For GOP only

[HuskyCaucasian]

Caption this Photo:

[kapkomet]

Plop plop fizz fizz, oh what a relief it is...

 

 

[Texsox]

Caption this Photo:

 

He has one finger in my ear and the other in my . . .

[retro1983hat]

Prostate checks are fun!

[YASNY]

I can't believe you fell for the old 'pull my finger' trick.

[Controlled Chaos]

If he gets elected..IMO we're f***ed.

 

Obama's Wiretap Votes

February 13, 2008; Page A26

Now and then sanity prevails, even in Washington. So it did yesterday as the Senate passed a warrantless wiretap bill for overseas terrorists while killing most of the Lilliputian attempts to tie down our war fighters.

 

"We lost every single battle we had on this bill," conceded Chris Dodd, which ought to tell the Connecticut Senator something about the logic of what he was proposing. His own amendment -- to deny immunity from lawsuits to telecom companies that cooperated with the government after 9/11 -- didn't even get a third of the Senate. It lost 67-31, though notably among the 31 was possible Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama. (Hillary Clinton was absent, while John McCain voted in favor.)

 

 

It says something about his national security world view, or his callowness, that Mr. Obama would vote to punish private companies that even the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee said had "acted in good faith." Had Senator Obama prevailed, a President Obama might well have been told "no way" when he asked private Americans to help his Administration fight terrorists. Mr. Obama also voted against the overall bill, putting him in MoveOn.org territory.

 

The defeat of these antiwar amendments means the legislation now moves to the House in a strong position. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in the Dodd-Obama camp, but 21 Blue Dog Democrats have sent her a letter saying they are happy with the Senate bill. She may try to pass the restrictions that failed in the Senate, and Republicans should tell her to make their day. This is a fight Senator McCain should want to have right up through Election Day, with Democrats having to explain why they want to hamstring the best weapon -- real-time surveillance -- we have against al Qaeda.

 

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Caption this photo:

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Caption this photo:

 

HEY! He stole the conservative base from me! NOT FAIR!

[mr_genius]

Caption this photo:

 

 

in response to the "Who gave the David Duke supporters a ticket to this debate?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cheap shot, i admit it.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Caption this photo:

 

EEWWWWW!!! He ate squirrel!!!

[EvilMonkey]

Caption this photo:

 

HE farted, NOT ME!

[EvilMonkey]

Anyone find it amusing that the trial lawyers who are trying to prosecute the phone companies for helping the government are some of the biggest contributors to the Democrats? And I don't mean trial lawyers in a generic sense, I mean that 66 lawyers trying to sue has donated over 1.5 million to 44 Dems!

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaC...ial_lawyer_cash

I thought they stood for 'change'?

[WilliamTell]

Caption this photo:

 

 

I'm licking my chops because I think I see some young single Mormon girls to add as wives.

 

 

No offense to any Mormons out there.

[Controlled Chaos]

Anyone find it amusing that the trial lawyers who are trying to prosecute the phone companies for helping the government are some of the biggest contributors to the Democrats? And I don't mean trial lawyers in a generic sense, I mean that 66 lawyers trying to sue has donated over 1.5 million to 44 Dems!

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaC...ial_lawyer_cash

I thought they stood for 'change'?

I'm sick to my mutherf***ing stomach that there's a chance that the next President of this country does not intend to do everything in his power to keep us safe. Terrorists don't just come up and tell you when they're going to attack.

[kapkomet]

I'm sick to my mutherf***ing stomach that there's a chance that the next President of this country does not intend to do everything in his power to keep us safe. Terrorists don't just come up and tell you when they're going to attack.

Pretty much, and this to me is pretty black and white. I know the libs out there will scream CIVIL LIBERTIES all day long, but this is not about that, and way deep down, they know it, but it doesn't help their "cause" of making the EVIL Republican agenda spin the world around.

[Cknolls]

Anyone read the story about Obama advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski travelling to Syria to meet with Assad........ Of course not, because the unbiased media has more important issues to cover. His daughter is on MSNBC every morning with Scarborough..I am sure the lack of coverage was an oversight.

 

 

He meets with a leader of a terrorist supporting gov't. a day after one of the most wanted terrorists is blown to bitsy(NICE!!!) by a car bomb.

 

 

Also one of Hillary's national finance chairmen left Damascus last night after a visit with the same delegation fron RAND Corp.

 

[southsideirish71]

WWTDD on Michael Moore.

[mr_genius]

WWTDD on Michael Moore.

 

wow, it looks like he is actually gaining more weight. if he's not careful he could end up on one of those "Super Fat People" Maury Povich episodes. the ones where the obese person has to be lifted with a crane out of their house and transported to the show via flatbed truck.

Edited February 19, 2008 by mr_genius

[Controlled Chaos]

I'm just relieved Michelle Obama is finally proud of her country now.

 

 

Michelle Obama’s America–and mine

By Michelle Malkin • February 20, 2008 08:04 AM

 

Barack Obama–the guy who effectively mocked the Clintons for not saying what they mean–is now trying to spin his wife’s comments by explaining that she, uh, didn’t really mean what she said.

