READER COMMENTS ON
"Houston TV Stations Roll Over, Refuse to Air Anti-DeLay Ads"
(55 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2006 @ 8:22 pm PT...
Hey Tom, I think its time for you to take your own advice concerning "bad behavior"
You claimed all the judges and people against you exhumed bad behavior and they would be held "responsible."
I think its time to hold you responsible, for all your filthy shit!!! Say goodbye Tom Delay, resign from congress and out the door. It was nice knowing you, not......
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2006 @ 8:29 pm PT...
Go,... Brad,... Go - The dirt about our filthy/rotten political system - your in-depth reporting is much appreciated here. Tom Delay,... what a scum-bucket,... funny thing is if the corruption does
not get him voted out - he may have out smarted himself and gerrymandered his district with too
many Demos to even have a hope to win.
Goodbye and good riddance to that clump of human trash. Hope he takes a bunch of his like minded buddies to the trash heap with him,.... tag along for the ride. They are disqusting - (frat bullyboys) - rancid human garbage - make a
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2006 @ 10:53 pm PT...
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 1/13/2006 @ 3:35 am PT...
Makes you wonder how DeLay's lawyer knew the ads were being prepared for broadcast.
Maybe the N.S.A. was listening in on a phone call and tipped the lawyer off. National security, sort of.
All about keeping us safer, don't you know?
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 3:57 am PT...
With the MSM constantly putting down Libs, its no wonder it was so easy for that asshole to get those TRUTHFUL
ads pulled, it must be more easy to purvey lies than truth these days in the media
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 6:44 am PT...
Who says the Ads are true?
Who says that Tom Delay is guilty and corrupt?
Why don't you wait and see!
Here is some good news -
The new German Chancellor meets with President George W. Bush today. She is a Conservative from East Germany. She is a product of communism. She saw first hand the failings of that kind of government.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 1/13/2006 @ 6:46 am PT...
Remember that Feeney threatened reporters with legal action if they printed Clint Curtis' allegations.
It's intimidation. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Threaten a whistle-blower, threaten a reporter, threaten a TV network...it's just like threatening a witness at a criminal trial, except now it isn't the Mafia doing it, it's public officials.
Someone has to show me how this differs from the tactics of any totalitarian regime in history. I can't discern a difference.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 1/13/2006 @ 7:12 am PT...
Paul: The ads are not evidence for a court. They are not subject to the "innocent until proven guilty" rule that will (correctly) protect DeLay as a defendant.
The ads are POLITICAL MESSAGES that have been censored by the station, probably under threat of legal action. Tom DeLay will be a defendant soon, but at the moment he's a POLITICAL FIGURE, and is therefore fair game for political advertising, the same as any other political figure is.
The meeting between Bush and the German chancellor has nothing to do with DeLay. Introducing this meeting into a discussion of political ads and their censorship by a TV station is an effort to divert attention from the issue at hand.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 7:20 am PT...
The neoCon way is to talk about freedom in America, such as free speech and free press, then turn around and threaten them for exercising it.
Perhaps neoCon Frist is doing the same thing, because much is being covered up in that case too (link here).
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 7:23 am PT...
How many positive stories have been on this blog in the last 3 months.
My count is 0.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 7:34 am PT...
Although I wasn't here at its conception, the impression I have received is that this blog was founded around the subject of stolen elections.
Since then it has grown into a discussion of the general mess our government is in.
Unfortunately, beyond the work done by the likes of Brad, John Conyers and Bev Harris, there has been little postive to talk about.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 7:46 am PT...
We have free speech you kooks but there is something called Libel and Slander. And you cannot yell fire in a crowded room when there is no fire. Freedom has boundaries.
There were no stolen elections. The exit polls were cooked for a desired outcome.
My opinion - This blog was created for a job.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 7:54 am PT...
Hmm.. so, when there's little in the way of sunshine amidst horrendous storms, the right-wing nutjobs want to "talk about good things"? Taking a page right out of Shrubby's manual? "When you talk about Iraq, let's not talk about dead soldiers, missing billions of dollars, lies used to start the war, or the fact that Iraq is the second largest KNOW (perhaps largest in the world) reserve of oil.. let's keep the subject on the 'good' things about Iraq".. riiiiiiiiight..
