Mike Luckovich

By LuckoDull

April 10, 2007 8:04 AM | Link to this

This ought to make everybody sick:

In 2005, the federal government took $2.4 trillion out of the pockets of the American people. To put this number into context, it is about the same as the size of the entire U.S. economy in 1959 in inflation-adjusted terms. China, which everyone is so alarmed about, has an economy significantly smaller than the federal government, with a {{{{{{GDP of $1.9 trillion}}}}}}} — about equal to what the United States raises just from taxes on individuals.

Our government is larger than China’s entire economy.

WTF?

How many times have you heard the candy as-ses wailing about China eclipsing our superpower status?

WTF?

And we listen to them when they whine about “global warming?”

WTF?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

Another little nugget of info from the same article:

{{{Contrary to popular belief, the vast bulk of federal taxes are paid by the wealthy. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, in 2006, 53.7 percent of all federal income taxes were paid by those with incomes over $200,000. Those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 paid 28.3 percent of all individual income taxes. Thus those with incomes over $100,000 paid 82 percent of the total. They also paid 44.4 percent of all payroll taxes.}}}

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By Politically Incorrect

April 10, 2007 8:09 AM | Link to this

Lest we forget:

ABC decided not to renew Maher’s contract for Politically Incorrect in 2002 after he made a controversial on-air remark, in which he, along with guest conservative political commentator Dinesh D’Souza, said, “We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly. Stupid maybe, but not cowardly.”

Maher, also, apologized:

LOS ANGELES, Sept 19 (Reuters) - Bill Maher, the irreverent host of late-night talk show Politically Incorrect,'' apologized on Wednesday for saying some U.S. military actions werecowardly” — a remark many said was not only politically incorrect but offensive.

Bill Maher was fired for his insensitive remarks and has returned to national prominence, logging more air-time than at any point in his career. Imus should be given similar opportunity to prove that the public is genuinely interested in hearing his musings. Imus should be fired and allowed the opportunity to scratch his way back to the top if he has the talent and wit to pull it off. I think he can do it, let’s not shackle Mr. Imus with the Republican ‘culture of low expectations’, let’s allow him to sink or swim on his own merit!

By N-GA

April 10, 2007 8:22 AM | Link to this

There goes Andy…never one to be afraid to compare apples to ears of corn.

The Chinese Yuan is 40% undervalued compared to the US dollar. Does Andy understand that explains a lot of the difference in his post? Not likely.

The average Chinese worker makes how many cents per hour? The average cost of a kilo of rice in China (adjusted to dollars) is how much?

I know it’s a challenge, Andy, but you should try to put some things in perspective in order to make yourself look less stupid than you really are.

You can fool some of the people some of……….

By Since When

April 10, 2007 8:23 AM | Link to this

While what Imus said wasn’t the nicest thing to say…isn’t he intitled to his opinion? Doesn’t free speech apply to him and others. Everyone just needs to take a chill pill.

By See the hypocrisy?

April 10, 2007 8:25 AM | Link to this

Liberals and there demonization of anyone who can speak from the cuff on radio (Conservatives) is funny. Liberals need the benefit of first, second, third drafts, editors and producers in order to fool the public. Not to mention they can’t handle the interactive debate of radio talk shows.

Now is the time for a liberal to write and say they called a conservative talk show and was cutt off. This will be stated as if no conservative talk show hosts debates, but won’t be said is how the liberals are stand offish and/or derogatory to the host. Anyone who has listened will have heard many respectful liberals carry on lengthy debate with their conservative brethren.

By @@

April 10, 2007 8:26 AM | Link to this

You can put that “pointy little headgear” on any group or individual looking to make a buck ml.

“Mo Kelly”, let’s see what he has to say…

CBS Radio should stop feigning disgust and we all should just continue as we were, because we’ve been traveling this road comfortably for many years now. No point in turning back now. If CBS Radio were truly disgusted, then they would’ve pulled the trigger on his career long before now.

From the same article…

“What should also be acknowledged is that Imus was in effect mimicking a vernacular and characterization of Black women that we ourselves first allowed to permeate our own communities. And once again those outside our family are taking their cues of what is “acceptable” by mimicking the actions of those inside it.”

“In other words, the sooner we stop calling our women –tches and hos, the sooner we can get others to stop too…or at least retain the moral high ground in which to be rightfully indignant.”

Howard Stern?

Demeaning to women. Demeaning to gays. Demeaning to anyone who would allow it. I don’t watch him or his sophmoric displays, and I wonder about people who do. Liberals love the guy. They’ve said so on this site.

Jesse Jackson? I saw him on an interview just this morning. When asked what the difference was between “rap lyrics” and what Imus said, his response was that “Imus has greater influence.”

Show me a kid who gives two snits about politics or their pundits.

Like LD, I beg the question…

WTF?

By See the hypocrisy?

April 10, 2007 8:29 AM | Link to this

As an African American man I stand by the spiritual principle of removing the beam from one’s own eye before complaining about the splinter in another’s. When we as African Americans treat with equal disdain, the multi-billion dollar hip hop garbage we allow our children to create, purchase, and listen to, perhaps we will have real credibility on issues such as Don Imus. I find it incredulous that we are planning boycotts and marches and such wailing and gnashing of teeth over a solitary old fart who is hardly emulating echoes of the past but that which you can hear on any given day thumping from any young person’s car even while watching TV in the furthest room from the road. Imus is a white man who satirizes darkness of every shade. He is a mirror of our own shortcomings. Reflect on that before you go after his head. Because outside of the outrageous and oft stupid things he says on his show, the man does put his money in some of the same places he satirizes. This is the racial opportunism that has diluted true civil rights issues for the past several decades. It’s all about the money. If it wasn’t, those same preachers could have used the same energy to shut down the poisonous music evolution that started this cross cultural laissez-faire blackness that has now come home to roost.

Wonder if Midori, my sister, will address the meat of that (^^^^^^^) statement?

By Mike

April 10, 2007 8:36 AM | Link to this

Interesting comments from “you people” who find nothing wrong with what imus said and the others who seem to ignore the situation all together. I would suspect most you could not pass the entrance criteria to attend Rutgers. But this is america so even the sideliners are enttitled to their opinions.

By Little Right of Center

April 10, 2007 8:45 AM | Link to this

And just WHY does Don Imus owe Jesse Jacka$$ or Al Sharpdumb an apology? Those two are the most racist people in the country followed closely by Cynthia “clueless” Tucker and Cynthia “I’ll take the money” McKinney!

By jacksonwolff

April 10, 2007 8:47 AM | Link to this

(((Bill Maher was fired for his insensitive remarks and has returned to national prominence, logging more air-time than at any point in his career. Imus should be given similar opportunity to prove that the public is genuinely interested in hearing his musings. Imus should be fired and allowed the opportunity to scratch his way back to the top if he has the talent and wit to pull it off. I think he can do it, let’s not shackle Mr. Imus with the Republican ‘culture of low expectations’, let’s allow him to sink or swim on his own merit!)))

I couldn’t agree more. I’m sure that XM/Sirius would pick him up, then if people like him that much they could pay to listen to him. They do it for Bill Maher.

By Paul

April 10, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

Why is this even a topic of conversation? It was brought up here a couple days ago - and the response from those typically aligned with the “Liberal” stance was pretty much along the lines of “Gee, people are interested in women’s basketball? So and so’s really a good player. Wow, compare the stats - look at the height difference.” As I said, the “Conservative” commentators seem much more willing to engage in self-criticism - but it was good to see Sharpton call it as he sees it with Imus on his show.

N-GA - Cato Institute (libertarian) just published a policy analysis titled “Energy Alarmism: The Myths That Make Americans Worry About Oil.” It considered factors in relation to the US and China’s misperceptions of each other. I don’t have a link but it should show up under the wire services or at Cato’s home page.

By N-GA

April 10, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this

@@,

I’ll keep this civil. You shouldn’t make the statement that “liberals love the guy” when discussing Howard Stern. Many liberals will certainly defend his right to say the dumb things he says every day, but they may choose not to tune into his program. People can vote with their wallets (or purses) when it comes to shock jocks, talking heads, etc.

I would love to see some properly sourced democraphics of Stern’s audience. I suspect you would be more surprised than I.

By LuckoDull

April 10, 2007 9:03 AM | Link to this

{{{By N-GA April 10, 2007 8:22 AM The Chinese Yuan is 40% undervalued compared to the US dollar.}}}

Too bad that my post is a dollar to dollar comparison.

You’re going to have to let go of that crying towel.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By jacksonwolff

April 10, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this

Speaking of Howard Stern, I got the shock of my life this weekend. I went to my in-laws for Easter. In the course of conversation, I found out that my mother-in-law (die-hard republican conservative) bought a sirius radio just so she could listen to Howard Stern!!!

I almost fell out of my chair!!!!

By Trickle-Down Bushshit

April 10, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this

LuckoDull @8:04am- Contrary to popular belief, the vast bulk of federal taxes are paid by the wealthy.

While, on it’s face, this statement is not false, it is deceptive. Since the ‘wealthy’ (if making >$100k/yr classes you as ‘wealthy’ as the article claims) absorb most of the earnings, and since taxes are paid as a percentile of earnings, the highest actual dollar sum paid in taxes IS paid by the ‘wealthy’. This is just further evidence that the wealthy are keeping all the earnings to themselves and that the ‘trickle-down’ theory of economics espoused by Republicans is fallacious.

Here is an interesting, though slightly dated, counterpoint to the argument that the wealthy pay the most taxes:

Sept. 22—Nearly one-third of the nation’s largest and most profitable corporations paid no federal income tax between 2001 and 2003—yet still received billions of dollars in tax rebates, according to a new study.

Corporate Income Taxes in the Bush Years, released Sept. 22 by Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, finds 82 of 275 companies CTJ examined enjoyed at least one year in 2001–2003 in which they paid no federal income taxes yet received billions of dollars in outright tax rebates. In 2003 alone, 46 of the companies paid no federal income taxes and in some cases, received tax rebates.

The companies, all on the Fortune 500 list, were profitable in each of the three years analyzed.

General Electric Co., which lobbies extensively for tax breaks, topped the list of corporate tax-break recipients, receiving nearly $10 billion in tax subsidies over the three-year period, according to the report.

In other words, the super-wealthiest corporations in America paid NO taxes and in fact received millions in corporate welfare. So we simply have a problem with semantics; the wealthy DO pay the most taxes, while the SUPER-WEALTHY PAY NONE and in fact bleed the tax system for corporate payola!

