Liberal Media Biased Agenda

Headline brought to you by the Redundant Department of Redundancy.

I remember reading a Liberal Mainstream Media (there’s that redundancy again) report concerning the TEA Party and how “nearly forty percent” hail from “The South” and how horrible that is! The South is taking over the nation! Run for the hills cities! We should discount the TEA Party because it is too heavily represented by The South!

Let’s look at some numbers, shall we? I mean, let’s actually do something the “journalist” doesn’t want you to do. First off, let’s agree that the TEA Party is mainly Conservative/Libertarian. I don’t believe even “journalists” would disagree with that.

So, the TEA Party is mainly Conservative/Libertarian, and “nearly forty percent” hail from “The South.” Let’s look at the historical record of voting for President in “The South.” Since I’m writing this on the fly, as I do nearly all my articles, let’s give a temporary definition of “The South” as being all states south of Maryland and the Ohio River and east of Colorado/New Mexico.

In the 2008 elections, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida were the only states in “The South” that went Democrat. (US Election Atlas.org)

In the 2000 and 2004 elections, all of “The South” went Republican. In the 1996 elections, 7 of the 16 states in “The South” went Democrat, but 4 of those 7 failed to reach the 50 percent plateau. In the 1992 elections, but only 1 of those 7 states (Arkansas, the home state of Bill Clinton) reached the 50 percent plateau as Ross Perot siphoned off large chunks of Libertarian/Conservative voters.

In 1988, only one state (West Virginia) in “The South” broke Democrat, while two southern states broke more than 60 percent Republican. In 1984, only one single state (other than DC, which went 85 percent Democrat (who would’ve guessed? /snark)) went Democrat. That was Minnesota, the home state of Walter Mondale, and even then, it failed to reach the 50 percent plateau, going 49.72 percent Democrat to 49.54 percent Republican. (Note how close Ronald Reagan came to a 50-state sweep.) In “The South” only Tennessee failed to reach the 60 percent Republican plateau, coming in at 57.84 percent for Reagan. In fact, only 19 of the 50 states failed to reach the 60 percent Republican plateau, and only 1 of those 19 were in “The South.” (Note how a non-establishment Conservative fares with regular citizens, despite the Liberal Media Biased Agenda (Redundant Department of Redundancy at work again).) In 1980, the Democrat Jimmy Carter won only 6 states (12 percent of 50), with 2 of those 6 coming from the 16 states (12.5 percent of 16) that comprise my definition of “The South.” The only state that reached the 50 percent Democrat plateau was “The South” state of Georgia, Jimmy Carter’s home state.

As the historical record shows, from 1964 until now, with the exception of 1976 where the Watergate scandal decided the election, “The South” has been as Conservative or more Conservative than the rest of the country. And the Watergate scandal election of 1976, where Jimmy Carter, a Democrat ex-Governor from Georgia won “The South,” should also point out the position of “The South” in that they don’t brook no cheaters (a much more Conservative than Liberal position).

So it would make sense that a region of the country that has a 40-plus year history of being more Conservative than the rest of the nation would have a higher percentage of representation within a grass-roots Conservative movement. And that alone should wholly debunk the “oh noes! Teh South is gonna take over the country!” mantra of certain members of the Liberal Elite Mainstream Media Establishment (provided by the Redundant Department of Redundancy). But is that really the case? I’ve written in the past (in my Longitudinal Proof Of Media Bias article) about how the Mainstream Media’s editors are clearly more Liberal than the nation as a whole, and how the Mainstream Media’s “journalists” are clearly more Liberal than their editors (meaning the “journalists” are by far more Liberal than We the People). It is easy to compare their numbers to the population’s numbers and see how severely skewed the Mainstream Media is. But is the fact “nearly 40 percent of the TEA Party hails from The South” a true statement of the over-representation of Conservative might in “The South” or is that just a scare tactic?

As I’ve already shown, my definition of “The South” has 16 states, or 32 percent of all states. And that 32 percent of all states is more Conservative than the 68 percent of all states not represented in my definition of “The South.” That alone should show a more Conservative population matrix, and make “The South” more TEA Party-esque. And that alone should rebut the Liberal Mainstream Media Journalist (Redundant Department of Redundancy) alarm bells. But is “The South” actually more heavily represented within the TEA Party than the US as a whole? By elementary logic, it should be. But is it in actuality? Let’s look at the numbers.

The US Census Bureau (pdf) has a different definition of “The South” than my definition, as it eliminates Kansas and Missouri from my definition of “The South” and adds Maryland, Delaware, and DC to their definition of “The South.” According to the US Census Bureau, “The South” has clearly had a much higher rate of population growth than the Northeast and the Midwest, and the West’s population growth has been mostly in the least populous states. That would mean, by sheer population growth, “The South” would have a stronger say in national politics now than prior to 1980. Logic and math would demand so. But let’s dig deeper, shall we? According to the above Census Bureau pdf file,

MOST POPULOUS STATES

The ten most populous states contained54.0 percent of the U.S. population in 2010 (similar to the percentage in 2000) with one-fourth (26.5 percent) of the U.S. population in the three largest states: California (the most populous state since the 1970 Census), Texas, and New York. These three states had April 1, 2010, populations of 37.3 million, 25.1 million, and 19.4 million, respectively. The next seven most populous states — Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and North Carolina
– contained an additional 27.5 percent of the population. Nine of the ten largest states in 2000 were also among the ten largest
in 2010. North Carolina, which was the eleventh largest state in 2000, moved into the top ten for 2010 (tenth largest)—replacing New Jersey, which fell from ninth largest in 2000 to eleventh in 2010.

The ten most populous and the ten least populous states are distributed among the four regions. The South contained the greatest number (four) of the ten largest states, with three others in the Midwest, two in the Northeast, and one in the West. Furthermore, the Northeast contained four of the ten least populous states (Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), with three others in the West (Alaska, Montana, and Wyoming), two in the Midwest (North Dakota and South Dakota), and one in the South (Delaware).

Seeing as Maryland, at approaching 5.8 million people, falls far below New Jersey’s 11th place population total, at approaching 8.8 million people (see the above pdf), that means the 14 states of “The South” included in both the US Census Bureau’s definition and my definition contains the 2nd most populous state and 4 of the 10 most populous states without a single state among the least populous. (Delaware was the only state in the US Census Bureau’s definition of “The South” (which contains 32 percent of the states) that fell within the 10 least populous, but it is not part of my definition of “The South.”) With the Number Two and 4 of the top 10 most populous states (and only 1 of the 10 least populous states in the US Census Bureau’s definition of “The South” but not mine), the 16 states of “The South” (whichever 32 percent you select, mine or the US Census Bureau’s) is very clearly over-represented by total population. That means the total percentage of the numbers of whatever group needs to be “over-represented” in “The South” just to match the population distribution. Meaning over 32 percent of any group must necessarily be of “The South” if “The South” is to be properly proportionate to the actual population of the US.

