Mike Luckovich

By Anonymous

August 8, 2007 8:10 AM | Link to this

I know why Congress’s approval ratings are so low: they’re not doing enough to stop the Bush rampage!

Vote liberal—vote American.

By Goldie

August 8, 2007 8:13 AM | Link to this

Damn— that’s hilarious, Luckovich! Bush likes to portray 72% of Americans as terrorist enablers, but we all know who’s really the enablers— it’s Bush and his incompetent Neo-Con enablers, arming the terrorists to the teeth:

A Government Accountability Office report last week found that the U.S. military has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces, and experts worry that many of those weapons could have fallen into the hands of enemies in Iraq.

Bush would be a laughing joke if he just wasn’t so incompetent and pathetic… and killing Americans in Iraq with his pathetic-ness.

By Duh stands for Democrats

August 8, 2007 8:25 AM | Link to this

Hey, cool, we got our own little Sunni versus Shia rift right here in the democrat party.

Moonbats versus blue dogs.

Hillary versus Obama.

Bombs away.

~~~~~~

What did I say about the liberals trying to wreck the U.S. economy?:

{{{{Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress. Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies. A bill drafted by a group of US senators, and backed by the Senate Finance Committee, calls for trade tariffs against Chinese goods as retaliation for alleged currency manipulation.}}}}

Way to go democrats, start a stupid tax scrum with our largest trading partner, such geniuses.

~~~~~

al Gore: Carbon polluters scheme to misinform, AJC

Check this out, a lib that has admitted to exaggerating the effects of “climate change,” is making unfounded accusations against legitimate scientific research, without providing any examples of these false claims.

And the Atlanta Journal Constitution just runs with the story, lies and all.

No agenda, huh, AJC?

~~~~~

{{{{Isn’t Chrysler making Bob Nardelli CEO akin to naming the captain of the Titanic as the new captain of the Hindenberg?-AJC Vent}}}}

Isn’t it telling that after all the effort the AJC put into smearing Nardelli as a scoundrel without any morals, the next job he get’s he works for free?

~~~~~

{{{{Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the prototypical Republican in Name Only, also is upset. In late July he announced his intention to review the testimony of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel J. Alito at their confirmation hearings. He doubts they “lived up” to their promises to respect legal precedents — that is, to preserve the liberal state created by past liberal jurists.}}}}

See, he really is a democrat.

When will the people of Pennsylvania figure this out?

By Analchord

August 8, 2007 8:29 AM | Link to this

It’s so hot today that Islamic Americans are going to the airport just for the strip search.

By Analchord

August 8, 2007 8:32 AM | Link to this

It was so hot today that even Barry Bonds fanned.

By N-GA

August 8, 2007 8:32 AM | Link to this

Hey Andy,

Salud is Spanish for Cheers! Hence the use of latino. Translated into English the word becomes “salute”. Perhaps it is also Italian. When you criticize someone using sarcasm, you should be sure of your facts.

Say “DUH”,Duh.

By N-GA

August 8, 2007 8:35 AM | Link to this

This was inevitable and certainly predictable by anyone who cared to look and think for just a moment

By Mrs. Godzilla

August 8, 2007 8:35 AM | Link to this

At first I was aghast at the Democratics caving in on the illegal wiretapping program. Now, I am having second thoughts.

The entire voting population of this country is prepared for voting fraud. The machinations of the neocon cagers, will not be able to turn the 2008 elections based on the sheer volume of “throw the bums out” voters. They were able to do it with slim margins, but there are no slim margins anymore.

So, in 2009 we have a Democratic President and larger, probably veto proof majorities in the House and the Senate.

Now it will be our turn to spy. Turn about is fair play after all.

Won’t it be grand to listen in on big oil? Let’s find out more about who is paying who to lie about global warming.

Imagine the joy of monitoring big pharm? Why is grammy paying so much for her meds?

How about paying some attention to the arms makers and distributors.

How about we start reading the e-mails and blog posts of everybody here. Let’s take a peak at their IRS records, credit history and political and religious affiliations.

I am sure there are many creative uses for all the data we can possibly mine.

Y’all weren’t listening when you were told to be careful what you wish for.

In 2009 WE will be listening. And reading. And spying.

Now excuse me while I attach the cesta for some fast paced jai alai.

By N-GA

August 8, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this

For 6 years the trade deficit with the PRC has increased to record highs. American jobs are outsourced and corporations move their headquarters offshore to avoid taxes. Meanwhile this administration has supported big business and allowed the PRC to accumulate $$$ to the point that the US is now the economic hostage of a communist country. This is the reverse of what happened between the USSR and the USA at the end of the cold war.

Because of GWB and his “corporations FIRST, voters SECOND” political philosophy, it looks like the USA might have won the cold war battle, but lost the war.

By Analchord

August 8, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this

sorry godzilla, but voters will be voting on easily-hacked-into diebold computer machines. Diebold manufactures the doomsday clock, you know. Dont argue. It’s Guilliani in ‘08 by three votes. No paper trail, except the one that’s stuck to the gumshoes who tail anyone who smells the rat. Remember, dont expect a fair ballot or it’s curtains, behind which you must pay no mind to the man standing.

We lost our country a while ago to the Saudis. Ike tried to warn us, but nobody would listen. America’s got an Emir-iority Complex.

By Analchord

August 8, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this

It’s so hot today that a witch confessed just to get thrown in the well.

By Anonymous

August 8, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

Good one, Mrs. G! And you’re right, too—anyone worried about all the unprecedented power-grabs by the current administration can relax.

Once a Democratic majority and President are solidly in power, you’ll see high-paid lawyers running from all directions to restore “checks and balances” and “accountability,” crying “The President is not above the law!” Best of all, the Republican fat-cats will be paying to fix this mess FOR us.

By Analchord

August 8, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

It’s so hot today that I drained all the oil in my car, just so the engine will freeze up.

By IN THE NEWS

August 8, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this

Young Republican National Federation Chair accused of sexually assaulting sleeping man

By DirtyDawg

August 8, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this

We voted the Democrats back into power to ‘kick bushco to the curb’. The fact that the remaining Republicans are able to block the sidewalk only means that we’ll have to make a larger Democratic majority and a Democratic Presidency in ‘08. Whatever it takes to save this country from her greed and prejudices.

By IN THE NEWS

August 8, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this

Thousands of electronic voting machines will be out of circulation in California after the secretary of state pulls them — and the House Democrat in D.C. in charge of electronic voting reform applauds the decision.

By @@

August 8, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this

What about “roll over on the left” ml?

Enough about dogs, how about “herding cats”…

(((Much to the merriment of Blogland, a group of leftie bloggers are trying to organise a trade union for bloggers with the aim of helping establish fair rates, health benefits and professional standards. [Cough])))

(((I should explain that in the US, where blogging has a far higher profile, this idea is backed up by people active in the political arena where bloggers have more clout.)))

(((In the UK, bloggers - however much I disagree - are still regarded as rabble more than rousers. Given my role on the National Union of Journalists’ new media council, I have experienced more than a little, erm, friction in the gulf between trade unionism and the technology world.)))

(((For starters, the idea that there could ever be enough of a consensus even between the bloggers is laughable. The phrase “herding cats” comes to mind.)))

Too funny, a union for left-wing bloggers. Haven’t they read the comment posted by the Democratic party?

By Analchord

August 8, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this

CATFIGHT! wrooowrrrrrr!

By getalife

August 8, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this

Here are the dems that caved:

In the House:

Jason Altmire (4th Pennsylvania) John Barrow (12th Georgia) Melissa Bean (8th Illinois) Dan Boren (2nd Oklahoma) Leonard Boswell (3rd Iowa) Allen Boyd (2nd Florida) Christopher Carney (10th Pennsylvania) Ben Chandler (6th Kentucky) Rep. Jim Cooper (5th Tennessee) Jim Costa (20th California) Bud Cramer (5th Alabama) Henry Cuellar (28th Texas) Artur Davis (7th Alabama) Lincoln Davis (4th Tennessee) Joe Donnelly (2nd Indiana) Chet Edwards (17th Texas) Brad Ellsworth (8th Indiana) Bob Etheridge (North Carolina) Bart Gordon (6th Tennessee) Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (South Dakota) Brian Higgins (27th New York) Baron Hill (9th Indiana) Nick Lampson (23rd Texas) Daniel Lipinski (3rd Illinois) Jim Marshall (8th Georgia) Jim Matheson (2nd Utah) Mike McIntyre (7th North Carolina) Charlie Melancon (3rd Louisiana) Harry Mitchell (5th Arizona) Colin Peterson (7th Minnesota) Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota) Ciro Rodriguez (23rd Texas) Mike Ross (4th Arkansas) John Salazar (3rd Colorado) Heath Shuler (11th North Carolina) Vic Snyder (2nd Arkansas) Zachary Space (18th Ohio) John Tanner (8th Tennessee) Gene Taylor (4th Mississippi) Timothy Walz (1st Minnesota) Charles A. Wilson (6th Ohio)

In the Senate:

Evan Bayh (Indiana) Tom Carper (Delaware) Bob Casey (Pennsylvania) Kent Conrad (North Dakota) Dianne Feinstein (California) Daniel Inouye (Hawai‘i) Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota) Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas) Claire McCaskill (Missouri) Barbara Mikulski (Maryland) Bill Nelson (Florida) Ben Nelson (Nebraska) Mark Pryor (Arkansas) Ken Salazar (Colorado) Jim Webb (Virginia)

The timing of this legalization of illegal domestic sying was just like the Patriot Act. It stunk to high heaven.

OBL has won and that is pathetic. He scared the spine out of our government.

