Thinking Right

By CJ

February 14, 2007 08:18 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Thanks for indulging me yesterday. I’ll keep it short this morning.

I say no too.

By Bush is okay.

February 14, 2007 08:24 AM | Link to this

Jim, this is the second article that doesn’t appear to have been authored by you. The weekend summary blog a couple of days ago also seemed alien.

Or are you trying to change your style? It is easier to read.

Sadr fleeing Iraq is the turning point in the Iraq war. Sadr doesn’t trust his own constituency? It’s over. This is like George Washington fleeing to Canada when the British captured Philadelphia.

If the intel is correct.

I think that if this intel is correct about Sadr fleeing to Iran, then W’s incredible gamble has paid off, and he will be listed along with Lincoln and Washington in this country’s top ten.

By @@

February 14, 2007 08:32 AM | Link to this

Bush is okay:

Sadr’s fleeing to Iran follows on reports that, with the surge, he had taken his family into hiding in fear for their safety.

Also, I found it interesting that in Zawahiri’s last video message, he pledges allegiance to Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, who he calls the leader of the worldwide jihadist movement.

So, where’s Bin Laden? Incapacitated, or dead?

By Scooter

February 14, 2007 08:35 AM | Link to this

Jim, it truly amazes me that people are using Romney’s, or politicians for that matter, flip flopping on abortion issues against him. Really, what do “the people” want, someone who says what they are going to do, is committed to that act and pursues it at the cost of public opinion? Of course not, that would be something a leader would do. The American electorate seems to want leaders with no personal convictions and beliefs. Leaders who will capitulate their actions to the fickle whims of the uninformed masses. Romney fits that bill to a “T”.

Sure, the masses get the information the “media” chooses to provide them, but; they do not get the level of international information the congress and president get. Unfortunately, the democracy we are striving for is the democracy in which the Average Joe makes the decisions about the country’s future.

By puzzled

February 14, 2007 08:42 AM | Link to this

I’ve heard the question before: “Will Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith alienate the conservative religious right?”

The question puzzles me. I know quite a few Mormons and, by and large, they are the most conservatively religious people that I have met. How can Mitt’s conservative values and moral character be a negative thing to those who espouse conservative values and moral character?

By @@

February 14, 2007 08:42 AM | Link to this

Oh, and Jim…I’d have no problem voting for Romney. The views of a candidate on issues are what matter to me. Not their religious affiliation.

I’m waiting to hear from Newt though. He said he’d announce in September.

Anyway, is Romney a member of the Mormon Church or the LDS? I thought there was a breakaway. I’m not clear on this, just asking.

By Southern Democrat

February 14, 2007 08:54 AM | Link to this

To my conservative friends,

I would think that Romney’s religion would not be a major issue to y’all. His previous VERY liberal stances on social issues (go back and look at some of his speeches from even 7 years ago) would be a problem. Of course, I’d love to see him get the nomination and hear the far right try to explain how Kerry’s flip-flopping was treasonous, but Romney’s was merely “conversion.”

I do like the precedent Wooten is setting, though. I would love to be able to discuss the candidates substantively and with people who are equally passionate about these issues as me.

By Bush is okay.

February 14, 2007 08:59 AM | Link to this

If the Dixie Chicks dont (have a) fit, then W musta’ quit!

Strangely, Howard K Stern was on Entertainment tonight in a half hour special nearly all devoted to him crying about Anna Nicole, and he was wearing a diaper.

(nothing suspicious there)

Giraldo has Stern convicted. Giraldo, acting on his reporter’s instincts, searched Stern’s car and found a fake beard, a passport, $10k in cash, and a box of pampers

By Bush is okay.

February 14, 2007 09:00 AM | Link to this

A report on CNN just flashed that Sadr was captured at the border to Iran wearing diapers!

By Bush is okay.

February 14, 2007 09:05 AM | Link to this

Fox News just reported that a police report has surfaced about the day Cheney shotgunned his friend by accident in the face. The report claims that when the accident occurred, Cheney was wearing diapers!

By Redneck Convert

February 14, 2007 09:16 AM | Link to this

Well, I could just see that Romney fella in the White House with all his First Ladys. One would want to plant flowers on every hiway and others would want to take up child reading or measles or some other cause. Everybody knows the Mormons beleive in marrying many wifes at a time. Me, I got my hands full with just one wife, because she’s eating me out of house and home, I don’t see how a guy can handle several of them at a time.

Far as I’m concerned, there’s only one true relegion, and that’s Christian, the kind that’s preached at the Church of Holiness where I go when Sister Dusty is out of town. When that old clinch-faced bitty is there I stay home. All the other kind of Christians is just heathens, and that goes for Jews and Moslems and all the other false relegions too. Sure, I’ll pertend to respeck other relegions out in public, but I ain’t voting for nobody that don’t follow the Good Book to the letter and that includes the Old Testiment and laying hands on to heal and handling snakes.

So people can keep on talking about how Romney has the Right Values now even tho he didn’t 5 yrs. ago. And they may tell you they will vote for him. But when I go up to Rome and then home to double my vote, you can bet I won’t be pulling no handle for Romney. And they’s a lot more like me here in GA.

I see old Charlie Norwood is dead as 4 o’clock. He was a good man except for hating the insurence cos. I don’t know how the libruls got to him on that and I hope he didn’t wake up in a hot place toasting over that librul thinking.

Still no word from TFTT. Maybe they got him in a cell by hisself and won’t let him call in. I kind of miss “bollocks” and all the other fancy English words here. But he must have got hisself arrested and that means he’s guilty of something. Old Markus is missing too. Do you think they are the same person?

By jbmlaw

February 14, 2007 09:17 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. My guess is that Mitt Romney will be reasonably well-received by conservative republicans, although his conservative bona fides are no better than those of Rudy or John. If he gets the nomination, he will sweep the south, as would any reasonably-decent republican candidate. My guess is that liberal democrats would be no more likely to vote for him that they did for George Bush in 2004, but that is not Jim’s question for the day.

The implicit issue behind Jim’s query is one you hear mostly from people my age or older – are Mormons Christians? They use an additional text, and 100 years ago that was a source of controversy. 50 years ago there was some question of full acceptance of blacks in the church membership. I think enough of the non-Mormon population has now enjoyed sufficient contact with Mormons to remove the bogeyman aspect. People today respectfully disagree on doctrine; even the most severe or dogmatic fundamentalist Christian would have no serious problem with Mormons, just as they tend to favor Israel.

By J

February 14, 2007 09:23 AM | Link to this

I’ll pass on the Mormon thing…he has to prove himself a front-runner before it really matters.

Rather, I’d like to focus on the “innovation and transformation” bit. The idea is laudable, I suppose, but it’s SO intuitive and “duh”-level obvious that it comes across as an incredibly empty platitude.

Given the current political environment, I expect this electoral cycle to be especially heavy on the empty-platitude-rhetoric…think the politician character in “Taxi Driver”. Unfortunately, these empty statements only muddy the waters and obscure real issues, and we seem to be in for a bumper crop in the next 19 months…

By Jeff

February 14, 2007 09:25 AM | Link to this

If the choice was the Republican ticket with Romney or the Democratic ticket with either Hillary or Obama, Romney wins hands down.

That said, I’m not that impressed with ANY of the Republican candidates so far. ALL seem to be in favor of pushing bigger government for their pet projects.