By Buy Danish

April 10, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this

@@,

I agree with the conclusions of Mo’Kelly’s Op Ed, but it goes astray midway by perpetuating a myth about Limbaugh’s “disparaging” remarks - which even O’Reilly mischaracterized last night.

This is what Limbaugh said:

In September of 2003, Limbaugh ignited a controversy when, speaking as a football commentator on ESPN, he criticized the media for its high opinion of Donovan McNabb, the African-American quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles. The controversy centered on his comment: “I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well … There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.”

By Truthsayer

April 10, 2007 9:14 AM | Link to this

This if for all of you Chicken Littles out there who ALL the time come up with these “end of the world” panic scenarios and when it doesn’t happen you move on to another. I can’t wait for the next one.

A meteorology professor at the Massachusetts institute of Technology says there is no compelling evidence that global warming will lead to a catastrophe — and in fact might be beneficial.

Richard Lindzen writes in Newsweek: “Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal weather and climate. There is no evidence that extreme weather events are increasing…Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.”

Lindzen says most of the current alarm over climate change is based on what he calls “inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now.”

And now another about your hero, Al Gore, the stupidest man in America!

Meanwhile, top hurricane forecaster William Gray of Colorado State University called Al Gore “a gross alarmist” during the closing speech of the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans.

Gray says the recent increase in strong hurricanes is part of a natural cycle that has nothing to do with global warming. He says Gore is, “doing a great disservice and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

By N-GA

April 10, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this

Paul,

The analysis is available at the Cato Institute web site. I read the summary and scanned the full text. Their bottom line is to let free market forces determine energy supply/demand rather than political or military forces.

Personally I believe this “concern” about China writing long-term oil contracts is of tertiary importance relative to reducing consumption and finding alternative energy sources.

By Mrs. Godzilla

April 10, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this

Imus’ head gear is standard issue for the last of the Republicans.

One-size-fits-all-neo-cons.

As if granny’s old bed sheet scares anybody any more…

By rushncap

April 10, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this

So @@ is basically saying there should be no repercussions whatsoever for Imus because black rappers call women “hoes”. Brilliant piece of deductive logic. I wonder if stuff like this even makes it past the BS detector of her students.

By Jesus

April 10, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

By Paul

April 10, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

N-GA

Good summary. And I do think it appropriate for government to invest in energy research for the good of the country - similar to what the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency does for DoD. But not along the lines of subsidizing corn farmers to produce ethanol (net energy savings?) while at the same time imposing tariffs on Brazilian ethanol.

On comsumption: the voluntary measures, plus incentives, plus mandates can have a great impact (insulation, energy star, CAFE). One person may think the “small” change they make is insignificant, but when multiplied by the size of the country, the impact can be staggering.

By regulator

April 10, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this

Imus is entitled to say whatever he wants, the quote was made in jest for Christ’s sake, and this is from a classic sixties liberal.

By candide

April 10, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

LET IMUS BE IMUS!

By rushncap

April 10, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

Imus is entitled to say whatever he wants. And the rest of us are entitled to punish him for it.

By Buy Danish

April 10, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this

Puhlease.

MSNBC and CBS radio turned down the dial on Don Imus yesterday, suspending him hours after he made another racial blunder - addressing the Rev. Al Sharpton and a key black congresswoman as “you people.”

Here’s an idea to level the playing field. Get rid of the “Congressional Black Caucus” while Imus is on suspension, and fire anyone who refers to a conservative as a “neo-con”.

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this

Mrs. G,

When did Imus, supporter of Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, become a Republican?

By Power of Independent Thinking

April 10, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - Public approval for Congress is at its highest level in a year as Democrats mark 100 days in power and step up their confrontation with President Bush over his handling of the Iraq War, the issue that overshadows all others.

Yet for all their eagerness to challenge Bush, congressional Democrats so far have failed to attract significant support among independents, a group that helped propel them to power in last fall’s elections and now appears more strongly opposed to the war than the general public.

Democrats have their marching orders. They can either use any and all means to stop the abomination in Iraq or they, too, will be handed their walking papers.

Don’t like it? You can take it up with ME, the independent voter! Now get to work, or get the hell outta the way!

By Martini

April 10, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

This cartoon is so hackneyed.

By Martini

April 10, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

This cartoon is so hackneyed.

By The Peoples for a Nuked' Amerika' Century~!

April 10, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

-=-

Truthsayer? This Lindzen?

(From Wiki) Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper’s Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged “oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled ‘Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,’ was underwritten by OPEC.” [3]

—

AndyDull @ 8:04am

2005 eh? — So now tell me - Who was President then? and Who had control of Congress then? And how much of that budget was being spent in Iraq? Basically Who managed that budget?

I also notice you didn’t comment on Mike L. slamming a liberal in his toon today.

—

I must admit - I find it funny that some right-wingers are actually defending a liberal talk show host here.

-=-

By @@

April 10, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

My apologies if this duplicates my “lost forever” post.

rushncap:

Go back to ml’s Friday cartoon. I responded to Paul’s post by saying that…

“Regardless of who makes comments like the one Imus made, I’ve always found them disgusting and non-productive.”

N-GA:

I absolutely agree with you. We can vote to support or not support shock jocks with our wallets. While the speech is free the harm done by it is often costly.

I have no idea who listens to Stern overall. I was referring to comments on this board several months back.

Most of the conservatives, and possibly “all” of the conservatives found his exploitation of guests degrading.

The liberals here, thought he was great.

I think he’s a waste of an intelligent mind. He has one, he just chooses not to use it.

By Truthsayer

April 10, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

Godzilla - Imus is no more a Republican than I am a radical Maoist. He endorsed and voted for Gore and Kerry and was also a big fan of Billy Boy when he was “running the country.” He is digusting and typical of liberals who are closet racists. The only crime here is that the hypocrites Jesse Jackson (remember Hymie Town?) and Al Sharpton (Tawana Brawley). He should be fired, but because he has low ratings (everyone on PMSNBC) and he is a BIG JERK EVERYDAY!

By Buy Danish

April 10, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

The Management:

Your server is not functioning properly. Either that or I am being censored for innocuous posts.

No point in wasting time trying to post comments only to have them disappear.

Later…

By Truthsayer

April 10, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

PNA - Yes that may be the same fellow. I rather think it is. He is at least as credible as some of the “social scientists” who the UN used as part of the “community of scientists” for their last report on global warming. In fact, they only got a consensus and not an agreement. That is like a group of people getting together and deciding to add 2+2 and get six because it fits their agenda!

By The Mismanagement

April 10, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish @ 10:26am- Your server is not functioning properly. Either that or I am being censored for innocuous posts.

The server is functioning properly. LMAO.

Ooooo, them filthy liberals done attacked Buy Danish with their Hillarycopters an shot the AJC server with their liberal mind-control ray to make it skip her postings.

By who_really_cares_anyway?

April 10, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Of course, Crazy Andy off topic.

ON topic, that is, commentary about the ‘toon:

Imus was always a pig. I remember him being the dj on wnbc way back in the 60s and 70s in NYC. He was a big jerk then, now, a bigger jerk with a bigger audience. Even as a child, I recognized him for the jerk he was. (this was why we chose NOT to listen to them and listened instead to “77 WABC” instead).

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

By rushncap

April 10, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Muffin would just LOVE to be sensored. It would validate everything that she thinks about herself: that she is dangerous to the “establishment”, a brilliant, prophetic critic of the powers that be. Rather than what she really is: a fat bored housewife with no friends or apparent hobbies.

By who_really_cares_anyway?

April 10, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

Of course, Crazy Andy off topic posts first.

ON topic, that is, commentary about the ‘toon:

Imus was always a pig. I remember him being the dj on wnbc way back in the 60s and 70s in NYC. He was a big jerk then, now, a bigger jerk with a bigger audience. Even as a child, I recognized him for the jerk he was. (this was why we chose NOT to listen to them and listened instead to “77 WABC” instead).

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

By The Peoples for a Nuked' Amerika' Century~!

April 10, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

-=-

So —

If Buy Danish is gone from posting today - does that mean RW is gone too?

(snickers)

-=-

By Truthman

April 10, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

As long as there is “gangsta rap” on the radio, then whatever Imus says on the radio pales in comparison.

I can turn on V-103 or 95.5 “The Beat” and hear all manner of vulgar, objectifying lyrics aimed at demeaning women, mothers, daughters, sisters and all.

Let’s take a wider look at ourselves.

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

Thomas,

Aren’t you supposed to be backing the allegations you made yesterday or would you prefer to admit you were lying?

Actually I am heading out and if I read Buy Danish’s comment correctly it says LATER, not gone from posting today.

Later!

By @@

April 10, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

Last post, and then I’m off to work.

It would appear as though “w*******?” is experiencing difficulty with the server. Double post?

Buy Danish:

How dare you choose to spend your time more productively. sarc/

Why wouldn’t you sit around all day waiting for the opportunity “NOT” to address “the people” who sit around all day, dealing with an incompetent webserver, while waiting to address you?

How can you leave them to comment to themselves or their other selves. Can’t you see them “desperately” seeking your attention to their de(cough)tails?

Too funny!

rushncap:

Nice way to ignore my Friday criticism of Imus. It didn’t quite suit your agenda, did it?

Over, and outta here…

By Truthman

April 10, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

How about our great cops busting up that terrible poker game!!

Hooray for them! I was certainly threatened by a bunch of middle-aged fat guys playing big-stakes poker in a private residence.

Now, I can sleep at night again!!

Putzes!!

By @@

April 10, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

Well drat!

The “censored” word in my last comment was the poster’s name:

WHO REALLY CARES ANYWAY?

I had no idea “it” was profane.

Thanks webmaster.

Now I’m outta here and onto worthy endeavors.

By William Hunter

April 10, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

IMUS: YOU’RE FIRED!

By rushncap

April 10, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

@@ — I did not ignore your Friday comment. Frankly, if you think I’m gonna search through 200+ posts from a few days ago, you’re, well, not in right mind. But I believe you. So why criticize Imus 5 days ago, and then defend him today?

By LuckoDull

April 10, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

{{{By The Giggler At Tony Snow’s Cancer Who Hasn’t Suspended Himself Yet April 10, 2007 10:17 AM AndyDull @ 8:04am 2005 eh? — So now tell me - Who was President then?}}}

Thomas Gasbag: 8:04 was Pro American. I know you candy as-ses have a hard time even imagining that.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

{{{By w******* what a lib says April 10, 2007 10:48 AM Of course, Crazy Andy off topic.}}}

Every single solitary day, one of you whining as-s liberals lets out a blood curdling scream about “China taking us over.”