By Analchord

August 8, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

Who cares about Wiretapping? So what?

i’m more interested in Beat-Boxing….apumpf, tishzz, apumpf, tishzz, quizitzeecush, apumpf

dig?

By @@

August 8, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

Analchord:

Watch what happens to these cats.

8 minutes of video, but worth the watch. Once in a lifetime opportunity filmed by an amateur.

By Duh stands for Democrats

August 8, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this

{{{{By N-GA August 8, 2007 8:44 AM Meanwhile this administration has supported big business and allowed the PRC to accumulate $$$ to the point that the US is now the economic hostage of a communist country. Because of GWB and his “corporations FIRST, voters SECOND” political philosophy, it looks like the USA might have won the cold war battle, but lost the war.}}}}

Yeah, O.K:

{{{{Clinton signs China trade bill October 10, 2000 WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Clinton closed years of political and economic debate Tuesday, and sealed a major achievement of his administration by signing a bill extending permanent, normal trade status to China.}}}}

Not to mention giving away all of our nuclear secrets to them.

Salud!

By Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

N-GA,

Actually, “Salute!” means “To your health” in Italian so “Salute!” is not “Latino”. In Spanish (i.e. “Latino”) one says “Salud!”.

They are derived from the Latin root word “Salus” (meaning “health”) which gives us “salutary” and “salubrious” in English.

DUH.

By RW-(the original)

August 8, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

Duh stands for Democrats,

To be fair Billy Jeff didn’t give away our nuclear secrets to China he traded them for campaign contributions. That’s why Jamie Gorelick had to build the wall that kept us from stopping 9/11.

By the way for anyone that may know, do people in Spain consider themselves Latino? If so why?

By mm

August 8, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

So now everyone can see that Dem supporters admit when the Dems screw up. But the wingnuts never admit to screwups. The deaf leading the blind.

So you wingnuts never answered my question yesterday in response to another brilliant post by Duh.

[[[You libs got some nerve criticizing the Iraqi Government considering what we have that passes for one in America.]]]

[[[Our government is on vacation too, all the while the alternative minimum tax remains broken, social security is headed for a disaster, our infrastructure is collapsing, where are our lawmakers at, lavishing on some tropical resort on the dime of some teacher’s union or green lobbyist]]]

The GOP had a majority in congress for 12 straight years, the last 6 with a wingnut president. A rubber stamp congress indeed. Anything could have passed if it was addressed.

Why didn’t the wingnut congress and president correct the issues you raise? Could it be that lining the pockets of contributors (corporations) be the answer.

Please Duh, tell me why the GOP majority did not correct these problems.

I invite @@, Dusty, RW, and Buy Danish to answer this question with their usual tripe as well.

By Analchord

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

Saw that on television last night. The animals were obviously actors. Your going to tell me that a single alligator, working alone, can get past the lion screen, beyond where the water buffalo had been wading where he would have pullverized by hoofs, and then, suddenly appear out of thin air, grab the baby buffalo, turn in mid-air and snip the lion’s paw, and then have a tug of war with the pride of lions over the carcass? Please.

And that carcass. Didn’t you spot the zipper on the belly? A midget was clearly acting out inside.

I can safely say that no animals were harmed in the filming of that Wild Kingdom Scam Video.

The very idea.

By steve-o

August 8, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

You just repeated what N-GA said.

By Duh stands for Democrats

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

{{{{By mm August 8, 2007 10:21 AM Please Duh, tell me why the GOP majority did not correct these problems.}}}}

mm: The reason why I didn’t answer you is because the premise of your question is rather ridiculous.

The GOP got voted out of office because they lacked support from their constituency for the simple fact that they didn’t reform SS or the AMT and they spent all their time cowering before the democrats.

So now your party is going to follow the same pattern that the GOP did and use them for an excuse?

Think about where you all are headed with that idea.

Salud!

By rushncap

August 8, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

Getalife, thanks for the list. I don’t know whether to be happy that my Congressman is not on the list, or be pi$$ed that I can’t vote at least one of the b******* out of office.

By N-GA

August 8, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

BD,

I don’t claim to speak Italian. Your Duh-buddy brought that up.

Go to an English-Spanish dictionary and you will find that salud means “cheers” in English. Hence it is frequently used in greetings, toasts, etc. The english term salute is derived from it.

By Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

RW,

I don’t know if Spaniards consider themselves “Latinos”, but one thing I know for sure - Italians are not “Latinos”, Italian restaurants are not “Latino” restaurants, and Italian wines are not “Latino” wines.

By Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

Here is the Wiki page on “Latino”.

No Italians to be found here.

By getalife

August 8, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

rushncap,

I live blogged both votes on kos and it was a pitiful spectacle.

The leadership was telling them not to vote for this spying but they just could not follow the leadership.

Now you know why impeachment is off the table.

By JNH

August 8, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

By mm August 8, 2007 10:2 The GOP had a majority in congress for 12 straight years, the last 6 with a wingnut president. A rubber stamp congress indeed. Anything could have passed if it was addressed.

Good point mm. The Republicans also controlled the majority of state houses and state senates during this time, as well as the majority of governors. I have used this same argument when encountering those screaming about the abortion issue, for example. I’m not expressing my personal opinion one way or another, because it is personal. If the R’s had wanted abortion during this time, it would have happened. Why was nothing done? Because it was not politically advantageous to do so. This ‘family values’ business (ha ha) was their greatest (probably only) selling point to their staunchest supporters, the religious right.

By IN THE NEWS

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

LOS ANGELES - Did an earthquake cause a Utah coal mine to cave in, or did the mine collapse trigger the tremors? A fierce dispute erupted over that question Tuesday, with a top mine executive declaring on national television that he has the science to prove a quake caused the collapse. But seismologists said their instruments recorded shaking from the cave-in and not a natural temblor.

By mm

August 8, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

Duh,

I appreciate your answer. But I think they were voted out of office because of their blind allegiance to GWB.

Both parties have failed us tremendously. Their only goal is to try not p*ss anyone off so that they can get re-elected. However, in the process, they don’t get anything done.

The 2 party system is killing our country.

By Dusty

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

Poor ol mm, still moaning and groaning.

GOP majority did not correct all the problems because they tried to work with Democrats who hated Bush. They voted for war and then worked against it.

Then enough Democrats were elected to “rule” Congress and correct all problems.

Unfortunately, they could NOT correct any because they were too busy investigating every Republican leader in Washington on one big witch hunt.

The Dem “leaders” were wishy washy has beens (or felons) who could not even support the war in which this country is engaged.

Dems fussed about “pork” and added millions to every bill even when the President told them he would veto such moves.

Bush continues to lead this country without the help of Congress. He and General Petraeus move on to progress in Iraq. There is light at the end of the tunnel there.

Bush is a leader who makes moves that are protective to the future of this country. He leads for what is right for the country, not for the polls.

When Democrats remember we are fighting for our country and not a political party, we will win this war faster. Nobody wins a war by giving support to the enemy.

By IN THE NEWS

August 8, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

The Bill of Rights for Dummies

By getalife

August 8, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

w got everything he wanted for his occupation.

Malarki is meeting with Iran today.

Iraq is Iran’s ally not ours.

This is w’s failed occupation that made the situation much worse.

By RW-(the original)

August 8, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

mm,

GWB pushed hard for much needed SS reform and wasn’t even given a listen in the Congress that you say was blindly following his every move, so until you start to deal in premises based on fact there’s really not much reason to entertain your questions.

You don’t even have the part about Congressional control right. Democrats stole the Senate a few months after the 2001 election and held it for the first two years Bush was in office.

Mrs. G,

If you’re going to have a Dem President do you really think you’re going to need veto proof majorities in Congress?

See you all at happy hour! Drink up Billiam.

By Musty

August 8, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

Dusty

ROFLMAO

You do stand up?

By Analchord

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

Musty, that isn’t a mic dusty’s holding.

By JNH

August 8, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

Correction - 10:44AM - correction below. Anything they wanted done during this time could have been accomplished. If the R’s had wanted abortion (stopped) during this time, it would have happened. Why was nothing done?

By Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

It wouldn’t be a day at MLs without Steve-zero piping in with some inanity.

Stevie,

This is what N-GA said:

{{By N-GA August 7, 2007 6:57 PM |

By Sorry But I Can’t Let This Pass:

…And having toasted in more latino restaurants than you’ll ever see, I was using what is typically the phonetic pronunciation.}}}

SALUTE! is NOT “Latino” but “Italian”.

The English term “Salute” is derived from the Latin root “Salus” meaning health.

“Salute” is from the Latin “Salutare”.

By Duh stands for Democrats

August 8, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

{{{{By mm August 8, 2007 10:46 AM But I think they were voted out of office because of their blind allegiance to GWB.}}}}

Google “republicans stayed home for election” and you will see why the democrats control Congress.

We will not be staying home next time around.

By Right-wing nut job in full glory

August 8, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

Duh says about China: “Way to go democrats, start a stupid tax scrum with our largest trading partner, such geniuses.”

I agree. Now if China had WMD’s and didn’t respect human rights we wouldn’t do tariff’s, we’d invade right, Duh? Given China’s record as a free democratic nation we wingers gave them Most Favored Nation trade status instead.

Yeah, we wingers are consistent and always right.

RWNJIFG

By AmVet

August 8, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

{Both parties have failed us tremendously. Their only goal is to try not p*ss anyone off so that they can get re-elected. However, in the process, they don’t get anything done.

The 2 party system is killing our country.}

Great point, mm. And to me, it partially explains why Clinton, Edwards, et al were originally for letting you-know-who do you-know-what and now have had their political epiphanies and are against it.

