Mike Luckovich

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 8:03 AM | Link to this

Why we have to fight them:

{{{As LTC James Crider, the commander of the 1st Cavalry Squadron in Baghdad, recently told me, these terrorists cannot be appeased or negotiated with. Along with all of the westerners they can get their hands on, “they’ll kill all the Shi’a they can, and then they’ll kill all of the less-radical Sunni. And then, when there is nobody else left to kill, they’ll start killing each other.”}}}

And we’d better win.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

Oh, come on:

{{{A Berkeley watchdog organization that tracks military spending said it uncovered a strange U.S. military proposal to create a hormone bomb that could purportedly turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.}}}

Geez, what kind of person even has these thoughts?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

{{{Those with the courage to challenge reigning orthodoxies ought to be able to follow the scientific evidence where it leads. Some may study the scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution and conclude that there is no God. Some may study the evidence for intelligent design and conclude that atheism is irrational. Some may reach the conclusion that Darwinian evolution and religious faith are perfectly compatible. The question of how best to explain the appearance of design in the universe should be fair game; scientists, teachers, and students should have the right to reach the answer that each finds most satisfying.}}}

Or you can be an irrational, mindless goony and censor the debate.

Like these libs have.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

Listen to the big fat lib whine:

{{{In a letter to the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, attorney David Boies noted that Moore has been a critic of President George W. Bush in his books and films, which include 2004’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” a harsh indictment of White House actions regarding the Sept. 11 attacks. “For this reason, I am concerned that Mr. Moore has been selected for discriminatory treatment by your office,” Boies wrote in response to a letter sent to Moore.}}}

Geez, don’t you just love the way these pinko®s, especially this fat slob Michael Moron, can screw with anyone they feel like but if you turn the heat up on them, poof, they cry like little Baby Huey’s?

Kow

By George

June 12, 2007 8:03 AM | Link to this

Ha ha, this one is pretty funny!

Unfortunately, Andy will be here shortly to post his daily drivel… which will have nothing to do with the toon.

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 8:03 AM | Link to this

{{{He pointed out that liberals succeed in duping the public because they are so clever with words that they give the appearance of compassion. Liberals talk about the need for “affordable” housing and health care. They tarnish their enemies with terms such as “price-gouging” and “corporate greed.” Uninformed and unthinking Americans fall easy prey to this demagoguery. Politicians exploit public demands that government ought to do something about this or that problem by taking measures giving them greater control over our lives. For the most part, whatever politicians do, whether it’s rent controls to produce “affordable” housing or price controls to eliminate “price-gouging,” the result is a calamity worse than the original problem. For example, two of the most costly housing markets are the rent-controlled cities of San Francisco and New York.}}}

Does anybody really believe electing sHrillary or Snowflake would make this any better?

Geez.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

{{{Another aspect of personal responsibility is taking care of your neighbor’s needs. The media’s voyeuristic, celebrity-driven entertainment and “news” programming promotes narcissism, not charity. Not surprisingly, light viewers are more likely than heavy viewers to contribute time or treasure to every kind of cause. Heavy viewers are more than twice as likely not to give at all (24 percent to 11 percent), and not to volunteer (56 percent to 27 percent).}}}

Is it any wonder that most liberals, slaves to the TV set, have a deluded view of America and it’s citizenry? That they believe whatever crap is on the screen, no matter how perverted and depraved the Hollywood cokehead is that put it there?

What a way to go through life, believing the make believe, the propaganda of a few Kowards, with 99% of it not being even close to the truth.

Sucker libs.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By Funny morons®

June 12, 2007 8:04 AM | Link to this

Basic template for your average Luckodull post:

Bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t.

More bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t more bullsh!t.

Elementary school insult.

Infantile name calling.

Duh.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®

By A Father

June 12, 2007 8:05 AM | Link to this

Where is the justice for the fifteen year old little girl. A little girl can not consent to sex. Maybe big man on campus should have found him a real woman rather than preying on little girls, but seeing part of the video I can understand why no real woman would want anything to do with him. I agree, let’s release this pervert and let the father have twenty minutes alone with him with a baseball bat and a 10 inch knife. Not one of the so called activist have expressed concern how this will effect the little girls all over Georgia who will become victims of other Genarlow Wilsons. Well, after this time in prison, at least he knows what it was like for the little girl. Mr. Luckovich, Mr. Baker has courage you will never know or understand. The pen is mightier than the sword, but you, Mr. Luckovich, have proven it is also more ignorant than a stone.

By Funny morons®

June 12, 2007 8:11 AM | Link to this

This should have been the link in Luckodull’s template

By War Eagle

June 12, 2007 8:18 AM | Link to this

Absolutely Correct! The NAACP, as usual is causing trouble. This outlaw organization should be banished to Africa where they belong as there are no laws in africa that restrict africans. IF Wilson was ready for college, he would not have had sex with the 15 yr old. And by looking at his friends-this was a gang. Probably going to UGA where they don’t allow jail time for their players. How can Ms. Bernsein efend this pervert? Hey BJ-what would you think of Genarlow (what a name) if he had sex with YOUR girl? What is a Genarlow? Sounds like a disease.The fact is, the penalty, at the time he committed the crime was 10 years. Can’t help it if the DUMB legislature changes it to a misdemeaner. Now every African boy is going to try to have sex with every girl possible and just be charged with a misdemeaner. Do you see why we have so many illegitimate kids?! Why do we continue to give civil rights to people who do not act in a civil manner? If I were the girl’s father, which it appears Genarlow does NOT have a father (gee, think of that), I would have asked for 15 minutes with Genarlow-guaranteed-the Boy would have been unable to walk or reproduce. Genarlow needs to go to BIG BOY prison and see what it is like on the “other end.” Good for Atty Baker-keep up the good fight and then fight to outlaw the NAACP-they are a problem organization who has outgrown their usefulness and is nothing but a detriment to society like Jackson and Sharpton. No Justice, No NAACP!

By Funny morons®

June 12, 2007 8:19 AM | Link to this

Sorry for the broken link. It’s very funny.

By War Monger

June 12, 2007 8:27 AM | Link to this

I could be wrong but all the reports said the sex was CONSENSUAL. If that’s true why would he deserve 10 years? If every teenager who had consensual sex was sent to prison for 10 years we’d have to annex Mexico and use it as a penal colony.

By DebbieDoRight

June 12, 2007 8:28 AM | Link to this

Father: Let’s just come out and admit it; some of your daughters are sluts. You were young once, so I know you know the type of girl that every boy in high school knew who’d “put out”.

The girl initiated the sex act on the boys. She admitted this IN COURT, the tape SHOW THIS as a true statement. Her OWN MOTHER admitted it in court; yet you still see this as a “rape”? Why? Because the kid was a “jock”? Were you one of those guys at school who hated anyone who played sports because you were in the band? Get over it, high school is over. You can’t go back; don’t let your childhood angst ridden memories sour you from the FACTS of the case.

This is so sad to see that there are still backwards individuals in 2007 who still live in 1945.

By DebbieDoRight

June 12, 2007 8:29 AM | Link to this

Father: Let’s just come out and admit it; some of your daughters are sluts. You were young once, so I know you know the type of girl that every boy in high school knew who’d “put out”.

The girl initiated the sex act on the boys. She admitted this IN COURT, the tape SHOW THIS as a true statement. Her OWN MOTHER admitted it in court; yet you still see this as a “rape”? Why? Because the kid was a “jock”? Were you one of those guys at school who hated anyone who played sports because you were in the band? Get over it, high school is over. You can’t go back; don’t let your childhood angst ridden memories sour you from the FACTS of the case.

This is so sad to see that there are still backwards individuals in 2007 who still live in 1945.

By DebbieDoRight

June 12, 2007 8:32 AM | Link to this

{{Now every African boy is going to try to have sex with every girl possible and just be charged with a misdemeaner. Do you see why we have so many illegitimate kids?! Why do we continue to give civil rights to people who do not act in a civil manner?}}

1945 in Georgia all over again. Still A$$ backwards. Jim Crow is over john boy; take off the sheet; put down the torch. Get over it already!

By Train

June 12, 2007 8:43 AM | Link to this

“A Father” - get real. You’ll see that she was a willing participant. She initiated the action. And you’re telling me she’s innocent? Go stick your head back in the sand. You have no clue what you’re talking about. Girls like that one 15-year old are hardly innocent. Not all girls are like that, but this one was promiscuous and she was “taking care of” two guys on the same film. I think someone should be giving Wilson the benefit of the doubt here. He didn’t do anything to her - she seemed to be a willing participant. If it weren’t for some bizarre law, we wouldn’t need to talk about this today.

By Mother

June 12, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this

You go Debbie Do Right. Father, please, I’ve seen this video, she was no innocent little girl. These little sluts put out in an attempt to be popular and then feel guilty about it the next day and scream rape.

However, in this case, it was consensual, and you are only fooling yourself if you think a 15 year old can’t CONSENT to sex. Yes, they can and they do it all the time. You are living in a dream world if you think otherwise.

By Bosch

June 12, 2007 8:53 AM | Link to this

War Eagle, You are a backwards hick. Go back to Auburn please.

Father, You live in a dream world. Do you have high school aged children? If so, you obviously do not talk to them or ever go to their school. Sure, your kids may be perfect little princesses, but I guarantee you, many of their friends are not.

By Funny morons®

June 12, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this

Morning shows are all excited that George Bush is heading to the Capitol to have lunch with Republican Senators. Wow. Let’s see if the GOPers give Bush what he wants — again. This time it’s immigration.

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 9:02 AM | Link to this

{{{Senate Republicans blocked a vote of no confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Monday, dashing Democratic hopes of embarrassing Gonzales and his boss, President George W. Bush, with a formal demand for his ouster.}}}

Geez, the democrats can’t even push through a pointless non binding vote of no confidence, what a bunch of weaklings.

And Kowards.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®

By Bosch

June 12, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this

I wonder what they will have for lunch — Oh, I know, Bush’s a* on a platter!

By steve-o

June 12, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this

Something tells me that War Eagle went a long time before getting laid…and his sex life still suffers. Wake up and step into reality, War Eagle. It’s amazing that we grant First Amendment rights to people like War Eagle when he just uses it to try to make others dumber.

Today’s cartoon is great, throwing criticism where it is well-deserved. Thurbert is way out of line and has to live with playing with a young man’s life. Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t matter. Gross incompetence and lack of class knows no political boundaries. Looks like Thurbert is going to allow me the first opportunity in years to vote Republican.

By Mrs. Godzilla

June 12, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this

The young man should be set free.

A fifteen year old female most certainly can make a choice to have consensual sex. Fifteen year olds regularly ignore the orders, warnings and advice of their elders. They often completely ignore the law of the land as well.

(Mr. G and I had to screw the windows shut in #2’s room during her rebellious adolescence. Puberty happens.)

I suspect the young lady involved will someday come to wish that she had waited longer to become sexually active. 17 year old boys are not known for their “finesse”.

What concerns me is the ugliness surrounding this….

“”Now every African boy is going to try to have sex with every girl possible “”“

Is it ok only for every White boy to try and have sex with everything that moves? As I remember it they sure tried.

“”Why do we continue to give civil rights to people who do not act in a civil manner?”“

I believe it goes like this …We are endowed with inalienable rights.

“”then fight to outlaw the NAACP-“”

That smacks of racial fear.

What these kids did was stupid. No doubt.

More jail time is not going to help that young man at all. It might make some old white guys happy tho.

Peace.

By mm

June 12, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

This was consensual sex between a junior and a freshman. If they locked up all of the high school kids guilty of this the schools would be empty and the prisons would be overflowing.

He is guilty of nothing.

By mountain man

June 12, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

A 15 year old can’t legally consent to have sex, although this sex was obviously consensual. The disturbing thing about this case is that the boy was only two years older; hardly a case of an adult sexual predator. In my state (NC) the perp would have to be four years older for the case to go to court. I admit I don’t know GA law on this one.

It does seem like Wilson was given a really harsh deal on this case. We know that stuff like this happens all the time, yet we don’t hear of kids being sent to the big house for 10 years on a regualar basis.

Andy, you really need to get a life beyond your keyboard and your anger. I

By steve-o

June 12, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

Father,

Little girl? He was 17 and she was 15!!! Not exactly an age gap! You can be rest assured that the boy who marries your daughter has probably gotten blow jobs from drunken girls on several occasions!

By RW-(the original)

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

Too bad I won’t be around here much today. I can’t wait to see rushncap whining to luckovich about how it’s all some Republican white racist State Senator’s fault and black Democrat Attorney General Thurbert Baker has nothing to do with it.

By the way, I’d also like to see steve-0 tell us why there shouldn’t be any minimum age of consent.

I’m pretty sure I know why those two want little girls to be allowed to have sex though. Grown up girls wouldn’t give them the time of day.

