Luckovich cartoon changes address!
Mike Luckovich’s cartoon has moved to a new ajc.com address. Click here to view and bookmark.
The new format features a larger version of Mike’s cartoon for the day and allow readers to vote. There are also links to recent Luckovich cartoons and special galleries.
Bloggers who want to comment on issues in the news are invited to blog at any of our four other Opinion blogs:
Home > Opinion > Mike Luckovich > Archives > 2007 > March > 09 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USDiscuss this later?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Permalink | Comments (110) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorial Cartoon
Comments
By The Peoples for a Nuked' Amerika' Century~!
March 9, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this
-=-
Wooo Hooo! New Mike L’
Thomas/PNAC
—
By LuckoDull
March 9, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this
Excellent work, Conservatives!
All of your hard work is paying off!
Just like I told you, have patience with your efforts and don’t get discouraged, eventually these pinko liberals would come around to seeing things our way.
Just look at the strides we have made over the last year; We got them to denounce homosexuality (Ted Haggard,) statutory rape (Mark Foley,) prescription drug use (Rush Limbaugh) and now, surprise, extramarital affairs!
You didn’t think it could be done, did you?
Keep your nose to the grindstone, Conservatives, pretty soon they’ll be sitting in church with us.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
By Dusty
March 9, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this
Hold off awhile, won’t you, Luckovich? You have almost two years to run down candidates.
You are going to run short on “juice” starting so early. You lost out on Bush a long time ago. We noticed.
By getalife
March 9, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this
But Rudy asked the media to not print stuff like this.
Spineless.
Great toon Mike and hope you are nominated for another Pulitzer like Cynthia Tucker.
By Lord Doom
March 9, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this
Doom wonders what type of idiocy this cartoon will generate.
By getalife
March 9, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this
BTW, Newt’s affair during the Clinton hate party attack would make a great toon.
By getalife
March 9, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this
Subject: Giuliani the crook
“As he continued to accuse City Council leaders of fiscal waywardness, Mayor Giuliani yesterday defended his decision to forgive $594,000 in back rent…owed by one of his top campaign contributors, Zachary Fisher, a real estate magnate who is the museum’s chairman and chief benefactor. Fisher donated generously to Giuliani’s past two bids for mayor.” - Newsday 10/8/98: “Mayor Defends Deal on Intrepid.”
Yes, he is Italian but not Sicilian.
By Lord Help Us
March 9, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this
I gotta say…I would love to see Rudy or Hagel on the GOP ticket vs. any number of Dem candidates (Richardson being my fav).
I would consider that a win-win where either way this country would be infinitely better off than we are now.
I will watch with great interest as the GOP contenders distance themselves from Bush.
They will be somewhat cautious thru the primaries, but, once the GOP nominee is selected, they will absolutely refute the entire Bush administration AND his complicit GOP Congress (which thankfully was returned to sanity last Nov.).
Bush and the last Congress have not SEEN criticism compared to what they WILL hear from their own nominee.
It WILL be entertaining…and, remember…you heard it here first…
By LuckoDull
March 9, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this
Excellent work, Conservatives!
All of your hard work is paying off!
Just like I told you, have patience with your efforts and don’t get discouraged, eventually these pinko liberals would come around to seeing things our way.
Just look at the strides we have made over the last year; We got them to denounce homosexuality (Ted Haggard,) statutory rape (Mark Foley,) prescription drug use (Rush Limbaugh) and now, surprise, extramarital affairs!
You didn’t think it could be done, did you?
Keep your nose to the grindstone, Conservatives, pretty soon they’ll be sitting in church with us.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
By N-GA
March 9, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this
With Giuliani & Gingrich, I don’t think we’ll be hearing a lot about family values.
Karma rules!
By Midori
March 9, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this
LHU,
YES!!!!!
RUDY!!!
RUDY!!!
RUDY!!!
By Lord Help Us
March 9, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this
Lucko-crybaby,
YES!!! EXCELLENT work!!!
Bush is humming along at 29% approval, the GOP just lost the Congress, The Dems are providing oversight (which is exposing the staggering corruption and incompetence of the last 6 years)…
…AND the best chance the GOP has in 2008 is an anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-gay candidate!
CONGRATULATIONS!! Things are REALLY looking up for ‘your side.’
By Lord Doom
March 9, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this
Fu@kodull,
The conservatives have finally caught up with your homo a$$! You are still unfit to run this country of ours though.
By Mrs. Godzilla
March 9, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this
I may just send some cash to Rudy’s campaign fund.
I would consider it an investment in the 2008 Democratic landslide!
Watch Rudy run! Wahoo!
By getalife
March 9, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this
I think I will go with the real heroes of 9/11
By Regulator
March 9, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this
Andy, It will be way to hot in your church for me to sit with you.
By johnnyP
March 9, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this
hypocrisy is the greatest luxury.
By Sacrificial Lamb
March 9, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this
Falwell will never allow Giuliani to gain the Republican nomination; McCain has already been ‘annointed’.
Rudy has always been a ‘token’ Republican, anyway. He is about as much a Republican as Zell Miller is a Democrat.
Giuliani is an early smokescreen intended to convince the public that the RNC is not still controlled by intractable religious zealots and demagogues. He is nothing more than another Republican sacrificial lamb.
By IN THE NEWS
March 9, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this
WHEN YOU HAVE NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE TO ADD TO THE DEBATE COUNT ON RUSH LIMBAUGH FOR A STEAMY PILE
So John Edwards is on tap now, according to one of the nation’s largest abortion rights supporters to become the first woman president in the United States — and, of course, the barrier is down. The first black president, Bill Clinton. That barrier is broken. Sometimes all you can do is laugh at these people. Speaking of the Breck Girl …
NO WONDER HE CANT KEEP A WIFE EITHER
By Dusty
March 9, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this
getalife and N-GA,
Family values? Most candidates do not care to have their children dragged through the mud for any reason. That is exactly what Luckovich is trying to do with this cartoon.
That kind of “family value” is true for Democrats and Republicans. The News Media just doesn’t get it.
By Comin Around
March 9, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this
By LuckoDull March 9, 2007 1:35 PM- Just like I told you, have patience with your efforts and don’t get discouraged, eventually these pinko liberals would come around to seeing things our way.
Just look at the strides we have made over the last year; We got them to denounce homosexuality (Ted Haggard,) statutory rape (Mark Foley,) prescription drug use (Rush Limbaugh) and now, surprise, extramarital affairs!
Too bad Conservatives had to EMBRACE homosexuality (Ted Haggard,) statutory rape (Mark Foley,) prescription drug use (Rush Limbaugh) and now, surprise, extramarital affairs, in order to ‘bring the liberals’ around to denonuncing the NEW conservative agenda.
By IN THE NEWS
March 9, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this
I RESPECT THE CANDIDATES WISH NOT TO HAVE THEIR KIDS DRAGGED IN THE MUD>
SMALL PROBLEM
RUDY’S BOY JUMPED IN IT HIMSELF>
HE HAS THAT RIGHT.
By Irish65
March 9, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this
It is still hilarious to me that the only viable Republican Candidate who has not had multiple wives and extramarital affairs (that we know about) is a Mormon!!!!
By Dusty
March 9, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this
IN THE NEWS
RUDY’S BOY DID NOT JUMP INTO LUCKOVICH’S CARTOON.
LUCKOVICH MADE THAT DECISION.
HE TOO HAS THAT RIGHT, BUT NOT THE ETHICS TO LEAVE CHILDREN OUT OF POLITICAL SMEARS.
By Steve
March 9, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this
But let’s really hear it for NEWT. Long another great value-packed Republican Christian Soldier.
By Kent Woodward Jr
March 9, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this
You’re the President of the United States and you’ve been accused of rape?
Re: Bill Clinton
By Old Fuddy Duddy
March 9, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this
This is great - selective moral outrage. It’s fine for Democrats, no matter what their views on social issues, but Lord forbid for a Republican to have any flaws, even with one who has socially liberal views like Giuliani!
By IN THE NEWS
March 9, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this
YOUR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND YOU ARE ACCUSED A DRIVING A FRIEND TO GET AN ABORTION
RE: W
By Irish65
March 9, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this
You’re the President of the United States and you’re accused of: cocaine use, debauchery in Mexico, drunken driving, fixing elections, lying about National Security, exposing covert CIA operatives, and dismantling the Constitution.
RE: Dumbya
By getalife
March 9, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this
Jr,
Re: Bill Clinton= Not guilty.
Re: Libby= Guilty, Guilty, Guilty and Guilty.
crust er @@,
Whaaaaaa!
Clinton’s daughter trashed by rushie.
Geez.
By Old Fuddy Duddy
March 9, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this
Clinton was never tried, but admitted to perjury, was held in contempt of court and disbarred. He was still guilty.
By IN THE NEWS
March 9, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this
YOUR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND YOU DO NOT COMPLETE YOUR NATIOANL GUARD SERVICE AND DADDY MOVES HEAVEN AND EARTH TO COVER IT UP AND HIDE THE PAPERS IN HIS LIBRARY
RE: W
By IN THE NEWS
March 9, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this
YOUR GRANDAD TRADED WITH THE ENEMY
RE:w
By IN THE NEWS
March 9, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this
WILL WONDERS NEVER CEASE
Accountability at the FBI…kind of. At a press conference today, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III responded to the Justice Department Inspector General’s report that found “pervasive errors in the FBI’s use” of National Security Letters to obtain the personal information of U.S. citizens. “How could this happen?” Mueller asked rhetorically. “Who is to be held accountable? And the answer to that is, I am to be held accountable.” However, Mueller “dismissed the idea of offering to resign, saying there has been ‘no discussion of that.’“
By IN THE NEWS
March 9, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this
A GEORGIAN TO BE PROUD OF?