None of us can know for sure, but I think many of the Senators who voted to authorized this blunder did so simply for political expediency. How else can you explain the fact that EVERY GOP senator save one did so?

There are a very few bright lights though. In spite of what I wrote above, there area few trailblazers like Hagel who have finally broken with the GOP machinery and see that GWB is a walking, talking disaster on both the foreign and domestic fronts.

mm, it may take another couple of decades but the only good news about the rampant corruption and incompetence of our elected “leaders” of the past 25 years or so is that sooner or later, more and more and more Americans are going to wake up to this reality.

People like Nader are going to keep exposing this insanely ineffective duopoly and power grab by the these political parties who seem hellbent on putting their interests before the nation’s.

The GOP especially, but the Dems as well, are set to implode. We just need some people who can lead the way, light the fuse and then try to implement “a government of the people, by the people and FOR the people” again.

It is not impossible, if enough Americans can shrug off their two-party political demons.

By God Andy is SOOOO DUH

August 8, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

He was voted out of office…..republicans stayed home….

Sometimes not voting is a vote you dim bulb.

But you are right about them not staying home next time. Every thing I see says they’ll be voting for anyboby but the republicans.

By Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

JNH,

If you think that Bush could have outlawed abortion, why don’t you tell us exactly how he could have done it.

By N-GA

August 8, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

BD….You will continue to make yourself look stupid. I never said anything about Italian until your Duh-buddy mentioned it. I lived in Spain for 3 years and took 8 years of Spanish language, so if you want discuss that, let’s do it.

I never said anything relating “latino” to “Italian”. You and duh and RW can infer what you want. But stupid inferences just make you look all the more pathetic.

But what is worse is that you all attack what is simply a friendly post between Paul and I…it had nothing to do with politics. What empty lives you lead and what low self-esteem you must have to need this form of criticism so much.

By raisedanidiot

August 8, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

Dust ball @10:47 -When Democrats remember we are fighting for our country and not a political party, we will win this war faster. Nobody wins a war by giving support to the enemy.

Finished with your flies yet, Dust ball? Come on, ball up and answer my question today…how exactly are we giving support to the enemy? If you’re not a Nazi freak, you should be able to answer this fairly easy question intelligently.

By JNH

August 8, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish at 11:18 AM..

It’s simple. The R’s were in control of the House and the Senate during the above time mentioned. If they had voted to outlaw abortion, why would Bush have vetoed this measure? I think AmVet said it best at 11:13 AM. Both parties have an agenda of getting re-elected. However, until the last election the R’s had it, and if they had wanted abortion stopped, it would have happened!!

By IN THE NEWS

August 8, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

Iraq seeks Iran’s help in meetings Iraqi Prime Minister Meets With Iranian Officials to Seek Help in Stabilizing His Country

By @@

August 8, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

It’s so hot that the Juice struck out today just for the breeze.

By Concerned Citizen

August 8, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

AmVet,

There is very little possibility of changing the two-party system. It is simply too entrenched. Even if a 3rd Party Candidate was able to win a plurality in a Presidential election both parties would completely destroy that person so they could win control after four years.

The only concievable way to start a credible third party would be at the local level and build up. This is nearly impossible to do. The last third party that rose was the GOP because there was an issue that neither party was addressing; slavery. The chances of another simliar issue arising that neither party will take a side on is minimal.

The best way to improve the system is for someone to not only get thier party’s nomination but also attract most of the independent vote and a substantial number of first time voters. What political operatives have done heretofore is ‘addition by subtraction.’ What they do is mobilize their base, scare the hell out of the middle about the other guy and turn off the rest of America who don’t vote at all. Until somebody breaks through that by winning with a moderate message that speaks to America’s interests rather than their own party’s interest, nothing will change.

The only person I see in this race with that capability is Obama. He is not an ideological lightning rod that will divide America based of left, right theology. His message is broader than that of his base. Last night’s debate wherein he addressed both GOP and Democratic candidates implying that the Pakistan issue wasn’t for public debate underscored this point. Obama says that whether we go after Al Qaeda in Pakistan is a choice that the American people ought to be a part of whereas those other establishment candidates suggest that only they should be talking about that issue behind closed doors. This is the kind of guy that could change politics from and “us vs. them” debate to a “which candidate is the best for ALL of us” debate. When that happens, candidates will quit kissing Al Sharpton’s and Pat Robertson’s butts and start talking to the rest of us.

Just my 2 cents.

By DebbieDoRight

August 8, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

JOKE OF THE DAY:

GOP majority did not correct all the problems because they tried to work with Democrats who hated Bush

Ha!! A classic!!!

By luckovichisaheadcase

August 8, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

He got this one half right. To play Democrat Barney would have to play STUPID, not dead. You liberals still think that Marx was right, that socialized medicine will work and that if we just make nice all of our enemies will just roll over and be nice back. Let me ask one question: Do your memories of world history stop on January 1, 1933?

By Paul

August 8, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

mm AmVet

Two-party system: good points. Decades? Probably. Which is why I get on my full Federal funding for elections soapbox. BTW - McCain’s down in flames. One of his sins? McCain-Feingold (teaming up with a flaming liberal Democrat (otherwise known as “bipartisanship” was the other “sin”). Remember the 2000 primary? McCain crushed - in large part by the media offensive mounted by the Bush war chest, which overwhelmed the others at an early point. No wonder he pushed for finance reform.

In the News: I got to the First Amendment on your “Bill of Rights for Dummies” link. Struck me as one-sided. How much speech is being banned because it’s “too inflammatory?” Consider the words that are referred to with single letters. Gross, offensive, hateful words? Yes. But against the law to say? Consider words or concepts Council on Islamic American Relations wants banned because it paints a critical picture of Islam. N-GA - it’s the flip side of part of the parody plot line in “Messiah” - criminalizing any word or concept that the target group (evangelicals) may find offensive. The idea that offensiveness is determined solely by the receiver, not the transmitter, carried to the extreme.

N-GA: late yesterday you posted a question regarding Second Amendment: “Why do those who are vehemently opposed to requiring that all firearms be registered because they fear that some government in the future will use that information to confisticate privately owned guns, yet those same people are not at all disquieted by our government invading our privacy without the approval of the courts.”

I haven’t heard the “gotta have my gun in case commies take over” argument in a few years. But to the broader question: I think people are perfectly capable of displaying great inconsistency when a concept conflicts with doing what they want. Acquiesce to collection of personal information, yet contrive an action the gov’t will use that information for to justify gun ownership. Preach conservation, decry oil oligarchs, but commute in a Hummer. When “I want this ‘thing’” conflicts with a philosophical position about the greater good, the toy wins.

I guess you didn’t read my musing that if those who say it’s their right to keep and bear arms because they constitute a citizen&

By AmVet

August 8, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

Concerned Citizen, all good points.

And though I do support the empowering of a third party, I too see it as a monumental task. Just look at how both the GOP and Dems did everything legal or otherwise to keep Nader from the debates, off ballots, etc…

ANYTHING that will fundamentally change how these two parties operate, dominate, subjugate and infuriate (wow!) is worth a look see from me.

But if you premise is that this change will occur because somebody will buck their party, i.e. putting America ahead of the party, is a self fulfilling death wish.

Why would the party support them one iota?

I think there are multiple parts to the equation.

One is true publicly funded campaign finance reform.

If somehow the truckloads dirty money doesn’t flow into the RNC and DNC, there is hope.

Also, I’m beginning to strongly consider term limits. You know, have a bunch of novice crooks, instead of seasoned professional ones!

By getalife

August 8, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

“The NYC headquarters of Fox News is completely flooded.”

Karma.

By raisedanidiot

August 8, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

Published in Freedom Daily, July 2004 - “After 40 years of Democratic rule, the Republican majority in the Congress during most of Clinton’s term in office appeared at the time to be a welcome sight. But because the presidency eluded them, the Republicans seemed to have an excuse for not rolling back the welfare state, even though it is the legislative branch that passes all legislation — not the executive branch. And besides, Clinton made a good scapegoat. Then, if only for a brief moment, it appeared finally to be official — there was an absolute Republican majority in the House, a 50-50 split in the Senate with a Republican vice president to break ties, and a Republican president in the White House. But when Jim Jeffords, the Republican senator from Vermont, switched from being a Republican to being an Independent on May 24, 2001, the Republican majority fizzled, giving the GOP another excuse.”

“But then, no more excuses. The 108th Congress, which took office in January of last year, was solidly Republican. But since the Republicans have gained control of the Congress, the federal budget (over $2 trillion) and the federal deficit (over $500 billion) are the highest ever, the national debt is over $7 trillion (and increasing an average of $2 billion per day), hundreds of Americans have died on foreign soil, and Americans have even less liberty now than they had before. This time, however, the Republicans have no excuses. The lame excuse that they are not responsible because they didn’t control the entire government will not work anymore.”

You guys btching about this slim majority of Dems in congress have awful short memories. The only reason we’re even focused on Congress right now is because big daddy needs all the diversions he can muster.His sins will come back to haunt him however. Sure the Dems caved…temporarily…we revisit fisa in 6mos….I don’t really see where they had a choice. WE HAVE TO GET THE REPUGS OUT!! AT ALL COSTS! OUR COUNTRY CANNOT STAND ANOTHER WAR-MONGERING,THIEVING,MANIPULATIVE,CHRIST-COMPLEX REPUBLICAN IN OFFICE!

By Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

JNH,

How can anyone vote to “outlaw abortion” as long as Roe V. Wade is the law of the land?

