Atlanta Weather

Cloudy

45° F

Pollen 1

Air quality 37

| Traffic

Luckovich cartoon changes address!

Mike Luckovich’s cartoon has moved to a new ajc.com address. Click here to view and bookmark.

The new format features a larger version of Mike’s cartoon for the day and allow readers to vote. There are also links to recent Luckovich cartoons and special galleries.

Bloggers who want to comment on issues in the news are invited to blog at any of our four other Opinion blogs:

Thinking Right

Jay Bookman

OpinionTalk

Woman to Woman

Home > Opinion > Mike Luckovich > Archives > 2007 > January > 03 > Entry

The noose

By Mike Luckovich | Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 07:43 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Do you like this cartoon?
  Yes
  No


Voter Limit: Once per Hour
View Poll Results

Permalink | Comments (135) | Categories: Editorial Cartoon

Comments

Commenting is now closed for this entry.

By Proud Pinko Loberal

January 3, 2007 08:04 AM | Link to this

Nice one ML!

By Bushwhacker

January 3, 2007 08:11 AM | Link to this

Oooooboy. This un’ll make the wingnuts blow chunks out their ears. They’re just gonna get all high n mighty and regurge a bunch of Bushspeak but they’ll never admit that the execution was botched just like everything else the whitehouse republimonkeys have ever done. Now that Bush has made Hussein into a revered martyr and rallying cry for the entire jihadist movement, what else can the Chimperor screw up in the next couple of years? Maybe an impeachment ain’t such a bad idea, after all!

By Scooter

January 3, 2007 08:15 AM | Link to this

Gosh ml, we (the US) wanted to delay the hanging a couple of weeks and we were not involved in the actual execution. The sovereign Iraqi government performed the execution at the time they CHOSE and with the people they chose, but you say Bush botched it. The “media” (not you, you’re a cartoonist) keep showing their true partisan nature and for that I commend them.

Wouldn’t it be better if Saddam was still in power and the noble UN rapists and embezzlers were still handling Iraq’s 13th, 14th, 15th… years of non compliance with Resolution 687? Iraq seemed fine when the US “media” wasn’t focused on it and Saddam was winning elections with 98% of the vote.

Iran sure is taking UN threats seriously aren’t they?

By Bushwhacker

January 3, 2007 08:17 AM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - Two of the Democrats’ top goals — a higher minimum wage and federal funding of embryonic stem cell research — enjoy broad public support as the party takes control of Congress for the first time in a dozen years.

An overwhelming majority also supports making it easier for people to buy prescription drugs from other countries.

It’s so much easier to govern effectively when the true majority of the people have actually voted for and support their elected officials and their agendas. Kinda like the opposite of what we got with BUSH!!!

By w00t

January 3, 2007 08:18 AM | Link to this

LOL!

By Patriotic Foreskin

January 3, 2007 08:20 AM | Link to this

very funny sight gag.

I might have put bush in the noose, upside down, with barbara and 41 just staring, stupified at their son’s ineptness.

By w00t

January 3, 2007 08:23 AM | Link to this

I’ll go ahead and do it for Andy and the others. I’ll try my best to impersonate them.

/crazy neocon speak on

Saddam was a bad, bad man, and we had to get rid of him because you crazy liberals would have never had done that. He wanted to buy yellow cake, and had links to Al-queda, and WMD’s. The sanctions weren’t working and he was killing and starving his own people. So, it was in the best interest for America. Oh, and now that the Iraqis are fighting themselves in something we don’t call a civil war, well that’s a good thing, because American troops don’t have to fight them. Besides, more death is always good, and hanging is the most humane way to kill someone. Oh, and taunting someone before they die is ok in my book.

/crazy neocon speak off

By reebok

January 3, 2007 08:32 AM | Link to this

That is hilarious. Get ready for the rightwingnuts to go crazy…(crazier?)

By Bushwhacker

January 3, 2007 08:42 AM | Link to this

Gosh ml, we (the US) wanted to delay the hanging a couple of weeks and we were not involved in the actual execution.

This is the typical Republican strawman tactic. America didn’t have anything to do with Hussein’s execution and martyrdom, it was all the Iraqi’s fault that we didn’t monitor them and keep the executioners in line. We had good strategy going into Iraq, it’s all the troop’s fault for not fighting effectively ‘cause we said the war the responsibility of the troops on the ground. It’s the whistleblowers fault that we keep leaking classified information, the problem is partisanship, not that the current administration can’t keep a secret. Republicans keep offering up strawman, after strawman, after strawman to excuse themselves. The American voter is sick of their excuses, we want performance that will benefit America, not excuses ! ! !

By Dusty

January 3, 2007 08:43 AM | Link to this

Except for Scooter, we have the usual liberal crowd fighting against our country instead of the terrorists.

Way to go, Luckovich. Your white flag is in the mail.

By Thomas

January 3, 2007 08:49 AM | Link to this

Yes —

Saddam needed to go - and perhaps be killed. Personally I feel it would have been better to have just assasinated him along with his two murderous relatives rather than invade Iraq. Far less collateral damage. And after the assasination and a brief internal power struggle for their next leader we could court the new leader of Iran diplomatically.

The United States had custody of Saddam, and we turned him over to the very religion based faction that has always wanted him dead due to him suppressing their political power of rule by shira law. We should have kept him under life in prison (as our prisoner) just like Noriega, and not given him to his fanatical enemies. The group killing him and the timing of the hanging all looks staged and as if we orchestrated it.

Yes the USA will definitly be blamed for this!

What has occurred now is the weakening of Iraq resulting in the United States now in the moral low ground around the world because we have made the region unstable.

I predict that Iraq will eventually erupt into a full civil war between Sunni, Shiite, and Kurds (not to mention any other faction that see’s Iraq as a ripe plum). This will be the new Lebannon. Our troops of course will be clay pidgeons being shot at by all 3 sides seeing as Americans are viewed as the enemy by all three warring factions.

Sunnis’ (and Bathist) have been weakened and will fall first. Then the Kurds will be crushed by Shiite fanatics and Turks who both consider Kurds invaders.

After the Civil war ends, I figure the Shiites of Iraq, and the Shiites of Iran will cozy up to each other and become allies (if not before or during the war). Then the two countries of Iran and Iraq will use their Nuclear technology threat to be the big bullys in the middle east.

And we won’t even begin to go into the issues of North Korea as a Nuclear power and how that may play into issues in the middle east!

Happy Nuke Year Everyone!

Thomas

By Bushwhacker

January 3, 2007 08:51 AM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - A U.S. judge refused to stop Saddam Hussein’s execution Friday, rejecting a last-minute court challenge by the former Iraqi president.

“Petitioner Hussein’s application for immediate, temporary stay of execution is denied,” U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said after a hearing over the telephone with attorneys.

Another strawman goes up in flames. Just remember when you see a Republicans open it’s mouth, be prepared to hear another pack of lies. To claim that the USA had nothing to do with Hussein’s execution is insulting to the intelligence of the American people. Maybe if Bush had the guts to take some repsonsibility himself, this execution would’ve been carried out professionallly. If Bush had the intelligence to be a world leader, Hussein would have been locked in a 4x4 dungeon for the rest of his existence and have been left with the same stature as Manuel Noreiga instead of being made into a martyr and rallying cry for all of Islam ! ! !

By Thomas

January 3, 2007 08:52 AM | Link to this

No Dusty —

We liberals aren’t anti-American!

We are just damn tired of this President and his neo-con PNAC buddies embarrassing this great country world wide on a regular basis!

Thomas

By Thomas

January 3, 2007 08:57 AM | Link to this

-=-

=== Correction before anyone gets childishly technical here ===

“And after the assasination and a brief internal power struggle for their next leader we could court the new leader of Iran diplomatically.”

