Woman to Woman

By Do your job, AJC

April 14, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this

Please. No one post here until the lazy asses at the AJC clean up this spam.

By Monica

April 14, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

Test, Test, Testing

Can I actuallly post today? I can’t believe that at 12:21, there are no posts from real people.

By Monica

April 14, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this

Well, since it seems that I can post…

My response will surprise all of you on this one!

I don’t think that breathalyzer tests should be mandatory. School officials should hire a resource officer for events who can test those displaying behavior that would indicate being under the influence, and students should be aware of this fact. However, if teenagers had to take a breath test to go to a school event, they just wouldn’t go.

School officials all too often are seen in a negative light - out to “get kids” instead of really caring about them - and this mandate would only perpetuate that perception.

By chuck

April 14, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this

Hey Monica. I agree with SOME of what you say, but I want to take issue with something that Andrea said:

What a message we’re giving young people — checking them all for intoxication in one scenario, handing over drinks in another. If we really want to make sure the kids are alright, let’s skip both over reaction and collusion, opting instead for respectful limit-setting. After all, we’re the adults here, right?

At best this statement is laughable. It isn’t the school that is “handing over drinks”, it is a small group of adults who are breaking the LAW and abetting students to do the same. As a society we need to make it clear that these people are indeed breaking the law. In fact, I would make it a requirement that students expelled for drinking or possessing alcohol divulge the illegal source BEFORE they can return to school. A few high profile prosecutions accompanied by the loss of a liquor license would go a long way in stemming the growth of alcohol abuse among teens.

Back to what you said Monica. I don’t think that schools should necessarily check EVERY student, but it should surely be an option for officials to check students who show signs of having used alcohol. At this point I can tell you that at least 30% of my 8th graders have experimented with alcohol according to an anonymous survey done through the guidance department. That is way too high and we ought to do whatever we can to stop the illegal use of alcohol among teens.

By kimberly

April 14, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I agree with you that kids and alcohol shouldn’t mix, but think you misinterpreted Andrea’s statement. I don’t think she was accusing schools of handing over drinks, but was speaking generally in terms of adults supervising and setting an example for kids. I don’t think her statement was “laughable,” but rather intended to encourage grown-ups to be grown-ups and set limits. I agree that if everyone were tested at school functions, most kids would simply choose not to attend. That being said, raising teenagers safely into adulthood is one of the most challenging (and scary) things we’ll ever do. Anyone on either side of the aisle who thinks they can glibly cover all the bases with a few brief, black & white mandates is indulging in some serious wishful thinking. Life is complicated.

(BTW, did anyone else experience the uber-creepiness of returning from SB vacation to find someone has been arguing with them on a blog in their absence? Like, EWWWW.)

By chuck

April 14, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, there is no 100% solution to any societal problem…at least not that we can all agree on. That said, What I took issue with is that Andrea implied that we are sending kids mixed messages. The only way that can be true is if the people saying one thing are DOING another. She may not have stated that schools were doing that, but the implication is there. She also implied that SOME alcohol for teens is okay when she spoke of “limit setting”.

My question to you ANDREA, and I hope you will answer me on this, “What limit would you place for the use of alcohol by underage students at a SCHOOL FUNCTION?”

My answer of course would be ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, but that’s just me.

One other factor that should be considered here is liability. If a school official sees a student is acting as if they are impaired, don’t they have an OBLIGATION to that student AND his parents to know that before they release him to possibly DRIVE home from the prom?

By Mara

April 14, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this

chuck - “What limit would you place for the use of alcohol by underage students at a SCHOOL FUNCTION?”

Like kimberly, I don’t think that Andrea is advocating underage drinking. I believe the question was about universal testing for all attendees (well, the students anyway). As a libertarian-leaning lefty, this kind of thing really bugs me. It goes hand in hand with employer based random drug testing, (which I hear schools are also beginning to do as a requirement for extra curricular participation).

It seems to me that we have a 4th Amendment issue here with the “state” (in the person of the school officials) engaging in an unreasonable search. Unless the officials have probable cause to believe the students have been drinking, they shouldn’t be allowed to “search” them.

and, hey! I thought keeping the state out of our lives was supposed to be a “consrvative” principle! What are you doing encouraging greater intrusion by the government?! :^)

By Archie

April 14, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

On this subject I agree more with Shanti. I say yes to the topic question and my reasons are that you can then justify taking car keys from a teenager and you might save someone’s life and by testing everyone you don’t have to worry about favoritism. I don’t agree with When schools hold functions knowing teens will be trying to drink, administrators have a moral obligation to protect them., because no one really knows what teens are going to do. As a person who sipped beer at a high school party while being a year underage I can say that a test would’ve stopped me and my friend from the little drinking we did. I would not have skipped the dance to get a sip of beer and I got the beer from a nearby conveniece store. I can’t speak for everyone but it was more important for me to go to the dance and maybe dance with a cute girl than it was for me to sip a beer that I knew I had no business with. On this particular topic I think it’s weak when Andrea says Treat every student like a law-breaker, and you risk losing the one thing that helps kids the most — a trusting relationship with caring adults Teenagers will get over their hurt feelings.

By chuck

April 14, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this

There is no 4th amendment issue in this particular case or in schools in general. Random testing has met the Supreme Court guidelines. As for my point that testing should be done NOT ON EVERYONE but on those suspected of use, that also meets constitutional muster. The courts have determined that schools are a special case when it comes to the 4th amendment. Schools act “in loco parentis”…in the place of the parents. Just as you are allowed to search your child’s room at home, schools are allowed to do the same. There are some guidelines but there is no “probable cause” requirement. The standard in schools is “reasonable suspicion that a SCHOOL RULE HAS BEEN BROKEN”. This is a much lower standard for searches than probable cause.

In answer to your other assertion, by placing your child in PUBLIC SCHOOLS, run by the GOVERNMENT, there is necessarily going to be government intrusion. Conservative or not, when you have several hundred OTHER CHILDREN that you have to keep safe, there has to be some leeway when it comes to issues like this one.

By Monica

April 14, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this

I see your point, Mara, but I do feel that students should be subject to testing if there is probable cause (however, anyone in public is subject to this as well). In the case of random drug testing with student athletes, I think that all schools should all do that for two reasons. First, athletes who use drugs put themselves at huge medical risks. Drinking at a party is one thing (not that I condone that activity), but taking drugs and then over-exerting yourself at a practice or in a game can be fatal. Secondly, an athlete who represents the character of a school should be held to a higher standard.

By Test them all

April 14, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this

I say test them all.

I remember when i was 16/17/18. I would have failed this test at most school functions I attended, but I would have chosen not to drink if I had known I was going to be tested.

If you test selectively, you run the risk of certain individuals or groups of kids being targeted or at least complaining or arguing that they were targeted.

By chuck

April 14, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this

Mara, you and Kimberly do bring up an interesting point about how these issues are viewed differently by the left and the right. I’d be interested to hear your take on this as a libertarian-leaning lefty. What I see as the difference is that “liberals” want people to “CHOOSE” to do the right thing even though you know deep down that they won’t, while us neo-cons want to MAKE them do the right thing whether they want to or not.

By Archie

April 14, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this

that “liberals” want people to “CHOOSE” to do the right thing.. I think that comment is way too simplistic because conservatives,liberals,libertarians, non-voters all drive drunk. People choose to do right or wrong regardless as to their political leaning. Liberals just have a different view of which behaviors need governing.New Jersey and Massachusetts are two of the more liberal states in the country. One question that has not been answered that I can see is what happens if the teenager tests positive?

By kimberly

April 14, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

Chuck, neither public safety nor good parenting are left/right issues, in my opinion, and I don’t see the point of assigning labels — the only purpose for which is to facilitate arguments — to things that are so important. I absolutely expect an official at a school function to stop a child who exhibits signs of being impaired before someone gets hurt. Absolutely. The officers who work events and games in my neighborhood do this already. As for my own sense of responsibility, I keep an eye and ear on the children in my neighborhood whenever possible, and if I feel the need, I talk to them myself about what they’re doing, the choices they make, and how these choices will affect their lives. Knowing that not every kid is open and honest with his or her own parents (hahaha!), I have no problem speaking frankly with any of them. They’ll get the truth from me, and they also know that I listen without squawking and going all judgmental on them. It’s that “village” thing that so many deride as “socialist” thinking, when really, it’s how humans survived for millenia: looking out for each other and the youngsters in the tribe.

By Truth

April 14, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this

In this weird society, we teach our young that in order to be having fun, one must be partially conscience, slightly sick and only in control of part of our senses. In other words: drunk.

I’ve never gotten that. It‘s a horrible buzz. It decreases your ability to do anything of value and absolutely ruins any good day. Beer taste great on a hot day, but after three or four, I want to go to sleep with a guarantee that I will have a head ache that will feel like a gunshot wound when I wake up.

My favorite drink is a good Scotch, but after more than two, I am done for the day and even one slows me down to a frustrating fraction of what I need to be. I have a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue and a bottle of Pinch that I have had since Christmas, and neither have been opened.

So will we ever mature as a society enough to teach our children that drunk and stupid is not the way to go through life? I say test them. I say show them films that show them what an idiot alcohol will make them. I say make them interview a homeless drunk. Start a campaign that will push Hollywood into telling the truth about what alcohol really does to each and every family in our country.

Alcoholism is the 10 ton elephant in our living room. It isn’t pot. It isn’t even coke. Hell, heroin or even crack doesn’t have the effect on our society as alcohol.

Test them. Check their cars. Check their pockets. Search them.

For once, let’s act like the adults and save these children’s lives.

You guys have a good week. I am just simply slammed beyond belief. My business is taking every minute of almost every day. This “recession” is hell.

By chuck

April 15, 2008 8:03 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, I agree that this is neither a left or right issue. I didn’t say that it was and actually, it was Mara that interjected that into the discussion. What I proposed was that the issue is VIEWED DIFFERENTLY by the left and the right.

I think most of us on the right take a more pragmatic approach than do those of you on the left. We see a problem and a solution and we don’t worry too much about the minute minority of cases where that solution may cause a problem rather than fix it. We look at what will work in the “vast majority” of cases and want to implement that. Those of you on the left want to worry too much about the “what ifs”. When you have 300 million + living in the U.S. it is a little too much to worry about 5 people that might lose a perceived right or freedom. Sometimes the individual has to take a back seat to the betterment of the whole.

That doesn’t mean that individual freedoms should be trampled on unnecessarily. Democracy is a messy thing. For instance, for us to have individual freedoms such as 2nd Amendment rights, every once in awhile you are going to have a Columbine or a Virginia Tech. Those of you on the left would rather take a Constitutional RIGHT away from 299,999,999 to protect those 30-40 people who were killed. My position is that if just 1-2 people had been able to exercise their 2nd Amendment right, he might have been stopped after just 1 or 2 deaths. We don’t know. BUT, even if that right was taken away from EVERYBODY, he still could have gotten access to a weapon. Was there a move to outlaw fertilizer after Oklahoma City? The VA Tech killer could have stolen a few sticks of dynamite and accomplished even more destruction.

I think that there really is a fundamental difference in the way that we view these things and was just asking if you and others would concur with that premise?

By kimberly

April 15, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this

Chuck, I agree with you that we do view “freedom” differently.

Mandating that every child blow into a breathalyzer is —bleeping— fascist, just as it would be if all grown-ups were required to blow into a breathalyzer before going anywhere. From a pragmatic standpoint (No, I don’t agree that you “righties” own pragmatism, Sir…) many children would indeed refuse to attend events based solely on the fascism factor, and I would support that decision. If you want to teach them to become adults, you can’t treat them like criminals without cause. Duh!

As an American, I support our fourth amendment rights as vehemently as you support our second amendment rights. And since you’ve gone off on the 2nd amendment tangent, I’m obligated to point out the FALLACY you spread by suggesting we want to “take a Constitutional RIGHT away from 299,999,999.” Not true. Nobody wants everyone to turn over all the weapons to the government. Some of us prefer to have regulation on the TYPE of weapons that are sold here (hunters don’t need machine guns), and the availability of firearms (why is it easier for ghetto kids to get guns than contraception — where’s the pragmatism in THAT, Dude?), but I reject the lie that “all the lefties are trying to take away all the guns.” I personally know many Democrats who own firearms. If you’re going to debate, at least be honest.

