It's a desperate race. Democracy will win or George Bush will be the first Holy Emperor of the United States of God. Call your Senators and tell them to Filibuster Alito.

Then Impeachment.

Then War Crimes Tribunal.

The race is lost. Demcoracy is dead and we live in a fascist country that has abrogated the Constitution. Next step are the camps. The onlhy think left to do is commit mass suicide a la Masada.

The only thing? I didn't note we were surrounded - yet!

If you are worried about democracy now, read this scary article about how easy it is to hack into the new voting machines in Florida.

http://edwardcopeland.blogspot.com/2006/01/oh-those-fair-election-machines.html

Well, so much for Obama. When asked by Timmy if this Administration is corrupt, he declined to take the opportunity to say "yes", just a simple yes. I just want to scream. Is there ONE fucking Democrat that will stop playing nice nice, and say "HELL YES THIS ADMINISTRATION IS CORRUPT"?

Time Magazine has just released the five pictures of Abramoff and Bush.

Fuck Obama. He's an equivocator. Give me Paul Hackett.

Oh, and here's a little snippet that describes our trolls to a "T":

"Being "right" to a GOPer doesn’t mean fidelity to the truth, or to the facts on the ground. This is a Party that still cannot collectively admit they fucked up in Iraq. Cannot admit, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that their President lied to them. Repeatedly. Wherever he is, he’s probably lying right now.

Cannot admit we’re losing in Iraq, and cannot admit that we will continue to lose in Iraq whether or not Dear Leader continues to play coy about coughing up any metric whatsoever for what “winning” might look like.

Could not and would not admit – despite overwhelming evidence – that Tom DeLay was a corrupt, amoral douchbag. And has been for years and years.

Because being “right” to a conservative means fidelity to Party and Dogma and Dear Leader…which have now become fused into a massive, misshapen lump of Cult of Personality. An in their minds, being even slightly off the reservation in any direction is cause for having hellfire rained down on you.

Thing is, they’re not very bright. They don’t have a lot of flea flickers in the ‘ol playbook if you know what I mean, so they keep it very simple.

Blame Clinton. Deny everything. When caught, whine “But the Liberals…”

Mind you, this is a Party that came to power, not on any programmatic platform, but on the premise that they were the Party of Good and God, and that Dems were irredeemably evil. It is the predicate they use to justify every excess, every slander, every lie, every Swiftboat. They must burn heretics and, lest the nation be made impure by gazing too long into Nancy Pelosi’s witchy eyes.

This is also the Party of Creationism, that still is pretty sure that Saddam planned 9/11 despite what all of those polls and newspapers say. These are people whose vision of “right” sinks not one, tiny anchor-bolt into reality at any point; all they have to keep their mingy souls warm at night is hate and doctrine. Republican Creed is their church, and George Bush their representative of God on Earth, and to this purely Stalinist vision of their party and its leader they bring the full weight of their wretched excuse for Christianity: Fundamentalism.

All discussions with Fundy’s begin and end with their smirking, unassailable, “Heaven’s Gate” certainty of the inerrant rightness of every single thing their cult leaders tell them…and that your degree of sinfulness is measured by how far from James Dobson’s vision of the Universe you have strayed."

http://driftglass.blogspot.com/

GOW, Wow! There it is, neatly put into nine short paragraphs.

"We are safer than we were on September 11th" thanks to Homeland Security. Guess what MF just said that? Yeah, your right. Traitor Lieberman. Rove must have pictures of him doing another guy, because I can't explain him.

I can't help but think that all these neat little ideas to help speed up the process at our airports are part of a wider grander scheme. Next, those that don't join the "Registered Traveler Program", will be identified as potential threats. You have to provide all your personal information to join this incentive program and you get to pay for it as well. What joy it is, that someone will have all my private information just so I can get on the plane quicker. Let's just start weeding out the good Americans from the bad ones right now!

Obama is the new triangulation king. Tim-meh was moist, he recognized the new darling of the inside the beltway leeches. A hit on the cocktail circut, someone they claim as a black they can admire.

Oops, here's the link.

Damn, I gotta say Obama ducked with the best of them. Everytime, "Tim-meh" try to get him he was out of it in a second.
This shit about not calling a Nazi, a Nazi is fucking wrong. If the shoe fits, let's make sure we let everyone know who bought it and wore it!

Oh, and Lieberman agrees that Bush should be able to spy on Americans. He just wants him to get approval first (even though it illegal). Either I am trapped in a Salvator Dali painting, or I have fallen down the well of insanity.

Oh, and Lieberman agrees that Bush should be able to spy on Americans.

Kerry said the same, if it's a valid program for national security. I think you will hear this point over and over because BushCo has framed it as a national security program.

Kerry did point out that if BushCo thought the FISA law was too cumbersome for this program, then he should have come to Congress and made the case to change it....but he didn't.

Judith, Time has a story saying they saw the photos of Bush and Jackoff, but the source won't release them...yet.

Kerry and Joementum giving Bush the benefit of the doubt... It looks like the dems will listen to the consultants who say our privacy is not important enough to fight for. Hmm.

You people are sad. We don't live in a facist country. If you people think its so bad in the USA why don't you go live in another country. You could try living in a utopia like Cuba, North Korea, Iran, or maybe China and see whats it's like to really live under a REAL REPRESSIVE government. Get real you have not lost any of your rights. You can still write the drivrel and spout the hate you have for the current President and not be taken to any re-education camps. What I suggest you do is stop smoking the medical pot, since you are not really sick, and get a real education and stop blaming others for your lazyness.

At least there is ONE person who tells it like it is, and doesn't use "truthiness." Bob Schiffer just cut Bremmer a new one. Bob wants to know why Bremmer was on his show time after time, and when the question of whether or not we needed more troops was raised, Bremmer time and time again said "no." Bob went on to say that then he waits until he writes a book, and then tells the truth about the need for more troops. Bob even went one step further and accused Bremmer of having no integrity. You go Bob. Just sent an email to CBS supporting Schieffer, because my fear is that he will be yanked off Face the Nation for speaking the truth.

