A lot of people have been asking about Stefan Sharkansky -- the proprietor of this establishment -- most particularly why he is posting without allowing comments. I have no answers; I don't really care. My guess is that he doesn't have the time to spend policing, and participating, in the discussions, so he turns them off.
Note that Stefan announced that everyone was free to post on the "Public Blog," and made that section more prominent, when he first returned to posting.
However, many people still keep asking about Stefan in the other threads, so I figured I'd make this one thread that you can use to discuss it all.
Knock yourselves out.
Posted by pudge at February 16, 2008 05:49 PM | Email ThisMany GOP candidates still distort Reagan's record and policies to this day. Yet he is the satndard than all current GOP Presidential candidates are held to (even going so far as to hold a debate in his Presidential library).
Reagan's cult of personality changed the GOP forever, who's to say Obama's won't do the same for the Dem's?
Right now he's in the Northern CA woods smoking blunts with Rove & Rummy, in a 'know the enemy' training exercise. That's why he can't blog.
Posted by: storsie on February 16, 2008 08:09 PMI disagree with the comparison of Obama to Milli Vanelli. Both he and Paul have run new kinds of campaigns the type was first initiated by Howard Dean. The campaigns are aimed at the "Video Generation" which began in about 1970 and it is not necessary age, but whether one is part of the video game culture. If I had to compare either Obama or Paul to musical figures it would be Madonna or David Bowie as both are camelions and able to adapt to changing outside environments. The key songs would be Vogue from Madonna and A Better World from Bowie.
Best Wishes, Stefan.
Posted by: WVH on February 16, 2008 08:36 PMMy comment here is to gloat, just a little, about the Dems current dilemma re: Michigan and Florida. Count every vote, right? Oh, wait, don't count the votes, they didn't follow the rules! No, wait.... etc.
Also did you see that Obama had zero votes recorded in some Harlem precincts in the NY primary? Did you see the rumors that many cars with NY plates were seen outside some voting sites in New Hampshire??? Not yet out in full-blown accusation form, but expected soon: Did Hillary's people steal Obama's lawn signs?
They are playing the same tricks on themselves that they have accused Reps of playing! How does it feel? Huh? Huh?
Posted by: starbird on February 17, 2008 08:21 AM" Always leave them wanting more "
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 17, 2008 10:16 AMOR
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 17, 2008 10:25 AMThe public blog is highly disjointed and random- I'd really like to see SP pull in bloggers and watch dogs from all counties as sort of a central point of departure for getting the dirt on what our public officials are up to.
You know EFF has some good blogging going on-
you know WFB and BI has some good blogging- I'm pretty sure there are county bloggers through out the state turning over rocks. Hell in Thurston we are about to start suing the county over the court claiming their administrative (aka lobbying and legislative string pulling) records are exempt from public records law.
Because unlike Reagan, B.O. is an empty suit with no substance. Rest assure that once the "puppy dog love" adulation wanes , people will wake up and see that this guy's resume doesn't qualify for the position he's applying for. It's akin to a fortune 500 company hiring a janitor as their CEO.......and frankly, it's embarrassing how many idiots have their panties around their ankles in love with a glib, superficial, but gifted orator like Obama. If this is the depth of the American electorate, it doesn't paint a pretty picture for the future.
Posted by: Rick D on February 17, 2008 10:46 AMPlenty of the superdelegates are on the take from both candidates, cash and carry and many have FBI files. While Billary supporters want people to believe that Obama is a mirage, his wins have heartened a lot of Black folks and the young and idealistic see what they see. They don't see an election candidate decided by superdelgates.
Given the history of Billary, they will use anything including you will be found face down in a park, this will get really ugly. Let me play Dr. Phil, there is no plan B for Billary, there is no graceful exit, it is winner or nothing. You are talking about the Hillary portion having made a calculation to stay with a deeply flawed man for this moment in time. There must be a payoff, otherwise what was subjugating herself to take care of the bimbo eruptions for? Sorry lame feminsts, most working women would have either kicked his lame a$$ to the curb or demanded he have counseling. Hillary wasn't saving a marriage, she was saving her career prospects, so I guess that it real feminism. No matter what one thinks of the Kennedy's, they have a deep loyalty to the dem party which is why you saw a Caroline Kennedy emerge from a Fifth Avenue Penthouse to get down and dirty with an endorsement. They recognize that at this moment in time the fifty year delusion Blacks have had with the dems is at stake.
The old Chinese curse of may you live in interesting times is here for the dems. I hope they screw it up as it would be healthy for Blacks, dems, and the country if the Black alliance with dems is loosened or broken. I don't think Blacks would necessary vote republican, but a substantial number of Black indies would be healthy.
Look for Gore, Edwards and some others to attempt to put the genie back in the bottle.
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 11:05 AM"It's akin to a fortune 500 company hiring a janitor as their CEO.......and frankly, it's embarrassing how many idiots have their panties around their ankles in love with a glib, superficial, but gifted orator like Obama. If this is the depth of the American electorate, it doesn't paint a pretty picture for the future."
You may disagree with Obama's politics but he is hardly a janitor. He went to Columbia and graduated from Harvard Law. You graduated from where and are a member of what bar?
Conservatives or liberals for that matter do themselves no favors when they make stupid arguments. If you look at coporate exes like those of Enron and many mortgage companies maybe the janitors would have done better because they wouldn't have exhibited the greed that hosed millions of people.
So, did you graduate from Columbia and Harvard?
