The Abusive Father

Comments

32 comments posted
LOL love the photo

esp with 'Speed Queen" in the background.

Watching ALito, if the senators wish to make mincemeat of him, they could. He is a very rote individual. I was not that impressed with the Roberts persona LOL he struck me as "in-house counsel" just a superfatted version... but Alito is very basic. And not all that well grounded coming out of the "murder boards". Toobin commented he stumbled when presented iwth a question on CAP... LOL no wonder the R got rid of the witness about CAP.

Onward. Kennedy up.

Marisacat's picture
Posted by Marisacat on 10 January 2006 - 10:49am
Mincemeat... more like paté

How can they make mincemeat out of Alitio when Shumer and Rahm are forcing anti-choice newly converted dEMS (ie Republicans) in every race they can get their hands on?

This is totally a fucking farce...

I guess Harry is still "keeping his powder dry".

parker's picture
Posted by parker (not verified) on 11 January 2006 - 4:52am
Hey Hey...;)

I agree...IF they wanted to make mincement. But they slobbered slobber into the wind. The great crashing peak of it all was, who else?, Biden (an 11 minute question...fool).

Schumer tries to fake us out that he cares about ''abortion"... he could not care less.

He and Reid (who loved Roberts and was fine with Harriet... LOL) and Rahm and the Clintons are circumventing the base and doing what the republicans do: LYING To the base - there is the real elitism: to ignore the base....

The "base" and certainly pro choice women and men should with hold the vote. absolutely.

Marisacat's picture
Posted by Marisacat on 11 January 2006 - 7:59am
Selective Memory

Well, first and foremost, now that you have someone reading your blog that doesn't drink your kool-aid you may have to be a bit more factual. All your sources on this site are blogs or far left websites. Laughably you even cite you own blog in one instance.

As for the search of the 10 year old girl, the warrant did call for a search of all occupants. Do I think what happened was correct, no. The arresting officers should have made a better judgment and not searched the 10 year old unless there was an overwhelming probability that she had evidence. It's a screwed up world but drug addict parents hide drugs on their children.

As for him defending the warrant less wiretaps, Mediagirl didn't complain about this when Clinton did this during the Oklahoma City Bombing. She probably considers JFK the best President ever, but he did warrant less wiretaps on Martin Luther King. They don't mention this on MTV so Mediagirl will probably clueless about.

Another note on warrant less wiretaps. The Constitution states that you have a forth amendment right "against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". If you are calling or receiving a call from a known Alqaeda member, that isn't unreasonable. Police do warrant less searches everyday based on probable cause.

Here's a question for Mediagirl, where in the constitution does it say a women has a right to an abortion. Here's the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It seems that our posterity or future generations have the same constitution rights as we do, to include life. That’s seems like the constitution would forbid abortion, but you let me know which section or amendment that the right to an abortion is in.

You talk about celebrating MLK birthday, if he were alive he would be ashamed of the democratic Party. They are anti-Christian, pro-abortion ( pro-choice is a cope out ), and allow a man like Robert Byrd (D W VA) aka Grand Cyclops of the KKK, to be in Office.

I sure that you will use insults and call me a Nazi in your response, but don't worry I have come to know that as your way of debating since most of your articles have no facts to debate. If you have some facts I would love to see them and discuss this on an adult level.

Red Stater's picture
Posted by Red Stater on 10 January 2006 - 12:42pm
Which straw man to address first?

As a red stater, you are the expert on kool-ade -- especially since you prefer "truthiness" to facts. If you weren't so lazy, you'd follow those links and read their sources. Of course, since you're determined not to believe anything you already don't presume to be true, that would be a lost cause, wouldn't it?

The strip search of the 10 year old girl did not call for a search of the occupants, just the premises. That was the issue. Of course, realizing that would require actual reading skills on your part, which you seem to be lacking.

As for what I did when Clinton increased police state powers, you wouldn't know, would you, as this blog did not exist then. In fact, no blogs existed then. But then, that doesn't stop you from going after Clinton. He's been out of power for 5 years now, but you're still obsessed with him. Why is that? Because you weren't getting blown, too?

