Luckovich cartoon changes address!
Mike Luckovich’s cartoon has moved to a new ajc.com address. Click here to view and bookmark.
The new format features a larger version of Mike’s cartoon for the day and allow readers to vote. There are also links to recent Luckovich cartoons and special galleries.
Bloggers who want to comment on issues in the news are invited to blog at any of our four other Opinion blogs:
Home > Opinion > Mike Luckovich > Archives > 2006 > May > 15 > Entry
Problem-solving
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Permalink | Comments (162) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorial Cartoon
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 08:03 AM | Link to this
When will they have time to do cartoon boy’s yard work for him?
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 08:03 AM | Link to this
All hail the Decider!
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 08:04 AM | Link to this
Our national intelligence agency has become what is known as a sieve: ABC reports its calls may be tracked Amid controversy over reports that the Bush administration’s has obtained records of millions of Americans’ phone calls, ABC News said it had been warned that the federal government was tracking its calls in order to locate confidential sources. “It’s time for you to get some new cellphones, quick,” a federal law enforcement official told ABC, the network said on its Web site. The United States will never be safe again until we start hanging people like this. These scumbags are putting the pinko elite cocktail party circuit above the safety of your family.
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 08:04 AM | Link to this
In a new report by the Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector studies Hagel-Martinez to discover how much the amnesty of anywhere between 7 million to 10 million illegal aliens would cost the government. “If enacted,” writes Mr. Rector, the bill “would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years.” Hagel-Martinez will not create any new entitlement program, but it will mean that the long-term cost to government services from millions of suddenly legalized immigrants and their families could be $30 billion more every year.
As opposed to illegal aliens, legal immigrants have access to food stamps, Medicaid, supplemental security income and temporary assistance to needy families. Citing a Center for Immigration Studies’ report, Mr. Rector finds that if all illegals were granted amnesty, federal tax payments would increase by some $3,000 per household, but “federal benefits would increase by $8,000 per household.”
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 08:05 AM | Link to this
Contrary to what you’ve been told by the drive by media: As of this writing, 11 million of the 13 million seniors who never had drug insurance are now enrolled. Nearly 80 percent of all seniors eligible for the low-income subsidy now have coverage. What’s more, surveys show that nearly 90 percent of consumers had no problem signing up or using the benefit. This is not just the most successful implementation of a federal program in recent memory; it is also a historic breakthrough in the effort create a true market for health care. More than 30 million seniors are using their own money to choose a drug plan that meets their needs. In response, companies have slashed premiums, improved customer service and added new medicines. Enrollees are saving up to 75 percent on their drug costs. Taxpayers are saving too because competition has cut the cost of the benefit by 20 percent and seniors who take medicines for chronic illness will be less likely to use more expensive hospital services.
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 08:05 AM | Link to this
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 08:06 AM | Link to this
Telling publishers that their books must instill pride only guarantees a phony version of feel-good history. Publishers, as a result, bend over backward to be positive, whether writing about the genocidal reign of Mao Tse-tung (presumably to avoid offending his admirers) or the unequal treatment of women in Islamic societies (to avoid offending Muslims).
Certainly, textbooks should accurately portray society in all its complexity. But to impose contemporary political requirements on how the events are portrayed only ensures that the history we teach our students is inaccurate and dishonest. History books have already grown larger and duller to accommodate every group’s demands.
What the state should expect of publishers is that they produce books that are as honest and accurate as possible. Such narratives would be far likelier to instill humility, a recognition of human folly, an understanding of conflict and differences and a sense of our common humanity rather than a sense of pride.
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 08:07 AM | Link to this
In the private sector, Chicago attorney Howard Foster has masterminded class-action lawsuits on behalf of legal workers against employers who knowingly hire illegal workers with dubious documents and no English skills. Zirkle Fruit, a Washington-based apple-packing company, recently agreed to a settlement that will require it to compensate legal workers to the tune of $1.3 million for the wages they would have earned in a marketplace not depressed by illegal immigrants.
By PinestrawGuy
May 16, 2006 08:11 AM | Link to this
What I saw last night was political seppuku, certainly, but why would Rove let it happen? GWB was just sacrificed, that much is obvious. I’ve just not yet figured out on WHO’S altar…
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 08:13 AM | Link to this
Now we find out the real truth behind the phone data-mining. It’s not really about “patterns” or “tracking Al Qaeda phone calls” — it’s all about tracking journalists’ calls to government agencies, trying to find those “leakers.”
Blaming the press for revealing bad policies really helped the Nixon administration, didn’t it? And all this time we’re told that it’s all about tracking the terrorists. Boy, I really feel safe now!
By Scooter
May 16, 2006 08:13 AM | Link to this
Illegal Immigration: cheap non-inflationary labor for the republicrats’ economy and purchased votes for the democrat welfare state. Bend over America, I’m going to leave my class ring on if that’s OK?
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 08:15 AM | Link to this
I’m looking forward next to hearing the suggestion that we use “illegal aliens” to construct the 2000-mile wall at the Mexican border… so many good ideas coming from this administration.
By Buy Danish
May 16, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this
Here’s a compromise - Let the Gitmo Prisoners, convicted conspirators, and Jihadi friends pick the fruit, cotton - whatever jobs American’s won’t do. I say, keep ‘em busy - you know what they say about the Devil’s workshop.
It would be a refreshing change from those messy beheadings and dreams of annihilating infidels,and raping virgins in the presence of Allah.
I’m out till later…
By Lord Help Us
May 16, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this
Hey, I see we’re back in business following the deranged moron’s temper tantrum. Don’t upset it again…it will take it’s ball and go home. What a mental midget!
It’s The Competence, STUPID!!
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 08:45 AM | Link to this
BuyDanish— those “Gitmo prisoners” you speak of? The ones who’ve yet to be charged with anything? Another fabulous idea coming from the far-right dingbats.
By AntiRadical
May 16, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this
Good toon ML. More PANDERING by a failed Presidency. The Presidents “plan” is simply more white-collar welfare for the military establishment and it’s industrial suppliers.
Securing the border physically is an impossible dream as evidenced by the continual flow of illegals through the sections of the border that are already fenced and monitored. More of the same failed efforts will be futile. It only takes a 0.3 cent (in Mexico) .22 cal LR rifle bullet (range 1 mile) to destroy a $20K infared surveillance camera installation, afterall, and it can easily be done entirely from Mexican soil.
6,000 Nat’l Gaurd troops will only add more burden to the national debt, hamstring our military reserve, demoralize reserve troops, and will just force human trafficing onto shore lines and other points of circumvention.
The only way to solve border-running is by cuting-off the root cause (ILLEGAL HIRING). We should best invest our resources into a nationalized biometric database for use by immigration and law-enforcement agencies. No benefits of any sort should be provided for non-citizen criminal invaders or their families; they should instead be forced to “guest work” in an assigned penal capacity to offset the cost of their transportation back to their country of origin.
