Atlanta Opinion

By RW-(the original)

February 1, 2006 07:19 PM | Link to this

Since this will run in the Fishwrapper-Edition on Groundhog Day, I guess it’s only right that ml takes a meaningless and gratuitous shot at President Bush.

By delta refugee

February 1, 2006 07:39 PM | Link to this

Why does this site update at 7pm?

By Andy

February 1, 2006 07:50 PM | Link to this

Oh, yeah, I bet cartoon boy walked to work, the AJC tossed their building’s furnace out the window and they are rubbing up against eachother to stay warm and their printing presses run off methane gas piped in from the ladies restroom.

Hypocrites. Some people use energy and loathe themselves for it, soothe their hurt pinko lib feelings by restricting energy production at every turn, jacking up the prices and sticking it too the poor as a form of therapy for themselves. Drill, you idiots, drill!

By getalife

February 1, 2006 07:57 PM | Link to this

Great drawing on Mrs. King Mike.

Tom Toles new drawing has drawn the attention of the Pentagon and they signed a letter to the editor complaining. Rumsfeld shrugged it off because he knows you and your profession.

Tom set the new standard Mike, so you need to go a little further and get recognized by the brass at the Pentagon. Maybe they will invite you back.

By Objective Observer

February 1, 2006 07:58 PM | Link to this

I’ll bet ml carries no plastic in his purse, it just doesn’t feel right to him.

By Objective Observer

February 1, 2006 08:04 PM | Link to this

Ditto Getalife on Mrs. King’s cartoon. Very touching. Sniff Sniff!!

By getalife

February 1, 2006 08:07 PM | Link to this

I am still trying to figure out why the comments were closed for the first time on this blog.

By Objective Observer

February 1, 2006 08:11 PM | Link to this

Getalife: Do you really have to ask that question. The answer is obvious day in and day out here.

By Andy

February 1, 2006 08:12 PM | Link to this

getalife: It was after Midori’s disrespectful Bush bashing, some poster came in and ragged cartoon boy about not spending enough time on the King drawing considering the occasion. I don’t think they appreciated the review as they turned out the lights right then and there.

By Midori

February 1, 2006 08:22 PM | Link to this

Andy - you lying POS.

Josh posted something about watching the SOTU address with a republican, or something of that nature.

I responded to Josh: I like the cut of your jib.

I responded to Mike L: Mike, that sentiment is sweet. So is the toon.

Don’t farking lie on me.

You lying rat you.

By buff

February 1, 2006 08:24 PM | Link to this

Cartoon Boy is a cowardly, wimpy, little punk. I actually despise, not a word I often use, him; I have met him before

He is not really a man. His CSK cartoon was touching to many, but, my disrespect for her was so great………it mattered little, oh well.

OK, so I said it about HER. So, slap me around. At least I am honest and genuine enough not to be a coffin-chaser sobbing freak…….I refuse to show respect for Coretta Scott Ching-Ching. She was a disgrace to her late husband

These people make me want to puke. Hosea Williams said that Jesse Jackson “stole Dr. King’s dream, then, JJ leads HW’s funeral procession. He also p** and moaned over CSK’s passing

Face it, this family has sold out MLK’s ideals; what a bunch of parasites

The fact that MLK’s wife just died does nto alter history

Deal with that!

By Midori

February 1, 2006 08:25 PM | Link to this

Add to my last comment: You, of all people Andy, have the unmitigated GALL to call ANYONE disrespectful.

You lying rat bastard you.

You LIAR!!!

By getalife

February 1, 2006 08:25 PM | Link to this

First the Post now the AJC. Tee shirts get you arrested or ejected from the State of the Union rhetoric. BTW, Cindy was posting at Kos and they dropped the charges. Pentagon writing to the editor about new Tom Toles toon. I heard a political cartoon in Norway or some country over there about Muslims were causing people to go off. Wow, ml is not so bad, is he?

By Midori

February 1, 2006 08:28 PM | Link to this

Buff,

I think in your comments we see the real reason that thread was shut down.

It would only have degenerated into more stuff like that.

By Objective Observer

February 1, 2006 08:28 PM | Link to this

Buff: I liked the message from the other side of the pearly gate. Can you meet me half way?

By Andy

February 1, 2006 08:31 PM | Link to this

Now remember, before you open this link that you have been duly warned and that I am not responsible for any harm that may befall you.

By Andy

February 1, 2006 08:34 PM | Link to this

O.K. Midori, what ever, wink, wink…

By buff

February 1, 2006 08:34 PM | Link to this

Midori, 0-0, you are both right!!!

What p—-es me off is this culture’s obsession with people of “place”

I do not care if it is a politician, a Hollywood star, an entertainer, we tend to see their lives as more “meaningful” than regular people

I despise idolatry, on all levels. It is panacea for the masses

CSK’s life was no more important that the child murdered by the mother’s “boyfriend” this week in the Atlanta area

But, I am honest, I did not like her; will not pretend I did

She used MLK’s death to get an Atlanta cop 24 hours a day, hotel, waiters, doormen, flight attendants were ORDERED not to speak or even make eye contact with her

Don’t ask me to respect her

By Objective Observer

February 1, 2006 08:36 PM | Link to this

Buff: Can I still meet you half way and slap you around ever so gently, after my foot massage, of course. Just kidding, wanted to make you smile.

By getalife

February 1, 2006 08:36 PM | Link to this

Sorry I asked. I thought Dubya was supposed to bring people together since the country is still divided. I can see why there was a civil war here, in Isreal and Iraq. No Rodney King, we can’t just get along.

By buff

February 1, 2006 08:39 PM | Link to this

get

The GOP masses want a fight, a big fight. They know they can win. I know a lot of R’s who want bush to be like Newt was in ‘94, but GW will not do it, I do not think

Overall, I thought the SOTU was bland, but, most are, at least since Reagan in ‘81-‘84

By Andy

February 1, 2006 08:39 PM | Link to this

I’m gonna guess that the Pentagon is mad about this Tom Toles toon?

By buff

February 1, 2006 08:40 PM | Link to this

0-0, it was a touching ‘toon, I admit that, but not from HER standpoint, from HIS

Agreed?

By Objective Observer

February 1, 2006 08:41 PM | Link to this

Just asking and with no ulterior motive in mind, but did ml do a commemorative cartoon on Reagan’s death since Buff mentioned it.

By buff

February 1, 2006 08:42 PM | Link to this

0-0

BTW, there is a great book entitled “Sensual Massage” which has 26 pages on foot massage alone

Also has some great erotic nudity, tastefully done

By Objective Observer

February 1, 2006 08:43 PM | Link to this

Buff: Agreed! Unusual here isn’t it? I’m O.K., you’re O.K.

By buff

February 1, 2006 08:43 PM | Link to this

0-0

good query. I will get on lexus-nexus later

By getalife

February 1, 2006 08:44 PM | Link to this

That is the one Andy. Rumsfeld shrugged it off, he met Mike and knows he is fair game.

By Objective Observer

February 1, 2006 08:46 PM | Link to this

Buff: I don’t know about this sensual stuff, but I had a guy cure my headache by applying pressure on my feet. It was painfully pleasing and successful.

By RW-(the original)

February 1, 2006 08:46 PM | Link to this

Andy,

I don’t think I’ll every be the same again. That warning was nowhere near strong enough.

By buff

February 1, 2006 08:46 PM | Link to this

get

Are the Saints staying in the Big Sleazy, one of my fav towns?

By Andy

February 1, 2006 08:47 PM | Link to this

That one is not very tasteful at all, most of the time, say what you will about Toles being a hardcore pinko, the dude is hilarious. Check this one out. Now that is a freakin funny cartoon, look at “democracy” written on the wall.

By getalife

February 1, 2006 08:51 PM | Link to this

buff,

Terry Bradshaw was trying to buy them and bring them to Shreveport. I think they are staying for now.

By Baker

February 1, 2006 08:52 PM | Link to this

Phil: thanks for the insight & the reminder. The experiences you could share! What a shame the neocons on this blog refuse to permit reality & truth to exist.

Negative people always must try to destoy anything worthwhile.

By buff

February 1, 2006 08:58 PM | Link to this

OK

All you leftists, anti-American freaks. I am inviting you to my Super Bowl Party!!!

It will be at the following link. Just bring a chair, sit comfortably, and I will bring all the refreshments

Sit in the middle of the top tier in the middle ramp

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Multimedia.jsp?id=m-2584

By Tex

February 1, 2006 08:59 PM | Link to this

Stopping by for a quick peek, I see that the Scum Pack continues wallowing in it’s excrement. RW, Andy, Semper Not, Ricky, Buff, all the usual lowbrow suspects from Nowhere. The Rancid Masses.

By Objective Observer

February 1, 2006 09:02 PM | Link to this

Buff:

Looks like dangerous fun and Big Daddy will be there front and center in his natural state for all the rubber neckers to see.

By Objective Observer

February 1, 2006 09:04 PM | Link to this

Oh my God, I think I just called Big Daddy a pinko. I’m done for.

By RW-(the original)

February 1, 2006 09:04 PM | Link to this

I was always partial to the name “Malfunction Junction”.

By getalife

February 1, 2006 09:07 PM | Link to this

Ah, Atlanta traffic. Is it getting any better?

By buff

February 1, 2006 09:08 PM | Link to this

RW

I hat that piece of highway(s)

I do not like heights, had trouble in the Hueys, but that place freaks me out every time I have to go through there

By buff

February 1, 2006 09:11 PM | Link to this

Tex

Wow, gee-whiz, golly, oh man,, what a thoughtful post that was; you add such a philosophical dimension to this discussion

Thank you so much for your comment

Can I have your autograph?

By RW-(the original)

February 1, 2006 09:13 PM | Link to this

getalife,

If by better you mean gridlock then yes.

buff,

That’s in my neck of the woods, I know more back roads around it than I can count. They are closely held secrets, though.

By Ricky

February 1, 2006 09:13 PM | Link to this

Whats so hypocritical of this cartoon is that the left has been complaining about oil for years and now when Bush says look we need to find better ways, they just make fun of him. What might work better for the Dems is to find something the Reps are hyping and mold their own version of it and start selling it to the American people. That works better than just complaining all the time. That is why Reps were so successful back in the mid 1990’s. They brought new ideas to the table. That is the way to turn the tide. If you are going to complain, you had better have a solution to the problem

By Objective Observer

February 1, 2006 09:18 PM | Link to this

Ricky: I believe President Bush put it this way:

“Hindsight alone is not wisdom and second-guessing is not a strategy.”

By Semper Fi

February 1, 2006 09:22 PM | Link to this

Ricky, you ask too much of the democratic party. They are way too busy asking the liberals what they should do and of course they have no idea. They do know they hate Bush. That’s their beginning and end.

Oh yea, thanks Tex, stop by again when you don’t have so much time.

By bob

February 1, 2006 09:38 PM | Link to this

This “cartoonist” really needs a “don’t care” button.

By Objective Observer

February 1, 2006 09:46 PM | Link to this

For you R.W.

