Atlanta Opinion

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 06:54 AM | Link to this

Sources close to the investigation say Abramoff has provided information on his dealings with and campaign contributions and gifts to “dozens of members of Congress and staff,” including what Abramoff has reportedly described as “six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators.”

Cut

Swift Boating?:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Rep. John Murtha, the anti-war congressman who is the likely new House speaker’s pick for majority leader, fended off what he called “swift boat-style attacks” on his ethics record Tuesday. The Pennsylvania Democrat also blasted his rival for majority leader, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, for siding with President Bush on Iraq. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who as the House Democratic leader is in line to be the next speaker, has backed Murtha against Hoyer, who is currently the No. 2 Democrat in the House of Representatives.

Moonbat versus moonbat.

You getting this Republicans? The American people have pretty much said that if you’re corrupt and get caught then just smear your accuser.

Cut

Melanie Sloan, the liberal head of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, was cheered on by Democrats six weeks ago when she helped reveal the Mark Foley scandal. Now she says that “Ms. Pelosi”s endorsement of Rep. Murtha, one of the most unethical members of Congress, show that {{{{{she may have prioritized ethics reform merely to win votes with no real commitment to changing the culture of corruption.”}}}}}

You reckon?

We also may be seeing the “real” Pelosi here, the liberal San Francisco Democrat, as opposed to the “campaign” Pelosi, who killed impeachment talk and attempted to bolster her party’s image on national security. Seen this way, Mr. Murtha’s views are much more aligned with Mrs. Pelosi. Mr. Hoyer and moderates like him might have no place in the new Democratic leadership.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 06:55 AM | Link to this

If there was ever any doubt about whom America’s enemies like to see in charge of Congress, this week’s elections surely beheaded it. Immediately after the scope of Democrats’ victory became clear, al Qaeda released an audiotape congratulating the American people on their wisdom. Iran’s supreme ruler issued a statement declaring that having Democrats in charge “is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation.” Hugo Chavez issued a four-hour speech waxing on about his comrades, the Democrats. And Maureen Dowd of the New York Times smiled for the first time in 12 years.

Cut

Look at page A3 of the Atlanta Urinal for a picture of jst how much liberals and their lapdog democrats hate America. A picture of a man in Iraq pointing at a coffin with the caption that says he’s shouting anti American slogans. How do you know that for sure? Unless you know how to lip read still pictures you just get to take the word of these panty waists. This is the biggset bunch of bullsh-it, for all anybody knows this guy could be cursing Al Qaeda.

Just because some pampered little left wing pervert has to wake up in the morning and feel bad about it’s self.

Why as Americans do we take this sh-it? An active prolonged propaganda campaign against US and in favor of throat cutting, innocent murdering religious savages.

P** on you AJC.

By Goldie

November 15, 2006 08:04 AM | Link to this

P!ss on you, Andy — the hatred you post against Americans is pathetic. Get a real life for yourself already!

By Goldie

November 15, 2006 08:06 AM | Link to this

The real reason that Andy’s so upset with America today:

Abramoff to begin 6-year prison stint Wednesday

Too bad they all got caught taking bribes, huh, Andy?

By Middle America

November 15, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this

Mr. Cut and Run,

The American people spoke out on election day that they are not happy with the direction of our country. Funny how you are not concerned with the opinion of the majority of Americans, but yet you jump right on the comments of al Qaeda after the election. That tells me you are more concerned with what al Qaeda thinks than the American people. Of course they will claim victory. Had the GOP held the majority, al Qaeda would have been elated, because they need the GOP to point to as the bad guy. Either way al Qaeda would have had something to say about it. Your ignorance and naivity about terrorism is just an example of how Republicans don’t understand the threat or know how to deal with it.

By Middle America

November 15, 2006 08:15 AM | Link to this

Oh the cartoon is hilarious….because it’s true.

By Buy Danish

November 15, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this

Middle American Ostrich,

We had better be concerned with what Al Qaeda thinks.

By DebbieDoRight

November 15, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this

Best cartoon of the year!!!

By Shawny

November 15, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this

Nancy: Let’s bring back honesty and ethics to the new Congress. Step 1 - Give J. Murtha a leadership position.

Flashback to the real Murtha, from credible sources:

Checkered ethical past…

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15719627/

If attacked in the least, decry “I’ve been Swift-boated”, then point to the opponent and mention the B-word (Bush).

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/14/congress.democrats/index.html

“I didn’t take the money.” But there’s more to the story…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111401230.html

Yes, Mr. Murtha became popular by chanting “pull out now”, but many experts agree that this is a bad strategy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/washington/15military.html?hp&ex=1163653200&en=24984d8667d017f9&ei=5094&partner=homepage

So, Mr. Luckovich…how many more ways can you pile on the prez, or can you branch out a little in your creativity and jump on this turkey?

By Buy Danish

November 15, 2006 08:34 AM | Link to this

Goldilocks,

This is what CNN left out of the story.

Sources close to the investigation say Abramoff has provided information on his dealings with and campaign contributions and gifts to “dozens of members of Congress and staff,” including what Abramoff has reportedly described as “six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators.”

By phil

November 15, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this

I know the wacko’s have hijacked this blog, but if you don’t mind, I’d like to say great ‘toon Mike.

Sorry.

By @@

November 15, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this

ml:

First things first. That is a very good likeness of GHWB and Barbara, and you’re right, the Democrat Turkeys were out for Bush’s head.

I’m not surprised that you buy into the childish conspiracy theory that the father Bush has intervened to save his son. Here’s the reality, if you care to look:

WASHINGTON - The Iraq Study Group was created in March 2006 at the urging of Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., to provide an outside view of developments in Iraq.

The group’s membership is composed of five Republicans and five Democrats and is expected to issue a single report in early December. Congress appropriated $1.3 million to fund the group’s activities, which are being coordinated by the United States Institute for Peace, a government-financed think tank devoted to foreign policy issues.

You should be embarrassed ml….buying into such childish behavior, and perpetuating it here.

Now a gift…@@ is very angry with President Bush today, but I’ll get over it. It’s not good for a person’s mental health or the country to let it ride.

By regulator

November 15, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this

Of course Abramoff is going to say that, he’s not going to prison because a bunch of ethical Republicans outed him, there are none, he going to jail because Democrats pushed the issue. Dufus.

By Goldie

November 15, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this

Even Dr. Frist knows that we are not winning in Iraq — and poor ole Blow-Dried Hannity, still “carrying water” for this regime:

Last night on Fox News, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) was asked to explain the midterm election results. Frist answered, “clearly, number one, the fact that we were not winning in Iraq dominated.” Watch it:

By Buy Danish

November 15, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this

Reality Regulator,

Democrats are never corrupt*

*Except for Abscam Murtha, Mel “The fridge” Reynolds, Alcee “impeached” Hastings and more to come….

By Andy

November 15, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this

Very Funny Cartoon!!! A little bit road runner and a little bit leave it to beaver. Great stuff!! I laughed, I cried, I played the willy-in-the-popcorn gag on my date, she screamed, there’s a restraining order, I even made the drunken midnight phone call to her which qualifies as stalking…..

But seriously folks, when Luckovich is on, I laugh freely and it feels so good.

Home run. A+!!!! Funny is funny.

By Andy

November 15, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

Andy, aren’t you legally bound to register as a sex offender when you visit a blog?

You are so busted, man. I dont like being a rat, but you are not a wholesome person and small children should not be exposed to you.

And I think it’s a damn shame that your mother didn’t raise you 2B a nicer girl.

By Paul

November 15, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this

I Voted For Cut and Run 6:54

Re: Murtha “You getting this Republicans? The American people have pretty much said that if you’re corrupt and get caught then just smear your accuser.”

I don’t get the American people said that - what’s disappointing is now Dems in power, that is a continuing tactic. Murtha didn’t address the issues - he used the time-honored misdirecting tactic of shooting the messenger.

Associated Press story this morning related the Pelosi-Murtha-Hoyer story, emphasis on Spkr-elect Pelosi’s pledge to wipe out corruption. Article referenced “suspicions” regarding Murtha’s conduct on defense appropriations - but the real dealbreaker for me regarding Murtha is this:

After the Abramoff scandall, the uncovering of influence peddling, bribery, violations of oaths, etc ad infinitum ad nauseum, Democrats introduced a package of ethics reforms - and Murtha voted against it. To me, that’s game over.

By Goldie

November 15, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this

BE VERY AFRAID!

TERROR, TERROR, TERROR!

So of course you trolls know that your “Fox News” will always beat that fear and terror drum into your head. It’s all part of their “news” plan, as revealed in an internal memo from the VP of Fox:

“And let’s be on the lookouot for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled…”

You trolls are obviously a part of the propaganda machine coming from Dubya’s regime!

By Goldie

November 15, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this

Don’t you trolls know that your “Fox News” has paid ransom $$ to those rancid terrorists?

Palestinian terror groups and security organizations in the Gaza Strip received $2 million from a United States source in exchange for the release of Fox News employees Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig, who were kidnapped here last summer, a senior leader of one of the groups suspected of the abductions told WND

Isn’t this consideread a treasonous act in America these days?

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this

Mike,

I usually applaud your work, but I’m tried of the turkey joke. It’s clever, it gets the message across, but malign another critter for awhile — like vultures.

By RE

November 15, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

Fox News supports the terrorists

We don’t negotiate with terrorists!

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

Diogenes,

The scribbler can’t use vultures because that would make people think of Democrats.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this

Listen to all the Justice Department officials in here, sure thing, we’ll take Abramoff’s word about the Republicans as though God has descended from the Heavens with some stone tablets and we’ll call him a liar when he rats a democrat.

Don’t it figure?

It’s funny how a Republican that gets caught doing something wrong either resigns and goes to prison, or both, while a democrat has his name put in for the House Leadership position.

You liberals are the ones who can shut your f ing mouths, you have no credibility at all. The American people will figure that out in short order, the hard way.

Look the other way as 150,000 children get molested every year by public school teachers, but zero in on 1,200 Church people like they are the scum of the Earth.

It’s all exposed to the light now, you can’t keep it under wraps anymore.

You pinkos are the scum of the Earth.

By Goldie

November 15, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

Apparently there are some in the Repugnant Party who see what the party has really become — the party of Big Government.

Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, said the GOP was trapped in a one-note campaign that ignored numerous concerns of the American people. Mr. Flake, who won re-election, said rising budget deficits and lack of fiscal discipline were never addressed in the White House’s election strategy. “The enforcement-only option just didn’t play very well,” Mr. Flake said. “The one thing we could have stopped, but didn’t, was runaway spending.”

He could’ve added that taking bribes was also a big problem— Goldwater would be so ashamed of you Neo-Cons for kidnapping the entire party platform!

