May 05, 2007
"If They Provided Sex, They Were Breaking the Rules."
Of course, if a lot of the most popular escorts were
ladies in their 50s, that certainly lends credence to Jeane Palfrey's claim. Naturally, I'll still be Arizona-hot in five years, but I'm the exception.
Will someone remind me why prostitution isn't legal in 49 of the 50 states? Isn't there a lot of effort being expended on this that could go to fighting terrorism, or fostering small businesses, or achieving energy independence, or . . . practically anything else?
Body count before the scandal: zero. Body count after the story broke: 1.
Perhaps D.C. law enforcement needs a hobby, like knitting.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
06:00 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.
1
50-something escorts are entitled to a sex life too... Too bad they have to consort with sleazy politicians just because they live in the nation's Capitol. Btw, I have a feeling that these women were exceptions as well.
ABC's dilemma. . .How to increase that body count of Republicans while shielding all the Democrats on that list.
Why 49? Only one county in Nevada allows it now. And Las Vegas isn't in it.
Posted by: Darrell at May 05, 2007 08:18 PM (KUoQL)
2
"most popular escorts were ladies in their 50s"
I've read that part a half-dozen times, still doesn't make sense. Somehow those words just don't seem to go together.
As to why prostitution is legal, regulated and taxed, if our government's laws made sense, we'd have a border fence, a FairTax and a redoubling of the troop surge with all Senators and members of Congress declaring "Victory!" So, in a way, it's perfectly consistent that it's illegal. Oh, that and the whole morality thing.
Posted by: Don at May 05, 2007 08:18 PM (H3z07)
3
...and when I say "why prostitution is legal" I, of course, mean "why prostitution isn't legal."
Posted by: Don at May 05, 2007 08:20 PM (H3z07)
4
My hypothesis was that a man might want to be seen in public with a classy lady, a woman of substance, education and breeding. And that this might or might not be the sort of woman he'd want to hit.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 05, 2007 08:36 PM (2WBcM)
5
Like Sigourney Weaver as the PhD Economist/escort in London, Dr. Lauren Slaughter, in "Half Moon Street". And that's exactly the woman we'd like to hit.
I went out with an escort once where sex wasn't part of the equation. She spoke six languages and had just returned to Canada after modeling for fifteen years in Europe. Six-feet tall, haute couture, charm, intellegence and wit, The perfect guest for a professional society dinner dance. No one guessed she was an escort, as if that mattered.
Posted by: Darrell at May 06, 2007 07:27 AM (YNWsn)
6
If the function of a date is either: 1) to make good conversation and be funny/entertaining, or 2) to make you look good, then good-looking women who might be north of 50 could be awfully good candidates.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 06, 2007 08:33 PM (2WBcM)
7
The reason prostitution hasn't been legalized in most of the states is the same as the reason that marijuana is still illegal, the income tax is still with us, and the public schools haven't been burnt to the ground: The people who favor these goals are in a minority that cannot overcome the inertia of the status quo.
Posted by: John at May 08, 2007 03:58 PM (l7Glx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
O How I Love the Corn and Miniter Show.
Miniter is back from Iraq, and in his
accustomed seat at Johnnie on the Half Shell. Mixed news from Iraq, to be sure. ("The U.S. Army is the Post Office, with guns." Ouch.)
And Ana Marie Cox shows up as their first guest.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:27 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Ugh! I'm glad I only watched the first 30 seconds. Cox is a parasite on the blogosphere. She just sucks, sucks, sucks never giving back.
Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at May 07, 2007 04:28 PM (8lL1c)
2
It's okay--she doesn't have many "lines" in that episode.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 07, 2007 09:25 PM (2WBcM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 26, 2007
Why People Think Conservatives Are Idiots.
Because some of them genuinely are, and some—paging
Queen Ann—do a damned fine impression of same.
I'm sorry, but it's true.
Via Insty.
Sean Hackbarth points out that Coulter didn't always pose as a blonde Bozo.
Ah, yes; but now she does, and it's done great things for her bank account%mdash;but less for reasoned discourse.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
01:05 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Ann Coulter's "THE COMING ASS AGE" is more accurate than 99% of the climate reporting in the NYT, Newsweek, Time, the MSM in general--- domestic and foreign, etc. Did I miss the part where she has dinosaurs dining with/on humans? Or her theories on a flat Earth? Scientifically speaking, what the other side is saying makes the flatEarthers look profound.
Okay, maybe Ann could have said it this way..."Al Gore likes to present himself as a tribune of science, warning the world of imminent danger. But he is more like an Old Testament prophet, calling on us to bewail our wrongful conduct and to go and sin no more. He starts off with the science. The world's climate, he reports, is getting warmer. This accurate report is, however, not set in historic context. World climate has grown warmer and cooler at various times in history. Climate change is not some unique historic event. It is the way the world works." (Michael Barone, New York Sun). But then, it wouldn't be Ann.
"Environmentalists and globalization foes are united in their fear that greater population and consumption of energy, materials, and chemicals accompanying economic growth, technological change and free trade—the mainstays of globalization—degrade human and environmental well-being. Indeed, the 20th century saw the United States’ population multiply by four, income by seven, carbon dioxide emissions by nine, use of materials by 27, and use of chemicals by more than 100. Yet life expectancy increased from 47 years to 77 years. Onset of major disease such as cancer, heart, and respiratory disease has been postponed between eight and eleven years in the past century. Heart disease and cancer rates have been in rapid decline over the last two decades, and total cancer deaths have actually declined the last two years, despite increases in population. Among the very young, infant mortality has declined from 100 deaths per 1,000 births in 1913 to just seven per 1,000 today." (Indur M. Goklany, Reason)
Posted by: Darrell at March 26, 2007 08:34 PM (YBxie)
2
You know what, D?--that just happened to be on her front page, which I linked. I guess I should have been clearer: I was just linking her site as a courtesy. GW happened to be up top. Sorry!
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 26, 2007 09:41 PM (0CbUL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 14, 2007
Over at Hit and Run
Jacob Sullum takes Michael Medved
apart for a Townhall
column about what "real conservatism" means.
Medved doesn't get it right, though: nearly no one does. A "real conservative" is someone who is running for President of the United States, and hopes to get the GOP nomination. That is all.
The money quote is in Sullum's comments on Hit & Run, by someone named Ashley: "The Right wants control of your body. The Left wants control of your production."
Correct. And they each want control of your mind.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:53 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Which is why I keep trending in the libertarian direction--consistency.
Conservatism is becoming only so much "MY statism is better than YOUR statism..."
Posted by: Desert Cat at March 16, 2007 06:55 AM (xdX36)
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 16, 2007 07:24 AM (0CbUL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 11, 2007
As Ace Has Discovered . . .
lefties can be awfully
gay.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:29 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
March 09, 2007
The Politics of Outing
Goldstein talks about the latest outing-flap
here:
Ironically, the “Rethugs” that swim like moralist sharks through the muck of Bacchus’ fevered imagination don’t seem nearly so bothered by Sanchez’ having done gay porn 15 years ago as Bacchus and pals do that the guy had the audacity to wander off their grievance plantation. He was supposed to come running into their arms, but instead, he embraced a political position that champions the liberal concept of individual primacy, eschewing identity-based totalitarian positions like the one favored by Bacchus, Aravosis, and a host of other petty ideological tyrants who, while they like to fancy themselves ultra-liberal, are in fact filled with the very kind of hatred they project onto their perceived enemies. Being gay, to these people, is no longer an ontological or experiential condition that can exist outside of politics; it is, instead, tied inextricably to their political beliefs. Which is why those gays who don’t adopt the proper politics are to be savaged, while those who do adopt the prescribed positions dictated by the group are granted its protections.
Take the oath, become part of the family; reject the offer, pay the price. Like the mafia, only with nicer shoes and a whole lot less Drakkar.
He's right: the whole thing is about projection. The left projects its hatred of true liberals (us) onto the GOP, and substitutes the word "gay" for "right-of-center."
Is there some kind of ritual wherein one swears the oath to become the "right" kind of gay man/lesbian? Just wonderin'.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:20 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I was just reading about this over at Still Stacy's, and, the whole thing just makes me so angry. The Left either doesn't get the issue, or, more likely, chooses not to get the issue. Just because we may not care for a lifestyle choice, and are against gay marriage, for the most part, doesn't mean we are going to deny people that lifestyle choice. We understand about freedom, real freedom, to be who you are. Unless one is a murderer, pedophile, member of NAMBLA, choices that hurt others.
Sanchez didn't hurt anyone. But, he is not a liberal (as opposed to a Classical Liberal, as you alluded to, which is what I consider myself), so the Left has to smear and destroy him based on politics, rather then what is right.
Posted by: William Teach at March 09, 2007 04:38 PM (doAuV)
2
The ritual for becoming the "right" kind of gay/lesbian/Afro-American/whatever is to endorse the Democratic program/candidate.
Posted by: John at March 09, 2007 04:38 PM (5/lnT)
3
Teach - why exactly are you opposed to gay marriage (and by extension civil unions)?
When you look at what we really want, we don't want to force your churches to do anything, we want to be able to visit our loved ones in the hospital and be the ones responsible for medical decisions. You can say "medical power of attorney" is all that is needed, but it isn't. Parents routinely step in and over-ride decisions (and their child's written wishes) because mother and father know best.
We want to be able to inherit property under the same terms you do. If your wife were to pass away you would not have to sell the house to pay inheritance taxes. We frequently do.
The list goes on.
But you don't care. Most people opposed to gay marriage find gay "icky" and wish we would go away or back into the closet. More than one person has sort-of admitted that if feared being taken for gay should he drop his opposition.
Look back at the arguments made about inter-racial marriages. Most of the arguments made about gay marriage are exactly the same. (The quoted Bible versus change, but that's all)
As for drinking the koolaid and being accepted as the "right kind of gay," (or maybe that should be the "left kind") is easy. Adopt the political position of the Dems on every subject, from abortion to Zumbo. (Even when that position and those politicians are notably anti-gay.)
Posted by: Zendo Deb at March 10, 2007 03:37 AM (+gqOq)
4
I am opposed to gay marriage because it is against what marriage has always been: a union between a man and a woman.
That said, I do not have an issue with a gay persons life partner being give rights, such as being considered a "family member," like if they were to visit in the hospital.
I thought I made it quite clear that, though I may not agree with their lifestyle, it's not about me. They deserve rights, and to be treated in a dignified manner as a whole. Individuals should be treated as they deserve, just like with heterosexuals.
However, Zendo, you miss the point of the post. What we have is the Lefty attack on Sanchez simply because he is Conservative, and using his being gay as a way to attack him. So much for their tolerance, compassion, and support for gay rights. Anything that gets in the way of the politics of the left is open to massive smears and slurs, the politics of personal destruction.
We saw it with the Gannon kerfluffle, as well. Liberals do not tolerate anyone who strays of the reservation. They say they support gays, blacks, minorities, but will mercilessly attack them in bigoted and racially insensitive ways if they do not toe the liberal line.
Posted by: William Teach at March 10, 2007 05:29 AM (doAuV)
5
Zendo got it, William.
And, as always, I feel obligated to point out that marriage has not traditionally been one man and one woman, but one man and however many women he can afford: limiting oneself to one wife is a relatively recent discipline.
I think a lot of people are hung up on the word "marriage," so tell me how you'd feel about civil unions for gays.
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 10, 2007 06:36 AM (0CbUL)
6
Good point on one man on many women.
Civil unions, I am not opposed to, though it is almost semantics. If they love each other, they deserve some sort of link backed up by the force of law. Cause, it isn't about me, you, Zendo, Conservatives, Liberals, whoever. It is about them. To me, that is what Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is about. As long as it isn't hurting someone else, I see no problem.
I'd be hypocritical if I said I was totally against gays. To put a none too fine point on it, like most guys, I am not adverse to lesbians. Any guy who says otherwise would be lying. It may freak me out to see two men kissing or anything else, but, I can choose to look away. It doesn't actually harm me, And love is love. Who am I to stop it?
Posted by: William Teach at March 10, 2007 07:46 AM (doAuV)
7
Teach - you can say it is one-man/one-woman, and if it was just a religious ceremony and that's all fine. But it isn't.
