shotbanner.jpeg

March 14, 2006

"'elp! I'm Bein' Oppressed!"

According to George Clooney, the left is "intimidated".

OK, liberals - and I know you're out there, a lot of you leave comments - what is it about conservatives exercising their first amendment rights that "intimidates" you?

I don't want to call it an "open thread", since that's such a Kos-like thing (ew) but if you're a lefty, feel free to leave a comment explaining what this "intimidation" is.

I'm dying to know.

UPDATE: The first entry is a bit of what appears to be personal thuggishness. While that is lamentable (and something I and every credible conservative I know condemns without reservation), that's not really what I'm looking for. Thuggishness is a bad thing - and if you practice it, I don't care if you're a liberal thug or a conservative one. It's illegal, and

But what I'm looking for is examples of how conservatives' legal, First Amendment free speech rights and their exercise "intimidates" liberals. Because that, indeed, is what Clooney was kvetching about.

Posted by Mitch at March 14, 2006 07:43 AM | TrackBack
Comments

This is priceless...

I mentioned this in the last Clooney thread but I'll elaborate here...

In 2004, I was an election observer at my local precinct. I and others around the cities were there as a part of a MoveOn.org effort.

In two precincts, (not me) the Observers were in violation of the distance rules. the Judges asked them to move and they immediately obliged.

In my precinct, I was about 200 yards from the entrance to the polling place.

Starting early in tne morning, KSTP 1500 began airing reports that we were there intimidating people at the polling sites.

As the day progressed, I was threatened by at least 10 people, the Sheriff was called and I was told to leave because people were calling the Secretary of State and complaining that I was intimidating them. He checked with the Sec. of States office and he was told that I was well within my rights to be there so I was allowed to stay. At one point, a guy in a big Ford truck pulled up in front of where I was sitting and refused to move. When I moved ten feet away, he moved his truck to keep me blocked.

It went on for about an hour until the Sheriff finally told him to move his truck. He then pulled into a parking space 10 feet away and sat in his truck and heckled me. I never responded or said anything to him.

The full extent of my activity amounted to this: In the weeks before the elections, I did phone calls identifying Democrats and asked them to be sure to vote. I asked them to check in with me so I could have an idea how many of the people I contacted showed and for those who hadn't shown up, I would make one more effort to remind them to vote.

I spoke to no one other than about 15 people who were on my list to look for me and check in.

About two days after the elections, I was in a Cub store and there were two women in line behind me talking about the elections. One woman was telling the other how she was surrounded by MoveOn people when she went to vote. They allegedly asked her who she was going to vote for and then began to insult her and verbally assault her when she said she was going to vote for Bush.

I turned around and said, "that's terrible! Where did you vote?, and she told me she voted at the same precinct where I was the sole MoveOn observer.

So Mitch, why not ask the same question to conservatives? Why did I hear phone call after phone call that day on KSTP saying that we liberals were intimidating them? All we were doing was excersizing out constitutional rights.

Posted by: Doug at March 14, 2006 11:23 AM

"In 2004, I was an election observer at my local precinct. I and others around the cities were there as a part of a MoveOn.org effort."

Hey, Doug. How many conservative election "observers" did you see?

Posted by: Ryan at March 14, 2006 11:28 AM

Ryan,

Considering Mary Kiffmeyer's attempt to prejudice the election by putting up "Watch Out for Terrorists" signs, and the judicial order that barred such conduct, please tell me exactly how it is you feel the conservatives didn't atleast attempt to engage in "intimidation" tactics?

Perhaps it was the army of folks they flew to Florida to scream at the Florida Supreme Court in 2000 and at ballot counters that you didn't think was just such an attempt.

As for conservatives monitoring voting - as Doug's story pretty reasonably describes, conservatives were ready willing and able to cry "foul", what more observation did you think they needed. They were ready to be "sea lawyers" at the drop of a hat, including being abusive. Now conservatives don't own abuvisivness, not by a long shot, but claiming the conduct is one-sided is flatly false.

As for Mitch's continuing an irrelevant post thread, my question is this.

Mitch, as compared to the on-going sectarian violence, the dangers to the US Troops on the ground related to the instability in Iraq, how important do you feel George Clooney is? Further, now that information has pretty well borne out Joe Wilson's claim of intimidation and retaliation (the "missing" e-mails discussing Cheney's desire to go after Wilson), are you actually claiming attempts at intimidation - at the highest levels - arent' happening.

You all complained loudly about Clinton "smearing" folks who disagreed with him, and then engage in conduct that makes Clinton look like a chior boy. I don't recall Clinton ever outing a CIA Operative to retaliate against his/her spouse.

But the real question Mitch is, and once again you put the shoe on the wrong foot, it's not whether liberals are intimidated by your speaking out, it's that you are intimidated by them speaking out and attempting to restrict it.

You might want to actually address the real topic, rather than fallaciously wrong-footing it, and claiming folks are trying to do to you EXACTLY what you are trying to do to them.

Speak all you want - but when you attempt to retaliate against their livelihoods, their families, attempt to claim they are traitors or worse, for speaking out, you are no longer debating the issues, you are engaging in efforts to squelch their free speech. Your hypocrisy and falseness is without bounds it appears.

Tell me Mitch, do you think John Murtha is a traitor for aspousing exactly what Bush and Buckley are now aspousing? Or is it that he simply was brighter, and came to a conclusion earlier than they?

In the past you've implied people like Murtha were traitors. If you don't think that's attempting to squelch speech, you're either lying or delusional.

PB

Posted by: pb at March 14, 2006 11:46 AM

doug,

note my update. While your complaint (or, as you call them when I'm doing it, "whining") is well taken, most of what you describe is illegal, and thuggery at any rate, and something I roundly condemn.

Posted by: mitch at March 14, 2006 11:53 AM

"Considering Mary Kiffmeyer's attempt to prejudice the election by putting up "Watch Out for Terrorists" signs, and the judicial order that barred such conduct, please tell me exactly how it is you feel the conservatives didn't atleast attempt to engage in "intimidation" tactics?"

Sleight of hand, PB, and not very good sleight of hand at that. I'll ask again: how many conservative "observers" were there for the 2004 election? Additionally, what the hell were the MoveOn folks really "observing" anyway, beyond their own paranoia and inflated sense of self-importance?

"As for conservatives monitoring voting - as Doug's story pretty reasonably describes, conservatives were ready willing and able to cry "foul""

Yes, if one were to take Doug's story as gospel, even though it reads suspiciously like a Nick Coleman "man-on-the-street" interview.

