Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > January > 01 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USFound on the blog in 2006
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Happy New Year!
Congratulations to RW (the original). You got in the last word of 2006. If it is permitted to use the first day of the new year to speak of the year past, I’d wish to thank all who participated in Thinking Right’s first calendar year. I have come to admire greatly the intellect and debating skills of many of you. And I admit too that I have developed an affection for some contributors I’ve never met.
I started the blog intrigued by the possibilities of productively addressing issues by assembling people who could speak honestly with virtually no censorship. The result is sometimes a little rough and occasionally over the line. But I’ve been enormously impressed with, and bouyed by, your efforts to set limits and to achieve equilibrium. There are good folks here, fair-minded and forgiving. For that, I thank you.
As jbmlaw has pointed out to newcomers who are a bit put off by the in-your-face turn a blog sometimes takes, on most every day the discussion has two tracks, one serious and substantive and one, often substantative but combative. As he points out, too, some contributors are quite accomplished at — and sometimes entertaining in — aggressively or humorously making their points. To be honest, some of it is tough for me to take sometimes, especially posts that suggest a willingness to see harm come to this nation, our leaders or to the men and women who defend us. Every temptation is to exclude those voices. But if those views are out there, we should know. So tempted as I am, I’ve resisted most urges. Conservataives sometimes think our views are discounted because we failed the test of political correctness or because the media gate-keepers deemed them as expressed to be unworthy of a place in public policy debates. With that in mind, I have intentionally avoided most inclination to exclude opinion, even when it offends me. The truth is, though, that I am human and have limits and have delighted in seeing the tail lights on some departing posters.
I end the year, or start the year, far more optimistic about the possibilities. I find myself, too, invested in the lives of people I don’t know, of people like Jeff, the Southwest Georgia math teacher, who started innocently and optimistically last June on a journey of conscience to make the world a better place by improving the ability of chiildren in one disadvantaged corner or the world to compete. As with most undertakings, it has been much more difficult than imagined, he tells us in December. But for the blog, I would never have known his mind, his heart or his story. I am, thus, the beneficiary of the lives you open.
After more than 40 years around newspapers, this has been a new experience for me — but a good one. Thank you all for letting me be a part of your lives and thoughts in 2006. And now to the new year: What would you like to see here in 2007? Here being the blog. Here being the state, region or the country.
Services »
Comments
By My suggestions
January 1, 2007 08:23 AM | Link to this
Political Foreskin booted from here forever?
Seriously, the dude’s got 30,000 posts, none of them of contributed anything, half of them are out and out harassment of other bloggers.
Another suggestion for 07, when it gets personal, boot the attacker.
You would get your “productive” blog then.
By Political Foreskin
January 1, 2007 08:53 AM | Link to this
Happy New Year!
By Political Stiltskin
January 1, 2007 08:54 AM | Link to this
Happy New Year!
By Political Pigskin
January 1, 2007 08:56 AM | Link to this
Happy New Year!
By Political Pigskin
January 1, 2007 09:00 AM | Link to this
Jimmy Dean is the best sausage. James Dean is the best actor. Howard Dean is the best Democrat. and John Dean is the best singer.
Happy New Year, Sadr City!!!
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 09:02 AM | Link to this
Dear Mr. Wooten,
A celebration of the First Amendment is appropriate on this first day of 2007. I applaud your bravery; most avowed conservatives wish to suppress the voices which disagree with them. Conservatives often label those dissident voices “anti-American” and try to still them, forgetting that our democracy is build upon open and honest disagreement and debate. Conservatives can often become too pompous, too assured that they represent the only “correct” voice in the fray and presume that all others such be silenced. You claim that you have not suppressed the angry, the quarrelsome, the infuriating for their own sake. It sounds to me as if you and your bloggers have had good practice in exercise of First Amendment rights. My congratulations to you and your bloggers for respecting that essential foundation of our freedom. Happy New Year to you, sir, and to all your bloggers. Let us all keep our freedoms secure in this New Year.
By Political Pigskin
January 1, 2007 09:06 AM | Link to this
I watched the Saddam Video. I cant remember if it was myspace or facebook. Anyway, one of his lawyers threw in a red challenge flag at the last moment, but not before they got the snap off.
Seems a shame.
By Political Pigskin
January 1, 2007 09:08 AM | Link to this
Gerald Ford could have played pro football! Bush’s new Iraq War slogan should be, “Lets win one for the Tripper”!
Who wants to bet W steals that line?
By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I
January 1, 2007 09:16 AM | Link to this
By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka’s Al Qaeda I January 1, 2007 08:49 AM | Link to this One of my New Year’s resolutions starts when I hit the post button below. I spent far too much time - actually 2 minutes is too much time - on this blog last year, and this will be my last post. I need to spend the next few months finishing my book and getting it published for the next election season. I’ll let Mr. Wooten know when it’s coming out.
Anyhow.
Woo-ten Klanners - tftt/tommy, jbm, Realisp, Markanus, Dusty, etc. - I bid you good riddance - if there has ever been a group more smug and arrogant about their uselessness, I’ve never seen it.
Except for the Luckovich Losers. Andi, the dull C(h)url. Bi Danish. The monotonous repetitive totally unoriginal RW. The Three Chickenhawk Stooges of neo-kkkon stupidity, a never-ending circle jerk of whininess, hate, paranoia, cowardice, and just plain bullsheet.
To the good guys and gals on this blog - get, curious, huge, et. al., I’ve enjoyed many of your posts, and oftimes have even been informed by them.
To the good people here, I hope 2007 is a fine and prosperous year. To the rest of you, may your life’s circumstances slam you to your knees, and beat the hate and arrogance and smugness - and fear, you cowards - out of your souls and hearts, before it is too late for you and our country and our planet.
Lord, we pray for peace and the swift terrible sword of justice for all tyrants, foreign and domestic. Soften the hearts of the hard-hearted, humble the arrogant, enlighten the stupid and willfuly ignorant amongst us, and give the warmongering cowards courage. In Your Son the Prince of Peace’s Name we ask You this. Amen.
God’s humble servant,
Pope rednecks Amerikkka’s Al Qaeda I
By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I
January 1, 2007 09:24 AM | Link to this
Thank you, Mr. Wooten, for largely keeping your promise regarding un-PC comments in 2006. Unlike most conservative Freeper type-sites, you do allow “come one, come all”.
Since I’ve already broken my New Year’s resolution, I’ll start it again, since it is still 1/1.
This time, over and OUT.
By Political Wrinkles
January 1, 2007 09:26 AM | Link to this
I wonder how many stand up comics der are in der verld? You should know that all the comics want to sing, and all the singers want to tell jokes.