By brooks

April 15, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this

How could anyone disagree with testing!? I really have no idea what the liberal side of this argument means…. But hey, whats new? This response from the left side is typical! When something makes good logical sense, they will find a reason to not save a young persons life…..

By Hmmmmm

April 15, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this

Kimberly,

Good grief. Get some help! Underage kids who drink have NO rights in this matter! Its our right as parents to protect them from the STUPID things that they may attempt. You can keep your head stuck in the ground if you want, but I am all for being responsible and protecting my kids. Please look up the word fascist, you liberals always use this word for some reason, and the majority of you have NO idea as to the meaning.

By USinUK

April 15, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

brooks -

What is so difficult to understand about:

“On the other hand, using the breathalyzer with some discretion makes sense. That way, you actually catch inebriated attendees who arrogantly think they won’t be spotted. Test every student and drinkers simply skip the event.”

reading is fundamental, my friend.

By brooks

April 15, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

USinUK

My comment was to Kimberly, who thinks I am a fascist for trying to protect my kids….. I learned to read a long time ago, my friend. Your excerpt from the above reply was understood, although the wishy washy rebuttal is so very typical of a liberal!

By Mara

April 15, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

chuck - surprisingly enough, I do agree with you that “the difference is that “liberals” want people to “CHOOSE” to do the right thing even though you know deep down that they won’t, while us neo-cons want to MAKE them do the right thing whether they want to or not.”

One assumes you realize that you’ve just defined “neo-conservatism” as tyranny…right? You’ve admitted that “neo-conservatives” see nothing wrong with defining for others what is right and wrong behavior and using force to impose those beliefs on others. That’s facism, dear, not freedom. To be honest, that’s exactly what gives me the willies about neo-conservatives and christianists…their willingness to rip my freedoms away for the “good of society”.

you also wrote “When you have 300 million + living in the U.S. it is a little too much to worry about 5 people that might lose a perceived right or freedom. Sometimes the individual has to take a back seat to the betterment of the whole.”

in rebuttal I, an admitted lefty-libertarian, will quote Ayn Rand -

“Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group — whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.´´

Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing “the common good.´´

Napoleon served the common good´´ of France. Hitler isserving the common good´´ of Germany.

Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by “altruists´´ who justify themselves by-the common good.”

That’s what you seem to be saying, chuck, that the freedom of the few are hostage to what YOU perceive as “the common good”. IMO, if we allow one person to be oppressed, it sets the stage for the oppression of us all. To be a free society, we must all be free…

In the words of Don Rumsfeld, “Freedom is untidy and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things.”

By USinUK

April 15, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this

brooks -

two points:

1) stop trying to insult me by calling me “liberal” - it’s a label I wear loud and proud, so you’re only wasting your time.

2) if your comments were about kimberly’s postings, then you should have specified that rather than say “How could anyone disagree with testing!? I really have no idea what the liberal side of this argument means”

By Mara

April 15, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

“Its our right as parents to protect them from the STUPID things that they may attempt.”

so, protect them. That is exactly YOUR right, and YOUR responsibility. But you don’t want to do that. What you want is for the STATE to infringe on everyone else just so you can pretend the YOU are somehow “protecting’ your kid from their own stupidity. You want the state to check my kid, kumberly’s kid, and everybody elses kid just because YOU can’t trust YOUR kid not to drink.

(is it my imagination or does the tone of these “new” posters remind y’all of someone else?)

By kimberly

April 15, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

Your willingness to protect your children (and everyone else’s) does NOT make you a fascist. Please accept my apology if this is how my comments came across!!

Surely you are a good patriotic American who thinks that the fourth amendment concept of “probable cause” should be upheld like the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. I agree that a child should be stopped, questioned, and even tested if he or she exhibits probable cause, as gray and blurry as that line might be. But the fact that teenagers EXIST is not probable cause for a personal search, IMO. Maybe you have different values from the ones I was raised with here in America.

If, however, you think that the state government, perhaps via the Lt. Governor’s “good friend” in the breathalyzer machine industry for example, should pass a law mandating that every high school student blow into such a device before attending any school-sponsored event, then the state would have to find the funds to purchase thousands of new machines from said “good friend” manufacturer at a significant cost to taxpayers, and provide training and personnel for their use and administration, at a significant cost to taxpayers, at a net benefit to the “good friend” and of course the officials who made it happen. This is sliding down that slippery slope to the marriage of government and corporations who profit by law, and which is one of the tenets of modern fascism. Since Georgia has slashed education funding in recent years, are you willing to endure a tax hike to pay for this, or should we just slash the book and building maintenance budgets (again) instead?

I once knew a man who started drinking every day at 10:00 a.m. Using your logic, maybe YOU should be required to stop at a government facility on your way to work every morning and blow into such a device before proceeding to the highway. Mmmmm-kay? Surely you have no objection, since my children are on the roads, and I want to protect them from you. Is this okay, then?

By chuck

April 15, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

The 2nd Amendment is NOT about the right to hunt. While YOU may not want to eliminate ALL guns, there are certainly dozens of organizations out there who want to do just that. As I stated earlier, the 4th Amendment does not apply in this case. First, it is NOT law enforcemnt conducting the search. Second, case law on school searches is clearly on the side of the schools. IF as you say, students choose to forego attendance at these events, SO WHAT? They certainly have the right to stay home or go to an alternative event that is not involved with the school.

The school is not OBLIGATED to sponsor these types of events, but IF THEY DO, they are certainly obligated to do as much as they can to insure the safety of those who attend. I’m betting that you would be the first in line to sue the schools if your child was killed by a drunk driver leaving the prom. Additionally, I have to address the FALLACY of your assertion that EVERY CHILD was going to be tested. The policy actually states:

Dr. William Trusheim created a comprehensive breathalyzer policy for his district. If students want to go to a dance they have to give advance permission to be breathalyzed - and take the test if selected.

The purpose of the policy is to insure the ability to test those who are suspected of being under the influence. There is no intention to test EVERYBODY. Advance permission just facilitates the process when AND IF it becomes necessary to test someone who is exhibiting signs of impairment.

By Mara

April 15, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

on the lighter side - http://icanhascheezburger.com/

cute little kittie pix from lolcat. I just hope you all can speak in “texting”. And for our resident bunny hugger, there’s an adorable “bunny chiropracters chiropracting” and a “shrodinger” references on page four.

Enjoy :^)

By USinUK

April 15, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this

mara - thanks for that … up to my eyeballs in spreadsheets today and needed teh funny

By kimberly

April 15, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

Yes, Chuck, I think I see your point: Even though I agreed that children should be stopped and tested if they exhibit signs of being under the influence (probable cause), it’s still very very important for you to explain to me that I am, for whatever reason you decide today, completely wrong about everything I have ever thought or expressed, even when I agree with you in part. Freedom is what YOU decide, and no one else has a place in that process. Is that right?

And that’s it for me on this subject. Y’all enjoy trashing each other for the rest of the week.

By Monica

April 15, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this

Chuck, I missed the “if selected” phrase. I just looked at the headline, sub-consciously inserted the phrase “for every student who attends,” and envisioned every student waiting in line to enter the gym, blowing away madly in a little machine. :)

By Mara

April 15, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

actually, Monica, Shaunti has the “every student” part appended to that part of her comments: “If students want to go to a dance they have to give advance permission to be breathalyzed - and take the test if selected. Or schools can test all students, to keep things equal.”

and don’t feel bad, I also had the vision of lines of perfectly dressed ladies and gentlemen puffing away at the little tubes while steely-eyed administrators made a note of every nervous-nellie who hesitated before the required huffing and puffing.

By USinUK

April 15, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this

Here’s a question for the legal eagles in the class … it’s a multi-part question, so help me out …

1) IF a school starts a breathalyzer program at some school events, should they do them at ALL school events? In other words, if they’re going to test at the homecoming dance, should they test at the homecoming GAME, as well - I mean, it’s not like kids just decide to drink at dances, but draw the line at athletic events.

2) IF a school starts a random breathalyzer program, are they then liable for any accident which occurs after the event?? In other words, if there is no random testing and a kid leaves prom and gets a DUI, the school can reasonably say that they couldn’t prove he was impaired so couldn’t detain him. If, however, they have implemented random testing and then don’t test the kid, are they then liable if he wraps his car around a tree??

And, lastly -

3) Who should implement the breathalyzer? Is there a policeman on duty to do this or is it the administration? When they do random locker drug checks, they use a cop with a sniffer-dog … should this be implemented the same way?

Just wondering what you guys think.

By chuck

April 15, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

USinUK, I specifically said:

That doesn’t mean that individual freedoms should be trampled on unnecessarily.

Mara, Here’s an example for you that illustrates my point. Schools have totally banned students from bringing ANYTHING to school that contains peanuts because one kid has a peanut allergy. Can you imagine kids not being able to bring a PB&J to school for that reason? It seems that liberals are perfectly willing to “trample the rights” of the MANY to protect the ONE. I am certainly NOT talking about collectivism when I bring up this topic or when I say that SOMETIMES, the right of the individual have to take a backseat to the rights of the MANY.

Kimberly, AS I HAVE ALREADY STATED TWICE NOW: the 4th Amendment does not come into play here at all. While they may have 4th Amendment rights on the STREET, they do not have full 4th Amendment rights IN THE SCHOOLS. Specifically:

There is no 4th amendment issue in this particular case or in schools in general. Random testing has met the Supreme Court guidelines. As for my point that testing should be done NOT ON EVERYONE but on those suspected of use, that also meets constitutional muster. The courts have determined that schools are a special case when it comes to the 4th amendment. Schools act “in loco parentis”…in the place of the parents. Just as you are allowed to search your child’s room at home, schools are allowed to do the same. There are some guidelines but there is no “probable cause” requirement. The standard in schools is “reasonable suspicion that a SCHOOL RULE HAS BEEN BROKEN”. This is a much lower standard for searches than probable cause.

ALSO, the only thing ALL OF THE STUDENTS have to do is to GIVE PERMISSION in advance. The policy specifically states that only SELECTED students will be tested. That, my dear, is where the judgement of the administrator will come in.

By USinUK

April 15, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

chuck -

USinUK, I specifically said: That doesn’t mean that individual freedoms should be trampled on unnecessarily.

don’t know why you singled me out on that one, chuck - I haven’t said anything about or to you.

Can you imagine kids not being able to bring a PB&J to school for that reason? It seems that liberals are perfectly willing to “trample the rights” of the MANY to protect the ONE

you know, I’ve read the Bill of Rights loads of times and I don’t remember PB&J being mentioned anywhere. Or the right to bear sammiches of any type, for that matter.

but you are absolutely spot-on about 4th amendment rights at schools - which is why locker and book bag searches are permissable.

By kimberly

April 15, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this

Re the 4th Amendment: Actually, I disagree with several Supreme Court decisions, including some of the latitudes given schools to enforce their “zero tolerance” policies. The news regularly reports of students being suspended or expelled for utterly stupid reasons, and I have endured the ramblings of a hard-core religio-fundie teacher who felt the kids went “too far” in the execution of a group project she assigned because, oooo, there were liquor bottles in one scene in the video they made because there were liquor bottles in the story SHE assigned them to read. Even though there was a supervising parent and no alcohol was consumed, the kids all got detention and learned in the process that grown-ups can be total retardo-hypocrites. Good lesson, Teech!

Of course it’s important to the “conservatives” for a New American Century that children be indoctrinated early to the idea that they have no rights. This will make them easier to control as adults, and in ten years, they’ll voluntarily strip naked, bend over, and spread their cheeks at the airport the way we now take off our shoes without thinking. Call me a Libertarian if you will, but I’m fairly certain that even the most “conservative” people here can cite Supreme Court decisions with which they disagree. We do still have THAT right, don’t we?

By Canuck

April 15, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this

you know, I’ve read the Bill of Rights loads of times and I don’t remember PB&J being mentioned anywhere. Or the right to bear sammiches of any type, for that matter.

