Mike Luckovich

By @@

December 11, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this

ml:

I take it you’re disappointed in the solutions offered by the “Inter-galactic Study Group”.

Stephen Hawkings is a big advocate of taking up residence on another planet. Maybe you could be his neighbor.

M-O-O-N-B-A-T-S I-N S-P-A-C-E…

Sounds good to me.

By Shawny

December 11, 2006 08:24 AM | Link to this

GA dems should be so proud:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/08/mckinney.impeach.ap/index.html

By getalife

December 11, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this

Great detail in this toon Mike.

He has put on a few.

Tom DeLay has opened a blog and you comment here

Good stuff.

By Will Jones

December 11, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this

Nixon got us to the Moon, and wasn’t lying about it? A corrupt tree cannot bear good fruit and we know Nixon was “unable” to correctly recall his whereabouts upon learning of President Kennedy’s assassination (neither could George H.W. Bush or E. Howard Hunt).

Was the moon-landing “faked” to distract us from all of Nixon’s other crimes? This Bush’s “war on terror” to profit from and distract us from his obivious complicity in 9/11 comes to mind. Bush’s grandfather was Nixon’s mentor…and Hitler’s banker.

Would someone please supply confirmable proof that we actually landed on the Moon?

By Nomad

December 11, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

Well said @@

Um Will, please stop hitting the crack pipe.

Nice ‘toon ML.

NOMAD

By Diogenes

December 11, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

Mike,

It’s an excellent carton. Using Captain Kirk emblematically as the bloated, obese parasite which NASA, and government has become is terrific. We have become a nation with few dreams and fewer ideals. “To boldly go” does not resonant as it once did. We’re war weary, bored by a President who has no vision.

By Diogenes

December 11, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

Mike,

The exception, of course, is New Horizons, now happily on its way to Pluto.

By @@

December 11, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Will Jones:

Who’s this “we” you speak of?

Confirmation that you currently reside on the moon is indisputable.

By Jesus

December 11, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

By Midori

December 11, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this

Getalife,

you find the most hilarious links.

that’s a KEEPER!!! :)

By Dusty

December 11, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

@@,

You’ve got the moonbats nailed. Keep up the good work.

By Political Foreskin

December 11, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

Cartoon idea: Show alien superstar E.T. in the year 4040 revisiting earth, which is all rubble, because he opened up a time capsule with a book inside entitled, “The wit and wisdom of E.T.”, and of course the pages are all blank.

oh, He got even. (earth is rubble)

BTW: I hated that whole “heart-light” thing, especially the Neil Diamond song. Neil lost me with Heart-light. Hated that. I think I hated everything after that. Pretty sure. yeah, hated all things after that.

I still hate everything to this very day thanx to that confounded E.T. and his stupid heart light.

I hated Johnathon Livingston Seagull worse. There was a neil Diamond song about that too, (which marked the death of rock and roll, if I remember correctly).

People think it was Buddy Holly’s plane crash. WRONG! It was Neil Diamond’s ballads. What was that man smoking in the 70’s anyway?

Neil did a live appearance on Home Shopping Network, or QVC recently and he looked disoriented. I hope there’s nothing wrong with him, but he doesn not look well, he’s mid 60’s. I mean, I hate the fact that he killed rock and roll, but I still wish the poor sod another several decades of life, even though I hate him and his music.

I like “Thank the lord for the nighttime. There’s an off beat twang, it’s really only one note in that song, that rips me apart everytime. One note. Hate caroline. Hate the new 12 songs album. hate coming to america. i can tolerate shiloh. kentucky woman. i am i said.

Here’s Clinton stealing Neil Diamond’s act: “Did you ever hear about a frog who dreamed of being a king, and then became one…..well except for the names and a few other changes…..actually there’s no connection at all, I dont know why I brought up the frog….”

By getalife

December 11, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

Midori,

The main thread of Tom’s blog was shut down after about an hour. They deleted most of the comments.

But this guy saved them and made a blog.

Good stuff.