Yesterday at the House Armed Services Committee hearing on veterans care, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) attempted to stand out from the rest of Congress and argue that the conditions in Building 18 weren’t that bad. Instead of criticizing the cockroach infestation, he said, “I was glad to know that those cockroaches were belly up. It suggested to me that at least someone was spraying for them.”
He also tried to blame the soldiers for the conditions, stating, “And, of course, if you leave food around in a motel room or a dorm room at a college, you’re going to get some mice show up at some point in time.”
By Buy Danish
March 9, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this
Can we expect cartoons about Chelsea now that her mother is running for President?
Of course not.
By Dusty
March 9, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this
getalife errr Mafia,
A Louisiana mafiosa
Whaaaaaa!!
getalife’s brain trashed by cigar smoke
dog hates liberals
dog bites getalife
dog wins Pulitzer for public service
Golly geeez!
By getalife
March 9, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this
Good one @@.
Old man,
Jr. said he was guilty of rape.
By N-GA
March 9, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
The GOP claims it is the party of family values. It is Giuliani who has a history of poor family values. It is Gingrich who has a history of poor family values (while carrying the standard for impeaching Clinton for lying about his dalliance). Obviously his son agrees that he has moral shortcomings.
But it appears that the party of family values has morphed into the party of hypocrisy.
But your observation that the media should not drag candidates’ children thru the mud is true…the lie comes when you say that ML is trying to do just that. He is criticizing Giuliani’s behavior, and underlining that critique using Giuliani’s son’s refusal to support his father’s candidacy. You just don’t like the TRUTH!
By Neo-Con Artist
March 9, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this
Yeah, we know the Repugnant Party is running scared — they’re having to run a Liberal in ‘08 in order to have any credibility with Americans!
By Neo-Con Artist
March 9, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this
Yeah, we know the Repugnant Party is running scared — they’re having to run a Liberal in ‘08 in order to have any credibility with Americans!
By IN THE NEWS
March 9, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this
CAN WE EXPECT JOKES ABOUT HILLARY’S HUSBAND NOW THAT SHES RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT
CERTAINLY
ADMITTEDLY - THEY ARE PRETTY FUNNY!
By Dusty
March 9, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this
IN THE NEWS WORKS FOR AL-JAZERRA
By N-GA
March 9, 2007 4:12 PM | Link to this
Cheap Pastry,
If Chelsea Clinton involves herself in the race, then she should expect some attention.
But this toon’s focus is not on Giuliani’s son, it’s on Giuliani’s marital activities (which caused his son, and maybe American voters, to think long and hard about supporting him).
But you and Crusty go ahead and think that this is an “attack” on Giuliani’s son…airheads!
By Dusty
March 9, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this
IN THE NEWS IS A MILITARY REJECT
By IN THE NEWS
March 9, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this
/// ELMER FUDDY DUDDY
SCOOTER WAS TRIED SCOOTER COMMITS PERJURY THE REALITY BASED WORLD HOLDS HIM IN CONTEMPT HE IS STILL QUILTY.
By mountain man
March 9, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this
The only Republican candidate with a lick of sense is Hegel. But the Republicans will never nominate him. Giuliani and Grinderswitch make Bill Clinton look like the Model Husband. I predict that unless the voting public just rolls over and dies between now and 2008 that we’re going to see the biggest landslide in American history. It’ll be almost like one of those Saddam elections in Iraq.
Getting rid of Dubya and his gang of fools can’t come soon enough. Maybe the sane nations of the world will let us rejoin them.
By Dusty
March 9, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this
IN THE NEWS GRANDDAD TRADED MOONSHINE
By IN THE NEWS
March 9, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this
THIS ONE WAS NEW TO ME
Destroyed Flight Evidence Destruction of Evidence of the Commandeered Flights Of the four flights commandeered on 9/11/01, Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93, there is virtually no evidence in the public domain that can provide definitive answers to their fate. This is because the evidence has either been suppressed or destroyed by those who controlled the response to and investigation of this vast crime.
Taped Destroyed by FAA While most of the incidental evidence, such as recordings of communications with pilots of the doomed aircraft, remains in the category of missing, with no one held to account for it, some such evidence is now known to be destroyed. A report issued on May 6, 2004 at the request of Senator John McCain concluded that an audiotape recording of communications with commandeered planes on 9/11/01 was destroyed by FAA managers. 1
The tape contained a one-hour interview, taken on the day of the attack, with six controllers who tracked two of the planes on 9/11/01. The controllers gave detailed accounts of what events they recalled just hours earlier. An FAA official described in the report as a quality assurance manager crushed the cassette, then cut up the tape and dropped pieces into multiple trash cans. 2
By Dusty
March 9, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this
IN THE NEWS NOT CLAIMED BY ANY GEORGIAN
By Dusty
March 9, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this
WILL ..IN THE NEWS..NEVER CEASE??
By IN THE NEWS
March 9, 2007 4:28 PM | Link to this
DUSTY
THANKS FOR KEEPING MY NAME AND FAME OUT THERE!
By Goldie
March 9, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this
{{Too bad Conservatives had to EMBRACE homosexuality (Ted Haggard,) statutory rape (Mark Foley,) prescription drug use (Rush Limbaugh) and now, surprise, extramarital affairs, in order to ‘bring the liberals’ around to denonuncing the NEW conservative agenda.}}
Yeah, Andy-dull, too bad America knows what a bunch of hypocrites you Repugnants are now — you’re going down in a landslide in ‘08!
By Dusty
March 9, 2007 4:34 PM | Link to this
IN THE NEWS GETTING OLD TO EVERYONE
By Dusty
March 9, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this
IN THE NEWS TRADES BICYCLE FOR SCOOTER
By IN THE NEWS
March 9, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this
COMING FROM SOMEBODY WHO IS ALREADY THERE>>>>COOL
By Dusty
March 9, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this
IN THE NEWS INFAMOUS!!!!
By IN THE NEWS
March 9, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this
IN THE NEWS IS APPARENTLY GETTING TO DUSTY.
THE ONLY WAY TO TURN OFF IN THE NEWS
IS TO TURN OFF FOX
By @@
March 9, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this
Getalife:
That “good one @@” should go to Dusty.
I wish it had been mind.
I’m having trouble getting anything posted.
Aaaarrrrrggghhhhh.
Maybe this one ml?
Dusty:
Your responses to IN THE NEWS are hilarious.
By Dusty
March 9, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this
IN THE NEWS IS GETTING FOXY
By IN THE NEWS
March 9, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this
IN THE NEWS THINKS DUSTY IS PRETTY FUNNY TOO
PROBLEM DUSTY IS FUNNY WHEN SHES TRYING TO BE SERIOUS
By LuckoDull
March 9, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this
Isn’t it cute that the pinkos have this long list of horrible things that Giuliani has done, and that they can hack and gag about it like it’s the most awful conduct imaginable, then they turn right around and call him a liberal?
And that no light bulbs turn on?
So I’ve been right all along to be calling liberals a bunch of depraved perverts, now you can’t wait to agree with me?
You don’t have to argue with us about it, we already know that you’re a bunch of wormy little maggots.
What do you think I’ve been telling you?
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
By Goldie
March 9, 2007 5:00 PM | Link to this
{{then they turn right around and call him a liberal?}}
No, Andy-dull, you misunderstand again— it’s just too hilarious what the “family values” Repugnant Party has to put itself through in order to run a viable candidate in ‘08. Y’all have resorted to running 2 candidates who align with the Dems’ platform — that is, until you make them have to FLIP-FLOP on the issues, like you’ve done to Miffed Romney!
LMAO!!! The only way the Repugs are gonna have a chance to win in America is to run a Liberal, just likes the Dems!
By Daniel
March 9, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this
This is a great cartoon! Who are the 19% that don’t think it’s funny? I mean, c’mon, laughter is good medicine for these trying times.
By Dusty
March 9, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this
IN THE NEWS THINKS …FUNNY..
By MrLiberty
March 9, 2007 5:07 PM | Link to this
Good job Mike,
The sooner we get rid of these losers the sooner america can start looking at the non-fascist, non-warmongering wings of the republican party (very small wings).
Specifically that means Ron Paul, congressman from Texas.
Check him out at www.ronpaul.org/
By getalife
March 9, 2007 5:08 PM | Link to this
Andy,
Its funny that you wingnuts support the liberal Rudy.
Idiot.
Is there any good news for the hate party?
Geez.
By RW-(the original)
March 9, 2007 5:08 PM | Link to this
If Rudy is just another run of the mill liberal why are all the libs trashing him?
I do find it amusing that the liberals know that nobody likes liberals.
By LuckoDull
March 9, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this
No Goldie, you misunderstood again.
To fail is human, none of us are without sin, and Conservatives understand that.