By Joey D

February 14, 2007 09:26 AM | Link to this

Who cares if he’s a morman…he’s a huge hypocrite…his sickening attempt to turn back same sex marriages is nothing but pandering, especially since he’s made many pro-gay statements in the past. McCain isn’t much better. If Guliani runs and stays true to himself, I’ll vote for a republican president for the first time ever.

By jbmlaw

February 14, 2007 09:27 AM | Link to this

My friend Southern @ 8:54 poses the real question for republicans – where are the conservative candidates? With the possible exception of Newt – and I totally discount Brownback and Huckabee – the leading candidates all have serious anti-conservative issues in their backgrounds. As the WSJ seems to have switched its support (they falsely claim they don’t support specific candidates) from Romney to Rudy, Rudy looks like the candidate to beat – jbmlaw forecast is Rudy will be the nominee, and maybe Newt as vp. Will that alienate the Dobson contingent?

By Jeff

February 14, 2007 09:44 AM | Link to this

Is there ANYONE on the national radar who has taken a true smaller government stance?????

By Bush is okay.

February 14, 2007 09:53 AM | Link to this

Obama is the next prez. We’d rather have a black man named Hussein than any white woman (including Eleanor Roosevelt). It says alot about our views on women. They are still the n word of the world. (John Lennon).

We still see woman as baggage and punching bags and ball and chains and gravity victims and private personal opportunities.

Men fall in love with the makeup. (that’s been proven). That’s why women have a secret creed they share with each other and which no man was supposed to find out about it, but hey, girlfriend: I READ YOUR DIARY!

Now I will share what I stole from the secret code of feminine intuition: “Always look your best. Apply makeup assiduously every day. keep refreshening it. Never let anyone see you at less than your best. Makeup. Makeup. Makeup.”

Men wont vote for makeup, but they’ll chase it, and stalk it (wearing diapers)

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

February 14, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

The south elects Morons, why not Mormons?

Lord, protect us from violent redneck southron filth. Amen.

By Curious Observer

February 14, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this

Who cares about the Republican nominee? The American public has wised up, except for the regressive South, which will be voting for knuckle-draggers long after everyone on this blog is dead. It has become clear during the past six years that the Republican party stands for rewarding the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor, shipping our jobs overseas in the name of the “free market,” and conducting wars as a means of inspiring false patriotism and garnering the votes of the stupid. So go ahead and trot out those losers, then select one. He will recede to unimportance after the 2008 election. I would love to see the Republicans run Triple Marriage Rudy and “Here’s Your Divorce Papers, Sorry You’re in the Hospital for Cancer” Newt. Family values indeed!

By JP

February 14, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this

“The implicit issue behind Jim’s query is one you hear mostly from people my age or older – are Mormons Christians?”

jbm, there are enough Christians who dont’ consider Catholics to be Christian that I have to disagree. Remember, Catholics use the same New Testament.

“My guess is that liberal democrats would be no more likely to vote for him that they did for George Bush in 2004”

Probably true. The only GOP candidate I’ve seen who might earn my vote is Mike Huckabee—he’s very gifted at speaking conservative doctrine while NOT talking down to Democrats, something everyone in this forum could learn from.

By Reece

February 14, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

I don’t really understand the question. ThinkingReich proves on a daily basis that the south is FULL of Morons.

By liberalextremist

February 14, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

As a “liberal”, I like both Romney and Guiliani. They are both pro-choice and pro-gay rights. I can’t tell the difference between these two and the Democratic candidates. Jim, you left the above out in your opening statements this morning.

By Lily Toad

February 14, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

The Republicans have had their day nationwide, so it doesn’t really matter who the Republican candidate is. One day Georgia may just catch up with the rest of the country.

By Dusty

February 14, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

Curious Observer,

With your usual anti-South, anti-Republican babble, you simply confirm that you are a blind-sided liberal.

Anyone who wants to mention moral based issues in connection with Republican candidates must have a bad memory. The lies and depravity left in the White House by Clinton have not been forgoten even when we would wish it. They hover above Hillary like smog because she is a Clinton and one Clinton is more than enough.

Don’t point fingers when your hands are dirty.

By time for the truth

February 14, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

Tom Tancredo is the best candidate so far announced, his visionary, patriotic position on the illegal infestation is the finest in congress. Though I know sadly he wont win. Guiliani is easily the second best candidate although he’s way too soft on queer pooftah types. Being mildly pro-choice is OK with me as I don’t blindly and unquestioningly subscribe to dogmatic positions, unlike the leftist vermin on here and rabid evangelical tossers. Rudy’s modest marital difficulties are as nothing compared to the white trash cocaine sniffing Arkansas rapist’s or the drunken adulterous DUI killer Kennedy’s. Gun control issues don’t bother me much, though nutty PETA like leftist gun grabbers should be made to put a large sign in their windows saying NO GUNS IN THIS HOUSE. Newt is easily the best president we’ve never had, so if the hypocritical leftist illegal immigrant panderer McCain isn’t properly hammered in the early rounds then maybe Newt needs to step in and save us all, if Rudy doesn’t look like winning.

The leftist scum candiate will predicktably be yet another bleating screeching cut and run Bush hater, just like the last two beaten deeply flawed worthless wankers. Happily it wont be the smug vapid black bigot Osama Obama.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/wus111.xml

By rarringt

February 14, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

Good morning.

Romney’s candidacy is critical to the GOP primarily because he will formally displace McCain as the far right candidate, thereby positioning the gentleman from Arizona as the “moderate.”

There seems to be a form of collective amnesia these days where folk forget that in 2000, McCain lost because he was considered too conservative for a politically split electorate. People went with Bush because he seemed the “compassionate conservative,” and that he’d have more of a caretaker role in a country that was much better off then than it is today.

Ultimately, McCain owes Romney a debt of gratitute. By tossing his hat in the ring, and effectively moving McCain closer to the right-of-center position, he may have just helped his “opponent” take one significant step closer to the White House.

McCain’s strength is that, despite his own far-right leanings, he is something of a pragmatist, and is willing to put his own views aside for the good of the majority. At least, he’s been carefully positioning himself that way for the past 6 years, as to not have a repeat of 2000.

By time for the truth

February 14, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

I see the yankkkee pig rednekkks NAMBLA is generously taking time off from the official VT state enabled activity of child molesting to be with us this morning.

By Reece

February 14, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Liberalexremist,

As a person of a like mind, I would like to point out something that I keep repeating to anyone that wants to hear it (and many that don’t). Guiliani is very similar in mental makeup to GW Bush. Monarchic mindset, neoconservative hawkishness, averse to receiving advice from others and a mean streak a mile wide. Be very careful what you wish for. I’m hopeful that we’re going to see the Renamblicans put up W’s butt buddy McCain. Then he can run with the support of the 28 percenters, you know, the bible thumping, non-reality based Morons…or is that Mormons? That’s so confusing.

By Ooooooooo

February 14, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Mormonism rises from an insane, mystical tale of a guy translating texts that supposedly showed up from the sky engraved on golden plates. He is called a latter day saint, but sure seems like a latter day freak. Today, geeky freaks follow this religion. They’ve got a great choir and are squeaky clean, but really creepy.

By Southern Democrat

February 14, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Do any conservatives think that the GOP will counter the diversity of the Dem field with a minority candidate that is bona fide conservative, a la Condi or Powell?

Each and every candidate will have his or her problems; I already mentioned Romney’s history and everyone who did not live in New York in the late 90s forgets that Giuliani is a tax and spend authoritarian who left Bloomberg with a major budget crises (9/11 notwithstanding, I’m talking about city labor issues). Giuliani also has more skeletons in his closet than the GOP would care to address, I would think. I’ve read both Giuliani’s “Leadership” and Obama’s “Audacity of Hope” and was not overly impressed with either. Anyone else have a similar experience?

By Koz

February 14, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

I don’t care that he’s Mormon. I’m not voting for him because he’s from Massachusetts

By Bush is okay.

February 14, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

If the Dixie Chicks dont (have a) fit, then W musta’ quit!

By rarringt

February 14, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

Dusty said,

The lies and depravity left in the White House by Clinton have not been forgoten even when we would wish it. They hover above Hillary like smog because she is a Clinton and one Clinton is more than enough.

If your argument is that the political sins of the father effectively inure to the son (or in this case, his wife), I’d be curious as to your sense of any future members of the Bush family/nee dynasty occupying the white house after W leaves office.

By getvoveryourself

February 14, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

TFTT,

So let me get this straight…Tom Tancredo, a man whoo spoke at a meeting of the racist League of the South, as well as garners support from other racist groups isn’t a racist at all, but Barack Obama on the other hand is a racist?

Do you even know the meaning of the term “racist”?

By HAROLD

February 14, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

“Southerners are comfortable with religious diversity”

??????????

DIVERSITY LIKE LEAVING OTHERS TO BUY BEER AND WINE ON SUNDAY IF THEY CHOOSE, RIGHT?

THE SOUTH IS THE LEAST COMFORTABLE WITH OTHER RELIGIONS

YOU CANT EVEN BE A NONRELIGION HERE WIHTOUT MAKING EVERYBODY UNCOMFORTED

By Peyton Walters

February 14, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

tftt is engaged in a physical love affair with J. Edgar Hoover’s remains.

By Jim's a Distractor

February 14, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

Hi Jim,

I was hoping for something on the Libby trial, Iran or Dusty Foggo, but I guess a blurb about another hypocritical politician will do.

In particular, I love this statement:

Southerners are comfortable with religious diversity and would welcome a President whose religious beliefs are non-threateningly different, especially a mainstream conservative.

What you basically said is Southerners like religious diversity, so long as the diverse religion in quesiton is like theirs.

That’s not diversity. That’s intolerance.

By time for the truth

February 14, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

getalegoveryourself

if you actually bother to read the Telegraph article I posted you will see that Osama attends a black power church full of anti-white bigots and has done for 20 years. I have never heard of the group you mentioned Tnacredo spoke to. Clearly there is an ENORMOUS difference between taking a visionary political message to a one off meeting and for 20 years attending a bigot black power church.

YOU DISGUSTINGLY HYPCOCRITICAL leftists make me laugh and laugh with your desperate attempts to smear conservatives who actually care about enforcing US immigration laws. contrast this with the incesant fawning over this wanker Osama who has no original ideas , no vison, no message, just the usual vague multi-culti leftist drivel. If this dolt Osama Obama wasn’t half black nobody would give a toss about him!!

By Dusty

February 14, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

rarringt

Are you also Curious Observer?

Your case is not well made. The Clinton “aura” is too close behind us to forget. Nor will history. Right or wrong, it still hangs over the “two for one” Hillary.

Just like a good liberal, you are trying to insinuate that the Bush family ALSO has lies and depravity. NO, it doesn’t.

You may consider Congress, CIA, FBI anad the President as liars because of the War but that is not true.

Everything has not gone well in Iraq as often happens with wars. But it is not because of lies or depravity and not because of a lack of character.

Clinton lost his character. I am being charitable in suggesting that he had some.

The Bush family will go down in history as distinguished Americans who led their country through good times and bad.

By liberalextremist

February 14, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

Reece, I totally get your point. I am not espousing Guiliani’s virtues. I would further describe him as a womanizer, but the same description could be attached to Clinton, therefore I digress. Guiliani would be the first to say to hell with compassionate conservatism and begone with the faith based programs which I have no problem with eliminating. Guiliani, as you so clearly stated earlier, as president is a tax and spend Republican just like his hero, Dumbya and would continue and probably make worse this hell we’ve created called Iraq.

By Van

February 14, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

I remember the controversy about John Kennedy and his faith(Catholic). It seems the Democrats were all worried about the Pope telling JFK what to do.

As far a Romney’s religious belief, at least he has one and is not a atheist or agnostic.

I would rather have a believer in any of the worlds major religions in the White House than a secularist or socialist.

By getoveryourself

February 14, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

TFTT,

Here’s a link for you bubbaturd. Debating and opposing illegal immigration is one thing, but fearmongering and outright hatred is another.

In regards to Obama’s church, what’s wrong with preaching about black self-empowerment? I thought that’s one thing that at least conservatives would agree with…taking responsibility and empowering yourself. Oprah has gone to that church as well and looking at her mostly white viewing audience, I can hardly believe that she is anti-white. Or is it that you’re an overly sensitive little tw@t that easily feels left out and needs to feel wanted and loved?

And so what Obama receives press because he’s half-black. He’s the first presidential candidate with known black ancestry that has a fighting chance of winning a presidential election. Thus the historical significance of the matter. On the flip side, I’m sure you could say that Bush gained popularity because of his name and family.

By quint

February 14, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

So,what many of you are saying is that a man cannot change his mind, is that right? His views cannot change? I want to vote for a presidential candidate that shows growth during his political career. Sometimes that growth is in the same direction in which he was already leaning. YOu might call that conviction. But sometimes I would like to see a politician say I used to believe “this” but as a result of personal reflection, new information, or my own maturity as a person I now believe “this” instead.

And by the way, Mormons believe that God is all powerful and the plates of the record of Mormon’s people were hidden away and later revealed to Joseph Smith. The Mormons believe that God still reveals his will through a prophet on Earth today because his children still need him. Mormons also believe that everyone has the right to choose right and wrong for himself and that we are given character flaws that we must overcome. Those are just some of the views of the Mormons.

The Mormon church is the same as LDS or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Just different names. The first is the common name assigned by the general public, the second is a shorthand version of the final, which is the official name of hte Church.

Why do religious conservatives spit such hateful venom at people who are different from them? Maybe they should pop that WWJD? rubber band on their wrists. Or was that a passing fad?

I could not vote for George Bush or John Kerry in the last election…neither were worthy of my vote. Kerry is slimy and Bush is a narrow-minded tool. Give us someone who is worthy of our votes. SOmeone who wants to do what is best for all Americans, not just Republicans or Democrats, not just SOutherners or Westerners, white, black, or,brown.

OK. Start spitting.

By rarringt

February 14, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

Andy said:

[C]ontrast this with the incesant fawning over this wanker Osama who has no original ideas[.]

With all due respect, I’m not terribly concerned about an alleged dearth of “new” ideas. I think there are already plenty of great ideas and plans out there. We don’t need a creative genius in the White House, although that would be nice.

What is necessary is a person who is able to exercise reasonable and sound judgment, to have the sense to learn the lessons from the past and apply them effectively to the present to create and promote a better future.