“Iran” should be “Iraq”

Although maybe that was a slip due to my feelings about Ahma-ja-Freaking and how I feel about Iran’s little psycho-pathetic leader.

Thomas

By w00t

January 3, 2007 08:58 AM | Link to this

Oh, look, it’s our local Loon Dusty.

Dusty, you’re “fearless” leader has created MORE terrorist. Think of it has a chain reaction, the more we kill, the more rise up. The more that find themselves in poor conditions, the more that are likely to follow people like Al-Sadar and become a terrorist. There is a good chance that this cycle will never end until the Iraqi president gets rid of people like Al-Sadar, or if the president helps to bring his people up out of this mess. Both are unlikely to happen, as Al-Sadar supports president Maliki and the Iraqi government can further blame their problems on us, demanding more money and resources.

There is ONE place that we should have been fighting terrorist and that was Afghanistan.

By candide

January 3, 2007 08:58 AM | Link to this

Would that every believing Christian, Muslim and Jew had but one neck we could Saddamize!

By Brian Curtis

January 3, 2007 09:05 AM | Link to this

Dusty is anti-American, mainly because she doesn’t understand what “patriotism” is.

By Dusty

January 3, 2007 09:06 AM | Link to this

Thomas,

If you are not anti-American why don’t you act like it? Try fighting terrorism instead of the president and I might believe you.

By RW-(the original)

January 3, 2007 09:09 AM | Link to this

There was a very interesting show on the History Channel last night, watching it next time it runs might help you understand, although most of you don’t want to.

ml,

The Iraqis hanged Saddam and he’s currently room temperature. How is that bothching an execution?

By Dusty

January 3, 2007 09:16 AM | Link to this

Woot, you sound just like Thomas for some reason.

Maybe you will be on the next Democratic Presidental ticket . It seems you know how to run the country, the war, spout ugly names and propaganda from your easy chair.

I would never vote for you or your liberal party, pompous one.

By @@

January 3, 2007 09:18 AM | Link to this

Well hell mike, you’d think this information would warrant hanging Uncle Sam upside down, but then he’s a democrat so I guess you give him a reprieve?

A year later, as the Senate was preparing to hold hearings on the Iran-Contra scandal, Leahy had to resign his Intelligence Committee post after he was caught leaking secret information to a reporter. The Vermont Democrat’s Iran-Contra leak was considered to be one of the most serious breaches of secrecy in the committee’s 28-year history. After Leahy’s resignation, the Senate Intelligence Committee decided to restrict access to committee documents to a security-enhanced meeting room.

Former Green Beret officer, now columnist, Geoff Metcalf is on record saying Leahy should have been indicted, arrested and tried long ago.

I did not know that his nickname was “Leaky Leahy”. No wonder Cheney told him to go “f” himself.

Same problem the democrats have had all along, acts of sedition. They just can’t help themselves.

John Kerry(D) - Sedition during the VietNam war

Ted Kennedy(D) - Sedition during the Cold War.

Jay Rockefeller(D) - Sedition preceeding the Iraq War.

And now…Leaky Leahy(D).

Too many democrats are a threat to our national security.

By Dusty

January 3, 2007 09:20 AM | Link to this

Yeah Brian Curtis,

Hanging Uncle Sam by the foot is your idea of patriotism. Not mine. Maybe you would like to show us how that demonstrates loyalty to the USA?

By robert

January 3, 2007 09:23 AM | Link to this

ANOTHER TYPICAL SCREW-UP FROM “WAR-CRIMINAL” BUSH, WHICH IS GOING TO JEOPARDIZE THE LIVES OF MORE “INNOCENT” AMERICANS IN IRAQ…WHEN WILL THIS NIGTMARE END?????

By Dusty

January 3, 2007 09:31 AM | Link to this

Good one @@,

You can add all the locals libs here including Luckovich to your list of Democrats who are a threat to our national security.

By Thomas

January 3, 2007 09:35 AM | Link to this

Dusty -

First unlike some others, I do consider you to be much more a voice of reason than RW and Buy Danish. And lets face it, Andy is beyond reason.

Terrorism is designed to strike fear and terror.

I fight Terrorism by simply not being afraid of living my life normally. If I ran and hid, or over-reacted every time that the terrorist did something, then they have defeated me. So I fight terrorism by ignoring their actions and the fear they use to push their political agenda. I do not support any agenda that is tied with diliberate violent acts.

You cannot fight terrorism with war! It is not a defined target. “War on Terrorism” is just a fancy catchprase to push a political agenda. But it has no substance in reality.

I was fine with the defined targets of the Taliban. That was a legitimate target to be crushed in war. I am fine with attacking Al’Quieda every time they show their dirty little Turban heads anywhere in the world.

But I am not fine with a war based on catch-phrases and lies aimed at the american people as propaganda. That is why I was against the invasion of Iraq right from the day they even proposed giving the President the authority for the invasion. I blame both the Democrat and Republican senators for giving up the basic responsibility of Congress being the authority to declare war.

Bush - has never defined (nor will he ever define) what our mission, target, or even the agenda for that matter, for invading Iraq “a sovereign country” and overthrowing it’s rightful leader. We flexed our mighty muscles and overthrew a world leader of a smaller country. This was the very thing we decried against Russia during the cold war. So is America now to be the world bully? A Dictator of world policy?

I am very much Pro-America, but I am not going to blindly follow the President that “We the People” are suppose to rule over!

I like my freedom and RIGHTS thank you! I fight Terrorism and Despotism by protecting my “Individual” Rights and making my voice heard!

Thomas

By Dusty

January 3, 2007 09:36 AM | Link to this

Robert,

You have just earned the chrome incrusted HONORARY pin of the liberals. It says: FIGHT BUSH. SUPPORT TERRORISM.

Wear it proudly. You deserve it.

By time for the truth

January 3, 2007 09:45 AM | Link to this

A much funnier cartoon would be one of hundreds (if not thousands) of leftist demoNcrats being strung up by their Bush hating feet in a long line of rain forest sourced scaffolds for cut and run treasonous cowardice.

The party of leftist hate is so fascistic in its outlook that it cannot tolerate ANY dissenting views. Watching these marxist-lite scum publicly eat their own in the far left primaries is going to be one hilarious blood sport.

By Shawny

January 3, 2007 09:46 AM | Link to this

Just to be clear…are y’all saying that the screw up was handing Saddam over to the Iraqis?

You mean that it would have been better to detain him in the U.S.?!? How would that be better, because he would be alive and not dead?

How is that better (except for him, of course)? Is it because the liberal mind typically is opposed to killing unnecessarily, even if it is the killing of a brutal, murderous thug?

I am asking, not to be a smarta$$, but just trying to understand.

I get that the cartoon is saying that by allowing it to happen, we have effectively hung ourselves, or at least in the eyes of the rest of the world. Although I disagree.

By Brian Curtis

January 3, 2007 09:50 AM | Link to this

More like “Support America… Fight Bush.”

Something you’ll never understand, Dusty, until the next Democratic president takes office and it suddenly becomes “okay” to speak out against the chief executive and still call yourself a patriot.

By Thomas

January 3, 2007 09:52 AM | Link to this

By Dusty

Hmm —

Shades of McCartheism here Dusty! Now just out of curiousity? Isn’t this how Dictators, Despost, and Imperialist come into control of a country?

January 3, 2007 09:31 AM | Link to this

Good one @@,

You can add all the locals libs here including Luckovich to your list of Democrats who are a threat to our national security.

Come to think of it — This is also how the Nazi Party came into control too!

======

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war … but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”

— Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

========

By RW-(the original)

January 3, 2007 09:56 AM | Link to this

Thomas the Talk Engine,

One can only be a voice of reason to a reasonable person.

By Dusty

January 3, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

Thomas,

I like your even tone in your last post but I disagree with you. I think there is a time when only war can solve an evil problem. WWII is a prime example.

