Does anyone here feel the same way about Bush?

"Galloway says murder of Blair would be 'justified'
By Oliver Duff
Published: 26 May 2006

The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.

In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did."

The Labour MP Stephen Pound, a persistent critic of Mr Galloway during previous controversies, told The Sun that the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow in east London was "disgraceful and truly twisted".

He said: "These comments take my breath away. Every time you think he can't sink any lower he goes and stuns you again. It's reprehensible to say it would be justified for a suicide bomber to assassinate anyone."

The Stop the War Coalition criticised Mr Galloway: "We don't agree with Tony Blair's actions, but neither do we agree with suicide bombers or assassinations."

Just hours after four bomb attacks killed 52 people on London's transport system last July, Mr Galloway said the city had "paid the price" for Mr Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Ten thousand Osama bin Ladens have been created at least by the events of the last two years," he told MPs in the Commons that day.

Mr Pound said at the time: "I thought George had sunk to the depths of sickness in the past but this exceeds anything he has done before." The Armed Forces minister, Adam Ingram, accused the Respect MP of "dipping his poisonous tongue in a pool of blood".

Mr Galloway yesterday made a surprise appearance on Cuban television with the Caribbean island's Communist dictator, Fidel Castro - whom he defended as a "lion" in a political world populated by "monkeys".

Mr Galloway shocked panellists on a live television discussion show in Havana by emerging on set mid-transmission to offer passionate support for Castro. Looking approvingly into each others' eyes, the pair embraced.

The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.

In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did."

The Labour MP Stephen Pound, a persistent critic of Mr Galloway during previous controversies, told The Sun that the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow in east London was "disgraceful and truly twisted".

He said: "These comments take my breath away. Every time you think he can't sink any lower he goes and stuns you again. It's reprehensible to say it would be justified for a suicide bomber to assassinate anyone."

The Stop the War Coalition criticised Mr Galloway: "We don't agree with Tony Blair's actions, but neither do we agree with suicide bombers or assassinations."
Just hours after four bomb attacks killed 52 people on London's transport system last July, Mr Galloway said the city had "paid the price" for Mr Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Ten thousand Osama bin Ladens have been created at least by the events of the last two years," he told MPs in the Commons that day.

Mr Pound said at the time: "I thought George had sunk to the depths of sickness in the past but this exceeds anything he has done before." The Armed Forces minister, Adam Ingram, accused the Respect MP of "dipping his poisonous tongue in a pool of blood".

Mr Galloway yesterday made a surprise appearance on Cuban television with the Caribbean island's Communist dictator, Fidel Castro - whom he defended as a "lion" in a political world populated by "monkeys".

Mr Galloway shocked panellists on a live television discussion show in Havana by emerging on set mid-transmission to offer passionate support for Castro. Looking approvingly into each others' eyes, the pair embraced.
"

she certainly seems to get paid for a lot of airtime by audiences who seem to take her pretty seriously when she talks about poisoning Stevens, and generally 'physically intimidating liberals'.

Of course, there's also the Presidential candidate Robertson, who thinks Chavez should be assassinated.  We notice neither Coulter nor Robertson has said a whole lot about morals.

And of course, a number of public figures have in fact been assassinated - the largest number in my memory is in connection with the US civil rights movements.   The next largest group of targets appears to be medical personnel in abortion clinics.

There has always been a certain fraction of certifiable assholes in the human race.  Republicans, Stalinists and the like seem to be about the only ones who think they should run countries.

Reigicide and tyrannicide [spelling?] have their place in political philosophy, and some [Locke?  Rousseau? Jefferson?] admit that it may be necessary under the most dire and exceptional conditions.  So the question becomes is Blair/Bush/whoever acting in a tyrannical manner such that those actions satisfy the conditions necessary for tyrannicide?
I'm guessing not.  No fab of POTUS, but i don't think 86ing him is an answer.


I think the Brits tend to be more serious in their outrageous political pronouncements, and knowing nuttin' abot MP Pound, I'm not sure if this is playacting for political advantage or if he really means it.

since Galloway says a lot of things.  I assume you mean about taking joy in Bush's assasination.  I don't contemplate the joy of cold-blooded murder of anyone, nor cite it as some kind of natural justice.  I might be moved to murder child-killers who murder for sexual gratification, or serial killers who do the same, but that's out of personal disgust, not justice.  

Bush is neither.