By Bubba Grump

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

lets see, 8 more days until Thanksgiving…

Dem suggestions until then:

Turkey allah king, Turkey souffle, Turkey meatballs, goat cheese and spinach Turkey burgers, cheesy Turkey meatloaf, apricot glazed with roasted onion/shallot gravy Turkey, apple curry pita Turkey.

Gotta keep it fresh ml.

By bon scott

November 15, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

By I Voted For The War And Smiled When I Sent Other Americans To Die In It - November 15, 2006 06:54 AM - You getting this Republicans? The American people have pretty much said that if you’re corrupt and get caught then just smear your accuser.

This has been Standard Operating procedure among Republicans for the last 6 years. It’s the expansion of the “But Clinton did it toooooo!” rationale. Democrats know this. Now Independents do, too. Even Republicans are catching on. We all know that corruption is rampant among GOP royalty, although it was the Iraq war incompetence that really ticked us off.

And now the whining repukes are bawling about Murtha earmarks? Reid land deals? Let’s not forget about Bill Frist’s not so secret blind trust, or Denny Hastert’s Illinois real estate investments along the Reagan Tollway! That’s in addition to all the Abramoff swag.

See, I can play the “they did it toooo” game. Grow up.

By I Voted For The War So I Could Borrow From China To Pay For It - November 15, 2006 06:54 AM - A picture of a man in Iraq pointing at a coffin with the caption that says he’s shouting anti American slogans. How do you know that for sure?

Oh, cram it. Who wrote the caption? The AJC? The wire services? Maybe the photog at the scene? And maybe thats what the photog heard? How do YOU know? Whine whine whine. Do something substantial, like go to Baghdad and fight, like you promised. Take a bullet for your noble cause.

By Buy Danish - November 15, 2006 08:23 AM - We had better be concerned with what Al Qaeda thinks.

This is very true. Remember, the strategic and financial foundations of Al Qaeda are in Afghanistann, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

They are not in Iraq.

By Goldie

November 15, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

Note to Lucko— I love that you keep using the turkey as Dubya’s platform. So American!

By Andy

November 15, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this

No, dio, mike is working a riff. This is a traditional comic genre, where the challenge is to stay on a topic and still get laughs. It’s like one of the hardest things to do.

Carson used to say, “Never go for three”. He meant three comic examples of the platitude or maxim that he got the original laugh with.

So Mike L is in very treacherous waters. He’s a rare bird, and it makes me feel good to know there’s talent like that out there. It’s inspirational, like watching Maria Sharapova play tennis. Or Tiger play golf. Or Mike Vick make some impossible pass or run.

You know how a musician like Midori appears on an album cover? Sometimes it’s just a picture of the violin. And the unspoken message is, “Oh! What she can do with that violin!” Or a autobiography of a great pitcher would show just the baseball, and you think, “Oh! What he can do with that baseball!”. Well, for my wife, the picture would be of a D cell battery….”

R rated jokes for G-spot rated minds. Thank you, adieux, and auf weidersen to yieux and yieux and yieux………”The Von Trapp Family……………The Family Von Trapp……………ahem, okay?…good……Ladies and Gentlemen, The Family Von Trapp………………….GIVE ME THAT MACHINE PISTOL!!!!!! (they’re getting away)”

By RE

November 15, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

Umm, wasn’t ABSCAM from back in the mid 80s? I did see hannity run the tape about 3 times last night, just to refresh everyones memory. Nothing as damning as video tape of NOT taking a bribe.

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

RW (912),

Your comment, “The scribbler can’t use vultures because that would make people think of Democrats.”

My goodness. Mike picks on turkeys and you pick on vultures and Mark Bradley picks on Falcons. It’s not safe to be a bird in these politically charged times, I guess.

By Andy

November 15, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

I just realized that an anagram of Dye Brainless is (o)

I also now know that an anagram of @@ is c=3

Put the two together and you get goat porn. That’s like SO illegal, man.

I am so reporting you two horrid trolls.

By ed lorenzo

November 15, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

THERE IS ALWAYS A SOLUTION

George W.H. Bush, the 41st president of the United States, replaced the pitching wedge into the Ludlam & Pitts leather golf bag and turned to his son, George W., the 43rd president of the United States. He said:

“What is it this time. Can’t you see I am busy?”

“It’s Baker, dad. He has been working on that Iraq Plan but I am afraid he is listening to the liberals, democrats and libertarians in the commission. They want us to get out of Iraq!”

“So what? That’s was the idea since the moment you decided to invade Iraq to become a hero. I told you a million times that you were making a mistake but you did not listen. Just like your mother. All you could see was victorious troops entering Baghdad, the Iraqis throwing flowers at Cheney and at Rumsfeld, who rode an open jeep at the head of a column of 5 jeeps that were the whole invading army. What do you want me to do?”

“Talk to Bill Clinton. He is still a hero for the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Saudis the Palestinians and Jacques Chirac. Maybe he can help Baker arrange a discreet conference and get those countries to help with the Iraq problem. Would you, dad?”

“Listen, first you took Baker away from me. I lost a golfing partner and a fellow collector of Rita Hayworth photographs. Then you took away Condi, who spends more time helping your staff spell Ahmadinejad, Swchartzernegger or Karhzakubestenav, than doing her job at the State Department. Now you want to take my good buddy Bill Clinton!”

“Will he agree?”

“I suppose. Who is going to pay his expenses?”

“Halliburton, of course!”

By Donovan Coley

November 15, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

Just another hateful drawing from the left wing cartoonist child sitting in his office at the AJC. Get a job, Mikey.

By Paul

November 15, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

Goldie

Rep Flake was the subject of a 60 Minutes piece the other night. Rather a young Congressman from Snowflake AZ. Interview brought up his Mormon heritage in a kind of “you fight for what’s right” kind of a way. Add-ons, earmarks, etc. has been his fight since he went to Congress. He’s a Republican who easily won reelection. The piece even showcased his uncle, I believe a county commissioner, who wanted a project added on who said, “I didn’t even bother to ask my nephew. He would have told me “NO”.”

But, it wasn’t a slam Republicans piece. His point was, very clearly, Democrats are just as guilty of gluttony at the pig trough as are Republicans. Both parties fight his efforts.

So what’s really going to change? Given that, and the earlier reference of Murtha fighting against ethics reform, the answer is very possibly “not much.”

By Andy

November 15, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this

Okay, this is official biz. If anyone on this blog sees ANDY comment w/o registering first as a sex offender, then report him at this website: XXX.hand2cheek.com

You know I dont like this any more than you, but andy wants it, so andy gits it.

Remember, evil prospers when good men do nothing.

By Goldie

November 15, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

LOL! These trolls are too funny today— the Dems won the election 8 days ago and the trolls are exclaiming “game over!”

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

By bon scott November 15, 2006 09:19 AM Oh, cram it. Who wrote the caption? The AJC? The wire services? Maybe the photog at the scene? And maybe thats what the photog heard? How do YOU know? Whine whine whine. Do something substantial, like go to Baghdad and fight, like you promised. Take a bullet for your noble cause.

Looks like little finchie is all ate up with the Andy demon this morning, you hearing Andy voices, psycho? You’re not screaming at the monitor, are you?

Weirdo.

By RE

November 15, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

Speaking of Hannity, Rangel tore him up yesterday. No matter the politics, you gotta love a guy like Rangel. Just a crusty old guy, former marine combat vet from Harlem who doesn’t care enough about hannity or any other self important talk show host to be offended by them.

By Andy

November 15, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this

The only claim the Dye Brainless has to being a blonde is that she’s stupid, and she dyes her hair. Otherwise, she aint no blonde.

Thus her name, Dye Brainless.

Other aliases she uses are Rinse Simple, Henna Honker, and Tint Titter.

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this

ed lorenzo (928),

Funny.

You’re right. We’re all taking ourselves a little too seriously.

By Paul

November 15, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

Goldie

Much as I dislike sports metaphors “game over” seemed to fit in my earlier remark. Now you used it. Pleased, I’m begging you, don’t perpetuate them. They can easily become all balls and no strikes, more than that, they don’t move the ball closer to the end zone.

Seriously, though, aren’t you just a tad outraged at Murtha’s efforts to block ethics reforms? Your ideological take can’t run that deep, can it?

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

This “Andy” poster sounds like Barbara Boxer holding hearings on global warming.

Only things she can understand.

And freaking psycho.

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

Actually finch,

Let’s take a look at what photographers submit and what your precious “news” media does with the captions

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

Madame Speaker,

A cautionary note, please. If you and your fellow Democrats present the image to the American people that you are as corrupt as the rascals you replaced, then you will be replaced in 2008. The red tide looms large, but they despise corruption. The election was less about Iraq than it was about corruption. Just a thought, Madame Speaker.

By Mike

November 15, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

Jeez, does Mikey even know how to draw a Democrat?

We get it Mikey. You hate Bush. There are other subjects for discussion than your pet obsession.

By SarahConnah

November 15, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

Impeach the Bush Reich!

By Paul

November 15, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

From the New York Observer today.

“More than the inability to influence Iraq policy or the President’s tax cuts, Chuck Schumer says that the single greatest failure of the Democrats as an opposition party was allowing Samuel Alito to join the Supreme Court.

“Judges are the most important,” said Mr. Schumer…”

Couple days ago Chief Justice Roberts gave a speech in which he said judge’s personal views have no place in their rulings. He also said that on controversial issues, Congress should use their responsibility and make the law - not shuffle an issue off to the Courts.

Now comes Schumer with an ideological agenda, saying in effect he wants justices who vote their personal biases.

Will some of you Democratic/Left/Liberal in all things posters please provide a rationale for Sen Schumer’s position?

By RE

November 15, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

Paul,

I always thought that Harriet Miers was the much better choice, obviously a well thought out decision by GWB.

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

Paul,

Your comment, “‘More than the inability to influence Iraq policy or the President’s tax cuts, Chuck Schumer says that the single greatest failure of the Democrats as an opposition party was allowing Samuel Alito to join the Supreme Court.

“Judges are the most important,” said Mr. Schumer…’”

I obviously need a stronger lantern. The fog is getting thicker.

By Proud Pinko Liberal

November 15, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

Give me a second until I quit laughing. Whew! Ok. You wingnuts crack me up. You lost! Get over it! One would think that you were in the majority. Your dumb@$$ president’s approval rating is consistently in the low 30s. The ship is sinking. Americans want a change. Now they will have it. Let me go on record now as saying that if the Dems squande their new power by acting Republican (taking bribes, etc.) I will not turn a blind eye as you wingnuts have done. I will join the outcry.

By Paul

November 15, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

RE

Now I can tell that’s a bit of sarcasm, ‘cause no rational person would make such a statement in a serious manner.

Ideology aside, Alito’s and Robert’s performances in front of the committee was pretty amazing. They are both first-rate legal minds.

