Thinking Right

By jbmlaw

October 9, 2006 08:08 AM | Link to this

Good morning, all. I doubt that good breeding is the primary reason people do not ask indelicate questions, although that is not a bad reason. We have a wonderful tradition of leaving each other alone – “good fences make good neighbors,” etc. (not particular talking about immigration, there.) Outside the church – where people will talk confidentially with a trustworthy friend – such confidence sharing is relatively uncommon.

I think the main reason such questions go unasked is that those who would be curious do not mix socially with those object of their curiosity. Thus, Anglos who want a fence built rarely socialize with Mexicans. Taxpayers rarely socialize with welfare mothers. Working stiffs do not meet with the super-wealthy, thus are unable to ask all of their questions about “how did you really make your money.” The fans do not spend an evening chatting with entertainers or athletes.

By Brian Curtis

October 9, 2006 08:15 AM | Link to this

Wooten’s absolutely right. It’s the people with no rights and no money we need to be suspicious of, not those corrupt jackasses running our country into the ground.

Look! Over there! It’s a *dark-skinned immigrant type! THEY’RE the only legitimate focus for our anger when times get tough! Not that man behind the curtain.

By SPIN!!

October 9, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this

awww…. what’s wrong, Jim, are we paying too much attention to the corrupt politicians in Congress for you? It’ really hard for them to work in darkness and hide their evil deeds if the pesky media and public keeps shining flashlights into their dark corners…. poor Jim, poor Republicans… how will they ever spin this hard enough to get us to turn off that d@mn flashlight?

By BellaDonna

October 9, 2006 08:45 AM | Link to this

Answers to the questions:

1) Are you here legally? Yes. Are you?

• 2) Where is the baby’s father and why isn’t he providing support?* He’s with his new wife and their two kids. Remember Georgia is trying to pass that law, (fondly called the “second wife’s rage act”) so that his child support due to his first wife and family will turn out to be hundreds of dollars less per year than what he had previously paid before. Thus insuring that he and the second wife’s children can afford private school.

3) Do you not buy health insurance because you can’t afford it or because you have other priorities? Read the answer to #2

By getalife

October 9, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this

Resign already

Shees.

By Aquagirl

October 9, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this

Hmmm…maybe all those people are here illegally because we’ve made it so attractive to be here illegally? Republicans haven’t lifted a finger to take the most effective action in discouraging “undocumented workers”, taking away their jobs. Punish the employers, like construction firms, etc, and you’d see a change. When whole industries rely on cheap illegal labor, people will flock here for those jobs. All this nonsense about building fences and the like is stupid, and meant to pacify the angry Republican faithful.

By BellaDonna

October 9, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this

I have a question for Jim:

When are you going to take the blinders off of your eyes and admit that this administratio is rife with corruption, greed, scandal, and worst of all incompetence? As the old Indian chief said after being swindled out of his land, “You speak with forked tongue”.

By sct

October 9, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this

Question too rude to ask mom.

I was having dinner with the whole family Sunday evening. Mom cooked a delicious chicken.

During dinner I asked mom “Was this chicken raised by illegal immigrants???? My mom just sat there with a stunned look on her face. She didn’t answer. “Is this illegal chicken.” I grabbed her hair and demanded an answer. She cried, and all she could whimper was “Lets say grace.”

“GRACE???”, I responded. “Why do you hate America?”

By Van

October 9, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this

Hmm, I know, lets all go to Ottawa and plan a protest march to demand full rights in Canada, including the right to vote.

We will want full access to the Canadian Prescription Drug Plan and Healthcare. We should be allowed to vote in their elections and demand english be spoken in Quebec, so we will not feel left out.

Makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it.

By SPIN!!!

October 9, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

don’t worry too much Jim, your usual gaggle of blinder-wearing republican faithful will be here shortly to rally to your cause and dutifully ignore the stupidity of your questions. Chin up, young Republican! The calvary is on the way!

By jbmlaw

October 9, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

Apologies, Jim. I think I unwittingly set loose the class-warfare nuts this morning. I was not thinking. Little chance for policy debate today, when we get congressional-corruption coupled with race-oriented bloggers.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

October 9, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

An uncomfortable question that you parents need to ask your GOP friends and family:

Are you attracted to my children?

By Van

October 9, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this

Jim Wooten,

Question #1, Just ask are you legal, it isn’t rude or offensive, unless you are and are trying to go unnotices.

By Dusty

October 9, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

Rednecks,

There is an uncomfortable question that we need to ask you this morning and every day:

Are you brain dead?

By sct

October 9, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

A Republican nightmare…….

“Where is the baby’s father and why isn’t he providing support?”

“Megan doesn’t have a father, she has 2 mommies! And she’s right over there, we’re moving in next door to you.”

By getalife

October 9, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

The question is WTF happened to America?

By Van

October 9, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

Pope rednecks - Amerikkka’s Al Qaeda,

Hey, it isn’t the loud and proud gay republicans that are adopting little kids, that is a liberal trend.

By Th

October 9, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

Impolite question #4: George, why did you let North Korea get nuclear weapons?

By time for the truth

October 9, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

Impolite question #4: George, why did you let North Korea get nuclear weapons?

because the sexual predator sick Willie and the narcissisistic liar and doltish far left dicktator lover Karter were so easily and gleefully duped by North Korean commie lies - but hey they got loads of NY Slimes praise back then so everything must have been absolutely kosher!!

By Dusty

October 9, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

Poor SPIN!!!, out on a limb.

Showing up this morning…kinda dim.

You’re a bit touchy, it would seem.

It’s only Republicans you wish to “cream”.

Why don’t you try an open mind?

Then you’ll get answers of every kind.

Republicans are not the evil ones here.

We give good answers and give ‘em clear.

Stop the drivel and the Demo “line”.

We’re all Americans, by birth or design.

By Van

October 9, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

Th,

That was the Clinton negoitated plan, research and development of the bomb took longer than the 6 years George has been in office.

By Question for Jim

October 9, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

Question for JIM WOOTEN:

What will the President and Republican’s do about North Korea?

How many more military personnel will have to die in Iraq, before we get 300Billion plus worth of results?

How many additional Republicans are going to come out and say they knew about Foley, before the scandal? They sure know how to keep a secret, I will give them that much.

With the 300Billion plus, we could provided healthcare, child support, etc…. for a “WHOLE” lot of people. And the results would have been more beneficial.

But, I guess it’s best to throw money away to a less fornuate group of individuals - that I care EVEN Less about.

Try asking the RIGHT Questions, JIM!!!!!

By Political Foreskin

October 9, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

Why should a father support a mother-and-child, when the mother nagged him about the firmness of the mattress the entire time they were together that night of booze, ropes, and splendor?

The signs most abandoned women carry are tatoos on their lower backs. These are a set of instructions, which clearly declare the category of person you are unwrapping: tramp, slut, fallen woman, or holler-back girl, Mr. Wooten, but they don’t contain a warning label about possible liability if the blonde turns out to be a real blonde.

By sct

October 9, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

Questions impolitic to answer????

“Profits are way up for your house building company, how’d you do it?”

“We got rid of the last of our American workers. We now employ 1000 illegal immigrants, and offer no benefits.”

By SusieHomeMaker

October 9, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

because the sexual predator sick Willie and the narcissisistic liar and doltish far left dicktator lover Karter were so easily and gleefully duped by North Korean commie lies

Carter was only in for 4 years, after Carter there was Reagan (8 years), Bush Sr., (4 years). So in 12 years the Republican administration was too helpless to do anything to reverse the duplicity?

Clinton had 8 years and now Bush has 8 years…. so, in Bush’s 8 years what did he love so much that he couldn’t stop the trend? Was it oil rich nations ripe for invasion?

P.S.: Unlike Republican DHS official Brian Doyle, Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio, and Republican Senator Mark Foley; at least Clinton’s indiscretion was made with a consenting adult. Not teenagers and small children under 11 years old. Guess who’s REALLY the “perv”?

By JustSayin

October 9, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

A 7.5 foot long crocodile was found in the Rio Grande. Very curious, they’re not native creatures… thought provoking though, I wonder what would be more effective, a great big fence, or a river full of crocs? Just sayin…

By Th

October 9, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

Actually, if the bomb was made from enriched uranium, it was Clinton’s fault. If the bomb was reprocessed plutonium, the blame lies with Bush. Early indications are the latter as enriching uranium is very expensive and time consuming. The plutonium rods were under lock and key and 24/7 camera surveillance until 2002 when NK turned off the cameras and went to work. Heckufa job Bushie.

By deegee

October 9, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

Go ahead and ask the questions, the answers are straightforward.

Are you here legally? Yes because I could come here legally. Are you here illegally? Yes, because I could come here illegally and I can work as much as I want and stay as long as I like.

Where is the baby’s father and why isn’t he providing support? The baby doesn’t need his support. I can sell enough meth and food stamps to keep us going and who wants him around anyway?

Health insurance? I don’t buy it because I need to eat first then put a roof over my head.

By Th

October 9, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

I read that Bush signed the Homeland Security funding bill that has a down payment for the border fence ($1.2 billion), but hasn’t signed the bill that calls for building the fence. Would it be impolitic to ask what’s up with that?