And we know if it is NOT in the U.S. Constitution, it just should NOT be. (or so we always seem to hear)

By USinUK

April 15, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

kimberly -

I’m fairly certain that even the most “conservative” people here can cite Supreme Court decisions with which they disagree

well, we can disagree with the SC until the cows come home, but that doesn’t mean that our opinions are legally correct. it’s the equivalent of a 3-year-old yelling “that’s not fair!!!” - it may not be fair or it may not be what we would like but if it has a strong legal foundation, then there ya go.

the fact is, once you are out of your home, you don’t have an assumption of privacy (which is why CCTV cameras really aren’t an infringement on privacy, but that’s for another discussion). In fact, you can be IN your home, but if people can see/hear you from the street (not on your property, but from “public” property), your act or utterance isn’t considered “private” anymore.

now, when you think that school property is, in fact, government property, then there REALLY isn’t a right to privacy as far as student lockers go.

lastly, would you feel differently about this whole situation if there was a policeman stationed outside the gym door administering the breathalyzer to students who look like they may have had a few???

By USinUK

April 15, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

Canuck -

And we know if it is NOT in the U.S. Constitution, it just should NOT be. (or so we always seem to hear)

that’s what we hear about abortion, anyway … I’m not sure about sammiches

By chuck

April 15, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

From USA Today:

Randomly selected students in Pequannock Township last month began undergoing a screening that can detect whether they drank alcohol up to 80 hours before.

On any given day, five to 10 students will be randomly selected to undergo either a drug test, a tongue swab or the EtG screen.

But Trusheim says that for students facing peer pressure, drug and alcohol testing “gives them an out. If they’re at a party and someone says, ‘Do you want to try this or that,’ they can easily say, ‘I don’t want to risk my participation (in sports), or I’ve signed up for random drug testing.’ “

Shaunti got that part of the policy wrong. I could not find anywhere that said they would test ALL STUDENTS to be equal.

By Canuck

April 15, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

USinUK-

and I had back-spaced out(deleted) my bumper sticker suggestion: Outlaw Sandwiches Now.

By USinUK

April 15, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

Canuck -

If Sandwiches Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have PB&J

By chuck

April 15, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

Sorry USinUK, I confused your post with Mara’s post.

By kimberly

April 15, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

USinUK, google Kathryn Johnston to learn more about my distrust of law enforcement and SC decisions. I know some of my local police officers and believe them to be fine, honorable men to whom I owe a great debt for my safety. I appreciate their presence at the local schools and have always taught the kids respect for them and what they do, as well as for the law.

I have only argued for sane, rational probable cause on this topic, as did Andrea, and for us to use a reasonable — not reactionary — approach to teaching teenagers to become responsible, self-policing adults. For this, the fascist-leaning folks squawk that I don’t care about protecting kids. That assertion, and most of this discussion, is just stupid. Neither Andrea nor I said kids should never be tested, and I would stop an impaired child MYSELF if saw one, but watch the howlers go on all week about how irresponsible we are. As for signing a permission form, I say, “Don’t friggin sign anything, ever.” I believe in privacy, even though it doesn’t exist anymore. That’s my personal policy; y’all are entitled to yours.

For your reading pleasure and another perspective, here’s a good site about “zero tolerance:” http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/ZeroTolerance.html

By chuck

April 15, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

SHAUNTI could you please tell us where you got your information about this policy? What I have read doesn’t say ANYTHING about dances. The policy actually has to do with testing AT SCHOOL. According to the school board website Dr. William Trusheim is just the principal at the MIDDLE SCHOOL. He doesn’t create policies for the district. THE DISTRICT has had a policy for random drug testing of those who participate in extra curricular activities for some time. All they actually did was extend the random testing to the entire student population at the high school regardless of participation in EC activities.

Dr. William Trusheim instituted a VOLUNTARY random testing at the middle school. About 80% of the students have signed up. There is no mention anywhere of testing at or for a particular school event.

What’s the deal?

By Questionable

April 15, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

With the rampant alcoholism currently ongoing with ADULTS, this stat is also highly questionable, unless the “minors” also includes college kids in college towns where the legal drinking age is 21. In the context of this topic, it (“minor”) is implied to be high-school age.

According to the group, a third of alcohol sales profits come from purchasing minors

By chuck

April 15, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this

I thought it was illegal to “purchase minors”.

By HaHa

April 15, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this

I thought it was illegal to “purchase minors”

not according to Leviticus. hahahahahahahaha

By FYI

April 15, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this

“The Little Adminstration That Couldn’t”

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080414/engelhardt

By Gandalf, the Grey

April 15, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this

and you can still purchase minors in many muslin countries….

By Gandalf, the Grey

April 15, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

Shaunti, you are so HOTT! I love smart girls!

By FYI

April 15, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this

“According to the most recent reports of their personal finances, 151 current members of Congress had between $78.7 million and $195.5 million invested in companies that received defense contracts of at least $5 million in 2006. In all, these companies received more than $275.6 billion from the government in 2006, or $755 million per day….While Democrats are more likely to advocate for ending the Iraq war sooner than Republicans, as a group they have more of their own money invested in America’s military efforts. In 2006 Democrats had at least $3.7 million invested in the defense sector alone, compared to Republicans’ $577,500. More Republicans, however, held stock in defense companies in 2006—28 of them, compared to 19 Democrats.” - Lindsay Renick Mayer, Center for Responsive Politics, April 3, 2008

By USinUK

April 16, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this

fyi -

While Democrats are more likely to advocate for ending the Iraq war sooner than Republicans, as a group they have more of their own money invested in America’s military efforts. In 2006 Democrats had at least $3.7 million invested in the defense sector alone, compared to Republicans’ $577,500. More Republicans, however, held stock in defense companies in 2006—28 of them, compared to 19 Democrats

so, basically, as I read this, there are 50% more GOP members who hold stock in defense companies than Dem members … but the Dems that do hold stock hold a lot of it.

… so what’s your point?

By lyrazel

April 16, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this

Do we test the teachers & administration at school events as well? Those chaperones who slip into a room to get away from the din of teen angst—might just be tippling but since they are of age they can drink at teen events can’t they? Then again they might be the driver who kills the squeaky clean teens on their way home from the event, right?

Kids are smart so they would take the breath test first—all clean—enter the dance and drink from hidden flasks. I agree that if there is testing the kids who drink won’t be going—so who gets tested but the ones who would never drink anyway. The EVERYONE IS GUILTY mentality of these inflicted tests. Schools are supposed to be places to learn and if school administrators make the environment hostile and prison-like—its a guarantee there will be drop out problems. Yeah, but who cares about them.

The second concern I have is that programs like breathalyzers are costly (you do realize they must be sanitized and re-calibrated every student) so you got lines waiting to pass go. Yet that is just a technicality, right. Yep just like the cost of maintaining this equipment and servicing it (an average police uses maybe 3x/night a school would have to scan 58/event) and given most copiers in schools don’t work how long is state funding going to provide a ready money source for breathalyzers in all schools in their district? So now you have very poor districts required to buy this equipment meaning a substitute teacher/books/raises won’t be funded.

Will this be used on ALL functions and why not? Do you test everyone entering the bleachers in school events? Fair is fair. While most thought of dances I thought of sporting events, band concerts, debate team trips… and the whole slew of events schools have. There would have to be an all-included stance meaning other school band members would be tested, as well other school athletes…. So after 80 minutes of required testing of 100 people from other schools and 100 from your school its game time? Like that will work?

To adopt such a policy means schools are looking forward to lawsuits from parents whose child failed the breathalyzer because of a medication they were on and said kid suffered severe mental and emotional trauma for being singled out. Hey, we have SO MANY LAWYERS NOW does anyone think this won’t happen?

Do we dare start talking germs passed from unsanitized equipment? Ooo to be last in line…how gross!

By Monica

April 16, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, according to the Georgia Educator Code of Ethics, teachers may not consume any alcohol at any school event, or be under the influence during an event. Based on the vague wording in the Code of Ethics, if I am going to chaperone the prom, I cannot have a glass of wine with dinner before going.

By Mara

April 16, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

USinUK - the “point” is even more obscure when you consider what companies are included as part of “the Defense sector”. According to the website (the Center for Responsive Politics which ‘FYI’ referenced), we have outsourced so many military support/maintenance needs in Afghanistan and Iraq to private companies that building any kind of blue-chip portfolio without including “the defense sector” would be almost impossible. For example, some companies with contracts with the DoD are Pepsico, Microsoft, IBM, and Johnson & Johnson. Not exactly Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, or Halliburton…

Heck, I probably hold stock in “defense sector” companies through my 401K !!

By Gandalf, the Grey

April 16, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

The point may be that the former great power, Great Britian, should be blocked from this blog. Why don’t you read the British papers? Jeez!

By Monica

April 16, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

I’d be interested to know the number of Congress members who have stock in Exxon or Mobile. Maybe they can give me a personal loan so that we can afford to fill up our tanks this summer.

By USinUK

April 16, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

Mara (and Mon) -

So, basically, as I read it, 19 Democrats out of 535 (total number in House and Senate) hold stock in “defense” companies (which, according to Mara, can include J&J, Pepsi, etc). Let’s say, for sake of argument, that they just meant traditional defense contractors (Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, etc) …

Do they honestly think that 19 out of 535 are manipulating the votes so that we’ll stay in Iraq and they’ll make more money??? Especially in 2006, when the Dems were still in the minority?? Does it sound to anyone else that that’s what they were implying???

Fact is, most members of Congress set up “blind trusts” so that they can avoid conflicts of interest - what that trust does with your investments is not in your hands (for the most part … unless you’re Bill Frist).

By USinUK

April 16, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

Gandalf …

I read the AJC, the WaPo, the NYT, the Financial Times, the Economist, Bloomberg, the BBC and the Times of London …

what do you read???

big air kisses!!! always a treat to hear from you.

By Mara

April 16, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this

USinUK - WaPo, NYT, LAT, Boston Globe, Chicago Trib, Seattle Times, CNN, Minn/StPaul Star-Tribune, and the AJC almost every day. RedState, Andy Sullivan, TPM, and Politico if I have time.

RawStory and Drudge for highlites if I’m busy.

and yes, it did sound like FYI was trying to imply that there was something fishy going on…LOL!

By USinUK

April 16, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

Mara -

I like the LAT, but there are only so many hours in the day … same for the Chicago Trib … CNN/MSNBC if there is an event … but I can’t take Drudge … I’ll read the occasional RedState article … and Sully??? gah.

Blogs - Glenn Greenwald for his fantastic legal analysis, Hullabaloo for her amazing writing and TBogg for a laugh.

By lozen

April 16, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

Gandalf, I think stupidity should be blocked from this blog. Bye bye!

By DownDoggieDown

April 16, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

Shaunti, you are so HOTT! I love smart girls!

Down, Doggie, Down. She’s married.

By Mara

April 16, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

Mostly I read the WaPo first thing and skim the rest of them to see if any new info is included in their articles. As you say, only so many hours in a day :^)

Greenwald is alright, as is Hilzoy at Obsidion Wings.

The thing that keeps me going back to Sullivan is his willingness to admit when he’s wrong and his UN-willingness to bash “liberals” simply for being liberal. My very, very, capital-“C” Conservative brother hates him like poison, which also gives him a certain cachet with me. And he tends to have links to all kinds of different content, whether it be polls and stats, science articles, or super cool YouTube’s.

Read his “The Conservative Soul” and aside from the papist religiosity, I found it fascinating. But each to his own, I say. I’ll have to check out Hullabaloo on your recommend.

By Mara

April 16, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

did anyone see the item about whoever runs McCains website taking recipe’s off the Food Channel website and adding them to the section titled “McCain Family Recipes”? LOL!! They were trying to pass off Rachel Ray’s “Rosemary Chicken” (among other FC fare) as a traditional McCain family recipe. Heh!

By Gandalf, the Grey

April 16, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

Glad to hear lozen is banning himself, shame he didn’t take that EXPAT with him! Damn Skippy!

By In Memory of Sean Costello

April 16, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

For they could not love you,

But still your love was true.

And when no hope was left in sight

On that starry, starry night,

You took your life, as lovers often do.

But I could have told you, Sean,

This world was never meant for one

As beautiful as you.

By Gandalf, the Grey

April 16, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

Boortz, telegraph.co.uk, Washington Post, Washington Times, Drudge, BBR, everyday… the only thing I look at in this rag is woman to woman, (you know, because of Shaunti!) I read all of these, but only post here.

By In Memory of Sean Costello

April 16, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

Now I understand what you tried to say to me,

How you suffered for your sanity,

How you tried to set them free.

They would not listen, they did not know how.

Perhaps they’ll listen now.

By Listener

April 16, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

who’s Sean Costello?

By In Memory of Sean Costello

April 16, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this

Hope all the beautiful ladies of W2W are doing well, especially Mara, Monica, and USinUK.

P.S. I enjoyed the cat/bunny link you posted earlier this week, Mara. Thanks.

By In Memory of Sean Costello

April 16, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this

If you believe in Forever, then life is just a one-night stand….

By chuck

April 16, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this

AHA!!!

By Bye, beautiful kid

April 16, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

Too young to die.

Why can’t the crusty ol’ ayy-holes die instead?

By In Memory of Sean Costello

April 16, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this

Why can’t the crusty ol’ ayy-holes die instead?

We’re all on the same road, Bye beautiful kid. Some just get there more quickly.

Thanks for putting up a link of Sean’s picture.

By Gandalf, the Grey

April 16, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

The world is a little darker without you Sean. You will be missed.

By Gandalf, the Grey

April 16, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this

Listener, he’s a local Bluesman, NOW STFU and goggle him.

By Griever

April 16, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this

Channel 2’s web site has an 8-minute video.

Turn it up.

By Listener

April 16, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this

oh THAT Sean Costello

Thanks Gandalf.

By Gandalf, the Grey

April 16, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, everything to do with having the ability to… no, I won’t interrupt it for you” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

See what it says? SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED…not rifles, not pistols, but ARMS….Machine guns, anti-tank weapons…thing for killing. You read hunting into this? I am amazed what public education produces sometimes, the inability to read and process coherent thought.

By In Memory of Sean Costello

April 16, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

Listener, he’s a local Bluesman, NOW STFU and goggle him.

Gandalf, I wouldn’t have pegged you for a music fan, but I guess you learn something new every day. Sean was often compared to Stevie Ray Vaughn but, personally, I actually liked Sean better.

BTW, if you’re going to hang around W2W, watch the abusive language. I don’t want anyone to think you’re the infamous El Perro. I don’t need chuck and lozen putting more personal info on the blog due to mistaken identity.

By USinUK

April 17, 2008 8:13 AM | Link to this

Gandalf -

” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

by your own admission, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed - as part of a well regulated militia

for people who like to believe in the words of the framers, I say this: if founding fathers meant “Congress shall make no law infringing the right to bear arms”, the framers would have said “Congress shall make no law infringing the right to bear arms” - just like they did in the 1st amendment.

this wasn’t a stylistic thing where they were afraid of redundancy. they allowed for people to bear arms - but allowed for the government to regulate it.

By lovelyliz

April 17, 2008 8:19 AM | Link to this

What school district has they $$$ for such a program?

By Gandalf, the Grey

April 17, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

EXPAT,

You missed an important word, IMHO, KEEP .

If the goverment holds control over the arms, the “free state” is in jeopardy. Enemies can be both “foreign and domestic”. I read that the founders wanted to ensure that if the goverment becomes unbearable, the people should have the means to revolt.

Remember what the founders had been through 11 or so years before, a revolution to throw off the chains of oppression from the British.

The words “controlled by the Federal Goverment” doesn’t follow “a well regulated militia”. Yesterday I chose not to interrept, but it seems you wanted to know how I see these hallowed word. BTW, I served in a well regulated militia controlled by the federal goverment for 20 years.

By AJC is worthless

April 17, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this

Hey AJC. Do you have a minute to clean out the spam here? I noticed you got off your lazy a* and did it when the forum refused to post.

Is that going to be required yet again?

Here’s a suggestion. Get off your lazy a* and do your job.

Liberal Rag.

By USinUK

April 17, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

Gandalf -

You missed an important word, IMHO, KEEP

yeah, because “keep” and “bear” are so different. The point remains the same - if the FF wanted to say that Congress shall make no law infringing on the right to KEEP/BEAR arms, then they would have said it.

but they didn’t, now did they?

And, hey, if it is to prevent oppressive government, then don’t you think that we should all have anti-aircraft defense rather than some namby-pamby sub-machine gun??? I think a Howitzer for Every Household should be the NRA motto if they are REALLY concerned with oppressive government.

Me, I’m more concerned about this administration feeling they have the right to wiretap without due process than I am jackbooted thugs appearing at my door.

By NRA_Member

April 17, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

I think a Howitzer for Every Household should be the NRA motto if they are REALLY concerned with oppressive government.

Sounds Good. Thanks, I’ll have to pass that one on.

By Truth

April 17, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Me, I’m more concerned about this administration feeling they have the right to wiretap without due process than I am jackbooted thugs appearing at my door.

bla, bla, bla. Will this ever stop? I am concerned that RFK ordered MLK’s phone to be illegally wiretapped. Are you so naive as to think that this is the first adminstration to use wire taps?

BTW. Kroger is now offering The Shawshank Redemption in their $10 tape collection. I haven’t owned a DVD and my VCR is long retired. I watched it the other night. That scene of him finding the box under the old oak tree is just about perfect. Really good film.

By NRA_Member

April 17, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

Since the Founding Fathers used the word “individual” in the Second Amendment AND were fully aware a “militia” was merely an agent of the STATE, one can only assume they meant for individual PERSONS to be able to be armed. And they may have actually meant with Howitzers.

By lyrazel

April 17, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

Ok Monica I never knew there was policy in place for those chaperones attending but is it regulated? Is there testing done? Do they breathalyzer teachers on entering prom-festivities? I doubt there is more than: their word. Thus why not take students at their word until proven guilty?

Are we really supposed to believe Shaunti or Andrea concerns about the welfare of children when their site maintains links to hot teen sex? If I was a teacher I could never use this site or the AJC for class BECAUSE of the accessibility of drug & pornography links. All it takes is one curious child that clicks on the available teen slut links & any teacher or administrator’s job is over having been caught with porn on their school laptop.

By USinUK

April 17, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

NRA/Gandalf -

one can only assume

aahhhh … but I thought you guys HATED penumbras and assumptions - strict constructionalists one and all.

Well regulated vs. “Congress shall make no law abridging … “

pretty clear to me - heck, even my NRA-member friend in ATL can’t argue that the FF didn’t leave the door open to regulation.

By USinUK

April 17, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

Truthie -

grrr … having to retype this - danged blog ate my post!

Will this ever stop? I am concerned that RFK ordered MLK’s phone to be illegally wiretapped

yes, that was a bad thing. no doubt about it. but, just in case you haven’t heard - RFK is dead. There’s nothing we can do about him, now.

The members of this administration AREN’T - so, they should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law -

They did willfully begin circumventing the legal requirements to obtain approval BEFORE 9/11 - and, who the heck KNOWS who they’ve been wiretapping for the last 7 years??? Was the RNC listening in on strategy calls during the last presidential election?? Has the FBI been listening in on calls to/from anti-war groups?? Just who has the FBI been listenign to? for how long? why??

These are questions we may never know because everything is being kept under a shroud of secrecy - even when people try to address the problem in court.

Sorry, but NO ONE is above the law. Not even this administration. me, personally, I’m willing to forgo any court action on the wiretapping if we could ship the lot of the them to The Hague … but that’s just wishful thinking on my part.

By chuck

April 17, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this

USinUK, apparently you have been in England too long. Over here we have a Bill of Rights that actually means something. Look at the wording of the 4th Amendment and the 2nd Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The SC has NEVER interpreted this Amendment to REQUIRE that a person be in a “well regulated militia” in order to have the right to KEEP AND BEAR arms. In fact, you could well say that the Revolution BEGAN because of an attempt to disarm the populace.

By Gandalf, the Grey

April 17, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

NRA Member,

Howitzer’s are nice and all, but I prefer a M2A2 Bradley. They are mobile, and can take out a tank. $2.5M is outside my budget, but I truly believe the founding fathers wanted us to have the tools to conduct offensive operations.

By USinUK

April 17, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

Truthie -

ahhhh … Shawshank! It’s been a while since I’ve had a good cry …

have you gotten around to seeing The Station Agent, yet?? RUN, don’t walk!! The director just came out with a new movie last week, The Visitor (I think) - got RAVE reviews on Salon - stars the guy who played the dad on 6 Feet Under.

By Gandalf, the Grey

April 17, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

Now you guys see why I am in favor of filtering all traffic from the UK. I REALLY REALLY tried to be nice to the EXPAT, and to talk sense to her. Alas, she has been seduced by the Chamberlainistic society of England. I shall be forced to ignore your simplistic view of the world where it is better to take away someones arms than to listen to thier phone calls with terrorists.

By Gandalf, the Grey

April 17, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

EXPAT, I would cry every day if I didn’t live in the good ol’ US of A! Have a Guiness for me, and some fish and chips, then come home.

By USinUK

April 17, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

chuck -

please tell me you don’t teach history.

In fact, you could well say that the Revolution BEGAN because of an attempt to disarm the populace.

no, the revolution began because the people had no voice in government. does “taxation without representation” ring any bells???

By kimberly

April 17, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this

USinUK, have you forgotten? The Bill of Rights and the freedoms they guarantee are ONLY valid the SPECIFIC way Chuck interprets them. Any attempt to scrutinize their respective meanings is pointless. Guns = good. Any restriction of weapons = bad. Privacy = whatever chuck says (and does not include your own uterus). Silly. If you’d just stop arguing and listen to some sense……

By USinUK

April 17, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

Gandalf -

and I would cry every day if I didn’t live with my hubster. ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

don’t let a limey hear you ask for Guiness - it’s Irish. Me, I prefer Stella, even though it’s Belgian (I think). and good old fish-and-chips from your neighborhood chippie is proof of a kind and benevolent god who loves us. mmmmmmmm …

lastly, let’s be perfectly clear here - I don’t believe in total disarmament. I do believe in self-defense. However, I don’t see any need for a semi-automatic weapon. I think the FF are rolling over in their graves at the thought of the “street sweepers” that are available to any schmoe, now. If they knew those types of firearms would be developed - and how easily they are obtained - they would have worded the 2nd amendment differently so that there would be no questions.

By USinUK

April 17, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

kimberly …

reminds me of the expression “never try to teach a pig to sing. it just frustrates you and annoys the pig.”

By chuck

April 17, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

UHHHHH USinUK, I am talking about April of 1775…you know one if by land two if by sea? Ring any bells? The battles of Lexington and Concord were fought because the Brits were going to seize munitions from the people in Concord who had been storing them in case they were needed to defend Boston.

While the Continental Congress was sending the Olive Branch Petiotion to AVOID WAR, the British were imposing the intolerable acts on Massachusetts. You see those of us who TEACH HISTORY know the difference between FUNDAMENTAL causes of war and IMMEDIATE causes of war. While the issue of taxation was a fundamental cause, the British march on Concord was an IMMEDIATE CAUSE. Please tell me you never TOOK HISTORY.

By AGFNPR

April 17, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this

In fact, you could well say that the Revolution BEGAN because of an attempt to disarm the populace.

I don’t think Chuck was serious with that statement. The Revolution didn’t begin with an attempt to disarm the poplace in 1776. But I can promise you any laws attempting to disarm law abiding citizens will spawn a revolution today.

USinUK - However, I don’t see any need for a semi-automatic weapon.

Semi-automatics are guns that fire once when you pull the trigger. You have to pull the trigger each time you fire one round. If I read your post correctly, I would assume then that you would outlaw every gun except bolt action rifles and pump shotguns. That proposition is very scary to me. Is that what you meant, or were you not clear on what a semi-automatic gun is?

By USinUK

April 17, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this

chuck -

since subtleties seem to be beyond you, there is a difference between seizing a cache of arms and disarming every household.

and the olive branch petition was in JULY of 1775 … that would be AFTER Concord, “history boy.”

By chuck

April 17, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

While my interpretations of the Constitution are completely CORRECT Kimberly, the only ones that matter are those of the Supreme Court which has held that the Right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT and NOT a state militia right. The federal appeals court confirmed this as recently as last year, ruling that D.C.’s hand gun ban was unconstitutional. The case has been heard by the SC and a decision is pending, but comments by a majority of the justices during the presentation of the case seem to point to the ruling being upheld.

By USinUK

April 17, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

AGF -

Is that what you meant, or were you not clear on what a semi-automatic gun is?

I mean the kind of gun where you can empty a clip in less than 30 seconds by pulling a trigger once. NO ONE outside the military needs that.

By chuck

April 17, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this

If that is not enough for you, consider this. What was the purpose of The Bill of Rights? Thomas Jefferson said it this way:

“[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.” —- Thomas Jefferson December 20, 1787

Your venerated organization the ACLU summarized the purpose of the Bill of Rights this way:

The Constitution was remarkable, but deeply flawed. For one thing, it did not include a specific declaration - or bill - of individual rights. It specified what the government could do but did not say what it could not do. For another, it did not apply to everyone. The “consent of the governed” meant propertied white men only.

So tell me UsinUk and Kimberly, do you want the 4th Amendment to be an INDIVIDUAL right or a “COLLECTIVE right?

By NRA_Member

April 17, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

I mean the kind of gun where you can empty a clip in less than 30 seconds by pulling a trigger once. NO ONE outside the military needs that

that is called FULLY AUTOMATIC, not SEMI.

By Gandalf, the Grey

April 17, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

When is the course of human events…oops….started to steal somebody’s lines there…sorry. Semi-Automatic Rifles or so called “Assault Weapons” are no more dangerous than an ice pick (unless in trained hands that is!) How many kids on the frontier you think got killed by accidentally discharging a musket? Very few I reckin’. Because they were exposed to it! Gun safety is fundamental to a household that has guns. My kids play with their Air soft and Paint Ball guns, not my weapons. My oldest will get his rifle merit badge at BSA Summer Camp this year. Then he will be able to handle the long arms in my house.

God and Guns made this country great, let’s keep both!

By Gandalf, the Grey

April 17, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

When is the course of human events…oops….started to steal somebody’s lines there…sorry. Semi-Automatic Rifles or so called “Assault Weapons” are no more dangerous than an ice pick (unless in trained hands that is!) How many kids on the frontier you think got killed by accidentally discharging a musket? Very few I reckin’. Because they were exposed to it! Gun safety is fundamental to a household that has guns. My kids play with their Air soft and Paint Ball guns, not my weapons. My oldest will get his rifle merit badge at BSA Summer Camp this year. Then he will be able to handle the long arms in my house.

God and Guns made this country great, let’s keep both!

By chuck

April 17, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this

That is an AUTOMATIC weapon and NOT a semi-automatic Usink.

I’m not sure that I get your point about the olive branch petition. Are you saying that the British were NOT enforcing the intolerable acts in July 1775?

My point was that the SHOOTING WAR began before the POLITICAL announcement. That shooting war commenced because the British were trying to take away the weapons and ammunition of the PEOPLE because they feared an insurrection.

Immediate Cause vs. Fundamental cause. Simple.

By chuck

April 17, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

BTW, is that why yore momma never gave you money for sangin’ lessons?

By Gandalf, the Grey

April 17, 2008 12:32 PM | Link to this

Why doesn’t anyone but the military need a weapon that can empty it’s clip in 30 seconds? You said earlier sub machine gun, that is a waste of time, they only fire pistol rounds, a fully automatic weapon fires rifle ammunition.

BTW an M16 has a cyclic rate of fire of 550 rounds per minute. So a 30 round clip would take…a little less than 4 seconds to empty, a good gunner can change clips in say…3 seconds, so in 30 seconds a good gunner could send 120 rounds downrange, but on fully auto, you wouldn’t hit much. With an assault rifle you want to squeeze the trigger long enough for 3-5 rounds to go down range, drastically improving the chance that you will destroy your target.

Oh the newer M16 variants the Army uses are no longer fully auto, they have 3 selections, SAFE, SEMI and BURST which allows 3 round bursts on each trigger squeeze.

By Psychology Today

April 17, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

BURST which allows 3 round bursts on each trigger squeeze

Admit it, y’all. Killin’ makes ya hot. Not just killin’, but talking ‘bout killin, movies ‘bout killin, thinkin and dreamin ‘bout killin… Hot hot hot! Throw in “God” for justification and a Marlboro for extra flavor, and there’s no guilt, only pleasure. Given the choice between lovey time with your wife and watching a John Wayne or Clint Eastwood movie, (don’t get me started on Patton), you’ll choose that good, hot, sweaty, adrenaline-pumping killin’ every time. EVERY time.

Buncha pervs.

By Truth

April 17, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this

Psychology Today

This is what happens when people want to play Dr. Phil. If you were a certified psychologist, you wouldn’t be trying to analyze strangers on a political blog. So you blather the DNC talking points and you look like a fool.

Open your eyes pal. We are all different. And you are no better than anyone else.

Get it?

By AGFNPR

April 17, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this

USinUK:

I mean the kind of gun where you can empty a clip in less than 30 seconds by pulling a trigger once. NO ONE outside the military needs that.

USinUK - this is exactly why normal law abiding citizens like me a more than a little worried about liberals and their intentions concerning firearms. I am sure you believe the NRA crowd is the only group obfuscating the facts in the firearm debate, but it simply isn’t true. I would be willing to bet you have heard bits and pieces of liberal debate on semi-automatic assault rifles and assumed they meant you pull the trigger once and several rounds are fired.

But it is not fully automatic weapons that far left liberals are after, but semi-automatic assault rifles. Semi-automatic assault rifles still only fire once when you pull the trigger. They are no more powerful than many deer rifles. Most are simply equipped with banana clips that can hold several rounds, where a hunting rifle normally holds 4 or 5 rounds in a clip.

In their zeal to remove semi-automatic assault rifles like the AK-47 (AK-47’s that have been modified to fire only once when you pull the trigger) I can promise that they will try to make laws that will outlaw all semi-automatic weapons that will include a whole host of hunting firearms – from shotguns to deer rifles.

I am fully aware of many of the crazy positions and deceitful tactics of the NRA. I am not here to defend those positions and tactics. I am here to tell you why there are millions of law abiding hunters and gun owners that are justifiably afraid of the anti-gun lobby and THEIR crazy positions and deceitful tactics.

By Yep

April 17, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

It ain’t a river in Egypt, buddy. Heh.

By Truth

April 17, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

USinUk

Wiretaps have been a fact of life in America since there were telephones. The weather underground was wire tapped so I have no doubt that anti-war groups are tapped. I sometimes end up in situations where a crazy with a bomb could hurt me. I consider my civil right to life as out weighing an subversive’s right of privacy. And if it came down to your own health or the health of your family, I have a hard time believing you would give a damn about some idiot’s rights to a private conversation.

The sound bites all sound noble, but Bill Clinton had the FBI illegally bring him the personal files on every member of Congress. He was finally forced to give them back. Think he might have made copies?

Stop crying about wire taps when the people you have voted into office did much worse. The media is feeding you crap, girl. This didn’t start with Bush. It went on long before we had the horrible problems we have now. You blow off the wiretapping of anti-democratic civil rights workers, but raise hell about tapping small cells of people who want to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.

2 + 2 = 4. Use some logic and stop listening to the crap.

By Truth

April 17, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this

Yep

LOL!

You want to play Dr. Phil and I am in denial.

Do you have any grasp on reality? You can’t even stage a debate. That is why you restrict yourself to sideline snipping. And then you expect anyone to pay attention to your ill-informed rantings.

Get a clue, Pal.

By Backwords

April 17, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

Stop crying about RFK and MLK when the people you have voted into office did much worse. The media is feeding you crap, boy. This didn’t end with Kennedy or Clinton. It went on long after we received intelligence we were going to be attacked and ignored it. You blow off the free pass given to Bin Laden, who admitted attacking us and remains thriving and free, and the failure of our government to secure our own borders and ports, but raise hell about the idea that American citizens should be able to conduct their sordid personal affairs, addictions, and perversions in private.

By Truth

April 17, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

Backwords

And this is why you don’t debate. LOL!!

Bla, bla, bla.

The media is saying what you are saying. I am the one that is saying that it has been going on for ages and you are the one “walking the line”, repeating what you are told.

Try thinking, Pal. Logically look at who is being tapped and who was tapped in the past.

Or you could keep on blindly stumbling along babbling the DNC talking points. Do you have the ability to THINK on your own? Are you simply a parrot? You can’t deny anything I have said, so you simply tell me to ignore what the criminal Democrats have done in the past.

No thanks. You may not want to hold the democrats responsible for what they have done in the past. If I were a liberal, I would want everyone to forget 90% of American history.

Just don’t ask the thinking among us to do it.

BTW. Bin Laden should have died in 1998 when we had him in our cross hairs and Clinton didn’t have the stones to pull the trigger. Guess we needed one of those “kill crazy” sickos in the White house, huh?

By Kool-Aid CEO

April 17, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

“RED” is our most profitable flavor. Sip a tall glass in Crawford in the summertime. Cools you off while you’re ignoring important memos about national safety. Thanks for a lifetime of loyalty, and be sure to pick up some more today!

By Truth

April 17, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

Kool-Aid CEO

Bla, bla, bla.

Keep blathering fool.

Don’t address any point. Just keep quoting DNC talking points.

You are what’s wrong with America. Ill educated and a non thinking follower that will buy what any slick politician tells you. Yea, all these problems started with Bush. History actually started in 2001. LOL!!

Find some slickass democrat to vote for. They will make all your problems go away and they will take it all from the “rich”. Hope. Change.

I hope America is not really stupid enough to buy this garbage again. How many times are they going to promise you the moon and not deliver anything? But the real question is: how many times are you going to be suckered into voting for them?

By Cheerleader

April 17, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this

Gimme a “S” Gimme an “I” Gimme a “D” Gimme a “E” Gimme a “L” Gimme an “I” Gimme a “N” Gimme an “E”

Gimme a “S” Gimme an “N” Gimme an “I” Gimme a “P” Gimme an “E” Gimme a “R” Gimme a “S”

Go Snideline Snipers

By Bla, bla, bla.

April 17, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

Keep blathering fool.

You are what’s wrong with America. Ill-educated and a non-thinking follower that will buy what any slick politician who works “God” and “guns” into a speech tells you. Yea, none of our problems have anything whatsoever to do with Bush. Everything has been swell since 2001. LOL!!

Find some church-going republican closet homo to vote for. They will make all our problems go away without collecting a single penny in taxes. LOL! Stability. Status-quo.

I think America really is stupid enough to buy this garbage again. How many times are they going to tell you how good you have it and while it all goes down the toilet? But the real question is: how many times are you going to be suckered into voting for them? At least one more, I’ll bet.

By Truth

April 17, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this

By Bla, bla, bla.

You are what’s wrong with America. Ill-educated and a non-thinking follower that will buy what any slick politician who works “God” and “guns” into a speech tells you.

Sorry half wit. Trying to claim that Republicans are “slick” just shows how desperate you are. I don’t hear a lot of Gods and guns in anyone’s speeches but from the Obama/Farrakhan 08 platform and the “8 more years of Clinton corruption” platform.

Obama is claiming to be a “Man of god” and Hillary is tossing back shots talking about shooting guns as a child.

It’s not working, Pal. You are just too dumb to think on your own and the things you are told to say by the DNC just isn’t working.

Yea, none of our problems have anything whatsoever to do with Bush. Everything has been swell since 2001. LOL!!

So when did I say that? No. We have had many in Congress turn their back on their own military for political purposes. That means wars last forever and many innocents will die. Write your congressmen. Tell them to grow a spine and we could end that war and bring our soldiers home.

Find some church-going republican closet homo to vote for. They will make all our problems go away without collecting a single penny in taxes. LOL! Stability. Status-quo.

Closet homo? Sound like you are quite the little bigot. Typical liberal. Preaches from the sideline and is steeped in hate. Pathetic.

I think America really is stupid enough to buy this garbage again.

Judging by you, it will be either Obama, the man of God or Hillary the woman of guns.

How many times are they going to tell you how good you have it and while it all goes down the toilet?

What’s going down the toilet? You really need to stop listening to the BS. A recession is two quarters of negative growth. We haven’t had one yet. Down the toilet? LOL!!

But the real question is: how many times are you going to be suckered into voting for them? At least one more, I’ll bet.

You can’t even construct your own sentences. If you need to do any more than snipe, you need to copy my own posts and desperately try to turn them around, but it just doesn’t work. Republicans aren’t the slickass politicians Democrats are. There is no recession and you are willing to blather anything to make yourself feel good.

Better stick to the sideline. You stink at this.

Red kool Aid. LOL! What a drama queen.

By bla bla bla

April 17, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this

You are just too dumb to think on your own and the things you are told to say by Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity just aren’t working.

Democrats aren’t the slickass politicians Republicans are. That’s why they haven’t controlled the White House for most of the last three decades. There is no recession, people are just lazy and stupid and truly want all their jobs to go India, and their money to bolster the economies of China and Saudi Arabia. McCain McCain for more of the same!

By USinUK

April 17, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this

Truth and AGF -

if you’re talking about defending your home - you don’t NEED a fully automatic or a semi-automatic weapon. frankly, you’ll do better with a shotgun - something loud when you c** it to make an intruder think twice. if they decide to enter anyway, the shotgun will really stop him in his path. That’s what you NEED - for you, the NRA or anyone else to argue otherwise under the auspices of the 2nd amendment is just overkill (pun somewhat intended).

but that’s just my opinion - YMMV -

By Truth

April 17, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this

USinUK

When have I defended using any guns? But I do have my Dad’s old hunting guns in my house. A single shot, full choke shotgun, a 30/30 lever action rifle and an old 22 cal. revolver.

However, if I am attacked by the many gangs that now live around East Atlanta and carry full blown machine guns, I’ll be sure to explain how dissatisfied you are that they have those guns.

I don’t want to defend the NRA, but you really don’t know what I need to defend my home. I know for a fact that several locals carry automatic weapons. If they find out that I have over $100,000 in TV equipment in my home, they will think nothing of using those weapons to take my stuff.

So according to you, my Dad’s old guns are all I get to use against these thugs.

Well, thanks for that. Most liberals would want me to just call 9-11 and throw dishes at the criminals.

By USinUK

April 17, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this

okay … how lame is that … how much disgusting porn spam are we subjected to on this blog and the AJC censors me when I talk about (ahem) c - o - c - k - i - n - g a gun.

lame.

lame.

lame.

By USinUK

April 17, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this

Truth -

Well, thanks for that. Most liberals would want me to just call 9-11 and throw dishes at the criminals.

you forgot “and scream like a girl!” ;-)

By Truth

April 17, 2008 4:47 PM | Link to this

bla bla bla

You are just too dumb to think on your own and the things you are told to say by Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity just aren’t working.

O’ Rielly and Hannity, huh? LOL!! Just ain’t working Pal. you really stink at this.

Democrats aren’t the slickass politicians Republicans are.

Obama / McCain And you think McCain is the slick one. LOL!!!

Gore / Bush. And you think Bush was the slick one. LOL!!!

Clinton (Slick Willie) / Bush. And you think Bus was the slick one. LOL!!!

That’s why they haven’t controlled the White House for most of the last three decades.

They haven’t controlled the White House because the very few times they have lied their way into the White House, they screw it up so badly that Americans need to accept phrases like “Character doesn’t matter” or I didn’t have sex with that woman”. Then when you want the White House again, organizations are formed like “MoveOn” which is saying that we must move on from the incompetence and corruption of Democrats of the past. This is a new set of Democrats. LOL!! Most Americans aren’t stupid enough to fall for the BS.

There is no recession,

No. There is a slow down since the democrats have taken over Congress, but investors don’t have confidence in an economy that is controlled by socialists.

people are just lazy and stupid and truly want all their jobs to go India, and their money to bolster the economies of China and Saudi Arabia. McCain McCain for more of the same!

Ahhh. NAFTA. Passed in 1993. So who was president and who was in charge of Congress in 1993?

And you think that the Democrats are going to stop our industries from going overseas. How sad. Don’t you realize they have been in charge of Congress for over a year and have offered not a single bill to reverse NAFTA?

Hope? He’ll give you hope, alright. Results and real change? Not likely.

By Truth

April 17, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this

USinUK

It is an automatic thing. They don’t pay any attention to this blog. They finally cleaned it up before we would post on Monday. They are lazy and don’t do their jobs. You remember. It’s Atlanta.

Have a good night girl. I need to hit it hard again tomorrow so I’ll probably talk to you next week. I will look for The Station Agent.

By Truth

April 17, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this

USinUK

If I am faced with a thug with a machine gun, I don’t need your permission to scream like a girl. And run like a fool.

Break ins are already going crazy. Two yesterday within a couple of blocks.

I know of two families that have moved out of the city because of the crime. It’s White Flight all over again. If all these investments are made in inner city housing and the city can’t get the crime under control, this city is in for a really bad time. The banks will stop investing and the now-shrinking slums will start growing again.

I have heard of several big conferences being moved to other cities because of the crime. It is MUCH worse than when you were here. It is much worse than last year.

Atlanta is in a nose dive. And no one seems to care.

By AGFNPR

April 17, 2008 5:21 PM | Link to this

USinUK

I have to agree with Dog on this one. It is apparent that you have a very limited knowledge of firearms and therefore you have an elementary idea at best as to what is needed to defend a home.

My fear is that your liberal bretheren that want to take away semi-automatice weapons are in the same boat as you - wanting to ban something without truly understanding what you are trying to ban or why you are trying to ban it. Hunters bad and stupid like Elmer Fudd. Semis bad. Liberal talking points good. Vote for candidate with liberal talking points.

A pump shotgun is far down on the list of guns I would want for personal protection in my home. A semi-automatic shotgun (one trigger pull, one round fires) MIGHT be the right choice. I would personally give my wife the shotgun and I will use my semi-auotmatic pistol.

By USinUK

April 18, 2008 8:24 AM | Link to this

AGF -

It is apparent that you have a very limited knowledge of firearms and therefore you have an elementary idea at best as to what is needed to defend a home.

A limited knowledge of firearms, yes - we had shotguns in the house when I was growing up, but I only fired them once or twice. But, I do understand a few things about protecting/defending a home.

First of all, police will tell you that theives (both those that break into homes and those that rob banks) are usually NOT in the top percentile in their class. Not the sharpest knives in the drawer. Not the brightest porch light on the block. Basically, most thieves are criminals of convenience - that’s why most are easily deterred by signs that your house is alarmed or that you have a large/loud dog. Police will also be the first to tell you that if they HEAR the sound of a shotgun being c-o-c-k-e-d, that will be enough to make them scramble.

Oh, and just so you know, yes, I’ve been the victim of a burglary - while we were home at the time. Was the burgler armed? yes - with a knife from our butcher block in the kitchen. Hearing my roommate scream like a girl was enough to scare him off and he fled the scene.

By USinUK

April 18, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this

AGF -

My fear is that your liberal bretheren that want to take away semi-automatice weapons are in the same boat as you - wanting to ban something without truly understanding what you are trying to ban or why you are trying to ban it

first of all, I don’t think hunters ARE bad - it’s not something I could do, but I think my brother-in-law is the next best thing to sliced bread and he’s a serious deer hunter and fisherman. so, no, not all of us are in the hunter/bad category.

as for my opinions about guns - I think there are way the heck too many of them and I think access to them is way the heck too easy. I think the US shold have a licensing system like the UK where you have to take safety classes, if for no other reason than to reduce the number of stupid accidents that take the lives of children who find guns in their parents’ night tables.

lastly, if I had MY way, no one could own anything smaller than a blunderbuss … we’d have a heckuva lot fewer people sneaking them into ANY public place or using them in drive-bys. call me a gun luddite, if you will, but that would be my solution. it’s a lot harder to reload when you have to pour in gun powder, shot, etc …

but, then, that’s just me - I’m on one side of the fence - you’re on the other. I’d like to think we can find some middle ground that would make us both happy.

By Truth

April 18, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this

USinUK

We are facing something different now. Yes, these are the same dumb thugs you talk about, but they are now working under several different street gangs. This means that the days of the kids just walking through the neighborhood, looking for something to sell to buy drugs are over. They now have quotas. They have weekly tribute to come up with. It is becoming more and more organized while our city is becoming less and less organized.

Home alarm systems are only a small deterrent. They cruiise through the neighborhood during the day. they knock on front doors and when no one answers, they go around to the back door and kick the door in. They have cell phones and look outs that will tell them when the police enters the area and they run with whatever they can carry.

These breakins are more violent and destructive. The perpetrators are more and more bold. During the breakin two days ago, they left a spare tire in the driveway so they could get more booty in their trunk. Of course the cops didn’t even take the tire so the thieves came back that night and picked up their tire.

According the Atlanta’s own police, most of the more violent and gang controlled crimes are a result of the scum from New Orleans that were treated with open arms from the people of this city.

As private citizens, we are on our own. If the thugs are caught, they are usually back on the street in just a few days and they often come back to threaten anyone who wants to press charges.

As I said, I have old hunting guns. I am considering buying a 9MM auto and a Mossburg, pistol grip 12 guage. If anyone wants to keep their stuff and live downtown, they better be armed and ready to defend their property.

I live in an extremely liberal area and these people are buying guns and taking safety classes. Last summer, we had one death of a young thug. This summer will be much worse.

By USinUK

April 18, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this

Truthie -

good grief - it sounds like you should invest in a moat filled with aligators … or land mines … forget guns (and, really, I’m only half-kidding).

I can’t believe the thieves came back after their tired - talk about CHEEK!

hey - like I said - I have no problem with gun ownership and protecting property/home/family. I just hate how prolific they are - and I hate how easy it is to open fire and take out dozens of people at a time, ya know???

By NRA_Member

April 18, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

we had one death of a young thug. This summer will be much worse.

That sounds like BETTER, if it was a home-owner who got the ‘thug’.

the only good burglar is a DEAD ONE.

By Truth

April 18, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Oh, I wasn’t lecturing you about guns. I was just telling you how it has changed here. I’m pretty sure you would feel just like the rest of us, seeing house after house around you being broken into.

I have a lunch meeting today and I will go through a whole deal of having a television turned up and planting my old Volvo in my driveway so it looks like I am home.

Any cop will tell you: if you shoot a perpetrator, kill them. Some thug in a wheel chair will become your dependent for the rest of your life if you don’t. I don’t want to kill anyone, but neither did my neighbor who blew a hole through a thug last summer.

BTW, the good old AJC gave a perfect description of the guy’s house that shot the thug and gave the location, just in case some local thug wanted a little good old fashion revenge.

The AJC: always the problem. Never a solution.

By USinUK

April 18, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

Truth -

BTW, the good old AJC gave a perfect description of the guy’s house that shot the thug and gave the location, just in case some local thug wanted a little good old fashion revenge.

good grief.

speaking of a little old-fashioned revenge … what happened to the idiot who shot the WRONG nurse and 2 other people in the (Clayton??) hospital?? please tell me he’s not pleading insanity.

By Truth

April 18, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this

NRA Member

Nobody wants to kill anyone. And you kill one thug and there are many that will step up and take their place.

I have been advocating taking pictures of suspicious people and let them see you take the picture.

Our problem is that the good kids all look like thugs. Baggy jeans and a white T. So the cops are helpless (and generally worthless).

By Truth

April 18, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

USinUK

I don’t know. The only connection I have with the AJC is this blog. If I can find a paper at a fast food resturant where I am not giving a dime to the AJC, I will read it, but that’s as close as I will come to that rag.

After the article pin pointed the location of the victim who had to shoot the thug, I launched a letter writing campaign to every news outlet I could find. I told the reporter that if there was a retaliation against this guy, I would be marching outside the AJC with a sandwich sign and a bull horn.

Fortunately, the threats of the thug’s family against this guy never turned into anything.

The AJC is nothing but an agenda looking for a cause.

By warren

April 18, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

Horny Twins
Sonic XXX
Nude WWF
dana plato nude
gay male strippers

By El Perro

April 18, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this

I have to agree with Dog on this one. It is apparent that you have a very limited knowledge of firearms and therefore you have an elementary idea at best as to what is needed to defend a home..

Howdy, AGFNPR, hope all is well with you and your gun collection! Just wanted you to know that Other Truth is not Dog. Though I have posted obsessively like he does and have used abusive language like he does, my political views are a little bit more developed than his. I don’t automatically categorize every critic of the current administration as a “liberal”. I do agree with him that much of the “liberal” criticism of Bush is hogwash when placed into a reasonable historical context, however. What I find extremely ridiculous is the oft’ repeated charge by conservative-haters that every conservative person gets their ideas from Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. That’s an extremely weak ad hominem attack which only reveals the intellectual limitations of the speaker.

If they find out that I have over $100,000 in TV equipment in my home, they will think nothing of using those weapons to take my stuff. I have a lunch meeting today and I will go through a whole deal of having a television turned up and planting my old Volvo in my driveway so it looks like I am home.

I appreciate the info, Other Truth. I’ve been in the market for some new camera lenses. ; > }

By USinUK

April 18, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this

Truth -

Our problem is that the good kids all look like thugs. Baggy jeans and a white T. So the cops are helpless (and generally worthless).

Cops - I don’t know about worthless … god knows, I wouldn’t want their job. no. flippin. way.

Kids in baggy jeans - the good thing is barely-hanging-on jeans keep the kids from running too fast … and they definitely can’t CARRY anything when they run, or their pants will wind up around their ankles.

and you MUST get The Station Agent this weekend!!! You’re gonna love it!

By chuck

April 18, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

Last thing I saw on that hospital shooting was a “not guilty” plea at the prelim. I think it was down in Macon or Columbus and not in Clayton.

By El Perro

April 18, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

Police will also be the first to tell you that if they HEAR the sound of a shotgun being c-o-c-k-e-d, that will be enough to make them scramble.

Hey, USinUK—watch that dirty language!! The ajc doesn’t want anyone to compete with the pornographic spam.

Hope all is well with you and yours. I’ve been extra busy going on job interviews and also preparing to return to engineering college in California in 2009. I’ll likely be the oldest student to ever graduate from Harvey Mudd College, but I’m determined to get a degree in math there. I think that I can contribute to the future of America as a math instructor, most likely at the college level. I especially love Linear Algebra, which forms the basis of a lot of computer/business applications. Hopefully I can undo some of the damage that weak teachers like chuck have done to the students of Georgia.

By chuck

April 18, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

USinUK, there used to be a cop that blogged here at times…I think his name was Scott…Anyway, he said he was chasing a guy with baggy pants one day and the guy caught them on the top of a fence as he climbed over. Scott said that he just walked over and cuffed the guy while he was hanging upside dowwn on the fence. I wish he had taken pictures so I could show them to my students who just LOVE wearing their pants down below their butts.

By USinUK

April 18, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

chuck -

Last thing I saw on that hospital shooting was a “not guilty” plea at the prelim. I think it was down in Macon or Columbus and not in Clayton.

thanks for that … horrible situation … hope they BURY that &%$£%^(&^ (too horrible a person to even waste a good cuss word on)

By Ad Hominem

April 18, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

“So you blather the DNC talking points and you look like a fool.”

“Or you could keep on blindly stumbling along babbling the DNC talking points. Do you have the ability to THINK on your own? Are you simply a parrot?”

“Keep blathering fool. Don’t address any point. Just keep quoting DNC talking points.”

What I find extremely ridiculous is the oft’ repeated charge by conservative-haters that every conservative person gets their ideas from Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. That’s an extremely weak ad hominem attack which only reveals the intellectual limitations of the speaker.

By El Perro

April 18, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this

I wish he had taken pictures so I could show them to my students who just LOVE wearing their pants down below their butts.

Although I have no hard evidence to prove that you’re not a teacher, chuck, I’m starting to think that JokesOn is right that you’re lying about your position based on both your general lack of knowledge AND the amount of time you spend blogging on W2W.

By USinUK

April 18, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

Perro -

GO, YOU!!! Way to go on heading back to engineering college!

Hey, USinUK—watch that dirty language!! TELL ME!! I was censored last night for using that word - I mean, really. But, at least the editors seem to be dropping in on occasion to delete the porn spam (sporn?)

• think that I can contribute to the future of America as a math instructor, most likely at the college level.*

teachers are the best - and we need people who can make math and history come alive for our kids!! (raucous applause)

By USinUK

April 18, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

chuck -

Scott said that he just walked over and cuffed the guy while he was hanging upside dowwn on the fence

BAHAHAHA!!! thanks - now, THAT is a great story!! I’ll bet there is more than one story like that - you know the cops have to love these guys! talk about making your job just a little bit easier!

By chuck

April 18, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this

I think it would be GREAT for you to go to California DOG. Then you can say everything is San Andreas FAULT. Lord knows you always have SOMEBODY to blame for your problems. You try to TALK LIKE a conservative, but your whining and lifestyle choices (not taking responsibility for your own actions) give your real “liberal bent” away. But we all know the “math degree” from HMC will never happen. Like everything else you say, it’s just so much hot air…or as we like to call it here in Georgia…a big fat lie (sort of like your oft repeated promise to not blog here).

By Gandalf, the Grey

April 18, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

Psycho today,

Smith and Wesson Model 99 in .45 caliber = $699 Laser Sight for above handgun = $247 Box of ammo

By Gandalf, the Grey

April 18, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

Psycho today,

Smith and Wesson Model 99 in .45 caliber = $699 Laser Sight for above handgun = $247 Box of ammo = $12 The face of a Burgler when you cap him PRICELESS!

By AGFNPR

April 18, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this

USinUK

as for my opinions about guns - I think there are way the heck too many of them and I think access to them is way the heck too easy. I think the US should have a licensing system like the UK where you have to take safety classes, if for no other reason than to reduce the number of stupid accidents that take the lives of children who find guns in their parents’ night tables.

Can’t say that I disagree with too much in the above statement. I will submit that every hunter in GA is required to take a safety course and pass a test before you are issued a hunting license. And every responsible gun owner should begin teaching their children about firearms from an EARLY age. I know my children have handled or shot almost every gun in my collection. Not only have I taught them firearm safety, but by letting them handle and shoot the guns, it takes away the “Ooooh, let me play with the shiny gun” feeling that most children have when they see a gun for the first time. I am not saying we won’t have an accident in my home, but I highly doubt we will.

By USinUK

April 18, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

hey guys … I just saw that PBS is carrying “My Boy Jack” - about Rudyard Kipling’s son serving in WWI. It was aired here a few months ago - it was absolutely heartbreaking but fantastic. If you see it advertised on GPTV, try to catch it.

By Gandalf, the Grey

April 18, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this

I really meant what I said in that last post….so I said it almost 4 times!

By USinUK

April 18, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this

gotta run and catch my train -

everyone have a great weekend!!! (have some sausage and biscuits for me)

:-)

By El Perro

April 18, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this

Lord knows you always have SOMEBODY to blame for your problems. You try to TALK LIKE a conservative, but your whining and lifestyle choices (not taking responsibility for your own actions) give your real “liberal bent” away. But we all know the “math degree” from HMC will never happen.

chuckles—Show me ONCE where I have not taken responsibility for my actions/lifestyle choices. And frankly, you don’t know what a conservative is; you constantly confuse FASCISM with CONSERVATISM. BTW, nice repetition of the phrase “oft’ repeated”. Next time be sure to include the apostrophe. (Note proper use of a semi-colon).

GO, YOU!!! Way to go on heading back to engineering college!

You’re a jewel, USinUK. Your positive attitude makes a nice contrast to

By El Perro

April 18, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this

GO, YOU!!! Way to go on heading back to engineering college!

Thanks for the encouragement, USinUK. You make a nice contrast to some of the more bitter posters who populate W2W. It will be a challenge to compete with the young ‘uns in math, but I’ve met every academic challenge I’ve ever faced, and will give it my best effort. In your honor, I’m going to play some Allman Bros. for the Song of the Day (with one slight modification):

Walk along the river, sweet lullaby, it just keeps on flowing,

It don’t worry ‘bout where it’s going, no, no.

Don’t fly, mister blue bird, I’m just walking down the road,

Early morning sunshine tell me all I need to know

.

You’re my blue sky, you’re my sunny day.

Lord, you know it makes me high when you turn your love my way,

Turn your love my way, yeah.

.

Good old Sunday morning, bells are ringing everywhere.

Goin’ to California, it won’t be long and I’ll be there

By Gandalf, the Grey

April 18, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this

Perro? STFU please!

By chuck

April 18, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

I don’t have to worry about my Conservative Credentials dogturd. I worked in my first Republican campaign when I was 10. I handed out Nixon brochures at a K-Mart on Saturdays and went door-to-door in my decidedly “Southern Democrat” neighborhood. As an adult I have been on campaign committees for a number of candidates and have campaigned for and helped elect dozens of Republican candidates. From dictionary.com

con·serv·a·tive –adjective 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

While it is certainly true that conservatives generally favor limited government interference in our personal lives, IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT CONSERVATIVES, BY DEFINITION, SUPPORT THE MAINTAINANCE OF TRADITION VALUES.

You might want to know what a conservative is before you start calling yourself one.

By chuck

April 18, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this

Gandalf, I second the motion.

By El Perro

April 18, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

While it is certainly true that conservatives generally favor limited government interference in our personal lives, IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT CONSERVATIVES, BY DEFINITION, SUPPORT THE MAINTAINANCE OF TRADITION VALUES.

You might want to know what a conservative is before you start calling yourself one.

chuck—maintenance of “traditional values” is fine, as long as such “maintenance” is not based on discrimination, as you seem to espouse. The main reason you’re not a conservative relates to the first part of your definition. You openly support tremendous governmental interference in the personal lives of people, as in your support earlier this week for “unreasonable search and seizure” of students, simply because their parents chose to send them to public school. While your aim may be noble to FORCE people to “do the right thing” (your words), you seem to miss the point of WHY unreasonable search and seizure is specifically prohibited by our Constitution. Do you have a clue as to why it is prohibited??

Perro? STFU please!

Gandalf, go back to jerking off over your gun collection, will you?

By El Perro

April 18, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this

Gandalf, I second the motion.

Because I doubt you will be able to answer WHY “unreasonable search and seizure” is prohibited by the Constitution, I’ll answer for you. It is because in a fascist, totalitarian society which you seem to think is ideal because everyone is “forced to do the right thing”, life isn’t worth living. Freedom is lost, and “cruel and unusual punishments” must be used to enforce every nit-picking rule you and your “Christian” friends think should be enforced.

Too bad Mara left again because of Other Truth. She made some good points earlier this week.

By El Perro

April 18, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this

And curious minds want to know, chuck: If you truly are a teacher, how are you able to spend so much time on the blog? Either you’re a liar and not really a teacher, as JokesOn states, or your the worst, most inattentive teacher ever to ruin the future for the students of Georgia. Which is it?

By Conservationist

April 18, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

Main Entry: con·ser·va·tion·ist
noun: a person who advocates conservation, especially of natural resources and existing, life-sustaining conditions of the earth

Why do the conservatives ridicule us? Do they have another planet to live on that we don’t know about?

By chuck

April 18, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this

I will try to write s l o w l y for you dogbutt. The SC has ruled over and over again that the schools are a special case. The concept is known as in loco parentis or in English, in the place of the parents. Just as you would be allowed to do all of those searches of YOUR OWN CHILDREN, (thank GOD you apparently are shooting blanks and are the last of your line) the schools can do the same because froma alegal standpoint from the time that they leave the house to attend school or a school event until the time that they get home, WE ARE IN EFFECT THEIR PARENTS.

THEREFORE, by legal definition the searches ARE NOT UNREASONABLE.

BTW, I am for discrimination…at least this definition of it:

Having a finely-tuned ability to discriminate has enabled me to recognize what a low-life you are.

Just to humour your pathetic little attempt to question me, I will answer your question with three little words: Writs of Assistance.

By El Perro

April 18, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this

Why do the conservatives ridicule us? Do they have another planet to live on that we don’t know about?

FYI, Conservationist, true conservatives are also conservationists. I have given tons of money to the Nature Conservancy over the years, as well as being very “conservative” regarding my own “carbon footprint”. My highest electric bill ever was about $56.

What you may be confused about is that intelligent people don’t automatically fall hook, line, and sinker for the pious pronouncements of phony conservationists like Al Gore, who in addition to being one of the largest individual polluters of the planet, has positioned himself to reap billions of dollars in “carbon offset” technologies if he can dupe Congress into passing laws favorable to his investments.

Also, there are a lot of “fake conservatives” around, like chuck and Other Truth, neither of which knows their butts from a hole in the ground.

By chuck

April 18, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this

Why do the conservatives ridicule us?

Dog asks himself that question every day.

By El Perro

April 18, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this

THEREFORE, by legal definition the searches ARE NOT UNREASONABLE.

chuck—I am very aware that the SC has made a special case of students. That doesn’t mean I agree with the SC. IMO, the standard of “probable cause” should be extended to all citizens, regardless of age, as kimberly argued earlier this week. In the name of the “War on Drugs”, fascism has replaced common sense.

Just to humour your pathetic little attempt to question me, I will answer your question with three little words: Writs of Assistance.

So, does “Writs of Assistance” mean that you’re not really a teacher, or merely a terrible one?

By LaughoftheWeek

April 18, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this

(thank GOD you apparently are shooting blanks and are the last of your line)

By chuck

April 18, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

What a maroon. You have no idea what writs of assistance are. Let me educate you. They are documents allowing customs agents to board any ship without cause and search it for contraband. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE 4TH AMENDMENT.

By El Perro

April 18, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

thank GOD you apparently are shooting blanks and are the last of your line

That doesn’t mean I don’t have a lot of fun trying!

By chuck

April 18, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this

BTW, they were used by the British to enforce the Navigation Act, the Townshend Act, the Tea Act, etc.

By chuck

April 18, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

WHAT IN THE WORLD DO YOU PURPORT TO KNOW ABOUT COMMON SENSE? Maybe if you stopped USING DRUGS you would understand more.

By chuck

April 18, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

WHAT IN THE WORLD DO YOU PURPORT TO KNOW ABOUT COMMON SENSE? Maybe if you stopped USING DRUGS you would understand more.

ALSO BRUCIE, you may have missed my post last week about YOUR “profession” so I am going to post it again. When you answer the question that I posed in it, maybe I’ll answer yours:

By chuck

April 11, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

Here’s a topic for you brucie:

Chiropractors claim their profession was founded in 1895 when Daniel David Palmer restored the hearing of a deaf janitor by “adjusting” a bump on his spine. Soon afterward, he concluded that misaligned bones (“subluxations”) interfered with the body’s expression of “Innate Intelligence” — the “Soul, Spirit, or Spark of Life” that controlled the healing process.

Although philosophy and treatment vary greatly from one practitioner to another, most of today’s 60,000-or-so chiropractors can be classified as “straights” or “mixers.” Straights tend to cling to Palmer’s doctrine that most diseases are caused by misaligned spinal bones (“subluxations”) correctable by spinal adjustment. Some straights, however, maintain that they neither diagnose nor treat diseases, but confine themselves to detecting and correcting vertebral subluxations. Mixers acknowledge that factors such as germs and hormones play a role in disease, but they tend to regard mechanical disturbances of the nervous system as the underlying cause of lowered resistance to disease. Louis Sportelli, D.C., who later became chairman of the American Chiropractic Association’s board of governors, expressed this concept in a pamphlet called “What Kinds of Conditions Do Chiropractors Treat?” which he distributed in the 1980s. The pamphlet stated:

The doctor of chiropractic directs his attention to the spine, searching for an area which is deviant from normal. The deviation or malpositioning of a spinal vertebra may cause a neurological imbalance within the body, setting the stage for lowered resistance, and subsequently a disease process… .

Chiropractic is based on the premise that every gland, organ and cell of the body needs a nerve supply to function properly. Therefore it would seem logical that malfunctions in these areas would also respond to chiropractic adjustments.

It is with this basic thought in mind that the answer to, “What can you treat, doctor?” could be as varied and vast as the nervous system itself.

In addition to spinal manipulation, mixers may prescribe nutrient concoctions, homeopathic products, and various types of physiotherapy (heat, cold, traction, exercise, massage, and ultrasound). Straights tend to disparage medical diagnosis, claiming that examination of the spine is the proper way for chiropractors to analyze their patients. Mixers are more likely to diagnose medical conditions in addition to spinal abnormalities, and to refer patients to medical practitioners for treatment. Some practitioners claim that chiropractic treatment is effective against nearly the entire range of human ailments. A small percentage of chiropractors reject Palmer’s dogma and treat only musculoskeletal problems. I do not believe that spinal manipulation is effective against other problems.

So here is a question we all want an answer to brucie…Are you “straight” or are you a “mixer”?

Here’s ANOTHER question for you brucie. You brag about going to Harvey Mudd, but I haven’t heard you say where you went to school for your chiroquacktic education. You don’t seem to be as proud of that. I’m guessing “Life”. Am I right?

By chuck

April 18, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

Hey it’s been a barrel of laughs today folks, but the weekend fast approaches. Have a great one.

By El Perro

April 18, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

so I am going to post it again. When you answer the question that I posed in it, maybe I’ll answer yours:

If you can come up with something other than a cut-n-paste “definition” of chiropractic that isn’t close to 30 years old, I’ll answer you.

As for other personal questions, I’ll be happy to answer those after you post your full name, home address, where you went to college, and where you work. As a “Christian”, I’m sure you follow the edict “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Right, Mr. Christian?

By El Perro

April 18, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this

The bottom line, once again, chuck, is that you’re a hypocrite of the worst kind. You claim to be a Christian, but act in the most hateful manner. You claim to be a conservative, yet espouse fascism and governmental interference at every turn. You claim to be a teacher, but have the knowledge base and reasoning skills of a sixth-grader. So, forgive me if I have no respect for you and “your kind”.

By lyrazel

April 18, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this

…………………………………blink……………………………….Why I feel like I just had a bath!………….Thanks whoever removed the spam………………………………………….thanks. Happy Friday!

Queeny Nyteshade had two claims to fame. She could tell fortunes and she was a midget. The local authorities frowned on her because they thought that fortune telling was fraudulent. They had Queeny arrested. She was placed in a holding cell. Since she was so small she was able to squeeze between the bars of her cell and escape. This incensed the judge that he ordered the AJC to print an article about the culprit. The following was printed in the paper the next day: Small medium at large.

By Truth

April 18, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this

USinUk

Cops are usually good, competent people. But Atlanta pays the least of any local municipality for their officers and I am afraid that it shows. Think about a cop that would leave that spare tire. That was evidence, but he didn’t care.

They don’t even try. They come in here and write down a report, take no witnesses and leave as quickly as they can. thay are always rude and condescending. If they were doing anything, it would be different.

On North Ave. there is a Chevron Station. It is two blocks from City Hall East. Two blocks. Last year I needed gas so I pulled into the station. By the time I had pulled up to the pump, I had been approached by two hookers. By the time I pulled out, i had been offered to buy drugs from two different thugs.

I simply called Chevron and told them that if they didn’t clean it up, I would start video taping the drug and prostitute transaction and turn the tapes over to the local and National media. That night there were massive road blocks all over the area around the Chevron Station.

Again, this was TWO BLOCKS from City Hall East. Every cop driving to work at that precinct drove by that station but were simply too worthless to do anything about it.

We are losing this city, girl.

By Jokester

April 18, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this

lyrazel HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

GOOD ONE.

By El Perro

April 18, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this

blink……………………………….Why I feel like I just had a bath!………….Thanks whoever removed the spam………………………………………….thanks. Happy Friday!

Ummm, don’t celebrate the spam removal too quickly, lyrazel. (See above monster spam). Happy Friday to you and the other beautiful ladies of W2W as well.

General note: I’ll be in Las Vegas/Claremont, CA all next week, so be prepared for chuck and Other Truth to run rampant again. ; > }

By Truth

April 18, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this

El Perro

Also, there are a lot of “fake conservatives” around, like chuck and Other Truth, neither of which knows their butts from a hole in the ground.

Hey Pal. Why don’t you lighten the f*ck up? I think everyone has had enough of your passing judgment on everyone.

You are a judgmental as*hole. We get it. Try something new.

By El Perro

April 18, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

I simply called Chevron and told them that if they didn’t clean it up, I would start video taping the drug and prostitute transaction and turn the tapes over to the local and National media. That night there were massive road blocks all over the area around the Chevron Station.

Hate to break it to you, Truth, but the corner of Monroe and Ponce DeLeon has been a haven for prostitutes for years, and will likely be one for as long as we live.

P.S. Try to be a little nicer to Mara and the “liberal” faction while I’m away next week. Can you do that for a fellow conservative?

By Truth

April 18, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this

El Perro

General note: I’ll be in Las Vegas/Claremont, CA all next week, so be prepared for chuck and Other Truth to run rampant again.

Damn, boy. Are you so stupid and egotistical to think that you have anything to do with whether or not I post here?

You need to get that pathetic little ego under control, boy.

I don’t think you understand that I need to have a molecule of respect for someone before I care about what they think. you are just a blathering idiot. Who cares what you think or say?

By El Perro

April 18, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this

Hey Pal. Why don’t you lighten the f-ck up? I think everyone has had enough of your passing judgment on everyone.

So, what do you call what you do, with your endless rants about “liberals”?

By Truth

April 18, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this

lyrazel

Yes. They did their job once on Monday and again on Friday. How do I get a job like that?

By Truth

April 18, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this

El Perro

P.S. Try to be a little nicer to Mara and the “liberal” faction while I’m away next week. Can you do that for a fellow conservative?

Why don’t you kiss my as*? I haven’t said anything to Mara in months. I’m sure your constant flaming with Chuck has done more to run people off from here than any6thing I have ever written.

By El Perro

April 18, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this

Other Truth—90% of your rants are about absolutely nothing. You don’t even take the time to read other’s posts accurately, and frequently read some meaning into posts that aren’t there. You ran Mara off again this week. Are you proud of yourself?

By El Perro

April 18, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this

I’m sure your constant flaming with Chuck has done more to run people off from here than any6thing I have ever written.

Other than you (and perhaps me), chuck is the least liked blogger here, due to his hateful views which he tries to disguise under the “Christian” banner. You run people off because, frankly, you rarely have anything intelligent to say.

By AntiConservative

April 18, 2008 4:17 PM | Link to this

Can’t y’all conservatives get along? Being a dying breed and all, you’d think y’all would want to stick together.

Survival of the Neanderthals, and all that.

By Truth

April 18, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this

El Perro

You ran Mara off again this week. Are you proud of yourself?

Well, big mouth. Please point to the post where I ran her off. I was here yesterday afternoon for a few minutes. Other tyhan that, I haven’t been here all week. I haven’t spoken directly to her in months.

The fact that you don’t think I ever have anything intelligent to say could not be a greater compliment.

By Truth

April 18, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this

El Perro

So, what do you call what you do, with your endless rants about “liberals”?

This is a political blog, dumba*s. Look at the post at 4:17. Liberals dis conservatives and conservatives dis liberals.

Grow up and stop whining.

By Truth

April 18, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this

AntiConservative

Dying breed? Nah. We don’t slaughter our children.

We will be here for a while.

By Truth

April 18, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this

El Perro

Just what I thought. You run your mouth about my running Mara off and when confronted, you run away.

Typical.

Mara, if you are reading this. This guy is making you look like a mental case. Quite the friend, huh?

Try to mature a few decades this weekend, “Doctor”. Enjoy the California Sun. Maybe you will return with your head out of your as*.