If you haven't heard about the Massachusetts Democrat representative James Fagan going on a rant against child rape victims yet, its most likely because there was limited media coverage.
Here is what he said:
“Let me tell you why it’s so wrong, It’s so wrong because in these situations . . . that 6-year-old is going to sit in front of me, or somebody far worse than me and I’m going to rip them apart. I’m going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined. That when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep. When they’re 19 years old they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody. And that’s not because I’m a nice guy. That’s because when you’re in court, and you’re defending somebody’s liberty, and you’re facing a mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions, you have to do every single thing you can do on behalf of your client. That is your obligation as a trial lawyer.”
By the way, he doesn't regret a single word.
Well, CNN actually covered it, but couldn't seem to figure out which party he belonged to. The best they could come up with was that he was a legislator of some sort.
Comments Policy
He really believes that.
June 28, 2008 - 17:55 ET by pbthinkerFirst of all, it illustrates why we shouldn't elect Democrats and, secondly, can we have this idiots law license suspended for life?
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
My understanding is that
June 28, 2008 - 18:24 ET by scamoramaMy understanding is that the law under consideration would have REQUIRED the presence of the victim in the courtroom, unlike the practice in many states of allowing closed-circuit tv. He was letting his fellow legislators know what was in store if they passed the law.
I think he was W - A - Y over the top in his remarks, but I agree with him that the law in question is horrific.
I would not want my child in the same room as the person who abused her. No matter what the circumstances were.
You are correct. The law in
June 28, 2008 - 18:46 ET by mrsimeleYou are correct. The law in question is horrific.
I do not see it at all that
June 29, 2008 - 00:45 ET by BDI do not see it at all that way. WHat he was doing was threatening future victims with increased victimization. THese lawyers KNOW they are defending the scum of the earth,and providing a adequate defense does not requires the destructionof the victim in question, particularly when it is a child. It just DOES NOT.
And furthermore, since they KNOW they are defending the Scum of the earth - any effort to further victimize the children earns these attorneys a very specific location in hell - a table nearest the heating system if you get my drift.
While, legally, we probably cannot do anything against these lawyers such as scum Fagan, a good pounding in a dark alley is not out of the question.
There are TOOO many lawyers, and we must decrease their overgrazing population.
Consider the difference
June 29, 2008 - 13:49 ET by scamoramaConsider the difference between testifying while in a secure room with people you trust, watching a monitor and looking at a camera, as opposed to being in a packed courtroom with a raving lawyer 5 feet from you, and the monster who raped you staring while you try to speak.
The law in a lot of states allows closed-circuit testimony. Massachusetts was going to disallow that, therefore, the state "was threatening future victims with increased victimization."
That is NOT what this vile
June 29, 2008 - 15:47 ET by BDThat is NOT what this vile creature was discussing.From what I can tell, his thesis was:
We can infer that he wants the plea bargain in order to do two things - 1.) lessen any form of punishment on his client to a minimum. 2.) Increase the volume of traffic he is able to handle.
Being scum, commonly known as a defense lawyer, he is hardly expected to CARE about close circuit television capabilities inthe courtroom in order to lessen the pain of the victim and there is absolutely no evidence that that is the true motives present. If this were truley the issue, he could simply modify that issue in future legislation.
Nope, he is scum, and there is an entire circle of Dante's Hell awaiting just him.
On his show last week,
June 29, 2008 - 17:29 ET by scamoramaOn his show last week, Dennis Miller called Fagan's office, and was told that the closed-circuit issue was a big part of Fagan's concern. To "modify that issue in future legislation", he'd need to get a majority to go along.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who abuses a child in any way should be dropped down a deep hole and never see daylight again.
One of the duties of an attorney - defense or prosecution - is to impeach the testimony of a witness if he can. Fagan was giving an example that was not as extreme as you might imagine.
This is what we call the
June 30, 2008 - 00:28 ET by BDThis is what we call the "Shuck and Jive."
Get burned? Simply do a little sidestep to a popular topic and shuck and jive your way out of trouble.
Flatly stated, I do not believe him since the connection between his statement and the fact that he would be duty bound to eviscerate the innocent on camera or off in any event is vacant.
He is just scum.
Worst person in the world? Fagan? Nope.
June 28, 2008 - 18:40 ET by Gary HallAnd what does this say for Keith Olbermann, who did not name James Fagan, Massachusetts Democrat representative, his "Worst Person in the World?"
(;~/ gary
It means absolutely nothing.
June 28, 2008 - 18:48 ET by mrsimeleIt means absolutely nothing. Fagan was attesting to how "other" attorneys *might* act if their client was facing a mandatory 20+ year sentence. What if the child is lying? Isn't it proper jurisprudence to work as fact finder and determine the legitimacy of a childs claim?
Great comment! You are
June 28, 2008 - 19:24 ET by Roger the ShrubberGreat comment! You are really speaking truth to power, my friend. Keep up the great work!
Rog.... ...that was
June 28, 2008 - 19:31 ET by bigtimerRog....
...that was a delicious comment!
I understood...just wanted you to know.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
I understood too. I
June 28, 2008 - 23:01 ET by amberI understood too.
I also found a new word, it is bummer (n) a lamb that must be bottle fed by a shepherd or (v) a bad reaction to a hallucinagenic drug. We have a lot of bummers in this world and only a few shepherds.
"Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else." --despair.com
Far too many false claims
June 28, 2008 - 19:28 ET by wdhorningThere are far too many false claims. An innocent person cannot lose their life over a false claim and so their lawyer has to uncover any lies, especially if a child is "put up to it" to lie for the parent who is "getting even" with a spouse from a broken marriage.
The lawyer's words were rather disrespectful, to say the least, but nonetheless, the rights of the accused are being respected, even when the questioning is hard for the victim to deal with.
As an aside, what many victim's advocates do not not tell you is that while it is true victims re-live the crime on the witness stand, in the long run there is a great deal of healing that takes place when they know the guilty person is the real guilty person and is punished accordingly.
Some recent false claims may have occurred at that religious ranch in Texas, and a few years ago, at a day care center. Fortunately, most investigators and prosecutors uncover false accusations, but not always. That leaves only one line of defense for the innocent, namely their defense lawyer, who will be forced to use a tough line of questioning.
mrsimele... Attorneys
June 28, 2008 - 19:30 ET by Clear thinkermrsimele...
Attorneys already use those tactics in rape cases. He doesn't like the new mandates because he will no longer be able to cut deals. He was trying to protect his profession and went waay to far with his point.
Besides, we really are not arguing about him, we are arguing that because he's a democrat the media is giving him a pass. If a Republican had said the same thing the media would want his head on a platter. Get it?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
@Clear thinker:
June 29, 2008 - 14:44 ET by j. frank wilsonIn other words, take a very serious issue - child rape - a proposed bill that would have forced the accused to testify in open court and confront the person they say attacked them - and turn it into a pure political issue.
I'll give you credit for admitting it. I continue to find it reprehensible to attempt to make political fodder of such a serious issue. Some things should be above politics - and this is certainly one of them. But some people obviously cannot pass up a single opportunity to attempt to politicize any issue - no matter how distasteful.
Have you no shame, sir? Apparently not.
If it weren't for the
June 29, 2008 - 15:48 ET by SchnikeysIf it weren't for the liberals wanting to murder children, maybe you wouldn't already be regarded as such a reprehensible individual. Thus, you are a troll. You are scared of the truth, J. Frank. Keep hiding under your bed, doing whatever drugs you do. And be sure to keep crying like a little b*tch, it makes it easier to tell who the idiot around here is (you).
------------------------------------------------------------
"It could be the answer to our age-old, philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' PLASTIC!"
@Schnikeys:
June 29, 2008 - 16:00 ET by j. frank wilsonI'm dazzled by the force of your logic and intelligent response. Just one question - after a while, doesn't the flying spittle cover your screen?
