You pick the topic

Anbody besides me and probably OWVY think David Letterman, a 62 year old man on national tv talking about the 14 yr old daughter of a former Vice Presidential candidate having sex in a dug out with A-Rod during the 7th inning stretch out of line even if it was a joke? David Letterman has an incredibly high creep factor. He is turning into an angry old man. Memo to David Letterman: to be a comic, you must be relevant AND funny. Being mean AND perverted is NOT funny. It is indeed, pathetic.

I, too, find his comments despicable. His excuse is even worse; that he thought it was Bristol, the 18 year old daughter as if that made it all right.

I used to enjoy Letterman until he turned into a left wing shill. He used to poke fun equally at both parties, but for the past few years any Democrat candidate gets treated like a god while he trashes any Republican candidate...and their children.

Personally, I think children of all politicians should be off limits. Unfortunately, the main stream media only backs up that idea when Democrat's children are attacked. It's pretty bad when the media was up in arms over beanie babies named after Obama's children, yet were and are silent on the vicious attacks against Palin's children.

Well we can consult the psych profs who teach Humor Psychology courses but...

Times do change. I grew up with comedians like Joan Rivers & Don Rickles where not much was out of line with them. And think of Eddie Murphy's Raw & Chris Rock...and God, Andrew Dice Clay. Is it just because he is on primetime? Is it because he is older? A lot of factors here to consider. I think a part of this is certainly due to the idea of the Republican party promoting "family values", like Democrats have none, and then this happens. If Bristol was not an unwed mother and daughter of a republican I don't know if he would have used her for this joke. I don't believe comedians have to be bipartisan. Not sure there is a contract or rules of comedians or the like but I really don't think so. They are an art form & can express their views like a musician or painter etc. We may not like what they express and that is fine but he does have the right I believe. The power of the remote!

You know I didn't really like David when I was younger. I thought he was cranky & mean then. Later I liked him. Haven't watched as much lately though. If I'm not mistaken though...I think I've heard him bash John Edwards a bit though since the affair became known so...He did handle on his show the stalker he had appropriately. He is even in my Abnormal Psych text in a positive way for it.

It is bashing A-Rod also with the idea that he would have sex with such a young woman, and if she is 18 yr then...so quite a few factors here. And you know I think the comedians use to make fun of Chelsea Clinton & earlier Amy Carter.

I recall that an aging comedian (may have been Bill Murray) stated several years ago that it becomes more and more difficult to write jokes that are appropriate, because of that "dirty old man" factor. Not a problem with acts like Leno, Sinbad or those who don't rely on profanity and sexual innuendos, but Letterman should take note.

Does anyone else get frustrated that all the triathlon races held in this town are on the Northwest and central sides of town on Sunday mornings? I think it's time the south side had their turn - use the pool at Neuqua and run around Ashbury or down 95th Street and see how much fun it is to make it to church on time (or for those who have to get to work on Sundays)... The last race that was held they blocked off all the entrances to Tellabs and I heard people showing up to work overtime on Sunday had to call someone to let them get in!

Not everyone stays home and sleeps in on Sundays...

Hey, Bristol put herself out there by getting knocked up during an election year. Poor thing is now stuck with a baby that she and the father most certainly didn't want, because if she had done anything other than keep it it would have tanked her mom's campaign for certain (though her mom was doing a fine job of tanking it on her own, IMHO).

No one "attacked" Bristol in the media, they simply enjoyed pointing out the irony of a mother who so loudly trumpeted the supposed benefits of state-sponsored abstinence-only sexual education programs ending up with a pregnant teenage daughter. Delicious. Had little Bristol been properly educated about birth control and condoms, how they work and how to use them, she would most likely be a happy, normal teenager in college...instead of a mommy.

Chris—

Why are there boundaries placed on the topic?!? This is obviously CENSORSHIP.

I’m sure someone could easily tie Letterman’s comments to the BIG FAT PENSION he’s in line for from CBS. If I don’t get one, nobody should!

And what about Palin? I bet she has a BIG FAT PENSION coming from the State of Alaska and I’m convinced that the only reason she ran for national office last year was to DOUBLE DIP with another BIG FAT PENSION from the feds.

And her kids? They’re fair game because they probably have some survivor benefits from Palin’s BIG FAT PENSION if she were to die. I don’t care if the jokes were in poor taste, I just care about BIG FAT PENSIONS.

Napergate…Pensions…Napergate…Pensions…Napergate…Pensions!!!!

-- “The Chameleon”

P.S. Yes, that was parody.

Letterman’s comments weren’t that bad. I believe his “excuse” but he should still apologize. However, the controversy is now being perpetuated and used by Palin just to keep her name in the news. The best thing she could do for her daughter is to keep quiet so this goes away. By constantly bringing this up, isn’t Palin just ensuring that her daughter continues to hear about this for days and weeks on end? Notice how A-Fraud hasn’t commented on being referred to as a child-rapist and this has blown over for him?

T.B.

Oh, get over it already. Like who else has never said something they regretted or made an attempt at a joke that didn't go over or simply wasn't funny?

While some might not like this kind of humor thanks to all of the "shock jocks" there are many who have grown immune and actually find this kind of stuff funny. Nothing is held back, nothing is respected, or even sacred anymore.

Just like political and religious freedom of expression I guess we will have to learn to live and tolerate diversity in humor. Welcome to the new liberal world.

I don't care if Letterman is overwhelmingly anti conservative - that's fine. I don't care if he calls Gov Palin "a slutty flight attendant". If you are in the public eye, you are going to take some heat. However, it does cross the line when he includes a 14 yr old girl in comments about rape or child molestation. I wonder what the response would be in some comedian made jokes about Letterman's son?

Mr. Letterman and his crew of writers are obviously ready to go beyond the pale to try for "laugh"s and ratings. A number of years ago there was a weatherman in NY that commented on air about a rape case saying, "if rape was inevitable, then why not lay back and enjoy it". He was off air and gone before the next newscast. I guess CBS doesn't care about comments concerning children being abused or molested as long as they can compete with Conan O'Brien.

Rape and child abuse are never funny, never acceptable topics for humor, and certainly not excusable. Mr. Letterman should be ashamed of himself and offer the daughter an apology.

I do think that the Bristol/Willow/A-Rod joke was in poor taste, but a lot of late night comedian jokes are. I didn't even think it was funny, I got an "ick" reaction from it. What bugged me about it was that comedians are labeling Bristol as a slut by linking her with sexually disreputable people--Elliott Spitzer, A-Rod. As her parents, that would really set me off.

Having said that, I do agree with Anonymous on June 12, 2009 9:50 AM. The whole thing unfolding as it did during a campaign was absolutely delicious. It couldn't have happened at a better time in a more poignant way. Bristol was living proof of the failure of abstinence only sex education, and that proof was repeatedly displayed on a national stage. And Palin saying publicly that Bristol had "chosen" to keep the pregnancy was an amazing thing to hear from someone who does not believe any unplanned pregnancy should be a "choice".

And it only got better as the saga continued. When marriage plans fell apart soon after the campaign did, Bristol and Levi became poster children for how teen pregnancy disrupts lives. Bristol is a single mom living at her parents; she'd be on welfare if not for their support. And Levi dropping out of high school for a blue collar job in the oil fields--nice, considering how many American kids drop out of high school and are not prepared academically to compete in the modern-day job market.

It couldn't have played out any worse for Palin. But as it's been said, Republicans stand by their convictions, even when they know they're dead wrong. ;-)

On a more serious note, how about two new topics:

1. Was anyone else as insulted as I was by Bill Mego’s recent column which called the idea of city council districts or precincts a stupid idea that would divide the city?

Mego’s comments were certainly of the “glass half empty” variety and his stupid comment was the height of arrogance. Clearly he views those that believe in this idea of stupidity. Mego alone is pushing me closer and closer to cancelling my subscription to The Sun.

While I don’t necessarily endorse the precinct idea, I think it should at least be explored to see if we can make the council more accountable to residents than developers.

Also, I don’t think that this idea would create divisions within the city, but it may serve to highlight divisions which already exist.

2. Today’s Sun stated that the Children’s Museum may get almost $2 million in federal stimulus funds (via the state) to help pay down their debt.

While not disparaging the museum or their mission, just how does this stimulate the economy? I thought this bloated pig of a bill was supposed to put people to work and get the economy moving. Just how does paying down debt accomplish this goal?

T.B.

That isn't the first stupid column by Bill. His never ending rants on how we need public transportation 24/7 throughout the entire city is another dumb idea. I think if he likes the idea of buses running through the subdivisions on a continuous basis, I suggest he move to Chicago. Not to mention his brainstorm that we need that personal pod system.

TB,
If you pay down debt and prevent the museum from going out of business, you save the jobs of all who work for the museum.

That is how it works.

It is a rather simple concept.

I am surprised it went over your head so easily.

Losing jobs hurts the economy, keeping jobs and creating new jobs does stimulate the economy.

what the? on June 12, 2009 12:50 PM
Bristol was living proof of the failure of abstinence only sex education, and that proof was repeatedly displayed on a national stage.

It couldn't have played out any worse for Palin. But as it's been said, Republicans stand by their convictions, even when they know they're dead wrong. ;-)

___________________

Hi What the ?, As is usually the case I'm not looking for confrontation, but more explanation. The success or failure of abstinence only sex education is awfully difficult to measure isn't it? I see a lot of talk about it's failure - couldn't I also make the case that there would be many more unplanned pregnancies if not for the abstinence movement and be just as right as you?

and the last line about Republicans and their dead wrong convictions - is this slang for a pro abortion stance? do you think she and her family and the boy would all be better off if the kid was aborted?

I'm for abstinence until marriage, no illegal drugs, alcohol in moderation only after age 21. I'm also not naive enough to believe everyone will practice this, but it beats the alternative that says kids will do whatever they wish so you may as well teach them the proper way. (I know a little extreme)

By Ken on June 12, 2009 12:24 AM
I, too, find his comments despicable. His excuse is even worse; that he thought it was Bristol, the 18 year old daughter as if that made it all right.

Here is the exact quote;

"One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game," Letterman said, "during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."

Nowhere does Letterman make reference to which daughter he was referring to. As far as his excuse, it does make a difference, he admitted his mistake.

Baby Mommy Bristol was made fair game when her mother drug her around on the campaign trail, claiming how moral the family was, then having to admit her daughters discretion's, all whilst waving the Bible, and saying how everyone else needs to teach abstinence.

Why not a tax protest by not paying our taxes on time. ??? (don't pay the second installment on time)

Although there are tax penalties involved, it would surely be a great way to send a message to the Naperville councilmen, district 204 school board, and DuPage county for them spending money like there is no tomorrow.

Best way to hit them is in the pocket book, like they are hitting us. Let them (the system) struggle like the rest of us in trying to pay our bills on time.

(can't wait to get the flack on this one)

Instead of a tax revolt, why not get the Napergate clan back together and stage a 'sit' in downtown? Since Chief Dial said there is nothing he can do about the homeless dude living on the sidewalk by the Chicago and Washington, I say 10-20 people grab a cardboard box and set up residence in front of various business's downtown. What a way to get the point across.......taxes are driving us from our homes.

Maybe Anonymous can get Amena, Diana, Hunting Estates Lady, Mellisa, Blake and the gang together at the famous Dunkin Donuts again and get the ball rolling?

Fred:

Sounds like a good plan, however, many years ago the farmers drove their tractors to Wheaton in protest of the taxes. Didn't do any good, therefore, I feel that we have to hit them in their pocket books.

In closing, I am for whatever works. Changes have to be made.

Anonymouse 3:57pm, your exact quote shows exactly who the comment was aimed at, the 14 year old daughter that attended the game with her mom. I still don't see how saying it was aimed at an 18 year old makes it any better. Again, it is funny how the public condemned Ty for beanie babies portraying Obama's kids, but has no problem with Letterman's perverted comments about Palin's kids. Kind of shows how sick some of you people are, doesn't it?

I think all of you that rejoice in a politician's child being raked over the coals because of their parent's ambitions show your complete lack of class. Bristol's pregnancy would not even have been mentioned if it were not for the whisper campaign started by people like you that Palin's baby was really Bristol's. Palin's abstinence stand was never part of her official campaign.

I think a lot of people here have showed what low life scum they are when they approve of destroying a child's life and reputation just because they disagree with that child's parent's politics.

The inappropriate comments by David Letterman were about a 14yr old girl. They were not about her 18yr old sister (still inappropriate) and most importantly the matter IS NOT about politics. Not surprisingly some of the same bloggers here think everything is politics (OWVY, What the ?). Rather the subject is one of human decency which is perhaps confounding to these bloggers. It is not decent in the opinion of many for a 62 year old, washed up comic to make such gross comments on national televison. And then some people in the audience were laughing which raises questions naturally about the kind of people who think Letterman funny. Or maybe they thought they had to laugh because the applause sign was "on", he is a star and they belong to him. And I suppose science students from NNHS will still go on his show when they can. Its showtime, don't bother their teachers with decency issues. Comedy should be rooted in at least some fragement of truth, some sort of ironic view point one should rather imagine. It should not simply be an utterence by a man who has outlived his talent but has so much money and power no one at CBS can easily say goodbye to him. Of course we as individuals can and have accordingly done so. Goodbye David, you are a relic and now you are tarnished and Conan is going to clean your ratings clock.

In Response to Glock22...

I didn't say I personally liked it or that I felt it was OK. I simply brought up the idea that other president's children have been subject to jokes before. I just questioned why it may be done for many reasons. I questioned why some in society may be more upset. You actually state one part I did. I questioned his age & you say "a 62 yr old" so if he was in his 30s then what? Would you bring up his age then? Would it have been a bit more ok? Not as offensive to you? That is age discrimination then. Personally, the age does not matter to me. If I find it inappropriate I do for any age. Next, would be the age of the daughter. If both daughters were over 18 yrs would this be an issue? Well, if you say no, why not? To say this is not about Politics is just incredible. The whole thing is about politics because if it were not for Palin running for the 2nd highest office of our country & potentially taking over, the joke would not have even been made. It is about politics because of each party's politcal views on sex education, abortion etc. I agree no matter if this is about a person in politics or business or whatever, it may not be a kind thing to say. Let say it was about Donald Trump's daughter. Would it be a joke that comedians make if Donald was not promoting the conservative views Palin is, or I guess you could add religious views if that was being mentioned.

I don't find David washed up. I don't find Don Rickles washed up. I do understand some do not like their style of comedy, but they are liked by many. And actually, I don't find I like all jokes of any comedy funny or acceptable. I don't like Conan at all & even less Jimmy Fallon. I don't understand how you don't see the irony in what David said. It is ironic to point out the view point Palin holds and yet what happened to her family. How successful has it worked for them? That is not being questioned by people...it is the appropriateness if directed to the 14 yr old. You know there is also something to be said that a joke like this really does not bomb if it gets people talking! It sure did! Just in talking to people today or quite frankly just overhearing many people today talking about it in various places, many are like well maybe her sister's behavior & all this media will make the younger one think twice and learn she doesn't want to go down that path.

I'm not a fan of people being ridiculed for mistakes they make in life. We all make them. And quite frankly, people may disagree with this statement but how could you even say Bristol's child is "a mistake"? I don't! I know you may say the "behavior of having sex" was a mistake or witout a condom but....No, I'm not promoting they have sex but in the grand scheme of things what do I know the The Divine has planned & why? Who the heck knows...maybe this child will go on & cure cancer?! Seriously, one never knows. I will never say a child born was a mistake. But, I also believe with every choice we make there our consequences. Some good, some bad. Those consequences may be something which are lessons in life for that person. I'm not niave to think this is the first time she has been teased, ridiculed etc. I'm sure just her friends, heck probably other extended family is not happy with what happened etc. I don't find that acceptable myself, but we know it happens. I personally like when Dave just mentions "what is" rather than extend to "what might happen".

You know...wasn't one of the Bush girls also joked about when she had a drinking problem? At least one? I don't recall people being upset with the appropriateness of it then? I suspect it is a mix of the age of the younger one who did attend the game & then some who are Republican are going to of course be more sensitive. Not that Democrats would not be on the age idea but those Democrats who educate their children about condoms etc may not be as upset on the political/religious part. Of course there are some very religious Democrats and some Republicans who may not be, I do recognize that but this is part of the political differences we know.

Again, not many are upset on the idea of A-Rod going after an 18 or 14 yr old.

Thomas!! Welcome back, dude.

Nope, you're reading far too much into my comments. What happened to the Palin family during the campaign is simply what happened. It is what it is, like it or not. Bristol WAS living proof of the failure of abstinence only sex education, and she WAS repeatedly displayed on a national stage by her family. I'm speaking only of her, not the entire country. To answer your question, you'd have to take a national poll.

As for the comment, "Republicans stand by their convictions, even when they know they're dead wrong," I'm quoting Denny Crane from Boston Legal. One of my favorite shows. Quirky, but often right on target.

Ken:

"Bristol's pregnancy would not even have been mentioned if it were not for the whisper campaign started by people like you that Palin's baby was really Bristol's."

Whoa, what was THAT?!? I've never heard that before. You mean there was a rumor that Palin's little boy was really Bristol's, so she's actually had two children and Palin was covering for her by claiming Trig was hers? Seriously? That's really out there; it sounds like one of those false emails that was the subject of a previous thread here. Unfortunately, now that you've repeated it, it may take on new life.

And "Palin's abstinence stand was never part of her official campaign." That's a pretty lame attempt at weaseling out of a position. She has been very vocal about her anti-sex education, pro abstinence-only belief system, whether she talked of it during the campaign or not. The entire nation got to see how that worked out for her.

TO: By one 6/12/09 @9:05pm: The fact Letterman is 62 means he should be mellowing like a fine wine, not comporting himself like piss and vinegar. And many ARE upset not about the thought of A-Rod going after an 18 or 14 yr old (most of us never thought it until now) but rather the fact that Letterman demonstrated he is simply an elderly A-Hole. That by the way can be construed as my personal age discrimination against Letterman. I want to be discriminating in a society that is more and more indiscriminate in practically any measure you care to select. His show should be cancelled. He is too old and has lost is edge, his sense of humor if you will has
gone cold.

One, you miss the point, either out of ignorance or on purpose, and I'm voting it's the latter. Letterman did not make the joke about the 18 year old, that's just the lie he used to cover his butt. He made the joke about a 14 year old girl because of who her mother is. Plain and simple. Glad you brought up the Bush girls, as that is another example of how Republican's kids are accepted targets. Funny how we had 8 years of how Chelsae Clinton was off limits after one joke, but an Republican kid is fair game.

What the, nice try at denying knowledge of a story that got major coverage during the campaign. Of course, since you are showing how ignorant you are on this subject, maybe the news doesn't make it to your cave.

Glad to see you have no problem with tearing down politician's children. Using your scum bag standards, will it be okay to make jokes about Obama's children having sex too? Can I look forward to Letterman saying in 4 years when Malia turns 14 "Does Malia like it doggie style? Bo knows..." and the country laughs hysterically? Somehow, since the country condemned beanie baby dolls modeled after them, I can't see that happening, especially with the obvious double standards for children of Democrats.

It is funny how the religious right calls it a mistake when one of "their's" gets knocked up, yet if it happens to a non Christian, she is a slut. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

Glock22 that was me...not sure what happened on the name but others have complained also it screws up.

So you are admitting Age Discrimination here. If Chris Rock made the comment it would be ok? That comment of Dave being old etc sounds like a perspective from someone who is young & has not experienced life. Wait until you are around Dave's age and see how you feel about this. The fact that you think people should just mellow out as they get old right there shows your lack of understanding. There are many older people vibrant & passionate & still on target. The fact that this is so controversial says he is on target. And you know quite frankly if you think of the joke, though maybe something that could have been verbally expressed in a different way to make the same point, it is really slamming Palin herself & her viewpoint & how she is a mother. It suggests one daughter was like this so obviously mom's parenting method did not work & thus if she does not change higher percentage (not for sure) that younger ones will have problems as well. Now we don't know. She may have had a different talk with the 14 yr old after Bristol did this. Bristol may have talked to her etc but how many times does you see repeat behavior in families.

What the? YES that rumor was going around. It had to do also with Palin flying while 9 mo pregnant also. I do recall that at the time.

Ken...think about this...what is up with the Republican President's kids? Did you see Chelsea Clinton partying like crazy? Did she get pregnant? The girl skipped 3rd grade, National Merit Scholarship finalist, graduated from Stanford University with Chem major interested in Medicine, gets her Masters from University College, Oxford in international relations, then Columbia University now in history. And you know they did get upset when someone said she was being "Pimped out" for her mom so there was criticism it is just that so far there has not be a great deal of controversey to make jokes about her or complain on her views etc. Maybe it the republican presidents/candidates children would not act the way they do they would not be a source for pointing at.

Hey Clock22...so much for Mellowing Out...George H.W. Bush jumps out of a plane again for his birthday...his comment..."Just because you're an old guy, you don't have to sit around drooling in the corner," Bush said

Ken:

A story that got major coverage during the campaign? I thought you said it was a "whisper campaign"!

Sorry to burst your cynical bubble, but I never heard that through any news source. Nor did I hear it from any of my friends, most of whom were Obama supporters. If they did hear it, they were too intelligent to believe and repeat such garbage. Too bad I can't say the same for you.

I remember hearing that there was a rumor that Sarah Palin was pretending to be the mother of her youngest child when it was in fact her daughter's baby, but it was more complicated than that. I can't remember the details anymore, but I want to say that this was something that came out before she was picked for VP and I think it was a rumor that was being passed around in Alaska. I don't think it got a ton of press since it was so obviously not true. I believe that after the daughter announced she was pregnant, it turned out that the dates wouldn't work out, among other things. I.E. Bristol had been pregnant before the other child was born.

OWVY:

I do remember hearing something at the time about Palin flying while full term with a "shame on her" attitude for doing so. But I never heard rumors suggesting Trig was Bristol's child. AS IF a candidate would try to pull off such a scam. That's like believing the rumors about Obama turning his back on the American flag and refusing to say the pledge of allegiance. But there are people who believed that, so we shouldn't be surprised some bought the Bristol/Trig rumor. It speaks highly of my circle that this kind of crap was not considered worthy of discussion.

Speaking of equal time. Republicans are up in arm about Barak having his feet up on the desk. Well Bill Maher just showed a picture of George W. with his feet up on the desk so talk about equal criticsm...the Republicans do their fair share of one sided criticism!

He also discussed the Dave joke. He said Palin said it would be wise to keep Willow away from Dave & Maher said, Ya Dave is going to tear open his jacket yank the stint from his heart & and blank her.

OMG here you go...Maher just said that Cher's daughter Chastity is getting a sex change operation to be a male called Chase & Chase is not expecting a miracle but enough of a success to knock up one of Palin's legal age children.

Maher just brought up about how many people are mean about those who are older to Larry King & King said it is a youth oriented society but if you are in the businesses for 52 yrs like he is, you must be doing something right. Letterman started in 1982 with his show & has last this long. I don't see Conan or Fallon lasting that long!

OWVY: yeah, I told you I am indeed discriminating. I have certian viewpoints that are not up for debate. The Letterman matter is one. He has lost his edge and with it, his relevency. He is merely an obscene and angry NYC upper East Side elitist from southern Indiana. A real sophisticate if you will. LOL. And to the Anonymous poster at 11:45PM; I think beauty contests are for the mentally disadvantaged among us but consider the recent case of Ms. California. She had the audacity to state her personal beliefs about gay marriage when asked and lost her crown simply because of her opinion. Why, because you so called self styled tolerent liberals saw it as an opportunity to wag your facist, intolerent fingers at someone who opposes your ignorant point of view about what marriage should be. So you think about what hyprocisy is and exactly who has the franchise on it. As for Letterman, I think it appropriate he and his stupid Word Wide Pants show should be over for the remark. And were I an advertiser, I would be taking my late night marketing business to Conan. Now I have to go to NCC and sit in the rain for commencement, listening to brainy liberal speakers imparting their indiscriminate wisdom for all to consider. I expect to at least laugh at some of their ironic,hypocricy.

Some humor: here goes

............................

Who Knows American History???

The first day of school and a new Indian student named
Chandrasekhar Subramanjan entered the fourth grade.

The teacher said, "Let's begin by reviewing some American History.
Who said... 'Give me Liberty or give me Death'?"

She saw a sea of blank faces, except for Chandrasekhar,
who had his hand up: "Patrick Henry, 1775," he said..

"Very good! Who said 'Government of the People, by the People, for the People, shall not perish from the Earth'?"

Again, no response except from Chandrasekhar.
"Abraham Lincoln, 1863," he said.

The teacher snapped at the class, "Class, you should be ashamed. Chandrasekhar, who is new to our country, knows more about its history than you do."

