moonbat!

By AntiRadical

January 17, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

Scooter: See FDR leading up to WW2. We waited for two years to enter the war until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. FDR knew America would eventually have to fight Hitler and stuffed the Atlantic supply convoys to Britain while posing as a neutral. While horrible and reprehensible, the attack on Pearl Harbor galvanized a contemptuous American public in support of the war effort. By waiting, the naysayers could have no argument about entering the war or seeing it through to total completion. While it was unfortunate that Pearl Harbor had to happen; it DID have to happen in order to unify the allied powers (would have been nice had the current President had this kind of self-control and diplomacy).

By Andy

January 17, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

New Orleans mayor says God is angry NEW ORLEANS, Jan. 17 (UPI) — New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin says the hurricanes that devastated the city last year are a sign that “God is mad at America,” and at blacks in particular.

By finch

January 17, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

Some pessimistic supporters of Texas Congressman and former House Republican leader Tom DeLay say only a miracle will save him from conviction on felony charges and further entanglements in the Jack Abramoff payoff mess.

Here it is!

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

Anti, after World War One and the Treaty of Versailles it would seem that Germany wouldn’t have been able run rough shot over Europe. Ultimately leading to our Lend-Lease program and a conflict that caused millions of deaths. If that darn treaty had been well enforced think of how much closer we could be to over populating the planet?

But, you are correct that Americans then as now would prefer to trust foreign bodies, read League of Nations, to ensure their safety.

Did the republicans of the time criticize FDR for not having served in the military? Possibly they did I just wasn’t alive.

I love how some on the left are now saying to stop arguing about why we are there, because we need to figure out how to retreat, oh i mean withdraw with honor.

By sickoftheneocons

January 17, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

Finch, I guess you got A LOT more candy on the left side of the street than you did on the right…

By Ricky

January 17, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

finch, the exit strategy from Iraq is plain and simple. Stand up their forces in order to allow them to secure themselves. Also, allow the democratic process to take hold(which it already has, 3 elections have been held). I know you don’t agree with this war, etc., but the stated exit strategy is plain to see. Don’t buy into the talking points. I am not saying this is going to be easy to accomplish and we made terrible mistakes along the way, however we are moving in the right direction. Of course now that Bush has decided to drawn down some of our numbers, the left is going to say that he has realized we can’t win and is pulling out just like they advocate. So no matter what he does, the left is going to pound him hoping to gain any political advantage they can. That has become their MO, don’t worry about ways to fix things, just bash the Republicans as much as possible.

By sickoftheneocons

January 17, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

Ricky, that draw down announcement is kind of misleading in that we sent additional troops to Iraq to cover the election and we are now withdrawing that additional troop strength. We will still maintain the 136,000 to 139,000 troops that were already there, on a rotating basis of course.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about Weapons of Mass Destruction WMDs in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002 he is said to have assured the President that the evidence against Saddam amounted to a “slam dunk case,”

George John Tenet was appointed Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) in July, 1997, by President Bill Clinton, having served as Acting Director for the previous eighteen months.

By Joe Roman

January 17, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

What a waste of a mouse scrolling wheel. The comments made here are pathetic, pointless and stupid. This site makes talk radio look like a forum for Nobel laureats.

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

Thanks Joe Roman, for adding a little intelligence to the blog. Those were good objective points, especially your subtle vilification of talk radio. Enter the Guiness commercial… BRILLIANT!

By AntiRadical

January 17, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

Scoooter: I’d have to take exception. Onerous WW1 reparations were mostly responsible for unifying the German people around Hitler and creating the Third Reich! Germany did carefully tiptoe around armament restrictions of Versailles till WW2 declared. This is the reason for their concentration on the Luftwaffe instead of the Navy/Army in assembling armaments prior to the war. This was, also, responsible for german advances in the “new” (and unrestricted) technology of rocket science. Thankfully, it was, also, the reason that the horror of poisonous gases were not re-employed on a large scale during this conflict as they were in WW1.

FDR was not critcized for lack of military service by anyone ‘cause, of course, he was disabled by polio and most often used a wheelchair unless speaking. No one of honor beats-up on a cripple.

Unfortunately, those on the right would very much like to stop talking about why we are in Iraq because it is such an embarrasment to us all.

By Dusty

January 17, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

I think I will draw up a cartoon and send it to AJC. This one is so old nobody even remembers it. Anything NEW going on?

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

Anti, you lost me in your nuance. Americans were proper in their efforts to trust the League of Nations to enforce the Treaty of Versailles, because it ultimately minimized poison gas attacks?

When is it ever justified for America to enforce its own cease fire agreements? Not until the “gun” is loaded and facing my childs head?

I proudly attemted to join the Corps twice, so you and the left can be embarrased by yourselfs.

Were you embarrased when Reagan called Russia the “evil empire”?

By AntiRadical

January 17, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

Ricky: It really doesn’t matter what the left says about troop reduction. It does matter, though, when the enemy (Zarqawi) say that you’re tucking your tail between your legs and running home ‘cause you were beaten. If you’re thinking, “danged if you do, danged if you don’t”; you’re absoutely right. The President took at swing at the “tar-baby” and now he (and we) are stuck fast, just like Brer’ Rabbit.

By Jay not jay

January 17, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

Anti, need a little clarification on this one: “By waiting, the naysayers could have no argument about entering the war or seeing it through to total completion. While it was unfortunate that Pearl Harbor had to happen; it DID have to happen in order to unify the allied powers (would have been nice had the current President had this kind of self-control and diplomacy).”

Does this mean the current president should wait until something horrible happens in order to appease the naysayers?

That is correct though, when something bad does happen, the naysayers will change their toon. If they are not too busy blaming the President for letting it happen.

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

The left diligently works to ensure their defeatist predictions, so the people can continue to ignore the causes of terrorism and whack at the individual results.

They broaden the terms of such documents as the Geneva Convention to include even those that are not signatories. If a US soldier is seen to shoot a wounded and unarmed man they will crucify said soldier and portray all of our armed forces as such. Never mind that the enemy is blowing himself up to kill the enemy and the soldier could not have known the injured combatant was not wired to explode. Finally, when they see that the Iraqis are beginning to stand on their own, the left demands that we pull our support out from under them so Iraq will become the civil war the left predicted. Bush 41 abandoned the Kurds and it would be a grave error to abandon the Iraqi people now.

By Dusty

January 17, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

For goodness sake, why don’t you liberals forget what Zarqawi is saying and listen to America. We are going to WIN this conflict. If all Americans stood up and declared that loud and clear,we would be out of there sooner. In the meantime, I SUPPORT the troops. I SUPPORT my country. I don’t care if you quibble among your timid little cut’n’runners, but keep it to yourself. At least, be a covert coward and don’t advertise it.

By AntiRadical

January 17, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Scooter: Comparing service records is non-germaine but if it makes you feel better, I proudly DID join, one time (4 yrs service). Not embarrassed at all, Reagan was a great President. I don’t think Americans were “proper” in their hesitation to enter WW2. I think we fell into the best course of action through the careful hesitation but diligence of the leaders of the time. You might say that FDR manipulated and lied to us “for our own good” (wink, wink). I just think he was quite adept at it while GWB just never had the smarts or finesse’ to be a “real” war President.

By Ricky

January 17, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

anti, you can’t compare what Bush and FDR did. Think about the difference in media coverage. Most of the country didn’t even know that FDR was in a wheelchair. I disagree that Bush lied. You told what he believed. That doesn’t constitute lying. He was wrong. Most everybody was wrong in fact, but he is the President so it rests at his feet ultimately. I would be willing to bet that if the media were the same during FDR’s time he would have gotten hammered also

By Dusty

January 17, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

Here we go again. Bush does not have the “finesse to be a real war president”. No, he has the “guts” to be strong and wise for this country. Go cringe in private. You have forgotten that retreat doesn’t work.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

Any of you pinkos want to apologize? Or will I have to go get your previous comments and rub your nose in them? You know who you are, AntiR, finch:

Pakistan: Four Foreign Terrorists Killed in U.S. Airstrike

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — At least four foreign terrorists died in the purported U.S. airstrike aimed at Al Qaeda’s No. 2 leader in a Pakistani border village, the provincial government said Tuesday.

