Thinking Right

By jbmlaw

November 28, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Any “special commission” is evidence of legislative cowardice. I don’t like the idea of policy making legislative “staff” either, for the same reason. I don’t like the idea of bureaucrats writing “implementing regulations.” I expect our legislators to consult individual experts in any area, but when it comes to writing the laws – whether redistricting or anything substantial – I think that ought to be the work of the people elected to the position. If they intend to delegate these duties, we need to reduce their pay to the level of an HR clerk, since that is all they are doing.

I don’t know, and thus cannot credit, the author of the line, but I am certain we would be better off if we replaced our Congress/Legislatures with 100 death row inmates chosen at random. They would steal less, and would enact more intelligent legislation.

By jbmlaw

November 28, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this

And Jim, with all due respect, “And the courts are perfectly capable of determining when redistricting has been jiggered so districts are unequal in design” - you must be kidding. Have you not followed the actions of the Rome maniac? Keep it away from the black robes. I think Baker-Carr may have done more damage to the republic than the 17th Amendment.

By Political Foreskin

November 28, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this

I think we should let Kramer redistrict Georgia. Then we should let Vick rewrite the curriculum for finishing schools (the fork-U goes on the right). Then we should let the pope and W write the diplomacy 101 textbook for speech impaired gaff jockeys.

Are we coming apart at the seams? Kramer, then Vick, and now I see that Paris Hilton swatted her poor dog with a rolled up newspaper. (the dog was heckling her vogue act). That one moved the doomsday clock up 37 seconds closer to midnight.

I guess Americans just dont like to be dissed. “Dont diss me” should replace “Dont tread on me”. When we are heckled, we lash out. Heckling is what makes us Americans and Venezuelans, (remember “Bush is the devil”?)

But lets give W credit for not lashing, swatting, or flipping. But now he needs to start redistricting……iraq.

By CJ

November 28, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

Wooten: “Do-gooders, bless their hearts, fall in love with concepts, such as campaign finance reform and independent commissions to take the politics out of redistricting. They rarely succeed because, as with campaign finance reform, they simply move the politics and the money to another category.”

Proud to be a “do-gooder” Jim. However, the “rarely succeed” line isn’t entirely true.

First of all, let me say that we do-gooders are pragmatists, not ideologues. When a commission fills a need not already filled elsewhere, has been proven to work in similar circumstances and could possibly promote bi-partisan solutions to overcome gridlock, then we do-gooders are open to them. The 9/11 Commission is a good example.

On the other hand, when commissions are primarily intended to procrastinate or distract, then do-gooders are against them. An example of a procrastination and distraction commission would include the two commissions proposed by Republican Senator Isakson, bless his heart, in his “Stop Over-Spending Act” (proposed for a Republican-led Congress).

With regard to campaign finance reform, Clean Elections have worked and are working in Arizona. We do-gooders like to use successful programs in one State as models for proposals in others.

On the subject of redistricting, Iowa uses a commission whose members are not allowed to “be as partisan as they choose”. In fact, its members are forbidden from considering political leanings. The result is a political map that looks like stacked bricks instead of a kindergartner’s drawing. Iowa’s congressional districts have more competitive races than other states, and their delegation is considered to be more moderate.

I know that Jim thinks that the system is working when Republicans win and broken when Republicans lose, but we do-gooders don’t measure success that way.

By Diogenes

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

Jim,

I realize that this morning’s topic is redistricting, but more of that anon. Let’s revisit your editorial of November 23 first. At that time, flushed with blood lust, I suppose, you stated: “That the shooter was a 92-year-old woman who may have been frightened and confused adds to the tragedy, but — again — if police had legitimate reason to believe drugs were being sold from the house, it’s hard to find fault with their procedures.”

I cautioned you then that your endorsement of the Atlanta Police Department might be a rush to judgment and that you should wait until more evidence was available. But no, conservatives rush in where angels fear to tread. The latest developments in the case, to wit, the snitch claims he was lying, makes your endorsement even more questionable than it was on the morning after. I am curious, of course, how this will play out. There’s too many police agencies currently nibbling around the edges to believe that we shall ever find that elusive quarry, “truth.”

By candide

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

Of course redictricting will always be political. That is why single-member districts for the legislature and Congress is wrong. We should have proportional representation, a system in which each of the parties gets members at large in proportion to their slice of the vote. This is the European way — and just as they have better food, they have a better political system.

By Sanity

November 28, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this

How interesting that CJ takes issue with Mr. Wooten’s reasoning by citing the work performed by a commission in Iowa. Well CJ - Georgia isn’t Iowa and I believe that, if you read the complete text of Jim’s article, you will note that he cites a condition that separates the politics of the Iowa and Georgia, the Voting Rights Act. Jim is dead on when he states that these guaranteed minority seats will be “off the table” in setting political boundaries for the state and will, therefore, give an overt advantage to the Democratic Party in the redistricting process.

Interesting that the AJC never thought it necessary to write articles concerning redistricting reform while their party, the Democrats, ruled the roost. And now, with Republicans in overwhelming control of Georgia politics, they call for reform. Sounds a bit hyocritical to many.

When it comes to redistricting the current system has served Georgia wel. So let us employ the old phrase, “to the victor goes the spoils”.

By @@

November 28, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

Jim: Political schemes never die, they’re rooted in partisanship footholds. And political committees, puhleeeeze. I’ve sat on a few committees, and I’m always amazed at the time and energy spent to accomplish little, if anything.

The mention of the word committee puts me in mind of a story I once heard. What follows isn’t it, but close enough.

WHAT TO DO WITH A DEAD HORSE

By zeke

November 28, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

All political districts should be drawn only to insure that residents living close to one another are in the same district! Whether white, black, latin, asian or other they should be in the same district! To draw lines as current practice of running a district maybe over 100 miles and in some places less than a mile wide to insure a majority minority district is ridiculous and has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court! However the politicos still draw those districts and they are not challenged! How un-American!

By Diogenes

November 28, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Districting in the State of Georgia has been a plaything of the Democratic Party since long before you and I were born. Now it has become a plaything of the Republicans, and, most likely will remain so for the foreseeable future. “Fairness to the electorate” is a phrase I have never heard applied to Georgia politics. As you state in your editorial, “fairness” and “legislative balance” is not something we can anticipate any time in the near future.

Jim in the past 20 years, only 5412 dead people have voted in Georgia elections. Sounds to me as if Georgia politics are getting dull, since the turn out is so low. I guess that’s to be laid at the doorstep of the conservatives; they’ve been known to numb the electorate to a stupor. Redistricting, alas, will not take us back to the wonderful days of stump oratory and dead men voting. And that’s how politics in Georgia have evolved, “not with a bang, but a whimper.”

By Dennis

November 28, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

Do I detect a little hypocracy here?

In his last column Jim decided the courts weren’t capable of deciding whether schools were adequately funded and should stay out of such financial decisions. In short, don’t trust the courts to make the right decision.

Yet today he says, “And the courts are perfectly capable of determining when redistricting has been jiggered so districts are unequal in design”….

Is Jim thinking of using two different sets of judges?

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By phil

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

Hey Realist, do an AJC search on the last redistricting done in Georgia. You’ll see that your whiney “the librul AJC hates me” routine is a joke. The AJC spoke out loudly and often against the new Congressional lines.

By jbmlaw

November 28, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Dear Diogenes @ 9:12, I am generally a fan of your arguments, but in your “Jim’s-a-dummy-style” diversion you restrict your vision of the problem. Is the core problem not the “nanny state?” I admit that I take my pokes at the police, but I think the problem is much larger than mere execution of the law (you should pardon such a dreadful pun.) The death of grandma is an inevitable by-product of the unnecessary restriction on commerce. Such “collateral damage” is a potentiality, and should be anticipated, every time the government restricts or conditions the sale of anything. By making illicit a market, and then raising penalties to the point that few choose to engage in the commerce, the government raises the potential profits and inevitably elevates the depravity and willingness of the truly evil among us. If we suddenly saw psychoactive and recreational drugs sold at the local WalMart, these unnecessary deaths would end, yet nobody not already-predisposed would newly engage drug use.

By Buy Danish

November 28, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

“This is the European way — and just as they have better food, they have a better political system.”

Candide,

If you are correct and their system is better, why is it that only 16% of Germans are optimistic about the future, compared to, say, 60% of Americans?

Germany is the realization of the Utopian Welfare State with all its bennies, but everyone is miserable. I might add that it is also unsustainable, but I digress.

You want us to copy that system?

Forget about it.

Diogenes,

You are doing a stellar job of “numbing the electorate into a stupor”. Conservatives are trying to get you to wake up.

By JK

November 28, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

Where IS Mr. Realist?

By Van

November 28, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

candide,

The European way???

The EU can’t even debate and decide on a constitution. One part of the EU wants England to change its inheritance laws for “fairness”.

Unemployment is about 10% and no one likes anyone else.

Yes, lets do it the European way.

By Kris Sauriol

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

I agree Mr. Wooten, legislative districts should be as homogenous as possible with as little to no competition coming from opposing parties. By ceding the power to draw legislative districts to the government “we the people” long ago gave away our right to choose who represents us, and I for one trust legislators in their infinite wisdom to choose their constituents. Things have only gotten better with the increased accuracy of computer generated demographic information. Legislators can now draw a district - essentially picking and choosing their constituents - to maximize their chances of winning elections. The best part about this process is that when Election Day comes we “the people” only have to worry about voting for an unopposed incumbent. I won’t speak for everyone but I know that when there is a close race between two or three candidates representing differing viewpoints I don’t vote, I only vote when the incumbent is running unopposed and is guaranteed to win.

This past election there were only 2 competitive districts in the entire state of Georgia. That tells me the system works. The incumbents are running unopposed, we are all neatly fitted into our cozy little districts where for the most part we are surrounded by either 60-80% Republicans or Democrats.

This talk about an independent commission burns me up, just who do “we the people” think we are, who gave us the right to choose who represents us in Congress. Find me the document that gives the people of this country the right to choose who represents them. I am sick of all this power to the people nonsense. Politicians are not in office to represent the people, they are in office to represent the special interests and the current system of gerrymandering is the best way to ensure that it stays that way!

By Diogenes

November 28, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

Years ago, the Republicans stood for removing the constraint of trade barriers; now I’m not so sure that you could persuade Jim to take interest in the topic. Of course, from the other view for a moment, were Wal-Mart to get the franchise, it would present in its own way a constraint of trade. All the independents would, as in every other market in which Wal-Mart engages, be run out. Do you remember the old adage, “What’s good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA”? Wal-Mart is the current Bullmoose, and Jim, and his ilk, seem to be guilty of aiding and abetting. The satirical bite is just as sharp now as it was then.