Very harsh and unfair; there was absolutely no evidence showing any connection to Mr or Mrs Clinton...this is typical Republican bile being dredged up over and over again and I think the American public realizes it. Unfortunately 'some' Republicans have only this on which to hang their hat. Well, good luck with that; it won't play THIS TIME. :)
Posted by: Duffman on February 17, 2008 11:17 AMI am an indie and here are some references about Maggie Williams, Billary's new campaign manager from a variety of sources. I bet you have heard of a concept called circumstantial evidence. Interesting reading:
Meet Maggie Williams, Hillary Clinton's new campaign managerAmong Billaryland's inner circle, Maggie Williams is renowned as the ultimate ... Vince Foster's office carrying documents after Foster committed suicide. ...
www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/02/11/2008-02-11_meet_maggie_williams_hillary_clintons_ne.html
Progress Ohio | Pissed off Former Dem: Meet Maggie Williams ...Meet Maggie Williams & Vince Foster's "suicide" ... WASHINGTON - Among Billaryland's inner circle, Maggie Williams is renowned ...
www.progressohio.org/page/community/post/adap2k/C3WG
Maggie Williams = Vince Foster cover-up assailant - Page 2 ...Page 2-Maggie Williams = Vince Foster cover-up assailant National/international events.
www2.indystar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222713&page=2
Yahoo! Answers - Do you believe Maggie Williams removed files from ...Do you believe Maggie Williams removed files from Vince Foster's office after he was found shot in the head? In 1995, a uniformed Secret Service officer ...
ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080211125123AAUNuxS&show=7
Hillary Clinton, Maggie Williams, & the Johnny Chung Scandal ...Maggie Williams was the person who searched Vince Foster's office and removed documents from Foster's files. BTW, did we ever learn what those documents ...
politics.propeller.com/story/2008/02/10/hillary-clinton-maggie-williams-and-the-johnny-chung-scandal
PC Free ZoneMeet Maggie Williams, Hillary Clinton's new campaign manager ... Hillary confidant Vince Foster's office carrying documents after Foster committed suicide. ...
www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2008/02/hillarys_new_campaign_manager.html
Clinton campaign manager out - Ben Smith's Blog - Politico.com(/sarcasm off) And not only did Maggie Williams assist in clearing out Vince Foster's records, she was responsible for delivering envelopes of illegal ...
www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Clinton_campaign_manager_out.html
Arianna Huffington: Who Is Maggie Williams? - Politics on The ...Then there's Maggie Williams, from all accounts was seen removing documents from Vince Foster's office following his suicide. ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/who-is-maggie-williams_b_85909.html
Lucianne.com News ForumMaggie Williams was the secretary that called Hillary when she was conveniently out of town for the Vincent Foster "suicide". ...
www.lucianne.com/threads22.asp?artnum=385120
So, are we back to the "vast rightwing conspiracy?"
Sorry dude, I am an indie and get routinely called a commie by Bill Cruchon. Guess the truth sometimes hurts, on both sides.
This site belongs to Stefan, just as much as his house does, maybe more since his house may have a mortgage. He can do whatever he likes here.
And, a question which is related: Does anyone know if there is a "Thank You Notes for Dummies"? Because I encounter an awful lot of people who could use such a book, an awful lot of people who have no clue as to how or when they should say thank you.
Daniel K: What I usually drink is coffee, tea, and, for dinner, a good quality, but inexpensive, wine. (Unless I am having chili, or something similar, in which case I will have a beer.)
While awaiting his muse, he can post his observations however he likes. I reckon I will still keep coming back.
Posted by: Micajah on February 17, 2008 11:43 AMAnswer is: none of the above. I wasn't lucky enough to get
affirmative action admissions to either of the above schools like Barack Hussein Obama.
Maybe VVH can outline a list of Barack Hussein Obama's accomplishments. It shouldn't take up too much space since he's done very little in either the state legislature or the Senate. I'll await that lengthy response WVH.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 17, 2008 11:48 AM1. Are you sure you would have gotten in without affirmative action, remember they get several thousand applications for each Ivy.
2. I assume that since you are bitter about what your concept of affirmative action is, you also object to "legacy" admissions which are children of wealthy alumni and kids of potential wealthy donors being admitted as well. I also assume that you object to athletic admissions as well. You know very little about the East Coast private school feeder pipeline to elite schools. Many of those of color came from the very same elite prep schools like Exeter, Phillips Andover, and Sidwell Friends in DC. Dude, I can assure you that there is nothing affirmative action about that. Your concept is that all those who attended Harvard and Columbia got lower test scores that you, really? You base that on what, an affirmative action case at UW and U Mich. The Ivies are in a different category, Dude. And Obama was law review editor.
3. Now, I am not a supporter of any candidate at present, but I am Black.
3. So, since you stumbled on a line of inquiry, which is how he works in a legislative context, you need to answer that relevant and pertinent question to his campaign. They might be able to discuss something that you could possibly understand.
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 11:58 AMOne reason you couldn't get into an Ivy is you can't read. I said this:
"Now, I am not a supporter of any candidate at present, but I am Black.
3. So, since you stumbled on a line of inquiry, which is how he works in a legislative context, you need to answer that relevant and pertinent question to his campaign. They might be able to discuss something that you could possibly understand."
You need to ask a supporter or the Obama campaign.
Try reading next time. The fact that I haven't done your research doesn't mean there aren't answers to your question.
You are simply bitter because your concept of the world is rather limited.
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 12:18 PMSo far, WVH's defense of the empty suit Barack Obama has been: He's half black, and he went to an Ivy league college.
Perhaps some critical thinking skills are needed WVH. I wish you godspeed on attaining those.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 17, 2008 12:26 PMArguing with an idiot is usually a losing proposition, but here goes, I do not support any candidate, so I am under no obligation to defend any candidate.
By the way, did you at least graduate from high school or get a GED? You don't want to do that degree thing with me.
So here is the link to the Obama campaign unless you are too stupid to use it.
Welcome to Obama for AmericaOfficial site for the presidential campaign features My.BarackObama.com (MyBO) for supporter networking along with news, blogs, video and photos, speeches, ...
www.barackobama.com/
Now, I suggest you address your questions to them like they do on the Jeopardy show which is formulate a question(s) and ask them. Got it?
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 12:42 PMFolks, you want to comment on Stefan's posts? Use the public blog. It's easy, doesn't bite and you can have your say.
The Public Blog listings on the right are just the tip of the iceberg. Check it out.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 17, 2008 12:51 PMWow WVH! is that what passes for intellectual debate in your world? How pathetic is that?
Since you can't defend B.O.'s qualifications to be POTUS, you deflect criticism by using school yard banter? The sure sign of an intellectual lightweight. At the risk of embarrassing yourself further, I ask that you get back to the original argument and defend B.O. on his merits...assuming there are any.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 17, 2008 01:46 PMWhy do I, a non-supporter, have to defend Obama, because I am Black? If that is what you think, Rick D, I can call you the bigot you are for the janitor remark in comment #18. You, dude are ignorant bigot and you are incapable of research or opinion, otherwise you would do what most educated people who want to know something, do which is research the answer. How much time would it take to direct your questions to either the Obama campaign or an Obama supporter? I support no candidate at this point, it is too early.
You need to go over to Lucianne.com or Huffington, there are plenty of Blacks that do not support Obama, plenty of women that do not support Hillary and plenty of Caucasian men that support both Hillary and Obama, just ask Duffman, he is the cheerleader for Hillary. Oh, by the way, there are Black, Latino, and Asian republicans. Kinda rocks your limited bigoted world, doesn't it? I happen to be an independent.
You are simply a throwback to the Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms days of your party who can't imagine a world where the rules that made you the person you are no longer apply.
Yep, I am Black, I must support Obama, right? Idiot.
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 02:14 PMGeorge W. Bush went to Yale (like his dad) and Harvard. John Kerry went to Yale and Boston College. Al Gore went to Harvard and Vanderbilt. Bill Clinton went to Georgetown and Oxford and Yale. Hillary went to Wellsley and and Yale.
Ronald Reagan went to Eureka. It's a college of less than 1000 students in Illinois.
I'll take Reagan, thanks.
Posted by: pudge on February 17, 2008 02:54 PMOnce again, when cornered with an intellectually uncomfortable fact, you resort to the same old tired "race" banter that so many of the left employ.
I'm somehow a racist for asking what qualifications a man like Barack Obama has right? Such a childish tactic to use WVH, but I can see you're very adept at it. Afterall, it is the default position for the intellectually challenged like yourself. Pretty pathetic don't you agree?
Posted by: Rick D. on February 17, 2008 02:54 PMI'm going to agree with WVH here, if your too ignorant to use Google and do your own homework you have no business asking WVH to do it for you.
Maybe you can point us to a reason why a trust fund kid, who went to elite new-england prep schools, partied his way though the college, managed to get himself into the Texas National Guard (despite scarcity of openings), bankrupted an oil company or two, got elected as Gov. of Texas (a post his daddy used to occupy), is somehow more qualified to be President (a post-his daddy used to hold) with half of his fathers former staff occupying senior positions?
Maybe you can provide us a comparison between the two candidates (Bush '00 & Obama '08) experience and accomplishments gained without using their fathers help and political connections?
Sorry if I'm a skeptic, but bumper sticker slogans and staged fainting spells at rally's do not impress me or others I know when it comes to the highest office in the land.
Simpletons that choose to categorize Obama detractors as "bigots" or "racists" are simply void of intellectual thinking skills, instead relying on the same old, tired race baiting tactics. To which I say, Grow UP!!
Posted by: Rick D. on February 17, 2008 03:31 PMLook like you are the one parading around on Bumper Sticker slogans, charging a "non-existent" record. Sen. Obama's record exists all over the internet of you even bothered to do a search. His record as President of Harvard Law, his record as a lawyer/community organizer, his bills & voting record in the Illinois legislature, his bills & voting record in the US Senate.
From the sound of it, you are letting the MSM and bumper sticker slogans do your thinking for you. I say grow up and do some of your own research instead of parading around tired and ignorant slogans.
If you happen to wake up and actually do the legwork, you would find the records of all the candidates running for the highest office in the land.
As for my doctorate, ask Pudge, although he thought I was a affirmative action choice and in one thread thought I hadn't earned it and Bruce G. I went to Bruce G's school, he is in the master's program, at present. So if you want to call them liars, knock yourself out.
Now Pudge said,
"What school you went to is irrelevant, except among people who are ignorant and vapid."
Really, if a candidate went to Bob's school of car mechanics, would you consider that irrelevant? Don't think so. Fact of the matter is that in most cases, for better, or worse the ruling elite went to certain schools. In terms of intelligence, it doesn't mean much. Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman had limited formal education and was a great writer and brillant mind. What going to an elite system gives you is an idea of how the game is played.
Rick D.
Now, let get to why I call you a bigot
You said:
"I'm somehow a racist for asking what qualifications a man like Barack Obama has right?"
You are a bigot, not because you asked the question of qualifications which is legitimate, you are a bigot because you assume that I am the person to answer because I am Black. It is perfectly legitimate to ask about the qualifications of any person that aspires to elected office. When I have informed you numerous times that I have not endorsed and do not support any candidate, what makes me the go-to-gal on Obama, other than color.
Now, I called you a bigot which is different than a racist. I don't know you well enough to assume you are a racist, but I wouldn't be surprised. A bigot is defined as:
bigot - definition from dictionary.die.netbigot n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.
dictionary.die.net/bigot
Fact of the matter is, at this point you probably have the same set of FACTS, not opinions, of both Obama and Mc Cain that I do, which is zip. After both conventions, I plan to thoroughly research the candidates, except Billary, I have research on them. I don't expect any one to do my leg work for me.
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 04:37 PMDUDE! No way was he ever, or will he ever be PRESIDENT OF HARVARD LAW.
He was however, President of Harvard Law REVIEW.
