Thinking Right

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 08:22 AM | Link to this

I must have no life… I’m #1 AGAIN (as of when I start this anyway!)

War on Terror/ Border Control: Dale Brown got it right in Act of War and Edge of Battle. HIGHLY recommnded reading, even though fiction.

The City of Atlanta bought the papers, right? As in paid money? The King family should have ABSOLTUELY NO MORE SAY in what happens to them.

Smoking and parkland: Couldn’t agree more. While on the subjects, why is smoking abnned in OUTDOOR public places? I’m not one that says I should be able to smoke EVERYWHERE. I’m very respectful about not doing it around kids or indoors anywhere other than clubs, bars, and the Tabernacle. But why ban it OUTDOORS???????

Count Data Book: Absolutely useless. Only promotes socialism and nany-state concerns.

Marraige Ammendment, Berkeley, and Reddistricting: Amen.

Side note not mentioned in the column: Voter ID was APPROVED by the Feds! Once again showing that the libs are making Mt. Everest out of Death Valley….

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this

Good morning, all.

Two quick comments:

I don’t trust the King family to be good stewarts of anything. The buyers of the papers got taken when they agreed to the deal. But, having said that, the King kids know which side their bread is buttered on and will milk the legacy of their father for all it’s worth.

Secondly — on the redistricting plan. Since you mention the old home state (Texas) they have an interesting idea percolating in the legislature back home… an 8 member citizen committee to handle re-districting. A link to the first article I’ve seen on the plan (apparently, they are actually being quiet about an idea — for a change): http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/4014116.html

By Play that funky music white boy

June 30, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this

Two quick ones from me today also. Nice shot at Constance Russell, Jim. I guess since an overwhelming majority in GA, AL, and MS would have voted to uphold Jim Crow in perpetuity during the 50’s and 60’s we never should have had Brown v. Board of Education. Why can’t thoughtful people see parallels here? Second, if the poster Ugotta be Kidding gets on here again today - please, don’t call me Bubba, Hoss.

By Van

June 30, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this

We’re renting lifeguards from Poland, Russia and the Czech Republic?? I thought this was the type of job the illegals did for us?

This use to be a prime summer job. You got easy money, a great tan, got to eyeball the opposite sex and you were in charge.

I guess being indoors at a summer video game camp is cooler - what a waste.

By Rival

June 30, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

Uh-oh. Jim’s got the vapors over a possible Democratic majority in the House. Jim, fan yourself quick so you won’t pass out in your hoop skirt: “I do declayuh! If those Democrats take the House, they could ask impolite questions of all our fine, upstanding gentlemen leadahs!”

I guess you would call the Republican impeachment of Clinton’s sexual indescretions important public policy.

By deegee

June 30, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this

Van, what tells me that if the topic was “polar exploration” you could still find a way to inject illegal immigrants into your post? See requirements below, this may explain why the pool, (no pun intended) of professional, home grown lifeguards is getting shallow.

USLA’s guidelines require every guard to pass a test annually showing they are able to swim 500 meters in 10 minutes or less, take a federally approved CPR course for professional rescuers and have a minimum of 21 hours in first aid, and 40 hours in a surf rescue class.

By Burdell

June 30, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

The parallel between the Jim Crow laws and the Gay Marriage amendment doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Jim Crow laws were designed to deny equal rights to a group determined by skin color, which involves no conscious action on the part of the person.
The Gay Marriage amendment does not do this. First, while there may or may not be a “gay gene,” homosexuality itself requires a conscious action, making it just as dissimilar to heterosexuality as celibacy, in the sense of an overal “lifestyle.”
Since marriage by definition requires two people of the opposite sex, it is just as impossible for two homsexuals to marry as it is for one celibate person to marry himself. It simply doesn’t make sense, given the definition. Thus, there is no inherent civil rights issue in prohibiting gay marriage. As to civil unions, again the problem is that by granting special privileges based upon political expediency, you are denying equal protection to everyone else. While I think the use of civil unions to grant marriage benefits in the workplace points out the problem with making any marriage a government issue at all, providing privileges to some non-married people (homosexuals and other civil-unions) while not others (singles, polygamists, etc), is a clear denial of equal protection.

By jbmlaw

June 30, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

Hamdan was interesting enough, maybe more so for what it did not say - it is essentially a ratification of the general actions of Bush, merely a critique of how he did it. Unlimited detention is ok, courts martial are ok, just “military tribunals” are not ok unless Congress adds that as a law. Frist says he will move. A non-issue.

Swift - the international banking monitoring program controversy - is the most interesting topic out there. WSJ had an editorial today persuasively distinguishing itself factually from NYT on the disclosure. They stopped just short of a treason accusation against the NYTimes, “In this asymmetric war against terrorists, intelligence and financial tracking are the equivalent of troop movements.” Breathtaking.

By

June 30, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

Liberals are not going to be happy until they avenge their standard bearer. It’s all about evening the score. They could care less about the war, illegals, oil prices, Roe v. Wade, or much else…just do whatever is necessary to get the House back so they can impeach the President. It’s so transparent and it will never happen.

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

Burdell — I must disagree with you. The act of marrying someone grants more than 1000 separate protections under the law. Protections for both the married couple and their families. Perhaps we should do away with all the legal protections afforded by marriage. Then we can say we are treating everyone equally under the law, singles, polygamists, same-sex couples … everyone. If we are willing to do that, then your arguement holds. If we continue to grant protection to any single group, including married hetrosexuals, it will continue to be an issue of denying rights to AMERICAN citizens based on their status.

By Jim's a Dummy

June 30, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

Smoking related illnesses kill around 400,000 people EACH year in this country. Terrorists have killed about 5,000 people in this country, ever.

What’s the bigger problem?

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

STTS:

Cops and Military get to legally kill people based solely on their status… are you saying that either EVERYONE should be allowed to kill or that cops and Military can’t?

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

Dummy:

Name ONE case where second hand smoke killed someone… ONE.

By Jim's a Dummy

June 30, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

“hamper the president’s ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy,”

That’s some nice wording by Justice Thomas. It essentially means that President Bush can’t play by his own rules, and so they should be changed.

We’re a nation of laws, allright.

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

Jeff — It is not a legal right of the police or the military to walk the streets shooting people. They do, sometimes in the course of their positions, kill other human beings, but it is not a protection under the law. when the police or military kill someone, there is an investigation into those actions. Sometimes those actions are deemed justifiable and sometimes they are not.

Yours is a different discussion — I don’t want the police and military to have a legal right to kill. I want them to be held to a standard, just as any citizen is held to a standard.

BTW, when you are in certain situations, you also may kill someone and have a court find your actions legal, even though you are not a police officer or a member of the military.

By mark

June 30, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

What bothers me is that the King papers were expected to draw between $15-30 million at auction. Why didn’t the city just arrange for all the financing and go to the auction and get the best deal they could?? And the family would probably not still be attached like the leaches they are.

Bet they won’t take some of that $30+ million and use it to fix up the King Center!! But, we’ll probably find a bunch of white-owned businesses to buy that for a pretty tune, too.

By

June 30, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

Quote from Burdell: “homosexuality itself requires a conscious action, making it just as dissimilar to heterosexuality as celibacy, in the sense of an overal “lifestyle.”

That is not true. Homosexuality requires NO Action. If a gay man dies a 90 year old virgin, he was still gay. No action required.

By BobD

June 30, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this

I’m amazed how quickly the right gives up our rights simply because this President says he wants to take them. We didn’t give up this much in WWII, and that was a war.

By Play that funky music white boy

June 30, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

Wow, you get on a conference call - come back and Seeing through the smoke is defending you… Thanks for the backup! But onto your points Burdell, I am more interested, like I hope other people are, in expanding freedoms and protections for Americans to live their lives as they see fit. I like the way you phrase While I think the use of civil unions to grant marriage benefits in the workplace points out the problem with making any marriage a government issue at all, - this is my true point. How in the world is two gay people getting married going to affect my life? Where are my friends the divorce attorneys who stand to make millions if gay people are allowed to enter into binding contracts with one another (and that’s what we are talking about here. That and tax benefits.)

Burdell, please clarify your distinction between something that, in your words, may be a genetic predisposition, but also requires a conscious act. Are you saying - “They may be ‘wired’ to think and feel a certain way, but they still have to act that way, so it’s a choice.”?

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

Military kills not protected under the law? Since when? The most basic tenet of UCMJ - which is part of the official United States Code - is that soldiers will follow all orders of their superior officers. INCLUDING pointing that M-16 at that 13 yo pregnant Iraqi girl’s head and pulling the trigger because that isn’t a baby on her belly. (Had a friend of my little bro was in Iraq and developed Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome from just such an event.)

