Recommended reading
The scourge of anonymous comments
Recommended reading
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
I'm otherwise occupied today, but I'll return on Monday. In the meantime, I highly recommend this commentary piece from the American Journalism Review website. I couldn't agree more, especially with this wryly understated passage:
"The opportunity to launch brutal assaults from the safety of a computer without attaching a name does wonders for the bravery levels of the angry."
Comments (91)
I like Mr Smith's thinking. Most of the regulars here know each other. If they put the Polman link up on the lead group, you can quickly tell - lots of new names, and the interloprs appear and disappear. The regulars even know the address of the Conse-Pub.— JimR- I agree with Mr. Smith. Why change identities now?— yobill626
- Read it and weep: "This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=1— Djoko Pritza
- Mike Welbourn: and finally - I have no idea how Tom missed the dripping sarcasm in your post. I actually enjoyed it. Although we have, on occasion, agreed in the past.— still_independent
- Mike Welbourn: when did money and free speach become synonymous? You can say whatever you wish. You may do so anonymously. No argument there ( and as an aside, short of directly encouraging violence, I am against restrictions of any kind). But where does it stop? At what point does the interests of the voter - knowing who's actually paying for an ad - outweigh some vague free speech right that I have when an organization that I gave some money to puts out an ad that I had nothing to do with and may even disagree with? I'd even be OK if you had to donate directly to the political ad fund. Now I'm sure that ACLU card-carrying Tom will tell me that that puts a "chill" on free speech as well. But again, where does it end?— still_independent
- tom: and one more thing. You couldn't GIVE me a Volt. Besides the fact that I've been very happy with my Honda hybrid for the past six years, I would never, ever, never buy a brand new line of vehicle from GM - electric or conventional. They don't have a very good track record on that. Seem to need a model year or two to shake things out. No offense to all you GM fans out there. I had a firebird I loved - doesn't mean it wasn't a cranky POS, though.— still_independent
- tom - Oh come on. Did you really think I would ever agree with still_indy. Of course I didn't mean what I wrote. I would never want to take Miss Nigel's right or anybody else (except RWH) to post here without fear. But I wouldn't put it past our government to try and do something like I said. I hear so many people that are all for free speech or some other rights we have except for something that they don't like about it. Did you see Stossel's show the other night? He had law students on and they had studied the 1st Amendment. They were all for free speech except there was some that didn't think you should able to talk bad about religion. Some other thought you shouldn't be allow to burn the flag. A woman thought people that did hunting shows should be thrown in jail. Then there were the ones that were against the all inclusive "hate speech". I don't think that we will just suddenly lose one of our rights it will just be slowly chipped away by politicians in both parties.— Mike Welbourn
- Mike Welbourn: the moment I pay for a political ad, you shall be the first to know my name, sir.— still_independent
- tom: I'm fine with a higher number. I already said that $600 seems too low. I' come in around $10k, but whatever. The larger point is that I too am fine with anyone spending whatever they wish, however they wish. I wouldn't even mind removing limits on donations directly to candidates. But I do want to know who's spending what attempting to influence an election. Now as to the foreign component. Suppose the "al-Carda" corporation, headquartered and chartered out of DE, opens up shop. They are completely owned by unsavory individuals that appear on several government lists. They should be able to run election ads simply because of where they filled out some paperwork? Finally, you keep talking of this union exception. I'm not saying it's not there, but so far every union exception you've claimed was in this bill wasn't. Could you point me to the portion of the bill where this exclusion exists? Thanks.— still_independent
- swedesboromike : yes, the end of the ad mentions the organization that sponsored the ad. Depending upon the type of organization, you have no idea who's a member, or who funds the organization, nor do you have any way to find out that information.— still_independent
- Let me weigh in here. I'm all for disclosure, at least at the organization level. I do feel a bit vulnerable as an individual. That's not to say that I would naturally feel secretive about whom my contributions have gone to, but I am careful about full disclosure for individuals. Of course, I never contribute very much anyway. But I'm sure you can understand how uncomfortable that can be for a single woman.— NigeltheMastiff
- One reason I would like to see some names on here is so I can drop by and take a ride in the new Chevy Volt that yoda, still_independent, rightwinghypocrite, pdiddy, formerGOPer and all the other libs buy with my tax dollars.— tom - wilmington, de
- still_independent, historically speaking, a firm incorporated under the laws of the country or state in which it does business. For example, a firm incorporated in the United States is considered a domestic corporation in the United States, but a foreign corporation elsewhere. The 20% threshold was in its entirety and not just relegated to one person/corp/entity. Based on the 20% rule, if 21% of stock in GM is owned by persons living outside the US who are not citizens of the US, then GM would be a foreign corporation and barred from advertising for any candidates even though they, as a US corporation, would be impacted by that election. If 81% of Toyota stock is suddenly owned by Americans, then they, even though they are a true foreign corporation, would be allowed to advertise for candidates in a US election. How about the SEIU, or the IBEW? Do you think they have more than 20% foreign membership? If so, should they be barred? Oh wait, they were exempted from this provision. Never mind.— tom - wilmington, de
- Mike if the law restricts or inhibits a person from engaging in a debate because they, for whatever reason, wish to remain anonymous, then that is a restriction of their free speech right, imho. Disclosure is important, but to what extent? Do we really need to know every $600 donor? Maybe we just find out the major financers, say being told George Soros is funding MediaMatters, MoveOn.org, the Tides Foundation, etc.etc.etc. But do we really need to know that John Smith donated $1,000 to Planned Parenthood just because they run an ad in favor of Joe Sestak? Maybe John Smith is married to a Toomey campaign worker, and his name being disclosed will cause him loss of marital privileges (are there any marital privileges after the first year?). Perhaps John Smith works at a local establishment where the boss backs Toomey, or a whole host of other wild scenarios. I know lots of union members who donate to conservative causes, but to hear them tell it they are loyal Democrats because the union backs all the Democrat and liberal policies. So now they need to have their names printed somewhere, or maybe now they just do not donate to a cause near and dear to their hearts. Nah, $600 is too low. My number, for still_independents satisfaction, is $100,000.— tom - wilmington, de
- tom - I think I will have to agree with still_indy on free speech. I think there should be full disclosure on all speech. How else will we know if the people that were crying that the teaparty is racist may really be a Democratic politician who are trying to undermine their opposition. Maybe RWH works for an opponent of John McCain. I don't see why congress could not pass a law using the commerce clause (blogs go across state lines and have ads) making people to use their real names and picture when ever they post on a blog. As still said I don't see how more disclosure is a bad thing or how it would be a restriction of first amendment rights.— Mike Welbourn
- You are quibbling Still Independent. At the end of the ad it tells you who sponsored the ad. Not to mention it's fairly easy to see which side of the political spectrum the sponsor is, by the adverstisement itself.
- tom: fist of all, we can quibble over percentages all you want. Assuming you aren't comfortable with foreign corporations advertising in our campaigns (which was already prohibited, although it may get challenged since Citizen's United), then what percentage is acceptable? Is it 51%? When does it become a foreign corporation? Genrally speaking, if you control 20-30% of a company, you control the company. Now I will agree that the $600 seems low. But again, what's the magic number? If George Soros donates $250,000 to some group and they run an ad, you shouldn't be able to find that out if you are motivated to do so (they aren't going to air the $600 donors during the ad, you'd still have to go to look it up). Now finally, I will save this post somewhere. It's interesting that you consider the ACLU as the final authority on what is and isn't constitutional. I ashall remind you of that, no doubt, sometime in the future... And as for Drudge, yes, that's mostly all he does now. However, if that's your contention, that he couldn't EVER break a story - by definition, it would have to be already published somewhere else.— still_independent
- As long as we're recommending good reading material, check out this little number by David Stockman (Reagan's director of the OMB for those with short memories): http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?ref=opinion— yoda
- still_independent, from my reading of Drudge, he does not write news. He merely post links to news stories.— tom - wilmington, de
- still_independent, firstly, you completely miss my viewpoint on spending for campaigns and disclosure. I am for free spending in campaigns if applied equally, and I would like to know the sponsor of the ad, which the FEC now requires. I see no reason why corp/groups cannot advertise in favor of a candidate, but not donate directly to the candidate, which is all the Citizens United case allows. And foreign donations are already disallowed, but if a corp/group/non-profit has just 20% ownership in a US corp, then that should not disallow that corp/group/non-profit from spending on a campaign ad. Suppose GM or GE were suddenly owned by Toyota/Sony? Now they are not allowed to advertise for a candidate? Secondly, I do not need to know the name of the CEO of the corporation, or every person/entity that donated more than $600 to the organization/corporation/non-profit/etc. So if I give $1,000 to Right To Life, and they run a campaign commercial in favor of Candidate X, then I get to have my name plastered for all to see, therefore people I know possibly thinking I agree with the ad and support candidate X, and you think that is fair? As for the points I raised in my prior post, they were paraphrased from the ACLU's letter in opposition to the Disclose Act. Check it our for yourself at http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Ltr_to_House_re_ACLU_opposes_DISCLOSE_Act.pdf. Then you can write to them with all your notations as to why they are so incorrect. As usual, you once again know what it is I believe and what is right and just. The ACT inhibited speech, and it was rightly defeated in cloture.— tom - wilmington, de
- tom: as far as the free speech argument goes, no need to go back to 1958, expecially to a case that doesn't even apply (that was a requirement to disclose membership in a vacuum, balanced against no government interest). The USSC has ruled many times that disclosure is not necessarily unconstitutional. As recently as the Citizen's United case (which you agreed with, btw) - "Disclaimer and disclosure requirements may burden the ability to speak, but they “impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities,” Buckley, 424 U. S., at 64, and “do not prevent anyone from speaking,” McConnell, supra , at 201 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). The Court has subjected these requirements to “exacting scrutiny,” which requires a “substantial relation” between the disclosure requirement and a “sufficiently important” governmental interest. Buckley, supra, at 64, 66 (internal quotation marks omitted); see McConnell, supra, at 231–232. In Buckley , the Court explained that disclosure could be justified based on a governmental interest in “provid[ing] the electorate with information” about the sources of election-related spending. 424 U. S., at 66. The McConnell Court applied this interest in rejecting facial challenges to BCRA §§201 and 311. 540 U. S., at 196. There was evidence in the record that independent groups were running election-related advertisements “ ‘while hiding behind dubious and misleading names.’ ” Id. , at 197 (quoting McConnell I , 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 237). The Court therefore upheld BCRA §§201 and 311 on the ground that they would help citizens “ ‘make informed choices in the political marketplace.’ ” 540 U. S., at 197 (quoting McConnell I, supra, at 237); see 540 U. S., at 231. " ...... your other objections are purely subjective, not legal. They could put all the names up at once for a few seconds, or have them across the bottom throughout the ad, leaving the entire 30 seconds. gov't contractors advertising gets real close to bribery.— still_independent
- tom: and to summarize your position on disclosure - there should be unlimited spending by corporations and unions during federal elections, and no disclosure should be required.— still_independent
- tom: yes, Drudge broke the name of Monica Lewinski. He also "broke" a lot of other news during the same time, most of which turned out to be completely false. He is a little bit better now, but back then he wasn't even pretending to be news - his site was considered to be a gossip column. In the end, turned out he had a source both on Paula Jones' legal team (one of the "elves", as they called themselves) as well as in Ken Starr's office. Sure they were violating a gag order and Independent Prosecutor laws respectively, but I'm sure that's only a problem for you when it's under Obama's administration. In any case, no one was sitting on anything. Michael Isakoff of Newsweek was getting ready to publish the story. Unfortunately for him, he was actually behaving like a journalist, attempting to contact both sides, verify facts, pesky things like that, so he got scooped my Matt Drudge, who does none of that. No one in the MSM was sitting on the story.... As an aside, I'd suggest "The Death of American Virtue" by Ken Gormley. It's a bit of a long read (about 700 pages in hardback), but well worth it for anyone that was alive duing the Lewinski scandal. He, over several years, did multiple interviews with all the key players and most of the minor ones - Lewinsky, Clinton, Starr, McDougal, the attorneys, Reno, everyone. Starr comes off pretty well, if a bit naive. Interestingly, he now admits that while the Lewinsky matter should have been investigated, his office should have been the last to do so. Clinton comes off fairly poorly, and Paula Jones even more so. If nothing else, it brings up lots of events and names you've probably forgotten.— still_independent
- reilly, you seem to be suffering from a bad case of "talking point reflux disease" on top of the arrested development issues. Since we're handing out advice, I suggest you take 2 Pepcids and a shot of HGH and let us know how you feel in the morning. Or, preferably, not.— yoda
- Like 'liberal' I too had a letter published in the Inquirer a few years ago. They print your name and your city at the end of the letter. I got a letter of agreement from an older woman with only my name (spelled incorrectly) and my city on the envelope. Good job USPS. Two days later, I had a message on my machine at home from someone else. Thank heavens they agreed with me. Scary!— JimR
- A couple of years ago a letter of mine was published in the Inquirer--it was fairly innocuous stuff--but I got a death threat in my email as a result. I didn't really take this too seriously, but it gave me pause, you might say. I can see why people like anonymous postings.— liberal
Comment removed.- The article does not suggest that everyone know who everyone is. In other words, you would still have anonmous on the board; but, if you posted something truly hurtful, there would be a way to hold you responsible for your comment. I am all for that. Other than a very few on this blog, most comments are toward a discussed topic and are not personal. But, if you go to another blog on this site (Bunch's), the personal attacks on the blogger and each other make half the comments not even closely related to the topic. With a right comes responsibility. If you want the right to free speech, you have the responsibility to follow the rules of civil discourse.— Master Dreamz
- Tom... I know that, you know that. Anyone that looks at things with an open mind knows that. It seems, however, that arrogant smug people, dont know that. To say that the mainstream press would report any negative news about a liberal is hallucinatory. They had their chance with the Obama-Wright story, and they passed on it. They also had a chance to report the racist writings of Michelle Obama, they passed. Fortunately, the general public now realizes it.— Phil Checchia
- FYI - as he stated during a live chat, Polman does not read any posts to his blog. He stopped when he read a post asking how he could still have a job at the Inquirer based on what he wrote.— tom - wilmington, de
- Phil....not only did Drudge break the Lewinsky, but the National Enquirer broke the Edwards story, another which some members of the MSM knew about but refused to follow up on until forced to by another publication. The only "affairs" the press is interested in reporting about are those which concern Conservatives or Republicans. I wonder how long they had the Elliot Spitzer "Client #9" story before the published it?— tom - wilmington, de
- still_independent, how did the disclose act inhibit free speech? First, it required the disclosure of every member of an organization that donated more than $600. According to NAACP v. Alabama, the Supreme Court rebuked government-mandated membership disclosure regimes as thinly veiled attempts to intimidate activist organizations that worked by instilling a fear of retaliation among members of the activist group. Anyone wishing to remain anonymous would not donate to an organization, thereby inhibiting that person's free speech and privacy rights, or it would inhibit hte organization from advertising in support of a candidate to protect its donors privacy. Either way, inhibited free speech. Second, it could be argued that issue advocacy could be the same as advocacy for a candidate. For example, an ad against Obamacare, where it states "Call Rep X and urge him to vote for/against" could be considered advocacy either for or against the candidate, thereby forcing the group sponsoring the ad to disclose its donors, etc. The Act uses the term "functional equivalent" and is very open to subjective interpretation. The act also expandes the "electioneering communications" period from 60 to 120 days before an election. The disclosure of the CEO (made before and at end of an ad), the significant funder of the ad, the top five funders of the organization, not to mention other disclosures required would take up more than half of a 30 second ad, leaving little time for any "free speeech" to take place. Lastly, TARP recipients and contractors with $7 million of gov. business ($50,000 in Senate version) are prohibited from advertising, as are corp. with more than 20% foreign ownership/membership, yet unions (SEIU) and non-profits are exempt from this part of the act. That is how it inhibits free speech.— tom - wilmington, de
- Still... Drudge broke Monica Lewinsky. The press had no choice but to follow up on it. And as far as proving things to you, I'm not interested in doing that. As a matter of fact, I'm not interested in pursuing any type of conversation with you.— Phil Checchia
- Maybe there is hope... The mayor of Washington DC, a black man, has hired Michelle Rhee as his School superintendant. She has just fired the bottom 4% of Public School Teachers. She immediately came under fire from the teachers union, and the mayor, good man, is backing his super. Hope this starts a trend in big cities. I dont think you would have to fire legions of teachers, once they see what's happening I think they will pick up the pace themselves. The mayor is in a tough re-election, have to get his website and send him some money. Have to support people trying to do the right thing.— Phil Checchia
- still_independent, yes, the Prius is Toyota's best selling car in the US. For it to become so, Toyota needed $4/gallon gasoline and needed to take a loss on each sale of $15K on each car. Did you note the paragraph where it stated Toyota began selling the car for $17K despite the fact it cost $32K to produce? Also that today the Prius cost the same in inflation adjusted dollars as it did back in 1997? GM is selling the Volt for a profit, and it costs more than the US median income (before the $7,500 tax credit). So, for the billions we gave to GM in the bailout, and the billions we gave them to re-tool so they could produce the Volt, and the billions in tax subsidies to both the seller and buyer, we get a car that can go 40 miles on a single charge, but can then go 340+ miles using its gas powered engine. Not to mention less head/leg room than its $15,000 sister economy car on which it is based. Sounds like a great investment to me...where can I go buy one.— tom - wilmington, de
- Comment removed.
- Still Independent- You asked " and how does knowing that the "Committe for concerned Americans" tell you who paid for an ad?"............... You can look up the group and inform yourself. Once in a while there is an effective campaign ad ( i.e. swiftboat, or the Sestak ad on Arlen Spector) but for the most part I think people tune them out.
- CD75, Comrade Noodlehead, bag o cheese, et. al. You've completely missed the point of the post. We all know who Dick Poleman is, his picture adorns the blog, his credentials are listed, his place of employment is know. Dick is free to post what he wants because it's transparent. "The opportunity to launch brutal assaults from the safety of a computer without attaching a name does wonders for the bravery levels of the angry." asks the question would you still call people meaningless names and spew hate with out content if we all knew your name, face, place of employement, etc. The point is, post what you want to post, but do so as yourself so that you are know to everyone else. You'd be amazed how civilized the discussion would become if we were to know each other personally. I taught a technology ethics class for several years and I'll pose the same question I posed to my students at the beginning of each semester; Would you walk up to a complete stranger, start calling them names and spew hate without content like you're willing to do here in the blog? None of my students ever answered yes to that question. If you answered yes, well, either you're lying to yourself or you have some serious sociopathic tendencies that need professional help. Nobody is saying you should change what you post but rather post without the cloak of invisibility. Stand behind your words and if you feel uncomfortable doing so you likely don't believe what you're saying and / or you can't defend your position. As Mikey's brother used to say, "Try it, you'll like it."— WarrickSawyer
- swedesboromike : and how does knowing that the "Committe for concerned Americans" tell you who paid for an ad? Depending upon when the group was formed, an election could be over long before they filed anything. Back in the 1990's, "Get Government Off Our Back " paid for a lot of ads. I, as a voter, may have wanted to know that RJ Reynolds was sponsoring those ads (it involved the regulation of tobacco).... tom, I don't think that being against the DISCLOSE act was being against free speech, but please explain how it inhibited free speech at all.— still_independent
- Phil: " If the press KNEW, they WOULDN'T report it" ??????? Were you awake during the Lewinski thing? It was all Monica, 24/7. They didn't shy away from anything with Clinton. He wasn't a favorite of the the Washington media at all..... As far as the Bush girls, while it is a more realistic scenario (the press didn't follow them around, and they were busted for underage drinking), I have no idea if the story is true or not. Generally speaking the less outlandish the claim, the less proof I would require to believe it.— still_independent
- While I'm not too worried about crazies, unlike Phil, I'm still working and not retired. Employers (especially corporate ones) are none too happy with employees posting anything. The board of managers I report to probably would take a dim view of my posting anything political, whether they agreed with it or not.— still_independent
- "Launching assaults without a name..." lol is Mr. Polman talking about all those nonsense editorials in the Inquirer? Not one of them ever has a name attached to it. Are you reading this, Mr. Jackson? lol— texas.troubadour
22 failed banks for the month of July. That is really a big number. And the foreclosure for the first 6 months, 1.6 million. It's a good thing the democrats are in charge of doling out the relief or else you might think some people would really go postal, what with no job, no money, no home, and no savings. What's a society to do? I know, play with people's lives and hope they get so gosh darn angry, they kick those ole dems in the keister come Nov. Then, when the republicans get in, all of the millions of people who lost their homes and jobs and have no money, not even their unemployment insurance, will have their taxes cut, invest the extra money in new businesses like oil well clean up services and bring the economy roaring back. Oh yea, and nuke Iran, that will create a lot of jobs too. Oh Oh you just made me think, a really big wall across the the Mexican boarder with smart missiles to kill anyone trying to cross it illegally and all.
Logathis makes an excellent point.- Meanwhile, it's not hard to see why Theriot was upset. Here's a sample comment: "Theriot, just another Jefferson Parish politician thug mobster trained by his mentor..dressed up in a façade of respectability by a corrupt Louisiana Legislature." Man, this person makes RightWingHypocrite look deranged. Heavy hitting maybe, but this guy has a thin skin and probably had no case anyway. Huey Long anyone?
- I will be completely honest: I intend on running for political office one day and I wouldn't want a cherry-picked, out of context quote to be used against me. That is why I use a pseudonym. I'm sure some of you will scoff at that notion, but I'm being completely honest. Although 'Logathis' has been my online name in countless forums for 10+ years, so it probably wouldn't be impossible to track me down. How's that for full disclosure? And if some crazy homicidal person really wanted to track us down, they would just hire some 20 year old computer geek to hack into philly.com's database, find our IP address, and show up at one of our front door's.— Logathis
- Interesting topic - anyone who has been on this site for a long time (4+) years can remember the large number of anonymous posters. It is probably as much of a victory as Philly.com will see just to get people to use the pseudonyms we see now. When I started posting on Philly boards, I used my real name and ran into problems from some zealous loons. If you read other response boards, you can see the proof of this article but it's safer to keep it at this level.— JimR
- Mike W., my name makes me too easy to find. My house is stone but the insides will still burn, so, no thanks. If you wonder why just look at the billreilly comment - that sort of homophobic/closeted-gay-in-denial hate speech is the sort of thing most of us thought we left behind when we graduated middle school. Some people never grow up, and I don't want to meet them.— yoda
- Tom, sorry. I wish I were more mysterious, but sadly I'm pretty straightforward. Most people probably would think my life is a major bore.— NigeltheMastiff
- Nigel, I once worked with a Dana for an insurance company located in Wilmington. I always had a crush on her. She was very alluring and mysterious. That is not you, is it?— tom - wilmington, de
- Hello all. I don't really like the idea of giving my full name, though you can certainly know my first -- it's Dana. However, I'm a single woman living alone. Most of you know where that is, and I wouldn't feel safe giving my whole name -- even though I don't post really mean-spirited or ugly rants. There are certain precautions I feel like I need to live with. I'm not overly paranoid or anything, just trying to be reasonably careful. I'm not ashamed or hesitant about anything I say. In fact, as you all know, I seem to end up as the civility police.— NigeltheMastiff
- phil/bill...I use my real first name, but being a self employed tax accountant/financial advisor, it is already tough enough keeping politics out of discussions with my 150+ union member clientele. Many of my clients are steadfast liberals, and on occasion I even fake agreeing with them. I'd hate to lose business over stupid political issues, so for now my last name will remain my place of residence.— tom - wilmington, de
- And just how is being against the disclose act being against the first amendment? The disclose act inhibited speech, while being against it meant you wanted speech to be unfettered.— tom - wilmington, de
- JTI- campaign ads already tell you was responsible for the content of the adverstisement. The legistlation at hand has to do with Democrats protecting their electoral self interests. The legislation required the CEO or leader of the sponser to appear in the ad. As if we are too stuipid to understand who is sponsering the ad when they tell who is sponsering the ad.
- Thought it was interesting reading thru some of the comments today that some of the same folks who, the other day, were arguing against full disclouse on the part of corporations in campaign ads (you know, against the first amendment and all that kind of rot)are now so steadfast in their desire to have all posters here do so under their real name. Hmmmmm, a real dicotomy, eh?— jti
- Phill Checcia- Nah, don't think so. Too many crazies out there. There's probably only a few hundred Mike's from Swedesboro/ woolwich area anyway. One of my liberals friends from the area already figured it was me. But I don't think I am a drive by poster like righwinghypocrit. That guy needs anger mgmt classes.
- Phil, here's your kind of all inclusive comment that got things rolling "And your contention that Philly cops are corrupt has little if any foundation.". No one was implying that all cops are corrupt. It's a meatgrinder of a job that pays too little and demands way too much. It unfortunately has historically drawn too many people with too many human frailities and not enough personal and educational qualifications. But there's never a lack of candidates trying to get in.— JimR
- You can post only under a name that is available. If your name is common and not available, you're out of luck.— JimR
- Billreilly.... that's a start Bill. Don't you think everyone should. It would make the blogs more sincere. C'mon Swede, Tom, Nigel. Post under your name. The freedom is refreshing.— Phil Checchia
- Add me to the yes vote. Funny how most of the people that use their real names are conservatives. While the biggest wingnut is Rightwinghypocrite who changes his name every month or so. Yoda I challenge you to start posting with your real name.— Mike Welbourn
- Comment removed.
- still... here's one for you. A friend of mine's son was at a party in California with one of the Bush twins. The kid said he had never heard anyone with a fouler mouth, and she got so drunk the secret service had to remove her and take her home. There you go, a little republican dirt. Feel better?— Phil Checchia
- Comment removed.
- Still... you just killed your arguement that the Bill Clinton things didn't happen. If the press KNEW, they WOULDN'T report it. Also,you seem to have a problem with believing what people tell you. Why, I repeat, why, would secret service agents lie about what they saw. One agent even mentioned Susan Tomlisson (sic) a big Clinton backer who divorced her husband right in the middle of all the POOL PARTIES. You see, sometime you have to use reason, look at all the surrounding facts and come to a conclusion. You depend on written data, and you know what, I like to draw my own conclusions. And given that I'm the only person on this blog that uses their name, I do risk having people check on what I say. You, however, dont have to worry about that. I dont know if you're male or female. And as far as evidence, 95% of evidence in all investigatios is spoken word. Based on how you operate you wouldn't get to first base trying to solve a case.— Phil Checchia
- While I agree with the article that giving people anonymity in their postings can often bring out the worst in people, I think the market will eventually correct itself. The people who are interested in a good discussion about a topic will gravitate towards sites that have some form of moderation while those whose only interest is to sling their own ideological garbage (regardless of which side it comes from) will post on unmoderated sites.— barlowjames
- The AJR article is absolutely right. There is no reason for the Inquirer to allow anonymity, and they should stop allowing it. As an added (large) bonus, 98% of the right wing knuckleheads would disappear from the blog comments, since no sane person would put their real name on the sort of comments they post here. The down side, though, is that if you post using your real name, it would make it easy for the truly insane wingnuts to actually come to your house and burn it down for disagreeing with them. There are several who post regularly here and on Will Bunch's blog who strike me as unstable enough to do something like that.— yoda
- Comment removed.
- billreilly : did not mean to impugne you or imply you'd reflexively defend dirty cops. Just trying to keep that whole back in forth in the context of where it started.— still_independent
- I don't know what Polman is crying about with the comments. Most of the stuff on here is very civil in my view. Don't put a comments section if you don't want comments. I find this healthy way to discuss politics instead of irritating my liberal in laws or my wife who cares more about shopping and housewives of Orange county than discussing politics. I think what bothers Polman is that he gets called when he distorts, exxagerates, or only tells half the story. I find most liberals don't really care for free speech, only if is liberal free speech and it goes unchallenged.
- Comment removed.
- Phil: "And did you ponder my last blog to you in last subject, which of the three subjects are true? Well, let me tell you, all three are" - I doubt it, except for the last one. i have no reason to question your ability as a detective. i just commented that you seem to believe things solely based upon who tells you, despite and and all logic to the contrary. As an examply, the Hillary stuff. Again, stuff classified Top Secret/SAC comes out, yet we have only your buddie's word that Hillary held a "lesbian orgy" at Camp David. The Clinton stuff you wrote was laughable - the president can't go to any public place "like a beach" without the press nearby. Now maybe he did that as governor w/ the troopers setting him up, as they were known to do, but it wouldn't work as president. Why do you think all the Lewinsky encounters were in the spaces in the WH where the secret service does not go? Believe what you wish based upon no evidence - it's your choice. As for why the "liberal media" didn't report on Kennedy's affairs. because it just wasn't done. It's the same reason they didn't report on Lyndon Johnson, FDR, etc. You just didn't do it. It wasn't deemed to be news - it was considered, at that time, to be part of their private lives. It's also why you never used to hear all the dirt on professional athletes - private livers weren't considered newsworthy back in the day.— still_independent
- if you geniuses have so much to say, start your own blog instead of logging on to someone else's and firing easy reactionary insults at the guy who actually does it for a living— jtocz
- Comment removed.
- Still.. I never said there weren't any corrupt cops, just that they recieve more publicity. By the way, what is your name? You know mine. And did you ponder my last blog to you in last subject, which of the three subjects are true? Well, let me tell you, all three are. Check on it. You did after all question my ability as a detective. Let me help you a little, Anthony Joyner and the Kearsley Nursing Home.— Phil Checchia
CD your comment makes no sense (nothing unusual there). The whole point is commenting under the cloak of anonymity, which clearly doesn't apply to DP.— potus- Yo, left wing, look in the mirror. That is the greatest enemy of free people everywhere.— Daddy why did you vote Barrack insane Obama? He is clueless!
- Comment removed.
Oh, and Lord Humongous is my real name. My parents had a weird sense of humor. OK, just kidding!- tom: that article raises some pretty good points, especially about how Toyota turned the Prius into their third best selling car in the US.— still_independent
- Of course, I won't be returning to the AJR website because they don't allow comments.
Why would Polman bother reading what the commoners have to say?- Comment removed.
- Given that I've never seen Polman respond to a single post one has to wonder whether he even reads them. And if not, then what's his cause for complaint? And though Polman puts his name behind his musings, he surely isn't guilt free when it comes to accusations and cheap partisan shots. That First Amendment is a wonderful thing for those that call themselves journalists.
- Second Quarter GDP of 2.4%, which is only that high due to all the government spending, home sales at all time lows, consumer confidence at an all time low, tax increases in January being forecasted as killing the economy, Dems in Congress now debating on repealing part of Obamacare, Polman is unavailable today. He must not have a Republican he can bash today.— tom - wilmington, de
- I give credit to Phil Checchia for using his real name. Seriously.— Logathis
- Obama is in Detroit today touting the auto bailout. Meanwhile, in the NYT, an opinion piece bashes Obamamotors for the Volt. Check it out...http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/opinion/30neidermeyer.html?_r=2&ref=opinion— tom - wilmington, de
- Comment removed.
- No one is going to take away our right to anonymous free speech if we have anything to say about it.
- billreilly : (from the last blog) most of us have stayed out of the whole "dirty cop" discussion. I think that 99.9% of cops are honest, hard working, under-paid public servants doing an incredibly difficult job that most of us wouldn't want to do. But don't lose sight of amg's original point. Phil, because he knows a few crooked Dem politcos, assumes that all are crooked. amg, in an attempt to personalize it, made the point that he could therefore point to a couple of crooked cops and assert that they all were crooked. this was apparently lost on phil, who basically said that there were no crooked cops. that's what JimR was responding to. No one wants this to turn into cop bashing, as it's undeserved. But I'm hoping you keep the exchange in the context of where it started.— still_independent
- Dick, get a thicker skin or get a new profession. The real reason you do not like on-line comments is because the readers of this blog expose your lies, misrepresentations, smears and leftist agenda.— Comrade Noodlehead
- The pot is calling the kettle black.— CD75
1
Popular Posts
About this blog
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: