Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)


Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Speaking of hate crimes against women...

...And history repeating itself...

...Why is that the only time the Republican Party, or indeed ANY Conservative, is willing to give a Black Man the benefit of the doubt is:

1) When he's accused of sexual harassment
2) And he's one of their boys

Seriously.  How many women will have to come forward before Herman Cain no longer remains the Republicans' leading contender?

You know what? I've been listening to these Right-Wing bed wetters cry about "phony" sexual harassment cases since the early 1990's.  Big surprise that Limbaugh, that great crusader for gender equality, led the attack.  It seems all of the men have one thing in common: They did nothing wrong. That, or the women are just making it up.  (Women apparently lie more often than men have lapses in judgement, you see.  This is an especially amusing statement when it comes from some one who sees nothing wrong in acting in a manner that offends, intimidates and makes people uncomfortable.)

Of course if it happens to a Liberal, then it must be true, because we KNOW how Liberals all have such loose morals and can't keep their hand to themselves.  Without opening up a Bill Clinton-sized can-of-worms here, I find it interesting that, in their minds, it seems he was the only man, ever to act in an inappropriate manner towards a woman.  But they sure believed every allegation that time, didn't they?

Well... You know... A couple of things about me.  I work with women every day.  MANY women. I've worked for women, and I've had women work for me.  Most of them were very well educated, and most were fairly ambitious. All were professional, though to varying degrees. And do you know what?  I managed, and continue to manage, to get through every one of MY days without triggering a lawsuit.  And I just don't have very much sympathy for men who can't seem to manage that.
I made that comment once in a Media Matters post and I WISH I could find it now, because I LOVED the reply I got back.  It went something like, "Well, yeah Eddie but that's easy for you because you genuinely like and respect women!"

And it seems to me that if I have a choice of believing the word of several different women, who come forward despite the media onslaught and invasion of privacy and slander and libel and ad hominen attacks that await them of that of a misogynist with a long history of making disparaging comments about women (Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Rielly...) well, shit...  I guess I'm just biased, huh?  And Cain himself hasn't helped matters much. To borrow one from the Right, "This guy changes his position more than John Kerry!"

First he forgot that he even knew these women, then he forgot the investigation that happened way back when, then he forgot the out of court settlements that happened...  And now their either lying (that's original) or he didn't do anything wrong.  And that's a pretty scary defense, because Herman?  You did.  And if you don't actually REALIZE that? That's fucking scary.  NO, sir, men are NOT in fact supposed to treat women that way.

(This is the part where I resist resorting to the Right-Wing (equivalent) joke about Ann Coulter wishing she was pretty enough to be sexually harassed.)  But, since I really don't have anything else to say, here's a cheap joke I couldn't resist:

Oh, Ben and Jerry, you dirty old Socialists you!

Man, I'm hungry now.  Maybe I can get my wife to go make me a sandwich.



  1. What Cain did to Bialek, grabbed her head and put his hand up her skirt, was not sexual harassment. It was sexual assault. I hope they can find the record of him paying for a room upgrade. That would really screw the pooch, as they say.

  2. What I am reminded throughout this whole scandal is when conservatives claimed Obama lied to the media about his child's soccer game to go AWOL and hook up with a woman. The right was all over that factless story yet they stand by this guy?

    I thought Cain's wife's recent emergence was interesting as well. She stayed out of the media and when she finally voices her opinions she claims she never new about the sexual harassment issues until the Politico story.

    I don't know about you but if I was accused of sexual harassment (falsely or not), the first thing I would do is tell my wife. She is either really stupid and naive or she knows more and her absence from the media was because she had to be coached. Maybe Cain had to buy her off. Look for some rather large expenditures in from his campaign's coffers, or maybe one of those Super PACs out there...

  3. How many women came forward to complain about Clinton? Yet he is considered one of the nations best presidents by democrats. (I take it you fall into that category?)

    Now, what does it matter if 5, 10, 100 women falsely accuse Cain of sexual harassment? If they are all liars then several hundred can complain, but just because several hundred (or 4) do complain ... that doesn't make him guilty. The only thing that makes him guilty is your blind hatred of anyone NOT democrat.

  4. @jlaure - Agreed, but for me it's the fact that there are multiple accusers, more so than any one story. But you're absolutely right: If it happened? It's sexual ASSULT.

    @Kevin - The Right will defend any Conservative and believe anything they hear about a Liberal. And they prove it with every breath they draw on stories like these. And yeah... I don't think we'll be hearing too much more from Cain's wife. Bizarre.

    @William - Welcome. Always nice to see a new commenter. And I hope you come back to read this, becasue seriously: You could not be more wrong. Where to begin...

    1) I'm not a Democrat. I'm a Progressive. I do tend to VOTE Democratic these days, because they tend to be more Progressive, though it really is like finding the lesser of two evils. I feel no love for the party, and would gladly vote Republican, if they ever did anything right.

    2) I can't speak for anyone other than myself but I consider Bill Clinton to be a mediocre President, at best. And besides... Why should any LIBERAL think he's all that, huh? NAFTA, DOMA, DADT, '96 Telecom Monopoly Bill, Repeal of Glass-Stegal... What did the guy ever do that was LIBERAL? Even on TAXES, his top-tier rate remained BELOW Reagan's (from '82 to '86)! Don't believe everything Rush Limbaugh tells you about Liberals. Or Bill Clinton. (Or Ronald Reagan!)

    3) Did Clinton do it? Probably. Would knowing that have changed my vote? Why would it have: I voted for Bush in '92 and Dole in '96! And as I've already pointed out, I'm no fan of Bill Clinton and I never was. I don't need THIS to think he was a mediocre (at best) President!

    4) Your last paragraph... I take you're saying that I should give Cain the benefit of the doubt, and presume his innocence until proven guilty. And that's a good point: Why don't YOU do the same for the women in this case? You're ready to effectively prove THEM guilty of perjury. (Not officially, I know, but effectively.) Where is THEIR presumption of innocence? I've taken sides, yes. Because I'm more inclined to believe the word of many unrelated people - all of whom are taking a great risk here - than I am of the one who keeps changing the story, and seems to forget some pretty important events in his life. I'd also be more sympathetic to the Right here if Paula Jones wasn't the only woman in the history of mankind that they think was telling the truth about Sexual Harassment.

    Also... There are PLENTY of Liberal people and groups that I don't like. Look it up - I wrote a post on it a (long) while back. As for Republicans I like? Lindsey Graham, a lot of the time. (Not always though.) Snowe and Collins. (natch) And I also always liked Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee. J.C. Watts was pretty good. John McCain too, back in the day. I've have happily voted for him in 2000. (I just didn't like the McCain who moved so sharply to the right after getting hatcheted by Rove & Bush in the 2000 Primary.)

    Anyway, I do hope you come back to read my reply, and that you continue to visit and comment.

