comment #1

ZacharyTF says ...

Love the middle finger at POTUS, Jeff! I would be worried about Homeland Security coming after you, though. :)

Glad to hear you're feeling better and looking forward to reading more from you.

comment #2

AJW says ...

FUCK KARLOFF!

comment #3

Nate West says ...

a) "Mein Furher! I can walk!"

b) Richard Schickel, Clint Eastwood's Boswell, says Orson Welles "had no career." True--he had three: revolutionizing radio, theater AND cinema.

c) Ah, the delight of measuring one's urine!

d) Through the doorway, the Kubrickian lighting foregrounds the crash cart, coded "blue" for death.

e) Jack Pierce applies the collodion. Gosh, I haven't seen this picture since reading Forrest J. Ackerman's "Boris Karloff: the Frankenscience Monster" in 1969!

f) "It takes a lot to laugh, it takes a train to cry..."

Get well, Jeff. My aunt nicked her thumb, ignored the infection, was admitted to the hospital on Christmas Eve, suffered horrible pain, endured a 6-hour operation, was suffused with antibiotics for weeks, and then her kidneys failed, followed by weeks of dialysis until they started working again. She recovered, but infection is nothing to scoff at. And I agree: the first hospital treated you poorly.

comment #4

pauly says ...

The Wells hand of death seems to be in fine working order...and being used appropriately too lol. The devil hand looks a little swollen in that picture, but not too red. Hope you're not a lefty...at least in terms of hand dominance. Glad to have you back Jeff.

comment #5

NYCBusybody says ...

Contrast Bill Clinton's excellent recent NY Times editorial on what bipartisan rejection of hyper-partisan nonsense can achieve with Wells' childish yet unfortunately representative gesture/attitude of the American left today (ideas? we don't need no stinkin' ideas, let's just throw up a nihilistic middle finger).

To think Bill Clinton weathered the American right at its nihlistic, childish worst (the disgusting attempts to impeach him) and continues to soberly and fairly (even when I don't agree with him) try to create real dialogue with people he may not even agree with should shame people like Wells. But, of course, they're shameless.

comment #6

pauly says ...

NYC, you can't have dialogue with people who say "you're either with us or against us"...please. I think even the righties are starting to believe that W Bush is one of the Worst Prez's in history.

An extended middle finger is tame compared to what W should be expecting...Bush better hope the Democrats don't win control of congress...if they do, you'll start seeing all kinds of investigations of our worst president in American history.

They impeached Clinton for lying about a bj, but what Bush has lied about is worse than Watergater (IMO).

comment #7

NYCBusybody says ...

"you're either with us or against us"...

You don't think this is the message of Ned Lamont and the rabid far-left blogs that support him? You don't think this is the message of Al Sharpton and Spike Lee, who fervently believe that the levee in New Orleans was blown up by the government?

Pauly, do you REALLY believe that the only people with the "you're either with us or against us" attitude are "conservative Republicans", or that this attitude STARTED with George W. Bush? Narrow-minded people of any mentality ALWAYS have this attitude, and I'm attacking it on both sides.

Yes, when Bush said that, I cringed, and still hate that he said it. I found it ridiculous, irresponsible, and counter-productive. And I find it counter-productive for the "left" to adopt the attitude as well. It's about principle, not politics.

comment #8

Nicol D says ...

The problem with Clinton was never in that he said the wrong thing; he always said the right thing at the right time. It was the fact that there was no sincerity behind it.

He says he wanted peace in the middle east but did nothing to get it.

He says he wants a cure for AIDS but his 'greatest' accomplishment is now, a decade after Lewinsky, a generation of children think oral and anal sex is not sex at all and has no risk.

He says he respects women but treats them like recepticles.

He says he was the first 'black' president but his Democrats never had the roster of powerful blacks that Bush's, Republicans do.

He says he wanted a strong America but did nothing to capture Bin Laden when he had the chance.

Clinton is a book smart man but his legacy grows weaker by the minute. He was all talk, but no soul.