And to think you libs were hysterical over this? Isn’t it typical of the pinko overeaction to everything?

By Andy

January 17, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

By RE

January 14, 2006 07:03 PM | Link to this

And I am with you, but if Mexico attacked a texas border town and 18 US citizens were killed while trying to eliminate a drug lord, I am sure we would have a problem with it.

Yep, just like we are spying on citizens here in America…

By Andy

January 17, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

By RE

January 14, 2006 06:55 PM | Link to this

Hey guys,

‘Call me a pinko lib, but we just attacked and killed 18 people from pakistan, a soverign nation and a some what reluctant ally. I think we may get a lot of heat for this attack.

O.K. you pinko lib.

By sickoftheneocons

January 17, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

I see your article mentioned that women and children also died in the strike but it didn’t say how many…any predictions?

By Scooter

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

Anti, just depends on how you look at it I guess.

I am glad that Admiral Nimitz made the Alluetian Islands call rather than FDR. Because, I think the decisions of the real war time president would have dessimated our Pacific fleet.

Sure, I may “say” that FDR lied to us for our own good, but I will never say it is best to trust American Security to foreign bodies. Nor, will I ever say it is best to semi-ignore growing threats and pass them on to another president. However, politicians will always provide enough evidence to despise them all, but some will only see one half of that evidence. Opportunistic criticism seems to pass off as a political platform these days.

I will never argue that Bush is eloquent, but he spoke volumes when he said the “soft bigotry of low expectations”.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

finch, kook:

Whatever the case, the crowd at Constitution Hall was not at all transpartisan, or even bipartisan. From all appearances, it was a classic MoveOn-style gathering; indeed, MoveOn’s political chief, Eli Pariser, had sent out e-mails inviting members to the event. The crowd gave Gore a standing ovation when he walked to the podium, and thunderous applause when he accused the president of breaking the law. There was more heartfelt applause — and one shout of “Right On!” — when Algore referred to “the shocking decay and degradation of our democracy.” Whatever the crowd was, it wasn’t transpartisan.

By AntiRadical

January 17, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Ricky: I agree that the comparison is flawed. Biggest thing is not the media bias (believe me they were ripping FDR a new one before WW2) it is the fact that today we are fighting an enemy without borders (terrorists). When we attack them, we, also, attack the country they are resident in. This is completely different than what FDR worked with during the big one. I haven’t heard anybody really complaining about Afghanistan (they were harboring Al Queda and got what they asked for). Justification for Iraq is the problem. It just ain’t there. I hope you’re right and that the President just used bad judgement but I remain unconvinced in light of the totality of his actions and statements. I still think he was deceptive and manipulating. I don’t even think that this is neccesarily a bad thing if done with aplomb and finesse. Unfortunately, it was not. This President just ain’t got the right stuff.

By Washington State

January 17, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Andy, Again, you have a remarkable ability to see things thru your own filters. Some of the best legal minds in the country, both conservative and “pinko,” are wrestling with the question of the legality of NSA’s eavesdropping, but you have already solved the problem all by yourself. You are the walking definition of blind partisanship.

By RE

January 17, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

Thanks for bringing that back up Andy, incase you missed it, I also said no one can fault Bush for taking a shot in Pakistan. He did the right thing. We missed. We will have to deal with the consequences.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

sicko: You’ll have to ask the terrorists, they are the ones who invited women and children over for dinner.

By sickoftheneocons

January 17, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

Do we know if those militants that were killed in that Pakistani missile strike were family members of the people who invited them to the dinner? I’m just speculating here, but is it possible? Is it possible that family invited family to dinner and some of that family happened to be militants? Of course, this article was from Fox News so who can vouch for its veracity in the first place…

By Scooter

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

Andy, blind partisan? I have seen old Andy criticise Bush on several instatnces, but I have seen nothing but distraction and defending of Clinton by the left in here. Those same leftist can see absolutely nothing good that has come out Bush’s presidency, blind paertisanship perhaps?

I would like to quote Willy D and the Ghetto Boys; “Aint that the pot calling the kettle black!”

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

sickof…,

Nice cheap shot at Fox News, but the article is from the AP. Of course it being from the AP gives me the same pause that Fox gives you.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

RE:

Thanks for bringing that back up Andy, incase you missed it, I also said no one can fault Bush for taking a shot in Pakistan. He did the right thing. We missed. We will have to deal with the consequences.

We hit four terrorists, you consider that a miss? Which side are you on?

By Daniel

January 17, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

Bloodthirsty christians want more killing. Whose side are they on?

By Andy

January 17, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

sicko: Yeah, American soldiers bring their families to dinner on the battlefield all the time.

Does this help your believability issues any?:

C B.S. “News”-Pakistan: Strike Killed 4 Terrorists

By RE

January 17, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

4 terrorists killed, 14 non terrorists killed. Yeah, that is a miss.

By RE

January 17, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

You can’t even get this guy to relax when you say you support what Bush did.

fa·nat·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-ntk) n. A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

RE, is “this guy” me?

By George

January 17, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

Is there a chapter of Bloggers Anonymous in Atlanta? Some people here need it bad.

By Daniel

January 17, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

We’re shoving democracy AND faux-chriatianity down their throats. You’re sending someone else’s kids to kill more innocents than enemy. But, take heed, Bush will give you a slick photo-op.

By RE

January 17, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

No, that was an andy directed comment

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

RE, ten roger.

By sickoftheneocons

January 17, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

What in the h-e-l-l are you talking about? Where does the battlefield come into play? The missile hit a HOUSE you idiot, when you invite family over for a meal Andy, do you sit in the middle of a battlefield or do you go IN THE HOUSE and eat?

Scooter - please give an instance where Andy has criticised Bush. I don’t think he ever has…

By sickoftheneocons

January 17, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

Try this scenario on for size Andy. You invite your family over for a nice home-cooked dinner. Before everyone sits down to eat, you need to go get a gallon of milk because you ran out. When you get back from the store you find that your house is a smoking ruins along with your family because of a terrorist missile strike (not likely but go with it). After a few days of investigation, you discover that the terrorists struck your house because your, lets say, nephew was a covert CIA agent responsible for a few well placed assassinations of key al-Quida figures. Now, your family isn’t responsible for this, only your nephew, yet your whole family is dead because of it. Bum deal huh?

By Daniel

January 17, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

sickoftheneocons: Don’t take these cowards seriously. They have never worn our country’s uniform. The never will. They sit on their ample backsides in front of a computer all day and pretend. Thank you for seeing things as they really are.

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

Sickof, yeah let me spend the remaider of my afternoon proving my allegation, yeah right. I think it was about immigration, but i may be wrong.

The problem is, the left demands that conservatives admit some fault or they are blindly following, but the left never admits fault and if the right brings it up the left says they are just distracting from their own incompitence. It is a pretty nifty trick that leeds a slow progression to socialism. Remember private property rights before the lefts love of government took them away?

When fighting terrorist, what is the “battle field”?

By Scott

January 17, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Hey! Let’s get some US troops into IRAN! Alcoholic Bush has plenty of bodies to slaughter, so let’s teach them Eyeranians the same stuff we done taught them Eyerockies. All about Democracy & Freedom and The American Way. Sorry - as usual, no Republican cowards permited in combat.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

sickof…,

Does this sound like the average family with a member that is participating in activities that the rest of the family doesn’t know about?

Pakistani intelligence officials have said Ayman al-Zawahiri, Usama bin Laden’s top lieutenant, had been invited to a dinner in the targeted village of Damadola to mark an Islamic holiday but did not show up and sent some aides instead.

By sickoftheneocons

January 17, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

When fighting terrorist, what is the “battle field�?

The battlefiled is everywhere Scooter but I’d like to think that we are better than the terrorists. That we will do our utmost to protect the innocents. Not get some intelligence that says, “Hey, there MAY be four militants in that house, lets bomb the bejesus out of it.” Who cares if there may be 14 other innocent people in the house…

By RE

January 17, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Reasoning:

It has long been established that “love is a battlefield”(Benatar, 1983) It is also established that GWB loves Jesus. If jesus is everywhere, then technically the whole world is GWB’s battlefield.

