Apparently, this is not a broad, neutral, city-wide or regional blog. This proves it. To those of us who are independent voters who vote both ways, we realize we cannot count on this website for all of the truth or the facts.

The Democratic victory (regardless of how little it was that even Claire McCaskill recognized) is attributable to Republican corruption, not Bush administration corruption. There is a big difference. Harry Reid still must acknowledge or deny the corruption charges against him.

This was a sweep, but remember the Republicans not long ago enjoyed a sweep too. How long before the patronage and favoritism corruption of the Democratic Party will emerge is anyone's guess.

Has everyone forgotten how involved in Muslim Bosnia Clinton had us involved? Neither party offers the voters, the taxpayers, or the citizens any guarantee of integrity and selfless service. History repeats itself.

Thank goodness a message was sent to the Republicans. Let's see if the Democrats got the same message?!

whatever helen, we all know you as a school board nut, didn't know you were a Republican!
The claims against Harry Reid are bogus and tantamount to Rush Limbaugh's spittle.

In case you forgot, we won in bosnia, in less time we have been in iraq, with, get this, zero troops KIA...
go sell crazy someplace else, cause nobody is buying here.

===not Bush administration corruption

What's the difference? Have you payed any attention to Abramoff buying off Safavian and the only beginning of the scandal in the Interior Department? Did you notice who Rove's assistant was?

There's denial and then there's denial, but this administration is one of the most corrupt in history. And we aren't talking about small time crap or hysterical looniness revolving around the conspiracy theories in the Clinton Administration. We are talking about rank corruption including war profiteering, covering up the corruption by lying about contacts with Abramoff, firing anyone who attempts to bring light to the abuses, and then simply rewriting the law when the President feels like it.

That's corruption.

Per usual, your babblings are incoherent. Are you trying to compare the genocide that was about to break into a war across Europe to a war against a country that was contained?

On top of that, Clinton actually sent the right kind of force to pull off the mission.

If you care to explain what Harry Reid did that was illegal I'd love to hear it. Solomon couldn't do it and he's written three stories on the land transaction and none of it shows any illegal behavior or any attempt to conceal the transactions. So what is the corruption?

Well, you two prove my contention even more so. And, no, Southsider, I'm not a Republican. Grew up in a sound, working-class, union-card toting Democrat family only to become an independent. Although I do have to admit an ancestor of mine did help to start the Republican Party in Illinois as an abolitionist and Lincoln law partner and friend. Yep, we were for civil rights even back then. So that's my only tie with the Grand Ole Party. Name calling is all you can do when you disagree with someone. And I never listen to the Rush either. So whatever spittle (somewhat like yours) that he's spewing, I'm unaware of.

You go, girl. The Southsider is always rude and crude. Let's hope he has something to wipe his lower lip with from all that spittle he's so famous for spewing around. Oh, Helen, he's nothing but a city hall crony. So don't expect much out of him. Workers in city hall talk all the time about how corrupt it is, and guess what party's in charge.

Thanks also goes to you too Brian! You were everywhere trying to get all Progressives, whether they be registered Dems or Populist Indies out to vote. I think you can claim again this cycle that we pulled everyone out to vote that wanted to vote and more than just a few that did not want to. A BIG THANK YOU for all your hard work!

In my opinion this Paper and this Blog is Progressive by nature and really does not try to hid it. If true Indies vote the way they claim to they must see by now that the Democratic Party in this State is a better fit for them with their sacred vote than the MO Repugnicans.

===Well, you two prove my contention even more so.

What contention? That you live in the same fictional world as this administration?

Read what Norm Ornstein has been writing for the last 4 years--his book with Mann lays out exactly how the corruption under the Republican Congress is different from anything we've ever seen before. This garbage about how everyone is just as corrupt is another fantasy concocted for those who have to continue their fantasy that all is well.

Comparing regular levels of corruption in the late 80s and early 90s to a systemized institutionalization of corruption that has occurred under the K Street Project for the last 12 years is a convenient talking point for the enablers of this administration and Congress, but it bears no resemblance to reality.

Comparing the lies and outright subversion of the Constitution under this administration to stupid personal behavior of Bill Clinton demonstrates just how far you will go to lie to yourself.

Comparing Iraq to Bosnia doesn't even make sense.

But then just asserting that someone pointing out how clueless you are proves your point is exactly what everyone has come to expect of you Helen. You are a clueless old bitter woman who couldn't think her way out of a paper bag.

And this is supposed to be a "progressive" blog? Hmmmm! Let's see, name calling, false assumptions, insults, nastiness...If that qualifies for "progressive," then we're all in trouble. Larry, did you realize some refer to you as the "Obesepundit" as opposed to the "Archpundit?" So you are not alone in projecting assumptions on others. Some project them on you as well. You're right up there with the ilk of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. No one will accuse you of being "a gentleman and a scholar."

Well, Dave and Lucas, so much for civil discussion and debate. Not much can be educationally or instructively gained here. Maybe that's why there has been such a decrease of postings on the Arch City Chronicle lately--the bullies took over. Such meanspiritedness will run your more intelligent and engaged bloggers away.

H.Louise have you ever checked out blogs on both sides of the ideological spectrum? From The Source right here in bible belt--separation of church and state no longer--Missouri. Or firedupmissouri. No blog is truly independent. Name me one. Things that make you go hmmm. My advice, take a valium, have a glass of red wine by the fire and pray for those families whose kids are dying in Iraq for the Blackstone Group's profit of defense stocks run by 42 and George Schulz, etc. Name calling is high schoolish, so is politics, but so is making money on the back of the middle class or any class. By the way, even your independent friends would admit that the people who were running our country before last Tuesday, were simply trying to strangle the middle class TO DEATH! Have a nice evening.

Bubba, not only my independent friends, but I felt that way too, which is why I voted the way I did. My middle class sister and brother-in-law went from mid-middle class to almost destitute in no time flat. Two minimum wage paying jobs after earning $70,000/yr. could hardly keep them afloat when one was seriously stricken with a life-threatening situation and almost died and later the other was stricken and did die. Believe me, I was for raising the minimum wage and other drastic changes. But if someone has a view other than mine, I don't think it calls for insults, name calling, false assumptions, etc.

I'll have that glass of wine, and I do pray for those families in Iraq, since one nephew has been sent there several times and friends' sons are there right now. But a couple of men on this blog might take note of recent news that American men are low on testosterone, which may account for some shrill responses typical more of women suffering from hysteria than from "calm, cool, and collected" men.

Thanks for the civil and substantive response. Just remember though, the name of this blog connotes city, area, and regional views; and they do vary. This is not called a political position blog. But then, maybe it really is.

Hey guys, maybe HL has a point. Have you seen the Meathead's (AP) photo in the Vital Voice? Looks to me like he may have a bit too much estrogen in the system. And, who knows, maybe being in the Vital Voice is because he does have more estrogen than testosterone! Just a thought. But I got to tell you, his shrill responses, as HL so aptly notes, go over the top, if you ask me. And who was the singer that sang, "That ain't no way to treat a woman, no way?" Men who are comfortable in their skin don't normally go there.

And, oh Bubba, you say "take a valium." Puhleeez! How sexist can you get, man?? But then with a moniker like "Bubba," maybe that good ole mountain dew retards the progress out of progressive! You guys claim to be progressive except when it comes to women. How retro! Retrograde, that is. Remember, this is the 21st Century. Me thinks other progressives would be embarrassed by the disconnect between your claims and your actions.

Helen,

Archpundit demonstrated that that you didn't know what you were talking about, then called you clueless. Rather than actually rebut him, you go straight to calling him names.

Shame on you.

Clark sez who? Who would even try to rebut a nasty name caller like him? Take off your blinders and read above from where you somehow got stuck. There is no discussion or debate with a pit bull bully. Why even try?

Ebony, take off your blinders.

Again, Archpundit took apart what Helen said, point by point. Then he said she was clueless, which he had just demonstrated by his argument. Helen's response? "Oh yeah, well... you're fat!"

Clark, read or parse her sentence again. "Larry, did you realize 'some refer to you as the Obesepundit' as opposed to the "Archpundit?" Not quite like his "old bitter woman" remark. She responded to his closing comment. Once someone says such ugly things about another, there is no practical purpose in discussing or debating with him. She was savvy enough to know any substantial response would be futile with such a person.

You don't read this blog very much, do you?

What's important is that you read carefully and accurately what is said in the blogs and not project silly or ugly traits on others.

Clark, give it up. Like some of the above have said, the bullies don't deserve any defense from the likes of you. They're disrespectful and so full of themselves.

By the way, where are you other women who see through these impotent guys?

What I'm saying is that Helen has long history on this blog of making absurd arguments, then attacking viciously those who point out her absurdities. Like on this thread.

Oh come on, Clark, Helen vicious and attacking people? I may not have posted but I have read, and there is absolutely no truth to your comment. The Southsider is vicious and so is AP.

Are you really the ArchPundit in drag, I mean, disugise?

I'm talking about her past behavior in comments at this blog.

Proof, Clark. The archives are on the side. Bring up something with date and time that we can all check to prove your point, and I assure you we can bring up a lot more on The Southsider and the AP.

Well two seconds of Googling "Helen Louse" site:archcitychronicle.com got me the following exchange:

Tina,

I stood outside the 25th ward all day Tuesday saw only three union members vote.

When people are unhappy with the outcome, they do whatever they can to explain it away or to dismiss it. Like Ray Hartmann said last night on Donnybrook, "It's a democracy, and the people spoke."

Posted by Helen Louise on Fri., Apr 7, 2006 at 12:47 PM
"When people are unhappy with the outcome, they do whatever they can to explain it away or to dismiss it."

Apart from proselytizing for your candidates, Helen Louise, I don't understand why you read and contribute to this blog and other political blogs if the above is your view of attempts to analyze Tuesday's election.

There are a dozen or more wide-ranging implications of Tuesday's vote. Here are just a few:

1. Does it reflect voters' disaffection with the mayor, since he was the single most prominent supporter of Clinkscale/Buford? Maybe this (and ABCD's) failure will embolden someone to construct a primary challenge to Mayor Slay during this term instead of waiting to see if he'll seek a third term.

2. Was the "air war" strategy employed by Clinkscale/Buford (big name endorsements, lots of mail and media advertising) bested by Downs/Jones "ground war" (grass roots, highly motivated constituencies) strategy, or were other forces (race, special interests, low turnout) at work?

3. Why, despite all the advertising and agitation, was turnout so low? Were voters expressing their frustration and disgust at the incumbent board's actions or at the constant negative media coverage?

Maybe it's because voters who don't have kids in the schools don't feel qualified to vote in these races (despite their enormous contributions to the schools through property taxes and the huge role the schools play in helping retain young families). I know I had several voters in the 16th Ward throw back in my face the fact that I did not have kids in the schools and that I wasn't an SLPS grad, yet I was supporting a candidate. How widespread is that view?

4. What role did race play? Both campaigns scrupulously played the race game (which endorsements are distributed in which neighborhoods, what mail goes where). How did it benefit (if at all) the winning slate, or hurt the losing?

5. What role did the union play? With 2000+ members (not all city voters, and not all D/J supporters), plus spouses and friends, they must have been the largest, single group motivated for D/J. Quite a feather in their cap if they can demonstrate that their influence carried the day in this election.

Anyway, Helen Louise, part of this city's problem is a lack of insightful, fact-based political analysis. Sentiments like "It's a democracy, and the people spoke" won't help to change that.

Posted by Joe Hodes on Fri., Apr 7, 2006 at 1:39 PM
Well, Joe, I guess as a free citizen of a free republic, I feel as free as anyone else to contribute my thoughts and perceptions regardless of how they are received.

What a dull blog this would be if no genuine discussion or debate occurred. And now I think part of this city's problem is that some "know-it-alls" can't tolerate a diversity of views.

Yes, Massa, them thar's me views!

Posted by Helen Louise on Fri., Apr 7, 2006 at 1:48 PM

That's from www.archcitychronicle.com/archives/001566.php, if you care to look at the context.

Arch Pundit, you are a bright, well-read fellow who is passionate in his beliefs, but I have read many of your responses to people who don't agree with you, and they almost always include ad hominem attacks. As you make your arguments you usually point out that anyone who disagrees clearly must be just too stupid for words--although you do manage to find words, like "babbling," "clueless," "garbage," or "bitter old woman."

Face to face you're really not a bad guy, and maybe people who don't agree with you could actually learn something from you--or you from them--if you just didn't go so far out of your way to be cruel and condescending.

Clark, I read it. She wasn't vicious in the least. She stated her opinion and statistics from the election and held her own. When she was being pushed against the wall, she said, "Yes, Massa, them thar's me views!" to infer she had as much right as anyone else to express her views. There too she was being asked why she even contributed to this blog.

It appears some here just don't like diverse opinions or opposing opinions. She didn't call anyone names like "nut" or "old bitter someone."

Clark, are you unable to deal with opinions that don't square with your's? She didn't even call someone "clueless."

Well, Paul, replace "being pushed against the wall" with "being questioned on specifics". She offered her opinion, people questioned her on the substance, and she couldn't respond. She could only offer to shut down debate. Just like in this thread.

I'd still love for her to respond to ArchPundit on substance, rather than comparing him to Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or calling him ObesePundit.

I'm also wondering what drag has to do with anything? Is that some sort of anti-gay innuendo aimed at ArchPundit because he writes a column for the Vital Voice?

Clark, Hodes was answering his own questions.

ArchPundit: "You are a clueless old bitter woman who couldn't think her way out of a paper bag." Clark, no one owes any response to such tripe. That's why he is compared to Coulter and Limbaugh. They both demean and ridicule people just like, what someone above called him? The "Meathead."

Well, Clark, I'm out of here. Your attacks are getting a bit boring. Deal with Corolla for a while. He or she summed it up pretty well.

If someone can demean someone's age and gender with old and bitter and lady, everyone is fair game, even gays. Thank your local ArchPundit for bringing discrimination in.

Clark, it is possible, you know, to question someone's argument without calling them "clueless." Why can't you separate the opinion from the person?

How can you criticize Helen Louise for comparing Pundit to Limbaugh or Ann Coulter--or even calling him Obese Pundit--after he called her a "clueless old bitter woman who couldn't think her way out of a paper bag"?

I used to read some of these blogs just to get different perspectives. We don't learn anything if we just talk to people who agree with us, but apparently some of the people here are so brilliant that they can afford to be vicious, arrogant and condescending to everyone who disagrees with them.

I just hope none of you are parents or teachers. Ridicule isn't a great way to stimulate discussion or provide good learning experiences.

And where is our great Buddha-shaped ArchPundit? He opened a can of worms with crass, demeaning, belittling insults beneath any intelligent and decent person and then some others started calling him names, and now he's disappeared from the scene. Don't you love the bullies who dish it out but can't take it?

ENOUGH!!

In my most humble opinion, this election was almost entirely about the war. Corruption is as corruption does. If Mr. Wahby or anyone else thinks that this is a mandate to do the same old thing in Washington, Jeff City or City Hall then... What are you going to do to get us out of this war? Like it or not you have accepted this onerous task.

Then you can carry on with the corruption as usual.