By time for the truth

October 9, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

HAPPY COLUMBUS DAY FOLKS … A DAY TRULY WORTH REMEMBERING as the “start” of the civilising of America.

a few more awkward questions for the liberal vermin infesting America

why do you support sick NAMBLA types like the ACLU does, the feminazi Pelosi does openly in San Fran Sicko by marching with them in queer parades and Assachussetts congressional poofs do by sexually abusing page boys and being re-elected for years afterwards?

why do virtually ALL liberals support and brazenly pander to (mostly) mexican type illegal immigrants and consistently vote against cracking down on these free loading leeches - as do EQUALLY shamefully a few leftist congressional republican panderers and not forgetting Bush himself?

why do pinkos and liberals care so much about imposing distasteful and ludicrous so called homosexual rights, such as the unsavoury and needless mockery of marriage where there is no need? clearly this is no more than just empty gesture leftist politics?

Republicans could care less about homosexual rights - there’s no need to legally oppress them either - just leave them be so long as they leave others alone - especially kids.

why do so many leftist liberals and blacks gleefully support purely self serving racist quotas and racist pandering? - clearly this is just cynical divisive vote buying at the expense of decent non-racist folks!!

and yes NAMBLA rednekkks is utterly brain dead!!

By Ms. Manners

October 9, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

(1)Are you here legally? This question is NOT rude when asked in the context of a job interview or rental application.

(2)Where is the baby’s father and why isn’t he providing support? This question IS most definitely RUDE, unless the mother in question has approached you with details of struggling to provide for her family. Otherwise, it’s none of your busy-body, nosy-a—, business!

(3)Do you not buy health insurance because you can’t afford it or because you have other priorities? This question IS most definitely RUDE, unless the person in question has approached you with details of struggling to afford healthcare. Even so, it could be worded less accusingly by those who are more interested in understanding than in blaming everyone but the Republicans and greedy insurance company executives.

By Van

October 9, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

Regarding #2,

Why are women so touchy about bringing a bastard into the world?

Why should a man have any financial obligation, when its a womans body and she can do what she wants with it.

By Van

October 9, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

Th,

So in 6 years with an economy that would make a sane person crazy, this little dictator started from scratch and built a bomb and tested it.

I don’t think so, Clinton and Carter sold their souls to make this nut case happy.

By Dusty

October 9, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Jim Wooten,

Sometimes it seems we ask questions when we know the answers. For instance:

“Illegal” is a point blank description that means NOT legal. As applied to citizenship, illegals should be removed from the country as designated by “law”. We are either lawful or lawless (of course).

Lack of medical insurance, the question being whether those receiving “free” health care are eligible. Georgia removed 67,000 from Medicaid, much of it by checking out the legal requirements and catching fraud. The next question would be: Can Emergency Rooms handle those who come in “free” which must be treated as required by law? Can we budget enough for this humanitarian requirement?

As to children without fathers, I don’t believe we can legislate morality. As to the law, support for these children can be demanded but, once again, legal channels are the only ones that have a possibility of working. As usual, the chldren suffer for the lack of responsibility of adults.

By time for the truth

October 9, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Pukie HomeWrecker smugly forgets that it was sick Willie and the narcissist Karter that were duped by the Koreans and thus EIGHT YEARS were wasted as the Klintoons took their eye off both N. Korea and towel head terrorism, its really sick Willie’s fault more than any other single individual in the USA that 9/11 happened!!

Indeed pukie is so stuuupid that it doesn’t appear even remember that Sick Willie happily allowed Karter to be his front man in the appeasing and swallowing of N.K. commie nuclear lies.

and now Bush has 8 years…. so, in Bush’s 8 years

poor old Pukie can’t even count … which nicely explains why as leftists cant count accurately - including votes in FL - we now need computerised voting machines to make it possible for demoNcrats to vote properly/legally as well as finally having some thing (not a demoNcrat cheat) HONEST to count up their electoral losses.

By time for the truth

October 9, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

Why are women so touchy about bringing a bastard into the world?

you better ask Mrs Gore, Mrs Clinton, Mrs Rodham, Mrs Kennedy, Mrs Schumer, Mrs Pelosi, Mrs Streisand , Mrs Reid, Mr Fwank et al about that. Always assuming they were married (to their husbands)

By Rod

October 9, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

I see Perdue’s in bed with Falwell (kissing up to Falwell at his VA church and getting his endorsement) - guess Sonny also thinks 9/11 was due to the “immoral” Americans.

By Ms. Manners

October 9, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

A single mother (of a “bastard” as you so eloguently put it) is a woman who chose not to abort, but rather, to stick with it, even knowing it would be tough, and knowing she might well be abandoned by the father (and often family and friends).

For whom does Van have the MOST scorn? (a) Women who abort and unplanned pregnancy (b) Women who stick it out and do the best they can under the circumstances (c) Women who, for whatever unfortunate physical or personality flaws, cannot seem to connect with a decent marriageable man (d) Women who like sex, and find trouble as a result. (e) Women who hate sex, and make men grovel for it, then deliver nothing. (f) ALL women.

By Rod

October 9, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

You know the Republicans are sucking wind when even Jim tries to get off the politital topic for the day! Yeah - Jim - decided there’s nothing to blame the damn liberals for today!

Finally he realizes that congress and the president have majorly SCREWED UP!!!

Bush allows N. Korea to get Nukes (no tftt, they didn’t do this under Bill’s watch - it was all Georgie), ignores the child molesters in the Republican Congress, and continues to get U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq.

Thank God November’s coming - and there’s nothing you idiot Republican supporters can do about it!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

By SPIN!!

October 9, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

DUSTY —

You’re right. I am picking on republicans this morning. But rest assured I am just as angry with the democrats. There is an utter lack of leadship on both sides of the aisle (unless you count as leadership the relentless pursuit of power, which I do not consider leadership)

If it helps, I belive the democrats are so short-sighted, they only see the political spoils of prolonging the issue of Foley’s Follies and are not using this opportunity of national attention to actually offer real alternatives to where we are currently headed. A fundamental failure of leadership which leads me to believe they have no real ideas of how to govern, only the idea that they are seeking power.

I think I’d vote for the first person who stands up and says “We, both republican and democrat, have been blinded by the pursuit of power over the good of the nation. I pledge to serve only the good people of this country, to refuse the ‘gifts’ of lobbyists, return to the basis of real American values such as freedom from oppression and nation building, to disagree with my party leaders when they seek to harm this nation and to leave office after no more than 2 terms.” The problem is, of course, the contract with America sort of sounded like that. Just that no one really meant it.

By Renee

October 9, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

TFTT and the other Republican hate-mongers are mighty stupid and speaking out of both sides of their mouths today!

They’re insulting (and condemning) mothers who have children out of wedlock - calling the children bastards with a hatred tone. Yet - they (TFTT and the Republican hate monters) want to outlaw abortions. Can’t have it both ways dummies. A single woman gets pregnant (because a man screwed her and didn’t put on a condom because it’s not macho)and you condemn her whether she gives birth or gets an abortion. Yeah, it’s mighty easy living in your white chair of judgment. Don’t worry, God will judge you soon enough (better get some sun-screen).

By time for the truth

October 9, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Ms Manners rather cynically left out a few types from her most welcome and wonderfully honest list.

feminazi misandrists - we have at least one on the forum.

lesbians who seek sperm donors because the unnatural life style they indulge in cannot ever lead to pregnancy “unaided”.

normal married women who have kids with their normal husbands

By Question for Jim

October 9, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

North Korea - is a Bush problem - because it’s been six years and that’s enough time to have at least attempted to come up with a sound solution. The republicans can not say they have not had enough time to know enough about the North Korea problem. Like they said about 9/11. “We didn’t know, we didn’t know, we didn’t know!!!!!!

The president of North Korea has all but “spit” in our Presidents face. He’s like a little kid saying I DARE YAH….. Come into my country. Last night he steped on my clean shoes and has acknowledge he is looking for a fight. We’ll just pretend we didn’t know and let the next Congress and/or President deal with it. What happened to that Cowboy, don’t mess with TEXAS attitude he had three years ago.

What will the republicans in charge do? NOT A Thing, except to say “Let the UN Take care of it.

I’m okay with that, because it would only become another IRAQ. I just wanted to point out, just how ironic the whole thing is.

By Richard

October 9, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

Bush ain’t got the balls to take on North Korea. They got all their power over the past 6 years while Bush was busy playing with himself and are now daring him to do anything about it.

Bush’s response: “Waaaaaaaaaaa”

By Tom Davis

October 9, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Sonny Perdue brought leadership and decency to the dome; he’ll be re-elected by a large margin … a tribute to his policies and principals. The vast majority of the opposition that he faces is to be expected … it’s die-hard “Blue-Dog D” support for Democrats (any Democrat) and total opposition to Republicans (any Republican)that’s fueling it. But a huge number of Democrats strongly support Sonny, too … and will vote for him on election day. Those that don’t aren’t interested in good government and progress in Georgia, they’re only woeful of their loss of political power. Sonny Perdu is as close to an independent administrator as Georgia has ever seen … the overwhelmingly positive results of his policies since his election in 2002 prove it. Only “people over politics” could build the support numbers such as those enjoyed by Governor Perdue. Thoughtful voters realize that, zealots seek only power for themselves. Perdue’s a decent man, and he’s shown it. Citizens admire principaled toughness … regardless of party. It’s Perdue 58%-38% on Election Day. Book it.

By Talon News

October 9, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

Give it up Time For The Truth! Trying to deal with these libby libs is useless. They have no use for reality.

I’d like to ask a question of each conservative here about the libby lib liberals, “how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?”

Jeff… O~O

By Van

October 9, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

Ms. Manners,

How about a woman who chooses to have unprotected sex. A responsible woman won’t not do that.

A wise woman would make a relationship with a man before engaging in sexual relations.

A vidictive woman would chose not to protect herself, decide on her own whether to keep or abort the child, and if she decides to keep the child, sue the supposed father for child support.

