I'm not sure I agree, Michael.

History has shown that democrats have problems keeping it in their pants and that they are lying weasels. Clinton, Kennedy, the other Kennedy, Hart, Edwards... Kerry, of course, and his makee-uppy Purple Hearts should make this list if only for the screwing he gave to veterans like my grandfather who actually EARNED three Purple Hearts.

It has never really harmed the democrat party to have these festering crapweasels in their ranks. If anything, the fact that THIS LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)#Voter_base shows that 72 Million people in this country are democrats while only 55 million are Republicans indicates that such repetitive scandals in the democrat party have AIDED their support base.

People who support democrats tend to fall into one of four categories in my experience:

1) Morally bankrupt. These people don't care that their candidate is a homewrecker, because they themselves aren't far from that. Obama has been lying his black ass off for months, and his thousands of chanting supporters don't bat an eyelash. They IDENTIFY with him. Sad, but true.

2) Emotionally overhung. These people don't care that their candidate slept around on his spouse, because they are too wrapped up in a single issue (No War in Iraq!) and as long as their candidate continually hammers that issue, they'll keep him in office as long as his rotting corpse can stick to the chair (Ted Kennedy, anyone?)

3) Downright frighteningly stupid. These are the ones conveniently forgetting the 156 people blown apart when Clinton bombed an aspirin factory and the soldiers killed at Mogadishu when they fix a bumper sticker that reads "No one died when Clinton lied!" on their 1986 Volvo station wagon. These are the ones still demanding that the surge didn't work and claiming that President Bush was "selected, not elected."

4) Selfish. These people don't care about the candidate's personal life and refuse to admit that it might have a bearing on how well he keeps his oaths of office. All they care about is whether or not the candidate is willing to cut their taxes/raise their benefits in some manner.

None of these four categories of people are going to care all that much that John Edwards exhibits the same character traits that demand neutering in most house pets. (I.e.: He screws around and craps everywhere.) All they care about is that capital "D" after his name.

The only thing he needs to do to get past this scandal is call a press conference and announce his new plan to double taxes on the wealthiest three percent and give rebates to the lowest ten percent while calling for an immediate pullout of Iraq. He'll be a hero by the time the ticker crawls across the screen.

The only thing the average voter cares about is how much he can get out of the government, and he will vote for the candidate that offers him the highest dollar value, whether it be money in the form of welfare, money in the form of tax cuts, or money in the form of socialist programs.

Angry D.
http://Angryd.livejournal.com

Angry D. Here's the difference. Obama just came off a whirl-wind tour with the major media doing everything they could to bolster their hero. Given the current political climate, most would expect him to way up in the polls. He has actually lost ground. For the first time since he got the nomination, McCain polled slightly ahead. (Rasmussen) Every candidate anticipates a bump following the convention. Obama needs a big convention and anything that distracts people will hinder him.

He already has to contend with the Clinton machine, and they are going to do everything they can to steal the spotlight. Between the Clintons and the Edward scandal, he runs the risk of being upstaged and outshined. No way he wins in November!

This is not the kind of attention the Democrats need right now. They are getting drilled on oil and any controversy that potentially takes attention away from Barack Obama hurts him.

Elephant;

While I agree, of course, that the Clintons are so narcissistic that they will happily torpedo the democrat candidate simply because they aren't on the ticket, I don't think this is going to have as broad an impact as some people claim.

Edwards is an also-ran, ultimately. I don't think there was much chance that he would be selected as a potential VP. Obama has happily disassociated himself from about forty people so far. What's one more?

If he can attend the (not very) Reverend Wright's church for nigh onto twenty years and then simply drop him like a prom dress the moment the Rev's "God Damn America!" speech hits the press-- with NO political consequences...

... what makes anyone think that John Edward's happy pants would even make Obama blink? He will simply follow form, disassociate himself from Edwards, and pretend nothing ever happened.

Obama's followers will fall into one of the four categories above, pretend nothing happened, and go on their merry ways.

Angry D.
http://angryd.livejournal.com

Ok, folks. Here's the reality. While I really, really liked Edwards, and I'm am sad and disappointed in him, he is now a non-entity. He was not on Obama's short list for VP. He has nothing to do with Obama.

Angry D, we are NOT:

1) morally bankrupt. We care, especially about Elizabeth now. We have compassion.
2) emotionally overhung, whatever that means. We care a lot that he did that, but at one point he did the right thing and dropped out of the race, so it wasn't even up to us. We care about more than getting out of Iraq, but you're right, we want out.
3) Downright frighteningly stupid. I think I'm a lot smarter than you. In fact, one study I know about shows that liberals are smarter, but more depressed than Republicans. I will try to find the study I reference if you like. Let's not even get into comparing Bush to Clinton.
4) Selfish. Hmmm, I think this one is a classic case of projection. I can think on no one more selfish than those tax-cutting republicans who expect services to be high quality. Or for cutting taxes for the top 3 percent in order to help the wealthy while the middle class gets smaller and smaller, all the while creating more poverty, more foreclosures and less healthcare for our citizens. The Bush Admin. has done a hack job on our economy and it's finally starting to show.

I prefer a small d after names.

He has no pull anymore. He is no longer a candidate. How on earth do you think he will call a press conference and announce his new plan to double taxes on the wealthiest three percent (and the tax cuts should not be made permanent and should infact, be reversed). I have heard nothing about rebates being given to anyone. Edwards cannot call for an immediate pullout of Iraq because again, he's not running for president anymore.

That's not true that the average voter only cares about how much he can get out of the government.
We care about people and want to help those who are unable to help themselves.

You are so off the mark. You should really think before you write.

Annienonymous, The sad thing here is his treatment of Elizabeth Edwards. You obviously care more about her than her husband did. She's battling cancer, which he used as a political issue, and then he's out screwing around. Real family man.

He was considered as a potential vp a few months back. Here's the thing, he may be a non-entity as a politician, but he is very much a distraction and that is not good.

Obama needs a good convention and it looks like the Clintons are doing everything they can to steal the spotlight. (they sewed up two nights and Hillary's delegates are planning some fun)

Actually, GOLWATERGOP, it's not true that Hillary's delegates are planning anything. I'm one of them. I really like her and if you met her I bet you would too. But I have heard nothing about delegates causing a ruckus. Our delegates at other conventions (state and past national) have been well behaved. We really do have morals!

Now, if we could just have more republicans like you in office, I think we could start working together again. :)

Also, Angry D. there are a number of republicans who have cheated on their wives, including your candidate McCain. Some of them, like Larry Craig, have cheated on their wives with men. Judge, lest you not be judged.

Annienonymous, Here is a link to the story regarding the Clinton delegates. This story just hit today. This is not a sign of unity and is designed to disrupt Obamamania. Hillary is looking towards 2012. And yes, plenty of Repubs. have demonstrated horrible behavior. However, nothing will ever top the intern in the Oval Office fiasco. As far as comic relief, Bill Clinton was the best.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/clinton_convention_rally/2008/08/12/121288.html?s=al&promo_code=67C1-1

Very interesting. I understand the sentiment, the Democratic Party has handled things horribly this time around. When states moved their primaries up, it just wreaked havoc and so the party's brilliant answer was to disenfranchise votes/delegates in Florida and Michigan. This was just plain old wrong.

Having said that, Newsmax is a right-wing publication and I don't trust it all that much, so I'll talk to some other delegates I know and find out if they've heard anything. I'll get back to you GOLDWATERGOP.

ANNIENONYMOUS, if the Dems in Congress had compassion, they would stop keeping certain groups of people feeding at the public trough just to buy votes. Keeping people on the public dole hurts us all.

Overhung means libs are caught up in emotional overload and can't think rationally. Duh.

Naturally you think you're smarter. For every study you can produce that says libs are smarter than cons, I'm sure there are at least ten that will contradict those results. Dumbed down version: So what?

On the selfishness point, see my initial comment. It's a mighty selfish thing to keep people from realizing their own potential for the sake of political power and votes.

GOLDWATERGOP, I talked to a couple of other Hillary delegates last night and none of us has heard anything about this. That probably doesn't mean much. Maybe we're just out of the loop? We'll just have to wait and see.

Sugar Cookies, you don't know what you're talking about. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and go to reputable sources for news and insight. People like you are the reason we can't work together. You probably consider yourself a good Christian too, but yet you're willing to believe that 1/2 the population is dumber, selfish and lazy, which is not a very Christian perspective. Your own e-mail shows how rationally you think.

ANNIENONYMOUS, I don't know what I'm talking about, but YOU do, is that right?

A bit of advice for you: Don't assume.

You're assuming that I gather information from those sources you mentioned, but, you're so caught up in partisan nonsense that you didn't consider that I might be speaking from my own experiences or espousing personal observations.

You're assuming that I am a religious person. I am not. Religious zealots are ruining the Republican party. Conservative does not automatically equal religious.

I never said that I think half of the population is dumb, selfish and lazy. I think it's roughly 47 or 48%, not 50.

Annie;

I'm not really interested in a flame war with you here. However, if you think you're smarter than I am, and you're also naive enough to broadcast that out where I can see it, then you're in for a frightfully bad time whenever I catch you posting something asinine.

You're obviously very young and very out of your depth. Since this is probably your first time and I promised Mr. Kerr (the editor here, and someone I respect very much) that I would refrain from profanity, I'll be gentle with you.

Judging from the puerile nonsense in your posts so far, I get the feeling that pointing out your blundering is going to be a rather frequent occurrence.

Because I haven't got all night, I'm only going to monkey-stomp the post you made to me. I'll leave the recipients of other posts to correct your blunderings as they see fit. Shall we begin?

Stupid-ass thing you said #1: "1) morally bankrupt. We care, especially about Elizabeth now. We have compassion."

Yeah. You have all kinds of compassion as long as it involves other people's money. That's what socialism IS. And by the way, I'm sure you still support Slick Willie, too. And Teddy. And don't forget JFK. Why is it that so many of you leftists seem unable to keep it in your pants? And why does it never destroy your political career like it does when the rare Republican gets caught with his fly unzipped. BECAUSE YOU ARE MORALLY BANKRUPT! I pretty much already said that. You really don't care. It doesn't change your life a bit.

You ONLY have compassion when it's a liberal found outside the marriage bed. If that was Karl Rove in that story you'd be sitting on your roof with a megaphone, and don't even bother trying to deny it, because there's only so much lying I can take from one leftist.

You all thought it was pretty funny when Dick Cheney almost killed a close friend while hunting. Where was your compassion then? Where was your compassion for Juannita Broaderick after Clinton raped her? Oh, you haven't heard about her? Google her name sometime. Why ANY woman would work for a Clinton campaign is as mystifying to me as why any woman would defend islam as a faith.

Stupid ass thing you said #2: "2) emotionally overhung, whatever that means. We care a lot that he did that, but at one point he did the right thing and dropped out of the race, so it wasn't even up to us. We care about more than getting out of Iraq, but you're right, we want out."

Yeah, because you're completely ignorant of the reasons WHY we went into Iraq, WHAT we've accomplished by being there, and HOW it's changing the face of the Middle East.

And no, you don't care about anything other than fleecing the "wealthy" (or people you THINK are wealthy), and getting out of Iraq. (If you really wanted us out of Iraq then you might have considered supporting the troops in more than name. Current military analysis is that the actions of the left have so emboldened the terrorists in Iraq that it extended the war more than sixteen months. The troops would be HOME BY NOW if Reid, and Pelosi, and Shrillary, and Kennedy, and Edwards, and Kerry had kept their traps shut. You think about that before you buy your next bumper sticker, okay?)

Bombing Yugoslavia in 1999 was pretty much okey-dokey, though, wasn't it? Oh, and next time you see Mr. Clinton, ask him what he was doing while our unsupported soldiers were getting picked off one by one in Mogadishu, would you?

Emotionally overhung means that you ONLY cry and wail about injustice when it's been perpetrated by a Republican or Christian. Someone insults a koran and you're all over it, but you have no problem using my taxes to subsidize "Piss Christ" now do you?

A mob of thirty black youths brutally beat two white servicemen last week because they came to the defense of a teenage girl against the thugs. Were you going to cry about that? Did you even HEAR about it? Do you even CARE?

No to all three questions.

Another way of saying the same thing is HYPOCRITE. Seems to fit you rather well, from what I've seen.

REALLY stupid-ass thing you said #3: "3) Downright frighteningly stupid. I think I'm a lot smarter than you. In fact, one study I know about shows that liberals are smarter, but more depressed than Republicans. I will try to find the study I reference if you like. Let's not even get into comparing Bush to Clinton."

Bush graduated from Yale. Which community college did you drop out of again, dear? I'm sick and tired of you class acts accusing the President of being stupid. When was your last military intelligence briefing? When was the last time you sat in a room full of analysts who handed you satellite photos of ANYTHING and asked you to make a strategic decision based on their recommendations?

Yeah, you're in the perfect position to accuse the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES of stupidity. a) You're IGNORANT, and b) You don't admit it. That ranks as stupid in my book.

Bush is INARTICULATE. That does not mean stupid. It means he sometimes stumbles over words. Maybe if you knew something about how the human mind processes speech as well as higher-order cognition this might be a conversation topic worth pursuing, but I don't think you want to go there with me. (News flash for you: Obama is just as inarticulate, which is why he says great stuff about being president for "eight or ten years" and "57 states.")

There are a lot of things of which I happen to be ignorant. Particle physics comes to mind. How they get the cheese into those hot dogs. You'll note that I make a special point to NOT TALK ABOUT THOSE SUBJECTS AS IF I AM SOME KIND OF EXPERT.

However, YOU and YOUR FRIENDS think nothing of sounding off about what the President should do about foreign policy and why he was wrong to go into Iraq JUST as if you have ever SEEN a diplomacy plan or been to an intelligence briefing.

Not to mention that you challenged me on easily-researched grounds that happen to be my bailiwick without any prior knowledge of who I am or what my sources are. That's not only stupid, it's well into "way stupid" territory. Go read my blog and the average eight sources for every post before you do something this foolish again. Everything I've posted here in this rebuttal is easily verified from the sources I've already linked to, so before you step in your own chomper again you might want to get busy.

Stupid-ass thing you said #4: "4) Selfish. Hmmm, I think this one is a classic case of projection. I can think on no one more selfish than those tax-cutting republicans who expect services to be high quality. Or for cutting taxes for the top 3 percent in order to help the wealthy while the middle class gets smaller and smaller, all the while creating more poverty, more foreclosures and less healthcare for our citizens. The Bush Admin. has done a hack job on our economy and it's finally starting to show."

Ooooh! She used a psychological term! Can I use one, too? You're preoperational and suffering from classical narcissistic hysteria and lower order psychosis. (Defined: You think your morality is the only one that matters, and you're willing to use force to impose it on other people. In other words, you want the government, using threat of force, to take my money away in taxes so you can spend it on things YOU think should be done for me.)

Sweety, I'm trying not to be too condescending, but why do you want to take money away from the "wealthy"? Are you pretending that they didn't earn it? Okay. Start with John Kerry, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore. When you're done taxing THEM down to an acceptable level I'll let you start on me. (By the way, look it up: every one of them makes more money than George W. Bush, a FAILED oilman.)

Oh yeah, perhaps you could explain why the economy was BOOMING in 2005 and only started to slow in late 2006 after a democrat majority took the House. Explain why the price of gas went up a grand total of sixty-one cents from 2000 to 2006, and TWO DOLLARS AND TWENTY FIVE CENTS IN SIXTEEN MONTHS after you meatheads took a majority.

Explain to me why the wealthiest 3% pays more than 95% of all taxes in this country while the illegal immigrants to this country get taxpayer funded education and assistance without even being citizens. Explain to me why oil companies make 2.1 cents per gallon on their own damn product, but democrat taxation results in federal and state governments making 11.7 cents on that same gallon of gas. You democrats are the ones that have done the hack job on our economy. It was FINE when there was a Republican majority.

The one place I would strongly, STRONGLY recommend that you not confront me is on the American economy. a) You're a liberal, which means that by definition you don't know a thing about the law of supply and demand, and b) I've been studying this most of my life and I will dice you like a carrot.

You think the democrats do such a great job with economics? Take your happy ass to California sometime. That economy, especially in LA and San Francisco, is not only faltering, it's COLLAPSING. Your reckless taxation and irresponsible lawmaking (banning plastic grocery bags, imposing $1,000 fines for mixing coffee grounds with newspapers) have all but run most businesses out of the state.

If you can't even run a STATE economy without screwing it up, how DARE you try to claim that the rest of the country needs your ineptness in power over us?

Stupid-ass thing you said #5: "He [Edwards] has no pull anymore. He is no longer a candidate. How on earth do you think he will call a press conference and announce his new plan to double taxes on the wealthiest three percent (and the tax cuts should not be made permanent and should infact, be reversed)."

I'm sorry. Perhaps you're right about this one. I completely forgot that SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS has no political power beyond his failed candidacy for president. SENATOR John Edwards obviously lost all of his political connections the moment he stepped out of the race. SENATOR EDWARDS probably can't even talk his janitor into emptying his recycling bin any more.

By the way, by stating that tax cuts should be reversed you pretty much proved my point that you don't know anything about the economy. Yay me!

Stupid-ass thing you said #6: "That's not true that the average voter only cares about how much he can get out of the government. We care about people and want to help those who are unable to help themselves."

Really? Then go help them on your own damn dime, Missy. I'm sick and tired of YOU trying to tell ME that I need to give more, and if I don't then you're going to take it out of my salary by force.

What you are doing is voting for things that make YOU feel better. It's that simple, lady. What would make ME feel better would be to earn the first dollar for myself sometime before AUGUST every year. Or were you even aware that the Cost of Government Day in Washington state is 203 days into the year? That's what your misplaced "compassion" does to the economy. I don't go to work every day because I want to fund your idiot ideas. I go to work so I can take care of my family.

How many hours did you volunteer this week (for something besides getting your hero elected)? I put in thirty hours in a community that's not even mine, volunteering as an unpaid youth football coach ON TOP OF WORKING A FULL TIME JOB AND TAKING A DOUBLE COURSE LOAD FOR MY MASTERS DEGREE. While you were coming up with reasons why I don't deserve my own salary, I was spending $4 per gallon in gas, locked in Seattle gridlock for three hours a day (127-mile round trip EACH DAY) just to get to the practice field. (And by the way, sweetheart, in the real world, beyond the blogs, I'm highly respected as a coach. I've had people fly from other countries to hear me lecture on coaching, and I could be making a metric butt-tonne of money at it. I CHOOSE not to, because I want to help young men learn from football.)

You have precisely ZERO right to sit there on your nineteen-year-old butt and tell me that you want to help other people with the money I sweated to earn. You have precisely ZERO right to use your compassion to excuse theft-- the taking of my property by threat of force-- because YOU think you can use it better than I can.

Stupid-ass thing you said #7 "You are so off the mark. You should really think before you write."

I did think before I wrote. I always do. That's why I post so many links in my blog and am so easily able to obliterate what we will laughingly refer to as your "arguments" without even raising a sweat.

I think. I line my ducks up neatly, and then I post them. I demand that my readers do research on their own to either support or repudiate my findings, and I either link to my source material or tell my readers where they can find it on their own, OR, I point out that what I've said is easily verifiable with a couple of Google searches.

Which is why I'm smarter than you. Sheesh, you probably still think Global Warming is real. You might want to look into Al Gore's numbers, since the Nobel Committee just received a report that he exaggerated six variables that caused his computer model to be skewed. Then you can explain why he has a carbon footprint that is the only thing on the planet larger than Obama's ego, but he wants to tell ME that I need to ride a bike to work.

The sole thing that irritates me more than liberal stupidity is liberal hypocrisy. If I were ever as angry as people thought I was, I'd be pretty pissed at you right now. Fortunately, "Angry D" is nothing more than a persona or I might have gotten mean with my response.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have another fifteen hour day tomorrow, so I would like to get some sleep. Pleasant dreams.

Angry D.
http://AngryD.livejournal.com

PS: You might think that I hate you because you're a liberal and you challenged me. I do not. I WANT to be challenged. I WANT it to be pointed out when I am incorrect. Unfortunately, you didn't come near the mark even once in your post. It's fine to have a heart, to feel compassion and to work to make things better for other people. I applaud that. What I do not applaud is that you want to take my money to do it, and when you've worked for something important to you and someone tries to take it away from you, you'll someday feel the exact same way.

But I am NOT going to lose my house because you democrats screwed up the mortgage problem. I am NOT going to find myself unable to feed my family because you borked up gas prices. I will NOT tolerate you taking bread from my table to give to someone else. I earned it, and someday when you've earned something, you'll remember this discussion that think, "Dang! He was right all along!"

In preparation for that day, your apology is accepted in advance. -AD-

Sugar Cookies;

Be gentle. Annie is obviously very young and very inexperienced. I'm sure if she uses her gray matter she'll come to understand that the MSM doesn't really hold the answer to everything.

What she needs the most is an education. Take the time to point out where she's erred in a gentle and non-threatening way.

Okay. I can't keep a straight face any longer. I'm too sarcastic by nature. The bottom line is that Annie has no idea how the real world operates. I'd peg her at no older than twenty-two. She's cognizant, but not particularly erudite, and for some reason she's locked into this concept of political fellatio instead of looking for the unintended consequences behind her actions and the actions of others in the democrat party.

Sometimes a student needs the whip cracked on them, and sometimes they need gentle prodding. Annie probably has the brainpower to get by with minimal whipping. The real question is whether she'll use that brain for thinking, or whether she'll, as you pointed out, get so locked into partisanship that she'll miss the forest while stumbling into the trees.

I get the feeling that a whole new world is about to open up for our little Annie!

Angry D.
http://angryd.livejournal.com

AngryD,

Boy, you really are angry and you're a bully. My age is of no consequence here. Didn't your mom or your Christian upbringing teach you to treat others how you would like to be treated? All I've done is disagree with you and that makes you feel the need to belittle me. There is no reasoning with you people. You think all we want to do is take your precious money, well, I have news for you, we like our money too, but we're not nearly as greedy or selfish.

And one more thing, Angry D...

Nice Holier-than-tough attitude about sex scandals. Do you think liberals aren't privy to what goes on with republicans?

Let me remind you of, Larry Craig, Mark Fowley, David Vitter, governor of LA (and the guy he replaced whose name I can't remember right now), George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Helen Chenowith and Ted Haggard plus lots more. How many of these folks are members of the "Family Values" crowd? How many of these people not only cheated on their spouse, but cheated with men or young interns?

Here's a link to a Web site with just the Republican sex scandals: http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Scandals#2008

Get over yourself.

Angry D, there is no need for me to comment to Annie because you said everything I might have thought of and probably did a better job than I would have.

You mean 'ol bully, you. {wink}

While I agree with Angry D on the fundamental issues discussed here, I get the impression that Angry D and Sugar Cookies may be the same person. Until I'm convinced otherwise, I'm in Annieonymous' corner inspite of her misguided politics.

Okay, I was wrong.

Annie, are you kidding with that link? that's a link to the Daily Kos or something like that, right? (I didn't click your link, but I've been to that site before.) Kos is a liberal cess pool. Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying Repubs don't have scandals, they do. There is corruption on both sides. Just don't come on here thinking you can provide "evidence" using known liberal cess pools and rags and expect people NOT to question your credibility and that of your "evidence".

I agree with the assessment that you are young. It's painfully obvious. Or, it's possible you are not young and are just stuck in Liberaltopia.

BTW - I think this needs repeating: Don't assume.

Dave, I don't know where you're getting that Angry D and I are the same person. Are you saying that you think our writing styles are similar? I assure you, I am NOT Angry D.

Dave: I am not Sugar Cookies. Thanks though. I'll take that as a compliment.

Sugar Cookies: Thanks for the kind words. Firing for effect has never been easier.

Annie: try reading my post. Have someone help you with the larger words. When someone takes the time to completely shred everything you posted and you reply by taking one aspect (of seven) out of context, inaccurately representing it, and then distorting it further with a biased supporting document...

... well, you're being a liberal. I suppose that you can't help it, but it doesn't make anyone want to continue a conversation with you. If you had responded point by point with reputible documentation you'd have earned my respect. Instead, you whined.

I'm a football coach, dear. Whining doesn't fill my heart with glee. It makes me want to tell you to grow up or get your ass off my practice field. The ten year olds I've been working with for three weeks handle criticism better than you do. They probably block better and tackle harder, too.

I don't know where you got the idea that I have to be selfless and generous. If you want to be, that's fine. Give away all of your possessions and wear the same smock for twenty years. Mother Theresa did, and I would have knelt as she walked by me because she earned it (not because I particularly venerate her faith). You have earned NOTHING, least of all the right to demand that I open my wallet for what you THINK are valid reasons.

By the way, I think it might undermine you a bit if you carefully read my previous post and discover that I've already put more time in this week giving to a local community than you have this year. I'm pretty sure that I've spent more time stuck in TRAFFIC on my way to making 39 young men's lives a little fuller than you have spent donating to your community in the last five years.

My time is not cheap, Annie. I give it away because I choose to do so. Your problem is that you want to ORDER me to give it away. Where did you magically acquire that right?

It also might interest you to know that you stepped on your weenie again. I am not a Christian and did not have a Christian upbringing. Once again you generalize on the basis of no information and make yourself look like an idiot.

And my mother taught me that respect is EARNED, never demanded. If you want me to treat you with respect then EARN it. I'll happily give you the opportunity to earn it. That's a promise.

However, I am under no compunction whatsoever to treat you with kid gloves here or anywhere else. I am required by neither law or morality to be respectful to you. I CHOOSE to keep from really uncorking on you because I recognize that you're a kid just learning to make her way in the world and part of my job is to take kids like you and teach them how life works. Sometimes it's fun and pats on the back, and sometimes it's up-downs and pushups.

I live for the day when I can pat you on your back, but you have a long way to go first, and sending me quotes from the Daily Kos is not getting you there.

Your age is absolutely relevant. The reason you're a liberal is the same reason I was a liberal twenty years ago: because I didn't know any better. As I said before, when you have actually worked for something in your life, you'll grow very resistant to the idea of someone passing a taxation law that takes it away from you.

This is the real world, Annie. The reason why liberals usually fail miserably both in business and in life is that those things require the ability to function in competition. That's also part of the reason why you tend to do your damndest to remove valedictorian honors from high schools and engender a "trophies for everyone" mentality in athletics. If you can train people to accept only what is HANDED to them by an authority figure, instead of learning how to EARN it, then you secure a place for yourself as that authority figure. It's simple power transfer.

If you think I'm playing rough then you have a long way to go before you can claim to be a "lot smarter" than me. I was rather gentle, considering how wrong you were. I never even attacked you personally, I attacked your ideas. If you like, I can provide an example of what it's like when I actually AM angry for comparison purposes, but you'll have to really do something dumb, because despite my nickname I haven't lost my temper over words on a screen in about twenty years.

Angry D. is a persona, not a real person. I use him to fire for effect and force people to think. He is profane, slaveringly rough, and dischordant in his delivery intentionally to force people to confront their own inconsistencies. He is not the real me any more than what you type here is the real you. His political beliefs parallel my own, but our approaches are vastly different. In person I think you would find me quite the gentleman.

You have a chance now to earn my respect, Annie. Start by reading my previous post and crafting an intelligent response. Or, you can also earn my respect by acknowledging that you don't have a response right now, but will provide one in the future after further study. Either response is acceptable.

Whimpering that I play too rough is not. Kitchens are hot. So am I. If you can't handle my hotness that's your problem, not mine. I recommend that you cover one eye when you read what I write, so that its utter beauty and perfection doesn't strike you completely blind.

Angry D.
http://AngryD.livejournal.com

I'll get back to you soon Angry D. I may not answer all your points, I don't have time, but I'll do my best to answer your most offensive accusations.

OK, here you go AngryD: I spent a lot more time on this than I wanted to.

Annie;
(I'm not really interested in a flame war with you here.) Oh, but I think you are! Your diatribe below says so.
(However, if you think you're smarter than I am, and you're also naive enough to broadcast that out where I can see it, then you're in for a frightfully bad time whenever I catch you posting something asinine.) Let’s see, I believe it was you who called liberals/democrats stupid. What makes you think you’re so much smarter? Perhaps you were hit in the head a few too many times during football practice?

(You're obviously very young and very out of your depth. Since this is probably your first time and I promised Mr. Kerr (the editor here, and someone I respect very much) that I would refrain from profanity, I'll be gentle with you.)

I’m 27 and a grad of Stanford and I work on a university campus. I grew up in a mixed family, both republicans and democrats and we discussed world events and politics at the dinner table frequently. My father, a republican and also a Stanford grad, is one of the most intelligent people I have ever known. He would look at what you wrote and laugh. And then he would ask me why I bother responding. But he knows I’m a fighter. He is smart enough to know that his party has left him behind, but hopes for sense to prevail. I hope for that too.

If you call the way you talk to me being gentle, I feel sorry for your kids if you’re lucky enough to have any. Please be more gentle with them. And, btw, where did you go to college?

Let’s begin with the first Stupid-ass thing you said: Democrats are morally bankrupt. We are not. Republicans do not have the market cornered on morality. Note the republican and right-wing nut jobs I mentioned in response earlier today. Need I go through it again?

Let’s just face it, people are people. Some make mistakes, some are pervs and some are moral.

You spoke of compassion. I’m willing to spend my money to help others. You’re greedy. I am not a socialist, I like the money I earn. However, running a country is expensive and I understand that. Apparently you don’t. I am also in favor of helping those who cannot help themselves, such as the mentally ill, intellectually challenged. There are poor children out there who have losers for mothers and fathers and have no healthcare, food in their bellies or dental care. Why should they suffer? Do you assume that they’re just going to grow up to be losers too, and therefore should be neglected? How about musicians and artists, who our society discounts? Unless they’re famous, they don’t make much money, but yet they are so important to a civilized society. Should we not help them when they get sick?

As far as slick Willie—I’m not a fan. I don’t like NAFTA, I don’t like the blow jobs and affairs, and I didn’t like it when he signed the Telecommunications Bill. I do, however like his wife, I just wish she’d left the bastard.

You’re right, if it was Karl Rove having an affair, I would love it, You assumed that I would lie about that, but won’t. Karl Rove doesn’t play fair and I’m hoping that he will go to jail soon for contempt of congress, but I know it won’t happen. You are aware that congress has held him in contempt, aren’t you?

When Dick Cheney shot his friend in the face, I thought, “what a bunch of dumb old idiots.” They were drinking and shooting captive birds. Great hunter. Why doesn’t he go out and shoot some real game? And, no, I don’t hate hunting or guns as you probably assume. But let me ask you this, why did Shooter’s friend (the one who was shot) apologize?

Stupid ass thing you said #2: We went to Iraq for oil. Even my dear old republican Dad acknowledges that. What we have accomplished by being there is giving terrorists training ground. Terrorists weren’t in Iraq before. Osama and his merry men were in the mountains in Afghanistan, remember? There were training camps in the Philippines and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Now things are turning ugly over there because we don’t have enough boots on the ground to fight. The majority of our military is in Iraq.

The only thing we managed to do was start a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. And, what about the poor Kurds? What about them? We’re created a theocracy and a civil war. More than 100,000 Iraqis have been killed and nearly 4500 Americans. Did you know they only count the ones killed in combat? One of my friends was one of the first people to die in Iraq and he’s not counted because he died in a helicopter crash, and they weren’t in combat at the time.

While we’re at it, should we discuss the Bush family’s relationship with the House of Saud and how they let the Bin Laden family leave the country when no planes were supposed to be flying? Don’t you think it’s possible that we could have acquired some intelligence from some of them?

And, we’re back to fleecing the wealthy again because I’m following what you said. Not very organized, I must say. I don’t want to fleece the wealthy. I don’t understand how you relate fleecing the wealthy with getting out of Iraq.

I support the troops. I volunteer at the local VA hospital. I signed petitions to get our U.S. Congress and Senate to pass the new GI Bill (McCain was against it). I wrote and called when our Veterans’ benefits not to be cut, but they were by the republicans, before the 2006 election. We’re in for a big influx of Iraq veterans who need our help when the war ends. Just wait.

I’m so sick of the “liberals have emboldened the terrorists,” B.S. It’s simply not true. I want facts, not opinion backing that one up. I want peer-reviewed scientific research.

As for Yugoslavia, Bill was trying to stop genocide. I may be particularly sensitive to genocide since I lost family in the Holocaust, (yeah, Jewish on the Mother’s side, Christian on the Father’s). I also think we should be in Darfur now, but unfortunately there’s no oil there so the Bush crime family won’t send anyone to stop that slaughter. Mogadishu was a huge error. What do you want me to say? I already told you I don’t particularly care for Bill Clinton.

Dude, I don’t know what you mean by “Piss Christ.” I don’t really care about the Torrah, the Bible, or the Koran. It’s all mythology to me. Insult away… I do not, however, like my tax money being used for religious purposes. Plus, this country was founded on religious freedom. We take all kinds here, Muslims too.

If 30 black youths beat two white servicemen last week, they should be tried for hate crimes. It seems racially motivated by the way you stated it. Why wouldn’t I care?

Don’t call me a hypocrite. You don’t even know me.

REALLY stupid-ass thing you said #3: "3) Bush graduated from Yale. Which community college did you drop out of again, dear?

I’ve already answered this question.

Party boy George W. Bush is known for getting into Yale on a legacy and having a C average. I however, had a 4.0 in high school and was active as well. Didn’t need the legacy to get into Stanford, but I’m sure it helped. Had a 3.8 while I was there.

I also didn’t spend time snorting coke, drinking alcohol or smoking pot like our illustrious leader. You’re right, he is inarticulate. And, he’s dumb. He couldn’t make an oil company work in Texas for God’s sake! And, he’s from an oil family. How, I ask you, is that not dumb?

Dude, I do research for a living at a university, so don’t even talk to me about your sources in your Web site. We both know that you can find research to back up any argument you like. I just happen to like research that coincides with my philosophy, just as you do, just as Nazis can find research to back up their views. I choose peer-reviewed articles, I'm not so sure you do.

Stupid-ass thing you said #4: "4) Selfish.
Instead of making fun of me for using a psychological term, why don’t you address it? In case you don’t remember, the term was “projection.” Psychology was my minor in college. As for the terms you used for me, I would say it’s projection again. You don’t even know me, although I have tried to give you a little insight.

If you don’t want to be condescending, don’t call me sweetie or talk to me the way you have.

Why are we back to taking money away from the wealthy again? (you’re thoughts are not well organized) While I’m not a fan of Cher, I heard her actually speak one time and she said she doesn’t mind paying her taxes because she has plenty of money. We’ve been through this, but it costs money to run a country, to fight a war or two, to send our children to school, to help those who are unable to help themselves. The wealthy have earned their money, just like the rest of us in the shrinking middle class.

Part of the reason the economy was booming in 2005 was because many Americans were spending money they didn’t have and now it’s coming back to haunt us all. Mortgage companies, for example, were making it too easy for people to get in over their heads. Everyone wants a house to raise their families. Credit Card companies gave credit cards to anyone and everyone.

Also, Alan Greenspan’s policies are coming back to haunt us now too. His policies encouraged the stock markets and the housing markets to grow too quickly (which relates to mortgage companies giving loans to people they shouldn’t have) and now the bubbles have popped.

The lowering of the interest rates really hurt the elderly population. They were forced to dip into their nest eggs because they no longer had as much interest to live on.

Now we have Americans who are afraid to spend money because they’re afraid of losing their jobs and they’re afraid that there won’t be any other jobs for them. I recently went through that at my job. Fortunately, I wasn’t laid off, but you can bet that my husband and I quit spending as soon as I thought it was even a possibility. We’re still not spending money, except on necessities and I would bet many other Americans feel the same way we do.

Back to taxes again, Who are you, Bill Gates? If you have that kind of money, it shouldn’t even matter to you. We’re all against illegal immigration. They should all go home. Don’t you think it might be worthwhile to work with their governments? Since they’re here, I’ll explain why their children and they should have medical care when they need it. It’s good for society. We can’t have sickly, injured people running around our country. And, we shouldn’t have uneducated ones either. There is a humanitarian component after all.

No the economy wasn’t fine when the republicans were in office, as I’ve already explained. But you might want to take note that the price of gasoline would have risen no matter who was in office because of the increasing middle classes in India and China. Plus, oil is a finite resource and the numbers I’ve seen say that we should be running out within the next 50 to 150 years. It’s simple, supply/demand. You might want to take a look at a National Geographic a few years ago. There was an article on the cover with the title, “The end of cheap gas.” Or is that a "liberal publication?"

We need to come up with other sources of fuel. Hopefully ones that aren’t so damaging to the earth. Yes I believe global warming is real.

You want to dice me like a carrot? Dice away. I didn’t like it when Reagan mortgaged our future and I don’t like it when the Bushies do it now. That was the beginning of the end of the middle class. I don’t like Milton Freedman’s theories for society and I don’t like yours either. Do you know how much of our debt China owns? Look it up.

Stupid-ass thing you said #5: "He [Edwards] has no pull anymore in politics. Hopefully he will continue his good work to fight against poverty.

(By the way, by stating that tax cuts should be reversed you pretty much proved my point that you don't know anything about the economy. Yay me!)
Wrong, I have a different view from yours

Stupid-ass thing you said #6: We’ve covered this (Mentally ill, disabled, yada, yada, yada.). You’re greedy, don’t want to spend your money to help anyone but yourself. I don’t care how much you give as long as you pay your taxes.

I have every right to sit here on my 27-year-old butt with my opinions. I never told you I want your money. Sheesh! BTW, you did not debunk my compassion argument.

Global Warming is real, even your hero George W. Bush acknowledges that now. Why do you have a hard time believe a consensus by a huge group of scientists?

AND, FOR ONE LAST TIME, I DON’T WANT TO TAKE YOUR MONEY AWAY. I LIKE MY MONEY TOO

Okay Annie, I'm trying to see you as an adult, but you keep acting like a kid, and that just cracks me up. Oh, to be 27 and know everything about everything again!

First off, you have precisely ZERO right to call me anything. You don't get to call me greedy. I'm a teacher who has served for twelve years in the Armed Forces, active and reserve. You think I picked my occupations because I want money? Fat chance. What I want is to keep my own salary.

You say you don't want my money, but you want to put people in power who have stated for years that they want to do things like create socialized medicine-- which requires higher taxes. This, of course, is in the face of countries like Canada and Britain, who have socialized health care and have proven that the care standards of the American system vastly exceed the care standards of federalized medicine.

And then you claim to be a researcher. Okay, research this: what third world country are most English citizens using for non-vital, non-elective surgery because the waiting list for things like fatty tissue and benign tumor removal is two to five years in length in the UK? Yeah, the Hillary plan sounds like a great idea to me.

If socialized medicine works so well, then why is it that so many people depart their country and go somewhere where they have to pay out of their own pocket for medicine? If it's such a grand idea, why is it ILLEGAL in Canada to go out of country for medical procedures, even life-threatening ones?

You're the researcher, you tell me.

How 'bout you leave me some of my own paycheck and I'll pay my own medical bills?

You're 27. Cool, if you're a hot redhead then I'm glad we met. You went to Standford. Great! The college that brought us John Elway.

You obviously didn't take any debate classes there or you'd understand a straw man argument when you see one.

I am 34, have twelve years of experience in the Armed Forces while you were sitting in school classrooms, and hold advanced degrees (earned while working 50 hours a week on active duty) in Electronic Technology as well as Coaching Studies and Athletic Performance. I'm also working on a teaching certificate right now and then will be completing a master's in American History. I graduated cum laude from both programs, and am maintaining a 3.96 at the moment. By my math, I'm still ahead of you. Not only do I have the experiences of actual LIFE, but it would appear that I get better grades than you as well.

I have written two books on coaching young people that are the highest-ranked on the subject on Amazon.com. In fact, my first book is ranked one down from Bill Belicheck's "Education of a Coach."

Part of your particular lack of intelligence is that you continually smart off on things you know nothing about. Since when do you get to tell ME how I should treat young people? I have more experience with youth than you'll EVER have, and I get between 150-200 emails a week from other coaches as well as parents looking to make football more fun and successful for even more young people.

The very fact that you would even consider it appropriate for a SECOND to try to tell me how to treat my own children is indicative of your "Nanny knows best" philosophy. I've spent more time with more kids in the past three weeks than you probably have in your life. How DARE you!

I work very, very hard to make my players work very, very hard because I understand something you don't: people only value what they work hard for.

You have every right to be proud of your 3.8 GPA and 4.0 from high school. You worked hard for that, and although I'm not impressed with how you're using it, my congratulations are sincere.

No, I'm not interested in a flame war, because you're not equipped to handle one with me. You made the rookie mistake right off the bat in trying to one-up me. I don't really care where you went to college; I used the plural "you" as a tactical point. Most of the people calling the president dumb have never even made it to an AA, much less an illustrious degree from Stanford, and even if they have, college experience is nothing like real life experience. Call me when you've learned something from LIFE. (Call me, in fact, when you've had an intelligence briefing. You cannot call any of the president's decisions dumb until you have full information. Since you do not have that, claiming he's dumb is actually rather... dumb.)

You obviously do NOT do any form of research for a college (or at least don't do it very well) if the very first (and only) citation you sent me was the non-peer reviewed and self-admitted leftist Daily Kos. I don't see any evidence of anything beyond personal opinion in your posts. You've cited nothing that is independently verifiable, no market research, labor and industry statistics, defense studies, or even program development research. All you've done is spout tired liberal platitudes and expected me to bow before your supposedly superior knowledge and ability. The one thing, the ONLY thing, you actually cited doesn't even cite anything. Nice try.

You want me to cry over all the poor children out there that don't have health care or fathers in the home or good mothers. Sweetie, I am a TEACHER! I've seen more of that than you ever will. (I'm not being condescending. I think you're sweet. Are you telling me that you're NOT sweet?)

And guess what, it is NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S MISTAKES!

Nor is it YOUR right to STEAL my money from me to MAKE me pay for it. You're not Robin Hood, you're a girl who wants to force other people to think and believe as she does. Your heart might be in the right place, but kindly take your hand out of my wallet. (If you're a hot redhead I'll put my wallet in my front pocket.)

You say you don't want my money, but you don't have a problem with increasing my taxes to pay for these social plans. That, dear, is theft. The government has the ability and means to enter my home, confiscate my property, and incarcerate me if I do not pay my taxes. They have the means and ability to kill me if I resist them. That is theft-by-fear. That is the power you wish to use to demand my compliance with your ideas.

How I feel about the way my taxes are spent is completely irrelevant. I am powerless to resist this theft of the property that I worked for and earned (and you have the audacity to call me greedy because I want to keep what I busted my ass for.)

I will not let you bankrupt MY family because you want to pay the way for someone else. I'll make you a deal. Keep your sticky fingers off my property and out of my wallet and maybe I'll give you a little something from time to time. It worked in the Great Depression-- are you aware that more people donated more money during that era of American History than in any other period? And who were the largest contributors?

Those nasty old rich people. That's who.

Why do I care what Cher thinks about my taxes? How did you EVER write a paper in college? Does the phrase "relevant supporting detail" mean anything to you?

It does show how out of touch you are with middle America (like most democrats) that you don't cite a man in the street, you cite a celebrity to make your point.

Gary Sinise is a Republican and thinks we are over-taxed. Since he still has a career and Cher doesn't, I win!

It does cost money to run a country-- especially when we put democrats in power. (Although I concede that most Republicans have a poor track record in this regard lately. That was part of why they lost so many seats in 2006.) The government has increased 4,000% since 1865. That's FOUR THOUSAND PERCENT. Why? Because people like you want to tax us (the single largest section of government after the military infrastructure is the IRS) and set up all kinds of social programs that need to be paid for, as well as enormous bureaucracies like Fraulen Gregoire here in Washington. If you left people alone to live their lives, they'd do a much better job of it than you, Nanny.

Since you asked about Bin Ladin's family, I'm going to point out once again the frightful one-sidedness and total lack of anything resembling actual research in your head. Has it occurred to you that Bin Ladin was DISOWNED BY HIS FAMILY? Try reading "Disinformation: 22 Media Myths That Are Undermining the War on Terror." There, you have a factual source. Get to work.

And again, when was your last intelligence briefing? There were probably a dozen good, legal, legitimate reasons why the Bin Ladin's were released. I am not privy to them. I also don't know what killed the dinosaurs, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't global warming or a hole in the ozone layer. I'm not sure how the Bin Ladin family became relevant as anything other than another example of how little you understand about information security, but thanks for giving me so much ammunition.

I LOVED your comments about not emboldening the enemy. Gee whiz, you sure know a lot about operational morale. Tell me, what does it do to a member of the Armed Forces when he sees pictures of his home town strewn with banners calling him a baby killer? What happens when Al-Qaeda turns on CNN and sees blanket coverage of protests against the very people fighting them. You think it might give them a little more incentive to hang on?

You said you're a researcher. Go find the Sheradon study yourself. You wouldn't believe me if I handed it to you. You might want to also look at "Kinder Gentler Military," another great book with some crossover discussion on the topic of trying to fight a war while the folks back home are trumpeting that it's "unwinnable."

My thoughts are extremely well-organized. However I'm responding to your grabasstic lack of understanding of general social themes and I don't have time to reorder your posts. Someday, if you're a hot redhead, maybe I'll send you a copy of my book and you'll realize that I'm probably the most organized person you know.

Projection: Let's see, you claim to be a number of things, including a psychology major, but you misused one of the most basic terms in the discipline. You said I was "projecting" selfishness. Then YOU called ME selfish. I'm thinking you show some classical cases of MPD with all of your claims. (At least you write decent sentence structure. Most of the time when I'm arguing with people online I feel like I'm grading papers. Thanks for that.)

Projection, in psychological terms, is a defense mechanism in which
a person attributes to someone else his (or in your case, HER) own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or emotions, usually accompanied by an attack against that very trait.

You know, like when YOU accused ME of of projecting my "selfishness" onto other people, when I hadn't even brought up the subject. Then YOU call ME greedy and selfish. In a word: you're the one projecting at ME!

In other words, I don't believe that you do professional research for a college because I've seen no evidence of peer-review or even supported opinion, just wild accusations and apocryphal statements.

I also don't believe that you have a minor in psychology, because you incorrectly used a descriptor and completely failed to catch the intentionally misleading psychological terms I used.

You also are still claiming that we went into Iraq for oil, and for support you did not cite the oil industry, infrastructure development studies, energy research, pipeline statistics, or tanker information that might show an increase in the flow of oil from the region. Instead, you cited-- your dad.

Your dad is probably a great guy, but if you were a professional researcher you'd probably know that he's not really a reputible source to me. That's not EVEN a nice try. It's one of the dumbest things anyone has ever said to me in an argument, online or otherwise.

I'm pretty sure that my dad can beat up your dad. Where does that leave us? Sheesh!

I'm running out of time to wrap this up, so I'll move a little faster on the rest.

Tax cuts: Read some history, darling. Tax increases have slowed down the economies of every major civilization going back to Ancient Egypt and are documented as doing so. Decreases in taxation and the elimination of documentation bureaucracies increase economies-- and generally provide MORE money for the government because more trade takes place. GO LOOK IT UP!

I'm greedy, because I want my own salary. Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. I guess you're greedy, too. That is by far the most insipid argument I have ever heard, and I've been arguing with leftists ever since I WAS one way back in 1990.

Compassion argument? What compassion argument? You called me greedy and said that compassion is giving money to social programs. I say I've given more time and energy to my communities than you ever will. You didn't make an argument for compassion, you tried to justify socialism. Leave me my own money and I'll make my own decision about what social programs I want to donate to. (Damn, ended a sentence with a preposition.)

Global Warming-- okay, so you think President Bush is an idiot, UNLESS, and this is important, he says something that happens to support your point of view. Got it.

In point of fact, THERE IS NO CONSENSUS on Global Warming. You said you're a professional researcher (which I am not prepared to accept at this time based on the mistakes you've made just in two posts to me), I'm surprised that you don't know this, but scientists across the globe have been complaining for YEARS that a FEW individuals keep saying there's a consensus when there isn't. Those few individuals get all the press because bad news and threats sell newspapers. (As long as we're on the subject, explain Al Gore's carbon footprint to me. I asked you this once before and you ignored it. If we're in such trouble, despite the study that came out last month that the world will be experiencing a reduction in average temperature over the next ten years, despite the thickening of the Antarctic ice shelfs, despite nine of the coldest winters on record in North America occurring in the last fifteen years, despite the fact that there has only been 113 years of data collected on a 4.6 billion year old planet, despite a metric assload of other points I don't have time to type out...why is Al Gore not practicing what he preaches?)

Here's a couple of sites you might like:

http://www.savage-productions.com/debunking_global_warming.html

http://www.philvalentine.com/SkepticsGuideToGlobalWarming.htm

http://iceagenow.com/

These are simply the first THREE sites that come up on a Yahoo! search for the phrase "Debunking Global Warming" which returned 1,710,000 HITS!

Yeah, there's a consensus. That's why there are 1.7 MILLION (that's more than a thousand, dear) sites out there, many of which cite studies and paleo-meteorological data that are peer-reviewed and performed by independent researchers, that DEBUNK IT.

Now, I have a practice to go to, and you have a bunch of reading to do. Next time you confront me, I suggest you have things lined up much more neatly.

This is kind of fun.

Angry D.
http://angryd.livejournal.com

PS: So, ARE you a hot redhead?

Hi Angry D: You seem to kind of like me while you hate me at the same time, hmmm. Yeah, I'm sweet and I'm hot, but more of an auburn color than a redhead. Thanks for your complement on my sentence structure, my Journalism professors would be proud. My major was journalism, my minor was psychology. Not the other way around. Besides researching, I also write for a living.

I don't know about you, but I really don't have time to spend researching to contradict you. I have a family and a job and I spent enough time responding to you. I'm leaving for L.A. for a few days. Maybe I'll contact you again. Maybe I won't.

BTW, I knew I wouldn't change your mind on anything (just as you haven't changed mine), just wanted to put my thoughts out there.

Angry D, just a couple more thoughts...

We have socialized education, which you know if you teach in a public school. I bet your benefits are pretty good too.We have socialized police and fire, in the form of public protection for all. Why not socialized medicine?

Why is everyone entitled to education and police, but not another basic necessity such as health care?

I would think business owners, especially small-business owners would be happy not to have to provide healthcare and would be good for their bottom lines. We have a win/win.

And back to the topic set forth here: Edwards sex scandal. You didn't even respond to what I said about the republican "family values" crowd's sex scandals. Hmmmm.

Why not socialized medicine? Simple. The care is substandard. Same can be said for the public education system. Quality suffers when you have a bunch of do-gooder nannies running things. As far as police and fire, it's not even in the same ballpark as healthcare and education. Nice try though.

That's because, Annie, and get ready for a shocker... I actually DO like you! I don't hate you at all. I rather admire ANYONE with the stones to stand there and go toe-to-toe with me. You're entitled to be wrong at least as much as I am. Not that it ever happens in my case, but I reserve the right for the future.

As for socialized education and law enforcement, would it surprise you to discover that I am not in favor of EITHER of those?

As a football coach, I embrace the notion of competitiveness. I wholeheartedly want schools to compete for students. The quality of education will be the biggest draw, and the schools that give the best quality get the biggest pots of money. I do NOT support public education in its current form. It lets too many teachers who are inept and lazy stay in classrooms churning out apathetic students who vote democrat. (Okay, I'm kidding!) I want to set up a school voucher system and move tenure from three years to TEN, and approved ONLY after the teacher in question:

1) Receives a master's degree either in their core competency or in education.

2) Passes an independent board review.

3) Has coached at least one sport or directed at least one extra-curricular activity for at least three seasons. (So, you could coach football, swimming, and baseball, or direct three plays, or coordinate three band events. Whatever, I just want to get those teachers involved in after school activities that help build character and community in young people. Too many of those chuckleheads sprint for the door at 3:15 every day and then bitch about how after school activities are dying.)

I've got reasons for all three points, but I'll go into them later if you're interested.

I teach in a public school for one real reason: the nearest private schools to my residents are an hour and a half away. I can make that drive for a short duration, like to help coach the teams I'm working with now in Seattle, but I can't handle that much traffic for that long every day without Angry D. coming out of the lamp. None of these idiots on the road should be behind the wheel.

Plus, I'll be honest. I'm emotionally invested in my particular students because I've coached some of them in non-school football and I want to continue to be a part of their lives. They are great young men and they honor me with their hard work every day.

I cannot speak about socialized firefighting, but I can speak on the subject of privatized law enforcement. I'm sure it would only take a competent researcher a few minutes to be able to look up the crime statistics in areas that have privatized their law enforcement. They tend to be down considerably particularly in the area of violent crime. (Remember that anyone can make a legal arrest. Private companies have been paid for by local businesses to provide law enforcement and local security for decades. They can do anything a governmental law enforcement officer can do, legally, by charter, and they usually do it more efficiently, cheaper, and way more gooder.)

The government has a very poor track record in accomplishing EVERYTHING it tries to do. Private industry is almost ALWAYS better at it, because competition breeds efficiency. (And if you don't believe me, you're welcome to drop by my football practices sometime. We don't waste a SECOND. We can't afford to because we compete at a very high level.) Neil Boortz's book, "Somebody's Gotta Say It!" has a great list of things the government has borked up when it's federalized them (including airline security), as well as listing the ONLY thing the federal government was able to do on time and near budget in its entire history: build a network of federal highways from coast to coast. (Despite the advances in materials and techniques and machines, private industry built coast-to-coast railroads in half the time and for 2/3 the price of the first interstate if you compare the railroad to the highways that came some forty years later.)

Given that track record, the only two things I'm willing to let the government do for me are defend my country and build roads. Let me protect my own family from crime, keep my own money and spend it on my own needs, and look for my own future. I don't even want those assclowns in DC taking Social Security out of my paycheck. Give me that money and let me invest it on my own.

Small business owners might not have to pay for health care under your plan, but they would have to address a customer base with smaller disposable income because of the increase in basic taxes, which translates to fewer sales and less profit. You HAVE to remember that when you push down on the bubble somewhere, it's going to go up somewhere else. Money is a finite resource.

I also don't see health care as a right. If you want it, earn it. Get your ass to school and study so you can get a job that offers benefits (or a salary high enough to get them on your own). I did. YOU did. (I really am sincere about congratulations on your degree. I have a good friend that covers sports for the Stanford newspaper; Christopher Anderson. Hell of a good guy. Sorry, BTW, that I accidentally called psychology your major when it was apparently your minor. Except you still used that term wrong.)

Have a safe trip to LA, Annie, and I look forward to talking with you more on your return. Feel free to email me through my blog if you don't want to argue out here in public. I'm sure we'll find something to holler at one another about.

"Tastes great!" "Less filling!" (Is that before your time?)

Angry D.
http://angryd.livejournal.com

PS: I really don't hate you. I can separate disagreement from hatred. Please don't mistake my VEHEMENCE for VENOM.

PPS: Why is every woman on the internet "auburn" haired?