Woman to Woman

By tina

November 25, 2007 8:35 AM | Link to this

andrea needs a wake up call. too many people are ungrateful for this nation and for the sacrifices of the military families. if these people choose to complain, but not ACT to help change things - maybe they should move to venezuela and applaud their leadership. as far as removing the flag pin, what kind of message does that send to our troops and children? too many people take america for granted and they too need a wake up call. i agree with shaunti, i’m worried about our nation, we need someone that’s proud to be an american and proud wear a flag pin to be our president. we also need someone strong enough to right injustices - but we need to start at here in our on country.

By realist

November 25, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

I think it is easy for patriotism to edge over to nationalism, a very destructive force in human history. Patriotism includes questioning and criticism, based out of a love for country. Nationalism is the blind belief that everything your country does is right. Patriotism built our great country. Nationalism built nazi Germany. I’d much rather have too much criticism than too little. A sound democracy can handle criticism, just as a strong mind can.

By Jim

November 25, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

It must be exhausting to be outraged over everything these days Shaunti. This country has evolved into a nation of 9th grade girls in how upset and outraged someone can become over anything. The use of “who wears a bigger flag pin” is the red herring of the right. Its not about who shouts the most about how “pro american” they are. Talk to spme of the really old timers about the 40s and WW2. The give & take was worse than today. We survived. I find it quite interesting that the hard right wing cannot tolerate the out of party behavior today when they were the party that defined it in the 90s. I guess its never mind what we do- its how loud we can “out-God” someone and how loud we can chant patriotic slogans that really defines an American. Food for thought- if Hillary Clinton becomes President and proposes the same laws that W has so far, how loud will the right wing shriek about big government?

By Edward

November 25, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Shaunti is just another one of those fake patriots, no doubt feeling she has done her duty to her country by putting a sticker on the back of her huge SUV that she mostly drives alone. I, on the other hand, speak tirelessly against people like Shaunti who I see as the true threat to this country, threats against the very core that founded and has sustained this country. The neocons like Shaunti are a far, far greater threat than any al-qaeda bogeyman. She and her kind are Nationalists through and through, worshiping symbolism over substance while pursuing an agenda that actively works against the US Constitution and all that it stands for.

Shaunti, you are no real patriot, you are the anti-patriot.

By North

November 25, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

Shaunti Feldhahn is another one of those love-it-or-leave-it apologists who’s too lazy and narrow-minded to attempt to make a difference. She never mentions the millions of people, like Obama, who criticize this nation but fully intend to make it better. Patriotism is not-and never should be-blind acceptance of a nation’s actions and policies, but a willingness to make or keep a nation great. If it weren’t for those who protested against the status quo, those same people Feldhahn deems unpatriotic, African-Americans and women would never have the vote, we would still be stuck in Vietnam, and we would be unethically undermining the stability of other nations even more than we do now.

By order viagra online

November 25, 2007 9:21 PM | Link to this

http://acm.cs.uic.edu/modules/wordpress/2006/10/28/test/ >order viagra online http://acm.cs.uic.edu/modules/wordpress/2006/11/04/buy-cheap-viagra-online/ >buy cheap viagra online

By Peter

November 26, 2007 8:20 AM | Link to this

Support the troops … bring them home and give them medical and education benefits. As an active duty veteran of the Vietnam War era it’s tragic to see the disregard for the young men and women of my generation and that of my two sons’. If there were a draft today the Iraq quagmire would be grinding to a halt as mothers everywhere would be involved in “dialogue” with their legislators. The destruction and destabilization of another region is not an honorable endeavor. (Fighting them “there” so we don’t have to fight them here is immoral; when innocent Iraqi casualties are considered.)

The rest of the world is watching our failures and our extravagant displays of nationalism and have to wonder if we have any regard for the international consequences of our actions.

I’m not proud of the legacy my generation is leaving for our children to clean up.

By Anonymous

November 26, 2007 8:30 AM | Link to this

Should Americans be MORE patriotic? Nope… they already are. Patriots are those who speak out when their country’s headed the wrong direction, and who DO something about it. Maybe we need more active participation, but you should never confuse criticism of one’s government with “lack of patriotism.”

Over on the Luckovich blog, there’s a clueless poster named Dusty who complains, every single day, that criticizing Bush makes you “anti-American.” She has NO clue what patriotism really means.

By The Other Jack

November 26, 2007 9:04 AM | Link to this

Patriotism. It can be a hundred different things. And like religion, it can be used in a hundred different ways. But is complaining about obvious problems in our government actually patriotic?

Is it patriotic for a standing US Senator to stand on the Senate Floor and declare that we are killing women and children in other countries for our own personal gains? Some think it is. After all, part of loving one’s country is pointing out wrongs to be righted.

But in this age of instant global communications, there needs to be an understanding of how that Senate Floor speech will be used by the enemies of our country. Will that speech be used for recruiting young, impressionable souls to join the forces against our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and friends? To ignore this idea would be to ignore reality. Speeches by Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have all appeared in Islamic fundamentalist newspapers in counties where the recruiting of young people is taking place.

Expressions such as these need to be a matter of logic and balance. Does that speech have any positive direct effect on our country? It is obvious that Kennedy, Pelosi and Reid do not like the war in which they played a large part in starting. So what was the terrorist-inspiring speech for? Was the result of the speech a great National epiphany that inspired the people of our country to rise up and stop such horrible deeds? No. So what did it accomplish other than giving others yet another reason to kill our children and plan attacks on our country? Was the saying: loose lips sink ships some sort of huge conspiracy to restrict open communications or was it a matter of understanding how our own words can be used against us?

As far as Mr. Obama’s flag pin: If Mr. Obama was this quick to pull off his flag pin, it must have not meant that much in the first place. He is certainly free to do that and he is also free to stand there like a spoiled child refusing to place his hand over his heart. But like the reaction to the Dixie Chicks, he will also be subjected to the results of the opinions of others. America: 300 million opinions and almost all of them can vote.

By Archie

November 26, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

Bill Clinton served what? where? Andrea’s statement is not clear since it’s a fact that Clinton did not serve in the military. Maybe Andrea meant Kerry served. Anyway I side with Andrea in this debate for the reasons she listed and I think Shanti sounds a bit nutty but when you have superiority complex you don’t know when you’re doing something wrong or you just plain refuse to acknowledge that there are human lives being lost when you see thousands of dead Iraqis. When you have a superiority complex you allow drugs to be sold in a certain neighborhood as happened in the 1980’s. Yes, dissent is by far the most patriotic thing we can do as Americans rather than blindly follow some superiority-based policy.

By USinUK

November 26, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this

No, no, NO, Shaunti … America’s strongest asset has NEVER been “unshakable pride of a free people in a great country”. GEEZ LOUISE!!! America’s strongest asset is and will always be the ability for Americans to look critically at their government, to see its weaknesses alongside its strengths and scream/yell/holler to try to make the country better.

Honestly, you measure patriotism by a PIN??? How about you just sit down and think about that for a moment while the grownups carry on the conversation.

Criminey, Shaunti. Let’s take a look at North Korea and their pledges of love and adoration to their “Dear Leader” - is that what you want for the US??? Blind trust, adoration and unquestioning patriotism??? If it is, you’ll just wind up with a despotic leader.

I love the United States - as well as my newly adopted country, England - but the minute any of us turn a blind eye to the faults of our government is the day tyranny will take center stage. Doubt what I’m saying??? Look around you — who would have thought that it would become acceptable discourse to condone torture in the name of “patriotism.” Who would have thought it would become acceptable discourse to talk about imprisoning US citizens without due process in the name of “security.”

And, Shaunti, you have the utter GALL to tell us that WE’RE unpatriotic because we think that goes against everything the US is supposed to stand for???

Good god, woman, if that’s you’re idea of “freedom” and “a great nation”, I want no part of it.

By The Other Jack

November 26, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

To USinUK

Honestly, you measure patriotism by a PIN???

Symbolism is important. Go to an art gallery, read a book, watch a movie, get a tattoo. It all involves symbolism. If it weren’t, then there would be no flags, no emblems, no crests. Not wearing such a pin means nothing, but making a statement that he “no longer wears his pin” says that he once thought it was important, but now doesn’t. That does make a statement.

Criminey, Shaunti. Let’s take a look at North Korea and their pledges of love and adoration to their “Dear Leader” - is that what you want for the US??? Blind trust, adoration and unquestioning patriotism??? If it is, you’ll just wind up with a despotic leader.

Strange statement. Is there no middle ground? Has anyone asked for pledges of love and adoration for anyone? Why is everything about love or hate for GW Bush? I’m certain you understand there is more to Washington and our country than Bush.

Look around you — who would have thought that it would become acceptable discourse to condone torture in the name of “patriotism.”

Who in the world ever said that using harsh interrogation methods has anything to do with patriotism?

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Though my general sentiment probably lies more with Shaunti this week, Andrea makes two good points.

(1) Dissatisfaction/dissent is a necessary part of any healthy relationship, whether that relationship be governmental or even romantic.

(2) Ultimately, every voice deserves to be heard, however unpleasant.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

In return, Shaunti makes a greater point: When criticism/dissatisfaction/complaining becomes constant and, in fact irrational, it strains the relationship to the breaking point.

By JokesOn

November 26, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

Yes, dissent is by far the most patriotic thing we can do as Americans rather than blindly follow some superiority-based policy.

Agreed. I have a hard time believing that showing dissent fuels terrorist more than the hard imerialism applied by our leaders for the last 8 years.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

A few weeks ago, a poster made an impassioned reference to the ideal role of the press in our society as a watchdog over the powerful and as an advocate for the downtrodden and oppressed (i.e. the “Fourth Estate”). When the press does live up to this “godly” purpose, they have my ultimate respect.

At the same time, when I begin to notice inductively that the outrage seems to be highly selective and unfairly applied, it causes a creeping distrust within me of anything the press focuses on. Case in point is the issue of “farming out” prisoners of the US to other countries to be “interrogated” (tortured?). This highly questionable policy was instituted and used frequently by the Clinton Administration for many years without a peep from the press. Then, as soon as the Bush Administration utilized the same policy, all of a sudden it became a national outrage.

By USinUK

November 26, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

The Other Jack …

Yes, symbolism important … but it’s also just that: a symbol. Measuring someone’s patriotism by whether they wear a pin is about as asinine as measuring how religious someone is by asking them to name their favorite Bible passage. If I tell you it’s “Jesus wept” does that make me less religious than you? If I opt to not wear a pin or put my hand on my heart during the pledge, because I think my country is on the wrong course, does that mean I love my country less? I think it means I love my country more because I don’t stand idly by and say/do nothing.

As for my N. Korea comparison - go back to Shaunti’s original statement - that America’s biggest asset has been “the unshakable pride blahblahblah” … I agree with you that there should be middle ground - that you can have pride while having a critical eye. The same way I can love my husband while acknowledging that he has faults - and can work with him to correct those faults (and occasionally yell/scream/holler). My point is that absolute faith/support/patriotism where questioning and disagreeing is seen as unpatriotic leads to a government like they have in N. Korea. And, I’m sorry you don’t like that GWBush has come to equal government - if you want to look at why, go back to September 12, 2001, when everyone was called to support the President. Not Congress. Not the DoD. Not the Dept. of Ag. The President. Since then, to question him is to question the government. And vice versa.

And, you’re kidding with the Who in the world ever said that using harsh interrogation methods has anything to do with patriotism? question, right?? Do you not read the bloggers Malkin, Powerline, Little Green Footballs, etc?? Do you not read the columnists Coulter, Medved, and Novak?? If you don’t support waterboarding, you don’t support America. Did you not hear your own erstwhile Senator Miller and Rush Limbaugh compare what happened in Abu Ghraib to fraternity pranks??? Sheesh, talk about “down the memory hole” …

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

JokesOn—Do you see any positives of the Iraq War? Though I despair the ensuing chaos, I personally was glad to see Hussein removed from power.

By JokesOn

November 26, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

Case in point is the issue of “farming out” prisoners of the US to other countries to be “interrogated” (tortured?). This highly questionable policy was instituted and used frequently by the Clinton Administration for many years without a peep from the press. Then, as soon as the Bush Administration utilized the same policy, all of a sudden it became a national outrage.

I agree that the “farming out” of prisoners is highly questionable no matter who is using the tactic. I find a significant difference when you change inherent laws/rights of people that removes tehir ability to defend themselves. Before these laws, you or I could not be held without reason, but now that is no longer the case. I find that appalling and is what the media has been justly reporting on.

By chuck

November 26, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

As usual, Anonymous, YOU ARE WRONG. We do need to be more patriotic, but it has nothing to do with whether or not you criticize Bush. I do that all the time. The lack of patriotism is deeper than anything to do with Bush, although it is somewhat rooted there. NO, the lack of patriotism is EVIDENT in the left. In fact they exhibit the OPPOSITE of patriotism…THEY HATE AMERICA. Listen to what they say.

Alec Baldwin:

In response to Clinton’s impeachment:

“They voted on one article of impeachment already. And I come back from Africa to stained dresses and cigars and this and impeachment. I am thinking to myself, in other countries they are laughing at us 24 hours a day and I’m thinking to myself, if we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, [starts to shout] all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! [crowd cheers] Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families. [stands up, yelling] What is happening in this country? What is happening? UGHHH!”

Danny Glover

“One of the main purveyors of violence in this world has been this country, whether it’s been against Nicaragua or wherever…I’ve been an advocate for peace my whole life. But one of the main purveyors of violence in this world is this country.”

“It’s basically this rabid nationalism that has its own kind of potential of being maniacal. As we march down and wave the flags, we must be sure of what we’re waving them for.”

“Something is happening now that is very dark and very sinister in this country, and for us to not admit it is happening is, in some ways, for us to be blind.”

Edward Norton

“It’s nice being in Europe this week. Almost everyone in Germany and France is in sync with the governments. I almost forgot what it’s like to be proud of my government.”

George Clooney

“I believe he thinks this [war against Iraq] is a war that can be won, but there is no such thing anymore.”

“We can’t beat anyone anymore.”

Jane Fonda

“I don’t know if a country where the people are so ignorant of reality and of history, if you can call that a free world.”

Janeane Garofalo

“Our country is founded on a sham: our forefathers were slave-owning rich white guys who wanted it their way. So when I see the American flag, I go, ‘Oh my God, you’re insulting me.’ That you can have a gay parade on Christopher Street in New York, with naked men and women on a float cheering, ‘We’re here, we’re queer!’ — that’s what makes my heart swell. Not the flag, but a gay naked man or woman burning the flag. I get choked up with pride.”

Madonna

“Here in France I feel at home.”

Michael Moore

“I agree with the National Rifle Association when they say, ‘Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’ Except I would alter that to say, ‘Guns don’t kill people, Americans kill people.’ We’re the only country that does this, and we do it on an personal level in our neighborhoods and within our families and our schools, and we do it on a global level. The American attitude is that we believe we have a right to just go in and bomb another country. This is where Bush is going right now, right?”

Oliver Stone

“Bin Laden was completely protected by the oil companies in this country who told [President] Bush not to go after him because it would p** off the Saudis.”

“We should look to (Castro) as one of the Earth’s wisest people, one of the people we should consult.”

Richard Gere

“America has never paid any attention to other people, so it’s absurd for Bush to say that it’s all in the best interests of the Iraqi people.”

Robert Altman

“This present government in America I just find disgusting, the idea that George Bush could run a baseball team successfully -he can’t even speak! I just find him an embarrassment. I was over here when the election was on and I couldn’t believe it -and I’m 76 years old. Then when the Supreme Court came in and turned out to be a totally political animal, the last shred of any naivete that was left in me has gone. When I see an American flag flying, it’s a joke.”

“It [shooting a film in Britain] was the best experience of my life, with actors and with crews -the whole process. If you asked would I live in London the rest of my life, yeah, I’d be very happy to stay here. There’s nothing in America that I would miss at all.”

Sean Penn

“We have some good people in politics - it’s just that they don’t win,” he said. “In the same way we have some good movies, but they don’t succeed in the US.

“The electoral process resembles that of the movie-going process: they choose candidates as they choose movies. It’s something that we grow to accept.”

Viggo Mortensen

“…we [the United States] are not the good guys…”

“There’s nothing wrong with responding [to terrorism]. It’s how do you respond…our government is incredibly violent and aggressive and rapacious. And we want to control those regions.”

Woody Harrelson

“The war against terrorism is terrorism. The whole thing is just bullsh*t.”

“We’ve killed a million Iraqis since the start of the Gulf war — mostly by blocking humanitarian aid.”

Gore Vidal

“How we dare even prate about democracy is beyond me. Our form of democracy is bribery, on the highest scale. It’s far worse than anything that occurred in the Roman empire, until the praetorian guard started to sell the principate. We’re not a democracy, and we have absolutely nothing to give the world in the way of political ideas or political arrangements. God knows, the mention of justice is like a clove of garlic to Count Dracula.”

Jesica Lange

“The atmosphere in my country is poisonous, intolerable for those of us who are not right-wing, so thank you for inviting me to this festival and allowing me to get out for a few days.”

[Military action on Iraq is] “wrong, immoral and basically illegal. It makes me feel ashamed to come from the United States. It is humiliating.”

“It is an embarrassing time to be an American. It really is. It’s humiliating.”

Chrissie Hynde

“Have we gone to war yet? We (expletive) deserve to get bombed. Bring it on.”

“Let’s get rid of all the economic (expletive) this country represents! Bring it on, I hope the Muslims win!”

David Clennon

“I’m saying that the moral climate within the ruling class in this country is not that different from the moral climate within the ruling class of Hitler’s Germany.”

“I’m not comparing Bush to Adolf Hitler - because George Bush, for one thing, is not as smart as Adolf Hitler. And secondly George Bush has much more power than Adolf Hitler ever had.”

“I’m saying that we (Americans) have sunk pretty low and I’m saying that you can look at the moral climate in Germany in 1933,” Clennon reiterated. “We have to ask ourselves if we found ourselves in Nazi Germany, what would we do?

Gwyneth Paltrow

“I like living here (London) because I don’t fit into the bad side of American psychology. The British are much more intelligent and civilized than the Americans,” the 34-year-old added.

By The Other Jack

November 26, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

To Bruno

All excellent points. I don’t think that anyone is saying that we all need to set down and shut up. Dissent is important. But we live in a fish bowl. Every country looks to us as a world leader. When our leaders openly attack the very policies they voted for for the sake of grandstanding and power grabbing, the damages to our own security are devastating.

People are free to complain about anything they want. But Ho Chi Minh called the American anti-Vietnam war protesters “His little soldiers.” That doesn’t bother me nearly as much as thinking about what the world’s despots are calling many of the democrats in Congress.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

USinUK—I agree with you that the demand for symbolism by the public, especially religious symbolism, is kind of ridiculous. At the same time, OtherJack made a great point that Obama didn’t simply not wear a patriotic pin, he made a grand display of not wearing the pin, which could easily be interpreted as a slam.

Personal question for you: Is the fault-finding and fault-correction within your marriage “balanced”, or is one of you more in the “watchdog” role than the other? By my “yin-yang” theory of relationships, my guess would be taht one of you assumes that role more than the other.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

JokesOn—I don’t support holding people without reason, and have difficulty understanding anyone who thinks this is a good policy. I’ve heard a few “conservative” commentators try to weasel around the issue by distinguishing combatants who fight under a flag from those who are fighting for some other group or cause, but I’m not buying that argument. Humans are humans, and all deserve whatever dignity we can give them when the “man” takes away their freedom.

By chuck

November 26, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

USinUK as usual your blind loyalty to the left has affected your ability to comprehend the written word. Saunti’s exact quote was:

One of America’s strongest assets has always been the unshakeable pride of a free people in their great country; the belief that we are unique in the world and worth fighting for.

She did NOT say unshakeable loyalty to any PERSON.

Also, concerning Barak HUSSEIN Bin Laden…oops OBAMA’s decision to not wear the American flag pin. It is not that he chose to not wear the pin, it was his RESPONSE when this decision was pointed out to him and he was called on it.

He said that rather than wear the pin he would:

“tell the American people what I believe what will make this country great.”

Is there any reason why he couldn’t do BOTH?!?! That makes no sense. Instead of doing both he CHOSE to intentionally disregard the symbol of our country. Nobody is saying he has to wear a pin to be patriotic. I don’t wear one every day. What is telling is that he didn’t forget to put one on that day or misplace it. No he intentionally decided that the symbol of America was not good enough for him.

By USinUK

November 26, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Bruno …

Re: Barak’s not wearing the pin - please bear with me - our exposure to the primary process has been VERY limited … but, it was my understanding that he didn’t make a big deal out of it - it was noticed that he wasn’t wearing one, then everyone else made a big deal out of it.

And, again, he didn’t wear a pin. It’s not like he took a poop on the flag. He has opted to not wear a pin, fercryingoutloud. Next thing you know, that’s going to be tacked onto the anti-flag-burning Constitutional amendment. “No one can burn a flag. All Presidential candidates MUST wear a flag pin.”

I think that, with any relationship, it’s not so much one person is a “watchdog” (I mean, who wants to live with a watchdog scrutinizing everything you do) … but everyone reaches a tipping point where the dirty-clothes-on-the-floor issue has happened one too many times. He has his issues with me, too. We either bring it up gently or we have a row - but, then we figure out how to solve the issue together, kiss and make up. (shrug) I don’t know if that makes us any different than anyone else - all I do know is that the issue of housework is usually the majority of our arguments and that it’s the same for pretty much every other couple I know.

By Jeff

November 26, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

Well, I’m kinda torn on this one.

On the one hand, Michael Douglas’ speech from The American President rings true with me. (America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, ‘cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the “land of the free”. …. “That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character. And wave an old photo of the President’s girlfriend and you scream about patriotism and you tell them, she’s to blame for their lot in life, and you go on television and you call her a w*******.”) Note that the whole speech there is AMAZING, but this was the applicable part.

On the other hand, I also feel strongly that the political war between liberals and conservatives will only lead to outright civil war if something is not done about it.

What do I propose? Simple. Elect a President who does not care about Politics, only the Constitution of the United States of America.

That man is Dr. Ron Paul, and he truly is the ONLY “Hope for America”.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

chuck—You do have to wonder where some of these celebs are coming from in light of the priveleged lifestyles they are able to afford from the riches they raked in from the American public.

I’m disappointed to see Chrissie Hynde on your list. The Pretenders always struck a deep personal chord in me with their music. The “Learning to Crawl” album came out during a difficult time in my life and ended up being a great source of inspiration. Ever heard the song “Thumbelina”? It starts off “Hush little baby, don’t you cry…..”, and later asks “What’s important in this life? Ask the man who lost his wife….”

By JokesOn

November 26, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

JokesOn—Do you see any positives of the Iraq War? Though I despair the ensuing chaos, I personally was glad to see Hussein removed from power.

Not really. He was originally put in power by the US because, unfortunately, they needed a dictator to keep them contained. It was the lesser of all the evils - including occupying/killing/being killed to no avail.

I will readily agree that his actions were despicable, but do not think that what we would like to transform that region into is attainable through war.

I doubt you and your family would try to take over and tame a rancid neighborhood by yourselves and with no assistance or plan. I find this just as foolish. But given time, new foreign policy and a long-term plan that incorporated the whole region would have been more ideal.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

USinUK—That’s so funny that you brought up the issue of cleanliness and housework as being major spark points in a marriage. I’m sure I’ll sound silly, but I actually did all the housework in my marriage simply because my tolerance level for clutter was much stricter than my wife’s, so that her motivation to straighten up was less than mine.

Is your hubby a Limey?

By Over and Out

November 26, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

How obscenely arrogant to measure my patriotism by whether I wear my 99-cent, MADE IN CHINA American flag pin, or remain silent when I think the truth should be spoken! Who do you think you are telling people how they “should” define patriotism? THAT is un-American! Shaunti — and all y’all who agree with her — can Monica me. Seriously.

By Archie

November 26, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

None of those statements listed by Chuck sound like hate but just another opinion from people with the right to those opinions. I agree with many of those statements especially the one by Michael Moore because it shows he understands the superiority complex. Viggo’s statement is pretty good too and Richard Gere is right on the money. I am glad I read that post.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

Kissing and making up is the best part, I agree…..

By USinUK

November 26, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

And, as usual, Chuck, you can’t see anything beyond left/right. What color is the sky in your world? black or white??

I read and understood what Shaunti said. And I disagree. Again, I think the biggest asset is not unshakeable pride in the great country - the biggest asset is to look with a critical eye and fix what is wrong with our great country. If someone believes that thing happens to be the current occupant of the White House, or the war with Iraq, or imprisonment without due process, then that person should speak out.

And, it is their ability to speak out that is the biggest asset.

And, frankly, THAT is what I have an unshakeable pride in.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

I doubt you and your family would try to take over and tame a rancid neighborhood

Well, I’m doing all I can out here in Lilburn. I had to take on some neighbors a few years ago who were letting their pit bulls run amock. After receiving no help from the police or animal control, I strapped my gun on and confronted the low-lifes directly. After a few toe-to-toe shout downs, they decided it would be easier to move out.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

Hey NNP, oops, I mean Over and Out:

What’s up with all the references to BJs lately in your posts?

By The Other Jack

November 26, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

Yes, symbolism important … but it’s also just that: a symbol.

