Advertisement

Curtiss

Follow

Comment history

GI support

Cato complains: "the top 10% of U.S.wage earners pay over two-thirds of all income taxes"Well, if the top ten percent make over three quarters of the money, they're getting off cheap, aren't they?As Warren Buffett says, there's something wrong when he pays a lower tax rate than his housekeeper.

May 22, 2008 at 5:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Stop complaining

gogoplata:We taxpayers are having the potholes on Tennessee Street repaired. Please refrain from using our street, since you're willing to share the costs.Thank you.P.S. You'll soon be learning that when you don't pay to fix the potholes, your costs will be going up, in many ways. You'll be driving farther, driving slower, wasting more time, buying more gas, getting more steering alignments, front end repairs and tires, getting into accidents with idiots swerving to avoid potholes, and replacing your car more often.

April 28, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Media impact

Cato:

The problem isn't so much that Bush lies every time he opens his mouth. None of us here is so naive we believe any politician is totally honest.

However, following up on your goofy concept of supporting Clinton based on what Bush does, she's never killed four thousand Americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners, turned the national treasury over to crooks, made America the most hated nation in the world, made American citizens the bad guys with no constitutional rights, or crashed the economy.

March 31, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

War costs

Well, how about that right_thinker? He actually contributed something to the fray! Can you imagine!

Yes, the same guy! You know, when you say something like "Over 900 Bush administration lies to lead us into war have been documented," he's the guy who says "It's too bad you're such a rabid Bush hater that you blame him for everything."

The man with hundreds of posts with dozens of ways to say "you're crazy."

Yes! He said something useful! No, really!

What???, you must be wondering. Above, r_t says the new incoming Democratic administration will be like... and then he links to a product called "Colonblow."

Well, I read that page and he is absolutely right this time. Blast yourself with Colonblow a few times, the site says, and you start pooping out junk and crud that's built up for years, restricting the flow and filling your body with disgusting toxins that threaten your health.

r_t, I don't think you or anyone here could have come up with a better analogy of what this country needs, and what the majority of voters desperately hope we'll get this election.

r_t, I join you eager anticipation of next January's Democratic inauguration, when we finally start to blast that crusty crap out of there.

COLONBLOW 2008!

March 3, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Column criticized

LJWorld "leans to the left?"

Riiiiiight. That darned Simons family is just a bunch of whacko liberals, and it comes out in everything they publish. Yeah, sure.

Actually, the idea that the LJWorld is constantly holding Bush's feet to the fire is a big joke. Here's just one example:

What if Bill Clinton, when he was in the White House, had a gay prostitute, using a fake name, obtain hard-to-get White House credentials, and pose as a reporter, coming to press conference to lob softball questions and keep the real reporters from making contact? And what if that prostitute signed in at the WH security gate dozens of times without ever signing out, so we don't know how long he was there?

Wouldn't that have been all over the front pages, day after day after day?

Well, when Bush did exactly that, the LJWorld NEVER THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH MENTIONING! Go ahead, do an archive search. You'll find the only time the name Jeff Gannon EVER appeared in this newspaper was when his name was mentioned in passing by one columnist.

If the Journal World can't even bother to make note of Bush's White House prostitutes, how can you even suggest that this paper is hard on Bush? The LJWorld has given him the big pass just like all the other major media.

Do you know how many times Bush has been arrested? Do you know for what? Do you know how long Bush was AWOL? If you do know those things, you certainly didn't learn them from coverage in this paper.

February 29, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Disincentive

In answer to previous questions, no, for the record, I am not the letter writer Curtis Bennett.

As for right_thinker's suggestion that I'm a loony because I think there's any indication that Bush lied, I would say to you, sir, that your claim only firmly plants you into a small but vocal goofy group of bizarre fact-denying Bush lovers whose adoration of the never-elected dim son is pretty much inexplicable. What is it you love about this guy so much?

As for Bush lying, only what, 935? falsehoods have been certified so far, but isn't that enough? Why do over half of the American people support impeachment investigations? (50% more than EVER supported the Clinton impeachment.)

Do you suppose DOZENS of Senators and Congress have signed on to support impeachment investigations because there's no evidence?

About.com asked enlisted U.S. military: "If You Were Writing George W. Bush's Performance as Commander-in-Chief, What Grade Would He Receive?" 49% rated him, "F, Complete Failure."

Most of America agrees.

February 4, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Disincentive

Of course Cheney should be impeached first. Of course no one would want the country in the hands of such a criminal madman.

And anyone who thinks there's not enough evidence to impeach these two either doesn't read or simply can't absorb facts. You ought to be embarrassed to make such an ignorant and easily disproved statement.

And what's really a damn shame is that we've had impeachment proceedings begun in both the Senate and the House, and yet the "mainstream media" won't tell that story to the American people. If it gets a mention in the paper at all, it's in a tiny paragraph on page 8, the way the Journal World buried the story announcing the audit of the 2000 Florida vote that showed Gore won by thousands of votes. If this had been a Clinton story, they'd have seen that it was on the front page for weeks.

February 4, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bush damage

I knew he'd show, but who knew he'd have this much time to hack away at his keyboard?

With all that endless blather he fills this space with (some of which is even actual, verifiable fact), I kind of thought kozakid was intelligent. Confused, reality-denying, wrongheaded, propaganda-spewing, but at least intelligent.

But one of today's posts indicates he actually seems to think Fox News is... well, real news.

Wow. Talk about loony things to state in public. Do you think he actually believes that?

Or is he just BSing us with all this stuff, and he actually knows better? I've suspected all along that he's a liberal, posing as a rightwingnut. Maybe his posts are designed to make it seem like all conservatives are idiots.

They aren't, are they?

Come on, this is supposed to be a red state. Why can't we get an occasional conservative comment, discussion or rebuttal here, from someone with a little common sense? Isn't there anyone who can represent the viewpoint of the right without being hateful, slanderous or dishonest?

I mean really; this is a forum, and we could all benefit from hearing each other's viewpoints discussed calmly and factually. Instead, what do we get here representing the right? Hit and run name callers. Insult hurlers. And the guy with the ax to grind who thinks Clinton is the cause of all the world's problems past, present and future.

Are they really ALL like that?

December 12, 2007 at 3:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bush damage

Good morning. Just dropped by to see Kevin's explanation of how this is all Clinton's fault. Nothing yet; I guess he's still typing away.

I'll check in later.

December 12, 2007 at 8:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coverage lacking

right_thinker isn't thinking. He says:

"There has never been an administration hounded by the press like Bush."

a) Apparently r_t slept through the Clinton administration, where Rush lied about Clinton for hours every day and got rich enough to become a hillbilly heroin addict. Apparently r_t didn't notice the rise of full-time propaganda network Fox (can't bring myself to add News, cuz it ain't). Apparently r_t didn't notice any of the talking heads dragging Clinton down for 8 years on TV, like Tucker, Kristol, Hannity, Scarborough (oh, wait... during the Clinton admin, Scarborough was a congressman whose intern died in his office of a crushed skull, only to be pooh-poohed by a medical examiner who was shamed and thrown out of Missouri for falsifying exam records), that nut Barbara Olsen (replaced on 9/11 by the even nuttier Ann Coulter), Will, and a half-dozen other full-time media rightwingnuts.

b) No other administration has stolen two elections, raided the treasury and passed it out to big donors, signed statements vowing to break over 1000 laws, and trashed the constitution in secrecy, like the Bush administration. They SHOULD have been "hounded by the press" more than any other admin. But the press is scared to death and cowers in the corner.

If what r_t says is true, our daily papers should be filled with news of impeachment. Kucinich introduced a bill to begin impeachment investigations, with 21 co-sponsors. Was it on the front page? No. Did you even see a story? Not likely, even though well over half the American public thinks impeachment proceedings should begin immediately. (Only a third supported the Clinton impeachment.)

How would the "liberal press" have reacted if Clinton had let a fake reporter come to White House press conferences to lob softball questions, obtaining a security clearance using a fake name, actually a gay prostitute who frequently signs in on the White House log but doesn't sign out (hundreds of times!) so nobody knows how long he's there or what he's doing? It would have been on the every front page for MONTHS! Search, right now, in the LJW archives, and see how many times the name "Jeff Gannon" appeared in this newspaper. I'll tell you. ONCE. And that was only because he was mentioned once in Leonard Pitts column.

r_t says they haven't come up with "one single crum." While it's true that no underground cartoonists have been exposed in the administration, apparently r_t doesn't read papers, and gets all his propaganda from Fox, or he'd have seen dozens of stories documenting major WH crimes.

You show me fifty stories about Bush's prostitute Gannon, and I'll agree that maybe there has been some coverage of the sins of this administration. Till then, take your "liberal media" whining and your worries that poor little George might get his feelings hurt by the big mean reporters, and tell 'em to someone who cares.

December 4, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )