Thursday, December 20, 2007

FOX ATTACKS! Edwards and Obama

This would be humorous if it were not for the fact that so many members of the: 'Best Generation Ever' take this crap seriously!

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Keith Olbermann and the Murder of Pat Tillman 7/27/07

"Executive Privilige" in the Pat Tillman case? See what Keith Olbermann has to say about it.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

The FCC Hearings in Seattle – 11/9/2007 -- and Blue Collar Conservatism

The FCC Hearings in Seattle – 11/9/2007 -- and Blue Collar Conservatism

One thing that many of the Progressive commenters at the recent FCC Hearings in Seattle (concerning media consolidation) did was to blame “white men” for these problems of corporate overreach. White men were blamed for owning more than they should and controlling everything in America.

In my humble opinion, it’s not white men per-se that they should be targeting in their verbal broadsides. It’s more a certain class of monied people and their corporate henchmen.

I do not believe it is merely a problem of blue-collar white men misperceiving what women, minorities, and even some white men are saying about them. When I bring this subject up to Progressive women and minorities, they always deny that it is white men in general that they are inveighing against.

It’s the rich white men, they explain. It’s not the “regular Joe’s”.

As an experiment, I initiated some conversations that evening about the black ex-CEO of Merrill-Lynch, Stanley O’Neal, who was recently ousted for some ethically, challenged activity regarding stock manipulation. “That’s the trouble with black men,” I said. “They get into a position of real power, and immediately they abuse it. They think they can do anything they want in their safe little corporate bubble!”

You can imagine the response.

Liberals immediately and vociferously let you know that the color of the man is irrelevant. I then brought up the subject of white men always being blamed for the problems of corporate corruption of American democracy.

They insist that they are not blaming white men in general – just the rich white men and CEO’s. Black CEO’s, it seems, are still off limits to my criticism. But, in their offhand comments, they DO say, quite specifically and exclusively: “white men”. I’m a Progressive Liberal, but internally I’m beginning to resist all this casual demonizing of white men. I think it’s losing us elections.

In an Affirmative Action Review of Part 9 of the Federal Procurement Policies and Practices, the review states:

“Throughout the federal government, several programs seek to increase procurement and contracting with minority- and women-owned businesses. The largest of these efforts are government-wide programs overseen by the SBA; this overall effort is supplemented in some cases by agency-specific initiatives. Under these programs taken as a whole, some procurement contracts are set aside for sole-source or sheltered competition contracting, eligibility for which is targeted to minority-owned businesses (and in some cases non-minority women-owned businesses), but by statute available more broadly to "socially and economically disadvantaged" individuals. There is also a broad, race-neutral, sheltered competition or set-aside for small businesses generally. This operates separately and has a lower priority than the more targeted efforts….”

The above quote highlights what many blue-collar white men (rightfully) believe: That is, that the Federal Government pushes the interests of women and minorities over blue-collar white men. There are any amount of excuses for this state of affairs, but if Progressives want to regain the confidence AND the votes of blue-collar white men, this favoritism must stop.

Do Progressive women and minorities want to win enough to reach out to these voters? How many more losses at the polls will it take for them to see beyond their own prejudice?

Wednesday, October 31, 2007


Ah, ah,We come from the land of the ice and snow,
>from the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.

The hammer of the gods
Will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying:
Valhalla, I am coming!

On we sweep with threshing oar,
Our only goal will be the western shore.

Ah, ah,We come from the land of the ice and snow,
>from the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.

How soft your fields so green,Can whisper tales of gore,
Of how we calmed the tides of war.
We are your overlords.

On we sweep with threshing oar,
Our only goal will be the western shore.

So now youd better stop and rebuild all your ruins,
For peace and trust can win the day
Despite of all your losing.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

I Ain’t Gonna Eat Out My Heart Anymore (so quit it!)

I Ain’t Gonna Eat Out My Heart Anymore (so quit it!)
As performed by, The Young Rascals

(Pam Sawyer - Lori Burton)
(Yeeeeeeeeeeeah!!!!) I admit you got the biggest brown eyes
And you know how to part your lips to tantalize, sure.

(Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah!!!!!) You can get any man you want goin'
and you do it
And don't say you don't know you do.

Chorus:Well, baby,
I ain't gonna eat out my heart anymore
I ain't gonna eat out my heart anymore
So quit it

Bridge:I love you, I love you, I do, little girl
But you ain't gonna cheat on me
I need you, I need you, I [2: really] do, girl
Choose, is it him or me (is it him or me)

Verse 2:(Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah!!!!!!!) Just 'cause I ain't been sayin' it, girl
You should be ashamed of what I've been seein' -
(Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah!!!!!!!!!!) You better watch your step or, girl
You can bet you're gonna lose the best thing you ever had

[repeat chorus]

[repeat bridge]
Coda:I ain't gonna eat out my heart anymore [repeat to fade]

Friday, October 19, 2007

Bush Jokes about WMD

Here's Bush joking about WMD. I think the fact that he never had the opportunity to grieve for his little sister has warped his personality.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Stop The Nuclear Bailout -

I saw Stephan Stills at the Bandbox in Seattle this summer. I've loved this song since I saw it on The Smother's Brothers Show many decades ago.

The song has lost none of it's punch, earnestness, and timeliness. It was great to hear Stills play and sing the song. I like this version and I have seen many of the artists in it at their own concerts.

I was going to see Keb Mo last summer (because he was billed with Robert Cray. But it was the same night as a Heart concert. I wish I could have seen both!

Anyway -- nice version -- for what it's worth.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Neil Young - The Restless Consumer

Neil Young Song About Media/Government Collusion and Lies

Saturday, August 18, 2007

The Unseen Lies: Journalism As Propaganda

Posted by Picasa

Images of Republican Women: a series

Posted by Picasa

mark foley

Posted by Picasa

ann coulter

Posted by Picasa

Posted by Picasa

Posted by Picasa

Posted by Picasa

Posted by Picasa

Posted by Picasa

Posted by Picasa

Posted by Picasa

Images of Republican Women

Posted by Picasa

Images of Repuplican Women

Posted by Picasa

They won't call him "limp dick" anymore!

Posted by Picasa

Friday, August 17, 2007

Saturday, August 04, 2007


“Be the first to play the exciting new gameshow sensation that's sweeping the nation
Play Our New Gameshow THE FOX IS WRONG on GLOBAL WARMING!— That's right, now you can play along at home against those wacky (and whacked out!) Faux News hosts, guests and "experts" as they do their best to convince you that global warming is a hoax and humans have nothing to do with it. You'll never guess what outrageous lies and misinformation they'll say next!”