But the question is still on the table - a rationale for Sen Schumer’s position.

By Paul

November 15, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

Diogenes

I was just about to ask you - the election’s over, we’re getting some pretty clear indications from the new “leadership” - and from the new minority party —- found any honest men (or women) yet?

By getalife

November 15, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

Mike does like the Thanksgiving theme.

Great toon.

I see the star of the “Luckovich Losers” Andy is spamming again.

By RE

November 15, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

I agree Paul, they are both first rate legal minds. I do not think anyone on the supreme court is unqualified for thier position.

To find fault in Schumer’s statement, you have to believe that Alito was chosen without regard to his personal belief. That is just not the case, what happened was a person was appointed to the court who would vote his personal biases, that person is Alito. Schumer is upset because they let a person onto the court who will always vote his personal bias in every case.

It was a failure

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Paul (1023),

Just as I said. The fog is getting thicker or my lantern’s getting weaker. If I weren’t so naive, I’ve probably cry about now.

By Shawny

November 15, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

What I want to know is what is the plan for the new leadership to deal with this:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-11-15T144711Z01L15688931RTRUKOC0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-AHMADINEJAD.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

We say no, they say yes. What will be done about it?

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

RE,

What do you use as a basis for the blanket statement that Justice Alito will say screw the law and vote his personal biases? Instead of a typically hysterical liberal crying jag, please provide examples.

By the way, how did making a legal ruling come to be called a “vote” anyway?

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this

Paul,

The biggest problem with the Democrats is that they are acting like Republicans. All those shadows look like turkeys. The fog is pretty thick. I need a higher octane oil in my lantern.

By B.P.O.E.- Cobb Co

November 15, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

Hi all, the United Meth-odists of Georgia will be having a Meth and Methodist Man Love A*-ociation (MAMMLA) fundraiser at the lodge this weekend.

I hope you can attend. Mark Foley is going to be the guest speaker. We are trying to get Newt to make an appearance also. We have recruited the best male prostitutes for this event and the meth is local. Join us in a game of Pin the Bleep on the elephant.

This will also be a chance to say thank you to some of the Republican lawmakers that are attending. These hero’s helped make meth penalties 100% lighter than crack cocaine sentencing. That has saved hundreds of thousands of families from facing the prospect of a loved one in jail. Thats why Republicans are the Family Values Party…. DID I SAY PARTY… WOOO-HOOOOOOOO!!….PARTY!

See you Sat night at the Elks Lodge….PARTY!/fundraiser. Help support MAMMLA

Go Bulldogs

By Andy

November 15, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

I am sick and tired of dittoheads who think that if Iran gets the bomb, that they will blow up the world. A-bombs arent that big a deal. We dropped two on the tiny island of Japan, and in five years, both cities were busy little metropolitan areas where the major export was glow-in-the-dark velcro jock straps for suma wresters.

So what if Iran gets the bomb? Israel has 500 bombs, and they’ll just erase those horrid iranian goat people back to the stone age where they belong. Ditto syria, jordan, saudis, egypt, pakistan turkey iraq…you know, all the rabble.

Lets just get our troops out of iraq and concentrate on the real threat: Paris Hilton has a new CD of songs!!!

you people on the Right are ignorant.

By Paul

November 15, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

RE

Alito’s first term showed him to be more conservative than not (and I use “conservative” in the sense of relying on previous Court rulings and not forging “new ground” when that is not reflected in the Federal statute or previous rulings).

Roberts’ position was, regardless of my personal beliefs or if that was why I was nominated, that is not how a justice should decide cases. I agree some will not be able to accept that - just a bit too much of principle over personal power - but I think if it’s possible with anyone, it is with him. Maybe with Alito, too.

Schumer seems to imply that’s not possible - which is a view that says character is not sacrosanct. I know, representatives are supposed to fight for partisan issues. But justices aren’t. Schumer doesn’t get it - and the view that justices should be appointed who will vote for partisan issues, is, in my mind, dangerous.

By Jenn

November 15, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

Shawny, You are right, I posted a link on here yesterday about that. It’s crazy, they are going to try to wipe Isreal off the map. What a crazy bunch they are over there in the sand…

By RW (the oravaginal)

November 15, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

As I look back on the election, now 8 days ago, and I realize just how big a route the GOP rabble took, and how the American people have finally snapped out of the spell of 911, I have to conclude that bloggers like RW are all over the country, and spewing their ignorant prattle in every major city with a newspaper blog, so that enough people saw what mindless rantings the Right was using to justify Iraq, and voted accordingly.

RW is the best friend the Democrats have.

Blog on, my fine friend, RW.

BUT. 1st Register as the pos sex offender you truly are.

PS: try the salve.

By Jenn

November 15, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

A-bombs are no big deal…. Andy you’re an idiot.

By RW (the oravaginal)

November 15, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

When the Iranian leader talks about Israel, he’s addressing his constituency, which is a minority of Iranians, but whose support he needs to stay in power. He’s alot like Bush that way. You gotta “Howard Stern” a little to get attention and to assuage the lunatic fringe who could destroy you.

Grow up, Dittos. Your analysis is trite. Your blogging skills are in your hands and mouth, speaking of which, I must compliment RW on his hand-cheek coordination.

He’s the best I ever saw. Which brings up the Q: How did an illiterate ignoramus like RW slip through the crack……….ew!

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Paul,

As I noted above, I’m pretty naive, but I was of the opinion that a judge was supposed to be impartial, no matter what level the court. I realize that no man or woman is free of personal opinions, but a judge should put those aside to the degree possible before making a ruling. As I said, I’m naive and some of the civics lessons I had in 384 BCE stuck.

By Shawny

November 15, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

Fake Andy:

Yo momma is a dittohead.

By Buy Danish

November 15, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

Shawny & Jenn,

You want to know what the new “leadership” will do? Prevent John Bolton from getting the permanent position as U.N. Ambassador. He’s doing too good a job and that’s a bad thing.

By Paul

November 15, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Thanks for the post at 10:57

“When the Iranian leader talks about Israel, he’s addressing his constituency, which is a minority of Iranians, but whose support he needs to stay in power.”

That’s the perfect example of a hyperleft partisan viewpoint. “A world leader really doesn’t mean what he says because what he says is just so, well, not nice.” “Speaking of exterminating a whole class of people is just so not 21st century. He’s just acting.”

I could go on - patronizing, knowing what the speaker really means better that the speaker himself, ignoring facts to support ideology, it’s all there.

By N-GA

November 15, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Paul,

I’ll take a stab at it (since we are really only trying to read Schumer’s mind).

Perhaps he meant that he distrusts Alito’s ability to separate religion and the law. By that I am suggesting that Alito’s Catholicism forces him to take strong positions on abortion and homosexuality…positions that may not be supported by the Constitution. Then again, Alito may prove Schumer wrong.

By Paul

November 15, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

Diogenes.

Rather tells you what kind of a person a Democratic administration would nominate and a Democratic Senate would let through, doesn’t it?

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

Madame Speaker,

A word of caution please from the back of the gallery. Power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts.

By The RW, Andy And Danish Demons Are Eating Me Up

November 15, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this

I can hear them in my head, they’re all around me.

My little mind can’t handle it!

I must post in their names!

Weird, insane posts in their names that only I understand!

That will teach them!

Plus it’s all my 2nd grade public education allows me to do, I can’t come up with any logical thoughts on my own.

Bad demons!

By RW (the oravaginal)

November 15, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

I just realized that an anagram of RW is c=3

And I understand now that an anagram of @@ is (o)

Put them together and you get goat porn. That’s like so illegal.

I’m so reporting both of you horrid little trolls.

By Paul

November 15, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

Listening to Diane Rheem show on NPR - guest is one of Barry Goldwater’s associates. Said how early 60’s Republicans believed in progressive, confiscatory taxes, redistributing income, etc. Only difference between Dems and Republicans was R’s went to Harvard Business School so were more efficient. Then came Goldwater (economic conservative) - and his defeat by Johnson laid the groundwork for future Republican success. Good show.

But - guest made point that manysocial justice, etc can be traced to President Jimmy Carter, a born-again, conservative, evangelical Christian!

Are you “flog the ignorant right-wing Christian” types going to give equal time to Democrat Jimmy Carter? Or come up with some really creative reason’s why “that’s different!”?”

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

Paul (1109),

Yeah. You’re correct on that score. After all, look at what the Republicans have nominated and approved; all we would get from Democrats is a mirror image. The center cannot hold. I’m going to have a halogen bulb installed in this lantern. All those shadows look like turkeys.

By Republicans can't win without cheating

November 15, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

Just in case you didn’t realize how amoral these people are.

GOP Fliers Apparently Were Part Of Strategy, from Matthew Mosk and Avis Thomas-Lester for WaPo:

“On board, 300 mostly poor African Americans from Philadelphia ate doughnuts, sipped coffee and prepared to spend the day at the Maryland polls. After an early morning greeting from Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.’s wife, Kendel, they would fan out in white vans across Prince George’s County and inner-city Baltimore, armed with thousands of fliers that appeared to be designed to trick black Democrats into voting for the two Republican candidates.

The glossy fliers bore photos of black Democratic leaders on the front. Under the headline “Democratic Sample Ballot” were boxes checked in red for Ehrlich and Senate candidate Michael S. Steele, who were not identified as Republicans. Their names were followed by a long list of local Democratic candidates.

Nearly a week later, a fuller picture has emerged about how the plan to capture blacks’ votes unfolded — details that suggest the fliers, and the people paid to distribute them, were not part of a hurry-up effort but a calculated strategy.

Republican leaders have defended the Election Day episode as an accepted element of bare-knuckle politics.”

About the only difference between Georgia and Maryland is they haven’t been caught here yet.

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

N-GA,

That’s quite the box you are placing Justice Alito in. Are you saying that as long as he rules in favor of liberal positions he’s a constitutionalist and if he ever makes a legal finding that favors a Republican point of view, he’s a religious fundamentalist that cares nothing about the law?

Diogenes 11:10,

You need to reverse those last two words and make it “corrupts absolutely.”

By Buy Danish

November 15, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

N-GA,

I hate to burst your Utopian bubble, but you cannot “separate religion and the law”. What the hell do you think the Ten Commandments were?

Why do you think that Emory University has the “Center for the Study of Law and Religion” which is “home to world class scholars and forums on religious foundations of law, politics and society?”

By Some people who post things about Republicans are just ignorant

November 15, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

By Republicans can’t win without cheat November 15, 2006 11:18 AM Just in case you didn’t realize how amoral these people are.

Queen AntiRadical Of Yahoo!: You won the election, dumba-ss.

WTF are you whining about??

amoral: adjective 1. not involving questions of right or wrong; neither moral nor immoral.

First grader.

Idiot.

