Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > January > 09 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USGOP can stop looking over its shoulder
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
As a committee of state legislators assembled to escort the newly elected speaker pro tem of the Georgia House of Representatives, Mark Burkhalter (R-Alpharetta), into the chamber, House Speaker Glenn Richardson (R-Hiram) explained the ritual.
The escort committee, Richardson explained, was a holdover from a more raucous legislative era when adversaries might be tempted to “stick a knife in the back” of high officials.
“Of course, nobody would do that in 2006,” he said rather oddly. And indeed, nobody did. All Democrats, in fact, crossed the aisle to elect Burkhalter by acclamation, and seven of them joined the 106 Republicans to give Richardson a second term as speaker.
Ritual in any institution and certainly in a democracy, archaic or not, is much underappreciated as a reminder to us that even as the political tides change and revolutions occur at the ballot box, the people’s business continues in their house of government. No matter what happens, the chosen return to ritual and the work of the republic begins. Even in its simplicity — the escort committees — it is elegantly inspiring, civil and reassuring, a fresh and optimistic start.
Watching it from the press gallery, it’s easy to believe that this day is the high point for Republicans under the Gold Dome. Two years ago, when the GOP gained control of the House and Richardson was first elected speaker, Democrats were still hopeful, as congressional Republicans are now, that the victors’ reign would be temporary. After November, those illusions are gone.
Their time will come again. The rituals will be theirs to perform. But not soon.
For Republicans, this is the session when power is consolidated and put to a defining purpose. As Richardson explained it two years ago, new legislation should proceed “slowly and cautiously” and, to gain acceptance, should meet at least one test: Will it reduce the size of government? Will it reduce the tax burden on Georgians? Will it promote personal responsibility? Will it strengthen the family?
In the first two years, as legislators pandered for a political edge in November’s elections, the relationship between bills and the four-way test was often elusive. But the GOP faces no serious challenge to its legislative control for years to come. The speaker’s standard, then, should actually apply.
For Democrats, the chore is to find a way to get noticed that will appeal to mainstream Georgia. Rebuilding a party capable of winning statewide gained some urgency after November. There are no obvious heirs.
The key to that redefinition is, as it has been for some time, black Democrats. Of the 74 seats held by Democrats, 61 are in districts where blacks make up more than 30 percent of registered voters, the usual threshold for determining whether a district votes Democrat or Republican.
Somewhat surprisingly, though, eight of the over-30 districts are held by Republicans — including several they would likely have lost with a more competitive gubernatorial race.
State Rep. Robert Mumford of Conyers, a white Republican, is in a district astride one path of black outmigration from Atlanta. His district was almost 40 percent black at the time of last November’s election; he won with 51.8 percent of the vote. State Rep. Gene Maddox (R-Cairo), a second-termer, represents a 34 percent black district; he won with 53.2 percent of the vote.
Other Republicans who won easily in over-30 black districts are three party-switchers, Reps. Mickey Channell of Greensboro (re-elected with 63.8 percent of the vote, Johnny Floyd of Cordele (66.4) and Richard Royal of Camilla (63.9); plus David Knight of Griffin (59.3) and Willie Talton of Warner Robins (70.1).
Even if Democrats succeed in the future in picking up those seats when entrenched incumbents retire, the numbers are still short of a majority.
For the GOP, consolidated in power, it’s time to do something that matters — if not the big idea, tax reform or school choice, for example, something that begins to turn the ship of state in the direction Richardson articulated.
For Democrats, the need is to reinvent and reintroduce Georgians to the party they grew up with. The key players in that will be black Democrats, who now are the party’s majority in the House. The party can only move as far toward the Georgia voting mainstream as they will let it.
Permalink | Comments (151) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Services »
Comments
By jbmlaw
January 9, 2007 08:29 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. Jim has often, reasonably, lamented the nonperformance of the Republican House from 2000-2006; with the exception of some excellently-targeted tax cuts, and an appropriate response to Islamist terrorism, there is no meaningful legacy from those years (and of course the Pelosistas now declare their intention to cripple the economy by retaxing our most productive elements.) Ironically President Bush’s most quotable line – referring to the “soft bigotry of low expectations” – seemingly applies most aptly to our late Republican Congress. Expecting anything less than a strong pro-liberty agenda from our legislature would meet that sad standard. Ronaldus Maximus set the gold standard for Republicans, articulated often, but most conspicuously in his second inaugural address: “If not us, who? And if not now, when?” Why should we expect mere dithering from the legislature? Now is the time to eliminate agencies, taxes, statutes.
By the balls
January 9, 2007 08:29 AM | Link to this
Was that an AC-130 Gunship circling over the Gold Dome as Burkhalter was escorted into the chamber?
By Van
January 9, 2007 08:49 AM | Link to this
By the balls
No, the AC-130 is only used against the enemies of our country and terrorists. But, on second thought…
By Georgia Red by blood, not relation
January 9, 2007 08:57 AM | Link to this
Jim,
Lets discuss what our stay at home wives are doing while we work the day. This prostitution/drug bust hits close to home, sir. No longer can we assume they are out with the kids or shopping at the mall. I live nin the Sugarloaf area and I thought this would turn out to be one of the black athletes or numerous rappers that live around here. Driving up the home prices with their taste for extravagance and Bentley’s. I just know they are going to trace the money back to our donations to our great leaders in the Republican party. Lets just celebrate its a female pro ring because if it were males…our conservative brothers would be in big trouble.
By Lulu
January 9, 2007 09:05 AM | Link to this
I don’t agree with Mr. Wooten that any party, Democratic or Republican, should move toward the “voting mainstream” for the sake of reintroducing itself to the voting public. It’s up to Georgians to get informed, stay informed and vote for the person who is more likely to carry our their wishes in the State Legislatures. Democrats simply need to continue articulating their message as best they can in order to persuade. In time, they always do.
By Joshua
January 9, 2007 09:14 AM | Link to this
You know Jim, I wasn’ too scared about the future of our state until you said “strengthen the family.” Somehow, when Republicans start talking about “protecting” families they usually mean forcing women to have babies by limiting education about contraception and access to abortion as well as preventing same-sex couples from having the basic protections for their families that opposite-sex couples enjoy.
Any chance this legislative session would allow those of us inside 285 to secede from the rest of the state?
By @@
January 9, 2007 09:17 AM | Link to this
Jim:
When I was in high school, I had a part-time job in the Clayton County Commissioners office. State reps (Democrats) were always coming into the office to…? I didn’t know what they were doing there behind closed doors.
One of them, whose name I won’t mention, used to park his fat butt at my desk, talking trash, eating my sunflower seeds and spitting the hulls in my trashcan. At 17, I remember thinking “These are duly elected politicians who legislate for the people?”
I also recall seeing Tom Murphy slam that gavel down on the last day, run up and down the aisles like an idiot, while papers were being tossed in the air. It looked like New Year’s Eve at Time Square. Again, I begged that ^^^ question…”Are these…?”
Anyway Jim. What’s a yellow dog Democrat?
Are those the voters within the party who are “afraid” of change? The voters who will vote for the buffoonery and the buffoons just because they’re Democrats? Just because it seems like the right thing to do?
By Dennis
January 9, 2007 09:18 AM | Link to this
Quoting jmblaw, “Now is the time to eliminate agencies, taxes, statutes.”
(I can’t be on here too much today to respond, but I’ve time for a little dialogue); Which agencies do you want to eliminate and why? What services do the people get that you think they don’t need?
By jbmlaw
January 9, 2007 09:20 AM | Link to this
If I were head of the Democrats in Georgia, my game plan would take the party away from the socialism of the past 40 years, and would pursue something like libertarianism. As our friend CJ hinted in his note late yesterday, a large section of the current Democrat voting base has been affirmatively injured by Georgia statutes; I think CJ mentioned prostitution and drug laws as a couple of areas he would repeal. I don’t traffic in conspiracy theories, but it would be easy to manufacture an argument that the sole purpose of those laws is to ensure large numbers of our minority populations are saddled with criminal histories, and thus suffer electoral disenfranchisement. Instead of fighting a rear-guard action on election laws – the Democrats’ dispute on picture id is nearly dishonest – I would pursue a frontal assault, and argue that the disenfranchisement of people (guilty of nothing more than pursuit of free enterprise) is a moral wrong and a stain on our culture.
By jbmlaw
January 9, 2007 09:22 AM | Link to this
Dear Joshua @ 9:14, I think you misread Republican intentions. We don’t care about Democrats aborting future socialists, we only want to ensure good (and not-so-good) Republican girls don’t murder their babies
By jbmlaw
January 9, 2007 09:28 AM | Link to this
Dear Dennis @ 9:18, good question. Everything, except the office of the Secretary of State, the Department of Treasury, and (reluctantly) the courts (to resolve private disputes.) Education has not educated the first child, DFCS is at best a state-effort to cover what should be done at the local level. Everything. Wipe it out for 10 years or so, see if there is anything we cannot live without.