At least as reasonable as the excuses for not going to the fisa court.

By sickoftheneocons

January 17, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

RW, how much stock do you put in Pakistani intelligence officials?

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Scott, thanks to Bush we have troops right next door, if need be. Also I don’t think we signed any cease fire agreements with Iran. I’ll leave you alone, as you seem to be a good hater.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Kerry had a good mentor.

Asked by Hiller whether he is still a member, Kennedy said, “I’m not a member; I continue to pay about $100.�

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

sickof…,

They seemed to have it right the last time we took out a house in that area.

Would you prefer we send Hans Blix to do door to door verification?

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

Sickof, in my less than respectable days I saw a lot of guys try to be better than their opponents. Funny, they always got their A$$’s handed to them.

It is not the size of the dog in the fight so much as it is the size of the fight in the dog. The left tries to make sure America has less fight than the terrorist. Again ensuring their defeatist predictions will become true.

Personally I would have no problem with video taping and transmitting video of a terrorist becoming visualy acqainted with the inside of a pig’s rectum, before we executed them.

By Ricky

January 17, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

RE, that reasoning is pretty bad. Here is my take on the FISA court issue. I am not saying Bush was right, he might not be, that is still to be decided. My view is that Bush decided given the fact we were at war with terrorists who have no natural boundaries as you mentioned earlier, that he could use roving taps(also known as mining) to look for people from the US talking with known terrorists overseas. I don’t think he thought you needed the FISA court at all under those circumstances. Again not saying he is right, but just a point of view.

By Washington State

January 17, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

RW, Doesn’t it strike you as funny that we are arguing about two men who went to Yale, neither of whom could have gotten in on their own, and who belonged to the same secret society for wealthy American scions. Image is everything in American politics.

By RE

January 17, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

The world is pretty twisted nowadays.

I imagine most bush supporters would identify themselves as conservative. But to support bush you are also advocating nation building in foriegn countries, a larger more intrusive federal government and abdicating your individual rights.

For the anti bush people, who are usually liberal, they are fighting against government intrusion in their personal lives, do not want to help the iraqi people(at least with military forces), and want to see more law and order in Washington.

The principals of belief have been overshadowed by party loyalty.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

Washington State,

I thought it was Harvard that kicked Kennedy out for cheating. I only used Kerry’s name to show how he had learned to say things like, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

By Andy

January 17, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

For all of you who seem to be waiting around for it to happen: The last thing in the world I would do, right before making love to Hillary Clinton, would be to admit any fault to a silly crackpot pinko lib.

Here, let me share something with you kooks that you apparently haven’t seen yet: “Innocents”

I do not condone, in any way shape or form, the killing of innocent civilians, up to and including, our own countryman, you sick little pinkos.

I can almost guarantee, that if word had gotten back to the U.S. commanders that the house had innocent civilians in it, they would have called off the airstrike. That is the kind of people we are. If you sick (deleted) can figure that out on your own, why don’t you go to hell?

By Washington State

January 17, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

RW, You lack a sense of irony:

“But newly released records show that Bush and Kerry had a virtually identical grade average at Yale University four decades ago.

In 1999, The New Yorker published a transcript indicating that Bush had received a cumulative score of 77 for his first three years at Yale and a roughly similar average under a non-numerical rating system during his senior year.

Kerry authorizes release of his full military and medical records. A7.

Kerry, who graduated two years before Bush, got a cumulative 76 for his four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to the Navy when he was applying for officer training school. He received four D’s in his freshman year out of 10 courses, but improved his average in later years.”

Andy, you keep proving my point about blind partisanship.

By Daniel

January 17, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

There’s the artificial-christian coward! Perfectly eager to send someone else to their death while comfortably hiding behind his computer.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

Washington State,

I really have no idea what you are talking about. I wasn’t talking about Kerry, I just made a snide remark about him learning from Kennedy. Although I would like more info on your supposed claim that Kerry has released his full military and medical records.

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

RE, how much power do those same liberals’ policies give government?

Do you aknowledge that power will always equal corruption and the powerful will never police themselves. I say take the power away from all’em, with the Fairtax. But, that same Fairtax will kill the democrats social engineering “leadership”, so it must be villified and demonized like everything else that threatens the liberals control over society (social security and school vouchers).

Economic freedom and liberty with a religious twist, or socialism with a morally devoid people? If I had to choose I would choose the former.

“Don’t get it twisted”

By Washington State

January 17, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

RW, It was just a passing comment in a Boston paper. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yalegradesportraykerryasalackluster_student/ I got a kick out of it when I first read it. Bush’s “aw shucks” image is as fake as Kerry’s intellectual one.

By Ricky

January 17, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

So ml did a cartoon mocking Pat Robertson for his idiotic comments about Ariel Sharon, do you think we will see a cartoon mocking Ray Nagin for his idiotic comments about New Orleans?

By AntiRadical

January 17, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

Today the mostly Republican appointed Supreme Court upheld Oregon’s one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law. So, this is what Reps ware talking about when they spoke of a “right to life”.

Facetious: Saying one thing and doing another; two-faced.

By Washington State

January 17, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

RW, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/kerryallowsnavyreleaseofmilitarymedical_records/ That one is more detailed.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

By Washington State

January 17, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Andy, Again, you have a remarkable ability to see things thru your own filters…. You are the walking definition of blind partisanship.

By Washington State

January 16, 2006 11:27 PM | Link to this

Andy, Here’s one for you:

Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends

‘President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program as a “vital tool” against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved “thousands of lives.” F.B.I. officials (the convenient unnamed officials) repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans’ international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans’ privacy.

So I see things through a “filter?”

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

Washington State,

That one says the page is no longer at the address, but I remember the Boston Globe story to have basically taken Kerry’s word that what he was showing them was complete.

It doesn’t really matter, if he runs against Hillary those records will come pouring out.

By Ricky

January 17, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

AntiRadical, I would argue that most Republicans(meaning citizens, not politicians) have no problem with assisted suicide. It is up to that person. As far as your saying one thing and doing another, would that be like the Dems calling themselves the party of choice for abortion, but not for school vouchers or private accounts, etc.?

By Washington State

January 17, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

AntiRadical, I am going to have to disagree with you on that one. The interference of the federal government in end of life issues has made many physicians reluctant to provide care for dying people. While the vast majority of physicians are uncomfortable with the idea of physician assisted suicide, none are happy with the DEA looking over their shoulders and second guessing whether they were legitimately trying to relieve pain in a terminal patient or whether they were deliberately trying to help them die. There is a thin ethical line there. It would be a relief to get the federal government out of these issues and this decision goes a long way towards that. That should be a bipartisan goal, tho as Schiavo demonstrated, some have had to learn that lesson the hard way.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

Ricky,

Mayor Nagin is on Fox News right now and he just apologized for the “God is mad comment” and says he wishes he could take it back. So I say he did the right thing and shouldn’t be chastised further for it.

By Ricky

January 17, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

RW, Nagin also said that “New Orleans should be a chocolate city” and that he didn’t understand why there was such a big issue about black on black crime. Personally, I think Nagin is a little fish, he is only a mayor after all, but he needs to be shown to be incompetent so he will be voted out of office.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

RW: I agree about Ray Nagin, no cartoons, we are uniters not dividers, let’s move on.

By Washington State

January 17, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

RW, You can link to that from within the original article. For some reason, that still works.

As for me, my fervent wish is that both major parties can come up with two people that most Americans could proudly vote for in the next elections. I am tired of having to choose between the lesser of two evils. Having to choose between two privileged children of wealthy families who barely managed to finish college (and probably wouldn’t have except for family connections) is not my idea of a choice.

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

RW, that clown hasn’t apologized for saying there was only one “Man” in NO and that man was him” That was when the Coast Gaurd Admiral was reccommending against repopulating NO when Rita was turning the corner.

