Mickey

Where is the "manifesto" in pointing out that Al Gore did a nce thing when in fact, he did. I'm not arguing for higher taxes, abortion rights or the environment. In fact, if he ever decided to run for President again it would be a race between how long it would take me to load a gun and blow my brains out and passing out from a seizure.

Was she arrested? I think the Bush girls were actually arrested for underage drinking or using a fake ID or something like that. I think that would make it a little harder for the press to keep quiet about it given that it would be a public record, a published police blotter reference and even court appearances which are also public. How would the press deal with that? Would they delete their names from the blotter while at the same time publishing the names of others in the same boat but who are not Presidential off-spring? I can't say I have followed the Bush twins much so I'm going on vague recollections here. Ditto Chelsea. Here it is: Bush Twins Arrested in Austin One was drinking underage and the other was using someone elses ID to buy alcohol. It was Jenna's second conviction for an alcohol violation so all told you have three "arrests" (probably just citations?) between the two of them.

I'd like to ascribe the best motivations to his actions in this regard but, ya know, reality and all.... How can you invite people back unless you pretty much have the primary infrastructure of a major city running? Is there a 911 system functioning? Are the fire departments recovered enough to handle a bad blaze? Can an ambulance get to where it needs to go? Are there enough hospital beds and functioning equipment to handle what needs to be handled? I don't really know what the status of the city is but it seems to me that they ought to err on the side of caution here.

It is an intelligently designed hurricane. Seriously, I hope that thing somehow degrades into a lesser storm.

If it involves bell bottoms, I'm out.

Lets see, let me try a little experiment. One thing I'll say about George Bush, he means well and occasionally has done some really nice things for people. At heart, he is a good man. Lets see how many liberals accuse me of giving Bush a public blow job or see this post as an invitation to list every bad thing he has ever done since his cheerleading days at Yale.

Umm....I'm not sure where you are going here. I don't have a Gore philosophy. What I did was report a very nice thing he did in helping to rescue 270 hospital patients and staff. I made no claim to anything beyond that. I did anticipate that some would not be able to resist adding to the thread whatever rehashed complaints, petty or substantive, they have about him. I have said nothing, express or implied, about how he would have handled Katrina. I don't see why even the most muted praise for an act so clearly worthy of praise, has to be met with a blistering attack, accusations of a public blow job, a referendum on the entire life of Al Gore complete with an analysis of 8 year old tax records and on and on. You tell me, bib, what would have been the way to go here to avoid all the nastiness throw into this thread? Should I just have not posted a topical piece on the hurricane showing Al Gore's kindness in this situation or should I only have done so if I added "...however, it must be remembered that Al Gore blah [insert bad Al Gore thingy here], blah, blah [insert another bad Al Gore thingy here] blah, blah, blah, blah [insert another and another and another and another and another bad Al Gore thing here]...ad infinitum"? You see, if you dare to compliment a democrat here, you...must.....be.....destroyed. You know, either a democrat has never in the history of this board ever done anything even remotely praise worthy or maybe, just maybe, the right wing cliff hangers here lost their objectivity as far back as when they developed their intelligently designed vestigial tails.

Yeah, so the President can cut the pork of the opposition. Presidents are just as hungry for ham as your average senator.

I take it that "commend him for his efforts" isn't good enough Mr. Semantics?

Lets see, I said "Al Gore is a good man" and what you heard was "...blind following of the liberal politicos, forever coddling and cajoling, ignoring the disgusting transgretions [sic]......" blah, blah, blah. Okay, if you really think a nod to Al Gore for helping to rescue 270 hospital patients and staff justifies the characterization of a virtual public blow job you keep giving it, fine, there is no reason to discuss this any further. I think "Al Gore is a good man" was a decent and warranted nod to an act of kindness in the middle of a disaster, to you it was a justified opportunity to spit out a bunch of insults at both me and Gore. Fine, you hate Al Gore, I get it already.

The only comment I had for you in this thread was an observation that you are obsessed with Cindy Sheehan. Engaging in a lengthy debate with you about how much you hate that woman would put me on the obsession merry-go-round right along with you. I'll pass, but thanks. As for your other views, they are as predictable as they are without nuance so there is not much point there either.

Never heard of his efforts since no one posted it. For the record, I commend him for his efforts and will reconsider referring him to only as "Senator Schiavo". I think in fact that we would all be better off if he concentrated exclusively on his medical career.

Somebody should send Delay a copy of the trans-pork-tation bill. Here are some of the "vital" items in that bill: $2.3 million for the beautification of the Ronald Reagan Freeway in California; $6 million for graffiti elimination in New York; nearly $4 million on the National Packard Museum in Warren, Ohio, and the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Mich.; $2.4 million on a Red River National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center in Louisiana; and $1.2 million to install lighting and steps and to equip an interpretative facility at the Blue Ridge Music Center. I'm sure they are all great ideas but couldn't they wait until after the war maybe? I was going to look up who voted for it and who didn't but why bother? I am sure it was a bi-partisan orgy of goody swapping.

You have to admit that regardless of the facts, calling someone a "good man" is pretty irresponsibe and wildly stated hyperbole. At the same time, calling such a compliment a public blow job is just the type of understated, dignified and impartial commentary we need more of in public forums. Well, in fairness, rescuing 270 hospital patients and staff from the ruins of a flooded hospital in the middle of the worst natural disaster in US history can't possibly justify my over the edge enthusiasm. Calling him a "good man" for that? I see now how exagerrated the claim was. I wish I had addresses and phone numbers of all the people on those evacuation flights so I could relay AD's revealing info about his old tax returns so they'll won't be taken in by Gore's clever "rescue" of them. I imagine that, so great will be their outrage and indignation that they will demand to be flown back to that flooded hospital.