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

Sonny Perdue 1,204,868

Mark Taylor 796,689

Yep, must have been a few misleading fliers.

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

Thanks RW (1123),

I intended to place slightly different stress on absolutely, in the sense of “it’s a forgone conclusion” rather than “totally.” Either way, the point is the same. Corruption seems rampant. Our esteemed Madame Speaker a few days ago was speaking of bipartisan solutions to some of the problems stressing the electorate. Please remind her that if she doesn’t quit acting like the rascals she replaced, she, too, will be replaced. The dam holding back the red tide is held only by the electorate’s hope that these rascals will be less corrupt than the ones they replaced. Step lightly there, Madame Speaker.

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

To Buy Danish (1125),

Are you implying that there is no difference between religious law and secular law and the “law of the land.”?

By WashingtonState

November 15, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

It never ceases to amaze me how you can reconstruct reality to suit your beliefs.

The Ingram case involved a group of men from a conservative Christian congregation in Olympia, Washington who allegedly were molesting one of the men’s daughter’s in satanic rituals. This occured in 1988. The case was written about extensively in “The New Yorker” before the Wenatchee case was even on the radar screen. (I wouldn’t consider “The New Yorker” a conservative publication.) In 1994, a book was published based on this series by Lawrence Wright called “Remembering Satan.” This book was not only an indictment of the whole “recovered memory” scam and the witchhunts that were starting to occur, but also of the role that some fundamentalist Christian congregations inadvertently played in spreading misinformation about the sexual abuse of children. Kathryn Lyon published her book some 4 years later. It didn’t really add much to what was already written by Lawrence Wright. Yes, there were witchhunts and egregious abuses during this period, but they were committed at the instigation of many different groups, including conservative church congregations and overzealous prosecutors depending on unskilled interviewers and therapists. I fail to see how you can put any political spin on this one, unless you want to condemn well meaning, but gullible conservative Christians for believing too easily. (In fact, one of the daughters, Ericka has made the round of tabloid talk shows, supported and encouraged by Christian radio host Bob Larson.)

“This hysteria is promoted by Christian publishers popularizing false testimonies, social agendas overindulging in promoting even fanciful tales of child abuse, and a therapy industry riddled with ineffective and even misleading therapies of memory recovery and multiple personality disorder.”

I think you have just inadvertently given us another great argument for keeping church and state separate.

http://members.aol.com/Ingramorg/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0679755829/ingramorganizatiA/

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

Diogenes,

Here’s a video of Ms. Pelosi and her house cleaning endeavors

By Andy

November 15, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

Barbara Bush’s face in the cartoon is remarkably funny. The look is priceless, and says more than fifty Andy manifesto blogs.

Andy, you have overstayed you welcome in this life. You need to do the honorable thing here.

(But dont forget to register as a sex offender in hell first).

bwa

Sighted moron. Sank same.

By Shawny

November 15, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

When you are #1, everyone comes gunning for you.

Diogenes, you are correct. Now she will be under the spotlight. She has 2 years to steer clear of the things that always get politicians in trouble…ethics, corruption, etc.

She was given this power because many conservatives “fired” their representatives for not doing their job:

porous border, still tax cuts not permanent spending like drunken sailors (with apologies to real sailors that drink too much)

For the conservatives in the minority, they need to get back to why they were in power before, as seen here in today’s cartoon that doesn’t suck:

http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/MichaelRamirez/2006/11/2

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

Michelle!:

Well, a back-scratching corruptocrat in pastel is still a back-scratching corruptocrat. Case in point: Which congressman is Mrs. Clean considering as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence? Impeached federal judge Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., who took bribes, lied under oath and was kicked off the bench. And which colleague is she backing for House majority leader? One of Congress’s leading dirtbags: Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. As if his extremist cut-and-run war strategery weren’t bad enough, Murtha’s (un)ethical record is enough to make even liberal apologists blush. Defense industry lobbyist Paul Magliocchetti, a former colleague of Murtha’s who worked as a senior staffer on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, has reportedly funneled some $300,000 in campaign contributions to Murtha over the last three election cycles — either through his company, PMA, or its clients. They’ve reaped rich rewards: In 2006 alone, PMA clients received at least 60 earmarks worth some $95 million. Murtha also aided Democrat Congressman Alan Mollohan, who remains embroiled in a federal contracting corruption probe.

By Andy

November 15, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

Here’s a insight: Baker’s Iraq Survey report has been delayed till next month. Why? Because the lame duck congress will try to push through Bush nominees and get some biz done. That would be impossible when the “cut and run” recommendation by Baker is published.

The fact that they delayed the publication of the report indicates what is in the report. (bad news for W, good news for the American People)

There, now you on the right can go back to fondling yourselves.

(but register as a sex-offender first)

It’s the law.

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

RW,

Do you see the article in the AJC a few days ago in which the Assistant Director of the FBI was talking about running a sting operation on Congress?

There’s no time like the present.

By Andy

November 15, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

The standard of competence that Bush used to occupy Iraq must be, “Even a clock is right 2X per day.”

Good enough for 43!!! We must be doing the right thing twice a day.

Congrats Bush, you’ve achieved the lowest standard for acceptance.

Resign, George. Just resign. Have you no sense of decency at long last? You can sit in the oval office and smirk while good men are dyin’ for your fantasy about nation building….your lies about another 911…..you stink, sir. Get out of our sight. Resign.

By Buy Danish

November 15, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Diogenes,

I am implying nothing of the sort.

I am stating that our laws and our Founding Documents have foundations in Judeo-Christian tenets and that it is impossible to separate religion from law.

The relationship is not exclusive, but it is undeniable. This is not a theological discussion - it is a matter of historical fact.

Try the Library of Congress for starters.

By @@

November 15, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

finch:

I know this is going to spoil your fun, but I had already researched the Salafi. I posted an article at RW’s. So “ixnay” on your “appingflay ingsway”.

I laughed when I saw this from you the other night:

“The original recipe for hotwings from the Anchor Bar uses Durkee’s Franks Original Red Hot Cayenne Pepper Sauce.”

“Accept no substitutes.” (Translation: Accept noone but finch.) I do so enjoy the subliminal, and the fact that you still operate from a middle-school mentality.

My perspective? It’s more complex than even you acknowledge.

And this constant harping you do regarding Saudi Arabia. Are you suggesting government complicity? All madrasas or selective madrasas?

It’s being dealt with.

Your post was too late to respond to last night, so I’ve offered up something for you to cherry pick today. Enjoy.

Over & Out!

By Jenn

November 15, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

News Flash: San Fransisco school board is going to ban Jr. ROTC. Isn’t that just fabulous?

By Republicans can't win without cheating

November 15, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

So Andy’s response is a definition of amoral as opposed to outrage that his party must cheat in order to win.

Typical.

Bed-wetting moron.

By Huge

November 15, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

“Are you “flog the ignorant right-wing Christian” types going to give equal time to Democrat Jimmy Carter? Or come up with some really creative reason’s why “that’s different!”?”

Since you gave no specifics or any info whatsoever about JC’s “social justice”, that’s darn near impossible.

His faith was the quiet kind. You may remember it? It is the kind that most of us admire. Actions speak louder than words? He didn’t have to tell people what a great Christian he was and he certainly didn’t try to pollute our governance and our Constitution with HIS beliefs. I also don’t recall him hobnobbing with the most infamous and deplorable religious charlatans and frauds (and their enablers) intent on an American mini-theocracy.

You seem much more than bright enough to recognize this enormous difference, Paul.

But in general terms, many see Carter as a poor President but a truly good human being. Of course, the gop absolutely detests him for having tried to oversee fair elections overseas, and getting involved in international incidents which could have been reserved for our ambassadors, etc.

The problem has been that statesmanship, under the W administration, has been either abysmal or pretty much non-existent. (Remember the “irrelevant” UN in the runup to the invasion?)

Also, unlike virtually every former gop prez, excluding to some extent Bush 41, he has been extremely involved in helping his fellow man after he left office - habitat for humanity comes to mind.

As does his work at the Carter Center on worldwide health issues and conflict resolution. Most of the neo-cons are also livid that he would have the temerity to accept the Nobel Peace Prize as a champion of human rights (the other two US presidents to do so - Wilson and T. Roosevelt)…

Now watch as the three or four of the hard-core right wingers here start their endless sniping about Carter. The complete story, the big picture, is not important to them, just this incident or that statement, etc…

By @@

November 15, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

Oops! Let’s put you in a madras again.

Gone, and if that link doesn’t work, I don’t care. You’re O.K. with doing your own research, right? Occasional expansion would offer more knowledge if you’re interested.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

By Republicans can’t win without cheating November 15, 2006 12:17 PM So Andy’s response is a definition of amoral as opposed to outrage that his party must cheat in order to win. Typical. Bed-wetting moron.

Bed wetting moron?

Sounds familiar.

Simpleton: Try to focus beyond the loud buzzing noise in between your ears- We didn’t win.

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

To Buy Danish (1205)

Our legal system has more of its basis in Greco/Roman concepts of law and in English Common Law than in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Yes, the Christian heritage of our Founding Fathers has an influence, but our legal system is not Judeo-Christian.

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

Got to go shelf books. Bye now.

By Damn those isidious Dems

November 15, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

“Immediately refuting the campaign lies spewed by Republicans about guaranteeing a Congress controlled by Democrats would mean across-the-board tax increases, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) opened the lame duck Senate session yesterday by calling for immediate tax relief for middle-class Americans.

In what will be one of his last opening statements as Senate Minority Leader, Reid called for the passage of tax breaks for middle-class families and businesses as well as appropriations bills that include funding for veterans’ health care, education and energy programs.”

What makes Reid think we want tax cuts for the middle class? Tax cuts are for the uber-rich Americans only.

By Republicans can’t win without cheating

November 15, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

Andy - I didn’t suggest that you won. We all know you didn’t. I suppose it takes a certain intelligence to see where the story was heading. o back and read it again. We’ll wait. I realize it’ll take a while as you read aloud to yourself and struggle with the big words.

By Abe

November 15, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

My God, I’m relieved! Among Jim Baker’s “Iraq Study Group” members is none other than Edwin Meese! Back to the intelectual heroes of the Reagan regime. Can James Watt be far behind? Forward men - to the dirty past!!

By Abe

November 15, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

Whoops! And another great neocon step forward. Welcome back Trent Lott and the Klan!

By Proud Pinko Liberal

November 15, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

I just read where Abramoff will offer info on 6 to 8 Democratic Senators and Karl Rove.

I have a question for my fellow liberals: “Would you be willing to accept the loss of Senate control to out the dirty Dems, if they exist?”

I say yes. I say get rid of the scum even if it means we lose control of the Senate. The time for coddling and looking the other way when politicians screw us is over.

By Huge

November 15, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

Diogenes,

Your 12:34 was well said.

