Thinking Right

By Nunya

December 28, 2006 08:09 AM | Link to this

Ha! First!

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

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

Nothing to argue with here today, Mr. Wooten - yet.

The Pope hated the evil Nixon, but compared to the current occupant he was Mother Theresa. “Wisdom, decency, integrity” - Jerry had it, Dumbya hasn’t an ounce.

Ford did the right thing to Nixon - a broken mentally ill drunkard whom the country didn’t need to drag down any further. Nixon was humble enough not to fight the judgment of history and morality - he knew in his Quaker heart he was wrong in the end.

Not so the current POS mentally ill drunkard president.

The new congress is in, ladies and gentlemen, let the investigaions begin!

By Jeff

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

President Ford was before my time (born in ‘83), but from all accounts I’ve heard, he was a good man overshadowed by crises before and after his time in office. My only wish is that he could have served at a time when that wouldn’t have been the case. But then, as Mr. Wooten pointed out, maybe his greatness as a President is directly derived from his ability to heal this country without regard to self.

Rest in Peace, Mr. President.

By sct

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

History will be kind to Ford. He was a man that said what needed to be said. Just look at what he said about W’s war in Iraq.

“I don’t think, if I had been president — on the basis of the facts as I saw them publicly — I don’t think I would have ordered the Iraqi war,”

“I would have maximized our efforts through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer,”

“(Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and (Vice President Dick) Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq,”

The question now is who is going to save us from our current national disaster? Is there another Gerald Ford out there? Lets hope so.

By azcat225

December 28, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this

Thanks, Jim, for so eloquently summing up what President Ford gave to this country. The ‘76 election was the first Presidential election that I was eligible to vote in; I voted for him and have always been proud of that vote. If Carter hadn’t played the “Pardon Card” over and over during the campaign, Ford would most likely have won the election.

As many have noted, Gerald R. Ford was a dignified, decent, principled man who always put his country and the common good ahead of self-interest. So many of his phrases and soundbites from his speeches carry lessons for today’s politicians but I doubt that they are listening to the words; rather, they’re jockeying for the best photo op position while they pay lip service to the ideals and standards that he lived every day of his long and distinguished career.

A poster yesterday made the tired, shallow cracks about falling down the stairs of Air Force One and hitting some one with a golf ball. Would that any one of us haven’t had our own moments like that, the only difference being it wasn’t with the world media watching at the time. That was part of who he was and why people, from both sides of the aisle, trusted him to lead us through those troubled times. Yes, he was ordinary; yes, he was a common man. Those are complements, not perjoratives. As you pointed out, he rose to greatness at the exact moment this country desperately needed it.

I wish there were a hundred more Gerald R. Fords waiting in the wings—-sadly, there are not, and some may say, never will be again. Let’s hope and pray that’s not the case.

By jbmlaw

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

Good morning all. My conservative friends will be amused by the fact that I supported Mr. Ford over that actor in the 1976 primaries. Melvin Laird, longtime friend of President Ford, has a nice essay on the life of a good man. He goes into some detail on the “Kennedy family presentation of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award to Ford, precisely for the pardon. Sen. Kennedy praised him that day for going against the tide of popular opinion. ‘I was one of those who spoke out against his action then. But time has a way of clarifying past event, and now we see that President Ford was right,’ Sen. Kennedy said.”

Jerry’s courage was not limited to the domestic scene. From today’s WSJ: “Democrats exploited the mood in early 1975 to block Ford’s funding request for our allies in South Vietnam, as the North began its offensive. Ford pleaded with Congress that “American unwillingness to provide adequate assistance to allies fighting for their lives could seriously affect our credibility throughout the world as an ally,” but to no avail. Saigon fell by April, and the boat people and massacres in Southeast Asia soon followed. Thus one irony of this week’s praise for Ford as a unifying President: At the time, he was mocked as clumsy and dull, and he was vilified for blocking Congressional priorities. Any of this sound familiar? “Vietnam was a scarring American defeat, but it could have been worse had Ford capitulated to the Congressional stampede. Instead, he fortified U.S. relations with the rest of free Asia, and he sent in the Marines despite liberal howls when the U.S. ship the Mayaguez was taken hostage by Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge.” http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009447

We all know that Jerry was an All-American center at Michigan – surely the best athlete to ever serve as president of this country – but almost nobody remembers that he finished in the top third of his class at Yale law school, giving him a valid claim as the best educated president also. And my younger son, the Ensign, would howl if I lauded President Ford without mentioning that he went through pre-flight school with the Navy at UNC Chapel Hill, where he also took a couple of law classes. RIP, Jerry.

By DebbieDoRight

December 28, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this

this sad pathetic “girl” was, after being ripped apart factually, logically and comedically was unbelievably abusive and then petulantly threatens to report Jim and everyone else to the big bad liberal black boss woman for essentially absolutely NOTHING… it was freaking hilarious.

being racially abusive, homophobic, sexist and downright NASTY is not hilarious — it’s sad. and it’s a sad commentary on you, your upbringing and any children that you have fathered, (god forbid) and have let loose in this world. this is supposed to be a blog about events, not a putdown of someone’s race, OR a way to vent your pent up racial frustrations — the KKK has a blog out already; if that’s what you want; join that one.

she was just too stupid to realise she was just being very cleverly goaded - based on her blog comments and todays topic on the lynching of the INNOCENT preppy Duke Three

you are too stupid to realize when you are wrong. and too stupid to admit it.

I will NEVER backdown to a liberal in cyber space.

you are a fool and a coward who hides behind a “blog” because you can’t say what you really want to say to someone’s face — if you’re such a big bad man, go out and say your real feelings about blacks to blacks — don’t hide behind a blog venting hate. take the sheet off of your face.

By DebbieDoRight

December 28, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this

The question now is who is going to save us from our current national disaster

i doubt if it’ll be another republican.

By Jeff

December 28, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this

SCT and Pope:

You two are about as bad as the “black leaders” at Coretta Scott King’s funeral who used that somber occassion as just another excuse to bash the current President.

Let it go, at least as far as this topic goes.

By Jim Wooten

December 28, 2006 08:39 AM | Link to this

Morning all. Fine, fine posts azcat225 and jbmlaw. Thanks for elevating the tone of the discussion here.

Jeff, are you the Southwest Georgia school teacher from the summer conversations?

By Capt

December 28, 2006 08:45 AM | Link to this

Hey Debbie, Why don’t you go move in with Jimmy Carter. He is as moranic and misguided as you. Can you spell INNOCENT. Oh yeah…you libs don’t let the facts stand in your way…you simply rewrite history to suit your on needs….

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

December 28, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this

I am comparing and contrasting the decency of Ford with the disaster called Dumbya. Your reference to Coretta’s funeral does not apply here - this isn’t a church, and this ain’t a funeral.

But as long as we’re on the subject, perhaps you’d rather listen to Bernice King pervert the gospel of Christ and talk about how God wants us all to be billionaires?

The Wooten blog ain’t never been no holy place, even though you will see a bunch of neo-kkkons on their knees drooling over the sheetstain in the White House. (The Sheetstain of Texas, as opposed to the Shroud of Turin).

I’ll type what I want, like I usually do. Mr. Wooten’s blog is a haven for the politically incorrect, and he only occasionally censors me.

By Jim Wooten

December 28, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this

Jeff, I admire your willingness to take on a challenge, and to act on your convictions. I’ll contact you by email later this morning.

To others here, please resist the temptation to respond to intentional goading that has no possible constructive outcome.

By Pimp hacks - Libe-Racist-al Wankers I

December 28, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this

Yes, let the investigations begin:

Mr. Murtha has also been front and center in the controversy over earmarks, the individual portions of pork members of Congress often secretly secure for their districts or favored constituents. Mr. Murtha is the ranking Democratic member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and for the past three years has been the House’s top recipient of defense industry cash. Few in Washington are surprised that his lobbyist brother, Robert “Kit” Murtha, was until his retirement this summer an enormously successful “earmark specialist” for the Beltway firm KSA Consulting. In recent years, Kit Murtha brought in a mother lode of earmarks for at least 16 defense manufacturers with business before the Appropriations Committee.

By DebbieDoRight

December 28, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

first of all — i never said GUILTY. why don’t u move in with Dumbya — you two can eat some pretzels together.

By DebbieDoRight

December 28, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this

Your reference to Coretta’s funeral does not apply here - this isn’t a church, and this ain’t a funeral

Amen.

By JoeD

December 28, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

I think the pardon of Nixon has turned out to be the single most courageous political act of the second half of the 20th century. I was only a teen at the time, but I still remember how divisive Watergate and the hearings were to this country. The pardon took that all off the front page and let us get back to being a country again. Ford helped heal us, and his administration and indeed his whole career epitomize bipartisanship and working for the good of the country. It is hard to understand how people like Cheney and Rumsfeld could have worked for that man and turned into the people they are. I truly believe that Ford and Reagan and Tip O’Neill were the last of a dying breed. They could have their disputes, work together to resolve them, then have a drink together before going home. There seems to be few politicians today who could live up to their example. The last 14 years have been marked by a partisanship that shows no sign of abating. We could use a few more Jerry Fords.

By WFC

December 28, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

I believe that Gerald Ford’s greatest attribute as a political leader was his ability to deal with having power. He never seemed to allow having awesome power change who he was, his sense of self or his fundamental values. Are there Jerry Fords out there today? Sure, thousands of them. Sadly, very few go into politics and who can blame them.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

December 28, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

Nice point Jim,

So who do you think will be the person with enough dignity and foresight disregard the polls and pardon Bush, so that we may get past our current nightmare?

*(CBS/AP) Former President Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified, the Washington Post reported.

Ford “very strongly” disagreed with the current president’s justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously, the Post’s Bob Woodward wrote. The story initially was posted on the newspaper’s Internet site Wednesday night.

“I don’t think I would have gone to war,” Ford told Woodward a little more than a year after President Bush launched the invasion.

In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Mr. Bush but also of Vice President Dick Cheney — Ford’s White House chief of staff — and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford’s chief of staff and then his secretary of defense.

“Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction,” Ford said. “And now, I’ve never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do.”

Ford also criticized the notion that the United States should engage in a war in order to spread democracy.

“Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people,” Ford said, but added he was unsure “whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what’s in our national interest.” Ford said: “And I just don’t think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security.”

Woodward wrote that the interview took place for a future book project, though the former president said his comments could be published at any time after his death.

In another interview released after his death, Ford told CBS News correspondent Phil Jones in 1984 that he initially was against using the phrase “long national nightmare” in his first speech as president following Richard Nixon’s resignation, concerned that it was too harsh.

Ford said he reconsidered and sought his wife’s advice. “After thinking about it and talking to Betty about it, we decided to leave it in and, boy, in retrospect, I’m awfully glad we did,” he said.

©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.*

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

December 28, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

Speaking of funerals, I understand that Rummy is going to give one of the eulogies.

If people are truly concerned about politicizing funerals, why would a war criminal be given an opportunity to rehabilitate his reputation over the body of a dead President, and a decent man to boot?

By DebbieDoRight

December 28, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

So who do you think will be the person with enough dignity and foresight disregard the polls and pardon Bush

hahaha!!

By Rod

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

The sad thing is that if Ford and Nixon had been Democrats, Wooten would be on here blasting and insulting Ford for the pardon.

Wooten and several other right-wingers are so blinded by democrat/republican that they will critisize anything a Democrat does and love anything a Republican does.

Shameful - I guess it’s easier than thinking on your own.

By azcat225

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

Irony (def.)

a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs

b. Given today’s topic, the nature and tone of some of the posts

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

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

I was born during the Eisenhower years. Here is the Pope’s ranking of the 10 Presidents of my lifetime:

1) Clinton 2) Ike 3) Ford 4) LBJ 5) JFK 6) Pappy 7) Carter 8) Nixon 9)Ronnie 10) Dumbya

I rank LBJ high because of his commitment to civil rights and desegregation, if it wasn’t for his Vietnam stupidity he’d be first on the list. JFK is overrated, I think his personal life would have have hounded him had he lived. Carter was an ineffective manager, Nixon drops on the list because of his Southern Strategy and his stubborn continuation of the Vietnam conflict, but his opening China was an act of greatness, far more imprtant than Reagan’s supposed role in the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was happening anyway.

The last 2 are venal, corrupt, Mammon worshippers. Ford was selected to do exactly what he did, his ego was the smallest of any of the 10 on the list, and he realized he needed to restore respect for the Presidency, and he conducted himself and his administration accordingly. Clinton and Ike are the only true visionaries on the list, both were governing for America’s future.

By Mid-South Philosopher

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

Good morning, Jim and all fellow bloggers,

I think President Ford’s “embargoed” interview with Bob Woodward is indicative of the quality and class of the man. Although he clearly had misgivings about the Iraqi conflict, Ford would not go public with his thoughts against a sitting President and (two of “my boys” as President Ford sometimes referred to them) Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Some may criticize President Ford for not speaking out, but there is something to say for loyalty.

I suspect that when the history of the 20th Century is truly written…it will happen about 2055…Gerald R. Ford’s status as a President will out rank “Georgie” Bush’s. We shall see.

By getalife

December 28, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

“Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction,” Ford said. “And now, I’ve never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do.”

Although Ford was never elected because he pardoned Nixon (who should have went to prison and started no accountabilty for Presidents), he did allow President Carter to win.

By Brian Curtis

December 28, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

Funny, I could’ve sworn that only a few weeks ago, conservatives were crowing about “accountability” and “When OUR guys commit crimes, they face the music.”

But pardoning Nixon was okay, huh? I guess accountability is only for slogans, not actions.

By Diogenes

December 28, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

Jim,

I’m really surprised that you have the capability to recognize human decency. Yesterday, you held your own trial; on Monday you criticized other journalists for doing their jobs; last Friday you praised Bob Barr, who may be more of an extremist than you are; and on December 21, you admitted to ignoring all surveys which don’t produce the results you want. You’ve not had a good week, so it’s a surprise that you acknowledge decency for its own sake.

Since you are able to grasp human decency, why do you continue to shill for G. W. “Great Wall” Bush? His refusal to “pursue the course that best serves the nation’s interests” is obvious in so many areas. Whereas history acknowledges Ford as a man for his times, history will condemn the current buffoon and enumerate the many ways in which he has failed his country, yet you so blithely continue to praise him.

Diogenes will acknowledge your eulogy of Ford.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

December 28, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

Warren G. Harding will outrank Dumbya. Out of 43 presidents so far, Dumbya is 43rd and falling.

Like Georgia SAT scores, we’ve got no place to go but up. The next President, whoever s/he is, will be a better wo/man.