Married partners get a deal as far as Social Security is concerned. Married partners get a deal as far as health insurance is concerned. Married partners get a deal - the deal of the century - on the death tax. They get deals on making medical decisions, investments, legal protection when the relationship ends (and that is relatively new - the abundance of divorce), etc. The list is really quite long considering all the nonsense politicians always go on about the marriage tax.
Are you willing to give up your deals in the interest of fairness? I didn't think so.
At least you admit you are prejudiced (and the 'icky' feeling you have about gay men - that's called prejudice.) And while you may not feel that way about lesbians - I can let you in on a secret. None of us want to sleep with you.
Again, I point you to the history of laws against interracial marriage. "Miscegenation of the races" was attacked in exactly the same way you are "opposed" to gay marriage. With Biblical quotes to back it up. It made people "uncomfortable." Mostly the people it made uncomfortable were the bigots.
Posted by: Zendo Deb at March 10, 2007 09:19 AM (+gqOq)
8
And yes, the Left is not the kindly and loving group of people you see in the adverts. Reality never lives up to the marketing hype.
But the outing of gay Repubs would carry less weight on either side of the aisle if the Repubs weren't so rabidly anti-gay themselves.
If fairness was the rule on the right, and if "the pursuit of happiness" included (in the view of the Right) the ability to love the way nature (or God) intended, then these outings would be resulting in a "so what" response.
But Repub politicians who are outed invariably lose elections - when they just don't resign when outed. And staffers suffer a similar fate.... for the most part.
What is it about Rudy G that has "the social conservatives" in a snit? His support of gay rights, his admitting to having gay friends, and his having enough security in is own manhood to laugh at the conventional rubes.
Yes the Dems should walk their talk. But that doesn't give the Repubs a get-out-jail-free card.
Posted by: Zendo Deb at March 10, 2007 09:32 AM (+gqOq)
9
I have to disagree on the "rabidly anti-gay
completely. Just because many stand up against gay marriage, doesn't make them anti-gay. Matter of fact, there are several gay bloggers, like the Gay Patriot, who are thought of quite well. It wasn't the right who was rabidly attacking Gannon. It isn't the right who is rabidly attacking Sanchez. And it wasn't the right who was attacking the Gay Patriot. It was people on the Left.
And when they were attacked, folks on the Right stood up to defend them. Michael Rogers, a vicious sleeze monger, attacks any conservative who is gay. He "outs" them, even when they aren't. And he went after the Gay Patriot. The Right-o-sphere came to his defense. And we will do it any time in the future, too.
It isn't anti-gay, or anti-black, or anti-woman, or anti-whatever, to say that certain groups do not deserve more protection then another group, which is where alot of the meme's that the Right is anti-something come from. Should one group be protect above another? SHould one be given preference over another? No.
Posted by: William Teach at March 10, 2007 04:56 PM (doAuV)
10
You're mostly right, William. But I've heard some people criticize Giuliani's gay-rights positions in terms that made me think it wasn't just the legislative side of things that made them uneasy: I've heard phrasing like "Mr. Yay Gay" that left me with the distinct impression some conservatives didn't like the fact that he had a gay roommate at one point.
And that made me a bit uncomfortable.
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 10, 2007 05:44 PM (0CbUL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 08, 2007
The Coulter-Maher Civility Forum
Show sponsor Iowahawk has the
transcript:
ANN: . . . It's time that we begin the process of healing by restoring civility and decorum to our national dialog. That's why I am asking my fans to take a deep breath, tone down, and cool off. The next time Bill goes riffing off a Condi Rice assassination ad lib, let his studio audience of flag-burning West Hollywood homos bark and whoop and clap like a mindless pack of trained Maoist circus seals. Because if you succeed in driving him off the air again, I stand to lose three chapters in my forthcoming best seller, The Christ-Haters.
BILL: And the next time Ann starts joking about putting anthrax on Nancy Pelosi's dildo, I'm asking my fans to sit politely and allow her audience of inbred Young Republican Jeebus tards to howl and bleat and cheer like demonically possessed preppy Klan chimps. Let's avoid the temptation to hatefully demand apologies and shunning, because let's face it: a typical Ann Coulter comment is good for ten minutes of monologue and $2 million for the DNC.
