Comments on: Saving John Doe

By: auzerais

auzerais — Thu, 03 May 2007 01:32:46 +0000

Meanwhile, Virgin Atlantic Airlines proudly announces that it will be showing the nutjob 911 Conspiracy film "Loose Change" on its flights. LGF has the details and contact info here. The rumor is that Branson is ready to rename his airline to: 72 Virgins Airline

By: Freelancer

Freelancer — Wed, 02 May 2007 23:44:14 +0000

121 against, eh? Do they all think that Michael Moore lives in their district? Who else are they pandering too? Aren’t they the free speech, freedom of choice crowd? But it’s wrong to speak up when you feel threatened.

Traitors.

By: Ali-Bubba

Ali-Bubba — Wed, 02 May 2007 20:55:13 +0000

... she’s possibly the chief authority out there ...

Correction:

... she’s ~~possibly~~ the chief authority out there ...

By: Rusty Bill

Rusty Bill — Wed, 02 May 2007 19:57:16 +0000

It’s as if they are counting on the terrorist vote to keep them in power. bbz123 on May 2, 2007 at 9:06 AM Not "as if". They are actively courting the terrorists. Look at Pelosi's trip to the Middle East, in direct violation of the Logan Act; the pork-laden, veto-guaranteed military funding bill; Reid subverting the war effort and military morale by publicly calling the war "lost"; the Democrats' aversion to receiving briefings from the commander of the troops in Iraq; the list goes on. Calling the Democratic Party the Party of Treason is no longer hyperbole - it is fact.

By: JunkCoast

JunkCoast — Wed, 02 May 2007 17:30:59 +0000

I figured it out.

Pelosi is a Syrian-controlled android that was manufactured in Iran.

Tell me she’s not made of plastic! Go on!

Obviously the Iranians don’t make their robots even “three laws safe”…

I can’t think of a more rational explanation… Occam’s Razor, this one. Syrian Android is far simpler than trying to make sense of this nonsense.

By: shooter

shooter — Wed, 02 May 2007 15:59:12 +0000

Key Republicans are lobbying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to protect legislation that prohibits airline passengers from being sued if they report suspicious behavior that foreshadows a terrorist attack.

Could ANYONE even imagine such a disgusting way to treat Americans in 1990? This would be beyond imagination, beyond a nightmare.
Two points:
1 they have to LOBBY the speaker?
2 this is even questioned, anywhere in the USA.

the party of American destruction, from w/in. Thx Pelosi, for nothing.

By: techno_barbarian

techno_barbarian — Wed, 02 May 2007 15:03:00 +0000

When that ‘republican smear machine’ charge gets leveled, the pubs need to be strong and remind the People that playing back the words and deeds of someone, in context, is in no way a smear.

Actions and words have consequences. The dems have forgotten or don’t believe that. It’s time to make them pay for all this lunacy. And with the delicious ammo they continue to give us on a daily basis, it should be child’s play to do.

The hypocracy charge needs to be leveled at the dems at every single opportunity. STAND UP, GOP members! Speak out and watch your popularity skyrocket.

By: The Machine

The Machine — Wed, 02 May 2007 14:22:59 +0000

If the Repubs even do bother to point out who voted against this legislation at election time the Dems will start screaming “smear!” of course.

Pointing out facts about dhimmicRATs always trots out the “republican smear machine” meme.

That we have amongst us so many who are willing to buy into that obvious lie is the appaling thing.

By: tormod

tormod — Wed, 02 May 2007 13:25:39 +0000

Can the congress serve dhimmitude with that?

By: flutejpl

flutejpl — Wed, 02 May 2007 13:25:21 +0000

The chances of Republicans getting to cash in at electiontime on a bunch of those 121 votes against this measure are pretty low given the way that House seats are drawn. The chances of some shrewd new-dog D’s being able to primary some of these people on the grounds of common sense might be pretty decent, though, if they exist. The question… are there enough of them out there to make a difference and, if we can’t dump the Dems in 2008, at least have them dump Nancy Pelosi?

I’d certainly hate to have it brought out in a debate or attack ad that I’d voted to make it easier for a potential terrorist to sue you just because you’d ratted him out to save your own life. Someone with the intelligence of a carrot can see the problems in the logic here.

By: CrimsonFisted

CrimsonFisted — Wed, 02 May 2007 13:12:45 +0000

the King amendment passed 304-121

121 voted AGAINST? I am starting to think, like the Supreme Court, we need the minority/majority opinion on WHY someone would OPPOSE such a measure.

By: Limerick

Limerick — Wed, 02 May 2007 13:08:18 +0000

Miss Bernards said. "Some of the things are doing is a restatement of current law, and some things are just about political point-scoring that does not have any real substance to them.

which would never never never happen in the most ethical congress ever!

By: bbz123

bbz123 — Wed, 02 May 2007 13:06:55 +0000

They still think that no one noticed that they voted for the war before they voted against it. It’s as if they are counting on the terrorist vote to keep them in power.

By: csdeven

csdeven — Wed, 02 May 2007 12:55:49 +0000

Steny pandering to the terrorists.

Brilliant!