Mike Luckovich

By Mad As Zell

October 10, 2007 7:22 AM | Link to this

The communist wackjobs are really out in full force today at the Al-Jazeera Constipulation. Who’s the nut that wrote the editorial advocating for $5-a-gallon gas? Xuguang Leng, or whatever the hell his name is, wants to bring the economy to a screeching halt with a $2-a-gallon gas tax. $2.00-a-gallon! So the ACHE-J-C is welcoming moonbat special guest columnists who advocate draconian tax hikes and economic slowdowns to “teach us a lesson” about too much driving. Why in the hell does XUGUANG LENG think that people DRIVE to WORK through torturous rush-hour traffic, FOR FUN because there’s nothing else better to do than keeping food and shelter? Is Leng kidding? $2-a-gallon gas tax? Are they smoking crack or meth in the Al-Jazeera editorial room? With talk of that type of crushing tax increase it definitely sounds as if court-ordered pinko drug detox and rehab is in Leng’s future.

By Mad As Zell

October 10, 2007 8:00 AM | Link to this

And on the other roll of toilet issue…

The ACHE-J-C’s very own “Jihad Cindy” Tucker plays her brainwashed part as an unabashed leftist bomb-throwing bleeding-heart liberal advocating for Castro-style COMMUNIST MEDICINE openly and biasedly doing the dirty bidding of a Democrap Party-endorsed media assassin taking open shots at Georgia’s Senators and Congressman because they voted against the precursor to government run Hitlery-Care.

That what America has to look forward to if Hitlery and those evil Defeatocrats are elected to power in 2008… $6.00-a-gallon gas, government run Socialist Hitlery Care, runaway draconian tax hikes, economic malaise, rigid left-wing control over personal thought and speech, Soviet-style totalitarian rule under the logo of a donkey-butt and the control of a pitbull female Jimmy Carter in a pants suit (Hitlery Clinton) and an muslim world-raised ex-jihadist (Barach Obama aka “Borat Osama”), AN ALL-AROUND STRONG SOCIALIST DEMOCRAP AGENDA. A win for HITLERY and those evil DEFEATOCRATS will be a DEVASTATING LOSS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and a CRUSHING BLOW to the national psyche.

A vote for Hitlery and those hellish atheist Defeatocrats is a vote for Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qadea and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iranian world domination. Vote for that female Stalinist (Hitlery Clinton) and that uncover islamafacist jihadist in Christian’s clothing (Borat Osama) at your peril.

By Luckoduh

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

{{{{Ronald Reagan was neither a fox nor a hedgehog. He was as dumb as a stump.-Salon}}}}

I could live with 8 years of another “dumb” president who created a booming economy and defeated fascism.

In fact, I look forward to it.

~~~~~~~

{{{{If Sen. Hillary Clinton is to chart her own course independent of her husband, why did she choose Sandy Berger to give her advice on foreign policy? This suggests reunion time for cronies. In 2003, Mr. Berger took several highly classified documents about the Clinton-era Millennium terror plot from the National Archives while “aiding” the September 11 commission. Mr. Berger successfully negotiated a plea bargain and received only two years probation, along with a security-clearance suspension and a $50,000 fine. Were he anything less than a member of the permanent Clinton establishment, he would be in sitting in a prison cell, with few prospects.}}}}

Planning on destroying some more evidence?

~~~~~~~

{{{{Hillary Clinton, once she has sewn up the Democratic nomination, will almost certainly attempt to make strength on national security the centerpiece of her campaign. True, she unveiled her universal health care plan — a pastiche of Hillarycare c.1993 and various private sector elements — but she understands that this and other domestic issues are secondary to the big one.}}}}

In other words she has no position of her own, it’s what ever the campaign advisor tells her to think.

~~~~~~~

Count the perversions:

{{{{ Gay couple seeks divorce in R.I A lesbian couple married in Massachusetts should have the same right as heterosexual couples to divorce in their home state of Rhode Island, lawyers for the women told Rhode Island’s highest court. Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers were married in 2004 after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts. Last year, the couple filed for divorce in Rhode Island. Rhode Island law is silent on the legality of same-sex marriages. If the women can’t divorce in Rhode Island, their lawyers said the only legal avenue available to them would be for at least one to move to Massachusetts and live there long enough to obtain a divorce.}}}}

The world is their playground, abuse it with out care.

By Mad As Zell

October 10, 2007 8:18 AM | Link to this

If I recall, Sandy Berger was caught stuffing those documents down into his pants…an action so befitting of a Clinton Administration official. As for the loving lesbians now suddenly in need of a divorce, stupid pervert atheist is as stupid pervert atheist does.

By Catscan

October 10, 2007 8:20 AM | Link to this

Bloggers Bust! BLogger’s Bust!

I officially am reporting to Luckovich’s staff the off hours blogging that just occured by MadasZellLuckoduh.

I was reprimanded by email in the past for being 10 minutes late once, and I apologized profusely, and I try to follow the blogging laws, (and roberts rules of order).

But I am insisting on a more strict sentencing guideline for MadasZellLuckoduh. I suggest banning them for one week. Maybe they’ll learn that nobody reads them anyway, and simply go away.

That would be a win win. 25 words or less, Zellduh.

Moron.

By Gman

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

Great toon Mike! Thompson can’t stay awake long enough to complete a sentence much less run a country. Rudy can’t commit long enough to a relationship much less run a country. John McCain can’t tie his shoes without falling down musch less run a country. Romney can decide how many wives he has much less run a country. I think that about covers the list of washed-up teabags the Republican’ts are trotting out. 2008 is going to be one big joke!

By Disgruntled Atlanta Sports Fan

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

Gee Zell, what do you think of Dear Abby coming out in favor of gay marriage. Does this get your panties in a wad or does it make your future clearer.

By Mrs. Godzilla

October 10, 2007 8:30 AM | Link to this

I see Fred Thompson and think Caspar Milquetoast

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 8:31 AM | Link to this

{{{{Five Hours by Hunter Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 04:44:48 PM PDT That’s how long it took the Bush administration between the time they learned of a secret “security breach” by a private U.S. company allowing for the monitoring of some al Qaeda internet communications, and the time the administration leaked it to Fox News, thereby alerting al Qaeda to the breach and closing down “a years-long surveillance operation that the company has used to intercept and pass along secret messages, videos and advance warnings of suicide bombings from the terrorist group’s communications network.” Five hours: A small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition thatthe officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release. […] Around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, Katz sent both Leiter and Fielding an e-mail with a link to a private SITE Web page containing the video and an English transcript. “Please understand the necessity for secrecy,” Katz wrote in her e-mail. “We ask you not to distribute … [as] it could harm our investigations.” By midafternoon, several television news networks reported obtaining copies of the transcript. A copy posted around 3 p.m. on Fox News’s Web site referred to SITE and included page markers identical to those used by the group. “This confirms that the U.S. government was responsible for the leak of this document,” Katz wrote in an e-mail to Leiter at 5 p.m. What can you say? When your entire foreign policy expertise is based on leaking information to Fox News in order to keep the population in a constant state of low-level fear, sometimes you have to blow actual intelligence information in order to do it. Them’s the breaks.}}}

By reebok

October 10, 2007 8:40 AM | Link to this

That’s a funny cartoon, ML…and true. Thompson looks and acts like he about 80 years old. When your last best hope to derail the Dems is a washed-up b-list actor, your party has pretty much run out of talent. Hillary, Obama, or Gore (if he comes in) will crush any of these tired old guys the GOP has trotted out.

By Mad As Zell

October 10, 2007 8:43 AM | Link to this

Catscan, Lucko, Bookman, Tucker, the rest of the Al-Jazeera/New Yuck Times-moveon.org South editorial staff and the rest of the Inside-the-Perimeter snotrag libs are just mad that they haven’t been able to make this blog into Georgia’s version of “The Huffington Post”. Are you mad because your vicious left-wing bomb-throwing attacks on reality and moonbat lies don’t go unanswered like you all want? Are you mad that the American people won’t let you all distort the truth with unrestained liberalism and unopposed political correctness run amok? Wah, wah, wah! Don’t cry little baby, we know its just so unfair that we have to had a fair and balanced debate on a blog that was meant to be leftist, unfair, totally biased and unbalanced at the most liberal paper in the South. Oh what a crime! The inhumanity!

By Catscan

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

Fred Thompson appears to be ill. He’s unelectable. There is Guilliani. There is Romney.

They look amazing together. They could win. Hillary is like a football team that starts running the clock out. She can be beat if the GOP plugs up the middle.

I hate big expensive government more than anyone. The GOP has to win. We’ve spent whatever money was available for entitlements in Iraq.

There’s no money for nothing no how, no way. We cant leave Iraq. We cant spend anymore than what we are already spending.

No healthcare. No infrastructure. It’s time we privatized both completely, and let the Saudis take over. They’re good, you gotta give them that.

“I surrender my flag-pin/nipple piercing to OPEC.”

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 8:58 AM | Link to this

Being called “dumb” by Nixon isn’t that bad. Better to be called that by him than Bush.

Thompson appeared to be a deer in headlights without his Law and Order script to go by. Maybe the writers of that show should join his campaign.

By Mad As Zell

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

How dare they! The gall! The nerve of those conservatives to enter the sacred domain of Inside-the-Perimeter leftist bomb-throwers for robust debate and (this is a biggie) DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT. How dare anyone have an opinion outside of the realm of “Political Correctness” and so-called “Progressive (code for liberal) Thought”

Damn you conservatives, damn you traditionists and damn you Mad As Zell for promoting people to think for themselves and escape from of the “Liberal Plantation” subversed and suppressed independent thought.

By Dr Fill

October 10, 2007 9:02 AM | Link to this

Somebody needs to take Andy for help. That’s one out of control sickie.

By Senator Craig (REPUBLICAN)

October 10, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this

That Dear Abby has gone too far!!!

Gay marriage is an ABOMINATION.

She certainly needs to learn about Family Values!

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

Election Central Debate Roundup

By IN THE NEWS

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

The Wørd: Medium Matters

Great stuff.

By Politics Athwart

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

Every election is important. This four year cycle of focus and forget focus and forget has been all focus this time around.

We havent’ really had an election cycle since 911. It’s been an eight year campaign for both parties.

We inherit the winds of war. We inherit inherently errant spending. We inherit global love/hate.

Nothing’s changed.

You know that no matter how beautiful your breath smells, only half the folks you meet will like you.

Half the world hates us. Half the world likes us, but Americans are supposed to love us. They dont. Not even close. My mom’s biggest fear is that I’ll set her in a nursing home and forget her. Set her and forget her. (Great, now there’s five F’s and an extra S. Well, they did add another witch to triple-witch friday, didn’t they. I guess we can change the four F’s about dealing w/women too.)

People read this blog because we dont have a leader. I knew about this vacuum, (which is 100 thousand times the force of gravity), when I aspired to become president. That’s right, I’m running for prez. (Just write my name in)

There’s only one L.

Coaching a country is a tough job. You have to know better than to bean a batter. So what if I can prove you lied under oath. We need to take another hard look at perjury, and decide, per jury, how to proceed with the political process. Didn’t we solve the problem of torture with the fifth amendment? Well, lets extend that to politicians. We’ll simply presume that he’s lying, and gauge our respect based on flag-pins, baubles and beads, pablum and whompum and the debates.

The debates. It’s difficult to make them fair. It’s silly to have an audience. Simply let each candidate address a closeup camera with 90 second sound bites in a confession booth type ting.

That way issues will get discussed without all the spin cycle.

If you want a debate, then at the end of the confessionals, have a rousing free for all like they’re doing it now. They we can make sure that all of our children still think about Monica’s Pearl Necklace.

We are sexual creatures, we humans. We simply cant get over our own genitalia. It’s simply too much and it’s proof there’s a god. He knew exactly how delicious to make us, so that we’d never quite be respon

By IN THE NEWS

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

The Daily Show: Torturous Intentions

More Great Stuff!

By IN THE NEWS

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

Two Hours, Nine Candidates, and Almost Nothing New

By Luckoduh

October 10, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this

{{{{Amidst all the happiness, there was one thing the Thompson camp was not pleased about, and that was the moderator. After Thompson finished answering a question about possible government aid to Chrysler, Matthews said, “Took a long time. He said no; he should have stopped there.” The remark seemed to cross a line; at the very least, it was not the sort of thing one normally hears from the moderator in these debates. Thompson responded, “In your opinion, Christopher,” and after it was all over, Thompson’s people unloaded on Matthews.}}}}

{{{{“Chris kept himself in check for as long as he humanly could, and then he just reverted to type,” the first Thompson aide told me. “He can’t help himself. He said this isn’t going to be about me, and of course it was about him.”}}}}

{{{{“The Democratic debate had Tim Russert. We had Chris Matthews. That’s like you having Roger Clemens and my team having…me. It’s just amateur hour with him. He can’t help himself.”}}}}

~~~~~~

{{{{The senators of my party, with a few stellar exceptions like Dianne Feinstein, may be a pack of vain, spineless, poll-puking, strutting peacocks- Salon}}}}

By Politics Athwart

October 10, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this

d’oh

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this

Investigations of Members on Rise Election Crimes Face Scrutiny By Matthew Murray Roll Call Staff October 10, 2007

Federal investigators are hinting that a fresh wave of campaign-related theft and corruption investigations of Members of Congress are moving through the pipeline, signaling that indictments may be on the horizon.

By Jack Meoff

October 10, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this

If the Republican candidates can get their current wives, ex-wives, girl friends and boy friends to vote for them thay will win by a landslide.

By Politics Athwart

October 10, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

Here’s a message to a certain…hope I’m pronouncing this correctly…..Jack Meoff……that’s Jack Meoff………D’oh!

