Thursday, July 19, 2007


You know, just cause I haven't posted in a while, and I figured this was overdue.

Labels: ,


Blogger DED said...

He's long past "sucks", but you knew that already.

2:52 PM  
Anonymous wfta said...

What with the Libby commutation (about which the Chronicle editorial staff just can’t quite connect the dots,) that sub-human Chertoff’s “gut” feeling that we ought to remain at elevation orange for fucking ever, and then the NSE release saying that after nearly six years of GWT al-Qaeda is bigger and badder than ever (duh!) and nobody suggesting that just possibly, maybe, perhaps the methods employed to fight the GWT were totally, irredeemably, disastrously FUCKED UP—I’ve been borderline terminally apoplectic for a couple of weeks now.

I’ve argued against impeachment time and again, but now the only reason not to is that a conviction can’t be had. We really and truly need these assholes out of power as soon as possible. I hope I’m just paranoid when I think they might just make a case for martial law before inauguration day 2009.

But, hey, I could give a shit less about the Astros, so I’m a relatively lucky man.

4:48 PM  
Blogger Weaseldog said...

Bush, the shittiest president ever.

I understand that impeachment probably wouldn't go through, but I believe it should be attempted.

But I've never been the sort that won't try things for fear of failure. As a result, I've accomplished quite a few things that I was told was impossible or too hard, or not worth the effort...

I can promise that if impeachment is not attempted, then the chance of failure is 100%.

5:32 PM  
Anonymous wfta said...

P fucking S... from US District Judge John Bates....but "there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism ... by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level executive branch officials."

5:33 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

Within the scope of their "duties," huh?


5:35 PM  
Blogger George said...

Amen, brother. Worse than Braden Looper.

(Is it bad to have comments from one blog refer to comments on another?)

6:31 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

(Is it bad to have comments from one blog refer to comments on another?)

No. It's meme-ish, somehow.

(And meme-age is a good thing on these here blogs, no?)

6:35 PM  
Blogger Edgar said...

The sneering one shall forevermore be called: "He whose name shall not be mentioned". A hundred years from now little children shall take up the taunt: "Hoover and Nixon caused a pall, the nameless one outdid them all..."

7:17 PM  
Blogger DED said...

wfta wrote: I hope I’m just paranoid when I think they might just make a case for martial law before inauguration day 2009.

You're not alone.

weaseldog wrote: Bush, the shittiest president ever.

I understand that impeachment probably wouldn't go through, but I believe it should be attempted.

Agreed, on both counts.

edgar wrote: "Hoover and Nixon caused a pall, the nameless one outdid them all..."


10:02 PM  
Blogger Edwardo said...

By any objective standard, Bush will go down as the worst President of our times, and likely in the entire nation's history. One can easily make the case that Bush and Cheney have accelerated the rate of decline of the country on a social, political, and economic basis.

If ever a President deserved impeachment it is Bush. However. Bush ought to be impeached in large part because he and Darth Cheney's have engaged deliberately in unconstitutional executive over reach. Unfortunately the CONgress is entirely to callow, corrupt, and confused to step up and do their duty to remove King George. More of the same is therefore sure to follow in future administrations. And though it may not appear obvious yet, the Republic is in tatters.

10:59 PM  
Blogger Comandante Agí said...

He blows. Ok, that reminds me of Spaceballs. "Suck, suck, suck..."

12:47 AM  
Blogger Dwilkers said...

The whole group sucks.

I've been arguing to cons for a while that history will mark Bush as one of our worst presidents. Even if you strip out the partisan noise and debatable points the simple indisputable facts are damning. Presidents are defined by the 'big things'. You won't read about LBJ's trade initiatives or some such in a history book, you'll read about Vietnam.

Nixon - Watergate. Ford - Nixon Pardon. Carter - Iranian hostages and economic decline. Reagan - cold war/USSR. Bush1 - Gulf War 1. Clinton - welfare reform and economic boom.

Bush2 - Iraq.

Dems aren't any better. Dems are playing a cynical game of base-tweaking and partisan stunts on Iraq. Dems have the power to stop the war in Iraq if they wish. Congress controls the purse. They aren't doing that because either 1) they don't believe their own rhetoric on Iraq, 2) political fear, or 3) cynical political manipulation.

