Mike Luckovich

By Andy

January 18, 2006 07:27 AM | Link to this

That’s Madeleine Albright, isn’t it? Another brilliant idea from the Conservatives, no one will contribute to her, one glimpse and they’ll run off in fright.

Well, I shouldn’t say “no one.� This might draw some pinkos over to our side, they do like transvestites after all…

By Andy

January 18, 2006 07:30 AM | Link to this

Excellent Cynthia Tucker column in today’s litter box liner:

There is a much more plausible reason for the feds’ interest in Campbell than government persecution: He ran the most corrupt City Hall in modern Atlanta history. So far, the City Hall investigation has led to convictions or guilty pleas for a dozen people, including several top city officials. They include Herbert McCall, who headed the Department of Administrative Services; Larry Wallace, former chief operating officer and longtime personal friend of Campbell’s; and Joseph Reid, former deputy chief operating officer.

Like all Americans, black or white, Campbell is entitled to a presumption of innocence. And, like all well-heeled Americans, black or white, he can afford a high-priced team of lawyers who will do all they can to create reasonable doubt in the jurors. But he is not entitled to any special consideration just because he’s black.

If this keeps up I don’t know if my heart will be able to stand it. Welcome to the right side, Cynthia!

By Liberal Texas Democrat

January 18, 2006 07:51 AM | Link to this

Love today’s cartoon!

By Steve SC

January 18, 2006 08:00 AM | Link to this

With few exceptions, and without regard to party, Congressional ethics are to personal ethics as Pig Latin is to Latin.

By gttim

January 18, 2006 08:01 AM | Link to this

Well, I shouldn’t say “no one.� This might draw some pinkos over to our side, they do like transvestites after all…

Please, with all the Republicans and conservative Christians getting busted for sexual deviancy, you want to lay that on the Democrats? If the GOP wasn’t so suppressive of sexual urges, they might not end up getting caught with their pants down all the time. From the Republican “Anti-Gay” Mayor getting caught soliciting under aged boys on the web, to priest molesting children for decades, to the gay male prostitute the Whitehouse was letting have access to the president with press passes, the GOP seems to own the sexual problems. The list goes on with Jimmy Swaggart, Edgar Hoover and so on. (Now scream Clinton, who you guys are so obsessed with- how does it feel to be completely obsessed by another man, Andy?)

By Andy

January 18, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this

Please, with all the Republicans and conservative Christians getting busted for sexual deviancy, you want to lay that on the Democrats?

gttim: I would have skipped over Clinton but since you insist, “It’s not sex.”

The pinkos are the party of:

Gay/Lesbian Politics and Law: WWW and Internet Resources

News and Information for Oklahoma City’s Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Persons Community!

BrokeBack Mountain!

Campaigning for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights

Visiting these websites is making me and my computer sick. It’s about promotion of an ideology, not human failings anyway, clown. And no one can argue that you pinkos have got the immorality advertising down pat.

By Brian Curtis

January 18, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this

I wonder if any treatment would help Andy through his sick obsession with Luckovich. Every day he’s the first poster here, raving and foaming with outrage that a liberal cartoonist would dare to draw a liberal cartoon.

Pity him, folks; he needs help. Or at least a life.

By Ira

January 18, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this

Andy is still here screeching for attention I see.

Nice cartoon today!

I’m sure for lots of the GOP faithful it was sorta like looking in the mirror.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this

The Rajun Cajun’s warning is clear in this blog, take warning you dems;

“Without naming names, Carville says there’s too much dead wood in his party.

“There’s a significant part of the Democratic Party that doesn’t want to reform anything. We call them the ‘Remainderists.’ OK?

“Remainderists are people who say that if you hate them (the GOP) enough, then we’re what remains and then people will vote for us and then we can have our people at the Capital Grill (a popular power restaurant a few blocks from the Capitol). And then we can get more golf trips and bigger steaks.”

That’s got to change, Carville says.

Don’t be hatin!

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this

I take my mulligan,

Don’t be hatin!

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this

Dangit!

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this

As to the cartoon, it represents both sides just fine. The republicratss corruption is out in the open and the dems don’t even recognize theirs so it is not shown.

By Andy

January 18, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this

Let’s have a look at the democrat party national security policy on Iran, better known as the “head up your a-ss” initiative:

Economic sanctions on Iran —- through the United Nations if possible or through our allies if necessary —- must be imposed if Iran refuses to back down. Those sanctions would be useful in slowing Iran’s progress toward a bomb, estimated by most experts to be several years away.

Ignorant ideas like this ^^ didn’t work in the dark days of the Jimmy Carter presidency, so by all means, let’s try them again 30 years later.

First, because Russia and China will threaten to veto any serious sanctions. The Chinese in particular have secured in Iran a source of oil and gas outside the American sphere to feed their growing economy and are quite happy geopolitically to support a rogue power that — like North Korea — threatens, distracts and diminishes the power of China’s chief global rival, the United States.

Why does it seem to me that pinkos get off on seeing dead American citizens and they are hoping for Iranian success?

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this

You have to respect an organization in which three out of four of the world powers can veto sanctions that could potentially help their global competitors.

Some folks on the left have no problem with the corruption that permeated the UN Oil for Food Program, so why would they care about the UN trying to solve this one. The UN is our greatest ally for some people. They are almost as good a allies as France Russia and Germany, all other allies are to be belittled as insignificant.

By Mark

January 18, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this

That’s a pretty stupid analysis Andy. If Jimmy’s sanctions didn’t work then why is that 25 years later, they just now have enough expertise to make a bomb? What do you suggest, that we start a war with them? Believe me, the Iranians won’t bow down to us like the Iraqi army did. So the Iranians have a bomb, big deal. They won’t use it so what difference does it make. Nuclear weapons are strictly for deterence. If they ever use it they’ll be wiped off the planet.

By Andy

January 18, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this

By Mark

January 18, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this

So the Iranians have a bomb, big deal.

Al Jazeera- Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map

By Andy

January 18, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this

Why does it seem to me that pinkos get off on seeing dead American citizens and they are hoping for Iranian success?

Add dead Israelis to that. Need I say more?

By Mark

January 18, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

So what if they have a bomb? Do you really think that they would ever use it? Do you really think that? What purpose would it serve for them to get wiped off the face of the earth, just so they can take Isreal with them? The Iranian president spews a lot of stupid rhetoric, which if you haven’t figured out by now, is common in the Middle East. It’s part of the culture to say outlandish things and not back them up Remember Bahgdad Bob? Remember all the lies the Kuwaitis told to get us over there to remove Saddam? My point is that this is nothing more than rhetoric, not to be taken seriuosly.

By sickoftheneocons

January 18, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this

Andy, we won’t see any dead Americans, remember that this administration doesn’t allow footage of those flag-drapped coffins as they’re brought back home to be buried.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

Playing chicken with ruskies and fanatical muslims is two different things entirely. Suicide bombers add a whole new deminsion to nuclear warfare, don’t ya think?