At first, I just wanted Bush to retire.  Now I think putting him on trial is fair.  I believe he  lied to start war with Iraq.  I'd like to see what classified information tells us about it.  From what has come out my suspicions are that he did that.  

I'd wait to see if he is guilty to contemplate imprisonment.

So far, everytime I hoped for something, anything good from this president, he disappointed me.  I've never felt that way about any other POTUS in my lifetime.  Not Reagan.  Not Bush the First.

Watching Bush has certainly made me reconsider socialism.  

-- Modified on 5/26/2006 11:24:56 PM

GFD quoted an elected official(Not from USA, thank God!) and you reply back with Ann Coulter??  Ann Coulter is a writer.  She intentionally tries to shock people.  Just like your pal Al Franken. Coulter and Franken don't hold office but Galloway does.  No one on the right cares what Franken says.  According to his ratings, no one on the left does either.  I'm more concerned about what elected REPRESENTATIVES say.  Galloway is a nut but he was elected to represent a constituency.

This reminds me of Clinton's response to the Oklahoma City bombing.  Blame Rush Limbaugh!!  Republicans focus on real life and you focus on media figures.  I remember Howard Dean bringing up Limbaugh repeatedly during the primaries. "The flag does not belong to Rush Limbaugh".  Now Dean is your chairman.  That rates about a "9" on the unintentional comedy scale.

BTW, Coulter has been continually assailed at college campuses by the peace loving libs.  She has to bring bodyguards to protect her from people throwing stuff at her.  Free Speech?  Physical intimidation?

Civil Rights advocates that were killed in the 50s and 60s were attacked by southern DEMOCRATS.  The Democrats were the segregationist.  One of them was in the KKK and still holding office.  Byrd in 2008!

If abortion clinic personnel count as a "political"  targets then I guess the millions of unborn children must count as well.  They don't count to you, do they?  BTW, very relevant topic.  There are a lot of clinics being bombed almost on a daily basis. Please note the sarcasm!

I guess all the left wing dictators in the world aren't assholes? But I'm pretty sure they do run countries. You guys seem to be very upset that Hussein is in jail and Bush isn't.  Don't worry, you can always send Castro a love letter.  I hear his birthday is coming up.  

PS- To answer your question directly: I support Ann Coulter 100% and beat-off to her on a nightly basis.

-- Modified on 5/27/2006 7:09:02 AM

-- Modified on 5/27/2006 7:10:52 AM

"Shocking" would not be a word I would use to describe him. In fact I find it humorus that you used that word to describe him --  he's one of the most "unshocking" people on the radio in my nopinion -- nothing along the lines of Coulter (who I think has serious mental issues).

Its because of sick fucks like you this country is coming apart at the seams.

Its because of fascist lemmings like you that real whores like Anne Coulter and Sean Hannity make millions off of their hatemongering books while promoting divisiveness and rancor in this country.

And its because of blind unquestioning fools like you that criminals like Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld have turned this country from the most respected and beloved nation on Earth, to the most hated, despised and villified Empire since Nero was fiddling with himself.
Speaking of fiddling with yourself, please, continue beating off to Ann Coulter. Better that than to have you procreate any hatemongering mutant offspring destined to serve no purpose beyond validating the need for abortion in this country.

Now go fuck yourself you twisted piece of detritus, and leave the act of being human, to Human Beings.

Want Some? Come Get Some.

I have never thought lefties considered anything less...Everyone should just admit, politicians of both parties, are the same. They just have slightly different benefactors. There is not a dime's worth of difference between Dem's or GOP'ers. They both have their less than credible "bomb throwers/extremests" (Michael Moore/Ann Coulter)and neither give a shit about anything but power.

Face it, if we all don't strive to "do it on our own" we're doomed to the whims of a government that is virtually unaccountable to the people whom they allegedly represent.

Oh and for the bomb throwers....you motherfucking cocksuckin, bread dead shit for brains verman devil-worshiping pieces of shit. (No,this finishing rant has no point, but I thought you would be more comfortable reading it.)

"dittohead".

I've always found it ironic that the foaming spokesman of the right would refer to his followers as "dittoheads" and any person who disagrees as "sheeple".

The entire idea of representative govenment is that "do it on our own" basically kept the human race at each others throats for most of history.

Here's the issue:

Majority of society is either too close to poverty or too concerned about financial security to be able to think about any sort of big picture or spend the time to read between the lines, which leaves them open to manipulation of their fear by clever marketing.

Until that issue changes, our society will follow those who present themselves the best.  Image is everything.

he's willing to be totally bamboozled by the Israelis.

On my own, I'm not going to beable to maintain the highway I drive to work on.  I'm can't stop global warming on my own.  

By yourself, I guess you could live in Alaska off wild game like our ancient ancestors did (only with the help of a rifle.)  That is, until the game you live on goes extinct, by the actions of other people.  

The fact is, we are more dependent on cooperation than ever.  

Yes, both parties have their share of liars, thieves and opportunists.  However, it becomes more serious when either side puts those people in charge to gain power.  That's how I would characterize the Bush administration.  By comparison, Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are mere irritants.    

No. I'm no fan of W, but assassinating him would make Cheney president.  I find that to be a truly terrifying alternative.

We have a moderate extremist on board. Who would have thunk it?

Exactly how many presidents have we had that look like a chimp?

As a politician, I put Bush into the category of "backscratcher."  That's a reference to chimps grooming each other as a way of forming alliances to move up the social ladder.

Couldn't have said it better.  Not until we get ourselves back onto higher moral grounds will we be deserving of any credibility with the rest of the world.

I swear, none of these right wing assholes have ever left the shores of our country to understand how the rest of the world operates.

you just can't resist the urge to be a boil on an ass cheek, can you.

Tell you what, Xiao. I'll buy you a one way ticket to Gaza, where you can frolic with Hamas and glorify yourself as a righteous martyr for the cause. Just remember, in order to be a proper member of the club, you must drink of the blood of a Jewish... pardon me ISRAELI child first.

Never Again

Now excuse me, I have a boil to lance.

Look down the current line of presidential succession:

The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (Amended)
Cabinet officers have been in the line for presidential succession since 1886. So, whenever the structure of the Cabinet changes, the Presidential Succession Act must be amended to reflect the changes. Since the law was first enacted in 1947, for example, the Secretary of War has been replaced by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy and the Postmaster General have been removed from the Cabinet, and six new Cabinet departments have been added. The current law preserves the tradition of ranking the Cabinet departments by the year they were founded.
The line of succession is currently:

Vice President
Speaker of the House
President Pro Tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs

connect the dots...

We'd have to get down to the local branch of the YMCA before you find anyone not connected to Big Business and big corruption.

By then, we don't have a country or agovernment anymore, we've had WW 3, and the fucking Christian Whores and their foolish minions are all burning in the Hell of their own Making.

boy that was fun to write!

First, elected representatives say mostly what their handlers and advisers tell them.  You have to listen though, because sometimes the they don't stick to the prepared speech.  Usually they say the things calculated to appeal to their base-- who has been primed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.

I do have to wonder when you have ever been shocked by Al Franken?  

Republicans captured the South by appealing to the racism the Democratic abandoned.  Preppies like George Bush the first found that they had a lot in common with plantation owners.  It's one reason why minorities generally recoil from the Republican party today, and why Republicans whine about the democrats always playing that "race card" that Republicans can't trump.  Not since they sold their soul to racists to grab power.  

Abortion: conservatives need to develop a pill that keeps fetuses in their same, utterly loveable mindless state of innocence.  That would finally be a form of human life conservatives can feel something for.  Then they need to lower the voting age to minus six months.  That would be the perfect conservative voting block-- problem is getting them to the polls, but there's always Diebold.  Between the interests of imaginary people and real people, conservatives will always favor the imaginary ones.  No, millions of mindless almost-persons do not matter to me.    

As for Ann Coulter, left to herself, she would say something more and more offensive until people did boo her.  If I said you were a traitor and deserved to be imprisoned and stayed in your face about it, you probably wouldn't boo me, you'd probably shoot me. She will pick fights till she needs body-guards. Now you whine about this?  Poor stupid bully!    

Probably the climax part of your jacking off to Ann Coulter is where you shoot her in the face.  Most liberals find her sexually unattractive because we have real cocks instead of guns for our endowments.  



-- Modified on 5/30/2006 8:47:49 AM

that pres. Bush is giving his finger to the entire nation?...... lol

Direct responses to your "arguments".
1)  Somehow you got back to talking about Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter instead of elected representatives again.  Just like the rest of your party.   Maybe if the Dems focused on actual political issues, or better yet, focused on what the hell they want to do for America they might win an election or two.

2)  Al Franked repeatedly invited a National Review writer to a fist fight in a parking lot.  "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot".  "Lying Liars and the Liars..."  Subtle political humor or cheap  attention getting SHOCK VALUE humor?  If he was capable of subtle humor he would probably still be on TV and not sitting in purgatory (AKA Air America) with Janine Garofolo.

