Atlanta Weather

Cloudy

74° F

Pollen 9

Air quality 43

| Traffic

Search
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:

Thinking Right

Jay Bookman

OpinionTalk

Woman to Woman

Home > Opinion > Mike Luckovich > Archives > 2006 > October > 14 > Entry

Trick or trick

By Mike Luckovich | Saturday, October 14, 2006, 03:20 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Permalink | Comments (303) | Categories: Editorial Cartoon

Comments

Commenting is now closed for this entry.

By Angry Liberal Guy

October 16, 2006 08:12 AM | Link to this

So it WAS about the oil

By @@

October 16, 2006 08:16 AM | Link to this

Gee ml, since when does offering “fruit rollups” equate to blame? Democrats haven’t offered up any candy for years.

Hoarding candy, despicable.

By Brian Curtis

October 16, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this

By the way, it seems that George’s British buddy David Blunkett (Home Secretary and Bush cheerleader) agrees with the White House on how to handle the media; bomb them.

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/articleview.asp?articleclass=3&no=322733&rel_no=1

By King geirge Fails to Secure....AGAIN

October 16, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - Federal workers at 19 agencies have lost personal information affecting thousands of employees and the public, raising fresh concerns about the government’s ability to protect sensitive information.

Just one more indication of how concerned the Chimperor’s administration REALLY is about national security ! ! !

By King George Fails to Secure....AGAIN

October 16, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - Reacting to the crash that killed a New York Yankees pitcher, the Federal Aviation Administration has added new flight restrictions to the air space over New York’s East River.

Five years after 9/11, King George’s dynasty decides to grace us with some very meager restrictions on NYC airspace ! ! ! Just one more example of how the Chimperor has FAILED to provide security for the American people.

By Paul

October 16, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this

I suppose this panel shows how “the mainstream media” keeps a nonstory going - really, what new information or thought is offered here? Sure, it’s an “opinion page” panel - but wasn’t this done in one form or another a couple of weeks ago?

The Halloween is a nice twist, though. It would be a bit jarring to the AJC readership if Luckovich took a different tack every so often - as in this panel - have Harry Reid at the door, Hastert as a trick-or-treater standing in front of Reid with his treat bag open. But I suppose that isn’t the editorial position of the AJC.

So many issues - N Korea - or - does anyone think AJC will give this time - the demise of Air America or possibly, Ted Turner’s remarks that, a couple of weeks after 9-11 he still hadn’t made up his mind which side he was on?

Those issues would encourage some meaningful discussion -

By Boots on the Ground Get Ignored Again

October 16, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this

LONDON (AFP) - Defence chiefs warned the government to pull up to half of the country’s troops out of Iraq to help boost its campaign in Afghanistan against a resurgent Taliban.

Just one more example of how King George allows the commanders with ‘boots on the ground’ in Iraq call the shots……NOT ! ! !

By Truthman

October 16, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this

22 days until our national nightmare ends!!

22 days until reasoned people from all over America proclaim with one voice:

Yes, we have had enough!!

And the best thing about that is every Regressive Repub on this site knows it’s over!! Oh, they’ll probably keep Sonny. But, when it comes to national politics, it’s midnight for the pedophile appeasers!!

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God!!

By Mrs. Godzilla

October 16, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this

there were always “creepy guys” in the neighborhood - whose doorbell you did not ring on halloween

seems like the times haven’t changed too much.

mamma’s better warn their kidlets.

By Purloin Pastry

October 16, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

Hastert makes a great ghoul. He spooks for kooks.

IRAQ:……. The think tanks knew Iraq was “over” two weeks after we invaded. In fact, anyone who ever watched a popeye cartoon knew it was over before we went in. That is to say it was in the global zeitgeist. We all have a shared knowledge about the Tigris Euphrates Valley that has been passed on to us via our DNA, and via cultural inheritance.

The lore about “Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves” is ingrained in all of us. The myths about mystic arabs and their ability to conjur spirits of revenge and super powers of destruction are intrinsic to our fantasies about Greater Arabia.

So what if Bush lied? So what if Saddam had this civil war corked? The only truth the GOP has uttered in six years is: It is what it is, and now we have to face it.

But what is it? The ancient tribal rivalries and liasons in Iraq intersect with the tribes in other countries. (Cartography 101, Props to Winston Churchill). These subsets of arabs and Kurds and Persians, (3 distinct races, folks), have been at war for ten thousand years. (they have 10k year old outhouses: most of the feuds started over not sparing a square). True.

Now, to complicate the Iraq War further, we have a modern overlay of Islamic Rivalries. Sunni vs Shia. This more modern feud, about 14 centuries old, concerns the line of succession of holy descendants from Mohammed himself. It’s the same with us: Christ vs Martin Luther. We have been slaughtering each other over that line of succession just as long as the Muslims have over theirs.

When we look at Muslims. We are looking in a mirror. Thus we will forever despise them. Why?

Human nature 101: We only criticize in others what we see in them of ourselves.

Human nature 102: We ultimately become that which we most despise.

End game scenario of Iraq War: Because we’ve armed the Kurds, and a fourth wildcard called the Iraqi Army, there are now four players, Sunni, Shia, Kurds, and a headless Iraqi Army who could align in any direction (except the green zone bubble government that we trained the army to protect).

Why will the Iraqi Army not fight for the bubble parliament? They have no George Washington or Patriotic Icon to pledge allegience to. Their souls are Sunni or Shia, and they will choose. They are a loose cannon that Bush added to an already impossibl

By Billy Bob Criticizes His Imitators

October 16, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) - Former President Bill Clinton told Iowa’s Democratic Party faithful on Saturday that the actions of “an extreme sliver” of the Republican Party have backfired and “profoundly divided” the country.

Doesn’t Billy Bob know that he is criticizing his greatest admirers ? ? ? Everything the Republiscums have gotten caught at they tell us that Billy Bob did first so they must be immulating their idol, aren’t they ? ? ? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery ! ! !

By RW (the aboriginal)

October 16, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

The National Nightmare cant end in November. Bush has opened Pandora’s Box in Iraq.

Those demons are freed. They’re angry. Violence begets violence. Violence gets in the air and into the zeitgeist, and people start fighting for reasons they negotiated over before.

Last straw in Iraq? The February bombing of a very, very holy shrine put former neighbors who had shared space for generations under Saddam, at a fight to the death.

Global warming cant be fixed if it gets past a certain point. Global war is the same way… the violence gets into us and at some point there is no stopping anyone breathing the same air from killing everyone else. It’s the only real truth about human nature in the bible.

Violence does beget violence.

Investment tip: This is the wall of worry that Wall Street will climb.

By bon scott

October 16, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

This is actually a rather flattering portrait of Speaker Hastert. Mike must have used Katie’s Photoshop guru to help Denny make those unwanted pounds disappear.

And what’s with the sniping about Harry Reid? Changing the subject? It’s immoral to make money off an investment? Jeez, you’d have to really work hard NOT to score on real estate in Las Vegas.

A Republicrap fishing expedition. Move along folks, nothing to see…

By Paul

October 16, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this

Republican Cookie Jar, et al: Isn’t it obvious by now there are plenty of examples on both sides? Maybe a shift in discussion to an issue greater than party label, such as -

Another window open on Medicare Drug Program - by law fed gov’t prohibited from negotiating lower prices with drug companies (unlike Defense Dept, who save millions) - prohibition written in by Rep Billy Tauzin R-La (happy, Rep Cook Jar?) who, after the legislation was passed, left Congress to become head of the political action committees umbrella group (aka Pharmaceutical Research and Manufactures of America) at a reported $2.5 mil a year. BTW - drug companies were also his highest contributors.

So the issue is - Tauzin’s a Republican! Uh, no, the larger issues are - - no prohibitions on former congressmen (or their staff) working directly for, or as lobbyists for, companies for whom they’ve enacted legislation? - end to campaign bribes - I mean,contributions (“free speech” canard notwithstanding) - more importantly, in the year since, why has no Congressperson or Senator (Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, champion of all things good and true) introduced legislation to require competition in drug pricing?

I know, it’s not as much fun to hold both parties responsible for their collective failure on an issue, but possibly if the discussions were to take place, something just might change? Who knows, maybe even Mr. Luckovich could see beyond party labels and ascend to a higher level of what’s in the best interest of the citizenry?

By N-GA

October 16, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

Paul,

I registered as an Independent (in Alabama) in 1970 because I was disgusted with both parties. I feel they are more likely to represent special interests than voters when considering legislation.

Unfortunately the GOP does control Congress. That means that all committee heads are appointed by the majority. Therefore, it is nigh on impossible for Kennedy, Pelosi, or Reid to get a bill to the floor of either house of Congress. They can write a bill, but it can languish in committee forever. Sometimes they get around this by co-sponsoring a bill with someone across the aisle.

To take your suggestion one step further, I believe that Congress should eliminate riders attached to bills. All legislation should be voted on based upon its own merits and/or deficiencies. We should never see a rider approving funding for a bridge in Kansas attached to a bill to limit hydrocarbon emissions from smokestacks.

I also feel that ALL spending bills must identify the source of revenue needed to fund the expense (both initial cost and operating expense). If the cost is to be funded by debt, then the source of the money for repaying that debt must be identified.

By Keep BOTH Hands On You Wallet When Near a Republican

October 16, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

MILWAUKEE - A screener with the Transportation Security Administration was arrested after a passenger reported that she took money from the passenger’s wallet.

Oooooo, I feel so much safer with King George’s gestapo on the job ! ! ! Didn’t anybody ever tell this passenger that when dealing with anything even remotely Republican, you have to keep BOTH hands on your wallet at all times ! ! !

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

Sybil Bon Finchie,

It’s funny, but I thought that was Ted Kennedy in the toon until I realized it was way too slim for Sen. Bluto.

Anymore pointless commentary to add?

By RW (the aboriginal)

October 16, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

Political Science 101: Insurance Industry.

Insurance Industry.

Insurance Industry.

That’s all you need to know about Iraq, Washington, our House, our Senate, and our Presidency.

They know all. They see all. They decide what’s a war, and whats a police action. THey even command the weather. Flood or Wind damage? THEY alone decide.

Proof: Suppose you want to start a war and need to buy 500 billion dollars worth of ammo and planes and tanks. Great. Where will you get the money? Banks? Good, now ask the bank for the money. You wont get one uninsured cent.

Who will insure a police action? Who will insure a war? See the problem.

Insurance rules this country and the world.

Personal tip: Get a good insurance lawyer first as your personal ombudsman.. Pay him what ever he asks. Show him every contract you might sign. Ask him about future plans first. Donate to his charities. Go to his benefits and Christmas parties. You will be saved.

By Sell Strudel

October 16, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

Bush had aged in six years worse than FDR did. He knows he done bad. He’s a bad man. He’s a VERY bad man.

Imagine being the one person responsible for a global catastrophe that affects every single human on the planet.

We have met the enemy and he is Wus.

By King George Grows Monster Pot

October 16, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian troops fighting Taliban militants in Afghanistan have stumbled across an unexpected and potent enemy — almost impenetrable forests of 10-feet-high marijuana plants.

Well, King George is accomplishing something the the Middle East, afterall. He’ taught the Afghanis how to grow some monster pot ! ! !

By Paul

October 16, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

N-GA: Excellent point about bills not getting out of committee. I would suggest, though, as a political and public relations tactic, it would be highly effective to introduce such a bill and then scream bloody murder when it gets bottled up. We know they’re more than happy to scream over a number of minor issues.

The Republican Congress and Pres Bush have been a major disappointment to fiscally conservative Republicans (all right, Democrats, too? :)). Pork barrel politics have risen to heights never before seen - but all districts, mine included, seem quite happy to get the money and the local papers tout the “good” job our politicians are doing for “us.” Sigh…..

Regarding your last point - local governments are not quantifying the future-year costs for health care, pensions, et cetera for their workers. Witness the recent transit strike in NYC - no mention of outyear costs. It’d be too much to hope for for Congress to require the same of themselves.

By Bye Dumbest

October 16, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

Of course W is just a puppet of Cheney, who is the worst international criminal since Taras Bulbar….. Cheney has been working secretly to get Benedict Arnold’s face on the one dollar bill.

Sonny Perdue supporters are fighting to get back the original Georgia State flag, you know the one they flew when Georgia was still a colony. It had a picture of a bow Weevil on it, man.

Top Ten items on the Sonny Do list coming up.

Stay tuned.

By Bye Dumbest

October 16, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

NEW RULE: no more links. they contain viruses. Just summarize what you link contains in your comment. If challenged, then you can provide the website address.

We have all just upgraded our PCs and we have spent hundreds of dollars, and if you think I’m going to risk that investment, just to read something that I’ve already read, or that is a non sequitur or phoney source or discredited source or any nonsense like that, sirs, you are sadly mistaken, and I think that I speak for anyone who has spent the big bucks for the nice hardware.

Do you think we’re all fools who just today saw a link? “OH! Look, this person is so clever, he’s figured out how to put a link in his commentary. WOW! I’m so impressed that I’m going to wade right in with my 1500 dollar Dell that I just bought yesterday. Why? Cause I’m a total idiot!”

Just summarize and then comment and then STFU!!

By King George Says Step AWAY From That Plate

October 16, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - President Bush personally assured Iraq’s prime minister Monday that he has no plans to pull U.S. forces out and to ignore rumors that a deadline would be enforced against the fledgling Baghdad government.

King George tells Iraq to take their time and not to worry about stepping up to the plate. If they don’t do anything to take reponsibility for themselves, no problem. Heck, the Republicans haven’t ever taken any responsibility for anything and look at how far THEY have come ! ! !

By IMPEACH CHIMPY

October 16, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

Every day more and more Republicans are joining other sane Americans in recognizing Dubya’s war for what it is. A costly mistake that we can never win. I wonder what specific mental deficiency causes the wingnuts on this blog to continue their blind loyalty to a man who can’t admit the mistake everyone else plainly sees.

By bon scott

October 16, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

Paul - How DARE you bring common sense and logic to this blog! BOTH parties may have skeletons in their closets??

Hmmmph! Some nerve!

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

King George,

There you go again blaming Republicans/Conservatives for a problem that was caused by Liberal Democrats.

Last week you were bit*ching about deficits caused by importing foreign oil, but you won’t let us get our own here at home.

Now you’re complaining about a situtation that can be attributed to “anything goes” cultural influences and punitive tax laws which penalize married couples.

Remember Dan Quayle complaining about Murphy Brown? Didn’t you all have a tantrum of liberal outrage over that?

The marriage penalty was not our idea either.

Freaking idiot.

By Paul

October 16, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

RW: my 9:45 should have read “local governments are NOW quantifying the future-year costs”

Bit of a change in the meaning, there -

By bon scott

October 16, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

By Bye Dumbest - October 16, 2006 09:55 AM - NEW RULE: no more links. they contain viruses.

Keep the links coming. I don’t know about your computer, Dumbest, but on mine I can simply move the cursor over the link and see where it will take me. The Washington Post, the (WSJ) Opinion Journal, or Viruses R Us.

Then I can choose whether to go to the link or not. Don’t be a PC Nanny.

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

Polly Prepuce (“Bye Dumbest”),

YOU would be the fool for getting a virus on your PC in the first place. Wear a condom idiot.

Your “warnings” are a pathetic attempts at censorship because you are too much of a moron and a jacka$$ to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

STFU yourself loser.

By RW (the oravaginal)

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

Top Ten Items on the Sonny Due List:

10: to make sure Mark Taylor only gets wood in his nose.

By Paul

October 16, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

By Dumbest at 9:55

Congrats on your new computer. May I suggest the following to prevent difficulties with links or atchs or whatever?

Go to the Microsoft home page and use Windows Defender. Use the Microsoft firewalls and other offerings.

Activate the firewall on your router. Change the standard password to one you create.

Install a good antivirus program. Consumer Reports just highlighted BitDefender ($30 download only). Norton and McAfee are good, I find them a bit resource intensive.

Install two spyware programs. Some sites recommend one shareware, one commercial. I installed Spysweeper, then Spyware Doctor. SD found problems Spysweeper didn’t - advantage of redundant systems.

Keep all turned on with automatic updates. Set to automatically sweep.

It’s worth the money.

By RW (the oravaginal)

October 16, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

Sonny Due List:

9: To encourage Georgia students to learn lap dances so he can mumble “laptops” in speeches and the inbred constituency wont know the difference when he claims to improve education.

By RW (the oravaginal)

October 16, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Sonny Boo List:

8: To make sure nobody suspects that Sonny’s big dream is to be president one day. How far away is Canada, anyway?

By RW (the oravaginal)

October 16, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

The Sonny BOO list: Sonny has a pumpkin head, round and scary, ever notice?

7: To ascertain that certain illegal immigrant voters dont vote by requiring a Frito-ID.

BOO!

By RE

October 16, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

The Marketplace hits rock bottom:

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

Polly Prepuce (“Bye Dumbest”),

YOU would be the fool for getting a virus on your PC in the first place. Wear a condom idiot.

Your “warnings” are a pathetic attempts at censorship because you are too much of a moron and a jacka$$ to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

STFU yourself loser

When you run out of ideas, at least you have insults

By RW (the oravaginal)

October 16, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

The Sonny BOO list!

6; To donate $100K he pirated from the Georgia Tax Coffers with retroactive legislation to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

BOO!

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

RE,

Can I count you in as being FOR attempted censorship and babbling idiots like Polly P?

What a great team for you to join. Rah Rah!

By Dye, Brainless

October 16, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

Sonny BOO list

5 To further sterotype southern males as self absorbed, impolitic bubbas who embarrass themselves and their state with every utterance.

BOO!

By rushncap

October 16, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

@@, thanks for your last post to me a couple of days ago. Did not have time to reply then. You are still the one conservative here who at least has manners and is civil. Even if you do like li’l andy.

By Angry Liberal Guy

October 16, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

Just where do their loyalties lie? This photo tells it all. Check out the company logo on the van’s door and and then check out the sticker on the back window.

By Dye, Brainless

October 16, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

Sonny BOO list:

4 To score a conjugal visit with Linda Schrenko

BOO-TY call!!!

By Dye, Brainless

October 16, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

Sonny BOOTY(call) list:

3: to blame the Falcon Cheerleaders for distracting Mora and turning him into a good highschool football coach. Mora simply doesn’t know what to do with Vick.

By RE

October 16, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

no, I am for babbling idiots just like you, you are my favorite.

By Dye, Brainless

October 16, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

Sonny Do list

2 to visit Iraq himself and see what is going on and then report back to voters by election day. Lets hear it from the horse’s mouth.

By RW (the oravaginal)

October 16, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

Sonny Do list:

And the #1 item on the Sonny Do list: To secure a bagged spinach contract for all Georgia Public School cafeterias thereby reducing the costs of educating our children. (and pocketing it)

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

Dye, Brainless,

Have you tried getting a job in the Catskills where over the hill Vaudeville “comics” may still be welcome?

RE,

Don’t you have any scintillating commentary on the U.N. to provide today?

By gadem

October 16, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

My God, Mr. Speaker looks constipated. That would explain why he is so full of c-r-a-p.

By The AJC Is A Filthy Anti American Rag

October 16, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

Filthy Mouth Murtha, bawling like a baby:

Vice President Cheney has accused Democrats of “self-defeating pessimism.” Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has faulted us for believing that “vicious extremists can be appeased.” The White House calls Democrats the party of “cut and run.”-WashingtonPost

Sniff, sniff, it’s almost like they falsely accused Murtha of being a murdering soldier.

Cut

The Lancet tried the same stunt with a widely discredited estimate of 100,000 dead in the runup to the presidential election in 2004. That number stayed alive in anti-war rhetoric, and you can be sure the new one will as well. So the stage is being set for next month’s elections, which could shift control of Congress and affect the tenor of President Bush’s last two years in office. Everyone wants to get on stage in October. The performances, so far, have been clumsy and ridiculous.-BostonHerald

Cut

Reporters have learned not to approach Sen. Clinton in the halls of the Capitol. Experienced journalists have found that she answers nearly all on-the-spot questions with a variation of “I don’t know”—a safe answer for her that renders the interviews useless, and prevents coverage of her views on any issues on which she has not sought coverage.-HumanEvents

Cut

Meanwhile, gay activists continue the forcible outing of people who didn’t actually want their sex lives plastered all over the internet. It seems that if you are a “real” Republican (which we now know is defined as support for the GMA), your private life needs to be exposed to the world.-Polimom

Right to privacy, eh?

Maybe these gentlemen oppose GMA on grounds other than homophobia?

Does that matter to the left wing hypocrite party?

Cut

Today’s cartoon that doesn’t suck!

By RE

October 16, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

No, Not much on the UN today. I do not know what is going to happen with N Korea, I don’t think sanctions are going to do anything except further isolate and insulate the N Koreans. But then again, not much else you can do. There is no military option, aside from a nuke first strike, and we are not about to do that. The funny part is how the big fear is selling weapons or materials to other nations or groups. North korea has not done that…Pakistan did. And AQ Kahn is a national hero pardoned by Musharraf on TV. Pretty thin lines between Alies and Enemies in this conflict.

By The AJC Is A Filthy Anti American Rag

October 16, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

Hey does anyone else notice that on a teacher’s workday, the Yahoo Spammer has a whole lot of extra time on it’s hands?

1) Yahoo Spammer is a child with no school today.

2) Yahoo Spammer is a teacher, with access to a government computer and no students to deal with.

I’m picking #2, the reason being just compare the sorry pitiful state of education in Georgia versus the sorry pitiful state of posting the whole entire Yahoo website to some one else’s blog. It’s the ultimate act of ignorance so it must be a pinko teacher.

And everybody knows that the teacher’s union is infested with pinkos.

By Paul

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

Well, well, well, AJC is a at 11:33 - you may have obliquely hit upon an interesting topic regarding primary and secondary education -

Education in America is funded via property taxes. Facilities, teacher pay, current textbooks, enhanced programs, all dependent upon assessed property valuation and tax rates. “Local control” is a hot-button issue. Yet, education at this level is considered one of those “greater good” roles of government.

So, why is education funded and controlled at the city/town/county/state level? If we hold that “anyone with hard work and determination” can advance their status in life, why do we tie a critical element of the ability to advance (education) to one’s parents’s income level?

Should not a child in rural Georgia have the same educational opportunities and quality of curriculum as a child in Martha’s Vineyard or Cape Cod? In fact, do not people in Martha’s Vineyard or Cape Cod have a future self interest in the educational programs provided in rural Georgia or southwest New Mexico?

By Paul

October 16, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

to finish - paying more attention to typing this time -

so should not the educational system be handled at the federal level? A good parallel example would be Dept of Defense - uniform training standards, uniform standards for trainers, performance, one system only (okay, per service) for hiring, firing, pay scales, pay adjusted for hardship areas, — recruits graduate from tech basic training, tech schools, have a standard of competency that permits assignment anywhere in the world they’re needed - get the idea?

By RE

October 16, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

Paul, correct me if I am wrong, but in local control of the schools, I thought that most of the funding is given to the state and redispersed back to the township or county. I know in some states it works that way, so that if not an exact dollar for dollar amount, there is parity in all schools whithin a state. The more wealthy sections of the state subsidize the less wealthy

By The AJC Is A Filthy Anti American Rag

October 16, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

Paul: The biggest problem with our education system is that it is run by a bunch of panty waist liberals who have turned into a pinko indoctrination system.

They think it is more important to teach our kids how to go about getting a sex change operation, have safe oral sex in grade school and that Americans have oppressed Indians, Japanese and cattle instead of studying history, civics and all that boring stuff.

Case closed.

By Paul

October 16, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

I believe that’s true in some states, in others I’ve lived it’s strictly by district. Some states have a mechanism as you described, so if the disparity is too great between districts, funds are drawn from wealthy to the poorer districts to attempt to equalize funding.

Still something to think about, a higher-wealth state such as Massachusetts, or Oregon (notice how I select two wealthy blue states?) has an funding level far above, say, New Mexico or Alabama. Teacher pay is lower, one could argue more capable teachers would migrate to the higher-salary areas (regardless of where their skills were needed). Rather putting it up first, as a concept, second, to see how a wealthy liberal will construct the argument to justify not providing opportunity to a lower-economic class person. Or how a wealthy conservative will construct the argument (local control arguments are taken for granted). Should be interesting. Maybe not. We’ll see.

By Midori

October 16, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

the only thing “closed” is your mind.

By RE

October 16, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

I know Andy, Children only need to be taught safe firearm handeling and bible study. Everything else is a pinko plot

By Paul

October 16, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

AJC: is “panty waist” like an extreme wedgie? And how is it affected by political philosophy?

By RE

October 16, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

I am with you on national standardization for training and accreditation of teachers, and a basic guideline for minimum standards for the ciriculum. When it gets down to the funding, I think state and local control is best. In south florida or in southern texas, the needs for adaptability of bilingual education is not the same as it is in minnesota. Again, I am not 100% sure on this, but I believe that block education grants are allocated to states to bring the less wealthy states up to par. Nationalizing the entire system I think would be too burdensome and create a new level of bureaucracy. Imagine the outcry as every teacher in the US becomes a federal employee with all rights and benefits…

By Huge

October 16, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

Paul,

You’ll soon find out that like RE and myself, and virtually everyone else here, that trying to involve suck in any intelligent discussions more complicated than how to boil water, is a complete waste of time. You two discuss the issue of education with pertinent issues, facts, etc. Unlike the resident sociopath who contributes nothing meaningful and merely blathers on like the miserable sot he is.

The poor boy is and always has been, way over his head here. Look at his 12:32; mindless drivel and opinions that only the most uneducated would agree with.

He think he’s almost universally despised because of his politics. He can’t seem to grasp it’s really because most accurately size him up as a hate-filled scumbag, a religious fraud and a mental midget…

But somehow in his delusional world, this is a badge of honor. Go figure…

By Truthman

October 16, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

This is directed to Bob Grayson of Cumming:

You letter to the editor in today’s AJC shows you to be typical Forsyth County racist idiot.

“Your” president attended a funeral for a lady who’s philosophy of non-violence was in direct contradiction with the Chimperor’s “attack now, think later” policies!

He’s lucky open rebellion didn’t occur.

My sister was part of Hosea Williams’ march in Forsyth several years ago. I suppose you were one of the ones on the sideline waving your confederate battle flag. BTW the confederates lost, mercifully!!!

Please do us a favor and crawl back under your rock…and stay there!!!

By The AJC Is A Filthy Anti American Rag

October 16, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

What excellent timing from Blowhard!

My post is an example of a long winded affront to intelligence and here comes Huge at the same time with his very own actual long winded affront to intelligence.

Maybe someday people will see what imposter’s to reason that losers like Huge really are, rambling on like broken records making absolutely no sense, all the while destroying the future of our country and our children.

Size up and score what this piece of sh-it has for us at 12:56. He’s smart and everybody else should shut up and listen. 4 paragraphs to convey his illegitimate, pointless, braggart thought to the rest of the blog.

And consider that I have not only provided incontrovertible evidence to back up my point, now I provide a motive: Pinkos make a killing off of their control of our educational system 1) by giving themselves obscene monetary compensation, wtf is an elementary teacher doing knocking down 100K a year? 2) creating future generations of illiterate, mindless pinkos, it’s their version of reproducing, hahahaha, they have you breed the raw material, they mold it into their own children.

Why do you think maggots like Huge get so upset when their called out?

And what an absolute panty waist defense 12:56 really is, do you want your child to turn out like that?

Then vote Republican.

By Suck Says Adios to America

October 16, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

By The AJC Is A Filthy Anti American Rag, October 16, 2006 01:00 PM- So long, USA.

If ‘Filthy’ can’t make America over in HIS image then just pi$$ on it. We all know that ‘Filthy’ hates the real America, he only loves himself and his own agendas. If America can’t march the goose step, ‘Suck’ thinks it ain’t worth foolin with.

By Paul

October 16, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

Huge: my 12:44 was a momentary weakness. Just seemed too good to pass up -

RE: but think of eliminating the offsetting bureaucracy that consumes so much. Every district - district!- has it’s own personnel department. It’s own HR department. It’s own budget department. Hiring, timekeeping, training, funding, purchasing - the list goes on. That is duplication on a tremendous scale - just in one state. It’s as if each county in which WalMart was located had it’s own departments in each area. All that duplication would be eliminated. But that gets back to power and money, doesn’t it?

By getalife

October 16, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

The blame goes to the American voter.

You voted them into office, you can vote them out.

By RE

October 16, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

It does get back to the power and money, and you almost never see any established bureaucracy eliminated, they become self perpetuating. I do not agree that it is a good thing to have as much support staff as there is, but I think realistically it will not be eliminated by creating a new federal level.

When it comes down to it, the problem of democracy in a capitalist system (not that I am against it) is that no one makes money by reducing waste, so no one is inclined to do so.

By Filthy is an Anti American that the AJC Rags

October 16, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

BOSTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales offered no new crime-fighting initiatives Monday, promising only to study local crime rates in selected cities to see why homicides and other violent criminal activity is on the rise nationally.

Oh how sweet, the Republican DO-NOTHING Congress has a Republican DO-NOTHING Attorney General to keep them company. Just more evidence that the Republiscum continue to be asleep at the wheel both in terms of foreign AND domestic policy ! ! !

By RW-(the original)

October 16, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

Paul,

When Huge pops in with his very first comment of the day telling you that he and he alone should be the determining voice in who you should discuss issues with, why the hell would you apologize to him?

By The AJC Is A Filthy Anti American Rag

October 16, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

RE: So you’re satisfied having the 48th ranking out of 50 states and being the 45th best in the world?

Paul: panty waist Sissy male That guy is such a panty waist, he’s afraid of everything.

By Angry Liberal Guy

October 16, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

The secret is out: [The Republican Handbook](http://www.republicanhandbook.com/

By Filthy is an Anti American that the AJC Rags

October 16, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

By Filthy, October 16, 2006 01:21 PM-
Why do you think maggots like Huge get so upset when THEIR called out?

If you want your child to turn out unable to spell the word, THEY’RE, then vote Republican.

By Paul

October 16, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

RW (the original) 1:34 - didn’t see it as an apology to Huge - more to the group - I try to avoid snarky, personal comments - chose not to resist a snarky, nonpersonal comment!

I believe Huge’s point, at the time, was a discussion was underway (RW also) and others put forth comments that didn’t seem to materially contribute.

RE: agree about bureaucracy points (ever wonder why we have a Tennessee Valley Authority long after the Tennessee Valley was electrified?). But the goal of national standards, curriculum with some modicum of local control of hiring, administration and “special programs” may be achievable.

Thanks for the ideas.

By Wanker Liberal

October 16, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

Is it too much to ask finch to act his age?

Or are we talking about a 12 year old?

