A dollar short and two years late are just a few of the descriptions that fit the editorial by the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus calling out term-limited state Rep. Chris Ward, R-Brighton, for missing more votes than any lawmaker in the 94th Legislative session that just ended Dec. 30.
Closing the gate after the horses are gone is another way to describe it; he is term-limited. But the editorial claims "Ward owes his now-former constituents an explanation."
As you recall, Michigan Votes, maintained by the conservative think tank Mackinac Center for Public Policy, keeps track of missed votes, and according to them, Ward missed more total votes for the entire session that ran from January 2007 to Dec. 20, 2008 than any lawmaker. This occurred while Ward was in a leadership role. He was the No. 2 Republican in the House; the Majority Floor Leader until the GOP lost control of the House for the 94th Legislature, and then he was the Minority Floor Leader until he was sacked for voting to increase the state income tax in October 2007 that ended a brief government shutdown.
"Prior to his maverick 2007 vote, Ward's attendance record was fine. So why did he all of a sudden start missing work 20 percent of the time during his last two years in office? Was he sulking over losing his leadership position? Was there some other explanation." Said the editorial.
Simply not true. Ward missed more votes than any lawmaker for the calendar year 2007, and that was eight months before he made the vote he was rightly praised for.
Once again, for full disclosure, I was a volunteer for Ward's Democratic opponent in the November 2006 race. We worked hard, but we got killed. During the campaign, there were clear indications of what his attendance record would be, and we saw very little of Ward in the 66th District and in Livingston County. In fact, this very same editorial board that is now calling Ward out endorsed him without the traditional endorsement interview of him or his opponent.
Being a Republican in Livingston County should not mean automatic victory, nor should an incumbent go unchallenged in the primary.
59 comments:
Maybe you have a different calendar than I do. But it appears as if their endorsement was BEFORE his attendance started to be an issue.
I was not even interviewed by the editorial board when they endorsed Joanna! None of the Hamburg Democrats were on their online voting guide. How's that for fair?
The fact they act like they cover politics and then are so utterly biased just amazes me.
They love to boast about the strong Republican Party in Livingston County and they cover every little event they hold and ignore more than half of the Democrats' events and speakers. Face it Kevin, they are in the tank for Republicans and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Sure, Bluzie, that's why they endorsed Obama, Kerry, Levin, Stabenow...
National politics are much different from local politics!
Local politics is where local political power is all in one group.
I don't think it is really politically healthy for our community. But it is the decision they have made.
As I said before in the original post, “there were clear indications of what his attendance record would be, and we saw very little of Ward in the 66th District and in Livingston County.”
Plus, during the session that ran from January 2005 to December 2006, he missed 112 votes. In other words, out of 110 House members, he was number 25. Once again, there were clear indications of what his attendance record would be.
Andy Dillon and Jennifer Granholm have consistently had fine things to say about Chris Ward. These compliments date well before Ward's crucial vote on the tax hike.
Apparently Dillon and Granholm are also in the tank.
Kevin is upset that his candidate lost. His candidate was a nice guy who was over-matched for the job. I believe he was unemployed at the time. If so, that indicates that he was looking for a way to get a paycheck.
How committed was Kevin's candidate? Well, he didn't run last year when there was no incumbent in the office. Maybe the newspaper rightly judged the guy to be a lightweight with no staying power.
At the end of the day, I'll take the opinion of Granholm and Dillon as more valuable then Kevin's sour grapes.
I think it will be nearly impossible for the Press/Argus editoral board to see their clear bias.
It has just worked for them. They keep the powerbase of the County in a neat little circle.
The idea that Livingston County Commissioners have done so well at managing money is just plain funny!
When you have years of growth, you have plenty of money. No group has budget problems when money is plentiful.
I studied Hamburg Township's budget during my race and not one department paid attention to their budget, they just dipped into the fund balance and now the chickens will come home to roost! They have little or no liquidity! I asked for townships to work together for purchasing and to discuss working to blend services for saving money, no one picked up on it,not one interview! And I said the editorial board is just too busy to interview those candidates they have no intention of endorsing! Townships are a huge money pit and something has to change. Yet Joanna after 12 years could not see it.
I know you find it shocking how they dismissed Mike, and embraced someone clearly not doing their job.
They did it with Joanna as well. I had no idea until I started doing my homework, just how bad things were going to get.
Yet, they now continue to try to embarrass Matt Skiba and with every opportunity getting quotes from Joanna, to always keep her in the spotlight when possible.
The editorial board is such a part of the circle of power, they are blinded and refuse to see anyone who is not part of "the group".
They are not big thinkers Kevin and worst of all they are so sure they are always the smartest in the room. I won't be sorry if some there are changes at the top with the paper. They seem lazy to me.
