Thinking Right

By Outraged

July 28, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this

I received a reply from Karen Handel’s staff about my question to her on her feelings about illegal immigration. Her staff stated that she wanted to stop illegals from voting in the elections. I was unaware this was happening.

I am also outraged that the illegal situation that was a hot topic a month ago has not come to the headlines as much. This topic needs to be hot until it is resolved. I learned that Linder and Chambliss are getting thousands of letters a day wanting illegals to get legal or get gone. Chambliss and Linder are continually going to bat for the citizens but somehow things just die at the top. I have two best friends that came to the USA the right way and it took about seven years for these people. Why are more people not up in arms about dealing with these squatters who are taking up space?

Nothing against them personally, they just need to obey the law, file their IRS income taxes and pay consequenses for breaking our laws. OR get gone.

By The Stopper

July 28, 2006 08:16 AM | Link to this

A question for liberals […] Do you believe the world is at war?

A very odd framing of the question—that is, unless you’ve been drinking Newt’s Kool-Aid. But I digress. If by “world at war” you mean we’re seeing conflict on a scale akin to that of the 20th century’s World Wars, well of course not.

If on the other hand you really mean to say “do you respect the orgasmic bleatings of the Rapture Ready crowd who are hoping that the End Times are upon us on account of that most recent flare-up between Israel and some Lebanese guerillas”, the answer is no. I think your End Timers are a pathetic band of sheep.

But please, do feel free to elaborate, because as usual you’re not making a whole lotta sense.

By Jim's a Dummy

July 28, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this

Jim, Re the whole war question….

I’m really interested in how “conservatives” could have been so against stopping the crazy man leading an active genocidal campaign in the Balkans, then turn around in only a few years and support an effort with much less evidence of it being a just cause, and with a 100 percent chance disaster.

I know the real reason is because during the Balkans there was a Clinton in the WH and now there’s a Bush in charge.

But c’mon, how is that not hypocritical?

By The Stopper

July 28, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this

Jim’s a Dummy? Nah, just a good ol’ boy who doesn’t like them Yankee transplants coming in here and telling him what to do.

So, not a dummy. Reactionary, thick at times, yes. But not a dummy. And I give him props for actually listening and answering us kray-zee moonbats.

By BobD

July 28, 2006 08:34 AM | Link to this

Of course we’re not at war. It’s just a ruse to keep the Republican hold on power. If we were truly at war, we would have a draft, higher taxes to pay for it, and other things.

By KC

July 28, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this

Comparing Howard Dean with Saddam Hussein? Interesting. While you are welcome to dislike Mr. Dean and anything he does/says I have a bit of an issue with comparing him to a Baathist dictator. Now feel free to lay out a point by point comparison showing where Howard Dean has been personally responsible for the rise of a totalitarian military regime and then maybe your point will have merit. Until then it’s just a conservative straw man argument meant to rile up the ignorant and aggrivate the informed.

Oh…before the ignorant reply with “I’m not stupid” let’s be sure we’re clear that “ignorant” means “without information” not “without intelligence”. There are pleny of extremely intelligent people who are ignorant on specific topics. I’ll take a mea’ culpa on particle acceleration. I’m pretty ignorant on that topic.

I think Bush is a terrible president. Not because he’s a Republican, or from Texas, or any other reason…just because he’s a, well, terrible president. I supported McCain, so maybe I’m just bitter, eh? Anyway…I think Bush is a terrible president, but I’m not about to compare him to Hitler, or Saddam, or Pol Pot…take your pick. Let’s have some better arguments Jim. I’ve come to expect better than this column from you.

Have a great day everyone.

By The Stopper

July 28, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this

• how “conservatives” could have been so against stopping the crazy man leading an active genocidal campaign in the Balkans*

Duh. Beside giving Bill Clinton an opportunity to claim a clear-cut military victory, they were opposed because the crazy man in question was a “Christian,” and the folks he was slaughtering were mostly Muslim.

By deegee

July 28, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this

Outraged, illegals can’t get legal unless the law changes. Since April 30, 2002 it has been impossible to adjust status and obtain legal residency if you entered the country without papers. Prior to that those entering without papers and had employer or family sponsorship could adjust status via the I245 process. That’s why we need immigration reform. It appears that many people are under the false impression that illegal immigrants marched in the streets so that they can remain illegal. The law needs to change in order to legalize those that have been living and working in the US for a period of years, and to provide a legal path for low-skilled/unskilled laborers to come the the US and work.

By Jim's a Dummy

July 28, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this

Stopper,

You’re absolutely right. Killing full-grown muslims with families is good.

Killing 100-cell Christain fetuses with no uterus is bad.

You know…the whole “sanctity” of life thing that those nutty conservatives are all for.

By The Stopper

July 28, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this

Killing full-grown muslims with families is good.

Especially the ones in Bosnia who were urbanites, fairly secular, often intermarried. Can’t have those Muslims on the TeeVee.

Conservatives like their TeeVee Muslims to be cartoon “towel-heads” with explosives strapped ‘round their waist. It wins elections and puts butts in pews.

And it’s all in the book of Revelations!

By TruthDetector

July 28, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

“Jim’s A Dummy” sounds like the kind of person who would fight for the life of a condemned serial killer on death row, and then turn right around and rip millions of unborn babies from the wombs of their mothers.

Wottaguy!

By Political Foreskin

July 28, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this

Top Ten reasons for war for liberals:

1) If someone fired on Fort Sumter

2) If the Germans ever actually do bomb Pearl Harbor.

3) If the Klingons violate the neutral zone.

4) If someone sinks my Battleship

5) Jim, do NOT ask Cynthia McKinney this question without a protective cup.

6) Since this bit stinks, I exit stage left.

By Van

July 28, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this

Of course the world is at war. No, it is not a world war in the sense of WWI or WWII.

Starting in the 1990’s. with the first World Trade Center bombing, to the attacks in Russia, England, Spain, Indonesia and of course the mid-east, the world has been the target of ruthless attacks.

The bombing of a nightclub in Bali, the Russian school in Besian along with the two airliners brought down prior to the school killings, are these not declarations of war against the world?

There are many trouble spots around the world, but as a general rule, it’s easy to make an educated guess at one of the participants: Muslims vs. Jews in “Palestine,” Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Christians in Africa, Muslims vs. Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs. Russians in the Caucasus and many others.

Yes, the world is at war.

By Stewart

July 28, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this

KC,

In the spirit of fairness. I would like you to condemn Howard Dean, Cindy Sheehan and Cynthia McKinney. They have all compared President Bush to Hitler. I respect that you do not stoop to absurd comparisons. However, if your going to call out Mr. Wooten, you must call out members of the Democratic party for using the same tactics. What’s really scary is that there are nutjobs on both sides that believe that kind of crap.

By The Stopper

July 28, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this

Comparing Howard Dean with Saddam Hussein? Interesting.

KC, you probably know this already, but it’s been a very common Right-Wing talking point to claim that Democrats are Just Like Thuh Terrarists because, occasionally, a snippet of rhetoric may sound similar.

You know, as in:

“George Bush is a sucky President” —Generic American Congressman (D)

“George Bush is a Satanic President” —Generic Terrarist

Why, obviously, it follows that Generic Congressman (D) is EXACTLY LIKE Generic Terrarist!

It’s conservtive logic. Do try to keep up.

By Dusty

July 28, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

Well, Jim, you have stirred the pot for the weekend. You are a bit early on Cynthia McKinney. Andrew Young has now endorsed her saying that Congress needs someone to speak up. Yes, and attack the Capitol Police to keep them on their toes. Such logic.

You have also stirred the liberals by asking them about war and for what they might fight. This evoked all shades of shilly-shallying and sham. Now some are saying we are not at war. Others claiming that we are at war but not acting like it (no draft, etc.). Never ask a liberal a direct question. You will get the meaning of “is” or a Howard (Our leader) Dean scream. Or the brain dead answer “Bush did it.”

Oh yes, liberals did not forget to throw in a bit of religious animosity this morning. Maybe they are trying to awaken Candide to back their statements. Nothing like a good atheist to keep things going. Throw in a few “nuts” and bolts and you have the usual lighter than air statements from the self indulged informed left.

But I will venture one effort at political peace. “Can’t we just get along?” Hmmmm…I kinda doubt it.

By Political Foreskin

July 28, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

The Stopper’s right. Jim’s role as host of this blog is to stir the pot, and give us some topics to blog about, otherwise, all we get are trolls like Time4Truth and Ugotta, who only post threats to other bloggers which is how every chat room eventually degenerates.

Okay, sometimes it’s fun to mix it up with someone and exchange “you’re a moron”, “no, you’re a moron”, “Whatever”, “Whatever”, but that gets old in two posts.

Trolls post like that all day, everyday, and it’s just ruining this blog.

But we have to share the planet with those we feel are unworthy or somehow less than us, because the one thing that history teaches us, is “dont do nothing to nobody, nohow, noway”, just ignore it and hope it goes away, like we were doing in Iraq till Bush decided enough is enough. I mean imagine a dictator so dangerous that he’d lie about having WMDs to bluff his neighbor, Iran, into thinking it would be foolish to attack him. All that elaborate intel didn’t fool Iran, they used it to set up our CIA to chump for it. I now believe that BUSH is not a liar, he’s just a Iranian patsy who believed the intel that Iran forged via Saddam’s bluff scenarios.

Bush is not a terrible president. Iraq is a terrible war. Is it a war? Or is it an army thrashing around in the desert with no geo-political mission, except to exist in a hostile arena and wait out hate itself.

By Political Foreskin

July 28, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this

Okay, I have to call a foul on Truthdector’s post about Jim’s a Dummy.

Truthdedector set up a speculation about what Jim’saDummy would do in response to another speculative scenario.

That’s a debating rule violation.

I suggest we all follow “Robert’s Rules of Order” in posting, and stick to what actually gets commented rather than our own interpolation of another blogger’s possible future ideas and reactions.

By Jim's a Dummy

July 28, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

TruthDetector,

I’m amazed at how you were able to read through my comments on Christain Conservatives’ tendencies to morally justify any end they deem politically desirable, to get to the heart of my beliefs:

All condemmed serial killers should be free and all expecting mothers should have abortions. Bravo. You got me.

By deegee

July 28, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

Okay, on the lighter side. I saw the video of the George Bush groping of Angela Merkel today and I am convinced that it’s a SNL skit. Did it really happen like that? If so, can you imagine the fallout if Kofi Annan did the same thing to Condi Rice?

By Political Foreskin

July 28, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

Dusty: no onomatopoeia. (Roberts Rules of Order, Chapter 7, line 14)

By Stewart

July 28, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

Political Foreskin,

Nice post. We definitely have a mess on our hands in Iraq. I understand why we did go in, but in hindsight it probably wasn’t the best scenario. Regarding your comment that President Bush is not a terrible president. I agree. However I don’t think Bush was the only American patsy. The Clinton administration was putting out propoganda that Saddham was producing WMD’s as far back as 1998. I hope that this fiasco places it in the minds of our leaders is that you must have human inteligence on the ground. We can’t rely solely on our superior technology.

By The Stopper

July 28, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

Bush is not a terrible president.

“He’s just drawn that way!”

By getalife

July 28, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Three days in a row you try to justify war:

A question for liberals wrestling with whether there’s any threat, short of actual invasion, that would prompt them to take up arms: Do you believe the world is at war? If so, where are you? Neutral until after 2008?

Once again, most Americans were behind invading Afganistan to get OBL and his gang after 9/11. This war is ongoing, the taliban is still fighting and OBL and his gang are still out there plotting.

Happy now?

By Sara

July 28, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

Andrew Youngs endorsement of McKinney will bring her what, about four more votes. Andrew Yooung? Who cares? He’s an outdated relic whose endoresement is a resounding thud. He’s part of the old entitlement gang that only some residents of SW DeKalb could possibly relate to or benefit from in 2006. She finally was forced to step in front of the microphone to explain herself; her opponents high double digit lead in the latest poll flushed her out of the woods. I saw the real McKinney, mean and arrogant as ever, having to address reporters,you could easily tell how badly she hated to do so. It’s a new day in Georgia Mckinney and Young, the members of choir are not all nodding their heads in agreement with your every word, we hear a new song and the new word is music to our ears.

By everlast00

July 28, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Is there any better gift Democrats can give Republicans than Cynthia McKinney? Frankly, I’d rather she wins. Hank Johnson appears knowledgeable and responsible, i.e., a decent person. I’d much prefer having Cynthia around as the standard-bearer of the Democratic party. As a Republican, she’d be in every campaign commercial I ran against a Democrat, no matter how difficult it might be to fit her in. She’s just too great of a gift.

Republicans: vote for Cynthia! We need her!

By The Stopper

July 28, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

most Americans were behind invading Afganistan to get OBL and his gang after 9/11.

Furthermore, and for the record, the Iraq invasion never would’ve happened were it not for the support from hawkish liberals — including those at the New Republic and New York Times, along with the LeiberClinton wing of politicians, who felt the military solution would be as (relatively) quick and low on collateral damage as humanly possible.

This Administration had more than enough support to accomplish its military goals from the left. Just because they were too spazzy and tone-deaf to get done what they’d promised all these years later is hardly our fault.

And with that I bid farewell, for now. Have fun. Luv ya, Jim!

(in an uber-manly hetero way, of course.)

By Dusty

July 28, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

AH, dear Political Foreskin aka known as self appointed blog parlimentarian,

You will have to be a little more specific in your accusations. Otherwise I might tell you that your “title” is somewhat scatalogical and probably prohibited. (Robert’s Rules of Order, Chapter 13, line 24.)

By @@

July 28, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

Something conservatives have known for a long time “McKinney’s Grip Weakens”. Make that her “grip on reality”. I have a friend who is a prominent doctor….he has contributed to this woman’s campaign for years and doesn’t even live in her district. The man is intelligent, he’s muslim?

He’s also a neurosurgeon, so maybe McKinney is his patient. I’m thinking he must not be very good at what he does.

By Watta Load

July 28, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

Izzy was the ATL of its day

Finally…something Jim Wooten and I agree on.

May both concepts just go away and die.

By getalife

July 28, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this

Roll call to check “The Stooper”

By Stewart

July 28, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

Everlast,

Your points about Cynthia ring true. In reality though she reflects bad on everyone in GA. I grew up in Atlanta but now live in Florida. Whenever a media piece comes on the airwaves it’s “the wacky congresswoman from Georgia” not the “wacky Democrat”. Even on Fox they seem to stress that she is from Georiga more than that she is a Democrat.

By Political Foreskin

July 28, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

Dusty, that was a point well taken, my fine friend across the aisle, however, onomatopoeia violations include the phrase, “Hmmmmmm”.

That is onomatopoeia, and it is in clear violation of not only Roberts Rule of Order, but also, the anti-headbutting protocol of the National Spelling Bee Association. (not to mention Ann Lander’s elbows off the table rule #57)

By getalife

July 28, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

Well, according to Van, the world is at war with over 1 billion Muslims.

We had better raise taxes and start a draft huh Van?

Shees.

By Dusty

July 28, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

Ah, my fine protagonist Pol Fore,

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm…..I bow to your superior knowledge of protocol. How could I have forgotten such fine points? But I do have a bone to pick with you. National Spelling Bee reports (Spec. Laws 209) that hmmmmmmmm…is spelled correctly and therefore admissible (Supreme court Ruling 004u).

By Cindy

July 28, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

As always, I love your articles. :)

By Political Foreskin

July 28, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Dusty, I’ve been on the phone with Oprah, (her staff), and I hesitate to even bring this up, but your post violates much more than Roberts or Landers.

You’ve managed to earn sanctions from the Ventriloquism School of Decorum, the Holler-Back Girl Lip Synching Academy of Dope Patter, and the various renegade Tongue Lashing Militia now informing our Legislature (and Dick Cheney).

By concerned citizen

July 28, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

My question for Jim and other conservatives is, under what circumstances would you NOT go to war? Since it would be easier to list those reasons than the reasons you WILL go to war. Put that question aside for a second. What should we do in the Middle East Wooten? All I ever hear is you brow beating liberals about how they don’t believe there is a threat or that they won’t defend America. But you never offer any ideas about what the U.S. should do. Should we kill them all and let god sort them out? Because anything short of that will never leave us in peace. If we attack Iran, we’ll inevitably kill innocent civilians and displace millions of them. You don’t think some of those people will be convinced to take up arms against us, either immediately or down the road? Attacking or occupying Islamic countries only provokes more of them. If we had left Saudi Arabia after 1991, would we be dealing with Osama bin Laden now? You and other conservatives think that these people just rose up out of the desert and started killing people like some psycho alien race. There are causes and effects in this world. And what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld don’t understand is that today’s action can easily become tomorrow’s effect. Saddam was once our ally against Iran in a cold war puppet show. Bin Laden and his mujahadeen were our allies in the Afgahnistan cold war puppet show. We’re still cleaning up the messes left in the wake of WWII and the cold war. That’s all liberals want, is for somebody to stop and think about what our actions today will reap down the road. It’s obvious that our current administration have not considered these things.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

Its fabulous to see that McKinney might well be kicked out of office by the people -again!! Surely its corrupt, racist, cop assaulting, racist, arrogant, racist, supercilious, racist, haughty debate avoiding antics and its thuggish racist father couldn’t be to blame?

Deegee’s smug, obtuse post about illegals was very entertaining. ALL illegals need to be kicked out and those who employ and exploit them need to be heavily fined and jailed. NO liberal amnesty. Secure the whole border with a proper electrified fence NOW!! I recognise that this wont happen whilst the pandering liberal senate refuses to protect the borders, but at least we know who is responsible. Its liberals yet again being assisted by loathsome moderate Republicans - egged on by Bush!!

Liberal foreskin’s arrogant hypocrisy and dishonesty as ever is highly amusing. Its own inflammatory, troll like abuse of conservatives and Bush etc is often as virulent as any on here. It also proffers puerile patronising attempts to control freak other posters with what it cringingly/pompously presents as humour. Each to their own of course. Happily liberal foreskin has now stopped its witless obsession with constant VOTE FOR RALPH REED posts.

Van is right getabrain … we are at war with mohammedans - obviously not the whole billion - but the war on terror is not centred on fighting with lesbian eskimos or female victims of perjuring Arkansas sexual predators. That post is even sillier than your effort yesterday about christians.

Sara just beat me to an excellent point about Andrew Young, the bigot who the joke president Carter was eventually forced to force to apologise for his racist remarks about the British. He was clearly out of his depth at the U.N. and he’s still out of his depth now!!

By Cindy

July 28, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this

Dear “concerned citizen”….

If peace means letting ourselves die, I’ll opt for war thank you. How exactly does peace fix terrorism? If someone breaks into your home are you going to hand him your credit cards, cash, computer and the like? No! You’ll call the police and have him arrested.

What do you think war is? It’s not just about killing, it’s about getting rid of the bad guys.

By B.S.

July 28, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

The problem with how Jim keeps framing the war question is that it assumes all conservatives are currently “taking up arms” to defend the US. If that’s true and at least 51% of the country is conservative then how come military recruiters aren’t turning away candidates instead of offering 20,000 dollar enlistment bonus’s?

Jim constantly plays the “all or nothing” card. All democrats are against this war all republicans are for it, which my discussions with friends and co workers of both parties tend NOT to support. But it’s another way to keep polarizing the voters of this country, you’re either A or B and their is no middle ground.

By everlast00

July 28, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

Stewart,

I agree that it is unfortunate that McKinney is from Georgia and tarnishes the entire state’s image. That said, she’s such a self-centered wacky huckster that making her the face of the Democratic party is something every Republican craves. What more reason for an independent to vote Republican is necessary? Other than perhaps the allure of having people like Charlie Rangel, John Conyers, Pat Leahy, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi heading congressional committees. Yikes.

By Amelia

July 28, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

Concerned citizen, the Bush administration will go down in history as a failure all around. The invasion of Iraq will be regarded as one of the greatest presidential blunders of all time. The silver lining to the Bush black cloud is that now we have seen the result of a neo-conservative philosophy. And lots of people, republican as well as democrat, are saying never again. Thank God.

By getalife

July 28, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

Ah, the resident idiot “time for the lies” chimes in.

I do not read where conservatives are sacrificing anything for war except their big mouths.

Tell me oh English one, what are the conservatives scarificing to win the war in Iraq?

By Dusty

July 28, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

Ha! Pol Fore,

You have honored me with sanctions from the Ventriloquism School of Decorum. Long ago I blacklisted them for teaching all their dummies to say “Bush did it!”

As to Oprah, she has never chosen MY book as a fine one to read. Hmmmmm.. Not that I have written one but* it is the thought that counts.* Even you, Po Fo, must admit to liking that almost ORIGINAL and thoughtful comment. My buddy, Dick Chaney likes it. Hmmmmm….

By B.S.

July 28, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

Getalife,

HOW DARE YOU imply that just because I’m of age and don’t serve in the military or wish to pay any sort of tax for the war, I am not a vital part of winning the war on terrorism.

You see I believe the threat is so great to me and my family that I will take up my keyboard and turn up my Rush Limbaugh to continue bashing American liberals, therfore providing the security this country and my family deserve!

By getalife

July 28, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

Excellent post Amelia. I call Iraq a grade a clusterfuk. The worst part about this failed administration is there are over two years left for them to govern this country.

Let us pray. Please God, do not speak to W anymore. Amen.

By everlast00

July 28, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

If we had left Saudi Arabia after 1991, would we be dealing with Osama bin Laden now?

“Concerned citizen”,

Unless you were educated in some madrassa in Pakistan, I can’t believe that you could pose such a question with a straight face. I have to assume that you’re merely woefully out of your depth.

A bit of history for the uninformed: the hostage crisis in Iran in 1979, the multiple attacks and bombings of American interests in Beirut in the 1980s, multiple hijackings of Western airliners in the 1980s by Islamic terrorists, the disco bombing in West Berlin by Islamic terrorists in 1986, Pan Am flight 103, the list goes on. Needless to say, all of these things happened prior to 1991.

Posing such a question makes you either a sucker, a fool, or a terrorist sympathizer.

By deegee

July 28, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

While JW is focusing on ideological divisions within the US population, take heart, there is progress being made in what may become an historically significant unity between Sunni and Shiites thanks to the vision of the Bush operatives and an unsettling choice of words used by Condi Rice. Seems that the phrase “new Middle East” rankled the “peaceful” Saudis and Jordanians and they are now distancing themselves from Washington DC while the rest of the Arab world is rooting for Hezbollah. The great unifiers…

By Jim Wooten

July 28, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

This is inside baseball, but I acknowledge the “world at war” question is an effort to bridge the blog and print versions of the newspaper. The discussion preceding it took place here this week, so I’m curious to see when and how blog-inspired angles and conversations can be furthered in print.

Much as we all are entertained by the very creative wit many of you possess — some of which is professional quality — that’s not really what drives my interest in the blog. I welcome it. It gives relief that’s often needed.

But after a couple of months, I’m especially intrigued by the quality of the debate that often takes place. Sometimes it’s contained in a single post. Sometimes it’s in a series of exchanges involving two or three well-informed posters. Days or weeks afterwards, I’m drawn back to those exchanges, convinced that they ought to have an after-life, in print for example. Some of them on national service, activist judges, defining Atlanta, the war on terrorism, how Democrats can win in the South and others — had posts or exchanges that certainly caused me to think about an issue in a way that I might not have before.

I don’t have anything specific in mind, but I am looking for guidance here. If it were possible to take blog posts or exchanges to print, how many of you would be willing to provide your real names and perhaps even photos? Here posts can be anonymous and most all are, and there’s value to that in that it does enable people to be as open, frank and honest as they see fit. Newspaper style permits publication using only your post name, but frankly it carries more weight when readers know that “Susan,” for example, isn’t me.

Another question: What about editing the print versions for space to correct typing mistakes and to keep on topic? The actual version would still exist on the blog.

Again, there’s nothing in the works. The only reason for bringing it up is that I am convinced that some of the exchanges and posts here are better argued and more productive than some of what I read in print.

Ultimately, this is an arena for fruitful debate. It’s not just entertainment or sport. But every medium has its limitations, and this one does too. At some point, these discussions should be preserved here, but distilled in some form for a broader audience. Any suggestions or guidance?

Would you be more inhibited, less willing to participate, more tempted to post the standard variety op-ed columns, if you suspected/feared that they would be edited and used elsewhere?

Let me say again: There’s no such proposal on the table, but if some of your commentary lingers with me, it would too with a somewhat different audience.

By Van

July 28, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

getalife,

“I do not read where conservatives are sacrificing anything for war except their big mouths.”

You forgot one thing.

We conservatives raised conservative children, our children grow up and some enlist in the service. Liberal children are down at Starbucks, whining about how life is unfair to them, driving daddy’s car, or the one daddy bought.

By concerned citizen

July 28, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

CINDY,

Your premise is faulty. Iraq did not “break into your home” and neither has Iran for that matter. Osama bin Laden is who violated us. And where is he? Oh yeah, still on the loose and based on all the things on Bush’s plate, not even a priority. To use your analogy, Osama was the guy who broke into your home, but instead of the police arresting him, they drove to another town and arrested some other guy and declared it a successful arrest in the home buglary case. And now that the police have been exposed as incompetent the rest of the town aren’t able to believe them when they say anything. But we should all just fall in line ready to die based on the direction of the Bush administration. Sorry, no thanks.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

ah… getevenasmallbrain unsurprisingly yet again DISHONESTLY dodges the question, as it did yesterday when I hammered it about its idiocy @ christians.

we are at war with mohammedans - and so is much of the rest of the world, although its more localised in the third world which is why the “western” media coverage is so lame. Read the reviews of the new documentary about mohammedan terrorists and clergy … its called Obsession - kind of like your approach to Bush!!

here’s just one review. I saw footage on TV last night - its chilling!!

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/13422.html

conservatives are “sacrificing” tax dollars to ensure that America is safer (it can never be 100% secure in an open democracy),

…extended periods of separation from, and the stress/worry that comes from loved ones serving in the military and other workers in the region

conservatives are also sacrificing the safety of this country by stoically allowing the freedom of speech/action of the shrill, treasonous antics/attitudes of the far left who refuse to accept any policy they dont support.

Most precious of all are the lives of the military that are in harms way.

By getalife

July 28, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

Van and lies,

Try reading this:

This is the scarifice I read about.

Tax dollars?

That is a joke right?

By Jim Wooten

July 28, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

By the way, if you prefer to address the bllog-to-print question one-on-one, you’re free to email me at jwooten@ajc.com. I’ll report back to the blog, but since we are talking about something that some of you may not want to post publicly, for whatever reasons, feel free to email me.

By Van

July 28, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

Amelia and the rest of the lefties,

I think you have been using the term “Neo-Con” wrong all this time.

According to sources, neo-con is a liberal code word for “jew”.

Could the left be intolerant? Racist? Anti-semitic?

Odd isn’t it being a Semite means: 1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples 2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

So being anti-arab is anti-semitic also.

By everlast00

July 28, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Personally, I would have no problem with you using my real name, but a problem may exist with identification: what’s to prevent another person from claiming the same username and posting under “everlast00”, for example, and it then being attributed to me? Email addresses are notoriously easy to scam, so I am not sure I’d be comfortable with that possibility lingering.

I am in complete agreement that the blog would require editing. It would be inappropriate for print in its raw form.

I think it would be disingenuous for anyone to claim that they would not be more inhibited posting under their real name than under an anonymous name. Not that I in particular would care, but I would probably put more effort into cleaning my posts up and toning some of the more colorful prose down.

By getalife

July 28, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Interesting concept but I doubt you would pick a non conservative point of view different from yours.

There are blog stalkers, blog terrorists if you will, who torment bloggers for their opinions. I have seen the FBI contacted for some blog threats and think the FBI have better things to do.

By Freddie

July 28, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

“Denser development equals more congestion.”

That is preposterous. The more things you can walk to, and the nearer you are to public tranportation, the less automobile congestion there will be.

If low density development were the solution to our traffic problems, then why are people sitting in so much traffic trying to drive back to the suburbs everyday.

Nonsense.

By Van

July 28, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

getalife,

Whoop-de-doo

Looking at the voting results for the military, the vast majority is conservative.

Your link, while interesting, is not typical of the military families I have know since 1971, the year I was discharged from the military. It is more typical of the great unwashed hippie, peace-nik, Hanoi Jane movements we saw back in the day.

BTW, when and where did you serve? Mine was 1967 through 1971 with the US Marine Corps Air Wing.

By Southern Democrat

July 28, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten,

I agree wholeheartedly with your comment on charter schools. It would be wonderful if such accountability existed in the public school system. I watched in terror as an incompetent colleague was “processed for termination”; allowed to keep teaching for TWO MORE YEARS(!). Can we place a pricetag on approximately 250 children receiving GROSSLY inadequate instruction for an entire school year? I think not.

As for your thoughts on the wars raging in our world, I respectfully think that your criticisms of the Democratic Party are a bit simplistic. The Dems are the party of Wilson, who ran on a “He kept us out of war” platform to then send troops to France; the party of Truman who made the most-difficult decision I can contemplate of dropping the atomic bombs and then stood fast with the U.N. against the communist threat in Korea; and the party of Kennedy (Bay of Pigs) and Johnson (Tonkin Gulf). The Party has such a schizophrenic, disjointed history with armed conflict that I think its leaders do sometimes appear confused about what is a rational use of force. I would respectfully offer, though, that this hesitation and/or desire to discuss is not an altogether negative quality. I am certainly not trying to project any emotions or ideologies on you, so please correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m sure that after your honorable service in Vietnam, you understand the horrors of war and humanity’s need to avoid it at all costs.

Last, I sincerely hope that you are proud of this blog. While I think many (including myself) let their emotions get the best of them at times, you have proven to be an open-minded conductor of the dialogue, in stark contrast to the ideologue that I had (mistakenly, I admit) pegged you for.

I think that all of us who grew up in the South have learned the art of compromise from an early age, whether it be across racial, political or socio-economic lines. The poisoning of the political rhetoric is counter-productive and I hope that we will all remember our roots and our commonalities more.

By concerned citizen

July 28, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

VAN,

According to what “sources” does the term neo-con mean Jew? Neo-con is short for neo-conservative, which Wikipedia defines as:

Neoconservatism is a political current and ideology, mainly in the United States, which emerged in the 1960s, coalesced in the 1970s, and has had a significant presence in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. It is most closely identified with a set of foreign policy positions and goals: a hawkish stance during the Cold War and, more recently, in various conflicts in the Middle East. At times there have been distinct neoconservative positions in domestic policies; in particular, the first generation of neoconservatives were generally less opposed to “big government” and to social spending than other U.S. conservatives of the time.

The prefix “neo” can denote that many of the movement’s founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism, but can also refer to the comparatively recent emergence of this “new wave” of conservative thought, which derived from a variety of intellectual roots in the decades following World War II. While some (such as Irving Kristol) have described themselves as “neoconservatives”, the term is used more by opponents and critics of this political current than by its adherents, some of whom reject even the claim that neoconservatism is an identifiable current of American political thought.