A woman of low moral character would make sure there are enough men involved to provide a income flow so she could not work.

An intelligent woman would not let herself be caught in this situation to begin with.

Women can not have it both ways, if they engage in numerous sexual relationships, they must be responsible enough to handle the outcome of the encounters.

By Th

October 9, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

Van; the processing of spent plutonium fuel rods into nuclear bombs is a fairly straightforward process as opposed to enriching uranium. The Clinton/Carter deal put the spent rods under IAEA control and monitoring. The secret program unearthed by Bush was uranium enrichment. When confronted by the Bush administration, NK threw out the monitors and started work on the fuel rods knowing that was the fast track to a bomb. This assessment from CDI says the Koreans could produce a bomb from plutonium in a few months after starting the processing.

By time for the truth

October 9, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

Just walk away Renee You won’t see me follow you back home

Pretty good hissy fit Renee

shame I have to spoil it for ya though!!

I am actually something of a pro-choice Republican, although abortion should never be used as the ultimate contraception - as it is in Russia and China. I sincerely believe compulsory abortion for lefties would be the ONLY kind of social engineering I would willingly vote for!!

Slight joking apart, being even moderately pro-choice is something not very popular in GOP circles I know. So your ranting is wasted on me love - but hey, thanks so much for caring and sharing though!!. So called partial birth abortion is a vile bestial practice and should be stopped except when the mothers life is literally at immediate risk.

By Van

October 9, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

Renee,

I will repeat, why are women so touchy about having a cute little bouncing bastard.

Because they have no shame.

If it is the womans choice, then she is the responsible party. It is her choice to bed a stranger, it is her choice not to protect herself, it is her choice whether she keeps the child, place it for adoption or abort it. It is her choice to decide which of the guys from last weekend is the father.

By time for the truth

October 9, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

I see stupid DICK is talking about “balls” again … dont these lefty poofs ever get sick and tired of their incessant homosexual themes!!

By Aquagirl

October 9, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

Can I be a feminazi too? And where do I get the application?

By ChrisD

October 9, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

Boy, when you ask the real questions, the crazy lefties show their colors, don’t they?

By Ms. Manners

October 9, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

Van, nowhere in your non-answer did you acknowledge the role of men in the scenarios you listed, nor in your judgemenal ramblings. Instead, you placed full blame on women for all their relationships with men, disregarding any factors beyond the character of the women you condemn, (excepting a small minority of frigid perfectionists you deem worthy of moderate respect.) Therefore, I must conclude that, if you were truthful, your answer would indeed be (F)ALL women. Thanks for playing. (Don’t bother to refute this with more insults, as we all truly GET where you’re coming from.)

By Van

October 9, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this

Th,

Sorry, it does not wash. If North Korea had a growing economy, like Iran’s, I might believe it.

No, this pimple on the world’s a*s is an irritating little butthead and could be what moves China closer to the West and could spell the doom for the North Korean civilian population and trouble for the South.

If the world totally isolates North Korea, they will move south and reopen the armed conflict with the west backed government again.

By SusieHomeMaker

October 9, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

By time for the truth — Pukie HomeWrecker smugly forgets that it was sick Willie and the narcissist Karter that were duped by the Koreans and thus EIGHT YEARS were wasted as the Klintoons took their eye off both N. Korea and towel head terrorism*

Hmmm I see stupidity and illiteracy runs in your hormones. If you pick up a history book or a newspaper some time and actually READ it you’d be amazed at what you’d find. Try goggle —- type in the words, N. Korea, Kim Jung Il, and nuclear weapons, and see what happens!! And if you are so scared of the “liberal press”, don’t worry!!! They’re even some Fox News tidbits that’ll pop up with psuedo facts but with a DEFINITE TIME LINE of when the events started to happen. Perhaps even you can figure it out from there.

its really sick Willie’s fault more than any other single individual in the USA that 9/11 happened!!

I see you’re a Fox News fan!!! Congrats!! You have displayed every quality that someone who listens to Fox News has!! It reinforces my belief in education and being able to think for one’s self even more.

and now Bush has 8 years…. so, in Bush’s 8 years poor old Pukie can’t even count

Didn’t he get elected in 2000? So, let’s see he was elected in 2000, served 4 years, that’s four years, then got reelected in 2004, which will give him another 4 years of presidency, until elections in 2008; hmmmm 4 + 4 = 8….. The people at the NBCU were right….. a mind IS really a terrible thing to waste!!!

By Van

October 9, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

Ms. Manners,

Isn’t the abortion issue all about a womans choice, just the woman, not the father or the parents, just the woman.

That is the way the womens movement wanted it to be and that is how it is.

By getalife

October 9, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

Because they have no shame.

Oh, the hypocrisy is outstanding today.

Now they are preaching personal responsibilty with they do not take any.

Oh, the humanity!

Hilarious.

By Aquagirl

October 9, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

The abortion issue is about a woman’s choice because she’s the one who is pregnant. Duh.

If you’re a man (or a woman, for that matter), and you don’t want your organs donated after your death, your wishes will be respected. Why am I not entitled to decide the use of my organs while I’m alive?

By Question for Jim

October 9, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

Renee,

Why keep up a discussion with a man who does not understand the concept of sperm and egg. It takes both sperm and egg to create a “Bastard”. If a man does not want to pay child support or give cause to an abortion - he should do two things. Give up Sex and women all together.

That’s the advice I give to all the young men in my family.

I give the young women a lot more: (1.)Put the wedding ring on first, but that doesn’t guarantee he’ll be faithful, responsible or family oriented. (2.)use birth control like you drink water (3.)What looks good, is not always GOOD for you - listen to what a mans says and don’t try to think you can change him. That’s our biggest mistake.

Van - if you spent as much time counseling young men about respect for themselves, being with ONLY one woman, marriage, premarital sex and the love of family. You wouldn’t have to worry about child support, abortion or promiscuous women. The first line of defense is to stop blaming women for all the fatherless children in our society. A woman can’t have a child without a man and vice versa.

By MELO

October 9, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

Good debate Jim and as usual, u getting a good dose of common sense from the bloggers.

When u ask the question”are u here legally?” and i say “yes” dont stop there. Ask me where i work and who gave me a job……..Do not just scracth the surface.U will discover a wealth of information to write on your editroial pages for a whole year.

The Republicans like yourself like to target the weak, the illegal immigrant, the person on welfare, the one without health insurance who chooses between a decent meal and their meds. That is obviously a fascination derived from your ivory tower(the seemingly cushy job curtesy of cox)

Come down below to the real world.

By abc

October 9, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

Aquagirl, because the new life inside you is reliant upon your organs to support it and allow it to grow until it’s born. The new life inside you is not yours, and thus isn’t yours to take.

I was pro-choice, but I changed my mind. Once an abortion is performed, one cannot change their mind; the new life is simply lost. It’s not a religious issue to me, but rather one of human decency.

By Van

October 9, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

Question for Jim,

Good point and I full support the responsibility of both men and women.

The other side is men have no input whether the woman aborts his child or not. He is left completely out of the discussion except as a meal ticket.

In todays world, I do wish men and women would take a little time before jumping into the sack and reflect on what they are doing. Protection applies to both, not only from unwanted children, but from illnesses that can not be cured, maybe controlled but not cured - yet.

By Van

October 9, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

Renee,

BTW, you never mentioned which kind of woman you were.

A responsible woman, a wise woman, a vindictive woman, a woman of low moral character or an intelligent one? Maybe one I did not get around to listing?

And regarding the men involved, we all seem to seek our own level.

By Aquagirl

October 9, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

Let me put it this way, then: If Jim for some reason needed a life-saving blood transfusion from you, he would have no legal right to demand it. Morally, you’d be a lowlife to deny him (even if he is a cranky right-winger) but no one can force you to do so.

No one would dream of forcing a family to donate someone’s organs over their objections, even to save a life.

Why then should these instances be acceptable legally, if we should restrict abortion through the same means?

By time for the truth

October 9, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Didn’t he get elected in 2000?

he sure did Pukie HomeWrecker …and its now 2006 lovey - so that’s - errr … for a brainless moronic lefty I know maths is real hard, big HINT: its SIX YEARS … not the eight you said he’d had … so, in Bush’s 8 years… He has two years left … but that’s not what you said!!

Sick Willie and Karter gloated and were feted about their historic/momentous “deal” with N.Korea …. they were simply lied to and made little attempt to look beyond their deal. Then when Bush was elected it finally came out the Klintooon/Karter deal was worthless - just like their presidencies!!

By SusieHomeMaker

October 9, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

If a man does not want to pay child support or give cause to an abortion - he should do two things. Give up Sex and women all together.

Here’s some more: Wear a CONDOM, get snipped, demand that your ex give YOU full custody of the children so that SHE has to pay child support, only have sex with women over 60 and beyond child bearing age, and last but not least — KNOW the person you are about to lie down with; just because she’s female, is drunk and says yes does not negate you from responsibility.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

October 9, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

An uncomfortable question to have to ask the leader of the free world:

“Is that a codpiece in your Navy jump suit, or are you just happy to see all those seamen?”

By SusieHomeMaker

October 9, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

because the new life inside you is reliant upon your organs to support it and allow it to grow until it’s born. The new life inside you is not yours, and thus isn’t yours to take.

If it’s not yours, then why do you have to feed it and take care of it for 21 years when it comes out? If it’s not yours then why is all legal responsibiity attached to you once it’s born? Who’s is it then?