By Geezus

January 18, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

Wow, Andy sure is into that gay/lesbian thing…must be some kind of resolution or something…

By sickoftheneocons

January 18, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

The only real problem that I have with some of the positions in here is that some seem to think that preemptive military action is the absolute ONLY way to diffuse situations like these. Pray tell, where do we get the men, the equipment, the MONEY? I have this feeling that some on this blog believe we have infinite amounts of all three and we should just go country-hopping until there’s nothing left of any of them…

By getalife

January 18, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this

I believe today’s cartoon is about corruption. Good one Mike!

Do not cut and run on the issue coc. The crap that the coc came up with is not good enough. When is Hastert going to resign, corruption did happen under his leadership?

By BigDaddy

January 18, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

getalife, I left you a little present on your blog earlier this morning. But I just checked, and it’s gone. What happened? I thought you wanted some awful things…

By Midori

January 18, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

Excellent toon, Mike.

Keep up the great work!!!

You know just how to tickle my funny bone.

By Andy

January 18, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

Scooter: Hence the name “head up their a-ss” initiative. After Israel and Dobbins Air Force base are huge smoking holes in the ground, they will get to blame Bush for it. All the more motivation to hope for Iran’s success.

As for your other sobering question:

On the other hand, we do know what will happen if we continue to dither, if we continue to act as if the United Nations could possibly have a decisive effect, and if we continue to put up with the sly appeasement of Iran that is practiced by the spent forces of Europe. Terror against our troops and our friends will increase; nuclear blackmail will become a commonplace in the Middle East; the fanatics of Tehran may very well fulfill their promise to wipe Israel from the map.

Is that better than supporting democratic revolutionaries? Such a program has an additional benefit, one that is not subject to the doubts and uncertainties that attend the others: It is the right thing to do, and it would be even if Iran had no nuclear program, and was not the world’s leading terrorist supporter. It is part and parcel of our national mission, and it is the ultimate example of doing well by doing good.

By Andy

January 18, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

A coup by sophisticated and serious members of the military would be great news. Even better would be a popular uprising. And best of all would be a combination of the two. An Iran with an old-style military dictatorship charged with defending democratic institutions would be an enormous, epochal victory for the West and for the Middle East. That would go a long way toward guaranteeing success in Iraq and would neutralize the threat of the Iran’s nuclear ambitions, even if they decided to pursue a bomb. After all, the argument about nuclear weapons is no different than the argument about guns. The threat is from the people who have them, not from the weapons themselves. Lots of countries have nukes; we only need to worry about the ones run by whack jobs.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

We are not saying preemptive military strikes are the only way, I am saying that to be nuanced and understanding is often seen as weakness to other cultures. To be seen as a weak pushover often will lead to us being expoloited and strong armed.

Not all countries see things as our super-intelligent elitist liberal class.

Andy, I think and hope the generation X’ers are beginning to see, but maybe not?

By Geezus

January 18, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

How is Iran the world’s leading terrorist supporter? I thought that was Syria, or Iraq, or Afganistan,……or is that just a phrase that helps drum up support for an invasion?

By Kev

January 18, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Funny cartoon but it strikes a particular chord with me. Ethics, like truth and history, can be subjective and self serving. I personally have a problem with the Congress trying to police itself. Don’t you?!?!? Trying to have an entity install and enforce its own ethics plan is just inviting more political witch hunts and divisiveness in what has to be one of the most disfunctional organizations on this planet. I don’t care what the political affiliation, as soon as you violate the trust of the public you should be held accountable but the good old boy system on both sides of the aisle will jump to protect their own so what’s the point? Unless an independent body can implement and enforce government ethics then any other effort is like allowing a junkie to mind the pharmacy on the “honor system”.

By sickoftheneocons

January 18, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

Scooter, your kidding right? What country in the last hundred years has looked at America as pushovers? As weak? We are the world’s only remaining superpower and we remind the world of that fact daily. Until, of course, China buys our country right out from under us…

By Andy

January 18, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

Scooter: The gen xers are and will continue to do so. You can see that in the results of the last several elections. The trend will continue until there is no more democratic party, it’s only a matter of time. The majority of Americans don’t want cultural rot or a whack job terrorists with atom bombs.

geezus: It was a long time ago, I know, but who did Bush call the axis of evil? Do you want us to attack the whole world, is that what you are getting at?

By getalife

January 18, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

BD,

Saw a comment but I would never censore or delete anything on my blog especially from Big Daddy.

By sickoftheneocons

January 18, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

or we’re obliterated by the Latin American sea of humanity crossing our oh-so-porous borders. Or them there dang homosexuals corrupting our marriages, or the assault on Christinity starts another crusade, or, God-forbid, the Republicans in all their power do away with presidential term limits and elect Bush emperor for life!

By getalife

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

I agree with Kev, there should be a special task force, like the DEA set up to police politicians. I am sure there is plenty of work to do and they can look back at all bills to lock up the criminals.

By Scooter

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

sickof, I have to go out and make sure some past work held up to the storms last night. But quickly, I don’t know if you see Iraq’s continued spitting on our cease fire agreement as disprespect, but I do. They would only do that if they thought we, or the UN, were pushovers. So no I’m not kidding.

Have you read UBL’s fatwahs or speeches? If you have you will see how much a push over Al-Qieda thinks we are.

If we internally fight over enforcing our own cease fire agreements, rather than continuing to trust the UN, it may be seen as weakness. If we crucify our own soldiers if they shoot an unarmed and injured combatant, it could be seen as weakness. If our media glorifies and sensationalizes the travesty of Abu Ghraib, it may be seen as weaknesss to those that dehead citizens. Every time a dem screams that we have to maintain the “high” ground it may be seen as a potential advantage to be exploited by those that didn’t sign the Geneva Convention and are not affiliated with any nation.

It is fast approaching that everything the dems say could be interpreted as weakness.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

getalife, who would appoint the head of that DEA style oversight body? Washington will never police itself, we must take away the power if we want to end the coc.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Scooter,

Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecuter for Libby will be a good candidate.

By Pinko Liberal

January 18, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

Will someone PLEASE find out which asylum Andy is in and pull the plug on his computer? I don’t mind a differing opinion but lunacy needs not have a voice.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

Quote of the day, and the coc will love this one : Nevada, the Democratic leader, said that having Republicans rewrite House rules governing lobbying was “like asking John Gotti to do what he can to clean up organized crime.”

But he did it too!

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

getalife, we should have Jamie Gorelick and Joseph Wilson form a non partisan nominating committee, har dee har har.

Or, we could just take the power away from all politicians and stop fussing.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

Scooter,

They are elected to serve the people not lawyers, lobbyists and corporations. How did you like Reid’s Gotti comment?

By JB

January 18, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

Sickof: Which country hasn’t looked upon the US as pushovers? China buy us out? If the US wasn’t looked upon as a weak nation, then why does Iran still threaten the world? Carter was weak and projected weakness that still lasts throughout the middle east. Over what? Money. The US kept money that belongs to the sovereign nation of Iran after they overthrew the Shah. The US has been involved in the affairs of so many countries around the world that we’ve ignored our own people. BTW, China already controls our economy. They don’t need to buy us out and they could probabably overrun our borders and we couldn’t stop them. Last night CNN (Clown News or Classified News depeding on who you ask) reported that China was the new social/moral/economic sphere of influence in Central and South America. It’s not just Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, or Regan. We’ve got a serious problem sticking our nose into other people’s business.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

We will start referring to Hastert as Gotti! Today is the day for corruption reform! I will have to start a new blog

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

getalife,

Is that anti-corruption mob-mentioning Harry Reid the same one that gets a large check the day after he writes a letter on anyone’s behalf?

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

getalife, it was good but my notion is Reid was insinuating that he and the “Mother Theresa” party are the only people who can clean it up.

Everybody serves something when you have to get votes and he who can collect the most voters gets more power, like corporations, unions, white or black churches and various activist groups.

I would venture to say that over fifty percent of the crap politicians have gotten their grimy little hands into could be done by the private sector. Difference being, the competitive pressures of the free market will force efficiency and weed out corruption, but government is not subjected to these pressures and they never will be. Anyone who advocates a political body to oversee a political body is selling fools gold.

By AntiRadical

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

Washington- “The Bush administration refused Tuesday to identify White House aides who have met with lobbyist Jack Abramhoff, what they discussed or whom Abramhoff was representing.”

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that Abramhoff attended “a few staff level meetings” and that “there would be no further disclosures.”

The Bush-Cheney re-election campaign has donated $6,000 that was given by Abramhoff directly to the American heart Association but is keeping the more than $100,000 that Abramhoff is supposed to have raised from others.

I wonder what they are afraid of?. The innocent have nothing to fear, do they?Sounds very much like the Bush administration just might have something(s) terribly significant to hide. Get out the BarB sauce boys, it’s looking more and more like a royal roasting is in the works for King George.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

RW,

I was wondering when someone was going to go there with Reid. His Gotti comment made my day. My blog says I have been spamming and I have to do a word verification on all posts.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

getalife,

Where did it say that?

By getalife

January 18, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

Scooter,

McCain said if you stay around long enough anything can happen, referring to corruption reform.

Today, they are introducing new rules. Lets see what happens.

By Scooter

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

getalife, I went to your blog and checked out a link. Wow, according to that link it is a 100 percent republicrat issue. Little one sided and possibly cherry picked, don’t you think?

By getalife

January 18, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

RW,

I had to send them an email to verify I was not using it for spam then they will remove the word verification.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

Scooter,

I learned from dubya on how to cherry pick intel.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

getalife,

All they had to do was read your blog and they would see it was DNC propaganda and not spam.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

On CNN, they are advertising a movie about Enron calling it the crime of the century.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

RW,

Yours is red, so the RNC is proud.

Ooops, I meant the coc is proud.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

getalife,

Which century will they use? The last one when the crimes were going on or this one when it was broken up and people stood trial?

I guess prosecuting these people is another Bush scandal, those guys never got in trouble when whomever was President before Bush was in office.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

getalife,

If mine is big and red, does that mean I can go hang out with Laney?

By Andy

January 18, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

Harry Reid, slayer of corruption:

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 getalife

January 18, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

RW,

You now dubya does not care about the law. He does not need a warrant or stop illegal immigration. Laws are only for the people and not the coc.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

getalife, I never had you figured for a mis-leader.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

Scooter,

My blog is not fair and balanced. You will have to go to Fox News, Rush, Ann, Michelle or Neil for that.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this

Nah, I will stick with Air America, WRFG 89.3 (here in the Atl) transcripts, Neal’s News every morning and Brit Hume. I am not down with the one sided stuff if you have that all handled?

By Liberal Texas Democrat

January 18, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

“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. ” As my sainted,(and conservative), mother always said when I was caught with “my hand in thde cookie jar”, “We’re not talking about your brother here, young man. Two wrongs do not make a right”. When ever will the Republicans grow up? When will they finally admit that when they crippled the nation and seized the majority with the impeachment that did not lead to conviction that they have been in charge for eight years! This scandal is a Republican scandal.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

I know you like to thank yo sh*t don’t stank, but lean a little closer see that roses realy smell like Pooh Poooooh Poooh. Your roses realy smell like Pooh Poooh Pooh.

By Eric

January 18, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

Good one, Mike. It’s gotta be killing the wingnuts. Dubya and company give you so much material to work with, it will eventually make them all nuts.

By Andy

January 18, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Liberal Texas Democrat: mother always said when I was caught with “my hand in thde cookie jarâ€?, “We’re not talking about your brother here, young man. Two wrongs do not make a rightâ€?. She told you that yesterday, didn’t she? It’s still fresh in your childish mind.

A million bucks from the casinos and he’s innocent as a babe in the woods, O.K.

A Justice Department investigation into influence-peddling on Capitol Hill is focusing on a “first tier” of lawmakers and staffers, both Republicans and Democrats, say sources close to the probe that has netted guilty pleas from lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Law-enforcement authorities and others said the investigation’s opening phase is scrutinizing Sens. Conrad Burns, Montana Republican; Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; and Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat,<——That’s you, pinko along with Reps. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, and Bob Ney, Ohio Republican.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

I was born a little early to reep the benefits of the self preserving lie that occured in those impeachment trials. I was one heck of a horn dog and could have worked wonders after the president redefined the term. However, my sister was coming of age just before Slick Willie and I saw how much harder things were for her.

Have you heard about the herpes rings that some young girls are getting around their mouths? Those jelly bracelets that Madonna was wearing when I was I child have a whole new meaning now. I would have liked the girls with the most colors represented on her arm. True leadership for the pimps in the house.

By finch

January 18, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

It seems one of the candidate for House (Republican) leader, Arizona Rep. John Shadigg realizes his party is chock full of hypocrites who have squandered the hopes raised by Newt’s 1994 “Contract With America”.

“Republicans promised the American people two things in 1994. First, we promised to rein in the size and scope of the federal government. Second, we promised to clean up Washington. In recent years, we have fallen short on both counts. Total federal spending has grown by 33% since 1995, in inflation-adjusted dollars. Worse, we have permitted some of the same backroom practices that flourished in the old Democrat-controlled House.”

“Fallen short”? “Some”? Shadigg is a master of understatement! Maybe Newt’s groupies should have called their plan “Contract ON America”.

And it’s in the Wall Street Journal!

He shows that a major difference between Republicans and Democrats in Washington is that it took the GOP a lot less time to sink into unfathomable oozing pools of graft and corruption.

And they don’t keep their promises.

(this one’s for you, getalife!)