 

I give you your morning snort-starter:

 

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama sought Tuesday to clarify his wife’s statement that she is proud of the U.S. “for the first time in my adult life.” He said her newfound pride is about the political system and was not meant to disparage her country…”Statements like this are made and people try to take it out of context and make a great big deal out of it, and that isn’t at all what she meant,” Obama said. “What she meant was, this is the first time that she’s been proud of the politics of America,” he said. “Because she’s pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she’s not alone. But she has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she’s encouraged.”

 

Jim Hoft has the vid of Michelle Obama repeating the line twice. She meant what she said.

 

***

 

My column this week gives you two Michelles, two Americas. John Edwards was right after all!

 

Michelle Obama’s America—and mine

Michelle Malkin

Copyright Creators Syndicate 2008

 

Like Michelle Obama, I am a “woman of color.” Like Michelle Obama, I am a working mother of two young children. Like Michelle Obama, I am a member of the 13th Generation of Americans born since the founding of our great nation.

 

Unlike Michelle Obama, I can’t keep track of the number of times I’ve been proud—really proud—of my country since I was born and privileged to live in it.

 

At a speech in Milwaukee this week on behalf of her husband’s Democrat presidential campaign, Mrs. Obama remarked that “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

 

Mrs. Obama’s statement was met with warm applause from other Barack supporters who have apparently also been devoid of pride in their country for their adult lifetimes. Or maybe it was just a Pavlovian response to the word “change.” What a sad, empty, narcissistic, ungrateful, unthinking lot.

 

I’m just seven years younger than Mrs. Obama. We’ve grown up and lived in the same era. And yet, her self-absorbed attitude is completely foreign to me. What planet is she living on? Since when was now the only time the American people have ever been “hungry for change?” Michelle, ma belle, Barack is not the center of the universe. Newsflash: The Obamas did not invent “change” any more than Hillary invented “leadership” or John McCain invented “straight talk.”

 

We were both adults when the Berlin Wall fell, Michelle. That was earth-shattering change.

 

We’ve lived through two decades’ worth of peaceful, if contentious election cycles under the rule of law that have brought about “change” and upheaval both good and bad.

 

We were adults through several launches of the Space Shuttle, in case you were snoozing. [Ed. note: Speaking of which, welcome back, Atlantis!] And as adults, we’ve witnessed and benefited from dizzyingly rapid advances in technology, communications, science, and medicine pioneered by American entrepreneurs who yearned and succeeded to change the world. You want “change?” Go ask the patients whose lives have been improved and extended by American pharmaceutical companies who have flourished under the best economic system in the world.

 

If the fall of communism, American ingenuity, and a robust constitutional republic don’t do it for you, hon, then how about American heroism and sacrifice?

 

How about every Memorial Day? Every Veteran’s Day? Every Independence Day? Every Medal of Honor ceremony? Has she never attended a welcome home ceremony for the troops?

 

For me, there’s the thrill of the Blue Angels roaring over cloudless skies. And the somber awe felt amid the hallowed waters that surround the sunken U.S.S. Arizona at the Pearl Harbor memorial.

 

Every naturalization ceremony I’ve attended, where hundreds of new Americans have raised their hands to swear an oath of allegiance to this land of liberty, has been a moment of pride for me. So have the awesome displays of American compassion at home and around the world. When millions of Americans rallied to help the victims of the 2005 tsunami in southern Asia—including members of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group that sped from Hong Kong to assist survivors—my heart filled with pride. It did again when the citizens of Houston opened their arms to Hurricane Katrina victims and folks across the country rushed to their churches, Salvation Army, and Red Cross offices to volunteer.

 

How about American resilience? Does that not make you proud? Only a heart of stone could be unmoved by the strength, valor and determination displayed in New York and Washington and Shanksville, Pa., on September 11, 2001.

 

I believe it was Michael Kinsley who quipped that a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth. In this case, it’s what happens when an elite Democrat politician’s wife says what a significant portion of the party’s base really believes to be the truth: That America is more a source of shame than pride.

 

Michelle Obama has achieved enormous professional success, political influence, and personal acclaim in America. Ivy League-educated, she’s been lauded by Essence magazine as one of the 25 World’s Most Inspiring Women; by Vanity Fair as one of the “10 World’s Best Dressed People; and named one of “The Harvard 100″ top influencers. She has had an amazingly blessed life. But you wouldn’t know it from her campaign rhetoric and her griping over her and her husband’s student loans.

 

For years, we’ve heard liberals get offended at any challenge to their patriotism. And so they are again aggrieved and rising to explain away Mrs. Obama’s remarks.

 

Like Lady MacBeth*, Lady Michelle and her defenders protest too much.

 

***

 

Update: Yes, my English teachers are going to kill me. The Shakespeare reference is to Hamlet, not MacBeth!

Edited February 20, 2008 by Controlled Chaos

[southsider2k5]

When PC collides with PC, who wins?

