home

Tuesday Open Thread

It's time for the Tuesday open thread. What's happening in your world? What are you reading and concerned about today?

And if any of you readers are Scoop-tech, and know how to put the publication date into my rss feed ( which block I put the code in and what code I should put in), please let me know. Colin of Scoophost is out of town until the first of the year and I'd like to do it asap. Many thanks!

< Ten Years For Consensual Sex | Dead Deer Lays on Cheney's Lawn for Days >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Interesting (none / 0) (#1)
    by aw on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 11:28:42 AM EST


    That should have been (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by aw on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 11:41:52 AM EST
    Interesting article in Salon about a new group to challenge AIPAC and take Israel foreign policy back from the right-wingers and Armageddon boosters:The Other Israel Lobby


    Parent
    Good Catch aw (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 12:16:51 PM EST
    Finally some sensible opposition to AIPAC and with teeth. 87% of jews voted against Bush in the midterms.  Thanks to Mearsheimer and Walt for bringing the AIPAC problem to the table. Now that the voting numbers are out it is clear that AIPAC is no longer primarily supported by jews but the Christian right wing nuts. They are all paying for the paving of The Jesus Landing Pad


    Parent
    Prepare yourself for the onslaught of... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    ..."anti-Semitic" charges that will be leveled against you for having the temerity to NOT back AIPAC 1,000%, right or wrong, and no matter how much of the Middle East they help destroy.

    When/if it starts, just throw UN Resolution 242 from 1967 in their faces and wait for them to gag.

    Parent

    Bring 'em on (none / 0) (#22)
    by aw on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 01:34:05 PM EST
    Hi, Bill

    Parent
    Howdy. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 02:37:53 PM EST
    According to the CIA World Factbook (none / 0) (#44)
    by Sailor on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 06:00:03 PM EST
    Saudis (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 11:34:28 AM EST
    It seems to me that the war on Iran is directly related to Saudi buisness dealings. These two news events are no surprise.
    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army has replaced al Qaeda in Iraq as "the most dangerous accelerant" of the sectarian violence plaguing Iraq for nearly a year, according to a Pentagon report.

    al-Sadr biggest crime is that he has been consistently against the American occupation. He never cared about America one way or the other until we invaded his country, jailed, tortured and raped his people and wreaked havok on his land.

    The big irony/tragedy here is that he is the most likely one to bring peace to Iraq. We wouldn't want that now, would we?

    CNN

    and the WH censoring of Flynt Leverett's NYT op-ed.


    He has written numerous books, manuscripts, working papers, and many dozens upon dozens of some of the most important public policy op-ed commentary on American engagement in the Middle East and has always dutifully submitted his materials to the CIA's review process. Never -- not even once -- has been a word or item changed in anything submitted.

    The White House has now forced the CIA to heavily censor a 1000 word op-ed draft planned for the New York Times that is based on a much larger product he produced under the sponsorship of the Century Foundation titled "Dealing with Tehran: Assessing US Diplomatic Options Toward Iran."  (A pdf of the article can be downloaded here.)

    Leverett believes that the White House is now politicizing the "secrets review" process and is rewarding those who support Bush's policies and punishing those don't.

    TWN

    Leveretts's 'crime' is that he has pointed out that Iran could be a very useful ally, and has made considerable effort to aid the WOT. The fact that the WH has demonized them goes against our national interests and makes little sense.

    squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 12:38:19 PM EST
    Leveretts's 'crime' is that he has pointed out that Iran could be a very useful ally, and has made considerable effort to aid the WOT. The fact that the WH has demonized them goes against our national interests and makes little sense.

    Can you tell me what useful action re the WOT that the current Iranian goivernment has done?

    As for "useful" ally, what a wonderfully generic statement. Any Moslem country could be a wonderful ally. But how one ran by a religious fanatic who denies the Holocaust and calls for the destruction of Israel while trying to obtain nuclear weapons would ever help is a huge unanswered question.

    Parent

    links my boy (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 12:49:13 PM EST
    Can you tell me what useful action re the WOT that the current Iranian goivernment has done?
    Either your wingnuttery has caused you a case of early blindness or you have not followed the link or the news for the last five years.

    Parent
    That's a none answer... (1.00 / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 01:27:15 PM EST
    So, what is these wonderful helpful things?? You made the claim, you provide the proof...

    Surely you can point out one or three..

    Oh, you can't?


    Parent

    Sorry ppj (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 01:31:57 PM EST
    I am not your 'boy', get someone else to dig your hole so that you can climb down into it.

    Parent
    Come now squeaky, (1.00 / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 01:47:34 PM EST
    I realize that you feel immune from proving anything.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I

    But if you can't offer any proof, why should anyone be expected to try and prove your claim?

    You obviously have none.

    Parent

    lazy as sin (1.00 / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 02:47:03 PM EST
    ppj, no slaves around to read the links or do your own googling? You must have a few servants around the plantation to help out.

    Not me.

    Parent

    Again (1.00 / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 08:40:54 PM EST
    No slaves around?

    As I have pointed out time and again, you specialize in smear attacks with no proof provided. I challenge  you to prove your point. Since you haven't even tried, I again note what you said about yourself.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    Instead of all the smear, why don't you engage in debate? Perhaps it is you that is lazy. Or just not capable of doing anyything but attempting to smear.


    Parent

    PPJ (none / 0) (#25)
    by aw on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 01:51:22 PM EST
    Still terrified of naked people.

    Keep it up.

    Parent

    No problem aw... (1.00 / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 02:06:43 PM EST
    Unless someone is demanding I "huge and chalk."

    If you think a snarky comment, not even one I made, is a problem to me, then your education is severely limted.

    Parent

    I demand you (none / 0) (#32)
    by aw on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 02:42:56 PM EST
    "huge and chalk."  Whatever that means.

    I don't care if it is a problem to you or not.  I said I would do it every time, and I have and will.

    Parent

    No charge for the education (1.00 / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 08:36:07 PM EST
    alas my old fingers betray me...

    "hug and chalk" refers to making love to a partner that is huge..so big that you must hug, mark the extent of the hug with chalk and move on...

    And you fail to understand my point. Since no one has the vaguest idea of what you are talking about, and since you provide no context, please continue.

    Your efforts make you look silly to the max.

    Parent

    I may look silly (none / 0) (#53)
    by aw on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 09:50:24 PM EST
    But one silly turn (yours) deserves another. If you want me to continue, just keep posting the "smear" remark.  You think people have some kind of high regard for that?

    And I think more than a few people here know exactly what I'm talking about.

    Parent

    aw - It's direct quotation. (1.00 / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 10:18:46 PM EST
    And do you agree with his remark?

    Parent
    Oh, (none / 0) (#55)
    by aw on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 11:12:16 PM EST
    go to bed, already.

    Parent
    The rightwingers never cease to amaze... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 01:10:31 PM EST
    ...me with their now almost blanket refusal to consider that Iran has ALREADY demonstrated that they will deal with us in a forthright manner and republicans, more than any other political group KNOWS this.

    Reagan, through daddy bush, guaranteed arms for Iran in exchange for the release of the hostages taken on Carter's watch.

    Iran delivered on their end of the deal by releasing the hostages the day Reagan took office and Reagan's administration held up their end with weapons deliveries to Iran.

    Sounds to me like Iran is one of our better trading partners.

    Parent

    Prove it, Bill. (1.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 01:32:25 PM EST
    Bill A - The claim re Bush and Reagan and hostages is nonsense. But, since you brought the subject up, prove it.

    As for neogitations.... seems like members of the EU did for years, only to have Iran laugh at them for being dupes and fools.

    Parent

    I don't need to prove squat, google Reagan (none / 0) (#33)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 02:46:26 PM EST
    +arms for hostages and read for yourself. I am not your researcher.

    Parent
    Bill - Yes. (1.00 / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 08:42:46 PM EST
    You made a claim. Prove it or stand in front of us knowing that your smear has been called and you could prove nothing.

    Parent
    Does F.O. & D. mean anything to you? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 01:42:58 PM EST
    Why the hell should anyone have to prove what Reagan admitted to? You really have gone around the bend.

    I'm returning to my "No response forthcoming" policy regarding you as you have developed into a bigoted bully intolerant of the truth.

    Parent

    Mad eyou seem manly and intelligent (1.00 / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 10:27:48 PM EST
    You wrote:

    Reagan, through daddy bush, guaranteed arms for Iran in exchange for the release of the hostages taken on Carter's watch.

    Uh, I have never seen anything like that Bill. Now you've got my interest up.

    My guess is that if you have anything it is the ramblings from some Left wing conspiracy blog.

    But hey, let's see that.

    BTW - Love your little FO&D. Made you seem manly and intelligent. Yes sir. No biggoted bully would say that.....

    ;-)

    Parent

    I just can't resist.. (1.00 / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 11:04:30 PM EST
    pointing out how wrong you are. You wrote:

    Reagan, through daddy bush, guaranteed arms for Iran in exchange for the release of the hostages taken on Carter's watch.

    If you are going to have conspiracy theories, you really should keep'em straight.

    In 1979, Iranian students took hostage 63 employees of the United States embassy in Iran. On January 20, 1981, the day Ronald Reagan became President, the hostages were freed following the Algiers Accords.

    Algiers Accord

    No charge for the education. I hope you now understand the difference between the emabassy hostages and Iran-Contra. Do a little reading and you may catch on.

    BTW - Here is a little quote that should bother you:

    Moreover, the arms sales apparently were under way already by 1980.[6]

    Now Reagan didn't take office until 1981... Will Jimmy Carter please stand up??

    Parent

    The "Surge" (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 11:55:12 AM EST
    Now that Shi'a Moqtada al-Sadr is the true enemy a "Surge"  will take care of his people. Open season on the Shi'a. Get ready for a genocidal bloodbath Bush style.

    A "surge" of the size possible under current constraints on U.S. forces will not turn the tide in the guerrilla war . . .

    ...Analogies come to mind: the Bulge, Stalingrad, the Battle of Algiers. It will be total war with all the likelihood of excesses and mass casualties that come with total war....

    W. Patrick Lang and Ray McGovern

    "Progress will be measured by the pace of killing and, yes, by body counts. Not the fatuous body counts of Vietnam, but precise counts that will run to extremely large numbers. The piles of dead will include as many or more civilians as combatants because our enemies wear no uniforms . . ."

    billmon

    More troops (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 01:54:41 PM EST
    Not too popular an idea by the 'decider in chief'. 11% of americans think that we should send more troops into Iraq.

     " over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," the Washington Post reports.

    Parent

    No Parliment, (1.00 / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 02:09:28 PM EST
    I do hate to be repeating this point, but we do not have a Parliment, and polls mean zip point zip in our system.

    Just wanted to keep you from confusing yourself.

    Parent

    hahahaha (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 02:14:44 PM EST
    polls mean zip point zip in our system

    Guess again perfesser.

    Do you really think that so much time and effort, not to mention $$$, would be expended on polling in the USA if your statement were even remotely true?

    Parent

    If you want to contend (1.00 / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 05:03:44 PM EST
    that some politicians, etc., pay attention to polls then you would be correct.

    My comment was about aw's:

    The people voted to get out of Iraq--that's democracy.  Bush decides to send more troops--that's dictatorship.

    That there is any actual requirement for Bush to do so, which is what aw's comment, and the NYT letter implies, is totally wrong.

    Like it or not, we do not have a pure democracy. We never have had, nor would you want to live in one if I can believe your please for diversity and rights of the minorities.

    But then again I have noted that your tolerance for other opinions is limited to those who agree with you.

    Parent

    To Paraphrase (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 05:13:11 PM EST
    Er....you forgot something. If you insist on being literal don't tale aw's comment out of context.

    Bush does act like a dictator and the American people, save for your sorry a$$, are not happy with his unilateral behavior and lies. If you think that the RNC has not noticed you are a bigger fool that I thought.


    Parent

    squaky... my sorry ass??? (1.00 / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 08:19:13 PM EST
    In my time I have been whistled at by young ladies who admired subject ass. Somehow I feel that you have never experienced this most enjoyable and ego inflating experience...

    In addition your calling me a fool is noted. I guess that, being unable to put together a response to my arguments has, as usual, reduced you to a blathering state and the need to use personal attacks.

    I also note that in another place today you referred to me as "boy."

    Thank you. A "boy" is a male who has the hope of becoming a man.  Can you make such claim?

    BTW - I quoted aw exactly, and noted the NYT.
    There is nothing out of context.

    My comment was about aw's:

    The people voted to get out of Iraq--that's democracy.  Bush decides to send more troops--that's dictatorship.

    That there is any actual requirement for Bush to do so, which is what aw's comment, and the NYT letter implies, is totally wrong.


    Ta Ta!

    Parent

    Oh, really (none / 0) (#42)
    by aw on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 05:16:02 PM EST
    So you think it's good that the president be a dictator and act against the wishes of most of the country?  Silly question, isn't it? I wonder if you'll express the same approval when the next president is a Democrat and governs in the same manner.  I doubt it.

    In this not "pure democracy" the president can still be impeached.  Should he say, hell no, I won't go?

    Parent

    aw - It is neither good or bad. (1.00 / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 08:30:32 PM EST
    It is simply a fact. We have a Constitutional Republic that does not allow for the government to "fall" and elections held on a vote of no confidence... much less "polls" and letters to the editor.

    If you think we should totally change the way we have been governed you are entittled to your opinion and you can start the revolution.

    But don't be surprised if you have little support.

    In the meantime you really should quit making such outrageous claims as they demonstrate your lack of knowledge about such basic points, and undermine your arguments.

    I do get a grin when you, as usual, assume that I am a Repub. Can you spell "Independent?" "Social Liberal?" No? I thought not. As for impeachment, fire away. The Repubs similar actions against Clinton almost cost them an election they should have won in a walk.

    Parent

    Somebody (none / 0) (#27)
    by aw on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 02:03:00 PM EST
    had a good letter to the NY Times today, (to paraphrase):  The people voted to get out of Iraq--that's democracy.  Bush decides to send more troops--that's dictatorship.

    Parent
    Win or die in the attempt (none / 0) (#39)
    by aw on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 04:32:56 PM EST
    Also from Billmon (emphasis mine):
    Moreover, major reinforcement would commit the US Army and Marine Corps to decisive combat in which there are no more strategic reserves to be sent to the front. It will be a matter of win or die in the attempt.  In that situation, everyone in uniform on the ground will commit every ounce of their being to a hope of "victory," and few measures will be shrunk from.

    No problem:

    "[A]ll that means is decreasing the length of some breaks from tours of duty and increasing the lengths of some tours of duty." Pollock added: "That's not a hard thing to do."
    link

    Parent
    sorry jeralyn, this colin can't help ya! (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 11:59:20 AM EST
    that this WH has politicized the review process should come as no surprise, it's pretty much politicized everything else.

    Thanks... (none / 0) (#6)
    by desertswine on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 12:00:17 PM EST
    for all the funnies.

    Man, it was a different world then.

    Brings (none / 0) (#9)
    by aw on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 12:14:37 PM EST
    back happy memories of Saturday mornings in front of the tv, wrapped up in a blanket.

    Parent
    May you gracefully.... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 07:53:08 AM EST
    exit stage left....right even.

    My memory is my great-uncle laughing out loud to the Flintstones...he had the best laugh, and the Flintstones delivered many.

    Enjoy the big brontasauras burger in the sky.

    Parent

    Signing Statement - India Nuclear Agreement (none / 0) (#7)
    by avahome on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 12:05:27 PM EST
    Ah, the Decider is at it again..........

    "And with that assurance, India will invest multiple millions of dollars based on the word of Mr. Bush?

        My approval of the Act does not constitute my adoption of the statements of policy as U.S. foreign policy. Given the Constitution's commitment to the presidency of the authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs, the executive branch shall construe such policy statements as advisory. "

    http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2006/12/19/123216/21

    Where's (none / 0) (#12)
    by desertswine on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 12:40:32 PM EST
    my damn mangoes?

    Parent
    India has issued its own signing statement... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 12:59:03 PM EST
    ...as well, and will consider much of the signed agreement to be advisory in nature.

    Not anything serious, mind you, just those parts that would prohibit India from helping Iran further develop their nuclear programs. No big deal, eh?

    Parent

    An American in Iraq (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 12:07:04 PM EST
    The New York Times has a disturging story of a whistle-blowing contractor, who was rewarded for his whistling with secret imprisonment.

    Sobering and infuriating.

    I'm sure (none / 0) (#13)
    by aw on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 12:40:57 PM EST
    our resident law student has some handy justification for this.

    Parent
    Deadeye Dick at it again, this time at home? (none / 0) (#15)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 12:51:17 PM EST
    Where I grew up, it was considered both unsporting and illegal to shoot at deer from the comfort of home.  One was supposed to put on a coat and go outside and, to be legal, be at least 150 yards from an occupied building before shooting.

    I'm not saying Deadeye capped this deer, lying dead in his D.C. lawn, from his living room window.  But, it is there and has been, for a couple days, it looks like.

    Here's what the NYDN has to say:

    Has "Deadeye" Dick Cheney turned his home into a happier hunting ground?
    People passing by the vice president's residence over the weekend were shocked to see a dead deer on his lawn. "Who killed it!?" asked one horrified witness. ...
    Another source confirmed the carcass on the grounds of the U.S. Naval Observatory, where the vice president lives. "I was walking to work and tried my best to look away," the deer-spotter told Wonkette.com.
    "It is a mystery why it was there so long," said the source. "Wouldn't the Secret Service have removed it?"
    We called Cheney's office to see if the deer might have wandered into the cross-hairs of the avid hunter, who in February accidentally wounded his friend Harry Whittington while shooting grouse in Texas.
    Cheney's office referred us to a spokesman for the Naval Observatory, whose Web site features a photo of a fawn on its lawn.

    (and, now, we get some buck-passing)

    "There are deer all over the area," said the Navy spokesman. "It could have been hit by car."
    "If you want to know anything about that, call the city," added the rep, who said the Navy has twice called District of Columbia officials to remove the deer.
    Asked if it was open season on deer, a D.C. police spokesman said, "We don't have a hunting season, per se. It's a unique situation because we're a municipality. ... You can't even have a handgun."

    All we can say is "Run, run, Rudolph!"

    A little more seriously, though.  When one wants to find out how it is that, say, Lindsay Graham has been such a reliable shill for, say, the torture policies of this administration, one need only know he's considered at least as reliable as Scalia.  From the NYDN article:

    Earlier this month, the Veep was hunting with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

    And Lindsay didn't even catch any lead.  Must have been a good little senator this year.

    Buy Cheney ammo (1.00 / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 01:39:08 PM EST
    Don't know if you ever hit one of these little beasts, but if you have you will buy Cheney ammo....

    In the meantime I confess to hitting a bull early one night. Killed the bull and messed up my car...

    There is no truth to the story that I was severely criticized by members of the local Democratic party for removing a key supplier of their political claims...

    It was only a mild rebuke.

    ;-)

    Parent

    I thought a jackass... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 06:00:14 PM EST
    ...was the democratic party animal.  hitting a bull seems more wall street.

    have a good holiday, my man.  

    Parent

    The story is truthful... (1.00 / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 07:59:20 PM EST
    ... except for the part about the Demos

    ;-)

    and the Bull was a Doe...

    ;-)

    And you'd be amazed at the damage they can cause

    Merry Chirstmas and here is hoping you're brother remains safe and well. It is an uncertain world.

    Parent

    Va. repug congresscritter goes off the deep end (none / 0) (#35)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 03:55:32 PM EST
    criticizing Muslims.  The letter he wrote, quoted here, says (my emphasis):

    Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.

    The Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust" are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, "As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office." Thank you again for your email and thoughts.

    Ok, Rep. Goode.  Macaca and traditional Virginia values and all that - you're the new standard-bearer.

    Probably has a (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 04:04:25 PM EST
    fiery cross on his office wall too.

    Parent
    Fiery (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 04:09:33 PM EST
    Wonder what he has in his desk?

    Parent
    That too. ;-) (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 04:15:19 PM EST
    I would expect that in his desk (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:29:04 AM EST
    he also has a letter from PPJ condemning him for his hate and racism and bigotry and calling for his immediate removal from public office.

    I'm sure PPJ will be here first thing in the morning to clear up any doubt of his attitude towards garbage like Virgil Goode (R-VA).

    He might even have something to say about revamping the entire justice system, dismissing due process, entirely and moving straight to the hanging phase.

    Parent

    Naw, I expect (1.00 / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 07:50:25 AM EST
    you to do that.

    I'll worry about "Cold Cash" Jefferson. Not to mention Barney "TicketMaster" Franks.

    BTW - His reheoric is a bit much, but his essential facts on immigration is spot on. We need no illegals and to highly reduce the legals for a few years.

    As for using the Koran during the swearing in, that works for me... Of course God help the person administrating the oath if he should drop the Koran...

    Parent

    You can ALWAYS count on (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 12:19:57 PM EST
    I'm sure PPJ will be here first thing in the morning to clear up any doubt of his attitude

    ppj

    Naw

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    Parent

    Heck. Glad to help. All you had (1.00 / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 10:30:11 PM EST
    to do was ask.

    I'm getting a little sensitive myself about others getting sensitive....

    To heck with'em.

    That plain enough??

    Parent

    poor sad (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 01:21:02 AM EST
    hard done by fake christians. I agree completely Jim. To heck with'em.

    Parent
    I feel sorry..... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 05:24:31 PM EST
    for the voters in the 5th district.  I really do.

    I'm sure my rep is as crooked as the next...but at least he isn't a fanatic.

    Parent

    I always wonder ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Sailor on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 06:17:29 PM EST
    ... which version of the bible and which version of the 10 (14 or 15) commandments they mean?

    Parent
    This pusillanimous coward really proves... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:03:49 PM EST
    ...his mettle where he says:

     

    "...A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, "As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office."

    Oh, how incredibly BRAVE and HEROIC he was confronting a Muslim student and insulting the student's religion. What a BIG MAN, a shining example of MANHOOD, what a LEGEND this BRAVE ACT will lend itself to! How can we possibly give this man proper RESPECT for his INCREDIBLY COURAGEOUS ACT? What ACCOLADES may we heap upon him? He will CERTAINLY be awarded the "MEDAL OF FREEDOM" by bush himself to MEMORIALIZE this selfless act of PUTTING A MUSLIM STUDENT IN HIS PLACE, BY GOD! Yes, VIRGIL GOODE wil have his name recorded in the ANUS...uh...ANNALS OF HISTORY and his NAME CELEBRATED IN SONG AND VERSE. Why can't an exception be made to give THIS TRUE AMERICAN HERO the CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR, which, while it is typically only rewarded to military heroes, should not act as a BAR TO REWARDING THIS MAN FOR HIS UNFLAGGING LOYALTY to god and America.

    Yes, VIRGIL GOODE (rhymes with 'food"), EVER VIGILANT and willing, and brave enough, to insult students.

    Parent

    No requirement. (1.00 / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 10:17:08 PM EST
    Uh, the kid asked a question and got an answer. If he doesn't like it he can vote against him.

    That's the way it goes in a democracy.

    No requirement what so ever for a congressman to have something about the Koran on the wall.

    Parent

    Reality based smackdown (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 12:02:54 PM EST
    of the superstionauts - godless Liberals win in Atlanta.

    Evolution warnings don't stick
    By Jenny Jarvie, Times Staff Writer
    December 20, 2006

    ATLANTA -- A suburban school board has abandoned its four-year legal fight to place stickers in high school biology textbooks that say "evolution is a theory, not a fact."

    In a settlement announced Tuesday in federal court, the Cobb County Board of Education agreed never to use any similar "stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions or other warnings," or to undermine the teaching of evolution in science classes.
    ...
    The case was one of several recent battles over the teaching of evolution. In 2005, a federal judge barred the school board of Dover, Pa., from teaching "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution. In 2004, Georgia school Supt. Kathy Cox removed the word "evolution" from the state curriculum, in favor of "changes over time," but reversed her decision a week later after teachers and scientists protested.



    Weak (1.00 / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 10:20:44 PM EST
    Guess using scientific judges and lawyers is better than using scientific preachers and school board members.

    If evolution is so weak a theory that it can't stand up to intelligent design as a theory....

    Parent

    You have that backwards, unsurprisingly (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 10:18:05 AM EST
    If evolution is so weak a theory that it can't stand up to intelligent design as a theory....

    It's more that it is probably just too complicated and threatening for anyone who might be impressed with the fantasy labelled "intelligent design".

    But believe whatever floats your boat, Jim.

    Idiotic design
    We would like to go on record as saying that "intelligent design" (the latest euphemism for creationism) doesn't qualify as a theory, because it's already been disproven...by the very existence of the idiots trying to promote it.
    ---from Editor at Large



    Parent
    Intelligent design is NOT a theory... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 10:49:47 PM EST
    ...it is a theological hypothesis.  Because I.D. discounts the very same scientific method needed to test its hypothetical, I.D. can never even rise to the level of theory.

    You can't treat hard, factual, experimental science like so much fluff when it suits your theological/psychological needs, then expect some kind of scientific respect.

    Parent

    Does anybody know (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 08:15:58 PM EST
    what happened to Patriot Daily? The site appears to be gone.

    I hope they are just planning on launching a reformatted site or something and are down only temporarily.