Oh, and where is your proof that Clinton did secret wiretaps without court approval. The secret court was established 30 years ago, and all the reports I've seen is that only Bush the Lesser has considered himself above the law to the point that he'll even sign a law and then declare he is above it.

It sounds like you need to read up on J Edgar Hoover, too. He's your kinda guy. But your crocodile tears for MLK, Jr. are touching. Really. I'm so moved!

Your 4th amendment lesson is laughable.

You might want to read up on the Bill of Rights, though. The people have rights not explicitly given to the government. That's the thing you wingnuts seem to not get. It really is an appalling lapse on your part, considering all your talking points about "strict constructionists." In fact, attempts to enforce bans on abortion didn't happen until the 20th century, and no laws were even passed until late in the 19th century. When the country was founded, state control of women's wombs was unthinkable -- even though women did not have the right to vote.

Now you go off about "life". What is life? Ever swat a fly?

Finally, wingnutter, you really need to get the concept of group sites through your closed mind. There are several people posting here. You can try to lump us all together, but you're just making a fool of yourself.

I hope this reponse got you a good erection. Be sure to wipe off the screen before you try to read more. It might help your reading comprehension.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 10 January 2006 - 1:56pm
Where's a bucket of Zoloft when you need one

You can tell when you are speaking the truth with Liberals by how much they insult you. Moron, Idiot, Knuckle dragger you guys are savvy debaters. I sorry but I didn't know only one viewpoint was allowed here.

Let me handle you guys one at a time:

Mediagirl:

You clearly don't read what you write this sentence makes no sense at all.

"The strip search of the 10 year old girl did not call for a search of the occupants, just the premises. That was the issue. Of course, realizing that would require actual reading skills on your part, which you seem to be lacking."

Kind of funny that you screwed up the sentence where you accuse me of not being able to read. Must be Karma.

Proof read your work, 7th grade English.

You mention that I don't know what you did when Clinton did the same thing. Well I also noticed that you didn't mention what you did either. Are you uninformed or do you not want to answer and show your bias.

Here is the Executive order that Clinton signed for the wiretaps Here

The abortion issue tells how uninformed you actually are. Most people would cite the forth amendment "right to be secure in there person" but not you Mediagirl, you compare abortion to swatting a fly. Bravo, I am converted.

Also as usual many insults and no facts.

Marisacat:

So you would have me banned, Hmmmm. Who’s the fascist now. Other than that you didn't say anything intelligent enough to comment on. Enjoy the Kool-aid.

Madman:

I would like to devote a little more time on your response because I found your reply to be semi-intelligent. I do think that you would seem a little less crazy if you would stop with the insults, it is a bit juvenile.

Red Stater's picture
Posted by Red Stater on 10 January 2006 - 6:16pm
So we can assume you support Clinton's order

... because presumably you support Bush's doing the same thing, albeit without a sunset clause?

As for what most people would cite, I don't think most people even know what's in the "forth amendment" -- or even the Fourth Amendment.

As for swatting a fly, you were rambling about "life" without defining it at all. Do you deny that flies live?

As for the strip-search, well, you got me for dropping a word. Here ya go, so now you can deny the facts instead of dodging.

"The search warrant did not call for a search of the occupants, just the premises. That was the issue. Of course, realizing that would require actual reading skills on your part, which you seem to be lacking."

Funny how thin your skin is, though. You just can't STAND that people don't just obey your dogma, can you? Being banned from a private website, by the way, would not be fascism, but simply privacy rights -- something to which you wingnuts like to pay lip service. What, you don't believe in them now?

I haven't banned you yet because I'm enjoying the traffic. You goons sure know how to stir up activity with your inanity.

Sorry to hear you're on megadoses of Zoloft. Have you tried Oxycontin? I hear Rush got a lot of mileage out of it -- and it doesn't even count as drug abuse deserving of criminal prosecution, either! Perfect for you hypocrites.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 10 January 2006 - 6:59pm
Now were getting somewhere

I'll take the goon and hypocrite comment as a compliment from you, it beats Knuckle dragger, Moron, and a person who masturbates to blogs. Spooky.

I think you are warming up to me Mediagirl.