We don’t have that now. We haven’t had it for some time. It’s an incredibly difficult skill set, especially when used on a global stage.

I don’t know if Obama’s the right person for the job, but I think he’ll make sure we talk about the true priorities in this country, and have a genuine discussion with america (versus the highly censored and controlled variety Bush has become known for).

I also applaud McCain, Clinton, Guiliani, Edwards and others. It appears that we’re finally going to have the election and quality of candidates that we need to move forward.

And that is cause enough to celebrate.

By getoveryourself

February 14, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

time for the douche,

Here’s one more article about your hero Tancredo. Even the conservative periodical National Review referred to him as an idiot!

By Religion

February 14, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

Theory: Catholic is the only true religion, if you want to be technical. All other religions dont have Christ as the founder. On judgement day, we will know if that matters. Does Christ matter? Martin Luther apparently didn’t think so. He was so offended by the debauchery practiced by Rome’s Catholic Leaders that he started his own religion. It’s like he decided that Christ couldn’t possibly have known what He was doing. (And now look at the mess of christianity). Mankind is so dead. Our souls are so toast. I wonder if Anna Nicole Smith is burning in hell right now. It’s a legitimate question. You either believe we have a soul or you dont. Anna Nicole was certainly a mortal sinner of the worst kind. You cant go around having geriatric sex and expect to enter the kingdom of heaven. Did you get a load of the devilish look on that old mans face in that famous photo of Anna Nicole and him? It’s like somebody plugged him in. He demonstrably lit up! That’s a mortal sin, and they’re both burning in hell, as it should be, as God planned, and we all shall experience. So convert to Catholicism today, or expect the same. Mortal sins. They’re not just for Romans anymore.

The preceding was a tone poem of ancient superstitions mixed with modern theo-sociology and a couple of old wives tales. Any offense taken by any person living or dead is strictly forbidden by Major League Baseball.

By Dennis

February 14, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

By Van February 14, 2007 11:24 AM

“As far a Romney’s religious belief, at least he has one and is not a atheist or agnostic.

“I would rather have a believer in any of the worlds major religions in the White House than a secularist or socialist.”

I think I’d weigh my words on this one. The biggest attrocities on this planet have been committed in the name of religion - including the christian religion.

As to “or socialist”, the Christian religion IS about socialism, not just limited to “let us save your soul”.

The problem about “socialism” as being destructive/communistic comes because people mistakenly try to equate socialism as anti-capitalism, which is not correct either.

Atheist and agnostic are not the same either. One or both are better than a blind follower.

But I’d take an ethical one of either over an immoral “islamic” or White House “christian” anyday.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By GodHatesTrash

February 14, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

Let’s face it - the vast majority of white southerners are filthy stumpbroke superstitious fundamentalist idjits.

Cretins like jbm, Dusty, et. al. carry the stigma and crippling effects of generations of inbreeding, illiteracy, and intoxication - fetal alcohol syndrome and crack babies are rampant in this population. Let’s face it - the southron is a cripple, even below the English lower classes in terms of taste, breeding, education, and hygiene, if that were possible.

These Morons will vote for whomever their filthy voodoo preachers tell them to vote for. If Romney gives this carrion preacher class enough money, they will make sure he gets the trash vote.

By Amber

February 14, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

Fellow reality-based bloggers,

Please beware of Dusty posts. She is adept with the following discussion tactics:

By time for the truth

February 14, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

@ getyourleftistlegchoppedoff

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

“the nation” …HA HA HA HA - a despicable far left poorly circulated rag that no one but ignorant POORLY INFORMED snivelling leftist dogturds read. Tancredo stands up for ordinary Amercians sick and tired of Bush’s disgusting pandering and the endless leftist grovelling to oily racist illegals, violent drug dealers, child molestors, rapists, murderous gangbangers etc. La Raza means the race sh!tforbrains … many of these mexcian types are racists. they’re ignorant, invariably very poorly educated and usually refuse to speak/learn english and are here to freeload and live in squalid mexican ghettos, ruining neighbourhoods by illegally living 10+ to a small house … and on and on. even during sick willie klinton’s poxy little labour certification ‘amnesty’ in the late 1990’s very few mexican types even bothered to file to become illegal!!!

black religious bigots are still bigots bollockchops. who cares what that liberal tub of lard oprah does. she’s an even more pathetic interviewer than that senile tw@t larry king’s still alive (but only just). equating this fat trollop’s religious bigotry with her unthinking liberal housewife tv audience is more meaningless leftist bollocks.

osama gets press because the party of hate media sees a far left black tw@t who they can manipulate and manufacture politically. he’s way above his empty head in the senate. has done NOTHING of any political consequence anywhere, except beat Keyes in IL in a meaningless senate race.

he has NO chance of winning - but his race means he’ll get the nauseating pandering media fawning for a while longer. at least he’s usually clean and slightly articulate though - unlike sharptongue and jackasson!!

By Good Question

February 14, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

Rarrington, you expect far too much of your fellow pollsters. They cant properly size up one candidate and you mentioned four. No, no, no sir. A republican will win again by less that a tenth of one percent of the vote like always because I think our elections are properly rigged, (and it’s for the good of all), The common good. the global good. Good vs evil. We cant allow anyone to be prez. There’s too much at stake. Notice how the world is a pretty great place? Why risk it on a young black american named Hussein? No way. The next prez will be a white haired aging white guy with a strong conservative record. And the USA will soar.

Things are the way they are because they are made that way by those hidden powers we’ll never fathom.

Did you listen to Bush’s press conference? He’s convinced me. We are doing the right thing in Iraq if the criteria for right is to ensure freedom around the world. I dont understand why, but I dont have to understand why, I simply have to enjoy my own freedom. And respect the decision made by those responsible for securing that freedom. We cant have fifty different leaders trying out fifty different strategies to fight the war on terror.

Just accept it. The Republicans are doing great. We’ve got Sadr on the run, and he’s the George Washington of Iraq’s Shia Revolution and the Icon of the Shia Superstate. It’s over for them. Iraq is mostly secured now. No amount of IEDs or shaped charges or suicide bombers can affect the destiny of a free Iraq. And a free Iraq will influence the entire region to move forward in peace and prosperity.

By time for the truth

February 14, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

By GodHatesTrash let’s face it - the vast majority of white southerners are filthy stumpbroke superstitious fundamentalist idjits.

which still puts them CULTURALLY/GENETICALLY way ahead of your filthy child molesting yankkkee arse rednekkks NAMBLA!!

By Good Question

February 14, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

But God doesn’t hate trash. He hates sin. I cant seem to stop sinning. I commit the same sins over and over for fifty years. I’ve estimated that I’ve hand cranked over ten thousand times. I’m a regular Wilt Chamberlin, but without all the girls.

By Devastator

February 14, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

GODHATESTRASH,

You are a victim of the media’s unrelenting attempt to stereotype southerners. If the south was the way in which you depicted, then the entire country wouldn’t be moving here in droves. All of the symptoms you listed are prevalent throughout the entire country, but only this area is booming.

Don’t worry, help is still available for you.

By time for the truth

February 14, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

My excessive drug use is evident in my writings. I exhibit the ability to type derogatory words, but not the ability to demonstrate anything authentic or thoughtful.

