ScrappleFace500.gif
Top Headlines...
:: Bush Applauds Arafat's 'New Attitude'
:: 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Sequel to Feature Jar Jar Cameo
:: Coroner: Arafat Died of Tilex Poisoning
:: Arafat May Soon Sign Death Certificate
:: Specter Backs Ashcroft for Next Supreme Court Opening
:: NJ Gov. McGreevey Leaves Office with Mandate
:: Specter Backs Partial-Burial Abortion for Arafat
:: Specter Retracts Ill-Conceived Abortion Remarks
:: Bush Swats Kofi Annan with Rolled Newspaper
:: Arafat Burial Plans Done in Time for Final Death

May 01, 2003
Bush to Play 'Neo' in Fourth Matrix Movie
(2003-05-01) -- U.S. President George Bush will take over where Keanu Reeves left off when he stars in 2004 release of The Matrix IV: Re-Elected.
Mr. Bush, whose popularity ratings shot off the chart today when he landed in a Navy jet on an aircraft carrier, said he's eager to put on the dark shades.
"Laura and I loved the first movie," said Mr. Bush,"And I'm sending some Secret Service guys to stand in line and get tickets for Reloaded. It's great to have a franchise so successful that you know more than a year in advance it will be a winner."
In The Matrix IV: Re-Elected, an older Neo continues his fight against a machine that saps the energy of the people, keeps them dependent and creates an artificial reality so convincing that the people don't realize they're really slaves.
Keanu Reeves, when informed of the decision to cast Mr. Bush, reportedly said, "Whoa."

Poster Art by Robb Allen
by Scott Ott | Donate | | Comments (78) | More Satire | Printer-Friendly
Buy "Axis of Weasels," the first book by Scott Ott. $12.95 + S&H;
Email this entry to: Your email address:
Message (optional):
Skip to Comments Form

Love your site. But I always get a kick out of it when it is specified that a plane landed on a moving carrier. The carrier *has* to be moving, and moving fast, and hopefully into a stiff wind, in order for a plane to land or take off.
[Editor's Note: Correction made.]

Anyway really enjoy visiting this site every day.

Posted by: Zen at May 1, 2003 10:20 PM

This quote from President Bush's speach tonight is the reason I voted for him!

"Those we lost were last seen on duty. Their final act on this earth was to fight a great evil, and bring liberty to others. All of you -- all in this generation of our military -- have taken up the highest calling of history. You are defending your country, and protecting the innocent from harm. And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope, a message that is ancient, and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah: "To the captives, 'Come out,' and to those in darkness, 'Be free.'"

Thank you for serving our country and our cause. God bless you all, and may God bless America."


Posted by: Old Sailor at May 1, 2003 10:30 PM

It's impressive the way you keep coming up with new, funnybone-tickling things like this on a daily basis. Or, in a word, "whoa!"

Posted by: Jay Solo at May 1, 2003 10:31 PM

Absolutely brilliant, Scott. Two "thumbs-up" to Robb Allen, as well.

Posted by: Lynxx Pherrett at May 1, 2003 11:00 PM

BEYOND THE PALEOf course we all know what great proponents of free speech the Hollywood types are, right? Then how come attorneys for the William Morris Agency have taken action to shut down Boycott Hollywood? The site's domain registrar, Dotster.com, has apparently caved to a request from the the law offices of Rintala, Smoot, Jaenicke, & Rees, representing William Morris Agency, who of course represent a large number of Hollywood types, who are perhaps offended by people disagreeing with them. The plug will be pulled on Boycott Hollywood within 24 to 48 hours.

I vonder who goes next? Ze Jews, maybe? Gypsys? Der ScrappleFace?

You can ask the attorneys at this email address.

Posted by: Greyhawk at May 1, 2003 11:29 PM

I can't wait for the DVD...

Posted by: Harden Stuhl at May 2, 2003 12:21 AM

Greyhawk,

This "urks" the you know what out of me. I have recently come to the conclusion think that these "Counterfeit Thespians", and their " Satan Propagated Lawyers" are the scum of the dark earth, now dwelling in our earthly realm. I am now convinced without a doubt, that they actually are. I think this should be a prime example of the smugness of the Hollywood elite. Freedom of speech is okay for Mr. and Mr. Sarandon, and the rest of the neo-"ferry" meandering neighbobs, but if you or anyone else wants to say something, that they don't agree with, its off to the aristocratic firepits, to stoke the stoves of opression and reverse discrimination towards "Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public Tickebuyer".

I would strongly urge everyone, to vehemently protest by boycotting and to start complaining as much as humanly possible. Get the word out to everyone. The "Hollywood Nazi Brownshirts" are at it again.

Remember folks..., they think they are better than us, they laugh at us behind our backs, and given the opportunity, they would eat your babies and cackle all the way down to the depths of of their summer homes in Hades, dragging their starry eyed, worshipping "MTV" victims along to celebrate their own self adulation.They live in luxury while you hold a nine to five. They are the haughty impersonators of life who don't know how to live in a normal functioning world without demanding more than their own fair share. They are the "Ecological Empty Hybrids" of human flesh; half human and half dispiriting vacuity. They are the only group of individuals that sit around and stroke each others egos to scatological symmetry.

It is now time for a regime change in Hollywood.

I don't know what the heck I just said, ...but I am really mad! Scr8w Friday night at the movies....I am joining a bowling league.

Posted by: Harden Stuhl at May 2, 2003 01:07 AM

Paragraph 4 epitomizes why I log on and look up Scrappleface more regularly than I take my Valium, well okay, my morning coffee. But it is important to me!

Posted by: Mumsyto3 at May 2, 2003 01:51 AM

Remember this one?
Paybax

Posted by: Bill Woods at May 2, 2003 02:05 AM

Wow Harden, a truly great rant my man.

Sailor, ditto for me.

Now for us to sit up and take note of the filibustering dimocrats in congress who are trying to block the appointment of federal judges who are not flaming liberals.

That reminds me of a t-shirt I saw yesterday.

It read "I just neutered my cat...
now he's a liberal"

Remember to Boycott france. It's the least we can do to repay them for their treachery.

Posted by: Okie Dokie at May 2, 2003 03:42 AM

Special Operations Commander in Chief
Code Name - Terminator 1

Four More Years
Four More Years
Four More Years
Four More Years

This is what a real President looks like boys and girls..

I wonder what the leaders of europe are thinking tonight

Posted by: jp at May 2, 2003 05:33 AM

"I wonder what the leaders of europe are thinking tonight"

We are, how you say, sheet our trou-zurrr to see the manly cowboy George Bush land zee plane on zee, how you say, floateeng fortress? Zee Bush, I don' like very much, but my surrendering beret is off to him for his swaggering cocksure way that let me know he eez, ca va? ... mean zee bizness! I am sure he weel be soon kickeen ass and takeen les names like he and his cronies have done in Vietnam before.

Posted by: Jacques Chirac at May 2, 2003 07:02 AM

I wonder if Chirac has the 'nads to land on France's lone carrier? You know, the one where the propeller fell off?

Great art work, let us know if we can pass it around and post it (with proper credit, of course)

Posted by: Cowboy Bob at May 2, 2003 09:15 AM

I read an article, I forget where, attacking President Bush for "staging a photo-op that reflected a significant amount of hubris" and was immediately reminded of Mr. Clinton's famous walk along Normandy beach. You remember, the thoughtful, lip-biting look, the soulful 1,000 yard stare, and the ever so poignant bend to pick up the conveniently placed stones on the all sand beach. I wondered how much criticism was ladled out by the mainstream press for that bit of cheap theater.

One thing I will say about the leftist press: You have to admire their tenacity, while, at least lately, you laugh at their judgement. Yesterday some of the Bush critics on the left advanced the belief that President Bush's emasculation of Iraq had taken the onus off the war on terror, which was now suffering from presidential innattention. The next thing I read stated that 2002 had the fewest terrorist attacks world-wide of any year since 1969. I guess timing really is everything.

Posted by: Joseph at May 2, 2003 11:08 AM

a machine that saps the energy of the people, keeps them dependent and creates an artificial reality so convincing that the people don't realize they're really slaves.

Hmmm, this sounds like our ever-more-Socialists Dem party trying to explain why socialized medicing is a godd thing...

Posted by: Celissa at May 2, 2003 11:15 AM

For a different perspective, visit the dark side at Democratic Underground.

SAFETY TIP: Cover your keyboard with clear plastic to protect it from the bitter bile that may drip from your screen.

Posted by: David Kutzler at May 2, 2003 12:08 PM

BUSH CRITICS DERIDE CARRIER SPEECH

Hundreds of President Bush's most vocal critics called a news conference today in response to his now famous carrier speech. They released the following statement:

"The country needs jobs, Mr. President, not Neo-Con Evil stunts. Heheh, get it? Neo-Con Evil? Hee hee. Well, that's pretty much all we've got, thanks to all you reporters and TV crews for showing up. We'll let you know when the brain trust comes up with something else. Hee hee, Neo-Con Evil ..."

Posted by: Keith at May 2, 2003 02:02 PM

Great rant Harden, truly inspiring in its near Shakespearean flow. I am going to print it and stick copies all over the local Blockbuster. Do you want royalties?

Jonah

Posted by: Jonah8208 at May 2, 2003 04:11 PM

to
Jacques Chirac
ohh little chirac is all mad..whats a matter little girl-ee man cant take it.. or maybe you are feeling guilt..yes I think thats what it is guilt for supporting of Saddam and terrorist think we dont know what you did ...oh and by the way Jock Strap..I have a messsage for you from Americas Great Commander in Chief

" Any person, organization or government that supports, protects or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.

Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world and will be confronted. "

oh and one more thing your little comment about vietnam ..that conflict was another time France totaly failed and America came to clean up your pathetic attempt to fight a war,

one more thing..This President gets things done,

posted by Joseph..
2002 had the fewest terrorist attacks world-wide of any year since 1969.

FOUR MORE YEARS
FOUR MORE YEARS
FOUR MORE YEARS
FOUR MORE YEARS

Posted by: JP at May 2, 2003 04:12 PM

Harden Stuhl posted,

"It is now time for a regime change in Hollywood"
______________

" { Any person, } organization or government that supports, protects or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes."

Harden should we give em 48 hours...Nah they dont deserve it lets hit em now

Posted by: jp at May 2, 2003 04:31 PM

Keanu in "Bill & Ted": Whoa!
Keanu in "Youngblood": Whoa, eh!
Keanu in "Point Break": Whoa!
Keanu in "Much Ado about Nothing": Whoa, verily!

(sarcasm --->) What range, what talent!

Exactly: what talent?

Posted by: siskel or ebert (the one still alive) at May 2, 2003 06:48 PM

BILL WOODS!---thanks for that "paybax" link. I LOVED that "poster" of the "Fab 4"
***************
.....not surprising about Follywood spoiled brats waaaa waaaaa waaaaa-ing about BOYCOTT HOLLYWOOD! Looks like their attempts may be about as effective as shutting the barn door after the horse already got out!...IDIOTS.... Makes me more determined to REALLY boycott all things overpaid, undereducated, and anti-american...(with major emphasis on the left coast!)..
We can only hope THIS time when GW is re-elected President that they will keep their promises from LAST election and "get the heck outta dodge"....led by Babs Streisand singing "there's a place for us...somewhere...NOT HERE...a place for us".....
Hollywoods ONLY contribution is entertainment and without them there's still plenty left!

Ever "fasted" TV and movies and found out how much more clear headed and "empowered" you become?....like a "colonic" of the soul (:~})

TO Hollywood:--FOUR MORE YEARS...SHED SOME TEARS...ITS FOUR MORE YEARS...!

Posted by: Lynch Family Euro Cat at May 2, 2003 08:30 PM

jp,

48 hours seems like enough time for them to find someone to pack their suitcases,call their nannies and pick up their French poodles at the local Bark and Clip? 50 most beautiful people? Knowledgeable? World travellers? Politically ostracized by their statements? Bleech,... my pimpled, fat, backside, shows more dauntlessness,in the sacrosanct halls of political ideology.

Jonah,

Feel Free to "Blockbuster" away... It is about time these "Hollywood Phonies" stop sousing us for extravagant movie admissions and think that gives them the right to politicize us like we are some type of ignorant lemmings. I personally have taken them all off my Christmas card list.

Yes, Mr. and Mr. Sarandon you will not get any Hallmark card from me this year...

With the possible exception of Bruce Willis and a few of the ones that realise they are entertainers and not our choice for the orators of Democracy.

Boycott the Actors. Give America back to it's People.

Posted by: Harden Stuhl at May 2, 2003 08:54 PM

They just can't stand it that OUR Prez is BAD TO THE BONE and their's is only a bad guy with a boner.
*****************************************

The url here shows Slick's own trip to an aircraft carrier.

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/5/2/71343

Posted by: AHA at May 2, 2003 09:27 PM

Yikes AHA! You're going to get a bad girl rep with that kind of talk!
Also Mrs G would like to express solidarity with you on virtually everything you ever say here. (Not kidding.)

Posted by: Greyhawk at May 2, 2003 09:40 PM

I watched the whole landing on TV yesterday and I was completely awed and moved to tears by the MUTUAL ADORATION I saw between Dubya and the sailors. The IDIOT LEFT is, of course, scrambling 10 ways to Sunday to denigrate the complete love on that flight deck. They've got NO ONE who can command that type of loyalty.

PS: Be sure you give my regards to Mrs. G.

Posted by: AHA at May 2, 2003 09:54 PM

Aha,
Me too....Bush is a great guy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Harden Stuhl at May 3, 2003 12:59 AM

Great article, lousy,lousy job on the poster. (My cat could do a better job on the President's sunglasses.)

Posted by: Duuuuuh! at May 3, 2003 10:02 AM

If your cat works for free with 10-minute turn-around on rush orders, I can send him a lot of business.
-- The Editor

Posted by: Editor at May 3, 2003 10:18 AM

I agree with "MumsyTo3"!!...wholly! ( paragraph 4)

SCOTT OTT--I BOW to you for such poignant, "badda bing--badd boom" words!....Ya just can't improve on that paragraph!..It says it all

Posted by: Lynch Family Cat at May 3, 2003 05:42 PM

You ROCK, sir.