The courts just upheld that "lying in political ads is ok".. That means, DeLay has (seemingly) no legal ground to stand on. Granted, I think "lying in political ads" should NOT be leagal, but as long as we're dealing with the "rule of law", they should be airing the ads.. Funny, the right-wing nutjobs LIE in ads, get SUED, win in court, then threaten to SUE anyone who "lies about them"..
Can you, Paul and Medium [has his head]Right[up his ass], NOT see the blatant hypocricy in that? The absolute psychosis?
Even if we were talking about "truthful" ads being the only "legal" ads.. From what I've seen in -this add-, there don't appear to be any "lies".. none.. If they have the documents to BACK UP their assertions, DeLay can go Cheney himself.. Funny, chances are that THOSE DOCUMENTS are the exact same ones that will put that shit-bag in prison.. but, "we'll wait and see" what the outcome of the courts is.
Oh, and Medium [has his head]Right[up his ass].. who said this blog had to have "good" stories? Not to mention, when there are entries like "the courts told the crooks they can't use their broke machines here", you don't have a leg to stand on. Just because it's "bad news for you" and your "corrupt leaders", doesn't mean it's bad news for "rightous people fighting to save our Democracy".. get it? DeLay being indicted, good news.. Libby being indicted, good news.. and when it's "Bush gets impeached", that will be "good news" too.. not for idiots and psychos, but for decent folks who -do- love this country.. -do- believe the Constitution is important (and not "some god damn piece of paper", like your illustrious leader calls it).. -do- think the U.S. needs to stop fucking with everyone else in the world, and start paying attention to our OWN first..
The point is, they took money for the ads, they should air the ads. There is nothing in the ads that looks "improper", just really really bad if you are the corrupt shit-bag being talked about.. Truth hurts, eh?
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 1/13/2006 @ 8:35 am PT...
Paul has shifted from an "innocent until proven guilty" rationale for censoring the anti-DeLay ads to a "libel and slander" defense of DeLay.
Interesting. Newt Gingrich, a political soulmate of DeLay on the Republican right, made a public statement the other day to the effect that "someone
has to be receiving the bribes Abramoff is paying." He then called for DeLay's resignation as majority leader.
Using Paul's logic, DeLay should be suing Newt Gingrich for slander, because Gingrich spoke out before DeLay had his day in court. As we saw, though, DeLay did quite the opposite. He quit.
So a TV station refused to show anti-DeLay ads that argued the same point made by the former Speaker of the House, a conservative Republican, which led to DeLay's relinquishment of his post. Maybe Paul should go back to talking about the German chancellor and the failure of Communism.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 8:46 am PT...
#6 Paul: They should be allowed to buy and run ads. I didn't see them suppressing the Swift Boat ads! Only ads suppressed are anti-Republican ads & ads religious groups don't like.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 8:53 am PT...
...and more hypocrisy/illogic from the right. Paul says that the exit polls were "cooked" and that's not a conspiracy theory, although there's no evidence to support it. But the stolen election, which has evidence on it's side, is somehow "cooked", implying it's conspiracy.
Pollsters' livelihood depends on their accuracy, they don't have an agenda.
Paul: Wake up, if you think elections aren't stolen. I'm sure you think the Democrats stole a few elections since the inception of this country.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 9:03 am PT...
A truthful ad? Give me a break?
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 9:06 am PT...
We're kooks.. cause we believe that machines that have been PROVED to be fallable, unreliable, and HACKABLE were being reported to have tons of issues during the 2004 election (and most elections, it seems, for several years, we just don't hear about it in the MSM).. Yet, to base concernes on FACT is crazy.. and Paul, the "sane one", says that the scientifically valid, used around the world, used for a very very long time "statistics" system was "cooked" (which means the "wrong people" were asked/polled, or crap loads of numbers from craploads of reports were altered).. Interesting.. And, using that same "sane" brain, he feels it's SUPER to impeach "some liberal kook" for "purgery" about a BLOW JOB, yet, it's some now "not reasonable" to charge someone who disrupted our National Security, then LIED ABOUT IT (uh.. purgery) .. because that person .. is.. sane?..not liberal? only engaging in illegal acts (as opposed to Mr. Hummer) to spite someone and get personal gain and help push an illegal and lie-ridden agenda for war?
I guess I'm just confused as all get out.. Which must be why, when someone is GOING TO TRIAL on charges of CRIMES, I can't understand why it is a big deal to TELL PEOPLE ABOUT IT.. especially when that person is a PUBLIC FIGURE SURROUNDED IN SCANDAL ON A REGULAR BASIS.. *shrug*
Oh.. wait.. -I'm- not the one who's confused..
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 9:10 am PT...
Jose Chung, what's not "truthful" about the ad? Everything in the ad was quotes from news papers, for one.. The ad is just reiterating what was pieced out there in various places..
so.. what's not "truthful"?
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 9:53 am PT...
Jose is just a moron and not even worth responding to (as of any of the trolls are, really.) I haven't seen Jose present an argument or make a statement that is even close to valid. My guess is he's some high school student with some family ties to the Republcan party.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 10:12 am PT...
while that may be true, SR.. I'd still like to "learn".. That's what us smart folks do.. listen to information and make an EDUCATED opinion from that. Of course, you know that.. but, maybe we can get Jose to "wake up" and "learn".. Or, we might be suprised.. Jose might have some info we're not seeing and "we" could learn.
If we can save even one wouldbe Rupublican before they stroll too far down the road of ignorance, poor logic, and hatemongering, we've done good
I don't suspect anyone will point out anything that's "not truthful" in the ad, just bitch about it because it makes their affiliations (alleged) crimes more transparent.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 10:37 am PT...
We should have run ads about OJ being guilty of buthcering his wife and Ron before his day in court but that would have tainted the jury pool.
Political ads about someone before they have their day in court should not be shown. However, I have no problem if they are just both running for an office.
The Swift Boats ads should not have been run if Kerry was going to court to defend himself against killing innocent people in Viet Nam. He wasn't going to court. He was trying to become second place in the the election.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 10:38 am PT...
from the Cornell Law Library website:
(note that both definitions turn on the word FALSE)
A false statement, usually made orally, which defames another person. Unlike libel, damages from slander are not presumed and must be proven by the party suing. See, e.g. TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources, 509 U.S. 443 (1993). http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Slander
False words, which damage another person's reputation or good character and are conveyed in a lasting manner, especially writing. See e.g. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). See also defamation, slander. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Libel
in NYT v. Sullivan (1964), the court held:
A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice" --- that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. (emphasis mine)
BOTH thresholds for libel must be met for there to be a case, and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
Delay could argue that the stations are acting with 'reckless disregard' by airing without vetting the ad themselves, unless the statements turn out to be true.
by merely threatening to sue --- an extremely expensive proposition, coming from such a well-connected politican --- Delay has already hit his mark: the chilling effect has scared the stations off.
for some reason, my media player isn't working today, so i am not able to directly assess the exact wording of the spot. but i will venture to guess that the legal qualifications for this ad, and others like it, are carefully vetted for compliance with the law.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 11:01 am PT...
paul - ignorance is bliss. just keep your eyes closed. We'll go ahead and keep the republic on its feet, you just keep plugged into your bube tube and get force fed - it doesn't tax the mind nearly as much.
I don't think Tom Delay has denied his actions, only the legality of them. I seem to recall him saying that yeah, I took money, "but that's not illegal".
Political Ads during campaign time are as horrid and slanderous as they come. Where have you been and how is this any different? Vote for our competitor & GET THIS JACKASS OFF THE STREETS, both amount to the same result - someone else ( hopefully worthwhile ) will take office.
I guess Limbaugh has never said anything slanderous about anyone about to be on trial.......
I'm guessing that Diebold isn't under investigation by the SEC, their CEO didn't resign, and that Clint Curtis has nothing better to do than to get into harms way - the guy is an ENGINEER you morons - not like he's hurting for funds. I also guess that Delay hasn't been admonished by his peers before - MULTIPLE TIMES.
And presidents don't lie on national TV either, right?I mean clinton certainly was truthful when he indicated that no innappropriate conduct occured between him and monica. IRAQ had tons o' nukes and gas ( that we didn't give him during prior wars ). I guess WTC 1,2,7 fell down due to heat too.
Well, at least God is presenting the info to you sleepwalkers out there - you now have the choice to wake up and spread the word - AND YOU'RE ALSO NOW LIABLE for ignoring it.
To the rest of the free-thinkers, here's what the stations got from me:
RE: Tom Delay revelations for the public
Just caught word that you have denied equial access to your advertising slots.
So it seems that it is OK to push campaign ads for the slimy politicians, but when a legitimate organization has a PSA ( public SERVICE announcement ) it seems that your station is biased or bought.
So which one of the station execs is Tom Delay's whore??? I'd like to know. Main stream media is sick on its face, and this is a prime example. I'll be sure to let the rest of the community know about this.
I feel better.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 11:57 am PT...
I think the fact that you feel it's ok to lie at ALL says a lot about you. You claim to believe in the rule of law, claim your positions are based on "truth", yet you sit here and condone lying to "get ahead" or "beat out the other guy".
And Ann says there's something wrong with liberal's brains?
As for "tainting the jury", you have to know, deep down, that the FACTS that are presented IN COURT are all that matter, right? At least, if the people on the jury are "honest", that's all that matters.. OHHHHH.. now I get it.. since you are a liar and a dishonest person, and condone such behaviors, you presume that people will make snap descisions based on 30 second sound bites and not listen to FACTS.. and will then lie about their level of knowledge simply to "stick it to your guy" regardless of the evidence?
The ad doesn't say anything that isn't already in the papers.. isn't already (presumably) proved as fact.. Therefore, there's no GOOD reason not to show them. Your crying about "tainting the jury pool" is a red herring.. and I aint fishin.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 12:05 pm PT...
Gotcha! It's OK to run a slanderous libel ad on TV...IF...you're not going to trial. Gotcha!
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 1/13/2006 @ 12:13 pm PT...
Paul is making no sense at all now. He agrees it's O.K. to run political ads if someone's running for office, but not O.K. if a trial is pending for that person, because it might taint the trial (jury pool).
Let's examine this. DeLay has announced that he's running in 2006. He gave up his majority leader post, but he's a candidate for re-election as a Congressman. So DeLay, as an indicted person, is entitled to protection from political ads, while a candidate who isn't under indictment is not so protected? On that basis, it behooves any incumbent up for re-election to take payoffs from a lobbyist, because with a trial pending he becomes exempt from political ads against him until his trial. Meanwhile, he remains at liberty to attack the prosecutor as being "politically motivated," as DeLay has done repeatedly toward Ronnie Earle.
Can this possibly be where Paul is going? I doubt it, but you never know.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 12:13 pm PT...
You are right on the money. Conservatives are guilty until proven innocent on this blog. And when proven innocent its never written, they just dont talk about it anymore.
Too bad Delay isnt a murderer of terrorist, then the liberals would hire him a lawyer and stage a protest march.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 12:32 pm PT...
Again, the right-wing tries to spin this..
This has NOTHING to do with the court case, but Medium [has his head]Right[up his ass] wants sooo badly to try and make it look that way.
No one here is saying DeLay "is guilty of money laundering", which is the charge against him. He IS guilty of taking what appears to be "dirty money", and the implication from the guy who PLEADED GUILTY to getting that dirty money is that DeLay KNEW it was dirty, and HELPED get more of that dirty money flowing. In that context, more indictments might come, might not.. who knows.. the bottom line is, DeLay -is- guilty of "shady dealings", and he -is- guilty of abuses of power (his own ethics comittee yelled at him about it.. so he and his buddies change the people on the comittee... remember that?).