"Now conservatives don't own abuvisivness, not by a long shot, but claiming the conduct is one-sided is flatly false."

Show me where I ever made the claim that it was one-sided. Please, I'll even wait here all nice an patient. I simply asked how many conservative "observers" were on hand for the 2004 election. Please, enlighten me. Oh, that's right, you played the sleight-of-hand card and went back to an incident during the 2000 Florida recount. Next!

"As for Mitch's continuing an irrelevant post thread, my question is this."

And now for the patented PB segue into an entirely irrelevant rant. Everything that follows that quote is a spittle-flecked sojourn into pointless diatribe. Way to stay in character, PB.

Posted by: Ryan at March 14, 2006 11:57 AM

"As the day progressed, I was threatened by at least 10 people..."

That was you? Small world.

Posted by: Kermit at March 14, 2006 12:09 PM

Ryan queried "I simply asked how many conservative "observers" were on hand for the 2004 election."

The answer to which is very few. Most of them work for a living.

Posted by: Kermit at March 14, 2006 12:14 PM

Kerm,

You are aware, of course, that Mitch has, during his down periods, i.e. when work was hard to find, engaged in the exact sorts of political activism you are complaining about others doing while they are unemployed?

Pot, meet Kettle.

Ryan - the point is, this carefully framed dialogue is so narrow as to be meaningless. Moreover, claiming conservatives don't engage in similar conduct, and frankly, at least in Doug's retelling FAR more insidious conduct, is wrong. You can claim "but that's different", and I can say, no, when folks attempt to interfere with voting, it's wrong, whether it's institutional interference, or impeding voting. You want to split hairs, fine, there were plenty of instances of conservative activism in Ohio that can be recounted, and let's not forget about moving 150,000 people off of voting roles in Florida in 2000. Claiming it doesn't happen on your side, claiming you are "better" is intellectual dishonesty. The liberals do improper things (I'm not implying Doug did) but you know what SO DO CONSERVATIVES.

The point you, Mitch, and all the rest of his toadies just don't get. I do not defend liberals, I am no advocate of unending welfare states, including being opposed to corporate welfare, but I will call out hypocrisy when I see it, and more than that, I will call out when someone is complaining about someone else doing EXACTLY what they are already engaged in. Conservatives are trying to intimidate Hollywood, they've been pretty successful at it really, so Mitch complaining about it, acting as if "aw shucks, we're just speakin our minds" and THEN complaining about free speech infringement is utter dishonesty. He/They are trying to infringe on free speech of others and hiding behind 1st ammendment defense. If he was so concerned about 1st ammendment defense, stand up for Clooney. 1st ammendment is the exact OPPOSITE of what he is about here.

Regardless, Mitch continuously ignores important points - and as for spittle-flecked, beyond being unecessary, it's pretty well utterly inaccurate. If anyone is chomping at the bit, it's the blogger - complaining about the potential for his 1st ammendment rights to be infringed. Mitch, perhaps the actions to engage in a coordinated campaign to smear folks who disagree with your side isn't "thugishness" in your book, but most of the rest of us consider it precisely such. While you may not get your marching orders from Ken Mehlmen, many of your compatriots do. While the caacophany of blogs is not meaningful to Clooney, it will be to his studio/agent/producers, and he'll hear about it, and then next time, he'll restrain his words. While you may say "exactly!", I say, that's a shame because he's not speaking for his studio, his producer, or his agent. He's an individual speaking his mind, and your side is not the only voice, it's just the loudest. You can't stand those who disagree, so you go after their pocketbooks (witness the call to impair Tribal lobbying)

But again, what is it about liberals speaking their minds that so intimidates YOU that you need to attack them personally, attack their livelihoods, attack their character? You have this exactly backwards.

PB

Posted by: pb at March 14, 2006 12:36 PM

"Mitch, and all the rest of his toadies just don't get. "

I have toadies?

Who knew?

Get me some f***ing Caribou, dammit!

"As for Mitch's continuing an irrelevant post thread..."

Ah, P. I am the *sole* judge of relevance on this blog.

Oh, and this bit here:

"You are aware, of course, that Mitch has, during his down periods, i.e. when work was hard to find, engaged in the exact sorts of political activism you are complaining about others doing while they are unemployed?"

Really?

Did I, then?

What exactly DID I do, P?

You know something I don't?

Posted by: mitch at March 14, 2006 12:39 PM

I'll always be your toadie, Mitch. In fact, I'll even be your froggie, if you ask really nice.

Posted by: Ryan at March 14, 2006 12:44 PM

"I have toadies?

Who knew?"

Dang, I thought I was a sycophant. And I went and had the t-shirt silk-screened.
You owe me $15.99, Berg.

Posted by: Kermit at March 14, 2006 12:44 PM

Any and every attempt to come up with an example, even if it is a video tape and is sourced with multiple witnesses will be met with this simple statement from Mitch:

"that's not what I meant"

He will move the goal posts with his smooth writing style and allow his cheerleading squad to rally around him.

This is merely an exercise in futility.

So to test my theory, I present this timely message from Mark Kennedy's Website:
http://www.markkennedy06.com/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=13919

Amy Klobuchar Pulls Ad from Hate Website

DKos is now a Hate website, what does that make Freeperville, a haven for the Righteous.

Sorry Mitch, all the Right has left is attack and deception in their tool box.

It's no different then the President telling me either I am with him, or I am a terrorist.

Flash

Posted by: Flash at March 14, 2006 12:49 PM

"what is it about liberals speaking their minds that so intimidates YOU that you need to attack them personally, attack their livelihoods, attack their character? You have this exactly backwards"

Um, I'm attacking what George Clooney *says*. It's a fairly important, and obvious, distinction.

Posted by: mitch at March 14, 2006 12:51 PM

Let me also be clear, having you speak your mind on your blog is no issue, nor is even an organized effort to raise your objections regarding Clooney. I would hope the studios recognize you represent the lunatic fringe of the right wing. But when you start engaging the studio leadership, studio ownership to cencor Clooney, then we have crossed a very important line - a line similar to McCarthy's assailing of Hollywood in the 50's, specifically, the doctrinaire attempt to stiffle dissent, and the use of economic power to enforce it. THAT's a real danger, a real assualt on free speech - and one far more important than your alligator tears about some perceived potential threat upon your 1st ammendment rights - a threat you can't reasonably claim is being actualized.

