Values Voters
Posted October 12th, 2006 by Chip Bok
Click Image to Enlarge.
Outraged Democrats plan to use the behavior of Mark Foley as a campaign club to beat the bushes for Republican voters.
Maybe it's working. Republican Tom Reynolds is in charge of protecting House seats in the upcoming election. But he finds himself so far behind in the polls that he had to resort to "human shields" according to Britain's Times Online:
"Mr Reynolds suffered widespread ridicule for holding a press conference
last week where he surrounded himself with young children of
supporters, prompting reporters to complain that in such circumstances
they were unable to ask him about the sexually charged computer
messages. The Democrats muttered about Mr Reynolds using “kids as human
shields”.
On the other hand, too much focus on Foley may not be the best way for the party of gay marriage to attract angry republicans. Here's Earl Ofari Hutchinson referring to an MSNBC poll in the Huffington Post:
"The poll certainly found voters more ready than ever to punish GOP
candidates for the appalling corruption, arrogance and ineptitude of
the Republican leadership. But the Dems make a colossal mistake if they
think that Foley and the GOP's follies alone will put them over the top."
October 12th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
hahaha! NEVER has there been a funnier bok cartoon than this doozy! oh, it's not that the ACTUAL cartoon is funny. no, not at all. hell, i dunno if bok can be anything BUT unintentionally funny! and this new cartoon is CLASSIC bok. ya see, it ignores ANY real news and it makes old, hoary claims about democrats. this time it's the HI-LARIOUS drawing of the democratic symbol of the donkey into a "raving" howard dean-type! so great, right? i mean, pulled straight from the headlines circa 2004. genius!
but i hear you saying "what about the dead-on reference to gay marriage?" so true. i mean, that's only THE hot button issue of 2002! this man has his finger on the pulse of the nation, people! all hail bok!!
October 12th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Reading your posts, it's hard to imagine where that "raving Howard Dean-type" stereotype comes from, kj.
October 12th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
i'm sorry, larry, do my posts come with an audio track i'm unaware of?
of course, you repubs have, let's see, the shrinking violets like coulter, savage, limbaugh…yeah, dean and the dems are CLEARLY the party of ranting. dang, ya got me again, larry!
oh, and way to ignore the meat of my post, which you right-wingers are soooo very good at. bravo!
October 12th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
KJ, I'd judge the "meat" of your post to be something about humor and, if I'm reading your subtle use of capitalization correctly, sarcasm. Might I point out that sarcasm, and it's close cousin, irony, are two wonderful mediums for shedding light on an issue in a way that provokes thought and laughter. Unfortunately, they are both dependent upon a sense of humor; without which one is left with the rantings of a frustrated, angry, and self absorbed loon. You would make a great teenager, and are a wonderful voice of the impotent, victimized left of this country. Thank you for your contribution.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:09 am
Other things to think about at the voting booth:
How important are the upcoming elections? Extremely important! Below is a list of what we can expect if the liberals win. These elections are crucial. It is vitally important that you vote. Please vote and encourage others to do the same. As bad as things are, they will be infinitely worse if the liberals win.
The strategy of the liberals is to get Values Voters so disgusted and discouraged that they will not vote. If that happens, the liberals will have achieved their goal and they will be running our country.
Here is what we can expect if the liberals win:
Amnesty for 12,000,000 illegal immigrants.
A push to make homosexual marriage and polygamy legal in all 50 states.
Only liberal judges will be appointed. They will create laws to implement the social agenda liberals cannot get passed through the legislative process.
Liberals will make the killing of the unborn more difficult to stop.
Liberals will continue to try to rid our society of Christian influence, including any reference to God in our Pledge and on our currency.
A return to the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcasting where opposing views must be given equal time. Every conservative talk show host will be forced to give a liberal equal time on every issue. The purpose of this rule will be to shut down conservative talk shows.
An increase in taxes to push new social programs.
Passing a new "hate crimes" law making it illegal to refer to homosexuality in a negative manner.
Liberals will give terrorists from other countries who try to kill Americans the same rights American citizens enjoy under our constitution.
We will withdraw from Iraq, sending the message to the terrorists that if they will just be patient they can win and bring their terrorist acts to the U.S.
October 13th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
I thought the Internet fathers you told me about considered words in all caps as rude yelling, kj. "Flaming," I think they called it.