Almost as much as my new 15 gig iPod (Apple YOU Rock).

About all that sucks is my stash of cash is seriously depleted. Here's hoping for another tax refund!

Posted by: American Patriot at May 3, 2003 07:02 PM

Double "Whoa". I knew the Bush dude was cool but man in those shades he is totally refrigerated. Boooooooyahhhhh!!!! Rock on Dub!!!!

Posted by: Stoner at May 3, 2003 08:54 PM

B.BBB.BA..BA.BAD TO THE BONE

"GWB" YOU ROCK !

Posted by: jp at May 4, 2003 03:30 AM

Now THAT was amusing! :D

Posted by: Ravenwolf at May 4, 2003 02:54 PM

The dim-o-crat spin about, "it's a photo op--", does NOT play. If that's all it was, President Bush would NOT have spent so much time with the Sailors, and giving THEM, a photo op! Had it been clinton, he would have spent time with the ladies trying to get phone numbers!

As for photo ops, that's the ONLY thing that will bring Hillary out from under her bridge. Bill was an expert at photo ops, remember attending Church, and carrying a Bible, does ANYBODY think he reads the Bible? Get real!

I have found in life, most times someone points a finger and says look at them, it is usually a distractive attempt, or a guilty conscience------------No, sorry, for that to be the case, you have to HAVE a conscience.

Posted by: Susan Serin-Done at May 4, 2003 05:09 PM

Greyhawk posted:
"BEYOND THE PALEOf course we all know what great proponents of free speech the Hollywood types are, right? Then how come attorneys for the William Morris Agency have taken action to shut down Boycott Hollywood? The site's domain registrar, Dotster.com, has apparently caved to a request from the the law offices of Rintala, Smoot, Jaenicke, & Rees, representing William Morris Agency, who of course represent a large number of Hollywood types, who are perhaps offended by people disagreeing with them. The plug will be pulled on Boycott Hollywood within 24 to 48 hours.



I vonder who goes next? Ze Jews, maybe? Gypsys? Der ScrappleFace?



You can ask the attorneys at this email address."

How about a "boycott the boycott hollywood boycotters" campaign?

Posted by: Ken Stein at May 4, 2003 07:30 PM

KEN STEIN:
***********"How about a "boycott the boycott hollywood boycotters" campaign?" HAHAHAHAHAHA....but then we have to ask ourselves: how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck would chuck wood?
***********************88

SUSAN SERIN-DONE!
***********SURE Swilly read his bible!...But he's a PERFECT example of what happens when you always read it UPSIDE-DOWN!!

Photo Ops gone bad!!!!--- the ETERNALLY insincere Clinton walking away from Ron Brown's funeral while just cutting up and laughing with some guy UNTIL the he spots the camera on him and the bottom lip IMMEDIATELY curled and he wiped the NON existen tear from underneath his learing eyes! When Rush Limbaugh was on TV he showed that over and over and aover and over again!...BUT....doubtful ya saw it on CNN, NBC, CBS,,....etc. WHERE was FOX then?
****** of course there was also that HIDEOUS forming of the rocks into the shape of a cross on the beach that time....( no I MEANT
a REAL B-E-A-C-H---not referring to Hilly!)

Posted by: Lynch Family Cat at May 5, 2003 01:04 AM

Further from God we go, where it stops nobody knows! 4 more years? 4 more years? Blood will flow, boddies will burn- they did it first now its our turn. We are not God, but rather little boys, who when we create, we first must destroy. America is Power and God is Love. We are hawks and HE is a dove. As it is writen, America will fall, because witout weapons, our Justice is nothing at all.

Posted by: Jesus liberal at May 5, 2003 01:58 PM

Oh for Heaven's sake.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 5, 2003 04:43 PM

There once was a blogger, J-Liberal
Whose essays at poetry were pitiful.
Though they filled me with laughter,
I reflected soon after
That he shouldn't take life quite so literal...

(sorry, the Adverb police will be after me on that last line)

Posted by: Cassandra at May 5, 2003 04:55 PM

My Boddie

A poem by J-Liberal*

My Boddie burns:
Burns with Shame
To be an American.
Shame, and deep, deep sadness...
Witout (sic) end.
We are so wicked.
Worse than Hitler,
Worse than Saddam.
How can there be
A Punishment great enough
For this horrid country?
Bohica: Hillary in 2004.

*no relation to J-Lo

Posted by: Cassandra at May 5, 2003 05:14 PM

to
Jesus liberal

ooaahh look what we have here, little j liberal or should I say little.. Mohammed Liberal blogging his fatwa for his beloved leaders Bin Laden and Saddam, oohh what's a matter ML, mad because America finally put its collective foot down and put and end to your way of life, Ps Mo, there is no such thing as justice without force, ever hear of a police force, you know those guys your type fights at your bin laden support rallies,

how sad it must be to be you, just another pathetic voice

" That has followed in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And so shall you follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies."

" Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices and everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear."

" The guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent."

" { Any person } involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country and a target of American justice."

" { Any person,} organization or government that supports, protects or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes, and is a grave danger to the civilized world and will be confronted."

By this, " Liberal " you are served notice

{ ANY PERSON }is equally guilty of terrorist crimes,

Posted by: jp at May 5, 2003 05:52 PM

Cassandra! 5 stars *****.

Posted by: AHA at May 5, 2003 05:59 PM

To those who are preparing to go on dangerous journeys,

"If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one"

Jesus - Luke 22:36.

Posted by: jp at May 5, 2003 06:08 PM

Why must you make me out to be a Muslim terrorist to attack my values? Who said I hated America? As a Christian I can only judge and fix what is within- as an American I will do the same. It is totaliarian/hitleresqe logic that says "war haters are enemy lovers". You guys are pathetic- Do you guys get a pamphlet in the mail that instructs you on how to attack liberals personaly and avoid a real discussion? You avoid the fundamental message of my poorly constucted poem- Our claim to Global power and wealth is predecated not on our great American values (and they are great) but on our ability to manufacture, sell, and execute warfare. God will not let us sit at the top for long if thats all we have to offer. (see Romans, Mongols, Islam (circa 1100), FRANCE, Germany, England, and now. . .

Posted by: Jesus liberal at May 5, 2003 09:43 PM

As much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

Ah, but then they'd form a 'boycott the boycott the boycott hollywood boycotters' campaign. I wonder...

Posted by: Ken Stein at May 5, 2003 09:58 PM

To Jesus Liberal:
Actually, the Romans lasted a couple of thousand years.

Posted by: Ken Stein at May 5, 2003 10:00 PM

Diplomacy: The velvet glove that covers the iron fist.

Without the fist, you cannot negotiate, you can only capitulate.

Darn, didn't mean that to rhyme, y'all will think I'm trying to do the poetry thing.

(Peace, or I'll bust your pesky head in.)

Posted by: some random guy at May 5, 2003 10:20 PM

Yes! the iron fist, Exactctly! So why is North Korea and any other nation not on "our side" running to build WMDs? So America will Negotiate, not Capitulate. They're just tryin' to speak our language!