Other legal protections provided under UCMJ: Geneva Protocol. Free housing. Free (I think, they MAY have to pay SOMETHING depending on the coverage) medical and life insurance.

All these and more are provided to members of the US Military simply because of their status in it, and MOST of those are “protected under the law”. Please note, however: I am bringing out the military for this discussion just to point out how there are ALREADY groups that have protections under the law that not every American has. I’m STRONGLY in favor of them having all this and more.

Another person that gets things protected under the law that not every American does: POTUS. Yes, that’s right, the President of The United States, whoever he may be at any given time. Do I REALLY need to go into everything HE gets?

Again, just pointing out the logical fallacies in your arguments STTS….

By Play that funky music white boy

June 30, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

See the Nuremburg trials. “I was just following orders” is not a viable defense for inhumane acts in our military justice system. And as a prior servicemember, I would not single out the UCMJ as protection, rather its another set of laws set on top of the laws of the US and whatever state in this country you happen to be stationed in, that take precedence.

By RetiredLTC

June 30, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Jeff, under the UCMJ there are definately orders that do not have to be follwed. They are called illegal orders. Actually a soldier is duty bound to disobey an illegal order. Come back when you know a little more about the UCMJ. Also, if the individual you spoke of committed that act, they probably committed murder as defined by the UCMJ.

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

Jeff the situation you are describing has already been found to be justified. Again, if that same soldier went down the street shooting people, he would be stopped. He does not have a right to walk down the street killing people outside of situations found to be justified. As to other rights granted to the military, they are not protections under the law. They are, essentially, costs of providing an adequate military. Just as you might also have a position where your housing, medical and other benefits paid in full by your employer, so the people of the US have granted that benefit to soldiers. it is not a protection, but a benefit. The president also has many benefits that you and I dont have, most likely don’t have, anyway. However, those are not rights but benefits (most of which have developed over time).

The military, the police, the President, none of them are above the law.

Back to the original arguement, if you offer legal protections (such as rights of survivorship, etc) to one group of citizens and deny it to another group of citizens based, I think that creates an underclass or unequal class of citizens.

And, Jeff, thank you for this civil disagreement. it’s sometimes difficult on these blogs to maintain a level of decorum. I take no offense that you disagree, I hope you also take no offense.

By Huh?

June 30, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

Jeff seems to be suffering blog overload. Each passing blog makes him a little more non-sensical.

By Lee

June 30, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

Let’s see, Mayor Franklin and others blackmailed (an appropriate term) local businesses to pony up $32 million to buy the plagarized works of MLK from America’s premier welfare family, which is a premium on what the auctioneers said they were worth, and they come complete with the King children suckling teat. What a deal.

Taxpayers have paid millions to prop up the ubiquious King center, which the kids have squandered, and now, it looks like we’ll do it again to create a civil rights museum to house the papers.

My prediction is that they will blow through these millions in a few years and will be back wanting another handout…

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

PTFMWB:

True. But that “extra set of laws” DOES give you more priveleges than a “normal” American Citizen has.

And another point: NOWHERE in the 14th Ammendment does it say that every American has to be treated absoltuely equally. Matter of fact, looking through the ENTIRE Consitution of the United States of America, NO WHERE does it say that all American Citizens have to be treated absoiltuely equally…

By Toad

June 30, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

Seeing through the Smoke, you are absolutely right. There is a class of people in this country who are afforded Special Rights — married couples. Everyone, single or coupled, should have access to health care, retirement benefits, access to their loved ones in the hospital, inheritance, etc. There should be no tax penalty or benefit to married people.

By Play that funky music white boy

June 30, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

Jeff, law = priveleges? I’m not following you - not being a jerk, just want to know how you are defining privelege. Laws by their very definition are limitations.

Thanks in advance for you response.

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

perhaps you are correct Jeff — however, the declaration of idependence does clearly state:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”3

If we do still hold that to be self-evident, then we must treat all Americans equal under the law.

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

The clause in question in the 14th states:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

My question:

How is giving extra benefits to any given group “abridging the privileges” of any other given group?

Answer:

It isn’t. Every group still has the same basic privileges. If you choose to opt in to a group that has extra, that’s fine too.

BTW: NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT MARRY. What has been said is that they can’t marry each other. If a gay couple wants to marry, find a lesbian couple and have a double ceremony. Problem solved….

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

STTS:

All men ARE created equal…. It doesn’t say anything about what happens after birth. When anyone comes out the mother, we all come out naked and screaming… perfectly equal. After that is up to a variety of factors.

PTFMWB:

Those laws give you added privileges. Yes, they constrain you a bit more as well, but they do give you added perks.

By Barbara

June 30, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

I hate the drought too. But I am concerned about our water supply for my grandchildren (not born yet). I am also puzzled by all the money around here. I’m smart and I work hard, and I just don’t see where all these people get all their money. I live paycheck to paycheck.

Buzzard Baptists? That’s funny. Anyway, we should all go to church, but if someone doesn’t, that’s between them and God.

MLK papers. Shame, shame, shame, shame on those greedy King kids. If they really cared about their father’s legacy they would have donated the papers. They are a form of low that would have their mother and father turning over in their graves.

The old folks and public transportation? I haven’t heard that one but the way you describe it, it sounds like one more way to scream “victim”. Haven’t we all be victims of something at one point in our lives? Some of us get over it and get on with our lives. Others sue….

Warren Buffet - I didn’t know that much about him, but what a guy! Inspirational.

By Jim Hazeltine

June 30, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

My personal political views lie somewhere between yours and Cynthia’s, but your support today for the Scalia/Thomas dissent re military tribunals is bizarre. Since when does conservatism advocate suspension of due process and the creation of executive empowerment by fiat?

By Barbara

June 30, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

Oops. Forgot the one that is most important to me.

Marriage = 1 woman + 1 man. Period. Sanctioned by God.

I don’t have a problem changing the laws to provide some protection for homosexual unions or live-ins in a committed relationship. I am not 100% sure that we married folks should be treated to a more favorable tax law, insurance options, etc. I could probably go either way depending on how I’m feeling on married rights vs. commited partners. I do, however, feel the term “MARRIAGE” is holy, and should be 1 man and 1 woman.

By Toad

June 30, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

MLK papers were copyrighted by Dr. King, himself. Whoever bought the papers - Harvard University, Library of Congress or a private collector — would still have to confer with the heirs if they want to publish any of the papers. This is not a limitation just for Atlanta.

By TF160

June 30, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

Seeing through the smoke, it is not just Americans that are considered equal under the law by our constitution. That seems to be a fact lost on numerous people on this blog.

By Play that funky music white boy

June 30, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

Are you going to argue that homosexuals should not marry to maintain the sanctity of marriage as between one man and one woman, then come on here advocating that homosexual couples (gay and lesbian) somehow work out an arrangement where they legally “marry” the others partner?
And I’ve got to ask - you reference the UCMJ and “military priveleges” so much. Are you prior service?

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

Jeff — if you deny a group of people protection under the law that you have afford to another group of people, that limits the protection granted to the first group. To be clear: Granting automatic rights of survivorship, inheritance to a group of people that only exist because of your definition (married hetrosexual couples) limits the rights of all other people who are not married hetrosexual couples. Such rights under the laws, granted automatically to married hetrosexual couples can be (sort of)proximated through legal action on the part of people who do not belong to that group. It boils down to SPECIAL RIGHTS for married hetrosexual couples. Which cannot be equal protections under the laws.

BTW, your suggestion that a gay couple and a lesbian couple could proximate those right through a double ceremony does not create the protection under the law. The gay couple would not have rights of survivorship or inheritance with their gay partner, they would have created those rights with one member of the lesbian couple they “married”.

By a want-to-be water supplier

June 30, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

OK folks, repeat after me, “There is plenty of water. The monopoly(ies) just won’t spend the money to provide it when we demand it.” We wouldn’t need the “Barney Fife water police” if the ‘sole-source suppliers’ controlling the water supply would spend the monies needed to provide it to their customers! They have a monopoly and could make oodles of profit if they did. No one would have to conserve water. If I had the monopoly, I’d expand my infrastructure and treatment capabilities to sell as much water as possible … at a price for a NICE profit! I would not want you to fix the leaks, or install low-use faucets/toilets/etc. I would want you to plant the most water-demanding lawn and trees possible. Give me the job, PLEASE, and you’ll have all the water you want … but at 2 to 5 times the current cost.