Back to the point at hand. Instead of Jim’s Nov. 23 (or subsequent) editorial being about constraint of trade, it was about a killing that becomes more questionable with additional information. I just hope Brother Jim doesn’t end up with egg on his face as a consequence of his rush to defend.

By time for the truth

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

As ever its quite nauseating to see how the leftists refuse to condemn the blatant bigotry involved in the protection of black seats. ALL seats should be sorted out purely on the basis of local residence/geography etc - NEVER race. Giving blacks, or any minority “extra” seats, above their actual statistical presence in any state population is evil and wrong. But pandering bigoted liberals can’t ever be intellctually honest when it comes to racial spoils - as more blacks always means more corrupt lefties in state legislatures.

Its hilarious to see how the noxious left still can’t accept that GA has changed for the better - after well over a century of corrupt good ole boy demoNcrat rule. Even in recent years, despite the deeply unfortunate increase in yankkkeee infestation in GA the state has unerringly trended GOP which is good for GA and good for the folks who live here. Racial spoils pandering sadly still goes on albeit more at the local council level - but happily not quite as much. Hopefully this historic demoNcrat instigated racism and racial spoils will just quietly fade away like three band aids means three purple hearts Kerry’s presidential primary chances already have and HiTllary’s White House chances will when Rudy or whom ever gets the GOP nomination.

By carl

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

Kris,

I hope your post was sarcasm. Judging from what some people write here I feel compelled to respond in case it is not sarcasm.

Quoting you “Find me the document that gives the people of this country the right to choose who represents them.

I believe the document is called the Constitution of the United States. In Article 1 Section 2 Clause 1 it states “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States…”

Mr. Wooten was pointing out that the Democrats paid the price for their overzealous gerrymandering in 2002. Gerrymandering has been around as long as this country has been. When a party gets out of line it is up to the voters to correct the situation. Our system is not perfect, but I would much rather live here than anywhere else.

By Charles

November 28, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

It’s funny because most of the conservatives in this blog forget that it was their man under the gold dome, Sonny Perdue, who brought this issue up. It was Sonny Perdue who took the initiative and created an Executive Order establishing the Independent Redistricting task force. Y’all make it seem like the AJC and the far left is pushing this issue. Last I checked Perdue is a Republican. Come on peole why does everything have to be a left/right issue.

Georgia is about as red a state as any in the country. An independent redistricting commission will not change that. It is not the purpose of an independent redistricting commission to change Georgia into a more progressive state. Trust me that isn’t going to happen for a long, long, long time.

What id does do is restore a power to the people. I don’t think legislators should be allowed to choose their constituents, do you? An independent commission will take that power out of their hands. What is wrong with that?

By BPJ

November 28, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

Voters should choose politicians, rather than politicians choosing voters. What we have now is politicians choosing voters, with the result that most US House districts are “safe seats” for one of the two parties.

The only thing most House members have to fear is a primary challenge (from the right for the Republican incumbent, from the left for the Democratic incumbent). Hence the increased polarization of the House.

I’m a moderate Democrat, and I was in favor of the Iowa method for years BEFORE Republicans took control of our state government. So no hypocrisy here, just common sense: voters should choose politicians instead of the other way around, and general elections should matter (routinely, not just the occasional 1994 or 2006). And the nearly 50% of Americans who identify themselves as moderates should be more represented in Congress than the roughly one-third who consider themselves conservatives, or the roughly one-fifth who consider themselves liberals (polling has been pretty consistent on this point for decades).

That would be my kind of Congress. Of course, it wouldn’t please conservatives such as Mr. Wooten, who would like us to think we have to choose between conservative and liberal. Conservatives will usually win that battle. But it doesn’t represent where the center of American (or Georgian) politics is.

By Charles

November 28, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

It’s funny because most of the conservatives in this blog forget that it was their man under the famous Georgia Gold Dome, Sonny Perdue, who brought this issue up. It was Sonny Perdue who took the initiative and created an Executive Order establishing the Independent Redistricting Task Force. Y’all make it seem like the AJC and the far left is pushing this issue. Last I checked Perdue is a Republican. Come on peole why does everything have to be a left/right issue.

Georgia is about as red a state as any in the country. An independent redistricting commission will not change that. It is not the purpose of an independent redistricting commission to change Georgia into a more progressive state. That isn’t going to happen for a long, long, long time.

What it does do is take power away from the GOVERNMENT and gives it to the people as in us. I don’t think legislators should be allowed to choose who votes for them, do you? Just because the Democrats did it in years past doesn’t give the Republicans a pass on it. It says a lot about people who let their enemy set the moral standard and then strive to meet it. I know for a fact that a lot of Georgia Republicans in high positions support this proposal, (Governor Perdue is #1 on that list) so I am not picking on republicans, just you Jim Wooten types because apparently you still drag your knuckles.

I say again because this SHOULD resonate with conservatives, an Independent Redistricting Commission will take a major power out of the hands of the GOVERNMENT. What is wrong with that?

By e. t.

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

Very few readers and bloggers have picked up on Jim’s comment that the Voting Rights Act will preclude an “independent commission” from drawing our legislative districts, at least for the next 25 years. The Justice Department will handle that chore for us. And, at one time I was naive enough to hope that the state would sue to get out from under the “pre-clearance conditions” of the Voting Rights Act. Then I realized that this probably had as much to do with the Republicans’ takeover of Georgia politics as the flaggers, teachers, etc. So, as much as I hate the idea of federal oversight of our voting districts, regulations, etc., it seems that those who pushed so hard for this act, originally Democrats, got what they deserved - minority status in government as well as population. By the way, Jim, it must be lonely for you sitting in on the editorial board meets at the AJC.

By Buy Danish

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

BPJ

If you’re not a liberal, I’m curious as to where you stand on the issues, domestic and foreign. How are you a “moderate” and not a “liberal”? Conversely, what is it about “conservatives” that you disassociate yourself with? What is your perception of us?

Next door, Mike Luckovich claims to be a “moderate Democrat” but most of us are having difficulty seeing what is not flamingly liberal about him.

Thanks!

By Second Story Man

November 28, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

Voters should choose politicians. (not vice versa). I like that. Now that is an original insight well presented, profusely illustrated and best of all, it moves the discussion forward.

By Mrs. RepubLady

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

Labels are so important. I can’t stand people who want to discuss actual issues or facts. Let’s assign labels to people and demand they defend themselves instead. And if they won’t, we’ll just keep hurling labels at them. What FUN!

By DebbieDoRight

November 28, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

• And the courts are perfectly capable of determining when redistricting has been jiggered so districts are unequal in design, deliberately configured to make voters unequal. In that case, aggrieved voters have an immediate remedy.*

The COURTS!! r u serious? Right now the Repugs are trying to stack the state supreme court, in their ever-going zeal to steal anything not tied down, in their favor!!! The people have voted, picked the person they want to rule on their courts but, (drum roll please), the good-ole-redneck-boys-of-jawja have decided to “up” the count of judges from 7 to 9.

Why? Because they can’t stand to be beaten at anything, they are the most snivelling bunch of whining liars that have ever put on a sheet. They lie in their campaign speeches about “less government and higher morals” then they turn around and throw as much mud as they can get to stick.

But they STILL got beat — so how to rectify that? Let’s just change the rules; that way NO ONE WINS —- at least no one who’s not accepting big business bribes that is…….

http://www.mdjonline.com/articles/2006/11/28/268/10239034.prt

By Diogenes

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

Buy Danish (1111),

Your comment, “Next door, Mike Luckovich claims to be a “moderate Democrat” but most of us are having difficulty seeing what is not flamingly liberal about him.”

I have no trouble seeing Mike as a moderate Democrat. His satire bites deep into the conservative hide because their antics are so hilarous. Mike would show constraint beyond human capabilities were he not to wax satiric about that Republican nut house in Washington or about our local brand of buttoned up stupification.

By DebbieDoRight

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

So, as much as I hate the idea of federal oversight of our voting districts, regulations, etc., it seems that those who pushed so hard for this act, originally Democrats, got what they deserved - minority status in government as well as population

U know it just occured to me — with the rise in the hispanic population, pretty soon the “white folks” will be the minority. Big Grin

By CJ

November 28, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

Sanity @9:31,

You’re correct in your observation that Georgia isn’t Iowa — very astute. But, you’re mistaken when you say that I didn’t read the complete text of Jim’s article. I did.

You should know that the Voting Rights Act doesn’t preclude Georgia from implementing the Iowa approach to redistricting. The Department of Justice’s website says that “while [taking race into account when drawing election districts] compromises traditional districting principles, such districts must be drawn where the Section 2 violation occurs and must not compromise traditional principles [such as geographic compactness and keeping communities of interest together] more than is necessary to remedy the violation.” So, depending on the result, Georgia districts originally drawn using the Iowa model might need to be modified to comply with the Voting Rights Act. However, the possibility of Voting Rights Act modifications doesn’t supersede the principals or eliminate the benefits of applying the non-partisan Iowa model, nor does it condone your “to the victor go the spoils” philosophy.

With regard to hypocrisy, I wonder if you believed that the current system had served Georgia well when Democrats still “ruled the roost”? Never mind…I already know the answer.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/

By Wootenlover

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

Jim, you are so intellegent and insightful…always correct. I suggest you and Michael Richards redistrict Georgia…and don’t forget to consult David Duke. I’m sure he is on your speed dial. “Common Sense Consevatism”? - well, you’ve got Common correct…common intellegence and myopic perspective. You are aces buddy! You express exactly what Republican’s are. Between brilliant minds like yours and Ann Coulter, there is no way the Democrats can lose anytime soon. Keep up the good work!

By DebbieDoRight

November 28, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

Mike would show constraint beyond human capabilities were he not to wax satiric about that Republican nut house in Washington

I wonder if they’ve forgotten the Clinton / Lewinsky fiasco and how many really wicked jokes Mike made about that? I guess when the shoes on the other foot, it’s not so funny anymore….