HIGHBROW TALK [Mark Steyn] On the other hand, comparing John Kerry’s Botoxicated permafreeze furrow with this guy Kaine, I would definitely agree that eyebrow-wise the Governor has the “better way”.

By RW-(the original)

February 1, 2006 09:50 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

Have you gone to the my page since I updated it with the animated eyebrow? Here or if you want to bypass me and go directly here.

By MS

February 1, 2006 09:58 PM | Link to this

As usual the president says exactly what the left preaches, and then is attacted. Do you agree or not Luckovich?

By Objective Observer

February 1, 2006 10:00 PM | Link to this

R.W.: I visit yours and Getalife’s. I keep up with Butterscotch that way without having to ask on site. Steyn blogged at “The Corner.” You can get their at “Steyn On Line”, or a technology expert such as yourself can get there without a map.

I easily get lost.

By RW-(the original)

February 1, 2006 10:01 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

Another good one from Steyn on NRO last night.

In the energy section of the speech, sure, we all love wind farms, especially located a hundred yards off the picture window of Ted Kennedy’s waterfront property. But for most of this stuff to make any difference at all would require a dramatic transformation of both the US economy and the behavior of the American people. That’s unreal.

On the other hand, if the issue is the economy’s dependence on unstable oil-producing regimes, why not just increase domestic production? That’s real, and doable. The only reason we don’t is for aesthetic reasons - not Ted Kennedy’s picture window but the picture window of the world’s biggest mosquito herd up in ANWR.

By Objective Observer

February 1, 2006 10:03 PM | Link to this

R.W.: Sorry, but my animated boob trumps your animated eyebrow.

I’m gone.

By Objective Observer

February 1, 2006 10:06 PM | Link to this

R.W.: Saw that Steyn too. He makes me…..well you know……..smile!!

By RW-(the original)

February 1, 2006 10:11 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

I think you can comment over there as anonymous without signing up and just put you name in your comment. (You don’t even have to put in a nekkid picture.)

By buff

February 1, 2006 10:17 PM | Link to this

0-0

You ever had a guy paint polish on your toe nails?

Sorry to be such a pig; wife out of town on biz AGAIN

By Objective Observer

February 1, 2006 10:17 PM | Link to this

But I can moon you when I disagree right? No dialogue, just a bright, shining moon.

Fed the dog, got my bed turned on and warm, so now I’ll say goodnight.

By Objective Observer

February 1, 2006 10:21 PM | Link to this

Just checked my post to see Buff’s. No, but R.W. can tell you the colors I like to use. You’re not a pig, just fun loving like me.

Night fellas!

By RW-(the original)

February 1, 2006 10:24 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

That last post was just strange, I need to check the phase of that moon.

Goodnight!

By Steve

February 1, 2006 10:38 PM | Link to this

Hey Tex. I like that description of neocons. The “Rancid Masses.”
Gonna start using it immediately.

By buff

February 1, 2006 10:43 PM | Link to this

Steve

What is a neocon?

By finch

February 1, 2006 10:58 PM | Link to this

Ahhhh, ya buncha wimps! You don’t know what a REAL tangled mess of pavement is until you’ve attempted to navigate Northern Virginia’s dreaded Springfield Interchange!! (now being rebuilt at a cost of $676 million dollars.

*”The project consists of building more than 50 bridges and widening I-95 to 24 lanes between the Beltway and Franconia Road.”

What a 24 lane interchange looks like.

Drive at your own risk. Bread crumbs optional, but highly reccomended.

By finch

February 1, 2006 11:05 PM | Link to this

RW,

Personally, I only question ANWR drilling because I think it’s a lot of money for not much oil. I could care squat about the elk and polar bears, who think the Alaska pipeline into Valdez is just fine.

Tell you what, though. I’ll lift all my objections to ANWR oil drilling if a certain Presidential brother who is governor of a certain southern state lifts his objections to more drilling for natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico.

“A key player in the fight is Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the U.S. president’s younger brother, who is in his second term and cannot run again. In 2001 he fought successfully, using his clout at the White House, against attempts to ease restrictions on eastern Gulf drilling.”

Have we got a deal?

By RW-(the original)

February 1, 2006 11:13 PM | Link to this

finch,

I’ve already said on this very blog, that Jeb needs to get out of the way and start becoming part of the solution. So fairness prevents me from taking a deal on false pretenses. You can decide whether to lift your objection based on that information.

By finch

February 1, 2006 11:58 PM | Link to this

Thanks, RW…

I do recall now your comment on Jeb’s allergy to offshore natural gas exploration many moons ago. Maybe you recall my doubts about ANWR oil drilling.

I liked Steyn’s joke about wildly carniverous insects in the US’s Great White North.

Alaska’s mosquitoes are true monsters.

Now, if someone can show me that ANWR oil is worth the effort, (and the risk from giant mosquitoes) I’m all for it. I remain unconvinced. But what the heck.

And I agree, the Kennedy clan’s objection to offshore wind generators is just shameful.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 12:08 AM | Link to this

finch,

How many moons passed in the last 3 days? What difference does it make if someone shows you whether ANWR oil is worth it in monetary terms? The Government isn’t opening an oil business, they are just licensing the companies that will do the drilling.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 12:20 AM | Link to this

finch,

Why are you posting a baby mosquito? Every time my wife asks why we only go to Anchorage in the winter I show her this.

By Ricky

February 2, 2006 12:24 AM | Link to this

Hey did everyone see in Alito’s first ruling he sided against Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. I guess that all those anti-Alito groups that just swore he was he was an arch-conservative and just like Scalia were wrong after all. How suprising.

By Andy

February 2, 2006 05:01 AM | Link to this

In a January University of Maryland poll of Iraqis whose results are mixed news for the U.S. war effort, a few positives stand out: 77 percent of Iraqis thought the war to oust Saddam Hussein was worth it, even “considering any hardships you might have suffered.” Sixty-four percent said the country was headed in the right direction, a bump up from previous polls.

By Andy

February 2, 2006 05:29 AM | Link to this

The venom is bubbling on websites like Kos, where Tuesday afternoon, after the Alito vote, various leftists wrote in such comments as “F—- our democratic leaders,” “Vichy Democrats” and “F—- Mary Landrieu, I hope she drowns.” The old union lunch-pail Democrats are dead, the intellects of the Kennedy and Johnson era retired or gone, and this—I hope she drowns—seems, increasingly, to be the authentic voice of the Democratic base.

By Andy

February 2, 2006 05:32 AM | Link to this

Remembering the men and women of Flight 93 isn’t a self-indulgence but a duty. One senses in the Shales review the sneaky little suggestion that those who would remember, and who would tell this story (based by the way on the surviving telephone and other harrowing tapes of that flight) are in fact being political. But one suspects it is Mr. Shales who is being political. Maybe he fears those stupid Americans will get all emotional if they revisit part of the horror of that day, and go out and do something bad. Let’s not speak of it lest the rabble be roused.

What a snob.

You wonder at the intemperance of angry young lefties and then think of the example set for them by exhausted old lefties.

By Andy

February 2, 2006 05:34 AM | Link to this

Since Rep. John Murtha made his splash in November with his call for an American troop withdrawal from Iraq, there have been no stories about Robert C. “Kit” Murtha in the Post. In fact, the Post has never mentioned Kit Murtha. A quick Lexis Nexis search turns up only a dozen or so mentions of “Kit” Murtha, Robert C. Murtha, or Robert Murtha in the last 15 years. Who is “Kit” Murtha?

He’s John Murtha’s brother — a Washington lobbyist who reeled in more than $20 million for his defense contractor clients in the 2004 Defense appropriations bill. And the Pennsylvania (democrat) congressman is the ranking Democrat on the Defense appropriations subcommittee, which he also chaired for six years before Democrats lost the House in 1994.

By Objective Observer

February 2, 2006 05:46 AM | Link to this

R.W.: Four sites mentioned, one with nekkid pictures (yours). I see what you meant about odd. O.K., I’ll show my a* on “The Corner”.

By buff

February 2, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this

finch, RW

Right on about the oil off Florida’s coast. And, what about all the shale out West?

And, sure glad I have some Exxon stock

By buff

February 2, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this

I went back and read some of my disparaging remarks about CSK fro last night, and, in a more “sober mind frame,” I stand behind every one of those insensitive and intemperate thoughts

But, just to reveal that I am fair, I felt the same disgust when Richard Nixon croaked and Bob Dole, a pol whom I liked, went on a crying jag at Dick’s funeral, I nearly lost my supper

Again, I cannot stomach idolatry

By Objective Observer

February 2, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this

An unexpected day off. Pink-eye epidemic in my group. What to do with myself….clean the house. I’d rather be with the kids.

Buff: I remember Dan Rather crying when Kennedy was assassinated, I was just a kid, but my Dad had the same reaction you do.

By buff

February 2, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this

0-0

What kind of pooch do you have?

We have an OLD Red Bone Coon Hound, and a three year-old Beagle

What to do on your day off, hmmm, have you read the Da Vinci Code, or, 1776?

By The Grinch

February 2, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

Did you guys see the almost tearful speech from Rep John Lewis and Joseph lowery on CSK’s passing? They are sad that they can’t bang it anymore…..

By Objective Observer

February 2, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

Buff:

Buddy is a mutt, stolen from a guy who raised fighting dogs. He was kept tied under the house. Cannot eat his food unless he is lying down.

I do so much reading at links from this site, that info is leaking out of my ears. I will go to a link, and get distracted by some of the articles in the margins. I am easily lost and missing in action.

Sweet and touching fictions are my reads, peppered with a little Koontz. Odd?

By Mike Parker

February 2, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this

Neo-con same as neo-trash

By The Grinch

February 2, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

Mike, I know you just like saying Neo-con. It’s the “In” word for the liberal losers…

By Brian Curtis

February 2, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this

It’s fairer than “pinko,” and more polite than the (more accurate) “fascist.” I wouldn’t complain too much. Liberals’ greatest fault is their tendency to show the slightest degree of decorum or respect for the far-right sickos trying to bring down America.

And Bush complaining about oil dependence is the epitome of hypocrisy. I’ve seen more believable preaching on street corners.

By Objective Observer

February 2, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

Buff:

Here’s another book if your looking to be happy in life. A must read which should be given at each birth. You must read and read and read. Don’t let it out of your hands, because you’ll be wanting it back to read and read and read.

Achieving happiness is hard work, but well worth the effort.

By buff

February 2, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis

I am a traditional conservative

I believe in smaller govt.

I believe in gun rights

I do not think that the govt has any business telling women what to do with their ovaries, although, I personally find abortion abhorrent

I think the govt takes way too much of MY money

I think welfare, with some exceptions, is parasitic

I believe that many govt. function, such as the USPS, should be privatized

I believe3 we need a drive through lane for the death penalty, however I also believe a higher standard of proof should be required before the DP is used

I am for a strong national defense

I am for term limits

I hate lobbyists

I want to drill in Alaska and off Florida’s coast

So would you consider me a “far right sicko” or “fascist?”

