"In some respects, it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and
by which it is guaranteed." -- Pope Benny the Rat, on Britain's
proposed gay equal
rights law, Link
That sounds funny coming from a man who
heads an organization of young boy rapists.
And how does giving someone equality
violate the natural law of equality?
In
Today's Tequila Treehouse...
The deficit
blame game
Republicans
VS. The Military
Who is
President Matters
O'Reilly
the scared pussy
Fool the
Dems Twice
Gibbs:
Dems are helpless
Why can't
Dems think?
Kate Beckinsale
in Top Ten
Help
Bartcop.com
survive!
to
bartcop@bartcop.com
OR
send a 'love' check to
bartcop.com PO Box 54466 Tulsa, OK 74155
Quotes
"I'm listening to the president's appearance
today at the House Democratic retreat -- an analogue to last week's appearance before the
Republicans. And I notice that whereas the message from the Republicans last week was 'you Democrats
sure do suck', the message from the Dems standing and asking questions of Obama seems to
be 'we Democrats sure do suck.'" -- Josh Marshall,
Link
You see?
Democrats are more honest than Republicans :)
Excerpt: If President Obama's recent face-to-face meeting
with congressional Republicans had been a prizefight,
they'd have stopped it: Obama by TKO. It was
such a mismatch that Fox News, unofficial network of the GOP,
basically conceded defeat by cutting away 20
minutes before it ended. Other networks showed it all.
Republicans appeared to make the elementary mistake
of believing their own ... um, propaganda.
Believe it or not, Obama's use of Teleprompters
has convinced GOP stalwarts that he's kind of thick.
I get frequent e-mails to that effect from people
who marveled at the wit and wisdom of George W. Bush.
I know, I know. That's what they think, is all
I'm saying.
House Republicans shouldn't have allowed the encounter
to be televised.
But then believing their own disinformation is
basically what makes them Republicans.
"You can't have a situation where we're governing
and they're simply running an election campaign. Everybody's got to pick up an oar here
and row, if we're going to get to where we need to go. Those guys were kind of free riders
in the first year. The boat's got a lot of freight." -- David Axelrod,
Link
Hey David, what the hell are you trying to say?
Where are we supposed to get these oars?
No wonder you guys are out of touch.
You talk in riddles.
Do we have a problem with waterboarding the certainly guilty?
My biggest problem with Gitmo is we have no idea if these guys
are
simple goat herders who got rounded up so somebody could collect
$5,000
or hard-core al qaida bastards and true 9-11 masterminds.
But that underwear bomber? And Richard Reid the shoe bomber?
The sons of bitches tried their best to murder hundreds of Americans.
I'd be OK with treating them semi-badly.
Excerpt: For much of the Bush-Cheney era, Republican leaders
characterized themselves as more than just allies
of the military establishment, but also deferential
to the military's judgment on national security matters.
"Listen to the commanders on the ground"
became a common adage in GOP circles.
But over the last year or so, it's become increasingly
apparent that it's President Obama and his team
that are aligned with the military establishment,
leaving Republicans at odds with the brass they used to revere...
Obama has spent a year following the guidance
of military leaders, and Republicans have spent a year
breaking with the judgment of the military establishment.
It's a fascinating dynamic. On everything from
civilian trials to Gitmo to torture, we have two distinct groups
-- GOP leaders, the Cheneys, Limbaugh, and conservative
activists on one side with Obama, Gen. Petraeus,
Secretary Gates, Colin Powell, etc. on the other...McConnell
and his Republicans cohorts are reluctant to admit it,
and political insiders have been slow to acknowledge
it, but what we're witnessing is exceedingly rare
-- the Republican establishment openly rejecting
the judgment of the military establishment.
Excerpt: It does matter who is in the White House. It
does matter which party he belongs to.
I hear otherwise every day here. "Republicans
and Democrats are no different".
"Bought and paid for by the same corporate masters".
The only problem with those assertions is that
they are wrong. It is hard to analyze the differences
between parties and politicians much of the time,
since there is so much going on. Yes, campaign
contributions come from big business as well
as from individual donors. Yes, one party ends up
incorporating proposals from the other party
to get bills passed.
But the two parties are different. Yes, they are.
You may not like either of them, and that's fine.
Go out and start one of your own, or just stay
at home and bitch about it while doing nothing. Fine.
But, if both parties are bought and paid for by
the same corporate masters, then why don't
Democratic Presidents give them their money's
worth? Why do the Republicans consistently
deliver for big business, but Democrats frequently
turn around and stab their masters in the back?
I'm not sure I get what he's saying, but I've
always said if both parties
serve the same master, why do Democrats surrender
so often?
The Republicans make demands and those demands
are met.
Democrats sheepishly beg for a handout and they
are told to GFY.
"Look what's going on in France, where that
psychological abuse -- those words spoken that aren't politically correct and accepted
in that country will be allowed. They'll be deemed illegal. Now some who want us to turn into
a country like that scare the heck out of me. And unfortunately some of those people are leading our
country today." --Sarah
Palin, to Glenn Beck, saying she don't need no word police,
Link
"Our president is doing himself a disservice
by seeming to condone Rahm’s recent sick and offensive tactic." --
Sarah Palin, word policewoman, calling for Rahm to be fired,
Link
Sarah, you have the consistency of warm
baby shit.
You told Glenn Beck that the word police
scare you - and then you become one?
Do you have any idea what you stand for?
"Our political correct society is acting like
some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. I
mean these people, these liberal activists are kooks. Rahm Emanuel is calling Obama’s number
one supporters f’ing retards. So now there’s going to be a retard summit at the
White House. Much like the beer summit..." --
the vulgar Pigboy, trying to be offensive and succeeding Link
I think Rahn should have called the plan for liberal
groups to run ads against
conservative democrats "nigger-rigged" and then
see what the fall out would be.
I see the word "nigger rigged" as something sloppily
thrown together in a lazy manner
by a bunch of morons with no expectation that
it will last or even work.
I don't understand why anybody with a nigger as
a loved one would be offended by that.
Joe with a special needs child
I can tell you're trying to make a point, but I don't get it.
"Nigger" is a word that's in a category all by itself.
My point is that the word "retarded" does NOT apply to your son or daughter
but, if I read you correctly, you're insisting that it does, which
I find confusing.
When you look up the word "retarded" in
the dictionary, it warns the reader
that the word is sometimes offensive - but you seem to
be saying it's always offensive.
I think the word "retarded," like
the Dr Laura Naked pictures, is too widely disseminated
to try to mount a campaign to get people to stop using it - especially
comedians..
I agree the president's chief of staff ought not to be using it.
Note: If you sign up,
you'll get an instant Twitter alert when
a new page or radio show is fresh and hot.
O'Reilly
the scared pussy
He had Jon Stewart in his studio - on tape.
He knew Jon might get the better of the argument
so they taped the interview
so the O'Reilly assholes could cut out Jon's
best points to give Big Pussy an advantage.
Not only that, but he never let Jon finish a sentence.
Jon would get 6-8 words into it and O'Rielly
would break in to kill his rythym.
That's a trick the liars use - never let the
other guy make a point.
That's one thing Stewart has on everybody - that's
why rethugs love going on The Daily Show,
because they know Jon will let them make their
point and complete their pitch.
But O'Reilly is too much of a coward to face Stewart
man-to-man.
This would be perfect for two people needing a sudden,
expensive
flight.
If you're in Los Angeles and you have to take a sudden
trip to New York
even Southwest is going to slam you for $1900
and I could save you, say, $500.
Somebody's going to suddenly have a need for a pair of tickets.
I hope it's not you that has to take that sudden trip,
but if it is, at least I can save you some significant money.
Excerpt: Senate Democrats have pivoted, at times clumsily,
from a universal focus on health care reform
to a universal focus on jobs legislation. But
is jobs destined to get bogged down by the same
legislative morass that ultimately stymied health
care? Democrats say not on their watch.
Yesterday, Politico reported that Sen. Max Baucus
(D-Backstabber) had told Democratic leadership
that he'd like to take a crack at some elements
of the Democrats' burgeoning job proposal in his
Finance Committee. The news gave progressives,
and rank and file Democrats flashbacks to the
Baucus-led Gang of Six negotiations on health
care reform, which dragged on for months and
ultimately failed to secure any Republican votes.
But numerous Senate aides said today that the
jobs push is--and will be--different.
They say the sense of urgency is greater, and
that leadership is busily figuring out how to
enact a meaningful jobs package as expeditiously
as possible...
Ultimately leadership will make that decision,
and a Democratic Senate aide confirms that
Baucus will support whatever decision Harry Reid
makes.
"He is definitely on board," the aide said.
So, after killing health care reform for everybody,
now Baucus wants to be a team player and contribute?
Bart, 20 years ago, I met a Canadian who had come
to the US for a liver transplant at the same time as my brother
had his. They were hospital roommates. Back then
you didn't have much chance of getting a transplant in the US if you
couldn't pay most of the expenses yourself.
I can't say for sure what Bill's surgery cost but my brothers cost over
$100,000.
The Canadian government paid for everything for
Bill, including medications that were prohibitively expensive back then.
And his wife stayed in the US - all expenses
paid by the gov.- for the entire six months he was here. At the same time,
I met an American woman in that same hospital
who needed a kidney transplant, the easiest and most successful kind
at the time, who couldn't get the surgery because
she was on welfare.
yb
It's hard to believe the Democrats could screw
this up as badly as they have.
Obama refused to come to work and people will
die because he didn't do his damn job.
You'd think selling "health" would be a no-brainer,
but not for the Democrats.
Somehow, the Rethugs have convinced a majority
of idiots that they'd rather surrender
to death than subject themselves to something
as horrible as "socialized medicine."
There is no limit to Democratic laziness or stupidity.
“ASTOUNDING, ASTONISHING, AND HAUNTING ...” “Guests of the Nation offers an intriguing
alternative to what the late George Carlin called the 9/11 ‘consensus reality.’
Philip K. Dick would love how this deft American novel captures
our imagination and never lets go. Mike Palecek has graced us with a
sparkling gem you’ll read non-stop and more than once.” — Karen Kwiatkowski, retired Lt. Col., USAF, Ph.D.,
and working at the Pentagon on 9/11
Excerpt: There was a spirited exchange between Robert
Gibbs and reporters at today’s press briefing
that may irk those diehards who are still holding
out hope that Dems will try to reform the filibuster:
GIBBS: One party is not going to solve these -
not going to solve all these problems. One party is not going to make –
QUESTION: Why not? Why is one party not capable
- when one party controls the House, Senate and the White House?
GIBBS: No, no, no, no, no - welcome to Washington.
One party is not going to be able to solve all these.
The American people want both parties to work together to solve these.
This is the emerging talking point from the White
House and Congessional leadership:
Dems will never be able to get anything done
without cooperation from Republicans.
But the Republicans never had this problem.
When a GOP president barks, "Get behind me,"
the Democrats wimper and obey.
Worse, our Democrats obeyed Bush and told Obama to GFY.
Excerpt: When, oh when, will this administration wake
up?
Bit by bit, circumstances are forcing President
Obama and his aides to come to grips with reality.
The original plan to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed
in New York City has apparently been aborted.
It finally occurred to the Justice Department
that cordoning off much of Lower Manhattan and placing
a security perimeter around the financial district
not only would cost something like $200 million a year
but also would destroy the economy of the area.
A trial there would give KSM, as he is called,
a second shot at devastating downtown New York.
It is amazing that no one thought this through.
Published reports say that the Justice Department informed
Mayor Michael Bloomberg of its plan just about
the time it was announced. This alacrity was clearly the
product of some excitement down at Justice --
yet another chance to show the world that George W. Bush
was gone and with him the odious attempts to
treat terrorists as if they were, well, terrorists. A civilian trial!
Right in the heart of Manhattan! Obama ought
to ask his friend Attorney General Eric Holder what in the
world he was thinking -- just as we might ask
Obama why he has such faith in Holder's judgment.
There are 162
shows online to listen to and more are coming
That's a lot of BCR
You can select a monthly plan to provide recurring support. Please sign up for whatever you can afford. (10% of your gross is the usual tithe.)
to
bartcop@bartcop.com
OR
send a 'love' check to
bartcop.com PO Box 54466 Tulsa, OK 74155
Quotes
"Nancy Pelosi - I swear - does anybody else
think that Nancy Pelosi is beginning to look a little like Skeletor?...Is it just
me? Am I remembering her more fondly or has she had like massive plastic surgery lately? And
every time she blinks it’s getting so stretched and I feel like it must hurt when she blinks.
Ow, ow, ow, ow, ow, ow, ow, ow, ow, ow." -- Glenn Beck,
Link
We must assume that Beck loves Pelosi's politics.
If he had a problem with anything she stands for, he'd mention
it, right?
But apparently Pelosi's political positions are identical
to Beck's.
Otherwise he would attack her for something of substance,
not silly personal attacks on her appearance.
I don't understand why people criticize Obama
for "saving the banks."
You'd have to be really old to remember the Great
Depression first hand, but if the
banks failed in late 2008, wouldn't that have
led to mass panic and war in the streets?
Wouldn't every city in America become another
New Orleans after Katrina?
Pick two examples - gasoline and food.
Your local gas station is out of gas because
the bank failed and there's no way
to purchase gasoline because there's no more
credit cards or checks - right?
And forget going to the grocery store because the giant food companies
(Kelloggs, Del Monte, Coca Cola etc) can't ship any products because
there's no gasoline and even if there was some, the store can't write
checks
to pay for the food so why bother to deliver it?
If the big banks fail it stands to reason that your local bank would
fail
and what condition would America be in then?
"Does anybody care about don’t ask, don’t tell
anymore? If the military would say 'Look, in our culture with the military
recruiting mostly conservatives, (all the polls show that) and traditional military families.
They’re not comfortable with openly gay people in the barracks.' I think that’s a moral issue that is
a legitimate issue." -- Bill O'Reilly (R-Big Pussy),
Link
So, what if the cavemen in the military aren't comfortable with
Blacks?
What if they're not comfortable with Jews?
What if they're not comfortable with women?
What if they're not comfortable with Mexicans?
What if they're not comfortable with Muslims?
Why pick on the gays?
"Open homosexuality is incompatible with military
service because it undermines the military ethos upon
which success in war ultimately depends." --Mackubin Thomas Owens, Whore St. Journal,
Link
I'm hearing, "Soldiers MUST be homophobes
to fight effectively."
"I think Rahm Emanuel is offensive. But at
least he's real. And he has now apologized. And at least he used the term metaphorically.
Palin, in contrast, called her own campaign prop "her retarded baby" in private, according
to an eye-witness account from Levi Johnston. "I was just in shock the first time I heard
it," Levi Johnston told CBS. Unlike Sarah Palin, Johnston has not been caught in multiple
indisputable lies. I believe him over her. In fact, in any factual dispute, I
believe anyone over her." -- Andrew Sullivan, Link
Our motto for
this year is - "No Anti-Bush Site Left Behind".
So - if you have an anti-bush site and you are choking on hosting
fees or dealing with threats - let us know and we'll help keep you online.
We also
have that strongest server side spam filtering on the planet.
Check out Marx
Mail for info on how you can have a Spam
Free Email Account.