By Filthy is an Anti American that the AJC Rags October 16, 2006 01:33 PM

By Angry Liberal Guy

October 16, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

The secret is out: The Republican Handbook Link fixed

By Wanker Liberal

October 16, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

By Filthy is an Anti American that the AJC Rags October 16, 2006 01:41 PM By Filthy, October 16, 2006 01:21 PM- Why do you think maggots like Huge get so upset when THEIR called out? If you want your child to turn out unable to spell the word, THEY’RE, then vote Republican.

If you want your child’s mental capacity reduced to the point where his only means of debate and of defending himself is to jack other people’s nicknames on a political blog, then vote democrat.

If an occasional misspelled word is O.K. to have while your kid slams liberals like the retarded weenies that they are, then vote Republican.

It’s your choice.

By Paul

October 16, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

Wanker Liberal - occassional misspelled work is ok -

As a coworker whose writing I had to proofread was fond of saying:

“My daddy always said it’s a poor mind that can’t think of more than one way to spell a word.”

Don’t know where he went to school -

By Andy's conscience

October 16, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

By Andy - October 16, 2006 01:34 PM - Paul: panty waist Sissy male That guy is such a panty waist, he’s afraid of everything.

I’m very sorry. I got really loaded last night after spending the day spewing over at Wooten’s, and that’s why I wasn’t here at 8am sharp with my usual spam.

The good news is that after some shots, I’m not so hungover. But the bad news is that the booze just brings out the boring and ponderous nasty in me.

By Wanker Liberal

October 16, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

By Andy’s conscience October 16, 2006 02:00 PM The good news is that after some shots, I’m not so hungover. But the bad news is that the booze just brings out the boring and ponderous nasty in me.

Hey everybody, say hello to bon scott, with his usual drunken Andy bullsh-it.

How intelligent.

By Filthy Shows His Wanker to Liberals (at least the young MALE ones)

October 16, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Monday that bank regulators should search for ways to reduce regulatory burdens imposed on the financial system in the government’s efforts to battle terrorist financing and money laundering.

King George must really be in trouble. Now his own apointees think he’s an idiot and are encouraging bank regulators to circumvent the Chimperor’s “efforts to battle terrorist financing and money laundering” ! ! !

By I don't Have A Brain So I Worship Andy's Every Move

October 16, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

By Filthy Shows His Wanker to Liberals (at least the young MALE ones)

October 16, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

By I Don't Have A Brain So I Blame EVERYTHING FROM YAHOO On Bush

October 16, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

ROVINJ, Croatia (Reuters) - Croatia, already a popular holiday destination for sunseekers, is now tempting tourists with the offer of dental services at less than half the prices paid in western Europe.

King George has made such a mess of America’s dental industry that I have to go to Croatia to get my dentures installed! ! ! I know I’m too stupid to brush but that’s the Republican’s fault! ! !

By I Don't Have A Brain So I Blame EVERYTHING FROM YAHOO On Bush

October 16, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

ASUNCION, Paraguay (Reuters) - Young entrepreneurs in Paraguay say they have a new weapon against pesky, and potentially dangerous, mosquitos — cotton shirts soaked in lemon-scented citronella oil.

King George letting misquitos run wild in the United States! ! ! I know it was ignorant a-ss environmental whacko liberals that banned DDT and killed millions and millions of children but were too stupid to not blame Bush! ! !

By RW-(the original)

October 16, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

Paul,

If that snarky aside in your second paragraph at 1:43 was directed at me, my first comment of the day was the one I made to you at 1:34. So if you can’t tell the difference between a stalker and someone that contributes often maybe you should STFU when it comes to making statements like that.

There are multiple discussions that take place at any given time and it’s not your place to decide when something contributes to others and when it doesn’t.

By Scarecrow

October 16, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

Wow, now we know that King George is REALLY in trouble, even “Filthy” is catching on now ! ! !

By Huge

October 16, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

“I believe Huge’s point, at the time, was a discussion was underway (RW also) and others put forth comments that didn’t seem to materially contribute.”

Paul, as Ed McMahon used to say; “You are correct sir!”

And I can tell that you are a reasoned and reasonable contributor here. I, for one, am glad you’ve decided to join us.

RW, you putz, leave it to you, to once again miss the point entirely!

“…Huge…telling you that he and he alone should be the determining voice in who you should discuss issues with,…”

I merely said, suck is a hate-filled idiot and having discussions with him is usually useless. I did not say that he, you, the man in the moon or anybody else doesn’t have a voice. In case you’ve missed what most here have not, his “writings” provide endless amusement. It’s a shame (for you) that he’s the best example or representative, you neo-cons have here.

In the past he has acknowledged that I have a great deal of power over him, but methinks he gives me way too much credit on a national scale! “Huge… destroying the future of our country and our children.”

My guess, is that fortunately for mankind, he has no children. And does not give a tinker’s damn about kids anyway (well maybe a tiny bit, if and only if, their parents vote strictly gop and they don’t attend any public schools).

If you choose to agree with him on every single ludicrous thing he says or parrots (i.e. kiss his a$$ all day long), that’s your problem, no one elses.

So now go ahead and tell me to f off…

By Who Jacks Names And Psots From Yahoo Exclusively? Idiots Do

October 16, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

10 paragraphs for Blowhard to say that he’s smart and Andy is stupid; as usual he’s totally wrong on all counts.

I have two children and I’m willing to put their report cards up against ANYONE’S in this fat blowhard failed public educational system (one homeschool, the other Christian Academy.)

They don’t take ten paragraphs to make self congratulatory mundane manifestos, believe me.

P.S. If Paul wishes to believe that Huge has made any “material contributions” to this blog, that is his opinion to have, no matter how wrong it may be.

By Huge

October 16, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

By Who Jacks Names And Psots From Yahoo Exclusively? Idiots Do

“I have two children…”

This is truly terrible news. I feel so very sorry for them and any other children who know these two kid’s father (or suck, as the case may be)…

By Midori

October 16, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

Andy and his bride

Andy and his children

By Who Jacks Names And Psots From Yahoo Exclusively? Idiots Do

October 16, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

Hey, at least I’m not obsessed with some blogger named Andy, hahaha.

Like you are.

By Paul

October 16, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

RW at 2:41 - wasn’t directed at you - awkward paragraph construct - intent you, RE, I and others were having a discussion, others included and welcomed, another came in with some pretty off-base comments and I shot out an off-topic attempt at inference humor.

As you had an If - then setup on your inquiry, and as the If was false, I pretty much glossed over the rest, as your comment was based upon a misunderstanding.

By RE

October 16, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

Just checking, I could use a scorecard:

Delay- Under investigation, gave up his seat

Cunningham, plead guilty, gave up his seat

Ney- Plead guilty, still holds his seat

Foley- gave up his seat after e-mails revealed

Hastert- Under investigation for coverup of foley

Shimkus- Under investigation for coverup of foley

Reynolds- Under investigation for coverup of foley

Weldon- FBI raided his daughters house, under investigation for improper lobbying

Did I miss anyone?

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Huge Parenthesis,

You are ALWAYS dictating to others how to “debate” here according to your Huge Rules.

Spare us the Huge BS. Nobody appointed you Huge Moderator and you are hardly the paragon of civility. You are making a Huge Mistake if you think that we don’t Huge Archives to access to prove what a Huge Phony you are.

By Paul

October 16, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

RE: could one infer that the Republican base, when their leaders are caught out, are less tolerant of malfeasance and demand removal, compared to the loyal opposition?

Just a thought -

By RE

October 16, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Well, Ney still has his seat, and Delay was never forced out. Foley resigned, but he most likely would have been forced out. I would say that they hold thier leaders accountable after all attempts to kill the story or investigation have been exhausted.

On the other side, it is horrible that the dems have not forced out William Jefferson.

I do not believe in such a thing as an uncorrupted politician, but there are levels to this. The GOP should have more investigations and scandals being uncovered, it makes no sense to bribe someone with no power, but, come on. That is a cavalcade of corruption, please note that this is only the elected house members listed, not thier staff or anyone from the executive. That would be another long list.

By RW-(the original)

October 16, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Would it be possible for you to find a middle ground between long hugelike bloviations and that 3:31 that seems to be missing a few dozen words? Thanks!

Huge,

eff off! You’re Welcome!

By RW-(the original)

October 16, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

RE,

I think that Hastert has said that as soon as they reconvened he would move to expel Ney. That being said it’s a fine line whether they have any right to take the will of the voters into their own hands.

With Ney, he has plead guilty so I would think you could expel him without much of a problem. On the other hand Jefferson hasn’t actually been charged with anything yet so expelling him would seem unconstitutional.

By Paul

October 16, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

RE: thanks, I knew I could count on a (first paragraph) laugh on a drowsy afternoon.

RW (original): yes, it would! Didn’t think I’d left out a few dozen words - I’d intended to say, I read the first part of your 2:41, read the “If” statement, realized it was incorrect, so I glossed over the rest, as it was predicated upon an incorrect assumption.

You’re welcome.

By RE

October 16, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

RW, I hear you on Ney, and I have heard that they will move to expell him when congress goes back into session. However, this is from 9/15, congress was still in session

Call me naive, I still think there should be someone who holds congressmen accountable. Congress should be held to higher standards, not lower.

By RW-(the original)

October 16, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

RE,

Did you even read your story? If you decide to try to pay attention to the very beginning and the words “is expected to”

Here’s when he did plead guilty and Congress wasn’t in session

By Huge

October 16, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

BD, attack b!tch, to the rescue!

She states: “I am ALWAYS dictating to others how to “debate” here according to MY Rules.”

She goes on to say:

“Nobody appointed me Moderator and I am hardly the paragon of civility. I am making a Huge Mistake if I think that we don’t (have) Huge Archives to access to prove what a Huge Bigoted B!tch I am.”

Just like suck, she gives me enormous credit for single-handedly changing the world, or maybe just this blog. To the extent that I’ve made them both look like the losers they are, I’ve done my part.

Hey bigot, why don’t your kid(s) and sucks kids take IQ tests! The loser gets to replace their parent on this blog!

What a maroon…

By RE

October 16, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

ok RW, when is it appropriate for the house leadership to take action?

During Investigation, indictment, or conviction/ pleading?

As I write this I am thinking more about Jefferson than Ney. They have video of him taking a 100k bribe. That is enough, no need to wait for the trial before removing him from office. Maybe it is because I see public service like congress as being a priviledge that can be taken away without the same standards as sending someone to jail. I would like Congress held to a higher standard

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

Huge Parenthesis,

I don’t give you credit for anything except for being a Huge Phony Halfwit.

By Who Jacks Names And Psots From Yahoo Exclusively? Idiots Do

October 16, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

By Huge October 16, 2006 04:39 PM Hey bigot, why don’t your kid(s) and sucks kids take IQ tests! The loser gets to replace their parent on this blog!

What’s the matter, Blowhard, have you no children to enter into the contest? Haven’t been able to get the boyfriend preggers, have we?

You know, (you little savage son of a bit-ch, peckerhead,) you’ve posted 5 comments so far today and none of them surpass the intellectual level of what’s inside of the parenthesis^^.

But that doesn’t stop you from telling us how good you are.

Let’s play learn a new word or two:

Conceited: adjective 1. having an excessively favorable opinion of one’s abilities, appearance, etc.

Hah!

Vain: adjective, -er, -est. 1. excessively proud of or concerned about one’s own appearance, qualities, achievements, etc.;

Damn!

Arrogant: adjective 1. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud

Need more?

By Huge

October 16, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

Only 1 in 3 Americans now approve of the way W is mishandling the Iraq invasion. The lowest number ever. Unless these numbskulls can turn things around very quickly, it will almost certainly be 1 in 4. Then 1 in 5? Then a couple of bloggers?

Sen. Hagel of Nebraska has the courage to say what many of the chickenhawks in his party don’t have the balls to - it’s a complete mess. He’s a republican I could potentially vote for.

It will be very interesting to see the gop slug it out for 08 on this issue. My guess? Many will desert this ludicrous Cheney Doctrine.

In the meantime, people can begin dissolving the power of this inept group by voting non-republican in three weeks…

By RE

October 16, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

Huge, come on, lets be civil here. Every other day this degenerates into name calling. No need for that, there is almost a discussion going on right now. lets try the whole idea of presenting opposing points of view in an orderly well thought out way without denigrating the person holding a counter view. lets just try for a while

By RW-(the original)

October 16, 2006 05:13 PM | Link to this

RE,

If you’re talking about expelling them from Congress I think you need a guilty plea or a conviction of a pretty serious crime.

Stripping them of committee memberships etc. could be done earlier, but as a general rule it should be the voters that make the decision. If you start letting Congress expel it’s members at the first hint of trouble it’s not a higher standard you’re going to get. It’ll be wall to wall political witch hunts.

By bon scott

October 16, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this

By Who Jacks Names And Psots From Yahoo Exclusively? Idiots Do - October 16, 2006 05:01 PM - What’s the matter, Blowhard, have you no children to enter into the contest? Haven’t been able to get the boyfriend preggers, have we? You know, (you little savage son of a bit-ch, peckerhead,) you’ve posted 5 comments blah blah….

Masterful! Unique!! And this is followed by definitions of vain, arrogant and conceited. Irony defined, Andy. If you’re not drunk, you’re not on your meds.

And your spelling scuks. heh.

By RW-(the original)

October 16, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this

Huge,

Tell me what difference it will make if I vote for Catherine Davis or not.

By RE

October 16, 2006 05:26 PM | Link to this

too late on the wall to wall witch hunts.

Not sure how it works, but the political part the person in question is affiliated with should shun them. Take away all responsibility and support from that person. It seems like you get all the power of your office right up until the conviction, so it is in thier interest to delay and obstruct for as long as possible, seemingly with thier own party’s blessing. In effect, you are rewarded for not taking responsibility.

By Who Jacks Names And Psots From Yahoo Exclusively? Idiots Do

October 16, 2006 05:35 PM | Link to this

I agree with RE, for once, so here’s my opposing views:

Dear Republicans/ Conservatives:

) If you think that 9 month old babies should be torn from their mother’s womb and bathed in acid, stay home on November 7th.

) If you think that gays should marry and receive the same benefits as those that raise new members of society, then stay home November 7th.

) If you want the war on Islamic Fascism fought in New York City or in a town near you, then stay home November 7th.

) If you want your taxes raised and government expanded even more than it has been, then stay home November 7th.

) If you want to go to the hospital and put your name on a 6 month waiting list to see a doctor, even if you only have 5 months to live, then stay home November 7th.

) If you want the tax exempt status of your Church abolished and you want to see God driven from public square, then stay home November 7th.

) If you want your female child to be instructed on how to become a male child or that oral sex in the 4th grade is normal, then stay home November 7th.

) If you think that our government should be controlled by unelected people in the media and that they should set the course of our nation, then believe the hype, hypocrisy and sicknesses that spews forth from your TV even now and stay home on November 7th.

Just my humble little opinion.

By Huge

October 16, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this

RW,

Answer your own question. I’d like to hear what YOU think of her. (I also live in the 4th).

My reply is merely a slight paraphrase:

Tell me what difference it will make if I vote or not.

When I vote, I vote my conscience. Although we butt heads here quite a bit, I know you’re a lot like me in some ways - 1)well informed and 2)passionate about your beliefs. That’s good enough for me, bro…

By Alfred E. Republican (What me, worry about rules?)

October 16, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - Former FDA chief Lester Crawford will plead guilty for failing to disclose a financial interest in companies his agency regulated, his lawyer said Monday.