Bush saw and was informed that evil in the form of terrorism was spreading. Clinton was also informed and military action was declared necessary by leading Congressmen as far back as 1998. 9/11 was the show down. Than all intelligence sources said Iraq had wmd.

That is all ancient history but how can you ignore it? If the war has not gone as expected, I don’t know of any war that has. But I did expect more strength of character on the homefront of USA and I am not seeing it. Democrats have replace supporting the country with attacks on Bush. “Support” as shown today by Luckovich should please no one but our enemies. But you see that liberals think this non-support is great.

So, Thomas, we might agree to disagree. I am leaving for other “duties” soon. Don’t let your liberals run “wild”.

By Shawny

January 3, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

I prefer this toon, that DOESN’T SUCK:

http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/EricAllie/2007/01/1

By getalife

January 3, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

After reasearching the hanging, the Americans tried to intervene. Malarki worked around Iraqi law (something he learned from w) to rush the execution. He is a Shiite loyal to Iran and this was done to slap down the Sunnis on the eve of their holiday.

Make no mistake, these Shiites are blowing up American troops so stop cheering for them. It is worse than cheering for the cheerleader, at least he is American.

It was a revenge killing and Saddam took it like a man. He deserved it.

The Kurds will not get their justice and the elephant in the room is where did Saddam get the arms to gas the Kurds?

By Dusty

January 3, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

Uh oh, Thomas,

Now you are quoting Herman Goering and the idea of denouncing pacifists for their lack of patriotism to create war.

Are you a pacifist, Thomas? No, you are fighting the president you describe as the enemy.

Conservatives have never advocated killing American citizens to secure power. Your comparison to us as Nazis is odious. You have gotten as low as Luckovich. Goodbye.

By getalife

January 3, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

Crusty gets all excited when you talk about the Nazis.

She is the perfect fascist.

By Shawny

January 3, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

Here is one of my pet peeves on Lucko’s most wanted:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/03/bush/index.html

Why is he asking the new congress for line item veto to control spending? Why didn’t he ask for that when his party had congressional control? Why are we spending so much money on crap?

They aren’t going to even give him anything, particularly the ability to pick apart their legislation. Nancy has already mad bad her promise of working together as she will shut out the Republicans in the initial sessions.

By @@

January 3, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

Thomas:

I see you as “derailed”, a “train-wreck” with your analogy at 9:52. Let’s take a look at how communism (a despot) prevails within a society shall we?

“Communism fundamentally, a system of social organization in which property (especially real property and the means of production) is held in common.”

Isn’t that what the democrats call for?

Income redistribution? Destruction of a capitalist society. Rendering the military useless?

I keep seeing these demands from the leftists time and time again. That’s why I have come to resist radical leftists such as yourself.

Bush supports tax cuts for all and encourages capitalism. He promotes individual responsibility. A strong national defense against our enemies abroad. He accomodates dissent.

None of those ^^^ are conducive to communism or despotic rule.

I truly do not understand how you guys can’t see the contradiction within your claims.

I guess what RW said about you is true. “One can only be a voice of reason to a reasonable person.”

Paranoia does seem to interfere with reasoning though. You definitely suffer from it.

By Bushwhacker

January 3, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday he’ll submit a five-year budget proposal that will balance the federal budget by 2012 and called on Congress to sharply cut back on costly pet projects hidden in spending bills.

“It’s time to set aside politics and focus on the future,” Bush said in the Rose Garden after a meeting with his Cabinet.

Conversely, it ‘wasn’t time to set aside politics and focus on the future’ in 2001 when King George the 2nd took the throne. (another attempted Republican strawman)

The biggest ‘pet project’ on the congressional books at present is the Iraq quagmire. The Chimperor has finally said something semi-intelligent. Let’s pull out of Iraq yesterday and ‘sharply cut back on (this) costly pet project hidden in spending bills’. Boy George himself said it, let’s support the President and shiite-can his special little ‘pet project’ in Iraq ! ! !

By Thomas

January 3, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

(Ahem!)

By Dusty

January 3, 2007 09:31 AM | Link to this

Good one @@,

You can add all the locals libs here including Luckovich to your list of Democrats who are a threat to our national security.

-=-

Sounds like you are saying ALL Liberals (Democrats) are traitors to me Dusty!

Looks like your saying that only Conservatives should have access to all the nations secrets.

Now would that mean a secret society of Conservatives ruling this country and declaring us (liberal thinking) people of the USA traitors to be Hung!? chuckles

My Goering quote was simply to point out a comparison of how leaders can influence the population to support a war just as Dubya is doing. It is also the road to despotism. Calling the anti-war pacifist un-american and unpatriotic is exactly what you did in support of “nationalism” and a leader. the NeoCons here seem to worship this leader in their fanatacism and loyalty.

I will remind you that there are 3 parts to our government and the President is only one of the three. To blindly follow one part of our government is un-american. It is also yet again the path to despotism! All three branches must work together to make sure laws are fair and just in this nation.

I don’t hate our President - as a matter of fact I supported the attack on the Taliban. I just disagree with his private little war in Iraq! But I mostly object to his domestic policys concerning Environment, Big Buisness Monopolies, Health Care, Tax Breaks for Corporate and Wealthy interest, etc.

I believe we are a country where the Government is “For the People by the People”, not “For the Corporation, By the Corporation”, and “W” seems to have forgotten the “People” in his policies.

Very few policies of this administration have been for the benefit of every citizen, but there have been many changes in law that creates benefits for a select small percentage of the population instead.

To true test of the worthyness of this President will be to see how he works with the new senate and congress and how he negotiates with opposing viewpoints in making policy. With Republicans in charge of all branches it has simply been rubber stamping policy and law. That must end!

Thomas

By Scooter

January 3, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

@@, don’t forget it was the democrats who caged protestors at their 2004 convention. Also, Hitler promised to use government to end the economic hardships after WWI. Can anyone say Volkswagen Beetle, a state produced car every German could afford.

By Goldie

January 3, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

Another botch-job from Dubya & Co.— they should have tried Saddam Hussein at The Hague and thus taken it out of the Shiite sect’s hands entirely. Instead the Sunnis view it as an American trial and now they hate us even more than before.

Not only is Dubya a member of the Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight — his gang apparently Can’t Hang Worth A Damn, either.

By getalife

January 3, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

“Ladies and gentlemen, the wheels are coming off. The president is unhinged. He is alone in his decision to kill more innocent people and doesn’t care if this is not what his Generals, his fellow republicans, Congress and nearly 90% of Americans want. Or if it is doomed to fail.”

And Crusty says go cheerleader.

Just freaking pathetic.

By Nomad

January 3, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

Olbermman and reality are two terms thad do not belong together. Kinda like Hillary and moderate.

NOMAD

By Goldie

January 3, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

Dubya’s enablers like to call any American who disagrees with his policies “a traitor”… and surprise— some of them even condone murdering members of Congress who don’t agree with them!

‘Assassination’ schedule announced for Congress

What a bunch of gun-toting religious dictators we have enmeshed with the Repugnant Party!

By Thomas

January 3, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

-=-

In regards to: @@ January 3, 2007 11:06 AM

First -

-=-

“Communism fundamentally, a system of social organization in which property (especially real property and the means of production) is held in common.”

Isn’t that what the democrats call for?

-=-

(answer)

No - the Democrats do not call for shared property. The Democrats thoroughly believe a “man’s home is his castle”. But we do believe that certain social issues (within a society) should be addressed (such as health care) that improves the quality of life for a nations citizens. Especially if that nations government is suppose to represent those citizens as the true nations ruler. Social programs are not Socialism!

-=-

Income redistribution? Destruction of a capitalist society. Rendering the military useless?

