HOME | Contact Editor | Forum | Directory | Search | Advertise | Tell-a-Friend
June 3, 2006 | South Carolina Headlines

MyVoice!


Join us in
South Carolina Headlines
Community!


Sign up today to take part in the forums, interact with the content, receive South Carolina Headlines newsletters, display current weather conditions in your area, and more.

Already a member?

E-mail:
Password:


Advertisers


Support South Carolina Headlines - visit our advertisers


Columnists


Editors

 :: Jonathan Pait
 :: Benj Buck
Regulars

 :: Mike Cubelo
 :: Doug Kendall
 :: Jimmy Moore
 :: Henri Thompson
Press Releases

 :: List All

Want to be a columnist? Contact the editor to learn how.



You must have an active account in order to participate in the online forums. You can sign on using the MyVoice! section of this page, or you can set up an account.

What's An Independent Voter To Do?
Laird from Simpsonville writes:
8/14/2004 12:03:27 PM
Just a quick question for all the supporters of "President for Life" Bush: Can you name me one thing he has done during his term (other than the tax cuts) which Lyndon Johnson wouldn't have loved? Bush is no conservative; he's a recycled 60s-style liberal. He only gets to claim he's a conservative because the Democratic Party has moved even farther to the left.

Vote Badnarik!

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
John from Greenville writes:
8/14/2004 10:29:29 AM
Jimmy said:
" Wouldn't you know it would take a conservative Republican to do all the work for a lazy liberal Democrat?!"

I can't speak to Mike's sloth or lack thereof, but you, sir, are NOT conservative. I don't know the proper label to affix to your views, but conservative does noy apply. That's why I refer to you as a "conservative" -- you call yourself one, but conserative you definately are not and I just can't take it anymore.

Webster defines a conservative as one who "adheres to the tenants of conservatism", which it defines as "stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change".

Now can you honestly say the 3 years of Kingdom Bush fits that definition? Consider but a few facts (not opinions) about this administration:

* Record surplus to record deficit without considerinfg the cost of Bush's Folly (Iraq, in case you haven't been paying attention).

* Federal spending at record levels and up 25% across the board. This includes big increases Federal spending on education and the National Endowment for the Arts, Jimmy. Clinton only managed to raise federal spending 10% and it took him 8 years to do it. Imagine what wil happen to the deficeit in a second Bush term... The mind boggles...

* The so-called Patriot Act infringing on civil liberties as never before since the Civil War.

* all post-WWII US diplomacy discarded

* a century of US multinationalism discarded

* environmental and consumer regulations set back a generation

* Bush rules over the most secrative adminstrion in memory, maybe ever. The Bushies have doubled the amount of classified documents and use any excuse to deny FOIA requests and heavily redact what they do release.

Now all these changes are pretty darn abrupt. How on God's green earth is this administration conservative? And you support it 110%, so how on God's green earth can YOU call yourself a conservative?? You need to pick another moniker. How about "fascist"??

Mr. Webster defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime ... that exalts nation ... above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

Well, Bush hasn't declared himself "President for Life" ... YET. The Bushies are definately planning to postpone the elections in case of a terrorist attack. Can you say "martial law"? And with Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft all on record as saying opposition to Adminsitratrion policies equals support for terrorists, "forcible supression" wouldn't be far off...

By now Jimmy will no longer be reading ("Must... Watch... FOX..."), but the rest of you thinking people, ask yourself: could this really happen here? You bet your children it could. This administaion which has repeatedly shown it will NOT be bound by the rule of law, and is on record as believing it can redefine the law as it sees fit. unless we ride close herd on pols in general and this administration in particular, you're damn right it could happen here. We're just one terrorist attack away...

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Haywood from Greenville writes:
8/13/2004 10:48:19 PM
The cry of the desperate always ends in a fantasy about what he hopes the future might hold.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/13/2004 2:22:19 PM
Ho-hum. More of the same from Haywood. Someday, you're gonna be an old fart conservative Republican and I'm gonna laugh my head off.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Haywood from Greenville writes:
8/13/2004 1:47:24 PM
No the point is that you consistently exagerate facts. When you're talking about poll numbers 8-12% is a big difference from 15%.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/13/2004 1:08:04 PM
The point is that McAuliffe predicted a big bounce pre-convention. Picky, picky, picky. :-)
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Haywood from Greenville writes:
8/13/2004 12:01:44 PM
Mike asks Jimmy what Democrat expected a 15% bump after the election.

Jimmy comes back with a quote that predicts an 8-12% jump and somehow Jimmy still takes this cocky attitude with Mike. Only in Jimmy's world does 12=15.

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/13/2004 9:30:03 AM
Wouldn't you know it would take a conservative Republican to do all the work for a lazy liberal Democrat?!
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/13/2004 9:04:32 AM
PDF transcript of the debate with Marc Racicot on CBS's "Face the Nation" on July 4, 2004

http://cbsnews.cbsig.net/stories/2004/07/04/ftn/main627446.shtml

Terry McAuliffe said:

"And I think once we finish our convention, I think you're going to see Senator Kerry anywhere from eight to 12 points up."

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Mike from Greenville writes:
8/12/2004 8:47:45 PM
Figures that Jimmy gives me evidence with no link and no details about the tv station.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Andrew from Greer writes:
8/12/2004 6:58:56 PM
Kerry doesn't wear glasses does he?
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
John from Greenville writes:
8/12/2004 6:21:42 PM
Bush is honorable because he panders to Jimmy's specific religious and political pushbuttons.