No one said he's guilty of the crimes he's going to trial about.. yet you keep trying to say "liberals aren't fair".. and in the next breath say "but it's ok to lie about peopel to get your way".. YEAH.. fair..
Morons, every damn last one of ya..
Fact: DeLay got dirty money.
Fact: Someone pleaded guilty to getting that money, and has (so far) at -least- implied DeLay KNEW about it.
Fact: DeLay received near $1 million from Russions in campaign contrabutions. (fact as reported by various news agencies)
None of this has anything to do with his trial for money laundering and conspiracy.. get it? Of course not, you're idiots (well, not really.. just liars and dishonest people who refuse to admit any truth.. you only look like idiots because we're not stupid enough to fall for your bullshit).
So, back to the point of this thread.. Very telling that TV stations are content to run KNOWN LIES about Democrats, but refuse to run KNOW TRUTHS about their Republican masters. Riiiiiiight.. liberal media.. suuuuuuure..
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 1:20 pm PT...
Don't bother dealing with Paul, Medium Right et c.
They believe "Innocent until proven guilty, when proven guilty it must be a big liberal conspiracy".
Let the invisible hand of justice do its work!
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 1:23 pm PT...
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 1:24 pm PT...
Paul is a lost, hopeless cause. One of millions of soles lost to the sad legacy of America's Decade of Shame.
He can't even keep his stories straight over two different comments in the same thread.
First he says, "Who says that Tom Delay is guilty and corrupt? Why don't you wait and see!"
...And since we know that Paul actually signed an Impeachment Petition for BILL CLINTON before he was even sworn in, we also know that Paul never waited to see if Bill Clinton was "guilty" of anything.
Then he goes on to add, "This blog was created for a job" with absolutely no evidence to support his foolish suggestion.
All the while he chastises others for the vague ides of "libel and slander" while he clearly knows nothing about either.
Really, Paul, how do you get your head so firmly up there?
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 1/13/2006 @ 1:40 pm PT...
I think Paul is guided by a parochial-school way of thinking from his youth. His postings reflect a preference for right-to-life issues and questions of patriotism.
Parochial schools encourage one-dimensional thinking, rigid morality, and especially RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY...meaning one's teacher, parents, the pope, the president, etc. All well and good, except when the president and other authority figures are corrupt, i.e., when their conduct conflicts with moral standards.
It's easy for Paul if the question is, "Is Bill Clinton immoral?" That's an easy one for him (and for most people). It's harder when the immorality involves government corruption, stolen elections, illegal wars, spying on Americans by their leaders, etc. In such cases people raised according to a rigid moral code, and taught to respect authority at the same time, are conflicted. They have to choose between morality and respect for authority.
The result is the self-contradictory kinds of postings Paul has given us lately.
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 1:56 pm PT...
Paul, when did they implant the compliance chip in your brain? I doubt you do your own thinking anymore because your as mindless, dishonest, and belligerant as the rest of the right (also known as Reicht, or 3rd Reicht).
You call us communists and liars and say that Delay is innocent. Bush is innocent. Do you also think Charlie Manson is innocent? I think you had an extra drink of the kool-aid, dumbass.
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 2:23 pm PT...
Found this relevant to the conversation.
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 2:25 pm PT...
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 2:38 pm PT...
Some knothead up a ways said there was no good news on Brad Blog
I see it as all good news from my prospective
Making the crooks accountable is real good news to me
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 3:08 pm PT...
..Medium Right said on 1/13/2006 @ 12:13pm PT...
" You are right on the money. Conservatives are guilty until proven innocent on this blog. And when proven innocent its never written, they just dont talk about it anymore."
Care to provide an example of a Conservative "proven innocent" of some crime they'd been charged with?
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 3:20 pm PT...
I think everything on this blog is good news.Because its being reported somewhere I can access and learn the TRUTH. As far as I'm concerned TRUTH is always GOOD NEWS!
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 3:26 pm PT...