Camera to hacker stealing the old, thus obsolete (and proof of a moron), Bart Simpson gag. We’re all LOL-ing. Some of us have MILF coming.

What a…no, dont say it….he’s a nice guy, and maybe he’ll go quietly.

I’m glad Luckovich limits the words you can blog. However, you all missed an amazing bit, that looking back at it, I’m glad got bleeped cause it’s material I can try tonight at the punchline’s open mike in sandy springs (hildebrand rd)

Sometimes I give gold away so that readers will flock to this site. I hope the accounting staff at the ajc appreciates this gift. Without hackers, christ himself couldn’t have spread the Word.

What was christ saying? He said that we all can speak for man when we talk to god. That means whatever you say to god you say for me, and I am bound by your oaths to god, even if it means I have to patrol the streets of baghdad for suspicious-looking slow-moving vehicles during rush hour where all the vehicles are suspicious looking and slow moving.

What R we doing? We cant leave Iraq, but we can make the Blackwater Mercenaries leave Iraq, no wait, they’ll follow us home, darn.

Nevermind. Just nevermind about anything. Hannity has completely ruined Hillary’s chances to win in 08. He’s simply too clever for any liberal candidate, and he’s a great american. Rush is only slightly less effective than Hannity. Taken together, Rushannity can be the diff in 08.

Our country is saved.

By Dusty

October 10, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this

Well, it seems we have our morning calisthenics on free speech from Zell this morning. He has a lot of good points, all of which liberals just hate.

I guess IN THE PRESS will soon appear with his cut’n’paste to tell us how much we need higher taxes, socialized medicine, Iraq as a gift to terrorists and Hillary as America’s moonbat mama.

Luckovich, bless his heart, had to go all the way back to very dead Nixon to find a quote smearing Thompson. But as our “I luv everbody” bosch wrote, he’ll take any quote as long as it gives him a chance to bash Bush. Aint luv grand!!

By Fred Thompson

October 10, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

Even if I lose the nomination I still win. I have money, a hot young wife and I don’t have to work anymore unless I want to. Make fun of me all you want but beware I couldn’t care less.

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

Dusty, I think you have a crush on me. You just can’t stop talking about me.

By w00t

October 10, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

MadasZell, why does your party feel that it is ok to trample on the rights of a woman so that she is forced to have a baby even though it may threaten her life, yet once the baby is out in the world exposed to poverty and sickness they are kicked to the curb by the same republicans that are supposed to respect life. I guess in your mind the “baby” should have made better life choices?

It certainly can’t be the cost, because if we’re willing to spend 1.5 trillion dollars on wars, we should be willing to spend $35 billion on the SCHIP for our children and their futures. What ever happened to the “right to life”? If we were to cut out this enormous drag on the federal budget we could afford these programs that help our own people which should be our number one goal, not a country half way around the world that was only formed in 1932. People in the US are tired of the war and seeing their hard earned tax dollars squandered away in no-bid contracts. People here in the states see their take home pay dwindle year after year as the cost of health care and other services increase. We are tired of seeing and hearing about our infrastructure failing or not being able to support the demand. They are tired of seeing our education system become second rate compared to other industrialized nations of the world. They want change.

That is exactly why the Republican Party will lose next year, because they have no ideas. All they have the ability to do is talk about more torture, more war, more big-government spending, and less for the American people. The Democratic Party on the other hand cares about the people of this country. They want to see us do better in life, they want us to succeed and make more money. They want us to be healthy and not have to worry whether or not a claim for medical care is going to be denied or not. Change at home is the answer for this country, not more war.

By Dusty

October 10, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this

bosch@9:44

No, bosch, I have better taste than that.

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

Hey, Bosch

No way man. It’s me she’s sweet on.

Think she’ll ever get over the hots for us and post something of substance?

By Sickoduh

October 10, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

I admit it. It’s all a cry for help especially since things went south for the GOP. One day your party is on the way to a permanent majority with Karl Rove and Dick Cheney as your co-pilots and the next day your sitting in front of your computer in nothing more than an overloaded soiled diaper with a multiple split personality disorder and severe case of hemmroids after having blogged for 11 months straight, without a bath or other human contact besides your mother and your psychiatrist, trying to save the GOP and the Conservative Movement. Reagan dead, Falwell dead, Rove gone, Chaney heavily armed in hiding, Foley gay, Craig gay, Haggart gay and smoking meth, GOP out of power, conservative movement dead and Dubya the lamest duck President ever. Man, seems like 2004 was just yesterday, where did the time go? Okay, I’m ready to report to Inner Harbor Mental Health for treatment and shock therapy now. Hmmm…I wonder if Senator Craig likes disgrunted neo-cons with multiple personalities in 11-month-old dirty diapers?

By *******Future Dusty******

October 10, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

*da da da da

****da da da da

(shark hum thing)

Why can’t you people stand behind our beloved President Hillary Clinton!

She’s the President and we just plain owe her our support!

I would never be so un-american as to say anything bad about our duly elected President.

So you anti president types can just blog away, but all that stuff that our ELECTED President Clinton says is correct and you sick people on the right should just become patriots.

*** fog clears

Na, ain’t gonna happen

She’ll only support her party, no way she has the ovaries to support a democratic president.

By Politics Athwart

October 10, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

w00t, that’s not what MadasZell blogged at all. Madaszell thinks that if we allow gene therapy to warn middle schoolers of impending cervical cancer, then we will raise a generation of hooter’s girls………

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

w00t, They don’t care becaues it doesn’t effect (affect) (sp?) them. That’s why daddy Bush lost his second term - because he was so out of touch with the “little people.”

I saw David Ignatius on BBC News last night. He made a good point: when 911 happened, we all came together as a country - left, right. If we were to have another terrorist attack our country would not be able to come together like that - the right would blame the left and vice versa. It would tear our country even further apart.

On another note: they aired this segment about Terrorism and Democracy

Thought it was pretty good.

By Bosch

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

In The News,

I don’t think so. It’s pretty obvious when someone has a crush on you, you know. I think she thinks of us as the bad guy outlaw type.

The ladies love the bad boys!

By RW-(the original)

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

Bosch,

Do you really think that George H.W. Bush would have lost a second term had Ross Perot not been in the race?

I’m amazed daily that every media hoax ever perpetuated you’ve somehow fallen for. You are the epitome of a mind numbed robot, yet you ascribe that trait to others on a regular basis.

I have no idea why, but I see hope for you. Please try going behind the headlines and finding some facts. Start with the grocery scanner story about GHWB. Off the top of your head tell us what happened and then go look up some facts.

By Luckoduh

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

{{{{By Sickoduh October 10, 2007 9:52 AM the next day your sitting in front of your computer in nothing more than an overloaded soiled diaper with a multiple split personality disorder and severe case of hemmroids after having blogged for 11 months straight}}}}

This coming from the Atlanta Journal Constitution’s most prized and respected blogger, a POS that they allow to post some of the most vulgar and disgusting, pointless nonsense day in and day out, in fact, just this morning we have 30 comments from this ku klux klown, all of them whining like, hey, a soiled diapered baby, about things it is too stupid to understand.

Projection, again?

Bwa.

By Politics Athwart

October 10, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

David Ignasius’s point was made by me over 5 years ago, (and then a short time later, dozens of thinktanks).

Bosch it’s good to see you watch tv, and I’d love to talk about tv shows, House, for instance, but please……..

“duh, I saw something on tv…it was good….i laughed and i cried…and i ate popcorn….and spilled milk and my mommy slapped me…..so i cried some more…..duh”

By Politics Athwart

October 10, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

RW says, “If things had been different, then things would be different.”

Moron. there’s always been a third wheel in elections that would have swung it the other way if the third party hadn’t been there, moron.

“Duh, But, like, if there wasn’t a third party, you know if there was only two parties in an election then duh i’d only be a half wit, duh..duy………”

RETARD!!!

By Same Ole GOP, Different Decade

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

WASHINGTON - Whatever happens over the next 16 months, President Bush will leave office having presided over one of the fastest accumulations of government debt in the history of the United States.

During his time in office, federal debt held by the public – Washington’s equivalent of a credit-card balance – will have increased by more than 50 percent, to about $5.5 trillion. Uncle Sam will be paying interest on that sum for years to come.

Now aren’t you Republicans just ever so proud of each of your two faces?

There’s nothing quite so nauseating as a big fat pile of ultra-phoney ‘NEW’-conservatives.

There’s nothing NEO about this BS. Hoover(R) promised and failed to put a ‘chicken in every pot and a car in every garge’ before Democrats saved our great nation with the new deal.

Once again Democrats are called upon in our nations time of need to rectify the egregious wrongs and simple-minded policies of a FAILED Republican administration. And you know, they are still up to the task!

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

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

RW,

My point about daddy Bush was my opinion. I know you might find it odd, but people can form their own opinions about people.

You need to be careful who you called a mind numbed robot, though (the phrase “those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks” comes to mind).

Ross Perot did play a huge part of Daddy Bush’s defeat and to be honest I wish we would have a third party candidate to run in the next election - someone with just plain common sense.

Ross Perot cracked me up during the 92 election - he was hilarious.

A good third party candidate would certainly put the other candidates on their toes and maybe come up with some real issues instead of party lip service.

I was tired last night so I did watch a lot of tv, but I also saw a segment on Hugo Chavez - pretty scary. The poor Socialists in Venezuela love him while the middle class/elite hate him - made me think about a lot of stuff. I have to be honest, I don’t know alot about Chavez.

Politics Athwart - I watched House for the first time last week - pretty good show! When does it come on? I forgot.

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

Ross Perot Did Not Cost George Bush The 1992 Presidential Election

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

Second, Perot clearly did not cost Bush the 1992 election. The partisan index measures the degree to which a state favors a party relative to the way the rest of the nation favors that party. This being the case, it would follow that if more typically GOP partisans had indeed swung to Perot than had typically Democratic partisans, the 1992 partisan index would reveal and anomalous pro-DNC swing due to a temporarily eroded Republican base.

By Sickoduh

October 10, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

Yeah, my other personality is right. I can dish mindless wing-nut nonsense with the best of ‘em, but I whine like a “soiled diapered baby about things it is too stupid to understand” when forced to take what I put out. Speaking of “put out”, does Senator Craig like role play? Because if he does, we could take turns with that “soiled diapered” thing that my other half-personality, Luckoduh, likes so much. If not, then I’m sure that real men like Mark Foley (I know as “Markie”) and Ted Haggart (I know him as “Teddy”) will recognize a good thing when they see it. Those Rhode Island lesbians could never have this much fun, I mean being as though it’s physically impossible and they are completely open and comfortable with their sexuality and I’m a total hypocrite. Gotta go, that call was from “Teddy” and “Markie”. Tonight we’re gonna put the “Gay” in “Gay Ole’ Party” if you know what I mean. LOL

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

{{{Perot’s Voters Would Have Split In a Two-Way Race

ASSOCIATED PRESS (11/4/92): Exit polls suggest Ross Perot hurt George Bush and Bill Clinton about equally.

The Voter Research and Surveys poll, a joint project of the four major television networks, found 38 percent of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton and 37 percent would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been on the ballot. Fifteen percent said they would not have voted, and 6 percent listed other candidates.}}}

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

RW,

Just another thought, but that’s why I don’t want to see Hillary as president. I think she represents the too far left, and we don’t need that either. We went from Bush to Clinton to Bush and I don’t want it back to Clinton (but it would be better than another Bush in my opinion). Sigh.

That baby bond idea was not a good idea, that’s the thing, nobody has any good ideas anymore - it’s all party lip service. I would love to see a moderate candidate in a debate with any of the candidates that are running and look at them and say, “What the hell are you talking about?” That’s kind of what Perot did, and that is why he was so popular.

There are no good third party options right now - are there ever? Libertarians? The Green Party? No those aren’t legitimate parties (at least in my opinion).

I think there could be if people would really be honest with themselves, and make some comprimises.

By getalife

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

Nixon later said he played ball on Watergate and people should ask that idiot why he supported Nixon when Nixon broke the law.

He was pathethic like the rest of them in last night’s debate.

Willard spewed he had to check with his lawyers to invade Iran.

Paul called them insane and said check the Constitution stupid.

Geez, the only one who supports the Constitution was Ron Paul. He was the only real American in that debate.

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

On November 8, 1992—five days after the election—E. J. Dionne penned a first report in the Post. Headline: “Perot Seen Not Affecting Vote Outcome:” DIONNE (11/8/92): Ross Perot’s presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters. The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot’s absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush “margin” without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.

The VRS polled more than 15,000 voters. On November 12, Dionne provided more details about Perot voters: DIONNE (11/12/92): In House races, Perot voters split down the middle: 51 percent said they backed Republicans, 49 percent backed Democrats. In the presidential contest, 38 percent of Perot supporters said they would have supported Clinton if Perot had not been on the ballot and 37 percent said they would have supported Bush. An additional 6 percent of Perot voters said they would have sought another third-party candidate, while 14 percent said they would not have voted if Perot had not run.

We all know exit polls are imperfect. But these are the actual available data about the preferences of Perot voters. Nor was this exit poll kept secret.

By luckovichisaheadcase

October 10, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Although I prefer Giuliani, Thompson is no fool. This cartoon is particularly amusing to anyone with any kind of long-term memory because the criticisms being made of Thompson- lazy, superficial, stupid, too old, etc… are all those hurled by the looney left at Ronald Reagan. Enough said.

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

{{{{{That’s why daddy Bush lost his second term - because he was so out of touch with the “little people.”-by Bosch}}}}}

Does that sound to anybody, but Bosch, like an opinion or do you see it written as a statement of fact like I do?