By getalife

December 11, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

It would seem @@ is the moonbat crusty:

“ml:

I take it you’re disappointed in the solutions offered by the “Inter-galactic Study Group”.

Stephen Hawkings is a big advocate of taking up residence on another planet. Maybe you could be his neighbor.

M-O-O-N-B-A-T-S I-N S-P-A-C-E…

Sounds good to me.”

My goodness, that comment was from outer space.

Geez.

By Truthman

December 11, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Once again, proof there is no God.

Paul Wolfowitz goes to a synagogue in Atlanta and is not stuck down by lightning.

If there was a God, there would be no Wolfowitz today!

P.S. For all you thumpers out there, check out the article about the confirmation of recent human evolutionary traits - how lactose tolerance has evolved in humans within the last 5,000 to 7,500 years.

Science IS!!

By Midori

December 11, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

good stuff. indeed. :)

these comments are so entertaining :)

By Pink Lady

December 11, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Haven’t visited the blog for a few months now and was shocked not to find Andy or R.W. What gives?

By Huge

December 11, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

Pink Lady,

Recently Andy, aka the resident sociopath, was black-balled from here by someone at the AJC.

I’m not sure of the real reason, but apparently it was either a)he constantly “hacked” into the blog during down times or b)he used his real name when he posted. I know the latter seems to be an odd reason, but I have very strong reason to believe that there may have been some history with the AJC regarding that.

In either case the stench of the guy is no longer here.

RW “cut and run” to the blog at Wooten’s as soon as his inspiration was deep sixed. There are still a few neo-cons here but their hearts (and minds!) are clearly not in it anymore, with the head hate-monger gone…

By RW-(the original)

December 11, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

Pink Lady,

In spite of Huge blog psychologist’s off base diagnosis, the real reason is that the parrots here never say anything other than “Bush sucks” and we prefer a fact based debate.

If we ever get any liberals over here with functional brains we’ll be back.

By @@

December 11, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

Dusty:

You are too kind….and then there’s getalife. :-)

I’m just in for a minute before I have to leave.

What exactly do you want me to keep up with? ^^^ Nineteen comments in 5 1/2 hours.

Slow, very, very sloooooooooowwwwwwww!

Out for the day.

By Proud Pinko Liberal

December 11, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

If we hadn’t invaded Iraq this would not be happening:

“The Taliban gunmen who murdered two teachers in eastern Afghanistan early Saturday were only following their rules: Teachers receive a warning, then a beating, and if they continue to teach must be killed.

The new list of 30 rules, decided on during a high Taliban meeting in September or October and since circulated over the Internet, span from the organizational - no jihad equipment may be used for personal means - to the health conscious - militants are not supposed to smoke.

They also contain a grave warning for aid workers and educators.

Rule No. 24 forbids anyone to work as a teacher “under the current puppet regime, because this strengthens the system of the infidels.” One rule later, No. 25, says teachers who ignore Taliban warnings will be killed.” Read on…

By Midori

December 11, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

I can’t speak for others, but I’m waiting for the idiots to finish up with their unfunny and moronic “puns”, so that they will leave and we can get some real conversation/debate going here.

You wingnuts are only here to cause trouble and post your moronic insults.

I see it was @@’s turn to lead the parade.

By getalife

December 11, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

Ah , this blog is at peace after we bashed the lunatic fringe from this site.

A shining example for peace in the world.

Victory is ours.

By Dusty

December 11, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

Ah Pink Lady,

As you see, this blog has shrunk to the name-callers, the brainless Bush whackers, the dump-on-others and those who can never forget Andy as their most favored subject.

Perhaps Luckovich will go back to his Bush propaganda ‘toons. Liberals will then congratulate him, pat each other on the back and refresh their nasty-names list.

Luckovich has lost his ability to shock. Conservatives are becoming immune to his pen and ink propaganda. They have mostly moved on to a blog with discussion, not just ‘cussin’.

In case you forgot, the two passwords on this blog are “Bush sucks” and “Impeach Bush”. That’s about the extent of the liberal vocabulary. Have fun!