October 13th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
LARRY, THIS IS RUDE YELLING, OK? just having a word or phrase in CAPS means emphasis. and flaming is just a general post ripping away at another poster. so, essentially, we're all flaming here.
end of lesson. maybe you right-wing nutballs should go back to direct mailing or sometrhing. you've CLEARLY not got this internet thing down…
and btw, i thought i was doing some funny satire but burns DESTROYS my feeble attempts at satire! i mean, shit, anyone who is SO committed as to write that whole RIDICULOUSLY long piece while staying in "right-wing insane guy" character was simply incredible.
burns, can would you be interested in writing for the 'colbert show?' cuz man, you make stephen look like a rank amateur!
October 13th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
oops, sorry about the typos there…oh, and thank you "lord robble robble." a guy with that handle that calling ME a loon, well, that WAS the funniest thing i read in a while until the laugh-god burns came up with his masterpiece.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
If it's any consolation, I think you're incredibly funny KJ. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that NEVER has there been a funnier KJ post than this doozy! oh, it's not that the ACTUAL post is funny. no, not at all. hell, i dunno if KJ can be anything BUT unintentionally funny! and this new post is CLASSIC KJ. ya see, it ignores ANY real news and it makes old, hoary claims about republicans.
Its almost eerie how our criticizms of others can so often be applied to ourselves.
October 13th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
damn, got me, mick. umm, except see, i'm not paid to do political cartoons for a newspaper. a tiny little bit of difference, wouldn't ya say? i mean, a guy who does political cartoons, it would seem, should tackle CURRENT affairs and try to be funny. and on both counts, our mister bok usually fails.
how odd is it that when mr. bok's cartoon space is replaced with another cartoon, as it was in today's ABJ, it was BOTH timely AND funny? check it out, so you can see how it really can be done.
October 14th, 2006 at 7:51 am
I recall Mick asking what was next for Wal-Mart. I guess this answers that question:
PHILADELPHIA - A Pennsylvania jury said on Friday that Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world’s largest retailer, must pay $78.47 million in damages to current and former Pennsylvania employees for forcing them to work “off the clock” or during rest breaks.
October 14th, 2006 at 8:09 am
"amn, got me, mick. umm, except see, i'm not paid to do political cartoons for a newspaper. a tiny little bit of difference, wouldn't ya say?"
So it's ok that you're not funny, or interesting or interested in real news because you're not getting paid to be? Fair enough.
"I recall Mick asking what was next for Wal-Mart. I guess this answers that question:"
Just like I said, short luch breaks. Go figure.
October 14th, 2006 at 8:29 am
Apparently making employees work for free is acceptable in Mick's world. Must be what he means by "Free Market".
And to Mr. Burns, could you please give us a couple of names of liberal Democrats advocating the legalization of polygamy ?
Thank you in advance.
October 14th, 2006 at 8:34 am
gee, mick, do you understand what a professional is??
and mick, do yourself a favor and go look at my comments under the sandy berger cartoon and ask yourself "was kj talking about real news?"
i must be interesting as well, because you silly righty-wingers can't wait to read my next missive and respond in your typically feeble, intellectually dishonest way.
and lastly, well, maybe i'm not funny to you. but then again, you probably don't think ANYONE with an different viewpoint than you is funny. oh, and wipe the drool from your lips as you feverishly try to write a retort to that. i do find at least one right-winger funny and that is p.j. o'rourke. but it is *funny* how the right-wing has NO ONE else who is actually funny. i mean the book on right-wing comedians has too be shorter than the 'book of modern greek war heroes!' hey, there ya go, guys! a politically incorrect joke for ya! am i funny now??? i mean, that's the kind of 'humor' you guys like right? ha!
October 14th, 2006 at 8:43 am
what a minute, mencken…are you saying that burns was actually SERIOUS with that diatribe?? i could've swore he was just takin' the piss…
oh, yeah, mick and his ilk think "free market" means "keep the government out of my business! oh, and btw, give me tax breaks and abatements all the time and let me write off *everything* and if i STILL can't make a go of it, bail my biz out." yup, that's a right-wingers definition of "free" market.
October 14th, 2006 at 11:11 am
"And to Mr. Burns, could you please give us a couple of names of liberal Democrats advocating the legalization of polygamy ?"
As soon as you respond to each of the other items saying they are not true.
October 14th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
let me translate burn's message for ya, mencken.