-=-

(answer)

No - None of this applys to Democrats as well. It seems more-so that the Republicans wish income to be held within a smaller percentage of the nation (primarily within major corporate entities). Frankly - “Mom & Pop” businesses are the backbone of our country, and they are being driven out of business by the larger corporate monopolies. That is the true destruction of a “capitalist society”, in favor of a “corporate ruled society” (Fascist market society by actual definition).

And where have you seen me (or any other Democrat) want the military to be weakened? I am for a very strong military and that’s why I hate seeing our military stretched too thin and wasting our military resources in Iraq. Military resources should always be used carefully and conservatively. Basic tactics! Something this President ignores completely!

-=- (Continued below)

By Thomas

January 3, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

(Continued from above) -=-

Bush supports tax cuts for all and encourages capitalism. He promotes individual responsibility. A strong national defense against our enemies abroad. He accomodates dissent.

-=-

(answer)

If only Bush’s tax cuts were for “all”. Most every tax cut has been skewed to benefit only the wealthy class. There has been little to benefit any other class in the tax breaks and cuts. Of course in my position of wealth it has been a great ride, but I cannot stomach what it is doing to Americans and America at large. The tax breaks do not encourage capitalism, but enables large monopolies to eat up smaller entities and consolidate market control and slowly destroy free market economy. Again - Mom & Pop stores suffer under this policy! The same is true with Immigration policy and Dubya’ wanting Amnesty so bigger companies can hire cheap labor rather than US-Citizens.

A strong national defense? hardly! What have we put into actual national defense versus the billions spent in Iraq for control of oil resources?

— and accomodates dissent? ohh thats a good one. Like the times he kept out non-republicans from his “Public” appearances during his campaigning? Bush cannot stand criticism and dissent against his rubber stamped policy agenda. Actually we will see how well he handles dissent with the new Congress and Senate!

This is the same garbage that Hannity throws out there every day, trying to convince the faithful sheep of the neocon party that Democrats are un-american, un-patriotic, communist, etc. I see your just another sheep in the herd!

Thomas

By SarahConnah

January 3, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

As usual, the Bush Reich is challenged by Gerald Ford’s remarks to Bob Woodward so they rush SayDam’s exectution to divert attention. When will this merry-go-round grow stale? Curtsie!

By Goldie

January 3, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

And some other Dubya enablers believe that God talks directly to them. If this is so, God certainly is wrong lots of times:

In what has become an annual tradition of prognostications, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday God has told him that a terrorist attack on the United States would result in “mass killing” late in 2007.

By Thomas

January 3, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

Dang —

Another good guy fades away —

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2007/01/03/0103bizearthlink.html

Garry Betty is one of the nicest people I have ever met.

Farewell - and peace be with you -

Thomas

By Bushwhacker

January 3, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

NEW YORK - Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said in a published report that he wishes he could leave office before his four-year term is up and would not run again.

Another inspirational speech by King George the 2nd’s stooge in Iraq. THIS is the guy that the psuedo-con republi-monkeys say will lead Iraq out of its’ present civil-war quagmmire. Yeh, riiiiiiiiiight. Everytime you see a Republican conehead open its’ filthy boycum encrusted mouth be prepared to hear another pack of LIES and hold onto your wallet with both hands ! ! !

By Bushwhacker

January 3, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

The monthly ADP National Employment Report showed private sector employers shed 40,000 jobs. The report is based on payroll data and measures the change in total private sector nonfarm employment each month.

The war in Iraq is outta juice so the Chimperor’s ‘house of cards’ Republican supply side economic policies are beginning to come crashing down. Republicans think that living high on the hog with borrowed war-bucks is sound fiscal policy. Those of us who can still balance a checkbook KNOW better ! ! !

By regulator

January 3, 2007 01:06 PM | Link to this

@@, You left out one in your list, G.W. Bush- deserter.

By candide

January 3, 2007 01:20 PM | Link to this

We need to sent Dubya for trial in Iraq. He deserves to swing even more than Saddam.

By Edwin Williams

January 3, 2007 01:36 PM | Link to this

To Bushwacker - All wet. Let’s see you back up some unfounded opinions with some facts.

By @@

January 3, 2007 02:02 PM | Link to this

Thomas:

“A man’s home is his castle?”

Well if you’re talking about doing “something” within its’ four-walls that’s nobody’s business and does no harm to another individual, I’m with you.

If you’re talking about “property rights”, liberal judges eminent domain ruling has caused quite a furor nationwide. States have passed legislation to disallow, but the liberal activism was obvious. Bill Clinton’s RLUIPA Act has directly affected my property value.

I liked John Kennedy(D) who had this to say about taxes:

“President Kennedy once said that a rising tide lifts all boats, and he was right. When the economy grows, rich and poor alike benefit from rising wages, incomes, and productivity. Conversely, stagnation hurts all income classes simultaneously. The evidence from the 1960s through today illustrates that lower tax rates correlate with rising incomes for all sections of the population. Even cuts on capital gains and dividends, often though to benefit only rich stockholders, allow for greater investment and more job creation, which ultimately helps lower-income Americans. Though the wealthy pay an enormous share of the overall tax burden, tax cuts on their income would not only bring in more revenue, but would help lower-income Americans become more upwardly mobile.”

(Continued below)

By @@

January 3, 2007 02:03 PM | Link to this

(Continued from above)

Thomas:

Small Business?

These tax-rate hikes would be especially damaging to entrepreneurial ventures, which are the wellspring of innovation and growth in our economy. On the other hand, according to a study by the Small Business Administration (SBA), reducing marginal income-tax rates increases entrepreneurial start-ups, decreases exits from entrepreneurship, and lengthens the duration of entrepreneurial ventures.

When have Democrats ever called for the military to be weakened?

You’ll see it soon enough in the Democrat led Congress. Specific and proven? San Francisco, House Speaker Pelosi’s district sees no need for a military and doesn’t want it there. I think there was also a MIT poll done in 2005 that showed liberals support relinquishing security to the U.N. Can’t lay my hands on it though. You’re welcome to give it a go.

War for oil? My gawd, you’re a conspiracy theorist? Paranoid?

Dissent? T** for Tat? Hell, I didn’t even know that until Scooter mentioned it. And, you guys voted for them? I guess it was all in the interest of national security, huh?

Hannity? Let’s get something straight here “ToeMass”. While I admire Hannity’s support of our military and his patriotism, I very rarely watch his show. If he has a radio program, I’ve never listened to it.

Same goes for Bill O’Reilly. While I admire his drive to protect children, he’s too nerve-racking to listen to.

Got it? I’m sure you didn’t.

Regulator: Go away, you’re just silly.

Over & out.

By tgh

January 3, 2007 02:04 PM | Link to this

Am I the only person that notices this is not a picture of Saddam hanging, but a picture of “Uncle Sam” hanging.

My belief is that Saddam should have been executed, but not to have the actual execution become a broadcast.

The American people who only want to whine, complain and point fingers should have the job as President of the U.S. They would find you are damned if you do; damned if you don’t.

There are many things Bush has done that I have questioned if it was for the good of our country. However, I am an American, true & blue and that blood runs in my veins.

I WILL NOT make an idiot of myself by publicly lam-blasting the office of President.

By w00t

January 3, 2007 02:15 PM | Link to this

tgh, good job for falling for typical neocon propaganda.

You have been trained (brainwashed) well.

By rushncap

January 3, 2007 02:27 PM | Link to this

w00t, how many times do we have to tell you: facts have a well-known liberal bias. This is why the blogosphere is thriving. Neocons have realized it’s easier to get fake news than change their minds based on real ones.

P.S. At this point I don’t care how the execution was handled. It’s over. I’m opposed to the death penalty, but if anyone deserved it, it was him.

By Randy

January 3, 2007 02:28 PM | Link to this

Mikey, I just heard that the guy who photographed the hanging with his cell phone has been arrested.

A shiite arresting a shiite and Saddam meets his hot virgins.