However, it is good to see some blame being distributed even though the left established that people will remember it as a failure on Bush’s part, not clown boy’s or panic girls. Nope it was all Brownie’s fault and yes Brownie had no business in that position.

By blogger

January 17, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

Soldiers may lose SGLI death benefits if they use their own armor.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

I said he should be forgiven for his “God is mad” comment, I didn’t exonerate his complete incompetence.

By Daniel

January 17, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

WS: You said it! Name one thing the extremists (of either party) have ever done for America. You can see the harm to America on this Blog! It’s all about them. Their victory and winning for them. Name one of these knuckleheads who has ever done anyting worthwhile for our nation?

By AntiRadical

January 17, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

WS & Ricky- I agree with the courts’ decision as well. Just a little jab at an inconsistent position. If life is sacred and shouldn’t be stopped by abortion ‘cause we would be playing God, then it is always sacred and should not be stopped by assisted suicide either, right? While most Republicans may support assisted suicide (sorry I don’t believe it), the President certainly does not. The whole reason for this suit was to protect Doctors who the administration had threatened to prosecute if they participated in the newly passsed legislation. This is, also, another slap-in-the-face for the supposed states rights that Reps claim to support. Like the quashed California medical-marijuana laws, this administration has decided that “states rights” are only important if you happen to agree with them; otherwise, bring on the Federalism.

By RE

January 17, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

Scooter, I agree with you on most points. I think liberal policy has become more dogma than anything else, there has been very few expansions of government handouts to people recently, exceptinf for the new medicare benefit.

Equating being religious with being moral is an unfair analogy, one does not make you the other, of course if you happen to be religious, I am sure you cannot see being moral without biblical teachings.

I could not agree with you more in that the powerful will never police themselves, which is why before government expands further and intrudes on personal liberty, there should be oversight.

I still can’t follow you on the fairtax thing. I am 100% behind you on the goal of taking away the politicians ability to game the tax code for personal or constituent benefit, I still think it is a flawed plan.

I was listening to Boortz this morning and a caller asked about what would happen for items purchased outside this country. The tax would be charged at customs so for most large items (boats, cars..etc) this plan would work. But for smaller items such as TVs, appliances, computers, nonperishable food…these would go through untaxed if shipped from outside the country. It is an admirable goal and should be debated, but as it stands there are too many loopholes, and I think it would ultimately have a serious effect of retail stores.

By Washington State

January 17, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

Andy, It seems as if you have problems seeing any point of view that differs from yours. You pick and choose your quotes and ignore the ones that don’t support your arguments. The fact is that a fair contingent of very conservative people are concerned about the president’s eavesdropping without a court order. It is not just a liberal vs conservative issue. I am well aware of the counter arguments, but that doesn’t remove the basic concern that Bush has usurped too much power to the presidency. Remember, one day the president will be a Democrat. We have a system of checks and balances for a reason.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

See if you can spot the sentence they are saying shouldn’t have been in the story

By Ricky

January 17, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

RE, your questions about fair tax are legitimate. There maybe loopholes, but are there not huge loopholes now? I am sure there is something that can be worked out on the issue of goods bought overseas. I am a fan of the fair tax because of my belief that a progressive tax punishes those that excel. Plus with a fair tax as the name implies, everyone pays their share.

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

Many goods bought over seas don’t get taxed now and absolutely it would have an affect on retail stores. As we would begin to reuse more of our items and stop being so wasteful, me ebeing an environemtnal engineer I can appreciate that aspect along with he financial liberty it would afford the average joe six pack.

We should debate some of these “loopholes” you speak of, or you could go to your fairtax yahoo group and ask them there, if you are serious that is. I bring it up to keep it in the public eye, here at least.

Liberal policy didn’t seem to be limited to dogma when our more “intelligent” Americans were arguing that tax cuts for the “rich” would not create jobs?

By Ricky

January 17, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

Washington State, you make a good point. I am a conservative. I identify with the Republican party becaue my belief system matches up with them on most, but not all, issues(ie I am against the death penalty, for the right to have doctor assisted death, for stem cell research on cells that are being thrown away). I don’t know if the President broke the law with the eavesdropping, I think that remains to be seen. I do however think he was acting with the countrys best interests in mind. I do not think he was doing it as a power grab. But that is just my opinion. What does annoy me is the immediate outcry that the is guilty. I am sick of the hyprocrisy that comes out of Washington on both sides.

By Washington State

January 17, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

Ricky, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

By Andy

January 17, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

Washington State: If you think about, and it is what I was trying to show you at 1:35, you are doing the same thing you accuse me of. Seeing things through the filter of your choice.

Look at the NY Times article you showed me; they quote unnamed sources, “former” FBI agents and they have absolutely no proof backing up any of their claims.

Now compare that to the Wall Street Journal article that I showed you. It’s clear, concise, quoting our Founding Fathers and their intentions. The author lists past precedent for wiretapping. He shows all of the relevant statutes and legislation that clearly makes the case in favor of the president.

I know that I’m right and there is nothing to admit fault for. You liberals play the hysteria games and expect us to join in. It isn’t going to happen.

By Daniel

January 17, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

You’re just an egotistical old fart. See! It’s all about you. “I know that I’m right..” Gas bags like you have screwed this thing up long enough. Get off this Blog.

By Ricky

January 17, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

Daniel, you like to critize people for being blindly partisan and being a gas bag. You have done nothing to prove you aren’t describing yourself

By Washington State

January 17, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

Andy, In this case, us liberals are being joined by a whole lot of conservatives in questioning the legality of what is happening. You quote the Wall Street Journal to me, I quote the New York Times to you. Doesn’t accomplish much, does it? Ultimately, this will be decided by congress, the courts, and the American people in upcoming elections.

By Daniel

January 17, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

Ricky: Now, now. I don’t think I’m right about much. I want good government. This Abramoff thing is no accident. You have the benefit of a great nation. This comes from “Checks and Balances”. Not the bovine eructations we’re subjected to on this Blog. Name one thing these greedy b*stards have done that is good for us?

By Ricky

January 17, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

Daniel, who are you refering to as the greedy b’s?

By Daniel

January 17, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

Ricky: Those who would treat our Nation like a fat whore to be pumped of cash at will. Take your pick.

By Ricky

January 17, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Daniel, now you aren’t making any sense. You ask me a question and then don’t provide parameters for it. “Those who treat our nation like a fat whore to be pumped of cash at will” could be any number of people in Wahsington right now on either side of the aisle. Until you provide some parameters, there is no way I can answer your question.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Daniel,

This would be a good time for your workout. I didn’t think it was possible, but you are making less sense than ever.

By Daniel

January 17, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Ricky: I don’t care about the aisle. I’m Independent. Remember: I’t about good government; not a particular cause, aisle or political party. These are some of the people caught in the Abramoff-Delay scandal: Ney, Cunningham, Scanlon, Kidan, and at least a dozen others. Senators and Congressmen. As well, we suffer a leadership that shovels borrowed money out of Washington to its pals. What more do yoou need?

By Andy

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

It amazes me that the NY Times can cobble together a whine festival from a bunch of disgruntled FBI agents complaining about the amount of work they have to do, and the pinkos want to rewrite our national security charter based upon it. I mean honestly, we are at war with a bunch of fanatical madman like Daniel, and the libs are worried about lightening up the FBI’s load?

How about hiring more FBI agents instead of calling for the president’s impeachment?

I see things through a filter?

By Ricky

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

So what does everyone think about the current situation with Iran? Do you think the UN Security Council will pass a resolution against them?

By Daniel

January 17, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

No, goofball, you’re at war with the truth and decency and democracy. Balance one Budget. When is the last time you have done that? End one war. When have you done that? Tell one truthful statement. If that makes me mad, sign me up. I served when William Westmoreland was CIC. He said, “The military doesn’t make war, the politicians do”. When did you serve?

By finch

January 17, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

The column in the WSJ by Pete Du Pont defending the warrantless interception of phone calls and emails to and from US citizens in the US conveniently cherry-picks court decisions and historical quotes to conclude that if the President says an action is necessary to protect national security, it’s okay. Any action.