Oh yes, and America is the ONLY NATION to use a WMD on a civilian population- twice! All things come 'round. (I live in NYC by the way, and No, I am not wishing it, but I will not be supprised. . .

Posted by: Jesus liberal at May 5, 2003 11:08 PM

to
Jesus liberal

So you live in New York, here is something you can put on your to-do list this week.. get yourself down to Grand Central Station purchase a subway token for Fulton Street, when get to Fulton Street Station walk straight to the stairs when you hit the street take a left walk one city block I will be waiting to through you into the pit known as ground zero,

Posted by: jp at May 6, 2003 04:33 AM

"Do not hate me for using the lash. Instead, fear my brother who will use scorpions."

Don't know what it means, but it sure sounds kewl.
(Cute little scorpions)

Posted by: some random guy at May 6, 2003 09:03 AM

SRG: For a moment there, you almost sounded like my man Jesse Jackson...

Without the FIST, you cannot... neGOtiate, you can only... caPITulate.

I love it! And you are right.

J-Liberal: Here is your argument on the issues. Your fundamental message:

Our claim to Global power and wealth is predecated not on our great American values (and they are great) but on our ability to manufacture, sell, and execute warfare. God will not let us sit at the top for long if thats all we have to offer.

is fundamentally wrong.

First of all, our "claim" to wealth is based on, let me see...WEALTH. Which is based on free enterprise. And warfare is NOT all we have to offer. We have billions of dollars in foreign aid, food, medicine, hope, the possibility of living a life free from fear of imprisonment, rape, torture, and death. We (and others) sent money and supplies into Iraq before Saddam was deposed, but they ended up in warehouses, never reaching the people they were intended to help. The same thing happens in Africa every day.

Countries like France, Russia, and Germany pleaded for us to "give peace a chance" -- a chance for them to line their pockets with millions of dollars in oil for food and construction contracts while they propped up Saddam's regime: a regime they knew was systematically brutalizing and starving its own people.

Like it or not, it was warfare that (ironically, I admit) has introduced the prospect of a better future for Iraq -- if they choose to take advantage. It has evened up the odds - after watching their last uprising get brutally repressed via WMD, the Iraqis weren't going to try rising up against Saddam again any time soon.

Wishing and hoping and sending tax dollars abroad will not triumph over brutal, greedy, and sadistic despots. If you are dealing with someone who will not negotiate, then eventually you must either admit defeat and walk away or fight. That we are good at fighting (when we have to) does not make us evil. In fact, it allowed us to minimize the harm done to innocent civilians - not eliminate, because that's not possible, but minimize.

On the US being the only nation to use WMD on a civilian populace - wrong again. Have you forgotten over 5000 Kurds killed by Saddam's nerve gas? Or two little incidents involving the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? I haven't. My husband was just around the corner from where the plane hit. I could see the smoke from the window at work.

I didn't hate anyone when that happened. I just thought, "what a bunch of nuts". But I hate any government that makes it possible for people like that to operate - that arms them, shelters them, encourages them to hate and kill. I hate a government that tortures entire families and imprisons children and rapes middle school girls. And I don't see how a government that would stoop to such measures against its own people and has repeatedly lied to the UN should be trusted to use WMD wisely (as a deterrent only to outside aggressors, or as a negotiating tool, as you so naively argue).

Police have weapons, but they are not evil so long as they use those weapons only as a last resort to protect innocent life and enforce the law. The freedoms we enjoy are possible because we have the power to protect our way of life and sometimes to help others in the process. I was initially quite skeptical of the war, but I think we have done both things - helped to protect our way of life, and helped to make it possible for Iraq to create a better future for itself. One where they won't be digging in mass graves looking for their lost family members.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 6, 2003 11:08 AM

Neo means new -

"[I]f we need to act, we will act, and we really don't need United Nations approval to do so... we really don't need anybody's permission."
President George W. Bush, Amrch, 7, 2003

That doesn't sounds very new to me - sounds like old Manifest Destiny rethoric to me.

Posted by: e3liacin at May 6, 2003 11:12 AM

I appreciate your time and words Casandra. Let me say that I believe and know we want the same things. Peace, freedom, and prosperity for all people of the world despite ideological or racial differences.

That is not the world reality, and I still maintain that American foreign policy under regan-bush-clinton-bushjr is systematically complicit in the death, exploitation, and suffering of the third world. After all we still manage to prosper from the wealth these places offer (oil, diamonds, cheap labor, etc.) and yet their problems appear to be exacerbating. We are spending more time and money on Warfare and less on Peace (food, health aid, education). And by the way, I would wager the people behind the independent aid organizations actually attempting to help the third world are predominatly liberal in ideology as that is a "bleeding heart liberal" thing to do. Has Rush Libaugh spend one minute in a soup kitchen (unless it was all-you-can-eat:).

Saddam was a Monster- and Rumsfeld shook his hand circa '87?. Regan/Bush knew what he was then and allowed American companies to arm him (the edited portions of the weapons declaration). Why? It served our interests, not humanitarian, but for control over the vast oil resources of the Middle East. He was a western-acting-wild-card amidst Islamic fundamentalists and was interested in worldy gains (as americans are). And rumsfeld is here again, with a vengance against his ex-"buddy" who thought he could be a big player and not a pawn.

That's my resentment. I love America and 'most' of the values of the constitution (the constitution is wonderful enough to actually encourages me to quesion it). My disgust and my fear is pointed at our corrupt mixed-blessing foreign policy (food for econimic capitulation) is going to cause us more grief and voilence against the citizens of America. Our government supports these despots if they serve our financial needs, and destroy them along with civilians if they don't. And we leave a lot of angry poor people who are so incenced they are willing to blow themselves up to get back at "us". That's patriotism! The graph charting human progression does not appear to be getting better for the lower %80 of the world while the top 5% is skyrocketing. That stinks of corruption.

And we are the ones who dropped the BOMB. The WMDs of all WMDs. We invented and used the big one, the ultra-killer, the NUKE- and we were a well equipped military with other options at our disposal. Saddam is a sloppy mass-criminal using old Russian kitchen sinks to enforce his agenda, and the islamic terrorists, stragecially, used the only resouces they had to make their point, no matter how awful it was. Could they make a military stance in their own land against the US? If they had a "state's rights" grievence could they effecively use their second amendment against the invading US military? 911 was their only means to attacking our soil (We have used our infinate ways to get to theirs repeatedly). I don't defend them or support them, but I understand why they did it.

Lastly, I am a liberal by philopsophy- The Demorcats are the worst Republicans ever, because they hide conservative agendas under idealistic values. So don't waste time with "Well Bill did this-" I know what he did. Yes he is a scumbag and Hillary is- well dangerous to say the least.

But I do not see what I perceive to be the values of Christ (compassion, giving, tolerance, non-violence, spiritual gain over the material) in the Conservitaves, In fact I see the opposite. I see greed, deception, power-hunger, and an addiction to acquiring material wealth- and with the barrel of a gun no less. Plesae point out examples of love and compassion of Republicans? Plese show me they (and you) care and have cared about civil rights, and the general welfare of America's poor children (and their ignorant parents who were poor children once themselves) and I will chage my tune.

