Watched "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" on TIVO. How can an exaggerated Hollywood movie about Senate corruption made over 50 years ago mirror current conditions so precisely?
Of course today the ending would be different, with Jimmy Stewert's character being "taken out" quail hunting.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 16, 2006 03:23 AMOn the lighter side:
Seems Ann Coulter can't figure out where she lives.
Ann Coulter wrote down an Indian Road address instead of Seabreeze on her voter's registration application. And she signed to certify the information as true. The problem, she lied (big surprise).
Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections records show Ann Coulter voted last week in Palm Beach's council election. Problem is that she cast her ballot in a precinct four miles from the precinct where she owns a home. She used an address where she had mail forwarded when she moved from New York, but never lived.
Florida statutes make it a third-degree felony to vote knowingly in the wrong precinct. Lying on a voter's registration can cost up to $5,000 and five years behind bars. How delicious is the thought of Ann behind bars. Of course, I thought Rush would be behind bars by now, but evidently the law only applies to us "chattering class".
In Florida, you do not have to show proof that you live at your address. But when you sign the registration application, you also take an oath that everything you wrote is the truth. If you have falsified a registration, the matter is turned over to the state attorney's office.
Ann, Ann, shame on you. I just can't believe a good Republican like you would stoop to lying. The purveyor of truth lied? Tell me it an't so Ann.
Katrina Harris will get her off, if she has to take it to the Supreme Court.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 16, 2006 04:17 AMI saw this morning, for the first time, Cheney saying he would never forget seeing his friend go down. I wanted to throw-up. Oh boohoo. Let's all cry on the count of 3. As someone already mentioned, thousands of our soldiers have seen worse Dickhead.
Posted by Judith at February 16, 2006 04:23 AMThe Ann Coulter thing makes no sense unless she's paranoid and is trying to hide where she lives and votes because of protesters.
Not that she'd be a ripe target or anything.
Posted by idiosynchronic at February 16, 2006 04:30 AMAnn is so skinny, even Cheney could'nt hit her.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 16, 2006 04:37 AMIdiosynchronic, the article said she left New York because of stalkers. Obviously she doesn't want people to know her address. However, there are millions of women who deal with stalkers everyday, but do not have the right to falsify their voter registration to make life easier or safer, unless of course, your name is Coulter. The funny part of this story is that in an attempt to make her address unknown, she has now let the whole world know where she lives. HAHA
Posted by Judith at February 16, 2006 04:41 AMShould read: The funny part of this story is that in an attempt to keep her address unknown, she has now let the whole world know where she lives. HAHA
Coulter committed a third degree felony-falsifying voting records. Do you think anyone will indict her?
Posted by Ga6thDem at February 16, 2006 04:46 AMSam Fox, a hunting buddy of Cheney's, now comes to his defense. The implication is that while Cheney is taking the responsibility for the shooting, it actually wasn't his fault. If I were Cheney I would let it go, because it is not a winning subject.
Posted by Judith at February 16, 2006 04:49 AMYeah, her 1.8 million dollar home on Seabreeze is no longer a secret. Idio, I suspect that said stalkers are really protestors.
Sam Fox can't imagine shooting someone. "It has to be your worse nightmare." Well, there is another Republican who hasn't seen any war. They might want to remember that when sending others to shoot someone. Worse nightmare? You betcha.
Posted by Judith at February 16, 2006 05:07 AMCheney has another hunting weekend in October. Might be interesting to know the guest list on that weekend too. Wonder if Ms. Switzerland is invited.
Posted by Judith at February 16, 2006 05:13 AMYeah, Judith, the more they talk about the hunting accident, the more fodder they give the comedians. I don't know when I have laughed as much as I have with this cheney stupidity.
Have you seen cheney singing the folsom prison blues at Huffington Post? I laughed so hard I cried.
Posted by Ga6thDem at February 16, 2006 05:13 AMToon of the Day:"Covey" Up
Posted by jjoats at February 16, 2006 05:18 AMGa6thDem, yeah Letterman destroyed Cheney last night. After all the jokes about Cheney, the Show was interrupted two or three times with video of the O.J. Simpson's race down the highway, except the caption said Cheney's race down the highway. Got to love Letterman.
Posted by Judith at February 16, 2006 05:31 AMAnother subject, I wonder why Jeff Gannon visited the WH hundreds of times? Remember that scandal? If I were Jeff, I wouldn't accept any invitations to go hunting with Cheney. Have a good day guys, and remember, don't let the right-wing destroy the quality of our site today.
Posted by Judith at February 16, 2006 05:38 AMThey found the WMDs! They found the WMDs! They found the WMDs! They found the WMDs! They found the WMDs! They found the WMDs!
Oh, actually, it was a 10-year-old tape of saddam saying he had WMDs, i mean didn't have WMDs.
Close enough for dear leader - don't you communists feel embarrassed now?
Posted by A. Troll at February 16, 2006 05:51 AMGOP report hangs Katrina mess on Chertoff/Brown, lets Bush skate claiming he got bad intel. Sound familiar...sure, nothing is ever Bush's responsiblity, no matter what it is. He is The Irresponsible President.
You read it here: Chertoff will be gone well before the fall elections for family reasons or heath (probably gone in early June, before hurricane season starts).
Yeah, her 1.8 million dollar home on Seabreeze is no longer a secret.
Mental prostitution pays so well.
*gag*
Posted by idiosynchronic at February 16, 2006 06:28 AMFun new label for Cheney's drunken, adulterous hunting accident: Cheneyquiddick.
Posted by dj moonbat at February 16, 2006 06:59 AMInteresting tidbit in the NYTimes today re Bush's Health Savings Accounts.
According to "tax tables at the Treasury Department" a married couple with 2 children earning $40,000 a year can save $630 on their federal income tax by saving $5000 in a HSA! Get that? If a family of 4 can somehow manage to save 12.5% of their annual income, strictly for healthcare they can get $630 back from the government. And of course in order to have an HSA they need to be enrolled in a high-deductible health-insurance plan which I'm sure they all can afford.
Posted by snark at February 16, 2006 07:11 AM
Speaking of those Saddam tapes, isn't it time for another Stupid Troll post? I seem to recall someone yesterday making such a fuss about how "libs were going to be eating crow" today. None for me, thanks.
Posted by ann at February 16, 2006 07:40 AMsnark, HSAs are just another tax shelter for Bush's base. They aren't supposed to help the working class or poor families, they're just supposed to allow rich folks to shelter money and still be able to buy the best health care. Just another Bush non-fix.
Posted by ann at February 16, 2006 07:43 AMSam Fox, a hunting buddy of Cheney's, now comes to his defense.
It's typical troll mentality, Judith. Even when your cult leaders admit that they were wrong, the cult still supports them. Even though Bush has said there was no connection between al Quaeda and 9/11, trolls still believe it. Even though they have admitted there were no WMDs in Iraq, the trolls still believe.
Posted by ann at February 16, 2006 07:56 AM* On Day 2, Bernanke says that financial literacy needs to be stressed in order to teach children to save when they are younger. (Hallelujah, somebody is finaly saying it!)
* France accuses Iran of having secret nuclear program. Who's in charge of that investigation, Inspector Clouseau?
* Cheney shoots somebody by accident, Democrats shoot themselves in foot over politicizing the event. Americans are wincing at the Democrats mudslinging over the accident.
Posted by muckdog at February 16, 2006 09:17 AMMuck,
Wishful thinking on your part. Americans are laughing at B/C. When they are out of office they should travel with the circus. They could bill themselves as the as the Elmer Fudd twins. Jr. could run around looking for WMD's while Cheney shoots off his gun. They have been a constant source of comedic material for the late night crowd. Mention the word "republican" and you can hear the peals of laughter already. Truly, the gang that couldn't shoot straight! LOL.
As far as france goes, it looks like Bush/Cheney could be running that operation. LOL!
I don't know when I have laughed so hard. Have we ever had such a bunch of stupid dunces running the country?
Posted by Ga6thDem at February 16, 2006 09:55 AMIs anyone else concerned about the United Arab Emirates buying up our ports?
WTF is wrong with the US Government allowing this to happen?
Posted by Anjha at February 16, 2006 09:59 AMAnjha, that sounds like a bad idea to me. Why are we even dealing with a country that spawned the majority of hijackers who executed the 9/11 attacks?
Posted by ann at February 16, 2006 10:15 AMWhy are we even dealing with a country that spawned the majority of hijackers who executed the 9/11 attacks?
Because they bought the British company that is currently managing the ports.
Posted by snark at February 16, 2006 10:19 AM
Because they bought the British company that is currently managing the ports.
Jesus, another three-way with Tony Blair.
Posted by ann at February 16, 2006 10:53 AMJesus, another three-way with Tony Blair.
Posted by ann at February 16, 2006 10:53 AM
Ann, just lost my breakfast with the visual.
Posted by Anjha at February 16, 2006 10:57 AM Cheney shoots somebody by accident, Democrats shoot themselves in foot over politicizing the event. Americans are wincing at the Democrats mudslinging over the accident.
Posted by muckdog at February 16, 2006 09:17 AM
Muck, are you 5 yrs old or younger? because if you were alive durning the clintons years there is no way you could write this.
Posted by goose1 at February 16, 2006 11:26 AMBut the difference is that in the 90's, the GOP had an agenda that included Roth IRAs, welfare reform, reduction of capital gains, etc.
They're laughing at Cheney and his situation, but scowling at those who are politicizing it or characterizing it as anything other than an accident. I was listening to a very liberal talk show out of SF last night, and the host was saying that it wasn't an accident or that Cheney was drunk, and even the liberal callers were calling in and saying "Enough." They wanted to talk about the issues, and not politicize an accident.
I think it shows that those who lead the Democrats are focusing on the wrong things. Seems like the liberal people in this country want to talk about issues that concern them, but their leaders (and those in the media) aren't getting that message and would rather sling mud and accusations instead of work on a meaningful agenda.
Seems to me that if you're right and that this is the worst administration in the history of the planet, then the Democrats should be able to capitalize on this by making progress with their issues and agenda. But we don't hear much from them on that. They're blowing their chance.
Just saying.
Posted by muckdog at February 16, 2006 01:32 PMMuck, The GOP agenda in the ninety's was Get Clinton. Quit living in a dream world.
Posted by goose1 at February 16, 2006 01:41 PMGoose, that's what you might've perceived, but some important legislation was sent to Clinton that he had the honor of signing. We went over that yesterday!
Posted by muckdog at February 16, 2006 02:04 PMSilly Muck,
If people were saying "enough" it's not because they think Cheney isn't an idiot.
What you are quoting as the GOP agenda was only about 10%. The majority of the GOP agenda was to pass socially conservative laws. They wanted to return to the social stratum of the fifties. Is that why you like the GOP so much? You think that everyone should know their place?
Part of winning is turning the competition into drooling idiots and demoralizing the GOP base which is happening daily. Of course, the idiots who are running the country are helping us out greatly in that area. Can you imagine anyone in a competetive district wanting Bush or Cheney to come campaign for them? Everytime I see a person with a b/c sticker on their car I ask them "Do you have any birdshot" or "going bird hunting." LOL!
What kind of effect would the NRA have on an election? Can you imagine anyone touting the fact that the NRA endorsed them. The NRA? Aren't they the people that endorsed Cheney? LOL!
You say you want to talk about issues but you don't really. You're embarrassed by the fact that you voted for these clowns. Since you're such a fan perhaps you can go on the Ringling Bros./Barnum Bailey tour with them! LOL!
Posted by Ga6thDem at February 16, 2006 02:27 PMAnybody else noticed how our crazy dipshit trolls have disappeared? I guess they are off in lala land eating their crow. LOL!
Posted by Ga6thDem at February 16, 2006 02:30 PMThe Republicans delivered on their promises from 1994. That's why they were elected. There was nothing in their contract with America that had anything to do with returning America to the 50's. You're just making that one up.
From Wiki:
"The Contract's actual text was a list of actions the Republicans promised to take if they were in the majority following the election. During the construction of the Contract, Gingrich insisted on "60% issues", meaning that the Contract avoided making promises on more controversial and divisive issues, such as abortion or school prayer. According to Ronald Reagan biographer Lou Cannon, more than half of its text was taken verbatim from Reagan's 1985 State of the Union Address. "
"The Contract was revolutionary in its commitment to specific actions, describing in detail the precise plan of the Congressional Representatives, and marked the first time that a Congressional election had been run broadly on a national level. Furthermore, its provisions represented the view of conservative Republicans on the issues of shrinking the size of government, promoting lower taxes and entrepreneurial activity, limiting the role of the United Nations in American foreign policy, and both tort reform and welfare reform."
"The Contract With America is considered a success principally for two reasons: First, it achieved its principal aim, which was the election of a Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives. Second, despite the failure of many sections of the Contract to pass the Senate or overcome President Clinton's veto, the Republican leadership did introduce bills that would have implemented virtually everything they had promised to introduce in the Contract."
That's the difference between the GOP in 1994 and the Democrats today. In 1994, the GOP won because they came with a specific list of action items. Today's Democrats have no action items. No idea. Nothing. Zip. Nada.
Well, "Raise your taxes" would be #1 on their list of 1 thing they'd like to do.
Posted by muckdog at February 16, 2006 03:29 PMMuck,
They introduced the bills but they failed to get enough votes even with A GOP CONTROLLED CONGRESS!!
Remember the gov. shutdown? That's was one of Newt's first initiatives. Bill Clinton kicked his butt and the contract was dead after that.
One thing to remember, the contract wasn't introduced until 6 WEEKS before the election! LOL! Keep on aksing about ideas. You look like a silly wabbit.
Good luck on the circus tour. Maybe it will make you the millionaire you always wanted to be! LOL!
Posted by Ga6thDem at February 16, 2006 04:33 PMGa6, the important thing was that they had a list of action items and submitted every single one of them for a vote. They did what they promised they'd do. People respect that. Maybe the reason the GOP subsequently won the White House and Senate was because those branches of government were what blocked the Contract With America.
Are the Democrats planning on having such an action list for 2006? Or just "We hate Bush and we want to raise your taxes?"
Posted by muckdog at February 16, 2006 04:43 PM"We hate Bush and we want to raise your taxes?"
Hmm, well 2/3 of americans hate bush. And yes, we know that you love your money more than you love your country. You would proudly have the chinese pay for everything. It's the GOP Motto: It's for somebody else! Somebody else will fight the war. Somebody else will pay for the war. Yes, that somebody else you guys love so much must be lurking around everycorner.
9/11 got the GOP where they are. Osama is no dummy. He knows that the GOP is good for his business. Why do you think he popped up right before the election? It was a boon for Jr. You only can ooga booga people for so long though. People tire of being scared and B/C are just like the little boy who cried wolf. No one believes them anymore except people like you.
Oh, and the fundamentalists helped a lot too. You don't think that social reactionism isn't a big part of the GOP then you certainly don't know much. The GOP is now the party of religious fundamentalists. They control the entire party.
Did you not read what I said about the contract on america being released only 6 weeks before the election. Jane Harman posted some of our goals over at Kos yesterday. If you want to find out what we are doing then certainly you can read them. I really think that you aren't interested. Spending 1.6 BILLION on pro bush propaganda is a ok with people like you. LOL!
Bush's big friend here in Ga has reinstated a poll tax. Don't tell me that the GOP isn't radical reactionaries. Ralphie Reed is running for lt. gov. But hey, I guess old ralphie is your kinda guy, huh? LOL!
Look at the polls. The Bush Adminstration is not popular. He's an idiot and it's really too bad that people like you continue to spend your time defending idiots who give control of our ports to the United Arab Emigrates (terrorists who attacked us 9/11), let Osama go, send people like my nephew over to Iraq to be cannon fodder, can't speak a cohert sentence and best of all can't shoot straight! LOL!
Well, "Raise your taxes" would be #1 on their list of 1 thing they'd like to do.
Bush justified EGTRAA based on the largest budget surpluses in history...wha' happen'?
So, you lower taxes for the wealthy during a surplus to stimulate the economy. Then you lower them for the wealthy during a deficit to stimulate the economy. Then you lower them again for the wealthy during a recession to stimulate the economy. And lower them once more for the wealthy during a depression to stimulate the economy.
That's a pretty simple tax policy for a multiple choice test, but it sucks in practice.
"Raise your taxes"
You are correct. Raising taxes on the wealthy to a top tax rate of 70% for everything over $1 million a year is what I want. They need to pay to play, and their tickets have been too cheap for the last few decades.
No doubt you will gag on this, but remember when Kennedy lowered the top tax rate from 70% to 63% to spur the economy? I long for the days when the wealthy realized they too were part of the social contract.
Posted by phidipides at February 16, 2006 08:38 PMSo if all the rich decide to play golf instead of work, will you still have a job?
Posted by muckdog at February 16, 2006 10:04 PM