Would you REALLY like me to go through all your comments and pull YOUR typos and careless errors, Jimmy boy? I don’t call you on them because that would be petty…but it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist in the hundreds.

I meant, as you well know, “Not as bright as he thinks he is.” The “He is,” at the beginning of the sentence, is implied.

And you wonder why I call you Jimmy.

Then again, at least I can put together a comprehensible sentence.

As I said, Ms. Jones, I respond in kind. It doesn’t take much to “ferret out who said the first words”: you could click on the provided link, or you could do a “find” function on this thread, perhaps on “Cheney,” to see who started the childishness on this thread. It would certainly seem appropriate before leveling your criticism at the other side of the dispute. I didn’t start it, but I certainly don’t have to sit back and take it. I do appreciate, however, and am humbled, that you expect better from me than from the individual who DID start it. Speaks volumes about her.

‘Fact is, you do speak with respect, as I have to you, as my default, and unless provoked otherwise.

The individual whom you haven’t seen fit to criticize (except by implication) seems incapable of that courtesy, even inflicting herself in our little exchange.

I wish I had the time and energy to ferret out who said the first words, but as my mother would say when spanking me for something my bother started: “I DON’T CARE”.

What I do care about is that you have reduced this dialogue to the vulgar. This diminishes your entire argument on any subject. You say you find it odd that I would level criticism exclusively at you, but your comments were the only words improper for this forum. As for lies and attacks going unanswered, I have found they die a quiet death if left alone.

Quite frankly, I expect something better from conservatives and from you in particular. The vulgar would not be tolerated in a court of law or on the pages of our local newpapers - two venues in which you have great experience. This is why I fail to see why you resort to it here.

I don’t know why you have trouble calling (and my calling) Mrs. Cheney by title. It is the same consideration I extended to you.

Finally, I repeat my original request: “I expected more class of you and you owe her an apology.”

I wish I could place a face with a name, or even remember the name, but I am notoriously forgetful about things like that. Please accept my apologies.

“Ms. Cheney,” as you call her, is a lying political hack (the lie was documented in the post that Greg deleted). Perhaps you are correct that responding to “schoolyard” name-calling with schoolyard retorts is inappropriate, but I did not choose the terms of this debate; she did. I am merely indulging her wishes. I fail to understand why your post is directed at me when she has chosen a juvenile form of my name (or worse yet, to equate me with Jimmy Carter). Do I resent it? Not hardly. But as I have said before, “Jimmy” is my son (my wife’s idea, not mine). He’s eleven, and I wouldn’t expose him to the likes of “Ms. Cheney.” My friends call me “Jim,” or “James.” Others call me “Mr. Young.” What I resent is the sanctimony underlying it, particularly from one from whom, in my opinion, righteousness is unknown, and self-righteousness is utterly uncalled for.

Furthermore, you are unaware of the e-mail exchange that I had with “Ms. Cheney” some months ago. I commend it to your attention.
http://skepticalobservor.blogspot.com/2005/10/fascinating-exchange-with-harrys.html
You’ll note that the very first paragraph of her very first e-mail (she calls it an “olive branch”!) contains two attacks/insults.

In short, I owe her anything but an apology. What she is owed is having her attacks and her belittling insults (while sanctimoniously criticizing others, usually for their response in kind) answered.

Perhaps your criticism is better directed at “Ms. Cheney.” I prefer to ignore her. However, I learned a long time ago that one risks have lies and attacks accepted as truth if one allows them to go unanswered.

“I didn’t start this” probably isn’t the response for which you were looking. Nevertheless, I certainly find it odd that you would level criticisms exclusively at me under the circumstances.

You may deny knowing me, but I remember you well. So well, that I remember you as a person of high moral character, integrity and honor-bound by his word. I also remember your editorial columns and looked forward to each publication. You possessed a a writing style that was logical, thought-provoking and persuasive. The only name-calling I can recall from your columns was in reference to the “Great Prevaricator”, an adjetive about the former President which you easily defended.

I am new to this blog and this particular thread is the only one I have read completely. Imagine my surprise when I saw your name attached to many of the comments above. In particular, I will address your response to Mrs. Cheney and comments to the editor. Mrs. Cheney asked you about John Walker. You responded with your rebuttal, but apparently that was not enough. You wrote on to say:

“Too bad you’re (sic) ideologically-motivated hatred makes you
incapableof telling the difference.”

I have to infer that calling Mrs. Cheney stupid was not enough and you continued, but the editor saw fit to delete your next comment. Then, you respond to the editor (Greg?) with simplistic school-yard logic. She called me a name and and you won’t let me call her one back. I may be naive, but is calling you “Jimmy” so horrible to invoke a response that had to be deleted?

You then went on to call Mrs. Cheney an “old bitter b***h. This is beyond reason and I thought that it must be in the heat of the moment, but in later postings, you made the same veiled reference to her. I know Mrs. Cheney and she is anything but an old, bitter b***h. I expected more class of you and you owe her an apology.

For someone who claims to always be motivated by the facts, you seem to bog yourself down and diminish your point by letting personalities get to you. If the above represents your best, something I had always known you to do in the past, then perhaps it is time for you to retire your keyboard.

What leads to my conclusion that you are a bullying, belittling coward? You hide your identity, obviously fearing attribution of your bloviations to your name. The most you’ve offered to this little exchange are childish comments. Perhaps “Fredo” is a better and more reflective moniker.