By MomCat

June 12, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this

Father - get real. This was a 15 year old girl and a 17 year old boy (not yet a man). Granted the boy was wrong, but so was the little girly. These kids need counseling, direction and support, not a prison sentence. I daresay there’s little difference in the emotional maturity of a 17 year old and a 15 year old. They are KIDS for heavens sake! Everything I’ve heard and read indicates this was consensual sex. If he was a 22 year old man, he should go to the slammer, but a 17 year old. Pleeeeaaase!! I have friends with young sons, and believe me some of these 14, 15 and 16 year old girls give a complete new meaning to the word “trash.” Immature children do stupid things. If I had children, I’d lock them in the attic for 22 years.

By disgusted

June 12, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

Father, you are right. A 15 year old child does not have the mental capabilities to understand the future reprecushions of consent. I don’t care how provocative that child behaved she is still a child. That is why the age of consent is 16 in the state of Ga. That child cannot under law consent. By filming this they also are guilty of manufacturing child pornography but were never charged with that. These good young men were underage drinking, doing drugs and treating these girls like dogs.I don’t care if the young man is black, white, purple or green if he did the crime he should do the time. God help the young man who did this to my child because I would have let him wear his bells for earrings. This good young man

By DebbieDoRight

June 12, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

{{God help the young man who did this to my child because I would have let him wear his bells for earrings.}}

You’d be wearing a LOT of balls then. No one DID it to these girls, they were willing participants. In fact, by the aggressive way the 15 year old was “doing it” on tape, she’d obviously “done it” many times before and probably is still “doing it” every chance she gets.

By DebbieDoRight

June 12, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this

[[A 15 year old child does not have the mental capabilities to understand the future reprecushions of consent]]

But a SEVENTEEN year old does?!? This is amazing, your thought process is WAY off. You’re probably the same type of person who’d, if that same sweet little girl KILLED someone, would be saying “She Knew What She Was Doing, She Deserves The Death Penalty, She’s Old Enough To Understand..”

A$$ Backwards.

By steve-o

June 12, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this

RW,

You know damn well that that boy did nothing wrong. He was 17 years old, for God’s sake…a minor! She was only two years younger.

Now I would like you to tell us why Genarlow Wilson derserves to be in jail, if that is what you’re implying.

By steve-o

June 12, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

RW,

One more thing. Let’s not talk about sexual prowess. It seems like you spend your time chasing after and kissing up to Buy Danish on this blog all of the time probably because your real sex life is lacking. I mean, you give her permission to post in your name! How creepy/pathetic is that?

And you’re over 50! LMFAO!!!

By @@

June 12, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

The law was, what the law was when young Mr. Wilson broke it. The 10-year sentence is extreme under the circumstances that were revealed.

There are, however, four other male youths who pleaded GUILTY to child molestation of the 15-year-old and sexual battery of the 17-year-old along with a guilty plea of false imprisonment. If Wilson was with these same four youths, why is his guilt viewed differently?

Also, any 15-year-old girl who would engage in oral sex with 5 guys while a video camera was running is psychologically and emotionally handicapped. There couldn’t have been any physical gratification for her in the sex act. She has to be in need of male acceptance. I care about that young girl.

The term “jailbait” used to put fear in the minds of young males. Sadly, for today’s young girls, it has no such impact.

Everyone might want to consider that if young Mr. Wilson is released, it will open the flood-gate for all other offenders of like crimes in which the circumstances may not have been so (ahem) innocent.

By disgusted

June 12, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

Debbie, do I take from your knowledgeable posts that you have seen the tape? That you personally know what went on in that room? That you know more than the Ga. supreme court who had the ability to retro the law when it was changed but chose not to?

By disgusted

June 12, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this

Debbie, do I take from your knowledgeable posts that you have seen the tape? That you personally know what went on in that room? That you know more than the Ga. supreme court who had the ability to retro the law when it was changed but chose not to?

By MomCat

June 12, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this

Looks like Thurbert is going to allow me the first opportunity in years to vote Republican

Steve-o, don’t do it (vote republican)! Look who screams about the democrats taking away everyone’s rights, and look who passes these crazy laws. Oh yea, we’re a new Georgia!!! I hope Baker has not gotten power hungry and willing to betray his own grandmother to get elected to something. Remember ZigZag, Nathan Deal et. al.

By Buy Danish

June 12, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this

Why did Genarlow Wilson reject this solution:?

As recently as this past weekend, the Douglas County District Attorney’s office offered Wilson’s attorneys a plea deal that would have allowed Wilson to plead to first-offender treatment, which would mean he would not have a criminal record nor would be subject to registering on the sex offender registry once his sentence has been completed. The plea deal could also result in him receiving a sentence substantially shorter than the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for which he was originally sentenced, possibly leading to his release based upon time already served. Wilson, through his attorneys, rejected all of those offers.

By @@

June 12, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this

Oh, and BTW, ignorance of the law is no justification for breaking the law.

By steve-o

June 12, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this

@@,

Believe it or not, but you may be suprised by what honor-roll high school girls are doing. I knew plenty of “good girls” in my suburban high school that would do some absolutely freaky stuff with guys. Teenagers are teenagers.

The law was wrong, even the legislator who introduced it says that it went too far. Genarlow Wilson showed conviction in not copping a plea deal like the other kids. He didn’t want to be labeled a sexual predator for the rest of his life…a label that stays with you like a tatoo.

I for one do not believe in playing games with a young man’s life to prove a point.

By @@

June 12, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish:

I read that plea deal this morning. If I was Genarlow Wilson I would be wise, and take it.

At this point, I think the young man is being victimized by all the attention his case is garnering.

His celebrity status may be overruling his common sense, but then he apparently has been lacking in that department, or he wouldn’t be where he is.

By steve-o

June 12, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this

MomCat,

Thanks for your concern. I won’t go to the dark side. Maybe I’ll just write-in someone on the ballot.

To everyone else, try lookng in the mirror with a clean conscience and say that a 17-year-old derserves to be labeled a sexual predator or spend 10 years behind bars for having consensual sex with someone only 2 years younger. I’m sure that everyone here never had sex or any kind when they were teenagers and that everyone was part of “True Love Waits”. Pathetic.

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

{{{By Mrs. Godzilla June 12, 2007 9:08 AM (Mr. G and I had to screw the windows shut in #2’s room during her rebellious adolescence. Puberty happens.)}}}

It all starts with the parents and apparently when the only answer those parents have is to make excuses for everything and blame the president for all of their problems, then you will have unruly, irresponsible teenagers.

Case closed.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

{{{By mountain woman June 12, 2007 9:09 AM Andy, you really need to get a life beyond your keyboard and your anger. I}}}

mountain girl: “I” what?

I have no anger, dumbas-s, if you pay close enough attention to these things, instead of riding what ever comes out of your mouth like it’s a big wave, you would quickly realize that the Kandy As-s Koward liberals are the ones with an anger problem.

Just look at the response I got this morning by putting up clear, concise points of discussion, they were met by wild eyed screaming and foaming rage from you pinko®s.

I’m still willing to calmly discuss anything.

Tell me when YOU are ready.

Geez.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By Bosch

June 12, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

To those who think Wilson should be in jail:

Just want to know, do you have teenage sons? If so, if this happened to your son, what would you do?

By LuckoBrownShirt

June 12, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

Now that we ultra-right, talk-show brownshirts have been marginalized to the southern bigots we have always been, we are mad as hell and rant in this forum without end. We just can’t understand how you libs don’t get it. We should have never left Vietnam. We should have never let “them” integrate our schools. We sure as heck don’t need no government telling us what to do. In fact we don’t need no government period. As far as Iraq goes we should start up a draft and send 500,000 troops over there like we did in Vietnam. And Iran—we should just go ahead and bomb them and get it over with. As a matter of fact we should should go ahead and bomb all of those middle east countries that give us any trouble at all. I’ll be back.

By Buy Danish

June 12, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

Steve-0,

I see that you think there is something “creepy” about the fact that RW would let me post something for him in the event of his absence, just as he has done for me on occasion when I felt it necessary to respond to something but was not going to be able to post during the AJC’s curfew enforced hours.

I find it quite revealing that you find that “creepy” while you go out of your way to defend Genarlow Wilson while blaming the girls for their behavior.

I gather from your defense of his sexually predatory acts with underage girls that you and he have a lot in common.

Gone golfing…

By getalife

June 12, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

Baker’s career is over.

The gop are soft on crime when they voted to no to no confidence on the AG Ganzo.

By Buy Danish

June 12, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this

@@,

Before I go - I think that we can probably “follow the money”. Maybe someone is hoping for a big lawsuit payoff? There has to be some explanation as to why he wouldn’t accept that plea.

Apparently steve-o is still blithely unaware that Wilson was offered a very fair plea bargain.

He’s too busy bragging about his BJs to notice.

Going, going, gone…

By RW-(the original)

June 12, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Looks like I touched a nerve with little stevie-0. stevie, he did do something wrong. He broke the law and while I think a ten year sentence is ridiculous that fact still remains.

The fix here is to get the law changed, which I believe has already been done to some extent. The last thing we need is judges arbitrarily deciding when to apply the law and when not to.

By the way, when did I ever say Buy Danish could post in my name? I’ll save you time, I didn’t. I said that she’s the only one that knows me well enough to tell you what I would likely think about some subject.

MOONBAT(IC)&reg: WARNING: Stop reading here.

Later!

By steve-o

June 12, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

I’m not defending his acts, but just showing an understanding that he is a human being, a concept with which you are unfamiliar.

Being branded as a sexual predator for the rest of your life is not an ideal bargain…especially if you did nothing that any other teenager has done.

And yes, it is quite strange and creepy that you and RW post in each other’s names. Have you guys exchanged friendship bracelets as well with “BFF” inscribed in them? LMFAO!!

By @@

June 12, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

steve-o:

I don’t live in a cave. I know what’s going on among our youth. Just because it IS going on doesn’t mean that we should ENCOURAGE such behavior by DEFENDING such behavior.

Everyone here may want to read THIS progressive’s view of where today’s sexual free-for-all can lead.

Read the whole thing. The evidence is before you today and will only get worse in the future.

Infertility in our young women of the future will have a devastating impact on our society as a whole.

By steve-o

June 12, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

RW,

If the law is the law, then why do want Scooter Libby to be pardoned?

Also, regarding yours and Buy Danish’s special relationship…

{{{By Buy Danish

June 12, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

Steve-0,

I find it quite revealing that you find that “creepy” while you go out of your way to defend Genarlow Wilson while blaming the girls for their behavior.}}}

Aawwwwwww!! Cute! Tell me, RW, do your friendship bracelets have matching colors?

By steve-o

June 12, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

@@,

I’m not condoning or encouraging that type of behavior. I’m just saying that there are better ways to teach kids rather than locking them up for 10 years and labeling them as sexual predators.

By KZ-Guy

June 12, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

Dull? What does the air smell like in the world you live in ? You need to get a real life. There is hope, you would be a good typist, if you could keep the mouth shut.

By getalife

June 12, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

Scooter Libby is a convicted felon yet the wingnuts do not want him to serve any time.

Ganzo has turned the Justice Dept. into a gop political wing.

Gitmo has started another form of illegal justice.

Wingnut opinions on the law are null and void.

By Bosch

June 12, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

@@, I hope you do not assume that most parents would ENCOURAGE sexual prowess in their children. True, there are many sick individuals out there, but most normal, parents would never do that.

There are several issues here with this case, one, that the law needs to be changed, and Wilson’s sentence was ridiculous.

I agree with steve-o that a 17 year old who receives a blow job from a willing participant does not need to spend time in jail, much less have his life ruined with the label of a sexual predator.

I also agree with Buy Danish, there is probably some kind of deal with a book, movie company, etc. Remember Marcus Dixon? That was a complete shame all the way around, for the girl, and him, and the whole case was disgusting.

Yes, RW, the last thing we need is a judge arbitrarily deciding these issues, although I don’t think that happened in this case, we need this law changed. In many states, this wouldn’t have been an issue because it isn’t against the law.

Georgia needs to get out of the middle ages, get away from the fundamental evangelical bigot Christian freaks and break on through to the 21st century.

By @@

June 12, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight:

Assuming you’re female, you really are a piece of work.

(((Let’s just come out and admit it; some of your daughters are sluts. You were young once, so I know you know the type of girl that every boy in high school knew who’d “put out”.)))

And once some “innocent” girl was pressured by some “not so innocent” guy to “put out” or he’d move on, she was immediately tagged “a slut” by the guy and he made certain that all of his friends knew it.

Yet you support the guys’ opportunistic endeavors.

Unfrickin believable. I hope to hell that you don’t have daughters. You would probably put them on display at the meat market with a “mark-down” tag ready for application.

Disgusting!!!!!!!

By getalife

June 12, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

“Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt says “that the newspaper ad he took out last week offering a million-dollar bounty for evidence of illicit sexual activity with lawmakers has yielded about 200 tips so far.”