Andy linked it; I’ll link it again

This argument is a gross maligning of Constitutional protections of freedom and privacy, and a perversion of what the Founding Fathers really wanted.

Fox News legal expert Judge Anthony Napolitano, a true conservative, does an excellent job explaining why warrantless government surveillance in general, and the Patriot Act in paticular, is a grave threat to our freedom.

You can read it here.

Today is Benjamin Franklin’s 300th birthday, and this quote by him is appropriate:

“Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither”.

By RE

January 17, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

The biggest problem with Iran is that they have not done anything wrong yet. They are abiding by the non-proliferation treaty. Everything they have done so far they are allowed to do under that treaty. I do not believe that Iran has good intentions, and I think they will try to develop a nuclear weapon, but all that they have done so far is legal.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

Daniel, looney: When Ronald Reagan was CIC. What the hell does that have to do with anything? Do you envision a country run by the military, some sort of junta, with the non serving citizens subjugated and silenced? Ta-Ta Freak.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

finch,

As a philosophical exercise, do dead people have birthdays? Maybe “is” means “would have been”. Hey, Clinton was right! It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

By sickoftheneocons

January 17, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

Hey, Clinton was right!

Now that’s something I NEVER thought I’d see on this blog! HEHE

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

How many Senators does Judge Napolitano think there are?

Unless amended in response to the courageous efforts of a few dozen senators from both parties,…

I would think a few dozen could do this on there own.

By Daniel

January 17, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

You can’t read either. I envision a strong America. Strong economically and strong politically. I see an America respected worldwide for her principles and ideals not only her military power. America aches for leadership that unites us. A leadership with the courage to tell us the truth. I hope for a government that respects its servicemen and women and shows that respect by an intelligent understanding of our history. Douglas MacArthur knew a little bit about war. He said, “America should not engage troops in a land war in Asia”. Having not learned the lesson of VietNam; we will fail again in Southwest Asia. This is a failure of leadership. We are great Nation and a great people. We will get this right. You are no help.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Does anybody know if there is a strike going on in the “Political Cartoonist Union”?

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

respected?

By finch

January 17, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

RW,

I thought about “what would have been” and then decided, screw it.

Same thing.

I’m pretty sure Judge Napolitano knows there are 100 Senators. The fact that renewal of the Patriot Act was put on hold last month shows that some of them (not just McCain!!) think it does far more harm than good.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

Check this out:

All Hail Our President!

By Andy

January 17, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

White House Accuses Gore of Hypocrisy

McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton’s deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.

“I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds,” McClellan said of Gore.

I know it does.

By M. G. Koehler

January 17, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

I didn`t get the “punch-line”!!! Am I missing something????

By Andy

January 17, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

Said Clinton, “When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation

Said Andy, “When you look at the way the Clinton White House was run, it was run like a brothel.”

By Andy

January 17, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this

Welcome back, blogger:

By Andy

January 17, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

Check this out:

All Hail Our President!

I guess the sight of my leg was too much for you to pass up. Is the step to adulthood really that much of a challenge for you pinkos? Are you ever gonna take off the diaper?

By sickoftheneocons

January 17, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

I knew that link couldn’t have been from the real Andy. No way he’d poke fun of his idol, you know, the do no wrong, morally upstanding, genius, upright Christian, honest, the one, the only (and his favorite f******* buddy) George W. Bush!

By ShadowMarch

January 17, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

This is meant for those who listen, and are willing to take action.

Anyone else is merely wrapped up in their own little viewpoint to care about american lives.

Government ineptitude is killing our troops.

By sickoftheneocons

January 17, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

Please lay down on the proverbial Freudian couch Andy and tell us…How many times a week is George W. Bush the subject of your masturbatory fantasies? Please choose a) Between 1 and 5, b) Between 5 and 10, c) between 10 and 15, d) between 15 and 20 or e) so many I can’t count them all.

By physicsDawg

January 17, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

Washington State:
“The Road to Hell is paved.”

By Andy

January 17, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

I knew that comment couldn’t have been from the real sicko. No way he’d poke fun of his idol, you know, the do no wrong, morally upstanding, genius, upright secular, honest, the one, the only (and his favorite f* buddy) John F’n Kerry!

By sickoftheneocons

January 17, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

Thanks Andy, mimicking is the sincerest form of flattery.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this

blogger meet ShadowMarch, ShadowMarch meet blogger.

By sickoftheneocons

January 17, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

Actually, I don’t like John Kerry, he reminds me of Herman Munster too much.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

sicko: You may not realize this but jac-king off over another man, regardless if he holds a position of power or not, is really sort of sick and is not something you would ever find me partaking in. It does sound an awful lot like some of the other weird things I have heard you pinkos talking about in here.

In closing, what ever floats your boat, my man, just leave me out of it.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

According to the website opensecrets.org, Republicans got just 19 percent of Indian gambling donations in 1994. So far in the 2006 election cycle, Republicans are splitting such contributions with Democrats evenly.

But the democrats aren’t doing anything wrong with their half of the money it’s just the REPUBLICAN SCUMBAGS WHO ARE BREAKING THE LAW, DIE SCUMBAG, DIE!

By sickoftheneocons

January 17, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this

All right guys, time to go home, I’ll see ya’ll tomorrow for another fun-filled, action-packed day of blogging. Right now, Ann Coulter’s calling my name, see ya!

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this

See ya, sickof.

getalife, sickof has left the building so we have an opening for you. I am leaving as well so you can bring a friend.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this

sickof…,

I’m pretty sure you won’t hear Ann calling out your screen name, unless she has something in mind that you are definitely not ready for.

By finch

January 17, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

The question isn’t “who received legal campaign donations from Indian casinos?”

It’s “who received illegal gifts, trips, restaurant meals and other swag from Jack Abramoff?”

Even an idiot should be able to tell the difference.

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this

I’ll bet they were politicians. Am I right, am I, am I?

By Andy

January 17, 2006 05:26 PM | Link to this

2006, half of the donations to Republicans, half to democrats.

But the democrats aren’t doing anything wrong with their half of the money it’s just the REPUBLICAN SCUMBAGS WHO ARE BREAKING THE LAW, DIE SCUMBAG, DIE!

By Ricky

January 17, 2006 05:54 PM | Link to this

Did anyone see where yesterday Hillary Clinton compared the working conditions in the House of Representatives to working on a plantation? Guess she felt the need to play the race card on MLK’s day of honor. What a joke. Why do politicians feel the need to pander to certain races?

By finch

January 17, 2006 06:03 PM | Link to this

McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge… “I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds,â€? McClellan said of Gore.

There they go again, with that classic Bush hugging neo-con mantra:

*BUT CLINTON DID IT TOOOOO….. *

By Objective Observer

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

Ricky: You call it pandering, I see it as subjugating. Either way, it is deplorable and is exclusive to the Democratic party. There are those African American leaders who are beginning to see the light.

By Tex

January 17, 2006 06:11 PM | Link to this

Every time one takes a moment to scan this site one sees the same Republiscum weaklings vomiting forth their daily excrement. The usual self-hatred, bitterness, resentment and so forth. Their little insectile minds puking forth all of which they are capable. Worshiping their drunken leader, Bushie. As he takes the country deeper into the abyss that is/was the predictable Middle East. Democracy indeed. It couldn’t be done with 200 million troops in place. But these misfits and predators of our society continue onward and downward. Bush needs to be imprisoned. Along with his pathetic followers of darkness and mental maladjustment. Merchants of ignorance and psychopathicity, engaged in gross group goonery. Wingnuts.

By Midori

January 17, 2006 06:14 PM | Link to this

Did anyone see where yesterday Hillary Clinton compared the working conditions in the House of Representatives to working on a plantation? Guess she felt the need to play the race card on MLK’s day of honor. What a joke. Why do politicians feel the need to pander to certain races?

Was Newt Gingrich playing the “race card” when he used that term?

Was he “pandering”?

By Midori

January 17, 2006 06:15 PM | Link to this

{check it out, Finch

By Midori

January 17, 2006 06:19 PM | Link to this

Objective whatever,

you’re full of so much crap.+

Either way, it is deplorable and is exclusive to the Democratic party.