Bosch,

I think the FairTax is a great idea and one that Huckabee is pushing hard for.

Polly of many names,

Go check the vote total percentage of Perot in 1992 vs. the totals of various other third party candidates. Even in 2000 you won’t be able to show that Nader definitely swung the election.

By Politics Athwart

October 10, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

Duh, RW is right, and I am well chastised. He’s a political historian of the first rank. He predicted the outcome of the past six Sen. Craig re-election campaigns. There was a third stall in all those races, and RW blew the poles right out of the water.

RW rocks! We love you, RW!!! You are the bright spot on this blog!!

By The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight Redux

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

BAGHDAD - Weeping mourners called for justice Wednesday at a funeral for two Armenian Christian women killed while driving in Baghdad — the second shooting of civilians involving a security firm linked to U.S. government-financed work in Iraq in less than a month.

More good news from the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.

Damn if Bush’s thugs ain’t tracked down two of the only Christian women in Iraq and executed em on the spot. Way to go, Bobby (Gates). Mission Accomplished!

By IN THE NEWS

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

RW “”“Do you really think that George H.W. Bush would have lost a second term had Ross Perot not been in the race?”“”

””“Go check the vote total percentage of Perot in 1992 vs. the totals of various other third party candidates. Even in 2000 you won’t be able to show that Nader definitely swung the election.”“”

Neither can you show that Perot lost the election for HW.

Try another frame.

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

RW,

Statements of fact are more along the lines of:

“Atlanta is the capital of Georgia”

“blue and yellow make green”

“The Earth is round”

“There are 5280 feet in a mile”

“Soccer is the most popular sport on Earth (ha ha just had to throw that one in there)”

And even then - you have those that love to argue and say things like:

“Well Atlanta hasn’t ALWAYS been the capital of Georgia - what year are you talking about?”

“How do we know exactly what blue and yellow are? Does those colors even exist? What about people that are color blind?”

“Well actually the Earth is not exactly ‘round’ but spherical with a bulge in the center - and some scientists do not agree with that”

“Yeah, but there are 63,360 inches in a mile - take that”

“Soccer sucks - who cares”

See RW,

It’s all relative.

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

RW,

I don’t like Huckabee because he’s a social conservative - I would never vote for an ordained Southern Baptist minister.

I don’t see him leaving religion out of his politics - it’s not in their nature.

He also supports the war, is against gun control, and sees nothing wrong with teaching creationism and intelligent design in science classrooms - all of which I have a real problem with.

I know we disagree there, but nope, couldn’t vote for him.

By Dusty

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

RW(the original)10:50

ANYTHING bosch writes is posted in stone so that the world will know what is correct. But… everybody else should give only facts as their opinions are worthless.

President Bush was elected because Americans WANTED him to be president. Dems have never recovered from that.

As you know, they continue to fight Bush instead of terrorism. It hurts the country but they do not care. I hope they get over it because the next president is STILL going to be a Republican.

PS—I’m still smiling. bosch and IN THE NEWS are irresistable?? That’s a good one. I hope all female posters here will be able to control themselves. Woohooo!!!

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

Dusty, Why did more people vote for Al Gore in the 2000 election if Americans wanted Bush more? Hmmm…….

ITN, Dusty is still smiling about us? I’m beginning to worry a bit - she seems to be a little out of control. (Woohooo!!!)?????

By Buy Danish

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

{{{By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 10:41 AM}}}

When are you going to come clean and change your name to IN MY BIASED OPINION?

The link that you posted to prove your absurd thesis on Perot connects to a site which has paid advertising from Media Matters ( who falsely claim to be a non-partisan charitable group).

This is a perfect example of how they perpetuate this fraud that they are “non-partisan”: About the Publisher (DavidNYC)

{{{ I am a native New Yorker, born and raised. I am now back in the city after a three-year sojourn to attend law school in Washington, DC. I will begin work as an attorney this fall (2006). I am a lifelong Democrat, and I have been interested in politics for as long as I can remember. I first discovered the blogosphere in 2002 and quickly became an enthusiast. Inspired by the pioneering DailyKos, I began the Swing State Project in October of 2003. My goal has always been to analyze all relevant issues without partisan favoritism. I am not presently working on any campaigns or for any political organizations. In the past, however, I’ve worked for Howard Dean during his presidential campaign, and for Eliot Spitzer on two of his races for New York State Attorney General.}}}

Yeah right. That must be why the website links to ActBlue/the online clearinghouse for Democratic Action/The Official Netroots Candidate page

Note how many of the candidates they are supporting self-identify as “fighting Democrats”.

By raisedanidiot

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

ITN and Bosch…you’ve both got the wrong idea…see, dust ball secretly fantasizes about me…that’s why she’s so afraid to speak to me….all those repressed lesbian desires might come out and she’d have to pull a Craig… did anybody get a load of oral roberts in the news again? that guy is amazing…I’d love to be a fly on the wall in that disturbed household…talk about ur entertainment!

By Anonymous

October 10, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

Bosch: I had no idea Huckabee was that far gone in delusion… thanks for the heads-up!

Disagreeing about policies and values is one thing, but a candidate who can’t handle basic SCIENCE (evolution) automatically loses my vote.

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

Hey raisedanidiot! Okay, that’s fine with me. I’m beginning to get a little creeped out.

No I didn’t see Oral Roberts - I thought he was dead. How old is he now? 150? Hasn’t the Lord Jesus Christ called him home yet? Good lord, how long does it take him to raise $30 million?

What’s up with that guy?

By raisedanidiot

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

Bosch- evidently the problem is the little orals (dontcha just love his name? ) cant stop spending long enough for him to reach his lofty goal (get it? lofty…remember when he locked himself up in the tower and said he was’nt coming out til he raised however much he was going for at the time? A person could do well writing a book with everything crazy this guy has done and said…he’s even nuttier than Pat Robertson…and thats substantial craziness right there…oh, i think they said oral is 89…but i thought he was about that old when i was young…talk about your creepy…there’s some supernatural creepiness with these guys…gives me the hibbyjibbies man!

By getalife

October 10, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

The wingnuts lie to attack a 12 year old boy and post his address

These are evil people and why these idiots act like this is beyond me.

Disgusting scumbags.

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Isn’t it amazing that someone can start any sentence with {{{{That is why…}}} and then claim to be only opining?

Bosch,

{{{{Soccer sucks-who cares//by Bosch}}}}

I think we’ve finally found a point of agreement.

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

Raisedanidiot,

Okay, so it’s the kids who keep spending all his money - damn kids.

Yeah, I remember all that looniness happened when I was in college, he’s a pretty loony guy.

Supernatural creepiness is an understatement when describing those guys - but a GREAT term for Halloween. I’ll have to remember that!

AND, geez, I wish I hadn’t called Dusty’s crush out - talk about hibbyjibbies.

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish

Fo the GAZILLIONTH time

I post ‘em as I finds ‘em

You got a problem with the author, take it up with them.

I have no thesis whatsoever on Perot, what was absurd was RW’s question.

Partisanship. Now that’s a topic from hell.

The other day it was posted that Media Matters is a 501 (c) (c)….. WELL LITTLE LADY so is The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute and The Project for The New American Century.

All of these sites claim to be non-partisan. AS IN NOT OFFICIALLY CONNECTED TO THE DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN OR GREEN (ETC) PARTIES.

Is Media Matters OFFICIALLY connected to the Dems?

No more than Heritage, AEI or PNAC are OFFICIALLY connected to the GOP.

CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

Does Media Matters speak with a progressive voice? You bet!

Do Heritage, AEI and PNAC speak with a neo-conservative voice? You bet.

But they are all legally non-partisan.

If you push at Media Matters, to be fair and balanced you best push at The Heritage Foundation, The Project for a New American Century and The American Enterprise Institute.

Can you be fair and balanced ?

By AmVet

October 10, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

Good afternoon all.

So is the Arizona Senator now a flip-flopper on Rumsfeld?

Or perhaps he realizes that it NOW doesn’t take much political courage to say out loud what many (most?) Americans have known for a LONG time.

And it’s somewhat ironic that it was said in SC where he was once smeared by this disgraceful Rove/Bush administration with hints of the N-word in the woodpile in the 2000 campaign.

{BLUFFTON, S.C. — Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Monday the war in Iraq has been mismanaged for years and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will be remembered as one of the worst in history.}

{“We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement _ that’s the kindest word I can give you _ of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war,” the Arizona senator told an overflow crowd of more than 800 at a retirement community near Hilton Head Island, S.C. “The price is very, very heavy and I regret it enormously.”}

{McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, complained that Rumsfeld never put enough troops on the ground to succeed in Iraq.}

{“I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history,” McCain said to applause.}

{The comments were in sharp contrast to McCain’s statement when Rumsfeld resigned in November, and failed to address the reality that President Bush is the commander in chief.}

{“While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americans’ respect and gratitude for his many years of public service,” McCain said last year when Rumsfeld stepped down.}

By Buy Danish

October 10, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

I’ve had it with your bigotry. I was all set to comment on this entry of yours -

{{{By Bosch October 10, 2007 11:26 AM |

I don’t like Huckabee because he’s a social conservative - I would never vote for an ordained Southern Baptist minister. I don’t see him leaving religion out of his politics - it’s not in their nature.}}}

…but I see you have outdone yourself with this disgusting comment:

{{{By Bosch October 10, 2007 11:49 AM |

No I didn’t see Oral Roberts - I thought he was dead. How old is he now? 150? Hasn’t the Lord Jesus Christ called him home yet? Good lord, how long does it take him to raise $30 million?}}}

What incredibly bad taste it is to joke about Oral Roberts death, and how ironic it is that this comes from someone who pretends to be a representative of tolerance and civility.

Regarding the first, how pray tell (pun intended) do you imagine that Huckabee would “mix religion with politics”? I’d like a specific list of how this will manifest itself.

You constantly complain that you are being “oppressed” by “fundamentalists” yet I dare say that you would be unable to provide a single tangible example of this obsessive delusion of yours.

If by “fundamentalists” you were referring to Islamists, I’d agree with you as it has an indisputable basis in fact scroll down for stoning video but you are constantly throwing stones (pun intended) at Christians.

The fact is that the Left constantly “oppress” conservatives and Christians by censoring speech and thus “mixing” Atheism/Marxism/Stalinism with politics.

Indeed if you open the link I provided you’ll see plenty of examples of attempts to censor and defame conservatives on campus as they prepare for “Islamic Fascism Awareness Week”.

Moreover the attempts by Congress to knock conservative talk radio off the air is yet another indication of this disturbing trend against free speech.

I challenge you to find a single example of where conservatives have tried to shut down a newspaper, talk radio show, or any other form of political speech, and I look forward to hearing all about how you have personally been wronged or censored by Christian fundamentalists.

I won’t be holding my breath.

By RW-(the original)

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

getalife,

If the Frost’s already qualified for SCHIP under the existing program they still would under the Bush proposal to renew it with modest expansion.

Why does your party hide behind little children to fight your political battles?

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

Sorry RW,

Okay, I should have said, “In my opinion, that is why…….”

My writing skills faltered a bit. Nice try [as I roll my eyes].

If you watched a soccer game with me, you wouldn’t think it sucked so bad - soccer is fun - playing and watching it - and that’s why there are more soccer fans in the world than any other sport!

By IN THE NEWS

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

Making a Killing: A Blackwater Timeline

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

Progressive talker Ed Schultz ties Bill O’Reilly in audience size

By Apocalypse

October 10, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

I think you you’re cool and all, but soccer really sucks. Who gives a f^ck what the rest of the world likes. When one of the them becomes the leader of the free world, then I’ll watch soccer.

By Dusty

October 10, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

Golly, AmVet gives us McCain’s whole speech it seems (12:22).

So McCain does not like Rumsfeld? Is that your point? Very interesting except Rumsfeld has been out of the picture for ome time now. Got any more Republican speeches you want to give us?

Maybe you would like to quote Hillary on her flip flops on baby bonuses?? Hillary giveth and Hillary taketh away, her campaign promises that is.

Get with it, Amvet, but cut it short. Thank you.

By Buy Danish

October 10, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

IN THE NEWS,

That was not a news piece, it was an opinion piece, so you are not “seeing” them correctly.

Hillary Clinton claims to have been instrumental in founding MoveOn.org and Media Matters. That being the case, they are nothing but extensions of her campaign for the presidecy. The same cannot be said for any of the organizations you cite.

Moreover, no one of those conservative organizations have shutting down liberal media as part of their agenda - which the website you linked to clearly has in mind.

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

The So-Called Protect America Act: Why Its Sweeping Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Pose Not Only a Civil Liberties Threat, But a Greater Danger As Well

By Buy Danish

October 10, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

Uh, make that “presidency” and “not” one…

By Apocalypse

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

IN THE NEWS,

You are a complete and utter joke. Any imbecile can hide behind a news release and not fear retaliation. You’re almost as bad as your alter ego RWBJFG.

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

Whatever. Calm down.

How dare I make a joke about Oral Roberts death? Is he dead? I don’t know? Is he? I wasn’t making a joke about his death - he’s the one who made that request years ago. I was simply wondering if his request had come to fruition.

I really don’t give a sh!t what you think about me to be perfectly honest.

Atheism/Marxism/and Stalinism aren’t religions for one thing.

I don’t represent tolerance and civility - I hate fundamentalists in all religions - I said that yesterday.

I don’t read your garbage posts anymore - and how dare YOU accuse ITN of being biased? Now THAT’s the best joke I’ve heard all day!