Wow! Now that was a snarky comment from anonymous!
Not running again doesn't make you a political lightweight!
It costs a lot of time and money to run for office.
I can tell you I make my living in politics and it is much harder being a candidate than I ever imagined.
Are you telling me that you believe there is fairness with our local paper covering local elections?
I really would love to hear that explaination!
No, Andy Dillon and Jennifer Granholm have not “consistently had fine things to say about Chris Ward.” Nor were do these alleged “compliments date well before Ward's crucial vote on the tax hike.” I don’t think they went out of their way to say bad things about him. But when he was the majority floor leader, he was so heavy handed that there was no debate on the House floor, and the GOP even refused to provide the Democrats a schedule of what would be considered. A Democratic member was almost arrested for trying to find out what she would be voting on that day.
http://mcgonegalforthe66th.blogspot.com/2006/06/changing-tone-in-lansing-for-bad-as-if.html
Then there was the time he threatened to have a priest arrested at a committee hearing.
http://mcgonegalforthe66th.blogspot.com/2006/06/case-of-rowdy-priest-mike-mcgonegal-is.html
There is also his record of free meals from lobbyists; Almost $6,000 over a two year period.
http://mcgonegalforthe66th.blogspot.com/2006/08/ward-hit-parade-bonus-burgers.html
I wasn’t really upset at losing because I knew it was near impossible for a Democrat in win in Livingston County. I expected a fair race. The ones who should be upset are the taxpayers who got ripped off by a guy who rarely showed up for work.
My “candidate was a nice guy who was over-matched for the job?” What are you basing that lie on? Mike McGonegal was a guy who was better educated, and who actually had worked at a job in the private sector, as well as the government. He was a manufacturing sales representative. He was not unemployed.
A “lightweight with no staying power?” You are an uninformed idiot. This is a guy who went door-to-door every night after work against a guy who not only did not even bother to campaign, I don’t think he even lived in the district anymore. He sure didn’t show up much. After all that hard work, Mike got killed. I wanted him to run again, too. However, he has a wife and was trying to put two kids through college. It’s kind of hard to ask a guy to make a sacrifice like that over his family.
I like Chris Ward. He was great to work with when he was the chair of the county GOP. But, the Chris Ward that served in Lansing is not the same guy I knew. If Joe Hune had the same record, I would call him out it. Hune doesn’t have a record. To his credit, he showed up to work every day and hardly ever missed a vote. He just didn’t accomplish much of anything when he was there. But based on that non-record, he will be my Senator in two years.
If it was just sour grapes, it would be easy disprove I’m full of crap. What I said was accurate, and I challenged you to prove I’m wrong.
Good Post!
I doubt anything will ever change though.
I don't think anyone from the paper believes the editorial board is fair.
They are in business and the business in Livingston County is Republican.
You won't find one person to deny that they are all about keeping their friends in power.
Here’s the thing about newspapers, there once was separation between the newsroom and the editorial side and the business office; a wall, so to speak. That wall has come down with media consolidation, and it has hurt the public and newspapers. I do expect the editorial board to be fair, and for the most part they are. They have made some good and courageous endorsements, but the blind endorsements of people like Rogers and Ward have more to do with the political bent of the person who heads up the editorial board than anything else.
In every newspaper I have worked at, they have interviewed candidates from school board and city council to state Senator. The decision not to conduct endorsement interviews for a state House candidate and for the clerk in the most populous township in the county is simply irresponsible.
Yes, it is irresponsible, but it also lacks basic fairness.
What's the difference between a puppy and a Democrat?
The puppy eventually quits whining.
Stating the truth is whining?
I am pretty sure that is not the definition of whining.
I miss Brett. He was such a wise font of information, unlike these nonny-mouse trolls that post here now, bluzie excluded of course.
Where or where is Brett, oh how I miss him. Why, he's not even posting to his own glorious blog anymore. How I miss learning about the Conservative Lifestyle.
Sorry, *sob*, I can't go on...I'm just too upset.
BUWAHAAAAAAAAA!!! Sorry, it's been a while, and I'm in a dickish mood, not unlike the nonny-mouse trolls which infest your blog.
Without the anonymous posters, there would be no action on this site.
I, for example, come here to watch communications guru implode with his comical arguments.
From what I see, the only people here are: Guru; bluzie; and 2 or more anonymous posters who clearly are just having fun yanking guru's chain.
The guy is a joke. I can imagine that the anonymous posters get together and have a beer or 2 to laugh about how they torment him.