A broken vessel for a 'progressive' movement that did/does not understand the correlation between deeds and words.

As for Jeff's image: shouldn't it have been a shot of his ass as a half moon bursting from the open back flap of his hospital gown?

A shot of Jeff mooning GW would have been quite funny indeed.

comment #9

NYCBusybody says ...

And if a Democratic Congress even thinks about impeaching Bush, his approval ratings will substantially increase, as they did for Clinton. Playing political games turns off swing voters like myself, and always will.

comment #10

Nicol D says ...

A Democtatic win in the congress in the fall will most likely guarantee a Republican president in 08.

Especially if the impeachment begins.

comment #11

pauly says ...

To Nicol D: W. Bush makes Clinton look like Abe Lincoln...W even makes Bush Sr. look like a reasonable and decent Prez. I will say that if Hillary Clinton is the best the Dems can do, there could easily be another Republican in the White House...but no matter who is the next Prez, it will be an improvement over the current one...god, can it get worse (I'm scared to think that it could).

To NYC: how about the whole "exposing a secret CIA agent" because she and her husband had proof that the public was being deceived (by the administration) about issues that led to war? Then the president has the gall to say "he thought the information that led to war was accurate"...HUH!?! He purposfully manipulated that information (as just shown) , then wants to say "it wasn't my fault".

I think lying about a war, where hundreds of thousands have now died, is a much more impeachable offense...it's payback time soon for what they did to Clinton.

comment #12

NYCBusybody says ...

The "secret CIA agent's" husband was and is a Democratic Party operative. They were playing politics, and it got played back on 'em.

Read this, it's by Christopher Hitchens, an ex-Trotskyite, and certainly no Bush apologist or Republican.

http://www.slate.com/id/2145889/?nav=tap3

comment #13

Nicol D says ...

Y'know to all of those people who bash Bush with just saying 'Bush sucks' or 'Bush is stupid' or 'Bush is a bad prez', those are not arguments; those are rhetoric.

Similarly, saying Bush lied is also not an argument.

The act of a lie is not in saying something that is not true; it is in 'knowingly' saying something that is not true.

None of you can prove that. Bush's presidency has been obstructed by the worst terrorist attack in modern history.

History, and Bush's presidency are not as simple as the Dixie Chix crowd would have you believe.

comment #14

NYCBusybody says ...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CIA_LEAK_WOODWARD?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-08-22-06-22-13

Or how about this, which also indicates that Richard Armitage was the leak, and not Karl Rove or Dick Cheney?

Will your simple mind refuse to believe that I'm defending TRUTH, and not Rove or Cheney, whose politics and behavior I generally despise?

comment #15

NYCBusybody says ...

The ridiculous Whitewater "investigation" was a political, partisan attempt to attack the Clinton's with political game-playing. I believe that is wrong, on principle, and opposed it, especially when it turned up nothing.

The Plame-gate thing was simply Democrats doing it back. I oppose this on principle. You, pauly, seem to oppose it only when it happens to your "side".

comment #16

pauly says ...

Hitchens is one of the most pro-war writers you're going to find...not someone you could have good dialogue with, and not someone I read anymore.

comment #17

pauly says ...

Hitchens is one of the most pro-war writers you're going to find...not someone you could have good dialogue with, and not someone I read anymore.

comment #18

NYCBusybody says ...

Who's talking about the war? I disagree with Hitchens on the war, just like you do. Perhaps for different reasons than you do.

What you claimed was that Bush, Cheney, or Rove "outed" a CIA agent for political purpose and gain. Hitchen's article is a sober analysis of how that is not a true or proven claim, but mere conjecture and rhetoric.

So, because we both disagree with Hitchens on the Iraq War, we shouldn't ever read him? You're advocating selective reading, i.e. never reading something that doesn't parrot back to you your own beliefs? Never questioning authority?

comment #19

NYCBusybody says ...

And, by the way, Hitchens was pro-"Iraq War".