By Buy Danish

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

Diogenes,

Do you think this cartoon, originally titled “Pot to Kettle” (If you don’t believe me look at the URL)is “hilarious”??. Prior warning - due to the controversial nature of this disgusting cartoon there were considerably more comments than usual, hence the server will take awhile to open the page.](http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/shared-blogs/ajc/luckovich/entries/2006/06/21/pottokettle.html)

[Here’s a cartoonist that gets the Illiberal Mike Luckovich exactly right.)(http://www.joelsamuelson.com/index.html)

Indeed, some of us have so little respect for the “moderate Democrat” views of ML that we call him a Pulitzer Patriot. Scroll down to N-Z for the definition.

P.S. I still await your Moderate Democrat explanation as to why dogs and cats prove Darwinism.

By Diogenes

November 28, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight (1152),

Touche.

By CJ

November 28, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

e.t. reminded me of something in his 11:03.

Not taking away from my previous post, it’s entirely possible that applying the non-partisan Iowa model could actually exempt Georgia from the pre-clearance conditions of the Voting Rights Act. This Act allows jurisdictions that are subject to it to avoid DOJ review by going through a “bailout” process. Through this process, Georgia would have to demonstrate that it hasn’t “used a test or device with a discriminatory purpose or effect with respect to voting” when redrawing its districts.

I think that’s great. What about you, Sanity?

By Redneck Convert

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

If we didn’t have that librul Voting Rights Act, we could fix all the problems in this state. We could make sure none of Those People was ever elected, just the way it was when I was a boy. As it is now, we have to give them a couple seats just to make sure we can elect Republicans in the others.

I got to thinking about the sorry situation we are in yesterday. A black family—black as the ace of spades!—moved in to the trailer down the road. I seen that the man was giving my missus the eye, cause all they want is to take our white women. It won’t be long before they’ll be lining up mixed race couples and gays to be married right in front of my eyes.

Let’s get rid of the Voting Rights Act now. Then we can make sure all our elected people Think Right. Maybe a poll tax or a reading test can keep some of Those People from voting and ruining things for the rest of us. Anyway, I long to see a return of the good old days when us good people run everything.

Wooten has a bunch of good points here. I’m glad he’s on our side. If we all get together on this, he could run that whole rotten newspaper. I’d love to see the AJC give Those People the what for and that Luckovich fellow get throwed out on his butt. It sounds like TFTT and jbmlaw are with me. Is anybody else?

By Buy Danish

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

DebbieDimBulb (and soldier’s wife who “supports the troops but not the war”),

You don’t mind ML comparing our military to savages who routinely behead their victims (after defiling their bodies by cutting off their genitals and sticking them in their mouth)?

You think that is funny?

Could you be an ersatz military wife, or are you just a damned fool who would stab your husband’s “band of brothers” in the back as long as you get to take a stab at what Diogenes inelegantly refers to as that Republican nut house in Washington?

By Van

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

e. t.,

You are right. The lefties ignore that part of Jim Wooten’s comments.

As far as I can see, it is the left that has benefited from the Justice departments meddling in Georgia’s affairs.

Other sates utilize computer programs that can divide up a state for the Congressional districts. I do not know if the “safe” districts can be set aside. Because of human nature, I do not think a committee can fairly and honestly set up the voting districts, I don’t think it can be done.

By Buy Danish

November 28, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

Diogenes and Debbie,

Let’s try those links to the Moderate Democrat again. I’d hate for you to miss an opportunity for a good laugh -

Open this cartoon.

AND

This response.

By Wootenlover

November 28, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

Hello “time for the truth”. Interesting word choices you made my friend: “…nauseating…protection of black seats. Giving blacks…“extra” seats…is evil and wrong…more blacks always means more corrupt lefties in state legislatures. despite the deeply unfortunate increase in yankkkeee infestation in GA… Racial spoils pandering sadly still goes on…Hopefully this historic demoNcrat instigated racism and racial spoils will just quietly fade away…HiTllary’s White House chances”

Yes, I edited to highlight your more colorful language (most of the black color). Let’s recap: protecting “black” seats is “nauseating”. “Giving Blacks” seats is “evil and wrong”. “More blacks always means…more corruption.” “Yankees” are an “infestation”. Democrats are “Demons” and Hilary Clinton is “Hitler”.

My friend, you need to join Michael Richards in race counseling. You are creeping toward absolute bigotry if you haven’t already set up residence. Sorry the “blacks” make you so, so upset…I hope it continues until you are a minority. I imagine your tune will change consideribly (or will you still be whistilin’ Dixie?).

By Diogenes

November 28, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish (1204),

I realize that I have encountered an immovable object and that discussion is not possible. Although I have been told that Satan comes in many guises, my life has been so sheltered the past few years that I was totally naive about that particular guise. Thank you, but no thanks. You’re not willing to listen or to consider the discussion. It’s a waste of our time. You know the old saying, “All’s fair in love and religion. I don’t buy your brand of religion, so let’s stick with politics; at times, we almost converge in our opinions, such as your very harsh condemnation of your school system the other day. On that we agree. We merely disagree on solutions, but over time solutions can be negotiated, which is the human part of politics. Civility reigns.

By Wootenlover

November 28, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

Mr. Redneck Convert, you are an overt racist. I dare you to go to downtown ATL and say one word of your idiotic post about “Those People”. Good God man, your bigotry made me vomit in my own mouth. By the way: What’s the weather like up you own a*? Sickening, just sickening.

By RW-(the original)

November 28, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

Here’s a screen capture of when “Pot to Kettle” still had the original name.

Let me know if it won’t let you go directly to the picture and I’ll turn it into a blog post.

As for Diogenes and DebbieDumbA$$, if you go back and look you’ll see most of those cartoons portrayed how poor Billy Jeff was being picked on. You should have seen the scribbler on Craig Fergusen’s show last night talking about what a great looking man Clinton was. I think he was jealous of Monica.

By jbmlaw

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

Dear Charles @ 10:49 and, for emphasis, @ 11:00, a better way to phrase your argument would be to praise the conservatives on this blog for intellectual honesty, in their willingness to disagree with a procedure proffered by the Republican leader. But, if you did that, it would cease to be a left/right issue, wouldn’t it?

Dear BPJ, also @ 10:49, I am compiling a list of the great moderates in world history; perhaps you can help me. I have Neville Chamberlain, Quisling, and then my list ends. Who are some of the other moderates who have contributed to “peace in our time?”

Good catch e.t. @ 11:03, I missed it too.

Dear Buy Danish @ 11:11 Lukovich is a main-stream leftist. It would benefit our side to magnify Lukovich’s work, to show the world the way the leftists think. Whenever a leftist says “main stream,” they mean, “way off the road, running wild with no idea where it will all end.”

By RW-(the original)

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

Dennis,

A funding concern for public schools is a legislative matter and a legal dispute over proportional representation is a judicial matter, so you are just as wrong about Jim’s so called hypocrisy as you’ve been about everything you’ve commented on the last few days. (Your wrongheadedness probably extends back further, but I’m new around these parts)

By Second Story Man

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

Back to the topic, RW, “letting the voters pick the politicians” leads the discussion into the very nature of constituency itself. This lies at the-very heart of the electoral process. Your cheekish comments add up to so much bidet-room splish-splash and we, the readers of the AJC, take total offense to you (and your little wet trolls)

So stfu, or stay on Wooten’s topic, you horrid troll.

By CJ

November 28, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Van @12:28,

You must have missed my posts at 11:49 and 12:09. You also ignored the posts pointing out that Iowa has done exactly what you’re claiming cannot be done.

Is this an honest mistake, or do deliberately ignore facts you don’t like?

By getalife

November 28, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

So w is abroad begging for help in his Iraq disaster.

Crying for help from Iran and Syria is flip flopping of the worst kind.

Resign in disgrace w and Cheney.

By Diogenes

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

RW (the uninformed)

Since I could not make my explanations simplistic enough to suit you and since those brief entries in Wikipedia were also too confusing for you, the librarian and I spend quite some time yesterday seeking Evolution for Dummies to help you out with your ignorance. Since it does not exist, alas, we did find this for you: Jonathan Miller and Borin Van Loon, Darwin for Beginners. We think it is simplistic enough to suit even your intellect, and it will certainly quench your insatiable thirst for facts for at least a month or so. I hold no hope that you will ever be sufficiently knowledgeable enough in this topic to engage in debate without breaking into a uncontrollable rant, which, I fear, is the identifier of the species.

By DebbieDoRight

November 28, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

DebbieDimBulb (and soldier’s wife who “supports the troops but not the war”),You don’t mind ML comparing our military to savages who routinely behead their victims (after defiling their bodies by cutting off their genitals and sticking them in their mouth)?

What is WRONG with you Con-Serv-A-Trons!! r u all just literal minded? good lord u people creep me out! OK i don’t personally know Mike L. but, judging by the date of the cartoon, i’m hazarding a guess that he was referring to Dubya’s repeated assertion that some “tolerant levels” of torture are ok. looking at the cartoon it looked to me as a poke at Dubya and his henchmen, NOT the military.

You think that is funny?

Funny, no — true, that we are turning into the very things we profess to be liberating Iraq from, yes.

Could you be an ersatz military wife,

Danish Cow, maybe you’re an ersatz female — who knows….?

Oh, and it is a nut house in DC. Only a bigger nut would think it was sane.

By DebbieDoRight

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

Danish Cow: Mike L does POLITICAL cartoons — here’s a hint, if you don’t like his cartoons, u don’t have to read them.

By CJ

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

Wootenlover,

Your heart is in the right place. However, you should know that Redneck Convert’s daily posts are satire (easy mistake for newcomers).

Enjoy them…they’re fantastic.

By RW-(the original)

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

Polly Prepuce @ 12:42,

Don’t you have an audition at the Laugh Factory as Kramer’s clean up boy?

By candide

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

Buy Danish: If 60% of Americans are optimistic after all the evil Bush has done in their name, that only proves what intelligent people have known for a long time: Americans are really dumb.

How can you respect a people who believes in a God who sacrificed his son to save people from a fate worse than death, when He could have done it all differently. Anyway, anyone believing in god, Christianity and Jesus is either a fool or a knave, probably both.

By Diogenes

November 28, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Jim,

The headlines are full of shootings. It’s about time you did another anti-gun contol essay before some one gets the notion that it would be a good idea.

By DebbieDoRight

November 28, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

WootenLover: Ignore Twisted Sister Truth — I think he/she must be a NY police officer who hates everything and everybody.

Twisted Sister Truth: I just saw Borat last night at the movies. There’s this guy who plays the “minister of information” in the film, (a big fat, hairy, ugly little guy), was that you?

