Damn Hippies!

C'mon. Vermont Democratic Congressman Peter Welch says he opposes the War in Iraq. Over and over he says it. He said it again as recently as Friday at the Sheraton.

But a bunch of old Vermont hippies take exception to the fact Rep. Welch keeps voting for the war-funding bills that keep it chugging along. They were there in March, too. The late, great Grace Paley of Thetford was with them.

And they don't like a few other Iraq War-related votes cast by Ol'  Welchie.

Picky. picky.

That's Boots Wardinski, 64, a Newbury farmer and former Marine, being escorted out of Congressman Welch's Main Street Burlington office after closing on Monday.

Can't they just ignore the Iraq War like good citizens and wait until a new president moves into the White House in 2009?

No, they can't.

Thank god.

Comments

[ANON]

Hasn't Welch said that he won't vote to approve more funding?

[bigbadbrad]

How much more money do we need to flush down this toilet of a country? Enough is enough.

[JPC]

yes, Feyne quoted Welch as saying we need to use the purse and I'm (welch) is willing to do that. Yet he has yet to vote no a spending bill, any spending bill for that matter. So besides funding the war, Welch has no trouble increasing spending period. Can't wait for taxes to go up some more. What is surprising to me is that people still expect him to stick to his word. He is opposed to the war, yet hasn't done anything to stop it. He is opposed to funding the war and yet keeps voting yes, interestingly last time he was bought off by some money for farmers, wow that's integrity, selling the lives of soldiers for some milk money), he is all for holding Bush accountable, yet won't support impeachment. I mean if you can't figure out that this guy is liar yet then you shouldn't be participating in the election process because you are too stupid to make an informed decision. Welch, got in by playing the people on the Iraq War issue and hasn't even lived up to that single promise.

[bigbadbrad]

Nobody wastes more money and is more addicted to pork than the national GOP. That is fact.

[Carol M]

Is it true that Welch has voted for funding for Iraq other than whatever it takes to get the troops safely deployed home? Please don't just say "Yes, it's true." Include links showing justification for your statements. I have corresponded with Welch about this issue. If it is true that he has broken his pledge, he'll hear from me again in no uncertain terms. But I would like to confront him with facts.

Thanks,
Carol

[JPC]

Carol

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=51272

Here is a link to Welches voting record. You will notice he has never voted no for any spending bill including those to fund Iraq. You will also notice he voted for designating Iran a terrorist group giving justification for a military strike.

"http://www.ibrattleboro.com/article.php/200710011443592"
This link is and interesting editorial about Peter and his voting lately. Apparently he voted for the last supplemetal bill because it was only for 30 days so it doesn't count towards his no vote pledge.

Sanders apparently left Welch the playbook on how to dupe the people of VT into thinking you care about them and their opinion while still voting however you please.

[bigbadbrad]

No, actually getting religious huckleberries to piss away their economic interests by pandering to their bigotries, that's pure Karl Rove and the Far right hucksters your so fond of.

[John Burgess]

Each time I read an attack piece about Peter W. I wonder if the writer has considered what Gen. Rainville would have done had she been elected. Each time I read criticism that Peter voted to fund the troops, I wonder how any sane person can suggest that the way to end the war is to leave our men and women in this blood bath under funded and under supplied. Each time I read that Peter should have voted to impeach Bush, I wonder what planet the writer lives on. Whether or not Bush deserves to be impeached, the votes do not exist to get an impeachment conviction in the Senate. I would much rather have a right thinking Representative who faces the reality of the world as it is, rather than a member of Congress who tilts with unreal windmills.
John Burgess

[paul poirier]

I know Peter and I trust his judgemeny, as a matter of fact I propably know him politically better than most as I was the House Majority leader while Peter was the Senate leader in the 80,s and I defeated him in the democratic primary for congress in 1988.
Peter has received some excellent committee assignments and thus is expected to support the Pelosi agenda. I believe that Peter is in a position to win recognition within the democratic caucus and be a strong voice among the 80 to 90 first and second termers who went to Washington to end American entanglement in other countries problems. We should be supporting the principle of self determination rather than nation building. One can be like Bernie, a voice in the night or a voice for future leadership, l for one will buy some time with Peter.

[vermonter]

Hear, hear to Messrs. Burgess and Poirier.

[row]

Thanks Burgess and Poirier, but it's not good enough to say that there aren't enough votes to support impeachment. Sure, it's a reality, but to not hold the president accountable is just wrong on its face. You think Hillary will tow the line just because she's a Democrat, or be drunk with power knowing that anything she does won't have consequences? Our government just gets further and further from any semblance of representing people. It's a complete joke and just because Welch has plum assignments means absolutely nothing while people continue to die. There's blood on his hands as well no matter how much he stands up and whines. No, there's not much difference between Welch and Rainville. We would have Rainville who wouldn't vote our way. Instead we have Welch who says nothing can be done because there aren't enough votes. He might as well stay home.

[Brattlerouser]

John Burgess wrote

> whether or not Bush deserves to be impeached, the votes do not exist to get an impeachment conviction in the Senate.

And this is where anti-impeachers have it backwards. Go talk to former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman of New York. She was the one who served on the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate impeachment hearings. Back then members of Congress (and the media) doubted that Nixon would be brought up on charges of impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee didn't stop to ask whether or not they could really succeed; they just stood up against Nixon's blatant and obvious abuses of power because there were no other alternatives and look what happened, they succeeded. The House Judiciary Committee REALLY didn't know what the evidence was going to show, or that Nixon would resign; they only knew that preserving our system of checks and balances required a thorough investigation of his abuses of power, win or lose.

Go back and read your American history books and you'll find that the heroes in our nation's history never calculated the odds. They just did what was right. Who's to say that Congress won't turn on Bush & Cheney, especially when so many people all over America have been begging for investigations into impeachment? If efforts fail, so what. I want a Congress that will fight and fight for the preservation of our system of government. The next president will occupy the White House more powerful than ever as a result of all the changes Bush & Cheney enacted into law. How can that not concern you and why would we let that pass? Because we "supposedly" don't have the votes? Come on! If the effort to remove Bush & Cheney really does not succeed, at least we will not be found wanting to try. And so the point of my rant is to tell Mr. Burgess that like the majority of Democrats in Congress, your idea of impeachment is all backwards. The GOP really did a number on a sacred tool our Founding Fathers gave us after deposing their own king. And so instead of sullying the GOP for misusing and abusing that privelege, the Dems choose to sully the impeachment process itself. Mr. Burgess is perpetuating this misinformation and it's time to unlearn our assumptiond we all make of impeachment.

As for Paul Poirier, I (and many others) do not expect Peter Welch to adopt the Pelosi agenda. While he's certainly done some fine work in Washington, we also expect him to represent what Vermonters want (no more funding for the war and a stand on impeachment) and if he doesn't want to jeopardize his standing with Pelosi then why is he representing Vermont? Why does he put party ahead of his constituents? Who does he think he's accountable too? So he may have some great assignments on some key committees we send our leaders to Washington not to ass kiss but to raise hell. Accomodation gets you no where. Fighting the powers that be gets you places.

[vermonter]

Here we go again from Brattleman.

"Go back and read your American history . . ."

He's smarter than the rest of us on American history.

". . . we also expect him to represent what Vermonters want (no more funding for the war and a stand on impeachment). . ."

For months he's been presuming to speak for what all Vermonters want. He doesn't speak for Vermont and he doesn't speak for me.

[anonymous]

The House Judiciary Committee didn't stop to ask whether or not they could really succeed; they just stood up against Nixon's blatant and obvious abuses of power because there were no other alternatives and look what happened, they succeeded.

Actually, in the Nixon case, there was a great hue and cry about how pointless, unsuccessful, and distracting impeachment would be. But the day after Erlichman and Haldeman were tossed overboard after the first hint of Watergate was exposed (they were Nixon's co-conspirators for the break-in to Democratic Commitee office in the Watergate building - an act of spying that was so minor relative to what Bush has done with his repeated FISA violations that it seems hardly worth mentioning now - yet it was more than enough to lead to Nixon's eventual downfall), Congressman John E. Moss insisted on a committee to investigate impeachment. From Moss' obituary:

"When Moss unloaded his bombshell, he encountered only howls of derision. Most Republicans still were loyal defenders of Nixon. Most Democrats preferred a more gradual strategy to weaken the president without seeming to stage a frontal assault. They thought impeachment politically unwise and too wrenching an experience for the country.