Dear Judith, Thanks for agreeing with me, albeit, unknowingly. Obama did not call Bush's NSA wiretaping illegal nor that he was a criminal. (Remember the post about his letter/speech that you trumpheted.)

Again, where is the outrage, where is the indignation, (other than with GOW and a few of you guys on the far left.)

Oh and GOW, I loved your expose on Conservative Trolls....very amusing. I see that you really believe this stuff, but also I see clearly of how much if not all of these characteristics applies to you guys on the left.

The difference may be that I read your comments and make an attempt at intraspective, while you crawl back into the corner, sucking your thumb and then lashing out at us Trolls every few threads.....

I'm still waiting for the Morally, Intellectually, and Politically Superior Democratic Party to stand up and find their voice. When are you guys going to give me a Democrat leader as an example who was willing to stand up and Call Bush a CRIMINAL and tell him to STOP THESE EVIL WIRETAPS?....

Again, the silence is deafening....

If you people think its so bad in the USA why don't you go live in another country

Because it's our country, too, and if it is - as you point out - a representative government, it should also listen to our voices when we disagree with government policies. We disagree because we do not want our country to become like Cuba, China and the other countries you've listed. It's a simple as that.

Again, the silence is deafening....

Sadly, your misinformed jabbering goes on and on...

Yeah Ann, I heard Kerry say that too.

I will tell you something else I am pissed about. Democrats are allowing the Republicans to frame who our candiate will be for President. Time and time again they are telling me who is going to be nominated and that the base wants Hillary. What fucking arrogance. NO, the base does not want Hillary and I don't care how many times you say it, it isn't going to make it true.

Iamacoyote,

"sadly, your misinformed jabbering goes on and on."

Its sad that I have to continue to jabber away until one of you guys answer me.

The way to shut me up is to give me even one direct and honest answer using facts.... Then again, accusations, demands for investigations, and hollaring and screaming is all that the Democrats know how to do.

You might find you will win more elections if you ran on a platform of facts rather than your trust in the ignorance of the illerate masses that support your party in every election....
(felons, uneducated and victimized minorities, union members, abortionists, high strung college kids, enviornmentalists fundamentalists, and of course, socialists, to name but a few.)

Iamcoyote, that's what I get for listening to the TV. They said Time has released, blah, blah, blah. Obviously they were wrong.

"Kerry and Joementum giving Bush the benefit of the doubt... It looks like the dems will listen to the consultants who say our privacy is not important enough to fight for. Hmm."

Fuck no, they aren't going to fight the GOP. They are all pussies, period! Just what the fuck would they fight for??????????

Judith, Rove wants Hillary to run so bad he can taste it. Of course, the minions are going to parrot the talking points, because they just love the smear game. It tickles their lizards brains to be able to spread hate, since they can't argue the issues worth shit.

And the pictures will come out soon, I think the tv just jumped the gun on it. Probably, the "sources" are still haggling over the price.

Dear Judith,

I hope and pray it isn't Hillary, but we all know its her. Stephanophilis(sic) spoke to Kerry who was boring us to tears with his intellect. He asked him about reports that support for his campaign in 2008 is slim that many are waiting on Hillary, and he just laughed and said, he is not a Washington insider, that he never listens to what they say. (oh and he compared Kerry to Adlai (sic)Stevenson, a two time loser.)

Then Sam Donaldson came on and said again, that it was Hillary's for the taking....

This is a done deal. You need to become a united front, supporting her now. Get the momemtum started at the grassroots, and then wait till 2007 and begin the push.

You have no other candidate. . . but wait, Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich (sic) are still waiting for the call. That would be a great ticket. Who do you suppose would run the Cabinet level position for the Department of Peace?

Why the fuck that any time someone disagrees with our Government, some childish character comes on here and tells us to leave American if we don't like it. EAT SHIT YOU FASCIST PIG! I'm in no mood today to have some fucking idiot tell me to leave my Country if I don't like it.

And, by-the-way, get a new line. The one you used is not very original and certainly passe.

Today is the 33rd Anniversary of Roe v Wade.

I have always supported abortion rights because I know that it needs to remain a legal option for a safe way to terminate a pregnancy. Pregancies will always be terminated, whether there is a safe option available to women or not.

This is the bottom line, even if the 'criminilize abortion fanatics' get this overturned, women will still seek out abortions in other countries, dirty clinics and from people in back rooms with coat hangers. For as many years as humans have been alive they have used herbal remedies or beaten on their bellies or attempted douches filled with chemicals or whatever else that one could stuff inside of them to terminate a pregnancy when they knew that they could not go through with it.

Roe v Wade was a decision that saves womens lives. People must not forget this.

People also must not forget that this is a women's issue. It disturbs me greatly that a court packed full of men will attempt to determine the healthcare decisions for women across this nation. Abortion is a healthcare issue.

I was reading some of the twisted information from those fighting so hard to criminilize abortion.

Anyone with their eyes open has known that this administration has twisted scientific data to meet their own needs for the last many years. Any scientific data being presented is precarious and I trust none of it anymore. So why would I even consider studies now being presented by people who say that having an abortion fucks women up...

I know no one who has had an abortion who made the decision lightly, I know no one who has had an abortion who does not think about what it would have been like to have had the baby. I know that their decisions were based on many, many factors and that they never just lightly went in and had it done.

I have to wonder, though, if it isn't the 'criminilize abortion people' who themselves are the ones who are mind-fucking these poor women. I am believing that if women are now suffering 'psychological damage' (according to these dubious studies) because of abortions that they once had, that this damage is being done to them by these violent freaks who shove fetus pictures in their faces and chant hatred towards them and have launched this massive campaign to shame these women into never-ending guilt.