By time for the truth
January 9, 2007 09:40 AM | Link to this
Those vile, disgusting, homophob gangstas otherwise known as the 30% or more, should all be shot and strung up. They’re nothing but a bunch of sissyfied liberal monkeys. Better off without any of them. That goes to anyone who supports them as well.
smirk
By the balls
January 9, 2007 09:40 AM | Link to this
An imaginary eighth grade english teacher evaluates Wooten’s prose: “Elegantly inspiring” (ouch)……..
“For the GOP, consolidated in power, its time to do something that matters, if not the big idea, tax reform or school choice, for example, something that begins to turn the ship of state in the direction that Richardson articulated” (you are a blogging, clogging violation of the laws of nature, only I dont enforce them laws)…….
“Even in it’s simplicity-the escort commitees- it is elegantly inspiring, civil and reassuring, a fresh and optimistic start.” (hyphen abuse is not pretty) + (“elegantly inspiring” is beyond redemption) + (run-on sentences are so 1950s)……
Wooten, sir, you seem to have given up on style. It’s like November was your Waterloo. A reader must work hard to comprehend your blog, sir, and force himself to rise above a poorly constructed syntactical obstacle course in order to glean anything. You give readers six weeks of basic training with every paragraph.
Nearly every paragraph starts with a preposition. It’s almost impossible to save a sentence that starts with a preposition. For. For. Even if. Even if. As. As.
AS IF!
It’s upsetting to witness an editor of a good newpaper perpetuate criminal acts of prose by holding hostage basic elements of style as atrociously as you do, Mr. Wooten. I refuse to believe that you graduated from a school of journalism. I think you got your diploma from the back of a box of matches or from a comic book ad - you know the kind: the one next to the ad for the skinny guy (D-Ga) who lifts weights in order to beat up the bully (R-Ga) who had kicked sand in his face. The bully probably cranked the skinny guy’s girl (D-FL), too. Boy, did that bully need a punch in the nose! Boy, do you need a class in style!
:0)
By Dennis
January 9, 2007 09:46 AM | Link to this
For jbmlaw@9;28 “Education has not educated the first child…”
Then you are a self-educated, “self-made” person with no formal education? You have not/do not benefit from our “social welfare” of hospitals, highways, police enforcement or…even, public education?
Given that people are who and what they are, what results would we have if we try things your way?
By JK
January 9, 2007 09:47 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw, QUICK! The People’s Court can’t show their second 15-minute segment until you get there. Judge Marilyn is waiting! Between you & me, I think she digs you. Hurry on over there, lawyer man!
You can ‘splain your no-government utopia whose only function is to execute every person for any crime after the broadcast. We’ll wait for ya.
By CJ
January 9, 2007 09:47 AM | Link to this
I’m afraid that Republicans don’t actually believe in the four point acid test that House Speaker Richardson articulated. It’s true that they want to reduce the tax burden for some Georgians. But they primarily intend to increase the tax burden for others by shifting the heaviest part of the load from high-income earners to middle and low-income earners by replacing our income tax structure with a sales tax structure. Such a shift would result in a tax structure in which the less you make, the higher the percentage of income you would pay in State taxes. Such a shift would be counter-productive, and more importantly, immoral.
In addition, Georgia’s Republican Party doesn’t want to reduce the size of government. In fact, they want to house, feed, clothe and take care of the poor for as long as possible. They intend to do this by incarcerating as many of them as they can. For example, Georgia recently sentenced 17-year old Genarlow Wilson to ten-years in prison with no possibility for parole for receiving a b.j. from a 15-year old girl. When he’s finally released, in addition to being a convicted felon, Wilson’s name will remain on Georgia’s sex offender’s list for the rest of his life. As a result, if he were released today, he wouldn’t be able to live in the same house as his little sister. When somebody raised hell about the absurdity of the provision in Georgia’s sex crimes law that Wilson was convicted under, the State Legislature changed it. They could have chosen to apply the change retroactively to let Wilson and any others caught in the same net out of prison, but they chose not to. Mr. Wilson still lingers in prison two-years after his conviction. I know this story might sound sad to some, but things balance out in the end since Georgia’s prison building, maintenance and services industry is flourishing (I wonder if those guys have any lobbyists walking around under the Gold Dome).
Georgia’s racist drug laws, lack of sufficient funding for indigent defense, kicking special needs children off of Medicaid, consideration of not fully funding PeachCare, ridiculous criminal laws with Draconian punishments, seeking to shift more of the tax burden to the poor, building more prisons, efforts to take money away from public education, efforts to make it easier to convict an innocent person of a crime by not requiring a unanimous verdict, continuing to finance schools with local revenues where poorer municipalities have less school funding, weakening anti-usery laws, passing laws allowing private financial services providers to impose a “poor tax” by increasing insurance premiums or interest rates using factors unrelated to risk, and other such strategies are intended to get poor Georgians to either learn their place, leave the State, or go to jail.
Lower taxes? Smaller government? Personal responsibility? Family values? Bull$hit! Our State government is currently doing alright fiscally, but morally…we’re bankrupt.
By Dusty
January 9, 2007 09:50 AM | Link to this
Jim Wooten,
I try very hard to get interested in state politics. Of course I SHOULD! But since I haven’t trusted any Democrats since Zell left, I find it hard to sympathize with the losers. Reading the AJC doesn’t help since they balance the scales of my justice with blatant liberalism (not you, Jim).
Maybe they should get rid of the bodyguards and have a little more excitement. Wasn’t it Ben Tillman that whacked somebody with a cane? Oh well, Maybe Perdue will visit with a rebel yell or perform one of those puppy operations and everyone will either wake up or throw up.
Maybe jmblaw is right. Just get rid of everything except the essentials.
By CJ
January 9, 2007 09:53 AM | Link to this
jbm,
Looks like I tried to surf your wave this morning. Sorry about that.
By Richard
January 9, 2007 09:56 AM | Link to this
the balls, you mean you actually thought Wooten was literate? Guess you haven’t been reading his column for long!
By Lake Sinclair
January 9, 2007 09:57 AM | Link to this
It’s not the government’s job to pass legislature that “strengthens the family” or “promotes personal responsibility”. THAT MY JOB. Get the government out of my life! Jim. as a so called conservative, that should be your mantra.
By JK
January 9, 2007 09:58 AM | Link to this
CJ at 9:47: Beautifully stated! Thank you for being a voice of reason here in wingnut monkey land. I shall leave your words to resonate and get to work now, before someone wounds me with scintillating comeback like “Stupid Lefty Lib!” Haha! You rock.
By Buy Danish
January 9, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this
If anyone had any questions about jbmlaw’s character, or lack thereof, this pointless and unfunny quote clinches it for me:
By jbmlaw - January 9, 2007 09:22 AM
Dear Joshua @ 9:14, I think you misread Republican intentions. We don’t care about Democrats aborting future socialists, we only want to ensure good (and not-so-good) Republican girls don’t murder their babies.
By Rod
January 9, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this
CJ - what the hell are you talking about with “racist drug laws”.?
If you possess or sell illegal drugs, you go to jail. Exactly what is racist about that? If more blacks want to deal in drugs, that still doesn’t make the drug laws racist.
Using that logic, murder is racist too. What a pathetic moron.
By Buy Danish
January 9, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this
CJ is calling our drug laws “racist” and JK is cheering her on. Here we go again.
Let the race-baiting begin.
By freedomadmin
January 9, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this
More proof that Georgia is among the 20% that blindly supports GW Bush. Pitiful.
Perdue and GA are the laughing stock of everyone with a brain.
Join me on The Freedom Forum for political discussion (even Republicans are welcome)
http://www.forumcityusa.com//index.php?mforum=freedom
Join me on my political blog:
http://freedom-forum.blogspot.com/
By Elisha
January 9, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this
Shining a light on racist drug laws isn’t race-baiting. Passing them is.
By Georgia Red by blood, not relation
January 9, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this
I think what CJ is referring to is the fact that Meth and Cocaine gets less time than crack convictions. I believe its at an exponential differince…grams of crack versus kilos of cocaine. May not be racist in my opinion, but it is simply stupid. Cocaine is a white collar drug and crack being the lowest of low…even though meth does the body worse. Correct me if I’m wrong Mr. CJ….
By Rod
January 9, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this
Hey Georgia Red by blood, not relation (and CJ):
If you don’t do drugs, you don’t have to worry about the length of time in jail - it’s that simple.