By steve-o

June 12, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

RW,

Unlike you, I realize that I’m far from perfect. I posted the wrong part of Buy Danish’s post. Here you go again…

{{{By Buy Danish

June 12, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

Steve-0,

I see that you think there is something “creepy” about the fact that RW would let me post something for him in the event of his absence, just as he has done for me on occasion when I felt it necessary to respond to something but was not going to be able to post during the AJC’s curfew enforced hours.}}}

Now in what colors do your and Buy Danish’s friendship bracelets come again? LMFAO!!

By MomCat

June 12, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

Georgia needs to get out of the middle ages, get away from the fundamental evangelical bigot Christian freaks and break on through to the 21st century (10:22AM).

Bosch, good luck with this one! At the rate Georgia is going, we’ll soon be renting space from Texas to house all our prisoners. Ouch! Can’t do that! Texas has all their space filled with the ‘soon to be executed!’

By @@

June 12, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

Bosch:

The law has since been changed.

steve-o:

You’re not “condoning” it???????

(((By: steve-o — You know damn well that that boy did nothing wrong.)))

Now I’m finished with this conversation. I really do get the impression that a lot/one or two of you liberals here just like to talk “the nasty” while very possibly doing “the nasty” with your free hand.

I’m not gonna be a party to your “party”.

By DebbieDoRight

June 12, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

[[There are, however, four other male youths who pleaded GUILTY to child molestation of the 15-year-old and sexual battery of the 17-year-old along with a guilty plea of false imprisonment.]]

Try RAILROADED honey, THAT’s the real issue here. These kids were RAILROADED into taking deals that would cause them to be considered “Child Molesters and Registered SEx OFfenders” for the rest of their lives.

[If Wilson was with these same four youths, why is his guilt viewed differently?]]

Maybe because he didn’t want to be RAILROADED with the others.

Try googling “Tulia Texas” if you have no idea what the word, RAILROADED means.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A301887

By steve-o

June 12, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

@@,

I’m sure that you had sex before you were 18. Should we throw the guy who took your virginity in jail as well also?

By DebbieDoRight

June 12, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

@@ grow up. Your “You just wanna talk nasty” crap is getting old. We’re trying to talk about the CASE, which involves SEX, what are we supposed to call it? They did the “thingy” with each other and one girl used her “kissy-poo” on some of the boys?

Dude — buy a vowel, SEX happens; that’s how you, supposedly, got here.

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

{{{By KZ-Guy June 12, 2007 10:14 AM Dull? What does the air smell like in the world you live in ? You need to get a real life. There is hope, you would be a good typist, if you could keep the mouth shut.}}}

The air “smells” better than it does in your world, judging from the complete and total lameness of your post to me.

Is this the best you mental cripples can come up with?

Have you ever thought about forming a committee to try and fend me off, oh wait a minute, I forgot about the democrat national committee, they’re even more handicapped than you are.

I guess it’s pretty much hopeless for you Kowards, huh?

Geez.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By Bosch

June 12, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

@@, I don’t think Debbie was supporting the guys’ behavior, she was just demonstrating the double standard just like you did.

Yes, there is a double standard of girls and boys sexual behavior, none of us are saying it is right, or condoning that behavior, just simply the fact that it exists.

I have sons and a daughter, and it unnerves me to death to think about this. I’ve seen girls have sex and then scream rape even though it was consensual (known friends on juries in this case). I also don’t want to think about my daughter giving blow jobs to a boy which is why I talk to her about the dangers of this kind of behavior and the consequences. It rarely would have negative consequences to the boy (although not in the Wilson case). In most cases, yes she would be labeled a slut. Is that fair? No, it’s not.

But it is realistic.

I don’t think any of this type of behavior is “right,” but I have teenagers and I talk to them about sex on a regular basis, even when they don’t want to hear it. I tell them that they need to wait and why they need to wait. Even though this may seem hypocritical to some, I also talk to them about protection. I can’t be with my teenagers 24/7, and who the hell would?

As with many issues like this, it is the parent’s responsibility to teach their children to be responsible. Do they always listen? No, they don’t, and in that case, it is also our responsibility to help them make decisions about their safety — both physical and emotional.

By DebbieDoRight

June 12, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

[[DebbieDoRight: Assuming you’re female, you really are a piece of work.]]

Coming from a drag queen like you, I’ll take that as a compliment.

[(((Let’s just come out and admit it; some of your daughters are sluts. You were young once, so I know you know the type of girl that every boy in high school knew who’d “put out”.)))

And once some “innocent” girl was pressured by some “not so innocent” guy to “put out” or he’d move on, she was immediately tagged “a slut” by the guy and he made certain that all of his friends knew it.]

What makes you think she was innocent? Because she’s a GIRL. Only BOYS can be sexual, like sex, like recieving and giving sex? GIRLS can’t be sexual predators? I guess that 37 year old woman who married her 15 year old lover would LOVE to hear your theories on that. IDIOT. And the part of her being “pressured” HA!! Was she “pressured” to lie to her parents about where she was going that night, (spending the night at a girlfriends); was she “pressured” to give BJs to numerous boys at a party, (the tape shows that she INITIATED the sex act); oh I get it, she was “pressured” because that’s how YOU wish to see her; as a “pressured” young virgin. OPEN YOUR EYES FOOL; stop living in Lala land.

[[Unfrickin believable. I hope to hell that you don’t have daughters.]]

When I do, I’ll let them know that THEY are responsible for their behavior and not to blame the BOY when they allow their behavior to get out of hand. Isn’t that what you republicans keep preaching about? Or is it just for people YOU DEEM who are “victims” everyone else be damned?

Silly Rabbit, tricks are for kids.

By reebok

June 12, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

Funny cartoon, ML. Thurbert Baker is going to be remembered along with that Duke rape-case DA who simply didn’t let the facts get in the way of his ambitions.

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

Hey look, al-Gore has put his name to Denver’s plan for “global warming:”

{{{People around the country accused Denver on Monday of embracing a “crackpot” scheme to fight global warming after the city’s plan drew widespread attention on the Internet.}}}

Plus all you libs should be able to embrace that^^ label.

Geez.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By @@

June 12, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

Bosch:

I absolutely agree with you. I too began sex education in my home when the questions started presenting themselves.

I didn’t present it in the context of birds and bees, the language was anatomically correct. I discussed the emotional and psychological impacts, the health risks and the later health risks of contraception (the pill).

I also discussed condoms; that it was the guy’s responsibility to use one and that they were notorious for being irresponsible.

The first boyfriend was a jerk after one thing. A senior pursuing my freshman daughter. She didn’t know how to cope with him, but I did. A quick little invite to a nearby Waffle House for coffee. A brief discussion full of colorful expletives from me and that boy quickly moved on.

The guy spread the word. If they had less than honorable intentions, her Mom knew…and hot coffee would be coming out of their nose at the Waffle House because she can talk the talk and they’ll be walking the chalk. The kid had a full football scholarship to Arizona State. He blew it. Got a girl pregnant with twins, married her, got hooked on drugs. The rest is history and thank goodness my daughter isn’t part of it.

My daughter was grateful but then I didn’t ask for her permission or blessing. I just did what needed to be done.

It had no negative impact on her social life. She was well liked and respected. She dated two other guys after Mr. Failure. One of them was a deadbeat, she sent him packing. She ended up with a guy who went on to graduate from Georgia Tech. They’re still very close to this day.

DebbieDoRight:

I’m not sure how pertinent this comment of yours is to “the case” but whatever….

(((In fact, by the aggressive way the 15 year old was “doing it” on tape, she’d obviously “done it” many times before and probably is still “doing it” every chance she gets.)))

By Midori

June 12, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

I want to start a “Debbie Do Right Fan Club” :)

You have the patience of Job.

@@ is like a brick wall, and trying to talk or reason with her does little or no good.

but I appreciate you trying :)

By War Eagle

June 12, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

Bosch-go crawl back under your Athens rock. The law IS the law. Age of Consent means something and when you BREAK the law you go under the punishment of the LAW which says 10 years! If a Minor goes into a car dealership and buys a car then returns it the next day, the dealership has to take it back because of the MINOR law. Mrs. Godzilla-spoken like a true NAACP supporting Black woman with a chip on her shoulder. Well if the black boy got in trouble, why didn’t the white boys? Just shut up and deal with reality. The truth is-look at the 10 and 11pm news-what group is CONSTANTLY, not sometimes, CONSTANTLY being arrested for drug dealing, pimping and gang rapes-BLACK Boys. If there was a father like Bill Cosby in the house, things would be different. But since the majority of black boys are raised in single parent only homes, well -you see what happens. And why are they not taught to obey the law? Why are they in gangs and why do you defend lying strippers like the ones that accused the Duke Lacrosse Players? Want to hear audacity? YOUR Community and YOUR NC College wanted innocent kids to serve prison time when it was obvious that the stripper was lying. And then, Jackson offers to pay the LYING stripper’s tuition. And when the cops wnat to charge her with obstruction of justice, lying to the police and making a false Police report-the NAACP steps in to protect her claiming it was her civil rights to do that! What the heck kind of a screwed up world do YOU live in?! If you want OJ justice-go to Zimbabwe where Robert Mugabe is giving away White family farms to anyone that can prove they are Black. Yes, Civil Rights should be given to people that act in a Civil manner, not just because they demand it, or claim they were oppressed. The law is the law and should not be bent just because they are a race color. YOUR BOY did the crime and the punishment at the time was 10 years. There is no grandfathering. What next-pimping is legal due to the I’ve been oppressed law? Take responsibility for your action. Your community needs to clean up its act. First we clear out the illegals and then the uncivil acting people. Then AMERICA may be back on track with good morals, civilized people and less nagging/aggravating “people”. Then again, maybe pimping is a learned trait in Africa. Take this act elsewhere. Atty Baker is right. Go Thurbert, and Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law!

By Midori

June 12, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

War Eagle,

amazing how using the return key works - it helps break up huge swaths of gray and makes it readable.

just FYI.

By DebbieDoRight

June 12, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

By Jackie WOOTENS BLOG

June 12, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

The DA in Douglas County son was charged with the same offense, yet, he was never put into the “system.” A female teacher in Douglas County was charged with rape of a male minor, she was not prosecuted by the DA. Seems strange that the black kids are the only ones that are used to ensure that “the rule of law” is paramount.

Hmm what do you have to say that @@. Why it looks like UNEQUAL JUSTICE!! Why aren’t you OUTRAGED!!! Oh, that’s right, the DA son’s is “special”. G. Wilson DESERVED his treatment but the DA’s son, well he was REHABILITATED right before the trial.

Also, if you REALLY do have daughters, I hope they took their brains from their father. If not, I see a long lonely ritalin filled life for them…………

By steve-o

June 12, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

War Eagle,

Wow. So let Wilson sit in jail to send a lesson to the unruly negroes. Thanks, Massa!!

By DebbieDoRight

June 12, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

@@ about as “pertinent” to the case as that bunch of bullsh#t you just spouted off about your “daughters” and how you “talked to the boy who was interested in only one thing”.

Pardon me for being sarcastic, but the only way I could see you “scaring” off a teenaged boy, is if you flashed him with those droopy @@’s.

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

{{{By @@ June 12, 2007 11:13 AM The first boyfriend was a jerk after one thing. A senior pursuing my freshman daughter. She didn’t know how to cope with him, but I did. A quick little invite to a nearby Waffle House for coffee. A brief discussion full of colorful expletives from me and that boy quickly moved on.}}}

That’s a funny story, Objective Observer, most teenage boys are like little liberals; they expect everything in life to just happen with out any effort on their part and at the first sign of trouble, they cut and run.

What an apt comparison.

Geez.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By @@

June 12, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

I would like to start a Luckovich “Pep Club” and Midori gets to be Captain.

Pom poms included.

By Bosch

June 12, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

@@, LOL, that Waffle House story is hilarious - I wouldn’t be that nice. That’s a good point, so many parents do not take the high road with these matters. They let their kids walk all over them, and rule the nest. Well, not my kids, they know who the boss is. Like you said, your daughter didn’t know how to handle a situation (like so many teenagers, yes they think we are so stupid, and just simply don’t understand them, please), but you certainly did, and you took the initiative to do something - I commend you, many parents don’t.

My son is almost 17 and is dating this little hot tamale that doesn’t talk to her parents about sex. They snuck upstairs alone the other day thinking I didn’t notice and I yelled out at them, “You guys better not be making out or having sex, I’m coming up in 5 minutes” and I did.

Later on, my son told me that I embarrassed his girlfriend, and my reply was that I simply did not care. She is not my daughter, and if she is in my house and dating my son, she will deal with my rules and my way of doing things. I told him that he should be glad to have parents who will talk about sex instead of pretending like it doesn’t exist.

By Right-wing nut job in full glory

June 12, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

Another good example of why we Evangelical Christian Republicans are right and why you are wrong:

“Sen. Sam Brownback, campaigning for president on Saturday before the National Catholic Men’s Conference, questioned whether rape victims should get abortions.

“Rape is terrible. Rape is awful. Is it made any better by killing an innocent child? Does it solve the problem for the woman that’s been raped?” the Kansas Republican asked at the St. Joseph’s Covenant Keepers gathering.

“We need to protect innocent life. Period,” Brownback said, bringing the crowd of about 500 to its feet.”

You see when you tell a Republican crowd that if we had it our way that we would put 13 year old rape victims in jail for having abortions, we applaud…loudly. We also stand and cheer. Why? Because nothing says “America” like a 13 year old rape victim in jail. Smaller government means a government that tells your kid to “shut up and have the baby. And quit whining about your morning sickness because we don’t want to hear it. If you hadn’t have tempted the poor man with the way you were dressed then you would have this problem.”

If only we could have children wear burqas. Which reminds me, If the right-wing Muslims didn’t hate the Jews so much that they wanted to kill them before Christ comes back and does it, I really think we Republicans would have a lot in common with those folks.

Liberals, and the vast majority of mental health professionals (who aren’t good Christians), would probably say that the little girl ought to be protected from carrying the trauma of the rape around if she and her family choses not to do so, but we Republicans know that people aren’t qualified to make choices for themselves. However, we Republicans are qualified to make the choices for the people. That’s what you stupid liberals don’t understand. We are God’s people. This is God’s Country. The GOP means God’s Own Party, and we will bend you to the will of the Lord or kill your heathen a* trying.

Brownback in ‘08.

RWNJIFG

By getalife

June 12, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

The kid did two years for getting a bj from a more than willing young woman, a slut if you will.

Let the kid out.

Geez.

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

{{{The Automotive News Data Center, which publishes a widely quoted annual ranking of the world’s automakers, said Japan’s top carmaker, Toyota, outsold GM by about 128,000 units, with 8,808,000 units, ——>when stripping out commercial vehicles built by a GM affiliate in China.<———-}}}

So what will the America haters do next year, not count any Silverados that GM sells?

Geez, what wankers.

Maybe next year Yo.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By Funny morons®

June 12, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

War Eagle - with your reasoning (or lack thereof) they should lock up the girl too since she initiated it.

By rushncap

June 12, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

Great cartoon, Mike! Awesome! Of course SEX gets all these conservatives riled up, but I guess that’s part of the point.

Our darling little @@ wants us to think that she’s intimidating. That’s just soooo adorable! I think she’s been watching too many gangster movies: “So I tuk him to the Waffle Haus and made him an offer he cudn’t refuse”. LOL. If she did that to me, I’d just have to make sure I miss her face when I spew my coffee from laughing.

I think Genarlow will be free soon, regardless of that douche the AG.

By Paul

June 12, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

A short while back it was noted the Rocky Mountain News wrote a piece, picked up by Bill O’Reilly in which students at Boulder CO HS attended a mandatory assembly at which guest speakers encouraged “responsible” sexual activity - heterosexual, homosexual, single, partner, group - for the students. Vitriol flew as it was a right-wing neocon sticking his nose into families’/schools’ business.

These Boulder HS kids were the same age as the kids in the Wilson case. They were just doing the same kinds of things encouraged by the Boulder school authorities.

Just looking for a little intellectual consistency in the criticisms.

FYI - I’m not much for kids carrying a sex predator label for the rest of their lives, unless, possibly, it’s an extraordinary case.

By Dusty

June 12, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

@@,

I see all the promiscuous posters and lawbreakers are posting against you. They never heard of restraint and respect. But they have heard of jail sentences and broken families.

Oh, yes, these poor innocents. It wasn’t their fault!. Just a bit of oversexed teenage fun!! No sir, the lawbreakers don’t have to obey laws because THEY DON’T FEEL LIKE IT and therefore it is OK.

Promiscuous parents! Promiscuous children! In the meantime, the Justice System tries to protect children from being molested. Then the protectors are designated as the villains against youth. What a travesty!

Well,@@, I am off for a short vacation!! Fresh air, blue mountains and all that stuff. Keep going with the good posts.

By Bosch

June 12, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

Damn, War Eagle, how do you expect us to read any of that backwards hick ranting?

Again, you are an embarrassment to all Auburn fans. You are a rascist pig with very poor writing skills.

LuckODull, You are describing the spoiled little rich sons from affluent families (hardly a liberal or conservative thing). Again, it’s a parent’s problem, has nothing to do with politics. Take it from me, most teenage boys do not care too much for politics (although many do), they are too busy trying to get laid :-)

By @@

June 12, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

Debbie:

You need to overcome your hysteria; go back up ^^^ there, and read my first post. I said the sentence was “extreme” given the circumstances, but THE LAW was broken. I have no problem with young Mr. Wilson taking the plea offered him and getting on with his life. He would be wise to do just that.

As to your last question…

(((Hmm what do you have to say that @@.)))

It’s wrong. Female teachers and the D.A.’s son should both be prosecuted and depending on the circumstances of the case, convicted if the law was broken.

I’d like to know how many males have sat on juries where female teachers were on trial. There’s your “male entitlement” double standard; the entitlement THEY reserve for declaring young girls/females “sluts”.

If a guy is getting him some, what else should matter, right?

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

The moral of the story, no matter how lame you are, even after you told everybody you were good and that things would be different but you still suck, you can always find someone that sucks more than you do, geez:

{{{The Democrats were elated to end a 12-year Republican hold on Congress last year. But, six months on, some voters may be growing frustrated that the Democrats have offered little more than symbolic opposition to the White House. Yet there is always one conciliation for the Democrats: the resident at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue remains deeply unpopular, too.}}}

Gosh, what an inspirational awe inspiring take on your performance Kowards.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By Paul

June 12, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

Bosch 11:31

Good job. Get ready for the followup for when they’re out of your sight. And for the irate phone calls from the girl’s parents! Nice to see there’s another parent out there who doesn’t confuse “parent” with “friend” or “buddy.”

By rushncap

June 12, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

Because, according to @@, no girl has ever wanted sex. Thus if she happens to have sex with someone, she is being “molested” or “abused”. Neat little window into @@’s mindset.

By Mrs. Godzilla

June 12, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

Golly - I hope my daughter doesn’t bring home a young man from War Eagle’s family. If his behavior was at all similar - we’d hit the reject button real quick. BOING!SPLAT!

Oh, BTW, this nordic-american supports all the good work of the NAACP. They are apparently correct more often than that eagle person.

Eventually the old bigots die.

By Bosch

June 12, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

Alot of these types of problems would go away if we didn’t have such Puritanical hang-ups about sex.

It happens people, deal with it.

Again, I’m glad we (in this state) are starting to see the absurdities of these types.

I’ll say it again, just for clarity - We need to get out of the middle ages and quit letting these bigoted Christian evangelical fundamental freaks make all the rules for us.

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

{{{By rushncrap June 12, 2007 11:46 AM Because, according to @@, no girl has ever wanted sex. Thus if she happens to have sex with someone, she is being “molested” or “abused”. Neat little window into @@’s mindset.}}}

This post is not directed at rushncrap, heaven knows I wouldn’t want to upset his tender little sensibilities, but I have to ask the question of him, WTF do you know about living. breathing women?

Shouldn’t you remain silent until the discussion turns to paper women and pud pulling?

You always have to butt in where your opinion is neither wanted nor appreciated, whether it be evolution or “global warming, why can’t you wait until we talk about something you are educated on?

Geez.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By Bosch

June 12, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

Paul, When they are out of my sight? Yes, that’s why I told him about condoms and how to use them. As for the hot tamales’ parents? They’re nice people, just a little naive. If they had a problem, I’d tell them the same thing. They don’t want to be grandparents either, I’m sure.

The point is, you have to be the one in charge in your own home. One thing that will make me so mad is to see parents who let their kids tell them what to do. Kids are just that, kids. They need guidance even if you give it to them kicking and screaming. They will eventually listen to you if you pound it in their heads enough.

By @@

June 12, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

Have a great trip Dusty!!!!!!

By getalife

June 12, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

Its hard to take (pardon the pun) @@ (boobs, as Daniel likes to call her) when it comes (pardon the pun again) to sex.

By @@

June 12, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

Getalife:

(((The kid did two years for getting a bj from a more than willing young woman, a slut if you will.)))

This ^^^ coming from a guy who dates strippers but wouldn’t marry one or father a child with one.

You chauvinistic “oinker” you. (ISH)

Love, @@ a/k/a Boobs

By Paul

June 12, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

Bosch

He may be out of your sight, but the steps you’re taking will mean you’re never out of his mind. I think it’s good to realize that no matter what you teach/train/cajole/instill kids can still disregard all and go their own way - so if they do, you’ve told them how to minimally protect themselves. Same as when I told one of my sons that if he disregarded all, went out with friends and got drunk he could call me any time of the night and I’d come get him (rather than have him in a car) and there’d be no repercussions. But, if he was blitzed and drove home or came home with a blitzed driver….

He told me a long time after he never had to make the call - but thinking about our conversations encouraged him to not get in the situation in the first place.

He was a handful - but when he was an adult he initiated a conversation and thanked me for being consistent and not accepting his BS excuses. I told him rejecting one excuse but accepting another (which sounded better but was still BS) would just encourage him to become a more creative liar.

Good luck -

By getalife

June 12, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

@@,

I have attended many parties like Wilson’s.

One of my friends took a picture, she saw the flash and stormed out.

Needless to say, my friend got his as-s whooped that night.

By Truthman

June 12, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight,

You are absolutely correct!

Thurbert Baker is absolutely wrong…and I normally like Baker.

Free Genarlow Wilson…yesterday!!

Some of these repressed boobs on this site forget when they were 17 and trolling for chicks…Typical repressed, immature southern male (Oooo, that’ll start it!!).

By DebbieDoRight

June 12, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

Bosch — I grew up with a LATIN Catholic (Dominican) father and a Southern Baptist, (SC) mother; who watched we kids like “wolves watching sheep”. We couldn’t even DATE until we were 18, girls or boys, no dates.

I’m not saying I’ll be that strict when I have kids, but I think Paul is right, you instill it into them and even away from you, they fall back on your teachings. I find myself, when talking to my step son (14), saying the EXACT SAME THINGS my folks said to me. Scary………

By @@

June 12, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

Alright Getalife, let me get this straight; you and your friends whooped his a$$ because he took what was to be your liberties away from you in a flash of light.

You so funny Getalife. (ISH)

By getalife

June 12, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

@@,

Yes.

I still give him hell about that one.

By Paul

June 12, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight 12:24

Thanks for the first good laugh of the day!

By Bosch

June 12, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

Paul, I’ve done the same with my son. I told him the same thing, I’d come get him no questions asked (I just have to make sure I’m sober when he’s gone out!).

Your right, kids and adults alike mess up and if you are up front with your kids, they will have less of a reason to lie to you. I liked what you said about being a creative liar.

Thanks for the encouragement. I think I’ve done okay with the oldest, I’ve got two more to go. I have one son in middle school and the only reason I haven’t killed him yet is because I remember my oldest at that age and remember he made it through that. Then there is my daughter - oh geez, girls are really crazy, I am convinced.

By Bosch

June 12, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

Debbie, I have an agnostic dad and southern baptist mom—life was great in the ol’Bosch home. I took my religious beliefs from my dad. His ideas just seemed to make more sense, although he wasn’t much on the talking side.

However, talking to your kids can be scary. I’ll hear myself talk to my kids and become frozen in fear from what has come out of my mouth.

It’s even better when I call my mom and tell her about an argument my kids and I got into and she just laughs and laughs at me. No sympathy at all from her!

By Connie

June 12, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

By Truthman

June 12, 2007 12:23 PM

Some of these repressed boobs on this site forget when they were 17 and trolling for chicks…Typical repressed, immature southern male (Oooo, that’ll start it!!).

Wrong truthman. These morons didn’t see the point in trolling for chicks when the palm of their hands was so much faster and easily accessable. They prefered the 100% success rate of Palmira as opposed to the 0% from real chicks.

By Bosch

June 12, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

Come on now Truthman, it isn’t just a “Southern” thing. ALL teenage boys are crazed sex machines. And believe it or not, alot of teenage girls are too.

I mean, come on, it is quite a fun activity, beats the hell out of playing cards or pool.

By Funny morons®

June 12, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

The American electorate decided last November that they must do something about the failed war and gave the Democrats control of both houses of Congress. However, the Democrats have decided that it is easier to be complicit in war crimes than to represent the wishes of the electorate and hold a rogue president accountable. If Cheney again prevails, America will supplant the Third Reich as the most reviled country in recorded history.

And the Democrats will let this happen because it is becoming very apparent that they have no balls.

Just sayin…

By Funny morons®

June 12, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

“It is better, so the Fourth Amendment teaches us, that the guilty sometimes go free than the citizens be subject to easy arrest.” – William O. Douglas (1898-1980), Henry v. United States, 1959

By Bosch

June 12, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

Hey FM, your post reminded me of something I saw last night. On BBC America, on June 17, this Sunday at 8:00, there is a movie coming on called “The Trial of Tony Blair.” It’s about him going on trial in 2010 for war crimes ———- could be interesting, no?

Here’s the link:

BBC America

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this

Pardon me if I don’t spend the day dwelling on underage teenage sex, geez:

{{{Unlike mid-latitude glaciers, which are warmed and melted by surrounding air in the summer, the disappearance of Kilimanjaro’s ice is driven by solar radiation, since the air around it is rarely above freezing, they wrote.}}}

Huh, imagine that.

Duh.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By getalife

June 12, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

“So (Friday was) a big news day: The immigration bill collapses in the Senate. The new Iraq war czar admits that the military is as quagmired as ever. Rep. William Jefferson pleads not guilty to bribery. But don’t worry about that. In fact, stop everything you are doing and turn on the television. Paris Hilton is about to do a perp-drive back to the courthouse…The news is so big that CNN International, the serious show on CNN, interrupted its programming for a live shot of nothing happening outside Hilton’s home. “It just doesn’t get any better than this,” said CNN International correspondent Silbila Vargas.” — Michael Scherer

Geez.

By @@

June 12, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

Bosch:

(((I mean, come on, it is quite a fun activity, beats the hell out of playing cards or pool.)))

You obviously haven’t heard the phrase; “Bros before ho’s”.

Commonly used among today’s male youth. It means the male crew is given first priority.

Now I know I’m being tough on “the guys” here, so I’ll take a minute to say….

Let’s hear it for the Dads out there!

By rushncap

June 12, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

Oh looooord. I think I’m gonna have nightmares. @@ educating us on the meaning of “bros before hoes”?? It’s…. it’s….. I think I’m actually at a loss for words here.

By @@

June 12, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

Let’s hear it for pubescent males and Getalife. (ISH)

By Midori

June 12, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

{{{{{I would like to start a Luckovich “Pep Club” and Midori gets to be Captain.}}}}}}

YAYYYYYYYYYY!!

You like me!!! You really like me!!!!

By getalife

June 12, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this

The dumbing down of America

Geez.

By Funny morons®

June 12, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

Bosch - thanks for the link. I’ll be sure and tune in.

By Rufus Allen

June 12, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker should be fired, as he is out of touch with Georgia law makers and time.

By Funny morons®

June 12, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

Fifty-one-year-old to get probation for having sex with 15-year-old. Q: What clue tells you the gender of the adult?

By getalife

June 12, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

“In a Sunday afternoon discussion that mixed gentle coaxing with a sober appraisal of politics in Baghdad and Washington, the commander, Adm. William J. Fallon, told Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that the Iraqi government should aim to complete a law on the division of oil proceeds by next month.”

“Note to BushCo: the American people, and the vast majority of members of Congress who are opposed to this war, are not using the oil law as an indication of progress in Iraq. Our measurement of success has more to do with body counts.”

Geez.

By Funny morons®

June 12, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

No, pharmacists. You may not impose your religious beliefs on NJ residents who have the audacity to have views that differ from yours.

By Funny morons®

June 12, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

Okay men, we need to take that hill. And good God, Jenkins, your a$$ is fabulous!

By @@

June 12, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

Let’s see if there’s any progress in Darfur.

(((U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon has received a letter from Sudanese President Omar al Bashir accepting a joint peacekeeping force from the United Nations and African Union (AU) in Sudan, a U.N. spokeswoman said June 12. Al Bashir had said he wanted all peacekeepers to come from African nations, but the United Nations said it will use non-African forces if necessary. About 20,000 peacekeepers are expected to be deployed to Sudan’s Darfur region, and about 7,000 AU forces are currently in the region.)))

I think I like this guy Ban Ki Moon. He’ll send who is available if need be. I don’t know how that meets with diplomacy, but then diplomacy isn’t what’s needed there is it?

The liberals want aggressive action.

By @@

June 12, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

Oil oil everywhere but not enough for driving.

(((Iran will begin a gasoline rationing plan June 14 to help reduce massive state gasoline subsidies. The plan’s first phase will limit government vehicles to 10 liters (about 2.6 gallons) of gasoline per day, with private cars being affected later. The Iranian government, which spent $5 billion importing gasoline last year, has already raised pump prices by 25 percent and required consumers to document gasoline purchases in efforts to curb use.)))

Maybe Ahmadenijad is concerned about global warming.

By Goldie

June 12, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

Teenagers do some stupid stuff all the time. Gernalow is no different from many other 15-17 year olds and he does not deserve a 10 year sentence! I’m afraid that our Atty. General is not going to look very good, forcing this appeal through our court system…

By Goldie

June 12, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

The American auto-makers with their big gas guzzlers are having a tough time facing facts — and maybe if they had put in higher fuel standards 20 years ago, we wouldn’t be so dependent on oil from terrorist-supporting nations today:

Detroit is experiencing the sickening realization that its free ride on fuel economy is over. This week or next, the Senate is expected to vote on a bill to require automakers to achieve an average of 35 miles per gallon for all their vehicles by 2020, up from the current average of about 25 mpg. This might seem like an obvious move, given that gas prices have skyrocketed, global warming threatens the planet and American soldiers are dying in a region rich with oil and terrorism. But here in Detroit, where auto execs once bragged that a gallon of gas was cheaper than bottled water, fighting fuel-economy rules has long been a way of life. But after winning that battle for more than two decades, Detroit’s influence in Washington is running on empty.

By @@

June 12, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

Damn, France is using America as a role model. Whoodathunkit?

(((The news is phenomenally good for UMP leader and new French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has an aggressive liberalizing agenda he wants to see passed and implemented as quickly as possible. Among many changes, the agenda includes altering tax laws to encourage investment, loosening France’s 35-hour workweek so those who choose to work more can, and limiting the right-to-strike so minimum levels of service are guaranteed for most public services.)))

Now you see, in that ^^^ instance, the word “liberalizing” means freeing the people to “excel” without government intervention.

(((That last one is perhaps the most indicative of the scope of Sarkozy’s ambition and the challenges he will face in changing what is seen in France as the fundamental relationship between citizen and state. Sarkozy wants to bury the concept that the state exists to take care of the citizenry, preferring instead a more Americanized model in which the state only handles that which the private sector cannot.)))

The tried and turned out not to be true Socialist system wasn’t cuttin’ it.

Live and learn I guess. Viva la France.

By @@

June 12, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

Smaller government. Hell yea! I’m for that. It’s one of the issues I could take Bush to the woodshed on.

(((Battling Sarkozy will be France’s normal alliance of everything from students to public workers, but in that fight they face three major obstacles. One of Sarkozy’s first reforms will be to replace every two civil servants with but a single new bureaucrat (good for him because they’re not worth the salt it would take to blow them to hell and back) — something that has broad support across the populace. Second, the UMP’s crushing win will rob any protest or strike of much public legitimacy. Finally, Sarkozy himself has so far been able to leverage every success into a yet greater victory. So yes, Sarkozy appears set to violate French sensibilities more than any French leader since Marie Antoinette, but he is doing so at a point stronger than any French leader since Napoleon.

But just think about it for a moment. The more that liberals expect from government, the bigger government must become.

Citizens “wean thyself” or be “the government’s wienie”.

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this

A beautiful young college student raped and murdered in her own dorm, and EMU officials deliberately put the rest of the student body at risk, even shredded a safety alert from police, in the name of political correctness. A young female student at Eastern Michigan University was raped and then murdered in her own dorm room by a black male student. EMU officials deliberately hid the murder from other students. Even while the killer was on the loose. A local law firm is accusing EMU of committing a crime by not informing other students. They say EMU violated the Clery Act.

Excuse me if I don’t hop on the pinko bandwagon for the likes of Genarlow Wilson. Libs are good at making excuses for thugs.

Sick, sick, sick.

Cowards.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®

By Funny morons®

June 12, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

Fox spent half as much time covering the Iraq war than MSNBC during the first three months of the year, and considerably less than CNN, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism. The difference was more stark during daytime news hours than in prime-time opinion shows. The Iraq war occupied 20 percent of CNN’s daytime news hole and 18 percent of MSNBC’s. On Fox, the war was talked about only 6 percent of the time.

I guess if FOX can’t report good war news they just don’t bother to report any war news at all.

By rushncap

June 12, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this

And li’l andy is now linking to stories from a KKK affiliate (CofCC, almost humorously replacing Ks with Cs).

By rushncap

June 12, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

What’s amazing here isn’t li’l andykins’ neo-Nazi sympathies. That’s been obvious to anyone reading the blog for more than a day. It’s the fact that none of you bottom-sucking cons on the blog ever bother to distance yourself from that humaniform lump of blubber. Not even supposedly “gentle” (not to mention self-congratulatingly “witty” @@) bothers to ever point out that li’l andy does not represent her side.

And then these douches wonder why black people don’t vote Republican.

By getalife

June 12, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

“One moment President Bush was glad-handing Albanians on Sunday, proudly sporting a watch with a dark strap on his left wrist. Moments later, it was gone.”

Geez.

By Funny morons®

June 12, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this

Are all teenagers who engage in consensual sex considered thugs or just the black teenagers? Hmm Luckodullard?

By getalife

June 12, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this

Well @@,

Most roads you drive are socialism.

Firefighters are socialism.

Police are socialism.

You want to get rid of these socialized necessities?

Geez.

By Dubya

June 12, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

The Brain speaks once more. Only Bush would state: “This process has been DRUG out a long time.” Ignorant hillbilly uses word in a verbal format that has been considered grammatically incorrect, unacceptable, crude and worse for well over 100 years. Must have absorbed that from Yale. The cretin is just magnificent. God bless Murcuh!

By getalife

June 12, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

White power’s Andy gets his from a thug

Bwa.

By Lord Help Us

June 12, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this

Lucko-racist, thanks for the link to the CofCC.

Many here have been humored by your profanity laced, vulgar rants for the simple reason that they are so extreme and out of touch with mainstream society.

You are the epitome of the failed social conservative agenda that promotes this racist, unamerican policy with winks, code words and deception (ironically, they know their policies cannot be promoted honestly on their own merits).

I think those that glob onto your extreme views and revel in your perpetual imaginary crusade against the ‘evil liberals’ need to understand who and what they are endorsing.

Here is a piece of the CofCC’s statement of principles just so you know who you are promoting:

We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.

Coward…racist.

By @@

June 12, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this

Getalife:

(((Most roads you drive are socialism.)))

(((Firefighters are socialism.)))

(((Police are socialism.)))

(((You want to get rid of these socialized necessities?)))

Nooooooo, that IS the government’s responsibility…to protect the people.

I’ve just been over to Wooten’s. What’s going on over there is very interesting.

I’ve been wondering why it was so dead over here. It looks like “A” luckovich loyalist is over there posting under many…many…multiple IDs.

Too funny, and very pathetic I might add.

Why do all the liberals over here (one in particular) always want the conservatives to protect them from Andy?

Go get ‘em Andy. It’s a free country with free speech. They really don’t get you, do they? They’re too enamored with the snot on their sleeves.

By Lord Help Us

June 12, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

@@, could providing healthcare be categorized as a means ‘to protect the people?’

How about environmental policies that ensure the air we breathe, water we drink and food we eat are safe and clean?

Be careful, you could be a socialist…

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

{{{By LuckoDull June 12, 2007 2:43 PM Cowards.}}}

“Lord” Help Us POS: Next time you jack my name try to get all the details right, moron.

Racist mofo. Lowlife POS. Scum of the Earth.

—————>K<———————oward.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®

By rushncap

June 12, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

And no sooner do I type my condemnation than the Queen B!tch herself — @@ — shows up to prove me right.

Listen to her, li’l andy. Go get us. Post more links to CCC, KKK, neo-Nazi, skinhead, white power and Confederate websites. Tell us how Holocaust didn’t happen, how lynchings are good for society, how heebes control the media, how w3tbacks are stealing your jobs, how n!ggers are raping your women. Shout it loud and clear, so that the 10%-15% of human spewtum like yourself, @@, RW, Danish etc are shown for what you are. Say it loud and say it proud: “I’m human refuse, hear me roar!”

By Paul

June 12, 2007 3:35 PM | Link to this

@@ 2:25 2:36

So France became more and more of a “citizens get taxed to give to gov’t to give back to certain groups” with lots of rights and a few responsibilities. Also many difficulties in reconciling “being French” with semiautonomy for new immigrants from the remnants of their empire. Now they’re in wholesale retreat and reform. And it was a widespread vote - not just for their executive, but the legislative also.

So the lesson for America, based upon France’s returning from where we’re heading, is…. what?

