Thinking Right

By Mid-South Philosopher

January 25, 2007 08:40 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

With respect to the issue of alcohol sales on Sunday, while my personal opinion does not favor it (one should stay sober enough on Saturday to replenish the bar before the dawning of the Lord’s Day), my Samuel Adams nature believes the issue should be left to each local community.

While the referendum approach will not work successfully in every case of commerce and trade, the adolescent attitude of Georgians (indeed of most of us Southerners) toward the appropriate use of alcoholic beverages dictates that we leave it to each community to decide.

As you are aware, I am always nervous when the General Assembly is in session, and I concur that the issue of alcohol sales on Sunday is an assinine issue for these great minds to be pondering; however, when they are dealing with such ridiculous matters, maybe they will not do too much damage to something else that is more important.

By Brian Curtis

January 25, 2007 08:51 AM | Link to this

As soon as someone can make an argument against Sunday liquor sales that’s not grounded in religion, it may be deserving of a hearing.

Any offers?

By Jim Wooten

January 25, 2007 08:58 AM | Link to this

Morning, Philosopher and others to come. House Speaker Glenn Richardson (R-Hiram) maintains that this session will see fewer laws passed that are more carefully studied. I trust that we would all welcome that. Fewer laws, fewer reasons to worry.

By Rick in Lawrenceville

January 25, 2007 08:59 AM | Link to this

Senator David Shafer (Duluth) and Governor Perdue do not represent ALL the taxpayers that elected them. They only represent those that share their limited religious and moral values.

Hopefully, the voters in Senator Shafer’s district will remember this come election time and vote for another candidate the will represent ALL the taxpayers!

By Peyton Walters

January 25, 2007 09:19 AM | Link to this

Wooten, I always thought you were an intelligent conservative. But you continue to blindly back George W. Bush and Sonny Perdue, no matter how illogical they are. I back them too, but I also oppose them on some issues. For instance, opposing Sunday alcohol sales is mere pandering to the church crowd, who he perceives to be the biggest part of the Republican base. True conservatives embrace personal freedom and reject religious coercion. So I guess you are something less than conservative. Sonny’s stand on this ain’t right, and I think in your mind you know it, but you have committed yourself for some reason to the same type of pandering.

By Watta Load

January 25, 2007 09:21 AM | Link to this

Sure, legislators should be doing more important things than worrying about alcohol sales, like saving huntin’ and fishin’ and keep gays from gettin’ hitched, but the Sunday sale restriction is a stupid law that serves absolutely no purpose but to inconvenience consumers. Aside from the ridiculous notion that it’s “the lords day”, you can still get wasted on Sunday if you want to…just drive down to any bar or go to Hooters and then take your chances and everyone else’s getting home. Getting rid of this stupid law would actually serve the public interest because it would keep the drunks at home on Sunday.

I am in complete agreement with Jim about Trader Joes though.

By getalife

January 25, 2007 09:22 AM | Link to this

Gee Jim,

I thought you would write about this:

White Atlanta suburbs push for secession

By getoveryourself

January 25, 2007 09:27 AM | Link to this

I can’t believe that I agree with the basic gist of Wooten’s article! I agree…it is about time that we take a look at some laws and regulations that don’t seem to protect consumers, but instead do more harm in hampering economic development and compeitition.

As for Sunday liquor laws, Brian Curtis hit the nail on the head.

Wait until Harold posts on this board today…Wooten will realize that he created a monster!

By Van

January 25, 2007 09:32 AM | Link to this

It would appear that Mid-South Philosopher has a valid point. Since it is left up to each entity whether or not it allows sales of alcohol, allows sale of beer and wine or the whole range of alcoholic products, then why not let the local entities determine if they will allow sale on Sunday and the type of outlet(quicky-mart, grocery or package store)that can sell it.

As to not allowing the sale of a legal product on Sunday, there is no valid reason, except that they can make a law.

In older times, it was to set aside the Lord’s Day. A noble thought and it may have had a benefit. In todays secular world, any tradition that even comes close to having a religious tint, is slammed.

By holdingAJCaccountable

January 25, 2007 09:45 AM | Link to this

Why not let gays be married, provided they buy a fishing license, and get married at a lake? If members of the Christian Taliban want to damn them as infidels, they can, peacefully and quietly picket from 100 feet away, provided that they bring eight caskets to place their hellfire and brimstone signs in.

Believe it or not, this law was gaining traction in the House, but got stuck on whether the protesters would be required to buy fishing licenses as well…

Meanwhile Kathy Cox is “walking the walk” in her talk to increase student achievement…she’s hired Jim Harrick Jr. to design the a new CRCT test

By Van

January 25, 2007 09:51 AM | Link to this

getalife,

Old news, you need to get more current. This has been in the works for at least a year, if not longer.

By Seriously

January 25, 2007 09:57 AM | Link to this

Speaking of secession, its time for Metro-Atlanta to split from Georgia. There is absolutely no difference between the northern suburbs and their battle with Fulton County, and the treatment Metro Atlanta gets from the rest of the State.

Georgia, like South Fulton, is stealing our resources and its obvious we don’t share the same values. We have no say in how our tax dollars are spent or where they go. We are disrespected daily.

The state of North Georgia should become our nations 51st.

This should be pretty easy to do. The rest of Georgia hates Atlanta.

Its time for a referendum.

By silly rabbit

January 25, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this

I think we should let the funeral homes sell the liquor on sunday by the casketfull. The campaign slogan should be, “Get stiff with the stiffs”.

Then I say we film new episodes of corpses gone wild.

It’s our only chance, cant you people see that?

By harold

January 25, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

harold agrees the absurd distributorship laws should be eliminated along with the sunday alcohol sales by humans prohibitions and all the other stupid junk like not spitting from cars or whatever

the real issue with the sunday sales prohibition is that the prohibition contributes needlessly to traffic.

every sunday shopper who buys beer and/or wine is required by law to shop for that on a different day. that means more miles in the car. in aggregate for all of metro atlanta’s nearly 5 million people, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of miles driven weekly because of an archaic law

Sonny can allow citizens to vote to eliminate hundreds of thousands of miles of driving weekly with nothing more than his inaction (letting the bill pass by not vetoing it or signing it)

if he does not allow the bill to pass, starting this July when it would have taken effect, Sonny should be tried for murder like Saddam Hussein each time a person gets killed in a car crash going to get wine on a Monday when they had already grocery shopped on sunday

By harold

January 25, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

Hey Georgia Chamber of Commerce, tell your convenience store members to install self-checkout machines and let customers purchase their own alcohol on sundays. that’s not illegal! it is only illegal for a “person” to sell alcohol on sunday.

in the eyes of the law, machines are not people!!!!!!!! this is why red light camera tickets are only civil fees rather than misdemeanors like tickets from an officer of the law

By Van

January 25, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

Seriously,

What do you expect when you are a blue dot in the middle of a red state.

You have to ask yourself, which one is the odd man out?

By getoveryourself

January 25, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

Sonny should be tried for murder like Saddam Hussein each time a person gets killed in a car crash going to get wine on a Monday when they had already grocery shopped on sunday

See what I mean?

…getoveryourself believes that harold has a point in useless miles driven in a car contributing to traffic, etc. Besides, it’s much better to have people drinking at home than drinking in an establishment to where they have to drive.

I wouldn’t want to see Sonny tried like Saddam. Maybe we should put him in a cramped foxhole like Saddam for a good 90 days in order to restrict his liberties…

By Watta Load

January 25, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

Silly Rabbit,

That’s a brilliant suggestion :)

Eight caskets full of hooch. When you died from alcohol poisoning you would already be at the funeral home.

I was reading the blurb about the Georgia Chamber of Congress supporting alcohol sales. They make a good point..we are bordered by states that sell booze on Sunday…how much revenue is going out of the state every Sunday that could be going to Georgia…not that trivial.

And Seriously has an excellent suggestion. What should we call ourselves though? North Georgia, Georgette, NotAHick-ana?

By harold

January 25, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

van most cities everywhere are blue dots in a sea of red. this city just needs to grow a little more to have 60% of georgia’s population and then the red necks wont matter anymore. we’ll vote them back to the 19th century. well, uh no we wont, we’ll vote them into the 21st century and beyond!

By getoveryourself

January 25, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

Georgia, like South Fulton, is stealing our resources…

Seriously,

It would be great to require everyone in North Fulton to take a tour of Sandtown in South Fulton…once they see the $500K homes around Niskey Lake et al they will see that South Fulton really doesn’t need their pompous a*******es. Let ‘em go! And yes, we should break off from the rest of GA since they don’t “share our values”…

By Dennis

January 25, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

OH!, such a wonderful opportunity for a “leftie” to play devil’s advocate and stand for the status quo.

But is the issue just alchohol or is it legislating morals?

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

By harold

January 25, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

yeah, harold wouldnt want sonny tried like saddam either.

out of respect for the constitution, sonny should get a fair trial for murder

By harold

January 25, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

It could like this on this very Sunday:

customer: ‘i want to buy this wine’

clerk: ‘i cant sell it to you, but if you can prove to me that you are 21 years old or older, you can use that machine right there to buy it yourself.’

customer: “woo-hoo! i loves self checkout machines!” zap zap zap zap

THIS IS 100% LEGAL UNDER EXISTING GEORGIA LAW!!

By Seriously

January 25, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

Van, same thing with North Fulton they are a dot that wants their freedom. Issues such as Sunday sales are no different than zoning issues. Maybe you all just want the same color of dots.

BTW, since the new cities and county will get to keep the facilities that are in place for little or no money, the State of North Georgia should keep its facilities. They will have to find a trailer in south Georgia for the Statehouse. We in North Georgia keep the Gold Dome.

By Van

January 25, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

harold,

When Democrats ruled in the Georgia legislature, did the rest of Georgia whine and cry about it? Not too much, we worked and campaigned until the republicans gained control.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, that is all we hear from the lefties, whine, moan and weeping.

If the democrats could offer something other than Tom Murphy’s style of running things, then maybe you guys could make a decent showing come election time.

By J

January 25, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Hey, did hell freeze over? Because I’m actually agreeing with Wooten today. I should point out, though, that Jim is skirting a subject that should be discussed more seriously: how the “pro-business” and “get-the-government-out-of-private-enterprise” crowd suddenly starts singing a different tune when it’s a) politically advantageous, or b) benefits a narrow group that supports them, at everyone else’s detriment.

Just as you can’t seriously talk about defending “freedom” while you impugn the patriotism of dissenters and try to silence their voices, you can’t be for free enterprise while simultaneously using government to curtail parts of it that you personally don’t like. This isn’t anything new, though - you can throw a rock at the statehouse and hit a legislator who has played this hypocritical game, probably too many times to count. If “conservatives” are truly for advancing freedom and free enterprise, then they can’t just pick and choose what freedom and free enterprise is acceptable based solely on their personal preferences. It’s an all-or-nothing bargain, really.

That means you, Sonny.

By harold

January 25, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

the issue is neither alchohol or is it legislating morals

the issue is traffic. needless driving contributing to traffic. we can easily eliminate hundreds of thousands of miles driven WEEKLY AROUND ATLANTA just by letting folks who grocery shop on sundays pick up their beer/wine when they at the grocery store

DO YOU LOVE TRAFFIC? NO? THEN VOTE TO ELIMINATE SOME.

How much would it cost to cut traffic by this much normally? Billions of dollars? Hundreds of millions at least? Well, this costs nothing at all. It’s free!

or does sonny just hate America and wants the terrorists to win???

By harold

January 25, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

van maybe harold missed something what do democrats have to do with anything?

By Jim's a Distractor

January 25, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

C’mon Jim,

It’s all about the lobbyists. Don’t you know that?

That’s capitalism. I can’t believe you don’t like it.

By J

January 25, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

Not to get into the running arguments here, but…

Van - you do realize that many/most of the “Democrats” from the days of one-party rule in Georgia (and the rest of the south) are Republicans now, don’t you? The current batch of D’s have little in common with the previous generation, as the older folks have mostly jumped ship to the other side of the aisle (how’s that for mixed metaphors!); Zell Miller and his band of apologists like to overlook that inconvenient fact. (They also overlook the fact that southern Democrats in the past were usually the bulwark against desegregation efforts…but that’s a topic for another thread…)

Anyway, concurrent with this change in party affiliation by many conservatives has been the growth of metro ATL, substantially fueled by out-of-staters, and consequentially, the area’s political tilting towards the progressive end of the spectrum. Comparing the Democrat-ruled Georgia of yesteryear with today is misleading, because ideologically speaking, it’s essentially the same people in charge. Just with a different letter (R) after their names.

I will grant you, though, that the statewide Democratic party in Georgia is pretty inept.

By The Truth Hurts

January 25, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

“I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” —Vice President Dick Cheney, on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005

The Truth Hurts…………….

By Brian

January 25, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

*Van - you do realize that many/most of the “Democrats” from the days of one-party rule in Georgia (and the rest of the south) are Republicans now, don’t you? The current batch of D’s have little in common with the previous generation..(They also overlook the fact that southern Democrats in the past were usually the bulwark against desegregation efforts…but that’s a topic for another thread…) *

Well I guess that clears up the Al Gore Srs. and Robert Byrds for their 1964 vote and why they are still Democrats, doesn’t it?

By Seriously

January 25, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

Every four years Metro Atlanta helps elect a Governor that is anti-Atlanta. Democrat, Republican, it makes no difference.

How about next time we support a candidate that can represent us. Sam Olens of Cobb County would seem perfect.

By Tom

January 25, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

I wish Harold would stop instructing people on what the law is. He’s clearly not an attorney, and he’s encouraging an unfounded interpretation of the law. I’ve seen him do it on a few of these blogs.

Anyone who has been to law school knows that a “person” is ordinarily defined to include corporations and other entities. It’s a common legal fiction. Harold, please consult the “Definitions” section of the Alcoholic Beverages title. Section 3-1-2(17).

By Brian

January 25, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

That’s capitalism. I can’t believe you don’t like it.

Nobody has ever said capitalism didn’t have it’s flaws. But it sure beats the hell out of socialism [look at state of the EU nations like France] and communism [look at Russia]. We didn’t get to be the world’s number one economy by giving away all the fruits of success to the less fortunate like the left wants us to do.

By DebbieDoRight

January 25, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

Meanwhile Kathy Cox is “walking the walk” in her talk to increase student achievement…she’s hired Jim Harrick Jr. to design the a new CRCT test

Too Funny!!! Maybe he’ll give all the athletes (football players) an “A”!

By DebbieDoRight

January 25, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

I saw on PBS about 3 months ago that The City of Atlanta/Fulton County “subsidizes” the rest of georgia! If it wasn’t for the tax revenues, (from homes and businesses), coming out of Fulton some of those rural counties wouldn’t be able to make it and would fold within a year.

So I guess with “Milton” county soon to be the 5th largest county with the largest revenue, they can start subsidizing the rest of the state so that those peanut farmers can last one more year.

By J

January 25, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

“Well I guess that clears up the Al Gore Srs. and Robert Byrds for their 1964 vote and why they are still Democrats, doesn’t it?”

Heh, point taken. However, I did say “many/most” not “all” old-school Dems. I will say, though, that Mr. Byrd has been far more apologetic in subsequent years (decide for yourself regarding his sincerity) than Strom “Segregation Forever” Thurmond ever was.

None of this changes my original point - that today’s Georgia Republicans have far more in common with the Dems of yesteryear than the current batch of Dems. And, as such, the changing of Georgia government from Democrat to Republican dominated is far less dramatic than the labels imply; the “conservatives” are in charge, as they were before, just with a different party affiliation.

Bonus factoid: off the top of my head I know that Sonny, as well as the Governor of Texas (Governor “Goodhair” Rick Perry), are both former Dems who are now Repubs.

By Mr. Self Righteous

January 25, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

I’m really shocked that Wooten, with his bold stance against the Duke Rape Case, has not mentioned the fact that a gentlemen just recently has been let out of prison for being wrongfully convicted of a rape he didn’t commit!!! Wooten! Are you slipping?!? Here’s ANOTHER untenable rape case!!! Where a man was wrongfully convicted!!! I thought you’d jump all over that!!

How about the shooting the old lady in the back case while lying about drugs to get an illegal order to go into her house? WHAT!! Not one word???!!!! Amazing. If one didn’t know you to be the true proliferate abject professional that you are, one might say that you were “leaning” a little to the “if it’s not white it’s not right” side of the fence!!

NAH!! Not you!!! (Your confederate flag is still blowing strong!!)

By Mr. Self Righteous

January 25, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

Brian at 11:04

We didn’t give it away. We took it by force!! We wanted pineapples, we took the Hawaiian Islands from the indigenous people! We wanted spanish rice, we took Puerto Rico from Spain!! We wanted Oklahoma, (why I’ll never know), we took it from the Indians!! America has a proud proud heritage of taking what it wants! Imperialism at its best!!! (We learned it from Mama England)!!

By harold

January 25, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

tom it says (17) ‘Person’ means any individual, firm, partnership, cooperative, nonprofit membership corporation, joint venture, association, company, corporation, agency, syndicate, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, fiduciary, or other group or combination acting as a unit, body politic, or political subdivision, whether public, private, or quasi-public.

it does not say “machine” anywhere in there. nobody would be selling anything anyway. people would just be buying.

if i go buy a thing of milk at self checkout did anybody sell it to me? no. i bought it. that’s all.

By getalife

January 25, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

Well Van,

They were debating Milton County on MSNBC.

Your old news has hit the national airwaves.

By harold

January 25, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

so what are the cops gonna do, tom, if the krogers is a person? haul the building off to jail? harold thinks not. incarcerate the self-checkout machines? haha. if that is a risk then an alabama company can operate self checkout machines in georgia that allow alcohol to be purchased and contract to place them in the krogers. problem solved. some people mighta went to the law school but it didnt make them real bright

By Buy Danish

January 25, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

Mostly it annoys me that the General Assembly finds its time consumed year after year with agendas brought by business, professional or special interest groups.

I take exception to Wooten’s claim^^that the push to allow people to vote on Sunday liquor sales is from “special interests”.

I have only one special interest in mind: ME!

It “annoys me” that Georgia won’t allow me to purchase wine or beer at grocery stores on Sunday, and it really annoys me that Perdue wants to veto this proposed legislation, presumably because of a “special interest group” that Wooten ignores.

By jbmlaw

January 25, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Jim almost sounds libertarian in some of his conclusions this morning. I dispute one line: “… I don’t fault industry groups for attempting to use regulation and law to gain an advantage over competitors.” I do. Misuse of the legislature’s powers (to kill, constrict personal freedom, or confiscate property), especially as here for mere market distortion, is the ultimate evil of government. I rankle sensibilities of many of our friends when I argue that there should be no law unless the penalty is execution; Jim’s essay today highlights the hyperactivity of legislative bodies for corrupt purposes, either to reward friends, or to punish enemies.

“ (L)egislators should be scouring through the laws and regulations to eliminate those that no longer serve the public interest, if they ever did.” I could not say it more efficiently.

“…(W)hy not pass a constitutional amendment that will allow real public initiative so that voters can write their own laws? I’m for that.” Be careful what you wish for; moonbats will campaign to deprive people of freedom. I would prefer to see public initiative limited to repeal of laws, or limiting application of laws, never an expansion.

By Lily Toad

January 25, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Wooten said: What bothers me most is that legislators should be looking at liquor laws, for example, and deciding which provisions are outdated, anti-competitive or monopolistic. Exactly! The no liquor sales on Sunday is antiquated and should be abolished. Not because a business lobby wants their members to sell alcohol, but because this is a secular country. Most states have repealed their blue laws. Even the religious observe different “Sabbath” days for different religions, so Sunday is not the universal Sabbath for all U. S. citizens. Repeal the law, don’t put it to a vote, and then tackle some real issues. If local jurisdictions want to regulate alcohol sales, that is up to them, not the General Assembly.

By The Truth Hurts

January 25, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” –President Bush, standing under a “Mission Accomplished” banner on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier, May 2, 2003

The Truth Hurts……………..

By Jim's a Distractor

January 25, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

Brian,

Where in my comment did you see anything about socialism? I’ve re-read it a few times, and I’m not seeing it.

I love capitalism. Whomever has the most money can buy the best lobbyists and get the best laws written for themselves….to ensure that they make yet more money and pay less taxes.

It’s working wonerfully for me. I’m wealthy, and I have a lobbyist.

If any of ya’ll need any special legislation drawn up, let me know and I’ll have my u

By harold

January 25, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

buy danish is right!

the push might be from “special interests,” but are all pushes from special interests?

who cares who is pushing it? what harold wants to know is who would benefit from it?

harold would benefit and so would everybody else with reduced traffic congestion!

everybody benefits. nobody loses

some liquor stores are scared of having to be open on sunday to compete. they will see that nothing changes for them even if they dont open on sunday. people go to liquor stores on friday and saturday for their parties. beer and wine is normally a grocery item and you go by the grocery store or gas station for those anyway

By Jim's a Distractor

January 25, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

oops…

what i was saying was that if any of ya’ll need any special legislation drawn up, let me know and i’ll have my guy get it through. he’s expensive, but great.

By JK

January 25, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

I have not decided how I feel about the proposed Milton County secession which would affect me. Will I even be given the chance to vote on it? I’m still listening to others and gathering information before taking a position. As such, if you feel compelled to make a case one way or the other, believe it or not, I’m listening.

By OhioBuckeye

January 25, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

Harold: Boy, you’re estupido.

By Lily Toad

January 25, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

Wooten says: “What bothers me most is that legislators should be looking at liquor laws, for example, and deciding which provisions are outdated, anti-competitive or monopolistic.” Exactly! The law prohibiting Sunday sales is archaic and should be repealed on those grounds alone, not because of some business lobby. Most states have repealed their blue laws already. This is a secular country, not a theocracy. The General Assembly should repeal the law prohibiting alcohol sales on Sundays and move onto important issues. If local jurisdictions want to regulate alcohol sales (as they already do) that is their business, not the General Assembly’s.

By Lily Toad

January 25, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

Hey, Buy Danish,

For once I agree with you. Let’s go have a drink. How about Sunday?

For the others, sorry about the double post. I got an error the first time and thought it wouldn’t go through.

By Play that funky music whiteboy

January 25, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten - we agree.

I only add one more thing, the liquor lobby in the State of Georgia is one of the more powerful, which is completely unexpected given the State’s proximity in the Bible Belt. With lobbyists like former Atlanta Brave Rick Camp on their payroll for years (until Camp got in trouble with former Lawmaker Robin Williams, and Williams girlfriend, over Medicaid fraud). Camp was a true insider and had strong relationships with Speaker Murphy and the “ol boys”. I’m not sure who represents liquor interests now, but I bet it’s someone with equal high profile access. These guys are really, really strong here. They are the reason GA consumers can’t get liquor or wine from internet sites.

By harold

January 25, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

well, OhioBuckeye, harold might be stupid about law, but at least he’s not stupid enough to think he can beat the SEC in a football game

big deal going undefeated in a conference of stinky little kitties.

By harold

January 25, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

hey tom, they ridiculed isoscoles when he invented the triangle, and they ridiucled copernicus when he said the sun did not revole around the earth, so you keep on ridiculing harold. you are status quo entranched establishment, harold is visinnary genius

By The Truth Hurts

January 25, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

“It’s hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine.” –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003

The Truth Hurts………………..

By The Truth Hurts

January 25, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

“My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” –Vice President Dick Cheney, “Meet the Press,” March 16, 2003

The Truth Hurts………………..

By Fall Line

January 25, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

The reason that Chip Rogers and others of his ilk proposed to allow each county to determine whether or not to allow Sunday sales is that if they tried to introduce a statewide bill, it would not pass. You can always get a majority of people to agree with you in a telephone poll, but when you ask them to get off their lazy butts, get registered, and get out to vote on a cold rainy day, it’s a different question altogether. Those who would vote against this measure are motivated and willing to go the extra mile to keep this from happening. Changing the status quo is not a religious thing, it’s a matter of politics. You get what you vote for. If your representative doesn’t reflect your values, change your representatives. The voters of Cherokee County will, no doubt, exact their displeasure with Roger’s involvement in this situation at the polls next election. Long memories.

By Get Bent

January 25, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

Harold, nobody “invented” the triangle. Duh.

By Jim's a Distractor

January 25, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

Truth Hurts,

You know what’s funny about those comments…is that Jim Wooten can read them and still blame Hillary Clinton for the mess in Iraq.

And moreover, there is not now, nor will there ever be, any accountability for either Cheney or Wolfie regarding putting this country in this mess.

They’ll both be kicking back smoking cigars and talking about how easy it was to pull that off at Cheney’s 100,000 acre quail ranch in Texas next Thanksgiving.

By jbmlaw

January 25, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

Dear JK @ 11:57, the only relevant argument is one I have offered here before: your representative should never be so remote that you cannot hit him with a rock.

By jbmlaw

January 25, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Dear JaD @ 12:34 and TH @ various times, not that anything either of you post is anywhere close to topic today, but America’s greatest mind, Tom Sowell, disagrees with you:

“We have learned the hard way, notably in the Vietnam war, that military victories are not enough. American troops scored a big victory on the battlefield in 1968 that was presented in the American media as a big defeat — and that began the political unravelling of the Vietnam war.

“Many in the media seem to think that they did something noble, to get us out of an “unwinnable” war. But the war was unwinnable only because they made it so politically. Even after American troops were withdrawn from Vietnam, South Vietnam was able to hold off the invaders from North Vietnam.

“Only after Congress cut off financial support for South Vietnam, while the North Vietnamese continued to get support from the Communist bloc, did South Vietnam fall.

“Since then, even the Communist conquerors have admitted that they did not win on the battlefield, but in the American media and in the American political arena, surrounded by an atmosphere created by a defeatist media.

“Most of the today’s media, led by the New York Times, has been even more blatantly one-sided in their reporting. Everyone I have heard from in person who has actually been in Iraq paints a far different picture from that of the gloom and doom of the media.

“Make no mistake about it, we can still lose this war, but it will have to be lost politically. Most of the tragic chaos in Iraq today has its origins in politics.”

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/01/16/another_vietnam

By jbmlaw

January 25, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

Dear JaD @ 12:34 and TH @ various times, Dan Henninger makes another argument, opposed to yours, today:

“As a political strategy, unremitting opposition has worked. Approval for the president and the war is low. The GOP lost sight of its ideological lodestars and so control of Congress. But the U.S. still occupies a unique position of power in the world, and we are putting that status at risk by playing politics without a net.

“On the “Charlie Rose Show” this month, former Army vice chief of staff Gen. Jack Keane, who supports the counterinsurgency plan being undertaken by Gen. David Petraeus, said in exasperation: ‘My God, this is the United States. We are the world’s No. 1 superpower. This isn’t about arrogance. This is about capability and applying ourselves to a problem that is at its essence a human problem.’

“At our current juncture, Gen. Keane’s words probably rub many the wrong way. But there’s a Cassandra-like warning implicit in them. The mood of mass resignation spreading through the body politic is toxic. It is uncharacteristic of Americans under stress. Some might call it realism, but it looks closer to the fatalism of elderly Europe, overwhelmed and exhausted by its burdens, than to the American tradition.”

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110009573

By The Truth Hurts

January 25, 2007 01:07 PM | Link to this

Tom Sowell? America’s greatest mind? Funniest thing I’ve heard today. Speaking of things heard today…

“We found the weapons of mass destruction.” –President Bush, in an interview with Polish television, May 29, 2003

The Truth really, really Hurts………

By Brian Curtis

January 25, 2007 01:10 PM | Link to this

Van: Ah yes, the “tiny blue dot” argument.

Here’s the actual size of that blue dot in red-state Georgia, in terms of population:

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/7567/bluedotga9oo.gif

Now, tell us again about the “odd man out”….

By Randy

January 25, 2007 01:17 PM | Link to this

harold, I hear your pain buddy. Getting your alcohol 7 out of 7 is your 24 obsession.

The sale isn’t in the apparatus, it’s in the transaction.

An exchange of goods or services for currency or credit.

If you can talk them into giving it to you for free you can plaster it all over so everyone will know.

By MrLiberty

January 25, 2007 01:20 PM | Link to this

Jim,

How can you be SO wrong on everything related to Bush and be so correct on this?

If every law had a sunset provision, that too would go a long way to achieving similar results and would certainly force legislatures into setting priorities on legislation.

By harold

January 25, 2007 01:20 PM | Link to this

nobody invented the triangle? whatever. harold supposes nobody invented the wheel either right? or fire. and harold supposes reasoning existed before bayes came along? uh-huh.

By Gator Nation

January 25, 2007 01:26 PM | Link to this

well, OhioBuckeye, harold might be stupid about law, but at least he’s not stupid enough to think he can beat the SEC in a football game

And that ain’t just whistlin’ dixie!

By The Truth Hurts

January 25, 2007 01:27 PM | Link to this

“Most of the today’s media, led by the New York Times, has been even more blatantly one-sided in their reporting. Everyone I have heard from in person who has actually been in Iraq paints a far different picture from that of the gloom and doom of the media.”

So says “America’s Greatest Mind,” as jbmlaw calls him. We have lost 39 soldiers in the last 7 days. I wonder if the people that Sowell talks to who have been to Iraq, you know, the ones who paint a far different picture, if those 39 soldiers are still dead. You know, that mean old media, especailly the NY Times, shouldn’t have reported on those 39 deaths. But since Sowell says it’s a different picture, how about those 39 deaths? Is that any different? And the people Sowell talk to, do you really think they ever leave the Green Zone? Doubt it.

jbmlaw, calling Sowell the “greatest American mind” has cost you all your credibility.

Speaking of credibility….

“We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when asked about weapons of mass destruction in an ABC News interview, March 30, 2003

The Truth Hurts…………………

By Seriously

January 25, 2007 01:31 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis, your 1:10 post is spot on.

By Play that funky music whiteboy

January 25, 2007 01:32 PM | Link to this

Fall Line - Chip Rogers is in for life now after he “took it to them there illegals”. Although the bill did nothing, he was able to get his smarmy face all over TV and voice on radio (where he made the ever so poignant argument that “my daddy owned a chicken farm and we figured it up one day and if we increased the hourly wages of our workers $3 an hour, it would only raise the prices of eggs by $0.01 a dozen”. This is how he debated the assertion that removing illegals would raise prices.

When I called the radio station and asked to either be allowed to pose the question or have the host do it, they hung up on me. Question - Okay Chip, you “figured” that up, you and your daddy decided that passing along the cost of a $3 an hour raise to your employees (which would mean giving them about a 50% increase in pay) would mean a $0.01 raise in price, did you do it? No. You didn’t. Why not? A significant benefit to your employees for an insignificant amount? Why not? Cause either he’s lying or he and his daddy use the same “fuzzy math” as was so popular in the 2000 campaign. Enough said.

By Dennis

January 25, 2007 01:33 PM | Link to this

By Jim’s a Distractor January 25, 2007 11:54 AM; “I love capitalism. Whomever has the most money can buy the best lobbyists and get the best laws written for themselves….to ensure that they make yet more money and pay less taxes.”

Absolutely! And with that goes the priviledge to say that “If the losers had just made better choices, they wouldn’t be losers.”

Which ignores that fact that if the losers made better choices the folks with the money would be financially average, not above average.

And somehow, I don’t think those who moan and groan about losers would like that too very much.

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

By Say What

January 25, 2007 01:36 PM | Link to this

I thought George W. Bush was America’s greatest mind!!!!

By Read Robert Parry

January 25, 2007 02:05 PM | Link to this

If you’ve ever wondered how agit-propaganda works, you might take a look at the latest case study from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s media empire – a bogus story about Barack Obama attending a Muslim “madrassah” when he was six years old, a smear that was then attributed to operatives of Hillary Clinton.

The shrewdness of Moon’s Insight magazine story is that it hit two enemies with one anonymously sourced stone, a strategy of slime and divide straight from the textbooks of a spy agency like the CIA.

Only in this case, it is not the CIA planting black propaganda in a foreign publication to undermine some U.S. enemy. It is Moon using his media outlets subsidized by his mysterious foreign money to manipulate and distort the U.S. political process, again.

The Insight “madrassah” story also turned out to be false.

By Lily Toad

January 25, 2007 02:05 PM | Link to this

Funky White Boy,

It’ll be interesting to see if Chip Rogers will be in favor of increasing the minimum wage. Seems like his calculations would support an increase.

By The Truth Hurts

January 25, 2007 02:10 PM | Link to this

“I think the burden is on those people who think he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are.” –White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, July 9, 2003

Huh??

The Truth Hurts………………

By LivingRight

January 25, 2007 02:15 PM | Link to this

Once again I reach out to the brethren to join me in calling for the abolition of term limits. Anybody opposing bringing back our Commander in Chief for a third shift during this time of war shows themselves as nothing more than a spineless liberal. What say you?

By Van

January 25, 2007 02:22 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

Re: the blue dot -

So, tell me, with that image, why have the lefties done so poorly in recent Georgia elections?

Do you think that a small community should dictate and govern the whole state? Looking at California, only a few large metro areas along the coast determine the way the state will go. California has been the brunt of so many jokes about everything from the latest spanking issue to allowing homeless the right to use the street as their bathroom.

This is why we have a republican form of government as stated in the Constitution. And to echo the lefties, the majority must give way to the minority - right?

By Jim's a Distractor

January 25, 2007 02:22 PM | Link to this

Truth Hurts,

Scratch my last comment…he’ll blame the media…as jbmlaw’s comments prove. Just blame the media, and you can get away with anything. Just blame all those folks who don’t do things your way…it’s a regular culture of defeatism over there at GOP hq. No accountability at all. Blame, blame blame.

And get this…they’re not only blaming people for their mistakes, but blaming them for not finding a solution to their mistakes….mistakes that the “liberals” asked them not to make in the first place…mistakes that they lied to the American people about in order to get their support…just so they could make them.

blame, blame, blame…I thougt republicans were big on that accountability thing.

Dennis,

How about something along the lines of “a rising tide raises all boats”. That’s got a “climate-change” theme to it as well.

One last thing, then I’ve gotta run to a meeting with my lobbyist…

Jbmlaw re your 12:51 comment about Nam. What’s been up with VietNam lately? How are the communists doing over there? I’m having a hard time remembering how far the red menace got after we “cut and ran”.

Oh…dang, one more…

Brian Curtis, re your “blue dot” link…those blue dots are where all the colledge educated people making all the money are. The red counties are where all the folks who handle snakes at church live.

By jm

January 25, 2007 02:35 PM | Link to this

while the ridiculous alcohol consumption laws of this state or any other state (shoot, even the whole country) are always good for a laugh, I hope Mr. Wooten addresses China testing a satellite killer missile in his Friday column. China, in my opinion, poses a far greater existential (sp?) threat to us than iraq or islamofascism.

By harold

January 25, 2007 02:56 PM | Link to this

harold just wants to be able to ride his bicycle up columns drive on a sunday, over the river without getting shot at and up to the publix to buy some wine and then ride back home. is that too much to axe in the supposed ‘land of the free’ where terrorists ‘hate us for our freedoms’

well i reckon it is

By harold

January 25, 2007 02:58 PM | Link to this

if “they hate us for our freedoms” then shouldnt georgia want to give its citizens more freedom?

if sonny hates freedom, the terrorists have already won

By Brian Curtis

January 25, 2007 03:05 PM | Link to this

Seriously: “Spot on”? Oh, what a terrible pun!

By slick one

January 25, 2007 03:07 PM | Link to this

Hey Jim, this was posted over on the Traffic Mess blog, it mentions you (they don’t luv you there any more than we luv you here.) “By Tony Marsh

January 25, 2007 02:46 PM | Link to this

Who was the clown at the AJC who posted a story on the web at ~10am about the traffic jam saying “the northside of the connector has cleared out.” They were totally wrong. Was the story written by that Wooten idiot, taking a wild guess that “traffic always clears up by 10?” What a jerk, he should go back to delivering papers, not writing them, imho!”

By silver

January 25, 2007 03:10 PM | Link to this

JM - We (usa) have had satalite killers for over 20 years, yet you feel threatened by china testing one in 2007? Why? Remember, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

By harold

January 25, 2007 03:12 PM | Link to this

hey tom, harold aint dispensing legal advice any more than somebody who says “you shouldn’t speed. it’s illegal” is, so unwad your panties a little it’s all just fun and games around here

By jm

January 25, 2007 03:24 PM | Link to this

silver - the satellite killer was just an example. China is building up its infrastructure, building a manufacturing base, educating its citizens and holding more and more us debt (a lot of which is going to fund the war in iraq). If the US is not careful, it will look up and find that China has passed it by.

By Seriously

January 25, 2007 03:29 PM | Link to this

It was clear at 10:00. At 10:05 the legislature let out for lunch and they all headed down the street to the Cheetah Lounge.

Atlanta Gas Light was sponsoring a pole dance. They still aren’t back in session.

By silver

January 25, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this

jm, life ain’t a contest between coutries. american has been imposing its will on the world for 60 odd years based on the lucky fact that our manufacturing infra structure was not damaged by wwii. that lucky fact occurs very rarely, and the benefit from it is rapidly running out. Many countries will surpass american in the near to mid future, and rightly so. We need to pull back from our over rated “only super power left” attitude, and let the rest of the world develope as it will.

By jbmlaw

January 25, 2007 03:37 PM | Link to this

Dear JaD @ 2:22, how about a prayer for the 2,000,000 who died the last time the Democrats cut and run? Your guys have selective amnesia. For the sake of the innocents in the middle east, some of us will try to remember.

In the meantime, I suppose you will urge us to talk to the leader of Iran, since he now affrims an intention to destroy us. “Losing strategies” are the point of the articles I shared. I suppose those of you who want to lose don’t care.

By Dusty

January 25, 2007 03:41 PM | Link to this

slick one,(that’s a joke!)

Have you ever heard the expression “rude, crude and unattractive”? Well, honey, that is you!

Did you get an invitation to this party that said bring insults? Did someone drag you here and make you stay? Please feel free to leave at any time. No one will cry over your departure and the air here will be much fresher.

By Elizabeth

January 25, 2007 03:44 PM | Link to this

GOP only wants less government interference when it doesn’t disrupt their ultraconservative constitutents.

It’s all about Sonny ensuring the Southern Baptists will continue to vote for him.

All non-Southern Baptists who voted for Sonny—AREN’T YOU SMART!!!

By Jim's a Distractor

January 25, 2007 04:06 PM | Link to this

Jbmlaw,

If you’d like to go back through all my posts and dig up the statement where I said “I want to lose”, I’d appreciate it. Seems like your lot is really good at putting words into folks mouths to suit your spin needs. Did Karl Rove have some kind of seminar or something? I don’t get his newletter about how to change the argument to suit your needs.

And regarding the 2,000,000 souls who you’re so concerned about now that it suits your political argument, what’s your plan for saving all those folks in Darfur?

Just like those dumb kids in Raliegh, if you mess with people who don’t have anything to lose, they’ll drag you down with them. Those freaks in the middle east are dragging your boy, and unfortunately the rest of the country, down to their level.

It doesn’t matter who’s right or wrong. All that matters is that it’s happening and that it sucks.

Sorry…that’s the case. They fundamentalists don’t give a rip about what the NYT says. They’re prepared to die for their religion 24/7 whether there’s 15 or 10k of them, momentum or not.

No matter who you blame, it’s still Bush’s fault.

Why don’t you hire a lobbyist and have him/her write a law expressing your sense that this is a glorious war and that you support it. I’m sure you wouldn’t have any problems findind a legislator on either side of the aisle who can be bought.

By Jim's a Distractor

January 25, 2007 04:08 PM | Link to this

Jbmlaw,

Oh, and btw, since you’re such a humanatarian now…say a prayer for those hundreds of thousands of innocents who have died in Iraq since we toppled that evil dictator.

I’m sure they’re really proud of the work we’re doing to liberate them. Free and dead.

By Sean Hannity

January 25, 2007 04:19 PM | Link to this

I was wrong yet again about these soldiers . I was right about the Duke rape case though!

By silver

January 25, 2007 04:21 PM | Link to this

AMERICA WAS TOTALLY WRONG IN VIET NAM, ALL 50 ODD THOUSAND AMERICANS KILLED THERE WERE A WASTE. THE SURVIRORS SHOULD ALL DIE OF AGENT ORANGE CANCER FOR WHAT THEY DID TO A THIRD WORLD PEOPLE. AMERICA IS WRONG IN IRAQ, AND I HOPE THE PRICE FOR THAT IS THE DEATH OF THE AMERICAN DOLLAR AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE. NO MORE ARAB OIL FOR FAT ASSED LAZY AMERICAN PIGS.

By jm

January 25, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this

silver - being a super power is overrated. I would rather have the world following the us because of the strength of its ideas and convinctions rather than by the strength of its weaponry. I would prefer not to let countries pass us by while we are frittering away what we have in iraq while there are other (in my opinion greater) threats around.

By Dusty

January 25, 2007 04:48 PM | Link to this

silver aka Jane Fonda aka Cindy Sheehan aka osama.

May I ask in what country you are a legal citizen?

Wherever you belong, I hope you get treatment soon. And hurry!

By silver

January 25, 2007 04:56 PM | Link to this

NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, DRIED DIRT BIT—CH. I sure hope the chimp drafts your brat for iraq-iran, and i hope the brat comes back without a face, arms, or legs. Now go soak your face in a brine solution.

By Dusty

January 25, 2007 05:07 PM | Link to this

silver,

The USA is my business, thank you.

And best wishes to you. Hope you will have a rapid recovery.

By silver

January 25, 2007 05:17 PM | Link to this

Yeah, Dirt Bit—ch, you’re a real important american, a real decision maker, a dirty bit-ch decision maker in the boardroom. America is your business, and I am proud to say, I profited from the 119 point decline in YOUR stock market, dirty hag.

By Markus

January 25, 2007 05:26 PM | Link to this

Who let the POS troll in “silver?” This worthless animal has a lot of hate in it, and will most likely die a death of a disease like cancer. That kind of hate eats from the inside out. It’s apparent the fish has already started rotting from the head down.

By For the Record ...

January 25, 2007 05:33 PM | Link to this

America’s greatest mind belongs to Edward Witten.

The Vietnam War was lost when Nixon and Kissinger negotiated our withdrawal. No amount of money could have prevented the NVA from ultimately defeating the ARVN, because the former was comprised of brave, well-led soldiers fighting to reunite their country, and the latter was made up largely of draftees led by corrupt and incompetent officers fighting for a succession of tinhorn dictators.

Paul Krugman is a better economist than Thomas Sowell.

By Markus

January 25, 2007 05:33 PM | Link to this

Here’s an interesting random observation. Since 2004 when Kerry went up against Bush, the left has wailed about how important military service is to be president or more recently a leading member of Congress or a senior administration (funny, it was never important prior; I suppose it’s ok for Pelosi to not have served though).

Anyway, of the current near self-admitted demoncat candidates, none have any military service experience. NONE. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA. Well, I suppose it’s time to resort back to military service not being important again.

By silver

January 25, 2007 05:35 PM | Link to this

speaking of cancer markus, the one growing in your throat will make itself known soon, but it will be too late. After multiple surgeries, much radiation and chemo, the world will not notice your departure in just under 2.6 years. I hear the pain and nausa are terrible, enjoy your suffering, I know I will.

By Markus

January 25, 2007 05:49 PM | Link to this

Oh, so our “new” troll is just the same old tired worthless multiple ID demoncat POS libokook from hell in a new pinko dress. [yawn]

What happened pooksie? Someone flatten your cat in the street today?

By jm

January 25, 2007 05:50 PM | Link to this

Al Gore also had military service

By silver

January 25, 2007 05:52 PM | Link to this

markass, your trailer space has been sold, you will have to move that 1977 single wide out of the trailer park by March 1, 2007 or it will be crushed and recycled. Now put your wheelchair in gear, get off the internet, and start calling moving companies, and I don’t want to hear about your “handicaps” anymore, you fat lazy bum.

By Markus

January 25, 2007 06:05 PM | Link to this

High ho silver, you would be much happier with your fellow anti-American fluckoffs at demoncatunderground.com. I’m not leaving this blog and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it, you sad pathetic toxic waste of carbon.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

January 25, 2007 06:16 PM | Link to this

Markanus’s throat is a problem area, as well as her nether regions…

By silver

January 26, 2007 09:47 AM | Link to this

Ah, Pope rednecks - Amerikkka’s Al Qaeda, I think we made MarkAss cry, he seems to have run away sobbing, again.

By Van

January 26, 2007 09:56 AM | Link to this

jm,

Al Gore was a Remington Raider(journalist for you folks in Mid Town). Yes, he was in the service, but like most rich kids, I do not think he got his hands very dirty much less learn to fly.

By Brian Curtis

January 26, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

Since 9/11, liberals have been properly pointing out the folly of having blatant ignorance dictating our military policy.

You don’t have to be a veteran to run for office, but Bush doesn’t have a brain either. That’s a dangerous combination for such a powerful office.

By Buy Danish

January 26, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

silver & Al Qaeda,

Tell me, who is your pick for the White House in ‘08? Shrillary? Barry Obama? Sore Loserman? I’m sure whoever it is would love to have your support!

Nothing like having disgusting, vulgar jackasses on you team.

Go Dems!

By jm

January 26, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

Van I am familiar with what Al Gore did in the service and I am sure he was probably the best protected “journalist” in southeast asia. However, the last few elections seem to prove that active military and/or war time service is not a requirement to be elected president. In fact, based upon how much Gore’s, Kerry’s and Bush’s service have been ridiculed, it might even be a handicap.

By Brian

January 26, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

Nothing like having disgusting, vulgar jackasses on you team.

Go Dems!

I couldn’t agree more. These thugs think they are being cute, when in reality they are merely exposing their left wing warped way of thinking quite well. The worst of the worst always comes from the left.

Al Gore was a Remington Raider (journalist for you folks [liberals] in Mid Town)

Was it a Remington typewriter that Al Bore used? Maybe the Bore was a Smith-Corona warrior, not a Smith & Wesson warrior. Oh we could have fun with this!

By Sean Hannity

January 26, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

That’s right…Go Repubes…nothing like have child molesters, pedophiles, and cowards on our team!

By Sam

January 26, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

By Van

January 26, 2007 09:56 AM | Link to this

jm,

Al Gore was a Remington Raider(journalist for you folks in Mid Town). Yes, he was in the service, but like most rich kids, I do not think he got his hands very dirty much less learn to fly.

At least he was there Van. Name one of the Bush inner circle of chicken hawks that can say the same.

By Dusty

January 26, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

As Brain Curtis said,

“Since 9/11, liberals have been pointing out the folly of blatant ignorance dictating our military policies.”

Indeed. Republicans just wouldn’t “cut’n’run” for the Democrats. Now Murtha and Pelosi have gone to Iraq to tell the Iraqi President how they WANT to slink out of the picture.

What a tragedy when our troops are there fighting for Iraqi freedom and, in the long run, our security.

Just another example of how Democrats “support the troops” and “secure the country” with their short sighted vision.

By Dusty

January 26, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

OK Sam,

Everyone is a chicken hawk who was in the military during the Viet Nam era and didn’t go to Viet Nam.

If you want to go back to those times, Clinton didn’t even make it to the military much less overseas service. Just another chickenhawk, I suppose.

By getalife

January 26, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

Senator Kennedy asks this excellent question:

“Do you have such disdain for hard-working Americans that you want to pile all your amendments on this? Why don’t you just hold your amendments until other pieces of legislation? Why this volume of amendments on just the issue to try and raise the minimum wage? What is it about it that drives you Republicans crazy? What is it? Something. Something! What is the price that the workers have to pay to get an increase? What is it about working men and women that you find so offensive?”

Your Senators voted to eliminate the minumim wage and do not support we the people.

They are corporate w******* who should be purged from office in 08. Period.

By Brian Curtis

January 26, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

Dusty: Why on earth should OUR troops be there fighting for IRAQI freedom?

I could’ve sworn their job was to defend THIS country. But thanks for finally admitting the reality: the Iraq mess has nothing to do with defending America.

By harold

January 26, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

They asked Harold to announce the Free For All Friday today. Just read something from the AJC in the last week and then ignore it and come here and post about whatever you want!

By harold

January 26, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

Harold will go first with the Free For all Friday:

After reading about the 14 and 15 year old girls being charged in Chattanooga with criminal conspiracy to commit homicide because of their myspace page suggesting that oprah and the engergizer bunny should be killed, Harold might suggest that perhaps the terrorists SHOULD win.

There. Harold said it. This country is so f-cked up that maybe the terrorists SHOULD win.

It’s not like the terrorists would take over if they won. They would just celebrate and kill each other.

Somebody here would “take over” and run the country according to the Constitution like it used to be run!

By harold

January 26, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

Dubya always said “Life is like a box of chocolates. They hate us for our freedom.”

What he did not say was ” so I am going to fix that by removing our freedom.”

By getoveryourself

January 26, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

harold,

Isn’t the Sunday alcohol ban part of Sharia law anyway? So I guess the terrorists have already won in GA.

By Brian

January 26, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

More ignorance from the left:

Dusty: Why on earth should OUR troops be there fighting for IRAQI freedom?

The same reason we fought in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, and Somalia - to free others from opression and stop tyranny from spreading throughout the world. Why? Because one way or another, be it tomorrow or ten years later, it will always become our problem eventually. It is interesting to see how left wing groups suddenly want us to interfere in what’s going in Darfur.

I could’ve sworn their job was to defend THIS country.

And these idiots on the left think anyone should take them seriously when speaking of military and conflict matters? It must be real time consuming to develop into such an ignorant boob. Where here does it say anything about the U.S. Army fighting only on U.S. soil?

THE UNITED STATES ARMY MISSION

The Army’s mission is to fight and win our Nation’s wars by providing prompt, sustained land dominance across the full range of military operations and spectrum of conflict in support of combatant commanders. We do this by:

• Executing Title 10 and Title 32 United States Code directives, to include organizing, equipping, and training forces for the conduct of prompt and sustained combat operations on land.

• Accomplishing missions assigned by the President, Secretary of Defense and combatant commanders, and Transforming for the future.

By Dusty

January 26, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

Sorry, but twisting my opinions does not make you correct.

I stated quite succintly and clearly that our troops are fighting for Iraqi freedom, and in the long run, our security.

Freedom for Iraq=no dictator. Our long range security=no terrorist center left behind in Iraq.

Too bad you don’t believe freedom is worth the fight, here or there.

By jbmlaw

January 26, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

From Taranto yesterday: The Senate is currently considering competing “nonbinding resolutions” expressing opposition to the president’s new Iraq strategy. On “Today” [yesterday], David Gregory asked Sen. Chuck Schumer about it:

Gregory: The vice president is dismissive of this effort yesterday saying it’s not going to stop the president, and in fact he goes further, saying this will be detrimental to the troops on the ground.

Schumer: Absolutely not, and I think it’s going to be shown, when this resolution comes up, and it is nonbinding, my guess is that not only are we going to get a vast majority of Democrats to vote for it in one form or another, but close to a majority of the Republicans. And that is going to shock even Vice President Cheney.

Gregory: But how can the public really buy [that] the Democrats support the troops but don’t support the mission? How can you do both?

Schumer: Well, that’s the difficulty. A resolution that says we’re against this escalation, that’s easy. The next step will be how do you put further pressure on the administration against the escalation but still supporting the troops who are there? And that’s what we’re figuring out right now.

Mark Finkelstein, blogging at the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters.org, calls Schumer out:

The claim to support the troops is a sham. Supporting the troops is merely something to be figured out later. It’s an afterthought, to be addressed after Democrats, with some Republican support, rush through a resolution telling our troops that the mission for which they are putting their lives on the line is not just meaningless but absolutely antithetical to our nation’s interests.

By Brian

January 26, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

Somebody here would “take over” and run the country according to the Constitution like it used to be run!

For real! To think that the new Democrats have the audacity to grant false Constitutional voting rights in Congress to our territories and D.C. knowing full well that most of them vote for Democrats.

By Watta Load

January 26, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

How about this Harold?

The AJC has dedicated two days of news headlines to Atlanta traffic, Trump and chickens. Yawn!

By Joe L

January 26, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

Dusty - “Our long range security=no terrorist center left behind in Iraq.”

Actually our long range security would have been better served by not CREATING a terrorist center in Iraq - where none existed before - in the first place and not creating a cause celebre for people who would never have been radicals to flock to and a huge training ground for them to learn. There were no terrorist training camps in Iraq until this admin turned the entire country into one massive academy for al-Qaeda.

The right wing chicken hawks are the ones that let the horses out of the barn and now complain that the Dems aren’t coming up with a plan to lock the empty barn. The damage is already done and no plan will undo it.

By Joe L

January 26, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

Wow the “Dems” granted voting rights to territories and boy they sure are trampling on the Constitution unlike those who want to remove all your civil rights for the sake of “safety”. Man the blind lemmings never cease to amaze me.

By melo

January 26, 2007 01:03 PM | Link to this

Saturday is the Lord’s day! Thats Sabaath, in the Bible. So your opinion or CHURCH’S opinion on which day is the Sabaath should not influence what drink I have and on what day.That is a personal decision.

Why are conservatives so DUMB?

By Brian

January 26, 2007 01:28 PM | Link to this

boy they sure are trampling on the Constitution unlike those who want to remove all your civil rights for the sake of “safety”.

Don’t name all of them, just please name one civil right that’s going to be taken away from you in the interest of fighting [islamic] terrorism. First it was the military was only supposed to protect US soil, and now this. Man the lying boobs on the left never cease to amaze me.

By jbmlaw

January 26, 2007 01:30 PM | Link to this

My friend TFTT will be amused by Chairman Ann’s comments yesterday:

“Mrs. Clinton’s acolytes are floating the idea of Hillary as another Margaret Thatcher to get past the question, “Can a woman be elected president?” This is based on the many, many things Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher have in common, such as the lack of a Y chromosome and … hmmm, you know, I think that’s it.

“Girl-power feminists who got where they are by marrying men with money or power — Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Arianna Huffington and John Kerry — love to complain about how hard it is for a woman to be taken seriously.

“It has nothing to do with their being women. It has to do with their cheap paths to power. Kevin Federline isn’t taken seriously either.

“It is as easy to imagine Americans voting for someone like Margaret Thatcher or Condoleezza Rice for president as it is difficult to imagine them voting for someone like Hillary. (Or Kevin Federline.) Hillary isn’t piggybacking on Thatcher because she’s a woman, she’s piggybacking on Thatcher because Thatcher made it on her own, which Hillary did not.

“But the most urgent question surrounding Hillary’s candidacy is: How will the Democrats out-macho us if Hillary is their presidential nominee? Unlike their last presidential nominee, she doesn’t even have any fake Purple Hearts.”

By Joe L

January 26, 2007 01:43 PM | Link to this

Don’t name all of them, just please name one civil right that’s going to be taken away from you in the interest of fighting [islamic] terrorism.

Gee, how about, I don’t know HABEUS CORPUS - one of the most fundamental rights of our Constitution. Now lets add unlawful search and seizure, Freedom of speech (ever heard of “NO SPEECH ZONES”), I could go on and on but the blind lemmings will continue to plunge off the cliffs.

First it was the military was only supposed to protect US soil, and now this

Actually this was just throwing an old right wing saw back in your face to show the blantant hypocrisy and illogical gyrations the lemmings are going through.

• Man the lying boobs on the left never cease to amaze me.*

The only lies are those the right have to tell themselves so they don’t have to admit they were wrong and can still support their “side” against the “unamerican liberals”. There truly are none so blind as blind lemmings.

By Dusty

January 26, 2007 01:46 PM | Link to this

Well, Joe L.,

If you don’t mind a little head chopping, torture, mass graves, gas attacks and a savage dictator, Iraq was just a nice little country to work with.

You ignore all the connections Saddam had with terrorists in the way of financing and support. Thinking that these “hate America” birds of a feather would not flock together is the pure blindness of short sight.

Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists have cells and government “parties”around the world and seek more all the time. They will not have one in Iraq if our military are not withdrawn by elements in our own USA.

By Chazman

January 26, 2007 01:53 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Since you brought up the phrase “support our troops” (you even put them in quotation marks!), I was just wondering if you fully (and I mean FULLY) supported the troops while Clinton was president? or were you one of the “wag the dog” crowd? What did you think of the Republicans during that time who critisized Clinton’s military actions? Will you admit (really, to be consistant you have to) that they were being unpatriotic and not supporting our troops?

Or will you refuse to answer these questions and refuse to critisize republicans for doing the same thing you are critisizing the democrats for doing.

I bet you refuse to answer the questions.

We’re all waiting.

By harold

January 26, 2007 02:05 PM | Link to this

“Girl-power feminists who got where they are by marrying men with money or power — Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Arianna Huffington and John Kerry”

heh heh. awesome!

“f you don’t mind a little head chopping, torture, mass graves, gas attacks and a savage dictator, Iraq was just a nice little country to work with.”

how about some hangings, torture, mass graves, depleted uranium attacks and a relgiius ext4remist dictator (BUSH) plus MASS CHAOS instead. WOW what an improvment. Bush is learning (well no he isnt but it is readily apparent that) Saddam was such a turd because that’s how he had to act to keep Iraq in control. BIG DUH. Harold could have told him that back in 1994.

By Dusty

January 26, 2007 02:08 PM | Link to this

Chazman,

Keep on waiting. My son was in the military during the Clinton administration.

My criticisms of Clinton concerned his disgraceful behavior in the White House and his lying under oath, not his less than notable military decisions.

I don’t believe that “cut’n’run” was a by-word in those days. It is CURRENTLY applied quite correctly to Democrats.

By Redneck Convert

January 26, 2007 02:09 PM | Link to this

Well, I have to say I was desapointed to see Wooten didn’t write no new columm today. Maybe he’s dead or something. That don’t stop people from voting, though.

You all stop wishing Markus would get throat cancer. Ain’t he the one with the pile-on cyst? The one that kept him from joining the army? He’s got enough troubles already. I have a pile-on cyst, and it sure hurts to set down.

Sister Dusty, I’ll see you at the Church of Holiness Sunday. You have some praying for forgivness to do for what you said to that silver guy. Anyway, I hear Joe Bill is bringing two big rattlers for us to handle.

Have a good weekend, everybody.

By harold

January 26, 2007 02:10 PM | Link to this

hey getoveryourself, that’d be a great tag line for the pro vote ppls:

Sonny Should Say “Citizens Should Speak Soon on Stopping Sharia Sundays in the South”

or SSSCSSSSSSS for short

By jbmlaw

January 26, 2007 02:11 PM | Link to this

Dear Chazman, I am one who would freely use the phrase “wag the dog” to describe President Clinton’s Bosnian distractions. There was no worldwide Slavic threat to Americans, and using the US Army as a pizza delivery service was a misuse, albeit admittedly a low-risk misuse, of our precious human resources. And in answer to your question, I supported our troops throughout Blackhawk Down despite the fact the the Clintonistas did not. (But then, he loathed the military, didn’t he.)

By silver

January 26, 2007 02:11 PM | Link to this

Hillary is an UGLY HAG, and a STINKING LAWYER TO BOOT. But I would still very reluctantly vote for her over any and all traitor neo-CON scum. The only half way decent human being in the whole worthless pack is possible Barak Obama. I am withholding judgement on him until I have more information. All the rest can go straight to hell, with out passing go, because I just will not bother to vote if those w******* are all that are available.

By harold

January 26, 2007 02:14 PM | Link to this

So Harold supposed nobody has noticed that Dubya has employed the Clintonian Tactic of sending missiles to destroy Al Qaeda camps.

How interesting that this tactic is considered workable by Bush.

Why was this not workable for Afghanistan? ??????

Why was this not workable for Iraq? OH because there weren’t any Al Qaeda training camps until Bush destabilized the country paving the way for them.

So anyway, Clinton sent cruise missles after Al Qaeda to distract from the b***** incident, right? What is Bush trying to distract us from with these cruise missiles? The Iraq incident? Harold reckons maybe neither is trying to distract and that the cruise missles are legitimate work. The iraq invasion and detruction is the stupid thing unless of course you only mission was to destablizie the middle east intentionally in which case “mission accomplished”

By Chazman

January 26, 2007 02:17 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Are you consistent with your beliefs?

By melo

January 26, 2007 02:19 PM | Link to this

But the most urgent question surrounding Hillary’s candidacy is: How will the Democrats out-macho us if Hillary is their presidential nominee? Unlike their last presidential nominee, she doesn’t even have any fake Purple Hearts-jbmlaw Fake purple hearts? At least he was courageous enough to go to vietnam.Better than being the ultimate coward and then taunting terorrists with“bring it on” And then mismanage the war. And it shows.No national guard exeperience to even count on.All fake, coz of Daddy.

Go Daddy’s boy

By harold

January 26, 2007 02:22 PM | Link to this

harold guesses one could say they did in fact bring it on.

and bushie couldnt handle it

typical playground bully!

By silver

January 26, 2007 02:26 PM | Link to this

Is it just me, or does anyone else read Hilter when they see the word Hillary?

By Dusty

January 26, 2007 02:27 PM | Link to this

Well, Redneck Convert whom no REAL Southerner would claim for a million dollars,

I see you are rolling with the big snakes and writhing at the Holiness. I am surprised that they let you in… what with the big beer truck.

Now, you take over with silver ‘cause he needs one of those “conversions” like Blackadder had. It may take one of those snakes you’re handling.

So halleluia, brother, but don’t stop at my church. Somebody might think I know you and …well…there’s a limit..err..you know.

By Chazman

January 26, 2007 02:34 PM | Link to this

I didn’t think you would answer the question Dusty. No big surprise. And cut n run has nothing to do with it. You have repeatedly labled those who do not agree with the mission in Iraq, those that do not fully support Bush as unpatriotic and un-american. Not just those that want to “cut n run” (Rush and Hannity would be proud that you are still using that phrase).

jbmlaw, wag the dog was contrived when Clinton tried to bomb Bin Laden (remember him) and missed. It really had nothing to do with Bosnia. Pizza delivery service? Is that like when Bush flew over and held up that big fake turkey one Thanksgiving? Heck of a photo op.

By Brian

January 26, 2007 02:49 PM | Link to this

unlawful search and seizure, Freedom of speech (ever heard of “NO SPEECH ZONES”)

Joe L[oser], if that’s the best you can come up with on “all” of your Civil Rights being taken away, then I must say I’m not surprised by your answers. I didn’t really believe you could pull that whopper off. Nice try though.

Actually this was just throwing an old right wing saw back in your face [military only for US soil] to show the blantant hypocrisy and illogical gyrations the lemmings are going through.

Now what the hell are you talking about? I have no clue where you pulled that illogical statement from. What are you saying now in defense of your idiotic statement, that we on the Right are the ones who said the military was only for US soil? Take drugs much?

By Joe L

January 26, 2007 02:52 PM | Link to this

Dusty, Dusty, Dusty - Saddam was a connected to INTERNATONAL terrorism as we were. I mean we give weapons and support to the Saudis and they actually finance these people. Physician heal thyself.

As far as Iraq being a terrible place to live, you are part of the same group that railed against any sort of humanitarian mission because it was a waste of resources, not our problem, and we weren’t the world’s policeman. Of course you start whistling that tune as soon as it’s the only one that will explain why you are still at the dance.

But you can’t have it both ways. Either you face facts that Iraq was merely a “humanitarian” mission and show your hypocrisy or you show your stupidity by any continued insistence that it’s part of the “War of Terror”.

By Dusty

January 26, 2007 02:57 PM | Link to this

Chazman,

I stand by my beliefs consistently. Your question has been answered over and over. I will not repeat it again.

Pizza service? You got me there. I don’t know what you are talking about.

But holding up a fake turkey for a photo, yeah, that’s big news. Think of that. All the turkeys at home think it is unforgettable. A fake turkey!! Wow!!! Looks like he could have held up a big,fat greasy one. MY my!!

By harold

January 26, 2007 03:01 PM | Link to this

saddam was connect to reagan and rumsfeld and all them, just like bin laden was.

9/11 was a lover’s spat

By Joe L

January 26, 2007 03:08 PM | Link to this

Joe L[oser], if that’s the best you can come up with on “all” of your Civil Rights being taken away, then I must say I’m not surprised by your answers

Freedom of speech and unlawful searches are not important civil rights to you? Well aren’t you a good little Nazi fascist!

The right wing has insisted for decades that the U.S. Military was not supposed to be galavanting around the world being a policeman. Other than the big old Communist bogeyman there was NOTHING that justified sending troops overseas. You would know this if you weren’t another lemming at war with Eurasia. We have ALWAYS been at war Eurasia! The delusional state of the right never ceases to amaze.

By Joe L

January 26, 2007 03:10 PM | Link to this

Dusty - The point is that the fake turkey is just another piece of propaganda lapped up by the lemmings like yourself that shows that this admin does their best to manipulate the weak, willing, and gullible.

By Brian

January 26, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this

did you support the troops when Clinton was in office?

And what big, massive military actions were those of Clinton’s? Somalia? A few cruise missiles into Afghanistan? To answer your question, I sure did support the missions Clinton gave our troops. Somalia was Bush I’s idea and Clinton carried it through, just like Bush removing Saddam from power was the original directive of Clinton. But unlike you Democrats and Liberals, I was smart to separate my disdain for a president and the mission and success of the troops at the time. If anyone thinks a statement like wag the dog is worse or even the equivelant of he lied us into war, or it’s a failed mission, or we can’t win this war, or our troops are like nazis, then the ignorance on the left is more predominate than I ever imagined.

Everyone have a great weekend.

By Joe L

January 26, 2007 03:19 PM | Link to this

If you think the actions in Bosnia and Somalia come anywhere to comparing to the loss of 3000 Americans and countless innocent Iraqis then you would not have a problem understanding the scale of language from “wag the dog” to the reasonable comments today. And by the way “failed” is a comment of FACT not anything else.

By jbmlaw

January 26, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

Dear Dusty, since I caused Chazman’s confusion, I’ll explain all.

“Wag the dog” is a phrase to describe a process driven by perverse motivations, from the old expression, “sometimes the dog wags the tail, and sometimes the tail wags the dog.” The term gained wide use during the Clinton administration as code for a distraction created to cover up misbehavior.

I wrote to Chazman advising that I regarded President Clinton’s Bosnian adventure as a “wag the dog.” The “wag the dog” term became widely popular, although had previous currency regarding Clinton foreign adventures, when (as Chazman notes) President Clinton lofted about $20 million in cruise missiles immediately before impeachment votes.

The “pizza delivery” phrase was widely used by acerbic commentator G. Gordon Liddy, to describe Clinton administration use of the military as a “peacekeeping” force. The traditional conservative view of the military is that it is a “war-making” force.

By Dusty

January 26, 2007 03:23 PM | Link to this

Joe, Joe, Joe,

We have an Embassy and some posts in Saudi Arabia and we had a building to house our military there. Terrorists blew it up. Saudi Arabia security sought out the ones who did it. I never heard of a Saudi Arabian Army. So whom were we supplying with arms?

If you want to call this country a participant in terrorism, you are …well.. an imbecile, the only word I can think of. Maybe you are like harold who said 9/11 was a lover’s spat.

Goodness!! I must have gotten into an al-Jazerra blog by mistake.

By Brian

January 26, 2007 03:29 PM | Link to this

But you can’t have it both ways. Either you face facts that Iraq was merely a “humanitarian” mission and show your hypocrisy or you show your stupidity by any continued insistence that it’s part of the “War of Terror”.

As jbm should have been more clear on, the UN is for humanitarian missions, not the United States military. But, the Clintonistas used the military as global humanitarianists. How nice.

By Brian

January 26, 2007 03:34 PM | Link to this

Freedom of speech and unlawful searches are not important civil rights to you?

Joe L[oser], only an idiot would think that our freedom of speech is really being taken away out there. Where’s the Supreme Court on the matter then? How come no Democrats are even mentioning it? Oh yeah, and regarding alleged unlawful searches, I wonder why the Supreme Court hasn’t taken that issue up as well? Where’s all the outrage from your newly elected Democrats on the issue? Are these things really happening? You are a paranoid weirdo.

By retired military

January 26, 2007 03:44 PM | Link to this

Joe L,

You really have a misguided view of what failure is.

Oh that’s right, your message smells of the liberal mentality that won’t make a decision until a poll has been run to figure out your opinion.

The reason Clinton couldn’t get Bin laden was no one was allowed to make the decision on firing the missiles until the oval office ran a poll. Hence, by then it was too late.

By silver

January 26, 2007 03:49 PM | Link to this

Some stupid b*** lawyer in slick willie’s admin blocked the firing of the missile. I have forgotten her worthless name, but I bet she is a d** who will be in the Hags administration, assuming Hillary Hilter is our next president.

By Joe L

January 26, 2007 03:56 PM | Link to this

Dusty:I never heard of a Saudi Arabian Army. So whom were we supplying with arms?

Wow, you are living proof of the saying better to keep your mouth shut and be thought an idiot. Clearly your knowledge of geopolitics would fit on the head of a pin. We provide the Saudis with tons of military weaponry and previously served as a buffer to aggressive neighbors (until our presence was more of a fly in the ointment than a salve).

No see I’m showing YOU that YOUR LOGIC would make us participator in terrorism. But again the point is far too sophisticated I see.

By Jim's a Distractor

January 26, 2007 03:57 PM | Link to this

Yet another Republican for limited government:

Senator wants restrictions on social networking sites By Sonji Jacobs | Friday, January 26, 2007, 01:53 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

A Georgia senator worried about the safety of young teenagers who log on to Internet social networking sites such as MySpace.com and FaceBook.com has proposed a bill that would force such companies to tighten up their access to minors.

The measure would make it illegal for the owner or operator of a social networking Web site to allow minors to create or maintain a Web page without parental permission. Senate Bill 59 also would force MySpace.com and FaceBook.com to allow parents or guardians to have access to their children’s Web pages at all times.

Sen. Cecil Staton (R-Macon), the bill’s sponsor, said that while he believes parents should be actively involved and aware of their children’s activities, the social networking companies also should be held accountable for the safety of minors.

“I would reject the argument that these companies have no responsibility to address this problem,” Staton said. “I think when it comes to minor children, for someone to suggest a parent doesn’t have a right to be involved when these dangers are there — I would simply reject that.”

By Joe L

January 26, 2007 03:58 PM | Link to this

Brian:But, the Clintonistas used the military as global humanitarianists.

Isn’t global humanitarianism the only remotely legitimate claim still being made by the right wing chickenhawks for Iraq? I see you proved my point completely, hypocrisy they name is Brian.

By Joe L

January 26, 2007 04:02 PM | Link to this

There have been people arrested for no more than speaking out against our President in a legal manner. So you can stick your ostrich head in the sand but it’s the truth. There has been outrage against “NO SPEECH ZONES” but I doubt Faux News has covered it.

Actually the Courts DID take up the issue and declared the President was committing illegal acts which he himself slunk away from quietly by placing the FISA courts back in charge.

No I’m far from paranoid, I’m merely not an apologist for the idiots who are robbing you of your rights while you smile the whole time.

And I notice you don’t even mention Habeas Corpus because you know full well that this completely un-Constitutional act is going on every day.

By Joe L

January 26, 2007 04:05 PM | Link to this

No we didn’t get Bin Laden because the right wing couldn’t stand to let Clinton have any success at that point and were more concerned with devoting government to his pants than any real issue in the world.

The right wing would howled that we were getting involved in the Middle East and stirring up trouble because most of you idiots had zero clue who Bin Laden even was back then. I spoke to right wingers about the dangers of terrorism for about 15 years now and they only cared about there taxes and paychecks.

I’m glad you RETIRED from the military if you consider the military actions in Iraq an success. It was a blunder of blunders that will be held up as both a policy and military failure for a century to come. Any statement to the contrary is merely denial and apologism.

By retired military

January 26, 2007 04:27 PM | Link to this

I’ve never heard of lying under oath being compared to someones pants. Interesting!!

Once again you are incorrect! We knew who he was. He was working for us.

Any statement which talks refers to blunders is only statements that supports the propoganda machine (CNN, NBC) and demonstrates a strong need for politicians to stay far away from military decisions.

Go ahead, take a poll! I’ll wait!

By Jim's a Distractor

January 26, 2007 04:29 PM | Link to this

Another Republican who wants the state to raise our kids:

Bill would ban teens from using cellphones while driving

By The Associated Press | Friday, January 26, 2007, 12:48 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Teenagers would be banned from talking on their cell phones while driving under a proposal introduced Friday by a bipartisan group of House lawmakers.

The measure, introduced by Republican state Rep. Len Walker of Loganville and several Democrats, bans 16- and 17-year-olds from using cell phones and handsfree headsets while driving.

By Joe L

January 26, 2007 04:38 PM | Link to this

I’ve never heard of lying under oath being compared to someones pants

Oh please, this is a huge ol crock of bs and you all know it. Clinton was impeached for “perjury” like Capone was convicted of “tax evasion”. The right wing witch hunt couldn’t find anything real so they went after his personal life that had nothing to do with his Presidency.

Like I said I hope the military you were in was a foreign one because any moron who can’t recognize the huge blunders in Iraq couldn’t tell the butt end of a rifle from the barrel (or won’t admit it which is closer to the truth with the puffed up egos on the right).

The only propaganda in this country has Mr. Rove sitting at the top of the pyramid shoving his waste into the mouth of the willing lemmings like yourself who then step up for seconds.

By retired military

January 26, 2007 04:41 PM | Link to this

Jim’s a Distractor,

I find your post interesting. I believe cell phone use should be limited to hands free devices for all. I’m not saying teens can handle even a hands free device. I believe it would be difficult to quantify an age when someone is prepared to hold a phone, eat, read, put on make-up, while driving. Other states have adopted this holds free only measure.

By retired military

January 26, 2007 04:51 PM | Link to this

Joe L,

A wonderful bit of flatulence there.

While we both know witch hunts occur frequently, anyone who feels blatantly lying to the American people again, and again, and again meaningless, and believes this person should continue to represent America must be an idiot.

I just hope when you finally get your wish and we decide to only talk to Muslim fascist they go your house first.

Still waiting on your poll!! Then we’ll know the Liberal plan on something.

By Joe L

January 26, 2007 04:51 PM | Link to this

demonstrates a strong need for politicians to stay far away from military decisions

By the way, we agree on this since the politicians like Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, and Wolfowitz - none of which have a clue about the military - have completely screwed our military’s capacity and capability.

But of course those aren’t the politicians you were referring to right. Or are you just a hypocrite like the rest?

By TW

January 26, 2007 04:59 PM | Link to this

Joe L - It’s all about the tax cuts. It does not matter to the right wing that Bin Laden is Bush’s daddy, or that soldiers are dying for nothing. Global warming might mean something or it might not, but it doesn’t really matter as long as it takes your eye off the ball. The deficit won’t come out of their yacht furniature fund so they don’t care about that either. And the Church? Morality? Patriotism? Boy have they had their fun with that. It’s all about the money, Joe L. The one with the most toys wins.

By Dennis

January 26, 2007 05:00 PM | Link to this

By Joe L January 26, 2007 04:02 PM, said, “Actually the Courts DID take up the issue and declared the President was committing illegal acts which he himself slunk away from quietly by placing the FISA courts back in charge.”

Correct. Bush, when all of a sudden faced with the fact that he does not have the power his attorney general, Gonzales said he has, did not want to lose in the courts if he was challanged by the democrats or any civil liberty organizations.

To lose would only weaken him and his office further (Not to mention civil lawsuits).

But don’t expect the democrats to do much about it. Their’s is mostly smoke and political posturing.

American citizens are stuck with the damage that a pitiful, pathetic congress has allowed to happen. They have my vote of “no confidence”.

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

By retired military

January 26, 2007 05:05 PM | Link to this

I would certainly agree with the Rumsfeld name. The rest I believe wewre following his misguided input. I know the people below him (JCS) wanted things different. As of right now, I believe the JCS have given the President a sound plan of increasing troops, give Iraq a timeline of taking control, and finally removing the troops at said timeline. I agree that the Iraqi’s need to control their own destiny and step up to the plate.

In case you weren’t aware. The military wanted more troops initially to control Bagdad and surrounding areas but was declined by Rumsfeld for some reason. It would have created a very different situation from where we are now. I also believe the President tried to hold onto Rumsfeld entirely too long.

Therefore, I do not blindly agree with Bush. I believe he has made mistakes. And, has to sleep with those mistakes. But, I will not sit here and bash him for making the best decisions he can.

By JK

January 26, 2007 05:43 PM | Link to this

I’m going to quote TW from 4:59, because this truly breaks it down. I’m surrounded by moneyed “conservatives” and everything they do and say (especially regarding their selective morality) indicates to me that this is true:

It’s all about the tax cuts. It does not matter to the right wing that Bin Laden is Bush’s daddy, or that soldiers are dying for nothing. Global warming might mean something or it might not, but it doesn’t really matter as long as it takes your eye off the ball. The deficit won’t come out of their yacht furniature fund so they don’t care about that either. And the Church? Morality? Patriotism? Boy have they had their fun with that. It’s all about the money. The one with the most toys wins.

Sorry if that offends, but I’ve been watching and listening long enough to know.

By Joe L

January 26, 2007 05:49 PM | Link to this

anyone who feels blatantly lying to the American people again, and again, and again meaningless, and believes this person should continue to represent America must be an idiot.

You mean all the right wingers that re-elected Bush after he lied about affairs actually related to the American government? Because you’re right, those are a bunch of idiots.

By Joe L

January 26, 2007 05:55 PM | Link to this

As of right now, I believe the JCS have given the President a sound plan of increasing troops, give Iraq a timeline of taking control, and finally removing the troops at said timeline.

You said TIMELINE twice so you clearly are a terrorist sympathizer and supporter twice over!

The military wanted more troops initially to control Bagdad and surrounding areas but was declined by Rumsfeld for some reason.

Yes but this is like arguing that a bucket of water would’ve put the fire out two hours ago so a bucket of water NOW will fix it. A day late and a dollar short.

But, I will not sit here and bash him for making the best decisions he can.

I will bash him because his best isn’t good enough and he and his supporters are too stupid to realize it. The are the best HE CAN but not the best anyone with a lick of intelligence or ability could make. So you go tell the 3000+ parents, brothers, sisters, husbands, and wives and the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis Bush was giving it the ol’ Yalie try! What a crock.