By JK
January 9, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this
Oh good grief, BD. As a white suburban woman with a decent income and health insurance, I can go to my doctor and obtain all kinds of goodies to take the edge off my busy, stressful day. And the quacks around here are all too happy to scribble their ‘scrips for all kinds of toxic, mood-numbing, pain-killing, energy-boosting drugs. (Been there; freed myself.. YAYYYY!) All legal. The poor urban hourly worker with no insurance needs to take the edge off too. A little self-medication to get her through the night, stop the dogs from barking and the back from aching after a 10-hour shift on her feet and a long bus ride. What are her options? Hey, Great Grandma might have a glaucoma doobie to share… NO, WAIT! The cops pumped her full of bullets a few weeks ago. Well, someone between the bus stop and home will have something for the pain…. She should go to JAIL now? (PLEASE go arrest that lying, drug-addicted quack pusher who calls himself a doctor instead!) I believe that’s what CJ was talking about.
By I'm Just Saying...
January 9, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this
CJ seems to have taken it for granted that readers on this blog don’t limit themselves to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Apparently, that was a mistake.
By Curious Observer
January 9, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this
Let the Republican Georgia legislature wallow in its imaginary Gone With the Wind world, casting wistful eyes on a long-dead past in the effort to reconstruct the Dixiecrats of Strom Thurmond and his ilk. The rest of the country will progress, accepting 21st Century reality.
Georgia Democrats should not even waste funds and effort to counter the tide of racism and caste-consciousness that now dominates this state. Instead, they should donate any funding to the national party, so that Democratic majorities in Congress can become even larger and a Democrat can be elected to the presidency in 2008.
Write Georgia and the entire South off. Focus instead on the national picture. After all, the only way Democrats could come to dominate again in the South is to join the drive toward elitism, racism, and self-aggrandizement—in short, to destroy themselves and their principles.
Dusty points to Zell Miller as a model Democrat. The Democratic Party would be better off as a nonentity than to emulate such a model.
By Buy Danish
January 9, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this
JK,
Apparently you are taking advantage of those prescription drugs. Your 10:28^^ has to be the single-most idiotic posts I have read by anyone, ever - and that is saying a lot.
CJ,
Is that “what you were saying,” as JK asserts?
I’m running out, I’ll check in later to see how this insane “racist drugs” debate deteriorates.
By Georgia Red by blood, not relation
January 9, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this
Rod…I’m referring to the dealers..the true criminals. The illegals bringing drugs over the borders…the white ones buying, then flying them over in G4’s from Columbia, the black ones dealing them in the inner citey, the mexicans cooking them in Duluth, the whites cooking them in Dalton, the Asians bringing them over in cargo, the blacks cooking crack from the cocaine they bought from the rich, suburban, white house wife in Gwinnett. Its all of these bastards I’m referring to. I didn’t even touch on the Cubans and Haitians in Miami trafficking.
By RW-(the original)
January 9, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this
JK,
Would you provide us with some detail about how many more everyday people get thrown in jail for smoking a joint than doctors for writing bogus prescriptions? Thank you in advance.
By Georgia Red by blood, not relation
January 9, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this
JK…….you’re stupid. (Yes, conservative white guys liked the Martin show too)
By the balls
January 9, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this
Look, you pundits, if you cant blog something fetch, then dont blog anything at all.
Manrule: When you are sure you have finished your blog, and you are ready to click the mouse with the little hand, which is giving you all the finger, (in my world anyway), on the “post” button, dont. Instead delete everyword you wrote and start over, believe me, what you just wrote stinks to high heavens, (witness every comment on this blog by you horrid trolls for the past six months).
Then, when you’ve finished your second draft of what you think it was that you tried to express, (but failed, witness every comment for the past six months)), delete that too, and start over.
Then, when you’ve completed your third draft, instead of posting it, go stick you heads in the toilet for an hour, and let your wife post on the woman-to-woman blog. She’ll be a better person and you’ll be cleaner. (at least, that what your wife said last night).
bwa
By time for the truth
January 9, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this
I see the anally inadequate ID stealer is back at it … yet again posting its pathetic drivel whilst pretending to be someone vastly superior to its own long overdue for a drug overdose dumbarsed self!!
By Realist
January 9, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this
Balls aka Political Foreskin…
Youare the only troll on this blog…well, maybe TFTT and Getabrain
By Dusty
January 9, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this
Curious Observer,
I don’t doubt that you did not like Zell Miller. He was and is honest.
By Brian Curtis
January 9, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this
Curious: Good point. The perennial question facing Democrats—“How do we win over the racists, fundies, and and other hateful hicks of the South?”—is not worth asking, let alone answering. A principled party doesn’t want their support, let alone seek it out.
Shore up our education system to hopefully shrink their numbers in the next generation, and write off the South for now. Eventually the proud-to-be-ignernt bigots will grow old and die.
By Randy
January 9, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this
Political Foreskin needs to take his writing skills anywhere but here. He’s so far out in T-Ball left field that balls don’t reach him.
T-boned T-Baller.
By time for the truth
January 9, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this
the balls, you filthy, ignorant liberalist a44wipe - why don’t you apply your logic to yourself?!?!
By Rod
January 9, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this
Zell Miller was and is an immoral and unethical man. When you run for political office under a guise as being alligned in one party then sell out and switch - you should be required to resign and re-run for the position under your “new” party.
Zell’s to much a coward and blow-hole to do that.
By time for the truth
January 9, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this
How jolly unsurprisingly hilarious to see the resident leftist scum on here dishonestly and moronically racebaiting again and the witless feminazi JK hysterically puking up all kinds of its trademark witless PMS drivel. That doctor that feminazi JK uses must be the Mengele of the demoNcrat party!!
Pinko observer’s usual pathetic bollocks this morning is even more ludicrously paranoid than a mildly amusing Dr Micky Savage rant about “leftist vermin”. There is NO GOP racism in GA - but there is undeniably some quite shrill black demoNcrat racism in GA as we’ve seen recently in the elections and behaviour of black politicos.
The lefties on here have about as much credible perspective as a whoralicious menopausal crack smoking anteater whining about not being able to use its food stamps in a S Fulton County Big Lots.
WHERE THE BLOODY HELL IS CRACKPIPE in all this??
Must be out filling up its sullen racebaiting pipe methinks!!
By time for the truth
January 9, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this
Zell Miller is the ONLY intellectually honest GA demoNcrat other than (probably) Ben Jones that I have any actual regard for.
The fact that the far left viscerally despise Zell is living proof that he must be saying the right things!
Agreed Randy … Aborted Foreskin is a sick, pathetically unfunny, putrid joke!!
By Van
January 9, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this
From the people on this blog, it appears that the Democrats don’t have a clue about what to do, they are just upset that they are not the ones shafting the working folks of Georgia.
They had no plan for voter fraud, someone else did, now they are mad. They didn’t have a plan about illegal immigration, someone else did and now the lefties are angry.
Makes sense to me.
By time for the truth
January 9, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this
when this pathetic id stealer has to keep manically talking to itself we hilariously see that its puerile, compulsive unhinged obsession with its CONSERVATIVE betters is really eating away at it.
By Peter
January 9, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this
DUSTY…….HA HA HA……….Zell Miller is Honest…….HA HA HA…….
HA HA HA……
He is a Republican parading around in a Democratic sheeps coat……
HA HA HA……Honest…..
He is about as honest as Bush…..
HA HA HA HA HA…….
By time for the truth
January 9, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this
snivelling moron rod
As ever your abject intellectual dishonesty is most pleasing. Zell Miller has NOT fundamentally changed his politics, what has changed is that your despicable worthless corrupt party has slithered so far to the left that its left him BEHIND. Thus he bluntly speaks out about how nutty and anti-American the irrational Bush hating left has become and is eagerly vilified maggotbrain/feminaziJK/rednekkks NAMBLA style for his trouble!!
By Dusty
January 9, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this
Rod,
You have written with complete honesty about the current political ethics of your Democratic Party. That is: the only standard of conduct is what the party says is right. Ethics and honesty are out of the picture.
It even seems as though patriotism has also been removed. Rabid and uninformed dissent at the lowest level is too common to be ignored.
The Democratic Party left Zell Miller. He would not depart from honesty and ethical behavior. He did what was best for the country, not just the party.
Many of the actions of the Democratic Party cast sad reflections on the state of American politics today.
By harold
January 9, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this
can we buy beer and wine on sundays yet?
By jbmlaw
January 9, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this
Dear CJ @ 9:53, not a problem. You and I don’t agree on the taxes stuff, but I wish I had written the last 2/3s of your 9:47 post. Well done. Frankly you may be a notch beyond me on the criminal continuum, but we are not ideologically opposed there.
