Girlie-Men & Commies
More pinkos
Brad DeLong
Philosoraptor
Emerging Democratic Majority
The Poor Man
Pandagon
Talk Left
Angry Bear
Centrist Coalition
Staunch Moderate
Georgia bloggers
Bejus Pundit
Paul McCord
Jim Flowers
Spare Change
The Dax Files
Days Limit
Dizzy Girl
Single Southern Guy
TechLinks
Red State Liberal
Latest Comments
RW: Yes, it's goodAndrew| BB: Good post. CertainlyBaseball Crank: POLITICS: DailyBaseball Crank: POLITICS: DailySlartibartfast: Excuse my ignorance,RW: Yes, there wereRW: As well asW: Wishful thinking?
You've sampledAccidental Verbosity: Almost
Yeah, me too.Accidental Verbosity: [...] ="http://www.pmachine.com/">
RW: That's BUSH SUPPORTER,Jay G: Heh heh.
Yeah, theyWarHawk: Notice the jetsRW: Ah, go aheadJay G: You probably wouldkelley: Aww, thanks, man.Rick DeMent: In Clinton’sSlartibartfast: In Clinton's defense,Bruce: Damon as SERIESJay G: "Operation Desert Fox
Testimonials
- "...so funny..."
- "Don't make the mistake of treating RW like a GOP shill."- Jane Finch
"Bush apologist" - Skeejin
"one of the best Conservative blogs on the web" - Ezra Klein
"unprincipled.....jackass" - JP
"Approved Rightwing Blogger" - Matthew Yglesias
"neo-confederate Racist" - Mac Diva
"Anyone who calls you anti-gay or racist either doesn’t have a sense of humor, or is COMPLETELY misreading what you write."- Michael Demmons
"partisan shill" - commenter
"Liberal Christian" - Peiter Friedrich
"As somebody who actually kinda likes Ricky, but who almost never agrees with him..." - rea
"I have to jump on the "Liberals for Ricky" bandwagon." - Daryl McCullough
Blogroll me, baybee!
Contact: ngdogma at rjwest dot com
Yahoo IM: rjwest21_ga
Archives
Archives:
Other:
|
3/11/2003 With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 11:43 pm Edit This
- You might be considered anti-Bush more than anti-war if one of your excuses not to act is that Saddam Hussein hasn’t gassed his own people LATELY.
- You might be considered anti-Bush more than anti-war if you consider Jeaneane Garafolo a deep thinker.
- You might be considered anti-Bush more than anti-war if you realize that you’re siding with the French more than your own countrymen.
- You might be considered anti-Bush more than anti-war if you hear a quote and say to yourself "hey, that’s right, why don’t the press ask Bush that question?" and look up to see that the quote was made by Tariq Azziz.
- You might be considered anti-Bush more than anti-war if you start off your anti-war stance by admitting that Hussein is a "bad man", then decry the potential MURDERS of civilians by the Bush administration.
- You might be considered anti-Bush more than anti-war if you utter the phrase "war for oil" without considering that we could get all the oil we want with a few phone calls asking for the suspension of all sanctions.
- You might be considered anti-Bush more than anti-war if you’ve used the word "Scaife" as a debating point more than twice in the last week, when the arguments pertain to war.
FYI
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 8:08 pm Edit This
I’ve got some family/friends currently serving in the military & we just had someone from work ship out last week. One distant family member was slated to come home on leave (after several months in the middle-east) this week, but he notified his mother that he was (1) not coming home and had no date for his next leave; (2) no one else was getting leave; (3) he would no longer be contacting them via phone/e-mail for the immediate future so don’t worry if he didn’t call or e-mail her; (4) he couldn’t tell her why all this was happening.
Get your arguments over the “why” in while the gettin’s good…..it’s about to go down.
I’ve said we should be raining bombs since Clinton started in ‘98 (and I supported him 100% on that) and have been ambivalent about ground troops. However, my country comes first and while I don’t trust any politician any further than I can throw them, just like in ‘98 I feel that this is my President and the administration gets the benefit of the doubt unless I see something different (in such case, the administration should be given the boot). With that in mind…..GAME ON.
Interesting site
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 7:24 pm Edit This
Finally, it must be said that many on the left theorize that GOP poobahs secretly want to bring about deficits (via tax cuts) because of the constraining effect such borrowing has on the growth of government. I
hope it’s true. Given the choice between increased taxes (which have a propensity to enable government expansion) and increased federal borrowing (which does the opposite), I’ll take the latter every time. Of course, cutting
spending should also be a choice, but in a country whose middle and upper classes have grown comfortable with and attached to government largesse, that’s not politically feasible. Especially during a war. |
PB Almeida on line. Interesting stuff.
Peter, let me know if you need some MT hints….hopefully, I’d be of more use to you than I was with Dr. Weevil.
The nail in the coffin
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 1:35 pm Edit This
I haven’t followed this issue at all, but when the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (it’s generally to the left of the NYT for folks outside of the area)
says that Charles Pickering was right & illustrated that the criticism about him is nothing but politics, you know the jig is up:
But a review of the case by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, part of the newspaper’s broad look at Pickering’s record on the bench, finds that the judge
apparently acted out of a concern for fairness. Two cross-burning co-defendants, including the purported ringleader, had received far lighter sentences than Swan, and Pickering saw that as unjust.Prosecutors would have no reason
to sympathize with the judge, as it was the stiff sentence they sought that the judge was attacking. Yet an internal Justice Department account of a closed-door meeting held by Pickering shows the judge deeply troubled by the
sentencing disparity.
At the same time, the Justice Department memo, written by a lawyer in the case, lends at least some support to the charges of Pickering’s opponents. It depicts the judge worrying about how a harsh sentence on Swan
would play in the community—presumably the white community—a factor that should be irrelevant to the pursuit of justice. |
This is the same paper (the Constitution) that endorsed Cynthia McKinney for congress 5 times (5 times, 5 times, 5times, 5times – in my Booker T moment).
Depends on the Clintonian definition of “silence", eh?
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 6:31 am Edit This
Jim C. sez:
Has anyone else noticed the eerie but gratifying silence that has greeted news of the impending publication of Ann Coulter’s latest scribblings, to be peddled by Crown Publishers under the title, Treason:
Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism?
It’s a tough world out there, Ann. Live by the faked footnote, die by the faked footnote. |
Well, I personally haven’t purchased or read any Coulter books, but she serves her purpose as right-wing bomb thrower well, IMO. And as a bomb thrower, her litany of stupid quotes grows daily…however, it’s sometimes fun to
see her put the lefty bomb throwers in their places.
That being said, it must just be Jim & not too many other people, since Coulter’s book is ranked #1,796 on Amazon.
Not too good, you say? Well, maybe not, unless you consider that the book won’t be released until June. By contrast, lefty poster boy Eric Alterman ("Make What Liberal Media #1 – Tapped 2/6/03") is currently sitting at
#173 – and Alterman is currently on a book tour and folks like Tom Paine, Tapped and a host of blogs have practically (and literally)
begged people to purchase the book.
Must be more Scaife conspiracy work. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/aaaed/aaaedc5c29ee088d64bab87247783f201837a3db" alt=":)"
|
Digital Brownshirts
Somewhere out there
Stuff
Public Debt
Drudge
Best of the Web
FrontPage Mag
MRC
NewsMax
FAIR
Real Clear Politics
Ann Coulter
Krugman Truth Squad
blogs4God
Hugh Hewitt
Powered by WordPress
|