Did you see Donald Trump singing the theme to the “Green Acres” TV Show? I dont know if he did that because he thinks he’s a comedian, or because he’s just poorly life-coached. He drops the ball because he doesn’t use tact. He has earned no reason to bash Rosie’s act.
Trump: You’re fired.
By My suggestions
January 1, 2007 09:28 AM | Link to this
By On-looker January 1, 2007 09:02 AM most avowed conservatives wish to suppress the voices which disagree with them. Conservatives often label those dissident voices “anti-American” and try to still them, forgetting that our democracy is build upon open and honest disagreement and debate.
Free speech rights for this?:
By ICEMAN December 30, 2006 02:54 PM I am a black conservative Republican. I might as well have just lynched my ancestors myself.
By time for the truth
January 1, 2007 09:29 AM | Link to this
Happy New Year
to Jim, jbmlaw, Markus, Realist, Van, Barbara, yougottabekidding, Iceman and most (but not quite all) other regular conservative posters - regardless of whether we agree on the issues or not.
Also to Liberal who has vanished without trace and to the handful of other lefties I have on occasion enjoyed (relatively) polite and amicable debate/banter with, despite our often irreconcilable political differences.
Cheers
time for the truth
By Political Wrinkles
January 1, 2007 09:35 AM | Link to this
New Year’s Resolutions are like hair. You can shave it but it comes right back.
911? We have a 119 coming up on January 19th. If Osama Bin Laden is any kind of baby boomer, then he used to play beatle records backwards to hear the devil too. That means he’s into reverse numerology stuff, and I would caution Homeland Security to be on alert on 119 for any crazy anomoly that might smell as bad as it did on 911. Bush wants us all to send Homeland Security ideas about what Osama might be thinking. (Remember that? W truly is a ridiculous man.)
Has Bush demanded the surrender of Osama Bin Laden yet today?
Happy New Year, Sadr City!!!
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 09:36 AM | Link to this
My suggestions (928)
Your comment, sir: “Free speech rights for this?”
Free speech rights even for that. As I commented above, Mr. Wooten is a brave man, standing by the First Amendment with resolution and patient forbearance.
By Political Wrinkles
January 1, 2007 09:42 AM | Link to this
We fight Iraqis over there because Iraq is over there.
By Jim Wooten
January 1, 2007 09:46 AM | Link to this
Morning all. I’m off to the mountains shortly, but to My @ 9:28: The post you attribute to ICEMAN came from an imposter. I hope for fewer of those in the new year.
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 09:49 AM | Link to this
Dear Mr. Wooten:
In response to your inquiry: “What would you like to see here in 2007? Here being the blog. Here being the state, region or the country.” let me suggest that the purpose of a free press in a democracy is to defend the rights of the individual citizen from the oppressions of big government, big business, or big bullies of whatever guise.
I recommend, sir, that in this New Year, you exercise that role of the mild-mannered newspaper reporter who crusades against suppression of human rights, just as you so eloquently defend First Amendment rights in your speech today. All government has become too big — county, municipal, state, and (most emphatically) national — and requires an alert news corps to call attention to violations of the rights of the citizenry.
Fulfill that role, Mr. Newspaperman, and we all will love you. We will not always agree with you, but we will appreciate your efforts on our behalf.
Thank you for asking.
By My suggestions
January 1, 2007 09:58 AM | Link to this
By On-looker January 1, 2007 09:36 AM Free speech rights even for that.
And as I stated in my first post, the trade off is a constructive blog, which, right now, this blog is not.
It’s a shame too, the main problems, that being the racist hatred and pointless personal attacks (9:16 for instance,) are just a few bloggers that have NEVER contributed anything serious, only pollution.
There are forums for that kind of activity, like in the sewer for instance, this is not one of them. This is a blog for political discussion. Would you condone someone coming into your favorite restaurant and screaming at you because they didn’t like what you were eating? Would you consider that “free speech?”
How is it any different?
In fact, by having these thugs in here shouting everyone down is a bigger threat to free speech then silencing them would ever be.
By My suggestions
January 1, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this
By Jim Wooten January 1, 2007 09:46 AM Morning all. I’m off to the mountains shortly, but to My @ 9:28: The post you attribute to ICEMAN came from an imposter. I hope for fewer of those in the new year.
Jim: I know that, it’s quite obvious. And it is exactly what I’m talking about.
I have no problems with someone disagreeing with me, in fact I relish a clean debate, it’s the stupid personal attacks like “Iceman” that I think we can all do without.
By Political Wrinkles
January 1, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this
No, Mr. Wooten is a man, bravely standing by, while the 1st Ammendment inbeded in his blog is abused by trolls in a time of war which is like a felony, man.
Censoring trolls is not censorship. 5 comments a day or less is plenty to make a point. 50 comments by one blogger in one day? That’s Abu Graib, man.
I strongly re-implore Mr. Wooten to curtail the # of comments that the uber-bloggers, uni-bloggers, and their troll subsets are allowed to torture us with.
And no more diacritical marks. if there’s one thing I hate it’s diacritically-embossed, alpha-pneumonic acryonms and anagrams.
Real problem with Katie Couric too. The HD is not kind to her, neither is the neanderthal posture, or talk soup intonations of her voice when reporting tragedies. It’s a disgrace.
By Jim Wooten
January 1, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this
Thank you for the suggestion, On-looker, and for the civility of your posts. There’s no question that government at all levels has grown too large, but I guess I see it as more prone to grow in ways that avoid accountability and disguise tax increases than to suppress human rights.
By Political Stiltskin
January 1, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this
Happy New Year, Sadr City!!
By time for the truth
January 1, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this
As for my personal New Year cyber death list … like the utterly credible, tragically ignored Klinton death list that used to circulate it’s way too long to enumerate each and every worthy depraved dastardly dumbarsed dickheaded doltish pinkocommiecreep recipient of an IMMEDIATE painful righteous cyber death.
Sufffice it so say natural justice would ensure that these much needed cyber deaths would be perpetrated as a result of a more thorough than usual state prison mental hospital search. Thus their cowardly cut and run Bush hating modems and poisonous craven lickspittle Cuban made keyboards would be confiscated by the guards/nurses. And any further access to the web would be wholly contingent upon tangible and meaningful responsiveness to 24 hour Electric Shock Treatment and a Howard Dean the scream lobotomy or two.
As for the most obvious human stained creme de la creme of the genetic human scum that obsessively, cretinously and soporifically impose their perverse unwanted unhinged cyber detritus on their conservative betters … namely redneKKKs NAMBLA, aborted foreskin and lobotomisedmaggotbrain and ALL their pitiful paranoid mutant ids … these globally over warmed piggish pond scum have all the intellectual gravitas, honesty and insight of a happily dead and buried Soddom.
