YOUR FLY IS OPEN!
"Democrats such as Robert Byrd and John Kerry were adamant that a rules change allowing a simple majority to end a filibuster would destroy our very democracy"
As I recall, they were actually opposed to a rule change that would have prevented the filibuster altogether.
But pointing out little inconsistencies like that is poor form.
As for "The Liberal Media", I always point to this, which is the document that launched a thousand liberal blogships:
http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm
Who's Mick Wright? If you have the debate, I'll beat he's shown to be Mick Wrong.
You'll always be my moonbat, Chris.
Maybe we could have the debate at the first meeting of the Douchebag Davis Memorial Drinking Club.
Chris, I think it would be fun to see you and Mick together. It would be interesting to hear the two sides. I also think, it would be good for the "blogger" community. A BLOGGER PARTY !!!
This is Memphis! All I can say is Hair Match & no DQ!!
No DQ! Hot damn, I think I still have a metal folding chair around here somewhere....
Blogger lumberjack match!
Moonbat. Isn't that a play on the word "Moonie" or something? As in, like, "That moonbat reads the Washington Times and believes every word...."
He's taking this really seriously.
Methinks someone is jealous of Ye Pesky Fly.
Break out your can of Whip Ass and get to work, Pesky.
Smack Down on pay for view !
By the way, Mick is very soft spoken, so we will need a PA system.
Only im Memphis can you throw out hair Match, No DQ, Folding Chair and Can of Whoop-ass and get responses from very educated indivduals.
Here's my question: how do we decide who wins? Are we going to have to develop a scoring system? And if so, does Mick get points for reversing the truth since he's a conservative?
Sheesh, that would be just like the Bush vs Kerry debates.
I said it on Mick's blog and I'll say it here. I'm a registered independant - I'll moderate. Let's make this happen. I may be the only person here with a bias that leads me to disagree with the both of you.
The way to consider success is Jerry Calhoun as a referee.
I'm not running for anything, and I've got nothing to say I don't say here. I have a job, a family, a band, and now a production of Rocky Horror to tend too. For now until the day I lose my mind and decide to run for Jesus all slugfests happen vurtually, where they can be managed between important things... like peeing and taking out the trash.
Does he need to feel my heat? To smell my cheesey musk?
I'm more than happy to provide accurate measurements of my penis for anyone to measure against their own in the privacy of their own quarters. Pictures if you're over 21.
On the other hand I might do it if Dave Brown calls blow by blow, Jerry Lawler refs, and I can find a good Jimmy Hart costume.
Then how about you two (you and Mick) set up a blog that is co-edited by the both of you. The thing about a debate is that it's supposed to be neutral territory. Neither your blog, nor Mick's blog are remotely neutral. The other thing about a debate is that there is some format defining what is/isn't allowed and the scope and purpose of the discussion.
Who votes for Jesus, by the way? Just curious.
Well James, that's my point. What is there speciffically that he and I need to debate and who does said debate benefit? How does it alter the political landscape or shape our world for the better?
I have my soapbox, he has his. We discuss what we think is important when temperment and time permits. I see no merit or purpose in arranging a public contest simply because Mick has something to prove.
He's invited me to "take it outside." But I'm childish?
Good lord.
doh. Spellcheckfinger strikes again.
LOL, um, Pesky? Too much info for this delicate DC Flower? 
I have a job, a family, a band, and now a production of Rocky Horror to tend too.
It's about the money! Why didn't you just say so?
No Mr Mike, Its abouut Maslow's concept of self actualization.
Pesky has all the things of passion that make him self-actualized.
You, Mr Mike, on the other hand have mistakenly reduced everything down to money.
Yes Yusuf-- Overactualized might be more to the point. I left "I have a blog" off the list though I suppose that's a duh. Lots of big money in running TFT!
The point is that the band turns down great gigs (we were asked to play with Shooter Jennings), I turn down cool shows (Was called abut doing Oleanna), I only blog about half as much as I used to, and praise the powers that be I have a family and a job that allow me to spread my time and talent around. I've got a full and fullfilling plate. That said...
If there was any merit to a public debate-- if it promised to establish anything other than one person's bragging rights over the other-- I'd seriously consider putting aside the time to do it.
I left out "BECAUSE WE'RE ALL BUSY."
You know, you make a good point. I think we should call off all political debates. They're just about discussing political issues in a fair and open forum. There's never been any value in that. I suppose the next step is to get rid of all the debates. Just as long as our political cantidates are self-actualized then they should get the vote. It's a wonder that our political system, nay our country has survived so long with this plague of dialoge sucking out all of our actualization opportunities. I say, "Huzzah," to you sir for being willing to take a stand, "Huzzah!"
What is the debate topic?
until one can tell me one, I think the debate is for the birds.
The blog is a free-style expressive forum that the owner leads. If you dont like it, then read something else.
James this is why you're not reliable. You've taken my feelings about a specific event and perverted it into a generality tarnishing all events that share tangiential characteristics.It's completely illogical. It's like saying, "That horse is lame therefore all horses must be shot."
Debates are off? What is this?
Moderated one on one Debates can accomplish much, especially in an election cycle where we are getting to know candidates. They can accomplish more when legislators push a bill or when activists present their research to people who can create change. They are the basis for much of our legal procedure.
Two guys in a room debating just to see who makes the best case isn't even good theater because there are no real stakes involved. It's a bodybuilder's pose off. It has all the civic usefulness of a barfight.
Mike was wrong, but he was right: Where's the payoff. Not for me personally, but for anyone?
Say we have a public debate and I whip Mick's ass or he whips mine. Will an election turn? Will a fetus go unaborted? Will the sky get cleaner? Will people jump parties? Will my site have more or less traffic? Will Mick's? No. Hell no.
Let me just say that if Pesky loses the debate and has to shave his head, I'm off this blog.
Nah, that's why I'll be in the corner with chains and a folding chair.
Not that he needs them, mind you.
Thank you for pointing out the lack of logic in my previous comment. I agree that there is very little logic in reasoning from one specific to a generalization - inductive reasoning requires many specifics from which to draw a conclusion.
I must apologize for not making my attempt at humor more clear. I assumed that it was obvious - I guess it was not.
So here is my serious attempt to make the point I failed to make through humor:
Our country is founded on and continues to benefit from open dialogue between opposing views. From the 18th century pubs where our founding fathers developed the ideas that led to the Revolution down to the Starbucks where students re-hash the topic from their poli-sci class. One of the things that makes the United States different from other countries is that not only are we free to speak our minds, but we actively engage in discussion with others of opposing views. We all benefit from the hearing of a well though out argument or rebuttal.
Will and election turn on the outcome of a debate between you and Mick? Probably not. But will someone re-think their position on abortion after hearing both sides of the discussion clearly articulated? Maybe. And isn't our political system fundamentally based on the hearing of and judging between different views?
If you debate Mick, you may not receive any tangible benefit. But by refusing to engage in a congenial, public debate you do impoverish the community.
It seems to me that you are unwilling to even entertain the idea of debating Mick. Though you dissemble by offering conditions under which you might debate, the truth is that you are merely offering excuses. The conditions that you set will never be met, because you can continue to shift the definition of "benefit" to suit your own purposes.
There is a limited benefit to isolated blogs where highly polarized opinions can be shared and supported. But the true benefit lies in the dialogue. I will miss your comments on Mick's blog since you have refused a debate. Too bad.
Again. That's what blogs are for. You're in favor of a usless redundancy.
If I had the time or desire to engage in live public debate i would run for office. Since i don't have that desire, i blog.
Should my schedule ever relent, and such a debate could be scheduled around a specific event, election, or piece of legislation, etc. and there could be some assurance that said debate could have a meaningful impact on such, then I would happily take on you, Mick, Mike, and whoever you want to add to your team with the left half of my brain tied behind my back. As it happens, I have to schedule my bathroom breaks at the moment.
I should point out that this blog is fairly well read by members of the media and local civic leaders, so I believe it has an impact. If I didn't, I would close up shop and spend the little free time I have finishing my novel, writing a new play, or just looking at my family and swelling with pride.
This is the debate James. Right here, and right now. I don't know what you crybabies are crying about.
I think that you are under estimating just how much some of us would like to see you get your ass kicked (verbally speaking) I would take off work, and pay to see such an event. The kicker, I am a card carrying Democrat. I wish certain fractions of the party would just "go away" because they are "in the way."
Well Anna, it's time for you to disappear
"It's time for you to disappear"
Really? That's your comeback?
Huh?
Good call on turning down the debate. I formally recant all my previous prodding. A debate would be ill advised, poorly attended, and accomplish little.
So, the debate is here and now? That's interesting, because I have yet to see any real addressing of the issues, nor any open, respectful dialogue over the issues. Silly me, I thought that was what characterized a debate.
Pardon me whilst I cry about it.
Commenting by HaloScan
