nice bit o' bashin'.....i couldn't agree more...5s

Muzzle Rove[r], the attack dog. 5s

"When Demoncrats Have No Real Platform" (a parody to the song "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean" by Alex When Demoncrats Have No Real Platform When Demoncrats Have Nothing Good They Go On Their Witch Hunts Together And Not For Our Great Country's Good Bashing, Trashing, Oh That's All The Libs Know To Do To Do Bashing, Trashing, Oh That's All The Herders Can Do Now Sheep Like This Ill-Informed Michael And Others With A Low Score IQ Just Follow Their Herders Full Force Cuz They Know Not What Else They Should Do Bashing, Trashing, Oh That's All The Libs Know To Do To Do Bashing, Trashing, Oh That's All The Herders Can Do Now Rove's Not A Convict By Any Means Convicts Have Been Convicted Of Crime And Wishes By Sheep Like This Michael Just Prove That The Left Is All Slime Bashing, Trashing, Oh That's All The Libs Know To Do To Do Bashing, Trashing, Oh That's All The Herders Can Do (again, rush to trash job parody, immature, not very good, you should stick to what you know, science fiction moives and sports...)

Stick to what I know? I know you're a hack who couldn't get out of the Amiright equivalent of Short-Season A-Ball. If Bill Clinton's guy James Carville had done what Karl Rove did, you'd want to see him fired, arrested, convicted, hanged and shot... not necessarily in that order. As for the Democrats' platform, it can be summed up thus: "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." And all means all. As for "under God," it ain't the God the Republicans believe in. Ours believes that people who are born poor shouldn't have to die that way.

Actually, if James Carville the Toe-Suck had done everything Karl Rove has provably done, we'd probably be mumbling "Carville? Who's he?" about him. Rove hasn't done anything the least bit wrong or even very interesting, while the Democrats' hero Joe Wilson has shown himself to be a vainglorious liar, fraud, and traitor, not to mention his hankering for nepotism.

As demonstrated by their actions, the Democrats' real platform these days is "All blue states, thoroughly divided by race, class, and religion into lawsuit-waging grievance-bearing special-interest groups, under unelected idealogues backed by vaguely quasi-scientific authorities, with barns and hay for all the serfs and cattle."

Pacholek is right when he says that he doesn't believe in our God, in part because like most of his pals, he probably doesn't really believe in any god but Big Government. The God we Republicans believe is the one who says that "if a man will not work, he will not eat" (That's II Thessalonians 3:10 in case your pseudo-Christian friend Melanie is listening, Pacholek.) Not all Republicans are Christians, but the Christian God from whom the John Locke first derived the principles on which our Constitution is founded says that we will always have the poor among us (John 12:8), that money is ours to dispose of as we see fit, provided that we account for it honestly (Acts 5:4), and that, even if a particular leader is rude, obnoxious, and a hypocrite, we should not speak evil of the leader of our people (Acts 23:5).

The god Pacholek and his friends worship is the god of Judas and Marx, both slanderers of wealth who regularly spent vast amounts of unearned wealth on themselves while pretending to care about the poor (see the none-too-flattering biography of Marx by Gary North, and John 12:5-6 for background on Judas). Pacholek's true god is Satan, and the only people leftists like him ever hope to enrich with their grand parlor show of egalitarianism is themselves. Republicans, even the sleazy ones, prefer to make everybody rich, themselves included.

The only people who deserve to starve in the gutter are parasitic busybodies like Pacholek, who not only produce nothing of value themselves, but promote ideologies that would prevent others from producing anything of value too. Under the noble-sounding sentiments is a party that doesn't think anyone born poor should ever have to work for a living. If people must be parasites, the least they could do to be polite is shut up about how much they hate their hosts for not suffering parasites gladly.

No Michael, your God has been stripped of His right to life and you gave it to women, (if you have one at all).

Oy vey... "Righty": Carville fairly elected a President twice, which Rove hasn't done once. Rove deserves to rot in Leavenworth, and for one reason: I'm against the death penalty. A Bush supporter decrying nepotism is like a Cub fan accusing another team of choking. Your credibility is thus revealed as zero, but I'm going to continue rebutting anyway because you deserve it. Don't accuse someone of being an ideologue unless you're not one, and you're one who can't even spell it. Your god is the one of the money-changers that Jesus kicked out of the temple. Your god denies food even to many who do work, and many others who would like to work. Account for money honestly? Do I have to mention your party's Pat Robertson, Newt Gingrich, and Ken Lay -- not to mention the one President ever to have evidence he committed tax fraud, Richard Nixon? Judas sold out to totalitarian Rome, which makes him one of you. Marx didn't even believe in the God of Israel -- hence bums like you call liberals "Marxists." The only Devils I like play hockey in New Jersey. (And thank God they will again come October!) The ideology I promote created 23 million jobs from 1993 through 2000, while yours couldn't even create a net gain of one job from 2001 through 2004. Bush would have to have a gain of about 12 million through 2008 just to keep up with population growth. I'm not holding my breath. Bush himself is the ultimate parasite, having never done a damn thing that has helped America. Not even fire the criminal Rove.

"Alex": How can God be stripped of a right to life? Who has the power to do that? By saying someone does, you're saying they're more powerful than God. Do you really want to suggest such a thing? If you're going to question my religion, go ahead, if you don't mind being publicly humiliated. And if you're going to be intellectually dishonest, I will enjoy not stopping you. But don't be a damn fool.

Michael, your poorly written political parodies are hardly well thought out and definitely not fact based. They sound more like you overhear one of your herders bashing something or another and your bad pride kicks in and you decided to put that pride, your ego and perceived anger to music. They are as immature as I have seen anywhere online, in parodies, poems, posts etc., they are just really poor. Writing words like “dumb” or “stupid” does not made you a political wiz, nor very convincing nor inspirational. Your immaturity in your political parody pieces only makes Republicans look better. You are a bitter little pill, blinded by a belief that you have obtained by grazing with the other sheep. The people who rate your political jokes well are simply stuck in the same mindset as you are. It is now 9 months after an election and you still have not learned to deal with losing like an adult, great testament. ------------------ In case you did not know it, your party, (such as it is), believes it is a women’s right to take the life of babies. You vote it in, you vote the leaders that do so, you are a baby killer, that simple! You think you have the rights that only belong to God, but in reality, they are not women’s rights or yours to vote them in, it is God’s right, BABY KILLER! ------------------------ I certainly have no problems debating with the likes of you, (other than the fact that you are no good at it and not particularly bright). You are not in my league, I am more educated, wiser, more mature and would bet you dimes to dollars I am a heck of lot more intelligent. You have a little boy in mind and will likely never be a threat and certainly no one to fear intellectually �" get a grip junior!

Michael doesn't believe in the death penalty, but he is a baby killer. Makes sense... (NOT)

Righty - EXCELLENT POST!

Alex, grow up. If you're going to try and take on MP in debate, don't trot out the ad hominems and expect anybody other than yourself to be taken in. If you think you are better educated and more intelligent, then prove it - you've certainly given the lie to the "more mature" claim already.

Phil, What a great contribution to the posts here! I am not sure what "hominems" means and the rest of the paragraph is pretty darn bad, but your attempt is admirable.

My brain hurts now, thank you very much. The parody was good, it's the comments that caused it.

Nice job here Mike - and so true. Alex, witch hunts by democrats? So what do you call the Ken Starr operation and subsequent impeachment of the Great President Clinton? Big government by democrats? I have never seen so many rights taken away by the current republicans in power - I can't even get on a subway without getting frisked - and all because Dubya chose to get Saddam rather than Osama. Your rhetoric is making me nauseous (just like your party).

Thanks for softening him up, Phil and Robert. I shall now issue the Mariano cutter on this schmuck. (That's a baseball term.) Alex, you claim to be so much smarter and more mature, yet you are unfamiliar with the term "ad hominem"? I'm surprised you didn't assume it had something to do with gay people. It means, "Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason." I see nothing wrong with appealing to both, where as you are completely hopeless at appealing to either. My parodies are poorly written, in your opinion? Statistics show you are in the minority there. You call me a baby killer, yet you support the taking of innocent lives in Iraq, and for what? I quote Katha Pollitt: "If I have to choose between forcing conservatives to have qualms and forcing a frightened 15-year-old to have a baby, I know which side I'm on." So start acting on your beliefs: Either start adopting some unwanted babies or admit you're a freaking hypocrite. With any luck, the children will rebel and become liberals. I'm immature? Hello, comedy is a big part of this website, and good comedy is often immature. I'm a sheep? Well, as Samuel L. Jackson would say, I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd, Ringo, and the truth is... you're The Weak. (Rent "Pulp Fiction" if you don't get the reference.) Yes, you DO have a problem debating me. In so doing, you are bringing a knife to a gunfight. Whether the "knife" is your mind or your arguments is open to debate. And in this case, I have no problem with "guns." Ballgame over. Next victim?

Michael; You remain unimpressive. Ad hominem, as you so proudly use, is not even found in the dictionary, yet, you continue on as if you made no error at all, gad! ----- And if you think so highly of your debating skill, why do you debate about them so much? Statistics by people who are in the same moronic state as you are, (i.e., sore losers who are in denial of their own sick pride and who are still upset over a loss that happened 9 months ago), are non-impressive. Of course they will flock to your juvenile songs, they have no adult skills to get them through the loss either. You really feel the need to continue with your self-boasting about your sorry political parodies and your immaturity, (not to mention your debating brilliance), is very telling. Whom are you trying to persuade anyway?

Robert; Perhaps you are frisked because you look like a criminal. Would you rather be blown up? Why didn’t Clinton get Osama when he was handed Osama on a silver platter - TWICE? Why did Clinton call ‘not’ getting Osama his biggest mistake in his presidency? 911 was "The Great Clinton’s" fault, live with it freak! PS I hardly care that the Republican party makes you nauseous, in fact, I kind of like it!

You have to use a collegiate dictionary, like webster's: www.m-w.com
Main Entry: ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

"Perhaps you are frisked because you look like a criminal. Would you rather be blown up?" says Alex. And that explains the difference on how you and I look at and live life in these here United States. Glad you can accept this country's slouching toward theocracy, I prefer the view of those who pushed for the Bill of Rights. I respectfully withdraw from our debate. Good luck. bob

Robert; it is perfectly fine that you "withdraw from our debate", but I must say that it is disappointment that you did not address any of my very simple questions before bowing out.

Sorry to disappoint you Alex but I live with a target on my head everyday because of thinking like yours. Peace. bob

Alex: I don't care whether you are impressed with me any more than you care that the GOP makes true Americans like Robert and myself nauseous. What matters is that I am correct and you are far right. Clinton came FAR closer to getting Osama. It was in August '98, but at the time, like most right-wingers, you were concerned far less with Osama than with Clinton's dick. Repressed, were you? The true blame for Osama and Saddam is the President who gave them weapons and money in the Eighties, the Saint of Bel Air, Ronald Wilson Reagan. As my fellow New Jersey-born liberal Jack Nicholson would say -- though playing a right-wing schmuck like you at the time -- You can't handle the truth! One more thing: A Bush supporter calling an opponent "moronic" is like a Cub fan calling another team "chokers." Perhaps now you will break from your experience and observe the First Rule of Holes: When you are in one, stop digging.

Michael; Clinton came close to getting Osama in ’98? I think you just make up things as you go along and hope your browbeating makes you look impressive and correct. Mr. Clinton had Osama in the palm of his hands, the CIA handed him to Clinton and he did NOTHING! The twin towers, NOTHING. The attack on our Naval Ship NOTHING. The attack on our embassy and he did NOTHING! The CIA had a 911-sucide man under surveillance, gave Clinton the info and NOTHING! He may have been too into having his winkie wonked, idiot! You can’t handle the truth! Geeze, go figure why you are still single.

PS Michael; The CIA handed him to Clinton ****TWICE**** neither time in '98, FREAK!

Alex, you're a damned liar. The attack on our embassies in August '98 and Clinton did nothing? He retaliated pretty quickly. The bombs that he launched, when you were more concerned with his sex life than with Osama -- yes, YOU -- missed him by two hours. Your boy Georgie has never gotten that close, because he wanted Saddam and Iraq's oil more. The CIA handed Osama to Clinton? I've never heard that one before. Never. Not even from your boys Rush and Matt, or your unfair and unbalanced nimrods at Faux News and NewsMin.com. The Twin Towers, nothing? The men who bombed it and masterminded it in '93 -- on CLINTON'Ss watch -- are in jail. The man who masterminded their actual destruction in '01 -- on BUSH'S watch -- is at large. You lie again, you lose again. The attack on the U.S.S. Cole? Clinton thought it was more important to get an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord, because he believed that solving "The Palestinian Question" would stop terrorism. A lot of people still believe that. I don't. But it's closer to the truth than that Saddam was a bigger threat than Osama; because Georgie believes that still, Osama is still out there. And you STILL think Clinton's sex problem is worthy of attention? There isn't a medication on this planet that can unwarp your mind. You are a lost cause. It seems as if you know the truth but are pathologically incapable of absorbing it, which is worse than Bush, who simply believes things that have been proven false multiple times.

Um...I TOTALLY refuse to get involved in this political firestorm...but I have to just say...

What in the HOLY HELL are you talking about, Alex?

I mean, quite honestly, you are DEAD RIGHT that all women are looking for a man whose political views are entirely compatible with yours...good call.

Regardless of a qualified candidate's intelligence, sense of humor, or baseball team affiliation, we ONLY want him to think as narrow mindedly as you do...what a turn on! Mmmmm....(oh yeah, I totally just swooned a little bit)...

That being said, however, none of these things have anything to do with why Mr. Pacholek is still single. He's single because he hasn't moved to Wyoming...er...Rivendell yet...

Idiot.

""""""""The CIA handed Osama to Clinton? I've never heard that one before. Never""""""""" - You are not very well read then are you Michael? PS Your silly little opinions are not truth merely because they are your opinions. And to the chicken "Some Completely Anonymous Elf ", what the hell are you even talking about? Are you using code to speak or are you just learning to speak and write?

Okay, I admit it...it was me. Which everyone in the free world would've known, if they had a brain, that is...so there was certainly NOTHING chicken about my comment.

As for my incomprehensible code, you'll have to excuse my assumption that you would be able to detect sarcasm...once again, taking for granted that most people have a brain...dammit. What I was trying to say is that...oh wait...I know it's here somewhere...oh yeah, you're a total idiot. All politial arguments aside, you saying that Michael is still single because of his political stances was ridiculous. Even if you wrote it as an afterthought...thinking it was somewhat witty, or even remotely funny....it was actually just totally asinine.

If you're married to, or even just dating some champ of a gal...and she chose you simply because you're narrow minded and overly conservative, then I don't think that's really something to be bragging about.

And finally, you should probably NOT try to start with me about writing skills, as you have YET to produce a grammatically sound comment.

(hell, here's an opportunity.... )

I'm Batman, folks - yeah I know some of you put 2 and 2 together and twigged, but yes citizens, it's me alright - it was me all along, heh heh...

(cracks neck) phew, that's a load off!

SONOFABITCH! I can't believe I typoed "political" into "politial."

Oh, well...I'm still smarter than Alex...

And LOL, BW-U....

Arwen-Unmasked --- I said Michael was still single because he is an immature ignorant moron, immature primarily. I can see why you would be one of Michael's groupies. PS Changing your name and the name you used in your first (?) comment show you are chicken, chicken.

hey Chicken Chicken - can you be my new crime-fighting buddy? I'm getting real jack of Robin Robin (all that "holy this" "holy that" stuff is really starting to piss me off)

Alex: I've never met Mr. Pacholek (because he dissed us twice at the NY meeting) but it's no secret that I would agree with his rhetoric on everything but the Yankees and the state of New Jersey. In my opinion, you're much more effective when you refrain from the name calling and personal attacks. (Not saying that I couldn't learn from my own advice here.) I have more respect for you when you're arguing your position politically or Constitutionally. Michael, Paul, myself - we're not morons (although I beat Pacholek because I'm more immature and still single at 44 - he'll never catch up). And your posts show that you're not an idiot either - you're probably better educated than I am (B.A. from SUNY - so please refer to me as "Bachelor Bob") Come on, work with us - we all could be the next McLoughlin Group - or, pick a commie and we'll go head-to-head against Hannity and Colmes - but I want a piece of this - how about me and Guy DiRito as Executive Producers? Peace on Earth and Piss off a republican, elect Hillary in 2008. bob

Alex...oh, okay. THAT made sense. You initially called me chicken for being "anonymous," right? So when I say who I really am...that's MORE chicken. Right...

BW-U...LOL!!! Oh, and HOLY flattery, Batman, I'd love to...; )

Bob...I called him an idiot not because I think he's unschooled, but because he brought up the "why Michael's single" thing. You said it much better than I did...but NOTHING pisses me off more than unfounded and uncalled for personal attacks...or calling someone stupid for having a different opinion than your own. And honestly, it has nothing to do with partisanship. I can remember getting into a HELL of a fight once with Paul Robinson for getting on Your Worst Nightmare's case, when he (YWN) was spouting the most right wing theories known to man. Granted, I'm coming across as a bit hypocritical as calling someone an idiot might fall into that category...but to quote my 2nd grade self, "he started it."

Back to Alex...I really do think that resorting to personal insults that have NOTHING to do with the argument at hand DO show a lack of intelligence. If you know your stance, defend it...stick to your facts...you should have no reason to throw stuff like that down...number one, because it weakens your arguments, and number two, because it's...what's that word again? Oh yeah, immature.

And for the record, I'm not one of Michael's groupies...he's one of mine...; )

So...that's the only reason I even came over here. But, in the long run, it worked out well, as I've apparently got a sweet new gig as a crime fighting sidekick...=)

hold your horses, Arwen - how do I know that when you put the ex-Robin's mask on that you won't just look like Arwen-masked again, hmm?

- and then there's the matter of ex-Robin's only unsoiled cape, which has a HUGE umbrella-point gash in it (thanks a lot, Penguin!) - and do you think I can find a decent haberdasher in Gotham City?...don't get me started

Because I'm a groupie of both Arwen AND Michael Pacholek, I have to jump in and tell Alex that it's blatantly obvious that he is resorting to personal insults because he is clearly losing his weak ass argument.

And Bruce, just so you know, I could totally take you. Arwen and I are the crime fighting duo. But nice try stepping in.

BTW, great parody Michael!