By time for the truth

December 28, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

crackpipe

I see you have hilariously also obsessively posted your dishonest drivel on here as well … I have factually and very reasonably responded to you on yesterday’s blog. Keep it there lovey.

rednekkks NAMBLA

any chance of you permanently slithering up to homo loving Vermont a bit sooner. getting rid of the likes of you will vastly improve the tone and collective IQ of the south and drastically reduce the sex crime rate. (just briefly mirroring back your usual deranged bigoted bile)

Bush has a masters from an Ivy League school - something you could never attain!! He was reelected gov of TX - something virtually no one else managed during the days of the decades of the demoNcrat TX Reich.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

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

There’s a little blurb in the AJC today about Ford and Bo Callaway, and Ford’s unwillingness to use an aggressive Southern Strategy to beat Carter.

Another measure of the fundamental decency of the man, his refusal to stoop to conquer.

By Curious Observer

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

It is very easy to lionize the dead, and some bloggers here have been facile in doing so. While Gerald Ford was indeed a man of principle, his politics were mostly right-wing, contrary to the efforts to paint him as a moderate. In his short tenure as president, he vetoed more than 50 bills, most of them developed to help the lower and middle classes. He led the effort against Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society program. He favored, like the current wingnuts, tax cuts skewed to the wealthy, very limited social spending, and very high defense expenditures. At the same time, he refused to help New York City out of its fiscal crisis; some here who are old enough can recall the newspaper headline: “Ford to New York City: Drop Dead.”

His conservatism showed in his leading the efforts as a House member to have Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas impeached. Douglas’s sin was issuing liberal opinions. Ford would have been right at home among the right-wing political assassins today.

He dropped the well-qualified Nelson Rockefeller from consideration for the vice presidential ticket in favor of the political hack and wheeler-dealer Robert Dole, in an effort to placate the right wing of his party.

And he attacked inflation in the typical right-wing manner: with policies that penalized the lower classes and brought on severe recession and high unemployment. It was more important, after all, to protect the assets of the wealthy than to be concerned about the struggles of the poor.

He was the first to propose amnesty for Vietnam draft resisters and evaders, although his successor Jimmy Carter takes the hit for that.

His foreign policy was also a disaster. He ordered aid and support for Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor, with the more than 100,000 deaths that followed.

Finally, but not exhaustively, he stated that he did not believe Nixon was involved in the Watergate affair, an utterance that calls his judgment into question, and his service on the Warren Commission essentially obviated consideration of guilty parties other than Lee Harvey Oswald.

Yes, Ford was a good man, as politicians go. But let’s not pretend he was some kind of saint. He was still a rock-ribbed Republican with little concern at all for the plight of the poor and the working classes.

By Political Foreskin

December 28, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

Wooten’s saying that Nixon was our Saddam, only Ford let him go.

Warren Commission Member Ford and the Single Assassin Theory: Wanted: young and single-assassin and free

Ford had a long interview with Jack Ruby and emerged to label him insane. (“not a potted plant, but rather a cracked pot”)

Who killed Kennedy after he killed Vietnam’s prez, Tiem? was it? Can you hypnotize someone into assassinating a world leader? Ask Mark Chapman, who managed to hypnotize himself, (that’s how easily tranced we are by music and drugs, and spin-the-bottle with the cousins).

We installed the Shah of Iran over the Shiites. Bad move. Now we face Shia Iraq which is in a defacto Axis of Shia with Iran. We have found the frontline in Baghdad: Sadr City.

They will fight for every square freckle of Sadr City, the baghdad of the shia superstate.

*Pray for Peace.

By DebbieDoRight

December 28, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

Pope, et al: u speak so eloquently about Ford, although i was born after his presidency, u have made me interested in getting to know his presidential legacy for myself. when i was in school, they only taught extensively the four “A+” presidents, (Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt 1 and 2, and Kennedy); however your, and others, comments have made me “google” Ford to find out more about his legacy. thanks for the quick history lesson.

By Face It

December 28, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

Lets face it, the man who is the topic of today’s conversation wouldn’t lower himself to read the drivel being posted on this blog by some 90% of you. So continue to praise him and slam Bush, but face the fact that neither of them would give you wastes of oxygen the time of day.

By time for the truth

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

Politically Ford can reasonably be summed up in on word, by using the ‘label’ moderate. He was undeniably a decent man who having the office thrust upon him quite quickly rose to the occasion and unlike the narcissistic GA halfwit who followed him he was a competent enough president.

Reagan is undoubtedly the greatest and finest president of my lifetime and one of the very greatest of all presidents.

GW Bush is the second best president of my lifetime - tied with Nixon.

GHW Bush being a somewhat distant “third” best (or fourth if you’re actually counting).

Watergate was not that big a deal - just like Abu Ghraib - predicktably the hateful intolerant leftist pinkos just used it to bring Nixon down. Nixon should have done what the sex pest sick willie didn’t and admitted culpability early, apologised and moved on.

The rest of the presidents of this modern era were mostly OK - but hardly worth ranking. Kennedy is very overrated … as is his corrupt, often quite evil family.

Sick Willie and Karter easily are the worst two presidents in history - albeit for different (blatantly obvious) reasons.

By Face It

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

Debbie, While you are googling and in the mood to learn, try googling these words and incorporate them into your life.

Character Decency Propriety Maturity

By DebbieDoRight

December 28, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

Another measure of the fundamental decency of the man, his refusal to stoop to conquer

wow! i wish ALL politicians had that philosophy.

“I think — tide turning — see, as I remember — I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of — it’s easy to see a tide turn — did I say those words?” —President Bush asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

By DebbieDoRight

December 28, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

Since you are able to grasp human decency, why do you continue to shill for G. W. “Great Wall” Bush? His refusal to “pursue the course that best serves the nation’s interests” is obvious in so many areas. Whereas history acknowledges Ford as a man for his times, history will condemn the current buffoon and enumerate the many ways in which he has failed his country

“I’m the decider, and I decide what is best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense.” —George W. Bush Washington, D.C. April 18, 2006

“You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.” —George W. Bush interview with CBS News’ Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

By Jeff

December 28, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

Face It @ 10:44:

Amen!

By Buy Danish

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

America’s Al Qaeda,

There is nothing “corrupt” in Reagan’s legacy, nor in George W. Bush’s Presidency.

Corruption assumes that people are morally corrupt or do things for personal monetary gain - like take bribes (see wannabe bribe-taker Murtha).

Neither of those men had or have big egos either, and the Clintons are the biggest eogmaniacs of all.

Curious Observer,

When Reagan took office, capital gains taxes were at 50% and income tax rates were as high as $70%. This is disastrous for the economy (which hurts the middle class and the poor) and is completely immoral as an economic policy.

Thanks to Reagan our economy recovered from Carter’s disastrous Presidency and Bush has cut rates even further - to undeniably positive results.

Gotta run…later..

By DebbieDoRight

December 28, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

Debbie, While you are googling and in the mood to learn, try googling these words and incorporate them into your life. Character Decency Propriety Maturity

i did; i saw a picture of Roosevelt, Carter, JFK, and Clinton — unfortunately i didn’t see a picture of Dumbya. I guess i should’ve googled “pretzel”, or “dumba$$” or maybe even “bufoon”. I bet his picture would’ve popped up then.

By Face It

December 28, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

Ah yes Debbie. How could I not have thought of it sooner. You obviously require pictures in your reading material, not confusing words and sentences.

Debbie, on behalf of our public school system, I apologize that you have been left behind.

By Political Foreskin

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

DebbieDo Right, (of the mountees, I hope), Bush speak is funny. You could probably tour as a 500 dollar a week feature on the circuit in the mid-west by just reading BushSpeak Golden Oldies alone into a microphone. Vogue!

W actually once said, “When you come to a fort in the road, take it”. or was that Caeser? Darn, I always get my Machiavellians mixed up, (the supreme ones being Attila and MacAuthur).

By freedomadmin

December 28, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

President Ford: Whip Inflation Now (WIN). This is all I remember the man for.

Come join me for political discussion on The Freedom Forum Blog:

http://freedom-forum.blogspot.com/

By DebbieDoRight

December 28, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

can u get corruption by “association”? if the president is surrounded by “corrupt” people, Abramoff, DeLay, Foley, Brian J. Doyle, (Deputy Press Secretary for Homeland Security, who, On March 12, 2006, contacted a 14-year-old girl [internet sting] for sex), et al; if Dumbya surrounds himself with corrupt people, does this make him corrupt? or is he just a patsy / fall gay for the holy rollers?

By time for the truth

December 28, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Face It is doing well by doing good today!!

Cheers for your marvellous reading material this morning good sir/madam.

By DebbieDoRight

December 28, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Face it: on behalf of your Reading Comprehension Teacher, I apologize for your not understanding simple english. is english not your first language?

PS: i went to private school.

By Political Foreskin

December 28, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Aquaman doing standup: “I’m the fourth fish from the right on the de-evolutionary chart…..Will I ever grow hair again? MERMAID!!!

By Diogenes

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

I can’t believe that a blogster had the audacity to claim that there’s nothing corrupt “in George W. [“Great Wall”] Bush’s Presidency.” Nothing corrupt in his presidency except about half the Republicans in Congress, plus countless lobbyists, and numerous administration officials.

This is probably the most corrupt administration in history. Some folks are totally blind.

By Aquagirl

December 28, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

Ford has been called the accidental president, since he just sorta ended up in the White House by default. It’s not a coincidence that he’ll be remembered as a courageous and fundamentally decent man.

Americans would never elect such a decent man nowadays…you have to be an egotistical and politically merciless type to get to the Oval Office. Bush, Clinton, and all our recent presidents are cut from the same cloth. I’m beginning to think that we might have a better system if we just picked a president at random. It worked with Ford, didn’t it?

By DebbieDoRight

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

“My No. 1 goal is to not go to jail.” —Congresswoman-elect Michele Bachmann (R-MN), during “freshman orientation” for new members of Congress

“Bob Sherwood’s seat [in Pennsylvania] would have been overwhelmingly ours, if his mistress hadn’t whined about being throttled.” —Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, blaming GOP election defeats on botched campaigns and individual ethical scandals. Asked if there were any lessons from the campaign, he added, “Yes. The lesson should be, don’t throttle mistresses.”

By Face It

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

By Debbie: Face it: on behalf of your Reading Comprehension Teacher, I apologize for your not understanding simple english. is english not your first language?

PS: i went to private school.

Dearest Debbie, Firstly, I agree whole heartedly that your english is indeed simple and trying to understand it is akin to hitting ones self in the head with a wooden mallet.

Regarding your studies at private school, I have only this to say. My dear, you are unquestionably owed a refund.

By JK

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

I also pause to reflect as we note the passing of an honest, decent man who put public service before selfish gain. He handled his personal spills, slices, and family issues with the kind of grace and dignity that seemed to say, “Flaws are human, and we are no less for being human.” I remember his head held high with quiet dignity and respect for the people he represented and the gravity of his job — without arrogance, smugness, or annoyance of those whose duty it was to question him. A fine American; a fine example.

Rest in peace, Mr. President.

By DebbieDoRight

December 28, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

Aquaman to Wonder Woman: What are those things for? (commenting on her two legs)

By time for the truth

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

So where is the obsessive deranged cowardly anti-war hag C Sheehan? Happily it seems even some cut and run lefties are sick of her treasonous bollocks.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,239337,00.html

By Face It

December 28, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

Face it, the Republican party has indeed become corrupt and tactless. I am sad to see that they, unlike Ford, have stooped to the level of the Democrats and adopted the low class tactics that the liberals have employed for fifty years or more.

By Markus

December 28, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this

Curious observer makes some curious observations about Ford while conveniently bringing in “wingnuts” and crap about the Right in general like a good little liberal neoMarxist:

“He led the effort against Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society program.”

A program that to this DAY has not solved poverty or raised the poor to a living class, of which to this DAY we are still paying out the nose for. You wanna know why? Because the GOVERNMENT can’t help those who don’t want to help themselves.

”…he refused to help New York City out of its fiscal crisis;”

And just where in the hell does it say in the US Constitution that the federal government (MY tax dollars) should help out the incompetence of leadership in cities?

”He favored, like the current wingnuts, tax cuts skewed to the wealthy”

Those whopay taxes, get taxes bac. The bottom 50% pay just 3.8% of all federal income tax revenue. Now I would assume that that bottom 50% is right in line with the group that CO calls “loser classes.”

“in an effort to placate the right wing of his party.”

And what the hell is Pelosi doing? Trying NOT to placate the left wing of her party? All presidents and leaders have to placate to all wings of their parties in one way or another. That’s an absurd observation. Hell Bush is placating to the left more than any president EVER placated to the other side, so I don’t know why you liberals hate the man so much. Ted “drunk Oldsmobile U-boat commander wannabe” Kennedy being put in charge of edumacation reform? Good GOD.

“It was more important, after all, to protect the assets of the wealthy than to be concerned about the struggles of the poor..”

I hate to rain on you neoMarxist liberals’ parade, but the “poor” don’t run the economy in this nation. They feed off of it. Income redistribution does NOT make our nation’s economy great. But I know I’m pi$$ing in the wind here with you socialist quasi-communist liberals on matters like that. You people think this nation is great because of government. Sometime during the ‘60s, you moonbat liberals flushed down the toilet the “Ask not…” words of JFK.

Oh yeah, and “neoMarxist” has it’s real meanings with you socialist liberals and what you people stand for. Three of them that Marx mentioned are:

·The right to a progressive income tax code

·The right to heavily tax inheritance, whether property or money

·The good of the whole outweighs the good of the individual

Yup, that sounds like good little neoMarxist socialist liberalism to me.

By Markus

December 28, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

Dirty Harry Reid ditches Ford funeral for a tour of three South American nations. We’ll see how the media and demoncats play it when Republicans “snub” Carter’s funeral for pre-arranged events that “would be very hard to get out of.”

Mm-huh. Yeah. Sure.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061228/apongoco/fordsenate_leader

By getalife

December 28, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

Face it does need to face it.

Reality.

Why is Bob Woodward the only reporter worth a crap?

Ford’s take on Iraq, Rumsfeld, Kissenger and dick are very interesting.

Ford was a member of the reality based community, a rare breed from the gop.

By Markus

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

Demoncat wets pretty pinko panties over NASCAR driver with Bush sticker on his car (not that Kirk Shelmerdine is a great driver or anything). Awe. Someone get little pooksie wooksie a tissue for him wittle nose. Betcha this tinhat never complains about the Holly-woodheads and music libobats who spew venom for the demonRAT party.

http://www.examiner.com/a-478208~YeasandNaysThursdayDec__28.html

By time for the truth

December 28, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

Republicans “snub” Carter’s funeral

Happy thought of the day thus far!!

By DebbieDoRight

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

Dearest Debbie, Firstly, I agree whole heartedly that your english is indeed simple and trying to understand it is akin to hitting ones self in the head with a wooden mallet.Regarding your studies at private school, I have only this to say. My dear, you are unquestionably owed a refund.