By SusieHomeMaker

October 9, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

So maybe I should’ve said in all Bush will have 8 years to amend the wrong blah, blah, blah, blah. So that means he has two years to get this done. What are the odds that he’ll accomplish anything other than delivering good sound bites or going on vacation for two months at a time?

By getalife

October 9, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

How do you get American’s attention?

By abc

October 9, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

Aquagirl, pregnancy and abortion differ from the notion of forced blood transfusion and organ donation in that the mother has an active and participatory role in the new life’s creation, thus bringing on the condition herself. Male responsibility has to do with the same sort of participatory role.

It’s just human decency, to me. If you want proof that morality can’t be legislated, just take a look at (some of) our laws.

By abc

October 9, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

SusiHomeMaker, if you don’t want to raise the life you created, give it up for adoption. There are many, many very capable and responsible people clamoring for adoptable babies, you can shirk the responsibility if you wish.

By SusieHomeMaker

October 9, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

Van: Of course you’ve NEVER made a mistake in love have you? You’ve ALWAYS picked the right person and everything has been honky-dorky ever since huh? Wow, You sure are lucky…….

By getalife

October 9, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

Help Congressman Foley protect our children!

By Jim's a Distractor

October 9, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

Here’s a question not to impolitic to ask Jim: What happened to your revolution? What happened to the “Contract”?

REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA

As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.

That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.

This year’s election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act “with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.” To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

By SusieHomeMaker

October 9, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

abc, you mean I can give it away? How can I do that if it’s not mine to begin with?

By Aquagirl

October 9, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

If a woman’s birth control fails, then she didn’t intend to become pregnant, is she then entitled to have an abortion? Or if she finds out that the man who impregnated her doesn’t intend to support the kid in any way, does that make a difference?

And I guess your point about legislating morality refers to the fact that there are laws that do so, like criminalizing prostitution, drug use, buying booze on Sunday, etc. I personally think these laws are useless, and the government has no business deciding what’s moral. Really, just look at Mark Foley if you want an example of the absurdity of a politician who is in charge of anyone’s morals.

By Ms. Manners

October 9, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

SusieH, you can’t have a rational discussion with people who say things like this without compunction:

BTW, you never mentioned which kind of woman you were.

Observe how Republicans really feel about women. Note that they blame “the women’s movement” even though this so-called movement has no leader, no voting block, and no power. This is the same tactic they use when blaming Democrats (also no power) for everything, and themselves for nothing. Discussion with these people is pointless, as their contempt for other humans supercedes reason, or even the desire to seek reason.

By Question for Jim

October 9, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

If a woman gets pregnant and chooses an abortion she gets ridiculed.

If she gets pregnant and signs up for welfare, she gets ridiculed.

If she gets pregnant and request child support, she gets ridiculed.

If she gets pregnant, has the child and can’t afford basic healthcare - she gets ridiculed.

If she gets married, has a child and the marriage ends in divorce - then ask for child support/healthcare, etc - she gets ridiculed.

If she gives up custody to the father or someone else - she gets ridiculed for being a NO GOOD MOTHER.

If she chooses to be a career woman over being a stay at home mom, she gets ridiculed.

If she chooses to be a stay at home mom and her husband leaves her for the career woman, she is ridiculed.

A woman can’t win, it doesn’t matter - which end of the spectrum she chooses - she will more than likely get ridiculed. However, the worse type of ridicule comes from another WOMAN.

By SusieHomeMaker

October 9, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

This is the same tactic they use when blaming Democrats (also no power) for everything, and themselves for nothing. Discussion with these people is pointless, as their contempt for other humans supercedes reason, or even the desire to seek reason.

My problem is that they’re trying so desperately to rewrite history while they’re spewing their hate filled lies!! People like Anne Coulter really gets to me!!! The remarks she made about the 911 widows were disgusting and immature.

I used to at least LISTEN to what republicans had to say, (give them the benefit of the doubt), but when some individuals from the party embrace lies and rhetoric with such gusto it makes me wonder about the party as a whole.

By time for the truth

October 9, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

Ann Coulter told the truth about those grasping hateful wimmin who shamelessly exploited the 9/11 tragedy for political and personal gain. They are truly despicable and make me ashamed to be an American (albeit a naturalised one).

By SusieHomeMaker

October 9, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

At least someone LOVE AND MARRIED them. I wonder if Anne, with her hate filled, venomous heart, can make the same claim?

By SusieHomeMaker

October 9, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

America was BUILT ON REBELLION, asking questions, seeking answers and defending the freedom of speech. My God are republicans determined to re-write that part of history too?!?!

By getalife

October 9, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

Lets see, the gop knew about Foley for 6 years, did nothing and then blamed the Dems.

They knew North Korea were working on nukes, did nothing, and then blamed the Dems.

See a trend here?

By jbmlaw

October 9, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

“Question for Jim” @ 11:18, surely you are not advocating that Bush act unilaterally? He has allowed multilateral talks to continue for five years, to bring us to this point, right? And this is what you wanted, right? The only irony is in the inconsistency of the left. And, as other bloggers have aptly noted here, it was the Clinton administration that ensured North Korea received – from the US – nuclear fission technology; part of the legacy of America’s greatest leftist president.

Richard @ 11:23, I note that something has affected your memory, as 1994-2001 seems to have evaporated from your synapses.

Aquagirl @ 12:42, I don’t often agree with you, but I am solidly behind your second paragraph. As to the first, I have no problem with government staying the hand of a murderer – the distinction being that all of the matters in your second paragraph have no significant consequence to another being, in contrast to premature death.

Ms. Manners @ 12:15, your embrace of moral relativism is noted. I am Kantian, so your reference to “reason” is highly amusing.

Question for Jim @ 1:02, as is so-often the case with leftists, you start in the middle of the story. The woman who gets pregnant without preparation is the only one who is held in contempt; we conservatives do not spare absentee fathers from our contempt, but I note you give them a total pass.

Susie Homemaker @ 1:09, I am unsurprised that Ann Coulter’s wisecracks fill you with rage, but you do not address her substantial arguments, which demonstrate a powerful intellect and logic. I also suspect you are disingenuous, and that it is the substantial disproof of your belief system that truly leaves you in rage, and that the wisecracks are a mere excuse for you.

By jbmlaw

October 9, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

Getalife, you have known about Sen. Kennedy’s manslaughter for 36 years now - what are democrats doing about it. Or perhaps death does not mean as much to you as poronographic IMs.

By jbmlaw

October 9, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

Getalife, the democrats facilitated the generation of nuclear fission capability in North Korea. Should we prosecute the facilitators, for Treason?

By jbmlaw

October 9, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

Susie @ 1:19, America was built on God and God’s gift of freedom. Democrats, led by ACLU, are effectively rewriting history today. The Methodist church was the principal mover of the anti-slavery movement, but you would never know it from the history books.

By JK

October 9, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

Oh, HERE WE GO AGAIN: jbmlaw squawks: Drunk Kennedy drove Mary Jo into the water! Let’s focus on that, but not mention that drunk, (coked out) Bush admitted he was arrested for drunk driving, which means he probably did it more than once. But for the grace of God, he didn’t kill anyone (that we know of) when HE did it…. Laura Bush, as a teenager, killed her boyfriend with her car, and was not tested for alcohol. But do you bring those things up in a non-related topic day after day after day? Nope. Talk about “moral relativism!” (Remaining commentary deleted.)

By Toad

October 9, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

The QUAKERS and Unitarians were the major forces behind the abolition movement. Most of the major Christian denominations’ ministers preached the virtues of slavery. Any Methodist ministers that opposed slavery would have been in the minority. If you have evidence to the contrary, send it to me.

By Toad

October 9, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

Since the US is the only country that has ever used a nuclear bomb, what gives us the authority to say who can have nuclear bombs and who can’t?

By getalife

October 9, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

Yawn.

fakelaw,

Try arguing one point without blaming others.

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

By abc

October 9, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

SusieHomeMaker, of course, any mother can give up a newborn for adoption. Don’t sink to the level of the trolls on this blog, which is most of the posters. Do the trolls really think they’re advancing any political agenda? Both sides sound like radical nutbags, discrediting their parties quite substantially. You make the blog a joke.

Aquagirl, those are good examples of wasted legislation, I agree; at the same time, Congress gives away habeus corpus in the name of the war on terror.

jbmlaw, I don’t see much point in comparing manslaughter to pedophilia, generalizing such as to suggest that all Democrats are Kennedys and all Republicans are Foleys, or declare that a Democratic administration had a substantial effect on North Korea’s nuclear armament, especially since the Congress during Clinton’s presidency was controlled by Republicans. These are just silly carping.

By clarkslawga

October 9, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

I see the fake Brit TFTT is spewing its usual crap as usual.

For those new to this place these are facts to remember:

TFTT will try and beat you over the head with the “wise old Brit here to teach us idiot Americans a lesson” but there is a problem. It’s not British. A few weeks ago I asked a simple question that every Brit would know (I know) and what was the response? Deafening Silence! Gargantuan Smirk It had its chance to slay me with one sentence, to shut me up once and for all. But….nothing.

Fake.

(Oh and don’t let jbmlaw fool you either. He got taken to task by a real attorney a few weeks back and was left quivering in a pool of flop sweat. He ain’t no lawyer and it ain’t no Brit. Just fake personalities used to try and desperately give themselves credibility.)

By abc

October 9, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

Toad, while in hindsight it’s clear that being the first to use nuclear arms makes the U.S. a visible guilty party in opening that pandora’s box, the A bombs used didn’t cause the amount of damage that a year’s fire-bombing of Dresden did. It’s estimated that had we invaded Japan using conventional means, in excess of 2 million casualties would have been incurred. At the same time, the Japanese army’s barbarism far, far exceeded that of the Nazis. Dropping the bomb was, IMHO, the right thing to do at the time.

With that as an example, we certainly can’t afford for another country to use their own rationale in deciding whether to use nuclear weapons that are hundreds of times as powerful as those used in 1945.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

October 9, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

Interesting lie, jbm - for instance please show me in the Constitution (you know, that silly document our legal system is based on) the word “God” - and, of course, you fail to mention the role of southron evangelicals, notable the Southern Baptists in the defense of slavery and later Jim Crow, and their unholy historical alliance with the Klan.

By they way, I saw Jesus Camp last night. A very scary movie, I recommend if you really have an interest in politics and religion, although I imagine as usual you are just trying to blow smoke up these rednecks’ butts with your hifalutin’ Woodrow Wilson law degree…

It ain’t hard, is it? The Woo-ten Klan is box-o-rox dumb.

By Mallory

October 9, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

J.Wooten, I’d ask any one of those questions, but getting an honest answer is something I wouldn’t count on. Why? Because there’s a certain stigma that remains in not being a contributing member of society. As long as the questions aren’t posed, those who don’t contribute can continue to live in silent servitude to the Democratic party.

They’ll see themselves as smart. Afterall, when the government is willing to give you something, why wouldn’t you take it and continue on a path of meager subsistence? Somebody else is paying for it. Right?

I’ll take self-respect any day of the week and sacrifice something of material value without giving it a second thought.

You may not be able to legislate morality, but you sure can remove the incentive to engage in immorality. It’ll end up costing us more than this country can afford and those of us with self-respect won’t sit idly by any longer and let that happen.

By Toad

October 9, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

abc, thanks for your thoughtful answer. I still think the US is hypocritical to not let another country use their own rationale while we still have nuclear capacity. As long as one country has nuclear bombs any other country has the right to retaliate.

By abc

October 9, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

If a woman’s birth control fails, then she didn’t intend to become pregnant, is she then entitled to have an abortion? Or if she finds out that the man who impregnated her doesn’t intend to support the kid in any way, does that make a difference?

It doesn’t make a difference. If the participating parties wish to abdicate their responsibility, adoption is available. A few months of inconvenience is no excuse for depriving a life; to allow such inconvenience to deprive a life is beyond what human decency should allow.

By curious

October 9, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

question impolitic to ask: Why is there still the word bastard used to describe an innocent child born into an environment created by not-so-innocent adults.

By Toad

October 9, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

Have any of you self-righteous types priced individual health insurance lately? It costs a lot more than a pack of cigarettes and a six-pack of beer a day.

By abc

October 9, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

Toad, that’s what the U.N. is supposed to be for, but it’s only as strong as we make it, isn’t it? Lately, the U.N. is a laughingstock, and the U.S. contributed substantially to making it be that way.

Fuel to the fire: when asked what he thought about the Venezuelan President’s suggestion to remove the UN from the United States, President Bush replied, ‘But then it would only be the ited States!’

By Van

October 9, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

SusieHomeMaker,

” Van: Of course you’ve NEVER made a mistake in love have you?”

I can only attest to the last 37 years, before that it was a different time and a different place.

The 1960’s were fairly tame compared to today.

By Brian Curtis

October 9, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

I’d like to see a lot of shiftless welfare-suckers get asked some hard questions. Such as:

THESE are the welfare queens we should be worrying about, folks… not a few poor people on public assistance.

By Dusty

October 9, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Mallory,

I will go with your view to a certain point. Deadbeats are despicable and deserve no support. Morality is personal.

There does remain in our country the vein of morality which has concern for those truly inadequte to maintain themselves. Whether by disease, heredity, upbringing or whatever, we do not allow ourselves to cast off these people as trash. Some slip through the cracks, but I do not believe that is our intention.

We forever cringe as we read about, not only the holocaust for Jews, but also other innocents such as the insane, retarded, crippled and many more.

We must be careful not to step over the line in our efforts to halt deadbeats and the “sinful”. To do so would make us ALL without morality.

By Van

October 9, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

curious,

Re: bastard

Going back to english common law, a bastard would have had a difficult time inheriting anything from the father and certain jobs were denied them. During the time when kingdoms were passed down from father to son or daughter, the line was traced from the mothers side, never the fathers.

The offspring of illicit encounters were called “natural” children or bastards in early 19th century England.

The term bastard meant “of questionable origin”

By jbmlaw

October 9, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

JK @ 2:01, Kenndy lied and a woman died. Proud?

Toad @ 2:02, you must have learned your history of abolition from leftist history books. Toad @ 2:03, we totally understand why you want the North Koreans and Iranians to have nuclear weapons, and why you oppose those of us who disagree with you.

Dear abc @ 2:07, your critique is fair, except that my subject, admittedly approached obliquely, was hypocrisy and moral relativism. Your 2:34 essay is brilliant and efficient, my compliments.

Dear clarkslawga @ 2:07, you lying mudthrower - you know Jim holds the documentation of my credentials, as if that should matter. My powerful arguments always cause you to resort to such disreputable tactics, and you embarrass all honest leftists by such behavior. I have authorized disclosure to anyone who donates $1,000 to Jim’s favorite charity, and you also get lunch (on me) at the bistro of your choice. For a charitable contribution, you enjoy my uninterrupted company! And I would never bring a slander suit against anyone born June 15, 1968 if his wife has relatives in Louisiana.

Dear Pope @ 2:25, you suggest falsely that “Rebellion” is in the constitution? Or perhaps some of your mediation prevents you from paying attention to the discussion. I suppose you revealed the answer: some of us go to church to learn what the church teaches, and some of us go to movies produced by the anti-religious left to learn what the church teaches.

Dear Curious @ 2:39, second best argument of the day, and the most efficient, my compliments.

By Van

October 9, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

curious,

BTW, wwhat is wrong with the word anyway? It is just a word after all.

By jbmlaw

October 9, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Apologies Pope, I was trying to type “medication” for my jab - clearly something is inhibiting my fingers.

By Curious

October 9, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

Van,

By Mallory

October 9, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

Dusty, I’m not robbing from those who are truly incapable of providing for themselves. The deadbeats are.

I may be fed up, but I’m not heartless.

My apologies for not differentiating between the two.

By jbmlaw

October 9, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

Dusty @ 2:54, well-said.

By Aquagirl

October 9, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

There are some women who might disagree with calling nine months of pregnancy “inconvenient”.

And while y’all have made good points on why it’s not decent or moral to have an abortion, I still haven’t heard why we don’t apply such laws to other medical situations. To deny someone the use of your liver after you’re dead is to essentially condemn them to die; no one on here is harping about checking that box on your drivers license, lest you be called immoral. It’s just easier to toss around judgement on people when sex is involved.

By Political Foreskin

October 9, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

This just in: Steinbrenner blames the Democrats for the Yankee’s fall from grace.

By CJ

October 9, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw @1:40 “*I am unsurprised that Ann Coulter’s wisecracks fill you with rage, but you do not address her substantial arguments which demonstrate a powerful intellect and logic. *”

Mr. law — I responded on Friday to a similar statement you had made to me that day. In your “address the argument, not the source” post to me that day, you lended your support for JD’s asinine and entirely unsupported assertion that violent gays had scared the American Psychiatric Association into removing homosexuality from their medical reference of known mental disorders (using the Foley scandal as an opportunity for gay bashing).

I’ll repeat the crux of my response, since you can’t stop repeating this silly notion that Ann Coulter is some kind of a mental powerhouse whose arguments are worth consideration or that we should blindly accept information as true, regardless of source.

Once again, with all your years of experience pretending to be a lawyer, you should know that the credibility of any witness is an important factor for any judge or jury. Yet, day after day, you repeatedly advise others to believe facts presented and address arguments made from discredited sources — ironic advice coming from someone on the right.

So I say again – reasonable people (not to be confused with yourself) don’t consider the arguments of discredited pundits, economist, opinionators or other such haters. Nor do we unquestioningly absorb their facts or assertions into our bloodstream as truth, as you seem to do.

If you hope to persuade, you and your friends are going to have to do better than Ann Coulter, the editors of the Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh, Milton Friedman, Bill Bennett, Neil Boortz and others who have a losing record when it comes to telling the truth, predicting the future or how their private actions compare with the holy admonitions they espouse in public.

By jbmlaw

October 9, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

Dear JK, I respect you, as you are a true-thinker, and you deserve a more detailed answer than my smart comment. The question you have not really asked, and which I have not answered, is, “Why do I persist in raising the Kennedy/Chappaquidick question?” That is ancient history, at least to 20-somethings. Why should you care?

The short answer is, that was the date when the Democrats threw off their last vestige of integrity and honesty, and came together for the first (of many times) to protect the powerful against the meek. Since then, Democrats efforts to disparage those of us who retain some standards have become more desparate and unreasoned. I will not yield the issue of morality until he is brought to justice. By any comparison, Kennedy’s illegal killing, and Studd’s homosexual rape, make any other scandals pale by comparison.

By JK

October 9, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw, your selective outrage is SOOOOOOO BORRRRRRING. Where’s the justice for THIS boy?

Laura, they learned, had been speeding blithely out of town about 8 P.M., east on Farm Road 868, her high school friend Judy D** in the passenger seat. She never saw the stop sign. She never saw the other car. She plowed right through that stop sign and slammed hard into the 1962 Corvair coming south and with the right-of-way, on State Road 349, the La Mesa Highway. She was fine, really, the officer assured her parents, but bruised and banged up, and awfully upset. Judy was shaking but unharmed as well. But the boy in the other car, well, the force of the broadside impact was so severe that, well…He never had a chance. Michael Douglas, golden boy of Midland, high school track star, was dead on arrival at Midland Memorial Hospital. The two girls were taken there, too, in another ambulance. Mike Douglas’s father had been driving another car behind his son. He saw the entire horrific scene, the explosive beginning of a nightmare that haunted him his whole life. (Unreported scuttlebutt: the boy jilted Laura and she was angry.)

Yeah, and holla when you get to the bottom of the revoked-license medical examiner who said Joe Scarborough’s staffer Laurie Klausutis probably bashed her own head in.

By clarkslawga

October 9, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

Sorry jbmlaw. I wouldn’t pay 2 cents to find out what I already know.

You’re a fake and it’s obvious. You used to be a reasonable voice that I enjoyed reading but here lately you’ve turned into a flame throwing comrade of the Fake Brit and that has earned you my eternal derision. The day you compared that idiot to Christoher Hitchens in the day you dropped off the deep end into the morass of moral relativism your kind constantly decries.

You parade around here acting as if it’s your blog, making b****** comments to each poster as if your views carry weight. Face it, you were exposed and no one is going to give you back the credibility you lost.

And at no point have I ever made a political statement of any kind. No one here knows or will ever know where I stand on any issue other than that I hate fakes and bullies with all of my soul. Not that it matters to your dumb fake a* but that kind of makes your accusations of me being a leftist kind of specious doesn’t it? But you never seem to let facts get in y ur way, do you oh wise one.

I’ll sign off as has been my custom…

Fake…..times 2.

By jbmlaw

October 9, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

Ok friends, funniest line of the day:

“With 29 days until the election, evil mastermind Karl Rove has arranged for a distraction from the Democrats’ positive agenda of protecting America’s boys from perverted Republican electronic messages. North Korea “announced it had detonated an atomic weapon in an underground test,” the Associated Press reports. As Mark Foley might say, you can’t hug a child with nuclear arms.” James Taranto, Best of the Web, opinionjournal.com

By Dusty

October 9, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

You are trying hard to connect “welfare queens” to defense and security forces. Kinda a stretch, don’t you think?

Halliburton is one of the few large companies in our country that can handle contracts around the world. Did you want foreign countries taking care of American defense needs?

Why don’t you just declare that you don’t lie Bush because he is a Republican and he is rich. That should cover your unhappiness and also your envy.

By jbmlaw

October 9, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

CJ, with all due respect, you contradicted me Friday but provided no support - there was no “there” there, as I told you then. Learn the difference between contradiction and argument.

By clarkslawga

October 9, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

Damn jbmlaw.

First you get thwacked by Mr. Jones and now it appears CJ has called your bluff and what’s your answer………..

Silence.

Maybe you and TFTT are the same person. You have the same answers.

Pathetic.

By SusieHomeMaker

October 9, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

By jbmlaw — Susie @ 1:19, America was built on God and God’s gift of freedom.

America IS founded on the ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, (and we see now more than ever the necessity of that!); freedom to congregate, freedom to bare arms, etc. It was NOT founded on God and God’s gift of freedom. There was nothing “God Like” in killing off as many of the indigenous people as they could find.

By SusieHomeMaker

October 9, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Kennedy was acquitted of charges of manslaughter in the Mary Jo Kopechne case. Just let it go…….

By Political Foreskin

October 9, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Cartoon Idea: Show a mushroom cloud (with “N. Korea” labeled on it) behind the speaker’s platform on which Bush is speaking, and Bush saying, “the only advance warning from Iraqi terrorists will be a mushroom cloud”. Also show Condi Rice holding up a hollow rocket tube, and of course, a “mission accomplished”, “stay the course”, and “fight them over there” signs being brandished by the brainwashed christian right audience, who are suddenly stunned by the cloud that they see, but Bush and Condi Rice dont see, and then show Bush’s little dog lifting his leg on the whole thing, which is what should happen to the entire Repudlickan party of fondling fathers…

BTW: who is the fourth in line after the Speaker of the House to run the country after Bush/Cheney/Hastert resigns? Please tell me it’s Nancy Pelosi. Oh, please. Let it be so. Maybe Hillary? Or Barney Frank! or CYNTHIA MCKINNEY!!!

By Toad

October 9, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

Toad @ 2:03, we totally understand why you want the North Koreans and Iranians to have nuclear weapons, and why you oppose those of us who disagree with you.

I don’t want anyone to have nuclear weapons!! The US has no business saying who has them unless they are willing to demolish their own weapons.

By SusieHomeMaker

October 9, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

• I am unsurprised that Ann Coulter’s wisecracks fill you with rage,* A wisecrack is considered a joke. Vitrolic spewing of biased raging is not. Putting down whole groups of people to make yourself feel important, is sad.

but you do not address her substantial arguments, which demonstrate a powerful intellect and logic.

When she says something intellectual and logical, I’ll address it.

By Aquagirl

October 9, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

We have a constitutional right to wear tank tops?

By Van

October 9, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

Curious,

Amongst good friends it is used at times as a greeting or salutation. In the heat of temper, it can be used as a demeaning remark. It is used in many different ways.

It is also a word that describes aptly a child born out of lust and irresponsible choices and in todays society it has no worthwile meaning.

With so many bastards out there, my self included, oh word, where is your sting.

By abc

October 9, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Aquagirl, as posted earlier, neither the potential donor nor their family bears any responsibility to the party with the ailment, thus why should they have any liability? However, in the case of pregnancy and abortion, active participation in the new life’s creation incurs moral responsibility to at least allow it to be born.

By abc

October 9, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

Ann Coulter is a crackpot; the only reason she gets press is because some old farts think she’s hot, likely due to her long blonde hair.

By time for the truth

October 9, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

CJ you seem utterly obsessed with this homosexual bollocks, almost to the NAMBLA rednekkks level. I can only reasonably conclude that you are a poof - otherwise why would you ANALLY drone on and on about an unimportant post from some time ago. I am being serious here-and not joking.

You glibly talk of irony and truth telling, I suppose you have to forcefully suppress ANY AND ALL memories of the Clinton/AlBore era to do this with a straight face ironic pun intended.

You glibly dismiss intellectual heavyweight commentators from the visionary centre right yet (seemingly) expect us to unquestioningly embrace all the lies and liars from the left.

Clearly this is hardly much of a conversation you’re having with yourself. If you’re going to write more joke posts like your @3.18 at least have the grace and intellectual honesty to “flag” that its another effete attempt at humour.

Senor Limbaugh is Americas truth teller and other than twisted partisan legal hacks pursuing him out of political spite has an exemplary record, both moral and political. If addiction to pain killers from chronic back pain is a “crime” then reflect on the vast numbers of weak minded flaccid spined liberal vermin in Hollywood and rock n roll circles who are sniffing cocaine and binge drinking etc every day who dont get caught in the cross hairs of a corrupt leftist prosecutor.

By curious

October 9, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

Bravo, SusieHomeMaker, Bravo!!!

By Toad

October 9, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

I wished I’d had more “leftist history books” when I was in school so I would have learned about the genocide against American Indians and Africans in America and how it was all justified by ideas of racial superiority and the Bible.

By Political Foreskin

October 9, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

Better Cartoon Idea: Show a mushroom cloud with the words, “Family Values” on it, behind the platform that Bush is speaking from, and saying, “The only advance warning of disaster will be a mushroom cloud…”

Then of course show the christian right audience, who sees the cloud, in stunned stupored silence, holding their ridiculous slogan signs, “stay the course” etc.

BTW: The Repudlickans themselves are sending up test balloons to change the course, not stay the course. Expect another idiot slogan evolution like, “Adapt and win.” What ever happened to that one?

Bwa. Totals fools scurrying around like cockroaches with the light on them. HEY! That’s another cartoon idea: Show foley, hastert, and Bush scurrying around with cockroaches when the American People turn on the light of realization.

Its so over for the GOP. The only thing that can save them is a phoney terror alert.

Expect a terror alert soon. Or some bust of a “sleeper cell” that had been in surveillance for three years, but all of a sudden needed to be busted.

By Political Foreskin

October 9, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

Expect a terror alert soon in a last ditch effort to save the GOP.

By getalife

October 9, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

I think there should be a preemptive strike against the gop computers just in case of weapons of mass molestation.

This would spread freedom among the children and we will be greeted with tootsie roll pops.

By Th

October 9, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

JBM; typical rewriting of history. If you do not like the article I linked to from the Center for Defense Information, try one from Globalsecurity.org or anyone else who has taken a serious look at the North Korea nuclear situation. Their first reactor was built by the Russians in 1965. Many other interesting facts are included. Maybe you will believe Donald Gregg, former ambassador to South Korea under George Bush, the Smarter about George the Lessor’s botch of the situation.

By Toad

October 9, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Or the capture of Al Queda’s number two man!!

By Political Foreskin

October 9, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Expect a big bust of a sleeper cell of low level alqueda clones who will be billed as alqueda’s number one US cell and whose only crime will be that they threatend to blow up a Chucky Cheese after they got kicked out for over-whacking the mole in frustration.

By getalife

October 9, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

OMG, Pink Elephants!

By Political Foreskin

October 9, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

Cartoon idea: Show a new father passing out cigars, which reminds Foley to blame clinton for the page scandal.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

October 9, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

Lord, deliver us decent people from the sanctimonious pro-pervert sons of she-dogs that are ruining Your creation. Send the stupid and inbred lovers of the Devil Bush to Hell where they belong. In the Name of Jesus - the Prince of Peace - we pray. Amen.

