I have missed her...a lot.

She's been posting more lately, so my job isn't done yet.

Her latest post claims that "most" of the Wisconsin protesters were from out of state. I was curious as to what evidence she had, so I asked. I haven't received an answer...so I followed up:

Since you aren't able to produce any evidence that "most" of the protesters were from out of state, I'm interested to know what you think about the Governors own emails that show 1/3 of his "supportive" emails are from out of state. Perhaps we should disregard those emails.

La Crosse Tribune

P.

At least she still feels she can mention my "name"...

 Heck, I'm not sure Olberman gets that kind of courtesy from O'Reilly.   Nonetheless, the world has finally come full circle and I've agreed with her [sort of].  Apparently, Chris Matthews has control over what Rush Limbaugh can say and not say. I wonder if, since I admitted she was finally [sort of] right on something, my comment will see the light of day.

For when you find the time:

I actually kind of agree with you on this.  I used to hear people on the right freak out if you didn't refer him as "President Bush", but rather "Mr. Bush".  Yet, they don't seem to have a problem with President Obama being referred to as "Barry", nor did they fret over President Clinton as Bubba.  It's funny how a particular party suddenly finds respect for the office when it's one of theirs sitting in it. 

Here's the thing:  What, exactly, constitutes "a lot of comment" about something.  I can't seem to find anything other than discussion about Chris Matthew's issue with it.  Why does this seem to be yet another example of a straw man being propped up by the GOP and its noise machine?  Just because Chris Matthews new-found problem with the word, doesn't mean anyone is trying to keep Rush from using it.

P.

It could have something to do with the dangerous rhetoric oozing from conservatives and their noise machine.  Perhaps Mr. Matthews understands that the kind of language being used by the right these days has one purpose and one purpose only: to ratchet up the fear quotient.  The problem is this; when people live in fear, the crazies do crazy things.  When that fear is at a high level, the crazy isn't just crazy, it's dangerous.

But, I don't think she'd see it my way.  We'll just leave well enough alone.

I'm deeply saddened by this turn of events...

I get the feeling that I've had some unintended affect on FreeAmerica.  Unfortunately, I don't know whether I like it or not.  It's really ruining my fun.  I've raised this issue before, but here it is; Her site has become little more than a link dump for conservative propaganda.  Have I pointed out the ridiculousness of her opinions to the point that she no longer provides her own, well thought out [or the lack thereof], well reasoned [or the lack thereof], opinions.  The jury's still out on this new direction, so I thought I'd use this post to drop a little something in the suggestion box:

I must say that I'm a little disappointed in the new direction your blogs have taken.  They've become a link dump for your conservative reading material.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I enjoyed reading [and obviously commenting] on your thoughts, rather than the thoughts of your comrades. 
P.

 I hope it isn't something I said 

She's BACK!!!

...unfortunately, it seems that she's going to continue her link-dump style rather than gracing us with her well thought, researched, and insightful opinions. But, anyway...

She thought it was interesting that an anti teabagger site receives funding from unions.

**GASP**

Thanks to the Supreme Court, we can count on plenty more of this. So I was wondering what her point is:

...as opposed to teabaggers and the GOP being underwritten by oil companies, health insurance companies, Fox News etc. What's your point?

BTW, welcome back. I was afraid something may have happened to you.

I should note that the last paragraph is sincere. It's been quite a long time and I wouldn't wish ill-will upon her. I'd hope for the same from her.

The silence is deafening

This is a long time between posts...even for her. I truly hope all is well.

So, just out of curiosity, I did a little Google blog search for the name "freeamerica", just to see if she was lurking out there. One interesting tidbit I stumbled across was a blog called "Save American Liberty" penned by someone who goes by the name "FreeAmerica" which, coincidentally, has the same layout as her "Where's the Change" blog. Now, I'm not saying it's the same person, because that same search I did came up with several instances that didn't refer to her. However, in the unfortunate event that she's felt the need to go more covert in her blogging [without actually changing her pseudonym], I thought I'd poke the fire to see what came out.

On a few occasions, this blog seemed to simply cut and paste articles from other sites, but they did [however losely] cite those sources. But, it didn't seem to happen every time. So, I did another simple Google search and turns out, there's a lot of cutting and pasting going on. Among others, this post is simply a cut and paste of an opinion piece written for the Wall St. Journal. Then there's this post, which is a cut and paste of a Washington Post article. There's more, but you get the point. So, I thought it begged at least one question:

Does the Washington Post, among other on-line publications, know you're cutting and pasting their material into your blog without citing it?

If it is her, I'd find it amusing for many reasons. If not, I may need to change my tag line.

I'm cut off...again

I've lost count of how many times she's done this. It'll be interesting to see if she can stick to her guns this time. Then again, who really cares. She's unapologetic in her ignorance.

Let's review:
-I explain to you that there are several well established constitutional principles which are not mentioned in the constitution. Rather than discuss the validity history of those principles, you claim that the Supreme Court just made them up. So there is no separation of powers?
-I ask you to clarify where, exactly, the Bill of Rights is based on the 10 Commandments. I make an admittedly off the cuff and sarcastic comment about how much I hear it discussed in church. I guess I can't expect you to pick up the sarcasm, but rather than take the high road, you disparage my faith and my religion...without, as you've admitted now, knowing what my religion is.
-I give you an example of why you might want to use those "letters and discussions" a little more carefully and sparingly, you give me some conspiracy theory cooked up by you and your friends
-You make repeated false, misleading, or mistaken statements about The United States Constitution, proving that you either haven't ever read it, haven't read it recently, haven't actually studied it or its history, or you purposely attempt to mislead your readers. And, I didn't even get into your attempt to claim that "ignorance is bliss" when it comes to your country "torturing people to death" [ala the 8th Amendment]
-After all those "mistakes" you claim that, because of your perception of my ignorance of the 10 commandments, I can't understand your assertions.
-After you've dodged the substantive discussion, I point out the reasons, examining myself and the statements you've made, why you might not be a constitutional scholar and you call me an "elitist".
-You revel in the idea that you've "hit a nerve" with me, after addressing several posts in your blog directly at me. Heck, this post alone came as a result of my comment that separation of church and state was for another discussion.
-And lastly, after calling me an elitist, arrogant, a smart aleck, questioning my intelligence, describing my thoughts and criticisms as "social retardation", and questioning my education...all while misspelling "collage". FYI, it's spelled C-O-L-L-E-G-E. That's not fair to an elitist like me. How am I supposed to let that go? Once is a typo. Twice leads me to believe it's ignorance. Then again, maybe spelling was part of my indoctrination by that liberal freak Dr. Bigel.

If you don't feel the need to post my comments on your blog, that's your choice. It's merely further proof of why you don't post at the WIZM forum any longer. Even though you claim your all for discussion, whenever someone tells you your wrong, you claim they're being insulting...and then go on to insult their intelligence. I'll continue to comment and post them on my blog...heck, I've been getting traffic from the WIZM forums lately anyway [again, you're welcome for the plug].

Boy...I guess the gloves are off.

The gloves are off

People often say you shouldn't discuss religion or politics. I subscribe to 50% of that theory. I make not bones about my Christianity, but I also don't make it the sole source for my political theory. I understand that not everyone is like me and even though I'm a firm supporter of "separation", I understand that even politicians can be guided by their faith.

Oh, due to the fact that I don't claim to be an expert on Christianity, staying out of theological discussions is pretty easy for me. Then again, I try to be respectful of the faith of others. Yes, even the ever persecuted Christians. I may need to reconsider that value:

Let's start with the easy part. I wasn't "likening" them. Substantively, they have nothing to do with each other. The only thing they have in common is that they are all constitutional principles which do not appear in the constitution.

As far as the writings of our forefathers go, might I recommend Thomas Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814. I don't expect it to change your point of view, nor should it. I learned a long time ago that that picking and choosing the writings of men like Thomas Jefferson drives a discussion nowhere. I also know that the faith of those men was not as easily defined as some might wish it to be.

Next; I have read the Bill of Rights many many many times. I've studied constitutional law at UWL under, among others, Alan Bigel [by no means a liberal]. If you want to learn something, seek him out. He's an unbelievably smart man and he'll agree with a lot of what you say. His arguments will be based on well formed and educated theories, but he'll agree nonetheless. I say this not in an attempt to impress you [because I know that's a lost cause]. I know the spirit in which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written. I also learned enough to know that it's probably not a good idea for me to receive a Constitutional lecture from someone who mistakenly claimed that the right to life is in the Bill of Rights, who mistakenly claimed, on two occasions, that members of the legislative branch are part of the President's administration, and who implied [or outright claimed] that a beauty contestant's response to a question in competition was protected speech. I could go on with that list, but I won't.

Lastly, and probably the most difficult; It's troubling to me that, rather than clarify your reasons for believing the Bill of Rights is based on the 10 Commandments, you chose to question and/or disparage my faith and my church...all based on our discussions here. Generally, I'm fairly certain that I've been respectful of your faith and the genuineness of it. Throughout these discussions, we've questioned each other's intelligence. We've questioned each other's ability to read. I, however, have left your faith alone. Apparently, I can not expect the same respect from you. I'll keep that in mind.