By Maude

October 10, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

I BD scum is pontificating on morals re Oral, Duh and Dustbrain and twin Zell are vomiting the usual. You other boys must stop picking on those freaks cuz you’ll hurt their Repub feelings. Morons don’t cum any dumber than those, but you must include RW too. What a groop of misfits. They best hope they don’t ever hiss ol Maudie off!

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

I posted an opinion piece to counter RW’s opinionated question. OH NO! What a scoundral I am!

Show me your source for this:

“”Hillary Clinton claims to have been instrumental in founding MoveOn.org and Media Matters.””

Speaking of opinion pieces….

””“That being the case, they are nothing but extensions of her campaign for the presidecy. The same cannot be said for any of the organizations you cite.”“

””“”Moreover, no one of those conservative organizations have shutting down liberal media as part of their agenda - which the website you linked to clearly has in mind.”“”

Golly gee whiz Buy Danish

do you really mean the good guys want to wipe out the bad guys!!!!

What a concept!

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

Apackohlips

Perception issues?

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

I’m pretty sure that if I sat through a soccer game with you I really would hate it by the time it finally ended. Frankly I think I’d give up golf if I had to go 18 listening to you. No offense!

I do think the sport could be improved by taking the spots off the ball though. You might see some action if everybody on the field couldn’t instantly pick up the spin and know where the ball was going.

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Private security convoys strike fear in Baghdad

By steve-o

October 10, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

I got you back, man. There are only two team sports that matter to me, soccer and football. Apocalypse, the only thing that I could suggest to you would be to take a trip to Europe and watch a match over there. You’ll understand the game better and how plays develop on the field. Also, you’ll get caught up in the excitement by the fans.

Buy Danish is twisting Bosch’s words again. (BTW, In a weird way I missed you, Buy Danish). While I agree with Bosch’s skepticism of fundamentalists, I will concede that Huckabee is the classiest candidate running among the Republicans. I agree with some of the things he says, but I am staunchly a secular, pro-choice liberal.

Last but not least, there is no war being waged against religion—just like there is no war being waged against Christmas. Liberals have no problem with religion, we just have a problem with people imposing their religion on others. That fat man in the GA governor’s office is one of the main culprits.

By Apocalypse

October 10, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

Oral Roberts represents the Christianally insane. I do not support many of his beliefs, as they are usually rooted in manipulation associated with money.

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

“I’ve enjoyed watching these fellows,” Thompson said after avoiding verbal missteps that have plagued his month-old candidacy. “I’ve got to admit it was getting a little boring without me.”

By Apocalypse

October 10, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

No war on Christianity? What do you call it when movies bleep out reference to Christ as if he were a curse word? Christian influences have have been in this country since the U.S. has been in existence. To begin to remove them(ten commandments) is a war. Heathens!

By AmVet

October 10, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

Saw some of the “highlights” from yesterday’s debate and was amused by a couple of items.

Rudy says Mitt raised taxes while he lowered them in NYC. Mitt says he lowered them in Massachusetts while Rudy raised them in the five boroughs.

Is it any wonder that the boneheads here can’t get their facts straight when these two men are such masters of spin that they can’t either?

And you know these debates are nothing but sound bites when the Republican sycophants on CNBC like Larry Kudlow complain that the candidates offered NOTHING of substance.

And let’s face it inane slogans like “stay the course” don’t work as well with middle class Americans regarding failed economic/tax policies as they do with a failed military policy thousands of miles away.

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

Jesus Facing Multiple Charges

By Apocalypse

October 10, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

steve-o,

No thanks. If leaving my family and job, not to mention the greatest country the world has ever seen is necessary to see this god forsaken sport, then they’ll have to do without ole’ Apocalypse in soccer land.

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this

RW,

I take no offense to your post about soccer or having to listen to me. I feel the same about golf. I played golf once, just once. Yawn……………..I could never play a sport where you couldn’t yell.

steve-o-

How’s it going - long time no see.

“Liberals have no problem with religion, we just have a problem with people imposing their religion on others. That fat man in the GA governor’s office is one of the main culprits.”

Bingo. I can manage my own time, thanks, can’t you?

By AmVet

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

Ahhh, the dangers of our commander-in-chief not being a TRUE fanatic. This from David Limbaugh. Yes, the brother of you know who.

But you gotta love that last paragraph and IMHO it deserves insertion into the Book of Lamentations!

{President Bush’s recent statement that all religions pray to the same God is emblematic of the inglorious triumph in our culture of pluralism and relativism, which tell us that all ideas, no matter how inconsistent, can be reconciled and that truth itself is a social construct.}

{Without getting into the question of whether Christianity is the one true religion, it is hard to understand how people, even our Christian president, can think that those who don’t believe in the Triune God of the Bible or the deity of Jesus Christ worship the same God as Christians do. The idea flatly contradicts Christ’s assertion, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” and removes any incentive to evangelize.}

{No matter what our sterile demographic statistics might tell us, it’s difficult to believe that Christian ideas and values are dominant in this nation anymore.}

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

Who says you can’t yell during golf?

Buy Danish,

Here’s the video of Hillary at the nutroots convention.

She talks about how she helped start Media Matters and Center for American Progress at about the 2:40 mark.

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

Welcome to the Freedom From Religion Foundation The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion. In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women’s right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery. The Foundation works as an umbrella for those who are free from religion and are committed to the cherished principle of separation of state and church.

By Buy Danish

October 10, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

IN THE NEWS,

You are the only poseur who by his own moniker claims to post NEWS stories while posting opinion pieces. How freaking dumb are you that you can’t see the difference?

As for your claim that my statement that Media Matters and MoveOn.org are extensions of the Hillary’s campaign is a matter of opinion - in order to buy that we would have to stipulate that Hillary was lying when she claimed to have been instrumental in founding those groups. Which is it? Is she lying or was her assertion a fact?

Bosch the Babbler,

Just as I anticipated, you are unable to provide a single example to bolster your oft-repeated claims that Fundamentalists oppress you.

As for your indignant claim that I somehow misunderstood your Oral Roberts “joke”, perhaps you should learn what it means to say that “Jesus called you home” before you use it again in the future.

{{{Last but not least, there is no war being waged against religion—just like there is no war being waged against Christmas. Liberals have no problem with religion, we just have a problem with people imposing their religion on others. That fat man in the GA governor’s office is one of the main culprits.}}}

Steve-zero,

That statement displays your ignorance both of American History and current events.

You’ll have to enlighten us as to what Governor Perdue has done to breach the wall that protects your delicate secular sensibilities.

Is it that the Bible is no longer banned in literature classes? Horrors!

By Buy Danish

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

RW,

Thanks for the convenient link!

Why, I’ll pass that right along to IN THE NEWS:

Which is is newsboy? Hillary Clinton, liar or truth teller?

Bwahahahahaha.

By AmVet

October 10, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

From Laura Ingraham:

“America’s foreign policy and military strategy should be focused on one thing — protecting America and her allies. When we fight, we must fight to win …

“If the GOP doesn’t catch on to this soon, the people will move to the more conservative members of the Democratic Party such as Virginia’s freshman Sen. (and former Reagan Republican) James Webb … a decorated Marine Corps combat veteran and former Secretary of the Navy, [he] criticized the Iraq war [because he said it has] taken ‘our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism.’”

Ya think?!!!

By Luckoduh

October 10, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

Here’s some exciting news for all you libs at Code Pinko:

{{{{Congressional Democrats have put on the back burner legislation ordering troops home from Iraq. The legislative agenda marks a dramatic shift for party leaders who vowed repeated votes to end combat and predicted Republicans would eventually join them. But with Democrats still lacking enough votes to bring troops home, the party runs the risk of concluding its first year in control of Congress with little to show for its tough anti-war rhetoric.}}}}

Nothing but an 11% approval rating.

Kowards.

By Buy Danish

October 10, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

I thought this story might interest you.

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish, I don’t recall that I’ve ever said anything about fundamentalists “oppressing” me. That’s your word, not mine.

And by the way, I can use whatever phrase I want in the future - it’s America. :-P

Twist away!

But I do believe Governor Perdue did say recently that he would veto the sale of alcohol on Sundays to teach us time management skills. Now you can argue that is not fundamentally based, and if that is the case, then you’re just being stubborn.

Be back later!

By Bosch

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

One more thought….

I wonder if raisedanidiot would say she is being oppressed by fundamentalists because she can’t marry her smokin’ hot lesbian girlfriend?

Hmmmmmmm……..I wonder?

By Buy Danish

October 10, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

Steve-o,

No war on Christmas, eh?

I bet you’re thinking that since Congress hasn’t officially declared war on Christmas it doesn’t really exist.

By Apocalypse

October 10, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

Raisedanidiot a lesbian? Just what until the next time she appears. She will surely meet her……….

By getalife

October 10, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

Here is a better story BD.

The wingnutosphere’s politics of hate laid bare

Do you hate that 12 year old boy and would post his address too?

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

Even though we discovered yesterday that you are really raisedanidiot, one would have to conclude that fundamentalists are a majority in the country if you think that they are the reason “she” can’t marry her “girlfriend.”

Which “she” could, by the way, if she just moved to my home state.

By steve-o

October 10, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

{{{Steve-zero,

That statement displays your ignorance both of American History and current events.

You’ll have to enlighten us as to what Governor Perdue has done to breach the wall that protects your delicate secular sensibilities.

Is it that the Bible is no longer banned in literature classes? Horrors!}}}

God have I missed you, Buy Danish!!!

As Bosch has stated, Gov. Perdon’t refuses to even consider lifting the ban becaues of his religion. Now mind you, man Christians such as Catholics, Episcopalians, and others have no problems with drinking.

I am far from being ignorant of American history and current events. Unlike you, I’m not gullible enough to let some windbag political commentator on the radio or Faux News whip me into a frenzy by telling half-truths about some secret war agianst Christianity and Christmas.

Apocalypse,

LOL!!! I’m holding out hope for you one day.

By jacksonwolff

October 10, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

Let me tell you about the oppression of the fundamentalists.

My partner and I have lived together for 5 years. In that time, I have watched my 2 straight brother marry, get divorce, and one is married again, the other is engaged. Yet if my partner where to have to go to the hospital, I couldn’t visit him without a permission slip, or maybe not at all. If he were to (god forbid) die, everything that we worked so hard for could be snatched away form me without the 3000.00 worth of legal paperwork that we must go through.

The question I have for all you Fundamentalists is this…

How does my marrying the person I choose affect YOUR life at all? I’m not asking about gods law (if I am sinning, which I don’t think I am, I will answer to God when I get there) I am talking about how this will PERSONALY trample your rights in some way.

By Buy Danish

October 10, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

Just the other day you went on one of your tirades, err, posted commentary about Fundamentalists.

If you have never been affected by this so-called oppression then what are you whining about?

Gay marriage is a poor example and is actually an example of the minority attempting to impose their views on the majority. Fundamentalists, and even non-religious people, are trying to preserve a basic pillar of our civilization as it has stood for thousands of years.

raiseanidiot is free to have a relationship with her lesbian girlfriend and neither of them can seriously claim to be oppressed.

I do agree about the Sunday liquor laws being idiotic though.

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish

Are you the only poseur here who drives a Danish car? (how cheesy!) How freaking dumb to YOU have to be to expect me to fall for that incredibly silly line of questioning.

(Daddy, can God make a rock so big that even he can’t pick it up?)

There most certainly is a difference between opinion and news. But don’t feign stupidity and pretend that some opinions don’t make news.

Do you know what OP-ED stands for?

Sometimes opinions are news.

General Betrayus ad….opinion that made news.

George Bush doesn’t like broccoli… opinion that makes news.

REREAD ABOVE FOR EMPHASIS

MORE NEXT POST

””“As for your claim that my statement that Media Matters and MoveOn.org are extensions of the Hillary’s campaign is a matter of opinion - in order to buy that we would have to stipulate that Hillary was lying when she claimed to have been instrumental in founding those groups. “”“

NOPE, the two don’t have jack do to with the other.

Did you not understand the whole 501 (c) (3) thing at all?

How’s this The Project for the New American Century - The Heritage Foundation - The American Enterprise Instituis an extension of the Presidential campaigns of

Her words were “that I helped start and support”. She is talking about a number of progressive sites, some of which she helped start (don’t know which myself) AND some she supports.

If you know as much about Media Matters as you seem to think, then you should be familiar with David Brock - founder of Media MAtters. Author of ” Blinded by the Right”, you might want to take a peak at that, what with Justice Angry Thomas’ new book. Very Topical.

The question is about how to interpret Senator Clintons words, but why do you spend so much time on the irrelevent? The obscure?

What happened to defending you man in the White House? What about defending this occupation?

Run short on the rhetoric du jour?

The Hillary video RW posted is the perfect example of how RW, BD and the rest of that tribe misuse the english language.

at 2:50 Hillarys says ….”I helped start and support”.

The other night here you stated Hillary “co-founded” Media Matters apparently based on this video?

What is it actually BD, is she a c

By steve-o

October 10, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

{{{No war on Christmas, eh?

I bet you’re thinking that since Congress hasn’t officially declared war on Christmas it doesn’t really exist.}}}

Buy Danish,

LOL!!! You are way too funny. There is no friggin war against Christmas. The woman from Madison (great town, great university, my alma mater) was clearly stating that schools should be careful in holding pageants dedicated to only one religion. For example, I went to grade school with a lot of Jewish kids and we always sung Hannukah songs along with Christmas carols at our holiday pageants.

If you’re intrigued by the War on Christmas subject, may I recommend to you “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” by Dr. Seuss.

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

Kerist, apparently IN THE FEVER SWAMPS doesn’t even know what OP-ED stands for

It’s a location you dunce.