I think Tex’s response applies 200 percent to you.

So, when Republicans do it, it’s “leadership”, but when Democrats speak the truth it’s pandering.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 06:23 PM | Link to this

By finch

January 17, 2006 06:03 PM | Link to this

There they go again, with that classic Bush hugging neo-con mantra:

‘BUT CLINTON DID IT TOOOOO…..

By Midori

January 17, 2006 06:14 PM | Link to this

Did anyone see where yesterday Hillary Clinton compared the working conditions in the House of Representatives to working on a plantation?

‘Was Newt Gingrich playing the “race cardâ€? when he used that term?

By Midori

January 17, 2006 06:26 PM | Link to this

FLASHBACK: Gingrich Said Democrats Think They “Run The Plantation�

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 06:29 PM | Link to this

The plantation reference seems to be habitual for Hillary.

CLINTON: Well, I mean, what can I say? It’s just so typical. I mean they’re running the House of Representatives like a fiefdom with Tom DeLay as, you know, in charge of the plantation.

November 18, 2004

By Andy

January 17, 2006 06:30 PM | Link to this

We are not supposed to play flashback anymore, Midori. It has been bizarrely placed off limits by some of the more silly, crackpot pinkos ^^^^.

Well, it may just apply to the liberals, I’m not sure about that.

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 06:42 PM | Link to this

Tex is a blogger from MediaMattersforAmerica.com. I used to blog with sharp shootin Tex at mediamaters’s site then they began editing my post, so I dipped. They get pretty “compasionate” over there.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 06:43 PM | Link to this

How long is it going to take “finch” to show up with his favorite line?

C’mon “finch” waiting, waiting…..

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 06:48 PM | Link to this

It’s good to have faith.

By Miguel de la familia Robinson

January 17, 2006 06:52 PM | Link to this

Que pasa ninos?

By Andy

January 17, 2006 07:22 PM | Link to this

RW: Apparently Slate didn’t get the word about their “missile” picture.

It is rather telling that the anti American side of the story overrides any concerns of accuracy.

By Objective Observer

January 17, 2006 07:23 PM | Link to this

Midori: You’re demeanor changes with the second hand on a clock. My feelings regarding the Democratic party’s subjugation of African Americans, has been echoed by friends and co-workers who are African American.

I tend to support a party who tells them that they, too, can aspire to greatness and affords them the opportunity to do so. The Democratic party constantly reminds them that they are the have-nots in this country and that they cannot accomplish anything without the party’s help. I disagree with that philosophy.

I am hopeful that the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons will be outshone by some of the more progressive leaders who actually want to lead them away from the oppression of the Democrats.

Funny! I see no similarity between myself and Tex’s response. My attitude is far more positive than his.

By getalife

January 17, 2006 07:26 PM | Link to this

You got to love Tex. Now let me get this straight from the coc supporters: Hastert said no more lunches and travel but McCain said no more watermarks . Who is right?

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 07:28 PM | Link to this

OO, I know what you are talkin about. They need to misplace the blame and vilify someone as being the oppressor. I don’t know who that would be?

I have told many political activist in my neighborhod, that I believe in them too much to vote democrat. It clicks with some folk.

By Objective Observer

January 17, 2006 07:28 PM | Link to this

Getalife: How did things go today?

By finch

January 17, 2006 07:29 PM | Link to this

RW,

Hmmm. I’ve mentioned a certain Arizona Senator, and brought out the ol’ “did it too” line… am I forgetting something?

On, nice find on your blog. I had no idea that Alito shot the Pope!

By Objective Observer

January 17, 2006 07:32 PM | Link to this

Scooter: I can only hope! Their plight has been rendered off limits to us with the onset of political correctness. I think that with the right leaders, they can realize their dreams independently.

By getalife

January 17, 2006 07:33 PM | Link to this

OO, They poked and prodded and the doctor was a real jerk so I had to ask him: Are you a member of the culture of corruption? Joked with him to get him to lighten up but the student doctor was very nice.

By getalife

January 17, 2006 07:39 PM | Link to this

RW,

How do you add a counter to the blog?

By Objective Observer

January 17, 2006 07:40 PM | Link to this

Getalife: Tell me, did you have to bend over for any of that poking and prodding? Was it a Brokeback Mountain moment for you?

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 07:43 PM | Link to this

finch,

NEWT DID IT TOOOOO….

Is what I was expecting from you, as you chastised Midori.

I do love the way that story stayed in perfect context when it went to the line (shameless plug alert) His motive for shooting John Paul in the abdomen on May 13, 1981, remains unclear.

By Scooter

January 17, 2006 07:43 PM | Link to this

OO, time will tell. Some false prophets are playing tricks, but hopefuly new leaders will see through the emotions.

By getalife

January 17, 2006 07:46 PM | Link to this

OO,

No , nothing wrong with my prostrate (there has got to be a better way for that test.)

Needles and electric shock to check impulses to the brain. This quack doctor said it was very abnormal. Duh doc, I had a stroke.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 07:48 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Go here and it will set it up for you. I haven’t figured out to move it though.

By Midori

January 17, 2006 07:48 PM | Link to this

I just thought I’d play the game according to your rules.

Since every time Bush gets busted you play the “Clinton did it too” card, I thought I’d return the favor.

You guys put the “hip” in hypocrites.

By Objective Observer

January 17, 2006 07:49 PM | Link to this

Getalife: What does that doctor know! With all that you do here and on your blog, you’re brain capabilities surpass mine tenfold. Glad all is well.

By Midori

January 17, 2006 07:49 PM | Link to this

P.S. See, I’m trying. I really, really CAN speak your language.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 07:52 PM | Link to this

Midori,

There is a big difference between excusing bad behavior with the “ did it too” and saying something may well be legal because “_ did it too.”

Keep that up I may cause my own flashbacks!

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 07:57 PM | Link to this

Hey, ml’s computer stole all my pretty lines and symbols.

By finch

January 17, 2006 08:00 PM | Link to this

I chastized Midori? Hmmm. Must’ve been typing in my sleep?

“There is a big difference between excusing bad behavior with the “ did it tooâ€? and saying something may well be legal because “_ did it too.â€?”

I’d phrase that slightly differently. Just because somebody else did it does NOT make it legal.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 08:03 PM | Link to this

Midori: Must you get so defensive? It’s O.K. to violate crackpot web blog rules as long as you are sincere in your beliefs. I had already let your infraction slide, I was pointing out the “hype” finch was putting into “hypocrite.”

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 08:09 PM | Link to this

finch,

You’re being awfully literal for someone that didn’t get the benefit of my lines and symbols, but I’ll clarify.

With respect to wiretapping without warrants, we point to Clinton and even Carter to show that, for the most part, they thought these things were the province of the Executive branch and quite legal. We are not saying it’s illegal but…

Now it’s certainly possible that these things are illegal and if so let’s waive any statute of limitations and toss Bubba in a cell too.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 08:16 PM | Link to this

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Pinko.-Nev.) sent a letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton on March 5, 2002, asking her to veto an agreement between the state of Louisiana and the Jena tribe of Choctaw Indians that would have allowed the tribe to open a casino in Louisiana.

The day after Reid sent the letter, according to the Associated Press, Louisiana’s Coushatta tribe, which already operated a casino, and which was a client of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, but which did not want competition from the Jena tribe, sent a $5,000 contribution (Only because they really, really liked Harry, they were wild about Harry) to Reid’s tax-exempt Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff, the AP reported, also sent Reid’s group a $5,000 contribution (How wild can Harry get?). Ultimately, according to the AP, Reid collected more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related contributions.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 08:19 PM | Link to this

I spoke too soon, it got better:

According to an analysis of Federal Election Commission reports by OpenSecrets.org, (See chart above.) Reid, between 1989-2005, received more than a million dollars in contributions from PACs and individuals connected to the gambling industry. The analysis indicates that Reid received $158,450 linked to MGM Mirage, a company that not only operates casinos in Nevada, but also runs the Beau Rivage casino in Biloxi, Miss., which might have been a nearby competitor to the Louisiana casino contemplated by the Jena tribe. Contributions linked to MGM Mirage comprised the single largest bloc of contributions to Reid.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 08:30 PM | Link to this

Calif. School Nixes ‘Intelligent Design’ Class

“This sends a strong signal to school districts across the country that they cannot promote creationism or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, whether they do so in a science class or a humanities class,” said Ayesha N. Khan, legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

I smell a little censorship. The pinkos can’t compete, so they shout it down.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 08:35 PM | Link to this

Andy,

I guess that blows their little “just don’t teach it science class” argument. I think we knew that was bs already.