He was and always has been vehemently and passionately anti Vietnam War, and vehemently against several U.S. military incursions in Central America, as I am too.

Are you so simple as to think people can and should be "pro-war" or "anti-war"? Do you really see the world that black and white?

comment #20

sardine says ...

nichol is nuts.

comment #21

le corbeau says ...

Anybody know a nice political site where they mainly talk about MOVIES?

comment #22

NYCBusybody says ...

"Anybody know a nice political site where they mainly talk about MOVIES?"

I only talk about politics when it's a political post by Jeffrey. When it's a movie post, I don't.

comment #23

Movie fan09 says ...

good to know the old customer service works on this site.

also-love the bandage hand giving the finger to gw..very symbolic..like the statue of liberty or uncle sam giving the finger..

comment #24

pauly says ...

Well, first off, I can make an arguement without adding the personal insults NYC (simple mind?).
You brought up the point about dialogue (is that your idea of it?).

I think it's accurate to say that the current administration isn't interested in dialogue with those who oppose their views. Yesterdays NYTimes has a story about Bush saying that the Dems don't understand terrorism...not much room for dialogue there. If you don't agree with W's approach, you don't get it.

I like to hear both sides of an argurment, but I prefer jounalists like Russert who don't seem to take a side (unlike Hitchens or FoxNews types). I think the Iraq was a criminal misuse of the Prez's powers. If and when the Rebublicans lose control of congress, I think investigations of these issues is fully appropriate...is that simple enough for you?

I'm also not a left wing extremist. I prefer neither side having complete control of the White House, Senate, and House...it just leads to the embarrassing mess we're in right now.

comment #25

sardine says ...

Hey Nichol, have you seen Marie Antoinette. You are suffering the same fate as she.

comment #26

Nicol D says ...

You mean someone is about to cut off my head into a basket?

Egad! I better eat lunch early today!

comment #27

NYCBusybody says ...

"I think it's accurate to say that the current administration isn't interested in dialogue with those who oppose their views."

I couldn't agree more, pauly, and think this is a nearly-fatal flaw of the Bush Admin, and always has been. I think it stems from Karl Rove's cynical mastery of spin and secrecy. It wins elections, but it avoids true, principled dialogue.

comment #28

Josh Massey says ...

"They impeached Clinton for lying about a bj..."

If you keep saying that enough times, maybe it'll become true.

comment #29

sardine says ...

Yes, Nichol D....your lunch will be v. "complex."

comment #30

Nicol D says ...

In his first term, Bush went out of his way to meet the Dems half-way, even getting Ted Kennedy involved on an education bill. There were many other instances. Sadly it is quite the opposite. As even Hillary Clinton has said recently, the Dems keep coming up with new wedge issues to which there is no compromise.

How can you compromise with people who:

1)think we deserved 9/11
2)want to redefine marriage
3)hold Roe as the sacrement of the land
4)take Michael Moore as truth
5)who want all traces of religion gone from our culture
6)think Joe Leiberman is extremist

Once the left embraced cultural Marxism it erased in itself any capacity for rational thought. Culturally, the New Left of the 60's is at its stars end.

I do not blsame Bush for this. Quite the opposite; culturally the West has been in a hard leftward tilt since the late 50's and are at the extremist end. I am not a relativist.

It is the left that are at the extreme in our culture, not the right or the center. The left have just succeeded in moving the center further and further left for four decades and now people are fighting back.

comment #31

NYCBusybody says ...

Clinton lied under oath about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. This is a fact. I think it was ridiculous, Josh Massey, that he was even asked about this under oath, but so be it.

To think this is an IMPEACHABLE offense is preposterous, and was a deliberately partisan and political attempt to remove a President that the majority of Republicans disagreed with. To think Clinton is a classless swine, fine. To disagree with his politics vehemently, fine. But to USE that to IMPEACH is antithetical to everything the U.S. Constitution was meant to stand for, and will continue to serve as a dark stain on the Republican Party, and deservedly so.

comment #32

NYCBusybody says ...