So . . Red is red, but it is also just green. Is that what you are saying? As I said before, the statement is that he used to wear a pin, but now he doesn’t.

Symbolism is important because it in fact portrays feelings of the bearer of that symbol. Not putting your hand over your heart can say anything you want to yourself, but any observer seeing that symbology is free to decide what you are saying. Unless you walk around with subtitles flashing all around you, that refusal to put your hand on your heart is open to interpretation. So do you criticize that observer for misinterpreting your actions? Perhaps you and Mr. Obama should pick a clearer method of complaining.

My point is that absolute faith/support/patriotism where questioning and disagreeing is seen as unpatriotic leads to a government like they have in N. Korea.

In these days, no one is asking for such faith/support/patriotism. They are asking for logical dissent, not blind hate of our own government.

And, I’m sorry you don’t like that GWBush has come to equal government

On September 12, 2001, many loyalties were required. No one required that anyone support only our president. However, to a very large group of people, every ill that this country has encountered since 1776 has been the fault of GW Bush. This sentiment has been pushed by an extremely biased media.

Where did the liberal website “MoveOn.org get their name? It was time to move on, i.e. nothing can now be blamed on the incompetence of Bill Clinton, it will all be Bush’s fault.

To logical, informed citizens, Bush has never been the entire government. However, when I see public figures blaming our current economic ills on Bush after the democrats have controlled Congress for nearly two years, I do wonder how many logical, informed people are left.

And, you’re kidding with the Who in the world ever said that using harsh interrogation methods has anything to do with patriotism? question, right?? Do you not read the bloggers Malkin, Powerline, Little Green Footballs, etc?? Do you not read the columnists Coulter, Medved, and Novak??

Do you really respect those opinions? I don’t. The daily twisting of the news by the biased media is enough for anyone to dissect. When you go to blogs for your information, you are going to get opinions, not facts.

“Torture” is another issue. According to the definition of many, police departments torture suspects when they interrogate them. Solitary confinement, bright lights, screaming interrogators can be seen every night on Court TV trying to get the local thug to admit popping a cap in an enemy. It is political fodder that the politically brilliant democrats have used to the tee.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

Serious question for you, NNP: One of the constant themes of your posts is a disdain for being told how to feel. My question is, do you believe that such “propoganda” we’re all exposed to comes strictly from the Republican Party? Personally, I think the propganda is about equal on both sides.

By USinUK

November 26, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

Bruno - yes, I did marry a cutie-pie-Limey-guy … and he has introduced me to the wonders of bangers-and-mash and Yorkshire puddings while I have taught him the virtues of big, fluffy biscuits and sloppy joes. I still don’t understand cricket, but have started developing an appreciation for rugby (not footie/soccer - too many of the fans are thugs).

As long as you didn’t mind doing the cleaning, then it’s fine. But, when both of us work full-time and I have to spend another 8 hours on the weekend cleaning and doing laundry, that’s when the occasional gasket blows. I love him and I want him to sleep in on the weekends and all … but, he lives there, too, and should help out. It’s all about teamwork.

The question is … how can we have a national “kiss and make up” between the parties that have been so viscerally at each others’ throats starting with the Clinton administration and continuing into this one???

By Anonymous

November 26, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

As long as Obama’s opponents are of the same intellectual caliber as Chuck, he’s got nothing to worry about.

First he complains about a piece of cheap jewelry, then he focuses on the spelling of Barack’s NAME… sheesh! If this is the most meaningful criticism you can offer, Obama’s a shoo-in.

By The Other Jack

November 26, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

Bruno

We had a pit bull that constantly got loose in my neighborhood. Poor guy had a tragic and violent death. He was found with his head bashed in and a couple of bullet holes in his body.

By JokesOn

November 26, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

Well, I’m doing all I can out here in Lilburn. I had to take on some neighbors a few years ago who were letting their pit bulls run amock. After receiving no help from the police or animal control, I strapped my gun on and confronted the low-lifes directly. After a few toe-to-toe shout downs, they decided it would be easier to move out.

I can understand and respect that, but it is not a whole neighborhood as I posted.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

USinUK—Congrats on your “great catch”. I guess all of us Americans are a sucker for a British/Australian accent, no? ; > }

Is it really true that the current hateful climate started during the Clinton Administration????? My personal experience/study of history suggests otherwise. In my own lifetime, the current hatred/division is not as strong now as it was during the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon was absolutely hated, while the man who started the conflict, JFK, was deified by the press.

By The Other Jack

November 26, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

To USinUK

The question is … how can we have a national “kiss and make up” between the parties that have been so viscerally at each others’ throats starting with the Clinton administration and continuing into this one???

That is a tough one. Reversing sentiments is extremely hard when so many people are getting so rich off those sentiments. Ann Coulter and Micheal Moore make millions. Newscorp and Time-Warner make billions. Follow the money.

I’m afraid that it is going to take another horrible tragedy to bring us together. And the love fest of 9-11 only lasted a couple of weeks before certain people saw the money making potential.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

Hey Anonymous—Do you do anything other than to snipe from the sidelines? I don’t recall ever seeing an original thought posted under your handle.

OtherJack—I don’t support taking the punishment out on the dog, per se, but I guess it is easier than shooting the irresponsible/inconsiderate neighbors directly.

By The Other Jack

November 26, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

To OverandOut

How obscenely arrogant to measure my patriotism by whether I wear my 99-cent, MADE IN CHINA American flag pin,

What does that have to do with anything? The flag that was raised on Iwo Jima probably cost five bucks.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

USinUK—If you’re both working full-time, yet you are doing the lion’s share of the housework, then that’s not fair. Can you afford to hire a cleaning person? That’s what I do now tha i can afford it.

I actually didn’t mind being the “caretaker” in my marriage. It made me feel useful and I thought it was a nice way to express my gratitude.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

USinUK and OtherJack—A national kiss-and-make-up sounds good on paper, but, due to human nature itself, I don’t see that happening any time soon, barring another national tragedy. Even then, the “honeymoon” couldn’t be expected to last for more than a few weeks, just as it did following the 9/11 attacks.

By The Other Jack

November 26, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

To Bruno

I have a dog, myself. But there was no other option. The dog had chased children and one child barely escaped, thanks to the efforts of a older neighbor. The owner had ben warned again and again and I once chased the dog away from my own dog’s outdoor kennel. I didn’t kill him, but I, like the entire neighborhood was glad when he was found dead.

Pit Bulls and Rottwielers are seldom used by law enforcement simply because they are generally stupid (low IQ). A guard or attack dog HAS to understand when it is time to defend it’s owner. Did you see the Rottwieler bite the runner during the Auburn/Alabama game on Saturday? That dog should have never been is such a public place.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

JokesOn—Don’t forget, Over and Out is the same poster who was reprimanded for wearing anti-Bush pins to work and starting political arguments with her co-workers. No bias there…..

By USinUK

November 26, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

The Other Jack.

Um. No. Red is red. Symbolism is symbolism. Again, from what limited exposure I had to the story, HE didn’t make a big deal of it until someone asked him about the pin.

Ah, yes, the boogeyman of MoveOn. Was wondering when someone would bring that up. Cue someone raising the spectre of George Saros.

WHAT Clinton incompetence? Was he perfect? But, as far as competence is concerned, he was a dang sight better than C+ Augustus. At least his NSC focused on terrorism, which is more than Bush v. 2.0 could say (“no one could have imagined anyone would use planes as bombs” - except that the CIA did).

Do I respect Coulter - heck no. But is her mug on MSNBC everytime she spills ink on a page? yes. Do I respect Malkin - heck no. But, until recently, she was a regular feature on FOX. Powerline “blog of the year” … Rush … do I need to go on??

RE Torture - you want to nitpick? fine. Waterboarding. Simulating drowning. Something that we determined was a war crime with the VC did it … suddenly, anyone who speaks out against it is unpatriotic and doesn’t care about America.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

OtherJack—I agree with you regarding pit bulls and Rotweilers, and in fact, I did see the Rot bite the Auburn running back after he scored on Saturday night.

One of the reasons I had to break up with my most recent lady friend was because she hated football with a passion and wouldn’t give me permission to watch. My only strategy on Saturday nights this year was to take her to clubs which had a few sports TVs going so I could steal glances at the scores in between dancing.

BTW—Big congrats to all the Auburn fans. I know it was a disappointing year overall, but it’s always satisfying to beat Alabama. Can anyone believe that the Dawgs are ranked in the top 5 now? LSU’s loss threw the rankings into a tailspin. I am glad to see Kansas out of the top 5. If it ain’t the SEC or ACC, it just isn’t football!

By USinUK

November 26, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

To The Other Jack and Bruno

As far as the national kiss and make up … it’s sad, isn’t it. We all have so much more that we agree on than disagree. Yet, so many people can only see left/right - if you’re on the right and someone on the left said something, it’s automatically wrong, and vice versa.

While I was only a young’un in the 70s and only peripherally remember Viet Nam, I don’t remember the absolute loathing of - not just the President, but ANYone on the other side of the political aisle. I came of age during the Reagan years - while there was no love lost between the Dems and the Republicans then, they still respected each other at the end of the day, they met and had a drink.

The Other Jack - I agree with you - follow the money. Radio has made mega bucks on Rush. The same with columnists like Coulter and Malkin. I know that, just as I don’t agree with everything that comes out of Michael Moore’s mouth, not everyone on the right agrees with Coulter and Malkin. All they do is throw gasoline on the fire and make things worse.

Will it result in a Civil War as another commenter said, above?? War, no - but, I do think that violence is definitely possible … and it really saddens me, this possibility.

By USinUK

November 26, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

Bruno -

We did finally come to the conclusion that we need a cleaning person this weekend. Thank god. Another marriage saved!! ;-)

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

USinUK—I’ll give Obama a pass if he didn’t go out of his way to make a point by not wearing his pin or holding his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance or playing of the National Anthem. Empty symbolism means little to me, including, or should I say, especially religious symbolism. Patriotic is as patriotic does, just like Obama said. I can live with that.

As for “waterboarding”, tying someone to a board and making them think you are going to drown them is torture, and is unacceptable. I’m almost positive John McCain has spoken out against it.

By chuck

November 26, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

I doubt you and your family would try to take over and tame a rancid neighborhood by yourselves and with no assistance or plan. I find this just as foolish. But given time, new foreign policy and a long-term plan that incorporated the whole region would have been more ideal.

And THAT jokeson is exactly the reason why we have so many crappy neighborhoods here in the ATL.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)

If I saw drug dealers hanging out in my neighborhood, I WOULD do something…even if I had no assistance. I would however have a PLAN.

Just so you know, We had a plan for Iraq as well. The basic problem with that plan was not it’s quality but rather the fact that those planning it did not account for what should have been obvious…that the democrats and the media would politicize it without regard for national honor or integrity. That was the critical miscalculation made by the administration.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

USinUK—You probably should do some refresher reading about the 60s and 70s before you get too excited about the current political divisions. There were many, many riots in big cities like Detroit and LA which left many people dead and many hundreds of businesses were burned to the ground, all in the name of “progress”.

Speaking of Ronald Reagan, there is a classic clip of him when he was governor of California during the student “protests” of the 60s in which campus buildings were being taken over forcibly. While the UC Berkely profs were cheering the students on, Reagan curtly reminded them that the taxpayers paid for the campus buildings.

By chuck

November 26, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

Brudog, I have a theory that “Anonymous” is actually Brian Curtis, but I can’t be sure.

By Kim

November 26, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

“We had a plan for Iraq as well. The basic problem with that plan was not it’s quality but rather the fact that those planning it did not account for what should have been obvious…that the democrats and the media would politicize it without regard for national honor or integrity. That was the critical miscalculation made by the administration.” Oh sweet jumping jesus. What is the kool-aid flavor this week?

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

USinUK—Great decision to get a housekeeper!! Best of luck to you in your marriage!!

On a personal level, the majority of my friends are liberals. We get along well based on a mutual respect that we’re all coming from a good place, even when we disagree on specific policies. The only liberals I don’t get along with are the ones who substitute emotional appeals for common sense. The bottom line is that very little of our day-to-day lives is affected by what the crooks in Washington do.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

Anonymous = Brian Curtis? Not a bad guess, chuck, based on the lack of any real substance.

I was wondering myself if AGFNPR might not be our old friend Kevin. He seemed to know too much about 2D spending time on the GT sports boards.

By JB King

November 26, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

Has to remind me of the joke: “Three different types of lawyer fall off a tall building, which one hits the ground first? Who cares!” So the AJC has an overtly sexist column, the issue is your sexism and not what is in the column.

JB King

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

chuck—When I finally get my building sold in another week or so, I won’t have to come to the library to check emails, so (hopefully) won’t be on the blog much.

When that happens, can you do me a favor, and try to be nice to NNP? Attack me all you want, because I deserve it, but please find it in your heart to say something nice to her. I read what you said a few weeks back and was ashamed for you on your behalf. Seriously. She doesn’t deserve the harsh treatment ou have given her.

I’ve greatly enjoyed debating the issues here, but have come to the conclusion that “anonymnous” blogging along with the “anonymous” internet are not good for me. It allows me to express a terrible, self-destructive side which I normally am able to keep in check in “real life.”

By The Other Jack

November 26, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

To USinUK

Um. No. Red is red. Symbolism is symbolism. Again, from what limited exposure I had to the story, HE didn’t make a big deal of it until someone asked him about the pin.

He is running for President of the United States. Anything he does can become a big deal. He knew that before he said it. Do you not understand that with such a position that everything he does or says is open to criticism?

Ah, yes, the boogeyman of MoveOn. Was wondering when someone would bring that up. Cue someone raising the spectre of George Saros.

Did I mention George Soros? Living in England certainly puts him in front of you more than me considering his attempt at manipulating the value of the British Pound, but I do find it interesting that with all the conspiracy theorist in the far left, that no one seems to think that this billionaire doing everything he can to circumvent the political process in many democratic countries is no problem. But I was talking about the name of a political blog that he supports, not George Soros.

WHAT Clinton incompetence? Was he perfect? But, as far as competence is concerned, he was a dang sight better than C+ Augustus.

Selling top secret missile technology to China and nuclear technology to the N. Koreans. I hope it is just incompetence, because if it is not, it has to be considered treason.

At least his NSC focused on terrorism, which is more than Bush v. 2.0 could say (“no one could have imagined anyone would use planes as bombs” - except that the CIA did).

Really? I can’t consider the bombing of an aspirin factory in Somalia as any great move against terrorism. In fact, bin Laden stated that this act gave Al Quida the moral authority to attack civilians, much like the Dresden Bombings of WWII. He suspended all on-the-ground intell in 1994 and offered early retirement to most of the senior leaders of the CIA, leaving the department blind and inexperienced. So please explain how he focused on terrorism.

8Do I respect Coulter - heck no. But is her mug on MSNBC everytime she spills ink on a page? yes. Do I respect Malkin - heck no. But, until recently, she was a regular feature on FOX. Powerline “blog of the year” … Rush … do I need to go on??*

So you get the point. Unfortunately, you only see one side of the group of money hungry crazies that are splitting our country, but whatever…

RE Torture - you want to nitpick? fine. Waterboarding. Simulating drowning. Something that we determined was a war crime with the VC did it … suddenly, anyone who speaks out against it is unpatriotic and doesn’t care about America.

HUH? Has anyone but Ann Coulter said that? You should stop giving that skinny little girl so much power.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

So you know, NNP, I thought if you this weekend while at the Relax The Back store looking at office chairs. They make an incredible chair in which every single component is adjustable, including the forward tilt angle, so that it truly supports your spine while you work. The best feature was adjustable arm pieces which drew in perfectly to support you forearms and shoulders while typing. They are a little pricy (approx $2000), but worth every penny if you make your living sitting all day.

I’d love to get you one for Christmas…. Or would you rather just have the cash? Your choice….

By The Other Jack

November 26, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

USinUK

I was 16 in 1968. I don’t remember the conflict being so much between the parties. I just remember a giant reaction to Viet Nam. It didn’t matter whether it was Johnson or Nixon, it was just against the government for keeping us in that horrible war.

I’m afraid we are going to see some major problems. We gave away our status as the world economic leader with NAFTA (Democratic President, Republican Congress) We can’t defend ourself because someone came to the brilliant conclusion that people die in war.

It’s a mess.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

I do hope you enjoyed the football season and the upcoming bowl games, NNP. I hope your boyfriend knows how lucky he is to have a lady friend who actually likes football. I’m extremely envious.

By lovelyliz

November 26, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

If by patriotic, you mean the neo-conservative version of patriotic, NO

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

Mara—If you are reading W2W today, get your fat butt back on the blog. That’s an order!! ; > }

By JokesOn

November 26, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this

Just so you know, We had a plan for Iraq as well. The basic problem with that plan was not it’s quality but rather the fact that those planning it did not account for what should have been obvious…that the democrats and the media would politicize it without regard for national honor or integrity. That was the critical miscalculation made by the administration.

And here I thought it was bad planning just as his father noted: There is no “exit strategy” or plan regarding iraq. Junior should have read his fathers book.

To where a pin or to not where a pin: It is just as stupid of a point as in the Seinfeld episode where Kramer would not wear the aids pin.

By Anonymous

November 26, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

Bruno: Yes, Obama is making a point… one that apparently sailed right past people like Chuck and TOJ.

The point is that wearing a flag pin is an empty, meaningless gesture. It’s laziness, like slapping a yellow ribbon on your bumper and talking big about how much you “support the troops.”

Actions speak louder than words—and wearing a pin, or a sticker, or a magnetic ribbon is really just more words. Obama has called out the shallow patriots, and they’re clucking in outrage at having their shallowness exposed.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

Still hope to see you around one day, JokesOn. You missed one heck of a party at Halloween, though. The “Boogie” gang rented out a skating ring in Stone Mt, and we skated all night while three bands performed (10PM-6AM). I hadn’t had a pair of skates on in about 35 years, but was sailing around and skating backwards after just a lap or two. The only bad part came when I hit a wet spot on the floor going about 40mph and hit the deck hard. I tore my best suit pants and busted my knee pretty good….. I guess that’s what I get for deciding to dress up as a CIA agent.

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

Anonymous—thanks for offering an actual opinion rather than just shooting down others. Since you actally addressed me in a civilized manner, I have to believe you’re not BC. : > }

I just reread Obama’s words regarding the pin, and support him 100% in rejecting empty symbolism as a benchmark of patriotism. i am in full agreement with the posters on board today who have echoed the same point.

P.S. When we kiss and make up, no tongue, ok??

By Bruno

November 26, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

Gotta run. Love to all, especially to the one who won’t give me a chance….

By The Other Jack

November 26, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

Anomonous

Bruno: Yes, Obama is making a point… one that apparently sailed right past people like Chuck and TOJ.

I have said all along that he is making a statement and that statement is open to interpretation by everyone. PLEASE try to read the posts before you launch into more and more personal attacks.

By Hans Christian Brando

November 26, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

It’s sad when adults confuse superficial symbols of patriotism—or religion, for that matter—with the thing itself. Osama bin Laden can pin an enamel Old Glory on his burnoose; not very likely, but if he did, would that make him a good American? Ms. Feldhahn seems to think so. She also parrots the right-wing line that if you criticize America, it means you “hate” it.

Can’t you just see these baby conservatives at the dinner table so many years ago. Mom or Dad says “Take your elbows off the table” or “Don’t chew with your mouth open,” and they come right back with “Why do you hate me?” Parents have even been known to say they’re (temporarily) “ashamed” of their children. Well, they obviously hate their kids, don’t they?

I remember, as undoubtedly you do, the “patriotic” paraphernalia following 9/11, and how six months later it was red-white-and-blue roadkill.

Political debate is certainly nothing new in this country, but it never sunk to the depths it is now until the advent of Fox News Network with its chip-on-the-shoulder “I’m a better American than you are” brand of journalism.

By The Other Jack

November 26, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this

Bruno

He may have been nice to you, but he is saying things about Chuck and myself that is unfounded. The real question is: Can he actually make a point without attacking ANY other poster.

I certainly haven’t seen it.

By Anonymous

November 26, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

The point is, attaching importance to shallow gestures like pins and lapel ribbons is a superficial way to look at things.

It makes about as much sense as saying “I wouldn’t vote for Obama because his name sounds like Osama,” or “I’m voting for Hillary because she’s a woman.” These are MEANINGLESS, and people who attach any importance to them are missing some far more important issues (or brains).

By JokesOn

November 26, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this

Still hope to see you around one day, JokesOn.

I have been on the road so long I have forgoten what my favorite chair feels like. Maybe one day I’ll see atlanta again.

By The Other Jack

November 26, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

Hans Christian Brando

Ms. Feldhahn seems to think so. She also parrots the right-wing line that if you criticize America, it means you “hate” it.

When on earth did she say anything even related to that? In fact she said: Yes, it is the right and duty of every citizen to speak against perceived injustices and leadership error. It’s right there in black and white.

Do you need to make up stories about what a person says in order to make a point, or did you just really want to tell the “around the table with baby conservative” story?

By chuck

November 26, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

Brando, you probably need to take a history refresher course:

I think the mudslinging definitely is still a big part of our election process, but it’s less broad and vulgar. For instance, there is less aimed at other people’s physical attributes. The 19th century was very big on that. In the election of 1800, one of the dirtiest in American history, the venomous hack writer James Callendar (secretly hired by Thomas Jefferson) assailed then-President John Adams as a “repulsive pedant” and “a hideous hermaphroditical character,” whatever that means. Later in the 19th century, Martin Van Buren was accused of wearing women’s corsets (by Davy Crockett, no less) and James Buchanan (who had a congenital condition that caused his head to tilt to the left) was accused of have unsuccessfully tried to hang himself. Oh, and Abraham Lincoln reportedly had stinky feet. The 20th century began this way; at the 1912 Republican National Convention, Teddy Roosevelt, wearing a sombrero and smoking a cigar, cheerfully referred to William Howard Taft, the sitting President and Roosevelt’s former vice president, as “a rat in a corner.” (The rodent motif is popular — FDR liked to call Alf Landon, his 1936 opponent, “the White Mouse who wants to live in the White House.”) You won’t find this kind of thing out in the open too much today, although you still see it in some of the nastier primary campaigns, such as the hatchet job done on John McCain in 2000 by his fellow Republicans.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/the-complete-history-of-dirty-politics-a-qa-on-anything-for-a-vote/

By JokesOn

November 26, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

I have said all along that he is making a statement and that statement is open to interpretation by everyone.

If I give you an explanation as to why I am wearing a bandana, you can interpret it differently than how I explained it. Yet, in superseding my explanation without some kind of real evidence as to a second motive, it would be pretty c0cky and insulting.

Since he was asked why he stopped wearing it, and he explained, anyone second-guessing him (minus some kind of proof) is creating an inane diversion fueled by hate or ego.

By chuck

November 26, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

Here’s one for you Anonymous…I wouldn’t vote for him because he is a Muslim and a Democrat. More importantly, he doesn’t have the experience, or frankly, the depth to be president. He hasn’t faced any tough questions for the most part, but has even stumbled on some of the softball questions he has been asked. He may be the GQ candidate, but he sure isn’t a credible one.

By B

November 26, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this

OtherJack—Don’t take the personal attacks on the blog so personally, ok, buddy? Based on my own frothing-at-the-mouth attacks I made on others here without really knowing them, I realize now that such attacks are more of a reflection of an angry state of mind rather than true hatred of anything the other person actually said. Can you dig?

At least no one went out of their way to publish your home address…..And I was able to forgive the ones who did that to me.

By B

November 26, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this

Looks like it’s going to be a tough day tomorrow. An old friend called me yesterday to tell me that her 21 year old son, who I had adjusted since he was a small boy, committed suicide last week. She found him hanging in his bedroom.

I wanted badly to be of some comfort to her, but all I could do was to cry along with her and say “He’s at peace now. The demons can’t torment him anymore.”

By B

November 26, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

I know the demons almost got me a few times, but I couldn’t ever muster the courage to do myself in because of the trauma it might leave for the few people on this earth who truly care about me.

By chuck

November 26, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

Hey Brudog…sorry to hear about that. I had a good friend whose son committed suicide as a 16 year old about 10 years ago. I don’t know how a parent can deal with that.

By B

November 26, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

OtherJack—if you’re truly interested in understanding the misplaced passion so many people impart to their political views, just think about the nature of human beings. Underneath it all, we’re pack animals, just like dogs in so many ways. So while we dbate specific issues, the greater question always remains “Are you fer’ us, or agin’ us”.

Make any sense? I believe that’s where the exaggerated importance of symbolism comes in to play.

By B

November 26, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

Other than saying “He’s with God now”, were you able to offer any comfort, chuck? I’m at somwewhat of a loss here….

By The Other Jack

November 26, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

B

Thanks for the thoughts.

I guess the reason why I am so thin skinned about that sort of thing is that in the few weeks I have been here, between this guy and JokesOn, I have been attacked over and over and over again. I have been called horrible names and have been accused of starting the holocaust, but not one word is ever said to the rudest people on here simply because they are, like the vast majority of posters on here, liberals.

While I have had to endure weekly lectures from someone or another because I responded to their attacks.

You are right. There is no way a liberal would be judged on the same level as a conservative. I should remain above the fray, but it is hard.

Sorry about that address thing, man. That’s bad.

By The Other Jack

November 26, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this

b

Wow. That’s horrible. There is nothing you can do but offer support. I had a friend that’s brother hung himself. This guy was great looking, talented, well liked and seemed happy. I think that makes it even harder when the reasons are not apparent. All you can do is be there when they need you.

Sorry.

By 9th Commandment

November 26, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

Does that include saying another professed Christian is a Muslim even though he publicly claims the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior? Or is it okay because anything you say about a Democrat is okay, as long as you give it a negative connotation?

By The Other Jack

November 26, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this

B

I think I do understand that passion. But conservatives have the same passion. Don’t you agree?

By Prayer For Andrew

November 26, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this

Mother God—Please accept the body of Andrew into your body and the soul of Andrew into your soul. Only you know the reasons why……

By B

November 26, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this

OtherJack—It would be nice if everyone here on W2W agreed with one another, but it’s never going to happen, not in this lifetime anyway.

I know you feel like you’re taking an undeserved beating, but all I can tell you is that the liberal posters here are all good people. The few that seem mean-spirited are just expressing frustration with their own situations in life, most likely. Try to let the heat galvanize your thoughts, not cause you to melt into the fire yourself, if possible.

By B

November 26, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

I guess I better stay away from listening to Project 9-6-1 for a few days. I don’t think I can hear that Three Days Grace song right now, the one that talks about suicide….

Definitely no U2 for a while either….

By chuck

November 26, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this

Not much B. He was a great kid and he and I had gotten pretty close. I just told her some stories about things that he had said or done that made me laugh. I don’t know if it helped at all.

By B

November 26, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this

OtherJack—I’m deeply involved in playing an Asian board game called “GO”. The complexity of the strategy involved far surpasses chess (or any other game, for that matter), such that the most powerful computers in the world cannot defeat even an average GO player like myself.

At the highest level of play, the board becomes a mirror of your own personality, such that your style of play reflects the condition of your soul. In this same way, I’m suggesting that your own style of argument here in W2W is a reflection of your soul. As such, it is a waste of time to focus on what the “other guys” are saying. Learn about yourself from your own words, not others.

By B

November 26, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this

chuck—I sincerely appreciate the honesty of your response. My own falling out with religion came at an early age due to personal questions about death and salvation. Though the ministers talked a good game about “Grace”, the unmerited Love of a Merciful God, in the end it sounded to me like salvation was “earned” by parroting the right words and expressing a faith that I simply didn’t have.

By JokesOn

November 26, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this

I guess the reason why I am so thin skinned about that sort of thing is that in the few weeks I have been here, between this guy and JokesOn, I have been attacked over and over and over again. I have been called horrible names and have been accused of starting the holocaust, but not one word is ever said to the rudest people on here simply because they are, like the vast majority of posters on here, liberals.

Was gonna let it go man, but you were unable to refrain as usual. You exaggerate way to much. I had a dialog with you while you were professing the validity of infusing law with religious morals. After a day or so of you exhibiting deafness, I said that I do not think you are here to discuss, but to preach. That is when you got into the heavy insults (you always write with sarcasm) and went off on me.

You can cry all you want that it is because you are a conservative, but that is not the reason people dislike you on the blogs. It is your holier that thow posts and inability to listen to others positions.

By B

November 26, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

And I thought about YOU, chuck, yesterday as well. After looking at office chairs, my lady friend and I had lunch in an Italian pizzeria. On the wall was an inspirational poem, ironically written by someone named chuck, called “I am a Christian because….”

I can’t remember the esact stanzas, but the gist of the poem is to say “The reason I’m a Christian is not because I am perfect, but because I am a wretched sinner who needs the help of the Christ.” I hope that is your outlook as well.

It would mean the world to me if you would tell NNP all the reasons you care about her, chuck. I know you guys have been at each other’s throats here on W2W for a long time, but you’ve been pretty horrible to her with your stinging criticisms.

By The Other Jack

November 26, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this

B

Thanks, man. I understand what you are saying. Staying above the fray is the ultimate goal. Dealing with rude, sarcastic, abusive posters with kid gloves is not easy nor should it be a requirement.

I am at the point in my day where I am running in and out of the computer room so I am about to shut this one down. Have a good day. Good luck with your friend’s tragedy. I do believe in the power of prayer and will include his family in my nightly prayers.

By chuck

November 26, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this

In two best-selling autobiographies—”The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream” and “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance”—Mr. Obama, born in Honolulu where his parents met, mentions but does not expand on his Muslim background, alluding only to his attendance at a “predominantly Muslim school.”

The sources said the young Obama was given the name Hussein by his Muslim father, which the Illinois Democrat rarely uses in public.

His father was black and came from Kenya. Mr. Obama’s mother, the daughter of a farmer, came from Wichita, Kansas. Mr. Obama’s parents divorced when he was two years old. His father returned to Kenya.

Later, Mr. Obama’s mother married an Indonesian student and the family moved to Jakarta. Mr. Obama returned to Hawaii when he was 10 to live with his maternal grandparents.

The sources said the background check concerned Mr. Obama’s years in Jakarta. In Indonesia, the young Obama was enrolled in a Madrassa and was raised and educated as a Muslim. Although Indonesia is regarded as a moderate Muslim state, the U.S. intelligence community has determined that today most of these schools are financed by the Saudi Arabian government and they teach a Wahhabi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims.

Although the background check has not confirmed that the specific Madrassa Mr. Obama attended was espousing Wahhabism, the sources said his Democratic opponents believe this to be the case—and are seeking to prove it. The sources said the opponents are searching for evidence that Mr. Obama is still a Muslim or has ties to Islam.

Mr. Obama attends services at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago’s South Side. However, he is not known to be a regular parishioner.

“Obama’s education began a life-long relationship with Islam as a faith and Muslims as a community,” the source said. “This has been a relationship that contains numerous question marks.”

The sources said Mr. Obama spent at least four years in a Muslim school in Indonesia. They said when Mr. Obama was 10, his mother and her second husband separated. She and her son returned to Hawaii.

“Then the official biography begins,” the source said. “Obama never returned to Kenya to see relatives or family until it became politically expedient.”

In both of his autobiographies, Mr. Obama characterizes himself as a Christian—although he describes his upbringing as mostly secular.

In “The Audacity of Hope,” Mr. Obama says, “I was not raised in a religious household.” He describes his mother as secular, but says she had copies of the Bible, the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita in their home.

Mr. Obama says his father was “raised a Muslim, but by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist….” Mr. Obama also describes his father as largely absent from his life. He says his Indonesian stepfather was “skeptical” about religion and “saw religion as not particularly useful in the practical business of making one’s way in the world ….”

By 3DG

November 26, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this

This world will never be what I expected, and if I don’t belong, who would have guessed it?

Even if I say it will be alright, still I hear you say you want to end your life. Now and again we try, just to stay alive.

Maybe we’ll turn it all around, because it’s never too late, it’s never too late.

The world we knew won’t come back, the time we’ve lost, can’t get back. The life we had won’t be ours again…..

By 3DG

November 26, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

OtherJack—Keep looking for the mirror effect. You may find out just who the truly rude, sarcastic, abusive person is…..

By 3DG

November 26, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

Well, I guess I might as well make a belated, feeble attempt to accomplish something today other than exercise my fingers on the keyboard.

Mara—Please come back to the blog. It’s really lonely without you here.

chuck—Be sweet to NNP. We all know you’re hot for her! (Not that I blame you).

By chuck

November 26, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this

“The reason I’m a Christian is not because I am perfect, but because I am a wretched sinner who needs the help of the Christ.”

I have expressed that sentiment here many times Brudog.

As for NNP, she doesn’t need me or you patronizing her. I don’t know that I have been particularly hard on her at anytime…certainly not as sarcastic toward her as she has been of me. Personally, I believe in complete equality of the sexes. If she can come here and dish it out, certainly she can take some criticism. BUT, let’s ask her:

1) NNP do you sincerely believe that I owe you an apology for anything that I have said to you?

2) Which do you find more annoying, my criticisms or Dog’s pandering?

So

By The Other Jack

November 26, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this

JokesOn

I had a dialog with you while you were professing the validity of infusing law with religious morals.

The fact that you still have no idea what I was talking about proves that you are the one that doesn’t read or care about what others are saying. I would once again explain what I was saying, but I’m pretty sure, since you didn’t understand the first 10 explanations, you wouldn’t understand number 11, either.

You tried to post entire conversations to prove that I was the abusive one, but that didn’t work, because all you posted was my repeated, civil, logical explanations while you continued to go hysterical and accuse me of everything from saying things I never said to your saying that people like me started the holocaust.

You went completely nuts after I had responded to your saying that you had no respect for anything I had to say by simply saying that I just wouldn’t answer your post anymore. After that, the slobbering name calling dominated every post you wrote.

I’m sure you don’t remember any of this. No big surprise.

By 3DG

November 26, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

Hope you all enjoyed our show at the Tabernacle last Saturday night. Next time we’ll be sure to schedule the concert AROUND the Auburn football schedule. Our bad….

By chuck

November 26, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

We all know you’re hot for her! (Not that I blame you).

No dog, falling for an anonymous person on a blog is not something I would do, that’s something a loser would do.

By 3DG

November 26, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this

And more love to NNP.

By 3DG

November 26, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this

And more love to NNP.

By B

November 26, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

that’s something a loser would do

You’re probably right, chuck. As I said earlier today, the internet in general, and the blog in particular, are no good for me. It’s too easy for me to let my imagination get the better of me.

Keep up whatever good works you are doing in the “real world”, buddy.

By Snopes

November 26, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

SNOPES refutes it.

By JokesOn

November 26, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

I would once again explain what I was saying, but I’m pretty sure, since you didn’t understand the first 10 explanations, you wouldn’t understand number 11, either.

And I would re-post your response to my civil post, but know that once you latch onto a falsehood, you stick with it like good ol’ GWB. Must stay the course!

I’m sure you don’t remember any of this. No big surprise.

Of course I do not remember your fabrication.

Either way, you proved again that you are unable to let go of the hate;)

By L.A.Times

November 26, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this

L.A.Times confirms it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/la-na-obama15mar15,1,26632.story

By The Other Jack

November 26, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this

JokesOn

You associate a disagreement between us with Bush and you claim that it is hate on my part. I’m beginning to understand why 10 explanations didn’t work and I’m sure the 11th won’t work either. Have a good day, Joke.

By chuck

November 26, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1189687/posts

By chuck

November 26, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511

By chuck

November 26, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

http://www.examiner.com/a-534540~CanapastofIslamchangethepathto_president.html

By singulair zyrtec

November 26, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

treatment for separation worry depression definition

By 9th Commandment

November 26, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this

Does claiming to be a Christian make one a Christian? (Let every tongue confess.) Or does one have to go to a Christian school to be considered a Christian? If a Muslim goes to a Catholic school, is he a Catholic? If a child is sent by his parents to both a Catholic and a Muslim school in the neighborhood, do the principals flip a coin for the child’s soul? Who gets to decide what religion someone else is? If you don’t like a candidate’s positions, why not just discuss those? Wouldn’t that be more convincing that repeating a lie?

By chuck

November 26, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this

To answer your question, not necessarily. I can claim to be a 7’ tall Black man, but Evidence would not bear that out. He is the son of a Muslim, he is the step son of another muslim, he went to a muslim school. I haven’t heard him renounce Islam as a religion of hate. I haven’t heard how he will deal with Islamofacism except to BLAME AMERICA. So forgive me if I don’t blindly accept the proclamation of someone who attends a Christian church a couple of times a year for political reasons. Sorry, I just don’t roll that way.

By 9th Commandment

November 26, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this

Is this man telling us that the requirements for being a Christian really have nothing to do with professing one’s faith in Christ? That the family a child is born into pre-determines whether the child is worthy of professing Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior? Are you saying it’s NOT a choice that anyone can make? Some people count, some people don’t? If I believe that, does that make ME a Christian?

By jccrandell

November 26, 2007 5:12 PM | Link to this

Unfortunately both commentators have linked patriotism to September 11, 2001. By invoking “9/11” all that is done in the name of terror is right and we are victims.

But patriotism is not born from fear of the attacker, rather from love of one’s country. And Americans traditionally have not been whining simps, which is not how we are being portrayed in the talk shows and commentaries.

Patriotism has changed in the last few years as less flags are flying and less flag magnets are seen on cars. But the real question is why did it take an attack to bring out the flags in the first place? And do products made cheaply in a communist country really represent America?

Doesn’t anyone still watch John Wayne movies or take their children to Washington D.C. to see the monuments or is this current patriotism just a fad?

At Hawks, Braves, and Thrashers’ games there are many who don’t bother getting out of line for concessions when the national anthem is played. The truly sad part is that only one of the four verses are played and they still stand in line talking to the clerks so they can be in their seats when the game begins.

By Hillary

November 26, 2007 8:44 PM | Link to this

Hello, nice site look this: http://yourxpills.com/canada-online-pharmacy-viagra.html canada online pharmacy viagra http://yourxpills.com/free-viagra-through-mail.html free viagra through mail http://yourxpills.com/viagra-drink.html viagra drink http://yourxpills.com/kamuk-viagra.html kamuk viagra http://yourxpills.com/the-viagra-song.html the viagra song http://yourxpills.com/viagra-antibiotic.html viagra antibiotic http://yourxpills.com/buy-viagra-toronto.html buy viagra toronto http://yourxpills.com/index10.html viagra effects on women http://yourxpills.com/viagra-generic-drug.html viagra generic drug http://yourxpills.com/how-can-you-use-viagra-on-woman.html how can you use viagra on woman http://yourxpills.com/viagra-its-effects.html viagra its effects http://yourxpills.com/cheapest-viagra-price.html cheapest viagra price http://yourxpills.com/viagra-interactions-with-prazosin.html viagra interactions with prazosin http://yourxpills.com/delayed-ejaculation-viagra.html delayed ejaculation viagra http://yourxpills.com/viagra-and-a-second-erection.html viagra and a second erection http://yourxpills.com/adverse-reactions-to-viagra.html adverse reactions to viagra http://yourxpills.com/viagra-its-effects.html viagra its effects http://yourxpills.com/viagra-means-river-of-blood.html viagra means river of blood http://yourxpills.com/pulmonary-hypertension-and-viagra.html pulmonary hypertension and viagra http://yourxpills.com/viagra-status-post-radical-prostatectomy.html viagra status post radical prostatectomy http://yourxpills.com/index.html herbal viagra affiliate http://yourxpills.com/viagra-medical.html viagra medical http://yourxpills.com/buy-viagra-without-a-presciption-from-canada.html buy viagra without a presciption from canada http://yourxpills.com/buy-viagra-toronto.html buy viagra toronto http://yourxpills.com/effects-of-viagra.html effects of viagra http://yourxpills.com/viagra-use-longterm.html viagra use longterm http://yourxpills.com/viagra-alcahol.html viagra alcahol http://yourxpills.com/generic-viagra-paypal.html generic viagra paypal http://yourxpills.com/viagra-pen.html viagra pen http://yourxpills.com/worldwide-viagra-data.html worldwide viagra data http://yourxpills.com/viagra-prices-in-cozumel.html viagra prices in cozumel http://yourxpills.com/paxil-and-viagra.html paxil and viagra http://yourxpills.com/best-women-viagra.html best women viagra http://yourxpills.com/viagra-suppliers-uk.html viagra suppliers uk http://yourxpills.com/compare-viagra-levitra.html compare viagra levitra http://yourxpills.com/viagra-side-effectd.html viagra side effectd http://yourxpills.com/dangers-of-using-outdated-viagra.html dangers of using outdated viagra http://yourxpills.com/viagra-germany.html viagra germany http://yourxpills.com/retinitis-pigmentosa-viagra.html retinitis pigmentosa viagra http://yourxpills.com/viagra-lasts-how-long.html viagra lasts how long

End ^) See you

By jhpoke

November 27, 2007 8:34 AM | Link to this

Patriotism seldom wins a war but it does get you into one.

By Anonymous

November 27, 2007 8:53 AM | Link to this

“I wouldn’t vote for him because he is a Muslim and a Democrat.”

And how are either of those legitimate objections?

First of all, Obama’s NOT a Muslim and he doesn’t need to “prove” anything to you about his religious views. There shall be no religious test for holding public office… it’s right there in the Constitution. TWICE.

And “he’s a Democrat”? So you simply vote along party lines, every time? What a moronic way to size up candidates.

By Scalia

November 27, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this

Chuck, if anything, having a muslim background will make him a better president. He knows about the religion, and he has seen how Islam can affect the government and society (he lived in Jakarta).

And how many “Christians” do I know that only go to church for Mother’s day, Easter, and Christmas.

By Hans Christian Brando

November 27, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this

Other Jack, your accusation deserves a response, which would have come sooner but this forum is only open certain hours and I live in a different time zone.

First of all, you might want to learn the difference between “Ms. Feldhahn seems to think so” (which is what I said in my initial post) and her outright saying “anything even related to [equating criticizing America with “hating” America],” which is what you accuse me of accusing her of doing.

You go on: “In fact she said: Yes, it is the right and duty of every citizen to speak against perceived injustices and leadership error. It’s right there in black and white [and boldface in your post].” A paragraph earlier, however, she make a crack about commentators “applauded for disparaging America,” and this is what I based my “seems to think so” on.

So who decides when a citizen is exercising his or her “right and duty to speak against perceived injustices and leadership error” and when the citizen “simply hates America”? Shaunti Feldhahn? You, Other Jack? Or just those so-called “patriotic” conservative commentators?

By The Other Jack

November 27, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this

Anonomous

And “he’s a Democrat”? So you simply vote along party lines, every time? What a moronic way to size up candidates.

So you wouldn’t have any problem voting for a Republican. I see.

When you vote for president from one party or the other, you are voting to put not only that person, but also that party in power. There is nothing moronic about being selective about which party you put in power. None of these guys work in a vacuum. Republican Presidents push Republican ideas and visa-versa.

By chuck

November 27, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this

Anonymous, again you show your ignorance of the Constitution. Your quote simply means that the GOVERNMENT cannot apply a religious test to prospective office holders. VOTERS can use any test they choose.

As for his being a democrat, that was an easy way of saying that he holds all of the typical positions of the democratic party. He is even more radical than MOST democrats in his views.

For instance, he is in favor of partial birth abortions, amnesty for illegal aliens, social security for illegal aliens, welfare and medicaid for illegal aliens, affirmative action (even going so far as to say companies should be REQUIRED to hire women and minorities).

Scalia, I doubt you know many REAL Christians who just go to curch on Easter and Christmas.

By JokesOn

November 27, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this

Anonymous,

I agree with your 8:53. I also do not limit myself to voting in a candidate of any religion or political affiliation.

Some people just cannot grasp that everyone does not pigeon hole people into black/white scenarios.

By chuck

November 27, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

BTW, I do NOT vote a straight party ticket. I vote for individual candidates. There are many Republicans for whom I cannot and do not vote. They are usually Republicans who are pro-abortion. For instance, I did not vote for Johnny Isakson. I have voted for a FEW democrats in the past, but have not found one with which I could agree in over 20 years…at least in elections in which I can vote.

Therefore if a national candidate declares for office as a democrat, there are certain things that we can almost universally expect from them. They are almost certainly going to be in favor of higher taxes, abortion, government healthcare, amnesty, etc. If the rare democrat bucks these trends he almost certainly will not be elected whether or not I vote for him. Additionally, if one declares for office as a democrat, one would expect that they must agree with that party’s stated platform. That platform includes the things I listed above. Why would anyone run as a democrat if he did not agree with the stated goals of the party?

By The Other Jack

November 27, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Hans Christian Brando

First of all, you might want to learn the difference between “Ms. Feldhahn seems to think so” (which is what I said in my initial post) and her outright saying “anything even related to [equating criticizing America with “hating” America],” which is what you accuse me of accusing her of doing.

So … you weren’t actually saying that she was saying that if you say anything bad about America that you must hate it. I see. I have to tell you, when I go back and read this: Can’t you just see these baby conservatives at the dinner table so many years ago. Mom or Dad says “Take your elbows off the table” or “Don’t chew with your mouth open,” and they come right back with “Why do you hate me?” Parents have even been known to say they’re (temporarily) “ashamed” of their children. Well, they obviously hate their kids, don’t they? … that it sounded like you were accusing her of exactly that.

Your entire post said the same thing.

At least my pointing out what she actually said forced you to back peddle and try to smooth out your accusation while trying to blame me for not understanding what “seems to say” means. LOL!!. Nice try.

I understand that it is a lot of fun to put all conservatives in a neat little basket where we all march to the tunes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. But when a conservative actually writes a central-theme-line in an article and you rail and rail against that conservative, telling cute little stories about conservative babies, while ignoring that central theme, you probably can expect to be called on your inaccuracies.

By The Other Jack

November 27, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

Chuck

We disagree on this. I can understand voting for an individual while ignoring the political leanings of that individual as far as any other office but the White House. But there are three branches of government and the control of one entire branch by one of the two parties is decided by one person: the person elected president. There is no way that I would ever vote to turn one entire branch over the democratic party.

It is very easy for democrats to be very sanctimonious and say that we should vote for individuals for president, but did you see either of the guys that are discussing this with you ever say anything good about any Republican? And you believe that they don’t vote party lines?

You might want to ask them who was the last Republican they voted for. I voted for Shirley Franklin, myself.

By John in Tampa, FLA

November 27, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

Just got back from Europe on Sunday. There is nothing like coming back home to the USA. Those 10 hour flights are gruelling but it is worth hearing Customs say “welcome home” at Hartsfield.

my flight back to US was about 20% American and 80% foreign. Apparently the USA is a favorite for everyone right now, what with the weak dollar. It is like the US is on sale to the rest of the world.

Europeans love Americans, they just don’t like America right now.

By Scalia

November 27, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

I have never said anything bad about a Republican, I have never bashed Bush I still respect him for the way he handled things right after 9/11, and I also support Republicans that are being fiscally responsible such as John Boehner.

And as I told Chuck, I tune out the person as soon as they start on “liberal” or “conservative” as a negative word. And TheOtherJack, you use the liberal word as putdown all the time.

By No name please...

November 27, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

Chuck: “NNP do you sincerely believe that I owe you an apology for anything that I have said to you?”

Certainly not; to think you owe me anything would be presumptuous. Besides, insincere words offered only to feign decency wouldn’t mean much. If you feel it’s your duty to insult, demean, and oppress those whose life experiences are different from yours, then by all means, pull that bushel basket off and shine your true light for all to see! If the horrible, ugly things you say about people are true, then you demonstrate YOUR colors, not ours, by they way you choose to love thy neighbor — or NOT. Feel free to continue your cut & run strategy whenever a “sinner” asks you the way to the church. The way is narrow indeed. (I know exactly which rules I’ve broken and the price I’ve paid for doing so. Can you say the same?)

BTW, want to explain again how you want the government to intervene to prevent abortion (so God won’t be angry with us), but NOT intervene to prevent disease, death, and hunger to pregnant women and born children via vaccinations and basic medical care for the poor? Is that going to be on the test?

By chuck

November 27, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

Sorry TOJ, but my vote is a matter of PRINCIPLE and is not for sale to any political party. The biggest problem we have right now can be placed solely at the feet of the Republicans in Congress prior to 2006 who thought that we all would vote like you do. They abandoned our principles and many voters abandoned them. That is why we have democrats in control of congress right now. It was hard to see any appreciable difference between the Republican congress and the current one led by democrats.

Did they do anything to limit spending? Did they do anything to substantially limit abortion? NO. They paid lip service to our causes, but when it came to putting those things into practice, they discovered that they enjoyed power more than principle. Now they have neither.

By Scalia

November 27, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

If anything, I am mad that they vetoed the bill for child healthcare. I have seen children come to school malnutritioned, etc. but I guess that it is the child’s fault since he or she’s parents reproduced. I guess they should have thought about using contraception. Or it is the parents fault since they made the wrong choices and ended up in the situation they are in.

By The Other Jack

November 27, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

Scalia

The discussion was about crossing party lines and voting for the opposite party. I won’t cross party lines to vote for president. I have crossed party lines to vote for local candidates.

As far as liberal or conservative being used in a negative way, this is a political discussion. It usually centers around an article and a rebuttal by a conservative and a liberal. These two people, while not to the degree of the posters, say disparaging things about the other party. Saying certain people do this or that while avoiding a political label does little toward expressing views.

If I call someone a liberal and it is a putdown, I must have connected the term with some negative aspect. Is that wrong? Isn’t that what we all do? Isn’t that what the liberal entertainment industry has done toward conservatives since the late 60s.

This is a forum based on politics. Shouldn’t we talk politics here?

By The Other Jack

November 27, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

Chuck

Please read my post again. You will see that it centered on The White House, not Congress. I specifically said: I can understand voting for an individual while ignoring the political leanings of that individual as far as any other office but the White House.

Congress is easy. I’d probably vote for Zig-Zag-Zell since he is currently zagging toward the Republican platform. The question is: Would you vote for the opposite party for the White House?

Remember, a San Fransisco Republican is probably more liberal than a Georgia Democrat. Degrees of the candidates sticking to party mantras change all over the country. But if a candidate has survived the party choice for the Presidential race, that person is walking the party line and will give whatever party they represent enormous power.

So again the question is: Would you vote for a Democrat for President and would these people telling you that crossing party lines is moronic vote for a Republican for president?