By rushncap

June 12, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

Ah, li’l andy is now realizing what he’s done and denying the CofCC link. Wow. Even his lone neuron seems to have lighted up.

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

{{{By rushncap June 12, 2007 2:50 PM What’s amazing here isn’t li’l andykins’ neo-Nazi sympathies.}}}

You can only wish POS.

How come you libs are down with all these racist websites, you seem to know quite a bit about it.

Pin the sh-it on me, the only way you losers can even get close to being as good as I am, try to bring me down to your level.

I’m not a loser like you are.

Pull that pud of yours loser.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By @@

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

Oh my goodness, Dan rather inserted foot in mouth AGAIN….

While referring to his successor, Couric, as a “nice person,” Rather said “the mistake was to try to bring the ‘Today’ show ethos to the ‘Evening News,’ and to dumb it down, tart it up in hopes of attracting a younger audience.”

A person could ascertain that Dan thinks women are “tarts” and anyone “under 35 or 40” is dumb; OR that people under 35 or 40 are “dumb tarts”.

Damn he’s arrogant.

By Lord Help Us

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

Oh please, Lucko-racist. Be a man…for once.

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

{{{By rushncap June 12, 2007 3:33 PM Listen to her, li’l andy. Go get us. Post more links to CCC, KKK, neo-Nazi, skinhead, white power and Confederate websites.}}}

This should tell you everything you need to know about rushncrap’s and all these liberal’s mental capacity.

Someone knew that they were to stupid to figure out that I have never and would never post any racist bullsh-it, so playing on rushncraps stupidity they jacked my name and got a rise out of the slobbering idiots.

GFY (Good for you.)

Remember: You are the real racists.

You have to fake the racist hate for us.

Stupid filthy little Kowards.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®

By mm

June 12, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

It’s scary to see that you wingnuts look up to Luckoloon. His posts are incoherent rants from out of nowhere. I skip over most of his posts because they remind me of Charlie Brown’s teacher (blah, blah blah blah, blah blah).

But hey, you also look up to Bush, so it’s really no surprise Luckoloon is your local hero.

You wingnuts talk all day long about fighting the muslims, but you act oh so much like them.

By Paul

June 12, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

Hey rushncap

Post dropped the other day -re, 4th Circuit re. al-Maari (sp). Interesting dissent, appears will be heard by full circuit. Record is pretty consistent on overturning such rulings.

I don’t see this as “criminal” or “war - traditional.” Constitution give right to Congress to declare war - but the form of the declaration isn’t specified. It’s a matter of ongoing litigation and tussling. If someone declares war on a country, and the country ignores it, while they are attacked, does a state of war exist? I think so - reference Pres Roosevelt’s remarks while asking Congress for a formal declaration. OBL declared war in late 90’s - and the US pretty well ignored him - after all, just another crazy Arab with no jets, tanks, carriers, or all the other trappings of military power. Let alone no country.

You mentioned Constitutional rights for all - radical Islamists, I take it, as you labeled them criminals? Or was that just for people captured here? My concern is, once one opens the door, how can any Constitutional rights be withheld? It could lead to some pretty absurd realities.

So I think we’re in a state of setting up new systems do deal with the new reality. Not criminal, not conventional military - possibly a bit of each.

Quiet today - maybe this post won’t drop.

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

ATTENTION: LEA DONOSKY!!!!!!

I do not appreciate your lurker, resident gay basher or who ever it was posting links to KKK websites using my normal username.

I believe this conduct violates your user agreement.

Would you please attribute the post at 2:43 to which ever one of these scumbags who made it using my name, was it “Lord Help Us” or maybe “rushncap?”

Please tell us who it was so there is no confusion.

Or do I need to call your bosses again?

Thanks for your help.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®

By getalife

June 12, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this

“Prosecutor Fitzgerald: Put Libby In Jail Now!”

And free Paris.

By CAN'T RESIST

June 12, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

Mommy!

It isn’t fair!

Don’t make me tell daddy on you.

Hard to type….laughing so hard.

By getalife

June 12, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this

Andy,

Its Cynthia Tucker.

Geez.

By Lord Help Us

June 12, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

Uh oh…he’s gonna blow…

(BTW: I hereby give AJC Management the right to tell Lucko-ravinglunatic what he wants to know in his 3:50)

By @@

June 12, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this

Paul:

(((So the lesson for America, based upon France’s returning from where we’re heading, is…. what?)))

Let’s not go there O.K. Paul?

Lord Help Us:

I think that healthcare for those truly in need IS a moral responsibility, but it shouldn’t be set up in such a way as to accomodate abuse. If it is, then the truly needy suffer at the hands of the abusers.

The environment? Somewhat, but first offer businesses manufacturing, industrial, etc., incentives to help clean up the environment. If they’re in violation of contamination, they should be fined, and fined in such a way as not to put them out of business. If they’re out of business, people are out of jobs.

I’ve actually seen where privatization of road maintenance is being considered.

Hell, nine guys standing around watching one guy dig a hole tells me I’m not getting my money’s worth.

Who cares where the story comes from, if it was true…it was true. EMU was guilty after the fact. The guy was guilty of rape and murder. Today’s cartoon was about Genarlow Wilson and a similar charge.

If Andy were the racist you would all like to believe he was, then he would have no respect for anyone of color. I know for a fact that he does. It’s based on their principles, not their race.

I’m off to Wooten’s to watch the fun.

By The Watcher

June 12, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this

Face it Andy….you’re the class clown.

By DebbieDoRight

June 12, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

[[The guy was guilty of rape and murder. Today’s cartoon was about Genarlow Wilson and a similar charge.]]

Please tell me how a vicious rapist and murderer’s case is similiar to Wilson’s? I’m dying to hear this one.

By @@

June 12, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight:

It was the initial charge against young Mr. Wilson and I’ve already said that I disagree with it.

Based on the plea deal offered recently, I find myself having less and less sympathy for Genarlow.

He needs to accept the plea and get on with his life if that’s truly what he wanted in the first place.

By rushncap

June 12, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this

Did… did @@ just stand by a CCC story AGAIN? I really am speechless now.

Paul — you still don’t answer my questions. So far the “system” we (I mean the Bush Junta) is setting up is “we hold anyone, for any time, for any reason, anywhere until we choose to stop”. I believe Stalin had a very similar “system” in place to deal with those anti-Soviet “terrorists” which infiltrated, apparently by the millions, his glorious nation. You also fail to demonstrate what the “absurd realities” of allowing accused criminals to actually have a trial are. Forgive me if I don’t simply accept your statement at face value. Even the Nazis got their day in court in Nuremberg. Would you deny the same right to those we are fighting currently?

As for you trying to figure out what exactly the Constitution means by “declare war”, are you really taking lessons from Bill Clinton? Do you really think that Congress actually did declare war on Iraq, it’s just that neither they nor the people of this country nor the U.N. actually knew about it? There is something eerily Zen-esque about that: if Congress declares a war but no one knows about it… Hell, Congress didn’t even declare a war on Afghanistan, even though it had a full right to do so. We’re also in a “War on Drugs”, is every weed seller to be thrown into Guantanamo to await waterboarding? We had a short-lived “War on Poverty”, why didn’t Eisenhower suggest throwing all the poor into secret CIA prisons? This is a nation of laws, Paul. And we don’t stop following our own laws because it’s kinda inconvenient and maybe even a little confusing. Holding people without a trial is AGAINST THE LAW. Period. End of discussion. It does not matter if they are foreigners. It does not matter if they are brown, or Muslim, or even if they don’t like America. What is your objection to giving these people fair trials? Can you think of a single good reason to not do that?

By steve-o

June 12, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

LuckoDork,

Now you really did it @ 2:43! I knew that you were bigoted, but the CofCC? Are you freaking kidding me? Well, at least your more honest than some of your neoCON counterparts.

And how about that little meltdown at 3:50. You really signed your grievance with your Z’s? LMFAO!!!

Better make that phone call!!

ROTFLMAO!!!

By Paul

June 12, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this

rushncap

This isn’t apples and oranges - it’s turned into a fruit salad. Lots of good topics and concepts, though.

I’ll try to take a few things in order - excuse me if I miss a few.

I wasn’t speaking of Iraq exclusively - the “war” declaration I was speaking of was against radical Islam, hence my reference to OBL’s declaration of war against us.

The difficulty we’ve faced from the beginning has been - what’s the comprehensive system to deal with people who operate outside the bounds of internal law and agreements? Geneva Conventions didn’t apply - the conditions for the parties weren’t met - altho we did grant some GC protections. Previous administration treated it pretty much as criminal (although they were willing to engage in noncriminal justice by lobbing cruise missiles every now and then). Even when our servicemen died by a group who was at war with us, our response was to dispatch the FBI to investigate.

So we fought them in Afghanistan and became entangled in confusion - they’re combatants, not sponsored by a state, state they view international agreements on conducting war as evil, the list goes on, so what do we do with them when we capture them? Let alone when we capture Islamists who are Westerners or Americans? We flat hadn’t thought through - as this had evolved over years - how we would confront jihadists and handle them when captured.

Agreements on conducting warfare, treating civilian populations, repatriating combatants, have been evolving for centuries. Ironic, isn’t it, that people who demanded GC protections (let’s say on the battlefield, here) were irate when GC conditions were enforced - notably, not repatriating prisoners until the cessation of hostilities.

Some jihadists have made it pretty clear their struggle will continue as long as an American lives.

I think the earlier Bush Administration attempts were a to-be expected overreaching - as much to consolidate power for the executive, just as Congress seeks to consolidate power for the legislative.

I don’t think it’s a one size fits all justice system that we need to evolve. There are many classifications: combatants captured on the battlefield. Combatants captured in civilian areas. Americans captured working with jihadist units. Americans and other Westerners funneling funds and information

By Paul

June 12, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

rushncap

to jihadists. Resident aliens, nonresident aliens - the list goes on. Our current system is inadequate.

Absurd possibilities: if every jihadist is treated as a criminal (I’m not speaking of people captured on the continental US, here), with Constitutional protections afforded, does that not mean the protections kick in before capture, not just after capture? I don’t have to outline those nightmare scenarios, do I? “Your honor, I was on a mission with my jihadist brothers, planting explosives on the roadway to Manila, when I was apprehended by a Philippino-US strike team. They shot me. No warning. They didn’t process the “evidence.” No Miranda. Your honor, my rights were violated - I’m charged as a criminal and demand to have all charges dropped.” Constitutional protections, in all circumstances…..?

So I’m not satisfied with the process we had, nor the one we have. I suppose if one doesn’t even think we’re in a war with jihadists - most of the Democratic Presidential contenders, but not Obama and Hillary - don’t. So then one would disagree with this contention. I’d say the “law” here is evolving. And they really, really need to pick up the pace and not thinking returning to a pre-9/11 system will prove workable.

By getalife

June 12, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

“I’ve learned one thing in listening to all the debates and reading about all these people running for office, and the one fact I’ve learned, I can’t get out of my mind, is that Rudy Giuliani has been married more times than Mitt Romney’s been hunting.”

hat tip / Harry Reid.

By Paul

June 12, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this

getalife 4:47

Harry Reid’s co-opted the social conservative evangelical right positions? Will wonders never cease?

By Midori

June 12, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

i saw him on C-Span, saying that yesterday morning.

HILARIOUS!!!

By rushncap

June 12, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this

Paul — what you are quibbling about are details (like whether Miranda applies in a battle area). These are minor points. What is a major point is what to do with these people. You STILL fail to propose anything at all that would be better than the system that we have — i.e. trial by jury. These people deserve a TRIAL. End of story. Until you come up with some ingenious solution that is better than a trial, that’s what it has to be.

Also, please spare me the buzzwords. “pre-9/11 thinking”? Damn right! Pre-9/11 thinking gave us the Constitution and Democracy. Post 9/11 thinking gave us Abu Ghraib and warrantless wiretapping. So yeah, I’ll stick with “pre-9/11 thinking”.

By @@

June 12, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this

Paul @ 4:35 & 4:46:

I think this is one of those unavoidable progressions that progressives can’t seem to comprehend.

In Utopia all things function perfectly and you can just live there happily ever after. You don’t have to think. All provisions are there for their enjoyment.

I’m calling it the “Garden of Even” now.

By steve-o

June 12, 2007 5:10 PM | Link to this

{{{Also, please spare me the buzzwords. “pre-9/11 thinking”? Damn right! Pre-9/11 thinking gave us the Constitution and Democracy. Post 9/11 thinking gave us Abu Ghraib and warrantless wiretapping. So yeah, I’ll stick with “pre-9/11 thinking”.}}}

rushncap,

Eloquently stated.