Cato will take "get a clue" for a $100, Alex
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 17, 2008 04:44 PM
In alphabetical order:
1. Hillary Clinton Wellesley and Yale
Bubba Georgetown, Oxford, and Yale
2. John Mc Cain A 1958 graduate of the U.S.
Naval Academy
Cindy Mc Cain University of Southern Cal
3. Barack Obama Columbia and Harvard
Michelle Obama Princeton and Harvard
Looking for that 100 person junior college filler.
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 05:38 PMJSTOR: Social Classification in Creole LouisianaResearch assistants were employed to do legal research on adoption, ..... Rousseve, Charles B. 1937 The Negro in Louisiana; Aspects of His History and ...
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0094-0496(197711)4%3A4%3C589%3ASCICL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D - Similar pages
More results from links.jstor.org »
Georgetown Law - Published Articles (GLH)Tanya Boyle, The Social and Legal Status of Free Women of Color in ... The system of racial classification in Louisiana was ternary (white/colored/Negro) as ...
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/boyle.htm
Color is one part of the equation. Class is another. Oprah, Dr. Condi Rice, and Tiger Woods, although they are Black, have a different response than does the lower class Black who is in the hip hop culture.
Pirate asked:
"When one is mulatto, quadroon, high yellow, or when it becomes economically or poltically expedient? Sounds like a shakedown to me."
Unless a darker skinned person is successful as was Pele, the great Brazilian soccer player, the fact of the matter is that the dominant culture reacts to both color of skin and class. It is not a shakedown as you put it, it is the way you probably react to a traffic light when you see the red, yellow, or green bulb. Color is in people's consciousness, what they do after they see the color depends upon the charcter of the person.
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 05:54 PMThe interesting thing about this race is no matter what the color, the ruling elite is the ruling elite in terms of background. None of the candidates, nor their spouses went to Bob's school of mechanics or Gertie's beauty college.
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 06:39 PMUnfortunately, the ruling elite is many layers removed from our humdrum politics of defiance, and you will never know them or their backgrounds.
I know you could not call yourself white, but that doesn't prevent you from setting forth your general socio-biological criteria for "whiteness." Please enlighten me.
Posted by: The Pirate on February 17, 2008 07:06 PMFirst, I am neither a biologist or anthropologist.
My tests are two:
1. Objectively, what does the person look like and this can lead to false positives as many Blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans have Caucasian features. And I kinda wonder about the Black Welshman, the singer Tom Jones.
2. To what culture does the person identify with?
Is there congruence between the self identification and how the person is likely to be treated by society? I have had some very dark skinned people with no Caucasian features tell me they were white and I looked at them like they were crazy. The reason is that people who do not know them will not treat them as white. In my opinion, on the issue of self-identification, Obama is healthy as there is congruence between how he is likely to be treated by society and the group he identifies with. Given his genetic make-up, he rightfully, could identify with either culture. I don't believe that society, at large, would treat him as white.
I assume that you are Caucasian, how you and your tribe pick your members is I think a better question.
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 07:21 PMOn such an important issue as race, I thought you would at least be able to distinquish and discuss simple universal racial characteristics since you have gone on authoritatively and at length about race in this thread, but you are unable or unwilling to do that. Instead, you chose to jabber inanities and waste our time, discrediting yourself as an invisible woman.
Posted by: The Pirate on February 17, 2008 07:54 PMEnlighten me, what are universal racial characteristics. Since you are the authority list them.
1. Distinguish universal racial characterisitcs. How doe one do this?
2. Define what the term universal racial characteristic is
I believe Dude, you are as clueless as most and far from jabbering, I gave you my opinion. I await your definition and your opinion, if you can come up with anything.
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 08:10 PMAs for my doctorate, ask Pudge, although he thought I was a affirmative action choice and in one thread thought I hadn't earned it
It never would have even entered my head that you were an affirmative action choice, and I therefore never would have expressed that. You are, once again, lying.
As to you not "earning" it, no, I never thought that either; you may be referring to the notion I expressed that you express a lot of ignorance about the topic you have a degree in, which doesn't mean you didn't earn the degree, but that the degree doesn't necessarily mean much.
I can see how you might have simply misunderstood or misremembered what I wrote there, so I won't call it a lie. But that nonsense about affirmative action? Totally invented. No truth of any kind behind your claim. Absolute lie.
Guess since you are trying to move higher in the republican ranks and since are now a contributor you attempt to moderate the invective. Go ahead and use the "liar" language as that is your M.O. It is very difficult to search the archives unleass one has the exact thread. But, there was a thread when you and Bruce G. got quite nasty and I do remember you alluding to the affirmative action thing.
My recollection is yes, you specifically went after me on the issue of affirmative action. Although, we would need to access the specifiv thread to prove it. Not to worry though, you at least match Ivan for class. Neither party is rolling in leadership these days. No wonder there are so many independents these days.
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 08:38 PMI suppose he's already been involved in a rear end collision.
No wonder insurance is so high...
Posted by: Independent Voter on February 17, 2008 08:44 PMLooks like I forgot a word, thnks for the correction. I'm still glad you have more sense than Rick D. and bothered to look it up for yourself. Good job.
Now can you answer the question I posed to Rick D. about the qualifications between G.W.B '00, and Obama '08?
Posted by: Cato on February 17, 2008 09:56 PMI don't even know what this means: do you mean literally, rising in the ranks, trying to gain higher office? If so, once again, you're lying. I have never given anyone the slightest impression that I wanted to be any higher in the Repubican party, and, in fact, I do not, and would not.
If you mean trying to increase my reputation, no, that's not the case either. That sort of thing happens, or it doesn't. It is foolish to try to force it, in my opinion, and I never would.
So you have, once again, lied about me. As usual.
Go ahead and use the "liar" language as that is your M.O.
With you, yes, because lying is your M.O. Duh.
It is very difficult to search the archives unleass one has the exact thread.