Life is good.

By Republican Values

January 3, 2007 02:39 PM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) has agreed to pay the costs of a 2003 trip to Scotland that apparently was paid for by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, leaders of the House ethics committee leaders announced Wednesday.

Feeney contacted the committee in March 2005, (ONLY) after news reports said the trip was financed by Abramoff, NOT THE SPONSOR THAT THE LAWMAKER REPORTED on a public disclosure form (another Republican LIAR). The media reports also said the trip was mainly recreational.

Republican Values are so twisted they’re humorous. Here, the Republicans teach our children that if a thief steals your car then lies about stealing it until the facts prove him guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever, he shouldn’t be tried, convicted, or serve time for his crime as long as he pays the money back before he can be incarcerated ! ! !

Anybody else wonder where this Republican is gonna ‘appropriate’ the money with which to pay back the money he stole initially? Maybe from YOUR wallet? Skunks just don’t change their stink, do they?

By Craig

January 3, 2007 02:48 PM | Link to this

The real Jedi mind trick is that uber-libs like wOOt and rushncap will give you evidence that we are going through a warming period and then pull a bait and switch to claim man is causing it. Trust me the facts won’t have a liberal bias when you add that piece of the puzzle in.

By rushncap

January 3, 2007 03:01 PM | Link to this

And I’m sure Craig has devoted considerable time and effort to researching global warming data.

By “considerable time and effort” I, of course, mean he went to a neocon blog and was told what to think.

Thanks for your in-depth contribution, Craig. We’ll have the Nobel Prize committee contact you ASAP.

By Thomas

January 3, 2007 03:10 PM | Link to this

@@ —

I agree that emminent domain is way out of whack, and it isn’t just by the “so called catchphrase” liberal judges. Many conservatives are pushing taking land by developers to “improve the area and community” while lining their pockets. This is theft by government plain and simple and needs to be drastically curbed.

What Kennedy said was quite true in his time, but sadly corporations are much larger and much world wide industries than in his time. In short, if you expect trickle down economics to work in this age, you will be waiting a forever. Instead of improving wages for the laborers, you will see instead “More illegal hires”, “overseas outsourcing”, and many other sneaky ways that directors will take advantage of the tax breaks while denying the workers any increases or benefits. As long as they can find a way to increase their bottom line using a cheaper labor pool, they will. Why should they pay even Minimum Wage as long as they have a body doing the job. No it will not trickle down to american workers. Maybe there will be some more jobs created by the tax breaks for corporations, but for whom?

Sorry, but small business as an institution is a dying breed. They are fodder for their short lived business period, and quickly crushed by the Walmarts of the world. Any successful small business is quickly absorbed by a larger business entity in mergers or takeovers.

Yes war for oil - and if you don’t see the PNAC’s, and Haliburton’s and Bechtel’s hand in this then your blind to the truth. Oil is the only thing of value that Iraq has that we are even remotely interested in. Unless you want to corner the market on sand.

Heres Tat -

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL&type=printable

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/29/113651/512

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/03/secret_service.php

http://www.notinourname.net/reports/mlk-15jan04.htm

Just a few ways

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 03:14 PM | Link to this

The Democrats thoroughly believe a “man’s home is his castle”.

Thomas,

That would be the Robin hood theory of temporary Castle ownership.

They let you work your butt of to earn the money to buy your castle, benefit from your hard work by seizing a huge portion of your income in confiscatory taxes while you’re alive, and then when you die they take the castle from you.

After all, you are a greedy pig who only got that castle by exploiting the poor and the working class (something which they have no problem with profiting from when you’re alive) but use as an excuse to implement “social justice” and rob you from the grave once you’re dead.

rushncap,

Please explain how man caused the Medieval warming period and the Little Ice Age.

By Craig

January 3, 2007 03:14 PM | Link to this

Yes rushncap, my facts were only rivaled by those you presented at 2:27. What? You presented no facts? My bad.

Newsflash moron, when you say the facts are on your side it’s up to you to present them.

By Frozen Treats

January 3, 2007 03:16 PM | Link to this

Republican Values. How about something fresh from the Democratic freezer.

Congressional Pork

Be sure and read the recipe for William Jefferson.

Yum Yums for a Democrat.

Whoops, my bad. Their voters are their yum yums.

By rushncap

January 3, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this

Muffin, man did not cause those periods of temperature fluctuations. Are you so dense that you can’t imagine that some things can be caused by man and some not? Kinda like these houses being washed away was natural because there have been houses in the past (on that continent) which were washed away by natural floods and tsunamis?

Craig — the scientific community is in near unanimous agreement that the Earth is warming, and that man-made causes are at least partially responsible for that. How big that part may be is open for debate, but the fact is, this planet is warming up. If you think the entirety of the scientific community is wrong, I’d say it’s up to you to present us with some evidence for why that is so. But feel free to spew invectives. That’s almost as effective.

By Scooter

January 3, 2007 03:31 PM | Link to this

Craig, you are to ignore the fact the global temperatures typically follow solar cycles. Also ignore the fact that the surface temperature of Mars is also rising, because that has no relation to the warming of this planet. Finally, ignore the fact that the Carboniferous period was hotter than current and there was no man, just dinosaur flatulence. Ignore those things and focus on the one solution that affords government more power over the people and a semi free economy.

w00T, do you see anything peculiar about this sentence from your link: “the annual global temperature for 2006 is expected to be sixth warmest since recordkeeping began in 1880.” Was science advanced enough in the 19th century to get a global temperature for comparison against today’s? Do you think back then temperatures were taken only in the heat islands of urban areas and not taken in many parts of the world? How about this; The beginning of the Carboniferous generally had a more uniform, tropical, and humid climate throughout the year than exists today. This is allegedly from Stanford ““BTW: People may be interested in knowing that the variation in the sun’s energy output has far more impact on our climate than the tiny increases of various chemicals. Eg. doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has the effect (on our climate) as increasing the solar irradiance by 0.1% more or less… But really, we can trust politicians to overcome the forces of nature and the universe so we can enjoy a comfortable climate for centuries to come (sarc).

By Frozen Treats

January 3, 2007 03:33 PM | Link to this

Thomas, Do you want Iran to control the world’s oil? The WORLD’S OIL thomas.

Let’s drill the frozen tundra and get some of our own.

You with us on that?

By w00t

January 3, 2007 03:49 PM | Link to this

Why oil? Why not hydrogen, or electric cars? Why can’t we move on? We have the technology to do almost anything we want, yet we still depend on technologies invited in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.

Oh, because big oil puts money in to the pockets of our politicians and presidents?

No, wonder why they want to cast global warming in a bad light.

By rushncap

January 3, 2007 03:50 PM | Link to this

Scooter, here’s a simple question for you:

We know what we emit into the atmosphere (CO2, other carbon-based gasses). We know (roughly) the quantities. We know the physical properties of these molecules — what wavelengths they absorb, what they emit, etc. So can someone explain to me please how it is that they stop doing what they do in lab once they get into the atmosphere? Do the laws of physics not hold up there?

Of course the other straw man put up by anti-scientist on this board (and elsewhere) is “well, Earth has warmed before, and it was not due to pollution”. Yeah, no $#it, Sherlocks. And if there were scientists back then with instruments and knowledge that we possess now we’d probably know WHY Earth was warming then. What, do you guys think it was magic? If Earth is warming, there are —reasons— for it. Earth is warming right now. That’s a fact. The next question is — why? Well, those who think that global warming is a myth come up with “well… uhm… it just happens, all right?!” No. It doesn’t. If it’s not human beings, then why?

By Thomas

January 3, 2007 03:51 PM | Link to this

-=-

Hey Buy Danish —

Just remember - Robin Hood was the Hero of that story, and the greedy rich miserly conservative Sheriff and his wealthy patrons and neocons were the villians! wink

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 03:55 PM | Link to this

Rushncap,

I’m not the one who needs to be convinced that Mother Nature overwhelmingly causes these fluctuations.

