Am I allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush, the president of

[Matthewmongan]

i enjoyed this article. http://www.harpers.org/OnSimpleHuman...149635660.html

[SubaSteevo]

Only if you want him tapping your phones

[Electrophil]

I made it through 3 paragraphs. I can't stand people writing in Theatre English.

I was enjoying the train of thought he was on, and I'm sure the point would have been great. But by the 3rd paragraph, I was waiting for a "dost dow" or two.

Geez. He needs to give it a rest and write what he thinks and stop. Quit dressing it up. If he actually thinks in the sequence that he writes, he may need to consider therapy.

Speaking of rambling.......

No. A person does not have the right to verbally threaten a man's life. No yelling "I gotta bomb!" in airports, and no "I be gonna kill George!!" in public. Both are inciting a riot.

But....

Bush is still teh devil!!

[Electrophil]

Afterthought:

Except for Anne Coulter. Not only should open threats be perfectly OK, it should be encouraged. Free air time should be given to those threats as if they were a public service announcement.

Anne Coulter is teh Devil's ho'.

[Suby Fan]

that woman is something elce...

[Matthewmongan]

Normally, one doesn’t get prosecuted for a verbal threat, alone. A person has to display intent to cause harm. For example, if I were to say I wanted to wound Samuel L. Jackson with a trident I would have to buy a trident before I could be arrested for 2nd degree assault.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

Afterthought:

Except for Anne Coulter. Not only should open threats be perfectly OK, it should be encouraged. Free air time should be given to those threats as if they were a public service announcement.

Anne Coulter is teh Devil's ho'.

Now Anne has a pair. I don't agree with all she says, but she is sure a reality check for some far left liberals. Michael Moore got away with many more erroneous and ridiculous charges and information than Anne ever will. Like I have said before--I don't listen to Rush or Anne, but I did enjoy Anne's book about How to Talk to a Liberal if You Must. (She's better looking than Moore also)

Did she cross the line a bit on this current flap? Maybe--but she is also essentially correct. Would I have said it--no. If you have not read the entire chapter covered by the current flap--don't even bother to try to provide an objective rebuttal or comment.

Lee

[Electrophil]

I've read one of her books. Or tried to. Slander? Something like that. Her books are always kind of thin. Proof that you can only whine so much.

That book...almost certain the title was "Slander", started "sentence one" whining, and ended "Sentence last" whining. Whimpering and griping and insulting this so called "liberal agenda".

She taught me the sacred code of the neo-con though and I thank her for that. She taught me that anytime you disagree with her type, you are immediately.... A liberal... This is also suppose to be insulting in some odd way I haven't quite figured out yet.

I still have no idea what the true definition of a liberal is, with the exception that it is someone who disagrees with that moronic administration we have up there. I don't even think she has truly thought out the definition of a liberal herself, and she keeps writing waa!Books on them. But... reading her books, you see you really don't need a clear definition.

I've decided over time that she doesn't even believe the slime she pukes up. She just knows it sells, and that keeps her from having to drive a used car. And there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I would respect her more if that's the case.

[Electrophil]

Al Franken is the other side of course. I've read one of his too. But at least he's funny, and makes light of it all. She's all serious.

[lhopp77]

This has been a wonderful week!!!!!

Lee

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

This has been a wonderful week!!!!!

Lee

Quote:

"This has been a wonderful week!!!!"

As quoted by Charles E. Mitchell, Chairman - National City Bank, New York.

To the New York Daily Times on Friday, 18 October 1929.

Less than 2 weeks before the crash, and his loss of over 200,000,000 in 1930's dollars of the bank's money. This prompted the end of "Bank Speculation" and caused legistlation for government oversight by President F.D. Roosevelt a couple of years later. Historians place the foundation for the crash over 3 years earlier.





I mean..... I ain't trying to suck the juice out of your rainbow, I'm just saying the balloon left with that funny looking fat guy in the tophat already. Waking up to Auntie Em's face ain't going to happen for you. As Pokemon says...."Game Over".

[WGJ]

What a superb piece! Absolutely brilliant! Thanks for sharing it. Unlike Electro I had no problem with the author's style. It was deliberate, I think in homeage to Swift's A MODEST PROPOSAL, a famous example of the use of satire. Also an incredibly powerful indictment of Bush, who will go down in history, at best as "the Seven Minute President" or worst case he'll be known as "The Worst President Ever", Either way, he's going down, down, down.
WGJ

[WGJ]

Here are those tropes: the president is ignorant; the president is cruel; the president is a zealot; the president is a tool of the corporations; the president hides his agenda from the people; the president's agenda endangers the people; the president is a thief; the president is a madman; the president is a fraternity boy; the president is a warlord; the president is a drunkard; the president is a criminal; the president is protected by his cronies; the president is a smug prevaricator; the president should be removed from office.

True, George W. Bush is an ignorant, cruel, closed-minded, avaricious, sneaky, irresponsible, thieving, brain-damaged frat boy with a drinking problem and a taste for bloodshed, whose numerous crimes have been abetted by the moral corruption of his party cohort and whose contempt for American military lives alone warrants his impeachment, but what has it ever won us to say so? How has it profited the people for their writers to argue that a wealthy, comfortable citizen deserves a wealthy, comfortable retirement when we all know full well that he has earned confinement and conviction and perhaps even a request for that barbaric death penalty he so loudly supports?

[WGJ]

Here are those tropes: the president is ignorant; the president is cruel; the president is a zealot; the president is a tool of the corporations; the president hides his agenda from the people; the president's agenda endangers the people; the president is a thief; the president is a madman; the president is a fraternity boy; the president is a warlord; the president is a drunkard; the president is a criminal; the president is protected by his cronies; the president is a smug prevaricator; the president should be removed from office.

True, George W. Bush is an ignorant, cruel, closed-minded, avaricious, sneaky, irresponsible, thieving, brain-damaged frat boy with a drinking problem and a taste for bloodshed, whose numerous crimes have been abetted by the moral corruption of his party cohort and whose contempt for American military lives alone warrants his impeachment, but what has it ever won us to say so? How has it profited the people for their writers to argue that a wealthy, comfortable citizen deserves a wealthy, comfortable retirement when we all know full well that he has earned confinement and conviction and perhaps even a request for that barbaric death penalty he so loudly supports?

NOW THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKIN' ABOUT!*
WGJ

*with a shout out to my man Electrophil

[lhopp77]

I think it is time to repeat myself.

ANYWAY------A WONDERFUL WEEK!!!!!!

Primary elections very disappointing for Democrats---big gains not indicated

Zarqawi Killed

Iraqi Cabinet complete and ready to move forward

Bush visits Iraq

Rove cleared of any possible charges

Yes, A very wonderful week.

Lee