No, it's not. For example: Google for site:soundpolitics.com affirmative action pudge wvh. Only 13 hits. Pretty simple.
But, there was a thread when you and Bruce G. got quite nasty and I do remember you alluding to the affirmative action thing.
False. That absolutely never happened. But that helps narrow it down: Google for site:soundpolitics.com affirmative action pudge wvh "bruce guthrie". That gives us only two hits, and only one of them mentions "affirmative action," and YOU brought it up.
My recollection is yes, you specifically went after me on the issue of affirmative action.
Your recollection is absolutely flawed. It never happened.
Although, we would need to access the specifiv thread to prove it.
I narrowed it down for you. So, show us where I did this. (Well, you cannot possibly show us, since it absolutely never happened, but since I have now shown you where to look, now when you fail to show us, and yet you still refuse to admit you were wrong, we know you're lying.)
He has been to journalism what collectively everyone else (Yes even you Joel) in the Seattle media has been to cover-ups since November 2004 when he single handly developed explained, pursued, investigated and beyond a shadow of a doubt demonstrated what Sam Reed and John McKay cowardly walked away from and we have borne the brunt of from her Highness. When he developed the statistical probabilities of the Queen turning around the ballots even on the first recount I knew finally someone in this town though the state and nation are bigger than She was and that the cost of such actions was immeasurable.
Unfortunately his warnings have gone unheeded and Dean Logan is gearing up to push Obama onwards in LA, Garth Fell mishandles ballot reports in Snohoco, John McKay and Same Reed continue to be ready to get along with the other side of the aisle. At least Joel Connelly's friends no long have to drive to Whidbey Island to vote and that is good for the planet.
Ultimately the real break through of any blog or talk radio will be a government that is restored to the only valid mandate of preserving opportunity for all instead of imposing outcomes. Sadly the imposition even means stealing the elections and pissing on the blood of everyone that spilled it for the equal opportunity but use it for their own evil purposes. Anyways I will get out of the way and let those moral jihadists cut your throat first since you don�t want to do anything about it Joel, Dean ., Christine, Barry O., John McKay, Sam Reed, John Lovick and the rest of you. When they pull out the sword think of the debt coming due of your theft of the foundations meant to prevent that from happening. Remember Sharkansky was doing you a favor by calling out the facts but you ignored it. I'll be taking care of them in my way but certainly not helping you.
He can open the comments whenever. I am too busy getting government out of my bedroom so I can use a 100w light bulb and play on-line poker again to be able to post.
Anyone got change for the WSDOT toll roads?
Posted by: Col.Hogan on February 17, 2008 10:18 PMI am still researching threads, this is what I found on one thread which you would have not been able to access on google it is called
November 24, 2007
'Where did kids go?'
You said the following at post #49:
Because you are hypercompetitive and "chose" not to continue your formal education, you now have a disdain for learning
False. I have a problem with people who wasted their life getting an advanced degree and ending up just as ignorant as when they began. For me, the purpose of education is to grow and learn and become wise. And you didn't do that, and that's what bothers me.
I love talking to people who have really earned an advanced degree and are true experts in their subjects. You are not one of these people."
So, you said I didn't earn my degree. I am still searching for the thread where you constantly referred to Negroes and I had to correct you on that. Bill C will be happy the republicans have their own Robert Byrd.
Unfortunately, you looked by key word and a lot of the posts are contained within a thread and really aren't acessible by google key word, so you have to go topic by topic.
I will post some of the ones I find.
Even Strom Thurmond before he kicked the bucket at over 90, I believe had moved from calling Blacks, Negroes, not you. Check out this thread:
December 28, 2007
PCO Training for Snohomish County
61. Travis: shrug. The abolitionists of the time, including Frederick Douglass, supported Lincoln. I don't think you, or anyone else, coming in 150 years later and saying he was only trying to appease people to get power is very convincing in light of all the facts.
Read Douglass' speech upon the occasion of Lincoln's death. He concedes readily that Lincoln was ready to use the sword to preserve slavery in order to preserve the Union and defend the Constitution and the law. But then in the next breath he gives Lincoln the deepest praise. "Our faith in him was often taxed and strained to the uttermost, but it never failed," Douglass said.
"Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery."
Lincoln was a complicated man. But one thing is clear: he strongly cared for and believed in the cause of liberty for all, including negroes.
Feel free to continue to disagree, but again, I'll take Frederick Douglass' word over most anyone else's. :-)
Posted by: pudge on December 31, 2007 03:17 PM
Yep, the republicans will really be able to move beyond all Caucasian rural areas with leaders like you. I will continue to search the archives. Google is fairly limited with key words,
Oh I responded in post #67.
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 11:13 PMSo, you said I didn't earn my degree.
False. You apparently don't know what the word "and" means. The expression evaluates to true if BOTH sides are true, and therefore false if ONE side is NOT true. I was implying that your earning of your degree did not make you an expert, not that you neither earned your degree, nor were an expert.
I am still searching for the thread where you constantly referred to Negroes and I had to correct you on that.
Also false. I did refer to "negroes" several times, as it was the historically accurate phrase, but you never "corrected" me because that would have required me to say something that was incorrect, which did not happen.
In fact, YOU were the one who was incorrect: you falsely asserted that one of the words I should have used instead of "negro" was "African-American," which is a phrase that would not properly apply to the whole group of people being discussed from Lincoln's time, as many of the negro slaves were not considered Americans.
Unfortunately, you looked by key word and a lot of the posts are contained within a thread and really aren't acessible by google key word, so you have to go topic by topic.
Actually, no, it is very easy. Just search for and you quickly find this link, where it is quite easy to see that I used a contextually accurate and generally inoffensive word that you decided to incorrectly assume represented some negative connotations.
Posted by: pudge on February 17, 2008 11:14 PMThe only time I use the word "negroes" is in the proper historical context.