It would have to be overturned by the Supremes, and for that to happen, they would first have to hear a case that pertained to that decision, and they would then have to decide in the majority that it was unconstitutional and that stare decisis did not apply.

After that, all that would happen is that the individual States would be free to restrict abortion when and if the State legislatures chose to do so.

Ultimately these State laws would end up in State Courts, and the process would continue ad nauseum.

All Republicans (or anyone) can do at this point in time is pass some restrictions to abortion, such as restricting partial birth abortion which is not covered under Roe v. Wade and hope that the Supremes don’t overturn the work of the legislature.

N-GA

YOU said that you knew that “salute!” was correct because of all the “Latino” restaurants you frequent, which makes YOU not me “stupid”.

Moreover, in light of your pretentious wine talk, I found that very funny since “Latino” restaurants are not generally known as being Haute Cuisine destinations, any more than “Beef tips” are examples of fine dining.

I guess you and I have a different sense of humor.

Tant pis.

By getalife

August 8, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

Never underestimate the dumbing down of the American electorate.

They elected w twice and same these idiots are the minority still supporting the worst President ever.

They will vote and it will close.

By getalife

August 8, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

They will vote and it will be close.

By Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

Nice to see you gloat as all New Yorkers, not just at those who work at Fox News, deal with the flooding.

Gosh, do you think this whining person who is quoted in a story entitled “Flooding Causes Major NYC Transit Meltdown” just might be a liberal?

“Everyone’s gotta walk, and we pay so much money for the trains. It’s ridiculous,” one frustrated subway rider told CBS 2 News.

Send your complaint to Mother Nature. Maybe Momma Moonbat will hand deliver it for you.

Sheesh.

By Wait Just One Minute

August 8, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

””“How can anyone vote to “outlaw abortion” as long as Roe V. Wade is the law of the land?

It would have to be overturned by the Supremes, and for that to happen”“”

NOT QUITE ACCURATE

Of course, if they had wanted to the Republican controlled congress could have passed a law forbidding abortion.

THEN the Supreme court might have struck it down.

But then there’s Alito, Roberts, Scalia etc….maybe not.

They never really wanted to outlaw abortion. Their base wanted it but not most of GOP voters.

Plain old chickensh!t games.

By Wait Just One Minute

August 8, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

I see Buy Danish has her Ms. Prissy Pants on today.

What a holier than thou sack of poop!

By Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

Uh, as has happened so many time with the Moonbats, in the process of pointing out how “dumb” someone else is, you manage to illustrate how “dumb” you yourself are.

To wit, you speak of the “dumbing down of the American electorate” and then proceed to follow that statement up with 2 illiterate sentences.

Classic.

By IN THE NEWS

August 8, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

Iran forces ‘foil’ terror plot

By raisedanidiot

August 8, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

Here I go again…out into the Super Nova sun…its cooled down today some though…only 102 degrees. Dust ball you can come out now and btch and rant about dumb libs aiding the enemy…I’m outa here… smoke em if you got em people!

By GaLiberal

August 8, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

How appropoe. Democrats are sooooooo afraid of the Rethuglicons labeling them a liberals or soft on terrorism, they don’t even put up a decent fight anymore. The grandstanding of an all-nighter got them nothing. Instead of putting the Rethuglicons obstrustionist and unAmerican agenda out for public viewing, they simply throw up their hands. Instead of taking a firm position on the unnecessary and failed war in Iraq, they try to straddle the line between supporting the troops and cutting off funding. Is it no wonder the Dems have accomplished nothing other than some token minimum wage increase (which was far below that of an inflation-adjusted wage)?

By Midori

August 8, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

I didn’t know Andy lived in Indiana

By Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

WJAM,

I guess you are just another Moonbat who likes to bask in your own ignorance while complaining that people who aren’t ignorant like you are “prissy”.

Read this then get back to me on how Bush and the Republican Congress could have outlawed abortion:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision about abortion.——->According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings.<———-Roe is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history.

This is why Partial Birth Abortion* is somewhat exempt from the findings of Roe:

{{{The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, ——->up until the “point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ <——-that is, potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”}}}

*A procedure Getalife claims does not exist, but I digress

By Wait Just A Minute

August 8, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

SO what?

They could still have passed the bill.

And punkin’ we all know you are miss prissy pants…..

years and years of sickening holier than thou crap.

By Goldie

August 8, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

{{You liberals still think that Marx was right, that socialized medicine will work and that if we just make nice all of our enemies will just roll over and be nice back.}}

Head Case— and you Neo-cons think that Herman Goebbels had it right, that corporations should be deciding our laws, and that if we just keep killing Iraqis all those terrorists will be no more… makes a lotta sense, now don’t it?

By Paul

August 8, 2007 1:08 PM | Link to this

N-GA

The rest (cut off)

I guess you didn’t read my musing that if those who say it’s their right to keep and bear arms because they constitute a militia, well, maybe the Pres should Federalize them and send them to Iraq. Take some of the deployment pressure off the active Army, Guard and Reserves.

Buy Danish Wait one Minute

Pretty much says it, I think. Another issue that many people focus on, as if a Pres has all that much influence on it. It does keep people on both sides worked up and the money flowing (ever taken a look at how many organizations there are, with full-time staff, whose existence pretty much depends on this issue - so everything is portrayed in stark, all or nothing, absolutist terms?).

BTW - today’s cartoon, third block, dog on his back - that’s the most submissive pose a dog can make. Shows complete submission (trust?) towards the other. More good symbolism.

By IN THE NEWS

August 8, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

It’s easy for soldiers to score heroin in Afghanistan Simultaneously stressed and bored, U.S. soldiers are turning to the widely available drug for a quick escape.

By The BlogFather

August 8, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

I’m a gonna blog you a comment you cant refute.

We aint anever gonna git outta Iraq, yeah?

By getalife

August 8, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this

“The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation.”

How many will fight when China invades us saying we sold our country to them?

Geez.

By JNH

August 8, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

By Wait Just One Minute August 8, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this ””“How can anyone vote to “outlaw abortion” as long as Roe V. Wade is the law of the land? It would have to be overturned by the Supremes, and for that to happen”“” NOT QUITE ACCURATE Of course, if they had wanted to the Republican controlled congress could have passed a law forbidding abortion.

Exactly. The Republicans controlled ‘everything’ at that point. The Republican controlled congress could have passed the law, and of course the Supremes could have upheld. Yea right. This is one issue that cannot be directed at the Dems. The R’s had their chance. At any rate, do whatever needs to be done and MOVE ON to those issues that are having a profound negative effect on children already here, i.e. lack of health care etc. Let’s be ‘prolife’ and take care of the children, the elderly and many others who need assistance.

By Dusty

August 8, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish a “prissy pants”?

Now that one really makes me smile. I can imagine BuyDanish playing the big tennis finals in which she competes, demurely slamming balls over the net with fury and making her opponents wish they had never played tennis.

“Prissy pants”!! Oh yeah. Quite a picture, one only a sissy lib would bring forth with sweet little simperings.

By getalife

August 8, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this

“Giuliani: A description of my mistakes in thirty seconds?!

Stewart: Here’s a hint: It starts with annulling my first marriage to my second cousin, and it ends with my kids from my second marriage supporting Barack Obama because they hate my third wife. Ba Boom!”

Willard’s sons are chickenhawks:

“Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Wednesday defended his five sons’ decision not to enlist in the military, saying they’re showing their support for the country by “helping me get elected.”

Geez.

By luckovichisaheadcase

August 8, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this

Raisedanidiot - you still are. I guess when you say you were raised an idiot you stayed one, even after flunking Civics in high school. Yes the Republicans controlled Congress after 1994. They did roll back the welfare state and balance the budget even though Clinton fought those measures. He finally signed off on both when he wanted to get reelected. He even promised fellow libs that he would reverse the roll back in welfare when the Demoncrats took back Congress.

The Republicans did not get what they wanted under Bush for several reasons, but the first among them is that the Democrats had a large enough minority in the Senate to block almost anything unless there was some sort of compromise. The idiot Democrats are now finding that out. That is why they have accomplished almost NOTHING since Pelosi the Crook and Dingy Harry Ried took control.

Try not to embarrass yourself with your ignorance in the future!!!

By Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

{{{By Wait Just A Minute

August 8, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

SO what?

They could still have passed the bill.}}}

WJAM,

I don’t know if it is ignorance or naivete’ that causes you to make such idiotic statements.

Please advise how “they” which includes Senators Snowe, Collins, and Spector (among others) could have passed a bill outlawing all abortion?

No matter what some people may “wish” would happen, a majority in the House and the Senate is required to pass legislation, and in many cases a filibuster-proof super majority is required.

Not to overstate the obvious, but just because you “wish” something were true ( such as withdrawing from Iraq) your “wishes” cannot necessarily be converted into action (despite Moonbat delusions to the contrary).

Later…

By Duh stands for Democrats

August 8, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

{{{{By IN THE NEWS August 8, 2007 1:12 PM It’s easy for soldiers to score heroin in Afghanistan Simultaneously stressed and bored, U.S. soldiers are turning to the widely available drug for a quick escape.}}}}

Believe me, these left wing POS have no issues with telling bald faced lies:

Straight from this crap Salon link:

{{{{“The Army randomly tests soldiers for use of illicit/unauthorized drugs on a regular basis and, on average, has maintained a 98 percent ‘clean’ rate … over the past 20 years, including the periods of OEF and OIF.” The Navy’s level of positive drug tests for all personnel worldwide was less than 1 percent as of 2005. A representative of the Marine Corps did not respond by deadline to an e-mailed request for information on levels of heroin use, if any, by Marines.}}}}

It’s all speculation from there, they won’t talk, I can’t find them, in other words it’s a freaking anti American fabrication:

{{{{When the time came to meet, however, one of the men had disappeared. The other two said their VA counselors had told them not to do the interviews.}}}}

GFY (Good for you.)