The Justice Department accused the former head of the Food and Drug Administration with falsely reporting that he had sold stock in companies when he continued holding shares in the firms governed by FDA rules.

Another of King George’s appointees bites the dust. Republicans think that pesky old rules are only for Democrats. Sounds pretty conceited, arrogant and vain, doesn’t it ? ? ?

By RW-(the original)

October 16, 2006 05:42 PM | Link to this

RE,

Was that just a wordier version of what I said at 5:13?

In the Republican Party you lose any leadership position as soon as there is a charge filed against you. The Democrats have no such rule. I still don’t think you can do much more. Each Congressperson is a representative of people that have selected him or her to represent THEM.

By Brother Can You Spare a Dime ?

October 16, 2006 05:53 PM | Link to this

TOLEDO, Ohio - Less than a month before Election Day, a politically connected coin dealer accused of embezzling from a state investment in rare coins went on trial Monday in a scandal that has rocked Ohio’s Republican Party.

Tom Noe, 52, is accused of stealing more than $2 million from a fund for injured workers and spending it on his business and renovating his home in the Florida Keys.

Another Republiscum bites the dust. The only thing these shiite bags ever do is LIE and steal. No wonder they’re a do-nothing Congress, they sure as God made little green apples ain’t got any time left to govern ! ! !

By RE

October 16, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

Hmm, not even one pinko thrown in there. I am very proud of you.

Rebuttal:

)If you think a raped child should be forced to give birth, stay home on Nov 7

)If you think you should be allowed to be fired because of your sexual orientation, stay home on Nov 7

)If you want an endless war to be fought with an incompetent strategy, stay home Nov 7

)If you want more corruption and earmarks from one party rule to continue, squandering your tax dollars. Stay home Nov 7

)If you want to have medical insurance be only for the super wealthy, stay home on Nov 7

)If you want religious dogma to replace science, stay home Nov 7

)If you want your child to be ignorant of thier own bodies, and how to protect themselves from STDs, stay home Nov 7

)If you think our country should be controled by unelected lobbyists from major institutions, looking to increase thier bottom line at your expense, stay home Nov 7

My Humble Opinion

By RE

October 16, 2006 06:05 PM | Link to this

RW,

Yeah, kind of. After rereading what you said and what I said, pretty much the same thing. Not sure of the Dem position on when they take away committee chairmenships etc. Either party, you cannot trust a person to be responsible, they must be forced to be accountable

By So When Will Harry Reid Resign Or Get Convicted, When He Becomes A Republican?

October 16, 2006 06:06 PM | Link to this

Reid blamed the AP story as a “latest attempt” by Republicans to affect the election. AP reported last week that it learned of the land deal from a former Reid adviser who had concerns about the way the deal was reported to Congress.

We tricked him into making that million! ! ! He would have been never made it without Republicans being in office! ! !

By So When Will Harry Reid Resign Or Get Convicted, When He Becomes A Republican?

October 16, 2006 06:07 PM | Link to this

Democrat Ned Lamont has just $329,560 cash on hand for the final weeks of the campaign, far less than rival Sen. Joe Lieberman whose account totals $4.7 million.

Maybe Harry Reid can sell some property and let him borrow some money! ! !

By Rep-Run Government Continues to Charged Up the Largest Deficit in History

October 16, 2006 06:27 PM | Link to this

Dem-Run Congress Could ‘Help Destroy Economy,’

If what Clinton did for 8 years was destroy the economy……. bring on the destruction!

By So When Will Harry Reid Resign Or Get Convicted, When He Becomes A Republican?

October 16, 2006 06:31 PM | Link to this

By RE October 16, 2006 05:58 PM

If you think a raped child should be forced to give birth, stay home on Nov 7

Name one. I can name 45,000,000 babies that have holes drilled in their heads, no I can’t, you liberals killed them before they had names.

If you think you should be allowed to be fired because of your sexual orientation, stay home on Nov 7

Answer: Federal laws. While there is no federal law that prohibits this type of discrimination in private employment, an {{{{executive order}}}}} specifically outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation in the federal government.

If you want an endless war to be fought with an incompetent strategy, stay home Nov 7

Cut and run^^!!

If you want more corruption and earmarks from one party rule to continue, squandering your tax dollars. Stay home Nov 7

Hah!- WASHINGTON - Senators Clinton and Schumer are asking the Pentagon to spend $123 million of its wartime budget for New York projects that the Department of Defense didn’t ask for - but that in many cases are linked to the senators’ campaign contributors.

If you want to have medical insurance be only for the super wealthy, stay home on Nov 7

Answer: An estimated 15.2 percent of the population or 43.6 million people were without health insurance coverage during the entire year in 2002 I didn’t know that 85% of the population of the United States was “super wealthy??”

(Continued.)

By Saddam W. Bush

October 16, 2006 06:38 PM | Link to this

BAGHDAD, Iraq - (President Bush) issued an open letter Monday, saying Iraq’s “liberation is at hand” and calling for an end to sectarian killings.

Naw, I was just kiddin. The quote is actually from Saddam Hussein. Funny how the two sound so much alike though, isn’t it ? ? ?

By RW-(the original)

October 16, 2006 06:38 PM | Link to this

RE,

But they have to be held accountable to THEIR voters not somebody else’s voters.

By the way, can’t your raped child have the abortion before nine months? And why isn’t it the parents job to teach their child about STD’s and their bodies?

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 06:47 PM | Link to this

~~Democrats aid and abet terrorists~~

[This hideous traitor, whom Cindy Sheehan compares to Atticus Finch, got a mere 28 months for aiding the disgusting perpetrator of the first World Trade Center Bombing.] (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-10-16T190822Z01N16349358RTRUKOC0_US-SECURITY-TRIAL.xml&src=rss&rpc=22)

Of course she is portrayed as a Saint:

{{Stewart, long a defender of the poor and unpopular, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge John Koeltl in Manhattan federal court.))

Surprise, surprise! George Soros, Democrat financier and crook extraordinaire helped fund her defense.

Any of you Libs want to defend this?

By Huge

October 16, 2006 06:58 PM | Link to this

Neo-cons:

If you think that a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices should be outlawed, stay home on November 7th.

If you think that gays should be marginalized and turned into de facto second class citizens, stay home November 7th.

If you want incompetent chickenhawks to screw up a war against terrorists, whether in New York City or in a town 7000 miles away, then stay home November 7th.

If you want republicans to raise your taxes and government expanded even more than they already have and as middle clas Americans get almost nothing in return, then stay home November 7th.

If you want to elect republicans so they can gut the funds for VA hospitals, stay home November 7th.

If you want to rub your christian only god in everybody’s face, from the public square to the public schools to the halls of justice, stay home November 7th.

If you want public schools turned into madrassas where science is scorned and knowledge is not valued, then stay home November 7th.

If you think that our government should be controlled by frauds and charlatans like Falwell and Robertson, unelected liars on talk radio and Fox News and that they should set the course of our nation, and believe the hype, hypocrisy and sicknesses that spews forth from them, then stay home on November 7th.

By So When Will Harry Reid Resign Or Get Convicted, When He Becomes A Republican?

October 16, 2006 07:14 PM | Link to this

By Huge October 16, 2006 06:58 PM {{{{{{{{{{{{Neo-cons}}}}}}}}}}}}}: If you think that a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices should be outlawed, stay home on November 7th.

I know this is hard to keep track of but I think you meant to put {{{{moonbats}}}} instead of neo-cons.

Moron.

But what else can you expect from someone who would post the Fever Swamp Talking Point Top Ten?

By RW-(the original)

October 16, 2006 07:14 PM | Link to this

Huge,

You’ve been running on those same old lame scare tactics for years. Have you noticed that those things don’t actually happen and hardly anyone proposes changing them?

The Supreme Court could vacate Roe tomorrow and your abortion clinics would be operating just fine.

The only people I’ve seen turning gays into second class citizens has been a steady drumbeat from the left for the last two weeks.

Wait you might have one new one in there. Quite a trick for Democrats to run on rolling back tax cuts, but claiming you should vote for them to keep Republicans from raising taxes. I’d love to be at a town hall meeting when some fool Democrat tries that one.

By So When Will Harry Reid Resign Or Get Convicted, When He Becomes A Republican?

October 17, 2006 08:03 AM | Link to this

Anti-Semitic incidents have proliferated in France in recent times, but the news seldom makes it across the Atlantic and when it does, it must still fight to be heard above the constant melodrama of constant trivia. A Jewish sports club in Toulouse attacked with Molotov cocktails; in Bondy, 15 men beat up members of a Jewish soccer team with metal bars and sticks; a bus that takes Jewish children to school in Aubervilliers attacked three times in the last 14 months; synagogues in Strasbourg and Marseilles and a Jewish school in Creteil firebombed in recent weeks; in Toulouse, a gunman opened fire — all ignored in mainstream U.S. media. The metropolitan Paris police tabulated 10 to 12 anti-Jewish incidents per day in the last 30 days throughout the country.-WashingtonTimes

Cut

To say that terrorists and adversary nations want to hobble the president with a Democrat Congress is not to say that the Dems are in league with bin Laden or Kim Jong-il. But those who would benefit most from Congressional actions such as hobbling the NSA terrorist surveillance program or reducing funds for the Iraq battle aren’t America’s friends. Who benefits most from blocking the appointment of conservative judges who reject the application of European law to American cases? It’s not the ACLU: it’s nations that sponsor terrorism and want it to be a matter for the Justice Department to handle, not the Pentagon.-AmericanSpectator

Cut

Many campuses have speech codes where it is called creating a “hostile environment” if you say things that make various racial, sexual, or other protected groups unhappy. Young people educated at our most prestigious colleges and universities are learning the lesson that storm trooper tactics can silence those who are not in vogue on campus, and honest expressions of opinion about issues involving anything from affirmative action to women in the military can get you suspended if you refuse the humiliation and hypocrisy of being “re-educated.”-RealClearPolitics

By So When Will Harry Reid Resign Or Get Convicted, When He Becomes A Republican?

October 17, 2006 08:04 AM | Link to this

Junk science, the “church” of liberalism:

The results were catastrophic. As the most effective weapon ever deployed against mosquitoes and malaria was taken out of service, the mosquitoes and malaria returned. In Sri Lanka, for example, the spraying of houses with DDT had all but wiped out malaria, which shrank over a decade from 2.8 million cases and 7,300 deaths to 17 cases and no deaths. But when American funds to pay for DDT-based mosquito eradication dried up, malaria surged back, to half a million cases by 1969. Today, the global malaria caseload stands at more than 300 million. The disease kills well over 1 million victims yearly — some estimates run as high as 2.7 million — and the vast majority of its victims are children in Africa. “Such a toll is scarcely comprehensible,” Attaran and several colleagues have written. “To visualize it, imagine filling seven Boeing 747s with children, and then crashing them — every day.”-TownHall

If you Conservatives want America worshipping at the alter of hysteria, don’t vote November 7th.

Cut

Seniors like Part D. It has given drug coverage to 20 million people who didn’t have it before. It has lowered costs for most seniors. It has come in substantially under budget — the 10-year estimates for the program’s cost have already dropped by a fifth. And it has given them access to nearly 90 percent of all available drugs without any bureaucratic interference.-WashingtonTimes

Cut

Today’s cartoon that doesn’t suck!

By Mrs. Godzilla

October 17, 2006 08:26 AM | Link to this

Lester Crawford….now there’s a good republican.

Resign early!

By Jim Beck

October 17, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this

You libby liberals suk. You perverts just think that the american people will buy your bullcrap trying to smear honest god fearing republicans but we are on to you. I can’t wait for the next couple of national elections are over so that you freaks will crawl back into the holes you crawled out of. One day soon we will have the power to put all you queer loving baby killers in prison and then exterminate you for good. The only good liberal is a dead liberal.

By N-GA

October 17, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

It will be interesting to read what the wing-nuts have to say about the 8:43 post.

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this

N-GA,

I think your 8:43 post that you wrote as Jim Beck is disgusting, but not surprising coming from an idiot punk like you.

By @@

October 17, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this

ml, are you sleeping in? I’ll comment on Andy’s cartoon.

How did we get here? Through a La La Liberal lapse in judgment. I like the way Leno puts it:

Jay Leno: “As of this coming Thursday, Saddam Hussein will have been on trial for one year. One year. Do you realize if his trial was in LA, he’d be out playing golf by now.”

O.J. “Onward Jihad” justice.

On another note, I had no idea this was such a Democratic family affair.

By N-GA

October 17, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

RW (the Real Wanker),

I takes a complete idiot like you to leap to the conclusion that I would write something like the 8:43 post for any reason. Your thinking is so typical of the Bush mentality. If you conclude (without evidence) that something is wrong, you simply attack it.

If you took your brain and put it on the edge of a razor blade, it would be like a BB on a 4-lane highway.

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

N-GA,

It’s your 8:56 that makes it obvious you wrote the 8:43 and nobody attacked it until you begged for it. Only a liberal Moby would write something like that. Go back to recycling your beer cans or playing with your fake war medals and give the computer a rest why don’t you.

By N-GA

October 17, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this

RW (the Real Wanker) aka Lying Andy (the Bed Wetter),

It is interesting that you should once again reference my military service…something you have never done. What a complete pantywaist. You talk all the time about our military and their sacrifices, but you and your’s are the epitome of cut-and-run.

Coward!

By So When Will Harry Reid Resign Or Get Convicted, When He Becomes A Republican?

October 17, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

I was thinking 8:43 was finch but, since there is very minimal difference, I’ll agree that it was NG-A.

Related to that, why is it that liberals can have all kinds of filthy posts that they just ignore but then they arrogantly expect Cons to silence our extremists as soon as they pop up?

Or why is it that Harry Reid has all these excuse makers from the left flocking to his side but a Conservative caught doing the same thing would be required by the left to imprison himself?

Or why do pinko liberals teach our children and lecture us on the right to privacy of the downtrodden homosexual pedophiles but when a Republican follows their suggestions, he and his whole entire political party are condemned as monsters?

Does the hypocrisy just not reek?

By Jim Beck

October 17, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

RW: Blo me you lib loving maggot.

N-GA: Blo RW traitor.

@@: You hit the nail right on the head guy.

What these liberal maggots do here everyday is nothing short of treason. Last time I heard treason was a capital offense unless the libbylibs have outlawed it as too politically incorrect. Death is too good for these traitors but it is best we can do. Put these mad dogs down humanely and keep a close watch on there relatives in case its in the blood. Rant on maggots, your day of reckoning is coming soon.

By N-GA

October 17, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

From the Washington Post:

“The White House issued a solemn statement Thursday commemorating the sixth anniversary of the al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole.

The White House has been citing the Cole a lot lately, as part of its narrative that President Clinton, who was in charge back then, was asleep at the switch when it came to terrorism.

I went back to see what the White House statement was like on the fifth anniversary of the attack on the Cole. But there wasn’t one!

And there wasn’t one on the fourth, the third, the second or the first, either.”

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm….

By N-GA

October 17, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

RW (the real Wanker) aka Lying Andy (the Bed Wetter),

C’mon RW, you’re posting Andy’s drivel using your sobriquet. Forget your meds this morning? At least be consistent. Act like the leader of the wing-nuts on this blog instead of the looney toon.

By N-GA

October 17, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

There’s Lying Andy (the Bed Wetter) aka RW (the Real Wanker) posting at 9:39. Interesting how he refers to himself in the third person as an extremist.

Interesting how the Cons reacted to the 8:43 post. Deny it and blame it on someone else (Clinton did it?). Totally predictable, aren’t they.

By N-GA

October 17, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

Hey Lying Andy (the Bed Wetter) aka RW (the Real Wanker),

Personally I think you Siamese twins should go for the surgical separation. Since you are joined at the mouth, one of you will keep those Foley-loving lips while the other will have to continue to speak thru your a-$$. The decision is yours.

By RE

October 17, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

To the GOP folks, If you are looking for inspiration this elections season, look to the Bears. What a game. Kind of accurate metaphor as well, the GOP has been fumbling for the last several years, the only thing they have going for them is that the Dems are the Arizona Cardinals of politics.

By bon scott

October 17, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

N-GA, if the wingnut wankers here didn’t waste so much time and energy trying to divine who posts what, they might actually be able to make a point.

Meanwhile, the question “What’s The Matter with Kansas?” is being answered in the pages of heartland newspapers like the Johnson County (Kansas) Sun:

You almost cannot be a victorious traditional Republican candidate with mainstream values in Johnson County or in Kansas anymore, because these candidates never get on the ballot in the general election. They lose in low turnout primaries, where the far right shows up to vote in disproportionate numbers.

This editorial goes on to list the reasons why mainstream GOP voters are better off voting for Kansas Democrats than fringe neocon candidates. Stating the obvious, I might add…

That’s why, in the absence of so-called traditional Republican candidates, the choice comes down to right-wing Republicans or conservative Democrats. And now you know why we have been forced to move left.

I love the smell of neocons set ablaze by common sense and logic.

It smells like… victory!

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this

Now that Sybil bon finchie has decided that burning Republicans alive is a good idea, let’s see how indignant mountain goat N-GA gets.

By RE

October 17, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

come on everyone, lets try to keep the discussion civil today, we had almost 3 hours without any harsh name calling yesterday, lets build on that

By N-GA

October 17, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

Per the 10:05 post, France must be part of the axis of evil….INVADE FRANCE!!

By N-GA

October 17, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

RW (the Real Wanker) aka Lying Andy (the bed Wetter),

You have no idea how much I appreciate your help in showing just how stupid you are. You try to compare wing-nut Beck’s post: “One day soon we will have the power to put all you queer loving baby killers in prison and then exterminate you for good. The only good liberal is a dead liberal.” with bon scott’s post: “I love the smell of neocons set ablaze by common sense and logic. It smells like… victory!”

nuff said, idiot!!

By Paul

October 17, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

Interesting interview last night - Pres Bush on Bill O’Reilly. Continues tonight and tomorrow. Topics are all foreign policy. O’Reilly would make a comment - some from same arguments made here - Pres Bush responds “Well, I don’t agree” or “Well, I think you’re wrong and here’s why.” I think the other two broadcasts will be worth watching.

By Reid And Abramoff, Sitting In A Suite, B-R-I-B-I-N-G

October 17, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

By N-GA October 17, 2006 10:22 AM Per the 10:05 post, France must be part of the axis of evil….INVADE FRANCE!!

Dear N-GA:

I have read your post of 10:22 and would like to address your thoughtful comments.

Your post was in relation to my article of 10:05 concerning the French/ Muslim war taking place in the suburbs of Paris; but it seems that you are confused with the subject matter. Why would you suggest that we invade France?

A more rational response would have been to comment that appeasement of the Islamic extremists coupled with an extravagant welfare system seems to not be paying off for the government of France and if they did not want to see Paris overrun, perhaps they should look into like growing a spine or maybe nutting up on the Fascists.

But the United States invading France? Where, pray tell, did you ever come up with that comment?

If I should in fact be misreading your intentions, do not hesitate to correct me.

Sincerely Yours, Andy.

(Is that better, RE?)

By RE

October 17, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

Response to your rebuttal from last night:

Just a question really, if we pull out of Iraq and they do follow us, what city in the US do you think the Sunni and Shia will choose to wage a civil war in?

By bon scott

October 17, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

By RW-(the original) - October 17, 2006 10:20 AM - Now that bon has decided that burning Republicans alive is a good idea, let’s see how indignant mountain goat N-GA gets.

N-GA, This illustrates just one of the many problems with necons.

Absolutely no sense of humor.

RE, I’m trying to be civil, but it’s a challenge.

BTW, it’s not Republicans who are harming the ozone layer in my light hearted metaphor. It’s wingnuts.

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

RE,

The very first thing YOU did yesterday was attack ME for responding to an babbling idiot who uses my name on a daily basis to create stupid puns for himself, and tries to censor my posts by claiming that they have viruses in them.

If you were truly the great moderator that you like to pose as you would have attacked HIM and not ME. You’ll pardon my skepticism.

By N-GA

October 17, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

When Lyin Andy (the Bed Wetter) addresses me as “Dear”, I start to worry.

By RE

October 17, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Excellent, you made a very good point and a valid arguement. One that can be seen in many other instances. Immigration is a hallmark of free democratic societies, and yet it also seems like those who are immigrating do not wish to acclimate themselves to thier new countries. Instead they wish to build out new communities of thier own standards while benefiting from a national culture which they choose to reject. It is seen clearly in France and Holland with thier Muslim problems, and also to an extent in the southern US with Mexican immigrants. So now how does a nation retain it’s national identity and values? Should immigration be curtailed, or perhaps more stringent restictions be placed upon new immigrants in matters such as language and culture. Or perhaps selective immigration, where some countries are severely limited to the amount of people allowed in. And at what point do you strike the balance between having an open society vs defending national identity?

By Paul

October 17, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

Pres Bush just signed the Terrorist Detainee Act - contrary to earlier efforts, US forces will not be required to carry Miranda cards as part of their kit -

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

bonnie,

{{{{{{{RE, I’m trying to be civil, but it’s a challenge.}}}}}}}<————by Sybil

Would you like us to drag forward a few examples of your shining civility?

By RE

October 17, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

Then I do apologize for any past insults BD. I will try to be more civil and we will see if the discourse here improves to the point where actual ideas and views can be exchanged instead of random insults.

By N-GA

October 17, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

RE,

Each country must expect that in time there will be a certain degree of cultural homogeneity that evolves from the merging of one or more cultures. This should be encouraged by the host nation. However, I think that it is up to the immigrant community to learn the laws, customs and language of the host nation. It is one thing to extend a helping hand, but quite another to do so while getting little or no support from the immigrant community.

BTW, virtually all immigrants gravitated toward having their own “neighborhoods”. Look at the Irish in Boston, the Asians in San Francisco, the Italians in New York, the Germans in Philadelphia, etc. These neighborhoods are not in-and-of themselves bad. However, when poverty and crime thrive in those locations, then the immigrants must work with the local authorities to address the problems and that seldom occurs.

By scott, lithonia, ga.

October 17, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

I HAVE AN IDEA THAT I SHOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH MIKE.

By Angry Liberal Guy

October 17, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

Everyone who is getting their panties in a twist over Reid READ THIS It seems that Harry has gone above and beyond what is required to provide proof, corrections and amendments to his filed reports. Wouldn’t it be nice if Republicans did that instead of always trying to deflect blame and squirm their way out of trouble?

By RE

October 17, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

N-GA

I agree with you, and perhaps it is that only in retrospect can you see that the immigrant populations become integrated in society. The newly arrived Irish were thought of as a menace to the communities of New York and Boston. As were the Chinese, Italian, and just about every other immigrant population. Also at the time they were considered as coming from poor backward countries. It seems to take 1 or 2 generations before the society is blended into the mainstream, and adds a hint of it’s own flavor. There is hardly a place in this country where you cannot get a slice of pizza, wonton soup, or a Guinness. Maybe it is an overreaction that takes time to get used to. The religious element is there as well, as a Protestant nation accepted in Catholics from Ireland and Italy.

By Reid And Abramoff, Sitting In A Suite, B-R-I-B-I-N-G

October 17, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

Dear RE:

By RE October 17, 2006 10:45 AM Response to your rebuttal from last night: Just a question really, if we pull out of Iraq and they do follow us, what city in the US do you think the Sunni and Shia will choose to wage a civil war in?

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my rebuttal.

If I could be allowed further clarification, please let me add that it is not the Shiites or Sunnis that worry me, it is the religious fanatics of Al Qaeda that I am concerned with.

By RE October 17, 2006 10:59 AM Immigration is a hallmark of free democratic societies, and yet it also seems like those who are immigrating do not wish to acclimate themselves to thier new countries.

Again you present a very valid, pertinent point to the discussion. I would respectfully request to expand the subject by saying that immigrants come to America in search of a better life through hard work and it’s myriad opportunity while France is offering it’s newcomers a rather squalid existence barely meeting the limits of poverty, with essentially no hope of improvement.

Thus the hopeless situation that can now be found in France.

Very Truly Yours, Andy.

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

RE,

In response to your question about non-assimilating immigrants - the answer is simple -

Get rid of the Liberal Democrat Marxist P.C. agenda that promotes “multi-culturalism” and “diversity” instead of a “melting pot”.

Get rid of “social Science” courses which dwell on America’s failures and mistakes. Teach “American History” again. Bring back “Western Civilization” survey courses and study the “Great Books”. Go back to textbook liberalism.

The Left wing educational agenda only serves to create America-hating moonbats who welcome immigrants whose purpose is to destroy us from within.

And don’t admit people into the country who clearly have no intention of assimilating, but on the contrary want to import their dhimmitude or “la raza” revolution here.

By Huge

October 17, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

“You’ve been running on those same old lame scare tactics for years. Have you noticed that those things don’t actually happen and hardly anyone proposes changing them?”

RW, years? You haven’t even known of me but for six months or so. I get your point, but you sure do take liberties with your choice of words including “hardly anyone”. And at the same time infer I’m using hyperbole and “scare tactics”.

I am not.

Run away from the evidence if you choose; it does not change some of these realities:

South Dakota has virtually banned all abortions. Far right and “christian” republicans in numerous other states would love to. Bush et al wholeheartedly support this and would love to stack a Supreme Court with those who agree, so as to do it at the federal level.

Speaking of W, he would also just love to get his dirty hands on the Constitution on another matter and alter that sacred document with a ban against gay marriage (and, of course, the financial rights associated therewith) disguised as a Sanctity of Marriage Amendment (or some such equally ridiculous name).

Dismiss it all you will, the far right wing thought police and sex police are ready to crank it up. Witness the Bushit bumper sticker fiasco here in Dekalb County, who is, in this instance, trying to do their best Cobb imitation.

I’m constantly amazed the people in DC give lip service to smaller government. I guess it just depends on what your definition of is is, huh?

By Goofy Liberal

October 17, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

When did the Republiscums land on Mars!?!?:

Amazing Mars picture show planet’s ‘dramatic climate changes’

Oh, I forgot, we’re supposed to say that climate change on Mars is caused by Earth’s global warming.

By RE

October 17, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

Andy,

You raise a good point in both instances. The primary conflict in Iraq is one between Sunni and Shia fighting for dominance. There are outside factors coming into play, such as Iran backing the Shia, and SAudi Arabia helping to an extent the Sunni. Al Quada does play a factor, primarially in inciting more violence in the region being generally aligned with the Sunni, but they are not the major driving force of the conflict. Iraq has the misfortune of being a country located at the intersection of the Sunni and Shia factions, with the Kurds to the north. This confluance has been kept in check through the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein, again, not saying it he was a good leader, but his repression kept an artificial peace. This conflict between the factions will occur no matter what the US does as a nation, we are in the crossfire.

Immigration, an interesting point. It would seem that the french, by treating thier immigrant population as second class citizens in order to keep thier national identity have fomented thier own problems. However it would seem that the solution to this would be to either keep out the immigrant population, or to open up more oppurtunities to the muslim immigrants.

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

Huge,

The “you’ve been” is a metaphoric you as in you Democrats. I have no problem with South Dakota making their own laws, it’s what this country was founded on. For all the lip service “you” as in many on your side of the political spectrum,,,,,Time Out,,,,,,

Now I see why you bloviate so much, you require three paragraphs just to say “you” which most normal people know means the political opposite when talking politics on a political blog,,,,,,Time In,,,,,,pay to get our country back to it’s founders intentions you sure want to have the things you like mandated at the Federal level and not even by voters for the most part. The Supreme Court has no business writing our laws.

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

RE,

One of the important factors as to why European countries like France bring in so many immigrants from outside is because their native Western population is dying.

This is just one more result of disastrous Left wing social policy. Moonbats have managed to convince the most self-reliant among us that it is irresponsible to have children because over-population is killing the planet.

As to their being treated as second class citizens, perhaps that is due at least in part to their unwillingness to assimilate? The French treat Americans as second class tourists, so it is not suprising that they don’t look upon people who cling to 5th century ideas as equals.

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

RW,

Huge’s “informed” commentary is woefully (or willfully?) ignorant.

I really don’t think that he understands that if the Supreme Court overturned Roe V. Wade tomorrow, the States would have the option to have legal abortion - if the VOTERS agreed.

He also sees something about “Gay Marriage” in the Constitution, but surely if that was the intent of our Founders, there would have been some Gay marriages performed during their lifetimes!

By We're Gonna Raise Your Taxes!!!!

October 17, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

By RE October 17, 2006 11:43 AM Andy, This conflict between the factions will occur no matter what the US does as a nation, we are in the crossfire.

Dear RE: Again, thank you for a very thoughtful, polite response.

With your permission, I would ask that you consider the following ideas; What would Iraq be like without the external influence of Al Qaeda and Iran? And to a lesser extent the meddling of the remaining countries, Saudis, Syrians, etc. in the region? It seems as though these outside entities have fomented strife among their various proxies, in the form of a “civil war,” strife that didn’t exist immediately after the invasion of 2003.

To expand this thesis, is the United States not actually fighting these external instigaters instead of Iraqi “insurgents?” And are not these external forces actually global terrorism itself?

And if this is true, would our actions in Iraq not be considered a worthwhile effort, seeing that we are fighting “evil” and not the Iraqi people?

Wouldn’t victory in this struggle benefit us and the Iraqis?

Thank You For Your Time, Andy.

By Thomas

October 17, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

RW — (11:47)

You are correct - The Supreme court has absolutly no business in writing our laws.

They do however have every right in the world to strike down and dismiss, and send back for correction, any (and all) laws that are in violation of the constitution, and the decencys establihed by this country. Why heck - It is their duty and Job to do just that! Pity you neocons get upset when they do their job and duty.

They are also responsible for rejecting bad law whenever it is shown that the law in question does harm to a citizen of the USA. The government is suppose to work for the citizens of this country seeing as this is a government of the people by the people. This is not a country ruled by government. Well at least not yet!

I might add - Congress and The President should not be interferring in the buisness of the Supreme court either, but apparently they have no problems in often violating that boundry, now do they!

Thomas

Watching the common sense and logic burn away the Republicans like a napalm charge. Slowly cooking their feeble brains into goo as their fallacys bubble up like boiling festering cesspools of dispair to burn away their false facts and greed. (metaphorically speaking of course RW)

By RE

October 17, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

OK, western populations are getting older and having less kids. That is seen in all of europe and the US caucasian population as well. I do not see any social policy at play in that dynamic though, if anything it is more of a capitalist wealth driven force that limits the size of a family. US families can have 2 kids and a Benz with a HD flat panel, 3 kids and a caddilac with a widescreen, or 4 kids and a chevy with a 27 inch TV. We are a wealth driven society and the more kids you have the less weath you will be able to enjoy.