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

finch, it is in the mind of every conservative as well. Newt was a republican. Bush is a republicrat that likes to buy votes like the dems.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I found a few more books by Ted and Splash.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

That was pretty funny, I just read that article and was going to link to you with the same comment.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

RW, that is why they call me.

The left in this blog will scream about corruption in the republicrat party while prohibiting the mention of their dems corruption. The only thing is, traditionaly republicans have stood for giving less power to government and dems are the opposite by wanting more responsibilties for government. Responsibility is power. You and I know this, but we must whisper.

Manifest destiny I guess?

By getalife

January 18, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Nice finch,

I will have to use that quote.

RW,

Your link was brutal and loked “the drunk as a skunk”. It would be good on your blog.

Scooter,

Herpes rings, I am glad you did not link that one.

By Midori

January 18, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

wow, Scooter — good thing my pants legs are rolled up.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

Midori, the “clam digger” pants are coming back “in”.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

Oh Bee Kay Bee, I realy have to go count the number of shopping carts in our streams.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

You know, all politicians should sell their services on Ebay to the highest bidder since I doubt any form of reform from Congress will do anything about corruption.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I thought the “Green Cash and Pork” would be a good one for your blog.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

I think I will link Ebay to politicians and start some bidding to see how much they can get.

By RE

January 18, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

I found a strategy for the democrats that will work in 2006. After listening to Hillary and Nagin, the dems in 2006 need to find as many deaf mutes as possible to fill out their slate. If they can just keep from saying anything, they will sweep in and take the house and senate.

Hey, for all the folks looking to have another pre-emptive war, this time with Iran, if you really want this war, start asking your congressmen to raise funds for it prior to starting a new war. I think our credit with china is about run dry.

Pre-emptive war=higher taxes

a conservative conundrum

By Concerned Republican

January 18, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

Stop talking like Ronald Reagan and start acting like Ronald Reagan

By RE

January 18, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

How about that, a truly democratic approach to war. We will have an elective 5% tax out of every persons paycheck. If you want to go war with iran, just pay the extra 5% every week. All proceeds go directly to the war fund. When we hit $10billion, the war starts. Lets promote democracy in War as well

By kimberly

January 18, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

RE: that is effing brilliant. It’s logical, financially sound, democratic in both spirit and execution, and stated simply enough for even the “war is peace; freedom is slavery” crowd to comprehend. Will you please run for Congress? I MEAN it!

By finch

January 18, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

Ambassador Joe Wilson may be a blowhard, and his wife, Valerie Plame may or may not have been a CIA operative…

But good ol’ Joe was sure on to something when he said that snagging uranium from Niger was (at best!) just a gleam in Saddam’s eye!

“Among other problems that made such a sale improbable, the assessment by the State Department’s intelligence analysts concluded, was that it would have required Niger to send “25 hard-to-conceal 10-ton tractor-trailers” filled with uranium across 1,000 miles and at least one international border.

“The analysts’ doubts were registered nearly a year before President Bush, in what became known as the infamous “16 words” in his 2003 State of the Union address, said that Saddam Hussein had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Boy, does the truth hurt!

If you can’t find solid reasons to invade another country, just make ‘em up! Oh yes, and trash the reps of anyone who questions your lies. Go get ‘em, Fitz!

By getalife

January 18, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

It sure does!

By RE

January 18, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

I figure it would be a good way to gauge actual support for a conflict, meaning people who are actually willing to sacrifice for a cause. 5% out of your check says so much more than a yellow sticker on your bumper. You would know for sure who really stood for the war and who did not.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

finch,

Maybe you could try this with the “finch” at blogspot.

I haven’t read the link you just left, but let me say in advance “truth” and “Joe Wilson” rarely go together.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

RE,

Do we get to decide what other things we don’t have to pay taxes for or just the ones you don’t like?

By RE

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

no, just pre-emptive war

By RE

January 18, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

Let me expand on the reasoning, it sounds glib to say just pre-emptive war. War is not calculated into the budget, and therefore not included in our deficet. This is considered a special finding issue, and as such a special tax should be offered for anyone choosing to support such action.

Personally I would love to pick and choose all the taxes I want to pay, but this is a special funding issue completely off the US balance sheet that needs to be funded in some way

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

RE,

Do we have to wait for Israel to be nuked to meet your definition of pre-emptive or would that even be enough?

By RE

January 18, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

So you would not pay extra to support our troops?

By getalife

January 18, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

I am sure China will let us borrow more money to bankrupt our country.

We should sell this recipe I found to fund the war with Iran. We will get them drunk.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

RE,

If that was what was needed I would pay in a heartbeat, but that isn’t what’s needed. We need to get rid of all the idiotic government spending programs that have nothing to do with the role of the Federal government first.

Frankly your idea of ala carte taxes could be done by joining Scooter and myself and supporting the Fairtax (HR25/S25). Implement the fair tax and then if you don’t want to fund what the government is doing spend less.

By sickoftheneocons

January 18, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

RW, I’m pretty sure Isreal will not allow Iran to come close to aiming a nuclear weapon at them. Remember that Isreal is already a nuclear power and wouldn’t you agree that Israel has the right to preemptively nuke Iran before Iran can nuke them. Why do we have to get involved? I think Isreal’s got this one well in hand…

By finch

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

RW,

I love the Onion. That was priceless!

You da man!!

Seriously, though, while RE’s proposal needs work, he’s got a point.

And if I were Iran, I’d be a lot more worried about Israel launching a pre-emptive strike against me!

Just ask Saddam Hussein.

“At 15:55 on June 7, 1981, the first F­15 and F­16’s roared off the runway from Etzion Air Force Base in the south. After a tense but uneventful low­level navigation route, the fighters reached their target. They popped up at 17:35 and quickly identified the dome gleaming in the late afternoon sunlight. Enemy defenses were caught by surprise and opened fire too late. In one minute and twenty seconds, the (Iraqi) reactor lay in ruins.”

By RE

January 18, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

I am sorry, I thought we did have a deficet problem due to the war. Must be that dang liberal media reporting. But I guess if we revamp our entire tax code, cut every govt program you disagree with, and stop all the waste in government…if we need money for the troops then…you would pay?

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

sicko….,

It was just an example used to define when RE would change the parameters from pre-emptive. I never took you for such a warmonger, why would we want anyone to nuke the good people of Iran just to get rid of the bad ones?

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

finch,

Strange how our conversations stay just a few seconds ahead of the news. Israel just announced that won’t take any action against Iranian nuclear sites.

By Ricky

January 18, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Israel will most definetly take action against Iran IF they feel Iran is going to strike at them. Especially if Netanyahu is elected PM. You have to remember that Israle has been fighting for its survival since its inception in 1948. They will not stand idly by and wait for Iran to do something to them first.

By Ricky

January 18, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

RE, since you want to plan a selective tax for those who would want to go to war with Iran in your hypothetical, would you also want to say that you could not pay taxes going to any federal program that you don’t want to fund?