By getalife

August 8, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

“The state Republican Party is forming a loyalty committee so that it can punish officers who endorse or contribute to Democrats. […]

Bob Beatty, a Washburn University political scientist, suggested the loyalty committee could prove a “public relations disaster.”

“Ironically, it smacks most of the Communist Party,” Beatty said Monday. “That’s the kind of public irony that most parties try to avoid — the party of freedom telling people they have no freedom.””

Freaking pinkos.

Is that better writing for you BD?

Geez.

By The BlogFather

August 8, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this

I’m a gonna blog a something a good. You like? Yes?

It’s a so a hot a today, a that I didn’t wax the italian ice man who owes me money. No hit today. I break a few fingers…whats the big deal? He has plenty of ice, no swelling…what?

Forget about it. it’s too hot.

By JNH

August 8, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this

By Paul August 8, 2007 1:08 PM ever taken a look at how many organizations there are, with full-time staff, whose existence pretty much depends on this issue - so everything is portrayed in stark, all or nothing, absolutist terms?).

Paul, I don’t always agree with you, but you always provide a great analysis of any situation. It would be so wonderful if a committed, ethical leader would emerge; one totally committed to serving the country. Who cares if they’re Republican, Democrat, Whig or Tory? I don’t.

By getalife

August 8, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

Of course, they are doing heroin. Just like in Vietnam. So is the Taliban before they attack.

They are not going to snitch out their brothers.

Duh.

By Wait Just A Minute

August 8, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

Mis Prissy Pants and her clone Miss Defend Prissy pants

we have all saved this jewel for the next time you get your granny panties in a wad over the dem do nothing congress

“Please advise how “they” which includes Senators Snowe, Collins, and Spector (among others) could have passed a bill outlawing all abortion?

No matter what some people may “wish” would happen, a majority in the House and the Senate is required to pass legislation, and in many cases a filibuster-proof super majority is required.”

you stupid, stupid woman

WHEN THE GOP HAD THE MAJORITY IN BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE THEY COULD HAVE PASSED A BILL MAKING IT LEGAL TO EAT DOGS IF THEY WANTED TOO

The didn’t fight the fight on abortion because they knew the implications. They knew all GOP did not support it. They knew it could be struck down.

BUT THEY WERE AFRAID.

Same old chickensh!t republicans.

Later? How about Never!

By Paul

August 8, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

getalife 1:28

Any idea why it seems Democrats are so fascinated with the private lives and children of the Republican candidates? Seems they’re adopting many of the characteristics of the religious right. Scary. Do you suppose it’s so they won’t have to think about the things their own party’s doing?

JNH 1:52

We’re hung up on labels. We pay double to have someone’s name on the seat of our trousers, on our sunglasses, on a shirt or backpack. So we identify with our favorite brand and shun the others. And the advertisers pay vast sums to convince us their brand is better than another. Even when there’s not much difference.

I read a column a couple weeks ago - lead sentence was along the lines of “Our system does not provide a way for people to vote for policies - only for parties.” It’s a prix fixe menu - no separate choice - nothing a la carte.

By IN THE NEWS

August 8, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this

Iraq Timeline: The Broken Record on “the Next Few Months”

By Concerned Citizen

August 8, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this

AmVet says: “Also, I’m beginning to strongly consider term limits. You know, have a bunch of novice crooks, instead of seasoned professional ones!”

I have a lot of problems with term limits. First, it is inherently anti-democratic. The people should be able to vote for whatever idiot or crook they choose. As far as I am concerned that goes for Presidents too. Every once in a while we get somebody who does the job well and we get rid off him for no reason except term limits.

Second, if you go with term limits you basically turn the Government over to bureaucrats who run all of these governemntal agencies because no one would be in position to really challenge or question them. The Pentagon, just to pick one, would be up there asking for billions in more funding and no one would be able to stand up to them.

Third, this wouldn’t limit special interest influence it would increase it. Every Tom, Dick and Harry would be cozying up to the monied interests so they could be the next one chosen to go be their w******* in Washington.

Yes there are a lot of problems with Government, but I believe very strongly that the American people get the Government they deserve, because we are in a position to change things and we don’t. We let the nut jobs on each side and the special interests control the game and then we wonder why we’re getting screwed.

It is an abomination that 70% of the people are seemingly helpless to stop this stupid war. The only reason that the Dems haven’t cut funding is because we, as a nation, haven’t assured them that they will not be blamed for the chaos that results from a pullout. We all know it is inevitable but the dems want to make sure that the blame is rightly placed on Bush and Bush and the GOP candidates are hoping that they can somehow blame the Democrats for the failure. The bottom line is that the politicians act like we’re stupid..and they are probably right.

What happens if the Dems cut off funding and there are images of the same people who cheered 9/11 cheering for our pullout? What happens when the images of chaos in Iraq hit the media? What happens when some Ayatollah like figure takes over Iraq and starts consolidating power (killing every one in his way)? The right wing media machine will have over half the people blaming the dems and saying we were just about to win when the dems quit.

By mm

August 8, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

How did the subject turn to abortion? That is not one of the issues I posed the question about. I believe the 2 biggest issues were AMT and SS.

More cut and run answers (evasion).

I think we have many tough issues to tackle, abortion not being in the top 20.

You wingnuts continually gripe about government control, then you want the government to interfere in the abortion issue. Hypocrisy.

By Wait Just A Minute

August 8, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this

Did Paul actually have the nerve to blog

“Any idea why it seems Democrats are so fascinated with the private lives and children of the Republican candidates? “

Where have yo been for the last 3o years big fella?

Amy Carter? Billy Carter? Miss Lillian?

Chelsea Clinton? Roger Clinton?

Not too bright are you?

Not too bright at all.

For all your faux reason, you are just another right wing hack.

By BravesFanSince1965

August 8, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this

{{Any idea why it seems Democrats are so fascinated with the private lives and children of the Republican candidates?}}

Are you claiming to be too young to remember the 80’s when the Repugs adopted a mantra that “we’re the Party for Family Values”, like the Dems didn’t have family values? Any fascination the Dems have for the Repugs’ “family values” is to show what a bunch of hypocrites they are for trying to claim the moral high ground. DUH!

By Goldie

August 8, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

I’ve heard some conservative commentators state before that the Repugs will never try to outlaw Roe v. Wade because, as they put it, “that would be the end of the Republican Party!” Too many in their party would jump ship if that happened… too anti-choice even for Repugnants, I guess!

By Goldie

August 8, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this

{{I have a lot of problems with term limits. First, it is inherently anti-democratic.}}

Concerned— I believe it was a Republican Congress in the 40’s who started the Presidential 2-term limit because FDR was too popular and they didn’t want Americans voting him into office anymore!

By IN THE NEWS

August 8, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this

After Four Years of Certainty, McCain ‘Not Positive We Can Win’ In Iraq

By Goldie

August 8, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

In The News @ 2:42 — Wow! So now we have HOW MANY flip-floppers running as Repug candidates in ‘08? Is it 3 or 4 FLIP-FLOPPERS now?

By Paul

August 8, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this

Wait Just a Minute

The context was regarding this administration’s two term. You did see the reference to the religious right? The discussion here generally falls along the lines of a Rep does something socially questionable, the Dems assail as hypocritical, then point out the emphasis some Reps place on social/moral issues.

So I pointed out how it seems to have changed during this administration. Carter, others cited, were a different time, a different context. I’m just not much of making comments on the height, weight, appearance, attractiveness, views, personal problems or successes, of candidates’ family members. Especially when they do not hold themselves up as paragons of personal virtue. Unless they choose to raise it - Betty Ford with her treatment for alcoholism, for instance. Much good came from that.

Bottom line, I don’t care for pointing to bad behavior (they made fun of the President’s daughter’s physical appearnce) to justify other bad behavior (so I’ll make fun of this President’s daughter’s (fill in the blank)).

By Paul

August 8, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this

Concerned

Briefly - a positive aspect of term limits: Representatives, Senators represent their state constituencies. They gain power and influence (committee assignments) largely through longevity. They there wield great influence, not just for their constituencies, but for citizens throughout the country. So worse-case: pick the wing of the party that’s antithetical to how your district or state votes. Now imagine other Representatives or Senators at the opposite end of the spectrum - who’ve been part of that 97% reelection rate for decades, wielding incredible power. And under our current system, with great allegiance to certain interest groups who fund them and ensure reelection.

That’s why I think there’s something to be said for term limits.

By AmVet

August 8, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

CC, I have noted before that I have very mixed feelings about term limits and I concur that we get, and should get, whatever we choose. I have not favored this “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” approach historically, and unlike my die-hard Republican countrymen, am generally loathe to alter the Constitution for frivoulous reasons.

But I wonder, given the current “irreplacability” of these entrenched Senators and Congressmen, if something drastic is in order.

But I fear that on down the road, we might look back and say why did we implement term limits. But I also don’t see many recriminations about the 22nd amendment.

Luckily for the GOP it is in place, as there is at least a distinct possibility that WJ Clinton might be getting ready to run for his fifth term!

By Duh stands for Democrats

August 8, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this

{{{{By IN THE NEWS August 8, 2007 2:42 PM After Four Years of Certainty, McCain ‘Not Positive We Can Win’ In Iraq}}}}

Geez, I can understand you libs sitting in here blowing smoke up your own behinds but then to get excited about it?