By Buy Danish

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

{{{Yet if my partner where to have to go to the hospital, I couldn’t visit him without a permission slip.}}}

You know I keep hearing this, but you’ll pardon me if I believe that it is a myth, and in any case is not an argument for gay marriage.

If you give someone Power of Attorney, a very simple matter which does not require anything more than a notary to the best of my knowledge, you should be free to visit him in the hospital.

I could give you countless examples of how gay marriage would affect my life as our entire culture would be turned on its head.

For the record, my opposition to it has nothing to do with religion, but with common sense.

Indeed, I have never heard a single sermon against gay marriage.

I don’t know a single person who has any intention of “oppressing” or persecuting homosexuals. That being said, it is not equal to heterosexuality and any attempt to pretend that it is so flies in the face of that “science” you all claim that you are so devoted to when you argue that Darwinism and Global Warming are the product of science.

By jacksonwolff

October 10, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this

“Gay marriage is a poor example and is actually an example of the minority attempting to impose their views on the majority. Fundamentalists, and even non-religious people, are trying to preserve a basic pillar of our civilization as it has stood for thousands of years.”

I don’t plan on imposing anything on anyone, I just want the same treatment that every other citizen of this country gets. I am who I am and God made me the way I am. So ask again…

How does my marrying the person I choose affect YOUR life at all? I’m not asking about gods law (if I am sinning, which I don’t think I am, I will answer to God when I get there) I am talking about how this will PERSONALY trample your rights in some way?

By RE

October 10, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

Jacksonwolf has it right,

This gay marriage talk skirts around the issues by throwing morality and religion into the mix when they do not belong there.

Marriage is a legal document granted by the state. It provides legal protection, rights of survivorship and inheritence, and other rights such as visiting in a hospital. These are legal matters, not religious.

You can go to your church, get the priest, the whole congregation together and have a wedding ceremony. You are not married however until you go down to the courthouse and file the legal paperwork.

I was raised catholic and was taught to view marriage as a holy sacrament. I understand the revernece which some hold marriage and how it is tied to thier religious belief. There needs to be a deliniation betwen the church and state on this and recognize that civil union, with all the same benefits of marriage needs to be granted to same sex couples.

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

MORE FOR BD

””“As for your claim that my statement that Media Matters and MoveOn.org are extensions of the Hillary’s campaign is a matter of opinion - in order to buy that we would have to stipulate that Hillary was lying when she claimed to have been instrumental in founding those groups. “”“

You can stipulate yourself all day long for all I care.

As always you put words into your opponents mouth.

She did not say she was instrumental in founding anything in that video.

She is talking about a number of progressive sites, some of which she helped start (don’t know which myself) AND some she supports.

If you know as much about Media Matters as you seem to think, then you should be familiar with David Brock - founder of Media Matters. Author of ” Blinded by the Right”, you might want to take a peak at that, what with Justice Angry Thomas’ new book. Very Topical.

You still do not understand the whole 501 (c) (3) thing. Or is is that the truth doe not matter?

How’s this The Project for the New American Century - The Heritage Foundation - The American Enterprise Institute are all extensions of the Presidential campaigns of
Romney, Guiliani, Thompson, etc?

Is that correct?

The GOP has become the party of the fake Urban Legend.

By jacksonwolff

October 10, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

“I could give you countless examples of how gay marriage would affect my life as our entire culture would be turned on its head.”

O.K. Give me ONE, just ONE How would Culture be any diffrent than it is now? We still exist, we still have partners, and we still contribute to the common good of our “culture”

By Buy Danish

October 10, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

Steve-O,

That was just one example, sweetie.

Christmas is a federal holiday. Are you suggesting that we just whisper about what it represents, or not speak of it at all?

NEWSBOY,

Your point is? I can’t tell since your post got cut off and there were a few incomplete sentences.

David Brock is an admitted liar. In order to ascertain when he is telling the truth would require that he be permanently attached to a lie-detector.

By getalife

October 10, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

“I don’t know a single person who has any intention of “oppressing” or persecuting homosexuals”

Gawd that is ignorant.

Jerry Fartwell blamed 9/11 on homosexuals.

Geez, dumba-ss.

By RE

October 10, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this

RW,

Location?

what are you talking about?

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

I admit it.

I screwed up my posts….

too long

too much this paragraph goes here this one goes their

yes dealing with Buy Danish frustrates the hell out of me….

she just won’t get it

ever

it’s like dealing with the kids in their teenage years…. ARGGGHHHH!

it is not nearly as appropriate response

but this is REAL

BUY DANISH - BUGGER OFF!

(that felt good!)

By Buy Danish

October 10, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this

jacksonwolff,

Everything isn’t about “trampling on rights”. It’s about redefining basic tenets of civilization which we have observed for thousands of years.

Just because God made you a certain way (stipulating that that is true) does not mean that it is what it isn’t.

By Buy Danish

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

getalife,

I did not know Jerry Falwell. I do not agree with that statement and I personally do not know a single person who does.

jacksonwolff,

One example: Sex education.

By getalife

October 10, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this

Why was Rudy booed at Yankee stadium when he is a so called hero of 9/11?

By steve-o

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

{{{Steve-O,

That was just one example, sweetie.

Christmas is a federal holiday. Are you suggesting that we just whisper about what it represents, or not speak of it at all?}}}

Not at all. As the woman said in the link that you posted, nobody has ever been successfully sued over saying “Merry Christmas”.

By Buy Danish

October 10, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

Newsboy,

Bugger off?

Tsk Tsk. If you lived in England the thought police, uh, police, just might decide that that deserves 7 years in jail.

It’s all open to interpretation of course, but one never knows nowadays. It all depends on who is doing the interpreting I guess.

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

RE,

OP-ED is Opposite-Editorial which signifies it’s location in the paper.

By Buy Danish

October 10, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

{{{nobody has ever been successfully sued over saying “Merry Christmas”.}}

steve-0,

That’s not the point, dumbass. It’s about stripping our culture of its heritage and traditions, and at attempts to accomplish that through censorship.

Why is it that this country is the only country which isn’t permitted to maintain its culture?

Gosh, if we were, say, some tribe in the jungles of New Guinea we would never hear the end of how wonderful and precious and charming our culture was and how we had to preserve it.

Gotta run folks. Later maybe.

By jacksonwolff

October 10, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

and I am not talking about “redefining basic tenents of civilization” I would be just as happy with Civil Unions as long as I can get the same “equal protection under the law” as everyone else.

By RE

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

Ohh goodness.

OK no insults today. Too Early

OP-ED

OPinion-EDitorial

It is a section of the paper where the Opinion columists, such as maureen dowd, Bill Orielly, Ann COulter etc. have thier columns along with the Editorial section, which is usually 2 or three columns written by the editorial staff of the paper. The editorial section provides the view of the paper, wheras the opinion section provides views not specifially endorsed by the paper.

See, I did that nicely.

By RW-(the original)

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

jacksonwolff,

For all the arguments to be made for or against gay marriage or civil unions that equal protection one is the weakest of the weak.

You have exactly the same right to marry a woman that I do, so if I were you I’d stick to better arguments.

RE,

You said that people could get everyone together in Church and have a ceremony, but wouldn’t be married until they went to file the proper paperwork with the state.

So far so good, but then you said we needed to find some delineation between state and church marriage which you had just pointed out we already have.

By raisedanidiot

October 10, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

okay people…i’m back…and let me say i appreciate the compliment of being confused with bosch…i greatly respect bosch as one of the more level-headed bloggers here…along with amvet, ITN, Paul and Steve-o…I assure you however that i am one person only…no mpd here…am a little bipolar tho…who is’nt these days? As far as the fundie oppressors…i could tell you stories that would make your teeth curl…my ex had a girlfriend that was kidnapped and taken to one of those de-gay places…my personal story is just that…personal…my court case was very public however, and with too much info one could deduce my identity…i will say this however…i have been oppressed by bigger nutjobs than oral throughout the course of my life …it is WRONG for anyone of ANY religion to impose their beliefs on another…bi danish, you are free to marry whomever you deem fit…the rest of us could’nt give a happy rats azz…why do you?

By jacksonwolff

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

and as for sex-ed, how is telling kids that a reality exists and then the possibility of differing theories going to change your life? If you talk to your kids about morality the way you see it (any responsible parent should) then sex-ed is no big deal.

By IN THE NEWS

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

War News for Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Other Provinces here

By jacksonwolff

October 10, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this

RW- you mean do the whole larry craig thing? I think not, it took me a long time to accept who I am, and there is no way I will go back. and it may or may not be a weak claim, but so is the whole “pillar of civilization argument”

the fact is that the arguments against gay marriage and civil unions are RELIGOUS in nature. most TRUE conservatives want to get the government out of our lives.

By Is it just me or....

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

now that Doom’s gone, where’s Paul?

By RE

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

RW,

The point was that church values of marriage have been imported into the state instrument called a marriage certificate. The state should not take the religous based considerations into a secular state document.

But to be fair, I think this is constitutionaly a states rights issue, congess or the executive should not be involved except in the case of having the marriage in one state be recognized by another, interstate commerce clause.

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

RE,

It really is Opposite-Editorial. You can look it up you know.

It was even a Who Wants To Be a Millionaire question.

By getalife

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

BD,

GFY (good for you).

There is hope for you.

Last night on Boston Legal they discussed sex ed. Abstinence vs condoms.

The show uses the wingnut position and the liberal position with the liberal position always winning.

By RW-(the original)

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

Oh, but you did get your little description right. Very good RE!

You see those editorial views of the paper is on one page and the opinions of others are on the page Opposite the Editorial page. How was that?

By Luckoduh

October 10, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

{{{{By jacksonwolff October 10, 2007 2:41 PM and I am not talking about “redefining basic tenents of civilization” I would be just as happy with Civil Unions as long as I can get the same “equal protection under the law” as everyone else.}}}}

jackonwolf: So what’s the next freakshow after homosexual marriage, will it be civil unions for you and your ewe?

Or maybe you liberal sheep will take up household with the sheep.

I see you perverts angling for just that, some weirdo was just recently trying to define the meaning of “consent” with farm animals, will you sickos stop at nothing in your quest for the fountain of depravity?

And check this out for bizarre, at the same time the pinkos are pushing for this degeneracy, they got the nerve to ridicule Craig for practicing the same exact disgusting behavior.

Moron.

(Hey RE, it’s never to early for insults.)

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

Wow - I step out for a minute and now there’s a war on Christmas and what else oppression of the fundamentalists. ER?

Buy Danish, I don’t use the word “oppression” in my daily lexicon. That’s a word for a drama queen such as yourself.

Yes, I have personally been affected by fundamentalists, but I’m not going to elaborate on my personal experiences - some are just too hard to talk about - sniff, sniff (ha ha, you know I love to tell stories).

And I totally disagree with you about gay marriage being a bad example to show how fundamentalists are trying to impose their beliefs on our society.

Yes, those who oppose gay marriage are the majority, but, in my opinion (see, RW) their basis for opposing it are based on their religious beliefs. In 50 years, I not only think gay marriage will be legal, but we will look back and say, “Can you believe we were that stupid?”

Personally, I can’t believe that someone has not challenged the ban on gay marriage based on the 1964 Civil Rights Act - that’s how sexual harrassment laws came about, why not argue it for the case of allowing gay marriage?

Oh and RW, no, raisedanidiot and I are not the same - ha ha! I don’t have a smokin’ hot lesbian girlfriend - the other Bosch is smokin’ hot, but not a lesbian.

What is the wingnut obsession with their need for us moonbats to be other people? The other day, @@ was trying to make me Midori. I think it just terrifies them that there are so many of us moonbats out there. BOOOOO!!!!!

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this

jacksonwolff,

I only said the argument that you have a marriage or civil union right because of the equal protection clause is a weak one because you have the exact same right as everybody else.

I know it’s your knee jerk reaction to attack me, but I tend to be on your side of this argument and you weaken your case by making a very poor argument.

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this

Raisedanidiot - (sniff sniff) I love you too!

How’s the store? Did you ever sell that big giant stuffed gator?

By Bosch

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

Yeah - where is Paul? Did Doom kidnap him?

By RE

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

Glad I did not insult you

Apparently it can be used for either

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

RE,

That last paragraph where you say it’s states rights, but has to be recognized by all other states, brings us back to the debate over an Amendment to the Constitution.

Frankly I don’t support an amendment that defines marriage, but I do support an amendment that keeps marriages from being contractually recognized between states based on full faith and credit or interstate commerce clauses.

What you outlined eliminates states rights under the guise of supporting them.

By Luckoduh

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

{{{{By DIM THE NEWS October 10, 2007 2:56 PM War News for Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1: U.S. forces killed nine suspected insurgents and detained 21 others during operations targeting al Qaeda networks in Baghdad, Mahmudiya, Mosul, Baiji and Samarra on Monday and Tuesday, the U.S. military said. 6: Iraqi soldiers killed 41 suspected insurgents and wounded 89 others during the past 24 hours in different areas of Iraq, the Defence Ministry said.}}}}

Thanks for the great news from Iraq, prop!

Less and less al Qaeda every day.

You da man.

By Is it just me or....

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

could mild mannered Paul actually have been Doom?

By getalife

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

Paul is RW.

Geez, if they did not break the law, why does w want immunity?

By raisedanidiot

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

jacksonwolff…good posting…Bi danish along with most neocons cant tolerate change…what they fail to recognize is that our culture unlike most is made up of a great melting pot of cultures…all of which have contained homosexuals…it would be turning pur society on its ear if we were to alter our constitution to effectively make gay marriage illegal…making it legal would simply be following the course of time…we will always be here and it is inevitable that we will one day be recognized as mainstream…in other words bd, we’re here, we’re queer…get used to it!