By gadem

February 2, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

The Grinch you seem like you are angry for some unknown reason….why all this hate towards CSK? You seem like Andy II, only he is a little more knowledgable with the things that he says. You just spout off opinions. Andy atleast takes the time to look things up.

By The Grinch

February 2, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

Gaydem, where is all this hate I have for CSK you speak of?

By Brian Curtis

February 2, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

Buff: Nope. You’re not a fascist OR a neocon… just a libertarian-style conservative.

I disagree with you, but I don’t think you’re a genuine threat to America like the Bush cronies are.

By gadem

February 2, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Just your comments…if it is not hate to you, then I don’t have time to teach you. Love Thy Neighbor….isn’t that a Commandment.

By buff

February 2, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

BC

Thank you, that is my ideology

And, I despise racists and sexists

By Objective Observer

February 2, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

Gadem:

I think the difference lies in one’s definition of love. And we must add the second part of that philosopy “as thyself”.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” —Norman Thomas, former U.S. Socialist Party Presidential Candidate

The above quote is my fear, now that kind of love can easily end up as an abusive relationship without love for anyone but itself. As it is now, eight years is all we’ll have to tolerate from any one leader.

By physicsDawg

February 2, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

finch, 10:58PM. Don’t they call that one the “bow-tie”? I’ve been through it many time over a 3 year period (2000-2003) DC wasn’t as bad as I was warned, after growing up w/ Atlanta. I thought both were about the same.
Traffic is just like supply/demand. If you make better roads with faster commutes, More people will move here. When traffic is horrendous, people try not to move here, and the status quo is kept.

By physicsDawg

February 2, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

Speaking of Spaghetti Junction. I once spun out and hit the wall at the top of (one of the 2) tallest ramp. The one from I-285 coming south, going to I-85 north. I was in a Geo Metro w/ 13” wheels. In had just stopped raining, and I was going just under 55 and must have hit a greasy spot. I did a 180 and ended up hitting the wall with the driver’s side rear 1/4-panel. Scary, but I was actually safer than had I been in an SUV. There’s definately no danger of crashing thru the wall in a Metro. And, I had no fear of flipping over: the roof-line of the Metro is barely higher than the height of the Wall. For the record, I don’t own the car any more, a much Beefier Maxima now, but I still don’t go over 50 on the ramp, even when it’s bone-dry. (usually it’s more like 20 in traffic)

By Eric

February 2, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

For five long years Dubya has been a meaningless and gratuitous occupier of the Oval Office. If you’re an idiot who votes for an idiot, I guess you get what you deserve.

By buff

February 2, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

physics

I hate that junction. Maybe b/c of my dislike of heights, but, you were lucky

By getalife

February 2, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

coc, what coc?

By Objective Observer

February 2, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

Getalife: Have you lost something luv?

By getalife February 2, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this coc, what coc?

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

So Eric, what qualifies as an idiot in your lexicon? Is it merely someone you disagree with politically, or are there other criteria? I’m curious.

By Objective Observer

February 2, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

Dr.R:

Possibly a moment of frustration with a supervisor or co-worker prompted the post on a quick break. I don’t know about the “idiot”.

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

Well, since he has yet to respond I’ll weigh in. We seem to have two “tones” of political debate in this blog and other outlets: Those of us who think rather than merely react emotionally can disagree with others without casting dispersons on their character, their clothes, their facial expressions, etc. (with the notable exception for the sake of humor, to which all public figures are fair game. I love a good Dubya joke in the right context). Then there are many, quite a few in this blog, who take the tack of “I disagree with you/your party/your political leaders, meaning that you’re all stupid, mouth-breathing, illiterate, immoral and unsophisticated clods who can’t walk and chew gum without falling down.”

GWB is a president who has taken strong stances and polarized many folks. On some issues, I back him: I believe in his aggressive approach against terrorists and a strong stand on foreign policy. On others, I’m disappointed: I believe he has spent too much money, been too complicit with the social right wing on interfering with people’s lives, and engaged in shameless election-year pandering with his disastrous Medicare plan. Having said that, I acknowledge that the man is not eloquent or a gripping speaker. Yet he has a BA from Yale, an MBA from Harvard, has accomplished much in business, and twice been elected to the nation’s highest office. So agree or disagree with him, you have to concede that the man has some ability.

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

Re: Andy calling other people disrespectful [Bad Andy!(http://www.adweak.com/PAGES/FEATURED/FeaturedReview1127.html)]. Did I mention Dominos is very conservative?

Re: This cartoon.

Look. Bush is hailed for his highest virtue being loyalty. He demands loyalty from everyone in the Republican Party. If you go against him in any way, he comes down on you with a hammer.

So if Bush is primarily focused on loyalty, does it REALLY take a ROCKET SCIENTIST to figure out that a man from texas, by texas, and of texas is going to have lots of friends involved in oil?

Is it REALLY that much of a conspiracy theory to note that oil prices have skyrocketed under the current administration?

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

So what did the Bush-Cheney oil barons in the West Wing do to drive up prices? Please fill me in on this, because I am of the impression that the markets for such commodities are not guided from the Oval Office, though some of you seem to think otherwise. Convince me.

By Scooter

February 2, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

Dr. R, you beat me to it, kinda. But I shall give my response anyway.

SW, no, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist per say, but it do take someone knowledgeable in global market economies. How much power do you think Texas oil companies have over the global market? Do you know that governments own many of these oil companies, Venezuela, Russia, Britain. Which one does Texas own? Granted, I know they have an influence, I just don’t see it being as big as you seem do. Multiply their influence by adding more temporary supplies of oil from ANWR, Florida, Oil Sands from Canada. After that temporary drain from those reserves we will hopefully be well on our way to other forms of energy.

By Ava

February 2, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

Uhhh, OO— Dan Rather wasn’t the one crying on the air when Kennedy was assassinated. It was Walter Cronkite. (I’m assuming you meant JKF— as far as I know, none of the newsies boo-hooed on air when RFK was killed, but I could be wrong.)

By Ava

February 2, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

Sorry, OO— that should’ve read “JFK” (my dyslexic typing strikes again)!

By buff

February 2, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

So, what do you peopel think Exxon does with all that profit?

Some of it goes to investors, some to R&D and some to employee benefits and retirement

Oil price is set by world markets

Finally, no one forces you to buy any oil products

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

The problem is a lack of understanding of how economic policy is shaped. Too many of you bought the Clinton-Carville notion that the economy can be “handled” or guided from the Oval Office like you’d drive a bus. Truth is, (and pardon me if you’ve endured this metaphor from me before) the economy is a huge ship and the government is a little tugboat; it can nudge it along and guide it in a particular direction, but it isn’t driving.

Too many folks with a shallow knowledge of public policy and economics make the assumption of “bad economy, high prices, oil cost too much, must be president’s faul; economy good, lots of jobs, prices low, must be president’s good work.” That’s a simplistic approach that more enlightened souls know isn’t so. But politicians like to play to the simple-minded and fuel those false notions when it works to their advantage. Don’t buy it. Think for yourself and learn what’s really going on. Bush probably had more influence on oil prices when he worked in the business than he does now.

By getalife

February 2, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

Mr. Murtha for Sec. of Defense, when the Dems. win in 08

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

OK, let’s assume for the moment that the recent articles indicating record profits by oil companies are hyperbole (and I only say this because there are always counter spin talking points put out against such things and I don’t want to waste time on them).

How would the oil companies affect oil prices? Have you LISTENED to the market reports about WHY the prices are high? Yes, the cite demand from such countries as China and India, but the primary reason the prices are high is because of SPECULATION.

Stock prices are valued on PERCEIVED value, which makes the extremely sucesiptible to manipulation. Oil prices are the same way; moreover since they are a global market, there is no WTO equivalent of the SEC standing over the speculator’s shoulder to ensure that they toe the line.

Buy higher than you need, then sell short. Anyone with a basic understanding of a financial market and sufficient cash can do so; and oil companies have LOTS AND LOTS of cash.

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

You cite a lack of understanding of economics, but I counter, anyone with a real understanding of business understands that it isn’t WHAT you know but WHO you know, and if you don’t believe the Bush Administration has extremely close ties to the oil industry then I’m sorry for you.

You want to talk conspiracy theory? Bush’s father was the HEAD OF THE CIA. There’s wacko conspiracy theory stuff. If there was EVER anyone in a position to pull or use secret levers it would be the Bush family.

But you don’t need that kind of stuff when you can just look at the news and derive common sense from it. The most cited common reason for increase in oil demand are problems in the middle east (which, by the way IS something the white house control over, easily, by simply wording press releases a certain way they can massively affect markets) and demand in India and China…but the TEMPORARY spikes always come from problems in the middle east, but if it happens enough the temporary spikes become perpetually high.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Mothra makes John Kerry look decisive when it comes to defense.

I see Bush had his weather machine send some twisters your way, any problems with them?

By getalife

February 2, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

You keep forgetting the party in power is a culture of corruption. You have to factor in the laws written for special interest. Closed door meetings and not swearing in to testify may have something to do with it, don’t ya think?

By Daniel

February 2, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

gal: Great post! Dr R: We might be able to answer your question if we knew what went on at the secret energy meetings between the White House and Big Oil.

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Do not EVER talk to me about the need to support the war in Iraq to ‘support our troops’ if you are only willing to support those veterans that share your political beliefs.

By getalife

February 2, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

RW,

Major storms last night but no problems here.

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

By “Support” I mean “Respect.”

By Cynthia McReynolds

February 2, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

I’m noticing a leftward slant both in this paper’s news and editorials. Then, I come to this page and see that all your comments come from leftists as well. Maybe if you considered making your paper more mainstream, you would attract a wider audience. Normal Americans don’t agree with your hatred and fear mongering. Next time you’re criticizing a conservative for being an “extremist”, take a look at the log in your own eye!

Cindy, Navy engineer from California

By Daniel

February 2, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Bush government is real simple: “Big dogs eat first”. Ain’t no “Big Dogs” around here. Every once in awhile we see a few “Morons and troglodytes”, however.

By Dusty

February 2, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Dr. R., Your moderate and thoughtful approach in your opinions is —well—moderate and thoughtful. I wish I could be as moderate but find it a harder and harder status to maintain. You see, I think the president has GREAT ability. He has pulled this country through three major disasters. Of course they are 9/11, Iraq, and Katrina. And of course, their completion has not been reached. Could you tell me how these things can be done on the “cheap”? How can we make a decision on Medicare’s prescription drug program when it has just started with both ups and downs for seniors? What really throws me off my “moderation” are the uncalled for insulting and untruthful comments, reports and cartoons. I find that dispicable and not dissent. Mostly it seems undercover political warfare urged on by ambitious politicians, using unethical means. Everything is not OK but the terrible lies said about our president and country do not help. Patriotism is not politically correct. THe president presented challenges in his speech. I’m for that, not for demolition of the values we have held so long in this country.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

getalife,

That’s good to hear, he must not have as much control over tornadoes.

If you want oil company execs sworn in, then bring them to Congress with the full knowledge that it will be sworn testimony and not an informational visit. It is completely unfair to bring people to a Congressional hearing, without their legal representatives, under one premise and change the parameters of the hearing when they arrive.