My post is a mind boggling FACT that totally blows away that silly contrived pinko nonsense, just like everything else you get hysterical about.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

{{{By rushncap April 10, 2007 10:48 AM Muffin would just LOVE to be sensored. It would validate everything that she thinks about herself: that she is dangerous to the “establishment”, a brilliant, prophetic critic of the powers that be.}}}

Well thank you rushncrap.

Considering I get “banned” and “censored” from this blog every couple of days, I guess I really must be some evil power against liberalism.

It actually warms my soul to know that I frighten you candy as-ses, that my words put fear in your heart.

The truth hurts, don’t it?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

Imus hates Italians too.

Have you heard RW radio?

Geez.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

More oversight please

By LuckoDull

April 10, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

{{{By TruthWoman April 10, 2007 11:07 AM How about our great cops busting up that terrible poker game!!}}}

Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t Liegirl get excited at the very thought of Senate subcommittees looking into the hiring and firing of patronage employees?

WTF?

How much does the Senate cost per day, not to mention all the important work that they are neglecting, while it’s members frolic around butt naked on some political witch hunt?

And this stroke is worried about a couple of cops enforcing ACTUAL laws?

And apologizing for racist remarks, again?

{{{By TruthWoman April 10, 2007 10:52 AM As long as there is “gangsta rap” on the radio, then whatever Imus says on the radio pales in comparison.}}}

Go fondle yourself, wanker.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By @@

April 10, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

rushncap:

Please show me where I defended Imus.

I linked to an article by Mo Kelly (an African American) who made his own point. One I found worthy of discussion. I said…

(((N-GA:)))

(((I absolutely agree with you. We can vote to support or not support shock jocks with our wallets. While the speech is free the harm done by it is often costly.)))

That statement ^^^ would indicate that I believe it should cost Imus, and the harm done to those who hear it can be even more costly.

CBS and MSNBC are “liberal” media outlets. How they respond to Imus is more to the question. How much hate speech will their audience tolerate.

Obviously more than I would.

I don’t watch ‘em. I don’t listen to Stern. I don’t watch or listen to Rosie O’Donnell. I don’t listen to ANY radio, and I watch very little television. I read.

Auf Wiedersehen rushncap! Ich bin von zu arbeiten. Behalten Sie Ihre Hände über Ihrem Schreibtisch.

By Midori

April 10, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

Andy,

you have truly jumped the shark..

By LuckoDull

April 10, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

“Global warming” my as-s:

{{{Soak Up The Sun: Sheryl Crow starts global warming tour…in 55° Dallas [17° below normal]}}}

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Med time Andy.

Geez.

By ron

April 10, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

By LuckoDull

April 10, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

{{{By ron April 10, 2007 12:10 PM Apparently this time he went out through the envelope in a couple of places and got called for it.}}}

Nah.

A lib can say anything, do anything, write anything, draw anything, the most foulest, disgusting thoughts that he can express and all the other self righteous blow hard pinkos will look the other way.

Where Imus got in trouble, in a situation any other lib would have gotten off scot free, was to do the right thing and hold himself accountable.

He went Republican for a moment and apologized.

That opened the door for all the race baiter’s, the chest pounders, the grievance lobby and all the other filth to come out from their slimy, scummy, noxious holes in the ground and go to work on that as-s.

He should have just shut up.

Like all the other pinkos usually do.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By JimmyZ

April 10, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

Today when I get home Im gonna sit down on the toilet and take a Jesse Jackson…then get up, have some chili and later go back, sit on the toilet and then take an Al Sharpton.

POOT

By JimmyZ

April 10, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

Today when I get home Im gonna sit down on the toilet and take a Jesse Jackson…then get up, have some chili and later go back, sit on the toilet and then take an Al Sharpton.

POOT

By JimmyZ

April 10, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

Today when I get home Im gonna sit down on the toilet and take a Jesse Jackson…then get up, have some chili and later go back, sit on the toilet and then take an Al Sharpton.

POOT

By getalife

April 10, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

Don’t forget to wipe your JimmyZ.

Geez.

By Scooter

April 10, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

I wonder why the AJC staff saw fit to not post the one post I wanted to make this morning? I have never been mean, derogatory, or attacked anyone personally, but many do, and their posts remain for the world to read. Hmmm?

By Midori

April 10, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

Imus’ statements past and present — documented here by MediaMatters — are deplorable and should be condemned. That goes without saying. The point, however, is the blatant double standard. Did Dick Cheney have to “take a stand” on Rush Limbaugh’s myriad racist/sexist /insensitive remarks before going on his show last week? Did Secretary Gates have to condemn Laura Ingraham for advocating that her listeners jam the Democratic voter assistance lines in November before chatting it up last week?

By Cindy

April 10, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

BD, The bush administration created neo-conism. So, those who support bush are neo-cons and only neo-cons. The more avid the supporter, the more avid the neo-con. This is not the same as conservative.

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

As much as I’d like to blame the AJC staff it’s really just their shoddy web server and probably gets us all equally.

If you have a post that you really want to make it’s best to write it in a document and paste it here so you can just paste it again if you see a comment post with a timestamp after the first time you tried it.

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

Midori,

The “logic” in your link borders on insanity. They want to use the racist comments of a left wing broadcaster to prove right wing talk hosts are full of hate. Too weird….

Later again, in case TtTBTE is keeping up.

By Midori

April 10, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this

Rush Limpballs:

■ “I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.”

■ “You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray . We miss you, James. Godspeed.”

By Midori

April 10, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

“Sorry to say this, I don’t think he’s (McNabb) been that good from the get-go,” Limbaugh said in unscripted remarks. “I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well, black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.”

By Midori

April 10, 2007 1:08 PM | Link to this

As a young broadcaster in the 1970s, Limbaugh once told a black caller:“Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.” A decade ago, after becoming nationally syndicated, he mused on the air: “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”

By Regina Hackett

April 10, 2007 1:08 PM | Link to this

I am an African-American baby boomer and I am disgusted by the remarks repeated by Don Imus—that goes without saying. Having said that, however, I am also disgusted with the power hungry folks who want to make an example out of him when there are plenty of rappers that call black women “hos” and a whole lot more. Where is their disgust and outrage at them? When will they call them on their shows to push them in a corner and make them accountable. Yes, Imus opened his big mouth and sputtered filth that he could not take back before it went out to millions of people listening to his program. I, for one, accept his apology and want to move on. Those of you who want his job—get a life and move on. This is not the first, nor will it be the last of white folks saying what’s on their minds and this doesn’t make all white folks responsible for what Imus said. We’ve got young men and women dying on a battlefield for something that was never there. Where’s the outrage and picket lines against that? Grow up black folks, you don’t deny a person his job or his right to make a living for something he “said”. The last time I checked, all of us had feet of clay. When the rest of you become “holier than thou”, check back with me. What Imus said will not take away or deminish from those talented Rutgers players what they have achieved. Those young ladies can hold their heads up and celebrate their accomplishments. Let’s get back to the things that matter—our boys and girls in harm’s way. Let’s get back to focus on the harm this administration is doing to our country! You all are focusing way too much on the stuff that’s simply fodder for the limelight seekers.

By Midori

April 10, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this

Regina,

You are so very correct on several points, however, how about keeping the issues separate?

In other words, what has Don Imus to do with rappers?

By Johnny

April 10, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this

Speaking of the Don Imus situation… While I do agree that what he said was wrong. The bigger concern is, why do we care so much what he says? How did this minor celebrity get to have such infuence and control over peoples lives? I think we as a society need to realize that no one person can affect our lives by saying words. Only you can control your life. Only you can control your emotions. Only you can determine your worth. The question we should be asking ourselves is not “should Don Imus be fired”, but rather we should be asking ourselves “why are we giving him the attention that he does not deserve”.

By Johnny

April 10, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this

Speaking of the Don Imus situation… While I do agree that what he said was wrong. The bigger concern is, why do we care so much what he says? How did this minor celebrity get to have such infuence and control over peoples lives? I think we as a society need to realize that no one person can affect our lives by saying words. Only you can control your life. Only you can control your emotions. Only you can determine your worth. The question we should be asking ourselves is not “should Don Imus be fired”, but rather we should be asking ourselves “why are we giving him the attention that he does not deserve”.

By Regina

April 10, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

Midori,

I guess you don’t understand or have never listened to some rappers’ language?

By Regina

April 10, 2007 1:21 PM | Link to this

Midori,

I guess you don’t understand or have never listened to some rappers’ language?

By Truthman

April 10, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

Ah, name-calling!!

I guess my points are just too good to ignore and some folk get very wrapped up in their vitriol!

Bwack, Bwack, Bwack!! Poor neo-con can’t come up with a a witty phrase, so he has to call names!!

Oooooo…I’m soooo hurt! Years of therapy wasted!!

By Rob Kidwell

April 10, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

I don’t think there is any denying what Imus said to be crude and very distasteful. I just have to ask if the Powers that are asking for his termination will also go after rap artist. Most of the lyrics I heard as a child from the popular artist in the 90’s to those today are filled with calling each other a word that has a great deal of racism history attached to it. They also demoralize women to every degree. I would like to see them do something about that. It would also be very uplifting to see the NAACP stand up for all colored people; yellow, brown, white, black. The name clearly states that it is the advancement for colored people, so unless we have Americans who are completely without color, being colorless, then they should stick up for us all. It may not matter much what I think, but if we are to change the world and the way people think and respond, like Imus, it has to start with each of us.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this

“Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), 4/8/07:

“Extremist Shiite militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr is in hiding, his followers are not contesting American forces”

Muqtada al-Sadr, 4/9/07:

“‘You, the Iraqi army and police forces, don’t walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your archenemy,’ the al-Sadr statement said. He urged his followers not to attack fellow Iraqis but to turn all their efforts on American forces.”

Nice work McIdiot.

Geez.

By rushncap

April 10, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

Johnny, I think it’s been pretty conclusively demonstrated that ignoring racism is not the best approach.

By Truthman

April 10, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

All,

Please refer to my 10:52 a.m. post. I first posited the Imus/Gangsta Rap hypocrisy.

Also, just to give the debate more color, Eminem, a.k.a. Marshall Mathers, has a pretty foul mouth as well and doesn’t respect his mama at all.

That being said, I like Snoop Dogg and Eminem and Ludicris and Twista!

To Dennis Loy in today’s “letters to the editor:

Wrong!!!!!

By getalife

April 10, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

We found Rice’s replacement

Nice work.

By Truthman

April 10, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this

I don’t think Richardson will wear a strap-on for the Chimperor!

By Letters to the editor

April 10, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this

Pelosi empowered the enemies

The writer of the letter “Pelosi rightfully represents the U.S. overseas” (April 6) sounds like a true believer and follower when he talks about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to the Middle East. Unfortunately, there are too many true believers and followers out there who think the same way.

By making her Middle Eastern trip she accomplished exactly what she wanted: She embarrassed the Republicans, the State Department and the president.

She also accomplished one other thing. She gave our enemies hope. Now they believe that everyone in the United States shares Pelosi’s disdain for the White House and total disregard for American policy. Groups such as al-Qaida and rogue nations such as Syria and Iran think they can get away with developing nuclear weapons, attacking Americans and spreading terrorism.

DENNIS LOY, Atlanta

By LuckoDull

April 10, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

{{{By getalife April 10, 2007 1:32 PM Muqtada al-Sadr, 4/9/07: “‘You, the Iraqi army and police forces, don’t walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your archenemy,’ the al-Sadr statement said. He urged his followers not to attack fellow Iraqis but to turn all their efforts on American forces.”}}}}

gitmo and mookie, spreading Iranian propaganda: Extolling their followers to die before the American army like dogs, while they safely hide in Iran and America.

Cowards.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this

Dennis ignores the members of the hate party like Specter who went to Syria.

How about Newt the pinko and his trip to China?

Al Queda is in Pakistan idiot.

Geez, read something.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

Andy,

You know it is very easy to sit back and cheer on w’s disaster.

For real Americans, we have to protest, net root activists, turn out in numbers to vote out the hate party, petition for change and be called names by failed Americans.

Yes, it is real easy to be a chickenhawk coward and not do anything but run your ignorant, hate filled mouth.

GFY!

Coward.

By The Peoples for a Nuked' Amerika' Century~!

April 10, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

-=-

[Andy can say anything, do anything, write anything, draw anything, the most foulest, disgusting thoughts that he can express and all the other self righteous blow hard wingnuts will look the other way.]

-=-

By Republican bipartisanship?

April 10, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

The four-day trip, which has been endorsed by the Bush administration, comes days before a crucial deadline in a recent nuclear disarmament accord. Earlier, Richardson, a Democratic candidate for president, had said he had no intention of negotiating nuclear matters.

Really? It was endorsed by the Bush administration?

Richardson has years of experience in foreign relations. Pelosi had neither the endorsement or the experience in foreign relations.

Her trip was a foreign relations catastrophe. That’s o.k. though.

She did it for the party of dems.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this

Which part of lame duck do you not understand rebube bipolar?

Geez.

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I’ll be out most of the afternoon so there’s no rush on this request, but when you get a chance would you help me find the part of the Constitution that makes foreign relations a free for all during the last two years of a President’s final term?

Thank you in advance!

By getalife

April 10, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

“The President’s approval ratings
are right there with gonorrhea.” — Rep Marty Seifer (R-MN)

Geez.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 2:32 PM | Link to this

RW,

That is easy

Just follow your Newt.

Hypocrite.

By Dennis

April 10, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this

Mike; Please republish the cartoon that you did depicting Senator Byrd when he used the N-word.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this

Anything else I can help you with wingnuts?

By Truthman

April 10, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this

Frank Wolf (R-W Va) Robert Aderholt (R-Ala) and a Pennsylvania Congressman all went to Syria the week before Pelosi.

Where is your outrage at them.

You tell ‘em, getalife.

As the old Arab proverb goes:

A man who is know and knows he knows is a leader - follow him!

A man who knows not and knows he knows not is ignorant - teach him!

A man who knows not and does not know he knows not is a fool - shun him!

Arabs are pretty smart, unlike neo-cons!!

By rushncap

April 10, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this

Stalk — since our Chimperor has failed miserably in just about every single aspect of foreign policy, if you loved our country you’d appreciate that those who know more than him are finally helping. But you don’t. You love him. You don’t love this country, like the rest of us. Too bad.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this

Here ya go Dennis

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this

Truth?man,

It’s the specific charter of Congress critters to go on fact finding missions. It’s another thing entirely to usurp the Constitutional powers of the President and substitute your own foreign policy.

getalife,

There are a few flaws in your link to the Constitution, the most obvious being that it says nothing about the Constitution. Lesser problems include the fact that the Gingrich trip was approved in advance by the Clinton administration and the other minor detail is that 1997 wasn’t in the traditional lame duck years of the Clinton Presidency.

The lame duck period is the time within your second term that falls after the mid term elections. Possibly you’re trying to tell us that Clinton was such a do nothing that his lame duck status began a little earlier.

By Cindy

April 10, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

RW, Where in the constitution are Legislative foreign relations banned?

By Truthman

April 10, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

Oh, RW, your partisanship is showing!

You, as do so many neo-conmen, hate strong women.

You’re probably on of those Southern Baptist Convention Neandrathals who believe women should, in the words of the SBC, “gracefully submit” to the man of the house.

Your argument is a house of cards blown down by the necessity of diplomacy in the world where your prez has gotten most of the world to hate us!

Come and get me!! Bring it on!!

By getalife

April 10, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this

RW,

Just stating the facts and know it is a lost cause trying to tell you anything bad about your hate party.

Your hate party bias always clouds your better judgement on what is best for our country.

rushncap’s 2:49 is spot on about you.

I will keep trying to break through that ugly mindset.

By RW-(the original)

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

Dmitry,

There you go using the Constitution of the United States for toilet paper again.

Why do you hate the founding structure of our country?

By Speaker Of The Dhimmis

April 10, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

Several leading legal authorities have made the case that her recent diplomatic overtures ran afoul of the Logan Act, which makes it a felony for any American “without authority of the United States” to communicate with a foreign government to influence that government’s behavior on any disputes with the United States. Regardless of the law, Pelosi proceeded to make Assad an important regional player without first having to become a responsible one. At such a critical moment in the volatile Middle East, this is no time for the United States to be sending out mixed signals to our enemies.

Speaker of the JailHouse, hehehehehehe.

Cowards.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

Cindy,

I’ll try to be as helpful as possible, but I think you might want to read the Constitution before you ask questions like that.

Here’s a road map for you. Article I deals with the Constitutional charter of the Legislative Branch and Article II outlines the powers of the Executive Branch. It’s pretty clearly written. Good luck!

Truth?man,

WTF are you babbling about? By all means feel free to break that down and see if any of what you just wrote relates to anything I’ve written. Did the DoD have an open bar at lunch today?

By Truthman

April 10, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

Oh my, Spooker of the Dimwits, The National Review is about as non-partisan as The Nation!!

What about your fellow Republican Congressmen who were in Syria the week before Pelosi? Did they “run afoul of the Logan Act?”

Hmmm? Answer the question?

Still scared of strong women!!

By rushncap

April 10, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry, where in the Constitution does it say that Congresspeople can’t travel abroad to meet with foreign leaders? Please site Article and paragraph.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this

Wingnuts talking about the Constitution cracks me up.

Torture, spying, habeous corpus, reditions. etc… are not in the Constitution.

Geez, get real.

By Speaker Of The Dhimmis

April 10, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this

Let’s be clear from the start: There isn’t much question that Speaker Pelosi has committed a felony violation of the Logan Act. This two-century-old law, codified at Section 953 of the federal penal code, bars Americans who are “without authority of the United States” from conducting relations “with any foreign government … in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States[.]”

Bye, bye Blinky.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 3:18 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

Still having that reading disability problem I see. You really ought to take a course or something.

Congress is very welcome to go on fact finding missions in foreign countries, like I already said up ^ ^ ^ there. It’s when they try to substitute their own foreign policy or broker their own deals with foreign leaders that they run afoul of the law and violate the separation of powers in the Constitution.

When Pelosi and Lantos came out of their meeting with Assad they specifically said they had a new foreign policy, one for the Democrats. That’s where the problem comes in.

By Truthman

April 10, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this

Spooker of the Dimwits,

You’re not answering my question - Three of your fellow traveler Repubs went to Syria the week before! Did they “run afoul of the Logaqn Act?”

Answer the question, boy!

By getalife

April 10, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this

No mention of the hate party members in both those articles.

NRO.

Geez.

By RE

April 10, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this

RW, a few of the powers of congress;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

By Truthman

April 10, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

Spooker of the Dimwits,

You’re not answering my question - Three of your fellow traveler Repubs went to Syria the week before! Did they “run afoul of the Logaqn Act?”

Answer the question, boy!

By RE

April 10, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this

Executive powers;

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

It seems the executive needs the consent of the senate in any foriegn policy decision.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this

Congressman Nick Rahall (D-WV) on C-Span:

“The Speaker had met with President Bush in the halls of the U.S. Capitol just the day before we left and mentioned to him that we were going to Syria. No response at all from the President. The State Department was certainly aware of our traveling to Syria and our full itinerary. And there were State Department officials in every meeting that we had on this [congressional delegation]. So that is all hogwash as far as I’m concerned.”

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this

RE,

Do you have a point with regard to negotiating a new foreign policy that opposes the official United States policy?

I guess you could declare war on Syria if you just want to prove you have the power to change policy.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

Donna Brazile on This Week:

“Somehow or other in this whole dispute we’ve forgotten the fact that Speaker [Newt] Gingrich went to the Middle East and blasted the Clinton administration when he had that position, and Speaker Hastert told the Columbian military that they could deal directly with the Republican-controlled congress and bypass the Clinton administration. Look, they may dislike the messenger—-in this case Nancy Pelosi—-but she went over there and she articulated the president’s message to Assad to close the border, stop undermining Lebanon, and start talking to Israel.”

Anything else I can help you wingnuts with?

By Speaker Of The Dhimmis

April 10, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this

{{{By TruthWoman April 10, 2007 3:22 PM | Spooker of the Dimwits, You’re not answering my question}}}

If it makes you happy, let’s try all of them together.

But I seriously doubt if the wingnuts went over there looking to commit treason against the United States of America and collaborate with the enemy, like Pelosi did.

I’ll sacrifice them as long as we get Blinky’s traitorous a-ss in a bind.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By RE

April 10, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this

You asked for constitutional references, I gave them to you. And also for comparision the executive authority as well, which any action (constitutionally) requires senate consent.

So, what part of the constitution did Pelosi violate? Or are you just looking for something to be outraged about to try to distract from GWB’s incompetence. Again.

By Blackadder

April 10, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this

getalife - Great Minds…

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this

RE,

So now you’re saying that the President needs the Congress to approve the policy that’s already approved??? How often? Does your version of the Constitution make this a weekly thing? Monthly?

Yet Congress can run around negotiating their own policy anytime they want?? If that’s true why are you whining about Gingrich going to China? It sounds like you’re now saying Gingrich was right and Clinton had no business dealing with China.

Do you ever get dizzy from all your spinning or does that helium filled cranial cavity keep you from it?

By Paul

April 10, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

RW-(the original)

Altho not directed towards me, as you haven’t received a response to your 2:27 which I infer asked for a Constitutional basis for Congress to conduct foreign policy, may I offer a clue?

Artticle I, Section I: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…”

Follow me on this. Article I, Section 7: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…”

So appropriations to raise revenue originate in the House. The appropriations are necessary to fund the operation of government. The government agencies cannot run or execute their duties. This includes domestic, as well as, foreign affairs duties. The amount of money and the manner for which it is appropriated determines what may or may not be done in foreign spheres. As this power originates in the House, the House has original, determining action.

Get it? Oh, yeah, (sarc).

Makes about as much sense as anything else I’ve read here on the topic. Bottom line, House: you don’t like it, put your money (legislation) where your mouth is.

By Cindy

April 10, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

RW, Precisely. You can’t identify it because it is not there.

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Perhaps we can provoke a real Constitutional crisis by having Congress defund the Executive Branch.

Better start dragging Article III in here!

By Blackadder

April 10, 2007 3:35 PM | Link to this

On “FOX News Sunday”, Chris Wallace confronted Newt Gingrich with the statements he made in 1997 on a trip to China in which he directly contradicted President Clinton’s policy regarding Taiwan. Newt Gingrich — along with the right-wing echo chamber and short-memoried MSM — spent the week condemning Speaker Pelosi for doing what Speaker Gingrich did just a decade before. Only then, Gingrich carried a message that was in stark contrast to US foreign policy; something that Nancy Pelosi didn’t do, despite baseless right-wing accusations to the contrary.

It should also be noted that Dennis Hastert traveled to Colombia in 1997 to undermine President Clinton’s policy towards that country. He even went so far as to say that the Columbian government should bypass the excutive and deal directly with Congress.

By RE

April 10, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

Never said a thing about gingrich, he was within his rights to speak with China. So was pelosi.

The reality is that the world is looking beyond the next 20 months. US dimplomacy has been dormant for the last 6 years, aside from threats, ultimatums, and war. The grown ups are going to be back in charge soon. Not saying the democrats specifically, but I can promise there will be no one as dense as GWB in office for another generation.

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this

Cindy,

Huh?

Paul,

I forgot the /sarc on my 3:34 for the humorless ones that are currently trolling around here.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

Come on wignuts, it is getting too easy.

Try global warming.

Geez.

By Cindy

April 10, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

RW, Precisely. You can’t identify it because it is not there.

By Blackadder

April 10, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this

My 3:35 was supposed to precede my 3:29 but it got lost in the shuffle. Probably the same thing Scooter and BD were complaining about earlier.

By rushncap

April 10, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this

Stalk — you claim the trip violated the Constitution. Back that claim up. If you don’t, you’ll back up my claim: that you have no idea what the Constitution actually says.

By RE

April 10, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this

OK, so there are two issues. Precedent for Pelosi’s trip and the constitutionality of it.

The precedent is there, Gingrich, hastert.

and the constitutionality is there, look at article 1.

So what are you complaining about now?

By Speaker Of The Dhimmis

April 10, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this

REtard: Check this out:

{{{Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.}}}

Any questions?

Bye, bye Blinky.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this

I think I’ll take advantage of this time do get some work done. Hopefully by the time I get back the catfight between RE vs getalife/Blackadder will be over.

I hate it when libs argue before they get their talking points on order. It’s just not a pretty sight.

By Bipartisan scandals?

April 10, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

It was pretty hard for Gore to talk to China about their human rights violations in 1997 seeing how he and Clinton were knee deep in scandal for accepting campaign contributions from their Chinese buddies. Gore tried and failed miserably. There was something about a champagne glass and sharing a toast with the Butcher of Tiamenan Square.

Pu-ssy LeGore.

Newt goes over to China to deliver the tough message. He was on his way out by then. He had his own ethical problems and the republicans were turning on him anyway.

MFN status was being questioned by both parties. Clinton and Gore couldn’t do anything about the Chinese and Gingrich had nothing to lose.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

“Dear Speaker Pelosi:

We are writing to urge you to call the House back into session immediately so that Congress can finish its work on the emergency legislation to fund the Global War on Terrorism [sic]. This funding request has been pending since February 5, but your leadership team chose to leave town for more than two weeks rather than completing this bill. As a result, our troops have been put at risk.

We are especially troubled by the House’s failure to appoint conferees. The Senate appointed conferees on March 29, moments after passing its bill, but the House never did so, despite passing its bill a week earlier. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told the Senate that he hoped the House-Senate conference would begin on March 30. That hoped-for progress has been thwarted by your failure to act.”

“Be warned, Dubya: Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Trent Lott, John Kyl, Kay Bailey Hutchison, John Boehner, Roy Blunt, Adam Putnam and Eric Cantor think that any delay in signing this bill puts our troops at risk.

It says so in writing.”

Idiots.

Geez.

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this

Dmitry,

I did NOT say THE TRIP violated the Constitution, I said if she was negotiating a separate foreign policy it violated the separation of powers in the Constitution. What it violates under the law is the Logan Act.

Kerist, you’re an idiot.

Later!

By rushncap

April 10, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

Ah yes, Stalk be running away, to his “work”. Right. Bye, Stalk.

By RE

April 10, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

Cut and run RW.

Nice back up for your arguements.

By Paul

April 10, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

Cindy

A difficulty in “proving” what “can’t” be done is similar (one has to go through Court cases, precedent, etc here) with appropriation law. Many will ask, prior to obligating public funds, “show me where I can’t do this.” However, the controlling principle is that funds are available for obligation only when specifically appropriated (approved) by Congress. Saying “I can do it because nothing says I can’t” is a fine way to violate law. The principles are very similar.

Regarding the “Newt did this, Pelosi did that” - it should be apparent this is really a fight between branches of government over power. The party in power in the Executive or Legislative is irrelevant - therefore, don’t expect the arguments justifing Congressional insertion in foreign policy at the highest, determining level to be at all consistent.

By Cindy

April 10, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

Paul, RW used the constitution to say what the Speaker did was a violation. I merely asked where the constitution said that. Realistically, nothing exists to indicate what she did was a violation of the constitution; except in the foggy minds of neocons.

What you are saying is the neo-cons can use the constitution as a reason to support their ideas even though there is nothing in it for support. That is a plain stupid argument.

Congress authorizes, OMB apportions, agencies appropriate.

By RH

April 10, 2007 4:09 PM | Link to this

Can’t we all just get along?

By Scoop Jackson (D) Part I

April 10, 2007 4:12 PM | Link to this

To be sure, our Constitution does not vest any member of Congress — speaker or otherwise — with the power to usurp the authority of the Executive Branch where conducting foreign policy is concerned.

This isn’t to say that Congress doesn’t have any authority over the formulation of U.S. foreign policy; it certainly does. Article 2, Section 8 clearly states that Congress shall have the power:

“…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;…”

Further, in Article 3, Section 2, it clearly states that by their “advice and consent,” they authorize the president of the United States:

“…To make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law;…”

In other words, Congress has the authority to regulate business between the United States and foreign nations, to declare war and regulate the spoils of war and to validate and make official any treaties negotiated through the Executive Branch.

Article 3, not Congress, empowers the Executive Branch with the ability to appoint ambassadors, ministers, counsels, Supreme Court justices and all other officers, including official representatives of the United States. In essence, Congress has the limited power to legislate the general character and policies comprising American foreign policy.

Missing from this list of permitted functions is the power to directly engage in the business of foreign relations; to enter into official relations with foreign heads of state.

By Scoop Jackson (D) Part II

April 10, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this

In conclusion:

For this alone, we should have a huge problem, not with just the recent diplomatic transgressions of Nancy Pelosi, but with each and every member of Congress — Democrat and Republican — who has taken it upon themselves to represent the United States in activities that engage foreign leaders.

Fact-finding missions are one thing. Engaging in rogue diplomacy is quite another.

The United States secretary of state is — for better or worse — Condoleezza Rice. Secretary Rice was appointed by President Bush — pursuant to the authority vested in him by Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution — and confirmed by the Senate pursuant to the same constitutional authority.

The appointment and confirmation of Secretary Rice establishes her as the face of U.S. foreign policy. It is through this office — a presidential cabinet-level position falling under the authority of the Executive Branch — which American foreign affairs are to be conducted as mandated by the United States Constitution.

In Scoop’s own words. ” “In matters of national security, the best politics is no politics.” Those who knew him best understood him to believe that there was no place for partisanship or a lack of cohesiveness in matters of foreign relations and national security.

Of course, Sen. Jackson was an “old school” Democrat, a Democrat that looked down upon anarchy in government.

The “new school” Democrat supports anarchy.

By Paul

April 10, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this

Cindy

I’m not saying that. It’s a murky area - just try defining what “establishing US foreign policy” really is. The level I’m speaking at would be akin to Pres Nixon going to China - an act wholly inappropriate for a Speaker. Same for, say, Spkr Pelosi going to Cuba and saying, “you know, Fidel, the President’s policy regarding Cuba is just nuts and this is how you should look at your relationship to us.”

Definitions can be tricky. Article I deals with declaring war. I’m sure you’ve studied definitions of war, the authority of the Commander in Chief to commit military forces without a declaration (no where does the Constitution say “no declaration, the Pres can’t commit” or “this is what “war” means”). I suppose by the reasoning you cited the Pres could invade country x and say “they have no military, we had no opposition, so it’s not a war.” Silly, but it makes the point, I think.

The Constitution provides explicit statements and broad outlines. Those broad outlines will continue to provide fodder for debate. It’s not just a neocon issue - uberlibs engage in it all the time, when it suits their political purposes. Some may find the differences in the statements “violation of the Constitution” and “violation of the traditional roles enumerated by the Constitiution and the generally accepted separation of powers” to be a bit too nuanced, but that’s how I see it.

By Cindy

April 10, 2007 4:28 PM | Link to this

Paul, don’t lecture me on the constitution.