Regardless though, the fact is FAR more than just pressure upon the studio leaderhip exists, and claiming it's limited to that kind of activity is a lie. It's WAY to the 10,000th power beyond that, and attempting to limit the discussion to simply what is legal, if ugly, is to ignore the primary problem, just as you ignore so many other real problems.

The issue is the institutional interference that goes on with one party in total control of much of the government, doing things like "icing" reporters who ask uncomfortable questions, planting Jeff Guckerts to toss up softballs, going after Joe Wilson, saying "no one anticipated levees would be breached" and then working to restrict access to information regarding Katrina, Iraq, or nearly everything else. It's not the rather more trivial assault on Clooney, it's the claim under "National Security" concerns that you need to go after reporters who TELL THE TRUTH about things like an NSA program that was a secret ONLY to our own citizenry. It represented ZERO loss of capability from a National Security standpoint unless you really think Al Qaeda is patently stupid and pays NO attention to US policy/control of internet services/etc.. No, the ONLY thing the proposed bill in Congress to go after those who report on these kinds of programs is for is to INTIMIDATE them from speaking. Bush attempted to get the Times to NOT report the story, now he wants to make it law that they can't.

THAT's intimidation, if you insist on focusing on nothing, you should be taken as meaningless.

How would you react to an attempt by the government to declare any reporting regarding the President's conduct was national security, so any conduct, lawful or not, was prevented from being reported? They have NO credibility standard in the proposed law, no proof of actual security risk, simply the claim by the Presidency of it's value is sufficient.

So again, Mitch when you focus on nothing of relevance, you rightly get taken as irrelevant. Which would be fine if it were so transparently obvious that you MEAN to distract, dissemble, and trivialize rather repulsive conduct by the administration. You thump your chest regarding the 1st ammendment while your President proposes putting reporters and editors in jail for reporting the truth - based SOLELY on the word of the administration that the story gives away details which MIGHT impair "security." You are transparent - and reflect a genuine interest in liberties that is neither genuine nor interesting.

PB

Posted by: pb at March 14, 2006 12:54 PM

"I would hope the studios recognize you represent the lunatic fringe of the right wing"

That's the beauty of it, for lazy, brainwashed, rage-addled intellectual campfollowers (isn't namecalling fun?) like yourself; *EVERY* outspoken conservative is "the lunatic fringe".

Posted by: mitch at March 14, 2006 12:59 PM

So Mitch, again with the trivialization of the topic... but whatever...

You tell me Mitch, when you were between jobs, I assume you didn't post on your blog, attend any meetings regarding conservative issues, write letters, anything at all, right?

I also assume you didn't show up on any radio stations, any political events for conservative causes?

See, that's just as much political activism as showing up at a poll, but then you'll just claim "no that's different" in your continuing myopia.

I have NO issue with you doing any of that, but when you assail your opposition for not having a job, it means you are wearing a hypocrisy suit.

PB

Posted by: pb at March 14, 2006 01:00 PM

"DKos is now a Hate website, what does that make Freeperville, a haven for the Righteous."

Many of DKos postings do, indeed, drip with hate, and its comment section makes the comment section here at SITD read like a Dr. Suess book.

Posted by: Ryan at March 14, 2006 01:01 PM

"You thump your chest regarding the 1st ammendment"

No, I merely use the First Amendment. Just like Clooney.

" while your President proposes putting reporters and editors in jail"

Cites, please? Now?

"You are transparent - and reflect a genuine interest in liberties that is neither genuine nor interesting."

So...let me get this straight; is my interest genuine, or is it not genuine? Because you said both, within the same sentence, there.

THAT is genuinely interesting!

Posted by: mitch at March 14, 2006 01:01 PM

I think what liberals are objecting to is being called -- or implied to be -- unpatriotic when protesting the war. They find this intimidating.
Well, buck up little peaceniks! Have a little courage in your convictions. If you believe you are right, and that you'll end up on the right side of history, then a little name calling shouldn't bother you. Call me when Bushitler starts shipping you to the gulag.
God knows you call conservatives enough names over latte. Almost makes me scared to go into the Blue Monday on Division Street. Luckily my desire/need for caffeine helps me overcome the intimidation.

Posted by: chriss at March 14, 2006 01:02 PM

"I also assume you didn't show up on any radio stations, any political events for conservative causes?

See, that's just as much political activism as showing up at a poll,"

See, now, that's just across-the-board dumb. Attending political events for conservative causes or calling into a radio show is 180 different than skulking around polling places in the guise of being an "observer." You don't think it was intimidating for voters in the charged 2004 election to have to cast ballots under the "observing" eyes of MoveOn creepoids?

Posted by: Ryan at March 14, 2006 01:07 PM

"So Mitch, again with the trivialization of the topic... but whatever..."

What? Asking a question when I catch you in a bald-faced overreach is "trivialization?"

"You tell me Mitch, when you were between jobs, I assume you didn't post on your blog"

Between 8AM and 5PM, if I wasn't working a contract job, I was on the phone and the computer, chasing leads. Every day. In the five months I went with no work in '03, I was on the phone and online ten hours a day, every single day. Then, as before and since, I got up and blogged at 5AM. I also made the occasional daytime post, when I was in downtime between other things.

"attend any meetings regarding conservative issues, write letters,"

Nope and nope. Hunting for work - especially when you have two kids to feed - is a full time job. I don't recommend it.

"I also assume you didn't show up on any radio stations, any political events for conservative causes?"

Huh? My show didn't start until March of 2004 - five months after the steady work started, not that it's any of your business. Oh, I filled in for Bob Davis one night, after I'd been out of work for three weeks. The $100 I earned went a long way.

"See, that's just as much political activism as showing up at a poll, but then you'll just claim "no that's different" in your continuing myopia."

Whatever. Blogging and the like took a VERY distant third place to my kids and job hunting.

"I have NO issue with you doing any of that, but when you assail your opposition for not having a job, it means you are wearing a hypocrisy suit."

I'm "assailing" a stereotype; lefties who turn up at protests because they have all sorts of free time during the day for whatever reason - they dont' work, they work jobs with sufficient flexibility that they can put their main priority first, and the independently wealthy.

None of which described me in the least.

As is usual with your attempts to figure these things out.

Posted by: mitch at March 14, 2006 01:13 PM

"I would hope the studios recognize you represent the lunatic fringe of the right wing"

Great. Now I can't erase the mental image of someone like Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Katzenberg pounding a fist on the big table and screaming, "We can't let this Berg fellow in Minnesota tell Clooney what to say, do and think. He's not MAINSTREAM!"