By BigDaddy

January 17, 2006 08:37 PM | Link to this

Andy, BigDaddy is not one to defend anything that goes on in the People’s Republic of California, but “intelligent design” is such a misnomer. Since there is zero scientific evidence to support the idea of “intelligent design” it really has no place in academia. If churches would like to offer the theory to their Sunday school classes, that’s fine. But it is not a theory that is supportable by factual evidence, and thus has no place in schools.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 08:39 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy,

Our schools also teach what a great President Bill Clinton was, I don’t think they care so much for factual evidence.

By BigDaddy

January 17, 2006 08:43 PM | Link to this

Nice of Tex to drop by earlier. Do ya’ll Republicans ever tire of the incessant puerile name-calling of “Republiscum” and having your brains called “insectile”?

OO, can Tex have a wingnut award for total lack of originality in his drive-by insults? If ever an Okie (who wishes he was from Texas) deserved such an award, it would be Tex.

By BigDaddy

January 17, 2006 08:44 PM | Link to this

RW, good point…

By Objective Observer

January 17, 2006 08:45 PM | Link to this

He’s up for review. I’m catching up, worked today.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 08:47 PM | Link to this

BigDaddy: Golook in the mirror for proof of intelligent design. How can you evolve something that hasn’t been created? We should, at the very least, open the discussion. This is shot through with censorship.

By BigDaddy

January 17, 2006 08:51 PM | Link to this

Andy, fat chicks are proof that there is no such thing as intelligent design.

By Objective Observer

January 17, 2006 08:51 PM | Link to this

Sorry Big Daddy, Midori used Tex’s post and associated it with me. I cannot apply as it would appear vindictive and you know that I am anything but………..

By Andy

January 17, 2006 08:53 PM | Link to this

BigD: All chicks were born skinny and Conservative Republicans. It is the education department that made them fat and into pinkos. I’m here to try to correct this and other travesties like it.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 08:54 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

You can’t let them use a procedural trick to avoid being awarded one of those precious “nuts with teeth” and if Tex doesn’t deserve one the whole thing is a sham.

By Jay not jay

January 17, 2006 08:55 PM | Link to this

OO, I read back through today’s posts and I think Daniel should be considered a candidate for the “Lifetime Achievement Award”.

By Objective Observer

January 17, 2006 08:56 PM | Link to this

R.W.: Where is your “Ours” and “Theirs” link for Big Daddy?

By finch

January 17, 2006 08:56 PM | Link to this

Fine, RW.

If Clinton broke the law tpp, then he should face the music. No problem there. I’m wondering though… did Clinton break the law thousands of times over a span of 4 years, like Bush apparently did, or was it just a very rare occurance?

Which raises the question… should routine contempt of the law, as opposed to an occasional breach, be subject to more severe penalties?

Inquiring minds BEG to know!

By BigDaddy

January 17, 2006 08:57 PM | Link to this

Andy, are you saying that liberalism is a choice? Better not let the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transvestite & Questioning Alliance catch wind of that idea. They’ll limp-wrist slap you…

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 09:01 PM | Link to this

finch,

Usually when a serial murderer litters a hillside with bodies, they only execute him once.

By finch

January 17, 2006 09:04 PM | Link to this

And now, an apolitical link from me, modestly submitted for your entertainment. A web video, guaranteed by the webmaster who passed it to me to be completely virus, spyware and worm free.

Cows Have Guns

Note - It takes a few seconds to load; longer with a dialup. It’s worth it.

By getalife

January 17, 2006 09:04 PM | Link to this

Did Brokeback Mountain win any golden globe awards last night?

By Andy

January 17, 2006 09:07 PM | Link to this

BigD: Liberalism is what is left after your balls were cut off. Technically it is not a choice, no.

By Objective Observer

January 17, 2006 09:07 PM | Link to this

O.K. R.W. Screw one on at 6:11 P.M.. That felt kinda good but violated my principles, are you happy?

Congratulations! 8 down 7 to go.

By Objective Observer

January 17, 2006 09:13 PM | Link to this

JayNot: Daniel is a veteran, don’t ask me to violate my principles twice in one day. Pleeeeeaaase.

By Andy

January 17, 2006 09:14 PM | Link to this

Let me word that a little differently:

BigD: Liberalism is what is left after their balls were cut off. Technically it is not a choice, no.

That’s better.

By finch

January 17, 2006 09:18 PM | Link to this

RW,

Serial bank robbers tend to get more time than occasional shoplifters.

By Objective Observer

January 17, 2006 09:18 PM | Link to this

Getalife: I think I heard that Brokeback Mountain took 4 awards, but I don’t know what for or if my info is correct.

By Jay not jay

January 17, 2006 09:20 PM | Link to this

OO, Ok, but that would be really funny to hear the acceptance speach.

“He’s peeing (GW) on you, and you think it’s champagne!!”

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 09:20 PM | Link to this

OO,

Good for you, 6:11 deserves it. I can’t believe you are being so vindictive though.

Is this what you wanted for BigDaddy?

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 09:23 PM | Link to this

finch,

Now you are changing the alleged crimes instead of just the frequency. Please try to stay to stay in one place, you’re going to get dizzy.

By Objective Observer

January 17, 2006 09:24 PM | Link to this

R.W.: A side by side is far more effectual. Come on, you are the link master.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 09:26 PM | Link to this

OO,

That one is much better because you can make the Democrat women disappear instead of closing one eye.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 09:29 PM | Link to this

OO,

How about top and bottom?

By BigDaddy

January 17, 2006 09:32 PM | Link to this

finch, what do you mean that link was apolitical? It’s obviously supporting the agenda of that noxious PETA organization - the support of the equal rights of animals by violence. I never had you pegged as an ALF supporter. Shameful that you’ve thrown your hat in with that used-up, but noted, intellectual, Pamela Anderson.

Actually, that was kinda funny.

Here’s something for you - this is what could happen to you if you open up some of BigDaddy’s links at work (the blog censor won’t let me link directly, so cut and paste but subtract the - in farms-luts and a-pple):

http://stream.qtv.a-pple.com/qtv/fox/http/searchlab/farms-luts/farms-luts_ref.mov

It’s funny in a very tragic way…

By Objective Observer

January 17, 2006 09:34 PM | Link to this

Those are the ugliest women I have ever seen in one group. I wonder how they would do with a “night on the town.”

By BigDaddy

January 17, 2006 09:37 PM | Link to this

RW, OO, BigDaddy has it on good information that the faces that Hillary, Terezzzza, Nancy and Susan are making in that photo collage are during the heights of passionate ecstasy. Gives them a new perspective.

Maybe Helen, too…

By getalife

January 17, 2006 09:39 PM | Link to this

I belong to PETA

By Objective Observer

January 17, 2006 09:40 PM | Link to this

Big Daddy: Helen looks disappointed.

By BigDaddy

January 17, 2006 09:43 PM | Link to this

getalife, that pic makes me a bit hungry. And in need of a pillow - or two…

By getalife

January 17, 2006 09:57 PM | Link to this

BD,

Feel free to post comments here, no censorship, anything goes!

By BigDaddy

January 17, 2006 10:03 PM | Link to this

getalife, it does a appear to be a zany ride over there. BigDaddy left a comment to add to the mayhem.

I saw some compliments paid to Butterscotch on RW’s blog the other day. Probably stuff that wouldn’t sneak by the army of censors here on this page…

By Washington State

January 17, 2006 10:07 PM | Link to this

Interesting: “But at the time that of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed.”

