The Other Smear

I am not sure why the press is not talking about this more, or why no one has pointed it out:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales apologized to the nation’s 93 U.S. attorneys in a conference call Friday as he tried to hold on to his job amid the scandal over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

In another move to repair his credibility, Gonzales named a respected U.S. attorney from Virginia, Chuck Rosenberg, as his interim chief of staff to replace Kyle Sampson, who stepped down because of his involvement in the controversy.

But pressure for Gonzales’ resignation continued to build.

In recent days, the Justice Department and the White House have been forced to defend the firings after internal e-mails revealed a coordinated effort to root out U.S. attorneys who’d fallen out of favor with the administration.

Administration critics and allies alike were startled by the degree to which politics appeared to be driving the planned purge of the Republican appointees in the months before the 2006 congressional elections. In one e-mail, one official said the plan was to replace “underperforming” U.S. attorneys and retain the “vast majority” who were “loyal Bushies.”

It isn’t just the ones who were fired- it is the ones who are still in place who have had their integrity smeared. By politicizing this to such an extent, the administration has given the appearance that the retained attorneys are little more than lackeys who will be political hacks for the administration.

*** Update ***

Their hackery has undermined the integrity of every US Attorney and will now throw every prosecutorial decision into question. Well done, guys.






292 replies
  1. 1
    Zifnab says:

    Who says they’re not?
    You’ve seen the numbers. Investigations of Democrats over Republicans is 5 to 1. And yet, with the exception of William “Fridge Full of Money” Jefferson, what was the last high-profile Democratic scandal? It’s almost as though they’re doing tons of investigations and getting absolutely no convictions.

    And keep in mind, the original 93 attorneys were all Bush-appointed to begin with. That makes them tainted coming off the bench. I’m just amazed Bush found 8 guys in his Administration that wouldn’t cave and toe the line. That’s better(worse?) odds than he got out of his Cabinet.

  2. 2
    Tsulagi says:

    Who says they’re not?

    Exactly.

    Most likely they all got the memos as to what priorities should be. No doubt more than a few talked to each other as to what was really expected of them. All of the remaining ones were reviewed for job performance/loyalty and found at least meeting admin expectations as to what was critical for them.

    Sure, there may be some decent ones in the bunch. Mixed in with a lot of eager party hacks. I won’t cry any rivers for any of them.

  3. 3
    Dreggas says:

    Just go look at TPM with regards to this. Specifically more questions are being raised regarding the Pnn USA Buchanan and her penchant for targeting everyone but republicans in her prosecutions and investigations.

    Link Here

  4. 4
    RSA says:

    A completely minor but interesting irony in this situation is “the soft bigotry of low expectations”. By analogy, I think that for many conservatives, affirmative action is held to hurt minorities in part because it creates the perception that they whatever they’ve achieved, it may be attributable to their being in a special class. The surviving U.S. Attorneys are in the same boat. They’re still in their positions because of their loyalty to Bush, as the DOJ/Administration has now said explicitly. I wonder how they feel about that?

  5. 5
    Jay C says:

    I am not sure why the press is not talking about this more, or why no one has pointed it out:

    Give it time, John: expecting “the press” to follow up on political scandals – especially those where the Bush White House and/or its Cabinet lackeys is involved – is a fool’s game. As long as the Administration’s spin-machine can crank out enough noise to deflect media attention *(“Look: over there!”) the easily-distracted “press” will, for a time, swallow the Official Line, and leave the sewer unexamined.

    But I don’t think this can go on for much longer: excusing (or trying to excuse) this sort of blatant politicization of the justice system is merely going to feed into the public perception of today’s Republicans as hopelessly venal and corrupt- from the top down -: and eventually (one hopes) the DoJ/WH troubles are going to seep out (if the media and the so-called Opposition are doing their jobs) and look to poison the whole regime (couldn’t happen to nice folks!).

    * already having added “overblown personnel matter” to the lexicon of failed-dismissal-of-scandal: right up there with “third-rate burglary”!

  6. 6
    Quiddity says:

    What’s a Pittsburgh station doing with the call letters KDKA? Shouldn’t it start with a “W”.

    To the subject at hand. Yes, the charge of “political” indictments/investigations is going to take a long time to fade away. Probably leads to further disenchantment about government by the electorate. Does that help Democrats? Hard to see how.

  7. 7
    Zifnab says:

    Does that help Democrats? Hard to see how.

    I don’t think it really does anything for or against Democrats specifically, but it undermines government in general. Expect Republicans to revert to their “Government doesn’t work!” credo very shortly after the ’08 elections.

    But the end result is a system no one can trust. When Democrats win in ’08, and the number of indited Republicans spike, how many will be guilty and how many will be caught in the crossfire of partisan combat? How many dirty Dems, like Jefferson, will skate free with a Justice Department out for revenge? If the Republicans retake the Presidency in ’12, will we just see the judicial civil war continue? It begs alot of questions from the system.

  8. 8
    demimondian says:

    Does that help Democrats? Hard to see how.

    Almost anything which weakens the current narrative, which is that Democrats are ineffectual, helps them. Successful exposure of Bushie shenanigans provides direct evidence that the Democrats aren’t feckless whiners. That, in turn, reinforces the Democrats’ preferred narrative, which is that the corrupt and venal Republican majority in the Congress willfully impeded the Dems attempts to bring malfeasance to light.

    That’s why things like the Plame/Toensig hearings are so important: by establishing the facts of the matter in public, the Dems get to keep pressure on the papers about their failure to provide accurate coverage. That helps the Democrats, and hurts all other parties.

  9. 9
    jake says:

    What’s a Pittsburgh station doing with the call letters KDKA? Shouldn’t it start with a “W”.

    No. [/research geek session]

    To your question: Who cares? Making sure our justice system isn’t subject to the whims of somthing like Rove helps democracy.

  10. 10
    Jay C says:

    Quiddity:

    I think that KDKA in Pittsburgh is one of (if not the) oldest commercial radio stations in the country (licensed in 1920 or ’21, I think); and had its call letters assigned before they went to the system of “W” for stations east of the Misssippi and “K” in the West.

    Either that or it is due to some corrupt and venal deal worked by crooked Republicans, if not the Bush White House in particular.

    Either explanation works.

  11. 11
    RSA says:

    Either that or it is due to some corrupt and venal deal worked by crooked Republicans, if not the Bush White House in particular.

    This is the equivalent of physicists’ Grand Unification Theory: It explains pretty much everything.

  12. 12
    Pb says:

    Some of them are hacks, and some of them aren’t, but also remember that a lot of the hacks have already been promoted as a reward for their loyal Bushie behavior, into federal judgeships and whatnot.

  13. 13
    Pb says:

    Oh, and… it seems that Mary Beth Buchanan is a drug warrior for the administration and a completely partisan hack:

    Then one of the women– the aptly-named Jennifer Riggle– broke up with her boyfriend. Angered, he sent letters that she’d written him confessing perjury to Rottschaefer’s defense attorney. In them, she admitted lying about having had sex with the doctor in order to give the DEA the testimony it wanted. She also admitted prostitution– so it wasn’t as though she was lying to her boyfriend about sex with another man to avoid making him jealous. And the testimony of the other women soon proved to be similarly tainted.

    Although Buchanan threatened to prosecute Riggle for perjury, she did not: in fact, Riggle was rewarded for her cooperation even after the case collapsed. And although Rottschaefer’s sentence was recently reduced, the now completely-tainted case was not reversed on appeal (the higher court didn’t think the evidence of perjury by the star witness would have affected the outcome!) and the 60something physician is still in prison.

  14. 14
    jg says:

    You all hate America.

  15. 15
    Mike S says:

    What’s a Pittsburgh station doing with the call letters KDKA? Shouldn’t it start with a “W”.

    KDKA is considered to be the first radio station. Westinghouse opened it in order to sell more radios.

    As far as “how does this help Democrats?” I’m not conserned with how it does, I’m more conserned with making sure that ultra partisanship in US Attournies will hurt the country as a whole.

    Only people like Lynn Westmoreland are more conserned with their party than their country. Anyone care to guess what party he’s in?

  16. 16
    Darrell says:

    It isn’t just the ones who were fired- it is the ones who are still in place who have had their integrity smeared

    Only the minds of extremists like you John as you ignore any and all evidence that their firings were a result of anything other than not being a sufficiently vigorous Bush bootlicker.. When in fact, reality is likely very different.

    Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor’s race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the “voters” were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were “discovered” in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.

    In New Mexico, another state in which recent elections have been decided by razor thin margins, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias did establish a voter fraud task force in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before closing its doors, despite evidence of irregularities by the likes of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. As our John Fund reported at the time, Acorn’s director Matt Henderson refused to answer questions in court about whether his group had illegally made copies of voter registration cards in the run-up to the 2004 election.

    As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one of their dismissals seemed to owe to differences with the Administration about the death penalty, another to questions about the Attorney’s managerial skills. Not surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were. It would not be the first time in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his firing, nor would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong person.

    Seriously John, when you argue straight out that the reason for their firings (8 attorneys total, right?) is due to nothing other than not being enough of a Bush “lackey”, no other argument needed.. How principled of you.

  17. 17
    Rome Again says:

    John Cole an extremist? Only in the minds of people like Darrell.

    Darrell, I promise you, John would never make it as a far-lefty. Perhaps it’s your only own righty-extremism trying to masquerade as a moderate when you are NO SUCH F’ING THING!

  18. 18
    RSA says:

    Mr. McKay, a Democrat,

    I doubt that someone who worked as an aide to a Republican Congressman and who was a White House Fellow under Bush I is a Democrat.

    And when the chief of staff of the AG says,

    “The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc.”

    it plausibly suggests that the remainder were not viewed as loyal Bushies. Why would Sampson have mentioned this if it weren’t relevant?

  19. 19
    Darrell says:

    I doubt that someone who worked as an aide to a Republican Congressman and who was a White House Fellow under Bush I is a Democrat

    Whether or not he is a Democrat is far less important than his ineptness and dishonesty in handling a critical issue involving voter fraud

  20. 20
    Rome Again says:

    Whether or not he is a Democrat is far less important than his ineptness and dishonesty in handling a critical issue involving voter fraud

    Granted, I know nothing of this particular situation in Washington, I haven’t been keeping up with it at all, but… if you are so concerned about McKay’s role in voter fraud in Washington, then can I expect you’ll also admit that voter fraud in Florida in 2000 was a problem as well? That he tFL Supreme Court shouldn’t have stopped the recount and declared a winner? Darrell, can you tell me where exactly is it written that a state Supreme Court decides a presidential election?

  21. 21
    Jimmy Mack says:

    Darrell is right: I heard some terrible stuff about McKay on Rush yesterday. Apparently, his failure to prosecute the blatant fraud cases was just the tip of the iceberg. There was a giant kiddy porn ring that he also failed to bring charges against.

    And once again: Clinton did worse. Anyone remember that AG who got sacked when he was about to indict Hillary for Socksgate?

  22. 22
    RSA says:

    The Seattle PI article linked from the blog does give a good overview of the issues in the McKay situation. I think it’s pretty clear what happened. For those who wish the outcome had been different, it’s worth asking why the AG waited two years to fire McKay if it was so obvious that he wasn’t up to the job.

    So, back to Sampson: “The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc.” Why would Sampson have said this if it weren’t relevant?

  23. 23
    Pb says:

    Oh, Darrell, it’s worse than you think–it’s not just McKay, it reaches into the FBI as well!

    McKay said FBI agents and four lawyers in his office conducted a “very active” review of fraud claims but found nothing to justify convening a grand jury.

    Oh, and, for the record,

    McKay, a Republican appointed by President Bush, said he believed some GOP activists have continued to assert wrongly that he was indifferent to the voter fraud issue

    Lest you think that President Bush has been running around appointing Democrats all over the place. Really, how stupid would you have to be to assume that?

  24. 24
    Darrell says:

    if you are so concerned about McKay’s role in voter fraud in Washington, then can I expect you’ll also admit that voter fraud in Florida in 2000 was a problem as well?

    No I don’t. Because you are too ignorant to know, voter fraud in FL 2000 was investigated thoroughly and they didn’t find squat. I am sorry you are too stupid not to have known that.

  25. 25
    RSA says:

    Really, how stupid would you have to be to assume that?

    Wall Street Journal editorial page stupid–and that’s pretty damn stupid.

  26. 26
    Darrell says:

    Had anyone at the Justice Department or the White House ordered me to pursue any matter criminally in the 2004 governor’s election, I would have resigned,” McKay said. “There was no evidence, and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury.”

    I love this “no evidence” crap that McKay dishonestly throws out, as if there was no basis in investigating further without dragging “innocent” people in front of a grand jury. Like a true closed minded hack, he’s made up his mind, facts be damned

    Again, none of this specific evidence was presented or even known during the trial. But we were all tippped off that something wasn’t right when King County counted more votes than voters and admitted to fabricating the reconciliation reports.I would like to ask McKay the following: has he looked for and/or seen any of the funny votes listed above? Does he consider them to be sufficient evidence of unlawful vote counting to at least prompt a more comprehensive investigation? Has he conducted an investigation and concluded that all of these unlawful votes were caused solely by innocent human error? On what basis? If the answers to the first 3 questions are NO, YES and NO, would he be willing to assist in drafting a formal complaint that could lead to an investigation?

  27. 27
    Darrell says:

    Wall Street Journal editorial page stupid—and that’s pretty damn stupid

    WSJ editorial page is brilliant. That that make occassional mistakes, less than MSM media from what I’ve seen, doesn’t make them “damn stupid”, but it does make you RSA, an obvious hack for making such an unsupported assertion.

  28. 28
    RSA says:

    it does make you RSA, an obvious hack for making such an unsupported assertion.

    You know, Darrell, you would probably come across as less of an asshole if you didn’t just randomly attack people who disagree with you. You’d have to work on intellectual honesty after that, but…baby steps.

  29. 29
    Pb says:

    Darrell isn’t even trying anymore, this is third-rate spoof regurgitation. Take a break, man, don’t try to force it, have some pie, I’m sure you’ll get your mojo back soon enough.

  30. 30
    Darrell says:

    You know, Darrell, you would probably come across as less of an asshole if you didn’t just randomly attack people who disagree with you

    Oh my, did I “randomly” attack you for simply disagreeing with me, or did I object because you in particular made a sweeping unsupported assertion combined with insult?

  31. 31
    Darrell says:

    Rome Again Says:

    John Cole an extremist?

    Yes, it is an extemist as hell position to argue as Cole is doing.. that all those attorneys were fired only because they weren’t “lackey” enough to lick ChimpyMcBush’s shoes.

    Absurd and extreme position, but it’s John’s argument.

  32. 32
    Rome Again says:

    No I don’t. Because you are too ignorant to know, voter fraud in FL 2000 was investigated thoroughly and they didn’t find squat. I am sorry you are too stupid not to have known that.

    LIAR! You have to remember Darrell, I was in FL during that time. I saw local news reports you didn’t see. I saw quite a lot of reports of disenfrancised voters (blacks mostly) and you just don’t seem to care about THAT because it would put your man Bush on the chopping block, admit it, asshole.

    You didn’t have a problem with the FL Supreme Court choosing a president, even though that wasn’t correct protocol, and you’re SO SURE that there was no fraud; yet you want to scream about this McKay guy. Yeah, right… when you’re more fair and balanced, I’ll care more about your issue. Until then, I think I have MUCH better things to do.

  33. 33
    Rome Again says:

    Notice Darrell completely ignores that the recount in FL 2000 was stopped and the FL Supreme Court chose the president, regardless of the fact that CONGRESS is supposed to appoint a president in such circumstances… but that’s okay, so long as Bush won, right Darrell? Fucking HACK!

  34. 34
    Jimmm says:

    Darrell: WSJ OpinionJournal page = Conservative partisan media.

    I can play the linkee-stinky game, too: http://econ161.berkeley.edu/mo.....01097.html

    Only I’m better at it than you.

  35. 35
    ThymeZone says:

    Well, there you go. Darrell has succeeded in getting what he wants,which is attention, at the expense of the blog and its true supporters.

    John goes along with this (or creates it) in favor of what Tim loosely describes as letting Darrell serve as a conversation piece.

    But the plan is no good, because the conversation isn’t about issues and politics, it’s about Darrell.

    John has made a big mistake, and I believe that it is now costing him traffic and not generating traffic. I think that he is going to let Darrell drag his blog into the shitter and either doesn’t care, or doesn’t have the sense to realize it.

    I think Tim’s argument fails, and Darrell is not a conversation piece, he is a conversation deadener. At this point, I really don’t care anymore. I can assure you of this: Balloon Juice is not ever going to achieve
    any more than it has as of right now, ever, as long as that piece of shit continues to post here unfettered. The thing has peaked, and Darrell is now the main limiting factor.

    Darrell is now gloating (on another thread) over his destruction of the blog. Commenters are disgusted. And for this, we are supposed to do Heil Cole and post cheery food thoughts so that everybody can have fun? Fuck that, fuck that big time.

  36. 36
    Rome Again says:

    The Party’s Over

    The Party’s Over, it’s time to call it a day.
    They’ve burst your pretty balloon and taken the moon away.

    It’s time to wind up the masquerade.
    Just make your mind up the piper must be paid.

    The Party’s Over.The candles ficker and dim.
    You danced and dreamed through the night,
    it seemed to be right just being with him.

    Now you must wake up, all dreams must end.
    Take off your make up, The Party’s Over.
    It’s all over, my friend.