So, saying that I have not "moved from calling blacks 'negroes'" is yet another lie.
I wonder if it is even possible for you to tell the truth.
Posted by: pudge on February 17, 2008 11:19 PMI'll keep researching the record. I suppose it is convenient to have an explanation, now because you being a public person and such. At least Bill C. knows the republicans have their own little Robert C. Byrd. No worries, Bryds fly far in both parties.
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 11:21 PMYou will, of course, choose to violate your own religious faith and slander me as a racist, despite not having a shred of evidence to back up that claim. But that is your sin to deal with, not mine.
Posted by: pudge on February 17, 2008 11:25 PMScan the content of the above comments. How many are on the original topic?
In most blog threads (not just SP) the comments quickly become nothing in direct response to the question of the original post, but rather a conversation between commenters, completely off-original-topic.
Well, it is what it is, but one can sympathize if a blogger takes a break from the meandering digressions: it's one thing to read through responses to your writing, but another to have to sift, peruse and filter out dozens of tangential comments.
Imagine giving a speech, having a Q&A and having to listen to hours of arguments between the audience members. The speaker's eyes glaze over at the tit-for-tat, the Brownian circuity of the conversation, with new voices added every other moment. Then, someone wants to speak to the original topic, but is drowned out by the side-topic and is never answered.
One could see forgoing a Q&A altogether for a time, after too many of such experiences.
Glenn Reynolds, possibly the most influential libertarian blogger, has no comments, and his blog suffers not a bit: his site gets as many hits as most national news sites. He reads emails, which are much more likely to be on-topic and cogent (worth the time). Were he to take comments, he would have thousands of extraneous comments a day to filter through-- who needs the grief? Time is precious.
Posted by: BHC on February 18, 2008 02:14 AMIf one were to go back in this thread, they would find WVH offered up her/his race at least twice unsolicited. A typical tool used by leftist race baiters in order to marginalize their debate opponent and distract from the original topic. In this case, the empty suit Barack Obama.
Let us know when you've grown up WVH, perhaps then we can engage in a legitimate debate without your racial hang ups.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 18, 2008 08:44 AMJust one more example of Left vs. Right thinking. Leftists use emotion devoid of facts and Rightists use facts devoid of emotions.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 18, 2008 09:16 AM1. BHC, first, thanks to Stefan for starting this melee. My theory is this, he is dealing with something that takes a great deal of his time at the moment and this is just not a priority.
2. Rick D., you still are a bigot. Your comment that Obama is comparable to a janitor, really. There is nothing wrong with any honest occupation, but I wonder if you would have used a similar analogy about Bubba or Mc Cain. You still can't read, remember I said you tried to make me the go-to-gal on Obama. Could the reason you are so bitter about not getting into the elite school of YOUR choice is your lack of reading ability and not some janitor of color beat you to the slot?
3. Pudge, judge not least you be judged. You and Byrd, right, neither of you has ever had a bigoted bone in your body. The good thing though, your bona fides are established so that when Dr. Paul starts doling out left over campaign cash, maybe you could run against Rep. Larsen. I understand former Sheriff Bart might make the run, but is worried about raising cash. I wonder who cash and carry Paul would like better, you, Bart, you, Bart. Bet it would be you.
What is this, libertarians of a feather flock together?
Posted by: WVH on February 18, 2008 09:28 AMNow, I support no candidate. What valid argument do you wish me to address. Let's debate, Dude.
Posted by: WVH on February 18, 2008 09:32 AMRick D,
I have debated you in other threads, so I am glad to see that others here are recognizing your idiotic statements. If you would bother to do one once of research you could both determine what Obama's stances and proposals are (irrespective of the red herring the Clinton folks are trying to feed the media) and also what his background is. Obama has been one the the most open candidates around. He has even released his tax returns to let everyone know what his income was and where it came from. This is something the other candidates haven't done.
RE: Background
It does appear that the standard lately to be President is going to an Ivy League School, which I think is unfortunate. One thing I will give credit to Huckabee (Ouachita Baptist University) and Ron Paul (Gettysburg University and Duke University School of Medicine).
Links
Below are links regarding Barack Obama's Background:
Barack Obama's 2008 Website - Issues Page http://www.barackobama.com/issues/>
Barack Obama's Fackcheck Page (lots of corrections to baseless Hillary's attacks) http://factcheck.barackobama.com/
Barack's CV from University of Chicago http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html
Project Vote Smart Documentation (includes voting record and positions he has taken) http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=9490
Information on Barack's 1992-93 Community Organizing efforts with Local Chicago Project Vote effort: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-1993/Vote-of-Confidence/
To say that there is no meat or that Barack's background is unknown is to buy the HRC and MSM spin. All one has to do is check on-line. One could also read (or listen to) his books, especially his latest book to understand where he is coming from. It is a lot more telling and open than say HRC's efforts. I was glad to see him beat Bill at the Grammy's in the "Best Spoken Word" category.
You say "judge not least(sic) you be judged".......yet you throw around the "racist" and "bigot" terms.
I guess that claimed doctorate degree doesn't by you class, at least in your case.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 18, 2008 09:39 AMReally, the janitor analogy is apt. Refer to tc's post above. Let's see, he was a senator, and Huckabee was a governor. Close? Sorry, you are still a bigot.
You libertarian flocks obviously don't read each other's posts, can't imagine why. Refer to Pudge #59. My cite is your brother in the spirit and your other brother in the spirit Bruce G. regarding the claimed degree. By, the way, can you claim even a high school diploma?
You can't read, I called you a bigot and I defined it. I said I don't know you well enough to know that you are a racist, but I wouldn't be surpised if you were. Still say that.
You said:
"I guess that claimed doctorate degree doesn't by you class, at least in your case."
No, calling someone who graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law and who was the President of the Harvard Law Review, a janitor obviously shows a great deal of class on your part? Nope, it just shows you as the ignorant bigot that you are.
Posted by: WVH on February 18, 2008 09:52 AMBarack's US Senate Website:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629
Barack's Illinois Senate Page (Illinois 93rd General Assembly)
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=747&GA=93
Note: Other previous Assembly pages (e.g., 89th through 92nd, during time Barack served) at Illinois General Assembly site doesn't have information broken down by Senator, but there is links to each assembly and the bills presented.
Posted by: tc on February 18, 2008 10:08 AM "Barack Obama missed 185 of 1098 votes (17%) since Jan 6, 2005. "
.....doesn't sound like much of a leader to me.
when asked to vote yes or no on proposed bills, Barack Obama voted "present". just the leadership skills we need in Washington D.C. right?
Regarding YOUR bigotry,
1. You compared Senator Obama to a janitor. I haven't made derogatory comments about Mc Cain, Romney, or Huckabee.
2. If you READ my posts, I said several times that I did not support any candidate and YOU kept attempting to ask me questions about a candidate I am not supporting. tc is correct, you have been on several threads here with your idiocy. You can't read, for one thing, and you continue to spew ignorant statements for another.
What you are attempting is the psychological gambit of transference and projection:
What is Transference?.... In less poetic terms, a transference reaction means that you are reacting to someone in terms of what you need to see, you are afraid of or what you see when you know very little about the person. This all happens without you knowing why you feel and react the way you do.
What Is Projection? Some people refer to transference as a "projection." In this case you are projecting your own feelings, emotions or motivations into another person without realizing your reaction is really more about you than it is about the other person.... http://www.crisiscounseling.com/Articles/Transference.htm
You project your bigotry and ignorance on to others. By the way, do you happen to be a janitor?
I would like to see Presidential Campaigns shortened, but I am not sure how it would be best done. I know the parties could get together and decide that Primary/Caucus Months are Feb-May, like it used to be and spread them out so that they aren't front-loaded. This would allow June for State Conventions. I would also like to see the National conventions earlier, like late July/early August like they used to be. Now, if one could also make a rule that the campaign couldn't start until November of the previous year (e.g., one year total campaign), then maybe one could corral in the time commitment.
Part of this year's problem was everyone wanting to move their primaries/caucuses to January/Early February. The bunching an early time frame meant candidates had to start running a lot earlier. Add to that the fundraising involved to beat the HRC machine, the Democratic candidates were at a real disadvantage.
Look, if he beats HRC for the nomination, I will forgive him missing all the votes. It would also allow a general fall campaign that can focus on issues instead of having HRC's attack machine being the center of the focus. We can then determine which side has the best proposals to move the country forward and address the current issues the best.
Posted by: tc on February 18, 2008 10:34 AMThe Janitor comparison had nothing to do with race as you ignorantly posted, but instead had to do with experience. B.O. does not have the experience necessary for the position he's applying for. You can bemoan that fact till your face is blue, but it won't change the reality.
"judge not, lest you be judged"...and throwing around your "racist" and "bigot" language only shows how shallow your thinking is.
Honestly, answer this question and since this site is not as politically incorrect as either the HA or other sites, but is still rather freewheeling. My theory is this, you used the analogy of the janitor simply because Obama is Black. Hurling insults at me because I called you on it doesn't make your case. Now, as for lack of substance, when I can, I cite. I defined the term bigot, you fit the term. You will never be able to fairly judge, in my opinion, people you consider different. Dude, no one other than you will call some one of any color with Obama's edcuational achievements, a janitor except a bigot.
I note you haven't responded about your credentials other than you didn't go to either Harvard or Columbia. Quite often, one of the roots of bigotry is envy. I suspect that this educated Black man literally scares the hell out of someone like you. In fact, many bigots quite often ridicule those with education particularly if they are of a different eithnic group or gender. I guess you haven't heard, the days of Bull Connor and the White Citizens League are over except in certain pockets of libertarianism. It is fair game to examine the record of any candidate, to watch how they frame and debate the issue, and to look at past history. I would not call any of the current candidates in either party a janitor because all of them have greater experience than you. I actually have more respect for the David Dukes of this world who flat out say I hate anyone that is not white. Weasels like you who try to wiggle around when caught are just weasels and really are not worthy of further comment.
Posted by: WVH on February 18, 2008 11:05 AMAlso, in my first post the following corrections should be noted:
In opening paragraph responding to Pudge, "appreaciate" should be "appreciate."
In the paragraph responding to Rick D, the statement "once of research" should be "ounce of research."
In the paragraph on background, the sentence starting with "One thing I will give credit..." should be "This is one thing I will give credit ...."
Sorry for the typo's/spelling errors.
Posted by: tc on February 18, 2008 11:07 AMYou see, it doesn't matter right now whether McCain leads HRC, or not. If HRC is the Democratic nominee, you will see that she will through every bit of dirt she can get her hands on at him, even if it is not even close to being true. Check out Obama's factcheck page to see the ridiculous claims Clinton is throwing at him. It doesn't matter if they are true or not, this hasn't stopped the Clintons in the past. They will get airplay and take away time from McCain actually campaigning. Look for HRC to resurrect some of Bush 2000 Campaign's South Carolina slanders to appear in the South.
Further, since McCain has vowed to run a clean campaign focused on the issues, he will be a sitting target for HRC. Her goal will be to lower turnout, since higher turnout will be better for McCain (e.g., new voters, independents, etc.).
So, Shark, why are you working to get HRC nominated? Inquiring minds want to know. (Just Joking).
Posted by: tc on February 18, 2008 11:35 AMI get it now. I understand how Rick D is a racist. Comparing a black person to a manual laborer is racist. My god, what next.