According to “Figure 3″ on the US Census Bureau’s pdf file, the 14 states both the US Census Bureau and I agree are part of “The South” have very clearly outperformed the Northeast and the Midwest in population growth. In 2000, the US Census Bureau’s definition of “The South” contained 35.6 percent of the total US Population, over-representing its 32 percent of total states. In 2010, that number changed to 37.1 percent of the total US Population (see above pdf), again over-representing its 32 percent share of total states, and very clearly outgrowing the rest of the nation. Is 37.1 percent of the total US Population “nearly 40 percent”? You be the judge. But by my definition of “The South”, the share of “The South” is even greater. Eliminate Delaware’s 897,934 and Maryland’s 5,773,552 and replace it with Kansas’ 2,853,118 and Missouri’s 5,988,927 and you increase “The South’s” share of population dramatically over the US Census Bureau’s apportionment. So, by my definition of “The South”, it is far closer to the 40 percent mark than the US Census Bureau shows (which is obviously “nearly” 40 percent).

The only question that remains is:
What definition of “The South” did the Liberal “journalist” from the Mainstream Media (Redundant Department of Redundancy working over-time) use to provide his scare-tactic alarm that “nearly 40 percent” of TEA Party members were from “The South”? Because “nearly 40 percent” of all US residents — and growing — live in “The South”, whether according to my definition or the US Census Bureau’s definition.
_____________________________________
Cross-posted on Truth Before Dishonor

59 Comments

  1. Open this link and you will see a major reason the liberal media and liberals, in general, are so disdainful of the South:

    http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

    It is in the South that Right-to-Work laws prevail. It is in the South that workers are not forced to join labor unions as a condition of employment. It is in the South that AFL-CIO holds little or no political sway. Southern workers do not live in fear of retribution for by union enforcers for expressing their political views–even if those views are conservative.

    To quote the late Phil Harris, “…and that’s what I like about the South!”

  2. As it happens, I grew up in the South, in Mt Sterling, Kentucky, went to college in the South (the University of Kentucky), and lived in Kentucky and Virginia until the middle of 2000, and I saw the political changes.

    When I first registered to vote, in 1971, I remember how I didn’t have a vote for the Mt Sterling City Council, because the race was decided not in the general election, but in the Democratic primary. A small town, reasonably conservative, and almost entirely Democratic, because Kentucky Democrats were conservative Democrats. The governor was a Democrat, the state legislature was controlled by the Democrats, and most of the state’s congressional delegation were Democrats. In 1968, Kentucky was carried by Richard Nixon, a Republican, and some saw a breakthrough, because the Bluegrass State had elected its first Republican governor, Louie Nunn, in living memory the previous year, but it really wasn’t: everything else was under Democratic control . . . conservative Democratic control. In 1972, President Nixon carried Kentucky again, but that was hardly remarkable; he carried 49 states, by a huge margin. In the meantime, former Governor Nunn lost the US Senate race to state Senator Walter Huddleston, the Democratic nominee, meaning that at least 250,000 Kentuckians had split their tickets.

    When I moved to Virginia, in December of 1984, I moved to another conservative Democratic state. All of the statewide officeholders were Democrats, and the legislature was controlled by the Democrats. Virginia does not register voters by political party, so there was never an official tally of Republicans versus Democrats, but the elections themselves were indicators enough.

    In 1989, Douglas Wilder became the first freely elected black governor in US history; he has previously been lieutenant governor. He is a Democrat, but ran as a fairly conservative one, and once in office, he handled Virginia’s budget crunch as a conservative would, by cutting spending where he could and not raising taxes.

    However, he was succeeded by a Republican, because the GOP had slowly been gaining strength in the South, due top the national Democratic Party moving further and further to the left. One of the lessons I remember from political science 101 was that the greatest predictor of what a person’s political party identification would be was the party identification of his parents, but the situation was changing, slowly but surely: as national politics became ever more important, the conservative Democrats in the South didn’t become Republicans, but their children did. Ronald Reagan famously said that he didn’t leave the Democratic Party, but that the Democratic Party left him; the national Democratic Party was leaving the South, and there was nowhere else to go but the GOP.

    The South was perfectly willing to vote for Democrats, such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, if they were seen as more conservative than the national Democratic Party; Messrs Carter and Clinton had been Democratic governors in Georgia and Arkansas, and were not part of the national Democratic Party liberal elite. President Clinton’s first term was seen as successful, and he was re-elected, carrying several (but not all) Southern states; President Carter was seen as having failed, and other than his home state of Georgia, he lost the South . . . along with most of the rest of the country.

  3. In 2008, with the economy having dropped into recession and President Bush getting the blame for it, Senator Barack Obama carried three southern states: Virginia, North Carolina and Florida. He carried Virginia by a fairy significant 6.30%, and Florida by 2.81%; North Carolina was a squeaker at 0.33%. In 2012, he will lose all three states, and lose them by significant margins, and will lose the entire South.

  4. One other point: I don’t think I’d consider West Virginia as part of the South. West Virginia separated from Virginia when the latter joined the Confederacy, and in both culture and history, West Virginia is very different from surrounding Kentucky and Virginia.

    The same could be said of the entire Appalachian areas in Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia as well; if you’ve never been there, I can tell you: it’s an entirely different world.

  5. Having driven through Appalachia a very large number of times in my 2.5 years driving for JB Hunt, I can tell you with absolute certainty that I have no idea what the culture of Appalachia is like, but I am certain it is very different from the surrounding area. By the way, Appalachia can be said to extend into southeast Ohio as well. But I still don’t know their culture.

  6. John Hitchcock says:
    December 15, 2011 at 21:43 (Edit)

    Having driven through Appalachia a very large number of times in my 2.5 years driving for JB Hunt, I can tell you with absolute certainty that I have no idea what the culture of Appalachia is like, but I am certain it is very different from the surrounding area. By the way, Appalachia can be said to extend into southeast Ohio as well. But I still don’t know their culture.

    John, I was subscribing to a magazine that went and made a wrong turn after a few years called “Early American Life”. Things I remember was the “West” at that point were the Appalachians. A group that did really didn’t fit in with the British Lowlanders were the Scots-Irish. So they picked up and moved to the mountains. One thing that is a full leftover today is the music. You might call it Hill-Billy Moonshiner music, it still represents their hatred of the Brits who expelled them from the Btish Isles, along with the Acadians of Canada in Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. (On our cruise on a side tour the narrator said Nove Scotia was our 14th colony. Even the musical instument called the Hammered Dulcimer is unique to all those areas. Out of the Hill-Billy Mountain music came Blue Grass. This was the group that started Shays Rebellion in SW Penna over Revenuers in the early 19th century. If you look at this stuff, or ever visited Gatlinburg, TN, or watched the movie with Dualing Banjos in Deliverence(help with the names of the four guys) But the basic thing you get from the “Mountain People” that BO classified as “Clinging to their Guns and the Bible” Pennsyltucky is described as having Pittsburgh in the west, and Philly in the east and Kentucky, or West Virginia, or Tennessee, or Alabama in the middle. I’ve lived here in South-Central PA since 1974, and the description fits. The other thing was WV Scots Irish wanted no part of the Confedaracy in the Civil War and it’s how we got WV.