By The Other Jack

November 27, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

Scalia

If anything, I am mad that they vetoed the bill for child healthcare. I have seen children come to school malnutritioned, etc.

Malnutrition is not cased by lack of healthcare, it is caused by bad parenting. We kicked the starving children thing many years ago with the invention of social services and food stamps.

However, I do understand what you are saying in that kids do need healthcare. But unfortunately, as long as the second most profitable industry in the world, The American Insurance Industry is calling the shots through a massive influx of lobby money, the chances of getting a fair, universally beneficial system are slim to none.

Here is my nonpartisan idea:

The Democrat’s new energy bill wants to cut consumption of fossil fuels by allowing the petroleum industry to increase the cost of gasoline by as much as 100%. Remember, the current oil industry profits are the largest in the history of the world. Those profits will increase by as much as 300% if the energy bill passes.

While this approach would cripple our economy, there are benefits to increasing the price of fossil fuels. So if they are going to do that, why not tax the fuels with an earmarked health tax so instead of increasing the profits of the oil companies, they pay for Universal Health Care.

The only way this would ever pass is if the idea of lobby money is made illegal and we both know what the chances are for that happening. But it’s a thought.

By chuck

November 27, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

TOJ, I don’t know of any democrat that I would vote for for president. Certainly not any of the ones running for it this time. I can’t envision ANYONE who agreed with me on the issues EVER winning the democrat primary for president, so it is pretty much a moot point. On the other hand, I can’t think of any instance where I would vote for Rudy Giuliani either. If he was the candidate I would simply sit that race out. And I don’t think it would matter how liberal a republican is, I don’t think any of the liberals here would vote for him or her.

As for your response to my earlier post, I specifically mentioned congressional races and even more specifically Johnny Isakson, a Senator, and you said you disagreed with me.

NNP:

Feel free to continue your cut & run strategy whenever a “sinner” asks you the way to the church.

I’m not sure what you are talking about here, please enlighten me. BTW, if you felt that I had done something to offend you, the apology that would follow would certainly be sincere. You should know by now that I am not into appeasement or into doing anything to make me appear to be anything other than what I am. It’s just not in my make-up.

By JokesOn

November 27, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

I have never said anything bad about a Republican, I have never bashed Bush I still respect him for the way he handled things right after 9/11, and I also support Republicans that are being fiscally responsible such as John Boehner.

I resemble that statement except for I dislike Bush to large degree.

Too often people talk about politics as if they are comparing absolute good vs. evil. That is moronic.

I do find it unfortunate that the Republican Party has now aligned itself with evangelical ideologies, but this to shall pass since it is purely for accumulating voters. As the religious voters see that their hopes of infusing their specific morality into policy is not and cannot happen the parties will return to their (relatively) normal state.

By The Other Jack

November 27, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

No Name Please

BTW, want to explain again how you want the government to intervene to prevent abortion (so God won’t be angry with us), but NOT intervene to prevent disease, death, and hunger to pregnant women and born children via vaccinations and basic medical care for the poor? Is that going to be on the test?

Is that why you support federal control of abortions laws? So if there is Universal Health Care, can we count on you to vote for turning over control of those laws back to the individual states?

By The Other Jack

November 27, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

Chuck

I think we are both on the same page. I do find it funny that this forum contains a lot of people that claim to be moderates that absolutely hate the Republican Party.

I honestly couldn’t see most of the people here voting for a Republican for dog catcher, no matter what they want to claim.

I live in Atlanta. If I don’t vote for Democrats for local offices, I don’t vote.

By chuck

November 27, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

To answer your other question NNP, it is simply a matter of believing in our system of FEDERALISM. Being a history teacher I kind of understand the folly of abandoning our system of government for a, shall we say, a more European model.

Abortion is a matter of CIVIL RIGHTS guaranteed by the Constitution:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The other items you mentioned fall under the 10th Amendment which says:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The feds should not be in the business of the environment, education, healthcare or any number of OTHER things that they do in violation of the Constitution.

By chuck

November 27, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

There really is NO SUCH thing as a moderate in my opinion. If there is I don’t know that I could have any respect for their opinions because they would likely have no core beliefs.

I can respect people who consistently and passionately defend their positions because they are true believers…even if they are liberals. I can’t stand people who always put their finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing before taking a position.

By Scalia

November 27, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

So when you make statements like “your widdle liberal feelings” is that talking politics or used in some way to make the person seem wimpy? And two weeks ago when you said that conservative men (that meant that conservatives were the ones taught values and liberals were raised uncivilized) knew the difference between a woman and a lady, that was talking politics, right? Or was that, too, meant to be deragotory?

By chuck

November 27, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

My 12:08 was a little unclear. What I should have said is that protecting babies from abortion is a matter of Civil Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

By Give Credit Where Credit Is Due

November 27, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

I saw a nice piece about Obama last night on Nightline. Though I still disagree with some of his core values, I was very impressed with how he handled himself, especially when confronted with spontaneous questions. While I have a hard time trusting ANY politician, he speaks with much more sincerity thatn Hillary, IMO.

By Give Credit Where Credit Is Due

November 27, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

I was pleased a few weeks ago to see that Lily Toad said she would choose me over you if it so happened we were the last two men left on earth, chuck. I guess since NNP won’t even mention my name now, you’d be the lucky guy if we were the last two. Congrats.

By Give Credit Where Credit Is Due

November 27, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

NNP—“Sorry” only means something if the sorry person actually changes their ways. Though my intentions to not address you inappropriately on the blog remain, I’ve failed miserably in living up to the intent.

Though I suspect I will never win any respect from you in any way, I am going to do my best to stop sniffing your tail on the blog. Ok? Your contribution here is great, I don’t want for you to blog less because of a loser like me.

By Anonymous

November 27, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this

From chuck: “VOTERS can use any test they choose.”

Yes, including blatantly stupid ones such as religion, hair color, or spelling of name. That doesn’t mean those criteria are sensible ones.

If you claim to respect the Constitution so much, why do you ignore one of its principles: religious neutrality?

By JokesOn

November 27, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

I think we are both on the same page. I do find it funny that this forum contains a lot of people that claim to be moderates that absolutely hate the Republican Party.

I honestly couldn’t see most of the people here voting for a Republican for dog catcher, no matter what they want to claim.

TOJ, Read back. There are numerous times you have brought up political lines in a discussion when the other blogger has not even mentioned it. You came to this blog with preconceived notions that have not subsided although the acts have not happened that you claim (absolute dissing of republicans). This does not mean that there are not a few, purely it is not the majority on here as tiy claim.

You keep preaching that anyone can interpret another’s actions however they want, and it seems you do that to words as well. Like Anonymous stated about voting: “VOTERS can use any test they choose.”

Yes, including blatantly stupid ones such as religion, hair color, or spelling of name. That doesn’t mean those criteria are sensible ones. Meaning, it is not sensible to second guess someones intent without reason or proof that contradicts what they say they mean.

I, for instance, have bashed this administration, but have not mentioned republicans in general although you make it about that each time.

By chuck

November 27, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

Anonymous, you really should change your blog name to ignoramous. I’m really not trying to be unduly mean here, but you are either the most disingenuous person on the blog, or the most stupid. I’m not sure which one it is, but I am leaning toward the latter.

I wish you would show me the Constitutional principle that you claim I am ignoring. The Constitution in NO WAY REQUIRES religious neutrality EVEN ON THE PART OF GOVERNMENT. What it does say in the establishment clause of the first amendment, is that government cannot ESTABLISH A NATIONAL RELIGION. Nothing more and nothing less. It was not until the 1930’s that the SUPREME COURT and activist justices appointed by FDR (NOT THE CONSTITUTION) began to say otherwise.

On the other hand, in the second part of that amendment, it guarantees my RIGHT to NOT BE neutral when it comes to religion. It prohibits congress from making any laws that prohibit me from freely exercising my religion. You really need help son.

By chuck

November 27, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

This site does a good job of explaining Constitutional law in an unbiased way if you would like to educate yourself igno. It is the University of Missourri-Kansas City Law School so you don’t think it is some right wing site:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm

By The Other Jack

November 27, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

Scalia

I, exactly like 90% of the posters on this board will respond to sarcasm and insults with sarcasm and insults. That’s life, Pal. I understand that most liberals rarely have their ideas challenged, particularly on this board where conservatives are few and far between, but I do tend to challenge pre-set notions and that usually causes harsh responses, which, in turn results in a harsh response from me.

Get it?

By chuck

November 27, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

OOOPS…Missouri

By The Other Jack

November 27, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this

JokesOn

Please take your sermons somewhere else. You said that you respected nothing I had to say so I am more than glad to return the sentiment.

By The Other Jack

November 27, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

Chuck

There really is NO SUCH thing as a moderate in my opinion. If there is I don’t know that I could have any respect for their opinions because they would likely have no core beliefs.

There are moderates, but like you say, they are just not solid in what they believe. They are usually waiting to be told what to do or just simply lying about their beliefs because they think it is more politically correct to be a moderate.

I’m outta here. I need to get this computer rendering and all my others are grinding like crazy. Busy day.

Good luck. Try to take the high road.

By JokesOn

November 27, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

Please take your sermons somewhere else. I thought you said your were leaving? And since your the disliked one here and pi$$ed off everyone, do you not find your response a little hypocritical?

You said that you respected nothing I had to say so I am more than glad to return the sentiment.

You can do what you want while I do also. As long as you’re posting on here I am free (and will continue) to reply to your posts - especially when you address the whole blog group in a generalization that is untrue.

Such as, I understand that most liberals rarely have their ideas challenged, is a total lie. You think that before you arrived that everyone cheered each other on?!?! You think you are the sole person that has (although I have not seen it as of yet) challenged the bloggers?

Get your head out of yours and everyone else’s a$$ and wake up.

Take your own advise, I, exactly like 90% of the posters on this board will respond to sarcasm and insults with sarcasm and insults, and do not whine when I or others respond to your sarcasm and insults in kind then.

By Anonymous

November 27, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this

Chuck, if you don’t understand that the Supreme Court is the one who decides what the Constitution means, you need more than a college-level review of the law. You need remedial grade school.

By Funny

November 27, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

Though I suspect I will never win any respect from you in any way

Quick learner there, I must say. Brilliant mind fo’ sher. Just like hittin’ a mule with a 2x4.

By Anonymous

November 27, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this

I remember when a lot of religious types were terrified of electing JFK to the Oval Office… “As a Catholic, he’d be running the country according to whatever the Pope said!”

Sure, we can look back on such silliness now and laugh… but let a Muslim take office and we see the exact same religious hysteria. And it’s as baseless now as it ever was.

By Scalia

November 27, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

Such as, I understand that most liberals rarely have their ideas challenged, is a total lie. You think that before you arrived that everyone cheered each other on?!?! You think you are the sole person that has (although I have not seen it as of yet) challenged the bloggers?

Let’s go through the list of people that oppose liberal ideas: Terry, Chuck, Randy, and Zack are some of the more notorious posters.

By B

November 27, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

Anonymous—When you look around the world at the countries in which the Muslims dominate, virtually every one of them is a theocracy. In light of this, can you blame folks if they feel a certain amount of unease for a Muslim to be President of the US?

By chuck

November 27, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this

IGNO, ever wonder why it wasn’t until 1948 that any decision about the establishment clause occurred? Only one other religion case (one concerning polygamy as a religious practice) had ever been decided by the courts. All other cases concerning the establishment clause were denied by the court.

Here is the answer dufus: EVERYBODY MEANING JUSTICES, LAWYERS, CONGRESS, PRESIDENTS, GENERAL PUBLIC, KNEW WHAT THE CONSTITUTION MEANT BY SAYING CONGRESS COULD PASS NO LAWS CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. Just what it says. Do you honestly think that nobody came up with this idea before the 1940’s? It didn’t fly until FDR packed the court with liberal activist justices.

Does anybody here NOT have a problem with 9 people appointed for life and never elected, overriding the will of the people whose ELECTED representatives have passed these laws?

BTW IGNORAMOUS, can you tell me where the Supreme Court got the right to make decisions such as this? NOPE, not from the Constitution. The court made it up. I would love for a President and Congress to tell them to take a flying leap like Andrew Jackson did. Congress has more lawyers than the Supreme Court. Don’t you think they KNOW whether a law is constitutional? That’s why they call the decisions “OPINIONS”. wHY SHOULD SUPREME COURT LAWYERS HAVE MORE SAY THAN CONGRESSES LAWYERS? Doesn’t make sense.

BTW, IGNO, Since I know you never heard of Marbury vs. Madison I’ll explain it to you:

Chief Justice John Marshall established and justified the power of judicial review in Marbury vs. Madison. If you want an unbiased look at the case and its implications, here is a site you can explore, though I know you won’t do it.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/judicialrev.htm

By B

November 27, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

Probably of all the Christian sects, I am typically most leery of the “born-again Baptists”. They seem to take crazy to new levels.

Ironically, Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Mennonites are often singled out as being cults, though IMO they are the most sincere Christians.

By No name please...

November 27, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this

I agree that voters have the right to use whatever criteria they wish to evaluate the candidates, but that does not automatically mean that a person’s criteria are pertinent to the job, nor that the person utilizing their own criteria even understands the job or important qualifications. As Americans we have the RIGHT to make stupid choices, and believe whatever hog hooey makes us feel good, whether it’s intelligent, true, supportable, or not. Hence, the current administration.

It’s true that there are a limited number of viable candidates, none of whom is likely to agree with any of us on each and every issue (unless we act like sheep and agree to agree with whatever so-and-so says). For those of us who actually pay attention, election time is difficult because we have to sort through the many issues and qualifications to determine the best possible of our limited choices.

That being said, I see no point in LYING about candidates. How can that help? Let’s get to the nitty gritty of what’s TRUE and what’s really important, and decide based on that!

Repeating stupid bigoted LIES to inflame fear and prejudice just serves no useful purpose to the American people or our electoral process that I can think of. But that’s just my opinion; clearly, some people feel that it’s justified.

By chuck

November 27, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

Terry, Randy, and Zack rarely if ever show up anymore. 2D takes a little more middle of the road approach but has definite conservative leanings though he doesn’t come around much either. Monica is a conservative but is usually too nice to speak strongly on some of these subjects that we get into.

On the liberal side we have: NetB (with occasional libertarian leanings)

Kimberly

Anusymous

Jokeson

Mara

JBM (not around much anymore and sometimes conservative-like)

Hans Christian Brando

And if you want to back to the PRE-DOG era, BC, 72john, Renee, and others too numerous to mention. I’m not sure where Scalia would place herself on the political spectrum.

By BonyFingers

November 27, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

“we can look back on such silliness now and laugh”

do you think so? Back in JFK days religion was still something of a private affair, not the public wailing you see today. Can you picture a priest in 1962 announcing to the world that unless a politician aligns his political philosophy with the teachings of the Catholic Church he would not be welcomed in that church, as several did to Kerry in ‘04? Silliness? not really.

By Philip Herold

November 27, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this

Two comments. One is that I routinely criticize our national leaders and policy, but always make point of supporting and complimenting our nation. Second, people from other countries, nearly to a one, are astounded by our patriotism. In fact, in many other languages, they hardly have a word that describes our brand of patriotism. Do we need to be ‘more patriotic’? Naw.

By B

November 27, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

Repeating stupid bigoted lies to inflame fear and prejudice…

So, if I wuz as smart as yew, I would see that those kind uv lies only come from the Repugnicans, right?

It sher is tough being a mule. I wuz just getting adjusted to being a mongrel.

By B

November 27, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

jccrandall—I agree with your post 100% that to link victimhood with patriotism is a shaky connection at best. The root word of patriotism is patros, or father. If we’re going to link victimhood to love, maybe we should call it matriotism. What do you think?

By B

November 27, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this

Philip—If you are careful to compliment and support our nation while criticizing our leaders, I’m sure your criticisms will be taken a little more seriously than some of the liberal posters here on W2W who never seem to have anything good to say about anyone or anything.

Out of curiosity, do you only criticize leaders from one party or another, or is your criticism equal?

By No name please...

November 27, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

I was referring specifically to the lie placed on this board yesterday claiming Barack Obama is a Muslim. He claims he is a Christian, which is good enough for Huckabee, McCain (though he’s changed denominations), Guiliani (though he’s repeatedly violated his Pope mandates), and Romney (though he’s a Mormon and that scares some people).

Never mind that the chief requirement for being a Christian is to profess faith in Christ; that doesn’t stop other “Christians” from blathering all manner of, “Nuh-UH!” because he’s a Democrat, or he wasn’t born into a neat little white-bread family, or whatever lame excuse people use to justify lying.

By The Other Jack

November 27, 2007 4:09 PM | Link to this

Scalia

I consider you one of the more intelligent and civil posters on the board. Yet all day today, I have offered post after post, wanting to actually discuss politics. But you have ignored those while continuing to preach at me because I tend to treat some abusive posters the same way they have treated me and others.

I do respect your opinion as far as politics, but like most liberals, I don’t really appreciate people who think themselves self-righteous enough to tell others how to behave.

If you want to continue to jump into the slobberings of JokesOn, then you will need to find another adolescent fight to join. This one is over. JokesOn will continue to rant and rave to prove how little control he has of his delicate emotions, but I am finished with him. He is hardly worth the keystrokes.

Politics anyone?

By JokesOn

November 27, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

JokesOn will continue to rant and rave to prove how little control he has of his delicate emotions, but I am finished with him. He is hardly worth the keystrokes.

Wah-wah! Poor widdle boy is taking his toys and going home because others don’t like his self-righteous/know-it-all “play my games” attitude.

But, just like widdle boys, he sticks around crying and making a show of it.

Leave already. No one will miss you, or is that what you are afraid of…hmmmm.

By B

November 27, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

NNP—Thank you for providing a specific to bolster your argument.

I very much appreciate your questioning of specific “litmus tests” to determine if someone is the “right kind” of Christian or not in order to hold office. I know that on virtually every campaign flyer I receive in my mailbox contains some statement regarding church membership (e.g. “Member of Atlanta First Baptist Church for 26 years” orthe like.)

By B

November 27, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this

OtherJack—Sorry to take sides in your spat with JokesOn, but I personally have found him to be an honest and compassionate poster. He and I don’t share the same political outlook, but have been able to maintain a cordial relationship here on the blog.

By B

November 27, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this

Also, NNP, I was interested to know more specifically what YOUR feelings immediately following the 9/11 tragedy were. You began a very interesting monologue a little while back regarding how you felt a strong personal connection to those who lost their lives (or were injured) that day. You then finished the piece by stating that you greatly resented all of the politicians using the event to manipulate public emotion toward war.

I deeply respect your viewpoint here. Can you elaborate further as to what political feelings the event inspired in you, not just the personal ones?

By B

November 27, 2007 4:45 PM | Link to this

I have tried to give Mr. Bush the benefit of the doubt re: the Iraq War in consideration of the fact that he was sitting in the hottest seat on the planet on 9/12/2001. In retrospect, I’m still not sure what he could have done differently. It’s easy now to say “Look, it turned into a mess”, but he didn’t have the benefit of seeing into the future at the time.

By B

November 27, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this

No one will miss you, or is that what you are afraid of…

You know, JokesOn, many people think the opposite of love is hate. In my experience, the opposite of love is actually indifference, i.e. not caring at all.

By JokesOn

November 27, 2007 4:51 PM | Link to this

OtherJack—Sorry to take sides in your spat with JokesOn, but I personally have found him to be an honest and compassionate poster. He and I don’t share the same political outlook, but have been able to maintain a cordial relationship here on the blog.

Dog,

You and I can call each other out and not get offended because we are more concerned with truth than “wining” a discussion, as are many of the posters on here. That seems to be one of the things I do like about liberals more-so than conservatives. Even when all proof points to answer “a,” many conservatives still will argue “b” is the way: think about the words “stay the course.”

You and I know that the above does not fully embrace reality, for we both have friends that are all over the map. The one thing they all have in common is that they love to discuss to learn, not to win at any cost.

By No name please...

November 27, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this

Can you elaborate further as to what political feelings the event inspired in you…?

No. I had no political feelings that day. Nor did I run out and purchase a flag out of “patriotism,” since I already had one flying on my front porch. I was then, and still am now, horrified at what human beings do to each other in the name of religion, politics, greed, bigotry, or just plain meanness. Not everyone is like that, though. Sadly, if one doesn’t want to jump up and join a killin’ party, some people will question one’s patriotism.

Since this is America, y’all are free to slap whatever label on that you like. Good night.

By JokesOn

November 27, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this

It’s easy now to say “Look, it turned into a mess”, but he didn’t have the benefit of seeing into the future at the time.

Dog,

How do you compromise the fact that his father would not invade because he knew it would be a quagmire? He even illustrated it in his writings.

That is the same excuse he used for the levees: No one foresaw them busting loose, but that was understood.

He used it for 9/11: No one ever thought that terrorists would use planes, but the CIA had considered it.

He is either lying or not using the resources at his fingertips. I have an issue with his dishonesty, whether it was pre- or post.

By B

November 27, 2007 5:08 PM | Link to this

Sadly, if one doesn’t want to jump up and join a killin’ party, some people will question one’s patriotism

When you say it that way, the labels that come to my mind are intelligent and compassionate. Can you live with that?

Sorry again for being such a low-life toward you, NNP. I have a lot to learn from you, if you are still willing to put up with my questions. It does scare me a little that you can kick my a* so easily, though. Thank God I will never face you across a poker table. The first time I tried to pull a bluff on you, you would take all my chips!

P.S. That is the highest compliment I am able to bestow to anyone.

By Bruce

November 27, 2007 5:09 PM | Link to this

You people are so fun to read….Each of you do your best to state yoru opinions and critizie anyone who does think like you. It is amasing just reading it. Here’s a good example.

Everyone has been ranting on about being democrat or republican and which candidate (party) to vote for in the upcoming election. Do you not realize that these candidates are only telling you what you want to hear just to get your vote? How many times, regardless of political party, has a candidate promised us the moon and once elected give us swamp land instead. They have no intention in fulfulling these promises, they just want your vote.
It has nothing to do with what they believe or what plan they think will help us citizens. They are all puppets once elected. The problem is they are supposed to be OUR puppets but end up the puppets of the money that was used to spreaed their lies to the voters.

If you really want to make some changes in this country STOP BELIVEING THE LIES BEINGING TOLD BEFORE ELECTIONS. Vote for the person that is not tied to the big money. It couldn’t hurt any more than letting the big money run the show.

By JokesOn

November 27, 2007 5:09 PM | Link to this

You know, JokesOn, many people think the opposite of love is hate. In my experience, the opposite of love is actually indifference, i.e. not caring at all.

Yup. Realized that after my first love. I felt anger, but that too was just as uncomfortable as missing her while broken up. Not until I felt ambivalence did I get righted.

By Helga

November 27, 2007 11:26 PM | Link to this

http://acm.cs.uic.edu/modules/wordpress/2006/10/28/test/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/cheap-order-prescription-viagra/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/where-to-buy-viagra-in-the-uk/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/cheapest-viagra-to-buy-online-in-uk/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-on-line-uk/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-generic-no-online-prescription-viagra/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-herbal-viagra/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buying-viagra-uk/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-herbal-viagra/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-online-cheap/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buying-viagra-in-canada/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/where-to-buy-viagra-on-line/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-in-canada/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-cheap-online-viagra/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-online-pharmacy-viagra/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-generic-viagra-online/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/viagra-best-buy/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-cheap-generic-viagra-online/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/order-viagra-now/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-cheap-generic-viagra-online/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/viagra-buy-in-uk-online/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-get-online-prescription-viagra/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-without-a-prescription/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-prescription-online/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-on-line/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-in-canada/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-get-online-prescription-viagra/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-prescription-online/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/order-viagra-now/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buying-viagra-online-uk/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-pill-online/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/cheap-order-prescription-viagra/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-in-canada/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-discount-viagra-online/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-no-prescription/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/where-to-buy-viagra-on-line/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-canada/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buying-viagra-in-uk/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-canada/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-without-a-prescription/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/order-viagra-visit-your-doctor-online/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/mail-order-viagra-in-uk/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-levitra-online-viagra/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-online-pharmacy-viagra/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/order-generic-viagra-pay-with-a-check/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-without-a-prescription/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-pill/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buying-viagra-in-canada/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buying-viagra-in-the-uk/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-online-cheap/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buying-viagra-in-uk/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-get-online-prescription-viagra/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/cheapest-viagra-to-buy-online-in-uk/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-cheap-online-viagra/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/where-to-buy-viagra-in-the-uk/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/order-viagra-visit-your-doctor-online/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-on-line-uk/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/order-generic-viagra-online/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-pill-online/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-in-uk/ http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-pill/

http://acm.cs.uic.edu/modules/wordpress/2006/11/04/buy-cheap-viagra-online/

By Scalia

November 28, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this

TOJ: what I was saying was that liberal or conservative should not be used as a putdown. It automatically makes your point null and void, and the person completely shuts down.

Now that that horse has been beaten to death, let’s move on to politics.

I think that patriotism goes further than putting a flag up, or wearing a silly pen. A true patriot is the person that enlists in the armed forces, volunteers to go and help in other places (PeaceCorps, Red Cross, Teach Abroad), and does something selfless to help the cause.