By Good Question

February 14, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

The problem with a blog is that bloggers cant resist the temptation to personally intervene in another blogger’s thread. Doesn’t matter if you get away with it, most dont, but so what? You won that one. Oh, you got me good that time. That’s one for you. Boy, do I have egg on my face or what? Hard to get happy after that one. Have a beer.

The world is moving to fast even here on this blog for bloggers like that. Blog weariness. The internet did one thing: it has put us all on the same page. We’re all up to speed and you cant really get anyone, not really. Soon, the pigmies will have computers and then we’re really in for it.

So just slow down. let it happen. You can do it.

By Dusty

February 14, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

Southern Democrat,

Diversity will not be the problem with presidential candidates in 2008. There won’t be any.

Condi and Powell are both great citizens with spotless integrity. But Condi does not have the robust overpowering personality that women must have in politics such as Thatcher and others.

Powell dropped out of the picture in a somewhat retreating form which would hinder his efforts, Republican or otherwise.

Obama is long on charisma and short on experience. That realization will soon dawn on Democrats.

That is why I do not think diversity will be a centerpiece in the 2008 elections.

By getoveryourself

February 14, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

time for the douche,

Nice unhinged hissy fit @ 11:53! I’m really flattered. You can’t factually debate so instead you sling labels around rather recklessly! Cheers!

What’s exactly racist about people sneaking across the border illegally to find better work? Are illegal immigrants oily or are you making a racial sterotype?

You still haven’t described how Obama and Oprah are racists that belong to a racist church. I really couldn’t give a damn about what you think about Oprah’s debating abilities or about Obama’s potential of winning the election. Just back up your point asserting that they’re racists….especially since you have just described Mexicans as being oily.

The Nation is indeed a liberal periodical, but it’s no more slanted than the Tory-loving Daily Telegraph. You can goolge Tancredo and find other articles about his speaking engagements at and support from racist organizations.

I’ll be polite in ending this post and just say a simple thank you again for that little temper tantrum earlier @ 11:53.

By time for the truth

February 14, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

VT CHILD MOLESTOR ALERT!!

be careful folks … “godhatestrash” is simply yet another hateful “troll” id from rednekkks NAMBLA aka rednekkks al qaeda etc.

By Devastator

February 14, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

I hate to interrupt, but diversity will be a major issue in 2008 because of Hillary. Don’t let your own womanhood blind you of that.

By Chris Hansen

February 14, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

time for the truth,

Ever since we apprehended you on dateline you’ve been lashing out this way. Stop. Chill. Just because you can’t rape little girls anymore doesn’t mean you have the right to take it out on people who don’t agree with you.

By getoveryourself

February 14, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

time for the douche,

Correction…I meant Oprah’s INTERVIEWING abilities rather than DEBATING abilities.

By Dusty

February 14, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

Amber,

I take it that you don’t like my posts. Just a wild guess.

May I post another guess? You’re a liberal!! So, what’s new?

Oh, and Amber, you forgot to mention that I am also a Southerner!!!

Happy Valentine’s Day to you, Amber!!!

By Pillowbiters for Bush

February 14, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

Ever notice?

F-ags like Andi and time for the truth and fa-g hags like Dusty are almost to a “man” Bush voters.

By time for the truth

February 14, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

@getyourleftistlegchoppedoffNOW!!

typical leftist dogturd tactic … you dishonestly ignore the actual factual points and just sling abuse or become as dishonest as a klinton … so I merely mirror back your abuse tactic!!

the act of illegally crossing the border isn’t racist (liberal dishonesty)… but the attitude while they’re here so often is.

mexicans are oily, look at the greasy, oily way the racist/bigoted mexican type activists ‘debate’ on tv and almost always ignore the simple fact they are illegal, smarmily attempt to gloss over this fact whilst making outrageous selfish demands, all the while freeloadong directly and indirectly off folks legally here. refusing to learn/speak the language, constantly flouting the laws, supporting racist mexican type orgs who talk of ‘reconquering land’ that was never “theirs” in the first place . as ever you completely ignore the awkward points. remember dickweed that spanish is no more the original ‘indigenous language’ in central/south america than the quaint dialect (smirk) of american english is in North America.

did you know the latest mexican type trick is to buy car insurance to get a car number plate/tag and then they cancel the insurance? its got to the point the GA legislature is now looking at ways to stop this. these oily people are just selfish scum putting everybody at risk!!

BTW dishonest liberal turdbrain … I called osama and his black co-religionists bigots - not racists, you repeatedly used the term “racist” - to try and twist factual points, leftist scum like you cannot EVER debate honestly!!

By Amber

February 14, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Your place of birth is irrelevant. My earlier post stands.

By Dusty

February 14, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

Devastator,

Diversity with Hillary?? Nope.

The “aura” of the Clintons is too close to forget. I admit that Hillary is a strong woman who doesn’t mind presenting a lie when necessary.

I still remember a TV interview with her during Clinton’s WhiteHouse sexual escapades. She faced the camera and declared it was all a right wing conspiracy. That after years of putting up with his infidelities.

Oh well, she was protecting her husband. Yes! But a lie is still a lie or as Stein put it “a rose is a rose is a rose”.

By time for the truth

February 14, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

By Chris Hansen

February 14, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

time for the truth,

Ever since we apprehended you on dateline you’ve been lashing out this way. Stop. Chill. Just because you can’t rape little girls anymore doesn’t mean you have the right to take it out on people who don’t agree with you.

WELL DONE indeed rednekkks NAMBLA … yet another cowardly hide from your conservative betters pathetic id … must be around #13489

By Blaney

February 14, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

Donny and Marie didn’t do us any permanent harm did they? Besides, it’s the damn Jehovah’s Witness that you need to watch out for.

By Jessie

February 14, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

I’m not clear on why Dusty takes such pride in being born and raised in the South. She had nothing to do with it. It was simply good luck for her and bad luck for the rest of us.

By Devastator

February 14, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

I was speakng in terms of since Hillary is a woman, then the diversity issue will creep up. Sort of like the extra attention Pelosi is getting,e.g. her hair, her dress, what planes she’s riding, etc.

By harold

February 14, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

So now Bush says Iran caused Iraq’s Civil War. That’s funny, everyone else thinks Bush caused it.

Considering Bush’s track record on invading and killing everyone without evidence , he should get a job with the Atlanta PD killing old ladies. That seems to be his specialty.

By GodHatesTrash

February 14, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

Fundamentalist preachers are conmen and perverts. Naturally rednecks are enthralled by them, since the southron has no sense of morality or decency, pigs all.

Mormonism, founded by the faker, fraud and sexual degenerate Joseph Smith, should be viewed very favorably by the southron. If Romney promises the preacher/predators of the Baptist and Methodist perversion/persuasion to join his team, the GOP nomination will be his.

After all, the current Pervert-in-chief is a superstitious moron himself…

While Dumbya has only one wife, he does surround himself with limp-wrists like Karl/a Rove, Dick Cheney, Jeff Gannon/Guckert, Scottie McClellan, “Scooter Pooter” Libby and shemales like Lynn Cheney and Conid Rice for his sexual pleasuring.

At least the Mormons normally stick with the opposite sex.

By Curious Observer

February 14, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

did you know the latest mexican type trick is to buy car insurance to get a car number plate/tag and then they cancel the insurance? its got to the point the GA legislature is now looking at ways to stop this. these oily people are just selfish scum putting everybody at risk!!

The sheer dishonesty and ignorance of TFTT’s rant is stultifying. Maybe if he had avoided the Manchester trade school and attended a real institute of learning he would know that Georgia’s mandatory liability law requires the revocation of an owner’s driver’s license in the event of the expiration of the insurance on a registered car. If you don’t think the law works, just try scrapping an old car and not notifying the state that you have done so, meanwhile cancelling insurance on it. The pleasant little letter you will receive will provide you with ten days to show proof of insurance or else have your driver’s license suspended.

But then, the truth never means much to TFTT. His moniker is one of the great ironies of blog life.

By Dusty

February 14, 2007 01:00 PM | Link to this

Jessie,

Are you related to the James brothers? I am proud to be a Southerner because it is such a great place and I love it.

When did you move here?

By Dusty

February 14, 2007 01:10 PM | Link to this

Devastator,

I don’t consider comments on Pelosi’s clothing, jewelry, makeup as connected to diversity. They are just silly comments by the press who have nothing else to say. Kinda like talking about a man’s golf game, his love of beer or his “comb-over” as something worth mentioning.

Diversity? No. Just loopy snooping.

By Good Question

February 14, 2007 01:11 PM | Link to this

If the Dixie Chicks dont (have a) fit, then W musta’ quit!

The killer astronaut’s defense lawyer’s summary to the jury: “If the diaper dont fit, then you must acquit”

By jbmlaw

February 14, 2007 01:12 PM | Link to this

Dear Dennis @ 11:43, so far as I can tell, the largest “atrocities on this planet have been committed in the name of” whatever Stalin, Mao, and Hitler believed – weren’t they all atheistic National Socialists, who firebombed Christian (and other) churches? Surely you do not suggest that Christian “atrocities” compare even remotely? You don’t have to be ignorant to be a socialist, but it helps Dear Southern and Dusty, you both know that Condi is my first choice, but I fear Dusty’s analysis is right on point – Condi is a David Stockman, not a Ronald Reagan. You can know everything in the world, but if you cannot sell the idea you might as well not have it in the first place. Dear Dusty, I respectfully disagree with you on Colin’s integrity – he had first-hand knowledge that it was his aide who had disclosed to Mr. Novak Valerie Plame’s position and role in Joseph Wilson’s junket to Niger, but covered up the truth, unnecessarily prolonging an investigation that led directly to an innocent soul’s trial on bad faith charges. Colin does not merit one’s trust. Intelligent man, but devious – a fox, in the ongoing “foxes vs. hedgehogs” analysis.

By harold

February 14, 2007 01:26 PM | Link to this

mandatory automobile liability insuracne is a big scam anyhow

everybody who cares about their car already carries their own insurance on their car

everybody ought to insure their own car

insurnace should pays YOU for when bad stuff happens to your things or body

if there was a crash and harold colelcted from his own insurance company and the other guys’ insruance companye, that’d be illegal insurance fraud. but harodl paid insurance for his car and the other guy paid liaiblity insurance of harold’s car, so why is that mandatory? it is faraud on goerigans perpetrated by the insurance industry

By JoeyD

February 14, 2007 01:27 PM | Link to this

Time for truth if you write one more anti-gay piece on here, I swear I will come out there and find you on that Siler Comet trail and you will see how much of a “poof” this gay man is…

By Dusty

February 14, 2007 01:34 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

I have always thought of Powell as “upright”. Maybe you know more than I do about the Plame escapade. True, it was Armitage who spilled the beans and I don’t understand why he is not on trial instead of Libby. But how did Powell do a cover-up?

It does come down to a matter of integrity if you know someone is wrongly accused and you don’t speak up. Then again, few are strong enough to “stick-their-neck-out” to protect someone else. Maybe Powell was not strong enough. Is that devious?

By jm

February 14, 2007 01:39 PM | Link to this

Dusty@12:04 - What was your criteria for supporting (then Governor) Bush in 2000? It certainly could not have been experience or charisma? Senator Obama’s achievements and experience easily match or exceed what President Bush’s were when he first ran for office.

If experience is your only criteria, then the choice should be between Joe Biden and John McCain but since one is a catholic and the other was deemed unstable (not my opinion but that is how he was swift boated in 2000) neither one probably stands a chance in the south.

By Andy

February 14, 2007 01:41 PM | Link to this

Per the article about Mitt Romney; it is not a difference about doctrine but a difference in theology. A major difference. I would think Wooten would know the difference.

By Curious Observer

February 14, 2007 01:42 PM | Link to this

• …unnecessarily prolonging an investigation that led directly to an innocent soul’s trial on bad faith charges.*

Yes, along with jbmlaw I mourn for the unjust fate of Scooter Libby. Poor guy. A memory so bad that he probably gets lost on the way to the bathroom. Yet, he was forced to serve with distinction as chief of staff to the vice president of the United States, a job that requires tremendous resources of memory. Ah, the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune! He was probably about to be fired even before he was indicted.

But I get it: Colin Powell = bad. Scooter Libby = innocent soul. Colin Powell = moderate. Scooter Libby = rabid conservative. You’re getting terribly transparent, jbmlaw.

By Joe L

February 14, 2007 01:44 PM | Link to this

“Southerners are comfortable with religious diversity”

Wow, Wooten gave me the laugh of the day! Southerners are distrustful of people who aren’t even their denomination let alone people who worship a different (or no) God (or have a different skin color or language). I thought he had gone as delusional as possible before, but this statement is a whole new level.

By Jeff

February 14, 2007 01:50 PM | Link to this

jm:

Biden and Hillary both already equate to a non-Democratic vote for me. Obama is pretty close to being the same, but I’ll still give him a little more rope and see what he makes of it.

I’m STILL looking for a true small government candidate of ANY party….

By Dusty

February 14, 2007 01:59 PM | Link to this

Well, JM,

We are talking about a President for the whole country, not just the South

Obama seems to be a fine young man who did well at Harvard and has served as a one term governor and a U.S.senator for a few years.

George W. Bush received a Masters degree from an ivy league school. He served in the National Guard as a pilot. He served as governor for two successful terms in one of the largest states in the Union.

I think Bush was elected because of his outstanding record. It far exceded that of Obama’s present record.

By jm

February 14, 2007 02:01 PM | Link to this

jeff@1:50 - I have a feeling in 2008, I am going to say the same thing I said in 2004 and 2000: “300 million people and this is what I have to choose from”? - I am kind on intrigued with Gov. Richarson from New Mexico and Gov. Huckabee from Arkansas. Not sure if either is electable but both have done quite well. Unfortunately for Jeb (you know, the competent Bush) his brother George (W still an idiot) has probably ruined any chance of him ever being elected. Jeb is a first class prick but he knows what he is doing.

By jm

February 14, 2007 02:08 PM | Link to this

Dusty@1:59 - If running the state of Texas was your criteria, then Bob Bullock should have recieved your vote. In Texas, in many respects the Lt. Governor runs the state. Also, George Bush still had two years remaining on his second term when he left Texas (after saying he would fulfill his term in office during the previous election)

By KP

February 14, 2007 02:17 PM | Link to this

Don’t start tapping Huckabee from Hope, Arkansas as the next coming..Ask any Arkansan if they feel he’s any good. I grew up there and never thought a state could become more backwards than Mississippi. He’s a wet blanket at best. A leader that will park a mobile home on the capital’s front lawn during renovations.