By rushncap

June 12, 2007 5:10 PM | Link to this

Paul — no, this is not fruit salad. This is not “well, it’s confusing, so let’s just ignore all human rights considerations because it’s just too damn inconvenient”. Sorry. Our morality, and our justice, are not based on ease. Again, and maybe for the last time: why don’t these people get trials? Yes, there are some technical issues (you mentioned Miranda, but things like extradition etc are also present), but these can be figured out. The Bush Junta is not even pretending to try. “Eh, they’re bad, let’s lock ‘em up forever”. No. A thousand times no. If you cannot convince a military tribunal that someone is a danger to America, you have no business keeping the person locked up. I don’t give a damn about inconveniences or how difficult gray areas are. Every job has its difficulties. I can solve problems in my job, are you telling me that lawyers can’t? Should we toss out our judicial system and over 200 years of legal precedent (not to mention the Constitution) because the case is slightly harder to prove than some guy getting a BJ on tape?

By rushncap

June 12, 2007 5:13 PM | Link to this

As @@ gallops back into her “ooooh, I’m so clever, look at what fabulous label I came up with” land.

Steve-o: thanks.

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 5:16 PM | Link to this

We’re still waiting for the AJC to post the true identity of the 2:43 racist.

I give you full permission, Atlanta Journal Constitution, to post my email address if it was in fact me who left that crap on your blog.

What are you waiting for?

Do you condone race baiting Lea?

Is this acceptable conduct for participants in your blogs to be engaged in?

It seems to me like you would want to expose this type of conduct to try and put a stop to it.

Unless, of course, you condone it.

That would explain a lot you know.

It would explain why you allow the gay bashers, the “GodHatesTrash” garbage and all of the other hate, which seems to be the only response you liberals have for the superior intelligence displayed by the Conservatives on this blog.

Who can blame you, knowing how dull y’all are.

Kowards.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®

By Midori

June 12, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this

{{{Also, please spare me the buzzwords. “pre-9/11 thinking”? Damn right! Pre-9/11 thinking gave us the Constitution and Democracy. Post 9/11 thinking gave us Abu Ghraib and warrantless wiretapping. So yeah, I’ll stick with “pre-9/11 thinking”.}}}

Steve-o, Rushncap,

perhaps Paul should go home and get his f*cking shinebox.

By Paul

June 12, 2007 5:20 PM | Link to this

rushncap

Sometimes you come up with some good discussion points. Other times it’s a wholesale minimizing of anything you don’t wish to pursue with the cop-out line of “you don’t like that painting? Well, you paint something better!”

As I said, this is evolving. It’s pretty clear Americans, apprehended in the US, will receive the normal protections. I don’t think it’s so clear with illegals, resident aliens, nonresident aliens involved in military operations. The Military Tribunals Act was a good start in that direction.

I suppose you’re saying anyone, anywhere, captured deserves a trial. I’ll say “disagree.” German GIs captured in WWII were shipped to the US, held in camps, and released when hostilities were over. No trials. (What would they be for? To determine if they really, really were combatants? Trials were reserved for those accused of war crimes. And the process was markedly different from our criminal justice system - and it occurred after hostilities ceased.) They were grunts, prisoners, and were released. So the objection is, the enemy defines the duration of the conflict so you don’t want to keep them from killing other Americans for the duration? You think all enemy forces captured deserve a (criminal) trial? I don’t - not for the guy captured with an AK shooting at an American patrol in Afghanistan - so part of your question is moot.

Quibbling? You’ve been going on about Constitutional protections. I was simply trying to delineate the scope and circumstance - and then reasonably ask, why in one circumstance, not another?

The pre-9/11 “buzzword” was the mindset - reference my example of GIs being killed by military operations at Khobar Towers and the US response is to…. dispatch the FBI.

This really isn’t one size fits all. You asked what to do with these people. That’s why I listed so many categories and circumstances. It depends - if one doesn’t simply view them all as criminals (which I do not).

It sure isn’t as simple as a campaign sound bite.

By Paul

June 12, 2007 5:26 PM | Link to this

Midori

Since you can’t keep up, just keep doing what you’re doing. Every court needs a jester.

rushncap

I reread part of your earlier post. I agree, people have been picked up overseas under questionable circumstances (paying rewards to tribesmen for turning over other tribesmen isn’t the brightest system in the world). People have been picked up here under nebulous circumstances. Those cases should be resolved - quickly. The record so far has been abysmal. But that’s what I meant about different procedures for different circumstances.

By getalife

June 12, 2007 5:41 PM | Link to this

“O’REILLY (6/5/07): Did she break the law?

BERNSTEIN: Yes.

O’REILLY: OK. Good, I like this. How did she break the law?

BERNSTEIN: She broke the law if, indeed, she perjured herself.

O’REILLY: Well, you just said she did break the law.

BERNSTEIN: No. The special prosecutor determined that she did not. So he did not file the charge.

O’REILLY: So you think she did. But the special prosecutor, Ken Starr, said no.

BERNSTEIN: That is correct. You know what? Let me be really straightforward. I don’t think she broke the law. I think there was a time that she did not tell the truth.

O’REILLY: Under oath?

BERNSTEIN: You know, I wasn’t in the room.

Did Hillary Clinton break the law at some point? Bill O’Reilly wanted to know—and Bernstein gave him four separate answers: Yes, yes if, no and maybe. After that, he said he thought she did—and then again, he said he thought she didn’t. Finally, he said he didn’t know…

O’Reilly interview Gerth and Van Natta last night about their Hillary book and Bill said that after reading over a 1000 pages—Hillary did nothing wrong….They didn’t like that much….”

Clinton will be our next President and Andy will blame Cynthia Tucker.

Good times ahead.

By @@

June 12, 2007 5:42 PM | Link to this

I’m galloping by to say that I’m enjoying the discussion.

Paul is making some very good points on enemy combatants.

The other guy is stuck in limbo. Not progressing in his arguments as I see it…

and “As the World Turns” the “Liberals Churn”.

Pick up the pace….was that a challenge to a liberal’s thinking?

O.K., I’ll wait for his response. Will it be

(((Period. End of discussion?)))

By Paul

June 12, 2007 5:46 PM | Link to this

rushncap 5:10

I’m still not sure who the “they” are who are being held and not released, with no effort to resolve the cases under current procedures. We’ve released about 390 from Guantanamo. Some questionable cases are taking way too long under the current system, but a characterization that the US is not even attempting to try is misleading.

Link: Prisoners released

By Paul

June 12, 2007 5:58 PM | Link to this

WOW! Getalife!!! You actually cited Bill O Reilly as a truthful, reliable, credible source in his continuing quest to pin down the Hillary bashers and have them put up or shut up!

I just looked out the window and saw a pig fly by. This has truly been an amazing day.

By rushncap

June 12, 2007 5:59 PM | Link to this

Paul — you put your finger on the source of the problems, I think. If these are prisoners of war, they will be released when war is over. Except in normal wars there is an end. In these conceptual wars, wars on an idea or mindset, there is no actual end. Again, it’s like picking up a coke dealer and locking him up indefinitely without trial, because he’s an “enemy combatant” and will be released when the War on Drugs is over. Well, when is that? When there are no more drugs in the universe? Same with these people: if they are captured on a battlefield, fine, hold them until we leave Iraq. If they are captured elsewhere, try them.

As for the painting analogy, I understand what you mean. But the government is scrapping a system that has worked — Constitution, trials, etc. — and replacing it with… nothing. So I don’t think that I’m out of my mind to say “if you’re gonna take down the painting you dislike you damn better replace it with something at least as good”. The logic of “this system is imperfect, so we’re not gonna have a system at all” is horrible, in my opinion.

By Right-wing nut job in full glory

June 12, 2007 6:00 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Clinton is a criminal because we say she is, period. Libby, however, is a poor innocent truth teller who faced a political witch hunt and was convicted by a bunch of morons.

When will these liberals understand that the rules are flexible and are applied on an as needed basis? If a Democrat violates his or her oath on an immaterial issue, the will of the people should be cast aside and he should thrown out office and perhaps prosecuted. However, Ollie North and Scooter Libby are heroes and mere victims who never lied, ever, about anything. Why? That is just the way it is, so get over it.

If you want consistency, look at our hypocrisy. That is as consistent as you can possibly be.

RWNJIFG

By getalife

June 12, 2007 6:01 PM | Link to this

Nuremberg prosecutor says Guantanamo trials unfair

Send them all to Gitmo with Libby.

Free Paris and Wilson.

By Lord Help Us

June 12, 2007 6:02 PM | Link to this

Lucko-ravinglunatic, we already know the identity of the poster (remember when you hosed up and gave it out?)

And, why in Gods name would you think anyone would want your email address?

By rushncap

June 12, 2007 6:03 PM | Link to this

Poor @@. Doesn’t even have the guts to say my name. What a waste of vital bodily functions…

By RW-(the original)

June 12, 2007 6:05 PM | Link to this

There’s not a chance that the ruling those two Clinton appointees made will stand. I doubt it will even be held up when the full 4th circuit looks at it.

This makes clear the perversity of the court’s reasoning. By its logic, alien terrorists are entitled to all the constitutional rights of civilians provided that they manage to stay out of Afghanistan and do their planning in America. The 9/11 terrorists, had they been caught, would have enjoyed more rights under this scheme than some low-level Taliban foot soldier.

By rushncap

June 12, 2007 6:09 PM | Link to this

Paul — thank you for the link. Very informative, actually. All the more reason to have trials? But very interesting article nontheless.

By getalife

June 12, 2007 6:10 PM | Link to this

BO is as biased as you are Paul.

He almost cried when he realized that $30 million was wasted on that investigation that turned up absolutely nothing.

He knows Clinton will win so he will have plenty of whining to do.

Crooks and Liars will have the video to laught at.

Bwa.

By @@

June 12, 2007 6:10 PM | Link to this

Just standing by a previous conviction is all.

Please….proceed.

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 6:21 PM | Link to this

{{{By Lord Help Us June 12, 2007 6:02 PM And, why in Gods name would you think anyone would want your email address?}}}

LHU: Look, I realize that your brain is working at full capacity just keeping air moving in and out of your lungs, so I’m going to be polite.

It wouldn’t be my email address, you moron.

It would probably be yours, I can’t imagine you would have any problem at all stooping low enough to race hate trying to discredit me, it’s not like you’ll ever be able to present an intelligent argument or anything like that.

You do seem like a real scumbag.

Plus it’s the only answer you have to the truth that I speak, simpleton.

Now run along, you half wit little twerp, before I decide to stop being so nice.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By Paul

June 12, 2007 6:23 PM | Link to this

rushncap 5:59

That’s it - this isn’t a “normal” war. It has elements of ideology, belief, religion, as well as combat ops, that we’ve not encountered before. But I’m not sure we had a system that worked for what we now face. We have a great criminal justice system. We participate in a wonderful international system governing how we fight and treat prisoners. But these fanatics - with so many interrelated, yet in ways separated, fields of operations, with different things going on (fights against jihadists around the world; Iraq; Afghanistan; assistance to other governments involved in similar ops; possibility of more ops in the US) and they all seemed to get combined into one great mishmash. So I think the system was very dysfunctional and the military, civilians, courts and others struggled - in the midst of ongoing political battles.

Your coke dealer analogy illustrates why I think the criminal justice system isn’t a good fit. Maybe elements of it are, but not as a straight suit.

I see your painting comment as conceptual, not as a direct question. But again, I think we were faced with a new circumstance and tried to fit it to what we had in place. Rather like having a household of toddlers, then taking in a teenager. The clothes, bed and such don’t fit. One would need larger clothes of a different style and a larger bed. They’re still clothes and a bed - just of a different kind.

By @@

June 12, 2007 6:26 PM | Link to this

That WAS a great link Paul put up. I was surprised to see the number of guests at Guantanamo was so low.

(((Maulavi Abdul Ghaffar became the Taliban’s regional commander in Uruzgan and Helmand provinces after his release and was killed in a raid by Afghan security forces on September 25, 2004, the Pentagon said.)))

(((Among the six detainees identified on Monday was Mohamed Yusif Yaqub, who the Pentagon said assumed control of Taliban operations in southern Afghanistan after his release from Guantanamo, and died fighting U.S. forces on May 7, 2004.)))

Well at least we don’t have to worry about those ^^^ two anymore. I sure hope they didn’t take out one of our guys or some innocents before they moved to the head of the line to gain access to that big brothel in the sky.

By GodHatesTrash

June 12, 2007 6:28 PM | Link to this

Poor Ms. Donosky. A raving paranoid lunatic sociopath has got it in her pointed little head that Ms. Donosky has wronged her.

Does the AJC provide you and Mr. Luckovich with a security detail, Ms. Donosky?

By Paul

June 12, 2007 6:37 PM | Link to this

@@

We’ve all heard the “die fighting infidels and get the 40 virgins” line many, many times. So often I’ve don’t even react to what I see as the absurdity. Sure, it’s someone’s religious belief, but when it’s used to encourage others to kill themselves and what we see as innocents (who they see as the guilty) -

So then I read your line of the big “brothel in the sky” it struck me - just what is the real view these jihadists have of women? Or is this a concept that has wider acceptance, not just among jihadists? One would think the political blocs we have who are dedicated to extending womens’ rights and fighting for feminist causes would be in utter outrage over this view of womens’ value in the eternal scheme of things.