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Maybe they are mainstream.

Maybe if all you do is listen to people who agree with you it becomes easy to believe that ‘normal’ americans automatically think what you think and that anyone who doesn’t is a ‘liberal’.

And yes Andy, I am AM a Commie Mutant Traitor Pinko Democrat Liberal. Now. I might go back to being Republican when they stop rewriting the dictionary for their own political means.

And no, ‘but they did it first’ is six year old logic, it is not an excuse.

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

If your point is that our policies in the Middle East indirectly affect oil markets, yes, there is no denying that. Global politics affect global markets for all products, not just oil. And if you want to make the case that we’ve been in bed with the shieks and the ayatollahs for far too long to keep the pumps flowing, then we can find agreement. But that’s not just a Bush-Cheney production; it’s been going on for decades, with leaders from both parties complicit. Until we wean our economy off a high demand for oil, which will take decades, we have to make bad choices and prop up some pretty nasty characters over there.

As to the clandestine energy meetings, who knows what went on? I’m trying to imagine what kind of under-the-table policy the administration could impose that would drive up oil prices. If someone wants to enlighten me, I’m all ears. Keep in mind that spikes in oil prices actually hurt the party in power because of people’s belief that government policy is the sole driving force. Do you think GWB and Darth Cheney are acting to fill the pockets of their oil buddies at the expense of their political cronies in Congress? And if so, how long do you think the Congressional leadership would sit idly by while it happened?

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Cindy,

There are voices on the right here as well, we have just been a little busy this morning. If you notice a very recent comment…oh at about…12:46, some of the liberals are so obsessed they are talking to conservatives that aren’t even here now.

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

I WAS a staunch republican but that slowly became eroded over the last 10 years until it got to a point where every word they say drove me to a fit of apoplectic rage.

Militant secular humanism with political correctness is bad.

Taking those American values that people like to talk about so much, like honor, freedom, balance and moderation and using them as a smoke screen to advance the agenda of an elite few is worse.

If you never question those who proport to have those values but routinely exhibit behavior diametrically opposed to them, you do not have a true understanding of those values.

Freedom means being able to make choices. If you respect freedom, you allow them to make those choices.

Honor means holding yourself accountable to the law and your own values. It does not mean putting off accountability to the last possible minute. It does not mean failure to follow your word. It does not mean making exceptions for those who are conveniently your political allies. It means making the touch choices in the hard times; and it ALSO means not taking rampant political opportunism at a time when we really SHOULD be ‘united not divided’.

By Daniel

February 2, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Dusty, Honey, it’s time for your nap. Bush hasn’t pulled the country through anything. 9/11 was a government failure, pure and simple. The Iraq War? Perhaps you haven’t noticed. The War is ongoing, never ending, a mess and 300 Billion more than Bush said it would cost. Katrina? Please talk to someone in New Orleans, or Pass Christian. Now, turn off the TV, pull the plug on the computer and go read a book.

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

“But Clinton did it to” is not an excuse.

I’m glad that we agree that the covert diplomatic idiocy that has gone on between the nation that is the example to the world of democracy in supporting theocratic despotism is unfounded, wrong and stupid.

If the President bully pulpits that we need to stand for democracy, and to make the HARD choices, then that means making the REALLY hard choices like standing up to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Not just the easy ones.

By getalife

February 2, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

RW,

Time is ticking for the levees to be repaired before the next season.

It is awful warm down here and I think next season will be bad.

By Voice of Reason

February 2, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

Dr. - I admittedly don’t know a great deal about this public policy you speak of, and I’m even more ignorant when it comes to driving markets and stuff.

But as an honest, productive taxpaying citizen, I think that’s a huge reason these things should be more transparent. (Secret meetings and the sort)

Otherwise, the common sense portion of my brain looks at what I can see - meeting with the Saudi Prince, undercover energy meeting and rediculous oil prices - and starts to wonder.

The company’s $40 billion profit was actually $80 billion — the fed got the other $40 billion in taxes. That would help finance a war that was supposed to be financed by Iraqi oil.

I don’t own a tin foil hat or anything, but defense lawyers use worse reasoning to get murderers acquitted.

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

I read a lot of books pal, so allow me. The 9/11 attacks were a government failure, but not just the Bush government. We had ample opportunities to strike al-Qaida in the years leading up and offered only token resistance. The very notion of “connecting the dots” to forestall attacks are the basis of criticism for the administration’s current policy of wiretapping overseas phone calls from terror suspects.

Iraq is an expensive mess, but like many things in life, a necessary one. As ugly as it is now, the prospect of leaving a murderous despot in place with a large arsenal, numerous terrorist ties and a lack of respect for international law is worse. It is easier to do nothing and let regimes arm themselves and link up with terror networks. Bush made the hard, if ultimately unpopular choice, of removing Saddam 12 years too late so we could start the process of bringing that country back in line with the civilized word. You know, when you have to knock down a hornet’s nests, they fly around and sting you for awhile, but leaving it hanging on the porch is not the answer.

Katrina was a hurricane; we do not have the technology, at the public or private level, of stopping a hurricane. Yes, FEMA was inept and response was slow; likewise, state and local governments were equally impotent and unable to act decisively (if you want to find an overmatched pol, check out Gov. Blanco, perhaps the most inept public servant in the nation). But even timely and effective government response can’t save every life or fix every problem when a disaster of that proportion strikes. Get over the idea that everything bad is the fault of the government, and specifically the president. Ain’t so.

By buff

February 2, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Dusty

I just heard Rush say that there will never be a famous moderate

You know, I think he is right

By Dusty

February 2, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

Daniel, Your inbred pessimism is getting the best of you. Tell your lost Democratic Party to come out of their hole and see if they can find springtime. You can’t even find any Democratic leader that could match the shadow of George W. Bush. Tough times for you, Daniel. Why don’t YOU wake up instead of giving us a poor loser’s song & dance?

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

By the by, the word edited in my last missive is “ar-senal,” which is clean.

Voice, not getting your drift. I agree secret meetings are no good, but that doesn’t mean sinister policies are always the result. What’s more, if oil companies forked over that much in taxes to pay for the war, isn’t that a good thing? Don’t folks on the left want corporations to pay more taxes so we don’t have to? And if the war is over oil, as many contend, would you not want the companies to help pay for it? Frankly, I think they would have preferred to leave Saddam in place; disruptions in regimes are bad for business in the short term, and that’s all most of those guys care about.

Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer and a drug addict, so whatever he has to say is of little consequence. A moderate, by his definition, is someone who does not hold strong views because they don’t toe the accepted party line. In other word, if you don’t agree with everything the GOP or the Democrats propose, you’re a “mushy moderate.” That doesn’t account for many of us who can think for ourselves, independent of party positions, who have very strong views on many issues but don’t always align with the same partisan stance. In his parlance, as with many in here, everything my guy does is good, everything your guy does is bad, and if you even listen to the other side you’re a weinee. In other words, the ninth-grade approach.

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

Senator John McCain is a famous moderate.

Then again, according to Rush “Its ok to make fun of Washington D.C. for reelecting Marion Berry for smoking crack cocain but if I use drugs it was a Democratic Conspiracy and Frogmarching Prosecution” Libaugh defines ‘liberal’ as anyone who disagrees with his point of view; ergo, no one can ever even BE a moderate by his world view, ergo no one can be famous by his definition.

By getalife

February 2, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

Yes, be optimistic like Dubya and everything will be fine. Not. Dubya lives in a bubble and does not want reality in his world. Lie, smear or stonewall is his favorite past time although it is catching up with him and the coc.

It is great to have ml around to bust the bubble, don’t ya think?

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

I agree that taking down the hornet’s nest of Saddam was good. I also think that knocking down the hornet’s nests of Saudia Arabia, Russia and China would be good too. China would not BE the economic power that they are now if we hadn’t been trading with them for the past 10 years, no matter what the Europeans would have you believe. Most of China’s growth has come from US companies.

As a complete aside….we do have the technology to stop a hurricane…we just can’t do it and have the land underneath it be livable.

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

Other famous Moderates:

Teddy Rooseevelt.

Bill Clinton. [And if you don’t think he’s a moderate, ask a flaming unapologetic liberal, not just a ‘liberal’ like me who now wears the mark with pride because of the fascists/ignoramusus who wear the ‘conservative’ brand…which is by the way stupid, I agree, but if it p** off the ‘conservatives’ more then I’m unfortunately forced to.]

Abraham Lincoln [If you don’t think this, you don’t know the Republican Party of the time very well.]

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

It’s just nonsensical name-calling by a guy who gets ratings by being outrageous. Don’t use Rush, or for that matter his yang, Al Franken, as a representative of fully digested political views. George Will, Thomas Sowell, David Brooks, Tom Friedman, sensible commentators from right and left are the ones who represent views of people who appreciate the intellectual approach to politics. It means nothing to call someone a “liberal” as a form of insult if you’re not willing to engage in why you disagree with their positions on substance. But for many, that will lead to overheating that unused portion of their brains that is reserved for porn and Beavis and Butthead rerurns.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

getalife,

If ever there was a living example of someone living in a bubble, it’s ml.

ShadowMarch,

Isn’t there somebody that claims to have a chemical that can be dropped into a hurricane that takes the moisture out of it and robbing it of it’s strength?

By Dusty

February 2, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

Buff, thanks, I think. I don’t listen to Rush. I am having trouble being moderate and will never be famous. So what is the alternative? Can Libertarians cover all shades of balance, good & bad, patriot & traitor, multi-shaded zealots? Our politicians seem to be branding themselves in all kinds of ways. Are there any real moderates left?

By Voice of Reason

February 2, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

But in essence Dr., we did pay. The profits came from the $3 at the pump we pay and the ridiculous heating prices. The oil companies made those profits because of what we had to pay.

I’m not saying that’s what happened. I’m just saying that it’s interesting. Interesting in the same sense that gas went up to $3 even though the stations were still using the $1.80 gas; and gas prices went down to $2 while they were still using $3 gas.

Isn’t it possible the gas crisis was a smoke screen, and the whole oil issue is alternative financing?

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

Rush has also used, “I am an entertainer, not a journalist” as a defense against lawsuits for outright slander against him.

If you get your political opinions from an entertainer, may I suggest the three stooges? It is far more appropriate given the current climate.

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

RW: Heck if I know. I know people that REALLY know science and while I know some, that wasn’t what I was refering to.

I was refering to dropping 40-50 Hydrogen bombs into the thing. The force would entirely disrupt the force of the storm….it would, however, for obvious reasons, not be a preferable method of solving the problem.

By buff

February 2, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

Dr. R

I must disagree with you about Rush’s statement

He is conservative, but just disagrees with leftists. He claims that moderates really have no core beliefs. From an ideological perspective I think he is right

Moderates want to be “fair” and take safe positions

When you look at history, Rush is right

Lincoln was no moderate

FDR was no moderate

LBJ was no moderate

Reagan was no moderate

As for Rush being an addict, yep, but at least, as far as we know, he got hooked because of seeking pain relief, not recreational use

I do think there is a difference, do you?