By getalife

December 11, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

Former Rep. DeLay, indicted on state campaign finance charges, begins new ‘career’ as blogger. Update: DeLay shuts down comments, removes blog posts Sunday, then ‘relaunches’ on Monday

Hehehe.

By Dubya

December 11, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

Bush. Creating enemies faster than we can kill them. Impeachment? It’s not just for b***** any more. Bad President - no banana! God bless Murcuh.

By Proud Pinko Liberal

December 11, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

Great story about how peace is always attainable.

By Abe

December 11, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

Bushie, the drunken dork, is still speaking about “success” today. Go get em,you neocons.

By H.R.

December 11, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

Here ya go mikey. You can close up shop now.

Let the KosKiddies here pick something off of Santa’s list.

You can take a well deserved vacation.

By Political Foreskin

December 11, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Cartoon idea: Show Laura Bush as a first lady gone wild…naw, that goes too far…..

Instead, show the 72 muslim virgins gone wild, as they show their moustaches for beads…..(btw: what islamists dont tell you is that each martyr gets the same 72 virgins……..ew)

no, show a troop of girl scouts gone wild for cookies….(what cub scouts dont tell you is that each pantie raid at scout camp has been on the same girls for the past 50 years…..ew)

no, show a …aw to heck with it, I got nuthin

By Proud Pinko Liberal

December 11, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

Political Foreskin - Looks like you’ve been watching too much late night TV and the commercials that go with it :-)

By Huge

December 11, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

“Conservatives are becoming immune to his pen and ink propaganda.”

Perhaps. But I have never seen a conservative posting here, so the point is moot. Also, I really doubt the neo-con drive bys who are just seething about the “scribbler” are ever going to end.

True conservatives love the first amendment. They know that patriotism can mean speaking out against the government when it is unjust or inept. Mindless posers like Dusty, hate it, and would love to silence any voices unless they agreed with them…

By Paul

December 11, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

Hello Midori,

Back about the 5th of Dec. you took issue with the Syracuse Prof’s book asserting conservatives are more generous (donate to charity) than liberals. You ended with:

“maybe conservatives are “generous” with their own money because they got it from screwing over everyone else?”

and made other references to the effect of, well sure they can be generous, they’re rich.”

Could I ask you to consider the review provided by John Stossel at

Link:http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=jst

He noted some interesting mythbusters from the data:But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red — conservative — states in the last presidential election.

The second myth is that people with the most money are the most generous. But while the rich give more in total dollars, low-income people give almost 30 percent more as a share of their income.

Note that Brooks said the “working” poor. The nonworking poor — people on welfare — are very different, even though they have the same income. The nonworking poor don’t give much at all.

Finally, Brooks says one thing stands out as the biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable: “their religious participation.” Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money — four times as much.

Oh, he also found conservative-headed families make less money than liberal-headed families. But the most telling observation was this:

You find that people who believe it’s the government’s job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away.”

Who was it who was going on about income redistribution?

Before you launch, I’m not saying liberals are cheap, selfish, or uncaring. I’m just pointing to an article that says when reality meets myth, reality wins.

Cheers

By Willy

December 11, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

Is it my imagination or have most of the rats abandoned ship, leaving only their droppings behind? Dustmites like DUTHTY, RW, @@. Refreshing change at least for the moment. They’ve gone to that special place where hatemongers gather on a Monday. Make that…any day.

By Midori

December 11, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I’m sorry, but between Dec. 5 and Dec. 11, I got lost in the middle of reality.

I don’t have time to travel back in time with you right now.

I’ll respond to your non-points, backed up by RW hacks, later — if you don’t mind.

By rushncap

December 11, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

Paul, while your point is interesting, there are other ways to care for people besides simply giving to charity. The concept that the government should provide for the poor is an inherently liberal concept. Yes, giving to charity is a great thing, and should be encouraged. But it’s also unreliable. Giving to charity almost certainly takes a dive during times of economic hardship, when people have less income. This is also when there are both more poor, and when the poor are more desperate. The whole point of government is to provide for the welfare of the people it governs. This doesn’t just mean maintain an army, this also means that there has to be some mechanisms to ensure that people aren’t dying of hunger like in many other parts of the world. So what’s the moral difference between giving $500 to a charity or fighting to pass a law that would deduct those $500 from your income over the period of a year?