On the bright side, I know where to go for daily updates on the Sheehan situation. Maybe you could send text messages to my cell phone so I'll be sure not to miss any of your nuanced views? Just send whichever one of these is your fancy for the day: Media=bad Bush=good Liberals=bad God=good Clinton=bad Hillary=really, really bad Sheehan=bad Iraq War=good Evolution=bad Rove=good Rumsfeld=good Sheehan=bad Republicans=good Democrats=bad Republican war heroes=good, see God above Democratic war heroes=bad Staged Bush "visual"=good Staged Democrat "visual"= biblically bad Constitutional rights cherished by the left=bad as day old rettata Constitutional rights cherished by the right=good to the point of sanctity Conservatives on the PPP=nonpartisan All who disagree with them on any point=raving partisans

You hit the nail on the head, Willis totally blew his block resulting in JP being surrounded. You could tell by the direction JP initially tried to go that he was reading an anticipated block by Willis and when he fanned on it, JP was toast. JP stepped forward and to his left putting Willis between him and the blitzer but when Willis blocked nothing but air, JP's move put him right in the blitzers sights. Yeeeech.

He was also charged with resisting arrest. This is, unfortunately, a little more serious than your typical drunk and disorderly. I can't imagine how difficult it must be to live under that kind of a microscope and I hope he gets some help. I know I'd hate to be the judge on the case. No matter what you do someone is going to claim you were either too rough or not rough enough on him for political reasons. The best part of this story is that he wasn't driving and no one got hurt. Everything else can be fixed.

Yes, your utter lack of concern for her becomes more and more evident with each thread you start about her.

Yes, because Hillary has always demonstrated an unusual degree of bladder control so we won't have to worry about her running off to take a leak in the middle of crisis. This is all part of our grand, fiendish plan to take back the Whitehouse. Phase I: Tag Bush as the "Depends President" Phase II? Well, we're still working on that.

I haven't seen someone this obsessed since John Hinckley. You reeeeeally need to get over Cindy Sheehan or change your username to "Taxi Driver".

If you read the article, the photographer was just snapping away and had no idea what he had captured by accident. It was only realized later that they had caught a very human moment at what was probably a pretty inhumanly boring affair. A shot like that is a humorous counterpoint to the ridiculous pomposity of it all so, of course, it was going to get published. Not every photo in the news has to be pregnant with vital import. Its a goof. Even the great affairs of the world's nations therein assembled have to take a back seat to a man's bladder.

It's not news and it doesn't make Bush look bad. It is just funny. The idea of any ultra rich and powerful person struggling with the same old same old stuff that the rest of us do has always been funny. It was, I'm sure, an event full of all the usual pompous, hoity-toity crap that attends these things. Something like this just deflates all that and gets a chuckle. Always has, always will. Tell me again how it is that liberals are too sensitive and can't laugh at themselves and that only conservatives have a sense of humor.

Not one. Its as if it never happened.

Were the Bills highlights on? I watched it last night and was half asleep. I didn't see any footage from our game. I rewound the DVR and still didn't see it but I was missing the first few minutes. Was I just too sleepy or were the Bills highlights not on?

What would be the legal/constitutional basis for the father to have essentially a right of veto as you described it? Would this right exist regardless of any circumstance such as a father who is not the woman's husband? For example, if a married woman has an affair and is pregnant by a man other than her husband and both she and her husband want to terminate the pregnancy, would the woman's lover, the biological father in this case, have the right to block her from having an abortion? What if the woman and the lover want to terminate but the husband wants the baby carried to term? Would you draw a line at fathers and not extend this right to a grandfather or grandmother? If so, why? My sense of this is that for the most part we are not talking about married people but instead about a casual sexual encounter resulting in an unwanted pregnancy. The woman and the man involved might be, for all intents and purposes, strangers to one another. Your idea would force that woman to notify the man, this relative stranger, if she can find him (what would stop her from saying simply that she had no idea who the father was?), and then cede to him control over what happens to her body for the next nine months and to her life afterwards. Pregnancy does not confer equal burdens upon the parents, it is most decidedly an unequally shared burden. Yet, your idea would grant equal rights without equal obligations and burdens. It would be far easier for the man to insist that the pregnancy go to term, afterall, its not his health that is effected. The most common scenario I would think involves a woman who, without any laws to that effect, goes to the man afterwards and lets him know what the situation is and after whatever discussion they have, decisions are made. The people who likely don't engage in that type of very human way of dealing with an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy, are those for whom such a rule as you propose would make the least sense. The most casual encounters between people least suited to handle the financial and emotional committment to one another and the baby that is required are the ones who will most likely not have a respectful discussion about what to do. Talk to a young woman you know who sees abortion as something that should be legal, safe and rare. Someone who thinks abortion is murder wouldn't really be one effected by the rule you propose. Ask her to assume that she had a casual sexual encounter she immediately regretted as a huge mistake with a virtual stranger that resulted in a pregnancy. Then ask her how she would feel about having to find him, tell him, prove to the authorities that she told him and then ask her how she would feel if she decided to terminate the pregnancy but was legally blocked from doing so by this stranger. I recommend that you have this discussion while wearing suitable protection in the area of your groin, just as a precaution. You end up with a woman being pregnant against her will. Imagine trying to stop her from getting an abortion from somebody somewhere. Imagine the prenatal care she is going to be willing to have. There would be women who would try to have a miscarriage. Granting such rights to a pre-birth father, not much more in some cases than a sperm donor, at least prior to actual birth, is not as simple as it sounds.