Because, you know, Hollywood studio execs hang on every word that Mitch posts on this blog.

Posted by: Dave in Pgh. at March 14, 2006 01:21 PM

You know, what this country really needs is a true blue American hero like McCarthy to come back and identify the traitorous wretches that are trying to ruin us.

Kermit, what was I supposed to do now? Oh, yeah.

;-D

/ducks, runs

Posted by: Pious Agnostic at March 14, 2006 01:30 PM

The PeeB: "But when you start engaging the studio leadership, studio ownership to cencor Clooney, then we have crossed a very important line - a line similar to McCarthy's assailing of Hollywood in the 50's, specifically, the doctrinaire attempt to stiffle dissent, and the use of economic power to enforce it."

Ok, PB, at what level does the legitimate desire of a group to protest the policies of another group cross that line? Does it cross it when Universities group together to refuse to invest in certain businesses whose policies they dislike? How about people who refuse to support employers who won't do "living wage" jobs? Or are those not crossing the line because they are things you support?

There's a difference between using the power of the gov't to intimidate and the power of a free association of people to boycott. You know, the difference between using the Law and using the First Amendment. Or was Clooney indicted with something for making the terrible Good Night?.

It's great Clooney is being so vocal, and I think it's just fine that he's trashing 'fraidy (fat) cat liberals. But if he thinks I'll feel much sympathy for him if his popularity goes the way of the Dixie Chicks, he's sadly mistaken.

Posted by: nerdbert at March 14, 2006 01:36 PM

P.A., stop baiting JerOmy. One comment thread with that loon per year is more than plenty.

Posted by: Ryan at March 14, 2006 01:44 PM

P.A. you will be getting your summons to appear before the HUAC tomorrow. I suggest you find a good lawyer.

Posted by: Kermit at March 14, 2006 01:55 PM

Ryan,

You're right of course. Sorry about that.

I just think it's interesting how the usual suspects hijack this comments thread. Mitch asked a relatively easy question (albiet loaded and somewhat leading):

"[W]hat is it about conservatives exercising their first amendment rights that "intimidates" you?"

He even clarified it, to exclude illegal intimidation and thuggishness.

And what do we get? "Hey, some dude parked in front of me two years ago...and besides, you want to put people in gulags!"

Step up, libs. Answer the freakin' question.

I suspect that all the preening and whinging amounts to "Having to try to back up my political opinions with reasonable arguments is making my head hurt."

Posted by: Pious Agnostic at March 14, 2006 01:57 PM

All I saw of Move-on types in my precinct was a lonely bearded intellectual white guy set up with a card table across the parking lot from the Mormon Church.

If this was what Mr. Soros and company got for their mega-millions, it was a pretty lame undertaking.

Posted by: Greg at March 14, 2006 02:31 PM


The thing about "observing elections" for the purpose of bravely fighiting intimidation and fraud is that you don't need MoveOn.org to enable you.

St. Paul (Ramsey County, actually) had openings for election judges up to a few weeks before the actual eleciton. Almost anyone can could sign up with them and actually be in charge of executing election law and officially reporting and halting any malfesence.

Of course, then you'd have to work a 12+ hour long day, be held accountable for your decisions and accusations, and be robbed of any self-aggrandizing drama (and illusions of fraud and intimidation).

Maybe that's why I didn't see Doug *really* working at a precint that day, it doesn't sound like his style.


Posted by: Saint Paul at March 14, 2006 02:59 PM

That from an actual election judge.

Not a "Chickenjudge" from the "101st Fighting Tabulators".

Posted by: mitch at March 14, 2006 03:08 PM

Doug wrote: "In 2004, I was an election observer at my local precinct. I and others around the cities were there as a part of a MoveOn.org effort."

I was also an observer (volunteering for the Secretary of State), and heard of several Moveon.org folks getting the boot by attempting to talk to voters, standing by the voting machine, setting up camp too close to the entrance, etc. I was observing in Dakota county, and did witness Moveon moving away from the poll entrance.

My own brother, a school district union member and activist, proudly told me how he and others stormed in to the RNC headquarters in St. Paul in October and intimidated volunteers. His union planned this stunt and bussed them in.

Happily, neither group got their way November 2. And the echo of angry liberal losers rings on. I'll check back for examples of conservatives intimidating the left. I think facts and thoughtful debate intimidates them.

Posted by: Nancy at March 14, 2006 03:08 PM

Saint Paul said,

"Maybe that's why I didn't see Doug *really* working at a precint that day, it doesn't sound like his style."

So when you don't opt for trying to intimidate, you go straight to being a condescending, smug little prick?

Nice.

You do it your way, I'll do it mine and by the way, if I had been an elections judge, I wouldn't have had the fun of sitting outside in the freezing rain getting harassed by morons who don't know elections day rules from toaster pastries.

Posted by: Doug at March 14, 2006 03:27 PM

Um, Doug?

In point of fact, Saint is a St. Paul Elections Judge, and has been for quite some time.

He has a better command of election-day law than just about anyone I've met - and it was my job to meet such people, at one point.

Just saying.

Posted by: mitch at March 14, 2006 03:38 PM

DailyKos is now a hate Website?

Righhht...


Posted by: Doug at March 14, 2006 03:39 PM


If you had been an election judge, those violations could have been reported, halted, and the perpetrators prosected.

Or you could sit in the rain and concoct all the irreconcilable grievances and self pity you want. Yes, you do it your way Doug.

Posted by: Saint Paul at March 14, 2006 03:39 PM

"Righhht..."

OH NO! IT'S INELUCTIBLE LOGIC!

Hey, who's the "Smug Prick", anyway?

Posted by: Geoff at March 14, 2006 03:44 PM

OK, settle down kids.

My question remains: Outside of *illegal* activity - which, again, I condemn - what is the supposed "intimidation" that you non-Hollywood lefties apparently feel when faced with our *legal free speech*?

Please keep comments germane to that question, if you'd be so kind.

Posted by: Mitch at March 14, 2006 03:54 PM

Besides, if St. Doug had volunteered to be an election judge he would have become part of the system, man. Just another tool of the establishment. How can you be a crusading liberal and a part of the machine?
Screws up all your hyperbole potential, dontcha know.

Posted by: Kermit at March 14, 2006 03:59 PM

It hurts their feelings, duh.

Posted by: Ryan at March 14, 2006 03:59 PM

Sorry, not a liberal. I'll bow out.

Posted by: Kermit at March 14, 2006 04:00 PM

An honest response.