  7. Back on topic from an interesting discussion, I am amazed at the length to which Mr. Hitchcock has gone in his piece to convince himself and others how the Republicans will gain power. I don’t think this will happen, simply because it will be made readily apparent in the upcoming campaign the truth: That the Republicans favor and protect the wealthy, causing class warfare, and that the Republicans, to regain power, have caused the Congress to become dysfunctional at a time when we are having the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, with poverty growing worse and with the population of homeless increasing due to poverty and the mortgage bubble bursting throwing people onto the streets.

    Gretchen said:

    “To quote the late Phil Harris, “…and that’s what I like about the South!””

    Which is one thing I don’t like about the South in particular, and conservative Republicans in general. For some reason, they think that the workers do not deserve to organize and to have some power thereby. This rejection of labor unions is one main reasons for the redistribution of wealth in America that has occurred beginning with Ronald Reagan, who squashed the union movement while simultaneously promoting tax cuts which favored the wealthy.

    This is the primary reason why we are so divided as a nation today, and why one in two Americans is either in poverty or in low income.

    Yet the Republican Party wishes to continue this long failed policy, because they clearly represent the rich, as should be obvious to all on here.

    The Republican Party is the enemy of the majority of Americans. This will be made crystal clear and reemphasized in the upcoming campaign leading up to November of 2012, in my view.

  8. Wagonwheel writes

    The Republican Party is the enemy of the majority of Americans.

    Yet, somehow, the GOP maintains its numbers equivalency with the Democrats, and get this — even manages to win elections! Even though it is the enemy of a majority of Americans!! That truly is one amazing stunt they keep pulling, isn’t it?

  9. You would just as soon forget 2006 and 2008, wouldn’t you Koolo?

    You will be startled when the 2012 election results are in. It is quite telling that your party has not been able to come up with a credible opponent for Obama. And the performance of the Republicans in Congress will be very well known by November 2012, when the sleeping giant known as the American people are awakened and go to the polls.

    You should know yourself that the Republicans are scared sh**less, as they stoke up their voter suppression initiatives, because they think that that most undemocratic of tactics gives them the best chance for a win. I don’t think it is going to work for you folks, because the Dems have become more expert at getting the vote out, and at targeted campaigning. Remember 2008!

  10. Wagonwheel writes

    You would just as soon forget 2006 and 2008, wouldn’t you Koolo?

    And you’d sooner forget 2000, 2004, and 2010, wouldn’t you WW?

    You should know yourself that the Republicans are scared sh**less, as they stoke up their voter suppression initiatives, because they think that that most undemocratic of tactics gives them the best chance for a win.

    You’ve turned constant repetition into an art form, I will give you that. As if such constant (and useless) repetition makes your factless statements any more truthful. Nevertheless, based on the polls, there really is no reason for the GOP to be scared crapless. You must be basing your statements on that other reality again or something, because the polls show that Obama is eminently beatable. The GOP field may not be the best ever put out there, but the election is a year away and *anything* can change in a heartbeat.

    because the Dems have become more expert at getting the vote out, and at targeted campaigning. Remember 2008!

    They’re also experts at voter registration and vote fraud as shown in another thread — FACTS, rather than statistics-based what-iffery. And the 2008 ground game had much less to do with Obama’s victory than the total weariness of George Bush, wars, and an imminent economic bust.

  11. Koolo wrote:

    Yet, somehow, the GOP maintains its numbers equivalency with the Democrats, and get this — even manages to win elections! Even though it is the enemy of a majority of Americans!! That truly is one amazing stunt they keep pulling, isn’t it?

    To which Wagonwheel responded:

    You would just as soon forget 2006 and 2008, wouldn’t you Koolo?

    And you 2010? :)

  12. Wagonwheel ststed (for the umpteenth time):
    “This is the primary reason why we are so divided as a nation today”

    Sorry to disagree Wagonwheel but these are the reason we are a divided nation:

    “Republicans in general. For some reason, they think that the workers do not deserve to organize and to have some power thereby.”

    “promoting tax cuts which favored the wealthy.”

    “Yet the Republican Party wishes to continue this long failed policy, because they clearly represent the rich,”

    “The Republican Party is the enemy of the majority of Americans.”

    When a person such as yourself makes defamatory statements like those above about your fellow Americans just because theey see a different road to take than you do, that’s what divides us. When you say the Republican Party is the enemy of the majority of Americans then the craziness begins again. Hey Wagonwheel, communists are the enemy of the majority of Americans, radical islamists are the enemy of the majority of American, The Republican Party is a party which represents tens of millions of Americans and we are NOT your enemy. We are your opposition. What is it in ypour brain that allows you to repeat over and over the same DNC propaganda without ever considering if it is real or just made up?

    Common sense dictates that if 40 million Americans cast their vote for a Republican, obviously they all aren’t the hated rich you rail sbout. When there are more Democrat millionaires in Congress than Republican millionaires, clearly you are wrong. When the Democrat got an almost 4 to 1 campaign contribution from banks, financial institutions, CEO’s and millionaire “bundlers” than the Republican did, clearly you’re wrong.

    You’ve got guys like Corzine, Abramoff and Soros on your team. Thieves, swindlers and manipulators, yet you rail against guys who create something and gain wealth by doing so. What have those guys “created” other than misery?

    No Wagonwheel, the real enemy of the majority of Americans are other Americans who cannot tolerate a different political point of view and who would be just as happy with a one party system like the soviets.

  13. Hoagie, your post is a joke in my view, it really is:

    “When a person such as yourself makes defamatory statements like those above about your fellow Americans just because theey see a different road to take than you do, that’s what divides us. “

    No, Hoagie, what divides us are Congressional Republicans who will not negotiate, and who use the filibuster rule to reject legislation which the majority want, and who obfuscates by outright lying on a daily basis, not to mention the ugliness of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the like.

    “Common sense dictates that if 40 million Americans cast their vote for a Republican, obviously they all aren’t the hated rich you rail sbout. When there are more Democrat millionaires in Congress than Republican millionaires, clearly you are wrong. When the Democrat got an almost 4 to 1 campaign contribution from banks, financial institutions, CEO’s and millionaire “bundlers” than the Republican did, clearly you’re wrong.”

    I don’t know that you have all your facts right here, but I will say this again: Our government, the Congress and the SCOTUS, have been corrupted by the behavior of both parties, by campaign financing which is now virtually unlimited by virtue of the Citizens’ United decision granting personhood to Corporations and Unions wrt the First Amendment.

    “You’ve got guys like Corzine, Abramoff and Soros on your team. Thieves, swindlers and manipulators, yet you rail against guys who create something and gain wealth by doing so. What have those guys “created” other than misery?”

    Right, and you have the Koch Brothers, and Rush Limbaugh, and Hannity, and the Wall Street manipulators, and many more corrupted folks like them. So thanks for making my point about corruption. Btw, it does seem that Abramoff is a reformed person, so let’s give him some credit for that.

    “No Wagonwheel, the real enemy of the majority of Americans are other Americans who cannot tolerate a different political point of view and who would be just as happy with a one party system like the soviets.”

    Right, Hoagie, like the current Repub party who mostly refuse to compromise, whose leader, again, considers his first priority to hold President Obama to one term. This, Hoagie, is the epitome of disloyalty and corruption of thought. Your party does not subscribe to democratic processes, as you believe in government by the wealthy and for the wealthy, so help your God! Here is some of the evidence, Hoagie!

  14. Just a reminder: TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already.

    TEA Party members support 3 points: lower taxes, limited government, and reduced regulation.

    All 3 are related to increased individual freedom and reduced government control, which are two sides of the same coin, and which are entirely consistent with the fundamental American traditions of self reliance and personal responsibility.

    Leftists seek just the opposite, they want less personal responsibility and more centralized control, but only so long as they occupy the offices of authority and dominate the regulatory functions of government.

    Consequently, leftism is inherently totalitarian and anti-American.

  15. WW opined:

    Which is one thing I don’t like about the South in particular, and conservative Republicans in general. For some reason, they think that the workers do not deserve to organize and to have some power thereby. This rejection of labor unions is one main reasons for the redistribution of wealth in America that has occurred beginning with Ronald Reagan, who squashed the union movement while simultaneously promoting tax cuts which favored the wealthy.

    I thought you Democrats were all about choice. You don’t think human beings should be afforded the right to choose whether or not to join a union?

    Unions exist in the South. The difference between Right-to-Work states and closed shop states, however, is individual choice on for workers.

  16. WW writes

    No, Hoagie, what divides us are Congressional Republicans who will not negotiate, and who use the filibuster rule to reject legislation which the majority want, and who obfuscates by outright lying on a daily basis, not to mention the ugliness of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the like.

    In other words Hoagie, Wagonwheel is saying “Nyah nyah, your politicians are WORSE! So THERE!” Or, to put it another way, it’s pure nonsense. Remember, the Senate Democrats set a record for not allowing amendments and debate, set a record for not passing a budget, and then reject compromise bills that they originally supported. Not to mention the outright lying on a daily basis, and the outright ugliness of MSNBC, the major news networks, and PBS/NPR.

    I don’t know that you have all your facts right here, but I will say this again: Our government, the Congress and the SCOTUS, have been corrupted by the behavior of both parties

    B-b-b-b-but you just said “NO, Hoagie — it’s the GOP!!” Can you please keep your story straight, WW?

    Right, Hoagie, like the current Repub party who mostly refuse to compromise, whose leader, again, considers his first priority to hold President Obama to one term. This, Hoagie, is the epitome of disloyalty and corruption of thought.

    As if this is in any way different from what Democrats do to Republicans. If this is “disloyalty,” then you and the entire Democrat Party should tried and convicted of treason right this second.

  17. “As if such constant (and useless) repetition makes your factless statements any more truthful. Nevertheless, based on the polls, there really is no reason for the GOP to be scared crapless. “

    Koolo, instead of referring to the polls, you are referring to yourself and making stuff up. I suggest you refer to this compilation of poll results by Real Clear Politics. If you thumb down to the General Election polling results, you will be in for a surprise concerning the current status of President Obama’s elect ability.

    Now tell me who is “factless”, koolo!

  18. “Remember, the Senate Democrats set a record for not allowing amendments and debate, set a record for not passing a budget, and then reject compromise bills that they originally supported. Not to mention the outright lying on a daily basis, and the outright ugliness of MSNBC, the major news networks, and PBS/NPR.”

    Although there is a tiny particle of truth here, koolo, the bulk of it is pure, partisan BS, the kind of BS we hear on Fox News and Limbaugh (and his ilk) on a daily basis, but even worse!

    “As if this is in any way different from what Democrats do to Republicans. If this is “disloyalty,” then you and the entire Democrat Party should tried and convicted of treason right this second.”

    Citation please!

  19. With several exceptions (Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman), all one needs observe is the collection of characters currently vying to be your candidate for the Presidency. We Dems are cheering about it, but simultaneously saddened by the sad state of a disloyal opposition. The best governing policies emerge in the American context when we have our two major parties honestly debating and compromising to solutions.

    Please list for me the compromises that Republicans have been willing to make since President Obama was elected. Moreover, do you think race is playing a role in this unusual hatred exhibited by the Republicans by the President toward President Obama?

    You might take notice here that according to the most recent NBC News/Marist Poll, Obama beats either Gingrich or Romney. Now of course this should change, nevertheless, you need to take note of this.

  20. WW wrote:

    The Republican Party is the enemy of the majority of Americans.

    I am absolutely certain that Wagonwheel meant that when he wrote it. More, coming as he does from a Depression-era family, and reared in the City of Brotherly Love, I’d bet more than a few shillings that he was reared to believe that, and has pretty much thought that for his entire conscious life. There were many, many people who were brought up to believe that.

    But, for some reason, a whole lot of Americans don’t believe that, and the Americans who don’t believe that have frequently been the majority in our many elections. Perhaps, just perhaps, there are a substantial number of Americans who disagree with our Democrat from Delaware, and maybe, just maybe, they actually have rational reasons for thinking that way.

    Maybe the first way to Bridge the Gap would be to understand that not everybody thinks alike.

  21. WW writes

    Although there is a tiny particle of truth here, koolo, the bulk of it is pure, partisan BS, the kind of BS we hear on Fox News and Limbaugh (and his ilk) on a daily basis, but even worse!

    Is that so? Then I demand what you demand of me — a citation. Otherwise, this remains the usual fantasy-land scribblings I’ve grown accustomed to from you!

    Now tell me who is “factless”, koolo!

    OK, I will — you are. As usual. If you go to your RealClear Politics link and snoop around, the six most recent polls show the GOP candidate beating Obama. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_president_obama_vs_republican_candidate-1745.html) THese results are certainly more sobering (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html); however, again, Romney polls strongly, and I believe he’ll be the eventual nominee. Even if he is not, the results at this point aren’t too relevant. Ronald Reagan was behind in the polls to Jimmy Carter up until October of 1980, and ultimately won handily. Once again, you said “You should know yourself that the Republicans are scared sh**less …” Again, why should they be? They’re in a fairly comfortable position.

