WHO CARES!! Live and let live.

Why should anyone question Hillary's faith?

I think it's funny that the these Republic Party dopes, who run around starting uncalled for wars, also seem to think that god is only for them and only on their side.

Everytime Prez Chimpy closes the door to the oval office and picks up his personal hotline phone to god, something bad happens.

"847-454-2709, hello god?, this is W. calling again, you know that Iraq thing we talked about? it's going great, just like you told me it would, thanks again and Cheney says hello to his pal Satan, could you pass on his message?".

I am a democrat, but I like Giuliani's answer the best. More candidates should be following his lead.

That church stuff is so ridiculous. I feel sorry for bible belt folks who think more about that than who can manage an enterprise as big as America. I do understand some of the issues they are concerned with but I don't see Mrs Clinton shoving her religious views down peoples throats the way the current administration has. I will give Mitt Romney points for being sincere in his passion for religion even if some underpinnings of it seem well fanciful at best. Obama has always struck me as a true believer.

I think those who judge the faith live of politicians need to remember Matthew 6:5-6

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

Swamp. Why is this "fascinating"?

Electrical Contacting Propane Ain't a Good Thing to be Around,

Kaboom, there was supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom.

On that airplane don't know when I'll be back again.

HaHaHaHaHaHa!

Ahhh, cute one there Deranged Johnnnny E. Mummy and duddy do call me all the time and cry and cry and cry about how the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on therapy for you have done absolutely no good. They hope someday to come home and find you slumped in a chair though!

In yet more news the usually poll-manic "Swamp" isn't reporting, the latest Gallup poll has Clinton up 16% on St. Barack. On the GOP side, Giuliani is still in front, and John McCain has fallen to 3rd. For the full results, see

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28114

Obama is a true believer alright.

He goes to a racist anti-white church

For those with a "Who Cares" response to this.. Hillary Cares! thats the story.. How will Hillary BECOME what will put her in the best position to get elected..

I guarantee that before the year is up Hillary will FIND herself in a South Side gospel church, possibly even in the choir.

RNC Bruce,

It's a real toss up as to what to do about insomnia. Paul Os rascist rantings, John D.s looney tunes or your incessant poll posts.

Lucky me though, I got beer!

Logic Prisoner:

What "religious views" get shoved "down peoples throats" by the current administration?

I don't hear much "religious" stuff coming from the White House. The few comments I hear from Duh'bya about "faith" I filter out and turn off. That I can filter things like that out and forget them means that no one is forcing anything with religious content down my throat.

So tell me, how is your experience different?

Ah Doogie, you have proven once and for all that you are in the same league as Deranged Johnnny E., or you are one of deranged Johnnny E.'s aliases?
Really, the fact that you weird, psychopathic, deranged, deluded, sick little beings are so infatuated with me and where I work, live, etc. just keeps proving my point.
But, remember, weirdos, you are being watched. One of these days don't be surprised if several men walk up to your door and you vanish quicker than a Gitmo detainee!!

Tony:

That's very good. But I like this one better:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
(Matthew 7:1-2.)

In other words, don't condemn others for what you don't like about them. Exercise "judgment" only in the sense of discerning one from another in order to make wise choices. Politics would be a lot less ugly if we all did.

In yet more news the usually poll-manic "Swamp" isn't reporting, the latest Gallup poll has Clinton up 16% on St. Barack. On the GOP side, Giuliani is still in front, and John McCain has fallen to 3rd. For the full results, see

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28114

Posted by: Bruce | July 12, 2007 3:04 PM

Sounds like Internet neo-nut terrorist bruce whinerdice needs a smack-down from Swamp editors like the one Eric Zorn gave him:

ZORN REPLY -- Bruce, you lurk here enough and have spewed enough of your bile to know that I publish nearly everything, even your rants. So where the hell do you get off pouting like a child that I won't publish something because I don't agree with it?

Posted by: bruce | Mar 20, 2007 2:19:40 PM

What is interesting, Bruce, is that the LIBune's second-favorite candidate, Chris Dudd, only gets an asterick! But we'll still see several posts a week on Mr. Dudd!

Really, the fact that you weird, psychopathic, deranged, deluded, sick little beings are so infatuated with me and where I work, live, etc. just keeps proving my point.
But, remember, weirdos, you are being watched. One of these days don't be surprised if several men walk up to your door and you vanish quicker than a Gitmo detainee!!

Posted by: John D | July 12, 2007 4:18 PM

Look who's talking freak. You are officially off the reservation! You've made name calling a science and absurdity a religion. Maybe you should begin to examine what it is your sticking up for. Vacant ideas and failed politics. Personally I could'nt give a rats %ss about ya but you drive sane people up a wall with your insulting drivel.

John D.,

I heard you gotta getta ride on an airplane!?

Is it true!?

Ya goof.

But, remember, weirdos, you are being watched. One of these days don't be surprised if several men walk up to your door and you vanish quicker than a Gitmo detainee!!

Posted by: John D | July 12, 2007 4:18 PM

Stop-it Crazy Joe, you're scaring me. I saw this big, sad tragic clown outside my window last night and thought it was you. Isn't it illegal for Hubbell Lighting execs to use their corporate jet to support terrorist activities?

JOE DIVOLA: You know the story of Pagliacci, Nedda?
ELAINE: Uh.. I¹m Elaine!
JOE DIVOLA: He's a clown whose wife is unfaithful to him.
ELAINE: Oh.
JOE DIVOLA: Do you think I¹m a clown, Nedda?
ELAINE: Do I think you're a clown? No, not if it¹s bad to be a clown, if
it¹s bad to be a clown then you are definitely not a clown. But if its good
to be a clown then, you know, I would have to rethink the whole thing.
JOE DIVOLA: You've betrayed me with another, haven't you, Nedda? Who is he.
I want you to tell me who he is. I want his name. Tell me his name.
ELAINE: Oh, like any man would ever look at me, come on, I¹m gonna... get
out of here.

Divola blocks the door when Elaine tries to leave.

JOE DIVOLA: Pagliacci kills his wife.
ELAINE: Se, now that¹s terrible, that is not a nice thing to do at all, I
don¹t know how this Paliachi thing turns out but you know I would assume
that there is big big trouble for that clown
JOE DIVOLA: You're not leaving

Elaine sprays Divola in the eyes and he falls on his back. Elaine leaves.

John D.,

Whatcha gonna do tough guy? Get out your secret spy decoder ring and call your Secret Service?

John W,

Bush has infiltered the Religious Right into the White House right, left and sideways.
Remember Ted Haggard?, the DOJ robots from Pat Robertson University?, the "code words" in his speechs?

Zooky,

Little Johnny A$$clown is going to sick his secret Republican police force on us, are you scared?

John E:

I don't care how much "in-filtering," "infiltration," or even "pandering" goes on from, or to, any particular religious group. I simply asked how any of it was being shoved down our throats. If you and I can turn it off at our pleasure, then it isn't getting shoved down our throats. Only a weak minded person would complain about anything out there on the waves that isn't coerced.

I'm sure you are not a weak minded person, and I know you have successfully shut out anything with which you disagree. So, please, don't defend those that complain loudly about the Duh'bya's affiliations with religious groups.

John W,

Myself and many others are tired of the Arab hating Religious Right whacko's from the Republican Party, dictating our foreign policy.

John E.,

Yeah, I'm terrified.

I'm also mildly ammused at The Swamp's tough guys who hide behind their keyboards.

W... what's that? A faint clucking sound coming out of far, far right field... Why it's The return of John "QWERTY Warrior" D., and his boy wonder sidekick Paul "Command-O!"

Speed of type, roar of chickenhawk, the few, the proud and damned sure not about to do it themselves.

John W., don't waste your time discussing anything with John E. You're better off debating your family pet.
And with the wording of "dt," there no longer is any doubt that "dt" and John E. are one and the same. Also believe Doug Zook is another version of John E. Really, dude, how many of you is in there?

John W,
I suppose it could be argued that Bush's campaign for a school voucher program is a direct result of intense lobbying from the religious right. I may be wrong (I'm sure you'll tell me if I am), but IMO, the attempt to strip funds from public schooling to fund vouchers for private schooling (many church sponsored)is a direct byproduct of all of Bush's visits to the White House from Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson, and other Rapture Ready Republicans.

The only time you'll see Hillary(or any other dem) in a church is when it's a few months before an election,and of course it'll be a black church.
And,Barack "Hussein" Obama belongs to a racist church,but that's just a front for what he really believes in....
He faces the "East" when he gives his speeches....Hmmm...Not too hard to figure out.

Paulo

John D:

You keep saying the same thing: "Don't bother arguing with so and so." Well, frankly, to me the whole exercise is pointless if it doesn't involve reasoning. I might as well hang it up if I can't. Besides, one discovers that people who might otherwise be adverse to one's positions are at least polite if politeness is offered, and they even agree with me sometimes. They don't always agree, but many are happy to respectfully disagree.

So, thanks, but I'll continue the reasoning with dt, Doug Zook and even John E. We don't talk at each other most of the time.

He faces the "East" when he gives his speeches....Hmmm...Not too hard to figure out.

Posted by: Paulo | July 12, 2007 8:21 PM

Hmmm... Bush has been facing the East for quite some time now. Makes you wonder...

John E.,

The jury is in. John D. & Paul O are one in the same.

John E:

I'm sorry if I don't see the same hand of the "Religious Right" on our foreign policy as you do. Our foreign policy, as set forth by the neo-con ideology, is essentially hardcore Wilsonianism (from the policy of President Woodrow Wilson). Wilson believed in projecting American ideals abroad. Hardcore Wilsonians (as opposed to Wilson or Carter, who were soft-core Wilsonians) believe in using force to project liberal democracy abroad when organizations like the UN fail. This foreign policy has a very specific and traceable history that comes from early neo-con philosophers like Irving Kristol and Leo Strauss, and not from any particular religious group.

I think hard-core Wilsonianism is a dangerous philosophy which any true believer in any religion would hopefully reject. Neither religion nor politics can be effectively delivered at the point of a bayonet.

In any event, the Religious Right in this country are not on board for the entire hard-core Wilsonian vision. They are only on board because of their support for Israel. They have been on board with other, earlier administrations with pro-Israeli policies, where the administration did not subscribe to hard-core Wilsonianism or any particular militant stance toward Arabs in particular (as was true of Nixon, Ford and Reagan).

In short: It’s the neo-cons, and not the RR, that produced the policy you despise.

Zooky,
"Paul Command-O", that's a good one, but we should put Keyboard in front of the Commando because that's the closest Paula has ever come to a real fight in his real life (fighting the "enemy" from behind his keyboard).

John W,
By no means am I trying to disrespect you, I'm just saying that the RR influence on the Bush White House needs to be changed as soon as possible.
I grew up in the church, my grandfather is a minister and I can tell you that anything you want to find in the bible is in there, it can be twisted to fit any person's version of reality, we need to be very,very careful with that.

dt:

I have three points in response:

1. Where are the federal school vouchers? We don't have any federal school vouchers as a result of the RR’s influence on Duh’bya, in which case nobody, religious or otherwise, has won that cause. If they didn’t win, how can anyone say the RR’s point of view is being forced down anyone's throat? Well – they can’t. That was the original issue, wasn’t it?

2. If the Religious Right favor school vouchers, I can assure you they are not the only group that favors them. Others, including Libertarians, favor school vouchers in order to stimulate competition for public money as a means of raising educational standards. Other, similar minded people, also view vouchers as a means of getting some social justice, as vouchers have been used effectively by inner city families to better educate their children.

These folks are not wrong. They just want some bang for their buck, and many public schools have failed in delivering the goods. If we want to seriously oppose the trend toward school vouchers, then we must do something serious about rooting out the entrenched complacency, incompetence and impractical philosophies which drive our public schools. We would have a good start if we changed the tenure rules, and then determined to teach those kids something rather than warehousing them until they are old enough to join the workforce and fail. And this leads me to point No. 3.

3. The States that provide for voucher systems have adopted those systems on the notion that it is the best way to insure that parents have the maximum discretion in seeing their children get a good education. Again, for the States that have them, voucher systems are a means of obtaining social justice, and not to fund sectarian educational organizations. The RR do not have a good secular argument for public funding for private educational systems; the social justice people do.

Oh Doogie, no, me and Paulo are not one and the same. I post as me and me only, except for the rare time I post as John E.'s mom.

Now, Doogie, we know there is much in common between you and John E. While a very few of your brethren have taken Johnnny E to task for his shenanigans of posting as others, real or made up people, as well as even searching into my life, you revel in that. So, either you and John E are one and the same, you and John E are friends in that you personally know one another or you're just as deranged as he is.
It's becoming increasingly clear you don't have a job like your drinking buddy John E. So perhaps you spend most of your time in his basement too. His mom does tell me he has bunches of weird friends that visit.