By RW-(the original)

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

Isn’t it funny that the one option that claims it stands for Opinion-Editorial defines it as OPossite-EDitorial.

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

{{{{all of which have contained homosexuals}}}}}

Except Iran, didn’t you listen to Ahmawhackjob at Columbia?

By georgia 74

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

Buy Danish is such an idiot.

By RE

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

RW

To go back to your equal protection arguement, the marriage not granted to a gay couple in georgia would be fully recognized as a not married couple in Hawaii.

It is up to the state to decide what to allow, but whatever weight is given to a state license in one state must be equally enforced in others, not selectively enforced. In your scenario, a straight couple married in Hawaii would not be considered married in georgia, same as a gay couple married in Hawaii would not be recognized in georgia.

By RW-(the original)

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

How do you Darwiniacs feel about raisedanidiot’s conclusion that homosexuals will ALWAYS be here?

Doesn’t that basically fly in the face of your precious theory?

By getalife

October 10, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

Obviously, you didn’t RW.

He said there were not as many in Iran.

By raisedanidiot

October 10, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

bosch…i think u r the bomb too, dude man!…on my phone now…can u tell?…the store is doing great…havent sold my gator yet though…he looks so cute standing there holding my buss. cards i hate to sell him…i did buy a house though…just about a hundred yards from the cabin i’ve been living in…its awesome…with cypress walls!…cant wait to move in

By RW-(the original)

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

getalife,

Would you care to provide a transcript where he said “not as many?”

He did say at a dinner later that night that if there were any in Iran he would like their addresses so he could “study” them.

I guess study is Persian for stoning to death.

By jacksonwolff

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

RW I had on intent of attack, I was just strongly stating that I won’t accept myself as anything but what I am, the way god made me. as for Darwin, I will leave that up to people better versed in that subject. I am more conserned with right here, right now.

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

Your welcome Duh.

I post ‘em as I sees ‘em.

By raisedanidiot

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

rw..the original idiot…homosexuals have walked this earth as long as heteros have…we will walk for as long too…that is unless you neocons dont start digressing and grow tails again…hey, BD, better check your azz for scales

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

jacksonwolff,

How is telling you to use a better argument tantamount to telling you to live a lie?

RE,

I’m not just painting some pick or choose scenario. Why do you think I said it would likely take an amendment to the Constitution and in my alternative amendment I didn’t single out gay marriage?

However licenses from one state are not necessarily recognized by others in all cases. For instance a law license in Georgia does not automatically allow you to practice in Hawaii.

By jacksonwolff

October 10, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

I have to agree with RW on the persian Nepolian. I believe the quote is that “This anomily of homosexuality dose not exist in IRAN” I may be off just a bit, but you get the idea. He sees being gay as an “anomily”

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this

RW, Haven’t homosexuals always been here?

Aren’t there gay penguins? I remember reading that somewhere, although I certainly don’t believe everything I read.

My two male cats sure like to sniff each other’s booties - does that mean they are gay?

By getalife

October 10, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this

RW,

Nope, google it.

By steve-o

October 10, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this

{{{By Buy Danish

October 10, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

steve-0,

That’s not the point, dumbass. It’s about stripping our culture of its heritage and traditions, and at attempts to accomplish that through censorship.

Why is it that this country is the only country which isn’t permitted to maintain its culture?}}}

Buy Danish,

(sigh…face———->palm)

Not only is our culture maintained, but the whole friggin world is aware of it as well. Christmas is not being censored; and if it is, I’m sure Disney will soon make a movie with a cute little 7-year-old protagonist reminding us grumpy grownups why we should have Christmas cheer.

jacksonwolff,

You know there’s no rational argument against gay marriage. I know there’s no rational argument against gay marriage. Any rational human being knows there’s no rational argument against gay marriage. Don’t waste your energy on trying to convince the narrow minded. You would have an easier time convincing W that the war in Iraq is a mistake.

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this

raisedanidiot,

The central theory of Darwin is that a species will reproduce itself in a better and better model until it ultimately may evolve into an entirely different species and constantly sheds itself of imperfection as it reproduces, so homosexuality would evolve out of the species. But it relies wholly on reproduction.

Now once again you lash out at me, but I’m on your side. I think Darwin is a lot of hooey and I do believe that homosexuals have been with us all along and will be until the end of time.

By Right-wing nut job in full glory

October 10, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this

From the Smoking Gun:

OCTOBER 8—An Alabama minister who died in June of “accidental mechanical asphyxia” was found hogtied and wearing two complete wet suits, including a face mask, diving gloves and slippers, rubberized underwear, and a head mask, according to an autopsy report. Investigators determined that Rev. Gary Aldridge’s death was not caused by foul play and that the 41-year-old pastor of Montgomery’s Thorington Road Baptist Church was alone in his home at the time he died (while apparently in the midst of some autoerotic undertaking). While the Montgomery Advertiser, which first obtained the autopsy records, reported on Aldridge’s two wet suits, the family newspaper chose not to mention what police discovered inside the minister’s rubber briefs (a dildo w/ condom in his anus). Aldridge served as the church’s pastor for 16 years. Immediately following his death, church officials issued a press release asking community members to “please refrain from speculation” about what led to Aldridge’s demise, adding that, “we will begin the healing process under the strong arm of our Savior, Jesus Christ.”

It certainly is no surprise that such depraved behavior would be happening in the bastion of liberalism that is Montgomery, AL also know as “Berkeley South.” These sorts of sexual deviancies can be cured though if one spends time in church and in the study of the Gospel. If this story tells us anything it is that we conservative Christians are the only moral savior for this nation and that if we let these liberal cess pools like Montgomery continue in their perversions we will surely all perish.

By RE

October 10, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this

You can’t really compare a law license to a marriage license.

Most professional positions,such as attorney, doctor, builder, contractor… etc have a state agency they must register with before practicing thier trade.

Not really the case with a marriage license, that is sort of like saying a birth certificate would not be allowed across state lines.

But I would like to thank you for recognizing that it would take a constitutional amendment to ban the recognition of those licenses.

By jacksonwolff

October 10, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

RW, if your intent was to get a better argument and not to change, that I can understand, there are better arguments than the one I put up, but I am not the person to make them. That having been said, the argument for discriminating AGAINST alowing civil unions is equaly as week.

Slavery was a “pillar of civilization” for thousands of years, but we finaly realized it to be what it was (denying someone else their rights) and ended it.

By AmVet

October 10, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this

raisedanidiot, I agree with your assessment about neo-cons in many, many cases, essentially being reactionaries - of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, esp. extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.

Yesterday I saw a bit of Lynne Cheney’s interview with Larry King, and she was absolutely gushing about the “good old days” in Casper.

As a native Midwesterner, I know full well this lure of pining for the past. And though I am quite traditional in some ways, I just don’t see how these backwards people can have it both ways.

They can recite all of the great things about the past and all of the new ills that we now unquestionably face. And I agree there were and are many. But they also refuse to either a) mention the horrible stuff that was “normal” back then or b) all of the things that have been bettered by a modern society since then. And there were and are many.

Therefore their argument is predictably one-sided and extremely weak.

For example:

Were children safer then? Of course. Unless they were black children in a white town.

Were women respected then? Of course. Provided they didn’t open their mouths to share their opinions too often.

The reality is that the world, including this nation, it’s culture and it’s inhabitants EVOLVE over time and that really p!sses off this “I wish it was still the fifties”, Father Knows Best crowd.

ESPECIALLY here in the Deep South where intolerance, bordering on sociopathy, and covert bigotry is very alive and well as evidenced daily by the worst on this blog.

By @@

October 10, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this

I didn’t watch the debate last night but I’m still waiting on Fred to light the match.

I do recall Fred saying that we need to slow this political machine down. We’re buying too much too fast. I agree.

All the media outlets are giving their reviews on Fred’s performance -“He lacked ‘fire in the belly’ but sparked towards the end.”

My solution? Turn on the firehoses to put out the fires and get Fred rollin’.

Bosch:

I don’t recall saying that you might be Midori. Unless of course, you were posting under another name at the time. Now that’s a probability.

If you’re a lesbian, why not admit it?

On the demand for same-sex marriage. I’m kinda with Andy on this one. Historically, the left has never settled for just a little, they always want a lot more.

If same-sex “marriage” were legislated, then how long would it be before gay couples were demanding that churches go against their own doctrine to perform the ceremonies?

I’m just asking…I’m curious that way.

They’re already pushing the churches on the issue. IMO it doesn’t serve their cause well. It alienates it.

By RW-(the original)

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

{{{{That having been said, the argument for discriminating AGAINST alowing civil unions is equaly as week.}}}}}

jacksonwolff,

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying there.

RE,

That’s so sweet of you to thank me for recognizing that. Too bad you didn’t notice it the first time I said it. You could have saved your fingertips a lot of pointless keystroking.

By jacksonwolff

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

OK@@-

We push from WITHIN our OWN churches for the same respect that others get. and, no, we don’t want the Southern Baptist Convention to change their ways (that would be a big fat absolute waste of time)

We all know that the Fedral Gov cant force a church to perform a marrige, nor would I want them to. The establishment clause and the bill of rights prevent that, and God knows we don’t want those messed with.

And as I said before, call it whatever you want as long as my relationship has the same rights, protections, and responsibilities as my brothers do.

By AmVet

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

raisedanidiot, I agree with your assessment about neo-cons in many, many cases, essentially being reactionaries - of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, esp. extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.

Yesterday I saw a bit of Lynne Cheney’s interview with Larry King, and she was absolutely gushing about the “good old days” in Casper.

As a native Midwesterner, I know full well this lure of pining for the past. And though I am quite traditional in some ways, I just don’t see how these backwards people can have it both ways.

They can recite all of the great things about the past and all of the new ills that we now unquestionably face. And I agree there were and are many.

But they also refuse to either a)mention the horrible stuff that was “normal” back then or b)all of the things that have been bettered by a modern society since then. And there were and are many.

Therefore their argument is predictably one-sided and extremely weak.

For example:

Were children safer then? Of course. Unless they were black children in a white town.

Were women respected then? Of course. Provided they didn’t open their mouths to share their opinions too often.

The reality is that the world, including this nation, it’s culture and it’s inhabitants EVOLVE over time and that really p!sses off this “I wish it was still the fifties” crowd.

ESPECIALLY here in the Deep South where intolerance, bordering on sociopathy, covert bigotry and a complete aversion (hatred for?) to scientific knowledge is very alive and well as evidenced daily by the worst on this blog.

Very fortunately, they represent an ever dwindling minority.

By RE

October 10, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this

@@

Oh the horror. A gay person in Church!

You do understand that the government is seperate from the church, I know the last couple years have made it hard to tell, but the government is a secular institution.

the church is a private institution, and can decide on it’s own which members to admit and which to deny.

You have an interesting arguement there, “stop asking to be treated equally, it will make people resent you”

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 4:24 PM | Link to this

@@, I could have been mistaken about you thinking I was Midori. I don’t know, I don’t feel like searching the Archives.

I’m sorry if I mis spoke -

IMO, some church doctrine is open to interpretation, just like secular laws. I think Christian churches alienate themselves when they exclude people - after all, Jesus Christ excluded no one.

By raisedanidiot

October 10, 2007 4:24 PM | Link to this

rw…homosexuality is not a species, but a social trait… amvet…eloquently put…glad to see u back…have fun in the sun? boobs…thats why seperation of church n state is so important, would’nt u agree?

By IN THE NEWS

October 10, 2007 4:24 PM | Link to this

House Judiciary passes RESTORE Act. In 20-14 vote today, the House Judiciary Committee passed the RESTORE Act, which seeks to update the hastily-passed Protect America Act and restore a balance between civil liberties and security. Upon the passage of the bill, Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) said in a statement that the bill gives “the Director of National Intelligence everything he said he needed” while still protecting the “vital rights of Americans“:

Those who oppose this bill are doing so for one reason: they are trying to convince Americans that those of us who support this legislation are somehow less committed to protecting this country from attack. They will pretend this bill doesn’t meet our nation’s security needs, despite the fact that it gives the Director of National Intelligence everything he said he needed.

“Americans are willing to make sacrifices to meet true national security imperatives, but they should not give up their rights unnecessarily, just to allow one political party to score points. This bill–the RESTORE Act–successfully provides the national security tools needed to go after terrorists and protects vital rights of Americans. The bill’s opponents know this but find it more convenient to pretend otherwise.

An amendment offered by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA), which would have given immunity to telecoms, was defeated 14-21.

By jacksonwolff

October 10, 2007 4:24 PM | Link to this

Sorry RW, I will restate

The argument against alowing civil unions is just as weak.

It is based either on “basic tenents of civilization”, so were slavery and anti-masogany(sp?) laws.

Or on Religous grounds, thus violating the establishment claus.

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

RE, I’ll bet you there are more gay people in any given Baptist church than my Episcopal church - anyday

:-)

By RE

October 10, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this

RW,

It is nice to see someone who has a grasp of the constitution.

It kinda made me nervous watching the GOP debate yesterday when it came to the question of would you bomb Iran without congressional approval. No one except Ron Paul remembered that the president does need to go to congress for authorization prior to a military strike.

Pesky constitution, so quaint

By @@

October 10, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this

Jacksonwolff:

You’ll be hard pressed to find where I have opposed “civil unions”. To the contrary, I say take ‘em and move on.

RE:

I was talking about “the cause”, not the individuals.

The secularists seem to be fixated on the church. It’s their preferred target so why wouldn’t I be concerned? I’ve certainly been conditioned by them to respond.