P.S. The Salvation Army is well known as a Christian organization. I personally don’t give to Christian organizations, preferring non-affiliated ones like Medicines Sans Frontiers. The same could account for lower donations in SF. Maybe not all of it, but some.

By Paul

December 11, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

Sure, Midori.

Your comments stayed on my mind for a day or two - I spend a lot of time with the “decide by data” routine so I see this all the time. I just saw this entire issue as another step along the road of cynicism - those (leaders) who proclaim fairness, generosity and “fairness” while savaging the other end of the spectrum turn out to be of the mindset “it’s the government’s job, not mine.”

Side issue - I was talking with one of (last election) Kerry’s state people who was bemoaning the inadequacy of the prescription drug plan, then said how her parents should have medical assistance, too (they are anything but poor). I responded with “My gosh, now you want me to pay for your parents’ medical bills?” She said “no, I want the government to pay” to which I asked “and where do you think government gets its money?”

If you take analysis of data by a nonpartisan Syracuse professor as non-points - just how do you look at data, anyhow? If it doesn’t fit the ideology, disparage it?

By RW-(the original)

December 11, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

Midori,

You’ve already proven you are perfectly capable of doing your own hacking.

I might add that when you took issue with Paul it was supposedly based on your own personal knowledge. Did you also have your memory scrubbed when you had your parrot droppings cleaned up here?

NEWS FLASH:

Dennis Kucinich has announced that he is going to announce tomorrow that he’s running for President again.

Why does somebody have to announce an announcement if they tell you in the announcing announcement what they’re going to announce?

By Paul

December 11, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

rushncap:

My point was not that charity is the only, let alone primary, means of providing for those in need. Both charity and government have their place. My point was those who sometimes make the loudest noises about “fairness” and “compassion” can act with much self righteousness towards the “right” - yet the data seems to show the actions don’t match the rhetoric. I found most interesting the line that those who believe most in income redistribution are much less likely to voluntarily give of their own means to achieve that goal.

Hello, RW (the original) - I turned a toast your way last night - was on the back patio fixing Buffalo Wings - no Genny, but had some decent ale.

By Paul

December 11, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

rushncap:

Sorry I missed the question:

“So what’s the moral difference between giving $500 to a charity or fighting to pass a law that would deduct those $500 from your income over the period of a year?”

I’d have to say the difference is one is voluntary, one seeks to make it mandatory (imposed) for whatever group is being targeted by the legislation. Plus it’s a matter of choice - one can choose, and finetune, where one wants (or doesn’t want) one’s money to go, just as you pointed out with the Salvation Army example.

By Midori

December 11, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

RW,

your mommy is calling.

go home and wipe your snotty nose.

i understand you have a hacking cough.

By RW-(the original)

December 11, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

Paul,

You have me confused with someone else on the Buffalo Wing front, but thanks for the toast.

We’ve declared this blog open for happy hour from 6 to 7, see you then if you’re still around.

By Midori

December 11, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

P.S., RW,

from the inception of this blog, Andy kept name jacking and tried to escape culpability by constantly pointing the fingers at others. it is an old and stupid trick, and got older and stupider each time he did it.

yet, you are determined to continue that abusive, immature behavior.

just keep repeating your filthy lies, scum. why not tap your feet together three times each time you repeat your ignorant lies? it worked for Dorothy, didn’t it?

bottom line, jerk, is you know full well that you hacked into this blog and tried to pass the hacking off onto me. the AJC busted your sorry hacker/wingnut-in-arms Andy, and I can’t wait until they show your worthless a$$ the door, too.

By Paul

December 11, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

RW-(the original)

That wasn’t you who was preparing Buffalo Wings (Anchor Bar Original Recipe) some weeks back? Ah, well.

Might you specify “happy hour from 6 to 7” as “am” not “pm” for some of the posters?