By Jeff
January 1, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten,
Have fun in the mountains. My contacts over on Get Schooled have found that there may be a better paying teaching job in a closer county, though I still wrestle with leaving the county I’m in. As you once said, they are good people there. I just fear that one or two (certainly a minority, from what I have uncovered thus far) may force me out against the will of the majority.
By Political Stiltskin
January 1, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this
Where is proof of human rights if not in the ledgered allocation of resources?
By Pellican Gullskin
January 1, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this
I’ve posted over half the comments so far today, but I have the least amount of words. Brevity is next to godliness. Silence is divine. Me2trolls: Be like gods.
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
My suggestions (958):
Your comment: “In fact, by having these thugs in here shouting everyone down is a bigger threat to free speech then silencing them would ever be.”
As long as the First Amendment protects our rights to free speech, there will be demagogues. A principle tactic of the thug or demagogue is to shout down dissent. Mr. Wooten states that he has resisted suppressing even the demagogues, and I support him in that. Yes, this blog seems to attract quite a number whose primary purpose is to harass others so that liberal commentary is suppressed; harassment is still within the bounds of free speech , even if it is demagoguery, because a blog is a little different than a speech in a park.
The rules differ on a blog, it seems, because we all have time to compose our thoughts and respond as we feel is appropriate (I have no idea what’s being posted as I write this, for instance). Because it is print (or akin to print), we each have the chance to speak our minds, unlike a confrontation with a demagogue holding a bull-horn. Some try the tactic of taking up as much space as possible (a metaphorical bullhorn, if you please), but we still have the opportunity to speak, only made more difficult to be read. As much as we all hate demagoguery; on a blog it is a form of dissent and should be allowed. Any suppression of speech is a violation of the First Amendment, and I disagree with your assertions for the reasons stated above.
Your example of the restaurant is inappropriate because different sets of ordinances are in play.
Mr. Wooten, I commend you on your admirable self constraint.
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this
Dear Wooten,
Might I suggest, sir, that your comment that you see government “more prone to grow in ways that avoid accountability” is a method by which government (especially local government) insinuates itself into the lives of the individual and restricts rights.
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this
Dear Mr. Wooten:
A follow up to the question of government accountability, if I might. When I lived out west, I could walk into my county commissioner’s office at any time he wasn’t talking with another citizen (and sometimes when he was)to state my concerns and observations.
In DeKalb County, my county commissioner was ensconced behind a secretary who made every effort to prevent me from talking with him because I disagreed with him politically. My attorney finally got through to him and made an appointment. After that, I was allowed to make appointments, quite unlike the ease of the west. That commissioner was actually quite helpful in resolving a problem for about 1000 of us, after we got through to him. I suggest, Mr. Wooten, when it becomes difficult to see your county commissioner, government is already too big and needs to be curtailed.
By Buy Danish
January 1, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this
Jim Wooten,
Happy New Year to you!
I do wish the AJC would set up a registration system to eliminate nickjacking, which is not a First Amendment Right.
I would also have to disagree with your assessment that “On-Looker” is a “civil debater”.
Fake Phony Fraud On-looker,
Here’s a few New Year’s Resolution suggestions for you -
Instead of making sweeping accusations without a shred of evidence, how about backing up your claims with specific statements in the archives?
For instance, if you have examples of where conservative “thugs” have infringed on a Liberals free speech rights, here is an opportunity to prove a point for once instead of just spouting off a load of unadulterated BS.
I’d also suggest that if you want to be taken seriously you refrain from calling people “Satan”, and using words you don’t understand like demagogue. Finally, please spare us the sanctimounious preaching you love to engage in. It’s ridiculous coming from a secular Darwiniac.
Okey dokey Diogenes?
By Mid-South Philosopher
January 1, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this
Jumping on a little late this morning, Jim, so you may already be scaling the mountains. At any extent, I appreciate the blog…although I am not a blogger in the true sense of the word. While it has its characters and its share of “south ends of north bound mules,” there is a tremendous amount worthwhile intellectual intercourse that happens here.
I look forward to the insights and opinions that 2007 will bring.
A truly Happy New Year, my friend.
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
Sir, your comment, “if you have examples of where conservative “thugs” have infringed on a Liberals free speech rights, here is an opportunity to prove a point for once instead of just spouting off a load of unadulterated BS” indicates that you did not read my comment very closely. I suggest, sir, that you read it again before you make such irrelevant comments.
By Dusty
January 1, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this
I’m sorry, Jim Wooten. I appreciate your southern courtesy and consideration but don’t carry it too far.
Freedom of speech is absolutely necessary in a democracy. But undermining the efforts of our country during war time is something else. We have some bloggers who have gone too far. In fact your coworker Luckovich has gone too far. When Americans start repeating the words, efforts and propaganda of our enemies against our country and our troops, then THAT is too far. FALSELY accusing and representing our president is the same.
I know that saying “You are either for us or against us” has become very trite and offered up for ridicule by leftists. But it is still true.
The traitors of this country have abused freedom of speech for their own goals. To be politically correct instead of truthfulness has become the first amendment.
So watch for the spilled (free) garbage spread on the journalistic road, Jim. I hope you will see it for what it is.
By My suggestions
January 1, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this
Yes, this blog seems to attract quite a number whose primary purpose is to harass others so that liberal commentary is suppressed
Comments such as these show that you are not a very serious person, I’d like to see you produce one instance of this from the archives.
But you are right, this is a free board and I’m going to take advantage of that to break off the discussion with you, after I make one more point:
As much as we all hate demagoguery; on a blog it is a form of dissent and should be allowed.
Anyone can read back through these comments and make note of some of the most foul, hateful and racist ignorance imaginable, why are you trying to assign some kind of value to that trash?
Do you approve of calling others names based on racial and sexual orientation?
Besides, there is a responsibility to other bloggers that makes us a civilized peoples, you may not feel that you have to respect the views of others and act in a polite manner but I do.
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this
Dusty (1101):
Your comment, sir: “The traitors of this country have abused freedom of speech for their own goals” is also true of the over-zealous patriot who sees treason behind every bush and who believes that condemnation of our president, our military, our Congress and their decisions not a form of truth. Our First Amendment rights allow all of us (you, too, Mr. Dusty) the right of dissent. Our right to disagree is reinforced by the revolution we have every four years.
By Pellican Gullskin
January 1, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
Bush went too far. He deliberately careened spin on the available intel to persuade a stunned America, a stupified America, to watch silently as we desert stormed Too. (part duh).
The US troops are doing masterfully, and Dusty needs to stop armchair-generaling and let the soldiers do their job.
Try haranguing al-queda blogs, and leave the patriots here alone, dusty burka butt. Nobody wants any of your cowardly compromises against national security.