J Frank Wilson: Nice
June 29, 2008 - 15:53 ET by BDJ Frank Wilson:
Nice attempt at spin.
Please read what this vile creature said. I will post it for you again.
“Let me tell you why it’s so wrong, It’s so wrong because in these situations . . . that 6-year-old is going to sit in front of me, or somebody far worse than me and I’m going to rip them apart. I’m going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined. That when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep. When they’re 19 years old they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody. And that’s not because I’m a nice guy. That’s because when you’re in court, and you’re defending somebody’s liberty, and you’re facing a mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions, you have to do every single thing you can do on behalf of your client. That is your obligation as a trial lawyer.”
There is absolutely NO evidence that he was referring to the issue of the victim testifying in open court. NONE! He was simply saying "Hey, if you do not allow me to plea bargain this down to a an acceptable (To him) level, I can going to eviscerate an innocent on the stand.
And from the recent hisotry of his state, acceptable punishment is time served or "stamping his ID card no desert" as we say in the Army.
This man is scum, but being a lawyer, that goes without saying.
@BD:
June 29, 2008 - 16:09 ET by j. frank wilsonSince you read the whole "plea bargain" thing into Mr. Fagan's statements, there's nothing to discuss. You are free to add whatever you want - but it does rather limit the opportunity for a conversation.
As for your generalizations about lawyers, wasn't that the plurality of occupations of the signers of the Declaration of Independence? And - I would be wrong about this one - aren't prosecutors generally members of the Bar, as well?
I hadn't seen your comments for a few days - glad to see you're ok and in mid-season form. Given your stated occupation I was worried...
What "Reading into it" is
June 29, 2008 - 16:35 ET by BDWhat "Reading into it" is present.
The person above spun the issue by claiming that fagan sought to improve the system by using closed circuit televsion testimony vice the victim being in the court room.
But in accordance with Mr Fagans statement, he would be duty bound to eviscerate the defendant regardless of location (courtroom vs Closed Circuit TV) - so the point is MOOT! That leaves us with the assessment that Plea bargaining is the only way the vile Mr Fagan could be prevented from further victimizing the victim.
Shameful.
Regarding the signersof the Declaration of Independance. Less than half were lawyers and almost as many considered themselves as Farmers, merchants, and even a handful of Doctors in the crowd.
Besides, the role of the Lawyer has changed in the past 100 years. THey used to serve the public good. Now they obstruct.
Regarding your worry about my occupation. No need to fret (nor do I think you really cared, from your previous comments), I can handle my self, particaularly since I am in CONUS and training personnel and units destined for theater. I am not likely to be deployed this year since I have been deployed for two years already.
@BD:
June 29, 2008 - 23:09 ET by j. frank wilsonYour "plea bargaining" postulation was read into Mr. Fagan's statements.
None of my previous comments could be reasonably interpreted as showing anything except respect for the US Military. My personal interest in your well-being wasn't based on knowing you - obviously, I don't. It was based on your stated occupation, as I said. If you choose not to believe that, I'll try to go on living.
still with the in your face
June 29, 2008 - 23:14 ET by botgstill with the in your face @? quite rude, ON A PAR WITH YELLING AT PEOPLE FRANK!!!
so if BD chooses to believe that you won't try to go on living??
promises promises
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
What possible other reason
June 30, 2008 - 00:33 ET by BDWhat possible other reason could Fagan have for opposing the bill, and rationalizing the destruction of the life of an innocent along the way?
Don't give me this crap that he wants to do it on close circuit TV instead such as being brought up by Simile, because there is no DIFFERENCE in the manner in which he sees it as his duty to destroy the innocent to protect his client. The insertion of a camera versus a live person on the stand will not change his tactics.
@BD:
June 30, 2008 - 13:12 ET by j. frank wilson"...rationalizing the destruction of the life of an innocent along the way?" Nice job of working in the abortion codewords.
We covered this topic at some length the second time NB brought it up. Mr. Fagan was attempting to keep the Massachusetts legislature from passing a poor bill - he wanted his fellow legislators to know the likely (unintended) results of a mandatory sentencing bill.
Was he inartful? Yes. Over the top? Certainly.
Did he make his point? Only to those who actually tried to understand it - but he is hardly alone in that.
"...rationalizing the
June 30, 2008 - 13:34 ET by BD"...rationalizing the destruction of the life of an innocent along the way?" Nice job of working in the abortion codewords.
We covered this topic at some length the second time NB brought it up. Mr. Fagan was attempting to keep the Massachusetts legislature from passing a poor bill - he wanted his fellow legislators to know the likely (unintended) results of a mandatory sentencing bill.
Was he inartful? Yes. Over the top? Certainly.
Did he make his point? Only to those who actually tried to understand it - but he is hardly alone in that.
@BD:
June 30, 2008 - 14:43 ET by j. frank wilsonYou commented "And as I have stated, he considers it a bad bill because it does not allow him to plea bargain an obviously guilty suspect to a marginal sentance." You present your opinion as fact. However, it remains your opinion.
"...an obviously guilty suspect?" I don't think there should be one sentence for a guilty person and another (different) one for an "obviously" guilty person. In your view if you add "obviously guilty" you may believe it strengthens your case. I would not agree.
I believe in the separation of powers found in the US Constitution. Specific sentences should be up to the judge or jury as pre- and pro-scribed by law. Mandatory sentencing - talk about Congressional interference! - remains a very poor idea. For, among other reasons, it is un-Constitutional.
"Only an opinion - yadda
July 1, 2008 - 01:30 ET by BD"Only an opinion - yadda yadda yadda."
I must take him at his word. He said he would devastate the young victim in order to get his client off from a possible harsh sentance. No opinion involved it is what this peice of refuse SAID.
I ASKED YOU FOR THE PENALTY YOU WOULD PROVIDE TO THOSE GUILT OF CHILD RAPE. WHAT IS IT!!!!?????
Do not give me this "I do none believe in one penalty for the obviously guilty/another for those not, obfuscation. I am making you the sentancing authority for this. A child has been raped and tortured. There is no question of guilt as you have it all on video tape. The defense counsel has made the situationworse by attacking the vidtim on the stand and the victim is further victimized.
Would you:
Shoot the reprobate?
Put him in prison making big rocks ino little ones until he died of exhaustion?
Put him in prison for a weekend while feeding him Filet Mignon?
What would you DO???? GIVE IT TO ME!!!!!!
@BD:
July 1, 2008 - 14:06 ET by j. frank wilsonWhile it is difficult to pass up such a BP pitch as your final line, you've manged to transform from generally being tedious to being tendentious and rude.
This conversation is over.
BD - 1 Frankie - gone home
July 1, 2008 - 14:36 ET by Roger the ShrubberBD - 1
Frankie - gone home to sob quietly into his pillow.
"When danger reared its
July 2, 2008 - 09:56 ET by BD"When danger reared its ugly head, J Frank WIlson.....
(You know the rest)
SHACK
July 1, 2008 - 14:40 ET by UnsaneBDA indicates that j. frank wilson had his ass so thoroughly kicked, he left the battlefield, not with a bang, but a whimper.
SHACK!!!
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Danke sehr!
July 2, 2008 - 09:54 ET by BDDanke sehr!
Not willing to be
July 2, 2008 - 09:52 ET by BDNot willing to be judgemental, even against a convicted sex offender. Boy at THAT a typical liberal.
How did not you not become a Superior Court judge in a iberal state?
but j. frank was judgemental
July 2, 2008 - 20:08 ET by botghe judged you were rude
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
I did not realize asking
July 2, 2008 - 23:35 ET by BDI did not realize asking pointed questions he was not prepared to answer was rude. I will take that under advisement when dealing with libs in the future.
bbb
June 28, 2008 - 22:51 ET by WesenHere in Washington a mother had a sex offender move into her neighborhood. When she saw the fellow talking to her daughter in the street she went after him with a baseball bat. He's in jail for not registering the right address.... and so is she for assault. Dunno if she's made bail. They've not reported any more.