Now explain what we’re going to do with all those flatulent cows.

You know it’s really too bad you Lefties have put all your eggs in the global warming basket. It diverts attention from issues like Darfur that might have some legs if Big Gore and Company didn’t suck all the air out of the Liberal universe.

By Shawny

January 3, 2007 04:00 PM | Link to this

Fluctuations in the sun’s energy output, combined with variations in heat escaping from underneath the earth’s crust GREATLY overshawdows anything that man can possibly do to drive the surface temperature of Earth.

BTW…libs on this blog concerned with the “man-made” warming and THE MAN from big oil controlling everything…how many MPG does your car get?

By rushncap

January 3, 2007 04:05 PM | Link to this

Yes, Danish, Magical Mother Nature. She warms herself, magically, for no reason, with no physical mechanisms, just poof! and it’s warmer. No wonder you’re a creationist…

I gotta give it to you, however. Making it sound like Darfur is the Left’s fault. That’s… that’s some major cajones. I guess next you’ll tell us it was Clinton that got us into Iraq mess. I’m waiting for that. I guess if you lie, you might as well go for the gusto.

By Thomas

January 3, 2007 04:06 PM | Link to this

Frankly Frozen —

Oil is old tech. Oil feeds a greedy industry that is self serving and not helping mankind in any way whatsoever.

Time to expand nuclear tech’s for industrial energy, and get trains, planes, and automobiles to start using alternative fuel sources.

Did you know that Rudolph Diesel originally invented his engine to run on peanut oil. It was after his death that big oil interest had the automobile maufacturers modify it to fossil fuel oils so they had control.

Yes you too can convert your standard diesel engine to run yet again on waste oil obtained for free from restaurants and then filtered in your own home. This not only is a cleaner fuel, but any pollutants are recycled by the plants that produce the oil again. Oh and it smells like French Fries cooking as you drive a veg car. Much better than that stinky diesel sulfur smell.

www.vegenergy.com

Or Natural gas, Methanol, Ethanol, or a dozen other alternatives to pumping oil out of the ground and then blowing the waste into the air we breath - Never to return the dirty carbon back to the ground from whence it came.

But no - you want to keep the fossil fuel industry pumping money into their pockets.

I’m so old that I’ll probably die before it really affects me though, - so why should I worry if you destroy the planet with your lack of conservation!

Yes watch the highways continue to expand, the car numbers increase, until we finally do use all the oil and they all stop!

Or we can start utilizing (and putting money into) aternative fuel resources instead of more drilling.

Time to go burn some oil and head home.

Thomas

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 04:06 PM | Link to this

{{Earth is warming right now. That’s a fact. The next question is — why? Well, those who think that global warming is a myth come up with “well… uhm… it just happens, all right?!” No. It doesn’t. If it’s not human beings, then why?}}

rushncap,

Great job contradicting yourself at 3:50.

Thomas,

Unfortunately this is not Nottingham - this is the real world where Robin Hood is now stealing from everybody.

By w00t

January 3, 2007 04:11 PM | Link to this

BD, Darfur is a local tragedy. Yes, we need to help, but you also need to ask Bush and Co. why they haven’t helped out. Global warming on the other hand will affect EVERYONE and everything on the planet.

As America we should be the leaders in fighting green house gas emissions from cars and industry and set the standard. Instead we have dropped the ball, and laughed at the Kyoto Protocol. While everyone else in the world is producing and driving cleaner cars and trucks that get 40+mpg.

We should not be afraid that it will hurt the economy, or that people will lose their jobs. More than likely it will help to create new jobs and new technologies.

Don’t fear change.

By rushncap

January 3, 2007 04:13 PM | Link to this

Thanks Muffin. If you could point out where I supposedly “contradicted” myself, it would be great. But you won’t, since I didn’t, and you’re simply pulling that, as usual, out of the vast caverns of your ar-se.

By Thomas

January 3, 2007 04:17 PM | Link to this

-=-

And Danish —

The Republicans are stealing from the poor and giving to the rich =- Cheers!

-=-

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 04:26 PM | Link to this

{{{By rushncap

January 3, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this

Muffin, man did not cause those periods of temperature fluctuations. Are you so dense that you can’t imagine that some things can be caused by man and some not? Kinda like these houses being washed away was natural because there have been houses in the past (on that continent) which were washed away by natural floods and tsunamis?}}}

rushncap,

Isn’t that ^^”Mother Nature”?? Maybe you were fleetingly a “creationist” at 3:28, but changed your mind?

Now show me where I said that Darfur was the Left or the Right’s “fault”.

My point is that the Left and the MSM is preoccupied with Global warming and it eats up all the oxygen. You’ve wasted decades on this Global Warming fairy tale.

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 04:32 PM | Link to this

Thomas,

Just think about how illogical that statement is. If the poor are poor and have nothing, how can we steal from them to enrich others?

Do you think the Forbes Billionaires got rich sticking it to their housekeepers and gardeners?

Wealthy is not a pie that is divied up amongst the population, with one side getting the bigger piece at the expense of the others.

By Frozen Treats

January 3, 2007 04:33 PM | Link to this

Thomas, In the interest of time and terror let’s drill the frozen tundra first. Then we’ll go alternative but it’ll take time and may end up costing more.

But in spite of the technological promise of alternative liquid fuels, skeptics rightly point out that it will take time to build production facilities and learn the practicalities of operating biorefineries and shifting industry from hydrocarbons to carbohydrates.

We can plug-in right now though. Everybody will have to buy a new car, not plan for a large family, and avoid long road trips.

Putt putt putt putt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Scooter

January 3, 2007 04:33 PM | Link to this

rushncap, did you miss the first sentence of my previous post? Here, global temperatures typically follow solar cycles. Should the congress legislate solar activity?

I have said on here several times that I have no doubt the earth is warming. I have also said people, especially politicians, are entirely to self important and think we can somehow freeze the planet and universe in their current states.

For instance, all of those alternative fuels mentioned by Thomas, ethanol, veg oils and the like. Do we really think those substances can produce enough combustible material to fuel billions of cars into the unforeseen future? If so, what would be the affect on retail prices of the source material for those alternative fuels?

Now a question for you, why do liberals seem to insist on giving gov’t more power and responsibility over free people? Seems to me government has largely screwed up anything and everything it has been allowed to get its power hungry hands on. And yes, I know republicrats will try to use government to legislate a society they see as moral and call that freedom.

Vote Libertarian to tell all these clowns we see through their power grabs.

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

Here’s a fact for ya: So is George Bush.

Next?

By Craig

January 3, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this

rushncap, that 3:50 was some fine pretzel logic. Try this dumbass, we know it wasn’t man causing the problem before and since the cycle looks exactly the same why do you blame man now? It would be nice if you could jump in a time machine with your instruments to check it out. I bet you’d come back claiming it was being caused back then by gas guzzling, time traveling SUVs. Maybe the Flintstones were real and all those foot powered log cars were doing it.

What do you have to say about modern day warming on Mars?

By rushncap

January 3, 2007 04:37 PM | Link to this

No Muffin dear, you’re simply not understanding what I’m saying. I’ll slow it down a bit.

Man did not cause all global warmings. But that does not mean he is not causing this one. Also, every global warming is caused by something. As far as we can tell, the current one has a large man-made component. The one in the Middle Ages did not. The two are not contradictory. If we found a body in the middle of the street with 5 bullets in its chest, I would assume that murder is the most likely explanation. You would say “No, he died of natural causes because last month I saw another body, and he just died in his sleep”.

Was that slow enough for you?

By w00t

January 3, 2007 04:37 PM | Link to this

Bd, Global warming has nothing to do with Oxygen. It doesn’t get “eat[en] up” like you say. It’s all about green house gasses being pumped into the atmosphere which trap the sun’s energy.