First of all your question is obviously too broad. The blanket "non-Hollywood Lefties" encompasses far more people than Clooney is referring too. It implies first that ALL liberals are making the claim of intimidation by conservatives exercising free-speech, and second that there indeed is such a claim being made.

I think this generalization invites the generalized answers you've been getting.

A better, fairer question would be, "what is the supposed "intimidation" that SOME lefties apparently feel when faced with our *legal free speech*?"

I am not convinced that this is quite what Clooney is saying when he states, "The fear of been criticized can be paralyzing"

He finishes with the following:
"We can't demand freedom of speech then turn around and say, But please don't say bad things about us. You gotta be a grown up and take your hits."

It seems to me to be a matter of semantics. Stating contrary positions, initiating conflict, and taking criticism can be intimidating for many people. Such a person could be said to be "intimidated." That does not necessarily mean the person is intimidated by the other group so much as the situation.

The people whom post here obviously do not have this problem with respect to speaking their minds. But there are many people, on both sides, that do feel intimidated about making their voice heard/causing conflict/taking criticism. I think Clooney's piece is simply a plea to the liberals in that group to speak up, rather than some kind of complaint that conservatives are exercising their rights.

Disclaimer: I will not respond to any comments regarding my post that involve any of the following:

1. Name calling
2. Restating my position to align with the
"liberal in your head."
3. Extrapolations to other political issues not germane to this topic

Posted by: Nick at March 14, 2006 04:59 PM

Thank you Nick. You are absolutely 100% correct.

Posted by: Doug at March 14, 2006 07:59 PM

Maybe these examples will help you leftys. Larry Summers at Harvard, Numerous Speakers at University Campuses shouted down, Corporations shaken down by the Rainbow Coalition. I could go on. Oh wait, those are examples of Left wing intimidation suppressing speach. But you get the idea, show us stuff like that.

Posted by: Michael S at March 14, 2006 10:14 PM

I believe Clooney's larger point is illustrated by the recent Iraq vet ads in MN and the Feingold initiative in WA: Liberals want the right to criticize the adminstration,
1) without being criticized by people who disagree
2) without having to answer for how their actions -- intentionally or unintentionally -- dovetail with the goals and objectives of our enemies
3) without having to make a policy stand.
Witness: MN DFL's hissy fit about the vet ads. Instead of taking out their own ads which would have to state for the record that they believe our soldiers are wasting their time, they instead said the group didn't have a right to air the commericals
Witness: The Democrats in Congress bloviate about violation of our civil liberties, but when Feingold actually puts his money where his mouth is and asks fellow Dem's to do the same, they can't run away fast enough.

Posted by: chriss at March 15, 2006 11:23 AM

Just a point of clarification for Dougie and the Moveon.org bunch of hillbillies:

"Election Observers" are specifically registered with the SOS office. They are registered so that they can be regulated and make sure the election is following standard practices.

Any "Election Observer" that is camped out in front of a polling location (we had one that set-up shop right in front of the door to our city hall) are NOT "Election Observers". Not even close. They are ELECTION THUGS who want to use intimidation or lies to drag a few extra votes for their side.

So Doug, stop calling yourself an "Election Observer". You weren't. If you WERE, you would have been inside the precinct and NOT allowed to drag any of your propaganda crap with you.

Posted by: Dave at March 15, 2006 12:43 PM

So Doug?

In observance of this: "So Doug, stop calling yourself an "Election Observer". You weren't. If you WERE, you would have been inside the precinct and NOT allowed to drag any of your propaganda crap with you", and of Saint's comments yesterday, it would seem that your case of "intimidation" is best described as "not having been allowed to break the law".

No?

Posted by: mitch at March 15, 2006 12:49 PM

Mitch, first let me say up front that I wasn’t there, only know what I read, etc.

Having said that, I do not believe Doug. I think he is a liar. Only two of his statements do I believe. 1) He was in Minneapolis, and 2) the people were complaining to the radio station that moveon.org was harassing them. Probably because they were. But the rest of this really rings false.

1. MoveOn.org having trouble with the politicos in Minne-fricking-apolis on election day? Give me a break. If anything, the democratic powers-that-be-in Minneapolis were buying then tea and scones.

2. moveon.org was not harassing anyone for political reasons? This has to be the very first political action taken by those socialists that did not include harassment. Doug said that all they were doing was exercising their political rights. Which seems to be just this side of a riot.

3. The BIIIIIIG pickup truck that was blocking his way was a nice touch. Remember the atheist professor in Kansas or Nebraska that was beat up by two men in a pickup truck? Whatever happened to that, by the way? If it’s rednecks picking on poor little socialists, they just got to be driving a big pickup.

4. And amazingly, he happens to meet lying, cheating, thieving, lowdown Bush supporters in the store! The very same store where he was shopping! And the lying, unpleasantly genetic canine individual that she was, just happened to have voted in the very same precinct! And oh, how she lied! About him, personally, no less!

It’s a load of crap. Now, down here in Texas, where we really have a lot of big pickups, we would have kicked his socialist butt. I could almost believe it if he said he was down here. ;-). But in Minneapolis? Come on, Mitch! Does anyone up there have the wherewithal to harass one poor little moveon.org peasant?

Posted by: Scott at March 15, 2006 02:34 PM

Furthermore, Dougie-boy:

http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/election_judge_guide_february_2006_edition.pdf

Doug, if you can read, take a look at Section 3.0 and 3.3. If you aren't too busy polishing your "Wellstone! Lives!" button.

Read carefully. Election judges are APPOINTED by the local cities and challengers are "apppointed by candidates, the parties, or sometimes the school districts." Then read further. You have to file a form!

Dougie...before you annoint yourself a saint and claim you have been brutalized...maybe you better correct what you were doing. It was called voter intimidation. And what you GOT for your intimidation was a truck that was not willing to let you play your little game.

Don't call yourself an "Election Observer" bub. You were nothing of the sort.

Posted by: Dave at March 15, 2006 04:18 PM

Dave,

1. My name is Doug not Dougie.

2. I'm a middle class Design professional. Not a hillbilly.

3. I had a clipboard and a button. There's your propaganda... Wow.

4. Explain to me how my being 200 yards away from the front door only talking to the handful of people I asked to look for me is intimidation or lying?

Finally, you're right. I wasn't an election observer. I stand corrected.

You could have simply pointed out my error in symantics but no. Instead, you entertain all of us with your string of insulting, condescending crap.

One last thing Dave... I never claimed to have been brutalized did I.