Sitting on your derriere and complaining about how dumb the war is, or complaining about this liberal said or did, is doing absolutely nothing.

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

B

OtherJack—Sorry to take sides in your spat with JokesOn, but I personally have found him to be an honest and compassionate poster.

No problem. If you take a look at his last several slobbering, adolescent posts to me and still want to take his side, I am honored to have you NOT take my side.

By Archie

November 28, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this

I was then, and still am now, horrified at what human beings do to each other in the name of religion, politics, greed, bigotry, or just plain meanness. I agree with that statement.

JokesONHe is either lying or not using the resources at his fingertips. I have an issue with his dishonesty, whether it was pre- or post. I too have some problems with President Bush’s dishonesty and now we know that he was lying all along about what he knew of the Plame situation. He was lying when he said he would do something to anyone involved in leaking information about Plame and quite frankly I think the president has lied so much that the american people are resigned to it. People don’t seem to be fighting as hard against the war and it seems as if they are worn down from dealing with lie after lie. I just read where some oil company paid millions because of a kickback scheme involving the Iraq war so when someone says this war is not about oil please give me something other than party line.

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this

Scalia

I think that patriotism goes further than putting a flag up, or wearing a silly pen. A true patriot is the person that enlists in the armed forces, volunteers to go and help in other places (PeaceCorps, Red Cross, Teach Abroad), and does something selfless to help the cause.

Actions do always speak louder than words. Of course some people simply cannot do the things you listed. I can understand why someone could still be patriotic, but not want to enlist in the armed services. Peace Corps and Red Cross: I can see that. Teaching abroad? Certainly nothing wrong with that, I don’t see it as being patriotic.

I have traveled a lot, and a lot of the places I have gone tend to MAKE you appreciate how great our country is. Spend a week in Rabat, Morocco and seeing the Atlanta skyline out of your plane window will make your heart soar.

But I’m not sure that is what I would consider patriotism.

Opra’s South African school was recently in the news. That is really a wonderful thing she is doing and yes, that shows the world that some Americans have a great heart, but patriotic? I’m not so sure.

I like Opra and she may be already doing this, but with all the problems of our education system, especially in the inner city, it seems that she could be building inner city schools in Chicago that would encourage poor kids to work to get a good education. I consider actions that improve our own country as being patriotic.

One thing that bothers me about your post is calling the cheap little lapel pins “silly”. Symbols are important. As I said to another poster, the flag that was raised on Iwo Jima probably cost about five bucks. Families that had a star in the window during WWII showed the world that they had lost a son in the war, but those stars cost little.

My profession usually requires that I wear more jeans and tees than suits so I own few of them, but I do have a flag lapel pin which I wear. I wear that to honor my Dad who died in 1973 because of complications from a wound he received at Iwo Jima. So as silly as that pin seems to you, it is VERY important to me.

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

Archie

Plume was not an active operative for the CIA. The only person convicted of anything after that whole affair was a Scooter Libby who was convicted of lying to a grand jury, the same thing that Clinton was charged with. The entire original accusations were thrown out of court. Outing a secret agent is a very serious affair, but no one was ever convicted of anything even related to committing such a crime.

The entire affair was just another political hammer used by Democrats against a Republican President.

It is amazing to me that so many people take the ACCUSATION of outing a secret agent as a conviction, even after the accusations were proven false.

By JokesOn

November 28, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

So as silly as that pin seems to you, it is VERY important to me.

Yet your position on Obama was that it is up to the observer to interpret his actions, even when explained: Not putting your hand over your heart can say anything you want to yourself, but any observer seeing that symbology is free to decide what you are saying. Unless you walk around with subtitles flashing all around you, that refusal to put your hand on your heart is open to interpretation. So do you criticize that observer for misinterpreting your actions?

If Mr. Obama was this quick to pull off his flag pin, it must have not meant that much in the first place.

Since you do not wear your pin with your usual clothes, can I not presume that it really does not matter much to you?

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

Archie

Sorry. I meant to put all of this in one post.

Protection of our energy sources is what the war is all about. Unfortunately, those energy sources are still in the Middle East. That is a fact of life. The fact that we need to engage in energy wars is partly because so many here insist that we protect our environment while in other parts of the world, where the actions of the oil companies are not controlled, the environment is being disseminated, people are dying by the score from the pollution of unregulated refining and drilling.

It seems that the deaths of thousands of poor people living around 3rd world oil refineries is not nearly as important as the migration routes of the caribou.

By Anonymous

November 28, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

TOJ: You’re right… the Plame outing was a shining example of noble behavior, because although it was petty political payback for daring to tell the truth and embarras the neocon agenda, it wasn’t “technically ILLEGAL” destruction of her life. Well done, Bushies! A moment to be proud of. Your petty, partisan revenge evaded actual legal penalties.

Chuck: Of course I’m familiar with Marbury v. Madison. You’re making the same mistake you always do: assuming that anyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant, because your opinion is so “obviously right.” That’s what prevents you from having reasonable discussions here, and it’s why you give Christianity a bad name. The judgmental arrogance always comes across when you sneer at anyone who dares to question.

Marbury v. Madison was a landmark in establishing how the new Supreme Court was going to function: as a fully equal check on the other two branches, unelected and therefore able to focus purely on legal principle ahead of popular opinion. In other words, one of the Court’s functions would be to protect the rights of the “little guy” from the overwhelming majority that’s convinced he’s wrong. I wholeheartedly approve of the decision, and so have pretty much all Courts (and presidents and Congresses) since then.

B: Yes, I could see why having a fundamentalist Muslim running for the presidency would be a concern. Fundamentalists of ANY faith are dangerous, no matter what church they attend. I would lobby hard against any fundamentalist candidate—not because of their specific faith, but because of the dangerous levels of stupidity and hatred required to be a fundamentalist about it.

But there aren’t any running this year! Not only are there no Fundamentalist Muslims, there are no Muslims AT ALL offered up as Big Two candidates.

So what the right wing has done is invent one. They don’t have any legitimate criticisms of Obama, so they play on fear and bigotry instead. They make fun of his name—“Sounds Islamic, doesn’t it?”, and they invent hoops for him to jump through to “prove he’s not secretly a Muslim.” And of course, his response to those charges is irrelevant. They’ve already accomplished their purpose just by making the smear attacks in the first place.

This is fearmongering in addition to dishonesty. And it’s why I can’t respect people like Chuck, or the radio nazis who spread such lies.

By Craig

November 28, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Chuck, admit it - you helped spread a lie. The Bible calls it “bearing false witness.” There is absolutely no excuse for someone who proclaims himself a Christian to do what you did.

By No name please...

November 28, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

TOJ, so why do you think Scott McClellan, in his book, stated that his superiors were lying about the Plame incident and made him lie about it to the American people? Any theories?

We all know why Clinton lied about what he did (an angry wife, etc), but why did Scooter & the gang lie if they, as you say, did nothing wrong? The original accusations were thrown out for lack of evidence, by the way (the dry cleaner is your friend, Hon) because no one would actually tell the truth, and the people at the top weren’t forced to swear to tell the truth. (Mr. Cheney, what part of “so help me God” do you find so offensive that you won’t say it?) Just curious.

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

Anonomous

TOJ: You’re right… the Plame outing was a shining example of noble behavior, because although it was petty political payback for daring to tell the truth and embarras the neocon agenda, it wasn’t “technically ILLEGAL” destruction of her life. Well done, Bushies! A moment to be proud of. Your petty, partisan revenge evaded actual legal penalties.

Robert Novak who wrote the article that “outed” Ms. Plame was and is anti-war.

The entire affair would have ended with the NYT article except for the operatives of the Democratic Party who, against their own council insisted on pursuing the allegations. And yet you want to blame everything on the “Neo-Cons.” (And many seem to have a problem with my use of the terms liberal and conservative)

Ms. Plame still works for the CIA and last year, she released a book about the whole thing. She will most likely make at least a couple of million bucks off the book and close to 50% of the people in the country look at her as a saint and the other half as a person just caught up in the constant flaming wars between the parties.

If you can do anything that can cause these horrible things to happen to me, please do so. I could use a couple of million bucks and I just wouldn’t mind being known as a saint to half of the country.

So … exactly how did this destroy her life and why on earth do you want to blame it on the “Neo-cons”?

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

NoNamePlaese

I don’t know Mr. McClellen, so I can’t begin to speculate.

For eight years, the Clinton administration had a scandal d’jour. (Sorry to bring him up, but he is the last example of how a democratic president does things) The accusations were so common that they became ineffective.

Clinton’s own brother was taking money and Bill was issuing pardons. Filegate was much more egregious than watergate, travelgate exposed Hillary taking money from the White House Travel office, hiding that money and then accusing the head of the office who apparently had crossed her of stealing it.

Do you understand that Washington is a sewer? I’m not about to speculate why anyone in Washington does anything. Are you?

By Anonymous

November 28, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

Yes, and Richard Jewell’s life was vastly improved by false accusations against him, no doubt. Because “Hey, you can write a book about it!”

I mention the neocons because the exposure of his wife was payback for Joseph Wilson daring to discredit the neocons’ plan for invading Iraq. Are you really claiming you weren’t aware of that part of the story?

By Scalia

November 28, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

I said that it was silly because some people, obviously you are the exception, wear it for no particular reason or understand what it stands for. I compare it to people wearing a Scarface shirt or Bob Marley shirt and do not know who the person is or can name a song that Bob Marley made.

And the reason that I say Teaching Abroad is patriotic because it makes you appreciate the United States and make you want to do more to help the country.

Oprah opened the school in South Africa because the kids in South Africa appreciate education, and see it as a privilege not a right like American kids.

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

Anonymous

Yes, and Richard Jewell’s life was vastly improved by false accusations against him, no doubt. Because “Hey, you can write a book about it!”

Richard Jewell was accused of 1st degree murder, attempted mass murder and terrorist activities. The facts later revealed that he actually had found the bomb laden backpack, started to look into it, realized it was way to heavy, and laid it back down, and contacted his superiors. When he laid it down, he laid it in a different position so when the bomb went off, the nails and shrapnel went straight up instead of into the crowd, saving countless lives.

In fact, Jewell was the unintentional hero of the Olympic Park Bombing, but because of the propaganda issued by the liberal media, he lost his job and was stalked for weeks by the international press with people screaming at him every time he went out of his Mom’s modest apartment.

And you want to compare what he went through with a woman who still has her job, is practically worshiped by the Democratic Party and will make millions off her experiance.

Do you have any grasp on reality?

One more time: So … exactly how did this destroy her life and why on earth do you want to blame it on the “Neo-cons”?

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

Scalia

I said that it was silly because some people, obviously you are the exception, wear it for no particular reason or understand what it stands for. I compare it to people wearing a Scarface shirt or Bob Marley shirt and do not know who the person is or can name a song that Bob Marley made.

Oh come on, Scalia. Who doesn’t know what the flag stands for, whether the flag is the almost offensive 100 foot wide versions that sometimes wave over used car lots or a 10 mm version someone wears on their lapel. You really don’t know if I am the exception or not. I may be, but I would like to think that everyone at least should understand what the flag symbolizes, especially when they pin it on their own clothes.

Do they think about that every time they go out with the pin on their lapel? Probably not.

And the reason that I say Teaching Abroad is patriotic because it makes you appreciate the United States and make you want to do more to help the country.

I can see that, but that would actually inspire patriotism. I don’t think the action of teaching abroad is patriotic.

Oprah opened the school in South Africa because the kids in South Africa appreciate education, and see it as a privilege not a right like American kids.

I think I read on here that you are a teacher. I’ll leave that sad conclusion alone. You are obviously more qualified to conclude that than I.

By chuck

November 28, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

One other thing that you left out toj, PLAME WASN’T ACCUSED OF ANYTHING. She did however LIE about what happened as has been shown recently, when she said that she had nothing to do with her husband getting that assignment in the first place. Internal memos and e-mails proved that she did in fact recommend him for it. The whole episode was a fabrication of the “gotcha” press. No law was broken, it was already fairly common knowledge that she was working for the CIA especially noting that she had made no attempt to keep her occupation secret even talking to the press about it before she was supposedly “outed”.

As for “spreading lies” about Obama being a muslim, all I did was quote numerous websites including the LA Times, certainly not a conservative organization, who all talked about the fact that he was raised as a muslim in his early years and that he attended a muslim school. He does have a muslim name (not a muslim SOUNDING name as one said) and a muslim father.

He may or may not be a PRACTICING muslim, but I am yet to find a quote of his denouncing Islamic Fundamentalism. If you know of one, please cite it so that I can read what he has to say on the subject.

By No name please...

November 28, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

TOJ: I’m not about to speculate why anyone in Washington does anything. And yet, you did that at 10:17, 10:25, and 10:50. Unless of course, you “know” all these people (unlike McClellan) and they’ve told you themselves why they did what they did. (Or you can ask Chuck - his crystal ball knows the deep secrets in the hearts of men he’s never met.)

Re: the eight years of daily scandals in the Clinton Admin: (a) It was a decade ago. Stop using it as a crutch to deflect from current failures. (b) If the most highly-empowered investigators in the US government spent three-plus years and $70 mill investigating you and your family, digging through every check you ever wrote for a loaf of bread, every contract you ever signed, and every girl you or any member of your clan ever spoke to, and the only thing they could prove in the end was ONE HUMMER, I’d think you and your family were the most upstanding model citizens in America! $70 mil, and that’s IT? DANG! You’re a freaking SAINT, Dude!

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Chuck

Informative. I didn’t realize she had been caught in lies. The comparison to Richard Jewell just didn’t work.

As far as Obama, a few weeks ago several on here compared Clinton’s affair in the oval office with several Republican candidates getting divorces. Expecting anyone that supports Obama to exercise the same criticism against their own choice that they excersize against the opposite party is pointless.

Muslims do cause of lot of our world’s problems. I also have some friends and business contacts that are Muslim so I do know that none of them support the Islamic Crazies. I know that because they tend to be furious at these lunatics because of the fact that it makes life and business harder for them.

Whether Obama is a Muslim is not really the issue. He is very close to that religion and has, as the LA Times has said, attended Muslim schools. I am a little surprised that he does seem to avoid any discussion of that subject.

But to be honest, I haven’t seen where he actually took a strong, public stand on anything other than insisting that, in spite of long accepted customs, he not put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem.

It is going to be an interesting election.

By Newzwyre

November 28, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

http://www.themishmash.com/2007/11/8-telltale-sign.html

Enjoy

By Newzwyre

November 28, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

http://halfricanrevolution.blogspot.com/2007/01/facts-and-falsehoods-about-obama.html

Lie: Barack Obama attended a radical Muslim school, where he was taught Wahhabism.

Truth: Obama attended a Muslim elementary school largely because he couldn’t afford to go to an American school. He was not taught Wahhabism, or any form of radical Islam. From his second book, “The Audacity of Hope” page 274:

Without the money to go to the international school that most expatriate children attended, I went to local Indonesian schools and ran the streets with the children of farmers, servants, tailors, and clerks.

By chuck

November 28, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

Talk about crystal balls…I find it interesting that you know the context of a statement in a book that isn’t due to be published until APRIL 2008. Your assertion:

TOJ, so why do you think Scott McClellan, in his book, stated that his superiors were lying about the Plame incident and made him lie about it to the American people? Any theories?

Is without basis at this point. The supposed information came from a teaser on the publisher’s website. It does not say that anyone MADE him lie about it and it doesn’t give the context in which he made the statement that he made which was:

“I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president’s chief of staff and the president himself.”

First, if he UNKNOWINGLY did it, he wasn’t MADE TO DO IT. Second, it makes no assertion as to what that involvement was. Nice try though.

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

noNamePlease

TOJ: I’m not about to speculate why anyone in Washington does anything. And yet, you did that at 10:17, 10:25, and 10:50.

Please point out the exact words where I speculated why anyone did anything. Exact words, please.

Re: the eight years of daily scandals in the Clinton Admin: (a) It was a decade ago. Stop using it as a crutch to deflect from current failures.

Yes. If I were you, I would also run from the records and scandals of the last Democratic president that was in the White House. It was slimy and dishonest and an embarrassment to every person in this country.

Unfortunately, he set the standard for Democratic presidents. There hasn’t been any other person in the White House that was a Democrat since his shameful administration.

So … No. It is not acceptable that you and other (here’s that word) liberals point at Bush and then refuse to allow conservatives to point at the last example of democratic rule. In fact, you were the one that introduced him into the conversation.

I personally have few problems with his putting the needs of his smaller head over the promises to his wife and child. He’s a Democratic politician. I expected no more.

However, his getting rid of most of the senior operatives of the CIA, his suspension of on-the-ground intell, his allowing the sell of top secret missile technology to the Chi-coms, his selling of nuclear technology to N. Korea and his pardoning of international criminals do bother me.

But as an old musician who did pretty well in the women category, I cannot for the life of me understand how this supposedly brilliant man would risk his political career, and his highly visible marriage for an issue laden woman like Monica Lewinski. She kept the blue dress, for God’s sake. I could have spotted that lunatic from across a crowded bar.

Now JFK. He really knew how to screw around. Marilyn Monroe? Now that’s a temptation. But pudgy, issue laden Monica? No thanks.

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

Newzwyre

I don’t think he ever attended a radical Muslim school, but to people who do, a quote from his own book is probably not going to erase the rumors.

I’d just like to see him take a strong stance on anything, other than bashing Hillary. How hard is bashing Hillary, anyway?

By ZZZzzzZZZzzz

November 28, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

Yawwwwnnnn! Borrrrring. As usual, you got nuthin.

By A_Thought

November 28, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this

Muslims do cause of lot of our world’s problems

Isn’t that a statement many indigenous groups world-wide were probably saying about Christians 200-400 years ago? But they lacked adequate military hardware?

By Illustrated Translation

November 28, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

Here’s what Shaunti and her supporters are really saying:

By Newzwyre

November 28, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

“After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.”

”Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings…Let’s fight to make sure that…we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe…Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells…Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil…Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.”

Barack Obama - Federal Plaza, Chicago

By chuck

November 28, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this

Newzwyre, aka NNP, that is still not a denunciation of radical islam. I thought they killed all of those people in the name of ALLAH, not intolerance.

By B

November 28, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this

I cannot for the life of me understand how this supposedly brilliant man would risk his career for an issue-laden woman like Monica

Believe it or not, OtherJack, that is actually the one aspect of Bill Clinton’s multi-faceted personality that I do completely understand. Been there and done it myself, though I never faced the public shame he did.

By B

November 28, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

Props to you, TOJ, for toning down the insults a little bit today. The factual content of your blogs is strong, and you make convincing arguments when you aren’t frothing at the mouth.

Per the Valerie Plame “scandal”, the fact that both she and her husband were open about her position at the CIA precludes her from being “outed”, in my mind. It was a story without legs from the beginning.

By B

November 28, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this

Let’s fight to make sure that we vigorously enforce a nuclear non-proliferation treaty

Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East stop oppressing their own people

Very noble sounding plans, but as always, the devil is in the details. Exactly how does Mr. Obama expect to whip the Saudis and Egyptians in line? The bottom line is they have us by the proverbial cojones economically. If OPEC, along with Venezuala, decided to withhold the petroleum from us, for whatever reason, we’re sunk.

By No name please...

November 28, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

Sorry Chuckster, that’s not me. Does it surpise you to learn I’m not the only person around here who thinks your tactic of using a man’s race-slash-father’s nationality to LIE about him is slimier than weasel goo?

By JokesOn

November 28, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

Per the Valerie Plame “scandal”, the fact that both she and her husband were open about her position at the CIA precludes her from being “outed”, in my mind.

Dog, I never read such info, and I followed it pretty well - or so I thought. Can you point me to a reliable source that proves this so that I can re-assess my thinking on the subject?

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this

A thought

Isn’t that a statement many indigenous groups world-wide were probably saying about Christians 200-400 years ago? But they lacked adequate military hardware?

Probably was … 200-400 years ago.

By B

November 28, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil…..

If anyone can remember back to 1976, Jimmy Carter made a similar plea, which he then chose to wrap around dire predictions that the world’s oil reserves would likely be depleted by the year 2000.

So why don’t we have an alternative fuel sources to replace gasoline? Well, the fact is that we already do. The only problem is, that gasoline is still cheaper to use than any of the alternatives. The day that someone perfects hydrogen fusion is the day that Mobil and Exxon will be out of business, not the day that Jimmy Carter or Obama make their noble pronouncements from on high.

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

Illustrated Translation

I support what she is saying because she never said anything like that. And, of course, I don’t say that. Once again, if you have to make stuff up, you must not have much of an argument.

By B

November 28, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

Can you point me to a reliable source

JokesOn, I’m going to have to make a lateral pass on that one over to chuck and TOJ. Not trying to weasel around your challenge, but I’m stuck here using the library computers which are hard to navigate with (can open only one tab).

If I recall correctly, her husband had a website which acknowledged her job over at the CIA, long before she was “outed”. Can anyone help me on this one?

By JokesOn

November 28, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

that is still not a denunciation of radical islam.

I looked and could not find ANYWHERE you, TOJ, or even I denounce Islamic Fundamentalism.

We therefore all must be considered a threat. Geeze.

By B

November 28, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

I’m not the only one who thinks your tactic of using a man’s race/nationality is slimy

I don’t recall chuck specifically referencing Obama’s race in a derogatory way, though it is possible someone could infer that perhaps based on prior statements made by chuck here on the blog.

Hey, chuck, “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner”? It would be very interesting to see how well chuck’s “faith” would pan out if his daughter began dating someone of a different race. What say you, chuck?

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

B

Believe it or not, OtherJack, that is actually the one aspect of Bill Clinton’s multi-faceted personality that I do completely understand. Been there and done it myself, though I never faced the public shame he did.

We all did. I was fortunate enough that I let the musician thing trump my homeliness and by traveling from town to town, met quite a few women. We have all had our bouts with coyote love. Clinton was supposed to be a big studly-dudly. He should have known better.

As far as the insults, I’m not doing anything different except ignoring JokesOn. Earlier, he tried to pick a fight about something I had said about my Dad, but I ignored him. My Dad was everything to me. To let some dim-wit suck me into a flaming fight concerning him: no way.

I know you think he is a good guy, but you really need to take a close look at the way he treats others.

By Newzwyre

November 28, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2007/05/30/cia-plame-was-covert.htm

“Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States… When traveling overseas, [Plame] always traveled under a cover identity [undercover], sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.”

follow the links to the original PDF for more -

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this

Newzwyre

Hey, I like his stance against Exxon and Mobile. I think the oil companies are the anti-Christ and the insurance companies are fighting them for the title.

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

B

The day that someone perfects hydrogen fusion is the day that Mobil and Exxon will be out of business, not the day that Jimmy Carter or Obama make their noble pronouncements from on high.

Man, I wish I could agree with you, but I can’t. Hydrogen still needs to be delivered to the consumer through nationwide pipelines. Guess which pipelines will be used.

Bush was the first president to push large amounts of money for alternative fuel research, but guess who got the money: the only people who already was researching the technology: the stinking oil companies.

I’m afraid they’re here for good.

By B

November 28, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

JokesOn—Since I’m weak in the facts department today, I thought I might entertain you with a poker analogy I came up with which might shed some light on chuck’s inability to understand that “truth” is not a simple thing which can be captured by any book, however holy that book is.

In Texas Holdem, each player is initially dealt two cards which only they can see. Then, 5 additional cards are eventually exposed on the board, which all the players then use to make a poker hand along with the two unique cards which they, and they alone, can see and use. Because the “hole cards” are different for each player, the poker hands they are able to make are all different.

By JokesOn

November 28, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

I know you think he is a good guy, but you really need to take a close look at the way he treats others.

He does. I am civil, honest and straight with everyone - until they show they cannot be so in return. I do not pick “sides” on here or in my life which does bother many, but not those that actually seek truth as opposed to a cheering squad (clears throat - uhemchuckuhem).

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this

B

Hey, chuck, “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner”? It would be very interesting to see how well chuck’s “faith” would pan out if his daughter began dating someone of a different race. What say you, chuck?

Chuck might be a lot like me. I have a beautiful 18 year old daughter. Over a year ago, she introduced me to her new boyfriend: a black kid. I hated him. But that was no surprise, I hated everyone she brought around. She’s my daughter.

They are still dating and I have to say that he is a good kid, except for the fact that he is dating my daughter.

By B

November 28, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

The analogy to “truth” is this: The 5 cards on the table which are jointly used by all the players represent “objective truth”, i.e. the “truth” that all the players can agree upon. HOWEVER, when each player combines their own “subjective truth” (their unique hidden hole cards)with the “objective truth”(the cards on the table), they each arrive at a different final “global truth” (final poker hand) than each of the other players at the table. As such, “objective truth” never stands alone, it always involves some kind of subjective element which is hidden from everyone else.

Often in life, other people’s actions puzzle and confuse me. It is at those times I try to remember that each person has vastly different life experiences from myself, so that their “global truth” is bound to be very different from mine.

By B

November 28, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

OtherJack—JokesOn uses harsh, frank language at times, but I’d bet my entire poker bankroll that he’s coming from a good place. What I’m asking you to do is to ignore everyone else’s post for a minute and read your own. Look for the harsh language and baseless insults in your own posts, not his, and you’ll learn a lot.

By B

November 28, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this

OtherJack—I don’t think I could survive having a daughter. I’m way too jealous and controlling.

By No name please...

November 28, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

I don’t recall chuck specifically referencing Obama’s race in a derogatory way

He said: “His father was black and came from Kenya” in a post explaining why we should not take the man’s public proclaimation of faith in Christ seriously. If that is not a factor in Chuck’s disbelief of another man’s professed faith, why did he bring it up?

Also: Why did Scooter LIE if there was nothing to cover up? Why did Bush say that he’d fire anyone in his administration if he found out they were involved in leaking Plame’s identity if it was already well-known? Just curious.

By JokesOn

November 28, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this

Often in life, other people’s actions puzzle and confuse me. It is at those times I try to remember that each person has vastly different life experiences from myself, so that their “global truth” is bound to be very different from mine.

And if one insists on hiding his cards, they have nothing to offer. That in itself is denial in action: the insistance that their “truth” must be protected from being tainted by other truths.

What I’m asking you to do is to ignore everyone else’s post for a minute and read your own.

Sorry Dog, but he was able to do that we would not be at this impass. That is exactly what caused me to loose respect for him and chuck - and almost you back in the day. The assertion that their truth is the ultimate truth and anyone confronting that truth must be slobbering or an IGNO.

Like the PDF that was linked right after I asked you for info on plame. I have no problem finding truth that counters what I thought was accurate. All it took them was a post by a cheer-blogger to be considered true.

The other times TOJ made statements and someone said to please post a reference TOJ slammed and insulted them because this was an “opinion blog” as if truth has no bearing and we are playing in neverland, but yet he demands he is “right.”

Look at who is left on the blog, man. You had bothered people, which really did not result in too much, but he cleared them out in 2 weeks time. Look at how his conversation with every other blogger ended: they left before his sarcasm and insults caused them to insulting him. Which is smarter than what I do; yet someone has to stand up to these egomaniacs in the world.

By B

November 28, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

If that is not a factor in Chuck’s disbelief of another man’s professed faith…

Excellent point. As such, I can now move chuck’s prejudice from the “inferred” category to the “implied” category.

If I am allowed one compliment per day for you without crossing the line into patronage and pandering, I want to say this, NNP: You humble me with your intelligence and analytical abilities. Somehow your posts light up my brain cells….. I know you’ve accused me before of not listening clearly to you, but I think the problem is more profound. You speak on so many levels simultaneously, it sometimes takes me 6 or 7 months to understand my own reaction.

By B

November 28, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

and almost you back in the day

I guess its still only a blog full of strangers here, but I appreciate you not giving up on me during my darkest days.

My frustration for my self is that I know that I’m basically a good person, and prior to 3-4 years ago I had a long track record of doing good works. I wish I knew what happened, but some very dark, angry storm clouds took over my brain, and I basically have become a stranger to myself. All I can do now is to wave to all my friends back on shore while I row around in this lonely fog.

By B

November 28, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

So, where do we go from here, JokesOn? I’m sure that I’ll have to answer a few “blog crime” charges on Judgement Day myself, so let’s not hang this whole thing on The Other Jack.

Also, NNP—What is the key to your faith in Christ, as both an actual Messiah, and as a loving Saviour? I wasn’t able to keep my faith, unfortunately.

By chuck

November 28, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

I’m going to have to call you on that NNP. First, That whole blurb was clearly from a site about Obama which I noted in later posts. Second, the fact that his father is Black is NOT DEROGATORY, last time I checked. It was nothing more than a listed fact in the article with no negative connotation attached. BTW, I don’t know if you noticed NNP. Barack Hussein Obama IS BLACK. Are you shocked? I mean it’s not like anyone has ever seen him on TV or anything.

Now let me get this straight. YOU consider it to be derogatory to call someone Black if they are Black. Honey Chile, that says alot more about your propensity toward racism than mine.

As for the “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?” scenario, my sister is married to a second generation Mexican American whose father came here legally. I have absolutely no problem with that.

By B

November 28, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this

Love to all, especially Mara. Everyone misses you, Mara. Please come back.

By HMMMMM

November 28, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this

chuck seems suspiciously quiet since the issue of race came up. DO you think he’s actually working today?

By HMMMMM

November 28, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

oops—chuck DID speak about race, if only to put his foot in his mouth one more time.

I’ll bet not only my poker bank roll, but all my other assets as well, that NNP has far more friends of other races than white-bread chuck.

By HMMMMM

November 28, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this

I’m still working on figuring out exactly which church you do attend, chuck. For some reason, I keep thinking Snellville First Baptist, or some other mega-church monstrosity. I guess if I cared enough, I could determine which county you worked in based on the school year and timing of the Praxis and other tests taht you’ve mentioned on the blog. Anonymity has been kind to you, chuck. Too bad you’ve been unable to extend that same courtesy to others.

By JokesOn

November 28, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

All I can do now is to wave to all my friends back on shore while I row around in this lonely fog.

I know that place very well. I think that as we get older and more wise we begin to realize that we have to let go of some ideas grounded us because they were not actually true. They provided an anchor, but when gone we are a sea until we get a handle on a better, more accurate pylon.

That is why we are so reluctant to let go in the first place. We often feel that an incorrect stable idea is better than no idea at all. As we mature the drifting asea does not bother us as much since we know it leads to more-and-more universal truths.

Some people do the opposite and learn only how to defend their truth better and better, digging a hole that they are alone in and that no rope can reach.

So, where do we go from here, JokesOn? I’m sure that I’ll have to answer a few “blog crime” charges on Judgement Day myself, so let’s not hang this whole thing on The Other Jack.

I am pretty positive we have another chuck here that will just keep reiterating the same crap no matter how much sense another makes. For example, he has already stated 3x, in err, that I challenged jack to a fight even though I corrected him the first time.

I do not see his isulting posting ending any time soon.

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

B

We agree to disagree. I read what I post and you said yourself that I had been “very good” today. The only difference is that I ignored JokesOn. I never claimed to turn the other cheek, in fact, I make a point of returning abuse with abuse and I would have done just that today but I ignored the only person that I knew was just looking for a fight.

If you look closely, you will see that I was a little “tart” with a couple of people because they were “tart” with me. But we were both fine. No flaming, no arguments. That’s the way political forums work. Its the people that can’t control their emotions that are the problem.

It has been a good day and I play poker on Wednesday night so I need to get some things done before 8 o’clock. Yes we play Texas Hold’em along with many other games. Dealer calls the game but a few games like Texas hold’em, we play a complete round with each player dealing a hand before we move on. It is all nickel and dime. I won about 20 bucks one night but most nights I win or loose just a few dollars.

This is a strange board. The fact that it closes every night and starts over every Sunday gives it a whole different dynamic. I like it. The only thing I don’t like is the fact that names are so easy to change. And people seem to have no problem changing names at will. It is weird that when you call someone for a bunch of hysterical, unfounded accusations, they tend to come back as someone else.

If I don’t talk to you any more, have a good night.

By JokesOn

November 28, 2007 4:24 PM | Link to this

All I can do now is to wave to all my friends back on shore while I row around in this lonely fog.

I know that place very well. I think that as we get older and more wise we begin to realize that we have to let go of some ideas grounded us because they were not actually true. They provided an anchor, but when gone we are a sea until we get a handle on a better, more accurate pylon.

That is why we are so reluctant to let go in the first place. We often feel that an incorrect stable idea is better than no idea at all. As we mature the drifting asea does not bother us as much since we know it leads to more-and-more universal truths.

Some people do the opposite and learn only how to defend their truth better and better, digging a hole that they are alone in and that no rope can reach.

So, where do we go from here, JokesOn? I’m sure that I’ll have to answer a few “blog crime” charges on Judgement Day myself, so let’s not hang this whole thing on The Other Jack.

I am pretty positive we have another chuck here that will just keep reiterating the same crap no matter how much sense another makes. For example, he has already stated 3x, in err, that I challenged jack to a fight even though I corrected him the first time.

I do not see his insulting posting ending any time soon.

(repost for mis-spelling. Would hate to get reamed again for typing fast between jobs!)

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2007 4:34 PM | Link to this

Chuck

You can’t win this one. I have a Black business partner and I have learned volumes about white-guy etiquette.

Once they decide you are a racist, there is no changing their minds. And it’s not just Black people, it is just anyone that decides you are a racist.

It is a lot like the old story about the guy in the mental ward. The more you try to convince them that you are not crazy, the crazier you appear.

Whoever did not have the courage to appear as themselves and adopted the name HMMMMM had no problem calling you whitebread, a term that I consider racist and derogatory but don’t expect anyone else to call them on that.

I’ve even heard it said that Black people can’t be racist because you have to possess power to be a racist. I guess those people never walked into the Fulton County Courthouse. Talk about power …

By Gandalf the Grey

November 28, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this

Barack Obama is a muslim mole, that is why he doesn’t wear the flag. He is a living Manchurian canidate!

By Gandalf the Grey

November 28, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

Elected someone with muslim upbringing would be like electing a crossdresser or that lesbian Hillary! How stupid would we look to the rest of the world! Opinions matter, Hillary has none, other than win the election so she and her hubby can fulfill thier pact. God Help the USA! Down with Socialism, up with the Republic! Party of Lincoln save us now!

By What?

November 28, 2007 4:57 PM | Link to this

would be like electing a crossdresser

so what’s wrong with crossdressing?

By Gandalf the Grey

November 28, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this

Nothing! But you wouldn’t want one as president! You are stupid aren’t you!

By AGFNPR

November 28, 2007 5:05 PM | Link to this

JokesOn

My apologies for accusing you of trying to start a fight with Jack. You were right - he challenged you first. However, I have not made that erroneous statement three times, only once. Someone else must have accused you of that - but it wasn’t me. Nor have I read in the past where you corrected the people who did accuse you of that or I wouldn’t have made that false accusation. Again, my apologies.

By zyrtec uk 50mg

November 29, 2007 3:18 AM | Link to this

paxil pharmacy angst management studies

By order zelnorm online

November 29, 2007 3:58 AM | Link to this

wellbutrin for generalized anxiety disorder natural nervousness remedies

By JokesOn

November 29, 2007 8:35 AM | Link to this

AGFNPR ,

Thank you very much. It is rare anyone takes responsibility on here and I really appreciate it.

And sorry to TOJ for thinking it was him that made that remark.

By chuck

November 29, 2007 8:37 AM | Link to this

TOJ, the all time name changing champion is Bruno, Dog, Bruce, B, HMMMMMM, 3DG, Give Credit Where Credit Is Due, and that’s just this week. Sometimes he uses 2 different names and talks to himself. If it wasn’t so sad, it would be hilarious.

By chuck

November 29, 2007 8:46 AM | Link to this

I have no problems BTW with being called names here. In fact, this current crop of bloggers is kind of tame compared to some past bloggers. I look on the name calling and vitriole and just laugh. I think something that would serve you well here on this blog TOJ is to just ignore it. I couldn’t care less what these people think about me. They don’t know me, but they look on EVERYONE who doesn’t fall lock step into their little set of ideas as the enemy. I don’t have a problem with that either.

By JokesOn

November 29, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this

Sometimes he uses 2 different names and talks to himself. If it wasn’t so sad, it would be hilarious.

Chuck is spreading more lies and total bs. If you truely believe that you are just proving what everyone already knows: your a total idiot.

And on the subject of talking to yourself on the blog, I would not be one bit surprised if you and TOJ are the same person. The same proof exists that you apply to dog: You two show up at the same time and you cheer each other on.

By UnFair

November 29, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this

Bruno, Dog, Bruce, B, HMMMMMM, 3DG, Give Credit Where Credit Is Due, and that’s just this week. Sometimes he uses 2 different names and talks to himself. If it wasn’t so sad, it would be hilarious.

Now that is NOT FAIR. We all know they are DISTINCT personalities. Now, they may actually inhabit the same PHYSICAL body, but that is why we had a movie made: The Story Of Eve.

By chuck

November 29, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this

If you don’t believe me jokesonyou, ask him. I’d go back in the archive to prove it to you, but I just don’t care. Please feel free to ignore me.

By chuck

November 29, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

AND, it’s TRULY Moron

By JokesOn

November 29, 2007 9:47 AM | Link to this

Chuck,

Learn to read: Sometimes he uses 2 different names and talks to himself.

That is bs and you know it. One of the main times you accused him of that was when he was having a conversation with me back when I was new on the board. So, trust me I know you were/are wrong.

I am not disputing that he uses different names, but you are being dishonest about that too. He always makes it understood who he is and does not use it to dupe someone except for that ONE time, which you have done as well.

By chuck

November 29, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this

AND, it YOU’RE Moron

By Bruce

November 29, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this

Chuck, I have never posted as anyone other than myself. I used to post regularly sometime back but decided this site was toooooo liberal for me and now I just read and post occasionally. Name calling and insulting between grown individuals is to childish for me to waste my time.

And just for the record I support you in most of your opinions.

The Other Jack is the most level headed person I have read on the blog in a long time. I know you don’t need my support but keep up the good work.

By JokesOn

November 29, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

AND, it’s TRULY Moron

AND it is vitriol* not vitriole effing idiot.

By JokesOn

November 29, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

AND, it YOU’RE Moron

Do you mean “it is??!?!?!”

Could do this all day - it is a blog. But when one has nothing intelligent to say, they pick apart blog type.

In these last posts you have proved you are: a liar, unable to amend for wrongs, a hypocrite, and yesterday proved you are a bigot.

Go ahead and keep adding to the list.

By chuck

November 29, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

I know Bruce. That’s also the real name of the one who now usually calls himself B. He uses it occasionally, too. I am definitely not level-headed in my posts. I like to stir things up and then sit back and laugh at the frothing of the mouths.

By JokesOn

November 29, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

I am definitely not level-headed in my posts. I like to stir things up and then sit back and laugh at the frothing of the mouths.

Yeah, that’s it! You are just crafty that way, not stupid and judgmental.

And we wonder why Georgia education is so bad…

By chuck

November 29, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

Did you go to school in Georgia?

showing dissent fuels terrorist more than the hard imerialism

That would be terroristS and imPerialism

To where a pin or to not where a pin:

Would that be WEAR?

I have forgoten what my favorite chair feels like.

Would that be forgoTTen?

Yet, in superseding my explanation.

Would that be superCeding?

You exaggerate way to much.

Would that be toO?

we are more concerned with truth than “wining” a discussion.

Would that be winNing?

loose respect for him.

Would that be LOSE?

By UnFair

November 29, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

UnFair:

JokesOn is not a NATIVE English speaker. Eastern European/former Soviet bloc or Russian or thereabouts my guess.

By Gandalf the Grey

November 29, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

The flag is the symbol of our great country. We should all honor and defend it!

Andi is such a silly little girl, why does she write here anyway?

By posting under another name because I can

November 29, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

Are u callin my frend jokeson a comminist? I wil cull u ought on that won dewd.

By chuck

November 29, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

Actually, the people I have met from Eastern Europe speak MUCH BETTER English than jokeson. Ms son is dating a girl from Russia and though she has a little bit of an accent, she is very proficient in the use of the English language. My friends in Romania are also very accomplished in their use of the language. I also know a couple of Hungarians and a Lithuanian who speak really well.

By JokesOn

November 29, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

Did you go to school in Georgia?

Yup. And thanks to inbred yokels like you I had a LOT of catch up to do when I started at GaTech.

You should do a spell check on the whole blog since you are not spending the time with your students. Poor kids deserve an education and then get you.

By UnFair

November 29, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

Are u callin my frend jokeson a comminist? I wil cull u ought on that won dewd.

Educated in Georgia were you? The Communistic system failed years ago.

By JokesOn

November 29, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

Believing that dinosaurs and men existed says volumes about your mental ability.

I think I will take it on myself to be sure to make sure your school knows about your blogging. Should be easy enough.

By JokesOn

November 29, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

Ms son is dating a girl from Russia and though she has a little bit of an accent, she is very proficient in the use of the English language.

Your son goes by Ms? Nice to see that you consider your gender altered son as your child still;)

By chuck

November 29, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

HMMMMM, seem to be getting under your skin a little bit today YolksOn. Well good. You probably just need to get some rest. I’ll take a few minutes to spell check your posts from last week, then I’ll send a little package to the Georgia Tech English department. They will be so proud of the job you are doing to promote the excellent education one can receive as a Yellow Jacket.

By AGFNPR

November 29, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

JokesOn: Did you go to school in Georgia?

Yup. And thanks to inbred yokels like you I had a LOT of catch up to do when I started at GaTech.

Why would you have to catch up when about 70% of the kids enrolled at my alma mater come from the state of GA?

Despite the educational issues in GA, there are many smart students in our state. And those GA students are the vast majority of kids enrolled in what I (and many others) consider to be one of the finest public institutions in the nation.

By Archie

November 29, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

Henry Hyde died recently and I noticed on other blogs that someone said it’s no big loss then they went on to call the man a hypocrite. Now, while I did not agree with Mr Hyde and yes I did think he was a hypocrite, for someone to casually write on an internet blog “no big loss” upon the man’s death shows a lack of compassion for human life and even on the liberal side it shows how easy it is for humans to just dismiss other humans’ lives. For as long as there is human life in America you will hypocrites in politics but in death I think it should be standard to wish his family the best because the man can’t do anything now. Hyde may not be a big loss to me but he’s a big loss to his family.

By JokesOn

November 29, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

HMMMMM, seem to be getting under your skin a little bit today YolksOn.

Naw. You do not matter in this world.

By Scalia

November 29, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

Wow…you leave the blog for several hours, and it turns into a fight on the playground.

Chuck, be nice and stop. You did this same thing to JBM and The72John. Both know longer come around here.

By Newzwyre

November 29, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

from competing paper’s blog site some common sense

merganser [blogposter] wrote:

As Mick and the Stones said, “you can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find you get what you need.” Sadly, unless we can create a hybrid of some of the views of the GOP candidates and Democratic candidates, we still cannot get what this country needs.

What does this county need in my opinion? First, we need to end the war in Iraq ASAP and stop letting our government divert more borrowed money to its crony corporation buddies to “rebuild” and defend Iraq. If we leave, sure there might be some chaos, but you know what, it would end and the Iraqis would get their stuff together. Second, we should think long and hard about our damaged creditability overseas and work to restore it through real diplomacy and a little more humility. Ron Paul and Dennis Kuicinich seem to be the only ones with this view.

On the homefront, we must control illegal immigration; a country that cannot control its borders is a country that risks losing respect for the rule of law. We need a new ID system and enforcement so not one illegal person can be hired and if they are, harsh penalties and jail time for the scofflaw employers. All other western nations can do this, so can we. End employment, most illegals will leave. Ron Paul again supports this, none of the Democrats do and the rest of GOP candidates cannot be trusted on the issue.

Next, we need a fairer tax system that treats work the same as wealth. An across the board two-tiered flat tax, with no deductions, on all income, whether wages, capital gains or some other tax dodging scheme. As best I can tell, no one supports this, GOP wants to keep cutting taxes for the rich, Democrats want to raise them for the better off and redistribute the money to the poor.

We need a health care system that works, the current one does not. Every man, woman or child should have health care by right. This does not mean the government should run it, but someone needs to set up a system whereby everyone has health care. As best I can tell, Obama’s plan and what Romney did in Massachusetts are steps in the right direction.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we need to take the billions being squandered in Iraq and use it to find alternatives to carbon-based fuels to combat global warming and ensure our nation’s security. In the interim, we need to raise CAFÉ standards, incentivize and require conservation, and take other reasonable measures to reduce our use of fossil fuels. No candidate has a detailed position on this issue, other than the GOP denying it is a problem and the Democrats with some vague bromides on how to change.

As for the myriad social issues that the parties bicker about, leave them to the states and people to decide, they are not federal government issues. The only thing the federal government should do is treat all people equal. Again, no one supports this since cultural issues are the red meat of both parties’ bases.

By B

November 29, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

Howdy, gang. Too bad I missed all the action this AM! I’ll add my adolescent 2-cents in a minute, but first wanted to get a clear answer on the Valerie Plame “incident”. I went to the link posted on the board, but it appeared to be written during the middle of the scandal and didn’t provide the final word on whether Ms. Plame was truly a “secret agent” or not. Again, though I can’t provide any links here from the library, my recollection is that both she and her husband had not kept her position at the CIA secret in their personal, if not public lives.

Can anyone find a definitive answer as to the secrecy of her position?

By JokesOn

November 29, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

Chuck, be nice and stop. You did this same thing to JBM and The72John. Both know longer come around here.

I would be more concerned with the harm he is doing his students. His frothing and slobbering (to use words he understands) about spelling on a blog is only because he has no rational thoughts or input.

He cannot really give a sh!t about them if he blogs so much, for I am sure they could use some guidance.

Maybe it is better he blogs while they teach themselves. Less corruption the better, ya know?

By chuck

November 29, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this

Hey Scalia, since you asked I will do that. You’ve always been one of my favorite bloggers.

By B

November 29, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this

but that is why we had a movie made..The Story of Eve

Did you mean “All About Eve”? Sorry, that is the 72John’s story, not mine. Much closer to the truth might be “Sybil”. When it was revealed at the end of the movie just what led to her schizophrenia, I could relate, unfortunately. Not much fun to be held down while someone has their way on you.

By B

November 29, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

As per the name changes on the blog, your 149 has failed you once again, chuck. And JokesOn has it right, once again.

BTW, I have never blogged under the name “Bruce”. The closest I came was “Bruno”, which is my sports nickname. It’s just an odd coincidence that he and I share some of the same views.

By B

November 29, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

Speaking of name-changers, I’m starting to seriously wonder if Newzwyre isn’t our beloved Mara after all. Here I’ve been pining for her, and she may have been with us all along…..

AGFNPR: Any truth to the rumour that your first name begins with the letter “K”?

By JokesOn

November 29, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

Can anyone find a definitive answer as to the secrecy of her position?

I searched last night and could not find a single valid site reporting such a thing. I found sites where people claimed the same thing, but just bloggers and such.

You would think the person spreading the lies on here would be somewhat interested as to the truth, but that would take integrity.

By B

November 29, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

an issue-laden woman like Monica

I’ve often questioned my self why I prefer women who have at least a few issues. The best answer I can come up with so far is that sane people are kind of boring to me.

so what’s wrong with cross-dressing?

Let’s make a deal: I’ll satisy your fantasies if you’ll satisfy mine…..As long as anatomically you are a woman. Mental transgenderism is ok by me, but I have to draw the line right there.

By B

November 29, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

It’s been a while back, but I think I read of the lack of secrecy of her poition in either NewsWeek or the US News and World Report.

Whatever the truth is, in light of the fact that no actual harm was done to her, could everyone agree that the seriousness of this scandal was no greater than most of Clinton’s scandals (travelgate, North Koreagate, Chinagate, Hummergate, etc)?

On the other hand, I do take the charge against Bush II that he led us capriciously into war and has been too willing to compromise the civil and human rights of various peoples in his War on Terror. IMO, the ends never justify the means.

By chuck

November 29, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

Here’s one website that addresses that dog:

http://wrenncom.com/CommentaryArchives/2007/20y07m03d09-01.asp

By B

November 29, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this

I’ve never typically been a one-issue voter, but the person I vote for this go round will have to take a clear, unequivocal stance against waterboarding or any other type of mistreatment of prisoners, along with a strong vow to not violate any civil liberties of any humans, whether they are US citizens or not. That’s not what this country is about.

The bottom line is that were all human, and all likely deserve to be in prison for one reason or another. Let’s have compassion for the ones who get caught.

By Newzwyre

November 29, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

The previously posted PDF was part of a declassified employment summary which is now in the public record and was admitted as evidence in the Libby trial. Near the end you would have found this paragraph “[T]he CIA declassified and now publicly acknowledges the previously classified fact that Ms. Wilson was a CIA employee from 1 January 2002 forward and the previously classified fact that she was a covert CIA employee during this period.

Further information - (From transcripts of the Plame Hearings)

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Plamehearingtranscript_0316.html

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: (Sounds gavel.) The meeting of the committee will come to order.

[snip]

This hearing is being conducted in open session. This is appropriate, but it is also challenging. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her CIA employment in open session. I have met with — personally with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson’s service.. And I want to thank him for his cooperation and help in guiding us along these lines.

My staff has also worked with the agency to assure these remarks do not contain classified information. I have been advised by the CIA, and that even now — after all that has happened — I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson’s service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests. But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today’s hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information. Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14 — Step Six under the federal pay scale. Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA. Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.

Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson’s classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States. In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life. She took on serious risks on behalf of our country. Ms. Wilson’s work in many situations had consequence for the security of her colleagues, and maintaining her cover was critical to protecting the safety of both colleagues and others.

The disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s employment with the CIA had several serious affects. First, it terminated her covert job opportunities with the CIA. Second, it placed her professional contacts at greater risk. And third, it undermined the trust and confidence with which future CIA employees and sources hold the United States. This disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s classified employment status with the CIA was so detrimental that the CIA filed a crimes report with the Department of Justice.

As I mentioned, Ms. Wilson’s work was so sensitive that even now she is still prohibited from discussing many details of her work in public because of the continuing risks to CIA officials and assets in the field, and to the CIA’s ongoing work.

Some have suggested that Ms. Wilson did not have a sensitive position with the CIA or a position of unusual risk. As a CIA employee, Ms. Wilson has taken a lifelong oath to protect classified information, even after her CIA employment has ended. As a result, she cannot respond to most of the statements made about her.

I want to make clear, however, that any characterization that minimizes the personal risk of Ms. Wilson that she accepted in her assignments is flatly wrong. There should be no confusion on this point. Ms. Wilson has provided great service to our nation and has fulfilled her obligation to protect classified information admirably and we’re confident she will uphold it again today.

By B

November 29, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

chuck, Thanks for the link. Mixed in the opinions of the writer are a few facts. I had heard previously that Ms. Plame’s husband had been somewhat open about his wife’s position on a website, though I’m not sure mentioning her maiden name is a strong betrayal.

So you know, chuck, I dont support JokesOn’s stated intention of “outing” you here on the blog, even though you decided to do the same thing to me because you felt I was singling you out for criticism. I’ll spare you the lectures about the Golden Rule and treating others as you wish to be treated, and instead repeat a saying attributed to Confucius: When you seek revenge, be sure to dig two graves.

By B

November 29, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

I caught a bit of the most recent CNN/you-tube Republican debate last night on Nightline. Once again, John McCain impressed me with his unbending opposition to any type of mistreatment of prisoners, while Mitt Romney seemed to take a muddled stance on the issue.

I’ve often said it heard that the “sexiest” political candidate is usally the winner in any race. If that’s the case, Hillary better throw in the towel to Obama right now. On the Repug side of the fence, only Fred Thompson seems to project any sexiness.

By B

November 29, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this

chuck—Looks like you got Mara, oops I mean Newzwyre, a little hot and bothered by your link.

Newzwyre—Outing a covert government agent, from a categorical standpoint is verboten. We can all agree on that. However, can you at least admit that in this case, no actual harm was done to Ms. Plame/Wilson? No harm, no foul, right? (I hope you’re a sports fan/participant so that you can understand the meaning of the analogy here).

By B

November 29, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this

Hey NNP—New choice for you: Me, or GWB? If I don’t win this race, I’m definitely going to order some cyanide pills….

Just kidding. Thanks again for your input here on W2W, NNP, through whatever blog names you choose to use. In my mind, you and Mara are the lifeblood of the blog.

By chuck

November 29, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

If you watched the hearings NEWZ, you would know that Waxman’s statement that you quoted was a serious point of contention. In fact, several reports have stated EMPHATICALLY that the CIA REFUSED to say anything to the committee concerning Plame’s status in the CIA. It has been widely disseminated that she was NOT a covert operative AND if you will notice, the prosecuter in the Libby trial admitted that there was no underlying criminal charge (referring to the violation of the executive order). Further, there has been no discussion of prosecuting Armitage who supposedly “outed” Plame. If he had violated that order he would be in jail.

By B

November 29, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this

Speaking of cross-dressing, I might as well start wearing a skirt after last night. I gave up my last feeble efforts at being macho in any way and helped my friend make curtains. At least I know what a grommet and a grommet-maker are now.

Anyone have any lipstick I can borrow?

By B

November 29, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

Wait, NNP. Don’t answer that last question. I’ll order the pills today…..

By No name please...

November 29, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

Newzwyre: Thanks for your insightful 12:33 wherein lies some hope in the form of wisdom for those who are willing to stop insisting on their “rightness” and actually start giving a sh!t about America, and for your informative 2:05 post which, if actually read and verifed by those who care about truth, shows that the infraction here is not just about whether Ms. Plame was herself harmed, but rather the impact to all of us and national security of compromising ongoing intelligence-gathering efforts in which Ms. Plame and many OTHER PEOPLE, who may still be undercover, were a part.

By What A Visual

November 29, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

Imagine this: chuck, in drag…..

Now that would turn even NNP frigid, I think.

By B

November 29, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

OOps—Back to the issues.

Every man, woman, and child should have the right to health care

While I appreciate the compassion which no doubt underlies this oft-repeated position, I can’t agree with some of the “truths” that this statement seems to take for granted.

First of all, there are already laws on the books such that no one can be denied emergency health care. Because of this, virtually every ER in America has become a zoo, with many folks showing up with a common cold or paper cut and demanding taxpayer funded treatment.

More importantly, what ever happened to the biblical “If you don’t work, you don’t eat”? Why should health care, or even food and water, be a mandated right, such that no effort on the behalf of the recipient is required.

On a personal note, much of my personal career was spent in poor, dangerous neighborhoods such as the West End. Somehow, every poor person I met around there who couldn’t “afford” health care always had plenty of money for a “dime bag” of crack. Ditto for the WIC facility located near my home in Gwinnett. Every day, the parking lot is full of brand new SUVs, driven by “poor” people so that they can pick up their free grocery coupons.

Forgive my lack of compassion on this issue.

By JokesOn

November 29, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this

No harm, no foul, right?

Dog,

Come on! We are talking about CIA and national security here being thrown aside to futher the lies about WMDs.

You really want to decriminalize outing an agent as long as there is no direct damage done?

You think she can ever be an agent again in the same capacity? And if someone prevented you from doing something you love, what price would you put on that?

By Newzwyre

November 29, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

No, I am not Mara. I do research and paste the information as clearly as I find it. I don’t do opinion.

B said “no actual harm was done to Ms. Plame/Wilson”

if someone “accidently” ruined your decades-long career in a position that you found challenging and fullfilling, would you consider it “no harm”? And that doesn’t even take into account the (probable) harm to the country.

Mark Lowenthal, who retired from a senior management position at the CIA in March 2005 - “You can only speculate that if she had foreign contacts, those contacts might be nervous and their relationships with her put them at risk. It also makes it harder for other CIA officers to recruit sources.”

Another intelligence official who spoke anonymously cited the CIA’s interest in protecting the agency and its work: “You’ll never get a straight answer [from the Agency] about how valuable she was or how valuable her sources were.”
On October 28, 2005, the Office of Special Counsel issued a press release regarding Libby’s indictment. The following is stated regarding Plame: Disclosure of classified information about an individual’s employment by the CIA has the potential to damage the national security in ways that range from preventing that individual’s future use in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who deal with them

Larisa Alexandrovna of The Raw Story reports that three intelligence officials, who spoke under condition of anonymity, told her that “While Director of Central Intelligence Porter Goss has not submitted a formal damage assessment to Congressional oversight committees, the CIA’s Directorate of Operations did conduct a serious and aggressive investigation… the damage assessment … called a “counter intelligence assessment to agency operations” was conducted on the orders of the CIA’s then-Deputy Director of the Directorate of Operations, James Pavitt… . [and showed] “significant damage to operational equities.”

Alexandrovna also reports that while Plame was undercover she was involved in an operation identifying and tracking weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran, suggesting that her outing “significantly hampered the CIA’s ability to monitor nuclear proliferation.” Her sources also stated that the outing of Plame compromised the identity of other covert operatives who had been working, like Plame, under non-official cover status.

These anonymous officials said that in their judgement, the CIA’s work on WMDs has been set back “ten years” as a result of the compromise.

MSNBC correspondent David Shuster reported on Hardball later, on May 1, 2006, that MSNBC had learned “new information” about the potential consequences of the leaks: Intelligence sources say Valerie Wilson was part of an operation three years ago tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran. And the sources allege that when Mrs. Wilson’s cover was blown, the Administration’s ability to track Iran’s nuclear ambitions was damaged as well. The White House considers Iran to be one of America’s biggest threats.

No harm? You decide.

By Whateva

November 29, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this

Valerie Plame’s foreign contacts being now investigated by perhaps hostile, to them, governments also irrelevant it seems.

By Strictly Issues

November 29, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

but rather the impact to us all….

I appreciate your point, and tried to echo that same sentiment in my post by stating “From a categorical standpoint, we all agree it was wrong”.

However, at the same time, I don’t see any conclusive evidence contained within the links provided which proves whether she truly was a “covert agent” who was dangerously outed or not. Furthermore, I have seen no evidence that any ongoing or even past CIA efforts were compromised by Ms. Plame’s outing. Thus, though I find the action reprehensible from a standpoint of good principle, I still have to think “No harm, no foul” here.

Question for you: While Clinton was in office, I’ve heard several reports that he sold military secrets to China. If it is true, what would be your opinion of that?

By Newzwyre

November 29, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

Chuck said “the prosecuter in the Libby trial admitted that there was no underlying criminal charge (referring to the violation of the executive order). Further, there has been no discussion of prosecuting Armitage who supposedly “outed” Plame. If he had violated that order he would be in jail.”

the law is specific in that the person must knowingly disclose covert status. Since there was no conclusive evidence proving that either Libby or Armitage knew Plame was covert, there was no prosecutable crime.

By Strictly Issues

November 29, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this

You really want to decriminalize the outing of an agent?

Absolutely not, JokesOn. It was the wrong thing to do, period, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Still, some questions remain: What was her true status at the CIA? chuck’s link and Mara’s link seemed to provide different answers to that question. Also, since so many of the liberal posters here seem willing to forgive and forget any wrongs done by the Clintons, everything from the billing improprieties at the Rose Law Firm to selling military secrets to the Chinese. I’m just trying to put things in the same perspective for Bush that the Clinton supporters have done for him.

By Strictly Issues

November 29, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this

NewzWyre—Thanks for providing your input here. Sorry I thought you were Mara. Just wishful thinking, I guess.

In following your corroboration, I still keep running into a lack of hard facts regarding the fallout from the whole affair. Your latest quotes contain a lot of word like “potential” and “perhaps” and “anonymous sources say”. Considering the rabidity of the hatred toward Bush, I’d have to believe that if any hard evidence of negative fallout came to light, it would be front page news. Let me know when you have some hard evidence, ok? I do understand the political motivations behind the action, and disagree with them.

By Strictly Issues

November 29, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this

Changing subjects somewhat, does anyone have any opinions about the efforts to ban any form of corporal punishment for children in (I think) Massachusetts?

By Newzwyre

November 29, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this

from a previous post “As I mentioned, Ms. Wilson’s work was so sensitive that even now she is still prohibited from discussing many details of her work in public because of the continuing risks to CIA officials and assets in the field, and to the CIA’s ongoing work.”

I have seen no evidence that any ongoing or even past CIA efforts were compromised by Ms. Plame’s outing.

If missions, contacts, or agents were compromised, where would you expect to find such evidence? Did you expect the CIA to post their weaknesses and failures on the web? Or even admit to them if they happened?

By B

November 29, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

where would you expect to find such evidence?

Newzwyre—You’ve precented yourself well until this statement. Can you not see the Catch-22 contained within your standard of evidence here?? In the end, all you’ve got is innuendo and rumor, then.

In the words of my favorite W2W poster: You got nuthin’

By B

November 29, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this

Regarding the corporal punishment issue, I can definitely see a need for a middle ground, even though that would apparently be abhorrent to chuck.

Using chuck’s standard of truth, the Bible, it says unequivocally “Spare the rod and spoil the child”. As a stand-alone quote, the answer should be clear, right chuck?

However, I also remember from the trial of the Reverend Allen another quote: “Do not vex your children.” When you put the two together, the corporal punishment issue isn’t so clear cut.

Any opinions here, chuck? I know you would never support the state’s interference in parental matters, as I am reticent to agree with also.

By JokesOn

November 29, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

Question for you: While Clinton was in office, I’ve heard several reports that he sold military secrets to China. If it is true, what would be your opinion of that?

My opinion would be that he should be strung up if that was/is the case. I have no “loyalty” to people, even those I call friends if they commit crimes above a petty nature.

I’m just trying to put things in the same perspective for Bush that the Clinton supporters have done for him.

As your poker analogy illustrated, you cannot create the same perspective for each person.

In following your corroboration, I still keep running into a lack of hard facts regarding the fallout from the whole affair.

What does that matter, man? If I jimmy your front door and hang around your house, should I not be jailed even if there is no damage or stolen property? Or I set a bomb in it and it luckily was a dud?

By B

November 29, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

While at lunch with my friend who lost her son to suicide last week, we were able to explore some Bible topics which are of interest to me, and perhaps to some of the ladies here on W2W. Specifically, we tried to explore the Biblical idea of the man being the head of the household. I explained to my friend that this commandment seems to give the man more authority in a relationship, which doesn’t seem fair. She tried to initially counter by saying that under biblical edicts, the man is still supposed to consult with his wife, perhaps in the same way that a wise employer strongly considers the input of the employess before making any decisions if he or she expects to have any cooperation later on. My reply was that this still gives the man more authority in a relationship, and asked her to dig a little deeper.

By Anonymous

November 29, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

B: Since we guarantee “emergency treatment only” to everyone in the country, wouldn’t it be MUCH cheaper and more sensible to guarantee basic preventive care as well… before conditions reach the point of needing emergency treatment?

As you noted, we already have guaranteed healthcare for all—but only the very most expensive and least effective kind. This is not a smart policy.

By B

November 29, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

After some thought, my friend came back with some interesting observations. (She is a Jehovah’s Witness, so knows the Bible forward and backward).

(1) The Bible commands men to love their wives in the same way that Christ loved the church. In other words, the authority of men comes only throught the authority of Christ. When a man steps out of the realm of loving actions toward his wife, he has no authority then.

(2) While the Bible commands men to love their wives, it commands women to respect their husbands in return. We both thought it curious that the same commandments aren’t given to both men and women, as farness would suggest. In the end, we both decided that the differing commandments were more of a reflection of the natural differences between men and women rather than being some patriarchical scheme to justify poor treatment of women.

By JokesOn

November 29, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this

Changing subjects somewhat, does anyone have any opinions about the efforts to ban any form of corporal punishment for children in (I think) Massachusetts?

I personally have read volumes on the uselessness of spanking/hitting. Watch Nanny 911 and you will see that it is not needed.

More over, violence begets violence and even spanking a child is really a shortcut in lieu of what work should be(have been) done.

By Bruce

November 29, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this

IMO, if they do away with corporal punishment we will certainly have a bigger need for capital punishment real soon….

By B

November 29, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

wouldn’t it be more sensible to pay for preventative care, then?

Anonymous, all I can say is that what sounds good on paper (preventative health care, universal health coverage) often doesn’t work well in practice. When it comes to government run health care, we don’t have to speculate, however. When you look at the countries like Canada and GB which utiilize a “single payor” system, the results aren’t so good. Due to human nature, as soon as you make something “free”, and take away individual responsibility, all heck breaks out rapidly, and you end up having to ration health care. Need a hip operation? We’ll see you in about 10 months from now.

Here in the US we already have Medicare and the VA. Can you honestly look to either one of those programs and tell me with a straight face that you would trade a private health plan (or even self-insurance) for the nightmares that come from being within those two systems?

Once again, from a standpoint of compassion, i understand where you’re coming from. However, my years of experience as both an actuary and a health care provider lead me to different conclusions about what works than you.

By B

November 29, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this

Before addressing your point about corporal punishment, JokesOn, I wanted to clarify my position regarding crime and punishment.

Certainly I don’t think the punishment for a crime should depend too much on how successful the criminal was in carrying out the crime. E.g. the punishment for attempted murder should be the same as it is for murder. The failure of the criminal shouldn’t provide them a break.

At the same time, if you live in Saudi Arabia and steal a loaf of bread, your hand gets chooped off just the same as if you had stolen of of Fazil’s camels. In the Plame case, the actual crime committed apparently didn’t rise to the legal level of a “malicious outing” or more people would have gone to jail.

BTW, I think the reason I can live with your posts is that your not completely one-sided re: Republican politicos vs. Democratic politicos. I think some of the posters here on board harm their credibility by spouting the party line no matter what.

By B

November 29, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this

JokesOn and Bruce—It looks like you guys have very different views as to the effectiveness of corporal punishment. Since I don’t have any kids, I can only draw on my observations of watching my sisters raise their children. One of my older sisters spoils her son rotten. Though he is essentially a good, kid, I’ve argued with her many times that she’s not doing the kid any good by being so indulgent.

On the other hand, my younger sister was basiclly abusive to her daughter. Not so much physically, but verbally. It bothered me so much, that i confronted her about it several years ago and tried to get some other family members involved with the effort. Sadly, the whole thing backfired, and I ended up being the family pariah as a result.

By Bruce

November 29, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this

JokesOn, I don’t think I would pattern the discipline of my children based a television show. Have you ever seen one of the shows where her approach does not work? No, why because it is TV….

First of all the “Nanny” spends at only one day observing the children and parents behavior.

Second, she is a stranger in that house. How many of you out there notice a different behavior patten in your children when a stranger corrects them. Her presents confuses the children. They cannot figure out why Mom and Dad are allowing this stranger to discipline them when they have been taught all their lives to STAY AWAY FROM STRANGERS. This confusion brings on fear and the kids get worse before they get better.

Third, most times it is the PARENTS that need the change before the kids change.

Removing, by law, a time proven, effective method of correcting bad behavior is just not going to work.

I have often wondered how those same children act 6 weeks after Nanny is gone and they know she isn’t coming back.

Nanny 911 is a temporary fix at best. Yes it will keep with some but I bet for the most part things go back to “normal” once Nanny is gone for awhile. But it makes for good TV and their ratings…..

By Whateva

November 29, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this

the actual crime committed apparently didn’t rise to the legal level of a “malicious outing” or more people would have gone to jail.

When basic criminals are running the government, that is a surprise, that no one went to jail?

And don’t bring up Scooter Libby, he was convicted and sentenced for PERJURY, not the outing.

By B

November 29, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this

Hey Whateva—Can you show me you’re not completely biased by commenting on Bill Clinton’s pardon of some very despicable people on the way out of office, who coincidentally were all big financial contributors??

By JokesOn

November 29, 2007 5:21 PM | Link to this

One of my older sisters spoils her son rotten.

I did not think we were talking about spoiling a child, but physical punishment for acting inappropriate. I think people swing too far either way in most cases as you pointed out.

No, why because it is TV

I never said the show was necessarily the end-all be-all, but it does illustrate techniques that are many years old and studied.

You have any idea where their style comes from? Years of psychological and family studies that were enacted to find out why your old style did not work.

Third, most times it is the PARENTS that need the change before the kids change. Absolutely agree.

Removing, by law, a time proven, effective method of correcting bad behavior is just not going to work.

I did not mean to allude that law should uphold it, just that I do not agree with it.

time proven, effective method of correcting bad behavior That is untrue. Most problem kids are unaffected by spanking after the first couple times and continue on their troubled path. The violence will, in many cases, instill more anger in the child.

I generally agree with attachment parenting as a style. Like all real solutions, it is life long and must be a lifestyle - not a quick fix.

Nearly all the parents I know that applies spanking/hitting do not do their job the other 99% of the time.

By No name please...

November 29, 2007 5:24 PM | Link to this

If Scooter Libby didn’t do anything wrong, and if there was no need to lie to investigators, as some have presumed, to cover up wrongdoings of Cheney, Bush and Rove, then why did he lie?

Also, I’m having a little trouble remembering. Did Bush, Cheney, or Rove testify under oath in this matter? You know, the standard, put your hand on the bible and swear to God to tell the truth, and then answer questions? (A little ritual they skipped when finally, after much pressure, answering questions for the 9-11 Commission like everyone else.) Does anyone else remember? What is it about the worlds “I swear to tell the truth so help me God” that you find so offensive? Just curious.

By chuck

November 30, 2007 8:45 AM | Link to this

NNP,

Bottom line, IF HE DID, Libby should not have lied to the Grand Jury. ANYBODY that does that deserves to be prosecuted. From what I have read, it isn’t a slam dunk that he did lie. People tend to remember things in thepast in a way that best fits their own beliefs. He very well could have not remembered the converstions FROM 2 YEARS EARLIER exactly the way someone else did. Can you remember exact words from conversations YOU HAD 2 years ago?

The problem that I have is that the prosecutor, in what I think was a politically motivated process, continued to press the issue EVEN AFTER HE KNEW THAT THERE WAS NO CRIME COMMITTED. To me this was a definite case of prosecutorial misconduct. Armitage, who was anti-war by the way, said that the prosecutor ordered him not to come forward and admit that he was the source for Novak’s column in public. This was AFTER it was determined that he had broken no laws. He then continued trying to get members of the Bush administration before the grand jury just to see if he could catch any of them. Libby is nothing more than a “pound-of-flesh” in this whole thing. Something that the prosecutor and the democrats can use POLITICALLY. That’s why the whole thing stinks, and Bush was right to pardon him if for no other reason than that.

By chuck

November 30, 2007 8:53 AM | Link to this

So, do we still have joke Friday around here? Here’s one for you. Some of them are clever.

The American Kennel club has decided to recognize these new breeds of Dogs that are the result of cross breeding

Collie + Lhaso Apso: Collapso, a dog that folds up for easy transport.

Spitz + Chow Chow: Spitz-Chow, a dog that throws up alot.

Bloodhound + Borzoi: Bloody Bore, a dog that’s not much fun.

Pointer + Setter: Poinsetter, a traditional Christmas pet.

Kerry Blue Terrier + Skye Terrier: Blue Skye, a dog for visionaries.

Pekingese + Lhaso Apso: Peekasso, an abstract dog.

Labrador Retriever + Curly Coated Retriever: Lab Coat Retriever, the choice of research scientists.

Newfoundland + Basset Hound: Newfound Asset Hound, a dog for financial advisers.

Terrier + Bulldog: Terribull, a dog that makes awful mistakes.

Bloodhound + Labrador: Blabrador, a dog that barks incessantly.

Malamute + Pointer: Moot Point, owned by… oh, well, it doesn’t matter anyway.

Collie + Malamute: Commute, a dog that travels to work.

Deerhound + Terrier: Derriere, a dog that’s true to the end.

By buy viagra cheap

November 30, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this

Buy viagra here: http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-cheap/ >buy viagra cheap Best amazing prices 24x7 friendly support 4 viagra pills absolutely FOR FREE

By Newzwyre

November 30, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this

B wrote “In the words of my favorite W2W poster: You got nuthin’”

The CIA admits she was covert and that her work was classified. They, by law, can neither confirm nor deny any activities she may have been involved so documenting any damage done would be problematic. If the answer to the question “where would you expect to find such evidence” is “only in classified CIA files” (as it seems to be), then providing you with iron-clad proof of harm is more than problematic, it is impossible.

But - when the Director of the CIA swears that she was covert, she did work undercover, and that her contacts have been compromised (disrupting information flows) I tend to believe him.

I do not know, as a fact, that all is as it appears but the information that I have read while I researched it seems to support the lefts version of events. Without access to those CIA records, there’s no way to say “yes” or “no” beyond a shadow of a doubt.

By Bruce

November 30, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this

“You have any idea where their style comes from? Years of psychological and family studies that were enacted to find out why your old style did not work.”

But I have years of family study too. In my own family and the “rod” works wonders. I am not saying I spank my children for every little thing they do. There are other forms of punishment that are as effective. My punishment style is determined by the severity of the offense. Some I have seen used on Nanny 911.

Spanking, beating, wopping, or whatever people wish to call it is not necessarily “BAD” or ineffective, it’s use, or should I say MISuse, is what causes more problems. Used in an appropriate manner for an appropriate reason, spanking is an effective tool to discourage bad behavior.

JokesOn I think we have some common ground on this issue but I will just have to go to jail before I allow my children to be “bad” because I am affraid of what the law will do to me for spanking them. I know my kids and they know me. Most times all I have to do is threaten them with a spanking and the behavior changes for the better. I give credit to spanking them in the past and they knowing what its like. I haven’t had to spank either of my kids in sometime now but THEY KNOW I WILL IF I HAVE TO.

But that’s my kids not everyone elses.

By Monica

November 30, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

Good morning everyone! I hope y’all had a great week. Speaking of patriotism, I just wanted to share something that I thought was cool.

Last night, our town had a Christmas parade. You know which floats got the most applause? It wasn’t Santa Claus, the local bands, or the cute little kids from the Karate school. It was the Vietnem Veteran float, and the USMC float.

By JokesOn

November 30, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this

JokesOn I think we have some common ground on this issue Absolutely. I do not think that it is excessive to spank, just unneeded because there are just as effective alternatives. I do not condemn anyone purely for spanking, but one should be informed on discipline and their options.

but I will just have to go to jail before I allow my children to be “bad” because I am afraid of what the law will do to me for spanking them.

Once again I do not think it should be legislated. Yet, if it was hypothetically made policy, your statement here makes it sound as though the only tool in controlling your children would be removed, which I think we can agree, is not the case.

Food for thought: 100+ countries now have laws against physical punishment. There are up to date studies showing these children are better off for it. Children that are spanked have a much higher rate of hitting others, most importantly their wives/husbands in later life. They also are more prone to hit others that are smaller than them and use violence as a way to solve arguments.

IF this is conclusively proven, would you change your style freely?

By The Other Jack

November 30, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

Looks like I missed out on some … er … really exciting discussion yesterday.

I want to set the record straight. JokesOn said that he thought that Chuck and myself are the same person. Damn, you caught me. In fact, there is only one conservative in the entire world and I am him. I just keep voting over and over again.

But tell the truth, I am also JokesOn. You see: there is really only one person on the planet and I am him.

By chuck

November 30, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

IF this is conclusively proven, would you change your style freely?

This is the problem with “studies” and how they are used by the ill-informed. In ANY study in the Social Sciences the BEST you can do is establish a correlational relationship. Social Science studies CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING.

There are up to date studies showing these children are better off for it.