Now, back to your witty banter.....

Paul, who is gay? How is that relevant? AP is not discriminating against old people; he's discriminating against clueless people, which is not discrimination at all.

I love how Paul slides in, throws a slur, and pretends to be defending civility, then runs away when he is "attacked".

Final comment: Helen was first challenged on SUBSTANCE by ArchPundit, without insult. She responded with a non sequitur about her family's history and a comment that ArchPundit was no different than his conservative counterparts. Perhaps ArchPundit was a little mean in his response, but I've seen Helen lecture ArchPundit that he shouldn't call Obama African-American, for example (despite the fact that Obama refers to himself as African-American). She's a frustrating person to talk to.

Besides, what AP said is true. I've seen no evidence Helen Louise can think her way out of a bag. If she could coherently respond to AP's contentions, point by point, I'd change my mind.

H. Louise I appreciate and relish our civil discourse and respectful differing of opinions. If more opinions were shared like this we would have less negativity in all walks of life. Lester, EASSSSY brother. Sounds like you have some serious pent up aggressions and anger. Dude, you are going to correlate a specific drug brand with gender bashing? In your words phuleeeez. Your type of vitriol and hate mongering puts your ideological bent in the corner. No one wants to play with that angry kid, errrrrr you, who is always looking to bully and pick a fight on the playground. You need to pop a Paxil and chill my man.
==Me thinks....disconnect between actions and ...what the heck did you say. That has to be the most disconjuncted undefinable babble I have ever seen on a blog. You are just venting raw anger dude with no coherent thought. CHILL.

You all have way to much time on your hands if you can spend it attacking each other over and over again.
Opinions are one thing but you will not change some people's minds even with facts this adminastation in Wash. proves that.

Spelling is not my stong suit, before 9am

Clark, she responded to the assumptions of The Southsider.

I agree with someone else. You are the AP and seem to think your voice is the only one read or noticed on this blog. That's what happens when someone becomes so full of himself. Your comments are more revealing than you care to wish. AP go back to your website.

Nope. I'm not AP.

Hey folks, this is too comical. Think about it. Clark Kent changes his clothes, and he becomes Superman. Larry Handlin, AKA ArchPundit, who considers himself the superman of pundits and of the Democratic Party changes his clothes, and he becomes Clark here.

What a genius Larry is. He may be nasty, rude, crude, you name it, but you have to give him credit for being a genius when he changes his blogging clothes?just the reverse of Kent/Superman?Superman/Clark.

Thanks Matt.

I am Spartacus.

No, I am Spartacus.

We are all Spartacus.
Are the voices in my head bother you?
Tee-hee, you guys are being silly.

ROB-you and I have posted the same amount of times dude. I agree though this tit for tat stuff is amusing. I had to go one more post for this one.

http://www.archcitychronicle.com/archives/001636.php
Southsider is in true form, just as blind and pigheaded as always.

http://www.archcitychronicle.com/archives/001566.php
Yes, Massa, them thar's me views!

Pretty typical as is this exchange with her:
http://www.archcitychronicle.com/archives/001233.php

She's an expert at making up crap and then talking about her family, her independence and anything, but the accuracy of what she claims.

She's a concern troll. She defends creationism, is happily anti-gay, and

She gives as much as she gets. The chorus whining about how mean people are to her is hysterical, but more to the point, aids her in her attempt to avoid actually dealing with facts. So if you want to continue to have her make up stuff and then refuse to engage in discussion by talking about Lincoln or whatever is the diversion de jure, go ahead.

She's not rational, she's not coherent, and she's not a serious person. Her belief in creationism is only the tip of the iceberg. At some point one has to live in reality, not a made up world of diversion and fundamentalism.

Every time she shows up and someone calls her on it a series of concern trolls show up when she's called on making things up. It's too bad they don't show up when she's making things up.

So, does anyone have a substantive discussion or is this going to continue to devolve into meta discussion about who is nice and who isn't?

I didn't think so.

===She was savvy enough to know any substantial response would be futile with such a person.

So a person challenges her on several issues substantively and a substantive response would be futile?

Perhaps she can talk about how Barack Obama should identify racially differently than he does because she thinks so.

Will somebody give that caped man a shot of testosterone. The estrogen level is just too much. Now whose blog is this supposed to be? The Progressives? Go think. The AP must love those cat fights. Guess women aren't the only ones to engage in them.

Bring out your bigots!

And now for a brief word from our sponsor, Spew Hate, Ignore Spittle, Spew Hate, Spew Hate for Them Who Aren?t Us.

Just remember, if you ever need something to wipe either upper or lower lip from all the spittle you spew after ranting and raving, we have just the thing for you. It?s a nice soft cloth with embroidered initials, SHIS, for Spew Hate, Ignore Spittle. You?ll love it because it is smooth and soft and very absorbent for large quantities of spittle.

After this friendly and civil discourse, we would like to offer the ArchPundit a free package in acknowledgment of his yeoman efforts to promote the need for our product. This same offer is being made to Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh to show we are non-partisan.

Now, back to the program. Don?t forget, Spew Hate, Ignore Spittle, Spew Hate, Spew Hate for Them Who Aren?t Us.

Keep it up Helen--care to respond substantively?

It is not like me to start a rumor, but it seems to me this is more evidence on the power of Uzbekistan to make chaos or some kind of pre-sexual congress ritual, perhaps both.

You say, "Bring out your bigots! There isn't room for any more bigots on this page because the biggest one has presented himself and splattered himself all up and down the blog. AP, just take a look in the mirror. Any objective person on either side of the line can recognize the bigotry behind your name calling and selective readings. You really hate a majority of religious people evidently. The ACC hasn't seen so much bias in a long time.

How do I hate a majority of religious people?

Howard- does "pre-sexual congress" mean that the Democrats have not yet taken power?

AP- a wise person once stated; that it should not take you long, whilst wrestling with a pig in the mud, to realize that the pig is in it just to wrestle in the mud.

And now a 'matta' comment- does anyone know how to get us out of Iraq?

Advice for AP: "Take time out to regain your emotional control. Wait until you are calm before you engage in confrontation."

Quoted from Gary Smalley in "The Richest Man Who Ever Lived" written by Steven K Scott.

AP, you appear too out of control, nasty, and belligerant. You blew your cool and your credibility too. You're the loser here. Many will now remember just how ugly you can get.

Southsider said to Helen: "...didn't know you were a Republican!"

Helen said to Southsider: "I'm not a Republican. Grew up in a sound, working-class, union-card toting Democrat family only to become an independent. Although I do have to admit an ancestor of mine did help to start the Republican Party in Illinois as an abolitionist and Lincoln law partner and friend. Yep, we were for civil rights even back then. So that's my only tie with the Grand Ole Party. Name calling is all you can do when you disagree with someone."

ArchPundit, I have read through these many postings. She was accused of being Republican. She responded as to why she isn't one. Her response was to the one who accused her. So why did you and your alter ego Clark make such a deal out of her responding to the accusation?

You stated at the very beginning: "You are a clueless old bitter woman who couldn't think her way out of a paper bag."

Have you met her and do you know her personally enough to determine that she is old, that she is bitter, etc.?

Not many would respond to your tirade that is as extreme and as ridiculously insulting as they come. Thanks to this blog, it is evident your opinion is not to be either respected or trusted. You have some serious issues man. Do you have a mother or sister that you hate and take it out on other women?

How many men do you think you would grovel at like this? If Claire read what you've been writing, she would want nothing to do with you either. You give the rest of us a bad name.

===AP, you appear too out of control, nasty, and belligerant

Don't forget I hate the majority of religious people, I'm feminine, I'm fat, and I have a lot of spittle.

And I hate women.

This is addressed to all of you, but not to Larry Handlin. I have learned that once someone attacks another as viciously as he does, it's best to avoid such a person because there can be no rational exchange of opinions, ideals, or concepts. He once told me he was Presbyterian, as I am. But I know of no Presbyterian church that teaches its congregants to speak so ill of others.

He says I'm anti-gay. I'm not. Just because I don't agree with the gay agenda doesn't mean I am against them. I'm not anti-polygamy either; but I am not in favor of it at the same time. Our first Lesbian state representative and I have been in long-term dialogue that is respectful and civil, and she and I agree on many other issues. Larry might learn from someone like her how to discuss issues without rancor or hatred.

He says I'm a creationist. To that I admit that I believe God created the heavens and the earth and all that are in it. As to the specifics, I claim not to understand. Do I attack Darwinists? No. I am just one of billions down through the ages who believe God created this world; that includes Jews and Muslims. But the issue had nothing to do with this subject matter.

He selectively chose what I have written but did not bring to light some of the vicious statements by others over a period of time that account for my response.

He called me old. Am I? That depends on one's perspective of age. He called me bitter. No one who knows me personally would agree with him. He has never met me; he does not know me. How judgmental can you get? And then he called me a woman. To that, I confess I am. So it appears age and gender became a focus for him.

I have met with Lucas and Dave in the past; Lucas approached me about contributing articles to the ACC because I have been published nationally (actually internationally) on various subjects, including labor issues. I doubt they found me to be unusually old or bitter. I thank them but acknowledge that this blog and paper is perhaps aimed in one focused political direction, and I prefer to remain independent and open.

I wrote Talent (another fellow Presbyterian) a letter telling him he owed Claire McCaskill and her family an apology for nasty, unnecessary, and unfounded criticisms. Most of the letter appeared in the St. Louis American.

If I were Larry, I think I would have been more careful with some responses that someone else can possibly dig up and use without other references to put him in a bad light, such as "And I hate women." I also noted he did not answer a lot of questions posed to him. Yet he feels his questions should be answered. No individual poster has the authority to demand anything of another poster especially after he has been malicious toward that poster.

After being called a nut, clueless, bitter, etc., I felt I had to distance myself and reflect on whether or not there is any value in participating on a blog's website. I don't think there is too much merit in participating here if one is not ultra Democrat or progressive (whatever that really means). Some blogs are merely meant to be "mutual admiration societies" rather than a marketplace for a variety of opinions.

In conclusion, Larry, thank you for your generous, gracious, and liberal spirit that edifies so many.

===I also noted he did not answer a lot of questions posed to him.