And for the reasons you stated that is why the Declaration says; “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”

And why the Constitution says; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…”

Nothing about Christians or Jews. The authors, were by and large as much as I can tell, deists as much as anything else…

By N-GA

November 15, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

RW,

I was responding to a question from Paul about what Schumer meant in his remarks about Alito. I specifically said that any comment would be an attempt to read Schumer’s mind. Your interpretation of my remarks is just as far of base as I would expect from you.

Bi-Danish…you haven’t popped my bubble. You have simply shown your ignorance, once again. It would seem you would prefer to be subserviant to your husband, work well with his other wives, and go down to the public square to stone the adulteress to death before you buy a slave to work your fields.

It’s too bad your education couldn’t have gone to someone who would make better use of it.

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

I commented on the particular portion of your remark that dealt with Alito’s belief system. You said that he would likely rule on matters of abortion and homosexuality based on his faith rather than the Constitution. That has nothing to do with reading Schumers mind and everything to do with a baseless accusation from N-GA.

Why don’t you grow up a little and learn to discuss rather than making your petty insults and crying that you are having a private conversation?

What is it with you libs lately, posting on a public blog and claiming a private conversation? No wonder you see a wire tap on every phone line. Consider this a party line (and for the kids out there that’s not a reference to those conference lines advertised on late night TV).

By Jenn

November 15, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

N-GA, That was pretty mean…

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

By Huge Selectiive Reader of the Constitution:—->And why the Constitution says; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…”

…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Funny how people like Huge so often seem to truncate that clause in the first amendment.

By Goldie

November 15, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

Dubya just can’t help himself— he keeps nominating the same incompetent and/or inappropriate cronies over and over again. Next we’ll be seeing Harriet Myers nominated again for some federal judicial slot:

Tomlinson signed invoices worth about $245,000 for a friend without the knowledge of other board members or staff, used the board’s office resources to support his private horse racing operation and overbilled the organization for his time, according to the report. On a few occasions, the report said, he billed for the same time worked on both the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, on whose board he was a member until resigning in November 2005.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

By Spammie R Of Yahoo! November 15, 2006 12:54 PM Andy - I didn’t suggest that you won. We all know you didn’t. I suppose it takes a certain intelligence to see where the story was heading. o back and read it again. We’ll wait. I realize it’ll take a while as you read aloud to yourself and struggle with the big words.

Let’s try this again real slow: If the Conservatives didn’t win the election then it looks like they didn’t cheat either, according to your ridiculous premise. Unless of course what you are saying is BULLSH-IT and you are a blooming idiot.

..

O.K. you win. I’ll give up on this one.

By Midori

November 15, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

I think I’ll not jump into the fray today, but I will give Mike 2 thumps up for a great cartoon.

Keep em coming, Mike!!!

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

As convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff reported to federal prison today, a source close to the investigation surrounding his activities told ABC News that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was one of the members of Congress Abramoff had allegedly implicated in his cooperation with federal prosecutors.

Funny how Harry Reid says Abramoff is just saying anything he can to save his own a-ss. Do you think The new Majority leader of the Democrat controlled Senate is too stupid to know that Abramoff reported to prison because he’s already gotten his plea bargain?

By Goldie

November 15, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

For all you whining trolls who constantly say that “good news” is never posted here on the blog:

George Clooney is Sexiest Man Alive — again

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

Looks like Harry Reid might wind up being speaker of the House, the jailhouse that is, hehehehe:

Abramoff Reports to Prison; Officials Focus on Reid, Others

By Republicans can't win without cheating

November 15, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

Andy said: “If the Conservatives didn’t win the election then it looks like they didn’t cheat either”

Oh they cheated alright. If you had comprehended the story you would have known that. The fact that it didn’t work this time is a testament to the anger that Americans have for your kind.

My handle remains true “Republicans can’t win without cheating”. Fortunately it looks like they can’t even win when they do cheat either.

By Al

November 15, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

Ah yes. Let’s return to those great heroic Reagan years. Ed Meese. The Marine barracks in Lebanon. Where Marines carried no ammo for fear of an “incident” with the Jews. Then the sudden invasion of…Granada. Wow! Bring back yet another hero/liar/coward,traitor - Ollie North. The “good times roll.”

By Midori

November 15, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

Amusing article about “crazy web claims”

By Spike

November 15, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

Al: And don’t forget Dan Quayle. That entire Bush family and the Repugs are famous for picking the best and the brightest. Praise the Lord!

By Cindy

November 15, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Mike, Great toon! Love it when you make us belly laugh! What a beautiful day!

By Just think...

November 15, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

…it took Democrats 40 years to get their @$$e$ handed to them. It only took 12 years for the Repugnants to acheive the same end.

By bon scott

November 15, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

A new report from serious US military types concludes that the axis of terror continues to shift:

As radical Islam spreads globally through online forums and chat rooms, a group of obscure Arab religious thinkers may come to exert more influence over the jihadist movement than Osama bin Laden and other well-known leaders of Al Qaeda, a research group at the United States Military Academy has concluded.

As much as I’d like to see Osama and Co’s heads on stakes, that’s good news. Those guys are still scarier than Saddam ever was. So where’s the terror nucleus shifting??

Fossilized neocons who still insist it’s Iraq are wrong again:

…the study found that the scholarly work of a group of Saudi and Jordanian clerics — most notably Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, a Jordanian — seems more likely to influence the next generation of Islamic militants.

Jordan. Saudi Arabia. Our friends.

I fervently hope James Baker and company bring this to the attention of Bush, etc. Maybe he should pound them over the head with it?

“The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint,” concluded a National Intelligence Estimate on global terrorism completed this year.

This is not a startling development, unless you’re a Bush neocon bu-ttkisser. They still exist. Many lurk here, still wild-eyed over Iraq. WMDs! Yellowcake!! Mushroom clouds!

It’s immoral to put lives at risk because one is doctrinaire. And it is a crime to make people die because of a failure of flexibility.

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

Rcwwc @ 2:15,

I found your WaPo story buried deep in the bowels of their web site. They apparently weren’t that proud of the story when they first ran it on page 29 back on the 8th.

Maybe the reason is that these were fliers put out by Democrats for Erlich and listed the ballot choices of the group Democrats for Erlich.

So now I guess you think it’s treasonous to tell someone how you plan to vote and why. It’s not, the word for it is campaigning.

Besides these guys a c-note a free bus trip and two meals. I thought you Democrats cared about the homeless?

If anyone wants to see the molehill this wanker has built into Mount Rainier, here’s the link.

By rushncap

November 15, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

Just Think, you are right. Who says the Republicans got nothing accomplished?

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

Just think….,

You can play with the numbers and years any way you would like, but if you go back to the election in 1982 (12 years before the Republicans took the House) the Democrats had a 109 seat margin.

So I would say the shift in that 12 years was considerably larger than the one in this 12 years.

By Just think...

November 15, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

That’s ok RW - we’ll let you play fuzzy math if it’ll make you feel better. Your point is incredibly unimportant.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

I’m pretty sure that the 40 year democrat majority also might have been because most of those people were sane and loved their country, unlike this current crop of pinkos.

Call me old fashioned but I actually miss those days.

By Just think...

November 15, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

RW - Besides, we aren’t done yet. We’ll win the presidency and even more Congressional seats in ‘08. I’ll bet you can’t wait :-)

By Just think...

November 15, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

The same is true of Republicans. Eisenhower and Goldwater would be considered liberals today.

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

Just think…,

My math is exact, but I agree with you that your initial point was stupid.

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

Just think… @ 3:35,

Planning a little palace coup are you?

As Andy points out, if we elect Democrats that are sane and put the country first then who really cares what their party affiliation is?

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

The top U.S. commander in the Middle East warned Congress Wednesday against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, saying it would impede commanders in managing U.S. and Iraqi forces.

Well, that settles that question, remember you can’t question the generals, you just get to STFU.

So STFU.

By Buy Danish

November 15, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

((It would seem you would prefer to be subserviant to your husband, work well with his other wives, and go down to the public square to stone the adulteress to death before you buy a slave to work your fields}}

N-Ga (Ignorant Goat),

This hysterical view reveals that you are about as educated and enlightened as those worms you all claim we evolved from.

The only people I know of that are doing any stonings are Islamists, many of whom live under Sharia Law - which is not to be confused with The Constitution of the United States.

Many of them also happen to have many wives and expect subservience from them to a point that is beyond the comprehension of Americans - precisely because it is so alien to our culture.

Please don’t bother telling me about the few nutcases who believe in Polygamy or subservient wives in the U.S. They do not represent anyone but themselves and their beliefs have nothing to do with Samuel Alito’s right to serve on the Supreme Court.

Graze that.

Diogenes,

I said that Judeo-Christian influences were NOT EXCLUSIVE BUT UNDENIABLE.

Argue with this

By Just think again....

November 15, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

Eisenhower and Goldwater at the forefront. Today it’s the backside of liberalism we’re looking at.

By Jenn

November 15, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

RW, I agree. If the politicians would put our country first instead of padding their pockets and being crooks, it wouldn’t matter if they were Repub, or Dem.

By Huge

November 15, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

By Huge Selectiive Reader of the Constitution: Funny how people like Huge so often seem to truncate that clause in the first amendment.

RW,

I absolutely could have guessed someone would needlessly jump at that! But you?

I considered adding it and the rest of the first amendment, which BTW you didn’t, but decided not to. And why?

Because it and everything that follows it, adds absolutely nothing to the topic at hand!!! Which is, in case you weren’t following along, my refutation of the claim that the founding fathers were proponents of Christianity and Judaism…

In fact, if anything, it more reinforces my position - any and ALL religions are not to be prohibited.

By Just think...

November 15, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

Ok I mistyped. I said “fuzzy math” when I meant “irrelevant”.

BTW what planet are you from? Where did I say that my initial point was stupid? Dems held Congress for 40 years and Repugnants for 12. Plain and simple. Like you.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

Hey getalife: Who da thunk that when the pinko beast got done eating Republicans that it would turn on your Filthy Mouthed little hero??:

I’m not interested — at this point,” he says of the dangled bribe. “You know, we do business for a while, maybe I’ll be interested, maybe I won’t, you know.” Indeed, he acknowledges, even though he needs to be careful — “I expect to be in the [expletive] leadership of the House,” he notes — the money’s awfully tempting. “It’s hard for me to say, just the hell with it.” This is John Murtha, incoming House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s choice to be her majority leader, snared but not charged in the Abscam probe in 1980. “The Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history,” Pelosi pledged on election night. Five days later she wrote Murtha a letter endorsing his bid to become her No. 2.-RuthMarcusWashingtonPost

Now that’s Karma for ya.

Where are all the I’s at today??

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

Jenn,

Now that cloning is legal in Missouri* maybe we can send Zell Miller up there and manufacture a bunch of good Democrats.