"Talk about impeachment is nonsense," said Sen. Alan Cranston, D-Calif. Added Democrat John Tunney, California's junior senator: "We should not be talking about impeachment." House Speaker Carl Albert curtly brushed aside the proposal.

We've been hearing warmed over versions of those same lame excuses for years now. This administration is so much further out of control than Nixon's ever was. If only there were a John Moss in the current Congress...

Moss not only provided a great leadership on the issue of an out-of-control President, he showed how to REALLY oppose an unjust and futile war:

When most lawmakers still gave unqualified support to the Vietnam War, Moss drove Lyndon Johnson up the wall by traveling to Southeast Asia and meticulously exposing the corruption and futility of U.S. nation-building assistance for a Saigon regime that would never meet democratic standards.

[Brattlerouser]

I'm not intimidated by your snarky comments "Walter." It's obvious you're set in your ways and I'll say that you're quite closeminded and immature. That's not something I would expect from a DRM director. Wow.

As for the rest of you, I welcome to have an honest and engaging discussion about impeachment and how to restore its integrity in American politics.

[vermonter]

Brattleboy, people don't agree with your sophomoric and insulting and inflammatory ravings about impeachment. No matter how much you tell us we're wrong. No matter how much you "order" us to talk to former Congressman Holtzman. No matter how much you "order" us to read our American history books. No matter how much you tell us our ideas are "backwards." No matter how much you accuse the Dems of sullying things. No matter how much you accuse Mr. Burgess of "perpetating misinformation." No matter how much you presumptuously claim to speak for Vermonters. You're not smarter, wiser, or morally superior to the rest of us. Quite the contrary.

The fact that you would respond that you aren't "intimidated" by a critical blog posting reveals your self-doubt.

The fact that you are so frustrated that you resort to attempted outing reveals your immaturity.

The fact that you once again, as always, appeal to the larger group for validation reveals your insecurity.

I have been very patient with your irresponsible method of responding to criticism by attempting to out me, but enough is enough and I will be revealing your identity.

[row]

Nobody cares who you people are.

[Brattlerouser]

Whatever Vermonter. You're reading WAY to into me.

I've been waiting to have a civilized discussion and instead all of us here get snarky commons from you that have nothing to do with substance. If you disagree with impeachment, fine. But back it up with intelligent substantive comments. If you feel so strongly about impeachment pick apart my arguements with logical conclusions not drivel. You've taken way too many discussions on Frenye Land down to a LCD level and I know I'm not the only one that feels this way.

Get real and argue intelligently. PLEASE for the sake of these readers!

[Brattlerouser]

BTW, Vermonter I didn't out you. Freyne did.

[vermonter]

Whatever you say, Christian.

[anonymous]

I agree with "row" - who cares who you are? You could be Scooby-doo for all I care.

What matters is the substance of the discussion.

The founders built impeachment into the Constitution because they were aware that sometimes people disobey the law and overstep their bounds. They knew that simply writing the rules down on paper would not guarantee obeisance. Thus, they felt that the Congress needed an enforcement option above and beyond the one provided to the people via "the next election."

Having lived under despotism, the founders recognized that an awful lot of damage can be done in a very short period of time, so they made it possible to cut short the time in office of a President who was too power-hungry to obey the rules specified in the Constitution.

[Cathy Resmer]

I don't think it's a secret that Brattlerouser is Christian Avard. Right? It was on Philip Baruth's blog this summer.

[vermonter]

Yup. I saw the same pic you did.

[vermonter]

Anonymous, well said. While it sounds like you are in favor of impeachment in this instance, and I am not, I note that you were able to say your piece without calling anyone a "traitor" or "good German."

[Brattlerouser]

There is nothing wrong calling anyone a "Good German." Frank Rich of the NYT even uses it.

Traitor? That is unnecessary. Slip of the tongue on my part.

[JPC]

"Each time I read criticism that Peter voted to fund the troops, I wonder how any sane person can suggest that the way to end the war is to leave our men and women in this blood bath under funded and under supplied"

john burgess, that is exactly what that loon Welch is saying.

"I would much rather have a right thinking Representative who faces the reality of the world as it is"

you should consider voting against Welch then. Not only is he far from right thinking he is a liar.

Paul, I can't even believe your post. Promote self determination instead of nation building, Welch given great committee assignments so he has to tow Pelosi's line....Are you saying we should promote Welch because he sold out VTer's to Pelosi for better committee assignments to further his own political carear? Gimme a break.

As far as impeachment, you have to break a law to be convicted of impeachement and even then you are necessarily impeached (Clinton). I have heard Bush violated FISA, but it was the opinion of a panel of judges that he wasn't, It has been said that he misled Congress into going to war, but it is there responsibility to gather information, a good place to start would have been to actually read the intelligence report, before voting to go to war. I have heard arguments that Bush violated the constitution by suspending habeas corpus, but that too has been ruled upon and found to be legit. It has been said that Bush violated UN charter by invading Iraq, although the UN charter, clearly provides for the use of military intervention in response to repeated violations of a UN resolution, which Saddam most certainly did. If any one has any other arguments for impeachment I would love to hear them.

[Brattlerouser]

Outing Valerie Plame for one, and this may be a stretch, but reckless endangerment of human lives as a result of Hurricane Katrina and not supplying the troops with adequate protection when going to war. You can read all about these arguments in Liz Holtzman's, "The Impeachment of George W. Bush." She goes more in depth than I do.

[JPC]

Just curious, but isn't FEMA responsible for the Hurricane katrina debacle? You definition and my definition of adequate are probable not the same. I am not sure, but I doubt there is a law that says the president must provide troops with "adequate" protection. Further it is Congress who provides the funds for the Dept. of Defense, and thus provides the finances to provide troops with "adequate" protection. Wasn't it Novack that outed Plame. I think you are confusing what happens in the world as being Bush's fault. Bush, has never been indicted or convicted of anything having to do with Mrs. Plame. Nor, for negligently putting the people of New Orleans in danger. And again adequate protection, that's not really a reason for impeachment but a biased opinion. None of these allegations constitute a crime, and none are reason enough to impeach a president.

[Brattlerouser]

You really got to read her book. She puts together a real god legal arguement for those cases and it will explain it a heckuva lot better than I can. Trust me dude!

[JPC]

Seriously dude, I have no interest in reading her book. I mean I don't really care how you spin it you can not blame Bush for Katrina, nor can you hold him accountable for the armament of our troops unless he outright decided to with hold necessary equipment. As far as Plane, Bush didn't out her and it isn't an impeachable crime, otherwise Leahy wouldn't be around any longer. You can hate Bush all you want, but he has not committed an impeachable offense. Reading a left wing author 's book would be akin to me suggesting you listen to Rush more often.

[JPC]

Interestingly I decided to look the book up on Amazon, there is this review:

"This book is not so much a valid case for impeachment as it is a leftist, liberal propaganda piece that completely ignores `the rest of the story'."

Kind of what I expected, a book that promotes itself by complaining about deceit of WMD's, which is crap, FISA violations, which has also been ruled crap, by the author of the original bill no less can not truly be objective. May as well read moveon.org. Brattlerouser, you would do well to try reading unbiased sources and thinking for yourself. The "I don't really know read this lady's book, she's really smart" doesn't give you a lot of credibility on this topic.

[Brattlerouser]

JPC, I don't see it as a left or right perspective. This is a woman who served on the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment hearings and knows impeachable offenses when they occur. She is respected from people on both sides of the aisle, including John Dean and conservative scholar Bruce Fein. Her book is meticoulously researched with easy to find sources and all I'm saying is try learning from a different perspective before judging. I didn't think those were impeachable offenses myself but she does make a convincing case that Bush is responsible and I was impressed.

This is only a suggestion.

[Brattlerouser]

Sorry but I can't take an Amazon comment like that seriously. Would you? Read it for yourself. Do let others decide for you.

[Brattlerouser]

Correction.

With all due respect, DON'T let others decide for you.

[vermonter]

If we're supposed to think for ourselves, then there's no good reason for you to be on this blog frequently ranting at us that we should be in favor of impeachment, right?

[JPC]

All right brattlerouser, I will look at the book, especially to find out how she links Bush to Katrina, when lets see first you have to go through the mayor, the Governor, Fema, and thousands of other people before you get to Bush as a responsible party. I also can't wait to find out how she links Bush to the outing of Plame, If she can show that is an impeachable offense I am starting a petition to get rid of Leahy immediately.

[JPC]

"Sorry but I can't take an Amazon comment like that seriously. Would you?"

Yes in fact I do, as I said I am going to read the book, but I have a feeling I may as well save my money and read Moveon.org.

[anonymous]

...but I have a feeling I may as well save my money and read Moveon.org

Try the library. Save money and see what the book is about.

[Brattlerouser]

Vermonter I'm not ranting at everyone. I'm just expressing an opinion no different we all do here. As for Poirier and Burgess I was merely disagreeing with them. You really are reading way too much into my comments! This is getting ridicoulous. We're both pointing fingers at each other like petulant babies and embarrasing ourselves. I hoped for intelligent discussions and I guess that's not going to happen.

We're done.

[vermonter]

Christian, you say you hoped for intelligent discussions, but what what you don't seem to understand is that your inflammatory and self-righteous postings on impeachment don't INVITE intelligent discussion, only annoyance and resentment. You weren't "merely disagreeing" with Burgess and Poirier, you were scolding, lecturing, and belittling them, and the rest of us as well. You're so obviously right and everyone who disagrees with you is so obviously wrong.

You're certainly not making any converts.

[Brattlerouser]

Vermonter you are reading WAY TOO MUCH into my comments.

Drop it and let it go.

[vermonter]

Drop it and let it go? Ok. Will the same apply to you, Mr. Avard? Will you agree to spare us your ill-tempered rants and lectures against those who differ with you on impeachment?

[John A. Burgess]

It seems that the subject of sanity rather than rant from our Vermont Congress member sets off a strong reaction, much of which gets a bit personal and semi-nasty. Whatever our individual views, the good news is we are involved in the passion and concerns of our times. It seems certain that an unrestrained NSA would soon attempt to end this type of communication as a threat to our nation’s security. In fact we probably can agree that only by continuing Congress members like Peter W. in office can we assure that the extreme national security state will not prevail and shut down brisk but reasoned discourse like this.
John A. Burgess

[JPC]

"Try the library. Save money and see what the book is about."

Wouldn't want the gov't finding out what books I have been reading. It is easier to pay cash in a store and then go find a closet to read it in.

[Brattlerouser]

> Drop it and let it go? Ok. Will the same apply to you, Mr. Avard? Will you agree to spare us your ill-tempered rants and lectures against those who differ with you on impeachment?

Good-bye Vermonter.

[bigbadbrad]

Wow, Counselor, you are a incrediblely hypocritical blowhard.

"Whoa! Nobody -- absolutely nobody -- has engaged in more taunting and bullying and unfounded accusations on this blog than Brattleboy. Except for Brad. Truth."
Posted by: vermonter | Oct 9, 2007

"Wow. I rest my case folks."
What I said was quite accurate. And stop constantly seeking the approval or validation of a group. It's pathetic.
Posted by: vermonter | Oct 9, 2007 4:40:14 PM

Vermonter 4/20/07-
“To the poster "2ndVT": Hey, jerk. Who the hell do you think you are referring to Speaker Symington as "Good German Gaye?" Throwing around Nazi references just because someone doesn't do what you want is stupid, irresponsible, and outrageous. Shame on you. Now go back to your secessionist campaign.”
“Stop claiming to represent "the people." Stop telling the rest of us what to do.”

05-19-07,
To Me, unsolicited, in response to my post about Wcax’s hack crime reporter, Brian Joyce.
“Oh, boo-hoo! Brian Joyce exposed you for being a "dumb UVM kid." Whom did the Burlington cops exploit and how did they exploit them? The Burlington cops exploited the UVM kids by exposing them to be stupid and drunk? Is this what we expect of our 21 year old citizens whoim we trust with the right to vote? "Mom, he put the camera in my face when I was drunk, and embarassed me!" You're bummed that you were exposed for not being able to identify Burlington City Hall? Ha ha!
the loser dr”

Let me see if I got this right. You accuse someone of being "too big for his britches" because he goes public in defense of his client. Of course, calling someone "too big for his britches" means, "he thinks he's more important than he really is," or "he's going beyond his station in life." Sort of like calling someone an "uppity black." Then when I ask you what basis you have, you send me a link to the Constitution. Oh, I see now! How bright of you! Of course you're right! The First Amendment does give you the right to say whatever you want. Yes, it gives you the right to say things without having to explain them! Right you are!
And it also gives me the right to call you a jerk!
Thanks!
Posted by: vermonter | May 31, 2007 7:53:46 PM

Piece is spelled p-i-e-c-e
guarantee is spelled g-u-a-r-a-n-t-e-e
And "fricken," what does this mean?
Posted by: vermonter | Jun 6, 2007 11:04:13 PM

Hey, Peter: Did Shumlin give you the questions in advance to ask him? What a joke of an interview. Why don't you just admit that you're Shumlin's press secretary. Geezuz.
Posted by: vermonter | Jun 7, 2007 11:29:41 PM

Nice conspiratorial fantasy there, Roger.
Posted by: vermonter | Jun 11, 2007 5:42:57 AM

Agreed. Peter seems absolutely obsessively driven to "catch" or embarass Douglas by asking blatant questions that he would never ask of a Leftie. And he always comes up empty-handed. It wouldn't be so bad if he did the same thing, say, with Bernie. But he doesn't.
Posted by: vermonter | Jun 11, 2007 11:03:00 PM

In oddly hysterical fashion, Peter writes as if anyone who hasn't actually seen An Inconvenient Truth is somehow treasonous. Peter, I'm sure there are plenty of liberals who haven't seen it either, and plenty of people who already are concerned about global warming who don't need to see it. Some people just aren't going to see the damn movie. It isn't a litmus test and it isn't a requirement. Jesus, get the hell over it and move on. How many times are you going to write about the fact that Douglas hasn't seen it.
Posted by: vermonter | Jun 13, 2007 11:35:32 AM

Thanks to the Democratic flack-bot for giving us the programmed promo for the Dems.
Posted by: vermonter | Jun 18, 2007 6:48:00 PM

“Yeah, I've suggested to you about 15 times now Mr. thickskull Joes…..”
Posted by: vermonter | Jun 21, 2007 10:25:35 PM

“Shows what you know, and the uninformed assumptions you make.”
Posted by: vermonter | Jun 22, 2007 12:55:31 PM

Brattlerouser, I'm sure he'd appreciate the words of support, but you don't "have his back." Are you going to take a bullet for him? Are you going to go to the brig in his place? Jesus.
Posted by: vermonter | Jun 26, 2007 2:54:56 PM

"We got your back!" Ya gonna go chill wit Liam now?
Posted by: vermonter | Jun 26, 2007 9:27:14 PM

It's not that hard. Even Brattlerouser gets it.
Posted by: vermonter | Jun 26, 2007 11:01:33 PM

Yup. So you don't have to register with the Liberty Union Party to vote for that freak Peter Diamondstone, or with the "Impeach Bush Now" Party to vote for your mental pal Denny Morrisseau.
Posted by: vermonter | Jun 27, 2007 8:42:52 AM

Shows your lack of understanding. Anyone who disagrees with you about the confiscatory tax on Vt. Yankee proposed by the completely unprincipled hack Pete Shumlin, must be Mark Sheppard, huh? You need to gain some serious perspective, Mr. "Brattlerouser."
Posted by: vermonter | Jun 27, 2007 11:38:56 AM

Jeezuz, step away from your addiction to political hackery and spin for just one second in your life, will ya?
Posted by: vermonter | Jun 27, 2007 3:01:22 PM

Hey, mr mtbikevt. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Get off your bike and do some fact-checking.
And thanks for the pat on the back, Brattlerouser. Insults from a self-satisfied sophomore who speaks primarily in bumper-sticker slogans and who gives himself the laughable and presumptuous handle "brattlerouser" and who uses phrases like "Liam, we got your back"? So do you have Bratleboro in full revolt yet under your leadership? Isn't there a protest somewhere that you should be at?
Posted by: vermonter | Jun 27, 2007 4:42:08 PM

Once again, Roger makes valid points about the effects of global warming, if you can cut through his erratic, disjointed prose to figure out what he's saying, but undercuts his persuasiveness with his SHOUTING and his accusatory rhetoric.
Posted by: vermonter | Jun 29, 2007 5:08:01 PM

"The centralized interests"? They say pot makes you paranoid . . .
Posted by: vermonter | Jul 2, 2007 10:04:38 AM

And someone who calls himself "BigBadBrad" says my use of the name Vermonter is presumptuous? That's the pot calling the kettle black. At least I really am a Vermonter. Brad, are you really "big" and are you really "bad?"
Posted by: vermonter | Jul 4, 2007 12:17:47 AM

Man, you are a CLOWN!

[vermonter]

Hey Bradster, since you butted in, remember these recent words from you?

I'm sorry, was I talking to you? No, I wasn't so keep your comments to yourself. I'm not interested in anything you have to say. Unless you volunteer to go get shot at in Iraq or write a check for one trillion and have the power to make our brave armed services whole again, shut the f#ck up!!!!! I have no use for people like you. none.
Posted by: bigbadbrad | Sep 11, 2007 3:52:29 PM

[JPC]

I especially liked these :

You're an a-hole as is JPC and I'm tired of your bullshit. I don't have any use for people like you. none.
posted by: bigbadbrad | Sep 12, 2007 8:18:24 AM

Whatever, clowny. When life has kicked you in the ass and the wolves are scrathing at your door, I want to be there to see you struggle and beg for help and lament your tale of woe so I can laugh in your face and tell you to get bent. I've seen you kind a million times, you hypocrite. You Point fingers and can't wait to throw the rest of us under the bus, yet when the stuff hits the fan, you're the first one in line with your hand out. You're a joke.
Posted by: bigbadbrad | Sep 7, 2007 12:18:41 PM

[Nate Freeman]

Vermonter = Walter E. Judge of Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC?

You bring up some good points from time to time. Why not just put your name to your thoughts?

Nate Freeman

[bigbadbrad]

I stand by those statements whole heartedly. I'm not about to make and absurd statement like
"Whoa! Nobody -- absolutely nobody -- has engaged in more taunting and bullying and unfounded accusations on this blog than Brattleboy. Except for Brad. Truth." You've got some nerve. I could have listed more (and there were ALOT more), but the point is made. Good Lord, Walter! What a shmuck!

Jpc, you a whole 'nother kettle o' fish. Actually, a whole 'nother bag of dog leavings to be precise.
Good luck with getting Leahy impeached there, son. Chortle. Fight many windmills too, Don Quixote?
The information released by Leahy was not classified and it was determined there was no ethical or criminal violation. So your comparison has absolutely no merit. No, that doesn't make it right. At least Leahy was MAN enough to take responsiblity for his actions, something your draftdodging chickenhawk heros would never dream of.

[JPC]

Leahy was man enough to take responsibility? He was forced to step down, it wasn't of his own accord. Kinda like Nixon was man enough to take responsibility for Watergate.

“Leahy Asserted His Only Goal Was To Prove That The Draft ‘Was Being Held Up Because There Were Major Gaps And Other Problems With It, And Not Because Of A Desire To Embarrass The President.’ He Said He Was ‘Angry With Himself For Carelessly Allowing The Press Person To Examine The classified Information"

I suppose the reporter could be lying but it sounds to me like Leahy admitted allowing the press to see CLASSIFIED information. Sorry sadlittlebrad but your post um has absolutely no merit.

[Peter Joes]

Kinda have to wonder if Peter Freyne's decision to allow anonymity on this forum was a good one. I for one would like to ask him to reconsider. It seems like the best posts are from those that use their real names.

Also, when you consider that Peter has "outed" people before and others here are trying to do the same, you might as well only allow posts by people willing to stand behind them.

PJ

[Doug Hoffer]

If you write a letter to the newspaper (any newspaper), you are required to identify yourself. Why should the rules for a blog be any different?

If a blog becomes a forum for personal attacks among the participants, the administrator can request more civility or, if necessary, block such communications. While this may strike some as censorship, it would not stifle meaningful dialogue (however passionate), only limit discussions to issues.

That doesn't mean we couldn't complain about Jim Douglas or Bernie or anyone else. But - to the extent possible - such debates should be informed by the facts. Public officials should be required to support their statements with evidence, and we should have the same standard. It's not uncommon for some reporters to simply repeat statements from press releases without challenging the content. Sound bite battles do not educate voters and are often intended to mislead.

For some, certain issues present moral dilemmas that are inherently subjective. In such cases, people can use the blog to express themselves. But most of the issues addressed here turn on the data. We can argue about the strength or reliability of the data, but at least we will be elevating the discourse beyond sound bites and slogans.

I have no idea how many people actually read this blog (perhaps Peter can tell us), but I wonder if any of us have ever changed someone else's mind (or at least encouraged them to reconsider their positions).

It might be worthwhile for Peter to invite readers to comment on the content and tone of this blog. We know how the regulars feel, what about the others?

[Nate Freeman]

Well said, Mr. Hoffer. I tend to subscribe to the old-fashioned conventions of name usage, mutual respect, and civility.

In addition, I might add that when a person peers out from behind their cloak of assumed online anonymity, that same person may just find a surprising assumption of power by putting their thoughts alongside their name.

The expression of opinion is what we all expect as a given right. But the way some people choose to express opinion here in this forum is simply not acceptable. If you've got something to say, say it as if you were standing on the street where everyone can see you. Because frankly, the viewing public is right here watching and listening.

The invention of the blog is not without precedence when it comes to the average person's ability to speak freely in public. The primary difference is that some users do not subscribe to any authoritative code of conduct, and thereby diminish the experience for many others. In 1928 such a code was written for users of a then new medium of ham radio. Not only was The Amateur's Code intended for on-air behavior, but for off-air-real-life behavior as well (see below).

Unless someone's true intent is to simply drive away regular Freyneland readers -- in which case that person should just start up his/her own gig -- perhaps it's a good idea to review some old wisdom when it comes to communicating with people we don't know.

Respectfully submitted,

Nate Freeman

The Amateur's Code

The Radio Amateur is

CONSIDERATE...never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the pleasure of others.

LOYAL...offers loyalty, encouragement and support to other amateurs, local clubs, and the American Radio Relay League, through which Amateur Radio in the United States is represented nationally and internationally.

PROGRESSIVE...with knowledge abreast of science, a well-built and efficient station and operation above reproach.

FRIENDLY...slow and patient operating when requested; friendly advice and counsel to the beginner; kindly assistance, cooperation and consideration for the interests of others. These are the hallmarks of the amateur spirit.

BALANCED...radio is an avocation, never interfering with duties owed to family, job, school or community.

PATRIOTIC...station and skill always ready for service to country and community.

--The original Amateur's Code was written by Paul M. Segal, W9EEA, in 1928.

[Peter Buknatski]

The debate should be about THE WAR ON THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ--what Welch should do, what we all should do. This blog, Inside Track, Broadsides, and WCAX had stories on Monday's event. Welch needs to apologize to the protesters who were treated shamefully and the entire State of Vermont for adopting a Dick Cheney style when confronted by the people. That's were all the anger needs to go.

And here's a news scoop for Freyne--Al Gore will be the new Yankee manager.

Peter Buknatski
Montpelier

[Peter Buknatski]

The debate should be about THE WAR ON THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ--what Welch should do, what we all should do. This blog, Inside Track, Broadsides, and WCAX had stories on Monday's event. Welch needs to apologize to the protesters who were treated shamefully and the entire State of Vermont for adopting a Dick Cheney style when confronted by the people. That's were all the anger needs to go.

And here's a news scoop for Freyne--Al Gore will be the new Yankee manager.

Peter Buknatski
Montpelier

[vermonter]

And journalists should also pledge never to use anonymous sources.

[Doug Hoffer]

A subject worthy of discussion. However, we can only control what we do on this site.