Most imprtantly, we should put real teeth into penalties for exploiters of illegal labor. All assets of any businesses and industries that profit from the importation of even one illegal worker (zero-tolerance) should be seized in the same manner that we seize those of businesses and industries that profit from the importation of illegal drugs.
Illegals will not run the border if there is no illegal payday waiting on the other side!
By Brian Curtis
May 16, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this
This cartoon is right on target. Deploy the already-overused and exhausted National Guard for even more duties they’re not supposed to handle…
…and still find a way to get that oh-so-vital “cheap labor” we’re addicted to. Don’t address the core problem—our unwillingness to pay workers a real wage, which might (gasp!) cut into the sacred corporate profit margins.
No, just keep looking for ways to appease your lobbyist benefactors with new ways to guarantee that cheap, under-the-table workers keep streaming in. The only challenge is how to LOOK like you’re doing something about the problem that has Americans concerned, without actually doing anything about it that might hurt Big Bidness.
Well done, Georgie.
By AntiRadical
May 16, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
The only challenge is how to LOOK like you’re doing something about the problem that has Americans concerned, without actually doing anything about it that might hurt Big Bidness.
Very well-said, Brain Curtis.
By getalife
May 16, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
Another waste of money we do not have.
It is not a time to be in the National Guard.
It would seem that going after the employers would be a no brainer but not with this administration.
It is all about cheap labor, selling out the American worker once again. Cheap labor is outscourcing with free delivery straight to the American employers.
The Dems agenda should be to get elected and reverse everything this administration has done to do the right thing for the people and not the lobbyists.
By George
May 16, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
If we build the wall first then,
We don’t have to have as many border guards or NG to patrol the border.
We don’t have to build all those new detention centers for the illegals caught sneaking across the border because they never got to US soil.
There are fewer anchor babies because they didn’t get across the border in time.
The Mexican Government has to take care of their own people instead of exporting the problem.
What is not to like?
By Do libs ever listen?
May 16, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this
Apparently not.
Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees, because of the widespread problem of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place.
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this
George— who is going to build that 2000-mile wall at the border? Why not go after the farmers and employers who hire “those illegals” in the first place? What’s not to like about that? And while we’re at it, why don’t we go ahead and build a 3000-mile wall across the Canadian border to stop Al Qaeda from entering as they’ve done before? That’s the bigger problem here.
By George
May 16, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
Yes Goldie, you are right. Going after the employers who hire illegals is a good thing and will dry up the market but won’t happen under this administration. We will see a fence before we see tough enforcement of employers.
By Real Conservatives Aren't Republican
May 16, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
Wholesale Prices Jump 0.9 Percent in April
Say hello to Nixon’s little friend, Stagflation.
By Dusty
May 16, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
Well,
I see the Clown Prince of AJC has scribbled another one trying to demean the President. That in itself is a joke and ml is the joke.
Luckovich could contribute more to society if HE went out and picked fruit. Don’t bother to tell me he is a political cartoonist. I know exactly what he is.
The President is a sensible compassionate man trying to work out a complex problem. So all the little two cent brainiacs are trying to act like they know better. That is another joke.
Have fun, little ones. But do repeat the Pledge of Allegiance once in a while and try to figure out what it means. If you can’t, just ask a conservative.
By Ricky
May 16, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
The Dems once again show they are only concerned with politics. While the Presidents plan is only a stop gap and more needs to be done, you would never know from the Dem reaction. They have bemoaned the lack of border protection for the last several months and now they complain when the president finally comes up with a plan. How about come up with one of your own rather than just complain? We have to do something to fix this problem. We need to seal the borders. You can’t send 10 million people home, but make them register within 90 days or they will be sent home. Once they register, start the citizenship process. They have to start paying taxes and show gainful employment. They need to demonstrate the ability to speak English.
By Brian Curtis
May 16, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Which conservatives? Bush fired them all when they objected to his trashing the country.
By RE
May 16, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Ricky, Not a bad plan, but the GOP would never accept it. Any type of amnesty is too much for the hard core GOP. The hard core dems are looking to pile on. I actually think Bush in his weakened state is trying to govern from the middle, but it will go nowhere in the house and senate. Everyone on the GOP side is looking out for themselves.
By Ty
May 16, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this
Do Libs Ever Listen-I dropped in for a minute to read the posts and I’ve been asking myself the same question. I had to go back and read Bush’s proposal thinking I missed something. You’re right, the liberals here seem to be oblivious to that part of Bush’s plan or maybe it’s something they just want to continue to ignore to further their “Bush Can’t Do Anything Right” agenda. They’re still ignoring it after your post.
Forty-one years of neglect of an impending problem from all previous administrations and all of a sudden, Bush is totally responsible?
You liberals are very transparent in my opinion.
Outta here for awhile.
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
Consider the track record of these estimates. When have they ever been correct? Usually when a country tests a nuclear weapon, the event shocks the world. This was true of India in 1974 and Pakistan in 1998. As well with China—an August 1964 National Intelligence Estimate of the chances of a Chinese nuclear detonation noted that a test site was being prepared at Lop Nor, and would be ready in two months. However, the CIA stated that the Chinese would not have the necessary fissionable material to finish a bomb, so they doubted anything would happen for the rest of the year. Sure enough, two months later, on October 16, 1964, the Chinese successfully tested a nuclear weapon. Something to keep in mind when the “lack of fissionable material” argument comes up with respect to Iran.
The most noteworthy failed atomic forecast was the Soviet case. The CIA’s Office of Reports and Estimates (ORE) was given the task of making this prediction. ORE’s earliest analysis, in 1946, saw the Soviet bomb coming sometime in the 1950-1953 timeframe. Over a series of subsequent reports, the ORE settled on mid-1953 as “the most probable date” for a Soviet nuclear test. This estimate was published August 24, 1949; five days later, the Soviets tested their first a-bomb.
Look’s like the CIA was in the hands of the liberals back then too.
By Dusty
May 16, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
Oh, the blind as bats,
Brian, have you noticed that we haven’t had any terrorists attacks in the USA?
That 80% of Seniors have a prescription drug cards that help lower the cost of meds?
That taxes have been cut?
That New Orleans is being rebuilt and levees repaired?
That the economy is moving forward and unemployment downwards?
That the immigration problem is being addressed, not ignored?
If this is trashing the country, then I am all for it even though Democrats are crying and wailing over every move. Have a hankie, Brian Curtis.
By RE
May 16, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
Andy, I just trying to keep up a scorecard of all the liberal orginizations in your mind. Of course the Dems and ACLU are working with the communists to overthrow the government and give the US over to Cuba. All the judges, aside from the ones appointed by GWB are abortion promoting liberals. The CIA is liberal. Any retired General is anti-american. All Newspapers are working with the ACLU. So is there anyone out there to trust aside from Rush, Fox News, and NRO?
By MikeIsABigot
May 16, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
Dusty, don’t even bother. Mindless haters like Brian are beyond help. We can just take comfort in knowing that hateful people like Brian most often hate themselves the most.
By Laura
May 16, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
Dusty must be one of those rich mo-fo’s in the upper 5% bracket if he got a tax break. The rest of us down here got NO tax cut.
If you think New Orleans is rebuilt, THINK AGAIN.
Take your lips off of Rush’s knob for one minute and maybe you could see clearly.
By Laura
May 16, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
I hope this immigration episode rips the Republican Party in HALF - that’s the best thing that can come from it.
By Liberal Texas Democrat
May 16, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
“That taxes have been cut?”In January, George W. Bush declared that, “by cutting the taxes on the American people, this economy is strong, and the overall tax revenues have hit at record levels.” Regrettably, this endorsement of what his dad called voodoo economics was not a one-time oversight. Quoting from the article, “The Republicans’ only argument is that tax receipts have boomed in the years since the 2003 tax cut. But the question is whether tax receipts increased because the tax cuts worked some kind of magic or because the economy was headed up anyway after the recession, thanks maybe to low interest rates resulting from the Asian savings glut. Friends, the reason we have economists is so that they can solve these puzzles for us. Ignoring their solutions is like ignoring the judgment of medical science in favor of faith healers and quacks.”
By James
May 16, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
Bush’s plan is the “middle of the road” approach that everyone has been screaming for. A uniter, not a divider. How the hell can the man find the middle of the road when pandering political parties keep it on the roadside for political gain.
Geez, give it a chance people. Who knows, the program may inspire another Ceasar Chavez who will pressure the business community to increase wages benefitting the immigrants and the state of the economy. What we pay for goods will increase, but so will our tax base. Nobody can predict the outcome until a program has been implemented and that’s something that nobody has done for decades.
Decades of neglect and finally the American people have spoken and politicians are responding. How stupid have we, the voters, been for the last few decades?
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
By RE May 16, 2006 10:56 AM Andy, Any retired General is anti-american. All Newspapers are working with the ACLU.
Pretty much what you said except only 8 out of 3000 retired generals are back stabbing pinkos. Also the Washington Times and New York Sun newspapers are not infested with government subversive liberals like the drive by NY Times and company are.
By joewilson
May 16, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
Very stupid James
By MikeIsABigot
May 16, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
I have to laugh at all the hateful liberals who waste days on end posting to this blog and others.
Why don’t you lazy liberals get out and make some changes instead of just complaining all the time. Help your party win an election instead of just sitting in your caves complaining how conservatives are responsible for your personal failuress. You liberals are way too angry about everything to just be wasting your time spouting “Bush is a liar”. You did that in 2004 and lost big. 2006 will be the same because you are all too lazy to do anything but whine.
By RE
May 16, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
James, I am with you on this, I think Bush has a decent plan. The Nat Guard is kind of window dressing, a lot more would be done by expanding the border guard by 4000 rather than a temporary measure, especially one with no enforcement power. It is a middle of the road compromise, when you do that from a position of strength you look like a hero, when you do that from a position of weakness, you just get run over. The GOP is running for themselves now, GWB is a lame duck. It is too bad because this is good legistlation that is going to go nowhere.
By Liberal Texas Democrat
May 16, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
From the Conservative National Review Online: Leastwise since conservatives her about link to it so often I’m guessing is a conservative publication That’s the point of his proposal to send the National Guard to our border with Mexico. This represents Bush’s final, desperate descent into Clintonian sleight of hand. He wants to distract enough of his supporters with the razzle-dazzle of “National Guard to the Border!” headlines that they won’t notice he is pushing through Congress a proposal that essentially legalizes all the population influx from Latin America that has occurred in the past 10 years and any that might occur in the future.
Imagine that, Bush performing a “Clintonian sleight of hand’.
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
Dusty— The President is a sensible compassionate man trying to work out a complex problem.
My side is splitting, I’m laughing so hard!
W is a simple-minded hack, in way over his head!
By Charles Knight
May 16, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Is Mike implying that all our fruit is picked by illegals? Or that anyone who speaks Spanish is illegal? The point is we must secure our borders and develop a plan for guest workers. We visited friends living near the Arizona Mexican border recently. Things are out of control, folks.
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
RIcky— Once they register, start the citizenship process. They have to start paying taxes and show gainful employment. They need to demonstrate the ability to speak English.
I do agree with some of your points. But my questions always come back to this: why only punish those people who come here for work and not those employers who hire them and take advantage of them? Also, are we Americans willing to pay a going rate for the work that they do? For instance, are we willing to pay much more for our homes and products because of employers passing the wage increases along to the consumer?
By rushncap
May 16, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
Hey Danish, still waiting over here for you putative Supreme Court case which allows for the government to track our private phone calls. Getting kinda boring here. Gonna give us all the case number? Hmmmmm?
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
MikelsaBigot— You liberals are way too angry about everything to just be wasting your time spouting “Bush is a liar”. You did that in 2004 and lost big.
You call a 2% margin for an incumbent president BIG? W is a “war president” (his words) whose policies are so bad that he could only get 51% of the voters behind him. And you think that’s BIG? How laughable. But it’s really sad, because the Dems will have to spend years correcting this big mess y’all have made of this country.
By Dusty
May 16, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
LTD,
Clintonian sleight of hand??? Have you forgotten Clinton’s most memorable and miserable magic moment? I don’t think that I would use ANY comparison to Clinton again.
RE,
Have you ever had an optimistic thought in your life?
Here’s the president with a good immigration plan so what are your KEY words about it? window dressing, temporary, no enforcement, compromise, position of weakness.
All that and the plan hasn’t even gotten to Congress. Why don’t you try a little support for a change if you think “Bush has a decent plan.”???
By Dizty
May 16, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
Ok people, today is the day of all days! Do it, stand up for liberty. You can do it.
Freedom is only free when you get rid of the dom.
By Dusty
May 16, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this
Goldie is back, a little tarnished as usual, but always with the unadulterated party line. Oh, if only he/she could sing on this blog. We would have an Elvis-type version of Goldie singing “Bush Aint Nuthin’ but a Hound Dog”.
Wish I could stick around and listen to all the Demo yodeling ‘cause Goldie is full of it. How sad that I will have to read it later. But time flies. Au revoir!
By Real Conservatives Aren't Republican
May 16, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
Massive scale amnesty, misguided troop dispersion, token employer enforcement and penalties. Bush sure is a good little Democrat.