By sickoftheneocons

January 18, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

We’ll say by conventional means then, perhaps not a nuclear strike. Don’t assume things about people RW (you know the old adage). I’d put a bullet in anyone if I thought the cause was right (as I did in Desert Storm).

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

sickof…,

I don’t think I would have said warmonger if you hadn’t said nuke ‘em, nut we’ll never know, will we?

With apologies to Seacrest & BigDaddy, RW out!

By sickoftheneocons

January 18, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

Ricky, also don’t forgot that Jews, as a people, have been fighting for their survival for millenia…

By getalife

January 18, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

Great minds think alike!

By Andy

January 18, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

‘State Department’s intelligence analysts concluded, was that it would have required Niger to send “25 hard-to-conceal 10-ton tractor-trailersâ€? filled with uranium across 1,000 miles and at least one international border.

The same State Department that told us that WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk?

Most tractor trailers are capable of carrying 50 tons, it figures that our “intelligence” department and finch do not know this, so it cuts the number of truckloads down to 5.

3200 trucks cross the international Mexican American border every day, for example, as well as 3.4 million people mostly in the evening, so I do not see how our “intelligence” agency and finch would even consider 5 trucks to be a problem, especially considering that in ragfagistan they probably don’t even watch the freakin border.

And they want us to listen to them about Iran? I think not.

By Andy

January 18, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Bomb Tehran! Run a tab if we have to!

By Daniel

January 18, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

There’s the christian!

By Midori

January 18, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

Hey, RICKY!!!

Tom DeLay Denies All Charges (As Told by Dr. Suess) That Abramoff! That Abramoff! I do not like that Abramoff!

“Would you like to play some golf?”

I do not want to play some golf. I do not want to, Abramoff.

“We could fly you there for free. Off to Scotland, by the sea.”

I do not want to fly for free. I don’t like Scotland by the sea. I do not want to play some golf. I do not want to, Abramoff.

“Would you, could you, take this bribe? Could you, would you, for the tribe?”

I would not, could not, take this bribe. I could not, would not, for the tribe.

“If we strong armed corporations Into giving you donations? They’d be funnelled to your PAC. Would you then cut us some slack?”

I would not, could not, cut you slack. I do not care about my PAC. I do not want to play some golf. I do not want to, Abramoff.

“A plane! A plane! A plane! A plane! Would you, could you, for a plane?”

I could not, would not, for a plane. Not for a bribe, not for the tribe. Not for donations from corporations. Not for my PAC, not for some slack. Not from any schmoe named Jack.

“Would you help us buy some ships Perfect for quick gambling trips? Talk to people in the know For a little quid pro quo? Oh come now, don’t be a snob. Let us give your wife a job.”

I will not help you buy some ships. I do not wish for gambling trips. My wife does not need a job Even if she is a snob. We do not like bribes, can’t you see? Why won’t you just let me be?

“You do not like bribes, so you say. Try them, try them, and you may. Try them and you may, I say.”

Jack. If you will let me be I will try them, then you’ll see.

Say…. I do like playing golf! I like it, I do, Abramoff! I do like Scotland by the sea. It’s such a thrilling place to be! And I will take this bribe. And I will help the tribe. And I will take donations From big corporations. And I will help you buy some ships. And I will take quick gambling trips. Say, I’ll give anyone the shaft As long as it involves some graft!

By RE

January 18, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

Ricky, I went over my reasoning for that, War is not considered a budget issue, it is a special funding issue. Pre-emptive war is a choice, make the case why we need the war and let the US citizens choose with thier wallets if they will support it or not. All this would do is give power to the people instead of the politicians.

By Donn

January 18, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

Tex. You have a super way of dealing with these right-wing tough talking sissies. You tell them truths and they don’t know how to react. So they race around wildly like cockroaches exposed to the light. But then you do identify them as INSECTS, don’t you. Love it. Wish you visited more often.

By Ricky

January 18, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

RE, you just explained why that would never happen. Politicians will never give away their power to the people, especially the Dems who think they are smarter than the average American and know what is best for them.

By RE

January 18, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

Nice avoidance Ricky. Discount an idea based upon dogma. Let me try again. Would you support the idea of letting the US people choose with thier wallets special funding issues. Come to think of it, I am pretty sure Huricane Katrina should be included in this as well. This will give you the option of supporting a new war, rebuilding efforts, both, or niether. Who ever wants to pay can pay, who ever does not, will not. Sounds like democracy instead of the representitive corruption we have now.

By Midori

January 18, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

Politicians will never give away their power to the people, especially the Dems who think they are smarter than the average American and know what is best for them.

I can’t believe you said that, Ricky.

Or you naive, hypocritical or BOTH?

If I’m not mistaken, those are all Republican qualities.

Why is it nearly impossible to get any information or a straight answer from this White House?

Who started this unprovoked war of choice?

By Ricky

January 18, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

RE, I am not avoiding anything. Yes, I would pay a tax to support the troops in Iraq and I would pay a tax to rebuild New Orleans. However, to do this you would have to have much better oversight than you do now. And by the way, the US is a democratic republic. Evidence by the fact that we don’t directly elect a President(electoral college) or directly vote on federal laws. And what else would you include in special funding? Would you include pork projects that our politicians have become so fond of these days?

By Andy

January 18, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

The Texas Cartoon Boy Web Blog Version of BrokeDick Mountain:

Tex. You have a super way of dealing with these right-wing tough talking sissies. You tell them truths and they don’t know how to react. So they race around wildly like cockroaches exposed to the light. But then you do identify them as INSECTS, don’t you. Love it. Wish you visited more often.

Come back, ya hear!

By Ricky

January 18, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

Midori, by definition of their party the Dems think they know what is best for the people of this country. They believe in big government. Government involvement in as much as possible. Now, this administration has strayed from what I believe as a conservative. They have spent too much and expanded the government too much for my liking. However, recent elections show that the majority of Americans agree more with the conservative ideals of small goverment, lower taxes, and ownership society. Now, I know you are going to flame away on me, so go ahead. You are one of the truly blindly partisan posters on this board. I have not once seen you write something good about a conservative person.

By RE

January 18, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

I would like to include pork projects, but they are not in general emergency or special funding issues. Oversite would be easy, all the tax money would be earmarked for whatever cause, either Katrina or a new war. When the cost is met, the war can begin.

This would not include of course the daily no war related military budget, we would always keep a strong and ready to mobilize military. This would only be used toward preemptive wars. Let the supporters and detractors of the war make thier case, and let the people decide with thier wallets. It is the free market expression of going to war.

By Andy

January 18, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

Look at these pinkos in here, making a crude unpracticed attempt at morality, trying to take the “high ground” on national security. Trying to lay a guilt trip on the Cons.

These freakin people have no problem whacking some little old lady in the hospital or an unborn baby, but they’ll go ape s-hit over some camel jockey with a suicide vest getting blown away by America’s finest.