Grow a brain.

I guess you’re like some of the neocons I’ve heard. “Everyone will enjoy the warmer winters!”

By Pis-sant

January 3, 2007 04:40 PM | Link to this

It looks like the liberals are back to work, after their long Christmas vacations, and back to blogging full time on their company’s time.

By rushncap

January 3, 2007 04:47 PM | Link to this

Craig — since the high point of your post was the brilliant “dumbass” there is no reason to respond. Have a good day.

Scooter, what solar cycles? Are we on an up-cycle? Is there evidence for that? I’ve never seen it, do you have the link?

You also did not bother to respond to my question as to why the laws of physics cease to apply to gasses once they are up in the atmosphere. Smart decision.

I’m not advocating “freezing” anything, or advocating any particular solution. I’m advocating us firstly acknowledging the problem. Most politically-motivated conservatives still don’t. Once we all have acknowledged, we can move on a to sober debate about solutions. At least in the ideal world, that’s how it works. Should the fact that I don’t have a perfect, immediate solution preclude us from recognizing the problem, in your opinion?

By RW-(the original)

January 3, 2007 04:51 PM | Link to this

While you liberals are babbling about man made global warming check these out, hypocrites!

wOOt,

How stupid do you have to be to not understand that Buy Danish meant “discussion of the problem” when she said oxygen? It’s like you idiots have a race to the bottom contest going on over here.

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 04:55 PM | Link to this

Woops. My 4:35 was for Wootens…

Thomas,

Make that “wealth” not “Wealthy”.

rushncap,

Please see Craig’s 4:35 and Scooters 4:33. I hate to say it but they’re kicking your butt on this subject.

P.S. That dead body analogy explanation was pathetic!

wOOt,

It’s a freaking metaphor dumba$$. The issue of Global Warming gets all the headlines and thus sucks up all the oxygen. Other issues that are vastly nore important don’t get any attention.

Got that?

By w00t

January 3, 2007 04:58 PM | Link to this

rush, he’s talking about the 11 year sun-spot cycle. There is very little evidence to support this cycle to global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

Also, we are the downside of the solar cycle.

By RE

January 3, 2007 05:03 PM | Link to this

On global warming:

Solar cycles do indeed influence temperature on the earth and the rest of the solar system, but global climate change on earth is closely ties to the amount of CO2 in the air. As the CO2 level increases, so does the earths temperature.“>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm)

Fossil fuels are sequestered hydrocarbons. As we extract them and release them in gasous form, the concentration of CO2 will rise globaly. As the CO2 concentration rises, so will temperature.

If you have a question to the validity of global waming, please show some type of evidence that CO2 levels are not linked to temperature.

By rushncap

January 3, 2007 05:04 PM | Link to this

Muffin — I’ll accept your graceless surrender. I’m used to it by now. Laters.

w00t — thank you. Yes, being on the downside of a cycle would quite destroy that theory. Completely. You’d think these idiots would have discovered Wikipedia by now, no?

By RW-(the original)

January 3, 2007 05:09 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

rushncap’s ridiculous analogy works better in reverse. The man made global warming fanatics think if they see someone shot that death throughout time must have been by gunshot even before guns were invented.

I have to say though that trying to read rushncap today is like following Alice in Wonderland on acid. One minute it’s man, the next minute he seems to be saying it’s cycles with man fractionally responsible, but he jumps down the throat of anybody that claims it’s cyclical and not man made.

rushncap,

I would like to hear your answer to the question Craig asked about Mars. You seem awfully scared to answer questions for someone that makes wild claims about your so called superior intellect.

By rushncap

January 3, 2007 05:20 PM | Link to this

Simple RW. Mars is not Earth. It’s a different planet, with different issues. That was easy, huh?

RW, then don’t read me. I don’t want to strain your remaining dendrites too much.

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 05:25 PM | Link to this

RW,

These are some interesting websites not from Wikipedia that make a lot more sense than our resident “scientist”.

The sun

AND

Orbits

By Scooter

January 3, 2007 05:27 PM | Link to this

rushncap, I never said the laws of physics do not apply today. I agree the earth is warming but I don’t think we should automatically jump on eliminating a partial cause that affords government yet more power over a free economy. I’m sorry you chose not to review the links I presented in my first post on the subject. Here, I will recap and then perhaps you would like to address the several questions I have asked you and you have ignored in order to continue arguing. We are apparently entering solar cycle 23 and yes the previous one has been very active I would like to [point out something mentioned in that link and that is as follows; “doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has the effect (on our climate) as increasing the solar irradiance by 0.1% more or less..” Unfortunately, once we give the gov’t the power there is little chance of getting it back.

Here is a graph showing solar activity in relation to global temperatures](http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/) Do you wonder why our “objective media” would not provide such information to the public?

Here, if you ever doubt that you know it all check some of these out

I’m bouncing.

By RW-(the original)

January 3, 2007 05:30 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

Thanks for proving once again what an ignorant phony you are. I see why you normally just talk in sound bites or cut and run.

By TommyT

January 3, 2007 05:36 PM | Link to this

rushncap:

Global warming started long before the “Industrial Revolution” and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age— a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice. Earth’s climate and the biosphere have been in constant flux, dominated by ice ages and glaciers for the past several million years. We are currently enjoying a temporary reprieve from the deep freeze. Approximately every 100,000 years Earth’s climate warms up temporarily. These warm periods, called interglacial periods, appear to last approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate. At year 18,000 and counting our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age is much nearer its end than its beginning. Global warming during Earth’s current interglacial warm period has greatly altered our environment and the distribution and diversity of all life. For example: Approximately 15,000 years ago the earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise. By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bearing Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North America. Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth’s temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet! Forests have returned where once there was only ice.

By rushncap

January 3, 2007 05:52 PM | Link to this

Interesting last link, Scoot. Now look at the end of the graph. Over the past 30 years or so the Earth’s temperature has started to climb faster than at any other time since 1860, without a corresponding sharp spike in solar activity. Don’t you think that should be at least investigated? Not to mention that the last 15 years are not even plotted, and this is when the global warming phenomenon was really supposed to take off.

The Stanford link basically confirms that there is debate as to how much we have influenced global warming, not whether it exists. I agree with that assessment.

I’ll review other links a bit later.

Muffin, your templeofsolomon website is about as scientific as Dr. Seuss. Probably less so, in fact.

By Luckodull

January 3, 2007 05:56 PM | Link to this

Isn’t it kind of nice to see the liberals all upset about the lawful dispensing of justice given to a mass murdering dictator?

Saddam’s hanging probed; Witnesses jeered; video sent to Web

The horrors!

Funny, I don’t remember the Atlanta Journal Constitution “probing” the executions of either Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg.

Did you lefties think they deserved what they got?

We already know that you think we should have left Saddam alone, kept him in charge, free to slaughter his citizens at will, they were only Iraqis anyway, right?

You libs don’t get despondent over dead Iraqis, unless, of course, you can blame them on Bush and America.

Then we get the tears.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By getalife

January 3, 2007 06:15 PM | Link to this

I thought you wingnuts said there was no global warming?

Flip flop?

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 06:16 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

Beats you’re “It’s a different planet” theory and you’re dead man on the street theory, and it has a huge advantage in being entertaining.

BTW, talking slowly does nothing to improve the impression that you have nothing to say.

Here’s a very good website with a cool test at the end.

By getalife

January 3, 2007 06:21 PM | Link to this

Holy crap, Social Security is now available for illegal immigrants who have worked here for 18 months.

w’s little way of reforming Social Security.

Geez.

By getalife

January 3, 2007 06:27 PM | Link to this

DEMOCRATS TAKE CHARGE TOMORROW!

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 06:29 PM | Link to this

Low salaried workers are responsible for my hemorrhoids.

By RE

January 3, 2007 06:30 PM | Link to this

So no one here can find any information disproving the link between CO2 levels and temperature?

Please understand, unless you can counter the CO2 Correlation with temperature, than any activity that releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than there was before contributes to the warming.

By One Voice

January 3, 2007 06:31 PM | Link to this

Hey Granny,

Regarding your 6:16, do you know the difference between “your” and “you’re”? If not, I can get a 14-year-old to explain it to you.

By @@

January 3, 2007 06:33 PM | Link to this

I’ve often wondered how many of the environmentally conscientious cut all of the little plastic rings that hold a six-pack of beverages together? Each little ring before discarding.

I do.

Save a rat, save a possum, save a racoon, save a bird.

Unless, of course, it’s “the bird” finger. You can recycle that one for eternity, but it’s best left intact.

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 06:34 PM | Link to this

Lying rushncap,

I think I need to talk slowly to you;

Did I ever say that global warming doesn’t exist (at least temporarily)? NO.

You don’t even know how to draw the simplest conclusions. That Sanford site basically concludes that it is the sun that causes global warming. They’re giving theories as to the cause, not whether or not it exists in the first place.

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 06:34 PM | Link to this

Low salaried workers are responsible for so called “global warming” due to their flatulence from eating too much fried chicken and collard greens.

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 06:37 PM | Link to this

Low salaried workers are boors because they get in my way by driving on my roads when I’m driving drunk on champagne daily.

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 06:40 PM | Link to this

I’ll never agree with global warming because it’s a liberal phenomenon distorted by facts and science.

By Huge

January 3, 2007 06:47 PM | Link to this

Here’s my two cents worth on the topic. OK, two dollars worth!

rushncap,

Over the past few months, I’ve been reading more and more about global warming and have been thinking about why the far-right is so adamantly opposed to the well-founded idea that it is, to some large degree, man induced. I think that you would agree, my friend, that is truly perplexing that otherwise sentient beings can be so obtuse.

Of course, there will be much cutting and pasting, much arm-chair science and countless red herrings tossed about. The fact is the subject is incredibly complex and difficult to understand. My assumption is that none of us here are qualified or experienced enough in this matter to adequately KNOW the science and the ramifications. That’s why when surgery is required, we don’t operate on ourselves. The smartest among us leave that to the doctors and qualified experts. Who are infinitely more qualified.

And make no mistake about it, nay-sayers, the experts have spoken. Just open your ears and you’ll hear the enormous chorus of qualified voices.

Much like Clarence Darrow saying ignoramuses and bigots (Hi BD!) cannot be allowed to control our educational system, I contend that those same people cannot be allowed, even the possibility of, letting this beautiful home be damaged beyond repair through their willful ignorance, greed and blindness. Perhaps there is a better life awaiting some of them, but I’ll be damned if I’ll just sit by and allow them to screw this one up for the rest of us and our descendants!

Notwithstanding the hyper-religious aspects of that crowd (The president believes God talks to him and tells him what to do!!!) that in many, many cases precludes independent thought and reason, as well as an utterly unfounded, violent and historical oppression against science and progress in general, I believe the main reason for their myopic position is one of the most repugnant imaginable: politics.

If I showed you that the ocean’s fish populations were dramatically diminished, that the world’s rain forests were a tenth of their size from a century ago, that toxic chemicals abounded on the land, in the air and sea, that countless species of animal and plant life have “disappeared” in the past hundred years, could you believe that, perhaps, mankind had some effect?

I know it seems pretty crazy, but let’s just for a

By nuff-said

January 3, 2007 06:51 PM | Link to this

Mike: Great cartoon! Now, it’s time to pull the plug. Way too much goof-ball commentary.

By Huge

January 3, 2007 06:53 PM | Link to this

I know it seems pretty crazy, but let’s just for a moment assume it’s possible.

Think about it. If I came to you with volumes of evidence that so and so had a direct causal relationship with such and such, you would as a rational, educated person consider it’s possibilities and accuracy, right?

Especially if it was thousands and thousands of people, many of whom were unquestionably qualified professors with exemplary credentials and decades of relevant real-life field experience at prestigious institutions that had graduated scores of eminent scientists and brilliant minds, in many fields of study, throughout their history, right?

Institutions that had been the catalyst for many of these men and women to improve the lives of people around the world through their expertise and gut wrenchingly hard work in medicine, science, technology or whatever endeavor, even in the face of ridicule and persecution.

But what if those institutions had also garnered a reputation as a place where the most liberal, progressive, forward-thinking and yes, sometimes even radical, ideas were cherished and cultivated? (BTW, these may be the last bastions of that freedom).

And what if, for whatever reason, you didn’t like liberal, progressive, forward-thinking or radical ideas? ESPECIALLY in the political arena. Maybe you could find a certain percentage of those ideas that were wrong, or incomplete and use that as a justification for dismissing everything else? (Talk about your false positives!) Maybe you just liked things the way they were and don’t want any fancy new explanations. (Copernicus, Gallileo and Einstein be damned!) Maybe you could do your best Joe McCarthy imitiation, find some garbage on the individuals and attempt to trash them and their reputations? Maybe you’d choose to just dismiss them and their controversial ideas simply because they had incurred your disfavor?

But perhaps you’ve evolved enough to know that in this day and age that that type of non-thinking simply can’t stand. So you’ll try and “play their game” and find a few, but maybe just enough, other scientific minds, with some credentials, to counter those arguments? And in many, if not most cases, not come up with a superior explanation, just nay-say.

My theory is that in the end though, this conspiracy-loving, narrow-minded gang seems to be made up of nothing more than a smallis

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 06:54 PM | Link to this

The department of education should be abolished and no public dollars should go to education. That way I will have an unlimited supply of servants and only the privileged like myself will be smart.

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 06:56 PM | Link to this

God talks to the president and tells him what to do.

By RW-(the original)

January 3, 2007 06:56 PM | Link to this

Huge Price Gouger,

Even at $.02 that was a ripoff.

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 06:57 PM | Link to this

Independent thought and reason are evil because they make people disagree with God and George Bush.

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 07:00 PM | Link to this

Mankind (except the poorest workers) has no effect on animals and plant life because God has given us dominion over the earth. Whatever we do is God’s will and will only help him return even sooner.

By clue

January 3, 2007 07:01 PM | Link to this

One Voice, Huge and the name jacker together again!

It’s almost like they’re attached to eachother.

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 07:09 PM | Link to this

I don’t believe anything professors say because they all have a liberal agenda. College should be taught by preachers, priests, pastors, and other clergy. Even medical schools and science courses. That way we could eliminate all notions of evolution and go back to perscribing prayers for patients.

Scientists are worse. They attack my religious beliefs with facts and reasons and experiments and evidence. They do the Devil’s work.

Copernicus, Gallileo and Einstein be damned!

I LOVE Joe McCarthy. I really do (check my posts). And Nixon too.

By Huge

January 3, 2007 07:12 PM | Link to this

I like men.

By RW-(the original)

January 3, 2007 07:13 PM | Link to this

Don’t give up now Hugo, you still have time to cut and paste the rest of that crap onto the board.

By Buy Danish

January 3, 2007 07:15 PM | Link to this

The name jacker is my true alter ego who only says things that I truly believe.

Was that “they’re” or “there” or “their”? I can never tell the difference. And I think “eachother” is one word.

By Mike in Woodstock

January 4, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

Just want to send out my condolences to the entire AJC staff over the death of Saddam. I know this is a period of mourning for you guys but I know you’ll pull through.

Here you go, I’ll get you started:

Long Live Saddam! Long Live Saddam! Ali Ali Akbar!!!!

 

Do Good Locally » Find nonprofit causes near you

Find more causes » List your nonprofit

Kudzu Services » Find the right people for the job