Meadors versus Bryant

And which branch did you serve in? I cant seem to find it any ware in your post.

You are certainbly entitled to your opinion.My opinion is that Mr. Preston didn't have the balls to risk anything when he was at a risking age, and shouldn't be allowed to build his resume in this way.His value is notof a military nature. He helps Stan Spears and other cronies get things done for the Guard by his adminsitrative and political connections. And that's fine, but it isn't of any service to the state of South Carolina. It's of service tohimself, his ego and his friends.
Besides, I have seen State Guard units of less than ten men who couldn't dress a rank or file. Some of these guys are vets,and that is where their honmor is due. More of thse guys are Preston types who think the uniform is cool as long as their is no risk attached to wearing it.I will agree with you on one thing, however.If it gets to the point where the state guard is of service, we certainly are in an emergency.

Every level of military service you mentioned in your most gracious respo9nse had more training and faced moredanger than Joey PReston. Get out among the veterans in this county, of any era, and ask them what they think of Preston's politically oriented attempt to grow a pair twenty years too late.And I don't fuind Preston's sefice tohis country diststeful.I find it non-existent. As for spending the winter in the Ardennes, I spent as much time there as you did, Mr. SSHM.And if your granddaddy was there,bless him and I hope he isn't still here to watch you defend this popinjay's strutting efforts to align himself with ther military. BTW, I am an honorably discharged officer from the U.S. Army. So feel free to kiss my military ass, sir.

Mr Clampet,
Please learn to read; no one tried to tie JP to KB. The point was that KB has committed political suicide by being such a (dead) horse's mouth. His mistake was to have involved himself in another campaign. Anyone with any political sense knows that this is the first rule of politics; never step into anyone else's political manure. Celebrate now, and continue to degrade women.

There are women with brains all over Anderson who will be lining up against KB and his friends in the insurance lobby business--just look at the July 10 financial reports--to support his opponent.

Incidentally,Kevin has no need for Joey Preston to weigh him down; his own thintelligence has done that for him quite sufficiently.

Nonetheless, we thank you for your comments Jed.

Mr. “Box of Rocks” Clampett,
Are you kidding me? “Dumbr’n a box of rocks,” is the term you employed, if I can read abominations of the English language. Talk about a good guffaw (look it up): I have never come across a more self-reflexive comment in my entire life. Allow me to explain. Don’t worry, I have no illusions whatsoever as to whether you will get the point.
Apparently your “comprehension” of “simple English” is not quite as sophisticated as it may seem; you may look into working on your understanding (synonym of “comprehension”) of the uses of punctuation as well. What Woman With a Brain did is to make a comparison, which is far from “tying Joey Preston around Kevin Bryant’s neck”. Her claim was that they were similarly “arrogant” and—perhaps a bit redundantly—“in your face”. It definitively was not that they are inextricably linked in some way, as you so EMPHATICALLY imply.
As to your second point: what in the heck was that all about? (For your future edification, “commited” has 2 t’s.) I believe that her point there was rather metaphorical; Bryant has committed (notice the 2nd t?) “political suicide”. She did not claim that the man was actually dead. And, what is this talk of ‘suspects’? What on earth could you have been trying to imply by employing that term? I am sure that WWAB would be proud to be not only the “suspect” but the actually “executor” of the (dis)Honorable Sen. Bryant’s political career. Alas, I digress; what I originally intended to suggest here is that you look up the term non sequitur.

To clear up yet another misunderstanding, WWAB did not claim that politicians did not involve themselves in other’s races; what she said is that it was best not to step into another’s “political manure”. Do you follow? If I recall, Mr. Bryant never issued a “formal” endorsement in the race to which you are clearly referring; the Waldrep/MacKay race. Astute man that you are, Bob Waldrep did, indeed, win that smear campaign, pardon race. The political safety of Bryant’s involvement in the undignified campaign run by Waldrep and his handlers—Ms. Wilson, Mr. Harver, Mr. Nut Driver, and Mr. Wanna Be a Newspaper Hack, to name a few—remains to be seen. Moreover, what is this about “LEGALITY”: see non sequitur.
So while you suggest that WWAB get a new screen name, allow me to suggest that you get a rudimentary education, before you spread your rocks any further than you already have on this site.
As to your denial that the evil conspiracy perpetrated upon us by the insurance companies—need I point out the non sequitur involved in your 4th point—has nothing to do with Mr. Bryant personally, that too remains to be seen. I would suggest that everyone scour the Senator’s July 10 financial report. What do you think the odds are that there will be a number of prominent members of the INSURANCE industry listed on that report? Also, beware of innocuous sounding PAC names. For example, “The Committee for Insurance Reform and Fairness for All South Carolinians”; it recalls one to the euphemistic name of Tommy Moore’s newest attempt to scam the public he so valiantly served, “The Community Financial Services Association of America”.
To conclude, allow me to suggest that if you spent half as much time learning about your “under 21” driver’s friends as you do spewing your half-baked “ideas” on this forum, you may not be paying that extra insurance premium. Just a suggestion.

