"Hmmm.... was it Mehlman or Guckert who helped me with my kneeling technique??"

I'm not going to post a caption because I think it's in questionable taste. But it's fair to ask, "How did W., Laura, Bush, Sr. and Clinton get front row positions?"

The Pope was the leader of all Catholics, and none of those four are Catholic. He was Polish, and none of those four are Poles. He lived in the Vatican, and they all live in the United States. He opposed the invasion of Iraq, and they either implemented or supported it. He opposed capital punishment, and they support it.

The obvious conclusion is that the Pope's corpse was a photo op. I'm a Protestant, but if I were a Catholic I'd be offended.

Please, (if you haven't seen this post before), please look at it--at least once in your life:

http://whowilldietoday.blogspot.com/

How about "BUSH FOR POPE"?

How about "The Pope and the Dope"?

RK - anyone who got a perfect score on that tripe is a dirty rotten liar. A more appropriate question would be, have you learned from your transgressions? And let me add one thing: Heaven must really suck big time, if it's filled with people who "passed" that - after all, pissing on the Koran wasn't mentioned there, nor was torturing people - I don't want to get into this - just crawl back under that slimy rock you think is the firmament of heaven.

How about, "What was it, a pretzel?" Come on, folks, let's us 6 or 7 each send that monkey a bag of pretzels. Imagine, "6 or 7" bags of pretzels in the Whore House mail room! They'd have to test every one for anthrax, I suppose, and they could try to deep six the evidence, but of course word would get out about 6 or 7 bags of pretzels thrown into landfills - what about the homeless, the hungry - surely they have the intelligence to eat and enjoy pretzels, and even derive a little nourishment from them? Or how about "A dead Pope's worth a thousand living dopes"?

1)"THEY CARN'T BLAME ME FOR THIS ONE HEHEHE" 2)"WONDER WHERE DICK IS"
3)"AND DAD SAID I WAS A NOBODY"

"If only I could get some video of this.... I could send it to Frist over the 'internets'... maybe he could dyy-agg-nose this poor guy & cure 'im....

Re the Pope, no comment.

Re RK #6, I'm screwed.

RK #6 has been posting that little bit all over the place, I think he's either trying to save us or letting us know we're all going to hell.

Got the bastards out of Washington, so for a few hours at least they couldn't create more trouble in the world.

The only GOOD excuse Clinton would have for hanging around Bush is to spy on him and obtain the evidence to hang him.

WaPo came in with a front page photo back at the time that said it all (though the ensuing article didn't):

Bush is thinking, I'm waaaay more important than this guy, sporting that "who the hell do you think you were" look;

Laura is...um...curious?

Sr. is totally depressed, morbid in fact - maybe seeing himself.

Clinton - appropriately reverent;

Condo - pure contempt. It stands out in the photo like nothing you've ever seen.

Clinton and Bush, Sr. seem to go everywhere together these days. It can't be an accident. Meanwhile Hillary and Newt Gingrich have formed an alliance of some kind, which is even more bizarre.

Clinton said that Bush won the election "fair and square," which is unprovable and flies in the face of mountains of contrary evidence. For an intelligent man like Clinton to make such a crazy statement, together with the Hillary-Newt rapprochement, tells me a deal is in the works for 2008...the Clintons promise not to talk about two stolen elections, and Jeb agrees not to run against Hillary (if he did, the Clint Curtis affidavit and Lemme's murder would become campaign issues for Hillary's opponents to use in the primaries, and the stolen elections would be exposed). Finally, the Bush family provides only token support for whomever the Republicans do nominate.

RLM #15 sounds plausible.

At his presidential library opening Clinton made admitted attempts into "bridge building". When the design of his structure was compared to a mobile home he said "yes, I am a bit red [state]".

Something behind the scenes is forging these strange-bedfellow alliances.

My guess, as you know, is Peak Oil (link here).

I just took RK's crazy little test...guess I'll be toasting my marshmallows on Lake-o-Fire beach. See y'all there!

RLM #15

The only part of that post that I can agree with is:

---Clinton and Bush, Sr. seem to go everywhere together these days. It can't be an accident. Meanwhile Hillary and Newt Gingrich have formed an alliance of some kind, which is even more bizarre.----

The rest fits more as a 'wishful think' . The neocons are not going to give up power and certainly not to a Clinton. The Curtis affidavit, Lemme's murder and anything else we care about is not going to get headlines--any mention will be ignored or called 'conspiraty theory' or 'old news' and quickly brushed aside with little Mess Media attention.

We know something is going on, we may not know what or how but we know it is not in the best interest of progressives. We know that because we were sounding alarms about the E machines from 2000 on. We knew the election of 2004 was going to be stolen but the responce by our 'leaders' was anemic-tepid-nonexisting. And if the past is prolog we can look to more of the same. Only worse.

I'm not wishing for Hillary to assume power, Cole. In fact, I don't care a fig or a farthing about 2008. If we get that far without the 2004 election fraud having been exposed, then whatever happens under a Hillary regime will be irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Our democracy is forfeit. In this respect I think I differ from many posters here.