By Play that funky music white boy

June 30, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

Barbara,

I respect your belief, but let me ask a question on your last post. Does Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman forever? I can see where the word “marriage” can mean something to you that would make you uncomfortable seeing same sex couples using. Does it also make you uncomfortable for Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes to use it? How about Liza Minelli and David Gest (wow, talk about a freak wedding)? The woman in my office who’s been married three times and has four kids and is divorced again?

By RetiredLTC

June 30, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

It is obvious that Jeff has never served one day in the military.

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

Barbara — your comment on marriage (which I completely agree with) is why the judge overturned the amendment. You could not chose to protect marriage and also grant the same protections offered by marriage to all Georgians. It is two separate issues.

TF 160 — I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing out my error.

By Toad

June 30, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

Barbara — Bingo! You just disproved Jim Wooten’s point about Put 10 amendments on the ballot and all would be approved. Your feel that marriage is only for 1 man and 1 woman, so you would vote for paragraph 1 of the ballot question. However, since you feel that homosexual unions may be entitled to some protection and you are not sure that married couples should have favorable tax laws or insurance protection, you may have voted against paragraph 2, that prohibits same-sex couples from receiving benefits that married couples have. (I hope I haven’t misrepresented what you said.) Therefore, voters may feel differently about the two paragraphs, and the superior court judge was correct in saying the ballot question violated the one subject rule.

By Barbara

June 30, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

Okay, Funky, you make a good point. I believe marriage is forever (or until death). I myself am in my first marriage, going on 19 years now. The divorce rate is alarming, and is causing moral decay and crime in our country. We as a society should put more pressure on our friends to try to work it out. Go to counseling, try harder, etc. I know someone is going to say “what about abuse”. My answer to that is get the hell out of there! Quick. But Catholics will tell you that you should even try to work that out. I won’t condemn that opinion because marriage is sacred. You swear an oath before God to love, cherish, honor and obey until death do you part.

By Mid-South Philosopher

June 30, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

While I often disagree with the Supreme Court’s decisions and as much as it galls me, they may have gotten this one right regarding the Guanatanamo detainees. The Congress, which has NOT declared war since December of 1941, has abdicated too much of its war-making powers to the Executive Branch. Maybe this will be the beginning of Congress returning to its true Constitutional duties and responsibities with respect to armed action.

Also, just a thought. The last war that the United States can cite as an overwhelming success was “declared” by the Congress, not “authorized” by some “resolution!”

By Barbara

June 30, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

Toad, first, I don’t care if I disproved Jim or not. This is a discussion and that’s my opinion. I’m sure I don’t agree with him on every point. I’ll respond to you though on the voting. I am not the most educated voter. I don’t spend lots of time researching every angle of every law. I have an idea of the way I think things should be, and I try to vote that way, but sometimes the complicated bills confuse me. When I’m faced with a bill that has 2 different items in it (like you describe), I vote for it if it contains something I feel strongly about (as an example, I would vote to keep marriage as a union of 1 man and 1 woman, even if I had to vote against giving homosexuals the same rights.) However, if a bill had multiple issues and I didn’t feel strongly about any of them, I don’t vote for it, because I am afraid I’d be voting for something that I don’t agree with. Hope that answers your questions.

By Bill Gates

June 30, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

Warren Buffett is a great role model for the rich.

It is a shame our government has no role models and set criminal standards for our children.

We need more Warren Buffetts in this crazy world.

By Dittoheadwound

June 30, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

Loved Jim’s column today. So many Germane Peepholes into the Furor.

What….?

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

Any legal wrangling at this point on the Marraige Ammendment is just that - legal wrangling. The people that lost are upset that they lost and they are doing everything they can to tell the 76% of Georgians that voted for the Ammendment that Georgians are wrong stupid idiots. (Might even throw in some other words.) They are trying to say “My vote counts more than yours and I am more equal than you.” It amounts to nothing more than a heckler’s veto.

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

Jeff — I have to disagree with you on the “legal wrangling”. It is a very important point that amendments to the constitution follow the laws governing their creation. It is extraordinarily important that people, like Barbara, have the option to say “I want to protect marriage” but I don’t want to create SPECIAL RIGHTS or deny rights to others. Perhaps you don’t mind that, in the rush to “protect marriage”, our government officials created a document that does not follow the law. I care very deeply that we create just laws and that we follow the guidelines for creating those laws.

I also believe that creating an underclass of people to protect the special rights of others is wrong. I don’t believe in affirmative action because I believe it created a privleged class of individuals under the law.

By cookindiggin

June 30, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

Glad to see the link to this wacko blog is broken. Hate speech and closed mindedness such as this belongs behind a closed door.

By Barbara

June 30, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

So, Dittoheadwound, what would you blog about?

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

STTS:

What about Georgians’ right to equality of the vote? One man, One vote. Right? So how does 24% of the populace get off on overriding 76% of the populace’s vote?

You talk about special rights? Heck, I’m only demanding EQUAL rights!

By Barbara

June 30, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Hey cookindiggin, no one is forcing you to find your way to this blog. If you don’t have something to contribute, just don’t read it……. Sheesshhh…..

By Dittoheadwound

June 30, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

With you, Barbara, I’d like to blog about how it’s important to click on the ads on Jim’s page so that his blog will live. I dont mind wading through comments that contain 5000 italicized words as long as this blog provides access for us all to vent, but that could easily end if we all dont click on an ad once in a while. Now, I’m going to scroll down, and click on an ad right now…..scrolling here…..clicking….ah! I could save money on my car insurance….this is great! yes, I do want a free cellphone….oh boy!! Discounts on CDs!! DVDs!! Oh people,you gotta see the deals.
Click on Jim’s ads people. please?? Pretty please???

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

Jeff — it’s not about the vote — the amendment was not written correctly under existing GA law. Your vote counted, your legislators erred in the wording of the amendment and that’s the problem. Put it up again (although I think marriage is pretty well protected and it’s a waste of my tax $$) as two separate issues. The problem is not whether or not the issue passed, it’s about whether or not the legislature followed the rules in drafting the law. The courts are supposed to send it back to the legislature if there was an error in the drafting, regardless of the outcome of the vote.

No one is saying that the vote is wrong — the amendment was poorly drafted, that’s the issue the judge ruled on, not if 24% of the voters who voted against are more important than the 76% who voted for it.

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

STTS:

It is ALL about the vote. Had it been defeated, you would not hear the left whining right now…

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Jeff — quick example to help clarify the real issue.

If the amendment had said marriage is one man and one woman and that said marriage will no longer have automatic rights of survivorship. That would be two separate issues. you might want to vote yes on the first part and no on the second part.

as it stands the amendment says (paraphrasing) marriage is one man and one woman and no other unions can be afforded protection under the law. I might want to vote yes on the first part and no on the second.

GA law says that it has to be two separate amendments so that voters in GA have their votes count on each issue.

By rarringt

June 30, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

I’m just curious about what so many people on this website consider to be issues: flag burning, gay marriage, “intelligent design,” and of course, whether lying about sex is an impeachable offense.

None of that has anything to do with limited goverment, fiscal responsibility, and a strong military, which up until 2000, was what “serious” conservatives claimed to be about. Unfortunately, it appears the elements of the GOP that used to make sense has been jacked by the Religious Right, as evidenced by the posts on this blog.

For example, why is there pushback on the Guantanamo Bay torture issue? What part of “rule of law” don’t people understand? What part of “due process” do you not get?

The 14th amendment guarantees that no person (not citizen, but person) will be denied life, liberty or property without due process, and that all persons are subject to equal protection under the law.

And for those of you non-lawyers who get your constitutional “expertise” from watching too much Fox News, due process does apply to parties we subject to our jurisdiction (check the Hamdi decision from the SC).

Iraq, energy issues, education, the economy, social security, health care, to name a few, are issues which should be discussed here. But instead, you people want to talk about how a marriage is between a man and a woman, or that we should have an amendment to protect the flag.

No wonder things are so much more of a mess than usual. Sheesh.

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

76% of Georgians saw it as one issue: banning gay marraige. To say otherwise to try to invalidate said vote and say that the principle of “One man, One vote” does not apply

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

Jeff — that’s the sort of thinking that prevents us from solving our problems like adults. You assume that there is just empty “whining” by people who disagree with you rather than a leglimate arguement. It is a legimate point of law and I believe it is an important rule to follow. See my example above for illustration.

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

Jeff — I don’t agree that 76% of Georgians saw it as one issue, they saw the issue that overwhelming outraged them and got them fired up and out to vote — stopping gay marriage. It is clearly two separate issues. there is a clear difference between defining marriage and defining civil unions. They are clearly two separate issues and the legislature tried to paint them with the same stroke.

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

STTS:

I GARAUNTEE YOU that had it not been worded s it was and civil unions were allowed in this state, you would have had a couple MILLION people saying “We banned that in this state, why did some judge say it was allowed?”