Tuesday, July 31, 2007


"You will recall that last month I pointed out that Dave Reichert was abusing his franking privileges by sending out glossy mailings that were pure electioneering campaign pamphlets, and were being received by constituents within the 90 day period before an election, which was illegal. King 5 political reporter Robert Mak also dived into the matter questioning the legality of the mailings, and at least shining a light on the fact that Reichert had spent over $500,000 of tax payer money on such mailings.Well this latest piece of franked mail was dated July 18, which is 64 days before the September 19 Primary elections - well within the 90-day no-franking window before an election.This particular piece of mail was also unsolicited. I did not contact congressman Reichert about this subject, and it was not in response to a communication on my pert to him."

Monday, July 30, 2007

Create an immediate negative buzz for Dave Reichert

Communicating on a grassroots level through blogging is a beautiful thing that the internet makes possible to anyone. What I have been doing in my spare time is something akin to the mass mailings I used to do in AZ to pump up business and create buzz. Except now, it’s about defeating Dave Reichert in the upcoming election.
What I’m doing is collecting all the local blog addresses in my immediate area. (People who take the time to blog are generally the thinkers and communicators in their immediate social sphere.) The next time Dave Reichert uses his franking priviliges to send out blatant campaign propaganda for himself, I’m sending a comment/message to every blogger that I can find in my town.
From what I know of direct marketing (which is quite a bit more than the average person — because my economic life depended on it for 15 years), this gambit will bypass all established media and create an immediate negative buzz for Reichert.

A local blogger that I sent an "unsoliceted" comment to concerning Fox News had this to say:

Scout's Honor said...
"Why are you leaving unrelated comments on people's blogs? It's a bit rude, especially when they don't necessarily share the same views. It's like putting grafitti in a park or littering. I'm sure Fox Attacks means something to you, and it's entirely your own perogative to post/blog all you want on YOUR OWN BLOG. Just have some taste and courtesy and ask permission before posting willy-nilly on other's blogs such links that have NOTHING to do with their posts. Please be a good blog neighbor in the Northwest. Thanks for listening."

Unwittingly, Scout's Honor hit the nail on the head about unwanted communication -- except, I did not illegally use public tax monies and the U.S. Mail to promote my own personal political agenda.

So, all I can say to Scout's Honor is that I'll stop doing it when Dave Reichert stops doing it.

Sunday, July 29, 2007

Join the Fox Attacks campaign:

Please tell your friends, family and colleagues to watch the Fox Attacks environment video.

Monday, July 09, 2007

Campaign Finance in American Politics

Campaign Finance in American Politics is a unique website that lets you see for yourself the hidden world of American political campaigns. is your door key to inside politics, American politics. Incidentally, you can check on people you know to see if and how they help finance these campaigns. What you learn may surprise you!

Bush justice is a national disgrace

This is from the Denver Post

"As a longtime attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, I can honestly say that I have never been as ashamed of the department and government that I serve as I am at this time.
The public record now plainly demonstrates that both the DOJ and the government as a whole have been thoroughly politicized in a manner that is inappropriate, unethical and indeed unlawful. The unconscionable commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence, the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse.
In the course of its tenure since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has turned the entire government (and the DOJ in particular) into a veritable Augean stable on issues such as civil rights, civil liberties, international law and basic human rights, as well as criminal prosecution and federal employment and contracting practices. It has systematically undermined the rule of law in the name of fighting terrorism, and it has sought to insulate its actions from legislative or judicial scrutiny and accountability by invoking national security at every turn, engaging in persistent fearmongering, routinely impugning the integrity and/or patriotism of its critics, and protecting its own lawbreakers. This is neither normal government conduct nor "politics as usual," but a national disgrace of a magnitude unseen since the days of Watergate - which, in fact, I believe it eclipses.
In more than a quarter of a century at the DOJ, I have never before seen such consistent and marked disrespect on the part of the highest ranking government policymakers for both law and ethics. It is especially unheard of for U.S. attorneys to be targeted and removed on the basis of pressure and complaints from political figures dissatisfied with their handling of politically sensitive investigations and their unwillingness to "play ball." Enough information has already been disclosed to support the conclusion that this is exactly what happened here, at least in the case of former U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico (and quite possibly in several others as well). Law enforcement is not supposed to be a political team sport, and prosecutorial independence and integrity are not "performance problems."
In his long-awaited but uninformative testimony concerning the extraordinary firings of U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales did not allay these concerns. Indeed, he faced a no-win situation. If he testified falsely regarding his alleged lack of recollection and lack of involvement, he perjured himself and lied to both Congress and the American people. On the other hand, if he told the truth, he clearly has been derelict in the performance of his duties and is not up to the job. Either way, his fitness to serve is now in doubt.
Tellingly, in his congressional testimony, D. Kyle Sampson (the junior aide to whom the attorney general delegated vast authority) expressed the view that the distinction between "performance" considerations and "political" considerations was "largely artificial." This attitude, however, is precisely the problem. The administration that Sampson served has elided the distinction between government performance and politics to an unparalleled extent (just as it has blurred the boundaries between the White House counsel's office and the attorney general's office). And it is no answer to say that U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president. The point that is lost on those who make this argument is that U.S. attorneys must not serve partisan purposes or advance a partisan agenda - which has nothing to do with requiring them to promote an administration's legitimate policy priorities.
As usual, the administration has attempted to minimize the significance of its malfeasance and misfeasance, reciting its now-customary "mistakes were made" mantra, accepting purely abstract responsibility without consequences for its actions, and making hollow vows to do better. However, the DOJ Inspector General's Patriot Act report (which would not even have existed if the administration had not been forced to grudgingly accept a very modest legislative reporting requirement, instead of being allowed to operate in its preferred secrecy), the White House-DOJ e-mails, and now the Libby commutation merely highlight yet again the lawlessness, incompetence and dishonesty of the present executive branch leadership.
They also underscore Congress' lack of wisdom in blindly trusting the administration, largely rubber-stamping its legislative proposals, and essentially abandoning the congressional oversight function for most of the last six years. These are, after all, the same leaders who brought us the WMD fiasco, the unnecessary and disastrous Iraq war, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, warrantless domestic NSA surveillance, the Valerie Wilson leak, the arrest of Brandon Mayfield, and the Katrina response failure. The last thing they deserve is trust.
The sweeping, judicially unchecked powers granted under the Patriot Act should neither have been created in the first place nor permanently renewed thereafter, and the Act - which also contributed to the ongoing contretemps regarding the replacement of U.S. attorneys, by changing the appointment process to invite political abuse - should be substantially modified, if not scrapped outright. And real, rather than symbolic, responsibility should be assigned for the manifold abuses. The public trust has been flagrantly violated, and meaningful accountability is long overdue. Officials who have brought into disrepute both the Department of Justice and the administration of justice as a whole should finally have to answer for it - and the misdeeds at issue involve not merely garden-variety misconduct, but multiple "high crimes and misdemeanors," including war crimes and crimes against humanity.
I realize that this constitutionally protected statement subjects me to a substantial risk of unlawful reprisal from extremely ruthless people who have repeatedly taken such action in the past. But I am confident that I am speaking on behalf of countless thousands of honorable public servants, at Justice and elsewhere, who take their responsibilities seriously and share these views. And some things must be said, whatever the risk.
The views presented in this essay are not representative of the Department of Justice or its employees but are instead the personal views of its author. "
John S. Koppel has been a civil appellate attorney with the Department of Justice since 1981.

Sunday, July 08, 2007

Pelosi must: "Shape up or ship out?"

"Shape up or ship out?
Cindy Sheehan has challenged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to move to Impeach Bush by July 23 or prepare for Sheehan to contest for her Congressional seat as an Independent.
"Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "We hired them to bring an end to the war. I'm not too far from San Francisco, so it wouldn't be too big of a move for me. I would give her a run for her money."While I admire Cindy Sheehan's willingness to fight for what she believes in, I don't necessarily support her. And I'm not sure that I agree with all of her listed reasons for why Bush ought to be Impeached. I don't see Bush exercizing his Constitutional authority to commute Scooter Libby's prison sentence as an Impeachable offense, for example. But it does seem to me that the rhetoric coming from many Dem candidates in 2006 isn't exactly being reflected in their official actions now that they got themselves elected. And I certainly support the right of constituents to demand that their elected representatives walk the walk after having talked the talk.
What do you think?" From "Pre Emptive Karma"

Marc Rich and Scooter Libby: A Bad Comparison

Let us put to rest any comparison of the commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence and the pardon that Marc Rich received from President Bill Clinton.

They are in no way comparable.

By the degree of the individual's guilt and traitorous behavior, Libby's sentence-commutation by George W. Bush could be more aptly compared to GWB's father's pardon of Oliver North. North could have implicated the elder Bush in the illegal arms for hostages deal, which funded the subsequent murder of hundreds of thousands of Central American peasants, at the hands of the Reagan/Bush administration. Similarly, Libby could implicate the current underdstandably secretive holders of the offices of president and vice-president, of covering up the deliberate outing of a covert CIA operative.

Bill Clinton, in his autobiography, My Life, on pp. 940-941 has this to say about his own last-minute pardon of Marc Rich:

"The most controversial pardons went to Marc Rich and his partner, Pincus Green. Rich, a wealthy businessman, had left the United States for Switzerland shortly before he was indicted on tax and other charges for allegedly falsely reporting the price of certain oil transactions to minimize his tax liability. There were several such cases in the 1980s, when some oil was under price controls and some was not, inviting the dishonest to underestimate their income or to overcharge their customers. During that time, several people and companies were charged with violating the law, but the individuals were usually charged with a civil offense. It was extremely rare for tax charges to be prosecuted under the racketeering statutes, as Rich and Green were, and after they were charged, the Justice Department ordered U.S. attorneys to stop doing it. After he was indicted, Rich stayed overseas, mostly in Israel and Switzerland.

The government had allowed Rich's business to continue to operate after he agreed to pay $200 million in fines, more than four times the $48 million in taxes the government claimed he had evaded. Professor Marty Ginsberg, a tax expert and husband of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Harvard law professor Bernard Wolfman had reviewed the transactions in question and concluded that Rich's companies were right in their tax computations, which meant that Rich himself had not owed any taxes on these transactions."

I call bullshit on Republicans for using the Marc Rich pardon as an example that is in any way comparable to the commutation of Scooter Libby richly deserved sentence. Incidentally, one of Rich's former lawyers was the ubiquitous Scooter Libby.

Friday, June 08, 2007


This Republican wishes for more attacks by Muslim terrorists on U.S. soil to prove that Rush is 'right". Wouldn't that prove the exact opposite and is not this lint-brained shithead of a Republican a traitor as well?

You know he is.

"In his first interview as the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan told a reporter that America needs to be attacked by terrorists so that people will appreciate the work that President Bush has done to protect the country.
"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]," Milligan said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."'

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Being Threatened by a Wingnut