  5. I read your reply. However you make no sense with the statement that those women have their own "presumption of innocence". Um, they are the accusers, not the defendant. They have no "presumption of innocence" in this case. What crimes has Cain accused them of (other than lying)? And, in this situation, lying is NOT a crime. At least not until they get to the court process.

    I believe, like many ... many others, that these accusers are only doing this for the money/fame and the ability to follow liberal commands that Cain needs to be removed from the Presidential race, simply because he is the leader. Hell, you democrats let John Edwards stay in the last presidential race without nary a peep from the left-wing version of media. Yet, there are so many demands that Cain remove himself from the race simply because of some unfounded (unproven) accusations of events that happened 15-20 years ago. Sorry, statute of limitations has taken most of those charges away. And simply yelling 'fire' doesn't mean there IS a fire or even was.

  6. Glad you came back. OK...

    NO ONE is accused him of a CRIME. You don't go to jail for sexual harrassment. But you have no more reason to believe Cain than I do to believe the Women. You're not being any less partisan than I am. There's no "proof" here and there never will be. But there's more than one accuser and if that was good enough for Clinton, don't go acusing ME of being partisan if it means nothing in the case of Cain.

    They've acused him, and you've accused them. Neither side has PROOF, but Cain has denied being involved in (or remembering) INVESTIGATIONS that ended in SETTLEMENTS. That's kind of a big deal. I've been sued once myself and while I won, IT'S SOMETHING I'LL ALWAYS REMEMBER! Cain's amnesia is a too convenient for my taste.

    Now, Edwards. The thing about Edwards is that he EVENTUALLY came clean, FWIW. Does that excuse him? No. But I never heard an accusation and thought "She's lying." Nor was I surprised to hear that he had the affair. In fact my Mother (-R) told me and I was like, "Meh. Big Surprise." Sad to say, but it's all too common amongst politicians of BOTH parties.

    And as bad as adultery IS, it's still just adultery. Not Rape. Not Child Molestation. Not Sexual Harrassment (tantamount to coerced rape.)And while there's still a victim, it's a victim that's been betrayed and lied to, not Physically Violated or Sexually Intimidated.

    And "statute of limitations" is irrelevant here. Noone's suggesting Cain go to JAIL. (Maybe SOMEONE has, but not me I nor the media.) You don't go to jail for Sexual Harassment. If the allegations WERE true, they'd even have a hard time proving sexual ASSAUL, seeing as there wasn't any actual SEX involved & thus no physical evidence. (Hence my carefully worded answer to JLarue above.) It's not about CRIME, it's about CHARACTER. And there's NO statue of limitations on THAT.

    If they're lying? Cain owes us no explanation. But I see no reason to doubt the word of... what is it now? FOUR? women and trust the CEO and would-be politican.

    As for your "ace the front-runner" idea. Meh. I didn't see anything like this with Perry when he was on top. Or Bachman. (Other than that her husband was GAY, but COME ON: have you SEEN the guy?!) If Gingrich pulls to the front, just remember that he ALSO had an affair: WHILE HE WAS LEADING THE IMPEACHMENT OF CLINTON OVER LYING ABOUT HIS! (I don't like adultery, but I HATE hypocrisy with a fiery passion.) And besides, why the heck would they want to ace Cain anyway?

    Nominating Cain will lead to an Obama victory -I have no doubt of that in my mind- and teach them Right two lessons that they really need to learn:

    1) Black people will NOT vote for just ANY Black person

    2) There's a significant contingent in the Republican base who will NOT vote for ANY Black person

    I could be wrong of course but I think the Republicans are being as idiotic as Cain's 9-9-9 plan by ignoring these points.

    Also: The Democrats could't organize a barbecue let alone a vast Leftist conspiracy.

    Simplest explanation? They're telling the truth. If they ARE? And he came clean, and said, "It was 20 years ago, I was the only black CEO in the country, I thought I was king of the world and my ego let me do some stupid stuff and I regret it and I want to be part of the solution, and lead a national discussion about sexual indiscretion in the workplace?" Well, shoot. I still wouldn't VOTE for him (I don't like his policies) but you'd never here me question his charecter ever again.

    Does he owe us that? Only if he's guilty.

    And only he, and his accusers, know that for sure. But you're asking me to trust a CEO and a Politician. And there ain't a whole lot of precedent to justify taking that leap.

    (Glad you came back though. Please feel free to let me know ANYTIME you think I'm full of shit. Seriously.)

  7. Do you really mean that last line? If so, then you are wrong about 1). 95% of voting Blacks voted for President Obama. If you can show me when 95% of Blacks voted for the democratic nominee, then you would have a point.

    And on 2), I think you're over-reacting or overly paranoid about the power of the few extremist right-wingers that are out there (and probably the ones you are referring to).

    I used data from the Roper Center for my demographic data.

  8. That last line? ABSOLUTELY! I live for that! I’m not O’Rielly or Limbaugh: I’m not afraid to have my opinion challenged. If I can’t defend my postion? I shouldn’t be doing this! I might never change YOUR mind, and there have been times that commenters have changed MINE. Does that mean I “lost?” How could it? I ended the day that much wiser than when I began it! I’d say that’s a WIN. So yes, please let me know what you think and I'll generally respond in kind.

    Now, to your point: 95% of Blacks voted for Obama. And you forgot to mention that he also brought out a record number of first time black voters. So I’ll give you that freebie as well. And? So what? First of all, realize that not everybody has the same opinion about Obama as you do. This is true now and was true then. Was it significant that he was the first Black person to run for President? Oh, HELL yes. But it’s not like these Black Voters were coming out and voting against their prinicples or economic interests. And it's not unprecedented: 94% of blacks voted for Johnson in 1964, (Remember: Civil Rights Act.) In fact, the percentage has been around 70% or higher since the FDR administration. Prior to that, going back to the Civil War, Blacks tended to vote Republican. But don’t forget: Lincoln was the first civil rigths president and the Democrats were the Conservatives of the day, and entrenched in the Old South. It was around FDR’s time that this started to change, and JFK and LBJ REALLY changed it. (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/)
    NOTE: That's from April '08, before Obama had won the nom.

    And What does that all mean? Not much. Because Cain would represent the 1st REAL test of this racial hypothesis. It would be the first time you had a Black Candidate that wanted to CUT spending (welfare, food stamps, urban aid, gov’t services) and RAISE taxes (his 9-9-9 plan would ABSOLUITELY represent a tax hike to the average urban black demographic.)

    So I’ll place my bet right now: I say that blacks are NOT that irrational, and won't vote for Cain in any significant numbers. Specifically, Obama will remain above the 70% historical margin, and that Cain, while he may perform better than a White candidate in that demographic, will also see a small but noticeable drop, in either the voting, or the turnout, amongst White Republicans. Something on the order of 2-3%, maybe as high as 5%. (And considering how the electoral map is laid out, could be as significant or more so as any gains made amongst Blacks. If I’m wrong on either of those? Meh. It happens. If I’m wrong on BOTH of them? I’ll owe you a Coke.