In other words, McClellan was engaging in a well known Bush administration tactic when he claimed Clinton broke the law too and then gave the example of the Ames search. Unfortunately, he was wrong.

By getalife

January 17, 2006 10:08 PM | Link to this

BD,

That is what I am talking about but I know Big Daddy will find links not suitable for the ml computer.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 10:10 PM | Link to this

Washington State,

Don’t you mean when Scott McClellan said the Clinton administration also acted within the law?

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 10:13 PM | Link to this

getalife,

BigDaddy has managed to put links on this blog that contained material banned in 49 States and 87 countries, what do you expect him to put on yours?

By Washington State

January 17, 2006 10:17 PM | Link to this

RW, Sorry, you are right, the jury hasn’t completely resolved that issue. McClellan gave the example of the then legal Ames search to justify Bush’s questionably illegal warantless eavesdropping. How’s that?

By getalife

January 17, 2006 10:23 PM | Link to this

RW,

Ones that are banned in all states, all countries and all planets in our solar system. I can’t Alito shot the pope.

I will have to say no to Alito!

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 10:24 PM | Link to this

Washington State,

That’s a little better. How about?

McClellan gave the example of the then legal Ames search to justify Bush’s almost certainly legal warantless eavesdropping.

By getalife

January 17, 2006 10:25 PM | Link to this

Let me try again. I can’t believe Alito shot the pope.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 10:36 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Did you click over to the link with the correction? One of the sentences in that story doesn’t belong, you get to guess which one.

By Pink Salmon

January 17, 2006 10:39 PM | Link to this

I’m slippery and slimmy and no one can catch me, I’m the great Pink Salmon!

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 10:44 PM | Link to this

Hello Pink Salmon!

By Pink Salmon

January 17, 2006 10:51 PM | Link to this

Wahtasdrts? Yes Wasabi is best

By Clem

January 17, 2006 10:56 PM | Link to this

Tex, of course you are correct. What kind od mind do these Republican white trash have that would allow them to surmise that American troops, at gunpoint, are going to shove “democracy” down the throats of people who have been hating and slaughtering each other sine long before the birth of Christ. How is it possible to imagine such nonsense? And if you could put 200 million tyroops over there, we’d babysit everyone - and the moment we departed they’d go back to killing each other again. Even a slow 6 year old can figure that one out. But not the Bush Trash. Who the hell is the US to be demonstrating democracy anyway? We’ve got a lot of work to do on that subject right here at home. And we’re losing more of it each day to the drunk in the White House. The last 3 generations are surely “The Worst Generations.” Their stpidity is overwhelming. TV and video games. All of them unable to speak knowledgeably on ANY substantive matter.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 10:57 PM | Link to this

Yes Wasabi is a fine enhancement to the dining experience, but the Salmon isn’t supposed to know or appreciate that part.

By Pink Salmon

January 17, 2006 11:10 PM | Link to this

The Pink Salmon does whatever she wants to do.

By Mike

January 17, 2006 11:19 PM | Link to this

So when the Reps say Clinton did it too, the Dems say thats not a valid excuse. Do you ever consider that they are just pointing out the hyprocrisy that is so prevalent in DC. And yes it goes on both sides of the aisle.

By RW-(the original)

January 17, 2006 11:24 PM | Link to this

The Pink Salmon certainly sounds open minded and a multi purpose dinner date to boot.

By Pink Salmon

January 18, 2006 12:29 AM | Link to this

T h e P i n k S a l m on, is good with Wasabi.

Bow to the Salmon

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 12:38 AM | Link to this

Slather on the wasabi and eat the Pink Salmon, got it!

By Pink Salmon

January 18, 2006 12:41 AM | Link to this

The Pink Salmon is far too fast…And very slippery. You might not be fast enough.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 12:47 AM | Link to this

The Pink Salmon swims upstream making speed irrelevant and in a dinner date scenario you might say the salmon is a fish out of water, however slippery is rarely a bad thing.

By finch

January 18, 2006 12:48 AM | Link to this

RW, did Clinton break the law thousands of times over a span of 4 years, like Bush apparently did, or was it just a very rare occurance? Which raises the question: Should routine contempt of the law, as opposed to an occasional breach, be subject to more severe penalties?

finch, Usually when a serial murderer litters a hillside with bodies, they only execute him once.

RW, Serial bank robbers tend to get more time than occasional shoplifters.

finch, Now you are changing the alleged crimes instead of just the frequency. Please try to stay to stay in one place, you’re going to get dizzy.

RW, you started this chain of metaphors. We started with illegal searches and wiretaps, remember? I can’t help it if you’re getting dizzy….

Goodnight to you and Pink Salmon, you animal, you! Rowlf!

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 12:53 AM | Link to this

finch,

If that was really you, touché! I went to the metaphor equivalent of Defcon 5.

Now please leave me alone with my “flipper” fantasies.

By Pink Salmon

January 18, 2006 01:20 AM | Link to this

The slippery fish got away once again….

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 01:27 AM | Link to this

Drat!!!…and the oil had just reached the optimum temperature.

By Washington State

January 18, 2006 01:43 AM | Link to this

Finch, You missed my post. “But at the time of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed.” So the example McClellan gave is not germane to the debate at all. Just a smokescreen.

By Andy

January 18, 2006 04:46 AM | Link to this

I sincerely hope that one of the majority supreme court judges doesn’t fall ill in Oregon…

Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law

Doctors were involved in as many as eight deaths a day from voluntary or “non-voluntary” euthanasia in Britain in 2004, according to academic research.

Yep, let’s have the hospitals decide if we are worth it or not. Another pinko immorality foisted upon the greatest country in the world, makes you so proud..

By Andy

January 18, 2006 05:19 AM | Link to this

Journalistic ethics are almost a contradiction in terms. We see in the papers and on the news every day that journalists are among the least ethical people in society. They think nothing about intruding on the grief of families in their darkest hours, as they did in the recent West Virginia coal mine disaster. Reporters are proud of having no loyalty to their country or anything else except getting the story, whatever the cost. And they justify all their obnoxious behavior on the peoples’ “right to know,” when all they are really doing is indulging their own prurient compulsion to know everything about everyone.

I can’t argue with that idea.

By Andy

January 18, 2006 05:28 AM | Link to this

Liberalism at it’s finest:

Cooper’s case is one in which it’s hard to imagine anyone jumping on his bandwagon. He was an inmate at the California Institution for Men in Chino, serving time for burglary, when he escaped on June 2, 1983. Two days later he broke into the Chino Hills home of the Ryen family as they were sleeping and killed the parents, Douglas and Peggy, along with 10-year-old Jessica Ryen and 11-year-old Christopher Hughes, a friend of Joshua Ryen, who was the only family member to survive. “The first time I met Kevin Cooper I was 8 years old and he slit my throat,” Joshua Ryen testified at an April 22 hearing in U.S. District Court in San Diego. “He hit me with a hatchet and put a hole in my skull… . I laid there 11 hours looking at my mother who was right beside me.”

But Cooper does not lack supporters: the likes of Jesse Jackson, Mike Farrell, Richard Dreyfuss, Sean Penn and Denzel Washington have come to his defense. One would think that appropriate monikers for Cooper would have career-sensitive celebrities running for the hills: Ax murderer. Child killer. Mass murderer.

Sick.

By Ricky

January 18, 2006 06:39 AM | Link to this

Did ml quit?

By Objective Observer

January 18, 2006 06:41 AM | Link to this

Screw one on at 10:56 P.M. for:

Being guilty by association.

Congratulations! 9 down 6 to go.

R.W.: A slippery pink female! A gift perhaps?

By Andy

January 18, 2006 06:43 AM | Link to this

No, his typical, monotonous anti Republican nonsense is in full bloom inside of the litter box liner. Sales must be falling off…

By Objective Observer

January 18, 2006 06:45 AM | Link to this

Ricky: If he did quit, I want his job. Obviously, you don’t have to work very often, or think too hard.

By Ed in Iraq

January 19, 2006 07:23 AM | Link to this

You guys are very entertaining:)
Do you guys actually work or just wait to reply to comments on ML blogs? If so I want a job like you guys.