Coulter and O’Donnell Find A Point Of Agreement And Guess What It Was . . .

A couple of past students went to the debate between Ann Coulter and Lawrence O’Donnell and were surprised b one exchange. Despite being continents apart, I became a point on which Coulter and O’Donnell agreed. While some would say this is a sign of the apocalypse, I say it is merely an expression the great unifying healing force that I send throughout the world.


One student sent me this tape, which was taken at a bit of a distance. Around the 40 mark, O’Donnell agrees with my take on the Citizens United case. I am told that Coulter then also agreed with my take, though it comes in part 5 of the tape (which my student could not locate).

This has opened up a whole new horizon for me. In light of my success in uniting Coulter and O’Donnell, I have decided to first move on to the Middle East to open talks between Iran and Israel. Following resolving that dispute this week, I will tackle the more difficult and potentially explosive Martha Stewart/Rachel Ray divide.

120 thoughts on “Coulter and O’Donnell Find A Point Of Agreement And Guess What It Was . . .

  1. JT,

    I’ve heard that you were seen walking on water, surely a lesser miracle than
    Coulter and O’Donnell in agreement.

  2. I’d stay out of the stalwart complex issue of stewart ray……

    The others are doable…..you just might find yourself in the dave letterman camp and needing restraining orders…..

  3. “Coulter and O’Donnell Find A Point Of Agreement And Guess What It Was . . .” great headline!

    Beware the Savior Complex … a few shots of Jameson’s should straighten you out.

  4. “the great unifying healing force that I send throughout the world.”

    What I want to know is is that force related to mass?

    Will the LHC find a Turley particle if they find the Higgs boson?

    Inquiring minds want to know . . .

  5. Quickly, Professor Turley, a young cousin of mine requires your Wise Insight: Is carrot cake appropriate for a wedding cake? The debate is raging, it is only in email at the moment but I believe it may threaten civilization as we know it.

  6. @Bdaman – That in an EVOO wrestling match, prison-hardened Martha could whip Don Johnson-voiced Rachel. If it was a tag-team match, who would the “seconds” be? I’m thinking Michelle Malkin and Rachel Maddow.

    M&M vs. R&R on WFE!

  7. The issue with CU isn’t legally permissible.

    The issue with CU is legally, socially and politically desirable in outcome.

    CU is a case that proves the axiom that logic is a way to go wrong with absolute certainty. It is also faulty logic predicated on the bad assumption that corporations are real people when they are not. They are legal fictions with limited liability, perpetuity and no loyalty or duty except to the shareholders expectations of profit.

    Logical – even legally logical – does not always mean correct, desirable or wise.

    Giving corporations unlimited free speech in the political arena by expanding their personality degrades democracy and promotes corporatism (a form of oligarchy) if not outright fascism.

    This is why a Constitutional amendment limiting corporate personality and the ability of corporations to interfere with the legislative and political processes of this country is critical to the survival of democracy.

    There is no single issue that presents as much of a threat to democracy as Citizens United and campaign finance reform other than perhaps the Patriot Act and the need to repeal it.

  8. Prophet? An elementary force of nature?

    The grandiosity of the Turley clan always ceases to amaze me. However, I do believe that perhaps you could negotiate a middle-east peace.

  9. Anonymously Yours 1, March 5, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    Dredd,

    Isn’t Ann a liberal…..
    ============================
    Here are the titles of some of her books: “Godless: The Church of Liberalism“, “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter“, “Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism“, “Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right“, and “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans“, to name a few.

  10. Swarthmore Mom -“I side with Justice Stevens”

    Bless your heart.

    What part of Justice Steven’s opinion do you agree with?

  11. See dredd, she secretly desires to be one who has the ability to think outside the sandbox…. She’s coming along…. Not everyone can do it at breakneck speeds….

  12. @Gene: As far as CU is concerned, I am not convinced of the common wisdom that “Enough money can elect a ham sandwich.”

    Meg Whitman spent $140M of her own money in the California Gubernatorial election, in addition to donations to her campaign. She outspent Jerry Brown EIGHTY SIX to one. At one point, she had spent $100M on her campaign advertising versus Brown’s $377K. She still lost to Brown (who is 72 years old) by several points.

    Rich self-funding candidates have a spotty success record; Perot, Corzine (elected but then rejected), Forbes, even Romney (a 1/3 billionaire) is somewhat hit and miss, he actually lost Iowa despite outspending Santorum, the winner, by millions.

    I agree corporations are not people and I think CU was wrongly decided, but I do not see why corporate spending on elections would have any better success than billionaires spending on their own campaigns. I think it still comes down to candidates. As (I think) Brown proved, after some relatively modest level of advertising, awareness plateaus and the rest of the job is basically salesmanship, charisma, and the predisposition of tribes. For Meg Whitman, money did not buy likability.

  13. Swarthmore Mom,

    I think the question was pretty clear. What part of Justice Stevens opinion do you agree with?

    If you think I’m pointing at you while laughing, I am. I don’t think you’re bright enough to think for yourself. That is exactly why I don’t think you can identify the portion of Justice Steven’s dissent with which you agree. Prove me right or prove me wrong.

  14. Jordan, Aren’t you the one that called me an “idiot” and something worse under another name?

  15. Swarthmore mom,

    “Aren’t you the one that called me an “idiot” and something worse under another name?” -No.

    “Corporations are not members of society”.

    Is that the extent of your concurrence with Justice Stevens?

  16. “Jordan, Don’t want to have a discussion with you about anything.”

    Of course you don’t, sweetie. That would entail cogitation and that would interfere with your role as Kitty Kut and Paste.

  17. Tony C.,

    You’ve taken the point to the extreme, but I think that what I’m addressing isn’t the “common wisdom that ‘Enough money can elect a ham sandwich.'” Of course candidate appeal figures into the equation and no amount of money can buy the election for someone manifestly unlikable like a Meg Whitman or a Newt Gingrich. I’m addressing simply the undue influence of corporations (who, and I think you agree with me here, are not real people but rather amoral legal fictions subject to manipulation by sociopaths and psychopaths) and the general unbalancing effect money can have on communication. The need for a level playing field where the ideas are the focus and not who can spend the most money to shout down their opponent and limiting the influence of organizations with no loyalty or duty to the American public’s best interests.

  18. Gene,
    All elections should be publicly funded to remove all money from politics. That is the only way the level playing field can be attained. The Super Pacs need to be reined in and at the least, be required to disclose who contributed and how much, to the penny.

  19. junctionshamus, Sorry if it bothers you but I am not going to let some cyber bully call me “sweetie” om a blog.

  20. I have been advised about the identity of the poster and also the violation of privacy that is involved.

  21. “Meg Whitman spent $140M of her own money in the California Gubernatorial election, in addition to donations to her campaign.”

    Tony,
    What you say is true, but only up to a certain point. Money not only buys ads, but it influences the press coverage. With what was known about the background of G.W. Bush, he was supremely unqualified, yet the power of his family and his supporters scared the media so much that they mostly ignored it and he seemed on an equal footing with his opponents. Romney is simply not a likable person and therein lies his difficulty. Santorum comes off like a fool and no one trusts Gingrich. Now if Jeb Bush gets nominated, at a deadlocked convention, he will seem like the Second Coming. I’m just sayin……

  22. Using “sweetie” to address a woman, is the equivalent of using “boy” or “little guy” to address a man. Dishonestly insulting and patronizing, Jordie.

  23. Anonymously Yours 1, March 5, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    See dredd, she secretly desires to be one who has the ability to think outside the sandbox…. She’s coming along…. Not everyone can do it at breakneck speeds….
    =======================================
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” – Upton Sinclair

  24. @Mom – Trying to bring some levity to a bad situation, didn’t realize things had gone that far.

    Wanted to say, “Mom, don’t buy into it,” and to Jordan, “Don’t be a condescending douche-load, Snookums”, but that would be getting down to his level, so I’m not going there.

    And Jordan, if that’s your real moniker… S-Mom, for all I might have agreed or disagreed with, has contributed far more on her worst day than most on this list. I’m not standing up for her, I don’t have too. She can stand up all on her own.

  25. Mike,

    Wouldn’t it be kinda funny if a master politician knew how to appeal to the emotional nature of the voters and JEB got in…. And this had been really a dog and pony show at their amusement…. It’s not like they are afraid to spend taxpayer dollars..

  26. Thanks guys. You get some really good guys on here and for use of a better word – some freaks.

  27. S’Mom,

    that was an obvious personal attack…..if it wanted to join the conversation it wouldn’t have singled you out.

    You handled the situation brilliantly, thanks for showing how it’s done!