Really, do you think they take him seriously? He says it is all right to ignore abusive behavior toward children; he calls teens "crass" because they got involved in the political process; he has a man-crush on Spitzer who he praises for paying thousands of dollars for a hooker; he makes up a story about the local GOP breaking campaign laws in a school election; he lambastes one attorney general for interjecting in an issue or huge interest to consumers (the cost of Blue Cross premiums) but lavishes praise on another for a trumped up press ploy to crack down on clothing catalogs at the mall (even while he criticizes others for being prudes when they protect window displays at Victoria's Secrets.); he cries/whines about anonymous posters, but he still allows it (because otherwise, this site would be a vast digital wasteland.)
It's all about the party. If Hitler were a Democrat, guru would praise him. If Jesus were a Republican, guru would criticize him.
He's a laughable way to let off steam. That's all.
Anonymous has it absolutely correct. It's fun to come here and see what the extreme liberals say and how they deny what's right in front of them. This is not the place for accurate information though. This site is the equivalent of a blonde joke. It's fun to read, but you're not going to get serious issues nor will you get serious discussion, nor will you get the facts. What you do get is a sore belly from laughing so hard at the predictable responses from one or two ultra liberals who spell America as Amerika.
What the heck are you talking about not anonymous?
Here is an example of Guru speak: The Teenage Republicans host a debate and, as a fund-raiser, ask for a nominal admittance fee of $5. Guru goes crazy. He calls it disgusting and crass. Crass! That's how he describes involved kids who are doing the equivalent of a bake sale.
But he first ignores and then downplays the fact that his beloved Democrats failed to host a debate of any kind.
He is also silent on the fact that a local Democratic party to celebrate the inauguration carries a $30 per person price tag. 30 bucks!
Apparently when the Dems have their hands out, it's not crass, it's just standard operating procedure.
Anonymous:
You don't do your research!
We didn't not have a primary race between two candidates except for Donna Anderson and Tommy Crawford, in their House Race and Tommy could not be reached!
So the debate could not happen.
so you couldn't have held a debate before the November election?
My point is that guru goes out of his way to criticize the other party's debate format...and it was done by teen-agers at that.
Next thing you know, he'll be going after high school cheerleaders for actually charging for "free" car washes.
My point is: The content never matters to guru. If it is done by a Republican, he bashes it; if it is done by a Democrat, he will twist himself into a pretzel defending it.
It's funny because when he does that, he finds himself defending things that he has earlier criticized...again solely because he rates everything on a Reps vs. Dems scale.
As an example: Eliot Spitzer. Guru praises the guy for having the courage to resign. That's just so ridiculous.
The guy was caught red-handed paying thousands of dollars for a hooker. He wasn't brave to resign...it was all he could do. Otherwise, every time he made a public appearance, the story would go back into headlines and on the TV news. When he resigned, the story went away...so much so that many people didn't even see the small story that said there would be no charges against him.
And it's clear to anyone but guru that the lack of charges and the resignation were connected. The prosecutors wouldn't give him relief from charges until he resigned. That was part of the deal. They didn't want to arrest him; they wanted him out of office.
Since he had big bucks from both sides of his family, he didn't need the paycheck. So he could avoid further family embarassment and the prosecutors got him out of office. Well done, I say.
But guru can't admit that he was a scuzzball who bargained his resignation dropping all charges. That's because guru measures everything by party labels. If Spitzer were a Republican, he would have roasted him...just like he finds a way to mention the extra-marital affair by Mike Cox whenever possible. Apparently Democrats don't stray from their marriage. I know that Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman.
You seem reasonable...so you know that neither party has a monopoly of good people or scoundrels. But guru won't accept that.
Nor is he at all fair. Again, the only reason I started posting is because he stated as fact frequently that county Republicans broke the law by illegally funding an anti-tax campaign in a Brighton school election.
That's a lie. He has consistently failed to prove his point even though his falsehood was clear. He even went so far as to claim that the local GOP phone bank was used to solicit "no" votes...a complete fabrication.
Although he can't substantiate his claim (because it is a lie), he indignantly demands that I provide all sorts of backup for my claims. My position is this: Until he either admits his lie or provides proof, I figure that I am meeting his standard in all of my postings. In fact, I exceed them most of the time.
He has, by the way, said that child abuse cannot be prosecuted in a private home because it would be too hard to prove it. That's the result of his twisted logic. Then he goes ballistic...pretty foul language and name-calling...when he is called on his goofs.
Finally, he calls people trolls if they post anonymously, although 1) he allows it; and 2) they aren't trolls since they aren't hijacking his thread, but responding to his comments. (Also, the only anonymous posters who get called names are those who disagree with him..others are welcomed.)
He sounds like an immature guy who has a serious anger problem. I hope I'm wrong. I hope all of his posts are tongue-in-cheek and that he is yanking our chain as much as we yank his. Still...his tone is a bit scary at times.
I have plenty of readers, so if some anonymous coward who is afraid to take ownership of the crap he writes stops posting there will still be “plenty of action.” If they are “comical arguments” then why is it you can never counter one of them? All you do is drop some anonymous bombs and some name-calling.
You keep making up positions I never took, and when you’re challenged to prove it, we get nothing. If I said the bullshit you say I did, it should be easy to prove because if I did its there in black and white. I’m still waiting for you to back up your false claims.
No one should charge admission for a political debate. I never “praised Spitzer for paying thousands of dollars for a hooker.” Why is your hero David Vitter still in the Senate for doing the same thing? The local GOP did violate campaign finance laws. You should praise Cox for the 1,000 jobs he cost Blue Cross. He should stick to his own constitutional duties. I never praised AG Granholm for the catalog incident, I simply pointed out the fact that it actually fits into her constitutional duties.
As for the anonymous stuff, I can’t help it if you’re a cowardly pussy. But you may have a point. No one wants to read the juvenile shit you write, and I’m certainly wasting my time arguing with a coward who is afraid to even take ownership of what they write and never presents any facts.
So, if you want to keep spreading these lies you have to register a screen name.
“Anonymous has it absolutely correct?” That’s you; you idiot.
If this isn’t the place for accurate information, anonymous troll, then why is it you can’t ever prove it’s not accurate? No one I know spells America as Amerika, with the exception of idiots like you.
Once again, anonymous troll, no one should charge for a political debate. I don’t care who it is. No one should have to pay out money to be a batter informed voter when they exercise their Constitutional right of voting. It is disgusting and crass. “Goes crazy?” No, that would be your reaction to my post.
I never “ignored the fact” the Democrats failed to host a debate of any kind. Thee was no reason to, and even if we did, even idiots like you would be invited, free of charge.
Nor am I silent on the fact that a “local Democratic party to celebrate the inauguration carries a $30 per person price tag.” I publicized it heavily. I was there; it was great. I had a great buffet dinner, a cash bar and dancing from an excellent DJ. Did the TARS provide any of that? If you can’t see the difference between a political debate and a party, there’s nothing I can say.
Why would the Democrats hold a debate before the November election? Once again, give me another example where an admission was charged for a political debate. My point is that no one should charge for a political debate, no matter who they are.
The TARS holding a car wash to raise money would be an appropriate way to raise money.
Once again, you are misrepresenting the Elliott Spitzer situation. Why is David Vitter still in the U.S. Senate for doing the same thing? Why is it President Clinton was impeached for the same thing Cox did?
No, the Brighton group was advocating for the outcome of an election without registering as a PAC like the law requires. That is illegal.
Never once have I ever, ever said “child abuse cannot be prosecuted in a private home because it would be too hard to prove it,” you scumbag. Child abuse is illegal; smoking is not.
You are more than an anonymous troll; you are a cowardly anonymous troll. That’s a problem that has been corrected. Calling you what you are is not name-calling, troll.
Clinton was impeached for Obstruction of Justice, not for an affair, you dolt.
It never ceases to amaze me at the complete stupidity of liberal left wing extremists.
Sorry, he was impeached for having sex with an intern. I'm not sure what that had to do with the Whitewater investigation and the $40 million witch-hunt, but it did. I'm really suprised you would pick such a stupid screen name. But after further thought, I don't know why I was surprised. At least now you finally have to take ownership of the BS you write.
Once again you've been caught in a lie.
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
Passed by the U.S. House of Representatives December 19, 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, that William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I (Approved by the House 228-206 Defeated February 12, 1999 by the Senate 45-55)
In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that:
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following:
(1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee;
(2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him;
(3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and
(4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.
In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
Article III (Approved by the House 221-212, Defeated February 12, 1999 by the Senate 50-50)
In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.
The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:
(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.
(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.
(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.
(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.
(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.
(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.
(7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.
In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
Like I said, he was impeached for having extrametrical sex. The fact that right-wingers claim it’s about lying is just cover. Once again, what does this have to do with a failed land deal called Whitewater?
Plus, none of those charges were actually proven. But it is true he lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but he never should have been asked about it.
I’m still waiting for you to catch me in a lie, Anonymous.
I'm tempted to say that I can't understand how you can not see perjury and obstruction of justice in the writing, but I just can't say that. Knowing that liberals are like the monkeys that hear no evil, and see no evil, I have no doubt that you don't have the brain cells to understand. I am copying that part below.
Twice you've brought up whitewater. I never said it had anything to do with whitewater and neither do the impeachment articles.
There's really no need to keep denying the truth. The articles of impeachment speak for themselves. As for other lies, the most recent was the quotes you gave. I gave you the link to snopes disproving your lies, you then said you changed it, and yet, it's all still there. That would be a lie within a lie.
William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury
William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.
By the way, nice try at getting to my profile. With your history of invading people's privacy that you have on your site, I made sure that zero personal information was included in my profile. It's too bad you're afraid of people and can't deal with issues without knowing the people you speak with. You continue to prove yourself the no nothing coward trying to exert control over other people. I now see where some of the others get the idea that you're deviant.
There is good news for you liberals. Nobody will hold Obama responsible for the oath. He tripped over his tongue, or forgot the words and then repeated the words in the wrong order. You liberals never fail to entertain.
Just a few little words and all the nonny mice go crazy.
It has everything to do with Whitewater. That's how this entire sordid affair got started. A special prosecutor, two actually, were assigned to look into the failed land deal. The first one found nothing, so they assigned a rightwing zealot like Ken Starr who looks into ever sordid lie put out by the rightwing attack machine; everything from Vince Foster's suicide to what ever word you want to put before the word gate. After $40 million of wasted taxpayer money, we got to the fact he had an affair with an intern.
I think it's more like William Jefferson Clinton allegedly "willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury." He was acquitted by the Senate of all charges.
When did I ever try "getting to your profile?" I have never "invaded" anyone's privacy. I could care less who you are, but I'm sick of anonymous trolls throwing these bombs and personal attacks without one iota of fact or responsibility. You are the one that kept taunting me that you post anonymously because I allow you to. I don't anymore. You have a screen name, and now you are stuck with that ridiculous screen name, and we will always know it's you spouting this stupid BS that you do. It's still cowardly, but at least you are stuck with the crap you spout.
Registering with a screen name is a start. Maybe one day you will engage in a debate with some facts instead of personal attacks. I'm not holding my breath, anonymous.
You are correct, because it was Roberts who screwed it up, and he was reading it. But really, what does it matter, and even if it was Obama's misstatement so what?
I swear, Dargo, I have not read such stupid and petty stuff since brett was here.
I always claim my words, regardless of what you like or not as a name. You've attributed my words to anonymous and anonymous's words to me despite my signing as Not Anonymous. This is your problem. Not mine.
You now require people have a name with it. My name is the same, there is no personal information on me there. So the only thing you've accomplished is to have a registered name which reveals nothing more than was revealed before.
If that makes you feel like you have more power over someone, then you demonstrate exactly what I and others have said about you and liberals. You make requirements which provide no gains at all.
I suspect that if Anonymous doesn't create a name and I don't post here, you'll have very little activity here. It's been demonstrated before when you were constantly railing on the smoking issue. Beyond the first one or two posts, people stopped responding.
You're a child that has gone too long without a diaper change.
Sorry, anonymous, you are only now taking responsibility, although it's very little, for the crap you write. There is absouetly no way to tell the difference between someone posting as "anonymous" and "not anonymous." You can post as him or her, and he or she can post as you; if there really were two different people posting. Any one of a million people can post as "anonymous" or "not anonymous.
Yes, at your advice I now require a screen name. I don't give a crap how much if any personnel info you put in your profile. The point is no one else can post as "not anonymous." And you cannot post as anyone else. That has been my entire point about registering a screen name.
I could care less if "anonymous" creates a screen name or not, nor do I care if you go away. I have plenty of readers, and I could care less if people respond. If you think it will harm me by not posting your false BS, then by all means stop and crawl back under your rock.
The real shame is that there may be people out there who have something constructive and interesting to say who may want to post anonymously, but because you're such a wimp, they can't. But, you know what they say; one rotten apple spoils the whole bunch.
You said:
Yes, at your advice I now require a screen name. I don't give a crap how much if any personnel info you put in your profile. The point is no one else can post as "not anonymous." And you cannot post as anyone else. That has been my entire point about registering a screen name.
My response:
Once again, you're proven wrong. I can post as someone else. I can create as many names as I choose as you can see. I'm Not Anonymous and Guruisastalker both.
You don't need to tell the difference between one person and another. You only need to deal with the issues that each person in each screen name posts or you can choose to ignore them and not reply to them. You did not do this on my advice as I'm not the one that told you to force people to have an identity. Anonymous is the one that you were talking to, not me.
You're also wrong about others posting anonymously that might have something constructive to say. First, what may not be constructive to you may be constructive to someone else. Second, I have yet to see you say anything constructive. In fact, nearly everything you say is destructive. The rest is just irrelevent. HOwever, I wouldn't call you one rotten apple. You are but one of three that I've seen on this site. Hussein and bluizy seem to be the same Koolaid drinkers that you are.
Anonymous had it right the other day when he/she said the only reason to come here is to yank your chain. It's certainly not for intellectual debate. You don't know how to debate. You only know how to berate anyone that dares to disagree with you.
Just so you're not confused more than you normally are, I am Not Anonymous as well as the current name. Best to ban me so that you don't have to put up with anyone disagreeing with you.
For the first time you have proved me wrong, stalker. I really didn’t think anyone was as desperate and sneaky to actually choose more than one screen name. You proved me wrong; You must really be a coward. Well, at least no one else can use those screen names, and if you’re that big a pussy that you need to hide behind more than one screen name in order to avoid taking ownership of the vile BS you post, it’s OK with me.
Once again, how do you tell one anonymous troll from another before screen names were required so anonymous and not anonymous is the same person.
Now, you may think personal attacks are constructive, but I don’t. You mean you “had it right the other day when he/she said the only reason to come here is to yank your chain.”
Yanking my chain is the best you can do because you can’t refute anything I wrote, you can’t debate and you are void of any facts.
*snorts*
These guys are funny CG!
And I agree with your comment @ 818...it's fun to watch them spew.
We could debate whether or not this is the first time that I have proven you wrong....strike that, I could debate it, you couldn't. You are correct. Nobody else can use those screen names.
As for my hiding behind a screen name, you have that completely wrong. I fully understand why you try to egg it on with that premise, because it takes away control from you and leaves options in my hand. You have no viable position on my disagreements with you so you must go on the attack by calling names such as "anonymous troll", or the latest "pussy". By the way, what do you have against women that you would use that as derogatory way of addressing me? Or is it just that you don't like cats and prefer verbal animal abuse?
It doesn't matter if you can tell me (not anonymous) from the other guy or girl (anonymous) and I really don't care if you think I'm him/her or not. I can only tell you that I am not "anonymous" but rather that I am "not anonymous". What I do see is that you use your lack of personal knowledge of who I am or who Anonymous is as a dodge to avoid a legitimate debate. By the way, at one point, you had three different people posting as anonymous. I could see the distinct differences between the three, but you spent your time claiming they were the same people rather than dealing with the topic which you started. You also accused two of the three of being brett.
You have made it abundantly clear that it drives you nuts that you can't find out who any of these people are. You've tried to say that the other guy/girl is someone named brett. Now you've accused me of being that person.
I do take responsibility for my words. When I write something on here, it's me saying it. You can deal with what I say or you can whine because you don't know my name, address, phone number, zip code, city or even state. You don't know if I'm married, widowed, divorced or an ugly son of a bitch that couldn't find a decent woman and you also don't know if I have any children. On the other hand, you don't know if I'm a playboy that picks up beautiful women for travel partners with various perks, or if I'm a playgirl that wants men that wear suits and is staid during the day but are animals in the bedroom at night.
You've shown by example that it drives you nuts and you make every response about who the person is that you're speaking and avoiding the topic or using your lack of knowledge of the persons specific name to attack them and give only brief comments about the topic, if any at all, and revert to whining because you don't know if a persons name is Amos or Andy.
You say you think that personal attacks aren't constructive, yet you choose to name call the other guy and myself as "anonymous troll" and me this time as "pussy". So which is it, is name calling not constructive or is it constructive? You're very confusing when you say it's wrong to do it as you do it.
You're very wrong about refuting your claims. It's been done numerous times by others and by myself. You may not agree that you've been refuted, but when facts are provided, as they have been at various times, you dismiss those facts that don't fit your positions. I've looked back at some of your posts and that of others dating back to early last year.
It's always the same. If someone disagrees, you call them names. Sometimes you're clever and you just dismiss them as idiots because they disagree with you, but usually you call them names. I was told that you like to "out" people on here. That makes sense with your desperate and constant complaints about who someone is.
I'm not one to take a faceless name from the internet and just believe them. So as I read through your earlier posts last year and the responses you received, I saw where you did "out" someone named brett. I'm assuming that this is the same person that you and another have mentioned here a couple of times the past few days. I also saw where he said he'd used a combination of names and house numbers of people that he knew or areas that he knew. He did ask you to remove that information to protect the family that lives at the address that you posted. You refused, unless of course you received an apology. That makes it about you and your ego and hurt feelings rather than the possible safety of some innocent bystanders.
I also saw where he was rather adamant about protecting those people where you showed no concern for anyone that has that address. I also saw others coming to his defense on that topic and you continued to refuse. I also saw where you banned him from your site.
You did say in an earlier post today that you said he could come back, but I never saw where he ever asked to come back.
He posted a site for a blog usually at tne end of every post he made, and I went to his blog. I read through his past blog, although I didn't go all the way back to the beginning. If I was to compare the two, what I see is he is civil, where you are confrontational and refuse to even consider other ideas posted, but perfectly happy to engage in posts with others about others that post in disagreement on your blog.
That was not enough of a survey for me, although it was interesting seeing yours and his and how he handles disagreements and how you handle disagreements. So I looked at other blogs. Both conservative and liberal. I can point out differences in how they are handled, but the interesting thing was that of all that I viewed, yours was the one that sticks out as not being able to entertain any opinions that don't agree with your opinion.
Now mind you, I wasn't looking for what is the right side of the issue or the wrong side. I was looking at how people debate each other on the topics that are offered. Yours is the only one that offers penalties for disagreement. Yours is the only one that is constantly confrontational with anyone that disagrees with your positions.
I even noticed that if a question to you is phrased as appearing from the opposite side of the political spectrum, you answered as though they were enemies and never gave straight answers. You do more namecalling than any of them. You do more bashing of people than any of them.
I have seen some posters in other blogs that are rude and tasteless from both sides, but yours is the only one of any that I read where you begin and continue the namecalling of anyone that you don't agree with.
I have been visiting your site for approximately four months now. You have yet to say a civil thing to anyone from the other side of the political persuasion.
I don't know how you advertise your blog. I have googled it and come up with it, but I don't see it when I type in topics. I have seen it listed on another blog, but I must ask forgiveness on this as I don't remember which one it was. I ran across it when doing this research about the attitude of blogs.
It is your blog and you can and do run it any way you choose. If you want to continue to be a control freak, nothing and nobody can stop you. However, I know something about marketing and I know that with the attitude you project to those that even seemingly disagree with you, you'll never get the participation that are the purpose of blogs and if you do have more than a couple of readers, you will eventually lose them.
It has been interesting these past months, but I see you as the little squirt on the playground that wants to try to be the bully but have to hide as you do your bullying. You're very intolerant and I would hope that you're only tolerated with the various groups you namedrop because they are always willing to take people willing to do the legwork, even if it's just so that you can do your namedropping. I can't imagine anyone with political ambitions wanting you around mouthing off around people that matter to the group.
You've made it cumbersome for people that do believe as you to express that belief by forcing them to go to the trouble of creating a name, and a password just to be able to comment on your blog.
So after all of your threats to others, to me and all of the namecalling to others and to me, the only thing you've accomplished is to be the same empty suit you were when I first started posting here. From my very first post on your site, you started the namecalling. Don't take my word for it, it's your blog, look back at your archives. You'll see. I doubt you'll admit it even to yourself, but you'll see.
No, I won't be using "guruisastalker" any longer. I only did it to prove a point and I accomplished my point. I should rephrase that. I won't be using it again unless I need to prove another point.
Thank you for the great laugh today. You were very predictable with your responses, and while I'd like to take credit for being so insightful at prognostication, it's really simple to do when dealing with a hotheaded left wing extremist that is also a control freak.
Oh, CG...nonny mouse is so wise.
A lot of words to say nothing. If you ever want to debate an issue with facts instead of name-calling, I'll be here. Maybe someday, you will actually win a debate. Miracles do happen, anonymous.
I've been thinking. Now I have to say that upon reflection, I have to say that "not anonymous" has made good points.
The tone on this blog has been confrontational. I criticize people for name-calling when I am the worst offender. It is disrespectful and juvenile of me to use terms like "cowardly", "pussy" and even "troll." You people aren't trolls as you are usually trying to respond to my posts.
We should be able to disagree without me getting so angry.
I'm sorry. I'll try to do better.
And I'm stalking you? You use my real name as a screen name, and then you claim I'm stalking you? You need some help, pal. You are a troll, cowardly and a pussy, and this just proves it.
Real class. You sure were right when you said you came here to just yank my chain because you have nothing constructive or factual to add to the debate.
The personal attacks will not stop me from exposing the "right's" lies, corruption and hypocrisy.
Looks like someone has a split personality.
But I'm confused. You accused "anonymous" of arguinging with himself/herself...but now it looks like you are doing the same thing.
I don't know why. Kevin's remarks weren't anything to be offended by. They were rationale and made sense. You aren't offended by that, are you?
I would suggest you read the terms of use for Blogger regarding impersonating someone else.
And I will agree to quit dual posting as ka Dargo
I think it is true that if you call someone a pussy, that means you are secretly afraid of women.
It appears as though your control has gotten out of control.
First of all, I created a second name called guruisastalker to prove you wrong. Point made and I said I wouldn't be using that name any longer. I did not create a name with Kevin in it. Not the shopshire name, nor the Kevins name.
I realize that you won't believe it, but I don't really care. I can't prove I didn't create it and you can't prove that I did.
It seems in your attempt to put more control on, you have created another control problem. You still don't know who people are, which is what you wanted, and you still can't stop people from creating many different names.