I asked Mitch a simple question. Why were those poor helpless people calling KSTP complaining about being intimidated by me when I wasn't doing anything remotely intimidating? And as I mentioned, I wasn't violating any rules and the SOS's own office told the Sheriff's dept that I could be there doing what I was doing.

Posted by: Doug at March 15, 2006 09:41 PM

Mitch,

you said, "it would seem that your case of "intimidation" is best described as "not having been allowed to break the law"."

You are suggesting that:

Somehow I was stopped from breaking the law. So, logically, you believe I would have broken the law if I had not been stopped. Right?

Am I reading you right?

Posted by: Doug at March 15, 2006 09:48 PM

Oh look! More maturity and well thought out debate from Dave...


"Furthermore, Dougie-boy:"

"Doug, if you can read"

"If you aren't too busy polishing your "Wellstone! Lives!" button"

"before you annoint yourself a saint"

"bub"


Well thank you Dave for those elloquent and insightful comments.

You really are a credit to your party.

Posted by: Doug at March 15, 2006 09:56 PM

Scott,

Funny... I don't recall saying that I was in Minneapolis.

I don't know about Texas but up here, we're required to pass reading comprehension as part of our graduation standards.

As for your comment that if I were in Texas you would have kicked my socialist butt, I have absolutely no doubt that you would have. Thats OK. I understand your need to find more hobbies (other than screwing your sister) since they cancelled Hee Haw.

Posted by: Doug at March 15, 2006 10:23 PM

Doug is right. Here's what happened. I saw him there, 200 yards from the polling place with nothing more intimidating that a clipboard and a MoveOn button. So naturally as a card carrying member of Rove's super secret propaganda machine I recruited several people to call KSTP to compain about MoveOn harrassment at my polling place. The best part, the part I'm most proud of, was recruiting those women to talk about being surrounded by MoveOn thugs at that polling place (even though it was just lonely, just talkin' to my 15 friends Doug all by hisself), and right behind Doug in the Whole Foods checkout line. Brilliant! Diabolical! Almost... unbelievable.
And Doug, for someone who chafes at being called Dougie you're pretty quick with the old incest humor.

Posted by: chriss at March 15, 2006 11:32 PM

Doug, you're right, you did not say that you were in Minneapolis. You did, however, mention being "around the cities". Could that be the Twin Cities, as in Minneapolis and St. Paul? You also mentioned KSTP 1500, which I'm guessing is an AM station, so probably the signal doesn't carry very far. I'm only saying that because their web site says they are an AM station. And it says that they are in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. So maybe you were in St. Paul. On the other hand, you didn't say that you were not in St. Paul. Maybe you were in the suburbs. What precinct were you in that you "observed" and "got harrassed" by conservatives a big old pickup? Please clear the matter up.

As far as my sister goes, she is downright scary. I think she is really Armando over at the koskids. You would probably like her. She is a socialist, pro-gay, anti-achievement Bush-hater. You would love her. But incest? Really, Doug, now I'm starting to think that you are the uneducated one. Incest jokes are not applicable to the southwest or even to the entire south. Usually only Tennessee, Kentucky or sometimes Arkansas get those kinds of jokes. Not that you would deal in stereotypes. Not a fine educated liberal such as yourself. And perhaps you did not notice the ";-)", used to indicate a joke, in this case, about the stereotypical Texan. You would be safe in Texas, Doug, as evidenced by the actions of our citizens toward the liars at Camp Sheehan.

But by all means, find another blog to lie about how you were threatened by a mean old Texan. And I really do drive a pickup, a 2004 GMC Sierra, extended cab, dark gray, leather seats, power everything. And I love it. The only thing that would be better would be like a really big Ford 350 dually, you know, those ones that are so big you need a county to turn around in. And they are really intimidating.

I stand by my original statement, Doug.

I believe that you are a liar.

You troll on platforms like this one to lie, somewhat anonymously. The harassment that you described only exits in some propaganda fairytale of kristalnacht, brownshirted, pickup driving thugs. You give scenarios with little details, like where you were, for example. You use the same propaganda lines, like the rest of moveon.org.

Posted by: Scott at March 16, 2006 06:35 AM

chriss said,

"And Doug, for someone who chafes at being called Dougie you're pretty quick with the old incest humor."

Clearly not as quick as Dave with the highbrow, sophisticatd humor of "Furthermore, Dougie-boy"

I'll get to work on that right away.

Scott said,

"You troll on platforms like this one to lie, somewhat anonymously."

I've been posting at this blog regularly for close to - maybe even over a year. I've had great exchanges with regulars here including this blogs host.

I come here because I find it entertaining. On issues other than politics, I share a lot in common with the host. We are the same age, we have the same interests in music / popular culture and we have very similar backgrounds. We both have kids and from what I can determine from Mitch's writing, his family is a priority in his life as is my wife and my kids in my life.

I respect that.

When he's not pontificating about liberals, I think he is actually a pretty good writer. I especially appreciate his "slice of life" type posts and I have told him as much.

Other then occasionally following the links here, this is the only "conservative" blog I visit.

Troll? Whatever.

Next, as for being a liar? Do you honestly think I care what you believe about me?

As Mitch frequently says, pffff.

Of course, the point of my post - to illustrate a slew of conservative voters crying intimidation by me simply excersizing my constitutional rights - is completely missed by you.

I will say that lately, the responses to me and other folks on my side of the fence are getting a lot more angry, vindictive and - dare I say shrill?

What's that all about?


Posted by: Doug at March 16, 2006 07:51 AM

Dougie-boy:

I don't care if you think yourself to be the Queen of Sheeba or some middle level programmer, what you did was CLAIM to be something you weren't.

I NEVER claimed (read it Dougie) that you didn't have the RIGHT to go set up a card table and try to intimidate or spew a few lies in the hopes of capturing a couple votes. But...the guy with the truck had EVERY right to pester you as much as he wanted to.

You and the rest of the tinfoil hat/pot-banging crowd deserve everything you get. I'm happy to hear that some citizen decided to interfere with your stunt.

Posted by: Dave at March 16, 2006 08:57 AM

And Dougie boy, one more thing. Your use of the term "Election Observer" was NOT a "symantics" mistake. You used it to attempt to lend some level of credibility to you being at a polling place, harassing voters. I call it harassment, you call it education....that's symantics.

Oh, and I feel SO bad that I am hurting your feelings. I have to (sniff..sniff) go find a tissue. I'm SOOOOOO crushed. I must feel just like you and your moveon.org boobs after Johnny-boy lost in November 2004.