  37. 37
    CaseyL says:

    I’m with TZ on this. I’ve lost count of the threads I’ve decided not to participate in because Darrell had shown up and turned the whole thing into another feces flinging contest. I know that whenever I see a thread has a hundred or so comments, most of them are going to be by or about Darrell.

    Boring. Very.

  38. 38
    ThymeZone says:

    Oh no, I don’t agree! According to Tim, Darrell is good for the blog. To paraphrase John, I don’t know any other way to interpret his remarks.

    So, let’s get that bandwagon rolling. Darrell is good for this blog. That’s one position.

    Mine is the opposite: He’s bad for the blog. He doesn’t represent a counter viewpoint, he is all about himself, and only himself. He’s bigger than the blog, he’s bigger than the war, bigger than Walter Reed, bigger than the White House destroying CIA projects and agents’ careers for political gain, bigger than corruption, bigger than bshing science, bigger than queer-baiting, bigger than all of it.

    Darrell IS this blog. This blog is Darrell. The proprietors are asleep at the switch, and too lazy, apparently to take the time to understand the problem.

    John acts like he is doing us all a favor by keeping this thing open, shits on anyone who dares frown at him when he is Jonesin for a backslap, and sticks Darrell in our faces and says Fuck You, It’s My Blog, Take It or Leave It Suckers.

    Well, I think people are going to leave it. That’s my guess. But even if they don’t they sure as hell aren’t going to flock here as long as that PIECE OF SHIT posts here.

  39. 39
    Darrell says:

    Darrell is now gloating (on another thread) over his destruction of the blog.

    Well, if by “gloating over the destruction” of BJ, you mean that I observed 18 posts out of 90 were discussing and whining over me (most from TZ) on a thread where I never posted.. so I made 1 post on the entire thread pointing this out..

    TZ, this is not your house and it’s not your blog. If you don’t like it, why not just leave?.. instead of continually shitting over the thread with your mental illness like you’re doing right now. You’re not one of the “real” supporters, you’re just an obsessed freak who has no place else to go. No one likes a mentally ill, deranged, wrinkled lunatic TZ. And frankly, you scare the children. If you hate here so much, then hasta la vista lowlife.

  40. 40
    numbskull says:

    How fucking stupid are you people? How much does it take to convince you that Darrell Dumbshit and Jimmywhack DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT? Two years of lies, misdirection, and bullshit? Three?

    Buy a fucking clue. Quit responding to them. They are either stupid or dishonest.

    OR BOTH.

    If you don’t respond, they don’t exist. It’s really just that simple.

  41. 41
    ThymeZone says:

    No, you are quite wrong, Darrell, as always. Few if any posters give John and Tim more attaboys for good work. I strongly suspect that few if any have given more money to this blog (pre PJ Media0 than I have.

    I am a strong supporter, and have never claimed that it is mine in any way. You, on the other hand, shit on everything and everybody here every fucking day on every fucking thread you touch. Don;t you presume to lecture me, you lying sonofabitch. You want to go around with me? Let’s go, motherfucker. You couldn’t win an argument with me if you tied both hands behind my back, and you know it.

    You suck, asshole. You are the worst thing that ever happened here, bar none. YOu don’t belong here. You are sitting on another thread gloating about how you got everyone to talk about you. You’re the sick piece of shit here and fucking everyone knows it.

  42. 42
    Rome Again says:

    You’re not one of the “real” supporters, you’re just an obsessed freak who has no place else to go.

    Shows how much you know.

  43. 43
    ThymeZone says:

    you’re just an obsessed freak who has no place else to go.

    I’m a guy who thinks you stick this place up, and has made it clear many times that all you have to do to stop me from posting here is stop posting here. On the day you do that, I’ve posted my last post.

    Or, if you like democracy, then agree to abide by a vote. You or me, off the island, right now. Call for the vote.

    I double dog dare you, you cowardly little fuck.

  44. 44
    Darrell says:

    You suck, asshole. You are the worst thing that ever happened here, bar none. YOu don’t belong here.

    You are sitting on another thread gloating about how you got everyone to talk about you.

    You’re the sick piece of shit here and fucking everyone knows it.

    Hello, shit for brains. I didn’t “get” anyone to talk about me, as I didn’t even post on that thread. But when you’re obsessed freaks, facts like that simply doesn’t matter. What matters is what you feel in your head. And you certainly aren’t ashamed to vent your mental illness either.

    In your deluded mind, when talking to yourself about me, you think you really are ‘telling me off’. Sad really.

  45. 45
    Rome Again says:

    Balloon Juice will never be the same again after today, I think.

  46. 46
    ThymeZone says:

    facts like that simply doesn’t matter.

    Why don’t you try asking any ten people here, you pick the list, how much respect they have for you in regard to “facts.”

    Go ahead, Darrell. Pick your ten, and ask them.

  47. 47
    Darrell says:

    I

    double dog dare you, you cowardly little fuck.

    I believe your eloquence speaks truth to power in the profoundest of ways.

  48. 48
    ThymeZone says:

    I disagree, Rome. I don’t think this place will ever change, WRTto Darrell and the lowest common denominator of commentary here. Darrell sets the bar, and the proprietors actually promote the shit right here in broad daylight.

    What is happening tonight that you think will change anything?

  49. 49
    ThymeZone says:

    Who is talking about “truth to power,” you fucking lunatic?

    I am talking about your position here. Find out what it is.

    Ask for the vote. What are afraid of? Six months now, I have put this challenge in front of you, and all you can do is foam at the mouth?

    DO IT YOU FUCKING COWARD.

  50. 50
    Darrell says:

    What is happening tonight that you think will change anything?

    I think she senses that your blood pressure is surpassing the “magic” threshold level.. driven by those inner demons which never leave you in peace.

  51. 51
    Rome Again says:

    Why don’t you try asking any ten people here, you pick the list, how much respect they have for you in regard to “facts.”

    Go ahead, Darrell. Pick your ten, and ask them.

    That’s a great point.

    What do I think is changing? I think you are finally ready to move on to better things, and THAT will definitely change this place.

  52. 52
    Rome Again says:

    I think she senses that your blood pressure is surpassing the “magic” threshold level.. driven by those inner demons which never leave you in peace.

    I think she finally senses that Darrell is going to be very lonely without TZ to spar with for very much longer. :)

  53. 53
    ThymeZone says:

    My blood pressure is 115 over 70, Darrell.

    You know as much about that as you know about anything you pull out of your ass here.

    STFU.

  54. 54
    Darrell says:

    DO IT YOU FUCKING COWARD.

    Similar challenge to you. Drink that bottle of Wild Turkey and contemplate the ways you can make all that pain go away.. All those voices. All that energy spend obsessing over me. All gone.

  55. 55
    ThymeZone says:

    I think you are finally ready to move on to better things

    Well, not that anyone is keeping track, but my posting here has probably dropped 90% over the last year.

    And of course, pretty much anything, such as a colonoscopy, is better than putting up with Darrell’s bullshit.

  56. 56
    Rome Again says:

    Wild Turkey? That’s a wild imagination.

  57. 57
    ThymeZone says:

    Similar challenge to you.

    Are ya fucking paying attention at all, you moron?

    I’ve already agreed to the challenge by making it in the first place. It’s only valid when YOU agree to it.

    You’ll abide by a vote here, and go away if you lose?

    Yes or no? Or do you need somebody to explain this to you?

    Put up or shut up, fuckhead.

  58. 58
    Ron Beasley says:

    Krugman noted in his first commentary on the subject that the story might be the US Attorneys that didn’t get fired. I have also discussed this over at my place as have many others.

  59. 59
    ThymeZone says:

    I’ll make you a little wager, Rome.

    Before we’re done here, somebody, and very likely one of the blog proprietors, will say something that can be taken to blame me for the fact that Darrell is the bane of this blog.

    Somebody will play the tired, stupid “don’t respond to him” card. Do me a favor when that happens, and it will…. ask that idiot to show you an example of where such a stupid strategy has EVER worked against any troll or harassment of any intertrons board, group or blog, anywhere. Have them point to the example and explain how it was made to work.

  60. 60
    Darrell says:

    John acts like he is doing us all a favor by keeping this thing open, shits on anyone who dares frown at him when he is Jonesin for a backslap, and sticks Darrell in our faces and says Fuck You, It’s My Blog, Take It or Leave It Suckers.

    You’re damn right, and as JCole’s agent I’m here to say “Fuck you, it’s John Cole’s blog, Take or Leave it.. mentally ill like TZ leave it ’cause you’re scaring the children”

  61. 61
    Rome Again says:

    Somebody will play the tired, stupid “don’t respond to him” card. Do me a favor when that happens, and it will…. ask that idiot to show you an example of where such a stupid strategy has EVER worked against any troll or harassment of any intertrons board, group or blog, anywhere. Have them point to the example and explain how it was made to work.

    I don’t need to do any favors for you, TZ, you’ve already done it here.

  62. 62
    ThymeZone says:

    as JCole’s agent

    Yeah, right, that’s funny Darrell. You’re somebody’s agent.

    So, you have no fear of a simple upperdown vote?

    Agree to it now, call for the vote. On or off the island.

    Do it now, you worthless piece of crap.

  63. 63
    lard lad says:

    Darrell:

    Like a true closed minded hack, he’s made up his mind, facts be damned

    Irony powerful enough to reverse comets in their paths.

  64. 64
    Richard 23 says:

    Rome Again, you listen to David J and possibly The Jazz Butcher? Maybe you’re not such a wackjob after all.

  65. 65
    Rome Again says:

    Actually Richard, my mother sang that song all the time.

  66. 66
    Richard 23 says:

    LIAR! You have to remember Darrell, I was in FL during that time. I saw local news reports you didn’t see.

    Oh, so you’re the expert then. You watched the teevee.

    And personally I think it’s ThymeZone’s fault for the fact that Darrell is the bane of this blog.

  67. 67
    ThymeZone says:

    And personally I think it’s ThymeZone’s fault for the fact that Darrell is the bane of this blog.

    :-)

  68. 68
    Rome Again says:

    Oh, so you’re the expert then. You watched the teevee.

    I am merely stating that I had more local resources, more intensive coverage. Just like when a plane crash happens somewhere, the local station focuses more on it than anywhere else and breaks away less often for commercials. It affects the local population more, they see more coverage. That’s all.

    And personally I think it’s ThymeZone’s fault for the fact that Darrell is the bane of this blog.

    That fact is, as you yourself admit, Darrell IS the bane of this blog.

  69. 69
    ThymeZone says:

    That fact is, as you yourself admit, Darrell IS the bane of this blog.

    Well then, simply convince Darrell to agree to a bilateral withdrawal. He quits posting, I quit posting, everybody happy.

    No bane, no banecauser.

  70. 70
    Rome Again says:

    Well then, simply convince Darrell to agree to a bilateral withdrawal. He quits posting, I quit posting, everybody happy.

    The problem is, you would really go away, but he probably wouldn’t be able to. He would probably just come back under another name and start right back where he left off?

    It’s possible he has already set up another name (perhaps someone like EEEL) just to make sure he had a persona ready in case you pushed him out… I wouldn’t put it past him. There’s a saying that when someone accuses others of doing something, they often are doing it themselves. Darrell said earlier you had no place else to go, perhaps that’s actually true of him (?!?!?!) eventhough I know better regarding your options.

  71. 71
    demimondian says:

    Yup, Krugman was right, and Josh et al over at TPM were all over that column like bugs on a windshield.

    Once again: the firings were stupid. The original (and clearly false) explanation given by the AG and his cadre were a political gaffe of the first order. But pressuring US Attorneys to engage in politically motivated prosecutions is impeachable, and for any of the US Attorneys succumbed to such pressure would be criminal. I doubt that any USA is going to take that fall quietly, no matter how loyal a “Bushie” he or she may be.

  72. 72
    Jimmy Mack says:

    I believe your eloquence speaks truth to power in the profoundest of ways.

    LOL

  73. 73
    Evilbeard says:

    Sometimes I think both of you are the same person. You always argue with each other. TZ repeats his challenges over and over to Darrell who ignores them and constantly makes comments about TZ’s mental illness. Right now you both suck and I’d rather not hear from either of you.

  74. 74
    jake says:

    Darrell is JC’s agent?

    I was tempted to chortle at first but I see that would have been wrong:

    13. Pathology. any microorganism capable of causing disease.

    You see? This is what comes of mixing all the gunk at the bottom of test tubes, just to see what happens.

  75. 75
    Evilbeard says:

    But I must say I believe TZ speaks what he feels/means while Darrell is a troll who just likes to pick fights. He never makes a stand on any issue but instead attacks the stands of others.

    Isn’t that the classic definition of a troll?

  76. 76
    demimondian says:

    I prefer to think of Darrell as JC’s avatar. Or, perhaps, TZ’s avatar — I remain unconvinced that they are actually different people.

  77. 77
    ThymeZone says:

    Your speculation is interesting, Rome.

    If Darrell as we know him is a “persona” then the whole problem set here is changed.

    I’ve never made any secret of this: ppGaz is a persona, always has been. If ppGaz stops posting, the persona will not reappear under another handle.

    Personally, I don’t think Darrell is a persona. If he is, then you have to ask yourself what is the motivation and character of the person or group behind it? And if that person or group repackages Darrell under another handle, then …. that’s new information. That would void the warranty on the deal AFAIC. But if not, ppGaz would be history. He was disposable from the get-go, anyway.

    Everyone should keep in mind that around half of the handles you see here, and maybe 2/3 of the traffic, is spoof.

    This ain’t your PTA meeting or weight loss support group.

  78. 78
    Evilbeard says:

    Do you really believe the majority of people here are spoofs?

  79. 79
    ThymeZone says:

    Read the post, spoofer. I said “half the handles” are spoof. That’s not a majority. Thats about …. uh, let me see …. HALF.

    And yes, I pretty much know that for a fact.

    And the majority of the traffic … that’s posts, not handles, is spoof. More or less at one time or another depending on the thread, the topic, the weather, whether the spoofers are drinking coffee that day …. all true.

    You might say I have some inside information on this subject. Of course, if you think you have information, then come forth with it.

  80. 80
    demimondian says:

    Evilbeard — my best guess, from several years here and a good nose for posting style, is that between half and 2/3 of the posts on any given controversial thread are spoofery. We rarely if ever see the true beliefs of most of the spoofers, except during catastrophes. (E.g. I didn’t see much spoofery during the Katrina debacle, at least not once it became clear that it was going to be the worst-case we’d all known would happen sooner or later. The denizens of the comments section are caustic, but not heartless.)

  81. 81
    ThymeZone says:

    You are correct, demitassemondery. Not all spoofers are spoofing all the time.

    Taking dougJ as the quintessential example …. we’ve seen him post both real and spoof material under the same handle on the same thread from one minute to the next. We’ve seen him manufacture handles faster than Carter makes liver pills.

    Spoof long ago became the standard in blogville commentarialism. We were in on the birth of it, and look at it now. Heh, if you know what I mean, and I know that you do.

  82. 82
    ThymeZone says:

    And of course, odds heavily in favor of Evilbeard being a spoof. Anyone want to offer evidence to the contrary?

  83. 83
    Andrew says:

    I’m writing Evilbeard, the naive denizen of blogville. Soon, he’ll get upset about all of the foul language, but first he (or she — a creepy beard lady! — I haven’t decided yet) will complain that I am not writing his character. It’s all part of the charade.

    After that, I can’t decide on Broderistic platitudes or doing the angry fake-moderate-real-winger subtype.

  84. 84
    bago says:

    Aww, it’s trollvelution!

    People adapting and responding to more advanced forms of trolling!

    Either Darrel is ACTUALLY that stupid (never leave stupidity out of your calculations, mankind has an infinite resource there), or is someone who reallt know what buttons to push.

    Lets face it, pushing buttons to see reactions is the basis of the entire video game industry.

  85. 85
    DougJ says:

    Indeed, I stopped spoofing during Katrina. Partly because Cole pissed me off so much with his “it’s all Blanco’s fault, don’t blame Bush” stuff, partly because I just felt awful about the whole thing.

    It’s hard to believe that the John Cole of today, who is now perhaps more angry at Bush and GOP than I am, is the same guy who defended Bush throughout Katrina. I guess it goes to show that peoeple can change.

  86. 86
    ThymeZone says:

    So uh, do you think Evileard as a complainer about “foul language” is a believable handle?

    Just sayin.

    You need to join our mailing list, if you haven’t already.

    Whoever you are, sir or madam.

  87. 87
    Rome Again says:

    Personally, I don’t think Darrell is a persona. If he is, then you have to ask yourself what is the motivation and character of the person or group behind it? And if that person or group repackages Darrell under another handle, then …. that’s new information. That would void the warranty on the deal AFAIC. But if not, ppGaz would be history. He was disposable from the get-go, anyway.

    but, TZ, you yourself have voiced the opinion to me that you’re close to ready to leaving this place for good. It is highly likely that Darrell is not in that same particular place, I’m sure. If for some reason he decided he couldn’t be Darrell anymore (say he takes you up on your challenge, which everyone knows he’d lose), all I’m saying is he could easily create another persona and pick up where he left off. I wasn’t stating he was a persona NOW, so much as if he were addicted to this place he could easily be one in the future.

  88. 88
    Ted says:

    Personally, I could do without Darrell’s incessant shrieking as well. It really makes one hesitant to even click on the comments link, knowing it’s likely 40 to 50% of the posts are by Darrell.

  89. 89
    Ted says:

    Darrell Says:

    I like pie!
    March 17th, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    Darrell Says:

    I like pie!
    March 17th, 2007 at 5:43 pm

    This garbage can be blocked out, but it does tend to make the thread very long for scrolling.

