ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [336] -- GOP's Government Shutdown Showdown

[ Posted Friday, February 20th, 2015 – 17:56 PST ]

Hello and welcome back to our Friday political news roundup. I must apologize for not writing one of these columns last week, but I was under the weather and far too sick to type (or think coherently). So the events covered today really encompass the previous two weeks, just to warn everyone in advance. Also, this intro is going to move along at an accelerated clip, because there is a lot to cover. Our awards this week are backwards, and then we've got a rant on the Republicans in Congress who are getting ready to have another government shutdown (because the last one worked so well, right?). But enough overview, let's get on with things.

Congress woke up and realized that they should start debate on Obama's war on the Islamic State. Hey, only nine or ten months late, but better late than never, right? It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out in the next few weeks.

Health and Human Services just announced that there will be a special one-time grace period for people to sign up for health insurance right around the deadline for filing income taxes. I wrote about this earlier in the week, and am glad to see they made the right call. This is for people who were unaware that not only will they be penalized on their 2014 taxes for not having health insurance, but because the open enrollment period just ended they'd have been locked into paying the penalty next year as well. With the new grace period, they'll be able to avoid the penalty next year, which is a good thing because it'll motivate more people to sign up. Obamacare already signed up almost 12 million people this time around (up from 7 million last year), and this will help boost those numbers.

Labor seems to be making something of a comeback, as strikes and lockouts are happening for oil refinery workers and those who unload container ships on West Coast ports. So far, the media hasn't paid this much attention, but we'll see where it all goes in the next few weeks.

Gay people are getting married in Alabama and Texas, which at one time might have been a truly shocking headline, but these days it's almost commonplace to read about. The Alabama case got interesting when the chief justice of the state supreme court tried to have a showdown with the U.S. Supreme Court, but was smacked down in the end. By July, the headline is going to read "U.S. Supreme Court Legalizes All Gay Marriages Everywhere," of course, but we've all still got a few more months of state-level news before that happens.

A federal judge in Texas blocked the implementation of President Obama's new immigration policy, but that'll really become bigger news next week, in the heat of the fight over the Homeland Security budget (which we'll get to in the talking points section).

News from the campaign trail: Jeb Bush gave a not-ready-for-prime-time speech on foreign policy this week. Spoiler alert: he wants his brother's foreign policy team, because they did such a bang-up job last time. Also, the Bush team went a little too transparent in a dump of emails from when Jeb was Florida's governor. Problem was, they forgot to strip out such information as addresses and even Social Security numbers. Whoops! And Jeb's supposed to be the smart one?!?

Rand Paul wants to change his state's election law so that he can run for Senate and president at the same time. Boy, that just oozes confidence about his chances to get the Republican nomination, doesn't it?

Scott Walker had his own not-quite-ready moment overseas, when he was asked about his views on evolution. His answer: "I'm going to punt on that one as well." What wasn't widely reported in the American press (due to the embarrassment factor, no doubt) was the questioner's response to Walker [PDF transcript]. First, it was an incredulous: "No, really?" and then the Brit moderator commented: "any British politician, right- or left-wing, would laugh and say: 'Yes, of course, evolution is true.'" Ah, to have such sane and science-based politics -- where such things aren't even seen as partisan!

Marijuana news: Vermont may become the first state to legalize recreational marijuana not through a voter initiative but through the state's legislature. The nation's new drug czar actually supports Washington DC's legalization law, even though (by law) he must be awfully circumspect in how he speaks of it. The Drug Policy Alliance so far thinks the new drug czar is a lot better than the previous one, as well.

At least one U.S. Attorney doesn't seem to have gotten all the Justice Department memos on not prosecuting state-legal marijuana operations, but this is no surprise because she's been pretty gung-ho all along. Debbie Wasserman Schultz seems to be offering up her support for medical marijuana to the highest bidder (pun not intended). Anyone got a bunch of Democratic donation money? Give D.W.S. a call, quick! And finally, Jamaica's senate passed a decriminalization bill on Bob Marley's birthday, which couldn't have been more appropriate.

In massive-disrespect-for-President-Obama news, we sadly have a number of items. Two news organizations ran retractions recently, one for printing a letter with a misleading headline that suggested President Obama was the Antichrist. The retraction: "[the letter's author] does not believe President Obama is the Antichrist, who will come after seven kings, according to Revelation. He thinks Obama could be the seventh king." Elsewhere, the St. Paul Pioneer Press changed a description of Obama from "a self-absorbed assclown" to "a self-absorbed celebrity." Well, glad they cleared all that up!

In politics, no retractions were offered by either convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza, who gratuitously called the president a "boy" from the "ghetto," or from Rudy Giuliani, who read Obama's mind and determined "Obama doesn't love America." Democrat Steve Cohen had the most amusing response to Giuliani, when he tweeted "Maybe he thinks he loves it 3/5 as much as Giuliani & his pals." Nicely done, Steve!

In even-sillier news, a Republican in Georgia wants to pass a law so that nobody splices jellyfish DNA to a human embryo, in order to manufacture human embryos that glow in the dark. No, seriously -- you just can't make this stuff up, folks!

And, finally, the Washington Monument is no longer an easy-to-remember 555 feet high. Seems its official height shrunk 10 inches. Insert your own Seinfeld-style "shrinkage," but-it's-cold-in-February joke here, if you must. Heh.

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

We usually present these awards in the other order, but since both awards concern the same event this week, we decided to switch them around, to preserve the chronology.

Also, before we really begin, a quick update on the winner of the MDDOTW award from a few weeks back [FTP 333]. Sheldon Silver's problems continue to mount, as the former New York Assembly Speaker was indicted by a federal grand jury on corruption charges which include mail fraud, wire fraud, and extortion. From the news story:

The indictment accuses Silver of a "secret and corrupt scheme to deprive the citizens of the State of his honest services as a legislator" and of using his power and influence as speaker to obtain "millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks masked as legitimate income."

This week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week also falls into the "how the mighty have fallen" category. The longest-serving governor Oregon has ever had stepped down in disgrace this week. John Kitzhaber had just won his unprecedented fourth term in office, but has been under investigation for the activities of his girlfriend for a while.

Kitzhaber finally realized he had to go, after members of his own party privately informed him they could not support him anymore. If he had remained in office with the legal cloud hanging over him, the legislature might have even considered kicking him out. Nevertheless, Kitzhaber hung around, in bizarre fashion, for a day later than expected -- which we'll get to in a moment.

For irreparably tarnishing his legacy, though, John Kitzhaber is the easy choice for this week's MDDOTW award. Oregon deserves better.

[Ex-governor John Kitzhaber is now a private citizen, and it is our policy not to provide contact information for such people.]

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Fortunately, Oregon is now in good hands. The state doesn't have a lieutenant governor position, so the Oregon secretary of state is next in line when a governor resigns.

We were first made aware of Kate Brown when reading a rather bizarre story which happened just before Kitzhaber stepped down. Kitzhaber apparently decided he'd step down, then decided he wouldn't step down, forgetting his first decision entirely. Or something -- it's kind of hard to tell. Here's the story:

Kitzhaber reportedly was on the verge of announcing that he would step down yesterday, but changed his mind and announced that he would remain in office. That announcement came after Kitzhaber asked Secretary of State Kate Brown (D) -- the next in line to become governor -- to return to Oregon immediately from Washington so that he could meet with her privately.

Upon returning to the state, Brown immediately went to meet with Kitzhaber. Then things got weird.

"I got on a plane yesterday morning and arrived at 3:40 in the afternoon. I was escorted directly into a meeting with the Governor. It was a brief meeting. He asked me why I came back early from Washington, DC, which I found strange," Brown said in a statement. "I asked him what he wanted to talk about. The Governor told me he was not resigning, after which he began a conversation about transition."

Brown called the situation "bizarre and unprecedented," and said that her staff would be ready if he resigned.

So, let's see, he called Brown back early, then asked her why she had returned early, then said he wasn't resigning, then talked about a transition that would only take place if he resigned. That right there would not seem to be very confidence-building behavior, it would seem.

Kate Brown has since stepped up and been sworn in as Oregon's next governor. One other bit of newsworthiness from the story: Governor Brown is the first bisexual governor ever in America.

We sincerely wish Kate Brown well, and for her poise throughout the entire fiasco, we think she deserves this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Oregon Governor Kate Brown via her brand-new official contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 336 (2/20/15)

We're going to consolidate this week's talking points into a longish sort of rant, because it was more fun to write it that way then to separate into discrete soundbites.

If nothing much was scheduled for next week, we might instead have parsed all the ways that Obamacare has proven its detractors wrong, since we read two wonderful articles on this subject that caught our eye. Check them out to review the across-the-board successes of Obamacare so far.

But next week we're going to have another battle royale in Washington, one that not many Americans have even heard about yet. Because the Republicans in Congress are in "let's shut down the government" mode, once again. They planned this last year, so that they'd have a big fight midwinter, perhaps to warm up the halls of Congress with an excess of hot air, while the snow is blowing outside. It's hard to figure what the strategy was, but here we are again.

But next Friday, we may be headed for a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. Republicans will mostly be fighting with each other (it's a real Boehner-v-McConnell cage match, folks!), but of course they'll all be trying to deflect criticism of their own incompetence over to the Democrats (it's really the only thing they agree on, tactically).

Democrats have been handed this issue on a silver platter. Republicans are jeopardizing America's homeland security to make an unwinnable political point? This just begs Democrats to play hardball. OK, not as hardball as the Republicans played against anti-war Democrats back when George W. Bush was around, but still -- Democrats need to make their own position in this fight clear, to win the battle over public opinion. Luckily for them, it's pretty easy to do so. So here is what I think Democrats should be saying all next week, as Republicans tie themselves in knots once again.

 

A "shutdown showdown" rant

The Republican Party wasted no time in creating yet another self-induced government shutdown showdown. Not even two full months into their control of both the House and the Senate, and they are pushing a critical federal department towards shutting down, all in an effort to make a political point. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell both promised America that they wouldn't ever shut the government down again, and yet here we are, after less than two months.

Just so nobody misunderstands what is going on here, the Republicans picked this battle and they picked this battlefield. It was entirely their choice to have this fight, and it was entirely their choice to target the Department of Homeland Security. Back in December, they forced the scheduling of this fight in what was called the "cromnibus" bill. All federal departments were funded through the entire 2015 fiscal year, with the sole exception of D.H.S. -- which was done at the insistence of Republicans.

If they don't act within the next week, D.H.S. will run out of money. The federal department which is responsible for keeping the homeland safe would be shut down. Let's all just think about that concept for a moment, shall we?

Imagine for just one second that the parties were reversed in this political fight. Imagine what Republicans would be saying right now if Democrats were holding Homeland Security funding hostage in an effort to pass something on our political agenda. You think the words "traitor" or at the very least "aiding America's enemies" would pop up in their criticism? I do. I remember just how jingoistic these same Republicans were a decade or so ago, when anyone would speak an ill word about what President Bush was doing. The political attacks would -- if Democrats were now the ones holding up Homeland Security's funding -- be vicious and personal, if the past is any guide. Just imagine what Rudy Giuliani would be saying now, just to give one pertinent example.

We will not resort to such ugly name-calling. I will not -- and no Democrat should -- call into question someone's patriotism or love of country over the D.H.S. funding fight. Motivations are not fair game, in other words, but the consequences of Republicans' actions certainly are.

What will happen if Homeland Security is shut down has been downplayed by Republicans. "Most of them are essential personnel, so they have to show up at work anyway," they blithely respond. What this ignores is that they will not be paid for showing up at work after a shutdown. They will be working for free, hoping that Congress not only funds their employer but also remembers to include their back pay for the days they worked with no budget in place. If the shutdown goes on for more than a week -- as the last Republican shutdown did -- this is going to start to impact mortgage payments, overdue bills, and other family financial concerns.

While all this is happening, Congress will still be cashing its paychecks. Every Republican who refuses to pass a clean funding bill will still be paid about $175,000 per year, on schedule. For not doing their jobs. A Coast Guard sailor will be worrying about unpaid bills, but members of Congress will not. A T.S.A. agent will be distracted from keeping our airlines safe from terrorists because he'll be worried about paying the rent. Members of the Secret Service may lose focus from their critical job. All while Republicans who refuse to vote on a D.H.S. budget continue to dine out and live large because they know their paychecks will still appear on time.

This is who will be affected -- the people who go to work every day willing to put themselves on the line to defend this country. For a long time, every politician of both parties has stated that they "support the troops." Are those just words? Do they not mean anything? Support means more than moral support and salutary speeches. It also needs to mean support -- as in "getting a paycheck for what you do."

The people that would lose their financial security if the Department of Homeland Security were shut down are the people who plan for our safety. People working to aid when disaster strikes, like FEMA. People who guard our borders, like the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and the Border Patrol. People who try to prevent disaster from attacking, who work tirelessly to defend America from computer attacks, nuclear disasters, and virulent disease. They are first-responders -- another category that politicians used to cozy up to when begging for votes. And they will all lose their paychecks if the Republicans don't pass a clean bill next week. So much for supporting the troops, eh?

I remind everyone once again -- this is the battlefield that Republicans chose. Democrats didn't decide to play politics with Homeland Security. Republicans did.

And let me be clear -- we're having this completely made-up fight because Republicans can not govern. Not because President Obama did anything. Our immigration policy is broken -- almost everyone agrees with that statement. So where is the Republican policy on immigration? They are tying this issue to the crucial support for Homeland Security because of their own rank inability to perform their own constitutional duty.

The House has been in Republican hands since 2010. Where is their immigration reform plan? They complained about the bipartisan Senate bill, saying it was too big and too comprehensive. They were going to break the problem down and pass individual bills. They have not done so. They've had more than four years, and they have nothing to show for it. Now that they have control of the Senate, where is their immigration plan? It does not exist. This is because they cannot even agree among themselves what to do. Democrats don't even really figure into it -- they have bungled immigration with a House majority, all on their own.

If Republicans don't agree with President Obama's new policy, there is nothing stopping them from passing their own policy. It would supersede Obama's actions. The president himself said he would welcome this happening. But Republicans don't want to do so, because they cannot get the votes within their own caucus for any plan whatsoever. Instead, they prefer to throw a tantrum, playing unwinnable politics with Homeland Security. Want to debate immigration policy? Great! Let's have that debate. Just put forward a bill, and we'll debate it.

Republicans are going to lose this latest example of tilting at political windmills. Eventually, a clean bill is going to pass, with bipartisan support in both houses of Congress. What we're going to witness for the next week is a struggle between Mitch McConnell and John Boehner over who is going to admit this reality first. The public already blames Republicans far more than Democrats or Obama for this mess, and that perception is only going to grow if they go ahead and shut the department down. It's a losing battle legislatively and a losing battle politically. But, once again, Republicans chose this fight, and they chose which department to fight over.

A clean bill has already been proposed by Democrats. It would pass both houses of Congress tomorrow, in fact. Democrats in both houses would vote for it, and Republicans worried about their electoral chances in 2016 would also vote for it in both houses. This idea already is gaining bipartisan support, from Republicans like Senators Dean Heller and Mark Kirk -- Kirk even recently stated: "I generally agree with the Democratic position here. I think we should have never fought this battle on D.H.S. funding." When Obama signs such a clean bill, the entire crisis would disappear.

Republicans even had a so-called "escape hatch" handed to them by a federal judge, who ruled that Obama's new policy won't be implemented before the courts rule. Republicans should have grasped this lifeline and expressed their confidence that the courts would get it right. That they didn't is a clear sign they lack the courage of their own constitutional convictions. After all, if the court blocked Obama, why would a big fight over D.H.S. funding even be necessary? I strongly urge Republicans to take the escape hatch, and end their ridiculous hostage-taking exercise.

Democrats will be fighting hard next week, to support those federal employees whose job it is to protect the homeland. We think it would be disgraceful if Congress continues to be paid while T.S.A. agents and the Border Patrol are not. We think it's a good idea for D.H.S. employees to be worried about smugglers, computer attacks, loose nuclear material, preventing epidemics, and all the other things they do to protect Americans' security here at home -- rather than late charges on their family's bills. If Republicans want to debate immigration in Congress, Democrats are fully willing and able to have that debate. But not when it is tied to hostage-taking of people's paychecks. There is nothing stopping Boehner and McConnell from introducing whatever immigration bill they would like, and allowing the House and the Senate to have a full and rigorous debate. They have been able to do this for over four years in the House, and they have not done so. We actually did have a great debate in the Senate, and passed a good bill with a strong bipartisan majority. We can reopen that debate at any time.

But please, leave the Homeland Security workers out of it. They deserve a lot better than having their paychecks be used as a political football because some Republicans don't like the president. They deserve our unwavering support, in fact, seeing as how they are first-responders standing up every day to protect America from terrorists and others who would do us harm. The least we can do is to pay them for their service to this country.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: Democrats For Progress
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

112 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [336] -- GOP's Government Shutdown Showdown”

  1. [1] 
    LewDan wrote:

    There shouldn't even be a law requiring essential workers to remain on the job during a shutdown. The law should read essential workers must be paid because essential services cannot be shutdown.

    Politicians play these games because they can rely on their enabling legislation which totally violates federal employees' rights. Slavery is unconstitutional, illegal. And no Congressional act has legal authority to supercede it. But the one requiring essential workers to work without pay does.

    Legislating workers must work without pay, without a contract, without any guarantee they will ever be compensated is involuntary servitude. Slavery. Republicans who claim to be so outraged, dedicated to the rule of law, and adamant that lawbreakers cannot be "rewarded," feel entitled to break the law themselves, and be rewarded for it, by unlawfully enslaving federal employees.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How long do y'all suppose it will be before the phrase Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others completely misses the point and loses all meaning?

    Given the sad course that US domestic politics is on, I'd say not very long at all. And, that's coming from someone who used to be a perpetual cockeyed optimist about these things.

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LewDan -

    I have had similar thoughts on jury duty, myself. Where in the 13th and 14th amendments does it say citizens must work for sub-standard wages for the benefit of the state?

    :-)

    LizM -

    You are quoting, I believe, Winston Churchill? He's got a lot to answer for in the Middle East these days, I believe...

    :-)

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What Churchill did in the Middle East held up pretty good, didn't it, Chris?

    I think you may have him confused with a Bush. Ahem.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ...not to mention a Blair. Whatever happened to THAT guy?

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Congress woke up and realized that they should start debate on Obama's war on the Islamic State. Hey, only nine or ten months late, but better late than never, right?

    Yea, it's all Congress' fault..

    Obama STILL hasn't come up with a coherent strategy on dealing with the ISIS.. Hell, Obama can't even SAY Islamic extremism..

    But, now that we have a GOP Congress, NOW it's all Congress' fault.. :^/

    So predictable.. Matter of fact, I made that EXACT prediction in the immediate aftermath of the Great Nuclear Shellacking Of 2014...

    I strongly urge Republicans to take the escape hatch, and end their ridiculous hostage-taking exercise.

    I completely agree...

    Like the upcoming TrainWreckCare ruling by the SCOTUS, the courts will pass judgement on Obama's totally ridiculous reasoning..

    These are battles that the GOP Congress doesn't need to fight..

    The court's will do that job..

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, let's see, he called Brown back early, then asked her why she had returned early, then said he wasn't resigning, then talked about a transition that would only take place if he resigned. That right there would not seem to be very confidence-building behavior, it would seem.

    Maybe Kitzhaber had been spending too much time in Washington State, if you know what I mean... :D

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I have to admit that I'm on Billo's side this week. I just don't see anything exceptional about his war story lies when they're compared to all his other lies. He shouldn't be taken out of context. He's only doing his job. He shouldn't lose it for doing it enthusiastically.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to admit that I'm on Billo's side this week. I just don't see anything exceptional about his war story lies when they're compared to all his other lies. He shouldn't be taken out of context. He's only doing his job. He shouldn't lose it for doing it enthusiastically.

    Once again, proving that the Hysterical Left's "lies" are simply anything the Right says that the Left doesn't like... :D

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to admit that I'm on Billo's side this week. I just don't see anything exceptional about his war story lies when they're compared to all his other lies.

    I would ask you what those "lies" exactly were, but I know ya got nothing.. :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Ghouliani and D'Souza's racist hate speech is appalling. It's easy to understand why Faux News posted ISIL's pilot snuff vid on their website. Republicans are eager to light some fires and FNC is all about fanning the flames of violent extremism.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    UNWELCOME MAT: WHITE HOUSE TRIES TO COUNTER NETANYAHU VISIT
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_NETANYAHU?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-02-20-15-47-44

    Why is Obama so afraid of Netanyahu??

    Such blatant cowardice on the part of our President would seem to indicate that Obama has something to hide..

    The White House has denied, then conceded that they are withholding vital intel from Israel regarding Iran's nuclear program..

    Obama's is simply worried about his ego and his legacy...

    Netanyahu is worried about the survival of Israel...

    It's easy to see which leader has more integrity..

    Michale

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ghouliani and D'Souza's racist hate speech is appalling. It's easy to understand why Faux News posted ISIL's pilot snuff vid on their website. Republicans are eager to light some fires and FNC is all about fanning the flames of violent extremism.

    Of course, you ignore all the Left Winger sites that posted the ISIL torture/execution of the Jordanian pilot..

    Hypocrisy much?? :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "Insert your own Seinfeld-style "shrinkage," but-it's-cold-in-February joke here, if you must. Heh."

    Very well. "I was in the reflecting pool!! I was in the reflecting pool!"

  15. [15] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The opposite of a smart phone be a D'Souza phone.

  16. [16] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "The White House has denied, then conceded that they are withholding vital intel from Israel regarding Iran's nuclear program.."

    Lol You're kidding right? Anyone who leaks State secrets is lucky to receive any Intel at all! The United States doesn't exist to serve Israel. Our support is not an entitlement. Netanyahu doesn't get that. And neither does Michale.--And intel about the arms negotiations were withheld, not Intel on Iran's nuclear program.

  17. [17] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "I have had similar thoughts on jury duty, myself. Where in the 13th and 14th amendments does it say citizens must work for sub-standard wages for the benefit of the state?"

    Just one of many examples of government violating the letter of the law out of expediency.--Which, somehow, fails to violate "the rule of law." Unlike, say, people who immigrate illegally merely to avoid starvation, slavery, torture, or murder. A little thing like survival is no excuse for violating the law! Government convenience? Now that's an excuse.

  18. [18] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "I would ask you what those "lies" exactly were, but I know ya got nothing.. :D

    Michale"

    Lol Its comments like that from the Right that have me seriously doubting their sanity. Is it even possible to be so in denial that you actually believe Fox news is truthful and not have a pathology of mental aberration?

  19. [19] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Great column as ever, CW, thank you.

    Alabama marriage equality:

    This still remains unresolved, in spite of Judge Granade clarifying her ruling over a week ago. As of Thurs Feb 19, only 48 of 67 counties were issuing marriage licences to same sex couples. Six counties are not issuing any licenses to anyone and 11 counties are issuing licenses only to heterosexual couples.

    Meantime, Judge Roy Moore is remaining firm on his claim that his definition of marriage is based on God's Law which is above all other laws. A number of Republican groups are standing with him including the Ku Klux Klan. They posted the following on their website:

    The Mississippi Klan salutes Alabama's chief justice Roy Moore, for refusing to bow to the yoke of Federal tyranny. The Feds have no authority over individual States marriage laws. The fudgepackers from Hollywood and all major news networks are in shock that the good people from the heart of Dixie are resisting their Imperialist, Communist Homosexual agenda!
    Alabama has a Constitutional amendment, that clearly says marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. But much as they have since the 2nd war for independence was lost in 1865, the Federal Government by way of it's foreign masters seems set to push this abomination, on the God fearing people of Alabama. Will they send Jack Booted thugs to enforce it? Remains to be seen, but a simple study of history will show they once burned, destroyed and looted the state of Alabama. Georgia was burned almost to the ground, and in our state, Meridian Mississippi was destroyed by blue bellied sledgehammers in one day.

    We call upon all Klansman and White Southern Nationalist to help in the massive protest's coming, Not by wearing your colors, but by joining in with the Christian community's protests that are surly coming against tyranical Federal judges. We have made the decision that we don't want to distract attention away from the issue, as anytime the Klan rides, we are made the issue by the zionist controlled media. Members are encouraged to lend a hand, make signs, recruit etc., but leave any insignia, colors, shirts etc at the house. We want to infiltrate these protests and make sure they are kept running in military fashion and not bullied by the outside agitators.

    Let today be the day, that the outside forces that have ruled this nation since the end of the War of Northern Aggression be given notice, "The God fearing White man will no longer stand for your immorality, your Illegal unjust judges and laws. Your attempts to turn us into a third world cesspool must be defeated. Unlike the 1950's and 60's we see you clearly for the enemy you are. Until we drive the spear of God and truth through your lying cold black hearts, the Klan will leave the light on for you.

    No word yet as to when this march will be.

  20. [20] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    In addition to the two items of "massive-disrespect-for-President-Obama news", there was also a third, this one courtesy of Fox.

    In a report, read by head anchorwoman Kathleen Bade, regarding a rape suspect, San Diego Fox News 5 used a picture of President Obama overlaid with a caption reading NO CHARGES. The image remained in view for the duration of the report.

    Asked why there was no on-air acknowledgment or apology for the error, assignment editor Mike Wille said: “They really don’t do that when it’s a small thing like that.”

    Seven days after the "mistake", the Fox affiliate finally got around to an apology of sorts - but it was an apology to their viewers, not to the President, and it was posted to their website, not given on air.

  21. [21] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    While I have to agree that Georgia state Rep Tom Kirby's bill banning human-jellyfish hybrids is the silliest, there have been other Republican bills this month which deserve mention in this category.

    There's state Rep David Moore from Montana who has put up a bill banning tight clothing as "indecent exposure". This includes yoga pants, cycling and athletic gear, and Speedo swimwear. The proposal aims to expand the existing indecent exposure law to include any nipple exposure, including men’s, and any garment that “gives the appearance or simulates” a person’s buttocks, genitals, pelvic area or female nipple.

    Meanwhile in Wyoming, state Rep Harlan Edmonds was ordered out of the House Labor, Health and Social Services Committee meeting Friday, after proposing an amendment to a bill that would make it effective when “hell freezes over” instead of the date of July 1. At the time the Committee was discussing adding LGBT protections to Wyoming's civil rights laws.

    The last isn't silly, it's downright dangerous. Kansas legislators, concerned about mental health medications (which are expensive) decided that the fact that the drugs are being dispensed is the problem - and that some form of alternate care provided outside of the doctor patient framework is preferred. In other words, lawmakers who are not doctors are making medical decisions based solely on cost in reckless disregard for the needs of very ill patients.

  22. [22] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    With respect to the email dump by Jeb Bush: publicly posting private emails containing SSNs is illegal yet absolutely nobody was held accountable. Why is this? Is there so little regard for the law in Florida that nobody could be bothered?

  23. [23] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Mopshell, mistakes were made.

  24. [24] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "We want to infiltrate these protests and make sure they are kept running in military fashion and not bullied by the outside agitators."

    Doesn't having to "infiltrate" a protest to "make sure they are kept running" make you "outside agitators?"

  25. [25] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "With respect to the email dump by Jeb Bush: publicly posting private emails containing SSNs is illegal yet absolutely nobody was held accountable. Why is this? Is there so little regard for the law in Florida that nobody could be bothered?"

    Yes. Actually, that's pretty much the reason.

  26. [26] 
    LewDan wrote:

    CW,

    While I too have had thoughts of slavery when jury duty rears its evil head, I'm forced to concede that if we want a jury system we must all share the burden of jury duty. We do want a jury system. And jury trials are also mandated in the constitution.

    As for the pay?! We also don't want professional jurors. And it is both a burden of citizenship, and resulting from a civic duty. So token pay to cover expenses is appropriate. Or at least arguably appropriate. Though low pay certainty does nothing to lesson the burden.

    Now, as to just how "equally" we all share that burden... That's a whole 'nuther issue!

    I had just left PATCO when, during contract negotiations, they decided to demonstrate just what was wrong with FAA regulations the union objected to by obeying them literally.--Reagan called the result a union sponsored slow-down of air traffic. Then he famously fired all air traffic controllers who walked off the job "illegally" simply because they had no contract.--
    Slavery being not quite as illegal as the 14th amendment might lead one to believe.

    St. Reagan's highly acclaimed public assault on public unions was even more galling, and dishonest, as the impasse wasn't over wages, as Reagan implied. Controllers were objecting to being forced to take shortcuts, for which they, personally and legally, must assume full responsibility, because the system as mandated was unworkable. And because Washington lacked the political will to face down the airlines, and interfere with airline profits! over little things like the safety of air travelers, or the amount of undue stress placed upon air traffic controllers!

    St. Reagan, however, fearlessly and selflessly confronted the obvious assault on our federal system by dastardly unions, and, in spite of the cost, emerged victorious! He was, regrettably, then forced to implement the very reforms, PATCO stuck over, since the lack of qualified controllers meant keeping air travel flowing and safe required efficiency trump all other considerations. Airlines would just have to take a bath on profits and learn to adjust.--All because of the evil union PATCO. No one could reasonably fault St. Regan's administration!

    So, in a political masterstroke, St. Reagan managed to galvanize public opinion and attain stratospheric approval ratings for his heroic principled stand in defense of federalism against the evil of public unions. And he only had to screw federal workers, the general public, and the airline industry to do it.

    But he protected the FAA! He protected his administration. Needed reforms were made without ever admitting that FAA regulations were ever at fault to begin with. They were made because of the evil union PATCO, not St. Regan. And they were made while making it crystal clear that the federal government would not be coerced into doing the right thing by union pressure. Even if the changes were necessary.

    So, I've had personal experience with both State mandated slavery and Republican politics. Which, in my experience, tend to screw everyone else while serving solely to enhance politicians' reputations by deceiving an uninformed electorate.

  27. [27] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "Presidents Day weeklong recess"

    Only Congress gets a whole week off to celebrate a single day.

  28. [28] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Nice http://FTP...great framing of the shut down. However...

    A couple of things missing from the argument that I had hoped some someone would point out is that...

    A: It is congresses function to sufficiently fund the government and pass legislation to govern the country. We used to pass budgets and have great battles over legislation that have produced, perhaps, not the best laws but ones that have worked for the greater good. Somewhere along the line congress decided that legislating through budgeting is the best road for all Americans and have reduced the role of legislation passed to that of self aggrandizement or how to reallocate income to the wealthiest people. By legislating in this manner they have in essence given themselves a nice pay raise, god forbid that they work more than 132 days (even less considering half the time they are not even there for work days and the budget really only occupies 30-45 works days) to actually get work done that benefits the people.

    and....

    B: The shutdown of the DHS will also effect small businesses that hold government contracts supporting "essential" personnel and missions. I happen to administer two contracts that we must continue to fulfill during government shutdowns with no certain guarantee that we will get paid for our services. To put it mildly it has the potential to bankrupt the company given that we are racking up around 250k to 300k in expenditures for any given week. Assume the DHS shuts down for lets just say 2 weeks and congress in their infinite wisdom decides to not pay for those services rendered during the shut down we go bankrupt, so... not only do I lose my income for the period of the shutdown, I lose my source of income.

    The Dems have missed the boat yet again by not messaging that the shut down of the DHS not only endangers our national security but the health of middle class Americans and small business owners. The Repubs have also missed the boat by not passing a clean bill and forcing the Dems to the table to pass real true immigration reform. The current situation is not surprising to me given that Washington long ago forsake the will of the American "people" and instead decided to support the will of their corporate benefactors.

  29. [29] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Hi John From Censornati!

    [23] Mopshell, mistakes were made.

    Not sure to which of my comments this refers...

  30. [30] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    @CW

    When discussing the DHS funding dilemma, I’m wondering about the part CPAC is likely to play in this developing drama. Scheduled for 4 days from Wednesday, Feb 25 to Saturday, Feb 28, CPAC will have booked its speakers and panellists well in advance, long before the DHS issue became a Republican headache threatening to expand to migraine proportions.

    So, how will CPAC impact on McConnell’s range of options for resolving the DHS dilemma? Well, that will partially depend on who has CPAC commitments and when, as against how many ‘sitting’ days are scheduled for the Senate next week. Because the Congressional calendar for 2015 has yet to be finalized (it’s the end of February already and the Republican majorities aren’t organized enough to finalize the calendar for this month let alone the rest of the year!), there’s no way of telling how many ‘sitting’ days are planned for next week. Presumably, the plan is to sit through to Thursday to enable all Republicans to attend the final two days of CPAC. If that is the case, then Congressional Republicans have just 4 days before the deadline to settle their dispute and pass a funding bill of some description.

    Further complicating that plan, is the likelihood that McConnell’s majority will be reduced by at least 4 from Wednesday onwards when the presidential wannabes – Cruz, Graham, Paul and Rubio – take off for CPAC. Admittedly it will be much easier for him to get a clean bill passed if Cruz is not there to disrupt the vote. Perhaps that is part of McConnell’s plan; certainly scheduling a fourth vote for Monday morning on the current wording of the bill is a token move at best, designed no doubt to give tea partiers like Cruz the appearance that McConnell is on their side. It may be a very different story come Wednesday.

  31. [31] 
    John From Censornati wrote:
  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    Is it even possible to be so in denial that you actually believe Fox news is truthful and not have a pathology of mental aberration?

    One of the things I am most proud of here is that I have never resorted to personal attacks on fellow Weigantians..

    Until now...

    I may be many things...

    Overbearing.. Obnoxious... Arrogant...

    But there is one thing that I have never been..

    And that is mean-spirited.

    You are a bully. You attack anyone that disagrees with you with vile and disgusting personal insults and attacks..

    You are a mean-spirited and lonely bully and frankly not worth my time anymore..

  33. [33] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    If Obama says "Islamic terrorism", the terrists will win.

  34. [34] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    @John From Censornati

    [30]"Mistakes were made" - The Bush family slogan

    Oh I see! Good slogan for them.

  35. [35] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    You lodge personal attacks all the time. You always have. I, on the other hand, did not. I made a personal observation about my own thought processes, and I posed a philosophical question. (#18)

    That you took it so personally is an indication of your own insecurity, or guilt. That you chose to respond with a personal attack is an indication of your penchant for lodging them, not mine.

    If you find my descriptions of questionable behavior to be descriptive of you personally, and an "attack" on you personally, then, as I've advised you before, stop engaging in the behaviors you find so unflattering.

    I will not be bullied by you into ceasing accurately describing questionable behaviors.--Yours, or anyone else's.

  36. [36] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    @Michale

    [10] I would ask you what those "lies" exactly were, but I know ya got nothing..

    Bill O'Reilly lied about being in the Falklands and about saving the life of a cameraman.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Bill O'Reilly lied about being in the Falklands and about saving the life of a cameraman.

    That's exactly my point...

    It's all in the spin..

    O'Reilly never claimed to be in the Falklands. He said he covered the Falklands War.. And he did. And there is documentation from the time to prove he covered the Falklands War for CBS...

    It's the same type of spin that the Left used to claim "Bush lied"....

    But let's run with your side of the issue..

    So, you think it's wrong for people to lie??

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Pastafarian Dan wrote:

    One minor correction...
    Governor Brown is the first "openly" bisexual governor ever in America.
    We have no idea how many secretly bisexual/gay governors have already served in the last 200+ years.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Governor Brown is the first "openly" bisexual governor ever in America.

    I am always struck by how someone's sexuality is always such a big deal...

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Mistakes were made" - The Bush family slogan

    Yea... *ONLY* the Bush family has EVER made any mistakes...

    sssiiiiiggggghhhhhhhhh

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Bill O claimed to be in a "combat situation" covering the Falklands war. The only combat zone in the Falklands war was the Falklands. So Bill O did, in fact claim to be in the Falklands.

    Now he's spinning it as never having explicitly claimed to have been in the Falklands. Don't know if that's true, don't care. His implicit claim to have been in the Falklands, by virtue of claiming to have been in combat zones, is still claiming to've been in the Falklands. And its still lying.

    Bill's trying to spin his new lie by claiming the combat zone he was referring to was Buenos Aires. Another lie. Buenos Aires was not a combat zone. The Falklands were never in any position to take the war to Argentina! And you cannot be in a "combat situation" without being in a combat zone.

    Yes, it's wrong for people to lie. Bill O'Reilly is an agitpropist employed by the agitprop Fox News. He is a professional liar, and lying is the business of Fox News.

  42. [42] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    @Michale

    [36] O'Reilly never claimed to be in the Falklands.

    Really? Where did you hear that?

    So, you think it's wrong for people to lie??

    This isn't about what I think but since you asked, no, I don't think it is always wrong to lie. Certainly everyone does it at some time or other. Where right and wrong come into it, for me anyway, is in the intention behind the lie.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    The insipid whine of a miserably lonely, angry mean-spirited bigoted bully drowned out what you were saying..

    Is lying to further an agenda wrong??

    Or is it being wrong soley dependent on the agenda that is being furthered??

    Wanted to tie this one down...

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really? Where did you hear that?

    From a variety of sources.. Including the video taped words of O'Reilly himself.. There are also the documents from CBS that were issued at the time congratulating those involved on "great coverage of the Falklands war...

    Where did you hear your side?? From an MSNBC reporter??

    Further, I have to ask... CAN a reporter that was in Laos or Cambodia during The *VIETNAM* War really claim they were in a combat zone??

    Of course they can.. Because, for those who have actually SERVED their country in the military and actually BEEN in combat, they know that true military combat rarely observes and/or obeys after-the-fact politically correct niceties from ignorant morons and bullies..

    Don't be offended... Ignorance is not a crime....

    "There is no dishonor in not knowing everything."
    -Sub Commander T'Al

    It's only a crime when one claims to profess knowledge where no such knowledge exists..

    Where right and wrong come into it, for me anyway, is in the intention behind the lie.

    Great.. Now we are getting somewhere..

    So, if the intention behind the lie is to con the American people into giving up something that they like, something that they WANT to keep, you would consider that kind of lying to be .. "morally questionable"??

    " I mean, surely a Marine of Dawson's intelligence can be trusted to determine, on his own, which are the really important orders and which orders might, say, be morally questionable?"
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    You are an intelligent person so I am sure you can see where I am going with this...

    Is a lie that supports a political agenda morally acceptable if it's an agenda that you happen to agree with???

    Conversely, of course, if a lie supporting a political agenda that you DON'T happen to agree with morally unacceptable??

    You see my point??

    Speaking as someone who is not politically/ideological enslaved I have to ask..

    Are variable principles really any principles at all???

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "Is a lie that supports a political agenda morally acceptable if it's an agenda that you happen to agree with???

    Conversely, of course, if a lie supporting a political agenda that you DON'T happen to agree with morally unacceptable??

    You see my point??

    Speaking as someone who is not politically/ideological enslaved I have to ask.."

    Lying to achieve a political agenda is wrong. Any agenda. Manipulating people to agree with you is not the same as convincing people to agree with you. The latter is people exercising their right to self-determination, the former is you usurping that right and imposing your will on others.

    Unlike Conservatives I believe in America's ideals. Not a mythical America of white superiority and exceptionalism. Nor do I revere an America of the past. I'm proud of America as a living, maturing, and evolving country driving to be better than it is, or was, in a world made better than it is, or was.

    And the foundational principle of America was, and is, that people have a right to self-determination. To make their own decisions about their own lives. Master their own fates. Not to be ordered or directed by a single individual or group of individuals.

    We protect free speech so people have access to the information they need to make informed choices. Lying to spin events is intentionally trying to deprive of the information they need to make informed choices by manipulating the information people receive so the make the choices that you want.

    That's abusing free speech, not simply exercising it.

  46. [46] 
    LewDan wrote:

    ...And Loas and Cambodia were combat zones during the Vietnam War. Because there was combat there. In fact, there was combat involving US troops there.

    No reporter covering the Vietnam War from a hotel suite in Paris got to truthfully claim they were in "combat situations" during Vietnam, because Paris was not a combat zone in the Vietnam war. Just as Buenos Aires was not a combat zone in the Falkland War.

    Anyone suggesting Buenos Aires was a combat zone during the Falkland War is lying. Now, Michale, as Bill-O claims to have done, hasn't explicitly claimed Buenos Aires was a combat zone. He's trying to lie by misleading with nominally factual claims that are misrepresented, as Bill-O claims to have done.

    But then, stating that Michale's comment is a lie is redundant.

  47. [47] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Lies that are pragmatically necessary are "morally acceptable." But there's a difference between "necessity" and "expediency."

    "Moral acceptability" is also misleading. As "morals" are by definition situational. A great many wrongs have been, and are morally acceptable. Murder, rape, torture, slavery, have all been "morally acceptable" at one time or another.

    Legitimate principles are "variable principles." "Principles" that are not influenced or varied based upon actual situations obtaining are called "prejudices." Prejudgment. Making decisions irrespective of actual facts, not "principles."

    "Principles" are applied to situations based on facts. "Prejudices" are applied to situations in spite of facts.

    People are not perfect. Striving for perfection, a willingness to change and improve, is good. Believing one has attained perfection, refusing to change, is wrong, unhealthy, and self-delusional.

  48. [48] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    @Michale

    [43] Where did you hear your side?? From an MSNBC reporter??

    No. I heard it from Bill O'Reilly right here:

  49. [49] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Sorry... that link not only didn't work, it didn't even show up. Oh well. C'est la vie.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry... that link not only didn't work, it didn't even show up. Oh well. C'est la vie.

    Let me help you out... :D

    http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/02/20/bill-oreillys-talking-points-memo-22015-airing-tonight-8pm-et

    But what I find so amazing is the attention that Weigantians are paying towards O'reilly, but nothing from ya'all about Brian Williams..

    Which simply proves what I said above. Accepting lies from those one politically agrees with, but rejecting lies from those one politically disagrees with makes one as bad as those who tell the lies to further their agenda, whatever that agenda may be..

    Wouldn't you agree?? :D

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Besides, a reporter from Mother Jones accusing someone else of lying??

    Please....

    That's like Rush Limbaugh accusing someone else of being a political fanatical blowhard... :D

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    What it all boils down to is this.

    With two exceptions, no one here in Weigantia has any moral or ethical foundation to call ANYONE on the Right a liar..

    If lying is a problem, then I would (with the utmost respect, of course.. :D ) recommend that the Left cleans it's own house first...

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    I applaud Mayor Rudy Giuliani for his comments about President Barack Obama.

    Here’s the truth of the matter: I don’t want to be politically correct. I don’t care about being politically correct at this point.

    President Obama, You don’t love America. If you really did love America, you would call ISIS what it really is: an assault on Christianity, an assault on America and downright hate for the American values that our country holds. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and every single thing that our country stands for.

    I hope that one day people will get enough guts to speak out against your downright hatred for this nation.

    When they kill innocent Americans that have done no wrong except report on what is their constitutional right as journalists and you do nothing about it, you don’t care about their lives. You could care less!

    But here’s what you need to realize: here in America, we don’t back down to terrorists. We fight them on their own battleground and we annihilate them till the very end.

    Here in America, we don’t allow the government to take away what we work for but we continue to work harder so that we may continue to succeed.”
    -CJ Pearson

    Well said, Mr Pearson....

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Really, Michale?

    I don't know who CJ Pearson is but this person is ... how would you put it ... right, full of crap!

    This is beyond the pale, Michale, even by your standards.

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    CJ Pearson, whomever he is, gives political correctness a good name. Ahem.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    As for the DHS impasse.... The solution is simple..

    McConnell simply needs to eliminate the filibuster option for legislation and pass the DHS budget with a majority..

    Then it's all on Obama if he vetos the legislation...

    Problem solved.

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't know who CJ Pearson is but this person is ... how would you put it ... right, full of crap!

    Exactly why is it "full of crap"???

    Seems refreshingly honest to me.

    Especially coming from a 12 year old black kid from Georgia....

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obviously the product of a loving household with attentive responsible, PRESENT parents...

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Especially coming from a 12 year old black kid from Georgia....

    That's so bizarre. Why would you opt to reprint that kind of diatribe here?

  60. [60] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "Critics: White House conference didn't focus on domestic terrorist threats"

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/02/20/Critics-White-House-conference-didnt-focus-on-domestic-terrorist-threats/2301424445177/#ixzz3Sa0uau7K

    DHS warns rightwing extremists are a more immediate and greater danger to America than ISIS. Is that why Republicans want to shut down DHS? Is it why the Right wants Obama to declare "war" on extremists means Islamic extremists exclusively?

    Asshats like CJ Pearson claim to revere the American ideal of religious freedom while promoting a war on Islam in defense of Christianity. The antithesis of constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom. The only religion CJ Pearson believes should be free is his.

    He hypes terrorist activity ten thousand miles away as a far greater danger to American security than terrorism right here in America. All the while, justifying and validating domestic terrorists by joining them in attacking American government and implying American government is illegitimate.

    The Right have no interest in fighting, or even recognizing, American terrorists from the Right, only foreign terrorists. Because they hate America and are far more interested in waging a Holy War than they are in American security. The America the Right claims to love exists only in their fantasies. While they are boosters of the first and second amendments, in support of domestic terrorism, the rest of the Constitution they hate.

    They hate religious freedom encouraging atheists and religions other than Christianity believing they are as good as Christians, with just as many rights as Christians, and preventing Christianity from being the official religion of America.

    They hate the constitution granting supremacy to the federal government over state governments.

    They hate that the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law to everyone, no matter their race, sex, sexual orientation, citizenship, or religious beliefs.

    The President has it exactly right. It isn't Islamic terrorists we need to fight. It's terrorist extremists, whatever their motivation, or religious affiliation; with those located here, in America, first and foremost.

    We cannot defeat terrorist extremists by killing them all. We have to undercut their motivations, prevent extremists from developing, attack extremism through education and resolving legitimate grievances; not simply trying to exterminate those who embrace extremism and terrorism.

    While "war" is a convenient, and overused, label, not all wars are the same. The war against terrorist extremists is a police action. A fight against criminals and criminal behaviors. If all ISIS wanted was to establish an independent state they'd have every right to do so unhindered by American intervention. It's their crimes we are fighting. Not their religion.

  61. [61] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Liz,

    To Michale, anyone saying what he wants to hear is a legitimate "source" of "facts."

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's so bizarre. Why would you opt to reprint that kind of diatribe here?

    Because it's "diatribe" that the vast majority of Americans believe in..

    Why would you stand by and let some angry, sad and pathetic bully attack a 12 year old kid??

    Things sure have changed around here... :^/

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why would you stand by and let some angry, sad and pathetic bully attack a 12 year old kid??

    What?

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You should contact Mr. Pearson and invite him to come to this site and make his arguments. We will then see how they stand up to a little scrutiny.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why would you stand by and let some angry, sad and pathetic bully attack a 12 year old kid??

    What?

    CJ Pearson is a 12 year old middle schooler from Georgia..

    Now, I know that political ideology trumps a LOT around here..

    But it seems to me that there should be a line drawn.

    It seems to me that some pathetic sad lonely angry bully should not be allowed to attack children because of political ideology..

    Maybe it's just me...

    You should contact Mr. Pearson and invite him to come to this site and make his arguments. We will then see how they stand up to a little scrutiny.

    Yea, I can see how that would go...

    "Mr and Mrs Pearson.. I would like to invite your little CJ to a political forum where a sad and pathetic angry bully and a bunch of ideological fanatics can insult him, attack him and call him names..

    Would that be OK??"

    Somehow, I think that CJ's parents just might balk at such an invitation..

    But again.. Maybe that's just me... :^/

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I could invite little CJ's father here to the forum and ask him how he feels about his little CJ being called an "asshat" by some sad and pathetic angry little bully...

    What ya think??

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't know what bully you're talking about ... ???

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, you are beyond all hope ...

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't know what bully you're talking about ... ???

    The sad and pathetic angry bully who just attacked a 12 year old kid and called the kid an "asshat"..

    Michale, you are beyond all hope ...

    If you can't see anything wrong with an alleged grown man attacking a 12 year old kid over political ideology, then it's not me who is beyond hope... :^/

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The sad and pathetic angry bully who just attacked a 12 year old kid and called the kid an "asshat"..

    Are you being purposefully vague? I almost hate to ask but, do you have a link?

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In any event, Michale, I checked out Mr. Pearson's video and his personal attack on President Obama.

    I'd be very surprised if he were to take up any offer to have his views challenged, here or anywhere else.

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    a political forum where a sad and pathetic angry bully and a bunch of ideological fanatics can insult him, attack him and call him names..

    If you are making a general and blanket reference to the regulars here at CW.com, then I am personally offended by that remark.

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale

    I'm surprised and saddened by your comments here because they seem to indicate that you hold this forum in such disrespect ... ?

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you being purposefully vague? I almost hate to ask but, do you have a link?

    A link to the sad and pathetic bully who attacked a 12 yr old kid and called the kid a "asshat"??

    Yea.. I have a link...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/02/20/ftp336/#comment-57494

    I'd be very surprised if he were to take up any offer to have his views challenged, here or anywhere else.

    I'de be very surprised if his parents allowed him... No one wants to subject their children to abuse...

    If you are making a general and blanket reference to the regulars here at CW.com, then I am personally offended by that remark.

    Not general at all. Very specific.. :D

    But, this not about me.. It's about the fact that even children are subject to personal attacks and name-calling if they don't spout appropriate political ideology...

    In any event, Michale, I checked out Mr. Pearson's video and his personal attack on President Obama.

    So, you are saying that personal attacks on a President are wrong??

    Since when??? :D

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Lol, Liz,

    Michale is trying to attack me. He thinks my calling the author of his diatribe an "asshat" is "attacking a 12 year-old kid." Apparently he thinks we should pretend that 12 year-old kids know what they are talking about when it comes to foreign policy!

    I, however, unlike Michale, remember what it was like to be a 12 year-old kid. Perhaps because, unlike Michale, I no longer act like a 12 year-old kid. The kid thinks what he knows is all there is to know. He's ignorant of his ignorance. He's twelve. Being an asshat is almost a requirement. He'll outgrow it. Unless he winds up like Michale.

    I'm not about to defer to the advice of a 12 year-old. But, unlike Michale, I've no interest in exploiting him for petty slights against anyone else either.

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, you are saying that personal attacks on a President are wrong??

    Since when??? :D

    Since 19 Jan 2009, right?? :D

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, you are saying that personal attacks on a President are wrong??

    I've never said otherwise.

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've never said otherwise.

    Well, considering all the personal attacks against President Bush around here since 2006.....

    Well, you can see how one could be confused.. :D

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    LD,

    Lol, Liz,

    Well, you know, I try. :)

    I think it's always best to "attack" someone's ideas in the form of valid counter-arguments rather than resorting to calling them names. That's what our inner voices are for, after all!

    I don't know enough about this child to judge him one way or another. But, based solely on Pearson's attack on President Obama, I think I can safely say that the arguments he makes in this personal attack would no stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Though, I'd love to see him try to debate any one of us here at CW.com!

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You shouldn't be confused about me, Michale.

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think it's always best to "attack" someone's ideas in the form of valid counter-arguments rather than resorting to calling them names.

    I completely agree...

    Any adult that calls a 12 year old child an "asshat", regardless of the reason, has a few bats in the belfry and definite anger issues...

    You shouldn't be confused about me, Michale.

    Never have, never will... :D

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, just remember then, I'm a (hyper)sensitive soul ... :)

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, based solely on Pearson's attack on President Obama, I think I can safely say that the arguments he makes in this personal attack would no stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

    And yet, the arguments resonate with the vast majority of Americans..

    As evidenced by the recent Nuclear Shellacking Obama and the Democrats took in November...

    Obama himself stated, "Make no mistake, my policies are on the ballot this November..."

    And the American people, either by commission or omission, passed judgement on those policies..

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, just remember then, I'm a (hyper)sensitive soul ... :)

    Fair enough.. :D I'll make sure I am more specific in the future... :D

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Personally, I think Michale in a snit, desperately trying to manufacture things he can castigate me over is hilarious!

    ...And productive!

    I'm finding Michale attacking me far easier to endure than his usual endless repetition of incredibly stupid Winger lies that he apparently believes we should all be dumb enough to accept as fact.

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And yet, the arguments resonate with the vast majority of Americans..

    "Shocking. Positively shocking."

  87. [87] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Fair enough.. :D I'll make sure I am more specific in the future... :D

    Thank-you ... thank-you very much.

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm finding Michale attacking me far easier to endure than his usual endless repetition of incredibly stupid Winger lies that he apparently believes we should all be dumb enough to accept as fact.

    Glad to hear that but, I'd really like to see the two of you take an altogether different approach to debating an issue ... call me a cockeyed optimist!

  89. [89] 
    LewDan wrote:

    " the American people, either by commission or omission, passed judgement on those policies..

    Michale"

    Lol, so record low voter turn-out means the America people were so upset with Obama policy that they didn't even feel the need to participate in the voting. That they were endorsing the Republican victories they all knew were going to occur...

    See, that's my issue. It isn't enough that Michale insists on lying. Chronically. But he insists on inflicting the stoopidest possible lies insulting our intelligence as well!

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Glad to hear that but, I'd really like to see the two of you take an altogether different approach to debating an issue ... call me a cockeyed optimist!

    As long as LD continues to insist that personal attacks = rational debate, it will be like this...

    It's the only way to deal with a sad and pathetic bully...

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LD,

    I don't think that "asshat" is an appropriate label for that sweet, innocent 12 year old child, but "gangster", "thug", "scum", "diseased", and "criminal" are OK to use as slurs against children.

    BTW - I think that "brain-washed aspiring right-wing grifter" would be right on the nose re CJ.

  92. [92] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM,

    "I'd love to see him try to debate any one of us here at CW.com!"

    Parrots don't debate, but they can make lots of money entertaining. The cash is probably an avalanche by now. You can be sure he won't do anything to ruin that.

    I sure hope he doesn't read any YouTube comments, he's such a fragile child.

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't think that "asshat" is an appropriate label for that sweet, innocent 12 year old child, but "gangster", "thug", "scum", "diseased", and "criminal" are OK to use as slurs against children.

    Hmmmmmmm

    JFC says that "gangster", "thug", "scum", "diseased", and "criminal" are "OK" "slurs" to use against a black child...

    WOW.....

    Just.... WOW..

    Hard to believe that people think *I* am the problem around here... :D

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess Left Wingers are allowed to be racist, as long as they intersperse "I HATE THE GOP" amongst their racism....

    Color me shocked... NOT...

    Apparently, it IS true what they say..

    The apple doesn't fall far from the Jim Crow/KKK tree...

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    LewDan wrote:

    I recall "thug," "criminal," and "scum" as being particular favorite slurs of yours, Michale, with regard to children of color. As I recall your protestations that they were not racist.

    But simply listed out of the context of immigration or interaction with LEOs, and suddenly they become left-wing, racist, and shocking to Michale's tender sensibilities?!

    Well, I guess we know whether or not Michale's "principles" are subject to change!

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said. For the sad, pathetic, angry and mean-spirited bully, racists get a pass as long as they are politically acceptable..

    In his diseased mind, it's perfectly acceptable to attack a 12 year old child...

    Dr Martin Luther King would be totally and unequivocally ashamed of Dan.....

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    LewDan wrote:

    To be fair though, Wingers are highly protective of a Black, of any age, deluded enough to espouse the Party line. After all, there are so few of them! And Wingers are desperate for Black faces in that sea of White that is the Republican Party so that they can "prove" how not-racist they are. Since it makes practicing their racism so much easier!

  98. [98] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "The apple doesn't fall far from the Jim Crow/KKK tree...

    Michale"

    Too true. Far too many Southern Whites will just never change!

  99. [99] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "In his diseased mind, it's perfectly acceptable to attack a 12 year old child..."

    It was perfectly acceptable in Michale's diseased mind when he was attacking children desperately fleeing poverty and brutality by illegally immigrating to America. Then Michale was adamant in his assertions that 12 year-olds were gangster drug mules, criminals, thugs, diseased, and, his personal favorite, "scumbags."

    But then, Michale's hypocrisy has always gone hand in hand with his general penchant for lying. I guess that's why people think that he's the problem around here.

  100. [100] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    If you quote me, you're lying.

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Norman, everything that Harry Mudd says to you is a lie."
    "Norman, I am lying"

    -STAR TREK, I Mudd

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of lying...

    Ooooo JFC???

    I found that link you were looking for..

    Ex-NBC Bureau Chief Backs Up O’Reilly’s Account of Falklands War Riot
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ex-nbc-bureau-chief-backs-up-oreillys-account-of-falklands-war-riot/

    Of course, an apology is out of the question. I realize that..

    But I just wanted to make it clear who has the facts around here and who is full of shit....

    I would be the former, and you would be the latter... :D

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    David Corn Hangs Up On Hugh Hewitt After 45-Minute Grilling on Bill O'Reilly
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/23/david_corn_hangs_up_on_hugh_hewitt_after_45-minute_grilling_on_bill_oreilly.html

    BBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    "Oh Johnny, Johnny... Did you back the wrong horse!"
    -Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS II

    :D

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:
  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bad day for Progressives... :D

    http://sjfm.us/temp/bad_day.jpg

    :D

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why won't Obama's FCC be transparent and release the Internet Rules that are going to be voted on this Thurs??

    What is Obama so afraid of???

    Why isn't every Weigantian demanding transparency on this???

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:
  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    "While a certain proposal may pass the muster of a federal court, Congress and the public have the right to review any specific proposal and decide whether or not it constitutes sound policy. And the commission has the responsibility to defend any new proposal in public discourse and debate."
    -Senator Barack Obama

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    "While a certain proposal may pass the muster of a federal court, Congress and the public have the right to review any specific proposal and decide whether or not it constitutes sound policy. And the commission has the responsibility to defend any new proposal in public discourse and debate."
    -Senator Barack Obama

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay CW,

    Can ya check the NNL filter??

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in the "WHAT A SHOCK (no, not really) COLUMN"...

    Obama's DOJ has stated that there will be no charges filed against George Zimmerman as there is no evidence to support any charges..

    Once again.. Hopefully, there will come a day when Weigantians realize that, in these issues, I actually DO know what I am talking about...

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I have to say, I am proud of all Weigantians..

    That ya'all would fight so passionately for the Department Of Homeland Security tells me that ya'all finally get it..

    That nothing trumps National Security... And if we have to have an agency whose mandate is to ignore basic civil liberties??

    Well, I am glad ta see ya'all are finally on board with that. :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.