3)  Once again, "The Democrats were the champions of segregation (with a voting record to prove it) but it was really the Republicans fault" argument.
Do you guys chuckle when you use this argument?  I know I do when I hear it.  When Jimmy Carter and Clinton won back the South did they too have something in common with plantation owners?  Or is it only when Republicans win?

4) Great argument on abortion.  I like the "minus six month" voting age.  This will help counter the Democrat attempt to get convicted felons the vote. Now why would the Dems want rapists and murderers to vote?  Hmmm.... I just can't figure it.  Surely they must know how serious Dems are about keeping us safe.  Actually, they do know!

4)  FREE SPEECH... FREE SPEECH...FREE SPEECH!!!!!!
Ann Coulter deserves to get her speech disrupted at every turn but every loser hippie with a "Bush=Hitler" sign must have unfettered access to Pennsylvania Ave.  I also dig the way Taliban and Hamas reps get treated like heroes when they arrive on campus.  You guys are definitely not hypocritical.  Not even a little bit!

5) Uh... OK, I guess??

-- Modified on 5/30/2006 12:31:10 PM

-- Modified on 5/30/2006 12:32:40 PM

If her speech is "you're traitors and you should be imprisoned," that's personal.  That isn't a joke, or satire either.  Liberals must counter her speech just for self-preservation when she writes things like that, because if we play dead, tell me that your next step wouldn't be to do it.  Right wingers certainly have orgasms over bullies, and cry for them when the bullied fight back.

There is nothing sympathetic about Ann Coulter's plight. I think she will probably be killed in the second or third Republican purge-- for not being fascist enough.  You'll probably make it to the fourth.  If you'll lucky, you'll make to the same gulag as Ann Coulter.  

The above paragraph was farce, BTW, but farce exactly where this country is at now.    

In your first point-- you ignored totally the point I made, that the candidates and representatives are "scripted" heavily.  That people write the scripts for them.  Anything to add to that?  Any counter-argument?  I didn't see any.  Apparently you felt you had to distract from it.  

Now I'll make an even better point: Debates at the level of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Al Franken or even between us all matter because it affects what people think-- and that's eventually reflected in the opinion polls and, one would hope, the voting booth. It has an effect, and not just on the people doing the voting, but indirectly on how politicians act.    

So, you were shocked when Franken called your conservative idols liars, wierd, because that's what they are. Moreover, with Rush Limbaugh, whose audience always called saying "Dittos" it makes sense to counter that dedication with "idiot" for getting facts consistently and/or deliberately wrong.  It's fair to criticize him for being fat, because he consistently brought people's physical appearance into debate as though it were politically relevant, or even comical. As David Letterman said: "You are such an example of physical beauty yourself that you could make that judgment?"  Rush looked as scared and blubbering as George Bush on 9/11, BTW.

Maybe it shocked some conservatives and turned their hair white that liberals finally showed their balls.  Most liberals knew it was old news, but delivered bluntly.  

BTW, Rush Limbaugh hasn't had a show on TV lately either. It seems to have fizzled and another one hasn't been contemplated.    

Democrats, Republicans and segration: to recap,  since you missed the point, the racists did not feel comfortable in the Democratic party after LBJ, and so they left and arrived in the Republican party and have always been nurtured there-- even if they've have had to put a lid on it and use the proper code words.  

Occasionally the racism simmers over a bit, like with Trent Lott praising that ol' time Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond (the total exaple of what I refer).  The Dixiecrats no longer feel welcomed in the Democratic party, and so the minorities don't feel welcomed in the Republican party.  That simple.  That's why you'll never beat the "race card."  Do you have a counter-argument?

The racists were a bit more discouraged and slower to go to the polls, and the minorities felt like getting there when Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton won the south.  

Also, Bush won by knocking people off the voting rolls in select places, engaging in fraud, and by getting some help from the Supreme Court.    

Parties don't stay the same over time.  The Republicans have nothing in common now with the party of Lincoln, just like the Democrats have nothing in common now with the party of Jefferson.

I believe that career criminals aren't motivated do a lot of voting anyway these days.  They seem to be apolitical.  Don't you think so?  However, there's one class of felons that would probably vote solidly Democratic-- drug criminals.  

Republicans have biased the polls in their favor while corrupting law enforcement through the war on drugs, and it is about time Democrats wake up to this. It is strange that Republican drug addicts like Rush get an easy sentence.  

For 5, you lost me.    

-- Modified on 5/30/2006 10:19:27 PM

Again-  You begin by obsessing over Ann Coulter.  Let it go.  Everything is going to be OK. You should read Ann Coulter's book "Slander".  It's about how the media try to define people by one random quote.  It's quite appropriate for you.

I didn't address your point about "scripted" politicians because it's not relevant.  They still need to stand behind their "scripted" comments or answer to the voters. HW Bush had to answer for the scripted "No new taxes" and Kerry had to answer for the scripted "Global Test". The original post was about a Brit politician saying Blair's murder was justifiable. That somehow turned into a rant about Coulter.

I guess you believe what Limbaugh and Franken and the media say are more powerful than what the "scripted" politicians say.  If that was the case Democrats would win every election.  You've got every major mewspaper (minus the WSJ) and every single network broadcast (Morning & Evening).  Republicans have Fox News and AM radio. We also hold all three branches of government. Ouch!

You bring up Trent Lott for praising Thurmond on his birthday but you don't bring up KKK guy?  (I'm going to shout this so hold your ears) YOU SENIOR SENATOR WAS A MEMBER OF THE KKK!!  How can you answer to that?  He doesn't have to- He's a Democrat!  I remember his interview a couple of years ago when he said that there are also "White Niggers".  I guess he's qualified to talk about that subject.

So you know when the racists voted in the south and when the minorities voted?  I didn't know that when they poll you "racist" was a demographic you could check off.  Now don't you feel a little bit silly?

Bush also won by getting over 60 million votes.  A little bit more than Clinton in 92 with 43%.  Clinton should send a $2,000 an hour provider to Perot's house every year as a thank you.

Cokeheads for Clinton!!!  Great argument.  I have no rebuttal.

My last part was a reply to your statement about Republicans and guns and dicks.  I'm not in middle school anymore so I didn't know how to answer.

Apparently I did that very well, because you call it "obsessing."  You have not answered any point I made about it.  I was not the one who brought her into this.  But I was answering your point to another poster about her "being just a writer" who "tries to shock people."  It looks like you don't want it discussed.  You were also the one who says he jacks off to Ann Coulter.  Humorous maybe, but that sounded like a fixation.

On your next point about scripted politicians, it's arrogant and discourteous to rule something in a discussion board irrelevant, and then not inform the other poster.  Otherwise, I might take as simply meaning that I've kicked your ass rhetorically, and you just didn't want to go there.  Okay, so they get held to their scripts.  If that were the case, Bush should be held to the lies that he has been caught in getting us into the Iraqi war.

Your third paragraph about the media is simply ignorant and incorrect.  What about the Washington Moonie Times?  What about CNN?  What about the fact that Clinton's cock was made into an eight year news story while Bush's non-sexual antics are buried on page 15.  What's the recent scandal?  Is anyone looking at the connections between Bush and Ken Lay?  It seems to have a lot more substance to it than a land deal years before the presidency, in which nightline devoted 18 shows to.  How many have been devoted to this?  The entire media is corporate and chain owned.  It has an agenda as a whole that's conservative. Its agenda is not liberal, as liberal bloggers point out constantly.    

I don't bring up Robert Byrd because I knew you would.  First, Robert Byrd repudiated the Klan, and left it behind.  Strom Thurmond et al never did any such thing.  Byrd stayed with the party of LBJ that left the Klan behind.  Also, he didn't run for president on an openly and almost solely racist platform, like Thurmond.  He has never been caught or quoted since then praising the Klan since he left.  

But you know, if he were the Republicans wouldn't feel free to use that against him anyway.  It will always be a black mark on him, but by all appearances, his change of direction looks quite sincere; do you have any counter-examples?    

No, I don't feel silly at all from my characterization of political races in the South.  That's exactly what I believe, and I feel absolutely free to tell you that.  Conservatives like you could thank their lucky stars that racism can be so easily obscured and confused.  You asked me to explain the election results.  Now you explain them, using only solid demographic data, including stats.  

Now, about Bush's sterling election performance, he also got 51 percent of the vote.  Kerry got 59 million votes and 48 percent of the vote.    Enough to wipe both Clinton's and Perot's ass.  That's hardly an ass-kicking by Bush, and if it weren't for gerrymandering, the US would look a lot bluer.  