.

*Yes moonbats, I realize the proposition claims to outlaw cloning. It did so by changing the definition of cloning.

By @@

November 15, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

Andy:

I’ve been hearing/seeing that from the generals on the ground years.

I’m not someone who covers my ears or eyes to avoid what I choose not to hear or see.

By Paul

November 15, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

Huge 12:22

Please - when I post something such as the “what’s the diff with Carter and other Christians” please give someone else a chance. Your take illustrates, I think, the essential difference. It wasn’t about power blocks back then. I was really hoping to hear something from end of the spectrum crowd and the the religion bashers. I really wondered if there was something besides ideological hatred. But, their silence just reinforced my impression of their thought process: “Hate Bush - evangelicals are Taliban - Republicans evil.” “Carter was a Democrat? Oh yeah. And a committed Christian? Say What?!!? Oh, well, never mind.”

BTW - I’m not particulary a Carter fan and think his actions now are, well, deplorable. But, I recently met a gentleman who, I found out, is a retired Admiral - 4-star equivalent for you Army/AF types. Guy had quite a background - been retired for quite a while, excellent recolletions of working with Soviet senior officers - some of whom wore crosses under their uniforms (maybe they knew something some here don’t). Anyhow, given his postings I asked if he ever came across Carter. He responded positively, I gently pressed a few questions (why he got out early, etc). This retired officer would say only positive things about how he conducted himself.

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

Huge anti-religion bigot,

Because what I added completes the clause. The first and all the amendments are made up of clauses and you chose to truncate the clause. The rest of the first amendment has nothing to do with it. You do know what “a clause” means don’t you?

What possible reason was there for you to leave out those few words? Let’s see, was it because you were trying to imply that our founding documents were anti-religion?

By rushncap

November 15, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

Paul — why do you think Carter’s actions are deplorable?

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this

@@: Sounds like you don’t get your “conduct of war” counsel from PMSNBC like the liberals all do.

You get to see more than Americans raping and rampaging.

By Buy Danish

November 15, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

He didn’t have to tell people what a great Christian he was and he certainly didn’t try to pollute our governance and our Constitution with HIS beliefs

Huge Blowhard,

You have no problem telling us what a great Darwiniac you are, why should our President not reveal that in his view Christ is the greatest philosopher?

Why is religious expression a right and privelege for Jimmy Carter but not for Bush? Why can Liberals cite Christ as justification for their Socialist beliefs, but not Conservatives - who are to be ridiculed, if not persecuted, for citing their guiding principles?

Why should Bush keep his faith a secret while you are so public with yours?

As for your sincere belief in the creation myth of evolution, since you didn’t like the Wall Street Journal as a source try this from WaPo. It refutes many of the claims by the hysteretical Darwiniacs you cited.

By RE

November 15, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

clone (kln) Pronunciation Key
n. A cell, group of cells, or organism that are descended from and genetically identical to a single common ancestor, such as a bacterial colony whose members arose from a single original cell.

An organism descended asexually from a single ancestor, such as a plant produced by layering or a polyp produced by budding.

A DNA sequence, such as a gene, that is transferred from one organism to another and replicated by genetic engineering techniques.

One that copies or closely resembles another, as in appearance or function: “filled with business-school clones in gray and blue suits” (Michael M. Thomas).

Cloning, the problem with this issue is that it is a complex matter where the terms are ill defined. This is a huge problem with sending anything related to cloning to the legistlature, where in general all issues are forced into black and white, up and down terms. I do not think that most legistlators, voters, or judges have enough knowledge of the subject to make a clear definition.

Do you mean cloning as in taking the genetic info from one individual and making a whole copy of that person, sort of the horror show Hitler clone type thing?

Or do you mean using stem cells innoculated with a persons DNA to grow new liver cells through cloning in a lab, and then transplanting that into a patient.

They are both cloning, one method I think most people would support, the other most people would be against, but the term cloning does not differentiate between the two

By Paul

November 15, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

rushncap

I’m spefically limiting myself to his comments regarding the serving President. My impression is there has generally been a protocol observed by ex-Presidents in their conduct and comments towards their successors, particularly those currently serving. That does not detract from the good he has done in providing service to other areas. But it does cast a bit of a pall over it.

By Huge

November 15, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

Paul,

A couple of quick notes about your 4:11.

I’m not sure that first sentence makes any sense, but will ignore it.

And don’t be too sure about your assumptions that unanswered queries here confirm what you want to believe about others.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

Hillarycare!!:

London’s Daily Mail, meanwhile, reports another great moment in socialized medicine: A man fixed his front tooth with superglue after failing to find an NHS [National Health Service] dentist. Gordon Cook, 55, has used the bizarre “DIY dentistry” technique on a loose crown for the last three years—with each fresh application of glue lasting around two months.

Hat tip: Taranto, Opinion Journal.

By rushncap

November 15, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this

Sorry to break this to you, Danish, but WaPo is about as authoritative a source on science as Where’s Waldo books. Evolution is a science, ID is just hand wringing.

By Paul

November 15, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

Huge:

The first sentence just meant your posts often contain your opinion - reasons supporting - citations offered. Others don’t - and often when a query is responded to others let it go. It was that audience (the Bush/Christian evil mantra) I was hoping to hear from.

I take your second point - but as I said the other day, there seem to be a number who fire-forget-acquire new target-fire-forget. Any request for “what did you mean?!!?” even when stated rather neutrally is ignored.

By Huge

November 15, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

“Let’s see, was it because you were trying to imply that our founding documents were anti-religion?”

For the second and last time: “In fact, if anything, it more reinforces my position - any and ALL religions are not to be prohibited.”

Are you even reading these things?

“Why is religious expression a right and privelege for Jimmy Carter but not for Bush?”

Sorry, I have no control over who dispense rights and priveleges. You’ll have to take that up with a higher authority. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Hysteretical? Excuse me? I’m not familiar with that word. Is your English language EVOLVING into something new? Double nyuk, nyuk, nyuk…

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Your comment about what a great moderate Huge is when it comes to religion, made me think maybe I was confusing him with OOT or Thomas. If you don’t pay attention to the name at the top they can often seem the same, so I went back a few days.

Is calling Christianity a destructive force for humanity and nothing but voodoo a moderate stance in your book?

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

Did you read Buy Danish’s WaPo link before bashing it? It isn’t a bunch of their reporters sitting around writing about their feelings.

Evolution may well be a science when it comes to a species improving itself, but Darwinism is a crock.

By Paul

November 15, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

I Voted For:

The lesson there, I believe, is to not duplicate their mistakes - not “no national program or have a national program.” Too many situations are portrayed as an “either/or” choice. Our leaders should pick “none of the above” rather like Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. He could give Hillary fits (please, don’t go there…).

I believe the Brits (and the Canadians) also permit private insurance. Plus, nothing permits those who want to to use their own money to get service.

At one time the National Health was supported by - I believe it was 18.5% off the top of all wages. For everyone. You earned, you paid. Too many in this country want someone else to pay.

We also have a form of national health already - all those people without insurance? If they do get care, someone, somewhere pays. Econ 101 - TANSTAAFL (there ain’t no such thing as a “free” lunch).

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

rushncrap: What did you “evolve” from, a gorilla or an a-ss?

Or did you go from being a clown into a bozo?

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

Huge,

It reinforces your point so much that you decided to exclude it.

Let’s see……….Nope, that one doesn’t pass the smell test

By Huge

November 15, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this

My goodness. Only a few minutes ago, RW claims I’m a selective reader and then intentionally takes comments of mine out of context to make his point. The inferences are subtle but you constantly doing this, RW, reflects poorly on you, not me.

The full quote:

“Until the religious powers stop this endless “my god can kick your god’s a$$, taking the rest of us along for the ride, I’ll do everything in my power to finding the truth through reason and science; not voodoo and madness.”

I stand by those words as an admonition against religion gone powerfully awry as the cause of many of humanity’s biggest problems. Do you disagree?

Your “help” notwithstanding and based on his writings, I’m reasonably sure Paul can read and understand my posts for himself.

Paul,

Your 4:43. Gotcha. You’re a good egg.

By Paul

November 15, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

RW Didn’t mean my impression of Huge was as a religious moderate. Just said in my discussions with him he tends to support his position.

I do tend to lose track of who said what when. Your link took me back - wow - but if it’s the discussion I’m thinking of the point the author made was “no difference between Islam and Christianity does not mean no doctrinal differences, just I do not see an essential difference in what it accomplishes as it’s all myth anyway.”

I could point out numerous doctrinal differences that impact how people should live their lives and interact with others (all you others - don’t even bother responding - do your own research). As for the second, if someone thinks it’s myth, well, I won’t spend much time discussing that. It’s like trying to explain to a traditional Indian that the caste system isn’t really such a good thing. But if that’s a person’s opinion, well, live and let live.

By rushncap

November 15, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this

RW, the scientific community will give you a call when it starts caring about which theories you consider a “crock”. Don’t bother providing the phone #, I’m sure they’ll find it when the time comes.

By getalife

November 15, 2006 05:17 PM | Link to this

RW has a new blog starring Andy

By Buy Danish

November 15, 2006 05:18 PM | Link to this

Huge Phony Blowhard,

For someone who professes than “any and all” religions should be permitted (Wow! how open-minded of you!) you certainly have it out for any public expression of religious beliefs.

The frequent use of the word “pollute” is a Big Clue.

Today it was George Bush. Other times its all the rest of us, who are forcing you, and only you, to “say morning prayers to our deity” -

[By Huge September 28, 2006 02:28 PM …

These mopes just don’t get that there are millions of people who are never again going to allow zealots to pollute our childrens minds, IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, with ancient, fabricated stories of devils, apocalypses and boogeymen. Never again will they be forced to attend or participate in morning prayers to their diety. Sure, they’re p** that it’s finally all coming to an end. Religious madmen have had their way running the governments, schools and everyone’s lives for centuries, but no more. And that is only a good thing…

Hysteretical

Scroll down.

By Huge

November 15, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

OK RW,

You’ll never acknowledge that my words were sufficient to make the entire point.

I’ll take your anally compulsive insistence about using full clauses one step further and post entire amendments next time. Or maybe the entire Bill of Rights? The entire Constitution? Wouldn’t want you, of all my friends here, to think I’m reading too little into something or taking it out of context, now would I? I’ll try to follow your new found rules better in the future! (sarc/off)

BYW, you never shared your views about whether those sacred documents are Christian-Judeo or to what extent.

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this

Huge,

I linked to your comment so the full text is right there for the reader. You stated the damage to humanity first and then said you saw no difference between it [Christianity] and Islam.

You ended the post by calling it [religion] voodoo.

You may not like my interpretation of your words and others might read them differently. That’s why I linked to your ENTIRE UNEDITED COMMENT.