By RetiredLTC

November 28, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

By Buy Danish

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

DebbieDimBulb (and soldier’s wife who “supports the troops but not the war”),

Buy Danish, would you please explain to me why one cannot support the troops but not a war? As a West Point grad and combat veteran, I can easily see why that is entirely possible. Especially for a military wife. Mine included, who supported me and my men in all of our wars but prefered that they not have been fought at all. You might just be the last person in this world that should call a military wife names. She has kind of a personal interest in the issue, you might say.

By RW-(the original)

November 28, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

Here’s a Pot to Kettle post from After Dark. You should be able to click the picture to enlarge it.

Diogenes,

What happened to your cries for civility the other day when I was making you look like a complete fool on this topic? Sounds like you’ve gone the way of the typical loser lib and taken off on a crazed rant, all the while trying to profess your superior intellect. Our words remain on these pages and I’ll happily stand by mine.

Did you come up with any species that ever became a different one yet? Maybe you and the librarian should find that little factoid first or are you staying with your “hopeful monster” theory to explain why there is absolutely no evidence in the fossil record of any species ever becoming a different one?

By time for the truth

November 28, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

@ jealousofWooten

Cheers for biting so nicely. I knew that certain colourful imagery and a witty but robustly pragmatic presentation would wind some one up. My earlier post was perfectly correct though - blacks should NOT have ANY seats guaranteed -solely because of race - nor should whites, mexican types etc. Elections should wherever possible be based on ‘natural geography/population’ - not a despicable desire to pander to blacks or anyone else. Protecting seats for blacks is evil and wrong. The 25 year extension of an outdated act is a detestable outrage - but very typical of panderers, some of whom sadly are GOP types.

It would be naive to suggest that an element of partisanship doesn’t insert itself in the drawing/modification of constituency boundaries - but as the demoNcrats had charge of GA for well over a century its now the GOP’s turn to enjoy the electoral whip hand.

Conservative blacks are supercool and need to be encouraged in their political vision and voting preferences. I would ALWAYS vote for a true conservative black over a white liberal or white moderate every time (assuming they weren’t a rabid religious nutter). Its the racebaiting/racial spoils blacks and liberals that I naturally loathe.

I was almost slightly miffed you wilfully misspelt demoNcrats - but your enormously amusing churlish tone makes that unsurprising.

Richards doesn’t need race counselling - he’s a bloody liberal - just spewing what so many liberals think privately. Like KKK Byrd and sick Willie Klinton (according to AK State Troopers who were forced to be his bodyguards).

Trying to control people’s race topic speech is also evil and wrong. Inciting folks to actually go and kill others because of their race is wrong and should be illegal and elicit public moral opprobium. What Richards did - like the alcoholic Brit/Jew hater Gibson did merely reflects a world view they are entitled to. Certainly folks are entitled to voice their disgust at such verbal comments -but to force folks into race counseling is pathetic and repugnant. But typical of liberal thought police.

There are numerous black, white, mexican type, asian, arab cultural practices I detest. Doesn’t make me a racist - but leftist morons like yourself love to point fingers.

The sickest thing about all this vile political correctness is that the leftist imposed moral fascist anti-racist ideology festers the ludicrous view that only whites can be racist. Which is utter horseh!t.

Say what you think and take the commercial/professional consequences. There are numerous black racebaiters who get away with verbal murder in the US with NO leftist media lynchings. BET has anti-white bigotry on most nights - masquerading as moronic ‘black comedy’. Funny how blacks never ever screech about this kind of overt racism.

By time for the truth

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

crackpipe ho debbie …

There’s this guy who plays the “minister of information” in the film, (a big fat, hairy, ugly little guy), was that you?

NO, it was your younger sister after she paid for that experimental hormone treatment that you tried first went horrendously wrong again.

I just despise (but love effortlessly goading) liberal hatepigs and crackpipe ho liberals like your self lovey dovey.

By Buy Danish

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

Diogenes,

Are you saying that I am Satan? Wow! You’re the second person who has told me that, the first being a certifiably insane kook who objects to summer vacations for kids. Nice company you’ve put yourself in.

I may be the Devil, but the devil is in the details. Your ability to take details, use them to illustrate an argument, and debate is non-existent.

Your self-righteous sanctimony is pathetic. I provided you a link to a cartoon that is not in the least bit “moderate”. Do you think that you will turn into a vampire if you open it? What a demonstration of cowardice!

Your idea of a “discussion” is to post endless links to wikipedia. You still can’t tell me in your own words why dogs and cats prove Darwins theories.

Anyone can pull a book from a shelf and quote from it. Debate requires the ability to analyze what you’ve read and then present views coherently.

You get an F.

By Buy Danish

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

Retired TLC,

My statement to Debbie DumbA$$ the soldier’s wife had nothing to do with her support of the Iraq War.

It had to do with her support of a cartoonist that slanders our military.

I’m sorry that your years at West Point didn’t provide you with the ability to discern the difference.

By DebbieDoRight

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

I just despise (but love effortlessly goading) liberal hatepigs and crackpipe ho liberals like your self lovey dovey.

Twusted Sister Truth: Yo Mama!

By Reece

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

Ok, for all of you right wing thumper morons, here’s another of your great ConHeroes. Of course, like the Deciderer-in-Chump, he’s concluded that Freedom of Speech must be done away with.

All of the Wootenannys here must be soooo proud.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gingrich+raises+alarm+at+event+honoring+those+who+stand+up+for+freedom+of+speech&articleId=d3f4ee4e-1e90-475a-b1b0-bbcd5baedd78

By Mrs. RepubLady

November 28, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish, go get him girlfriend! Who does that retired military officer think he is, anyway? Commenting on supporting the troops. What does he know? You are so much smarter.

Hey, have you all noticed that the hours of daylight have gotten shorter every day since the Democrats were voted a majority in Congress? Mark my words: before January of 2007 we’ll experience one of the shortest days of the year! It’s God’s judgment on America for embracing the liberal Democrat homosexual baby-killing agenda!

By time for the truth

November 28, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

Crackpipe Debbie

Yo Mamma - Yo Sister - Yo Ho Family!!

see the level you have dragged this down to, you noxious transgendered termite!!

By DebbieDoRight

November 28, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

blacks should NOT have ANY seats guaranteed -solely because of race

What seats are that? there are seats in the legislature, congress, etc. that are “guaranteed” solely because of race? which ones, name a few.

Protecting seats for blacks is evil and wrong.

So is changing the state supreme court to better reflect a party’s right leanings. do u support that?

The 25 year extension of an outdated act is a detestable outrage

Oh please, your 25 year fight to never bathe again is a detestable outrage, but no one is hounding you! (smelling you yes, hounding you no) it must be lonely, and smelly, in your world.

By Reece

November 28, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

TFTT,

Not an American, just don’t matter.

By DebbieDoRight

November 28, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

Danish Cow: Diogenes is right….. YOU ARE SATAN!!! (and a cow moo…!)

By DebbieDoRight

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

Twisted Sister Truth: Oh but how you loooovvvved to go down!!!

By Wootenlover

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

Mr. “time for truth”, the only finger I would waste pointing at you is my middle one. There is no reasoning with the intractable. And I take it from you freedom of speech over racist comments gives me the right to call you a racist bigot who wishes for a return to the days of Jim Crow and poll taxes. That would keep the “blackies” away from “destroying” this precious state. bon voyage bigot boy!

By jbmlaw

November 28, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

Dear Buy Danish @ 9:58, you will get a laugh out of this essay, on the virtues of Europe, by Dr. Walter E. Williams. Candide, I respectfully suggest you avoid the essay. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/11/22/shouldwecopy_europe

By time for the truth

November 28, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

crackpipe debbie is obviously politicially very ignorant and doesn’t understand that it is perfectly possible, using racially informed boundaries to determine the racial makeup of a constituency and thus heavily if not completely determine the race/party of the successful candidate in this two party nation.

crackpipe debbie is just being ignorantly and obtusely petulant. what else is new?

as for crackpipe’s moronic bollocks about changing state courts for political reasons - try telling that to the folks enduring decades of highly partisan leftist judges in say CA, FL or Assachussetts.

I see that the brainless LYING bigot reece has regrettably slithered back out into cyber space.

I am actually an American you sad little twonk … and your bigotry about “non-Americans” is very revealing.

By Southern Democrat

November 28, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

Before you criticize Debbie (wife of someone who has sacrificed his time and, potentially, his life for this country) and Retired LTC (you spelled it incorrectly, it refers to “Lieutenant Colonel,” the 6th highest rank one can achieve in the Armed Forces), you should take a step back.

Are the Republicans who criticized the war and called for Rumsfeld’s resignation while still funding the troops unpatriotic? Are the four military periodicals who criticized the war’s strategy (or lack thereof), but still serve the troops a contradiction in terms? Is John McCain, who suffered in the Hanoi Hilton and stood up to the administration’s terror policies by stating that “in the darkest times, we always knew that if the roles were reversed, Americans would never treat any captive this way”) un-American?

I think you’re out of your league and simply being a troglodyte.

It is one thing to have a discussion, it is another to personally attack and be dismissive of others’ opinions simply because they do not agree with yours.

Bring up your level of discussion and, for that matter, your level of respect, and many on both sides of the aisle will be eager to parry with you. I doubt you want to be viewed like Time for the Truth, whose filthy monologues are ignored by most who read this blog.

By Wootenlover

November 28, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

CJ. Thank you for the explaination of “Redneck Convert” and his/her bent for satire. “Redneck Convert”, my apologies friend. I thought your post was eight thousand miles over the top…I should have realized the satire - hell I watch The Colbert Report all the time. It’s all good. Thanks again CJ and take it easy “convert”.

By jbmlaw

November 28, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

Dear Reece @ 1:27, I understand your alarm:

“Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a “different set of rules” may be needed to reduce terrorists’ ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message. We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade,” said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOP’s takeover of Congress in 1994. Gingrich spoke to about 400 state and local power brokers last night at the annual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment award dinner, which fetes people and organizations that stand up for freedom of speech. Also from the article: “Gingrich sharply criticized campaign finance laws he charged were reducing free speech and doing little to fight attack advertising. He also said court rulings over separation of church and state have hurt citizens’ ability to express themselves and their faith.”

Not only does Gingrich support some governmental interference with the terrorists’ capacity to use the internet to destroy an American city, he decries present US laws that restrict free speech – both positions antithetical to the positions of leftists. Just cannot stand those conservatives who can connect the dots, can you? Yes, I guess I am proud to read such brilliance - we can get the message out.