    As for the influence of the “extremists…”? I’ll have to get to know you better before I can speak to that. That's largely a semantic term & what YOU consider extremist, is almost guaranteed to be different from me. Hey: I might consider YOU an extremist! And you may consider me one, but I might just as easily consider myself a Centrist. You may find my rhetoric “extreme,” but I maintain that I submit to NO ideology other than my own and hold only those positions which I feel are principled, pragmatic and defensible. I’ll bet thatwe have different opinions on where the Center is too.

    So seriously, I hope you DO call me out on things you disagree with, and we continue to have these debates and discussions. Once I better understand who you are, where you stand and what you believe? THEN we’ll better understand what we mean by “extremist.” Without that, I’m afraid I'll only foster misunderstanding. We can BOTH be right on that point, but be talking about different people.

  9. You said 94% of blacks voted for Johnson because of the Civil Rights Act. Thank you for giving me complete support for my stance that when 95% of blacks voted for Obama it was partly/only because he was black. It took a Civil Rights Act to get 94% voting democrat in the year you discuss. What Civil Rights issue was on the table for the last election? None? Then what reasoning can you use for such a high number voting for Obama other than many voted for him 'because' he was black. So that "lesson" you tried to teach is inaccurate and false. You should own up to that.

    As for the "extremists". Let me ask you: who are you talking about when you say "a significant contingent" within the republican party that won't vote for any black candidate? Perhaps I was incorrectly assuming you mean the Nazi party or the White Supremissist groups. Because they are the only ones I know of who would never vote for any black person. And if you think those groups are THAT significant within the republican party, then your liberalized hatred is showing through. And by "liberalized hatred" I mean you're allowed hatred of some groups because you don't agree with them, but you also hate others who hate groups you approve of. By that I mean; YOU are allowed to hate individual groups (republican party), but others are considered intolerant if they do the same thing to groups you like (gays).

    BTW I am an independent conservative who votes mainly to the right of the spectrum, but have voted left occasionally. I am religious but not to a specific group. You could call me a 'born again Christian' (although I am still a work in progress and have many faults). I don't live in denial, so if I am wrong I admit it and adapt.

    As for your bet: I like the 'original' when I drink Coke. Although I have drank maybe 3 sodas in the past year. I'm not much of a soda drinker. However, in your bet you again claim anyone who votes for someone other than your favorite is "irrational". How about we just bet that if Cain runs and get more votes from blacks then I win the bet and if President Obama gets more votes from blacks then you win. Let's leave the petty divisive statements out of it.

  10. Just an observation after reading with interest the dialogue between Eddie and William. It was the one who self-identified as a Christian who introduced "hate" into the discussion, accusing two liberals (ok, Eddie, one Progressive) of hating everyone, "not a Democrat." I saw nothing in any post to justify that accusation.
    Congratulations, William, on avoiding soft drinks. I saw many things in your post I disagree with, but it would be presumptuous of me to jump in, when Eddie is more than able to take care of business.
    En garde!

  11. Conchobhar, Actually, if you read my entire description of myself you'll note that I prominently say that I am a "work in progress and have many faults", is it normal for you to comment on statements YOU take out of context? If you think anyone is perfect please point them out so I can meet Him. However, there is nothing wrong with calling it as you see it. Even God hates 6 things, 7 that are detestable. One of them is "a man who stirs up dissension among brothers." (Proverbs 6:16=19).

    However, Eddie claims to be a "liberal blogger" not a progressive. Look under his picture where he describes "who am I". So you can believe what you want, I see what I read and take him at his word.

    As for Eddie "hating" things. Well, in his opening statement he called a black man a "boy", he called right-wingers "bed-wetters". I'm not sure if that means he likes them or hates them, you can make up your own mind. I understand that gets him 20/30 thumbs-up at MMFA, but if I were allowed to post there and then called a black man a boy, I would be banned for stirring up dissension among those brothers.

  12. William;
    If you read all of Eddie's responses to you, you'll see him call himself a progressive. I was playing with that. Yes, I know he identifies as a liberal up at the top.
    As for his use of "boy," the context, in addition to my experience of Eddie, tells me there's no racism there, since he was including Herman among those "good ole boys," who self-identify that way. I would guess, however, that he'd have changed it if he'd carefully re-read before posting, though.
    "Bed-wetters?" Really? Hate? Please.
    As for taking you out of context, I don't think I did. You identified yourself as a Christian (work in progress) well, that's a given. We're all works in progress until we shuffle off this mortal coil.
    Now, answer me this: You say that there is nothing wrong with calling it as you see it, and in the next sentence (ok, second one) you say that god hates those who sow dissension. Well, each of us has called something as we see it and, in the process, sowed dissension with the other. Which of us does god hate more?

  13. I saw a hilarious comic in the paper yesterday. It was a 'one-frame' comic with a drawing of a likeness of Bill Clinton, the caption went something like this (going from memory ;) --- "Herm, Bill calling, and if you want the media to stop attacking you on your harassment problem just switch parties".

    "Well, each of us has called something as we see it and, in the process, sowed dissension with the other. Which of us does god hate more?"

    More? There needs to be a "more" in that question? Why don't you try asking that one without adding that word and see how it works? I don't tell God what His rules are, I try to follow them. Obviously, I'm not fully successful. When you become perfect let me know so I can follow YOUR example.

  14. "Hilarious," eh? To a conservative, maybe. To paraphrase George Carlin, however, a joke must, to be funny, exaggerate something about AN OBSERVABLE FACT OR TRUTH. Now, you may be too young to remember it, but the media didn't give Clinton a pass at all. Who do you think his infamous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman.." was said to? The media! They were, as they always are , all over the story of sexual peccadilloes. It doesn't matter which side of the aisle it comes from. Scandal sells papers.

    Are you willfully misunderstanding my point, or did I not make it clear? You don't see the contradiction between, "Nothing wrong with calling them as you see them," and it's "detestable" to "sow dissension?"

  15. So, you must have been one of the few liberals who DID call for Clinton to drop out of the presidential race because of his sexual harassment of many ... many women? And the hundreds of thousands of other liberals just figured; 'no big deal ... he's a democrat'? But for a republican to have that kind of charge addressed against him warrants removal from presidential consideration?

    BTW, I answered what you asked me to answer. Do you have anything else to say about that or you just gonna ignore your question and my answer and move onto word games?

  16. I've never called for ANYONE to "drop out." Even CAIN. Never have, never WILL. ANYONE can run, and everyone can cast their own votes accordingly. That's their RIGHT. That's what AMERICA is all about. Duh!

    (Show where I or ANYONE ELSE here has said Cain had to step down.)

    Also? Paula Jones is the ONLY woman who EVER brought charges of Sexual Harassment against Clinton. There weren't "hundreds." There was ONE. Flowers and Lewinsky (and possibly others, who knows?) had AFFAIRS. And as despicable as that may be, and as much as Hillary (who I'm sure you care about immensely) chose to put UP with and forgive, CONSENTUAL AFFARIS are NOT sexual harassment.

    And back to my point - that you never even TRIED to address - Paula Jones remains to this day the ONLY woman the Right has ever assumed was telling the truth about sexual harassment. Why is that? Why was SHE telling the truth and the Cain accusers (and pretty much everyone else) are all lying? (You DID NOT, in fact, address that. Anywhere.)

    Also, as for the whole "work in progress and have many faults" thing? While I'm inclined to agree with at least SOME of that statement, your slavish (and frankly ARROGANT) clinging to Conservative Ideology and RW talking Points tells a far different story. Whether you know it or not? You are, in fact, a FINISHED PRODUCT: Of the RW Propaganda Machine. And you simply cannot turn that accustaion around on ME. I've criticize dtfar oo many Democrats, far too many Liberals and Liberal Groups, and hold (and have argued for) too many Moderate and even Conservative positions for that to be anything but LAUGHABLE. (Plus... WHAT 'left wing propaganda machine?!' And... Where do I sign up for it?!)

    (And, uh, don't look know but...YOU'RE the only one here playing "word games" and you've done it in almost EVERY SINGLE POST. Usually in a sentence that starts "I thought you liberals..." PROJECTION - First sign of the Mental Illness known as Conservatism.)

    One other thing... And I noticed this right from the start, but haven't made the time to bring it up. You are WAAAAY too hung up on LABELS. From you're POV? The subtle differences between "Liberal" and "Progressive" are basically negligible. Those are for US to quibble over. You're so far away that these may as well be one in the same.

    As for me? I don't really care WHAT you want to call me. Liberal, Progressive, Socialist, Stupid... Doesn't make a lick of difference to me. What's more? I couldn't really tell you the 'according to hoyle' difference between Lib's and Prog's myself either. To me? I suppose I see it as Liberals leaning Left, where the Conservatives lean Right. But to me Right-Left isn't even the problem anymore. I prefer PROGRESSIVE because it invokes the vision of leaning FORWARD where the MODERN Conservative Movement so clearly leans BACKWARDS.

    But since you get all your info about Liberals for people who are paid to lie about us? Why don't you just forget all that and stick to the points being argued. And if you want to know where WE - meaning me and my readers - stand on an issue? ASKING will generally get you better information than ASSUMING. (Especially considering the SOURCE of the data that informs your assumptions!)

  17. All right, William, I gave you too much credit for a sense of humor. I wasn't serious about your god hating either one of us. I was serious about the disconnect between appreciating "calling it as I see it," and "sowing dissension." And you haven't answered that. Personally, I don't think dissension is a bad thing. I'm pretty sure I dissent from almost every position you hold, as you do from mine.

    Where did you get the idea that I "...must have been one of the few liberals who DID call for Clinton to drop out of the presidential race because of his sexual harassment of many ... many women?" Please point out what I've written that caused you to make that leap of logic. You seem to be arguing, not with me, but with your own preconceptions of what I must think. Show me wrong. Refer to specific sentences or phrases that I've written, the way I did, above, with you. I will admit that I thought he was toast when the Flowers thing surfaced. I used to crack that the difference between Clinton and Elvis was that there was a chance that Elvis was alive. That ended my career as a political prognosticator.

    As with Eddie, I haven't said that Cain's sexual adventures should disqualify him from consideration for Republican nomination. I'd love to see him get it, because there is no way he'd get close enough to Obama to make the election stealable. The man did himself in with the Libya thing. He's a minor leaguer, totally out of his depth in the bigs.

  18. Eddie, On one hand you tell me American citizens deserve their day in court before being condemned for accused crimes. On the other hand you tell me Cain is guilty of crimes before he's had his day in court. Please tell me which way you want it so I can respond in a favorable manner in which you and your mediamatters pals will approve of. This is so hard to follow, Aliki should NOT have been punished for his crimes (no trial) but Cain is guilty and all you're trying to figure out is what is the punishment (no trial).

    Conchobhar, can you show me where you AREN'T arguing with me using your own "preconceptions of what I must think"? And you want me to respond to statements you didn't write (like you did to me)?? Sorry, I prefer to discus like an adult ... with a differing opinion ... not like someone who is told what to say by mediamatters.

  19. "Sorry, I prefer to discus like an adult ..." Really? When are you going to start? I look forward to it.
    Hint: First step is to actually understand what the other party has written, and respond to that. Eddie has specifically stated that Cain is not being accused of a crime, and I have stated that I'd love for him to get the GOP nomination. Yet you say, in response (!?), "but Cain is guilty and all you're trying to figure out is what is the punishment (no trial)." You're not arguing with us, you're arguing with straw men of your own creation.
    You have also completely misunderstood, or at least misrepresented our objection to the assassination of Anwar al Awlaki. It is the aggrandizement of power in the office of the Presidency, giving him the kind of power over human life that "divine right" kings wielded, and this country was founded to end. You also haven't mentioned, probably haven't read, the article I referred you to, concerning the Defense Authorization Bill, passed yesterday by the Senate, which gives the President the power to declare you a terrorist, and for the Army to pick you up, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, and to hold you, without charge or legal recourse, indefinitely.
    "Conchobhar, can you show me where you AREN'T arguing with me using your own "preconceptions of what I must think"? Every sentence I've directed toward you. Prove me wrong. Show me where I've put words into your mouth and then argued against them, or lumped you in with "conservatives who think..."
    I don't think you'll do it, as you've yet to directly answer any question I've put to you, especially when I've demanded evidence to back up an allegation.
    I rather expect that, as you've intimated here and on another thread, that you're in the process of declaring victory and leaving.
    If so, adieu and bon voyage.

  20. "First step is to actually understand what the other party has written, and respond to that."

    eddie: "How lost are you, man?" , " FUCK. YOU. "

    You mean respond to that? You're a classic, conchobhar. Oh... you mean in just this one subject? Do you even know what the subject is? Or are you eddie's alter-ego?

    "Eddie has specifically stated that Cain in not being accused of a crime"

    And the "Harassment Chocolate Chip" picture means what? It's cute how jokes can be made about Cain, but no jokes about Clinton are respectable.

    "You also haven't mentioned, probably haven't read, the article I referred you to, concerning the Defense Authorization Bill, passed yesterday by the Senate, which gives the President the power to declare you a terrorist, and for the Army to pick you up, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, and to hold you, without charge or legal recourse, indefinitely."

    YOUR DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT secured that bill. NOT BUSH!!!! OBAMA!!! ... the democrat. And you're whining about ME saying it's ok? I have nothing to fear from the government picking up anyone they want ... whenever they want. Do you? They've had the ability since ... well ... a long time. Actually I prefer the government picking up people they think are doing wrong. If you think they don't have a reason to pick someone up and hold them, then you're just being paranoid liberal. Which is what i think you are to begin with. But that's just my OPINION! You got a problem with people expressing their opinion on simple blog sites? Or do you just have a problem with opinions that don't agree with yours? That's what I thought.

  21. One more thing. Are you telling me that 'the government picking people up for any reason' is a bad thing? Is that during the same post you're fully supporting the president that will sign into law that process? Are YOU voting FOR Obama after he signs your feared law? Well, this site: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/omkara/2011/nov/30/obama-calls-unconstitutional-indefinite-detention-/ sure makes it sound like he will sign it into law. I thought Obama was a scholar on constitutional law? Isn't that what all of you liberals claimed during the election process and used that as evidence of his qualifications to BE president? In spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary!

    Now, we have this "constitutional president" getting ready to sign into law a (democrat authored) bill that will completely ignore constitutional law..... and YOU are whining to ME about Cain's ability to run the country based solely on unsubstantiated allegations?

    Your logic: you will vote for a man that signs into law something you absolutely detest (and virtually claim the world is coming to an end because of ) but not vote for anyone who isn't a democrat.

    How does your logic work on the law that the guy YOU voted for is about to sign. Will you throw him out next election? Or will you vote for him again? Let's see how this hypocrisy plays out.

  22. "One more thing. Are you telling me that 'the government picking people up for any reason' is a bad thing?" YES, I AM!
    My understanding is that Obama has said he'd veto the bill if it's passed without the Udall Amendment. I sincerely hope he follows through. (You had me worried there for a minute, until I saw the Moonie Times byline.)

    Obama didn't "secure" the bill, by the way. That little "separation of powers," thing. You might have heard of it. The bill was drafted, in secret, by McCain and Levin. And yes, I'm appalled and furious that Democrats are so Republican Lite that they'd go for it. Oh, and you might somewhere have heard of this, too, though you obviously disagree with it: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That's the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, one that both parties have trampled on in the panic that gripped, and still grips, this country after 9/11. Of course, since you hold to the belief that:
    "I have nothing to fear from the government picking up anyone they want ... whenever they want. Do you? They've had the ability since ... well ... a long time. Actually I prefer the government picking up people they think are doing wrong. If you think they don't have a reason to pick someone up and hold them, then you're just being paranoid liberal."

    We've come full circle, Willie. That last gem I just quoted proves the point I started with at the top of this thread. That liberals on average actually believe and will stand behind the values this country was founded on, and conservatives don't and won't. Not only did you prove my point, you italiced, underlined, emboldened and gilded it. You've also proved one of Eddie's pet theories: "When a liberal argues with you, he'll point out that you're wrong. When a conservative argues with you, he'll point out that you're a liberal."

    My logic tells me that Obama, while he's been a major disappointment in many ways, is head and shoulders above the gaggle of goofs that the teabaggers have saddled the Republicans with. So yes, I'll vote for him again, though not with the excitement I did the first time. It was inevitable that he would, being human and a politician, disappoint. I just didn't think he'd disappoint on some issues, like torture etc., that are important to the "soul" of my country.

    In closing: there's a saying that, if it weren't for bad luck, some people wouldn't have any luck at all. If it weren't for misconstruing and misrepresenting, you wouldn't have an act. (Although, full marks for directly addressing, finally, one point I raised. Your answer was horrifying, but at least you did answer.) "YOU are whining to ME about Cain's ability to run the country based solely on unsubstantiated allegations?" Straw man. No where in this thread have I referred to the allegations against Cain at all, much less "whined" about them. What I DID say was that his Libya faux pas did him in. But don't get your boxers in a bunch over poor Herman. Cain was never actually running for President. If he were, he'd have been in Iowa, where the action is, not Milwaukee, and the Libya question wouldn't have been asked. And why was he in Milwaukee? He's on a book promotion tour.

    So farewell, William, it's been fun. (More so for me than you, judging from the tone of your last couple of posts.) I imagine you'll be happier at Wing Nut Daily.

  23. "My understanding is that Obama has said he'd veto the bill if it's passed without the Udall Amendment."

    And, my understanding is that Obama said he'd fix the economy and take the unemployment down to 8%. He didn't follow through on any of those either. Yet, he HAS killed American citizens (without trials) and you still fully unconditionally support him.
    What do you call people who blindly followed Bush Jr. while he was lying his way through his presidency? I think you've earned a similar title as that.

  24. I don't know where you get the idea that "I fully and unconditionally support" Obama. He, and my Senators and Congressional Representative certainly don't have that misperception. But I guess they're not quite so blinded by their prejudices against liberals as you are, and are capable of understanding what they read from me. You really need to get control of either your adjectives, your hysteria, or both. Not one word you've used to describe me or my attitudes (except liberal) is even close to the mark. Do you really think that I have to unconditionally support the guy to realize that he's exponentially less of a danger to our liberties than anyone you, who have stated in so many words ("I have nothing to fear from the government picking up anyone they want ... whenever they want.") that you consider the Fourth Amendment dispensable, would support? Get a grip.

    If and when Obama signs that bill into law, I'll have that decision to make. You're assuming that he's going to. I'm hoping for a veto. I doubt that he'll actually veto it, so I'll have some soul searching to do. But, in case you haven't noticed it, elections are usually about choosing the least bad option.

    If Obama actually means to veto that legislation, no one can obstruct him. They can override, but not stop it. Quite a different thing with the economy. Your party has made it quite clear that they want the economy to stay in the tank until the election.

  25. William,

    You bounce around more than a superball.

    How do you go from Cain and Sexual Harrassment Allegations to Military Abduction Bills? AGAIN: the Al-Alaqui stuff was in a DIFFERENT POST. I have no objection to referencing other posts, once in a while, but you do it in every other sentence! It's confusing as hell. STAY. ON. TOPIC. Is that really too much to ask?

    (And Note: The "fuck you" was also from another post. You had it coming, and ANYONE who reads what that was ACTUALLY in response too - hard to do since you chose to call me out on it in a different post - will reach the same conclusion.)

    And from what I've read tonight, Obama HAS threatened to Veto it. I hope he does, and I'll be disappointed if he does not. That doesn't change the fact that (1) the policy that led to the killing of Al Alqaui WAS one created by Bush that most of us are pissed that Obama HAS NOT done away with yet, and (2) IT IS OFF FUCKING TOPIC!

    And for the fuckteenth time: My point was not one of a presumtion of Cain's guilt. I asked you why YOU would believe Paula Jones - and ONLY Paula Jones - and NONE of the multiple Cain accusers. You STILL have not explained that. Do I think Clinton may have harrassed Jones? Sure, why not? Do I care? Not really any more than I do with Cain, SINCE I DIDN'T and DON'T PLAN to VOTE for EITHER OF THEM.

    And yet you're STILL trying to suggest that Clinton jokes aren't acceptable here? Did you miss the part where I explained that I never particularly cared for Clinton and in fact voted aginst him TWICE?!

    And you needn't worry your pretty little head about whether it's MMFA or the Big Mean Liberal Noise Machine that's "telling me what to say." (Again, a laughable idea, considering my willingness to criticize Democrats, praise at least a few Republicans and fight for Conservtaive positions in the rare case that I believe they're the rigth ones.) You should be more concerned with (1) ADDRESSING the points being made, (2) taking your Ritalin, so that you can (3) STAY. ON. TOPIC!

    Now... while it's still slightly off-topic, and threatens to get more so, I HAD meant to respond to your "Thank you for giving me complete support for my stance that when 95% of blacks voted for Obama it was partly/only because he was black. It took a Civil Rights Act to get 94% voting democrat in the year you discuss." Um... MY point is that more Blacks will come out and vote when there is an issue at stake that is important to them. How is this different from ANY rational American, rare as that person may be?

    You ask what Civil Rights Issue was on the plate in 2008? Um... the milestone of he election our first Black President, maybe? You find that PROFOUND? Why would you? Why wouldn't you expect such a huge CIVIL RIGHTS MILETSONE not to generate some interest? If there was a Gay candidte I'd bet he'd get 95% of the Gay Vote. (At least.) (OK, assuming he was a Democrat who supported Gay Rigths anyway - I don't think LARRY CRAIG would win much of the Gay vote.) A hispanic would likely get 95% of the Hispanic Vote, probably REGARDLESS of party! Just like Republicans get 90-some% of the Mega-Rich White Vote, the Evangelical Funny-Mentalist Vote and the ingnorant, semi-literate, gun-toting, white-trash vote. This phenomenon isn't exactly PROFOUND (or to your precise point: "UNPRECEDENTED") and what's more, you ignore that fact that 70% of Blacks typically vote Democrat in ANY given year! (That's a pretty big number for a bunch of whitey-haters, no?)

    And again - Obama STILL represented their interests. They weren't voting 95% for a black guy who was out to screw them. Cain doesn't represent thier interests, IS out to screw them, and the Republicans WILL learn the hard way that (as I actually SAID) Blacks will not simply vote for ANY Black, and yet there are some Whites (on the Right) who WON'T, if they nominate him.

  26. "I don't know where you get the idea that "I fully and unconditionally support" Obama."

    From here: "So yes, I'll vote for him again"

    Do you forget what you write that quickly?

  27. William,if your reading skills aren't execrable your ability to process complex thought is. I guess this is too nuanced for you: "in case you haven't noticed it, elections are usually about choosing the least bad option." That's hardly "unconditional support." If the Republican party hadn't deteriorated into a bunch of errand boys for banksters and CEOs, and if their roster of presidential candidates wasn't a stage full of stooges, I'd probably be looking elsewhere. As it is, given the damage Republicans have done to this country, I could never look my sons in the eye again if I didn't do every thing I can to keep them from coming into power again.

  28. The senate vote on that dreaded 'government allowed to pick anyone up' was 60 to 30-something. I think your beloved democratic party has devolved into the same thing you complain about the republican party being. And, yeah, even IF the republican party had a viable candidate you still would ONLY vote for Obama. You can try, all you want, to shift blame for your spat of denial, but it isn't that hard to figure out you are a card-carrying water boy for the democrats. Obama can kill American citizens and you would (DO) still unconditionally support him.

    I thought you'd skip answering this question: "What do you call people who blindly followed Bush Jr. while he was lying his way through his presidency? ". At least think of an answer ... you'll need to be ready with an answer when your sons asks you why you voted for a man who is murdering American citizens. Republican presidents are ruining our economy, but democratic presidents are murdering our citizens. Glad you know the difference of importance between the economy and human lives.

  29. Eddie, maybe Cain should buy votes like Obama did in 08
    ( http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179211,00.html ) That way it won't matter if you believe blacks voted for him ONLY because he was black. Of course if 95% of white voters voted for the white candidate because he was white you would probably call them racist.

    Eddie: "And again - Obama STILL represented their interests. "
    You are absolutely right on that one. When he promised to pay them money if elected, that was their interest ... along with millions of others who otherwise would not have voted for him. Wonder if he'll have to promise another pay-out to get voters to vote for him again this time. It sure worked the last time.

    And, BTW, it was YOU who said Cain is guilty of a crime for what he is accused of. Do you not remember what you write either?
    Eddie: "But you're absolutely right: If it happened? It's sexual ASSULT." (Nov 17)

  30. William, you've once again proved a point of mine, this one being that you can't, or won't, understand what you read. Or, if you do understand, you argue dishonestly, and ineptly. Look at the last paragraph you wrote. Your quote from Eddie says the opposite of what you say it does, and actually destroys your topic sentence. What is there about the phrase "IF IT HAPPENED," don't you understand??

    (Eddie: Sorry to jump in, but I couldn't resist. BTW, William wasn't off topic talking about Alawiki or, if he was, the blame is mine. It's a continuing topic between us. I guess we started it on another thread.)

    Back to William: As for the votes on the Defense Authorization Act, I am horrified that so many Democrats voted for it. My own two Senators, who definitely heard from me concerning the bill, voted against it. But I notice that your party voted in lock step (when do they not?) for it, and you have yourself proudly stated your contempt for the personal protections enshrined in the Constitution. So spare me your outrage that I would consider voting for the lesser of two evils. On second thought, don't. Your outrage is as two-faced as your arguments, and means less to me than a chipmunk turd.

  31. Sorry, I forgot to answer your question, which I assumed to be rhetorical. Since seeing George W. Bush in the Gore debates, when he made two of the three most stupid statements I've heard a politician make in the last twenty years, one in answer to a question on foreign policy, the other on economics, I've called anyone who would vote for him an idiot. Given the destruction he wreaked on us, both geopolitically and economically, I stand by that.

  32. "I've called anyone who would vote for him an idiot."

    Yes, that's what I thought. Keep that answer in mind when your sons ask why you voted (twice) for a man who lied constantly throughout his presidency, including allowing the military the right to kill American citizens without giving them a trial.

  33. I notice you haven't defended W, nor have you asked what the statements were.
    If the five idiots who appointed that cretin president hadn't done so, the issue of presidential assassination parties wouldn't have come up. And given the fact that you celebrated that killing of an American citizen, and excoriated me for being opposed to it, your moral outrage is the height of hypocrisy.
    In addition to which, given the way you've constantly misrepresented things that have been written here, you've got no standing to complain about anyone lying. (To say nothing of the absurdity of a Moonie Times reader pretending to be outraged at lies.)

  34. No, I don't defend Bush Jr. He wasn't the best president and it showed during his term. There are things I support, but there are things I am disgusted with. Obviously, by Eddies demands that I stay on-topic those can't be discussed during this article, so when another more topic-worthy one is started I'll discuss them.

    (off-topic) The five idiots? I thought you would support the US Supreme Court. They are the ones who idiotically supported the liberal ideals of death to innocent unborn humans. Now, you think they are idiots because they legally supported the legal voting process on American politics? Hmmm, go figure. Is that because another idiot was refused the presidency who didn't legally win it?

    And, no, my defense of killing murderous humans is consistent with my religious beliefs that the guilty should be punished accordingly. But, you don't believe in religion (do you?) so that should be expected. BTW, I didn't "celebrate" it, just agreed with it. Do you think Osama bin Laden should have been killed like he was? How is his death different than the other? Aren't mass murderers supposed to be put to death? Oh, wait, you think he wasn't a murderer, huh? Or is it he should have been put on trial and the legal process for his death extended another 20 years (at a cost of millions of dollars) like the other legal executions that you probably oppose too?

    Eddie, do you think discussing the death of a murderer of men/women/children to be a hate crime against women (since he killed and ordered the killing of many women also)? I want to make sure I'm staying "on-topic".

  35. You really do have a problem with logic, history and reality, don't you? The five "idiots" I spoke of on the Court had nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. They made an extra-legal ruling on purely political grounds, one which they KNEW was so atrocious that they specifically said it couldn't be used as a precedent; one that dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens said would destroy the Court's credibility for generations, and one that Sandra Day O'Connor admitted was made to insure a Republican victory. You are welcome to your opinion that Gore is an idiot, but the preponderance of evidence is that he did legally win the election, or would have if the Supremes had not stopped the Florida count.

    "There are things I support, and things I am disgusted with." Your words, concerning W. Well, well. Did you vote for him in 2004, after being "disgusted?" If so, I think you owe me an apology. And if you're capable of such discernment, why do you continually assume that I and other liberals, who have been much more critical of Obama than conservatives were of Bush (until he became an obvious political liability), "support him unconditionally?" Are you completely ignorant of the complaints Rahm Emmanual and Robert Gibbs made about us when they were in the White House?

    You thought my use of the word "celebrate" was inaccurate and extreme? Fine. "Agreed with" it is. Now try the Golden Rule in your arguments with me and other liberals.

    Back to logic 101: Bin Laden's death is different from Alawiki's in that Bin Laden had not only declared war on the U.S., but had actively waged war on us. Alawiki's involvement in acts of terrorism is not so sure. He was, if we can believe news reports and press releases, a preacher of jihad, but we don't know that he had any operational involvement. That's a big difference.

    As for your religious beliefs, I respect and will defend your right to hold them (I've served, BTW, in wartime), as long as you don't try to impose them upon others. But an act faith is decision to believe something that cannot be proved, so your beliefs in that realm are no basis for rational discussion about public policy. My own beliefs, or lack of them, is none of your god damned business, and I'll thank you to keep any assumptions in that regard to yourself.

  36. I referred to the "idiots" who approved abortion as the generic 'Supreme Court'. Then referenced you calling only some of the Supreme Court idiots because they followed the LAW as they determined it (that IS there job). So, in your world, if they vote against something you want they are idiots, but if they vote for something you want they are genious's? Fine.

    Yes, I voted for Bush both times. The second time was during an active war and I thought he was the best to keep our country safe from further attacks. How many more civilians did the US lose after Bush was re-elected? I guess I was correct to vote for him as per a 'US safety issue'. Of course there were other issues that I used to make my decision, but's this is the one we're discussing here.

    Your "logic 101" is a little tweeked. Anwar al-Awlaki was a senior Al queda leader. Am I to believe that all the nazi leaders (below Hitler) should NOT have been targeted? You are right, we are at war with Al queda. That means ALL leadership personal is exposed to military actions against them. NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE BORN. I don't feel the same about the grunts they use as tools, but the leadership is open game.

    As for religion. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with an atheist. I haven't forced any religion onto anyone. I see nothing wrong with explaining the benefits/faults of mine and any other religion AS I SEE THEM. You and anyone else can make up your own mind. That's the extent of your freedom of (from) religion.

  37. Well, the Supreme Court is not generic, it changes over time. The Warren Court, Burger Court, Renquist Court and now the Roberts Court are all very different. "Idiots" was shorthand, and not exactly indicative of my judgement of those member of the Court who trashed the law, due process, and their own oft proclaimed respect for Federalism and states' rights in order to achieve the electoral result they wanted. They're not idiots; they're just contemptible.
    Once again, you've made unsupported assumptions about me. I haven't claimed to be an athiest, and it's none of your business whether I am or not. Trying to have the government take control of a woman's uterus because of your religious beliefs is definitely forcing your religion on others, and is much more than "explaining the benefits of my religion AS I SEE Them."

    So you voted for Bush because even though you are disgusted by much that he did, because you "thought he was the best to keep our country from further attacks." Yet I'm a hypocrite for voting for Obama because I think he'll do less damage to the country than your lot. Right.
    As a former soldier, I find your too convenient "civilian lives lost", ah, well let's not say just what I think of it.

    I've seen allegations that Awlaki was part of al Qaeda in Yemen, but not al Qaeda itself, which is a different thing. The Nazi reference, in a paragraph that leads off with the word "logic," is laughable. There was no question as to who the enemy was in that war. If al Awlaki had taken no operational actions (planning is operational) against us, he was not a warrior, and should not have been specifically targeted.

  38. Let's keep Eddie happy and take this abortion discussion to the abortion article. There, you will find my response to your off-topic statement on abortion and religion.

    You obviously learned your discussion tactics from mediamatters. You take things out of context and miss-quote constantly (even your first post in this article was out of context). Where did I say I was "disgusted by MUCH that he did"? But, of course, in order for you to feel good about your answer you must miss-quote, huh? So, I'll leave that one alone too. BTW, I go to mediamatters often and even joined, but it's been 3 weeks and they still don't let my comments go through. I think they censor anyone who doesn't fully agree with everyone else, there. Quite a site they are: bigoted, racist, anti-constitutional and VERY unfriendly and hateful (I see many of your posts also). Typical liberal collection, if you ask me. BTW, that's how I found Eddies site.

    You've seen allegations about Awlaki? Well, I'm sure the US government just got tired of waiting for YOU to give them the OK to do something.Even the Yemeni government knew he was Al queda and put him on trial for it (and other crimes). Discounting the nazi reference is fully expected when you have NO argument to support your position. We KNOW who the leaders of our enemy (in this war) are. And Democrat President Obama ordered the killing of one of them. He actually got several. For that I am very proud of him. Just as I would have been proud if he had been the one to order the killing of ANY nazi leader during WWII. If you feel like supporting nazi leadership, that is your business. Just because you do, does not make it right. Wait, you think if a nazi was no longer in Germany then they weren't "officially" nazi. I'll bet Rommel would be glad to hear that. Wasn't he in Africa too? That means he wasn't a nazi (according to your logic).

    Now, YOU need to stop taking this article OFF-TOPIC. Eddie keeps blaming me for it and it is YOU who keeps doing it. Do like he says and wait for an article about your subject before you start discussing it. Because changing the subject may work for you at mediamatters, but Eddie doesn't approve of it at his site. He's already told ME that.

  39. Clearly, you don't know what a quote is. Hint: it's in quotation marks. When I quote, I use them and, if possible, cut and paste so I'll get it right, as I did with you, e.g. "There are things I support, but there are things I am disgusted with." (Dec.2, 11:54 PM) If you feel that I mischaracterized you by using the word "much" when I referred back to that statement, consider it withdrawn. I now wait (not holding my breath) for you to withdraw your use of the phrase "unconditionally support," which you've repeated, even after being shown it was wrong.

    As for going off topic, I disagree that I did. You have, a few times, referred to your religious beliefs as informing your opinions. That is fine but, as I stated, your faith, or mine, is irrelevant to rational discussion of political policy, because faith, depending on your point of view, is either irrational or transcends reason. You're right about abortion not belonging in this discussion. I was merely pointing out that your statement, "I haven't forced any religion onto anyone," (Dec. 3, 4:33 PM) is not quite accurate, assuming (always dangerous) that you're active in the anti-choice movement.

    It's kind of hard to answer your generalization that I take things out of context (the misquote canard I've taken care of). Just what do you mean? Examples please. (BTW, please explain how my first post is "out of context." OFF-TOPIC I could accept, but I don't see o-o-c.)

    As far as your hysteria concerning Media Matters goes, take a few deep breaths. The only racism I've seen on that site comes from rightists. "Unconstitutional?" Laughable, coming from someone so cavalier about the 4th Amendment. I would, though, be interested in learning just what you find unconstitutional there, if only for a chuckle. It's funny, too, that you, who think it's fine to attack me as a "paranoid liberal," (not to mention accusing me of being a nazi supporter) are so thin-skinned when you or your side are the targets of some nasty language. (Not that I don't find Kabniel offensive, I do. I skip over his stuff without reading, if I see CAPS.) I doubt, given some of the people who show up, that you're being censored there, and I certainly hope it's not true. I expect that from Fox Nation, World Net Daily and The Blaze, but not MMFA. Three weeks seems long, but it took a while for my posts to be accepted, and some glitch even caused me to be dropped me for a while. And this seems a good spot to answer this question of yours, that's been hanging out there since 12/1: "You got a problem with people expressing their opinion on simple blog sites? Or do you just have a problem with opinions that don't agree with yours?" Not at all. But I will defend my own opinions, and learn from others or fight
    them (or both) to the best of my ability. You got a problem with that?
    "Wait, you think if a nazi was no longer in Germany then they weren't "officially" nazi. I'll bet Rommel would be glad to hear that. Wasn't he in Africa too? That means he wasn't a nazi (according to your logic)."

    Not the most offensive thing you've written, but one of the strangest. Would you mind explaining how you think my logic would get to that?

    You're right about one thing, at least. Our argument has ranged far off topic, if the topic is Herman Cain. But I don't think Eddie will really mind. The more we have at each other here, the more royalties he gets.

  40. "Clearly, you don't know what a quote is."

    Right back at ya, brother. At what point are you going to acknowledge that you don't quote others correctly, instead of making excuses that you feel necessary in order to make yourself look good in front of your "friends". I provided word-for-word what you wrote and all your statements are right here for everyone to see. Yet, still, you try to excuse your misquotes as if you know what you are doing. All your words are right here in front of us.

    My favorite, however, is you defending Eddie for calling Cain a "boy" by saying it was out of context. When he is clearly calling him the derogatory version of the word "boy" as pertaining to a racially descriptive word of a black man.

  41. Show me a time that I've misquoted you. You can't. And I'm still waiting for you to retract your wantonly over the top mischaracterization, "fully and unconditionally support." (Still not holding my breath.)

    It's very funny that all my "misquotes," as you call them, are "right there in front of us," but you can't seem to actually show even one.

    You've written some weak responses, but this one is just pitiful. Too much fantasy football over the weekend?

  42. When did I say: "disgusted by MUCH that he did"?

    Your "unconditional support" comes from the FACT you said you'd vote for Obama AGAIN even after he orders the killing of an American citizens WITHOUT even giving them a trial.

  43. When did I QUOTE you to that effect? When you objected to my characterization of what you said, which was not a quote, a fact you seem incapable of digesting, I withdrew it, showing an honesty and courtesy which is obviously beyond to you.

    And, as long as we're quibbling over words,
    "My favorite, however, is you defending Eddie for calling Cain a "boy" by saying it was out of context." Show me where I said, "out of context." If you can't cut and paste, and you can't, you are, by your own definition, misquoting me.

    Now, you tell me what, in your opinion, is the logical difference between these two statements:
    "Yes, I voted for Bush both times. The second time was during an active war and I thought he was the best to keep our country safe from further attacks."

    "My logic tells me that Obama, while he's been a major disappointment in many ways, is head and shoulders above the gaggle of goofs that the teabaggers have saddled the Republicans with."

    And I haven't even gone after you over the fact that you voted for the guy who LIED US INTO A MAJOR WAR. In doing that (which he intended to do even before he secured the Republican nomination) he killed a hell of a lot more American citizens than Obama has. (Soldiers are citizens, too, you know.)

  44. "As for his use of "boy," the context, in addition to my experience of Eddie, tells me there's no racism there,"

    Cut and pasted. You say the context of his use of the word makes it perfectly fine to call Cain a "boy".

  45. Where did I say, "out of context?" I didn't. You misquoted me, by your (erroneous) definition of the word, quote.

    You also chose to ignore the challenge to show the logical difference between our two decisions. However, we'll let that pass. I'm used to your not rising to the challenge. I believe there are between half dozen and a dozen questions/challenges above that you've ignored.

    For the last time:
    You: "You take things out of context and miss-quote CONSTANTLY..." (emphasis added)

    Me: "It's kind of hard to answer your generalization that I take things out of context (the misquote canard I've taken care of). Just what do you mean? EXAMPLES PLEASE." (Note the plural, referring to your, "constantly.")

    You: "When did I say: "disgusted by MUCH that he did"?

    So there we have it. All of your angst, your unsupported attacks, unsupportable assumptions, and wildly inaccurate diatribes all distill down to this: a hissy fit over one four-letter word.

    That's it, William. I'm calling the Mercy Rule. You're a Little League bench warmer; and you're boring me.

  46. "I believe there are between half dozen and a dozen questions/challenges above that you've ignored."

    Oh yeah? Which ones?