    Not to mention, again, your “voter suppression” nonsense is just that — nonsense. Repeating each and every day, several times a day, does not a fact make. No matter how much you’d like it to be!

  22. WW writes

    Now tell me who is “factless”, koolo!

    OK, I will — you are. Again, you stated above that the GOP should be scared sh**less; your RealClear Politics link doesn’t show why they should. Obama vs. the generic GOP candidate consistently shows the latter winning; against individual current candidates, only Romney currently fares well. That’s still hardly a reason to be “scared sh**less” as Ronald Reagan was polling behind Jimmy Carter up to October of 1980 … and he eventually won fairly handily.

  23. WW writes

    Although there is a tiny particle of truth here, koolo, the bulk of it is pure, partisan BS, the kind of BS we hear on Fox News and Limbaugh (and his ilk) on a daily basis, but even worse!

    There’s certainly no objective measure you’re using to make such a judgment; I’d use your own “citation please” nonsense, but there would be nothing for you to cite! However, considering their ratings (FNC and Limbaugh), it is highly likely that you are wrong in your assessment.

    People aren’t as dumb as you assume. Well, considering what you’ve written of late, you do assume people are dumb: the GOP is “evil” to the majority of Americans, minorities are too stupid to get a photo ID, attempting to convince people perpetually that photo ID measures are “voter suppression” despite all the polls that show the overwhelming majority of Americans of all colors and political stripes don’t believe such.

  24. “That’s still hardly a reason to be “scared sh**less” as Ronald Reagan was polling behind Jimmy Carter up to October of 1980 … and he eventually won fairly handily.”

    Right, and in 2008, Obama polled poorly against Hillary, and later against McCain as late as September of 2008, yet pulled a victory out handily on election day. You ought to be scared sh**less!

    “People aren’t as dumb as you assume. Well, considering what you’ve written of late, you do assume people are dumb: the GOP is “evil” to the majority of Americans, minorities are too stupid to get a photo ID, attempting to convince people perpetually that photo ID measures are “voter suppression” despite all the polls that show the overwhelming majority of Americans of all colors and political stripes don’t believe such.”

    Those are all your words, koolo, not mine, else you show me where I said these things. You Righties do this sort of thing all the time on here, as if you know it all.

    I notice that you did not produce a citation as requested, but worse, you failed to answer these two simple questions:

    “Please list for me the compromises that Republicans have been willing to make since President Obama was elected. Moreover, do you think race is playing a role in this unusual hatred exhibited by the Republicans by the President toward President Obama?”

    Why is that koolo?

  25. “But, for some reason, a whole lot of Americans don’t believe that [The majority of Americans are the enemies of the American people], and the Americans who don’t believe that have frequently been the majority in our many elections. Perhaps, just perhaps, there are a substantial number of Americans who disagree with our Democrat from Delaware, and maybe, just maybe, they actually have rational reasons for thinking that way.”

    I’m focused mainly on the Republican Party as now constituted, Mr. Editor, whose main objectives are to protect America’s wealthy class regardless of the negative impacts on the rest of Americans, and to support and expand the military industrial complex. Their support of the Ryan Plan is evidence for the former, and their anger at the American troops being fully withdrawn from Iraq following their unfettered support for the Cheney/Bush Iraq War,is evidence of the latter.

    The issue is not whether or not everyone “thinks alike”, it is the extreme to where the Republican Party has moved, and where they intend to take this country should they regain power.

    I can look at your Party only in terms of the context of my own life experiences and observations, as the times have changed drastically over this time period, most drastically in the last decade in which Republican policies have dominated, leading our country toward disaster. And you defend these policies, Mr. Editor?

  26. WW writes

    Right, and in 2008, Obama polled poorly against Hillary, and later against McCain as late as September of 2008, yet pulled a victory out handily on election day. You ought to be scared sh**less

    Well, there you go! You just proved my point — that current polls (especially now) are essentially irrelevant. Yet, you said the GOP should be scared based on them. You’re all over the place, WW. Do try to be consistent.

    Those are all your words, koolo, not mine, else you show me where I said these things. You Righties do this sort of thing all the time on here, as if you know it all.

    It is absolutely inherent in what you’ve written. To claim that the GOP is “evil” to a majority of Americans — yet these same Americans continue to vote for them — what else can one infer? It’s perfectly logical. You also maintain that common sense voter ID laws are “voter suppression” despite the fact that we’ve shown here that the vast majority of Americans absolutely disagree. Yet you persist, day after day. In other words, you believe people are stupid.

    I notice that you did not produce a citation as requested

    A citation for what? That all Democrats should be tried for treason now? What is there to cite? YOU said that the GOP has acted “disloyal;” all I countered was that the Democrats routinely do so all the time when a Republican is in the WH. You want examples? Fine. Here’s one: the Iraq War. I can easily continue if you wish. But just remember — YOU set the standard on what is to be deemed “disloyal.”

    As for the race canard, please. There is nothing “unusual” exhibited by the GOP towards Obama. To you, the years 2000-2008 must have been spent in suspended animation since you seem to have forgotten the pure venom GW Bush dealt with in that time frame.

  27. “It is absolutely inherent in what you’ve written. To claim that the GOP is “evil” to a majority of Americans — yet these same Americans continue to vote for them — what else can one infer?”

    No, not inherent koolo, it is your making meaningless assumptions.

    I did not say the GOP is “evil”, although I would say that. I said the American people are the enemy of the majority of the American people. How else can one explain their attitude to the middle and the poor of our country? The American people continue to vote for Republicans because the Republicans are supurb in getting their message out, aided and abetted by their wealthy corrupt campaign benefactors.

    “You also maintain that common sense voter ID laws are “voter suppression” despite the fact that we’ve shown here that the vast majority of Americans absolutely disagree. Yet you persist, day after day. In other words, you believe people are stupid.”

    Unless I missed it, I don’t see that anyone on here has shown that most Americans disagree that we have suppression; I’ve seen only opinions. Citation please on your claim that the vast majority of Americans “absolutely disagree” about voter suppression. Regardless, voter suppression is going on full speed ahead in many of the red states, as I’ve already shown on here.

    The previous request for a citation was re your claim that Democrats have committed treason.

    Also, you have not yet listed the compromises that Republicans have been willing to make since President Obama took office. Is this because there have been none?

    “As for the race canard, please. There is nothing “unusual” exhibited by the GOP towards Obama. To you, the years 2000-2008 must have been spent in suspended animation since you seem to have forgotten the pure venom GW Bush dealt with in that time frame.”

    Nothing unusual you say? How about the birthers, who still exist? How about the guilt by association re Reverend Wright. How easily you Republicans forget what you have done, koolo!

    And the venom toward Bush, yes, there was some, against a man who took us to war on false premises. Therefore, venom is not too surprising. I might add, that unfortunately, in my view, many Dems went along with Bush and supported him. Too bad the current Repubs cannot take a similar attitude toward this our current President. That’s what I call disloyal.

    Have you served, koolo? In combat? If so, you should have a good understanding how damaging an unnecessary war is on many levels.

  28. WW wrote:

    “That’s still hardly a reason to be “scared sh**less” as Ronald Reagan was polling behind Jimmy Carter up to October of 1980 … and he eventually won fairly handily.”

    Right, and in 2008, Obama polled poorly against Hillary, and later against McCain as late as September of 2008, yet pulled a victory out handily on election day. You ought to be scared sh**less!

    Barack Obama is the President of the United States, and as such he has to be considered a formidable candidate for re-election. And he proved himself to be a brilliant campaigner in 2008, and while I wonder if part of it was because people were tired of Hillary Clinton’s supposed inevitability, that he came from behind and won a huge victory cannot be denied.

    But Candidate Obama was being guesstimated on his abilities to be President on little evidence: no one knew how good, or bad, a President he would make. And, in 2012, the biggest drag on Candidate Obama will be President Obama, because now he does have a record, and it’s not a very good one: a majority of people polled believe that he does not deserve to be re-elected.

    And that’s why the Obama campaign and our liberal from Lewes want to make this about the Republican primary battles, and trash all of the Republicans; if the election can be about the Republican, perhaps President Obama can win. But if the election is about President Obama and his record, he will lose.

  29. WW wrote:

    With several exceptions (Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman), all one needs observe is the collection of characters currently vying to be your candidate for the Presidency. We Dems are cheering about it, but simultaneously saddened by the sad state of a disloyal opposition. The best governing policies emerge in the American context when we have our two major parties honestly debating and compromising to solutions.

    How interesting; after, t’was just a month ago that you told us that Mitt Romney was a “worthwhile candidate.” Now that he’s picking up endorsements from several conservatives and looks like he might win the nomination, he’s just one of a “collection of characters.”

    But please, be honest here. You aren’t really interested in Republicans and Democrats “honestly debating and compromising to solutions,” but only want to see the 1960s and 70s types of parties: the Democrats and the go-along-to-get-along Democrats Lite version of the Republican Party.

  30. WW writes

    I did not say the GOP is “evil”, although I would say that. I said the American people are the enemy of the majority of the American people. How else can one explain their attitude to the middle and the poor of our country?

    I see — “the American people are the enemy of the American people …. how else does that explain the American people’s attitude toward the American middle class and poor in America?” Do you ever bother to read your garbled gobbledeegook? I mean, really. Re-read the quote above and then tell me you’re not just silly.

    Unless I missed it, I don’t see that anyone on here has shown that most Americans disagree that we have suppression; I’ve seen only opinions. Citation please on your claim that the vast majority of Americans “absolutely disagree” about voter suppression.

    No — I read a lot of you doing this at the old site and was not amused in the least. It’s ridiculous, considering we were just debating this very topic over the last few days. Go back over to that thread and look through the links provided and ancillary quotes. You did miss it, in other words.

    Regardless, voter suppression is going on full speed ahead in many of the red states, as I’ve already shown on here.

    Again with the repetitious baloney. Requiring photo ID is not voter suppression because there is no invidious intent. Once AGAIN, if this is the standard, then affirmative action isn’t affirmative action, it is outright illegal racial discrimination. In conclusion, 1) the vast majority of Americans support voter ID, and 2) requiring such is not “voter suppression.” End of story.

    The previous request for a citation was re your claim that Democrats have committed treason.

    I’ll provide one if you provide a citation that the GOP has been “disloyal.” Fair enough? But I won’t hold my breath.

    Also, you have not yet listed the compromises that Republicans have been willing to make since President Obama took office. Is this because there have been none?

    Last year’s budget agreement. This year’s. NEXT!!

    Nothing unusual you say? How about the birthers, who still exist? How about the guilt by association re Reverend Wright.

    Get real, will you? Birthers? Try Truthers. Who still exist. And how is it guilt by association with Wright when the president sat in his pew for 20 years? Was it guilt by association with Halliburton for Dick Cheney? The oil industry for GW Bush? The FACT of the matter is that, again, Barack Obama has faced nothing more unusual than anyone preceding him. Only hardcore partisans who use facts from a fantasy realm believe that.

    And the venom toward Bush, yes, there was some, against a man who took us to war on false premises.

    This is as nonsensical as claiming Barack Obama has faced unusual venom from opponents. No person in his right mind can say Bush went to war on “false pretenses” since his predecessor said precisely what Bush did about Saddam. Not to mention myriad congresspeople and senators. Again, like your other faux facts, this is partisan nonsense masking as history.

    Have you served, koolo? In combat? If so, you should have a good understanding how damaging an unnecessary war is on many levels.

    Irrelevant. Since you have no facts to support ANY of your arguments, you’re now resorting to an “I know better because I have experience” tactic. (If you even HAVE the experience.) This means, then, that you have no right to opine on any topic with which you have no direct experience. Fair enough?

  31. “Since you have no facts to support ANY of your arguments, ….”

    This one statement by you very well demonstrates your entire screed, koolo, which skirts the truth on a myriad of issues, like your claim that Cheney/Bush did not take us to war on false pretenses. Just this alone causes me not to take seriously anything you write!

  32. Correction to carless error in 17:08:

    I did not say the GOP is “evil”, although I would say that. I meant to say that the American people Republican Party is the enemy of the majority of the American people.

    The above is what I did say, koolo, not the quote that you made up, as was your careless mistake!

    The majority of the American people are the 99%. Your party favors and protects the 1%, and ignores the needs of the 99%. Care to debate that issue, koolo.

    PS: It occurred to me that you sound just like old Eric. Must be a coincidence, or is it koolo?

  33. WW writes

    like your claim that Cheney/Bush did not take us to war on false pretenses. Just this alone causes me not to take seriously anything you write!

    Now you know how *I* (and probably everyone else here) feel(s) when attempting to engage *you*. Again, if Bush took us to war on false pretenses, then why did Bill Clinton and numerous Democrat politicians ALSO state unequivocally that Saddam Hussein has WMDs? Answer that, please.

    And further, as for taking stuff seriously, you said above

    The above is what I did say, koolo, not the quote that you made up, as was your careless mistake!

    but right before that you wrote

    Correction to carless error in 17:08:

    I did not say the GOP is “evil”, although I would say that. I meant to say that the American people Republican Party is the enemy of the majority of the American people.

    So, you admit your mistake, yet somehow *I* made it up. Makes about as much sense as everything else you’ve written, I’d say! Hahaha!

    So like a typical liberal — blame everyone else for your problems, and always complain. Hilarious.

  34. WW writes

    The majority of the American people are the 99%. Your party favors and protects the 1%, and ignores the needs of the 99%. Care to debate that issue, koolo.

    I would if you knew how. But I worry I’ll get blamed for all your own careless errors that I just happen to take advantage of, WW.

    Nevertheless, once again, you believe half the American public is outright stupid because they don’t recognize that the GOP is “evil” towards the supposed 99%. Oh, I know — you denied it above (the GOP is just SOOO adept at brainwashing and mind-control), but reality dictates that makes zero sense. Again, just like typical liberals, you “know” better than what 150 million Americans believe/know.

  35. WW angrily wrote:

    The majority of the American people are the 99%. Your party favors and protects the 1%, and ignores the needs of the 99%. Care to debate that issue, koolo.

    Let’s try the majority of the American people are the 53%, for whose good the Republican Party cares.

    You know, after you found the old site two years ago, and after myriad discussions — some cordial, and some not — along with your comments on a couple of other conservative sites, it’s obvious that you’ve had plenty of interaction with conservatives, but you still don’t understand us.

    You are, in effect, making the same error which undermined all of Karl Marx thinking, that everybody whose situation you see as similar will all think the same way. The “We are the 99%” notion mirrors the way other people thought the world should be run.

  36. Getting back to the original theme of the post, “Liberal Media Biased Agenda,” I noted in the Google News links in the left hand side bar of my site the following blurb: “Rick Perry collects early retirement, owes student loan – Boston Herald – 17 Dec 11 at 13:54.”

    Oh, good grief! I thought. I inferred what I believe was meant to be implied: that Rick Perry had some decades old student loan that he had stiffed. Fortunately, I followed the link, and actually read the article:


    Rick Perry collects early retirement, owes student loan


    By Kim Geiger / Tribune Washington Bureau
    Saturday, December 17, 2011 – Added 4 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON — Texas Gov. Rick Perry makes nearly $225,000 a year, but a good chunk of it comes not from his state salary, but from his retirement benefits.

    Perry is paid $132,995 to run the state of Texas, but he also collects a monthly annuity of $7,698.96 — more than $92,000 per year — in early retirement, according to disclosure forms filed with the Federal Election Commission.

    Perry spokesman Ray Sullivan said the arrangement is “part of (Perry’s) standard financial planning” and “is consistent with Texas state law and Employee Retirement System rules,” citing what’s known as the “rule of 80,” which allows state employees to start drawing on their retirement if their age plus years of service credit totals at least 80.

    “The combination of Gov. Perry’s U.S. military service, state service and age exceeded the state-required 80 years and qualified him for the annuity,” Sullivan said. Perry, 61, started receiving the annuity on Jan. 31. He continues to pay a 6.5 percent withholding from his state salary to the state retirement system, Sullivan said.

    Perry has proposed slashing congressional salaries and has repeatedly called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.”

    In an interview with ABC News, Perry defended drawing early on his pension: “I think it’d be rather foolish to not access what you’ve earned.”

    “That’s been in place for decades and I bought my military time and then obviously the 25 years of public service time, so as you reach that age you become eligible for it, so I don’t find that to be, you know, out of the ordinary,” he said.

    Also in his disclosure report, Perry listed assets, including some land, a life insurance policy and investment funds, worth between $1.16 million and $2.4 million.

    His only liability is a 2006 student loan for between $100,000 and $250,000 with an interest rate of 3.875 percent. A second student loan with a higher interest rate — 8.35 percent — was paid in full earlier this year.

    Sullivan said the loan was used to send Perry’s son Griffin to Vanderbilt.

    Emphasis mine. And there you have it: what many people — your editor, certainly enough — would infer, that Governor Perry had a defaulted-upon student loan, is not the case at all. The Perrys took out student loans to put their son through college, have already paid off one of them, and as far as we know are at least current on the other; no mention was made of the Perrys being either behind or in default, and you can bet your last euro that if they were either behind or in default, the Boston Herald would have made sure we knew it. The Herald knew the truth, and printed the truth, but did so in a way in which the headline is deceiving and you had to read down to the ninth and tenth paragraphs — out of twelve — to get it.

    The professional media, biased against conservatives? Nawwww, can’t be.

  37. It *is* amazing, is it not, Editor? Only a completely isolated recluse would claim that the American MSM is not liberally biased. It went ballistic over a ROCK on the grounds that Perry went hunting on, but barely, if at all, investigates Obama’s connection to Bill Ayers? Jeremiah Wright? His college transcripts (which have *still* never been revealed)? But the NY Times dissected Newt Gingrich’s college thesis from the early 70s??

  38. “Let’s try the majority of the American people are the 53%, for whose good the Republican Party cares.”

    I understand that you ideological assumptions prohibit you from facing the fact that 40% of our wealth is in the hands of the upper 1% of our population. And if that were not enough, some of this wealth is being used to coopt and corrupt the operation of our elected government, so that the wealth will continue to flow upwards. What kind of a system is ours that it promotes this movement of wealth away from our middle class, putting more in poverty and more homeless? How can you possibly defend this situation, promoted and protected by your party?

    So yes I am angry about it, in fact I am livid, but well in control, so don’t worry.

    Now perhaps you would back up your claim here, and list exactly what your party is doing for your “53%”. You might also say a word about the status of the remaining 47%, which you seem to be entirely neglecting, as well as your party too.

  39. “It went ballistic over a ROCK on the grounds that Perry went hunting on, but barely, if at all, investigates Obama’s connection to Bill Ayers? Jeremiah Wright? His college transcripts (which have *still* never been revealed)? But the NY Times dissected Newt Gingrich’s college thesis from the early 70s??”

    Same old same old, right koolo Eric? The old guilt by association charges have been fully vetted three years ago and found to have no substantial impact on President Obama. Why would anyone continue to ask for his college transcripts when it has become obvious that he has superior intelligence, which even his political opponents would agree I’m sure, in spite of their opposition to his policies and ideology. What about his birth and nationality, koolo, are you going to bring that up again. Feeble!

  40. WW writes

    The old guilt by association charges have been fully vetted three years ago and found to have no substantial impact on President Obama

    No one is claiming Obama is “guilty” like Ayers was (is), but it does offer an enlightening glimpse into his radical mindset. Regarding Wright, it is like I said previously — only a recluse holding his hands over his ears could believe that after 20 years Obama never, ever heard his radical, anti-Semitic and racist rantings. What a laugh.

    Why would anyone continue to ask for his college transcripts when it has become obvious that he has superior intelligence

    Yeah, as obvious as the grass being blue, or the sky being green, maybe. His economic policies being any indication, Obama is about as smart as Fidel Castro is a democrat. Nevertheless, if he IS as intelligent as you claim, what’s the hold up? All other presidents have released them. My guess is 1) Obama is FAR from as smart as many people believe, and 2) the transcripts will show the ultra-leftwing classes he took.

  41. “I understand that you ideological assumptions prohibit you from facing the fact that 40% of our wealth is in the hands of the upper 1% of our population.”

    And I understand that your idological assumptions prohibit you from facing the fact that that 40% is not OUR wealth, it’s THEIR wealth. Neither you nor I are entitled to someone elses wealth. And it seems to me you are criss-crossing income and wealth. Which is it you leftists really want to redistribute, people’s income or people’s wealth? My wealth is the total sum of all my assets including cash, investments, real estate, my wife’s diamonds, my cars and even my Rolex’s. My income is what is taxed. Are you saying that my wealth (assets) which I’ve accumulated over my life is subject to forfieture out of YOUR compassion for someone else who has not accumulsted such? Or because my wealth is perhaps 40% more than yours?

  42. “Same old same old, right koolo Eric?”

    Wagonwheel, do you find some deep need to “out” someone? Now I don’t know if Koolo is Eric but you know what? I don’t care either and I don’t need to make an issue out of it either. Why do you?

  43. If you recall Wagonwheel, a couple years ago my computer blew up and when I signed in to CSPT on my new laptop it permitted me to change my handle. At the time I was John C, but there was another John C so I changed to Hoagie. Not because I was trying to fool anyone, that’s my nick name. All my friends call me Hoagie and have for 30 years because I started out owning hoagie shops. Even the tag on my car is HOAGIE and my other car is HOAGIE J (just fo laughs, one of my wife’s is KIM CHEE). I remember for about three months you’d respond to my posts using John. But I wasn’t sure if you were talking to me or Hitchcock. Now the first time I read a post here by Wagonwheel I knew exactly who he was. You know how? By !!!!!!!!. The over use of exclamation points. Yet I still call you Wagonwheel, don’t I? I assume both Wagonwheel and Koolo have some personal meaning to you guys and respect thaat. Am I wrong?

  44. Hoagie, you makes some excellent points about screen names and privacy. It is virtually impossible to maintain real privacy on the Internet because there are always going to be those who will go to any means to invade that privacy. However, there are simple steps we can take to lessen the invasions–steps like not forwarding e-mails to others that contain e-mail addresses of the former recipients. It is simple to erase the addresses of prior recipients or to send mail as BCC to lists of recipients who don’t “know” each other and who have the expectation of privacy in their correspondence. “Outing” others on message boards or on blogs is usually nothing more than a guessing game, but even those guesses can result in unwanted and unwarranted breach of the inherent trust we expect when we post in the Internet.

  45. Gretchen, you are correct, and yes, it was a guess, of someone well known on the old blog, who went by the name Eric, so no harm done here.

    And Hoagie, I’ve been outed numerous times on here, even my full name, and not one word from you. Therefore, I take your comment as both disingenuous and partisan. It was like you people complaining incessantly about PiaToR, when Hube and Hitchcock were far worse with their personal attacks. To the credit of our Editor, when it happened again on here to me, he deleted my last name.

    Do you folks on here have any concept at all of the term “fair”, or is it an anathema to you?

  46. I see ‘ol Perry is up to his very same antics — as usual.

    1) How is it “outing” someone when the person has already used his full name at a blog, and elsewhere — including his own blog?
    2) How is it appropriate to accuse others of wrong-doing when they didn’t know you now preferred to use only your first name?
    3) How is it “fair” or appropriate to keep mentioning someone’s relative in comments — even after you received TWO e-mails requesting you NOT to?
    4) How is it “fair” or appropriate to keep wondering who others are here on this new blog as you have, given your previous (and phony/hypocritical) stance about “outing?”
    5) Claiming that Hitch and I were worse than Phoeny is precisely — and much more accurately — what you referred to as Hoagie’s stance: disingenuous and partisan. As I noted numerous ad nauseum as CSPT, I initially attempted to engage Phoeny MANY times in legitimate discussions, only to be called every name in the book. So, just stop right now your ridiculous nonsense about ANYONE being worse than him.

  47. Lastly, Editor nailed it in that other thread in that you’re like a little boy around here, Perry — constantly pushing the envelope of appropriateness here at FSJ, even currently … and then crying about actions taken against you. Most egregiously, you vowed to post personal information about me at CSPT because your preposterous self-righteousness couldn’t handle having your own tactics thrown right back at you. And you dare whine about “fairness?”

    [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor]

  48. Hube wrote:

    How is it “outing” someone when the person has already used his full name at a blog, and elsewhere — including his own blog?

    While it’s certainly true that Wagonwheel has used his full name on other blogs, including Colossus, the use of his full name on his own site was not by WW but by me, in the introductory article, when I set up the site for him. I did not realize that he did not wish his full name to be used, or I wouldn’t have done so. However, I just checked, and he has not edited it out, either.

    How is it “fair” or appropriate to keep wondering who others are here on this new blog as you have, given your previous (and phony/hypocritical) stance about “outing?”

    It could be said that wondering if Koolo is Eric from CSPT — and I checked; the email and IP addresses are different — is qualitatively different, since Eric was not further identified; it is as much of a “pseudonym” as Wagonwheel going by just his real first name was a pseudonym. However, this would be a good time to simply drop the subject; WW has guessed wrong, and there’s no harm and no foul, but someone has to have the last word in this seemingly never-ending argument; I say that that last word has been given. Personal animosities ruined the old site; I don’t want them to ruin the new one.

  49. “And Hoagie, I’ve been outed numerous times on here, even my full name, and not one word from you. Therefore, I take your comment as both disingenuous and partisan.”

    Wagonwheel, if you were outed on here “numerous times” I missed it. Now I could say I’m sorry, which I am, but after the “disingenuous and partisan” remark I don’t think it would matter. I was being neither disingenuous nor partisan, I simply didn’t notice when it happened. But as the Editor said, let’s just let it go.

  50. “Do you folks on here have any concept at all of the term “fair”, or is it an anathema to you?”

    The answer is obvious in the case of Hube, here and here.

    “No problem by me, Mr. Editor. But I wouldn’t hold my breath on you-know-who. “

    I have already been chastised a number of times on here, mostly justified. I guess it takes a while to readjust from the free flying personal attacks and terrible language on the old blog. I think our Editor is trying to do the right thing, which I support, even though I err at times!

  51. “It could be said that wondering if Koolo is Eric from CSPT — and I checked; the email and IP addresses are different — is qualitatively different, since Eric was not further identified; it is as much of a “pseudonym” as Wagonwheel going by just his real first name was a pseudonym. However, this would be a good time to simply drop the subject; WW has guessed wrong, and there’s no harm and no foul, but someone has to have the last word in this seemingly never-ending argument; I say that that last word has been given. Personal animosities ruined the old site; I don’t want them to ruin the new one.”

    Point taken, Mr. Editor. The guessing game is over for me.

Comments are closed.