{{{{By Goldie August 8, 2007 2:50 PM In The News @ 2:42 — Wow! So now we have HOW MANY flip-floppers running as Repug candidates in ‘08? Is it 3 or 4 FLIP-FLOPPERS now?}}}}

There are the first glimmers of progress under General Petraeus’ political-military strategy. While these glimmers are no guarantee of success, and though they come early in the implementation of the new strategy, I believe they are cause for very cautious optimism.- McCain VMI speech, 4/11/07

By Concerned Citizen

August 8, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

AmVet says: “Luckily for the GOP it is in place, as there is at least a distinct possibility that WJ Clinton might be getting ready to run for his fifth term!”

And that would be a bad thing compared to what we’ve suffered through? I agree that as long as Clinton had breath in his body he would have beaten any GOP candidate. Not a great person, but a damn good President and the best politician ever. If Reagan had started in younger he may have done the same thing. Wasn’t a big Reagan fan at the time, but you look at the other GOP presidents since Ike and you’d take him in a heart beat. Clinton and Reagan also had 3 things in common: 1) they made their base happy; 2) they reached people in the middle and the other side and 3) they were both pragmatists. It wasn’t about ideology as much as is was “what can I get done given the political realities I face.” Some people call that acting without principle I say it reflects good leadership rather than stubborn idealism that only helps a fragment of the populace.

By Truthman

August 8, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

More Republican family values.

Now, the National leader of the Young Republicans (Lemmings?) resigned his post because he has been accused of trying to give a BJ to a sleeping man…ICKY!!

You Repubs really don’t get the whole “Family Values” thing, do you? You’re supposed to have only one spouse and not solicit cops in bathroom stalls or try to blow someone sleeping!!

Bwahahahahaha

http://www.news-tribune.net/breakingnews/localstory219210228.html

P.S. Jeri Thompson is a political prostitute!!

By The Watcher

August 8, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this

Duh’s on the verge of another breakdown

He sees a rebuttal where there is none.

It’s so hot, let just watch Duh meltdown again!

By AmVet

August 8, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

OK, boys and girls, today lets have some fun with questions from the latest Republican Party Census Document Questionnaire!

(Yes, I have it mailed to me as I believe the best way to change things I don’t agree with is from within!)

(Those damn commie Democrats! Undermining the security of all Americans!)

(I knew that perve Clinton was somehow behind all of this!)

(Sigh… If only the Congress was still in the GOP’s control we could get the deficit “down” to a couple of zillion dollars soon!)

I can just picture some of the more strident neo-cons getting all worked up to a lather filling it out! Any mention of you know who (Hint: his initials are Bill Clinton!) is bound to cause some of them to blow a gasket!

In fairness, I’d love to see the Democratic Questionnaire too!

To quote getalife, geez…

By Right-wing nut job in full glory

August 8, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

Truthman,

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the people who most want to control others sexual behavior are those who realize how dangerous they themselves are. Deviant sexual perverts are Republicans because they are our only hope in preventing us from acting upon our sicknesses. You say it is hypocritical, I say its common sense.

Look, what do most people inherently do in their own lives as far as placing themselves in the human hierarchy? They attribute to themselves charecteristics that make them feel as though they are at least better than some other people. If you’ve got a little money, you look down on the poor. If you go to church you look down on those who don’t. If you think you are smart you look down on stupid people.

Now let’s say that you are a completely sick twisted sexual pervert. Automatically you will assume that your proclivities are minor compared to others around you. If you are really sick and twisted that has to scare the hell out of you. So what do you do? Vote Republican.

This is really a non-story. Its just too obvious that the head of the Young Republicans would be a sexual deviant.

RWNJIFG

By Duh stands for Democrats

August 8, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

{{{{By Truthman August 8, 2007 3:26 PM Now, the National leader of the Young Republicans (Lemmings?) resigned his post because he has been accused of trying to give a BJ to a sleeping man…ICKY!! P.S. Jeri Thompson is a political prostitute!!}}}}

Geez, a post bashing gays and revealing your disdain of Republicans who score hot women because you apparently can’t.