And yes, Nicol, I fully agree that the left generally uses rhetoric that they don't follow or live up to themselves. They paint anyone who disagrees with them in broad, insulting stereotypes, and doesn't even see how the Reagan/Christian movement was a deliberate resistance to the heavyhanded, self-righteous, often despicable tactics used by the far-left, through the apparatus of the Democratic Party, from the late 60's through the 70's.

The blind leading the blind...

comment #33

L.B. says ...

Okay, Nicol. I have a list, too.

How can you compromise with people who:

1. believe that torture is a required sacrament
2. want to banish all religions that deviate from the Judeo-Christian tradition
3. believe that habeus corpus is a quaint thing of the past
4. will let children starve in order to pad their savings accounts
5. hold that cheap gas is worth the compromise of our most basic national security
6. take Ann Coulter as truth

I'm being sarcastic. I don't believe that all Republicans think these things.

I can only shake my head and laugh thinking that you honestly believe all Democrats hold to everything on your list. How ridiculous.

comment #34

NYCBusybody says ...

Yes, LB, I agree with the gist of your post, but I think Nicol was being a bit purposefully exaggerated and sarcastic too.

I doubt he thinks all Democratic voters believe those things. The problem is, a small but disproporionately loud group do.

comment #35

Nicol D says ...

The difference between the two lists is this:

Of course there are extremists on both sides; with a large number on both sides who are not extremists.

But to cut to the chase; when people on the left call Bush and Republicans Nazi's...I do not know of any Republicans that actually have a copy of Mein Kampf and use it as a guide for their daily life.

When Conservatives call Democrats cultural Marxists' well, show me a university where the students are not given a copy of Karl Marx's writings to form the basis of their philosophical thought.

The extremists on the right who want to banish all but Judeo-Christian religion are the Fred Phelps types who are acknowledged as extremists by the right.

The extremists on the left who want to eradicate Christianity are condidered mainstream among the left such as; the ACLU, unversity professors, lawyers etc.

That is the difference. You will have to look long and hard to find someone on the right who actually says torture is a sacrament.

If I want to find someone on the left who says abortion is a sacrament I just have to pop on down to my local 7/11 and buy the new issue of MS. magazine or read Maureen Dowd.

Not everyone who calls themself a Democrat is an extremist; but the extremists on the left drive the show.

comment #36

L.B. says ...

I'll agree with you on the "Nazi" bit. That particular epithet has been overused to the point of uselessness. Like when Clinton was called a rapist. (That was back when it was okay to humiliate a sitting President in front of the rest of the world.)

You've used it several times in posts past, but I honestly have to say I attended three universities. I was never given Karl Marx to formulate my philosophical thought. Never. Yeah, I was exposed to his writings (actually that happened as far back as high school) just as I was writers and thinkers who had altered the world in some way. But I was never forced to accept or assimilate these particular teachings. I'm not trying to argue. I'm just saying this is a point you use a great deal, here and in other forums and I really can't see it in my personal life or in the lives of a lot of people I know. Which basically means it's not a hard and fast rule. To treat it as such is the behavior of an extremist.

I was really being sarcastic when I said people think torture is a sacrament. Unfortunately, you don't have to look long and hard to find people in power (not just among their supporters) who think that torture is a necessary tool, even though it betrays just about every principle the country was founded on, not to mention Judeo-Christian principles. That's the sad part of that.

I think your "abortion as sacrament" argument is equally faulty, though. Yes there are those that would believe that. There are also those that think it's the result of the goverment not having the right to tell a woman what she has to do with her body. Some actually see it as a matter of freedom. Sorry. I know you disagree. But you couch your argument that makes it sound like every Democrat bathes in fetal blood. It's not like that. Sorry.

comment #37

NYCBusybody says ...

LB,

I think that was a very thoughtful post, and I agree with your general view about "people like me and people I know" not being driven by Marxist ideology.

The only problem, though, is that far more people on the politically active left than I think you're willing to admit DO have their views on Iraq, war in general, and all other issues informed by an extremist philosophy like Marxism. This is no different...NO different...from basing your political beliefs ONLY on Fundamentalist Christianity.

I attended a West Coast protest of the Iraq war in early 2003. I opposed the war because I thought it was based on a mistaken neo-Conservative view that American democracy could be hegemonically and militarily projected, and I still very much feel this way.

That wasn't the tone of the protest. It was a bunch of Marxists who KNEW that Bush was on a "Crusade", KNEW that it was about "Blood for Oil" (when ALL evidence points to the U.N.'s Kofi Annan and the government of France being large beneficiaries of Saddam-era Iraqi oil money). As a swing voter, this is the image I got of the people who in basic principle, I agreed with. This is a problem for the Democratic Party.

comment #38

L.B. says ...

I definitely agree with you on the extremes, NYC. I was at a protest in 2004 against the war and noticed much the same thing. But, again, I think allowing yourself to paint any side because of the color of its extremities is a problem. And I don't mean to imply that just because I wasn't indocrinated in any way and because people I know weren't that NO ONE is. I was attacking the opposite logical flaw: that my experience shows that not ALL are indocrinated, as Nicol states time and time again.

Overall, I would love to see more nuanced political debate. I'm sick that our discourse has been reduced to sound bites. Every argument gets reduced to:

"You're with us or against us!"

"This is blood for oil!"

"See? They hate America!"

"You're a Nazi!"

"You eat babies!"

Blah, blah, motherfucking blah. It's old and it's not helping.

(Which is not to say that I can't appreciate the simplicity of a picture of televised Bush getting the bird. But Jeff aint exactly running for office.)

comment #39

NYCBusybody says ...

"Blah, blah, motherfucking blah. It's old and it's not helping."

My sentiments exactly; succinctly and well-expressed, my good man.

Although I disagree with you on Jeff's finger thing; I see it as a visual soundbyte, and not really helping anything either.

And for this reason, I think Jeff is a pinko-Commie-America hater.

comment #40

Nicol D says ...

Just to be very clear, I do not argue that all Democrats are Marxist.

I argue that those individuals who are guiding the Democratic/liberal philosophy are.

I know many people who are atheist who put up Christmas trees; whether they like it or not, they are partaking in a Judeo-Christian tradition.

You may not have a copy of the Marxist-communist reader, but those people who are influencing policy on the left do agree with cultural Marxism.

When in university were you given the writings of Bell Hooks, Naomi Klein, Catherine Mackinnon, Michel Foucault etc?

Do you consider yourself a moderate but agree with same-sex-marriage, which has its roots in Marxist-Feminist philosophy of gender 'equality'?

This is what I am saying; you might not openly identify as Marxist but if you give in to the mainstream of New Left thought, you are giving into that philosophy whether you like it or not.

Why do you think the left developed such an aversion to Christianity? Atheism is the root of Marxism.

Why do you think they are obsessed with South American and Latin American culture? Marxism still reigns there.

Why do you think they avoid topics such as Stalin and Mao? It shows the failure of communism and Marxism.

Every ideology has a driving intellectual force or philosophy behind it; sadly once the New Left embraced cultural Marxism/political correctness it became irrational.

There is a reason they are obsessed with 'corporations' and 'equality'. There is a reason why you get more films with Che as a hero. Why they seek to censor language and have more and more in control of the state.

The left is now in its extremes and that is what has given rise to the right. It is also why so many people who disagree with Bush will still vote for him other than the left.

That is what the left could not fathom. How could a president with whom so many disagree still win? Because the totalitarian neo-Marxist alternative option was unconscionable.

comment #41

D.Z. says ...

NYC: "Contrast Bill Clinton's excellent recent NY Times editorial on what bipartisan rejection of hyper-partisan nonsense can achieve with Wells' childish yet unfortunately representative gesture/attitude of the American left today (ideas? we don't need no stinkin' ideas, let's just throw up a nihilistic middle finger)."

Yes, Bill "Don't really do anything about health care in spite of my campaign promise, selling jobs to Mexico while opening trade relations with China and cutting welfare benefits while increasing military spending for nuclear weapons and thus violating SALT treaties as well as ignoring Kyoto and denying gays the rights to marry" Clinton is really an example of "bipartisanship", and not just a sell-out Democrat like Lieberman...

"You don't think this is the message of Ned Lamont and the rabid far-left blogs that support him?"

No, because he won't jail Republican protestors or wiretap their phones.

"You don't think this is the message of Al Sharpton and Spike Lee, who fervently believe that the levee in New Orleans was blown up by the government?"

It wasn't?

"Pauly, do you REALLY believe that the only people with the "you're either with us or against us" attitude are "conservative Republicans", or that this attitude STARTED with George W. Bush?"

Actually, it started with Eisenhower.

"Narrow-minded people of any mentality ALWAYS have this attitude, and I'm attacking it on both sides."

Sure you are, NYC.

"And I find it counter-productive for the "left" to adopt the attitude as well. It's about principle, not politics."

If you cared about principle, you wouldn't be defending extreme versions of the same policies we've experienced under the Dems for the last 14 years.

"And if a Democratic Congress even thinks about impeaching Bush, his approval ratings will substantially increase, as they did for Clinton."

Not really, since polls indicate that Americans are for the impeachment of Bush. This isn't about his personal life, but about starting an illegal war. (Not to mention rigging two elections...)

"Playing political games turns off swing voters like myself, and always will."

Why the hell would I care what people who vote for the likes of Jesse Ventura and Pat Buchanan think?

"The "secret CIA agent's" husband was and is a Democratic Party operative."

Um, he was assigned to Niger by Cheney.

"They were playing politics, and it got played back on 'em."

So the Dems who didn't like Nixon breaking into a hotel to spy on them were also playing politics?

"Read this, it's by Christopher Hitchens, an ex-Trotskyite, and certainly no Bush apologist or Republican."

Since when?

"Or how about this, which also indicates that Richard Armitage was the leak, and not Karl Rove or Dick Cheney?"

He was probably sent by Karl and/or Dick.

"The ridiculous Whitewater "investigation" was a political, partisan attempt to attack the Clinton's with political game-playing. I believe that is wrong, on principle, and opposed it, especially when it turned up nothing."

Sure you did.

"The Plame-gate thing was simply Democrats doing it back. "

The Plame-gate thing is about protecting national security.

"He was and always has been vehemently and passionately anti Vietnam War, and vehemently against several U.S. military incursions in Central America, as I am too."

So he's a hypocrite like the rest of you "Dems". What's your point?

"Are you so simple as to think people can and should be "pro-war" or "anti-war"? Do you really see the world that black and white?"

From http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/17/144732/740
: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"They paint anyone who disagrees with them in broad, insulting stereotypes, and doesn't even see how the Reagan/Christian movement was a deliberate resistance to the heavyhanded, self-righteous, often despicable tactics used by the far-left, through the apparatus of the Democratic Party, from the late 60's through the 70's."

What? You mean like school busing and energy independence?

"The only problem, though, is that far more people on the politically active left than I think you're willing to admit DO have their views on Iraq, war in general, and all other issues informed by an extremist philosophy like Marxism. This is no different...NO different...from basing your political beliefs ONLY on Fundamentalist Christianity."

Actually it is different, since the Marxists have principles.

"KNEW that it was about "Blood for Oil" (when ALL evidence points to the U.N.'s Kofi Annan and the government of France being large beneficiaries of Saddam-era Iraqi oil money)."

At least Kofi didn't kill and the French didn't kill anyone for the oil.

Nicol: "He says he wanted peace in the middle east but did nothing to get it."

Well it's not his fault Republicans used the CIA to send one of their psychos after Rabin...

"He says he wants a cure for AIDS but his 'greatest' accomplishment is now, a decade after Lewinsky, a generation of children think oral and anal sex is not sex at all and has no risk."

He did fund AIDS research though.

"He says he respects women but treats them like recepticles."

At least he doesn't deny them birth control.

"He says he was the first 'black' president but his Democrats never had the roster of powerful blacks that Bush's, Republicans do."

Token black politicians do not equal the black vote.

"He says he wanted a strong America but did nothing to capture Bin Laden when he had the chance."

He did get Tim McVeigh and warned Bush about Bin Laden.

"Similarly, saying Bush lied is also not an argument."

From http://www.crooksandliars.com/: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were …

QUESTION: What did Iraqi have to do with that?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. . . . .

"The act of a lie is not in saying something that is not true; it is in 'knowingly' saying something that is not true."

And you're saying they didn't know it wouldn't be a "cakewalk"? Anyway, if he didn't know it wasn't true, then why does he continue fighting the war?

"In his first term, Bush went out of his way to meet the Dems half-way, even getting Ted Kennedy involved on an education bill."

Which obviously left our children behind.

"How can you compromise with people who:
1)think we deserved 9/11"

I think I have a better chance of compromising with them than people who believe that 9/11 was Clinton's fault.

"2)want to redefine marriage"

Yes, because they've already ruined it by letting blacks and whites marry...

"3)hold Roe as the sacrement of the land"

It's better than people who hold back-alley abortions as the sacrement of the land.

"4)take Michael Moore as truth"

At least he did his research.

"5)who want all traces of religion gone from our culture"

Well we don't even have a culture.

"6)think Joe Leiberman is extremist"

He's been to the far right on most issues.

"Once the left embraced cultural Marxism it erased in itself any capacity for rational thought."

You mean like less nukes, more integration, and more rights for women?

"Quite the opposite; culturally the West has been in a hard leftward tilt since the late 50's and are at the extremist end."

So demanding that people who are democratically elected not be assassinated is "extremist"?

"I do not know of any Republicans that actually have a copy of Mein Kampf and use it as a guide for their daily life."

George Allen and Trent Lott come to mind...

"When Conservatives call Democrats cultural Marxists' well, show me a university where the students are not given a copy of Karl Marx's writings to form the basis of their philosophical thought."

Apparently, Yale, if Bush attended.

"The extremists on the left who want to eradicate Christianity are condidered mainstream among the left such as; the ACLU, unversity professors, lawyers etc."

They don't want to eradicate Christianity, just not leave other people out.

comment #42

NYCBusybody says ...

Shit, D.Z. came into the conversation, time to pack up and move on!

Beautifully said, your last post, by the way, Nicol.

comment #43

travis b says ...

first of all, nicol, i believe that agreeing with same sex marriage has more to do with the idea of the principle of "life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness" not marxism, which, if i recall was pretty harsh on homosexuality within the soviet union. if anything, the republican hard on for eliminating gay rights is much more on par with that ideology.

this theory of cultural marxism that you've presented several times, is used by those who i have found to be ignorant and completley uninterested in logical thought. i'm an atheist, so i'm a marxist? i believe that people have free speech, but if they say something racist or sexist and i call them out on that, i'm a marxist? i believe in equality for all and that includes homosexuals, but i'm a marxist? i'm interested in learning about other cultures and economic models, so i'm a marxist? please. all of that is just nonsense. we live in a culture of freedom, am i correct? so why should i be labelled a dirty term such as "marxist" if i read a book on Che? you act as if there is absolutely no option for your beliefs and i find that hard to swallow.

onto other things...

i think the reason that a president, who so many disagree with, won the election has more to do with the fact that the democrats are a complete and utter mess, than to do with marxism.

this is a tough time (for me at least) as a voter. i absolutely cannot buy what the republicans are selling right now. but the democrats are so reactionary in their ideas and so utterly braindead when it comes to coming up with something new that it pains me to even think about voting for them.

comment #44

Josh Massey says ...

NYC: Yes, Clinton "lied about a BJ," but that doesn't begin to describe what actually happened. He was impeached because he committed perjury to deliberately thwart another person's civil rights. He obstructed justice, and lied under oath. And they absolutely had the right to ask him those questions, as his lies came in a sworn deposition brought about by another woman - the questions were very relevant to the case.

Look, I'm not a Bush supporter, but I get tired of the simplistic "he just lied about a BJ" stuff.

comment #45

J. Huff says ...

All I know is that the last time I flipped somebody off was in 9th grade. Not exactly a symbol of intelligence and wit there, Jeff, though it appears it did make for an interesting if bloated conversation starter.

comment #46

sardine says ...

NYC BUSYBODY has nothing to do and all day to do it in.....why don't you go out and play?

comment #47

NYCBusybody says ...

My Corporate masters won't let me!

comment #48

sardine says ...

poor baby. you are a loser like bush!

comment #49

D.Z. says ...

Josh: "He was impeached because he committed perjury to deliberately thwart another person's civil rights."

Um, the last thing Republicans care about is civil rights. If they did, they wouldn't try to water down the bill so it couldn't actually be enforced.

"He obstructed justice, "

What justice? All he was investigated for was something which happened when he was governor, not President, and which was proven to be legal.

"and lied under oath."

And Republicans want people to be tortured into lying under oath.

"And they absolutely had the right to ask him those questions, as his lies came in a sworn deposition brought about by another woman -"

A deposition which had nothing to do with his conduct as President, but as governor.

J. Huff: "All I know is that the last time I flipped somebody off was in 9th grade. Not exactly a symbol of intelligence and wit there, Jeff,"

*sigh* http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvideos/v/bushflipbird.htm

comment #50

J. Huff says ...

So, Jeff and Bush are equals in the intelligence and wit department...seems about right. :)

comment #51

SpinDozer says ...

"And if a Democratic Congress even thinks about impeaching Bush, his approval ratings will substantially increase, as they did for Clinton. Playing political games turns off swing voters like myself, and always will."

"A Democtatic win in the congress in the fall will most likely guarantee a Republican president in 08.

Especially if the impeachment begins."

Even by your abysmally low standards, you can't think this is true. A substantial number of Americans want Bush impeached if it can be proven that he lied about Iraq and/or wiretapped without approval (some polls even show a majority feel this way) even before an investigation.

To call the allegations leveled at Bush 'political games' or to compare them to Monica-gate would tend to indicate there's not much swing in your vote. Others have observed that the Impeachments which have occured in the last 50 years have been in the teeth of fierce public opposition; clearly this is not the case with Bush.

comment #52

Nate West says ...

"Nicol: Bush's presidency has been obstructed by the worst terrorist attack in modern history."

On the contrary--the very foundation of Bush's presidency has been the 9/11 terrorist attack. That's all there is.

comment #53

nemo says ...

The puffy bear claw of righteousness!

"Bush's presidency has been obstructed by the worst terrorist attack in modern history."

Are you kidding? 9/11 is the luckiest thing that ever happened to George Bush. He would have been out on his ass in 2004 easily if he didn't have a boogey man to scare everyone with.

His entire administration's message is built on fear, fear, and more fear. He doesn't ever want the war on terror to end.

comment #54

D.Z. says ...

nemo: "9/11 is the luckiest thing that ever happened to George Bush. He would have been out on his ass in 2004 easily if he didn't have a boogey man to scare everyone with."

That's probably why he deliberately ignored the warnings.

comment #55

L.B. says ...

It's fairly well know they were itching for a fight with Saddam even before they took office. I was reading about that a month before Inauguration. 9-11 handed them an opportunity to do so. (And before anyone turns that into a statement in support of the "9-11 truth movement", it's not. I'm willing to believe that the Admin figured that an attack might happen and if it did they could use it to their advantage. I seriously doubt they thought it would be one of such magnitude. But still, they used it to their advantage.)

So, yeah, 9-11 was a gift to the overall goals of the Admin. It held them back not a bit and bought them an extra four years in office, which was seriously in doubt before the attacks.