So, if Bush sr and Perot put together 54 percent of the vote in 92, why that's a net loss of 3 percentage points for Republicans votes from that election, and a net gain of 5 for the democrats.  

But your reasoning is all stupidity.  You can't take bare numbers from one election and just drop them down in another and come up with something meaningful without statistical analysis.  I guess any self-medication that gets conservatives through the day now must be fair game.  

Oh, and you left out the fact that Clinton kicked Dole's ass in '96, too.  Care to self-medicate on that?  Or that Gore and Bush were virtually tied and needed five more votes on the Supreme Court-- in a ruling they were so ashamed of they said it wasn't to be used as a precedent?    

Instead of Cokeheads for Clinton, how about "Whoremongers for Bush?"  Hate to make it personal, but have you noticed that if you attract LE's attention, you're not in a legal position any better than drug users?  Like them, you have a law or two you've chosen to violate.  Do you have a rebuttal now?  Drug users votes don't look any more foolish than yours.

Middle school?  I guess jacking off to Ann Coulter was meant to prompt mature discussion, then?  Sorry, I couldn't imagine anybody above 13-years old doing that.  Above that age, you'd know better.  Or you ought to.  

There it is.  I brought up Ann Coulter again.  I'm so obsessed.  

My point AGAIN is you should focus a bit more on actual politicians and less on Ann Coulter and the rest of the political commentators.  The original post was about a politician and the subsequent responses have been about Ann Coulter.  I don't find her (or Franken, or Moore, or Limbaugh) as RELEVANT as the actual decision makers who answer to voters.  I can't vote against Michael Moore, but I can vote against Hillary Clinton in 2008.  Do you understand why this isn't relevant???
BTW, slam coulter all you want and use some random sarcastic quote to define her.  Her books are huge bestsellers and every time she goes on a debate show she shreds the left. Her point of "Slander" is if you can't beat someone with your ideas, try to destroy their reputation.  I think she's on to something. And your argument of "She has it coming" when she is attacked on campuses is a very, very enlightened one.

And my first point in this thread was how silly it is that the left keeps bringing up Limbaugh and Coulter and expect to win elections that way.  Your arguments and the last few election results prove my point.

As I see it, here are YOUR other main points:
* The media is conservative even though over 90% of the polled media voted for Kerry in the last election and there were 3to1 negative stories about Bush over Kerry

* The South is racist unless a Democrat wins the South.  LBJ and "The Great Society" was a huge success.

* Bush stole the last two elections.  People who wanted to vote against him were stopped by Men in Black.

* Drug dealing is equivelent to hobbying.  And LE holds them as equal priorities.

* You're not obsessed W/ Coulter.  You just can't stop writing about her.

These are all very lucid and intelligent arguments and I have no rebuttal.  Congratulations, you win.

For your bulleted points:

1) Don't look at how the people working for the media voted, poll the management-- they are the decision makers.  Look at the stories they actually deliver.  Their vote is irrelevant to what you read and see.

2) I never mentioned the "great society."  I mentioned LBJ only, and only regarding civil rights.  I would have never called it a huge success regardless, because it wasn't.  What delusion did you pull that from?

The South still has a strong racist element that could be appealed to for votes if a candidate pushes the right buttons.  It's there no matter who might win.  Remember John McCain's non-existent Black bastard child?  But I guess in your book that never happened.

To a certain extent, this is existent in the entire country, but it has a stronger influence in the South.

3) Yes, Bush stole the last two elections.  The proof is there for anybody who cares to look at it.  

4) We were talking about drug usage weren't we?  So, you're saying priority is equivalent to legality?  Now, that's a jump.  It's still not honorable enough to look down on drug users-- or dealers.  What I'm specifically writing about though, are marijuana laws.

5) At your request, I won't answer 5 then.

Drink the blood of a Israeli child?  On, c'mon!

Are you so self-unaware [or so cosmically ironic/satirical?] that you fail to realize that you've essentially reversed the Blood Libel and aimed it at the Pallys you hate so much?  If it's wrong to accuse Jews of this, why is it okey-dokey to accuse the Pallys of it?  Wait, I know, they're the enemy so you ...

Does it count if the blood is from a Xtian or an Arab citizen of Israel?

Not to worry -- they're purely a rhetorical qestions and I do not expect an answer which makes any sense.

On a diffeent subject, Thursday 06/01 I hobbied with an ATF.  It started raining heavily while we went at it, and when I left she gave me an umbrella for my trip home.  Wasn't that sweet of her?