Please identify these questions I didn't answer.

Larry, thank you for your generous, gracious, and liberal spirit that edifies so many.

And again, same pattern of trolling. Make a bunch of claims and not deal with any substance. So what questions have I not answered. If you are going to participate and make claims, you can back them up.

Larry, thank you for your generous, gracious, and liberal spirit that edifies so many.

You've claimed you are against the gay agenda. What is it?

Larry, thank you for your generous, gracious, and liberal spirit that edifies so many.

What a discussion! Brian Wahby's boilerplate, posted here instead of real news, leads to a spat that concludes with a discussion of creationism. I'm going to quit buying the Evening Whirl and read the gadflies battle it out in the ACC comments section instead.

TRouble, the sexual congress of the current congress will trump that of the next congress. Never before have so many taxpayers and future taxpayers been screwed and not kissed.

lowercaseap, The Gay Agenda is about making the world a better place with better combinations of fabrics and colors.

===The Gay Agenda is about making the world a better place with better combinations of fabrics and colors.

You forgot forcing those better combinations of fabrics and colors on everyone else.

This thread may not need another commenter but I can't resist. Ever since last Tuesday, I've seen commenters like Helen on blogs when the subject was celebrating Democratic victories. I'm just grateful to you all for provoking her Good-bye Cruel World comments. I especially enjoyed the part where she covered her ears and shouted la-la-la-la when people tried to talk to her.

And, by the way, congratulations to you too Mr. Wahby.
(sigh) At the risk of being contradicted I will suggest that this is, in fact, a progressive site, yes a liberal site, a Democratic site.

Let's stop behaving like victory is such a stranger that we don't know how to act.

Thanks for confirming what this site is, Patricia Ann. Now if it could just be added to the masthead of the ACC, it just might keep those away who in some way threaten the mutual admiration party that's going on.

I take it you're not young, old, or a bitter woman? But then who would know better than the AP, the character judge on this site. He'll probably judge you you, sweet, and beautiful who cannot only find her way out of a paper bag but also out of a dumpster.

===it just might keep those away who in some way threaten the mutual admiration party that's going on.

So do you have any substantive points to make? That would be the most effective way to challenge the mutual admiration party you seem to think is occurring. Instead of complaining about it, challenging an idea would be a far more productive wy to proceed.

Perhaps you can identify the gay agenda for us.

===we realize we cannot count on this website for all of the truth or the facts.

Or perhaps you can identify where the ACC got the facts wrong? This was the first assertion made in comments, but no one offered a fact that was wrong.

The ArchPundit and the Southsider seem to have one thing in common: a lot of time to waste on name-calling and blather.

If I may offer a suggestion? How about posting rational (and realistic) solutions to the current political mess? Offer intelligent counterpoint(s) when you disagree with a posting? Move forward with positive plans to correct this city's mess, the nation's political discontent, or at least, offer viable suggestions when responding to a posting?

Both of you are self-righteous and self-proclaimed experts. Now please offer ACC readers remarks with genuine and intelligent content.

Evidently, the ArchPundit has websites mixed up and considers this one to be his. What a dominator! He hasn't caught on that people are beginning to ignore him. Suggestion: It would be better for Dave or Lucas to be calling the shots instead of AP who can call them on his own website.

=We don't learn anything if we just talk to people who agree with us, but apparently some of the people here are so brilliant that they can afford to be vicious, arrogant and condescending to everyone who disagrees with them. Well said, Corolla. I see you left the site too.

DDT tends to scare people, i.e., Demander, Dominator, Tyrant of the blog.

So no one is going to offer up the gay agenda besides Howard? And no one is going to point out what facts the ACC got wrong as Helen asserted?

Now who s clueless?

What arrogance that someone thinks he can demand to set the agenda all the time! He's like a broken record, and he's the only one hearing himself. Back to Brian Wahby: Congratulations, Brian. You did a great job.

Well, you still haven't offered anything substantive about the post or the initial replies. Would you care to:

A) Explain how the K Street project and signing statements aren't atypical in terms of corruption

Or

B) Explain the gay agenda other than how Howard was--perhaps add an explanation how terms like the gay agenda aren't homophobic bigotry.

or

C) Explain what facts the ACC got wrong.

I'm such a dominator that I've been called gay, fat, impotent, a woman hater, and a hater of the majority of religious people in this thread, but no one has responded to any substantive points.

Is dominator in your language the notion that someone asks you to actually support their argument and assertions?

How am I setting the agenda?

Did I claim the ACC was getting facts wrong?

Did I claim there is a gay agenda?

Did I claim Republican and Democratic corruption are the same and that George Bush had nothing to do with Republican corruption?

I may have been silent for awhile, Rich, but I haven't left. On the contrary, I have been fascinated by the postings here because they demonstrate so clearly the difference between a blog persona and a street persona.

The cloak of anonymity that these blogs provide sometimes also allows us to sit alone at our keyboards pounding out words we would never have the guts or bad manners to utter if our opponent were staring us in the face.

This isn't really about Helen Louise or Arch Pundit. It's about the way we behave when we think no one can see us, and it has been a great lesson to me to think before I post.

Corolla, thank you for your perspective and perception. I don't think any of this would have transpired had a couple of men refused to resort to name calling and demeaning sarcasm. In fact, I don't think they can even see how ugly it is. Incivility is becoming a big problem and only puts off most who prefer not to get into throwing aspersions at others. They initiated and opened up some of the ugly rest that continued.

I have made my decision. I will not respond to someone who disrespects me to the point of demeaning my person when he has never met me or those who personally know me.

I think your earliest posting said it all.

But let's remember this started the entire thread:

"we realize we cannot count on this website for all of the truth or the facts."

Calling into question the integrity of the ACC and those who write it is a hell of a way to be a model for civility. Or was it just trolling?

Corolla, this was your post to which I referred: "Arch Pundit, you are a bright, well-read fellow who is passionate in his beliefs, but I have read many of your responses to people who don't agree with you, and they almost always include ad hominem attacks. As you make your arguments you usually point out that anyone who disagrees clearly must be just too stupid for words--although you do manage to find words, like "babbling," "clueless," "garbage," or "bitter old woman." ...maybe people who don't agree with you could actually learn something from you--or you from them--if you just didn't go so far out of your way to be cruel and condescending."

But again, let's start with the opening:

"we realize we cannot count on this website for all of the truth or the facts."

You have a history of being over the top Helen. You make assertions and then insist the others person is being mean. Then you get a bunch of real or made up concern trolls to show up so the actual assertion never has to be addressed.

You claimed the ACC is essentially a dishonest place to find information and then when challenged on some specifics in no harsher language than you used, you ran and claimed victimhood.

WAAAAAAAAAA!

You are a homophobic bigot. You throw around crap like "the gay agenda." And then when called on it insist you are being picked upon.

You compared embryonic stem cell research to Nazi research during the Holocaust.

That's rich. You get to pick on people, but when called on it the other people are being mean.

You get to make up wholecloth the scientific understanding of biology and race and then simply claim you don't believe in what them scientists think because ....well because and anyone who disagrees is being mean. And those scientists are just speculating after all.

The best example is when Joe Hodes attempted to discuss with you assertions you made here:

http://www.archcitychronicle.com/archives/001566.php

What did you do?

====Well, Joe, I guess as a free citizen of a free republic, I feel as free as anyone else to contribute my thoughts and perceptions regardless of how they are received.

What a dull blog this would be if no genuine discussion or debate occurred. And now I think part of this city's problem is that some "know-it-alls" can't tolerate a diversity of views.

Yes, Massa, them thar's me views!
=============

Let's be clear, this is your pattern and the whole victimhood schtick is played over and over and over again. When faced with actual questions about something you say, no matter how such questions are put to you, you declare it's unfair to question you and then portray yourself as the victim of the big bad meanies who don't do anything different than you started it off with.

It's sad, pathetic, and obvious.

I agree with Corolla. How come the AP doesn't talk to Corolla about his or her references to him?

What a fixation! It's sad, pathetic, and obvious, and he thinks that applies to someone other than himself?

Sounds like the guy is about to go up in flames and smoke! Interesting isn't it, that the regulars aren't here to go along with such crap. Got to hand it to the ACC, at least some of their regulars recognize the idiocy that's being pushed beyond barriers here. Once again, Brian, thanks for what you did. Hope you're not too embarrassed by such frothing at the mouth going on here.

AP, take Bubba's advice to Helen. Take a valium and have a glass of wine or a Budweiser Select You make it difficult to believe you have a degree in political science from Wash. U. Just think where Jeff Smith would have ended up if he followed your example? Not in Jeff City for sure!

AP, the mission of the ACC is: Mission

The mission of the Arch City Chronicle is to engage citizens with a newspaper that is informative and fun to read, relevant to their lives and challenging to the status quo.

You take the fun out of it. Lighten up!

Hey, ArchPundit, I just copied this whole blog to send to some key news people so they can see just how out of control the ArchP gets. They'll probably wonder about a guy who normally sounds credible on his own blog but goes berserk on another.

Fascinating. Comparing scientific research to Nazis, spreading anti-gay bigotry, and generally making up stuff is okay, but calling someone on the above isn't. Interesting standards.

What's funny about the concern trolls is that bigotry isn't a problem for them, but calling someone on that and making up claims out of thin air is just fine.

How is it civil to tolerate the kind of discourse like the above? Discourse that doesn't rely on logic or evidence, but claims of victimhood isn't civil, it is dishonest. Defending that dishonesty under the guise of civility is just enabling the behavior.

What am I supposed to reply to with Corolla? I'm not sure of the argument he/she is making. If someone is making up stuff someone shouldn't call her on it? Or challenge her? She can call people dishonest and challenge them, but when someone else calls her that it's out of bounds? It's a rather strange standard that someone can make up anything or make outlandish claims, but the people who call her on that are the ones being irresponsible.

Be nice to people who make up stuff and you can learn something from them? Like what? How to make up wild and unsubstantiated crap? Or cry victim status when challenged for makign up wild and unsubstantiated crap?

So far in this thread I've been called gay, fat, hater of most religious people, hater of women and a few other things. It's all sort of funny for a number of reasons, but primarily it comes out of people trying to claim that describing Helen as bitter---when she sits there and calls the ACC staff dishonest for publishing an open letter--is some sort of horrible event. It would seem that only a strangely bitter person would do that.

There's no justification for calling the ACC dishonest nor for anything else she says, but calling her on that is apparently out of bounds.

It's not like the people suddenly appearing to defend Helen are regulars--they mysteriously appear when she does. Funny.

The first response to this post started with name calling of the ACC. Perhaps someone could explain how "we realize we cannot count on this website for all of the truth or the facts" is based on something that the ACC has printed that is factually wrong or dishonest?

Anyone? The charge was made. Anyone care to back it up? Or is it impolite to be expected to support such a claim with facts or evidence?

Or explain how the 'Gay Agenda' garbage isn't simply code for bigots?

Or explain how making wild claims is civil and deserving of respect.

AP, you have to be as clueless as they come. She didn't question the ACC's integrity. She questioned its political bias, which could have been done if it was conservative leaning as well. You twist communications into what you want them to say rather than what they say.

She didn't call you names. She said some refer to you as fat. You invited name calling by your ugly assertions that Corolla said you frequently do to others. The bully always likes to dish it out, but hates it when it comes back to him.

You went off on other subjects and name calling that have nothing to do with this topic. I don't blame her for not entering into any discussion with you. You're not rational, you twist, name call, and express hatred. You don't even practice rules of grammar in explaining what something means because you're too busy trying to twist it to fit your demonizing concepts. That's why newsmen and other pundits will recognize how silly you are. You're the prime example and epitome of the type of person no one can really discourse with.

A few words of wisdom for AP if he's able to understand them.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
English Proverb

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. (as opposed to name calling)
Chinese Proverb

There is plenty of sound in an empty barrel.
Russian Proverb

AP,I did not appear here as a "concern troll" to defend Helen Louise. Probably like a lot of people, I read these blogs fairly regularly to see what's going on. I rarely post, not because I am stupid or disinterested, but because I hate the vitriolic exchanges that some bloggers engage in from the security of their anonymous identities, and because my political views would make me unwelcome here.

I don't condone anyone calling you a fat, gay, religious bigot; nor do I condone your propensity for telling nearly everyone who disagrees with you that they are stupid. None of it serves any productive purpose.

Bloggers cannot hear one another's tones nor see one another's expressions. All we have are the connotations and denotations of words. I am simply trying to say here that bloggers are more effective when they stick to the merits of the argument and can that "if you were only smart enough to understand what I am saying, you couldn't possibly disagree with me" rhetoric.

Before I met you, AP, I saw you only as a really bright guy who could be verbally and relentlessly cruel to anyone who disagreed with him. Talking with you face to face made me realize that you are not evil and that you even have a sense of humor. Maybe you should get out and mingle more.

I've never seen so many concern trolls at this site.

Corolla, I recall seeing actually post something of substance here before, so obviously you're excepted from the above statement. Thanks for recognizing that being so concerned about name calling while smearing someone is ridiculous.

I'll ask one thing of you: Can you come up with examples of ArchPundit attacking someone just for disagreeing with him? Can you come up with examples of him ignoring the substance of what the other person says solely to attack someone else?

====I don't condone anyone calling you a fat, gay, religious bigot; nor do I condone your propensity for telling nearly everyone who disagrees with you that they are stupid. None of it serves any productive purpose.

Other than Helen, who have I said this too here?

I'd love to have AP or Helen's jobs. Lots of Internet time at work must be fun.

AP, I should not have said "nearly everyone" without doing more research--my fault. Like most of us, you have people and issues that push your buttons.

I'm out of time--gotta go back to work.

An email that I sent to Howard last night that the address rejected.

Howard,

You have misinterpreted my posting on the ACC blog. I cannot and will not ever condone corruption of any kind or at any level. My point was that Mr. Wahby had, in my opinion, failed to see the significance of the war in Iraq and how it is hitting home with Joe and Mary Sixpack. Joe and Mary see corruption all of the time in the news. But, when cousin Smitty gets sent back to Iraq for the second or third tour. And there is no end in sight. Well, that sure does motivate them to vote for change. Once again, my opinion.
I can only hope that Mssr's Carville and Stephanopolis are sitting in the Budget Room repeating "it's the war stupid."

Have a good night.

Tim Redmond

PS. how could you expect me not to swing away at "pre-sexual congress?"

ArchPundit, what leads an intelligent man to throw age-related and gender-related insults at someone? You brought ugliness into this discussion with "a clueless old bitter woman," and more followed from others. Nothing you said after that meant anything because you trashed discussion and shut down discourse. Do you think everyone on this blog is young and male?

So tell us all why you feel free to resort to such crass carryings on? Obviously, Corolla has seen such trash talk elsewhere about others or his/her response would not have been posted.

You started open season on personal insults. What does that have to do with different opinions.

Ebony, if nothing else he could just say the devil made him do it. The devil is just as good an excuse as any for age and gender biases.

9H1fJZ U cool ))

comment2, cockpit pictures, 8-(, va truck pullers ass., :OOO, jewelry stores on main street in st marteen, 205389, rocky movie balboa, cnmsbi,