Wally the talking Badger says:
Bush and Cheney will be impeached. Even if they are not, there are literally millions of people in this world who are willing to do harm to them.
There’s not enough security to keep someone from getting through.
01/27/2007 at 11:35 pm
rob says:
RE: 129, I am sure the FBI will be happy to hear that asswipe.
01/27/2007 at 11:37 pm
Wally the talking Badger says:
That’s why Bush bought his little Nazi refuge for himself in S. America. He thinks he can isolate there.
Not a chance.
All we have to do is patiently wait.
01/27/2007 at 11:38 pm
Yes I am
01/27/2007 at 11:39 pm
Wally the talking Badger says:
The FBI thinks I’m responsible for millions of people hating Bush?
You are a complete moron.
01/27/2007 at 11:40 pm
rob says:
131: So when are you planning your assassination of the President of the United States Wally the Badger?
01/27/2007 at 11:44 pm
rob says:
No but after this leftist rant I am sure they will be talking to you
01/27/2007 at 11:45 pm
rob says:
actually I will try to make sure that they do talk to you. You are a sick fucker.
01/27/2007 at 11:46 pm
Wally the talking Badger says:
re 136: I’m not backing off one bit from what I said. It’s the same thing Bush said in the state of the union.
But I’m not going to let you mischaracterize what I said either.
I have family in the FBI. You go to them trying to tell your little tales and I will make sure someone visits your place of work.
How ya like them apples you fear mongering little prick.
01/27/2007 at 11:53 pm
rob says:
It’s too late asshole, I already sent the link of the post to them. You can figure it out with them. You are a disgusting little prick for sure.
01/27/2007 at 11:55 pm
Wally the talking Badger says:
In fact, I’m going to make a point of discovering who you are. You think you got some pull?
I will yank the rug right out from under you.
01/27/2007 at 11:56 pm
rob says:
137. And if you really had family in the FBI which I doubt. I am sure they would tell you not to threaten the President of the United States you Communist/radical Muslim prick. Now that you brought up your family in the FBI to threaten me though that will be interesting if in fact you do have someone there.
01/27/2007 at 11:59 pm
rob says:
139: I will be reading about you in the P-I soon enough.
01/28/2007 at 12:00 am
Wally the talking Badger says:
re 140: Quote the threat. Asshole.
01/28/2007 at 12:05 am
rob says:
You ignorant cracked up liberal, can’t you remember 5 minutes ago? see 137. I will try and help your sorry soon to be visited ass.
01/28/2007 at 12:08 am
Wally the talking Badger says:
re 143: Quote what you mean. You were yammering about the FBI before #137. I think you have reread my posts and for once you are seeing what was actually said, not what you want the words to mean.
Go ahead. Quote the threat you said I made. Liar.
01/28/2007 at 12:14 am
rob says:
Since you are obviously too high to be able to read I cut and pasted your theat from 137.
Wally the talking Badger
“I have family in the FBI. You go to them trying to tell your little tales and I will make sure someone visits your place of work.”
01/28/2007 at 12:16 am
rob says:
Do you understand that you just threatened me with the power of your illusional family in the FBI?
There are laws against that and I will make sure you answer to them.
01/28/2007 at 12:18 am
Wally the talking Badger says:
Is your neighbor Winston Smith? You sick little fuckwad. You think I’m joking? If you try to fuck with me by making false claims to the FBI, I will find out who you are.
I can and I will.
01/28/2007 at 12:19 am
rob says:
you can keep up your drug filled rant but if I was you I would be on my way to Mexico, or Iran. Whichever suits your sorry ass.
01/28/2007 at 12:20 am
rob says:
147: I am havn’t claimed anything dumbass, i just sent them a copy of this post. They can figure it out for themselves.
01/28/2007 at 12:21 am
rob says:
Of course since you continue to make threats I have to keep updating them.
01/28/2007 at 12:23 am
Wally the talking Badger says:
re 146: You have changed the topic. You were threatening me by claiming you made a false report to the FBI about me.
There are laws against that.
And if you did that you will pay for it. They don’t need idiots like you gumming up the works with false reports. YOU will get a visit for doing that.
What kind of a nut are you?
01/28/2007 at 12:23 am
rob says:
147: if you believe I am afraid of some crack induced panty wearing liberal prick you will find out that you are wrong asswipe.
01/28/2007 at 12:25 am
rob says:
151: No i said I forwarded this post to them. Stop using drugs asshole.
01/28/2007 at 12:27 am
Wally the talking Badger says:
re 150: I hope you have liability with your homeowners insurance. You may need it.
I’ll take your silly ass to court.
You are not the only one keeping track of what’s being said.
01/28/2007 at 12:27 am
Wally the talking Badger says:
re 152: That should convince the authorities that you are a serious person. Moron.
You blinked.
01/28/2007 at 12:28 am

Sunday, January 07, 2007

Banned in Wingnut Land

Two comment threads on conservative blog: unSound Politics that results in me being BANNED from commenting

Comment on Entry: Turned off by condescending liberals, authored by Stefan Sharkansky

1. Lib's will never be happy unless they are running your life.
They think YOUR (sic) stupid and can not do anything with(sic)out them!
Hang around a few and listen to what they say about "other" people. If your (sic) like me, stuck in a union, just listen to them, it doesn't take long before they spout how dumb everyone else is but them.
Posted by Army Medic/Vet at January 6, 2007 08:51 AM
2. Here you go again -- blaming the spread of information on liberalism. What is it with you guys? Why are liberals such boogeymen to you? Were you all abused by liberals when you were in your impressionable years?
How is informing people of transportation choices (not telling them which to choose) an invasion of government or condescension?
Look at the last severe windstorm in Seattle. Look at the deaths due to carbon monoxide poisoning. Did anyone ever tell these folks that burning charcoal inside was a bad idea? Sure, the information is out there, but perhaps they're not newspaper readers. Perhaps they're not curious about such matters. But what would the harm have been in stipulating that such information be supplied within a utility bill, or included as part of an agreement in a rental contract?
Not everyone is as informed as the readers on this blog, so why not include useful information at every chance. If your argument is an economic one, then argue on economic terms. This idea that liberalism is to blame for all the ills in society is not only foolish, it's provably erroneous.
Posted by km at January 6, 2007 09:05 AM
3. Yeah like this will really work. Just picture a class for of teenagers who are taking this class to get their driver's license. How much you want to bet the information will go in one in and out the other. Somehow I seriously doubt that a teenager is going to say, "Oh wow I didn't know that, I think I will take the bus instead of drive my car after I get my license."
Just another waste of tax dollars in my opinion.
Posted by TrueSoldier at January 6, 2007 09:21 AM
4. Maybe municipalities shouldn't be paying dues and sending staff members (on the clock) to these organizations. Do they really add value? Or are we as taxpayers simply funding our own roadblocks.
Posted by Huh? at January 6, 2007 09:32 AM

5. I see a great idea coming from this. When Washington State liberals register Democrat to vote, they lose their driver's license. A perfect solution for Seattle's congestion and it helps with green house gases too.
Posted by Walters at January 6, 2007 09:45 AM

6. KM
Did anyone ever tell these folks that burning charcoal inside was a bad idea?
Yes they were told, on every generator and bag of charcoal. Only problem is there is failure to integrate into American Society and learn friggin' English.
...(not telling them which to choose) an invasion of government or condescension?
Have you listen to Nickels, Sims, et. al. recently? Apparently not, I am continual (sic) told I am a "bad" citizen for driving alone to work in my 15mpg truck. When you calculate time into the equation gas would have to be $30.00 a gallon for taking the bus to break even, anything less and taking the bus cost me money. About teach free market economics, liberty and personal responsibility instead of Nickel bags telling me what to do?
What liberal program has worked?LBJ's war on poverty? 40 years, 3 Trilion (sic) dollars and what has been accomplished?Social Security? Liberals ( Ronald Reagan?) long since raided the trust fund and it's now a ponsi scheme.Medicare? One of the greatist contributers to the rising cost of medicine.Liberal education? If so why can't we get enough engineers? 1/3 of the high school graduates can't read (spell, think, or punctuate),(H) how(in) the H are they going to comphrend Eigen(sic)values?What great liberal program has actually fixed the problem? (Which problem?)
What (sic) do I oppose Liberals?They oppose free speech especially political and religious. (False)They oppose the right to defend myself, my family and my home when the threat presents itself. (False)They are opposed to my keeping the product I produce. (False)They are in favor of control what I eat, how I travel, what I think, when and how and what I say. (Who is telling you you can’t go to Cuba? Republicans.)They want people who work hard, are talent(sic), and benefit society to have the same outcome in life as a lazy, maggot infested, dope smoking,(lose the comma) loser(s).
You bet I stand opposed to liberals.Read my essay.
Posted by JCM(the certified moron) at January 6, 2007 09:46 AM
7. km - You might have a point - IF - drivers' ed classes were doing a sufficiently good job of teaching teenagers to competently and safely drive (the actual point of the class after all, and far too many teenagers are not learning to be competent, safe drivers). It is not as if the classes are doing so well that they can afford lots of mission creep. (“mission creep”?)
Most teens, prior to getting their licenses, are pretty good at figuring out how to get places by means other than driving themselves. We really don't need to waste valuable class time explaining what those big things are with all the people in them (buses, trains, etc).
Posted by krm at January 6, 2007 09:50 AM