By Reece

November 28, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

That’s the best you have? A sellout who gets paid by the administration to promote, create and disseminate propaganda? This guy has less intellectual honesty than any of the other Al Quaeda operatives in the White House.

By Reece

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

Jim Wooten,

It just thrills me to see you complimenting and nurturing some of these declared favorite posters of yours here here. This paints such a clear picture of what a horrible little man you must in fact be. Not that I expect much better.

By RW-(the original)

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

Southern Democrat,

Before you chastise Buy Danish, you should keep in mind that people can and very often do misrepresent who and what they are on here. I have no reason to believe that Retired LTC isn’t what he says because he has been generally consistent whenever I’ve seen him show up on the blogs. As for Debbie and her “husband” last I heard he was stationed at a closed base in California, yet you seem to have evidence that there may be a different duty station. Debbie’s rantings don’t pass the smell test and yesterday she was caught posting under multiple names.

By time for the truth

November 28, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

I doubt you want to be viewed like Time for the Truth, whose filthy monologues are ignored by most who read this blog.

how do you know this tw@at face - do you monitor every computer all day, every day?

I love winding up pompous arrogant leftist wankers like you - its great fun.

By Flannel No. 5

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

There should be no districts. All seats should be “at large”. All voters get to vote for all candidates. If that doesn’t work then each of us should broken up into tribes like they do on “Survivor”, except everyone will be armed. Then we’ll play for keeps.

By time for the truth

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

@jealous of Wooten

Is your pathetic Wootenlover id some kind of sick homosexual stalking type deal?

Inbred Redneck is not funny at all - its actually a semi-literate serial stealer of beer trucks, but sadly doesn’t crash them often enough!

By jbmlaw

November 28, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Dear Southern @ 1:54, a point of clarification, I think you and I agree on ad hominem – poison to a debate, and good discussion is the purpose for at least one thread on this blog. There is a companion thread that is mostly spirited “trash” talk, and I think you and I probably ought to stay out of that – you are too cultured, and I am too dumb to wade in over there. However, there is no real problem with attacking any argument, is there, even if forwarded by a LTC or a military wife? (Acknowledging on the front end, that any attack should be reasonably well-grounded in at least either fact or morality?)

By Buy Danish

November 28, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Southern Democrat,

I wouldn’t be surprised if you aren’t the RetiredLTC. You both share the erroneous idea that certain people are immune from criticism based on who they are married to.

Save your preachy speeches. I already explained what my comment to DebbieDimWit was about.

It was about LUCKOVICH’S CARTOON. I said that HE is unpatriotic.

I questioned why Debbie the military wife thinks that it is okay for a cartoonist to SLANDER our military.

I am showing respect for our military. Luckovich is not. Look who defends Luckovich’s slander. It’s not me.

Got that?

P.S.

It looks like Debbie is out of MY league. She is reduced to calling me a “cow”, which is what she always does.

By jbmlaw

November 28, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

Dear Reece @ 2:00, I think I did not understand your post. Are you saying that there should be no government effort to inhibit terrorists from destroying American cities? [I suppose if we lost New York or Washington DC or San Francisco it would be no great loss, but I dislike the idea that the government should not attempt to prohibit such destruction.] Or are you saying that you think Gingrich is evil for objecting to restrictions on free speech, in the examples I quoted from your article?

By Southern Democrat

November 28, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

RW (the original),

You may be right and, if that is the case, I would find Debbie’s actions (and misappropriation of true military spouses’ identities) deplorable.

You have hit on a big problem in the blogosphere (though I despise that term): it is a wonderful place to have discussions, but many times persons take great liberties with their personal experiences and their own identities.

I do try, however, to attack only the substance of others’ postings unless they get personal. I have been pleasantly surprised with some of the thought-provoking discussions on here and hope that the coterie of posters who disagree respectfully with one another will keep this lively discussion going.

By DebbieDoRight

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

crackpipe debbie is obviously politicially very ignorant and doesn’t understand that it is perfectly possible, using racially informed boundaries to determine the racial makeup of a constituency and thus heavily if not completely determine the race/party of the successful candidate in this two party nation

really, how? if you have a “racially diverse” segment, how can you determine the “racial makeup of a constituency” dumbass?

as for crackpipe’s moronic bollocks about changing state courts for political reasons - try telling that to the folks enduring decades of highly partisan leftist judges in say CA, FL or Assachussetts.

brief civics lesson for u, english toadie, people may be appointed to the state supreme court, but afterwards must be kept on the court by voters. dang, r u really that dumb or is that yo mama?!

By Curious Observer

November 28, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

I’m so delighted to learn that ol’ Newt has said we must restrict freedom of speech in order to save it. Such people have no respect for constitutional freedoms, even though he takes full advantage of his to spew hate and lies, a la Joseph Goebbels. If the press and the public ever get to the point that they are able to write or speak only what the government approves, freedom of speech and of the press will be a moot point—we will have lost both. I’m even more appalled that anyone would consider Newt Gingrich presidential material. His moral lapses, including his forced removal from the House speaker’s post for lying and dissembling, make him very poor presidential timber indeed.

His newfound support speaks loudly about the nature of the people who tout his potential candidacy and view his utterances as worthy of serious consideration.

By Score Keeper

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

Buy Danish - 1 Southern Demoncrat - 0

By Dusty

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

Southern Democrat,

How long have you been blogging here? A good while I would say. But suddenly you have become Miss Manners and forgotten free speech.

I have tried a bit of let us be nice here and it doesn’t work. As RW said “people can and often do misrepresent who and what they are on here”. When their language is subzero, their mentality and their postings obnoxious, it is hard to believe they fit into the elevated position they claim.

Name calling is rampant. I know from experience. At least, it seems to exist for everyone. There are no favorites, even Jim.

As for criticizing the war, demonizing the president and then claiming support for the troops, you DO have the right to say whatever you wish. But remember, THE ENEMY LOVES AND IS ENCOURAGED BY EVERY WORD OF CRITICISM and they are whom we are fighting. So you figure what kind of support that is. Not the kind I give.

By Buy Danish

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

jmblaw,

Thanks for the link. I’ll read later. I assume you are familiar with Mark Steyn. He is brilliant on the problem with Eutopia and the dire warnings in it for us here at home.

I think Gingrich is brilliant and while I doubt he could be elected President he would make a superb Secretary of State.

By RW-(the original)

November 28, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

It never ceases to amaze me that people will immediately start berating you over a strongly worded comment and act as if none of the provocation ever occurred.

I think it’s the Doctrine of Infallibility that Ann Coulter pointed out so well in chapter five of Godless and a little bit of the other liberal dodge of not being able to back their argument so they tell us to STFU.

By Reece

November 28, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

I was referencing your posting of the Walter Williams piece.

By DebbieDoRight

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

As for Debbie and her “husband” last I heard he was stationed at a closed base in California, yet you seem to have evidence that there may be a different duty station. Debbie’s rantings don’t pass the smell test and yesterday she was caught posting under multiple names.

RW (the original Tranny) or Transvestite for you reading impaired:

i have asked u time and time again to go to the website and see for yourself if i’m telling the truth; but just like a good little Con-Serv-A-Tron you fear the truth as much as a superman fears kryptonite. if u wish to live in ignorance all the days of your life, please feel free to do so.

Also, i have no need to “pretend” to be anyone but who i am, unlike u i don’t have to hide what i am in a closet. i’ll call a spade a spade, a con-serv-a-tron a conservatron, and a moron a moron. got that moron?

the website AGAIN for you:

http://benefits.military.com/misc/installations/Base_Content.jsp?select=done&scategory=INSTDATA&stopic=GOVTHOUSE&stitle=Government%20Housing&id=460&style=05?registrationurl=/Registration/Installations

Read the information:

Name : La Mesa Housing Welcome Center POC : Staff
Address : 1301 Leahy Road
City : Monterey State : CA Zip : 93940
Phone : 1-800-334-9168, ext 2321 Fax :
Deposit : Minimum Lease Time : n/a
Proximity To Site: 8 Miles

Name : La Mesa Welcome Center POC : Housing Staff, La Mesa Housing Office
Address : 1301 Leahy Road, La Mesa Village
City : Monterey. State : CA Zip : 93940
Phone : (831) 656-2321 Fax : (831) 372-8398
Comment : 0800-1700, daily, except Tuesday, 0800-1400. All family housing business pertaining to in-processing, assignments, terminations and inspections will be processed at the Naval Postgraduate School’s La Mesa Housing Office in Monterey. Personnel assigned to the Presidio of Monterey with duty as students at the Defense Language School will probably be assigned housing on the Presidio of Monterey Annex (formerly Fort Ord), about 8 miles from the school. To sign-in and put your names on the housing list, you go to the Navy Housing office mentioned above.

Call the number: Phone : (831) 656-2321

Ask where Military Family Housing is located, ask if it was formerly known as Fort Ord, CA. If they say yes, I want you to post it on this blog. that’s if you have the balls to admit you’re a blow-up-doll-loving moron.

If after all this, you still insist that i’m lieing, the only thing i can do for u is pray that you don’t have any access to today’s youth. u r too stooopid to live, let alone teach someone’s child.

Reading is fundamental. Moron.

By jbmlaw

November 28, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Dear Curious @ 2:33, may we assume that you would gladly sacrifice an American city so long as we do not interrupt terrorist’s access to the internet? And that you believe restrictions on political speech are desirable even if they are ineffective in abolishing “swift boats” and George Soros? And that you don’t particularly care if religious expression is curtailed by a court? (i.e., that some forms of non-violent speech should be protected, and others should not?) As I read the article, that is all that Newt said.

You talk about the contingency that the “press and the public ever get to the point that they are able to write or speak only what the government approves,” are you suggesting the terrorists are now operating within the US borders? I think that was all Newt talked about constraining.

By RW-(the original)

November 28, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

Southern Democrat,

Take a look at the 12:45 post from Diogenes to me. The genesis is a leftover debate from the weekend and really has no place on Jim’s blog since he prefers to stay somewhat on topic, but tell what you think of the tactic of saying that if you don’t agree with someone else’s theory than you must lack the intelligence to comprehend it.

I don’t mean for you to address the topic in the 12:45 or the person that made the comment, just the tactic.

By jbmlaw

November 28, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

Dear Reece @ 2:42, thanks for the clarification. As Williams is the chairman of the economics department at George Mason - the department with the most resident Nobel laurates - that gives me much information about your perspective.

By Only an idiot would quote Mann

November 28, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

Mann Coulter? You have got to be joking….. Dumba-ss.