I had a good friend, a lib, who got hooked on Oxy because/c of a bad auto accident. She sympathizes with Rush

I took the stuff for ten days one time, and it is highly addictive

So, for that reason, I cut elRushbo some slack; I do not cut him any slack for ridiculing Ozzy osbore and other dopers

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

Voice, I don’t deny there may be much fishy afoot with the rise in oil prices. Those of us old enough remember the same from the 70s, when Democrat Jimmy Carter (ugh!) was in the White House. My point is that I don’t think the oil barons need Washington help to engage in such price-fixing. They have proven the ability to do it on their own without any government help. Maybe they just told Cheney what they were up to and he’s keeping their secret for them (a likely scenario, I would concede). Shady and sleazy, yes, but hardly the work of a sinister plot at the highest levels of government. Exxon can raise your gas prices; George Bush can’t.

I’ve been hogging the floor here; let me back out and let others weigh in.

By Mark

February 2, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

“You just heard Rush say”

You’ve lost all credibility on this blog just by stating that.

By buff

February 2, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

I advocate a complete cessation of all welfare programs

Walter E. Williams makes some good points. How in the hell did we get where we are today?

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2005/09/21/155654.html

By Mark

February 2, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

I guess later you’ll be telling us about the great revelation you just heard from Sean Hannity.

By getalife

February 2, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

Rumsfeld just got heckled and he said, ” we will consider her undecided.”

Just like the cartoon. At least, he does have a sense of humor unlike Rush and Ann.

By Voice of Reason

February 2, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

I know there is probably more to it than I understand Dr., but when these people are your friends and partners, it’s hard not to notice a little conflict of interest.

Nevertheless, I have no issue with putting gas in my car - how else can I work to pay taxes. It just bugs me a little that the president and most of the other extremely wealthy say everything in America is great. It’s not! It may be for them, but it’s not so great for the working middle class.

By buff

February 2, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

get

Did you have any storm damage?

By The Grinch

February 2, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

I am taking a poll and need your help. Please answer truthfully…

How many of you wear Birkenstocks?

How many of the women here do not shave their armpits?

How many of the men still live with their parents?

By buff

February 2, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

get

Rush has a great sense of humor

Coulter is as mean as a snake, but can be entertaining

I just enjoy talk radio, whether I agree with the host or not

I DO NOT like Hannity; I quit listening to him when people started telling him that “Sean, you’re a great American, and he accepted the honor. What a gasbag

By buff

February 2, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

Well, y’all have fun. I am off to an incredibly boring and unnecessary meeting, but at least the food will be good

By getalife

February 2, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

Buff,

No, but a lot of wind and rain. It woke me up last night. It is beautiful today, warm with blue skies.

New Orleans needed another storm to wash the funk.

Boehner is the new coc leader.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

I can tell you what you will hear on Hannity’s radio show today. For three hours you will hear, “Tonight on Hannity and Colmes we have…..”

By DawgBite

February 2, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

Moderates do have core beliefs. The difference is that moderates have room in their belief systems for a broader spectrum of issues and are more likely to see the bigger picture. Too many hard core liberals and hardcore conservatives are one trick ponies when it it comes to issues. They seem to latch on to one issue that blinds them to all else going on around them. Abortion is a prime example.

The problem with Rush was that at the same time he was sitting on his pompous a@$# bashing everyone else with addiction issues, he was doctor shopping and popping. His character was no better than those he was bashing. I guess that falls under the category of hypocritical.

By RE

February 2, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

Math Problem:

Say your country is 8.2 trillion in debt.

Each year your budget is 200-400 billion in extra debt.

At 5% interest, how long will it take you to be out of debt?

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

Yeah, I’m working class and trying to get by just like you. But what can the government do about it? What do you want the president to do? What policies would you promote to ease our burdens that won’t make them worse? I’m curious …

By the by, Teddy Roosevelt was our greatest president ever. Progressive on domestic issues, ahead of his time on race, and a hard-a$$ on foreign policy who wasn’t afraid to use the big stick to protect American interests. But in the Rushbo lexicon, you’re a moderate if you’re not all or the other. Same with John McCain; he’s a hawk on the war and against pork-barrel spending, but he’s willing to let the states decide who gets married. That makes him a wish-washy moderate to the party faithful. If you don’t drink the Kool Aid and swallow the whole platform, you ain’t a real conservative in their eyes.

By Mark

February 2, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

Rush has great sense of humor? Really? Then why isn’t he a comedian? Oh wait a minute, he is. That’s why he should be treated like Howard Stern when it comes to political analysis. We never mention Stern in this blog and Rush should be forbidden also.

Coulter? Entertaining? She’s a beanpole that righties think is attractive. Feet larger than clown shoes. Her commentary is so far to the right she makes Hannity blush with embarassment.

By getalife

February 2, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

I have to hand it to Rush. When I do oxys it is hard enough to function and he does a talk radio show. I guess his tolerance level is extremely high.

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

Problem I have with talk radio is that it seems geared to a less-educated audience, basically truck drivers and the unemployed. Those of us who went to school, read a book and have jobs aren’t free in the middle of the day to tune into their screeds (though how we find time to blog is a related issue and a mystery to me at this point; let’s just say I’m multi-multi-tasking.)

I like an exchange on issues that focuses on substance, which includes respect for those who dissent. But if you call one of the talk icons and take issue with anything they say, they cut you off and call you names. It’s just silliness.

By Voice of Reason

February 2, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

Not really sure what he could do, but killing that tax break is a good start. He-ll, Ford is about to get rid of 30,000, yet they got a $250 million tax break. The health care thing was a joke and a giveaway.. but i digress

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

Dr R & DawgBite,

You both may have a point about what a moderate really is, but the moderates Rush is talking about are the ones that take any issue and try to find the middle ground without any regard to how far left or right the parameters are set.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

Dr R,

I’m calling a beer penalty on you. If you call Hannity, Rush, or Boortz and disagree with them they put you at the top of the call list and you go right on the air. You better have your facts straight, though.

There is also a study that says talk radio listeners as a group are far more educated than any other media consumer group.

By Mark

February 2, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

RW it alsmost sounds like you’re trying to make “moderate” out to be a bad term. What’s wrong with trying to find a middle ground?

By Dusty

February 2, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

Uh oh, Dr. R. just fell off his thoughtful pedestal. Good old suspicious scenario! Chaney is smart, rich, former Haliburton top dog, Republican vice-president. So there is a likelihood of sleaze & shadiness with oil coompanies? On what grounds?

Dr. R., you have your own little pride & prejudices, don ‘t you?

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

I’m saying he’s a politican, so it’s possible. Few are worth trusting and all bear watching, even the good ones. I admire Big Time, actually, and I don’t think he fits the image many have of him as the evil manipulator behind the curtain. Same way I don’t think Bush is a simple-minded idiot, or all liberal Democrats are anti-American commie traitors, or Ted Kennedy is a womanizing drunk … wait, that last one fits, actually.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

Mark,

The point isn’t that they find a middle ground between an inherently left vs. right position, it’s that they (and I’m talking about the ones Rush is talking about) try to find the center of anything.

For instance if the poles of the argument were forced insemination of 18 year old women vs. forced insemination of 20 year old women, instead of saying you’re both nuts they would settle on 19 year olds.

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

I think you’re giving Rush too much credit for thinking this out, which he hasn’t. Most who are defined as “moderates” don’t do as you say and seek safe common ground. The majority are fiscal conservatives who believe in personal liberty, and that just ticks the beejesus out of the right wing so they cook up another label to insult people.

Do I have to get off my pedestal to accept my beer penalty? Hey, I’m all over the map with a lot of stuff here so don’t hestitate to bust my chops. Maybe I should have a talk show; waddya think guys?

By buff

February 2, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Dr. R

The study mentioned about talk radio listeners was by a big time Michigan professor (cannot recall his name), who, along with a bevy of graduate students, did a HUGE study on WHO listens to political talk radio

Those listeners level of education was statistically significantly higher than the average

they were also much more knowledgeable of political and social issues, and earned significantly higher incomes

The argument that talk radio listeners are illiterate was just not true

By Scooter

February 2, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

Voice of Reason, help me thru this. Ford has been sleeping at the wheel while the world market has moved to more fuel efficient forms of transport, agreed? Bush starts instability in a region of the world that produces mucho oil and this contributes to higher gas prices, agreed? Now, the Board of Directors (BOD), of Ford and GM, find themselves not pruducing the revenue to maintain as big a work force and you want government to tax them more? That is where I need some help.

By Mark

February 2, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

I think they would say you’re both nuts. I think moderation worked best when Clinton was in office. We had the Dem in the WH and repubs in charge of Congress. The whole goverment was basically in moderation with the two sides pulling equally in their direction. That lead to things like balanced budgets and low unemployment with real wages. If you ask me, let the repubs keep the house and senate but give the WH to the DEMS in ‘08. Seemed to work for the best in the ’90s. One party rule sucks as we are witnessing right now.

By buff

February 2, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

Higher Power, thank you for a canceled meeting

Dr. R

Can you name a moderate pol great?

And, I do not think Teddy R. was a moderate. he was left on some issues, right on others, but not moderate on those issues

He had firm ideological beliefs, which I think moderates have

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

Dr R,

You may have noticed that I said your definition of moderate is closer to reality, I just told you what Rush means when he says “moderate”. I’m not making this up, honest!

I think you can accept your beer penalty anywhere you want, but my definition of beer penalty is slightly different than ones you might have heard of in the past. Mine means you have to buy all of us a beer.

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

Mark, I like your point on sharing power. A little gridlock in D.C. isn’t always a bad thing. Both sides go too far when they have too much power. If only they’d talk to each other rather than lob grenades, we could see some worthwhile results …

I can’t name a successful moderate pol under the definition provided by Rush the Maginificent. I can’t even think of a mediocre pol who fits, even. I seem to recall Rush referring to McCain as a “moderate” or a “liberal” though the good senator supports Bush fully on the war. Correct me if I’m wrong there and I’ll buy another round.

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

I plan little or no compromise in my core beliefs. I am a moderate. (Except in the capacity of calling myself liberal to p** off ‘conservatives’).

I believe we should support democratic governments only. We do not deal with, negotiate with or support in any way shape or form a government that is not democratic. For countries that are willing to TRY we give some time, but only if they are making REALISTIC progress, not just pretend progress.

I believe that abortion is morally repugnant and murder. I also believe that the consequences of government enforcement of this will result in perpetual enslavement of women, and is also reprehensible. Moral pressure, not governmental fiat is the best way to accomplish this change of heart.

I believe that drugs are a cancer in our society, but I believe that the laws used to enforce them are hypocrital and improperly enforced. We waste billions of dollars on a program that simply doesn’t work. I believe prevention and social presser are the only ways to change this.

I believe that if you do not respect your opponent, no matter what they believe, then you cheapen your own position. I also believe that I am a human being, and I have a threshhold, so when people call me a Pinko, even after knowing that term represents McCarthyism, then I will throw that respect out the window and tell you what you really are.