I was responding to RW’s comment “…but when you get a chance would you help me find the part of the Constitution that makes foreign relations a free for all during the last two years of a President’s final term”. Why don’t you lecture her?

By Paul

April 10, 2007 4:34 PM | Link to this

Cindy

It wasn’t a lecture, it was a response. At 4:08 you wrote to me:

“What you are saying is the neo-cons can use the constitution as a reason to support their ideas even though there is nothing in it for support. That is a plain stupid argument.

I merely explained how you mischaracterized what I’d said and gave specific reasons to support my position.

By In summation

April 10, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this

Poor old Scoop Jackson(D) would be sorely disappointed in today’s NEW DEMOCRAT.

They SUPPORT ANARCHY — ENCOURAGE ANARCHY — LEAD ANARCHY within and outside of our national borders.

WE, AS A PEOPLE AND A NATION, ARE IN PERIL FROM TODAY’S NEW DEMOCRAT.

VOTE AS THOUGH YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT.

VOTE REPUBLICAN. VOTE LIBERTARIAN.

WHATEVER YOU DO, DON’T VOTE FOR TODAY’S NEW DEMOCRAT.

By rushncap

April 10, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this

So you have, once again Stalk, failed to back up your claim. Ask me if I’m surprised.

And I was right. You really don’t know the Constitution. Or much of anything else.

By Speaker Of The Dhimmis

April 10, 2007 4:54 PM | Link to this

There’s fixing to be some “climate change” alright, it’s going to hit hard in the nation’s Capital.

Check out these libs when we start handing down indictments for real, instead of these kangaroo court show trial voter drives that they are engaged in.

Pelosi’s looking at 3 years in Atlanta, she’ll love the view of the hood from her cell.

See her voters hanging out on welfare all day.

Reid will probably just get ruined, tax evasion is usually negotiable but he’ll be out of power, which is the worst thing you can do to these wasters, freaks.

It’s time to jack that as-s up.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By @@

April 10, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this

rushncap:

Did you ever go back up to my 8:26 or any subsequent posts I made that “SUPPORTED” Don Imus and his deragatory comment?

I’ll be more than happy to wait while you do.

7:00 p.m. is closing time.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this

Andy,

It already has.

More oversight please

When it is over, your party will say he should have resigned and blame him for the 08 landslide for the Dems like they did Rummie.

By @@

April 10, 2007 5:05 PM | Link to this

rushncap:

Actually, that should have read…

“Did you find ANY post under my name which SUPPORTED Don Imus or his derogatory comment?”

By Paul

April 10, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this

@@

I find it amusing anyone could ever think you’d support anything Imus said.

With the exception of helping children with summer vacations at a ranch. Minus the tax evasion troubles, of course.

By Craig

April 10, 2007 5:08 PM | Link to this

The most amazing thing about this Imus flap is finding out Al Sharpton has a radio show.

By The Peoples for a Nuked' Amerika' Century~!

April 10, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this

-=-

Oh Please!

You wingnitpickers and your NeoCon trash news rags are still trying to make a case on the “Logan Act”? That act has never been used as it is such a weak argument that it will most likely be overthrown as un-constitutional the first time it ever actually gets used.

Historically, the act has been used more as a threat to those engaged in various political activities than as a weapon for prosecution. In fact, Logan Act violations have been discussed in almost every administration without any serious attempt at enforcement, and to date there have been no convictions and only one recorded indictment. The only Logan Act indictment occurred in 1803. It involved a Kentucky newspaper article that argued for the formation in the western United States of a separate nation allied to France. No prosecution followed.

Andy your addicted to rags like the NRO’ — Get some fresh air sometime before you completly mold over and become a neocon mushroom!

-=-

“…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;…”

I do believe it’s time Congress started to “make rules” concerning “Dubya’s Detainee’s”.

Cheers -

Thomas/PNAC

By Paul

April 10, 2007 5:15 PM | Link to this

Peoples for a Nuked

Congress did. It’s called “The Military Commissions Act of 2006.”

By LuckoDull

April 10, 2007 5:16 PM | Link to this

This is a no brainer.

I’m sure this Waxman dude is a real champion with you pinkos, the guy looks like he sucked one so hard it collapsed his cheekbones and shattered his nasal cavity, anyone who puts that much effort into it has to be highly revered among you pervert liberals, but the man is just as stupid as they come.

Who in their right mind would f’ck with the Attorney General?

Gonzales can hand down indictments to who ever he pleases, no matter if they have any truth to them or not, he can ruin your as-s. You get to hire a nice expensive defense team, have Limbaugh smear you everyday for years on end, you know, like the way you candy as-ses did Tom Delay.

There has got to be some freaking resemblance to reality starting to hit home at the Bush camp, surely they have figured out by now that being a coward isn’t going to get them anywhere.

It’s so damn obvious the scam, look at Jefferson, this guy diverted people rescuing old folks in New Orleans so he could get some personal belongings from his house and then he gets caught bribing someone with 90 grand in his freezer.

The libs promote the f’ckin guy to some committee chair.

All the while they run our guy Foley off for being gay.

WTF?

What do we have to do here?

Lock Pelosi up?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 5:18 PM | Link to this

Haliburton has been doing work in Iran when other American companies are not allowed.

cheney was against Iranian sanctions before he was for it.

Geez.

By Walt

April 10, 2007 5:22 PM | Link to this

The reason we are having this discussion is because the president has failed to provide any leadership.

This has been true throughout his administration.

If he had shown any leadership, we’d not have invaded Iraq at all, for instance.

You Bush supporters have been duped. You need to grow up.

And if you supported the troops, you’d support impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

And if cared a whit for the honor of the nation and the Flag, you’d want them both in prison.

Walt

By getalife

April 10, 2007 5:22 PM | Link to this

Poor Andy,

Still lusting on Foley.

Let it go pervert and take your meds.

Geez.

By Walt

April 10, 2007 5:26 PM | Link to this

“Congress did. It’s called “The Military Commissions Act of 2006.”

Yeah, the MCA is a piece of work. It contains post facto provisions, which are specifically prohibited by the Constitution.

Note that it was passed by a -Republican- controlled Congress.

Walt

By rushncap

April 10, 2007 5:32 PM | Link to this

@@ — the whole point of your 8:26 was that since others do it too, it’s no big deal (and, as usual, it’s the liberals’ fault, somehow). The point of your post was that what Imus did wasn’t so bad.

By Paul

April 10, 2007 5:33 PM | Link to this

Walt

It’s still the law and was based upon prior Supreme Court opinions regarding previous actions. Not a bad way to craft legislation - that, and it does address “gray areas” that arose when we found ourselves at war with an enemy not clearly covered under prior law or agreements.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 5:39 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Check Snopes.com to see it is not a war.

Iraq is an occupation for oil.

Geez.

By LuckoDull

April 10, 2007 5:39 PM | Link to this

{{{By AirBag April 10, 2007 5:11 PM Andy your addicted to rags like the NRO’}}}

This may come as a giant surprise to a dullard like you Thomas, seeing how you don’t have a clue, but the main source of information for your candy as-s compadres on this blog is the Huffington Post.

Not many people can’t figure the stretch here, I post an article written by a former US Attorney and you call his cred into question.

Plus it tells me how really strong the case against Pelosi is, when all you pinkos can do is squeal about the source.

Maybe you should find a mirror to gaze into, maybe with some luck, in between your lusting for yourself, you realize what an idiot you are.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By @@

April 10, 2007 5:42 PM | Link to this

Little “pointy headed” rush(D for Dunce)ncap.

Noooooooo. My point was that ALL racist comments should be recognized and dealt with.

Respect can’t be gained when you have none for yourself.

Don’t make my points for me rushncap. You’re not good at that either.

By The Peoples for a Nuked' Amerika' Century~!

April 10, 2007 5:43 PM | Link to this

-=-

Yes Paul - They snuck that in right under the wire before the new congress took charge. You might say it was one of the last great rubberstamps of the old congress and Dubya’.

“The Military Commissions Act of 2006” does everything it can to completly by-pass the intent of the Geneva Conventions and the protections of the GC while somewhat maintaining the rules of the Geneva Conventions. It’s a sneaky way to bypass the Geneva Conventions. It is on shakey ground though concerning “POW/Enemy Combatant” status in this case though seeing as we are the invaders and the civilians took up arms defending their country as a quickly organized militia. Also any real official Iraqi military troops automatically qualify as POW’s as they clearly cannot be defined as Enemy Combatants. That may come up sometime in the near future and seriously be a bad situation for the USA when debating our perverting the Rules of the GC for our own purposes. Especially when official troops under Saddam file against the USA for violating the Geneva Conventions for POW’s.

What I mean’t in my post was it may be about time for the new congress to (re-visit) these issues and maybe repeal that act. Now that would be entertaining.

Thomas/PNAC

By rushncap

April 10, 2007 5:44 PM | Link to this

“Respect can’t be gained when you have none for yourself.”

What exactly are you talking about, @@?

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 5:44 PM | Link to this

How could anyone in their right mind read @@’s 8:26 and think it in any way supported Imus or said his comment was just fine? What? It was rushncap? Well that explains it.

rushncap,

I’d be willing to bet you can’t even tell me what the claim you claim I made is, much less show that I didn’t back it.

Cindy,

You have the nuttiest view of the Constitution I’ve ever heard, well since the Burger court anyway.

Thomas,

Since you guys control Congress why don’t you introduce legislation to revoke the Logan Act if it’s so meaningless.

Of course if you would prefer we test it in the Supreme Court I suggest we go ahead and charge Pelosi under it, convict her, and let the appeals begin.

By Paul

April 10, 2007 5:46 PM | Link to this

getalife

Good to see you still have a sense of humor!

Wouldn’t it have been far cheaper and easier to just invade Venezuala? After all, they had refineries that were up and running. We coulda just run a pipeline straight north outa there! As a bonus, Haliburton could’ve paid Rep Jefferson a few more bucks than he was used to, Nagin could’ve got some better action, and Haliburton could’ve used all its resources for Katrina rebuilding.

By rushncap

April 10, 2007 5:47 PM | Link to this

Stalk, if you can’t read what you write yourself, I’m not going to help you out. I’m sorry. That’s just well beneath me.

By Walt

April 10, 2007 5:47 PM | Link to this

“By Paul

April 10, 2007 5:33 PM | Link to this

Walt

It’s still the law and was based upon prior Supreme Court opinions regarding previous actions.”

The fact that it -is- the law should and does disgust all true Americans.

Walt

By Paul

April 10, 2007 5:51 PM | Link to this

Peoples

Entertaining, yes, but a distraction we can do without.

For once, Wikipedia had some decent point-counterpoint on this issue. I don’t much go for the “snuck in” charge - it passed, it’s law, and the Supreme Court will help Congress fine-tune the provisions.

Fact was, we didn’t have a process to deal with enemy noncombatants - even after we decided we were at war and law enforcement procedures in such circumstances probably aren’t such a good idea.

By @@

April 10, 2007 5:53 PM | Link to this

You know rushncap. I think I’ve figured out your problem.

(((“Respect can’t be gained when you have none for yourself.”)))

(((What exactly are you talking about, @@?)))

Duh!!!!!!

You’re always on the defensive, aren’t you rushncap? You have no self-respect.

You come in here persecuted, and immediately adopt some false bravado in an attempt to ward off the evil, mean, conservatives.

It’s a sad way to go through life, but you get to choose.

Enjoy!

By Paul

April 10, 2007 5:54 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Walt - I don’t much buy the “you’re either with us or against us” (the law disgusts all true Americans) line.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 5:54 PM | Link to this

That is a good plan Paul.

Here is better one, get off the oil addiction.

We have the land to grow renewable ethanol.

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 5:56 PM | Link to this

Dmitry,

If you ever had anything beneath you maybe you could cut the porn addiction.

It’s not like you to give up so easily so I guess you figured out that I made no claim to begin with, baseless or otherwise, and then summed it all up at 3:48.

Paul,

I just noticed that Cindy jumped you for butting into a conversation that she thinks she was having with me and then saw that the genesis of my “conversation” with her was me asking getalife a question. Sometimes this stuff just writes itself.

By rushncap

April 10, 2007 5:59 PM | Link to this

Stalker kid, nice try. Why not take your impotent self to a blog with people who would actually buy your BS? Hell, not even you dare to buy it any more. Laters, eunuch.

By Walt

April 10, 2007 5:59 PM | Link to this

The president pressed for this legislation just before the -Republican— controlled Congress adjourned before the 11/07/07 election.

It was pointed out at the time that it was blatantly at odds with the clear language of the Constitution.

Only someone with no respect at all for our insttitutions would not be disgusted by it.

But maybe the —People— , along with the Foley debacle, and the Katrina debacle and the Rumsfeld debacle and all the other debacles weren’t fooled by the MCA.

It preyed on our basest fears. It was unworthy of Americans. That is why Bush pushed it so hard, because he is a total disgrace.

It sure didn’t help the Rethugs hold Congress.

Walt

By Paul

April 10, 2007 6:00 PM | Link to this

Getalife

That could be a good element. But I’m wary of “solutions” that appear to not be net-energy savings, that also pump up a new constituency with subsidies (without a plan to end the subsidies) while shutting out foreign sources with tariffs.

But I’m all for reducing consumption as well as bringing on line new technologies.

RW-(the original)

The writers for “House” couldn’t do better -

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 6:02 PM | Link to this

eunuch??

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Don’t go away mad rushncap, just go away.

Laters?? Do you have to hold your pinkie fingers up when you type that?

By N-GA

April 10, 2007 6:03 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Your observation about Venezuelan oil is a good argument against invading Iraq for oil (but there was no ready excuse for invading Venezuela).

On the other hand, there was a movie many years ago about the Russians occupying the USA (lousy movie, IMO). I seem to recall a group of young Americans fighting a gurilla war against the occupiers. My question is (though this movie was pure fiction) should those young Americans be afforded protection under the Geneva Conventions?

By rushncap

April 10, 2007 6:04 PM | Link to this

@@ — are you imagining yourself to be a psychoanalyst again? What’s with you and delusions of grandeur? Let me explain this very slowly, so maybe you can keep up: you make no sense. None. So I asked you to try and maybe make a little sense. You then ran away whining about me having no self-respect or some sh!t like that. When you choose to stop being scared of me, you can come back.

By Paul

April 10, 2007 6:04 PM | Link to this

Walt

Of course the legislation was pushed through before the elections! I’m not sure your “blatantly at odds with the Constitution” characterization is fact - rather than opinion. Sen McCain (no fan of the administration on this issue) said, ” Without getting into a point-by-point rebuttal here on the floor, I would simply say that I have been reading the Congressional Record trying to find the bill that (NYT) page so vociferously denounced. The hyperbolic attack is aimed not at any bill this body is today debating, nor even at the Administration’s original position. I can only presume that some would prefer that Congress simply ignore the Hamdan decision, and pass no legislation at all. That, I suggest to my colleagues, would be a travesty.”

If not this law, what?

By RE

April 10, 2007 6:05 PM | Link to this

Read up on the Logan act.

Funny, I would love to see someone try to bring Pelosi up on that. No one ever convicted.

I liked the wingnuts more when the GOP was still in power. They had a aura of credibility that is gone now. It all sounds like whining and crying.

Focus your attention on fixing the GOP. I cannot figure any reason a person would vote for the GOP as a party right now ( there are still good republican folks, and bad dem folks). But as a party it is devoid of any principle aside from “I want lower taxes”.

step one, dump BUSH. He is bringing the entire party crashing down. This country does not do well under a one party government.

By LuckoDull

April 10, 2007 6:07 PM | Link to this

{{{By getalife April 10, 2007 5:54 PM get off the oil addiction. We have the land to grow renewable ethanol.}}}

It takes 1.7 gallons of gasoline to produce 1 gallon of ethanol.

Typical^^ lib thought process, they scam and grow the government with corn subsidies so yes, let’s switch to ethanol.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

I’m starting to agree with Walt, except for one minor point. Let’s impeach Bush but turn the presidency over to Cheney.

Think of how screwed over the Republican party has been the last few years, this guy ain’t no good at all for us.

Let’s just say that Scooter Libby really did lie to the jury and that he wasn’t railroaded by an overzealous prosecutor and DC jury full of pinkos. He was acting in defense of the United States of America, every intention of his was to that end, to advance the foreign policy of this country against our sworn enemies.

When Plame lied to the congressional committee she was trying to UNDERMINE the foreign policy of the United States of America against it’s sworn enemies.

And who is it that’s facing jail time?

And which one is a left wing hero making millions?

WTF?

THE BIT-CH WAS HELPING OUR ENEMY, SADDAM HUSSEIN, even Clinton bombed went to war with the dude.

WTF?

Really, WTF?

Who is in charge of this country?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By Paul

April 10, 2007 6:08 PM | Link to this

N-GA

That would be “Red Dawn” with Patrick Swayze (I never could see why Soviet forces wanted Wyoming, either). But off the top of my head, they’d likely be treated as partisans - and shot out of hand. But it’s a risk many would take under similar circumstances.

By The Peoples for a Nuked' Amerika' Century~!

April 10, 2007 6:10 PM | Link to this

-=-

Laters folks — I have a meeting to attend to with my CEO and must leave now.

RW - Why would we want to use the Logan Act on Pelosi? We think Pelosi was perfectly within her rights.

You Folks are the ones that should invoke the Logan Act if you really think you have a freaking case! And if you don’t have the guts to invoke it because you have no case, then you should quit propagandizing using the Logan Act on her as it’s just more hot air from your side. And frankly we don’t need anymore global warming threats!

Cheers — and Goodnight Thomas/PNAC

By LuckoDull

April 10, 2007 6:17 PM | Link to this

{{{By AirBag April 10, 2007 6:10 PM And if you don’t have the guts to invoke it because you have no case, then you should quit propagandizing using the Logan Act on her as it’s just more hot air from your side. And frankly we don’t need anymore global warming threats!}}}

See what I mean, even the thought of us fighting back and these candy as-ses come apart at the seams and start crying.

When is Bush gonna man up?

Do we need another president or what?

When is he going to realize these people won’t stop screwing with him until he stomps their guts out?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By N-GA

April 10, 2007 6:17 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Of course there would be many volunteers. But I believe that the USA should be better than the rest. Just because someone isn’t an American shouldn’t mean they don’t have the protection of the Constitution. So many people on this blog find Jesus behind every word in that sacred document. Just because someone we meet in battle isn’t wearing a uniform shouldn’t deny them protection under the Geneva Conventions.

(sarc/on) I guess some Christians choose secular law over God’s law on occasion. (sarc/off)

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 6:18 PM | Link to this

Thomas,

Then repeal the Act. Do we have to keep reminding you morons that you’re in charge?

Cheers!

By getalife

April 10, 2007 6:18 PM | Link to this

Andy,

Your rambling man.

All roads lead to cheney.

He is ruining er running the country.

Geez.

By @@

April 10, 2007 6:19 PM | Link to this

Gawd you’re a dimwit rushncap. How long are you going to stay on this board displaying your obvious inability to comprehend.

It’s right there in “black & white”. I’m pretty sure that everyone BUT YOU understands what I’m saying.

Go back up and read the article I linked to. The one written by Mo Kelly. Read what he said. Then come back and we’ll see if you get it.

Unbelievable.

By RE

April 10, 2007 6:21 PM | Link to this

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: “I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn….” (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953. Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.[4]

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 6:21 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

The Geneva Convention “protection” for fighting out of uniform is death by firing squad.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 6:24 PM | Link to this

My homeboy Reid quoting the Pope’s remarks on Easter Sunday to tell w to GFY was pure genius.

By LuckoDull

April 10, 2007 6:26 PM | Link to this

{{{By RE April 10, 2007 6:21 PM The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.}}}

This is a matter for the courts to decide.

So let them.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 6:30 PM | Link to this

RE,

Compare this from your excerpt that for some reason you don’t say where it came from:

{{{{{{Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: “I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn.}}}}}}

to Lantos stating after he and Pelosi’s meeting with Assad that we now had a new foreign policy, a Democrat one.

By Paul

April 10, 2007 6:30 PM | Link to this

N-GA

That’s what all the angst has been about. It’s not just that people “deserve” certain protections. The argument all along was that the Geneva Conventions apply to specific categories of personnel, as defined by the Conventions, and apply to signatory nations. While the US could voluntarily extend such protections (which would create a precedent difficult to back away from) there was not a requirement to do so. Some went even farther, arguing Constitutional protections should apply.

I just reread your post - not sure if you’re referring to unlawful enemy combatants, those captured on US soil, or what.

So my thought all along was that yes, our enemies deserve protections and a process grounded in law. It was inevitable we’d go through the shake-out period we did - and it was relatively brief. But I do think it wholly appropriate this class of people conducting war against us are recognized as being in a separate category from uniformed, armed forces of a government with whom we’re conducting hostilities. Add to that their renunciation of laws of armed conflict (targeting civilians, deception with clothing, using Geneva protocols to further infliction of casualties) and we do have an entirely new form of warfare.

Protections should be afforded. But just as Geneva was convened at various times to deal with circumstances that arose, I think this lurching path we’ve been on is a similar reaction. I don’t think the old ones fit - but the new definitions at least provide a more rational framework.

By Buy Danish

April 10, 2007 6:31 PM | Link to this

@@,

It’s quite amusing to see rushncap claim that you make no sense, when any idiot could figure out what your position on Imus is. That is - any idiot, with the notable exception of rushncap.

{{{By rushncap

April 10, 2007 10:48 AM |

Muffin would just LOVE to be sensored. It would validate everything that she thinks about herself: that she is dangerous to the “establishment”, a brilliant, prophetic critic of the powers that be. Rather than what she really is: a fat bored housewife with no friends or apparent hobbies.}}}

Little Squirt rushncap,

Kerist you’re a moron.

Was “sensored” a Freudian slip? It makes perfect sense to me in light of your less than stellar “work habits”.

I have no idea who you think the “establishment” is. Goracle? Bill and Hill? Nancy Pelosi? Barry Obama?

Since I (and anyone grounded in reality) define the “Powers that be” as the Bush Administration your post makes absolutely no sense.

It does sound like you’re projecting your bizarre fantasies on to me - yet one more time. I don’t doubt that, among other delusions, you imagine that you are “dangerous”. Bwahahahaha.

As for your juvenile attempts to divine how I look and how I lead my life, suffice it to say that you didn’t get a single one of your psychic guesses correct.

People who peform so hopelessly are… what’s the word? Losers!

P.S.

Please note that unlike your failed attempts at psychic voodoo I actually have tangible proof of my assertion about you.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 6:35 PM | Link to this

Supporting Speaker Pelosi

Indeed.

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 6:40 PM | Link to this

getalife,

So the guy that was negotiating with the North Vietnamese in France a few decades ago supports the Speaker going to negotiate a new foreign policy with Syria, not to mention lying to them about what Israel said to her. Go figure!

Geez

By Buy Danish

April 10, 2007 6:40 PM | Link to this

Getlife,

Of course John Effing Kerry is going to support Pelosi. He violated the Logan Act when he illegally did the bidding of the the N. Viets when he met with them in Paris.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 6:42 PM | Link to this

Google Earth is mapping out genocide in Darfur.

Newt is with Kerry on global warming

Well, sort of.

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 6:42 PM | Link to this

Beat ya!!

By @@

April 10, 2007 6:42 PM | Link to this

rushncap????:

(((When you choose to stop being scared of me, you can come back.)))

I’ve been here waiting.

Well, not waiting every second. I’ve been online checking out news stories while I wait.

You see, I’m not like you rushncap. I don’t sit here, all wild-eyed like you. I don’t anticipate vicious attacks. I don’t wear a codpiece afraid of injury.

I’ve got no balls to protect. But if I did, they’d be bigger than yours.

By Buy Danish

April 10, 2007 6:44 PM | Link to this

RW,

I see that!

By getalife

April 10, 2007 6:45 PM | Link to this

Its called diplomacy BD and it works.

Richardson in North Korea is a good example.

We gave a war a chance, lets give diplomacy a chance.

By @@

April 10, 2007 6:47 PM | Link to this

Dang, my posts are disappearing again.

rushncap:

I haven’t gone anywhere. I’m waiting for your lightbulb to come on.

Unlike you, I don’t come in here wearing a “codpiece” afraid of injury.

I don’t have any cods to protect, but if I did, they would be bigger than yours “squirt”.

By Buy Danish

April 10, 2007 6:49 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

Circumventing the foreign policy of the United States is not “diplomacy” it is treachery.

Recently discovered enemy documents from 1971 show that Vietnamese communists guided the American antiwar movement via meetings between the communist delegations to the Paris Peace talks and American antiwar activists. John Kerry and the VVAW were working toward the exact goals set forth in the communist directives

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 6:50 PM | Link to this

getalife,

You do realize that Richardson is in North Korea with the full support of the Bush administration and is carrying their message don’t you?

Buy Danish,

The tin foil hat crowd will be buzzing over those posts.

By Buy Danish

April 10, 2007 6:52 PM | Link to this

How Kerry betrayed this Country.

The first document is a 1971 “Circular” distributed by the Vietnamese communists within Vietnam. It discusses strategies to coordinate their national propaganda effort with their orchestration of the activities of sympathetic counterparts in the American anti-war movement.// Specifically, the document notes that the Vietcong and North Vietnamese delegations to the Paris Peace talks were being used as the communications link to direct the activities of anti-war activists meeting with them in Paris. To quote from the document: The spontaneous antiwar movements in the US have received assistance and guidance from the friendly ((VC/NVN)) delegations at the Paris Peace Talks.//This sentence is particularly important in light of John Kerry’s admission that he met with leaders of both communist delegations to the Paris Peace Talks in June 1970, including Madame Binh, foreign minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) of South Vietnam, also known as the Vietcong. FBI files record that Kerry returned to Paris to meet with the North Vietnamese delegation in August of 1971, and planned a third trip in November.//Prior to the discovery of the Circular, there was no direct evidence that Hanoi was actually steering the U.S. antiwar movement’s activities by conveying Hanoi’s goals and wishes to movement leaders during their frequent visits to Paris, though many investigators had assumed that to be the case. Further analysis of this document supports the contention that Madame Binh used her Paris meeting with John Kerry to instruct him on how he and the VVAW might best serve as Hanoi’s surrogates in the United States. In the spring and summer of 1971, a key strategy of Hanoi was to advance what was known as Madame Binh’s Seven Point Peace Plan.

By @@

April 10, 2007 6:53 PM | Link to this

Oops! Double the pleasure, double the fun.

This server sucks ml.

Really, really sucks.

I’ll start coming in just to say….

Cartoon is O.K., server sucks.

Cartoon sucks, and so does your server.

Server sucks, why bother drawing a cartoon.

You suck ml. Who’s your server?

By Buy Danish

April 10, 2007 6:56 PM | Link to this

RW,

I know they’ll be buzzing particularly since you were me (or vice versa?) yesterday, although I never did figure out what you said that led them to that conclusion since what you said had nothing to do with anything I had posted.

We don’t call them moonbats for nothing.

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 7:03 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

Thomas the Talk Engine decided we were the same person again this morning when you stepped out.

They do earn the name! (and if I had italics I would have put a “so” between do and earn)

By Just sayin'

April 10, 2007 7:07 PM | Link to this

moonbat quote of the day:

“For real Americans, we have to protest, net root activists, turn out in numbers to vote out the hate party, petition for change and be called names by failed Americans.

Yes, it is real easy to be a chickenhawk coward and not do anything but run your ignorant, hate filled mouth.”

Looks like they have been breathing the DU fumes too much. And they complain about conservative web sites…How about a little Huffpo with a kooks and liars snort?

Geez indeed.

By getalife

April 10, 2007 7:08 PM | Link to this

Geez,

The wingnuts are unhinged.

Kerry does it to them every time.

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 7:16 PM | Link to this

getalife,

We keep trying to tell you we want criminals prosecuted no matter their political affiliation. Why do you want all the Democrats to get away scott free? Not very American of you.

By N-GA

April 10, 2007 8:09 PM | Link to this

Die Danish,

You have things bass-ackwards. John Kerry didn’t betray his country…it was the other way around. This country betrayed him and an entire generation. He served his country while it continued to pour American and Vietnamese lives into the sausage grinder that was Southeast Asia. The war was lost at the military and political levels. Only big business profited from this debacle. You should try to learn from history rather than repeat it.

By RW-(the original)

April 10, 2007 8:17 PM | Link to this

{{{{Die Danish}}}}-by N-GA

F you jerk, that uncalled for.

By Buy Danish

April 10, 2007 10:17 PM | Link to this

The Management,

My apologies for posting after 7:00 EST. As you can see your rules don’t do a thing to prevent “people” like N-GA from compulsively exposing their depraved hearts and deranged minds - no matter what time of day or night it is.

By N-GA

April 10, 2007 10:46 PM | Link to this

RW,

Given the Imus theme, I would have expected you to see thru my provocation. In any event, please spare us your false outrage. It doesn’t suit you except to emphasize your hypocrisy.

Save your outrage for all of your pathetic minions who spew whatever vulgarity comes to mind…and you say nothing…you are a very good Bush apologist, Let’s say you were born for the role….

By @@

April 10, 2007 11:15 PM | Link to this

Oh my!

I’ll borrow from Getalife…

Geez,

The “lugnuts” are loose. Their wheels are coming off.

Kerry does it to them every time.

By Buy Danish

April 11, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

{{{By N-GA

April 10, 2007 8:09 PM | Link to this

Die Danish,

Blah blah blah, excuse, excuse, excuse…}}}

AND

{{{By N-GA

April 10, 2007 10:46 PM | Link to this

RW,

Given the Imus theme, I would have expected you to see thru my provocation BS, BS, BS…}}}

LYING COWARD N-GA,

Spare me the lame and pitiful excuses you gave RW - excuses that you don’t even have the guts to direct to me.

Since you didn’t call me a “nappy haired Ho” or anything along those lines your Imus “theme” excuse has zero validity and is exactly the sort of weaselly justification that sociopaths make for amoral and unconscionable behavior.

Just because you, or John Kerry, or Nancy Pelosi, disagree with the foreign policy of the elected President of the United States does not give you the right to purposefully subvert that policy and give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Just because you disagree with a blogger does not provide a moral justification to wish them dead, and then compound the transgression by lying about why you did it.

By P**

April 11, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this

In regards to all who make it a point to bring up Rappers and their derogatory language, and all other stupid uneducated raps… “if snoop jumped off a bridge, would you follow?” Give me a break!

By Fire Chief Jerry Catoe

April 12, 2007 9:14 AM | Link to this

NBC News COLORED employees demanded that Don Imus be fired in their words “he be fired” Imus was just speaking the truth. They call each other niger, but if WHITEY says it he is a raciest. So what do they call Imus whitey, cracker, the man, etc. but that is not raciest. Then Buckwheat I mean Al, makes Imus apologize, because he asked Imus if his daughter is a HOE. Well I’m sure that some COLORED person called her a HOE. I think HOE is a tool anyway so she must be a lawn care worker for some white guy, like Imus. I love the hat I have one too. Call me (561) 799-4300