Chuck Asay by Chuck Asay

?fh=a680196b78e91f3966b43db15f339174

Comments (36) Jump to Comments Form

  1. scottfreitas

    scottfreitasGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    Ah, yet another example as to why I love, admire, and respect Chuck Asay so much!

    BRAVO, SIR!

  2. photomanfirst

    photomanfirst said, about 1 month ago

    You are soooo right on!

  3. ANandy

    ANandy said, about 1 month ago

    A requirement to vote on every bill should be that every participant must receive a B or better on a personally written, noncoached summary of the proposed legislation.

  4. cjkinsey

    cjkinsey said, about 1 month ago

    How many of you have read the bill?

  5. NeoconMan

    NeoconMan said, about 1 month ago

    How many of us have read it? We don’t have to. As long as we know a Democrat wrote it, we know a priori that it is evil, wrong, and bad.

  6. av8tor

    av8torGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    Lets see…We hired them to go to Washington and write legislation to keep this country safe and economically viable..Instead they hire a bunch of commie cronies to write the l legislation then never read them and just sign them into law..I think some of them should be fired for not doing what they were elected and paid to do..

    Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered), criminals, and other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense of the People of the United States and its Constitution, in order to be continually re-elected.

  7. HOWGOZIT

    HOWGOZIT said, about 1 month ago

    Can’t get them to vote on Countrywide however.

  8. cabrobst

    cabrobst said, about 1 month ago

    The USA needs to foreclose on the bailout banks.

  9. Justice22

    Justice22 said, about 1 month ago

    And a cartoon is supposed to correctly represent Congress???? Wake Up! and think for yourselves.

  10. mgscott

    mgscottGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    And how many Repubs even WROTE bills for the past 8 years? They just did whatever the “dark lord” Cheney (now Rush) told them to do.

  11. DrCanuck

    DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

    AVATRBR: Why do Americans keep electing “liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks, criminals, and other low level swine” to Congress? Have you every considered electing decent people instead?

  12. dtroutma

    dtroutma said, about 1 month ago

    Hmm, “Patriot Act”(not!), “Military Commissions Act”, and others passed under REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED Congress and administrations weren’t read, and neocons voted to burn the Constitution, and our rights, while handing increased unearned profits to the wealthy who pulled their strings (yes Democrats too).

    Americans keep electing “their crook” because they fall for false promises and from a base of bliss-filled ignorance in their cups. The Republi-con has become the neo-con. Stupidity is rampant across the land, and those most vocal are least informed, as proven by the ultra-right, “hypochristians” posting here and elsewhere on the web, and on TV, radio, and in the right-wing press that ACTUALLY dominates public discourse.

    Deception and MIS-interpreting religious text and doctrine has become infused in “political” discourse, and in ignoring the very content of both science AND religious teaching, with a resultant destruction of morality by those most emphatic in their ignorant rants.

    Sectarian private life, and rights, with secular government is the hallmark of the Constitution.

    Those who complain about Congress not reading bills for their content are the same who misconstrue texts from many “religions” to force their alleged points, and angry perceptions, on others.

  13. lalas

    lalas said, about 1 month ago

    As though the republicans weren’t EXACTLY the same when they were in power. They had no blue dog dissenters just lockstep hordes of R congresspeople.

    That said, I do think reading a bill should be mandatory, but hard to enforce.

  14. scottfreitas

    scottfreitasGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    Ialas: what a lie. The republicans compromised and kiss-assed the Demoncrats so much that they ended up spending the same, talking the same, sounding the same, acting the same. They alienated Reagan conservatives like me into either staying home on election day or else voting for a third-party or even Demoncrat candidate, just to get rid of their wishy-washy asses.

    The 1994 Gingrich Revolution Congress was the only good GOP congress we had, and it lasted only two years. TWO years. The moment Gingrich got fed up and left, the GOP was immediately handed over to weak-kneed feminized males–beta males–who rapidly turned the GOP into Demoncrat Lite (“Tastes the same as our regular brew, only fewer calories!”)

    The Demoncrats keep being the Evil Party, and the GOP the Stupid Party. And the more things change, the more they stay the same.

  15. believecommonsense

    believecommonsenseGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    scott, you have trouble getting even easy facts correct. Gingrich was speaker of the house from 1995 to 1999. If you hold up your fingers for each year, scott, you’ll find that is more than two. (try it, it works)

    He was House Minority Whip, meaning GOP leader from 1989, another five years in leadership.

    of course, then there’s the fine and reprimand against him for ethics violations, which passed overwhelmingly when the GOP had control of the House.

  16. av8tor

    av8torGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    believecommonsense First of all, what exactly were the charges against Newt? David Bonior brought 75 charges against Newt - and 74 of them were found to have NO MERIT WHATSOEVER. The last charge, whether Newt funded his college class “Renewing American Civilization” properly, was too complicated a tax issue for the committee to investigate on its own, so they brought in an outside tax expert to investigate. Two charges arose out of this investigation.

    The first ‘charge’ from the ethics committee is that he “may have” violated tax law by using tax-deductible contributions from nonprofit organizations to teach an allegedly partisan college course.

    The lectures never mentioned the words “Republicans” or “Democrats,” and one entire session was spent praising FDR. Is that “partisan?” Not only has a former commissioner of the IRS has come forward and said that no tax laws were violated, but an Ethics Committee lawyer even gave approval for the class before Newt started it.

    The second ‘charge’ from the committee is that, in the course of the investigation, Newt provided false information to the committee. Do you know what this “false information” is

    Newt testified that the above contributions were in fact made by those organizations to “Renewing American Civilization.” He filed papers that stated the very same thing. This is never a fact that anyone was trying to hide. But one paper filed with the committee stated that those groups did not make the contributions. So is this a big deal? Is this “lying to Congress?”

    What’s funny is that the Ethics Committee itself approved the course Newt taught, the same course that started this whole “ethics violation” farce. Newt wasn’t even paid for the course. In any case, I am not getting into all the details of the whole ethics violation mess, and the incredible double standard shown, since that would warrant a separate web site. I just find it odd that the Ethics Committee turned around and slammed Newt with a $300,000 penalty for something that they had approved! In addition, if a reprimand was enough “punishment” for Barney Frank, who was charged by the same committee with fixing 30 parking tickets, and writing a misleading probation letter on behalf of child pornographer, cocaine dealer, male prostitute and lover Steven Gobie, why is Newt getting slammed with such a harsher penalty?

    The only reason that Rep. David Bonior and other Democrats filed 75 ethics charges against Speaker Gingrich in the first place is because Newt filed and forced former Democrat Speaker Jim Wright to resign in 1988. The whole ethics violation farce was about nothing but revenge. Bonior and the Dems. wanted revenge for Jim Wright and for losing the House in 1994 and 1996.

    Don’t the Democrats have anything better to do?
    In any case, I digress. Despite the unfairness of the whole ethics situation, (I can’t believe people are worried about Newt’s ethics when Bill Clinton is running the country) Newt bears full responsibility for these “ethics violations.” He could have legally used campaign funds or a defense trust fund to pay the ethics penalty or sued the lawyers who he said misled him into what he calls a technical ethics violation. He has the legal right to do any of those things. But did he? No. Gingrich said he and his wife decided he had “a moral obligation to pay the $300,000 out of personal funds.” So, he took out an 8 year loan at prime plus 1.5 - which is about 10% interest. By taking out this type of loan from Dole, not only would he be relieving the taxpayers of paying for the penalty fine, but Newt would then not be beholden to any bank, lending institute, etc. Thus, he wouldn’t have to worry about conflicts every time a banking issue came before him.

    By the way, can anyone imagine Bill Clinton paying out of his own pocket because he felt a “moral obligation?”
    This sounds pretty reasonable, right? Not according to some people. You should hear the moaning groaning and whining from the Left! It’s really embarrassing. They say that Dole is a lobbyist for the tobacco companies so Newt is now getting the money from tobacco companies for favors in the ongoing battle to stop legislation against tobacco firms. (talk about twisted rationale - how long does it take the Dems to come up with these things?) Newt can’t win!

    It’s pretty obvious that the Democrats are upset and whining because Newt wasn’t beaten, and has come back in spite of the campaign to discredit him and remove him from power.

    Remember, Newt COULD have legally taken the money out of campaign funds or legal defense funds, like our wonderful president did for his sexual harassment suit! But Newt, having moral character, is taking this obscene and ridiculous amount of money out of personal funds. Yet, out of apparent desperation, the Left is still whining, and is scrambling to try and tie Republicans with the tobacco industry. But let us not forget who was selling and MAKING MONEY off the tobacco industry not that many years ago - Al Gore!

    It also seems strange that Democrats blasted Newt for taking Dole’s loan, and are now calling Dole a tobacco lobbyist - - Yes, Dole works for a law firm which represents tobacco companies. However, just sit back and think a minute. If we are to judge Dole by the law firms’ other clients, clients that Dole is not associated with, then it’s only fair that we judge all people by their lawyer’s other clients. I wonder how many people would be happy about that? Do YOU know all the clients your lawyer represents??

    In any case, let’s look at who is representing the tobacco company in the law firm. The representers are Ann Richards (former governor of Texas) and George Mitchell (former Senator) - both DEMOCRATS!!!

    The Democrats just always need something to whine about, don’t they?