8. How is informing people of transportation choices (not telling them which to choose) an invasion of government or condescension?
It's not. It's the liberal attitude that people aren't smart enough to figure it out for themselves - and using tax dollars to explain so - is where the rub is.
Your example of people dying because they're not smart enough to know certain things could kill them is precisely the point. You want to prevent any cause and effect for anyone's actions and responsibilities, and use public dollars to do so.
This may sound heartless, and I don't care, (who would have guessed?) but whatever happened to the natural selection process and Darwinism liberals seem to love so much. If somebody isn't smart enough to take action to prevent harm to themselves, then I'm sorry.
You can't prevent each and every thing from going wrong, so stop trying to. And stop acting like you can and using government coercion to do it. (What a twit!)
Posted by jimg at January 6, 2007 09:52 AM

9. When I first moved to Seattle, I noticed this when I took the drivers license exam. Most of the questions were not about driving ability at all. They were about the drunk driving laws. I thought I was taking the wrong test.
If only the left-wing folks who actually advocate such stupid ideas started blogs, I could make fun of them too at Effin Unsound...
Posted by thehim at January 6, 2007 09:59 AM

10. It's always refreshing when someone firmly on the left like Feit begins to get it. Modern liberals are a bunch of bicycle helmet wearing, humorless scolds.
Posted by Bill Cruchon at January 6, 2007 10:08 AM

11. Keep going JCM you give me hope!
Liberal Thinking places value almost completely on INTENT. If it sounds good, seems good, makes me feel better, or quenches my econonmic, social, and environmental guilt then it has to be a better solution regardless of how much it costs or who pays. JCM points out just a few of the hundreds of examples of intent vs. outcome experiment forced on this county since 1960. (Impeach Earll Warren!)
Conservative Thinking places value only on OUTCOME. Limited resources, allocated benefit received, responsibility assigned and success(or failure) acknowledged.
This region and country could be a far better place if this was the rule of the day. (Conservatives do things because they know PRIOR to doing them what the OUTCOME is? Interesting – but very stupid.)
Posted by Cardio Guycc at January 6, 2007 10:13 AM

12. Kids in driver's ed classes PAY (frankly, their parents pay) TO BE TAUGHT HOW TO DRIVE. They don't pay to be told why they shouldn't drive. This IS obnoxious. Kudos to Feit.
Posted by Michele at January 6, 2007 10:40 AM

13. "Heather Has 2 Mommies And Both Of Them Ride The Bus." Please.
Posted by YourLifeIsMyFault at January 6, 2007 11:09 AM

14. I'm just posting this comment to show people how you really are.
You can't stand to hear an opposing voice. You CENSOR it. You can have as many excuses as you want. But in the end you are just a pro-censorship right wing asshole.
Posted by headless lucy at January 6, 2007 11:32 AM

15. Drivers around here are terrible enough. We aren't doing a good enough job educating drivers so let's focus on that and drop this religious like crusade for transit.
I hate transit; please stop forcing it down my throat. If someone forms People Against Public Transit, I want to join.
Posted by AP at January 6, 2007 11:39 AM

16. re 11: "Conservative Thinking places value only on OUTCOME. Limited resources, allocated benefit received, responsibility assigned and success(or failure) acknowledged."

OUTCOME???: You unconscionably rape limited resources, allocate un-needed benefits to the top 1/2 of 1%, shirk all responsibility for your misdeeds and mistakes, assign all responsibility for any successes to yourselves, and blame your failures (which are many) on anyone but yourselves.Posted by headless lucy at January 6, 2007 11:40 AM

17. If you are in favor of Personal Responsibility and the freedom to choose an alternate type of transportation, then you would be in favor of mass transport and teaching people how to use them.
The religious crusade is your own. What do you have against teaching kids how to use the bus system? Then they could make personal transportation decisions BEFORE they can legally drive.
Why are you against freedom?
Posted by headless lucy at January 6, 2007 11:45 AM

18. Luceee
go be to HA, Mike is missing ya....
Posted by Chris at January 6, 2007 11:46 AM

19. Don't interpret annoyance at the uber politically correct as an endorsment of your opinions and attitudes.
Many of you are equally annoying with your faith in what some right wingnut magazine pundit TOLD you to think about something.
Posted by headless lucy at January 6, 2007 12:00 PM

20. Amen!
The thing that turns me off more than anything else about the left is obnoxious know-it-all assholes like David Goldstein that continually tell us what is good for us and that government is our friend.
Government is an incredibly ineffective blunt instrument of force like a club that should only be used as a last resort and is not a good way to inspire anyone to action.
I'm frankly amazed, Feit is showing some individualism and a capacity for self-guided objective thought(what?). Look for him to be shunned soon by the real left.
Posted by Jeff B. at January 6, 2007 12:01 PM

21. krm's comment:
"Most teens, prior to getting their licenses, are pretty good at figuring out how to get places by means other than driving themselves. We really don't need to waste valuable class time explaining what those big things are with all the people in them (buses, trains, etc)."
This comment nailed why this is a waste of time-kids already know these things. Teaching about alternative transporation is appropriate in a class on the environment, urban planning, ect..
But a driver's ed class is to teach driving. End of story. This comment should have ended the discussion.
Posted by ALP at January 6, 2007 12:10 PM

22. "headless lucy" at #14, "You can't stand to hear an opposing voice. You CENSOR it. You can have as many excuses as you want. But in the end you are just a pro-censorship right wing asshole."
What in the world are you talking about? Can't you even have the decency of illustrating your argument...instead of doing what lefties so routinely do, simply name call?
Thanks for illustrating for the umpteenth time what you people are truly like. (Just wait, bonehead. It won’t take long before Stefan censors me.)
Posted by Bill Cruchon at January 6, 2007 12:12 PM

23. It's a problem because Driver's Ed is supposed to be about teaching people to drive. Simple as that. And it's clearly not working well enough already, witness:* People have no idea how to merge onto highways (hint -- coming to a full stop at the end of the on ramp is not this answer)* People have no idea what to do when coming to a streetlight when the power is out (hint -- it's like an all-way stop)* People have no idea what the left lane of the highway is for (hint -- it's not to drive at the same f'ing speed as the people in the middle and right lanes)Etc., etc., etc.
Posted by Me at January 6, 2007 12:14 PM