By Question for Jim

October 9, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw

October 9, 2006 01:40 PM

— The question still stands: why do you ridicule the woman for failure to prepare, i.e. plan financially, emotionally, etc… for the child? Your contempt is onesided.

The man has just as much control as to bringing a child into the world as a woman. As I stated earlier you can give up Sex and women all together.

When a man decide to lay with that woman “who is NOT PREPARED”, he makes a conscience decision to suffer all the consequences. Be they (1.) Abortion (2.)Adoption (3.)Single-Parenthood with Child Support (4.) Marry the UnPrepared Woman (5.)Denial of Fatherhood, leading to Adsentee and NON CHILD SUPPORT.

The same thing goes for women, but 90% of the time she will suffer all the ridicule. While the father of those “Unwanted Kids”,goes free to marry or make more “Unwanted children”.

There should be a study to identify how many different women a man has children with in this state. Then find out how many of those women, actually receives child support. The study should include divorced men as well. Becuase, there are a number of them with multiple wives and child support orders. I would include the children of the current wife, since he is still responsible for supporting those kids in addition to HIS FIRST BORNS.

By getalife

October 9, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

Speaking of the thing called Ann

By Political Foreskin

October 9, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

Cartoon idea: Show Foley at a baseball game text messaging the batboys.

By Aquagirl

October 9, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

neither the potential donor nor their family bears any responsibility to the party with the ailment, thus why should they have any liability?

I hope I’m not drowning while you’re standing next to the life preserver.

If you’re talking about a moral obligation to bear/raise a child (not all children are easily adoptible) then fine. But it seems like splitting hairs to say that you should legally—-remember I’m making a distinction between legal and moral—-make a medical decision in one case that could endanger someone’s life or health, and exempt others from the same type of decision when it won’t place them in any jeopardy.

By @@

October 9, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

Jim: This is really touchy. There has to be a relationship established first before questions can be put forth. In the interest of taking the country in the right direction, they do need to be asked and answered though.

I’ve had the good fortune of knowing immigrants to this country. I’ve found many of them committed and responsible for the privelege of their new residence. My question to THEM would be. “What are you doing to assist your culture in acclimating to life in the U.S.?” “If illegal, are you encouraging them to seek citizenship, and are there those within your culture who can offer services necessary to do so?” “Are you explaining alternative healthcare options through gainful employment?” “Are you directing them away from fast cash loans with unreputable businesses?” I’d like to see them encourage each other to make a positive contribution. Putting them on the defensive may leave them there for the duration of their stay. The government has every right to know though and shouldn’t hesitate to ask.

The same thing goes for Moms who can’t offer fathers for their children. There are a lot of ways, that these mothers can ban together to better their lives as well as their children’s lives. Shared childcare, transportation to and from school, allowing Moms to have more than one job which can offer them more income to provide for their families. The absent fathers should be pursued through legal means to demand that they support the children which they created. No slack for them.

I’m more concerned for the unwed teenage Mothers. I’ve had the opportunity to talk with some of them at my church who offers our facilities free-of-charge to my County’s B.O.E. Child-Tech program. I’m always curious about the fathers, so I ask. “Are you and the Dad still together?” The majority of the time, the answer is “NO, he’s with somebody else, and he doesn’t help me.” “He’s in jail.” “Yes, we’re still together.” “Is he still in school?” “NO.” “Does he have a job?” “NO.” Of all the girls I’ve talked to, in only one instance, were they both in school, and had a long-term plan. Good for them.

Jim, this is our next generation. Where did they come from? Where are they going?

A lot of the services I’ve mentioned above are offered through local churches. So I’ve never understood why so many on the left are Anti-Church and Anti-Christian.

By CJ

October 9, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

jbm @3:26 “Learn the difference between contradiction and argument”

jbm, what the hell are your talking about?

Mr. law — You know that I questioned JD’s gay-bashing facts that he posted on Thursday. He followed up with no links and no supporting information, but with a bit of name dropping (writing that Dr. Gene Abel provided those facts). His so-called facts were debunked by others and by me when I provided a link to his own source. JD’s OWN source contradicted his ridiculous assertions.

Your bazaar interjection to me the next day: “don’t let the facts confuse you…learn from those you dispute”.

Now today you fabricate this “no there there” statement. I guess you’re comfortable recreating the facts a few days later, believing that nobody else pays attention. However, the comments of several other posters indicate that your credibility diminishes with each passing day.

Don’t worry jbm — tftt, Van the radical Lutheran, Markus, Dusty and Wooten still love you. You just keep on preaching to the choir.

By Political Foreskin

October 9, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

Cartoon idea: Show Bush’s dog barking furiously, and Bush is asking it, “What’s the matter, boy?” (Bark bark bark) “Foley’s trapped in a scandal?” (Bark bark bark) “Speaker Hastert is holding on for dear life? Where?” (Bark bark bark) “Over by the captitol? What should I do, boy?” (bark bark bark) “Blame the democrats? GOOD BOY!”

By Political Foreskin

October 9, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

Cartoon idea: Scene is the white house lawn. Show Bush’s dog following W with a pooper scooper and they are near a sign that reads, “Pets are responsible for cleaning up their owner’s mess).

By abc

October 9, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

Well shoot, Aquagirl, let’s just open up a bunch of Soylent Green outlets while we’re at it! Ha.

From a legal perspective, I don’t think someone should be assigned liability for something they weren’t a party in causing. From a moral perspective, all kinds of other issues can be involved. Would I donate a kidney if time grew short for someone waiting for one? Not while David Crosby gets one in a minute. Seriously, would I personally put myself at medical risk for a total stranger, or expect anyone else to do so? Probably not; I’m a single parent, people rely on me 24/7.

As far as adoptability, I’m sure even babies with webbed feet and flippers are adoptable by someone. (A small joke at your moniker’s expense!) We’re not talking about older kids here, we’re talking babies.

By Van

October 9, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

SusieHomeMaker,

“America IS founded on the ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, (and we see now more than ever the necessity of that!); freedom to congregate, freedom to bare arms, etc. It was NOT founded on God and God’s gift of freedom.”

Then the words of the Declaration of Independence are untrue?

“…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I guess God was not involved at all.

I guess when the signers relied on a deity with -

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

They were not calling on God to protect them.

Yes, the founders did not call on or honor God at all in our founding.

By Dusty

October 9, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

Goodness, Dems PoFo,Toad,Geta,

Don’t you want us to make headway against terrorism? Are you so afraid of George Bush’s success in protecting this country that you don’t want any captures of terrorist anywhere? Certainly sounds like it.

I am sure the terrorists appreciate your concern for them. They don’t like the President either.

Why don’t you also tell the troops to come on home because you don’t like the president? Tell the CIA that they can stop checking ‘cause you don’t like it. (More applause from terrorists.)

I don’t understand you. Don’t you know the president is not the ENEMY ?? The terrorists are are our enemies. Wake up!!!

By Political Foreskin

October 9, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

Cartoon idea, show Bush walking along the white house lawn, and his dog following him with a pooper scooper, and the piles of poo he’s scooping up are labeled “Iraq”, “Iran”, “Foley”, and “N. Korea”, (show a mushroom growing out of the N. Korean pile of poop)

Then show a sign that says, “Pets are responsible for cleaning up their owners messes”.

By abc

October 9, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

Van, I find those passages to be very thoughtfully worded so as to not specify any particular religion or deity.

By Political Foreskin

October 9, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

This just in: Dale Earnhart Jr blames democrats for last lap spinout in yesterday’s Nascar Race…..

By Political Foreskin

October 9, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

This just in: Hastert blames the democrats for not suspecting him sooner as a pedophile enabler which forced him to pretend Foley was a real christian and a decent human being, even though Hastert knew about Foley three years ago, and so did nearly every other ranking GOP senator and congressman and white house official and rove, and cheney and Barbara Bush. (why do you think her eyes are so wide?)

bwa

By getalife

October 9, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

Really crusty,

I thought it was the Dems.

By Toad

October 9, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

Dusty, I didn’t say the terrorists aren’t our enemies. The string of e-mails were focusing on the Bush administration’s faux terror alerts right before elections. And Bush is my enemy! He has done more to harm this country than any other president of my lifetime, even Nixon, so that’s saying a lot.

By Aquagirl

October 9, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this

Again, legally, you aren’t required to give up so much as a drop of blood for a relative, even a child that belongs to you after they are born.

And not all babies are easily adoptable. There are women who get pregnant while over 40 because they discontinued birth control, thinking they were no longer fertile. Their child has an increased risk of having problems…are you prepared to tell them they shouldn’t have the choice to have an abortion? What if prenatal testing shows the child to have down’s syndrome? The chances of adoption there are considerably less.

And hey, what’s wrong with webbed feet and flippers?!? I’d be first in line for that one. :)

By Van

October 9, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

Political Foreskin,

I thought Foley resigned almost 2 weeks ago, why is this still an issue - Demcrats hate gays.

By Th

October 9, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

An email from a marine in Iraq, later identified as head of marine intelligence. Some funny lines, some horrible. Scroll down a little. A big O’Reilly fan.

By Van

October 9, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

abc,

Yes, that is a tribute to the thinking of our founders. They knew that different people had different feeling to outright pronouncement of God - capital “G”. By using words like Creator, they were extremely inclusive.

If a deity endowed us, what do you call the deity - some faiths do not like invoking the name of God for any reason, some do.

These men were thoughtful and explicit in their words, every word meant something and the way words were used was by design.