ANN: A little common courtesy is all it takes. Together, we can insure that our next generation will have access to the same whimsical death wish political humor that we all enjoy today. Let's not kill the free speech goose that lays the golden egg!
BILL: That's right Ann, you emaciated Eva Braun sideshow freak.
Via Hackbarth, who has more.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
09:51 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.
February 19, 2007
Jim Webb on the Legacy of Vietnam
I just got around to following the Insty linked from his entry referenced below. The
Southeast Asian holocaust is something none of my lefty friends has made any attempt to deal with, to my knowledge.
When I think about how I was raised, listening to the Hair soundtrack as my parents and their friends abandoned the South Vietnamese to torture and genocide, I just want to howl in shame and rage.
And it may be about to happen again, in the Middle East. Violence, torture, suffering. The stifling of dissent. Mass murder.
But it's okay, right? "Peace is Patriotic."
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:07 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Mass murder
And in two years, maybe three, the Usual Suspects will be screaming bloody murder that the USofA isn't
doing anything about the on-going
genocide in Iraq.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at February 20, 2007 05:52 AM (1hM1d)
2
They'll just blame Bush, like they've done since 2003. Iraq wasn't a dangerous place, you know, when Saddam was at the helm: Bush made it so. Fighting terrorists makes terrorists! I guess Hitler wasn't so bad until we declared war against him, too. Fighting Nazis made Nazis.
Joan Baez was the only peace advocate that actually called for action against Pol Pot. Of course by then, the US wouldn't/couldn't touch that with a 10-light-year pole. Jane Fonda was saying we should give Pol Pot a chance, saying that making something good takes time. Heck, Mao had to break a few eggs to make egg foo yung, you know. A Leftist's words never come back to bite them on the ass as long as Leftists write in the future. That's why the US got the blame for doing nothing. Witness the "Killing Fields".
Don't worry. The Global Warming nonsense is designed to neuter the US, and to make us too poor to conduct any war in the future on our own. We'll be Blaster to the EuroLeft Master sitting on our shoulders ala "Thunderdome". In their dreams. . .
Posted by: Darrell at February 20, 2007 10:10 AM (TrG9D)
3
The problem with Communism is simply this: power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 20, 2007 10:45 AM (0CbUL)
4
The audacious audacity of it all!!!!
Barack "Thinkin'Linkin" Obama
Posted by: Darrell at February 20, 2007 12:42 PM (sUj/P)
5
Um, ya mean Iraq is not all Bush's fault? Damn, I coulda sworn that it was.
Posted by: PoliticalCritic at February 20, 2007 03:52 PM (3c4VI)
6
No, no, you're right--Iraq is Bush's fault. But only because everything is.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 20, 2007 06:49 PM (0CbUL)
7
We should give Bush a third term just to teach him a lesson!
People on the Right always tell Lefties to keep drinking their Kool Aid. US Lefties laugh because they know they don't drink Kool Aid. They drink Funny Face. Remember Goofy Grape? Choo-Choo(originally Chinese) Cherry? Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry? Jolly Olly(originally Injun) Orange? What flavors would Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards be? Legend has it that Bill was KumQuat. Maybe PoliticalCritic can help me out?
Posted by: Darrell at February 20, 2007 09:33 PM (41xuy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 02, 2007
January 31, 2007
In the Future
. . . everyone will be
Hillary Clinton for 15 minutes.
I plan to throw every lamp in my house, BTW.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
04:25 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
January 24, 2007
The State of the Union
Yeah, I missed it: I was working tonight (well, last night—it is after midnight). So,
1) How are we doing? I mean, the Union? Still holding up okay? Starting to get shabby after 225+ years?
2) How did Bush do on the speech? I hear he sucked less than usual with that large a crowd.
3) Where's the best video? (No, I am not going to go downstairs and watch TV just to get a recap on Fox or whatever. I'm going to bed.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:46 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It think it was one of the rare SotU speeches where the Prez didn't flat-out state the Union was [blank]. I almost didn't watch it either thinking I could skim the text later. But it was tighter than most SotUs. But Bush as a public speaker disappoints as usual.
Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at January 25, 2007 12:44 AM (QJ5cf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 17, 2007
Ya Wanna See
. . . the birth of conservatism? Here you
go.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:48 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.
January 11, 2007
I Love the Smell . . .
of
creeping fascism in the morning.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
06:43 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Thanks for sending me there. Does make me feel guilty for not making better comments here, though. But I see you as the creator of "the free-range" school of intellectual expression. And with that you have to expect a certain amount of guano.
Posted by: Darrell at January 11, 2007 12:50 PM (pe8w0)
2
Oh fascism probably isn't imminent. Of course, all bets are off if Islamofacists strike the USA directly again. What President Bush has done is set up the mechanisms of fascism. Most likely it will be a future president that implements them. Every American should be required to read “It Can't Happen Here” by Sinclair Lewis.
Posted by: SR at January 12, 2007 01:25 AM (jfNy5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 09, 2007
Love on an Escalator
The Democratic Party: we're here to
help. Sort of.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
07:43 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Pretty darn funny. The acting really made it work.
Posted by: JP at January 09, 2007 08:23 AM (0CbUL)
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 09, 2007 02:22 PM (0CbUL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
When I Plagiarize
. . . I certainly try to cover my tracks better than
this.
Maybe the page was set up by a Coast snob: "Wisconsin, Nebraska—what's the difference? All flyover country to me."
All I can think is that they were just copying this as a template, and they accidentally went live with a draft of the site. But you'd think they'd get someone to read it over first . . .
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:17 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.
1
And people were calling the Congressman's local office. Yet the page remains. Kagen's such a great manager.
Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at January 09, 2007 05:31 AM (QJ5cf)
2
How long has this been going on?
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 09, 2007 06:34 AM (0CbUL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 07, 2007
The More Things Change . . .
the more I begin to think all congresscritters should be
shot with varmint rifles.
And then killed.
Via Glenn, who's blogging CES from Las Vegas.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
07:49 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
-Mark Twain
More of Twain's wisdom regarding congress at
http://www.twainquotes.com/Congress.html
I lkie the one about Judas being a premature congressman.
-Bob
Posted by: Bob at January 07, 2007 09:02 PM (2tBSJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 28, 2006
Let's Get Busy Exploiting Gerald Ford's Death!
Crittenden
reports on two examples, including an egregious one from Bob Woodward.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
03:24 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.
December 16, 2006
Tommy Thompson
. . . has
entered the fray for 2008.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:16 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Now there's a man who's a darn sight better than the clowns we've got lining up so far!
I could feel good about voting for him.
Posted by: Desert Cat at December 16, 2006 07:02 PM (xdX36)
2
I don't know enough, but he's always struck me as a stand-up guy.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 17, 2006 12:29 AM (zxOEV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 14, 2006
Chalk One Up
. . . for the
Democrats. I am actually rather stunned.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
09:52 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.
1
This is a Democratic promise. It is not worth the air inhaled to speak it.
Hold your applause until the Democrat Congress has passed the pork-free budget that has been promised to us.
Posted by: John at December 14, 2006 02:19 PM (eskU0)
2
It makes a sweet-smelling political hay. But the real test is whether they get it baled up and in the barn, or whether it rots in the field.
Posted by: Desert Cat at December 14, 2006 07:35 PM (xdX36)
3
Not so fast. IF all goes according to Democrat plans, no actual money will be saved in the process. Earmarks, especially earmarks for Red States will go away. And the Dems promise to shore up the seriously UNDERFUNDED special wants, needs, and desires of the Dem Party. Read near the end of all MSM stories in the matter. BAU.
Posted by: Darrell at December 14, 2006 08:38 PM (SfbAH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 07, 2006
I Can't Help But Imagine
. . . that the Democrats quietly campaigned on something like, "vote for us; we're slightly less corrupt than the Republicans."
Now? Now they've changed the unspoken slogan to read: "oops; we meant that we are sligthly more corrupt. What a dreadful misundersanding; simply dreadful!"
Posted by: Attila Girl at
04:36 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I think they ran on a 'bait-and-switch' campaign. They ran on a 'we're not corrupt' platform and then switched to 'we're getting ours now'.
Two years of their lies should convince the people to at least give the senate back to the republicans.
Posted by: Jack at December 07, 2006 10:27 AM (YbzJu)
2
When they complained about the culture of corruption, they weren't upset about the corruption per se, but about the fact that the gravy train didn't stop at their station.
Anyhoo, would a part that was all that worked up about corruption have Hastings in their midst?
Posted by: John at December 07, 2006 02:03 PM (g7pvG)
3
Just curious, Joy... other than blind partisanship, on what do you base this statement?
Posted by: yazoota at December 08, 2006 08:19 AM (xUyci)
4
yazoota;
Nancy Pelosi backing two corrupt politicians to high posts.
A planed secret meeting of the senate.
Rejection of the 911 commision recomendations for oversite after demanding total capitulation from Bush.
Harry Reid and several other democrats taking money from Abramoff that the MSM has not covered.
And there are several other problems, yet they have not even been sworn in and taken office yet.
Now other than blind partisanship why do you keep drinking the kool-aid and accepting the party talking points.
Posted by: Jack at December 09, 2006 03:27 PM (nEnUH)
5
Does the name "William Jefferson" mean anything to you, yazoota?
How about Jack Murtha and ABCSCAM?
Posted by: William Teach at December 10, 2006 12:38 PM (doAuV)
6
Jack and William... When the Republicans took over the House in 1994 they said they would be "more ethical" than the Democrats. By not including in your laundry lists the likes of Duke Cunningham, Claude Allen, David Safavian, Ted Stevens, Bernard Kerik, Mark Foley, Tom DeLay, etc., and by neglecting to note that Murtha was never indicted for ABSCAM (yeah, I know, I've heard Limbaughannity too), you have proven my point. There's plenty of corruption on both sides of the fence... and apparently plenty of Kool-Aid too. Drink up.
Posted by: yazoota at December 11, 2006 08:38 AM (xUyci)
7
So, Yaz--anything happening these days?
Same old, same old?
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 11, 2006 01:17 PM (zxOEV)
8
Well, on the work front, we just got sold and bought again... I believe that works out to five and a half different corporate entities in the last 10 years. On the home front, if it weren't for the 2 more years of college plus grad school looming I'd be retired and working in the garden right now. And you?
We should have lunch or something next time you're down this way.
Posted by: yazoota at December 11, 2006 02:46 PM (xUyci)
9
So unethical behavior by Democrats is OK with you, Yaz?
Posted by: William Teach at December 11, 2006 03:55 PM (doAuV)
10
Glass houses, glass houses!
The whole system is full of filth, and frankly it disgusts me. I expected better of the Republicans.
Although it is abundantly clear that Republican dirt gets *way* more air time than Democrat dirt, which goes a long way toward skewing opinions.
Posted by: Desert Cat at December 11, 2006 04:32 PM (B2X7i)
11
Yup, Yaz--heard about the sale, of course. I understand each owner has been progressively worse, but I'm hard-pressed to see that you had anywhere to go but up this time around. Lunch for sure. And I think I owe you ten CDs, accounting for interest . . .
Re: Politics--I'm less heartbroken when someone I perceive to be an "ordinary politician" get caught with his/her hand in the cookie jar than I am when I really thought so-and-so was a reformer, and had started to get my hopes up that he/she was "different."
Overall, I think it's going to be tight in the next two years: the two parties are neck-and-neck.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 12, 2006 04:41 AM (zxOEV)
12
Yaz;
The 'we will be more honest' was all they ran on. Yet they seem to be ignoring that and they haven't even been sworn in yet.
Posted by: Jack at December 12, 2006 02:34 PM (auJ/k)
13
On the other hand, so far the Dems suck less in terms of pork reduction/earmark reform.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 13, 2006 08:01 AM (zxOEV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
81kb generated in CPU 0.1124, elapsed 0.2734 seconds.
220 queries taking 0.2385 seconds, 536 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