You liberals ENCOURAGE sin and then have the nerve to rag someone that listens to your suggestions.
If it’s really so bad Goldie, why are you 100% behind it?
Two faced hypocrite.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
By Pequod
March 9, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this
Chelsea Clinton was mocked as a “dog” by Rush Limbaugh years ago and the Republicans set the standards for gratuitious personal attack under Newt Gingrich and G.H.W. Bush’s campaign’s use of Willie Horton. The ad hominem attack was formerly introduced by Gingrich and has become the modus operandi and substitute for argument ever since. Remove the abuse and straw man arguments from “talk radio” and scream television and virtually nothing is left. They don’t know anything so they can’t argue.
Just look at the above post by “luckodoll” anything by the Dusty as an illustrations. Some months ago I politely invited all parties to respond to the issue of the cartoon without attacking any other person by name or any group according to ideology. Who found this simple call by civility most objectionable? You can easily guess.
By Goldie
March 9, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this
{{You liberals ENCOURAGE sin and then have the nerve to rag someone that listens to your suggestions.}}
No, Andy-dull— you 3rd grader. Liberals hate hypocrites like you, who claim to be forgiving of others, and then you come here everyday and rag on others if they don’t believe in your stupid opinions… go back to your cave. The world will be a much more pleasant place once again!
By Dusty
March 9, 2007 5:18 PM | Link to this
@@,
Thanks for the kind words.(I almost typed that in capitals.) Take care of IN THE NEWS for me. I have to get busy elsewhere.
By Will
March 9, 2007 5:22 PM | Link to this
Our little Dustmite is xtra active today. Someone must have sprayed some Roach Rid in his medical laboratory mensroom.
By bon scott
March 9, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this
Excellent work, Dull!!
By LuckoDull - March 9, 2007 1:23 PM Just look at the strides we have made over the last year; We got them to denounce homosexuality (Ted Haggard,) statutory rape (Mark Foley,) prescription drug use (Rush Limbaugh) and now, surprise, extramarital affairs!
Thanks for emphasizing the duplicity, hypocrisy and downright stupitidy of repugs like you, Dull.
No Democrat criticized the behavior of the poor lost souls you mentioned. They simply shook their heads in disbelief at the duplicity of party leaders and followers who condemn “unusual” behavior of sheeple who commit the sins of adultery, gay sex, drugs, etc., and yet embrace theese fatcat suits when they make a mistake or two. All they have to do is sob quietly, confess to their misdeeds, enter a “neochristian” rehab, and their path to heaven is secure.
But that double standard doesn’t bother you a twit, does it? Hint: the sheeple aren’t that dumb. You may be, but they aren’t.
By Will
March 9, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this
Our little Dustmite is xtra active today. Someone must have sprayed some Roach Rid in his medical laboratory mensroom.
By bon scott
March 9, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this
Excellent work, Dull!!
By LuckoDull - March 9, 2007 1:23 PM Just look at the strides we have made over the last year; We got them to denounce homosexuality (Ted Haggard,) statutory rape (Mark Foley,) prescription drug use (Rush Limbaugh) and now, surprise, extramarital affairs!
Thanks for emphasizing the duplicity, hypocrisy and downright stupitidy of repugs like you, Dull.
No Democrat criticized the behavior of the poor lost souls you mentioned. They simply shook their heads in disbelief at the duplicity of party leaders and followers who condemn “unusual” behavior of sheeple who commit the sins of adultery, gay sex, drugs, etc., and yet embrace theese fatcat suits when they make a mistake or two. All they have to do is sob quietly, confess to their misdeeds, enter a “neochristian” rehab, and their path to heaven is secure.
But that double standard doesn’t bother you a twit, does it? Hint: the sheeple aren’t that dumb. You may be, but they aren’t.
By Will
March 9, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this
Our little medical mensroom guy, Dustmite, is xtra active today. Someone must have sprayed Roach Rid about.
By Will
March 9, 2007 5:30 PM | Link to this
Our little medical mensroom guy, Dustmite, is xtra active today. Someone must have sprayed Roach Rid about.
By Daniel
March 9, 2007 5:31 PM | Link to this
Does he have any talent?
By Paul
March 9, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this
Daniel 4:52
Your take on that as “big oil” illustrates the point I was making. You may want to check the source (I saw the news conference) - it was in response to a question about foreign governments and their lack of action.
Hello, N-GA
I have a bit of a different take - as one commentator said last night, The New York Times certainly didn’t dispatch reporters to Chelsea to do an interview on what she thought of her parents’ difficulties. I find this entire venue distasteful.
I wouldn’t quite say the Republican Party is the party of family values. There are plenty of theocons, famcons, etc - and they gravitate to the Republicans. But the series a couple months ago regarding how the conservative Christians were marginalized by the Administration (played to the tune of Deceitful Bush, not the political implications).
This race, and polling data showing many rank and file Republicans don’t really care, shows that. I see a shift - the theological conservatives and religious conservatives, while still exerting great power in some states and fundraising circles (same with the more than left contingent among Democrats) many people are tiring of it. Hence the appeal of Obama. It’s pretty poor reporting, in my mind, when the Times and others are so desperate for a Dem win they’ll resort to the trashy personal tactics of the past rather than steering the debate towards what America needs - what the choices imply.
Cheers -
By Goldie
March 9, 2007 5:42 PM | Link to this
{{I wouldn’t quite say the Republican Party is the party of family values.}}
uber-Paul, I believe you are correct on this one. Most Americans no longer believe in that rhetoric — you have to walk the walk, etc… And until the Repugs shake themselves loose from the religious extremists who have been controlling that party, they’re not gonna win many national elections again. Too much hypocrisy has been exposed from the family values crowd, and America is just sick of it!
By IN THE NEWS
March 9, 2007 5:46 PM | Link to this
IN THE NEWS ENJOYS THE LATE FRIDAY NEWS DUMP
THAT WAY I SPEND MORE QUALITY TIME WITH DUSTY ON MONDAY
By @@
March 9, 2007 5:50 PM | Link to this
I’m sorry Dusty, I couldn’t possibly handle IN THE NEWS with anything to equal your humor.
Besides, the liberals have gone crazy at Wooten’s. Namejacking and doing their best to intimidate people. I’m jumping from here, to ml’s previous thread, to Wooten’s.
The irrational antics of the liberals at Wooten’s have got me weeping with laughter. Oh, the civility, they claim is theirs alone. Tis a wonder to behold.
Too funny. And besides ml’s “Discuss this later?” seems to have been intended for me J/K, but my posts are taking 25 to 30 minutes to show up most times, if ever.
By Paul
March 9, 2007 5:51 PM | Link to this
Goldie
Exactly. Plenty’s been written about the foibles of past Presidents - and thank heavens some of them served at the times they did. But I will agree - the “do as I say” contingent opens themselves up for criticism - and no amount of examples of poor behavior by VP Gore, Sen Edwards or others excuses it.
Of course the example of “why” the hypocricy occurs. I wouldn’t imagine if that guy - (what was his name - Haggard? Haggart?) had gone to his parents or minister when he was a kid (I’m using this only as an example, not an accusation, so the rest of you, pls cool your jets) and said “you know, I’m not all that keen on girls but I’d like to take the quarterback to the prom) he’d have been met with anything other than shame. So it gets suppressed, he tries to be good and cure himself - but you can’t fool Mother Nature (I’m not one of those “free will” types).
Anyhow, progress lurches forward -
By Daniel
March 9, 2007 6:01 PM | Link to this
Paul: I would ike the next American leadership to be talented. I mean they should have skill. We are in such a mess in so many places it’s sickening. I understandthe hardcore in both party’s want to see “their guy” in office, Witness: “Schiavo”. Rather, I look for talent. I want an American President who is talented and skillful. A person deft in world affairs. So much of politics is so corrupt. No matter the party.
By LuckoDull
March 9, 2007 6:06 PM | Link to this
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) berated a woman who approached him in a Congressional corridor, claiming that “idiot liberals” don’t understand the war supplemental spending bill process. “We’re trying to use the supplemental to end the war,” Obey said. “You can’t end the war if you’re going against the supplemental. It’s time these idiot liberals understood that.”
This guy knows his own party pretty good.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
By Paul
March 9, 2007 6:10 PM | Link to this
Daniel
I’ll vote for him or her, too!
LuckoDull
10 to 1 you don’t see that quote in tomorrow’s paper -
By Goldie
March 9, 2007 6:12 PM | Link to this
{{So much of politics is so corrupt. No matter the party.}}
Daniel, I’m with you. I’ve voted an independent ticket a few times in the past. But lately I’ve viewed the Dems as giving us the only chance to relieve America of the Neo-con takeover in Washington. I wish we could do more with 3rd, 4th or 5th parties, etc., and having our electoral system recognize multiple parties. Can you tell me: Is there a reason that our Founding Fathers tried to stay away from the parliamentary system, which seems much more flexible to the people’s growing and/or constricting needs? I myself feel a little stifled with our current electoral system.
But that’s just me! :>)
By Goldie
March 9, 2007 6:18 PM | Link to this
More evidence that the state of GA has successfully seceded from the Union:
ATLANTA Mar 8, 2007 (AP)— Georgia is poised to introduce two literature classes on the Bible in public schools next year, a move some critics say would make the state the first to take an explicit stance endorsing and funding biblical teachings.
I like what my co-worker’s bumper sticker says:
“Don’t pray in my school and I won’t think in your church!”
By LuckoDull
March 9, 2007 6:24 PM | Link to this
The holier than thou pinko nation:
Let’s assume, for example, that this nominee had expressed strong sympathy for the position that there is a constitutional right to prostitution as well as a constitutional right to polygamy. The hypothetical nominee I have just described is, in every particular except his sex, Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the time she was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1993. President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg on June 22, 1993.
So how many wives would Ruth have allowed Rudy to have?
I know Clinton was down with that.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
By RW-(the original)
March 9, 2007 6:27 PM | Link to this
How many of you liberals agree with Goldie about keeping those classes on the Bible out of our schools? Please keep in mind that you’ve been telling us for years that even mentioning that Darwin’s theory is only a theory amounted to Christofascism, but would be just peachy if it was taught in a literature or religion class.
By Paul
March 9, 2007 6:30 PM | Link to this
Goldie
I spent time at a university where there was an uproar in the student paper over “racy” books sold in the bookstore. Someone wrote a letter to the paper - said the situation was worse in class - they were forced to read a book that detailed murder, incest, masturbation, torture and assorted other depravity. Then when they were done with Numbers they had to read Deuteronomy!
My kids never learned to read in Church. They didn’t need to learn how to pray in school, either. That said, I’m all for comparative religion and culture classes -
By Paul
March 9, 2007 6:38 PM | Link to this
RW-(the original)
Some objected to identifying “Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection” or “The Theory of Evolution” as a theory?!? Huh?
I make my case again for national standards -
By RW-(the original)
March 9, 2007 6:48 PM | Link to this
Paul,
A whole lot of them here. I have my own theory that the Darwiniacs that have told me over the years that they would be perfectly accepting of a class like the one Goldie described were full of crap.
I bet my theory gets proven out long before they can show me a single species that ever became a different one. For that matter long before they can prove that the current warming cycle in the atmosphere is really being caused by us and is soon going to kill us all. The Gorebots were smart about that one. They pushed the consequences out so far that none of us will be here when that turns out to be another unnecessary Y2K panic.
By Buy Danish
March 9, 2007 6:51 PM | Link to this
{{{No Democrat criticized the behavior of the poor lost souls you mentioned.}}}
Sybil Bon Scott,
Gosh, I do believe that you called Rush a “criminal” who “couldn’t be trusted” among other things (I am paraphrasing) and showed not a wit of sympathy or empathy for him. In contrast we Conservatives were very kind to Patrick Kennedy. Maybe you’re not a Democrat? Green Party perhaps?
RW,
You may enjoy some of the squawking over at the dead thread, which is staying alive a lot longer than they usually do.
Goldie,
You know that song, “Turn, Turn, Turn” that the Commie Pete Seeker “turned” into a song, and The Byrds later made famous? Do you realize that that came from The Bible?
Do you walk around with a clove of garlic or some sort of apparatus hanging from your neck to avoid being turned into a pillar of salt* from being exposed to the literature to be found in The Bible?
Shakespeare notably used Biblical references in his works. I guess in Utopia it is better to read his works and not understand at all what he is referring to than have to read that ghastly Bible.
Ignorance is bliss, indeed.
*Oops, that would be a Biblical expression too.
By RW-(the original)
March 9, 2007 6:53 PM | Link to this
Would someone at the AJC please feed the hamsters that are running ml’s server??? Thank you in advance, from me and I’m sure from the hamsters.
By mountain man
March 9, 2007 6:54 PM | Link to this
I don’t really have a problem with teaching religious studies in our public high schools, as long as it is religious studies about religion and does not endorse any particular religious viewpoint. The problem is that many of our wingnuts do not accept the priciple of separation of church and state and they are proposing these Bible classes as ways of proselytizing our public school students through the back door.
Many religious conservatives zealously promoted the priniple of separation of church and state years ago when they were in the minority, but now that they have become the majority group within American Christianity they want to cram their viewpoints down our throats.
By Goldie
March 9, 2007 6:56 PM | Link to this
{{How many of you liberals agree with Goldie about keeping those classes on the Bible out of our schools?}}
So, RW— have you heard that these “literature” classes will also include some other books like the Koran or the Bagavad Ghita? I haven’t heard about it myself — all I’ve heard about is these “Bible classes.” What exactly is the purpose of these classes? Are you trying to say that it has nothing to do with gov’t-sanctioned religion in GA?
By RW-(the original)
March 9, 2007 6:59 PM | Link to this
Goldielocks,
I don’t believe you described them as comparative religion classes. You also didn’t mention that they are electives.
Buy Danish,
I think it pretty well drew to a close with your commanday French phrases smackdown.
By Paul
March 9, 2007 7:00 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish
If I may butt in -
Isn’t the concern it’s not “Bible as Literature” (a viable course, particularly at the university level) but more and effort to espouse a particular religion? I’d imagine the people pushing this are not the English Lit lobby.
I don’t see how they could avoid some of the doctrinal/belief systems - you’d get into things as the differing views of the Godhead - Catholic vs liberal Protestant vs Conservative Protestant vs Mormon vs Jewish - then you’re off the literature. Which is why I’d be okay with comparative religion.
Note: discussing items of spirituality/morality is not “teaching religion.” Recognizing and teaching our religious/spiritual heritage - and pulling out currency to illustrate - should be done. Even the free thinkers like Jefferson -
By Daniel
March 9, 2007 7:00 PM | Link to this
Goldie: I agree with you. I am an Independent. But, the rank arrogance of the neo-con frightens me. They have lost us, for the time being. I am deeply concerned about any republican who might not be strong enough to stand up to them. Our system has its strengths. Sadly, the ineptitude of Bush is glaring. Had thee been constraints we might not be where we are.
Frankly, we need a competent conservative president, in my opinion. I mean “real conservative”. A person who is frugal with our nations largess. A honest person. I mean one who tells the truth. Wouldn’t that be a switch? I do not consider the evidence shown on this blog as conservative. These people seem like freaks to me. When I disagree with them they call me names. My 2 cents.
By getalife
March 9, 2007 7:03 PM | Link to this
The church is a classroom for the Bible.
What are preachers talking about during their sermons?
Politics?
You go to church to learn religion not school.
Geez.
By RW-(the original)
March 9, 2007 7:05 PM | Link to this
getalife,
Have you ever been to a predominantly black church during election season?
By Goldie
March 9, 2007 7:05 PM | Link to this
{{I don’t believe you described them as comparative religion classes. You also didn’t mention that they are electives.}}
RW, what are you talking about now? All I did was provide a link. You draw your own conclusions, Freakazoid.
By Goldie
March 9, 2007 7:14 PM | Link to this
I’m very familiar with the Bible, you wingnuts… I learned all about those stories in Sunday school. If parents want their kids exposed to the stories in the Bible, they are free to learn all about them at a church of their choosing.
We’ll see if the “electives” added to the curriculum include any other books based on other religions’ various stories and myths, won’t we?
By RW-(the original)
March 9, 2007 7:22 PM | Link to this
Goldie,
Most people post links to discuss something about them. Since you added the derisive editorial comments I thought you disagreed with the additional classroom offerings.
Had I known you were just mindlessly posting random links I never would have responded to you. Thanks for clearing that up!
By LuckoDull
March 9, 2007 7:32 PM | Link to this
The surest and quickest way to get the Bible taught in public school would be to have Conservatives denounce the practice.
Have Giuliani speak out against it, for instance.
Then, like with any other issue Conservatives stand for, the libs would freak out and get teaching the Bible pushed through in time for the start of classes this Monday morning.
Trust me, it will work, just this week we’ve had pinkos speak out against adultery, haha, and call other liberals idiots, just reacting in a fit of rage to what some Conservatives did.
Next week, remember, Republicans are against the war in Iraq and we want to be friends with the Islamic suicide bombers.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
By LuckoDull
March 9, 2007 7:54 PM | Link to this
Paul: Here’s another headline that you won’t find in the Urinal tomorrow-
Prime minister walks Baghdad streets ASSOCIATED PRESS March 9, 2007 BAGHDAD — Iraq’s prime minister ventured into Baghdad’s streets and chatted with Iraqis at police checkpoints today to showcase security ahead of an international conference aimed at stabilizing the country with help from its neighbors.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
By Buy Danish
March 9, 2007 8:31 PM | Link to this
Paul,
I studied the Old Testament as literature as part of my 10th grade English Lit class. There was no proselytizing - not any more than discussing the moral of any story like….Goldilocks and the Three Bears!
It’s almost impossible to read literature and avoid discussions on themes of morality, ethics or (Egad!) on occasion - faith.
By Slap Out
March 10, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this
WASHINGTON - Military leaders are struggling to choose Army units to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan longer or go there earlier than planned, but five years of war have made fresh troops harder to find.
Faced with a military buildup in Iraq that could drag into next year, Pentagon officials are trying to identify enough units to keep up to 20 brigade combat teams in Iraq. A brigade usually has about 3,500 troops.
Now we find out why the Chimperor didn’t send in an adequate number of troops for the surge as most military planners had requested. He just ain’t got em to send! More of that good ole Republican planning and forethought at work. Boy, don’t you feel a lot safer knowing that King George has worn our military forces damn near slap out?