Swimming in the sewer?

~~~~~

Watcher: The truth sux, don’t it?

By The Watcher

August 8, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

No Duh, but we all suspect you do.

By getalife

August 8, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

It is so hot, duh is more duh than ever.

By The Watcher

August 8, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

BTW, Anybody here about the Jerri Thompson is/is not a lawyer dust up?

By IN THE NEWS

August 8, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

Romney equates sons’ campaigning to military service.

By Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

{{{By mm

August 8, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

How did the subject turn to abortion?}}}

M&Ms,

Could you ask a more clueless and idiotic question? It was your Moonbat comrades who turned the subject to abortion, not me, and it was in response to one of your posts.

Here:

{{{By JNH August 8, 2007 10:44 AM | By mm August 8, 2007 10:2 The GOP had a majority in congress for 12 straight years, the last 6 with a wingnut president. A rubber stamp congress indeed. Anything could have passed if it was addressed. Good point mm. …If the R’s had wanted abortion during this time, it would have happened}}

And here:

By JNH August 8, 2007 1:20 PM By Wait Just One Minute August 8, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this ””“How can anyone vote to “outlaw abortion” as long as Roe V. Wade is the law of the land? It would have to be overturned by the Supremes, and for that to happen”“” NOT QUITE ACCURATE Of course, if they had wanted to the Republican controlled congress could have passed a law forbidding abortion. Exactly. The Republicans controlled ‘everything’ at that point. The Republican controlled congress could have passed the law, and of course the Supremes could have upheld. BLAH BLAH BLAH.}}}

WJAM who is probably Midori,

I don’t complain one bit that the Dems are running a “do nothing Congress”. Au contraire, I cheer the fact that they can’t get much of anything done.

I also never once complained that the GOP didn’t “outlaw abortion”.

By IN THE NEWS

August 8, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this

The Failure of Antigovernment Conservatism
Issues like children’s health insurance and maintaining our infrastructure offer progressives the opportunity to finally say, without fear of disastrous political consequences, that sometimes government is not the problem, it’s the solution.

By Dusty

August 8, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

Oh no, the heat is definitely taking a toll on liberals:

Amvet suggesting that Bill Clinton might be ready to run for another term.

Why? So Clinton can end up in jail next time for his embarrassing licentious behavior and lies under oath?

And Truthman, still digging in every news report for something “immoral” against Republicans because they endorse “family values”.

What do Democrats endorse? The Mafia?

Then “Truthman” tell the biggest postulated LIE yet about the wife of a possible Republican candidate:

Jeri Thompson is a political prostitute!!

There’s another ID for Truthman that he should use for accuracy: Liberal Liar!!

By The Watcher

August 8, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this

Maybe Buy D@@sty are conjoined neo-cons?

By Pau

August 8, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this

In the news

More accurate to say “sons show support for nation by working to get dad elected ‘cause they think he’d be a great Prez?”

It’d be nice if one of these candidates would just say “They’re adults. I don’t tell them what profession to choose. I don’t make them join the Peace Corps. If they have a cause they believe in, I tell them to do it.”

The question is silly. What next? Hillary gets questions why Chelsea doesn’t quit her six-figure job and work for the EPA to combat pollution? Take any cause, any position, then ask why a candidate’s adult offspring don’t take a job to support it?

And the answer isn’t “because maybe if they had to send their kids they wouldn’t take that position.” Foreign policy by familial emotion is lousy policy.

By Sailor

August 8, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

The sailor said Andi/e, you’re a fine girl…

Andi/e Duhling wakes me up that way every morning, dontya sugums?

By Wait Just A Minute

August 8, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this

Miss Prissy pants -

“I also never once complained that the GOP didn’t “outlaw abortion”.”

Never said you did.

Stupid Stupid Woman

Just admit that if the GOP had wanted to, while they had control of both houses, could have sent a law to the Prez, making abortion against the law.

By Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

{{{By Goldie

August 8, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this

{{I have a lot of problems with term limits. First, it is inherently anti-democratic.}}

Concerned— I believe it was a Republican Congress in the 40’s who started the Presidential 2-term limit because FDR was too popular and they didn’t want Americans voting him into office anymore!}}}

Goldie,

Not exactly.

After Roosevelt’s death, the newly Republican 80th United States Congress desired to establish a firm constitutional provision barring presidents from being elected more than twice.——->The rationale was a concern that without limits, the presidential position could become too similar to that of a benevolent dictator lasting not just four years but a lifetime, that the position could become too powerful and upset the separation of powers, and that he could become so powerful that elections would become dispensable.,<——Hence, the Twenty-second Amendment was adopted.

By Hey, lookee here

August 8, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

By Pau August 8, 2007 4:01 PM |

What name was in the box before Pau this time?

By AmVet

August 8, 2007 4:10 PM | Link to this

Amvet suggesting that Bill Clinton might be ready to run for another term.

Completely incorrect.

Why? So Clinton can end up in jail next time for his embarrassing licentious behavior and lies under oath?

Naw, if he were to run again, I’m guessing it would be more along the lines of once again being an effective president, getting this country back on track and fixing the horrific messes the incompetent Bush neo-cons have made in the past six years both abroad and at home.

But don’t worry, he ain’t coming back. But if I were a Republican, I’d be big-time worried about his spouse!

By Right-wing nut job in full glory

August 8, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Great answer on the why aren’t you kids serving question. I’m sure that a politician could have gotten away with that during WWII too. “We must defeat the Japs and the Nazis or we are all gonna die, but my kid has other things to do.” I think people would have understood.

RWNJIFG

By Right-wing nut job in full glory

August 8, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

Glad we got away from that whole seperation of powers crap though, huh?

RWNJIFG

By Finish the story for Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this

You see this part of the article what’s her name posted”

””“After Roosevelt’s death, the newly Republican 80th United States Congress desired to establish a firm constitutional provision barring presidents from being elected more than twice. The rationale was a concern that without limits, the presidential position could become too similar to that of a benevolent dictator lasting not just four years but a lifetime, that the position could become too powerful and upset the separation of powers, and that he could become so powerful that elections would become dispensable. Hence, the Twenty-second Amendment was adopted.”“

Life lesson - Read the whole piece before you shoot off your mouth

By Midori

August 8, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this

B-a-a-a-a-a-h Danish,

you seem to see me everywhere, don’t you?

for a while I couldn’t figure out who “WJAM” was, or who or what you were accusing me of. I just figured it out.

I’m not the only person on this blog who thinks you’re stupid.

Deal with it.

By Paul

August 8, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this

Lookie Lookie 4:08

I believe the name in the box (whatever that means) was “Paul.” Interesting development - I hit “Post” and the page refreshes, the “l” on “Paul” drops and the “m” on the “.com” address drops.

So no new posters, no someone else with a pseudonym. Sorry -

By Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this

{{{Just admit that if the GOP had wanted to, while they had control of both houses, could have sent a law to the Prez, making abortion against the law.}}}

WJAM,

I don’t know a single person who thinks that abortion should be “outlawed” at the Federal level. Stipulating for a moment that my conservative friends and I represent the views of most Republicans, why do you think we should be attempting to pass legislation that virtually no one wants?

I see the problem here! You think that Republicans are like Democrats and waste time proposing legislation that doesn’t have a prayer of being sustained, and that is against the wishes of constituents!

You think that pointless political grandstanding is a worthwhile use of taxpayer resources.

You think that the States are meaningless contrivances and we should all be one big Federal union controlled entirely by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

You think that we should all march in Totalitarian lockstep to Big Brother and ignore the local populace who sent politicians to Washington to…hold on now as this is a novel concept…REPRESENT THEM.

Got it!

By Dusty

August 8, 2007 4:33 PM | Link to this

More heat strokes from liberals…

Just like libs in most places who go around saying… did Rove say that for Cheney? Did Cheney say that for Bush? Did Snow really say that or was it for…..?

Now on this blog comes the evolvement of the small mind: Ah ha who posted just before Pau??? Was that D@@sty? Are @@ and Dusty one and the same? BuyDanish is RW or somebody…..??

It seems that liberals have never practiced honesty and can’t believe anyone else does.

Anyway, libs, your imagination is similar to that of a box turtle so live it up!!! Now let’s see…WHO posted that???

By Paul

August 8, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this

Nut Job 4:11

You just may want to check for eligible children of Congressmen who received a draft deferment or who served, but in a noncombat assignment, during WWII. Those games went on back then, too. FDR’s sons served, some in dangerous assignments. But that played no role in his decisionmaking.

Could also ask, gee, Hillary voted for Iraq. So did Sen Kerry. Why didn’t they make their kids serve? Still doesn’t make the question any less silly.

BTW: Iraq isn’t synonymous the War on Terror. As several Dem candidates don’t think there’s any such thing, the point is moot for them. For those Democratic candidates who do think there is a War on Terror (militant Islam) that could go on for generations - isn’t the logical extension of your argument that all descendants of politicians engaged in the War on Terror have military careers?

See how super-silly it gets?

By The BlogFather

August 8, 2007 4:44 PM | Link to this

It’s a so hot, that when I ordered a pizza, I asked them to keep the pepperoni frozen.

That’s a nice!

I am the Blogfather, I give you a comment you cant refuse, no?

forgettaboutit

By getalife

August 8, 2007 4:44 PM | Link to this

Colbert on Yearly Kos

BO is an idiot.

Geez.

By Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

{{{By Finish the story for Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this

You see this part of the article what’s her name posted”

””“After Roosevelt’s death, the newly Republican 80th United States Congress desired to establish a firm constitutional provision barring presidents from being elected more than twice. The rationale was a concern that without limits, the presidential position could become too similar to that of a benevolent dictator lasting not just four years but a lifetime, that the position could become too powerful and upset the separation of powers, and that he could become so powerful that elections would become dispensable. Hence, the Twenty-second Amendment was adopted.”“

Life lesson - Read the whole piece before you shoot off your mouth}}}

Babbling idiot @ 4:15,

I posted that exact paragraph in its entirety in response to Goldie’s claim that Presidential term limits were established because FDR was just too darn popular.

Try again, if you can.

By The BlogFather

August 8, 2007 4:54 PM | Link to this

It’s so hot that Osama stayed in his cave.

By Paul

August 8, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this

getalife

As we discussed, there’s a difference between a “hate site” a “site that encourages hate postings” and a “site that tolerates hate speech.”

I watched Sen Dodd on BOR (no wonder the guy’s numbers are low, and after the AFL-CIO debate, he’s toast) where he said OR cherry-picked five or six or seven examples of “bad stuff” off the Daily Kos.

So I went to their site, comments, did a six-month search, found “f” used 39,000 times, “ah**” 10,000 times, even “kill Jews” 800 times. Granted, some of the last example were used in the context of “KKK killed Jews” but a number of the postings were as OR said - wishing for the death of Jews.

So it seems they tolerate some pretty hateful speech. If that’s what gets specifically put out as the political discussions of the most activist Democrats, well, the bloggers should really consider Mr. Moulitsas’s admonition to tone it down.

By The BlogFather

August 8, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this

Paul, every website has trolls. Witness CuttheGeez.

The problem is that you uberpundits post past closing time on this blog, and believe me, the AJC is sick of it.

If it’s 7:01, Paul, then dont post, Okay?

Thank you.

By Duh stands for Democrat

August 8, 2007 5:20 PM | Link to this

Geez, look at what the libs at the NY Times are thinking about:

{{{{Fifth, if you really want to impose pain on the U.S., the act has to be something that prompts the government to pass a bundle of very costly laws that stay in place long after they have served their purpose (assuming they had a purpose in the first place).

My general view of the world is that simpler is better. My guess is that this thinking applies to terrorism as well. In that spirit, the best terrorist plan I have heard is one that my father thought up after the D.C. snipers created havoc in 2002. The basic idea is to arm 20 terrorists with rifles and cars, and arrange to have them begin shooting randomly at pre-set times all across the country. Big cities, little cities, suburbs, etc. Have them move around a lot. No one will know when and where the next attack will be. The chaos would be unbelievable, especially considering how few resources it would require of the terrorists. It would also be extremely hard to catch these guys. The damage wouldn’t be as extreme as detonating a nuclear bomb in New York City, of course; but it sure would be a lot easier to obtain a handful of guns than a nuclear weapon.}}}}