I see that you come back with what you label as your full comment and it isn’t, what’s your problem with the truth?

By Huge

November 15, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

Your last sentence in that 5:12 reminds me of the help wanted joke: Psychics wanted. You know where to apply.

By Buy Danish

November 15, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

There are members of the “scientific community” with creds that I dare say surpass yours who are skeptical of Darwinism.

Why are you so unwilling to entertain any alternative to an unproven theory that has had hoax after hoax perpetrated in an attempt to prove it?

Your perception that the people who don’t believe Darwin’s theories are exclusively a bunch of flat earth people who think the world was created 6,000 years ago is incorrect.

By Huge

November 15, 2006 05:32 PM | Link to this

So I ws right. Hysteretical, not a “real” but EVOLVED word is only found in the “dictionary” at some wierd bloggers site!

I guess I’m just too square for all those hip-hop generation words!

If you care so much and it makes you feel better, just say a prayer for me!

By RE

November 15, 2006 05:32 PM | Link to this

Speaking of Hysterical BD, when was the last time someone told you to stop praying?

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 05:33 PM | Link to this

Huge @ 5:19,

I was pretty sure that would be your comeback. So you’re saying that you either have to truncate the relevant quote or spam the blog thus obliterating the fact that you’ve selectively interpreted something.

I would prefer the actual relevant text without ellipses or your interpretation followed by a link. Obviously you can choose to post any way you want, but when someone withholds relevant information or hides the words in a thicket of obfuscation they just come of as liars.

It’s really not anything to do with your anti-religious bigotry, I’m just pointing out that your arguments are shown to be weak by the simple fact that you would prefer to hide facts that might challenge them.

rushncap,

Maybe there is something to this. You seem to be living proof that a maggot can “evolve” typing skills.

By RE

November 15, 2006 05:35 PM | Link to this

“unproven theory that has had hoax after hoax perpetrated in an attempt to prove it?”

What hoax?

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this

Look, rushncrap, if you want to insist that you once swung through the trees and ate your own dung, who are we to argue?

I just think you should speak for yourself.

I happen to believe there is alot more to it then all the mindless randomness that you pinkos have so much “faith” in.

Your nonsense just doesn’t add up.

By getalife

November 15, 2006 05:38 PM | Link to this

“Conservatives distraught about Republican Party choices:

Michelle Malkin says Trent Lott is an “eternal Maalox moment.” Right-wing bloggers say Sen. Mel Martinez is the “the Harriet Miers of RNC chairs.”

He he.

Mr. Murtha is going to win!

Bwhahahaha!

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 05:42 PM | Link to this

Damn, now Huge is writing me off as just a weird blogger.

I thought you had more game than that Huge.

By rushncap

November 15, 2006 05:46 PM | Link to this

Danish, first of all I have NO credentials in the area of evolution. I am not a biologist, geneticist, geologist, paleontologist or even a cosmologist (if you want to consider Big Bang part of evolution). So it’s not hard to have better credentials that me in that area. Second of all, your statement that evolution is “unproven” and that it is rife with “hoaxes” pretty much disqualifies you from this discussion as a person who knows absolutely nothing about this area of science. Third of all you can produce a dozen people who don’t believe in evolution from the ranks of those with relevant degrees. I can produce tens of thousands who do. You can find more physicists who don’t believe in quantum theory than biologists who don’t believe in evolution. Finally, and again, every theory has problems. ID is not even a theory.

By Paul

November 15, 2006 05:46 PM | Link to this

getalife-

A ray of hope, here. From this morning, can you think of any possible reason why Murtha opposed Democratic legislation on ethics reform?

By rushncap

November 15, 2006 05:48 PM | Link to this

Ah yes, RW, calling me a “maggot”. Good for you. Your maturity is astounding. Do you know how to tie your own shoelaces yet?

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 05:48 PM | Link to this

Hehe, my a-ss.

The democrats have presented a more rock solid corruption case against Murtha in these leadership hearings than they ever had against Abramoff.

These next two years are going to be a thing of beauty, all we have to do is sit back and let pinkos be pinkos.

The rest will fall in place.

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 05:48 PM | Link to this

getalife,

For once I’m right with you, I hope that scumbag Murtha wins too.

By RE

November 15, 2006 05:48 PM | Link to this

Dow hit another record today, anyone out there still saying Wall Street is scared of a Dem congress?

By Huge

November 15, 2006 05:51 PM | Link to this

“So you’re saying that you either have to truncate…”

No. That’s what you’re saying. You do that a lot. I said I CHOSE to use only the words I did as the following added or changed nothing germain to the discussion.

You’ve seized upon this, not to clarify ANYTHING related to the original discussion, but to reinforce your observation of me as a heretic. So quit trying to hide your intentions behind some professorial BS.

“It’s really not anything to do with your anti-religious bigotry, I’m just pointing out that your arguments are shown to be weak by the simple fact that you would prefer to hide facts that might challenge them.”

You can be a master of red herrings and straw men and this is the latest example. Prove my original point (that you probably can’t even state) is wrong.

So just give it up while you’re behind.

I knew referring to your esteemed blog as wierd was a mistake! Sorry…

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

If you prefer in the future I’ll follow your example @ 5:46 and just list things you aren’t. I thought it was much easier to list one thing you undeniably are or are at least striving to evolve into.

Does anyone else want to begin a list of things rushncap isn’t?

Here’s a start:

Patriot

Courageous

Entrepreneurial

Self-Sufficient

rusncap,

The list of things you aren’t is going to be way too long and you really aren’t worth the effort.

By rushncap

November 15, 2006 06:05 PM | Link to this

RE, I guarantee you they’re gonna trot out 1 of 3 things for their “hoax” claim: 1) Piltdown man; 2) The embryo pictures or 3) The moth pictures. Then they will draw a conclusion that since there have been 3 hoaxes perpetrated in the area of evolution it’s entirely invalid as a science. Then they’re going to run away screaming when told that religion has had 100 times as many hoaxes perpetrated in its name, so, by their logic, religion is 100 times less valid. Then they’re going to wait a day or 2 for everyone to forget this whole conversation ever happened, and start all over.

It’s the Circle of Lie. Cue Lying King music…

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 06:05 PM | Link to this

By RE November 15, 2006 05:48 PM Dow hit another record today, anyone out there still saying Wall Street is scared of a Dem congress?

REbot: Thanks for the vote of confidence for Bush’s economic policies.

I’m with you on this one, I hope they remain in place.

Problem is, kook, democrats take charge on January 20th, 2007, so until then, investors will be trying to take advantage of the current climate to maximize profits.

After that, look for a massive sell off followed by a deep recession and sky rocketing interest rates.

rushncrap just actually made some sense, barely discernible as it might have been, but what the hell is goofy a-ss Barbara Boxer going to add to the global warming discussion?

The economy is doomed.

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 06:07 PM | Link to this

Huge @ 5:51,

That fifth paragraph has me cracked up, because unless I scroll up (which I’m not planning to do) and find what if any point you were trying to make you’re right. I have no idea what your original point was.

That could be because the use of red herrings and straw men are bad enough (and I’m not buying your blanket statement that I do that without evidence) but deliberate obfuscation is worse and your truncation jumped out at me, or it could be you poorly stated your case to whomever you were making it to.

I’m willing to call it a draw, deal?

By rushncap

November 15, 2006 06:08 PM | Link to this

Valiant effort to save face there, RW, buddy. You get A for effort. Since you’re silent on the subject, I’ll assume that the answer is an embarassing “No, I can’t tie my shoelaces yet”. Keep your head up, RW. One day you might grow up to be a man.

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 06:13 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

The structure of the Roman Catholic Church is also patterned on the bureaucracy of Rome (Eastern Empire at Constantinople).

By getalife

November 15, 2006 06:14 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I will let Murtha answer your question

By Buy Danish

November 15, 2006 06:15 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

I’m glad you agree that “every theory has problems” which would include Darwinism - big time.

I’m just trying to understand why you, Huge, and so many others get so hysterical at the idea that Darwin may have been wrong - and are thus committed to silencing any rational skepticism.

A few Darwiniac hoaxes:

Piltdown man

Peppered moths

The Scopes Trial

By rushncap

November 15, 2006 06:15 PM | Link to this

Well, look on the bright side, li’l andy. Even if the economy’s doomed, that should not significantly affect your welfare checks.

By Buy Danish

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

rushncap,

Ha Ha Ha. Wrong. I cited some of the hoaxes but did not come to your hysterical conclusion.

You may want to read the true story of the Scopes trial as you did not include that on your list, but it may be the most important hoax of all.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

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

rushncrap: Don’t forget the dolphin with birth defects, er, “legs” and that picture of a fish y’all said was the “transvestite” species or something like that.

If it wasn’t for all these half pigs half fish running around in my back yard, um I’m sorry, swimming around the back yard, oh never mind, I wouldn’t believe evolution either.

By Huge

November 15, 2006 06:22 PM | Link to this

“After that, look for a massive sell off followed by a deep recession and sky rocketing interest rates.”

The economic prognosticator extraordinaire has spoken! So let it be written, so let it be done!

RW,

Draw it is!

By RE

November 15, 2006 06:23 PM | Link to this

good call rushncap

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 06:28 PM | Link to this

I don’t understand why we are using the word belief in terms of evolution. It’s a proven hypothesis that is either accepted as valid on the millions of self-evident proofs available, or rejected on the non-existent proofs against it. It is not part of a belief structure; it is science and the preponderance of evidence supports it, kinda like the Big Bang (god bless Stephen Hawking).

By Buy Danish

November 15, 2006 06:29 PM | Link to this

Diogenes,

Emperor Constantine and Roman Law - which you credit in part with influencing our Founding Documents.

One more example of the undeniable influence of Christianity in our Democratic institutions.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 06:31 PM | Link to this

By rushncap November 15, 2006 06:15 PM Well, look on the bright side, li’l andy. Even if the economy’s doomed, that should not significantly affect your welfare checks.

rushncrap: Wrong again, you’re closing in on 100% incorrect this afternoon, I don’t think there’s enough time for you to get something right.

Under a pinko congress, welfare benefits will rise, remember, you degenerates reward laziness and slackers?

How not contributing to your country but instead soaking up everything that’s free is a liberal business plan?

So that makes me a masochistic Conservative welfare recipient, how about that? I hate that I collect government checks and rail against the practice all day long. Hey, I’m on a dyslexic guilt trip, maybe I can form my own new victim’s status group?

Makes sense, don’t it?

By rushncap

November 15, 2006 06:35 PM | Link to this

Wow, RE, did I call it or what? 2 of the 3 hoaxes Danish trotted out were on my list. The last one is a trial, so it seems our little muffin is incapable of understanding what a “hoax” actually is. I think she is upset at a Hollywood movie’s historical inaccuracy, which is sort of like being mad at water for being so darn wet. I bet you she’s not all that upset at 10 Commandements (the Heston movie), though it’s not accurate either.

And muffin, we’re not upset at the idea that Darwin could have been wrong. We’re upset at the idea that you want to teach religion instead of science and call it science.

By Paul

November 15, 2006 06:36 PM | Link to this

getalife 6:14

Thanks for the Hardball transcript with Murtha. I guess that’s going to be on tonight? I read his response why he opposes the Democratic legislation on ethics reform. He said it was “total crap” to deal with this (also came up in his meeting with Blue Dog Democrats) when there’s a war going on.

Sorry - “weak” doesn’t begin to describe that answer. Either he can’t multitask or he has a whole lot of other things he wants to do (in addition to Iraq) that he didn’t mention that he rates as more important than ethics reform. Either way, his responses did not win him many converts. May have cost him support. Either way, I’d call it a big embarrasment for the Democratic Party.

So, what do you think of his answer? Can’t help but think if the parties were reversed you’d be all over the guy.

By Buy Danish

November 15, 2006 06:36 PM | Link to this

RE,

Those hoaxes I cited for rushncap^^ were for you too.

As to your question as to when I would stop praying, I have not begun to pray and have no intention of praying in the future. Not here.

Unlike Getalife and finch who unctiously make statements like, “I will pray for you” (gag), I do not do that.

If for some reason I found some reason to pray for someone here I would not announce my intentions, and you and others would be none the wiser.

Any other falsehoods about me that you’d like to spread?

Dumba$$.

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 06:36 PM | Link to this

rushcap,

Religion is based on faith and according to you Darwinism is science. Sadly you are probably right that far more hoaxes have been perpetrated on people of faith, but I would argue that scientists holding up Piltdown man as absolute proof that Darwin was right for nearly two decades when all it took was a simple carbon dating test to prove it was a hoax is far worse.

What are we to make of scientists that are so invested in being right that they will fall for these hoaxes and not show any skepticism or perform any tests that might disprove their “finding?”

You really can’t compare the two things either because a faith based belief system can never really be proved. A science based theory, especially one that has been trumpeted as the origins of mankind, should eventually be able to come up with some proof.

I have always been and remain completely open to seeing any and all proof, but I’m not going to be bullied into believing something that has virtually nothing factual to back it up.

One dead giveaway about you Darwiniacs is that you always seem to want skeptics to prove your theory wrong when you’re never able to come up with anything that backs your case other than saying 9 out of 10 evolutionary biologists agree with you. Have you ever wondered why there is nowhere that level of faith in Darwin among paleontologists?

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 06:38 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish

Direct quote from the source you just cited:All of these measures have been seen, by one scholar or another, as instances of Constantine’s Christianity in action. But Evans Grubbs concludes that Christianity is likely to have been a major factor only in the case of the law on divorce; she argues convincingly that most of the Constantinian innovation in the area of marriage was prompted not by religious ideology but by pressures from society as a whole.

I’m still somewhat perplexed how you build a straight line influence from Constantine’s reforms on Roman Law and the structure of our legal system. Our legal system is Greco/Rome in concept, strongly influenced by Engish Common Law. Just because Constantine made reforms in Roman Law, there is a Christian influence on our legal system? As Huge pointed out several times above, the Founders went to great effort to separate religion and law.

By Buy Danish

November 15, 2006 06:38 PM | Link to this

Diogenes,

Evolution should not be a “belief” but for the Darwiniacs it is their church.

Secularists have their religion too.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 06:39 PM | Link to this

Bush also named Alberto Gonzales the first Hispanic attorney general. He made an Arab-American, Spencer Abraham, secretary of energy; a Cuban-American, Carlos Gutierrez, secretary of commerce; an Asian-American, Elaine Chao, secretary of labor; and a retarded-American, Norman Mineta, secretary of transportation. It was as if Mariah Carey and Tiger Woods had children and they all joined the Bush Cabinet. The whole place has been lousy with women since the first Bush term, including Gale Ann Norton, secretary of the interior, Ann Veneman, secretary of agriculture, and Margaret Spellings, secretary of education. For a while there, it looked as if Bush might become the first president whose entire Cabinet’s menstrual cycles were synchronized.

By Buy Danish

November 15, 2006 06:39 PM | Link to this

I forgot to mention - over and out!

By Midori

November 15, 2006 06:41 PM | Link to this

Andy,

while you’re piling on Rushncap, what, exactly have YOU been right about?

you have about the same credibility as the Bush gang.

Son, drunk and stupid is no way to go thru life.

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 06:44 PM | Link to this

RE,

How hard is it for rushncap to predict the most likely hoaxes to be named by naming the most famous hoaxes?

I would say the horse chart that is and has been taught in our government schools for eons is a bigger hoax, but it doesn’t fit the pattern because it wasn’t something planted to make the Darwiniacs think they had found their Holy Grail. The horse chart is just a lie told to children to try to indoctrinate them to Darwinism.

By Diogenes

November 15, 2006 06:49 PM | Link to this

RW,

Let me recommend the books of Stephen Jay Gould to you. He’s a scientist whose works are easy to read for the layman with high school biology. He wrote an essay for Natural History magazine every month for 20 years or more, so most of his books are collections of essays. Very interesting.

By rushncap

November 15, 2006 06:50 PM | Link to this

No, muffin, according to me “Darwinism” is a made-up word used by fundamentalist Christians to reduce a scientific theory down to a level of an “-ism”. It has no meaning in actual scientific discourse.

Pildown Man was a hoax perpetrated ON the scientific community, not BY it. And since you’re so very dense, the reason it was not carbon dated is because carbon dating was not invented until nearly 40 years after the discovery of PM. The hoax was discovered less that 3 years after the invention of carbon dating.

Your statement about paleontologists (being more sceptical of evolution) is false. If it is not, please feel free to provide relevant data to support that claim. I’ll spare this board the suspense: you can’t, and never will.

Finally, you’re about as “open” to evidence for evolution as the Chernobyl sarcophagus. If you really are interested in evolution, you might start at talkorigins.org. But, of course, you won’t.

By rushncap

November 15, 2006 06:52 PM | Link to this

My bad, last post was to our resident sage RW.

By rushncap

November 15, 2006 06:54 PM | Link to this

Diogenes, if Gould’s books require high school biology background, you might need to suggest something less rigorous to RW. After all, you don’t recomment “Les Miserables” to a student in French 1.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 06:58 PM | Link to this

By Midori November 15, 2006 06:41 PM Andy, while you’re piling on Rushncap, what, exactly have YOU been right about?

Skank: I am being kind of mean, aren’t I?

1) Murtha being thrown under the bus is right, either that or y’all ignored your own calls for ethics reform, so I’m covered on that one both ways.

2) Evolution is goofy a-ss theory made up by the God haters so that they have no higher authority to answer to here on Earth, how can anything evolve that hasn’t first been created? Got you on that one.

3) The economy will collapse, remember Jimmy Carter? Haha. Pelosi is worse, imagine Jimmah with PMS, hehe. And don’t try the Clinton guru crap, if it hadn’t been for the dot com boom and the resulting cash burns Bubba would have gotten impeached in 98. The economy he had nothing to do with saved him.

4) I posted Ann’s column, that’s a bonus!

By Huge

November 15, 2006 06:58 PM | Link to this

“I’m just trying to understand why you, Huge, and so many others get so hysterical at the idea that Darwin may have been wrong - and are thus committed to silencing any rational skepticism.”

BD,

I can’t speak for the others, but as for myself, I absolutely disagree that I am silencing any rational skepticism. Nor am I invested in Darwin as absolutely correct. His is the best theory on the open market of rational ideas, it has been so for nearly a hundred and fifty years and it is apparently not in danger of being replaced with a superior one anytime soon.

I think a healthy skepticism is good. It is many times what drives the science forward and adds to our growing knowledge.

But that is not to be confused with irrationally discounting the mountains of evidence that supports the theory.

Nor with just naysaying without coming up with a better idea. An idea that will pass the intensely close scrutiny of modern science and reasoned thought.

Science is in the business of growing our understanding of the universe and everything in it. Religion has a long and sordid history of being in the business of subverting that knowledge. And THAT is my biggest problem with it. Truth and morality will always conquer fear and fiction.

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 07:01 PM | Link to this

Diogenes,

Should I take that crack about “written for a layman with high school biology” as an insult? It’s a tough call because the usual suspects around here usually cut my educational attainment off around the sixth grade.

What I have studied in this regard is the fossil record and every year the fossil record that should be more and more complete in proving Darwin gets less complete. Please understand that I am not saying things don’t adapt and improve. I’m only saying that it’s a tremendous leap of faith to say that Darwin’s theory proves the origin of man, when not one single example exists of one species becoming another.

By N-GA

November 15, 2006 07:04 PM | Link to this

RW,

When contemplating the right wing fascists who post here, I picture you as the court jester, and Andy as the Fool.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 15, 2006 07:13 PM | Link to this

I always picture NG-A Wanker as some janitor who fantasizes about being a millionaire and a war hero.

By RW-(the original)

November 15, 2006 07:14 PM | Link to this

Hey rushncap,

While we’re passing reading suggestions let me recommenT a spelling primer for you. Perhaps you being a sCeptic of my intellectual abilities might make you rethink your own. I said Piltdown was a hoax perpetrated ON the “scientific” community and that they were so happy to have proved Darwin they didn’t even bother to check it out. The freaking thing was found in a ditch or something if I remember correctly.

I spend more time with studying the fossil record than your hoaxes so I might be wrong about the ditch.

N-GA,

Did that post make you all tingly inside?

By SwiftVoter

November 20, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

Which goes to prove that “you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time…… BUT YOU CAN’T FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME!”

Perhaps, the Republicans will learn from the nice Whoopin’ they got for trying.

Mike Luckovich

Mike Luckovich

What's on this page →

Categories

Browse and Buy cartoons

Buy Mike's new book

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

Recent entries

RSS feed

Comment Removal Request

Access Atlanta Blogs

News & Features

Opinion

Health

Sports

AJCJobs Blog

Ajcpets Blogs

Evening Edge Blog

Luckovich cartoon changes address!

Riding the turkey

Comments

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Advertising

AJC Sites

Special Reports

Blogs

Opinion

Blogs

Topics

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Topics

Features

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Mike Luckovich

Mike Luckovich

What's on this page →

Categories

Browse and Buy cartoons

Buy Mike's new book

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

Recent entries

RSS feed

Comment Removal Request

Access Atlanta Blogs

News & Features

Opinion

Health

Sports

AJCJobs Blog

Ajcpets Blogs

Evening Edge Blog

Luckovich cartoon changes address!

Riding the turkey

Comments

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Advertising

AJC Sites