Within American conservatism, neoconservatism is particularly contrasted to isolationism, especially as found in paleoconservatism. While the neoconservatives share some of the Christian right critique of a purely secular society, this is not as central to their politics as it is for the Christian right.

Neoconservatism is associated with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard and some of the foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Neoconservative journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and politicians, often dubbed “neocons” by supporters and critics alike, have been credited with (or blamed for) their influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and George W. Bush (2001-present).

Nowhere in there does it say Jew, or Jewish.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

getevenasmallbrain

I note as ever you CANNOT answer the points made to you. This is why conservatives laugh and mock the hilarious pinko left!

Some quite poisonous lefties on here have the gall to sneer and emptily assert that conservatives (including yours truly) dont atempt to debate issues etc … but I consistently post facts and incisive commentary that so often you lefties run away from answering.

You at the very least implicitly (look that up) intimated, and very sardonic it was, that we aren’t at war with mohammedans - I countered with a very reasonable post, factually decrying your seemingly empty assertion. YOu then UTTERLY ignored my points and sneered at conservatives. I responded with more facts -facts that you peremptorily ‘demanded’ in response. Your hilariously laconic, utterly dishonest 11.17 am characterisation of a fairly thoughtful post was wonderfully amusing and reveals how you liberals simply spit out abuse and wont debate!!

THis is just one set of exchanges on this forum … there are countless others one could cite!

THis is just too bloody easy!!

By Dusty

July 28, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

I don’t know, Jim. Somehow a printed version of a blog would cause a loss of some of its unhindered words and clarity with its burden of pictures and names. Letters to the Editor seems to cover most of what you suggest. What is it you like so much here? Specific topics? Better political thought? You would pick and choose from the “best”? Knowing who wrote what would help to evaluate the writer?

Would the Luckovich blog then do the same?

I am trying to get a true picture of what you are suggesting.

By Barbara

July 28, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

Jim, I wouldn’t be hesitant to give you my real name (I already have, as you know). However, I would be hesitant to publish it because of the retaliation I might suffer as a result. I have seen some very mean, angry posts from some of the bloggers on your site. I agree with everlast00 that everyone would probably be a little more polite if they had to use their real names. If, in your theory of publishing a blog using real names, you were going for honesty and thoughtful postings, you could get a good crowd. However, if you were looking for the name-calling, angry responses, I don’t think you’d see them if the poster were identified.

Van, I just have to note that your use of “whoop de doo” still has me laughing. Thanks!

By Frank

July 28, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

Sure we are in a world wide conflict with the terrorists. But when you go into a conflict you need some sort of management team to lead and not react. The thing with Iraq and Afghanistan is that we are waging a two front battle. That is against the theory of never fighting a two front war. You can not use your resources to the maimum effect. Defeat on one front before you engage on another. Especially when you have allies that do not give full support.

By getalife

July 28, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

Van,

Never served never will. I had a recruiter in my face one time and knocked him out. I do not allow other men to scream in my face without throwing a punch.

My family served and my father was the communication officer for Patton. He would never allow me to enlist but I would serve if drafted, probably mostly in the brigg for striking an officer.

Does that answer your question jarhead?

By getalife

July 28, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

Yes, Barbara,

My link to a mothers boy having mental problems after serving in Iraq shows your disgusting mindset.

By getalife

July 28, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

I do not think it is funny Barbara.

By Amelia

July 28, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

By Van

July 28, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

Amelia and the rest of the lefties,

I think you have been using the term “Neo-Con” wrong all this time.

Van, obviously you have no clue what neo-conservatism is. It is a philosophy. And the Bush administration espouses it. Check it out Van. That is if you can find a site other than vdare.com (probably where you got your neo-con definition) and the AJC. As for my “liberalism”. I am a REGISTERED republican. My husband is a West Point graduate and I was a military wife for the better part of my adult life. So forget the “leftie” crap. Bush/Cheney has bastardized the republican party unti it is practically unrecognizable. In your case Van, you don’t have the mental acuity to understand much that doesn’t originate with your stomach or your “cheney”, much less what they have done to the party and to this country. Unfortunately, morons like you are now the republican “base.” But after 06 and 08 Van, you and your ilk are finito.

By Stewart

July 28, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

Getalife

I would love to see you tell that to a Marine face to face. My money is on that marine pounding you into the ground without even breaking a sweat!

By Barbara

July 28, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

getalife, you took it way too personally. I find certain words funny. Whoop-de-doo, coming from someone like Van, who is well spoken and very thoughtful in his posts, was funny to me. I didn’t mean that your story was funny; just that Van said “whoop-de-doo”. Please don’t take it so personally.

However, I too read the story. I agree that some of our soldiers suffer post tramatic occurrances after fighting in a war. As many others have said “war is hell”. You stated yourself that you would never serve. I have served (although not in war times), and many other posters have served. I don’t think you can speak for the military if you wouldn’t even consider serving yourself. That’s rather hypocritical of you. I looked at the website you posted; at the home page. That organization is just a conservative-bashing Bush-hating site. Either side can dig up as many stories as they like citing post tramatic syndrome, or elation and pride from serving, depending on their agenda. Your agenda is anti-war, so I would expect you to only use examples of people who were tramatized. Some on this blog have critized conservatives of using the same “agenda leaning” examples to argue their points.

In the end, it’s going to be okay. Don’t get so upset. After all, you won’t get off your butt and serve, so you’ll never have to risk your neck. Just go back to sleep and let those who are willing to put their lives at risk keep protecting your hateful butt. And don’t worry - we will.

By Jim Wooten

July 28, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

I hear that you’re not keen on the idea of blog-to-print. What I have in mind is something like an exchange that took place, as I recall without looking back, between jbmlaw and Southern Democrat and 2 or 3 others, on a definition of judicial activism. I thought it was a discussion carried on with insight and authority that I don’t often see in print. To work in print, it needed 3 or 4 of the point-counterpoint exchanges, plus some single posts by others. But since the exchange struck me as real genuine and spontaneous in a way that op-eds often don’t. If you lose that on the blog because of the prospect of print, it’s probably too high a price to pay for my money.

By getalife

July 28, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

Stewert,

Been there done that. I am guessing when you fight you sue your opponent.

You should keep your face out of other peoples businees. I am talking to Van man to man.

By Barbara

July 28, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Hey Stewart, good points. Here’s another…. So far I’ve seen an intellegent “Jarhead” pound getalife into the ground verbally, without even raising a fist. Brawn and brains - now that’s what I’m talkin’ about. Oooohh-rahh!!!

By Mark

July 28, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

I am not trying to cast stones at the Marine Corp, but it sure does seem that everybody one these blogs that claims to be an ex-marine is at the low end of the Bell Curve. Dumber than a box of rocks. Sorry. They just don’t seem very bright.

By getalife

July 28, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

Mark,

More than likely, they are lying trying to feel good about themselves.

Sacrificing tax dollars is the biggest joke I have ever read.

Now that is funny Barbara.

By Stewart

July 28, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

You guessed wrong. I think you should give people who served in the military the respect they derserve. Men that brag about their toughness on blogs are the same guys that bragged in high school about their success with the ladies. Which was usually zero.

By everlast00

July 28, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Jim,

Perhaps an alternative for you would be to solicit the individual posters’ permission to print their posts after the fact, with real names attached. It may be more cumbersome, but I think it could solve a lot of problems without detracting from the blog itself.

By Amelia

July 28, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

By concerned citizen

July 28, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

VAN,

According to what “sources” does the term neo-con mean Jew? Neo-con is short for neo-conservative, which Wikipedia defines as:

Neoconservatism is a political current and ideology, mainly in the United States, which emerged in the 1960s, coalesced in the 1970s, and has had a significant presence in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. It is most closely identified with a set of foreign policy positions and goals: a hawkish stance during the Cold War and, more recently, in various conflicts in the Middle East. At times there have been distinct neoconservative positions in domestic policies; in particular, the first generation of neoconservatives were generally less opposed to “big government” and to social spending than other U.S. conservatives of the time.

Concerned citizen, the neo-conservative philosophy is way too deep for Van. He needs to stick to the “kill em all, let God sort em out” stuff. That’s more on his intelectual level.

By B.S.

July 28, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

HA-HA, Best joke I’ve heard all day - “conservatives are sacrificing their tax dollars”

Which tax dollars are these? We have an 8 trillion dollar deficit. We’re charging the whole thing, and conservatives are still clamoring for tax cuts while simultaneously supporting the expansion of large government!

Does mean all non-supporters aren’t scarificing tax dollars?

Basically, the bottom-line, irrefutable truth is this - If you are eligible and have not enlisted to fight in this war, your sacrifice is the same as Michael Moore’s, except he probably has paid a lot more in tax dollars than you, so (following some conservative posters’s logic)he has supported our country and this war more than you.

By Markus

July 28, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

@BS:

“The problem with how Jim keeps framing the war question is that it assumes all conservatives are currently “taking up arms” to defend the US. If that’s true and at least 51% of the country is conservative then how come military recruiters aren’t turning away candidates…”

Another liberal infatuated with Conservatives and war stances. Hey clown, we have LIVES and JOBS and FAMILIES. Maybe some of us ALREADY SERVED. That said, if THIS nation is ever attacked by an invasion, you’ll see a signing up like no other in history.

But since you liberals are so infatuated with Conservative values and support of the war and all without actually getting on the field, then I have a prospect for YOU:

Why don’t YOU as a liberal and liberals like you give up your jobs, your lives, and your families to support YOUR causes and beliefs. HIT THE FREAKING STREETS AND SAVE THE HOMELESS! FEED THE POOR! SAVE THE WHALES! SAVE THE TREES! HELP FEED OLD PEOPLE! HIRE A CONVICTED FELON TO PAINT YOUR HOMES! ADOPT HOMELESS CHILDREN! PUT YOUR BUTT IN FRONT OF A BULLDOZER TO STOP CORPORATE EXPANSION! In short, get off your collective ASSES and put YOUR money where your fat mouths are.

Oh wait, let me guess, you hypocritical liberals have lives too.

By Stewart

July 28, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

I find it interesting that everyone is sourcing Wikipedia. It’s an entertaining site, but I do not believe everything I read there. With that said neo-con is not associated with “jew” specifically.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

JIm,

Regarding the blog in print thang. Good idea in principle. Clearly I wouldn’t want to be identified with my real name as I’m sure at least a few others wont. But I saw at close hand what happened on Access Atlanta a few years ago, and its a good part of why they finally closed down the blogs. Lets just say there are folks out there who are just plain nutty. If anyone wants to use their real names - fine by me.

I’m sure this won’t happen on this blog, but there are at least a few unhinged types out there who take ‘disposable’ cyber space banter more than very personally and there’s also the issue of ladies identifying themselves too.

Dusty’s point about it perhaps getting a bit messy is also a good one. And then there’s the question of editing. Obviously implicit in any exchanges is the ‘respective baggage’, both politically and perhaps personally. If its just dry political perspective with no humour (obviously the personal banter wouldn’t be featured) then it might not sustain much of a readership long term.

I’ve seen countless times how local stories from football blogs in England work in print. Local (evening) paper journalists cite blog entries to reflect stories about the club/players but it somehow loses its immediacy and context when put in print. And this is for stories about people/things I know extremely well.

Yes its no different to a vox pop story but that is something that’s long established practice. Something new like this for the AJC might work very well.

But imagine how folks completely unconnected with this blog might feel about reading “our” banter on the issues of the day - even just the serious stuff! The nore “choice” stuff you use of course the better it might work

I have learnt over the years that the more witty/abusive/confrontational you are the bigger the audience. Its a sad fact that dry editorials in newspapers are not read by most folks, regardless of the politics involved. its the tabloidy stuff that sells. A generalisation of course - but a sound one.

In the eventuality that you decide to use any of my comments, you have my permission to do so. I have to trust that the editing process wont impair or slant the sentiment/point(s) being made.

I would suggest that rather than identifying us by real name you simply use the on line blog names - provided no one uses what you might deem a deliberately inflammatory one. THis is the usual practice in football blogs. Incidentally many football blog ids are specific to a football team and often the area where the chap/lass resides. eg St Albans_Hornet which would be a Watford supporter from St Albans.

By B.S.

July 28, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

Hey Markus,

You sound angry. Why don’t you put that testosterone towards the mideast - You can always re-enlist. Or would that mean you would have to sacrifice? You see, it’s easy to support without having to sacrifice, like you do. See, giving up your family or job to defend your country is hard, it’s far easier to sit and bash liberals and let others do REAL fighting for you.

And really, if the country was invaded what person wouldn’t sign up to defend their families and way of life? Even JW recognizes that. Basically your support for this war is no greater than anybody’s who isn’t actively in the mid-east. But keep telling yourself differently.

By Barbara

July 28, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

Marcus, EXCELLENT POST!!! One thing to add though. We probably won’t take the time to “sign up” if this country were invaded. I am personally already armed to the nines; I’d just take to the streets…… For any of the nice liberals, I’ll need someone to babysit my kids, so that job will be open…..

By fluffy husky

July 28, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

Wow! Maybe I should vote for Taylor. If it were up to the NAACP-National Association for the Advancement of Creating Problems, ALL the districts would be designed in favor of the minority black people. Since when did they start telling the Majority what to do? Was it back in the “I’m oppressed days?” And how about Mr. Andy, pro-islam, mugabi and Amin Young? Backing Cynthia McKommunist who takes the money of arabs who want to kill White Americans and other white people in the world. Now that would be interesting-Muslims and Black people. I can see it now, Jackson and Sharpton holding marches in down town Tehran and Damascus protesting the Muslims taking away their basketball game because it is anti muslim. Biy would their be riots. Mr. Young, you are a disgrace to Atlanta and the US with your dealing with Arafat the killer and other Palestinian terrorists who have NO RIGHT to land that was never theirs to begin with! The truth is, Palestinian is Arabic for Bedouin! They were kicked out of Jordan and Syria for trying to overthrow the government. No one wants them! Put them on Gilligan’s Island. They have not developed ANY technology except Terrorism-and that is not a commodity except on the Muslim Parchment Exchange-since they are a 10th century people. Since Sam Masell, there has been an abuse of power in the Atlanta Mayor’s office-it’s time to put a level headed person in there.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

I knew the sad little pinkos would bite on the tax dollar quip … as I knew the pinkos would ignore ALL the other points made…

Watching them queue up to sneer at a minor point is almost as funny as getasmallbrain’s dishonest refusal to debate his earlier idiotic points!

I also note how getabrain often sees to talk about actual physical violence on here - a typical liberal peacenick!!

Marines are NOT ignorant — but it is is PIG IGNORANT to gutlessly sneer at them from the safety of your pot smoking midtown bed sit/efficiency lodge.

By Bella

July 28, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

Wooten seems throw around the term, “liberal” as though it were some derogatory term or put down. Actually neo-cons are so closed-minded to consider anyone who doesn’t agree with them, liberal. Think like me, worship like me, live your life just like me or else you’re liberal.

That means many conservative Republicans, moderate Republicans, liberal Republicans, conservative Democrats, moderate Democrats, liberal Democrats, Libertarians of all ilk and anyone in between are all LIBERAL.

By B.S.

July 28, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Markus, The irony of your post is striking, you basically say that you support the war but not enough to sacrifice - as if the fact you have a job or wife exonerates you. Look back to World War 2 when married men of all ages left their families and jobs -(remember this is when woman had to take over most blue collar jobs and almost the entire work force). This happened because Americans really believed their way of life was in Jeopardy, the fact that this isn’t happening today suggests not many believe this war really jeorpardizes our lives in any way.

Also i don’t support homelessness, or trees or any of that crap, so stop sterotyping any one who questions a conservative viewpoint as hippie liberal. Because it just ain’t true.

And Barbara you’ll be glad to hear I own A Glock 37.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

It is Bella … if someone ever seriously called me a liberal I’d have to get getasmallbrain to punch their lights out like I’m really sure he did that military chap - it would such an egregious insult!!

By Markus

July 28, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

@BS:

Why don’y you try answering MY questions about YOU? No, you can’t do it. Like a good little bedwetting pinko panty-wearing liberal, you can’t answer a DIRECT QUESTION.

Typical of a whineyassed liberal. And pathetic.

Oh by the way you butt pirate lib (means wallet thief), I’m not angry.. I’m just “passionate” like your hero Howard Scream Dean.

By Political Foreskin

July 28, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

Jim Wooten should ask this question: Is there anything Cynthia McKinney wont fight for to get justice for all Americans.

She speaks up.

She rang like a bell post-911 about the way the intel was relayed to the American People.

Her words were loud then. They’re a Siren Call for justice now.

I demand the resignation of George Bush, effective noon tomorrow.

(author’s note) What follows is spin.

Then I want the resignation, effective noon tomorrow, of Cheney.

Let the Speaker of the House run things. I dont think we’ve ever cared to ask the Speaker what he really thinks….NOWS HIS CHANCE.

Cheney acted as commander in chief, which is a violation of the defined role of a president: that our president is first a civilian, then a soldier, not a civilian being a soldier, (but a civilian being a soldier being a civilian), learning justice and pursuing happiness, and never trying to get a line item veto…. (it’s vague, Ben Franklin was always doing a bit, so there’s stuff in there that you can use to circumvent the constitution’s founder’s frame of mind, His role then, like Cheney’s now, might have also circumvented our constitution. (John Adams, the first, seemed to think so, but Franklin performed his impeachable offenses before the constitution was proved at Yorktown. Franklin and Adams still could have been hung by the neck until they were dead had the British possessed a General like George. George Who? The First. W? Yes. What?. George. W? The First one. Yes. Who? )))))).

I guess Cheney thought the shortstop’s name was WDYGFY

Bush violated the constitution when he split the presidency into two pieces as he struggled to come to terms with the evolving intel about Osama Bin Laden. (I guess Bush figures it was Osama Bin Laden who ordered the Code Red…….Funny thing about OBL: he’s hard to pin down about which branch of Islam he’s pinning his hopes for the seventy-something virgins on. Lets hope they meant age.

Bush split into two pieces the entire Presidency, which is the only independent power sharing we have left. It is independent by default via the expiration date. Our president is supposed to deal with the multiplying numbers of ‘unwarranted and unsolicited influences’ that lobby our Congress and direct our Supreme Court.

The definition of ‘unwarranted influence’ includes the different branches of our triumvirate. They are supposed to remain independent of each other. So it was written, so it be done.

Guarantees? From the Founding Fathers? Only one: That The People’s power-sharing with Justice (and the Pursuit of Happiness), but then I repeat myself, are the defacto bill of rights so worded because they address human needs over other inanimate branches of government (which are machines…. not human. It’s a form of government and a grand tool, but we are the people… To the extent that the institutions are favored over humans, that’s how far away from the constitution we are.

The other branches have to do with lobbied power sharing and the spin we form to direct the military. Unless total independence of the executive branch and the military exists, then a coup is possible. The rules are there for a reason. Nixon’s action constituted a coup. Independence of our branches is implied in the foundation for which we construct the criteria that defines a traitor.

A co-president? That’s something NOBODY VOTED FOR.

By getalife

July 28, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

The more a read conservative rhetoric the more I understand.

They are scared folks plain and simple. Cowards.

They allow others to scarifice for their fear while running their mouths about how bad they are.

They use terms like pinko when the GOP is communist China’s best friend.

These people are bad for our country and should grow a spine.

By Dusty

July 28, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

Well, Jim, don’t give up on your idea. Maybe you could give it a trial run. The editorial pages could use some “gatorade” and this might be it.

Judicial activism does not set a “fire in my heart” as do other topics. There are so many wars going on from political to actual, that I am sure there are some good rounds fired from every side. But, like a cognizant editor, you want deep thought, not the same old stuff. Keep looking, Jim, and keep the ideas coming.

By Super Elf

July 28, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

Four Words that would end all Muslimhood as we know it-FAT MAN & LITTLE BOY. As one pointed out-all the wars involved Muslims. they cannot play nice on the playground called Earth, so now we must send them home to Allah. KABOOM! Let’s stop being “christian” about this and car about the so called “innocent” civilians. WE turned Germany and Japan into rubble and no one gave a squat about the civilains-they had warnings to get out-they didn’t-stupid people! So let’s bomb them away and insert new, peaceful loving people in their place. Maybe the Scientologists and the Witnesses so that we won’t be awakened at 7am on Saturday by the Bible Thumpers? It would be a nice thing for Israel to just “accidentally” drop a bomb on the Iran Nuclear Facility and then another one on Southern Lebanon-Kentucky Fried Muslim!

By Markus

July 28, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

@Barbara:

I can’t stand the hypocrisy of liberals on this board. They expect us to stop our lives for something we support, yet they won’t stop theirs and get off THEIR collective asses to 100% support THEIR causes. Their hypocrisy is nausiating, but like the stench of gutting a fish, I’m used to it.

BTW, I’m armed enough for 50 people.

By B.S.

July 28, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Markus,

Pat Tillman gave up a 3.6 million dollar NFL contract and you won’t leave your job at quicktrip?

Who’s the real war supporter?

By Barbara

July 28, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

B.S., that’s cool. Okay, here’s the plan. You get the front door (I don’t have near that fire power!) and I’ll get the back door. We’ll find someone else to watch the kids.

See, if we talk long enough without name-calling, we can all find something in common with each other.

By getalife

July 28, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

Markus,

Thanks for your service.

I’m armed enough for 50 people.

Hilarious.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

and of course the commie chi-coms didn’t BUY Clinton and his re-election with corrupt/illegal donations … how much did sick willie have to pay back — how much was ALL OF IT??

By Paul

July 28, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Jim,

With regard to your inquiry and as I have previously pointed out, I thoroughly enjoy the exchange of opinions and points of view, even those that do not coincide with mine. I do not, however, like nor see the point in unfounded character assassinations, especially those directed at [Jim Wooten]. In many instances the [character assassin] poster has nothing to contribute beyond vituperative tautology. For what it is worth I have decided to ignore reading the balance of any post that has unsupported invidious comments about you or any other poster.

I sense that you too can see how this great blog is being compromised by these vituperative shibboleths from pusillanimous druids, who probably will not dare to identify themselves, should you require it. That will be no great loss to your blog. I submit that you block postings of individuals whose only contributions are to revile individuals trying to participate in an informative exchange of ideas. If possible postings should be screened and deleted, when they merely attack other posters

By Bo

July 28, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

Look at a map of crime in the metro area and look at a map of support for McKinney, it’s the same. Thugs support thugs. End of story, she’s toast….

By Bella

July 28, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Let me tell you why Cynthia McKinney appeals to many of her constituents.

Her crazy antics appeal to a group of people who are distrustful of the government. Her “loose cannon” behavior makes them feel like she’s standing up for the “little guy” — regardless of how wayward she may be. She appeals to conspiracy theorists, people who feel ignored and shut out of the political process.

And Cynthia wins votes because she spends time with constituents, holding town meetings, etc., making people feel heard. Her constituents feel like they know her.

I have to confess that Cynthia is NOT my favorite person and I would never vote for her in a million years. (I don’t live in her district anyway.) But I did hear some women on my vanpool explain why they continue to support her.

Just some food for thought…

By B.S.

July 28, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Markus, you’re a classic. Let’s re-look at this statement: “They expect us to stop our lives for something we support…”

Yes, indeed! We expect you give something more than verbal support on a blog to a cause. I thought conservatives knew what sacrifice was?

By AtlantaUnitarian

July 28, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

Yes, Jim, we are in a war with Islamic terrorists. The thing is, we can’t win this war by following the disasterous policies of President Bush. Only Liberals can win the war on terror.

Here’s why:

1) Liberals understand that we are fighting a war against a decentralized, non-state enemy. Conservatives would rather focus on regime change in Iran. It’s easier to go after a couple thousand terrorist than to conquer and rebuild a state of fifty million people.

2) Liberals understand that we are fighting not just a physical war, but a war of ideas. America needs to be a moral example to the world. But under Bush, America has become disgraced by torture and detention without trial. Liberals will hold America to a higher standard, and so set an example for the entire world.

3) Liberals understand that political outlook and economic opportunity are linked. We will work with reform-minded Islamic leaders to help build democracy in the Middle East by building economic opportunity in the Middle East.

4) Liberals understand that America is strongest when working in cooperation with our allies and democracies across the globe. Liberals will rebuild institutions such as the UN and NATO to promote coordinated action to fight terrorism and promote democracy.

Win the war on terror. Stand with the liberals! Vote Democrat in 2006!

By Mark

July 28, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

Barbara you’ll be the first one killed or found cowling in your closet. People talk so tough on this board. If it hits the fan you’ll all run for your lives.

By Bubba

July 28, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

By Bo

July 28, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

Look at a map of crime in the metro area and look at a map of support for McKinney, it’s the same. Thugs support thugs. End of story, she’s toast….

Right on Bo. See ya at the rally tonight. Seig Heil! Seig Heil!

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

JOLLY WELL DONE INDEED BOOT LICKING PAUL … hopefully you wont be reading any more of this, so you’ll miss all the choice, highly personal insults aimed at your sorry simpering patronising control freak a_rse!!

from a

proud vituperative shibboleth and a pusillanimous druid.

BTW wittle pauly - it seems you just perpetrated a cyber hate crime against druids!!

P.S. - did you know the druids used to sacrifice idiots they didn’t like!!

By getalife

July 28, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Conservatives and sacrifice does not compute.

Seriously Jim,

Most people post on blogs to get a rise from the other side. I post at wingnut blogs, until I am banned, to voice a different opinion. The “dittoheads” (bobbleheads, if you will)do not like different opinions and it is fun to watch them spew.

You read the most incredible things like sacrificing tax dollars. Print that Jim. Good stuff. It does not get any funnier than that.

By Bella

July 28, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

Reading these posts, it appears that some people think that only Republicans join the armed services; only Republicans are ground troops in Iraq; only Republicans have lost a loved one in this war… Don’t be silly!

We are all Americans—not Republicans & Democrats. Is there a Democratic regiment, a Republican regiment, a Libertarian regiment in Iraq?

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

By Mark

July 28, 2006 12:56 PM

Barbara you’ll be the first one killed

Barbara, I think Mark is the type I was talking about when I suggested that we dont share our real names on the blog.

By mchammer

July 28, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

Barbara’s a legend in her own mind. A real GI Jane. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

By getalife

July 28, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

Hey wingnut, what did you sacrifice for the Iraq war?

Well, my tax dollars of course but did enjoy my tax breaks W gave me?

Sorry, that is the funniest thing I have ever read. LOL!

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

liberals and intellectual honesty, integrity, courage, vision, veracity etc does not compute!

and best of all getasmallbrain is still obsessing about being suckered about taxes … who says that the average pinko is small minded and extremely petty!!

By getalife

July 28, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

Hey lies,

Define pinko.

By Barbara

July 28, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

B.S., I disagree with you. Markus makes an excellent point. The liberals slam conservatives for taking a firm stand with regard to war, protecting our country and our freedoms at all costs. And you will find that many more servicemen are conservatives versus liberals. We put our beliefs into action. Yet when it comes to the liberal agendas like HIT THE FREAKING STREETS AND SAVE THE HOMELESS! FEED THE POOR! SAVE THE WHALES! SAVE THE TREES! HELP FEED OLD PEOPLE! HIRE A CONVICTED FELON TO PAINT YOUR HOMES! ADOPT HOMELESS CHILDREN! PUT YOUR BUTT IN FRONT OF A BULLDOZER TO STOP CORPORATE EXPANSION, you don’t put your beliefs into actions; you want the rest of us to do it. You want to cry about it from the mountain tops, but you’re not willing to do anything about it yourselves; you want to drag the rest of us into it. You’re wrong on that point.

And Mark, I don’t give a rat’s a**e what you have to say anymore. I think I read somewhere in one of your posts last month that you claimed to have served, yet you attacked a fellow serviceman in a public forum just for being a Marine. We can call each other all the pet names we’ve come up with when we’re on base and amoung friends, but you don’t turn your back on a fellow serviceman like that. I’ll not dignify you with another acknowledgement after this. Have a nice life, courtesy of real servicemen.

By J.Carville

July 28, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

Watch it hammer! She may be more like Granny Clampett. Granny would put a load of double ought in your butt without a second thought.

By The Moderate Voice

July 28, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

getalife, glad to hear the you were able to enjoy your tax break. Thats the point of it after all. Let people spend their money instead of the gov’t. Of course this admin has gone a bit overboard on spending, but the deficit is shrinking so maybe we are moving in the right direction.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

getasmallbrain

“Define pinko”

YOU

By Larry

July 28, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

liberal/conservative democrat/republican left/right - BS!!! AMERICANS dammit! Divided we fall!

By getalife

July 28, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

Moderate,

bit overboard on spending

That is an understatement, don’t ya think?

We should cut the Iraqi welfare program to go in the right direction.

By Barbara

July 28, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

TFTT, exactly!!! There are some real nut jobs out there.

And to the rest of you slamming me for my beliefs (ie., the GI Jane comment), you are getting 2 different values mixed up. I stated that I did not serve during a war. I was Air Force reserves. I believe everyone coming out of high school should go through at least Basic Training and Tech school in the service. It really does bring out the best in you. My position on arming myself in my home has nothing to do with my military service. I also believe (separate value) that every homeowner not only has the right to own a gun, but has a responsibility to protect their family, friends, property, and, if need be, their country from invasion. You have to own a wheapon to do that. You libs need to get a grip and quit exaggerating every post made by someone you don’t like.

By The Moderate Voice

July 28, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

getalife, where is your compassion? To cut spending in a serious way we would need to kick out all of the current Senators and Congressmen. That would be the only way.

By R@

July 28, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

Jim - your blog-to-print idea is a very good idea. I agree with your observation of the quality of the posts of many of the commentators on your blog - many have presented some very astute and well-thought-out opinions. I agree that many of the subjects discussed here would benefit greatly from a broader exposure in print.

I think making grammatical corrections and typos would have to be a given. And I for one think publishing the real name of the commentator is a great idea, too. We use our real name in letters to the editors and they call to verify we are the writer - so what would be different with this idea? Nothing, the way I see it.

I think you’re on to something. Letters to the editors is confining - the word count restrictive. Plus, some stories and issues need much more exposure versus the day or two most stories live. Your idea might allow days and days of in-depth discussion so readers could start to understand some of these complex issues more clearly. Our “sound bite” society is really a bad thing in the long run. Maybe some politicians and bureaucrats would read and learn more, too.

Ponder this some more and get back to us. I’m interested.

By Mark

July 28, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

And Mark, I don’t give a rat’s ae what you have to say anymore. I think I read somewhere in one of your posts last month that you claimed to have served, yet you attacked a fellow serviceman in a public forum just for being a Marine

Barbara if I did attack a fellow service member, well so what. That’s what we do in the military. They call us the Chair Force we call them the dumb Jarheads. No one is harmed for it either. A little good natured ribbing among branches is common-place. I guarantee it goes on constantly in Iraq right now.

By B.S.

