Mike Luckovich

By Andy

February 8, 2006 06:59 AM | Link to this

Well, at least Achmed hasn’t started sawing baldy’s head off yet. Is that the next frame, tomorrow’s edition?

It’s good that you pinkos can laugh about such things. I consider the fact that these Muslim religious extremists, which make the “evil” Christians look like flower children, will never assimilate into civilization to be quite a sobering thought. If they can’t come to accept infidels, what alternative is there to living peacefully together? Should we shower them in government services, turn them into passive wards of the state, like we are?

Is this that hard to follow?

By Mike

February 8, 2006 07:30 AM | Link to this

I’m new here so forgive me for asking something that may be obvious, but what the hell’s a “pinko”? Fifty years ago it referred to Communists, but there aren’t any of those left except in Cuba and I doubt there are any Cubans posting here. So what’s the new meaning?

By DawgBite

February 8, 2006 07:51 AM | Link to this

It means absolutely nothing when Andy calls anyone a “pinko” Mike. You will find that if that it is actually a badge of honor when Andy calls you that. Besides, Andy has some views that make him a good fit in Cuba or North Korea based upon his views on individual freedoms and liberties.

By finch

February 8, 2006 07:52 AM | Link to this

Nice cartoon, Mike. Hope you aren’t offending anybody!

Are Muslims over-reacting to the Danish cartoons?

This writer in The Wall Street Journal seems to think so.

“There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else… The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers.”

I wonder if Syria’s Basir Assad and Iran’s mullahs will tell the teeming masses about this?

Probably not.

By DawgBite

February 8, 2006 07:57 AM | Link to this

Good morning finch. It is good to see another “pinko” here this morning. I am proud to be a “pinko”, how about you?

By AntiRadical

February 8, 2006 08:04 AM | Link to this

It this scene were real world instead of a toon, the sword would have the inscription “made and paid for in the USA”.

By Jocko Harolds

February 8, 2006 08:11 AM | Link to this

All the pen does is inflame the Muslim radicals to more violence. The only thing they respect is the ability to destroy them with greater violence, so why hold back?

By AntiRadical

February 8, 2006 08:18 AM | Link to this

Money is more powerful than the pen or the sword. Why not have a national tariff in which our food prices rise proportionately to foreign rises in oil and any other imported items. Oh yeh, “playing politics with hunger”. Isn’t it funny how when the oil producing countries raise their prices, thereby making it much more expensive for us to produce food for them, THEY aren’t guilty of “playing politics with hunger”???

By gadem

February 8, 2006 08:24 AM | Link to this

Andy, were you able to go and meet Bush?

By Scooter

February 8, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this

I will be in the field today but am glad the self proclaimed pinkos have come out to enlighten us yet again.

Mike the newcomer, you would be surprised how many of the anti war protest are organized by the communist party, they are very active and should not be ignored.

Mike L, this is not such a bad cartoon. I hope the pen was stuck up a pigs rear end first.

By The Grinch

February 8, 2006 08:39 AM | Link to this

Gaydem, did you get to meet that sorry lowlife piece of crap John Lewis yesterday? That poor excuse for a man makes me want to puke. The man can’t even speak plain english for gods sake….

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this

Who’s picking up this tab? And on top of that, we are giving an additional $1.1 billion. Let’s just hope China is feeling as forgiving as we are.

By Liberal Texas Democrat

February 8, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

As a nontheist I never pretend to understand what motivates persons of any faith to call for the destruction of others, or the dismantling of the tenets of another’s faith. Seeing as it seems that it’s a religiously inspired thing, and applying Andy’s past pronouncements that Pinkos are bent on the destruction of this nation and civilization, (as a whole), one might consider the possiblility that God and or his/her adherents are Pinkos.

By gadem

February 8, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this

Grinch so Lewis and Bush both have something in common.

By candide

February 8, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

As we legitimately condemn Islam for its primitivism, violence, lack of belief in freedom, and bigotry, let us not forget where Islam came from: from the Jewish and Christian biblical tradition. Islam is a reaffirmation of the primitive semitic religion of the Bible. Christianity to a great extent (except in the Bible Belt of the South and MidWest) and also Judaism have abandoned much of the evil of their traditions but Muslims have not. Will they ever? I don’t know. I would like to be optimistic but I tend to believe that Islam will always be primitive.

So, go right ahead and attack it. But don’t let Christianity off too easily. When it could it also killed dissenters and imprisoned thought. We have our own ayatollahs and mullahs; they are called Southern Baptists.

By The Grinch

February 8, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this

Gaydem, let’s not forget Jimmy Carter……

Then there was Jimmy Carter. Some people refer to Carter as “America’s best ex-president.” Well, if you want to consider his empowerment of people like Kim Jong Ill and Hugo Chavez as good for America, then you may have a point. If measuring the worth of a former president consists of measuring his affection for the world’s dictators, then Carter is indeed one of the best. Carter used the occasion of this funeral to take a jab at bush over the NSA wiretaps. Carter has declared them to be illegal. Now he’s a judge and a legal scholar. Carter brought up the fact that the FBI wiretapped Martin Luther King. He didn’t mention that this happened under Democratic administrations. He also failed to mention that it was under a Democratic institution that tapes of those wiretaps, tapes purportedly showing instances of MLK’s infidelities, were surreptitiously sent to his wife

By gadem

February 8, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this

The Wench, please link to where you are copy and pasting from. Did you want and go hold Bush’s hand after he was verbally b-i-t-c-h- slapped by Rev. Lowery? Poor Bush everything was done in good humor, even he had to laugh. And unlike The Wench and Andy, Bush gave Lowery a hug, because he knew he had just gotten OWNED!

By getalife

February 8, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

By Andy, getalife: If I had a choice where to send my money, it’s true, I would rather give it to the Iraqis. After all, they are more appreciative. Plus, they don’t multiply into many many needy people quite the way you pinkos do. It has become a very successful career in America to be needy of my money. Should we shower them in government services, turn them into passive wards of the state, like we are?

Of course, Andy wants to give American money to those people.

By R Cagle

February 8, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

What is funny about religious fanaticism of any stripe that preaches destruction, violence, and death to the non-believer?

This whole cartoon business in Europe perfectly illustrates that it isn’t an issue of Islam vs. Christianity as many secularists believe (or East vs. West as Luckovich portrays it). Rather, it is Islam vs. the non-Islamic world, be it Christian, Hebrew, Hindu, Buddhist, or secular. They oppose our religions, yes, but they also oppose our values, freedoms, and representative forms of government. The concept of free-speech (and the accompanying caveats of restraint, civility and taste) simply don’t exist in their world. More importantly, they have demonstrated that they don’t want it to exist in our world either.

No, not all followers of Islam are burning embassies or advocating chopping off heads, but if a few cartoons that are only are only in bad taste to us can cause such an uproar worldwide, what will happen when push comes to shove with Iran or with the Palestinians? Today it is free speech. What will they insist we give up tomorrow?

By gadem

February 8, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

The Wench please explain this to me, I am confused on why Bush is so quick to tout “No Child Left Behind”, when in fact he is leaving the poor kids behind with no health coverage.

By finch

February 8, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

Good morning, DawgBite! It was refreshing to see you use the word “patriotic” in your definition of “pinko. Because that’s what we are.

Scooter,

Glad to see you self-proclaimed “Americans” are back to enlighten us yet again.

By Liberal Texas Democrat

February 8, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

If the polital statements made at a funeral are an extension of the deceased’s expressed politial viewpoints, why are they not appropriate? Would that not be like going to the funeral of Ronald Regan and failing to mention oh, say, the fall of the Soviet Union?

By physicsDawg

February 8, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

This one is pretty funny, so I’ll excuse its irrelevance. That is, I don’t think anyone in the West is claiming the pen is mightier. I think the Denmark toonists are probably laughing their a—es off that these whack-jobs get so upset over drawings. The fact that certain Muslims and Islamic regimes think that they have the right to be as offended at these as the sane world is when they behead someone, gives weight to the idea that they should be exterminated. Like the cockroaches they are.

By candide

February 8, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

A Georgia Court has held the exemption of Bibles and Korans from sales tax illegal. Good. Considering the evil these books have done I suggest an extra heavy tax on the sale of all religious nonsense.

By physicsDawg

February 8, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

R Cagle, good post. In Reality, the pen would only have been used to draw on his turban, and the reaction is a sword thru the skull…
It should also be noted, for any who haven’t followed from the begining, that the cartoons were not created to mock Moohammed right out of nowhere. They were a reaction to fear. Fear by other artists that if they illustrated a nice, respectable childrens book about Moohammed, they would receive death threats. It was nice of these 12 cartoonists to have the balls to find out, turn on the lights to see the cockroaches, if you will. What is next, indeed?

By candide

February 8, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

It looks like the Black Community is the only group with the balls to tell the Bushites to go to hell.

By ben

February 8, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

Candide: I think the “city too busy to hate” is showing it’s true colors. And you in particular. This was a post on a cartoon.

By The Grinch

February 8, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

Candide, are you aware that when you call christians “Fools” you are calling 99% of the Black Community fools?

By gadem

February 8, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

No Candide, that is not true. People are people regardless of race. Cindy Shehaan tried to tell Bush what she thought of him, but he kept running away from her. He was “too busy” to meet with her….yeah right, afraid is more like it.

By Say What

February 8, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

Candide, Clearly you are not heaping violence solely on Islam. Muslims have been in the country for decades living peacefully and paying taxes like everyone else. If you look in truth terrorism started with the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and the Night Riders after the civil war. Slavery was done in the name of Christianity as well as Jim Crow. Hell Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolf call themselves true Christians. I guess you could call them Christian Fundamentalists. The question is whose fundamentals are they talking about. The fact of the matter is that you have a very small group of Muslims causing problems for everyone else. And like typical white people you would rather lump the whole rather than look at the few. (At least I’m assuming you are white.) Should I assume you are racist because you are white. No I should not. Likewise you can’t assume that all Muslims are violent and backwards. The other half of the world views us the same way you view them. They view us as violent imperialists who have no love for God, just death. Today all the faiths have their hijackers. The problem is that when you are dealing with white people in America who run this country you are dealing with a lynch mob mentality. During Jim Crow and lynching, often times the mobs would lynch any black man they saw, not necessarily the one who did the crime. Same thing today with Muslims. One man who claims Islam blows himself up, now everybody who claims Islam is a suspect. If non whites were to treat whites purely off of their past we would truly live in a very violent society.

By gadem

February 8, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

The Grinch…where are you getting 99% from? A good majority of blacks that I know are Muslims….so please have facts before you start throwing out numbers.

By Pequod

February 8, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

I think it is time that the West supported the right of these European newspapers to publish the satirical cartoons which originally appeared in Denmark. This is not because I approve of their content, which I do not, but because they have the right to publish what they deem appropriate, not what a religion prohibits. I also express my support because of the completely indefensible tactics of threat, intimidation, and violence engaged in by those in opposition to the publication of these caricatures. Their actions should have been the primary focus and concern during this whole episode, not newspaper editors operating in an open free, liberal democratic society.

The press of Western liberal democracies is not bound by Islamic religious precepts, which apply only to the members of that religion. However, when people live in a society they must, to some degree, take that society on its terms, with its political values, and not believe that they have the right to challenge those values at their core by demanding censorship as these Islamists have.

Furthermore, there is also a clear double standard through much of the Islamic world as we have seen with the welcome reception and defense of the flagrantly anti-Semitic opening speech by the former Prime Minister of Indonesia, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, of the 10th Session of the Islamic Summit Conference in 2003. We have seen the forged, absurd “Protocols of the Elders of Zion� turned into a television serial and broadcast in Egypt during Ramadan to maximize the impact. Cartoons are regularly published in the Middle East depicting hook nosed Jews with bags of money and yet this is perfectly acceptable there. Why the double standard? I could provide a lengthy list of such examples of bigotry and discrimination stemming from the Muslim religion which are backed by governments in Islamic societies and they receive no attention or they are merely excused.

Many educated people in the West, terrorism aside, are beginning to view Islam as a reactionary and intolerant religion and one of the main reasons that the Islamic world is so technologically, socially, and politically backwards. Instead of attacking the Western press, blaming all their problems on the West and Jews, perhaps they should reevaluate their own views and bring themselves into the 21th century. But perhaps they prefer to bring about Huntingdon’s clash of civilizations.

By The Grinch

February 8, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

Gaydem, I somehow knew you were Muslim. Let’s go with 80%. You know its true that the majority of blacks in the USA are christians. I was not talking to you in the first place.

By ben

February 8, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Say What: Blacks never do any wrong? Is that your argument? Are you one of those who blame all of black societies ills on white oppressors? You, who are living in the most enlightened time for minorities in our history? Did I say perfect times? No. It will never be perfect. True, blacks are the only group who did not voluntarily come to this country, but we are talking 150 years ago. Get over it. You are in the greatest country in the world with the most freedoms. Enjoy them and use them. You mention the past. Leave it there. Move on. Honor and remember both black and white history but move on. Life is what you make it.

By Ava

February 8, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

Good ‘toon, ML. I’ve watched, when I can, the discussions about religion and its place (if it even has one) in our government; most of you have pretty dug-in views about it. As someone who values civil liberties above all, and tries to consider such issues with an even-handed approach, I was very surprised to come across this article touching on the tactics of the present-day Republican party and the Bush Administration in using people of faith to further their agendas. Anyone with half a synapse firing will recognize that Chuck Baldwin is a right-wing lunatic by almost anyone’s standards, but if even HE can see the corollaries described in this article…certainly gives one food for thought. Honestly— what do you guys think? Thoughtful opinions only, please; flamers will be ignored.

(http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin281.htm)

By gadem

February 8, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

Ben what in the Hell are you talking about. If you are having imaginary conversations, please do those in the privacy of your own head.

By SayWhat

February 8, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

Ben, the fact of the matter is that the start of the problems of black people in America started because of white oppressors. I know that you really know what it’s like to be black but you may be surprised that racism still exists in America. That being said, black people can no longer wait nor should they want to wait for white people to help them. It is evident by comments such as yours that there is no desire to do so. Therefore black should pool their resources and take care of themselves. We should police our own neighborhoods, support our own stores and businesses and pull ourselves up. I saw a comment earlier about Minister Farrakhan. That has been his program since forever. Stop looking to the government and white people for a hand out. Take care of yourself and improve your own community. No one can love you like yourself. As far as your comment to forget my history, that is a very condescending and ignorant comment. Do Jewish people forget the holocaust. No! Do we as Americans forget Pearl Harbor or 9/11. No! Why would you ask me to forget about slavery. That is a part of history that should not be forgotten. If we forget the lessons of 9/11 we are doomed to repeat it. If blacks forget the depths to which some people will go, we’ll find ourselves in a new type of slavery. When you start encouraging other people to forget their history I’ll think about forgetting mine. As a matter of fact, why don’t you start with some of these rednecks who won’t let the civil war go and who are in love with the flag because of “history”. You lost Jethro. Let it go.

By ben

February 8, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

GA Democrat: scroll back up and read Say What’s post before you get your britches in a wad.

By candide

February 8, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

Of course as Christians blacks are also fools, just as white Christians are fools. But I excuse blacks for their foolishness: they are barely educated. Whites who believe in nonsense deserve more contempt.

Noblesse oblige.

By gadem

February 8, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

I do apologiz Ben…but to piggyback on saywhat said, just imagine trying to run a race with chains on your feet, or running a race where everyone is given a 1 lap headstart. You would not fair too well. I think a lot of problems of some people, not all, are self imposed. Drugs, gangs, teenage pregnancy, felony convictions….life is about choices. I have made some bad choices, and I do not put that on anyone else. But prejudice and racism still exist in todays society. As soon as America admits that we will all be better off.

By gadem

February 8, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

See Ben Candide proved my point without having to look up any sources.

By Say What

February 8, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

Candide: During Jim Crow you could say that blacks were barely educated. But since education is no longer a priority in America, I would say all are barely educated. Look at some of these TV shows on the air and what the youth say or think. Every time Jay Leno or that idiot Sean Hannity ask people on the street who the VP of the US is and they don’t know. I mean our schools are putting out idiots regardless of color. To make sure though, there are many blacks of high education. While I disagree with Condie Rice’s politics, I could never call her an ignorant woman and there are many blacks on both sides of the spectrum who are equally educated if not more so.

By candide

February 8, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

Burn the Bible; it makes fun of the Moabites and Amelekites. Burn the DaVinci Code, it makes fun of Jesus. Burn the Constitution, it makes fun of slaves. Burn, baby, burn.

The evil Muslims have always made fun of Jews and Christians. Burn the Koran because of the evil depiction in it of Jews and Christians.

What I say is this: deport all Muslims from the United States and the Christian lands of Europe. Deport all Muslims from Israel. They cannot live with others, let them be removed.

By The Grinch

February 8, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

candide, so you say “I excuse blacks for their foolishness: they are barely educated”. Is that why 99% (Yes gaydem, 99%) of blacks are democrats?

By Say What

February 8, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

Candide: Drugs are bad okay. You have a right to your opinion, but it would be better if it was not drug induced or so it would appear.

By Midori

February 8, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

Gaydem, did you get to meet that sorry lowlife piece of crap John Lewis yesterday? That poor excuse for a man makes me want to puke. The man can’t even speak plain english for gods sake….

um, you listen to George Bush lately??????

By Taye Kuver

February 8, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

Hey - Where is the liberal outrage over Candide’s blanket labeling of blacks as being “barely educated”? Or don’t you attack your own kind?

By candide

February 8, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

Grinch: Blacks are dumb only about religion. Just like whites.

But anyone who votes Republican is a real fool.

By Midori

February 8, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Candide: you rock.

signed,

a black woman.

I get you.

By The Grinch

February 8, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

candide, nice back peddle :) Typical democrat…..

Taye, There will be no outrage. Its the same as blacks can call each other Nigga but a white person cannot.

By gadem

February 8, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

The Grinch, would you be that 1% that is Republican?

By Bea Freeye

February 8, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

No, Candide, you can’t take it back now. A liberal finally admits how they really see the black community: uneducated and needing the (white) liberals of the land to watch over them. And, Midori, you are fool if you believe otherwise.

By The Grinch

February 8, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

gaydem, as a matter of fact I am…..

By Taye Kuver

February 8, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

Thanks, Grinch, but I don’t think we are talking about the same thing.

By gadem

February 8, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this

Good to know that you atleast know that you are a token. On the otherside of that coin, I feel that Blacks are too fractured in the community to bring about any real change on the political landscape. There are so many other problems that have to be dealt with before we can make changes on the political front.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Allow me to weigh in and tick everyone off: To me, the sad part about politicizing a funeral is that we no longer keep politics in its place and spend time acting as human beings otherwise. Now it consumes everything we do, to the point that those who disagree with us are “the enemy.” We no longer are able to have a rational debate on issues and shake hands and have a beer afterward. There’s a story in the AJC today that explains this: A pol sci professor at Emory did a study that showed how test subjects react to political figures emotionally, even with the actions of those figures contradicted their true beliefs. We no longer judge our leaders on their policies but how we “feel” about them. That’s why whatever Bush does, one side sees him as “dumb, evil, wrong” and the other side will defend him. And it’s not just Bush: We did it with Clinton, and we’ll do it with whoever is next. We can’t just disagree any more, we have to declare war on the other side. It’s sad and it diminishes us as a country and as a people.

We see it in this blog every day. While some of us try to have a high-minded debate on issues, others just want to call each other names. Are our political viewpoints the only way to measure each other these days?

By The Grinch

February 8, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

gaydem, look a*******hole, I am no token. I am educated and smart enough to decide my beliefs for myself. I am not a member of the democratic sheep herd who will do what politicians tell me to do to keep (or get)them in power. Jesse, Sharpton, or any other so called black leader is going to keep me down so they will have a job. I think for myself.

By gadem

February 8, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

I agree Dr. R, but politics have been in church since 2000 with Bush rallying the Evangelical Christians to his side. The only difference is that these comments were made in a forum where they were not pro-Bush.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

Some of y’all might remember that back in the 1980s, Tip O’Neill, the Democratic speaker of the House, used to visit the White House after hours and share a tumbler of Scotch with Ronald Reagan, the icon of conservatism. They would drink, talk politics, disagree, but do so amiably as friends and co-horts. We don’t do that any more: to conservatives, liberals are wrong-headed, immoral pinkos. To “progressives,” the other side are fascist, Nazi Bible thumpers. I’ve got friends who are liberal and conservative, and I don’t think any less of either because of their views. We’re more than our politics, but many can’t see beyond that now.

It’s ironic, actually, that Joseph Lowery and others joined a movement to see that those of different skin colors and ethic backgrounds were treated equally. We aspire to look back a person’s background, religion, ethnic origin, etc., and treat them as brothers and sisters. But when it comes to political views, our tolerance runs slap out. If you don’t drink the Kool-Aid, you ain’t one of us so get the hell out. Which is why we and our leaders spend so much time talking at each other instead of to each other. We’re so busy yelling and calling names we no longer carry on a conversation.

By Daniel

February 8, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

Dr R: It’s called leadership. We don’t have that right now.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

Forget Bush for a minute; he’s just the latest guy to be in the crosshairs. And most of the time, that’s fair game. He’s president and whatever he says and does is worth questioning. But the guy gave up a whole day of running the country to honor Mrs. King, extending an honor that our state and nation did not give her husband. Give him some credit for that. But there are others who criticize him for showing up; the same people would blast him if he didn’t. Basically, he’s George Bush so he can’t win no matter what. If you feel that way, there’s no point in having a political discussion because you’ve already made up your mind. The same goes for those who mindlessly defend everything he does, even when it runs contrary to political views they supposedly held (let a Democrat pass huge spending bills, Medicare entitlements and wiretap U.S. citizens and the right-wing would be apoplectic, but it’s OK when their guy does it). Don’t you see what we’ve become? We aren’t thinking any more, we’re just reacting emotionally. And I have a theory on that as well, if anyone would care to hear it ….

By Liberal Texas Democrat

February 8, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

Kaye Tuver posted: “Hey - Where is the liberal outrage over Candide’s blanket labeling of blacks as being “barely educatedâ€?? Or don’t you attack your own kind?”

After reading, on almost a daily basis, that as a liberal I’m lazy, and don’t want to do anything for myself, I figured someone would come along and do it for me … didn’t wan’t to disappoint.

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

Nobody responds to Candide because she usually doesn’t make any sense. She the person with turrets that we just ignore and chalk it up to her affliction.

By gadem

February 8, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

Yeah Grinch, you are so educated that you resort to using expletives to get your point across. So Grinch tell me have you based your political views on what benefits you or what would benefit your brethen. When I say brethen, I mean all races. We suffer together and rejoice together.

By Eric

February 8, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

Hey Andystein, it’s spelled Ahmed and pronounced achmed.

By Brian Curtis

February 8, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

All true, Dr. R.

And I think the frustration of not being able to have a civil discourse is part of what spurs people to vent their views in inappropriate forums.

After all, nobody can actually “talk” with Bush any more; he hides from opposing viewpoints and has his media cadre attack their patriotism, rather than facing up to what they have to say.

Where else is Bush going to hear even a whisper of disagreement but at a public event that he’s both 1) obligated to attend and 2) unable to screen for his own purposes?

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

Bush didn’t have it that bad really. If you consider Lowry’s game, it was to be expected and I’m sure he anticipated some ribbing. I am actually impressed that Bush took the high road. Gave a focus speeched and painfully laughed at himself. I’m not his biggest fan whatsoever, but I respect him for grining and bearing. Everybody knows Lowry is a bag of wind.

Carter was pretty tame. His Katrina comment was questionable but it wasn’t directed at Bush. Those that think it was should question what they really think about what was said about Bush not caring.

By Pequod

February 8, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

Dr. R,

I read Drew Weston’s study at Emory and I was glad to see that NPR reported the findings. I only wish more people would read it. It is a sad fact that most people are so unaffected by the evidence and engage in confirmation bias at every turn. The result is argumentative futility for the most part.

By The Grinch

February 8, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

Gaydem, I call it like I see it. If it walks like a duck and smells like a duck, I’ts a duck.

By getalife

February 8, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

On a lighter note

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

Did anyone see the AJC article today about the Emory prof who conducted experiments on political views? He took test subjects from the right and left, showed them video of candidates they preferred and measured their emotional response through brain waves. Likewise, he showed that when a candidate offered conflicting information to what they thought to be true, their minds showed distress. Instead of approaching politics through rational thought, these subjects reacted emotionally every time.

It’s not surprising. Those of us who are baby boomers and younger have grown up in an age that has been shaped by the ad men on Madison Avenue. They sell us soft drinks not because they taste good or quench our thirst but because we develop an emotional tie to the brand. They have done the same with our politicians. It’s not whether you agree with Candidate A on the issues but whether you like him (or her), whether they set off those good endomorphs of emotion. Once we like them, we rationalize the rest, even if they turn out the exact opposite of what we thought them to be.

Part of that is because we are a generation guided more by emotion than thought. We are the Oprah, Dr. Phil generation more in tune to “feelings” than reason. No one ever asks what you “think” about anything any more; it’s how do you “feel.” We wear our emotions on our sleeve in every aspect of life, starting with our politics. But it drives us apart from each other and leads us to make bad decisions based on the wrong critera.

By Ricky

February 8, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

Here is what really bothers me about the protest and violence in regard to the cartoons. Arabs are up in arms about a simple cartoon. They are marching in the streets and calling for the killing of the authors of the cartoon. Where was their outrage when people were being beheaded in Iraq. That is surely against the Koran. Where was the outrage when the President of Iraq says the Holocaust didn’t happen. I really don’t understand how they can claim to have a moral high ground when they conduct themselves in this matter

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

gadem,

Is this what you really believe?

I agree Dr. R, but politics have been in church since 2000 with Bush rallying the Evangelical Christians to his side.

Where do you think the whole civil rights movement started? The knee-jerk reaction of Bush hating fools that would make that statement is almost too much to believe.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

Go back and look at the posts in this blog today and see what we’re doing to each other. How much of it is based on reason as opposed to trigger-finger emotion. You people have never met, don’t know each other, yet are calling each other all sorts of ugly names based on … what? Political views. You disagree with me so there must be something dreadfully wrong with you. You’re un-American, you’re stupid, you embrace a lifestyle that is disgraceful and immoral, and you have no worth. Can’t y’all see this? What’s the point of engaging in any kind of discussion if you’re not willing to listen to what the other person has to say? You know what you have when two people rationally discuss an issue, listen to each other, exchange ideas and show some restraint and respect? It’s called a conversation, and it’s pretty hard to find one these days.

By Taye Kuver

February 8, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

Dr.R

You might as well give up. No one who remembers the ’60s as a time of constructive social discourse or who was born and raised in the subsequent decades has any concept at all of what you are talking about. Civility, manners, politeness, respect for others … it all just a sign of weakness to them. It is ironic that those who like to think of themselves as being the result of their own free will somehow see those who disagree with their views as being genetically stupid, biased, racist, ignorant, or politically inclined. Look at the responses to your comments. Everyone agrees that they feel as you do, but it’s the other guy’s attitude that is causing all the trouble.

Taye

By Ricky

February 8, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

Dr R, you make good points. The political discourse in the country has suffered greatly over the past 15 years. Both sides are to blame. The talk radio guys don’t help and neither do the websites like move on. Their only concern is bad mouthing the other party. They really don’t care about what is good for the country and what is the best course of action. Hopefully we can get this to change soon

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

Our leaders won’t change until we do, folks. As long as we are yelling at each other and not listening, we’ll elect those who do the same. It starts with us, bottom up, not top down. But based on what I see in this blog every day, and in letters to the editor to the paper, talk radio and TV and elsewhere, I have little hope that it will change. It’s too much work to think. To listen or read an argument from the other side scares and threatens us because it might infect us with some virus from the other side. We’re afraid to have our little world changed from within so we wall ourselves off and toss grenades over the wall to the other side.

A man goes to a funeral to honor someone who lived a gracious life and accomplished much. At that funeral, he is forced to endure a tongue-lashing for his politics (in one case from one who once occupied his office and faced his own four-year ordeal of criticism; you’d think he’d be a bit more restrained under the circumstances). And there are any number of you, and others, who think that’s OK. I don’t care who it is or what the issue, that’s crass, tacky, boorish and less than civilized. If you think the ends justifies the means, then you’re no better than the ideologues on the other side of your wall.

By gadem

February 8, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

RW I am more educated than that. Religion and politics have long been married.

By getalife

February 8, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

On any political blog, there are people who blindly follow their parties and forget the fact they are all Americans.

Some people would rather spend American tax dollars on Iraq rather than the Gulf Coast.

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

gadem,

OK, I was curious why you said it.

By Ricky

February 8, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Getalife, you made a valid point and then had to throw your own little zinger in there. You could have just as easily said some people would rather spend American taxpayers dollars on inefficient government programs than on the Gulf Coast

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

Sigh … well, I can see I’ve had a big effect in here today. You children go back to your spitball fights and I’ll go find something better to do with my time. Let me know when you’re willing to discuss ideas and specifics instead of just tossing around generalities and nonsensical epithets. I’m way weary of this.

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

Dr. R - I completely respect your opinions, but I differ on this one a little. I don’t agree with “all” of the comments about the President at the funeral, but you have to step back and realize something. This was a celebration of her life which was a life determined to bring peace, equality and humanity. These people speaking fought that fight with her for MANY years, so it naturally becomes part of their celebration when pointing the progress made and progress yet to be made.

Do you really expect the comments at a King funeral not to address peace and equality and fairness? It was going to be said with him there or not. I may not agree with everything said, but the comments were fitting and appropriate to the cause the she, AND her husband, spent their lives supporting.

By getalife

February 8, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

Ricky,

Check out my 9:29 am post to see what I am talking about.

By Bea Freeye

February 8, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

I missed the coverage, so what the heck did Carter and the other say?

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

And in your view Bush is against peace, equality and fairness, so it’s OK to bash him. Another might say that peace is attainable only by vanquishing the enemies of freedom; that equality is based on the worth and value of all people and not race-based quotas that patronize the abilities of those they seek to said; and that fairness is best achieved when government quits playing favorites and creating a welfare state that preys on the successful and rewards the unachievers.

I’m not saying all those statements are true or valid, just that there is another point of view. When you accept the tenet that Bush and the Republicans are against those things you hold dear, you cease to see that other side, valid or not, and that there might be a different approach to the same goals. So all discussion is closed off.

It really is hell being objective these days. I truly do see merit in both sides of the political arguments. Not all good ideas are conservative, not all bad ideas are liberal, and vice versa. I appear to be a lonely fool on the hill shouting for reason and calm while the peasants run each other through with pitchforks.

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I think you may have been too nuanced there. You should E-mail your blog to Michelle Malkin, she’s collecting cartoons that spoof the Muslim cartoons and only has two so far.

By finch

February 8, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

Ricky,

Nobody I know campaigns for more inefficient government spending at the expense of funding disaster relief.

However, many people would rather spend more on the needless and pointless Iraq war than on disaster relief.

They both have something in common, though. They’re both irrational.

By getalife

February 8, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

RW,

Thanks, I will. BTW, your blog is looking good.

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

Dr R,

Maybe if you didn’t put yourself on a pedestal and call the rest of peasants and fools the conversation could get off to a better start. (Shorter posts would help too!)

By Buy Danish

February 8, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

Satire is dead. Savagery, like beheading, or using children as suicide bombers brings praise from Allah, but portraying Mohammed in an innocuous and accurate “cartoon” is punishable by death. The few “moderate muslims” who are left don’t dare speak out out of fear. Blackmail is the currency of discourse for Islamofacism. This is what “multi-culturalism” and political correctness brings to civilization - Fear. See also Coretta Scott King’s funeral.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

Have any of you stopped to think that we are just a slightly more refined, less drooling version of the Muslim idiots who are burning embassies over a cartoon? We castigate those who we feel (there’s that word again) are barbaric, uneducated goombahs who can’t embrace the all-too complex notion of free expression if it means their beloved prophet is shown in an unflattering light for a moment or two. And danged if we don’t do the same thing in defending, or castigating, our own figures in an emotional, irrational and perfectly unhinged manner. Crazy people fighting crazier people. Helluva gott-dang world we got going here …

By The Grinch

February 8, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

Dr R…running liberals through with pitchforks is much more fun and they deserve it becasue they are so ignorant….

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Thank you, imagine how much traffic I could get if you hadn’t taken my link away.

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

Dr. R - You are assuming I said it was okay to bash him. They weren’t bashing him, they were bashing his politics. They contradict what the Kings stood for, he just happened to fit the description. A couple of speakers took their liberty, but hey so what, consider who they were. You shouldn’t be surprised at Lowery. I’ll give you Carter, but hey - it’s good to see him actually show some balls. Not that I know a great deal about him.

By getalife

February 8, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

RW,

D’oh!

Sorry about that, I fixed it.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

I’m the fool, you’re the peasants. It’s all metaphorical, but if you want to get upset, I promise not to put a bomb in your turban, either. If I were to see an attempt at reason here, I’ll gladly withdraw the comparison. To wit: What — and I mean concrete substance, real policy — has Bush done to undermine what the Kings stood for? I’d like to hear it, and I promise to pay attention and not call names. Enlighten me …

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Dr. R - NON-VIOLENCE

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

DrR,

I was just taking a jab at the post length and the slightly pompous metaphors. I’m on your side as to the comments, you can even look at the late night dead thread for evidence.

By Taye Kuver

February 8, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Voice of Reason - All you need to know is that Carter is basically an old woman who criticizes others for doing what he never had the “balls”, as you put it, to do. Namely take a position, formulate policy, and lead. My favorite Carter “balls” moment was when he came out against the Vietnam War - after it was over.

By finch

February 8, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Dr R,

Thanks for your thoughts today. I do read what you write. And I respect it, even if you arent a REAL doctor. Heh! The AJC article on political cognitive dissonance has been in the NYT too. Fascinating.

But I do think we are far from only “slightly more refined” than our Muslim bretheren. We are MUCH more refined. Nobody here is issuing death sentence fatwas, condemning editors and cartoonists, or torching embassies.

RW,

The cartoons Malkin linked to underscore the WSJ oped I linked to. Muslim fanatics are manipulating their followers in Egypt, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Palestine, Lebanon, etc. And we can’t invade all of them, can we?

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

Thanks Taye.

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

finch,

Palestine would be especially hard to invade. A little thing about it’s lack of existence has to be overcome first.

By Midori

February 8, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

Look, over there!!! Look at the King Funeral!!! Those “disrepectful” Demon Democrats!!! Just don’t look over here——>

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

Non-violence is a goal we all embrace, but we can’t allow ourselves to be destroyed when those who oppose us don’t do the same. Dr. King and Jesus were willing to turn the other cheek and martyr themselves rather than give in to the power of vengeance, and for that we revere them. But we also must take a stand somewhere to defend and preserve what we believe. If you think the Iraq war goes too far, I may disagree but respect that you have set limits on the extent we should resort to force to defend ourselves. If we agree there are limits, we then can discuss where to set them.

But those who advocate an abandonment of our self defense in the face of possible destruction are asking a bit much. The quest for survival is stronger than the well-intentioned ideological goal of a world in which we beat our swords into plowshares. Reality just won’t let that happen until we know the other side is willing to do the same.

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

Furthermore, I think that what was said was pretty much in line with the Kings’ beliefs. And if it was wrong and inappropriate, I think the family will be the judge of that.

By Daniel

February 8, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

Midori: Thanks for the reality check. The Bush Crowd will grab as much cash as quickly as they can. Meanwhile, they feed the suckers “National Security”.

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

Voice of Reason,

So your idea of decorum is to just spout whatever you want and then let the family decide after you have finished saying it whether it was appropriate?

Midori,

Do you know what a budget proposal is?

By The Grinch

February 8, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

Daniel…”Meanwhile, they feed the suckers “National Securityâ€?. At least you have part of it correct.

Midori….It’s a PROPOSAL!!!

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

Dr. R - you’re half right. We stood up when necessary, we went to Afghanistan. Iraq was going to far. It’s one thing to defend what we believe, but it’s whole other thing to force those beliefs on others.

Notice you said self defense! What about Iraq was self defense? Iraq personally bothers me, not because it’s Iraq, but because we have a habit of putting ourselves on a pedestal. We believe our way of life is best for everybody, but at the same time, people in our OWN country suffer and struggle.

I posted earlier … We are giving Afghanistan $1.1 BILLION dollars, but we b-tich and moan about spending money to rebuild New Orleans or Gulfport.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

Voice, if I was to visit your funeral and say nice things about what a wise and fine person you were, I’d hope to be spared any comments about what a preening, pompous pedant I am (the alliteration proves it). Even if you disagree with the guy, even if you hate his stinking guts, can we just for a little while put it aside for a greater cause?

And despite my plea, I have yet to hear from any of you how George W. Bush has put his pen to any public policy, legislation or executive order that managed to unravel the King legacy of racial equality. I’m not saying he hasn’t; I’m just saying that if you’re going to make sweeping statements that accept that point of view, you need to back it up. What I’m seeing is that he’s a Republican, so clearly he’s contrary to the teachings of Dr. King (whom I don’t recall being linked to any particular party …)

By The Grinch

February 8, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

Midori!!! It’s a PROPOSAL!!!! leave it MSNBC to not know what that is also.

By Midori

February 8, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

So now we have to sneak “proposals” in?

I propose Bush shove his proposal where the sun doesn’t shine.

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

RW - that is not my belief. My belief is that the people that were speaking were lifelong friends of the CSK, and they more than anybody know how she felt, and where she stood on these issues. I’m sure the Rev and her discussed the hurricanes, the war and various other topics and I believe he and others had a pretty good grasp on where she stood on these issues. This includes her family. I’m just saying if they don’t think it’s inappropriate, you or anyone else’s concerns don’t mean sh-it.

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

Grinch,

High Five @ 1:07

By Terry

February 8, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

I see all of reports saying radical cleric this and racical cleric that. Is there such a thing as a non-radical Islamist? I mean really. Does their religion condone these actions? If thats what muslims are all about, what they have been proving: loping off the hostage heads, terrorism, WMD, all in the name of Muslim, they I think the rest of the has to thin their numbers.

Where are the muslim leaders now to quell this silly cartoon issue? THey all seem to be inciting more violence.

So the mulsims have boycotted Denmark. Personally I would feel much safer in Denmark now that muslims have boycotted, than I would in any muslim country. The Danes should be happy about this - or, did they make the cartoons on purpose to incite the mulsims to leave?

By Daniel

February 8, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

Dr R: You just lost me, pal. “Reality won’t let that happen until we know the other side is willing…” So, we have to hurry up and kill all of them before they get us? “We can’t allow ourselves to be destroyed…” We will destroy ourselves. The Iraq War will do it for us. The cost is 500 Billion and on its way up. No end in sight. It’s the perfect Bush formula: perpetual war, perpetual Republican Presidents, an updraft of cash to the rich, borrow from China, and “Support the Troops”.

By Buy Danish

February 8, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

Dr R. Right on bro.

GW has more class in his little finger than the shameless exploiters have in their entire “movements”.

What are all you ridiculous Bush haters, who are depending on “Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction” mantra going to do when we actually find them? What’s the next line going to be? Better start thinking now, ‘cause they have audiotapes of Saddam the maddman talking about them. Of course you can always claim that the tapes were doctored by Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney and Halliburton.

You are using rewritten, revisionist history to get your “facts”, so your ignorance is partially forgiven. You have had propaganda and invective shoved down your throats for so long by the sweet and lovely peace-loving radical left that you don’t have a clue what the truth really is anymore.

Meanwhile, you have more in common with the fanatics who follow the so-called “religion of peace” than you do with your so-called concern for civil rights, women’s rights, and everything else you pretend to care about. You have forgotten about the “civil” part, and most everything else that describes “civilized”.

You only care about civil rights if your own perception of personal rights are affected. Your concern does not leave your own neighborhood, nevermind our borders. Burn bras, not burkhas! War makes us poor!

Note to Rev. Lowrey - War ended slavery and brought you your freedom.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

And let me offer this just to set the record straight, not to push a GOP agenda or demonize Democrats but just to issue a few provable, concrete facts amid our long-winded emotional tirades: —It was a Republican president (Lincoln) who issued the Emancipation Proclamation. —It was a Republican president (T. Roosevelt) who was first to entertain a black man (Booker T. Washington) in the White House. —It was a Republican president (Eisenhower) who enforced the Supreme Court ruling on ending school segregation by sending federal troops into Arkansas and Mississippi. —It was a Republican president (Nixon) who signed the order creating affirmative action. —It was a Republican president (Reagan) who signed the law creating a national holiday for Dr. King. —It was a Republican governor (Perdue) who extended the honor of the state Capitol and lowered the flags for Mrs. King. —It was a Democratic governor (Maddox) who denied such honors for Dr. King in 1968. —It was a Democratic attorney general (RFK) who instituted the wiretaps and surveillance against Dr. King that Carter alluded to Tuesday. —And it was a Democratic Congress that had control of the federal government for 40-plus years yet did little to end our racial divide.

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

VOR,

Interestingly her family didn’t decide to lash out at others that were paying their respects. I’m already on record as saying this was fairly tame for a funeral with Democrats speaking and if you think a funeral is the proper place for airing your political grievances, please don’t come to mine. (not that I’m expecting that. the funeral or your attendance!)

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

Oh, sorry, left one out (and I am running long today; sorry for that, too): It was two Democratic administrations who got us involved in Vietnam, at a price in lives and money far beyond what we’re spending in Iraq.

By The Grinch

February 8, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

Dr R..all you will hear on your last post is crickets.

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

Dr. R. - I digress! It’s his politics and catering to the rich that they don’t like. His policies don’t exactly benefit anyone but. Those the facts in and of themselves.

By Bea Freeye

February 8, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

Well, it is at least a small comfort to know that we all be brothers and sisters under the skin and political covers once the jihad comes calling. Those folks don’t get hung up on our race, creed, color, religion, national origin, or political leanings. They see us as all being equally ripe for extermination in the eyes of Mohammed and Allah. So have fun while you can.

By The Grinch

February 8, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

Why do think the blacks in this country don’t wake up and see that the democrats are using the black population to gain power? The democratic party is the plantation of today for blacks. They are being used and don’t even realize it.

By Daniel

February 8, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

Abramoff has it right. Bush supporters are “Morons, troglodytes and monkeys”. The value of your dollar is down, gas prices are up, borrowing is up, tension is greater, Deficits are up, the political debate is in the toilet; but, hey, look on the bright side. Bush gives you Schiavo, Wiretapping and War.

By The Grinch

February 8, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

I see Daniel has drank all his Kool-aid today. He gets a star.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

Oh, well if the facts speak for themselves there’s no point in debating specifics, are there? This is why we get nowhere, my friend. OK, if his policies only “help the rich” as you state, let’s try this. Are there no rich black Americans? Well, there are, so he’s helping them too, right? And don’t rich people run businesses and hire folks, pay them a salary and benefits? Doesn’t that help the working class? How many jobs, how much capital and how much in federal taxes do poor people generate?

Or is it, perhaps, that GWB and the GOP majority do not advocate use of the federal government to create large expensive social programs targeted toward helping those who can’t or won’t work to succeed? Is that based on racism, as many suspect, or merely a belief that such is not the best role of government or use of funds? The former, if provable, is a detestable state of mind that cannot be defendeded. But the latter is … wait for it … politics. And accepting that there are other political views and that all are valid ways of approaching our problems is the first step toward coming together to find solutions.

Is that a cricket I hear? …

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

Danish - the Civil War was not about slavery.

By Daniel

February 8, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

“has drank” You get no star. You’re the guy Abramoff was talking about!

By getalife

February 8, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

But the biggest money — and the biggest controversy — will surround efforts to reduce spending on Medicare, the federal health program for the elderly and disabled. The budget would reduce Medicare spending by just short of $36 billion over the next five years.

I am disabled and writing my Reps. to vote no on this issue. As an American, I would rather the money go to Americans and not Iraqis. I would hope others will write to get their Reps. to vote American.

The entitlement argument has become ridiculous. Are you an American or Iraqi? It is that simple.

By Midori

February 8, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

Grinch,

how are the Democrats “using” me to gain power?

Just how?

Would I be better off on a Republican “plantation”?

Let me guess: On a Republican plantation, when I drown in a flood, I die face down rather than face up.

Is that it?

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

Dr. R - The reason you here crickets is because I never once mentioned a political party. You may say being a republican is his politics, but I dare say he does not compare to the list of republicans that you listed. His decision to go to war, his decision to spend money in poor countries when he has poor who get less respect, his decision to illegal spy on american citizens, were the reasons he felt attacked, the reason his party felt attacked.

By Bea Freeye

February 8, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

Wiretapping! What century do you morons live in anyay? No one is sitting in a van out front of your house or taping your phone calls to see if you are talking with Osama. Get a grip on reality. They are tracking calls and looking for patterns. Anyone you know been arrested, wrongly accused, or disappeared in the night? No, you don’t and you won’t. It’s just typical liberal hysterical distraction from the real issues of our day.

By Midori

February 8, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

Bea,

where’s that long list of arrests that these 1000’s of wiretaps flushed out?

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

You say they were making a political statement, some say they were making a point.

Bea Freeya - Simply semantics. It doesn’t matter if it’s someone we know. And if it’s not getting those results, why continue it and veil it in secrecy.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

I’m not so much defending Bush as I am trying to get a more substantive, issue-oriented discussion going. Attack him on the issues, on what’s he done, not the perception thereof. I have a lot of differences with GWB and the Republicans, on specifics, not the general notion of “plantations” or dark conspiracy theories that have little basis in reality. Those who disagree on the war, for instance, have valid points to make and every right to make them. But the old “Bush is dumb, he’s a criminal, he smirks, he squints, he don’t talk right, he works for Halliburton, he hates black people, yadda, yadda …” just proves my original point made many posts ago. We no longer engage in political debate based on reason or an exchange of information, but on pure emotional reaction to the guys we like or hate. It’s a pointless exercise because we stop listening and start in on each other.

With that, I leave you to the crickets and head to a late lunch. Thanks for enduring my verbosity.

By Daniel

February 8, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

gal: That’s the point! The government will have spent 500 Billion on the bogus Iraq War. What is the plan? What is the ceiling on the amount they will spend? How much borrowing is too much? We borrow 2 Billion from China and Asia each day. What is the economic plan? Then the Bush sneaks his SS Scheme backdoor into the Budget. The Bush solution to SS, pay commissions to brokers to allow wanna-be republicans to invest “their” money. Oops. What if they go broke? Or, what if they make bad choices? No sweat. Borrow the shortfall from China. America aches for patriotic leadership. All of us deserve the truth. This is a sad time for our country. We have been betrayed.

By Buy Danish

February 8, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

Daniel - It’s interesting that you choose the “monkey” word, because that’s a fave of the Muslim Arabs in their peaceful and respectful description of Jews. If anyone is responsible for “political debate being in the toilet”, get a mirror and take a look.

Dr. R - Thanks for the facts. Here are a few more: What sitting Senator was a former member of the KKK? - Democrat, Robert Byrd. What president has more blacks in higher positions of government than any previous prez, including “the first black president”?- GW Bush. What state had a democrat Governor, and democrat mayor and decades of democrat rule, but blames Bush for Katrina, the first racist hurricane in world history? - Louisiana. What former U.S. president and “Nobel peace prize” winner spends every free moment kissing up to totalitarian dictators and miscellaneous despots? - Democrat, J. Carter.

By Daniel

February 8, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

Abramoff used the word to describe you. It’s not my word.

By getalife

February 8, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

Daniel,

I have been looking at the new budget and am disgusted in the cuts to pay for the war.

Once again, I would urge Americans to write their Reps. to vote no on the proposed cuts to the elderly and disabled.

By Buy Danish

February 8, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

Voice of “reason” - And the reason that Carter brought up “wiretapping” at a memorial service for Coretta Scott King was because he’s a sweet, peace loving Democrat trying to create harmony in our racist world?

By The Grinch

February 8, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this

Funny how the democrats consider keeping the same level of spending and not increasing it to be a “cut”

By Daniel

February 8, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

What is the plan? When is the “War on Terrorism” won? How much borrowing is “too much”. How much expense is “too much”? How fearful do we have to be? Where i the leadership to answer these questions? Anyone?

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish - He brought it up as an example of the behavior Coretta Scott King and her family had to deal with. It showed how their move for peace and equality was feared by the government and how they overcame that fear, prejudice and ridicule. And as an aside, it was Hoover who was spying on the “uppity negro.” The Kennedy family and the King family have a great deal of respect for each other, so it’s ridiculous to try and point otherwise.

Anything else you need help with?

By rushncap

February 8, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

Getalife, don’t worry, the money you’re fretting about will go to Americans, not Iraqis. Who do you think owns Haliburton / KBR, Exxon / Mobil, etc? All that money going into Iraq will wind up in American pockets. Just not in the pockets of those who desperately need medical care, but in the pockets of those who desperately need a backup yacht in case their primary and secondary yachts are being painted or some congressman is borrowing them for the weekend.

By The Grinch

February 8, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

VOR get your facts straight. It was Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy who authorised the FBI to wiretap.

By Daniel

February 8, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

gal: I will contact my sens. and reps. I agree with you that we must contact them on a regular basis. I do so, and encourage others to do likewise. I also, hope and pray for effective leadership. The dems seem in disarray to me. The reps., while organized in a Prussian-like manner; seem intent upon shoveling as much money as quickly as possible into the hands of the greediest and wealthiest among us. In my view, the republican party is dangerously out-of-control. It seems to be in the hands of the worst elements possible. I hope cooler heads take control. I know the questions posed are hard ones. I wish someone would try to answer them.

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Grinch - I have my facts straight. Hoover ran the FBI and everybody was afraid of him. Kennedy basically did what he was told, much like anybody that had to deal with hoover and his secret police. You don’t honestly believe that ANYBODY in the Kennedy family was opposed to the King’s.. They even tried to convince John that he was evil, communist and bad for the country.

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

Do you think Robert was assassinated like his brother because he was a corrupt politician? if anything he had a lapse of judgement and caved.

By getalife

February 8, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

Unfortunately, you are probably correct.

Thanks Daniel.

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

Grinch - Do you think Robert Kennedy authorized the taps on the Kennedy family too?

By physicsDawg

February 8, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

The death toll from this week’s violent demonstrations rose to at least 10 on Wednesday after Afghan police shot dead several protesters trying to storm a U.S. military base.

That’s not a toll, that’s a bonus

Some people need to learn the diference between a protest and an assault.

By Buy Danish

February 8, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Daniel - We spent 30 trillion dollars on “the war on Poverty”? When is that war going to end? We’re still busing kids in Cobb County to create “racial diversity”. When is that going to end?

V.O.”R”. Uh, yeah like dude, I forgot that the Emancipation Proclamation was by Lyndon Johnson, and all those people who died in the Civil War died for “big oil”. Or was it “big tobacky”? I ferget.

Rev. Lowery and many of you are proving a theory that I have had for a long time - you don’t give a damn about our soldiers, either in Iraq, or those who served in Vietnam. Every dime spent to secure the blessings of liberty is one less dime for you. So it turns out that the “greed” is really from the socialist left, not from the free-marketeers. That’s why the communist parties of the world are always leading the “peace” marches. They want to destroy America by not allowing it to defend herself, and they appeal to the most selfish amongst us.

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

Danish - Uh like dude, the civil war was about (here’s a new word for you) secession. The South wanted to seperate from the union. The north and south had differing opinions on federal power, slavery and expansion and dividing the united states.

I don’t know about Rev. Lowery, but don’t tell me how I feel about our soldiers. You just prove your ignorance because I served in the Marine Corps for 10 1/2 year, 1 1/2 of those in Iraq.

Regroup and try again.

By Buy Danish

February 8, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

Speaking of RFK, isn’t it interesting who killed him and why? From Wikipedia: “The convicted assassin, 24-year-old Palestinian Sirhan B. Sirhan, attributed the killing to Kennedy’s support for Israel during the Six-Day War.”

So maybe this was actually America’s first 9/11 event. But was it in the name of Allah?

By Buy Danish

February 8, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

V.O.R.- I said, “and many of you”. There are always exceptions, and I thank you for your service, but generally speaking I’m right. Just go back thru this blog and see the connections being made to why we should get out of Iraq. It’s like the rev said - we need the money for the poor. Also, check out any so-called peace rally and see who shows up and what “literature” they are handing out. And why is Cindy Sheehan so hot for dictators too? Because they both hate America and want to destroy us? And re the Civil War, thanks for admitting that slavery had a little something to do with it. Maybe that was just a little teeny contributor to the reasons for “secession”? I mean, if it wasn’t about that, then why is the Confederate flag a “racist” symbol? Or is that just more revisionist history?

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

Danish - I personally don’t consider it a racist symbol. It’s not the flag, it’s some of the people that have a twisted view of what it means. I don’t think the rev saying no money for the poor meant he was against the troops. I think it coincides with what I said earlier about spending billions of dollars for war or to support other countries when we have people here that need it. Cut medicaid but boost defense?! Cut social programs to fund the spread of democracy … that’s the problem. If you and others don’t see that, you’ve never been, nor have you ever known, anyone who depends on these programs.

Admittedly, there are leaches and others who abuse the program and its intent, but those that truly need it should in know way suffer because of it. Do you think more money should go into rebuilding Iraq or Afghanistan than New Orleans or Gulf Port. Wouldn’t BETTER, more reliable leavies be a better use of taxpayer dollars than say, $1.1 billion to Afghanistan, just to help out.

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

Whose more of threat to our country and our people, terrorist who may attack or the drug dealers, gang bangers and filth that terrorize neighborhoods daily? Spend a few billion and round these f-ckers up, watch the support overflow. That’s not a concern, and THAT my friend is a problem.

I don’t worry about Osama kidnapping my wife and daughter, I worry about some scumbag that lives down the street, or the gang bangers moving into the area, and the drug dealers. I worry more about the clowns that shootup schools or do drivebys while my daughter may be at a party.. My family, and probably yours too, will probably here some punk slur followed by gunshots before they hear allah akbar.

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

But, again, I digress. There are simply more things that we can do as a people, as a government, that raise our stock in the world, and to ensure our country stays on top. Educate our kids, get em off the street, help people that need help.

By mike

February 8, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

Anyone notice that the Danes’ participation in the Iraq War did not lead to thier embassies being burned? Or that the amount of gneral anger throughout the Muslim world generated by these cartoons is much greater than that generated by the war?

Are you liberals going to accuse these cartoonists of “creating terrorists”? Or are your complaints limited to attacking Bush?

By Buy Danish

February 8, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

Well V.O.R. - Unlike myself and others, I guess you don’t know anyone who died on 9/11. If Al Qaeda are hanging out in New Orleans and vicinity with sword in hand, then fine, spend the money there, but they and the Taliban are not in Louisiana (yet). But we are fighting a war here buddy, and this war is bigger than anything we’ve ever had to deal with in the past, so we better be prepared to spend capital on it. We have an incredible economy right now, so there really shouldn’t be that big a need for ever expanding social programs. We are cutting future growth, not present programs. We have to make our national security the priority.

By gadem

February 8, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

Mike honestly, I think there would be just as much outrage if Jesus were drawn in the same fashion. Maybe not the burning down of buildings, but there would definitely be reprecussions.

By Buy Danish

February 8, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

gaydem - they had a taxpayer funded exhibit in New York called “P** Christ” by Andre Serrano. We were told that we were a bunch of ignorant, intolerant, close-minded idiots for voicing complaints about this truly disgusting portrayal of Christ (which featured a jar of urine). And then there was the exhibit with elephant dung on the Virgin Mary. NO ONE RIOTED, not even close. And while there actually IS a relationship between bombs and allah, there is NO relationship between Christ and a jar of urine or the Virgin Mary and dung. So let’s get real here, if that’s possible for you open-minded tolerant, peace loving lefties.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

Are you kidding? Jesus’ image is manipulated every day. We just had a sitcom (canceled) that included a Jesus character. South Park includes him on a Springer-like talk show. “Art” displays have defamed His image and that of other Christian icons. And yes, people object, they protest, they apply their first-amendment right to do so just as those who use such images are covered by the same freedom. But no, no one here is burning buildings or killing folks over it. Then again, our faith doesn’t justify the slaying of “infidels” if we don’t share their belief. While it’s true some Christians claim non-believers are going to hell, they aren’t seeing to it themselves on the business end of a torch.

By Andrew Pearson

February 8, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Mike, am I reading this right? Do you have the man from the West calling the man from the East a “P***?”

Oh, wait… I’m sorry, my paper was wrinkled in the wrong place…

Whew… more rioting averted!

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

The New York Times has a story about the Mohamed cartoons. They still refuse to print the cartoons, but they printed the Virgin Mary picture. The simple reason is they know the worst they will get from Christians are a few letters.

By RE

February 8, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

Anyone feel kinda good that for a change muslims are not burning US or Isreali flags?

Now I am not happy they are burning flags, but if they are, I am just happy it is not ours.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

No, that’s no real comfort. I’d feel better if they calmed down and moved away from the fire, period. Too many angry mobs everywhere for my peace of mind.

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

RE,

Where do you get your news? I have seen video on FNC, CNN, ABC, & MSNBC that show them laying out the Danish flag, with the American flag on one side and the Israeli flag on the other and torching them all while they dance around like they were headed to a good car swarm.

By RE

February 8, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

Fox and CNN, All I saw were danish flags, I could be mistaken

By Buy Danish

February 8, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

Dr. R - I actually find the South Park stuff funny. It doesn’t “offend” me. Satire is fine when it’s done in an amusing manner. Urine and dung just aren’t very funny. And let’s not forget about Kanye West wearing a crown of thorns on the cover of Rolling Stone. That doesn’t particularly bother me either, but even those who are bothered don’t riot.

RW - Let’s face it - The only reason that our media are not printing the cartoons is because they are scared @#$%less that they’ll be beheaded for their actions. And while lacking in courage, I kind of understand it. I really can’t stand it when supposedly reasonable people say that those absolutely nothing cartoons shouldn’t have been published because they offend Muslims. Are we to start censoring all bland satire? And since we also have Islamic States, by that sort of logic, we can’t criticize them either because they represent Allah. No Iranian satires - I implore you. kidding.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

There was a pretty rational column from the Muslim perspective in USA Today today, saying that freedom of speech carries responsibilities. But I still think it points out just how far apart we are in interpreting freedom. Those of any faith who cling so closely to their religious icons they are willing to kill over them seem to abandon the whole reason we embrace faith to begin with. It’s supposed to be about peace, love and hope, not the prophets themselves. One has to think that if they were still around, they’d want to remind us of that.

By Buy Danish

February 8, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Re the flags, actually I’d be much happier if they just threw themselves into the fire and got their trip to heaven over with before any more innocents are killed on their behalf.

By Buy Danish

February 8, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

Dr R. Do a search on “Sharia law” and see how much peace love and hope you find there. Christianity and Judaism revere liberty. Islam does not. Our cultures are different, and ours IS better.

Of course freedom of speech carries responsibilities, but responsibility does not equal censorship of reasonable discourse, which is what those cartoons were. They were not profane, or even “anti-Muslim” as some have portrayed them. They simply pointed out that the indisputable connection to violence in the name of Mohammed. Just because the Taliban mentality rules modern Islam does not require that we abide by their rules. Freedom cannot succumb to tyranny.

By gadem

February 8, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

So The Wench or Buy Danish, if reasonable discourse is ok, then why are you wanting to spoon with Bush because Lowery may have hurt his feelings. I am thinking that this is being blown out of proportion by the GOP because Bush was Owned on a National Stage…but really the things were said tongue in cheek with some truths to them. Sometimes the Truth hurts.

By physicsDawg

February 8, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

gadem, You think there would be outrage if Jesus was depicted thusly? Sure, as a matter of fact, the NBC pilot “Book of Daniel” created huge amounts of indignation and out pouring. So much so that NBC pulled the show after only about 2-3 airings. But I bet most people don’t even know about it, or what the show is. Completely below the radar. That’s because the outraged followers of Christ wrote letters and emails to NBC, local affiliates, and advertisers who bought space. Hmmm. No riots or beheadings. I guess we just didn’t love Jesus enough.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

Yep, correct on all counts. Waitress, fill my friend’s glass here with something Danish …

By RE

February 8, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

Book of David, that was just a terrible show. No amount of outrage was needed to kill that one

By Jewish and Proud of It

February 8, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

Christianity and Judaism revere liberty

There are over 500 rules dealing with kashrut (keeping kosher) alone, Liberty my a-s-s. HEHE!

By physicsDawg

February 8, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

I think Howard Stern should have some of his lackeys dressed as mohammed doing disgracing things, on the air. That would really make em mad. Maybe, eventually, their skulls might explode or something. (they “may become so cross that it[they] will make a mistake.” -M Python)

By gadem

February 8, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

physicsDawg…if you read my post, I said that we would not go that far because for the most part that is not how we act for the most part…on occasion you do have extreme zealots that kill in the name of God (abortion to name one). But when I watch things like that I turn the Channel and watch something else. The main reason things like that is done is for money. If you don’t support them they will get no money.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

But if that doesn’t work, there always the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch …

Now see, how many of us Christians laughed our butts off at “Life of Brian,” however gleefully offensive it was? Why? Because we aren’t threatened by it like those with small minds can be. And because we’re cool. Never forget just how truly cool we are.

By physicsDawg

February 8, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

No amount of outrage was needed to kill that one
I agree, but that does not mean that it wasn’t the reason. Letters from local affiliates and advertisers prove this, even though NBC may deny it.

There are over 500 rules dealing with kashrut (keeping kosher) alone, Liberty
I realise you were joking, but as someone before stated, telling other religions or sects: “You’re all going to Hell,” and sending them all there headless or by shrapnel, are two very different things.

By Buy Danish

February 8, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

gadem - It wasn’t because he “hurt his feelings’ it was because it was entirely inappropriate, rude and disgraceful to use a funeral to shamelessly exploit political views, particularly since Bush was right there in the room. What happened yesterday was not “satire” that was “boorishness” - and that is the kindest thing that I can say about it. I didn’t see any “tongue in cheek” humor, I saw irrational rage (except for Clinton’s rather lame hee haw fest and the “frozen chosen” line).

BTW,How were you raised? Is this what you consider “civilized” behavior?? Is this how you conduct church/chapel/mosque services?

And Book of David was just a terrible show - that’s why it was cancelled. In a word, it sucked. Christians did have reason to be offended, but the show was destined to die anyway. I tried to watch it and couldn’t get past the first Jesus/Priest car ride. ZZZZZZZ.

By Jewish and Proud of It

February 8, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

realise you were joking, but as someone before stated, telling other religions or sects: “You’re all going to Hell,� and sending them all there headless or by shrapnel, are two very different things

Give them time….I mean, look how far Christians have come since the dark days of the Inquisition…perhaps Muslims are just slow on the uptake :)

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this

Danish - Don’t cloud the issue. No I didn’t know anybody who died on 9/11. HOWEVER, I was fully supportive of the war in Afghanistan! I lost friends there as well as Iraq. My frustration is the fact that we didn’t accomplish our mission in Afghanistan. The smoke was still billowing when we decided to go to Iraq. And guess what, OBL is still out there. He’s not in Iraq. 9/11 was financed and plotted by OBL and Al Qaeda.

I know we are at war, I have daily reminders of it. But that doesn’t negate the fact that we probably should’t be at war, and we are throwing away taxpayer dollars to do so.

Aside from Andy, I’m sure most people would want their tax dollars spend to better our country, not some politically motivated, democracy building expedition.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this

The great thing about Freedom of Speech is that it runs 360 degrees. That means NBC, or Howard Stern, or any cartoonist has every right to express themselves without fear of government reprisal. But those who object or are offended have that same freedom to object, to criticize, and even to boycott or withhold business because of it. It’s all covered by the First Amendment. It promises that “Congress shall make no law” to limit these freedoms, but it’s up to us to withstand the consequences of what we say and do.

By Pinko Supremo

February 8, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

From a Yahoo.com article, “Who Will Feel The Impact of the Bush Budget?”

“Republicans believe the poor and everyone else benefit from a growing and thriving economy, which is fed by capital investment,” says Republican pollster Whit Ayres. “Democrats believe that the poor are best served by larger and larger government payments. The Republicans have won that clash of ideas fairly consistently since Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. There’s no reason to think they can’t win that same argument again.”

Then check this link out

The vast majority of these comments seem to indicate that people trust private health care companies about as far as they can throw them.

Government is screwed up.

Private corporations are screwed up more.

By gadem

February 8, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this

Wench how wer you raised? I can asure you that they would have made the same comments had Bush not been there. Do you think the changed theie entire dialogue because he came. Get a clue….

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 05:17 PM | Link to this

So if we can’t trust government or free enterprise, what’s left? There’s always the church. Or maybe just let bowling leagues run everything.

Some would argue that there’s nothing wrong with private businesses that can’t be solved by getting government out of the way. In most cases, I’d say that’s true.

By physicsDawg

February 8, 2006 05:28 PM | Link to this

The problem with business OR government running things, is they are both GREEDY, and will seek their own benefit. A (im-)possible solution is for people to be educated, and watch out for themselves.
SO, gov’t education, or private education?
:)

By Buy Danish

February 8, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this

Voice of “reason” - YOU said: “Whose more of threat to our country and our people, terrorist who may attack or the drug dealers, gang bangers and filth that terrorize neighborhoods daily?”.

I was not “clouding the issue” - I am pointing out that for some of us “terrorists” are a bigger threat than drug dealers. Really, you just do not get it do you? Do we need to repeat the entire history of modern fatwas to you? Do we need to recall every bombing, every beheading, every senseless, innocent death?

BTW, not to be too much of a stickler for grammar of anything, but it is “Who is” not “Whose”. As in “Whose cartoon is this”? Who is asking?’

Gadem - If Bush had not been there, that would not have made it right, it would have made it just SLIGHTLY less distasteful and undignified. BTW, if you want to call me “wench”, can I call you “squaw”?

All - News Flash! there is hope in the world! U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and Ken Timmerman just got nominated by the Swedes for a Nobel Peace Prize. I guess they didn’t get the message that Bolton is a real meanie. Not only did Bolton get nominated despite the protestations of the left and John Kerry, but now this! I’m just going to luxuriate in it for a moment. Ahhhh! Sweet!

By Pinko Supremo

February 8, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this

Simple…you find a proper balance between the two.

Government regulates private enterprise.

Insurance companies have proven that without government IN the way, they will raise prices as high as they can.

By RE

February 8, 2006 05:34 PM | Link to this

On this sancitity of capitilism idea, it just is not the case. The goal of capitilism id not endless competition with market forces driving down prices, it is market domination leading to a monopoly where you can set any price you choose. Business does not strive to be in a competitive market, it seeks to win. At what point do you need regulation? Or do you believe that there should never be regulation of business. For most products, there will always be competition, but for some items competition is bought out or run out. The problems start to arise when there are only a couple players left in the game, especially for products that are needs instead of wants. Why should Exxon be competitive with BP, they can make more by cooperating on pricing.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 05:36 PM | Link to this

But greed is good, remember? The profit motive drives business to produce a supply of goods and services that the public demands. When those goods don’t deliver what the public wants, competition leads them elsewhere. You don’t like Coke? Buy Pepsi. You don’t like Ford? Buy Honda. You don’t like Medicare? Oops, sorry, no competition there, my friend. You’re boned.

Where private enterprise is thwarted is where too much government meddling has stifled competition, not allowing the free market to adjust itself to our benefit. No, this theory isn’t 100 percent, and we do need some small degree of regulation (inspecting meat, for instance). But a more open market for most goods and services would benefit us far more than the half-a*******ed way we do it now. Let’s be free market or socialist, pick one and try it, rather than trying to serve two masters.

By Buy Danish

February 8, 2006 05:38 PM | Link to this

Pinko Supremo - Great name for pizza manufactured by forced labor in a communist country. But I digress. If the government got out of the way and let private citizens join groups and get health insurance instead of relying on their employers or the government, then maybe we would actually have a free market at work. And if insurers didn’t have to fend off limitless lawsuits by class action “special interest groups”, then maybe their cost of doing business wouldn’t be so high, and our costs would be lower. Dittoes for the “Big Pharma”. Get the lawyers AND the government out of the way.

By Glenn

February 8, 2006 05:44 PM | Link to this

Bush - the Absent Aviator - and his new budget. How utterly Republiscum of him. Starve and steal from deserving Americans in order to pour it down a “defense” rathole such as Iraq, et al. Happens every year.

By Buy Danish

February 8, 2006 05:44 PM | Link to this

RE - there is no greater monopoly than unrestrained “government”. You’ve got to be kidding. I guess that economic restraint is “in”, but data mining is “out”.

Dr R - I veto the socialist bit.

By RE

February 8, 2006 05:48 PM | Link to this

Ok I agree on one point with you Dr R, there does need to be regulation and the theory is not 100%. I think the truth to that is any purist in belief is usually wrong. A strict capitalist society is not usually a good thing, in fact in a purist view it would resemble anarchy, because govt policing is a socialist idea, as are any safety net programs. Also the FCC is a socialist regulator, I can almost assure you that if NBC started running hard core porn, thier rating would jump up. Highways would no longer be publically financed and free. Not all govt is a bad thing.

To counter, a strict socialist idea where the govt sets all business policy would stifle growth as well. Just please stop going back to the invisible beneficient hand of the market guiding all things, it is a myth

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this

Sigh … well, just when we had a substantive discussion going, the Dead-End Kids are back. OK, Wisenheimer, tell me how Bush is starving or stealing from anyone. Did he literally take someone’s food money or is he just not handing it out to your satisfaction? I wasn’t aware it was the government’s job to feed us. Let me call my rep real quick and order a sandwich …

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this

I don’t need your help in grammar, but if you know a way to prevent fat-fingering the keys, please clue me in. I write and edit for a living. Michael Jordan even let his kids score a few points in the backyard.

You are the one that doesn’t get it! Name me three terrorist attacks in the last month, and I’ll list the number of violent crimes. That will help determine which threat is more likely to affect you or your neighbor. I know about Fatwas and all of that garbage, but it’s a threat, the arabs aren’t gonna run through your community beheading the home owners association. The handful of beheadings you SAW would not have taken place if we weren’t occupying Iraq.

The KKK vowed to get rid of the Jews and N-iggers but we didn’t declare war on them. They were a bigger threat than terrorist.

By Objective Observer

February 8, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this

gadem:

As a believer, I don’t even like to get a sermon at someone’s funeral. Now if I can disconnect from God at that time of loss, surely politicians can disconnect from their battle.

Maya Angelou’s recollection of pajama parties where she and Mrs. King called each other “girl” is what it is about.

By Pinko Supremo

February 8, 2006 05:55 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish….you’re comparing MY name to a food item?

heheheh.

And yes, lets stop all lawsuits against insurance companies and remove all government regulation AND pass a law that only private individuals can afford health care.

That way, many insurance companies can compete for your dollar, because, after all, many gas companies has worked so well here in Georgia. AND auto insurance companies would NEVER deliberately get together and raise prices.

But honestly? I’m all in favor of this system, so we can finally see what will really happen in the magical land of ‘pure free market healthcare’…

Oh…and of course, if it was a Republican president, we’d need to wait four years because of the delayed bad effect the previous Democratic president had on it (because any good effects on the economy are only a delayed result of republican presidents).

SO-the only way to PROPERLY test this theory is

A)Make all insurance companies completely immunine to ALL lawsuits. B)Make all private companies stop having insurance as a provided benefit and allow individuals to have the need to purchase it directly. C)Wait 20 years and elect only Republican Presidents.

Then it will work of course.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 05:55 PM | Link to this

All day I’ve been asking for specifics from the “bash Bush” crowd as to how he’s depriving the underclass of their deserved government goodies. Still waiting to hear specifics, but that would require more effort than just calling him names. As I’ve said many times, I don’t always agree with GWB and I’ll bash him myself when I disagree with something he goes. But I won’t leave you wondering why.

The sound of crickets is returning …

By Pinko Supremo

February 8, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

Bush is depriving America by spending $400 BILLION dollars on a boondoggle instead of spending it here at home or in OTHER foreign countries that actually pose more of a threat like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran instead of the novel writing goober who tried to kill his father.

That’s a good start right there.

By Voice of Reason

February 8, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this

Dr. R - It’s not something you can say by he took this away or he took that away. It’s the effects of some of his policies or bills that he has signed that hurt people struggling to get by.

The pharmacy thing comes to mind. Then the cut of social programs that were discussed earlier. Throw in the bankruptcy bill, which can potentially hurt anybody. He’s not directly responsible for raping the social security funds, but the cost of this war and disregard for the deficit is going to hurt the taxpayers - at least the ones that are struggling.

By Steve

February 8, 2006 06:09 PM | Link to this

Let’s make that “The ALCOHOLIC Absent Aviator.”

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 06:11 PM | Link to this

Fair enough; an answer, at least. Fact is, Republicans don’t believe in heavily funding social programs in a futile attempt to end poverty. They make no secret of that, and continue to get elected nonetheless. The whole idea of turning our federal dollars over to the poor has been rejected by a large portion of the electorate, even many Democrats (remember Bill’s welfare reform and “the era of big government is over”? Two of his finest moments). Yet as many conservatives will tell you, GWB has spent more on social programs and entitlements than most Repubs, to the chagrin of many followers. What you seem to be saying is that he shouldn’t be such a Republican. Yet if he wasn’t, he’d be a Democrat, and therefore would have lost the election to a Republican anyway.

As for our “boondoggle,” I respect your view, though I do not concur. We still can use diplomacy to enact regime change in Saudi Arabia, possibly Iran and Syria. We were well past that in Iraq. Yet I concede the high cost of war, whatever the reason, as a factor in your argument. I just don’t know how throwing that money around here would end problems for the poor. You know where that money would end up if we just gave it away tomorrow? Back in a rich man’s pocket.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 06:15 PM | Link to this

“Alcoholic?” Yeah, that helps, too. Real relevant to political discussion. If you agreed with the man’s politics, you’d reward him for turning his life around. Because you don’t, he’s a worthless drunk with beady eyes and probably smells funny.

You guys are pitiful. Did you mom lock you in your room or something?

By RE

February 8, 2006 06:16 PM | Link to this

Dr R

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - Congress cut funding for federal student-loan program on Wednesday, raising the cost of attending college for many future students, according to a published report.

The Senate passed a deficit-reduction package that calls for $12.7 billion to be cut from federal student-loan programs over five years, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday

Congressional action awaiting Bush’s approval. Not exactally a goodie for the needy, but please explain how making it harder to get a higher education is good for the country

By Buy Danish

February 8, 2006 06:17 PM | Link to this

Pinko Supremo -

“Buy Danish” refers to the Danish cartoons. It is part of a ‘movement’ to support the Danes in this cartoon brouhaha, especially since they are being boycotted by fanatical facists. You could call it a “tempest in a turban” I suppose.

Meanwhile, you sure are filled with all sorts of corporate conspiracy theories! Everybody colluding with everybody else just to screw all of us. “Big Government” is SO much better I guess ‘cause you can steal from the taxpayer.

By Dr R

February 8, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

Re: It’s not. You’re right. If there’s one area in which we get a return on our tax dollars, it is in funding higher education. There’s no way to defend that.

See, I don’t toe the GOP line at all. I think they are totally out of bounds a lot of the time. But I do it on the issues, on substance, not just childish insults. Same with Democrats (OK, Tom DeLay and Ted Kennedy are fair game for childish insults, but that’s all …)

By RE

February 8, 2006 06:36 PM | Link to this

one more- The House yesterday narrowly approved a contentious budget-cutting package that would save nearly $40 billion over five years by imposing substantial changes on programs including Medicaid, welfare, child support and student lending.

With its presidential signature all but assured, the bill represents the first effort in nearly a decade to try to slow the growth of entitlement programs, one that will be felt by millions of Americans. Women on welfare are likely to face longer hours of work, education or community service to qualify for their checks. Recipients of Medicaid can expect to face higher co-payments and deductibles, especially on expensive prescription drugs and emergency room visits for non-emergency care. More affluent seniors will find it far more difficult to qualify for Medicaid-covered nursing care.”

Medicaid helps the poor in this country with medical care. No so far as the wealthy seniors having to pay more, I do not really have a problem with that. However if medicaid is cut and the poor have less access to medical care, there actually will be more of an effect on society as a whole. When faced with the thought of paying for things like vaccination for children, there may be less parents who choose to vaccinate. Measles, Mumps, Whooping Cough…Imagine those diseases coming back into play, and back into the schools you send your children to.

By Daniel

February 8, 2006 06:37 PM | Link to this

Bush government is real simple: “Big dogs eat first.” We’ve never had such debts. We’re spending like a drunk in a whorehouse on a credit card. Only, our children will have to pay it back. We can only hope the next president has an economic “bubble” like Clinton had to pay for these extravagances. The Republicans are eating our children. (I.e. our children’s future).

By Ricky

February 8, 2006 06:38 PM | Link to this

Daniel, that same arguement was made during the Reagan administration. I think the children of the 80’s are doing pretty well. Don’t you ever get tired of the same old Republicans are for the rich line.

By Daniel

February 8, 2006 06:40 PM | Link to this

No, I don’t thank you. Abramoff was no accident. There has to be a Democratic Party, not every can be born rich, or, suck up to them.

By Ricky

February 8, 2006 06:43 PM | Link to this

Daniel, do you really belive that all Dems are born poor and can relate to the average man as you say. Cmon on. Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, Gore, et al were all born with a silver spoon in their mouth. The Dems suck up to their special interests just as much as the Reps suck up to theirs. To say as a blanket statement that the Dems are for everyone that is not rich is intellectually dishonest. And if it was true why aren’t they winning every election since most of Americans aren’t rich? Buy hey if you like to repeat the same ole party line, go for it

By Buy Danish

February 8, 2006 06:45 PM | Link to this

Don’t you socialists ever get tired of the ‘gloom and doom’ scenario? We could be at 100% employment and you’d still be crowing that the sky if falling. And you’re so humorless! What a grim and dreary bunch.

The deficit will be cut by higher revenues received through tax cuts and spending cuts. I know, it’s a tough idea to grasp, but it’s true. The last laugh is with Laffler.

Ricky - you got that one right!

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 06:46 PM | Link to this

RE & Dr R,

One of you throws out the $12.7 billion being pulled back over five years from the student loan program and the other just says “oh yeah, that’s bad.”

Do either of you know what these cuts are made up of? I don’t, but it’s entirely possible that it’s from streamlining of overlapping programs and finding all sorts of ways to improve the program itself. In that case it may well help more people that really need it.

By RE

February 8, 2006 06:48 PM | Link to this

Hey Buy Danish,

8.2 trillion in debt 400 yearly shortfall BUDGETED for Additional 80 billion to Iraq unbudgeted

Now I am no math wiz, but how long will it take to pay off the debt by increasing it every year?

By Scooter

February 8, 2006 06:49 PM | Link to this

Does it bother anyone else that it seems we will never be able to make government entitlements operate efficiently (assuming gov’t can be)? Most sane individuals would admit there are tons of people that milk the system and should be efficiently cut off so the truly needy can receive their due hand up. Assuming blind compassion would ever allow us to rid the system of the leaches we could only guess at how much that would save. Tack on the assumption government can operate efficiently without falling victim to nepotism and cronyism, and think of the money savings and resulting cuts the critic crowd could rail against. If the media rails against it, because they rail against everything, and the proud, thanks to PC sheltering of self esteem and the ignorant masses will follow.

By Ricky

February 8, 2006 06:50 PM | Link to this

RE, it will take awhile no doubt, but it isn’t the end of the world as many claim.

By RE

February 8, 2006 06:51 PM | Link to this

RW, You state you own ignorance of the plan in your comment, and use it as a justification. Amazing. I guess everything will be ok if we are all just optomistic. You remind me of Candide, not the blogger, the book

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 07:03 PM | Link to this

RE,

I asked a question. Would it too much f’ng trouble to attempt to answer it. You may be right jerk, that’s why I asked and stated I didn’t know the answer.

By RE

February 8, 2006 07:06 PM | Link to this

Must be the public schools…

8.2 trillion + 400 Billion/ year will never equal 0

By Daniel

February 8, 2006 07:11 PM | Link to this

Ricky: The dems aren’t winning elections, they’re coming very close, but they aren’t winning because the reps. are more clever. Also, the Dems haven’t picked their strongest candidates. America, sadly, is the loser. The Reps keep the debate in the toilet. America, and her children, lose again. I’m just an old goat who aches for our country.

By Tex

February 8, 2006 07:13 PM | Link to this

Yes Mike/new: You’ll find that many of these weak little punks use the term “pinko.” Shows how young and ignorant they are, plus well-known fact that neocons are always 50 years behind times. They are but a vomitus mass herein. A stench.

By Scooter

February 8, 2006 07:16 PM | Link to this

Tex, who was the fist US president to place black Americans into positions of government influence?

By Jesus

February 8, 2006 07:18 PM | Link to this

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

By Scooter

February 8, 2006 07:18 PM | Link to this

Republicrats keep the debate in the toilet, that is rich. Especially so soon after CSK’s funeral.

By Scooter

February 8, 2006 07:28 PM | Link to this

Those evil nasty republicans;

President Eisenhower was quietly determined to eliminate racial discrimination in those areas where the president had clear-cut authority and there was no question of overriding states’ rights. Eisenhower therefore issued executive orders ending any segregationist practices that remained in the District of Columbia, in the military, and in the U.S. Government bureaucracy. He was the first president to appoint a black, Frederic Morrow, to an executive position on the White House staff. Eisenhower’s record of achievement in the civil rights field was sufficiently impressive that he gained considerable support among black voters when he successfully ran for reelection to the presidency in 1956.

Eisenhower’s policy of minimizing legislative requests and maximizing executive action was followed by his successor as president, John F. Kennedy. It can even be argued that President Kennedy, by delaying signing an executive order to racially integrate public housing in the United States for more than two years, was less willing to use executive action on behalf of civil rights than Eisenhower was. To Kennedy’s credit, following the violent and well-publicized racial demonstrations in Birmingham in 1963, he sent a major civil rights bill to Congress and worked diligently for its passage.

Don’t tell the black folk, they must continue to hate republicrats, right?

By Ricky

February 8, 2006 07:40 PM | Link to this

Daniel, so by your rationale the Dems share no blame for the political climate in America right now? It just goes to show again that you are a blind partisan. It is both parties fault. Clinton staff two guys whose sole job it was to be political hacks and to put out bad press against the Republicans. The Reps responded in kind. Does that make either right? No it doesn’t. Your right America does suffer. But from both parties not just one. I wish we had a leader like Tip O’Neill who would go talk to President Reagan about issues. Even Newt worked with Clinton, not all the time but alot. Now we have Reid, Frist, Pelosi, etc who would rather go straight to the press to bad mouth the other party. It is a joke and it is BOTH parties fault.

By getalife

February 8, 2006 07:48 PM | Link to this

“Allowing Tom DeLay to sit on a committee in charge of giving out money is like putting Michael Brown back in charge of FEMA — Republicans in Congress just can’t seem to resist standing by their man,” said Bill Burton, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

This government stinks more than New Orleans after Katrina.

By Scooter

February 8, 2006 08:12 PM | Link to this

Getalife, give it time and all the information I just provided will convieniently be forgotten by the intelluctual elite. Are you back in Vegas yet?

By Scooter

February 8, 2006 08:24 PM | Link to this

Getalife, are you not talking to me? If I could sign on to post on you or RW’s blogs I wold come find you. When I try to rregister my handle, Scooter, it tells me it is already taken.

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 08:33 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

I think you can post anonymously and just put Scooter in your message. (you could also try ScooterLibby, that would get some attention)

By Scooter

February 8, 2006 08:45 PM | Link to this

RW, thanks. Unfortunately I am out of time.

But, I told my wife, as she was commenting on my blogging the other night, how I enjoy coming in here and seeing how long I could shut the “know it alls” up. 1.5 hours ain’t bad. I will remain humble and they will remain in your face.

Don’t tell finch that my wife and I are going to be in the same domocile, all weekend, with another “breeder” couple and a “funny” couple.

Dr, I can see how one would not associate governmetn efficiency with cost savings and budget cuts, but as a Libertarian you let me down on that. As the Tupac said, “I aint mad at ya”.

By Semper Fi

February 8, 2006 09:01 PM | Link to this

Just got home from church and read thru the blog. Great job, Buy Danish(where the hell you been?), physicDawg, RW, DrR, Grinch, Scooter and mike. Sure missed Andy’s comments.

By getalife

February 8, 2006 09:06 PM | Link to this

Sorry Scooter,

I was working on my blog

Cartoon war!

By Objective Observer

February 8, 2006 09:56 PM | Link to this

R.W.:

I went to your site. Liked your newest editions but still don’t understand your link technique. Is the *href= significant to the process? Anyhoo, the URL, HTML or whatever-the-hell was way to lengthy and would have left an unsightly mess.

As to your newest edition the nipple has moved Smile R.W., life is good!

By Semper Fi

February 8, 2006 09:57 PM | Link to this

It’s tax time, so just a reminder to everyone that thinks we should rescind the tax cuts, you are not required to take any deductions when you file your taxes. This is the best way for you personnaly rescind your own cut. Don’t take the deductions and then complain about the cuts. Mine helps me with my 377 dollar gas bill I just got.

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 10:12 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

The href isn’t necessary unless you want to name your link, the instruction above it is to just make the page you want to show into a link, but you can just copy the URL(that’s the part in parentheses here when you do a link) and paste it over there without making it a link.

The last of your post is far too cryptic for me. ?????

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 10:19 PM | Link to this

For people that have high gas bills, if you have rooms that you mainly use Delonghi makes these heaters that are safe sealed and run on electricity. They are pretty efficient and do a great job of heating up a single room. With electric prices low in the winter you may be able to lower your gas bill.

They sell them locally at Lowes and probably other places.

By Midori

February 8, 2006 10:29 PM | Link to this

Yes, HOORAH!! for those wonderful tax cuts

By Midori

February 8, 2006 10:33 PM | Link to this

my taxes were cut, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt

By Semper Fi

February 8, 2006 10:40 PM | Link to this

Thanks RW, I will check into it. I have two furnaces in a ranch house. I try to toggle between bedroom end of house to den/kitchen end of house but need something else.

So Midori, may I assume you’re not taking the deductions, or are you going to take them and be a hypocrite? Of course I am assuming you are a wage earner.

By Objective Observer

February 8, 2006 10:43 PM | Link to this

Getalife:

There is an extreme wierdo on your blog. Tend to him post-haste.

By Objective Observer

February 8, 2006 10:47 PM | Link to this

R.W.:

I hope I am detecting sarcasm. Cryptic?

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 10:48 PM | Link to this

Semper Fi,

We mainly use two rooms so we have one in each and set the furnace temperature down. It makes going into the rest of the house pretty interesting though.

Midori,

Nice links, one that assumes economic activity would have ramped itself back up without the tax cuts and one that doesn’t realize Congress can make any number of changes between now and 2015. Keep trying to win with smoke and mirrors and maybe you will lull Republicans to sleep.

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 10:52 PM | Link to this

OO,

This part:

As to your newest edition the nipple has moved Smile R.W., life is good!

Is Salazar connected to the nipple? You have won this game of stump the blogger!!

By Semper Fi

February 8, 2006 10:57 PM | Link to this

RW, my wife likes being poor more than being cold.

When I first got married I told my wife I would be making all the major decisions and she could handle the minor ones. After 35 years of marraige, there has not been anything major enough, which I have had to get involved with.

By Objective Observer

February 8, 2006 11:01 PM | Link to this

R.W.:

Sorry! Make that Walter E. Williams. I get so engrossed in the reading, I lose my bearings.

Semper:

Can I be your wife? My feet are cold.

By Semper Fi

February 8, 2006 11:04 PM | Link to this

OO, I thought Buff was taking care of your feet. If not check RW’s link @10:19 on Delonghi heaters. Maybe they have a model with a footrest.

By Objective Observer

February 8, 2006 11:11 PM | Link to this

Semper:

I’m an easy keeper. Don’t eat much, don’t ask for much. A Valentine’s Day baby, that makes me a two-fer and I do all the yard work around my house. Is it a deal?

I just want warm feet year round, and you can be easily swayed by a woman with cold feet obviously.

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 11:21 PM | Link to this

OO,

I don’t think I understand it any better with Walter Williams involved. Maybe you could get your mind off your cold feet by spelling it out for me.

It could be me, I’ve been running around blog pimping. “getalife” has shown me the way.

By Semper Fi

February 8, 2006 11:22 PM | Link to this

Well, since I’ve got a bass boat, and I’m into keepers, I could tell the wife to move over for the sake of your feet, but that would be a major decision and I don’t know if I remember how to make those after 35 years. Damn shame.

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 11:26 PM | Link to this

Semper Fi,

That would be a “major” decision, but it doesn’t fall into the tiny sub-category of “major” decisions you are allowed to make.

By Semper Fi

February 8, 2006 11:29 PM | Link to this

RW, you got that right.

Did you hear if we threw the democrats out of the hotels today

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 11:29 PM | Link to this

OO,

I’m sure you can find something here.

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 11:32 PM | Link to this

Semper Fi,

I think it was that we were going to start pretending that we would no longer pay the hotel bills today. What are the odds of sticking to that?

By Objective Observer

February 8, 2006 11:33 PM | Link to this

R.W.:

Last attempt. I have been accused of thinking in abstract, so maybe it is me. Link the philosophical quote to the context in the Williams piece, and apply your visual imagination to my link.

Well, I guess I’m off to bed with my cold feet, no thanks to you Semper. You’re wife is a lucky girl. I was just kidding, you do know that! R.W. can attest.

By RW-(the original)

February 8, 2006 11:38 PM | Link to this

OO,

Goodnight! I get the first part now ding,ding, but how am I supposed to attest to your friskiness or lack there of.

By Semper Fi

February 8, 2006 11:38 PM | Link to this

Slim to none. Well I guess I better hit the rack, I got to go to work tomorrow to pay for some more hotel rooms, with heat, A/C and cable. I would rather be paying for elderly and handicap kids needs ,but so is the way of the Democrat’s policies. Soon I can start going to work to rebuild those hotel rooms.

By Objective Observer

February 8, 2006 11:41 PM | Link to this

R.W.:

I am going to the Sporting Goods store tomorrow. Feel good, you have saved a life today.

By Spike

February 9, 2006 02:48 AM | Link to this

“Commies” yet! Poor, poor little SCOOTER. Let’s turn him on his belly and give him a nice lil ride downhill that such a name & mentality so richly deserve. No pinkos in his trailer - just punkos.

By Dutch

February 9, 2006 02:55 AM | Link to this

Mindless hatemongers like Semper-Not in…chuch! Doesn’t it figure? Hatred and bitterness and jealousy and rage - all in the name of Jesus. These people really need to start eating their young.

By Scooter

February 9, 2006 07:57 AM | Link to this

Thank you Spike and Dutch. You brought so much to the table it has overwhelmed my mentality.

By Semper Fi

February 9, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this

Spike/Dutch Thank you for your funny statements. Posting at 2:48 and 2:55am, what, did you wet the bed again and have to get up, so decided to blog?

By L Dorado

February 9, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

Moral of story: If you’re in a swordfight with Omar, use a sword. Otherwise he’ll just lop off your head and stick the pen up your dead a*.