I may be mistaken; I may be wrong. I may even be wrong about Faisal Gill. But I only draw conclusions based upon the evidence at hand. And have the courage to attach my name to them and face the consequences of doing so.

Now, I conclude you are a religious bigot, too, by your endorsement of “dolph’s” post admitting the same. I couldn’t conclude that before, but now I can. I suppose that it is well that you hide your identity.

Interesting company you choose to keep. And it is I who lack “credibility”?!?! You may have some with the KKK, skinheads, and/or the American Nazi Party. I prefer to have no credibility with people such as that.

You’re certainly welcome to your opinion, but by now, it should be fairly clear that your opinion (on virtually anything, btw) doesn’t carry a lot of credibility.

I simply stated how I felt about Muslims in public office. I will not vote to put one there. Feel free to attack me on that issue. I will not debate it. My personal feelings are my own.

OK Jimmy…and where does it say that I reported anything to the Commonwealth’s Attorney? Like I said…YOU are a liar. The campaign CONSULTANT (You do know what a consultant is, don’t you Jimmy?) brought the information to Ebert, as was reported in the Journal Mess and WaPo. This has been pointed out to you time and again yet you persist in your attacks and lies. For more than two years I have put up with this and I’m sick of it.

(Note to Greg: If you delete or edit the remainder of this comment, I will never speak to you again…I promise!)

I wouldn’t try that with Greg if I were you Jimmy. There are FEW people that would consider that a threat coming from you…it would be more like a blessing. You are a carbuncle on the **s of the world, a bane to all that is right and reasonable in the world of politics. Your lack of civility, open-mindedness, couth and your wealth of arrogance, selfishness and, of course, gutter language has made you the laughingstock of the blogosphere…which has done my heart good. You are a little troll in thought, word, and deed…and you look like one to boot, especially in those shorts. I’m sick of your flagrant prevarications, your small-minded meanness when it comes to anyone who happens to disagree with you, and I’m just sick of you in general. You add nothing to a discussion other than vitriol, and I have almost three years experience with that. There are very few people in this world that I truly wish ill, and you are probably at the top of the list. You ran like a jack rabbit at the 51st District Convention when you realized who I was, and you were followed by laughter. Next time it may not be so benign.

There, I’ve got it out of my system. Anybody want to join me?

Too bad that there are those who will indulge the racist — or try to hide their own racism — by attacking a man on ridiculously contrived and flimsy charges that have been investigated by those paid to be suspicious, and rejected.

And BTW, Greg, I don’t know why you think my appellation for AWCheney is not “commonly accepted,” or would never be. In fact, it is commonly accepted… at least, a portion of it is. You must not get out much. So your standard is this: belittling but inaccurate name-calling is acceptable, but widely-accepted yet profane name-calling is not?

Dolph, the operative phrase in your comments is “its version of Islam.” You have no evidence — and there is considerable evidence to the contrary — that Faisal Gill’s “version of Islam” differs from that to which you refer. Yet still, you oppose him.

As a reasonable man (at least in this exchange), certainly, you must understand that your position is untenable by its own terms.

We are at war with a borderless enemy who kills in the name of its version of Islam. I would not vote for any Muslim right now. That community has done very little to step up to the plate and denounce terrorism. Given the MO of terrorist cells, I would rather be prejudiced than risk aiding and abetting anyone who might put our country at further risk.

I don’t live in the 51st, nor am I a Republican, so Gill is safe from my prejudice.

One would have thought that, as an appointee in the Administration and a Naval officer engaged in the War on Terror, Faisal Gill’s credentials would have satisfied you (that would be “deed,” “dolph”; “word” would be the policies he has vowed to support regarding illegal immigration), but at least you make no pretense about your racism and religious bigotry. I don’t think either has any place in the American regime, in the GOP, or in official policy-making in either body, but that you disagree honestly at least makes it clear as to what it is that we are talking about.

Were it that others were so honest. Then again, as a wise man once observed, hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.

As for the ***, here’s what she said on a comment thread (and perhaps in the WaPo, if memory serves) elsewhere: “the campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the charges against Chapman other than reporting them when they came to our attention.”

http://skepticalobservor.blogspot.com/2005/10/fascinating-exchange-with-harrys.html

The *** was the campaign manager for Harry Parrish. Call it a “lie,” if you want, ***, but you are the one who admitted culpability and complicity while trying to deny it.

As for you, “OPie,” I didn’t start the name-calling; you did. I merely offered you an opportunity to demonstrate that you are a man of honor, a man who keeps his word, and commented on your failure to do so after you responded with name-calling.

A man who surrenders his honor for short-term political gain says I’m “losing it”?!?!? Funny. Here, among the anonymous, the vile, and the racist, you have a receptive audience. Among the honorable? I think not.

[Ed note: comment edited.]

From “liar” to “sir” and back to “child”…

Who is “attacking now” Jimmy boy….

You’re losing it Jimmy.

I agree with you. I do not think I could vote for a muslim for public office at this time. If that is prejudiced, then I am, and without apology. When a borderless enemy kills our people in the name of Allah, then my prejudice will encompass all who worship Allah, unless they otherwise denounce these actions in both word and deed.

My mother hated ‘japs’ until the day she died. Was she prejudiced? She lived during WWII. She didn’t have the same feelings about Germans or Italians following the war, but she never forgave the Japanese. She felt they were evil.