My last history review showed me that it was always a liberal behind ideas like: womens sufferage, civil rights for people of color, consumer protection, fair wages, diplomacy over warfare, child welfare (except the unborn- let's set that one asside for the moment), and more than anything PEACE. How can I support those who have historically been the detractors of those ideas?

WIth much regards

Posted by: Jesus Liberal at May 6, 2003 12:04 PM

Raly j-lib? Liberals for civil rights? I guess you were sleeping when the southern DEMOCRATS opposed the civil rights act of 1964 and it took a republican congree to pass it and force President Johnson to sign it. I guess you were sleeping during history when they talked about the Republican President Lincoln signing the emancipation proclimation outlawing slavery which caused the southern DEMOCRATS to start a civil war. I guess you were sleeping when the US gave billions of dollars in US foreign aid and billions of tons of food products to third world countries to help them, only to have their own governments steal the aid for their own personal profit.

You J-lib are a complete moron, who's review of history is based on what you hear rather than an actual pursuit for the truth by research. You believe what is presented in current histroy books trather than look at books written before political correctness took over our schools. Research using more than one source and you will be surpeised at what you learn. I lived during the civila rights movement and remember it well. President Kennedy by the way was not a liberal. He beleived in smaller government and tax cuts. He also opposed the civil rights act and it was Bobby kennedy who ordered the National guard into the south to desegregate the schools. John F wanted nothing to do with it because of the south was controlled by the DEMOCRATS!

Posted by: Darth Chef at May 6, 2003 01:14 PM

Here's a list of Democrats for peace:
Woodrow Wilson- World War I
Franklin D. Roosevelt- World War II
Harry S. Truman- Korea
John F. Kennedy- Vietnam

All Democratic Presidents at the start of all these conflicts. Let's hear it for the "peace-loving" liberals. That's a total of 22 years and more of warefare. Yes, most of it, well some of it, was for good and noble causes, but these "peaceful" Democrats got us into the fight.
Let us not forget the firm decisive way that Jimmy dealt with the Iranian hostage situation for over 400 days.
As for the "war-like" Republicans:
Grenada: 4 days
Panama: 3 weeks
Gulf War I: 7 months if you count all the Desert Shield build-up.
Afghanistan: 1 year and counting, partially turned over to UN troops.
Gulf War II: 1 1/2 months and counting

Let's not forget Cosovo and Somalia. I'm not saying all Dems are bad and all Reps. are good. There is plenty of blame on both sides. I just prefer the conservative side of fiscal and international policy.

And guess what? Every single one of these guys claimed to be a good Christian.

Compassion for the poor? Our current system has created a welfare state. Change it to get people off relief and into self-reliance. The Lord helps those that help themselves. "The poor we will always have with us." But he didn't say it would be the same dam*ed poor all the time. They have been convinced by the people who benefit from having a large pool of discontented that there is no way they can get out unless the "greedy rich people" give more and more. They complain about tax cuts for the rich, yet pay none themselves. I've seen the numbers and the census data, the bottom 20% are mostly there because no-one is working, or they are just working part-time, and the top 20% are there because 2 people in the household are working full time. And in many cases, the top 5% of earning households were in the bottom 20% a couple of decades ago.
So, why are the "rich" so rich? They earned it.
A middle aged couple who have been working at their jobs for 20 or 30 years, can easily earn $150,000 a year. That is all it takes to get into the top 5%.
You want compassion for the poor and down-trodden? Show me where they are making efforts to stand on their own, to get working, to become self-reliant. Show me that they are trying to climb out of the pit, and I'll throw them a rope, give them a hand, and then a boost to climb higher. I'll all for helping-out, I'm against handing-out.
Cancel welfare, or make it necessary to work. Heck, all those make-work projects in the '30s went well. Let's try it again.

Sorry about the rambling rant. I keep getting interrupted by work, and I lose my train of thought.

"Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a life-time."
Let's start passing out the poles and bait.

Posted by: some random guy at May 6, 2003 01:42 PM

J-Lib:

I think people of good will (and there are some on both sides), whether liberal or conservative, want the same things. They simply disagree on the means.

In general, I think liberals want to somehow legislate equal outcomes in a world that is not always fair. So we give tax dollars to the poor, extra welfare dollars each time another fatherless child is born, skew university admissions to favor certain groups who otherwise don't meet admission criteria, allow women and minorities to sue because they are "underrepresented" in certain classes of jobs, cancel boy's sports teams because an equal number of dollars isn't spent on girl's sports. While laudable in theory, these laws mask the very real consequences of poor choices, dampen individual initiative, and encourage self-defeating behavior. In short, they hurt the very people they are supposed to help.

I think conservatives want laws that encourage individual responsibility and allow people the chance to compete to the best of their ability. They believe this serves both the individual and society. And they accept that some people may fail -- and not all will try equally or obtain equal results. Most conservatives believe it is the mission of churches and private organizations to help the less fortunate, because charity is supposed to be willing, not compulsory.

I am female and have experienced some job and pay discrimination over the years. However, I do not seek reparations from the govt. - just the chance to prove my worth in the marketplace. People are discriminated against all the time for all sorts of silly reasons - height, looks, background, you name it. The government can't fix this.

We all have impediments to overcome, but government should not seek to hand out equal results - just give us a chance to use whatever gifts we do have (which, by the way aren't all equal, so we won't all have an equal chance of success or equal results) to improve ourselves and the society in which we live.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 6, 2003 01:45 PM

J Lib
Yeah, we did drop "The Bomb" on Japan twice, but it saved millions of lives. If we had invaded the mainland hundreds of thousands of US soldiers would have died and millions more civilians. The Japanese were ready to fight to the death and we would have had to destroy an entire civilization! So one can say that the sacrifice of a 100,000 saved the lives of 1,000,000.
BTW, Saddam used nerve gas on his people. WWI showed the massive use of mustard/chlorine gas, WWII had the gassing of the Jews (is that not chemical warfare), conquistadores used small pox (blankets from the dead were given to the living to kill more people). Please get you facts straight, you offer a great argument, but it is ruined with wrong facts and misinterpretations.

I'm not from NYC, but I did go for 1 week in March '02 to help at ground zero. I wasn't in the mess hall, I was in the "Pit" overseeing the removal of debris and many little red bags containing bits and pieces of people. Those are lasting images and reminds me that WE WERE ATTACKED and we are only retaliating. We are at war with terror and if the world is safer by taking out saddam, so be it.

Wasn't good ol' Abe Lincoln a Republican? But I guess republicans have never done anything for the civil rights of individuals!

Other modern civil rights legislation was signed by democrats (1964, 65 etc) and they are to be commended. You, J Lib, are generalizing when you say that conservatives/republicans in general don't support the civil rights of people etc. What gives you the right to tell people how I think?

Posted by: Justin at May 6, 2003 01:49 PM

I'm with Cassandra on welfare etc. Some women have another kid just to get a bigger check each month. What good are the offering society? We need to weed out the true needy from those looking for a free handout. It all comes down to personal responsiblity and accountability.