By Dusty

February 14, 2007 02:20 PM | Link to this

jm

You are nit picking. Maybe the lt.gov ran Obama’s state. Who knows? It’s pointless.

The over all record of Bush was and still is far superior to that of Obama.

Must leave now. Bye..

By jbmlaw

February 14, 2007 02:22 PM | Link to this

The political wonks on the blog today may want to read one of my favorites, Camille Paglia – yes I know she is a left-of-center libertarian lesbian, but she is still one of my favorite thinkers - as she analyzes 2008 – timely publication of her essay given Jim’s topic today. http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2007/02/14/return/print.html

By jbmlaw

February 14, 2007 02:29 PM | Link to this

Dear Dusty @ 1:34, Armitage came to Powell and told him everything the day Novak told the world it was not a partisan who told him about Plame. He told Powell he was certain Novak was talking about him (Armitage) and Powell counseled silence, and obviously kept quiet himself.

That may be good advice from attorney to client, but it was arguably concealment of a crime where that legal privity does not exist and a crime was suspected. Turns out it was not a crime, thus no harm no foul; Powell is thus lucky but not necessarily upright.

By jbmlaw

February 14, 2007 02:34 PM | Link to this

Dear Curious @ 1:42, assume you saw Fred Thompson’s analysis, which is markedly similar to mine, http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2869909&page=1

By Good Question

February 14, 2007 02:34 PM | Link to this

Point of legal precedence: about novak. The legal privity clause does indeed exist and a crime was committed with harm and with foul because of the diaper on Novak at the time he was interviewed by Tim Russert.

I knew you were a phoney lawyer, sir, but to be giving Boston Legal TV fictional peter panic advice is grounds for disbarment even from the phoney law association you pretend to work at, SIR!~~

By Good Question

February 14, 2007 02:40 PM | Link to this

I have created an army of trolls. I love it. Didn’t mean to. So dont blame me that they exist. They just appear wherever I go. Honest. I did not do it. Why wont anyone believe me?

Ask Wooten or Luckovich. I rarely post anymore. I dont have to. I have legions of imitators.

Possibly the most influentical writer since Hemmingway.

By Analyze This

February 14, 2007 02:43 PM | Link to this

I thought this was a blog about Romney and his chances, being Mormon. It’s been a discussion about every BUT. Now I remember why I don’t even bother reading these things anymore.

By Curious Observer

February 14, 2007 02:47 PM | Link to this

Dear jbmlaw @ 2:34

I both read and heard Fred Thompson’s analysis and comments about the case. I noted that he was a Republican and an administration supporter, and I therefore expected nothing different from him. I am being asked to assume that Scooter Libby is just a scatterbrain who can’t remember anything about the conversations he had. I am also being asked to assume that Libby absentmindedly identified Tim Russert as the source of the CIA connection of Plame. I think we both know that we would remember a conversation conveying information that startling, and we would be able to identify our interlocutor definitively. Finally, I am being asked to believe that the guy who ran the VP’s office, with all its complexities, is just a tabula rasa from one day to the next.

My granddaddy had an expression for such obfuscation, and it started with the letter B. I will spare the sensitive on this blog the full spelling of it.

By Good Question

February 14, 2007 02:49 PM | Link to this

With an entire army of diapered trolls I now declare myself technically blog-caesar. My have crossed my rubi.com

I may get stabbed by the entire senate but it will be nonbinding, and I will endure.

Hail Caesar. (that’s me)

By harold

February 14, 2007 02:54 PM | Link to this

bush is not sure, but canada might be behind the civil war in iraq. there is not any evidence, so that must be it.

By Good Question

February 14, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this

This blog started out, sir, if you’ll read the original article as posted by the fine honorable Jim Wooten, about the randomness of our polling habits, and the incentives of tribalism. But because I have created an army of trolls, (incidently), the topic has morphed into blogology itself, indeed, this very day a great deal of data has been gleaned about the sociological implications of disinformation. (as practiced by the soviet union in the 1970’s).

You would do well to pay more attention to your professors and betters, sir, they seek your advancement through embetterment.

By getoveryourself

February 14, 2007 02:57 PM | Link to this

BTW dishonest liberal turdbrain … I called osama and his black co-religionists bigots - not racists, you repeatedly used the term “racist” - to try and twist factual points, leftist scum like you cannot EVER debate honestly!!

time for the douche,

Are you really trying to distinguish between the terms racist and bigot? Are you freaking serious?

You are callin me dishonest and you’re saying that there is a difference between the words bigot and racist? I HAVE SEEN EVERYTHING!!

Look in the mirror, Tory douchebag, and say goodbye to your credibility!!

By getoveryourself

February 14, 2007 03:01 PM | Link to this

The over all record of Bush was and still is far superior to that of Obama.

Dusty,

I really don’t know what to say. I mean…I’m utterly speechless. How in the hell…

Are you serious? I mean it’s one thing to defend your conservative viewpoints, but really…that Bush/Obama comparison that you just stated is maybe a wee bit over the top???

By Good Question

February 14, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this

Cheney’s already proved that Canada was behind Shia/Sunni fatwah near fallujah, Majah.

But can one country, acting alone, get through all those border screens so tightly held by the US secret army of mercenaries that no one knows about and that which could perpetrate a coup and take over our form of government?

Ask Cheney, he’s out back target practicing with skeets, (come up from the right side of him and then suddenly jump out at him, please).

Remember, I own an army of trolls, who are useless against Cheney and his aught six.

By jbmlaw

February 14, 2007 03:10 PM | Link to this

Dear Curious @ 2:47, evidently you don’t know who Fred Thompson is. Clue: he was Mr. Clean in the two of the largest US political corruption scandals in the 1970s (Watergate and Tennessee’s “PardonGate.”) He knows evil when he sees it, and does not mind pointing it out.

As Thompson so aptly notes, anyone in any investigation can be charged with forgetting something. The “materiality” of what is forgotten, with a normal intelligent prosecutor, determines whether a charge should be brought. As Thompson correctly argues, the moment the prosecutor was able to establish that the “outing” was not a crime, that should have ended the effort; the corrupt Mr. Fitzgerald was just getting started then.

Your argument then lapses into inconsistency: “we both know that we would remember a conversation conveying information that startling, and we would be able to identify our interlocutor definitively. Finally, I am being asked to believe that the guy who ran the VP’s office, with all its complexities, is just a tabula rasa from one day to the next.” Someone running the VP’s office should deem the spousal relationship of a low-level junketeer as “startling?” In the words of Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Was this your peer review of your argument? “My granddaddy had an expression for such obfuscation, and it started with the letter B. I will spare the sensitive on this blog the full spelling of it.”

By Amber

February 14, 2007 03:35 PM | Link to this

Dusty responding to Jessie at 1:00 “Are you related to the James brothers?”

There’s that pre-adolescent sense of humor I warned you about.

(Reminder to Dusty: Pride is one of the seven deadly.)

By GodHatesTrash

February 14, 2007 03:39 PM | Link to this

The largest political corruption scandal in this nation’s history is the current pack of thieving basturds in and around the White House. Thompson’s no honest lawyer, even if he plays one on TV.

Scooter is charged with obstructing a federal investigation, not forgetting something, you two-bit hack. Like a great many GOPers, Scooter is a cheap lying w*******. He didn’t forget a damn thing.