FaceIt: I have no use for $40.00 words when a $1.00 word works just as well. I guess you republicans just love inflated prices, over spending, depleting surpluses in record time — and generally just using a lot of air by pontificating (here’s a $40 word for you), on your prowess and “supposed” intellectual superiority. (some more $40 words — put simply, you people are full of hot air and lies).

Since I know that you can’t comprehend english that well, I’ve decided to write what I just said in Portuguese, maybe that’ll help some.

Eu não tiver nenhum uso para $40.00 palavras quando trabalhos $1.00 de uma palavra apenas também. Eu suponho-o preços inflados dos republicanos amor justo, sobre a despesa, esgotando excessos no tempo record — e muitos se usando geralmente justos do ar pontificating (está aqui uma palavra $40 para você), seus prowess e superiority. intelectual “suposto” (algum mais $40 palavras — ponho simplesmente, você povoa está cheio do ar quente e das mentiras).

I guess that money wasn’t wasted after all.

By time for the truth

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

Republicans “snub” Carter’s funeral

Happy thought of the day thus far!!

By JK

December 28, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

Markus, I’ll skip my commentary on your Marx obssession today, (it’s a fine line, you know) except to remind you that this is the 21st Century and perhaps you might consider moving ON to a more contemporary meaningless stereotype. You’re the only one reading Marx these days. Seriously.

That being said, what do you think about taxing the middle-aged janitor in South Georgia who won the lottery? I mean, if you think a rich man shouldn’t pay taxes on $5 or $10 million he receives — not by working — but by being born into a rich family, then why shouldn’t the poor man who busted his hump all his life get a pass on paying taxes on his lottery money? I mean, neither man worked for the big wad, but the rich man most likely had a lifetime of better schooling, opportunities, vacations, summer camps, and sweet hauls from Santa’s sleigh. If you think he gets a pass on paying taxes for money he didn’t earn, what about the janitor? Both men could, afterall, claim “divine destiny,” could they not? Just curious.

By DebbieDoRight

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

the Republican party has indeed become corrupt and tactless. I am sad to see that they, unlike Ford, have stooped to the level of the Democrats and adopted the low class tactics that the liberals have employed for fifty years or more

yes, but they’ve perfected the “low class tactics” and took it to a whole other level, (all the while praising God, Hate and War). Pass the bible and the bullets.

By jbmlaw

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

Getalife @ 11:54, you surprise me: Ford was a few weeks shy of his 93rd birthday as we chatted for about 45 minutes. He’d been visited by President Bush three weeks earlier and said he’d told Bush he supported the war in Iraq but that the 43rd President had erred by staking the invasion on weapons of mass destruction.

“Saddam Hussein was an evil person and there was justification to get rid of him,” he observed, “but we shouldn’t have put the basis on weapons of mass destruction. That was a bad mistake. Where does [Bush] get his advice?”

Ford was predictably defensive about Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, his two White House chiefs of staff. Asked why Cheney had tanked in public opinion polls, he smiled. “Dick’s a classy guy, but he’s not an electrified orator.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/483757p-407239c.html

By Jeff

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

This is to about 95% of the posters here:

What happened to this blog? I was on it often when it first debuted, and it was a great place to come and debate CIVILLY. I’ve pretty much stuck to the Get Schooled blogs here over the past few months because the sheer volume of posts here is hard to keep track of at work, but over watching this topic I’ve come to see that while Mr. Wooten and a FEW others here have a sense of class, not very many of the rest of you - on EITHER side of the ailse - do. (Not saying it doesn’t get heated over there… it quite frequently does… but at least we don’t resort to the constant name calling and at least TRY to stick to debating arguments, not people.)

Y’all have taken what was once a field of honor and disgraced it. You have made it nothing more than the Right’s answer to ML’s blogs.

You sicken me, you truly do.

No offense meant, Mr. Wooten.

By Karl Marx

December 28, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

Great job on that Medicare Part D America!

It brought a tear to my eye! I was so happy! Wooten is right, Bush will go down in history as one of the GREATEST!

By jbmlaw

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

Dear JK @ 12:06, I respectfully think you contradict yourself. You say nobody reads Marx anymore, then you chastise Markus opposing transfer taxes on wealth (which is the accumulation of post-tax earnings), somehow comparing that to income taxes, on which no tax has been paid. Only Marx thought taxing wealth was a rational idea.

I believe that income taxes are a foolish idea generally. As all income is used in only two ways – savings or consumption – at least a portion of every income tax is used to erode wealth, due to the tax on savings. A better course is to not erode the private wealth, and merely tax consumption. So long as the rich folks don’t actually use their money, they never get taxed; but the minute they spend it, we hit them with the consumption (i.e., “sales”) tax. Would that not eliminate your concern?

By freedomadmin

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

President Ford: yet another Repub to turn his back on GW Bush.

W: Still the WORST!

http://freedom-forum.blogspot.com/

By RW-(the original)

December 28, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

Debbie,

If you googled those words left you by “Face It” and saw a picture of Clinton, you’re obviously spelling something wrong. Try just pasting the words into google.

time for the truth,

Frankly I find your constant race baiting disgusting. You may take it as some bizarre form of victory that you goaded Debbie, but to the rest of us you’re the one that looks like the bigoted fool.

I also can’t for the life of me figure out why Jim Wooten would censor out Debbie and leave your disgusting filth for all the world to see.

Jim Wooten,

I’ve defended you many times at my blogs against the charge that you intentionally allow race baiting here on your blog. It’s awfully hard to make that defense when you censor one poster that got out of hand and a few other single comments including your own, but leave other posts that are equally bad or even worse.

Dio,

See if they have a Civics book in your library. If so look up the independent branches of government and see how Congress fits into the Bush administration.

By Markus

December 28, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

JK-

I have already given you examples of how Marx and liberalism have dead-on parallels. Besides, liberals think we are still living in the 1960s and before, so why should I not join them staying stuck back in time?

“I mean, if you think a rich man shouldn’t pay taxes on $5 or $10 million he receives”

{sigh}… typical baby out with bathwater mentality of the left. I never said the rich shouldn’t pay taxes. I just don’t think they should pay exponentially MORE taxes just because they are rich.

“neither man worked for the big wad, but the rich man most likely had a lifetime of better schooling, opportunities, vacations, summer camps, and sweet hauls from Santa’s sleigh.”

{sigh again}… I can’t help it if you liberals are envious of those who have what others do not. Then again, I never hear you liberals mention the “rich” as people like John Kerry Heinz and Holly-woodhead moonbats.

That said, I don’t see any corrolation in your comment about a rich man inheriting money and a poor man winning the lottery because both didn’t “earn” it. It is none of my business, your business, and especially the government’s business how that money was obtained. But, that’s what you liberals love to do: get into other people’s private lives only when it involves money to be had (or more specifically, confiscated).

It is interesting that you brought up a poor man winning the lottery though: poor people and lower classes spend an exponentially larger portions of their money (our money) on lotteries than everyone else. Yet, I never hear any liberals complain about that. I wonder why? I’m out for now.

By ICEMAN

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

Jeff,

Go suck on a lemon. You sound like a bleeding whiner which is why this blog is in the shape its in.

By ICEMAN

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

DebbieDoNothing,

Hooray! You’ve finally learned to speak english! Stop using dollar amounts to justify being an illiterate Ghetto monster and have some respect for yourself!!

By ICEMAN

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

RW-(the original),

You forgot to mention that your feet hurts, your breath smells, and yo mama. Get a life and stop the whine game.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

December 28, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

There’s pretty much nothing that can be done with regards to your comments.

But to answer your qestion, it was Newt who brought “The Art of War” to Washington and unleashed it upon America.

A main tenet of that tome says that in debating your opponent, you lend him/her credibility. So do not debate. Attack, attack, attack.

That’s why we’re where we’re at. And the fact that there is no need for credibilty here per it being anonamous.

By JK

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

Markus, you broke a lot of wind with your reply, but did not answer the question coherently. Are you saying that (a) neither the janitor who wins $10 mil nor the slacker who inherits $10 mil should pay taxes on that money (b) the janitor and the slacker should be taxed on their good luck at the same rate, or (c) as proponets of “eliminating the death tax” want, the slacker shouldn’t pay on his windfall, but the janitor should?

Sorry, it’s off topic, but I’m just curious.

By JK

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

jbmlaw, your statement, “Only Marx thought taxing wealth was a rational idea” proves for me, beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, that you are brain damaged. Your statement supposes that you know the minds of every thinking person who ever stated an opinion on taxation. You may claim to have read every economic theory in existence, but I rather doubt it. I might as well say, “Only my cousin Steve likes nuts in his sweet potato pie” or “Only a veterinarian thinks neutering dogs is a good idea.”

What can I say, Dude? The porch light is barely flickering. Isn’t it almost time for Judge Judy? She’s waiting for you to argue the next case….

By MELO

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

Ford did the right thing to Nixon - a broken mentally ill drunkard whom the country didn’t need to drag down any further AND a criminal!

But Ford was a class act, i agree.

We have another criminal in our midst.

By ICEMAN

December 28, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

To all leftists morons,

You should be glad that the great Jim Wooten provides you imbociles with an avenue to spew your venom. I think all of you owe him an apology for saturating his blog with mindless whining.

By WTFBBQ

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

Here comes the troll again..

DDR

Vaseline or Crude with that a*******rape of a lie you’re trying to peddle in this blog?

Translated it to Portuguese? Amazing how that translation is SO literal it matches Babelfish’s automatic English to Portuguese translation exactly!

Babelfish translation: Eu não tiver nenhum uso para $40.00 palavras quando trabalhos $1.00 de uma palavra apenas também. Eu suponho-o preços inflados dos republicanos amor justo, sobre a despesa, esgotando excessos no tempo record - e muitos se usando geralmente justos do ar pontificating (está aqui uma palavra $40 para você), em seus prowess e superiority. intelectual “suposto” (algum mais $40 palavras - ponho simplesmente, você povoa está cheio do ar quente e das mentiras).

Do you even know where the ã is on your keyboard? What about the ç é ê or á?

Considering the abhorrent use of the ENGLISH language you showed yesterday, please don’t insult the community’s intelligence by pretending to know Portuguese.

You are a pretender, its just that simple.

You were whupped yesterday using $0.50 words, and it can be done again. It won’t even take a million monkeys ona million typewriters. Just one will do.

(BTW, private school = foster care and GED classes in Juvenile Lockup)

By DebbieDoRight

December 28, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

“You’re putting words in my mouth, just the way you put artificial facts in your head.” —David Letterman to Bill O’Reilly

This ^^ was too good to pass up!

By Rod

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

Hey Markus - your 11:59 post sounded identical to some drivel that time for the truth would say. Looks like you screwed up and typed in the wrong name!!!

Fact - Markus and time for the truth are indeed the same person, using two identities to emphasize their/his/her point!

By time for the truth

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

@ RW the moronic aboriginal

your pathetic comments as ever are highly amusing and highly selective.

whilst your patronising bollocks is of NO consequence to me at all it is worth making a few wider points.

the likes of crackpipe - whom incidentally I dubbed crackpipe months ago (long before it revealed its supposed ethnicity) - get what they deserve/hand out.

the fact that some on here take this to the extremes personally is their problem, not mine.

there is a huge racial hypocrisy perpertrated by blacks/liberals/the media and others (like you perhaps?) in this country. in good part based on the actually racist leftist dogma of “anti-racism”.

niggling those that subscribe to that hypocrisy on this blog or who get uppity at legitimate FACT BASED criticism (for me) is simply entertainment, albeit pointed entertainment.

All I do is wittily and trenchantly highlight corrupt/thuggish/racist etc acts by blacks, mexican types and others - in good part as a “foil” to the seemingly unremitting brutish bigotry perpetrated by a number of folks on here against white southerners and GOP supporters.

If you don’t like what I post f* off and don’t read it!! It’s really that simple.

I don’t tell you or anyone else what to post on here, I naturally reserve the right to challenge anyone - just like you did to me.

I posted NOTHING but actual facts about the Duke lynching yesterday!!

Mature folks need to learn how to banter with style and panache - and not take it personally. Obviously some degree of caustic comments and abuse makes the banter that bit more entertaining. Some folks (no names in this response) are pathetically p!ss poor at it and thus resort to whining little sneers at those that are more capable!!

still LMFAO at ya!!

By time for the truth

December 28, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

Hey Jeff, to your 12:16 post: kiss my freakin rightous @ss!

By MELO

December 28, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

Bush has a bought masters from an Ivy League school-Time for truth

I know thats right!!!! Its a pattern, remember his service in the guard is on paper, money changed hands again.WOW..nice admission.

By time for the truth

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

We have another criminal in our midst

two actually if you count Sick Willie and HiTllary seperately.

By Lefty Leftist

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

to dumba$$ ICEMAN…

Wooten should be glad that the AJC provides him with a server so he can post his blog, and get paid for it.

If anything he should be thanking us leftists for making his blog worth reading…

By time for the truth

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

jeff

the cowardly id stealer is still at it … you have your say … I’ll have mine… if its made personal I’ll get personal (just for the lafffs of course)… nuff said.

you know you have the (leftist) scum on the run when they compulsively steal your id!!

BTW dumbarse righteous is spelt with an ‘e’.

By MELO

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

Debbie, on behalf of our public school system, I apologize that you have been left behind. Face It…..

No, our public school system has been left behind..maybe with you Face It, tending to it. We are near last, dont u know.

By time for the truth

December 28, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

should have perhaps read

Immature folks need to …

By jbmlaw

December 28, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

Dear JaCP @ 12:39, surely you do not blame Newt for “Borking” anyone?

Dear JK @ 12:55, I suppose you are hyper-technically right, Fred Engels probably thought taxing wealth was a good idea too. On the substance of that which I wrote, however, where do you stand? How about just taxing the stinkingly rich people only when they actually use their money to buy something?

By Face It

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

Oh Debbie, I should have surmized that you weren’t soley black but in fact a mut of mixed decent.

Have I ever the need to proposition a Portugese hooker I shall call you for your translation services.

And to your dedication to the fine art of embicility on this blog, I humbly extend you “mad props”.

By Your mama

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

Hey dumbarse time for the truth - it’s “spelled”, not “spelt”.

What an idiotic, pathetic, maggot whore.

snicker.

By Real Private Schooler

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

**Face it: on behalf of your Reading Comprehension Teacher, I apologize for your not understanding simple english. is english not your first language?

PS: i went to private school. **

Debbie, I hope you didn’t go to the same private school that I went to. We were taught to use “you” and not “u”.. We were also taught to cap the first word in a sentence (instead of Reading Comprehension Teacher). Your “private school” was most likely a public school with a security guard. Typical liberal.

By time for the truth

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

MELON head

How the hell do you “purchase” a masters degree?? Its this kind of deranged obsessive Bush hate that I so enjoy slapping down.

