Woman's obituary requests memorial contributions be made in her name to organizations seeking the removal of George W Bush. Freakin' awesome!
The Story

[ November 12, 2003, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

Well that has to be a first!!!

I remember a similar story, actually.

Andy Rooney was right Sunday night. The vitriolic hatred of some people is disgusting. As bad as the right was against Clinton, I do not recall the pure venom that is directed toward President Bush ever being nearly as bad toward Clinton. Hell, 18 smear books in print right now directed against Bush. There were never this many at one time against Mr. Clinton.

This is all pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Are you freakin' serious??? How soon people forget how right-wing talk radio took off in the 90s...and politics found a new home in Evangelical pulpits. "Smear books"? It's all in the perception, I guess. The truth hurts, MIB.

MIB: you seriously need to read Hillarys' new book as I am doing. The amount of hate, the number of investigations which were endless, the amount of taxpayer $ that was spent on these investigations, the negative campaign ads that were started by a conservative political action committee is unbelieveable. And you think there is alot of hate directed at Bush. Read the book!!!

as raze would say...

HAHAHAHA thanks puckman, i needed a good laugh. Those poor clintons, poor hillary sitting at her lil typewriter hours on end writing that book... wait.. nevermind, she didnt write it...

She was "shocked and horrified" over all the investigations, just like when she was playing dumb-dumb while her husband was banging the fat chic in the other room.

[ November 12, 2003, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]

Laugh all you want Phillyfan, then read the headlines on MSNBC news this morning that says a new CIA report says the Iraqis' are losing confidence in the U.S. occupation which is fueling the terror against our troops.Gee, why would they be losing confidence?? Because of Shrub's no plans????

Maybe Hillary can go over there and bury her head in the sand and be "shocked and horrified".

Actually, after being lied to by billy-bob about certain things, and sticking by him... i'm surprised she isnt W's biggest supporter... Voting for the war and all... (but not having the backbone to stick with it).

Seems pretty f*cked up that the word vitriolic is employed to castigate those of us with a legit. beef with Bush, while Philly Fan enjoys free reign to call us pinko-commie-fatty-Dixie-Chick ad naseums.

F*cked up or hypocritical. You decide.

Carry on man... anyway, whats the difference between chickenhawk and a commie-pinko-lib? Other than I support the county i live in...

[ November 12, 2003, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]

OK - this thread could use some levity and a return to the original topic. If the dead lady is a Dean supporter, do you think her casket will be covered with a Confederate flag?

maybe she just needs to get a life... errr...wait...nevermind.

Quite serious, and quite accurate. Sure, there were the foaming-at-the-mouth idiots on the Right who spent 25 hours a day wasting their lives with their Clinton hatred. However, the hatred of Bush--manifested in many ways--is far greater, far more spiteful, and more intense.

And don't forget more well-deserved!

Keywestguy: agree with you.

Which is why, of course, the day after Clinton's election I heard my first Republican chanting "Clinton and Gore, Gone in Four."

That's why in 1996, during the annual White House dinner for the nation's governors, the Washington Post quoted several Republican governors as stating they were getting through the dinner by reminding themselves they would be greeting "President and Mrs. Dole" the next year.

That's why Scairfe (sic) spent millions of dollars on a coordinated investigation to smear Clinton.

The vitrol is the same, the difference is that the conservatives in Clinton's time were appalled that White Trash was in the White House (and let's face it, Clinton is the "wrong sort of people" and a pig in his personal life), while progressives now are appalled by Bush's policies.

IMHO the vitrol about Bush if far more reasonable. There are serious doubts about how the man is running the country, although many people do not acknowledge them. In Clinton's time, the concerns about his personal life were noted, but it was the degree of importance that was not agreed upon.

Let's not forget the current solicitor general, Ted Olson, among others, was involved in a multimillion-dollar scheme to destabilize the legimate Clinton presidency, and the outcome was the $50+ million Whitewater investigation, the Vince Foster investigations, the Travel Office investigations, the almost-continuous investigations into Clinton's sexual life, culminating in the Starr Report AND the GOP attempts to impeach Clinton!

Liberals have a LOOOOONNNNNGGGGG ways to go before they get close to this crap, which I don't lay at the doorstep of the GOP (though many in that part were complicit up to the point of impeachment, when at least the moderates had had enough of the shenanigans) so much as the extreme Right, who wouldn't stop at anything to seize power, including having SCOTUS install W in the winter of 2000.

[ November 12, 2003, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Thank you, KW, for proving my point.

Are you still harping on that?

If you had even a scintilla of knowledge about the specific constitutional provisions and the US Codes that were violated by the FL. Supreme Court, forcing the US Supreme Court to get involved, I'd discuss this point; but since like 99% of other left-wingers, you're still chanting the tired but inaccurate exclamations of Bush being "chosen" or "appointed."

Well, I do have a little more than a scintilla of knowledge of constitutional law and have a few things to say in response. If you can name me even ONE case where Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas, Kennedy & O'Connor ever found anything else to violate the Equal Protection Clause, I'd love the case cite. For all the harping about "legislating from the bench" that conservatives do, Bush v. Gore was the absolute worstin this respect regardless of your political persuasion. For these five justices to rely on the Equal Protection clause to justify their pre-determined outcome is nothing short of judical hypocrisy at its height.

If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.

(As you noticed, I didn't impugn your knowledge of constitutional law as you appear to do with anyone who disagrees with you. I simply asked you to support your contentions.) wink

Actually this is so played, people do this all the time. Somebody did it for Bush in 2000. People right and left who are obsessed with politics do really weird things.

But he was, Blanche, he was.... (Speaking of the "specific constitutional provisions," there is a specific procedure laid out in that document for electing a president in the event of an electoral deadlock or crisis, but SCOTUS was unwilling--because of right-wing pressure--to let it occur. The 5-4 vote was a coup, pure and simple. And I do have a "scintilla" of knowledge about the whole thing...and MIB, however you argue it, even conservative-leaning legal scholars like Richard Posner have called the arguments used in the 5-4 decision a stretch. But I know, so long as it involves the conservative side, it's alright with you.)

[ November 13, 2003, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]