By RW-(the original)

November 28, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

Reece,

Are you trying to insinuate that Walter Williams is a paid shill for the White House?

By Sore losers STFU

November 28, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

Get over it losers. Got it?

By jbmlaw

November 28, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

At risk of alienating my conservative friends, let me say a word for Southern Democrat. He is one of the good guys, even though he does not share all of our view of the world. I think he saw enough good in our friend Danish that he wished to push Danish to a higher level. I don’t think he was offering a reflexive mindless criticism.

By Second Story Man

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

Buy and RW, you haven’t made any point other than Rushspeak or Bushspeak. We, the readers of the AJC, refuse to debate hacked commentary.

The day you finish one thought, and give one original insight is the day we’ll respect you. Fair Enuff?

Not to mention that you always get the point of Wooten’s blog wrong, cause your reading skills are so contained by your special circumstance. (giggle)

By Diogenes

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

jbmlaw (224),

I wonder how that technically could be achieved. I presume that our myriad of intelligence agencies are currently monitoring every internet transmission they can with especial attention to suspected sympathizers. That is one set of tools; I won’t ask about their effectiveness, because I don’t know, and I don’t know who I would find trustworthy enough to believe. Seems that the Brits might have better intelligence than we do. How does Gingrich propose to shut down access to the internet? Fascinating proposition.

By getalife

November 28, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this

Newt wants to take another freedom.

WTF is wrong with these people?

Move to China and take these minority idiots with you Newt.

Commie loving scum.

By Diogenes

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

RW (the rant)

The librarian and I also looked for a rhetorical textbook for you to smooth out some of your rant. There wasn’t a book on Rhetoric for the Fanatic that we could find. When one turns black to white, up to down, left to right, cold to hot, and ignorance to intelligence and back again within the blink of an eye, there is no hope that educated men shall ever understand them.

By time for the truth

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

as ever crackpipe debbie’s dishonssty is gloriously amusing. the states I cited for far leftist sup/ct judges have had a liberal infestation for decades. as you well know crackpipe judges rarely if ever are voted out of office once appointed - most folks here in the USA dont ever vote in primaries and few are truly motivated to vote in judicial elections. most folks are unaware of the implications of judicial elections, and invariably have little idea of who they’re voting for. so yet again your attempt at a specious crackpipe argument (being very kind) is as ever complete bollocks.

as for crackpipe’s wilfully CRETINOUS question about constituencies … it is entirely possible to gerrymnander constituencies to “produce” the vote desired by the party doing the gerrymandering. TX under the corrupt demoNcrats did this - until fairly recently the folks got wise to such chicanery and voted in the GOP. If solidly “black” constituencies were ‘watered’ down with far more whites and say much of white GOP leaning N Fulton County was included with just smallish bit of ‘black’ Dekalb it might well be possible to end up with a white congressman - even a GOP one - if the map was drawn intelligently.

your brainless moronic posts are hugely entertaining love … keep your witless shiite coming!!

By DebbieDoRight

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

Danish Cow: I have never called anyone on this blog a name unless they’ve called me one first — i will always give you the chance to bring out the real you. U r a cow. A stupid one at that. u call me a name, but expect me not to say anything back to you, just stand there and take it. that’s reallllllyyy stupid.

ur posts are relentless Anne Coulter wannabe diatribes that make even Anne Coulter look bad. i guess there never was a fact that you couldn’t ignore huh?

Southern Democrat: why would i lie about something that is so easy to prove?

RW(The Original Tranny): a poem I wrote just for you:

Oh the burden when again and again, we find out that deep down we’re attracted to men.

Oh the shame, oh the pain, the horror, the joy, when alone in my room, I have nothing and no one to hold me, except my favorite blow up toy.

By Reece

November 28, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

I must admit error here on my part. I was thinking of another pundit that was paid by the Bush administration to create “paid commentary” in support of No Child Left Behind. I did some fact checking and found my error.

By time for the truth

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

as ever crackpipe debbie’s dishonssty is gloriously amusing. the states I cited for far leftist sup/ct judges have had a liberal infestation for decades. as you well know crackpipe judges rarely if ever are voted out of office once appointed - most folks here in the USA dont ever vote in primaries and few are truly motivated to vote in judicial elections. most folks are unaware of the implications of judicial elections, and invariably have little idea of who they’re voting for. so yet again your attempt at a specious crackpipe argument (being very kind) is as ever complete bollocks.

as for crackpipe’s wilfully CRETINOUS question about constituencies … it is entirely possible to gerrymnander constituencies to “produce” the vote desired by the party doing the gerrymandering. TX under the corrupt demoNcrats did this - until fairly recently the folks got wise to such chicanery and voted in the GOP. If solidly “black” constituencies were ‘watered’ down with far more whites and say much of white GOP leaning N Fulton County was included with just smallish bit of ‘black’ Dekalb it might well be possible to end up with a white congressman - even a GOP one - if the map was drawn intelligently.

your brainless moronic posts are hugely entertaining love … keep your witless shiite coming!!

By RW-(the original)

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

OoiqM,

Do you need a definition for the word quote? Try cite.

DebbieDumbA$$,

Are we being protected from golfers on Monterey Bay? I always knew that Clint Eastwood wasn’t to be trusted, tell “hubby” thanks.

By time for the truth

November 28, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

It seems that crackpipe debbie is getting very uppity - knowing that blow up dolls are seriously affecting her/its fast diminishing business is obviously taking its toll on its civility.

never mind crack pipe - there’s always the delights of Mexico where they are even less discerning … SEE YA!! BYE BYE!!

By DebbieDoRight

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

think Gingrich is brilliant and while I doubt he could be elected President he would make a superb Secretary of State.

My God!! R U SERIOUS!!! I thought you were kidding at first!! But U R SERIOUS!!! OK,danish cow, seriously, open up ALL your windows - i think there’s a gas leak in your house.

By Southern Democrat

November 28, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

You are exactly right and I am put in my place. I cannot vehemently (and, upon re-reading, somewhat personally) attack Buy Danish for his attacks on Debbie and Retired LTC. In essence, I am guilty of exactly that which I condemn.

My point (and I think you disagree with it) is that it is entirely possible to condemn a war and support the troops. I do not find my sending care packages to my friends’ sons and daughters in Iraq while blasting their reasons for being there inconsistent, but I would bet that you do. I don’t think it’s inconsistent to tell a soldier or Marine “thanks,” but also write letters to the White House begging them to not send troops for a third tour and to find a way to honorably withdraw.

RW (the original),

You are, of course, absolutely right that Diogenes’ rant and personal attack on your intelligence is unacceptable and plain rude. I certainly do not condone it.

Jbmlaw,

You again rise above the fray and bring a level of class and civility to our ongoing discussion (though I have noticed a recent willingness on your part to wade into the muck when necessary). I hope you had a blessed Thanksgiving.

By RW-(the original)

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

DebbieDumbA$$,

Thanks for the thought, but I would keep the day job if I were you. You’re no Dusty.

jbmlaw 2:57,

I think Southern Democrat is perfectly capable of holding his or her own conversations.

He is one of the good guys, even though he does not share all of our view of the world.

That has to be one of the silliest things I’ve ever read here. I would say that Buy Danish and myself are the most closely in ideological agreement and we don’t all the same views of the world. One can learn from honest disagreement with intelligent people of any stripe while also playing badminton with the trolls.

Diogenes,

If you ever get tired of your school yard insults I would really like to see one shread of this proof you tell me is everywhere. If you work in a library and there are reams of proof availble, yet you can’t find any of it, which one of us lacks intelligence?

By DebbieDoRight

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

as you well know crackpipe judges rarely if ever are voted out of office once appointed - most folks here in the USA dont ever vote in primaries and few are truly motivated to vote in judicial elections

who’s fault is that? u stated something as fact when u knew it wasn’t. take a civics class, THEN we can talk.

If solidly “black” constituencies were ‘watered’ down with far more whites and say much of white GOP leaning N Fulton County was included with just smallish bit of ‘black’ Dekalb it might well be possible to end up with a white congressman - even a GOP one - if the map was drawn intelligently.

u r too stoooopid to live!! did u have to ride the short yellow us when u were at school? so in your view ALL blacks will vote democratic and ALL whites will vote republican? DANG….then i guess the spoilers will be the hispanics, indians, muslims and africans; how do you figure they’ll vote?

Stoopid is as Stoopid does……

By Spoon Fed Liberal

November 28, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Seen on page B1 in this past Sunday’s @Issue section –

“Stupid government tricks. The nation’s annual report on hunger noted that hunger in the United States has declined, but the report declined to use the word ‘hunger.’ Instead, 35 million Americans last year suffered from ‘low food security.’ A third of those were ranked as having a ‘very low food security.’”

Now that’s liberalism and irony for you. Liberalism gave rise to euphemisms to soften the blow of reality, of which liberalism tends to run away from -

• Fat chicks became the ‘weight-challenged’

• Islamic terrorists became the ‘insurgents’

• Poor people became the ‘disadvantaged’

• Retarded people became the ‘mentality challenged’

• Stupid students became the ‘educationally challenged’

• Sex change freaks of nature became the ‘transgendered’

• And my all-time favorite: Liberals became ‘progressives’

Having a snippet in a paper overwhelmingly liberally-biased like the AJC insinuating that a euphemism for the hungry is a stupid government trick is so laughable. I get it now: it’s an unfair euphemism if it doesn’t fully describe the head-on blunt reality of something that liberalism stands for. Any other time, the blunt reality needs to be softened so as not to offend anyone. Liberals liberal all over themselves with the fallacy of liberalism.

By DebbieDoRight

November 28, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

just as i thought RW(the original Tranny) you r BALLESS. (and ugly too)

you and your blow up thingy…

By DebbieDoRight

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

never mind crack pipe - there’s always the delights of Mexico where they are even less discerning

you should know; that’s where your mama met one of her baby daddies.

By RW-(the original)

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

Southern Democrat,

That’s what I thought you would think about that tactic, so it makes your comment to Buy Danish at 1:54 seem very disingenuous. She had already been called Satan and a cow and you weren’t involved in that conversation anymore than you were the one between Diogenes and myself.

Keep in mind if you want to be considered as having taken the moral highground here it has to go both ways. Otherwise you just come off as a liberal scold.

By DebbieDoRight

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

DebbieDumbA$$, Are we being protected from golfers on Monterey Bay? I always knew that Clint Eastwood wasn’t to be trusted, tell “hubby” thanks

if u r so concerned, why won’t U JOIN and shed your pure blood? oh yeah that’s right, you want to follow the examples of your heroes, Dubya, Cheney and Rumsfeld, those big manly men who cried like girls so they wouldn’t be drafted to fight in Viet Nam.

U big Balless wonder u!

(and your little blow up thingy too!)

By RW-(the original)

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

jbmlaw,

The last paragraph of my 3:17 to you is missing a couple of words. Let me know if I need to call in Vanna White to polish that one up.

DebbieDumbA$$,

I called the number you left and they said they had no idea who DDA was. How’s that toxic clean up coming out there at Ord?

By Spoon Fed Liberal

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

CJ makes an interesting comment at 8:57am:

-I know that Jim thinks that the system is working when Republicans win and broken when Republicans lose, but we do-gooders don’t measure success that way.-

Well that’s an ironic statement to make since it’s not Republicans that sue and recount and sue and recount again and sue again when an election and the results don’t go their way.

By jbmlaw

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

Dear Reece @ 3:04, no apology is ever necessary, but I respect you for acknowledging a mistake.

Dear Southern @ 3:16, I acknowledge the M in my blog-acronym is “Muck.” Our Thanksgiving was a wonderful busman’s holiday, and trust you and Mrs. Democrat had a joyous holiday also.

Dear RW @ 3:17, you are unarguably correct, my friend Southern Democrat does not need my skills for his defense – rather like sending a pygmy to set a screen for Shaq. As for the silly stuff, you obviously have not read everything I have written; I have written sillier.

By RW-(the original)

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

DebbieDumbA$$,

Where do I sign up for duty at Pebble Beach? I can run the guard house at the start of the 17 mile drive.

Why do so many people here make reference to your “hubby” serving overseas in a shooting war, if what he’s really doing is keeping sludge off the driving range?

By time for the truth

November 28, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

crackpipe debbie has smoked a couple of especially bad rocks this afternoon … clearly its dishonesty and imbecility are now at a Kerry/Klintonian level. Its ludicrous inferences are so execrably cretinous they are almost not worth commenting on … suffice it to say that one assumes on here there is some basic level of knowledge of the public square. Crackpipe’s pig ignorant responses on judges and redistricting however eviscerate the notion that lefties actually understand even the basics of government.

stick to your rather shrill cyber war on blow up dolls crackpipe debbie - like the now all but defunct communist run National Union of Mineworkers in the UK you are symbolic of the more embattled doltish luddites who scorn that which inevitably replaces them.

By DebbieDoRight

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

Keep in mind if you want to be considered as having taken the moral highground here it has to go both ways. Otherwise you just come off as a liberal scold

RW(the original Tranny) what would YOU know about higher ground? Unless of course that’s the only place you can blow up your little dolly….

I called the number you left and they said they had no idea who DDA was.

oh please, just admit u r a ballLESS sore looser, like most of your con-serv-a-tron scumbags. i guess DDA stands for debbiedumbass, well have they heard of your lover, jack in the box?

Why do so many people here make reference to your “hubby” serving overseas in a shooting war

sigh, no one did, sh#thead!! they were making references to my supporting the troops but not the war!! honestly, can’t you con-serv-a-trons read?!?!! take your head away from the blow up dolls valve and catch your breath. it’ll probably improve your brain cells!!!

By Charlotte

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

Debbie,

Your attackers are ignorant persons who feel the need to insult you in order to feel important. Very sad, very juvenile, but not surprising.

Don’t waste your time responding to them. They aren’t worth it.

By time for the truth

November 28, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

So the gutless feminazi hag botoxPelosi like a true liberal chickenhawk squirms out of naming the corrupt black caucus member Hastings as the Intelligence committee chairman.

See how easy it is to make these far leftists skeered of the consequences of their cowardly gesture politics.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-11-28T204055Z01N28275992RTRUKOC0_US-SECURITY-USA-CONGRESS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

By RW-(the original)

November 28, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

I guess I could point out the literal fact that I said it was the silliest thing I’ve read rather than the silliest you’ve written, but I’m laughing too hard.

Reece,

If I can piggyback on what jbmlaw said, I think it would be good to acknowledge that you meant Armstrong Williams and while he was wrong not to report the payment for his writing he does have plenty of evidence that it was already a position he held.

By DebbieDoRight

November 28, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Its ludicrous inferences are so execrably cretinous they are almost not worth commenting on

TRANSLATION: u got me; but i’m too much of a girly boy to admit i was wrong so i’ll make aspersions on your character.

Big Centrist Smirk

Twisted Sister Truth: girlfriend, get off your knees and get on your little yellow bus, it’s getting ready to leave.

By Southern Democrat

November 28, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

RW (the Original),

I will accept your criticism, but offer this by way of explanation and not excuse. I usually have about 20-30 minutes per day to peruse this blog (today has been a wonderful exception) and scroll through to see if there is anything particularly enlightening. To fully disclose, I found Jim’s column today a little too obvious and a little too partisan for anyone to really be able to sink his or her teeth into, so I read the comments and came upon what I thought to be a tasteless and baseless attack by Buy Danish. I responded. I only responded because, as Jbmlaw notes, Buy Danish usually resides above the “trash talking” and has thoughtful comments. There is nothing disingenuous about it and I strive to be as open and intellectually honest as I possibly can.

Jbmlaw,

I hope that you did get a little break from the law for she is a jealous mistress and seems to take up far too many nights and weekends. It is this time of year that I truly miss teaching and the anticipation of the two week vacation!

Mrs. Democrat is a registered Republican if you can believe that! Thus, it is easy to see the other side of the debate when it sits across the dinner table from you.

By Buy Danish

November 28, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

I think he saw enough good in our friend Danish that he wished to push Danish to a higher level. I don’t think he was offering a reflexive mindless criticism

Jmblaw,

Gee thanks. With friends like you, who need enemies?

If you go back to 11:11 this morning where this all began, you will see a very polite post directed to BPJ, and the response from the congenitally argumentative Diogenes who sang Luckovich’s praises, followed by cheerleading from Debbie, et cetera.

I don’t think that either of them even bothered to open the link to the cartoon that I chose to illustrate my position.

Debbie said that the “date” told her it was probably about Bush, and Diogenes told me I was Satan - conversation over.

I think it is a bit supercilious of you to imply that I need to raise my debating skills higher. I have my style, you have yours. I don’t feel any need to conform to anyone elses’.

Southern Democrat,

See the above^^ to jmblaw. As far as I can see, all you have done is prove my point that there probably aren’t any “moderate” Democrats.

I realize that you have apologized, but your instincts led you to ignore what Diogenes and Debbie had to say and jump on me, misinterpreting my position to boot.

btw, I am a SHE not a HE.

Debbie Do Rant,

You are right about one thing. I have learned some things from Ann Coulter. She came up with the Doctrine of Liberal Infallibility and you and those who jumped in to defend you, for no reason other than you have a husband in the military and are therefore above criticism, have proved her right.

By STFU

November 28, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

I see the ignorant minority still spewing like they know everything.Get real losers. Your party has destroyed our country. It is time to go away in shame.You have no credibility and you have been following blindly the biggest idiots on this planet.Climb down off your little hypocritical pedastal and crawl back under your beds. Cowards. You are pathetic.

By RW-(the original)

November 28, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

Charlotte,

I think you misunderstand. Debbie and I like each other, I can even link back to where she said it and I’m just sure she meant it!

Southern Democrat,

I’ll agree with you about Jim’s topic today. Other than a couple of partisan comments there really isn’t enough substance to hold together a debate. That’s one of the problems when a columnist has a blog. It’s not always easy to write a column that can sustain a discussion so that’s probably why this thread went off the tracks so fast.

By DebbieDoRight

November 28, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

Debbie said that the “date” told her it was probably about Bush, and Diogenes told me I was Satan - conversation over

the “date” was in June. unlike you, Debbie can read and comprehend everything she sees. (she doesn’t need a con-serv-a-tron to break it down for her in dubya dumbspeak).

I have learned some things from Ann Coulter.

good lord u admit that!! in public!! sigh. i guess you’ve studied dubya dumbspeak and coulter hat tricks extensively. no wonder there isn’t a fact you can’t twist.

By DebbieDoRight

November 28, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

Charlotte: Thanks for the kind words. I know deep in my heart i should just ignore them…..but, unfortunately, i so LIKE annoying them with silly little things like facts and history and civics. I consider them mindless entertainment.

By getalife

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

Pelosi decides against Hastings.

By RW-(the original)

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

Is DebbieDumbA$$ saying that we are entertainment for the mindless and that’s why she talks to us?

Debbie, if even you recognize that you are mindless maybe there is a tiny ray of hope for you!

By Dusty

November 28, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

Southern Democrat,

Don’t mean to keep harping on something already discussed (and not Jim’s subject dejour)….but…sending care packages hardly comes under “criticism”. Even writing the White House is a personal missive, not a declaration to the world.

I abhor the utter venom directed at the President and his family; the lack of war support by all media and the printing and reporting of absolute lies such as Bush’s phony military record, the Bush twins (see today’s blog) and leaks from unnamed and dubious sources which reveal war plans and situations all helpful to the enemy.

To impress and encourage the enemy with what seems our own contempt for this war is what I call NOT supporting the troops, They are there fighting that very war. I cannot see how you separate them.

By getalife

November 28, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

I have learned some things from Ann Coulter.

How to grow an adam’s apple?

By Spoon Fed Liberal

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

SFTU -

Whatever your major malfunction is numbnut liberal, you need to understand a few things:

1) This is a conservative blog and you will not ever smother the voice of conservatism here or anywhere else.

2) Conservatism is not dead. The former Republicans were not acting like conservatives, and they lost.

3) If you think Nancy Pelosi is representative of this nation and its values, irrespective of the fact that the woman can’t validate a Democrat party leader yet, then you are living in an ice cream dream.

4) Your hostility bespeaks volumes of your insecurity of who your party is, what it stands for, and where it is going. But that’s a redundant comment, because for the first time since I can remember, a party won an election without mentioning one single thing it stood up for, other than what the other party was not.

No, we won’t STFU, especially on our blog, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it rat boy.

By getalife

November 28, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

which reveal war plans

There is no plan stupid.

He is hoping Malarki has one.

w created the world’s largest man made disaster in Iraq.

The Saudis demanded Cheney to come to their country because they are scared of this disaster.

The twins get kicked out of Argentina and should be in Iraq.

Get real loser.

By getalife

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

Spoon fed idiot,

I rule this blog.

STFU.

By DebbieDoRight

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

Is DebbieDumbA$$ saying that we are entertainment for the mindless and that’s why she talks to us?

RW(the original Tranny): u finish blowing up that doll already?!? u go girl!!

By jbmlaw

November 28, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this

Dear Danish @ 4:03, please do not take offense. I am a fan of your writing and I agree with 95%+ of your arguments, probably higher for me than with anyone else on the blog. I tried to select my words carefully to avoid offending you - mostly because I agreed with all you argued. Southern @ 4:00 acknowledges his respect for your work, and he took exception to one particular argument. I think I correctly read Southern’s intention, even though I also understood your perspective.

Please keep writing, even as you write today; you generally express my thoughts with your words. And for goodness sake, please do not conform to my style - one bore is enough on this blog.

By jbmlaw

November 28, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this

Dear Getalife @ 4:56, you rule this blog in the manner of King Canute.

By Second Story Man

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

I just rented “An Inconvenient Truth”. I will watch. then I will review, and no troll better interrupt.

I SAID NO TROLL!!

By Southern Democrat

November 28, 2006 05:18 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

I do understand your point of view (I honestly do) and I would never act in a manner that would directly aid any enemy of the U.S.

I take issue with your viewpoint for many reasons, but here is my simplest way of saying it:

If we followed your way of thinking, then each and every time the Commander-in-Chief authorized the use of military force, all criticism of the President’s policy in that arena would have to cease. I don’t (respectfully) think that is the way it should happen, particularly in this day and age when the President can place the military in conflict via Executive Order and absent a Congressional declaration of war.

Also, I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. I was trying to offer you concrete examples of things I have personally done that support the troops, while showing you that I do not support the war.

As you (and others) and I have discussed, though, we have a fundamental disagreement because I think that the decision to go into Iraq was inherently flawed, the post-Saddam strategy was non-existent, the Bremer administration damaged Iraq incalculably, and we are a weaker nation because of these decisions. As someone who has seen terrorism up close (too close) and its deadly effects, I understand the gravity of the threat. I also would offer, however, that our excursion in Iraq has simply antagonized the region and the policies of this administration towards counterintelligence, surveillance, and treatment of detainees has severely damaged our national psyche and our national prestige.

I know we disagree fundamentally on these things, so I will leave this discussion for another day and hope that we’ll soon find a topic where we can debate the merits more readily.

By A L-I-B-E-R-T-A-R-I-A-N

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

You tell em Markus. Another thing, we are not Republicans, we are LIBERTARIANS.

Get it through those thick hippie heads of yours. L I B E R T A R I A N S

NOW LEAVE!

By CJ

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

Spoon Fed Liberal @3:44 “*…it’s not Republicans that sue and recount and sue and recount again and sue again when an election and the results don’t go their way. *”

SFL,

Rush Limbaugh misinformed you again. Read up on the 1994 Alabama Supreme Court Justice campaign that Karl Rove managed, or more recently, the 2004 campaign for the governor of Washington.

Rush Limbaugh also won’t tell you that evidence of campaign/voting fraud among the Republican Party is rampant and multiple investigations are underway:

These reports are a sample of Republican illegal voter suppression tactics. Yet, Republican apologists (such as yourself) ignore such tactics, but find loudly complain when Democrats seek recounts. Your cherry-picked hostility bespeaks volumes of your insecurity of who your party is, what it stands for, and where it is going.

By jbmlaw

November 28, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this

Oh, CJ @ 5:37, you remind me: For the runoff election, Republicans vote December 5, and Democrats vote December 6.

Everyone have a great evening.

By CJ

November 28, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this

SPF @4:42 “…a party won an election without mentioning one single thing it stood up for”

Dittohead,

When are you going to realize that if you get all your information from talk-radio, then you will be both misinformed and uninformed?

First, during the course of the campaign, regular attendees on this blog have addressed this complaint multiple times with numerous direct and substantive posts about what the Democrats intended to do if they won. Links were frequently provided as well. Democratic Party spokespersons and Democratic candidates were also all over the news and, best of all, C-Span with their lists of priorities.

Now, Johnny-come-lately (that’s you) comes along after the fact and repeats the same “not one single thing” lie (while implying that this blog belongs to him and his fellow Dittoheads).

Male or female…you’ve got a pair.

By Buy Danish

November 28, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this

Southern Democrat,

It is one thing to disagree with the war and express sound arguments against it.

It is another to use the DebbieDoRant technique of dissent, which I have pointed out to her before puts our military in danger.

Using tactics like referring to our Commander in Chief as “the chimperor” and claiming that he “lied to enrich his oil buddies and Haliburton” and other despicable tactics only plays into the enemies hands. That sort of rhetoric is typical of the anti-war arguments that we get here and elsewhere.

If one wishes to oppose the war, it is fair to request that an alternative strategy (without the magical benefit of hindsight)be proposed. “Bush sucks and so do the neo-cons” is not a strategy. I’ve been waiting for 2 years for an alternative, but other than a suggestion that we “redeploy to Okinawa” none has been forthcoming.

Finally, here is a Congressman who doesn’t support the troops or the war. Is it a coincidence that he is a Democrat or is there a pattern here?

By CJ

November 28, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

correction @5:52 — SPF = SFL

I get lazy toward the end of the day.

By Van

November 28, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this

Southern Democrat,

Dear lefty -

When the President as Commander-in-chief sends men and women into harms way, guess what, Comgress has to authorize the expense. Yes, if congress does not vote to support then troops, they run out of money and have to come home.

Therefore, the slings and arrows of the left are actually direct toward their Congress Critters. If you say that the President lied and sent our troops to die in the desert, then Congress funded it. Congress is deserving of all the same hate coming from the left.

Yes, the President as CIC has the authority, but without funds, it means nothing.

By RW-(the original)

November 28, 2006 06:02 PM | Link to this

Southern Democrat and Dusty,

It seems from your comments to each other that you’ve had this discussion without finding a middle ground. I’ll admit that I have known Dusty far longer than Southern Democrat (since today is my first encounter with the latter), but let me see if I can bring this back into an area that can be discussed. Terrorism in general and Iraq in particular being the foremost issues of our time, it’s not really an issue that should be taken off the table by two regular posters.

I don’t think Dusty is saying that a policy can’t be criticized or debated and I think Southern Democrat has something of a point with our current situation in Iraq.

Dusty has always said the vicious personal attacks and outright lies should be curtailed and the overt undermining of policy through back room political deals and leaks to the press put us all in danger, but put our troops in far greater danger and the political left seems to celebrate these things because it may give them short term political power.

Southern Democrat, as I said I would find our current “treading water in the middle of a civil war” policy in Iraq as a complete failure except that I don’t believe this is a civil war in Iraq as much as a regional war. Hezbollah seems to be well connected to the Mahdi Army and we know that Iran stands up Hezbollah. I would prefer to see us mass troops on the borders of Iraq and Syria to keep outsiders out and then clean house. A downside is the vision of complete occupation. We are fighting a proxy war with Iran even as we attempt to stand up Iraqi security forces.

I should ask, I guess, whether you (Southern Democrat) are one of those that say the war is bad but getting rid of Saddam is good. I find that an indefensible position because you were never going to be able to wave a magic wand and change leadership.

If you think that our standing in the world is diminished now, just watch what will happen if we abandon the cause completely and allow mass slaughter among the Iraqis and all over the Middle East.

There is no easy solution and this also isn’t a problem that was created by the Bush administration, or even the Clinton administration. It’s been going on for decades. This is a regional problem that has festered for far too long and I’m afraid too many people have become deluded into thinking that if we just get out the whole problem goes away.

It’s my feeling that getting control of the Middle East is going to take 10 to 20 years of sustained effort. If I’m right it’s going to have to be done under the control of multiple Presidents and Congresses, so we have to find a unified voice. We can discuss policy and strategy all we want, but the end point has to be sustainable stabilization of the Middle East.

By Mrs. RepubLady

November 28, 2006 06:06 PM | Link to this

As always, Buy Danish is slaughtering you liberal clowns with her keen sense of knowlege about everything! Just because the reasons for the war turned out to be not true does not mean they were lies. And just because Cheney is best friends forever (BFF) with the Halliburton guys, and they’re all getting filthy rich while millions of dumb lazy stupid liberals are whining about health care costs does NOT mean there is any connection whatsoever between the war, Cheney being vice president, and Halliburton getting all our tax money! DUHHH! You are connecting dots where their aren’t any and Buy Danish is kicking your sorry, crack-smoking, welfare-mom-loving soldier-hating traiteruss backsides! GO GIRL! See ya Friday for Pizza and a pedicure?

By CJ

November 28, 2006 06:11 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

FYI, President Bush isn’t “our” Commander-in-Chief. He’s the military’s Commander-in-Chief. Can you grasp the significance of this distinction?

Also, it’s not complaints that Bush lied us into war that are despicable. The complaints are patriotic. It’s the act of lying us into war that is despicable. This act is what played into the enemies’ hands.

By Political Foreskin

November 29, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this

Wooten’s Premise Constituencies, like children, should be seen and not heard.

Wooten’s Conclusion Blogging will never be troll free.

Al Gore’s movie is 90 minutes of charts, baby seals, and filthy air outing earth’s CO2 latency. He blames the GOP (and the sun) for it’s “dont bask, dont smell” policy. I will never forgive Gore for not including even one shot of Tipper sunbathing. Count me down to vote for newt in ‘08.

By Wootenlover

November 29, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

I am now hoping that his blog/b*** stream of rants is a highschool project. Because reading what has been said, the way it has been said (and I’ve been guilty a few times myself - but that is over from my end) has made me hope to God Almighty that most of you guys don’t have drivers permits, important jobs or children. Because, well - you are all acting like children. Sorry, but really how much more base can this “discussion” be? It was a mistake to even think about trying to debate an issue here. It is like being bullied by a group of meat-head football jocks after they’ve lost the big game and then went out all night drinking - you disagree, you get punched. Truly sad for adults. If you had to look at one another in the face I would hope decency could emerge. But, as it stands, your freedom of ananimity appears to have unhinged any attempt at common decency. Sad really.

By Pete

November 30, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

Your ideas are coming from the same place as those who say that we should go back to just having neighborhood schools and taking corrective action when racial discrimination with intent can be shown. Thinking right means more than letting the most powerful control things until they just go way too far (right).

By jonny731

December 10, 2006 04:21 AM | Link to this