"i will not address my lie until you talk about all my other rantings, which may or may not also be lies."
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! this guy is GENIUS of comedy! seriously, colbert is finished if burns ever gets "discovered."
October 14th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Mr. Burns, admit it… you're busted. You don't have any names.
October 14th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Damn…Spartacus beat me to it. Burns, the Republicans have held the White House for 6 years. They control the House and the Senate and have a firm grasp on the Supreme Court.
Republicans are regularly being convicted of corruption and bribery. If the country's a mess, then why doesn't any of this fall in the Republican's lap ? You may or may not have noticed that Susan Ralston, Special Assistant to the President & Assistant to the Senior Advisor Karl Rove, resigned October 6, 2006, "after disclosures that she accepted gifts from and passed information to now-convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, becoming the first official in the West Wing to lose a job in the influence-peddling scandal."
Now no one is saying the Dems are completely innocent, but I'm curious, does any of this Repub. corruption penetrate your skull at all ?
October 14th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Been trying to figure out how Reid made over a million dollars selling
land he didn't own.
October 14th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
It's your support of gays that supports polygamy: Notice it was together. Of course you didn't.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601312.html
October 15th, 2006 at 2:05 am
Should read: Your support of gay "marriage" supports polygamy.
October 15th, 2006 at 7:02 am
Sam, the difference between you and me is that if for example Reid is found to be guilty of a felony, then I think he should be
prosecuted and removed from office. I don't care what party he's from because in part I've been a registered Independant for over 15 years. If you're guilty - you're gone period. Meanwhile Bob Ney collects a paycheck even though he's been convicted. No word on that from you yet.
Burns…. still waiting for those names. Your attempt to link gays
and polygamists is pathetic. If homosexuality equals polygamy,
does that mean fundamentalist Mormons are all gay ? Was Brigham Young a homo ?
October 15th, 2006 at 7:12 am
"Burns…. still waiting for those names. Your attempt to link gays
and polygamists is pathetic. If homosexuality equals polygamy,
does that mean fundamentalist Mormons are all gay ? Was Brigham Young a homo ?"
Can't you read. I even corrected my post to say gay "MARRIAGE" not just gays.
You twist things more than a tornado can.
October 15th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Names Burns. Names.
October 15th, 2006 at 11:49 am
You are one sick puppy. If you're hung up on names, you'll need to email Krauthammer who wrote the article I posted.
October 15th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
yeah, speaking of sick puppies, i'd love to hear the opinions of our right-wing buddies on this little item from a paper i like to call the boston globe:
"When Bill Clinton was president, the House took 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether Mr. Clinton had used the White House Christmas list to identify possible Democratic donors. But in 2004 and 2005, a House committee took only 12 hours of testimony on the abuses at Abu Ghraib."
so, "moral majority," please enlighten us why this is PERFECTLY ok with you. can't wait to hear you parrot limbaugh and say abu ghraib was just like some fraternity hazing!
oh, i'm sorry did i interrupt the gay marriage debate?? soooo sorry…
October 15th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
When Bill Clinton was president, this also happened:
"Clinton's bilateral talks is what got us into that mess with NK but Kerry wants to have more of the same. On behalf of Clinton, Carter gave them billions in aid and a couple new nuclear reactors for a pinky-swear from Kim he wouldn't use his old reactors to make nukes…I wonder what Kerry'd give them in return for more empty unverified promises."
October 16th, 2006 at 2:28 am
"When Bill Clinton was president, the House took 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether Mr. Clinton had used the White House Christmas list to identify possible Democratic donors. But in 2004 and 2005, a House committee took only 12 hours of testimony on the abuses at Abu Ghraib."
The House took 140 hours and the house took 12 hours???? What's the President got to do with how long the house takes to do something??
You Bush haters are desparate.
October 16th, 2006 at 7:09 am
haha! just like i figured. you won't answer the questions…you guys are intellectually dishonest and ALL you care about is your "team."
what kind of person follows "leaders" so blindly?
hey, slope, you dope, donny rumsfeld was the on the board of the company that SOLD NK their nuclear reactors!http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html
just like rummy was over in iraq shaking saddam's hand back in the 80's when it was cool to sell weapons to an evil dictator. oh, wait! that was during "st. reagan's" term! i'm sure ronnie was just snoozing and letting nancy and her astrologer figure out our foreign policy, eh?
October 16th, 2006 at 7:35 am
"hey, slope, you dope, donny rumsfeld was the on the board of the company that SOLD NK their nuclear reactors!"
At the Direction of the Clinton Administration who bought them and gave them to North Korea, DOPE.
October 16th, 2006 at 7:53 am
i know that, dopey, dope, dope! hahaha! you, per usual, are missing my point! rummy makes his money selling stuff to dictators and THEN turns around and says they are sooooo evil and how the usa must NEVER negotiate or talk to them, blah, blah, blah. sounds just a tad hypocritical, no?? it can't be that rummy and cheney and the repubs just really care about money and will do deal with any dictator out there?
and further more, what's a good repub like rummy doing listening to the clinton admin on ANYTHING?? i mean, it must makes you CLINTON HATERS' heads wanna expolode, doesn't it!! haha!
October 16th, 2006 at 7:56 am
hey, here's some more of that FREE market stuff the repubs are sooo fond of: "Tucked into a massive energy bill that would open the outer continental shelf to oil drilling are provisions that would slash future royalties owed to the federal government by companies prospecting in Rocky Mountain oil shale deposits.
Sponsored by Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Stockton, and passed by the House earlier this year, the bill would amend an existing requirement that the federal government receive a "fair return" from oil companies that hold oil shale leases on public lands. Instead, Pombo's bill would reduce royalties from the customary 12.5 percent of annual revenue to 1 percent."
from the SJ mercury-news.
so, anyone care to explain how this is good for us taxpayers??
October 16th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Come on Burns. You said that if the Dems were elected they'd work to make polygamy legal. All I'm asking is who is on the record (or off the record for that matter) saying that if elected, they would sponsor a bill making polygamy legal.
Asking that makes me a sick puppy?
October 17th, 2006 at 1:13 am
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/16/D8KPV9KG0.html
October 17th, 2006 at 2:46 am
Voting against the Ban on Same Sex Marriage is a vote that allows polygamy to follow. If you are too myopic to see that, then the continuation of this exchange is in vain. List of those who voted against the ban:
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCain (R-AZ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)
October 17th, 2006 at 4:37 am
"Voting against the Ban on Same Sex Marriage is a vote that allows polygamy to follow."
Polygamists, the newest members of the Axis of Evil.
Let us pray to God that they never get their hands on nuclear technology.
Next up from Burns: "Bomb Utah back to the Stone Age!"
On the other hand, that might be redundant.
October 17th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
why won't you guys recognize burns' comic genius?? he's going further and further out to try and get you guys to finally get it through your thick skulls that he is a genius of satire! i mean, come on, colbert could only DREAM of a riff like this: "Voting against the Ban on Same Sex Marriage is a vote that allows polygamy to follow. If you are too myopic to see that, then the continuation of this exchange is in vain."
what we are seeing is just a guy who, until cobert came along, didn't know how his particular brand of satire against the right-wingers and their INSANE conspiracy theories and blantant misanthropy could have ANY kind of market. but then the 'colbert report' became a huge hit and burns finally saw his chance! and what has he done with that chance, you may ask? well, let's just say the student is now the master!
don't worry, burnsey, *i* get it! bravo!
October 18th, 2006 at 7:08 am
Talking about conspiracies, Katie Couric said on the news that President Bush was controlling gas prices. On another channel a tape was shown of her saying that and the "Democrat" guest laughed and said that is not posbile and is nothing more than election year conspiracy talk.
Imagine, coming from an 'UNBIASED" news person.
October 18th, 2006 at 9:08 am
oh, burns, guess what? katie did not have a SINGLE democrat or progressive person on her "free speech" segment for 13 straight telecasts YET had rush limbaugh on one of the first. oh, that liberal media strikes again!
btw, your champion rush would ONLY come on if his segment was NOT allowed to be rebutted in a future telecast. free speech, right??
i await your changing of the subject, as per usual…
October 18th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Day 5 and Powder Burns still hasn't named anyone that supports polygamy.
October 19th, 2006 at 2:10 am
Couric intentionally lied:
Talking about conspiracies, Katie Couric said on the news that President Bush was controlling gas prices. On another channel a tape was shown of her saying that and the "Democrat" guest laughed and said that is not posbile and is nothing more than election year conspiracy talk.
Imagine, coming from an 'UNBIASED" news person.