By Ricky
May 16, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
Goldie, of course we should punish the companies hiring them. But if we are going to give a free pass to those already here but not making them leave, then we can’t punish the companies until the 90 day window has passed. Then you can punish those companies that are still hiring illegal immigrants. This isn’t that hard of a problem to fix. We just need some level headed people to put it together and stop worring about what their party thinks. The Dems will never go for this because the left wing groups will flip out, the Reps will never go for it because they will call it amnesty. This is another shinning example of what is wrong with politics in our country today.
By rushncap
May 16, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
No, Dusty, there are no comparisons to Clinton. Bush is not worthy to be in the same room as Clinton, much less lay claim to doing anything half as well as Clinton did.
By Ricky
May 16, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
The 51% is more than Clinton ever got and people think he was hugely popular.
By getalife
May 16, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
A song for Dusty
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
Check out the liberal solution to the immigration issue so far:
Punish Big Business!
Go figure.
Let’s keep the border wide open and flood our country with welfare recipients! We’ll build massive complexes full of shelters and huts where they can live in squalor until their work visa is approved. Bring the family! Tell your friends!
You can’t be hired in America, it’s illegal! But check out the benefits that can be had for not working! We’ll just raise taxes!
By WashingtonState
May 16, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
Resident Racist (aka Andy): Your post on infant mortality in the US is again revealing of your ignorance and political bias. You have managed to find one of the biggest failings of the GOP approach to health care and blame it on the victims. There is a huge disparity between rates of perinatal mortality among minority groups and Caucasians. The biggest cause of perinatal mortality is low birth weight. The factors that account for low birth weight are multiple, but most are more common among minority populations. Poverty, smoking, poor nutrition, lack of access to pre-natal care are a few. Among Caucasians and Native Americans, alcohol consumption is a leading cause. Drug use certainly plays a part in all groups. Researchers, regardless of their political persuasion, have been looking at all these issues for the better part of a century. Now along comes Andy and states: “How many crack and alcohol babies are in that 16,000 or don’t you libs want to talk about that?” Any other words of wisdom you care to share with us?
The cuts in medicaid that this administration has made will adversely impact these vulnerable populations. It is beyond me how a culture of life that opposes abortion can turn around and reduce access to prenatal care among minorities when it is known that this is one huge determinant of perinatal mortality. It is beyond me how they can cut access to WIC when it is known that better nutrition is another determinant of perinatal survival. It is beyond me how they can cut a deal with tobacco companies that have been sued and lost in court when it is known that their product is a major determinant of perinatal mortality, both pre and post birth.
By the way, Georgia is among the top 10 states for both overall perinatal mortality and for perinatal mortality among African Americans. Good job. No wonder though, if Andy is typical of your average Joe.
By getalife
May 16, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
Poll numbers
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
Dusty— Bush is such a “compassionate” man that the Iraqi people are paying dearly for his attempt to solve a “complex problem.” About 100,000 Iraqis dead now because he chose not to hear that Al Qaeda was not involved in Iraq… they’re all guilty (according to W’s logic) for living in the middle east and sitting on top of our oil reserves!
Some “compassion.”
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Dusty— Bush is such a “compassionate” man that the Iraqi people are paying dearly for his attempt to solve a “complex problem.” About 100,000 Iraqis dead now because he chose not to hear that Al Qaeda was not involved in Iraq… they’re all guilty (according to W’s logic) for living in the middle east and sitting on top of our oil reserves!
Some “compassion.”
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Dusty— Bush is such a “compassionate” man that the Iraqi people are paying dearly for his attempt to solve a “complex problem.” About 100,000 Iraqis dead now because he chose not to hear that Al Qaeda was not involved in Iraq… they’re all guilty (according to W’s logic) for living in the middle east and sitting on top of our oil reserves!
Some “compassion.”
By Liberal Texas Democrat
May 16, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
By Dusty May 16, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this LTD,
Clintonian sleight of hand??? Have you forgotten Clinton’s most memorable and miserable magic moment? I don’t think that I would use ANY comparison to Clinton again. [duh, quoting a conservative writer in a conservative publication] (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTAyZjliMjVlZDFmMGQxNjFiMTQ2YTgxYTYyOWM1NDU=)
I would think ya’ll would be pleased that W’s learning curve took an upswing to the master of political sleight of hand. IMHO Bush is to Conservatism what Clinton is to Liberalism
By getalife
May 16, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
The question is, will W’s numbers go lower than Nixon’s and will there be the same outcome?
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
Dusty— Bush is such a “compassionate” man that the Iraqi people are paying dearly for his attempt to solve a “complex problem.” About 100,000 Iraqis dead now because he chose not to listen to advice that Al Qaeda had no support from Iraq… according to W’s logic, they’re all guilty for living in the middle east and sitting on top of our oil reserves— let’s just bomb them all! Some “compassion.”
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
Goldilocks: 100,000 sounds soooo good when it rolls of that pacifist tongue of your’s, don’t it?
Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq Min 35161 Max 39344
And this is from an ultra pinko website.
I’m sure the suicide bombers from Al Qaeda had nothing, nothing to do we these deaths.
By Liberal Texas Democrat
May 16, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
fixing the link, ^^^ duh, quoting a conservative writer in a conservative publication. I hope that works
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
Dusty— Bush is such a “compassionate” man that the Iraqi people are paying dearly for his attempt to solve a “complex problem.” About 100,000 Iraqis dead now because he chose not to listen to advice that Al Qaeda had no support from Iraq… according to W’s logic, they’re all guilty for living in the middle east and sitting on top of our oil reserves— let’s just bomb them all! Some “compassion.”
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
Dusty— Bush is such a “compassionate” man that the Iraqi people are paying dearly for his attempt to solve a “complex problem.” About 100,000 Iraqis dead now because he chose not to listen to advice that Al Qaeda had no support from Iraq… according to W’s logic, they’re all guilty for living in the middle east and sitting on top of our oil reserves— let’s just bomb them all! Some “compassion.”
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
Dusty— Bush is such a “compassionate” man that the Iraqi people are paying dearly for his attempt to solve a “complex problem.” About 100,000 Iraqis dead now because he chose not to listen to advice that Al Qaeda had no support from Iraq… according to W’s logic, they’re all guilty for just living in the middle east and sitting on top of our oil reserves! Some “compassion.”
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
I’m not having a goldilocks attack, just a correction:
I’m sure the suicide bombers from Al Qaeda had nothing, nothing to do with these deaths.
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this
Dusty— Bush is such a “compassionate” man that the Iraqi people are paying dearly for his attempt to solve a “complex problem.” About 100,000 Iraqis dead now because he chose not to listen to advice that Al Qaeda had no support from Iraq… according to W’s logic, they’re all guilty for just living in the middle east and sitting on top of our oil reserves! Some “compassion.”