She heard a loud whisper: "F**k the Indians."
"Who said that?" she demanded.

Chandrasekhar put his hand up..."General Custer, 1862."

At that point, a student in the back said, "I'm gonna puke."

The teacher glared around and asked, "All right! Now, who said that?"

Again, Chandrasekhar raised his hand and said, "George Bush to the Japanese Prime Minister, 1991."

Now furious, another student yelled, "Oh yeah? Suck this!"

Chandrasekhar jumped out of his chair waving his hand and
shouted to the teacher, "Bill Clinton, to Monica Lewinsky, 1997!"

Now with almost mob hysteria someone said, "You little sh*t. If you say anything else, I'll kill you."

Chandrasekhar frantically yelled at the top of his voice,
"Michael Jackson, to the child witnesses testifying against him, 2004."

The teacher fainted.

And as the class gathered around the teacher slumped on the floor, someone said, "Oh sh*t, we're screwed!"

And Chandrasekhar said quietly,
"I think it was the American taxpayers, during the 2009 bailouts."

While I do appreciate the joke, as I said to taxes the other day, please try to disguise the profanity better in the future. Sorry to be a wet blanket, but standards are what they are.

Works,

I think we should tax everyone at 100% and have the government pay all of the money for community activism, and social work.

Then we can all starve to death.

Obama is completely clueless about where the money comes from that he wants to redistribute to the People.

BTW did you hear that Microsoft threatened to bail out of the US if Obama's tax plans go forward.

The buzz in Silicon valley is "when will the FEDS come after our industries"?

Active planning to move the remaining US operations to China have begun in earnest at one company I am very aware of. All of the Engineering and manufacturing, the US will have a sales office only like the Banana Republic we are becoming.

Emanuel & Geitner started talking about "regulating" the venture capital companies. Politically-correct, crony-capitalism, forced-investments. The buzz is that the big boys flew out to DC. My guess is that they had to write a lot of personal checks to the DNC and various foundations as part of a shake down for campaign money.

Maybe the VCs will follow the Engineering and Manufacturing to China. HK and Singapore are not the bad from what I hear. Both have running water and telephones.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
By That is how it works..... on June 12, 2009 3:18 PM

TB,
If you pay down debt and prevent the museum from going out of business, you save the jobs of all who work for the museum.

That is how it works.

It is a rather simple concept.

I am surprised it went over your head so easily.

Losing jobs hurts the economy, keeping jobs and creating new jobs does stimulate the economy.

What the, nice try in trying to change the subject. As I said, you must not get much news in your cave. Try googling Palin baby conspiracy, and you will see the coverage you conveniently missed. Obviously you are not very bright as you couldn't comprehend that the whisper campaign started the story, and it turned into a major story that forced the announcement of Bristol's pregnancy.

None of that changes the fact that only a low life scum would approve of Letterman's joke about a 14 year old girl getting impregnated by a professional athlete, or all of the other jokes aimed at Palin's family. I don't know why any of this surprises me from the party that endorsed the sexual harassment of an intern by the president from their party, the party that created the politics of personal destruction.

OWVY, your comment about Chelsae during the last campaign just proves the point. As soon as a comment was made, the press clamped down even though they were helping try to destroy Palin and her family. Even when Chelsae campaigned, interviews were only granted to reporters if they agreed not to question her about her personal life. The blatant double standard was upheld for a 29 year old woman, but discarded for a barely legal adult.

If you want to discuss cynicism concerning Bush/Obama, I don't know why you bring up a feet on the desk incident that I have heard nothing about. Why don't you mention the $100,000 date at our expense taken by the Obamas? Michele's taking her kids to Paris to shop, again on our dime? Bush got criticized every time he left the White House, but apparently it is okay for Obama to do it. As you said, talk about obvious hypocrisy.

By the way, if all Democrat kids are so good, why is it that the Bush girls were not arrested like Amy Carter or the druggie Al Gore Jr.? Who knows how much Chelsae partied in her college days, as there was a news black out on her. All I would like to see is the same courtesy extended to the children of Republicans, but as many of the scum here have shown(Imagine, rejoicing at Bristol's pregnancy because it embarrassed her mom...), that will not happen. I guess when attacking the politician isn't enough, you have to resort to scumbag attacks on their children.

Ken:

Your last post sounds a bit shrill; you need to take a breather. You're obviously into this Palin baby mama thing big time, I'll let you do the googling and be the expert. I believe moderator Chris's more rational explanation, that "I don't think it got a ton of press since it was so obviously not true." Don't you think it's a waste of your time to be so vigorously combating an old rumor that anyone with half a brain didn't believe anyway?

And I love your response to OWVY, "I don't know why you bring up a feet on the desk incident that I have heard nothing about." These photos were a dime a dozen during the Bush years. None of them must have made their way into YOUR side of the cave. Your selective ignorance is amusing.

That's How it Works -

You're assuming the museum's jobs would be lost without the stimulus cash to help pay down their debt. Last I heard, the museum is not in dire financial shape. They may be forced to leave their prime location, but not close altogether and put their staff (how many?) out of work. I'm surprised that went over your head.

This is just another example of how everyone's trying to get part of the "free" money. That's how it really works.

T.B.

What the, I am adamant about this subject because I have 5 daughters. I would not want to see any of them treated the way you approve of the Palin's daughters being treated because of any political aspirations I may have. You seem to delight in two girls being attacked because of who their mother is, which says a lot about you.

As for the Palin baby conspiracy, the fact that you refuse to even do a simple google search tells me you probably knew about it. I'm not combating a rumor, just using that story to point out the obvious bias in the media against Republican's children. I do understand you are too thick witted to realize that, especially when you believe the incorrect memories of Chris when they are easily proven wrong by a simple search of the web. Just because he is a moderator does not make his fuzzy recollections the definitive answer. By the way, even his fuzzy recollections supported me more than you.

Your obvious lack of reading comprehension shows up again when you cannot comprehend what I said about feet on the desk photos. I didn't say Bush never did that. I said that I have heard no outcry about Obama doing it from any news source or political talk show host. There are several more severe transgressions of Obama to dwell on than something as insignificant as him putting his feet on the desk. Your total ignorance is equally amusing to me.

My take:

Jokes about any prominent person's children should be off-limits. David Letterman's joke was tasteless, and his apology was lacking. I believe him, though, when he says the joke was not aimed at the 14 year-old. Finally, Sarah Palin should adopt a policy of not commenting any further on the matter, as it keeps the issue in the news, and continues to focus unwelcome attention on her family.

-JQP

Unwelcome attention? JQP,surely you jest.

Sara is going to take full advantage of this to garner support and keep the right wingers wound up. The only thing else she needs to do is wave a flag and hold a Bible up to make her a viable candidate for 2012 in their eyes..

Ken:

Drone, drone, drone. Yes, Ken, you are a god in your own mind. Everyone's "fuzzy" but you. Keep obsessing about sex and the Palin girls; you really seem to get off on that. Perhaps you would find Craig's List more suitable. The rest of us more well-adjusted folks prefer to move on.

Oh, and the feet on the desk incident you claim to know nothing about has been in the news lately. Obama did it this time. Another tidbit that didn't make it to your side of the cave. You'll have to google it.

What the, first things first. Anytime you want to meet me in person and insinuate I am a child molester or get off on little girls, name the time and place. To even insinuate such a thing shows what a low life scum bag you are, something I will have no problem saying to you in person. Quit being a key board rambo and set up the meet; let's see if you are as brave in person as on an anonymous board.

Chris, if you have standards, as you claim, I can't believe you would let that post on the board. I know it is hard to claim libel on a board that is mostly anonymous even though I use my own first name, but letting that crap on is wrong and bordering on libelous.

Secondly, no, What the, I am not a god in my own mind. I just have reading comprehension, something you obviously lack, and don't comment on things until I research them, something you and Chris obviously don't do. I did google the Obama shoes on desk story and it appears that it is left wing blog story. I read the Chicago Tribune online, and there was no story about it even when I searched for it. Not a word on any major news source either.

This proves two things. One, you frequent the left wing blogs, and would have seen the previous story you denied knowing about. Two, you are incapable of intelligent discourse on news stories as you obviously can't tell the difference between news and left wing blogs trying to claim things that obviously aren't there, like a right wing outcry about Obama's habit of putting his feet on the desk.

Ken-ster!

It sure is easy to push your crazy buttons. And what's wrong with Craigslist? It's a great site for finding previously owned consumer goods.

This entire discourse has become juvenile and ridiculous. Fine, Ken, you the man. Unfortunately, like too many far right-wingers I know, you come across as rigid, inflexible and unwilling to acknowledge there can be more than one valid point-of-view, more than one correct course of action. You could say there are two sides to every story: the wrong way and Ken's way. And anyone who doesn't see life through your myopic tunnel vision is either "fuzzy", "ignorant" or a "low life scum bag". Sticks and stones, Ken. Entirely predictable.

And since I know exactly what your next response will be, I'll go there first to save you the time: No, I'm not afraid to meet you. I've been out of high school a long time and have simply outgrown such challenges. I'm sure you really have no interest, either. But if you want to get into a you-know-what measuring contest with someone, I'm really not your man. Because I'm a woman. So this is an easy win for you.

I'm sure we've been keeping the other bloggers amused, but it's time for someone to be the grown-up, so I'll go first. The floor is now open to other topics.

What the, any time any one, man or woman insinuates I am a child molester, as you did, I will not put up with it. Just because you are a woman, or claim to be, you are not any less of a scum bag for suggesting that. It does make a nice out for you to be a woman and unable to back up your attacks. If you act like a grown-up, it will be the first time concerning this topic.

Kenny:

I never mentioned anything about child molesting; you went there entirely on your own.

I have conceded. Yours is bigger than mine. Now let's move on.

Ok what the ?-I thought my first post was a good response to the blog question but you and Ken DO need to change whats on your minds. Don Imus makes a comment, lefty is outraged and Imus is off the air. (he collects some nice $ from CBS and moves on to make more on a satellite network) Letterman makes a specific 14yr old girl the brunt of an obscene sexual comment and lefty thinks it just Letterman being Letterman. The double standard is blantant. Many of us think Obama blows to put it simply. Thats the way it is. Frankly, I dislike Obama as much as you did Bush. And this ignorant POS has been in office less than 200 days. So be it. You will have to live with all of his mistakes and the consequence of the electorate selecting a college trained and degreed idiot as President just as we do. It will be a bitter four years but I think alot of people are dissatisfied with Change you can Believe In. Today the executive director of one of the home addresses for many criminals in Aurora complained in a letter on the SUN editorial page today we should call our Springfield legislators and beg them not to cut social service programs. Last week it was Linda Healy, and over the past few weeks a number of CEO's of the welfare state have been begging in the press WE NEED OUR MONEY! Hessed House has grown three times its size in a year and all the poor people take it on the chin because the state is not paying social service providers and all the blah blah blah. I am NOT going to call my legislator. I am sick and tired of the demand for social services growing for example three times what it was recently at Hessed House. Meanwhile, where I work our business has shrunk from $43 million in gross sales to $37 million in the same time business has grown at Hessed House. We cannot afford to hire new workers so our service suffers and the decline will continue. The Democrats continue to add to the costs of government, expanding the welfare state at the expense of jobs, jobs, jobs. It is a fitting and ironic joke that the party of the little guy, the poor, disinfranchised and champions of social justice actually add to the problems of the aforementioned masses. And you complain about bible thumping, right wingers. Ken isn't the problen, you and your ilk are.

Actually Ken...what I have read is that Chelsea does not do interviews even for a little cute boy that asked once. She has made some speaches but not interviews.

Well, they made a remark about her that was not true. Just because a family member speaks on your behalf does not mean you are pimping out someone. The info on the Bush girls & Palin's beliefs despite the behavior of her daughter is true.

Sorry you have not heard the feet on desk thing. Been in the media & just was on Maher as I said. God it was on AOL if that is not in the media geez

http://news.aol.com/main/politics/article/obama-feet-up-photo/522634

Oh give me a break Bush was not for doing something like that. It was how many days he actually worked vs took a vacation. And hmm I wonder how much the previous first ladies (of either party) paid for dresses? Like they all were not taken out. It is just the media harping on it now, most likely due to our economy. When the economy is doing well people don't care as much. Take a look at Nancy Reagan's dresses! They were a pretty penny!

You forget this is not just what has happened but due to the parents who claim their family values are so perfect and better than others. Nice that you can assume what Chelsea did without knowing for sure. OMG that is certainly the same. And if Chelsea had this blackout...why didn't the republican candidates do that for their children as well. You'd think they would. Why not?

I also do not think anyone DELIGHTS in this. It is just pointing out what is happening. If you were preaching to everyone in your town on your perfect parenting and then your 5 daughters were pregnant or partying everywhere you better believe people in town would talk. Lets say you are the preacher of a town, you don't think a pregnant daughter of yours would not make the paper or be on a blog. I'm sure you would not like it. I would not as a parent but it would happen!

I also agree that "What the" did not insinuate what you are claiming. She said you got off on arguing/discussing about the Palin girl joke to blog about. That is a big difference than saying you get off on sex with an underage girl. You mentioned "comprehension."

And you are always so mean. You don't even realize that. You call people names (scum bag etc), you want to initiate meeting people to what...fight if they say it to you to your face? Very least verbally get into it & you don't recognize what they can potentially lead to...by either party? You describe yourself as a bully, verbally & potentially physically if you want to challenge people to meeting you to say what they are saying on this blog in front of you. "Incapable of Intelligent discourse" hmmm? Ask your wife or daughters to read your most recent postings & see what they think. Would your wife & children be proud of you calling people names and challenging one in person? It is not something a parent should model to their children. You should be telling your children socially appropriate behavior. I don't care what the person says. The most intelligent person is one who knows that anyone can say anything to you but it does not mean you have to feel threatened or be angry or get into a physical fight even. An expression I heard & learned many years ago is "You don't get wet from someone calling you water." People can think what they want, but that does mean you are that. The confident/secure person knows that & doesn't care about any person on this planet what they say to them & on a blog no less. It is parents responsibility to guide children's Social & Emotional Intelligence. Daniel Goleman states, "helping children improve their self-awareness and confidence, manage their disturbing emotions and impulses, and increase their empathy pays off not just in improved behavior but in measurable academic achievement." You should be confident, control your disturbing emotions & impulses and if anything have empathy for those who may in your opinion be wrong. They may be ignorant on a topic or they themselves may not have EI. You can point out if they are misinformed or not critically thinking etc but name calling etc just makes you look worse and people just won't even listen to anything you have to say if you are like that. I have enjoyed reading your posts even when we disagree in the past, but lately it is just a turn off & that is sad.

http://www.danielgoleman.info/blog/topics/emotional-intelligence/

(If anyone wants to read more on this & take the assessment on the site.)

what the?
It seems that the comment below was your below-the-belt, low blow dig at Ken that shows YOU went 'there first', causing Ken to follow only to defend himself.

"By what the? on June 14, 2009 12:02 AM
Ken:
Drone, drone, drone. Yes, Ken, you are a god in your own mind. Everyone's "fuzzy" but you. Keep obsessing about sex and the Palin girls; you really seem to get off on that. Perhaps you would find Craig's List more suitable. The rest of us more well-adjusted folks prefer to move on."

And quite honestly, speaking for myself, your snarky, juvenile banter really isn't keeping other bloggers amused. Just sayin'.

What the, you can continue with your lies, but your statement speaks for itself:

"Keep obsessing about sex and the Palin girls; you really seem to get off on that."

Now, just like Letterman, you are trying to act innocent. It doesn't work for either of you.

OWVY, I am the same in real life as on the internet. If someone says something that is an obvious lie, insinuates something about me that isn't true, or shows their total ignorance on a subject, I call them on it. My wife flat out warns people not to talk politics with me unless they know their facts, but is not the least bit embarrassed when I talk to people about any subject. My five daughters also are not embarrassed as I have taught them to also stand up for themselves. It's funny how you say I shouldn't call names but say the Palins insist their family is perfect, which they never have, and back up a keyboard rambette that insinuates I am a child molester.

You have just given a great example of why I stress reading comprehension. You say I assume what Chelsae did, when all I said was who knows what she did as news organizations had a news blackout on her. You then go on to ask why Republicans don't enforce such a blackout when I have already shown that it is not the politician that forces the blackout, it is the press and they refuse to extend that favor to Republicans as they do to Democrats. You also say no one delights in the Palin situation, when several here have stated that they do. All of your statements show your lack of reading comprehension. You go on to show your ignorance by stating the feet on the desk thing was covered in the media but use an entertainer whose show is only available on a pay channel and an internet provider as your examples. Neither are exactly major news services.

Am I being mean by pointing out that most of your post is based on bad reading comprehension and ignorance? I guess from the standpoint of someone like you who just posted a whole lot of nothing, I am. From my view, I am just pointing out that your diatribe is useless since it is based on things I didn't say and a complete lack of knowledge, something your post has already shown. People always think that someone who points out their shortcomings is mean, even when that person is doing so in response to what the idiot is saying.

To Anonymous on June 14, 2009 10:13 PM:

"Ken isn't the problem, you and your ilk are."

I've always been fascinated by that phrase, "you and your ilk." It sounds so medieval. So I looked it up on Merriam Webster and, sure enough, it's chiefly Scottish, means "same", and dates before the 12th century. Just thought it was interesting.

It really amazes me that after all the crap this country has been put through in the last 8 years by the Bush admin., you Obama haters manage to blame it all on our president of 200 days. Well, suck it up. If we could live through 2 terms of Bush, an unnecessary war which has cost thousands of lives and economic polices which led to the biggest financial crises since 1929, you and your ilk can live through 2 terms of Obama and a little change.

I never used the phrase "bible thumping right-wingers". I said "far right-wingers". YOU morphed it into bible thumping. What is it with you and your ilk? Always projecting your own inadequacies onto everyone else. It's really very Freudian. Like Ken and the child molestation thing. Craigslist has been under fire recently for being a hub for online prostitution posing as escort and massage services. Ken translated that into child molestation. One wonders how he got from point A to point B on that, but I really don't want to go there. Suffice it to say you all are very aware of your weaknesses, and we can always rely on you to tip your hand and show us what they are.

Casual Observer: You're right, the banter was very juvenile, as I stated. But you may want to back up a bit more and find where the insults and name calling originated. And you say you don't find any of this amusing, and yet you're still here. Just sayin'.

OWVY: High five! Yes, I heard about the Obama feet up thing on Faux news, I believe. They were making a big deal out of it, saying how Obama had insulted the Arab world by having his picture taken with his feet up on his own desk. Too bad for the Arab world. This is an American president putting his feet up in America, where it's not considered an insult. No apology needed.

And I recognize too that K tends to intimidate and be a bit of a bully. Chalk it up to the "T" (testosterone) factor. It's the same reason why North Korea is threatening nuclear war, Iran is threatening to annihilate Israel, and Venezuela has banned Coke Zero. That's probably why I enjoy pushing his buttons.

The attack on Palin's family, is an attack on every family.

All families are imperfect, most strive to improve each generation and have an ideal to aim for. The assault on Palin, is an assault on traditional values and all married women who can juggle a career and a family.

By contrast, the media was relatively mute on Pelosi's plan to provide free birth control pills (as part of the stimulus bill) to all females who want them; given their effectiveness, free abortions without parental notification would follow closely. No doubt the sex education, pills and abortions would all be run out of the High Schools in coordination with the FEDs and Planned Parenthood. A winning trio in the inner-cities judging by the results.

The Democrat's Fascist propaganda machine sees Palin as a threat, who might attract suburban white female voters back into the Republican Party, so she has to be destroyed. Compare her treatment to that of Pelosi, also married with children and the Speaker of the House. Listening to Pelosi, it's not apparent that her mental faculties, intelligence or ethics are in tact or functioning.

John Podesta, who was originally in the Clinton Administration, now runs an advocacy group which was drawn on the staff the White House. Originally portrayed as pulling the strings on Pres. Obama, what has now come out is that Podesta's organization takes the “message of the day” from the White House and broadcasts it out to over 1000 like minded organizations. For lack of a better description, lets call it the Confederation of Progressive National Socialists and Workers Parties. During WW2 the Americans would have called it the fascist Ministry of Propaganda.

http://www.americanprogress.org/experts/PodestaJohn.html

What becomes clearer every day is, the twenty years that Pres. Obama spent sitting in the pews listening to Rev. Wright (close friend of Farrakhan), Obama was listening.

In fact, Obama has stated that Rev. Wright “inspired him to get into politics”; to “remake the country” as Wright and now Pres. Obama perceive it.

Letterman shold be treated no differently than IMUS.

He should be forced to give a real apology and he should be put on probabtion or fired.

If that was Coultier talking about one of the Obama children we wold have a national witch hunt. For those of you defending Letterman ---- shame on you!

Different topic: this is getting too deep.

Does anyone find it ironic that for the past 2 nights the local news casts have been doing stories on what to do if your analog TV doesn't work? With the switch to digital programming you need a converter box or cable to get reception.

The broadcasters go into great detail on what to do if you are not receiving the signal!!! Hello - if you aren't getting the signal how can you take their advice. Channel 7 also gave a web site that you can go to for more detail, as if people who only have analog tv's are going to have internet access.

"...because you so called self styled tolerent liberals saw it as an opportunity to wag your facist, intolerent fingers at someone who opposes your ignorant point of view about what marriage should be. So you think about what hyprocisy is and exactly who has the franchise on it."

Holy cow wow. This is the most ironic blog post I've ever read on here.

If you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one. Simple as that. If you're NOT planning on getting one, stay out of other peoples' business AND their bedrooms, OK? It's very simple and easy to understand, and I'd imagine that everyone (regardless of their sexual orientation) would be able to appreciate that.

Ken and friends, you're going too far with the personal attacks here. I'm asking you to knock it off.

Ken...

"Keep obsessing about sex and the Palin girls; you really seem to get off on that."

This does not mean "Keep obsessing about sex WITH the Paline Girls" or HAVING SEX with them. The topic is sex an the Palin girls as Bristol is an unwed mother & Letterman was discussing sex about A-Rod & one of them. I only took it to me you like, very much passionately talking about it. Now look at that word "passionately" that does not mean sex only! A Heated conversation also does not mean a conversation about sex.

You can also call someone out on something if they are not telling the truth or illogical but you do not have to be mean and call names or suggest you meet to confront the person. I am not saying your wife or daughters would be upset with you discussing a topic or calling someone out. I do that & I would support my husband & would want him to support me on that. I would not support him on calling names & being a bully. There is a difference. Maybe your wife warns others to not talk politics percisely for that reason. Because you can't talk about it in a civilized manner? Ask her? I never said you said Palin was perfect. I said the jokes are made because the republicans and people like Palin claim this is the right way (abstinence, other family values) and then things happen. Again, here comprehension. I said they are going to be targets for comedians when they do that. I never said you said they were perfect. I never said you were a child molestor & just can't see the how you get that from that statement "what the" said.

Hmmm now with Chelsea...there is an insinuation. Why did you bring that up? You are suggesting we don't know so therefore she may have done horrible things. And you know...blackout give me a break with all the technology & even rumors, I think there would be more if she was some wild woman in college. It would leak & they would scramble for damage control. Use what you have. We have drunk Bush girls & a unwed teen mom with Palin's daughter. They refuse to extend the favor. Oh boy. Sorry can't see that. There are plenty of papers that are republican supporters, and what about all the kids with phone videos etc. It would get out on democrats also if their kids were doing anything. And God the Tabloids alone. You mean the Tabloids are extending the favor to Chelsea also. That would be HUGE money!!! Sorry just doesn't convince me AT ALL.

As for the President's feet I gave you AOL...that is media for how many...if you do not think so you are clueless! And if you look at the link it is AS REPORTED BY CBS NEWS...are you saying CBS NEWS is not a major news source? What I meant is noone delights in the fact that this is even event that is open to a joke. They may delight in the fact of catching one being a hypocrit but I don't think some are like "Oh I'm thrilled that there are unwed teen mothers".

I am comprehending you very well. You are missing comprehension many times. I am not claiming anyone is mean for pointing out either parties misunderstanding or illogical points. I never said that. Again comprehension on your part. I said you are mean for calling names (scum bag) and for suggesting someone who disagrees with you confront you in person. That is bullying behavior. Please reread what I wrote because you obviously missed me saying it. And then if you are missing things then I'd be really careful to be so hard on other for missing something your post. Again this is part of Social Emotional Intelligence. When you have the compassion to say, hmm they must have missed my point or perhaps I was not clear enough. A person should ask more questions. For example, if you thought someone was insinuating something you did not like, you should have called them out. You didn't, you called them names & challenge them to say it in front of you. Calling them out would be asking them to blantantly say "Yes, I think you would like to have sex with teen girls." Now think if you did that what would have happened. You would not have even had to say anything back because many bloggers on both sides of this argument would have been all over that person. Heck the editor would have been. Also if you did, you again, don't need to say anything really because everyone can just see then they are an idiot. Again, the peace that comes with confidence. Anyone can call you something but it does not make you it. Those who would believe something like that also would not be logical not even knowing you & they are not worth anyone's time.

Anonymous of 8:55am

An assault on those with traditional values? No it is an assault on those who preach that those who claim their way is the right way and others are wrong and evil and do not have any rights because they do not agree with them. They believe everyone should do what they do when it is suppose to be a country of the free! I am a suburban white female & there is no way Palin would attract me with her believe system!

You mention Obama listening to spiritual people for inspiration. That does not mean he agree with everything and ummm now who did Bush use spiritually...hmmm...oh and then there was who Nancy Reagan consulted with. Ya!! And no one should use any inspiration from Spiritual people. And that is the only source of inspiration they get right? Maybe it is just the spiritual leader they picked. Not to you liking huh.

The other Anonymous...ah IMUS did something so much worse...give me a break!

I love the post on the analogue tv thing! HA!

Chris...posted mine prior to refreshing for new posts to see yours but I think needs to be responded to. I know then he wants to respond etc. but...I think if Ken did stop the name calling & just pointed out his views adn asked questions in a neutral manner it would still be a nice discussion.

Ken, I said "Ken and friends" meaning you and those you are arguing with. You took it too far in the post I didn't publish and that's why I didn't publish it. If you think about what you wrote you should see why I didn't allow it. We've had this conversation before, you and I, though it's been awhile. When you all just start fighting with each other it's time to end it and move on.

i'm allin for the sitin next to the bumb in downtown naperville for a few nights.

Putting the shoe on the other foot...

A white version of Rev Wright would have to be preaching in front of a KKK meeting since it is unlikely anyone else would show up to listen to the hate-filled, separatist, racist stereotyping and bating, and socialist class warfare he preaches.

If Wright were white, I'm sure he'd be sporting his Aryan Nation tattoos and pointed hat pillow case.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By One Who Values You on June 15, 2009 12:58 PM

"You mention Obama listening to spiritual people for inspiration."

OWVY, I am not able to fairly respond as Chris is heavily editing or not posting my replies at all, enforcing the double standards perpetuated throughout the media.

You bring up me wanting to have that scumbag What the say what she says in anonymity to my face instead of hiding behind her keyboard. Apparently, you would be fine with someone calling you a child molester; I am not. You and I have had many disagreements, and I have never tried to "bully" you into a meeting as you have not made any such charges against me. When someone does that, I will invite them to meet me face to face to see if they are willing to back themselves up in person. What the hid behind being a woman, which is an easy claim to make when you hide behind the keyboard. I also emailed Chris, and he is backing her up. Again, the media double standard, but it shows that complaining to the editor does not work.

If I had done as you suggest, and ask What the exactly what she was insinuating, she would have acted innocent just like Letterman did. AOL is not a major news service, and my google search on the story did not show any links to CBS. I also watch CBS news every night, and saw no mention of the story. If you have a link, I will be glad to look at it, but I notice you don't. By the way, your lack of reading comprehension strikes again, as I never said that Chelsae did horrible things. The only thing I insinuated was that she was a normal college kid as the Bush girls where and the press suppressed any news stories about her activities just like Chris is suppressing me. It is pretty obvious that the media and the tabloids protected her father's acts; why wouldn't they do the same for her?

When What the posts in a nice manner, I will go back to doing so. As long as Chris lets her level untrue allegations, I have to fight back, when he lets my post through...

Can we put an end to the Obama shoes on desk debate? The issue is that the Arab world apparently feels insulted if you show the sole of your shoe to someone. Obama was on the phone with Netanyahu when the picture was taken showing Obama with his foot on the desk that showed the sole - hence the Israeli's feel insulted.

No one is saying that the simple act of putting your feet on the desk is a problem. Remember what Clinton was doing when he was speaking on the phone with the President of Mexico? Hint: it involves Monica.

Here is a line from the article I saw along with the link:
"It is considered an insult in the Arab world to show the sole of your shoe to someone. It is not a Jewish custom necessarily, but Israel feels enough a part of the Middle East after 60 years to be insulted too."
http://www.indenvertimes.com/2009/06/11/photo-of-obama-with-shoes-on-desk-insults-some-israelis/

Ken: OWVY has already said it, and very well. Thanks, One. We're obviously on the same channel. I will try extending an unclenched fist: Ken, I never called you a child molester, or intended to insinuate that. In fact, I was surprised you interpreted that from my Craigslist comment. Craigslist has been taking a lot of hits recently for allowing prostitution under other names to flourish on its website. It was a snarkey comment (yes, Casual Observer, you were right) about not letting the Palin/Bristol/baby mama thing go; meaning, if you want to go on about other people's sex lives, here's a website that's better suited for that purpose. To my knowledge Craigslist has not been accused of promoting sex with chldren, or child porn, or any of that, so again, I don't know where you got the child molester label. But since you went there and chose to keep it going, I just left it alone and didn't bother to correct your impression. For that I apologize.

Chris: I apologize to you also. I tried to end this earlier but allowed myself to get sucked back in. I'm more than happy to allow this topic to die a quiet, if not dignified, death.

May I suggest that the moderator post an object. Maybe a Rorschach blot. Maybe a political cartoon. Maybe a series of letters or symbols. Maybe some song lyrics or a poem. Whatever.

Ken, OWVY, What the?, Taxes... and others must all submit their interpretation of the object. All of the interpretations get posted at the same time. However, the moderator can edit to remove any wazoooooo references provided no wazooooo is shown or referenced in the object.

Then let the cross-heckling begin.

signed,

Epstein's mother

Well, apparently nothing kills a lively discussion faster than an apology. Sorry, kids, I didn't mean to be such a wet blanket.

In the interests of getting things going again, I've heard that Letterman is going to make a "real" apology to the Palins on tonight's show. Don't know if this is just a gimmick to get viewers, but I'll be watching anyway. Especially since his last "apology" really wasn't. But the apology segment was a lot funnier than the original joke. It was classic Letterman: tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic and acerbic. For those who need a refresher:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/11/letterman-responds-to-pal_n_214128.html

Let's see how tonight compares.

What the ? writes: Thanks one. We're obviously on the same channel. That is hilarious. A real dynamic duo for social justice you two are. You are either the same person posting are perhaps sharing the same pipe. Only the moderator knows for sure. And you are happy to let the topic die a quiet if not dignified death? What topic are you writing about? You are practically vomiting on this blog site. When I see you posting at all hours of the day from 2pm or 03:48am, I can only surmise its got to be the medication that is not balanced. We're obviously on the same channel. I am LMFAO in LOL amazement. You are one cazy chick-you and OWVU. I have noticed you do not post during Letterman. Is communicating with you via the TV?

BTW that one post was me...Not sure why it doesn't do my name correctly.

Ken I just don't think it is right to challenge anyone to meet you. Hide behind being a woman? She could be one & what she may be saying is I have no desire because many woman would not think of doing this or complying with a request. We have no desire & just think it is not right. Notice I did not say all women. And many men would not even think to do this. If someone called me a child molestor blantantly on a blog...I would not care at all. First, they do not know my first & last name to really have an effect on others. Next, I know I'm not & so what anyone thinks of me based on anything I don't care. I know I'm not, God knows & the people who love me & are most important to me know I'm not. If someone blantantly said it about me, it tells me more about them actually.

It said CBS news on the AOL link & here it is:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/09/world/worldwatch/entry5076128.shtml

Also you may not consider AOL a major news source but that would be your age bracket & AOL feeds in other news sources for their info.

Again, I can't see how you think it is a double standard for Chris to have you edit your posts when you call names etc. Others are not calling you a scum bag etc.

What is a normal college student? Not all drink & are doing horrible things that some would seek to be in the media. You are the one that is suggesting this not me.

The simply fact that you end with "She did it & I'll stop when she does" is just the final proof. That is what 5 yr olds do. She started it & he did it to me so...I can't believe you even said that wow! I can't believe as a parent you would state that & have that as a model to use for your daughters. Didn't you ever hear from one of your parents, "I don't care who started it, you're going to end it." Views like this just lead to trouble so I'm glad Chris is editing you if you don't recognize this is not right.

Anonymous One yes you are right on issue but that was the point that a previous president did it also & it was not an issue then so why for just Obama.

Analyze This...HA! I love your suggestion! I have some Rorschach inkblots if you want to use them!

They all look like Chocolate images to me! HA! Gotta love Chocolate!

Idea for a blog...

How about a blog or thread that one can give positive comments about people/businesses in the town? Maybe the Sun should have a contest where people could nominate a business or person in town?

How lovely. I see that Not Ken but the Glock is now spewing verbal diarrhea for the poison pen crowd. Go muck around in the primordial ooze with the other Neanderthals. And to think: Glock probably kisses his mother with that mouth. Ewwwwwww!

OWVY: Good luck on your attempts at parenting Ken. Some folks are just spoiling for a fight wherever they can find one and get a rush out of conflict. They're more into insults than insight. But it doesn't hurt to try.

I'm on vacation for awhile. Play nice, boys and girls.

What the, I accept your apology and will let it end here. Letterman also gave a sincere apology to try to end his feud with the Palins, so I guess this is the day of apologies.

OWVY, your own link shows you just lack a basic understanding of the discussion. This is the statement that started the feet on the desk discussion:

"Speaking of equal time. Republicans are up in arm about Barak having his feet up on the desk."

My point was, and your link proves, that this was not a Republican issue, as was claimed here. It is an Israeli issue that was reported on. The funny thing is that you were the one who posted the incorrect information quoted above (6/13/09 1:45am), and now you have posted the information showing that assertion to be completely false. You wonder why I question your reading comprehension when you don't even understand your own claims...

What I ended the post with (another reading comprehension problem on your part) was not she did it, so I will too, which is childish as you say. What I said was that if someone insinuates something against me that is not true, I will defend myself. You may not care what people say about you, but since I use my real first name and since at least one person here has posted something showing that they know who I am, I will continue to vigorously defend myself.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/1620776,CST-NWS-durbin13.article

As U.S. stock markets plummeted last September, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin, sold more than $115,000 worth of stocks and mutual-fund shares and used much of the money to invest in Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

The Illinois senator's 2008 financial disclosure statement shows he sold mutual-fund shares worth $42,696 on Sept. 19, the day after then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke urged congressional leaders in a closed meeting to craft legislation to help financially troubled banks. The same day, he bought $43,562 worth of Berkshire Hathaway's Class B stock, the disclosure shows.

One Who Values You on June 15, 2009 11:30 PM
Anonymous One yes you are right on issue but that was the point that a previous president did it also & it was not an issue then so why for just Obama.

___________________

Hey OWVY, The "issue" in the Obama case is from the Israeli's, not the Republicans. I'm not sure if the Israeli's had issue with what Clinton was doing with Monica while on the phone, but that certainly was an issue with the Republicans (and all American's I might add).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx

“Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.

With approximately another 20% of the GNP about to be Nationalized, does it seem trivial that the airwaves and this blog are talking about Letterman's (accidental?) insult and a photo of Pres. Obama with his feet up (released by the White House) designed to excite middle easterners of all persuasions.

Are these the "distractions" that candidate Obama so often warned us about?

OWVY/What the?-Letterman apologized last night and looked like the idiot he is. I was thinking had I made that comment at work, I would at the least received a disciplinary letter in my personnel file but more likely dismissal from my workplace. Unbelieveable that there are posts from you and others on this blog defending what really is sexual harrassment of young women. And YOU sit and refer to people as neanderthals. YOU are the butt of his joke and you are so dense you do not even see it. And NO the comments made by Imus were NOT worse. And something x-tra for What the ?. I was reading an interesting piece on the web comparing government controlled and managed medical care to the American system. Found it interesting 83% breast cancer survival rate in US vs. 69% in UK. Prostrate cancer in US is 91% survival rate vs. 51% in UK. So why don't you remind me again how bright Obama is with his government health care initiative. Because I believe him to be a dangerous moron. Finally, glad to hear the first major network to become our version of Tass or Pravda is ABC. Charlie Hoot Gibson will be in the Blue Room of the White House 6/24 broadcasting and then later Obama will take over ABC to indoctrinate those watching and participating how a government health care system is good for you.
So take your medicine, drink your Kool-aid.

Ummm Ken my statement was...

"Speaking of equal time. Republicans are up in arm about Barak having his feet up on the desk. Well Bill Maher just showed a picture of George W. with his feet up on the desk so talk about equal criticsm...the Republicans do their fair share of one sided criticism!"

It proves that is where it started, you wanted "MEDIA" for hearing about the issue. I posted it. I stated it as a topic that republicans then used it to criticize and of course do not recall Bush doing the same thing! Here Huffington Post even mentions it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/republicans-gone-wild_b_215488.html and they mention the idea of if you "parade around your virtures" idea of Palin also.

I also mentioned this was on Maher show here is what he said exactly:

"But yeah, the fake outrage is off the charts this week. There's also a picture that was published in the paper of Barack Obama, our president, with his feet up on his desk in the Oval Office. The right-wingers are very upset about this. You can't do that, you ungrateful socialist, this is the people's house! [on screen: the photo of Obama with his feet on his desk. The screen shot then switches to a photo of Bush with his feet on the desk]. Oh, never mind." --Bill Maher

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bldailyfeed3.htm

OOOOO your real first name!!! OMG! Ya, that is threatening. One person knows who you are. And that person will believe what someone says about you? Don't they know you? That is insecurity if you are care what someone else says on a blog. You know, God knows, the people who say they love you should know, so what does it matter? Again you missed learning something valuable apparently when you were younger. I'm not sure if you are religious at all but somehow I don't think Jesus would take this approach nor would God be happy about it. Like I said it says more about the person saying something that the person they say it about but if you fight back then you are no better. So what happens if someone later calls you a cranky old man, an idiot driver etc. Do you get in their face & challenge them also.

OWVY, you just proved once again that you are severely lacking in the comprehension department. Not just reading comprehension, but any kind of comprehension. Your statement claims right wing outrage over Obama putting his feet on the desk. Your links show left wing outrage at right wing out rage, but no proof to back up their or your statements. Once again, find something that backs up your claim, not links that show you don't understand your own statement.

I will give you a break on not realizing my point with the person that knows who I am, as I did not make it crystal clear for those with limited intelligence. The person who knows who I am was not brave enough to say anything to me in person (typical keyboard rambo). That shows that they do not have my best interests at heart and might be willing to spread false rumors posted here. As some in my family have owned a business in Naperville for years, it is not surprising that someone who know them might know me. I don't much care if people figure out who I am; I do care if people insinuate or outright say I am a lawbreaker and will defend myself. If you don't care about your real or internet reputation, that's your business. I tell people I post here, and encourage them to participate, so maybe that makes me a little different from you and others too. I am not really trying to hide who I am as many here do.

As for the rest, I sometimes am a cranky old man and do sometimes drive like an idiot but neither of those are against the law. If someone comments on either, I don't really care.

OWVY: I can only write after reading your 1:16am post: Wow! Women should not be so angry and intense. It is unattractive.

Big Brother is alive and well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061601923_pf.html

Wash Post
Vegas paper gets subpoena to ID online commenters

.....One commentator said: "The sad thing is there are 12 dummies on the jury who will convict him. They should be hung along with the feds."

Another called Damm (Federal Prosecutor) a "socialist, fascist Mormon" and a "Nazi moron."

The comments are written under pseudonyms. Along with the real names of people who posted comments, the subpoena asks the newspaper for the writers' gender, birth date, physical address, telephone number, Internet service provider, IP address and credit card numbers........

Anon -

The Assist US Attorney (not Asst States Attorney as ID'd in the article) walks a fine line here. If there is reason to believe some of the "threats" are credible, then they have to pursue them. They're basically covering their butts in case something does happen and people all ask why they knew about the posts yet did nothing.

If the threats are not credible, then this is prosecutorial misconduct and probably an attempt to silence people. It would be a misuse of the grand jury.

Usually people who sue the government attorneys and agents when they get investigated or indicted are fringe protestors whose conduct has to be taken seriously. Especially out west, there are allot of folks who do not believe in the reach of the federal government.

T.B.

Ken...

Again, I don't get it why you would care about if ANYONE says anything on this blog about you. What do you care if a person believes it. The people you know who you ask to participate, they should not believe it if they know you. They would probably comment back in your defense one would think, so who cares. Again, you are mean saying "those with limited intelligence"! Can you not be that way. Wow. You are just so mean. If your child, parent etc disagreed with you or said something that in your opinion is not right would you say that to them? So sad. You should be kind to all human beings. You can make your point without being mean. I also would not say that just because they did not say something to you in person it automatically means they do not have your best interests at heart. In fact, they may be not making it a point and showing you they gave it no worth.

Now I suppose I could say some commentary about the other part but...so here is GOPUSA stating that of course Obama was making a statement purposely.

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/hsherline/2009/hrs_06151.shtml

Anonymous of 8:09...what the heck? How was I angry? I didn't call Ken a name. He has been...so males can be angry and intense & that is not unattractive and women who don't call names first is anger and intense & that is not attractive. Oh boy! Did you comment on Ken's past posts when he was being angry? Did you even label it as such since he was a male?

The "Rodney incident" reflects the over-reaching of bureaucrats who get upset about little things like a kid too busy with his elected role to take on another class officer's duties. Are there not thousands of students to chose from? Come on NVHS - wake up?

I suspect the whole reason for the oversight authority was to prevent a truly unworthy student from being elected (like the most rebellious student or the top drug dealer - joke election results common in the "good old days").

However, Rodney was definitely qualified, so he should have been allowed to run and his votes should count. He is a good leader, served his classmates well, and contrary to the posts later taken down, this was not a racial thing about "the man".

He learned a big lesson that will serve him well in the future - especially in Illinois where you have to be approved to run for any position to win. You need clout also - now as a matter of fact - to get into UI apparently that hundreds (probably thousands of politically connected students) bumped more qualified candidates out of UI and perhaps saddled parents with out-of-state fees (figure $50,000 - 100,000 per family if their smart kid went out of state) - thank you Illinois political scum! Companies and families take note.

Chalk the "Rodney incident" up to another example of School Board and Administration ineptness. The decision was obviously misguided. Expect more cover your butt efforts from the current SB and the new Superintendent. They seem to not be able to change their spots.

And finally, the NVHS principal should have intervened long ago on the matter. This is such a no brainer that I am concerned about the D204 future leadership. Will this guy be a superintendent some day? (fits the mode well) He had made a second mistake - not meeting with the parents - the real boss. He, the administration and the SB are essentially working for the parents not their supervisors! GET IT? Birkett was involved as well.

OWVY, once again your link provided does not back up your original claim that Republicans are up in arms about Obama having his feet on the desk when George Bush did the same. The link you posted is another commentary on the stupidity of Obama seemingly disrespecting the Israelis. You have completely missed the point of the story, as usual, and what the Republicans are commenting on in this story.

Are we there yet?

Some days Bonner nails it, this appears to be one of them.

Time to repair damage from sub prime community reinvestment bubble is 7 years for personal balance sheets; since the FEDs are on a spending orgy the "recession" may go on for more than 7 years. YIKES!

Hopefully the full article will be posted in a day or two.

Excerpt from newsletter.

.......................
Cruel Summer
by Bill Bonner
London, England

http://dailyreckoning.com/author/bbonner/

...................
"Robust private sector demand will return only once the balance sheets of over-indebted households, overborrowed businesses and undercapitalised financial sectors are repaired or when countries with high savings rates consume or invest more. None of this is likely to be quick. Indeed, it is far more likely to take years, given the extraordinary debt accumulations of the past decade. Over the past two quarters, for example, US households repaid just 3.1 per cent of their debt. Deleveraging is a lengthy process."

If we assume that debt levels need to go back to where they were before the Bubble Epoque...well, let's say to 200% of GDP just to make the math easy...that means 170% of GDP worth of debt needs to be paid off. That's $20 trillion, in round numbers - or about 40% of the total. At 6% per year, even if households kept paying off debt at the current rate it would still take nearly 7 years to get household debt down to pre-bubble levels.

................

Rising joblessness will increase rates of defaults, foreclosures, and bankruptcies. Not just at the consumer level - but throughout the system...including banks, states, businesses, as well as households

.....................

USA Today asked people: "If you lost your job, how long could you afford to pay for your own health insurance?" More than 65% of respondents said they could only manage for 6 months or less.

In America "there hasn't been a shock like this since the de-
mobilization of millions of soldiers following WWII: something like 3 million unemployed people are going to fall out of the safety net in the third quarter. With their families, that's about 10 million people who will sink suddenly into deep poverty," says GEAB a private research service headquartered in Paris. The group anticipates a "Very Great Depression" coming to the United States.

Has anybody seen the ridiculous concrete animals and lawn ornaments apparently now being offered for sale on Water Street?

The next thing you know, there will be a guy selling hot dogs from a cart downtown.

Just found hell on earth, people. It's called the Florida panhandle. Three days there and I was torched!

Ken: Given our recent Craigslist confusion, you may find this amusing. I did:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/16/weird-al-takes-on-craigsl_n_216196.html

Also, I think the point OWVY is trying to make is you need to learn to separate the idea from the person holding it. Just because someone has a different point of view doesn't make them a waste of space. Look, I have been friends with a family for 16 years who are as far right Republican/conservative Christian as they come. We disagree on a lot of political and social issues and will discuss them. But they are good, wonderful people whose company I enjoy, and I would never dream of disrespecting them simply because they have different beliefs and ideas. And they have shown me the same respect. This is what has enabled us to not only have a long-term friendship but also vacation together over the years. And what was real fun: on last election night, they called to concede defeat and ended up arguing politics with me for two hours. Gotta love it.

Not Ken: Go back and read your own posts. Neanderthal is as neanderthal does. And you write "So why don't you remind me again how bright Obama is with his government health care initiative." I have never discussed Obama's health initiative on any blog. This must be someone else you're trying to fight with. But Obama is a really bright guy, much brighter than you or I. How do I know this? Because he's in the White House, and we're on this blog. 'Nuff said.

What the ?: You amuse me with your silly posts. Look lady, Obama is indeed brighter than you but he is not brighter than me because he is in the White House and I am not. I also am certian he is not brighter than me because he went to Harvard and I did not. I suspect he may have been an affirmative action student. You know the kind, academically challenged but good for diversity. In fact I do not believe he is brighter than me. A plumber stood eye ball to eye ball with him during the campaign and got him to blink. He can hardly weave a thought and sentence together UNLESS it is written on a teleprompter for him. I am very curious to see his grade trascripts, his college aptitude test scores and any measure of his intelligence quotient that may exist. I find it interesting none of these items is available for public examination. He is in the White House because more stupid and ignorant people than intelligent people voted him there. And they did so because a supportive press corps sold the public a bunch of BS on this thug. It is just that simple and you should be able to reason that out. I hope his voters enjoy the change. And I hope they wise up and vote the moron out in 2012. I suspect 10+% unemployment, an incredible tax burden to fund government sevices and programs that cannot be economically sustained, a stagnant econcomy with no growth, little prosperity will be just what the doctor ordered to make even the most ignorant electorate realize that voting for this clown was a mistake and he has taken the country in a worse direction than Bush. I did not say you discussed his health care takeover (its not an initiative) on any blog. Your nose is so far up his rear end I know you think the government providing you with subsistence is what you like. I merely asked what am I to think of his take over of what will be my health insurance? I did not get an answer from you. Rather I am responding to your garbage rant. Finally, I do not believe you have any "Republican" friends. I doubt anyone would want to live through two hours of their lives discussing politics with someone such as you. And if you really went on vacation with them, then you must be the Nanny. Now stay up all night, think about it and post at 3:48am.

Another masturbatory blog rant by Not Ken. Was it good for you?

I couldn't care less what someone like you believes about me, my lifestyle or my friends. Your posts show you to be extremely angry, bitter, closed-minded, emotionally stunted and not too bright, despite your delusions to the contrary. We both know you have no real interest in discussing O's health initiative or anything else; you're just looking for a fight wherever you can find one. Another bully with a small mind and a big mouth. No wonder you're so miserable.

You obviously get off on this, but I have much better things to do. Until you become more civilized, it would be best if you stick your head back up your rear where it belongs and stay on the compound with the other sub-humans. You don't want to miss any Rush Limbaugh shows.

P.S. "A plumber stood eye ball to eye ball with him during the campaign and got him to blink."

Samuel Wurzelbacher, aka "Joe the Plumber" was not and still is not a plumber. Everybody knows this but you.

Ken...

You have got to be kidding...

"One recent incident that undoubtedly has many people scratching their heads and questioning Obama's judgment is a recent photo-op in his office, feet propped up on his desk showing the soles of his shoes while talking on the phone with Benjamin Netanyahu..."

"Personally, I believe Obama knew exactly what he was doing when he posed for the photo. He appears determined to force some sort of peace agreement on his watch, which every President in recent memory has attempted to do - and, consciously posing for a photo showing the soles of his shoes while talking with Netanyahu on the phone was intended to imply that he is sympathetic to the Muslims and their cause."

What of this do you not interpret as they are upset with Obama doing this? It is about whether he is showing disrespect to them but the republicans are making a point of this and saying he should not have. If they were not it would not even be made a point and then to say they are questioning his judgement and that he knew exactly what he was doing...that it was on purpose is making their statement of what they clearly feel is appropriate or not.

What the...YES excellent point that Ken just does not understand. Sad, God I hope no one he loves ends up disagreeing with him. Be sad if he treated them the same.

Not Ken...

Affirmative Action is not Academically Challenged! How sad you feel that. You apparently do not know many who have been accepted for AA. I suggest you meet some before you make assumptions. I take you believe there are no intelligent African Americans on this planet? That statement alone proves you are not brighter. OMG...ya there are that many "stupid" if one would be able to prove that in the world to vote for him. OMG! I can't even believe you believe that. No intelligent person voted for him. And one can still get into Havard with an extremely low IQ or other standardized test score...right! I almost think Not Ken & Ken are the one in the same or maybe a brother as you are also so mean (nose far up your rear end). Lovely.

I'm really surprised Chris you are letting this continue. This is just no what this is suppose to be about.

What the ?: Masturbatory rant! Was it good for you? Yes it was, it put a big darn smile on my face! Your comment reminded me of a frequent poster named Mimi who seems to have sadly disappeared from the blogs. You know Mimi. Reading her posts gave me great pleasure and now I'm feeling that same thing from you What the?. You appeal to every inch of my body when you write such metaphors. I am not offended, I simply believe using sexual metaphors to a man is hitting shall we say below the belt. OWVY: News flash; Colleges and Universities celebrate diversity. They do not celebrate honesty, integrity, justice or hard work IF these items do not fit in the template. One need only read the autobiography of Clarence Thomas to see that point proven. For example, our esteemed state university of liberalism at U of I now has a problem (which will die on the vine given this is now known as the State of Corruption) because it seems there are an unknown number of students who are not there based on academic achievement. Same at Northern and Southern so the charges read. Wow, another news flash. Under achievers(Obama), under achieving and unqualified children of politically connected(Obama supporters from Chicago CPS) in our colleges and universities not beacause of their grades but because of who they are while students who should be there are not because the seats are filled with affirmative action students and those politically connected. In 1975 I learned about affirmative action students at a state university. One in particular had an ACT test score of 13 (19 was minimum for acceptance). The accomodations, provided paid tutoring(a lady friend of money picked up some pocket money doing the tutoring which was nice) and paid expenses devalued mine and the degree of every other student. That person had absolutely NO business at any college. It taught me when hiring the best candidate to always require the transcript of the degree presented by a job applicant because degrees in women's studies as one example may show me that the candidate would be unsuitable. Finally affirmative action to me and many simply means this: those who are not otherwise qualified. Which concludes what I wrote about Obama. He is unqualified in MY opinion and is in the White House not because he is intelligent. He is there solely because stupid corrupt people the result of a CAMPAIGN (I call it a scheme) to prmote him elected him. Because of his politcal record before and since he has been President and until I see those school and college records, he is indeed the affirmative action president and unworthy of my respect or that of others who are inclined to agree with me. Remember, affirmative action means not otherwise qualified. Ok girls, time to go to the UMC church where today as a father I celebrate life, a MORAL OBLIGATION and not a choice along with many others who think the same. And when its over I am looking very much forward to walking out those doors with a big darn smile on my face.

OWVY, I have not claimed that the Republicans are not upset with Obama's huge faux pas as you seem to think. My response has been and will be to your original claim that the right was making a big deal about Obama's shoes being on the desk when Bush had done it also. As usual, you are missing the point, a fact that is even more disturbing considering you made the point.

What the, Joe the Plumber was a plumber, just not a union licensed plumber. If your house is built by non union personal, that does not mean that the various trades were not plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc.

What the, Joe the Plumber was a plumber, just not a union licensed plumber. If your house is built by non union personal, that does not mean that the various trades were not plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc.

Union or not, plumbers need to be licensed. Unless of course you hire a fly by night named Joe that works so cheap he can't afford to pay his taxes. But then, as the saying goes, you get what you pay for.

Ken:

Ok, now you're getting into some really interesting stuff. Your last post confirmed what I thought all along: you belong to the white male Christian power structure that feels threatened by an increasing diversified America. And I get it: it used to be if you were male, white and 21, this country was yours for the taking. But since civil rights, womens rights, affirmative action, hiring quotas, etc., etc., that's no longer the case. You guys aren't the default rulers anymore. Now you have to compete with minorities and women for the same slices of economic pie, and it seems every decade you have to fight harder for a smaller piece. And in addition to that, there's the added indignity of having tolerance forced upon you, you know, that sticky stuff about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans, even the ones of different ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds and sometimes even lifestyles. Things used to be pretty clear, and now it's all muddied up with a bunch of competing rights, values, and beliefs that decades ago we were allowed to completely ignore.

I also get what you're saying about affirmative action and hiring quotas; they definitely have their problems and reverse discrimination issues, and it's probably time most of this was phased out. I believe what you described in 1975, a lot of this was done to meet quotas then. But that was 34 years ago; things have changed. Affirmative action does not always equal otherwise not qualified as you assert. Following your logic, since all minorities are potential beneficiaries of affirmative action, and affirmative action = otherwise not qualified, then all minorities are assumed by you to be not qualified. All minorities must "prove" to you they got there under their own steam. But you say nothing about requiring the same proof from white candidates, even tho they can be unqualified and have connections that allow them to get in through the back door of U of I and into cushy jobs just as easily.

Case in point: W. Bush got into an Ivy League school not because of his shining GPA--he was a C student who under normal circumstances would not have made the cut--but because he was a legacy. But Obama attends an Ivy League and excels--his accomplishments at Harvard speak for themselves--but you dismiss this because affirmative action MAY have given him an edge in getting in? And if it did, exactly how is this worse than Bush's legacy admission? You don't demand Bush provide his college record to prove his worth even though he clearly was not qualified, but you question Obama's because he's a minority?

I wouldn't expect a FedEx'd copy of transcripts from Obama anytime soon if I were you. But since it is impossible for you to personally critique the educational background of every minority who has a job, especially since in most cases both whites and minorities would tell you it's none of your business, then you can never be satisfied that minorities are deserving of their success. You've set up a pretty convenient belief system for justifying racism, haven't you? And these kinds of beliefs by you and many others continue to fuel your anger and bitterness.

And finally, I'm glad you enjoyed the sexual metaphor as much as I. Below the belt? Oh, boo-hoo! Come on, big guy, you can take it. You get on this site and bully, intimidate, insult and psychologically assault anyone with a differing opinion, and then complain about a below the belt tweak (no pun intended)? Besides, you KNOW I'm right--hence the smile on your face!

Hey, Ken!

Samuel did plumbing work, but this did not make him a plumber by trade, just like an unliscensed physician is not a doctor by trade. My husband does all the plumbing repairs and work around our house and he could do it for other people as well, but this does not make him a plumber.

OWVY: I'm really surprised Chris you are letting this continue. This is just what this is supposed to be about. Well it says at the top: You pick the Topic. Somebody isn't impressed with Obama, is opposed to afirmative action and set asides and you favor censorship? I'll bet you hated the implication above that abortion is not a choice but life is a moral obligation!

What the, please be sure to differentiate between me and Not Ken correctly before your long rant. I believe the rant you posted at 3:51pm should have been directed at him, not me.

Joe did plumbing work for a living, so he was a plumber by trade. In Ohio, you do not need to be licensed in townships to be a plumber, and there is a hodgepodge of regulations concerning licensing in towns and cities. Also, fixing the plumbing in a house is quite different from fixing the plumbing in a human, so the licensing requirements are quite different. That is why I used another trade as an example, but I guess you missed that part.

What the ?- Following your plumbing logic: some person performing abotions at Planned Parenthood is not really a doctor.

Ken:

You're right about the name confusion. Announcement to anyone who cares: My post above at 3:51 PM is for Not Ken, not Ken.

Besides, my post is a discussion, not a rant. It would help you to recognize the difference. Merriam Webster defines "rant" as: 1) to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner; 2) to scold vehemently; 3) to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion. This is what you and Not Ken tend to do--attack, insult, name-call, use inflammatory and vulgar language, etc., which serves no purpose but to verbally beat down your perceived "opponent". I have a hunch this is what gets you censored on these blogs--not so much your message, but the offensive way in which you deliver it.

I answered your first post in a polite manner, but your reply is taking on that "tone" again. So I'm stopping here.

Well, What the, it is pretty obvious you are scolding Not Ken pretty vehemently in your rant against him.

As for the rest, same old stuff. You started the attacks, and the only time I was censored was when I responded to you in kind to demonstrate exactly what you were doing. You may have notice one of your posts was deleted right after mine was refused as the Chris agreed you were over the line He said he didn't remove the first post that started it as it had been up to long, which seemed like a weak excuse, but he did see my point. Amazing how you seem to have your mind in the gutter with both me and Not Ken (Accusing us of sex acts) yet claim we use vulgar language. If correcting your mistaken assertions is using "that tone", guilty as charged. Other than that, you will be hard pressed to find many examples of vulgar language from me, and very rare instances of me making personal attacks first.

Oh for God's sake, Ken. This blog is too much of an extension of your ego. Your last post sounds childish with all the you started it, you got censored too (no, I didn't notice and I don't care), Chris agrees with ME, neener neener stuff. And of course you're still whining about "sex acts", as you're now calling it. You know, I've never seen someone who claims to have such superior reading comprehension skills misunderstand so much.

From now on, defend your ego on someone else's time. I'm bored to death with it.

I have found, What the, that when dealing with people who have the intelligence of a child, I must sometimes stoop to their level. Belittling me because of your foibles won't change that fact.

zzzzzzzzzz.....

wake me up when this is done

Fight Obama regieme government health care. Join conservatives for healthcare choice.org and do not let the dictator and his regieme in DC make you wait at the back of the line for life saving medical care that will be too little and too late. Its time to draw a line in the sand and fight these criminals. It is time for civil disobidience against the tyrant and regieme run ABC News/where Americans gets all its news and all the news it needs. If our voices are to be heard, it is time to get in Obamas face wherever he goes and challenge him in public protests. Embarass him for the fraud that he is.

Chris,

I humbly suggest you take all of the insult trading posts and move them to an insult blog. Or at least force the authors to edit out the insults before posting.

While I may agree with half or sometimes all of them, I'm not sure how they relate to any topic or discussion, other than insults.

One of the previous blog owners created a special Napergate area that was quite lively, but not on every blog. Some topics like pensions were surfaced and moved to the open blogs.

If the goal of posting the personal insults is to prevent discussion of topics and drive readers off of this site, it may be working.

-------------------------------

Websters Dictionary:

Plumber
#2 one who installs, repairs, and maintains piping, fittings, and fixtures involved in the distribution and use of water in a building

Affirmative Action (Group rights)
an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women ; also : a similar effort to promote the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons

Reverse discrimination
discrimination against whites or males (as in employment or education)

Socialism (GM, AIG, Chase, BA, Nationalized Medicine etc.)

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

-------------------------------
Conclusions:

Joe is a plumber

Affirmative action is discrimination against individuals because of their skin color, sex and religion. In direct opposition to the letter and intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights; The Federal Government's policies are in fact inherently racist, sexist, anti-individual and anti-freedom of religion. With the impending passage of Judy Biggert's thought crimes bill, freedom of association and freedom of speech will be pushed out.

Reverse discrimination, current US government policy.

President Obama, his appointees and many in the Democratic Leadership based on their speeches and policies and legislative initiatives are certainly socialists, racists, sexists, anti-Christian and probably Marxists who are making a determined effort to cement socialist rule the in US through various social engineering and economic schemes designed to permanently slant the table to their point of view.

While I could not find a good on-line definition of Tyranny of the Minority, given that 75% of the voters identify themselves as Conservative or Moderates and 21% describe themselves as Liberals, I believe what we are experiencing is Tyranny of the Minority.

I can't move topics. Nothing in this program I use lets me do that. I know we need a new topic to give people something else to talk about and hopefully something will come up today I can post on. The insults are a waste of everyone's time.

Does anyone else recall during the Lewinsky scandal the claim that older politicians and younger women in Europe was "no bid deal" and "commonplace"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6550609.ece

He has made no secret of his love of women but the sex scandal surrounding Silvio Berlusconi is now threatening to topple him, as more claims emerge of the systematic recruitment of young women paid to attend private parties at his homes in Rome and Sardinia.

To zzzzzzzz.zzzzzzz.. on June 22, 2009 7:50 AM
zzzzzzzzzz.....

wake me up when this is done
_________________________________

Exactly my sentiments. Chris, a new thread, please!

When I have something, I will post it. I need inspiration from the news.

I know, how about PENSIONS!?!

Or this: Naperville's Twitterati excited about growing trend.

It's a bit of a fluff piece, but this get-together sounded fun. I don't Twitter, but I'm interested in what others like about it. I can understand it's usefulness as a business networking tool and communications device, but aside from that, I don't see the point in it. Following someone, often someone you don't know, and getting random, inane updates about their daily activities? And yet a lot of folks do like it. What are us non-Twitterati missing?

It's not much, but it's a slow news day.

This video in which Ahmadinejard does Twitter is a hoot. For those of you with delicate sensibilities, this does contain a smattering of "language" (nothing obscene), but if that doesn't bother you it's a good laugh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/22/ahmadinejad-breaks-his-si_n_218907.html

I think Twitter is worth discussion. I have posted a new topic on it.

Moderator: You need an inspiration in the news? A millionaire prolific serial abortionist is killed in HIS 381st tri-mester of life, no topic. Social justice unrest in Iran, no topic. I could go on but the point is there is plenty of inspiration in the news and now its twitter? You might consider changing the title from Naperville Potluck to something like the View. You could select topics that they or even Oprah discuss and have more civilized discourse instead of childish insults.

I agree that abortion and Iran are worthy of discussion. But the purpose of this blog is to discuss local issues. This specific topic is open and people can discuss anything here. Anyone could have discussed the subjects you mention any time in the last several days but no one has.

Interesting article in the Sun about the Furstenau Case being settled tomorrow.

It seems quite unusual that the City has been fighting for the right to publicly comment on the case and not have all parties gagged. I guess they won and want to brag.

In the Napergate Cases, they lost and appear to have gotten into gag agreements with the Napergate Man.

So my conclusion is if the city wins, it wants to boast. If it loses, it does not want the other party boasting. Well, let us hope they boast about the extraordinary amount they spent on this silly case that they initiated through their heavy handed felonious actions in the first place, that were absolutely unnecessary and unprovoked.

"Anonymous" wrote:

So my conclusion is if the city wins, it wants to boast.

So I guess you've come around to the conclusion that the city did win, after all.

They won but at a cost of well over a million dollars to taxpayers.

You can say the city won and the taxpayers lost.

How is that????

Sometimes winning isn't only about money - sometimes it is about standing up for what is right and what is the truth.

"So my conclusion is if the city wins, it wants to boast. If it loses, it does not want the other party boasting."

Of course. It's called Human Nature 101.

I would rather have a few million in my pockets than stand up for a costly principle that satisfies nothing more than mostly my ego.

Most individuals would rather cough up a 100k and keep 1.9 million in their pockets.

I guess cities don't think like individuals. They would rather spend 2 million dollars to preserve their egos. After all it comes from taxapyer money and does not cost them a dime.

If you were to ask the City Council members if the 2 million dollars was coming out of their personal funds instead of taxpayer funds, would they have proceeded in this same manner? I would bet the farm they would have never proceeded in this same manner. They would have most likely settled the 120k lawsuit for 30-60k out of court and saved their personal money, homes and possibly lifestyles.

Are you willing to bet your farm, FUWTN, that they would have proceeded in the same manner if it was their personal money at risk instead of disposable taxpayer 100 dollar bills?

Are you personally willing to spend 200,000 to fight a 10,000 dollar lawsuit against you? If you are, you are a man of principles. You are a man of your word.

If you are not, you are not a man of principles. You are not a man of your word.

Only you know what kind of man you are.

Feel free to tell us if you would like, but please don't feel obligated.

The question to settle or not to settle for economic reasons is not one that most people will ever get to make. Most people have liability insurance through their homeowners policies. The insurance carrier makes the decision for them based on the insurance carrier's pocket book.

I once worked with an employer that was hit with successive employment discrimination complaints. The first one they settled for a couple of months of severance pay for economic reasons. Then came the second, third, etc. Each was settled for 2-3 months of pay as nuisance actions. Finally, the employer got tired of being nickeled and dimed to death. It dug in it's heels and refused to settle any more. The IDHR and EEOC ruled in its favor. One employee sued. The employer took it to the mat and won. There were no further nuisance suits after that.

Looking at the current case. Very little of the case remained. A case that doesn't make it to a trial before the judge kicks it is in my opinion a nuisance suit. The defendants have to make the decision to settle a nuisance suit or not based on many factors, one of which is economics.

The only ego that really jumps to the fore in this case is Furstenau's.

I guess what you are saying, Experienced, is that the Furstenau Suit was a "nuisance suit."

The question is why was it necessary to line up so many attorneys and spend million(s) of dollars to dismiss a "nuisance" suit.

Why not send an in-house attorney who is already on taxpayer payroll to explain to the Judge that it is a worthless, frivilous, and nuisance suit?

I bet that is all that was needed to dismiss it.

Therefore, I feel city officials wasted substantial taxpayer money.

Maybe the city should take a chapter out of the insurance companies manual and settle based on our pocketbooks. Our pocketbooks were nearly 11.5 million in the hole when the city decided it was OK to spend million(s)defending this case. There was no guarantee it would be dismissed and if it was not, many more millions would have been spent.

Let us get those 100k a year salaried in-house lawyers working a little harder. They would have a lot of time on their hands if they did not spend so much time searching out law firms to delegate their work too. Using that time for research, they should have been more than capable of dimissing this "nuisacne lawsuit" and saving us taxpayers a million or two.

That is the bottom line.

While Furstenau has an ego, John, the other 8 city council members combined had 8 times his ego and it is their egos that milked us and not Furstenau's ego. If they did not have egos, they would have simply sent an in-house attorney to dismiss the case and not worry so much about the 1 in a 1000 chance that their egos would be tarnished if they lost this case and it cost them(us) 120,000. The Judge would have never awarded Furstneau more than the actual damages he was alleging in this "nuisance case." Not a chance in a million would he have awarded him any punitive damages.

In the end the city council must be held accountable for the frivilous waste of taxpayer money.

DF and the city reached a settlement agreement in March with no stipulations as to a gag order. A month later, DF tries to insert a gag order. Did he and Collins think they could pull one over on the city? When the city said that wasn’t part of the original agreement and they wouldn’t go along with it, DF tried to get a federal judge to over-ride the original agreement.

The judge ruled that the gag order was not part of the original agreement, that it was probably unconstitutional, and that it was probably unenforceable.

I think DF showed his true colors here. I can’t wait to vote against him.

T.B.

"Anonymous" wrote

The question is why was it necessary to line up so many attorneys and spend million(s) of dollars to dismiss a "nuisance" suit.

Perhaps because DF's case, though an apparent long shot, wasn't quite weak enough to get summarily dismissed after an afternoon's work by a staff attorney. Also, there were something like six different defendants named in the original suit, which means six different defenses. Also, perhaps the city attorney and her staff don't specialize in matters like this.

In the end the city council must be held accountable for the frivilous waste of taxpayer money.

I prefer to place the blame where it really belongs: squarely on Furstenau's shoulders.

First, there are actual conflicts of interest between the position of the city and the position of the other defendants. Pursuant to Monell, the city is not necessarily vicariously liable for the actions of the other defendants. Therefore, the city had to have attorneys separate from the other defendants. Why Bouchard needed an attorney separate from the other named defendants, I am not sure. At least two separate sets of attorneys were needed.

Second, the in-house attorneys had an actual, legal conflict of interest because Ely, their boss, was a named defendant. Therefore, as they are attorneys for the city on a day to day basis, and because their boss had a legal conflict of interest with the city, they could not represent either set of defendants.

Third, you have to not only tell the judge that the plaintiff has no case, you have to prove it. You have to go thru the long drawn out discovery procedure. All of the attorneys had filed a motion to dismmiss as their first pleading. But, the judge gave the plaintiff a chance to prove thru discovery that the motions were without merit. It took from the Fall of 2007 until the Winter of 2009 to reach that stage, with some dispositive rulings coming in the Fall of 2008. The judge sets the way the litigation proceeds. The attorneys have no choice but to follow.

As to whether or not to settle a case on purely economic reasons, that's a matter of opinion. I could argue it both ways with a clear conscience.

I presume the city's attorneys also had real city business to attend to, which would suffer if they spent any significant time defending DF's ego-driven lawsuit.

T.B.

Great post, Exeperienced---very informative.

When an attorney from a law firm gets sued, most times another attorney from his law firms represents him. There is no conflict of interest.

Margo could have been represented by another in-house attorney.

Also an attorney has the right to represent herself.

Margo could have represented herself very easily up until the dismissal phase. Once it gets to trial and if it gets to trial I could see a need for Margo to have another attorney to cross examine her since cross examining yourself can be awkward even though it has been done in American judicial history.

This conflict of interest is just an excuse for laziness....an excuse to spend taxpayer money when it is not necessary...an excuse to spend taxpayer dollars since we have a lot of money in this town from very valuable real estate including multi-million dollar homes.

We could have done much better. Experience has to know we could have done much better and that there is a lot of room for improvement. Let us not rubber stamp his comments and continue wasting money in the future leading to more 8 digit budget deficits. We need to critique this waste of money and not rubber stamp it, unless you want city officials to continue with their past patterns.

Experienced, since you are experienced, could you give us 5 ways our legal dept could have saved some money in his Furstenau Fiasco.

I hope you don't believe the legal department handled the case perfectly and evey dollars spent of this 1 to 2 million dollars was spent wisely. Certainly, with your expertize and experience you can not believe that. You are a wise man so please tell us how we could have saved some dollars....even just a few.

Maybe we could leave the money saving up to our watch dog on the council, Furstenau. Oh wait, he no longer qualifies. Remember to just vote NO on Furstenau 2010.

By Anonymous on June 24, 2009 4:52 PM

Experienced, since you are experienced, could you give us 5 ways our legal dept could have saved some money in his Furstenau Fiasco.

-------------

Don't know enough about the case to answer your question. If it's not on the docket or in the public realm, I don't know.

"Anonymous" wrote:

Let us not rubber stamp his comments and continue wasting money in the future leading to more 8 digit budget deficits.

Experienced's comments make sense; yours do not.

By Anonymous on June 24, 2009 4:52 PM
When an attorney from a law firm gets sued, most times another attorney from his law firms represents him. There is no conflict of interest.

------------

The conflict arises from the fact that Ely and the City were defendants with differing interests. The city might want to pin the blame on Ely. The in-house counsel as attorneys for the City could not represent her interests without being in conflict with the City's possible interest of blaming Ely.

Since the city did not want to pin the blame on Ely and was behind her 100%, there was no conflict of interest. Same as with the example of the law firm I mentioned.

This was a case of EVERYONE against FURSTENAU.

As far as I am concenred, the in-house attorneys should have attempted to dismiss this "nuisance case" before spending millions of dollars on this frivilous matter. All the depositions taken by these specialized outside law firms were not even necessary as they must have known it was a nuisance case just like Experienced knew. Why did they take all these depostions, then? Probably for the reason of creating a hefty legal bill since they know the Naperville Taxpayers have very deep pockets. A law firm can justify millions if a client says please leave no stone unturned. The city wanted not ONE stone left unturned with the battle against Furstenau. But even deep pockets have limits as we witnessed with our 8 digit budget deficit.

For there to be a "conflict of interest argument", someone has to make that argument.

Furstenau and his attorney never alleged conflict of interest. If they made that allegation and the Judge agreed, I would say OK hire outside legal firms. The Judge also never stated any conflict of interest. Why not try to save the taxpayers money and let us see where it all goes?

Up until dismissal, it was pretty much about the merits of the case based on prior legal cases. Sometimes you can handle a case up to a certain point without outside legal firms and if you reach a point where the Judge or plaintiff have complaints and succeed, we have a different matter. And we proceed accordingly. Pretty simple if you ask me!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. If the city believes in conflicts of interest where were they when Cousin Wehrli on the council voted on the Ponds of Hobson West which was owned by his first Cousin Another Wehrli. Margo is the one that ruled that there was no conflict of interest. I happen to be at the City Council that day and have a vivid recollection. Now, Experienced wants to justify Margo's waste of taxpayer funds based on a conflict of interest argument that Margo does not even believe in. You can not have your cake and eat it in this world. You have to be consistent. Sorry, Experienced, but just because a bunch of inexperienced folks on this blog site agree with you all the time, that does not necessarily make you right.

It is easier for some folks to agree rather than think. I am obviously not one of those folks.

"Anonymous" wrote:

It is easier for some folks to agree rather than think. I am obviously not one of those folks.

What you obviously are, though, is someone who's attachment to Furstenau is so strong that it clouds your thought processes.

I always love when lay people try to make legal arguments.

The legal profession is governed by rules of professional conduct. Compliance with the rules do not require someone to object in Court. Attorneys are to comply no matter what. Further, it wouldn't be the plaintiff that would object to this type of a conflict. There was a conflict of interest between the interests of the city and the interests of the other named defendants. The city and it's attorneys had a duty to leave open the possibility that the city was not vicariously liable for any possible transgressions by the other named defendants. An attorney can't be loyal to two sets of clients with divurgent interests. One gets in trouble with the Supreme Court if one tries. In house attorneys who have an attorney client relationship with the city cannot turn around and represent someone where the latter's interest are in direct opposition to those of the city.

Conflicts of interest by governmental officials are not governed by the Rules of Professional of the Illinois Supreme Court. Those are entirely separate and distinct. [Yes, I know the case was in federal court. But, even while appearing in federal court, the Illinois Supreme Court regulates the conduct of the attorneys.]

Wasn't it Ely who decided to charge Furstenau with a felony; who decided to charge the woman who was punching and kicking a police officer in front of the same bar with a misdemeanor?

Equal treatment?

By Experienced on June 24, 2009 10:25 PM
I always love when lay people try to make legal arguments.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe this may be a Freudian slip of the tongue by you, Experienced.

Since you are calling others lay people, one has to assume you are an attorney.

Your knowledge far exceeds a lay person's knowledge even though you often wrong.

Believe it or not, lawyers are wrong half the time. Very few cases end up in a tie. Even though you come on like you know everything, unless you are a genious lawyer, everything you say is probably half wrong and half right.

As an attorney you should know that attorneys interpret the laws to suit their interests. That is why we have a Judge and a Jury...it helps bring sanity to lawyers who always think their interpretation is the only and correct interpretation.

Sometimes lawyers remind me of the Ayatollahs of Iran who interpret laws from the Holy Quran to serve their interests. Just like every Ayatollah interprets the Quran differently, every lawyer interprets the laws of this state and country differently.

In the end most lay people have much more common sense than attorneys. They are more reasonable than lawyers. They see middle ground. Lawyers only see black and white. A Judge helps them see gray. Otherwise, they are color blind.

By John Q. Publlic on June 24, 2009 10:16 PM
"Anonymous" wrote:

What you obviously are, though, is someone who's attachment to Furstenau is so strong that it clouds your thought processes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Even though I know Furstenau, I have no attachment to him. I admitted he lost his case. Does that show cloudy judgment on my part? I respected the Judge's decision just as I respected the rulings of the 21 Judges in the 3 Extra Value Liquor Cases that spanned 2 decades.

However I think you and Experienced are showing cloudy judgment by defending the city's waste of taxpayer money on this case. They did not have to spend a million plus to dismiss this case. I suspect the final number will be between 1.5 million and 2 million dollars over what amounted to a "NUISANCE CASE." That is not my description of the case, but Experienced description of the case.

You just don't spend 2 million to dismiss a frivilously nuisant case. It is unacceptable. It is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer dollars.

By Anonymous on June 24, 2009 11:13 PM
Wasn't it Ely who decided to charge Furstenau with a felony; who decided to charge the woman who was punching and kicking a police officer in front of the same bar with a misdemeanor?

Equal treatment?

-----------------

No, it was Birkett's Office. The city only charged a misdemeanor. See January 19, 2006 Sun.

By Anonymous on June 25, 2009 1:23 AM

You just don't spend 2 million to dismiss a frivilously nuisant case.

-----------------------

You do when the Judge orders discovery and doesn't rule on the motions to dismiss for over a year. Go complain to the Judge.

"Anonymous",

I think we both know that your association with Furstenau goes beyond "just knowing him", that you are a long-time supporter of his political ambitions.

A couple of months ago, you were arguing that Furstenau's case had merit. Now, that the case is all but completed, you are agreeing with Experienced's characterization of it as a nuisance case to suit your anti-city argument. Whatever. But Experienced was not pretending, as you are, that the case was simple.

If you want to believe that the city spent over $1 million for no reason at all, there is nothing I can do to change your mind. We are both lay people. Neither of us is intimately familiar with the work the city legal department does, what kind of cases they deal with, or even if they deal with cases at all. (I do know that the legal profession has many attorneys who rarely, if ever, see the inside of a court room. Do you want one of those people representing you in a lawsuit? I sure don't.) I can, however, think of numerous reasons why the city would choose outside legal counsel, and Experienced has presented additional reasons that are even better. Apart from being rational, possible explanations, these reasons have the added benefit of not relying on the assumption that the entire city council (less one) voted to spent a ton of money for no purpose whatsoever, good or otherwise.

-JQP

Anon (06/24 @ 4:52 PM) –

“Also an attorney has the right to represent herself”

As the saying goes, an attorney representing themself has a fool for a client.

**********

Anon (06/25 @ 1:05 AM) –

“Believe it or not, lawyers are wrong half the time. Very few cases end up in a tie.”

Just because one side loses a case, that doesn’t mean one lawyer was wrong. Lawyers argue their clients’ cases even if they know they will probably lose because they are bound to do as their client wishes. A loss means the client was wrong, not the attorney.

**********

Lastly, Anon, if you’re the person formerly known as Taxes please ID yourself so I can stop commenting on your posts. I have standards to uphold.

Thanks,

T.B.

Experienced,

Simple question for you since we are discusing "Conflicts of Interest" and you have shown some expertise and experience on the topic.

Did Margo Ely rule properly when she decided that CM Wehrli could vote on the Ponds of Hobson West Zoning issue which increased its price substantially due to higher density zoning?

In case you don't know a first cousin of CM Wehrli owned it.

After it was zoned to higher density Cousin Wehrli sold it to the Park District for about 2.5 million even though he was upside down on the parcel due to the real estate market collapse. I believe he had bought it for about 2.5 million at the peak of the real estate bubble and was able to obtain the same price at the near bottom of the collapse.

I would like your expert opinion since you have INDIRECTLY admitted you are not a layman. And I believe you when you imply you are not a layman. I have always thought you were an attorney and you proved me right. Thank you! Pretty soon, I have faith that we will find out that you are a City of Naperville attorney blogging with us. Nothing wrong with that as I love the opportunity of blogging with our city officials and getting a better understanding of our problems in order that we solve them.

I would also be interested in hearing JQP's, T.B.s and the Moderator's lay persons views as to whether MARGO ELY erred when she ruled there was NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST on the Ponds of Hobson West parcel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. To refresh you memories this is the very flood prone property formerly owned by Dr. Soper that continuously flooded. Not surprised as a layman that a few acres sitting between 2 sizable ponds would flood. Personally, I think Cousin Wehril made a huge mistake buying it and when the real estate market collpased, it became a DISASTER on his finances. He needed a life line to get out of his ponds and called on Council Member and Cousin Wehrli for the rescue line and he delivered in a big way at taxpayer expense.

Anon –

First of all, I’d like you to comment on your identity, or at least verify that you are not Taxes. Your posts seem suspiciously familiar.

As to the conflict issue and the Ponds fiasco (the PD should never have bought the land for the whining NIMBYs in the area), IF the facts are as you presented them I would prefer that CM Wehrli not vote on the issue.

BUT, my statement contained a big, big “if”.

For one, I don’t know that CM Wehrli’s cousin was the developer. It would be nice if there was a reference for this in the Sun or someplace else. But my preference would be for him not to vote if there was even the appearance of a conflict.

How do you know the developer was under water on this property? You stated that the property was bought for $2.5 million before the rezoning increased the value. One could argue that even at the bottom of the bubble the newly zoned property was still worth $2.5 million.

I have no basis to believe the property was flood-prone. The source of this info is not credible. Besides, if it was so flood prone, why was there a house there for decades and why did the PD buy it?

I don’t think the PD bailed out CM Wehrli’s cousin, I think they bailed out the NIMBYs who didn’t want the added traffic. Hell, the PD doesn’t even have a plan for the land. How do you spend $2.5 million in taxpayer funds without knowing what you’re going to do with the land?

T.B.

JQP,

I do know Furstenau and I am a long term supporter of his political ambitions and will continue to be a long term supporter of his agenda as long as it involves curbing government waste and controlling taxes. I have always stated that I felt he was abused and will await the Judge's decision.

Even though I feel the city dealt with him in a heavy handed manner because he touched a police officer(possibly shoved him lightly), I have never said I was there and witnessed anything. I did not feel pursuing a felony was proper even if one believes everything the city of Naperville said. A minor bully, if that is what Furstenau is, should not be thrown in jail with hard core felons for 15 years.

If this was a complicated suit as you say Experienced is indicating, than it could not be a simple nuisance case. A nuisance case would not require discovery. Again, you can not have your cake and eat it when you blog JQP. If anyone is stubborn here and does not give and take, it is you and not me.

What do expect me to do? Condemn Furstenau because his case was dismissed? Did city officials condemn the police dept. and their legal dept for abusing the Napergate Man? They did not. So why do you expect me to condemn Furstneau. I admit he lost his case and that is the end of it as far as I am concerned. I am sure he will never touch a cop again and I am sure the city will never attempt to charge him with a felony even if he does touch a cop again intentionally or unintentionally.

But once a Judge rules, my opinion does not matter. My feelings do not matter. My hypotheticals do not matter. Whether Furstenau was abused does not matter. He and his attorney did not have the goods and evidence to prove he was WRONGED. I believe in our judicial system.

Furstenau did not have to jointly agree to a dismissal. He could have proceeded and either the Judge would have dismissed the case or given him a trial. He had many appeals left at his disposal. Furstenau basically surrendered. The same way the City of Naperville surrendered to the Napergate Man. Furstenau surrendered very early because neither he or his attorney apparently had the resources necessary to appeal the dismissal or potential loss in a trial if the Judge did not dismiss. The City of Naperville surrendered very late in the Napergate Trials because they had deep pockets due to almost unlimited financing from the "poor" Naperville Taxpayer.

The many residents who were against the Napergate Man changed their views after 21 Judges, 3 Administrative Judges and 3 Kangaroo Judges gradually made their rulings in the Napergate Saga. I respected them for dumping city officials and calling out their propaganda after finally being told the truth by higher court unbiased judges with no agenda or leniencies.

Now if I continued supporting Furstenau's actions against the City of Naperville after a Judge dismissed them, I would be a hypocrite. I am not a hypocrite and believe in being consistent. I would like to see some consistency out of you, JQP, instead of blind support for the city and their self-appointed spokesperson, Mr. Experienced, who may be an attorney in the legal dept. as I suspected many months ago. (Did you catch his Freudian Slip of the tongue on this thread?)

Enough said!

Was the Wehrli vote a violation of the statutory rule against governmental officials having an interest in a matter upon which they are voting? Probably not. The statute is 50 ILCS 105/3 and says: "No person holding any office, either by election or appointment under the laws or Constitution of this State, may be in any manner financially interested directly in his own name or indirectly in the name of any other person, association, trust, or corporation, in any contract or the performance of any work in the making or letting of which such officer may be called upon to act or vote. The courts have held that a councilman from Rockford could vote on a matter that his wife had a financial interest without there being a violation. If it's ok for a spouse, one could argue that it ok for a cousin.

That having been said, there is a principal of good government known as "avoiding the appearance of impropriety". It's NOT a law. "[I]t refers to conduct that appears questionable although it may be legal. Community members might assume, based on their knowledge of the facts, that a board member has violated some rule or law because his or her conduct appears suspicious, self-serving, or improper. To avoid accusations of misconduct and the resultant loss of credibility, board members generally seek to avoid the
appearance of impropriety. For example, to avoid the appearance of impropriety, a board member may want to refrain from voting on any matter that will financially affect him or her and his or her spouse or family member."

"Anonymous" wrote:

If this was a complicated suit as you say Experienced is indicating, than it could not be a simple nuisance case. A nuisance case would not require discovery. Again, you can not have your cake and eat it when you blog JQP. If anyone is stubborn here and does not give and take, it is you and not me.

Experienced said he considers any case that does not make it to trial a nuisance case. Your problem is with Experienced and his definition of "nuisance case", not with me.

What do expect me to do? Condemn Furstenau because his case was dismissed?

You tell me. You're a Furstenau supporter who now argues that his case was without merit, and would not have gotten as far as did were it not for the incompetence of our city officials. It sounds to me like you've made a strong argument that DF, for one, did not act in the best interests of taxpayers, here. So maybe you should condemn him. You are the one trying to play on both sides of the fence.

Did city officials condemn the police dept. and their legal dept for abusing the Napergate Man? They did not. So why do you expect me to condemn Furstneau.

Should the city officials have condemned the police and legal departments? Would that have been the right thing? I don't know the answer to this question, as I was not around to experience any of it. You were. So what is your answer? Do two wrongs make a right, in your view?

-JQP

T.B.,

Dr. Soper's basement flooded constantly. He did not live in his home the last few years.

The city council voted to increase the density on Dr. Soper's property also known as the Ponds of Hobson West.

That is why Wehrli was able to get his money back even though I tend to believe he had no intention of ever building on that property.

The higher density zoning allowed Cousin Wehrli to get his money back from the taxpayers(a/k/a Park District) after his failed investment.

If CM Wehril did not influence other council members to rezone, Cousin Wehrli would have had to sell for much less than he bought assuming he could find a buyer with some loose screws who would not mind living between 2 large ponds which have a tendency to overflow during major rainstorms. I guess there could be someone who does not mind building a residential home on stilts as they do by the oceans. But is living by a pond like living by an ocean? Does it have the beauty and sounds of the ocean? Why take the risk for a pond or two of fresh water?

I am not sure if Naperville Zoning laws allow you to build a home on stilts. Maybe Experienced would know. But there is no way even an insane person would build a home there with a basement.

As we learned from that 17 inch rainstorm in the mid to late nineties, sump pumps can only do so much. I recall almost every basement in the Ashbury Subdivision was destroyed. Almost 8800 total basements in Naperville were flooded at the time.

The bottom line is a house on this property would have to be built on stilts. And the property if it was not rezoned by the city council as a favor to the cousin of a CM, could never have fetched 2.5 million.

It was worth at most a million to another single residential buyer with loose screws and bearings. The current home was very old and in very bad shape and not worth a penny. It was demolition property. Thus the maximum value that the Park District should have paid was 1 million for only the land. I just have had a funny feeling this transaction was fishy from day 1. I have a suspician that Wehrli may have bought it from day 1 with every intention of reselling it to the Park District for top dollar. If the real estate market did not collapse, Wehrli could have made a quick million by buying it and selling it to the Park District after he had it "conveniently" rezoned. But unfortunately, his timing was off, and the real estate market collapsed shortly after he closed on Dr. Soper's property.

Again, the taxapayers bit the dust. Is anyone still wondering why we now have 8 digit deficits when we attempt to balance our budgets?

By Anonymous on June 25, 2009 3:20 PM

I would like to see some consistency out of you, JQP, instead of blind support for the city and their self-appointed spokesperson, Mr. Experienced, who may be an attorney in the legal dept. as I suspected many months ago. (Did you catch his Freudian Slip of the tongue on this thread?)

-----------------------

Well, the truce survived for about 3 days by my calculation until someone, who shall remain nameless, started discussing people and not issues. I guess that's how it goes.

Now, if you go back to some of our first discussions, you will note that I made it clear that I am a forensic accountant by profession with a law degree by way of education. Not all people who have law degrees practice law. I am one. The state Supreme Court frowns on people holding themselves out as both attorneys and accountants. I strive to keep out of that mess by only describing myself as a forensic accountant. I am not a lay person when it comes to these matters as some who post here are but who seem to think that they are not.

Now, I'll make you a deal. Here is a web site where you can put in an IP and it will tell you who is the registered owner of the address. http://whois.domaintools.com/ For example, all of the ones that were posted for you register to att/sbc. The city has it's own registered set of IP addresses. I went back to an old FOIA that I served on the city last year and this is an IP address to the City Clerk: 207.238.161.40 If you type it in, you'll find that it is registered to the City thru XO Communications.

Now, I have posted to this blog probably almost every hour of the day, including during the work day. [I really need to get a life!] If I were blogging from the city, the IP addresses should register to the city at least sometimes. See if Chris will run a sample of addresses especially during the work day. If he does, he'll find that NONE register to the city. Almost all register to att/sbc.

Then, maybe you can lay off of your constant bullying.

I suspect that if this post never makes it onto the thread that Chris decided not to do the sample. And, I respect his not wanting to commit himself to more work. He does enough considering that he services the blog way more than the 8 hours at night that he is at the Sun. If he doesn't, I will repost just the first 2 paragraphs.

As far as I'm concerned if you say you don't work for the city I believe you. Not that I care either way. I don't have time to be checking IP addresses though.

Anonymous asked:

Did Margo Ely rule properly when she decided that CM Wehrli could vote on the Ponds of Hobson West Zoning issue which increased its price substantially due to higher density zoning?

Was Wehrli even on the council when the rezoning vote took place?

Experienced,

I have always suspected you were a lawyer and you have now admitted it. Many lawyers are CPA's and that does not make them NOT lawyers. Just because you are a forensic accountant, that does not mean you are NOT a lawyer. You spend much time in the court system and I am sure the court system considers you a lawyer and even gives you a badge to get in and out of court without having to go through security each time.

To the best of my knowledge and recollection, you never told us you were a lawyer until today. I accused you of being a lawyer and you denied it repeatedly claiming you were a forensic accountant in response.

Accusing you of being a lawyer, is not a personal attack unless you think lawyers are liars. I never said that. However, I believe they are capable of lying just like laymen.

IP numbers mean nothing. They jump from place to place. Everytime I turn on my laptop, it gives me a new IP. My desk top was able to hold on to my IP for few days at a time. The city could have my IP number today and I could have their IP number tomorrow as long as we use the same provider.

Anyway, I still have a very funny feeling you are an attorney for the City of Naperville. You are very familiar with everything that goes on in the legal department. You almost look up everything instantly for us.

Suggesting you are an attorney is not a personal attack. Most people are honored to be attorneys. Suggesting you work for the City Legal Dept. is not a personal attack. It is an envious position where you can collect a nice salary and a pension to boot with excellent benefits....and possibly retire at a young age.

I never started any personal attacks and have no interest in starting personal attacks. As the Moderator stated they are a waste of time. One blogger actually fell asleep and started snoring during the personal attacks.....ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz....why do we want to go back there?

You started this debate by stating or implying, us lay people do not know what we are talking about. Thus you finally admitted you are a lawyer indirectly and now you have finally admitted you are a lawyer directly. It is an honor to have an attorney blogging with us. Welcome aboard but don't belittle lay people! We have educations, too.

Hopefully soon you will admit you are a lawyer for the City of Naperville or maybe related to or a close friend of a lawyer for the City. Your interest is beyond normal in defending the city while pretending you are a neutral party to this discussion.

I have no shame in admitting I admire Furtenau's push for less government waste and lower taxes. I am not embarrassed to admit I know DF just because he lost his lawsuit. I still think he is a good man who cares dearly about Naperville Residents...maybe he should change his tactics slightly and I have little doubt he will.

I told you from Day One, I do not believe you are neutral. Stating that I do not feel you are neutral in your positions is not a personal attack.

My agenda has been that I am against government waste and high taxes. I have no hidden agenda. I am not against police officers as some have indicated. I am against all government employees from coast to coast who collect pensions while they are averaging higher salaries than their civilian counterparts in private industry. I am against a system that allows government employees to work till age 52, while these government employees and their government require the civilian population to work till age 70 before they can collect their full retirement benefits from Social Security.

I have laid out my agenda honestly. I expect you to lay out your agenda honestly. If you support the city and their wasteful habits, high taxes, high salaries and high pensions just come out and say it. And defend them if you feel they are justified.

But don't come on here pretending you are a neutral observer just trying to participate in the debate. I don't believe that. I doubt the Moderator believes that either.

Again it is not a crime to be a lawyer or a city attorney. They are a respectable career and a respectable position, respectively.

========================================================================================================================================

JQP,
I was personally at that city council meeting regarding the Ponds of Hobson West and yes Wehrli was sitting on the council that day. Members of the audience felt he should recuse himself, but Margo Ely ruled there was no conflict of interest and he proceeded to vote for his cousin's higher density zoning that subtantially increased the value of the parcel he bought from Dr. Soper.

Experienced,

Apparently you've been found guilty of having the credentials to back up your opinion. Actually knowing what you are talking about is an unforgivable offense in some people's books.

-JQP

By John Q. Public on June 25, 2009 8:13 PM
Experienced,

Apparently you've been found guilty of having the credentials to back up your opinion. Actually knowing what you are talking about is an unforgivable offense in some people's books.

-JQP
------------------

Thanks. One has to understand what happened even if our friend doesn't. I am confidant in my knowledge that I am not with the city that I offered to prove it thru a third party. Even if IPA's change, they always report to the same provider. We saw that when we looked at our friend's IPA's. Even though they occasionally changed, they all report back to att/sbc. Therefore, if I blogged during work hours and worked for the city, those IPA's would always report back to the city even if they occasionally changed.

Now, Chris is a great guy. He could have just not posted my message as I suggested. But, he posted it and then declined to be put to the trouble. By posting it, he allowed me to prove my point because I put myself out on a limb. I would not have done that if I really worked for the city.

Now, I didn't accuse our friend of a personal attack. I accused him of discussing people instead of issues. When he started in again with the "attorney who may be in the legal department" stuff, that is what he was doing. He wasn't discussing the Furstenau case; he was discussing me.

And, he completely glossed over the fact that I criticized Councilman Wehrli for voting on a matter that affected a family member, even though his doing so was not illegal. He never seems to recognize when I take a position that is contrary to the city.

ATTENTION EDUCATORS in Dist 203/Special Attention Dist 204: the Supreme Court has ruled that it is a federal civil rights violation and ILLEGAL to strip search students looking for contriband or ANY other reason. Please be advised that in addition to making the taxpayers liable for such conduct, YOU are also going to be held personally liable according to the ruling for such activity. So lets not have anyone especially in SD 204 crossing the line generating additional bad press for a District that seems to attract bad press as if it were some super magnet for bad press. At least not until the purported violation of free speech by an overzealous SD204 educator defacing the shirt of the student is finally decided. Or in the alternative, until the Board sets forth a policy in the next couple of years in response to the ruling.

Experienced,
I was not attacking you. You have for a long time hid from us the fact that you were an attorney. Many times in the past few months it appeared to me your were an attorney. I asked you if you were an attorney and you stated over and over again that you are a forensic accountant.

My main source of income is trading stocks and rental real estate. Now if I cut a few neighbor's lawn for extra money, I would be deceptive if I said I was a landscaper. BTW, I don't even cut my own lawn. I have a service do it for 30 bucks every 2 weeks and use the time to blog which I actually find enjoyable when we are not fighting or dickering. (Obviously blogging is not free if I pay 30 bucks to have my lawn mowed so I can have more time to blog...lol...)

Your denial of being an attorney made me also suspicious of you being affiliated with the city. I can't help I still have that suspician. I could lie to you and tell you I don't have that suspician but I do for now and will not pretend I don't just to appease you.

You have been very defensive about not being a lawyer for the city, which has made me even more suspicious. As a lawyer for the city you would be required to go to court. You probably carry a laptop and you can blog during your lunch hour or breaks from almost anywhere. Almost every place has Wifi or a similar service. You are not blogging 24-7, so you could easily be blogging on your lunch hour or your breaks. You are entitled to blog on your two 15 minute breaks so you are not breaking any city rules to the best of my knowledge. You are not screwing the taxpayers. Plus the City of Naperville is probably very proud of you for being such an eloquent spokesperson for such a losing cause.

Again, I am not accusing you of anything and I am not calling you any names. I never call anyone names unless they call me names first. I think I have established that and JQP pretty much acknowledged that. I even think the Moderator has finally observed that.

As John Q. Public stated so succinctly, you have been only found to be guilty of having the credentials to back up your opinion. I agree with Mr. Public 100% on this issue.

What is "unforgivable" using John's word and I don't mean it literally, is that you were in the closet for so long. I am glad you finally came out of the closet.

Welcome aboard!

"Anonymous" wrote:

My main source of income is trading stocks and rental real estate. Now if I cut a few neighbor's lawn for extra money, I would be deceptive if I said I was a landscaper.

Experienced's main source of income is apparently forensic accounting, so how is he being deceptive? Having a law degree does not automatically make him an attorney. Have you proven that he works as an attorney on the side? No. Have you established that he has ever worked as an attorney? No. Do you know if he has passed or even taken the bar exam? No, and no. Most important, are the answers to any of these questions the game-changing revelation that you seem to be making of it? Most definitely not.

I never call anyone names unless they call me names first. I think I have established that and JQP pretty much acknowledged that.

I acknowledged that on one thread you did not start the name calling. That's it. You've gone and tried to make this a general statement for all time.

P.s. You should try to get comfortable with the idea that most of the people who post here probably are not deliberately deceptive, and aren't hiding anything except their identities.

-JQP

JQP,

I believe Experienced is a lawyer who specializes in forensic accounting. I believe he is a lawyer because he stated he spends lots of time in court. If you got a law degree and you spend your life in the court system, it is almost dumb that you don't take the final step to become a Board Certified Attorney.

Experienced is not stupid. He is not dumb. He can command a much higher fee by being an attorney than simply just a forensic accountant. Why waste all that time in law school for nothing?

I have had 2 CPAs that were lawyers. They were lawyers first and CPAs second. Being a CPA allows them to specialize in complex financial cases that find their way through the court system.

You can believe what you will. I have a great belief that Experienced is a practicing attorney with all the qualifications needed and necessary.

I also believe he works for the city or is affiliated with the city. Maybe he works for one of the law firms that the City of Naperville outsources work to.

I have asked Experienced many times if he was a lawyer or attorney. Many, many times. He sidestepped my question each time stating he was a forensic accountant.

He had a serious Freudian slip of the tongue that finally made him CONFESS.

End of Story...let us move on and debate.

And you won't ever catch me calling a blogger a name first. That I can guarantee you. I think it is stupid and leads to nowhere as the Moderator proved to all of us on the last thread that I "hijacked."

At least I have not been accused of "hijacking" this thread yet even though I came on it to liven it up when it was on self support about 2 days ago.

Thanks for keeping it civil, JQP, and hopefully we can keep it that way.

Experienced is not stupid. He is not dumb. He can command a much higher fee by being an attorney than simply just a forensic accountant. Why waste all that time in law school for nothing?

------------------------------

I bill at the same rate as an attorney. I spend 100% of my time as a forensic accountant. 0% practicing law. When I am in court, I am testifying. I charge double rates when I am actually in court or giving a deposition. I get to charge the big bucks because I have credentials most forensic accountants don't have. Based upon your analogy of day trading and mowing lawns, that makes me a forensic accountant.

------------------------------

I have a great belief that Experienced is a practicing attorney with all the qualifications needed and necessary.

I also believe he works for the city or is affiliated with the city. Maybe he works for one of the law firms that the City of Naperville outsources work to.

--------------------------------

And, you could be 100% wrong.

Oh, and none of that changes the fact that I was 100% correct in my analysis of the conflict of interest problem in the case due to the fact that Ely was a defendant. And, I was 100% correct when I said that the city charged a misdemeanor in the criminal case and the states attorney changed it.

Nor, does that change the fact that you were 100% incorrect when you said that there was no conflict of interest problem.

Here in this thread you say: "In the Napergate Cases, they lost and appear to have gotten into gag agreements with the Napergate Man." But, in a prior thread you stated that the Napergate man trashed the city after his victories because there was no gag order: "The city apparently wants the rights earned by the Napergate Man after he won. He spoke against them. He told the truth. He held them accountable after his VICTORIES." By Legal Fees will be over 2 million. on May 1, 2009 4:03 PM Free for all. Which is it? Did the facts change since May 1st? You ask JQP for consistency. Where is the consistency on your part?

By Anonymous on June 25, 2009 10:18 PM
ATTENTION EDUCATORS in Dist 203/Special Attention Dist 204: the Supreme Court has ruled that it is a federal civil rights violation and ILLEGAL to strip search students looking for contriband or ANY other reason.
___________________________________________________________________

Attention Taxes Taxes Taxes, now scared to use that name or the other 200 names she/he/it has used and now is Anonymous again. Educators don't need your Court rullings updates, you don't know how to run a school, police department, fire department, city department or anything else but you are great at deception. I know being up at 2am blogging makes you well qualified to be an expert on a number of subjects but...

Anon –

As you have “sidestepped my question” (your words) about your identity more than once, I can only assume that you're our multi-personality blogger.

Good riddance.

**********

JQP and Experienced –

I’m surprised you let this past you:

“I am not against police officers as some have indicated.” (Anon June 26 @ 1:20 a.m.)

Isn’t this sort of an odd statement for someone who called the cops fascist on many occasions, as well as pr*cks, scum, and cowards? The difference is we now know this wasn’t some group of misguided zealots, but was really one person (as Elizabeth, Susan, Anonymous, Melissa, etc) orchestrating a campaign to malign the NPD and one officer in particular.

T.B.

"Anonymous",

I choose to believe what Experienced tells me. I take people's word at face value until I have reason to think that they are not to be trusted. Experienced has not given me any reason to think he is not to be trusted. He has said over and over again that he is a forensic accountant. He has not indicated that he practices law. If he does not practice law, he is not a lawyer. Not everyone who gets a law degree goes on to practice law, and some who do, later decide that it is not for them. I used to know a woman who has a degree from a very prestigious law school. She worked as a lawyer for a few years, decided she hated it, and now makes her living writing children's books.

BTW, being a lawyer is not a guaranteed ticket to the high life, particularly if you didn't attend a top-tier law school.

" . . . and very rare instances of me making personal attacks first."

"And you won't ever catch me calling a blogger a name first."

Why does it seem to be so important who goes FIRST? Whether you do it first or second or third, it still sounds just as childish. Just because one person starts it doesn't make others blameless for retaliating and keeping it going.

How about this: when a blogger loses it and posts name-calling and personal attacks, simply don't respond. Conversation over. If you don't feed the beast, it will go away.

Just a suggestion.

ok, ok,
we all know it's the same miserable person again, this time eschewing an actual handle.
But we've already started down the road of letting him/her/it/them ruin yet another thread. I get Experienced feeling a need to clarify the circumstance when a certain someone twists and turns words about him, specifically. I'd do the same.
But tell me, can we not agree to simply IGNORE this person, whatever the handle or lack thereof? Is it too much to hope for?
GJC
not a lawyer, don't work for the city, in charge of my own retirement, simply... annoyed.

T.B.,

If I had a little bit more self-discipline, I probably wouldn't respond to any of our friend's comments at all. I guess, in the back of my mind, I'm always concerned that someone new to Potluck and/or unfamiliar with his modus operandi will jump in and get sucked into the vortex. Maybe I should just sit back and enjoy the show.

-JQP

P.s. Since you brought up the subject of "surprise", I'm surprised that you had to ask if this is the blogger formerly known as "Taxes/Big Fat Pensions/etc.".

Gang, I'll be out of town from now until July 4, so try to behave while I'm gone. Also, I'd recommend anyone who likes to read should check out the AAUW Used Book Sale at Neuqua Valley Friday and Saturday. I stopped there yesterday and bought 31 books. They have some good stuff.

JQP –

I decided to give “Anon” the benefit of the doubt. I asked about their ID because, like you, I’d hate to assume some innocent new person was someone so distasteful. Now that I’m certain of their ID, I won’t be responding to them any more.

Chris –

Enjoy the time away. I hope you get a chance to put a dent in your new book collection.

T.B.

Here in this thread you say: "In the Napergate Cases, they lost and appear to have gotten into gag agreements with the Napergate Man." But, in a prior thread you stated that the Napergate man trashed the city after his victories because there was no gag order: "The city apparently wants the rights earned by the Napergate Man after he won. He spoke against them. He told the truth. He held them accountable after his VICTORIES." By Legal Fees will be over 2 million. on May 1, 2009 4:03 PM Free for all. Which is it? Did the facts change since May 1st? You ask JQP for consistency. Where is the consistency on your part?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Experienced,

There really is no inconsistency here. A liquor license legal battle is much more complex than an ordinary legal battle. First you have to go through a proceeding set up by the City itself. The liquor commissioner is the judge or he appoints a judge. The liquor commissioner is the Mayor. Either party than has a right to appeal to the Illinois Liquor Control Commission and another hearing takes place. After that either party has a right to appeal to the Dupage District Court, Illinois Appellate Court and finally the Illinios Supreme Court.

The city always won the local proceeding since they were judge, jury and executioner. They rammed each of the 3 victories into the Napergate Man's face through public lashings. He appealled those cases and won at many levels until the city surrendered and he rammed it right back in their faces victory by victory. Yes, the Napergatge Man trashed the city as they trashed him as there was no gag order in the State part of the cases. They were fighting for liquor licenses in the mid eighties and through the nineties. The city would revoke, the Napergate Man would take them to the real court systems after his convictions in what he called Naperville Kangaroo Trials and he would regain his liquor licences. This happened 3 times. Twice on his Bailey Rd. store and once on his Rt. 59 store.

At some point he decided to file a civil rights suit to recoup all the damages he sustained. In one of the 3 court battles in local, district and state courts, possibly the final case he encountered over 74,000 in legal fees according to Federal Records. I had erroneously estimated 200k until T.B. actually tracked and extracted the exact number from the Federal Case. I guess the NGM felt as the City felt towards Furstenau. He must have felt unless he teaches them an unforgivable lesson, they will continue harrassing him. He took them to Federal District Court and won. He boasted in his ads about his Federal District Court victory. The City appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and he won again. The only time he did not boast or trash the city was in his FINAL VICTORY. I stand by my suspician that his FINAL VICTORY was his biggest victory as it put a dent in the City of Naperville's Budget...it took taxpayer money away from the city and put it in his pocket.

As I said the city had one final chance to appeal the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal decision to the U. S. Supreme Court. They chose not to. They chose to settle. They still had some leverage which was to delay paying the Napergate Man for one or two years until the Supreme Court most likely would have ruled and rejected the case as they reject 95-99% of the cases that reach them. They also had leverage because the Napergate Man would have to continue encountering substantial legal fees. I am sure the legal fees were killing him as he was a David fighting a Goliath. He only owned one little liquor store on Bailey Rd. The Rt. 59 liquor license was not awarded to him until his final 3-0 victory in the Illinois Appellate Court. Imagine having to take on a very wealthy city with the budget of a neighborhood liquor store. He had to be efficient....at least more than City Hall.

So in my opinion City Officials made a deal to give him a lump sum, if he would stop trashing the City of Naperville. And he was trashing them 3 times a week with his full page Napergate Ads when the circulation of the Sun was 22,000 plus and the population of Naperville was 80,000 plus. At the time the Naperville Sun was probably ahead of the Bible in readership. Everyone read the Sun religiously. Every Sun Edition was circulated and read by 2-4 residents.

Desptie his Biggest and Final Civil Rights Victory, he never said a word in his Napergate Ads. Not one word. He switched his ads to zoning issues on a dime and began fighting a gas station the City of Naperville wanted to put in his subdivision to appease a well connected developer and his well connected attorney. Apparently the gag order only covered his liquor cases. So I am guessing after he got his settlement he began trashing the city on zoning issues....one after another. And he was able to fill City Hall and make a difference on the numerous zoning issues residents urged him to take on. He had a great platform, meaning his Napergate Ads, which were in essence a newspaper within a newspaper, and did not mind using it to help others.

In those days the Naperville Sun was most likely owned by the establishment and was not willing to hold the city accountable as it does in these days. So he held them accountable by riding the coat tails of the Sun whenever they allowed him and if he did not take it to an extreme. They refused to publish 2 of his Napergate ads with no explanation even though they maintained the right to edit his ads.

I never knew of his 7th Cirucit Court of Appeal victory despite reading all his Napergate Ads religiously. Blogger T.B. uncovered it while researching. The Naperville Sun confirmed it in an artilce titled Napergate Revisited that they ran 2 years ago on the front page.

My consistency is 100%, Experienced. He did hold them accountable just as I stated. He held them accountable after each victory by giving them a good public lashing or trashing in his Napergate Ads....and there were many many victories due to 3 cases and numerous appeals. In the FINAL CIVIL RIGHTS VICTORY, he also held them accountable, but it was not through a public lashing or trashing. It was by emptying their pockets. It worked. They have not bothered him since to the best of my knowledge.

I guess the lesson learned from the Napergate Man Trials is if you want to hold somebody accountable it is better to empty his/her pockets than publicly lash out at him/her. I am sure you would agree, Experienced.

Did anyone else see Michael Jackson at the DQ drive through a couple of hours ago?

By Experienced on June 26, 2009 5:54 AM
And, I was 100% correct when I said that the city charged a misdemeanor in the criminal case and the states attorney changed it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=

If you are talking about the Furstenau Case, the city attmepted to go to the State Attorney to obtain a felony charge. The City of Naperville can bring misdemeanor charges but are not allowed to bring felony charges without the assistance of the States Attorney and approval of a judge.

My understanding is the States Attorney and Judge refused to bring felony charges and the city settled for the misdemeanor charges they were allowed to bring without having to go thru the States Attorney. I suspect they needed a Judge to rubber stamp the misdemeanor charges and had that done rather easily as it amounts to almost nothing more than a formality. Felony cases are taken very seriously by Judges and they demand evidence showing or at least indicating serious probable cause.

Therefore, I believe your statemet is 100% wrong.

Maybe other bloggers can shed light as this case has been public from day one. Unfortunately, the Moderator left us to go on vacation so he will not be able to shed any light.

By What the? on June 26, 2009 11:00 AM

Why does it seem to be so important who goes FIRST? Whether you do it first or second or third, it still sounds just as childish. Just because one person starts it doesn't make others blameless for retaliating and keeping it going.

How about this: when a blogger loses it and posts name-calling and personal attacks, simply don't respond. Conversation over. If you don't feed the beast, it will go away.

Just a suggestion.

========================================================================================================================================

Thank you for the excellent suggestion. A few bloggers are already trying to start up and I am simply going to ignore them and let them remain in Kindergarten by themselves and act childish.

I have asked the Moderator not to post personal attacks but apparently he does not want to censure free speech. I can not blame him.

Therefore the only solution is your suggestion which I think is excellent. Some of us graduated from Kindergarten that being the last thread and I guess some failed. I am glad I am one of the graduates.

It appears Experienced and John Q. Public also graduated with flying colors.

Again, thanks for your mature advice and words of wisdom.

I will stop feeding the beast in hopes that he will go away.

By Experienced on June 26, 2009 5:25 AM

I charge double rates when I am actually in court or giving a deposition. I get to charge the big bucks because I have credentials most forensic accountants don't have.

========================================================================================================================================

JQP,

This is yet another Freudian slip of the tongue by our friend, Experienced.

He does in fact have credentials that most forensic accountants do not have. And he has these EXTRA CREDENTIALS because he in fact is a LAWYER whether is is practicing law or not. He can only have these credentials that allow him to charge more and even double because he is a Board Certified Attorney who passed the Bar Exam.

If he did not pass the Bar Exam and become a Certified Attorney or Registered Attorney or whatever the proper term may be, he could not claim having EXTRA CREDENTIALS and charge more.

My CPA charges me 115 dollars an hour for filing my taxes and doing my accounting. My attorney/CPAs charge me 250-300 dollar per hour to fight my legal battles. They can charge this much because of their EXTRA CREDENTIALS. They understand the court system and can maneuver in it while my regular non-lawyer CPA can not.

They are degreed and practicing lawyers even though they are performing accounting and financial work 100% of the time.

I believe Experienced is performing 100% forensic accounting. But I believe he has a law degree and the credentials of a lawyer to help him navigate the very complex legal system.

Again, through a second Freudian slip of the tongue, he admitted having these credentials of a lawyer.

He can say anything he wants but common sense and his 2 Freudian slips speak louder than any words he could utter on this blog site.

As you said, JQP, he has nothing to be ashamed about. He has the credentials to back up what he is saying. It is time for him to come out of the closet, though, and take pride in his unique expertise and accomplishments.

Meadows Resident: Sorry, actually posted by Glock 22. I neglected to insert my name. Secondly, some special notice of the case is warranted. In fact, a lawyer should be giving a mandatory district wide, in school training session reviewing the ruling in my opinion to reinforce that the school staff is operating within the law. Shame on any school for strip searching any student. I cannot imagine under what circumstances a school employee thinks they have that right and I am especially concerned with the great new drugs in school policy 203 announced last week or two ago. Just how do they plan to enforce their policy if they suspect a student is carrying a bottle of Excedrin in school? We as taxpayers are tired of paying legal fees for educators and administrators who operate under a theory that the schools are their personal domains for their profit and pleasure. That if they object to what someone says or wears a shirt with some message on it THEY think is offensive that they have some write to deface it or otherwise suppress the message. And yes, I do not know how to run any entity you mention. But people who are defacing student property and strip searching children don't know what they are doing. When they are tagged with a personal civil judgment, they will come to understand they don't know what they are doing either.

Anonymous wrote:

As you said, JQP, he has nothing to be ashamed about. He has the credentials to back up what he is saying. It is time for him to come out of the closet, though, and take pride in his unique expertise and accomplishments.

Come out of the closet about what???? What exactly is it that you think he's hiding? For goodness' sakes, he's been a lot more open and honest about who he is and what he's does and has done than you have been.

By Anonymous on June 26, 2009 4:58 PM

I believe Experienced is performing 100% forensic accounting.

-----------------

See, now we are finally getting somewhere. Since the City has no employees who perform 100% forensic accounting, I can't be on the city staff. You finally admit that your suspicions all along that I worked for the city were incorrect. I can accept that admission on your part and move on. I don't need to remind you that the credentials that I hold that allow me to charge what attorneys charge are the letters JD on my vitae. That stands for my law degree and not for any admission to the bar. No where on my vitae do I list any bar admission. Further, since the Illinois Supreme Court does not allow law firms to have joint practices whereby they also offer accounting consulting services, including offering expert witnesses in the field of forensic accounting, I can't be working for "one of the law firms that the City of Naperville outsources work to."

Now, that wasn't so tough, was it.

Oh my, the altered name triple T has reached an all time low, now pretending to be the Glock... I prefer the glock 27 by the way. Taxes, you can run but you cant hide your silly postings, WE all know who you are.

Even the imbeciles in the rubber stamp Congress who voted for the $5 Trillion tax increase didn't bother to read the 800 page (plus 300 pages added at 3am, total of 1100 unread pages) piece of Legislation.

Who just made Billions in profits: GE, Goldman Sacs, and Al Gore

House passes climate-change bill
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24232.html

Been busy...

What the?....you are still stating all AA are like this just because you know of some case. I never said this does not or did not happen at all. Heck you can say this about Caucausian athletes being let in & staying with bad gpas in the past also so don't just knock all AA students nor state just because one is black they must have been let in due to AA. Huge difference.

Ken...I origionally stated taht Maher made mention that republicans were up in arms about it. I posted what he said. You want to know which Republican's in particular...I guess we can ask Maher for his sources.

And saying "I have found, What the, that when dealing with people who have the intelligence of a child," is not being nasty in the first place. You are not stooping here by stating this part. Next what say to the person would be. And you should not stoop to their level! You should be staying at your level and stating things logical. No one ever taught you when you were growing up not to stoop to lower levels? And when you have a person who is "ignorant of a subject" not "intelligence of a child!" you explain to them nicely. And you wonder about me being an educator. It is clear why you should not be. You do not approach people who you may think are not understanding things clearly in a nice manner and just kindly provide information for them to think about. And you certainly take personal offense if they disagree. You don't want to agree with me, think unkindly of me or want to call me some name...that is you.

ANON 6/26 4:18pm/I think DF was charged with a misdemeanor BECAUSE he was a city councilman and the power structure did not want this to be a felony. Had anyone else been involved with backhanding a cop, it would have been a felony case. So actually, DF caught a break on the criminal charges in my opinion. Maybe the delay between the incident and the charges was for what is called felony review? Meadows Resident: It would seem to me any adults strip searching children are engaging in deviant sexual conduct. They ought to be looking at criminal charges, incarceraton and a lifetime as a registered sex offender. Thats what happens when you look at child porn on your computer and thats what should happen when you are engaged in strip searching children. Tt makes not one bit of difference why you are doing it. And I don't care if its the local Target on a shoplifting suspect or the local school because they think a student is carrying a baggy of 4 aspirin tablets into the school or a big bag of weed. I hope no teacher or administrator will risk all that they worked for to enforce some stupid policy the school board approved. Let the school board members enforce the policy and put themselves in the dock.

Naperville Little League- This could not have happen in Naperville!!!
There was a Majors (ages 10-13)Naperville Little League being played at Dupage River park on 5/27/09. While the Red Sox were batting against the White Sox, the batter did not like the comment from the third base coach, his Dad, and the batter gave Dad finger, where everyone in attendance saw what had happened. My thought was this couldn't have happened in Naperville.

To One Who Values You on June 27, 2009 6:26 PM

What the?....you are still stating all AA are like this just because you know of some case. I never said this does not or did not happen at all. Heck you can say this about Caucausian athletes being let in & staying with bad gpas in the past also so don't just knock all AA students nor state just because one is black they must have been let in due to AA. Huge difference.
__________________________

What????

By John Q. Public on June 27, 2009 12:53 AM
Anonymous wrote:

As you said, JQP, he has nothing to be ashamed about. He has the credentials to back up what he is saying. It is time for him to come out of the closet, though, and take pride in his unique expertise and accomplishments.

Come out of the closet about what???? What exactly is it that you think he's hiding? For goodness' sakes, he's been a lot more open and honest about who he is and what he's does and has done than you have been.

========================================================================================================================================

He was hiding his JD diploma. I always suspected his blogging style was that of an attorney and not of a layman. He was pretending to be a layman with the knowledge of an attorney. I wanted to snuff him out and I successfully snuffed him out.

As far as if he is more honest or less honest than me, no one knows.

Let me ask you, JQP, do you think if Experienced is an attorney for the City of Naperville, he would be dumb enough to tell us? Please answer. In my opinion, he would not be dumb enough to tell us. What is your opinion, JQP?

If he is a rational human being, which he appears to be, he would throw us a bone in the wrong direction. I believe he is a smart hound who threw us a bone in the opposite direction.

Most bloggers on this blog site are smart enough to deceive or alter their identity just a little bit so they can not be tracked and remain anonymous.

Need I remind you, JQP, that it was you who stated it is not clever to reveal too many clues about your identity. I believe Experienced revealed a bit to much and got himself cornered. Now he is trying to get out of the corner. His head is in the hay one day and the next day it is in the file cabinet drawer upside down. I provided proof. What more do you want?

He is being EXTREMELY DEFENSIVE. If my allegations were without merit, he would not be standing on his head being so DEFENSIVE.

My calculated conclusion is that he is an attorney for the City of Naperville. It is simply an opinion and I am not libeling him by stating he is a member of the legal staff. You are all acting like being a member of the legal dept of the City of Naperville is like being in organized crime or the mafia. To the best of my knowledge it is not.

OWVY, if I were you, I would quit letting it be known that you are in education. It is quite obvious that you have problems with the written word; hopefully you are able to speak and teach better than your writing indicates.

Once again, here is what you originally said when referring to the equality of damaging press coverage between Republicans and Democrats:

"Speaking of equal time. Republicans are up in arm about Barak having his feet up on the desk. Well Bill Maher just showed a picture of George W. with his feet up on the desk so talk about equal criticsm...the Republicans do their fair share of one sided criticism!"

You are the one indicating that the Republicans are "up in arms" over the feet on the desk, which is an inaccurate assessment to say the least, and you use Bill Maher to back your statement up. Now you are trying to claim you didn't even compare the two, and blaming it all on Maher. Unfortunately for you, your prior statements live on no matter how much you try to change them.

Personally, OWVY, if I were you, I would be less interested trying to change what I said and more interested in the damage being done to the image of Naperville teachers by your continued convoluted postings.

By Experienced on June 27, 2009 12:57 AM
By Anonymous on June 26, 2009 4:58 PM

I believe Experienced is performing 100% forensic accounting.
--------
By Anonymous on June 29, 2009 12:30 PM

My calculated conclusion is that he is an attorney for the City of Naperville.

*******************************

Are we being a tad inconsistent? When did the City start hiring people whose sole job function is forensic accounting?

His head is in the hay one day and the next day it is in the file cabinet drawer upside down. I provided proof. What more do you want?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I provided proof with a link of pictures of Experienced's head in the hay and another one with his head upside down in a file cabinet drawer, but the fill-in Moderator apparently chose not to publish them.

So if this sentence does not make sense, I hope you all understand.

Bad news today for What the ?. The affirmative action president and his affirmative action Supreme Court nominee are disposed to being overruled...Again. When Bush nominated Harriet Miers, I could not understand why he would do such a thing. I could only conclude he placed loyalty to her above the importance of jurisprudence. Her resume is as thin as Sotomayor's however I know why Obama appointed Sotomayor. Its predicated on ideaology. Neither Obama or Sotomayor is qualified for their respective jobs, the unqualifed leading the unqualified. If you can be honest What the ?, you can clearly see a seat on the Supreme Court for Sotomayor is indeed promoting the incompetent.

"Anonymous" wrote:

My calculated conclusion is that he is an attorney for the City of Naperville. It is simply an opinion and I am not libeling him by stating he is a member of the legal staff. You are all acting like being a member of the legal dept of the City of Naperville is like being in organized crime or the mafia. To the best of my knowledge it is not.

No, actually, you are the one who is acting like Experienced's JD is some big secret you've uncovered. It isn't. Experienced never pretended to be anything other than a forensic accountant. We have no reason to believe he is anything but that. Unlike you, he has never been caught in a lie on Potluck, so there really isn't good reason to think he is lying now when he says he is not a lawyer and does not work for the city of Naperville unless you are: a) paranoid; b) trying to deflect attention from the fact that he made minced meat out of your attempt to prove that the city could have handled the DF case in house; c) disingenuously trying to discredit as biased any opinion he might offer on any of the issues pertaining to the City of Naperville that are discussed on Potluck; d) trying to justify your own practice of being less than honest in order to hide your identity and/or make it appear as if your opinion should carry more weight than it otherwise would; or, e) all of the above.

-JQP

I think this blog site should be shut down.

After nearly 3 years only a handful of people are blogging or dickering.

Why not get rid of this burden from Sun Officials and from the Naperville Community?

Well Experienced - you have been found out -it has been revealed by the master sleuth that you are a Naperville staff attorney - accruing a big fat pension at the expense of all the poor wage slaves that are duped intosupporting the evil, corrupt city government- how dare you try to fool all of the people here by telling the truth about what you do for a living - shame on you for being honest about being a forensic accountant.

I have a friend that went to medical school but decided not to become a physician - instead he took his medical degree and his engineering degree and became a designer of medical equipment. If he called him self a doctor, he would be committing fraud - as he will be the first one to tell you, he is not a doctor. It was probably a good move on his part - he makes a great living, has multiple patents that earn him lots of $$$ and he is never on call, has no malpractice insurance issues and no one asks him medical advice at parties.

"Anonymous" wrote:

As you said, JQP, he has nothing to be ashamed about.

I can't believed I missed this one. You are putting words in my mouth here. I never said that Experienced "has nothing to be ashamed about." I never said it because the thought never even occurred to me that he or anyone else should think that the revelation that he has a law degree is something he should be ashamed of. You are trying to make it seem like he's hiding something and being evasive, when all he has done is explain that he has never identified himself as a lawyer because, in fact, he is not a lawyer. It's like the old trick of accusing someone of being in denial, so that when they deny that they are in denial, it "proves" your point.

-JQP

P.s. I'm not surprised that you, in particular, think that most bloggers here "deceive or alter their identity just a little bit so they can not be tracked and remain anonymous." Not all of us have a big secret to hide, though.

JQP,
Apparently working for the City and collecting a Big Fat Salary combined with a Big Fat Pension and being able to retire at age 52 is a Big Fat Secret.

Have you ever heard of a City Offical coming on here and admitting this publicly? It appears to be a shameful thing to admit you are collecting a Big Fat Pension when your salary is higher than an equal position in the private sector...it appears to be shameful to admit you are collecting much better benefits than your private counterparts....it appears to be shameful to admit that you are able to retire 18 years earlier than your civilian counterpart and receive your full retirement pension to boot....it appears shameful to admit that you may be a City Official double dipping at taxpayer expense.

What makes this all EXTREMELY SHAMEFUL, it that it is done at TAXPAYER EXPENSE.

All, I am saying is that it would be embarrassing for Experienced to admit he works for the taxapyers and is milking them.

Therefore, there is a strong probability that Experienced is a City Attorney who is screwing the taxpayerrs and is ashamed to admit it....while pretending to be a forensic accountant.

This is not rocket science....this is human nature....it is greedy human nature.

Government employees generally are greedy. They want you the taxpayers to be part of the Social Security System. They want you to work till age 70 and then give you a grand or two per month when you retire at age 70.

On the other hand they want to retire making 75% of their Final and Big Fat Salaries at the young age of 52 at your "TAXPAYER EXPENSE." They usually get 6k to 30k per month in retirement benefits at your expense. And they are in a corrupt system that allows them to infate their final salary through end of career raises and promotions, again at TAXPAYER EXPENSE.

I don't care if the whole world is against me.

I think this is hypocrisy and the taxpayer is getting screwed royally up the waaaazoooooooooooo.

Unfortunately the taxpayer in Naperville is asleep. One day the Naperville Sun will wake the sleeping taxpayers and I will have 90% support in this town.

So to my fellow bloggers enjoy your moments in the spotlight and limelight while the taxpayers are sleeping. When they wake up, I suggest you all look for cover.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. It is odd that so many bloggers will chase me down, every time I "hijack" a dead thread, and try to attack me personally instead of my strong message. Apparently no one on this blog site can dispute my valid message. That appears overly obvious.

Anonymous wrote:

All, I am saying is that it would be embarrassing for Experienced to admit he works for the taxapyers and is milking them.

Therefore, there is a strong probability that Experienced is a City Attorney who is screwing the taxpayerrs and is ashamed to admit it....while pretending to be a forensic accountant.

Is this what passes for logic in your neck of the woods??? It would be embarrassing for you to admit that you are city employee. Does this mean that there is a strong possibility that you are a city employee, while pretending to be a stock trader? By your own logic, the answer to this question is "yes".

PS. It is odd that so many bloggers will chase me down, every time I "hijack" a dead thread, and try to attack me personally instead of my strong message. Apparently no one on this blog site can dispute my valid message. That appears overly obvious.

We were having a nice little discussion about the Furstenau case until Experienced pulled the rug out from under your line of reasoning, at which point you turned this thread into an attack on his credibility that is as silly as it is illogical.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Experienced works for the city, but if you are going to keep trying to make an issue of the "secret" identities of other bloggers, don't be surprised if it comes back to bite you---your own secret can be pretty easily discovered by anyone who's willing to do a little homework.

By Anonymous on June 30, 2009 3:40 PM

PS. It is odd that so many bloggers will chase me down, every time I "hijack" a dead thread, and try to attack me personally instead of my strong message. Apparently no one on this blog site can dispute my valid message. That appears overly obvious.

---------------------------

If you remember what happened, you came on entered a post concerning Councilman Furstenau losing his case and losing his motion for a gag order. We were all discussing the Furstenau case for 3 days. No one during that time was discussing personalities. It appeared to me to be a decent conversation of the issues surrounding Councilman Furstenau's suit. UNTIL, you on June 25, 2009 1:05 AM starting discussing me and not the suit. Then it went down hill fast. Those of us who were discussing the case did not welcome your intrusion to discuss personalities. We were discussing your "valid message" even though some of us disagreed with it. YOU decided to discuss me instead.

Further, I would refute you statement that no city employee has come on the blog to refute your assertions [I recall at least one firefighter], but Chris asked us not to discuss pensions on this thread.

Experienced,
We did have one brave firefighter on this thread. I believe he was defending his salary and not his pension. He claimed he only made 19.96 per hour if you factored in he worked 53 hours a weeek. I figured he made 40 dollars an hour if you factored out his time sleeping on the job.

I pulled this thread off life support.

So I think it is OK to discuss whatever we want after a thread is declared dead or near dead..

I took over this thread when bloggers and Chris could not figure out what to talk about and decided to try some new threads. He allowed me to "hijack" it rather than allow it to go to the archives prematurely.

I believe I livened it up by discussing the Furstenau Suit and evolving from there to wherever the conversation led us.

It is better to have a live thread than a dead thread even if we deviate from topic a bit.

The main thing is at least you and John Q. Public are not calling me names and I am not calling you names. I appreciate that. I am ignoring all those who are calling me names and want to start up. They disappear when I don't respond to them which is what I am trying to accomplish.

Let us keep this thread civil and debate whatever we like without restrictions. If the Moderator does not like something, he/she will simply not post it.

The Moderator did not like your pictures with your head in the hay and your head in an open drawer in a file cabinet. So you can see there is a Moderator taking care of business so there is no need for you to moderate. The pictures were simply suppose to be for humor and give us a good laugh, but the Moderator apparently did not see the humor in them that I saw.

If you are off topic, the Moderator will either say Yes or No. Let him or her do their job and just worry about blogging in a civil manner as you have been.

BTY, thanks for stopping the name calling. I really appreciate it. I am sure you realize it was counterproductive. I hope other bloggers will join you, JQP and I in seeing it is counterproductive and gets us nowhere. All we do is upset the Moderators. Do we really want to upset them for all they do for us? I think not. And keep in mind they are managing this blog site voluntarily and without any extra pay. So let us respect them and keep it civil as they wish.

By Anonymous on June 25, 2009 1:05 AM
By Experienced on June 24, 2009 10:25 PM
I always love when lay people try to make legal arguments

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was you who started discussing personalities by leveling the above insult at lay people.

I simply responded and said basically lawyers were no better than lay people in making legal arguments...that they were wrong or considered wrong half the time by Judges.

I am sorry you took it so personal.

And I don't think you would have taken it so personal if you were not a lawyer.

And now you finally admit you are a LAWYER.

Don't blame me for an attack you started. Again, you attacked lay people of whom I am one. I have a right to defend myself and I did without calling you any names. And you did not call me or other bloggers any names.

So what is the problem. Everything is still civil, isn't it? Let us stay on track and continue the debate without trying to put restrictions. Let the Moderators put restrictions if they so choose. Trust me they know how.

And they will exercise their rights to censorship when and if necessary and have gone along that path in rare necessary cases.....including some against me.

I believe that we, the taxpayers are entitled to more than the 2 paragraph statement ending the Furstenau suit. I want full disclosure of the costs incurred by the City. As far as I am concerned, it is too late for Richard Furstenau to "put his constituents' interests ahead of his own personal convictions". That train left the station the day he filed the lawsuit. And I will take that opinion to the polls should he decide to run again.

Does anyone know what the story is regarding Naperville Crossings? I drive by the pile of dirt each day and don't see anything happening. I did see that the fire station s being built but nothing else.

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men

who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors,

and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army;

another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or

hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes,

and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.

Eleven were merchants,

nine were farmers and large plantation owners;

men of means, well educated,

but they signed the Declaration of Independence

knowing full well that the penalty would be death if

they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and

trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the

British Navy. He sold his home and properties to

pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British

that he was forced to move his family almost constantly.

He served in the Congress without pay, and his family

was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him,

and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer,

Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that

the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson

home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General

George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed,

and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed.

The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying.

Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill

were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests

and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his

children vanished.

So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and

silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.

Anonymous,
It is unfortunate that the response to free speech and free thought in our country has become “shut it down”.

Why are so many media outlets failing? Because most of the country does not agree with the shaping of the news we have been getting for years. No one is forcing you to read or post, turn on your TV and watch your network news program while you sing the International. ABC, NBC and CBS are competing for the 23% of the country that defines themselves as Liberal, a shrinking market.

By Anonymous on June 29, 2009 9:24 PM
I think this blog site should be shut down.
After nearly 3 years only a handful of people are blogging or dickering.
Why not get rid of this burden from Sun Officials and from the Naperville Community?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

Glock,
Obama and the Democrats have placed open Marxists and Socialists into the top jobs in most of the Federal Government's Agencies.

The next step is to pack the Judiciary with people who don't believe in the individual but the group, the core of Marxism is collectivism and state ownership of key industries that can be used to control the population. The Unions have provided the goons for most Marxist regimes.

When the lawful Government of Honduras removed their president who was attempting to override the constitution and become a Honduran Hugo Chavez, what was the reaction of Obama and Clinton?

Obama immediately demanded that the unlawful Hugo Chavez look alike be returned to power. The President of the United States is implementing the policies and goals for Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and undermining the democratic process in Central America.

I guarantee you that Obama has twenty more Group rights Marxists like Sotomayor in the pipeline and will keep nominating them until the rubber stamp Senate approves a Marxist for the Supreme Court and packs the lower courts.

President Obama's socialist rhetoric during the campaign, his Marxist political appointments, nationalization of key industries, his judicial nominee and his attempt to force a Hugo Chavez look alike on Honduras define him.

By Glock 22 on June 29, 2009 6:22 PM
Bad news today for What the ?. The affirmative action president and his affirmative action Supreme Court nominee are disposed to being overruled...Again. When Bush nominated Harriet Miers, I could not understand why he would do such a thing. I could only conclude he placed loyalty to her above the importance of jurisprudence. Her resume is as thin as Sotomayor's however I know why Obama appointed Sotomayor. Its predicated on ideology.

Experienced,

Are you familiar with the pics I attempted to post with your head in the hay in one and your head in a file cabinet drawer upside down in the other?

It just seems to me you would have seen these pics if you say you are who you are.

By regarding Furstenau on July 1, 2009 4:05 PM
I want full disclosure of the costs incurred by the City. That train left the station the day he filed the lawsuit. And I will take that opinion to the polls should he decide to run again.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also want full dislcosure of the cost in an immediate and accurate fashion.

The city has stated this case cost us around a million or a little over a million late last year and early this year. They stated the cost did not include the last month which I believe was February of this year and part of March. They stated they had not paid one of the lawyers in the case one red cent yet from the day he began working on the case 2 years ago. That he was owed his legal fees.

All this leads me to believe the final number will be in the 2 million dollar range if not substantially more.

It appears if the Naperville Sun does not shine the spotlight on the legal fees, the City will admit to spending 1 million for the rest of eternity, and bury the second million it spent wherever it buried the millions and millions it spent on the Napergate Trials.

To this day, neary a decade later no one ever accounted for cost of the Napergate Trials. No one could find any records. Editor Tim West who tried to investigate the costs and was told to take a hike and that no records existed, could be found, or would ever be available.

Tim West actually boiled over for the first and only time in his lengthy 36 year storied career with the Sun. But he was not persistent and let the City feed him lines and/or lies until they wore him down. Considering his health situation, he is not difficult to wear down.

According to former moderators Jim Lynch and Ted Slovich, this is the NEW NAPERVILLE SUN and not the OLD Naperville Sun, where business as usual is not going to hold water.

So let us see.

At this point the city should have an updated number over the million they fed us 6 months ago that did not include the last month and did not include any pay to one attorney or law firm since the lawsuit was initiated.

The Sun must remind the legal dept. that law firms did not work for free the last 6 months. They need to ask what this one attorney who had not been paid as of June of 07 was finally piad. They need to ask what the negotiations for this silly 2 paragraph joint statement cost the taxpayers.

I also will be voting in the next election. However, I will be voting to oust the 8 who opened the taxpayer coffers wide to these numerous greedy law firms.

In the late nineties, I voted for the 5 Council Members who finally closed the taxpayer coffers to the attorneys in the Napergate Trials. Late was better than never. The cases had risen through all the levels of local, state and federal jurisdictions and had only two steps left....the Supreme Court of Illinois and the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Thankfully, at the time Mayor George Pradel had been just elected and was able to twist the arms of 4 other council members to end the most wasteful expenditure in Naperville history.

While the Furstenau Expenditure appears finally over, I hope Mayor Pradel will step forward and say we need to be honest with the taxpayers and let them know what we truly spent. We can not lie to the taxpayers as we did in the Napergate Trials. We must be honest. This is a New Era and I will not accept DISHONESTY by any City Officials.

Let us wait and see what happens. Unfortunately, nothing might happen if the Sun does not shine its SPOTLIGHTS!

By Anonymous on July 1, 2009 2:41 AM

And now you finally admit you are a LAWYER.

------------------------

No, I am not. See, even though you say that you only want to discuss issues, you are still discussing personalities.

"Anonymous",

If you check out the reader comments on the Sun and Herald articles about this case, as well as the posts on Potluck, you'll find that that run overwhelmingly against Dick Furstenau. So are you sure it would be a good thing for your buddy Dick Furstenau if the full cost to the taxpayer of his lawsuit were widely publicized? Also, are you now saying you'll vote against your other buddy, A. George Pradel, since he was one of the "8 who opened the taxpayer coffers wide to these numerous greedy law firms"?

-JQP

Anonymous on July 2, 2009 3:15 PM

You state you "will not accept DISHONESTY by any City Officials."

You are right - no one should accept dishonesty from any official. However you continue to exhibit dishonesty yourself - and certainly a less than ethical behavior on your own part. Your scurrilous comments, your ongoing antagonistic attitude towards others, and your ongoing use of derogatory terms about anyone who does not agree with you or does not see the world as you do through your own myopic vision does not speak well of you as many have said here before.

Are you "man" enough to stop the rhetoric? Can you get your message across with out the childish baiting and name calling? I challange you to rise above this and explain your positions with out sinking to this type of behavior. Your incessant chastising of the Sun and it's editorial staff is ridiculous and obviously ineffective. You come across as a nasty, unhappy person who looks only enjoys baiting others with your less than sly innuendo and unkind comments.

You have stated on more than one occasion that you are excellent at doing research and have a number of well placed and knowledgeable contacts in government and business. Wonderful - why not use them. Get your cronies out to push for full disclosure. File requests for the information through the legitimate channels. if you have reasonable proof of misdeeds or inappropriate behavior by government officials, contact the appropriate watchdog agencies.

Your incessant and mind numbing diatribes are valueless - unless your objective is to alienate many of those who visit these blogs and continue to make yourself sound like a person who has nothing to offer but bile and venom.

"Anonymous" wrote:

I simply responded and said basically lawyers were no better than lay people in making legal arguments...that they were wrong or considered wrong half the time by Judges.

Well, professional tennis players lose half the time, too. Does this mean you play tennis as well as a pro?

By Bob on July 1, 2009 4:39 PM

Does anyone know what the story is regarding Naperville Crossings? I drive by the pile of dirt each day and don't see anything happening. I did see that the fire station s being built but nothing else.
____________________________________________________

I believe the city found out what the actual cost of moving that pile was and had second thoughts. The $500k bond they took from the developer won't even begin to pay to have it moved.

"Obama and the Democrats have placed open Marxists and Socialists into the top jobs in most of the Federal Government's Agencies."

A lesson in Fear Speak 101: Out of the selection of socialists/facists/Marxists/communists/blah blah blahists, FACISTS is now the preferred term. Socialists has been used so much to describe Obama's government that it is now ineffective. It no longer packs the emotional punch that Republicans want, so they've moved on to using the term FACISTS. Marxists is being saved for later when facists becomes ineffective.

If you're going to spread fear speak, you might as well follow the opposition's guidelines and be politically correct. Socialists is yesterday; Marxists is jumping ahead. Get with the program.

And it's really amusing how conservatives don't support democratically elected officials when those officials don't support the agendas those conservatives want. Coups against foreign presidents are fine when those presidents are friends of Chavez and Castro. You folks need to learn to value the PROCESS OF DEMOCRACY, which is what Obama is encouraging for Hondurans. The process of democracy does not guarantee you'll always get what you want, as you Reps have discovered. Military coups are the choice of third world countries, not first world democracies.

What the ? tells we conservatives we need to learn to value the PROCESS OF DEMOCRACY. Memo to What the? Many people do not like Obama and consider his presidency actually an aberration of Democracy. What you need to do is wake up and understand this floatsam and jetsam Obama from the Chicago Machine has democracy in his sights. And the good news is more and more people are beginging to dislike Obama as each passing indicator of the economy and measure of any poll continues to decline. I predict by the end of his first year, this idiot we now have in the White House will have an approval rating of

To Anonymous on July 3, 2009 1:51 PM--

Like I said, conservatives don't support democracy when it doesn't give them what they want. That's fine if you don't like Obama. If you think he's an idiot and is ruining the country, then by all means vote him out in the next election. That is your power as a citizen and is part of the democratic process. But if the majority doesn't agree with you, it is not part of the democratic process to get the military to give Obama the bum's rush out of the White House. You need to value the democratic system even when it doesn't give you the results you want. Without this acceptance, democracy can't exist.

What,

The USA military swears to defend the Constitution, not the president or the government.

When the goal of the elected president is to rig elections and intimidate the opposition so that there are no more free elections, is this following the constitution? This is the essence of Chavez (and his look alikes that he is funding all over Latin America), he is a dictator.

From the little bit I have read, it appears the Supreme Court, the legislature and the military are following their constitution and laws.

I'm not a polysci major, but aren't socialism, Marxism and fascism all variations on socialism; kinda like a burger with different fixins and buns?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
By what the? on July 3, 2009 12:26 AM
The process of democracy does not guarantee you'll always get what you want, as you Reps have discovered. Military coups are the choice of third world countries, not first world democracies.

wow anonymous 7/13/09 1:51PM. Did Hugo Bama's secret police arrest and cart you off in mid sentence? Perhaps the moderator did not dig what you wrote? Or maybe the thread is dead as one declared above. It would indeed seem though that the current lustre What the ? and fading numbers of others hold for the Bamster will indeed vanish from Bama as he continues to grow government beyond anyone's ability to pay for it. The entire country will collapse into the financial situation that California is in. Issuing IOU's to pay its bills. Still laughing at that and continuing to laugh as the noose tightens on CA. (I'm thinking of making up my own IOU's with a picture of Bama in the center wearing a cape and a crown, smiling with a gold tooth with sparkle* and mailing them to my sister in Glendale as a gift just for fun) Now it comes out in Illinois that the Democrat elected Mike Madigan is holding the newest welfare state, Illinois hostage in the budget process because he wants to weaken Quinn so his daughter has a better chance to become Democrat elected Governor Lisa Madigan. Yes What the ?, I like it when crooked and corrupt Democrats demonstrate their ideas of Democratic principles. Very very smart indeed.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not a polysci major, but aren't socialism, Marxism and fascism all variations on socialism

I wasn't a Poli Sci major, either, but I'm pretty sure the answer is "yes" to the first two and "no" to the third.

When you support military coups against democratically elected officials for whatever reason, you're on a very slippery slope.

Yes, Zelaya was attempting to circumvent the Supreme Court and Congress by pushing through a referendum to illegally change the constitution so as to remain in power. Yes, he needed to go. But was a coup really the only option? The Congress could have fought Zelaya through the democratic process by arresting him and holding him for impeachment hearings, but instead chose an old-fashioned Cold War military coup instead. The Honduran Supreme Court, legislature and military were NOT following their constitution and laws--the coup itself was illegal. They disregarded their constitution in the name of upholding it. Don't you see the problem with that?

Conservatives with "the end justifies the means" mentality don't care and have been vocal in their support of the coup. But a coup could just have easily gone the other direction--next time the Supreme Court may order the military to remove a president with close ties to the U.S. and the EU rather than a dictator. In which case these same conservatives would be very vocal in condemning a coup. You can't have it both ways.

As it was, the interim government didn't want to deal with fall out from Zelaya supporters, so they instructed the military to suppress protesters. Soldiers have been videotaped shooting out the tires on buses carrying protesters to rallies. In addition, the government has been censoring journalists, seizing privately owned TV and radio stations and shutting down those in support of the exiled president. One transgression against democracy leads to other transgressions. This is the slippery slope I'm speaking of. And this is the reason Obama, the EU, the OAS and the UN (even tho no one cares what the UN thinks) are not supporting the use of military force against Zelaya. Get him out, sure, but do it the right way.

I'm not a polisci person either, but I'm sure you're right with the hamburger analogy. I think the difference between socialism, Fascism, Marxism, communism, etc., is largely a matter of degree. The differences are ignored when they all are lumped together like that.

Glock 22:

This will probably take all the fun out of it for you, but given that the collapse of the real estate market in CA and the loss of 135,000 construction jobs in the PAST TWO YEARS is the biggest contributing factor to CA's current financial crisis, it would be more accurate to put Gov. Schwarzenegger or W. Bush on your IOUs in the cape and crown. O's only been around 6 months; CAs problems have been around a lot longer than that:

"Tax collections have been hammered as the collapse of the real estate market eliminated 136,000 construction jobs in the state in the past two years and led consumers to curb spending. California leads the nation in home foreclosures, its 8.2 percent unemployment rate is the third-highest in the U.S., and the wealthiest 1 percent of citizens pay almost half its personal income taxes, making it sensitive to swings in the stock market."

In addition, it looks like the Democrats agreed to slash spending to help close the gap, but as usual the Republicans are being obstructionists. The party of No ideas and No solutions:

"The budget deficit has grown even as California cut spending on health care, universities and welfare programs. Schwarzenegger proposed a tax increase for the first time since he took office in 2003 as Democrats agreed to slash $8 billion in spending. Republicans, who have enough support to block a two-thirds majority needed to pass a tax increase, have made sure the measure has failed."

Read all about it here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=a2TUhalNFDds

And issuing IOUs isn't new for CA, either. They did it in 1992 also when they couldn't agree on a budget then.

Details, details.

Sorry What the ?. Some people educated in our public school system might believe you and blame the failures on the Republicans but the fact is CA has been growing its welfare state status for decades. Remember the truth, the laws (bills produced by government that cost $$$ are all written in the Democrat contolled legislature-just like IL for the last 10 years). In CA it started in the 1960's and today, well it is on the verge of a much welcomed collapse. This time it will not be like 1982. In 2009 all of them are going to take the pain. They will no longer be able to afford government. And I cannot think of a more fitting time for collapse than in the first year of an administration that they all supported because it holds the same value they do as core beliefs. That is; big government is the answer to and the solution to all of lifes problems. To accept the nonsense that their problems are of recent making is disingenuous and unintelligent. In one example on Monday, Hugo Bama ( a fitting name for anyone who does not care for Obama) was saying in a statement about cap and trade that more states should be like CA and lead the way in conservation and environmentalism. (Yeah, and plunge towards bankruptcy too) When we stopped laughing, we did a little fact check. Did you know when you build or open a new mfg. plant in CA that is more than 10,000SF, the CA Dept of Energy requires 20% of that plant to derive its energy from renewable sources and you must allow the State to review your energy records on a semi annual basis? And...you have to pay the State for its review of your records and certification you are in compliance. The result of this one particular requirement one could imagnine is few new production plants are being built and opened in CA. That means no jobs and no tax money for government to extort for the common good of the State. I could go on and on about CA because I have first hand experience about the affect of people who think big government is the answer to and solution to all of lifes problems. The reality is they continue to chase away productive people and welcome unproductive people. That simply is the result of liberalism. It is the confiscation of the results of the productivity of others to give to those who have not earned and more importantly, do not deserve it. While the chaos continues in the liberal mecca and the poverty level rises there, the amusement factor also increases. It is only tempered by the fact that Hugo Bama will ride to their rescue to prop up temporarily that failure state with federal $$$$$. But collapsing the value of the nations currency is the Alinsky way to change we need isn't it?

Glock,

In order to move to a fair society with fair distribution of wealth the Middle Class has to be exterminated since they tend to side with the other people who own real property "the rich".

In the Stalinist model, the middle class farmers in the Ukraine were simply starved to death, 20 million. The government took all the food away just before winter.

In Wiemar Germany, the government destroyed the middle class by printing money. After the hyper inflation, Hitler arrived with all the answers.

In Venezuela Hugo has gone after the middle class with a vengeance. Like the USA Hugo is nationalizing banks so they can make social loans, nationalizing key industries so he can control the guaranteed jobs for his supporters and tax everyone else by increasing what they pay to wring the money out of them.

I hope that Castro doesn't dispatch the US marines to invade Honduras to put the Chavez look alike on a throne. My guess is that Castro, Chavez and Obama will attempt to destroy the economy of Honduras to force the population to accept a left wing dictatorship.

My guess is Obama cut a deal with the Mullahs in Iran and Chavez; so democracy and freedom are out, sounds like the beginning of a trend.

Iran Revolutionary Guards, Venezuela Red Berets, USA ACORN

Who said this?

Hitler, Stalin, Chavez?

"a force as big and as powerful as the US military for the domestic security and policy objectives"

If you guessed Candidate Obama, buy yourself a beer.

By Glock 22 on July 5, 2009 9:03 AM

But collapsing the value of the nations currency is the Alinsky way to change we need isn't it?

Sorry, shot all three at the range today and having identity crisis. Thinking my Glock 21 or my XD-45 5" Tactical pistol are tied at being the finest combat pistols ever made. Yes, better than 1911 model which also remains top drawer after 100 yrs. Back OT-Anon 7/5/09 11:35am-your first sentence is YOUR bullseye today. This rag tag Obama community activist decried how he would protect we of the middle class during his campaign of lies. He would soak the rich and the corporate world who were plundering the middle class and poor much as modern day robber barons. They will pay their fair share he thundered to the cheering ignorant masses. And the idiots among us bought his line of crap with the help of a corrupted press. (Now the Wash Post was going to host dinners pairing administration party members with lobbyists for a slick $25K until a few, two or three remaining skeptical journalists anonomously blew the whistle to other media outlets). Obama has done nothing but to assure the collapse of the currency with deficit spending followed by hyper inflation that I believe we will see the upward march begining in a year or so. While I agree What the? Bush was some of the problem, 2 years of a Democratic controlled Congress and now Obama will most assuredly mean that even What the ? is going to have to find a part time job to just make ends meet. I remember her posting prevously about how she is self sufficient and need not work but when that hyper inflation and cost of government hits, even her dollar could be worth 1/2 as much as it is right now. What the ?-I would like my burger with lettuce, mustard and onion please and I do not want to super size the order!

Glockster:

I was only citing recent history, basically the time frame of the housing and stock market crash which really pushed CA over the edge, to illustrate the Republican absurdity of blaming every spent dollar and stubbed toe on O, but if you want to go back 40 years to make that point, even better! Yes, to accept the nonsense that CA's problems are of "recent" making is disingenuous and unintelligent. So why stick our "recent" president with the blame? Because he's a liberal and ONLY liberal policies are to blame for CA's problems, you say? So draw a straight line from point A to point B, end of story. These types of simple associations work for the non-thinking Limbaugh crowd and are useful when one wants to rouse the rabble, but thinking people recognize the actual reality is not that linear.

"California has found itself in this financial quagmire as a result of a collision of events. "It really has been a combination of things that have created the monstrosity that we are now in," says Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at Sacramento State University. She cites inflation, population growth and mandates (like Proposition 13, which placed a limit on state property-rate taxes that resulted in restrictions on tax increases) as having a snowball effect over the course of 30 years. Add these to California's extremely high home-foreclosure rate and a global recession (approximately 1 in 4 jobs in the state has international-trade ties), and the deficit quickly adds up. In the past, the state would borrow or sell bonds to bridge the gap, but with the current credit crunch, few investors are willing to offer assistance."

Here's the source, if you're interested:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1870299,00.html

Also, CA is unusual in that a two-thirds vote of both the Senate and Assembly is required by the California Constitution to increase taxes or to pass a budget.

"There is a disturbing article in today’s Sacramento Bee that evokes memories of last year’s delay in enacting a California state budget when Republican Senators held out for a gutting of California’s environmental laws and sought to defund State Attorney General Brown so he could not enforce laws they did not like. The pattern on the part of California’s minority party legislators is unmistakable and is apparently back this year: If you don’t like laws on the books passed by a majority of the legislature through the regular process (public committee hearings, approval by both houses, and signature by the Governor, etc.) and cannot pass legislation to repeal them or modify them because you lack the votes, just tie them to the budget, argue that they affect the financial health of the state, and demand they be changed or you won’t vote for the budget.

This is only possible in California because of the requirement that our state budget be passed by a two-thirds majority in both houses.

Read about the Republican infection here:

http://www.ltg.ca.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=436:21909-in-california-a-republican-infection-blamed-for-budget-woes&catid=66:news-articles&Itemid=345

I could go on like this all night long.

The pattern is as clear here as it is on the federal level: when the nope dopes aren't in power, they strive to have the entire state, or fed government, come crashing down rather than have anything succeed without them.

O has so far refused to bail CA out, and I hope he sticks by this. A bail out would just enable them to continue this dysfunctional pattern. But Gov. S keeps asking. Apparently, Reps are better at saying no than hearing it.

To Anonymous on July 5, 2009 11:35 AM

"If you guessed Candidate Obama, buy yourself a beer."

How old is this post? It's now PRESIDENT Obama. Read it and weep.

what the ? –

Your own post (07/05 @ 9:49 p.m.) points to problems with CA’s mandates such as Prop 13.

More recently, the voters rejected Props 1A-1E in May. These propositions would have raised $16 billion and moved funds from restricted funds to other purposes.

The taxpayers can’t reject a solution and then blame their reps for not doing the same.

T.B.

what the ? –

I think Anon only reported the quote as being from “Candidate Obama” to differentiate that it was made before the election (on the campaign trail).

As for the “read it and weep” comment, I find it odd that the left spent so much time demonizing Bush and his policies, yet now don’t understand when their guy is afforded the same treatment. This is especially interesting because BHO has adopted/kept some of the most hated Bush policies.

I don’t condone the treatment either has received, but am simply pointing out that you reap what you sow.

T.B.

Just FYI for anyone who may be interested, the "Scott Huber living on our sidewalks" issue is on the front page of the Trib today (below the fold).

T.B.

To T.B.:

"The taxpayers can’t reject a solution and then blame their reps for not doing the same."

I think you meant "then blame their reps for doing the same", but true enough. Californians have the government they deserve. Everyone wants the government to take care of them from cradle to grave but no one wants to pay for it. A crisis like this could force them to make hard changes they should have made years ago, but not if they get bailed out. If the Fed does it once, they'll be expected to do it again in addition to having other states wanting the same. CA needs some tough love lessons.

In reference to your second post, I completely understand why the Republicans are giving Obama such a hard time. It's the way the game is played. Call him Hussein, Hugo O., whatever. No one cares about this kind of stupid stuff, it's like me using the phrase 'nope dopes'. But if you're going to take up a lot of media time, at least make the criticism 1) true or 2) relevant. Otherwise it's just a lot of noise that gets in the way. So much of what the opposition focuses on is obvious propaganda; they know this better than anyone. Or irrelevant, like O's preference for Dijon mustard. How is this a negative? Hannity dedicated a couple minutes to ridiculing Obama for this on his show and it wasn't even remotely funny, if that's what he was going for. Mustard isn't funny. Nobody cares.

The difference is W. Bush deserved a lot of the ridicule he got. His speaking gaffes and public antics are legendary and live on courtesy of YouTube and other sites. Like Joe Biden's will; he has the same buffoonish streak. But Obama is controlled, cool and presidential. He's not giving the Reps much material and they're dying for payback, so they're making it up themselves as they go.

If they want to waste their time this way then fine, it's not wasting mine because I just switch the channel when I hear it. But that's the unintended fallout of what they're doing; they're making themselves irrelevant. Some Republicans probably have some good points to bring to the discussion, but one has to listen through so much propaganda and literal crap to find it that many of us have just stopped listening to them altogether. The only audience paying attention is the audience they already have, so they're not winning over anyone. And it just guarantees that others will continue to view them as petty and mean with nothing worthwhile to contribute whatsoever. A lot of Republicans don't deserve this label, but that's the label the party has. And that's regrettable.

Everyone wants the government to take care of them from cradle to grave but no one wants to pay for it. YOU ARE AN IDIOT! If you really think and believe that, you are regrettable simply as a human being. Speak for yourself. Many of us do not want ANY government-period. And those of us who work resent having what is ours, what we earned by hard work, not some sort of lucky chance in life, of birth right, race, gender or any of the stupid and ignorant comments with phobic, politically corret isms you live by. We resent the fruits or our labor taken from us to be given to people like you who want the government to take care of YOU from cradle to grave. I used to laugh when some suggested they are concerned about armed insurrection after the election of Hugo Bama, however with the kind of thinking you belive to be truth, civil unrest such as we saw in the 60's over tyrannical government may be of some credible concern. Remember the 60's insurrection? US Army troops firing .50 cal M-2 machine guns into buildings in Detroit for example. US Army troops doing the same and patrolling the streets of Chicago and a number of other cities. Who was president then? Who controlled the Congress then? Seems like we may be headed back to those days after all. The government taking care of us cradel to grave. Good god woman. Go visit Englewood for a day and check out the cradel to grave government care.

Glock:

Oh, here we go again with the personal attacks and name calling. Did the discourse get too cerebral for you? Had to bring it down to your comfort level?

So you don't think a lot of California residents want the government to take care of them from cradle to grave but don't want to pay for it? Given the number of social programs that state has, I would say that's a big yes, which is part of their problem. Spending the weekend at the firing range has addled your brain.

Besides, I was responding to T.B., not you. So butt the hell out. Armed insurrection in your gun-toting dreams! What a joke! You sound like all the crusty old conservatives who said the 60s liberals were ruining the country, sending it to hell in a hand basket. And lo and behold, the country's still here with constitution intact, and we're still dealing with a lot of the same old problems. We're even debating legalizing marijuana--again. It doesn't get much more 60s throw back than that. Armed insurrection! You are truly a sad conservative caricature with all your apocalyptic, fear-mongering verbiage.

Look, just gather up all your little guns and hunker down in the basement to fight off the rampaging hoards that will be coming soon for ALL YOU HAVE. Or even better, move to a country that has no government to take ALL YOU HAVE--how about SOMALIA? They've had no functioning government for years. No jobs, business, education or health care either, but they do have a lot of pirates, war lords, malnutrition and third-world diseases. Not a bad trade-off for the freedom from government. Go see how that's working for them.

What the ?. In your response to Glock, your 3rd to last sentence pretty much sums up what he said. Go visit Englewood in Chicago for a day and see how well YOU do. It is Somalia.

Anon:

Somalia is what Englewood would be if it weren't in a developed country. As bad as U.S. slums and impoverished areas are to us, they don't hold a candle to the conditions of third world poverty. Which is why so many of the world's impoverished people try to get here, even to live in places like Englewood. I doubt you would find any Englewood residents emigrating to Somalia for a better life.

And yes, what I said about CA pretty much sums up what he said. Duh. And so did my post before that. Let's see how long it takes Glock to figure it out. You know these NRA types--shoot from the hip first, process information later, if at all.

It seems you Mimi or What the ? are having a problem processing information.The point is Englewood is what happens when you let the government take care of you. The reality is Englewood is within the midwest liberal democrat mecca of Chicago. Chicago is controlled by a corrupt, little thug of a Mayor known as Richard Daley (D). Chicago has been owned by the Daley (D) family for decades. Englewood is solely the responsibility of the Democrats. Englewood is a shining example of that Democratic city on the hill that YOU will not hold your party accountable for. Englewood is what happens when Democrats own government. EVERY form of government is broken there to the detriment and misery of the people. And you can only offer it doesn't hold a candle to Somalia? Shame on you. Englewood is the result of YOUR democratic racism. The highest birth rate for 12 yr old girls in Illinois. The highest infant mortality rate in the state. The highest murder rate in the state. The streets are controlled by 15yr olds with guns employed by warlords operating as drug dealers. NO ONE works. It is a totally government subsidized life from a stipend of money delivered electronically to a LINK card, food is subsidized with WIC and stamps, housing is subsidized and everything is subsidized by crime. The schools failed long ago-there is no education of anyone in Englewood. There is no health care in Englewood. If the CFD doesn't take you to the county hospital when you have a sore throat, you don't go. And finally, Hugo Bama did absolutely NOTHING for anyone in Englewood other than to make sure they were registered to vote democratic in every election. So you continue to worship idiots like Daley (D), Madigan (D), Blago (D) Bama (D) Davis (D) Hynes (D) Rush (D) and all the rest. The reality for me is we cannot have intelligent leaders as long as we have ignorant voters like you and the people of Englewood perpetuating idiots into elected office be they Daley or Obama. You can have the last word.

You're so bitter and cynical you can't think or see straight. Go back and re-read my CA comments. Give it some processing time. You'll see it.

And shame on you for having such little knowledge of the world that you can't appreciate the difference between an impoverished Chicago neighborhood and an impoverished third world country. America has too many people like you--spoiled, entitled and self-absorbed. There are millions of people on earth who would give anything to be where you are, who would change places with you in an instant to live ANYWHERE in the U.S., and all you can do is bitch, bitch, bitch about everyone and everything here. Oh boo hoo, we have a Democratic president--plan an armed insurrection! I have to pay taxes--such tyranny! You all deserve to be sidelined, you value so little about this country anyway.

And if your idea of an "intelligent leader" was W., then that explains why you don't know one when you see it. The last 8 years of such "intelligent" leadership seriously damaged this country. You've learned nothing from it.

So sit around and bitch and blame yourself into obscurity. There's plenty of folks waiting to take your place who actually want to do something for this country, who don't want to see it fail. The GOP won't be missed.

what the ? –

I thought I replied to you, but I don’t see it posted….

Yes, you’re right. My mistake in that sentence. I think I tried to correct something and ended up getting it completely wrong.

When W made a speaking gaffe he was deserving of ridicule (to paraphrase you) and he received plenty of it in the press and the late night shows. The problem is that the media was highly critical of W but when Biden says something foolish it’s just “Joe being Joe” and it gets brushed off.

BHO hasn’t given the media the gaffes to work with, but the media still gives him a pass. If W had been as incredibly reliant on teleprompters as BHO for the simplest of tasks (introducing his own cabinet nominees?!?), we would be hearing about it to no end. With BHO, it hardly gets a mention except as a joke from Biden (again portrayed as Joe being Joe)!

This double-standard just reinforces some people’s beliefs that the media is in the tank for the Dems.

T.B.

Glock:
When you say: "Chicago has been owned by the Daley (D) family for decades" I can only assume that the (D) stands for Daley. While I disagree with you on a lot of things, and find some of your opinions actually a bit frightening and disturbing, I know of no one that would argue that the Daley machine, either of them, have really been Democrats. They're something very different and that should be obvious to anyone who is watching.
It's also a bit disingenuous to suggest that Obama is part of that machine, though it has surely helped him in some ways, it also tried to hinder his work and efforts early on, and some of that continues. Are there some connections? Sure, there have to be, how could there not? Are they even remotely similar, politically? I don't see how you could make that argument - nearly all dispassionate commentators would not.

T.B.:

Yes, there is a degree of a double-standard going on. The media just simply likes Obama better than they did Bush, at least so far. They do show him more respect. But even without the media bias, you have to admit Obama conducts himself with more respect and dignity than W. did. Bush too often presented himself as a smart a** frat boy, and the media treated him as such. Obama projects a presidential attitude and in turn is being given more of the respect that accompanies that title. Bush simply got back what he put out.

Which brings me to Biden. Joe is making up for what the media is losing on Obama. We heard about his gaffes when he was campaigning, but after he was in office, it seemed people stopped caring as much. Not even opposition stations like Faux News give Biden's gaffes the amount of ridicule they could. It's like they don't want Biden's head, they want Obama's. And Obama isn't giving it to them the way Bush did. So they're going above and beyond with Obama propaganda to fill the void. EVERYONE recognizes this, except for the bitter die-hard right wingers like Glock who lap it up as gospel along with other "hand-me-my-shotgun-Ma-we're-fixin'-to-have-ourselves-an-insurrection" types.

I don't get all the fuss about the teleprompter. If Bush had used one, he wouldn't have given the media so much fodder to work with. Obama doesn't want to chance such mistakes, so he's got it covered. One could view it as a weakness or a smart move, either way.

What the ? –

W’s gaffes were his struggles with the English language. Biden’s gaffes are his struggles with reason. Case in point is his recent statements which appeared to give Israel the green light to bomb Iran. Not necessarily the message we should be sending to the region.

As for the frat boy comment, I think you’re (at least a little) projecting your image of W onto him. He is, after all, someone who took the office seriously and required a coat and tie in the Oval Office at all times. I think this is far and above better than how Clinton treated the Oval Office, as we all know.

BHO can be light-hearted at times, too, but is still portrayed as the next coming.

T.B.

Hey T.B.:

What I'm referring to with W. Bush was the personality he brought to the office. I remember his press conferences--much different from O's. O is light-hearted at times, but W. strove at times to be a smart a** and succeeded. Come on, T.B., the guy chest-bumped Marines on stage during commencement ceremonies! There's a difference between wanting to appear as one of the guys and appearing as one of the kids. Remember his press conference about the budget? "Here it is", he said, waving it from the podium. "it's full of numbers and stuff". That's how he answered press questions about the budget. Like I said, a smart a** response. Compare it to Obama's press conference style. There are dozens of Bush videos on various web sites if you need a refresher course.

As for Biden, makes no difference to me if Biden in struggling with the English language or reason. Still looks just as buffoonish and is not what one wants to hear from the second-in-command. Plus, O went into the office with a historical presidency because he's the first AA president. Bush didn't have that. That contributes to the "second coming" aura of Obama's presidency.

T.B.--

Had to cut my last response short to work. Yes, Clinton's sexual behavior cheapened the Oval Office considerably. Having to hear the details of that was real high on the cringe scale. Plus it humiliated Americans, not just Democratic ones, but every one to have that broadcast around the globe. Next up was two terms of cocky, smart a** cowboy diplomacy. Obviously a lot of Americans loved it, but it lacked dignity. And dignity is what Obama has brought back to the Office. A President that commands respect through his behavior is more likely to receive it. Just sayin'.

what the ? --

Yes, the leader of the free world has to have dignity at the appropriate moments, but it's also good to see him as a regular guy, too. This is, after all, government by the people, for the people.

My guess is that much of the behavior you didn’t like about W was during his 2nd term, when I think he appeared more relaxed without the burden of re-election bearing down on him.

All I have to say is it didn’t bother me as much as it apparently bothered you. I wonder if it would have bothered you as much if you identified more with W’s politics?

T.B.

T.B.--

OK, thought provoking points. You could be right, a lot of the W. behavior that I thought made him look foolish probably did happen more during the second term, less during the first with 9/11, beginning of Iraq war and other heavy stuff pressing down.

I'm not saying Bush was incapable of looking or acting presidential; I remember 60 Minutes and other interviews where he came across as no nonsense and approachable. But there were just as many public instances when he CHOSE to act differently. I'm not even including the speaking gaffes for which he was famous as those were unintentional mistakes; the ones that made me cringe were when he chose to act foolish or be a smart a**, like the on-stage chest-bumping at commencement or the flippant budget response. These two are not isolated incidents. They're illustrative of dozens of such incidents over the years. And since this is a government by the people, for the people, how our President acts reflects on all of us.

Seriously, can you imagine Obama doing either of those things? Of course not, it would be outrageously out of character for him. He's too dignified. Not so dignified he won't be light-hearted or play some basketball on camera, but dignified enough to not forget what he represents.

So I think there's more at play here than basic personality differences; it's ideology as well. W. Bush often acted as tho the Presidency were his personal possession, he had an it's-my-party-so-I'll-do-what-I-want-to attitude. Obama, on the other hand, regards the Presidency as a public trust, not belonging to him but to the country he represents. He regards the Office as he regards the White House--"The White House doesn't belong to us, it belongs to the American people. So we're being very careful not to break anything." Remember when he and Michele said that to a group of WA school children? That's the attitude he brings to the Presidency, which was much different from W.'s.

Would W.'s behavior have bothered me as much if I had agreed with his politics? Even if I hadn't liked it, I probably would have tolerated it better. I agreed with Clinton's politics but he lost me completely with the Monica thing. I wouldn't elect the guy to be president of our homeowners association now. And believe it or not, I don't agree with everything Obama has done since in office, either. But I have lots more respect for him.

what the ? –

Again, I think your perspective is jaded by your personal dislike for W.

Obama does come across as unpresidential at times and acts in ways some may think are undignified. I think BHO likes to be seen as the “every man” who still plays pick-up basketball with the guys, runs out for burgers on national TV, and throws a basketball around the Oval Office on NBC. W required a coat and tie in the Oval Office, do you think he ever threw a basketball around in such a lighthearted manner?

The chest bumping at commencement…I also had no problem with that. As I recall, this was one of the military academies and he was really having a good time with the men and women he knew were soon headed for combat. If they want to have fun, let them.

As for the comments about W acting “as tho the Presidency were his personal possession”, I think your ideology is not just clouding your judgment but blinding it.

I don’t have a problem with how BHO acts, but I fail to see how his actions substantially differ from W’s. I respect BHO as a person, I just don’t agree with his policies. Why are we trying to add massive new entitlement programs when we can’t afford the ones we already have? And when’s the last time you saw “government” and “efficiency” in the same sentence?

T.B.