Left wing socialist POLICY is more applicable to China with thier one child laws. However if you go to china and see how 1.3 billion people live in a country the same size as the US with a population of 300 mil, the policy starts to make sense. There are 1.3 billion mouths to feed without the benefit of the amount of land or the technology in agricultural science of the US. It also ties into thier land ownership policies. There is not one inch of land in coastal china not being used. The medians in the road are used to grow trees that are sold for trade, underneath the overpasses there are gardens, every canal and river is used to cultivate rice or fish. WIthout seeing it for yourself it is hard to describe, but so you understand, there is not one blade of grass or one tree that grows in coastal China naturally, it is all planted and run though the state.

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

At least the marriage protection amendment was put forth in the legislatively mandated way that’s spelled out in the Constitution and was done because of very real Constitutional concerns with respect to the full faith and credit clause. (Article IV Section 1, for those playing along at home)

By Brian Curtis

October 17, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

BD: I think we’re closing in on a fundamental difference in perspective as regards Constitutional rights.

You seem to be suggesting that unless a right is specifically spelled out in the Constitution, it doesn’t exist.

But the 9th and 10th amendments say otherwise… and the court’s interpretations have largely agreed with that. Anything a person might conceivably want to do—anything at ALL—is automatically a Constitutional right, unless the Constitution explicitly says otherwise.

That’s a very different default position to start from, wouldn’t you agree?

By Brian Curtis

October 17, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

Example: Do I have the Constitutional right to dye my hair purple? You bet I do—not because the Constitution mentions purple hair, but because it doesn’t say I can’t.

Do I have the Constitutional right to an abortion? Absolutely (even though I’m male)… because the Constitution doesn’t explicitly forbid it.

Likewise, I have a Constitutional right to privacy, a right to vote, a right to free expression, and so on… all because the Constitution has not spelled out any restrictions forbidding those things. And if there’s no explicit clause restricting those rights or reserving them to another agency (i.e., the government), then that right is MINE, period.

Understand?

By Brian Curtis

October 17, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

RW: And it’ll be struck down in a Constitutional way, too… when the Supreme Court rules that it violates the Constitutional rights to privacy and equal treatment.

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

Thomas,

Paragraphs 1 and 2 are correct, in that I am right and the Supreme courts job is to determine the Constitutionality of a given law or to find the prevailing law in a dispute.

In paragraph 3 you have hopelessly jumped the tracks (metaphorically speaking). The Supreme Court has absolutely NO business rejecting law on the basis of social engineering.

Paragraph 4 is a straw man in that nobody is interfering with the Supreme Court or it’s powers.

(your name seems to be correct and won’t be considered a paragraph)

Paragraph 5 seems to be a snub to the tender sensibilities of RE and I won’t entertain it.

By Thomas

October 17, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish — (12:03)

Marriage (by government - and it’s license) is a crock!

No - there was nothing in the constitution concerning marriage at all. Our founding fathers knew better than to mix Churh and State.

It was those that decided they could tax marriage in a form that created this garbage that was un-constitutionsl from the start.

Marriage itself should be removed in all forms from our government, including the Tax structure, License, marriage laws, etc.

Only the Church should have the right and authority in all matters of marriage.

This says it far better than I ever could!

http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/newman/newman4.html

Thomas

By Midori

October 17, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

Thomas, N-GA, Bon Scott,

this is why you can’t talk to them

By B.Moore

October 17, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

There was a time in this country when second & third generation immigrants were eager to strive towards the goal of unity with their host country.

Things have changed. Liberal organizations like the ACLU will consistently promote intolerance of America’s way of life when the legal opportunity to do so presents itself.

With the ACLU calling the shots, it’s a free ride on a train where the passenger cars have been intentionally & irresponsibly disconnected in the interest of individual rights. It’s a train wreck waiting to happen.

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Anything a person might conceivably want to do—anything at ALL—is automatically a Constitutional right, unless the Constitution explicitly says otherwise.

Brainless Dreamer,

Oh really? Can you show me where it says “No spitting”? An an illustration of the absurdity of your position, I’m just throwing out an example of local ordinances which are not spelled out in The Sacred Constitution. We can start here with out addressing thorny issues like the “right to privacy”.

Thomas the Talk Engine,

Thanks for the argument in favor of overturning Roe V. Wade. Regarding Gay Marriage and the Founders, my POINT is that if anyone living at the time of our founding believed in the RIGHT to Gay Marriage, wouldn’t they have had a few?

RE,

If (as you state) wealthy people have fewer children so they can afford a big screen tv, why do poor people who don’t have a pot to p** in have so many?

Could it be at least partly the result of POLICY and PROPAGANDA?

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

The Supreme Court doesn’t get to strike down an amendment to the Constitution, it’s all hyperbole anyway because I don’t see it ever even getting enough support in Congress, but a Constitutional amendment duly enacted can only be overturned by a new Constitutional amendment.

Your other attempt at Constitutional scholarship is equally flawed. The Constitution specifically says that the States have the right to regulate anything not covered in the Constitution, but nice try. (P.S. I don’t think your purple hair is much of a concern to any of us)

By N-GA

October 17, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

There was an observation by BD that: “Moonbats have managed to convince the most self-reliant among us that it is irresponsible to have children because over-population is killing the planet.”

I am curious…do you disagree that overpopulation is killing our planet? What does your adjective “self-reliant” add to your statement?

By N-GA

October 17, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

B. Moore:

You have expressed some strong opinions, but have failed entirely to support them with any facts.

For example, you said: “Liberal organizations like the ACLU will consistently promote intolerance of America’s way of life when the legal opportunity to do so presents itself.”. Where on Earth did you see proof of that statement?

nuff said!!

By RW (the aboriginal)

October 17, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

and just what is American’s way of life? Talk about a myth and a non existent bunch of hooey.

America is equal justice for all. Period. We dont need to invade sovereign countries. We dont need to divert our homeland defense resources anywhere else in the world.

We simply have to take care of America and the American People. We as Americans are going to rise up and overthrow the GOP and send them back to the chicken ranches they came from. There is not one honorable member of the GOP. They are all liars, and crooks. They have all sold out to the oil lobby and defense industry money. They all belong behind bars.

I SAID BEHIND BARS!!!

By Reid And Abramoff, Sitting In A Suite, B-R-I-B-I-N-G

October 17, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Dear Brian Curtiss:

By Brian Curtis October 17, 2006 12:20 PM when the Supreme Court rules that it violates the Constitutional rights to privacy

May I respectfully submit that the Constitution makes no mention of any “right to privacy” nor does it specifically forbid the act of murder either, to dovetail into your abortion argument.

What the Constitution does do is outline a general set of guidelines that establish what our founding fathers considered to be the differences in between right and wrong.

I would dare to speculate by saying that the act of abortion does in fact cause harm, not only to the child being murdered but also to the “mother” as this is an unnatural act.

Where as dieing your hair purple merely makes you look like a fool.

With Regards, Andy.

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

Answer to first question: Yes.

Answer to second question: You must be joking.

Thomas,

Surely you can do better than that loony link you provided to shore up your nonsensical argument.

I realize that many Athesists are not big on tradition, but does it not occur to you that at least some of them might like to get married? Surely if it is so important to Gays, it must be important to some Atheists.

Some Atheists might consider your plan just a wee bit discriminatory.

By Thomas

October 17, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Ahh —

I see that logic and reason still escape the brain of Buy Danish.. Oh well - I tried.

BD — I assure you there were gays in our founding fathers times as well as today. There were also far less laws cluttering up things in those days as well. There were “NO” Constitutional laws concerning marriage (at all) in those days, so technically - gay marriage was perfectly legal by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. However I seriously doubt the Church and the public would support such a thing.

It won’t be long that we will crush ourselves under the burden of too many laws as we make new laws daily to cover every moment of the day until we are no longer human.

Heck - If someone ran for office on the platform of “eliminating large numbers of foolish and outdated laws” from the lawbooks as their sole agenda in office, I would vote for them no matter what party they ran for.

Cheers — Thomas

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

Where is ML’s new cartoon? Could he be reluctantly creating a masterpiece that depicts Sen. Harry Reid (D Nevada) using campaign dough to pay Christmas bonuses at the Ritz-Carlton?

By Brian Curtis

October 17, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

RW: Actually, it doesn’t say that the states have the right to regulate anything not spelled out in the Constitution… it says those unnamed rights are reserved “to the states OR to the people.”

And the 14th amendment (which I know most conservatives hate) renders that mostly moot anyway; a State attempt to restrict a Constitutional right can’t get away with it any more.

By RW (the aboriginal)

October 17, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

For once, Dye Brainless is right. 50K years ago, an overcrowded cave with the newly emerged and fully evolved modern humans would have seen some of them complaining about the overcrowded conditions on the planet.

We couldn’t overcrowd this planet if all the Chinese turned Catholics, and outlawed birth control.

We can, however, overcrowd a blog with trolls who post 24/7 265 like RW, @@, Dye Brainless, and a number of other cheeks.

Where do they find the time to comment so prolifically and then still have time to text message children????

Foley is still their role model, none of them have disavowed a single repudlickan.

By Brian Curtis

October 17, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

R+A: As I already noted, the right to privacy IS a Constitutional right, specifically because it’s not spelled out in the Constitution.

The Constitution wasn’t trying to be a comprehensive list of all our rights; rather, it says quite clearly that only specific rights are restricted in any way at all (i.e., reserved as powers of government), and that any other rights—specified or otherwise—are off-limits to the government to impede.

The right to privacy is among those, and a long list of Supreme Court decisions bears that out.

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

“However I seriously doubt the Church and the public would support such a thing”

Thomas Blah Blah Blah,

Yes, that’s why the vast majority of Americans reject it, and why certain groups try to get their unpopular wishes magically granted by using the courts and Liberal judges to write law.

You still have not explained why no one even TRIED to do it in Franklin and Jefferson’s time.

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

We’re not talking about States regulating things that ARE in the Constitution we’re talking about things that AREN”T and we’re only talking about it because of the purple dye seeping through your skull and restricting brain function. Go look at your 12:14 for a refresher.

By States Rights Redux

October 17, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

Lest we forget that the state of California passed a proposition lealizing the medical use of marijuana but John Ashcroft brought in the federales to arrest and imprison operators of compassionate use clinics that were operating legally under the restrictive California statute requiring state residency, doctors examination and prescriptive license, etc. This kind of makes the Republican mantra of states rights rather facetious, doesn’t it?

By Thomas

October 17, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

You still have not explained why no one even TRIED to do it in Franklin and Jefferson’s time.

-=- Actually Buy Danish — I did..

Our Founding Fathers were quite clear in their writings that we must have a clear defined line between matters of “Church and State”, and to muddle that line is a fast course to a Theocracy or Imperialism.

Jefferson (and the gang) clearly defined this in the First Amendment

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (snip)

Marriage was (and is) a matter of the church and not a matter of the State and should have absolutly no laws telling the church how marriage (gay or straight) should be conducted. In changing the laws of marriage you are compounding a wrong with another wrong on top of that. Marriage laws are Un-Constitutional by the First Amendment!

I pointed this out several times to you, but your brain cannot comprehend such a thing, I guess you believe that such an idea is Heresy against the Church! That the church should be in charge of the country totally. That America should be under one god! That is what Freedom is to you!

One God to rule them all and in the darkness bind them!

You are seriously an Ivory Tower Troll BD.

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

WIthout seeing it for yourself it is hard to describe, but so you understand, there is not one blade of grass or one tree that grows in coastal China naturally, it is all planted and run though the state.

RE,

I meant to address this point earlier. You’re right, I have never been to China. However, I find it difficult to believe that grass and trees do not grow naturally along the Chinese Coast. Is it caused by poor soil? Overly salinated water? Please provide some substantiation to this claim.

You do realize that under the Glorious Revolution of Mao Tse Tung (hero to many American Leftists to this day, particularly “Peace marchers”), that grass was outlawed as a bourgeois luxury? Pulling the grass up blade by blade was sometimes used as a punishment against those who had committed a crime against the State (the nature of which changed daily).

Did you know that under Mao virtually all the trees in the country were stripped to toothpicks in order to provide fuel for his Steel factories?

Is that what you are referring too??

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

States Rights Redux,

Well then using your argument, if a State wished to outlaw abortion you should be all for it.

By B.Moore

October 17, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

N-GA, I didn’t know I had to elaborate on what everybody but you seems to know already. Before I’m off to lunch, I’ll leave some examples. Random picks, some may be duplicates.

No. 1

No. 2

No. 3

No. 4

No. 5

No. 6

There’s plenty more, but you don’t pay enough for me to do your research for you.

By RE

October 17, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

Andy, sorry for the delay in response.

My answer is yes and no. While there are outside agitating forces influencing Iraq, It is because of the views of the Iraqi people that those influence have force. Yes Iran is a factor in Iraq, but it is because of the kinship between likeminded Shia, as it is with the influence of Syria, Suadi Arabia and AL Queda with likeminded Sunni.

The breakdown comes with recognizing the difference between a soverign country’s interests being valid even if they are contrary to US interests. Iran has it’s own security interests at stake in Iraq, they will be very much affected by what happens in Iraq and they are trying to play a part in influencing the outcome, for thier own protection. For example, while we are not directly affected by Mexican politics, if a marxist revolution overthrew the mexican government, the US would be heavily involved for it’s own security interests.

I would say the most important thing is to know your enemy. Grouping every country that has different interests than the US as an enemy is probably not the best solution. Grouping all Middle eastern countries together and labeling them as terrorist does not help our interests or promote peace. We have to understand what motivates the Shia and Sunni to fight inside Iraq. Labeling all conflict as terrorism while missing the root cause is a poor policy

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

SRR,

Now you’re back into Brian Curtis’ argument about States not being able to usurp Federal law. My point would be that California should have every right to make that law and the feds have no business interfering, the same holds for Oregon’s assisted suicide law and the same holds for South Dakota restricting abortion.

By Goldie

October 17, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

GOP Family Values: “War, Torture, and Blame-Game!”

By gt engineer

October 17, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

how can you argue with these simplistic inbreeders, of course they don’t care about a new war ….or ruining the environment…because the rapture will happen before chaos ensues to punish those non-believers.

By RE

October 17, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

BD, the soil can grow grass and trees just the same as here in the states. What I am referring to is that there is not enough space to allow for it. Every inch of soil is used for food production, housing, transportation, or industry. I drove through several hundred miles of china and found this to be the case in eastern coastal china (bejing to shanghai). It is not a policy, it is a reality that it takes every bit of land with the ability to produce food to do so. In the western regions of China this is not the case, the population is much less dense there.

By Thomas

October 17, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

(LOL)

You do realize that under the Glorious Revolution of Mao Tse Tung (hero to many American Leftists to this day, particularly “Peace marchers”), that grass was outlawed as a bourgeois luxury? Pulling the grass up blade by blade was sometimes used as a punishment against those who had committed a crime against the State (the nature of which changed daily).

Did you know that under Mao virtually all the trees in the country were stripped to toothpicks in order to provide fuel for his Steel factories?

-=-=

Dis you know that under Bush-Co - he would have us log virgin forest and strip them for corporate interest, and build oil wells in Alaskan Wildlife refuges to fuel the machines of industry… and to use these resources to expand the American Empire into other sovereign countries.

Hmmm — UH OH? - History repeats itself.

-=-

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

Thomas,

The more you talk the less sense you make.

My question is a very simple one:

If our Founding Father’s believed that Gay Marriage was a “right”, why did not one single, solitary person ever attempt it?

RE,

I failed to mention that without the benefit of artificially planted sod, there would be nothing but dirt and weeds growing in my yard of red clay soil.

Your point is….????

By RE

October 17, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

Thomas, please notice how civil it is in here so far, please refrain from insults

By States Rights Redux

October 17, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

BD & RW, I’m glad to hear that you are indeed in favor of states rights. If a state could gather the legislative muscle to pass a law outlawing gay marriage then I’m all for it. Gays could always move to an area that would not be so restrictive. A more extreme example, for illustrations sake, might be if a state legalized prostituion. Even though I personally feel that this activity is injurous to the individual and society as a whole, if the citizens of a state chose to inact such legislation (as Nevada has) it’s their perogative. Although I view marijuana useage as a vice, I feel that Ashcroft perverted the concept of staes rights that has been championed by the Republican party in other areas. This, now, diminishes the ability of the Republican party to champion states rights when they have themselves pointedly made the precedent that federal law supercedes duly enacted state legislation as regards the marijuana compassionate use proposition.

By Thomas

October 17, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

OK Buy Danish —

Lets try this —

Why do you think Gays want Marriage in our modern day and age?

Is it because they wish to flaunt this before God and the Church as a perversion because they hate god?

(OR)

Is it because they want (and need) the same advantages of Tax breaks, and insurance benefits, Housing, and basic everyday privledges of a family that comes along with “Government” sponsored marriage?

-=-

Think carefully before you answer here.. I don’t want you to strain any brain cell muscles.

I don’t think that our founding fathers had this issue to worry about, whereas today it is an issue. So why would gays ask for marriage in teh churches of ye’ olde’ America?

If Marriage was not so tied to our government and our society under law, and still remained a Church function, then I doubt you would ever hear of a thing called “Gay Marriage”. It would all be about that Co-Habitation thing.

Sheesh —I don’t even know why I’m debating this with an airhead. It’s not really my problem anyway.

-=-

By N-GA

October 17, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

BD…just now getting back to you. When I asked you: “…do you disagree that overpopulation is killing our planet?”, you responded “Yes”.

So if all humans had as many children as possible, there is no time in the future that the Earth would not be able to sustain its population with food, water, energy, etc.?

Also, when you posted: “Moonbats have managed to convince the most self-reliant among us that it is irresponsible to have children because over-population is killing the planet.”, I interpret that to mean that you are either 1) one of those self-reliant individuals that the moonbats succeeded in convincing or, 2) you are neither self-reliant nor convinced.

By RE

October 17, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

On States rights, in general the government reads the parts of the constitution it chooses to when it chooses to. Nearly every law should be left up to the individual states to write and enforce, but through the commerce clause, the federal government gets thrown in quite often. Gambling, prostitution, Abortion, drug use… all should be left up to the states in my own opinion. But a really strict reading of the constitution would find the FDA, EPA, USDA and others to be unconstitutional except in the case of interstate export. Not sure I would want to give up on those institutions.

By RE

October 17, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

On States rights, in general the government reads the parts of the constitution it chooses to when it chooses to. Nearly every law should be left up to the individual states to write and enforce, but through the commerce clause, the federal government gets thrown in quite often. Gambling, prostitution, Abortion, drug use… all should be left up to the states in my own opinion. But a really strict reading of the constitution would find the FDA, EPA, USDA and others to be unconstitutional except in the case of interstate export. Not sure I would want to give up on those institutions.

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

SRR,

Lots of States have outlawed gay marriage, but there is still an overriding Constitutional problem with the full faith and credit clause. That specifically takes this into a very gray area.

I really don’t think we need an amendment that says we outlaw gay marriage on a federal basis, but we may need an amendment that excludes marriage contracts from full faith and credit if the Supreme Court strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act. Without that you have a law in Massachusetts mandated by their Supreme Judicial Court that effectively becomes the law of the land.

I’m not sure Ashcroft stepped in it so much on the California law as he did with Oregon. There are lots of interstate drug trafficking statutes that were potentially compromised, but it’s a real stretch to say a state that wants to allow assisted suicide has any impact on federal law.

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

RE,

Since China is a very big country it appears that there is enough land to accomodate the population eventually once they catch up with the 21st Century.

Thomas,

Does Hi-Lights Magazine have a blog? That may be a better match to your unripened, cliched and verbosely expressed “ideas”.

Please report back to us when you have discovered where the Earth-hating Neocons instituted a policy of forced grass pulling.

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

None of the above.

By Brian Curtis

October 17, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

BD: Popularity has no bearing on one’s Constitutional rights. If NAMBLA has the right to free speech, it doesn’t matter how many people want to deny it to them.

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

That’s a cute trick N-GA, I guess it fits the title of this cartoon, but is it fair to ask her if she thinks overpopulation is killing our planet and then chastise her for saying it wasn’t based on a scenario where you now have everyone on the planet reproducing as much as humanly possible?

Why didn’t you ask if she thought it might be a problem if that was actually happening?

By Thomas

October 17, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

N-Ga

Concerning the over population issue…

Nature has a wonderful way of controlling over-population. Here’s a few of them.

1) Disease 2) Famine 3) War* (*Animals tend to get aggressive to each other as well as to other species when they find their living spaces become confined and restricted)

Yes - Nature is really great at population control, even to the point where such controls kick in so strong that a species may become extinct.

Have a Nuke Day everyone!

Thomas

By N-GA

October 17, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

BD,

Then please clarify your original statement regarding overpopulation so that we can all understand whether you are one of the convinced, or not self-reliant….

Also, when you say “none of the above” it stands to reason you mean that there could never be too many people on the planet…that the entire population will never be too large to feed, provide with water, etc.

Some people would rather be seen as stupid than to admit they are wrong.

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

Thomas,

You’re right. The Founders probably did not have these issues to think about because it probably never occurred to them that some people (primarily Liberals) would misinterpret their intentions and decide that things such as health insurance are part of the government’s purview - when they have no business being there.

Moreover, I very much doubt that they intended the concept of the RIGHT to Free Association to be perverted and made meaningless by government mandates.

By We're Going To Raise..... Your......Taxes!!!!!

October 17, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

By Thomas October 17, 2006 02:01 PM Why do you think Gays want Marriage in our modern day and age? Is it because they want (and need) the same advantages of Tax breaks, and insurance benefits, Housing, and basic everyday privledges of a family that comes along with “Government” sponsored marriage?

Dearest Thomas-=-:

Your comments are very thoughtful and much appreciated for their contribution to the debate.

However, if acceptable to you, please allow me to further define a “question” that you have posed of another blogger-

Yes, it is true that gays wish to marry to garner the same benefits as a normal married couple would receive.

And as with any other unaccountable welfare type system, they wish to be compensated for efforts not performed, specifically the raising of a family, which happens to cost considerably more than a tube of a-ss lube.

So your argument can actually be seen as a condemnation of the welfare state and it’s attendant act of paying recipients for doing nothing.

With this unintended point, I finally agree with you.

Love, Andy {^*^}

By N-GA

October 17, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

RW,

Some people deserve to twist in the wind….

By RE

October 17, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

Please define marriage, is it;

A holy Union before the community and God

A legal civil contract between two people defining rights of survivorship, inheritance, child custody, ETC.

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

Is that a Constitutional mandate?

I’m leaving now, please let me know what article covers people twisting in the wind and what determines when and whom deserves this. I’ll weigh your evidence on my return.

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

RW,

I refuse to engage N-GA in his false scenarios and underhanded attempts to bait me into describing my personal circumstances.

Brianless Dreamer,

I’m not sure what you’re referring to since I did not use the word “popular”.

You cannot claim rights that do not exist either explicitly or implicitly just because they are popular with your peers who have an “anything goes - just do it!” philosophy. See “community standards”.

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

Some people do not deserve the time of day, particularly a certain North Georgia resident who does not have the intellectual honesty of a Furbish Lousewort.

By We're Going To Raise..... Your......Taxes!!!!!

October 17, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

Dearest RE: Allow me to humbly submit:

The institution of marriage involves a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Man and woman, by mutual consent, enter the arrangement. But the procedure, in order to be valid, must be consistent with divine law.

I would very much hope that this information would set your mind at ease and bring a halt to this pointless tangent that your are adrift upon.

Graciously Yours, Andy {^*^}

By RE

October 17, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

I agree with you Andy, very well put. I actually have the same view of marriage, my question is if that is the generally accepted view of marriage, why would the state be involved in any way. It is obviously a religious covenant and should adhere to, as you say, divine law. Of course every church has it’s own definition of divine law.

It is almost as though the state should only be invovled in the legal aspects of a marriage, such as the rights of survivorship, custody etc. We could call it a civil union and leave marriage up to the individual churchs to conduct

By We're Going To Raise..... Your......Taxes!!!!!

October 17, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this

Dear RE:

The state benefits from the creation of new taxpayers, more so than it does the creation of new AIDS patients.

Hence the name “benefits.”

Everybody “benefits.”

Yours Truly, Andy {^*^}

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

Well, well, well. The Kimmer is talking about how countries like Japan are losing population.

I guess he got my talking point.

By RE

October 17, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

So the state should provide the same benefits for unwed mothers? Perhaps they should be compensated based upon the amount of children they can produce.

I just cannot agree, I do not support a welfare state like you are describing, either that or the creation of new taxpayers is not a valid arguement for the sanctioning of marriage.

By RE

October 17, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

BD, could you find me an example of a country that is both somewhat wealthy and has an increasing native population.

By Huge

October 17, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

Wow! Looks like my little 11:33 about states rights/US constitutional amendments, with the help of jurisprudence scholars RW & BD (just kidding - don’t get your knickers in a twist!) has really taken off.

Just another of my “material contributions” that that compassionate conservative, andy, so admires.

At any rate, it’s pretty fun (and interesting) to see how people try to interpret the nuances of these laws and statutes. Just shows to go you, that those simple, extremist “answers” that thrive around here virtually all of the time don’t hold up too well in terms of intelligent debate.

Oh and that it just about kills BD not to be nasty in the course of these confabs.

Now bloviate amongst yourselves…

By Goldie

October 17, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

I thought that Neal “the Bore” Boortz calls himself a Liberterian — so what’s he doing at the White House getting his propaganda updated?

As Talk Radio Wavers, Bush Moves to Firm Up Support

By We're Gonna Raise Your Taxes!!!!

October 17, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

Dear RE: We already do compensate based on the number of children, the child tax credit being one example.

It’s a simple fact of life that for the state to be successful it must “reproduce” it’s population, especially if it has the over bearing tax burden brought on by many of the liberal vote buying welfare programs like social security and medicare.

There has to be someone to pay the bills.

It’s true immigration is a substitute but it is not a good answer. 1) Why is the immigrant’s country failed in the first place, does their education, skills contribute to it’s failure? 2) what good is money that is sent to another country as a remittance? 3) immigrants willing to work at a lower pay drive down the wages of all Americans.

These are all examples of lost potential tax revenues, revenues that wouldn’t be lost by a natural born American citizen.

Huge: Why don’t you quit wasting that hot air and blow me?

By We're Gonna Raise Your Taxes!!!!

October 17, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

Ooops:

Yours Truly, Andy

Huge: Why don’t you quit wasting that hot air and blow me?

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

Huge Blowhard,

F/U. How’s that?

RE,

I don’t know that you can name such a country. The increase in our population is due to uncontrolled immigration in unprecedented numbers.

In addition to ridiculous “societal obligations not to pollute the Earth”, the most productive among us are taxed up the yazoo which makes it difficult to responsibly afford to have as many children as one might like.

Countries then begin importing immigrants to make up for the loss of population, but that only further burdens social services, makes taxes go up even higher, and most disastrously, changes the cultural makeup of the host country.

What has happened in Europe and the Netherlands should be a warning to us. Sadly those who post these warnings are called “xenophobic racists and bigots”.

I’m not sure who you were addressing when you asked whether the State should support unwed mothers because I don’t see anyone here supporting a welfare State, but just in case you meant me for some crazy reason, the answer is an emphatic: NO.

By bon scott

October 17, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

By Andy - October 17, 2006 02:26 PM - Yes, it is true that gays wish to marry to garner the same benefits as a normal married couple would receive. And as with any other unaccountable welfare type system, they wish to be compensated for efforts not performed, specifically the raising of a family, which happens to cost considerably more than a tube of a-ss lube.

I was just waiting for the homophobic remark. Not very civil, Andy.

Gays aren’t asking for welfare. The vast majority of gays have jobs. They earn as much as their ‘straight’ peers and certainly pay more in taxes. No deductions! And they’re obviously not having babies, so they can qualify for dependent benefits.

The benefits sought through gay ‘marriage’ (or civil unions) have to do with property, inheritance and partners rights, not welfare.

So your argument can actually be seen as a condemnation of the welfare state and it’s attendant act of paying recipients for doing nothing.

Since gays have virtually no impact on welfare programs, this is irrelevant.

By bon scott

October 17, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

By Andy - October 17, 2006 04:03 PM - It’s a simple fact of life that for the state to be successful it must “reproduce” it’s population. There has to be someone to pay the bills.

This is indisputably true. But denying gays the right to marry or join in civil unions will not make them go hetero. Not at all. They’ll still be gay, and they still won’t be having babies, except for lesbians who will have babies no matter what.

Just how does a gay marriage ban encourage procreation?

By N-GA

October 17, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

Bi-Danish’s 2:51 post is another way of saying “Uncle!”. It is even more amusing to look at her 2:42 post telling RW that she refuses to debate me.

Frankly it is not very interesting to engage lightweights like BD (figurative, not assumptive). Without doubt RW (the Real Wanker) is the Paul Prudhomme of this blog. He’s got real adipose between his ears.

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

Huge,

Eff you!

N-GA,

Having trouble finding the part that deals with twisting in the wind are we?

Goldie,

Wasn’t that a few weeks ago and which members of the media do you think should be allowed to talk to the government and which ones shouldn’t? Thank you for your time.

Huge,

Just in case you missed it while you were gazing in your mirror. Eff you!

By RE

October 17, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this

Andy, with all due respect, your answer drifted away from the justification of marriage being solely based upon the ability to produce children (future taxpayers) Using your logic, along with gay marriage being banned, we should also ban infertile couples from marrying, and of course any menopausal women. Perhaps after menopause we can recind the benefits of marriage.

I just don’t think child bearing is a valid justification

By bon scott

October 17, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

RE - I thought your comments about Sunnis and Sh-iites and Arabs and Persians was quite insightful. You know the differences. So do I. Many people here don’t.

And (here’s the frightening part) neither do our leaders in the Iraq war and the war on terror.

Too many officials in charge of the war on terrorism just don’t care to learn much, if anything, about the enemy we’re fighting. - by Jeff Stein, national security editor at Congressional Quarterly

It’s a depressing read, but worth the time.

By We're Gonna Raise Your Taxes!!!!

October 17, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

By bon scott October 17, 2006 04:07 PM I was just waiting for the homophobic remark. Not very civil, Andy.

Oddball gay finch: I got an idea, seeing how what ever I say distresses you so, how about if you don’t read my comments, rump ranger?

It’s almost like I’m submitting them directly to you to be scored or something, except I’m not.

When I desire to hear from you I will start my comment with the name “finch,” that’ll be your clue.

Don’t you have like a life of your own?

Yours Truly, Andy {^*^}

By RE

October 17, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

I see the civility is drawing to a close with the close of business. Well it was a nice experiment for the day, I have a greater respect for Andy, even if I do not share his views. anyone feel like stretching out a day of civility all the way to 7:00, or should we commence with the mindless namecalling?

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

Ah yes, the burning passion for gay marriage shines through from Sybil and almost word for word the same arguments made whenever oddball gay finch was around. It’s almost like they are living in the same head.

finchie,

How much money that could be spent on Alzheimer’s research or cancer studies is spent on AIDS instead? I know that Time and Newsweek along with your favorite “news” papers made the false claim that this would soon be a heterosexual epidemic, but as usual they were wrong. AIDS remains a primarily homosexual disease in America and it is also highly preventable. So how many people have died from non-preventable disease that may have been cured if all the money wasn’t being spent on something spread by your irresponsible behavior?

By Midori

October 17, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

RE,

you are commended for your efforts to keep the discourse her civil.

thank you.

By Huge

October 17, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

It is truly classic andy to constantly and childishly retort that nobody (except himself?) pays any attention to the posts he doesn’t like!

“What a pompous, bombastic little blowhard, wrong as usual”

There are 36 subsequent threads (use your kids fingers and toes, if you have to, andy) from my 11:33, including four by the “compassionate conservative” himself (12:50, 2:26, 2:55 and the aforementioned rocket science of 4:23). Let’s see how he tries to spin this one. More likely, he’ll just move on with his tail between his legs…

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

RE,

I’ll second Midori’s comments. You did a good job without being overly nannyish.

Hillary finally comes clean about the Hilary thing

By We're Gonna Raise Your Taxes!!!!

October 17, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

By RE October 17, 2006 04:21 PM Andy, with all due respect, your answer drifted away from the justification of marriage being solely based upon the ability to produce children (future taxpayers) Using your logic, along with gay marriage being banned, we should also ban infertile couples from marrying, and of course any menopausal women. Perhaps after menopause we can recind the benefits of marriage. I just don’t think child bearing is a valid justification

Dear RE: I never said and I do agree that it is not a perfect system. But we are talking about exact opposites here, there is a chance that a child, a future taxpayer, will be produced with a man and a woman, there is zero chance that one will be produced by two men.

That is the basis for foundation of the marriage benefit, perhaps it can be adjusted to compensate for children versus no children even more than it is.

Surely you agree that marriage between a man and a woman is what’s best for the future of this country??

By the way, I’ll have you know that this civility is beginning to really grate on my nerves, considering that the resident P’sOS have come crawling out of their gutters.

Not.

I see these clowns as sport, it’s not so much an inherent coarseness in me, it’s just that I know how to tweak them to get the right results.

Pay it no mind.

Yours Truly, Andy {^*^}

By We're Gonna Raise Your Taxes!!!!

October 17, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this

By Huge October 17, 2006 04:55 PM There are 36 subsequent threads (use your kids fingers and toes, if you have to, andy) from my 11:33, including four by the “compassionate conservative” himself (12:50, 2:26, 2:55 and the aforementioned rocket science of 4:23). Let’s see how he tries to spin this one. More likely, he’ll just move on with his tail between his legs…

Let’s try this again real slow, blowhard, look at my 4:23 post where I included dates and times to prove that RE and I were entwined in a discussion on immigration and nationalization issues long before you let forth your first gaseous emission of the day.

To whit: By RE October 17, 2006 10:59 AM So now how does a nation retain it’s national identity and values?

Hopefully I won’t break your pompous little heart but I didn’t even pay attention to what you said at 11:33.

Why don’t you go blow your little horn where people are listening; like maybe some mental ward?

Yours Truly, Andy {^*^}

By RE

October 17, 2006 05:16 PM | Link to this

Checked the stats RW

Well, the numbers look close with heterosexual vs homosexual contact, but you are right when you consider the percentages of homosexuals vs. heterosexuals, AIDS is primarially a homosexual disease, but by no means an exclusively homosexual disease. A nod to the Family Values, living a virtuous life (no drugs, monogomous) greatly reduces the chances of contracting the disease, but a monogomous homosexual relationship is just as safe as a monogomous heterosexual relationship. Heterosexual sodomy would be just as risky as homosexual sodomy in terms of contracting the disease.

But the genie is out of the bottle now, and the effect is worldwide. Africa will undergo a genocide in the coming years, infection rates in some countries are as high as 40%.

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 05:33 PM | Link to this

RE,

I thought we weren’t supposed to be taking care of all the world’s problems. Furthermore did you miss the part where I said it was highly preventable before you launched into your lecture to me about monogamy and risk?

By RE

October 17, 2006 05:33 PM | Link to this

Thanks Midori and RW.

Andy,

What’s best for the future of the country is a big question. To deal with this realistically, during the ceremony of marriage I was informed of the eternal bond I was entering into, and I hope I can fulfill the obligations of that bond. The reality is that half of all marriages end in divorce. the religious aspects and strictures put upon the institution of marriage are ignored by the state. Just ask any Catholic who is on thier second marriage, the state obviously does not care nor should it about divine law and the various interpretations thereof. I think the state should only consider the secular aspects of marriage.

What is best for a child I think are two loving parents who are commited to each other, and obviously marriage is no insurance of that. But the law has nothing to do with who bears children or how they are raised (except for child endangerment/neglect) Somtimes I do think a woman should need a license to have a baby, some basic competancy as a human being. But that line of thought is way out of bounds.

I think two people commited to each other and choose to enter a civil union, gay or straight, should have the right to be recognized equally under the law by the state. This goes for taxes, legal rights, wills, medical decision…etc.

By RE

October 17, 2006 05:42 PM | Link to this

RW, I think we have been trying to take care of all the worlds problems for too long, and it is draining our resources.

By RW (the aboriginal)

October 17, 2006 05:54 PM | Link to this

Top Ten items on Sonny’s do List:

1: Score a conjugal visit with Linda Schrenko!

By RW (the aboriginal)

October 17, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this

Impeach bush now! Avoid the November Rush.

By bon scott

October 17, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this

By drunken Andy - October 17, 2006 04:33 PM - I got an idea, seeing how what ever I say distresses you so, how about if you don’t read my comments, rump ranger?

And here I thought your meds might be working. You got civil there for awhile, but once an arshole, always an arshole!

It’s almost like I’m submitting them directly to you to be scored or something, except I’m not.

I know. You prefer universal scorn. I mean, why should I have all the fun?

Don’t you have like a life of your own?

I see, like, your BAC is, like in the Red Zone again. Considering all the time you spend here, don’t YOU have, like, a life of YOUR own?

Go play with your rubber toys. Think of more ways to defend pederasts like Foley. I love watching fruitcakes like you sink the former GOP. Bless you!

By getalife

October 17, 2006 06:06 PM | Link to this

New toon

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 06:12 PM | Link to this

[N-GA is a belligerent, idiotic, p** and this proves it(http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/shared-blogs/ajc/luckovich/entries/2006/10/14/trickortrick.html#comment-744246)

Furbish Lousewort,

1) Victory is not won in the imagination.

2) I repeat: I disagree that “overpopulation is killing this planet”.

3) I am unaware that an orgy of humans producing as many babies “as is humanly possible” is occurring, has ever occurred, or (past being prologue) will occur at any time in the future, so your premise is false and therefore undeserving of an answer.

4) The number of children that I have or have not had was not determined in any way, shape, or form by Moonbat Population Bomb scenarios that “elite” (cough cough) Furbish Louseworts embrace as the Gospel Truth.

Other than that^^statement, I am not going to entertain you by playing a juvenile bullying game with rules invented by you, where the sole object of the game is to elicit personal data that is none of your effing business.

Have a nice day and eff off.

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 06:13 PM | Link to this

RE,

I tend to agree with that, but your response to the world’s AIDS problem puts the onus right back on us. I think that knee jerk reaction is the way most of the other countries think too. They assume we’ll do it all and then resent us for being able to.

By getalife

October 17, 2006 06:17 PM | Link to this

Oops new toon

By Huge

October 17, 2006 06:22 PM | Link to this

Catching liars is SO much fun.

By Huge October 17, 2006 03:33 PM Wow! Looks like my little 11:33 about states rights/US constitutional amendments…has really taken off.

Sucks 4:23 reply: What a pompous, bombastic little blowhard, wrong as usual:

His lack of understanding the concept of threads notwithstanding, try as he might he can’t spin more lies into truths. This or any other time.

His 12:50: “May I respectfully submit that the Constitution makes no mention of any “right to privacy” nor does it specifically forbid the act of murder either, to dovetail into your abortion argument.”

His 2:26: Yes, it is true that gays wish to marry to garner the same benefits as a normal married couple would receive.

His 2:55: The institution of marriage involves a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Man and woman, by mutual consent, enter the arrangement. But the procedure, in order to be valid, must be consistent with divine law.

And finally his 4:23

So when bested by facts, he once again resorts to lying. Every single one of his posts in fact derives from the original discussion RW and I started last night. Contrary to his prevarications, not one of them is about immigration and nationalization, but are in fact down-line from the original Fever Swamp Talking Point Top Ten post of 6:58 last night. All are related to my SD abortion ban and the neo-cons desire for a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage comments. Is it all coming back to you now, suck?

It’s all very similar to the time not long ago when he got caught lying regarding that asinine claim that a .0000001 inch rise in sea levels was a fact. When challenged to find even one single piece of evidence to support that ludicrous assertion, he changed his tune and said it was just a figure of speech. In reality it was just a flat out intentional lie, he hoped no one would catch or would bother to disprove.

36 subsequent threads including four of his. These are the facts, they are indisputable. But keep on spinning if it makes you feel better. Wrong as usual, indeed…

By Buy Danish

October 17, 2006 06:23 PM | Link to this

N-GA is a belligerent, idiotic, p** and this proves it

Having a bad link day - see if this works^^. P** is the censored version of pi$$ant which is a perfectly acceptable word as long as monkeys aren’t in charge of censorship.

By RE

October 17, 2006 06:30 PM | Link to this

RW,

On something like AIDS, we have a clear compeling motivation to research towards a cure because of our own citizens being infected. This is where I think the UN actually works pretty well, not so much on security issues but with the WHO. These are the people who catch nasty little diseases before they start becoming epidemics most of the time by monitoring third world countries and preventing the spread of the disease in third world countries that do not have the capacity to field a decent medical research team, and in this manner I am fully supportive of the UN. The Unicef and the World Food Program do good work as well.

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 06:38 PM | Link to this

getalife,

In the past few days we have possibly legal, but highly suspicious land deal by Harry Reid. At the very least he violated the rules of Congressional ethics.

Then we find that he is violating Federal elections law, by paying the household help with campaign money.

Now Harry comes forward to say he sold another piece of property in Searchlight that he never told Congress he owned and he’s come forward to declare another piece of property that he still owns and has since 1985 without reporting it.

Didn’t you say you were against corruption regardless of party?

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 06:44 PM | Link to this

RE,

I don’t have a huge problem with us providing most of the food aid and the UN taking all the credit because we’re ultimately doing the right thing. Sometimes the left should remember that when they claim we are making the world hate us though. The organisations they staunchly support make sure that the good we do is seldom seen.

By bon scott

October 17, 2006 06:51 PM | Link to this

Re: the late Ken Lay’s aquittal…

Legal analysts said the ruling by a federal judge in Houston closely hewed to long-held doctrine, which allows defendants to vacate their convictions if they die before they are able to exercise their right to appeal.

Just a technicality, folks. There’s still lots of blood in the water.

By Midori

October 17, 2006 06:59 PM | Link to this

an apt portrayal, Getalife: anything to get those thieving skunks out of the headlines.

there simply is no “there” there.

anyone looking at the facts would see that.

By Huge

October 17, 2006 07:01 PM | Link to this

Andy,

Your reading assignment:

Al Franken’s Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.

By RW-(the original)

October 17, 2006 07:04 PM | Link to this

Sybil bon finchie,

Do you want to retroactively enact a law that lets you try a dead man’s wife or son, maybe his next door neighbor if he dies before he can get due process?

Sorry if you don’t like the law, but you need to get yourself elected to something if you want to rewrite it. B-itching about it on a blog isn’t going to do you much good either other than satisfying your blood lust. At least you have enough voices in your head to fill half of Congress by yourself.

By P** On The Man's Grave

October 17, 2006 07:10 PM | Link to this

By bon scott October 17, 2006 06:51 PM Re: the late Ken Lay’s aquittal…

My goodness, what a ghoul. Would you dig up his grave and drag his corpse around, finchie?

Is that how you get your kicks?

At least the Justice Department has a little class, not like these spiteful liberal losers.

By We're Gonna Raise Your Taxes!!!!

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

Never in my life have I seen someone who’s whole life depends on them being the focus of everyone else’s attention, so much so that they live some make believe existence, does anyone know what modesty is anymore?:

By Huge October 17, 2006 06:22 PM His 12:50: “May I respectfully submit that the Constitution makes no mention of any “right to privacy” nor does it specifically forbid the act of murder either, to dovetail into your abortion argument.”

Why the censorship of the post, blowhard, because I didn’t make mention of your arrogant a-ss?

By Brian Curtis October 17, 2006 12:20 PM RW: And it’ll be struck down in a Constitutional way, too… {{{{{when the Supreme Court rules that it violates the Constitutional rights to privacy and equal treatment.}}}}}

To which I replied TO BRIAN CURTISS, NOT THE BLOWHARD:

By Reid And Abramoff, Sitting In A Suite, B-R-I-B-I-N-G October 17, 2006 12:50 PM Dear Brian Curtiss: By Brian Curtis October 17, 2006 12:20 PM when the Supreme Court rules that it violates the Constitutional rights to privacy May I respectfully submit that the {{{{{{Constitution makes no mention of any “right to privacy”}}}}} nor does it specifically forbid the act of murder either

Besides which, you a-ss, look at the post your bragging about- By Huge October 17, 2006 11:33 AM “You’ve been running on those same old lame scare tactics for years. Have you noticed that those things don’t actually happen and hardly anyone proposes changing them?” RW, years?- your replying to RW, which means RW started the whole conversation, not you.

Self promoting gasbag.

Hoover deluxe.

NASCAR could test their aerodynamics in your freaking wind stream.

Blow your little horn, loser.

By RW-(the original)

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

Andy,

Here’s a good companion piece to go with Al Franken’s book

By We're Gonna Raise Your Taxes!!!!

October 18, 2006 08:07 AM | Link to this

In your face:

White House political strategist Karl Rove yesterday confidently predicted that the Republican Party would hold the House and the Senate in next month’s elections, dismissing fallout from the sex scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley.-WashingtonTimes

Cut

But my colleagues and I believe that endorsements of political candidates are as necessary as ever —- QueenPinkoAtlantaUrinal

So do I, Cynthia, because whoever you and the AJC endorse, I vote across the board for their opponents.

If you ever wanted to get my vote just endorse the Republicans, I’ll vote democrat.

Cut

Well dream no more, friend, because today I am going to let you in on one of the great secrets of American business (and the mainstream media): The Harry Reid Do-Nothing Miracle Investment System! Through this system, you can sit back and watch the cash roll in from questionable desert real estate investments with the sort of reliability that only government can provide. The system is as simple as it is hidden through shell corporations, nepotism and political contributions. Yes, there are just three easy steps to mogul-like millions in Las Vegas real estate:-TownHall

Cut

On the other hand, it’s hard to find practicing Christians or other devout believers who can staunchly support key liberal positions on abortion, euthanasia and the homosexual agenda. Most who continue to vote Democratic simply ignore this and pull the lever out of habit. But there are many, many who cannot and will not, and it’s not hard to see why.-AmericanSpectator

 

Kudzu.com: Mosquitos are breeding. Ready for the bites?
Today's deal from DealSwarm.com
AJC Breaking News Updates