  90. 90
    grandpa john says:

    What is needed by the blogs is the capability to block specific users , a block user function like Slate has.

  91. 91
    Tulkinghorn says:

    John makes an understandable, and interesting mistake here:

    *** Update ***

    Their hackery has undermined the integrity of every US Attorney general and will now throw every prosecutorial decision into question. Well done, guys.

    Of course he meant US Attorneys, not Attorneys General. Most (all?) states now elect their Attorney General, so the the AG is an independent constitutional office. This more clearly sets the AG as an officer of the state, accountable to the voters, rather than a quasi-presidential employee.

    Given the recurring crisis of faith in US AGs (Bobby Kennedy, Janet Reno, Ed Meese, AG AG) it might make sense to amend the US Constitution to benefit from the success of this experiment at the state level. The voters like split government much of the time — having the ability to split the party affiliation within the Executive Branch could do a lot to help stop the recurring abuses of power at the Federal level.

  92. 92

    A few years ago I was asked to help with the spoofing of the site. I said no and personally don’t see the benefit of the persona bullshit.

    I also don’t respond to Darrell or whoever he is with anything other than fuck off. If everyone did the same the Darrell problem would go away.

  93. 93
    RSA says:

    That’s an interesting suggestion. Slate had an article a few days ago on the same general topic.

  94. 94
    RSA says:

    I type too slowly. The Slate article is about the issues related to having an independent US AG, not about people not responding to Darrell.

  95. 95
    DougJ says:

    This Slate article is even better.

  96. 96
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    Darrell Says:

    Baa baaaa baaa, baaa baa baaaaa baaa! Baa baaa baa baaaaa…

    I have been busy with school (college) classes, and I have not had much time to do anything lately. I have popped in ever couple of days to get caught up on what is going on here, and it is sad to see that Darrell is still bleating away as usual.

    I have never directly addressed this moron as he is not worth the time. I would rather spend this time doing something productive, like taking a dump Darrell.

    If he is a figment of his own nightmares, he needs to get a life. Fast. As for the rest of you, remember this: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL! They just come back for more.

    Some advice for everyone who is sick of Darrell… Send him a tube of vanishing cream. It sells under the trade name of ‘Preparation H’…

    Regarding the topic for this thread, of course they are hacks for the party. Abu Gonzales just confirmed it. Watching this train derail would be fun but I am also watching the mess that was our government derail too. This administration has totally screwed up our country, and it will take decades for us to recover from it (if we are even able to).

    Heck, over at Red(Neck) State, Erick is calling Bush appointees “Democrats” when they were appointed by Bush! And he is dumping the responsibility for the whole mess as a plan by ambitious “Democrats” who are gunning for Gonzo’s job!

    George Orwell was off by a few years…

  97. 97
    Zifnab says:

    Given the recurring crisis of faith in US AGs (Bobby Kennedy, Janet Reno, Ed Meese, AG AG) it might make sense to amend the US Constitution to benefit from the success of this experiment at the state level. The voters like split government much of the time—having the ability to split the party affiliation within the Executive Branch could do a lot to help stop the recurring abuses of power at the Federal level.

    The only argument I could see concerning an elected Attorney General would be that he would get too “politicized” – only prosecuting crimes that would get him reelected. Somehow, that doesn’t seem like much of an argument anymore.

    Besides, from where I sit, it seems like political appointees are far more radical and fringe than the people who appoint them (or, at least their appointers do a better job of hiding their radicalitude).

    After the way Bush ham-handedly dolled out political positions to flunkies and cronies the last 6 years, I have a hard time arguing for any positions being appointed positions. But, as I’ve said before, the Bush Administration is a very bad arch-type to base any system off of. Under Bush, even the Constitution doesn’t seem to work. *sigh*

  98. 98
    RSA says:

    There’s that legal saying, hard cases make bad law, which may apply here. That is, it’s impossible to be forward-looking enough to prevent a train wreck like George W. Bush in the future. I’m thinking of how often I’ve read recently that what the Administration has done is not illegal, but that’s largely because no one had thought of passing laws against something so obviously wrong-headed. Fortunately there’s at least some political price that Bush is paying, and in the future I think the public may be less likely to elect a complete dumbass as President.

  99. 99
    ThymeZone says:

    “Many parts of Iraq are stable. But of course what we see on television is the one bombing a day that discourages everyone.”

    Is spoof king? You tell me. Who spoke the remarkable spoof line quoted here?

    Don’t Google it, just conjure up your best guess.

    The correct answer is here, written backwards:

    { hsuB aruaL }

    Is spoof king? Will we find the WMDs and be greeted as liberators? Is “don’t feed the trolls” a strategy that actually works? We report, you deride.

    Note: The “troll” in this thread is a character who posts here because the proprietors, by their own assertion, claim that it’s good for the blog. Something you might want think about before writing the next asinine “don’t feed the trolls” comment. Every poster is here because the owners want him or her to be here, that is the only reason.

    { quote is from NYT today }

  100. 100
    Andrew says:

    The correct answer is here, written backwards:

    { hsuB aruaL }

    I’m bad at word puzzles, but here’s my guess:
    Xerxes, King of Ancient Persia

    What do I win?

  101. 101
    ThymeZone says:

    Under Bush, even the Constitution doesn’t seem to work

    Well, take heart. Thanks to Republicans and their willing pundit sycophants, we are going to change that hoary, moldy old document and bring it up to date.

    We’ll amend it to rule out queer marriage, and also to allow foreign-born persons to become president, so that Arnold Schwarzenegger can run.

  102. 102
    ThymeZone says:

    What do I win?

    POTD, so far. The standard reward for that is a free carwash at the Danny’s Family Carwash in Phoenix (coupon expires March 31, 2007).

  103. 103
    RSA says:

    “Many parts of Iraq are stable. But of course what we see on television is the one bombing a day that discourages everyone.”

    This was shown on the Daily Show recently. Jon Stewart’s response was to ask whether Laura realized that what we see on TV is actually happening to real people, and to observe that it’s more than discouraging if you’re the one being bombed. He didn’t add that (per Think Progress) there about 185 attacks going on every day in Iraq, on average.

    I didn’t realize that Bush lived in a multi-room bubble.

  104. 104
    ThymeZone says:

    Is spoof king?

    According to Tom DeLay on Press the Meat, today, we are winning the war on terror, as evidenced by the fact that we have not been attacked in five years. That validates our Iraq strategy.

    Is that the spoofy part? You decide. For me, the spoofy part is that Tim Russert and NBC couldn’t find anyone better than Tom DeLay to come on and mount a defense of the Iraq war, as the thing enters its fifth year.

    See the Press the Meat webcast after 1:00 PM EDT on MSNBC’s website.

  105. 105
    John Cole says:

    Looking at this thread, it seems like Darrell tried to bait me, and I ignored him. The bait, however, lured Thymezone, who then spent the next 80 comments freaking out, attacking me, attacking Darrell, and attacking this blog.

    I am not going to ban people because they say things others do not like. When Darrell is trolling, I ignore him. If you can’t deal with that, I am sorry.

    Would it be nice if Darrell didn’t do that sometimes? Sure. It would also be nice if Thymezone wouldn’t give him what he wants. But I am not ging to be the blog owner hat runs around banning people because they say unpopular (or in the case of Darrell, truly idiotic) things.

  106. 106
    ThymeZone says:

    It would also be nice if Thymezone wouldn’t give him what he wants.

    Hold on a fucking minute … you’re going to yell at ME because of Darrell?

    Are you fucking kidding me?

    That’s without a doubt the stupidest and shittiest thing you ever said in the two years I’ve been here.

  107. 107
    John Cole says:

    I was unaware I was yelling at anyone, but if you want to go through and count the hysterical outbursts in this thread over nothing, you would have the edge on Darrell by a wide margin.

    And it isn’t because I love to hate you, it is because I am looking at what happened in the thread. I ignored Darrell, you freaked out for 14 hours.

  108. 108
    Tim F. says:

    Gotta give D-man credit, I don’t think anybody has called John an extremist before. Flamebait like that reads to me like a desperate plea to be ignored.

    And ppGaz, if you have not yet figured out that these histrionics of yours put Darell in a very happy place then you’re dumber than a post.

  109. 109
    ThymeZone says:

    count the hysterical outbursts in this thread over nothing, you would have the edge on Darrell by a wide margin.

    And it isn’t because I love to hate you, it is because I am looking at what happened in the thread. I ignored Darrell, you freaked out for 14 hours.

    Oh, you are so full of crap, man.

    It’s one outburst, and one which I do periodically because it needs to be done, because you guys deliberately sit there and let this guy shit all over everybody here and look the other way. You leave the commenters to deal with the asshole, and then want to sit back and criticize the way we do it? I have two words for that, and the first one is Fuck.

    Why don’t you also urinate on the people who sit here and do the back-and-forht all day “less filling, tastes great” crap with Darrell at 50 posts at a clip, and totally drown your blog in worthless bullshit? THAT’S THE ACTUALY PROBLEM HERE and that’s why I go after him, since imploring you to do something about it is clearly a waste of fucking time.

    You’re dead wrong about this man, and you are barking at the wrong tree.

    You’re gonna sit here and bitch at me about Darrell? Uh, no, you are not, because I am going to get right in your face and tell you that you are full of crap.

  110. 110
    ThymeZone says:

    these histrionics of yours put Darell in a very happy place

    Darrell’s psyche is not my concern, I don’t give a shit.

    You guys are responsible for Darrell, do not fucking try to blame me for him. Both reason and the facts will show that you are dead wrong. And if you want to turn this place into a debate over that question, then go right ahead because I am definitely up for it. That’s crap and you know it’s crap.

  111. 111
    Tim F. says:

    Let’s revisit the banning policy for a minute. Anybody who uses racist or sexist vulgarity, or threatens real-world violence, is gone. That is pretty much it. The only control that we choose to exercise is in the very rare case when we have to remove someone for said misbehavior. Other than that anybody on Earth is free to come and say whatever the hell they want.

    So no, your statement that we “choose” to have specific people here is dead wrong. We “choose” to remove specified people in the extremely rare instance that we step over the line. Other than that the commentariat is on their own.

  112. 112
    Tim F. says:

    …in the extremely rare instance that they step over the line…

  113. 113
    ThymeZone says:

    your statement that we “choose” to have specific people here is dead wrong. We “choose”

    C’mon Tim, get serious. You aren’t dumb, you’re way smart.

    So don’t say dumb things. You “choose” to let Darrell post here. You “choose” to let him come here every goddammed day and shit on everyone else who posts here including you guys, and declare the entire world that disagrees with him all manner of names and fling his patented poo. Why you choose that, I have no idea and don’t care. But don’t try to pretend like Darrell is here for any other reason.

    If your “policy” is for real, then all I can say is, Darrell is the result of that policy and AFAIC you guys deserve all the criticism in the world for sticking to a policy that subjects your commenters, almost all of whom support you to the hilt, to this crap all the time.

    That’s a lame ass defense.

  114. 114
    Pb says:

    Gotta love it. Darrell shits all over the thread, ThymeZone is outraged over all the shit on the thread, and then you get John Cole (and his trusty sidekick Tim F.!) coming in saying that maybe if you weren’t so outraged whenever Darrell takes a giant dump on a thread, it wouldn’t be so bad! This sort of ‘logic’ almost comes close to explaining John’s past position on Katrina as well. Suck it up, people, John Cole is your absentee landlord, so you’ll live in shit and you’ll like it!

  115. 115
    ThymeZone says:

    Well, it was predictable, in fact I predicted it last night.

    John and Tim just enjoy the hell out of this, obviously.

    Well, good for them. But it’s my opinion that they have made a mistake, hitching their wagon to Darrell as a way to draw traffic, or put up a phony “open comments” policy.

    Darrell is a deranged harrassing troll, everyone here knows it. I am going to say so unless the ban me.

    Ding! Next round.

  116. 116
    Andrew says:

    Outrage-a-thon at my place!

    I was planning to be outraged at how badly my NCAA bracket is doing, but this will fit in just fine.

  117. 117
    ThymeZone says:

    This sort of ‘logic’ almost comes close to explaining

    Karl Rove himself couldn’t do better. It’s like listening to Repulbicans talk about bipartisanship. Why is everyone so angry? Gee, why indeed?

    Yeah, it’s called manipulation, and manipulation is what this is all about.

  118. 118
    Richard 23 says:

    Keep speaking truth to power TZ!

  119. 119
    ThymeZone says:

    Keep speaking truth to power TZ!

    Keep posting drunk, Dick.

  120. 120
    Andrew says:

    It’s still St. Patrick’s Day if you’re drunk enough!

  121. 121
    ThymeZone says:

    It’s still St. Patrick’s Day if you’re drunk enough!

    Stone sober, alas, but I have to go out and about and do some errands.

    That will give John and Tim plenty-o-time to polish and advance their brillinat argument that my outrage at Darrell is responsible for Darrell. I find the idea just fascinating, really. With that kind of power, what monstrosity will I next unleash on the blog?

    Stay tuned to find out. Maybe we can get Charles Manson a laptop?

  122. 122
    Tim F. says:

    I don’t want to give the impression that we’re having a debate when we’re not. The moderation policy here is not about to change.

    But for the sake of making my feelings more clear, let’s illustrate why Darrell is so good at irritating people. He uses ridiculously slanted facts and anecdotes lifted from LuciferAnne and Hewitt, but that wouldn’t be irritating rather than outrageous. Darrell’s primary defect is his physical inability to disagree without accusing the the other of mental illness. John Cole becomes an extremist, OCSteve becomes an insecure waif searching for leftwing approval. I can’t count how many names I have been called. It’s a sign of a small, insecure mind but it’s very good at pissing people off.

    So here is my dilemma. When is the last time that you disagreed with a rightwinger, ppGaz, without making it a little bit personal? Often your comments are nothing but. Even when you disagree with other leftwingers the personal tends to mix with the informational. If we changed the rules to ban everybody who mixed personal attacks with argument we would lose far more commenters than just Darrell.

    Maybe that would be for the best. If anything there is an argument that might convince me. Maybe other bipartisan sites which have already taken that step, Gandelman’s and ObWings to name two, have the right idea.

    Until we do change, and that is up to John and not to me, the way that any rightwinger or avowed “moderates” constanty gets accused of being a spoof or worse makes me take the Darrell outrage with a sizable grain of salt.

  123. 123
    John Cole says:

    A story:

    In undergrad, for a time, my roommate had a dog. Real nice little mutt, who was very protective of the house. And I mean very protective, and since we were all ex-military, we kind of encouraged it. Any time, day or night, something entered the yard, this little fellow would go crazy. He would bark, run from room to room, jump on our beds, scatch at the door, howl, you name it, until we went out and chased whatever it was out of the yard.

    This was cute. For a while.

    And then it got old. We simply couldn’t chase everything that bothered this dog out of the yard, so something had to be done. Since we can’t control what is going to come into the yard, what we did was to train the dog to ignore things that were not real threats. We did that by ignoring him when it freaked out. It took a while, and by the time we finally had the fellow trained to ignore the non-threatening things, the semester had ended. but we finally figured out a way that we could all live together.

    In short, Thymezone, it is time for you to figure out how to ignore the things in the yard that are not a threat, because Tim and I are ignoring you.

    Darrell is a pain in the ass, and he queers some threads, for sure. But you give him every ounce of satisfaction he craves. Hell, you go beyond that- you give him what he wants, and you lash out at me, claiming I let him stay for traffic (which I don’t give a fuck about, if I only cared about traffic I would parrot the Malkin bullshit and participate in the right wing circle-jerk linkfests). You attack me and Tim, claiming all sorts of nonsense, to include that I am actually Darrell.

    So let me make this clear to you- I am not banning him for being an idiot. Our comments policy is clear. You now have to decide whether you can learn to ignore him, or if this site just isn’t what you want from a website. And I would appreciate it if you would quit lashing out at me, because I am getting a little tired of it.

  124. 124
    ThymeZone says:

    because Tim and I are ignoring you.

    No! Who knew? I’m crushed. Never thought this possible.

    I am not banning him for being an idiot

    Never suggested it. I suggest banning because he is a relentless, unredeemed troll, whose mission is to harass. Not argue, not debate, not contribute anything. He lies. He refuses to answer simple direct questions. He stifles debate, queers conversation, shits on everything, dumbs down your blog to his inane level. Not because he’s an idiot. Because he’s bad for the blog.

    And I would appreciate it if you would quit lashing out at me, because I am getting al ittle tired of it.

    Well, John, guess what? You have a bunch of people out here who are a lot tireder of Darrell, and you are one who is responsible, and so therefore, tough shit.

    That’s my opinion, I am right about it, you are wrong, and your defense is lame.

  125. 125
    Andrew says:

    Sounds like Balloon Juice needs a doggie door.

  126. 126
    Darrell says:

    Never suggested it. I suggest banning because he is a relentless, unredeemed troll, whose mission is to harass. Not argue, not debate, not contribute anything

    It’s crystal clear to anyone who can read that you fit that definition far better than I, as on this thread, you have done nothing but launch 100% personal attacks with zero substance. Not one post from you on the subject of this thread – just pure personal attacks. On another thread a day or two ago, you queered that one whining over me repeatedly (7 or 8 posts obsessing over me) on a thread where I never even posted . That is how fucked up and deranged a troll you are.

    At least I attempted on this thread, as I typically do, to debate the subject of the thread, and provided argument and citation to support my position. That was before you appeared, gracing us with your mental illness, trying to drag the entire thread down to your level of personal filth.

    If you think I’m engaging in troll-like behavior, try re-reading the thread to see what a real thread killing troll looks like, whenever TZ comes to visit.

  127. 127
    Pb says:

    Darrell’s primary defect is his physical inability to disagree without accusing the the other of mental illness.

    No, that’s not his primary defect. His primary defect is that he’s not honest–he’s incapable of arguing in good faith. And then he’s abusive to others and smug in the process. But it’s the fundamental dishonesty that is his primary defect. However, some people apparently couldn’t see that:

    John Cole Says:

    Let’s lay off the personal attacks on Darrell- you may think he is wrong, but he is arguing in good faith.

    October 6th, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    Now, I tore John a new one for that idiotic statement at the time, and he later recanted (much later, and I don’t remember getting an apology, but go figure), but I still find it amazing that by 10/06/2006, he could even conceive of the idea that Darrell was arguing in good faith–or indeed ever has been. And Tim F., if John Cole isn’t the most gullible person here, then it’d be you. The two of you are flat-out unqualified to detect any sort of trolling or spoofery, much less assess the effects it has on this place, which might be the only reason that your moderation policy isn’t a bad idea–because if you changed it, you’d end up banning the honest participants like ThymeZone, and then–just to add insult to injury–probably let the Darrells of the world roam free as well.

  128. 128
    Evilbeard says:

    ThymeZone Says:

    And of course, odds heavily in favor of Evilbeard being a spoof. Anyone want to offer evidence to the contrary?

    I don’t mind proving I am not a spoof but what kind of evidence is acceptable?

    I’ve been reading this blog and many of the comment threads for over a year but I try not to get sucked into useless flame wars so I obviously don’t comment much.

  129. 129
    Pb says:

    At least I attempted on this thread, as I typically do, to debate the subject of the thread, and provided argument and citation to support my position.

    Bullshit. See above. You did here what you typically always do–lie, occasionally dig up other lies, attack everyone else for no apparent reason, never actually give a straight answer any questions posed to you directly (but rather attack the questioner), change the subject once it’s obvious to everyone that you’ve been exposed as a liar in your curent argument, and generally try to obfuscate and distract from whatever valid points might actually have been raised in the first place. That’s what you typically do. You’re a hateful, disruptive troll, and you serve no purpose in any sort of honest debate. Welcome home.

  130. 130
    Darrell says:

    John Cole becomes an extremist, OCSteve becomes an insecure waif searching for leftwing approval.

    I’m far from the only one who believes that it takes an extremist to believe that the firings of those 8 attorneys was entirely the result of those attorneys not being sufficent enough lackeys to ChimpyBush’s evil aspirations with no other explanation. I’ve cited why several were fired, but an extremist IMO, is one who ignores facts which don’t fit with a predetermined narrative. Hence, my claim of extremism is justified and stands unrefuted.

    OC Steve the other day, was posturing and preening about how he was willing to debate conservative issues with me, while refusing to answer specific questions about a very liberal position that he was holding. He didn’t answer, because he was being phony. Just because I’m the one who pointed out he was acting phony, explaining why I did so, doesn’t mean that he’s not really a phony. He most definitely is, and your unsupported accusations do nothing to change that Tim.

  131. 131
    Darrell says:

    Bullshit. See above. You did here what you typically always do—lie,

    I looked “above” and didn’t see shit, except for your incoherent claims.

    Oh, and Pb, point us to where I’ve “lied” on this thread. One single example will do.

  132. 132
    DougJ says:

    For what it’s worth, I’m against banning Darrell. It’s contraty to the spirit of this blog.

  133. 133
    John Cole says:

    You would think by now that most of you would realize the thing that irritates me most is being told what to do.

    Just ignore Darrell. I do, most of the time.

  134. 134
    Pb says:

    You know what, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. If this is the kind of shit you put up with here, then it’s all you deserve. Let this be remembered for eternity as Darrell’s blog, a cesspool of bullshit.

    I looked “above” and didn’t see shit, except for your incoherent claims.

    How honest of you to say that. I’m sorry you’re too stupid to see it.

    Oh, and Pb, point us to where I’ve “lied” on this thread. One single example will do.

    Why stick with one when all of your posts qualifly? You righties are incapable of telling the truth–it’s what you are.

    Oh, and… I’m going to need some ice for that spanking you gave me! Keep speaking truth to power!

  135. 135
    Evilbeard says:

    I love how Darrell has to add “On this thread” as a condition to people pointing out his lying.

  136. 136
    Pb says:

    You would think by now that most of you would realize the thing that irritates me most is being told what to do.

    How honest of you. I’m not telling you what to do–I told you what you should do. I’m sorry you’re too stupid to see the difference.

  137. 137
    Rome Again says:

    Just ignore Darrell. I do, most of the time.

    Perhaps that is the problem. For the blogmaster to ignore a thing, puts the regular visitors at the mercy of that thing. You are not a visitor John, you have the key to the door and refuse to use it. If you want to be a regular, perhaps you shoujld ha

  138. 138
    Rome Again says:

    sorry, posted prematurely…

    finishing: perhaps you should hand the keys over to someone who CAN be the blogmaster and not just want to be a visitor.

  139. 139
    Rome Again says:

    and I’d like to add…

    you ignore,
    you ignore,
    you ignore,
    you ignore…

    how many times exactly DO you ignore?

  140. 140
    Gex says:

    Re McKay – let’s run with that, shall we? Do we want to do a big, comprehensive study of electoral oddities – from WA, to OH and FL? If this is the line the Administration wants to take, Congressional Dems should take them up on it. Let’s investigate, THOROUGHLY, electoral fraud from 2000, 2004, and 2006.

    I’m all for it. I don’t care which side gets caught up in it. If we can’t trust the electoral system, we have no democracy. However, I’d place good money on which side would look worse after the outcome of that investigation.

  141. 141
    Pb says:

    perhaps you should hand the keys over to someone who CAN be the blogmaster and not just want to be a visitor

    Maybe we can officially make this Darrell’s blog!

  142. 142
    Rome Again says:

    Re McKay – let’s run with that, shall we? Do we want to do a big, comprehensive study of electoral oddities – from WA, to OH and FL? If this is the line the Administration wants to take, Congressional Dems should take them up on it. Let’s investigate, THOROUGHLY, electoral fraud from 2000, 2004, and 2006.

    Gex, I took this line of reasoning yesterday, Darrell said he is SURE there was no voter fraud in FL (I didn’t talk about OH since I was in FL myself). How can he be so SURE there was no voter fraud, except Fox News told him so. I was there, I saw local coverage, Fox News lies.

  143. 143
    Pb says:

    Darrell said he is SURE there was no voter fraud in FL

    Well if Darrell is SURE, then that’s good enough for me–why do you hate our blogmaster? Get in line and march, moonbat!

  144. 144
    RSA says:

    Gex, I took this line of reasoning yesterday, Darrell said he is SURE there was no voter fraud in FL

    That was quite a striking example of a double standard. Extensive investigation in Florida, no charges brought: perfectly fine. Extensive investigation in Washington, no charges brought: oh my God! McKay is a total Democrat hack!

    But I think focusing on McKay alone is a diversion, for two reasons. First, Lam (see TPM for details). Second, all the loyal Bushies who weren’t fired–what have they been doing to demonstrate their loyalty? (See the Shields and Cragan study for details.)

  145. 145
    Rome Again says:

    Well if Darrell is SURE, then that’s good enough for me—why do you hate our blogmaster? Get in line and march, moonbat!

    I don’t hate the blogmaster, I think he is a weak blogmaster, that’s all.

  146. 146
    Richard 23 says:

    I’m going to need some ice for that spanking you [just] gave me!

    Hahaha. That never gets old.

  147. 147
    Darrell says:

    Gex, I took this line of reasoning yesterday, Darrell said he is SURE there was no voter fraud in FL

    Well if Darrell is SURE, then that’s good enough for me—why do you hate our blogmaster? Get in line and march, moonbat!

    More like lying moonbat. I never said I was “sure” there was no fraud in FL, I said that it had been investigated thoroughly by FL state gov, Feds, and the media, and they didn’t come up with anything.

    So to be clear, one of you freaks lied about what I actually wrote, and then Pb the simpleton jumped in, getting yourselves all angry over something I never wrote. Textbook example of “righteous moonbat outrage”

  148. 148
    Tom in Texas says:

    You would think by now that most of you would realize the thing that irritates me most is being told what to do.

    How the hell did you serve in the military?

    :)

    And thanks for not banning people for their opinions, popularity, or ability to be honest. Such charlatans reveal themselves quite publicly with every word they write anyway. Someday the commentariat may shift a bit to the right, and I wouldn’t want a dissenting view deleted then either.

  149. 149
    Rome Again says:

    No I don’t. Because you are too ignorant to know, voter fraud in FL 2000 was investigated thoroughly and they didn’t find squat. I am sorry you are too stupid not to have known that.

    That is what you said Darrell, that you just weren’t interested in discussing Florida anymore, because you are so sure that they investigated thoroughly and they didn’t find anything. Are you SURE they did? Are you sure the GOP didn’t just suppress that info? I asked you to cite for me where it states that a state Supreme Court can appoint a president, you never did. Would you like to play again?

  150. 150
    demimondian says:

    Oh, for heaven’s sake!

    It’s John’s blog, and, really, he’s very even-handed in ignoring all of our transgressions. If you don’t like Darrell, download the pie filter, and *poof* he’s gone. If you want him back, open the page through IE or Safari, and _zoom_ there he is again. It’s really not that hard.

    There’s a rule here — as long as you stay on the right side of some basic rules, none of which has to do with civility, you’re tolerated. If not, then, and only then, will the blog master come down on you. Don’t like it? Fine — ObWings, Eschateon, Red State, etc. will welcome you, although all of them will demand civility and probity. If, OTOH, you find the freewheeling discussion on this site, then the price of admission is tolerating abusive morons, among whom is Darrell.

    At the end of the day, the choice is each of ours. For my part, I don’t think I’d have trouble fitting in on ObWings, in particular, but I stay here because I enjoy it. If JT&T decide to enforce behavioral constraints, I’ll probably leave.

  151. 151
    Rome Again says:

    And thanks for not banning people for their opinions, popularity, or ability to be honest. Such charlatans reveal themselves quite publicly with every word they write anyway. Someday the commentariat may shift a bit to the right, and I wouldn’t want a dissenting view deleted then either.

    and if I were to flat out lie and push that lie by pointing to blogposts made on THIS blog, would that be something you condoned?

  152. 152
    Tom in Texas says:

    I am not condoning anything. I think that in a blog where all comments are allowed, people will quickly point out your lie and you will be discredited, usually within 5 minutes or so.

  153. 153
    Darrell says:

    Are you sure the GOP didn’t just suppress that info?

    Ok simpleton, if you want to assert that the GOP “suppressed” the info, where is the evidence? You never cite any?

    I asked you to cite for me where it states that a state Supreme Court can appoint a president, you never did

    Why should I cite something that does not exist halfwit? The SCOTUS overruled a corrupt FL Supreme court ruling. No one, except for the voices in your head, is saying that the Supreme court has the power to ‘appoint’ the President.

  154. 154
    Rome Again says:

    Well, demi, I agree with the freewheeling discussion, but I’m just so tired of watching others or having to fight for the same ground over and over again myself. We DO fight the same battles repeatedly. Darrell makes it so.

  155. 155
    Tom in Texas says:

    And, I might point out, Darrell’s falsehoods are quite often pointed out by John, Tim, or me.

    I admire the fact that at this blog, we are encouraged to point out why a commenter is wrong, rather than deleting his comment from the public record entirely.

  156. 156
    Rome Again says:

    am not condoning anything. I think that in a blog where all comments are allowed, people will quickly point out your lie and you will be discredited, usually within 5 minutes or so.

    Really, Darrell is often placed in that position, and nothing ever happens.

  157. 157
    Rome Again says:

    Darrell, for instances of voter fraud questions, I offer you this: from CNN on December 8, 2000

    Okay, you want to play the FL Supreme Court vs. SCOTUS, please cite for me where it states SCOTUS chooses a president in the Constitution.

  158. 158
    demimondian says:

    OK, but why do we fight them? If there’s consensus among the rest of us, then why do you care what Darrell says or doesn’t say? One of the hardest lessons I’ve ever learned was the second half of the manager’s creed.

    * Just because someone says it, doesn’t make it so.
    * Just because someone says it, doesn’t mean anyone else will believe it either.

    The first we all learn in childhood. The second is much harder to accept, but is essential if you’re going to manage in a political environment. Silence does *not* give tacit assent; it may merely give acknowledgment that a battle is not worth fighting right now. There’s no law which says you need to refute a lie immediately, or powerfully.

    For example, Darrell is lying about FL 2K, and he’s being subtle about it. It’s true that all incidents of direct miscounting were eventually resolved — that’s a fact, Rome. What is not a fact is the claim that all instances of voter suppression were investigated, even in several instances (near Orlando, for instance) where they almost certainly could have been.

    Now, see — I don’t believe him. I know better. So do a lot of people. After he lies once, and you’ve refuted him, though, there’s no reason to carry on.

  159. 159
    Rome Again says:

    I admire the fact that at this blog, we are encouraged to point out why a commenter is wrong, rather than deleting his comment from the public record entirely.

    I’m not arguing for censorship, I’m arguing that we fight the same old tired battles over and over and never gain any ground because Darrell never learns anything.

  160. 160
    Darrell says:

    Tom in Texas Says:

    And, I might point out, Darrell’s falsehoods are quite often pointed out by John, Tim, or me.

    I would point out that far more often, it’s your falsehoods being pointed out by me. For example, in this thread, no where has anyone discredited my assertions, just Tim and a couple of others taking weak unsupported snipes. Show us an example Tom, of me having my “falsehoods” pointed out?

  161. 161
    Tom in Texas says:

    Really, Darrell is often placed in that position, and nothing ever happens.

    Of course something happens. Everyone knows he is dishonest as well as shrill. He can keep shrieking otherwise, but he’s not convincing anyone but himself.

    RE: fighting the same ground. Darrell is being willfully obtuse concerning most of these arguments. He knows what is coming in response. He just doesn’t care. It doesn’t, and won’t, sink in. Most people aren’t as able to suspend reality.

    In short, there is no point in addressing a comment to Darrell, because he blocks your response out. There is no point in addressing a comment Darrell made in general (except in certain instances where he may be repeating a narrative that has yet to be refuted here) because no one else believes him anyway.

  162. 162
    Darrell says:

    I’m not arguing for censorship, I’m arguing that we fight the same old tired battles over and over and never gain any ground because Darrell never learns anything.

    Incredible, coming from someone just caught making a bald faced lie herself, which she followed up with, issuing a nonsensical challenge demanding to know where the SCOTUS has the power to appoint the President.

    Despite having been called on her falsehoods and stupidity on this very thread, Rome just keeps forging ahead without acknowledgement. The very definition of a partisan hack.

  163. 163
    Darrell says:

    Of course something happens. Everyone knows he is dishonest as well as shrill.

    Hey asshole, if you’re going to accuse me of “dishonesty” along with the rest of barking moonbats, then have the honor to provide examples. Provide them, or STFU

  164. 164
    Darrell says:

    For example, Darrell is lying about FL 2K

    If I’m “lying” about it, then demonstrate what I’ve lied about.

    Otherwise, your accusation is nothing but a lie itself.

  165. 165
    Rome Again says:

    First of all demi, his subtlety easily fools those who may not know the difference and creates an evironment for confusion.

    Secondly, it stunts OUR discussion here. We can’t get past certain arguments with Darrell and lose the chance to move further because of the impact his challenges create. Most of the thread then becomes a Darrell-fest, and the direction the topic was going in becomes sort of lost.

  166. 166
    Rome Again says:

    Incredible, coming from someone just caught making a bald faced lie herself, which she followed up with, issuing a nonsensical challenge demanding to know where the SCOTUS has the power to appoint the President.

    Despite having been called on her falsehoods and stupidity on this very thread, Rome just keeps forging ahead without acknowledgement. The very definition of a partisan hack.

    Darrell, I am not lying, perhaps I am mistaken, but I’m not intentionally lying to you, at all.

    The fact is, you obfuscate and beat around bushes on things you KNOW are lies.

  167. 167
    Darrell says:

    Rome claimed I said something which I never wrote. I called her on this lie and she never owned up to it, and then went on to accuse me of dishonesty.

    This is the kind ” terms of discussion” she is putting forth on this very thread.

  168. 168
    demimondian says:

    his subtlety easily fools those who may not know the difference and creates an environment for confusion

    Remember the manager’s second law? That’s what we all think — and it’s almost always wrong. People are generally smart.

    As to our discussions…Why do you think we need to talk to D-boy? He can’t step in and genuinely interrupt here — we each get our turn, no matter what happens.

  169. 169
    Darrell says:

    Darrell, I am not lying, perhaps I am mistaken, but I’m not intentionally lying to you, at all.

    Rome, you got caught in a lie accusing me of saying something I definitely did not write. When this is pointed out, you never admit you lied. How can you call putting words in my mouth a simple “mistake”. No, you lied, and then made an incredibly idiotic assertion about the SCOTUS appointing Presidents. Hardly the basis for having an honest discussion. You’ve helped queered the thread with your lies and stupidity.

  170. 170
    Darrell says:

    What’s amazing here are the numbers of moonbats accusing me of “lying”.. but when challenged to point out where I’ve “lied” they run for cover like vermin, because their accusation is a lie in and of itself.

    Rome, OTOH, has been caught in a real, honest to goodness lie on this thread, and no one says diddly.. because she’s on the moonbat “side”, which must be defended no matter how wrong.

  171. 171
    Rome Again says:

    Rome, you got caught in a lie accusing me of saying something I definitely did not write.

    You implied you were sure there was no voter fraud in 2000 in FL. I never said you SAID you said you were sure, liar.

  172. 172
    Rome Again says:

    Rome, OTOH, has been caught in a real, honest to goodness lie on this thread, and no one says diddly.. because she’s on the moonbat “side”, which must be defended no matter how wrong.

    Where is my mistake Darrell? Come on, point out where Congress isn’t charged in the Constitution with selecting a president in the case of a tied vote? Because I stated FL Supreme Court instead of SCOTUS you’re going to hang me for that? Where is SCOTUS charged with selecting a president?

  173. 173
    Rome Again says:

    Darrell, the word SURE was in caps, not quotes, learn the difference.

  174. 174
    Darrell says:

    You implied you were sure there was no voter fraud in 2000 in FL.

    What I said, was that FL 2000 election “fraud” was thoroughly investigated and they didn’t find evidence of such fraud. If you feel the investigation by State officials, FBI, Democrat party lawyers, and virtually the entire MSM wasn’t “thorough” enough, then explain for us why. Where is your evidence?

    You have none, because you mindlessly parrot what you’ve been told to say. If I’m wrong, then make your case.

  175. 175
    Tsulagi says:

    I’m far from the only one who believes that it takes an extremist to believe that the firings of those 8 attorneys was entirely the result of those attorneys not being sufficent enough lackeys to ChimpyBush

    Yeah, and they’re all easily distinguished by the dirty sanchezes on their face. It’s what Bushbots crave.

    FWIW, I agree with Cole and Tim regarding Darrell. He’s kind of funny, and a good reminder why it will likely be a very long time before I consider pulling a lever for an R again. He virtually never posts anything that isn’t retardly slanted.

    AFAIC, he just pisses into in the wind. I’ll just let him wet himself, and generally not bother to point a finger and laugh in a comment directed at him.

  176. 176
    Rome Again says:

    You know, I’m with TZ, there is no discussion here. I am accused of lying intentionally when I’m not. There’s just GOT to be something better to do on a Sunday afternoon, really.

    It’s been nice knowing you Darrell, do me a favor, stay away from young voters, they need you like they need a hole in the head.

  177. 177
    Darrell says:

    Where is SCOTUS charged with selecting a president?

    With extreme stupidity like this repeated over and over and over, don’t accuse me of dragging down this thread.

  178. 178
    RSA says:

    Off-topic (as if there was such a thing): I find the discussion in this thread interesting because it illustrates the different ways that people think of a blog. How public a space should it be? How loose or restrictive should rules be to foster discussion? What counts as reasonable discussion? What role should the blog owners play? What causes people to stay or leave? [/pointless meta]

  179. 179
    Darrell says:

    He virtually never posts anything that isn’t retardly slanted.

    Speaking of “slanted” , the topic of this thread is based on the assertion that Bush fired all 8 attorneys which weren’t sufficiently lackey in suching up to Darth Bush’s evil schemes. Talk about slanted, it’s hard to get more slanted than that type of extremist claptrap. Unless you want to compare to Rome’s unsupported assertion that FL 2000 was all a result of thuggish GOP vote suppression.

  180. 180
    Darrell says:

    It’s telling that the same poster who wrote this

    He virtually never posts anything that isn’t retardly slanted.

    in the same post also wrote this

    Yeah, and they’re all easily distinguished by the dirty sanchezes on their face. It’s what Bushbots crave.

    A textbook example of an extremist projecting his own extremism onto others.

  181. 181
    Rome Again says:

    Darrell, I am going to say one more thing and then I’m out of here. You think you can state emphatically that the 2000 election was won fair and square, but the fact is there was a LOT of confusion (hell, we waited for days for the results, it was NOT normal at all) and there was story after story about voters who were turned away.

    Baker and his army of lawyers pushed the close of the results, and Gore backed down. You state that what I’m stating about SCOTUS is idiotic, but, perhaps you are not thinking about timing. The court was involved LONG before any election was verfied in congress. FL Supreme Court/SCOTUS did affect the result, whether you want to say so or not.

  182. 182
    Darrell says:

    Rome, you are clearly ignorant as can be, which one would think would make you a bit more humble, rather than the insufferably obnoxious blowhard that you are. For months and months AFTER the Supreme Court decision, investigations took place on the allegations. Investigations by the State of FL, FBI, Justice Dept., media, Dem Party and US Commission on Civil Rights led by Bush hating partisan Mary Francis Berry.

    All concluded that there was no conspiratorial effort to suppress voters, black voters and others. In fact, in 24 of the 25 Florida counties with the highest ballot spoilage rate, the county supervisor was a Democrat. In the 25th county, the supervisor was an Independent.

    For these reasons, I think it is despicable that you continue to parrot the “GOP thugs intimidated voters” lie when there is no evidence to support that claim, unless you have some facts or perspective to add which were not already thoroughly investigated by others.

  183. 183
    Rome Again says:

    Of course something happens. Everyone knows he is dishonest as well as shrill. He can keep shrieking otherwise, but he’s not convincing anyone but himself.

    RE: fighting the same ground. Darrell is being willfully obtuse concerning most of these arguments. He knows what is coming in response. He just doesn’t care. It doesn’t, and won’t, sink in. Most people aren’t as able to suspend reality.

    In short, there is no point in addressing a comment to Darrell, because he blocks your response out. There is no point in addressing a comment Darrell made in general (except in certain instances where he may be repeating a narrative that has yet to be refuted here) because no one else believes him anyway.

    Well, Tom… he is called on it so infrequently by anyone of any really great importance around here that it seems to me he is only encouraged. I’m tired of the haranguing that goes on here, if this is the kind of environment you guys were trying to create, I’ll be leaving. I came to this blog because I was encouraged by John’s new-found understanding of how Republicans had changed… I’ve watched the transition long enough to consider it fairly complete. I’ve made friends here that I don’t need to be here to speak to… my objectives here are pretty much complete. I don’t really NEED this place for anything else, so I think I’ll be moseying along now. Thanks for the memories, it was fun.

  184. 184
    John Cole says:

    Darrell-

    The stated reason, by the administration, not me, that the other attorneys were not fired is that they were sufficiently loyal to Bush. THose are not my words. it is not a huge leap in logic to assume the others were fired for insufficient loyalty. As such, it thus calls into question the behavior of all other attorneys that were not fired.

    I didn;t create that problem. I didn’t claim they are all Bush lackeys. I am merely pointing out the problem BUSH and company created, which is that there judgement is noq in question because this administration politicized the mess.

  185. 185
    Pb says:

    In short, there is no point in addressing a comment to Darrell, because he blocks your response out. There is no point in addressing a comment Darrell made in general (except in certain instances where he may be repeating a narrative that has yet to be refuted here) because no one else believes him anyway.

    Typical moonbat logic: if there’s “no point” in replying to him, and if “no one else” believes him, then why should he be here at all? Keep speaking truth to power!

  186. 186
    Pb says:

    Well, Tom… he is called on it so infrequently by anyone of any really great importance around here that it seems to me he is only encouraged. I’m tired of the haranguing that goes on here, if this is the kind of environment you guys were trying to create, I’ll be leaving. I came to this blog because I was encouraged by John’s new-found understanding of how Republicans had changed… I’ve watched the transition long enough to consider it fairly complete. I’ve made friends here that I don’t need to be here to speak to… my objectives here are pretty much complete. I don’t really NEED this place for anything else, so I think I’ll be moseying along now. Thanks for the memories, it was fun.

    Another satisfied customer! Darrell’s blog forever!

  187. 187
    Darrell says:

    Darrell-

    The stated reason, by the administration, not me, that the other attorneys were not fired is that they were sufficiently loyal to Bush

    Wow, that would be quite a statement. Please cite. Who in the Bush administration said that these attorneys were fired for not being sufficiently loyal, rather than displeasure in the way they were doing their jobs.

    McKay, the more I read about him, is a seriously arrogant ahole who never should have been appointed in the first place. Others appear to have been fired for reasons other than insuffient amount of loyalty as well.

    Please cite where “the administration” made this admission, as I have not read it.

  188. 188
    John Cole says:

    Darrell, a mention of the memo in question:

    Q Tony, real quick, back to the loyalty question. In that Kyle Sampson memo, he says, “The vast majority of U.S. attorneys, 80 to 85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies,” et cetera. Does the President believe that a U.S. attorney is successful if he’s a “loyal Bushie”?

    I didn;t create the perception. The administration did.

    And I am done with this thread. Tired of listening to Darrel spew nonsense he knows is not true, tired of you all feeding him, and tired of you all whining because I won’t ban someone you are too stupid to ignore.

  189. 189
    DougJ says:

    You would think by now that most of you would realize the thing that irritates me most is being told what to do.

    I’m not telling you what to do. I’m just saying that, philosophically, I oppose banning him from this blog.

    Why can’t people just ignore him? Or get him to agree with made-up spoofs who spout nonsense? I wonder if he knows how many times I’ve done this to him.

    On the blog that I write for, I ban everyone who says something that annoys me, but I think that what makes this blog good is the crazy, free-wheeling comments section.

    First they came for the right-wing nut jobs, but I said nothing because I was not a right-wing job…

  190. 190
    Darrell says:

    Ok thanks for the cite, but let’s be clear that this memo in no way can be considered the “stated reason” by “the administration” as to why those 8 attorneys were fired. Loyalty is of course one concern of every administration, not just the Bush admin, but not the only concern. And as Snow elaborated, part of ‘being loyal’ to President Bush is the obligation to do their job, not just skate on their political good graces without serving the public.

    We’re loyal to the president in that sense. But the president’s charge to each one of us is to do our jobs — to do our jobs, to perform the public trust.

    That also means to follow the principles and the priorities of the administration.

    Nothing unusual there compared to any other administration in modern history for those who aren’t already predisposed to read sinisters motives where none exist.

    Here’s more evidence to suggest that at least some the firings might be a wee bit more than insufficient “lackey” enthusiasm to suck up to DarthBush, no matter how well that caricature may fit the narrative of most here at BJ. From Patterico’s blog

    Everyone is still missing a critical point about Lam, and I’ve posted a much longer version of this in another thread on this subject.

    Lam was appointed US Attorney in San Diego by happenstance. She’s a registered Independent. She was a compromise choice between the WH and Senator Boxer that happened during the period between Jeffords defecting to the Dems and the GOP retaking the Senate in 2002. Boxer and Feinstein demanded unprecedented input on the nominations of US Attorneys and District Judges because of the outcome of the 2000 election, and because of the shift in Congress.

    Lam was seen as non-political, was a former AUSA who enjoyed the support of the federal law enforcement community (FBI and DEA), and the SDCA judiciary. She had been an AUSA in the SDCA for 14 years, and had been Chief of the Major Frauds section, so she knew the office and the personnel.

    But, in 2000 she was appointed by California DEMOCRAT Governor Gray Davis to be a Superior Court Judge in San Diego.

    So, who thinks Carol Lam was the pick of the WH for the SDCA US Attorney’s job?

    Her grasp on the position was always tenuous. Her de-emphasizing border prosecutions — both immigration and drug smuggling — when the SDCA gets a huge budget to prosecute those cases, got her behind the 8-Ball, and led to her firing.

  191. 191
    Darrell says:

    And I am done with this thread. Tired of listening to Darrel spew nonsense he knows is not true,

    Asshole, you’re accusing me of being a liar. What “nonsense” have I spewed that I “know” is not true? Of course you’re “done”, because you can’t answer or substantiate your smear, so you’ll run with tail between your legs after calling me a liar without basis. Such priniciple.

  192. 192
    DougJ says:

    I’d also like to know this, though: why does anyone bother replying to Darrell? He’s a complete idiot, incapable of reason and logic to a large detree, and operating from severely flawed premises to boot. That said, he’s a good sport sometimes and I don’t dislike him. I just don’t see the point in attempting to reason with him.

    What’s the old saying? Never teach a wingnut to think. It wastes your time and annoys the wingnut.

  193. 193
    Darrell says:

    Why can’t people just ignore him? Or get him to agree with made-up spoofs who spout nonsense? I wonder if he knows how many times I’ve done this to him

    Doug, you’re too much of a simpleton to have ever suckered me into agreeing with a spoof of yours, unless I was agreeing with an entirely reasonable point made by the spoof.

    Please cite where you have ever “fooled” me. Let’s see the examples.

  194. 194
    ThymeZone says:

    tired of you all feeding him,

    That is just so ludicrous a suggestion that I have to question whether you are even being honest with us at this point. Just nuts. And in two years, the one thing I have steadfastly supported you for is honesty,through thick and thin even during our most heated disagreements, so I don’t take this lightly.

    But that is just crap. The idea that you sit there and let this lying, ankle-biting piece of crap make life miserable for your commentariat and then bitch at US about how we handle him is just the shittiest thing I have ever seen you do here, as I said earlier …. and now reiterate.

    That is just pure bullshit.

    If you don’t like us “feeding” him then obviously YOU don’t think he is doing a good thing here. So why the hell don’t YOU do something about it?

  195. 195
    ThymeZone says:

    most of you would realize the thing that irritates me most is being told what to do.

    Yeah, like we can “tell you” what to do. More like begging you to do something, actually, which you should do without having to be begged.

    Nobody here can “tell” you what to do. Fucking-A, this is about you showing off your mighty blogowner power?

    Gee, thanks so much. That warms the heart of all the dozens of people who have supported this place through your political journey the last two years, really. Very nice touch. What’s next, sugar in our gas tanks?

  196. 196
    demimondian says:

    Off-topic (as if there was such a thing): I find the discussion in this thread interesting because it illustrates the different ways that people think of a blog. How public a space should it be? How loose or restrictive should rules be to foster discussion? What counts as reasonable discussion? What role should the blog owners play? What causes people to stay or leave? [/pointless meta]

    It’s arguably the only interesting thing in a thread like this. It’s a classic communitarian dilemma: if someone’s dog shits on other people’s front lawns, what’s the right response? Shooting the dog certainly seems excessive, after all. I’d actually like to see a thread on that (hint, hint, John), not because I want to see the policy here reevaluated, but because i think that’s a genuinely interesting question.

  197. 197
    ThymeZone says:

    Shooting the dog certainly seems excessive

    Great analogy, since nobody has ever suggesting anyone shooting anything or anybody.

    Somewhere short of shooting is moderation, which is what all Usenet groups end up doing unless they want to be taken over by the crazy people like Darrell. That’s why they HAVE moderation …. because of the Darrells.

    So let’s not start equating moderation with shooting, or censorship. Darrell and I have both already been banned, and looky looky! NOBODY DIED. Whaddya fuckin know?

  198. 198
    Darrell says:

    But that is just crap. The idea that you sit there and let this lying, ankle-biting piece of crap make life miserable for your commentariat and then bitch at US about how we handle him is just the shittiest thing I have ever seen you do here

    Listen up you wrinkled scumbag, John Cole has spelled it out for you, telling you that if this isn’t the blog for you, then f*cking leave.. sooner rather than later.

    You now have to decide whether you can learn to ignore him, or if this site just isn’t what you want from a website. And I would appreciate it if you would quit lashing out at me, because I am getting a little tired of it.

    Don’t like it? Leave, and take all your righteous volcanic rage with you. I’m sure other sites would welcome an “asset” like you TZ.

  199. 199
    ThymeZone says:

    John Cole has spelled it out for you, telling you that if this isn’t the blog for you, then f*cking leave.. sooner rather than later.

    Listen, fuckstain, that is true of every poster on every blog every day. I don’t need a lesson from you on how this works.

    This is the blog for me, and a lot of people, except for the fact that John allows this fuckhead to post here every day whose only intent is to fuck it up for everyone else. That of course would be you. If that’s what he wants to do, to prove what a stubborn tough guy he is, fine.

    And I will be right here to tell him and you just how shitty and stupid that is. And if you don’t like it, you and he can both shove it up your asses.

  200. 200
    Richard 23 says:

    Silence does not give tacit assent

    Liar! Sorry I couldn’t let that one pass, you dishonest halfwit.

  201. 201
    ThymeZone says:

    Don’t like it? Leave, and take all your righteous volcanic rage with you. I’m sure other sites would welcome an “asset” like you TZ.

    Feelin pretty high and mighty now, aren’t you Darrell?

    John, a guy you treat with nothing but disdain, is your new friend, apparently because he is the sheriff “too tough to be pushed around.”

    What a fucking joke. Meanwhile, he bitches at me for giving him about 5% of the crap you give everyone here every fucking day day in and day out.

    You and Cole deserve each other, Darrell. You have no respect for the guy, if your recent posts are any indication, and he kisses your ass. Really, I know now why both of you are Republicans.

  202. 202
    Darrell says:
    John Cole has spelled it out for you, telling you that if this isn’t the blog for you, then f*cking leave.. sooner rather than later.

    Listen, fuckstain, that is true of every poster on every blog every day.

    Yeah, but he and Tim wrote posts today to specifically address you and your psychotic episodes. And what was spelled out for you specifically, is that if you don’t like it here, you f*cking leave now.

    You can be certain that your non-stop volcanic rage won’t be missed, which was why posts today were addressing you specifically, to remind you of that.

  203. 203
    demimondian says:

    Sorry I couldn’t let that one pass, you dishonest halfwit.

    Richard, you know that I don’t have words to express how much your attention means to me. I am genuinely feeling whatever flavor of gratitude I feel when you turn your attention to my feeble productivity and comment upon it.

    Now, listen, being forced to feel this level of gratitude is really hard for me to bear. I don’t suppose you could pay me no attention for a while? It’d be a real kindness…

  204. 204
    Darrell says:

    You and Cole deserve each other, Darrell. You have no respect for the guy, if your recent posts are any indication, and he kisses your ass.

    Well sure, if by “kissing my ass” you mean he repeatedly calls me an idiot and a liar.

  205. 205
    Tsulagi says:

    Asshole, you’re accusing me of being a liar. What “nonsense” have I spewed that I “know” is not true? Of course you’re “done”, because you can’t answer or substantiate your smear…blah, blah, blah.

    What a stupid little dweeb.

    While as I mentioned I’m not for bans, if you did consider modifying your policy, here’s a suggestion. Limit some to 10, 15, 20, or whatever number of comments on a thread. Plenty in which to state your position, rebut some, and even get in a little snark. Maybe Darrell’s shit wouldn’t be so tarded if it were constrained a little.

    While it can be funny, the Darrell and TZ show often gets tiresome. Once it ramps up, I generally just pass by. TZ supplies the lube and Darrell furiously whacks off with it. Don’t need to see that.

  206. 206
    ThymeZone says:

    Yeah, but he and Tim wrote posts today to specifically address you and your psychotic episodes

    They wrote lame defenses of their foolish decision to let you post here, Darrell, and I responded to them and pretty much made mincemeat of their stupid arguments.

    Their entire argument boils down to one item:

    They think you should post here, and if I don’t like it, too bad.

    It’s a ludcicrous thing for them to do on many levels. First of all, they are wrong about you posting here. You suck. You drag every thread down to the moronic “all lefties are poopyheads” level of discourse. You lie. You weasel. You won’t make actual arguments. You’re a turd.

    They don’t like you any more than anyone else around here does, and to cover up for their stupid decision to let you post, they are going to try to deflect attention to me because I have the fucking audacity to call them on this absurd shit. They want to pretend that I’m the issue.

    I’m not the fucking issue, you are the issue, and their stupid decision to let you fuck up every thread every day is the issue. That decision is crap, and you are crap, and I am going to say so whenever I feel like it.

  207. 207
    ThymeZone says:

    Well sure, if by “kissing my ass” you mean he repeatedly calls me an idiot and a liar.

    Well that’s my point, Darrell. He does, and you basically do the same to him.

    So tell me, how exactly does that little lovefest help this blog in any way? Considering that that’s the same treatment you give EVERYBODY here every frigging day?

  208. 208
    Darrell says:

    They wrote lame defenses of their foolish decision to let you post here, Darrell, and I responded to them and pretty much made mincemeat of their stupid arguments.

    Ah yes, your erudite arguments made “mincemeat” out of them. Here is an example of the eloquent beatdown that you put on John and Tim

    You have a bunch of people out here who are a lot tireder of Darrell, and you are one who is responsible, and so therefore, tough shit.

    That’s my opinion, I am right about it, you are wrong

    BWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA! Yeah dumbass, you really made “mincemeat” out of them with your unassailable logic, didn’t you? I mean, the only reason they don’t reply is that you put the beatdown on their arguments so decisively they are rendered speechless by your brilliant argument. Sad thing, is you believe that’s the case.

  209. 209
    Richard 23 says:

    My, it’s getting hot in here. “Hot air” indeed.

  210. 210
    ThymeZone says:

    I mean, the only reason they don’t reply is that you put the beatdown on their arguments so decisively they are rendered speechless by your brilliant argument

    Heh, what you don’t get, and have never gotten, Darrell, is that these are contests of arguments.

    Mine is not brilliant, it’s pretty simple and any gradeschooler could pull it off. What’s relevant is the contrast with THEIR arguments. Their argument is, you’re an idiot, they don’t like you, but they have decided to let you post, and therefore, if we hate it and bitch about, we’re bad.

    Yeah, well I don’t buy that argument. Mine is that I’m not bad for bitching about it, I’m doing what any sensible person would do when, as demi puts it, the neighbor’s dog keeps shitting on the lawn. I’m complaining to the neighbor, and suggesting he do something about it.

    That’s it, the entire crux of the matter. You, of course, are the dog that shits on the lawn.

    Like I said Darrell, any time you want to agree to a simple democratic vote, you versus me, loser goes away, just say the word, we’ll take the vote, and we can all go on with our lives.

    What are you afraid of? Rather than stand up and agree to this simple and fair solution, you hide behind the skirts of John and Tim and act like mister bigshot.

    Very impressive.

  211. 211
    Jonathan says:

    Hi Darrell,

    Thought I’d drop in for a bit and see how things are going over here at Balloon-Juice. About the same as the last time I was here as far as I can tell.

    Did you know that it was GW Bush’s cousin, John Ellis, who led the Fox News team which first called Florida for Bush?

    http://archives.cnn.com/2000/A.....cutive.ap/

    Fox executive spoke five times with cousin Bush on Election Night

    December 12, 2000
    Web posted at: 9:24 AM EST (1424 GMT)

    NEW YORK (AP) — The head of Fox’s projection team said he spoke five times with his cousin, George W. Bush, on election night but insists he did not give out confidential exit poll information. Bush got that information elsewhere, he said.

    John Ellis, an election night consultant for Fox, was hired by Inside.com to write an account of what happened that night; it was posted on the Web site Monday. Ellis is becoming a regular columnist for the online publication’s new magazine, Inside.

    Publicity about his relationship to Bush has proved an embarrassment to Fox, whose executives were angry with him Monday for writing about it. The network is still investigating whether Ellis, who was working on a temporary contract, provided the Bush campaign with insider data.

    Fox was criticized for having a Bush cousin as director of its team responsible for projecting the presidential race. The network, and Ellis, said an executive above Ellis had the final say on whether a state was called.

    More:

    Bush was the first one to take the battle over the Florida recount to court.

    http://www.covenantnews.com/nov12.htm

    Nov 12, 2000

    Bush Goes to Court To Halt Recount
    By David Espo / The Associated Press
    George W. Bush’s campaign went to federal court in Florida on Saturday, determined to block Democrat requests for hand recounts of votes of portions of the state that holds the key to the 2000 presidential election. Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III said the Republicans had acted “to preserve the integrity and the consistency and the equality and finality” of Tuesday’s close vote between the Texas governor and Vice President Al Gore. The suit was filed in Miami. “It is brought reluctantly because the election of the president is properly left to the people, not the courts,” it said in part. “But it is necessary because the current course of events threatens to undermine the democratic process.” It was not clear when he spoke whether officials in Palm Beach and Volusia counties had yet begun the partial hand recount they agreed earlier to undertake. Baker insisted that a manual recount would be more susceptible to error than a machine tally. “Machines are neither Republicans nor Democrats and therefore can be neither consciously or unconsciously biased,” he said.

    More:

    And also I thought you might like to respond to this piece by Vincent Bugliosi, he is the guy who prosecuted Charles Manson and no legal lightweight.

    http://www.lightparty.com/Misc.....eason.html

    None Dare Call It Treason
    by Vincent Bugliosi

    In the December 12 ruling by the US Supreme Court handing the election to George Bush, the Court committed the unpardonable sin of being a knowing surrogate for the Republican Party instead of being an impartial arbiter of the law. If you doubt this, try to imagine Al Gore’s and George Bush’s roles being reversed and ask yourself if you can conceive of Justice Antonin Scalia and his four conservative brethren issuing an emergency order on December 9 stopping the counting of ballots (at a time when Gore’s lead had shrunk to 154 votes) on the grounds that if it continued, Gore could suffer “irreparable harm,” and then subsequently, on December 12, bequeathing the election to Gore on equal protection grounds.

    If you can, then I suppose you can also imagine seeing a man jumping away from his own shadow, Frenchmen no longer drinking wine. From the beginning, Bush desperately sought, as it were, to prevent the opening of the door, the looking into the box–unmistakable signs that he feared the truth. In a nation that prides itself on openness, instead of the Supreme Court doing everything within its power to find a legal way to open the door and box, they did the precise opposite in grasping, stretching and searching mightily for a way, any way at all, to aid their choice for President, Bush, in the suppression of the truth, finally settling, in their judicial coup d’état, on the untenable argument that there was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause–the Court asserting that because of the various standards of determining the voter’s intent in the Florida counties, voters were treated unequally, since a vote disqualified in one county (the so-called undervotes, which the voting machines did not pick up) may have been counted in another county, and vice versa. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court’s order that the undervotes be counted, effectively delivering the presidency to Bush.

    Now, in the equal protection cases I’ve seen, the aggrieved party, the one who is being harmed and discriminated against, almost invariably brings the action. But no Florida voter I’m aware of brought any action under the equal protection clause claiming he was disfranchised because of the different standards being employed. What happened here is that Bush leaped in and tried to profit from a hypothetical wrong inflicted on someone else. Even assuming Bush had this right, the very core of his petition to the Court was that he himself would be harmed by these different standards.

    But would he have? If we’re to be governed by common sense, the answer is no. The reason is that just as with flipping a coin you end up in rather short order with as many heads as tails, there would be a “wash” here for both sides, i.e., there would be just as many Bush as Gore votes that would be counted in one county yet disqualified in the next. (Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument,! that the wash wouldn’t end up exactly, 100 percent even, we’d still be dealing with the rule of de minimis non curat lex–the law does not concern itself with trifling matters.) So what harm to Bush was the Court so passionately trying to prevent by its ruling other than the real one: that he would be harmed by the truth as elicited from a full counting of the undervotes?

    Much more:

  212. 212
    Darrell says:

    as demi puts it, the neighbor’s dog keeps shitting on the lawn. I’m complaining to the neighbor, and suggesting he do something about it.

    Except that, as John Cole has noted, you yourself are king of the shit.. by a wide margin.

    John Cole Says:

    I was unaware I was yelling at anyone, but if you want to go through and count the hysterical outbursts in this thread over nothing, you would have the edge on Darrell by a wide margin.

    Congratulations TZ you depraved scumbag. No one comes close to your record of trollish shitting on threads, not by a longshot. Like JC said, if you don’t like it here, leave… sooner rather than later.

  213. 213
    DougJ says:

    Please cite where you have ever “fooled” me.

    You agreed with Jimmy Mack.

  214. 214
    ThymeZone says:

    Congratulations TZ you depraved scumbag. No one comes close to your record of trollish shitting on threads

    Would you like to put that to a vote, Darrell? Go ahead, I double dog fucking dare you. Go for it. For once in your miserable little life, stand up for something.

    And how many people here have you called a “scumbag” the last two years? Why can’t you post to a thread without announcing that everyone else is a “scumbag?”

    What exactly do you think is the legacy of a guy who refers to everyone else here as “scum” for two years and then wants to hide between John’s legs and stick his tongue out at me for calling you on your shit?

  215. 215
    Darrell says:

    You agreed with Jimmy Mack.

    Jimmy Mack has written some reasonable things as well as some kooky shit. What specifically, did I agree with him on?

    Also, you stated that you had not done any spoofs post-Katrina. I guess you lied your f*cking ass off when you posted that today, huh?

  216. 216
    DougJ says:

    I think there are others too. Truthfully, I don’t really keep track, but you and Mac/EEEL agreeing with Jimmy Mack was especially memorable.

  217. 217
    DougJ says:

    Also, you stated that you had not done any spoofs post-Katrina.

    I didn’t do any spoofs _during_ Katrina.

  218. 218
    ThymeZone says:

    as John Cole has noted, you yourself are king of the shit..

    John is full of shit. I attack you about once every week or two, in full regalia. You shit on every poster here every fucking day. You shit on John and Tim at every turn. I do not, except on the subject of you.

    John is doing what he always does, resorting to a rhetorical beatdown when he is annoyed or somebody is showing him up. I’ve responded to his nonsense and you’ll notice that he didn’t stick around to argue the points, he has no argument. His argument is, My Blog So Fuck You.

    That’s it. And yours is, He Wont Ban Me So Fuck You.

    Those are both very honorable and impressive lines of dialogue, I commend you both, fine Republicans that you are. It reminds me of We Won Get Over It.

    Meanwhile, my argument is Darrell Sucks Get Rid of Him For Crissake.

    My argument is the winning strategy, no matter what happens, because you do absolutely suck in every possible way. There ain’t no argument for that, pal.

  219. 219
    Darrell says:
    Congratulations TZ you depraved scumbag. No one comes close to your record of trollish shitting on threads

    Would you like to put that to a vote, Darrell?

    No need to put it to a moonbat vote, as John cole has already pointed out that it’s an obvious fact. You have shit on more threads with troll-like behavior “by a wide margin” to use his words, than anyone else here. Congratulations lowlife, I’m sure you’ll consider it a badge of honor.

  220. 220
    Darrell says:

    I didn’t do any spoofs during Katrina.

    Ok, I stand corrected on that pt.

  221. 221
    ThymeZone says:

    You have shit on more threads with troll-like behavior “by a wide margin” to use his words

    Well, I am not using his fucking words, they’re bullshit.

    The charge can’t be supported with any facts whatever.

    I shit on more threads that you do? Produce the evidence to support the claim, shitface.

    Better yet, tell your lying buddy Cole to produce it.

    Go ahead, ask him to produce it. I dare you.

  222. 222
    Darrell says:

    John is full of shit. I attack you about once every week or two, in full regalia.

    That’s a demonstrable lie. Even on threads where I don’t even post you attack me, dragging down the thread with your trollish shit. Every day, even on days I don’t post you attack me, not “once every week or two” you lying sack of shit. Incredible what a f*cking liar you are. Perhaps in your delusions, it is only once every week or two, but to everyone else, the reality is

    John Cole Says:

    I was unaware I was yelling at anyone, but if you want to go through and count the hysterical outbursts in this thread over nothing, you would have the edge on Darrell by a wide margin.

    Congrats you filthy lowlife. You’re #1 troll by a wide margin

  223. 223
    jake says:

    You’re damn right, and as JCole’s agent I’m here to say…

    Tired of listening to Darrel spew nonsense he knows is not true, tired of you all feeding him, and tired of you all whining because I won’t ban someone you are too stupid to ignore.

    Looks like John’s gone git him a new agent. Where’s Jimmy Mack?

  224. 224
    Darrell says:

    Better yet, tell your lying buddy Cole to produce it.

    Go ahead, ask him to produce it. I dare you.

    Nah, cause he’d probably just lie about it because he’s a “liar”.. My ‘lying buddy’ is what you told us, right?

  225. 225
    Evilbeard says:

    Darrell always sounds so dishonest, as if even he doesn’t believe the crap he spews.

    Wasn’t there some mod that turned every Darrell post into “I plike Pie” or something like that?

  226. 226
    ThymeZone says:

    Even on threads where I don’t even post you attack me

    Sure, that’s happened. Meanwhile you are here every fucking day and night declaring virtually the entire BJ commentariat and John and Tim to be scum,and extremists, to use tow of your favorite terms, at every turn, on every thread you touch. If you took every ad hominem made by every other poster here and combined them, you couldn’t equal your record for shitting on anything that moves. I am not even the same ballpark with you and neither is anyone else here. You know and everyone here knows it.

    If Cole doesn’t know it, then fuck him, he is more unaware of what goes on here than I thought, which isn’t surprising.

    Who is the one guy who can be depended on to shit on every poster and every opinion on this blog that doesn’t agree with your stupid, bigoted rightwing viewpoint? You.

    Always you. Day in and day out, you. Every topic, you. Every subject, every question, every issue, you.

  227. 227
    Evilbeard says:

    Hey Darrell work on your reading comprehension. Cole said “in this thread” not the entire blog.

  228. 228
    garyb50 says:

    Darrell Says: “Well sure, if by “kissing my ass” you mean he repeatedly calls me an idiot and a liar.”

    I’m still chuckling. Great line.

  229. 229
    Andrew J. Lazarus says:

    Let me see if I understand this. Carol Lam was good-to-fire because she was an independent and thoroughly-experienced prosecutor. We aren’t going to mention the extremely successful prosecution of Randy Cunningham, and the ongoing corruption probe that’s sucked up Foggo and threatens another Republican Congressman. I mean, what sort of US Atty would concentrate on public integrity instead of ferreting out Mexican busboys without papers?

    The problem with Darrell is this uncomfortable feeling that 60 years ago he would have been explaining that the Jews all had typhus, and that was the only reason they had to be sent to camps (just like the government said). His robotic, lobotomized repetition of idiocies makes me afraid.

  230. 230
    Darrell says:

    John is full of shit. I attack you about once every week or two, in full regalia.

    Despite the fact that you attack me nonstop virtually every day, not once every 2 weeks, even on threads where I don’t even post, I think the “full regalia” comment is telling.

    You see, TZ sees himself as a noble ‘truth warrior’ willing to don his “regalia” to battle me. He is the brave and noble reality-based warrior, who has the courage to confront me in the noble struggle of righteousness. It’s TZ versus ‘Evil Fuckstain’. And TZ must win.. at all costs. Even if he has to make 350 blog posts in 24 hours. Whatever it takes to defeat enemy. including No-doze. TZ will have his name etched into history as a noble regalia-wearing blogwarrior whose valiant attempts to defeat Evil in the righteous blog struggle made him a legend.. in his own mind.

    You know what? TZ is such a headcase, I wouldn’t be surprised if he wears his “regalia” at home whenever he confronts me, donning his with flea market general’s helmet, masonic uniform, sash and army surplus store-purchased medals.. only then is he ready to ‘do battle’

  231. 231
    Evilbeard says:

    Let’s not forget that the US Attorney in Los Angeles Debra Wong, who was working on the investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), quit the job to take $1.5 million offer to join the law firm representing Rep. Lewis.

    Nope, that’s not suspicious at all.

  232. 232
    Darrell says:

    Andrew Lazarus, if true, I suspect this led to the firing of Lam

    Her de-emphasizing border prosecutions — both immigration and drug smuggling — when the SDCA gets a huge budget to prosecute those cases, got her behind the 8-Ball, and led to her firing.

    And of course when you don’t have facts or logic on your side, hey, accuse your opponent of being a Jew hating anti-semite for added dramatic effect

    The problem with Darrell is this uncomfortable feeling that 60 years ago he would have been explaining that the Jews all had typhus, and that was the only reason they had to be sent to camps

    Brilliant Andrew!

  233. 233
    ThymeZone says:

    Despite the fact that you attack me nonstop virtually every day

    How many times in the last month, Darrell?

    And how many times in that month have you gone after any all “lefty” posters here?

    Get the numbers, Darrell. Seriously, count them up.

  234. 234
    ThymeZone says:

    He is the brave and noble reality-based warrior,

    Always puffing yourself up, asshole. It’s just you that I detest, you and your shitty lies, you and your “lefty scum” putdowns at every turn.

    And of course, the intellectual pygmy argument/policy here which apparently is this:

    We have open comments here! Anyone, even this Darrell Guy who we all hate, can post. Except you, TZ, for saying that Darrell shouldn’t post here. You should shut up.

    Is that a pretty good explanation of the stated policy? Did I miss anything?

    See,it’s open, unless you disagree with the proprietors, and then you should just shut the fuck up.

    Get it? Oh, except for Darrell, who can call the proprietors “extremists” but he’s okay, because he doesn’t criticize our token Negro, I mean, Righty.

  235. 235
    Pb says:

    DougJ,

    But you were totally right about Socksgate!

  236. 236
    RSA says:

    From the San Diego Union Tribune

    Concern about Lam’s prosecution rates came to Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s attention last summer, when Border Patrol agents complained that despite their high border apprehension rates, Lam prosecuted few such cases. In a June letter to the Justice Department, Feinstein, D-Calif., asked for Lam’s prosecution figures.

    Feinstein received a reply in August from William E. Moschella, an assistant attorney general in the Justice Department, who wrote that his office was satisfied with Lam’s performance. He explained that Lam devoted “substantial resources” to prosecute cases involving immigration violations, human smuggling and border corruption – focusing on criminals who posed serious threats to the community and national security.

    That is, the Justice Department was satisfied with Lam’s performance less than six months ago, specifically in the area of border prosecutions. That kind of statement has a lot more credibility than Patterico’s.

  237. 237
    Darrell says:

    We have open comments here! Anyone, even this Darrell Guy who we all hate, can post. Except you, TZ, for saying that Darrell shouldn’t post here. You should shut up.

    Is that a pretty good explanation of the stated policy? Did I miss anything?

    It’s more like, they don’t like that you queer every thread with your 20+ post obsessed harangues on Darrell, even on threads where I never post.. so try and keep a lid on your mental illness.

  238. 238
    Darrell says:

    That is, the Justice Department was satisfied with Lam’s performance less than six months ago

    Thanks for the link RSA, but it’s a lie to assert the entire Justice Dept. was satisfied when only one JD representative gave her high marks… and even those high marks were for trying, not for her results, which look pretty dismal:

    Sessions also pointed out that from fiscal 2002 through 2006, Lam’s office prosecuted an average of 1,711 immigration cases a year, which he said hit a low of 1,411 prosecutions in 2006. During that year, 4,132 immigration cases were prosecuted in the Southern District of Texas, 2,669 in the Western District of Texas, 2,193 in the District of Arizona and 1,361 in the District of New Mexico.

    and more

    From fiscal 2002 through 2006, Lam’s office sentenced 88 people for firearms crimes, according to figures the Justice Department provided Sessions. Those numbers track closely with figures from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, an independent agency under the federal judiciary system. The commission defines firearms violations as illegal possession, transportation or trafficking of firearms or their use during a felony.

    During the same period, 946 people were sentenced for the same crimes in the Southern District of Texas, 894 in the Western District of Texas, 897 in the District of Arizona, 437 in the District of New Mexico and 439 in the Southern District of Alabama, where Sessions was U.S. attorney for 12 years and which he contends had one-fifth of Lam’s resources.

    But she was fired because she didn’t lick Bush’s boots clean enough according to moonbat-logic here on this site.

  239. 239
    ThymeZone says:

    they don’t like that you queer every thread with your 20+ pos

    I don’t post to every thread, nor average anywhere near 20 posts per thread on any topic, let alone you as the topic.

    Can’t you make a post without pulling shit out of your ass, you lying fuck?

    Count up your posts and my posts in the last month and let me know what you find out, Darrell.

    No, my description of the goofy, commenter-unfriendly policy here is, “Anyone can post, even if all they are doing is insulting every other poster. But if you insult Darrell, or dare to disagree with our policy, we’ll tell you to shut up.”

    Which part of that did I get wrong?

  240. 240
    Darrell says:

    You gotta give RSA kudos. He’s a hard left liberal, but he does present relevant facts and argument, which is more than the other 95% lefty commentariot here can say.

    My gripe with RSA is that he seems to use facts to justify a predetermined conclusion rather than seach for the truth. I could be wrong about that, but that’s what it appears.

  241. 241
    Darrell says:

    Can’t you make a post without pulling shit out of your ass, you lying fuck?

    TZ, take off your second-hand general’s helmet when posting, it’s cutting off circulation.

  242. 242
    ThymeZone says:

    TZ, take off your second-hand general’s helmet when posting, it’s cutting off circulation.

    Sorry, we have open comments here, so I am not allowed to tell you to go fuck yourself.

    And where are the numbers to support your assertion, you pile of feces? Or did you make them up as usual?

  243. 243
    Jonathan says:

    Darrell,

    Now we know how you think TZ sees himself, how do *you* see *yourself*?

    The thing I like about Balloon Juice is that they don’t ban people for simply disagreeing.

    The thing that keeps me away from Balloon Juice is the low signal to noise ratio caused by people attacking each other, often in the crudest terms possible. It gets really tiresome to wade through fifteen posts of you and TZ attacking each other in order to get to an intelligent and cogent comment.

    I can’t say that I particularly like moderated boards, the moderation is often too biased, but at least they are readable most of the time.

    I do get the impression that a few here simply enjoy hating and get a real kick out of venting spleen.

  244. 244
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    Darrell Says:

    Baaa mooo baaaa quack moooo oink. Moooo cluck baaaa chirp baaa moo quack!

    Who needs “I like pie” when I see this in every single one of Darrell’s posts. Since I have been here, he has not drawn me in to a so-called discussion on any issue. Not a single one. Why? Because he is not worth even responding to. He deliberately stirs up dissent, feeds it with stuff that is so stupid that you know that even he does not believe it, then he stands back to let everyone else do the stirring. Probably laughing all of the while. People like him lead such miserable lives that all they have to do with themselves is come to places like this and crap all over the place for their own amusement. Their whole life is behind a keyboard because in real life they are miserable people who have few, if any, friends. The only time they step away from the keyboard is when their Mom calls yells down the stairs that dinner is ready.

    Now if you did what I did, indirectly address him without engaging him in any productive conversation (well, that would be an impossibility anyway), he would get frustrated because you are not validating his existence. Then you can just stand back and watch how he will say even more outrageous things to try to draw someone into his game. One day, he will come to the realization that he is no longer the center of the universe here, and he will probably move on. But not until he has completely exhausted his welcome.

    Actually, if you ignored his persona Darrell, he would just come back in with another one and start up with that one. I learned a long time ago to know the difference between someone saying something worth commenting on, and something someone is saying because they are crying for attention. With that knowledge, I respond to posts that are sincere, and everything else gets caught up in my barnyard filter.

    I am a free speech nut, and I admire the fact that John and Tim are not banning Darrell. Freedom of speech works in two ways people. You can choose to listen or not. You can choose to respond or not. You can see when someone says something worth responding to, and when they are screaming to be the center of the universe. The power is in your hands.

    If someone who does not know of the village idiot responds to him, rather than addressing the idiot just point out that engaging Darrell is done at your own risk. Nothing productive will come of it, and you will need to take a shower afterward. Village idiot? Yes, every village needs one and I have to admit that Darrell is a high caliber idiot.

    So rather than responding to Darrell, respond to those who do not know about the village idiot, and politely explain that in this town, there are some trolls under the bridges. But paying the toll is optional, not required.

    Do that, and sit back and watch Darrell implode… ;)

  245. 245
    ThymeZone says:

    Well, that’s a fine idea, but it doesn’t work, and has never worked anywhere that I know of.

    Darrell was here doing his shit-on-everybody routine two years ago. And you are suggesting that it would just stop if somehow you can get everyone to just “ignore” him?

    How do you propose to do that? How will you organize this boycott, and how long do you think it can last even if you can organize it?

    Darrell is a master baiter, and he knows how to get people to try to argue with him. It’s why he’s here. It’s what he does.

    Everybody talks to him, including John and Tim, and then when it goes wrong, they say “Oh just ignore him like I do.” They can’t do it either. So they’ll forget about the latest shitpile caused by Darrell, get “busy” with their jobs, pay no attention for a while, and then wonder why the commenters are arguing. What’s wrong with those darned commenters?

    We’ve seen this cycle repeated here about every 60 days for the two years I’ve been here, and it will repeat again.

    Darrell knows how to play this game, he knows he can get away with anything, he knows he never has to answer to or for anything, that he can shit on everyone here day in and day out and nothing can be done about it because it’s easier for John Cole to yell at me than to face up to the real problem … oh, and appear as if somebody told him “what do to” as if that were the fucking issue here.

    It’s a pathetic sitiation.

    Since I have been here, he has not drawn me in to a so-called discussion on any issue. Not a single one.

    That just makes you the exception that proves the rule. How do you propose to promote that behavior among three dozen people who have four dozen different views of the situation?

  246. 246
    Darrell says:

    The thing that keeps me away from Balloon Juice is the low signal to noise ratio caused by people attacking each other, often in the crudest terms possible. It gets really tiresome to wade through fifteen posts of you and TZ attacking each other in order to get to an intelligent and cogent comment.

    Except that TZ and I, as both Tim and John Cole have both noted, are not “equally” at fault. He is far more guilty “by a large margin” to quote JC.

    If you read this thread, I was debating the thread topic. Then TZ arrives, shitting on the thread with 100% pure personal attacks. He’s a pig who singled handedly ruins threads all the time. Don’t equate him with me as if we’re both more or less equally guilty.. that’s simply a lie.

  247. 247
    ThymeZone says:

    I can’t say that I particularly like moderated boards, the moderation is often too biased, but at least they are readable most of the time.

    Moderation has its own drawbacks, and on balance, unmoderated is better than moderated.

    However, unmoderated ALWAYS leads to the Darrell symdrome. So it’s a conundrum.

    One thing that really gets me today is that a lot of people want to suggest “ignoring” Darrell even though, clearly, it can’t be done. But they’ll suggest that I shut up. Apparently, I’m just too horrible to ignore, but Darrell isn’t. John and Tim tell us to ignore Darrell, then they respnd to Darrell and tell me to shut up. Because, you know, they can’t ignore me. Get it?

    Heh heh. Yeah, we get it alright.

    If you dot and oonnect the absurd logical constructs in this discussion, I think you get a picture of Bozo the Clown just laughing his ass off at this stuff.

  248. 248
    Darrell says:

    I am a free speech nut, and I admire the fact that John and Tim are not banning Darrell.

    Do you similarly admire the fact that they are not banning TZ, whom John cole has stated is worse “by a large margin”. Or since TZ is on your side, you simply overlook his deranged profanity laden postings?

  249. 249
    ThymeZone says:

    If you read this thread, I was debating the thread topic. Then TZ arrives, shitting on the thread with 100% pure personal attacks. He’s a pig who singled handedly ruins threads all the time. Don’t equate him with me as if we’re both more or less equally guilty.. that’s simply a lie.

    That’s why you have run away from my suggestion to have a vote, you or me, off the island, for …what? Six months now?

    What are you afraid of, Darrell? Put your balls where your big mouth is. Not by licking yourself like the dog you are, by standing up and taking roll.

    What are you afraid of?

  250. 250
    Darrell says:

    That’s why you have run away from my suggestion to have a vote, you or me, off the island, for …what? Six months now?

    Why do we need a moonbat vote count when both TimF and John Cole already stated the obvious – that you are worse troll by a “large margin”. It’s worse that than, because you don’t even try to have a discussion, you just launch into a mentally deranged profanity laden personal vendetta. You are mentally ill. It’s a shame that you’re allowed to vent your mental illness to ruin so many threads

  251. 251
    ThymeZone says:

    I am a free speech nut

    Free speech is somebody who shows up here every fucking day with “You are all lefty dishonest scum?”

    That’s free speech?

    But telling that asshole to Shut The Fuck Up, that isn’t free speech?

    Little help here. Anybody?

    “Ignore Darrell, even though I can’t, he’s an idiot and a troll …. but you? You have to shut up, you’re annoying.”

    Somebody parse this for me, please?

  252. 252
    ThymeZone says:

    You are mentally ill.

    So, how does that explain why you are afraid of the vote?

    You ran away from it six months ago. What was your excuse then? Three months ago? Two months ago? Last month?

    What’s your problem Darrell, you can’t beat a mentally ill guy in a straight-up vote?

  253. 253
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    ThymeZone Says:

    That just makes you the exception that proves the rule. How do you propose to promote that behavior among three dozen people who have four dozen different views of the situation?

    By saying what I did. And hoping others can see the same thing. But that is up to them, not me. I am only pointing out the obvious. I run a forum (game, not political), and I have people like Darrell come in every once in a while. They do not last long because the regulars on our forum do what I say above. They boycott the idiot completely, and save every person they can from engaging the idiot in conversation (or what passes for conversation to the idiot). When the trolls realize that they are not working, they move on. I had a couple of them return using a new persona (I can check IP address on the admin side of things), and I exposed them and banned the personas. But I did not ban their original persona. They left anyway. Why? The party was over.

    If anything, Tim and John should limit the persona to one per IP address. Or limit the posting to five per day. If they can’t do that, then compare the troublemakers IP to all other posters to see if someone is spoofing themselves. For all I know, I could be talking to Darrell’s alter ego when conversing with you. Please do not be offended, as that is not my intent. I am only pointing out the realities of online communication.

    An example of good spoofing is that our forum has two characters I made up who are quite humorous, and nobody outside of our admins know that we are doing it. But we do it to poke fun at Bush and Cheney (the member names are Number Two and Satan), but nobody knows who they really are. A couple of our members are curious as to who they really are, and a few have even PM’d me to say that they found Satan and Number Two creepy. But these personas do not engage the members, they converse back and forth between each other, or make humorous proclamations. The members see the show, and the responses are interesting to see. But it is all done in good, clean fun, and the only ones getting bashed are Bush and Cheney (and they deserve it, IMO). So some spoofing is good… ;)

    I look at it like being at the zoo. Don’t feed the animals and they will not come up to you looking for more food. As I said, free speech works two ways. Everyone has a right to say what they want, and you have the right to decide if it is worth listening to.

    Every time you respond to Darrell, you are only validating him. Go ahead and respond about Darrell, but not to Darrell. You will have more fun, I guarantee it. ;)

  254. 254
    ThymeZone says:

    So look what you got yourself now, John. A Darrell who struts around and uses your words to defend himself, dance, sing “It’s my birthday, you can’t touch me,” and generally continue to shit on you and everyone here like some bigshot with a new contract.

    Isn’t that great? How long now before you come along and try to blame this on me?

    He’s all my fault, right? I’m to blame for fucking Darrell, isn’t that how this game works?

    What am I missing?

  255. 255
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    Also, just a note to say that my posting about how I handle Darrell was not directed at anyone, it is only me stating how I deal with it. I do not mean to imply that anyone is at fault for anything. I am only stating my opinion.

  256. 256
    ThymeZone says:

    They do not last long because the regulars on our forum do what I say above.

    Okay, but I still don’t see how you do that here.

    Half of the posters here are spoofs. Half of the spoofs will spoof their own spoof. This isn’t an academic forum, it’s Amateur Night at the comedy club. These folks aren’t here for discourse, they’re here mostly to do, and watch, performance art.

    How do you get this crowd to toe a line like that?

  257. 257
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    I ignore everything but what I feel are sincere posts. When people get into a hash slinging contest, I do not join in. Though I ignore insincere posting, I have no problems with pointing it out. Contrary to what was said by the blog owner, I do not view you as the problem as much as I do Darrell. But when you dance with an idiot, you are going to get your toes smashed. It is a forgone conclusion. Idiots can’t dance (or converse).

    I will respond to intelligent posts, and I ignore everything else. All I can say is that it works for me. If anything, watch to see how often Darrell tries to engage me. I can count the times he has tried on one hand, and he has not baited me into a response yet. He knows that some people can see through his BS, and he avoids them because he knows that he will never ‘win’ with them. We see him for what he is, and we will not participate in validating him. He is not worth it. But it is important to point this out to others so they can be spared the misery of engaging him in circular arguments that go nowhere. That actually can be fun to do, and it IS productive when you are able to prevent wasted conversation with him. And it frustrates him to no end.

    But my observations about him are like the weather. I can comment on it, but nothing I say to it will change anything. What else can I do? Poking fun at it is my response. Works for me anyway… :)

  258. 258
    ThymeZone says:

    But my observations about him are like the weather. I can comment on it, but nothing I say to it will change anything.

    Well, if we are to try your approach here, then how do we go about it? Or are you saying, it can be done, but not here?

  259. 259
    Richard 23 says:

    Darrell, please watch your filthy language. There may be children reading this thread. I hate it when you parade your mental illness on Balloon-Jizz.

    It reminds me of We Won Get Over It.

    Moveon.org.

  260. 260
    Darrell says:

    I will respond to intelligent posts, and I ignore everything else. All I can say is that it works for me. If anything, watch to see how often Darrell tries to engage me. I can count the times he has tried on one hand, and he has not baited me into a response yet. He knows that some people can see through his BS, and he avoids them because he knows that he will never ‘win’ with them.

    Yeah dufus, it’s not because you never post anything of substance and limit your comments to blog psychobabble nonsense.. no, it’s really because I’m “avoiding” you because I know I can never “win” against you because you see through my BS. Not another nutcase, please?

  261. 261
    jake says:

    I’m to blame for fucking Darrell,

    I always blame the booze.

    In other news, Anna Nichole Smith is still dead.

  262. 262
    Richard 23 says:

    Who needs “I like pie” when I see this in every single one of Darrell’s posts. Since I have been here, he has not drawn me in to a so-called discussion on any issue. Not a single one. Why? Because he is not worth even responding to. He deliberately stirs up dissent

    Aha, a far-left liberal wackjob against dissent, supposedly a highly revered right according to the so-called “progressives.” Darrell has successfully drawn out the Stalinists of the left. Which is most of them, as far as I can tell

  263. 263
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    IMO, it is a state of mind…

    You just have to ask yourself ‘What do I have to gain by engaging this idiot?’. The answer to that is easy. Nothing. With that in mind, it makes it easy for me to refrain from responding to them. Idiots like these put out bait that impugns others who they do not like, hoping for a bite. Then they get a thrill out of having baited you into a response.

    Does what they say bother me? Most of the time, no. Sometimes, yes. But I will not give them the satisfaction of knowing it. All that does is feed them and encourage them to continue. So when you see the dollar on the sidewalk, look at it critically. You will see that it is actually a turd, specifically designed to fool you into jumping on it. Then the prankster gets to laugh at you when you get crap all over yourself.

    A good troll can be your worst enemy, if you let it become that. People start out with good intentions of dealing with them, but invariably they get drug down to the level of the troll (after all, to deal with some things, you do have to stoop to their level), and that is not the way that person really is. So the troll then succeeds in making the good guy out to be the bad guy.

    But if you treat him as he (and his ilk) should be treated, derisively, he will be the one who loses it. I know, I have seen it happen many times. Egotistical idiots have a predictable habit of doing this. If that ego is not fed, they go insane.

    So do not validate him in engaging in conversation. If he ever says something worth responding to, do so. But be ready to pull back out of it in a heartbeat. That is because you know he will respond in a way that will bait you in. Just state the facts in any response to him, and ignore everything else. It is not easy to do, but it sure is a good way to build will power. If you can refrain from responding to bait like this, you are all the better for it.

    This is how I deal with the online life. Now if I knew Darrell in RL, i have whole ‘nother way of dealing with people like him. But that is not for polite company to hear.

    ;)

  264. 264
    ThymeZone says:

    Fine, I’ll give it a go. Nothing else has worked.

    thx.

  265. 265
    maf54 says:

    Now if I knew Darrell in RL, i have whole ‘nother way of dealing with people like him. But that is not for polite company to hear.

    I’d like to hear more about this hot boyscout injection.

  266. 266
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    One thing I like about this place is that there are some very good opinions expressed, on both sides. I am a registered independent (no party affiliation), and I am really conservatively liberal. Or liberally conservative. I am the middle of the road person that both extremes love to hate.

    I like to read what others have to say, but I filter it carefully. If nothing but barnyard noise comes through the filter, I ignore it (or laugh at it).

    Attacking others is really a non productive pursuit on the internet. Those who specialize in this know this, and they get pleasure out of making others waste their time responding to attacks, and they enjoy the pain they spread in doing what they do.

    I figure that when I post about something, if I think it is an intellectually honest argument, I will engage (if RL time permits, college ya know) someone. Not only if I agree with what they said, nor will I jump them for what they do say. I may disagree with them, but they are free to believe whatever they want to (and most of them do). So I just disagree and leave it at that. No tit-for-tat tempests in a teapot for me. Instead, I just state my position on the issue at hand, and I leave it at that. I know I will be attacked (from either extreme) by someone for saying what I do, but it just does not bother me because I expect it. I do not need a chorus of people to agree with what I say, and I can care less if anyone else can care less (or not) about anything I have to say.

    Little ol’ me can’t change the minds of those who view themselves as perpetually right, so I just don’t try. But I do like to say what is on my mind, and I am honest about it. That is what opinion is all about.

    I can tell you that I make more friends than I do enemies in the online world. On both sides of issues that each extreme are passionate about, I meet people who I agree (and disagree) with. I ignore the attackers, as they have absolutely no effect on me unless I let them. That day will be a cold one, I can tell you that.

    I have been repeatedly insulted by both sides, each one calling me a supporter of the other. I have been praised by both sides too. But in the end, it makes not a whit of a difference to me. I just don’t feel the need to be right all of the time.

    I already know I am… ;)

  267. 267
    Baby Jane says:

    TZ has an angel.

    commissar wrote:

    All,

    Darrell’s banned. His comment can stand.

    Posted 18 Mar 2007 at 2:53 pm ¶

  268. 268
    Richard 23 says:

    Is ConservativelyLiberal a kinder gentler Al Mavia (or whatever his name was)?

    You decide.

  269. 269
    Temple Stark says:

    I’m generally in the jonathan camp on this.

    What blog owners never seem to understand is people who comment are readers of the site, it’s audience. If readers like Jonathan and myself, who are looking for intelligent discourse see it less and less at a site – and have to ignore more and more to get it, they will go elsewhere.

    What you are left with is people who enjoy rolling in the stink, and poof, your audience has devolved down.

    Darrell is worse by far and I don’t know why he was “unbanned.” Thymezone is rapidly approaching the Darrell territory of being entirely tiresome due to his obsession.

    Thymezone keeps on saying he doesn’t care what others say, but he should, because his credibility is failing rapidly in many people’s eyes. And, yes, do take a poll on that. A certain level of credibility is important because for what other reaosn are you commenting at a blog than to engage others and persuade to a certain extent.

    Lastly, Darrell is NOT just someone who people don’t like because they disagree; they dislike him for an entire class of diseases he foists on this site. A lot of blogs have an affliction of one poster who sucks all the creative energy from the room, but they can be managed. People who disagree intelligently are a treasure, and a learning tool for everybody.

    I’ll comment further if (ha) this comes up again.

  270. 270
    ThymeZone says:

    because his credibility is failing rapidly in many people’s eyes.

    Name them, and the measure you used to ascertain this.

    Also, what “credibility” are you talking about? TZ is a disposable persona, an anonymous handle among many here. How do you know I am not spoof? How do you know anything about what goes on here?

    How do you know that I don’t post under numerous handles? You do know that a large group of us maintain an off-blog mailing list and talk daily, right?

    So, back up your useless assertion, please. Take all the time you need.

  271. 271
    ThymeZone says:

    for what other reaosn are you commenting at a blog than to engage others and persuade to a certain extent.

    Jesus, my yard man, laughed out loud over that one.

    Yeah, for what other reason, indeed?

    Tell you what, my email address is in plain view. Why don’t you send me your real name? Then we’ll see what you know about why people post to a blog, eh?

  272. 272
    ThymeZone says:

    Thymezone is rapidly approaching the Darrell territory of being entirely tiresome due to his obsession.

    Yeah. Sure. I got your “tiresome” right here, pal.

    You better take your vitamins, you are going to get a lot tireder before this is over.

  273. 273
    Jonathan says:

    TZ,

    Darrell is a master baiter, and he knows how to get people to try to argue with him. It’s why he’s here. It’s what he does.

    LOL, I got called something very similar on a non political board just a few days ago. I don’t go out of my way to bait people but I have more than a few controversial opinions and I’m not shy about stating them and then defending them.

    Darrell obviously knows how to bait *you* TZ and thus you think of him as a master baiter. To some others he simply comes across as someone who likes to argue just for the sake of arguing, it’s a form of entertainment and stress relief. You have to admit that arguing with people online is more intellectually stimulating than sitting in front of the glass teat and passively absorbing the pap and stuff that rhymes with pap that oozes forth. (h/t to FZ)

    The thing about your arguments is that you never say anything new. You calling me Jonny Goebbels was funny for the first few times you did it, but after that it was just *boring*. The surest way to ruin a good joke or play on words is to wear it out and that’s what you did.

    Y’all are so unoriginal in your invective that it’s just tedious plowing through it. The NCOs who most impressed me in the service were those who could chew you out for five minutes and never once repeat themselves, you have to respect someone like that even when you’re getting your ass handed to you.

    There are great resources available online, including very long lists of insults, some of which are even relatively original. If you would avail yourself of these resources you could make your invective at least a little less repetitive.

    I used to do that on usenet and got quite good at throwing flames which others couldn’t match. But I was younger then and even more foolish than I am now. Now flaming bores me because it’s too easy and reading flames bores me even more.

  274. 274
    ThymeZone says:

    You calling me Jonny Goebbels was funny for the first few times you did it, but after that it was just boring

    Actually, what happened is that you got boring. The joke is still funny, you and that Goebbels bullshit is still some of the most campy spoof we’ve ever seen around here.

    If you would avail yourself of these resources you could make your invective at least a little less repetitive.

    Yeah, and the people in Hell are begging for ice water, too. Since you’re down there, why don’t you grab a bag of crushed and get them some?

    The thing about your arguments is that you never say anything new

    Oh yeah, that is definitely the hallmark of good argument, “new things.”

    What I say, dipshit, are true things. Oddly, these tend to stay roughly the same over time. Ain’t that the damndest thing, though?

  275. 275
    Andrew says:

    This is still Sparta!

    Wait, wait, I just woke up from a crazy dream.

    Darrell was the goat headed concubine and ThymeZone was power mad Theron. During a lull in the battle between the Spartans and Xerxes army, Theron was secretly receiving Persian gold to betray Greece when the goat got out. Xerxes proclaimed, “Bring me the goat creature to prove your loyalty!,” and so Theron set out to capture the wicked yet sultry goat of terror.

    Theron enacted a conniving plan with three of the hot amputee sex slaves. Chased, slowly, by the the legless sexpots, the goat burst through the underbrush into Theron’s waiting arms.

    “I’ve got you now!” boomed Theron.

    “Baaaahhhhaaooooowwowowo!” said the goat.

    And so they kissed. With tongues.

    And then it got REALLY weird.

  276. 276
    ThymeZone says:

    And so they kissed. With tongues.

    And then it got REALLY weird.

    Day in and day out, you are writing the best material here.

    That’s really all I can say at the moment.

  277. 277
    Rome Again says:

    Wait, wait, I just woke up from a crazy dream.

    Crazy ain’t the word for it, that’s insane!

  278. 278
    The Other Steve says:

    Without Darrell this site is boring.

    The key is to learn when to stop responding to him. He’s a master at trying to change the topic, and it’s more fun getting him back to the original point.

  279. 279
    ThymeZone says:

    The key is to learn when to stop responding to him.

    Maybe you could do an audio book on it?

  280. 280
    Temple Stark says:

    Temple Stark is my real name.

    A terrible assumption on your part without the most basic research there. (Hint Google is your friend). What’s more I live in Arizona and am worried about the pollution, so could you rein in the vapid vitriol a bit?

    I’ll leave it to others to back me up or not on the assertion that you’re becoming tiresome. You are obvioulsy spitting up profanities without purpose. I more than sympathize with the idea that Darrell deserves no place here for the reasons cited above. I celebrated (in my own small way) at my own blog when he was banned. But the more you rant and rage (almost) senselessly, the more I ignore you and the more you deserve to be ignored.

    That’s just me speaking for me, though as previous comments attest from both your ideological brethren and others, I don’t think I’m alone in that view.

    – Temple

  281. 281
    ThymeZone says:

    I say what I think, and I say it the way I think I should say it. Just like everybody else here does.

    I don’t give a flying fig who likes it and who doesn’t, never have, and never will. I use basically the same language that John Cole uses, just more of it. If you have a problem with it, tell it to him. When he prohibits it, I’ll stop using it.

    the more I ignore you and the more you deserve to be ignored.

    Wll, having seen your blog, I can understand that you’d be well versed in being ignored.

    —//

    And why doesn’t somebody do SOMETHING about this site crashing all the frigging time?

  282. 282
    Temple Stark says:

    Oh, yeah my site is the Dead Zone and it’s my life. I’m devastated by your insightful point.

    And your relevant point to your being tiresome is … ?

    … is reinforced.

    If you don’;t care about what you type than why should anyone else? (Oops, there’s a real point).

    Really you are getting more and more pointless and if you’re just playing, well … you’ve lost the game. Except for Darrell, who can’t figure out the rules but has been given a Stupid pass by the site owners.

    – Temple
    PS, I’m just messing around for a brief sujourn. This type of conversation is your boring online life here. Ciao.

  283. 283
    Temple Stark says:

    Oh, and your apology regarding empty assumptions about my name and the implied whatever :::

    Why don’t you send me your real name? Then we’ll see what you know about why people post to a blog, eh?

    touched me deeply and profoundly …

    – Temple Stark

  284. 284
    ThymeZone says:

    your apology regarding empty assumptions about my name

    I apologize for wasting any time at all talking to you.

    If you don’;t care about what you type than why should anyone else?

    Boy, you got me, that’s a mystery of the sea right there. If you figure something out, let me know.

  285. 285
    ThymeZone says:

    you’ve lost the game. Except for Darrell

    Sir or madam, you have no idea in the world what is going on here, I think. You’re in a spoofatorium and acting like you are taking it seriously.

    This thread is all about Darrell, so “except for Darrell” just trumps the entire thread. There is no “except for Darrell” on this thread, see? Why it’s that way, or whether it should be, grist for another mill, but that’s the way it is.

    You are speaking to a persona, a character being written by a person you know nothing about. A pretty good percentage of the voices you hear here on this blog are similarly theatrical in nature. You seem like a sincere person, or a good imitation of one. Sincerity has no place here. This is political theater. I didn’t make it that way, I’m just a minor player.

    Personas come and go here. Compare what you see here today with the inventory of one year ago. That might give you a clue.

    Half of the arguments you see around here are staged. It’s up to you to figure out which half.

  286. 286

    Maybe you could do an audio book on it?

    Perhaps.

    But they’re all correct… TZ spends way too much time wasting away with Darrell to the point where TZ is just like Darrell.

  287. 287
    ThymeZone says:

    TZ spends way too much time wasting away with Darrell to the point where TZ is just like Darrell

    You write your character, and I will write mine, compadre. My character is a ham, and yours is boring. That tells a lot about us, eh?

    And by the way, for you and that asshole Darrell, nobody seems to have picked up on the fact that my so-called “unwarranted attack” on the shithead over the weekend was on either an “open thread” or a “flame thread.”

    So WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE BEEF? Are these threads open, or not? Is Darrell a major annoyance here, or not? And am I allowed to address that as I see fit, or not?

    In summary, go fuck yourself.

  288. 288

    I banned Darrell yesterday. And it was his first comment (that I’m aware of) on my blog. I ban people about once a year, or less.

    But his comment was full of lies, argumentation, personal attacks, and if I responded to him, it would just turn into a “who-said-what-about-whom-first.” His comment added nothing but a pissing contest, and to take on his B.S. would just be a pain.

    I knew nothing about the guy; I guessed he had come from PW.

    Then I discovered this thread. LMAO. You’re welcome to him, John.

  289. 289
    ThymeZone says:

    You’re welcome to him, John.

    This is hilarious. Over two years of relentless Darrell-abuse here, and the official line on this blog is that “he’s arguing in good faith.”

    I kid you not. Can’t make this stuff up.

  290. 290
    Darrell says:

    But his comment was full of lies, argumentation, personal attacks, and if I responded to him, it would just turn into a “who-said-what-about-whom-first.” His comment added nothing but a pissing contest, and to take on his B.S. would just be a pain.

    Tell us, what were the “lies” in my post. You’re a whining little bitch Com.. and you’ve come here to play victim again, as you’ve done so many times before.

    I especially like the part you play telling the moonbats here about how the imaginary meanies accuse you of ‘wanting America to fail’. Except no matter how many times you repeat it as you’ve done on on multiple blogs, it’s not true, it’s a lie. No one has accused you of ‘wanting America to fail’ or of ‘hating’ America. Just as you’re lying again on this thread.

    It’s why Jeff Goldstein told you to go fuck yourself comissar.

  291. 291

    But his comment was full of lies, argumentation, personal attacks, and if I responded to him, it would just turn into a “who-said-what-about-whom-first.” His comment added nothing but a pissing contest, and to take on his B.S. would just be a pain.

    I knew nothing about the guy; I guessed he had come from PW.

    Then I discovered this thread. LMAO. You’re welcome to him, John.

    Thank you, Commisar. Vicariously, you’ve made us all feel better.

  292. 292

    […] Ever since Purge-gate blew up, there has been an obvious question in the background: What about the other 85 U.S. Attorneys who were not fired … have they been pursuing frivolous, politically-motivated cases?” […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Ever since Purge-gate blew up, there has been an obvious question in the background: What about the other 85 U.S. Attorneys who were not fired … have they been pursuing frivolous, politically-motivated cases?” […]

Comments are closed.