24. Transportation alternatives education sounds like an excellent idea. Seattle and MLKCo can fund the Find out About Rapid Transit program. F.A.R.T.counselors and their project will be deemed new, challenging, world-class by Nickels and Sims. Funding for this new project will assuredly be found in existing budgets. Heck, we can always vote for a special tax or levy to pay for necessities the F.A.R.T. program budget absorbs. Greg just did something like that by funding a new compliance officer to ensure prevailing wages are paid in building new tenements, sorry, make that housing for the "chronically homeless."
And don't forget, F.A.R.T. counselors will have to be diverse. Not a single language or sub-dialect can go ignored. We can never allow any F.A.R.T. graduate not being told in their own language or dialect the dire consequences if they jump from a moving bus while it's on the Aurora Bridge. Failure to teach such vital information to the unknowing masses would be mean-spirited and culturally insensitive.
Posted by Tyler Durden at January 6, 2007 12:15 PM

25. Oh, and I have some hard news for the Utopian Leftists that value mass transit. Autos are not going away any time soon. And in fact, no matter how hard the left tries to erase autos from our lives, they will grow in number.
How do I know this? Because technology always marches forward. As more and more Asian companies figure how to make cars better and cheaper, there will only be more options and lower prices. Cars will become like calculators, expensive and novel at first, and then so ubiquitous they are almost disposable. Wait, what about gasoline you say? Again, technology marches forward. Someone soon will come up with very useable ways to tap hydrogen, or an even better energy source. Once that happens, cars will really become ubiquitous. Imagine vehicles that are one tenth of the cost they are today to own, fuel and operate. They are coming. And sooner than you think.
Very few would not choose an automobile for the sheer convenience if it was incredibly cheap to own and operate, and technology all but guarantees that fact.
The automobile represents the freedom and American individualist spirit (like being stuck in rush hour for 90 minutes). It allows us to go where we want(eventually), when we want and to rearrange our schedules as individuals. Trains, while useful in extremely high density areas, are not preferable for most people. Whether the Utopians want to acknowledge it or not, the Puget Sound is nowhere near the density that will cause people to abandon cars, even if the Utopians use the blunt club of government to try and force people out of cars, technology will do an end-run around. (How do buses and trains prevent people from driving their cars. You are trying to force me to use a car by denying this city another transportation choice. You are the controlling idiot fascist, not me.)
Posted by Jeff B. at January 6, 2007 12:26 PM

26. headless...We know it's hard to accept that a fellow lib (Feit) was actually MAKING SENSE, but you're going to have to digest it, anyway. And we know that you believe that you and most of your leftist friends are the only ones out there who think for themselves, and that you believe that everyone else only says what they are told to believe and say. We get that you actually believe that (you just told us). But dearie, you COULD be wrong about that assumption. Just giving you some food for thought.
Posted by Misty at January 6, 2007 12:44 PM
27. Btw, headless, do you own a car?
Posted by Misty at January 6, 2007 12:47 PM
28. ..and headless (unwittingly) illustates Feit's "nagging" point amazingly well.
Posted by Misty at January 6, 2007 01:03 PM
29. lucy,
How be we also teach the real (subsidized) cost of transportation?
Are we going to teach them how government is pushing bio-diesel and at the same time banning new passenger cars and light trucks with diesel engines.
Are we going to teach them the transportation shell game, where money is allocated for "transportation" but the project pays sales taxes diverting money to the general fund.
I can see your transportation education curriculum now:Cars are bad and contribute to global warming.If you drive a car by yourself you are selfish and raping the planet, supporting big oil and terrorists.Light rail is good, and the cost over runs where necessary so the stations could have art work done by disabled minorities.Then you'd had out bus passes paid for by a new tax increase.
Posted by JCM at January 6, 2007 01:04 PM

30. Everything I say and do is done wittingly. Except for the time I wore a thong to the beach.
Posted by headless lucy at January 6, 2007 01:11 PM

31. My point is that you closed-minded wingnuts say on the one hand that the schools aren't so much as teaching kids how to balance a checkbook, but they are smart enough to figure out the bus syatem for themselves.
The bus system is relatively complex. It's no picnic finding your way back from the HOOTER's near Greenlake to my posh condo in Bellevue. I could just have easily taken my SUV --- but would that have been the socially responsible thing to do?
Posted by headless lucy at January 6, 2007 01:17 PM
32. Headless in a thong is like Nichols in a speedo.wittingly, unwittingly thats just wrong.
Posted by Huh? at January 6, 2007 01:40 PM

33. Wow, a Hooters girl that pays for her posh condo and SUV while being headless? What is your specialty then?
Posted by krm at January 6, 2007 02:12 PM

34. There's a Hooters near Greenlake?
Posted by Bill Cruchon at January 6, 2007 02:24 PM

35. Note Headless Lucy's fundamentally false assumption, that resources are limited. Resources are a function of technology. What we need today is not what we will need tomorrow. As we run out of any one resource (unlikely as most are essentially limitless) there will always be new and better technology to utilize other resources. I'm looking forward to the hydrogen economy mostly because it's going to be awfully hard for leftists to argue that we will soon run out of water. But believe you me, they will try.
Posted by Jeff B. at January 6, 2007 02:56 PM

Post a comment: So, according to the idiot above, the liberals’ basic mistake is assuming that resources are finite!!!!!!! Unbelievable… Headles Lucy

und Politics
Comment on Entry: Where all the children are above average disabled, authored by Stefan Sharkansky
1. Wow. If this isn't a fantastic example of today's Marxist class warfare, I don't know what is.
This is essentially, pick your own victim card. It doesn't even have to have any outward qualities. You just pick a card, and you automatically qualify as a minority class that can use today's politically correct multiculturalism as class warfare leverage.
Posted by Jeff B. at January 6, 2007 12:33 PM

2. Actually it is worse. The Marx quote at least addressed the substantive "ability" of a person. The proposed law suggests that a disabiluty exists based on perception.
Posted by James at January 6, 2007 12:42 PM

3. Look for more "emotional support dogs" doing their thing in the aisles of your local grocery store or an eatery near you.
Posted by Tyler Durdan at January 6, 2007 12:43 PM

4. I can hear it now: "We aren't communists, we're progressives".
Posted by Bill Cruchon at January 6, 2007 12:45 PM

5. After reading the definition, I think we may all be disabled. Where do we line up for our SSI checks?
Posted by Organization Man at January 6, 2007 01:01 PM

6. The amount of funding schools receive for special ed students exceeds that for mainstream students. This is just a money grab. However, the extra funding will certainly not benefit special ed students. It doesn't all now, and it won't if it increases. Too much of the money goes to administration and never makes it into the special ed classroom. This is just another blank check for the school districts.
Posted by katomar at January 6, 2007 01:21 PM

7. Wingnuts are always claiming to be victims. Now you are claiming that victims are victimizing you.
Look at it this way. If everyone in public school has a disability, we can easily live up to the UNFUNDED MANDATES of the humorously named, "No child left behind" initiative.
Now, that's not so dumb, is it?
Posted by headless lucy at January 6, 2007 01:23 PM

8. While as a practical matter there may be more immediately critical problems that need to be addressed with the way our State government operates (or NOT, as the case may be), I can't think of anything that has come across the net for a LONG time that better encapsulates the ultimate left-wing big-government socialist perspective than this item:
If you THINK you are ''disadvantaged'' or disabled, YOU ARE !!.. **AND**:You are entitled to ''appropriate'' COMPENSATION (to be determined no doubt by yet another massive and inefficient state bureaucracy).
I wonder how far down the radical socialist road we will get before hoi polloi wake up. It better be soon, or China and India are going to eat our lunch in goods and services AND in general academic excellence, even more than they are already doing now (some people have suggested they are already having dessert).
Isn't it ironic that at least economically China ''gets it'', and they are a country that is still nominally run by a communist government (ruthlessly authoritarian and undemocratic, but not really communist as far as most things economic anymore (but that's another thread) ). Meanwhile, there seems to be no limit to how far into left-wing deep-space orbit the starey-eyed ''progressives'' want to take this country.
And ditto what everyone said @ 1-5 above.
Posted by Methow Ken at January 6, 2007 01:27 PM

9. I guess Teddy K must have been "disabled" when he help to write and co-sponsored the "No child left behind act". Soon only the headless lucy's of the world will be left behind.
Posted by Smokie at January 6, 2007 01:30 PM

10. The Chinese are losing jobs to the Vietnamese because they work even cheaper.
Put on your thinking cap. Where will that leave China and India in 20 years.
Africa will be the last bastion of cheap-labor conservatism.
Posted by headless lucy at January 6, 2007 01:34 PM

11. Even fully-certified moon-bats like ''headless lucy'' can occasionally remind one of an omission:I'm reminded that I forgot ''victim'' in my above @ 8. So what I SHOULD have said was:
''If you THINK you are ''disadvantaged'' or disabled or a victim, YOU ARE !!..
That should just about cover everything for even the most radical leftie.
Posted by Methow Ken at January 6, 2007 01:54 PM
12. lucy at #7, "Wingnuts are always claiming to be victims."
Some examples please.
Posted by Bill Cruchon at January 6, 2007 01:58 PM

13. If this definition is approved, the biggest losers will be those who are truly disabled, as there will be less public funds available to assist them, as it will have to be distributed among more people who just think they have a disability.
Posted by Ralph N at January 6, 2007 01:58 PM

14. And lefties get mad when we accuse them of fostering a culture of dependency. I wonder where we got that idea?
Posted by Bill Cruchon at January 6, 2007 02:15 PM

15. At least Headless Lucy has a true disability.
Posted by Rey Smith at January 6, 2007 02:16 PM

16. My disability is that I am unable to find anything rational in the comments from Headless Lucy. I want immediate state protection and full benefits.
Seriously, folks like Headless Lucy always assume that the world has finite limitations. Global Warming will kill us all. We are going to run out of oil. There will be no more cheap labor, etc. That's the hallmark of the left, they don't believe in the fundamental goodness of humanity. They never want to let man use his ingenuity to solve problems, or assume that new technology will change our needs, because that would remove the false justification for more government.
Posted by Jeff B. at January 6, 2007 02:50

By this time, I had once again been BANNED from commenting. This is what happened to the last comment I tried to post:

Sound PoliticsComment Submission ErrorYour comment submission failed for the following reasons:You are not allowed to post comments.Please correct the error in the form below, then press Post to post your comment.Name:Email Address:URL:Comments:You wingnuts have your brains encased in half-baked ideology that you can neither understand nor adequately explain -- so you wingnuts start in with the namecalling.

Saturday, January 06, 2007

Wingnut Freedom of Speech

Sound Politics
Comment Submission Error
Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:You are not allowed to post comments.Please correct the error in the form below, then press Post to post your comment.
Name:Email Address:URL:Comments:You wingnuts have your brains encased in half-baked ideology that you can neither understand nor adequately explain -- so you wingnuts start in with the namecalling.

Friday, January 05, 2007

Wingnuttery this evening

1- anti-liberal says:
speaking of “freedom hating, terrorist sympathizers” le’s talk about the peHOsi:
Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)Voted NO on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)Voted NO on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002)Voted NO on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
Nancy Pelosi is an Embarrassment to Women
Grandma needs to go back to baking cookies and stay out of military decisions.
Grandma Nancy and Harry Reid have a letter to the president which I sincerely hope the president gives it the consideration it deserves……. by throwing it into the nearest trashcan where it belongs.
I would not have a problem with the Democrats such as Nancy and Harry, if they actually had any “ideas” to win the fight on terror, but they do not, so they should shut up because they make themselves sound like the defeatists they are.
Quotes from the letter:
“We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution.”
“Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain.”
“Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror.”
In other words: Surrender Iraq to al-Qaeda and Iran…NOW!!!!!!!
That is not an idea, that is a white flag to tell al-Qaeda and Iran, we have no spine, we have no honor and we have no courage. It also lets them know that if a fight gets too hard and costs money, we are too yellow bellied to finish what we have started.
Notice the Pelosi vote on adopting the 9/11 Commission recommendations that I bolded above, she voted NO, yet in this press release here, it says:
“That’s why my colleagues and I sent a letter to Speaker Hastert the other day to say, that in honor to commemorate 9/11, we must immediately pass the 9/11 Commission recommendations. It’s urgent and the suggestions are well-founded, based on a factual assessment of risk and the prospect of their success.
Not only is she incapable of understanding the concerns and the ramifications of losing the war on terror, according to their OWN press release, they are LIARS also. If Pelosi is so concerned about adopting the 9/11 Commission recommendations, why did she vote NO in 2004 to adopting those recommendations?
Her voting record alone makes it clear she has no understanding nor concern whatsoever about the security of our country as well as showing herself to be anti-military. This is a woman that should have stayed home and baked cookies because she doesn’t have the spine to help assure us that our country will not be hit again as it was on 9/11. She learned nothing from 9/11, which is the scariest thing of all.
Anybody that votes no to every single measure that is put before them that deals with protecting America, obviously has no clue on HOW to protect America, or worse yet, doesn’t care.
Mark The Redneck KENNEDY says:
I have a question for you moonbats:
1) Who is NOT the Commander In Chief?
2) Who is NOT the newly elected President?
01/05/2007 at 5:57 pm