Oxbridge MA’s can actually be purchased - after one year although supposedly this practice is to be stopped. But NO other UK univeristy does this. My Masters degree comes from one of the better redbricks in England and I bloody well earned it!! Numerous extended essays and a 20,000 word dissertation.

By MELO

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

You should be glad that the great Jim Wooten provides you imbociles ICEMAN, are these imbociles recent arrivals on earth due to global warming?

By Diogenes

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

RW (the hapless monster)at 1225:

Typical demagoguery: divert the subject, twist the words, throw out red herrings. Bah! Demagoguery, RW, pure demagoguery!

Do you even have the slightest notion how to present a proposition and supporting statements? Obviously no one taught debate at that fantasyland school you attended.

I think a strong case could be made that Jim is provoking race baiting in yesterday’s editorial and in his editorial for December 18. I’ve ceased to expect any journalistic integrity from Jim.

By RW-(the original)

December 28, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

TfTT,

I didn’t tell you what to post dumba$$, I told what you looked like to people reading. Call it a helpful hint. Maybe if you would put down the meth you would have a chance to read before you react.

The fact that you link your drivel is witty is, well…witty.

By time for the truth

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

How quaint - snivelling moron rod’s paranoia just goes on giving and giving and giving …

Happily BUSH HAS TWO MORE GLORIOUS YEARS bubbaturd.

signed

time for the truth markus rw the moronic aboriginal crackpipe Van Realist rednekkks NAMBLA Jeff Face It BBQ unhinged foreskin … et al

By DebbieDoRight

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

If anything he should be thanking us leftists for making his blog worth reading

If not for the “correct thinking folks from the left and center” this blog would be nothing more than a Dumbya love fest and holy ghost revival.

With the true conservative christian Newt Gingrich leading the chorus of “Blessed Assurance”. (while divorcing yet another wife).

By DebbieDoRight

December 28, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

Private Schooler: I went to private school in the 80’s where we had computers in the classroom. Not the 20’s where you had chalk boards to write on. u undrstd wht im saying 2 u? f nt its k! (that’s internet shorthand — i noticed a LOT of old people don’t understand it)

By RW-(the original)

December 28, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

link=think in my 1:31, maybe I need to put down the meth too.

Dio,

Why is it that every time I see a comment from you addressed to me I think I’ve stumbled into the archives? Are you really just a poorly programmed spambot? See if you can get your owner to feed you a few new scripts.

By time for the truth

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

What an idiotic, pathetic, maggot whore.

Yawn … I see the cowardly id stealer is ANONYMOUSLY venting about its family again!!

Spelt is a past particple dickweed … perfectly acceptable. Please use the inferior Websters as a suppository!!

By Rod

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

Hey tftt - you keep saying that Bush has two more glorious years. You haven’t said when the first glorious years were?

Certainly not the past six years of criminal misconduct, sending our troops to die for no reason, destroying the economy, associating himself with child molesters, and picking his @ss?

By DebbieDoRight

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

Oh Debbie, I should have surmized that you weren’t soley black but in fact a mut of mixed decent.

i consider myself black AND proud.

Have I ever the need to proposition a Portugese hooker I shall call you for your translation services

you’d probably need it to — i heard Jeffrey Dahlmer has nothing on you for creepiness and perversion.

And to your dedication to the fine art of embicility on this blog, I humbly extend you “mad props”

imbecile is spelled with an “i” not an “e”. imbecile.

By time for the truth

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

RW the moronic aboriginal

like I said - both explicitly and implicitly - I could care less what “it might look like”. and your perception would probably be a little more realistic if you actually climbed off that blow up billypecker doll before you post.

niggling arrogant patronising wankpigs like you is about half of what blogs like this are all about!!

toodle pip!

By Political Foreskin

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

They Johnson tapes prove that Bush stole every word of the criteria from which he chose to stay the course because it is a word for word hack from Johnson’s own taped language to Martin Luther King about the local front on a larger war against communism upon which victory depends on america keepin’ it word to stand fast when the shootin’ starts.

If there is a larger war against Islamists or Islamics, (which ever is the bad guys, I forgot), then invading Iraq as our opening diplomatic gambit makes us Capitalists or Capitalics, which ever is the bad guys, I forgot.

STAND DOWN PRESIDENT BUSH

We cant just leave, and we shouldn’t just leave, (Edwards has lost his bid for the presidency with the first things out of his mouth), and we cant surge and then just leave either. We can only stay and escalate the violence or stay and just be collateral damage.

This is a puzzle with no correct solution. It’s what Captain Kirk was confronted with at the academy’s graduation test: A no win scenario. Kirk cheated in devising his solution. Who knows how?

By DebbieDoRight

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

oh and by the way, i know you’re not “Face It”. Face It is female and has class (probably Dusty or Danish), you are probably that sad little man who has nothing and no one. you remind me of that Beatles Song, “Nowhere Man”.

He’s a real Nowhere Man sitting in his Nowhere Land…..

By Jeff

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

OK, since most of the “decent” folk left and most of y’all don’t know me:

My politics are slightly different than Mr. Wooten’s, but the differences are, in most cases, so slight that I would have to post here a LOT more for anyone to pick up on them.

While I may appear “liberal” to some, it is only because I too am growing weary of the Republican party as it currently exists. While I’m not ready to go Libertarian quite yet, I must admit that their ideas are sounding more and more like where I stand. Make no mistake though, it would be VERY hard for me to vote for a Democrat. Cathy Cox was the only one that comes to mind of late that stood a chance, and I sincerely hope she runs for Governor again in 2010. (I said it to one of the AJC reporters for an election article dealing with the “teacher view” and I’ll say it again: Had the Dems put up Cathy Cox instead of Mark Taylor, it is quite possible that they could have won my vote. But by putting up Taylor - whom I consider the SECOND worst politician in GA, Roy Barnes being the worst - they effectively gave my vote to Perdue with little input from me.

Now, you want to talk issues, let’s talk issues. I stand FOR TRUE Tolerance and TRUE Diversity. Tolerance and Diversity such that ALL are respected and celebrated, not just those that are deemed “PC”. In other words, when you celebrate “tolerance” don’t only tolerate Gay Pride, but also Straight is Great! Don’t celebrate “diversity” by having a set number of minorities at our Universities. Celebrate it by ensuring the same standards for ALL races AND IDEAS.

I am FOR ideological diversity. A true “open market place of ideas” where NONE are inferior and ALL have to compete on an even playing field for the hearts and minds of the individuals.

I am Pro-Choice but Anti-Murder. I do not believe that the taking of an innocent life is an option, but I do believe that there ARE options. Abstaining from sex and adoption are two major examples, but there are others.

I am ANTI-Gun control as far as semi-autos or single shot weapons go, but I DO believe that weapons such as assualt rifles, cannons, and explosives need to be controlled. In that vein, I am FOR research into defensive-only type weaponry, such as guns that fire adhesives and other restraining devices, tasers, and “sound barriers” such as seen on an episode of Future Weapons.

I am FOR a STRONG National Defense. But I believe it should be just that.. a National DEFENSE. We have no business being anywhere outside our borders except to exclusively guard our interests abroad, and by that I mean specific locations, such as oil pipelines, American-owned businesses in foreign lands, and consulates. We should have a perimeter fence along both Northern and Southern borders, and we should have armed fighters ready to fly at any moment from any major airport on our soil.

I believe that the current definition of “separation of church and state” goes FAR beyond what even Thomas Jefferson would have wanted, and I KNOW that said phrase is NOT a Constitutional issue, as it NEVER appears in the Constitution.

I am FOR the privacy of the American Citizen, and ONLY American Citizens. Anyone else on our soil should EXPECT to have their every move monitored. American Citizens, however, shoudl never have their privacy invaded in any way with the exception of saving a life AT THE MOMENT THE INVASION OCCURS. (IE, no “monitoring of suspicious activity”.)

I am ANTI-drug legalization. I have seen first had what drugs do to lives, and I believe that ALL dealers, no matter if they’ve sold one ounce or are the kingpin of a major drug syndicate, should be tried by a jury and shot on national televisiont the second the jury returns a “guilty” verdict. If said dealer was caught on tape dealing, no jury should be needed.

I am ANTI-No Child Left Behind or any other measure that places the responsibility for student achievement anywhere than on the STUDENTS THEMSELVES. I believe that the National Government has NO BUSINESS in education, and that even the State Government’s interest in education is to provide standards to be taught and optional resources to use to teach them.

OK, get the idea? I tied to hit a lot of major issues, but from this you should be able to get a DECENT picture of where I stand on others..

NOW, how about we debate ISSUES and not people?

By Richard

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

ATTENTION EVERYONE - IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT

Look at Markus’s 11:59 post. You’ll see it is written exactly like time for the truth writes his comments.

Fact - Markus and time for the truth are indeed the same person, using two identities to emphasize their/his/her point!

Busted his sorry cum-filled @ss.

By Face It

December 28, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

Bravo Debbie. The misspelling of imbicility was done in your honor.

Consider it a salute to your horrendous and elementary use of the english language and rules of grammar.

I shall think of you each time I encounter another rude Shaniqua or LaShounda at the bank or post office. Proud indeed.

By time for the truth

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

The GOP in GA is again taking the high moral ground.

Some excellent news to cheer us all up.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2006/12/28/1228metmckinney_web.html

By Morph Deely

December 28, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

Ford should be remembered as a caretaker president whose claim to fame was paving the way for Carter to make things so God-awfully bad that Reagan was able to win in 1980 and change the course of history. Pardoning Nixon pales in comparison.

By Barbara

December 28, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

Hi Jeff, it’s Barbara. I rarely even look at this blog anymore, but couldn’t resist saying “hi” to you. You’re right about this blog. Back in the summer it was so much fun and most everyone, both liberal and conservative could carry on a decent conversation and we actually talked through the issues. Then a few others came on board (many referencing the ML blog, so I assume they came from there), and now the blog has just turned into a bunch of name calling. It’s not fun anymore, so most days I don’t even bother looking.

While I’m here, I’ll say “Hello” to all my liberal and conservative friends! You know which ones of you I miss!

By time for the truth

December 28, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

I see the wonderfully plebian STUPID DICK is hilariously (and belatedly) drinking the same paranoid koolaid as snivelling moron rod.

Markus is a politically sound (somewhat religious at least) American conservative … I am a politically sound diehard Euroskeptic agnostic/secular English Tory … nuff said!!

Markus also enjoys sports that I dont have any interest in (and vice versa no doubt).

BUT WE BOTH HEARTILY DESPISE PINKO SCUM!!

By JK

December 28, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw, On the substance of that which I wrote, however, where do you stand?

Unlike you, I don’t claim to know everything; that would be silly. With regard to ecomonics, I am trying to learn and understand before taking a “stand.” Before we can have meaningful answers, we must ask the pertinent questions — hence my frequent use of questions. The tax debate rages continually, and will pick up again soon when the new congress goes to work. As such, I have a few questions in addition to my janitor vs. rich slacker windfall question, as yet unanswered. (1) Why is the nation operating under an escalating deficit instead of raising taxes? (2) Why were tax cuts given to the wealthy in a time of war and escalating deficits? (3) Why is it okay for the government to borrow trillions from China, but I am to be bent over and paddled soundly if I’m one day late on my CitiCard payment? (4) Why do lower middle class “conservatives” squawk about “death tax” when it will only affect them if they inherit more than $2 mil, and does not affect gifts from daddy while he’s still alive? (5) How do tax breaks for children of the wealthy encourage them to utilize their superior advantages and actually WORK or contribute? (6) How can we bring our government to a state of greater fiscal responsibility and reduce our debt WHILE BEING FAIR to the people who do the actual working, paying, living, and dying in this country?

By Redneck Convert

December 28, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

Well, I’m downright sorry to learn TFTT and Markus is the same person. We was going to invite Markus up to Billy Bob’s to be a Ornery Redneck and have a free PBR on us. But if TFTT throwed it in our face I guess Markus would too since they are the same person. I don’t know how TFTT/Markus and whoever else he is has time to work, what with all the comments he makes.

Wooten, tell this Jeff guy I only get 30 minutes for lunch and don’t have time to read any books he posts on this blog. Anyway, I wish he would explain his explanation of where he stands.

Have a good day, all, and keep drinking plenty of beer, as some of you do, judging from your posts. It keeps me in a job. This beer truck driving is great. I don’t know how I made it hanging sheetrock.

By Socket

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

Debbie, do write properly please?

By ICEMAN

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

time for the truth,

I once heard that leftwing minded people were actually molested as children, that’s why they think the way they do.. Can’t remenber where I read it, but it is certainly a theory to look into.

By ICEMAN

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

Richard,

You are the undisputed king of the cerebrum challenged. time for the truth’s comments are much more eloquent than that.

Have you taken your medication today?

By time for the truth

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

I once heard that leftwing minded people were actually molested as children, that’s why they think the way they do

that sure does neatly explain rednekkk NAMBLA’s constant obsession with this unsavoury topic.

By Buy Danish

December 28, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

By Face It December 28, 2006 01:24 PM

Oh Debbie, I should have surmized that you weren’t soley black but in fact a mut of mixed decent.

Have I ever the need to proposition a Portugese hooker I shall call you for your translation services.

And to your dedication to the fine art of embicility on this blog, I humbly extend you “mad props”.

Face it and others,

While DDA often expresses herself crudely in the English language and does use that annoying internet spelling, it is pretty funny to see you all criticize her and make go on to make numerous errors of your own - of which “embicile” was just one of many:

We speak “English” with a capital “E”, not “english”. It is “surmised” not “surmized”, “solely” not “soley”, “mutt” not “mut”, “descent” not “decent”, and finally, “Portuguese” not “Portugese”.

By Lefty Leftist

December 28, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Hey Jeff,

Dove SOAP called, they want their BOX back..

By ICEMAN

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

Redneck convert,

You are either a black person or some deranged liberal white person that wants to stereotype southern whites. Either way you need to stay off of the crack cocaine.

By Ralph

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

Sonny and all the GOP are complete idiots. So the GOP floor leader wants to strip I-285 of its name of Billy McKinley. What a waste of a legislative bill. Who Freakin cares! Do something worthwhile, like raise min. wage, keep jobs in Georgia, etc. provide health care for all citizens.

I don’t care what Jim Wooten thinks, ALL Conservatives are idiots.

Expect Georgia to be the laughingstock of the nation. Maybe the Feds will get ol’ Sonny “tax break” Perdue on his land dealings. At least common sense is back in the US House/Senate with the Democratic control.

The GOP accomplished nothing worthwhile last year in Georgia, and they will do the same.

By Diogenes

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

RW (the hopeful monster) at 139:

Another example of your inability to argue a proposition. Another example of your effort to distract and dissemble. Bah! Demagoguery, RW, demagoguery!

Try something new, RW, although I doubt that there’s anything else in your pitiful repertoire. At least, in your avatar, Clown Danish, you’re funny.