I think it's funny that you whine about someone using your real name on here, and claiming it's a violation of the Terms of Service, yet you see no violation about putting out personal information out there.
Your irresponsibility seems to have created some more problems. I wonder if you'll now deal honestly and with integrity, the issues or if you'll continue to whine about people not putting their real names out there. Incidentally, is Communications Guru your real name? I didn't think so.
By the way, a hearty welcome to anonymous and the two Kevin's. Anonymous, I thought you might not come back now that he requires a registration. Glad to see you again...if that's you.
You’re actually denying you’re not impersonating me? You are a piece of work. When have I ever “whined” about you using my real name, coward? You can use it all you want, but there’s a huge difference between using my real name, which has never been a secret, and impersonating me. I guess you’re just too stupid to know the difference. You don’t think impersonating someone is a violation of the terms of service?
I have never cared who people are, but I prefer to able to know who I am debating by them using a unique and anonymous screen name. But debate was never your intention when you came here to stalk and attack me. Plus, I never put anyone’s person info on here. You used your real name as your screen name, you idiot. I also put my own name and address up
You pull that shit and impersonate me, and you’re lecturing me about “honestly” and “Integrity?” You are a piece of work. You do this because you can’t win on the issues and the facts.
Is Communications Guru my real name? You cannot be that stupid. You use my real name and imprested me, and you ask that?
You said:
You’re actually denying you’re not impersonating me?
My response: Yep. I'm denying it. I didn't create that name. Good Lord, why on earth would I ever want to be you? I'd have to wear a T-Shirt that says "I'm with Stupid" and have the arrow pointing at myself.
You said:
You don’t think impersonating someone is a violation of the terms of service?
My response:
I don't care if it's impersonating. I'm not doing it, so I'm not worried.
You said:
I have never cared who people are, but I prefer to able to know who I am debating by them using a unique and anonymous screen name.
My response: Liar. You care who is writing. If you didn't, you wouldn't avoid the topics that you create by calling people names and whining about them hiding behind names that aren't really theirs. By the way, I'm not "anonymous", I'm "Not Anonymous".
You said:
Plus, I never put anyone’s person info on here.
My response:
Liar. You did put someone's name and address on here months ago. If it's not his address, you gave it as his address. Unless he's a she.
You said:
You used your real name as your screen name, you idiot.
My response:
Liar. I haven't put my real name on here. You've guessed so far that I'm "anonymous", "Kevins", "Kevinsopshire", and even accused me of being the guy you outed months ago.
What was that you said about calling people names earlier? Oh yeah, I believe you said you don't believe that calling names is constructive. You lied again about that by calling me an "idiot". So is namecalling constructive or isn't it? You change your statements from post to the next, it's hard to keep up.
You said:
You pull that shit and impersonate me, and you’re lecturing me about “honestly” and “Integrity?”
My response:
Tsk, tsk. Your language is getting down in the gutter again. I guess anonymous was right when he said that when you start losing control of yourself, the language drops down to four letters.
So I "lectured" you about honesty and integrity? I must have hit a nerve with that for you to throw that back up.
There is no debate around here. You really should look up the term "debate" and find out what it means. You see, it doesn't mean "I said it so it's true and you've been debunked."
Must be that government school lack of education that is holding you back from understanding.
As I said earlier, you wouldn't believe me when I told you that I did not use any of those names other than using guruisastalker to prove the point and the rest of the time I have used Not Anonymous. I used the Not Anonymous because you were getting some of those commenting as anonymous confused.
You can stay paranoid and not believe me if you choose. But those others aren't and weren't me. Look at the bright side. By you going nuts over these names, you at least have something to talk to your shrink about this week.
You can put an end to this. Stop the namecalling and whining about who is whom and start discussing the issues (again, that you introduce) or ban me.
Oh, banning me probably won't work. I could just create another screen name. Damn, you just can't win. No truth on your side, no facts on your side, no tolerance on your side and all those names that are still available out there. Sleep well.
I guess when you have no facts to back up your positions and can't debate; this is how far you have to stoop. But, you're party is accustomed to being in the gutter. No wonder you guys got your asses kicked nationally and in Michigan.
The only liar is you, who ever you're deciding to be today. You sure proved me wrong, though. I have to admit. I honestly thought that by choosing a unique Google screen name that you could only have one. Leave to right-wingers like you to find a way to deceive and trick the system. You fit in well in your party to don't you.
So you've decided to do some editing huh? If you don't like what I say, you remove it. Must have been that you didn't like being told that "you're" is a contraction of "you are".
I'll bet you consider that "winning" a debate. Censorship. Outrageously funny.
What the hell are you talking about, troll? I never censored you.
The best victims are wing-nut victims. Poor nonny mouse :(
Post a Comment