Doug Kook,
The jury is in???
Just like your fruitcake ex-V.P.Gore said about global warming?
Well then,should I get special asbestos soles for my work boots,since the Earth has warmed up 1/4 degree in the past 500 years?
Yep!The jury is in and they decided you lefties have a mental disorder...
Grow a hair and then get a life...LOSER!

Paulo

Ar,
President Bush knows the threat to our nation is coming from the East,unlike B.J.Clinton that knew,but did Nothing!(8 terrorist attacks at home and abroad---9/11 was planned under B.J.Clinton's nose for 3 years)...Monica...
Go ahead,vote for a wuss like(Barack "Hussein" Obama) that gives his speeches facing the East...for "other reasons."
***Madrassa---Muslim***?
Ahhhh...The dem line-up for 2008...A wimp,gun grabbing,late term abortion loving,socialist,lefty--former Illinois Senator.
A woman that wears pant-suits and if she only had the last name of Rodham,who would even notice.
And a $1200.00 a hair-cut nerd that's a former slip-and-fall lawyer...
Good-Luck...You're going to lose...again!
Hey,atleast you got an increase in your minimum wage!...(WOW)...That 14% approval rating in the dem controlled Congress does wonders...Enjoy!

Paulo

John W.,

Off topic.

What's your learned opinion of making the DOJ AUSAs career civil service, Hatch Act constrained employees?

Looks like Sub-Commandante Paulo is off his meds again!!!

John E grew up in the church? That's a shock, if true. I mean this is coming from the same guy who said his son was in Iraq; who said he was heading to Iraq in February (still here); the same guy who only last Fall said he would be my worst nightmare and not to mess with him; the same guy who said he would give me a "beat down;" the same guy who investigates my life, where I work, where I live and then broadcasrs that whenever possible; and the same guy who posts as other people, including me. Hmmm, how does that upbringing in the church and grandfather who was a minister square with the life you live?

Faith aside, the major problem the Democratic candidates have is a general lack of administrative experience. The White House is not for on-the-job training. Except for Bill Richardson, none of the Democrat candidates has been an executive for anything even as complicated as a pay toilet.

[quote]
Go ahead,vote for a wuss like(Barack "Hussein" Obama) that gives his speeches facing the East...for "other reasons."
***Madrassa---Muslim***?

Posted by: Paulo | July 13, 2007 2:49 AM
[/quote]

Paulo, you've been spewing this garbage for FOUR MONTHS now, and have been TOO COWARDLY to post ANY PROOF to back up your rants, as I have challenged you repeatedly to do so.

Either post POSITIVE PROOF or knock off your racist anti-Obama crap.

Paulo, I would suggest that the comments of Obama being "Muslim" should cease as well. He isn't. There is plenty to criticize the Senator about, but whatever his religious views are or aren't is not one of them.

Little Johnny 40 Watt Dimbulb,

Unlike like you, a guy who can't hold down a steady job for more than a year, I've reached a point in my career where I can spend my afternoons doing my JOB on the computer.

Keep paying your state taxes Lil' Johnny Quacksalot and I'll keep providing you with winning athletic teams.

John E:

I understand what you are saying, John. I just don't see the RR's influence as that substantial. I think Bush's regard for the RR has been more show than substance. He has thrown them a few bones over the years (to keep them and their votes on board).

If you compare the RR's agendum to what they have accomplished, Duh'bya hasn't helped them very much. And now, in his last two years with his own influence on the wane, he doesn't have much power left to exercise on their behalf.

The only other comment I would have is that there is no particular, practical way to keep any one group from having any influence on the President - especially if the President is inclined to listen to them. Then again, influencing the President doesn't get anyone what they want unless they can also influence Congress. And, as I see it, the RR's influence on Congress right now is pretty much next to nil.

Doug Zook,

[What follows was already posted once. But, instead of making you dig into the archives, here it is again.]

I have grave misgivings about applying the Hatch Act to anyone. The Hatch Act says that a person can have certain First Amendment and partisan political rights, OR be a federal employee – but not both. The purpose of Act was to protect against the loss of efficiency and integrity in employee performance, and to keep the federal bureaucracy from becoming a Tammany Hall-like political “machine.” (See Civil Service Comm'n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U. S. 548, 556, 564-567 (1973).) The law could have been much more narrowly drawn over the years to suit that purpose. But, no - the Supreme Court has excused the blanket prohibition against certain partisan political activities in the Act on the ground the “cumulative effect” of such behavior may, in Congress’ judgment, create too serious a risk of disruption. (See Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75, 96-101 (1947).) Lower federal courts have also upheld the Hatch Act against constitutional attack on the ground the law doesn’t restrict any First Amendment rights at all; it merely says what kind of job a person can have while exercising First Amendment rights. This is all quite inconsistent with other precedents that say compelling governmental interests can overcome fundamental rights only by laws that are narrowly tailored to enforce their goals by the least restrictive means.

Having said all that, I must admit that my mind changes from “misgivings” to “mixed feelings” when restrictions against political activity are attached to AUSAs and/or their employees, or to any prosecutor. Again, I don’t like the idea of throttling anyone’s political or free-speech rights. However, prosecutors must be the most politically neutral of any federal employees. In their hands lies the discretion to prosecute. That power is literally the power to destroy a person in many cases. That discretion should never, ever be exercised on the basis of the defendant’s or victim’s political affiliation, or to promote the prosecutor’s political career. To prosecute on the basis of political affiliation would be too powerful a tool of political oppression, and would, in any event, violate the prohibition against selective prosecution found in the “Due Process Clause” of the Fifth Amendment. The Duke lacrosse scandal was a further reminder of what bad can happen when a prosecutor tries to curry public support for reelection by being “hard on crime.” In any event, prosecutors sign up for the job, knowingly consenting to restrictions on their political activities out of ethical concerns. So, of all the applications of the Hatch act, its application to AUSAs appears to be the least revolting of all.

Ah, little Johnny E finally admits he is unemployed, just like Doug! Why is that NOT a surprise?

John W.,

Thanks for that. I obviously missed it the 1st time around.

Things can get pretty dicey for public employees of all stripes. Several years ago, I was a business agent for SEIU Local 1 and represented public employees in DuPage County for awhile. In that capacity I'd try to get members to take a Democratic ballot in a primary and vote for such and such candidate and many a member told me not a chance. This is because their name would show up as having voted "D" in a primary and that they would become "marked." I'm under no illusion that this also happens to Republicans in Democratic areas.

On the other hand I've also met federal employees who told me they use the Hatch Act as a shield against getting leaned on to get involved with a particular candidate or party. Words to the effect: "I'd like to help but..."

Thanks again.

Doug,

Those are very interesting observations. One of Congress' explicit concerns was that partisan politics could be used as a basis for discrimination in hiring, firing and advancement. So, yes, I understand that it is valuable as an anti-descrimination measure. I'm still concerned, however, that it muzzles a lot of important political speech. It could simply have been implemented as an anti-discrimination-in-the-workplace kind of law, rather than a muzzle on all partisan political activity. That would have served Congress' purposes without shutting people up or dampening their desire to engage in partisan politics. We've all probably lost a lot of good, qualified candidates for political office because of the choice given them between their job and their political aspirations.

AFAIK, the Act doesn't reach State employees any more, at least not that I am aware of. So, I also understand why some would be hesitant to get "marked" out of fear of job related reprisals. I don't know if Illinois has its own version of the Act, but it has to have some anti-discrimination-in-the-workplace type of law to defend people like those you mentioned. Discrimination against a State employee by another State employee on the basis of political affiliation would also constitute a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because that would be invidious discrimination based on the exercise of First Amendment rights.

Posted by: Paulo | July 13, 2007 2:49 AM

Paulo

If you think that my response to you was an endorsement of any candidate on my part. Well that explains everything. Maybe I should have been more clearer...

You;
He faces the "East" when he gives his speeches....Hmmm...Not too hard to figure out.

Me following You;
Hmmm... Bush has been facing the East for quite some time now. Makes you wonder...

....NOT.

Your's is the logic of a lemming. Please, tell me you have other reasons to vote for or against a candidate. If I'm not mistaken Muslims face East during prayer on a carpet several times a day. When he starts his PUBLIC speeches on a carpet, facing the East, reading out of the Quran you'd have some foundations for the allegations, and concerns.
Voting based for or against based on a a person's name, religion, and whatever supposed direction he faces during speeches is voting blind. Please abort.