I prefer to avoid the unintended consequences whenever possible.

I didn’t know you were an atheist. No problems from me.

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this

jacksonwolff,

Thanks for restating that I was getting dizzy over the first wording. I don’t think the legal argument against civil unions is as weak as an equal protection argument the other way.

The legal argument against is that a state has a right to make it’s own laws based on the views of it’s citizens so long as those laws don’t run afoul of Constitutionally protected rights. Therefore until you can come up with a valid legal argument that you’ve had your rights as a citizen violated it’s a perfectly sound legal argument for a state to make.

A better way might be to to try the time honored method of persuading your fellow citizens that you’re right and getting the laws and/or lawmakers changed accordingly. As it is now we have stunts like a gay couple trying to get divorced in Rhode Island where their marriage isn’t recognized so that they can take that divorce ruling as evidence that the state in fact did recognize the marriage by default.

Change takes time and worthwhile change takes effort not trickery.

By RE

October 10, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

Is there any correlation between the number of bathroom stalls in an episcopal church and those in a baptist?

Here would be an interesting topic of study, who has more gay clergy members; episcopal, baptist, methodist and catholic.

My money is on the catholics.

By @@

October 10, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this

Bosch:

(((I think Christian churches alienate themselves when they exclude people - after all, Jesus Christ excluded no one.)))

I’ll have to share that with the gay couple who attended our church. The couple whose ceremony was performed by our minister IN THEIR HOME but not the sanctuary.

They respected our doctrine and we respected their union.

Stop using the broad brush Bosch. You know not of what you speak in all cases.

By RW-(the original)

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

raisedanidiot,

I think stillanidiot fits much better. Where did I make the claim that homosexuals are a species unto themselves?

By Buy Danish

October 10, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this

raiseanidiot,

By definition, a melting pot assumes assimilation into the existing culture. I think you are confusing “diversity” with “melting pot”.

{{{How all of which have contained homosexuals}}}

So what?

{{{it would be turning pur society on its ear if we were to alter our constitution to effectively make gay marriage illegal}}}

That’s backasswards logic for you. One group aims to preserve deeply embedded societal traditions held for thousands of years, the other wants to change it. Guess which one is which.

Bosch,

As RW pointed out, we are all free to marry someone of the opposite sex. How is the 1964 Civil Rights act violated?

By Luckoduh

October 10, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this

{{{{By raisedanidiot October 10, 2007 3:50 PM rw..the original idiot…homosexuals have walked this earth as long as heteros have}}}}

{{{{By AmVet October 10, 2007 4:20 PM ESPECIALLY here in the Deep South where intolerance, bordering on sociopathy, covert bigotry and a complete aversion (hatred for?) to scientific knowledge is very alive and well as evidenced daily by the worst on this blog.}}}}

Incest has been around quite a while too, do you pinkos think that would be a “scientific advance” if we were to mainstream it?

How about bestiality, Amvet, you gonna step up to the plate for them, Mr. Tolerance?

Moron.

Personally, I could care less what you freakshow MFs do in your bedroom, get the F out of the faces of our children with it, selfish immature POS.

Sickos.

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

RE,

Hmmmmm……..I don’t know? Interesting [as I scratch my chin in a Sherlock Holmes fashion]. There’s only one stall in all the bathrooms in my church.

The gay couples in my church don’t need the stalls to pick up other gay men, they just live together — and all have fabulous parties, I might add.

In the study, closet gay? openly gay? Oh duh! There are no openly gay Baptist, Methodists, or Catholics! My bad.

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this

RE,

I bet you had all sorts of trouble with Barack Obama’s plan for Pakistan or Hillary Clinton saying that sometimes you just needed to go to war without the UN or Congress. /sarc

By @@

October 10, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this

Another thing RE and Bosch.

I think this exchange was going just fine. Then RE comes in deriding gays AND the church with his silly “Which church has more bathroom stalls?” while Bosch claims his church is THE BESTEST church.

See, never fails…..give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.

(((Change takes time and worthwhile change takes effort not trickery.)))

I agree. As my minister, the brit once said. “Change is better grounded through evolution than through revolution.

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

@@, Good for your minister - that makes me proud of your church.

Say this five times really, really fast:

“broad brush Bosch” “broad brush Bosch” “broad brush Bosch” “broad brush Bosch” “broad brush Bosch”

Hell, that’s even hard to type!

By Politics Athwart

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

Can we mention the Catholic church without referencing homosexuality please?

Thank you.

I’m a catholic, you know. And I dont appreciate the abuse being laid upon my christ. Have a nice day.

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century~!

October 10, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this

-=-

Lets make it simple —

Marriage is an institution of the Church. And that is usually limited between a man and a woman by church doctrine.

A marriage liscence is a tool of the government and thus should be made equally accessable to ALL people.

The issue is the marriage liscence not church doctrine as the church is granted immunity clearly by the Constitution. This is as it should be.

Therefore the change MUST be made in the Marriage Liscence as a document and tool that allows special tax breaks and privledges for medical and other needs in our society.

My first thoughts are to either get rid of the “Marriage Liscence” and all laws pertaining to it forever,

-= or =-

Convert the liscence to no longer say “Marriage Liscence” but instead make it a document for all partnerships relationships and make the laws that relate to it equally applied to all - no matter who is thus partnered.

Cheers -

Thomas

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this

@@,

Where did I claim my church is the BESTEST?

Until later!

By Buy Danish

October 10, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

I found your rant from the other day.

{{{By Bosch

October 9, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

Ha ha ha! Anything that makes the religious fanatics in this country scream is alright with me.

Yes, @@, I read your late post last night - everybody has their prejudices, even if they don’t want to admit it, and mine just happens to be fundamentalists. Don’t care for them - hell, don’t even want them in the same room with me.

They are ruining our world.

Anyone who thinks their religion is worth taking the life of another human being, I don’t care too much for them.

Anyone who thinks that their religion is the one true religion, I don’t care too much for them either.

Anyone who uses fear and oppression to promote their religion, I don’t care too much for them either.}}}

By RE

October 10, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this

@@

secularists are one catagory.

Gay people are another.

I am pretty distrustful of orginized religion, and as an athiest, there is a fairly open hatred by a cross section of religion for athiests. For some, athiests rank right up there with child molestors and satanists.

Athiests are the most hated minority in the US

Not complaining though, but man, to be more distrusted than muslims! And gays. To be fair, they did not do combinations, so a gay muslim or black gay muslim might be more distrusted than me as an athiest. So it does bug me a little to hear about the torments and oppresion of christians spouted out here on a daily basis by folks like buy danish.

By @@

October 10, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this

Bosch:

(((In the study, closet gay? openly gay? Oh duh! There are no openly gay Baptist, Methodists, or Catholics! My bad.)))

Wrong again! I’m Methodist. My minister from 13 years past came out and admitted he was gay. A married man with two children.

He receives ongoing health insurance from the Methodist church council.

He has AIDS and is dying.

By AmVet

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

One other observation about yesterday’s GOP debate on the economy.

From the both sides of one’s mouth category:

Fred Thompson dutifully said that this Republican White House is spending money so quickly that we do so at the peril of future generations. (slightly paraphrased).

(I wonder if he read the memo that they inherited a huge surplus and managed to in, just six years, create a greater deficit than the previous 42 administrations combined. COMBINED!)

Then practically the very next thing out of his mouth comes, “And we’ve got to fix the bridges and roads in this country’!

With what? The war dividend maybe? Or perhaps we’ll leave it up to that trickle down theory!

Pablum, pure and simple, for the brain dead faithful.

Very difficult choices cannot be entrusted to men who can’t even articulate what they EXACTLTY want to do to solve the problems.

Look at this current administration for proof that incompetence and desperate OJT are not good alternatives.

By Dusty

October 10, 2007 5:07 PM | Link to this

Never have I read so many uninformed people making claims about places and institutions of which they are totally ignorant..

Atheists want to tell us how churches are run.

Episcopalians want to tell us how BAD those Baptists are.

Others want to tell us about the myriads of people kicked out of churches but they themselves don’t KNOW of anybody.

Then there’s the “pushing religion down my throat” crowd when someone even mentions faith. OH OH oh someone said a prayer before a ball game. Someone expressed their beliefs(free speech). Someone preached on TV. Someone expressed the standards they hold for their own behavior.

Liberals seem to base their behavior on what makes them happy. If that doesn’t happen, then the claim is made that “someone” is interfering with their lives. That “someone” is usually in the context of faith, ethics, laws, standards and ..yes.. patriotism, all the things that liberals don’t want to be bothered with.

I wish you happiness, libs. I hope you will find it without wrecking our country.

By RW-(the original)

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

RE,

Obviously the problem is that you atheists don’t have a good lobbying organization.

How about A Council to Restore Atheist Pride. CRAP if you will.

On another note, is there anything our Universities won’t mindlessly venture into to keep from actually teaching something?

By the way, I don’t think your study says anything about hatred. The two questions are “which group least agrees with you” and the second is “which group would you prefer not joining your family through marriage.” The first is perfectly reasonable and the second shows a trace of bigotry, but if you had asked which group do you find most dangerous you would probably have a different answer.

By AmVet

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

RE, funny stuff on black gay Muslims!

That may well be the very definition of three strikes and you’re out!

Hypothetical scenario:

Candidate A is a very experienced and has a broad array of success in numerous fields of endeavor and is viewed as a true leader. He is an atheist.

Candidate B is relatively inexperienced and has a narrower array of minor successes and numerous outright failures in several fields of endeavor and is viewed as a bit of a mental lightweight. He says God talks to him directly. (think GWB).

Both are running for President of the United States of America.

How big is the landslide for candidate B?

Bosch, it strikes me as odd, that those here who pose as the most devout are virtually without exception filled with hate and regularly display the polar opposite of the Beatitudes.

Andy of many names, in spite of his professed love for his blessed savior, is of course, the ultimate poster boy of religious frauds and PERFECTLY displays why so many now are so utterly distrustful of these charades.

Just as they drive people away from their politics and demented world view, they drive them away in HORDES from their mythology/religion.

By Politics Athwart

October 10, 2007 5:20 PM | Link to this

But dusty, I’m a liberal. Surely you dont mean me.

You rock dusty, we love you!!!

By getalife

October 10, 2007 5:21 PM | Link to this

Ah, the fraud calling someone ignorant.

That is rich.

Your ilk has wrecked the country.

Like this, w wants immunity for telecom companies that helped him break the law.

“Liberty and justice for all”, not anymore. Torture, yes they do.

He is worse than Nixon and you cheer him on.

Talk about ignorant.

Geez.

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 5:23 PM | Link to this

Of course what Bush really inherited was an economy in recession, a gutted military, and a completely dysfunctional intelligence apparatus.

Those visions of surplus as far as the eye can see shows some eyes in desperate need of Lasik surgery.

By RE

October 10, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

Nice edit:

the first question was;

This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society…

Goes back to the whole atheists are unpatriotic and trying to bring down society thing.

The second question was;

I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group….

That is pretty biased. I can understand it though. Families have thier own standards, and are often without any good reason.

Here is another, non university study, people just hate them atheists

Guess I am not going to run for elected office any time soon.

By AmVet

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

And of course what Bush will leave to his successor is an economy astronomically in debt, a military so stretched to the point of breaking that it will take many years to recover, countless thousands of widows and orphans and a nation that has lost its prestige and credibility at home and abroad.

Not to mention that little clusterf@ck in the Middle East.

Great job neo-cons. And all in eight short years!

But fortunately the clock is going to toll midnight soon and you will once again turn back into pumpkins and mice.

Off to go make money to pay for the above mentioned clusterf@ck!

Later!

By @@

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

Bosch:

(((Where did I claim my church is the BESTEST?)))

Hows this….

(((I’ll bet you there are more gay people in any given Baptist church than my Episcopal church.)))

I guess that’s just your little way of being funny. It is rather revealing that you think having less gays is better. Assuming that’s what you meant.

RE:

I’d be willing to bet that opinions of atheists would change if that small element within the group would quit insisting that any mention of a deity in public be abolished.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Good grief. If one atheist parent has one child in a school of 3,000, the atheist parent protests any mention of God…any moments of silence…any free assembly of Christian Athletes.

Are atheists a majority or a minority. Majority rules….simple.

By getalife

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

RW,

I would say you are blind to w’s failures and surgery will not help:

Leak Severed a Link to Al-Qaeda’s Secrets Firm Says Administration’s Handling of Video Ruined Its Spying Efforts

Geez.

By Buy Danish

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

{{{By steve-o October 10, 2007 3:59 PM | Christmas is not being censored}}}

Really? Why is it that a creche can no longer appear in the public square, or that Christmas hymns like Silent Night can no longer be heard in public schools, including their instrumental version?

Here is how the words of private citizens are being censored:

The Larochelles also requested a certificate be inscribed with: “In honor of my grandfather Marcel Larochelle, and his dedication and love of God, country, and family. September 30, 2007.” Mr. Larochelle’s son planned to present the flag and certificate to his grandfather, an Army veteran, this weekend after his Eagle Scout Ceremony. However, when the flag and certificate were returned to my office, the word “God” had been censored by the AOC’s office.

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 5:45 PM | Link to this

RE,

Why are you so invested in trying to portray yourself as hated? Is there a little self-loathing going on, as Bill Clinton might ask?

Here if it helps you any.

Everybody,

Please quit hatin’ on poor, poor pitiful RE. Thanks!

By RE

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

“Are atheists a majority or a minority. Majority rules….simple”

Nice justification for bias.