I don't see Hillary as a progressive. She's like Bubba to me...a smart politician who bends with the wind and forms alliances. She could be a liberal, a conservative, or a moderate, depending on the mood of the electorate at a given moment.

i think Bush is in denial about being at a funeral for a cross dressing octegenarian.

Not that i think the pope is a cross dresser; i think that may be what's going through Bush's "mind".

That aside, Bush, Clinton, Rice were allowed where they were because official representatives were allowed a viewing not available to us common folk. Chirac and other dignitaries were allowed similar access.

As a Catholic and an uber-leftist, i am, of course, appalled to all the discussion of faith in this country. The right is in a state of moral apostacy and the left seems to exclude religion from its discourse. i would personally welcome the opportunity to unleash from a leftist and religious perspective on today's public religion.

to RLM #19
I agree, Robert. I constantly hear people talk about how the dems could win back the house & senate in'06, or they talk about this or that condidate for '08. I guess the neo-conartists are just going to let us vote on brand-new, unfixed voting machines in those elections, lol.
As for Hillary, Barack Obama or whoever else the dems put out there as a candidate for '08: none of them had the balls to stand up with Conyers, Tubbs-Jones & Boxer on January 6th; and the few who spoke "in support" of their efforts were careful to say "the election is over, this is not about overturning the election, Bush is the president" etc. etc. Even Bill Clinton opined "Bush won the election fair & square".

Unless election fraud is dealt with seriously nothing the dems try to do means anything. It is up to us and I don't see people taking to the streets to storm the white house ala Eminem's Mosh video.

btw, have people heard about this (Baptist?) minister named, appropriately enough, "Loveless", who put up a sign outside his church that says "The Koran SHOULD be flushed"? Nice. Congrats to the reverend Loveless for spreading goodwill!

sorry *cAndidate* (my prev post)
and to JOHNHP #21, you wrote

"...the left seems to exclude religion from its discourse. i would personally welcome the opportunity to unleash from a leftist and religious perspective on today's public religion."
I must heartily disagree that the left excludes religion from its discourse. Not at all true. This is another rightist talking point that gets repeated by people on both sides, no offense. There are plenty of examples out there of left or moderate people addressing this issue; a good example is the Christian College (is it Calvin College?) where Bush asked to address the graduating class at their commencement. Over 1000 students, faculy & alumni took out a full-page ad expressing their displeasure & pointing out that bush et all does not represent their principles.
And I have received mail from an organization--I cannot recall the name, sorry--made up of people of various faiths who oppose this administration & the way they purport to speak for ALL people of faith.

And hey, go ahead & unleash, my friend! I for one would be interested in what you have to say.

ah, my apologies for the dumb typing mistakes I'm making... Like anybody cares, haha!

Right, Joan. The left is anything but anti-religious. What JOHNHP said was, "It seems to exclude religion from its discourse..." which is an accurate statement, but a totally different message.

The left considers matters of church and state to be separate. Kennedy said it best..."I don't speak for my church on public issues, and it doesn't speak for me." Yes, that approach does exclude religion from political discourse...and that's as it should be.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? Why do people let Frist get away with saying that people of faith are being attacked? It's pure hogwash.

Joan,

Forgive me if i am a bit blunt here. i am not talking about religious organizations not being leftist. i am referring to major left organs (eg, in these times, the nation, z magazine) addressing religion as a fundamentally monolithic phenomena, not bringing in the religious left to comment on this aspect of the culture war, and so forth. Few people today know that Bush's denomination rejected the Iraq war as immoral; that would have been huge. A nice bit about Jim Wallis' book is good but the left needs to understand that they have a serious resource in leftist religious activists and begin integrating them into their journals and so forth. WHat we need isnt religious leftists and secular leftists speaking each to their own audience but a united front.

RLM,

Thank you for clarifying my remark. i did not wish to suggest that the left was anti-religious. i do have a problem, however, with thinking that my religious views need to be distinct from my political views and actions. All those old nuns and priests who went to jail protesting from the war against Latin America in the 80s to those who have done time because of the most recent war, would agree with me and deserve a voice. We carried the left in the 80s and were by far the largest con tingent in the anti-war protests, especially in Europe. When you have important Cardinals speaking out against a war, WTO, etc, i think its foolish to say, "well, its a nice sentiment and hell there are 1.1 billion of you, and well that whole opposition to the war was nice, but, um, only a secular point of view allowed to be voiced here."

My suggestion is that we approach a realistic political program. We agree on what political objectives we agree on and work toward them regardless of our perspectives.

To Robert Lockwood Mills, I couldn't agree more with what you said regarding Hillary Clinton, some comments she has made seems like she is pro-war, her ambition has blinded her and I think that Bill is hanging out with the Bushits cuz he wants to take Kofi Annan's place and is doing whatever it takes to do it, and Hillary is the same, as you said , she just puts her finger in the air, to see what way the wind is blowing! All the best to all of you, you guys are the best!! Take care all!!