By rushncap

December 11, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

Paul, thanks for your response, but I feel you omitted the meat of the matter. I honestly don’t know who gives more, or whether you’re right and conservatives are more generous. But, again, the main issue I see is that when times get tough, it is the government that sometimes has to support those those are down and out. It’s not the ideal situation, but reality is anything but ideal. Liberals are far more likely to fight for that. And yes, we are not stupid, we realize that it’s us getting taxed more and losing money, as well as others.

Is this a situation that’s ripe for abuse? Absolutely! But just like our justice system claims that “it’s better for 10 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be imprisoned” (hence the “reasonable doubt” standard), so do I feel that I’d rather have 10 lazy bastards get my hard-earned money for nothing than 1 man die of hunger or disease because he fell through the cracks. I would rather try to weed out abuses in the system than get rid of the system. Does that make me less generous? I dunno…

By Paul

December 11, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

rushncap:

I think both have their place. I have family who’ve benefitted from the largesse of other taxpayers - and I’ve contributed a fair amount voluntarily to charities (and taxes), as well. I don’t like to make this personal - just saying I can see both sides. My objection, frankly, is with many on the ultraleft who vilify their political opponents for being “selfish” and so on, while their own actions are anything but helpful. I’ve mentioned many examples (on both sides of the aisle) - but hyperpartisans have made themselves open for questioning - Pelosi and her nonunionized (and fired if they try) farm workers, Kennedy/Edwards with tax avoidance trusts, Soros moving huge sums offshore. If they’d just admit - yeah well, it’s hypocritical, but I want to keep my money - I could respect that.

Government programs can be well run. Unfortunately, it takes government regulators (or contracts with managers/auditors) to make it so. Then you run into politicians who say “cut government” and there go the inspectors. And who commits a lot of fraud? Medicare/medicaid with doctors and medical suppliers? The sums are vast - in NYC it’s estimated at hundreds of millions, then little action taken. That, I think, violates the trust people put in their elected and nonelected officials.

By Goldie

December 11, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

Boy, the atmosphere has sure gotten a lot nicer here, now that the Lysol has been sprayed and most of the Neo-con trolls find it too clean-smelling for their purposes!

Nice!

By Goldie

December 11, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

GORE/OBAMA ‘08

Gore chases Oscar nod, possible 2008 bid

By Mrs. Godzilla

December 11, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

Goldie, I am sooooo with you on that.

By Dusty

December 11, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this

RW,

If you are going to have happy hour from 6 to 7 PM, I might stick around a bit. Chew the fat or something.

OH, and I must remind Huge that I do NOT wish to silence everyone here who does not agree with me. Nope, all insults are accepted in the spirit of Christmas. I make no promises after the New Year.

Oh, Paul and rushncap, the mailman just brought me SEVEN letters requesting contributions for their institutions. That’s just today. All are claiming a shortage of donations. Must be a bad year for giving.

By Huge

December 11, 2006 05:43 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

I wonder if RW and BD might not double date and go to the showing of An Inconvenient Truth this wednesday night at the Temple! Can you picture that?!

I also forgot to ask her how that Dixie Chicks concert was last week!

By The Dems Promising 2008?

December 11, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this

Looking good for Republicans but dim for the Dems.

Forget Obama. His inexperience will be exposed and he’ll be defeated if nominated.

By Dusty

December 11, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this

OK, Huge…

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

By RW-(the original)

December 11, 2006 06:04 PM | Link to this

DING DING DING

The bar is open for the first luckovich Happy Hour:

Let’s see if we can’t get that post up to about 65 today!

By RW-(the original)

December 11, 2006 06:09 PM | Link to this

Huge,

Are you just using BD and myself to ask Goldie out? I think I could sit through Al Gore’s fairy tale and go see the Dixie Chicks, but I doubt I could stand having you around. Sorry!

Dusty,

Can I get you one of those Cream Cordials?

Paul,

Obviously happy hour has to be PM, the blog isn’t open in the morning. (Well except maybe to Midori if she’s still loaded from the night before)

By Huge

December 11, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this

And a Happy New Year to you Dusty.