By getalife
January 9, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this
This guy is not a liberal:
“Reagan conservative: Bush is like Hitler, he’s also delusional:
“Bush is like Hitler, ” says Paul Craig Roberts, an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. “He blames defeats on his military commanders, not on his own insane policy. Like Hitler, he protects himself from reality with delusion.”
You can stop with the liberal blah, blah, blah crap wingnuts.
By The Genius of Dusty
January 9, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this
“Rabid and uninformed dissent at the lowest level is too common to be ignored.”
In other words, support our Leader or be convicted and executed for treason.
By jbmlaw
January 9, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this
Dear JK @ 10:28, I see your post here was not well-received by some of my friends, but I would have felt comfortable writing what you wrote. Well done.
By Dusty
January 9, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this
Peter,
When you get over your hysterical outburst you may realize a basic truth.
Zell Miller and President Bush are both honest men.
By harold
January 9, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this
“If you don’t do drugs, you don’t have to worry about the length of time in jail”
well, unless they bust down your front door unannounced (you know, so you dont flush the drugs) and accidentally kill you.
actually harold figures you dont have to worry then either because you dead.
By harold
January 9, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this
Dusty you meant “Zell Miller and President Bush are both honestly men.”
honestly men
as in, they have penises
even if they dont use them
By Dusty
January 9, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this
Genius,
Most people here can read what I post and decide for themselves what I mean.
If you think that Rabid and uninformed dissent should be called treason, then go for it. But those are your conclusions, NOT what I wrote.
By time for the truth
January 9, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this
The ajc is today resorting to full blown BBC like moderation on its blog on the evils (or not) of mohammedanism. Its taking well over an hour to see posts appear. Happily there is an overwhelmingly pgragmatic approach to this largely poisonous and murderous dogma. My own humble offering is worth posting here, if only to show that reasoned argument is also actually available elsewhere on these usually pretty leftist blogs.
By time for the truth January 9, 2007 10:24 AM
Whether you call them muslims, islamists or mohammedans the label makes no real difference. Steve is absolutely right, this utterly intolerant religion is at its core innately oppressive, sexist, racist and murderously elitist. Just look at the treatment of Jews by mohammedans over the centuries. Clearly christians were frequently just as virulently anti-semitic. Indeed it was mohammedans - not Hitler’s nazis - who first forced jews to wear yellow a thousand years ago in N. AfriKa.
Arab elitism is central to the way mohammedanism works and is administered. As is supposed ancestral ‘closeness’ to the line of mohammed. those who can “prove” this are entitled to wear black turbans which bestow on them greater ‘power’ and authority.
The koran is purely man made dogma, there is NOT the slightest shred of proof that it was dictated over a period of years by an archangel to an illiterate mohammed in arabian caves. Mohammedans slavishly and unquestioningly follow the dictates of this book, asserting that it is utterly infallible and must never ever be challenged factually, logically, historically etc. Indeed the tradition asserts that this often bellicose anti-christian and jewish tome always existed in heaven/paradise until it was magically dictated over many years to mohammed. This is nothing but unprovable arabian nights type fantasy.
One simple undeniable fact completely eviscerates this koranic claim. In the original ‘early’ versions, of which there were a number, essentially one for every ‘pagan’ “tribal” arabic dialect until one version was systematically imposed there is a highly amusing glaring ommission. Which is duly featured in my English language Lebanese copy - approved by both sunni and shiite. Sura 76 talks of the sperm mixing with the ovum (mentioned in brackets) as an interpolation. This exactly reflects the then very backward 7th century scientific knowledge which was completely unaware of the need for the sperm to “mix” with the ovum to produce babies. You would think that allah would of been FULLY aware of this up in heaven. Especially given the proud mohammedan tradition is that mohammed was indeed illiterate and thus channelled this book directly from the “source” and such ignorance would have been anticipated. This biological idiocy (about the sperm) is further compounded by the biological ignorance evinced in the very short Sura 86.
The unbelievable pagan fatalism of mohammedans is astonishing. Sura 3.145 states no one will die unless allah permits and Sura 9.51 states that nothing will befall us except what allah has ordained. Clearly losing to the Israelis in the Six Day War was just one instance of this.
The end of Sura 18 talks of a huge wall made of molten brass that cannot be assailed by Gog and Magog. Yet such a wall is nowhere to be seen anywhere on the earth’s surface. Unlike say, the Great Wall of China.
Folks should always be allowed the freedom to believe in whatever they want, but those beliefs and cultural (and other) practices should always be examined rigorously. Any attempt to deny rational inquiry, as mohammedanism unerringly does - by declaring it a capital (death by beheading or whatever) offence merely shows how weak minded and terrified of rational inquiry such mind control systems are.
Clearly one could provide far more evidence and argument here - but a blog entry cant be too long.
By Rod
January 9, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this
Ha Ha Ha!!! In his 11:25 post, time for the truth (or lack thereof) actually accuses someone else of racebaiting!!!
Ha Ha Ha!!!
By Rod
January 9, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this
Please allow me to translate time for the truth’s extremely long 12:21 post:
blah, blah, blah
That covers all of his good points.
By The Genius of Dusty
January 9, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
You wrote ““Rabid and uninformed dissent at the lowest level is too common to be ignored.” You left out the “too common to be ignored” part in your complaint.
Feel free to explain that part of the statement — or not. Otherwise, I infer that you’re advocating for criminal penalties of some kind.
By Dusty
January 9, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this
Harold,
I don’t need your interpretation or additions to what I post. Thank you but no thanks.
By jbmlaw
January 9, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this
Dear Danish @ 10:10, sorry I broke your heart. My post paints Joshua into a logic corner, from which he cannot escape; my post does not reflect sincere thought. If it matters to you, I’ll explain it.
By Dennis
January 9, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this
The koran is purely man made dogma, there is NOT the slightest shred of proof that it was dictated over a period of years by an archangel to an illiterate mohammed in arabian caves.
The same is true for the “bible”.
The “Old Testament” is the bible of the Hebrews. The “New Testament” wasn’t an entity unto itself until 350/400 years after the fact. Prior to that, after almost 100 years after the “resurection”, there was a lot of political infighting deciding what should comprise it.
By time for the truth
January 9, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this
absolutely right Dennis … the ‘running order’ and books of the NT was “imposed” at the Council of Nicea 325 C.E. - as was the very self serving Nicene Creed.
snivelling moron rod … nice to see that a fact filled thoughtful rational post is as ever way above what passes for your degenerate filthy moronic little mind.
By jbmlaw
January 9, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this
Dear JK @ 9:47, you almost have it. The jbmlaw program is that there will be no law for which there is any punishment other than execution. Emphasis on the “no law” part. If something is bad enough to merit execution, we need a law; otherwise not. Streamline our most inefficient entity in life, government.
By Randy
January 9, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this
Sorry Jim, I had intended to follow my post deriding the hanging chad, Political Foreskin a/k/a/ the balls with this from Jeff Jacoby:
“But as a broad rule, intentions are the currency of the left, while results matter most to the right.”
“That is why Bill Clinton made a point of feeling our pain, while Ronald Reagan insisted that facts were stubborn things.”
Sums up the differences for me perfectly.
We know what the road to hell is paved with. Good intentions of the dead Democrats.
By Good Stuff
January 9, 2007 01:07 PM | Link to this
“…results matter most to the right.”
Thanks for the laugh. That was a good one.
By getalife
January 9, 2007 01:10 PM | Link to this
Thank you Steve Jobs
Yahoo!
By ICEMAN
January 9, 2007 01:16 PM | Link to this
Dennis,
You are using impirical “fact” to judge the validity of something that is based on faith. You putting resurrection in quotes,not to mention misspelling it, just shows that you rely on skepticism rather than belief. You are the child that is still upset there’s no Santa Claus.
By fiefdom
January 9, 2007 01:16 PM | Link to this
to jbmlaw I was under the impression that good and not-so-good republican girls didn’t get pregnant. Since you are worried about them murdering their babies, perhaps they should just not get pregnant, which means they should not have sex. Surely you can direct your misogynistic, paternalistic laws in a more direct line. They should be tested yearly (at the expense of the good republican family) to see if they are still “in tact” and if they are not, they should be banished to an all girls parochial school until the good republican family can make a suitable match for them, (with a good republican boy who has been sowing his wild oats with bad democrat girls) whereupon their sexual urges can be satisfied in a good republican marriage and brought to fruition.
By jbmlaw
January 9, 2007 01:28 PM | Link to this
My hero, Dr. Sowell, publishes a couple of aphorisms today:
“What is especially disturbing about the political left is that they seem to have no sense of the tragedy of the human condition. Instead, they tend to see the problems of the world as due to other people not being as wise or as noble as themselves.”
“The next time somebody says that the government is forced to intervene in the economy to protect the poor, ask why the government is forcing taxpayers to subsidize municipal golf courses, the ballet, opera and — the biggest subsidy of all — surrounding affluent communities with vast amounts of expensive ‘open space.’”
By jbmlaw
January 9, 2007 01:31 PM | Link to this
Dear fiefdom @ 1:16, your analysis would be valid if I accepted the socialist “comply with my standards or go to prison” attitude. I don’t.
By Fall Line
January 9, 2007 01:40 PM | Link to this
Lulu asks “Any chance this legislative session would allow those of us inside 285 to secede from the rest of the state?” Sugar, the rest of state would love to leave you sitting in your own cesspool of misery and poverty.
By JK
January 9, 2007 01:41 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish, please accept my apology for the post that so confused you at 10:28. You see, “barking dogs” is slang that working people use for their feet, after working on them all day and/or all night, when they reach the point of throbbing painfully beyond one’s capacity to just not think about it. Such phyiscal labor, the kind honest, hardworking poor people often do for low pay and no insurance benefits, causes not only the feet to hurt (especially for those without their own SUVs), but the back, head, and often (sorry folks) hemorrhoids as well. Tylenol just doesn’t always cut it for them, as hard as it is for you to fathom. And while the county ER takes emergencies, they wouldn’t skip a day’s pay to sit there and ask the doc for something to make the hours between grueling shifts any easier.
Of course you know nice, moral, church-going, upper middle class wives who were depressed after losing a parent or best friend to cancer, have a disinterested husband, or who have their own heath issues. These women are certainly more WORTHY as well as able, to see a doctor for their pain, but the working folks’ pain, (though it be their own fault for missing their bootstrap opportunity to be white and middle class) is real nonetheless. They just have fewer options. Making it illegal to grow that option in a flower pot on the patio or purchase it from a neighbor for $5 is, in my opinion, discriminatory and wrong. Sorry for the confusion. I forgot that not everyone knows the struggle of working physically for long hours and low pay.
By Barbara
January 9, 2007 01:48 PM | Link to this
Truth and Dennis,
You are both wrong….The Bible was not written and created by man…God conceived it and Man dictated. Both of you are deceived.
By harold
January 9, 2007 01:57 PM | Link to this
“The Bible was not written and created by man…God conceived it and Man dictated. Both of you are deceived.”
ROTFLMAO! HAR HAR HAR HAR! That was a g ood one!
By ICEMAN
January 9, 2007 02:07 PM | Link to this
The Bible is the infallible inspired word of the living God. You would have to be his child in order to understand it, otherwise it will appear to be a history book with some good principles in it.
By time for the truth
January 9, 2007 02:07 PM | Link to this
Barbara
that is utter nonsense … just an empty dogmatic assertion with NO proof whatever to back it up. Fideism isn’t much of an argument.
Try reading the truly brilliant recently published The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Whilst I am happily familiar with most of this quite superb book’s arguments, most folks sadly are NOT.
The Secular Bible by Berlinerblau is also a very good read.
Christ - even the old classic The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine has some irrefutable logic/analysis of biblical drivel.
By Barbara
January 9, 2007 02:10 PM | Link to this
Liberal idiots and non believers will not ever know the truth until it too late.
The middle east was fine when it was all European during the times of Jesus. As soon as the Arab people moved in, all things went down hill.
By time for the truth
January 9, 2007 02:11 PM | Link to this
time for the truth knows harold (rather surprisingly) speaks the truth …smirk… on this dogmatic subject.
By Kelly
January 9, 2007 02:11 PM | Link to this
“…the rest of state would love to leave you sitting in your own cesspool of misery and poverty.”
I think this person made CJ’s point.
By jbmlaw
January 9, 2007 02:13 PM | Link to this
Dear Barbara @ 1:48, don’t know if you saw this, but it may help you understand what we (believers) face today: http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110009482
By Barbara
January 9, 2007 02:14 PM | Link to this
Truth, We have had this convo before and I told you all I can do is pray for you. We will continue to disagree on this. God is real…the Bible is the Truth. Science is a man made thing.
By Barbara
January 9, 2007 02:23 PM | Link to this
Thank you jbm
By ICEMAN
January 9, 2007 02:24 PM | Link to this
Note: Never base your belief on something by virtue of the writings of someone who doesn’t even believe in that something.
By Dennis
January 9, 2007 02:29 PM | Link to this
ICEMAN, thanks for correcting my mispelling. And I think the word is “empirical”.
Anyway, we have a choice to go through life with a faith that has been “imprinted” on us from childhood as being “IT”, or to find a faith with “IT” that reveals who we really are without all of the religious drappings and requirements of an establishment dogma.
No doubt from your words, your belief is my skepticism, but I would rather have my skepticism than your belief. My skepticism keeps me more honest than your belief ever did - where I used to reside.
It’s not a leap or journey that just anyone makes, but I can’t go back to where I was, even if I wanted to. Nor do I put anyone down for your belief or for not venturing into the wilderness to find who they really are.
Oh, and, I don’t have post-traumatic stess from learning, “There ain’t no ‘Sandyclause’, it’s your daddy.” :)
By JK
January 9, 2007 02:30 PM | Link to this
The middle east was fine when it was all European during the times of Jesus. As soon as the Arab people moved in, all things went down hill.
Uhhhhh…. I’m sorry…. WHAT?
By Dennis
January 9, 2007 02:34 PM | Link to this
January 9, 2007 09:46 AM | Link to this
For jbmlaw@9;28 “Education has not educated the first child…”
Then you are a self-educated, “self-made” person with no formal education? You have not/do not benefit from our “social welfare” of hospitals, highways, police enforcement or…even, public education?
Given that people are who and what they are, what results would we have if we try things your way?
By jbmlaw
January 9, 2007 02:41 PM | Link to this
Dear Dennis @ 9:46 and 2:34, you ask, “Given that people are who and what they are, what results would we have if we try things your way?” The answer is that the results would be approximately the same, but at a lower cost. The flaw in your question is the underlying assumption that only government provides utility; in fact, something closer to the opposite is the truth. The market fills all cost-effective needs, and rejects those that are not cost effective.
By ICEMAN
January 9, 2007 02:46 PM | Link to this
Dennis,
If you were a believer at one time then allow me to take the following guess: Some tragedy or unfortunate incident occured within your life that began your journey into disbelief right? God never promises bad things won’t happen(unfortunately some preachers do). I,unlike, others chose to integrate science and understanding with my beliefs because I fail to see the contradiction, but just because a terrible thing, such as the big bang occured, doesn’t mean I don’t believe the universe doesn’t exist.
Am I making any sense?
By Brian Curtis
January 9, 2007 02:51 PM | Link to this
So every child should get only the education they (or their parents) can afford! Brilliant! And bitterly in opposition to American ideals and principles.
Ayn Rand would be proud, JBM.
By @@
January 9, 2007 02:57 PM | Link to this
Barbara:
Satisfying a spiritual hunger raises humans above the animal species. Secularists would rob us of that nourishment.
Darwinists would rather we procreate meeting basic physical urges absent any moral guidance, and then dispose of our young so that the stronger (adults) survive, grow old, and then die.
I enjoyed your posts.
By Rod
January 9, 2007 03:06 PM | Link to this
time for the truth - your sniveling rants may make you a favorite in hell (as you burn for eternity), but they’re quite tiresome here.
You don’t believe in God and his Son, Jesus Christ - your choice. However, when you die you will realize what a sad, sad choice you made. But don’t worry, while I’m in Heaven with my creator for eternity - I won’t think about you at all.
By Brian Curtis
January 9, 2007 03:08 PM | Link to this
@@: Right, that’s all you hear from agnostics and biologists alike: “Kill your children so the strong will survive!”
Geez, I musta missed that at the last secular-darwinist Destroy America conference.
By Barbara
January 9, 2007 03:09 PM | Link to this
I would just like to know where this world would be if not for descendants of Western Euoropeans of the Christian faith….then again..no I would not. Savages in South America, Africa, Asia, Middle East would have no chance or hope of salvation. God is real and Jesus saves.
JK, Regardless of what history, or science says…I know in my heart that Jesus and his people were of the caucasian race. No other race has shown the civility of us. Africans and Asians did not know Jesus until we introduced his teachings.
By Barbara Wannabe
January 9, 2007 03:10 PM | Link to this
“The middle east was fine when it was all European during the times of Jesus. As soon as the Arab people moved in, all things went down hill.”
YES Barbara YES!!!!
