Crap Throwing Monkey

Clinton lied under oath to a grand jury. Last I checked, there was no "Whoops! That's not relevant!" exception to lying under oath to a grand jury. Which is not to defend anything else about that whole stupid process. Merely to criticize your own stupid "But that's irrelevent" defense of lying under oath in front of a grand jury.

"But it's not character assassination. It's all facts."

You suck worse! You suck worse!

Compared to who? Pat Robertson?

You've got to admire the tenacity of a guy who tries to teach orbital mechanics to a physicist with a clown and beach ball analogy, though. Stupid, but tenacious.

For all the absolutely and totally useless sh-- that I know, I'm very pleased to say that I never knew any of the above. And I'm very disappointed that I won't be able to say that in the future.

Man...that's a lotta gray...

Actually, I'd call that homophobic. But I feel the same way. So I call myself homophobic in that regard. And I have no problem with that.

I'm an anti-LaRouche Democrat "pagan worshipper of Isaac Newton". I don't know what that makes me...

I, for one, just want to thank Johnny for discussing the topic with me intelligently. I have to think that our ability to have a reasonable, if occasionally passionate, discussion is as much my responsibility as his.

11) Balance them on a board at the South Pole to shoot down satellites over the equator.

I'm sure that'll change if a Democrat gets in the White House.

It would, if you did the research on posse comitatus and Able Danger...

Don't apologize for the insult; clearly it's allowed. Apologize for the hypocrisy. Has ANYONE ever had a meaningful discussion with RK or Wacka?

"I laugh at jokes, at least the good ones. I don't laugh at insults. This was both, a joke and an insult. I think this is the typical insult thinly disguised as a joke, and a bad one at that, which so often makes an appearance here." - Mickey, December 16th, 3:22pm.

Most women just wear pants. Wait...what?

As I said...Watergate. Which is not to denigrate the Watergate reporting itself...that was good investigative reporting. But everyone's been trying to find the "next Watergate" since (which is why everything has to be suffixed with "-gate" nowadays), and completely ignoring the fact that not everything is Watergate.

So do my socks. Doesn't mean I want to !@#$ing ingest them.

A guy on a teacher's salary collects an estimated "thousands" of dollars in bribes from students, then is released without bail. I'm sorry, but that's just damn good business sense...

I'd only say nice things as well. But no one would believe me as I am, after all, a crap-throwing monkey. So maybe you'd be better off if I just slandered you...

For someone that looks like the unfortunate victim of an airbrush explosion, you'd think they'd have gotten rid of those bags under her eyes. Jesus...she probably has to check those things at airports...

Give it up. Popular perception is that "news" must be generally "bad" to be worth reporting...and thus, by extension, not limiting oneself to reporting bad news is irresponsible journalism. Thus, in the interests of "responsibility", we hear about idiots in Abu Ghraib, but now the reconstruction of the Iraqi education system. Or about the continuing success of the insurgency, but not how internal security efforts are slowly but consistently being turned over to Iraqi forces. Or how this is an open-ended occupation...but US troop strength in theater has dropped by 30k in the past 12 months. It's not "responsible" to report about things being okay...because meeting expectations is not news.

I think the current administration has at least generally approached the issue with the proper attitude[/] (though implementation, as usual, I find lacking): they were never democratically chosen by the people to be representatives of the people, they appointed themselves representatives of the people, ergo they are not representatives of the people and should not be treated as such. (And furthermore...like most self-appointed "enlightened" representatives of the people and their interests, they only have their own interests in mind and could care less about those they supposedly represent.) The root of the problem, I believe, goes back to Watergate and the media's discovery that they can exercise real power and push their own agendas (which I know is somewhat of an idealized interpretation on my part...Murrow never exercised saintly objectivity either. So !@#$ing sue me.) But the media, I think, no longer sees it as their responsibility to simply report the story. They see it as their responsibility to report the story in the "proper" context..."proper" being defined, of course, by them. "Here is the news...and here's how you're supposed to feel about it." Murrow may not have been saintly objective...but I never recall him elevating his opinions to the level of actual facts either.

Mr. Ruffalo's on his way over.

When you were drinking the grnnpyth, did you notice everyone snickering at you and whispering "Stupid American! He's drinking the grnn's pyth!"