JOHNHP,
My apologies for evidently misunderstanding you. Still, I don't entirely agree with you that the left leaves religious views entirely out & insists on secular only. You didn't seem to me to be suggesting that the left was anti-religious, though. And yes, I agree we need to be united. I think most leftists can & should respect people of all faiths as well as agnostics & atheists.
Personally, I'd prefer it if spiritual viewpoint & sexual orientation could remain private, not to be secretive but simply because who I bed & who/whether I worship should be no one's business but my own and have nothing to do with my politics; a nice fantasy on my part, but that's not the reality we live in.

Back to the caption:

"Damn. I need to pick my nose. What time is it? I wish I'd brought some pretzels --- no, wait. Pretzels don't go down so good anymore. What time is it? Damn. If I fidget, maybe daddy will take me outside. Where's Scotty? Damn. I'm glad President Carter didn't get to be here. So what if he actually knew the Pope. Damn. Why do I have to be here? I wish I was sitting next to Condosleazy ... heh. :sigh: How long do we have to kneel here? Damn.

Joan,

i think the idea that religion is a private issue is a misunderstanding of the call of religion. The problem, it seems to me, is that religion is all too often a normative rather than critical institution in civil society. this is the case even if the doctrines of particular religions challenge the precepts of that society. Think not only of Dr. King's letters to his fellow preachers from jail but also the late Pope's letters on economics. There, and elsewhere, the Catholic Church stakes out a position far to the left of the Democrats. Economically, Benedict XVI willbe even more to the left.

The challenge of leftists from a religious perspective is to force the institutions of the churches to change their public discourse. This cannot be done if religious leftists only talk to one another. Tactically, a left religious discourse must become part of the mainstream left, and the media in general, in order to counter the perception that religion in the public square is the preserve of the right wing.

So, for me, its not a question of someone's personal beliefs so much as it is an assault on institutionalized discourse. what King wrote so long ago from his cell is true today and it is a situation that must be changed rather than relegated to the sphere of personal preference:

"Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are."

#30,
I am nowhere near as scholarly as you are, John; I haven't read either King's letters from jail or the pope's letters on economics, alas. I mean that quite honestly, because it may sound like I'm being a smartass...not my intention.
I'm not saying that religion "IS" a private issue; it is for some (me), for others it's not (you). Personal choice.
The statement that the catholic church's (social?) stance & the pope's economic stance could be shown as left of center surprises me, but I cannot speak to it since there is MUCH that I don't know.

I'm not sure how exactly the left could "force" churches to change their public discourse or whether that would necessarily be a good thing, but it seems unlikely to happen given the diversity of viewpoint on the left, which I think is one of our great strengths that I wish the left would trumpet more!
What I hear you saying is that there needs to be more & vocal left religious public discourse, and I do agree that might be a powerful help. But I also see it as a possible double-edged sword: if we on the left believe in the separation of church & state, as I think most do, I can envision this becoming even more tangled than it already is, with the right jumping in to accuse us of hypocrisy for bringing religion into the public square when we purport to be against such things when done by them.
I'm not against it...I would LOVE to hear pastors & ministers & rabbis et al joining together to call this administration on the carpet for its outrageous policies that fly in the face of their so-called moral & religious principles. I do believe some have done so, like that organization from which I received mailings, and I know there are other multi-denominational groups who have spoken out as well. But the msm covers these activities barely, if at all.

# 31

Joan,

i think the question of whether religion is a public or private matter is moot; you can't as my uncles used to say, put the crap back in the cow. The political question is how to effectively, pragmatically and quickly counter the religious right.

"The statement that the catholic church's (social?) stance & the pope's economic stance could be shown as left of center surprises me, but I cannot speak to it since there is MUCH that I don't know."

There's a reason for that. The MSM rarely reports religious matters beyond narrowly construed moral issues. How many people know that the pope opposed the Iraq war?

"I'm not sure how exactly the left could "force" churches to change their public discourse or whether that would necessarily be a good thing,"

Its not forcing the church to change its public discourse, rather, left organs should take a long look at many of the social doctrines of the church and emphasize these as moral issues.

"But I also see it as a possible double-edged sword: if we on the left believe in the separation of church & state, as I think most do, I can envision this becoming even more tangled than it already is, with the right jumping in to accuse us of hypocrisy for bringing religion into the public square when we purport to be against such things when done by them."

i disagree. i am a big believer in the separation of church and state. You know that people united began as a religious group --- specifically a southern baptist group? Here is the difference between the right's position and mine: the right claims the republic to be founded on "Christian ideals" no one on the left does. The left religion claims that the state has social obligations in terms of economics, death penalty, war, two thirds world development etc. For me the question is articulating a program that people, religious or not, can agree on and moving forward. For them its a theocracy thinly coating a mammonocracy.

Isn't it fair simply to say the following?

"Any individual may bring his or her private beliefs, faith-based or not, into a discussion of a political issue. But it is wrong for that person to assert that said beliefs should be dispositive in converting political issues into law."

This, I believe, is what the Christian right seeks to do, even as it claims others are attacking "people of faith." If religious faith can be the basis for law, then majority religions will become de facto legislators...and sooner or later, laws will favor one religion over another.

If this is valid, then why not declare that Christians get 3 votes each, Jews get 2 each, Muslims get 1 each, and atheists and agnostics can't vote at all?