This dog ain’t gonna hunt. Try something else.

By sickoftheneocons

January 18, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

What? Andy you make absolutely no sense at all. Libs don’t care about little old ladies but they do care about terrorists? As I seem to recall, you were the one throwing a hissy fit about giving the little old lady at the Wal-Mart a little more health coverage…

By getalife

January 18, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

I believe RE just hit the root of the coc problem. Take their money away because they can’t be trusted to manage it which would take their power away which they abuse.

By Andy

January 18, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

sicko: Whacking some little old lady or an unborn baby seems to me to be more of an issue than denying them health care coverage that they never had in the first place. Is this how you moralize, kill all of the underprivileged people?

By Dr R

January 18, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

The Seuss thing is excellent. And old PaleFace Jack could pass for the Cat in the Hat with that funky fedora of his.

How about that great Ralph Reed quote that he saved a lot of families and children from the pain of gambling by taking Jack’s tainted money to fight competing casinos. What a self-righteous little prig that guy is. Seriously, if that’s what a Republican is now, they can have my card back (I already stopped sending them money after they passed that God-awful Medicare thing).

By sickoftheneocons

January 18, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

So what your saying Andy, is that a conservative woman has never had an abortion? How naive…a conservative person has never requested assisted suicide? Again, very naive. I’m sure that in your perfect world, you sit on the porch smoking your cigarette watching a couple of your good ol boy friends beat up a homosexual in the front yard while your barefoot and pregnant wife sits in the kitchen setting out the moon pies and RC Cola while Cousin Bubba works on the pickup truck and the kids sit around your feet asking old Pappy about the good old days when you could lynch a black man and nobody said a word about it. But that’s not the real world Andy.

By sickoftheneocons

January 18, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

and don’t forget the coon dogs sleeping under the porch and Willie Nelson crooning softly in the background…

By Ricky

January 18, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

sick, there is nothing wrong with ole Willie Nelson. He is the man.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

With Willie Nelson around they would not be smoking cigarettes.

By Dr R

January 18, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

Willie’s a dyed-in-the-wool liberal anyhow. And can you still get RC Cola?

By RE

January 18, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

Or Hank Sr. never get tired of him

By Dr R

January 18, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

And Merle. And Cash. And George Jones. Who’s gonna fill their shoes?

By finch

January 18, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

RW,

It’s interesting what the Israelis are saying. Any relation to what they’ll actually do is purely co-incidental, dontcha think? You wouldn’t expect them to actually say they WOULD bomb Iran? Nope….

By sickoftheneocons

January 18, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

I didn’t realize we had so many country-western conniseurs (sp?) on the blog…

By Dr R

January 18, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

I’m not sure where you’re from Sick, but this is the South, brother. There still are a few of us around here who enjoy the trappings of our culture, roots music ranking high on the list. It’s not for everyone, but that’s OK. Just because you like a country song doesn’t mean you live in a shotgun shack and don’t own shoes, you know.

By Pink Salmon

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

heeheehehe…liberal rednecks….heheehehe

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

finch,

I figure they are fueling the bombers as we speak.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

I went to see Merle two or three years ago. He comes onto stage in cowboy boots with his sweat pants tucked into them, a cowboy hat and sunglasses, talking about he bought a orange orchard and now had to kick Sunkists a$$. He is the man.

These were good words for a country song:

I ain’t askin nobody for nothing.

If I can’t get it on my own.

If you don’t like the way I’m livin

You can just leave this long haired…

By Ricky

January 18, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

How can you not be a country-western fan? Willie, Waylon, and me. C’mon, thats good music, not like the junk today. And yes Dr R you can still get RC Cola. I have a RC Cola machine in my office actually. Of course I live in the midwest now, so that might be why

By getalife

January 18, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

Well, I prefer Alternative Rock: gets your blood flowing.

There is no you, there is only me!

By finch

January 18, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

sickoftheneocons,

I don’t know about you, but I always feel a little guilty slamming a certain con here over his Neanderthal rants.

It’s like kicking a misbehaving puppy. Far too easy, and he usually ends up messing the rug again anyway…

By Andy

January 18, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

sicko: I was talking about you not a “Conservative” woman. But if you want to go there: A Conservative woman would not encourage a deviant sexual behavior that spreads the AIDS virus, she would not drill a hole in an unborn babies head and she would not wait for someone to fall in a coma so she could starve them to death. This is the world you picked to promote. Don’t run away from it now that you are getting called out. And certainly don’t lecture me on wanting to kill some fanatic that is trying to kill my family and other innocent people.

I don’t smoke and my wife is a minority. I’m not a pinko. I don’t talk about things that I plan on never doing. You are the one who advocates a political party that has not and would never put a minority in a position of authority. You people put them in housing projects and mail them checks every month while you sit up high and feel good about yourselves.

Morality is not your game, you look stupid trying to play with it.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

getalife, alternative music like Social Distortion & The Melvins or alternative like Pearl Jam & Nirvana?

By getalife

January 18, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

Trent Lott said at this rate the only place they can hang out with lobbyists is McDonalds.

What are you doing hanging out with lobbyists? Eat your big mack and quit your whining. Whaaaa!

The hambugular reminds me of Lott.

By Andy

January 18, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

finch: For someone who falls for any lie that the “mainstream” press can manufacture to cover up the true perverted purpose of the democrat party, I sure wouldn’t go to patting yourself on the back over any “corrections” you think you have made. Why don’t you stick to blowing up hydrogen “artillery baloons” and sticking them up your “10 ton truck?”

By getalife

January 18, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

Whatever gets the blood flowing more like Audio Slave, Linkin Park, Nine Inch Nails and the old stuff like Nirvana, STP, Soundgarten, Pearl Jam, AC/DC, etc….

By Andy

January 18, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

DR R: If finding out what your fellow pinkos think about country music has you steamed, you had better never read anything that is published out of New York City or California. Not unless you like to be referred to as a stupid hayseed hick, anyway…

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

getalife, since you promoting McDonald’s and Big Macs, have you ever listened to the late and great Wesley Willis?

ROCK AND ROLL MCDONALDS… ROCK AND ROLL MCDONALDS!!!

or

I WHOOPED BATMAN’S A$$.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

I like drinking with the good ole boys

By Midori

January 18, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

Andy — it’s “democratic party”. not “democrat” party.

but then I suspect you already know this.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

He wrote this song for me

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

Midori,

Actually it is the Democrat Party.

By Jay not jay

January 18, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

At least we aren’t always killing Innocents

By getalife

January 18, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

Dang didn’t work. Anyway there is a song generator at the bottom of your link.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

getalife, I have to manually enter a song and have no idea which song it would be.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

I put in culture of corruption and corruption but would not link.

By ShadowMarch

January 18, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

“We Live In A Republic, Not A Democracy” means “My Vote Should Matter More Than Your Vote, Because I’m Better Than You Are.”

Yes, we live in a democratic republic. The business of government is entirely unwieldy in the hands of the people on a routine basis. People are stupid. On the other hand, so are politicians.

The need to put firewalls between automatic public opinion and public officials is because the opinions that people have can change wildly over time, whereas an elected public official can theoretically see the long term view.

But I have NEVER heard or read that quote in a tone that does not indicate a subtle tone of superiority in terms of intellectuality, morality or something even psychologically darker.

By ShadowMarch

January 18, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

And before you say that I’m hypocritical, I do stupid things too. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this

Midori,

Let me rephrase that it actually should be the Democrat Party. It is, after all, a party of Democrats not Democratics.

By Midori

January 18, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

RW -

“democrat” is a noun Main Entry: dem·o·crat Pronunciation: ‘de-m&-“krat Function: noun 1 a : an adherent of democracy b : one who practices social equality 2 capitalized : a member of the Democratic party of the U.S.

By RE

January 18, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this

Anyone watch Daily Show last night.

The coc is closely tied to the taint…in Washington

By getalife

January 18, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this

Yes, and the Republican party is now known as the coc party.

By Midori

January 18, 2006 05:09 PM | Link to this

well, too bad we all aren’t what we “should” be.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this

Truthiness has nothing on my new word “coc”.

Webster, if you please.

By Andy

January 18, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this

Well, we finally found out why the “missile” was in the picture:

US strike killed Al Qaeda bomb maker-ABC News Jay’s link.

The democratic party’s favorite American enemy explosives expert was going to assemble an IED after supper. How delightful. He even brought the children along for this joyous occasion.

By Andy

January 18, 2006 05:14 PM | Link to this

Flip:

*WASHINGTON — Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday defended Sen. Hillary Clinton for describing the House of Representatives as a “plantation,” saying he felt her choice of words referred to a “consolidation of power” in Washington that squeezes out the voters….”the ordinary voter and even members of Congress who aren’t in the majority party don’t have much input.” *

Flop:

The conservative uprising against President Bush escalated yesterday as Republican activists angry over his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court confronted the president’s envoys during a pair of tense closed-door meetings.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 05:17 PM | Link to this

Too bad some can’t have what they want

By RE

January 18, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

Anyone here remember Pat Buchanan. He is a true conservative, not the half baked neocon, follow bush supporters that are so prevelent today. I rarely disagree with what he has to say…at least in his writing, he gets a little nutty when he is on camera. His take:

(http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48379)

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 05:20 PM | Link to this

getalife,

To show my fairness I put up a link for Republicans and a link for Democrats, or as Midori calls them right before she flips you off “members of the Democratic Party”.

By Objective Observer

January 18, 2006 05:20 PM | Link to this

Getalife: So would you describe what is going on in Washington as a “cocfight”?

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this

RE, it has been an hour since 4:20 so half baked would be about right.

By RE

January 18, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this

Everything in washington has the smell of a nasty taint

By Dr R

January 18, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this

Aw, I don’t care what they think of us hicks in New York or whatever. Soon as we quit worrying about that we’ll all be better off. I like it when folks think I’m a stupid, backward Southern hillbilly. Makes it all the more satisfying when I blow their doors off with my particular brand of erudite knowledge.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this

RW,

Fair and balanced.

OO,

Today is a good day. The coc now have to go meet lobbyist here.](http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31009)

By RE

January 18, 2006 05:28 PM | Link to this

It is 4:20 somewhere, hit it up again

By getalife

January 18, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this

Oops, meds are kicking.

here

By Dr R

January 18, 2006 05:33 PM | Link to this

You gonna pass that or what?

By Dr R

January 18, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this

See what you guys think of this:

[http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1057]

By getalife

January 18, 2006 05:42 PM | Link to this

When it is all said and done, dubya, will be under Nixon but right now he is under Carter.

By RE

January 18, 2006 05:44 PM | Link to this

Man, that has got to hurt for the GA republicans, GWB is ranked under Carter.

By Andy

January 18, 2006 05:47 PM | Link to this

The Exit Poll Scandals

By Dr R

January 18, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

How can ANYBODY be ranked below Carter? Right now, there are folks in the world scared of us; some hate us. Back then, the U.S. was a laughingstock because our president was such a weenie.

I still say Teddy Roosevelt should be No. 1, but maybe that’s just because I finished a cool book about him …

By Andy

January 18, 2006 05:51 PM | Link to this

The Wall Street Journal Survey on Presidents

By Andy

January 18, 2006 05:57 PM | Link to this

Here is one georgia10, posting on DailyKos.com:

I keep hearing the Dems needs to “grow a spine.” That we need “angry” Dems, we need Dems with courage. We need Dems with courage. Well guess what—we HAVE angry Dems, we HAVE courageous Dems. Look in the damn mirror, people. WE are the party. WE are the Democrats. We’re angry, we spit fire, and our time has come.

Showing their “courage” in a blog where Conservatives aren’t allowed to post…

By Midori

January 18, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this

and Liberals can’t post on many conservative blogs.

Again, t** for tat.

By RE

January 18, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this

I am pretty sure it has to do with current opinions on presidents more than reflecting on their terms in office. Carter has been great after his presidency working with habitat for humanity and occasionally getting involved in international affairs. As a president….not so good.

Nixon actually did a great deal as a president for this country, but the resignation and scandal overshadows everything he accomplished.

HW Bush is overshadowed by Reagan and Clinton…But I think he was probably better as a president than either of them

By Andy

January 18, 2006 06:04 PM | Link to this

RE: Were you alive in 1980?

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 06:05 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Is Nancy going to make an apperarence in coc?

That word of yours makes for tricky posting.

By RE

January 18, 2006 06:11 PM | Link to this

In fact, yes I was. Born in 73 so I wasn’t really politically aware at the time. More into Bigbird actually. I do remember advocting anderson in that election, not that anyone else in 1st grade heard of him

By Dr R

January 18, 2006 06:15 PM | Link to this

Carter’s biggest obstacle as president was his naivete. He thought of himself as a citizen of the world, not leader of the free world. You have to be willing to use power effectively; he seemed to want to diminish our power for the sake of world harmony. Foolish, foolish man. The world is full of evil people who oppose us, not just “misunderstood souls” who need our kindness to see the light.

By Andy

January 18, 2006 06:18 PM | Link to this

Ann was unable to “move on:”

‘Chocolate City’ Sprinkled With Nuts

I’m fairly certain I’ve mentioned that before — I don’t recall, Mr. Chairman — but I don’t understand why everyone doesn’t mention it every time Senator Drunkennedy has the audacity to talk about how “troubled” and “concerned” he is about this or that nominee. I bet Mary Jo was “troubled” and “concerned” about the senator leaving her in trapped in a car under water while he went back to the hotel to create an alibi.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 06:20 PM | Link to this

Good Carter.