By Daniel
May 16, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this
This is reminescent of “Mangoes for nukes”. Why didn’t Bush get something for us from Mexico? The border has two sides. The USA should negotiate and receive effective cooperation from Mexico to secure its border with us. Unless we stanch the flow north the border will never be secure. Didn’t we have this debate in the 80’s?
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
Dusty— Bush is such a “compassionate” man that the Iraqi people are paying dearly for his attempt to solve a “complex problem.” About 100,000 Iraqis dead now because he chose not to listen to advice that Al Qaeda had no support from Iraq… according to W’s logic, they’re all guilty for just living in the middle east and sitting on top of our oil reserves! Some “compassion.”
By Barb
May 16, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
Somebody bump Goldie, it looks like the old bat’s needle is stuck. It’s probably from her trying to figure out why Al Qaeda is in Iraq now if they couldn’t stand the place or Saddam before. A clear headed person might realize that they thrived on having Saddam in power.
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
Oops, my “refresh” button got wild…
By Real Conservatives Aren't Republican
May 16, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
President Bush stepped to the right and left at the same time on immigration
Waffle, Waffle, Waffle, Waffle!*
By getalife
May 16, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
Goldie,
After you hit post, hit the back arrow on your browser and refresh to post again.
By Real Conservatives Aren't Republican
May 16, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
Presidential adviser Karl Rove blamed the war in Iraq on Monday for dragging down President Bush’s job approval ratings in public opinion polls. “People like this president,” Rove said. “They’re just sour right now on the war.”
Even Karl Rove is waking up to smell the coffee. Look for token troop pullouts prior to November that will be billed as warranted due to “mission accomplished” (no matter WHAT the situation in Iraq really is)!
By Real Conservatives Aren't Republican
May 16, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
Sen. John McCain, looking to heal a rift with the religious conservatives who undermined his 2000 White House bid, told students graduating at the Rev. Jerry Falwell’s university Saturday that Americans have a right to disagree on issues but should maintain respect for each other.
Waffle, Waffle, Waffle, Waffle!
By News for losers
May 16, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
Here you go ReCAP, this should save you the trouble of linking every single Yahoo story
By Real Pinkos Aren't Democrats
May 16, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
Bush might win in Iraq! Bush might win in Iraq! We can’t have that!
Get to work all you suicide bombers, we’ll lose for sure in November! Kill! Kill!
By Real Conservatives Aren't Republican
May 16, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
The Supreme Court said Monday it would not block a lesbian from seeking parental rights to a child she helped raise with her longtime partner.
Aren’t we all so very proud of Bush’s new Supremes?
By Pay Triott
May 16, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
Surely you are not questioning our fearless leader!
By getalife
May 16, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
I just got my new phone book today
By Flibberdgibbit
May 16, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
Bush is an acronym for more:
Buereaucracy Usurping power Spending Halliburton
Conservative my $%#@!
By Flibberdgibbit
May 16, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
Bush is an acronym for more:
Buereaucracy Usurping power Spending Halliburton
Conservative my $%#@!
By Cindy
May 16, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
No, Barb. Hussein hated Al Qaeda. He wanted total control of Iraq. The initial insurgents were Sunni’s trying to protect their country. But, with the border open and the dictator removed the “foreign fighters” poured into Iraq.
By Real Conservatives Aren't Republican
May 16, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
Bush’s Immigration Plan Draws GOP Fire
Maybe there are 2 or 3 REAL conservatives left in the GOP, arfterall!
By rushncap
May 16, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this
Actually, Barb, you are completely and totally wrong. Al Qaeda was never in Iraq before we removed Saddam. They not only did not “thrive” there, they didn’t even exist there. Now, thanks to Shrubby, it’s their spring break destination of choice. Just think — all the American targets they can wish for, without all the hassle of going to America, getting fake passports, etc etc etc. So Barb, do at least a little research before you post this crap.
By Real Conservatives Aren't Republican
May 16, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
The Supreme Court refused Monday to speed up an appeal by a conservative organization seeking to air a radio ad on same sex marriage around election time.
Aren’t we all even prouder of Bush’s new Supremes!
By Barb
May 16, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
Sure rushncap-since I’ve seen you post here for months and never once seen anything you say to be accurate, I’ll just take your word for it. Take your bullying out to the playground where maybe you can get away with it loser.
PS-Respond if you wish, but I don’t think I’ll be back before the deadline you moonbat spammasters caused.
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
Way to go rushnsap, another post added to the totally wrong pile:
OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda—perhaps even for Mohamed Atta—according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
And still no correct posts to your credit.
By James
May 16, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
Thanks Joe Wilson, your 11:20 post really showed depth of thought. I’ll bet if I visited some of the liberal blog sites, we’d see yours and the other liberal brains oozing out all over the screen. That is, afterall, where you get your enlightening news right?
There’s potential in the immigration program if the politicians would work together. I’m not ready to discount the possibilities. But then my objection is to move forward on reform, you just want to flush hope for reform down the toilet.
No doubt your intellectual response will be that you want to flush Bush down the toilet. I’ll bet you even have a cartoon for that.
Problem is you fail to see yourself as a living cartoon. How about posting under your original name or can you not take the heat for your stupidity under your original name?
By Bill
May 16, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
Rushncap: Re your comment of yesterday re Hog Danish and his ignorance of knowledge or “sayings.” Couple of months ago another of the brighter bulbs on this blog, Steve or Jean I think, used a term of refinement that, well, anyone of refinement would know. Danish reacted like a scalded ape. Daring even to attempt to quote Shakespeare. Hog Man was not even on the same planet, but kept posting his ignorance re the “saying.” Even wanted to “bet” on it. Would “show his hand.” Despite being humiliated, he never gave up. Can you imagine - this know-nothing, have-nothing was ready to “bet” the entire family fortune on something of which he knew nothing. The entire estate of his relatives and generations of their hard work. That estate consists of a 1/2 acre site in the country, filled w old hubcaps and soda bottles gathered along the highways for decades and decades. Hog Danish is a true example of Americana at its best, eh!!
By RE
May 16, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this
James, couldn’t resist, Bush’s poll numbers on a spiral graph
By dubya
May 16, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
The Presidunce has again spoken. Revealing once more his level of character and raw intellect. God bless Murcuh! Why is it that he always looks as tho he’s speaking from a…Portolet??
By Daniel
May 16, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
Cindy & rushncap: You are, of course, correct. Saddam was a secular muslim and, therefore, anethema to religious fanatics like AlQaeda. The cite from the Weekly Standard has been universaly discredited as false. Even Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush now admit there was no link, despite the earlier attempts to make it seeem so. It is a sad time for outr nation when the government tells so many lies to promote its half-baked political adgenda. Ray McGovern and Scott Ritter say there was no link. They should know. The rest is BS.
By rushncap
May 16, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
Barb, all your whining won’t change a damn thing. You claim there was “thriving” Al Qaeda in Iraq. Fine. Prove it. You’ve heard of the concept of “evidence” or “proof”, right? Well, try doing that. Please show me this evidence of “thriving” Al Qaeda in Iraq. Oh, and don’t bother posting crap from things like “National Review” or “The Weekly Standard”. They are about as trustworthy as a socialist newspaper.
Oh, and Barb, if you can do nothing better than spit venom, then you really shouldn’t reply. If all you’re gonna do is expose your ignorance and your hatred, keep it in. It’s better that way.
By RE
May 16, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
Another poll showing comparisons of pres approval, Bush has almost caught up with nixon, he still has a few months to make up the differance
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
Sucker Libs:
In fact, during President Clinton’s eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton’s defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq’s weapons falling into bin Laden’s hands.
The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
All the time lying.
By joewilson
May 16, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
James, here is one source of information.
By Joe
May 16, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this
Barb, Andy: shut up. You are totally useless & ignorant. Dusty, you gay little thing you, aren’t you supposed to be WORKING in your great scientific laboratory?? Your work ethic is a perfect example of why America has flopped. Collecting your tiny paycheck while using a computer on company-time. Congratulations all!
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
Sucker Libs:
THE GREAT TERROR In northern Iraq, there is new evidence of Saddam Hussein’s genocidal war on the Kurds—and of his possible ties to Al Qaeda. by JEFFREY GOLDBERG
Kurdish officials said that, according to their intelligence, several men associated with Al Qaeda have been smuggled over the Iranian border into an Ansar al-Islam stronghold near Halabja. The Kurds believe that two of them, who go by the names Abu Yasir and Abu Muzaham, are high-ranking Al Qaeda members. “We don’t have any information about them,” one official told me. “We know that they don’t want anybody to see them. They are sleeping in the same room as Mala Krekar and Abdullah al-Shafi”—the nominal leaders of Ansar al-Islam.
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
8 to 5— Oh Puh-leez! The Weekly Standard? How convenient that they disclosed a “secret” government document linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein… Bill Kristol (founder of the paper) and those guys are the same ones who were advising W, Rummy & Cheney to invade Iraq in the first place. All been proven to be made-up stories, with planted witnessess and planted documents.
You’re such a little bitty wienie for still trying to pull these pranks.
By Daniel
May 16, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
rushncap: Thank you for your continued sage postings in this space. The Cohen cite has also been proven false. What the Bush government creates false intelligence, then they leap on it to justify their war. Yes, the information was received. But it is false. Clinton, wisely, never acted on it. The sad-sacks in the Bush White House think it validates their mistakes to show the phony information originated when a dewmocrat was in office! The dishonesty is repeated here. Bush has betrayed America.
By Napo D
May 16, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
..during President Clinton’s eight years in office, he got a thousand times more action than Andy has in his entire life, and Andy can’t deal with the fact that some girls actually give it up for free, (to Democrats) while Andy’s always had to pay for his. Sorry Dude.
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
8 to 5— why don’t you go ahead and post a link to Judith Miller’s columns about WMD while you’re at it… one of many writers who were spoon-fed Karl Rove’s propaganda and printed it without checking for sources!
Boy, that Judith Miller — what a gal, huh? What a blessing to have her journalistic skills beating that Karl Rove drum, huh?
By RE
May 16, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
On Yesterdays blog, BD posted something interesting and relevant. I figure it can happen once in a while. Anyway, if anyone is interested take a look at the supreme court ruling for Smith V Maryland
It seems that there is good legal ground for the NSA collections that have been going on because of this ruling. Not the wire taps, which is a different matter, but the phone dialing collections. WHat is really interesting is that so many conservatives, who once were against govt. intrusion now support these actions. Take a look at the ruling, any communication to a 3rd party can be collected by the government without warrant AND without cause. This means every e-mail, phone number dialed, website visited, or mail that you send, provided it passes through a 3rd party, is open for the govt. monitoring. The main arguement is that because you may use a 3rd party provider, you no longer have the expectation of privacy. This means your banking and credit card transactions as well. Anyone care about privacy anymore?
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
“Joe”— using one of Bill O’Reilly’s tactics in a debate, are you? When you can’t answer for yourself, you just say “shut up” like O’Reilly, yes? You must really be a big man around your house… and well-respected, I’m sure.
By James
May 16, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
Joe Wilson-A link to a 2003 CNN article does not an argument make. 2003, it is now 2006 and investigations are still underway on the issue of Wilson/Plame. I’m waiting for proof before making my judgments. You’ve failed once again to indicate you have any sign of unbiased intelligence or ability to debate.
RE-No problem with your link. Healthy humor has it’s place.
Since it appears as though the site has drawn a poster who is devoid of intelligence, Goldie, PayTriott, Flibberdigit, Joe Wilson, dubya & Bill (one in the same), I’ll withdraw until those who can discuss in a more mature manner are able to do so without this poster’s childish contributions. People like him/her just seem to get in the way.
By RE
May 16, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
On Yesterdays blog, BD posted something interesting and relevant. I figure it can happen once in a while. Anyway, if anyone is interested take a look at the supreme court ruling for Smith V Maryland
It seems that there is good legal ground for the NSA collections that have been going on because of this ruling. Not the wire taps, which is a different matter, but the phone dialing collections. WHat is really interesting is that so many conservatives, who once were against govt. intrusion now support these actions. Take a look at the ruling, any communication to a 3rd party can be collected by the government without warrant AND without cause. This means every e-mail, phone number dialed, website visited, or mail that you send, provided it passes through a 3rd party, is open for the govt. monitoring. The main arguement is that because you may use a 3rd party provider, you no longer have the expectation of privacy. This means your banking and credit card transactions as well. Anyone care about privacy anymore?
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
Bush has betrayed America.
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
James— oh please, do go on your way, oh Wise One. And feel free to grace us all with your presence anytime you feel the need to stoop over so low again.
By Daniel
May 16, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
RE: Where are the conservatives? Bush wants to monitorr “tens of millions” of calls. This has nothing to do with terrorism. Rather it: stifles government workers from “leaking” info to the press; frightens those who might want to dissent from this government and provides a base of information gathering to bolster Bush politics. Vintage Bush; a betrayal of American ideals.
By RE
May 16, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
sorry for the double post
By Buy Danish
May 16, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
Rushncap,
I’ve been waiting for Goldie to stop shouting and babbling before I post the Supreme Court info(again) for you.
Try this.
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
RE— the Repugs have never really been against govt. intrusion in our personal lives. That’s what the “abortion debate” is really about — control over our decisions that affect our personal lives. No, what they’re all about is no intrusion into the affairs of CORPORATIONS — hence, the bleak economic picture for working-class Americans today.
After all, it’s supposed to be government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation, right?
By rushncap
May 16, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
The Smith / Maryland case is interesting, you’re right. I’m amazing Danish found this.
However, it is not the same thing. The police asked to monitor the suspect’s phone calls in that case. Which means he was under suspicion of some sort of crime. This is like obtaining the suspect’s phone records a posteriori. What the NSA is doing is keeping tabs on everyone, regardless of whether or not crimes have been committed, suspected or even thought of. I think there is a difference there.
By RE
May 16, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
Come on now Goldie, I think most republicans are pretty much on the side of privacy and limiting gov’t intrusion. At least they used to be. Abortion is a long debate with no easy answers, but I have to believe aside from a slight minority, that the primary objection to abortion is on moral grounds, because they want to control your life. I think most republicans would be surprised what they have been supporting when they look back on this after a few years. The problem is that the most extreme sides of the debate speak the loudest. I think people wind up as republicans because of thier perceptions of democrats more than what the party really stands for. Which, by the way if anyone knows what the party stands for anymore, please tell me, apparently it is not for a smaller govt, conservative foriegn policy, or honesty for that matter.
By Buy Danish
May 16, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
RE,
Thanks Dude. Rushncap the Whiner LIED (just using his favorite word) and said I didn’t post the info he petulantly demanded.
Goldie,
Your abortion/corporation comparison is one of the silliest things I’ve read yet from you, and that is saying a lot.
By RE
May 16, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
Rushncap, the part of the arguement that was a little disturbing was not the circumstance of the case, but the finding that any communication to a third party does not have the expectation of being private. In this one case, the person was a suspect, but the ruling does not hold that a person must be a suspect in order to obtain records from the third party service provider. With this ruling, it seems that anything going to a third party is wide open. It does conflict with the 1996 telecom act, but how would those two be reconciled in court is anyone’s guess
By RE
May 16, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
^ NOT because they want to control your life.
Sorry, that exclusion changed the whole meaning
By joewilson
May 16, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
Yes, James, You contributed much in the discussion. Such intelligence on the issues. Such hatred, may I suggest a hate site like a conservative blog.
By getalife
May 16, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
I am watching the video on the Pentagon video from 9/11 and I do not see a plane.
Did anyone see this and saw a plane?
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
RE— you’re right. I also believe the Repubs used to be about limited government. But that’s not what their leaders have been about since Ronald Reagan, with the advent of the “neo-conservatives” which is really a new name for Fascism. Now it’s all about corporate welfare, controlling the media, and limiting personal freedoms. Some deal we got now, huh?
By Buy Danish
May 16, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
Ah yes, Ronald Reagan in hindsight. Once as reviled as Nixon and Gingrich and Bush, he now gets praise from the likes of Goldie, who suddenly believe in limited government.
Sadly, not only are we restricted to posting between the hours of 8 to 5, but the posts are in the ethersphere again.
Therefore, I think I’ll take the rest of the day off and let the moonbats babble on obliviously, without too many interruptions from Planet Earth.
By finch
May 16, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
getalife,
I lived about 1 1/2 miles from the Pentagon on 9/11. I sure heard and felt the crash. Local media that day had witnesses who saw a passenger jet… or a fighter, or a missle, or nothing but an explosion.
Security at the Pentagon is supposed to be top notch. I worked there (on a day pass) several times and I’ll vouch for that. I’ve always wondered why the Pentagon never released a definitive video. I find it hard to believe none exists.
I’m deathly allergic to conspiracy theories, but…
By Real Conservatives Aren't Republican
May 16, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
With Nancy Reagan’s blessing and in defiance of President Bush’s veto threat, Senate Republican leaders are making plans for a vote this summer on a bill to restore federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Maybe there’s 3 or 4 REAL conservatives left in the GOP, afterall!
By rushncap
May 16, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
You are right Danish — I did not see that post of yours. Of course technically I was not lying (lying is not telling the truth when you actually know what the truth is), I was just wrong. That case can well be applied to the NSA thing. Which makes the situation even worse, of course. The concept that any and all communication of mine or yours can be tracked for any reason by the government is scary. As a supposed conservative who is supposed to not trust the government it should bother you too. If the Clinton administration did this, for instance, you’d be screaming bloody murder.
By getalife
May 16, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
finch,
If they do not release a better video or still shot with a plane hitting the Pentagon, the conspiracy theories will be spinning out of control.
It looked like an explosion but did not see anything hit the building. Maybe there are better still shots and they should release them if they are.
By Real Conservatives Aren't Republican
May 16, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
Wondering why Vice-President Dick Cheney recently played footsie with Kazakhstan’s autocratic leader—an oil-rich president with an awful human rights record whose recent re-election was fraudulent? (Hey, sounds sort of familiar.) No, it wasn’t because Cheney wanted to mimic his boss, who recently received another oil-rich autocrat—the president of Azerbaijan—in the White House. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that Cheney used to occupy a cushy seat on Kazakh’s Oil Advisory Board? (Did anyone see this in coverage of the Vice-President’s trip?) As reported by Mark Ames in the June 2003 issue of The Exile, Cheney was a member of that board in 2001 and advised Bush to “deepen [our] commercial dialogue with Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and other Caspian states.” On this trip, he pronounced himself to be “delighted” to be a guest of the Kazakh president, adding that the United States “is proud to be your strategic partner” and looks forward “to continued friendship between us.”
‘Jabba the Hut’ Cheney sure does love democracy, freedom and fair elections. (and the cow jumped over the moon!)
By Cynthia
May 16, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
All y’all! It is not Bush did>>> Clinton did>>> Johnson did>>>> Reagan did>>>>.
All these administrations have chipped away at the constitution and we sit on AJC and complain about each others beliefs rather than writing letters to Congress who is the U.S. legislation. I know I have and my response indicates that the GA senators don’t respect the constitution, but we have to keep trying and if enough do — from all political parties — maybe we can start getting our rights back.
I mean we all believe in the Constitution don’t we? Why on earth would we allow our rights to be denied even if a certain right doesn’t apply to us or is against what we otherwise believe in? We have to be in this together for each other or the politicians will take my rights, then yours.
If this continues, we could be arrested for our posts.
By finch
May 16, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
getalife,
You’re right, the video proves nothing. What jet? I read a long time ago that the feds refused to release any surveillance stuff from the Pentagon on 9/11 because it might “interfere” with the Moussaoui trial.
How that could be true escapes me.
Conspiracy theorists are going to go nucular (heh!) over this.
By Joe Roman
May 16, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
For the better part of the past sixty years, the Republican party has pandered to the most self-irghteous and intolerant or the church-goers, the most bigoted of the white majority and the most xenophobic of the pseudo-patriots. Did anybody really believe Bush would stop this pandering with his speech last night?
By finch
May 16, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
It’s an eye-opener reading arguments that what Bush and friends are doing isn’t really wiretapping and in fact, isn’t any worse than databases collected by Equifax or Google.
Overlooked is the fact that, unlike Equifax or Google, the government has the power to arrest you in the middle of the night and take you who knows where as a “material witness” in “protective custody”.
It’s the power of government to intimidate that made the Founding Fathers so protective of the right to be secure in our persons and property.
Conservatives used to defend this right ferociously. What happened?
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this
BD— you’re a little confused. I’ve never liked Ronald Reagan. Let me clarify that what I meant to post was the fact that “conservatives” haven’t been in control of the Repug Party since BEFORE Reagan. Reagan brought along the neo-cons with his agenda which included big government spending, deficits out of control, and snooping into our private lives.
By Zookeeper
May 16, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
We love Dick Cheney this much!
By Midori
May 16, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
Finch,
Choice Point is the company hired by Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris that scrubbed Florida’s voting rolls in 2000 by targeting thousands and thousands of innocent African Americans.
Now Choice Point has been hired to catalogue the data supplied by the phone companies.
Is this America any more<
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
finch— Conservatives used to defend this right ferociously. What happened?
The term “conservatives” doesn’t really exist anymore, at least not as far as who is now controlling the Repugs. They now call their movement “neo-conservative” which is just another term for “fascism”— corporations having more power, the media controlled by government via propaganda and consolidation, snooping into citizens’ private lives, and all of their other miserable plots against humanity.
By Scooter
May 16, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
Good heavens! ml, I hope this is what you wanted your blog to be. The knowledge and rational thought are off the charts
By Napo D
May 16, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
ChoicePoint Inc. has its headquarters in nearby Alpharetta. What are our neighbors doing all day? I mean, when they’re not SELLING our data to identity thieves or helping the government break the law? Perhaps we should be watching THEM while they’re watching us. Who’s with me?
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
getalife: I got one for your goofy behind, are you saying the two planes hitting the WTC we have video of were just some strange coincidence?
Smoke another joint, dude.
By getalife
May 16, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this
finch,
I was looking at the 9/11 tribute book that has very large pictures of the Pentagon and noticed two things.
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
Mike Lucko, great blog you have here… good ole American freedom of speech as it should be!
By getalife
May 16, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
Andy,
I would respond but do not want you to go off again.
What the heck, no I saw the planes hitting those buildings but what I saw today was no plane in the video. I could be wrong and said they should release better shots of a plane hitting the Pentagon.
By getalife
May 16, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this
Andy,
I would respond but do not want you to go off again.
What the heck, no I saw the planes hitting those buildings but what I saw today was no plane in the video. I could be wrong and said they should release better shots of a plane hitting the Pentagon.
By finch
May 16, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
There’s only video of one plane hitting the second WTC tower. None of the first. Don’t you know anything?
Have another drink. No, maybe you shouldn’t.
By finch
May 16, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
I see where last call at the ml blog has been extended to 7pm. Our cup runneth over!
By getalife
May 16, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
Oops, that joint made me double post.
BTW, I found OBL.
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
OMG, what an idiot:
By finch May 16, 2006 04:33 PM There’s only video of one plane hitting the second WTC tower. None of the first. Don’t you know anything? Have another drink. No, maybe you shouldn’t.
Anybody else want to announce to the whole world their blooming ignorance? Maybe bet like all their money on this?
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
getalife: I thought you weren’t going to respond lest I should make you appear to be deranged or something like that?
Look, man, it was a still camera set to take pictures on an interval. Maybe next time we’ll all get lucky and Al Qaeda will synchronize their watches with Pentagon security, shees. The freaking plane was travelling at 580 mph, what do you want?
By moonbat betty
May 16, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
The Pentagon was bombed by Bush and Co. Just like they knew of the the attacks on the Trade Center. They knew in turn this would be the excuse to take over the Mid East Oil fields and give way to the surveillance of every phone call, email and financial transaction of every man, women and child! From there, they will imprison all that disagree while lining the pockets of their Big-Oil friends. Bush will then use his unconditional power to re-elect himself indefinately until the self created terrorism subsides, which will be never.
By Steve SC
May 16, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
I have to go with Andy on this one. A film crew was in the streets, filming a fire company exercise, and caught the AA flight hitting the North Tower, in dying color.
By getalife
May 16, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
Andy,
I don’t buy into conspiracy theories like Loose Change, but it would seem there would be a security camera with good video.
Please don’t wank out on me and shut “this whole thing down”.
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
Moonbat bettie — your name is too perfect for you and your ranting, aka ANDY 8 to 5!
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
Steve SC: They also just recently found a tourist who had a video camera in the back seat of his car, that was running even though he didn’t know it, and it caught Flight 11 hitting and a waterfall of debris streaming out of the tower.
By moonbat betty
May 16, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this
Goldie,
you and me is best friends sugar magnolia!
By Goldie
May 16, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
Moonbat Betty, your ranting is almost as funny as your usual “Clinton was a murderer” theme…
By 8 to 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
Everyone thank me, Andy, for losing my self control completely, and causing the AJC to restrict this site. The comment about children just hit too close to home. I was trying to keep my fixations a secret. The only things I have faith in are my idols GW, Karl Rove, and boys.
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this
Look at Goldilocks trying to fire up her very own conspiracy theory right here on the Luckovich blog:
By Goldilocks May 16, 2006 04:54 PM Moonbat bettie — your name is too perfect for you and your ranting, aka ANDY 8 to 5!
Hearing footsteps, moonbat?
What does 7:00 pm represent to the Atlanta Urinal, anyway? Is that like the witching hour in the fever swamps?
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this
Oh, well, maybe tomorrow they’ll remember to set the timer to 7:00.
Check this out, though. With cartoon boy’s server being on the fritz, just keep hitting “back” after you post and don’t refresh the page. Just clear the last post you made and type in another one, like this-
finch: You overwrought, pompous little pinko, why can’t you ever tell the truth? Why must you constantly lie, always making up these crackpot socialist goony bird stories? Are you pathological or just not informed at all? That first plane video must really be a blow to your overbearing ego, you should have mustered up some modesty and just asked someone.
Whatever, tomorrow’s another day, full of new fabrications.
By 8 To 5 Andy
May 16, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this
Obviously, 5:01 was posted by some loser who is obsessed with me and has no life. I have apparently deeply affected them in some fashion and would like to apologize. I hope that they don’t go mental or anything because of my actions, stalking me is not a good sign.
I will pray for them.