"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"
Thomas Jefferson

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

The Real Deal

The real deal comes forward on several fronts.

1. Danger Democrat is no longer and now it is Jefferson Democrat with no posting of comments or responses. After a month of speculation, the real deal is Ted Ford is a staff member of incoming Assemblywoman Addie Jenne, so just like Drew Mangione's blog, the sun has set on the renegade Ted Ford's blog! Side note: 2 out of 3 of Addie's staff members come from outside her district, must be no talented people in the 118th Assembly district.

The Democrats do not like differing opinions, only Sean Hennessey's opinions.  (Can you say RAILROAD) 

2. District 4 Legislative seat. The local Democrat party is no different than the state or national party. Instead of making an appointment based on qualifications, Sean Hennessey and company are taking the most partisan political route possible.

Jan Martusewicz who is likely one of the most qualified and has the ability to get up to speed on the issues and serve the people well is being overlooked for partisan reasons. According to Hennessey, Martueswicz did not support Sir Darrel when Darrel was at the county and was swept in as chair during a back room deal. Believe it, Martusewicz gave his commitment of support to someone and kept it. Democrats are not interested in a good quality, such as keeping your word, nor that he can work across party lines.  No, Sean Hennessey and company just use lines like "working across party lines" as campaign rhetoric.

3. Who will come forward? According to a source in Theresa, the Democrats are having difficulty finding someone to fill the slot, but a couple of names are possible to come forward today. The Democrats are most interested in Allen Drake, the town supervisor and a retired teacher. Another person by the name of Howard Schnettler, a frequent poster on the Jefferson County Web board is also interested, but the Democrats are most interested in Drake and you can expect that name to be thrown out today.

Feel free to comment away, unlike Danger Jefferson Democrat, we still accept and appreciate differing opinions.


Anonymous said...

Does this person nessasaryly have to be a dem? Could there be any other people not in the party that are qualified?

Anonymous said...

Wow what kind of team is that? Ted is a nice guy but knows very little about Albany and getting things done. Doris couldn't even win a legislator race and was run out as mayor. I am suprised Sean isn't running her office.

Anonymous said...

I live in Sackets and love it. Addie is not our Assemblyperson, but we will have her chief of staff bringing home the bacon via Addie to a different OUR

This is Great!!!

Thanks Addie

Anonymous said...

Guess us St. Lawrence people are just window dressing again. What's her name couldn't even find one person in from here to hire.

What a joke.

hermit thrush said...

iv, how can you honestly write something like "The Democrats do not like differing opinions"? is that your honest conclusion about all this, or are you just trying to score cheap partisan points? if local republicans were well-enough organized to have a webpage analogous to what has become the jcdc's, i'm sure they wouldn't allow comments either! no half-way sane political party would! parties have to control their message.

and as for dd, now we see that his decision to kill his blog was perfectly innocent and reasonable: i for one see no way for him to simultaneously serve on addie's staff and continue blogging in good faith about politics. you might note that an, ahem, certain commenter speculated an explanation somewhat along these lines back here, as opposed to the sinister conspiracy theories you seem to be fond of.

finally, when you write

"The local Democrat party is no different than the state or national party. Instead of making an appointment based on qualifications, Sean Hennessey and company are taking the most partisan political route possible,"

what exactly are you referring to? on the state level, are we supposed to be thinking of caroline kennedy -- a possible appointee to a seat that isn't even officially open yet? and on the national level, well, what? the obama transition appears to be a model of how appointments should be made -- though i hasten to add that we won't really know that for sure until we see how his government actually works in practice. but what else is there? and on the other hand, we've just suffered through eight years of an administration that based its appointments on cronyism and raw political calculation to a perhaps-unprecedented degree.

Anonymous said...

Uh, Kermit, I'll be nice, cause if I say anything too confrontational I have to stand in the corner. I'll keep this very, very siiiimple, where even bilingually challenged can have a fightin' chance of understanding.

The Democrat site allows no response. That means one of two things, either they don't like or wish to hear differing opionions (PIV's point) or they are too insecure to have to deal with other people's opionions. Ted Ford was not that way. I can only assume that Hennesey has feathers. But perhaps you could better explain that situation.

I realize you are partisan, but you might want to rethink you take on this one. The Donkey.com site runs from confrontation or criticism. You would be better served by addressed that rather than denying reality.