By Toad

October 9, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

Webbed feet have served me well! But no one wants to adopt me because they think I’ll give them warts.

By Toad

October 9, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

I thought Foley resigned almost 2 weeks ago, why is this still an issue - It’s the cover-up that’s the issue. Just like Watergate. The burglary was minor compared to the White House cover-up.

By GodHatesTrash

October 9, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this

I hate people that are sexually attracted to teens and children and act on it. I also hate the hypocrite trash idiots that defend them.

It’s that simple, trash.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

October 9, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

“I never live from welfare because I hard worker. I just build houses for yu.”

It looks like the English classes in Guadalajara are competive with Georgia high schools’.

By SusieHomeMaker

October 9, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

funnliest line of the day:

Senor Limbaugh is Americas truth teller and other than twisted partisan legal hacks pursuing him out of political spite has an exemplary record, both moral and political.

LMAO

By Van

October 9, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this

GodHatesTrash,

This is the problem - Does the democrats support the alternative lifestyle or not? We know the Republicans told him to resign or else.

If they do not, does that mean the Boy/Girl Scouts can fire all the Gay troop leaders without worry?

By SusieHomeMaker

October 9, 2006 05:13 PM | Link to this

Then the words of the Declaration of Independence are untrue? “…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I’m being totally literal here but how do you KNOW for a FACT that the forefathers were talking about a chrisian GOD as the creator? They’ve could’ve been talking about a Hindu God etc.

Now that verse was speaking about the RIGHTS of an individual towards certain liberties. At the same time that the founding fathers wrote those words they all owned SLAVES. Did were the slaves also “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” or just the founding fathers? I feel you are taking their passages too literally and not taking it in the context to which it was given. Sort of like if Stevie Wonder sings a song about his “Seeing you in your red dress”, you should know that that statement from him is FIGURATIVE because he can not see. It is not mean to be LITERAL.

By Political Foreskin

October 9, 2006 05:20 PM | Link to this

Wooten’s article today was very provocative. In good form, he certainly exposed the democrats for allowing illegal immigration, the uninsured, and unsupported mothers. It is right and fitting that he did so.

Wooten also pointed out that protest signs give poor demographic profiling clues.

But why should a father support a mother with child when the mother nagged about the firmness of the mattress the entire time that he had her tied up?

The signs most abandoned women carry are tatoos on their lower backs. These are a clear set of instruction which inform the beholder not only about which page of the Kama Sutra to reference, but also about the demographic profile of the tatoo wearer: tramp, slut, or hollerback girl.

The tatoo does not, however, include a warning label cautioning the reader about possible liability if the sweet young thing turns out to be a senate page.

By CJ

October 9, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this

Wooten - “Where is the baby’s father and why isn’t he providing support?”

This question is a tried-and-true technique of the Right to remind us of the “welfare queens” who are having babies as an excuse to suck up all our tax dollars. Such statements are made with the hope that we’ll forget about the Medicare prescription drug scam that’s costing taxpayers millions, the agricultural subsidies that are costing us billions, the billions of dollars unaccounted for by the Iraq Coalition Authority, Katrina, earmarks such as bridges to nowhere, the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, no-bid contracts, rampant corruption and the incredible growth in the national debt that we and future generations will have to pay because of this incompetent Republican administration and Congress.

By Political Foreskin

October 9, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this

Cartoon idea: Show the GOP elephant walking along leaving several big piles of poop labeled, “Iraq”, “Iran”, “Foley”, and “N. Korea”. Show a mushroom growing out of the N. Korean pile of poo. Show Bush’s dog walking behind the elephant holding a pooper scooper and the thought balloon attributed to the dog is him cursing to himself, ” @#%* DEMOCRATS!”

By Political Foreskin

October 9, 2006 05:26 PM | Link to this

News Flash: Bush’s dog blames the Democrats for the Foley scandal…..report at 11.

By Political Foreskin

October 9, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this

I’m not a member of any organized political party: I’m a democrat.

By Markus

October 9, 2006 05:28 PM | Link to this

Hey CJ-

I think we had to continue from yesterday as I had to leave.. all those rich people and whatnot (I didn’t meet one single person who admitted to being a democrat).

“I think anybody following our conversation(for their sake, I hope nobody is) can see that you’ve been caught in a lie. I’m afraid your credibility is gone my friend. I’m sorry Markus, but that’s usually what happens to people who make things up.”

I’m sorry CJ, I think you missed the point, as usual. The time stamp of 1992 was not relative to AA message boards. The timestamp was relative post-1992, more specifically, 2000 in reflection. And methinks AA message boards were around then. Again, I have a memory. And again, I have a memory of all those Sunday AM talk shows circa-1992 which WERE before the internet. I have to remind myself that I’m dealing with a liberal, and liberals always nit-pick the details without addressing the meat of the post.

And insofar as what Gerri said, as you quoted:

“I can’t speak to the rest of the states, but if red-state Georgia’s public k-12 education system is an indication, her point is sound (although her hyperbole was unnecessary).”

Her point is sound indeed. Thanks for backing me up on my point about the seething hatred for the “fly over” red states. Oh well, I despise the blue states, so what else is new.

By SusieHomeMaker

October 9, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this

By Toad - I wished I’d had more “leftist history books” when I was in school so I would have learned about the genocide against American Indians and Africans in America and how it was all justified by ideas of racial superiority and the Bible.

You won’t find that in school, only the “white washed” version of American History will be read by our young minds, thank you very much.

Now go out back, tear down that branch from the hickory tree and whip your own a$$ for such a stupid comment.

By Political Foreskin

October 9, 2006 05:41 PM | Link to this

Cokie Roberts, on “This Week with George Stephanopolous”, mentioned Luckovich’s cartoon about Bush’s dog making up a sign of protest about cut and running in Iraq. That means she might read Lucky’s blog, and so might the entire roundtable of George Wills, and whoever else gets on. That means they might be reading me, which is where George Wills must have gotten his insights into Iraq. He turned on Bush long ago about Iraq. The things he says about Iraq sound like he’s been reading my blogs on the subject for years. It was I who said that we will have to overthrow the very government we helped get elected if we are to be honest with any real solution there. He also parroted my insight into just how long the ethnic and sectarian rivalries, (two distinct civil wars) has been raging, and how they intersect across the borders with the other adjacent countries, and how the Kurdish situation makes this such a complex problem.

We screwed the Kurds twice. We left them holding the bag. We watched Saddam slaughter them as our F-16s circled overhead at the end of Desert Storm. (Schwartzkoff gave Iraqis their helicopters priveleges back, and the insurgency we inspired among the Kurds died)

So Bush expects ME to believe that the Kurds are going to trust the Sunnis ever again? Or the USA? or the SHIA, who are the most vile of all towards the Kurds?

How stupid does Bush think the Kurds are? How stupid does Bush think I am? How stupid does Bush think the American People are?

I demand the resignation of Bush effective noon tomorrow. Ditto Cheney. Let the speaker of the house run things for a while………DOH!!!

By SusieHomeMaker

October 9, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

Don’t you want us to make headway against terrorism? Are you so afraid of George Bush’s success in protecting this country that you don’t want any captures of terrorist anywhere?

SECOND funniest line I’ve heard all day!! LOL

I am sure the terrorists appreciate your concern for them. They don’t like the President either.

R U Kidding!??!! Since Bush Jr., jihadist recruitment has SOARED!! Heck, I’m sure they’ll probably even send him a Christmas card this year!!!!

By CJ

October 9, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

“liberals always nit-pick the details without addressing the meat of the post”

Markus,

I sure hate to nit pick, but you made the mistake of supporting the “meat of your post” (that Democrats are hypocrites) yesterday with made-up stories such as your notion that Democrats complained in 1992 that Bush 41 didn’t “finish the job” in Iraq.

Of course, I couldn’t find anything on the net to support that made-up statement and part of your substantiation was that you were on the internet in ‘92 and people were telling you that on the blog. After reminding you that the internet wasn’t available to the public in 1992 (catching you in a lie), you now say that, “in reflection”, it was in 2000 that you read that on the blog.

Sorry Markus, but if you want people to consider the “meat of your post”, then you shouldn’t make things up to support it. You might want read my 3:18 post jbm to see why lying is bad for your cause.

By Political Foreskin

October 9, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

Good night all, dont forget to expect a phoney terror alert timed for election day.

Bush’s new spin on our mission in Iraq is: “Iraq is not doing anything now that it wasn’t doing before we invaded”.

True. Check it out.

By Markus

October 9, 2006 06:07 PM | Link to this

CJ-

Nope, talking points in 1992, internet points circa-2000. I didn’t lay out the time frame for either until YOU questioned me. Again, just because it’s not DOCUMENTED, doesn’t mean it’s not true. I don’t lie or make things up here, unlike your ilk on the left (bad economy - a LIE).

Here is what I said:

“During Election 1992, Democrits (and their media whores) criticized HW Bush for not “fininshing the job” in Iraq by taking Saddam out.”

And I still stand by that. This mentality spilled over to the 2000 election and what are now called blogs. Democrit politicians didn’t say that of course, Democrit PUNDITS did.

There’s no real purpose to lying on a board. I have an excellent memory on what people say and post that gets my attention. Sometimes things just aren’t out there to back up what is stated… that doesn’t make it a LIE.

By Markus

October 9, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

Speaking of lying, stating that the economy is in the toilet is a BLATANT LIE. Saying that the housing market is collapsing is a disingenuous comment, yet not a lie, without mentioning how long the housing market has been at record highs. No, methinks the left owns the bank on major and minor whoppers.