Some examples: Bush makes a great show of telling everyone how important his faith is, how he's an evangelical just like them. This gets Jimmy (and my co-worker) all excited, after the heathen Clinton, Bush is one of them!; he's in their flock! Now, Bush doesn't have to actually DO anything, their loyalty has been bought. Bush doesn't even bother to attend church regularly in DC, even though his faith is so important to him (just ask). Clinton did, but everyone KNOWS Clinton was a heathen. Many "conservative" christians consider themselves "fruit inspectors" but they won't inspect W.'s actions. The alternative is baby-killing, remember. Not that Bush has lifted a finger to help that pushbutton either.

When things start to go south and Bush offends the base (read: when pandered-to voters' loyalty starts to crumble) like when he announced the Immagration Amnesty program, Bush will throw them another bone. In this specific case, he flip-flopped on the anti-Gay marriage amendment and supported it, and got his cronies in Congress to get it up for a vote, right quick. Now there's no way in heaven nor hell that such an amendment will pass the Congress (it didn't even get a majority in the Senate) but it placates the base and once again Bush can ignore them until the next time they get all riled up.

Meantime, political hacks like Jimmy (and he IS a professional, paid political hack, is he not?) keep repeating whatever thewy're told without question, even when the things they repeat would otherwise violate their moral, i.e. lying, decpetion, etc. See, Bush is one of them, he's on their side; he would never lead them down an unrighteous path. (That's right folks. Blind, unquestioning faith IN A MAN!)

Yeah. Right. Bush's path is slick with the blood of soldiers who died for Bush's personal vendatta against a man who was no threat to the US, while the real threat, the real evildoer got away scot-free to plot and plan the slaughter of more innocents. But these inncents aren't unborn, so do they really count? Ask Jimmy, I'm sure he'll have a sound-bite, content-free answer for ya...

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
John from Greenville writes:
8/12/2004 5:56:05 PM
"As for the Presidential race, Bush will win SC. I have no doubt about it."

Upstate voters in particular would vote for literally anyone before they would vote for ANY democrat. Jimmy could rationalize voting for Satan himself if he had an "R" next to his name on the ballot.

"Therefore if you live in South Carolina and vote for Bush or Kerry expecting to affect the election one way or the other you are wasting your vote."

Until recently I would have agreed with you, but recent (recently enumerated) conversations with my elderly, Christian Conservative (no quotes this time, Jimmy) parents have convinced me that might not be the case this time. If you could have seen the look in my 78 year old mother's eyes as she violently shook her head "no" she would NOT be voting for Bush, you might reconsider the conventional wisdom as I did.

I normally do vote Libretarian, but this time I think a vote for Kerry might actually have an effect. I think the electorate are not as stupid as Jimmy and his cronies believe them to be and they see through W.'s bull ... pookey. George W. Bush has proven himself incapable of leading this country; he and his team have proven themselves incompetent. Bush MUST go. The thought of a lame-duck Bush should scare the bejesus out of any sane, thinking person. Kerry is way left for my tastes, but I make no bones about the fact that I am voting agasinst Bush.

Yes, Jimmy, I would vote for a Yellow dog instead of George W. Bush, but since I believe Bush to be Satan, I can't speak to the other comparison.

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Linda from Shandon writes:
8/12/2004 5:42:20 PM
If you want change , vote Kerry. If the status quo is okay, vote Bush.

Jimmy,
what does "F'n." mean that use in John Kerry's name? Is that Christian values at work again?

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Haywood from Greenville writes:
8/12/2004 4:13:59 PM
It's not a secret Jimmy. I am against Bush. I am totally opposed to liars and morons running my country and making decisions which affect me and my family. I would vote for a pile of dog crap with glasses before I'd vote for Bush. That's how bad Bush is. People are willing to vote for dog crap instead of him. Get it? Only simple minded minions continue to support him at this point.

Again, one more time, can you name at least one specific thing that makes him honorable? Your silence and your attempt to divert the topic speaks volumes.

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/12/2004 3:56:28 PM
Haywood, I could list example after example (and I have many times in my columns and posts), but you are not interested in hearing about the good and honorable things Bush has done. Your agenda is to defeat him in November because you, like many liberals, are simply against Bush. Admit it. You're not really FOR Kerry, but simply AGAINST Bush. That's a sad state of affairs for your side.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/12/2004 3:45:33 PM
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe predicted a 12-15% bounce in the polls on a Sunday morning show before the convention.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Mike from Greenville writes:
8/12/2004 3:01:29 PM
Where was that Bush "love of country" when he avoided combat in Vietnam?

The "love" was not shown (Kerry showed it).

And, Jimmy, what Democrat expected a 15% bump after the convention?

Give me at least one name.


[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Haywood from Greenville writes:
8/12/2004 2:25:05 PM
More diversions. Still no respsonses to direct questions. Jimmy your crediability continues to sink lower and lower. Let's leave it at this Jimmy. At some point in the future that you finally come up with one specific thing that makes Bush honoarble, let us know okay? Until then we can all assume that our conclusions are correct and that Bush is only honorable to people like yourself who define the word differently than the rest of us.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/12/2004 1:06:08 PM
I could say the same about you regarding left wing propaganda. That blog you run is the biggest waste of time I've ever seen in my life!
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Haywood from Greenville writes:
8/12/2004 12:39:15 PM
Here we see another propaganda technique. When quizzed about the specific qualifications of your guy, divert attention away from the fact that he's no good by talking about someone else. Good job Jimmy. You continue to offer valuable lessons in right wing propaganda.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/12/2004 12:17:21 PM
Haywood, your argument would be sound if that statement applied to anyone. I would contend to you that John F'n Kerry has not led in the Senate with genuine concern for America to be the best it can be. If he cared, then he would not have missed nearly 90% of the votes in the U.S. Senate over the past year while at the same time collecting his paycheck. That's a disgraceful fact that cannot and should not be ignored by anyone.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Haywood from Greenville writes:
8/12/2004 11:10:59 AM
Cass, I'm curious. Can you really read that statement and come to the conclusion that Jimmy said anything with content? As John pointed out, you can put almost any name in that sentence and it's true. The reason is because it's vague, subjective language punctuated by emotional patriotic manipulative language. It's classic propaganda. It works this way. You describe your guy with vague noble terms without offering any specific facts. That way no one can respond to those facts. Then you accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you of not being a good American. It's amazing people still fall for this garbage. The sad thing about Jimmy is he doesn't seem to be conscious of what he's doing. He just regurgitates the same thing he's hearing other right wingers say.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Cass from Little River writes:
8/12/2004 10:30:58 AM
"Bush is honorable, Haywood, because he sincerely loves this country with all of his heart and leads with the genuine concern and desire for America to be the beacon for freedom in the world. If that's not good enough for you, then it's time for you to find another country to live in"

Nicely put Jimmy. I feel the same way about Bush.

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/12/2004 10:11:40 AM
My point still remains, too, Mike. The Democrats predicted Kerry would be up as much as 15% over Bush in the weeks following the Democratic National Convention in Boston. While it has been slow to get there, the "bounce" for Kerry has come. My contention is that a similar swing will happen for Bush and the Republicans after their convention has concluded. From there, it will be a race to the finish line to see who can turn out the most voters. There really aren't a lot of people who don't know why they will vote for in November. The key will be whether people will care enough to cast their vote for Bush or Kerry. That will be the primary factor in who will get elected.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Doug from Columbia writes:
8/12/2004 10:07:17 AM
Excellent commentary, Andrew. I couldn't agree more.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Mike from Greenville writes:
8/12/2004 9:38:15 AM
Jimmy, you miss my point in sending you this.

Your note claimed that Kerry had a remote chance of being president.

He's ahead now so how can that be remote?

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/12/2004 9:12:33 AM
Thanks for the info, Mike. But is any of this surprising? I don't think so because Kerry was expected to get a "bounce" in his post-convention media free-for-all. Let's see where those Zogby numbers are in the weeks after Bush and the Republicans have their convention at the end of this month. Then we'll discuss about who to call the next President of the United States.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Andrew from Greer writes:
8/12/2004 8:51:39 AM
Votes serve two purposes - (A) to affect the outcome of the election and (B) to send a message of endorsement to the candidate and his positions and his party's philosophy

As for the Presidential race, Bush will win SC. I have no doubt about it.

Therefore if you live in South Carolina and vote for Bush or Kerry expecting to affect the election one way or the other you are wasting your vote.

Therefore, your vote in SC will have the effect of sending a message. What message do you want to send?

Do you want to endorse the policies of the incumbent; pre-emptive strike and the current growth rate of government and the deficits? Vote for Bush and Republicans

Do you want to endorse a message of even faster growth of bigger government and seeking international approval before defending ourselves? Vote for Kerry and Democrats

Or, do you want to endorse a message of free trade with all and military neutrality, national defense used only for defending OUR nation (not everyone else's), protecting our borders by eliminating the foreign policies that are creating enemies for us, fewer government subsidies for big business, smaller government by reducing taxes AND spending, REAL tax reform and REAL social security reform that puts people in charge of their retirement savings instead of politicians, giving people liberty with regards to their own medical decisions, REAL support for civil liberties INCLUDING the right to bear arms? Do you want representitives who will actually READ the legislation like the Patriot Act and NAFTA before voting for it? Vote for Badnarik and other Libertarians

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Mike from Greenville writes:
8/12/2004 8:48:06 AM
To: Jimmy
From Zogby

Get ready to say "President Kerry."

Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry remains solidly in the lead after a week in which his party and candidacy grabbed the political spotlight at their national convention in Boston, a new edition of Zogby Interactive polls in 16 battleground states shows.

After a string of good news for the Kerry campaign stretching back to the selection of North Carolina Sen. John Edwards as the vice presidential running mate a month ago, he leads in the Electoral College by a 291-215 margin, the individual state polls shows. Four of the 16 states in the poll collection - with a combined total of 32 electoral votes - were excluded from the calculation because the races there are too close to call.
www.zogby.com

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/12/2004 6:34:08 AM
John Kerry is a disgrace to this country and it is very telling that the Democrats would even bother nominating a candidate for president with so much baggage. This guy does not know where he stands on the issues and spat in the face of those who served honorably in Vietnam with his medal-throwing anti-war rallies with Jane Fonda. This guy has about as much a chance of being elected president as Haywood has of winning the Ms. Universe pageant!
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
John from Greenville writes:
8/11/2004 9:41:17 PM
"John, have you talked to your parents about the Libertarian or Constitution Party?"

Actually, rather than hold my nose and vote for Gore, I voted for Harry Brown in 2000. I usually do vote Libretarian, but this year I will likely vote Kerry. Keryys is WAYAAAY to liberal for me, but Bush must go, for Iraq, for Afghanistan, for ignoring Osama, for the decades of diplomacy he's destroyed, for the eradication of good will toward America around the globe, for ... I'm tired of typing but you get the idea.

This will be a very close race and a vote for Kerry just might keep that slezeoid out of the White House for a second term. The Republicans are incapable of governing on their own: they need a counterbalnace on Capital Hill and since it's unlikely that they Dems will gain a majority, the White House will serve nicely. 6 of Clinton's 8 years were with a Republican Congress and that worked out rather well; they both kept each other in check. With the one-party show up there now, spending is through the roof (even with Iraq excluded!), government is undergoing the biggest expansion since LBJ, civil liberties are under attack more than ever in history; God knows we need a counterbalance to keep those yahoos in line. But thanks for the heads-up. :-)

"have you read the Green Party platform?"

No but I'll look into it. Lord knows the time is right for an alternative to the Republicrats.

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Andrew from Greer writes:
8/11/2004 9:22:42 PM
What Reagan brought to the table of the impertinently indecisive middle (aka Reagan Democrats and Independents) was a message of hope. All W. has given us is a message of a terrorist in every woodpile.

On the other hand, what has Kerry offered? "I'll do everything he did, but I'd do it better...trust me." Yeah right.

John, have you talked to your parents about the Libertarian or Constitution Party? Why on earth vote for Nader? Kerry not liberal enough for them? I think Nader had one position that I supported. Hmmm, what was it? Can't quite remember. Maybe it was that he didn't run as a Democrat. Anyway, have you read the Green Party platform?

Compare your political preferences to the four major party platforms at this link.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/compare/

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
John from Greenville writes:
8/11/2004 8:31:27 PM
John Kerry is honorable, Jimmy, because he sincerely loves this country with all of his heart and leads with the genuine concern and desire for America to be the beacon for freedom in the world.

BILL CLINTON sincerely loves this country with all of his heart and lead with the genuine concern and desire for America to be the beacon for freedom in the world.

Pretty much every American, from all across the political spectrum, sincerely loves this country with all of their heart and wants to see it lead with genuine concern and desire for America to be the beacon for freedom in the world.

Listen to me carefull Jimmy because this is something you need to understand and it's important:

Just because someone isn't a Bush lovin', FOX watchin', NewMax.com readin', "Jesse-Helms was a bit on the liberal side", diplomacy hatin', UN loathin', "Impeach Clinton before he can take the oath of office", Limbaugh listenin' Conservative ...

DOES NOT MEAN THEY DON'T LOVE THEIR COUNTRY!

With all of their heart. And they want to see it lead with genuine concern and desire for America to be the beacon for freedom in the world.

Political dissent by freedom loving Americans is the very foundation of this great nation. You need to recognize and repsect that. It was good enough for Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin and Patrick Henry to be willing to lay down their familes, their posessions, indeed their very lives for.

But If that's not good enough for you, then it's time for YOU to find another country to live in.

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Cindy from New York, NY writes:
8/11/2004 8:30:40 PM
Ditto Sister Linda
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Linda from Shandon writes:
8/11/2004 5:52:22 PM
Meathead(Jimmy),
The only thing you have done to vegetarians and readers is make apples to oranges comparisons that fail to take into account the truth. May I suggest you have apples and oranges for a snack rather than spew them in your illogical and jaded comparisons.

The question is, how many people has the USA killed since 1973, not including the abortions you count?

Zero kids and all mouth that figures. You should really look at that vegetarian study. Are contraceptives acceptable, and are they a form of pre-meditated murder in your opinion? I mean do sperm cells and eggs have rights also?

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
John from Greenville writes:
8/11/2004 4:56:46 PM
" The fact is Bush has always been against gay marriage. Whether it is an issue that should be left to the states or taken on by a constitutional amendment is irrelevant"

No it is NOT irrelevant. Bush changed his position on the defense of marriage amendment from against it to being for it -- that constitutes a flip-flop. That you LIKE his new position doesn’t change the fact that your man with such a "moral compass" changed direction and did a 180. Your refusal to acknowledge this floppage means you are a moral relativist: you decide whether an action is good or bad based on factors other than the action itself. This is the exact same philosophy practiced by the Clintonistas during the 90's - Clinton lied under oath, but it was OK because of who he was. You decry Kerry's flip flopping, but it's not the floppage you object to, because when Bush does it, it's OK.

"You liberals sure like to mince words, don't you?"

I'll not lump you in with others, but you sure do like to do both, mince words and lump people in with others. Your definition of a "liberal": "anyone who doesn't agree with me". That might be ok if you'd post something besides content-free sound bite recitations of unproven and unprovable talking points.

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Haywood from Greenville writes:
8/11/2004 3:16:48 PM
More vague subjective terms from Jimmy. Nothing specfic. Bush is only honorable to people like Jimmy who have trouble defining the word "honorable."

And yes Jimmy, WWII was a legitimate war because we went after those who were actually attacking us. Are you really this out of touch with what's really going on?

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/11/2004 2:34:12 PM
Bush is honorable, Haywood, because he sincerely loves this country with all of his heart and leads with the genuine concern and desire for America to be the beacon for freedom in the world. If that's not good enough for you, then it's time for you to find another country to live in.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/11/2004 2:31:57 PM
The fact is Bush has always been against gay marriage. Whether it is an issue that should be left to the states or taken on by a constitutional amendment is irrelevant to his belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. You liberals sure like to mince words, don't you?
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/11/2004 2:30:02 PM
I never said I did not see the deaths of the soldiers in Iraq as a tragedy. That's why I asked which one is the GREATER tragedy, implying that both are. While it is sad that men and women have died fighting on behalf of their country, I do not hear anyone bemoaning FDR for sending troops into battle in WW II. Was that a more acceptable war than the one in Iraq? Both were fought in response to being attacked. Deaths during war are indeed a tragedy, but no less today that it has ever been.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
John from Greenville writes:
8/11/2004 1:30:43 PM
"Which is the greater tragedy"

They are BOTH a great tragedy. too bad you only see the one as a tragedy.

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
John from Greenville writes:
8/11/2004 1:25:49 PM
"Bush is an honest man who has proven, despite the naysayers of the 2000 election, that he has the dignity and moral compass to do the right thing "

What about Bush's flip-flop on gay marriage? Bush and Cheney both said during the 2000 campaign that the issue should be left to the states. Both opposed a Constitutional amendment. Now both support an amendment. Kerry's position is unchanged, and idential to the Bush/Cheney position on 2000. Does Bush's "moral compass" point this way and that based on polls and political concerns? It certainly appears so...

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Haywood from Greenville writes:
8/11/2004 1:17:34 PM
Linda, Jimmy has stated before that he has no children.

Jimmy can you answer the direct questions she asked you instead crying about "liberals" like you always do? That cop out is getting really old. Also, why do you value unborn humans more than adult humans?

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Haywood from Greenville writes:
8/11/2004 1:14:00 PM
Jimmy you have offered zero examples. You continue to use vague subjective terms. Do you need me to define the word "specific" for you or are you ready to admit that even a Bush minion like yourself can't come up with any?
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/11/2004 12:00:46 PM
I was simply responding to a direct question with the facts which are prevalent to anyone who does the research. I do not venture down wild goose chases for the pleasure of any liberal on this web site. As for how many children I have, that is personal information that I do not share on the Internet.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Linda from Shandon writes:
8/11/2004 11:11:43 AM
Jimmy or better yet Meathead,

You rant about this that and another without addressing the issues at hand. You cite the number of abortions since 1973 without usinf sources for your numbers. Next, you just refer to the number of Americans killed in Iraq since the second Gulf war began. You fail to recognize the "other people" killed such as the Iraqis.

How many people has this country killed since 1973? I bet the number is higher that 40 million.

And how many kids do you have?

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/11/2004 9:38:25 AM
Haywood, I have given many examples. Just because you don't acknowledge them does not mean they are any less honorable. Oh, I forgot, you're a liberal. You wouldn't understand.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Haywood from Greenville writes:
8/11/2004 9:10:21 AM
Linda I think what Jimmy is trying to tell you is that he places a higer value on nonsentient life than on sentient life.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Haywood from Greenville writes:
8/11/2004 9:07:10 AM
Jimmy you just can't do it can you? If the biggest Bush cheerleader in the world, Jimmy Moore, can't name one specific thing Bush has done which makes him "honoroable" then what does that tell you?
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/11/2004 8:24:42 AM
Almost 1,000 soldiers have bravely volunteered their service and sacrificed on behalf of this country in the war on Iraq. They have served their country well and did so proudly and willingly as a beacon for freedom.

On the other hand, 40 million babies have been killed in the name of convenience since Roe v. Wade went into effect in 1973. None of them signed up for this and their execution was finalized before they even had a chance to speak.

Now, you tell me. Which is the greater tragedy?

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/11/2004 8:20:59 AM
Bush is an honest man who has proven, despite the naysayers of the 2000 election, that he has the dignity and moral compass to do the right thing regardless of what his detractors say.

Of course, the alternative is John F.'n Kerry who switches positions on nearly every issue so fast I'm getting whiplash!

The choice between these two could not be clearer.

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Linda from Shandon writes:
8/10/2004 7:11:00 PM
Jimmy,
How many innocent people in Iraq have died as compared to abortions in the USA? You sure do have a strange, convenient, value system. I guess you can rationalize anything.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Haywood from Greenville writes:
8/10/2004 5:51:22 PM
Yes you do. You still offered no specific thing he has done which is honorable. The fact that you haven't been caught getting your pee pee pleasured by an intern does not make you honorable. This may take some work Jimmy but for once, offer a specific answer. What has Bush done that you feel makes him honorable? Do you feel that the fact that he's not attractive to interns makes him honorable?
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/10/2004 5:39:23 PM
Restoring dignity to the office of the presidency (unlike his disgraceful predecessor who chose to defile it with immoral and improper sexual acts...need I say more?!).
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Haywood from Greenville writes:
8/10/2004 5:02:31 PM
Notice Jimmy nevers uses specifics when describing his demigod. He uses subjective terms like "honorably" "served us well" "strength and dignity" etc.

Jimmy obviously you have a different definition of all those terms than most people, so for the record, in specific terms name one thing Bush has done that you consider honorable.

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/10/2004 4:21:13 PM
What is so "evil" about President George W. Bush? He has led this country honorably through some especially contentious and unprecedented times in our nation's history. It amazes me how soon so many forget what this nation has gone through in these past few years. Bush has led well during this time and should be the choice of anyone who wants to continue the strength and dignity of the United States of America.
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Doug from Columbia writes:
8/10/2004 3:30:00 PM
Jimmy,

Wake up! Democrats and Republicans are BOTH Big Government socialists. We know full well what the communist Dems are about, and Bush hasn't vetoed one single bill, throughout his entire term in office. Also, under Bush, we have lost more of our civil liberties, in just four years, than we have in decades.

I am so sick of RepuliCrats creating this environment of fear, scaring people into this "If you don't vote for 'Evil #1,' 'Evil #2' will get into office!" What a great way to try and insure that no other party will ever be able to challenge the status quo--and people fall for this tactic, every election cycle.

If you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing, and that's why I will never vote for the "lesser of two evils." Evil is still evil, and I won't support it.

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Linda from Shandon writes:
8/10/2004 1:08:37 PM
John F. Kerry will win the independent vote because he is the lesser of two evils.

Plus, the minoroty outreach program put on by the GOPers has failed terribly. The demographics support Kerry.

[ reply ]
Haywood from Greenville writes:
8/10/2004 9:49:44 AM
After all that John said (quite beautifully I might add) that's all Jimmy can come up with? Maybe for the simple minded like Jimmy we just need to have a real life celebrity death match.

John F'n Kerry vs. Dick F'n Cheney.

What's the latest on Dick's heart condition?

Or better yet how about George "Bring 'em On" Bush against all of the parents of the soldiers who were killed once Bush prentended to play the tough guy while sitting safely in Crawford, Texas behind his Secret Service men. Oops better be careful or Jimmy will start crying and accuse me of threatening the President.

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/10/2004 9:08:17 AM
"Get used to it, pal. This is the year that the LP establishes itself as a viable alternative to RepubliCrats."

If that indeed happens, then you've just secured the nomination for the socialist's choice for president, John F'n Kerry!

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
John from Greenville writes:
8/10/2004 8:03:22 AM
"The only thing keeping me from considering Kerry is that I am able to look beyond his 4 months in Vietnam and truly judge him on his record. ... I just find myself at odds with his political ideals."

And that's entirely fair. It's what you're supposed to do, not to judge a candidate for the most important job in the world on how his hair looks, how much money he's got or other such fluff, but by his record.

"I see no need to question his service in Vietnam or what Heinz gives to charities."

You just pointed out two ways the Repubs are trying to keep you looking the other way. I don't know why the Rs want to keep the polcies and track records of the candidates out of this election, but they obviously do.

The Swift Boat vets never served with Kerry. The guy who was Kerry's commander 6 months ago said he didn't really know Kerry and had no first-hand knowledge of Kerry's claims to valor, now he says he knew Kerry well and disputes his right to his medals. Now W. didn't have anything (wink wink, nudge nudge) to do with those ads, despite the fact that they are running in precisely the states where the race is very close, despite the fact that the same bunch discredited John McCain's service record in the 2000 race, also against Bush. By the accounts of thos men on those boats Kerry commanded, his actions were honorable and valourous and that should be good enough for anyone. Rich-boy, Yale-educated Kerry could have ducked out of 'Nam like rich-boy, Yale-educated W. and Cheney but he went and served and it's wrong to impune that service.

And the BS about Teresa Heinz's donations! She's a rich lady. I thought the Republicans of all people thought it was OK to be rich, but here they go... THK has a LOT of money and she got it the old-fashioned way - she inherited it. Nothing wrong with that, until your husband runs for Pres. THK gives cash to a charity, the Tides Foundation, that funds some stuff the Rs don't like. What they DON'T tell you is that cash must be spent inside PA on specific projects, not the the other stuff. It's all designed to keep you mad as hell about something other that Bush's poor performance as President.

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Robert from Morgantown, WV writes:
8/10/2004 1:41:13 AM
John

I totally agree with you. I am a Republican and I thought that a vote for Bush would be a vote for less taxes and less government. Boy was I wrong!!! I thought Bush would heed the call of the Contract With America and continue Welfare Reform, decrease the size of Government Bureaucracy and respect a Balanced Budget. Not really happening. Since Bush has been in office the Federal Government has increased by 30 percent. He botched the Medicare bill. And if anyone can find a social program that Bush hasn't said no to I'd love to know. Heck! Bush now feels it necessary for the government to council people on marriage.

As far as the war on terror goes, that is the only thing I can give him that is positive and even then there seems to be some negative results. I agree with the ideology behind the moves, but I don't care for his followthrough.

I like to explain the Bush presidency with this analogy. It's kinda like baseball. The coach puts in his starter and for 6 solid innings the team is winning. The pitcher is still playing well and has a few innings left in his arm but the coach decides to pull him. The crowd doesn't understand why the coach did this. To make matters worse the coach puts in the worst reliever on the pitching staff who quickly gives up the runs needed to tie the ballgame. Some of the fans are confused. Some of the fans are angry. Other fans are still loyal thinking that the coach knows what he's doing. The end result is an extra inning loss that no one can explain.

Bush had a good game going until he decided to blow it. The only thing keeping me from considering Kerry is that I am able to look beyond his 4 months in Vietnam and truly judge him on his record. I don't hate the man or anything like that. I just find myself at odds with his political ideals. I think Kerry is the first candidate in a long time that you can truly judge by his merits in office. I see no need to question his service in Vietnam or what Heinz gives to charities.

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
John from Greenville writes:
8/10/2004 12:43:11 AM
If you had come out and said "Hey, the economy isn't where we'd hoped it would be now, but it is picking up. Job creation is running behind, but it's picking up too and in spite of these less-than-stellar economic numbers, I still think George W. Bush has the better economic plan for America and he's the right man in the White House", you'd have some credibility. Continuing to distort statistics, repeat talking points and call others liars ("unlike some disingenuous Democrats I know!") just doesn't get it done. Everyone with half a brain knows the economy isn't near where it was in 2001. They know things are still tough, They know there's still a shortage of jobs and that people without jobs aren't just lazy as some on the right would have us believe.

If Bush is the President you feel he is, why not be honest about him and his record? Why not tell the truth and make your case with truth and not spin, plain-spoken honesty and not talking points? Why not admit that the economy isn't where it was hoped it would be and Iraq isn't where it was hoped it would be but make the case that W. is the man despite these setbacks? A lot's happened since 9/11 and that counts for something with most reasonable people, and you need to reach reasonable people if you are going to help Bush win in November.

He may need the help because things may be worse for Bush than you might think. My retired, very conservative Christian parents are adamantly anti-Bush and both have told me they will vote Kerry despite his views on abortion and the fact they are very much pro-life. My dad, who is 78 and a life-long Republican, told me he felt W. was the worst president in his memory, and he remembers Hoover. My conservative Christian coworker, very pro-life, very anti-gay, is trying to figure out what to do since he won't be voting for Bush. He may vote Nader, he may not vote; he likely won't vote Kerry, but he is VERY disappointed in W. and very disgraught over it. W. was his political savior, who was supposed to put government aright after the Clinton years and with Republican control of all branches of government, finally get things done. Now though, he feels betrayed by the Republicans on both social and fiscal issues. While he and I don't agree on many of those issues, I can certainly see why he feels that way. He told me people didn't stand around after church and talk about what a great job Bush is doing anymore. He said thatlike him, a lot of his fellow parishioners are figuring out who to vote for in November and it won't necessarily be Bush, even tho he and most of them voted for Bush in 2000.

You might want to stop waving the flag and singing "Happy Days Are Here Again". Someone who you thought was solidly in the Bush column may read your words, say "bull pookey!" and change over. It's gonna be a close one, even right here in yellow-dog Republican SC, believe it or not. Upstaters will vote for Satan himself if he had a "R" by his name, but down the road in the Midlands and Coastal areas, things are much less certain. Your honesty, or lack thereof, might make a difference.

Perhaps it doesn't matter to you, tho. Maybe the only issues you care about (like my coworker) are abortion and homosexuality. That's fine, but you should be intelligent enough to realize that this attitude means all a pol has to do to get not just your vote but your *loyalty* is to pander to those issues. He doesn't have to DO anything about 'em, just make you think he would if it weren't for those guys over there. Having placated you, he can then do as he bloody well pleases, confident of your support no matter what he does. Make a mess of the eocnomy? No problem, throw 'em a bone; start up a "defense of marriage" amendment drive. It'll never pass and it's a reversal of your campaign position, but they won't care because you're flopping thier way. Start a war? No biggie, just make sure you use lots of Christian terms and overtones to make your case. My wife says Bush is the King of the Panders in regard to the relegious right. I think she has a point. Ever consider that?

Perhaps your vote is bought and paid for with promises Bush has no means to keep nor intention of keeping. Why hasn't he repealed "don't ask don't tell"? It's an executive order, all he has to do is sign it. Why did he flip-flop on gay marriage? Maybe you're happy about it because he flipped your way, but he still flipped and that doesn't fit the image. Why hasn't he done more to limit abortion?

Maybe you are just taken for granted, but then that's what happens when you put yourself in a position where you can only vote for one candidate, no matter what that candidate does.

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
John from Greenville writes:
8/9/2004 10:14:30 PM
"There have been an average of nearly 150,000 jobs created on a per month average in the past 11 months. That's phenomenal job growth considering all that has happened during these extraordinary times we live in."

No sir, historically, it is not "phenomenal job growth". In every previous recession since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began keeping records in 1939, the number of jobs has recovered to it's pre-recession numbers within 31 months. Yet now, 40 months after the recession begain in March 2001, there are 1.2 million fewer jobs. Bush has presided over the greatest sustained job loss since the Great Depression and that is simply a fact.

This also means that the Great Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich have failed by any realistic measure to generate appreciable job growth, let alone the numbers Bush promised. Bush said, *last year* mind you!, that the 2003 tax cuts would provide additional stimulus to the economy and would create 5.5 million jobs between July 2003 and the end of this year. (This is why the "in the last 11 months" talking point keeps coming up; Bush made a promise in July 2003 and the Bushies are keeping score). To date, there have been only 1.5M jobs created, a shortage of **4 million jobs**. And those jobs that have been created at are 16% below the wages of lost jobs, on average, (stat from jobwatch.org) (although the median hourly wage has been oncreasing since 1994.)

"To put it in the proper context, when Clinton ran for reelection in 1996, the unemployment rate was 5.7 percent."

This graph http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3
may shed some light on this issue for you. The monthly unemployment rate from '94 to '96 was consistend lower, whereas under Bush the rate climbed to about 5.7% at the end of the recession in late 2001 and has stayed there. July saw a 0.1% drop to 5.5%, still pretty much the same as 2 years ago, and THAT'S the key: things have NOT improved under Bush the way they have in past recessions. Does this mean Bush's economic is a failure? I think reasonable people have to conclude that while it may not be a failure, given 9/11 and all, it darn sure ain't a rousin' success. I think UNreasonable people would think it was indeed a failure, loudly and at great length, if the president was a Democrat.

"My point is that all the liberal naysayers who want to bemoan how awful this economy is ("the worst since the Great Depression" they say!) and how jobs are scarce (although 1.5 million new jobs have been created in the past 11 months) are just plain wrong. Open your eyes and look at the facts. They don't lie (unlike some disingenuous Democrats I know!). :-) "

I respectfully suggest that is it you, sir, who are wrong. I don't think this, notr have I said, that this is the worst economy in 40 years, but it isn't the rosy picture you paint. Face it, Jimmy, things are BAD. They're getting better, but they're still bad and your insistance that they aren't in a misguided attempt to curry favor for you candidate helps meither he nor you.

The URL for the graph I listed above came from the White House web site. There are lots more at http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/employment.html. They will tell the story, if you are willing to see it. I suspect you will continue to parrot party spin as to how things ain't so bad, but the truth IS out there if you're willing to recognize it.

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Doug from Columbia writes:
8/9/2004 8:14:52 PM
Actually, Jimmy, Michael Badnarik is polling at 39% in the Ashville NC area, on an NBC TV 17 poll.

Just because biased media guys, like you, don't want to give anyone else a fair shake--and let them succeed or fail on their own merits or flaws--that doesn't mean that others aren't getting the message. Just think of what he would be doing if he had media support--and that's what really scares people like you.

Get used to it, pal. This is the year that the LP establishes itself as a viable alternative to RepubliCrats.

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/9/2004 5:16:02 PM
While the job creation was slower than expected by most economists in July, the overall jobs picture is a lot brighter than it was this time last year. There have been an average of nearly 150,000 jobs created on a per month average in the past 11 months. That's phenomenal job growth considering all that has happened during these extraordinary times we live in.

To put it in the proper context, when Clinton ran for reelection in 1996, the unemployment rate was 5.7 percent. My point is that all the liberal naysayers who want to bemoan how awful this economy is ("the worst since the Great Depression" they say!) and how jobs are scarce (although 1.5 million new jobs have been created in the past 11 months) are just plain wrong.

Open your eyes and look at the facts. They don't lie (unlike some disingenuous Democrats I know!). :-)

[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Dean from Sycamore, IL writes:
8/9/2004 5:02:55 PM
Jimmy,
You mention only the abortion issue, dead U.S. soldiers and the unemployment rate as the "facts" that fell on your poor old dad's deaf ears. Surely there are more, aren't there?
How about our government's choice NOT to find the man responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a man Tom Ridge almost daily reminds us is scheming to kill more Americans, in favor of a handcuffing nutbag tyrant just because Don Rumsfeld thinks there are "better targets" in Iraq? And that's just ONE issue.
I don't take issue with what you say about how you portray Bush's and Kerry's stand regarding abortion nor do I argue with how you explained the heroic decisions of those who choose to serve in our military.
But the unemployment rate --- a fall of one tenth of one percent hardly is cause for Dubya's deification. You would serve your readers better by placing such pronouncements in proper context.
Apparently, YOUR deaf ears don't hear the economists that say the weak "job-creation" numbers for July are hardly the stuff of an energized, recovering economy.
It's called selective hearing where I come from, Jimmy. There's a lot to listen to out there, Jim. Maybe if we ALL listened a little closer, a little more carefully, we might get a little closer to hearing the truth.
Maybe you could use sign language to tell your dad I said hi.
[ reply ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/9/2004 2:12:34 PM
Who? Nice try, Doug. But Mr. Badnarik will need a real miracle to even get 5% name recognition, much less getting elected president!
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Doug from Columbia writes:
8/9/2004 1:32:29 PM
Here's an alternative to BOTH of those RepubliCrat crooks: Michael Badnarik (www.badnarik.org).
[ reply ]
Jimmy from Spartanburg writes:
8/9/2004 11:36:36 AM
Welcome back, Haywood. It's always great to get the liberal spin on what I write. You know, you oughta go on vacation more often! :-)
[ reply| Previous in thread ]
Haywood from Greenville writes:
8/9/2004 11:30:24 AM
Let me see if I can follow Jimmy's line of thinking. Even his own father isn't dumb enough to buy Jimmy's simplistic and dishonest political beliefs so Jimmy comes to the conclusion that he's buying into lies and propaganda.

Jimmy here's a news flash. When people start buying into the volume of inaccurate information you post in your little op-ed pieces, then you can worry about people listening to lies and propaganda.

[ reply ]






Daily Poll


Which story are you most tired of?

Senator William Jefferson accepts bribe.
Barbaro breaks a leg in Preakness.
Hayden to lead CIA.
Bird flue scare.
The search for Jimmy Hoffa's remains.



Have a poll idea?
Members can submit their own polls. Sign on and join the fun!



  South Carolina Headlines
Made possible by The Worthwhile Company, Inc.