By Dr R

January 18, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

Senator, fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life …

By RE

January 18, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

I would think you would be hard pressed to call the camp david accords a failure. Also the country at the time had just been through vietnam and a scandal in the whitehouse by which all other scandals are judged. I think more than anything he would be a medicore president in a very hard time for the country.

By Andy

January 18, 2006 06:26 PM | Link to this

RE: You might want to take a closer look at the Carter and HW Bush presidencies. In the late 70’s, Carter, there was talk of doing away with the president’s office and replacing it with a 3 person panel, being that it was too much for one “man.” We were being shamed in Iran with hostages for 440 days, “stagflation” was rampant and the country was not in a good mood at all.

Reagan changed all that. This economic boon that we have enjoyed for the last 25 years is an indirect result of Reagan’s economic policies. He brought pride back to America.

I don’t have that much of a beef with HW, except for the “no more taxes” pledge and he was detached from foreign policy, especially Islamic terror.

By Dr R

January 18, 2006 06:27 PM | Link to this

I’ll give you Camp David, but you also have to take the Iran hostage crisis, which escalated and dragged too long because of his inaction; the Soviet venture in Afghanistan, fueled largely by the West’s toothless approach to geopolitics (his response: Boycott the Olympics. Wow, that showed ‘em.) I won’t mention our failing economy at the time because he did inherit it, and market forces beyond the White House’s control led to inflation and interest rates spinning out of sight. Yet he had no answer, even as a short-term fix, to bolster sagging confidence. In short, he was a little man in a big job at a time when we needed a true leader to step up to the plate. After Carter diminished the office, Reagan pumped it back to life. Symbolic? Yes, but much of the job is just that.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 06:38 PM | Link to this

RW,

Not caucus of corruption, culture of corruption coc. I had to update my blog header to include my new word. I think it is catching on.

Impeach the coc!

By getalife

January 18, 2006 06:41 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

I have a six pack of Billy Beer.

By Daniel

January 18, 2006 06:44 PM | Link to this

getalife: Great Blog! Keep up the good work. “Fat Jack” will bring down the House, and part of the Senate. We are a long, long way from good government.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 06:47 PM | Link to this

Thanks Daniel,

I will blog until I can’t blog no more.

By RE

January 18, 2006 06:49 PM | Link to this

I will accede to you all having much more direct knowledge on the state of the country during the 70’s. All I really remember directly was my father being upset by taxes, which somehow lead to me being audited by the IRS when I was 7. Apparently Pops got creative.

I do remember HW much better, and looking back I think he was an excellent president. He does not get the credit he deserves. Reagan pushed the country into reform, but was also a little dirty in the international politics…Backing the iraqis and mujahadeen in afganistan. But I am generally against proxy wars as a rule. HW was a more pragmatic president and a realist, as opposed to Reagan’s grand vision. He lead the country, the economy was strong, he met challenges, and he adapted when the situation arose. I think most people would rather have an icon to root for than a down the middle leader of the people.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 06:54 PM | Link to this

HW, it is hard for me to look kindly on a man who promised the Kurds air support if they revolted, then left them out to get slaughtered. That just aint right and I don’t want to hear about tough decisions.

By Andy

January 18, 2006 06:54 PM | Link to this

The FBI recently declared environmental and animal rights extremism its top domestic terrorism priority. The bureau is currently investigating over 150 cases of arson, bombings, and other violent crimes related to these movements. Law enforcement authorities are rightly concerned about the fanaticism over animal “rights� used to justify violent criminal behavior.

ACLU sues Homeland Security for arresting, spying on vegans who protested ham

Another one bites the dust…

By getalife

January 18, 2006 06:56 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

They call that cut and run.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 06:59 PM | Link to this

Then they put up this billboard in Atlanta

By Andy

January 18, 2006 07:01 PM | Link to this

OO-RAH!

By getalife

January 18, 2006 07:01 PM | Link to this

Andy,

What was that definition again?

By Andy

January 18, 2006 07:05 PM | Link to this

pink·o- (pngk) n. Slang pl. pink·os A person who holds moderately leftist political views; a pink.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 07:05 PM | Link to this

Here, allow me.

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.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 07:11 PM | Link to this

Getalife, its always easy to leave things unfinished for the next guy, yes, yes.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 07:12 PM | Link to this

Andy,

As a true member of the coc, I would like to invite you to visit my blog and leave a comment. Anything goes so don’t hold back like you usually do here at the ml blog.Just click here

Another shameless plug.

By Daniel

January 18, 2006 07:13 PM | Link to this

I give you the RWR bonafides. Her’s my question: In the twelve RWR and GHWB years there were no, repeat no balanced budgets. The worst elements of the Republican Party got the message that they can run up huge debts. And, they are! Whatever happened to the conservative notion of living within our means and saving? Who was the last president tobalance a budget? The profligate borrowing and spending of this government is a greater threat to National Security than terrorism.

By RE

January 18, 2006 07:29 PM | Link to this

Fiscal responsibility, is it a conservative value or not?

By getalife

January 18, 2006 07:41 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

Unfortunately , the next guy was his son to take the bait, hook, line and sinker. Meanwhile, the big fish responsible for the attack upon our country, got away.

By getalife

January 18, 2006 07:44 PM | Link to this

Of course, it is all Bush’s fault

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 08:23 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I put up a couple of culture of corruption stories

By Objective Observer

January 18, 2006 08:33 PM | Link to this

I’ve taken the liberty to do a little shopping for Big Daddy’s new digs. Too small?

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 08:38 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

Even if he doesn’t like the chair, there are certainly interesting things on that link.

By Objective Observer

January 18, 2006 08:48 PM | Link to this

R.W.: There are always interesting things where Big Daddy most likely shops.

Was your wife trying to get you to dinner last night? Salmon on the menu?

By Objective Observer

January 18, 2006 08:53 PM | Link to this

You’re right R.W., there are interesting things on that link “hairstyles”. I’m looking for a new do. Something shorter. Going back in.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 08:54 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

That would certainly have been a late night snack. The scariest part about the Salmon is that it exhibits certain posting traits shared by a couple of regulars.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 09:05 PM | Link to this

OO,

They do have multiple areas of hairstyling expertise. The swimwear section is interesting too, but when you go to individual categories something is missing.

By Objective Observer

January 18, 2006 09:05 PM | Link to this

Well tell me, was I “salmonized” yesterday?

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 09:11 PM | Link to this

OO,

I don’t really know, maybe the Salmon will swim back by. There was a drive by earlier today.

By Objective Observer

January 18, 2006 09:16 PM | Link to this

I’m off to put my feet in front of a heater. With a $377.00 heating bill for December, my feet will be cold until June. See ya!

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2006 09:28 PM | Link to this

OO,

These work really well in a room where you spend most of your time and they keep the gas bill down without raising the electric bill much.

By Scooter

January 18, 2006 10:20 PM | Link to this

New toons up and its a funny mental image.