I believe that we live in the greatest nation on the face of the earth, but humility is a path, not a destination, and if you act arrogant you can expect to be taken down a peg.

I believe hypocracy is wrong, and that while I might occasionally do hypocritical things, I do my best to avoid them. I also know that generally speaking the first to point out the flaws and hypocracy of others are themselves the greatest offenders.

I believe in the power of science and technology, but that these two institutions do not hold all the answers to the meaning of life. I believe that those who are arrogant enough to mock the beliefs of others through subtle use of film, media and commentary will be shown in time to be the hypocrits that they are.

I believe that every religion is equally valid, and that those who mock my religion or some other religion will be coming after me next, which forces me to be extremely hesitant in forming any kind of alliance with them.

I believe in the power of capitalism, but also believe in a pragmatic understanding of human nature and observed history. Adam Smith was visionary 200 years ago, but speculative bubbles have repeatedly shown that there must be SOME regulation on business or there will be no checks on their behavior whatsoever, as recent observation has shown.

Moderates do have beliefs, they simply do not correspond to the viewpoints of radicals. We anger you because we choose our own path rather than letting a few people in think tanks choose it for us.

And in a nation where 45% of the population are radically polarized in memelocked alliances on every issue in irrational linkages, we could be the people with the true power, if we only had the courage to do so. Being 10% can be frightening because you are outnumbered 9 to 1 or it can be empowering if you realize that 45% is not a majority and that you should demand to be heard.

Like Alaska (Bridge to Nowhere), West Virginia (Byrd Porkbaraling), Iowa (We say who is president), or New Hampshire (We Say who is president too.)

“I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own”-the Prisoner.

By buff

February 2, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

Yes, gridlock is a good thing

The three biggest expansions of federal power have been under the presidencies of:

FDR

LBJ

GWB

One party in charge of D.C

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

I prefer Libertarian myself. It offers a more easily identifiable label, when such is required, than a malleable, indistinct term like “moderate.” It means we stand for free markets, free choices, individual liberty and personal responsibility. Government should do what we cannot do for ourselves, like raise an army, pave the roads and print money, but leave the rest to individual citizens. We should be responsible for paying for doctors and saving for retirement, among other things. We rise or fail on the strength of our own talent, work ethic or pure luck. Live free or die. Don’t tread on me. Fifty-four forty or fight. Tippecanoe and Tyler, too.

Waitress, another round for my friend here ….

By buff

February 2, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Dr. R.

I used to be a member of the Libertarian Party; that is where most of my beliefs center, and voted Libertarian for Prez in ‘00 and ‘04, but dropped out of the party

When they came out against attacking Afghanistan after 9/11, and a great deal of other non-defense issues, I quit ‘em

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

“Equality of Opportunity, not Equality of Result.”

I agree with the principles that you mentioned, but I also believe that I am far more ‘liberal’ in the Libertarian spectrum. We need Federal government money for research, regulation of industry and empowerment of schools, because individuals do not exist in a vacuum. Class warfare might be stupid, but that doesn’t automatically invalidate all the points it makes. Rich schools perform better than poor schools. There must be some regulation or there will be exploitation….that is why we need government, because there are crooks and weasles who will exploit anyone or anything, and every party has them.

But the princple…that of which goverment should do that which we cannot do for ourselves, liberty and as little government as possible (and meaningfully so, not just pretending to say so and increasing its size ten fold) are things I all agree with.

By Mark

February 2, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Explain your definition of “expansion of power. (Not that I disagree)

By getalife

February 2, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

Since ya’ll like the editorials here so much, Jay is posting here

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

“Expansion of Power”=Spending more money than we have.

Rule # 1 is that we do not increase taxes and we do not go into debt. Period.

Rule # 2 is that there are lots of things that people want to spend money on many different things, we can agree to disagree about what to spend that money on, but if you waste OUR money, you get nothing.

And waste is so rampant it isn’t even funny. Priority number one is not spending less, though that is important, it is making it a crime so heinous that even the crooks will think twice about it.

Which, by the way, would mean that virtually EVERY leader in Washington right now would be behind bars.

By buff

February 2, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

Shadow

If I read you right, you think you are part-libertarian, right? These views aer highly anti-Libertarian. But, maybe I read you wrong

We need Federal government money for research, regulation of industry and empowerment of schools, because individuals do not exist in a vacuum.

But the principle…that of which government should do that which we cannot do for ourselves, liberty

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

Yes. I’d love to join the libertarian party….but all of their candidates thus far seem to me to be loons. Maybe I haven’t seen enough of them.

That, and having voted 3rd party many times, I got burned when I saw that Ralph Nader didn’t even have the common sense to stay out of the race.

Third parties are a good idea…but the part of the ‘all the other countries’ model they want to base their ideals upon mandates that they must COMPROMISE to form a government…ie there are times where they must put their differences aside for the greater good.

Nader didn’t do that.

Perot didn’t have the courage to finish the race.

Until I see a third party candidate that actually has the means, the guts and the smarts to make the other parties AFRAID, I’m a pragmatist.

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Well, like any political philosophy, there needs to be wiggle room. While I prefer Libertarianism as a starting point, I do agree there are exceptions to any party-line rules. One is on opposing our war against Islamic thugs; the party was out of touch on that. Does no good to stick to your guns if the other guy’s guns are shooting at you. The world is full of bad guys; we need to kill them.

Another is carefully tweaking our government’s role in domestic matters to ensure a level playing field, as our friend Shadow points out. Sensible leaders start with a certain paradigm but show a willingness to listen to alternatives and bend, ever so slightly, to accommodate changing realities. That’s not being “moderate” or unprincipled; that’s being pragmatic. Government works better as a practical application of ideology rather than a sealed off think-tank of ideology cast in stone.

In other words, as Joe Q. Citizen, I don’t care about your views on Ayn Rand today; just fill in the f—-ing pothole in front of my house, willya?

By Andy

February 2, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

I never thought this could be so hard to understand but, then again, we are dealing with a political movement that thinks “Bush Sucks!” is a policy objective:

$30 a barrel times 8% profit equals $2.40 times, let’s say, 1 million barrels a day equals $2.4 mil per day profit.

$60 a barrel times 8% profit equals $4.80 times, let’s say, 1 million barrels a day equals $4.8 mil per day profit.

Which all adds up to record profits! Go figure! How did he do that?

I guess the oil execs could be leading double lives as Iranian mullahs or maybe Chinese profit driven reformists so there is still hope for our crackpot theory. Drive On Pinko!

By Voice of Reason

February 2, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

Scooter - I never said I wanted the government to tax Ford more. I think the tax break is ridiculous in itself. But I’m not the biggest fan of corporate welfare whatsover. It’s the price of doing business. The Ford family and their executives aren’t missing any meals or mortgage payments. If you can’t keep up, move out of the way and make room for the next guy. Isn’t that what conservatives call free market.!?

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

Right, except that if the market forces were working then that 8% should be reduced. Liquid normal gas is a shadow monopoly, and thus like any other utility should be regulated.

Regulated means we get to tell you how much profit you can make, and you don’t go make 8% when if you actually WERE a market, demand would decrease that to 4%.

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

Shadow Monopoloy=Lots of different gas stations which all belong to different companies but get their product from the same oligarchy of sources and distribution methods.

A monopoly by any other name is still a monopoly.

By Andy

February 2, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

Corporate Welfare! Workers in Bondage! Slave Labor!

Airlines prefer to offer relatively generous concessions to unions rather than seeing those planes sit idle during strikes.

As a result, in the boom days of the 1990s, wages rose 43%.

And it wasn’t just wages and work rules (thanks to a web of complex regulations, United pilots got paid for 81 hours of work a month but only flew about 50) - like other legacy airlines, United also made very generous pension promises to its employees, often as a way of extracting at least some wage concessions from ornery unions. Some pilots could accrue $140,000 a year after reaching 60, the retirement age mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Think of General Motors, another old-style giant in a highly competitive market where generous wages and pension benefits and 2.5 retirees per active worker helped rack up $4 billion in losses for the first nine months of 2005 and have left the automaker with junk-rated debt.

Oh, the horror!

By getalife

February 2, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

Cartoons cause problems

By Andy

February 2, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

Look’s like the House got their new Boy Scout leader:

Boehner elected House majority leader

I wonder if they’ll all have to take an oath?

By Voice of Reason

February 2, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Andy - Was there a point in there somewhere?

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

How can you say in one side of your mouth that unions are bad and support capitalism with the other?

Capitalism demands that an individual can charge for a valueable commodity (in this case a valuable skill) and also allows for the formation of associations to ensure that the quality and value of that skill is given a specific fixed price?

If a CEO can pack a board room with yes men to give them an inflated salary, why can’t a union? And unlike a CEO, a union only answers to its own members, whereas a CEO is robbing from the real owners of a company, the stock holders.

So long as membership of a union is purely voluntary, unions are excellent manifestations of capitalism. And yes, if a union works out better benifits, then only members of that union should be able to get them, so long as people who aren’t members of that union can still get a job doing the same thing that the other union members can’t.

By Voice of Reason

February 2, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

Why do you think company’s always cave to striking workers? Because without those workers the company doesn’t exist! So if your company is making money the people turning the wheels deserve their fair share.

The same goes if your company isn’t performing. Corporate welfare is a big deal because if I can’t pay my mortgage because I’m burden by taxes and increasing utility bills, Uncle Sam isn’t coming to bail me out.

By Andy

February 2, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

ShadowMarch: That’s a ridiculous statement, should the oil companies cut worker’s pay and benefits in half?

Have you reduced your consumption by half?

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

If the workers are getting bonuses corresponding to the extra revenues earned, no.

If the corresponding costs were representative of the price, then certainly not.

But if you expect me to believe that the oil companies have had to hire twice as many workers and drill twice as many wells as a result of the increased price then you’re sadly mistaken.

There is little difference in my mind between the current profits that they are making and the jerks who sold gas at $4.00 a gallon right after Hurrican Katrina, the only difference is that they have better PR people and are doing it slowly so most of us don’t notice.

By Andy

February 2, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

Why do you think company’s always cave to striking workers? Because without those workers the company doesn’t exist! So if your company is making money the people turning the wheels deserve their fair share.

So we should let the worker’s set the pay scale by extorting the owner. Maybe that’s why the owner goes out of business and sheds his pension plans, you reckon?

By Daniel

February 2, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

Five more US Servicemen killed in Iraq in the last 24 hours. Isn’t Capitalism just great! Fat cowards sit in front of their computers while others give their lives, for a lie.

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

One man’s extort is another man’s ‘fair market value’. Wal Mart is ‘extorting’ the rest of the market place by offering cheaper prices by outsourcing to countries with slave labour.

By Andy

February 2, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

Daniel: If you pinkos are so concerned about some deaths, why would you let the murderer of children go free to kill some more? Is it mental?

Yates Released From Jail, Heads to Hospital

Oh, I forgot, liberals enjoy killing children, it’s their right.

By buff

February 2, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

In today’s world, union exist to get people more $ than they are actually worth

Oh yeah, they also exist to pander to the Socialist Democratic Party

And, what do y’all mean by “level playing field?”