By getoveryourself

February 14, 2007 03:44 PM | Link to this

Scooter is charged with obstructing a federal investigation, not forgetting something, you two-bit hack. Like a great many GOPers, Scooter is a cheap lying w*. He didn’t forget a damn thing

Are you kidding me, GHT?? Scooter is at least as honest as Doug Feith…

By Curious Observer

February 14, 2007 03:47 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

The charge is not outing Valerie Plame. The charge is lying to the FBI and the grand jury. Lying to either is a felony, as well as obstruction of justice. Like the snake-oil salesman that he is, Thompson has tried to argue that because the outing was not a crime, the lying must also be inconsequential. Not so. And believe me, I know who Fred Thompson is and what he has done.

By melo

February 14, 2007 03:50 PM | Link to this

If Mitt makes it, thats good because some of us who like multiple wives will be encouraged. As soo as he is in, he should legislate that men can be polygamists if they want.

Midtown Atlanta, the abortion rights groups, gays and lesbians(elton John, Ellen,Rosie and them) are all going to luv this nomination. Including me, a black mamaca. We are going to have mad s3x when Mitt gets in. Mormons have a voracious s3x drives!!!!

By CDog

February 14, 2007 03:55 PM | Link to this

I am a religious conservative and will strongly consider voting for Mitt Romney. His political views on taxes, the second amendment, individualism, growth of government, personal freedom, religious freedom, abortion, school choice, and homosexuality will determine whether or not I will vote for him. I disagree with much of his religious doctrine and beliefs, but I also disagree with Guiliani’s and McCain’s as well.

By melo

February 14, 2007 04:26 PM | Link to this

Hey jbmlaw,betwen 8.00 am to 3.30 pm, you write profusely on the blog. After that, you disapper.

Is your computer solar powered and less powerful as the sun goes down?Do you live in a trailer? Or maybe you are waiting for your girlfriend at the bus?

By Darla K.

February 14, 2007 04:33 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw’s ABC news article reported that Fred Thompson claims that “…it was clear Valerie Plame, the CIA operative whose identity was leaked, was not covered under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.” Thompson goes on to say that the fact that nobody was indicted under this Act is evidence of his assertion.

As Fred Thompson probably knows, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act requires that, for a violation of this Act to have occurred, the person leaking the covert agent’s identity must have known that the CIA was concealing Valerie Plame’s relationship with the intelligence community — and yes –- the CIA was concealing Plame’s employment with them at the time of these multiple White House leaks.

So, contrary to Thompson’s assertion, Valerie Plame was covered under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate for the U.S. Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, to investigate. However, Fitzgerald didn’t prosecute anybody under this Act –- not for the reason that Thompson asserts –- but because Fitzgerald couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those who leaked Plame’s identity knew that her relationship with the CIA was still being concealed. That doesn’t mean they didn’t know. He just couldn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

While conducting Fitzgerald’s justifiable investigation, Scooter Libby is alleged to have lied to investigators. That’s illegal too. Even if the crime being investigated isn’t ultimately prosecuted, that doesn’t permit Libby or anybody else to lie to the FBI or prosecutors during the course of their investigation.

In conclusion, I concur that jbmlaw is a two-bit hack.

By Mormons Suck

February 14, 2007 04:41 PM | Link to this

The only thing worse is a gawd damned luthern asssswipe!

By Dennis

February 14, 2007 05:11 PM | Link to this

By jbmlaw February 14, 2007 01:12 PM |

“Dear Dennis @ 11:43, so far as I can tell, the largest “atrocities on this planet have been committed in the name of” whatever Stalin, Mao, and Hitler believed – weren’t they all atheistic National Socialists, who firebombed Christian (and other) churches? Surely you do not suggest that Christian “atrocities” compare even remotely?”

Without any help from me, you easily establish that your analytical skills and interpretations of historical, religious and political history and, current events, is equal to most other conservative blowing in the wind. Or almost up to it.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Emma

February 14, 2007 05:32 PM | Link to this

Mitt Romney will do anything it takes to get elected, including changing his platform entirely. He’s done it before and I’m sure he’ll do it again.

You’ll have no idea what you’re getting if you vote for this guy.

By Markus

February 14, 2007 05:42 PM | Link to this

Melonhead-

At least jbmlaw has the guts to only use one ID unlike a few regular libokook demoncats here.

Darla K-

You can conclude that islamoterrorism is a scare tactic concocted by Bush for all I care. In short, nobody give’s a rats a* what you think. Not the least of which is me. Further, I don’t want to hear one DAMN THING about Plamegate and the non-leak of a non-active non-covert operative until we get to the bottom of Sandypants Burger’s stealing classfied pre-9/11 al Qaeda documents from the National Archives.

By Markus

February 14, 2007 05:47 PM | Link to this

FINALLY someone comes up with an answer to the RAT-sided Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Kieth Olberman’s whateverthehellitis on PMSNBC. Of course, watch the liboRATs wet their beds over this and whine that it’s unfair and needs to be shut down.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117959328.html?categoryid=14&cs=1

By Markus

February 14, 2007 05:51 PM | Link to this

Libokook poser at 9:16am-

Some of us work for a living to pay for things (and people) that you assplug fascist libonazis on the neoStalinist left support.

By Markus

February 14, 2007 05:53 PM | Link to this

Global warming Kool-Aid drinkers have to cancel meeting due to massive cold and snow. Well, I guess mankind causes global cooling too. Hah. Hahahaha. HAHAHAHAHA! Deadbeats.

HOUSE HEARING ON ‘WARMING OF THE PLANET’ CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM HEARING NOTICE

Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

By Markus

February 14, 2007 05:55 PM | Link to this

Dow soars to another high. Silence from the neoStalinist Times, Washington Commie Manifesto, and most libs in the TV media. Damn this economy just SUCKS, don’t it?

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=businessNews&storyid=2007-02-14T211607Z01N14279381RTRUKOC0_US-MARKETS-STOCKS.xml&src=rss&rpc=23

By SpaceyG

February 15, 2007 09:09 AM | Link to this

It’s gonna come down to the question of… can The South support a “secular humanist” Catholic (Giuliani)? Not in the SC primary I bet, but what choice are they (rednecks and stupid people in SC for instance) gonna have come the General?

By Southern Mormon with a PhD

February 15, 2007 09:59 AM | Link to this

I think the educated, intelligent comments are shown by people who base their opinions on fact. the others are representative of the 80% of Americans who shoot from the hip and don’t have a clue. That scares me.

I have heard a saying growing up in the South, which is very applicable in this case. “You can’t fix stupid”.

I would encourage to take more pride in your opinions, whether you choose one way or another for a political candidate, and to find the facts that support your opinion and reconcile those to your beliefs. Don’t be blindly led by someone else’s opinion which may or may not be unsupportable (and usually inaccurate). Isn’t that part of the essence of what America is about. To have freedom of thought. You are supposed to be free of religion and state. Don’t let the Preacher/Vicar taint you. Remember that was the middle ages.

By JP

February 15, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

GQ: “Did you listen to Bush’s press conference? He’s convinced me. We are doing the right thing in Iraq if the criteria for right is to ensure freedom around the world. I dont understand why, but I dont have to understand why, I simply have to enjoy my own freedom.”

What kind of reasoning is that???