AndreasThePimp

So, with the death of Terry Schiavo, the courts have given us our strike three. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No no no - they can tell us what kind of happiness we can and can't have (no, I don't smoke marijuana - never have - I think its being illegal just makes it easier to lock up at least a few people who ought to be locked up, but that's hardly a valid reason for it to be illegal), they can tell us what liberties we can have ("I know obscenity when I see it," and you know they enjoy applying that rule to other things), and now...
Well, in two or three decades, when the democrats have long since stopped celebrating about their defeat of the Bush plan and their own triumph in saving Social Security, when Social Security really hits the financial problems, won't it be reassuring to have SocSec saved again by judges who will tell us which old people didn't want to keep living that way..?
And what is with all these right wingers calling each other names over Schiavo and evolution? Geez, why don't we just invite the Kossacks, etc to watch us march into the sea?

Advice for those protesting in the hopes of saving Terri Schiavo's life: try marching up and down while hollering "No Justice, No Peace!" Apparently it's okay if you're, say, demanding that a cop be convicted of murder before the trial has even started, or you can't believe that the other side won that election...

According to Willis, "This is corruption - at the highest levels," referring to efforts of congressional Republicans to save Terry Schiavo.
Maybe this is not an issue for Congress. But would Willis say the same if Congress & the President gave us a law that said that the tube in such a case could only be pulled if the person in question had earlier signed a living will that requested such actions? Or suppose someone Willis thought was unjustly convicted of murder was headed towards the electric chair - would Willis object to any attempt by members of Congress to use legislative means to delay or prevent such an execution?
And another question - one I would actually be interested in hearing an answer to. The other day Willis was complaining about Al Gore being badly treated by the media during the 2000 campaign. Is it possible that many in the national news media wanted a Democrat in the White House but (perhaps without consciously realizing it) felt that letting Bush win would be better over the long run since (a) they saw Bush as an intellectual lightweight who (b) would get the blame for the the economy (which was already perhaps showing signs of slowing down), (c) would end up losing both houses of Congress (or at least the House) to the Democrats in 2002, and (d) would make it much easier for a Democrat to take back the Presidency in 2004?

It seems that the Wolfowitz nomination to head the World Bank may let us again begin to distinguish between liberals we can converse with (I'm quoting from memory, but Newsday, the liberal NY paper, this morning described Wolfowitz as someone who cares about democracy and human rights) from the lefties like Goofy Willis.

Angina: what you're having sex with when you don't know she's a he.

I meant to post this thought yesterday, but unlike some people I can name (and in one case am about to) I have a real job and sometimes it actually requires one to do work. But does it seem that Goofy Willis is heading for a cranial implosion?
I really don't have the time to count the ways (although calling Paul Wolfowitz 'filthy' is a pretty good starting point - one must be pretty thick to read anything into that, unlike, say, 'water buffalo'), but I suddenly realized why so many lefties like to believe that the main-stream media is really rightwing-leaning. (The kerfluffplfyle of the last few days about David Horowitz, etc and the Colorado student led me to this thought.) If the MSM says something bad about a conservative, it must not only be true but terribly true, because the conservative-controlled MSM wouldn't put the story out unless they felt it had to be done (perhaps to keep Goofy and the Gang from revealing the real story first.) On the other hand, if the MSM says something positive about or defends a liberal, the report also must be true (perhaps they feel the need to cover the story to prove that they're not biased against lefties.) And, besides, if the MSM were really liberal-leaning, Bush would be in the White House, would he.
Isn't it fun to suddenly get an insight into the delusionalati's thought process?
LATER: and now Goofy links to a long piece in the Daily Howler: here's an interesting line: "The two-year trashing of Candidate Gore was one of the most remarkable episodes in American press corps history. The Dem hopeful was battered from stem to stern, in an endless string of invented stories..." Invented stories..? Oh, yes, stories like these, these, or this...
No no no, it was wrong to batter Gore with his own stories. More proof of the media's rightwing bias!

We hired an elephant to do database work because he could multitusk.

Roving Charge: the price a loony lefty pays every time he blames something on Karl Rove...

Helpful hint: when the boss announces "It's crunch time!" don't race to shove a handful of square pretzel nuggets in your mouth - those things have surprisingly sharp corner, and, I must admit, the peanut butter filling does not blend well with blood...

From the Zen Of Oliver: I am, therefore I think.
**********
Current job, previous location: liquor store right across the street.
Same job, new location: nearest liquor store almost what seems like a mile away.
**********
A quote from Oliver: "I think many people in America still to this day see blacks as intellectually inferior, particularly within the Republican community." Yes, many people in America do see
blacks who belong to the Republican party as intellectually inferior. Do you?

Philosophical Question: If Oliver Willis falls in the forest and there's no one to hear him, will we still think he annoys?

Hey, why did Oliver Willis cross the road?
To get to the UDDER side. Get It?