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

That’s nice Daniel.

I am fighting for our country by sitting in front of my computer, because if I can convince just one person that the war is a bad idea or that the policies that led up to it are a bad idea, then that is just one less person who supports the current situation that we are in.

Capitalism IS great, and if you don’t see that, you don’t understand it, or don’t acknowledge the whole of the evidence.

The war in Iraq was justified, but it was also initiated for the most corrupt, dishonorable and greedy motivations imaginable. Had we gone for the reasons we SAID we were going, we would not be in the mess we are now.

By Andy

February 2, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Let me offer an example of how to correct a wrong without perverting the law: When Hollywood started shoving it’s liberal agenda down movie goers throats, Conservatives quit going to the movies. Now Hollywood is swirling down the toilet bowl of history.

Stop shopping at Walmart and stop using oil if it offends your little pinko sensibilities. Simple, ain’t it?

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

So you believe that a CEO is worth $20 million?

If there are 100 people who have a skill that no one else does, then the demand for that skill would naturally dictate they would be earning $20 million…..

There are very few pilots, but if the people that control the work that they do all get together and say, “We will pay this much, no more” then that natural force is diminished.

Collusion works on both sides. Most unions ARE corrupt, inept and evil institutions, but the principles behind them most definately are not.

By ShadowMarch

February 2, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

I don’t shop at Wal Mart unless I have no other choice.

I don’t do business with institutions that are corrupt.

Way ahead of you Andy….

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

I guess Communists never felt compelled to die for a cause. Unless you count rotting to death in one of Stalin’s gulags.

Let’s separate a little. You think the war is wrong; fair enough. Not sure how that indicts capitalism (many who support one reject the other) or even fat cowards sitting in front of a computer (trust me, you don’t want my blind, pudgy self defending liberty with weapon in hand). So your point is ….?

By Daniel

February 2, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

The Republican Party has been hijacked by the most inept, greedy b*stards imaginable. They went to War because “Sleeves” Bush thought it would be good for his image. I.e. “The War President” These scumbags send other peoples kids to die. No Bushies there, no kids of Senator’s or Congressmen, no rich need apply. Bush has betrayed America. “Morons and Troglodytes” included.

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

Sigh … OK, back to reality here. Whenever we have a war, for whatever reason, valid or invalid, it’s going to be “other people’s sons” sent off. Those are the folks who volunteered — we have no draft, by he way, in case you missed that piece of news — and knew exactly what they were doing. And nearly all of them, right now, will tell you that they want to finish the job they started in Iraq despite the heavy toll.

Think for a minute: Do you really want a hysterical parent making decisions on foreign policy, based not on what’s best for the world in the long run but on his beloved child’s well being? I’m not defending Bush here, just the notion that any government worth having is one that makes objective choices and operates on logic, not emotion. If we chose not to sacrifice “other people’s kids” 60 years ago, the Euro would have Hitler’s profile on it today. Is it just Iraq you object to, or do you think no cause is worth fighting for?

By Brian Curtis

February 2, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

Dr R: True, but since war always involves the slaughter of innocents, that’s why it needs to be an absolute, last resort.

Bush didn’t even TRY anything else; he decided that he wanted to overthrow Saddam, and it didn’t matter if there were better ways to contain the threat—a threat we now know was nonexistent anyway. (Whether he and his administration knew that, or when, is another matter.)

No, I’m not saying there’s no such thing as a just war—but this one in Iraq certainly doesn’t qualify.

By Andy

February 2, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

ShadowMarch: Did you stop using oil too? You too can make a difference.

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

I think 12 years of UN resolutions is trying to resolve it. We gave diplomacy every option, but Saddam was too entrenched in his UN-financed (oil for food) palaces to comply. He kicked out the weapons inspectors in ‘98, as Clinton and the world watched and did nothing, and only allowed them back in under the threat of our military. Yes, we could have contained him, we could have waited longer, but ultimately he had to go sooner or later. As big of a mess as Iraq is now — and there are bright spots among the roadside bombings — leaving him in power to deal with terrorists and threaten Israel was not an option.

I respect sensible opposition to the war, and I don’t denigrate your views. I do ask this: Go back and reconstruct what would and should happen had we not deposed Saddam. How do you see it playing out under a different scenario?

By Daniel

February 2, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

I’m VFW, I don’t need a lecture about war. If the War on Terror is indeed, a great threat to the USA; the Nation should be mobilized. The Leadership of this nation lacks the courage to rally the people. Bush is a fraud, a phony, a coward and a rat. He lied to us and he continues to do so. Bush wil NEVER mobilize the nation. So, its someones elses kids who die. Tell the rest of your claptrap to Tammy Duckworth.

By RE

February 2, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

Dr R

I know about 5 people who are in Iraq or have come back recently. 2 of them are regular service and signed up for any military action. The other 3 could not afford college without support and went into the national guard. They figured they would be on national disaster duty (hurricane, floods, riots, etc..) not fighting a foriegn war. Yes this is an all volunteer army, but what they were told they were volunteering for is not the same as how they are being used.

By Objective Observer

February 2, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

Ava:

Thanks for the clarification. I was just a kid, but I believe you. Walter huh!

By Dusty

February 2, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

OH, so much beating around the bush with this & that. I believe in this country. I support this country. I understand why we are at war in Iraq. I support the troops. I economize in every way that I think will help the economy (and my bills). I listened to the president and he makes sense. Is practical intelligence too much for some of you? (Or self evident truths?)

By DawgBite

February 2, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

Moderates should start a 3rd party. Two parties controlled by wingnuts and ideologues obviously doesn’t work anymore. Americans shouldn’t have to choose the lesser of two evils every time they go to the polls.

By Daniel

February 2, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

Does a Volunteer Army mean they are expendable? BC has it exactly right. I served under DDE, he knew a little about war. War should be the last, last, LAST resort. But the puke hole of the Bush White House saw our troops as a means to an end. What right do we have to invade a sovereign nation? There are a lot of bad people in the world. Do we kill all the people we don’t like? Our fight is here. The fat neo-con cowards running this country are a greater threat to the USA than terrorism.

By RE

February 2, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

Dawg,

Moderate parties will not work, the vast majority of the electorate are pushed by devisive issues that they see as threats, it does not matter if they are real or not. Gay Marriage, Abortion, Gun control, taxes, Stem cells, these are the things that get people out to vote, and these are also the issues usually forgotten about the day after the election. A reasonable fiscally responsible candidate who would refuse to vote or take a position on socially devise issues would not be elected.

By Midori

February 2, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

I really like this toon, Mike.

Seems folks are waking up

By Midori

February 2, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this

Great toon, Mike!!!!

One by one, they are waking up

By Liberal Texas Democrat

February 2, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

ShadowMarch posted: “Do not EVER talk to me about the need to support the war in Iraq to ‘support our troops’ if you are only willing to support those veterans that share your political beliefs.” Thank you for that

By DawgBite

February 2, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

It does seem that the ones who have sacrificed the least, love war the most doesn’t it Daniel? And the biggest scoundrel of them all has to be Dick Cheney. He chased every deferment available to avoid service yet he is the biggest chicken hawk of them all.

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

I think we all agree war should be a last resort. Where we apparently differ is on whether we had reached that point with Iraq. We certainly have not with the other nations that now pose concerns, and as long as diplomacy is an option, it should be the route to a resolution. But when the time for military action comes, whenever it is, our soldiers know what their duty is and they perform it admirably.

On that note, Daniel, I salute you. We may disagree on some points, but your time in uniform gives you all the credibility I need. Thank you sir, for your service. I’ll indeed not lecture a veteran who has paid his dues. Sometimes wisdom is knowing when to shut up.

By buff

February 2, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Midori

I posted this the other day, but you never responded; must have not seen my rec

I found a good, cheap Chardonnay “Lineman’s”

By Daniel

February 2, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Dawg: You said it. I believe in America. We have been defrauded by our government. Bush lied to all America. We will pay for the Bush excesses for a long, long time. None of them are any good. Our country is in the hands of the worst elements of The Republican Party. There is hope. I believe we can get this right.

By buff

February 2, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

WalMart does hurt small businesses, but, think what positive effects occur

With cheaper products consumers can buy “more stuff”

And, I have never heard of WalMart Mart forcing consumers to buy, nor forcing anyone to work there

By DawgBite

February 2, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

RE, alot of what you say is probably true. But I think a 3rd party takes some of the leverage away from the ideologues. Both wings would have to give and take sometime to get the votes needed to pass their legislation. And if the wingnuts didn’t want to deal, they would choke on their own agendas. The object of a 3rd party initially would be to exercise some control over events so that those in the middle are not constantly run over roughshod like they are now. As it stands moderates get nothing in this ideological war to the death being waged by the wackos.

By Daniel

February 2, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

Dr R. It’s not that hard to figure out. They are incompetent. They told us it would cost 1 Billion and take three months! They lied. They lied about the WMD. Iraq in its strongest moment was 100 times weaker than the Soviet Union at its weakest. We’ve been hoodwinked, pal. Taken for a Texas ride with a “two-bit” cowboy. All hat, no cattle. America is the loser. 300 Billion and counting, years later, no end in sight. Brent Scowcroft, of the GHWB White House had it right: “Once we get in, how do we get out?” We need patriotic leadership that loves America more than money and power.

By DawgBite

February 2, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

buff, surely you have seen JibJabs “Big Box Mart” spoof. It is a rather credible prediction. Wal Mart would like nothing more than a country that can only afford to buy at Wal Mart. And they are doing everything in their power to see that come to pass.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

buff,

I just left a WalMart. If they don’t do something about their checkouts the days of low prices are numbered. All but one register was self service and half the time the items didn’t scan. Every person I saw stole something whether they knew it or not.

By DawgBite

February 2, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

Can someone explain to me why before the smoke had cleared from the “liberation” that the president found it necessary to sign an executive order giving immunity to contactors who commit contract fraud in Iraq? That is taxpayer monies they are stealing. Remember the massive over charging for meals not served? And interestingly enough the feds just busted some guys in New Orleans for the exact same thing that Mr. Bush immunized them from in Iraq.

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

I don’t so much feel “lied to” so much, just the fact that faulty intelligence was used to make a case for war. But I still think we’d have to go in and get Saddam eventually, one way or another. I don’t buy the “sovereign” nation bit. This guy was a brutal, despotic tyrant who tortured and killed anyone who opposed him, who stole from the UN to build his palaces and likely fund his weapons program (whatever stage it was in), and whose ongoing threat to Israel would have eventually brought that nation into the conflict. Someone has yet to paint for me a picture of what the region would be like had we not acted. If I buy your notion that we should not have gone to war, tell me what should have been done instead. I’d really like to hear a viable alternative.

I’ve said this before: I think much of our involvement in Middle East conflict has been to keep Israel from striking out on her own. If and when she does, there will be no concern about collateral damage or sparing civilians; Israelis will kill every living thing they can get in their crosshairs. The response, in turn, will be World War III and Out, and we’ll be sending our brave boys over there anyway, only with far more enemies to fight in a far more dangerous battle. Two-thousand casualties is horrible, but 10,000 or more in a worldwide war is far worse.

By Midori

February 2, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

But why do these countries keep electing lunatics?

By Daniel

February 2, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

This is vintage Bush. Rewards his friends. Insulates them from responsibility. They steal like hell. (No one can account for a missing 8.9 Billion). Then, take out an ad that says how great things are going. Deceit, built on a lie surrounded by a body guard of deception. Oh, by the way, the corporations make substantial contributions to the republican Party.

By buff

February 2, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

Dawg, I will check that out, I love Jib Jab

RW, that is why I quit Sam’s Club and began with Costco

Much better service, better checkers, and a better clientele

That Sam’s Club in Marietta is a joke

By Liberal Texas Democrat

February 2, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this

RW posted: “I just left a WalMart. If they don’t do something about their checkouts the days of low prices are numbered. All but one register was self service.” Which is one of the reasons I don’t shop WalMart. They don’t pay me enough in savings to do someone elses job. Going to the check-outs with cashiers can be a 15 to 20 minute ordeal, (even with the WalMart tv over the register). Working minimum wage a persons time is worth at least $.06 a minute times 2o that’s $1.20. At the SuperCenter in this town that’s about the average savings on all items purchased compared to the prices at the HEB. The HEB, though smaller, has better quality, nicer “associates” and, according to Buy Blue. Com the family that owns it contributes heavily to the Democratic Party. When ever possible I buy blue.

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

And to the Democrats. There’s nothing partisan about corruption; it cuts both ways. Right now, the GOP is the majority so they get the biggest slice of the corruption pie. When the Dems are back in control, it’ll go their way. Too much power, too much incumbency, too much emphasis on re-election, too much insulation from the real world. A pox on them all.

Hey, I hear the GOP got a Boehner to lead them in the House today. …

By DawgBite

February 2, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this

Midori are you talking about our lunatics? The ones we keep electing?

By getalife

February 2, 2006 05:13 PM | Link to this

I think the Pentagon trying to cover their a-ss on this war is the joke.

Rumsfeld took it well. They do not want Americans to see the reality of war.

Check out awitness.org.

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 05:16 PM | Link to this

The day is nigh and duty calls. Thanks for a spirited discussion. You’re all great Americans, whatever anybody says about you.

By getalife

February 2, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this

On a lighter note

By Objective Observer

February 2, 2006 05:41 PM | Link to this

Getalife:

I’m guessing that Boehner wasn’t your choice. Shadegg, am I right. I saw all three of them in an interview, and Shadegg seemed less influenced by lobbyists, but I wondered how effective he would have been.

But I agree with you, we shouldn’t have to choose either or, ethical or effective. All candidates should be effective and ethical.

By Joe Roman

February 2, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this

Did y’all get a load of that quote from NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy? “The Superbowl transcends the host city and even the country.” I think this guy should retire the trophy for pompous pretence. Think the NFL is maybe just a wee bit too full of itself? Jeez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 05:51 PM | Link to this

Joe Roman,

That’s classic, do you know if it’s posted anywhere?

By DawgBite

February 2, 2006 05:51 PM | Link to this

The only lobbying allowed should be at the ballot box. No one should have more influence on elected officials than the electorate.

And please don’t throw that argument at me that these guys are lobbying for our interest. They take care of the interests of those that pay them. And that usually works against we the people. Totally co-opts the system.

By getalife

February 2, 2006 05:54 PM | Link to this

OO,

His first comment should have been about what he was going to do to try to get some trust from the people back. Of course, he didn’t address the issue. GOP members should push him to address the issue.

I can’t wait to get to Vegas.

By DawgBite

February 2, 2006 05:54 PM | Link to this

Politician/prostitutes Lobbyists/johns Special Interests/pimps

Need I say more?

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 05:55 PM | Link to this

DawgBite,

How do you get around the First Amendment in your “ban the lobbyists” scenario?

By RE

February 2, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

Dawg,

That is the way our system is set up, it really only allows a 2 party system. There is a reason there is no other govt. like the US govt. Every country that moves toward democracy uses a parlimentary system like Isreal and England. And now Iraq as well. In order to change sytems we would have to scrap the constitution and start over again. I would much prefer a parlimentary system, that way if you do not have to split the difference on party affiliation. You can have a fiscal conservative party, an enviornmental party, a religious right party, a secular party…etc

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 05:57 PM | Link to this

getalife,

The one on the left certainly lives up to the name.

By getalife

February 2, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this

RW,

I will hang out there or the Hard Rock .

I wonder if I can get free wings with my beer if I play the poker machines.

By Dusty

February 2, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this

I think Dr. R. is either a psychologist or a police mediator. This smooth over ruffled feathers with compliments is sweet. Unfortunately, I can’t think highly of Americans who say “fat neocons running this country are a greater threat to the USA than terrorists”, whatever they claim about their military record. Benedict Arnold was in the military too but that didn’t make him a patriot either.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 06:02 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I would think so. I wonder if they will have those wires running through the casino to slide the orders to the kitchen?

By Kurtis R.E. Segars

February 2, 2006 06:03 PM | Link to this

AJC, I can save you money. Fire Mike and pay me half what you pay him. Everyday I will submit a drawing of the words “Bush Sux!” and you can run it where you normally run Mike’s cartoon.

By RE

February 2, 2006 06:04 PM | Link to this

Terrorists can blow up a building, corrupt politicians can bankrupt a country

Which is worse

By getalife

February 2, 2006 06:05 PM | Link to this

RW,

Don’t know but will let you know the first day I arrive.

By getalife

February 2, 2006 06:07 PM | Link to this

They are both evil doers.

By Objective Observer

February 2, 2006 06:08 PM | Link to this

Funny R.W. I was about to guess that the one nearest the camera would be his personal choice. I wonder why?

By DawgBite

February 2, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this

RW, seeing as how the courts have deemed the donation of large sums of money and the giving of “gifts” speech, that is probably impossible. However, in the purest sense, speech should apply to the spoken and written word. It is ludicrous to call donations of money and the giving of gifts “speech.” There is not a person on this blog that doesn’t know that the sole purpose of money is to buy something. Gifts and other gratuities are given to gain influence. Speech is expression. Money purchases. Gifts influence. Money doesn’t express. It buys. And if you have no money in this system you have no voice.

By getalife

February 2, 2006 06:11 PM | Link to this

OO,

You know me too well. I will play the machines in the bar. A dozen naked hot wings extra blue cheese and a picher of Bud Light please.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 06:11 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

That’s what I would think, unless they also have to be blonde.

By Dr R

February 2, 2006 06:11 PM | Link to this

I’m neither, but thanks for the thought (Hah! You thought I was gone! So did I …) I just choose not to feed angry vitriol with more of the same. Disagreement is healthy, and a spirited debate over issues is a good cleansing agent. Some of us just don’t do it very well. Regardless, I shan’t lower myself to standards I deem unworthy of a high-minded discussion. That’s why I prefer to address those few who choose to converse on that level, though it’s hard to avoid getting caught up in the scrum. We’ll try again tomorrow.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 06:14 PM | Link to this

DawgBite,

Have you ever read the 1st Amendment? It has a few more things than speech in it. Like the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

By getalife

February 2, 2006 06:15 PM | Link to this

Like her?

By DawgBite

February 2, 2006 06:18 PM | Link to this

You’re right RW. But politicians still should not be owned by the highest bidder. Kind of renders going to the polls an exercise in futility seeing how these whores abandon the electorate as soon as the first dollar changes hands.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 06:19 PM | Link to this

getalife,

If she’s going to dress like that she should comment on my blog.

By getalife

February 2, 2006 06:19 PM | Link to this

I think Mike should comment on the uproar on cartoons today.

By getalife

February 2, 2006 06:20 PM | Link to this

RW,

I bet you thought I was going to link her site. Again.

By DawgBite

February 2, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

And only those only those who pay get their grievances addressed. And their petition is green.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 06:23 PM | Link to this

DawgBite,

I really think the only solution that would work is term limits at every level of Government.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 06:25 PM | Link to this

getalife,

You aren’t talking about Musa, are you?

By getalife

February 2, 2006 06:26 PM | Link to this

Don’t know, got a link?

By DawgBite

February 2, 2006 06:26 PM | Link to this

Correct. To include the presidency. Six years and out. And a 10 year waiting period before former lawmakers can lobby the gov.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 06:27 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Look in your favorites, you shared it with us before.

By Objective Observer

February 2, 2006 06:27 PM | Link to this

Getalife:

That snarl on her upper lip is familiar. I prefer mine on a sexy man

By getalife

February 2, 2006 06:30 PM | Link to this

OO,

Do you like him because he likes torture?

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 06:38 PM | Link to this

DawgBite,

I would leave the President with the possibility of two four year terms. Six years with no prospect of a coming election is too long. I would also get rid of the 17th amendment and let Senators go back to representing the interests of their State.

By getalife

February 2, 2006 06:38 PM | Link to this

RW,

You mean this link in my favorites?

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 06:40 PM | Link to this

getalife,

No I did not. I left you a new one at your site.

By getalife

February 2, 2006 06:46 PM | Link to this

RW,

Thanks. Man Tom Toles is all over the news.

By Objective Observer

February 2, 2006 06:49 PM | Link to this

Getalife:

I see I have revealed way too much about myself

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2006 06:54 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

Is this you without the whips?

By Daniel

February 2, 2006 06:54 PM | Link to this

gal: Where do you get this stuff?

By getalife

February 2, 2006 06:57 PM | Link to this

OO,

Just what I thought. I tried to post pictures but ml censored me.

By getalife

February 2, 2006 07:00 PM | Link to this

Daniel,

Google images and put in what you want. I get a lot of links from blogs.

By Objective Observer

February 2, 2006 07:06 PM | Link to this

Getalife:

It’s a good thing you have your own site where anything goes.

R.W.: Facial similarities & coloring, but I’d have to see a plastic surgeon for loftier balloons. It’s hard to say because I never leave home without them, whips that is.

By TNTIrish

February 3, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

Great cartoon! It’s like the pusher’s boss saying there are addicts in the streets.

Mike Luckovich

Mike Luckovich

What's on this page →

Categories

Browse and Buy cartoons

Buy Mike's new book

Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. M-F

Recent entries

RSS feed

Comment Removal Request

Access Atlanta Blogs

News & Features

Opinion

Health

Sports

AJCJobs Blog

Ajcpets Blogs

Evening Edge Blog

Luckovich cartoon changes address!

Slippery speech

Comments

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Advertising

AJC Sites

Special Reports

Blogs

Opinion

Blogs

Topics

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Topics

Features

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Mike Luckovich

Mike Luckovich

What's on this page →

Categories

Browse and Buy cartoons

Buy Mike's new book

Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. M-F

Recent entries

RSS feed

Comment Removal Request

Access Atlanta Blogs

News & Features

Opinion

Health

Sports

AJCJobs Blog

Ajcpets Blogs

Evening Edge Blog

Luckovich cartoon changes address!

Slippery speech

Comments

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Advertising

AJC Sites