Hey, it's a new year. No better time to start thinking about your credibility. Last year was kind of a wash.

hermit thrush said...

anon 12:29 --
well, here we go again! i know you've complained before about having a hard time with lists, so please accept my apologies.

1. thanks, but i think i'll take a pass on any advice about credibility from someone who adheres to such patent nonsense as believing that the country has succumbed to liberal brainwashing administered through pbs and the public schools. i'd love to hear from you just where my credibility has suffered -- that would surely be instructive (to say nothing of amusing). and i should also add, as i've had to say before, i'm sorry if i'm mistaking you for someone else. since we're on the topic of credibility, allow me to suggest that yours might be improved if you at least took a screen name for yourself. actually, how about you take "kermit", and i'll keep "hermit thrush" (which i much prefer)? if you don't like that, what about "raven"? that's my second favorite adirondack bird.

2. you suggest that perhaps i "could better explain that situation" regarding the new jeffersondemocrat.org -- but i already have! so let me try again. look, i don't disagree in the slightest that the jcdc doesn't want to hear differing opinions on their site. the point is that it's now an official democratic site. and therefore it has exactly one purpose that i can think of: to promote the democratic party, and the jc democratic party in particular. and i think allowing comments runs counter to that purpose. i think it's totally wrong to conclude that that "The Democrats do not like differing opinions, only Sean Hennessey's opinions", as iv did: maybe it's a subtle point, but just because the the jcdc doesn't allow comments on its website, it hardly follows that the democrats don't like differing opinions in general. i mean, local republicans don't even have a website -- are we supposed to conclude that they don't like any opinions at all? if allowing differing opinions is so bad, then why has ted ford -- who used to allow plenty of them on his site -- been rewarded with a position on addie's staff? the whole thing is absurd! and i think it's just as wrong to suggest that the dems are "too insecure to have to deal with other people's opionions [sic]", or that they're "running" from anything. i know people like you and iv like to take every opportunity you can get to make the dems look bad, but sorry, this looks like decision based on prudence and nothing else.

3. regarding partisanship, congratulations! you got at least one thing right: i'm a democrat! and guess what: you're also partisan! and iv is ruthlessly partisan too! forgive me for defending my party from the scurrilous attacks so commonly found here.

Anonymous said...

Kermit, it isn't that complicated. Try not to flop around so much. All that verbage to defend a weak argument isn't necessary. If the Democrat site doesn't allow give and take, they are running from dissent. Their reasons are their own. But your excuses for being a cowardly, especially after a "successful" election, are unwelcome, at least with me. There is no acceptable reason for the dems to have stopped listening to people and turned TF's blog into a bs only Henesssey worm hole. Even you, in a moment of courage, admitted same.

I'm never impressed with people, like you, who are willing to offer pablum filled defenses for running and hiding. But I guess it's only a matter of minutes before you run and hide behind the skirt of you party beliefs. This should have nothing to do with party. But for some, party loyalty is the nipple of life.

hermit thrush said...

oh please. i'm sorry if my comments are a little above your reading level. tf can't continue doing his blog because he works for addie now -- what more "acceptable reason" could you want? and everything else is perfectly reasonable from there. i know it's hard to believe that those nasty dems could be anything but scoundrels, but do give it a try sometime!

to correct the record: i said nothing of the sort that there's no acceptable reason for tf to turn his blog over to the jc dems. perhaps you're thinking of my comments here or here? go and have a little looky. you'll see that, as usual, you're full of it: if anything, they prove exactly the opposite of your claim.

how come no screen name yet? you surely wouldn't be hiding behind that anonymous moniker, would you?

and finally, look -- just who do you think you are? i think your commenting strategy must be to hurl the most brazen, ridiculous accusations possible in hopes of flabbergasting everyone. you ache and moan about my purported partisanship, yet your own partisanship is so bitter that i bet it'd make even iv blush (witness "bs only Henesssey worm hole" -- now now, temper temper!). you accuse others of making "weak" arguments, and yet, well, what arguments have you even made on this blog? all i've seen is just a lot of bald (and often erroneous) assertions. you object to my so-called "sweeping statements" and call me a "kool-aid drinker", yet you turn around and make such risible claims as "I would submit that this country is almost entirely controlled by liberal media" and blaming some kind of fantastical liberal dominance over the country on a propaganda campaign waged via pbs and the public schools (sorry, but i still just can't get over that last one!). you accuse me of spouting pablum and clinging to my nest and comforting myself with groupthink, and yet you're plainly no better. it's just liberal bias, liberal bias, liberal bias, liberal bias, liberal bias, liberal bias, liberal bias, liberal bias all the time! do you have any self-awareness at all?

and doubly finally, here's wishing you the best in the new year!

Anonymous said...

It's ok guy, relax.
You're not looking real confident right now.

At least here, on this site both sides of an issue are welcome. That's the point you won't be able to explain away. No matter the volume of verbage.

It's a New Year. Just try to pick your argument more carefully and you'll be fine.

Anonymous said...

Wasn't ted working for Addie (and Darrel) throughout the summer and Fall? This just makes it official, right?

(Hey, maybe he can "buy back" those missing pension credits, now that he's back on the taxpayer teat.)

hermit thrush said...

anon 1:14 --
1. still no screen name? it's not that hard -- under "choose an identity", you just have to click the "name/url" button, fill in the name you want, and that's it. maybe you didn't like my earlier suggestions. how about "bittern"?

2. i know we've been over it before, but what has you thinking again that i'm a guy?

3. congratulations, you got another one right! it is indeed correct that this site allows differing opinions via the comments. i know you don't do subtlety well, but, well, duh -- that isn't the point i was talking about, nor have i tried or would i try to "explain it away". if you're still a little confused about what's going on, i can go over it again -- i have a lot of patience for this kind of stuff.

let me add that i'm grateful that iv still allows comments, and for whatever it's worth, i think the new jeffersondemocrat.org sucks!

4. really, not a single word to say in your defense? and i totally love it that you still have the gall to offer advice on making arguments. keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

Klermit, I never realized I was under attack. Thus never felt the need to defend myself.

Get over yourself..

This is, was, will continue to be about cowardice. Hennnesseybs.org will now accept no responses. The election is over, and they don't need to hear anything from any of us mere citizens. People like you, because of your partisanship, cannot oppose this stance. You did for a short moment, but, no stamina. You can attempt to paint this any way you want by TF's site had the respect of many of us on all sides of all issues. Now we have Hennesssey, who like you, appears to have on party in mind.

That's the issue bro. It ain't going away.

I'd advise you not to get so mad. This is the golden age for party liners such as yourself. You've won all the offices, media is on your side, and now, guys like Hennesaeeeyy don't even feel the need to listen to voters. This is not the time to be ticked off.

Don't worry, be happy.

Dan Francis said...

IV: what's really funny is when one Anon attacks the other Anon and it turns out to be the same person?

hermit thrush said...

aw, come on, still no screen name? i thought "bittern" would be perfect for you -- just take off the "n" and, well, there you have it. it's pretty awesome how you're able to offer these proclamations from on high about cowardice, yet you can't even take a screen name.

let me assure you i'm not mad at all! in fact, i'm delighted -- you make it so easy to expose the foolishness in your arguments (i suppose it's a bit charitable to even call them that, but hey, i'm a nice guy/gal)!

as usual, your latest comment is packed with some pretty whacked stuff, and normally i'd try to go through most or all of it. but that leads me to write fairly long-ish comments, which you subsequently largely ignore, which contributes to you writing more whacked stuff, and then we go round again. and since this comment is already not short, let's try something a little different this time. here are three quick points about this whole jeffersondemocrat.org business. it would be helpful for our discussion if you could address all three -- i hope that's not too much to ask.

1. i agree with you that sean hennessey has "on [sic] party in mind" -- because he's chairman of the jc democratic party, and that's his job. is it really so controversial to you that someone would do his or her job?

2. my defense of the dems' site's comments policy is founded not on partisanship, but on reason. in fact, if you look above, you'll find i've given lots of reasons -- not a single one of which you've taken the courtesy to address. rather, your "argument" (think of that as another belated christmas present) consists of chanting "cowardice!" or some variant over and over. might you be the one whose judgment is clouded by partisanship?

3. as i said, i have a lot of patience for this stuff, so let's try going through it one step at a time, and hopefully we'll see just where we differ. i think the first step is: agree or disagree: ted ford can't/shouldn't continue his blog since addie hired him on her staff.


Anonymous said...

You're right, Sherbert, I'm whacked. But I'm right.

Your motivation is party line.
The rest is just words. There are so many people, even smart folk, who cannot give up that party loyalty stuff. That's what frustrates me, and contributes to my unreeeesonaableness. I see you string words together like fish guts at a derby, but say little more than I love my donkey party. Well, you're not alone, on either side.

I like what Dan had to say.
Wouldn't this be funny if I turned out to be you, in disguise?

Couldn't pull it off. I just don't have the party loyalty.

Anonymous said...

I just decided, Hermit, after that last post, for no reason in particular, I'm gonna start liking you. Mr Nice Guy I be from here on out. As far as you are concerned.

In the movie Back to School, Rodney said Kinneson "really seemed to care, about what I have no idea". I'm pokin that at ya in good fun.

hermit thrush said...

well, sorry i got under your skin to the point that you let your name calling get so out of hand. but since you want to play nice now, i'll let it go from here.

i'm still waiting to hear back on those three points, but if you want to just concede, that's fine.

i know it's dangerous to bring up yet one more thing, but let's throw caution to the wind. i'm sure it won't penetrate the bubble, but i'm really not that partisan. see, sure, i'm a democrat, but the thing is, iv essentially never attacks republicans (i say "essentially" because i only started reading the blog over the summer -- at any rate, i can't think of a single counterexample). so there's not exactly a lot of opportunity around here to stand up for the other side, you know? and if it's party loyalty that really gets you so exercised, you'd surely go after iv some too. but in fact you're just blowing smoke. you really ought to work on that self-awareness stuff. and i mean that from one friend to another!


Anonymous said...

You're not under my skin. I likes frogs.

I don't know whether PIV ever attacks elephants or not. It seems like they do, but I can't cite any example right now. My attention span isn't that long though, on those things.

My problem is once I make up my mind on stuff, such as Hensssesyy's lack of integrity, it's hard for me to just "thrush" it away. You look at it as doing the Lord's work for his political party. I view the willingness to lie, selectively cite facts, and make personal attacks based only on party affiliation and bias as the main reason this country is in the trouble it is in.

You say I'm blowing smoke? But you, my new friend, deny my basic point, which was and is media bias.
I don't know, guy. I don't think any additional verbage is necessary on that one.

Danger Democrat was run by Teddy. Teddy is a robot. But Teddy allowed both sides of issues. Personally, ethically, politically, every way I can think of, he's easer to take that Hennnecrap.com.

I gots birds in the yard. This is the first year I ever tried to do this. Learned a lot on where not to waste my money. But I only got cardinals, four of 'em, for ONE day only! Otherwise, complete success. Good day to you.

hermit thrush said...

ha ha ha! nope, still blowing smoke:

"I view the willingness to lie, selectively cite facts, and make personal attacks based only on party affiliation and bias as the main reason this country is in the trouble it is in."

iv is most definitely not a liar, but the other two things fit this blog to a t, and it doesn't bother you one bit. maybe you haven't been following things around here for long, but the whole campaign season was constant shilling for republicans and (even moreso) against democrats. here, off the top of my head, have a look at this gem. (in fairness to iv, i think things have improved since the election.)

um, your basic point is media bias? really? wait, wasn't it cowardice? or what about excessive party loyalty? and here i was thinking you don't like flopping around. i'm just razzing you -- although it's the first time you've mentioned it in this thread, i know that media bias is an old saw of yours. if you want, we can have a go at it now. but since i figure you, me, iv, and dan francis are the only people left following this thread, it might be more fun to wait till another time. it's an important topic, and maybe others will want to join in.

and speaking of cowards, still no name? i know -- now that we're buds, maybe you should take a thrush as your name! swainson's has a lovely song -- not quite as good as the hermit's, imho, but still nothing to snuff at. or maybe you'd like something more alternative, like bicknell's? have to go out in the woods for them, though -- i don't think they're much for feeders. if you want to take some time to decide on your name, that's ok too. i commented as an anon for a while before i hit on something i really liked. but then again, i also had the good sense not to go around calling people cowards.

i know, i know, too many things again. it's too much fun -- i just can't help myself.


Anonymous said...

Cowardice and media bias are largly one in the same. Linked anyway. You should know that. Cowardice also explains much of party line loyalty, as far as I know. I can't think of a better explanation, but I'll gladly defer to your extensive experience in "researching" such matters.

Guy, if you're still mad. You have to ask yourself why. Am I just hitting too close to home? Have you ever voted for anyone but a donkey? Lately? Am I just getting to you because you feel like you are one of the mindless? Herm, that ain't about me. If you feel bad inside, it's about you. As I said before, this is a great time for donkeys. Not a time to get hopelessly involved with a guy on the internet who makes you feel uneasy about what you believe in. I'm just livin' along. Don't give me any more credibility than I deserve. This is the golden age for Dems, especially here in NY. Every level of government, every board, the state, the feds, soon the rest of the courts, it's all gonna be donkey. Media supports you. Schools are in line. Unions are in lock step. What more could a man possibly want? I do not understand your snippiness. Money is gonna flow like crap outta Hennessie.com. Nirvana awaits.

I don't understand you, my new friend. I gotta get to bed.

One last thing. Please Sir, don't call me toodles in public. As Clint said, just 'cause we be buds don't mean we gonna be takin' warm showers together.

Dan Francis said...

It always amazes me how so many DEMS and GOPers say or speak about understanding what the other party stands for without actually being a member of the other party and fighting internally about that party's views?

NOTE: I never hesitate to criticize my party or compare it with the other - publicly or in private and vice versa. It doesn't do much good, but I sure feel better after wards.... LOL

Anonymous said...

But that's what makes you different than the party liners, Danford. You are willing to make those criticisms of your own party. Many are not.

We joke about it, but that's why I won't get the chance to vote for you for Senator. You have to suck up to the party liners WITH NO EXCEPTIONS, to get nominated for any kind of job.

Hey, would you be interested in the county clerk position if JoAnn Wilder is going to retire? I much prefer to support you than some party line hack.

hermit thrush said...

more comedy from my anonymous friend! maybe the reason that you can't explain why media bias, cowardice, and partisan loyalty are the same thing is that... they're not. sure, there are some tenuous connections between them, but when you sit down and really think about it, they're actually totally different.

i know it takes a lot to penetrate the bubble, but i have a lot of patience for this kind of thing too: you've got to get off this kick of assuming i'm a guy. maybe you should just assume for a while that i'm a woman? i'm not saying it's true, but you might find it helpful -- sorta like training wheels. you've already revealed yourself to be closed-minded, a coward, and a hypocrite. i don't think you want to add sexist to that list too.

since you're so fond of offering advice to others, i hope you won't mind if i offer a little more to you. you really shouldn't flatter yourself into thinking that you've come close to hitting much of anything during our little chat. and it doesn't look good to go throwing out words like "mindless" without ever backing up any of your fantastical claims with examples or arguments -- it starts to look a little, well, you know.... and it doesn't do you well to project your bitterness and anger onto me. i'm still having a total blast! and i'm really very happy if we keep going for a while. you, on the other hand, talk about getting hopelessly involved with someone on the internet, and yet... you just keep on commenting. not that i'm really complaining. i like spending time with my friends.


Anonymous said...

Kermit slips back into the fray. Guy, I urged you to lighten up, but you're angry to the bone. It must be a happy house you frequent.

I'll try to explain your latest croak. Media bias, mindless party line loyalty, and cowardice, are in my opinion, closely related. My belief is based on us becoming a nation of followers. As you said in one of your earlier posts, you warned me against going to certain parties and stating my beliefs regarding Palin, as you though they would damage my reputation. That's what I'm talking about. Peer pressure. Americans are afraid to express opinions on many subjects, because fitting in no more important than ever. The entire political correctness movement is based on this. And it influences many levels of our society that should otherwise act as checks and balances. People don't question their schools, their government, media, even local decision makers. They don't want to make waves, primarily because they are cowards. In a way, they have to be. If they don't their kids might find it harder to find a job. If a family shuts up, gets along, says mostly the right things, hey, you can possibly get a state or county job, or work for a school district. Talk too much, and you won't. I've seen it too much to deny the system is in place. And it is getting worse. Not my problem, as I stay out of it pretty well, but your kids, I'm not so sure. Maybe that's the angle you're working with the donkey party, but I'm in no position to know. If you are, who can blame you. That's the way the system works. But it isn't spelled c o u r a g e. Reality maybe.

I really don't hate one side over the other. I just can't stand the mindless party liners who will bend any belief to conform to what they feel forced to believe. If that's you, I have no idea. If that is you, it's your problem not mine. But staying mad at me just proves you're very hung up on something.

Why don't you give my your best info/advice on how to get and keep cardinals in my yard. You do that, and I'll contribute some money to Henessey so he can straighten out his hair, if not his thoughts.

Dan Francis said...

Anon 12:45. FYI I do not suck up to any party machinery ... I never have and I never will ...

I show respect and equality to everyone I come into contact with regarding politics.

I do not and will not kowtow to anyone and I do NOT expect anyone to render to me that same crap.

No one is above or beneath me in my way of thinking or acting ... I respect everyone pretty much the same way, and that's my motto until they shit on me, then all bets are off.

If you knew me, you'd know that. I am hard, but fair; strict, but honest, and I am an equal opportunity person.

hermit thrush said...

i guess i don't understand what you mean by saying we're becoming a nation of followers. how did we end up electing george bush in 2000? and then reelecting him in 2004? and then electing barack obama, someone of a totally different political philosophy, in 2008? or from a different angle: in many ways, especially with the rise of internet and cable news, there's been a huge proliferation of opinion and commentary in the past 10-15 years. and while it's true that americans tend to shy away from controversial subjects, especially politics, in person, hasn't that been the case for ages? and from another angle still, wasn't, say, the 1950's considered a time of great conformity? haven't things changed a lot since then? i'm too young to know from personal experience, but that's my understanding. i'm not bringing any of this up to be snarky. i'd just like to understand a little better what you're really getting at.

you've got me confused with someone else regarding the palin/party comment. at least, i sure don't remember making it. if you can find the comment and i'm wrong, then i'll happily acknowledge it.

i don't think that's what political correctness means (at least as i understand it), but i guess the important thing is the phenomenon you're describing, not what exactly you choose to call it. so i won't belabor the point further.

i don't believe you when you say "I just can't stand the mindless party liners who will bend any belief to conform to what they feel forced to believe". i don't mean that in a confrontational way, though. i think you're being sincere when you say it. but it just doesn't add up. take iv -- s/he is ruthlessly partisan, but when have you taken issue with it? (well, for all i know, it's possible you have, since you're anonymous; the only way i know to identify you is that you call me kermit.) one of the chief purposes of this blog is to make democrats look bad. take this post on caroline kennedy on the front page right now. (aside: here's hoping to god that paterson picks someone else.) the youtube clip is extremely embarrassing, even without the snarky editing, and that's fine. if you were new to this blog, you might think that iv put it up because s/he thinks that politicians, especially at the level of something like the u.s. senate, should be well-spoken and able to communicate reasonably well in front of the press. that's a totally fair point in my book. and i'm at a loss to think of any other good reason to put that post up. so yeah, you might think that -- but in fact you'd be totally wrong. iv doesn't care about any of that. and how do we know? sarah palin. both kennedy and palin are verbal train wrecks -- and incredibly, palin didn't give a single press conference during the campaign -- but there was nary a peep out of iv about it in palin's case. the point of that post is simply to take a partisan potshot.

now, although that's the conclusion i've drawn, and i do honestly think it's a pretty persuasive case, i'm open to other takes on it, so fire away if you have one. and in some ways it's not the best example either -- it's a fairly minor thing, as far as it goes. but if you were around here during the election season, let me assure you that the partisan bs was flying high on a near-daily basis. things have slowed down a lot since the election, but still, iv never takes cheap shots at republicans. if you doubt me, go take a trip through the archives. but i'm warning you not to go looking too hard, because you're just not going to find anything.

honestly, i'm not mad in the slightest. if you really want to believe otherwise, then have at it, but i've said my piece.

and finally, unfortunately i've never had feeders and have no advice to give about cardinals! there's probably lots of it floating around the internet, though. just ask google.


(i know, waaaay too long this time.)

Anonymous said...

Dan, no doubt about it. I'd support you for many of those reasons.

Klermint, what the hell is the matter with you? Why are we bringing up George Bush? But the fact that you did pretty much proves my point of us being followers. You're gonna have to shift from the Bush bashing routine. NEW SEASON, my boy. Quit FOLLOWING.

I've met the man who is so mad at the world, my telling people they should think independently pisses him off. When I get mad at Hennecarp.com because on opinion is allowed, he's pissed off. When I cite media bias, he's pissed off. When I say we think as groups and decry party loyalty, he's pissed off. And then, when you get less mad at me, you say you don't believe me, and hurts my feeeeelings. And this sexist thing. I love frogs. I'd hire one in a minute if I could find a qualified one that would show up in the winter.

Cause I can't resist telling people what to do. Go down to that new diner new the old Jeff Co Jail. Get a good breakfast. If I see you there and you are wearing green, I'll buy.

Live Blogging