I can tell you from personal experience, when religion comes up, I try to change the subject. Nothing quite as annoying as someone determined to save my soul, and then gets all offended when I tell them why I don’t believe. That idea of a person protesting in a school of 3000 is nuts. You are assuming every athiest would protest, which you know to be false.

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 5:48 PM | Link to this

Another Huge/Amwet lie debunked

By Luckoduh

October 10, 2007 5:49 PM | Link to this

{{{{By AmVet October 10, 2007 5:18 PM Andy of many names, in spite of his professed love for his blessed savior, is of course, the ultimate poster boy of religious frauds and PERFECTLY displays why so many now are so utterly distrustful of these charades.}}}}

Oh, great, so by me refusing to mock the Lord and worship the flesh instead of His Word, I am causing the heretics to reject religion, hahaha, yeah, that’s nice.

You’re just full of, uh, excuses, aren’t you, Amvet?

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 5:55 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Get out of the swamps man! Study, learn!

@@,

I would really watch out for that majority rules thing. The left has been trying for years to get a majority of this country dependent on government and once they do it’s over for the freedom lovers among us.

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 5:55 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish, And your point is?

Oh, and I made that up about the Civil Rights Amendment. I’ll give you that.

@@, I’m sorry, but no where in that comment do I claim my church to be the best. No, I don’t think having less gays is better. There are several gay and lesbian members in my church, we don’t exclude people based on, well, anything. They are able to be honest with who they are instead of having to hide behind intolerance and bigotry. The USA Episcopal Church is being torn apart because of this issue. No, I don’t think that’s better.

Sorry about your minister.

By Buy Danish

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

{{{On the demand for same-sex marriage. I’m kinda with Andy on this one. Historically, the left has never settled for just a little, they always want a lot more. If same-sex “marriage” were legislated, then how long would it be before gay couples were demanding that churches go against their own doctrine to perform the ceremonies?}}}

@@,

That’s why I am reluctant to endorse civil unions in the first place. If I knew for sure that it would stop there I’d be all for it. But I know how libs operate and they work incrementally and keep moving the goal posts.

{{{By RE October 10, 2007 5:01 PM |

I am pretty distrustful of orginized religion, and as an athiest, there is a fairly open hatred by a cross section of religion for athiests.}}}

Gosh, RE why do you think that is? I don’t give a damn what atheists do or believe and most Americans wouldn’t care a bit either - if only you just left well enough alone.

The problem is that being an atheist is not enough - essentially we all have to be atheists along with you.

Atheists, with a lot of help from the ACLU are trying to tear down the historical institutions of this country, rewrite history, and remake it in the secularist’s vision where everything is a God free zone.

But even that is not enough. Nope, we have to hear day in and day out about how we instill fear and oppression in the hearts of man.

Forgive me if I’m not too sympathetic to the backlash you’re experiencing.

By @@

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

RE:

You’re missing my point. You said atheists are “the most hated” and I’m saying that the ——>very small<—— percentage who vocally protest against the majority are the ones that draw the fire or hatred if you will.

Atheists can not believe all they want. I don’t know of any Christian who give a flip until that moment when they want to force their non-belief on us. What do they expect?

Do they want us to remain the silent majority? When we do that, they take all kinds of liberties.

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 6:01 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish, I don’t know where you live, but Christmas hymns are still sung in my child’s school. In fact, I heard a high school band the other night at a football game play, “In the Bleak Mid Winter” which is a Christmas hymn in the Episcopal hymn book-beautful song.

This liberal war on Christmas is a myth.

By Buy Danish

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

{{{By RE

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

“Are atheists a majority or a minority. Majority rules….simple”

Nice justification for bias.}}}

RE has no “bias” at all! Nope, he’s as welcoming as the morning sun./sarc.

And how is it that you atheists always seem to attract people who are trying to convert you? I have gone through my entire life without anyone trying to convert me. I feel so left out!

Conversely, I have never tried to convert an atheist and would regard it as a complete waste of time and energy.

I also don’t spend a moment trying to censor, scorn or ridicule atheists, but Richard Dawkin’s life mission is to “ridicule” Christians.

Where is this level playing field I keep hearing about?

By @@

October 10, 2007 6:13 PM | Link to this

RW:

(((The left has been trying for years to get a majority of this country dependent on government and once they do it’s over for the freedom lovers among us.)))

I’ve got my world map handy. Any suggestions?;-)

Bosch:

Put your damn broad brush away. Most churches have gay couples and everyone is aware they’re gay. We’re not the intolerant bigots you would have everyone believe. So what’s your agenda here?

Buy Danish:

(((If I knew for sure that it would stop there I’d be all for it. But I know how libs operate and they work incrementally and keep moving the goal posts.)))

I agree, but my remnants of liberalism are difficult to shake. It keeps saying give ‘em a chance…just give ‘em another chance. They’ll prove me wrong.

The stove is hot…the stove is hot…don’t touch that stove.

Sssssssss oh chit!

By getalife

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

RW,

Mmmmm, mymama media or all major newspapers.

Swamp eh? Get out of that pj slumber party man.

Your source sux.

Geez.

By RW-(the original)

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

getalife,

It’s OK to read some facts man! Head into the Jawa report and open your eyes to some truth.

P.S. They even have facts and sources rather than just hyperbolic blather like your “news”papers and the Daily Kooks.

@@,

Put down that world map and help us beat them back.

One thing we should cave on is legalizing marijuana, at least on Tuesdays. :-)

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 6:28 PM | Link to this

Oh and if we do that last thing we need to make sure polling places are nowhere near a 7/11.

By getalife

October 10, 2007 6:28 PM | Link to this

RW,

No thanks, I just showered.

Legalize weed is a dirty freaking hippie liberal position.

By RE

October 10, 2007 6:34 PM | Link to this

@@,

I do not have a problem with people practising thier religion at any time in any place they choose to.

I do have a problem with my tax dollars going to subsidize your religion. That does mean in public schools should not be pushing religion. The part that really gets me is that churches don’t pay property tax, and usually sit on nice big plots of land. Tax cheats.

BD,

Just wanted to let you know that when you whine about how hard chrisitans have it in this country, I just don’t have much symapathy for you.

By nancy

October 10, 2007 6:38 PM | Link to this

Rw (getalife), busted!

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 6:39 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Getting to the truth can indeed be a dirty job these days. Too bad so many of you want to settle for the nice clean pablum that gets served up to you.

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 6:39 PM | Link to this

@@,

What’s with the broad brush? What IS a broad brush? I don’t have an agenda. Just commenting like everyone else. I know your not an intolerable bigot, except maybe for liberals, but like I said yesterday, we all have our prejudices, don’t we?

Buy Danish,

So does Christopher Hitchens - just read his latest book - he’s brutal.

By Bosch

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

RW,

@6:39 - that’s something we can agree on, not the soccer/golf issue, but that is true.

By @@

October 10, 2007 6:46 PM | Link to this

Funny RW…

(((One thing we should cave on is legalizing marijuana, at least on Tuesdays.)))

Thanks for blog slapping me back into reality. I was beginning to feel like Alec(x)? Baldwin, that bloated guy.

Scooter and I had a discussion today on legalized drugs and the poppy fields in Afghanistan.

Scooter said we should buy the product from the growers and use it in our opiate based meds. I’m mulling it over but I’d rather show them how to grow something else that we could use.

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 6:48 PM | Link to this

soccer/golf??? I’ve heard of a foot wedge, but as a Republican I play by the rules.

nancy,

Is that you Polly? What’s with the gender insecurity lately?

By RE

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

OK, seeing as RW is for legalization, let me ask this, a little blog poll:

should marijuana for recreational use be legal?

I vote yes

By Buy Danish

October 10, 2007 6:54 PM | Link to this

@@,

I like your 5:56 - It’s as good as my 5:56! :)

RE,

Waaaaaah.

You and Bosch are going to have to have a conversation because he says its okay to have the children sing beautiful Episcopal hymns in the public schools.

Bosch,

Yes those hymns are beautiful, and that is one reason why I am so astounded to hear day in and day out how ugly and offensive our religious traditions are and how they must be silenced lest they fall on the wrong ears.

The fact remains that lawsuits have been brought all over this country seeking the incremental expulsion of Christianity from the public arena.

When we are permitted to have our measly Christmas displays the latest trend is that we must then recognize Ramadan too, as if the two some how had parity. I’d love to try that move in Saudi Arabia.

By the way, I am very fond of Aayan Hirsi Ali. She’s an atheist now but you won’t find her trying to wipe out Christianity. She has a truly oppressive religion to focus her attention on.

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 6:57 PM | Link to this

RE, I vote yes too. I think all drugs should be legalized - slap a tax on it and whamo - there’s all the taxes we’d need.

Cheers all! Good evening!

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 6:58 PM | Link to this

RE,

If you followed the two posts I was merely trying to make it easier for you moonbat(ic)® potheads to miss election day.

By nancy

October 10, 2007 6:59 PM | Link to this

This country was formed for business and religion laize faire. The biggest benefactor was Religion. Business and Religion have a truce in America. Both are tax exempt, that’s one of the rules for a free society, as the founding fathers knew from watching what went wrong with the king and the pope. What a way to do business! What a way to govern the masses!

Our country can survive this. The bloggers are already repositioning themselves as Thomas Paine-in-the-Asses. Watch as all the bloggers on this site start to restate all my older blogs as if they had predicted that we aint nevah gonna bit moutta pinaq. They are blogging a conspiracy, just as they did before. They are presenting characters, like amvet or rw or getalife and staying “in character” as they make the phony choreographed blogging debates.

Has there been one person fooled? No. When ever some third party reads and replies, they always express frustration with the obvious wooden cadence of the comments. Not to mention how easy it is to spot the syntactical equivalence of the three trolls doing 90 percent of the blogging. True morons. Trust me.

They will all start blogging differently, each one adopting one form of my zeitgeist-reliant growth estimates about business and religion.

They pretty much react to every word I write, wouldn’t you all say?

Hi. Christ told us that we can talk to God and represent all of mankind. We can make oaths in heaven right here on earth. We can speak for every man, and bind him to that oath, but only when we speak to God. That’s what a little guy named Christ basically said while he was here, if you were wondering.

By Buy Danish

October 10, 2007 7:00 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

Christopher Hitchens has a very mean-spirited and intolerant streak which makes my opposition to gay marriage child’s play in comparison.

It’s too bad because he has a lot of really terrific things to say, but he is despicable when he gets on his hate-filled rants, like he did the day Jerry Falwell died.

By RE

October 10, 2007 7:02 PM | Link to this

Dumb a* BD,

Have you ever been asked to take down a christmas display in your home or front yard?

If it is still up in april, it doesn’t count.

By @@

October 10, 2007 7:10 PM | Link to this

RE:

(((I do have a problem with my tax dollars going to subsidize your religion.)))

and I have a problem with my tax dollars supporting loads of crap put upon me by Democrats and government in general, but mostly Democrats.

That’s life RE you learn to live with it. I certainly have no problem living with atheists or that portion of society who pays no taxes. I just don’t want the latter to get too big for my britches.

By Bosch

October 10, 2007 7:11 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish, Saw your last post before I signed off -

Like I said, I don’t know where you live, but where I live, I just don’t see that. We still have nativity scenes, sing hymns, and say Merry Christmas. If I’m addressing a Jew, I say Happy Holidays, but most Jews I know wouldn’t care if you said Merry Christmas to them.

I feel sorry for your community if they are trying to wipe out Christmas - I don’t like referring to Christmas as Xmas. It just seems weird. Where you live, are you required to recognize Ramadan? I would be working to replace my community government if that were the case.

I know a couple of Muslims in our community and they love Christmas. It’s a secular holiday to them and they don’t have a problem with it. I don’t have a problem with Ramadan or Hannakah - whatever you celebrate, it is a time for family and reflection and celebration of the people you love and to remember what’s good in the world - at least to me.

Muslims believe (not all, I’m sure, but traditionally) that Jesus was a prophet, so they (the ones in our community I mentioned) don’t see a problem with our celebration of his birth, nor should they have a problem with it.

I know about those lawsuits you mentioned, but those are rare and get the most press. I think, in general, most people have enough common sense to not be worried about it.

Merry Christmas! And good night!

By Buy Danish

October 10, 2007 7:11 PM | Link to this

RE,

Uh, my house is not in the “public square”, it is private property. But you know, just for fun maybe I’ll find some really religious decorations this year and flaunt them.

That being said, I hate to state the obvious, but just because I have not personally experienced something does not mean that it does not exist.

My ancestors weren’t slaves. Maybe they shouldn’t have cared about slavery for that reason?

By RW-(the original)

October 10, 2007 7:20 PM | Link to this

I can now prove I don’t fall into the hater group the libs are always try to paint me into and I think the same proof goes for most of the Conservatives here. I have exactly the same amount of respect for RE and Amwet as I did before I knew they were atheists. RE a skosh and Huge Blowhard zip.

By Middle America

October 16, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

I love how Fred Thompson says he’s the real conservative (or real Republican). Yeah, like the lack of personality wasn’t a dead give away.

He’s been compared to Reagan. Let’s see:

Old. Check Dumb. Check Senile. Check No real qualifications. Check Was an actor. Check

I guess he is Reagan.

You know when the only modern President to resign due to being an idiot (and partly because he taped his own criminal activities), calls you “dumb as hell”, then you must really have nobody manning the fort upstairs. Plus Thompson was supposed to be an independent investigator of the scandal, but the Nixon tapes clearly show that he was cooperating with Nixon’s admin to make the outcome of his investigation pro-Republican.

I like Fred Thompson the actor. He’s fun and tough. But I need a President who writes the lines, not recites them. A President who creates the vision, not just one who gives it a voice or face.