Please show me just one study that “SHOWS” that children are better for it. Have they done longitudinal studies that show that fewer of these “non-spanked” kids are more successful in business, or better in relationships, or make more money or are better parents? Define “better for it” for us, please. Did the studies make a distinction between spanking in a passionless, anger-free way with a clear message of love both before and after and BEATING children?

Also, did these studies control for ses, home authority structure, presence of both parents, etc? What about other factors such as peer groups, support structure in the family and community, church attendance, school quality?

By More Friday Jokes

November 30, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

These are SOOOOOO funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Republicans do something wrong, it didn’t really happen. It’s a lie spread by the Democraps because they are so crappy. (Get it? Crappy?)

If the Democraps do something wrong — what do you mean IF?

Bush was right when he — HEY, he’s ALWAYS right. He’s never been wrong! Ever.

Democraps who served in the military during wartime were traitors who only got wounded so they could run for President someday.

Republicans who did not serve in the military during wartime are heros, senators, and presidents. (Reelect Chambliss, a real Georgia hero!)

Everything that’s wrong with America is the fault of Al Gore or one of the Clintons. Everything else that’s wrong with America is the fault of any moron who doesn’t know that.

Thirteen year old Chelsea Clinton was the “White House Dog!” (Credit Rush Limbaugh for that priceless gem. What’s funnier than humiliating a child in public? LMAO)

Extra marital sex in the White House dishonors our nation.

Gay male internet escorts who pose as journalists under assumed names (like Jeff Gannon) and have unlimited access to the White House on more than 200 occasions when there were no press conferences, ALWAYS COME IN THE BACK DOOR! (ROFL)

If Cheney denies it ever happened, you better deny it ever happened.

Cheney never wet his bed as a child. The bed wet itself out of fear.

Prounouncing the President’s name as “Dumbya” or “Chimpy” should be a capital offense.

Barak Hussein Obama Bin Laden!! (ROFLMAO)

Hitler was a fascist with a ginormous military industrial complex, but Hitlary is a socialist and much scarier!

Shrillary. (LOL!)

Ike was only kidding when he warned us about the military industrial complex. If he had known the Clintoooons were coming, he would have nuked the carbon out of there embryos.

Everything Democraps say is politicaly motivated. Everything Republicans do comes from there deep belief in God and America. It’s about trust, stupid.

Duke Cunningham was framed. He only confessed after a Democrap put the date rape drug in his communion grape juice.

How do you get out of trouble when you are caughte being an traitor? Hop on your Scooter and ride it out!

Science. (LOL! LOL! ROFL!)

By JokesOn

November 30, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

TOJ,

JokesOn said that he thought that Chuck and myself are the same person.

Re-post exactly what I posted. I dare you to disprove yourself…

Chuck,

If you read my posts, I personally do not advocate spanking, but have no say in how you beat…um treat your kids. Are you saying that I should not be able to raise my kids how I want?

I care enough to learn from studies. And if they prove that the probability is much higher for antisocial behavior if spanked, I would apply that rigorously.

Cut/Paste just for you:

Durrant, Joan E. (2000). “Trends in Youth Crime and Well-Being Since the Abolition of Corporal Punishment in Sweden”, Youth and Society. Youth and Society, Volume 31, 437-455.

Gershoff, Elizabeth (2002) “Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review”, Psychological Bulletin 2002. Vol. 128, No. 4 539-579. American Psychological Association.

Greven, Philip. (1992). Spare the Rod: The religious roots of punishment and the psychological impact of physical abuse. Vintage Books.

Miller, Alice. (1990) For your own good: Hidden cruelty in child-rearing and roots of violence. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, LLC.

Straus, M.A., Sugarman, D.B., & Giles-Sims (1997). “Corporal punishment by parents and subsequent antisocial behavior in children”. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 155, 761-767.

Straus, M.A., & Gelles, R.J. (Eds.). (1990) “Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptions to violence in 8,145 families”. New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions.

Straus, M.A. (1994). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families. San Francisco, CA: New Lexington Press.

Strassberg, Z., Dodge, K.A., Pettit, G.S., & Bates, J.E. (1994). “Spanking in families and subsequent aggressive behavior toward peers by kindergarten students”. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 445-461.

By JokesOn

November 30, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Ill do it for you dimwit:

And on the subject of talking to yourself on the blog, I would not be one bit surprised if you and TOJ are the same person. The same proof exists that you apply to dog: You two show up at the same time and you cheer each other on.

I will explain slowly for you. It is called sarcasm…

Given the simple two item criteria chuck based his belief that Dog was posting to himself, you two could just as likely be the same person also.

Not too convincing, huh? Kind of stupid to even bring up?

So you all have spelling errors on me (woohoo!). Your total inability to grasp simple logic, or ability to embrace denial to further your hate (which ever), is just a little (hint - sarcasm again) retarded.

By chuck

November 30, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Durrant, Joan E. (Has an advocacy site dedicated to ending corporal punishment) Could not find an online copy of the study, just the refence in another article. Can’t tell whether or not the methodology was sound without reading the study. Neither can you.

Gershoff, Elizabeth (2002) This researcher gave us the real reason for liberals wanting a ban on corporal punishment:

Her study showed that Males who are spanked as children are more likely to become CONSERVATIVES.

Greven, Philip. (1992). This is a book and not necessarily a study. I don’t know how you might have gotten any kind of conclusion on it since I could not even find a synopsis or blurb on it ANYWHERE online.

Straus, M.A., Sugarman, D.B., & Giles-Sims (1997). This one is also not available online as a study. I would go on with this little charade, but it is obvious you did not read any of these studies. You got them as a list of references from the ONE ARTICLE that you did read that you copied liberally from in your post. Notice the web address. Think they may have a bias? Wat you have done is prove my earlier point about “studies” in the hand of the uninformed. Nice try though.

www.stophitting.com/disathome/factsAndFiction.php

By B

November 30, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

Well, so much for blog unity and coming together…. ; > }

By chuck

November 30, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

While your writing style is DEFINITELY simple and you CONTENT is simple, It is assuredly NOT LOGIC.

By AGFNRP

November 30, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

JokesOn,

Just a few quick points about spanking: 1. It is a tool for discipline. 2. It is not the only tool. 3. It IS effective if it is used consistently to punish an outlined set of behaviors that the child knows about IN ADVANCE. The child should never wonder “if I do this will I get a spanking?” - he should already know the answer to that question. 4. It cannot be done out of anger. 5. It is most effective when children are younger. There are much better disciplinary methods when the children are older.

Even if I read the above books, they would have no more impact on me than a book by Dr. Dobson would have on you. You and I have have already made up our minds on this area. We have both done extensive research - we have just come up with different conclusions.

Just curious - do you have kids? If you do and they are older, I am interested in what techniques you use. Two of my children are past the spanking stage. We use a variety of techniques to discipline them, but I am always on the lookout for new and creative ways.

By Jeff Gannon

November 30, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Males who are spanked are more likely to be CONSERVATIVES.

I believe this as well. I apologize to the American people for George Bush’s naughty, naughty, non-conservavite fiscal policies, and his decision to violate traditional conservative thought to become the world’s policeman and rip the Consitituion into little pieces.

You see, he wants me to come back there…..

By Mirror, Mirror, On the Wall

November 30, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

More Friday Jokes—What is your opinion of the theory that people typically criticize in others the qualities they don’t like about themselves?

Also, in your blogging history, how many times have you publicly agreed with Shaunti? Agreed with any criticism of Bill Clinton?

By AGFNPR

November 30, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Chuck,

My above question to JokesOn about discipline for older children - I would certainly like your input (or anyone else that may have ideas).

By Bruce

November 30, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

“Food for thought: 100+ countries now have laws against physical punishment. There are up to date studies showing these children are better off for it.” In what way are they better?

“Children that are spanked have a much higher rate of hitting others, most importantly their wives/husbands in later life.”

So throughout history most violence can be blamed on a person being spanked when they were a kid? I don’t buy that one and neither should anyone else.

“They also are more prone to hit others that are smaller than them and use violence as a way to solve arguments.”

Again the biggest have always controlled the smallest. A simple study of the history of mankind proves that. It has nothing to do with being spanked as a kid.

IF this is conclusively proven, would you change your style freely?

No! Simply because it works for my family. It’s not abused and we are careful to explain why. But I do not think it can be conclusively proven.

I am not saying corporal punishment works for every child, because every child is different. Even in my own family. My oldest could be made to behave by taking the phone away. My middle one just needs a strong word spoken and of course the look of death. My baby on the other hand, shes a tough nut and sometimes a good spanking speaks louder than anything else. But all three know that I will only allow so much disobentience before I get physical. That alone deters alot.

Look the main problem I have with these kinds of studies are they cannot say for certain that their OPINION of the situtation is what is best for everyone. Not even in the same family.

By B

November 30, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

4. It cannot be done out of anger

I think you put your finger on the pulse of the issue, AGFNPR. The bottom line is that there must be a basic trust of the parents by the child which must never be violated. In retrospect of my own situation as a child, I didn’t really have that trust. Of course, I have no right to blame my current character deficiencies on anything that happened a long time ago, but I don’t think it was a plus.

By B

November 30, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

I may be going out on a limb here, but I wouldn’t guess chuck to be a physical abuser of his children, JokesOn. I think his theology is crazy, and his opinion regarding his own intellectual prowess are inflated to the point of dogmatism, but I’m going to put the bankroll on chuck being a caring parent.

Don’t let me down on this one, chuck. Please.

By BlogBS

November 30, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

Mirror, Mirror, On the Wall

More But Clinton Did It, But Clinton Did it, But Clinton Did It, But Clinton Did It, But Clinton Did it, But Clinton Did It, But Clinton Did It, But Clinton Did it, But Clinton Did It, But Clinton Did It, But Clinton Did it, But Clinton Did It ?

By JokesOn

November 30, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

We have both done extensive research - we have just come up with different conclusions.

See, that is the kind of response that I respect. I respect your position and you respect mine.

Just curious - do you have kids? If you do and they are older, I am interested in what techniques you use. Two of my children are past the spanking stage. We use a variety of techniques to discipline them, but I am always on the lookout for new and creative ways.

There are the typical types like time out, but what I found works the absolute best is to find what their currency is (skate boarding for one of my kids, video games for our 2nd, and cell phone for our oldest). After you find what is valuable to them, that is removed for punishment. The hitch is that if you do not raise them to care about things/activities you may well be on the wrong path already.

We are heavy into modeling behavior: If you do not want your kids interrupting you on the phone, you do not perform those same actions etc. We also have always been VERY clear what their “jobs” are - if in school: grades and usual chores (with allowances that diminishes relative to work skipped out on).

By that token (modeling), you cannot hit another including them. Kids understand the irony of spanking a kid for hitting a kid on a playground for example.

Chuck,

While your writing style is DEFINITELY simple and you CONTENT is simple, It is assuredly NOT LOGIC. OK dinosaur-man.

By B

November 30, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

I think one way that I really agree with Christianity is in the concept advanced by my friend: Any human authority we have must come from a place of love, by definition. Once we cross that line into acting out of anger, we’re out there on our own with only Satan to back us.

By Mirror, Mirror, On the Wall

November 30, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

Blog BS—You’re irrational repetition of the same accusation just tipped your hand.

By chuck

November 30, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

AGFNPR, there is no magic formula. We spanked ours when they were young. I think my son’s last spanking was when he was about 12, my daughter was probably about 9, so it has been awhile. Contrary to jokeson’s assertion, neither of them has ever been in a fight, both are well adjusted socially. My son is a conservative…rocker (plays in a progrock band), is a junior in college at 19 and has kept his hope scholarship all the way to this point. He attends church at a different one from the rest of us (the one that we used to go to) and plays guitar in the praise band and we never have to prod him to go. He gets up on his own and goes every Sunday. My daughter is a straight A student in HS and is a joy to be around. She’s the one that keeps her friends from doing stupid things. In fact her friends’ parents use us as their guide for whether or not (one told me that every time she asks to do something the parent asks her if MY DAUGHTER is allowed to do it. If not she can’t do it.)

We have always tried to be consistent and fair. (Almost) Every time we spanked our children we sat them down, told them we loved them and explained why they were getting a spanking.

We don’t have to do too much in the discipline area now. It’s like my Dad used to tell me. Put in the work early and you can relax a little more later. I use that idea in my classroom also. I set forth the expectations at the beginning of the year and enforce them consistently and fairly. By this time of the year, my classroom runs itself. It is much better in that regard this year than last year. It just depends from year-to-year. Some groups take more work than others.

When I do have to discipline my kids at home, it is usually by taking something away. When my son had his third minor accident, I took his car away for a month except for school and church. He has not had any further incidents and seems to be much more careful now as a driver. All I have to do to my daughter is to show a little disapproval. She’s the easier of the 2. I attribute the success we have with our kids to consistency and fairness.

By Mirror, Mirror, On the Wall

November 30, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

You may be interested to know that I did attend marriage counseling, BlogBS. The therapist’s final diagnosis was that I was guilty of “Impression Management”, not spousal abuse, or even schizophrenia.

At any rate, I did learn one important thing from counseling. When people don’t think they are being heard, they typically begin to repeat themselves, shouting louder and louder until they get some acknowledgement. So you know, I have heard all the terrible things you have said about me, and sadly, many of your accusations are true (though not all of them).

By B

November 30, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

I was always afraid to have children lest I repeat the patterns I saw growing up.

By chuck

November 30, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

AGFNPR, also, thinking back on when they were smaller, one thing that we made sure of was clarity of expectations. The rules didn’t change at our house. It din’t matter if little johnny could do it. If we had established it as a rule, it remained a rule in spite of pressure from others. The other thing is that we did not delay discipline. It didn’t matter if were tired or in a hurry, we always took care of discipline right away. There was also no “wait til your father gets home”. My wife and I tried to always present a united front. If she disciplined them for something, I would not spank them again when I got home, but I would sit down and talk to them to see if they had learned what they needed to learn from the experience.

By chuck

November 30, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

NOT schizophrenia? I’m shocked. Just kidding B.

BTW, what is up with all of the measured responses? You seem to be calming down somewhat. I do wish you would choose ONE STINKING NAME and stick to it though.

NNP girl, I’m really starting to worry about you. You appear to be getting more and more irrational. Anything we can do to help?

By B

November 30, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

Good answers, chuck. Thaks for not letting me down abuot the abuse issue. Of course, I see that you couldn’t resist putting yourself on a pedestal in the process, but I’ll let you slide this time.

By Mirror, Mirror, On the Wall

November 30, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

So what is the source of your insecurity, chuck? Got a little wally?

By Mirror, Mirror, On the Wall

November 30, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

I would stick with one stinking name, but then it would be too easy for people to ignore me.

I’d like to believe things are getting better. Unfortunately, I’m still obsessed with NNP. What is wrong with me? She has made her feelings clear.

By Newzwyre

November 30, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

On Oct. 23, the day of FEMA’s now infamous phony news conference, the agency’s former external affairs chief, Pat Philbin, announced plans to promote a number of people in the shop as part of an effort to build a “new FEMA.”

Cindy Taylor, deputy director of public affairs, was to become head of a new Private Sector Office, Philbin said in his e-mail to staff members. And Mike Widomski would move up to replace Taylor as deputy director of public affairs.

Loop Fans might recall that both of them, posing as reporters, asked questions of acting Deputy Administrator Harvey Johnson. After our item, and an investigation of what Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called “one of the dumbest and most inappropriate things I’ve seen since I’ve been in government,” we’re happy to announce that Taylor and Widomski appear to have been disciplined, FEMA-style.

They’ve received the promotions they were in line to get. So, according to the External Affairs Weekly report for this week, Taylor is director of the Private Sector Division, and Widomski is deputy director of public affairs.

Heck of a job

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/29/AR2007112902223.html

By Mirror, Mirror, On the Wall

November 30, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

I think I lost confidence in myself a few years back when I started taking my stresses out on my GF. Nothing physical, but I unleashed some very hurtful words to her. After she finally dumped me, I began to doubt that I actually was coming from a good place. Somehow that opened the door for some really bad spirits to take a hold of me.

By B

November 30, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

Well, I guess sanity is a better place to be, even if it is kind of boring.

You guys are saints to have put up with me. Thanks for not taking any greater revenge than calling me out on the blog. I’m sure I deserved worse.

I’ll do all I can to stick with the issues AMAP, and not get involved with all these emotional triggers.

By B

November 30, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

Well, back to the issues. I don’t see any consensus forming regarding the Plame affair. NNP has made an excellent point that even despite hard evidence, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. Cheney, et. al. deserve scorn for not taking an oath and coming clean. Though the legal fallout was small, it is a terrible black eye for the Bush Admin.

By B

November 30, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

Bill O’Reilly attempted to make some political hay last night regarding the CNN gaffe of presenting a Hillary operative as a mere “concerned citizen” during the CNN/YouTube Republican debate.

Also mentioned was Scott McClelland and his upcoming book regarding the Plame incident. Apparently, his publisher is leaking statements implying that they have firm evidence that Bush, Cheney, et. al. knowingly lied and ordered others to lie about what really went down. Unfortunately, McClelland himself won’t clear the air one way or another, possibly in an attempt to bolster his book sales. O’Reilly’s point was that this is too big of an accusation to let smolder until next year. He challenged McClelland to “man-up” about what he knows.

By AGFNPR

November 30, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this

Chuck and JokesOn -

Thanks. My wife and I do many of the same things - we find out what they REALLY like, and take those things away from them as punishment.

Chuck - I really respect you for taking away your son’s car. Most parents won’t do this because it is inconvienent for THEM to take away the child’s driving privleges. Parenting is tough - you have to be a LOVING BUT TOUGH parent.

JokesOn - we are big into modeling behavior as well. I do not want my children to lie. I would therefore never ask them to lie for me. For instance, if someone calls that I don’t want to talk to, I would never have my child lie to the person and tell them I am unavailable.

One of my proudest moments as a parent came when we were on vacation years ago in Florida at one of the theme parks. My oldest daughter was picked out of a large crowd of parents and kids to compete in some contest. The game leader (who was wired for sound so that everone could hear his questions and my daughter’s responses) asked my daughter how old she was. She replied “seven”. Then he asked “did your mom and dad lie at the park entrance and tell them you were younger so that they could get a discount?”. She said “uh-uh” while shaking her head. My daughter was very small for her age and looked much younger than seven. We could have done that - but we never would, and SHE knew we never would.

But if you lie and your kids see you lying - well don’t be surprised when they lie to you.

By Bruce

November 30, 2007 1:21 PM | Link to this

I have to leave for the day, everyone please have a great weekend and if you say a soldier shake their hand and thank them for all they do.

By B

November 30, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

As for a consensus forming regarding the original topic, patriotism, I don’t see that happening either, unfortunately.

Admittedly, I jumped on the nationalism band-wagon to some degree following 9/11, though I didn’t put a “Towel on head, Rocket up A*” sticker on my car. Though I still appreciate the concept of shaking things up a little in the Middle East, a 6 year war in Iraq wasn’t particularly what I had in mind, though I am still glad on a personal basis to see hussein out of power. I don’t care if we got him in office in the first place or not, he had to go.

By Monica

November 30, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

AGFNPR,

I don’t have older kids, but I have heard of great ideas from my students’ parents: One of my students gets to drive the car one day of the week for every A on his report card. Another student had everything taken away (cell phone, video games, television) until his grades came up. I had one parent whose son was caught with pot. He lost his room: he had to sleep on a matress on the floor of his parents’ bedroom while he completed his drug awareness course that was required as part of his probation. He wasn’t allowed to go anywhere without a parent. One mother took the door off of her son’s room. Another parent accompanied her daughter to school and sat with her in all of her classes after she got in trouble at school - talk about a deterrent!

I have two younger children, and we spank as needed. Our older one is 6 and has realized that acting out has consequences. Our 4 year old has a harder time learning this one! We also use alternate forms of punishment, such as taking away certain toys or time-out. I tried the “Ugly Rug,” an idea from Super Nanny, but when I would leave the living room and go into the kitchen, my son would move the rug where he wanted and then sit back down!

I grew up with spankings, and I have no history of violence or aggression toward peers in school, and I don’t hit my husband. My older son is praised by his teachers as being kind and helping his classmates, rather than showing aggression. My younger son acts much better in pre-school and Sunday School than he does with us! What does that mean?

By B

November 30, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

Kudos for the “honesty always” policy, AGFNPR. That’s a beautiful example for your kids.

By Monica's Hubby

November 30, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

I don’t hit my husband

Thanks, dear.

By B

November 30, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

Well, I guess I better run for the week also.

It’s encouraging to know that there are a lot of good parents on the W2W board. God bless you!

By chuck

November 30, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

Not much likelihood of us ever coming to consensu on this board. Like most in politics, the one’s who really care on both sides are not going to come to consensus because that would mean compromising CORE BELIEFS. I think we all have the same aspirations for America, however we have vastly different ideas about how we can get there.

By chuck

November 30, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

My younger son acts much better in pre-school and Sunday School than he does with us! What does that mean?

I think it means that he learned the most valuable lesson of all Monica. If you are going to misbehave it better be at home.

By B

November 30, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this

that would mean compromising core beliefs

You have echoed this sentiment many times, and have drawn a lot of fire for it, chuck. One one hand, I appreciate your respect for people who take their beliefs seriously. At the same time, it is my experience that “core beliefs” are never singular, and shouldn’t be considered as such. To illustrate, my best friend believes so strongly in the principle of “freedom of the individual” that he sees no problem with the legal dissemination of assault rifles, even automatic fire weapons. When I try to introduce the idea of common-sense safety issues, the yin to his yang, he tries to wave the counterprinciples off with quips like “Freedom isn’t free” and the like. So, while you may admire his steadfast support for freedom at all costs, I thik he’s being unreasonable to not consider the proverbial “other side of the coin”.

By B

November 30, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

I was a little discouraged to see that John McCain isn’t even in the top 3 in the latest opinion poll following the CNN/YouTube debate. Fox News assembled some type of “focus group” to watch the debates, and they roundly booed McCain for his “soft stance” on illegal immigration, and even scorned his rejection of waterboarding. Per the immigration issue, McCain tried to advance the idea that these are human beings, God’s children just like us, so that we need to treat them with dignity and respect, whatever final solution to the immigration problem is adopted.

Mitt Romney seems to me to embody all that is bad about Bush. When asked about his feelings toward specific mistreatment of prisoners, he would only cryptically say that he wants to keep all options on the table. At this point in history, I’m not buying that argument. We need a leader who has compassion for all peoples.

By chuck

November 30, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

I don’t see why you would have a problem with his view. There is nothing inherently wrong with a citizen of the United States exercising his Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The assault weapons ban was just a political-feel-good measure designed to allow liberals believe they had done something to quell gun violence. Almost any firearm can be modified to fire as an automatic. I’ve seen articles in this paper about how easy it is to do so. The ban also didn’t stop the buying and selling of automatic rifles that were already here. I could go right now and buy an “assault weapon” if I had the desire and the money to do so. They haven’t been confiscated. This was nothing more than another political scam.

By B

November 30, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this

Unless the Repugs come up with a good candidate, Hillary may win by default. If that happens, I hope she will borrow her husband’s “playbook” and not try to rock the boat too much with her visions of reinventing government from the top down.

One idea I definitely disagree with is the equation of capital investments to earned wages, in terms of taxes paid. Our whole economic system depends on people who are willing to risk their own personal capital to start a new business. Doing so exposes the person to a lot of risk, since around 70% of all new businesses eventually fail. As such, it is too much of a burden to have to pay taxes at the same rate as wage-earners who risk nothing, IMO.

By B

November 30, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

right to keep and bear arms

IMO, one of the biggest sticking points in understanding the Second Amendment comes from the difficulty in clearly defining the meaning of the word “arms”. When the Constitution was written, firearms were all single shot, so that “arms” could only refer to the technology of the day. Because technology has changed, so has the meaning of the word “arms”. Would you have a problem with your neighbors stockpiling nuclear “arms”?

Per assault rifles, I had a roommate in college who thought it was macho to purchase a Chinese-made AK-47 knockoff. No problem until he got drunk one night and fired it from our balcony. For months, I kept waiting for the cops to bust down our door, but he got away with it. After he sobered up the next day, he fortunately dropped any politics and got rid of the damn thing right away.

By chuck

November 30, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

Well it’s been a great week everybody. Have a good one.

By buy viagra cheap

November 30, 2007 6:21 PM | Link to this

Buy viagra here: http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-cheap/ >buy viagra cheap Best amazing prices 24x7 friendly support 4 viagra pills absolutely FOR FREE

http://scripts.mit.edu/~bgsa/phpBB/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=301 >buy viagra cheap buy viagra cheap

By buy viagra cheap

December 1, 2007 2:34 AM | Link to this

Buy viagra here: http://eportfolio.uoregon.edu/Members/acoman/buy-viagra-cheap/ >buy viagra cheap Best amazing prices 24x7 friendly support 4 viagra pills absolutely FOR FREE

http://scripts.mit.edu/~bgsa/phpBB/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=301 >buy viagra cheap buy viagra cheap

By generic drug for zocor

December 1, 2007 3:52 AM | Link to this

normal range pulse pressure pregnancy what are the symptoms of low hypotension

By crestor zocor

December 1, 2007 4:28 AM | Link to this

what is normal arterial tension for humans pediatric arterial tension norms