Meanwhile, congresscritters are caught with thousands of dollars in their freezers in a parody of B movies, and Pelosi and (then) Speaker Hastert stand before cameras and argue that a federal judge (judiciary) and the FBI (executive) cannot conduct a duly authorized search at capitol hill. Congress folks continue predating pages and interns. Congress folks continue - across the board - to award earmarks (public funds) to their campaign supporters in a rather transparent money laundering operation to fund their campaigns and fatten their wallets. And powerful rich folks experience a "criminal justice system" whereas the rest of the plebs are ground up in a simple justice system that locks up millions on drug charges for decades at a time in the name of a drug war that failed about 40 years ago. And that says nothing of a flat tax (SS) applied across the board to people unless you make over $90k wherein you stop paying it, such tax *not* being used for SS but used as general revenue.

Any idiot could come up with a few decent agenda items for our government - things that could make people's lives better, wouldn't cost much if anything, and are worth doing. Instead, it is stunts, posturing, campaigning, and the greased palms of supporters and lobbyists.

Oh, and next it'll be Hillary. That'll change things.

9:28 AM  
Anonymous wfta said...

I can only disagree on one point: Hillary. The Democrats, suffering what the psychologists call “success avoidance” will nominate her, thus insuring the election of Fred Thompson who will have been nominated by the Republicans because they hate McCain, they can’t stomach a Mormon and by the spring of ’08, they will be sick to fucking death of Giuliani.

9:50 AM  
Blogger George said...

WFTA--You really give Giuliani till spring?

11:54 AM  
Blogger Weaseldog said...

To annoy my neighbor, I had been telling him that we'll be choosing between Hillary and McCain.

At the time, I didn't know that McCain would torpedo his own bid for the presidency with such skill and decisiveness.

I guess Hillary vs. the Mobster is a good guess now.

12:32 PM  
Blogger Dwilkers said...

I doubt Giuliani can win the Pub nod. My guess is it will be Romney, or perhaps Fred!, but I don't see McCain getting it.

I'll be shocked if Dems don't nominate Hillary! though. Whatever else is true Hillary! has the Clinton machine behind her and Dems want to win.

I've about decided Hilly/Obama is too risky and it will be something like Hilly/Richardson, Richardson having good foreign policy cred as well as being "right" on the war, a sitting Gov of a relatively safe mountain state and Hispanic to boot.

Its early to be going out on a limb though, the campaign is really still in the warm up phase. The nasty crap won't start until sometime in late fall.

12:55 PM  
Blogger Toast said...

Have I told you lately you're a Slacker? Blog, bitch, Blog!

(Intended in purely humorous fasion;-))

3:55 PM  
Anonymous Nathan said...

Mike, I believe I understood you correctly that it is O.K. with you to refer to another blog. If I'm wrong, just delete this and call me nasty names and I apoligize. I wrote this on Bush: Hope you enjoy it!

11:59 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

No problem. Funny stuff.

5:45 AM  
Anonymous Nathan said...

Any suggestions on how I can get more viewers? Plus, you will be happy to hear that I now know how to spell "apologize"

5:43 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

There are probably others more suited than I to answer that. Afterall, it's not as if I had the biggest readership.

My only suggestion is to hit as many blogs as possible and become a regular commenter. Get the others to know you, and your sense of humor. Then, at that point, start spamming their comments boards shamelessly with links to your own site . . . which you update regularly with new posts.

That's how I did it at first, and it definitely got things off the ground a bit.

7:15 AM  
Anonymous i.m.small said...

Lord, every lawyer to a man
(And woman, I suppose)
Let take a cue from Pakistan
Judicially as those

That there did struggle for the rule
Of law before one man´s;
So let us emulate--but who´ll
Likewise break stupor´s trance?

Now is the time for taking suit
Of those who gave the orders
Or tacitly permitted: brute
Their deeds have had recorders.

None ought to be proclaimed exempt
By virtue of his standing--
How Cheney drips with his contempt,
Or Rumsfeld, "free" from branding.

Even most popular of all
Executives be held
Accountable--held to the wall
So I might add, dispelled

All semblance of immunity
Based upon holding office:
Laws have been broken, this we see,
Which not a thing to scoff is.

Nor even retroactive make
Exemption for complicit
Parties--such firms as dared laws break
So let the laws revisit.

Democracy demands fair law
So Gerald Ford was wrong
Pardoning Nixon: cretins saw,
Emboldened and made strong.

Cheney averred, whatever action
A president committed
Was thereby lawful--his attraction
Since Nixon was acquitted

De facto to the spoils of power--
Jurists, and men of law
(Women too), let now come the hour
To strike malfeasance raw.

10:41 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home