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

STTS:

Georgians said “We don’t want homosexuals using the word “marraige” to describe their relationships with their partners. Ban it, and ban anything that looks like it.”

By Toad

June 30, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

Jeff, 76% saw it as one issue which is how it was presented. But since people were mislead, that is why the wording of the ballot initiative is being contested in the courts. Prior to the 2004 vote I canvassed against the marriage amendment. Many voters I talked to said they believed marriage is between one man and one woman. Then when I said, “Did you know that the amendment also prohibits gay couples from having civil union benefits?” people were not aware that was part of the amendment and often said they thought it was okay for a long-term couple to have some benefits. Bottom line: the language on the ballot did not truthfully represent what people were voting on.

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

one additional comment: I humbly submit that by combining the issues, the legislature did try to invalidate the votes of some Georgians. They tried to take away our legal right to vote on each issue, on it’s own merits, thereby forcing us to vote with one vote on two separate issues.

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

I’m getting tired of repeating myself:

Georgians voted on ONE issue. Georgians voted to BAN gay marraige in any form that it could possibly take. We knew EXACTLY what we were doing.

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

jeff — that’s a guarantee you cannot back up. If that’s what Georgians wanted, that’s what they should have gotten to vote for. There is no way to know if that is really how people would have voted. We were not given our legal right to vote on each issue, on it’s own merits. Georgians didn’t to vote on we want to ban gay marriage AND on anything that looks like it. they had to vote on both, without being able to distinguish one from the other.

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

Perhaps, Jeff, you knew exactly what you were voting for… it still violates Georgia law in the way it was written.

By Toad

June 30, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

Jeff, you must be a really good psychic to know exactly what all those voters were thinking.

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

STTS:

No, it does not. Georgia law requires any constitutional ammendment to deal with one subject. This one ONLY dealt with ONE subject. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable.

By Jim Wooten

June 30, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

Jeff’s right. It’s one subject. Marriage. Had it dealt with flag burning and a definition of marriage, it would have been two. A blog-only prediction: Judge Russell will be overturned 6-1, with Chief Justice Sears dissenting. There’ll be no special session.

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

Defining marriage and defining civil unions are two separate issues, Jeff, not one issue. Sorry, just because you say it’s the same doesn’t make it so. I believe marriage has a spiritual and religious context that carries separate and special ethical context and repsonsiblities. Civil Unions are simply legal contracts creating partnership between two adults who can legally enter into a contract.

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

I’m respecfully going to bow out now. I’m tired of repeating myself, and I’ve got better ways to waste my day. (Including going to Chatt to buy things that go boom)

Y’all have fun, and if the discussion picks up on something OTHER than the Marraige Ammendment I’ll prolly join back in.

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

Jim — you may be correct in how the court will rule, there is a lot of pressure for them to do just that. However, that doesn’t make it truly one issue. Again, there is no way to really know if the voters would have said the same resounding no to both aspects of this issue. Many people, including myself, believe that while marriage must be protected, we cannot in good conscience, deny consenting adults the same right to protect their assets and relationship.

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten (or maybe someone else can help)

Couple of questions:

By Joeventures

June 30, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

Here’s a link to a summary of the study Jim referred to.

The study results are really kind of obvious if you think about it. Older people are generally more frail than younger people, and therefore more likely to be seriously injured or die in a car wreck. Older people are generally more succeptable to getting into car wrecks than younger people. The U.S. population is aging, so we’re going to be more likely to see more fatal or serious car wrecks over the next couple of decades.

It’s really not that difficult.

Jim merely did what he usually does. He assumed we readers are stupid and would take him at his word. He then twisted the study around to make it look like a lack of public transportation is causing older people to die in car wrecks.

In other words, he twisted the reality to fit his own conclusions. That’s pretty normal for Jim Wooten.

By Barbara

June 30, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Yeah Jim. Put up the wording. I’m curious too now…..

By

June 30, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Common Sense and Conservative, in the same phrase? Doesn’t seem possible. The first part of conservative is conserve. So why do so many folks with W stickers and Jesus fish have to drive SUV’s? I guess bigger cars protect you from all the terrorists standing on street corners.

By time for the truth

June 30, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Regardless of how much fun it is seeing seeing shrill homosexuals and liberals yet again getting extremely uppity it isn’t fair to deny them reasonable rights afforded to adults by civil unions. Homosexuals should have similar legal rights/protection afforded to folks who have common law marriages.

By MB

June 30, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

Cops and Military get to legally kill people based solely on their status… are you saying that either EVERYONE should be allowed to kill or that cops and Military can’t?

I can’t speak to the military, but as for cops, under similar circumstances, they have no more or less right to kill someone that you or I.

By Toad

June 30, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

Here it is from the Secretary of State’s website:

Paragraph I. Recognition of marriage. (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.

(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.”

SECTION 2.

The above proposed amendment to the Constitution shall be published and submitted as provided in Article X, Section I, Paragraph II of the Constitution. The ballot submitting the above proposed amendment shall have written or printed thereon the following:

“YES ( ) NO ( )

Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman?”

All persons desiring to vote in favor of ratifying the proposed amendment shall vote “Yes.” All persons desiring to vote against ratifying the proposed amendment shall vote “No.” If such amendment shall be ratified as provided in said Paragraph of the Constitution, it shall become a part of the Constitution of this state.

By Moderate Republican

June 30, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

“Has anybody seen a death certificate that lists “secondhand smoke” as the cause? Me neither. And yet it’s blamed for such things as the deaths of 430 sudden infant death syndrome newborns. We’re blase about terrorists, but crusading fanatics when it comes to smokers and water-ban violators.”

Mr. Wooten, please do us a favor and educate yourself about topics before you continue to throw out uninformed and ignorant views. There are adverse health AND economic impacts that result from smoking; these greatly surpass any loss of life or economic costs associated with terrorism to date (unless one counts the so-called “war on terror” as a cost)….

In 2005 the CDC reported that smoking cost the nation about $92 billion in the form of lost productivity in 1997-2001, up about $10 billion from the annual mortality related productivity losses for the years 1995-1999. The new lost productivity estimate when combined with smoking-related health-care costs, which was reported at $75.5 billion in 1998, exceeds $167 billion per year in the United States.

The report also finds that during 1997-2001 an estimated 438,000 premature deaths occur each year as a result of smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke. In comparison, approximately 440,000 smoking-related deaths were estimated to have occurred annually from 1995-1999.

Why shouldn’t our society be crusading against tobacco use? It is costing taxpayers, and our economy, billions!

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

Time for the truth — We agree on the civil unions issue however I disagree with your description of the conversation as “shrill” and “uppity” I think we have been quite civil (Although I do apologize to Jeff, as I did not intend to frustrate him or disparage his arguments and I am sincerely sorry for anything that did so. I hope that we can continue to disagree in a civil and curteous fashion.) I personally find Jeff refreshingly honest in his opinions and (correct me if I am wrong) genuine in seeking what is right, ethical and moral. I disagree with him on some issues regarding what is right, ethical and moral, but I respect his opinions and his genuine concern for the issues.

By Barbara

June 30, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

Thank you Toad. I will admit that paragraph 1 section (b) is not 100% clear to me, but it uses the word “marriage” to the point that I interpret it to mean the holy, sacred, sanctified by God union of a man and woman. Therefore, while I don’t specifically remember if I voted for this or not, in reading it, I would have voted yes, and I don’t see it denying homosexuals or civil unions any legal rights. I see it denying them “married” rights, and perhaps married rights have legal implications, so I see the granting of legal rights to civil unions as a separate matter that is not addressed in the language you attached.

That’s my take on it.

By Tigerlily

June 30, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Death certificates never call smoking the cause of death either. It’s lung cancer, or emphysema, or heart disease. Many people with lung cancer are non-smokers so they got the disease from second-hand smoke or pollution or whatever.

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

per the secretary of state website:

PROPOSED

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

GENERAL ELECTION

NOVEMBER 2, 2004

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 1 and 2

• AMENDMENT 1 -

Senate Resolution No. 595 Resolution Act No. 841 Ga. L. 2004, p. 1111

A RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman; to provide for submission of this amendment for ratification or rejection; and for other purposes.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:

SECTION 1.

Article I of the Constitution is amended by adding a new Section IV to read as follows:

“SECTION IV. MARRIAGE

Paragraph I. Recognition of marriage. (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.

(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.”

By Toad

June 30, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

Barbara, this is my interpretation of (b): First sentence says no same sex union is entitled to the benefits of marriage. This is what people refer to as “civil unions” although that term isn’t used. So this could prohibit, for example, an employer giving domestic partners similar benefits as it gives to married couples, such as insuring their partners. (although it would be open to interpretation.)

The second sentence says Georgia doesn’t have to recognize gay marriages performed in another state and the third sentence says gays cannot use divorce laws.

This is my interpretation of the amendment and I have experience in translating legalese into ordinary language.

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

Tigerliliy:

Smoking isn’t the ONLY thing that causes lung cancer, or heart cancer, or emphysema….

Toad and STTS:

Thanks. As I suspected, there are a few points I’d like to make:

By Toad

June 30, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

Sentence one doesn’t say “civil union” it says “no union… is entitled to the benefits of marriage.” That could include civil unions.

By Tigerlily

June 30, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

Jeff, I agree. I think I said in my post that many non-smokers have lung cancer and it can be caused by pollution, second hand smoke, etc.

By Barbara

June 30, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

Toad, I think we may both be right. I agree with you that the interpretation is that civil unions will not be recognized as marriage and therefore an employer could deny benefits to a civil union. However, I don’t think it’s this amendment that could change how employers treat civil unions. I think that would have to be addressed in the laws, or rules, or whatever, that address the legal entitlements of marriage. I don’t think this amendment was meant to deny rights to civil unions. I think it’s purpose was to define marriage. I think, if people wanted to address rights of civil unions, it would have to be a separate issue.

By moderate republican

June 30, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

Jeff: according to the CDC, smoking is directly responsible for approximately 90 percent of lung cancer deaths and approximately 80-90 percent of COPD (emphysema and chronic bronchitis) deaths.

I have never heard of any cases of “heart cancer.”

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

ModRep:

And what about second hand smoking? How do your proove it? I can accept that smoking is bad FOR ME. What I challenge you to proove is how me smoking in an outsoor space in any way harms YOU.

By Toad

June 30, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

Barbara, I hope you are right that the language wouldn’t take away employers rights to grant whatever benefits they want, but that’s the problem with that sentence, it could be interpreted any number of ways.

By E Pluribus

June 30, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten, if you don’t mind the question, when exactly did you get the phone call asking you to make nice regarding Mr. Reed, ignore his crimes, and be supportive of his campaign, and um, how did that go down? Was it a personal call, or one “on behalf of” Mr. Reed? Or was it a personal visit… lunch or golf maybe? Dinner at the country club?

Does it ever bother you when “journalists” are viewed as pawns and propagandists instead of honorable people who serve the public interest by reporting and discussing the TRUTH?

By moderate republican

June 30, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

Jeff: http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

But the Lung Associatin might be biased, right? So do a search for recent studies using PubMed (google it).

The only way your tobacco smoke will not hurt me is if I do not inhale it. The science speaks for itself.

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

I won’t be around much this afternoon, but I wanted to say just this one thing… it’s funny how the conversation changes when we have the actual text of the amendment in front of us to review. I think Mr Wooten and others would do a great service to provide additional FACTS such as the actual text in question or a link to the study under discussion when starting a blog topic. Starting with facts and not just opinion colors the coversation in a whole new way. (although it sure takes up a lot of space, eh?)

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

STTS:

My points haven’t changed…

By E Pluribus

June 30, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

Seeing through it,

You make a valid point, but I don’t think Mr. Wooten gets paid to discuss facts. I suspect his “Liberal Media” employers pay him in SPITE of his propensity for one-sided, highly-skewed hacking for the right. Perhaps he has threatened to contact the ACLU and file an EEOC complaint if they fire him for being “fact and fairness challenged.”

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

ModRep:

You would have to inhale large quantities for it to damage your lungs any more than Atlanta’s smog already does anyway. So how is walking by me in a park going to do any real damage? As far as bars go: Leave it up to the owner, and patrons can vote with their feet.

By Barbara

June 30, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

Have a good afternoon STTS. I enjoy chatting with you. Like Jeff though, my position hasn’t changed either (although I feel a little more informed seeing the actual text and a second your recommendation for links to the actual text).

Hope you’re doing something fun this afternoon!

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

@ Barbara, remembering the conversation we had the other day, I wanted to pass this along because I know you’re fed up with the partisan bickering and special interests that dominate politics today.
That’s why I think you might at least consider the “Declaration of Independence from Politics without Purpose” at Unity08.com:

http://www.unity08.com/declaration

It’s not Republican or Democratic (or Libertarian). It’s thought provoking.

By seeing through the smoke

June 30, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

Good grief… I’m never gonna get out of here… sorry. I didn’t mean it changed our opinions… just the way we discuss the topic when we have the text to review. Have a great one ladies and gentlemen… see you next week!

By Jim Wooten

June 30, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

Valid suggestion, seeing through the smoke. I’ll try to plug the links in more.

And Epluribus, you do have this thing about Ralph Reed. If a majority of the folks here, or even a number of you, want Reed or his race as a blog topic, that’s easy enough. If it matters to you, declare.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

June 30, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

I would have never believed that I’d ever live to see people debating gay marriage! I actually thought that people had more sense.

By Tigerlily

June 30, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

Ugotta, Anything’s debatable!

By Ugotta B. Kidding

June 30, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this

Tigerlily: Some things don’t require debate. It’s called COMMON SENSE, no matter how hard you try to justify something.

By firestorm

June 30, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

Jim — I think Mr Reed is simply a firestorm. Let the voters decide his fate.

while I have only been reading your column for a few days, I enjoy it. Although I disagree with you sometimes, your blog is usually civilized and your readers, for the most part, refrain from the mindless name calling I see on other blogs. You attract a good crowd.

By R@

June 30, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

Second-hand smoke is probably not good for most people - in very large quantities for very long periods of time. But the anti-smoking crowd and social-engineering politicans and bureaucrats really love these reports because their end game and true goal is the total elimination of smoking by everyone. They conventiently ignore the fact that tobacco products are still legal to use by consenting adults. Just as alcohol is. They know that have no chance of getting a real legalized prohibition amendment passed so they take away your freedom to choose to use a legal product by increments - little by little.

They have the history of alcohol prohibition and how it failed, so they will not go this route. Plus, eliminating smoking completely eliminates the tax revenue and sends tobacco products to the black market and underground - just like what happened during alcohol prohibition. They want their cake and to eat it, too. But if they truly believe that smoking should be prohibited in the U.S., then do it through the Consitution, rather than through incremental elimination of personal freedoms. They won’t do it the right and fair way. For several reasons.

The truth would be apparant to everyone if there was a real public debate about a Consitutional amendment to ban smoking and tobacco products. It would bring to light the elimination of a freedom. And if anyone, including smokers and non-smokers, think that giving up rights - any rights, through a Constitutional amendment, would stop at smoking, they are sadly mistaken. What freedoms would be next? But it will never come to that debate because the anti-smoking crowd as learned how to eliminate freedoms through incremental steps. The sad part is that Americans allow this to happen.

What’s next? Guess. America has an obesity problem. And the behind-the-scenes groundwork has already started and you’re seeing small incremental changes being made. They (the social engineering crowd - the nanny-state people) know what is best for you and they will do whatever it takes to make sure you do what is best for you. You are stupid. You do stupid things. They must watch over you. And they have the game plan written - they used in against the tobacco companies and smokers and they will use it against companies who “kill” people by making them fat and they will take away choices for fat people who do not conform to their SOPs of human behavior and actions. You think it won’t happen? You’re sadly mistaken. Why stop with smoking? Why stop with foods that make you fat and fat people who won’t stop eating fat food?

I’m all for working with my fellow citizens to solve issues. I understand that some folks don’t want to be around smoke. But I didn’t get to vote on the smoking ban/ordinance in Atlanta. Neither did the private business people whose freedom to determine their own rules in their private places of business. Let the free market determine if people will trade with a place full of smoke. Just never has made sense to me how Americans have allowed these rule-makers to institute a ban on a legal product and activity in a private place of business. If the place is smokey, and you don’t like smoke, don’t trade there. Vote with with your pocket book. Don’t let the social-engineering crowd and nanny-state folks continue to eliminate your freedoms through incremental acts. They have shown they will do it over and over again and for any cause. Eventually, they’ll take some choices away that affect you - just give ‘em time. They ain’t done.

By Play that funky music white boy

June 30, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

Ugotta…want to call me Bubba again today? Did you have to many Pabst Blue Ribbons last night to remember the blog yesterday. How about a constitutional amendment reading the following for you and the rest of your Skoal Bandit brothers - Georgia bans all gays and mexicans - any other race, ethnicity or orientation you want to throw in to? Maybe yankees, catholics, who else??? Cmon, it’s a blog, be honest, Hoss.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

June 30, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

Hello Play that funky music white boy: Why all the attacks? Did I strike a nerve or something? I don’t recall attacking you Bubba. All you “boys” want to do is your silly little name calling like 3rd grade school girls. It doesn’t bother me brother. Is that the best you can do?

By Barbara

June 30, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

WHAT??? You mean Ugotta’s got PBR and he isn’t sharing?? Alright Ugotta - where do you live? Time for a fridge raid……..

Seriously, come on Funky. That wasn’t called for.

By firestorm

June 30, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

I just read this article about the latest allegation against our troops in Iraq.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/MiddleEast/IraqSoldiers_Investigated.html

I don’t have a solution for the situation, but I fear something really terrible is happening to our young men and women. Maybe we need to commit to winning this war and making a colony of Iraq (since they seem pretty incapable to governing themselves) or we need to get our troops out of the war we don’t seem to want to win.

By Barbara

June 30, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Hey firestorm. I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s turning into another Vietnam. However, we’d meet with much resistance and critism should we decide to occupy. Others (including some Americans) are already questioning our motives. I personally think we shouldn’t have to defend the oil part, anyway. I think we ought to drive a few big ole tankers over there and suck out the amount of oil it would take to cover the entire cost of the war, and I don’t think anyone should criticize us for that. Unfortunately there are just no winners in a war (figuratively people…..) and now we’re up the proverbial creek…..

By Play that funky music white boy

June 30, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

Hahahah… okay - you want to stay above the board and carry out a true discourse? The gravy doesn’t work here Hoss, okay? None of the “brother” or Bubba’s get through to someone who goes back 5 generations on this Georgia red clay. I see through it, many of our friends to the north and west don’t.
So let’s get down to business. I will answer your question. You did touch a nerve. It’s people that hold and promote opinions that you are espousing that are so busy dividing the nation and the state that we can’t get anything formative accomplished. You want to worry about gay marriage while we remain 50th in education, in a nation that is falling fast against the rest of the world? You want to worry about mexicans working here doing yard work and building houses, while our Fortune 500 companies have to look to H-1 Visa firms to find the technological expertise our schools just aren’t producing in big enough numbers to meet demand? (your post from yesterday “Not everyone is fortunate enough to go to college”. It has nothing to do with being fortunate - take that from a guy with over $80,000 of student loans - you have to want to do it and recognize that you HAVE to do it to compete in today’s global economy.) You want to get rid of Nafta huh? You shop at Wal Mart? Please don’t answer yes if you want to do away with free trade. Wal-Mart is responsible for 1-5% of the entire GDP of China. No company holds anything like that on the US. No one, not Microsoft, GM, anyone. You rail against globalization, but you are enjoying the fruits of it’s cheap labor. I know the monitor you are looking at this on is not made here - Taiwan, China, or Malaysia. You want to get riled up about this nonsense when there are so many larger issues on the table? That touches a nerve with me - we fiddle while Rome is burning. Now I have taken a deep breath, and shed my soul of its burden. Take it apart Ugotta. I will wait with great expectation.

By Play that funky music white boy

June 30, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

Barbara, you are right - I lost my “blog cool”. I hope the passion in my last post will not excuse my words, but at least let you know where the heat comes from. My apologies ma’am.

By firestorm

June 30, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this

Barbara — there may not be winners in war, but I don’t want our troops to be the losers either. The stress of the situation we put them must be incredible. I don’t care how much we’ve spent… those young people mean too much to leave them without hope. Either fight it to win or bring ‘em home, I think.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

June 30, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

To Play that funky music white boy: Sorry it took me so long to reply but I had to get one of my “skoal bandit brothers” who can read to cipher this out for me… I’m merely misunderstood, I DID NOT attack you but I don’t back up from my posts. I agree that there are more important things to be debating. I agree with the education comment but throwing money at it ISN’T the sollution. Yes, I’m concerned about ILLEGALS taking jobs from Americans. This thing about “jobs that Americans won’t do” doesn’t cut it. Look just over the Mexican border at all the factories that used to pay AMERICANS decent wages. You might have to pay student loans for a college education, but there’s thousands of AMERICANS that no longer have jobs because of NAFTA and other trade agreements. That’s real. Look throughout Georgia and other southern states what’s happened to the textile business. Ask the people that built automobiles that no longer have jobs. Those jobs might not mean much to you college boys but it sure as Hell made a difference to the poor people that worked in them. Do I shop WalMart? I sure as Hell do, but as soon as you start aa boycott of foreign made products I’LL BE THE FIRST IN LINE!!! You see that Ross Perot WAS RIGHT. Remember that giant sucking sound he talked about several years ago? But as far as gay marriage…Not just no, but HELL NO!!! Have a nice day there Funky white boy!

By B

June 30, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

Funky, no offense taken sir. You are passionate. You actually have that in common with Ugotta. He’s passionate too.

Firestorm, yeah, I think I missed your main point, which is the suffering of the soldiers. I agree, we need to either crap or get off the pot, huh? And I was all for the war in the beginning. I was fully behind Bush and thought he was doing the right thing. Now it seems we’re just screwing around over there. I realize there’s probably some “behind the scenes” politicing going on and our political leaders may think it’s worth the time, but let’s face it: It’s so unstable over there that no amount of pandering or patience is going to result in a stable political power in Iraq right now. Sometimes I think we won’t pull out simply because we don’t want to admit we’ve backed ourselves into a corner and can’t even fight our way out anymore. Before the libs think they’ve converted me, I’m still a Republican….. I just don’t agree with where we are right now in the war….

By Ugotta B. Kidding

June 30, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

To Barbara: Yes I am quite passionate. I’m sorry if I get carried away sometimes. My wife tells me occasionally to get off my soap box. She says I am very opinionated. What does she know?

By Choking

June 30, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

Most smokers will spout any & all matters of ingorant rhetoic to justify their selfishness. So you DON’T think secondhand smoke is dangerous? Two words: Dana Reeve! Back before smoking was banned in the workplace, I used to go home most days COUGHING BLOOD from inhaling the filth of my low-class, selfish co-workers. If you saw thw blood, you’d realize it wasn’t just “in my mind”. I literally can’t breathe around smoke. Think any of that slime cared? NO! As a result, I now have severe respiratory problems & I myself never smoked. Hey, if you choose to give yourself cancer, emphysema & heart disease, fine. No loss to me. I won’t shed a tear at any of your funerals. But don’t you DARE impose a fatal illness on me because you don’t FEEL like controlling yourself. I have a right to patronize & work wherever I want without jeaopardizing my health. Or so I thought. No, I don’t. If you want to endanger my health by lighting up in public, you’re within your rights. But if I want to drop my pants & scratch an itch in public, an act that is NO danger to you, I’d get arrested for that!

By Play that funky music white boy

June 30, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Very cogent points backed up by facts and figures Ugotta. You must work for our current Presidents policy advisement team. You’re right in line. Can you tell me why unemployment was near 1% in the mid to late nineties, spiking at 4.5-5% within the past couple of years, which most economists agree is still full employment enough to keep wage inflation low, yet you are saying “all these people don’t have jobs”? Ugotta, did you know there are only 8,000 people in the ENTIRE state of Georgia that collect any kind of Welfare assistance? 8,000 out of a state of 9,000,000 people. Where are the “masses of unemployed” Ugotta? I understand that when a person loses their job the unemployment rate is 1000%, I’ve been there. But you have to adjust and adapt. Change is a constant now. I don’t anticipate doing the exact same job 5 years from now that I do today, do you? You shouldn’t, unless you are a doctor, trucker, hairdresser or car detailer (something not easily offshored, outsourced or phased out). And the textile jobs and all those “factories” you are talking about in Mexico, they aren’t there anymore. They are in China, Malyasia, Korea, Eastern Europe and the Philipines. That’s why the ILLEGALS are coming north, the factories are gone, they blew their opportunity in Mexico. Ross Perot was wrong. See Jim Wooten’s point in his piece today. The 60,000 millionaires in Metro Atlanta, that’s due to free trade, globalization, American’s learning and adapting to service based businesses (banking, finance, technology, etc.) better than other nations worldwide. Your arguments hold no basis in fact, you just are a bitter bigot, and sad to say, you like have been running our country and state for going on 6 years now - and concedingly you will probably continue to run it, right into the ground. You have a nice day, sir.

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

Choking:

Rad over my posts. I’ve NEVER advocated smoking in public other than outdoors and at bars, where the OWNER could decide to make it smoke-free or not.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

June 30, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

TO: Play that funky music white boy: So now I’m a BIGOT??? Because I don’t agree with your ranting and raving I guess. Calm down Funky White Boy, I’m afraid you’re going to stroke out or something. I didn’t mean to upset you. I was just offering my opinion but I know how you Liberal boys don’t like opposing views. And Funky white boy, don’t believe everything you read. I know you boys only believe what you read in a book. You’ll learn a lot more out here in the “REAL WORLD”. Take care now…

By jbmlaw

June 30, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

Late day thought - how different would the Supreme Court look today had the Senate approved the brilliant Robert Bork instead of the pedestrian Anthony Kennedy?

By Ugotta B. Kidding

June 30, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

One more thing Funky music white boy…Are you now defending millionaires? I thought you liberals didn’t like rich people. I guess it just depends on how you’re trying to frame the argument.

By Play that funky music white boy

June 30, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Ugotta, why do you think I’m a liberal? I haven’t espoused any economic liberal policies. I actually talked about how great it was that there were so few people on government assistance. Just because I don’t oppose gay marriage, hold to an idea that a good immigration policy (and I do believe in much better border security than we have right now, especially with Canada where the hijackers came across) is about our only shot of staying the course economically (on the low and high ends of the workforce spectrum). No one in my entire family had ever even darkend the door of a college of any kind, and I graduated last year with an MBA from Notre Dame. How Liberal is that? Have you been cracking open the PBR’s before 5pm today??? Actually, I enjoy this discourse and I’m glad it’s in blog fashion, people are much less inhibited and you get to really know what they think and why they think it. Ugotta, you base all of your arguments and opinions on “feeling and experience”. I can’t argue that those aren’t good teachers, they are. Hey, I am enough of a liberal to understand that “there is a bigger world outside of Vidalia, Georgia, but there’s a pretty nice one inside there too.” I believe it’s your very God given right to live the way you want to live, love what you want to love and despise what you want to despise. Thank you for having the gumption and conviction to get on here and “go after it” with me.

By Play that funky music white boy

June 30, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw is the sissy. Just kidding jbm. Where are you man? You lawyers have got to be salivating over the prospect of 10% of the American population wanting to “get married” therefore opening the door to gay divorces. Seriously, have you heard any discussions among colleagues about this??

By Think Tank Timmy

June 30, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

Clarence Thomas thinks Bush should be able to do with Osama’s Chauffeur what Gen. Franks couldn’t do with Osama himself: win the war on terror, capture and destroy Al Queda, and suspend the chauffeur’s license, I guess.

We’re talking about a terror army willing to play nookyoolar gorilla war, and Bush wants to squeeze the chauffeur.

Did we cut and run in Afghanistan? Didn’t we? How did OBL and his Al Queda scum get away? How did the Taliban re-emerge? We cut and run, didn’t we?

Cut

Run

We cut and run against the 911 criminals. There wasn’t one Iraqi on those 911 planes, or in those post 911 plans.

Cut

Run

I get Lucky’s cartoon now. Bush is the afghan hound. The shock is about the torture of US citizens with the knowlege that we cut and run in afghanistan and let osama go. Bush said he dont care diddle about where Osama is, remember?

Cut

Run

Afghanistan is where Al Queda was holed up, and we let them get away by cutting and running. 911 goes unpunished.

Cut

Run

By Play that funky music white boy

June 30, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

Ugotta, here’s something else to consider - right now, political forces are aligning that are making strange bedfellows (so to speak). Although you hold very conservative social and political views, you are advocating the same platform as most trade unions (doing away with Nafta, strict illegal immigration policies, etc.) Since when did guys like you follow the organizations that have always backed the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, etc.? The world is changing. Big business and the bleeding heart liberals standing side by side in support of what amounts to amnesty for all these people who entered into our country illegally. Realignment is coming.

By Jim Wooten

June 30, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw, you’re depressing me on a Friday afternoon, reminding me that instead of Anthony Kennedy, we could have had Robert Bork. Is it possible, you think, that Kennedy as the swing vote is evidence that the court has rebalanced to the right?

By Rick

June 30, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

I don’t know why so many of you have wasted so much time debating this topic with Jeff. It is obvious that he is young and immature. He thinks prove is spelled p-r-o-o-v-e. That tells me everything I need to know about him.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

June 30, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

TO Play that funky music white boy: Care to shake hands? I’m not a total A$$, I just appear that way sometimes. I am probably somewhat older than you, grew up in a different time and America than you, had a very conservative family with strong Christian values and work ethics, and maybe have some different views than you. But that doesn’t make either one of us bad. It just means we have different opinions on how things should be done in this country. Having said that, I’m going to have a PBR now…Care to join me? Barbara, you can have one too if you like.

By Th

June 30, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

The State Supremes can solve the gay marriage controversy easily by saying that civil unions are legal in Georgia; the admendment only dealt with marriage. Jim is probably right, coherent thought may be beyond the Court. If gay marriage is banned and civil unions are banned, two things.

The Hamdan case blew away the legal arguments for the secret wiretapping also. The basic premises of the decision were that Congress has the constitutional authority and duty to regulate the military, they do this by means of the Uniform Code, the Uniform code provides specific ways to handle cases like the Gitmo internees, Bush was not using any of the prescribed methods and did not demonstrate a need to use any method other than those included in the Uniform Code. The SCOTUS did not say that using military tribunals was unconstitutional, they said that Congress had not provided them as a remedy for these particular detainees. Bush is free to go to Congress and ask for this. If NSA wiretapping ever gets to the SCOTUS, it will meet the same fate as Congress has provided an avenue, FISA, to accomplish what Bush wants done. He will have the same opportunity to show why FISA could not be used and why no effort was made to change FISA to meet the new needs. The FISA says “exclusive means.”

The scary part is that four justices, Roberts had decided earlier, think that the President can just do whatever he wants in a time of crisis (other than the part where Thomas writes that a WWII veteran and bronz star winner does not understand what war is all about. Pretty rich from a guy that never served.) If you think that Bush should be given the deference proposed by these four, remember that in the mid-90’s, we had abortion clinics bombed and doctors assasinated, gay clubs bombed and a federal building blown up by right wing fanatics. Using your rationale, Clinton could have declared a state of emergency, wiretapped everyone in the anti-abortion movement or the militia movement, grabbed their bank account records to see who was contributing and sent people to military bases with no trial. Conservatives thought it was a huge overreaction on his part to shoot cruise missiles at people who had killed Americans. That’s why we are a nation of laws. Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts are way too authoritarian for me.

By Play that funky music white boy

June 30, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

Ugotta, I beat you to it already! My right hand is extended to you in friendship and my left one is clutching an ice cold Michelob. I realize you are probably my elder (I’m a child of the early 70’s) and still learning my way through this place - hippie parents I’m sure affected me in different ways than your’s did you. Hey, I keep my mind open and I learned something from you today - no matter how heated the discourse and disagreement is over some topics, there usually are things all Americans and Georgians can still agree on. Thank you, Cheers to all. Have a good one Ugotta and I hope to “joust” with you at a future blog.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

June 30, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

But Play that funky music white boy, When NAFTA was being discussed and then passed, the liberal Democrats were joining the Republicans in support of it. Surprisingly they did that under the noses of their union backers which shocked me. The Democrats are not joining big business in the ILLEGAL INVADER thing, they’re just courting all the ILLEGALS hoping to make good Democratic voters out of them for their own gain. BIG BUSINESS wants cheap labor, Republicans are repaying big business donations, and Democrats are lining up millions of new voters. We’re the ones that lose…

By Ugotta B. Kidding

June 30, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

Play that funky music white boy I look forward to it!!!

By Play that funky music white boy

June 30, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Ugotta: Ah, good points, but don’t you like that $150 32” color television at Wal-Mart? I sure do. I am old enough to remember when TVs, VCRs, computers, cell phones and the like were MUCH more expensive than they are now. I’ve always wanted to ask someone with your perspective this question. Is it the American consumer, their drive to get the most for the least that has actually put us in the position we are now (demanding cheaper and cheaper so that businesses were pressured to outsource, offshore and innovate)? This is not a leading remark, I still have an open mind - but would like to hear your take. I do also detect a little hopelessness in your post. Don’t despair, there are good people that will rise to the occassion of putting America back on track.

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

Rick,

Your post tells me all I need to know about you. People have been debating me all day, but RARE is it that someone as closed-minded as you comes along…

By Ugotta B. Kidding

June 30, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

ptfmwb (now that we’re friends)lol, I don’t think that the outsourcing for lower prices was driven by consumer complaints as much as it was in the Board room. Much lower production costs and lower product prices also meant much higher profits for the corporations, which meant much higher stock prices for corporations and stockholders, which led to even more and more GREED! That’s just my uneducated opinion.

By Rednecks - American Al Qaeda

June 30, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

Greetings, trash, from across the pond - and regards to my many admirers back in the states, even the red(neck) states…

In London for a few days, on my way to the Black Sea next week - you Georgia edumacated folks will have to go to the library (you know, the place with all the books) and ask the librarian to show you a map where that is.

I haven’t been in London for a few years - it is a booming place - they have about 5 times the number of cellphone models and about that many times as many automobiles to choose from - no filthy ugly SUVs or pickem up trucks - public transportation that takes you everywhere, and no fat people anywhere. All shades and persuasions - even your redneck Celt and WASP cousins, but much better looking women and much less obvious obnoxiousness.

Georgia rednecks, you are taking y(our) state backwards, it will soon be the cultural backwater it was until MLK and William Hartsfield had the courage and the foresight to put us on the world map. Now you put your fatih in idiot rednecks like Sonny Perdue, Saxby Chambliss, Mark Taylor and the like, and wonder why the world is passing you by.

Argue all you want about gay marraige, the rebel rag, torturing prisoners, prayer in the schools, etc., meanwhile the rest of the world is learning how to live in the future. Other than Starbucks and some Coke and Pepsi bottles in the grocery stores, there is virtually no US brand presence here - think about what that means for your future and your children’s future….

By Play that funky music white boy

June 30, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

Ugotta, you aren’t uneducated, you just went to a different school. Thanks for the reply, now I’m going to take on this wanker in London. Look man, go ask someone there how much of their pay they get to bring home… you think we have high taxes? Ever wonder why the Stones and the Beatles moved here as quickly as they could in their heydays? You misunderstand “Rednecks”, we Georgians debate and fight over these things you list, because we just don’t have the giant issues like extreme unemployment (all of old Europe, especially those citizens under 25 years of age), an everyday challenge to economic and political sovereignty (The EU), and go call someone a Jordy and see how “racist” the redneck south is compared to Merry old England. I love Europe - it will be a nice vacationland in a few years when the only thing they have is tourism.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

June 30, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

Give him Hell Play that funky music white boy.

By ToePro

June 30, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

Atlanta should host a : Heterosexual Pride Weekend I think kids need to see that it’s o.k. to be “straight!”

By Think Tank Timmy

June 30, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

Cut

Run

Flip

Flop

Bush

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this

PTFMWB:

Let us never forget what happened 240 yrs ago this coming Tuesday. Or who won that fight.

Let us also never forget that less than 40 yrs later the British thought they had us beat again… and we still are here.

Anyone who thinks Btitain is so much better than we are: Wanna go for the third strike?

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this

Toe:

I’m in! Jim, think we can get enough clout with the Mayor?

By Rednecks - American Al Qaeda

June 30, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this

Good idea, Toepro - I’m sure many redneck kids look at their fat ugly beer-swillin’ meth abusin’ mamas and daddies and get really turned off by the idea of heterosexual sex.

Getting molested and raped by their “funny uncles” and step-daddies and mommies probably doesn’t help either.

Let’s face it - rednecks are animals, and behave like it.

By Rednecks - American Al Qaeda

June 30, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this

Talk about living in the past - the Revolution was 230 years ago (you can’t subtract, oh ye product of Georgia schools).

And of course, like any redneck you take pride in solving arguments by violence and death.

What an animal!

By Jeff

June 30, 2006 05:14 PM | Link to this

Redneck:

You finally got something right!!! I KNEW I could make SOMETHIING easy enough for you to understand! (BTW: The mistake there was intentional. Its a strategy we use in education to help kids with low self esteem…)

By Barbara

June 30, 2006 05:18 PM | Link to this

Rednecks unite!!!! (and don’t justify this wannabe redneck with a response…..)

Here I come Ugotta. Get that beer cold…..

By Rednecks - American Al Qaeda

June 30, 2006 05:18 PM | Link to this

You’re an educator in Georgia - how funny is that?

And how sad for Georgia children - no wonder so many of them are functional illiterates.

By Patriotic Foreskin

July 1, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

Yesterday’s Comments by bloggers AFTER the actual gay marriage ban amendment was posted verbatum read like minutes from case arguments and discussions by the US Supreme Court. I was impressed by the nomothetically derived acumen of the pronouncements bloggers had contructed with such dexterity and speed. It was breathtaking. Bravo. Bravisimo. Bella bella.

By time for the truth

July 1, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this

It seems that the primates section at Zoo Atlanta is missing one of its dumbest attractions.

“hardly any US brands in the UK” HA HA HA HA

… this snivelling plonker sure has chronic dyslexia. Get your new Regents Park Zoo keeper to read out the list, including Pizza Hut, KFC, MacDonalds, Burger King, Quiznos, UPS, Fed Ex, 7up, Borders, Gap, Victorias Secret, USA Today, Dominos Pizza and christ knows how many other brands in the supermarkets.

London, like much of Europe and the rest of the world, is steadily becoming like the archetypal US strip mall. London is now a vile expensive violent heavily polluted third world dumping ground. I say this as an Englishman who left it many years ago, having been back a few times to see the abject ruin of what was a proud and noble city!!

AS for Jeff’s 4th July jibe - remember mate you needed the bloody French, the permanent resident/green card holding turncoat English and everyone else to beat a smallish army that had a 3500 mile sailing ship supply line. :)

It seems that GodHatesYankeeTrash has finally broken out of its institution and is claiming that someone gave it a passport. That’s about as credible a notion as the Clinton’s aren’t corrupt liars and the AlBOre actually understands the science around the myth of global warming.

By jbmlaw

July 1, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

Play that funky @3:45 was right on target (apologies for slow response, too many rivers to cross yesterday): members of the bar do salivate with every new change in law. We sell access, we sell interpretations. Change for the sake of change is always a new product to sell - not necessarily an ethical product, but a new product. I confess that I have written a “parade of horribles” that people need to inoculate against, through my services, for some new masterpiece by our solons.

I think one of the funniest moments of my career was around 10 years ago when a long-time female criminal client returned, asked if I keep any of those “surrogate mother forms” handy. Yes, we need those a lot. Sure, gay marriage, more money for my ilk.

Actually, I don’t do divorces, personally - no psychic benefit. Your client hates you, your client’s spouse hates you, families on both sides hate you, everyone worries you to death trying to get an advantage, you can never bill enough for the time they waste - its just not worth it. If they cannot do an agreed order before filing, I refer them elsewhere.

Jim W @ 3:57 - you can make lemonade out of lemons. Here I was, working up a good stew over the “lying Democrats of 1987,” and you see an obvious and positive truth.

By Patriotic Foreskin

July 1, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

Jbm: Yeah, it took me time to come up with the Fife gag too. I had out of town company and just couldn’t focus. I liked your “ilk money” gag, in reference to the “surrogate mother”. Great Stuff!! Hats off Gentlemen, a genius. (1000 Apologies for doubting you, sir).

By Willx

July 2, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

If the Wootenites of this country had their way, the Congress and Supreme Court would simply be dissolved. That way, the current Bush monarchy would reign unimpeded. We mere subjects would march stiff-legged in the streets behind our vehicles of military might, wave Old Glory, and then “eyes right” as we pass by the King’s viewing stand. His Royal Highness would kindly grin and wink and applaud his subjects as we pay proper homage.

By Markus

July 2, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

Liberal hypocrisy 101:

When Bush goes to Iraq and visits troops, he’s “playing politics.”

When Bush doesn’t show up for military burials, he “doesn’t care” and shows “blatant arrogance.”

When DemonRATs like Howard Scream say “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for” it’s just “passionate speech.”

When Republicans like Wooten say things like “If we identify a problem that leads to the indicators they cite — children in single-parent families, for example — we may find the solution is not the state’s”, then it’s just hate speech (irrespective of the FACT that that has EVERYTHING to do with individual RESPONSIBILITY that liberals hate so much).

God I’d hate to be a miserable liberal in these times.

By JEff

July 3, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

I could be wrong, but I don’t remember the Fench saving Fort McHenry. We kicked the Brits off this land on our OWN that time…

By War Eagle

July 5, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

second hand smoke disease-Lung cancer, throat cancer, lymphnode cancer. These are some of the results from second hand smoke. We got rid of the asbestos companies, and now it is time to get rid of the tobacco companies-next-the RE development companies. We do not need any more development-too many houses with too many people and they are over crowding the highways and sewer/water system. Too many empty office buildings around so why make more? Go to Iraq developers-the trees are already cut down for you. And no we don’t need another supermarket, Wal Mart, nail salon, mexican restaurant, coffee shop, wing place, CPA, card store, bar, pizza place, lawyer/doctor/dentist place or a massage parlor-maybe just that last one.