Mark The Redneck KENNEDY says:
hey whl… where the fuck is it in The Constitution that gives fed gummint any fucking say whatsoever on employee wages and benefits?
It’s frustrating to recognize that the people of moonbatistan don’t know civics well enough to understand how the legislative process works—
01/05/2007 at 5:59 pm

Mark The Redneck KENNEDY says:
I’m doing some research for a white paper. I need some data….
Can somebody here provide an example of a successful vaginocracy? Just tell me what country and when. I’ll take it from there.
01/05/2007 at 6:28 pm

Mark The Redneck KENNEDY says:
Israel a vaginocracy? Hardly…
01/05/2007 at 8:16 pm

Wingnutter opinions on swearing in on the koran:

1- righton says:
Libs; some variant of the old adage about capitalists…you’d sell the rope used to hang you..
in this case…
You hate bush so bad, you bend over backwards to embrace the Muslims; wtf? this guy might be ok, and formerly it was largely benign in teh West. But its radicalized now, what w/ rich disaffected Saudis plus the political angle its taken on
I really don’t get why you all embrace these guys so much. They hate everything libs stand for (freedom, lax morality, gay rights, female voting/power, etc).
01/05/2007 at 6:55 am

2- Yossarian says:
Go fuck yourself, you ignorant asshole. I’m correct about the 2000 and 2004 elections, and I’m correct about the 1992 election: Perot was the spoiler.
Now, kindly shut the fuck up.
01/05/2007 at 12:11 pm

Military Contractors Lose Their "Get Out of Jail" Card

Five years into the war on terror, American military contractors have finally lost some of their immunity from prosecution for dirty deeds done on the federal dime. In a post over on DefenseTech, the Brookings Institution's Peter Singer reports on a quiet insertion into the 2007 Pentagon budget that means "contractors' 'get out of jail free' card may have been torn to shreds." Basically, contractors are now subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which means they can be court martialed:
This means that if contractors violate the rules of engagement in a warzone or commit crimes during a contingency operation like Iraq, they can now be court-martialed (as in, Corporate Warriors, meet A Few Good Men). On face value, this appears to be a step forward for realistic accountability. Military contractor conduct can now be checked by the military investigation and court system, which unlike civilian courts, is actually ready and able both to understand the peculiarities of life and work in a warzone and kick into action when things go wrong.

Wingnut commentary on----Topic: What do you think about Democratic poiticians' attitudes on Iraq?

1- Democrats go for emotion. The cause and effect of their actions are beyond their capability to think. So what will be next(?) d(D)ismantal (sic) the military to help pay for social programs that in the long run destroy the structure of our society. (?)One thing Democrats will never learn.(:) Personal Responsibility. Some understand it but they let emotions guide their thinking. (Unlike the author)
Posted by David Anfinrud at January 5, 2007 07:39 AM

2- Seriously(,) Eric, there's not a lot of thinking going on anywhere in the Democrat(ic) p(P)arty. These people are filled with emotion and the false sense of authority of their collectivist groupthink. Rational argument is out of the question, as anyone who does not agree wholeheartedly with their positions is labeled (as what?) and shunned.
I keep reading the assumption that there are "serious Democrats" out there. With leadership like Pelosi, is that really true? I think the country divides more into two classes. Sane and Insane. On the sane side, we have a semblance of moderates that may vote Democrat or Republican, but who are close to the center. On the insane side, sure there are some right wing wackos, but the vast majority of the insane are today's progressives and others who make up the extreme left. And they represent a large part of the "Democrat" camp.
Watching these folks try to lead is going to be good entertainment, but certainly not reality based.
Posted by Jeff B. at January 5, 2007 08:46 AM

Thursday, January 04, 2007


ConservativeFirst says:
proud leftist says:
cf @ 30Constitutionally speaking, the difference between “exigent” and “probable cause” is quite significant. Exigent always implies urgency, that time is a-wastin’. Probable cause can just mean “Your honor, we have reason to believe that the trunk of this car, which we have impounded, has a gallon of moonshine in it. We have reason to so believe because the passenger told us so. Can we have a warrant to open up the trunk?” See the difference? No urgency in probable cause.
01/04/2007 at 5:47 pm
Thanks for the clarification. I think the term I was looking for was “reasonable suspicion” rather than probable cause.
So the analogy to your example would be, the police stop a person for traffic violation and the odor of moonshine is eminating from the trunk. So the police officer has reasonable suspicion that there is moonshine in the trunk so the trunk is searched and moonshine seized. The evidence is admissible since there was reasonable suspicion to search the trunk. While there’s no urgency, there’s an immediate search and seizure with no warrant required.
Like I said before, on the surface this seems like an attempt to abridge people’s rights, but after reading the article, I don’t see that as likely. Seems like more left wing Bush paranoia to me.
01/04/2007 at 7:41 pm

Right Stuff says:
Oil is down again today…Must be that vast right wing conspiracy trying to influence the electorate with lower gas prices near the election…..or could it really be supply and demand.
Will the Dem congress stop funding Iraq? exactly as they did with Vietnam?
Bet not….sorry anti-war wing…your team is going to “stay the course” by keeping things going in Iraq.
Turns out we now have proof of Iran meddling in Iraq.Will congress have the stones to take care of the 21st century Hitler? we’ll see
01/04/2007 at 5:03 pm

Mike Webb SUCKS says:
Mike Webb SUCKS Poll:
Nancy Pelosi will:
1) Use her femininity to wow the good old boys in the Moonbat! Libtard Party.2) Give us Hillary Care.3) Bring shame to America.4) Undo Tax Cuts.5) Save the children from the evil Republicans.6) Elevate John Murtha to a “new position”.7) Will Cut-N-Run in Iraq. For reference if you go back and look at John Murtha, he was the same guy who told Clinton to leave Mogadishu. Now what did OBL claim his cuase centered around? OBL himself sighted the Cut-N-Run tactics in Somalia as example that Americans don’t have the stomach or will to tough it out and fight.8) Encourage our enemies. - Remember Investors Business Daily? Didn’t Nancy Pelosi say if we talk nice to the terrorists they’ll Leave? I posted top terrorists words who said she’s delusional!9) Fan the flames of homosexual marriage. - Isn’t she the San Franfreako treat?10) Find William Jefferson a new freezer, one the FBI can’t penetrate11) 1-4, 7-10.12) None of the above. She’ll sit in the chair hitting the gavel for 670 days!
01/04/2007 at 5:28 pm

Mike Webb SUCKS says:
A site for sore eyes of John Murtha lovers: nal/index.html
01/04/2007 at 5:37 pm

Buzzflash News


Blog Archive