Why no tax cuts? They will help the rich, but they will help me also. It is all in percentages. If they cut taxes by 5 percent, the guy who makes 150,000 will get more back then the guy making 30,000, but it is still extra cash. My wife stays at home with our kid and we survive on one income and a little extra dollars a month makes a world of difference.

About that fact of the top 5% being on the bottom 20% in the past, my father is an example. He got back from Nam to a wife, 3 kids and no college. He worked during the day, did school at night. Over the course of approx. 10 years he got his MBA, raised 5 kids (and survived the death of 1 daughter) and now makes really good money. Is he to be punished for working his butt off?

Posted by: Justin at May 6, 2003 01:59 PM

I don't think my parents made it to the top 5%. Not quite. But they both worked their entire lives to get to the point where they could retire and live comfortably. They are among the "rich" that the proposed tax cuts will help the most. Their primary source of income is from 401-Ks, IRAs, and other pention plans. They live of the pricipal of their savings, and the dividends of their investments. Socoal Security, which they paid into their whole working lives, provides very little of their income.

WHile I'm among the top few percentage points in education (not smarter, just lots of schooling) I'm in the starting stages of my second career, so I'm definitely NOT in the top earnings brackets. But guess what, my tax rates will be going down more than the rich guys (and gals). While Joe Millionaire may get back more dollars, my fewer dollars will have more of an impact on me.
Do I begrudge the rich their millions (or billions)?
Depends on how they got them. Bill Gates? Nope, he earned it.
The Hilton girls. Yup, they inherited. No respect for them.
See the difference?

I'm all in favor of more corporate accountability, though. CEOs should earn more than the mail-room guys, but they shouldn't get million dollar bonuses for getting the company into bankruptcy.
I could do as well as some of these jerks. Maybe I should get onto monster.com and get a CEO job: Will get your corporation into Chapter 11 for 1.2 million a year and 2 million dollar bonus.
I'd be working cheaper than most of those slobs.

Posted by: some random guy at May 6, 2003 02:24 PM

SRG,
I agree, where do I sign up for that difficult job? Corporate responsiblity, yet another thing the liberals say the Repubs encourage.

Like I said, I will enjoy those tax credits for me, they are much needed. I work my but off and strive to live within my means (my only real debt is a car payment and student loan) yet I only scrape by. So give me some tax cuts!

Posted by: Justin at May 6, 2003 02:43 PM

I think of my student loans as a mortgage on my diploma. My "house" is an 8 1/2 by 11 piece of parchment (fake, of course. wouldn't want to make "sheepskins" out of sheepskin. it might upset the PETA types).

Posted by: some random guy at May 6, 2003 03:38 PM

Well Thanks for thoughtful replies. I will try to give my best responses. When I refer to liberal values, I do not include Politicians, but people. And Abe Lincoln's Republican is a far cry from the Regan Neo-conservative Republican of today. I am not sure about the Southern Democrats. Modern Politics is about perception, not action. Please don't confuse liberalism with Demorcatic polititians.

What Republicans marched with Martin Luther King? Or, who were the whites that supported him and who were against him and what party were they from? I notice someone had to make a distinction like, "Southern Democrats" Were the "Southern Republicans" helping? (Strom Thurman anyone?) My "research" shows liberals behind them, not conservatives. (ie, my great-aunt). And you can't say "just get a job" especially to African Americans who, until the 60's had been unequal under the Law in many states! It will take generations beyond that to fix that problem. And the private sector is showing no desire to help out. They are only 4 generations from being slaves, and *never* had a chance to rise to the top. I am not saying any Government regulation will solve this, but I don't see Republicans helping out, caring, or even just offering support.(Ahem, Trent Lott)

I don't see (enough) conservatives speaking out against corporate crime or for consumer rights. Ralph Nader is a liberal and works for all those causes. WHere is the Republican Ralph nader? Where is the guy, who is staunchly conservitve, who fights agianst the powers that use their wealth to manipulate policy into their favor? He does it because he believes- he is not getting rich off of his efforts.

All the "laborers of love" whom I have met, the donated legal counceling, the family planning coucelors, the free ESL teachers for hispanics, and the like, why are they usally liberals and vote Democratic? I have never seen a Conservative who looks with any heart or pause at the abject poverty of people of color. I see your points "hand-up" rather than "hand-out" and all that, but it seems dismissive. It seems like you don't even think it's a problem. That's fine, but if you believe that, I doubt it's from experience (ie knowing someone who grew up in that enviroment). I can say I only know *one* person well. And only through government programs and college support for African Americans that he was able to attend and afford college. He deserved it. His mother never had it. His Grandmother? Not a chance. So we still need to do something. Just exactly what I can't say. I'm open to suggestions.

I don't want to generalize, everyone. I want to see the love of fellow humanity, and find what I am missing that is so attractive to those of you that have taken to contemporary conservatism. My experience with conservatives as friends or coworkers, however limited, only shows only white people who have little or no contact with non-whites, and a total obsession with their own bottom line. Pure self interest (decidedly un christian). I talk about compassion or "reaching out" and they shut it down. Nope. Not a problem. Black Ghettos are black people specific problems that they need to fix on their own. Law enforcment and the goverment have no culpability in allowing for that enviorment to grow." Thats an escape to me. Wash your hands of it, it was decades ago. Well plenty of people are still alive to talk about it and the wounds are still there. Any African American who rose to the top seems to have the same story of having to overcome severe systematic racism- sometimes even at the top when they are buying million dollar homes or getting pulled over in their nice cars. (and subsequently strangled by police)

And from you guys, apart from some of the decent communications of pserspectives, I get violent threats, and people want to throw me into the pit of ground zero because of my perspective. I see complaining about taxes, but no offers for workable solutions to fix what ails this country. I am done with the democrats, but you guys just seem to be duped to another side. Either way your getting sold out to private interests. I don't feel the love yet. I want you to picture not the "lazy not-working adults" but their children who have overcrowed schools, no healthcare, and in some cases are out right starving. In America. I haven't heard one voice of conern here.

And War. O lord what are we doing? I do not measure war in time, but in purpose. Yes Sadam is no more, and millions of iraqis (minus several thousand) now have inherited a rubbled waste land that will rebuilt with what? - Our tax dollars paid into American Corporations who- don't pay much taxes. Your conservative monies are going to support an Iraqi State Run education, healthcare, and utilities infractructre- A Socialist State!. Where is your outrage? No, funny guy, I am not moving to Iraq as there would be a significant languate barrier. And you want to take on Syria and Iran and then rebuild them? I see this going a bad way.

ANd tax cuts? This country is trillions in the red , entire states are broke as well, and we are launching the greates extentions of our military resources in decades- and you want a tax cut? You can't call it a cut if there is no surpluss. It is a defferment and a shell game to ensure reelection. "read my lips. . ."

OK- please tear appart what you will, but try and show some love? Show me some deep sense of connection or concern to all people of the world as you usurp me. I'm in the lions den here, I know, but show me up on my terms. Don't deride me a hypocrite and say "Well a democrat did this. . ." to justify bad Republicans. Just show me the loving Republicans with a concience and concern. Show me the values of Christ in the Republican party. Prove me wrong. Thank you very mych

Posted by: Jesus Liberal at May 6, 2003 04:13 PM

"What is man that thou art mindful of him?"

Soylent Green is an option.

Why should I love my fellow man? What has he done to deserve my regard?

I keep hearing how much I should care about other people, but no-one has ever supplied me with a good reason. The only response I get it a lot of religious babble.

I know this goes somewhat counter to my support of the Iraqi War. My usual reaction to hearing about the atrocities committed by Saddam was not, "Oh, those poor people," but rather, "What an a%%hole."

A sane response? Sanity has always been socially defined, so maybe or maybe not.

So please tell me: logically, rationally with an absolute minimum of mummery, superstition, and quotes from "prophets" and "messiahs" Why Should I Care About My Fellow Man?

I eagerly anticipate your replies.

Posted by: some random guy at May 6, 2003 05:00 PM

srg,
If you were in a bad situation you would be deeply appreciative of help given to you. I was recently able to help a family who was displaced out of their apartment due to a fire (stupid lady smoking and sleeping and wipes out 16 units) and it made me feel good. I also got to thinking about if it happened to me I would want people their to help me. I commend the Red Cross for helping the family and our CHURCH FULL OF CONSERVATIVES who helped them to (many of the churchgoers are in the top 5% and gave freely and without question).

J Lib
I am a gringo who learned spanish along with many others. I know that they have helped in ESL and other programs and we helped campaign against (and lost) an english only movement in our state. Not that I oppose such a thing, but the way they were presenting it could cause discrimination or prevent information to go out to those in need. 99% of us are conservative republicans, so once again you are lumping us all together. you accuse us of doing it against liberal/democrats which we do at times, but you are doing the same.

Posted by: Justin at May 6, 2003 05:23 PM

J-Lib:

Some liberals have been repeating lies so long, they are now widely regarded as the truth. Regarding your question:

What Republicans marched with Martin Luther King? Or, who were the whites that supported him and who were against him and what party were they from? I notice someone had to make a distinction like, "Southern Democrats" Were the "Southern Republicans" helping? (Strom Thurman anyone?)
***my note: Sen. Robert "Sheets" Byrd or Albert Gore, Sr, anyone? Individuals don't make a rule. For the record. 100% of southern dems voted against the Civil Rights Act - see below. There weren't many Southern Republicans in the aftermath of Reconstruction.***

My "research" shows liberals behind them, not conservatives.

On research: Let me throw a few inconvenient facts at you:

What party was behind the Abolitionist movement and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments? Republicans.

Percentage of both parties voting FOR the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

69% of Senate Democrats
61% of House Dems
82% of Senate Republicans
80% of House Republicans

After signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (D) President Lyndon B. Johnson praised the Republicans for their "overwhelming" support.

Roy Wilkins, NAACP chairman, awarded Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award for his "remarkable civil rights leadership."

Civil rights activist Andrew Young: the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, saying "these judges are among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement."

From the Congressional Quarterly, "Although the Democratic-controlled Congress watered them down, the (Eisenhower) Administration's recommendations resulted in significant and effective civil rights legislation in both 1957 and 1960 - the first civil rights statutes to be passed in more than 80 years" ("The Republican Party 1960 Civil Rights Platform," May 1964). It reported on April 5, 1963 that, " A group of eight Republican senators in March joined in introducing a series of 12 civil rights bills that would implement
many of the recommendations made in the Civil Rights Commission report of 1961."

Finally, which two Presidents have had the highest percentage of minorities and women in their Cabinet appointments and staff? Get ready for a surprise: Richard Nixon and George W. Bush.

I am trying really hard to think of the last black Secretary of State or National Security Advisor under a liberal administration. And wonder of wonders, the conservatives didn't have to settle for "tokens" - they found bona-fide qualified candidates who were also minorities and/or women.

Who supports vouchers and school choice? Conservatives - because we truly believe every child deserves the chance to excel, regardless of income. This idea scares the you-know-what out of liberals who buy minority votes by telling blacks that their test scores are lower because they are discriminated against, but won't let them into the schools their own children go to. I have tutored and taught minority children, and there is nothing wrong with their brains. It's the low expectations and excuses for failure that keep them in the bottom percentiles.

Lastly, I was raised in a staunchly conservative home. My parents both supported the civil rights movement, I had black friends at school and at home, never heard a negative word from either of my parents against ANY minority group during the entire time I grew up. One of my earliest memories is of my mother crying uncontrollably when MLK was assassinated. My best friend and her husband are both very conservative (last time I checked their skin color)very white. Both their children married black Americans and there was never any question or problem. They have 6 lovely grandchildren whom they adore. So I think I can say that you are quite mistaken in your opinion of the whole conservatives vs. race and civil rights issue.

Actions speak louder (and accomplish more) than words. Or hand-wringing.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 6, 2003 05:27 PM

CASSANDRA---in your post to J-Lib starting out with:

**"I think people of good will (and there are some on both sides), whether liberal or conservative, want the same things. They simply disagree on the means."****

You hit the bullseye PERFECTLY on EVERY point.

The freedom to make the best of ourselves/lives, etc. is what's important.

Like the "I give you fish---I feed you once---I teach you HOW to fish---I feed you for a lifetime.". There's always a place for benevolence...but what a ripoff for people NOT to have the FREEDOM to at least pursue and acquire the tools to make their lives better.

As I stated in another post: Humans are NOT validated when everything is handed to them...but find a greater sense of purpose and worth in what we do. We're NOT valuable because of WHAT we do. We're valuable because we're created in Gods image...BORN....People..... YET...purpose is NEVER defined when we're made to be completely dependent on another ( in this case the gov't)..Sadly that attitude is misconstrued as a lack of compassion ( on the parts of Conserv/Repubs)

I won't even attempt to improve upon your earlier post--errr...ANY of them. It was ( they are) BRILLIANT and can't really be improved upon!

Can I be in your class? (:~})


Posted by: Lynch Family Cat ( truth seeker) at May 6, 2003 05:51 PM

LFCat:

Your comment: "Humans are NOT validated when everything is handed to them" really sums up in a nutshell what it took me 12 paragraphs to say.

I learn so much from reading everyone else's posts (even the ones I vehemently disagree with - they challenge what we already think).

I'm holding hands with myself and swaying as I sing KUMBAYA - ScrappleFace rules. :)

- Casserole

Posted by: Cassandra at May 6, 2003 06:15 PM

Cassandra-

OK Thank you for schooling me. I would love to meet someone like you and sit down with a cup of tea and chat because I grew up around liberals and the conservatives in my town were openly racist in the early 80's. That's why I am here, to expose myself to new perceptions, and yours are by far the most intelligent. Why don't the republicans stand on that platform more? Why did they let a recist like Strom Thurman have so much sway in their party? Also, liberal politicians are corrupt as I have said. But I still see the Repubs sa no better, and these days just plain hakwish on the whole "killing people thousands of miles away to protect things here" idea.

Haven't they done anything wrong in your eyes? Are they angels while the other side of the isle is all seething serpents? Aren't they getting checks and listening to the the same private interests, shaking hands with Saddam (80's- we knew he was bad then too) and Enron (a personal consultant for Energy dept), so what is going on here?

I think conservatives have had enough power and wealth to make changes and set an example- you can't tell me that the liberals and hollywood have been the root cause for all of the US's problems stopping every progressive solution they come up with? The Republicans are darn rich and so are all their friends. Surely we could be in a better state of affairs now? Surley they could have come up with a better solutions for foreign policy than all this military intervention? I see that the lines are not so clear party to party, but I still can't see the "right" in the Right.

I just want to see your picture as well as you have clouded mine. Regards.

Posted by: jesus liberal at May 6, 2003 07:09 PM

CASSANDRA!

LMBO with the "holding hands with myself and singing Kumbaya while swaying! HA...

I'll grab the dogs paw and the hamsters tail and join you "long distance" ( grabbing the hamsters tail to have him a little "tilt a whirl" experience for his previous slander against me on scrapple face! (:~})

Let TRUTH prevail...no matter what side of the political fence it happens to come from!

Posted by: Lynch Family Cat ( truth seeker) at May 6, 2003 07:43 PM

J lib,
last time I checked there were quite a few rich democrats out there (trial lawyers runnin' for pres blah blah blah). I'm not rich, nowhere near but I have conservative views. You bring up S.Thurmin and the others but they are old news and on the way out. I'm glad Frist is now in the Sen.Majority spot (except when he sells the repubs out, but that is another story), because he is young and carries new ideals. I don't agree with racism, it is an ugly thing but it is used as a weapon now even when it is not true... may I say "you are a republican therefore you are a rich racist" (sorry to paraphrase but that is what you meant, right?)

Posted by: Justin at May 6, 2003 07:53 PM

J-Lib:

I don't think either party can claim a monopoly on virtue - we all have our scumbags to deal with. The Republican Party's biggest problem is lousy PR. And I think this has something to do with not focusing on feeling but on actions.

I think many conservatives who follow their principles aren't interested in convincing anyone else of the rightness of those principles, and this is a HUGE mistake. We need more Peggy Noonans (Pres. Reagan's speechwriter) to articulate the conservative philosophy. But on the whole, I prefer the strong, silent type to the (in my view) namby-pamby, focus group taking, I-feel-your-pain-while-I'm-looting-your-pocket types.

And then there is this whole thinking vs. feeling deal, but I won't go there or this will be another mega-rant and the Lynch Family hamster will bite me in the butt.

And since you invited me to tea, I'm sorry I made fun of your poem. :)

Posted by: Cassandra at May 6, 2003 08:42 PM

Justin-

No. I am just trying to reconcile these different pictures of conservatism. (Trent Lot, Strom Thurman) vs. . .well folks like you. I don't believe Bush/Cheney are racists, actually, just nationalist greedy war mongerers- not for the sake of killing but for oil wealth. I am just saying that the "haves" of both parties have a whole lot. And I think that some of that is at the expense of others wheater in explotaion of people, resources, or legal wizardry with the tax code and other tricks (Cayman Island holding accounts). Justin. I, Jesus Liberal, appologize for even implying that all repubs are rich racists. I still see the greed element however weather the republican is wealthy or not.

OK. I actually have a fact for you that you probably already know. I was looking at a chart of the 2000 election results, and as usual, most of the liberal votes are in urban counties- New York, LA, San Fran, Denver(?!), Portland, Seattle, Boston, Atlanta (I think), Mobile, Des Moines, Chicago, and so on. The rest, and I mean all the rest are republican/Bush. Well where are all the poor minorities? Why do liberals concentrate in the urban areas? And I would imagine the impoverished do not vote as much as the middle class and above? An extension of ignorance is apathy, right? So all these middle class people and above liberals that dominate the urban populaces have the most conact with minorities and vote Democrat. Meanwhile middle America, who doesn't see the impoverished minorites votes republican. It's not a judgement just an observation, and it is curious.

Anyway, you guys (Repubs) need to do some reaching out and get out of your little towns and come to the big cities. Because if I understand you, the Democrats are selling them a line of bull. This is whole sale subversion. Is it a conspiracy that urban liberals are actually trying to keep the poor minorites down? Or just steal their votes? But what are wealthy urban liberals affraid of? Why aren't they just republican for the tax cuts and personal fiscal benifit? Why would an urban liberal who spends more money for everything want higher taxes as well? It's just confusing to me.

Posted by: jesus liberal at May 6, 2003 08:55 PM

Cassandra and s.r.g: I couldn't have said it better in 20 pages... even if I had thought of it, by some freak chance.

JL: Rich Republicans? I think you are forgetting my state's illustrious Sen. Kerry. He is the richest guy in the Senate. Racist Republicans? How about Sen Byrd? He's ex(I think)-KKK. I do agree with you on at least one point. I think that "politicians are like diapers. You cange them often and for the same reason." Government is a necessary evil. If it tries to solve an individual's problems, it will likely squash them by accident. (I'm not sure I'm paraphrasing there)

Posted by: Ken Stein at May 6, 2003 09:09 PM

gee I wonder what the authors of the
"Constitution " would have done if they "knew "
terrorist would be flying jets into buildings

theirs a lot talk about the "Constitution "
here {j-liberal } how about you reading the

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Posted by: jp at May 6, 2003 10:11 PM

jp,
Sorry, but the Declaration is a document without any legal force behind it. It is what it is titled, simply an announcement to the English monarchy that we weren't going to take any more crap off them. It was not an official government document becuase there was no American government at the time, just an ad hoc commitee trying to create a government.


Yo, J-Lib!
My better alternative to foreign policy is to completely ignore every country we don't trade with. If we have trade agreements, then our dealings with those countries should be mostly about trade.
Human rights in those countries? Sorry, that's an internal matter.
Civil War? Same answer.
Famine? Same answer.
Plague? Same answer (with the addition that we allow no-one from that country to pass our borders).
Are your neighbors attacking you? Talk to the UN, we don't care.

Are you happy, now, J-Lib? We aren't interfering with, or attacking, anybody else.

Much as I hate to quote a rapper: It's all about the Benjamins...(P-Daddy or Puff-Diddly or Piggly-Wiggly, whatever he calls himself this week. You know, the one J-Lo didn't marry.)

Posted by: some random guy at May 7, 2003 09:27 AM

JLib,
I'm going to turn the table, what have the democrats/liberals done for the poor, downtrodden and otherwise forgotten folk of this country?

I agree that programs need to be in place to help those in need, my point is that you should only help those who are willing to help themselves. I'm not paying taxes so that illegal aliens can come across the border to leech our medicaid system or to pay welfare for people who have no intentions to work for it. REFORM, REFORM, REFORM, will it happen, probably not, but refoming these programs will allow us to spend more money on education and other programs and dare I say, cut taxes. Now I've done it, I mentioned that so I must now end my post before I really say something extreme!

Posted by: Justin at May 7, 2003 01:36 PM

Keanu Reeves is a wicked Neo, but i'd love to see Bush play it!!

Posted by: Josh Jenkins at October 12, 2003 06:02 AM
0A
100 Recent Comments
Access the 100 most recent ScrappleFace reader comments, with links to the stories and to commenter archives.
ScrappleFace Headlines