  28. “Using “sweetie” to address a woman, is the equivalent of using “boy” or “little guy” to address a man. Dishonestly insulting and patronizing, Jordie.”

    Nothing dishonest at all about it, Mikey. I intended to be patronizing. Had you found fault with others for being patronizing, or not done the same yourself, on numerous occasions, you might have a legitimate gripe. As it stands, you’re just exposing your own hypocrisy.

    I hear sirens. The fleet must be arriving. :)

  29. Anonymously Yours 1, March 5, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    Dredd,

    That sounds like Words to Rush…..
    ============================
    Definitely words to Rush by.

    There are two parts to JT’s embracing of CU v FEC:

    1) a person’s freedom to associate with a politician running for office, and to support them, and

    2) who is a person for such purposes?

    Historically, the weakness and plasticity of the majority reasoning is that corporations have zero history, in terms of our foundations, our origins, to support this decision. Free speech can be free as hell for citizens, and it should be, but corporations are fictions of state law designed to limit liability. Which goes back to immunity, which is the absence of accountability, which is anti-democracy, because if you can not hold a politician or other entity to account, then that entity can do no wrong. That is a concept derived from “the king can do no wrong” and “the pope is infallible.” (IOW, the genetic material in bullshit).

  30. “Wouldn’t it be kinda funny if a master politician knew how to appeal to the emotional nature of the voters and JEB got in…”

    AY,
    I think that is what is going to happen and it won’t be funny for any of us.

  31. Woosty, I pick the vibe up earlier than I used to – creepy. Jordan wasn’t the usual one that posted as my address last week but he was familiar. Not as Insane is my all time favorite attacker. He even mentioned my deceased friend’s daughter.

  32. @Mike S: What you say is true, but only up to a certain point. [emphasis mine].

    Well, then I for one am not certain where that point is when a politician like Jerry Brown can be outspent 265 to 1 (at one point in his campaign) and still be ahead in the polls.

    That was the point of my post, I don’t believe the assertion that overwhelming money or ads influence the press coverage to the point of swinging an election. Sure, Whitman was treated as a “real” candidate, but Brown was not treated as a “fake” candidate for lack of money.

    I am also not convinced ad buys or campaign cash are a proximate cause of treating candidates “seriously.” It seems to me if that were true, Perot and Forbes and Howard Dean would have been treated more seriously than they were, and perhaps other candidates (like Santorum or Gingrich) less seriously than they have been.

    I do not think campaign money can buy an election, or even influence the vote more than a few points, so I am not overly concerned that CU is a game changer.

  33. Woosty, I could through these threads for the last six months and compile a greatest hits list of sockpuppet attacks on me. lol

  34. Mike S,.

    I have seen those same manipulations in office politics as well as used in other contexts….. It appears that some have the philosophy that you are either like us or you are against us….. Sophomoric at best….

  35. “As it stands, you’re just exposing your own hypocrisy.”

    Jordie boy,

    Nothing hypocritical about it. I only insult people who sling insults and I do it to them in a manner befitting the insults they sling. You came here not with the intent of discussing anything, but merely to garner some sadistic pleasure by attacking someone via patronizing them. You’ve got no history here, she does and it’s a good one. Ergo you’re an ass. Not for disagreeing with her, but for doing it in an infantile manner. Now I don’t really know what sex you are, but probably you’re a male. While I suppose there are some women that find a superior, patronizing attitude in a man attractive, most woman of intelligence would find it a complete turnoff. So there is a probability that you either stick with women with low self-esteem and bully them in the process, or you simply don’t get laid. I the end the fact remains that men who call women “sweetie” are lousy in bed, know it in their hearts and try to make up for it by being patronizing.

  36. Off topic but how bout the new trailer to the movie that will begin to stir some controversy. Sunshine is the best disinfectant and daylight helps with sunshine as long as you finish before the call to prayer.

  37. “Well, then I for one am not certain where that point is when a politician like Jerry Brown can be outspent 265 to 1 (at one point in his campaign) and still be ahead in the polls.”

    Tony,

    Whitman was a very unlikable candidate, with nothing to recommend her but EBay.

  38. Tony,

    Even if I agreed with you about the effect of political spending (and I don’t), I think you’re missing the point biggest failing of CU.

    Corporations aren’t people. They aren’t even democratic organizations. Expanding their personality and access to the political and legislative processes is inherently dangerous to democracy. I dare you to look at the corruption problem endemic to the professional lobbying industry and to come to a reasonable and rational conclusion other than than corporations and their influence in electoral and legislative processes isn’t at the root of nearly all of our current corruption related issues of governmental malfunction and malfeasance. Allowing them greater political free speech can only exacerbate the problem.

  39. Whether CU was correctly decided in terms of current law is not the end of the issue. As Gene H rightly points out, the whole thing rides on the coattails of an incorrect, illogical assumption. However, since such incorrect assumptions can be made, we as Americans can decide whether these erroneous assumptions indeed represent our values (NO) and then deal with them.

    There are strong and important efforts being lead by well repected people such as former Wisc. Sen. Russ Feingold or Dylan Ratigan to clearly define and designate by Constitutional amendments that A) corporations are unambiguously NOT PERSONS and to B) remove ALL corporate and union contributions to, at least, federal campaigns.

  40. @Gene: I haven’t missed that point and I completely agree that corporate money in politics is a big problem. Why assume I miss that point? I just do not think more money in campaigns, as a result of CU, will, in practice, translate into a difference at the polls.

    If billionaires spending tens of millions of dollars on their own campaign and saying exactly what they want to say still stumble and fail as frequently as history suggests they do, then I don’t see corporations spending on behalf of politicians without any coordination are going to do any better.

    If somebody wants to argue they are secretly coordinated, then they are arguing that an illegal activity is going to affect the election, and that is corruption. But even if they were coordinating, I do not think it makes a lot of difference. Billionaires with complete control over their message stumble and fail, that is the equivalent of 100% coordination, and it doesn’t help. How will the corporations do any better than the self-made billionaires that have tried and failed?

    I really do not think people are swayed much by political ads, everybody I know figures they are full of lies and politicians are just liars. That’s why Congress is in the single-digit approval rates. Why would bombarding people already numb to political ads with more ads work? It will just make them more numb, if they identify with a party, no ad will ever make them vote against their party.

    As for independents, I do not know many, but I do know one that votes on charisma and another that votes strictly anti-incumbent. That is anecdotal, I know, but they won’t be swayed by ads either.

  41. Coulter and O’Donnell Find A Point Of Agreement And Guess What It Was . . .

    um, that ann has the larger penis?

  42. This post brings me to raise the subject of the morality, amorality, immorality of corporations. IBM was on topic here on the blog for their role in killiing millions in the Holocaust. They skated for years and no one knew until a book came out in2009. That book was written by a guy last name Black and the book has been ignored and blacklisted by the media. There are a few people left on eartth bearing tatoos on their arm with ID numbers put there by the Nazis to keep track of them in work camps and death camps. IBM was there to keep track of them with data cards–punch cards. The gist of the article on IBM the other day on this blog was that corporations owe no duties of moral thought to their actions. Our Supreme Court says in Citizens United that a corporation is some person that can give unlimited money to elect our fearless leaders. Seems to me then that they have to be accountable for war crimes. I sold my stock in IBM this week when I learned about their role in the Holocaust. I wonder if Ann Coulter bought my shares when she learned of their behavior in the Holocaust. When I saw her photo I thought of mouthpieces for Hitler at the Nuremberg rallies prior to the war.

    Some of these topics do touch upon each other.

    Just a DogTalkin

    .

  43. nonymously Yours 1, March 5, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    Dredd,

    Isn’t Ann a liberal…..
    ============================
    Here are the titles of some of her books: “Godless: The Church of Liberalism“, “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter“, “Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism“, “Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right“, and “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans“, to name a few.

    Wouldn;t it be great if this was just a reaction formation and she just can;t stand the fact that she is actually a liberal? ((*_*))

  44. Tony C.-

    The important point to be made here is simply this. Carrot cake is perfectly acceptable as a wedding cake. However, I would forego the use of the orange and green frosting “carrot” on top- it’s a little tacky. I would instead go with the traditional tacky plastic bride and groom.

  45. Tony C.,

    “Is carrot cake appropriate for a wedding cake?”

    After having spent umpteen number of years dealing with umpteen number of Wedding participants I am going to give you a piece of advise that will literally save your sanity, if not your actual life.

    Whatever the bride wants is the only thing that is appropriate.

  46. Seriously, though- In Econ 101, I was taught that a corporation was an artificial entity created basically to shield the officers of a company from lawsuits or prosecution for their own personal wrongdoing in running their company. The idea that a corporation is an actual person with Constitutional rights is ludicrous to me, and the fact that an earlier Supreme Court set that as a precedent doesn’t make it any less ridiculous. It just indicates to me that the earlier Supreme Court was also in the pocket of the corporations.

  47. Blouise-

    Your wise counsel once again trumps my snark. I still prefer carrot cake- I have had some wedding cake that I suspect sat in the bakery window for several days before it was delivered to the reception.

  48. Carol,

    I hear that what bothers others abut someone else resides in the one doing the objecting…..

    Some may call it projecting…

  49. HenMan,

    Brides are the most dangerous of all creatures on the face of this earth. I like Tony C. I want him to live. He must find out what the Bride wants and immediately side with her.

    Even the bobcats cower in the face of an angry Bride.

  50. Carol Levy-

    I understand that the book Ann Coulter is currently writing is tentatively titled “I Hate Friggin’ Libtards- The Stinkin’ S.O.B.s That Ruined Everything”. It will be a scholarly analysis of the history of Liberalism in America.

  51. I don;t know HenMan a title like that certainly belies any attempt at scholarly.
    I know if she is writing that book it is really a lovesong in disguise. ((*_*))
    AY projecting her hate onto ‘liberals” or hiding her true feelings, either way someone as hateful as she portrays herself to be has something evil lurking in her closet.

  52. Tony C., would one rather have the cake in the linked photo or an anemic albeit traditional white cake? I had a chocolate cake w/chocolate icing/flowers, because THE BRIDE GETS WHAT SHE WANTS, as Blouise counsels. (Yes, brides eat Bobcats for breakfast, not ‘the Bobcats’, real Bobcats.) I had a tasty cake, a mini-dress to get married in, and bar-b-q. It wasn’t a big reception but it was outdoors and fun. The bride and groom should have fun, it is after all a party. :-)

    http://www.google.com/imgres?q=carrot+cake+wedding+cake&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS423US424&biw=865&bih=807&tbm=isch&tbnid=Y5pZw7FL8UJ7UM:&imgrefurl=http://cloudscudding.livejournal.com/657334.html&docid=h1kFzc3RLrZg8M&imgurl=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3259/2686387748_54837f8631.jpg&w=500&h=375&ei=a59VT9moLtKltweymZn2CA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=99&vpy=384&dur=1063&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=155&ty=223&sig=101387844609099372115&page=1&tbnh=135&tbnw=180&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0

  53. Tony C. and Gene, I would like to throw another factor into your discussion, the national party organization. Maddow spent the first 12-13 minutes detailing how the state Republican party in several states have been fixing the race for Romney. I and a couple of others here have said the game is fixed for Romney previously. It’s obvious.

    As long as the national organization is in control of the convention it won’t matter how much money Newt or Rick or their sugar-daddies spend, they won’t be the nominee. As broken as the national party is it is still going to pick the nominee, ruthlessly if necessarily, if they find the field of potential nominees a threat to their ‘brand.’

    Once the nominee is picked the big money enabled by CU will play a part, and in state races that money can pay a really big part but I don’t think that in the run-up to a Presidential election it’s going to force the RNC/national power-players to pick a candidate they do not want. Or more to the point, is unacceptable to them. They haven’t spent 30 years reaching this point (even if it has semi bitten them in the butt) to field a Rick Santorum for president.

  54. Professor, when you finish bringing peace to the Middle East your talents might be productively applied to negotiating a re-unification of The President and his base. Just sayn’.

  55. If I ever found myself agreeing with anything mAnn Coulter said I would immediately change my opinion – it MUST be wrong. If further study somehow showed the blind squirrel affect (she accidentally found an acorn) it could be classified as a miracle.

  56. Hi,

    I have been following this blog for a while now and while I am not an intellectual heavy-weight and have no background much on legal issues I like many of the issues discussed. Today’s comments by a person who calls himself Jordan are interesting and I must add that Mike Spindler’s response to Jordan’s patronizing Swarthmore mom is the best response. I do think there are plenty of women who don’t mind male partners/husbands/religious leaders it’s ultimately their choice as it should be my choice to challenge these kind of men. Thank you for standing up for women who don’t accept patronizing.

  57. Here’s Dredds response to a FACTUAL post on his website HAHAHAHAH

    DreddMar 6, 2012 04:37 AM

    Kathy,

    Psychopaths do not care for facts that would indicate people are being harmed, and are going to be harmed even more.

    Check out the Hare Psychopathy Checklist for an indication of why we are going in the W direction full speed.

    Read Thin Ice, The Exceptional American Denial, and Agnotology: The Surge.

    Others who have commented take note that the Dredd Blog does not publish senseless comments by deniers.

    *****************************************************************

    In other words he couldn’t refute what I posted which was the factual truth so he doesn’t want anybody else to see it either. He asked for debate but obviously feels the science is settled and there will be no more debate. ROTFLMFAO

  58. Bdaman,

    In other words, irrelevant.

    Too bad your problem has nothing to do with this blog let alone the the topic of this thread other than illustrating we’re much more tolerant of your trollery nonsense than Dredd appears to be on his blog – which is his right. If you’ve got a problem with that, I suggest that it is your problem and the correct party to take it up with would be Dredd and that the correct forum for addressing your complaint would be his blog.

  59. Bdaman,

    I don’t care what your opinion is of my previous counters to your denier nonsense or engaging in any more of your off topic trollery at the moment. This isn’t about me.

    This is about you and the question of appropriate forums.

    This is not the appropriate problem for the airing of your grievance with Dredd. Period. That you’d think it is shows just how little respect for this forum you have (as if your constant thread jacking wasn’t demonstration of that enough). No one here gives a flying rat’s ass about you getting censored on somebody else’s blog or website. That’s is a problem between you and them and this isn’t the right place to bring it up. Not only is it not our problem, there is nothing we can do about it. It is Dredd’s website, not JT’s, and neither he nor any of the editors here can remedy your complaint.

    Is that clear enough for you to understand?

    1) Your problem is with Dredd.

    2) The appropriate venue for your problem is his website, not this one.

    3) Your bitching about him blocking your nonsense on his website has nothing to do with this blog or this thread.

    Prove that what I just said is wrong.

    It’s really pretty simple.

  60. See that you do.

    You might want to consider dropping the faux “Amos n’ Andy” speak while you’re at it. It’s childish. Your actions and my statements over this issue have absolutely nothing to do with race and everything to do with your actions being inappropriate.

  61. Bdaman,
    Seriously? Stereotypical Black dialogue ala Rochester on Jack Benny. When have you ever been discriminated against here? Never.

    I will let Gene speak for himself, but if you’re playing that game it’s bullshit and you know it. Why don’t you just drop the trolling games and let the intelligence we know is there come through? I get that you don’t like Obama, but this birther stuff is nonsense and seriously bigoted. Attack him all. you want but don’t demean yourself with this.

  62. Mike Lots of people go off topic. Case in point is on another thread where Viagra is mentioned by Blouise. I post a comment in response and I get accused of trying to derail the thread, Blouise comes to my defense. I ask a question jokingly about AGW in this thread after some how the thread got derailed by someone calling SWM sweetie and Dredd responds. By the way I do the right thing and bounce to Dredds sight thinking he actually would like to discuss/debate the matter by pointing me to a particular thread. I also thought that maybe he was trying to increase readership in his own blog. I mean he rarely gets involved in commenting here but when he does post a comment it’s always some type of link back to his blog. So I posted a comment waited maybe 12-24 hours to see if it posted only to find the response I posted above. So obviously if your not like minded like Dredd your comments will not be posted. Hence the low participation rate in his comment sections.

    As far as Gene goes, Gene likes to tell people what to do and when to do it. When in a room of 100 and your smarter than 99% then you are very rarely ever wrong. My Amos and Andy speak is my bowing to superiority. Visual would be me lowering the chin sideways into chest and shying away in retreat. Thats all, nothing more.

    On a final note I’ll let you two figure out who said what. It’s between the two of you.

    Using “sweetie” to address a woman, is the equivalent of using “boy” or “little guy” to address a man. Dishonestly insulting and patronizing.

    “In the end the fact remains that men who call women “sweetie” are lousy in bed, know it in their hearts and try to make up for it by being patronizing.”

    “Smom, Apples and oranges, sweetie.”

  63. Elsie DL: “Hi, I have been following this blog for a while now and while I am not an intellectual heavy-weight and have no background much on legal issues I like many of the issues discussed.”
    ——-

    Hi! Then you can come sit by me and by all means feel free to comment.

  64. @Lottakatz: You reminded me of one of the best quotes ever:

    “If you haven’t got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me.” – Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)

  65. (Lottakatz – I am thinking this may well be an open convention; they will draft someone else, maybe Christie, Bush (of the names I know) who does not have the baggage of the words out there of these present contenders.
    I personally am hoping for Romney or Santorum, Obama will have to do very little politcking. I also remember when I was younger staying up til 2, 3 in the morning as the delegates fought for the guy they wanted. Those were the days when politics could actually fun and interesting to just the regular guy.)
    And Prof Turley, I am sure your words will be more thoughtful and diplomatic then those of Cantor this morning about war with Iran and the president being weak on this.

  66. Bdaman,

    “As far as Gene goes, Gene likes to tell people what to do and when to do it. ”

    Actually, what I like is not to have to tell people they are acting like inappropriate douche bags, Bdaman. I wish you’d give me what I want occasionally.

    Also, the difference in me calling Smom “sweetie” and doing it to a stranger is that I know Smom offstage and I do think she’s a sweetie and she knows this. It wasn’t patronizing, but a sign of affection. See, if I called you “sweetie” it would be patronizing, because that’s the inverse application of the term and it’s pretty apparent I think you’re a douche bag. Again, no bad words, just bad intent.

    Does that clear things up for you, Conspiracy Boy?

  67. “sweetie” patronizing is bad. “douche bag” not so much.

    You people really are fucked up. :)

    Gene Howington, It’s nice to see you found a home where you feel welcome. People here at the Lake of the Ozarks miss your occasional visits. (Do you always go by Gene H. now, or do you occasionally go back to being Buddha is Laughing?) Are you still trying to sell people on that Tsun Tzu crap? It makes me laugh so hard when it comes from a white guy with a receding hairline, and curly locks thick enough to make it look like an attempt at a Mohawk. -Just messin’ with ya bro. I remember when you told us about this blog. I don’t get by here often, but when I do, it’s a hoot.

    People talk down to others because they have a need to feel superior. In real life, they are not superior at all. Those people have a tendency to tell stories about how great they once were, but without fail, they cannot back it up with any documented evidence to support it. -Try it. Experiment. See who claims superiority, and then see if you can find any documented evidence of the claimed success.

  68. Pierre Sargent,

    I’m not sure why you think you know me, but unless you work at a gas station in the Ozarks, we’ve never met. I’ve driven through the region, but I don’t know anyone in the Lake of the Ozarks. I’m also not impressed with the fact you know what my hair looks like. Anyone with Facebook can see my picture. As to the rest of what you say, you are free to operate under any delusion about me you care to foster. So here’s an experiment for you – why don’t you hold your breath until I give a rat’s ass what you think of me? Try it. Just messin’ with ya bro.

  69. Aww Gene douche bag conspiracy boy. I’m at a disadvantage at the momment operating by my handheld device but what type of behavior is this name calling coming from a guest poster. Professor Turley must be proud.

  70. Bdaman,

    If you want to call me patronizing, it’s only fair I tell you what I think of you. In fact, you invited it. Just because I didn’t beat around the bush shouldn’t bother you. None of this would have happened at all if you’d realized that your problem with Dredd is your problem with Dredd, that no one here is interested in it, no one here can help you with it and this isn’t the appropriate forum to lodge a complaint. When you’ve been censored here or oppressed here, make a complaint here. By all means, I encourage you to do so. Otherwise, who you piss off and what they do about it on their Internet websites and/or blogs is between you and them. No one here is going to rush to your defense. Their editorial policies are theirs to make and enforce as they see fit. That we tolerate your constant threadjacking here is a testament to JT’s commitment to free speech. This is his play ground. He makes the rules. The rule here is free speech. You are free to say what you like within very limited rules which you have yet to my knowledge violate. You haven’t violated anyone’s anonymity and you haven’t assumed another poster’s identity, so you have nothing to be concerned about. Then again and conversely, I’m free to criticize whatever you say however I like. That’s the thing about free speech. It has two-edges.

  71. Tony C. That’s an outstanding quote, I bet Ms. Longworth was a hoot and a great dinner party guest. I’ll have to Google her and see if there are any books about her. I talk about sitting next to me in the Alice’s Restaurant style but with less of a stigma than being directed to the the actual ‘Group W’ bench. :-)

  72. Gene you’ve made you point and I understand it now stop being a distraction to the thread. Either add some substance to the topic of C.U. Coulter,O’Donnel or shut the fuck up.

  73. Carol Levy: “(Lottakatz – I am thinking this may well be an open convention; they will draft someone else, maybe Christie, Bush (of the names I know) who does not have the baggage of the words out there of these present contenders. … I also remember when I was younger staying up til 2, 3 in the morning as the delegates fought for the guy they wanted. Those were the days when politics could actually fun and interesting to just the regular guy.)

    ———–
    I remember some delegate fights at the conventions also, one could only wonder what deals were being brokered on the way to the final count.

    I am torn by the thought of a draft though. Republicans were better organized then, now it’s cirque du freakshow. After all of the work for all of the existing candidates and expectations of respect for the ‘base’, would the delegates allow a draft if it wasn’t some total whack-job that would be totally objectionable to the party elders? Who in the party that hoped to run for president in 16 would dare alienate the base they are going to have to count on.

    I also heard an analyst say that the Republicans were going to hope for the best this year but were not going to bet the farm on it – they would instead work in the next two years to shift the majorities in the Congress to the point of total, unbreakable control as well as concentrate on the State races. They would work to consolidate power to the point that the Presidency was immaterial in other words. That actually sounds like a good strategy if they could pull it off.

    Like you, I was thinking that a brokered convention was a possibility but now I’m not sure. The Republican’s house is in such disarray they aren’t predictable as yet even if they are doing everything, including breaking their own rules with the caucus’, to fix the race for Romney. I suppose if they stop doing that it will be a signal that they might have given up on this race and are working on consolidation and 2016 as was predicted by the commentator (i can’t remember who it was) I heard. It gets curiouser and curiouser.

  74. Bdaman,

    Apparently you don’t understand my point.

    You complaining here about problems you encountered on some other poster’s blog is simply inappropriate. It’s like going into traffic court and trying to file a suit for breach of contract. It reeks of you trying to get people here to somehow take your side to chastise Dredd or take him to task for his editorial choices on his blog. This is simply not going to happen. He is free to set his policies and enforce them in whatever manner he deems fit. It is his blog. Just like he has no say over policy here, none of us have any say over policy over there. At best, you are barking up the wrong tree. At worst, you’re trying to drag others into your beef with Dredd.

    Choosing to either “add some substance to the topic of C.U. Coulter,O’Donnel or shut the fuck up” is entirely your choice. Again, you are free to say what you like. You are also subject to challenge for what you say. Personally, I like either of those two choices.

  75. Limehouse,

    I was at a all night poker game and my sides hurt, do you know why?

    I think it was because everyone was giving me the finger.

  76. Lottakatz – Like you heard that and, like you, can’t recall who said it. It is a strategy that, sadly, makes sense. They already were able to obstruct a lot of what this president wants, consolidate power in both houses and we’re screwed. (well unless you like what the repubs have in mind for us).

  77. (Sry meant to add especially if we lose more Supremes (and I think I read Ginsburg?Souter wants to retire(?) ) and the repubs get to the ‘hiring’

  78. @lottakatz: Alice Roosevelt was a socialite, daughter of President Roosevelt. She was speaking in the same sense as you for attending a party or social or political event; she liked (and engaged in) sharp tongued humor, and she found polite chatter boring. So — make her laugh, a little mean-spirited gossip can be fun. :-)

  79. Tony,

    If you think mean spirited gossip can be fun….. Stay away from kids hockey games…. Just sayin..

  80. Lottakatz-

    As you undoubtedly know, Alice Roosevelt was the only daughter of Teddy Roosevelt by his first wife. During T.R.’s Presidency she was a party girl, one of the few women at that time who drove her own automobile (with a heavy foot!), and a general hell-raiser much loved by the Washington newspaper columnists. One of T.R.’s advisors asked him if he couldn’t do something about Alice. Teddy said, “I can run the country or I can run Alice, but I can’t do both”.

  81. HenMan,

    If I recall….FDRs wife was not much better……as I recall…the story…they had some tax issues that needed resolving…. A bright attorney working for the government was assigned to help Eleanor….. His name was rehnquist….. She then got him a job clerking for justice jackson….. And the rest is history….. Apparently he even slept with her…. This is from one of the professors that helped write the ucc and associated hornhook….

Comments are closed.