Well done, Jack. Quite an impressive post; kudos.

I also find it interesting that people keep crying for smaller government, when they will probably be lost if government were smaller. As a conservative, I'm usually a proponent of a medium-to-large-sized government.

Jack,
SCOTUS=Supreme Court of the United States, as you guessed.

The most important aspect to be included under you numeral "7" is a program of "rehabilitation" rather than simply the retributive system of "justice" currently practiced in this country. There is a lot of talk given to the former notion, a properly Christian approach for all of you lock'em up and throw away the key fundamentalists out there, but there is no money to back it up. What is the predictable result? How about recidivism rates running over 1/3, and largely for offenders who were initially non-violent but quickly learned to be so in prison. Indeed, many are small-time drug dealers when they enter prison. When they are paroled they are professionals in any number of criminal categories. Thank God for the war on drugs.

As to immigration, the confounding question is this: How many people reading this blog are really Americans? I would wager that the number is very few, since good old manifest destiny, along with other historical and political expediencies led to the extermination--or, perhaps we can just call it what it is, genocide--of the vast majority of "true" Americans. The rest of us are no more than mutts who ought to be damn glad that there was a place like America to which our great-great-grandparents, and great-grandparents could flee in search of a better life for themselves and their families.

As for the ubiquitous notion of immigrants as lazy; that is so stupid as to no even require rebuttal. Moreover, fantastic amounts of wages earned by "illegal aliens" are returned to their country of origin. Why? So that they improve the lives of their families (have you every been South of the Border? The poverty is shocking. So, is the fantastic friendliness of 90% of the populations) and ultimately can pay "coyotes" so in the hopes that their family members can join them here, where at least there is hope. As for the further notion that immigrant communities are responsible for disproportionate amounts of crime, the facts simply do not back that prejudice up. Moreover, people who spend 10-15 hours a day doing back-breaking work that lazy, entitled Americans will not do, just do not have a lot of energy to mug old ladies or spend their remaining hours on the corner selling drugs: not that there are not exceptions. One thing is for sure, if it were not for immigrants, largely from South of the Border, we may not have such a fantastically appalling obesity rate; because food would rot on the vine from sea to shining sea.

Jack, thank you for the interjection of common sense. I would imagine that we would share a similar definition of what the word "Liberal" means. For my part, borrowing from political philosopher Judith Sklar, a "Liberal" is a person who would like to reduce the amount of suffering in the world and increase the amount of justice. Anyone every seen that great sticker: "Jesus would have been a Liberal!"? It is not until Paul begins his attempt to institutionalize this revolutionary's teachings that things take on a hint of cruelty. Actually, I guess, it is really when the Jew-hating, baiting, drunk driver Mel Gibson alluring "Gospel" of John that the NT becomes somewhat questionable in terms of being in the spirit of Christ. I guess that many will throw stones at me for noting my fascination that it took the better part of 4 centuries before the NT came to be "canonized," i.e., became accepted as the "semi-official" collection of books that would comprise the basis of Christian Theology. Though, in point of fact, the Roman Catholic Church did not "officially" accept the 27 books of the New Testament until over 1,000 years later, in 1546 at the Council of Trent, and for Protestants that moment came only 101 years later. Thus it is that indulge my love of digression. (It seems that Revelations proved problematic for some of the more Christian Christians. But that is a whole different theological can of worms)

The Old Testament God, the God so akin to those of the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, and others, who is retributive, capricious, and makes cruel pacts with the future-Satan (recall Job?), visiting cruelties upon his ever-faithful servant following which he does not apologize and thank him, but accosts him verbally, just because he can "shoot arrows into the Leviathan's nose" where as poor old Job is just a weakling, this is the God that seems to have been imprinted into the minds and hearts of the current generation of "theocons."

How did we get here? I must admit that I have no clue, but I did have fun. Thus, at least I improved my life for 10 minutes. I guess that one suggestion could be made: read the Gospels. Jesus himself never utters a hateful word, unless you count his cursing of a bare fig tree and his justifiable anger at the money changers in the temple. Alas, I am not Christ. So, I will continue to rage against stupidity, money changers, and fig trees. It's as close as I can come, original sin and all. Digression terminated.

Kevin,

Don't you have a ribbon cutting to go to in Powdersville this morning at Dolly Cooper Park convenience center? You remember, the Powdersville Community Park and Convenvience Center that Dan Cooper got state funding for only to have you support Mark Sanford's veto of the money. Thank God Cooper trumps you in Columbia.