Is it not a more "Christian" thing to do to offer love and support and acceptance? I do not know much about Christianity, but I do know that at one time, the god that these people worship, was a god who preached of love and tolerance.

Where is the tolerance towards women who have faced this decision and made what they believed to be the best decision for themselves, the unborn, their families and their future.

Where is the love and tolerance towards the millions of hungry, lonely, abused and poor children already living. Why not turn their efforts towards this?

Forcing women to be incubators, shaming them into doubting that are worthy of love because of one time making the most difficult decision that they ever could have, twisting them up and slamming into them more and more guilt is not being helpful to anyone.

Keepin abortion safe and legal and offering women access to clinics where they can recieve counseling and caring prior to making this decision is a caring, smart and loving thing to do.

The short sighted ignorance of those who believe that to criminilize abortion will somehow stop it or lessen its frequency is really disturbing; it will not.

I hope that everyone will wake up to what the truth is here.

I'm still waiting for the Morally, Intellectually, and Politically Superior Democratic Party to stand up and find their voice. When are you guys going to give me a Democrat leader as an example who was willing to stand up and Call Bush a CRIMINAL and tell him to STOP THESE EVIL WIRETAPS?....
********

Adam Schiff (D. CA) called for him to immediately stop and told any of the employees in the NSA doing it to stop because they may all be looking at criminal charges. Friday. Conyer's hearing. All of the Constitutional Law Experts also demanded him to stop. Also it was a clear cut, text book case for impeachment.

Judith,

I agree, you shouldn't leave this country merely because you disagree with it. But keep in perspective that Liberals frequently threaten to leave America everytime an election comes around...or the results of said election.

We get frustrated with the complaints of how much you (the left)disagree with our Nation and then how you are going to move to Canada or Europe and then you end up staying.

Remember how it was reported that in the days after the 2004 election of how Canada's immigration website had been "deluged" with information requests....? Nothing happened.

Or past elections when Baldwin or Alda or any number of hollywood elites threatened to leave if Kerry or Gore lost....

We just wonder how can you stay in a Country that is run by Fascists? That is run by the most corrupt administration in history. Who you compare to Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler on a daily basis? Whose economy is completely destroyed, where only the Rich can succeed and where minorities are treated like the underclass.

Why would anyone want to live in the America that the Left believes it to be?

So I don't encourage you to leave for merely disagreeing. I do encourage you to act upon your convictions... if those convictions are real....

Maybe just maybe, America is a much more wonderful place to live, maybe just maybe we have one of the most enlightened nations that have ever existed...maybe just maybe in America where you can burn your flag, flip off the President and still vote your conscience, that we still have something we can be proud of...

maybe just maybe, you could on occaision find something positive about America, not with her liberal politicians, but with America....without also stating your disdain for something as well.

Don't you just love someone of the opposition telling us who is going to run, what's best for us to do now, and how we need to get behind her.
More GOP arrogance.

Dear Anjha,

Thanks for the try, but again, I said one of the National Democratic leaders. Heck far, Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga, even supports the arabs and slams the Jews and Israel daily. But she is not a national leader.
Also these "expert" legal scholars, are I bet professors at several Liberal Universities... I bet 10-1 you have some Berkley types on that panel.....

Dennis Kucinich is the correct spelling. Good job.

here is an excellent article on the difficulties of getting a FISA wiretap. The article is by an insider who used to try and obtain permission using a 2-3 inch thick pile of documents.

This requirement would make the exploitation of a captured cell phone or laptop very difficult.

I still maintain that the president has the authority under the constitution to use this intellegence. It is simply an extension of the battlefield intellegence garnered via other means. I certainly want our country to know when and who these terrorists are talking to. To me it is just common sense to investigate these things as long as there is a nexus such as I have described. I believe that middle america would agree.

If the president were authorizing the NSA or others to spy on political opponents, that would be a cause for concern, but I see no facts pointing to that. It seems to me that everyone pointed out the glaring problems and the failure to connect the dots leading up to 9/11, and rightly so.

Again Roe v. Wade. Aren't you guys proud?

Let me see if I can at least inform SOME of you on the LEFT as to the theory of how Roe v. Wade has destroyed your ability to win elections... not by the principles behind Roe, but in that you have lost VOTERS, actual Voters who would have been likely Democratic voters, had it not been for their untimely termination...

Read this article if you can...

The Roe Effect
The right to abortion has diminished the number of Democratic voters.

BY JAMES TARANTO
Wednesday, July 6, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Roe v. Wade is a study in unanticipated consequences. By establishing a constitutional right to abortion, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court no doubt thought they were settling the issue for good, accelerating a process of liberalization that was already under way in 1973. But instead of consensus, the result was polarization. The issue of abortion soon after, and for the first time, took a prominent place in national political campaigns. By 1980, both major political parties had adopted extreme positions--Republicans favoring a "pro-life" constitutional amendment to ban abortion, and Democrats opposing virtually all regulation on "pro-choice" grounds. Every presidential and vice-presidential nominee since then has toed the party line on abortion.

Polarization over abortion coincided with a period of Republican ascendancy. Since the parties split on abortion, the GOP has won five of seven presidential elections, and no Democrat has had a majority of the popular vote. Republicans took over the Senate in 1980, and both houses of Congress in 1994. Obviously, many other factors have contributed to Republican success, but it is hard to look at these results and conclude that abortion has been a winning issue for the Democrats. Thus, the politics of abortion has favored the party that opposes the court-imposed "consensus."