By Realist

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

Sally Fields couldnt even pull off two vastly different personas such as Markus and TFTT.

Complete hogwash. Ridiculous.

By Rev Haggard

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

Wow I guess thats why the election turned out the way it did.

The Catholic church is responsible for creating a whole generation of leftwingers.

That makes me sick iceman.

By Lily Toad

December 28, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

Debbie, I wish you would refrain from making ageist insults. Us ‘old’ people aren’t into instant messaging, so please don’t dis us just because we’re not into internet shorthand.

I agree with Barbara about the insults — can’t we just discuss issues without insulting one’s opponent’s penis size?

By Jeff

December 28, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

Redneck:

Sorry! Short version:

I’m basically a free thinker in the vein of a blended Republican/ Libertarian. As I’ve said quite often over on Get Schooled, I am just liberal enough for conservatives to hate me, just conservative enough for liberals to hate me, and just unorthodox enough that I generally get results anyway (assuming I can survive the political firestorms that I cause and that I am allowed to operate how I operate and noone else’s methods are forced down my throat.)

By Buy Danish

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

Re my 2:26 - That should have said “and then go on…”

By Diogenes

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

Jeff at 156;

Welcome aboard, Jeff. That’s an interesting summation of political positions you’ve given. I hope you’ll be allowed by the blog harpies to debate issues. Sometimes, a person is an issue, but I think you’ll agree with that. I am a moderate, which means that the Republicans currently have nothing to offer me; Madame Speaker’s agenda for the first 100 hours sounds good, but I’m concerned that she lacks the leadership skills which the blues need to prevent the red tide from overwhelming them in 2008. I hope we will have ample opportunities to exchange ideas.

By Face It

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

Bravo Danish!!

Debbie caught only one of my intentional mistakes. You sir caught all of them. Excellent!!

I’m truly shocked she missed so many obvious opportunites to correct me, with her private school edumacation and all. Bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!

By ICEMAN

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

Lefty Leftist,

Is it true that all of you left thinking people were molested as children? I seriously want to know.

By Buy Danish

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

TforTT,

I’m catching up on some posts and my jaw is dropping.

Can you give us an example of where your own comments have “style and panache”?

Stylistically speaking, your comments sound more like the utterances of a punk in a street brawl than anything else - even on those occasions when your opinions are worthwhile and supported by facts.

By Ralph

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

Not that its any of you people’s business, but yes I am gay.

By john

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

How can you pardon someone who didn’t have charges filed? The assertions were there but nothing formally was ever posed to or from Congress on Watergate about Presidential involvment. I think the pardon was to say “Thank you” for nominating Ford to the vice presidency which got him to be #38. The hand in Washington is pretty slippery. Remember, Ford wasn’t elected president and lost election to be president. He got the position by default.

By ICEMAN

December 28, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

Face it,

Buy Danish is a woman.

By Buy Danish

December 28, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

Face It,

So how long do you intend to play this spelling error game?

An opportunite was lost and only made you appear foolish and unedumacated yourself, although I have to admit that you beat out TforTT in “style” points.

By M. Hames

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

Celebrate an appointed president who pardoned a criminal 30 years passed while the police are killing us indescrimantly, our rights are under attack, our homes are being taken for the priveledged, our leaders are being descicrated like Cynthia and Billy. Celebrate while our footballs players are blamed for the judegement of poor coaches. Celebrate while watermains conveinetly break. Celebrate. Celebrate.

By time for the truth

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

URGENT PLEA FOR HELP FOLKS

We have recently bought a nice little black beetch … she’s about 4 months old now and weighs about 35 lbs. She’s a huge thief and keeps nicking socks and shoes and bathroom towels and rawhide chews and etc … as most pups do at her (teething) age.

I was wondering what would be the best name for the little beetch …

crackpipe is a good name, so is debbiedumbarse, oprah might work, or even hiTllary or shrillary. then there’s madonna, streisand, latoyah, botoxpelosi … what does one call a young beetch?

By Barbara

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

Lily Toad, unfortunately the answer is NO on the question of holding a decent conversation here…….. But I’m glad to see some still want to do that.

BTW Jim Wooten, I know you remove offensive comments that are over the top. Please take a look at the last sentence of Richard @1:58. Eeeewwwww! That one needs to go……..

By MELO

December 28, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

But NO other UK univeristy does this. Time for the Truth.

After numerous essays at the imaginary university, you cannot spell properly!! Another bought degree? Birds of a feather with Bush, i can tell.

Ever heard of spell check?

By time for the truth

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

Butch Danish

well try this comment you patronising dried up skanky moo cow …

or how’s about …

I love it when simpering caterwauling snotty supercilious trollops venture beyond their smug little cooking and cleaning domains when hubby is out looking for something vastly better and decidedly less of a despicable nagging machine.

That had style and panache and even a wee bit of “bite”.

By MELO

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

Jeff, this blog is not about you. Why introducing urself to us, run for office if u like attention like that. Do u know what everybody here stands for. Oh now we have to post a profile before u blog.

Who are u, self centered woman?

By Lily Toad

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

Jeff, congratulations on being an original thinker and seeing nuances — for example your opinions about gun control. Unlike so many who get their talking points from commentators, you are looking at issues and seeing shades of gray.

By Diogenes

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

You claim to be a “free thinker in the vein of a blended Republican/ Libertarian.”

That’s not much of a free thinker;in fact, that’s pretty tightly bound. “Free thinker,” of course, meant anti-catholic (or anti-religious), then came to mean bohemian (or at least, very liberal) in American parlance — free sex, free drugs, anarchy — all of that from the 30’s and 40’s.

By Jeff

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

Diogenes:

I STILL wonder if your name came from the “Book of the Dead” trilogy by Preston and Child. (Look em up and read it… you’ll understand why I am a) naturally curious and b) slightly frightened.)

Pelosi frightens me. DEEPLY. She is so partisan that she will destroy our country just to benefit her party, and I believe she is already in the process of attempting to do just that. (Not that there aren’t some Republicans of the same vein.)

As far as people being the issue: To an extent, I can agree. HOWEVER, most politicians (particularly incumbents, by the very definition of “incumbent”) have a voting history that can be examined. Questioning them on said voting record is perfectly fine, and so is voting or not voting for the person based on their voting record. What is NOT cool are the personal attacks. IE some republicans chastising Vice President Cheney for having a lesbian daughter, or even the attacks on Mark Taylor via his son’s drunk driving issues.

I still favor true statesmen over politicians any day of the week. Those men who could argue VEHEMENTLY against each other in House Chambers, but still be friends - even close friends - upon exiting the Chamber doors.

Who knows, maybe I should run for office myself. Oh wait… no money! :(

By Face It

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

I don’t know Buy Danish. I thought after your stuttering hack job of grammar back there of make go on to make that you wanted to keep it going. No? Suit yourself, I’m easy.

But as a matter of record, I think my point was made quite well regarding black queen-corn chip nail tip Debbie.

By time for the truth

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

Butch Danish is one of those sorry inadequate, extremely fat low self esteem self absorbed Oprah junkies whose life is very nearly fulfilled by being anally and witlessly pedantic.

style and panache … and “bite”

By Jeff

December 28, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

MELO:

I do apologize for coming off as self-centered. I was simply re-introducing myself from the summer, and the issues that I stated would be “old knowledge” for the people that knew me then. I simply felt that with all the new blood, people might want (need?) an idea of where I stand, so that when they DO try to insult me, at least they can get it decently correct.

Barbara: Nice to see you again. Hope your past 6 months or so have been MUCH better than my own.

Diogenes/ Lily Toad: Points taken. I should have said “original” thinker as opposed to free thinker. I was simply denoting that I do not simply follow party lines or what any one group says, and I think both of you already caught on to that.

By Lily Toad

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

Have to admit I agree with Wooten on this one. At the time I didn’t approve of the pardon, but now I realize it did help us to move past it. Nixon having to resign was the worst punishment imaginable.

As much as I think Bush has committed impeachable crimes I don’t think the Democratic majority should pursue impeachment. The last Congress was so inactive except for pet pork projects that we need the Dems to make progress on real issues, not tie up time on impeachment.

By time for the truth

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

MELON head

you really need to actually (intellectually) evolve to the point where you can discern the difference between a genuine tyop (smirk) and the systematic use of sullen moronic ebonics proffered by the likes of crackpipe.

Ask Butch Danish for a lend of her now worn out copy of how to be a Patronising Cyber Witch for Dummies … or was it Idiots …?

N.B. the use of “lend” was deliberately sardonic, not just boorishly ungrammatical.

By DebbieDoRight

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

Debbie, I wish you would refrain from making ageist insults. Us ‘old’ people aren’t into instant messaging, so please don’t dis us just because we’re not into internet shorthand

Lily Toad: Sorry. Did not mean to offend YOU — I will refrain from using derogatory language as “you old people” and just say it to the person I am “speaking” with; who tries to degrade me. I will also refrain from using shorthand, (even though it saves LOTS of time).

If you see a “you old people” reference please do not infer that it was to you, it was aimed at the person shooting at me.

By Lily Toad

December 28, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

Gerald Ford and gay rights:

Ford joined the Republican Unity Coalition as a member of its advisory board in 2002. The coalition is a fund-raising organization dedicated to making homosexuality a “nonissue” for the Republican Party.

“I have always believed in an inclusive policy, in welcoming gays and others into the party,” Ford told The Detroit News in 2001. “I think the party has to have an umbrella philosophy if it expects to win elections.”

In 2003, Ford wrote to his friend and colleague Charles Francis, co-chairman of the Republican Unity Coalition, that he supported the Texas case before the U.S. Supreme Court that ultimately abolished anti-sodomy laws nationwide. Francis had asked Ford to sign a New York Times op-ed piece calling for the end to sodomy laws.

“Dear Charles,” Ford wrote, “… I deeply appreciate Senator Alan Simpson’s personal comments on the Supreme Court case and his public support. I fully concur with Al and you on ‘gay equality before the law.’ I sincerely hope that you prevail in the case of Lawrence v. Texas.”

By Blind Homer

December 28, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

Ford had a great career in public service, marred only by his Presidency, and possibly that nasty little see no, hear no, speak no evil turn he did on the Warren Coverup Commission. I agree with Wooten on the pardon. However, he didn’t resolve or even improve a single one of the many problems he faced. Carter beat him not only on the pardon, but the failed and rather simplistic WIN attempt.

By DebbieDoRight

December 28, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

He’s a real nowhere Man, Sitting in his Nowhere Land, Making all his nowhere plans for nobody.

Doesn’t have a point of view, Knows not where he’s going to

He’s as blind as he can be, Just sees what he wants to see

Doesn’t have a point of view, Knows not where he’s going to,

He’s a real Nowhere Man, Sitting in his Nowhere Land, Making all his nowhere plans for nobody.

By Diogenes

December 28, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

Jeff:

Your summation is significantly different from the positions taken by Jim Wooten. Jim borders on being an extremist and often goes over that border to become strident.

What in your view is a Libertarian? I’m having to learn a new political vocabulary with the so called “libertarians on this blog.” “Libertarian,” originally, meant “total freedom,” almost anarchist. The assumption was that man had the intellect to be self-governing and the good will to allow others to govern themselves. The assumption was also made that men, as a group, would be willing to act in the common good. The Libertarians in the past election barely distinguished themselves from the other rascals.

When jbmlaw defends himself as a Libertarian, you have to learn an esoteric vocabulary to have any idea at all what he’s talking about.

By Richard

December 28, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

Well, I hate to admit it, but ICEMAN, tftt and other right-wingers are right for once. Several leftists were molested as children.

They were molested by the Conservative Republicans - as if that would be a shock.

By MELO

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

Is it true that all of you left thinking people were molested as children? I seriously want to know?ICEMAN

It may be true for some leftists BUT the sad part is that the MOLESTERS are Republicans,like Mark Foley!!

By Buy Danish

December 28, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

Face It,

I corrected my error here -

By Buy Danish December 28, 2006 02:34 PM

Re my 2:26 - That should have said “and then go on…”

Now, are you finished with your racist comments about DDR, or is this part of your shtick and something you think we should admire, like PoFos bad jokes?

TfTT,

Suit yourself. It’s nothing short of miraculous how you’ve managed to make DDR look like a model of civility in comparison to you and your stone-cold bigotry.

By MELO

December 28, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

And as far as Cheney’s gay, leftist daughter is concerned, she was molested by the tag team of mother and Father. Guess who that is..hahaha.

By jbmlaw

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

Dear JK @ 2:13, I disagree with your self-assessment – you are fully competent to consider the reasonableness of any tax. You ask good and reasonable questions:

(1) Why is the nation operating under an escalating deficit instead of raising taxes? The cause of the deficit is excessive government spending. Raising taxes usually has no meaningful effect on the deficit, as Congressional spending always rises to new highs after each new tax.

(2) Why were tax cuts given to the wealthy in a time of war and escalating deficits? Three unrelated questions, three answers: the wealthy pay 90% plus of all taxes, so they are effectively the only people who can get any tax cut. Tax cuts almost always stimulate growth in tax revenues, as happened with the Kennedy tax cut in 1962, the Reagan tax cut in 1983+, and the Bush tax cuts in 2002. Wars happen on their own times, and are unrelated to taxes.

(3) Why is it okay for the government to borrow trillions from China, but I am to be bent over and paddled soundly if I’m one day late on my CitiCard payment? China is a stupider lender than CitiBank.

(4) Why do lower middle class “conservatives” squawk about “death tax” when it will only affect them if they inherit more than $2 mil, and does not affect gifts from daddy while he’s still alive? We squawk because of the fundamental injustice of taxes generally. Why do leftists want to re-tax that savings on which taxes were already paid, as income taxes?

(5) How do tax breaks for children of the wealthy encourage them to utilize their superior advantages and actually WORK or contribute? By teaching those children, early on, the evil intrusive actions of their government. Too bad all kids are not exposed to taxes earlier, but that is the advantage enjoyed by the wealthy.

(6) How can we bring our government to a state of greater fiscal responsibility and reduce our debt WHILE BEING FAIR to the people who do the actual working, paying, living, and dying in this country? Easy – abolish all nonmilitary spending, and all government jobs.

By WTFBBQ

December 28, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

Danish

While I appreciate some of the input provided by *DDR, I find that she tends to speak a lot with little content. And, when confronted, she cannot back up her arguments with any well formed logic.

Yesterday there was a disagreement surrounding the Duke Three. It was someone’s contention that the DA would not have been re-elected had it not been for race-baiting and pandering to the black vote.

DDR countered with census data, to whit I countered with a projected racial breakdown based on exit polls. While the data may or may not be skewed based on the respondents to the poll, the argument was this:

Nifong was re-elected based on a majority of the black vote. DDR called BS. I called BS on her BS.

Due to one semantical error (the fact that the definition of ‘majority’ is different from what I was contending - mind you she never bothered to correct my understanding of the English or mathematical definition of the word with an example, such as a link to the www.dictionary.com entry on the item) the disagreement fell into a yelling match. Soon, DDR’s responses became personal attacks with nothing to back her side of the discussion: what r u, stupid? where do you work, Burger King? I speak netspeak, want me to break it down for you because you’re too old? etc etc etc (these are paraphrases, mind you)

When presented with logical arguments, all she was able to reply with were personal attacks calling me stupid, and a complete refusal to attempt to comprehend my points of discussion. Stupidity, I believe, is partially marked in the inability to comprehend and respond in English - a skill she was demonstrably lacking in yesterday. When confronted with this, she grew noticeably more flabbergasted and unable to reply in an adult and cohesive fashion.

Suffice to say, it went downhill from there, eventually ending in a personal screeching match where her feelings were hurt.

I find her pomposity and pretense to be disheartening. She shows off as someone who thinks she is better than anyone she disagrees with, as if the mere fact that they do not believe her beliefs teleports her to a higher plane of moral correctness. When she is shown the error of her own attitudes she breaks down into a babbling buffoon, preferring to belittle her opponents and hold herself higher and mightier than others without bothering to consider an alternate point of view. She states that she is so intelligent, but in the process of belittling another user she pretends to be fluent in Portuguese, which she obviously is not. She is merely able to rapidly and easily locate resources on the web, for which I commend her! However when presented with a link to the evidence backing my statement she either refuses to view it or disregards its existence completely, preferring to hurl personal insults over meaningful discourse. Seems like something a blithering, rabid Jihadist would do.

As such, defend her statements which are relevant to the subject of the blog if you must, but please do not stand up for her decision to abuse the English language, and her refusal to participate in a legitimate discussion.

(*DISCLAIMER: While my spelling and/or grammar may not be perfect, please note that I capitalize properly, can form compound-complex sentences, and can carry a train of thought. My bane of contention with DDR is her blatant refusal to bother with the mores of discussion in English. If I had wanted to argue in netspeak, I would have texted her from my skekulah fone.)

By Middle America

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

I agree with Wooten. Ford did the right thing. Too bad there are few politicians left like him or the whole Clinton-Lewinsky thing could have been dropped and perhaps the nation’s business could have been better attended to during that period, possibly even the rise of global terrorism.

By WTFBBQ

December 28, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

By DebbieDoRight

December 28, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

He’s a real nowhere Man, Sitting in his Nowhere Land, Making all his nowhere plans for nobody.

Doesn’t have a point of view, Knows not where he’s going to

He’s as blind as he can be, Just sees what he wants to see

Doesn’t have a point of view, Knows not where he’s going to,

As my name says, What The F@#K BBQ?!?! Fluff comments…

Original thoughts desired.. Regurgitation of irrelevant song lyrics discouraged…

By Diogenes

December 28, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw:

Your comment: How can we bring our government to a state of greater fiscal responsibility and reduce our debt WHILE BEING FAIR to the people who do the actual working, paying, living, and dying in this country? Easy – abolish all nonmilitary spending, and all government jobs.”

Then you see the role of government solely as defensive? What about local governments? Please elucidate the role of government in your visionary world, starting with county or municipal government.

By DebbieDoRight

December 28, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

As much as I think Bush has committed impeachable crimes I don’t think the Democratic majority should pursue impeachment. The last Congress was so inactive except for pet pork projects that we need the Dems to make progress on real issues, not tie up time on impeachment

I fully believe that it would be suicide for the Democrats to impeach Bush. It would only make him a martyr for the Right, it would cost millions, (remember the Clinton/Lewinsky mess?), and drag on for months; we could not sustain a full impeachment process, two wars, massive deficits, and a country divided down the middle by politics. Right now, I believe, this country needs to heal itself, kiss and make up and get down to the business of taking care of all our problems NOW, and not put it off until whenever.

You are correct in saying that right now we need to concentrate on the real issues that are dividing our country and that are facing our country. We need to secure our borders, fight terrorism on the homefront, tie up, (finish with), Afghanistan and Iraq and see about a balanced budget.

By Jeff

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

Diogenes:

As I understand it, the current “Libertarian” is not one of the near-anarchy types, but rather the Republicans that have “stayed the course” with their beliefs and have not let the past 12 years or so ruin them. The current “Republican” meanwhile, it little different from the “Democrat” of 12 years ago, only the “morals” are different. Particularly 04, but maybe as early as 94, Republicans have not won by having a better plan. They have won because they had A plan and because they scream about their morals. Me? I long for the days when BOTH sides had a plan and kept arguments to the issues of said plan. In other words, good, old fashioned “platforms and planks”.

By Dusty

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

Hmmm,

Jeff sounds a lot like Paul, few times blogger over at mls who liked a fine controversy with discussion. Whatever.

Welcome, Jeff, a new voice with sensibilities is always needed. (I hope you are MORE Republican than Libertarian.)

By Buy Danish

December 28, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

WTFBBQ,

*December 27, 2006 02:51 PM *

TFTT I leave the blackwhore debbie to you. I don’t know how you put up with its innane bull$hit, its gotta be a troll.. Quoting that she is younger than I.. Perhaps true, perhaps not. Last I checked, in another blog, she was a 24yo BBBF who runs her own buffet and is at a loss for eating herself out of business. But, alas, she might be able to make a profit if she had gone to college, and could type with more than one hand while smoking rock or stuffing her face with the other. Netspeak is useful for only the illiterate, uneducated, lazy, or masturbators among us.

That was you, right?

Believe me, I have had my run-ins with DDR (or affectionately “DDA” to some of us) and disagree with 99% of what she says. However, if you are respectful and present cogent arguments she actually gets it from time to time. That does not mean that you can’t have fun with her and have to speak like a school marm.

Calling her a “black whore” is a pathetic way to try and win a debate and makes you an automatic loser.

By Diogenes

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

Jeff,

Take a look at jbmlaw’s 3:33. He, too, claims to be a libertarian. Look, especially, at his #6. You’re trying to define your position relevant to current political ideologies, and he is trying to define his according to his own esoteric vocabulary, although his is closer to “classic.” Republicans have won by appealing to the religious self-righteous. I think that vote has splintered. As you suggest, there’s a deficit of political vision.

By Curious Observer

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

I am invariably amused by the arguments of the well-heeled against taxation of their assets.

Their arguments go something like this: I have already paid taxes on my assets when I earned them, so don’t tax them again. Or, let’s get rid of the taxes on dividends from corporations, because the corporations have already paid taxes on them.

My response is that recurring taxation on the same money is a part of normal economic life. I will have already paid taxes on wages I bring home. Yet, if I spend those wages on goods and services, the sellers will pay taxes on the income my wages have made possible, and the cycle will continue.

What the so-called libertarians and conservatives really argue for is exemption of themselves from taxation—at the expense of those who cannot afford to save or build large estates. Thus, the “consumption tax” is the mantra of the utterly selfish and greedy. It is really an argument to shift the tax burden even further onto the lower economic classes.

Perhaps, in his next “two glorious years,” as TFTT calls them, Dubya can find yet other ways to achieve the objectives of these faux economists, but with a Democratic Congress, I doubt it.

By DebbieDoRight

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

BBQ: this will be the last time i will acknowledge your existence since I feel strongly you are no other than that sad little man, TFTT in disguise. I have NEVER used a racial slur on this blog. NEVER. You and your ilk however LOVE to bring up, demean, and villify any other race except your own - you called me a “black crack whore” among other things, then you have the nerve to get mad that I, according to you said, and I quote, “Soon, DDR’s responses became personal attacks with nothing to back her side of the discussion: what r u, stupid? where do you work, Burger King?”

Please. Save the hurt feelings for the stage or your psychiatrist’s couch. You and your ilk are beyond disgusting — you are a sad little man who takes great joy and pulling out that race card every chance you get, BUT will holler, loudly, “REVERSE DISCRIMINATION” at the drop of a dime.

Blog all you want. Change your name(s) constantly if you wish; but it doesn’t change what and who you are. You’re the man that all the neighborhood children run from; you’re the man with no friends; you’re the man who couldn’t even BUY a bride from a poor third world country. You are the sad little man who needs the anonymity of a blog to feel important.

When I sign off today, I will HAVE a life to go to. A home, friends, loved ones, special projects, church, social engagements, etc. When you log off, you will have your television set and your cold lonely world. Enjoy.

By Face It

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

Debbie @ 3:43

Excellent Post!! I am in total agreement with everything you said.

By time for the truth

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

Butch Danish

look love - this is all simply jolly good fun … you take it way too seriously and seemingly invariably arrogate to yourself a supremely know it all persona. Me - I could care less about all that - its beyond petty to continuously and snottily bleat in a GOTCHA mode about use of grammar/spelling - unless as with crackpipe it is unremittingly pathetic and determinedly obtuse.

I somewhat mercilessly exposed crackpipe whilst having loads of fun yesterday. Just as BBQ is again doing today, albeit using a different approach. In the real world the likes of crackpipe have little to say of any note, originality or depth. Which is why I pitch my responses at the sardonic (curmudgeonly) level I do. It may be yoof, natural prurience, genetics or just natural pathology that so inhibits crackpipe - who knows and who cares. Ultimately all that matters on here, is what presents itself on screen and how one hammers it!!

Note that she/he/it refused to actually enage me yesterday in any kind of meaningful factual debate on the topic of the day. Indeed crackpipe seems to delight in propogating a wholly specious, nonsensical image of coming from “money” and “erudition” whilst all it does is parrot robotic black snouts in the racial spoils trough bollocks or the usual dimwitted Bush hate drivel. Crackpipe is exceedingly dim and stupid - but any bien peasant can bluster their way through a blog using crackpipe’s lame, hollow tactics.

Crackpipe also refuses to debate Horowitz’s superb fact filled research on racial politics. When cornered with awkward points crackpipe becomes abusive, but with no hint of panache or wit.

DONT assume MY oft CHOSEN CYBER PERSONA is all there is.

By DebbieDoRight

December 28, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

I posted Nowhere Man on the blog to no one in particular. It’s utterly amazing however, how the person who answered fit the description of a Nowhere Man so perfectly…….

By Face It

December 28, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

But alas Debbie, I think you and other like minded folks are going to find that your beliefs as stated in your post of 3:43 will be in stark contrast to what the Dem party actually DOES with thier new power. It will leave voters from both partys wondering who really puts the country and our well being ahead of thier own greed for poewr and money. I’m sad to say neither side does or will. I beleive it will take a global catastrophic event to change the course that we humans are currently on.

By time for the truth

December 28, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

Danish@ 3.53pm

Like I said this is all about winding up whatever presents itself on the screen … horses for courses as it were. Anally analysing posts is pointless in such circumstances - becasue its NOT every going to to be a polite academic reading room/tutorial like discourse!!

crackpipe- NAMBLA - deranged foreskin .. stupid DICK and the rest of the leftist scum of the earth on here only understand (and respect) cogent abuse!! … smirk

By oldguy

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

to JK,

At least you were honest enough to admit you weren’t an economic expert. Let me try to answer some of you questions. 1) why not raise taxes - history consistently shows that cutting tax rates (Kennedy, Regan, Bush) has resulted in increased tax collections. It’s a fairly simple matter to look up the increase in tax collections and see that this is so. Liberal media does not report it, even though it is true. Seems to me that doing something that increase the amount of taxes coming in is exectly what you wanted to have happen. 2)Why tax cuts to the wealthy? - We do not really tax the wealthy. We tax the people who earn the most. If you have millions and live off the interest, you pay a small tax bill (like Ted Kennedy). If you earn a lot, then you pay a lot of taxes. What most liberals forget is that people do human things. If I said to you, you work hard and make another $10 today, but the government will take $7 of the $10, you are not likely to do so. If I said the same thing, but that the government will only take the same $3 it usually takes, then you probably do. Same thing with the so called “tax cuts for the rich”. If a salesman knows that the government will take less of his money if we works harder and sell more, he will do that. The result is that he makes more, but he also pays more taxes. Then the government gets more. 3) CHina versus CItigroup - Sorry, but that’s the deal you agreed to. A deal is a deal. If you don’t like the deal, borrow the money somewhere else. 4)Why do conservatives squawk about the death tax? - Because conservatives actually have principles. We don’t think it is right to tax someone for money they already paid taxes on. And to us, things like color, religion, or political affiliation don’t matter. You paid taxes once, that’s enough. 5) Tax breaks for children of wealthy - I don’t understand your comment at all. The reality is that as your income goes up, your children disappear on your tax return. If you make enough money, you do not get dependent deduction for your children and you cannot deduct the cost of their education. 6) How can we bring our government to a state of greater fiscal responsibility and reduce our debt WHILE BEING FAIR to the people who do the actual working, paying, living, and dying in this country? - First, your question is based on a faulty premise. Many of the people who do the work are paying the taxes. Many of the people who you think are the rich are the ones who put themselves at risk to create the jobs that all of us have. And when they benefit from that risk, they pay a lot of taxes. The reality is that a in a room of 100 typical Americans, between 5 and 10 will pay almost all of the taxes that are required for that group. There will be 35 or 40 who pay next to nothing - and most of those people will actually receive money from the government. If you want to be fiscally responsible, then you have to acknowledge that we can only spend as much money as we take in. It means that we will need to make hard choices about how much we give to people who can’t or don’t earn their own way. Don’t forget, in the last 40 years we have spent over $5 trillion dollars to help the poor - and we still have as many or more poor people as when we started. And, we have politicians who are unwilling to make hard choices, or who will attack the people who make those choices in an effort to get votes.

Sorry for the long post, it’s time for people to be honest about the economics.

By Political Foreskin

December 28, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

Pray for Peace.

By Sacred Zero

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

Knock it off, DebbieDooDoo of the Pilloried.

Give it a rest. We get the bit. You’re a fiend.

By WTFBBQ

December 28, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

Danish

Did you bother to read above, previous statements, where she had already degenerated into name calling? Ex:

By DebbieDoRight

December 27, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

. It doesn’t even take 51% to win a PRESIDENTIAL election.

the electoral college decides the president, (sh#thead). now even though the electoral college votes along the lines of the people’s vote, (except in 2000), they r the ones who decide who becomes president.

civics 101 dude. civics 101.

Shi+hea@ huh? Mind you, this is the most recent itteration of a personal insult instead of a cohesive argument. Hmm.. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Mind you, we had been trading snipes for quite some time, however if you check I believe she was the first to start the chain.

My first post (directed to her):

By WTFBBQ

December 27, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

DDR

Spout your census data all you want. What was the TURNOUT of voters in that area? Bwahahah.

If it werent for the black turnout, Nifong would have been in the dust.

Its not the population, its the VOTING population.. and its obvious that Nifong was kept in office by race baiting.

Her response:

December 27, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

WTF BarB Que: Read the message I just sent to jbmlaw — if u can comprehend it that is. Bwhahhhaha

if u can comprehend it that is. Interesting. Attacking my intelligence when she has already shown that she can’t comprehend the difference between census data, which is the number of people who LIVE in an area, versus voter turnout, which is an assessment of the people who actually vote.

Talk to her like a school-marm? There wouldn’t be any need to do so if she could talk like an educated American. And here you are correcting spelling.. Tsk tsk, a slap on the wrist for me I suppose, but not for you..

I bow to your superior intellect. You win. I lose. And DDR, or DDA (what does the A stand for?) is a race-baiting cry-baby who prefers personal insults to discourse.

By time for the truth

December 28, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

WOW … crackpipe is slurping down the same paranoid kool aid as stupid DICK and snivelling moron rod.

crackpipe is SO DUMB it cannot discern the difference between decidedly different personas, writings styles etc.

funny how crackpipe also hopelessly glosses over its own vituperatively poisonous abuse yesterday, when little of that nature emanated from yours truly … crackpipe is a spoiled ignorant shallow self absorbed racially obsessed brat who simply wont learn a lesson from its betters!!

a little snotty black princess that’s clearly never been challenged in its shallow afro-centric (now that’s an insult) little life. one of these supercilious young brats who thinks they know everything but actually know sod all!!

By RW-(the original)

December 28, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

WTFBBQ,

We all read the blog yesterday and most of it before the selective deletions. I agreed with your point about Nifong’s election and have often found it nearly impossible to have any sort of fact based discussion with Debbie.

That being said, there’s no need for you to try to convince the blog that you played no part in the race baiting yesterday. It’s also ludacris to argue with Buy Danish’s point that TfTT makes Debbie look like a bastion of civility. He already told today me he has no respect for himself, so that’s all we can expect from him I guess.

Are you planning to be a TfTT clone and act like a complete jerk when you get frustrated by the conversation? You should probably know that Buy Danish and I are both conservative Republicans. Frankly I think TfTT is nothing but a liberal Moby troll, but you started out yesterday showing a little more promise.

By Diogenes

December 28, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

Curious observer:

Have you also noticed that jbmlaw, who most probably has some relation to the law, is of the very social class which benefits most from the confusion in Washington, yet claims to be a “Libertarian” who wants less government?

By time for the truth

December 28, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

I see the aboriginal cant help lying - where exactly did I state “I had no respect for myself?”

I’m just having some fun … tw@t!

By Diogenes

December 28, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

WTFBBQ,

Let me warn you in advance, RW (the hopeful monster) tends to be judgmental about things in which he has no busy sticking his opinion, as the following comment illustrates,”Frankly I think TfTT is nothing but a liberal Moby troll, but you started out yesterday showing a little more promise.”

His judgemental nature is such that he is of the JB Stoner school of demagoguery and incapable of debate.

By WTFBBQ

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

RW

Point taken. I feel however that I did not initiate the jerkiness. Instead, I was assaulted (and perhaps overreacted) simply because I chose to agree with TFTT on a particular subject, that being Nifong.

If I am to be accused, at least allow me to face my accusers.

Otherwise, I suppose I will have to ignore DDR/DDA, since that appears to be what most others do anyhow.

I apologize for tilting at windmills.

By RW-(the original)

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

Dio,

What would this comment mean, Let me warn you in advance, other than attempt to butt in where you aren’t needed or likely wanted?

TfTT,

As I said before, have all the fun making an a$$ out of yourself you want. Now if you think for one second anyone is supposed to read your massive deranged ramblings and not boil them down, then you’re crazier than the part you play here. Your reactions are ample proof that you have no respect for yourself, but that gives us something in common as I have no respect for you either.

By JK

December 28, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

OldGuy, thanks for your lengthy, condescending response. If you want to be fiscally responsible, then you have to acknowledge that we can only spend as much money as we take in. Yes, I want my government to do that. Why aren’t they doing that? Why are they sticking my kids and future grandchildren with debt so that they can award huge, no-bid, no-audit-trail contracts to already rich folks who charge way too much to “take care of” our troops and “rebuild” Iraq? Yes, I probably pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than the handful of shareholders getting filthy rich on my government’s waste and dishonesty. Loopholes, write-offs and good accountants, you know. (Sorry, I don’t have an account in the Caymans into which I can direct my automatic pay deposits.) Why don’t you and your “conservative” buddies address THAT, huh? Oh yeah the code. Cover your own a—es and screw the rest. Wave the flag, salute the cross and call it “morality and hard work.” From everything I’ve seen, the un-taxed transfer of wealth is the cornerstone of Aristocracy. Yearning for the good ol’ days, OldGuy? Back when people knew their place?

I have no objection to a fair tax code of which you speak. It is the unfair application of, and loopholes authored by lawyers and accountants of the super-wealthy and “incorporated”, that I have issues with. The drunken, coke-sniffing offspring of America’s superrich spend most of their money on imported luxury items anyway, and the only jobs they create are for tabloid photographers who follow them around. Nice.

Also, your assertion: “There will be 35 or 40 who pay next to nothing - and most of those people will actually receive money from the government” unless you’re counting children and retirees, I’m calling BS. Again, thanks for telling me how stupid I am while offering NO ideas on how to address this obscene deficit and debt your “conservative, moral” heroes have buried us in. $5 trillion on poor people? Wanna crunch the numbers on Iraq for us now? C’mon! Let’s have ‘em!

But then, what do you care? When China demands payment in full, you’ll be long gone with some nice piece of drivel etched into your tombstone.

By DebbieDoRight

December 28, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

I am SOO glad you don’t know my real name or where I live. You have the personality of a stalker —

By WTFBBQ

December 28, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

HAHAHAHAHhahahahahaha…

Wait.. I can stil laugh at her, can’t I?

Amazing how she plays the “everyone’s out to get me” card as often as she can.

DDR, I have learned my lesson. You are the weakest link, goodbye!

By Buy Danish

December 28, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

TfTT and WTFBBQ,

As I said before, whatever merits are in your arguments are completely lost when you fall into that race-baiting trap.

What does descending to lower depths than the person that you’re arguing with accomplish (particularly when you resort to blatantly hurtful, racist comments) other than to make you look like a couple of dumba$$es?

Surely you understand the difference between calling someone a sh*$thead and calling someone a “black whore” or comparing them to your “black b***”? That is not to say that DDA employs elegant prose, but there are certain things that we have decided as a society are off-limits and racist comments are among those things that are understood to be verboten - and I say that as someone who abhors political-correctness.

The more people play into the hands of people like DDA by giving any credence to the concept that Americans are congenital racists, the longer we are stuck in this lose-lose situation as a country.

By jbmlaw

December 28, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

Dear Oldguy @ 4:15, well-said. You may not be older than I, but you may be wiser.

Dear Diogenes @ 3:43, I think the only value I see in government is its capacity to kill, imprison, or confiscate wealth. So long as those efforts are directed against those who would inflict misery on America, I support the government. Any other effort by government comes out as a “government effort.”

The original question by our friend JK was directed at those governments that are irresponsible and run deficits. That is generally not a fair characterization of our state governments, but would be a generally accurate characterization of the Federal government - the worst offender - and many of our largest US cities.

Dear BuyDanish and RW (and maybe old friend Barbara also) @ various times, I understand that you are uncomfortable with the humor of our friends TFTT and BBQ, and I suspect you deplore those remotely comparable efforts by the other side. Our blog has a biforcated fabric, each with its own beauties. I am not competent to run with TFTT and BBQ and their general opponents, so I mostly stay away from their threads. Do I wish they were on the boring threads that I hang around? Obviously I think there would be benefit to have such intellectual firepower on our side of that portion of the blog, but they are here for fun. I cannot object to anyone having fun, even if that is not me.

By Markus

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

JK-

“Markus, you broke a lot of wind with your reply, but did not answer the question coherently. Are you saying that (a) neither the janitor who wins $10 mil nor the slacker who inherits $10 mil should pay taxes on that money (b) the janitor and the slacker should be taxed on their good luck at the same rate, or (c) as proponets of “eliminating the death tax” want, the slacker shouldn’t pay on his windfall, but the janitor should?”

Of course. Any right-winger on this blog is “breaking wind” every time we post. What else is new? Now, with all due respect, I don’t see how I could have made my self any more clear with this clear answer to you:

“I never said the rich shouldn’t pay taxes. I just don’t think they should pay exponentially MORE taxes just because they are rich.”

Now that should have answered question (a) for the second time now.

Of course, I also brought up the issue of Marxism and property (inheritance) taxation and said this:

“I don’t see any correlation in your comment about a rich man inheriting money and a poor man winning the lottery because both didn’t “earn” it. It is none of my business, your business, and especially the government’s business how that money was obtained.”

That coincides with my first comment about never saying the rich should not pay taxes. But inheritance taxation is not income, yet being a lotto winner is considered having income. That’s not my call to make. Take that up with the IRS. Anyway, I consider an inheritance as money that has already been taxed and it’s the families will to determine where that money goes. Period. This is far different than saying the “rich” shouldn’t be taxed progressively.

The government considers the lottery income, not an inheritance. The poor person is taxed on the winnings as income, especially if said person takes the annuity option (the imbecilic way). Inheritance is not income, and it’s not the government’s asset. But the left sure as hell thinks it is. Besides, who’s to say that a lot of business owners who pass on their assets to their heirs didn’t have help in growing the business from said heirs in the first place?

I know of two cases in my expanded family where that’s happened… in one case the size of the business grew tenfold after the son got an MBA and ventured out for a more broad customer base. It gets more complicated from there, but it’s just a helluvalot easier to tax everyone and say to hell with sorting out the details because that money is just “given out and not earned,” isn’t it? Now, having said all that, I feel that winning the Lottery shouldn’t be taxed. Period.

Bottom line (again): the wealthy/rich should not be taxed exponentially higher just because they are wealthy/rich, and the government has no business getting into private family business such as inheritance matters. PERIOD.

By Markus

December 28, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this

I would like to congratulate Richard in his 1:58 post. I have witnessed raw sewage from the candyassed left here. I have seen the stench of demonRAT feces from the radical loonbat left here. I have read the vile disgusting gutter debris left by the kookbat liberals here. But never, NEVER have I read such a combined wicked meltdown and accusation all in one pathetic liberal stenchfest.

Congratulations DICK. You have set a new low amongst your disgusting ilk on the freakbat far, far left. Gutter RAT.

Saying that I am TFTT… that’s DEFINITELY a new one. What an effin’ idiot… even for a kookbat libonazi.

By RW-(the original)

December 28, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this

WTFBBQ,

I wouldn’t necessarily ignore her, DDA can be a hoot when she’s trying to convince you that she maintains secret forces on closed military bases and things like that.

One thing that I try to use as a rule of thumb is that by the time you think you may have gone too far on a blog, everybody else has already known for a good while.

Let’s hope we can start fresh with a new topic tomorrow and put all this behind us. (Note to Jim Wooten: Please don’t write about Edwards announcing in the lower ninth ward today)

By jbmlaw

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

Dear Diogenes @ 3:27, perhaps my esoterica derives from my own half-baked intellectual efforts, thus the confusion for all. I’ll try to do better, and I appreciate your careful questioning - makes me think through my knee-jerk reactions.

Best recent example: a couple of weeks ago our friend Southern Democrat raised an evident inconsistency in my attitude toward the evidence exclusionary rule. The inconsistency partially derives from the different view I hold toward state and local governments exercising police powers, and the view I hold toward the Federal. More to the point, SD’s questioning caused me to realize that I can articulate a libertarian view in support of the detested Kelo ruling from last year, just by limiting the traditional leftist interpretation of the 15th Amendment, and magnifying the actual language of the original bill of rights.

By Markus

December 28, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this

JK- (Part Deux)

I couldn’t help but see your questions posted to jbmlaw. Allow me to give my $.02…

“(1) Why is the nation operating under an escalating deficit instead of raising taxes?”

Actually if you didn’t notice, the deficit dropped significantly when taxes were lowered last year and this year. Of course, the left wants to deny that lower taxes are why that happened, but they somehow can’t come up with a good reason why it did happen (kinda like why liberals fumble around for a reason why the Berlin Wall fell on Reagan’s watch). As far as the spending, the Republicans acted like liberal Democrats on spending, so I’m at a loss why that happened. But the increased spending on defense/war, hurricane relief, increased AIDs funding, and other government programs haven’t exactly helped the matter of the deficit.

”(2) Why were tax cuts given to the wealthy in a time of war and escalating deficits?”

That’s one of the biggest lies of the left: tax cuts aren’t given to anyone. It’s not the government’s money to give back. The government never had the damn money in the first place. But as I described earlier today, the more money you make the more money you pay in taxes. That translates to getting a bigger share of tax cuts if they happen. When you have the just the top 5% of income earners paying a whopping 54% of all federal income tax revenue, the top 10% paying 67%, and the bottom 50% paying just 3.8%, who in the hell do you think is supposed to get back the majority of those tax cuts? The bottom 50%? But, this is yet another example of a Marxist mindset. Redistribute to those who don’t have it accordingly. (Keep in mind we are only talking about federal taxes here, so don’t even think about spinning off into a debate on local/consumption taxes… that’s another debate).

”(3) Why is it okay for the government to borrow trillions from China, but I am to be bent over and paddled soundly if I’m one day late on my CitiCard payment?”

Dunno. Have you written to your congresspeople and representatives about what they’ll do on obscene bank fees and profits (which are much higher profit margins than oil companies mind you)? Regarding China, how many people do you know that have invested in T-bills, T-notes, and T-bonds and other similar government debt investment types the government sells (borrows from)? Who the hell else is supposed to buy our government debt if we aren’t?

”(4) Why do lower middle class “conservatives” squawk about “death tax” when it will only affect them if they inherit more than $2 mil, and does not affect gifts from daddy while he’s still alive?”

It’s the principle of the matter, the dollar amount someone may or may not see. Oh yeah, and a lot of the “middle class” conservatives (middle class meaning income level) will be retiring with probably over a million in assets. I know several who are close to being there already and they have another 20+ years before retirement. Who’s to say in 10-20 years the liberals won’t support lowering that bar to a million? Who’s to say that someone with just $100,000 to hand down won’t succumb to neoMarxist taxation policies down the road under Hillary’s regime? As a conservative, I tend to think about the future and make calculated decisions accordingly on what to support and what to reject. This is one I choose to vehemently reject. Obviously, I’m not alone.

”(5) How do tax breaks for children of the wealthy encourage them to utilize their superior advantages and actually WORK or contribute?”

What’s that got to do with the price of orange juice? How do welfare increases and other entitlements for each additional child encourage single moms to not have more kids? Since when did you liberals get all worked up over not contributing to or working in society all of the sudden? When someone is rich? That’s hilarious! I suppose about the same time you decided military service is actually important in a presidential campaign.

Maybe those wicked rich kids contribute by investing and paying taxes. Maybe they contribute by making extravagant purchases on goods that employ people. Who cares? The bottom line is that they are not mooching off the government teet. Now I’ll ask you a second time since you didn’t answer earlier today: who are you to tell someone what they should and should not do with their lives or their money? You liberals scream bloody murder the minute a conservative tries to pry into the private lives of people. Now again, when exactly is it your business to get into the business of a), how much money people have/earn and b), what they choose to do with it? When did you liberals suddenly become interested in someone’s private matters? I suppose about the same time you decided that people not working or making contributions because they inherited money.

”(6) How can we bring our government to a state of greater fiscal responsibility and reduce our debt WHILE BEING FAIR to the people who do the actual working, paying, living, and dying in this country?”

Your definition of being “fair” is taking from those that have it and re-distributing to those that don’t. Oh yeah, and Karl Marx also said this:

” From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

This simply means that every person shall work to the best of their ability (yeah right) in accordance with their skillset, and the result is that each person will get the rewards of that production in accordance with the need, irrespective of what they have produced. In short, if you are a slackassed window washer who goofs off, you will still get paid like the guy who works his @ss off on the other side of the building. That’s classic communism and that’s why it has always been and always will be a failed economic system. And the scary thing is that you liberals are leaning more and more towards that mentality with each decade (everything has to be fair for you people).

So my friend JK, it appears that you and liberals like you are more in line with what Karl Marx believes than anything else. The historical period of Marx vs. the 21st Century as you mentioned earlier means nothing when people like you still think like and support the policies of the days and ideology of Marx.

Have a good evening.

By jbmlaw

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

Dear JK @ 4:51, I truly think Oldguy was not trying to offend, and I don’t think he was talking down to you. His language sounded (to me) like those of a good economics instructor. I appreciate your frustration with economics - my beloved and brilliant younger son also does not grasp economics, just as I am incompetent in most of his strengths. That does not make him (or you) a dummy, but I strongly believe that you can make sense of it all if you will allow your mind to lead you to the conclusions.

By jbmlaw

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

Dear Diogenes @ 4:29, you err. I have less social class than anyone I know.

By Buy Danish

December 28, 2006 05:17 PM | Link to this

I cannot object to anyone having fun, even if that is not me.

jmblaw,

“Having fun” by being a racist bully should be objectionable to anyone. There are limits even to libertarianism and hopefully we have not decided that a measure of constraint is just an old-fashioned idea that went out with Jerry Springer.

By RW-(the original)

December 28, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

I beg to differ, when someone’s fun crosses the line of good taste and inflicts pain on someone else there is no place for it.

When someone is overly sensitive that’s one thing, but the constant use of racist verbiage from TfTT is neither humorous nor entertaining. I assume it’s your Libertarian bent that makes you set no boundaries on taste, but a civil society does need some.

I’ve called DebbieDoRight, DebbieDumbA$$ almost from the outset and have never her found her overly sensitive about it. I don’t blame her in the least for going off after being called a “black whore” all day yesterday. I’m more than a little appalled that you find that so entertaining.

By Diogenes

December 28, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw;

I was specifically referring to the chart you described for us last week and for the esoteric use you made of the word “liberal.” Because I lack your background in economics and civil law, it is difficult to debate with you without defining most of the political terms we use. I enjoy debate with you when we find common language. For instance, I’m most intrigued by your disdain for government while being a representative of government — a lawyer, or at least I surmise.

By Groucho

December 28, 2006 05:26 PM | Link to this

Then what did make him a dummy, Jbmlaw?

By Diogenes

December 28, 2006 05:26 PM | Link to this

RW (the hopeless monster);

My word, madame, you have no sense of humor whatsoever.

By Groucho

December 28, 2006 05:36 PM | Link to this

Somebody look up Wooten’s eulogy piece for Nixon.

By Dept of Fair Tax Services

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

Dear Taxpayer, due to the cost of our latest misguided war, we regret to inform you that we will have to raise the sales tax to 50%.

We know you won’t mind because its a “fair” tax. Please pay up.

By RW-(the original)

December 28, 2006 05:47 PM | Link to this

Dio,

No, I do not find bigotry humorous. You might want to reflect on why you do.

By jbmlaw

December 28, 2006 05:48 PM | Link to this

Dear Groucho @ 5:26, ha. You must be related to PoFo. Best laugh of the day.

Dear Diogenes @ 5:24, I represent the government in the same sense that Tom Glavine represents the Braves. I am an officer of the court, and am therein contrained to honesty in fact and deed in all my representations before the court. I do not hate people who hold government jobs. Nevertheless, it does not logically follow that I think the government is even occasionally correct, much less deserving of our admiration. The US Government inadvertently produces more evil than all of the mafiosi combined.

By Buy Danish

December 28, 2006 05:48 PM | Link to this

RW,

These Liberals like Dio are evolving faster than the rest of the human race. Unfortunately they seem to be careening backwards, like that Dolphin who is shedding its fins for feet.

How dreary of you not to see the humor in Jbmlaw’s idea that calling people black whores is just “having fun”!/sarc.

(The /sarc was for Dio’s benefit since she is too dense to get it and may think that I agree with her.)

By WTFBBQ

December 28, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

One last item.

CALLING ALL SNIPERS! PLENTY TO DISAGREE WITH IN HERE! COME AND GET IT!

I don’t believe in racism, or special-projects, quotas, or racial- or sexual- preferences, benefits, etc.

Rest on your own laurels, not on those of your heritage or genetic sequencing.

As such, and to refrain from raising a stink, I will refrain from the use of the word “black” - instead, I shall use the word “blue”. Funny how people chose to find hurt in the use of a simple, accurate word. Its not like I said the N word (which is utterly racist, and shouldn’t be used by ANYONE let alone blue hip-hop artists and their fans)

FURTHERMORE - I think its a bit skewed that there are some on here who scream that it is not fair that the top 3% pay 58% of the taxes.. yet the own the top 99% of the wealth! (+/- 5%) OF COURSE you pay most of the taxes, YOU HAVE MOST OF THE MONEY! Duh! Oh, you make $1M this year and should only have to pay the same taxes as the guy who made $24k? Is that because you are paying for the same services tha they recieve?!? I’m sure that the guy who makes $24k a year doesn’t need to pay anywhere near the same amount in road taxes or airline subsidies as a rich man driving Porsches at high rates of speed on the smooth highway, or flying all over the world in the First Class section. After all, the poor man usualy takes public transit and hasn’t left his home town in years. The war in Iraq costs HOW MUCH? Split it up evenly, and the poor people would OWE money to the government, while the rich would merely sneeze and go on about their life. HAHAHAHA - greedy wealthy bastards.

GO FLAT TAX! hell, VAT would be preferable to all the loopholes in the current IRS system. I really don’t see a valid argument by the rich why they shouldn’t have to pay, say, 15% on every dollar that they earn, if everyone else in the country is paying the same percentage. Close the loopholes that keep the wealth in the hands of the wealthy, and then, maybe, this country might get out of debt without having to go to war just for oil.

As for inheritance taxes, the Gvmnt can go to hell. Wasn’t tax already paid on the money? Thats just plain old evil double dipping by the gvmt. If a fair tax had been paid on the money in the first place (as well as interest - its all income), there would be no need to tax it when its passed to the kids, wife, whatever.

Make the tax laws fair and equitable, to rich and poor alike.

Oh yeah, GEAUX SAINTS!

By Markus

December 28, 2006 05:51 PM | Link to this

People who think the Fair Tax will cause the sales tax to be raised to 35% or 50% or whatever has obviously either not read the Fair Tax Book (especially the revisesd version) or has not independently looked at the scenarios themselves and listened to the flaming liberal “economist” Paul Krugman. Not that the Fair Tax will ever be implemented or anything with the yellowbellied quasi-Dem Republicans and neosocialist Democrats in Congress…

By WTFBBQ

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

DoFTS - the sales tax wouldn’t be 50% if everyone paid the same rate, goofball. Whats the VAT in the EU? Max 20% I’d think, and thats less than any tax bracket we have, TYVM.

By jbmlaw

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

Dear Diogenes @ 5:24, one additional specific point, re: “Liberal.” You have previously noted my intentional nonuse of that perfectly good term, for many reasons. Until 1960 or so, “Liberal” meant a Jeffersonian, one who believed government was tolerable only if small. I think the leftists misappropriated the term to attempt to give a pleasant aroma to their socialist confiscatory policies, and the latter association has irretrievably damaged the traditional term. Too bad.

By Diogenes

December 28, 2006 05:54 PM | Link to this

Hey Groucho,

Haven’t you noticed how often Jim is right — after the fact?

By jbmlaw

December 28, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

Dear Buy Danish and RW, your arguments are reasonable and truly conservative. I believe I have a behavior code, and I try to adhere. I believe I have no right to impose my standards on any other. I simply walk away from those with different standards, except where the threat is physical, which then invokes a different rule.

By getalife

December 28, 2006 05:57 PM | Link to this

Jim’s friends best wingnuttery comments:

“The top 11 (in chronological order):

William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights: “Well, look, there are people in Hollywood, not all of them, but there are some people who are nothing more than harlots. They will do anything for the buck. They wouldn’t care. If you asked them to sodomize their own mother in a movie, they would do so, and they would do it with a smile on their face.” [2/9/06]

Fox News host John Gibson: “Do your duty. Make more babies. That’s a lesson drawn out of two interesting stories over the last couple of days. First, a story yesterday that half of the kids in this country under five years old are minorities. By far, the greatest number are Hispanic. You know what that means? Twenty-five years and the majority of the population is Hispanic. Why is that? Well, Hispanics are having more kids than others. Notably, the ones Hispanics call ‘gabachos’ — white people — are having fewer.” [5/11/06]

Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter on the New York Times’ decision to report on the Bush administration’s warrantless domestic wiretapping program and a Treasury Department financial transaction tracking program: The Times had done “something that could have gotten them executed, certainly did get the Rosenbergs (Julius and Ethel) executed.” [7/12/06]

Coulter responding to Hardball host Chris Matthews’ question, “How do you know that [former President] Bill Clinton’s gay?”: “I don’t know if he’s gay. But [former Vice President] Al Gore — total f*.” [7/27/06]

Nationally syndicated radio host Michael Savage: “That’s why the department store dummy named Wolf Blitzer, a Jew who was born in Israel, will do the astonishing act of being the type that would stick Jewish children into a gas chamber to stay alive another day. He’s probably the most despicable man in the media next to Larry King, who takes a close runner-up by the hair of a nose. The two of them together look like the type that would have pushed Jewish children into the oven to stay alive one more day to entertain the Nazis.” [8/7/06]

Coulter on Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., an African-American: “Congresswoman Maxine Waters had parachuted into Connecticut earlier in the week to campaign against [Sen. Joseph I.] Lieberman because he once expressed reservations about affirmative action, without which she would not have a job that didn’t involve wearing a paper hat. Waters also considers Joe ‘soft’ on the issue of the CIA inventing crack cocaine and AIDS to kill all the black people in America.” [8/9/06]

Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh, blaming America’s “obesity crisis” on “the left,” “liberal government,” and “food stamps”: “Because we are sympathetic, we are compassionate people, we have responded by letting our government literally feed these people to the point of obesity. At least here in America, didn’t teach them how to fish, we gave them the fish. Didn’t teach them how to butcher a — slaughter a cow to get the butter, we gave them the butter. The real bloat here, as we know, is in — is in government.” [8/29/06]

Coulter on Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I.: “They Shot the Wrong Lincoln.” [8/30/06]

Conservative pundit and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan: “Look, [Rep. Jim] Kolbe [R-Ariz.] is gay. He is an out-of-the-closet gay. [Rep. Mark] Foley [R-Fla.] was gay. The House clerk who was in charge of the pages [Jeff Trandahl] was gay. Foley’s administrative assistant, Mr. [Kirk] Fordham, the New York Times tells us, was gay. You hear about a lot of others. What’s going on here, Joe [Scarborough, MSNBC host], is basically these, this little mafia in there looked upon the pages, I guess, as their — sort of their personal preserve. And it stinks to high heaven what was done. And it stinks to high heaven that it was not exposed and these types of people, thrown out by the Republican Party.” [10/9/06]

CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck to Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, D-Minn.: “OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. … With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, ‘Let’s cut and run.’ And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, ‘Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.’ ” [11/14/06]

Right-wing pundit Debbie Schlussel on Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.: So, even if he identifies strongly as a Christian … is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father’s heritage, a man we want as president when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?”

Oh, there is more idiocy

Geez!

By Markus

December 28, 2006 06:09 PM | Link to this

Moron BBQ-

Since you obviously have no education beyond high school (if that) and don’t know what the hell you are talking about other than emotionalism of those that have what you don’t like a good little liberal neoStalinist, I’ll only waste time addressing one “point” you made:

“Oh, you make $1M this year and should only have to pay the same taxes as the guy who made $24k?”

Even if both pay the same federal income tax rate, Mr. Million will still pay more federal income taxes than Mr. $24k. Now if you don’t think that is true, I want you to get that calculator you use with the big 16 buttons on it and tell me how that’s not possible.

By Markus

December 28, 2006 06:13 PM | Link to this

Nobody cares what you and your ilk on the left thinks about right-wing pundits or their comments, spitmolife, not the least of which is me. I don’t care any more than I care what Rosie O’Pig thinks or says.

By Political Foreskin

December 28, 2006 06:31 PM | Link to this

Look at the broad spectrum intersect of James Brown and Gerald Ford, and soon, since it always comes in threes, Saddam Hussein.

These strange casket-fellows are basically the story of the last fifty years. The modern era certainly revolved around these three and their orbits.

Because Ford admits posthumously that he differed privately from his public views, his position on the Warren Commission becomes useless for measuring his credibility. Ford may have wanted to scream conspiracy, but in order to heal the country after Kennedy, he stayed with the single bullet theory.

Why cant these guys ever just tell us the truth? Did anyone hit the shallows after they found out who the real deep throat was? No. Nobody cares.

Kennedy? He assassinated so he was assassinated? Is that what happened?

America? We assassinate world leaders, (in threes?). We also direct non-fatal coups against world leaders. In Vietnam, we assassinated their President and we also invaded. Why?

America? We led coups against both sets of Shia and inserted the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein. We are trapped into a total war with 100 million Shia now and there’s nothing that can save us from ruinous warfare.

pray for peace 4we are going to war.

By RW-(the original)

December 28, 2006 06:46 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

I appreciate the difference in my conservative view versus your libertarian one on this issue. I respect your point of view and would respect the way you demonstrate that point of view if you really did what you say say you do and just steered clear of the conversation so as not to impose your personal code on others.

The problem is that you don’t walk away from or steer clear of it. This is at least the second time that there has been blatantly bigoted and racist comments being made, where you have inserted yourself into the periphery of the conversation by encouraging the racist commentors.