Didn't know you were a shrink too! lol
I guess the opposite applies here - my ex-drill seargent father's iron hand (and belt) has caused me to question authority and rebel against it when neccessary.
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 5:27 pm PT...
Now Ney will be the next corrupt Republican stepping down from heading a committee. DeLay...Duke Cunningham...Ney...they're doing the "old soft shoe"...the rightwingers can't defend "their guys" as quick as they're stepping down...
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 5:29 pm PT...
PAUL! LOOK! YOU BLINKED, AND ANOTHER ONE STEPPED DOWN!
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 5:33 pm PT...
MEDIUM WRONG! YOU STEPED AWAY FROM YOUR COMPUTER FOR SOME CHEEZ-IT'S, SAT BACK DOWN, AND ANOTHER ONE JUST STEPPED DOWN! (just keeping you up to date)
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 6:04 pm PT...
Hey Paul, better keep railing away and running after the "moral GOP majority!!!"
There goes Bob Ney, and who's next? How about Roy Blunt or that other prick who's been involved the whole time Conrad Burns?
Where's all the moral GOP leaders? Getting indicted and connected to Diebold?
COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2006 @ 11:57 pm PT...
Doug E - Funny you should mention Roy Blount (R-MO). Last I heard he was one of the 2 congressmen vying to replace DeLay. Wouldn't that be a hoot if he got the job and then had to step down also?
COMMENT #46 [Permalink]
said on 1/14/2006 @ 5:08 am PT...
Brad #32 - I think "lost sole" is a bit all-encompassing - he's just a lost heel, imo
COMMENT #47 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 1/14/2006 @ 6:08 am PT...
For Bluebear: It can work either way. My point was that rigid thinking in adulthood usually starts in childhood. Didn't mean to sound like a shrink.
I have a friend of Polish ancestry (no names, please) who was raised as a strict Roman Catholic. This friend has a masters degree, is highly sophisticated and has a delightful sense of humor. We've done theatrical productions together, played bridge together, and been friends for 30 years.
Last year I attended a funeral mass for the friend's aunt. When it came time to take communion, I reached for the wafer (as a Protestant, that's what I'm accustomed to doing); the Polish monsignor shook his head vehemently and forced the wafer into my mouth. I apologized, saying "I didn't know your custom." The monsignor, still indignant, answered, "If you don't know, then don't come."
Several months later I related the story to my friend, who replied, "Well, in the Catholic church we take communion seriously. We don't just pretend, like you Protestants do."
For an educated person, 60 years old, to talk like that (to a good friend, no less) can only mean that dogma forced into the brain at an early age, nourished in adulthood by religious bigotry, is responsible. This friend has also said on several occasions, "Everyone tries to blame everything on Bush."
That's dogma, also. It's as hard to reach people raised with religious dogma as it is to reach dogmatic Bushites. They go hand in hand.
COMMENT #48 [Permalink]
said on 1/14/2006 @ 6:16 am PT...
"Lost sole" LMAO, more like As sole
COMMENT #49 [Permalink]
JUDGE OF JUDGES
said on 1/14/2006 @ 8:01 am PT...
# 48 The moral of the story is
Always Beware of Dogma's with Rabies
COMMENT #50 [Permalink]
said on 1/14/2006 @ 9:48 am PT...
> ...And since we know that Paul actually signed an Impeachment Petition for BILL CLINTON before he was even sworn in, we also know that Paul never waited to see if Bill Clinton was "guilty" of anything.
The NRA had every reason to believe that Clinton was going to come done on gun owners and he tried - Brady Bill" was just one example. I signed NRA impeachment papers at a gun show in 1992 or 93 and proud of it. I never joined the NRA until March 2000. Bill did get impeached for lying to fix a civil sexual harassment case. When the Brady Bill was killed after 10 years, I celebrated with the purchase of a 9mm Glock.
> Then he goes on to add, "This blog was created for a job" with absolutely no evidence to support his foolish suggestion.
I said "my opinion" and you have already stated on your blog that this is your only source of income.
> I think Paul is guided by a parochial-school way of thinking from his youth. His postings reflect a preference for right-to-life issues and questions of patriotism.