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iZIt0Ww...aAQNgwD8UU86TG0

 

Neighbors Clash Over Trees, Solar Power

 

By TERENCE CHEA – 19 hours ago

 

SUNNYVALE, Calif. (AP) — In an environmental dispute seemingly scripted for eco-friendly California, a man asked prosecutors to file charges against his neighbors because their towering redwoods blocked sunlight to his backyard solar panels.

 

But the couple next door insisted they should not have to chop down the trees to accommodate Mark Vargas' energy demands because they planted the redwoods before he installed the solar panels in 2001.

 

Experts say such clashes could become more common as California promotes renewable energy and solar systems become more popular.

 

"Five or ten years ago, you wouldn't have seen this case because there weren't that many systems around," said Frank Schiavo, a retired environmental-studies professor at San Jose State University. "I can almost guarantee there are going to be more conflicts."

 

After more than six years of legal wrangling, a judge recently ordered Richard Treanor and his wife, Carolyn Bissett, to cut down two of their eight redwoods, citing an obscure state law that protects a homeowner's right to sunlight.

 

The couple does not plan to appeal the ruling because they can no longer afford the legal expenses, but they plan to lobby state lawmakers to change or scrap the law.

 

The Solar Shade Control Act means that homeowners can "suddenly become a criminal the day a tree grows big enough to shade a solar panel," Treanor said.

 

The case marks the first time a homeowner has been convicted of violating the law, which was enacted three decades ago, when few homeowners had solar systems.

 

The law requires homeowners to keep their trees or shrubs from shading more than 10 percent of a neighbor's solar panels between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., when the sun is strongest. Existing trees that cast shadows when the panels are installed are exempt, but new growth is subject to the law.

 

Residents can be fined up to $1,000 a day for violations, though the judge did not impose any fines against the Treanors.

 

Vargas says the law protects his $70,000 investment in solar power, and he believes it should be strengthened.

 

"I think it's unfair that a neighbor can take away this source of energy from another neighbor," he said.

 

Treanor, a retired engineer, said he and his wife are not against solar power, "but we think there's a rational way to implement it."

 

Solar power is growing rapidly in California, which is by far the nation's biggest generator of solar energy. In 2007, more than 30,000 California homes and businesses had rooftop solar panels, with the capacity to generate 400 megawatts of electricity.

 

That's as much as eight power plants, according to the nonprofit Environment California.

 

The boom is being fueled by the California Solar Initiative, which offers homeowners and businesses more than $3 billion in rebates over the next decade to install solar-electric systems.

 

Both sides say they want to do what's best for the environment.

 

Treanor and Bissett, who drive a hybrid Toyota Prius, argue that trees absorb carbon dioxide, cool the surrounding air and provide a habitat for wildlife.

 

Vargas, who recently bought a plug-in electric car, counters it would take two or three acres of trees to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as much as the solar panels that cover his roof and backyard trellis.

 

Bernadette Del Chiaro, clean energy advocate for Environment California, says the solar shade law might need to be revised to prevent similar disputes.

 

"We want to make sure we are protecting individuals who have invested a lot of money in solar power, which is an important resource for the state," she said. But lawmakers might want to "take a look at the policy and make sure it's written in a way that's fair to everybody."

[Texsox]

Anyone find it amusing that the trial lawyers who are trying to prosecute the phone companies for helping the government are some of the biggest contributors to the Democrats? And I don't mean trial lawyers in a generic sense, I mean that 66 lawyers trying to sue has donated over 1.5 million to 44 Dems!

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaC...ial_lawyer_cash

I thought they stood for 'change'?

That's what I love the most about Republican donors, they give money to candidates who they disagree with These lawyers should donate money to people that disagree with their views. Geez, for lawyers they are pretty dumb.

[Texsox]

Pretty much, and this to me is pretty black and white. I know the libs out there will scream CIVIL LIBERTIES all day long, but this is not about that, and way deep down, they know it, but it doesn't help their "cause" of making the EVIL Republican agenda spin the world around.

 

Suddenly you trust the government and want to bring it more into our lives. Hell, let's have them move in.

 

There is a balance between giving the government toal access to our private lives and keeping them totally out. Thankfully we have leaders on both sides keeping either agenda from taking over.

[EvilMonkey]

That's what I love the most about Republican donors, they give money to candidates who they disagree with These lawyers should donate money to people that disagree with their views. Geez, for lawyers they are pretty dumb.

Tex, you have it wrong. The people they gave the money to didn't agree with them UNTIL they got the money. But all joking aside, you along with a bunch of us on here are saddened by the influence of lobbyists over our politicians. This case is so transparent that they are trying to buy a favorable decision it just isn't funny.

[Cknolls]

 

 

1.) http://www.verumserum.com/index.php?s=moto...p;Submit=Search

 

 

2.) http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...1715527,00.html

 

 

WHAT MEDIA BIAS?

[Rex Kickass]

Or Time has a different editor on its website.

Or Time stopped changing wire copy headlines.