By RW-(the original)

June 12, 2007 6:42 PM | Link to this

LuckoDull,

You got nicjacked at 2:43 and at 2:46 rushncap jumps you for being a racist. I think if the AJC checks their site log they’ll find the 2:43 came from an NC State IP address.

This server wouldn’t have had that 2:43 posted in time for a 2:46 response.

By Lord Help Us

June 12, 2007 6:43 PM | Link to this

Oooh, Lucko-twirp…you shouldn’t feel so threatened by me.

I’d be thrilled to see some examples of these ‘truths that you speak.’

Listen, and this goes for all disciples of the CofCC and like minded organizations…you have no credibility.

Your recent link to the CofCC is not exceptional. You promote the racist, unamerican agenda of these types of organizations constantly in your daily, perpetual, imaginary crusade against ‘evil liberals.’

You whine incessantly to the AJC management about perceived mistreatment and regularly post the most vulgar and hate-filled messages on this blog.

So keep up the whining, vulgarities, irrational rantings, etc. As I stated earlier, you are the poster child for what normal, mainstream Americans voted out in November 2006.

Thanks. See you in the funny papers…

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 6:44 PM | Link to this

{{{By HaterTrash June 12, 2007 6:28 PM Does the AJC provide you and Mr. Luckovich with a security detail, Ms. Donosky?}}}

Well, if it isn’t the pointy cap wearing, horsey riding, cross burning, find the safest target to attack, something that can’t fight back like the Church or some simple country folk and let them have it with both of your gutless little pea shooting barrels in an anonymous political blog, so brave, so courageous.

The modern day Ku Klux Klanner himself, riding by the blog at one hundred miles an hour, not dare stopping long enough to expose his utter lack of intelligence and inability to add anything but hate to the discussion.

Gosh, how awe inspiring, how typical for a sniveling Koward liberal democrat.

Let’s see here, for every one thousand acts of inciting violence against some religious entity or some racial group that numbnuts has perpetrated, I have zero of them to my credit.

So yes, Ms. Donosky should be worried about me, I’ve given her every reason to be, like gay bashing her and calling her trash. Oh wait, that wasn’t me, that was the piece of sh-it at 6:28, my bad.

Geez.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By Political Foreskin

June 12, 2007 6:47 PM | Link to this

The last word on the Soprano’s finale: Tony takes one last look at the inside of the Bada Bing, turns the lights out, and closes the door for the last time, and then tours downtown NYC and, looking up at all the tall buildings, gets overcome with joy and just impulsively throws his jock strap in the air, with an old crabapple woman staring disapprovingly from across the street……

By @@

June 12, 2007 6:50 PM | Link to this

Paul:

Well, a little closer to home (RIGHT HERE ON THIS BLOG IN FACT) we have liberal DebbieDoRight and Rushncap calling 15 year-old girls “sluts”.

Go figure.

By Paul

June 12, 2007 6:50 PM | Link to this

getalife 6:10

That flying pig I saw at 5:58 just crashed. Big splat. All’s back to normal.

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 6:55 PM | Link to this

{{{By Lord Help Us June 12, 2007 6:43 PM You promote the racist, unamerican agenda of these types of organizations constantly in your daily, perpetual, imaginary crusade against ‘evil liberals.’}}}

I’m pretty sure that things I post every day seem like a blur to you, all those big words that you don’t understand, and it causes you to get angry and since you have like zero reasoning skills, you have to-

1) post racially discriminating articles in my name in an attempt to discredit me.

2) associate me with the lazy stupid stereotypes that you inbred, incestuous city dwelling scumbags turn to in place of rational thought, just look back through the posts you slobbering dimwits left for us today, nothing but the same mindless talking points that you puke up day in and day out.

Do you ever notice how not ONE of you dunces ever gets your name jacked? Is it because you make utter unbelievable as-ses out of yourselves with out needing any help?

I rule over you dullards and you have no answer for me.

Just see 2:43 for proof of that.

I see it as a compliment, by the way.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By Paul

June 12, 2007 6:58 PM | Link to this

@@

I think I’ll sit that one out -

On a related matter, what concerns me are the way I see some parents let young girls - 10,11,12 dress with the makeup and all. What are they not thinking? We talked about raising kids earlier today (and DDR made some good observations about her upbringing and how it creeps out into her interaction with her stepson) I always liked goals - phase points: when you’re 9 you can have a two-wheeler; when you’re 11 you can have a sleep over; when you’re 16 I’ll think about letting you get your license and when you’re 25 you can maybe go on a date. Same with the clothes and makeup. Just doesn’t strike me as age or situationally appropriate.

By Political Foreskin

June 12, 2007 7:00 PM | Link to this

Last word on the Soprano’s finale: Tony, Carmela, Meadow and A.J. witness a mugging and start laughing at the victim, breaking a little known New Jersey ordinance about helping victims of crime and end up in court where all the old characters from the entire seven years show up to testify against them as being a-wipes. The Soprano family is sentenced to 45 days in Jail and the last shot shows their cellmate is a gaunt hollow blonde celebrity wearing hardly nuthin’ ‘neath her prison ensemble……

By RW-(the original)

June 12, 2007 7:01 PM | Link to this

{{{{RW, Unlike you, I realize that I’m far from perfect. I posted the wrong part of Buy Danish’s post. Here you go again…—by stevie-zero}}}}}

Why does this dullard drag me into his lack of internet skillz? Weird-0

By WeThePeople

June 12, 2007 7:03 PM | Link to this

This Administration needs to accept responsibility NOW with a little justice for that lying felon Scooter Libby. Paris will do 5% of Scooter’s time standing on her head!!

C’mon Scooter serve yer time.

Bush, Cheney and Company wiil all soon be learning (as Martha did): LYING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT AN OPTION!!!!

Impeach, incarcerate!

By Paul

June 12, 2007 7:04 PM | Link to this

Political Foreskin

Nice, succinct summary of the finale. Especially compared to similar descriptions a year or so ago. Glad you scheduled the bris -

By GodHatesTrash

June 12, 2007 7:06 PM | Link to this

Andi/e, I’m not bashing you because you are gay, I am bashing you because you are a hypocritical deranged moron.

And, while you are undoubtedly the lowest form of human trash imaginable, I’ve never called Ms. Donosky anything.

I merely showed concern for her safety, since an obviously disturbed wo/man has her name and is probably stalking her along with Mr. Luckovich.

By Lord Help Us

June 12, 2007 7:10 PM | Link to this

Lucko-inferioritycomplex,

Your answers:

Prove it (AJC has my approval) or I will conclude you are spinelessly distancing yourself from your own post.

a. You prove my point about your profanity-laced, vulgar rants. b. I come from rural America - no city dweller here (and, my momma was virtuous). c. still waiting for a summary of those ‘truths that you speak.’ (and waiting…and waiting…and waiting…)

Now, since you are one of the more profligate nicjackers on this blog, it strikes me as cowardly (and hypocritical) that you now disparage that which you practice frequently and with impunity…but, be that as it may…I will chalk up yet another day in which you have been my beatch.

Thanks again.

By rushncap

June 12, 2007 7:12 PM | Link to this

Stalker, your skills are failing you. Stalking me used to be the only thing you’re good at in life. Now even that seems to be failing.

Also, on a related note, @@ is accusing me of calling some 15 year old girls “sluts”. Since this is a usual @@ lie, I won’t make a big deal of it, just quickly calling attention to her lying again.

By @@

June 12, 2007 7:18 PM | Link to this

Paul:

(((@@ I think I’ll sit that one out)))

Fair enough, but I think you should know that there are liberal posters here who post under more than one ID. When they need a breather, <—— (I hope that’s not a euphemism for something sexual) they’ll sometimes come back with a reasonable post to redeem themselves.

My sincerest apologies to that guy whose name starts with “r”. I can’t find a post where he said the 15 year-old was a slut.

He does, however, seem to know what 15 year-old girls enjoy. I have no desire to know why that is.

By RW-(the original)

June 12, 2007 7:26 PM | Link to this

LHU,

The fact remains that it wouldn’t have been possible for rushncap to respond at 2:46 to a 2:43 post. Do the math.

Dmitry,

An 11 hour blog session and you never once pointed out to luckovich that he lying about Baker and this was all Eric Johnson’s doing. Could it be that I kicked your a$$ again yesterday? I say yes and that puts me up 2-zip this week and about 600-zip to date. Do these imaginary dates of yours tie you up and beat you senseless or just walk you around like Ingi?

By LuckoDull

June 12, 2007 7:41 PM | Link to this

{{{By Lord Help Us June 12, 2007 7:10 PM I will chalk up yet another day in which you have been my beatch.}}}

Everybody ponder that statement for just one moment.

Doesn’t it just ooze with ridiculousness?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

{{{By GodHatesTrash June 12, 2007 7:06 PM I merely showed concern for her safety, since an obviously disturbed wo/man has her name}}}

I know you don’t spend anymore time on the blog then it takes to spew racist hatred at the various people that don’t meet your exacting standards, but Lea has posted whole subjects of discussion here, I guess on those days that cartoon boy was too overwhelmed with thought to do it himself, look at the archives, you dumbas-s.

By the way, you sure do spend a lot of time thinking of men as sex objects.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Koward.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By GodHatesTrash

June 12, 2007 8:10 PM | Link to this

The awkward fact remains, Andi/e girl, that you spend upwards of 60 hours a week obsessively blogging here disparaging Mr. Luckovich at every opportunity. Your rantings and ravings are a strong indicator of mental instability.

You are probably perfectly harmless - and given your passions for the Iraq War, the fact that you are unwilling to serve indicates someone who is a victim of physical cowardice, but the fact remains, given your probable mental illness and paranoia, Mr. Luckovich may be in some danger.

Recently, you have drawn Ms. Tucker into your paranoid ravings, and now Ms. Donosky. I hope for their sake that the AJC has safeguards in place to protect them from you.

You are either a victim of untreated mental illness, or the treatment isn’t working. The AJC may have some potential liability here to their employees, given your unstable makeup.

I would guess that your attentions today have made Ms. Donosky a little uncomfortable. While the legal questions involving cyberspace are unclear, you have no moral or ethical right to stalk people like you do.

Unlike Luckodull, Andi/e, Wootendull, Luckovich Censors Conservatives etc., etc., ad nauseum (the products of a sick and fevered small mind), Mike Luckovich, Cynthia Tucker, and Lea Donosky are real people…

By Buy Danish

June 12, 2007 10:57 PM | Link to this

{{By rushncap June 12, 2007 3:33 PM |

Spit Spit Spit Preen Preen Preen….Tell us how Holocaust didn’t happen, how lynchings are good for society, how heebes control the media, how w3tbacks are stealing your jobs, how n!ggers are raping your women. Shout it loud and clear, so that the 10%-15% of human spewtum like yourself, @@, RW, Danish etc are shown for what you are. Say it loud and say it proud: “I’m human refuse, hear me roar!”}}}

Lying Rushncap,

Jews control the media? Holocaust deniers? (I’m not going to bother addressing the rest of your overly theatrical and Pseudo-Pantheresque speech).

That would be the Jew-hating American and European Left, Munchkin.

In other words - the very people you have allied your sorry self with.

By LuckoDull

June 13, 2007 8:05 AM | Link to this

You know, goony race hater, you may actually be right.

It is a real distinct possibility that the Atlanta Urinal looks upon me as a threat to their person while at the same time sees you, the modern day Ku Klux Klanner without the courage of let’s say, Robert Byrd, as a model blog participant.

They probably are that weird.

But the rest of us know better, I don’t post about human freedom and justice and then turn around and single out an ethnic group for pointless abuse and discrimination, like you do.

Nor do I demean women as-s trash, wh-ores and all the other slander that you have showered upon them.

Why is that?

Because I’m better than you are. And as far as blogging habits go, you are the one posting at 8:00 at night outside of blog hours and for some reason, whenever I mention your filthy hate name, you suddenly appear.

Sick mofo.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ®.

By Buy Danish

June 13, 2007 8:58 AM | Link to this

AJC Management,

I apologize for posting “after hours”. Unfortunately it was necessitated by the fact that rushncap accused me (and others) of being a “holocaust denier”, among other vile and completely unwarranted charges that are impossible for him to substantiate.

Unless of course he wants to pick out a post from someone who nickjacked our names and “slandered” our blog reputations.

Quite frankly I don’t know what the point of this curfew, inability to use italics and other rules specific to this blog are anyway.

Having regular blog hours certainly does nothing to stop people from nickjacking other people’s names, posting obscene comments about other bloggers, and exhibiting other unacceptable behavior that violate the AJC’s own Visitor Agreements - all without retribution.

It’s kinda like our immigration laws. They are meaningless if they are not enforced.