This is not to say that America has embraced the near-absolutist pro-life position that the Republican Party formally endorses. Most Americans are moderate or ambivalent on abortion, rejecting the extreme positions on either side. One reason Republicans have an advantage is that as long as Roe remains in effect--taking off the table any restriction that imposes an "undue burden" on a woman seeking to abort her pregnancy--Republicans are an extreme antiabortion party only in theory. When it comes to actual legislation, the GOP favors only modest--and popular--regulations. The Democrats, on the other hand, must defend such unpopular practices as partial-birth abortion, taxpayer-subsidized abortion, and abortions for 13-year-olds without their parents' knowledge.

Compounding the GOP advantage is what I call the Roe effect. It is a statement of fact, not a moral judgment, to observe that every pregnancy aborted today results in one fewer eligible voter 18 years from now. More than 40 million legal abortions have occurred in the United States since 1973, and these are not randomly distributed across the population. Black women, for example, have a higher abortion ratio (percentage of pregnancies aborted) than Hispanic women, whose abortion ratio in turn is higher than that of non-Hispanic whites. Since blacks vote Democratic in far greater proportions than Hispanics, and whites are more Republican than Hispanics or blacks, ethnic disparities in abortion ratios would be sufficient to give the GOP a significant boost--surely enough to account for George W. Bush's razor-thin Florida victory in 2000.
The Roe effect, however, refers specifically to the nexus between the practice of abortion and the politics of abortion. It seems self-evident that pro-choice women are more likely to have abortions than pro-life ones, and common sense suggests that children tend to gravitate toward their parents' values. This would seem to ensure that Americans born after Roe v. Wade have a greater propensity to vote for the pro-life party--that is, Republican--than they otherwise would have.

The Roe effect would have made itself felt before post-Roe children even reached voting age. Children, after all, are counted in the population figures that determine states' representation in Congress and the Electoral College. Thus, if the greater prevalence of abortion post-Roe affected statewide fertility patterns, the results would have begun showing up after the 1980 reapportionment--in the 1982 election for Congress, and the 1984 election for president.

The first post-Roe babies reached voting age in 1991, in time for the 1992 election. In 1992 the Roe effect would have been minimal, since it was limited to a small segment of the electorate (18- and 19-year-olds), who tend not to vote. The affected segment of the population grows with each election, ranging up to 23-year-olds in 1996, 27-year-olds in 2000, and 31-year-olds in 2004. The Roe effect is compounded over generations. Children who are never born do not have children or grandchildren.

Critics of the Roe effect hypothesis point out that abortion does not necessarily diminish a woman's lifetime fertility. A woman may, for example, have an abortion while in college, but later marry and bear children--children she might not have had, had she been forced to carry her collegiate pregnancy to term. Yet it is not clear how much this might mitigate the Roe effect. Some women do abort their final pregnancy, and delayed childbearing is one manifestation of the Roe effect. If a woman has a child at, say, age 30 rather than 20, one additional census passes before the child counts toward his state's congressional and electoral college apportionment, and two or three presidential elections pass before he reaches voting age. The compounding element applies here as well; if a woman has a daughter at 30 rather than 20, the daughter reaches childbearing age a decade later than she otherwise would have. Moreover, attitudes about abortion and politics are subject to change with age and experience, and usually in a conservative direction. Thus, some women who delay childbearing contribute to the Roe effect on both ends: by having abortions when they are young, single, and pro-choice, and by bearing children when they are older, married, and pro-life.

Has the Roe effect borne itself out in practice? The results are mixed. In terms of reapportionment, the trend is decidedly in favor of Republican states. The 30 states George W. Bush carried in 2000 had 271 electoral votes, a bare majority. Reapportionment after the 2000 census increased that number to 278. In the 1980s, they were worth only 267 electoral votes, not enough for a majority; in the 1970s, 260. The trend continues: Of the 10 fastest-growing states in 2003-04, Bush carried nine in 2004. (One of them, New Mexico, went for Al Gore four years earlier.)
But Roe effect doubters can point to 2004 exit-poll results that found 18- to 29-year-old voters--i.e., those born after 1975, who correspond closely with the post-Roe generation--were the only age cohort that supported John Kerry over Mr. Bush, by 54% to 45%. Yet caution is in order in interpreting these results. The Roe effect does not predict that younger voters will be more apt to vote Republican than older ones, only than they otherwise would be. Putting the Roe effect to a real test will require a longitudinal look at these voters. How will their voting pattern change, as they grow older and more settled? In any given year, the youngest age cohort will include a high proportion of lower-income and never-married voters, both traits that are highly correlated with voting Democratic. Marriage, in particular, tends to correspond with conservative attitudes on abortion and other social issues, and therefore with voting Republican. According to 2004 exit polls, Mr. Bush outpolled Mr. Kerry among married voters, 57% to 42%, while Mr. Kerry beat Mr. Bush among singletons, 58% to 40%.

Peculiarities of the 2004 campaign might also have maximized Mr. Kerry's performance among young voters. The Democratic get-out-the-vote effort placed heavy emphasis on the youth vote, employing pop-cultural icons and exploiting the fear of a military draft. The strong youth vote for Kerry may prove to have been less a trend than a spike.

While the Roe effect may give Republicans an advantage, it obviously is insufficient to win elections. National security and the economy still loom larger than abortion in most voters' minds. And although no Democratic candidate since 1976 has won a popular-vote majority, pro-choice candidates collectively (including Ross Perot and Ralph Nader) did so in the three elections from 1992 to 2000. Further, the Roe effect does not necessarily mean that younger voters will end up conservative on cultural issues other than abortion. Opinion polls consistently show, for example, that the young are far more favorable toward same-sex marriage than their elders. This should not be surprising. Even if their parents tend to be conservative, they grew up in a society far more accepting of homosexuality than the one in which earlier generations came of age.

And if Republicans keep winning the presidency and appointing Supreme Court justices, Roe v. Wade may eventually be overturned. (This almost certainly would have happened in 1992 if the Senate had approved Robert Bork's confirmation five years earlier.) If Roe goes by the boards, one would expect fertility to increase in states that outlawed abortion, which would presumably be largely conservative and Republican ones. If the Roe effect continues to operate, though, it would make those states more Democratic and liberal, since women who otherwise might get abortions would no longer have the option in their home states. But in the end, that may not matter. If Roe were overturned, the politics of abortion would change dramatically, and in the Democrats' favor. With the legality of abortion itself on the line, the debate would shift away from the pro-choice extremes, forcing pro-choice politicians to take a more centrist (and popular) position. Republicans would be torn between their antiabortion base and more moderate voters, for whom an outright ban on abortion is a bridge too far.
The best solution for both parties would likely be a return to the status quo ante Roe--that is, for Congress and the president largely to ignore abortion, and leave its regulation to the state legislatures. This would allow politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, to tailor their views to match those of their constituents and their own consciences, and it would remove abortion as a polarizing issue from national elections. Thus, one might say that both Roe and the Roe effect contain the seeds of their own demise.

Mr. Taranto is editor of OpinionJournal.com. This article appears

Anjha, excellent post. I can tell you that I have a couple of friends who had abortions years and years ago, and neither one of them regret their decision nor carry any amount of guilt. I think you have come very close to what this hogwash study is all about, the further beating down and demeaning of women. Men should ask themselves how they would feel if women were making the decisions on their healthcare.

I find it totally laughable that anyone suggests a woman is going to run. I hate to say it but looking at the makeup of the senate, the congress, who the majority of CEOs are, the ease with which people discuss ripping away women's rights, the fact that mothers in general have to work full time and STILL do the majority of housework, childrearing.....it's just not realistic to think that a woman has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a majority of votes. And the 'pubes know it and that's why they keep saying "Hillary is our worst nightmare, because she may win." It's called reverse psychology. God only knows why a dem would say it.

So, our space is being taken up by an article that no one is going to read.

Judith, crappy actually believes that if he hasn't been deleted, someone is reading his crap. Arrogance, all right; the arrogance of a 2 year old. Ignore it.

Crappy, you no longer get to define what facts are true and good enough for you, you no longer get to define who is a good enough spokesperson, you no longer get to define what congresspeople qualify as legitimate, you no longer get to define shit - because your definitions change to suit you.

Once anything is proven you move the bar so that you can still walk around with your holier than thou, haughty, arrogant bullshit.

I am very tired of you.

And, I still believe that you are a woman. Because you have that vicious college girl, "I am queen shit" mentality.

pdf witness list. Not a single one from Berekely.

In fact, your hero Reagan's Deputy AG was one of the witnesses.

The most disturbing thing Crappy, is that the Republican Congress has completely abrigated their responsibilities to do checks and balances on the other branches. They have rolled over and are not fulfillfing their oath of office.

How can you support this Country and not support following the rules and designs and laws of this Country?

You, who are always screaming for people to work hard and do a good job - how can it not infuriurate you that the Republican Congress is not doing their jobs?

You are the hypocrite.

Never, again, tell me how I am. Every time that you turn "Liberal" into a nasty word, I want you to remember that every single founding father of this Great Nation of Ours was a Liberal and a Progressive. You owe your opportunity to come hear, or go anywhere, to those "awful" Liberals who fought like hell for our freedoms and designed a system of government that worked for almost 2 1/2 centuries.

It is the Republican controlled Congress who is not allowing it to work. They are killing it and you are sitting too much in your queen shit pile to see it.

One day, hopefully when it is not too late, you will open your eyes. I hope that you will be standing next to me, fighting to take back our country, but I doubt that will ever happen. Your blindness and your ignorance run too deep.

Sharon, fucking A. That is exactly why they are telling us that it must be Hillary, and she has it all sewn-up. They want her to run. I hear the swiftboating now. "Elect Hillary and you get Bill back in the WH. Is that what you want?" Reverse psychology indeed!

I think I know why some dems are saying it too. As soon as I posted, I thought, are people going to think I agree with all that sexist crap when I say there's no way a woman could win? I think it's pathetic and a damn shame because a woman would do a helluva job. But in our society, it's not going to happen any time soon.

Sorry for the long article. I erred in posting it in its entirety.

Roe v. wade effect

The article addresses many intellectual and academic arguments as to how Roe has effected our lives....and how overturning it will too.

Taranto is not a pro-lifer, he is pro-choice. But his analysis is impecible.

Oh and Anjha, You did not give me a name of a NATIONAL LEADER so yes I'll still keep on being arrogant over your excuse making.

I will agree with you that The Republican Congress has done very little in representing the Conservative values. I see so much similarity between them and their Democratic colleagues.

"Dear Judith, Thanks for agreeing with me, albeit, unknowingly. Obama did not call Bush's NSA wiretaping illegal nor that he was a criminal. (Remember the post about his letter/speech that you trumpheted.)"

You fucking liar. I did not respond to the letter from Obama posted by Ann.

"Dear Judith, Thanks for agreeing with me, albeit, unknowingly."

In your dreams sucker.

Dear Anjha,

Re: Adam Schiff.... It seems isn't asking the adminstration to stop their ILLEGAL or CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. Here is an exact quote....

"I would hope that those within the administration that have been working on this program would immediately cease and desist from any further electronic surveillance not approved by the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] court ... out of respect for their own potential liability," he said. "I would hope that if there's anybody at DoJ that's watching this -- or at NSA -- that they're mindful of the very serious legal questions that have been raised and that any future surveillance go through the FISA court."

In other words, there is a POTENTIAL for a problem regarding a SERIOUS LEGAL QUESTION.

Thats sort of different from Mr. President STOP THIS ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL WIRETAPPING NOW.

Dear Judith,
.... there you go again, calling me a F*(king Liar.

I did not lie, if Ann was the one that raised that letter as a reference, then I erred and was mistaken. My apologizes. I remembered incorrectly, but I am not a liar.

Perhaps next time, merely correcting an obviously provable fact might be more courtesy than in calling me a Phucking Liar.

Gees Louise, do you have a chip on your shoulder or what....

"Oh and Anjha, You did not give me a name of a NATIONAL LEADER so yes I'll still keep on being arrogant over your excuse making." Carp

Oh, and Carp, You did not give me the reasons for Democrats hating American, so yes I'll still keep on being arrogant over your excuse making.

Your a fucking liar for the second time. You knew damn well I didn't respond to that post, but you thought you could just throw it in to make a point. This is the problem with people like you Carp. Throw out the dirt and don't worry whether it is true or not. In fact, don't bother to check before throwing it out.

"You remembered incorrectly." Sure you did Carp.

Judith judith judith, its very hard to prove an emotion by empirical evidence, which is one reason I've delaed answering you. So for me to prove your hate of America, then I must finally have you admit to it, which I'm sure you and the left will always refuse to do.

We could debate, yes you do, no I don't endlessly and to no avail.

Antedotalially is the only way I can prove my theory, and therefore I shall try.

Liberals hate America by doing one if not all of the following:

1. Calling our soldiers Terrorist while still in harms way. John Kerry twice.

2. Comparing our government/soldiers to Nazi's. (too many to cite as an example, but Sen. Durbin is at the forefront.)

3. Welcoming with glee the advances of the terrorist in Iraq over Bush. (our own Steve Sato) or your Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan.

4. The general glee over any bad news, whether economic, Iraq war, race relations, etc. (too many examples to cite, just read the news threads from this website.)

5. The worship of the group over the individual.
Abortionists, Gays, Unionist, Oppressed Minorities.

6. The support of our school teacher unions over the actual support of our students learning.

7. The quickness of you on the left to oppress any freedom of speech that disagrees with you, (look at past posts on this list. from the student monitoring professors, to Steve checking to see if I'm posting under a Psuedo-name.)

8. The importance of allowing foreign countries to control Americans, i.e. supporting a GLOBAL TEST before America looks after itself.

9. The desire to limit America in signing the Kyoto Treaty which unfairly helps the India/China.

10. The Glorification of the Enviornment over ANY interest that might help America. ex: ANWAR.

11. Protesting against every war that America fights to preserve our freedom INCLUDING AFGANISTAN. You can't deny that.

12. Calling terrorists freedom fighters and minutemen.

13. Calling our soldiers cowards because we can "lob" a cruise missle from a thousand miles away while these terrorists fight like men. (bill Mayer)

I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point, that you will wholeheartedly disagree with.

These are antedotal, I agree. But its sort of like the husband that beats his wife, verbally abuses her daily, cheats on her with other women, basically always complains about her to anyone who listens...shes a whore, a tramp, a liar, a thief....

And then stands up and says...But I love her so.

Actions do speak louder than words.

Dear Judith, you are correct, I did not check it out before I accused you of your inconsistencies.

Lazy I am, but lying, at least this time, I am not. I was mistaken. Thats it.

I don't even know how or where to find that other post without scrolling through every thread.

I know you won't respond, but I'll ask again. How do you monitor these posts? Is there a way other than I describe, by endlessly scrolling? or is there a search or means to monitor certain specific threads?

Again, Judith, my apologizes. I'm sorry you believe that I am a liar, at least to this particular point. I think I'm smart enough not to deliberately point out a post that can be easily verified by the person who posted it or by you, who specifically knows without checking that you did not.

I am not that STUPID to say something that you could easily have discredited, unless it was a mistake.

Now if I said I was blond headed, 6'2", 190 pounds and had the body of a 21 year old stud muffin, then you couldn't check behind me and prove me wrong, that would be different.

Actually I wish I were a stud muffin, but those days are long gone, except of course to my lovely bride of 25 years who says I still "rock her world".

I'm LIBERAL AND PROUD and the above is repub talking point bullshit. Haters of America are those who condone the ripping up of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and supporters of a lawbreaking president who gleefully says he will continue to do so. If it's not against the law, let's have some independent investigation. THAT would be the American way.

Guess who is running as the GOP candidate for the Senate. Yeah, Kathrine Harris.

So Time doesn't want to provide the pictures for publication. Yezza Master.

While TIME's source refused to provide the pictures for publication, they are likely to see the light of day eventually because celebrity tabloids are on the prowl for them. And that has been a fear of the Bush team's for the past several months: that a picture of the President with the admitted felon could become the iconic image of direct presidential involvement in a burgeoning corruption scandal.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1151747,00.html

Just as I thought Carp. You compare hating America with hating GWB. New Flash, they are not one in the same.

"Lazy I am, but lying, at least this time, I am not."

So, you admit that your character allows for lying sometimes? Whatever. I am tired of this game. It's boring. Later.

al gore was elected president in 2000..and it was stolen ..for five years now we have been lied to..this administration is totally corrupt..we for the first time in history started a pre-emtive war...using lies and deception..the invasion was ill thought out..the planning was inept and our men and women in the mititary went to war unprepared for battle..despite the lies of this administration iraq may erupt into civil war...iran has been on the back burner..and now is a problem..because of iraq the militay is stretched to the limit...the vice presidents top advisor is under indictment..karl rove still may be indicted...they are both traitors to their country..but use national security as a cover..no bid contracts to halliburton..jack abramoff and the republican house scandal..white house won't say who he met with...enron...bill frist is under investigation by the sec...pretty much every thing here is a fact..not like the rhetorical rantings of the above....al gore will be back..i believe he is running now..and revenge is a dish best served cold...shame on all who have believed in this administration...the piper is coming to be paid...if the price is another terrorist attack it will be because of the action and inaction of this administration... your guy choked the day of 9/11..big time..it's who and what he is...

You'll never guess who the Pentagon was using its spies to protect from those dangerous protesters -- Halliburton.

Read the tale

Apologies: I tried to put the link under Read the tale, but it didn't work so I'll do it the old-fashioned way:

http://edwardcopeland.blogspot.com/2006/01/dont-forget-pentagons-spying-scandal.html

lot of spam on this thread, huh?

Crappy fuckface,

None of the shit that comes from the traitorous Reichwing applies to me. Don't project your cowardly treason upon others, especially me, because we both know I fucking OWN you.

When on the losing side of a debate initiate the following emergency procedures:

1.

Patronize your opponent:

Directions: In a patient, loving tone say her name three times (“Judith, Judith, Judith) and explain that she's just not smart enough to understand, that you are wise and would never lie to her. If she's present, patting your opponent on the head while patronizing her always lends a nice touch.

2.

Say something so disgusting that it will cause your opponent to vomit, rendering them unable to continue:

Directions: Say something like, “Actually I wish I were a stud muffin, but those days are long gone, except of course to my lovely bride of 25 years who says I still "rock her world.” It's been proven to gross-out a few.

Warning: These emergency procedures may fail if you attempt to use them against a superior opponent.

Dear Judith, sorry again that you have chosen to back away rather than to stand firm.

And yes, I have lied, it would be a lie to say otherwise, I frequently tell telemarketers that I'm on the other line, or irrated adjusters that I'm in a meeting. I even tell my wife that I love her new hair cut, when the truth is, I really don't.

So end the debate with a complete disavowment of me, personally, if thats how you choose. But I did make an attempt at descibing how LIBERALS HATE AMERICA. and I dont' recall giving a single example of how you hated George Bush, unless calling our soldiers terrorists, is what you are describing. Then I am at a loss.

How does one argue with you? or any liberal for that matter.

Dear off the fence,

Excellent, I loved it. You parces my comments, at least two, very well.

Now address the facts....and not the tone.

Dear God of War,

You have some serious and danerous emotional problems.

How do you "own" me?
Why would you want to?

Why would you continue to threaten me with your hatred?

You calmed down there for a day or two, but now you are back in the groove again. Did your prozac run out?

I wonder if you would mind giving me your real name and address so that I can keep it in case I need to have a restraining order taken out against you. You are sort of scary. Literally, you are scary.

Does threatening people give you a sence of power or authority? I wonder if you are some little teenager, closeted in his bedroom, with pimply skin, searching the porn sites with one hand and spouting your hatred on others.

You have severe emotional issues. I really suggest you take it down a notch. I push your buttons way too easily....

I await your verbal arsenal of typical left wing response. i.e. Hate, Denial, and ignorance....

Guys, you can't argue with a fundamentalist like crappy. Facts don't phase them. Bush is the savior and anything that comes from him is God's own truth. They really have more in common with the jihadists than they do traditional americans. They want a banana republic with theocratic rulers. They like corruption and incomepetence. They support the expansion of the Islamic Revolutionary Council and the reach of the ayatollahs. They should leave the country and go to Iran or Saudi. It's their ideal country.

For those of you who didn't watch Fox this morning...okay, I didn't either, I was at yoga, but John McCain was on and I just saw this over at Think Progress:

WALLACE: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps.

MCCAIN: You know, I don’t think so, but why not come to Congress? We can sort this all out. I don’t think — I know of no member of Congress, frankly, who, if the administration came and said here’s why we need this capability, that they wouldn’t get it. And so let’s have the hearings.

McCain is the latest addition to a growing list of prominent conservatives — including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) — who have expressed serious concerns about the legality of the program,

So, carpe can go on about how Obama didn't directly say that BushCo's secret spy program was illegal. Big, fat, so what? You can whine about technicalities and semantics all you want. It's pretty simple, really. There is a law. Bush, er Cheney, decided that they were above it. They've also said we don't need hearings. Well, the time is coming, it's not just the far left wing of the Democratic Party that is calling for investigative hearings, it's also members of the Republican party.

So, let's have hearings. Let's see who they are actually gathering data and spying on. Let's examine the law and the authority that was given to Bush to fight the "war on terror." If Bush is so certain that he is right, he doesn't need to fear hearings.

Crappy fuckface,

You're a traitor to this nation. You're a partisan hack who pledges loyalty to a party run by liar, traitors, criminals, and theocrats.

Yes, I fucking OWN you, because I know what you are. You're an apologist and enabler for a criminal enterprise. THAT pisses me off. I'm sure it pisses off just about every intellectually honest person around here. Your incessant bullshit and relentless shilling and lying for this corrupt administration render you completely unworthy of courtesy or respect.

Fuck you. Take your threats and shove them up your ass.

BTW, crappy, I'm built like a running back. No pimples either. Sorry to dash your wishful thinking.

Warning: These emergency procedures may fail if you attempt to use them against a superior opponent.

The procedures break down immediately in crappy's case since credibility and crap are mutually exclusive. And the "Dear Judith" silliness became tacky almost immediately. I've seen it before; you can usually guess which crazed rightwing howler the troll is emulating by their affected manner. They're not very good at it, even though they hold seminars on how to argue like a troll. It took crappy three tries to be awarded his crackerjack box certificate of trolling.

Iamcoyote, you just reminded me of something that turned me against Bush Senior when he was running for President. A reporter, female, asked Bush a question. His response started out with "My dear women....." I thought at the time, how condescending.

That's "woman"

Carp:

Yes, you finally did answer my question. I am sorry you believe the points that you listed as to why we hate America, because in reality, it is a difference of opinions, philosophy, different values and standards, and viewing facts from a different point-of-view, not hating America.

Ford Motor Company will be closing a plant in St. Louis where they produce SUVs. Thirty thousand more jobs gone.

Do you want an equal opportunity economy or a trickle down economy

Do you want an equal opportunity economy or a trickle down economy
Posted by Sharon at January 22, 2006 04:20 PM

*****

Trickle down = pissed upon.

Dear God of War, either you are a women, built like a running back, or you're hitting on me. Did you not know I've been married for 25 years and I'm pretty set in my ways, . . .especially sexually.

So you want me to be your bitch? you own me? You want me to shove what up my Fu#*ing ass? What are you alluding too?

I'm getting old, so maybe I'm missing the meaning of your hip new ways of exploring your hidden sexuality.

carpe,

RE the Taranto article. Please provide evidence in support of your claim that Taranto is pro-choice. I could not locate any such evidence. It seems unlikely that such a high-profile conservative would be pro-choice.

Anyone capable of penning the following bit of dishonest wingnuttery earns no respect from me:

"Thus, some women who delay childbearing contribute to the Roe effect on both ends: by having abortions when they are young, single, and pro-choice, and by bearing children when they are older, married, and pro-life."

The decision to bear a child means a woman is "pro-life"? Married women don't have abortions? What vile, utter bullshit.

That's the thing about a pro-choice society - individuals are free to make different decisions under different circumstances.

I realize this was Taranto speaking and not you. But you indicated you were in agreement with him.

Equally objectionable is your implication that pro-choice Democrats would or should change their minds for reasons of electoral advantage. That's a Republican specialty. We are pro-choice for reasons of principle: the belief that considerations of a woman's privacy and autonomy override any moral claims made on behalf of an egg (fertilized or not), or (at the very least) a developing but nonviable fetus.

In any event, the significant demographic and sociological effects of legalized abortion are not news to us (see Levitt & Dubner's Freakonomics)

"Equally objectionable is your implication that pro-choice Democrats would or should change their minds for reasons of electoral advantage."

When your party is not based on a strong belief system in right and wrong, it allows you to abandon any position at a moments notice. That's why when we say the GOP has no integrity, it is the truth. Say anything to get elected. Who cares about values and standards, or truth.

Okieby accident,
Thank you for at least reading the article. Its plus to get a coherent comment regarding such matters on this list.

I'm happy to learn that you did not summarily deny the entire article's theory. I think that portion that you highlighted may have been discussed by Taranto as being what other liberals have suggested was his flaw. I think that all in all, dyed in the wool women that have abortions will be Democrats. clearly.

And women who are pro-choice that have children later in life, will either remain pro=life, OR they may change. At a minimum it is a net zero sum loss, but you would have to admit some pro-choice women change their minds once they hold their own children in their arms.

As to Taranto's moderate position on abortion. I can only tell you I was surprised by his admission about a month or two ago. I'll direct you to the link if you would like that to be confirmed. He has a search engine and it might be difficult to find.

But thanks for at least reading and discussing this interesting concept about abortion and the loss of Democrats voters base.

Oh and as it Freaknomics, thanks for sharing, I'll look it up at the book store. I've read its reviews on Amazon and they are intriguing. Of course, I'm still one of those voodoo economics types of guys that like trickle down economics. or as one the posters described it, the piss on you econcomics...cute very cute.

Judith, it may be me, or are you trying to be more civil towards me. I lost Anjha over a week ago, and Dorita hasn't been online. But you seem to want to strangle me with only one hand as opposed to two.

Maybe I'm not the liar you think I am.

As to your opinions that republicans will do and say anything to get elected and have no integrity....duh.

That is by its very definition the description of a politician. Are you suggesting that Democrats don't sell out their own?
My God, on this list alone, I here you guys bemoaning moderate democrats all of the time.

Here is an article from a Democrat-decrying left wing blogs for acting like juvenile delinquents....yes I know you won't agree, especially with who he used to work for, but nonetheless his article is revealing.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007849

Thanks anyway for not strangling me too much on the second half of the day, and I'll be less condesending to you...if I can....cuz I don't want to lie and then end up getting smacked around again...

I assume I'm I addressing carpe under a different handle?

Taranto's article is a pastry of cogent analysis with a goopy frosting of right wing silliness. For instance, he could have easily made the offending sentence politically neutral by simply saying "...by having abortions when they are young and then bearing children when they are older." And he unnecessarily casts his analysis in racial terms, where Freakonomics relies more on socio-econommic factors.

And ("stealing" aside) it wasn't the aborted potential black voters who "gave" Florida to Bush in 2000 - it was the thousands of breathing, eligible black voters who were deliberately and illegally disenfranchised by Katherine Harris.

Why do you echo Taranto's absurd assertion that women who have children later in life are therefore "pro-life"? I'm not denying that some women do move from the pro-choice to the anti-choice position, but many pro-choice women bear children, and plenty of them are Republicans. This is precisely why Taranto's Roe Effect could be ultimately self-reversing.

Carp, I am just tired of all the hatred and anger on this Blog, and I plead guilty to participating in both the hatred and anger.

"As to your opinions that republicans will do and say anything to get elected and have no integrity....duh. That is by its very definition the description of a politician. Are you suggesting that Democrats don't sell out their own?"

No, we know all too well that we have traitors inside the Democratic Party, who sell their soul and sell us out daily, i.e., Lieberman.

I read the link you provided, and think that some of what Gerstein said was absolutely true. However, I did not agree with everything he wrote.

"I'll be less condesending to you...if I can....cuz I don't want to lie and then end up getting smacked around again..."

Good, because I take no pleasure in smacking you around. I'm just not into being a sadist.

Okie,

Okay, game on, if you want to talk about Florida and whose votes were and weren't counted....

I'll get to that in a few threads.

Oh and I was using this other handle as a gentle ribbing on another post. I love Col. Jessup.

carpe,

Not the issue - you guys have done that one to death and further discussion is pointless. I referred to "stealing" as I did to acknowledge that was a separate issue, to keep the focus away from the issue of vote counting. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Taranto's point has to do specifically with votes that were never cast and that's why the topic of disenfranchisement was relevant.