By Paul

December 11, 2006 06:16 PM | Link to this

RW-(the original)

Obviously?!!? Whatever happened to “it’s five o’clock somewhere!”?

By RE

December 11, 2006 06:22 PM | Link to this

Nice post about the dem prospects for the 08 election. Really, how can they turn things around with only 22 months left?

By Goldie

December 11, 2006 06:22 PM | Link to this

“Forget Obama. His inexperience will be exposed”

Obama is inexperienced? HA!

So what was the “experience” that got you so excited for Dubya in 2000 — was it the fact that he literally drove his oil-rigging business into the ground and had to get his DAD to bail him out again? Is that the “experience” that you believe makes a great candidate for prez?

ROFLMAO!

By RE

December 11, 2006 06:25 PM | Link to this

So which will be more sought after for the 2008 GOP candidates; an endorsement from president Bush or a case of syphilis

By Huge

December 11, 2006 06:29 PM | Link to this

RW,

I never thought it could happen, but it appears that you’ve now replaced BD as the one here fixated on me. My message though, is the same; you are definitely not my type…

By RW-(the original)

December 11, 2006 06:31 PM | Link to this

Paul,

That works fine for anywhere outside the blog, but we are constrained by the posting hours here.

rushncap,

Nice of you to contribute your private money to organizations that operate outside the US and then demand higher taxes from the rest of us to take care of domestic problems.

I also think you’re extremely misguided in your theory that there is a large dropoff of charitable contributions during poor economic times. Maybe if we got to another great depression that would be true, but generally when a need is identified the American people step up to meet that need. I would venture to say that your scenario is about 180 degrees wrong and that it’s during more prosperous times that charities have a harder time convincing people of the charitable organization’s need.

Over taxation to create a nanny state is much more likely to curtail charitable contributions.

By RW-(the original)

December 11, 2006 06:36 PM | Link to this

Huge,

See this is why there is so little point in posting here. You are either dumb as a fence post or for some reason you want everyone to think you are. You asked Goldie if BD and myself might want to double date. Presumably you were the other couple.

I won’t dignify your ignorance further on this topic. It’s happy hour you freak! Grab a cold one and toss one over here.

By Paul

December 11, 2006 06:37 PM | Link to this

Goldie

Would it be too much to ask, just for the Obama topic, if, when someone makes a crack about “experience” that you cite the experience, or, failing that, cite other reasons why he’d make a good candidate?

Answering with “well, Dubya…” just makes it seem the naysayers have a point.

By Goldie

December 11, 2006 06:41 PM | Link to this

RE— I think you summed it up well for the GOP! I’m sure there might be a couple of candidates that would hold their noses and select Dubya over a case of syphilis, but regardless, they’re gonna have a hard time selling Americans on their brand of “values” these days!

By Goldie

December 11, 2006 06:47 PM | Link to this

I’d take Obama’s experience in a dog-pound over what Dubya has brought to Americans!

You Neo-cons seem to believe that Obama just “appeared” on the scene 2 months ago. If you did even a little bit of research, you’d know that he was a rep. for the state of Illinois before being elected to the U.S. Senate. And before all that — well, you can do some research yourself, Paul, if you’re really curious!

By Paul

December 11, 2006 07:01 PM | Link to this

Goldie… it strikes me as hopeless. I was pretty much repeating what I heard Sen Obama say on NPR. Guess the validity of a point depends upon the messenger.

By The Dems Promising 2008?

December 11, 2006 07:04 PM | Link to this

Goldie, Even Obama admits he’s the flavor of the moment. The stand-in for change.

Americans see terrorism as a real threat. I doubt if the American people are going to place much confidence in a man who had this to say:

” that although I believed Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, coveted nuclear arms, scoffed at UN resolutions and butchered his own people, he sensed “the threat Saddam posed was not imminent”

It won’t happen but you can dream your silly dreams.

By RW-(the original)

December 11, 2006 07:13 PM | Link to this

The first time Obama was actually asked a question during his weekend coronation he answered by saying all Republicans are racists. If we had an inquiring press BHO would flame out in a month.