I went to public schools all of my life. Actor, lead in musicals, and drummer in the marching band. Played in five NFL half-time shows - LA Rams, Dallas Cowboys twice, Houston Oilers, and in Miami for the Dolphins. My high school marching band also played at Nixon's and Reagan's inauguration. You can't do that at a parochial school.
> You call us communists and liars and say that Delay is innocent. Bush is innocent. Do you also think Charlie Manson is innocent? I think you had an extra drink of the kool-aid, dumbass.
I said "wait and see." Charlie should have gotten the death penalty a long time ago. Are you an idiot? Yes, most of you are communists or socialists. And you lie and come up with conspiracy theories mainly because it is wishful thinking.
You kooks are fun to jack with!!!!!!!!!
COMMENT #51 [Permalink]
said on 1/14/2006 @ 12:19 pm PT...
Some perspective perhaps.
A few blog posts back, a couple of writers opened up with lengthy (and excellent) posts about the state of our democracy. I forwarded them to my father, who was an Air Force officer for 23 yrs before going to work for Lockheed Martin for 15 yrs. He is 65 and just retired. He voted for Bush in 2000, but thinks he is an idiot and did not vote for him in 2004. I send him all sorts of things about our crumbling democracy, racism, corporate domination, etc. - and even though he does not like Cheney, bush, Rumsfeld and thinks that we should not have gone to war (he even wrote to his Senators pre-March '03) and thinks that these guys are seriously screwing up the military - he STILL refuses to see the big picture of corruption and usurption of our democratic state and the slide towards fascism. Here is what he said about the posts:
"Caesar has not marched his legions into Rome and this is way overblown by the writer below. Bush has been openly and forcefully challenged and the Senate and at least some of the people of Rome have said "time out". Lincoln waived Habeas Corpus during the Civil War and the Republic still stands and century and a half later. Give it time and there is no need to strike any matches."
"Like I said, Give it time. The election of 06 and 08
WILL Happen and the "dictator" will be gone. I am as anti-Bush as anyone and have been so for years but I still believe very much in the "system" as imperfect as it is. It is the worst form of government except for all the others. The "great dictator" is a figment of a lot of overactive imaginations with dire prediction of shit that will never happen. Anyone you know been hauled out in middle of the night without due process?????????????? Love Dad"
So I believe this is the complacent mindset of many folks who do not want to work actively to protect our democracy. As much as I love my father, I despise his lacksadaisical attitude towards defending our country from the dangers within - and yet he put on a uniform for 23 years to defend it without. I think that when Alito is confirmed and Bush (or whomever at the point in time) becomes the "Unitary Executive" the dire predictions will come to fruition. Hitler always said he was going to protect the German people. He was wildly popular with those who chose to turn a blind eye to concentration camps and bought the "manifest destiny" mindset that allowed invasion of Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. And at the point where all of our fears become written law, what is left but active and armed underground revolution? And then will folks like my father realize that you actually do have to be vigilant to preserve liberty?
Remember the Emperor's line to Luke at the end of Return of the Jedi: "If you will not be turned, you will be destroyed. Young fool, only now, at the end, do you understand."
COMMENT #52 [Permalink]
said on 1/14/2006 @ 12:25 pm PT...
Great. The bozo can't count, either.
COMMENT #53 [Permalink]
said on 1/14/2006 @ 5:28 pm PT...
You are an idiotic freeper and no one pays attention to you since the clinton saga is ages ago now.
Until you learn to see the big picture again, no one will pay attention to you.
COMMENT #54 [Permalink]
said on 1/14/2006 @ 6:29 pm PT...
Re: "libel and slander" ,can someone tell me what was the outcome in the T.Feeney vs C.Curtis libel case ?
no rush (hehe) I know the gears of justice grind slowly these days.
COMMENT #55 [Permalink]
said on 1/14/2006 @ 6:36 pm PT...
If you call a CONgressmen a fraudster ,lair and cheat,in public before the media ,out of court settlement would be millions ...