You guys my want to sit down. I absolutely agree with Clinton's decision to wiretap without a warrant. I also don't think that Clinton was a bad President. I also thought that Monicagate was definitely a setup. Who keeps a dress with semen on for over a year? I like what he did with Welfare reform and the Economy. Also I am no Bush Cheerleader, he spends like a drunken sailor and he refuses to close the borders. He was the best of two evils.

That is such a cope out "define life". Use a little logic here what defines death, your heart isn't breathing and you have no brain waves. I am not against all abortion but once you have brain waves and a heart beat viola you got life.

What amazes me is how angry you guys get just because I have dared to question you. I thought you Liberals were against making judgments of character and for free speech. I have been insulted and threatened to be silenced since I got here. So much for tolerance.

Thin skin are kidding, you guys keep insulting me and I just come right back trying to talk about the issues. Remember Mediagirl let's deal with facts.

In fairness it was only Marisa that threatened to silence/ban me, but not one of you have failed to insult me. It all just seems very juvenile. You insult me because my opinion is different than yours. I would say that beliefs that can't withstand questioning are not beliefs worth having.

Also Zoloft is an anti-psychotic and Oxycontin is a Pain Killer. Don't you do any research or is that some feeble attempt to hurt or belittle me by making fun of someone’s drug addiction. I thought you liberals were supposed to be sensitive.

Oh well, I look forward to your insults and mischaracterizations.

Red Stater's picture
Posted by Red Stater on 10 January 2006 - 8:02pm
angry? ha! dont flatter yourself

you say:

What amazes me is how angry you guys get just because I have dared to question you.

dude. we laff at you.

by the way, your heart doesn't breathe either, chucklehead.

isn't it you, upthread, passing out advice about proofreading one's work?

remember. preview is your friend.

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 10 January 2006 - 10:14pm
What grade are you in

The baby has oxygen sent to him via the placenta.

Recommended reading: "What is in Mommy's Tummy" in the childrens section at you local library. That should be about your speed.

Red Stater's picture
Posted by Red Stater on 11 January 2006 - 8:06am
You get what you give

I don't know if you've made one single post that wasn't insulting, condescending, rude, obscene or dismissive. That is why you get dismissed. You've been trolling. If you were really interested in an intelligent discussion, you wouldn't be resorting to Ann Coulter-style rantings and Bill O'Reilly cries of victimhood.

Thin skin are kidding, you guys keep insulting me and I just come right back trying to talk about the issues.

Now that's funny!

The fact that you like it when presidents break the law and act autocratically and in authoritarian ways reveals a predeliction for fascist affection. The radical right loves Big Brother. -Which is a far cry from what conservatism stood for before its Faustian bargain with the religious fanatics. Barry Goldwater couldn't get elected dog catcher in the Republican Party these days. He was all about restricted government, not some all-powerful force that controls what happens in your body, in your bedroom, in your heart, and anywhere else it feels like.

Remember, Hitler was popular in the early days. His rise to power was with public acclaim. The Germans were very uncritical about unrestrained power in the Chancellor's office ... until it was too late. I'm not saying Bush is Hitler, but when you give a president unrestrained power over the people, you're paving the way for a Hitler or Stalin or Pinochet or Franco.

This country was designed to have an anti-authoritarian government. It was founded in reaction to kings who did things autocratically. That's what those checks and balances are all about.

And now the right wing folks like you want our presidents to be kings. No thanks. There's no future in it.

Oh, and Oxycontin is an opiate narcotic, not a "pain killer." And yes, Rush deserves all the shit he's getting for being the fat hypocrite he is. I don't know why he isn't in jail. After all, that's what he's been demanding for drug offenders for years. Isn't that part of your "zero tolerance" piety? Hell, he's not even on the 12 step program, because one step there is to apologize. Imagine a wingnut apologizing! That would ruin the John Wayne fantasy.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 10 January 2006 - 11:12pm
You're saying things that make you look uninformed

Oxycontin is a pain killer

FDA has strengthened the warnings and precautions sections in the labeling of OxyContin (oxycodone HCl controlled-release) Tablets, a narcotic drug approved for the treatment of moderate to severe pain.

Treatment of pain i.e. pain killer

Your Husband has probably been telling you that they are vitamins so that you will relax and shut the hell up.

Red Stater's picture
Posted by Red Stater on 11 January 2006 - 11:21am
Yeah, it's just like Tylenol

If that makes you feel better listening to Rush, go ahead and believe it.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 11 January 2006 - 12:29pm
Good grief you are a goon

I am not a clinton fan by any stretch but he did not order warrentless wire taps. The order he signed refered to warrentless taps being allowed only if they conformed to the FISA law. I don't recall the section but it is implicit that these cannot be used against any US person. Not even non-citizen residents can be tapped without a warrent you yutz. Read the full source material before you go blathering about things you know nothing about.

As for JFK, I know nothing about him doing this but the FISA laws we're refering to didn't exist then they were passed after tricky dicky had a run in the White House. Personaly I don't care if every president before bush did it - he got caught and it is against the law. He needs to be impeached for violating a fundemental principle of privacy. Spying on Americans without warrents, without oversight is criminal and un-acceptable. If you don't like those rules go live in the Soviet Union where it is, oh that fell didn't it? Maybe China would work for you. If you want to live in a free country like this one used to be then fight for that freedom instead of cowering behind big daddy and the riech stadd.

DuWayne B.'s picture
Posted by DuWayne B. (not verified) on 11 January 2006 - 2:28am
Another confused liberal

In the first sentence you say Clinton didn't order warrantless wiretaps and then in next sentence you say he signed an order for warrantless wiretaps.

So which is it, are the wiretaps warrantless or warrantless. HELLOOOOO!

The FISA court only gives you 72 hours in which to get a warrant after the search, these warrantless wiretaps that confirm to FISA are a myth.

Also you would have to charge all those senators that were briefed a total of twelve times while this was going on conspriracy charges. I think Pelosi was in on this why don't you call for her resignation.

Red Stater's picture
Posted by Red Stater on 11 January 2006 - 11:28am
Pay attention moron

Clinton - did - not - wiretap - American - People. He wiretapped non-Americans, possibly places surrounded by American soil - i.e. embassies. There is no warrent required under FISA or any other law for wiretapping on foriegn soil. His order for warrantless wiretaps demanded accord with the FISA laws so they could not have been tapping Americans or people legaly living on American soil. I'm not confused I'm a patriot who is tired of morons like you who call themselves conservative yet become mouth breathing sycophants to an administration that has inflated teh government to a behemoth, blasted the budget deficit into the stratosphere and decimated liberty in this country. I am far more conservative than you could dream of being - for one I believe in fiscal responsability something your president knows nothing about. I believe in enough government to do the job - no more than that, no less - not monstrous organizations that fail across the board when they are called into action or even distribute funds. I believe in keeping the government out of our personal lives without question and I'm not some sort of pansy that fears a few thousand terrorists enough to give up that freedon from intrusion - when clinton tried to pass his "draconian" anti-terror measures people like you were screaming foul right along with me but now that "conservative" republicans are doing it and much worse it's just fine. Your a trendy, whatever the republican line says "conservative." Real conservatives who gave their lives to give you freedom are turning in their graves while you piss on them in fear. People who died for you and I to have freedom and we betray their deaths - make the deaths of hundreds of thousands of patriots worthless so you can feel "safer" - your a fucking pansy and you don't begin to deserve the freedom all those people died to give you. A good thing because if soemthig doesn't change quick it will all be gone for good - and it will be your fault. Hope you sleep better tonight knowing your pissing our country, our constitution, our heritage away.

DuWayne B.'s picture
Posted by DuWayne B. (not verified) on 12 January 2006 - 12:22am
Paid GOP bloggers

The GOP has it's thugs out "garding" every single so called "liberal" blogs. There was a "filler post" put up on MyDD in regards to a painting in Brownbacks office...within a matter of a few hours they had some one writing in from Brownbecks office "setting the facts straight"... or as they saw it.

I also noticed it on the DNC blog yesterday... there was a coordinated blogswarm that made it impossible to carry out a discussion.

This is how one fights the oppostion... with coordinated attacks... not sending in the same menfolk who screamed and cursed at NARAL to now defend... women's rights, at the same time stuffing every primary with anti-choice Dems... yeah that oughta scare the GOP....

Red Stater is EMPLOYED to distract and "ANNOY".

Anyways... responding to this GOP PAID EMPLOYEE is only proving to the GOP that their money is well spent... and they will keep sending such persons.

Perhaps Red Stater would be a great test case for his parties new law "The anonmous annoying blogger".

Parker's picture
Posted by Parker (not verified) on 11 January 2006 - 4:37am
I don't know, Parker

I'm leaning toward Marisa's demand for better quality trolls. See, I think this one's just a Nebraska stalker of liberal women.

dblhelix's picture
Posted by dblhelix (not verified) on 11 January 2006 - 6:28am
HA HA HA

Who would want a Liberal woman? You are constantly whining about equal rights and ask a guy to pick up a box for you. Bitchy, hairy, no makeup, and usually unshowered, ahhh the girl of my dreams.

Red Stater's picture
Posted by Red Stater on 11 January 2006 - 11:14am
is this what you're told?

No, you are not a troll. You just don't get out much.

Here's an idea. First, confess to your wife that you've been obsessing about liberal women while hiding in your cube in greater Omaha. Then, take her on a nice vacation to some (gasp) blue state. You'll be welcome , have a great time and return with your eyes wide open.

dblhelix's picture
Posted by dblhelix (not verified) on 11 January 2006 - 7:16pm
You are a HOOT!

If I thought you were aware of the intrinsic issue in the search of the child, warrant vs affadavit, it might be entertaining... to ... but nah. Not with you.

I think Media Girl is rather too kind to you. You come here unprepared, linkless, basically a proud knuckle dragger (and they are everywhere, in every group from blue to red and back again, so chill big boy) and from the foaming or spewing at your site you are a sort of five and dime version of an outside agitator.

I'd ban your dull ass... but LOL I just post to the FP and am a guest myself....

I DEMAND better trolls!! Red Stater is sub standard!!

Oh and I am not throwing Byrd out to suit you. You all petted and pruned Strom, who spent most weekends the last years in hospital (hydrate that buzzard!) so he could be wheeled back in on Monday to vote... or Jesse who spewed racism every day of his life, they never renounced anything.

Marisacat's picture
Posted by Marisacat on 10 January 2006 - 2:18pm
Hey moron

wow, do you guys get assignments of blogs to haunt?

Where to start? OH, how about Doe v. Groody, where the majority held:

Our decision is fully consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Groh. There, considering a warrant that failed to specify items to be seized in a [**30] house that was being searched, the Court dismissed the contention that omission of this description was not clearly unconstitutional, or a good faith error. Rather, the Court

stated: "As we observed in the companion case to Shepherd, 'a warrant may be so facially deficient ---- i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized ---- that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid."' Groh, 540 U.S. at , 157 L. Ed. 2d at 1083 (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 923).

The flaw here was every bit as manifest as the omission in the warrant in Groh.

Finally, even if an exception to the warrant requirement did apply, it is clear that the search of Jane and Mary Doe for evidence had to be based on probable cause, and not on a generalized concern that those present at a search might hide evidence. That principle was established as early as 1979. Ybarra, 444 U.S. at 94--96. Searching Jane and Mary Doe for evidence beyond the scope of the warrant and without probable cause violated their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. Accordingly, we will affirm the decision of the District Court rejecting [**31] qualified immunity for the searches, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Second, I'm no fan of Bill Clinton. As far as I'm concerned, ESPECIALLY when it comes to trade issues and privacy concerns, he's a fucking Republican. My party has been highjacked by southerners who have been dragging it further and further to YOUR odious end of the political spectrum. However, there is a strong argument that he acted within the statutes at the time. I have mixed feelings about it, but I'll repeat, Clinton in NO liberal and NO friend of civil liberties. I know that you will knee-jerk defend any evil, nasty and illegal thing that your party does, but I believe that the actual Constitution is more important than political party or expedience. In fact, I'm no big fan of the leaders of EITHER of our political parties when it comes to Civil Liberties, and I think the entire institutional framework at the DC level is rotten to the core on this issue. Something that maybe ALL of the citizens of this country should demand changes on, don'tcha think? It's funny how upset folk like you were about Waco and OK City, but you rush to defend your pet tyrant when he expands Presidential Powers even further. This would make it plain that it's not the INFRINGEMENTS that bother you, but merely who does them. This hypocracy renders questionable your right to quote the Constitution, since you plainly hold it in little regard.

Your next line about "calling known al Quaeda" members begs the question, and is not persuasive as to why your Dear Leader couldn't work within the boundaries of FISA.

Another straw man about not finding abortion in the constitution. Lots of terrible things in the Constitution, like counting black Americans as three fifths of a person. Lots of things left out. However, there is this pesky thing called the Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, Law is an evolving thing, and determined by the demands of the people. Since women didn't count really as people back then, rather as property, it's no wonder that their needs were ignored. I'm sure if you and your ilk have your way we'll go back to those happy days of high infant mortality, high maternity mortality and shortened life expectancies. You quote the founding documents, but plainly attribute none of the promises in them to women. No suprise.

Nice one about Byrd, who renounced that membership so many times I'm sick of hearing about it. For a political movement that elevates drunkards, cokeheads and securities fraudsters to the height of your party, it's amazing how selective Republican's belief in redemption is.

I don't call you a nazi, just an idiot.

Madman in the Marketplace's picture
Posted by Madman in the M... on 10 January 2006 - 2:22pm
you're a piece of work

Let's go right to the 10th amendment: What is your point on this as for as proving that abortion is unconstitutional. Following your logical as long as a State can get a majority vote they can pass any law that doesn't violate the constitution or an existing federal law. I don't think you understand the 10th amendment, this has been the pro-life stance all along, put abortion to a vote on a state by state basis.

So you sounded semi-intelligent there but your statements clearly demonstrate that you don't understand the constitution. So I'll ask you again. What part of the Constitution gives the women a right to an abortion?

Secondly, Robert Byrd:

Sure he renounced his clan membership before he ran for office, but how do you explain the letters he wrote years after that saying he likes the Klan and they are needed in every state.

He opposed affirmative action and filibustered the Civil Rights act for 14 hours.

Here's a quote from “Sheets� Byrd himself after he was out of the KKK in a letter to the Senator of Mississippi in reference to the integration of blacks into the military:

"with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Explain the black population only being 3% in West Virginia. Most blacks are afraid that they may be lynched if it's not an election year. Anyone who would support this guy is a closet racist himself.

Red Stater's picture
Posted by Red Stater on 11 January 2006 - 8:49am
Had to think overnight about this, huh?

I was hoping for better. Your argument, that the "State" part of the Tenth Amendment takes priority over the "people" part is the argument made by the South. Calhoun was more eloquent than you, alas, but the days when "conservatives" actually had intellectual foundations and well developed philosophies are well past. I understand the Constitution just fine, thank you very much. I choose to actually believe that it means what it says: We the People, meaning ALL the people, not just a bigoted or superstitious group of people.

Again, Byrd renounced those beliefs YEARS ago. Yes, they are shameful, but for a party that has institutionalized bigotry, bringing this up is really silly. You guys kept the UNREPENTANT Strom Thurmond on life support for decades, not to mention Jesse Helms.

Madman in the Marketplace's picture
Posted by Madman in the M... on 11 January 2006 - 9:27am
You didn't answer my question

What part of the constitution gives the woman a right to an abortion. I know that the 10th amendment should allow each state to vote to allow or disallow abortons because there isn't an existing federal law. What I need you to tell me is that if a law like this was passed what part of the constitution would it violate.

As far as Sheets Byrd goes, you're kidding yourself. How about this, I now proclaim that I am a Liberal. Do you believe me.

Red Stater's picture
Posted by Red Stater on 11 January 2006 - 9:57am
I did answer your question

though in your universe only authorities like states can press for a certain right. Under your scheme, most Americans would still be slaves, or women beholden to their husbands. If you were even remotely intellectually honest, you'd admit that.

As for Byrd, again, pick some minor thing, a mere shadow of the kind of evil practiced and institutionalized by your party as a whole, and use it as a bludgeon. I don't live in W. Virginia. If I had my way I'd have next to nothing to do with the fucking ignoramouses in the south, at least not the moron poor whites who vote repeatedly against their own best interests for racist or superstitious reasons. There are far more blacks, hispanics and women in the south with NO ONE speaking for them, but the Dems are too cowardly (and often racist) to speak for and to them. Nothing that I can do about it from up here.

Really, though, are they paying you by the comment? Thanks for the extra hits for Media Girl though, I'm sure her advertisers appreciate the extra eyeballs.

Madman in the Marketplace's picture
Posted by Madman in the M... on 11 January 2006 - 10:29am
Just point it out for me

Still no answer, You simply can't tell me where at in the constitution that women are afforded this right. I'll give you a hint most people like yourself use the Forth amendment to justify abortion. That should get you closer to your answer. This is like teaching the 3rd grade. No Jimmy, did you look in this book, try looking in this paragraph. It is tiresome.

As for "Sheets" Byrd you consider starting the KKK chapter in his home town and then recruiting 150 members and then becoming the Exalted Cyclops a minor thing, wow. You are a bigger racist than I thought, are you in the clan?

Red Stater's picture
Posted by Red Stater on 11 January 2006 - 11:09am
Privacy

isn't explicit in there either. Law evolves. Deal with it. It's not all black and white and an easy to follow set of rules for halfwit morons like you to follow.

I'm done with you, and after your misogynist cracks about MG and how she needs to be drugged above I'd ban your ass.

You repeat the same tired arguments over and over again. I hope you had fun.

Madman in the Marketplace's picture
Posted by Madman in the M... on 11 January 2006 - 11:55am
You've answered no questions

You make dogmatic assertions, and ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees. You're not here to discuss, you're here to attack. But you have your own blog for your own bloviating. Several of your comments have crossed the line of civil discourse. Your freeper ethics don't fly here.

I think we're done.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 11 January 2006 - 12:32pm
If you can't beat'em bann'em

All my postings are public, tell me how I crossed over the line, please quote me I don't believe anything that you say. I have yet to insult any of you, except when I called you a slack jawed dimwit, but that was the only time.

More facts that get in your way. There isn't one post on this website that didn't insult me or much less be civil to me and I could produce everyone. I bet you won't do that. Instead of debating facts you will silence the opposing viewpoint, then you guys can build a bonfire of all the books that don't agree with your viewpoint and talk about how I am a Knuckle dragger, Moron, and any of the other names I have been called on this site.

Red Stater2's picture
Posted by Red Stater2 (not verified) on 11 January 2006 - 3:14pm
not one

of your post would have surrvived on Redstate.org. Why should Dems be civil when faced with the most repulsive gang of thugs who make Nixon look like a choir boy. Go play in the swamps with your own kind.

Parker's picture
Posted by Parker (not verified) on 11 January 2006 - 3:38pm
2003 Haley, good ol' boy

a burly sort of Southern Belle... Mississippi strong man, campaigned with and at the CCC in his run for governor... he also wore the littel white pin with a red cross on it, the insignia for the Big Whitey group... I am sure that is not news to you... The CCC ran it in their little (white) website... and he refused to have it removed. It was taken at a barbeque to fundraise for the buses for the "white" academies, the south is rife with those cheap academies... LOL.

Haley Barbour (center), later elected governor of Mississippi, appeared at a 2003 Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) fund-raising event with CCC supporters and officials, including CCC Field Director Bill Lord (far right).

And I am sure you know there are continuing contacts with the CCC with many prominent Republicans... up to and thru 2005.

Now if yo have a photo, a letter, a note an anything from Byrd post his comment on "white niggers" ... other than that: STFU. Attach lower lip to upper lip and it helps to close the jaw and teeth.

I happen to think you are a tad rabid (hence shut the jaw and cover the canines), but hiding it now... this is your preamble and you will escalate. Big Bad Boy...

The main problem is you are boring... you found some nice people who will play with you, bat you around... but, lordy, you are formless, shapeless thing, not a link out of you.

Did you drop out of College Republicans all those years ago? Did Terry Dolan reject you?

Remedial work going on here? Earning stripes for some reason?

OR killing time at work? Yeah that sounds like it. Spinning your wheels, getting your rocks off...

Boring.

Marisacat's picture
Posted by Marisacat on 11 January 2006 - 10:51am