First we learn that calling black folk 'nigger' is wrong. Most everyone got that, so we learned, at the blck mans' insistence, to call black folk negroes. Oops, that offended y'all too. So we learned, at the black mans' insistence to call you black. Even THIS offends some of y'all. "DO I LOOK BLACK TO YOU, I SEE BROWN MYSELF". So we learned, at the black mans' insistence to call y'all African-Americans. "I AINT NEVER BEEN TO AFRICA DON'T CALL ME THAT".
The point I'm trying to make is that many of you are so touchy that we can say nothing that doesn't get your back up. The most innocent of things are taken as though it was said to insult you. Now we gotta be careful about comparing y'all to manual laborers.
You don't want relevent discussion. You want to shut whitey up. You side track the conversation, it makes me think that you can't stand for a cracker to speak his mind. You lady are the racist.
Posted by: REBEL on February 18, 2008 12:57 PMHere is an good article covering the Wisconsin Democratic Primary and its current state.
I like the quote:
"Of all 50 states in the union, Wisconsin is probably that state in which professional politicians most hate to tempt a primary," White wrote. "It was Wisconsin, as a matter of fact, that in 1903 first invented the presidential primary, which so many other states have since copied. And the political philosophy that inspired that revolutionary invention has made and left Wisconsin in political terms an unorganized states, a totally unpredictable state, a state whose primaries have over many quadrennials proved the graveyard of great men's presidential ambition."
This also fits into the thread of Eric's discussing the state of Washington's primary. Growing up in Wisconsin, I know how proud the state is of its primary. It is good to see it getting attention this year. While the courts may not agree, I think Wisconsin has the best primary system, but I am biased being a "cheesehead" myself.
Posted by: tc on February 18, 2008 01:45 PMCheers to the new Stefan!!
Posted by: swatter on February 18, 2008 03:17 PMI am going to label this next line as humor so you don't go round the bend. This is humor. With a name like Rebel does that mean that you have a Confederate flag by the gunrack in the back of your pick-up. :-)
Now, you said:
"I get it now. I understand how Rick D is a racist. Comparing a black person to a manual laborer is racist. My god, what next."
If you will carefully read my posts, you will note that I said that I didn't have enough info to call him a racist, although I wouldn't be surprised if he was. I called him a bigot and defined it.
A lot of what you perceive as unfair touchiness comes out of the legacy of Jim Crow. Those don't know history are doomed to repeat it. My Jewish brothers and sisters have the phrase "never forget." Here is an educator's site about the history of Jim Crow in this country:
Creating Jim Crow
By Ronald L. F. Davis, Ph. D.
California State University, Northridge
Richmond, VA
Historical marker posted in the 1920s
The term Jim Crow originated in a song performed by Daddy Rice, a white minstrel show entertainer in the 1830s. Rice covered his face with charcoal paste or burnt cork to resemble a black man, and then sang and danced a routine in caricature of a silly black person. By the 1850s, this Jim Crow character, one of several stereotypical images of black inferiority in the nation's popular culture, was a standard act in the minstrel shows of the day. How it became a term synonymous with the brutal segregation and disfranchisement of African Americans in the late nineteenth-century is unclear. What is clear, however, is that by 1900, the term was generally identified with those racist laws and actions that deprived African Americans of their civil rights by defining blacks as inferior to whites, as members of a caste of subordinate people.
http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/
Now what the "Jim Crow" period in this country (1870 -1950s) lead to was segregation and the relegation of Blacks to inferior roles, there was very little choice in the matter. The closest comtemporary example that people remember is Aparteid in South Africa. Much of this period delt with intimidation such as burning crosses on lawns or hanging nooses on front yards to remind people of lynching and the fact that you had better stay in your place. Along with the Bus Boycott in Alabama, the Civil Rights Era was launched by the lynching of a 14 year boy from Chicago in Mississippi.
There have been doctoral thesises written on the imagery of Black males and how they are viewed in this culture. So, part of the issue I had is whether this comparison was in line with the history of Jim Crow. I don't know about you but there is no way that I would compare someone of any color or gender with Obama's accomplishments with a janitor. That comes of of the Jim Crow playbook. Hope this answers your question.
I would expect more from someone that claims to have a doctorate degree, but truth be told, neither one of us believe that to be true.
Your misuse of the common phrase in post # 77- "3. Pudge, judge not least you be judged. " is a telling example of your education level.
As for the janitor reference, only a linear thinker like yourself would leap to a false assumption that it was done in a racial context. Oh, and by the way, why did you bother telling us your ethnicity, and then cry about "racism" in your subsequent posts? I , for one could care less what color you are. Ignorant people are ignorant people, and you certainly qualify for that category.
Cheers!
Posted by: Rick D. on February 18, 2008 07:16 PMI still don't have enough info to label you as a racist, I have more than ample evidence to label you an idiot.
You are what you are and you are too much of a weasel to admit it. Regarding ignorance, try reading the material from the Jim Crow site:
http://www.jimcrowhistory.org
You might be less the ignorant bigot that you are.
Now, hopefully you will have to use another gambit to describe a person of color who not only has more education and class than you do.
I love teaching moments, so let's help you out. As I understand, your principle objection to Obama as you state is his lack of experience for the job, how about these analogies:
1. You wouldn't make a bank trainee the head of the bank.
2. You wouldn't let a pilot without a license fly the plane
3. You wouldn't let a psychologist operate on you
4. You wouldn't let the make-up artist direct the picture
Any of those analogies work for you? You reacted out of a bigoted emotion and are now trying to cover your bigotry. As they say, the cover-up is always worse than the crime.
Posted by: WVH on February 18, 2008 07:29 PM"I would expect more from someone that claims to have a doctorate...."
At post #59, Pudge said this:
"I expressed that you express a lot of ignorance about the topic you have a degree in, which doesn't mean you didn't earn the degree, but that the degree doesn't necessarily mean much."
He pretty much admitted knowledge of the degree.
Are you calling him a liar? he,he,he
I wish you godspeed on your recovery.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 18, 2008 07:36 PM