And Africa was fine too until those damn Africans moved in. Adam and Eve were Europeans and when European Jesus returns he’s going stick a sword up all non-European a*******es. And if you don’t believe me, he’s gonna stick it up your non-believing a*******es too.
By Dennis
January 9, 2007 03:10 PM | Link to this
ICEMAN, Yes, you’re making sense, i.e., a sense that works for you, but it no longer works for me.
There was no tragedy, etc.
By Aquagirl
January 9, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this
There’s a big difference in saying the government sucks at achieving a goal, and the personal commitment to the said goal.
I’m with jbmlaw. Kids spend 12 years in school. Many come out with poor reading skills and just generally showing a lack of results for those 12 years. If I spent 12 years doing anything I’d expect to be pretty darn good at it. Ask many H.S. grads about the Civil war, and you’ll get a couple of mumbled comments.
I don’t support using taxes to fund government-run schools. That doesn’t mean I don’t care about kids learning anything. That’s a typical liberal fallacy..if you don’t support the government doing it, you’re stingy, nasty, and opposed to the idea overall.
By Tim
January 9, 2007 03:18 PM | Link to this
“I know in my heart that Jesus and his people were of the caucasian race.”
For one to know something in his or her heart, he or she would have to have a heart. Barbara doesn’t.
By Aquagirl
January 9, 2007 03:19 PM | Link to this
Barbara, if the christians hadn’t burned the library at Alexandria, we wouldn’t have had to rediscover a lot of things. So excuse me if I don’t hug a christian today.
Do you have one of those velvet pictures of Jesus where He strongly resembles Wayne Newton?
By @@
January 9, 2007 03:22 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis:
When abortion on demand became a convenient form of birth control, we (me included) gave a nod to the chaos that would follow. Weeks ago, I read that amniotic fluid shows strong evidence of being a replacement for embryonic stem cell transplants.
It could meet the moral and scientific needs for society’s ills, if you will.
But…just last night, I saw leftists arguing that it has yet to be proven. Neither has embryonic stem cell transplants, but it’s full speed ahead with those. Are they afraid that abortion will cease to be a useful platform?
Barbara:
I support your right to practice and publically express your faith. I disagree with you on the cultural and racial exclusion though.
By Van
January 9, 2007 03:23 PM | Link to this
Barbara,
I am sorry, but if you believe that Jesus was a white guy, you have been seriously misinformed.
He was a local, semite, a jew, brown skin, brown eyes and dark hair.
But your basic concept was on the right path, the mid-east did not start going down hill until some camel jockey decided to start his own religion. around 632 AD, give or take a few years. I guess he was tired of being jewish and thought he knew beter.
By getoveryourself
January 9, 2007 03:25 PM | Link to this
*I would just like to know where this world would be if not for descendants of Western Euoropeans of the Christian faith….then again..no I would not. Savages in South America, Africa, Asia, Middle East would have no chance or hope of salvation. God is real and Jesus saves.
JK, Regardless of what history, or science says…I know in my heart that Jesus and his people were of the caucasian race. No other race has shown the civility of us. Africans and Asians did not know Jesus until we introduced his teachings.*
This can’t be for real… Tell me it’s an ID thief or someone messing around.
By @@
January 9, 2007 03:26 PM | Link to this
Oops. Sorry Barbara, I just saw your overseas ministries reference.
By Dennis
January 9, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw: “The market fills all cost-effective needs, and rejects those that are not cost effective.”
That seems sort of like a canned dodge to me - typical of a conservative who isn’t explaining very well.
Cost effective for who? What about the needs of those who can’t pay the costs?
You also stated earlier; jbmlaw@9;28 “Education has not educated the first child…” to which I replied, “Then you are a self-educated, “self-made” person with no formal education? You have not/do not benefit from our “social welfare” of hospitals, highways, police enforcement or…even, public education?
And let me add another. Where would you be if our present/future doctors could not afford the costs of their trainning?
Yesterday I quoted a poem, (for which I was called a socialist/communist, Oh! the horrible thoughts the conservatives had about me :), a portion of which said [if you are successful] “keep repeating to yourself that you own it to an arbitrary god whose mercy to you won’t bear to critical examination…”
Do you believe that?
By the stopper
January 9, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this
I guess he was tired of being jewish and thought he knew beter.
Golly, I learn such interestin’ stuff on this heer blog!
By Buy Danish
January 9, 2007 03:31 PM | Link to this
Jbmlaw,
You didn’t break my heart. You just broke the envelope. There are a lot of things about Libertarianism that appeal to me, but your version is a huge turnoff.
JK,
You have only succeeded in digging a deeper hole for your ridiculous “drug policy is racist argument”.
There are many arguments to be made for de-criminalizing drugs, but “racism” is not one of them, nor is a woman’s reluctance to see a doctor (although I would suggest that relying on either prescription or illegally obtained pain killers is not a wise solution to the problem of achy feet).
BTW, I also worked long “shifts” on my feet until 4 in the morning when I graduated from high School, so spare me the “pampered white suburban woman” shtick.
You insult not only whites, but blacks by utilizing these false stereotypes, and implying that the poor folk are still only one step off the plantation and incapable of advancing in their lives (and the atonishing conclusion that SUVS are exclusively for white people).
Barbara,
That^^ may be factually true but irrelevant, as their race is not important. What matters is the difference in cultures and values, and I agree that Western Civilization has produced the best results.
Unfortunately the arguments you are making define racism in that you clearly believe that one race is superior over another.
Moreover Arabs and Jews are Semites, so they are genetically similar, which kind of blows your superior race argument.
By JK
January 9, 2007 03:31 PM | Link to this
Jesus H. Christ on a bike! WHAT? Good Lord Have Mercy, Babs! And I mean that!
Did you miss the whole post-medieval history of Europe where the Catholics and Protestants KILLED EACH OTHER for hundreds of years for being, well, you know, Catholics and Protestants? Hey, you wouldn’t happen to know anything about the shooting death of a newly-elected black mayor in Louisiana, would you? Or the drive-by shooting up of a black mayor’s house in another nearby town? Just curious.
By Dennis
January 9, 2007 03:37 PM | Link to this
AQUAGIRL said; I don’t support using taxes to fund government-run schools. That doesn’t mean I don’t care about kids learning anything. That’s a typical liberal fallacy..if you don’t support the government doing it, you’re stingy, nasty, and opposed to the idea overall
What about the conservative fallacy that anyone who wants to can pull himself up by his bootstraps and be wealthy?
If that were the case, the conservative wealthty wouldn’t be wealthy.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By regulator
January 9, 2007 03:47 PM | Link to this
Jesus and his family were illegals, kicked out of several nations, wonder what he would think of you anti-immigrationists.
By Aquagirl
January 9, 2007 03:49 PM | Link to this
Dennis, people can do things to improve their own situations. Wait…don’t tell me…you’re one of those people who thinks that all wealthy people just happened along that money. Yep, some of ‘em got it by luck. But many of them got rich by working really hard and not spending money on stupid crap.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the government is often the most inefficient way to get something done.
By Buy Danish
January 9, 2007 03:54 PM | Link to this
Dennis Dahreese,
Most people start with little or nothing and work their way up the proverbial ladder. My neighborhood is filled with people like that - of all “ethnicities”.
Most of them are not Democrats, which is a clue to how they managed to succeed where others fail. They didn’t spend their lives thinking of themselves as helpless victims, grooving on their resentment of people who achieved success.
Indeed, if it was up to Democrats, we’d all start with nothing since your party thinks that it’s your right to confiscate the estates created by others for the “greater good” instead of the heirs of our choosing.
By harold
January 9, 2007 03:54 PM | Link to this
idiot liberals wont know the truth until it is too late?
too late for what????
it’s never too late to learn!! well, you know, unless your final exam was earlier in the day. then. then it’s too late.
By Barbara
January 9, 2007 03:56 PM | Link to this
I’m just joshing you all. This isn’t the real Barbara….it is good to see how quickly idiots like @@ blindly follow faith talk even if it includes racist jibberish. Buy Danish…you are funny… “this may be factually true” LMFAO
Van, you are a breath of fresh air though. I once thought you were a sheeple, but you truly seek knowledge and facts. Thank you for correcting my statement on Jesus and his image.
JK, calm down…you’ve already said some dumb things today. Take a break and be prepared tomorrow.
TFTT, you faithless rodent…you ran away quick when a fellow conservative challenged your athiest views. Chopped off your tail?
By Honu
January 9, 2007 04:05 PM | Link to this
Dear Barbara @ 3:09p – just when I think there is hope for you, you again become the arrogant racist that you have shown so many times on this board. How dare you decree that “I know in my heart that Jesus and his people were of the Caucasian race. No other race has shown the civility of us. Africans and Asians did not know Jesus until we introduced his teachings.”
How dare you go against the Lord’s teachings with that totally ignorant and misguided statement. You have not a clue the color of the skin of those Jesus taught when he walked on this earth, nor do you have the right to describe another culture as savages. “No other race has shown the civility of us?” That statement alone shows you are no better than the “savages” you are disparaging.
You are what is wrong with Christianity. You are the reason folks scoff at the idea of the Lord as a higher power and call Him a fairy tale. That you can honestly make ill-mannered statements as those above in the name of the Lord is beyond hypocrisy and ignorance. And if you’re going to tout your Caucasian superiority, learn how to spell it.
By time for the truth
January 9, 2007 04:06 PM | Link to this
jesus effing christ!!
snivelling moron rod and barbara have ONE thing in common - a superstitious irrational historically baseless dogmatic faith.
‘knowing in your heart” is meaningless - all it means is that you have repeatedly repeated this dogma to your self unquestioningly, to the point where you are simply incapable of independent or rational thought or able to even consider any other notion. The bollocks about jesus being a blue eyed honky is utterly absurd. Even without sun tan lotion he’d have looked very much like a sephardic jew - nothing wrong with that either.
You use an anglocised greek name for a charismatic jew supposedly from the Galilee. The resurrection was stolen from the Egyptian cult of Osiris, as was the ritualistic eating/drinking the body of the “risen saviour,” the Easter cult came from the likes of Atiis and Cybele (Asia Minor). Christmas was actually the birthday of Mithra - a roman empire god. the original christian bible was dicktated by the papists who imperiously forced through their own theological bollocks and rejected tomes like the gospel of Barnabas which, like the Nestorians had a very different christology.
The OT is actually less historically accurate than CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS or MSNBC are today!!
BLINDLY AND DOGMATICALLY ASSERTING SOMETHING as ebing true is not very advanced or informed thinking … but the fear of all this christian bollocks not being true is obviously too much to take. don’t feel bad - the mohammedans similarly stole most of their equally lunatic bollocks too from arab pagans.
By Dusty
January 9, 2007 04:06 PM | Link to this
I hate to agree with Brian Curtis (oh it hurts so bad oh oh)@2:51
But to rely on some other way of educating all the children of America without government help seems impractical if not impossible.
I am all for people taking care of themselves without dependance on the government. But a project this large is like saying we can administer justice (police & law) ourselves or fight our enemies individually or even recover and rebuild after catastrophic events. Education for all is big enough to require government with the help of those who are qualified and able.
By time for the truth
January 9, 2007 04:11 PM | Link to this
Babs (the hateful imposter?)
you wide eyed drooling religious sluttish nutter
Actually I am NOT an atheist - that is equally dogmatic arrogance - I am a die hard agnostic. Its not the same thing at all if you actually understand the meaning of agnostic. Which it sure seems you don’t!!
By getalife
January 9, 2007 04:14 PM | Link to this
“Bush’s new law will give Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell and other Bush cronies unprecedented sweetheart deals, allowing them to pump gargantuan profits from Iraq’s nominally state-owned oilfields for decades to come. This law has been in the works since the very beginning of the invasion - indeed, since months before the invasion, when the Bush administration brought in Phillip Carroll, former CEO of both Shell and Fluor, the politically-wired oil servicing firm, to devise “contingency plans” for divvying up Iraq’s oil after the attack. Once the deed was done, Carroll was made head of the American “advisory committee” overseeing the oil industry of the conquered land, as Joshua Holland of Alternet.com has chronicled in two remarkable reports on the backroom maneuvering over Iraq’s oil: “Bush’s Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq’s Oil and “The US Takeover of Iraqi Oil.”
By Aquagirl
January 9, 2007 04:21 PM | Link to this
Dusty, we expect people to provide food, shelter, etc. for their children. There are people who get food stamps or other government assistance, but most responsible human beings consider themselves the first ones responsible for those things. We automatically default to the government for education?
Defense and response to large-scale disasters require action by the government because they require collective effort. Teaching a child is an individual effort.
Four words: No Child Left Behind.
Two more words: Hurricane Katrina. The government would have been better off if they had stuck to their primary responsibility, like making sure N.O. wasn’t a flood waiting to happen. Or evacuating people.
But the aftermath, when they tried to allocate money, trailers, and other assistance to individuals—-who do you think did a better job there? The government, or private charities/individuals?
By Courtney
January 9, 2007 04:36 PM | Link to this
Aquagirl,
You have this strange habit of voting for idiots to run the government, and then blaming the government for being incompetent. The problem isn’t government. The problem is you.
BTW, don’t try to tell me that I don’t know who you vote for. You use the phrase “government-run schools”. Dead giveaway.
By Buy Danish
January 9, 2007 04:42 PM | Link to this
I’m not the real Barbara?
That is so bizarre that I’d say you were doing a fine impersonation of The Jacker - aka Spanker Wanker Pecker Stalker, except for your homage to religion, which Pecker Stalker never does.
Dusty,
I’m with you on the need for public education, although a voucher system would be great for everybody.
TfTT,
You can be an atheistic, agnostic, whatever the hell you want - nobody gives a FFF. Just try to respect the beliefs and traditions of this country (where you have chosen to reside) and of the Christian men who founded it and its institutions - while you wallow in your own ignorance and bigotry.
By time for the truth
January 9, 2007 04:45 PM | Link to this
Aquahag smugly forgets decades of endemic demoNcrat corruption and incompetence that ensured that NO was left vulnerable. Doubtless Aquahag also wants to see many more tens of millions dollars on Red Cross cash cards handed out to Katrina refugee types to pay for hookers, luis vitton handbags etc.
By jbmlaw
January 9, 2007 04:47 PM | Link to this
Dear Dennis @ 3:28, I accept that you believe, totally without basis, that are are necessaries that the market is incapable of filling. You falsely argue that the state of Georgia educates children, suggesting that you misunderstand the process – teachers teach children, states do not teach children. You fallaciously argue that only the state can fund teachers, and therefore that if we eliminate the state educrats no children will learn anything. Does that not sound silly to you? The same argument is true for hospitals, highways, and police. None of those was essential to the republic before Franklin Roosevelt persuaded the sheep to the contrary. As to “Where would [I] be if our present/future doctors could not afford the costs of their trainning (sic)?” I would be the same place as if our present/future baseball players could not afford the costs of their bats. Where do you get that crazy idea that markets do not work?
I sincerely believe you quoted a poet, or alternatively reprinted a poem. You will be amazed to learn that I played an mp3.
By Aquagirl
January 9, 2007 05:02 PM | Link to this
TfTT, Those debit cards were issued by the government—-FEMA to be exact.
Courtney,
100% wrong, dingy girlie. I voted for NO Republicans last election, if that’s the word you’re so scared to use. You may now revert to your regular programming, you sheep. Or reading Nostradamus, since you suck so badly at divination.
By time for the truth
January 9, 2007 05:09 PM | Link to this
@ Butchhag Danish the ultra sad cow!!
cheers for the latest petulant PIG ignorant hissy fit loveykins … I dont have to respect anything you mentioned - just because its “so” … that’s mindless horsesh!t. Respect is always earnt!! I FULLY respect the right of folks to believe in whatever bollocks they choose to - but clearly respect for the right to challenge and critique such beliefs is part of the free give and take in a democracy.
Exactly which institution(s) have I been beastly about honeybunch snookums? Or is that just more of your own pathetic UTTERLY VAGUE moronic bigotry??!!
By Dusty
January 9, 2007 05:10 PM | Link to this
Aquagirl,
I think parents are responsible for caring for the necessities of life for their children. I would hope that would include education. But how can ignorant parents teach a child what they do not know themselves? They may be very caring but they cannot give what they do not have, an education.
Therefore we have schools with classes and usually one teacher for the class. I do not think there are enough teachers in this country to have individual efforts for all children.
As BuyDanish suggested, vouchers would be helpful. Vouchers are government money aka taxpayer money.
Bush has tried to educate every child. If it hasn’t worked, what would you suggest (without government money, of course)?
By time for the truth
January 9, 2007 05:15 PM | Link to this
clearly this aquagirl is poorly informed - there were Red Cross cards issued - as well as FEMA cards…
just one link I found - note the multiple newpsaper links cited as sources.
http://www.snopes.com/katrina/charity/debitcard.asp
By MarkP
January 9, 2007 05:21 PM | Link to this
Bravo to “The Balls” for the observations on Mr. Wooten’s writing style. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only reader who recognized the irony. An editor for a major daily who consistently refuses to deal in syntactically clear prose? I guess it helps disguise the myriad logical flaws in his arguments, for those readers who possess some level of critical-thinking skills.
By Aquagirl
January 9, 2007 05:22 PM | Link to this
Dusty, I’m not suggesting that everyone home-school their child, any more than they personally grow every vegetable or raise every animal that their kids eat.
I’m suggesting that they pay someone else to do it, instead of this big game where the government takes a bunch of money from everyone and then produces a gawdawful system.
Heck, I’d settle for vouchers given the current circumstances of our world. I bet if we did away with public schools, the amount of money spent to educate kids would drop considerably. That would at least give taxpayers some relief.
My point about the no child left behind deal….More government = bigger mess, no better results. Despite good intentions.
By Dennis
January 9, 2007 05:22 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw said, “Where do you get that crazy idea that markets do not work?”
Would a good start be the crash of the stock market in 1929?
If they worked for everybody we’d all be equally wealthy. But those who own and run corporations make sure that that doesn’t happen. You make a good case for it on here.
Also, I’ve never heard of anyone of any real wealth (unless perhaps it is you) who refused his tax refund. And you?
Sometime ago, there was a man in rural county (could’a been you) who argued that paying an EMT $30,000 a year was too much money. But I’ll bet if this man was having a heart attack and needed the EMT to keep him alive until reaching a hospital, $30,000 wouldn’t be enough.
Do you use only private hospitals and private doctors who only accept payment from individuals, like yourself, for example (Keep in mind that every last hospital is subsidized in one form or another by the government)?
Now, I notice that you put down a lot of public facilities in favor of letting the market call the shots. Do you feel the same way about not funding the military, or is that an “exception”?
And this is still hanging in the air;
“…you are a self-educated, “self-made” person with no formal education? You have not/do not benefit from our “social welfare” of hospitals, highways, police enforcement or…even, public education?
You do, and you know it.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Buy Danish
January 9, 2007 05:23 PM | Link to this
None of those was essential to the republic before Franklin Roosevelt persuaded the sheep to the contrary
jbmlaw,
RE your 4:47, FDR did not invent the public school system, which I gather you meant to imply.
The first American public school was authorized on January 2,1643 by the Town of Dedham in the Massachusetts Bay Colony - nearly 150 years before the establishment of the United States…By 1870, all states provided free elementary schooling.
Where the controversy arises is over the role the Federal Government should play in financing or directing public education.
Picking up on the Western Civilization theme, it is interesting to note that the concept of educating the masses began first in Sparta, then with church schools, and Scotland led the way in implementing a system of general public education with free provision for the poor, starting in 1561 during the Protestant Reformation, with support from taxation being introduced in 1633.
TfTT,
Clearly you are incapable of knowing the difference between free speech and pigswill. No matter how logical your arguments can be at times, because of your bilious nature what comes out is nothing but rotten garbage in the end.
By Aquagirl
January 9, 2007 05:31 PM | Link to this
I surrender, TFTT. There were indeed Red Cross cards that were abused as well.
But notice that the Snopes article emphasizes the FEMA cards, as in the indignant e-mail circulated. Clearly there’s a libertarian thought here: I don’t have to give the Red Cross a dime. FEMA takes your money, whether you want to give it to a crack-smoking lowlife “victim” or not.
And I don’t recall ever giving the Red Cross anything but blood—I don’t like their buracracy. Not as bad as the government, sure, but there’s too much bull*t there. With a free market, I have a choice.
By getoveryourself
January 9, 2007 05:37 PM | Link to this
Ahhh…debating the existence of public schools. It’s only been an integral part of most advanced civilization throughout history. But then again, why invest in the nation’s future when I expect my Roth IRA and 401k to take care of me in 50 years?
By Midori
January 9, 2007 05:37 PM | Link to this
what?
no comment to Getalife’s 4:14?
By Dennis
January 9, 2007 05:41 PM | Link to this
By Buy Danish, I am neither a democrat nor a republican, nor a liberterian.
To claim one or the other, just like religious beliefs, is to have drapped around you the beliefs of someone else. Why should I want to succumb my life and my individuality to that?
If it will make any difference to you (et.al) I came from a cotton mill family. I am a fair ways from that now.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Courtney
January 9, 2007 05:45 PM | Link to this
“100% wrong, dingy girlie. I voted for NO Republicans last election, if that’s the word you’re so scared to use. You may now revert to your regular programming, you sheep. Or reading Nostradamus, since you suck so badly at divination.”
Aquagirl,
Thanks for the warm reply. I stand corrected. Do it again ‘08, and assuming most do the same, you’ll see FEMA work the magnificently again - the way it did pre-Bush.
Now watch this: Republicans, Republicans, Republicans.
Thanks for helping me get over my fears.
By Dusty
January 9, 2007 05:45 PM | Link to this
Aquagirl,
The amount of taxes paid by the poor and uneducated would never pay for private schooling.
You are simply saying that you don’t want your money going to educate children if you can’t direct it.
The only way for ALL children to get an education is with government help.
By Buy Danish
January 9, 2007 05:46 PM | Link to this
getoveryourself,
No one is debating the existence of public schools - at least on this planet.
By time for the truth
January 9, 2007 05:46 PM | Link to this
Clearly you are incapable of knowing the difference between free speech and pigswill.
NOPE .. wrong yet again … the difference yours and Rabid Wanker’s and the daily leftist lies/hate speech abusing yours truly - the pigswill … and and my posts, the free speech is glaringly apparent.
See how easy it is to get certain folks to bite every time!!
Aqua … Clearly I don’t at all dispute that FEMA (tax payers) has been far more abused but the Red CRoss abuse was indicative of the thuggish/corrupt pigswill (to coin a phrase) of so many of the average Katrina refugees … but some on here will likely call one a racist for making crack-smoking quips on this topic … NOT ME of course I PROUDLY HASTEN TO ADD!!
By getalife
January 9, 2007 05:47 PM | Link to this
Midori,
Midori,
Over at kos, Senators Durbin and Kennedy posted so I asked them to get big oil executives to testify under oath about these contracts.
This will get cheney to resign, then start class action lawsuits for Iraq and global warming.
By Buy Danish
January 9, 2007 06:00 PM | Link to this
Getalife,
Now you’re singing sweet nothings in the parrot’s ear. “Midori, Midori”.
How sweet!
TfTT,
No one, including you or me, is infringing on anyone’s free speech. Some of us are commenting on the garbage that comes out of yours.
By Aquagirl
January 9, 2007 06:01 PM | Link to this
Dusty, I’m not so sure I personally want to dictate how educational money is spent—but I am wary of our current system. Like I said, vouchers would be a much more acceptable compromise to me. That would give at least the parents a choice.
Don’t you think that some private charities would step in to help people who couldn’t afford schooling? Are y’all that distrusting of people? For being a hard-hearted libertarian, I rely much more on the goodness of people than some of y’all.
Courtney:
You’re welcome. Psychiatric help, five cents!
TfTT,
Oh, someone has to take the “Racist!” slings and arrows.
By jbmlaw
January 9, 2007 06:02 PM | Link to this
Dear Dennis @ 5:22, au contraire, the stock market crash proved that markets do work. When the Republican luddites determined to restrict international trade, and every other country in the world reacted similarly, the market correctly anticipated the results of such government “management” of free enterprise. You erroneously assume that people are sheep and hold identical values of differing goods. The essence of the market is that it clears different preferences, by rationing by price - simple but brilliantly efficient, far superior to any system yet devised by a socialist. As to the military, I admire the efficiency of our national killing machine - there you have government at its finest, killing, imprisioning, and destroying wealth.
Dear Danish @ 5:23, when I affirmed that FDR persuaded the sheep of the necessity of government, I was not attempting to imply that he invented public education. I probably would have used differing language, more like, “FDR invented public education.” Thanks anyway.
By Kelly
January 9, 2007 06:06 PM | Link to this
Courtney,
Something tells me that Aquagirl voted for Libertarians or nobody at all in the last election. Like jbmlaw, she wants to take us back to the days of less government and Hoovervilles. She thinks that Great Depression generation were a bunch of losers who couldn’t figure out how to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. Wouldn’t happen to Aquagirl though. She’s better, faster, stronger, and swims pretty darn good with the fins on.
By RJ
January 10, 2007 04:34 PM | Link to this
Jim… This is one of your best peices of work. Others may pontificate about your points and second guess them, but only time will tell. Thus far, it looks like the Democrats are in line with your appropriate advice “concentrate on the rebirthing process.” For the sake of us all I truly hope the Republicans will be blessed with the where-with-all to take advantage of the great opportunity that has been given.
By jim d
January 10, 2007 04:41 PM | Link to this
literacy rates in this nation were higher prior to public education.
Why is that?
By jim d
January 10, 2007 04:49 PM | Link to this
oh-oh I know,
No latino’s right?