Posted by: Dave at March 16, 2006 09:03 AM

One last thing Dave...
Posted by Doug at March 15, 2006 09:41 PM

Posted by Doug at March 15, 2006 09:48 PM

Posted by Doug at March 15, 2006 09:56 PM

Posted by Doug at March 15, 2006 10:23 PM

Then, after a nap

Posted by Doug at March 16, 2006 07:51 AM

Posted by: Kermit at March 16, 2006 09:27 AM

Dave said,

"You and the rest of the tinfoil hat/pot-banging crowd deserve everything you get."

Back at there Dave...

"You used it to attempt to lend some level of credibility to you being at a polling place, harassing voters. I call it harassment, you call it education....that's symantics."

I didn't call anything education. I said I was there with a clipboard counting the people I had already talked to and had asked to check in when they got there.

You call it harrassment because you have obviously fallen for the same poor me / Help me! I'm being victimized attitude that Clooney (and Mitch ironically) were commenting on.


And Dave... I repeat...

"The responses to me and other folks on my side of the fence are getting a lot more angry, vindictive and - dare I say shrill?"

You might want to use that tissue of yours to wipe that frothing spittle off your bottom lip.


Posted by: Doug at March 16, 2006 09:48 AM

And Kermit,

Remember? I work for a living. I don't have the luxury of sitting home watching Judge Judy and collecting disability checks for being too overweight like some people I know...

I post when I can and that usually after or before work.

Posted by: Doug at March 16, 2006 09:57 AM

I like that. You are there, with a clipboard, making sure the brainwashed pot-bangers are there to vote.

I'm not frothing at the mouth, I'm laughing at the sheer stupidity of you and your ilk. That's all. Dougie-boy...go back to your day job...and make sure you flip those burgers before they burn.

Posted by: Dave at March 16, 2006 12:02 PM

Doug-
You were caught in a lie and, par-for-the-leftist-course, decide to skip merrily over that and point in some other direction...or change the subject...or make snarky remarks. The bottom line is you're a liar and everything you say is now moot.

Funny how the leftists go on blog sites and just DAZZLE us all with their "wit" and then can't take the least bit of sarcasm and, I daresay, well-deserved ridicule, without crying about how mean conservatives are! Wow.

Posted by: Colleen at March 16, 2006 02:25 PM

Colleen,

Have you met Dave?

Dave, may I introduce Colleen.

You two seem really good for each other.

You're both rabidly anti-liberal and a bit - well, that's being generous - you're both raving loonies.

Colleen, I would have initially thought maybe it was you that I ran into at Cub Foods but then I remebered that you do all of your grocery shopping at PetSmart.

Posted by: Doug at March 16, 2006 06:51 PM

Oh Dougie-boy...hard day at the grill?

I do love how you define people. Ok...I accept that label as "raving loonie". I believe in many things that define myself (and conservatives)...such as personal responsibility, free speech (which I never did complain about, regarding you and your band of loopy tin-foil boobs trying to create voter intimidation at the polls in 2004), and many other principles of the Constitution.

Of course, you and your ilk look to subvert the Constitution by use of liberal-America-hating judges (i.e. 9th Circuit in CA) or creating phantom campaign groups to subvert the rotten McCain/Feingold (gee, where have I seen that name lately?) campaign laws (see moveon.org).

But that's ok. As Judge Snails once said: "The world needs ditch diggers too". So...enjoy your digging. Thus be your lot in life.

Posted by: Dave at March 16, 2006 07:50 PM

Yep, again I'm simply dazzled by your rapier wit, Doug. A "raving loony" am I? Man, I guess it doesn't take much. Believe me Doug, I am nowhere near you...and that's nice.

Posted by: Colleen at March 16, 2006 10:25 PM

Dave said,

"I do love how you define people."

You mean like illiterate?

"Doug, if you can read"

Or stereotyping socio-economic and or educational status

"Just a point of clarification for Dougie and the Moveon.org bunch of hillbillies:"

Throw open your windows folks and take a deep breath... Smell it? That's the deep stench of Dave's hyprocricy.

Here's the fun part... cue music...

wait... better yet... open this link in another window while you read along with Dave... Turm up you speaker nice and loud...

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/america.htm

Ready? and go...


"I believe in many things that define myself (and conservatives)...such as personal responsibility,"

(...Three arrests confirmed and a alleged forth for felony drug possession which Bush will neither confirm nor deny... Yes, I can see that personal responsibility is very important to you. Please continue Dave...)

"free speech (which I never did complain about, regarding you and your band of loopy tin-foil boobs trying to create voter intimidation at the polls in 2004)"

(...In carefully controlled free speech zones and rules that anyone wearing clothing deemed offensive, innapropriate or objectionable by a member of the secret service can be removed from political events and placed under arrest. Yes Dave. I can tell Free Speech is an important issue for you conservative. Go on...)

"and many other principles of the Constitution."

(...Like the right to secretly wiretap and eavesdrop on Quakers and other radical left-wing extreemist hate groups like United for Peace and Justice.)

Of course, you and your ilk look to subvert the Constitution by use of liberal-America-hating judges (i.e. 9th Circuit in CA)

(...Oooohhh... Way to work in the RNC talking point... Well placed!)

or creating phantom campaign groups to subvert the rotten McCain/Feingold (gee, where have I seen that name lately?) campaign laws (see moveon.org).

...Yes Dave. The last thing that we need is an end to Corporate money and influence buying elections. I can understand your concerns considering that without Corporate funds, Republicans and Conservatives in name only may never win another seat in Congress, much less the Presidency.


You are a parody of yourself Dave. Thanks for keeping me laughing


Posted by: Doug at March 16, 2006 11:36 PM

Doug,
Look at what Mitch was asking:

"feel free to leave a comment explaining what this "intimidation" is"

What we got from you was an elaborate lie.
- You were an election observer.
- No, you were 200 yards away with a button and clip board, but still observing the election.
- You are afraid of big Ford pickups.
- The sheriff was called because of complaints to the Sec of State, but then the sheriff called the Sec of State, who said you could stay. (?) So who sent the Sheriff?
- You were observing the election, but doing it your way instead of the legal way.
- You haven't said which precinct you were in, but you didn't say you were in Minneapolis.

But where were you, Doug? What precinct were you observing? Can you tell us that much?

Then we got your whine that the post was getting "shrill", but not you.
No, when you called St. Paul a "smug little prick", that wasn't shrill.
No, when you said that he was entertaining "all of us with your string of insulting, condescending crap", that wasn't shrill.
No, when you said that I was screwing my sister, that wasn't shrill.