Nice, eh?

What’s next losers, handing out weapons in your lobby?

By Paul

August 8, 2007 5:22 PM | Link to this

BlogFather

Say what???

By Blackadder

August 8, 2007 5:23 PM | Link to this

Bush administration official confirms War on Terror a political ploy

Here’s Scott Horton, writing for Harper’s:

As George Bush said on September 19, 2001:

By Right-wing nut job in full glory

August 8, 2007 5:28 PM | Link to this

Paul says: “Could also ask, gee, Hillary voted for Iraq. So did Sen Kerry. Why didn’t they make their kids serve? Still doesn’t make the question any less silly.”

Technically speaking they authorized the President to use military force if Saddam failed to comply with UN resolutions about not having WMD. Nobody came back and asked whether the inspections should continue or whether March ‘03 was the right time to invade. This is a distiction lost on many people, but I think that we should remember that only Our Dear Leader decided when and how to use force. I’m guessing that the wimpy Dems would have said that an invasion in March of ‘03 was a bad idea and the inspections should continue. As we now know if those idiots had their way the inspectors would still be there not finding any WMD’s and we would have missed out on all the good things the war has brought. For one, we were able to confirm that force was unnecessary because there weren’t any WMD’s. If we hadn’t of invaded we would have never known we were wrong the whole time. Then we would have been threatned by Saddam’s WMD’s that he didn’t have. This is why I am in favor of invading more countries that might have WMD’s because we never know until we invade. We can’t just sit around wondering. We can’t trust the UN so the only real option is too invade everybody until we know for sure. If we are wrong then so what. I’m sure their leader’s would have been a pretty bad guys anyway.

RWNJIFG

By Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I assume that you are aware that Marcos Moulitsas’ middle name is “Screw them” - after a comment he made about civilian contractors who were savagely murdered in Fallujah.

Could it be that he helped set the “tone” for the KOS Kids? Or does he just mirror the “hate” of the unhinged Left?

By Paul

August 8, 2007 5:34 PM | Link to this

RWNJIFG

Sounds good to me. That way, we could have the politicians we didn’t know we elected get us in a war we wouldn’t know we were in but they could send the kids they didn’t know they had.

Sometime - watch the DVD “The Mouse That Roared.” Peter Sellers. A classic.

By Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 5:36 PM | Link to this

For the record - Marcos Moulitsas’ Zuniga’s exact quote in context:

Every death should be on the front page (2.70 / 40)/Let the people see what war is like. This isn’t an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush’s folly./That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries [sic]. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them./by kos on Thu Apr 1st, 2004 at 12:08:56 PDT

If you go to this link you will see how he tried to scrub it from the internet altogether.

By getalife

August 8, 2007 5:43 PM | Link to this

Paul,

BO is freaking idiot. He is hate monger like Ann and Rush.

Thanks for that investigative research but I read Kos everyday and he never wanted to blow up the Coit tower or San Fransisco like that idiot you worship.

You want hate like the KKK, watch BO, read his blog or listen to Tancredo.

Geez.

By Paul

August 8, 2007 5:47 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish 5:29

Yeah, that had been pointed out to me. Seems to me if he has that opinion about contractors who are doing jobs military used to do, but outsourced to save money, by extension he’d have the same opinion about the military in any war he considers unjust.

Such comments early on do set the tone. I think his appeal to tone it down was done for political reasons - not for any idea of improving the level of political discourse.

Do companies make money from war? Sure. General Motors employees make money from war (I kept waiting for Olberman to make that point in last night’s AFL-CIO debate…). But it’s a far, unconnected leap to say this country’s leaders dream up wars in order for companies to make money. The guy’s young. He still has time to go take some good grad-level courses in Internal Relations. Or maybe even do an internship at State or Dod. I’m sure they would profit from his wisdom.

By getalife

August 8, 2007 5:48 PM | Link to this

BD,

This what I get when I click on that hate site:

Forbidden You don’t have permission to access /weblog/index.php on this server.

Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Apache/1.3.37 Server at www.littlegreenfootballs.com Port 80

Hehe, that coward Charles cut and ran from “joewilson”.

Bwa.

By A Chickenhawk for the Lucko Losers

August 8, 2007 5:49 PM | Link to this

Bi Danish, Andi/e, RW, @@, Dusty, et. al. - looks like Romeny is your kind of guy.

*BETTENDORF, Iowa — Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Wednesday defended his five sons’ decision not to enlist in the military, saying they’re showing their support for the country by “helping me get elected.”

Romney, who did not serve in Vietnam due to his Mormon missionary work and a high draft lottery number, was asked the question by an anti-war activist after a speech in which he called for “a surge of support” for U.S. forces in Iraq.*

You filthy cowards.

By The BlogFather

August 8, 2007 5:51 PM | Link to this

Remember, we have people watching to see if any of you uberpundits post past closing time on this blog.

Believe it. Internalize it. Know it.

By Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 5:54 PM | Link to this

Blubbering Crybaby Blackadder,

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

It is incredibly dishonest of you to conclude that because someone disagrees as to whether or not the President’s policies are effective means that the policy was a “scam”.

And since when does the Department of Justice get involved in political decisions?

Didn’t you all just spend the last 6 months interrogating Gonzales because you claim that DOJ employees who were fired were fired for “political” reasons?

By Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 5:56 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

The link was to LGF and you are forbidden to go there, aren’t you?

That doesn’t mean that the rest of us can’t.

By Right-wing nut job in full glory

August 8, 2007 6:02 PM | Link to this

Markos is way off base. I think that the Black Water contractors should be held in higher esteem than even the troops. They are home grown capitalists who love money enough to kill people for it. That is truly being a great American.

We all love money. We all want more of it. We all want that American dream, but how many of you can say that you’d kill an Iraqi for cash? Not many. That sort of can-do Americanism is rare indeed.

RWNJIFG

By Paul

August 8, 2007 6:10 PM | Link to this

RWNJIFG

You’re on a roll this evening, aren’t you?

By Right-wing nut job in full glory

August 8, 2007 6:14 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

In fairness, Gonzo never really denied it that the firings were political. He just said that if it happened he didn’t know about it. He also said that there were no “for cause” firings which kinda left the other as the only option. I liked the part where he said that it would be improper for a DOJ employee to give a friend a break. I thought that the Dems were going to die from irony. Of course its bad to give your friend a break unless you’re the President then so what right? Funny!

As far as I’m concerned anyone who doesn’t toe Our Dear Leader’s line should be summarily executed so I’m not opposed to the firings and I certainly think telling the truth about it to Congress is kinda stupid, but the point is that you ought to get your facts right.

RWNJIFG

By getalife

August 8, 2007 6:16 PM | Link to this

BD,

I rule the lizards. Like Billiam the snowman, they are scared of “joewilson”

Bwhahahaha.

Actually, that blog sux and do not want to go there. Tis an ugly, dark place they dwell.

By RW-(the original)

August 8, 2007 6:21 PM | Link to this

Who in their right minds think conservatives want the Federal government drafting a law that outlaws abortion? Or drafting a law that controls any facet of our lives on a National level for that matter.

Conservatives want the Federal Government to get the hell out of every aspect of our lives and do what the Federal government exists for which is little more than national defense and put those sorts of issues back at the local level where they belong.

Only a complete moonbat(ic)® thinks that conservatives want to do things the same way liberals want them done, but just do different things.

Here’s a question for whichever moron started that abortion outlawing argument. What’s the role of States in this country?

By Paul

August 8, 2007 6:24 PM | Link to this

RWNJIFG

“tell the truth about it to Congress?” But didn’t Hillary just say a President shouldn’t say what (s)he’s thinking?

If I were advising Rudy, I’d tell him to put up big posters - pic of Hillary and her running mate - with Obama’s comment “Bush-Cheney Lite” with the caption “Vote for Change. Rudy in ‘08”

By Right-wing nut job in full glory

August 8, 2007 6:27 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Hey, we gotta trick ‘em with something don’t we?

RWNJIFG

By getalife

August 8, 2007 6:28 PM | Link to this

Paul,

“shouldn’t say what (s)he’s thinking?”

That is a line from the Godfather.

Wait for the corrupt Kerik connection.

Talk about mafia,

Geez.

By Paul

August 8, 2007 6:30 PM | Link to this

RW-(the original)

“Who in their right minds think conservatives want the Federal government drafting a law that outlaws abortion?”

Ultralibs on abortion do. It gives them something with which to stir up the faithful. From 1:08 “(it keeps) the money flowing (ever taken a look at how many organizations there are, with full-time staff, whose existence pretty much depends on this issue - so everything is portrayed in stark, all or nothing, absolutist terms?).”

By Paul

August 8, 2007 6:34 PM | Link to this

getalife

Kerik was thinking?

By Duh stands for Democrat

August 8, 2007 6:36 PM | Link to this

One lib wants all Conservatives to go to Iraq:

{{{{By Midori August 8, 2007 5:49 PM Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Wednesday defended his five sons’ decision not to enlist in the military, saying they’re showing their support for the country by “helping me get elected.” You filthy cowards.}}}}

And another lib ridicules those that do go to Iraq:

{{{{By nut job I think that the Black Water contractors should be held in higher esteem than even the troops. They are home grown capitalists who love money enough to kill people for it.}}}}

Ever get the feeling there is nothing you could do to make a liberal not hate America?

By getalife

August 8, 2007 6:42 PM | Link to this

Brownback does.

By RW-(the original)

August 8, 2007 6:46 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I’ve often wondered if leftists are really thinking that conservatives want to do that or are they just wishing conservatives would try. Most of them think overturning Roe would outlaw abortion so maybe they’re just ignorant enough for it to be the former.

By getalife

August 8, 2007 6:46 PM | Link to this

“Ever get the feeling there is nothing you could do to make a liberal not hate America?”

A Dem President.

Duh.

By The BlogFather

August 8, 2007 6:47 PM | Link to this

CuttheGeez will sleep with the fishes if he posts past closing on this blog.

Ditto the rest of you uberspindunces.

By Paul

August 8, 2007 6:49 PM | Link to this

getalife

Now there’s a concept. Hillary likes taxing the rich and redistributing income. Take from the rich and give to the less fortunate, those without the opportunities, those with an unequal, unfair chance to realize their ambitions in life.

She should give 90 percent of her campaign war chest to Brownback, Richardson, Kucinich, and just for grins, Gravel.

By getalife

August 8, 2007 6:52 PM | Link to this

I follow the rules Andy caused.

By Paul

August 8, 2007 6:59 PM | Link to this

RW-(the original) 6:46

Seriously, I think some of the leadership are pretty calculating. Many of the rank and file have that as a “cause.” Any time there’s that kind of extremism - whatever the issue - one risks having emotion blind reason, so one sees what one wants to see. Take away issues such as that (single issues that motivate the hard core faithful), the activist support in electing Anybody But a Republican diminishes.

Rather makes one think some leaders of some of these causes are just as cynical and manipulative as they paint evangelical/fundamentalist leaders, doesn’t it?

By Buy Danish

August 8, 2007 6:59 PM | Link to this

RW,

In my 4:18 post I meant to say that I don’t know a single conservative (not “person”) who wants to outlaw abortion at the Federal level, although the rest of my comment should have made it clear that that’s what I meant.

These libs just don’t get it at all, and as we have both implied, they don’t have a clue about the role of the States in these matters.

They are so used to the concept of forcing their views onto everyone else through Big Government legislation and the activist courts that they can’t imagine that we don’t think or operate the same way.

By RW-(the original)

August 8, 2007 7:12 PM | Link to this

Paul,

It reminds of the civil rights goons that get richer and richer themselves, but would shudder in fear if they actually helped someone else truly improve their own situation. It’s hard for them to stay relevant if they fix the only problem they are capable of seeing.

I’m sure that all the race baiters like Bosch/Blackadder and stevie-zero will have fun with that statement, but I’m sure you know what it means.

For the simpletons, it means instead of taking things away from an achiever and giving to somebody without, teach the person without how to become an achiever. Compassionate conservatism if you will.

Buy Danish,

Your statement made sense either way since the rank and file moonbat(ic)® lives in fear that evil conservatives are out to get them, but their puppetmasters, like the clowns that had personal air conditioners at their podiums while making their Union stooges stand out in the August heat yesterday, would love to see a bill brought up by Republicans to outlaw abortion since they would feel like that would guarantee their power for years to come. SO there are a few “people” that would love to see that bill drafted.

By The BlogFather

August 9, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

No Posting after 7:00 PM, moron.