and here I was wondering what the right-wingers were going to complain about next... nice to see they didn't skip a beat and completely imploded!

I love the smell of a right-wing implosion...

it smells like... victory...

It's not as if she was molesting students (a la La Fave) or even advocating a lifestyle or occupation. If it's something the district/parents cared about, they should have put it into the employment contracts. They should also consider what Obama's doing and ask for a history of blogging.

The economy needs to pick up "so people can afford to get healthy," said Ronnie Adkins, 67, a retired policeman, sitting one recent morning on the smoking porch of the Jolly Pirate Donuts shop on U.S. 60.

Irony -- you're doing it right!

The Defense Department gave no reason for dropping the charges but said new prosecutors had been appointed to review the cases and could refile the charges later.

See, the justice system works! We'll just keep appointing new prosecutors, changing the slate of judges and beating the snot out of these guys until we get the convictions we want. Isn't that the lesson that my six-year-old daughter is going to learn from all this?

Good thing we don't really teach civics in school anymore -- we can't have the electorate getting all educated and stuff...

Time to lock and load.
#3 | POSTED BY CALIFCHRIS AT 2008-10-21 04:11 AM

My gun doesn't work that way -- I can't even get "cocked and locked and ready to rock" because my Ruger doesn't have a 'lock', it's de-cock only.

If Congress sends him a bill that, upon his signing, would interfere with his ability to perform his Constitutional obligations, he can veto it.

If Congress passes it again with a two-thirds majority and overrides his veto, he can and should take it to the Supreme Court. If he chooses to ignore it and uses a signing statement, he has not challenged the Constitutionality of the law he has merely broken that law. It would then be up to Congress to challenge him with having broken that law.

A bill, having been passed by Congress and signed by the President (or passing Congress by 2/3), is law. It is not unConstitutional until the Supreme Court has rendered that decision.

Bottom line: the sonofabitch should have been impeached and removed from office long ago. If he thought the law was no good, he could ask for an emergency hearing by the Supreme Court on the matter and they could put a hold on Congress before the matter goes to the Senate for the trial. The Supreme Court would most likely have said the laws were Constitutional and Bush would have been tried by the Senate and been removed and I would have been rid of this 8 year headache much sooner.

Peace out.

Scoobymagoo,

WTF are you talking about? You pull those numbers out of yer ass?

Glenn who?

Oh, he's that nutjob that routinely gets half the viewers that Rachel Maddow gets -- and we've seen the right-wing-world response to her show; if they think her show is doomed to failure due to low viewership, I can hardly wait to see how they spin his numbers...

Yeah, great article...except it doesn't live up to it's own hype: it tries to make it sound like a partisan issue when it wasn't really.

To wit: A REPUBLICAN congress sent a bill to Clinton (think he's 'liberal'? Check out NAFTA) with a two-thirds majority to further limit regulations -- signing it didn't matter. Republicans are saying 'trust business -- it knows what it is doing'.

Nice baiting, Johnson.

Please show where the Weathermen or Ayers were ever found guilty, let alone indited for killing anyone.

Was he a radical? Yes, most certainly. And there were many in the 60's and 70's.

It was a bad coincidence that his book came out right before 9/11 and that's the context for his more recent comments. Americans were largely apathetic to world issues right before 9/11 -- a large number of people considered Bush a clown!

If you don't want to read all the individual articles and pieces on Ayers, go read teh wiki entries. But it won't matter if you've already made up your mind.

Vern & Lip,

Had Lip said something to the effect (affect?) of:

'The US likes to bomb countries full of [people who don't look like out leaders] who are led by [people who don't look like out leaders]'

He would have been more correct -- and not racist.

I myself am partial to the phrase 'brown people' in place of "[people who don't look like out leaders]", but that's just me.

George Carlin (I would add 'god rest his soul' but he would probably have found that offensive) said as much and included that Germans were the exception because they were trying to move in on our turf.

Whatever Palin has galvanized is not a large percentage of the electorate: a large percentage of the electorate don't vote.

She's galvanized a large percentage of 'likely voters' who are registered Republican.

And that's the unfortunate part -- that's why it seems like there's so many of them. If more people would vote, you'd have a much larger percentage of the electorate show up and they are quite likely to be registered Democrat.

I'm moving to Alaska.
Then every time my daughter gives me any lip about school being 'too hard' or 'boring', I can point down the street to the alternative...

On lapel pins... Palin? Fail!

Palin wore what appeared to be a 'service lapel pin' or commonly known as a 'blue star lapel pin' to show support for her son who is serving active duty.

It seems that everyone at all levels bear some responsibility with this mess:

- Republicans wanted to reduce regulation in the market
- Democrats wanted to make it easier for lower income folks to get home loans
- Banks wanted to make more loans
- Brokers wanted to sell more loans
- Insurers wanted to insure more loans
- (I'd put something here about the bond rating agencies, but I'm not really sure how they make their money)

It looks like everyone thought they were padding things just a little bit so they could justify making a killing. And these guys -- the 'experts' let all the consumers think that home prices only go up, so if you get into a loan that will readjust in 3 years it won't be a problem since your home value will have gone up and you will quite easily be able to refinance. I was told that by friends, family, neighbors, coworkers and business associates for years leading up to when we finally bought. Yeah, that worked out well. Our plan was to stay in the new-construction condo for about 3 years and then refinance or sell and take the profit from that and make a bigger down payment on another home. Now we are going to have to sit in it another year or two since we are upside down by about 10%. How long will it take to go positive? Who knows.

We need to change the tax laws to stop this 'home buying' incentive nonsense anyhow -- all it does is help drive the home-industry. There's no more real benefit to owning vs renting for the vast majority of people -- especially if you are not going to be in the same space for substantially longer than 5 years.

Oh, and if McCain wins, and Palin becomes President, that begins our next great step towards the future predicted in 'Idiocracy'.

I like this version of the Palin-Gibson interview better...