    The above is from http://www.gargaro.com/newtmoney.html

  17. DrCanuck

    DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

    ‘way to go, trout!

  18. ahab

    ahabGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    avatrbr, and this is a whiny comic, well drawn. Why should the Democrats pander to this bunch of Republicans?

  19. wminfield

    wminfieldGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    Reading the bills they are going to vote on is pandering to Republicans?

  20. Sandor_at_the_Zoo

    Sandor_at_the_Zoo said, about 1 month ago

    Remember when the Democrats used to (still) make fun of George W. Bush for not reading? Now, members of Congress are functionally illiterate and that’s celebrated.

    “I love these members that get up and say ‘read the bill.’ What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages, and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you’ve read the bill?”
    —John Conyers (D-MI)

  21. NoFearPup

    NoFearPupGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    12 months ‘til refer-END-UM.

  22. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, about 1 month ago

    AVATRBR: Fantastic post!! Of course you forgot to make the obvious comparison between Obama working for Acorn, but that was probably beneith you. But not me:-)

  23. scottfreitas

    scottfreitasGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    I really want to commend Avatrbr too, because he really did report a FACTUAL account of what happened to Newt Gingrich.

    The GOP was stupid beyond belief not to stand fearlessly by Newt, no matter what was said about him. Newt was raw, unfiltered Alpha Male. He was intelligent, articulate, commanding, glib, a fount of knowledge who could speak off-the-cuff for literally hours–not a TelePrompTer in sight–and never get boring.

    I know about his personal failings. I LAUGH at the Left for ever daring to mention them. The Left has an entire Demoncrat Party filled with the most sexually perverse, corrupt, theiving, lying, disgusting mass of humanity to ever walk the PLANET, and yet they dare to point fingers at a Newt Gingrich and act as though they have ANY moral authority to judge him at all.

    Jesus WEPT.

    If the GOP had stood by Newt the same way the Demoncrats stood by Clinton, or Barney Frank, or any of their other sleazebags over the years, Newt not only would have remained House Speaker past the year 2000…

    …he would still be House speaker TODAY.

    And I firmly believe that.

    No wonder poli-sci teachers have for so long labeled the GOP as being the “stupid party”…

    (rolls eyes)

  24. cdward

    cdward said, about 1 month ago

    pup, I’ll give you that someone not of your ilk mentioned religion. Yikes! However, I don’t see it as anti-Jesus – don’t believe dtroutma said anything against Jesus, just against misrepresenting scripture and mixing in religion and politics.

    Now, I happen to believe that one does not check one’s faith at the political door, but I take his meaning: Our government is set up to make sure government does not run our religious groups, and vice versa.

    But why do you say we liberals “really got an anti-Jesus thing going on”? I am about to preach a sermon this morning on how much Jesus the Son of God loves us. I have nothing anti-Jesus and seek continually to preach his Good News. Please don’t generalize.

  25. DrCanuck

    DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

    Puppy: I’m a pro-Jesus atheist liberal. Deal with that!

  26. believecommonsense

    believecommonsenseGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    avatrbr: “The Democrats just always need something to whine about, don’t they?” much you like then, eh?

    It seems a bit disingenuous to blame Newt’s problems on the Democrats when his own party was in control, don’t you think? The vote to reprimand/fine Gingrich was 395 to 28. You can spin the details all you want, but the incontrovertible fact remains the GOP voted overwhelmingly to reprimand/fine him. They didn’t need any Democratic votes.

    And my correction of scott’s ONLY TWO YEARS still stands also.

  27. Magnaut

    MagnautGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    truth is scary..so are the times

  28. av8tor

    av8torGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    oh well…onward gentlemen….and ladies…sometimes hard to tell who is what..

  29. oldlegodad

    oldlegodadGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    Can any politician read anything more complicated than a check?

  30. Michigander

    Michigander said, about 1 month ago

    ANandy, you make a great point there. Although I hated paraphrasing paragraphs or chapters in high school, it is essential that those that make and pass laws that affect all of us, to know exactly what it is that they are dealing with before putting it to a vote.

  31. oldlegodad
  32. cdward

    cdward said, about 1 month ago

    Magnaut the times are not scary. Unless you want them to be.

  33. DrCanuck

    DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

    And again we see the essence of conservativism: Fear.

    Fear of change, fear of the future, fear of the government, fear of the Other, fear of God.

  34. d_legendary1

    d_legendary1 said, about 1 month ago

    <——-FEAR THIS!

  35. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, about 1 month ago

    ^
    |
    |
    FEAR THIS!

  36. NoFearPup

    NoFearPupGenius_badge said, about 1 month ago

    Ooooh, ooooh! I read the bill; it says, “E Pluribus unum”, on it.