Jim needs a daughter. Maybe he'll change his mind.
She should have just walked
June 28, 2008 - 23:03 ET by amberShe should have just walked up to him with a pistol holstered on her hip. No assault, but point taken.
"Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else." --despair.com
→ Better question
June 29, 2008 - 08:49 ET by Cool ArrowGuess which party is courting the Pedophile vote?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
@Cool Arrow:
June 29, 2008 - 14:47 ET by j. frank wilsonPlease see the above comment addressed to Clear thinker. Obviously you have no shame, either.
But his statement is
June 29, 2008 - 16:02 ET by BDBut his statement is accurate.
If you were a pedo, who would you vote for, a liberal trial attourney who wants to give you a weekend of picking up trash, or...
The conservative man who during closing arguments would place a platic drop cloth behind your chair to protect the court room floor from any messes while his assistant sets up the telecon with the State and US Supreme court for an immediate final appeal.
Once can dream of the good old days, right?
Wrong.
June 29, 2008 - 16:21 ET by j. frank wilsonWhat you describe is far too close to the current Chinese system of "justice" for me. I prefer to have faith in the US Constitution.
The current mania for putting more and more people in prison just doesn't seem to be working, now does it? California built more than a dozen prisons without building a single new college or university. That seems backwards to me. We have in prison more of our own citizens than any other Western nation - but we don't seem to be any safer.
As for capital punishment, there are plenty of bloodthirsty paper vigilantes around NB to keep you company. I'll pass on joining that mob.
Nothing unconstitutional in
June 29, 2008 - 16:45 ET by BDNothing unconstitutional in my scenario as laid out. The Defendant was given an adequate trial where his lawyer presented his argumnets in a adequate environment and guilt or innocence was determined.
The only change is the speeded up appeals process which is even MORE in keeping with the constitution than the current model in which an attourney is given decades to preapre the most trivial of cases. Failure of speedy trial as it were. All the while justice is not served.
Nope, modern technology can allow the defending attourney to make his case to all levels of the appeals process simultaneously and speed the process to regain constitutionality.
Lets face it, nearly all appeals in capital cases are simply rehashes of failed attempts int he past anyway. And the attourneys set up the trials to allow appealable issues ANYWAY, so lets just get on with it.
Itis one of the few times when automation can truly serve society (as well as save LOTS of money)."
After watching a show on serial killers.
June 30, 2008 - 12:13 ET by ahusserI learned (and should have known) that Gacy was on death row for 14 years. That is the abomination.
As for the "fact" that more persons are incarcerated in the U.S. than in any other nation. IMHO the fact that in this country narciscism, sociopathology and non-conformism seem to be highly regarded and rewarded in this country. Throw in an inflated sense of entitlement, victimology, me firstism, and "How dare anyone tell me what to do" and the incarceration rate is explainable. In other words it may just be a cultural thing and have nothing to do with the amount of punishment.
In 1988 while I was
June 30, 2008 - 13:40 ET by BDIn 1988 while I was assinged to FOrt Hood, there was a guy who went on a shooting rampage, killing off duty soldiers serving as cab drivers in order to get cash to impress his girlfriend.
In short Order he was tried, convicted, and sentanced to deathrow at Leavenworth Kansas.
All of the soldiers at Hood were conforted by the fact that we expected the US Military to swiftly execute him due to the fact that our military court system works with greater dispatch than the civilian sector.
Fast forward twenty years and he is still on death row much to our disgust. The legal system has let us down.
"We have in prison more of
June 29, 2008 - 19:44 ET by ckc1227"We have in prison more of our own citizens than any other Western nation - but we don't seem to be any safer. "
Then petition the jails, prisons, etc in your area to release the prisoners, as you believe locking them up does nothing to make people safer. Maybe you could even let a few of them come live with you.
J Frank...puh-leeeeze!
July 2, 2008 - 20:31 ET by jefflebowskiYour comments just don't make sense at all....you seem like you're reading off the teleprompter of Obama. Don't be surprised that nobody agrees with your tired old rhetoric here at NB.
First of all, California is a zoo because of liberal ideas. Democrats rule the state and now their tired ideas are coming home to roost. More prisons? More criminals because of lax immigration and safe-haven cities....more criminals because of liberal welfare policies that taught generations not to work...but to take handouts and commit crimes. Ridiculous tax policies running businesses out leaving a smaller tax base. Power problems because Cali hasn't built a power plant since Fred Flintstone because of environmental idiots and scumbag lawyers.
So spare us the "we haven't built schools....only prisons." I assure you, nobody in your prisons would be in school anyway.
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
All liberals are
June 29, 2008 - 15:49 ET by SchnikeysAll liberals are disgusting, piece of sh*t human beings who have no regard for children. Now it's obvious what the lib senate and house do when they go home every evening...they rape children. As do registered Democrats.
------------------------------------------------------------
"It could be the answer to our age-old, philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' PLASTIC!"
@Schnikeys:
June 29, 2008 - 16:03 ET by j. frank wilsonGlad to see that you took the recent News Busters request to stop personal attacks to heart! Your comments really add to the overall tone of this website. Kind of like what Will Rogers said of people who move from Oklahoma to California - they raise the IQ's in both states...
Great post!
June 29, 2008 - 21:03 ET by Roger the ShrubberBrilliant move, using a personal attack to chide someone who uses personal attacks. Sheer genius! As usual, you offer an incredible amount of insight and wisdom. Bravo!
Roger... I promised
June 29, 2008 - 21:10 ET by Clear thinkerRoger...
I promised Matthew that I would stop calling j. frank an as*hole, so I won't do it.
Do you have any other suggestions for me?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
CT
June 29, 2008 - 21:12 ET by Free StinkerJ. Frank Moonbat works for me.
Not bad, but I'm looking
June 29, 2008 - 21:15 ET by Clear thinkerNot bad, but I'm looking for something with more teeth.
I just would hate to break a promise by calling j. frank an as*hole, so I need something as powerful.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
@Clear thinker:
June 29, 2008 - 23:16 ET by j. frank wilsonMy, you are oh so clever! The wisdom flows from your words like water from a spring. The force of your logic demolishes all in its path. We are most fortunate, indeed, to have the free benefit of reading the pearls you share with profligate freedom...
well j. f
June 29, 2008 - 23:23 ET by botgand even still in your face ever the rude one we come to see. "surely you are the man and wisdom will die with you"
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
I live in neither Oklahoma
June 29, 2008 - 22:17 ET by SchnikeysI live in neither Oklahoma nor California...shows how dazzling your logic is.
------------------------------------------------------------
"It could be the answer to our age-old, philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' PLASTIC!"
j. frank
June 29, 2008 - 22:39 ET by botgagain what's with the in your face @ stuff?? It's rude simple and plain.
also a post towards liberals in general is not toward a person it is towards a group. However when you post to an individual (as you did) it is a personal attack. So to recap; you have done what you complain about someone else doing while they did not even do it.
Now that's funny.
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
@botg:
June 29, 2008 - 23:21 ET by j. frank wilsonGo back and read all the comments - you will see who started with personal (ie, against one person) attacks.
in my face and giving
June 29, 2008 - 23:28 ET by botgin my face and giving assignments? yeah right, i'll get right on it as soon as you refrain from hypocrasy
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
@botg:
June 29, 2008 - 23:36 ET by j. frank wilsonApparently I was asking too much - please allow me to make it easy for you. Here you go - nothing personal here, is there?
"If it weren't for the liberals wanting to murder children, maybe you wouldn't already be regarded as such a reprehensible individual. Thus, you are a troll. You are scared of the truth, J. Frank. Keep hiding under your bed, doing whatever drugs you do. And be sure to keep crying like a little b*tch, it makes it easier to tell who the idiot around here is (you)."
Having re-read it myself, I just can't imagine what I was thinking...
ever the rude boy
June 30, 2008 - 00:06 ET by botgTell me again how it is you answer one post while replying to a different post? Where's the personal attack in the post you actually replied to?
There's a new fad it's called linear logic.
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
@botg:
June 30, 2008 - 12:35 ET by j. frank wilsonIf someone posts more than one comment to the same blog, you don't believe that individual is responsible for all their comments?
That's linear logic laid out on a pretzel...
j. frank
July 1, 2008 - 00:09 ET by botghow about answering the comment by replying to it instead of answering some where else? or is that too linear for a warped mind to comprehend?
and do get out of my face with your @, as i've told you repeatedly it's rude.
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
@botg:
July 1, 2008 - 14:09 ET by j. frank wilsonAnyone who wishes to annoint themselves as the Miss Manners of NB will have ample opportunity to show their stuff.
j. frank
July 1, 2008 - 19:51 ET by botgnot even a good dodge by the rude spelling nazi
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
Yep, not seeing any
June 30, 2008 - 12:40 ET by SchnikeysYep, not seeing any personal attacks. It's like calling a breeze a hurricane, eh?
------------------------------------------------------------
"It could be the answer to our age-old, philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' PLASTIC!"
@Schnikeys:
June 30, 2008 - 13:07 ET by j. frank wilsonGlad to see you agree with me. Nothing like seeing a poor lost lamb come into the fold...
Incredible post! You are
June 30, 2008 - 14:51 ET by Roger the ShrubberIncredible post! You are truly a clear-headed, smart-thinking patriot! Keep up the FANTASTIC WORK!
@R the S:
June 30, 2008 - 16:02 ET by j. frank wilsonToo subtle...
Careful, j. frank
June 30, 2008 - 16:09 ET by BlondeYou might cut yourself with that rapier wit.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
@Blonde:
June 30, 2008 - 17:00 ET by j. frank wilsonOoh! What a cutting remark!
@Annoying
June 30, 2008 - 17:01 ET by BlondeD'oh! Took you long enough to get it, j. frank.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
@Blonde:
June 30, 2008 - 18:21 ET by j. frank wilsonNow I'm cut to the quick.
Quick! Quick!
@ Annoying
June 30, 2008 - 18:25 ET by BlondeQuick...get your stiptic stick.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Let me know when you catch
June 30, 2008 - 18:18 ET by Roger the ShrubberLet me know when you catch up with the rest of us.
@RtheS:
June 30, 2008 - 18:29 ET by j. frank wilsonI cannot aspire to such heights. I'm just never gonna be part of your groovy little club. Left out of the warm embrace of folks who clearly enjoy each other's company very, very much - Spartan-like in your love for your fellow man - not part of the co-dependency commentary, all alone. Not a BFF in the world.
Signed,
Heart-Broken
Once again, more personal
June 30, 2008 - 18:41 ET by Roger the ShrubberOnce again, more personal attacks after you poo-poo'ed someboody for doing so. Shame on you for your hypocrisy and homophobic comments.
PS: Guess that Will Rogers
June 30, 2008 - 14:51 ET by j. frank wilsonPS: Guess that Will Rogers quote was too much for you...
j. frank, do you think?
July 1, 2008 - 00:15 ET by jefflebowskithat the lib blogs like huffington and daily kos would accept conservative comments? From posts I've seen there, any conservative comment was met with profanity and name calling.
Since you don't appear to be impressed with NB and it's posters, why do you continue to come back? Is it some attention thing?
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
@jefflebowski:
July 1, 2008 - 13:59 ET by j. frank wilsonSo you're telling me conservative commentators on other sites are treated like I am here? I'm shocked. Shocked!