July 28, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

Barbara,

I agree with you to a point. I personally won’t run around and scream for any cause that I don not actively support. Many on both side of the aisle do this. many on both sides of the aisle are hippocrates. I would not fight in this war. I don’t believe it is a threat to our national security, my wife, child, or way of life, period. My point is, if you do believe strongly that this war is a threat to your family and way of life (as many supporters do) you need to support it by enlisting or re-enlisting.

And please, stop with homelessness and all that stuff, I’ve never once claimed to want to save trees or whales or homeless people.

I’ll put up or shut up. Most on this blog won’t.

I’ve already stated why I wouldn’t serve militarily to fight in this war, now I will ask all the supporters to explain why they won’t fight in this war.

And Barbara, I do respect the opinion of all veterans, and never attack the opinions of those who have served but are now past the age of service. For me, even one, four year enlistment or forced tour, gives one the right to stand on either side of this issue without being a hippocrate.

By Voice of Reason

July 28, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

Those of you that think the majority of servicemembers are conservative are just plain wrong. Just because they tend to vote republican doesn’t make them conservative.

Considering the majority of the military is 18-26, they have only voted once or twice and care very little about politics. We tend to vote for those that propose higher annual salary increases - who tend to be republican. that’s pretty much the only reason.

Conservative views are not even remotely aligned with the beliefs on the majority of the military.

By getalife

July 28, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

See what I mean Jim. Our resident English idiot thinks I am a “pinko” but does not know what it means. I will help this guy out.

Pinko

No lies, I do not support free trade with communist China but your party does. You sir, are a “pinko”.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

getasmallbrain

I have defined pinko on the blogs several times … tough if you missed it or all that acid has trashed your medium term memory!!

essentially pinko means commie or socialist lite … nastier and more treasonous than a simpleton liberal but not quite as sick and evil as a full blown commie!!

why are you including Jim in this? - rather puerile of you to say the least… what else is new?

By Mark

July 28, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

Hey voice I agree 100 percent about military voters. 18-26 don’t even vote. Mostly it’s the officers and the Senior NCOs who vote. Kids 18-26 are concerned about their cars and stereos. They weren’t voting when I was in. How do I know? I served as the voting officer for the squadron on many occasions and I couldn’t get hardly anyone under 30 to fill out an absentee ballot. The percentage of members over 30 was pretty pathetic also.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

“English idiot”

so the snivelling pinko getasmallbrain resorts to covert racism/bigotry to make a worthless point even more moronic!!

tell us again how you made a complete ** of yourself yesterday about christians and this morning about mohammedans

By Voice of Reason

July 28, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

Mark - Exactly. The ones who do vote, vote based on a candidates view of the military. They know that republicans support a strong military which means higher annual pay increases and better benefits. The military loved Clinton because he was right up there with annual pay increases without the desire to engage us in meaningless occupation.

By getalife

July 28, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

lies,

Acid, now I understand.

That stuff will kill brain cells.

Remember, this is your brain(me).

This is your brain on drugs(time for the lies).

Any questions?

By Barbara

July 28, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

Okay, B.S. Points taken (the homeless thing and the right to stand on either side of an issue after a stint in the service). I agree with you there, and I never said you attacked the service. I was speaking of someone else, but the name escapes me. Hmmm? Must not have been important……

Anyway, I’m too old to re-enlist too. I’m 40 this year. And yes, when I think of my children, my first reaction is somewhat different. My husband keeps talking proudly of hoping that both of our boys will serve, and my first thoughts are “not my babies”. But after some more rational thought, I realize they should. I really believe every able bodied man should serve. (WARNING - I admitted to being a chauvanist in an earlier post.) I also think if a woman wants to serve, she should also. And perhaps down the road, I might even go for creating some non-combat positions and then altering my opinion that every able-bodied person should serve. Still thinking that one through…..

By getalife

July 28, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

lies,

Acid, now I understand.

That stuff will kill brain cells.

Remember, this is your brain(me).

This is your brain on drugs(time for the lies).

Any questions?

By Amelia

July 28, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

By Bella

July 28, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

Reading these posts, it appears that some people think that only Republicans join the armed services; only Republicans are ground troops in Iraq; only Republicans have lost a loved one in this war… Don’t be silly!

We are all Americans—not Republicans & Democrats. Is there a Democratic regiment, a Republican regiment, a Libertarian regiment in Iraq?

Bella, to the right wing lunatics even a moderate republican is a commie, liberal, pinko, unpatriotic, flag burning, godless, non-troop supporting, enemies of the state. But alas they will be the ones on the outside looking in after 06 and 08.

By Jim's a Dummy

July 28, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

Markus, Barbara, et al…

Have ya’ll ever stopped to ask whether or not the war is valid in the first place? Should America just attack any ole country that we don’t like? If so, that makes it difficult to defend our lable as an enlightened society.

The position of those against the war isn’t that America should just roll over when threatened…it’s that in this particular instance we weren’t threatend at all. We were lied to in order to gin up support for the war…none of the info trotted out by Colin Powell has borne true. And to make matters worse, those who would question the war and refuse to yell “Heil Bush” are treated as traitors…those facts are all indicative of authoratarian rule.

It’s the responsiblity of those in a democracy to monitor and question their leaders, not just say “ditto” to everything they hear.

Beyond that, it’s the hypocricy stupid…How can GWB stand in front of a podium one day and proclaim that lab-generated fetuses shouldn’t be used for scientific research because wasting one life is a tradgey, and turn right around and completely disregard the tens of thousands of lives that have been lost in this sensless battle.

What is better for this war? What is being accomplished? Could America have used the billions of dollars that have been spent over there better? Is this the best use of our power?

Oh…oh…oh…and what about Bosnia? I seem to recall intense opposition from the GOP regarding any US involvement at all in a foreign conflict. At the time, the GOP couched it as pure politics on Clinton’s part…remember “Wag the Dog”?

I think Bush is wagging ya’ll.

By getalife

July 28, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

lies,

What are you spewing about?

christians and this morning about mohammedans

Seek help. Get off the dope man.

By Political Foreskin

July 28, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

Cynthia McKinney was correct about Bush pre-911. Cynthia McKinney is a true patriot. She is EXACTLY what we need in Washington. Someone who can see an incompetent, conspiring, lying, and treacherous president. She also courageously spoke up and her voice had the ring of truth then, and it rings true today. I would rather have McKinney for President of the USA anyday than the “facile and nimble” fool we actually have. (to quote a great american) McKinney needs to be elected, and she needs to eventually run for Presidents. The cop incident? Who cares. Play the race card? Why not, Americans ARE racists. We’re so racist, that we still think being black is more than a light reflection, and that’s “pathetic”. (to quote a great american). Vote for McKinney, The country needs her.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

getasmallbrain

you vile and loathsome pinkos are supposed to embrace folks who are ‘diverse’ and not abuse them or target them on the basis of their race/ethnicity etc … legitimate political differences are one thing - but THIS IS BLATANT PINKO HYPOCRISY!!

you posted that witless drivel about your obviously chronic absue of lsd (acid) twice - any chance of a third time in legible, coherent English!! I suppose you had a bad FLASHBACK TWICE WHILST TYPING!!

By getalife

July 28, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

Dude, you are peaking.

Calm down and repeat after me.

There are no pinkos here.

There are no pinkos here.

One more time, there are no pinkos here.

It is all in your head and will go away in a few hours.

By getalife

July 28, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

Was it the brown acid I have been reading about?

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

GETATINY BRAIN …

Cheers for all the logical, coherent debate - looks like you have finally revealed your true, intellectually impotent self!!

By getalife

July 28, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

And cheers to your acid buzz.

I hope it does not create permanent damage.

I am off to get a jarhead hair cut because of this global warming here in South Louisiana.

By The Stopper

July 28, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

Jim, as per your suggestion that there be some kind of a print-version of the back-and-forth in here; it’s hard to do. Real hard. for two good reasons.

Hope some of that makes sense, and I do wish you well if you intend to at least storyboard this idea into some kind of pilot program.

By sportsfan

July 28, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

gosh — and I though we took football seriously in GA…y’all are just being nasty to each other.

By rarringt

July 28, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

Foreskin,

I agree with your assessment of McKinney, and the way she’s been interpreted…to a point.

She isn’t afraid of sharing her views, even with knowledge that she could lose her office (like in 2002). That’s an exceedingly (and disappointingly) rare quality in Congress.

I also think she’s quite good at being a pothole politician, which is why her base has been fairly solid.

That said, she hasn’t been particularly effective with the “big picture” issues, and has lost substantial credibility with her peers. It’s almost impossible for her to work any real deals these days, which is essentially her job - representing her constituents’ interests.

As a result, I agree with much of what Atlanta Unitarian said. It’s time for new blood (and not from our troops or innocent muslims). Note, I think that goes for a large majority of the House on both sides of the aisle.

Democrats need to articulate a vision and a plan that will improve things in this nation. Given where we are, any improvement shouldn’t be too hard to achieve.

Moderate republicans need to reassert themselves and remind everyone about the old school notions of stronger military, less government intervention and fiscal control. Their voices have been lost as well.

Finally, neo-cons need to…be voted out. Turns out their theories simply don’t work at best, or more realistically result in catastrophic failure.

The good news is, you’ll still be able to see them as they find jobs at Fox News.

By Watta Load

July 28, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

TFTT,

Cheers for all the logical, coherent debate - looks like you have finally revealed your true, intellectually impotent self!!

You can’t possibly believe that you are perceived any different on this blog.

And what is all this about pot smoking hippies, tree huggers, and pinkos? What kind of time warp are you people in…Archie Bunker is dead.

By The Terminator

July 28, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

Spoken like a genuine, true-blue, whiny, lower than a snake’s a**, pansy liberal. Now excuse me I think my commercial break is over here on Fox News.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

“The cop incident? Who cares. Play the race card? Why not, Americans ARE racists. We’re so racist, that we still think being black is more than a light reflection, and that’s “pathetic …”

Speak for yourself and not anyone else!!

Your deranged assertions are absurd and very divisive.

The cop incident was an arrogant corrupt black racist woman abusing her political situation and getting away with it because she knew a majority black jury wouldn’t have the guts to treat her like anyone else. She still hasn’t even apologised to the cop!!

Blacks define themselves as being black/african etc they push black culture, a good few screech racism to get yet more freebies off guilty white vote buying liberals or to intimidate some employers from treating them equally, they demand black only adoption for black kids that cannot actually find sufficient black only families, they help keep the almost 100% church segregation thang going, they watch a mildly racist against whites black TV channel but screech about any white racism they can find. Blacks have their own well defined culture, fashion, music etc - nothing wrong with that at all - but they CLEARLY think that being black is more than just a “light reflection” … you are complete moron mate - and that’s NOT at all being abusive or being a troll … that’s simply stating a FACT!!

I saw much of this exact same post on another forum a few days ago - so you dont even write original posts!!

By Barbara

July 28, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

@Jim’s a D, Yes, I have given thought to the validity of going to war, and particularly to this war. I personally believe that this war has truly been going on for quite a while. I think that the radical muslims have been teaching their children to hate Americans for over a generation now, and those children have grown up knowing nothing else. Those grown up children are now a very real threat to us. We absolutely should ferret out those folks, on our land and abroad, before they do us harm. 9-11 is a perfect example of what happens when we fall asleep at the wheel. I am so sad that the world has turned out this way. I want so very badly to go back to the times when we didn’t have to lock our doors at night. When the neighbors and teachers cared enough about our children that they would try to teach them right and wrong, and the consequences of doing wrong. (Hell, I’d even settle for all parents teaching their own kids those lessons today….)

The world is not the same place anymore. We must be watchful; out-think and out-maneuver our enemies. And yes, we must strike first, before they have time to get to us…. again.

By The Moderate Voice

July 28, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

What is funny to me is that people actually think any of the cable news programs are any better than the others. All have their biased commentators. There are a few goods(Lou Dobbs, Britt Hume) that actually report the news without any personal views thrown in. That is why people have to use a variety of news sources to figure out what is actually true.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

watta load of bollocks

clearly you are too dumb to appreciate the irony of mirroring back at getabrain his pathological dishonesty and inability to debate/back up his cretinous points!!

I assume you are some meathead clone and that explains your detached from reality post about what liberals still are!!

By Amelia

July 28, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

Lou Dobbs? He’s a one trick pony. Sounds like a broken record.

By Watta Load

July 28, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

Time to shut up,

Dude, you’re just a broken record…the few times you say anything remotely relevant it’s just too much trouble to sift through your usual garbage to find out what your point is…I know you think you are incredibly clever and cute but do you think you have really posted anything that Jim might want to print?

As far as your views on pinkos and such…do you ever leave the house?

Sure…you are good for a few laughs but that’s about it…sorry.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

Moderate

Dobbs is a liberal - but a moderate one. he’s also the only “star” CNN presenter I can stand. Humne is by far the best political pundit on cable, he has real gravitas and is very subtle and tenacious in both his questioning and his FN Sunday commentary. Hume seems to be a solid, thoughtful conservative.

O’Reilly is usually very good too, although his shilling for any catholic/papist and most religious causes is his ‘objective’ achilles heel. But his viewing base is religious which he obviously has to cater for. O’Reilly actually tackles more awkward/sensitive topics which many others wont, which is to his credit. And his guest line up is about 50/50 lib/con. Fair and balanced …

By Rusty Henderson

July 28, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

Jim, Here is an idea to end the ongoing war/family quarrel in the Middle East: Let the Muslims have Palestine lock stock and barrel. The Israelis can relocate to friendly territory (New York City and Long Island, already home to the largest Jewish population outside Israel.) The Yankees are moving South anyway and the buyout cost will be cheaper than the continued cost of war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and who knows where next. The cessation of hostilies in the region will no doubt result in a drop in oil prices which will further aid the overall process. We will have to decide whether to cede this territory over as an independent nation or to remake it as our 51st state. Either way this should be easier than the ongoing war we have all lived with for a generation. Forward this to George and Condi. In the interest of world peace. Ambassador Rusty

By Political Foreskin

July 28, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

Bush may have been right about Saddam’s Nukes. The border was left open by Cheney when we went into Iraq. The Nuke could have been passed off to Syria. (sunni to sunni). Then, Syria’s growing Shia population and influence got the nuke to Hezbollah, which are about to launch it. It’s probably small, but I think we are about to see a nuclear exchange. Then all bets are off. The timing’s right.

And remember that show of force Hezbollah did last year to respond to the newly elected government and to the withdrawal of Syrian Forces? All 1.4 million Hesbollah came out that day to rally in the streets. they knew something then.

By rarringt

July 28, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

TFTT,

As a right-wing conservative, you clearly have positions on issues that I generally ardently disagree with. I also take exception to the fact that while you seem to fashion yourself as some sort of provocateur fighting for the True Faith, you do so in a way that is more vitriolic than visionary.

That said, because we are talking about political ideology, I respect your right to say it.

Your 2:16 post, however, is a different matter. Clearly you don’t know much about black people or black culture. I’ve been proudly african american my entire life, and there are many parts I’m still trying to figure out. While I nonetheless support your right to speak your mind, one thing I’ve learned, though, is you don’t persuade or impress anyone making those kinds of non-productive stereotypical comments.

Anyway, I don’t want to give anyone on this blog an opportunity to wax racial on how thier ignorance on ethnicity should be accepted as general knowledge. Back to “harmless” politics….

By The Moderate Voice

July 28, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

Rusti, when you argue for kicking the Jews out of Israel keep in mind this chilling statistic. When WWII started there were 13 million Jews worldwide. Right now there are 9 million. They STILL haven’t recovered.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

loadofbollocks

your two posts are not exactly fact packed subtle commentaries on riveting issues are they - you sad little jobbie!!

I really dont care if Jim or anyone else prints, or not my stuff. Pissing off mindless lefties is thanks enough!!

By Mike

July 28, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

This is an amazing video.

UN ambulance picking up fighters in Gaza Strip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqGjz7iJTns&eurl=

By Jim's a Dummy

July 28, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Barbara,

So you basically just rationalized a case for taking over the world. “Get them before they get you” is pretty much where Hitler was.

Rent “Munich”. Nice lesson by a Jew about where fear, anger and hate will get you.

Or, to quote Yoda:

“Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

By Stewart

July 28, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Rusty,

Once the muslims defeat Israel, they will then turn to conquer Europe, then America. But other than that, your idea makes a lot of sense.

By Ricky

July 28, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

rarringt, this is a serious question. Why do you prefer to be called african american. Why not just American? Are you a citizen of an African nation? Should white people be called european american? My ancestors came here 200 years ago. I am not European, I am American. Just wondering. To me it appears to just be pc gone crazy.

By Political Foreskin

July 28, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

Troll alert: Time4truth only says, “He’s a good pundit”, yet he wont say why other than “because he’s fair and balanced” which is the show’s slogan.

That is circular logic. Time4truth is the emblematic, poster-child stereotype of a blogger employing circular logic. (And he thought he was just being a mrn).

Circular logic: where the conclusion is in the premise of an argument.

By Watta Load

July 28, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Oh my …widdle english man wikes to fuss and fight wid the bad ole hippies.

By the way, is your accent like a liverpool accent like the beatles or are you more of a snide type of brit…like a butler or like a snooty Harrods manager? And do you have a little short mustache…I’m seeing Oliver Hardy…maybe with a little bowler on your head while…I mean whilst..you are typing.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

I’ve never seen an african-american mate .. its a stupid micky mouse term coined by the corrupt non reverend jackson. You are an american by birth (presumably) I am an american by naturalisation. whatever our “colour”.

my comments were NOT “stereo-typical” but factual statements - albeit intended to goad the idiot foreskin in to a reply!!

clearly being “black” in the USA, for whatever reasons (I know the history as well as anyone), is a far more distinctive, self defining cultural/ethnic thang than being white.

There are no “white” churches, churches aren’t commonly designated in the media as being white. There’s no such thing as “concerned white clergy” either. As just two examples. but we always hear about black churches and black clergy, whilst it may be descriptive, it also has a racial component too. and you cant honestly deny the mild racism of many so called comics on BET!!

I doubt I could convince you of anything in a million years - which is fine… doesn’t matter either!!

my tone is deliberately vitriolic with certain folks on here, for both comic effect and to wind them up, and generally mirrors back what is meted out.

By Bo

July 28, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Don’t be stupid enough to believe the over-inflated numbers of civilians being killed in Lebanon, it’s a bunch of lies spread by the media. Hexbollah fighters do not wear uniforms, they wear regular clothes, so when a Hezbullah fighter dies in combat, the news reports the death as a civilain because they are not in the uniform. The same lies applies with the Syrian and Iranian fighters being killed fighting side by side with Hezbollah terrorist. The ACJ and other such media outlets couldn’t report the truth if someone held them at gunpoint.

By Barbara

July 28, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

Jim’s a D, you asked; I answered. Sorry if I misinterpreted and took your bait just so you could slam me. I absolutely believe that if there are other countries out there teaching theirs to kill Americans then we need to invade and destroy. Sorry if you don’t like that. I think it’s very poor of you to compare that to Hitler. He tortured people. He experimented on them. He was cruel. And what did the Jews do to deserve that? While history wasn’t my best subject, I don’t think they were preaching to destroy anyone who wasn’t Jewish. I’m not suggesting we capture, and then torture and experiment on our enemies. A nice, successful carpet-bombing would be just fine with me.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

loadofbollocks ..

I’m assuming you are a retarded midget yankee carpetbagger who needs to sod off back up north!!

or perhaps you’re timothy mcveigh’s ex love slave - or are you a jeffrey dahmer clone? … or maybe a trainee parking valet at the Varsity? No wait - you”re Bwarney Fwanks favourite (ageing) page boy!!

By Mark

July 28, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

TFTT, I guess you don’t read newshounds.us to see how balanced O’Reilly is. Hume is a Bush cheerleader. All he needs is a Toni Basil outfit.

By rarringt

July 28, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Ricky,

Probably for the same reason many on the blog refer to themselves as “Southern” or “Conservative.” One term describes a cultural connection, the other a political ideology. Virtually all of the people on this forum (with two very vocal exceptions) who think of themselves in those terms also consider themselves Americans.

Most people commonly called (or self-identified as) “blacks” are folks whose ancestors were forcibly brought here at least two centuries ago. Since then, others of African heritage (Africans, people from the Caribbean, black Central and South Americans, etc.,) have also migrated here of their own accord. There are many similarities in our various cultures, and many differences. We simply use the term as a form of identification recognizing and celebrating our diversity (like the socio-geopolitical diversity between northerners, southerners, midwesterners, and west coasties in the US).

In summary, African-American simply describes our acknowledgement of our historical roots, along with our allegiance and identity to the U.S.

You’ve probably noticed that most ethnic minorities and more than a few white folks use similar terminology for similar reasons (Italian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Irish-Americans, and so on.)

I wouldn’t get too hung up on or lose sleep over it, Ricky. We certainly don’t.

Thus endeth the “ask a black guy” segment on today’s blog. Back to politics.

By The Moderate Voice

July 28, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

Mark, OReilly isn’t suppossed to be balanced. He does news analysis, not reporting. And Hume is a fair as the come. Maybe you should take off your political colored glasses every once in a while.

By Bubba

July 28, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

Maybe they get counted because of the guns they are toten Bo. Duh!!!

By Watta Load

July 28, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

Ouch! Good come back Time For An enema

Sorry…wrong again..no yankee here..I moved north to come to Georgia.

Anyway I’ve actually got a life so off I go..

Oh..get up out of that chair every once in awhile…you don’t want butt sores…

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

Mark,

I agree that Hume is probably a BUsh man, which is cool but he is very fair… that’s against how many unfair/biased libs on CNN, NBC< CBS< ABC etc?

O’REilly is a registered independent. he’s heavily criticised Bush and the GOP and praised them same for the dems … he has a no spin zone commentary role

By Amelia

July 28, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this

Don’t worry Ricky. Before you know it the republican “base” will have them trying to amend the constitution to ban terminology such as african-american, mexican-american, etc. They love those really important type things you know.

By Bo

July 28, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

Bubba the world may smell better to you if you removed your head from the cavity you have nested between your butt cheeks. But then you’d still have to smell your mama, just as bad. You lose either way dude.

By Barbara

July 28, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

Watta Load, well, you said you were leaving, so it seems that the “butt sores” aren’t a concern anymore……

By AM

July 28, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

What needs to be done is to enforce the laws on the books, go by the constitution and VOTE OUT ALL SENATE INCUMBENTS THAT NO LONGER REPRESENT THIER BASE.

By Mark

July 28, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

TFTT, O’reilly is a wind-bag. I used to watch him every day until the case was documented by Newshounds on his bias. He can be registered as an Independent all he wants. That’s just a smoke screen. He said if there were no WMDs discovered he would never trust the administration again. How’d that work out Bill? Not even going to explore the Andrea Marckus event. He’s a hypocrite.

By The Moderate Voice

July 28, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

Mark, the whole website is dedicated to “proving” Fox News errors. Don’t you find that a bit odd. Maybe if they monitored other news sites they would hold some credibility. Otherwise its just a political hack site that is mad because Fox is successful. For example they call the Grapevine section on Hume’s show “Two Minutes of Hate.” Pretty fair and balanced right man. C’mon.

By SW

July 28, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

McKinney keeps getting re-elected because in the 4th District felons can vote. They have a parole office set up in her campaign headquarters, one stop shopping. See your parole officer and get a free tee-shirt. My oh my some folks in Atlanta have had it soooo easy for soooo long they don’t like not having Campbell in charge; where is he…oh thats right..going to prison. The King family is selling dirt of of daddy’s grave for a dollar and now some folks may have to earn the money they make…like put up or shut up….them entitlement days are over, the city no longer operates from Auburn Avenue.

By The Terminator

July 28, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

This message is for all the pissin’ & moanin’, hand wringing hippie type, lefty, socialist liberal wimps. You win the argument but lost the “war”…George W and the neo-con boys are in power and more will follow. So get the F over it. You lost and will continue losing with your idiotic messages and lunatic leaders, losers. Just be glad we don’t play cowboys and liberals.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Mark

We’ll just have to disagree,again… he’s NOT a wind bag, and takes on lefties very well with good research to back it up.

OReilly is largely fair and balanced, but he comes from the religious/trad side which makes him “seem” like a conservative. He deos get obsessed at times with pushing his religious agenda, and his co-hosts seems to have to be papists, Snow and Kasich are fellow catholics, so is Laurah Ingraham who did a recent show, not sure about John Gibosn though.

By Mark

July 28, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

It’s not odd, It’s what they do. I’m sure there are some sites out there that attempt to criticize CNN etc. The problem with Fox is that they say “Fair and Balanced” and they’re far from it. It’s well documented that the other news programs lean right also but they don’t brag about their fairness like Faux does. The Sunday shows crawl with right-wingers. Maybe it’s because they’re in power, I don’t know. But numbers don’t lie.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

the grapevine is simply a factual segment that highlights contradictory/awkward stories not usually found elsewhere, often from the NYT, and other liberal sources.

By Van

July 28, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

The Terminato,

The left has a message??? What message, there was a message in all that whining and crying! Maybe they need to go to Starbucks to pluck themselves up.

Man, you go back to work and so much has gone on.

By The Moderate Voice

July 28, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Mark, it is apparent of your obvious disgust of anyone you don’t agree with. You hate the right and Fox News because they are successful.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

Fox has at least the same, if not a better balance of left/right presenters/contributors than the other channels … CNN dont brag about their fairness cos it doesn’t exist!! the tone on liberal networks is very different, more critical of BUsh overall … that’s what the left dont like …

By Jim Wooten

July 28, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

Earlier this morning, I sat down to respond to the dummy Jim and The Stopper on the alleged conservative hypocrisy of questioning intervention in the Balkans while supporting the Iraqi phase of the war on terrorism. Work and other distractions intervened.

Truth is, I still see that as precisely the wrong way for the world’s superpower to engage. While unquestionably the world should have intervened to stop the slaughter, it’s an example of a confllict that should have been addressed by regional powers through the European Union, or through a coalition assembled by one of the major players in the region.

It represented no direct, or reasonably forseen, threat to us and while we properly should have participated with supplies, communications and logistics, we shouldn’t put forces on the ground in our capacity as world policemen.

In other parts of the world, as well, our interests are limited primarily to trade, and conflicts in Afirca or South America, for example, should be addressed by regional powers, coalitions and by the United Nations, unless some specific added element — a nuclear program, for one — raises it to a level where we are threatened.

By rarringt

July 28, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

SW,

What are you talking about? The ENTIRE state allows felons who have served their sentences to vote. I’d tell you not to comment on what you don’t know about, but that would leave Jim with a pretty quiet blog.

The other stuff has no merit, and smacks of ignorant racism (or should we assume your insults of King, Campbell, the “4th District” and Auburn Avenue have nothing to do with your racial views.)

@AM and Terminator,

I’d spend less time in front of your computer and more time outdoors. You’d feel the winds of change upon you. Even republicans are tired of the mess the administration and congress has gotten us into.

Welcome back to the world of free elections. Heh, heh.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 28, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

Know whey they call it FOX News? Ever seen Juliette, Kieren, E.D., Loren, Gretchen, and the other FOX babes? Contrast that to Candi Crawley and the other UUUUUUUUUGLY liberal B-witches at the Clinton News Network. That’s enough to make you a conservative, if you’re a REAL man that is.

By Mark the Lib

July 28, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

My “obvious disgust”? I think you have me mixed up with the other Mark. From now on I’m “Mark the Lib”. Don’t really care about Faux’s “success” O’reilly on his best night has less than one half of one percent of Americans watching his show. He effects no one, though he thinks he does.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

But as O’Reilly has more viewers than ALL the other liberal cable competitors combined in his time slot your petulance is kind of meaningless!!

he also trashes lefty dead air ameriKa on the wireless as do Rush (PBUH) and Dr Savage!!

By The Terminator

July 28, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

You mean those elections Y’ALL can’t win rarringt? You slipped a liar (Billy boy) in on us but folks won’t fall for crap again. Two liberal presidents in the past 30 years or so…yep that’s free elections.

By Mark the Lib

July 28, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

I watch Univision if I want to see real babes. Faux, NEVER!

By rarringt

July 28, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

Ugotta,

I gotta three words for you: Greta van Susteren. Ick. And she looks like that after the surgery. And no, she’s clearly no liberal, so don’t try it.

Seriously, there are tons of beautiful women on HNN or CNN as well. The deeper issue isn’t “who’s got the babes” so much as “why are we so easily distracted?” Cuties on the air is the ultimate triumph of style (and sex) over substance.

By Van

July 28, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

Mark the Lib,

That may be true, but he has beaten the Clinton News Network hands down. No matter who they put up against him.

To my way of thinking, Bill O’reilly is a bit too liberal for my tastes, but I watch him anyway, it is better than PMSNBC anyday.

By rarringt

July 28, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

Terminator,

Like I said yesterday, I sure do miss the days when conservatives were screaming at the top of their lungs from the tallest building that the biggest problem facing the nation was a stain on a dress.

While I’m sure you will go to your grave refusing to admit it, the world really was a better place from 1993-2000 than it has been from 2001-present.

I am sure you think it’s all Clinton’s fault because neo-cons are never wrong (heh, heh), but the rest of us remembers the good ol’ days, and how things have gone wrong, and will keep that in mind on the first Tuesday in November.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 28, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

I’d be reeeeeeeeeaaally careful there rarringt…don’t forget that GOOD LOOKING BABE Greta is a LAWYER! And you’re really on shaky grounds calling a woman ugly. I’m just trying to help ‘cause that just the kind of guy I am.

By Stewart

July 28, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

JW

Truth is, I still see that as precisely the wrong way for the world’s superpower to engage. While unquestionably the world should have intervened to stop the slaughter, it’s an example of a confllict that should have been addressed by regional powers through the European Union, or through a coalition assembled by one of the major players in the region.

I agree 100%. I find it interesting that some of the bloggers have accused the conservatives of hypocrisy on this issue, but choose not to admit liberal hypocrisy when it comes to collateral damange. We bombed the heck out of Bosnia and there were many innocent civilians killed. I don’t remember the outrage from the left that President Bush and Israelis are receiving for the current conflicts.

By Van

July 28, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

Jim Wooten,

The difference between the two conflicts is simple.

Without the UN, Clinton used Nato to go into the balkins. Either the UN would do nothing - again, or they wanted some third rate commander over US troops.

Both Nato and the UN seem incapable of doing anything without Uncle Sam, why is this?

So, with the Balkens, Billy boy sidestepped the glorious UN and did what he wanted.

On the other hand, George W, spent 14 months trying to get the UN to sign onto the War on Terror. Finally after Resolution 1441, a watered down versionthat is, George W had his UN blessing. Since it was not in Europe, Nato was not an option.

So you have one President that bypassed the UN and the liberals loved him, and another that whent through the UN and the Liberals hate him.

Go figure.

By Mark the Lib

July 28, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

Van that doesn’t matter to me, only to the corporate chairmen. I’ll take CNN any day over Faux news. O’Reilly, liberal? Those words should never be in the same sentence unless it reads “O’reilly bashes another liberal”.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

MEL GIBSON ARRESTED FOR DUI!! Its on drudge

By AM

July 28, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

The fox news channel has those foxy babes to blind weak minded people from the truth. Most of thier democratic representative are the opposite. Gee wonder why? Again to blind the weak minded from the truth.

By rarringt

July 28, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

Clinton said terrorism was the biggest threat facing the new century and conservatives accused him of trying to change the subject from the real crisis, lying about Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton attacked terrorist strongholds, conservatives said he was just trying to refocus attention away from the impeachment (based on lying about Monica Lewinsky).

The impeachment was intended by conservatives to bring down a presidency (and secure the election). The elections of conservatives, on the other hand, have reduced this great and mighty nation to justifying torture in prison camps and the bombing of neighborhoods, all in nations that had nothing to do with 9/11

Welcome to the new world order, y’all.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

liberal foreskin is posting under AM now … wow - what a well reasoned little gem that was!!

By The Terminator

July 28, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

@rarringt—-I’ll give you a serious answer to your post when I get done LMAO about that remark of “the good old days”. You mean the Republican Party days after they took control of Congress and drug old BJ Bill hollering and screaming into a balanced budget? And welfare reform? And other conservative ideas? Do y’all still think old BJ balanced the budget ? I’ve got some good flat ground for sale here in the Georgia mountains. How much do you want to buy?

By Van

July 28, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

rarringt, you have got to be kidding.

The 1990’s was one war after another, check this link

Algeria vs. Armed Islamic Group (GIA) and Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) 1991

Russia vs. Chechnya 1994

Democratic Republic of Congo vs. Rwanda, Uganda & indigenous rebels 1997

Uzbekistan vs. Islamic militants 1997

Ethiopia vs. Eritrea 1998

Guinnea Bissau vs. former army rebels 1998

Kosovo: Albanians vs. Serbs & other minorities 1998

Just a sample, and you think the 90’s was okay? You need to get out of mid-town more often

By Van

July 28, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

rarringt, stop with the kool aide

If the impeachment was just an attempt to bring down an administration, then why would the conservatives want Al Gore, the VP and would have been new President, in the White House except as a guest.

By candide

July 28, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this

I wonder if all the woes of gerrymandering and redistricting would not be solved by a system of proportional representation rather than a system of districts.

By Joe

July 28, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

TFTT is not good for comic relief or anything really. He’s just sad. Responding to a much earlier post, Cynthia McKinney is not and never will be a standard bearer for the Democratic party. That is a pipe dream of the right, part of the constant effort paint a radical face on the opposition. Cynthia is an island unto herself. And republicans cannot vote for her unless they voted in the Democratic primary in July.

By Van

July 28, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

candide,

That is the way it is suppose to work, each district has about the same number of folks.

Except for the safe Democratic districts, that is.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 28, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

rarringt: “Bill Clinton said terrorism was the biggest threat facing the new century”. ” Tell me, just WHAT did your hero do about terrorism? And WHAT TERRORIST STRONGHOLDS did he attack? He fired 2 missiles, one hitting a tent in the desert and the other hitting a camel in the A$$ in the desert. And WHAT TORTURE? Other than being imprisoned, these people are living BETTER than they’ve ever lived in their lives. Why do you Liberals always have to defend KILLERS in prisons??? Because they’re such nice people? Well yeah, they can’t conform either…that’s why they’re in prison!!! Man, please give us all a break from that worn-out ole line about “nations that didn’t have anything to do with 911”. Germany didn’t attack us either in World War II, should we just let them keep on killing Jews and trying to take over the world? I’m NOT trying to be ugly here, but that’s about a stupid argument. (And remember those folks in the Balkans didn’t bomb us either but you don’t have a problem with that).

By AM

July 28, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

I have many more for the weak minded. TFT

By rarringt

July 28, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this

Van,

True. Ya got me there, buddy. My bad.

By the way, how many of those involved preemptive invasions/occupations by the US?

I don’t disagree that there were many very ugly wars during Clinton’s time in office. But we didn’t start any of those, and engaged in peacekeeping efforts (with, I might add, the same UN Coalition forces that Bush Sr. was so fond of) with the wars in Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia.

You made a great point. Too bad it only reinforced mine.

@ Terminator,

All that happened within the first two years of Clinton’s presidency, after 12 years of Republican rule. The fact is, Clinton (who could have vetoed all that), listened to and worked with both sides of the aisle. Sure they screamed and pontificated and accused each other of conspiracies, but work got done. Fair laws were passed and enforced. More americans than ever prospered.

Was it perfect? Absolutely not. But it was better. Who would have thought a dalliance with a power-hungry harpie would have undone all that?

Ah well. If I want to believe that the world is in great shape and thing are brighter than ever (except for the d@%*#d liberals), I can always turn to Fox News.

By getalife

July 28, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

Uhg,

Clinton came closer to getting OBL by shooting those scuds than W.

W flipped flopped on getting OBL, a pardon if you will.

Just got me a jarhead hair cut and feel froggy.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

Joe … that was pathetic, surely you can be far more abusive than that … you know you want to … come on … vent that bile …

By The Terminator

July 28, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

@rarringt—-Those wonderful days of economic bliss were not because of Clinton, rather they were in spite of Clinton. He was the luckiest SOB that’s ever had oral sex in the oval office. Work got done because old Newt (who you boys despise) took charge and the Republican Congress got things done, in spite of BJ Bill.

By getalife

July 28, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this

Ah nutjob Newt. WWIII idiot who came up with the contract with America. Just read that piece of trash and see if the GOP did not live up to that contract. It is funnier than sacrificing tax dollars. LOL.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 28, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

getalife, my friend…How you been? Ask ole Osama if we “flip-flopped”, that is-IF YOU can find him. Have you wondered lately why that bad A$$ Osama doesn’t appear on video taped messages anymore? Why it’s always his 2nd idiot in command? Betcha A$$ old Osama don’t think we flip-flopped on catchin’ him. In spite of what you liberals think—-our troops DO HAVE THE CAPACITY of fighting the terrorists in Iraq AND hunting for Osama.

By getalife

July 28, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

We long for the Clinton days of peace and prosperity.

It was the dot com bubble, they were giving away cars to come to work. Now they give the jobs away overseas to China and India.

Trying to sale our ports to Arabs, building a NAFTA superhighway for cheap Chinese goods, and will not secure the border for cheap labor.

The GOP is selling America one piece at a time and you pinkos cheer them on. Failed Americans indeed.

By The Terminator

July 28, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH…yep getalife…that old idiot Newt…kicked the Democrats AS and they haven’t won again since. Tell me some more funny stories about ole dumb AS Newt! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

By rarringt

July 28, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

@Terminator

If you believe that, then you’ll believe a coke-snorting, recovering alcoholic with a very questionable service history, horrible business record and whose few years of public service in a state that greatly limits the power of governors, and who has always been known througout his life for bad judgment calls, would make a great presiden…

…oh, You do believe that. My mistake there, fella…. Bush is what I’d call a lucky SOB.

Amazing your thought process…8 years of prosperity, credit to Newt because Clinton didn’t have anything to do with it. 6 years of pain and death, blame Clinton because he was in charge back then.

You must have won the “Bestest Champeen Ever” award on you HS debate team.

By The Terminator

July 28, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

I hate to take the wind out of sails rarringt but I don’t like Bush either. I think he’s a big old POS just like your hero BJ Bill. Clinton was a lucky SOB. Inflation began at the END of HIS term, he had no MAJOR wars, unlike BOTH Bushes. He didn’t have a 911 that hurt the economy. He came into office when people had begun dumping lots of money into the stock market. Lucky SOB. But he’s your hero.

By getalife

July 28, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this

Uhg,

Remember when W spewed on the bullhorn about getting the people responsible for 9/11? Wanted dead or alive? Flip.

Later, he said he was not concerned about getting OBL.Pardon. Flop.

I read OBL is very unhealthy with kidney failure and tied to a dialysis machine.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 28, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

getalife, I’ve already said numerous times I DON’T LIKE BUSH EITHER!!! But thank God it’s him in the White House instead of those morons Bill Clinton, John “flip-flop” Kerry, or Albert “looney tunes” Gore during this war on terrorism. And I hope you’re right about ole Osama. I hope the B*tard dies a long, long horrible death!!!

By getalife

July 28, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

The worminator,

I would say it was DeLay who rallied the troops for the GOP. Created the K Street bribery system to pass corporate legislation.

Newt was always crying and whining like the rest of you pinkos.

By rarringt

July 28, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this

Ugotta,

Operation Desert Fox (Iraq).

Operation Infinite Reach (Sudan).

Getting security controls on old soviet nukes, which is why we haven’t seen any mushroom clouds lately.

Pressuring and isolating the Taliban.

Ending the terrorist genocide in Bosnia. And Rwanda. And Somalia.

And all that was during the Lewinsky scandal.

His domestic initiatives are too long to list, but suffice to say they are extensive.

By rarringt

July 28, 2006 05:14 PM | Link to this

Terminator,

Thanks for being on of the latter-day conservatives who seem to be realizing that placing ideology over performance isn’t such a good idea. Two bad it took two elections for you all to have that epiphany.

I was critical more of your thought process than of Bush himself. After all, a guy like him is in office because a guy like you thought he’d be a good feller “to have a beer with.”

By Stewart

July 28, 2006 05:16 PM | Link to this

y getalife

July 28, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

We long for the Clinton days of peace and prosperity.

It was the dot com bubble, they were giving away cars to come to work. Now they give the jobs away overseas to China and India. thank Bill Gates for the internet bubble. Not Clinton or the Republican Congress

Trying to sale our ports to Arabs, Wasn’t Billy bob coaching them on their negotiations to operate not purchase our poerts. building a NAFTA * Clinton initiative* superhighway for cheap Chinese goods, and will not secure the border for cheap labor.Bill didn’t secure the border becuase he wanted the hispanic vote

The GOP is selling America one piece at a time and you pinkos cheer them on. Failed Americans indeed.Clinton sold American missile technology to the Chinese. We are all getting sold out by both the Democrats and Republicans

By The Terminator

July 28, 2006 05:25 PM | Link to this

rarringt—-And I quote: “Operation Desert Fox was the military code name for a major FOUR-DAY BOMBING CAMPAIGN on Iraqi targets from Dec.16-19, 1998 by the United States and United Kingdom. These strikes were undertaken in response to IRAQ’S CONTINUED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS as well as their INTERFERENCE WITH UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMISSION INSPECTORS. It was a major flare-up in the IRAQ DISARMAMENT CRISES. The stated goal of the cruise missile and bombing attacks was to “degrade” Saddam Hussein’s ability to produce weapons of mass destruction. President Clinton announced *A NEW POLICY TOWARD IRAQ OF “REGIME CHANGE”. On October 31, 1998 the president signed law H.R. 4655, the *IRAQ LIBERATION ACT”. (I thought it was just about WMDs, that’s what you liberals claim) A 4-day bombing, are you really trying to masquerade these few incidents as a major war like we’ve had going on for the last 3 years? GIVE ME A BREAK. Even you know better than that.

By time for the truth

July 28, 2006 05:28 PM | Link to this

If we’re being awfully honest about Bush I’ll admit he’s a p**s poor public speaker, a disgusting panderer on immigration/border and has made some stubborn stupid mistakes in Iraq. His simpleton religion is deeply nauseating and his refusal to hammer back at least slightly at the liberal vermin and his lynch media lynch mob smacks of weakness. Although I understand the bit about not completely alienating the moderate swing voters. He should really have told the NAACP to bugger off though!!

But he aint a bleedin’ democrat which makes him appear Bhudda like in political honesty and that’s his saving grace. Petrol prices aren’t really his fault and his tax cuts should been more extensive. He should pound clinton for the presidential pardon scandal but is letting him off that hook which is disgusting. Why the hell he allowed that drunken hypocritical underwater driving pig Kennedy anywhere near the W House is beyond me.

Bush is no where near being the visionary legend Sir Ronald Reagan (PBUH) was, or Nixon, but is a wee bit better than his old man!!

By rarringt

July 28, 2006 05:30 PM | Link to this

Stewart said:

Clinton sold American missile technology to the Chinese. We are all getting sold out by both the Democrats and Republicans.

And Reagan sold missile technology to the Iranians. The same technology that those in Hezbollah seem so taken with. Or did you forget that was the “Iran” part of Iran-Contra?

I agree that neither party seems to be serving us very well.

By Markus

July 28, 2006 05:32 PM | Link to this

@BS:

By B.S.

*”July 28, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Markus, you’re a classic. Let’s re-look at this statement: “They expect us to stop our lives for something we support…”

Yes, indeed! We expect you give something more than verbal support on a blog to a cause. I thought conservatives knew what sacrifice was?”*

Ok, you have yet to ‘splain what YOU support. Now, why don’t you tell me what YOU support and then tell me you’ll stop everything you are doing in your life and SUPPORT it by becoming a PART OF IT.

Your attempt at invalidating someone’s credibility stance on a war because they haven’t faught in combat is pathetic and the typical ubiquitous response next to “Nazi!” every time a liberal shoots off their stupid mouths.

Not serving has nothing to do with not supporting the troops ANY more than not serving and saying that our troops are committing murder over there and saying they are in a “losing war” that our FREAKING ENEMIES are hearing.

But I digress. Debating with you liberals is a useless point on this topic. You people think you have an ace in the hole. Well, you don’t. Again, stop YOUR lives for what you TRULY believe in and chase it. If you choose NOT to and support in other ways, then sit down and STFU you hypocritical scumbags.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 28, 2006 05:34 PM | Link to this

BINGO rarringt!!! You got it! NEITHER PARTY IS SERVING US VERY WELL!!! That’s exactly how I feel. We all need to forget about the 90s and realize that these self-serving clowns in BOTH PARTIES are selling us down the drain and we’re sitting here with silly arguments ‘bout which party is the best.

By rarringt

July 28, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this

Looks like somebody did some research. Good for you!

The reason the attacks took only days is because they effectively knocked out the offending infrastructure. My point is, Clinton listened to his generals, followed their advice, acted decisively, and achieved the goal.

Number of troops deployed in hostile territory: 0

Number of troops lost in operations: 0

Number of troops wounded in operations: 0

Amount of money spent in operations: less than the 170 billion spent since March 2003

Number of major wars rushed into: 0

By rarringt

July 28, 2006 05:42 PM | Link to this

Anyway, I had fun playing in the sandbox this week. Have a good weekend.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 28, 2006 05:43 PM | Link to this

rarringt: Enjoyed playing with you. Have a great weekend.

By Dusty

July 28, 2006 06:03 PM | Link to this

Some of you people make me sick. Here you are probably getting ready to do very little of nothing in perfect freedom and all you can say is “Neither party is serving us very well.” Well, do something YOURSELF. Act like you appreciate what you’ve got, the greatest country in the world.

Sure, I’m ringing the Liberty Bell and waving the flag. But our sons and daughters in the military are in far places and they are fighting for us. Could you not show a little appreciation with a tiny bit of patriotism? Your reputations will not be ruined to act like you are proud to be an American.

So, have a nice weekend, free Americans. And quit your griping. Free speech can be very costly when it is used against your own country.

By The Way

July 28, 2006 06:05 PM | Link to this

And the number ten reason why liberals will go to war is if someone grabs their microphone.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 29, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

Dusty I didn’t realize that attacking BOTH PARTIES, was using “free speech against my own country”. The key words, Dusty are PARTIES, NOT COUNTRY!!! I was criticizing the PARTIES which very much deserve the criticism for doing nothing but trying to get THEIR people re-elected instead of putting the UNITED STATES first!!! I’ve had 2 sons serve in Iraq, and YOU??? I am very proud to be a flag-waving American also. That’s why I argue so passionately with those that I feel are tremendously misguided in their false beliefs. Now, if it’s MY OPINIONS that you find fault with, I guess that’s YOUR problem. I just wanted to clear the air…

By getalife

July 29, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

Ug,

Dusty is one of the neo-cons who spews patriotic bs like a good wittle sheep no matter what.

I agree with you, both parties suck and the best thing we can do for our country is vote out the incumbants. Our country is great our government is not.

By Dusty

July 29, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

Ugotta,

We only have two main political parties in this country. If you say that neither one is serving us well, then you are saying that NOTHING is going well in this country.

Who do you think is representative of our government around the world? Our elected officials who were elected through political parties by the voters. When there is a blanket condemnation of these parties then you are saying exactly what our enemies want to hear. That is, nothing is right here.

I commend your sons for serving this country. You say that you are patriotic, but in my book, you don’t sound like it even if you are. Again, when you say that both political parties are not serving us well, it sounds like nothing is right here in America. That I don’t like. How about some specific constructive criticism instead of blanket condemnation?

Oh, by the way, my father, husband and oldest son have all served honorably in the military, two of them during war time.

By Dusty

July 29, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

Getalife,

Your addled-brain explanations of my politics are unnecessary. Go play your usual game of “Peek-a-boo, I luv you” with your left leaning liberals.

By getalife

July 29, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Just stating the facts mam. Dissent is not a good thing in your America.

I value my freedoms in this great country and will never allow people like you, who are scared, to steal my freeedom.

Label me a liberal, but actually I am an American.

By rednecks - America's Al Qaeda

July 29, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

Jim, I read some of your comments re: pictures and attributed postings on this blog. Nice idea, but given the typical Georgia GOP voter’s lynchmob gene, not a very safe one.

I, for one, would not be comfortable giving out identifiable personal details on this blog for 2 reasons - 1) too many filthy stoopid ignorant rednecks in Georgia have guns, and a few of them actually know how to read street maps and 2) while I am comfortable with defending myself one on one, dealing with a pack of drunken foul-mouthed foul smelling illiterates is not something a decent person like myself should have to deal with.

Lynching is in the genes of many Georgians, and what you are proposing will just activate them.

By Dusty

July 29, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

You have presented NO facts whatsoever, sir. Try saying one good factual thing about this country. That might improve your tiresome reputation of being a loose-lip liberal, eager for attention.

By getalife

July 29, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Which part of great did you not comprehend.

I will repeat for the slow among us.

Our country is great, our government is not.

Here, pay attention to Letterman

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 29, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

Dusty: Do you REALLY think either of the 2 PARTIES are working for us? Surely you’re not THAT naive!!! If you do, then you’re surely one of the “SHEEP” that continues to vote PARTY LINE. Well, I’m sorry Dorothy to break the news to you BUT BOTH PARTIES are corrupt up to their eyeballs, raking in millions in contributions, taking care of their big business friends (REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS), and letting the corporations absolutely “rape” the lower and middle classes. How about your gasoline prices, or maybe prescriptions—satisfied with your medical costs when you visit your hospital or doctor? How about the spiraling cost and reducing benefits of your health insurance? I’m listening Dusty! What are they doing for US? They’re taking huge contributions from all these groups and MORE and we’re paying the price. And these clowns in power DON’T EVEN PAY INCOME TAXES ON THE MONEY THAT’S CONTRIBUTED TO THEM!!! Try that on your next 1040 when you file your taxes. We need term limits. That’s the ONLY way to throw some of these bums out of office because their bases and their connections are SO POWERFUL. In most cases a challenger doesn’t have a chance at defeating them, and that’s a FACT. You can ONLY be a LIBERAL because you surely READ BETWEEN THE LINES. Because even my buddy getalife agreed with me and that’s quite an accomplishment for me!!!

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 29, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this

Dusty, how about failing schools and a court system that lets killers, child molesters, and rapists walk free. Or how about a border security system that’s so neglected by your politicians that people no longer need a visa to enter the country…just come on in! Did I mention a TOTAL MESS in Iraq? (AND I’M AN ULTRU-CONSERVATIVE!) Girl, you must have some really THICK ROSE COLORED GLASSES. BAAAA

By getalife

July 29, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this

Ugotta B. Kidding (noticed I used your name, a sign of respect),

I totally agree with you and feel term limits is a great idea. Anything to get these whores out of office.Here is an example of a whore on campaign reformDisgusting, to say the least which I will for Dusty’s sake.

My gas prices are high, meds are higher and hospital costs are through the roof.

Of course, we should not mention these facts in Dusty’s American utopia.

By Dusty

July 29, 2006 05:30 PM | Link to this

Ugotta,

On your rational days, maybe you can carry on a sensible conversation. This isn’t one of them. Ranting and raving impresses no one.

Everybody in Congress does not make me happy. But I do not condemn the whole bunch because a few are crooks. We have some dedicated people in Washington who have a mean job. Support the honest and ethical ones. They need you.

I could list numerous great advantages to being an American. It goes on and on. Do you think all this comes for free? No, we pay taxes for all these rewards but not as much as many countries. Do you not know that people are risking their lives just to come and live in our country?

If you are so dissatisfied that you cannot work for needed changes, perhaps you should consider the alternatives. Find that land of Nirvana that you long for. I hope you will be happy. In the meantime, I will stick with the one I have. It is the best.

By getalife

July 29, 2006 05:41 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

It is the best and can be so much better with some honest people working in Washington.

Please supply a list of honest and ethical ones and I will be more than happy to support them.

By Dusty

July 29, 2006 05:42 PM | Link to this

AH, Geta and Gotta, poor babies.

The sky is falling. Put on the sack cloth and ashes. The end is near. I will send a lily and a box of Kleenex. Hope it helps.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 29, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this

Dusty, which one of these clowns do you work for? You’ve totally either ignored OR missed my whole point with your silly responses. But hey, if you’re happy with these crooks then, it’s a free country…KEEP VOTING FOR THEM. Especially since everything is so swell in your land of Oz. You must not have a 5 trillion dollar debt there in La La Land and an ever increasing budget deficit. (AND Liberal Democrats you might remember we had 3-4 trillion dollar debt before Bush took office, so don’t give me that Bush did it BS) Of course he certainly hasn’t helped matters. And did you say a “FEW are crooks”? Yep, and only a FEW Islamists are RADICAL, right? Duh-Huh!!! Dusty, I’m not looking for Nirvana, I’M CERTAINLY NOT THAT NAIVE as you. I would just like elected officials that go to Washington and elsewhere to actually DO THEIR DAMN JOBS — REPRESENT THE PEOPLE instead of constantly having their hands out for donations and accepting illegal gifts and trips from lobbyists for all the rich and powerful. Here in South Georgia we call it KISSING THEIR ASSES and screwing the regular folks!!! Maybe it’s just “love” in Oz!

By getalife

July 29, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Where is the list of honest and ethical politicians?

That would help.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 30, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

Hey getalife: Thank you for the kind words. Just goes to show that an ultra-conservative AND liberal CAN AGREE!!! We’ve got to be AMERICANS FIRST and demand the same from our elected officials. We no longer should tolerate the partisan bickering and game playing between the parties to keep us all divided. If these clowns were not continuously “playing” to their bases TO GET RE-ELECTED you probably wouldn’t have all this partisan fighting and “gotcha politics”. Maybe there would be more “meet you in the middle” BI-PARTISAN AMERICAN efforts at solving all these problems for our children and grandchildrens’ futures. Dusty, that would be “Nirvana” aplenty for me!

By getalife

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

Good morning Ugotta B. Kidding,

I used that same argument you used @8:56 AM at several blogs to no avail. It is like a blog civil war that accomplishes nothing.

Since Dusty will not provide a list of honest and ethical politicians (are there any left?) lets take a look at who voted for the last vote on raising the minumum wage.You may not agree due to a vote along party lines but I think it is a simple issue good for America.

By Dusty

July 30, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

Well,Geta and Gotta,

Sounds like you two had a good night’s sleep. Yep, we got to keep busy working for this super country of ours.

Sorry you didn’t get your good list of politicians. The blog shut down last night during my dinner. At 10.19 this morning I was singing “A Mighty Fortress is Our God”. So you see I am not usually hanging around my computer.

But let us see now. Georgia’s representatives (mostly) are a pretty good crowd. There’s Kingston, Linder, Norwood and Gingrey.

Our Georgia Senators aren’t bad. Chambliss and Isakson are OK. I do like Sessions from Alabama, McCain of course, Kay Bailey Hutchinson and the former military lawyer from South Carolina. There are a few others but I won’t list any more. Lehrer News Hour interviews a lot of politicians and you can get a good view of their opinions and characteristics. Don’t give up. There are honest ones up there.

My two all time favorites are Nunn and Zell Miller. Sadly, they are no longer in politics. They are both honest, intelligent and love this country.

Have a nice weekend and stay cool.

By getalife

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

Dusty,

Next time you go to church, ask your preacher to unite to promote peace and denounce the killing of others. I tell this to my neighbor, who is a minister, all the time. “Thou shall not kill”.

Lets see if your senators voted to raise the minumum wage for the poor. Nope. Maybe next vote since they sweetened the pot for the rich with the estate tax crap. How in the world can real Christians support the GOP is beyond me.

By Dusty

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

Getalife,

My minister believes “Thou shalt not kill”. He doesn’t think terrorists should kill Americans, Iraqis, Israelis, Spaniards, Italians, Indians, Indonesians, Afghans or anybody else. His two sons are like him. They are both in the military and in and out of Iraq. Perhaps you don’t mind. I do.

By getalife

July 30, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

My point being Christian, Islam, or whatever religion leaders unite to promote peace and denounce the killing of innocent civilians.

Did you discuss the bombing of children in Beruit this morning with your minister?

Is this concept too hard to understand?

By RW-(the original)

July 30, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Why not condemn the people that put civilians in harms way? You are starting to become one of the biggest hypocrites on any of these blogs and that is coming from someone you should consider a friend.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 30, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

Dusty, I don’t mean this ugly but are you a BLONDE? It’s because of voters like you and me and millions of others that these do-nothing crooks have been able to be re-elected time and time again. Those “noble” men that you mentioned collect millions of dollars FROM CORPORATIONS (Paying no taxes on the money), that EXPECT FAVORS, HUUUUUUUGE FAVORS DUSTY! Why else do you think they give ALL that money Dusty? Because they like them too? Duh-huh!!! It’s because these good ole boys are gonna vote the way THEY want them to vote on things and TAKE CARE of things THEY want taken care of. You mentioned John McCain. Does “the Keating Five” ring a bell Dusty? Remember the Savings & Loan scandals of the 80s Dusty? Well YOUR BOY ole Johnny McCain was up-to-his-A$$ in old Charles Keating’s pocket in that scandal and should’ve went to jail and kicked out of the Senate. Lindsey Graham is the SC Senator, he is a John McCain wannabe, a moderate. Do you know what a moderate is Dusty? That’s someone that HAS NO OPINION, instead just follows the polls. Chambliss and Isakson do a fair job but they’re some of the GOOD OLE BOYS too. My main point is that THEY’VE ALL BEEN THERE TOO LONG. Most of them represent corporate big business and NOT you and me! If you don’t believe that, say hello to Snow White and the 7 dwarfs for me.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

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

And by the way, the DemonNcrats are JUST AS BAD. They collect the corporate BIG MONEY also. My argument is not just at Republicans!

By getalife

July 30, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

RW,

Welcome to a live blog where people actually answer your comments.

Please explain to me why I am a hipocrite.

By Dusty

July 30, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

No, we did not discuss the bombing of a prewarned Hezbolla controlled village at church. Nor did we discuss the beheading of Americans, British and Iraqis by terrorists. Nor did we discuss the crossing and bombing of Israel’s border with the killing and capture of their soldiers. We didn’t discuss it because it is common knowledge that no Christian wants to kill. We pray for peace.

But there doesn’t seem to be much choice at this time. You fight terrorists while you are still alive. You may sit and wait, but after they kill you they will then kill your family, including your children.

Is this concept too hard to understand?

What happened to your interests in politicians? I think you just want a discussion. Bored??

By getalife

July 30, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

RW,

Now this is a hypocrite.

We pray for peace.

Then this:

But there doesn’t seem to be much choice at this time. You fight terrorists while you are still alive. You may sit and wait, but after they kill you they will then kill your family, including your children.

Pray for Peace, but lets kill them before they kill us.

By RW-(the original)

July 30, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

getalife,

You would have to look within to find out WHY you are a hypocrite.

It’s possible that in this case you are more of a useful idiot than a hypocrite, it all depends on whether you know how misguided what you are saying is.

You condemn Israel for the bombing this morning with absolutely no concern for why those people were placed in that situation. They were placed there by cowards that fight among civilians so that when anyone shoots back they can have their enemies condemned through the televised pictures. If you didn’t know that then you are simply a useful idiot.

From talking to you in other places and on other topics I know that you do know the difference, thus you are a hypocrite.

Your kneejerk reaction will ensure that more terrorists groups fight among civilians whether it be Lebanon, Iraq, or the United States. Many more people will be slaughtered over the years because of people that think like you. All you do is hypocritically condemn Israel or George W. Bush with no regard to the consequences for future generations, so it isn’t human life you are concerned with it is simply your political point of view.

Frankly I’m probably being too nice only calling you a hypocrite.

I have no intention of conversing on this blog so I won’t be looking for a response.

By getalife

July 30, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

I think you just want a discussion.

Ya think?

By getalife

July 30, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

RW,

I would say your rhetoric is not useful but is idiotic since you want use typical wingnut name calling.

There are a majority of people who are not going to agree with your ideology and instead of spewing names and running off, you might want to discuss it like a man.

As far as future generations, my days are numbered and would like to voice my opinion on this subject if you do not mind.

I would love to see peace and prosperity for the next generation. To achieve this, we can’t rely on government for anything. It is up to the people to promote peace and denounce hatred and violence. Religion could play a major role in this movement. Religious leaders, no matter what religion, could unite and promote peace and denounce violence.

It is a much better solution than kill them before they kill us.

By Dusty

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

Gotta.

Are you bald? Because you are pulling your hair out all the time. If you can do better than what is in Congress, go for it.

You are back in your “sky is falling mode” which precludes any rational thinking. You will have to continue your controversy with Getalife. He goes on forever. I’d rather watch the Braves. More fun.

By Dusty

July 30, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

Christians always pray for peace. Not just in wartime, but always.

If you are anti-war, then go march with Sheehan and Fonda. But our country is at war, so don’t claim at the same time that you support the troops. You can’t have it both ways. Our troops will protect you even while you hold a white flag during wartime and talk about “the children”.

Talk with Gotta. I’m watching the Braves.

By Markus

July 30, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

Hey B.S.:

I’m still WAITING on your reply what YOU stand for. All you have done on this board is chastise others (along with that troll “Susan”) for what they believe in and support by telling them (me) to go jump in the fray. Further, all you have stated thus far is what you DON’T support.

Well clown, I’m still waiting on your comments on what YOU support. Whatsamatta? Too cowardly to speak up on what YOU support in fear that someone will tell YOU to go jump in it and stop YOUR life?

Not speaking up for what YOU believe in is the ultimate in cowardness, next to not admitting one is a liberal of course, which happens a LOT out there.

C’mon B.S., show me whatcha got. Speak up on your beliefs you punk.

By getalife

July 30, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

Crusty,

Your right, I would rather have a discussion with an adult like Ugotta B. Kidding.