By Buy Danish
January 1, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 09:02 AM
most avowed conservatives wish to suppress the voices which disagree with them
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 10:35 AM
A principle tactic of the thug or demagogue is to shout down dissent. Mr. Wooten states that he has resisted suppressing even the demagogues, and I support him in that. Yes, this blog seems to attract quite a number whose primary purpose is to harass others so that liberal commentary is suppressed
On-Looker aka Lying Diogenes,
There ya go^^^^!!. Your turn.
P.S. I would suggest you learn the meaning of the word “irrelevant” before you use it.
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this
My suggestions (1109)
Your comments, sir: “Anyone can read back through these comments and make note of some of the most foul, hateful and racist ignorance imaginable, why are you trying to assign some kind of value to that trash?
Do you approve of calling others names based on racial and sexual orientation?”
Whether or not I approve of the comments is irrelevant. The point is that it does constitute a form of freedom of speech and must be allowed.
Our personal preferences for the form of speech in which we would most like to engage is fine for the parlour, but in public debate, all opinions are fair unless they actually incite to riot or disturb the peace. Your unwillingness to see that defense of the First Amendment is civilized debate is precisely my point, sir.
Your comment, “you may not feel that you have to respect the views of others” is what I would expect from one not versed in First Amendment rights. I respect your opinions, sir, and I am not using a bullhorn to prevent you from stating them.
By Markus
January 1, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this
Well it’s a New Year. I hope I make as much this year as I did last year in that terrible, horrendous, disasterous economy that “Georgie porgie” (how childish can libokooks get) was in charge of (as if any president has absolute control over it).
Anyway, I find it quite interesting how our opposition here, the left, feels that their voices are being quelled here. Take On-looker’s comment above:
“Yes, this blog seems to attract quite a number whose primary purpose is to harass others so that liberal commentary is suppressed;”
That is pathetic. There have been near-death threats on this blog; there have been stolen IDs where the perpetrator tried to make the originator look bad via racial comments or something else; there have been very personal attacks on myself and my fellow conservative bloggers up to and including making inflammatory comments of our families. All of this has been at the hands of the liberals on this blog. I cannot fathom spending the time or wasting the energy to go on some liberal blog out there and steal someone’s ID and attempt to make them look bad. I suppose the reason I have no desire to do so is because I am content and have the self-confidence in my core beliefs and convictions that I don’t really give a damn what my ideology opposition thinks. Liberals are meaningless to me other than a source of entertainment, and yes, that definitely includes those kookbat Holly-woodheads. Other than that, I have no intersest in what they have to say.
So, I’ll say it again: it appears that the only people complaining about the actions of others on this blog are the liberals, and they are the people doing most of the trolling on this blog to begin with. Oh yeah, and in case anyone else has to wet their beds over false accusations of suppressing liberal commentary, throwing back what you people toss out is not trying to shut you up. What about saying that Wooten should “pull the plug” as our resident horseass liborat said yesterday on this blog? What kind of attitude is that for freedom of speech here? Liberals won’t admit it, but they despise opposition to their ideology. Listen to them raise hell about AM talk radio; listen to them wet their panties over FoxNews and call it “Feaux News” like big overgrown whineyassed babies pitching a tantrum; listen to them froth at the mouth over right-wing blogs and newspapers like the Washington Times.
Do conservatives ever get this upset over the New York Slimes or CNN’s Wolfman Blitzer or PMSNBC’s Chris “softballs” Matthews? No. We just don’t listen to it. I don’t read the al-Jazeera Constipation because it leans left. I don’t watch George Steponanoctopus on Sundays because his show leans left. I don’t go visit the absolute worst political hack sewage website and blogs known as democraticunderground.com. Who cares?
But liberals can’t do this. They have to get in our business; they have to listen to what AM radio show pundits say; they have to read what conservative bloggers post. It’s the way liberals are wired. Whereas I see politics and my ideology as not the end-all, be-all means of my very existence, liberals seem to. Liberals take things personally when something rubs them the wrong way; liberals consider it a personal attack and an attempt to quell their voices when you say something back to them or say something they don’t agree with (see the quote above again). Further, liberals are always complaining that we conservatives are stupid because we haven’t come around to “their way of thinking.” Gee, the last time I heard that kind of mentality was when Hitler was visiting the Austrians in 1936.
So now it’s time to close on this beautiful New Year day. A brunch awaits and the Bloody Marys and Big Green Egg are a smokin’. Happy New Year to my fellow Conservative bloggers and keep the comments coming! We need to keep those oars rowing in this sea of liberalism!
By getalife
January 1, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this
Well, I would like to congratulate Jim Wooten.
The gay parn star has linked to your yesterday’s drivel to his blog
So, I invited this freak to post here to liven things up for the new year.
Make no mistake, this freak is pure wingnut. Blames everything on the libs, is a devout Christian and cheerleads the cheerleader.
So congratulations wingnuts, he is the new face of the gop. Andy would love this guy!
BTW, RW(the-original) posts after the blog is closed. Just like a wingnut, to break the rules.
By JK
January 1, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this
Pope Redneck offered a terrific prayer for 2007, which I will now repeat:
Lord, we pray for peace and the swift terrible sword of justice for all tyrants, foreign and domestic. Soften the hearts of the hard-hearted, humble the arrogant, enlighten the stupid and willfuly ignorant amongst us, and give the warmongering cowards courage. In Your Son the Prince of Peace’s Name we ask You this. Amen.
Happy New Year! Now on to the football and collard greens…
By getalife
January 1, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this
Way to start whining to kick off the new year Dusty.
Be the silent minority Newt because real Americans will continue to voice their opinions whether you like it or not.
Deal with it or cut and run.
By Buy Danish
January 1, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this
My Suggestions,
Another problem with “On-Lookers” unsubstantiated claims and phony protestations is that certain posts have been censored at this blog, while far more offensive ones have been allowed to stand.
On-Looker,
Since you claim to believe in unrestricted free speech, what’s your position on Internet porn? How about “hate crimes” legislation? Shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre?
You seem to think that debating you, or calling you on your smearing of other bloggers is “harassment”.
JK (phony peace advocate),
Please advise what “domestic tyrants” you’d like to see put to death. I can guess, but I’d like to hear it from you.
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this
“Buy Danish”
Another tactic of the demagogue is to try to distract the opponent away from the primary topic by introducing irrelevancies. Mr. Danish, sir, the topic, if I recall Mr. Wooten’s speech correctly, has to do with First Amendment rights and violations of same. I believe, sir, that I am at the moment and throughout this day defending Mr. Wooten’s choice to allow even the distracters, the harassers, the bigots, and the just plain stupid to post their blogs. If you, sir, disagree with the First Amendment and with Mr. Wooten’s choices, then present that in a form suitable for debate.
By Buy Danish
January 1, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this
On-Looker,
It is not irrelevant to ask you to back up your claims that conservatives suppress speech with specific examples.
Why don’t you learn something about our Constitution instead of pretending that people have the right to issue death threats to other bloggers?
The fact is that there are legal restrictions on the First Amendment, and there are constraints that a civilized society places on certain speech, and it is not “harassment” to point out when speech crosses that line.
Freaking phony fraud.
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this
Markus (1130):
Very clever. Well thought out and well said.
It is precisely this difference of opinion which makes the First Amendment such an admirable document. Disagreement with our President and his minions is why we hold a revolution every four years.
By Buy Danish
January 1, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this
Irrelevant On-Looker,
One other thing. The “Topic” is introduced each day, but there is no rule that says we have to stick with it, and it’s certainly not up to you of all people to decide what is and is not irrelevant.
That would be an infringement on free speech, wouldn’t it?
By Dusty
January 1, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this
On-Looker,
I don’t have to look behind every bush to find disloyalty. It pops up every now and then right here. You prop yourself up like every criminal screamer “I’ve got RIGHTS.”
We do have rights but not to support treason/sedition/disloyalty in this country. Remember the Pledge of Allegiance?
Dissent is one thing. I myself disagree and say so when I think something is wrong.
Dissent is making an objection, to disagree. It is not the manufacture of a lie. I hope you see the difference.
AGAIN, Diogenese, I am MRS. Dusty, not Mr..
By Curious Observer
January 1, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this
What a refreshing start to the new year, after yesterday’s more aptly titled “Us Conservatives Ain’t Stupid.”
I am saddened to read that Pope rednecks will not be gracing the blog. Though sometimes he indulged in overstatement, he basically had it right: it is the unthinking, ignorant, hormone-driven, racist,egotistical redneck who inflicted Dubya and his widespread reactionary clan on this country, reversing any progress we may have made and making utter selfishness a virtue. You can see him in TFTT, jbmlaw, Dusty, Markus, Realist, and a dozen other apologists for heartlessness and bigotry.
I question the value to informed debate of some of the contributions to this blog. Of what possible value are obscene and puerile epithets denigrating the supposed sexuality and criminal tendencies of bloggers with whom one disagrees? And how is one to express a political opinion if the response to it is invariably an accusation of a lack of patriotism? Lee Atwater is very much alive here.
Fortunately, the political tide in this country is turning. Soon, the extremists on the right who populate this blog will be as quaint as the flaggers and the klanners.
And with that, I wish everybody a happy new year and a change of heart as radical as Ebeneezer Scrooge’s. Godspeed, Pope rednecks. You have made at least one old man smile and nod his head in agreement on many occasions when the self-important have given him reason to be cynical.
By Dusty
January 1, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this
getalife,
Why don’t you buzz off about porn stars? I don’t even know just whom you keep chattering about.
Go smoke a cigar or something. That’s about your speed.
By Buy Danish
January 1, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this
Insufferable horses’ a$$ On-Looker,
Anarchy is not Liberty, and an election is not a revolution. Where the hell did you learn American History? From reading “Pravda”?
By Dusty
January 1, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this
PoFo aka Pelican ? @ 11:19,
You wouldn’t know a general from a Boy Scout. So stop mysteriously calling me a general. Does not compute. Neither does the rest of your last compulsive wandering.
Try to get a little sunshine today. Maybe some Vitamin D would help your condition.
By Redneck Convert
January 1, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this
Happy New Year to all my Right-thinking friends. And I hope all the libruls on this blog die in a big car wreck. Not that I wish them anything bad or nothing.
Last nite was a humdinger at the trailer. My son brought over some good stuff he cooked up, and we was all feeling good. My buddy Jim Earl showed up, and Joe Bill come too. Joe Bill is now over being saved. I knowed it wouldn’t last long. He was drinking beer and smoking the good stuff like nothing ever happened. Anyway, we all toasted the Revrend Jim Bob Buice, who is on his way to prison for being caught nekkid with that boy he was trying to rescue. And we toasted Sonny and hoped he would kick all the libruls off of our courts.
Well, it’s back to the beer truck tomorrow. Got to keep all the Baptists and holiness people well supplyed. They are great customers.
By Dusty
January 1, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this
Curious Observer,
After you stated that you were saddened that “Pope Rednecks will not be gracing this blog”, I decided not to read any more. I knew what was to follow.
The derogatory sentiments about conservatives are pretty much the same here. Repetitious. So thanks,but no thanks.
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
Your comment, “The fact is that there are legal restrictions on the First Amendment, and there are constraints that a civilized society places on certain speech, and it is not “harassment” to point out when speech crosses that line”
Well stated. Public and/or individual safety is precisely when first amendment rights need to be abrogated. On that point, we are totally in agreement.
By @@
January 1, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this
Well Thank YOU Jim for the opportunity and your patience.
One of the many things I appreciate about your site is your willingness to engage. A “man of the people”, you are.
Now I know you work with Mike Luckovich and consider him a friend, but Mike doesn’t engage with the bloggers at his site.
There have been times when he posted a short article addressed to the bloggers rather than a cartoon.
I’m trying to recall, hmmmm….several were to inform us he was going to be a guest on T.V. or radio, and two were to acknowledge conservative bloggers’ comments and to state that if they think they can do better, then go ahead and try. One young artist did. His cartoon won, and although Mike had promised to publish it, I think it appeared somewhere buried within the paper. Mike’s a liberal though, and I guess dissenting views in the form of a cartoon, aren’t worthy of his promise.
But then we have to remember, Mike IS A PULITZER PRIZE WINNER…something we are reminded of often by the liberals and the editors.
Well Jim, I must say…YOU ARE A MOUNTAIN compared to “that molehill”, and by the way, have a good look around while you’re up there.
Always feel free to tell us what you see.
Happy New Year Jim.
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this
Dusty:
Well stated. On most of your points, we are totally in agreement. I might be more tolerant of “criminal rights” than you, but the point is that we do in the main agree on the boundaries for the First Amendment.
I would be curious to know your limits and bounds on “disloyalty.” Is it disloyal for me to shout “Down with the President” at a Republican political rally? Is it disloyalty for me to call Bush a warmonger? What are the limits and bounds that you would impose?
If you are Mrs Dusty, then my apologies. I had no way to know. I will address you accordingly henceforth.
By Jeff
January 1, 2007 01:10 PM | Link to this
As for what I’d like to see in 2007:
here on the AJC.com blogs (not just this one): Some type of login system that would maintain the integreity of blogger’s pseudonyms. You already make us register to read the articles. That system could be expanded by even just one field, such as “Blog_ID”, and the “Name and Email” components of the blog pages elminated. While I grant that a system of ensuring unique blog ID’s is SLIGHTLY more complex, I put forth that a Programming 2 level Computer Science major could program it for you.
I would like a return to the civility with which we started this blog. (Yes, I was one of the original posters.) In the early days, it got VERY heated on some topics, but we didn’t call each other names, we tried to keep the arguments to the topic at hand, and at all times we tried to avoid personal attacks. (And ID’s didn’t get jacked, but that’s more an issue of my first point!)
As far as everything else goes: I’ll deal with whatever comes up. I may not like it, but I will survive it and work to change it. (Such as Speaker Pelosi… HOPEFULLY she has that title for no more than two years, doesn’t do any damage that can’t be stopped/ undone, and LOSES it two years from now!)
Holds up a bottle of a brew with an article in today’s business section: Here’s to 2007!
By Patriotic Foreskin
January 1, 2007 01:14 PM | Link to this
I had the fortune to be in love with my New Years Eve date only once, but what a night, some 25 years ago. I experienced love for about five minutes before it melted into hate and bitterness and sleepness nights and hiding in the bushes with a six pack of bud light just to catch a glimpse of her.
She was the best woman for me. Best legs. Best neck. Best @@. Best buns. Best conversationalist. Best expression, vocal tones, smile. I truly loved this woman. Her walk was glorious. I lost my chance for happiness then and have drifted like a zombie ever since. I’m not half the man I was that new year’s eve so long ago.
She put an end to me quickly, without hesitation, and finally. I actually had no painfree reprieve for six solid months going into a year. Five years later I called her house drunk.
Her dad answered. He said she wasn’t in.
you can be happy with any woman’s love, as long as she’s the best woman for you.
By Buy Danish
January 1, 2007 01:20 PM | Link to this
On-Looker,
Actually I was thinking about people using appellations like “Black Whore” as being out of bounds. While it is not illegal (unless liberals have their way), it is within my rights to point out how vile it is to use speech like that, and it is not “suppressing speech” to make those observations.
DebbieDoRights “safety” was not in question (although the person who suggested she put a bullet through her head may present a real danger to society as they are probably a sociopath).
Curiously Ctetinous Observer,
Please provide even one example where Dusty said something “bigoted”.
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 01:21 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
Your comment, sir: “Anarchy is not Liberty.” On that I think we need talk to some our Libertarian friends. Anarchy is not liberty, but it is a form of freedom. It’s not always desirable, but it is a form of freedom. Both us need converse with the Libertarians on these distinctions, for it seems we agree.
Oh, but an election is a revolution. In any country other than a westernized democratic country, when the head of state, his advisors, the chief cabinet members, the heir apparent and many of the legislators are replaced, it is called a “revolution.” One of our founding fathers first made that statement. I want to credit Jefferson, but I’m not sure. A revolution every four years is precisely one of the reasons our form of government has survived intact intact.
(If you go to google and type in “Revolution every four years,” you’ll get about 40 hits, many of them referring to Jefferson. It certainly seems to be a familiar concept to many.)
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 01:31 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
Your comment, sir: “Actually I was thinking about people using appellations like “Black Whore” as being out of bounds. While it is not illegal (unless liberals have their way), it is within my rights to point out how vile it is to use speech like that, and it is not “suppressing speech” to make those observations.”
That sir, is as liberal an interpretation of the First Amendment as I’ve ever read. Calling another an offensive name, whether in person or on the blog is certainly in bad taste and should be discouraged by all present, but it is not illegal. Since we use phony blog names, it can’t even be called libel.
Well stated, sir.
By GodHatesTrash
January 1, 2007 01:36 PM | Link to this
The Pope’s leaving the blog is cause for great sorrow, leaving us bereft of one of the few intellectual giants besides myself on the board…
So I too, will bid adieu. On the trash side, which is legion here, I will miss only Redneck Convert and Captain Freedom, who both exemplify so perfectly the neo-cons among us. They are the best advocates for the conservative cause that this board has ever offered, they stride like giants among the rest of the trash here.
Don’t sell yourself short Mr. Redneck - you and your bible thumpin’ warmongering and hatred for the Cynthia McKinneys of the world - and Andi hiding under the bed in her little house in the sticks - and the clinically depressed traitor to her gender Bi Danish in his SUV - and RW festooned with a tinfoil hat - and Markus drunk in his backyard shooting the neighbor cats - and Realisp cranked up at the local strip bar sticking dollar bills in garters not really knowing why - represent so powerfully what conservatism has become -
And among that crew, you’re the giant, Mr. Redneck.
You and the Captain.
Farewell, trash. And decent folk too.
By getalife
January 1, 2007 01:38 PM | Link to this
PF,
Stop whining.
They fired your coach so cheer up.
By Buy Danish
January 1, 2007 01:44 PM | Link to this
On-looker,
Anarchy: the complete absence of government and law; the individual as a law unto himself.
“Not always desirable?” How about “never desirable”.
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 01:48 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
Your comment: “Not always desirable?” How about “never desirable”
As I suggested, sir, I think we’d best consult with our Libertarian friends before we pronounce such an absolute.
By Buy Danish
January 1, 2007 01:50 PM | Link to this
That sir, is as liberal an interpretation of the First Amendment as I’ve ever read.
On-Looker,
Puhlease. Stop the BS and please stop twisting my words.
As for “phony blog names”, yours is just a new name for the same old a$$, known as Diogenes in the archives.
By Buy Danish
January 1, 2007 01:56 PM | Link to this
On-looker,
I don’t need to consult Jbmlaw for anything, and he is not the final word on defining Liberty or Anarchy.
By Buy Danish
January 1, 2007 02:10 PM | Link to this
Let’s put this idiotic notion of Dio, err, On-Looker’s to rest right now.
If we are to follow her perverted thinking, this just might be peachy-keen as long as jbmlaw says so:
Broncos’ Williams Shot to Death in Colorado
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 02:16 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
My goodness, you’re a termagant, aren’t you, sir? What would you call our blog names? noms de guerre? pseudonyms? noms de plume? noms de blog? Other than being terribly high falutin’ what’s the difference between one of them and a “phony blog name”? Either way, there’s no grounds for libel.
Your interpretation of the First Amendment above is right on the money. Usually liberals are the ones who defend the First Amendment, so I wasn’t twisting anything when I complimented you on your comments.
Please quit accusing me of being someone I’m not. That, too, is a form of demagoguery. You’re trying to distract me by trying to make me defend myself. I shan’t after this. If I’m not mistaken, that was precisely one of the liberal complaints you just lodged against this blog — misidentifications.
Your comment, sir: ” don’t need to consult Jbmlaw for anything, and he is not the final word on defining Liberty or Anarchy.”
I’d be interested in the opinions of the Libertarians, would you not? Libertarian as a political concept began as an advocation of anarchy. I would think that someone as liberal as you propose to be about the First Amendment would like to hear multiple opinions before making a final decision. After all, we’ve heard your opinion on the subject; let’s open up the discussion a little, isn’t that what Mr. Wooten is talking about?
By time for the truth
January 1, 2007 02:33 PM | Link to this
I see that the still insufficiently self loathing Ice Queen of the multiple id queer lovers NAMBLA/GoddespisesYanKKKeeTrash is/are still effetely fawning away at one another - I guess that’s what happens when you have two petulantly aggressive, hopelessly deranged personas striving for dominance in one genetically flawed “host”.
Hopefully this year after a desperately bloody struggle one of these worthless Bush hating mincing turds will emerge dominant after killing the other witless persona off in a Dukes of Hazards style sawn off shotgun fit of stinking commie creep rage!
Doubtless the execrable aborted foreskin will still be sullenly skulking outside NAMBLA’s/Trash’s psychiatrist’s office feverishly hoping for some out of date freebie psychotropic drugs.
By Dusty
January 1, 2007 02:38 PM | Link to this
On-looker,
I am not sure whether I wish to debate with some one who has to decide whether anarchy is wrong. Or someone who calls elections “a revolution”.
Then I do not like the oily practice of sweetly agreeing with someone and then laying honey covered booby traps of disagreement instead of saying why you disagree.
If you want to know where my limits are on free speech read the law. I don’t set the limits.
As to being rude at a political rally, that is ignorance, not breaking the law. Keep twisting and turning in your facade of liberty and light. It fools some people but not all of us.
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 02:48 PM | Link to this
Mrs Dusty:
The question was how does one identify disloyalty not your “limits on free speech.” You’ve already stated those and we concur. I am curious, however, on how you identify someone who is “disloyal.” You state that yelling “down with the President” in a political rally is not disloyalty, but what is? How do you take someone to court for being “disloyal”? Are you dealing with the “loose lips sink ships” type of disloyalty, or something else?
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 02:54 PM | Link to this
Mrs. Dusty:
Concerning “a revolution every four years,” see my post at 121. I can’t take credit for the idea. As I state there, I think it started with Jefferson.
“Anarchy” was an acceptable political position up until WWII. Libertarianism, as I state at 216, started as an advocacy of anarchy. I think it would enliven the conversation were we to invite some of the Libertarians to participate. Don’t you agree?
By On-looker
January 1, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish:
Please tell me. Are you for or against the First Amendment?
By @@
January 1, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this
Oh and Jim…before I dive into the “rhutabagas” yes “rhutabagas”, I wanted to acknowledge Mid-South Philosopher’s comment on your “Buffoons a Fabrication” column when he said:
“For a young couple starting out with little more than the “proverbial” pot, something had to be done. It seemed that a change was needed in the White House. Consequently, I strolled to the polls on November 2, 1976 and voted for James Earl Carter. Things got worse!”
“I never met President Ford, and I never got to apologize for not supporting him in 1976. I really am sorry for that.”
That, to me, was a profound statement. For all of our self-proclaimed wisdom, good intentions, and absent Mid-South’s eloquent delivery, it can be said that when voting for any politician you’re likely buying a “pig in a poke”.
Amen…but we do the best we can with the convictions in our heart. I have no regrets for supporting George Bush.
Also! I was watching CNN last night where the Mother of a son lost in Iraq, had turned her loss into a worthwhile cause. She had set up a website for other parents of brave young servicemen lost in the war.
She had nothing negative to say about this country, this administration, or liberals vs. conservatives. She wanted, only to talk of her son’s sacrifice for his country.
She did, however, point out that when the media, politicians, and anti-war activists use the total number of those who have died, to further their agenda, they diminish the value of her son, #467. I’m not sure that I got the number right, but it’s like that Mom said…
“Every # is somebody’s someone.
Happy New Year everyone. May the happiness and dreams that are within your heart manifest themselves in 2007.
By Buy Danish
January 1, 2007 03:33 PM | Link to this
Then I do not like the oily practice of sweetly agreeing with someone and then laying honey covered booby traps of disagreement instead of saying why you disagree.
and
As to being rude at a political rally, that is ignorance, not breaking the law. Keep twisting and turning in your facade of liberty and light. It fools some people but not all of us.
Dusty,
Well said! Do you believe this wanker?
Dio-evolved-into-on-looker,
You’re the clueless one who needs to define the First Amendment, not me.
Anarchy would require disposing of our Federal and State constitutions. Other than in dark places like Trotskyite cell meetings, it has never been an “acceptable political position”.
The fact is that Liberals are the last to defend the First Amendment with their Politically-correct rules (and laws) so that’s another fallacy you’re trying to peddle.
It’s interesting that no liberals squawked when DebbieDoRight was called a “black whore”. At least B.H. appreciated it after the fact. On that issue, that put him a notch above jblmaw in my book.
Any references to libel or slander are used metaphorically to make a point. They obviously have no legal merit on an anonymous blog, and no one here has ever claimed that they do, so you can stop babbling about that now, along with the rest of your nonsensical doublespeak.
By Buy Danish
January 1, 2007 03:48 PM | Link to this
Dio-evolved-into-onlooker,
It just occured to me - maybe it Jefferson Airplane and not Thomas Jefferson who said we needed a revolution every 4 years.
Who could blame you for confusing the two.
By Dusty
January 1, 2007 03:49 PM | Link to this
On-looker,
This is the twisting and turning that I do not like about you. Your posts are like snake tracks.
At 1:21 today, you posted to Buy Danish “Oh, but an election is a revolution.” and “Anarchy is a form of freedom.” You added that it MIGHT be from Jefferson but it was YOUR point. The anarchy bit was YOURS. Now you try to re-explain it all.
Then your last question to me at 12:55 was “What are the limits and bounds you would improve?” referring to free speech. I had already replied that the law gave the limits on free speech, not me. Now you are saying that was not what you asked.
I do not care for “undercover”discussions for your pleasure. I also have no wish to discuss the law with a libertarian. American law is the same for both of us.
I conclude my discussion with you right here, oily Onlooker of the many IDs.
By Barbara
January 1, 2007 04:15 PM | Link to this
Happy New Year everyone. Jim, thanks for offering an opportunity for us to discuss issues. I learned a lot in 2006 from folks like Van, TFTT, Marcus, jmblaw, Realist and some others. I also formed some fondnesses for others with a different opinion, like James, Southern Democrat, Mid-South, Toad and others. I really enjoyed Captain Freedom’s sense of humor, and I always enjoyed reading Dusty, Buy Danish, Ugotta, and others. I apologize if I left anyone out. I enjoyed conversations with many of you over this last year. Thanks to all of you for making 2006 interesting.
By getalife
January 1, 2007 04:27 PM | Link to this
No, it is not all about #467.
How freaking pathetic.
Unfortunatly, there will be thousands more Americans killed due to w’s disaster and instead of honoring one fallen soldier, how about speaking out to stop thousands more to be killed for oil.
Cindy Sheehan puts that woman to shame.
By LuckoDull
January 1, 2007 04:38 PM | Link to this
By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka’s Al Qaeda I January 1, 2007 09:16 AM By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka’s Al Qaeda I January 1, 2007 08:49 AM I spent far too much time - actually 2 minutes is too much time - on this blog last year, and this will be my last post.
By GodHatesTrash January 1, 2007 01:36 PM The Pope’s leaving the blog is cause for great sorrow, leaving us bereft of one of the few intellectual giants besides myself on the board… So I too, will bid adieu.
Gee, what a coincidence, a one in a million chance, that these “two” would choose to hop aboard their little horsies and ride into the night “together,” onto their next cross burning.
And praise “eachother” on the way out the door, too, how quaint.
What a “couple” of scumbag racist(s,) if it is true that “they” are gone, than this would be a Blessed Day, one for the ages.
But I’d be willing to bet we’ll see “them” again.
Dullards are hard to be rid of.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
By RW-(the original)
January 1, 2007 05:02 PM | Link to this
getalife,
I’m shocked, shocked that you would besmirch my good name by insisting that I post on closed blogs!!
Jim,
Had I known there was a competition for the last post of 2006 I would have made it much more substantive. And probably much later too!
Happy New Year to all!
By Patriotic Foreskin
January 1, 2007 05:04 PM | Link to this
We can only add 7K/year new soldiers to our pool of Iraq War participants.
Forget about the idea of surging, or cutting back. We are trapped in Iraq. We shouldn’t stay, but we have to.
Wars evolve. They rarely end up being about the geo-political conflict from which they accidentally sprang. Elections are not revolutions, but wars are accidents.
The addition of the US flag to a ground zero of perpetual war has irretrievably committed our army to Iraq.
We will never leave Iraq, and we will continue to be forced to participate in their cultural war whoops and tribal dances inciting the theo- cultural passions of the hoards and beguile destiny itself into the cauldron bubble. (part duh).
Any surge or any painted last ditch effort type attack into sadr city will change the war’s milieux. The geo-political mission would necessarily devolve to something other than occupation or nation building.
The Malaprop as President. He has an uncleft pallet. Wars are accidents.
By RW-(the original)
January 1, 2007 05:10 PM | Link to this
Look what finch posted on my blog this morning:
bon scott said… The circle-jerk cynicism among the tunnel vision types here continues to amaze me. That is, whenever I have the time or the stomach to read it. George Bush is still the wort President we’ve ever had; the Iraq war is a bloody joke; the economy is unravelling and still you soma drinkers have the “courage” to say that everything is just fine. Perfectly dancy. Couldn’t be better. It can’t be the booze. Most of you seem to imbibe in moderation. I’m impressed by that.
Any word on when Andy’s getting out of rehab?? The poor boy was long overdue for electroshock treatments, large quantities of Xanax and Prozac. Oh, and no booze. Or box cutters
Maybe medical science can make a human being out of him yet!!
RW, before you check (and you will), I’ll tell you the obvious. In California with some lucrative consultancy stuff. But I’ll be back. And much closr than you think. Or fear
1/01/2007 04:51:43 AM
Now that is one sick drunken sob that even a Momma couldn’t be proud of.
By Buy Danish
January 1, 2007 05:11 PM | Link to this
LuckoDull,
I have a feeling that the “intellectual giants” are just running next door to join Midori in her parrot choir, which could use a few sopranos.
By Patriotic Foreskin
January 1, 2007 05:14 PM | Link to this
I watched the digitally enhanced version of the Saddam Video. The Shia were all holding dozens of Time Magazine Mirror covers at Saddam, and saying, “Who Dat”?
By getalife
January 1, 2007 05:24 PM | Link to this
Nice post bon.
Very well said.
By Buy Danish
January 1, 2007 05:33 PM | Link to this
RW,
Sybil and Stalker Boy are two peas in a pod, aren’t they?
By Honu
January 1, 2007 05:38 PM | Link to this
RW @ 5:10p — guess U2 was right…”Nothing changes on New Year’s Day.”
By RW-(the original)
January 1, 2007 05:42 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
Remember the post he left on the thread below this one about 12 hours before that one?
And qith apolohgies…
Talk about someone on a major league bender.
By RW-(the original)
January 1, 2007 05:45 PM | Link to this
Honu,
Actually it seems things do change on New Years Day. Instead of stalker boy OotMVoD issuing threats it’s now Sybil.
By getalife
January 1, 2007 05:57 PM | Link to this
Damn RW,
Where is the threat?
Are you paranoid or what?
Geez, you and your friends need to grow a spine.
By Buy Danish
January 1, 2007 06:07 PM | Link to this
RW,
As he had a midnight dreary - Qith the raven, nevermore!
By RW-(the original)
January 1, 2007 06:08 PM | Link to this
getalife,
As threats go it isn’t very much, but would you want a drunken sot like that threatening to move into your neighborhood? The clown might have a car you know.
Did you get a new supply of Cubans for 2007?
Now quit trying to get in the last word!
By @@
January 1, 2007 06:09 PM | Link to this
Getalife:
Cindy Sheehan allowed herself to be used and has lost any influence.
The Mom I mentioned offers herself as a contact for grieving parents. She helps them through the process. She’s connected parents with other parents. They talk about their loved ones in a positive light.
I think her efforts have been far more constructive than Cindy’s. I think she’s done a wonderful thing, and I think her observation was valid.
By Patriotic Foreskin
January 2, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this
Cartoon Idea: Show Kramer on stage with a mike, and Saddam is heckling him, and Kramer says, “2000 years ago we used to hang dictators like you!”
Saddam’s public execution was as theo-politically derived as Christ’s own public execution, (and as cold).
Saddam is the Sunni’s Messiah. Saddam was the Shia’s Barrabas. When we, as Pontius Pilot, asked the Iraqis who they would set free, they said “praise be to allah” and blew themselves up (and pontius pilate). Imagine if they had C4 at Christ’s trial? They wouldn’t have made it to the crucifixion.
Bush claims that foreign influences are inciting the violence.
Sunnis vs Shia? Both claim self defense.
By ukqelwyjz fxcwokyh
January 14, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
hsjfcz srzam nvcikqh ywbhg hzxkyn ectkg dfyqhsvnb