You're a liar. A liberal. A troll. moveon.org went to Minnesota to harass the voters. They went to Minnesota because they were in less danger of getting arrested, thanks to the liberal support from the DFL. They chose a safe target to show their courage.

And you were a part of it. Because the people of the state complained about the antics of your organization, you are suddenly the victim. It's priceless. You can make a butt of yourself, and when people don't like it, why, it's conservatives are intimidating you!!

Mitch should shut down this post to conserve server space. All we get is more whiney lies.

Posted by: Scott at March 17, 2006 05:59 AM

Scott,

Let's do look closely at what Mitch said shall we?

According to George Clooney, the left is "intimidated".

He follows that with a request to:

"feel free to leave a comment explaining what this "intimidation" is"

The complete lack of responses to Mitch's question should lead you to conclude that no one here feels intimidated.

That should be abundantly clear but apparently that steel plate in your head is interfering with your ability to comprehend.

In response though, I post an example of events that I WAS involved in - with a record of callers to a radio station claiming that us evil liberals were intimidating other voters.

I asked essentially the same question Mitch asked. How was I, sitting alone in a parking lot with a clipboard and a button - a perfectly legal activity - intimidation?

Rather than answer the question, you stomp your feet and squeal like a stuck pig.

Perhaps it's not clear to you Scott but I was not the least bit intimidated by the guy in the truck. That's not for a lack of him trying though. If I had been, I would have left but I rather enjoyed it. It was funny.

I'm also not the one who called the Sheriff if that's what you are suggesting. That would have been clear to most people from the post that said, "the Sheriff was called and I was told to leave" - Unless I actually called the Sheriff myself and complained about myself being parked out in a parking lot with a clipboard and a button but I just don't recall doing that.

To your other points:

- You were an election observer.

Already corrected and clarified.

- No, you were 200 yards away with a button and clip board, but still observing the election.

Again, corrected and have stated multiple times what I was doing there.

- You are afraid of big Ford pickups.

Nope. Never said that. I am however afraid of totalitarian governments and dictatorships which explains why I was there in the first place.

- The sheriff was called because of complaints to the Sec of State, but then the sheriff called the Sec of State, who said you could stay. (?) So who sent the Sheriff?

uh, Gee... Maybe it was the some poor innocent voter who decided that my carrying around a clipboard and a button was intimidating? Just a thought.

I can understand that though. At the volunteer organizing meetings, most of the other volunteers I met were gray haired grandma's who had decided for the first time in their lives to get involved in a grassroots effort to end the disaster that is George Bush.

Help! I'm being oppressed. I'm being victimized and intimidated by Jessica Tandy!

- You were observing the election, but doing it your way instead of the legal way.

Show me the statute that says that what I was doing was illegal. And while we're on the topic, lets talk about elections ok? Would it be intimidation to slash the tires of vans the NAACP planned to use to drive people to the polls in Wisconsin? How about distributing fliers that wrongly warned voters that they could be arrested at the polls if they had an unpaid parking ticket or overdue library book? How about loading up on Republican elections observers to challenge the registration staus of every Democratic voters at the polls? How about shutting off the water in a predominatly democratic precinct in Ohio on election day and telling voters they had to stay home to wait for a repairman? Is it intimidation when African Americans were being cut off voting lists in Florida because they had the same name as a felon? How about the calls made to mostly African Americans in Florida telling them their precinct’s location had changed and directing them to the wrong precinct? How about police giving voters in a heavily democratic neighborhood in Ohio parking tickets even though their cars were legally parked?

But oh my God! Watch out! Doug's got a clipboard AND a MoveOn.org button! Ohhh... did i mention I also had had a coffee cup and a ball point pen?

That's right Scott - I was packing - A .39 cent Bic Pen and a cup of crappy coffee that I was threatening to poison voters with. Quick everybody! Alert the media and call the Sheriff!

- You haven't said which precinct you were in, but you didn't say you were in Minneapolis.

You're right and I have no intention of telling you that information either.

Btw, Scott, this is from http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2004_11_01_minnesotademocratsexposed_archive.html

One of Mitch's buddies in the Right-wing blogosphere...

REPUBLICANS COMPLAIN ABOUT MOVEON.ORG ACTIVITIES
Republicans complain about MoveOn.org activities

The state's two main political parties sent hundreds of monitors to polling places across Minnesota today in anticipation of a high turnout in the battleground state.

The Republicans raised the first objections, alleging that activists from the liberal group MoveOn.org had tried to operate within 100 feet of more than 20 Twin Cities-area polling places, in violation of state laws against electioneering.

Several of those precincts were in St. Paul, but police spokesman Paul Schnell said officers determined that nobody was doing anything ``illegal or unacceptable.'' He said all the calls had come from citizens, not election judges.

Did you get that Scott? All of the calls had come from citizens, not elections judges. I wonder how many of those citizens knew the elections laws? Any guesses?

Of course it doesn't matter because once the phone calls to KSTP started, the pack mentality kicked in and all rationality, objectivity and civility flew right out the window. All that mettered was heresay and unfounded accusations. Kind of like how we got into Iraq eh Scott?


But back to Mitch's original post...

"According to George Clooney, the left is "intimidated"."

Try really hard to follow along ok Scott?

George Clooney never said the left is "intimidated". He said, "The fear of being criticized can be paralyzing" and he went on to dress down the Democratic leadership for being a bunch of pussies.

If Mitch wants an answer to his question, why in Gods name would he ask me and the other liberals who post here? Do you or Mitch believe we speak for them. Hell, I've spent weeks contacting Senators and Reps telling them to grow a set of stones.

If you can get an answer from them, by all means, please share it because so far I'm not real impressed with the answers I've gotten.

More importantly, why did Mitch go the effort of putting in quotation marks something Clooney never said? I'm sure you'll get all over that and DEMAND answers from Mitch right Scott?

Finally Scott, to your point, "Mitch should shut down this post to conserve server space. All we get is more whiney lies."

Good Lord Scott... if you are concerned about Mitch's server space why do you keep taking my bait and responding? If Mitch shut it down, you wouldn't have a outlet to describe your 2004 GMC Sierra, extended cab, dark gray, leather seats, power everything.

I'm sure the ladies are really impressed with that Scott. It must be frustrating for you though to see the look of disappointmet on their face when they get a look under the hood for the first time.



Posted by: Doug at March 17, 2006 10:53 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi