Papers please! Feds bringing checkpoint to Allen County

These checkpoints are a joke, they do not catch drunk drivers like they say they do. Tom you are right they nab people for petty things, it's a waste of money. I am asked every year to work the checkpoints, and I turn them down every year. I don't work for the patrol, but am a state worker. It's a hugh waste of tax payers money in overtime pay for the people setting this stupid thing up.

I think it's kinda funny that they announce the checkpoints ahead of time, not much, but enough that people who really are going out partying on Friday and Saturday night will know which roads to avoid on their way home at 3 in the morning.

As one who absolutely never for any reason drinks and drives, I would be hellfire mad if I was stopped at a checkpoint when I have not broken any rules of the road and all my lights on my car are in proper working order.

It's an unfortunate fact that driving in this country is viewed legally as a privilege granted to us by the state, and not a right. And this checkpoint action is one of the true ugly faces of that fact.

Susan, they announce where the checkpoints will be and will set up the checkpoint to give the drivers an "OUT". This is done because there has been an issue regarding the Constitution and illegal search and sesures. The "OUT" I described is how the checkpoint is set up. The patrol and the agency I work for set up the checkpoint zone in a way that will give a motorist a chance to avoid it. Before a motorist gets to the checkpoint a message board will alert the driver of the checkpoint, the message board will say something like (OVI CHECPOINT AHEAD) if that driver then decides not to go through it we must give them an, OUT, such as a side street they can turn on too to avoid it or a way to turn around and go the other direction. Susan it is funny they announce this ahead of time and the warnings we give them before they get there, no wonder why the infractions they catch are seat belt violations, unpaid tickets or someother petty stuff. There have been a few and I will say a very FEW drunk drivers have been caught. It is a waste of resources to when the state is in a budget crises.

CBrown, I do believe driving is a privilege and not a right. Not like a right as, life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. A person has to prove they are capable to be given the privilege of driving. We as a state, or people of the state, wants to know a person has the training and responsibility to drive a car. In the wrong hands it is a deadly weapon.

The checkpoints are silly and does nothing to keep anyone safe - thank God they caught that guy who was not wearing his seat belt, I feel safer. The resources could be used in a more productive manner IMO, but for the most part when people hear this, I think it makes them think that law enforcement or the state is doing something to make them feel better - symbololism over substance!

Hey Scant, seems to me, if they really wanted to catch the drunk drivers, they'd post patrol cars over on the side street given as their "out". Not that I'm suggesting they should...

Scant,

We, as in Allen County don't require that a person has training and responsibility to carry a weapon, why should we want to require the same of our fellow citizens who choose to drive automobiles? (Oh, wait...that's fodder for the other topics).

Susan,
Yea, posting a patrol car on the side street would catch more drunk drivers, but then you get into the constitutional debate of illegal search and seasure. Thats how they get around it. They have to give people an, OUT, and can not really go after someone who chooses to take the OUT. It's such a joke Susan.

CBrown,
Not going there on that subject, enough said about the shooting. We do require people pass a test to prove they have the ability to be responsible enough to drive a car. If your not on the wrong side of the law people will in the most part use a gun in a responible manner. Besides it is a right guaranteed by the second admendment, having a drivers licence is not.

We all agree...for the most part this time. But ONE THING...Thomas...Please do not use that spelling of AMERICA, even if you were just trying to make a point. Wait a second, I guess you are free to use it, but it offends me. I just would ask you again nicely to respect the proper spelling. There is no "k" in it...I know you are just trying to make it look "RUSSIAN" to get you point across,and maybe its just me...but it does piss me off.

OMG...i just noticed the flag too. So because they are wrong to put up a check point, you are free to disrespact the Great Flag of the Uninted States of America? How many wongs make a right?
You wrote a good article. Was is really needed that you offend as many people as possable? Shame on you ...I am embarresed for you.

Danimal,
I noticed Tom's spelling and desicration of the flag too. I know he was trying to make a point, but don't like it. I was at the McCain townhall meeting today and felt very proud to be an American, they sang the National Anthem and everyone stood and said the Plegde of Allegiance before McCain came out. I spoke loudly with my hand over my heart while reciting the plegde, it was different hearing the Anthem sung and saying the plegde at such a setting than hearing it at a sporting event, I was very proud to be an American today, more than most other days. Today, I thought I could be looking at our next President. I was proud. We live in such a great country were people can say what they want without fear of being sent to, Siberia, since Tom is refering to the US as becoming like Russia. I am not saying Iam all for McCain, but it was the experiance of knowing the people of this great country still have the power to vote for there leader. Then it also saddens me that so many people take that right that so many have died for, and waste it by not getting involed or voting. It's such a simple thing to do, but people take it for granted, it's a slap in the face to those who have fought and died for that right of the people. I don't agree with McCain on some things, but when the, Vet, stood up and asked if he could shake his hand, McCain said yes, it took him awhile to walk to him, and when he did McCain embraced him, thanked him for his service. It was not fake.
I believe McCain really did care about that guy. I was proud of the country I live in. I still am making up my mind of who I will vote for, but I will vote indeed.

I would post this in both places, but you'll see it on the sidebar no matter which topic you choose to follow...I'm posting it here because the relevance of my observation begins here.

It just hit me, Tom...there are persons posting on this topic how offended they are at how you spell the word "Amerika," and that you chose to throw fuel on the fire with the "Swastikas and Stripes." I'll admit it even sparked the patriotic nerve in me.

But those same persons take little or no offense at the tragedies committed by our government on the good people of the United States of America every day all over this once great and proud country, even here at home.

I've learned a lot about our system of government as an adult over the years, how it works versus how it's supposed to work - I cared very little to learn while I was in school, and should have learned much of it there. (I know, it was a state school - not a posh and perfect little private school like you attended).

Over the years mine own two eyes have been opened - a revelation of sorts - and I observe what happens around us with keen interest; I won't be indoctrinated by anyone's view that government has the proper authority to do anything to me or my family that it may deem appropriate simply because government believes it has the power to do so. Yet, we get to read about those kinds of events daily, all over the country and often times right here at home.

And I've come to the realization that while I am a registered Republican, my views are largely libertarian - thanks to having learned some of the most important views by virtue of having been employed by Freedom Communications, and through knowing you, Tom. Although I'm nowhere near the radical Libertarian I so often accuse you of being.

I don't agree with Jason Upthegrove often, but listening to him the other day got me to thinking...we're all too busy with our own lives to take time out to stand up for that in which we truly, deeply, strongly believe, and he's right. Sure we have no problem with sitting here and beating each other up electronically, especially when our views are such polar opposites, but what have we really accomplished? (Don't worry, I won't be bowing out of our lively debates any time soon.)

Individually, you and I both - and every one else who chose/were drafted to wear the uniform - have made significant contributions in the form of military service. This sentiment is extended to anyone who chooses a profession that serves our society.

But what do "we" do?!? We can only continue in our efforts to open the eyes of those who would otherwise coast through life thinking "it won't happen to me," and hope those thoughts don't require yet another unfortunate event to affect change.

And you go on spelling your words however you deem necessary to convey your points. I especially liked the addition of the "Swastikas and Stripes." (After the throbbing of my patriotic nerve subsided.) And to those who continue to take offense, there was a little saying we were fond of as kids:

"Sticks and stones may break my bones (we certainly know bullets can kill)
but words (and pictures) can't hurt me."

CBrown,
Wow, you had me until your last few paragraphs, then you sound like you are surrounded by a bunch of children, because some people don't see things as you do. You are so stuck on yourself aren't you?

Sticks and stones, what a bunch of, BS. It is a saying moms have said over the years, what flawed theology. I have had many broken bones and bruises that have healed just fine. The greatest wounds I have sufferd were from words like, I don't love you any more, your the biggest mistake I have made in my life. I would gladly be shot in the gut, than to hear those words again. You are a piece of crap.

I will agree, Scant, that words can hurt far more and last far longer than physical attacks. I cringe everytime I hear someone (especially a teacher or a parent) saying that to a child. Been there, done that, have the emotional scars to prove it. But I also don't think CBrown deserves to be called a "piece of crap" for it. His intentions were good and he's not the "piece of crap" that has hurt you so deeply. I suspect that he would have considerable compassion and empathy for the verbal wounds you live with.

Scant,

We all make choices...and I learned a long time ago that the emotions we feel, we choose to feel. I too have been told such things and I allowed myself to be hurt very deeply by them.

But if you believe anyone has the power to make you feel anything you don't want to feel, then you are a very, very weak person.

And thanks for calling me a piece of crap...that tells me all I need to know about you.

Susan/Cbrown,
I was out of line to call you a piece of crap, sorry. Hearing that saying sets me off like no other saying does. I don't live in my past or let it affect me, but some comments or events raise the hairs on my back. Peace Out.

I'm not going to edit this time, but I will correct/clarify my statement:

No one has the power to make anyone experience a certain feeling unless that power is granted in the first place. Therefore I also rescind my "very, very weak person" remark.

Thanks

Awwww...it's almost downright warm and fuzzy in here right now....

That's not a saying I'll be patronizing my children with as they grow up...as I too, when I was a child, thought it was a load of ... well, you know.

Because my wife and I had started our family later in life than most, our parental skills will be different. When our children feel hurt because of something said to them, it's our intention to impress upon them how they feel at that time, and since they won't like it, they'll remember that before they say something similar.

Another fond saying my mom always told me: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

CBrown, your point (that no one has the power to hurt you unless you grant them the power) has some merit.. just a little. But, unfortunately, many many times, the verbal abuse is directed towards children. I don't believe that a child falls into that idea that no one can make them feel something unless the child gives them the power in the first place. I also have trouble thinking that a woman can always choose not to feel hurt when her husband tells her she's worthless or ignorant or ugly or any other degrading hurtful insult. I believe that only the most unfeeling and unemotional people can hear someone (especially someone who is supposed to love them) say such vile things about them and not feel deeply hurt by it. But being hurt, even devastated, by verbal abuse does not mean the person cannot eventually overcome the pain and be happy, it just takes some people longer and more effort than others.

CBrown, I don't think we should use the saying, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" in here... Tom wouldn't have anything left to blog about.

Scant... lol

I'll go back to if it feels less creepy.

Susan,
Now your talking sweetheart.

Susan,

The "power" thing, not my point; I learned that in a college psych class I took years ago called "Problems in Human Relations." I enjoyed that class and learned so much from it.

Hey, Tom! Start a more relevant topic about human emotion so we can quit discussing feelings in a topic about traffic sobriety checkpoints.

Tom, why can't I access any of your posts before you July 31st post? The archives aren't working and we're missing out on a lot of comments people are making because they are bumped off the most recent ten comments list over on the sidebar too fast. Any way you can make it the most recent 20 comments?

Cbrown...there you go...a blanket statment. So if i dont like the Nazi bent being put on MY flag, you say that means I don't care about the constitution, and the governmenst abuse of power?
WRONG. Why, when someone makes a point about how they feel, do you deem it cause for you to state why they are wrong?
Also, as has been mentioned by others....words do more damage than anything else...world wide every day. After all, anyone who does not think that 'words' are at the forefront of most sticks and stones being thrown, clearly needs to examine their thought process as to just what causes what. did that make sense? It does to me anyway.

Again, if Obama wins. This is what is going to happen all over the Country. This is what they do in Socialist Countries. Just like what Obama will make the United States become.

Nice of Mr. Hawley to write that letter to the editor today tattling on you, Tom. I'm sure his complaint will bring more traffic to your blog.

Interesting though, while Hawley is most interested in defending the piece of cloth, the picture, the symbol of our freedoms as Americans, you spend your life actually defending the American people and our actual freedoms. Thank you.

Susan, most of the time I can understand your point, and often agree. Because of that, I won't attack you for calling my flag a "piece of cloth". Surley you have more respect than that and were just making a point of some kind. A piece of cloth could be anything from a dish rag to Brittney Speers panties. (and i may not salute them but I may come to attention! so to speak)

Yes, danimal, I have far more respect than that and I was making a point. Just as I believe Tom was when he chose to use the graphic in the first place. I love this country, and her people, I love everything our flag stands for, but I also believe that some people worship the flag as though it is a god. The flag, whether it is made of cloth or paper, is a symbol of our precious freedoms. To deny Tom's right to post an altered picture of the flag on his own personal blog would be denying him of the very freedom that the flag stands for. If we, as a people, are going to start doing that, then our flag becomes meaningless.

Don't get me wrong, I think the flag with swastikas instead of stars is disgusting. But I understand his reasons for posting it. It was not in any way to glorify the swastika or anything the swastika (in the past century ) symbolizes. It was to shock the people (us) into realizing that we are giving away our freedoms left and right and if we continue to do so, that flag picture he posted just to make a point and serve as a warning, could very well be similar to a flag we may be standing under sometime in the future.
(oh and... as for Brit's knickers, according to pictures they always run in the tabloids, I don't think she actually owns any. )

Tom has the freedom to do what he wants. But, it is in such bad taste. When we see on TV Arabs burning our flag and stomping on it, everyones blood boil, but the gays and others who will desacrate our flag here in our own country, will be like OH WELL.

Ah, but the difference, and it is an extremely significant difference, is intent. When the Arabs burn and stomp on our flag, they are doing it out of hatred for US and all that our flag stands for. When Tom chose the graphic with the swastikas, it was the opposite. I believe it was out of extreme love for this country that he did that. He loves this country and our freedoms so much that he did that with the intent of shocking people here into realizing what could happen if we don't pull our collective head out of the sand and stop throwing our freedoms away. The sight of our beautiful flag with those horrible hateful swastikas on it is disgusting, that's the point, it should anger and disgust every patriotic American enough that they will do everything they can to keep this country from stumbling down that path where we risk having our every move dictated and controlled by the very government that we are supposed to have control over.

Susan,
Intent? I am troubled by Toms intent. I am sure he could have gotten his message across just as strongly without the swastika flag. The flag represents more than just a symbol of the United States. Tell the men who rasied the flag at Iwo Jima that. We hold our hands over our hearts when we say the pleadge to the FLAG. We sing, "- gave prove through the night, that our flag was still there-" It's more than just a piece of cloth. I know a man who is pushing ninety years old. He was in WWII, he has seen more than most will ever see. He was there for the invasion of North Africa, he was there at the battle of the buldge and he was part of the D-Day invasion. This man is very grizzled and tough and I could sit and listen to his stories all day long about the war. If he seen what TL did to the flag, I am sure he would grab him by the throat and put him to the ground for it. He fought the natzies and fought for the flag. The flag is so much more than just something you can exploit to make a point. I am so saddend by the lack of respect by so many, who say, the flag is not that important and can be used to make political or personal points of views, without the knowlegde that it is what we lead with when this country goes into conflict defending this country.

Scant, honestly, do you think he would have gotten as much attention to this blog post had he not put that graphic there? People are ticked off about it, but because of that, there is a dialogue going on. It ticked Hawley off enough that he wrote a letter to the editor about it. In turn, many more people will log on and look up Tom's blog just to see what the fuss is all about. This is what motivates people to get a move on and make a difference. I think, without the graphic, we'd be on to other things and this thread would be collecting dust by now.

I agree that the flag is "more than a piece of cloth" (regretting ever having said that word at this point), and that it is a very precious symbol of the United States. It represents the most important thing about the United States....FREEDOM. The flag is VERY important, but it IS a "symbol". It deserves respect, and it is right to stand and put your hand over your heart, remove your hat and face that flag when we say the Pledge of Allegiance and sing our national anthem, but, the flag is not our god, it is not to be worshipped. I bet if you asked Tom, he'd be angered as well at people who burn and stomp on the flag. But as I pointed out, burning and stomping on the flag are ways people show HATE for America. I have never seen anything in anything Tom has ever written that suggests hate for this country. I've seen only a great love for America, Americans, and all of our freedoms. His entire intent was to shake you (and me, and everyone else) up and make you realize you're throwing away the very freedoms that many many brave souls have fought and died to preserve... the freedoms that your own friend fought through hell to protect.

What is more important, the Flag or the Freedom it stands for? If you choose the flag itself over the freedom, you may one day not have the freedom to fly that flag.

Scant,

Would you have been just as offended had Tom not included the "Swastikas and Stripes?" I would venture to guess since that's your only beef with it, probably not. Therefore Tom would not have been able to get ""his message across just as strongly without" it.

And you're questioning his patriotism? Being a patriot in this country means you love freedom - most Americans have either forgotten this point or simply don't care. Without a doubt in my mind, Tom loves this country - at least the country he believes it should be, the country it was founded to be. America today is nowhere anything close to being a nation of freedoms that it once was.

Still questioning his patriotism? Tom and I both served - and retired from service to - our country, wearing the same uniform as our Vietnam, Korea, WWII ... all the way back to our Revolutionary War forebearers. And at no time did ANY of us fight FOR the flag. We say it that way, sure we do, but what we really mean - those of us who understand it anyway - is that we fight for the FREEDOMS for which the flag represents. And one of those freedoms is the freedom of speech.

You may find it reprehensible that Tom chooses the words and images he feels help to support his position, but it is his freedom to do so - and it's your freedom to express your displeasure when he does so. But it's nobody's freedom to grab anyone "by the throat and throw him to the ground for it."

So go on, continue to find disgust when Tom posts something that offends your brand of "patriotism." In the end, it's my hope anyway, that your eyes will be opened to the little slices of freedom we're losing every day. Because it IS happening. I would certainly hope your 90-year-old WWII friend is finding that much more reprehensible than anything Tom would choose to post here. Ask him. If it turns out he is more offended by the picture, then he didn't understand what he was fighting for in the first place ... and I won't believe that for one moment.

Susan, I believe Lucente's opinion about swat raids is legitimate opinion. In fact, while I don't agree with it completely, his opinion has some merit. Lucente may have the right to deface the flag with the swastika, but doing so is not acceptable, out of love for his country or for any other reason. I love my country too, but that does not make it acceptable for me to burn a cross on my front lawn to express that love. If you believe love of country justifies defacing the flag with the swastika, maybe you should run it by Rabbi Sol Oster, Liesel Sondheimer, or others in the local Jewish community. I don't think they'll get the same yucks out of it that you and Tom do. As for the suggestion that my love of country is not up the snuff, my spouse had 26 years of military service (20 years active duty) and eagles on her shoulder boards to show for it. Having supporter her in that endeavor, I don't like my patriotism impugned any more than you do. And by the way, Susan, I didn't question Lucente's patriotism. I questioned his judgment as a journalist.

Sorry, but in my last post, I referred to swat raids, when I should have said sobriety checkpoints. I think Lucente has legitimate opinions on all of these related issues of government statism, which are well within the mainstream of political debate. Sorry again for the confusion.

Susan, I am not persuaded by your suggestion that that Tom's use of the flag and the swastika advances constitutional freedom. By that logic, anyone who commits adultry should be praised for their fidelity, because they have upheld the constitution (which under recent Supreme Court precedent) guarantees sexual freedom against government intrusion. Physicians who perform abortions should be hailed for their contributions to medicine, because they uphold Roe v. Wade. And artist Andre Serrano, who famously placed a crucifix in a vessel of his own urine (he called his work "Piss Christ" should be praised for his artistry, because he upheld the right of free expression. I am no more persuaded by these things, than by your assertion that Tom has upheld constitutional principles by his use of the flag and the swastika. To the contrary, I believe he has done a disservice to conservative constitutional principles.

Lucente's use of the flag and the swastika is viewed by most people as a vile expression, albeit a constitutionally protected one. In fact, I would guarantee that if Lucente were employed by The Cato Institute -- the preeminent libertarian think tank in this country --he would have been terminated for his use of the flag and the swastika.

As for your suggestion that my letter caused more people to view Tom's blog, I say good. That was my intention. I hope people do view it and are repulsed. If they agree with Tom's views of sobriety checkpoints and swat team tactics and everything else Tom says, I still say good. I just hope that at the same time, they are repulsed by his use of the flag and the swastika.

Hawley, out of curiosity, did you first happen to send a private email to Tom addressing your concerns about his journalistic judgment, or did you skip right over him and write your letter to the editor scolding him publicly and suggesting that he should be fired for it? "Tacky" is the word that comes to mind.

I don't know where you got the idea that any of us are getting any "yuks" out of this graphic. It's not there for joking purposes. I also don't know where you got the idea that you were having your patriotism impugned.

I don't agree with a lot of Tom's opinions, but yes, you are right, Tom's opinions on these issues are legitimate and worthy of debate. However, it is simply not enough to sit here and volley back and forth a couple times and then be done with it and move on to the next topic two days later. If he tries to be sure and never offend anyone in his writing, then he cannot do his job. And if he tries to be so politically correct that he doesn't tick anyone off, then his words will go in one ear and out the other, people will go on the same as always, not paying attention, not really thinking. I don't think you understand that this blog isn't just a place to whine and complain, Tom seems to have a true desire to affect change....REAL change. Thanks to your letter to the editor, even more people will no doubt come here and read what he has to say, people who never even knew he had a blog (or people who never knew what a blog was). So maybe he should be thanking you for the plug.

Have you actually spoken to the Rabbi or Mrs.Sondheimer about it? Or are you just making that assumption because you know your own opinion and you think surely they must feel the same way? Isn't it possible that they could understand what Tom's intent was? Isn't it possible that they could look at that graphic and see his point that we, Americans, are so readily giving our freedoms away every day, that the future of this country, and that flag we love so much, could very well end up as tragic and oppressive as what those swastikas stood for? That graphic SHOULD make you mad, it should make you SO mad that you want to do everything you can to PREVENT our country from becoming what the swasitkas represent. People these days are too content to sit back and go with the flow and not worry about the consequences of their actions today on the future. If it takes a person like Tom, to do something like this to spark anger, and even lose respect from people like you, in order to get people to open their eyes and see how they are destroying what our flag stands for, then more power to him! What are you doing to save our freedoms? When was the last time you were willing to risk making people angry at you for the greater cause?

Hawley, I see you just posted another comment while I was posting mine. I will respond to your latest one in a little while, no time at the moment.

Still not enough time to address your last post properly, Hawley, but I wanted to quickly point out what I felt was so unfair about your letter to the editor. You made no mention whatsoever of why he posted the graphic, or what his blog posting was about, or any of his reasons for posting it. To anyone reading the LN letters to the editor who does not have internet access and will never see the posting Tom wrote along with the graphic, it sounds like you're accusing Tom of being some sort of Neo-Nazi, or a skinhead. You made it sound like he was using the graphic as some sort of glorification of the swastika. There are so many people in the readership, especially older readers, who still read the LN the old fashioned way, on paper, they have no way of knowing what his actual intent was, all they know is what you wrote in your complaint. And whether or not you agree with his intent, it was extremely unfair of you to deliberately mislead the public in such a manner. That, in my opinion, could do far more to damage the man's reputation than the actual act of using that graphic in the first place.

Tacky, Susan? You're the one defending the defacement of the American flag with the swastika as legitimate public discourse, not me. If you think it's such a good idea, try wearing the swastika in public for a while. Just be sure you tell everyone in advance that you're doing so because you love your country and you are protesting in the name of freedom.

I was under no obligation to contact Lucente about my concerns before writing a letter to the editor. Do you think Lucente called Chevalia before calling for the man to be convicted and put in jail? Do you think he called Tom Tebben before putting his picture at the top of the website? Do you think he called George Bush before calling for his impeachment (which I assume he has done)? Tom said things about me on the old blog. Things that are not true. He didn't call me first before saying them. I corrected him on the facts, and we both went on our way.

I submitted my letter through the normal channels. Somehow, it didn't occur to me to include in the letter an explanation of why I really thought it was OK for Lucente to deface the flag with the swastika (that he was defending yours and my freedom, and is really a brilliant constitutionalist).

In any event, your defense of Lucente's use of the flag and the swastika is the same defense everyone uses. Virtually all them say that they are protesting in the name of freedom. Heck, Charles Manson has a tatoo of a swastika on his face as a protest against the alleged corruption of society. You, no doubt, disagree with these other peoples' political views, and agree with Lucente's, but you will find that the stated motivation for using defacing the flag or using the swastika is always some desired political change.

I don't think anyone should deface the flag with the swastika, no matter how noble I find their motives.

Hawley, I never said you were obligated to contact him first. I said it was very unfair of you NOT to try to discuss the issue man to man before just blabbing it in the letters to the editor and then, worse yet, deliberately make him look like a nazi skinhead in the process. I NEVER said you should have written that YOU "really thought it was OK ...", I said that you SHOULD have at least had the decency to make some sort of comment as to WHY he did it or WHAT he was even writing about when he did it. You knew it too. What are you, a lawyer? You are damn good at twisting people's words into something completely not what they said. You mentioned NOTHING about Tom's intent or reasons, and you easily could have and still made it known that you disagree with those reasons. You only said that the guy put a flag with swastikas on his blog. What would that lead YOU to believe about a person if that is the ONLY thing you had to go on?

If he said things about you on his blog before, now it is clear why you have the vendetta you have against him. I won't bother trying to debate the issue further with you because clearly, it's a personal matter between you two and nothing I can say will affect your opinion in any way. It's not worth it. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine.

Well, I guess that Tom was obligated to try to discuss the matter with whomever he writes about before he writes a column.

I don't have a damn thing against Tom, other than he uses the swastika and personal invective in his writing. The things he said about me were not so bad. As I said, we moved on. I was only responding to your point about me having to man up and contact him before writing a letter.

I am fine to let things lie where they are. I believe that the swastika is an inappropriate symbol to use in political discourse. You believe that the objections to it are mere political correctness -- Jews, holocaust survivors and that sort of trivial thing.

Hawley, you have made a great set of posts, and I applaud you.

It appears Hawley just doesn't get it...another Civics lesson gone in one ear and right out the other.

Lima Police Sgt Joe Chavalia was a public servant. Tom Tebben and George W. Bush are elected public officials. Their images and likenesses are all matters of public record. And as such, all three are subject to public scrutiny of opinion WITHOUT having first been contacted.

Only when reporting any facts of relevance concerning these, or any other, public officials, would it make sense to first contact them for information.

When you state an opinion, you're free to consult with - or not consult with - anyone you choose. That's the way it works.

If any of those three, or any other of the public officials don't like what people might say about them, they either need to thicken up or get out of public life.

Susan/CBrown,
I will address both of you starting with Susan.

Susan, your question to me was, "Do you think Tom would have gotten as much attention to this blog had he not included the graphic", the answers is, no I don't. When Tom did that, I think he took what he was trying to get across - regarding the checkpoints, and put the the whole disscusion on the flag and patriotism. It no longer was about the checkpoints, which if you read all of my posts on the subject, I was in agreement with Tom. I think Tom loves this country very much, I don't doubt that. I think and still do he could have gotten his point of view across just as strongly without the swastika thing, he is a smart guy and capable of being very articulate.

CBrown, you have asked me if I would have been just as offended if Tom had not included the swastickas and stripes. Go back and read all my posts on the two blogs Tom put out on the subject of checkpoints. I was in agreement with Tom about them. I have the opprotunity to work these checkpoints every year, but refuse too, because I think they are a bunch of bullcrap and think it is wrong. CB, if it sounded like I was qeustioning Toms patriotism you are wrong! I will be the first to admit, that I don't spell that well or have a great command of sentence struture. So if what I wrote seems like I was putting into doubt Tom and his service, then blame it on my ability of not writing well. I am not looking for a fight, but will not back down from anyone. My qeustion to you is, why do you find it so important to keep reminding everyone of your service to the country, and before I go futher thank you for it. I find it odd that some will try to intimadate others as saying, I served, what about you! As though if you didn't you can't have an opionion. I do not and will not use that tactic of military service to try and intimadate some one. CB rest assurd my 90 year old friend does find it reprehensible that we are losing our freedoms a little at a time, his mind is as clear as any twenty year old. He is a very uncouth man and will walk up to people he does not know and tell them to quit acting stupid and be somebody, it can be embarassing, but he is right. Your comment about, my friend grabing someone by the throut and throwing them to the ground, yeh I don't think thats right also, but thats what my friend would feel like doing, although he probably could not at his age, but has done in the past. Your dig you put on me of, "your brand of patriotism" is amusing. You have to do better than that.

Scant,

First, I appreciate your thanks for my service. It was both and honor and a privilege.

Does it bother you that much that I refer to my service regularly in these discussions. I felt it rather an important fact to point out given - if I'm to be persuaded by your perception - that not everyone on here who posts, and many more who are simply lurkers, may not have been familiar with that fact.

How presumptouus and rude - and incomplete - would my statements be for me to simply make the claim that Veterans wouldn't know for what they fight if it's not readily available that I am one myself ("I'm a Soldier, Too!" .

Most people who know me, know I'm not one much to toot my own horn, but I'm proud of my service, damned proud. And I don't mind telling my story to anyone who might be interested.

Those same people also know that I DO NOT harbor ill feelings towards ANYONE who hasn't served our country in her Armed Forces, whether that be a personal choice, or other reason. Military life is not for everyone. Certainly, active duty military life wasn't for me for a couple different reasons, personal and professional. But nowhere, for me, could I find the same kind of comraderie that I believe only can be found in military service.

But I also will not pass off others feelings and attitudes on any topic of interest in defense of any point I might be making. That only goes to prove you may not believe your argument is strong enough on its own merits.

CB,
America is great, America is strong, Americans are proud. Tom, bring on the next blog.

Hawley said to Susan: " You believe that the objections to it are mere political correctness -- Jews, holocaust survivors and that sort of trivial thing. "

There you go again, Hawley, twisting my words into complete lies, extremely offensive lies at that. If you cannot civily debate a topic without having to twist my words into lies, then don't bother, you are clearly not worthy of debating with.

(Might I also point out that when Tom wrote about you, it was on his blog, which a relatively small number of people see. You, on the other hand, chose not to air your opinion here on the blog where it belongs, but instead put it in the actual newspaper for the entire readership to see. If you were going for some sort of an "eye for an eye" thing... you went a little overboard.)

Susan,
Blogs have only one protection. The freedom of speech. A blog is not copy-writed. Therefor, if I read what you say, I am free to go tell anyone I want that Susan said....and so on. I can tell my mom, my wife, my kids, people at work, and the Man in the Moon if he will listen. I can tell all 200 trillion Chinese if I want to.
That alone makes your aurgument/debate with Hawley moot. He can send his opinion to the New York times if he wants, and include TL's blog if he so desires.
Go back to the top of the page. Go to that desicated flag image and put you cursor on it. What did you see in the little 'box'? NAZI AMERICA is what I see. Printed right there for all to see. Shameful.
Now I do part ways with Hawley in the fact that I do NOT think he should be fired for his Rant. He did not write it as a news article. If he had, the censors would have nixed it in a new york minute.
As for the 'word twisting' game, susan, that just part of debate. And I have read mnay of your posts, so I know that you don't feel those things were trivial. BUT, anyone who just started reading these blogs might have the same opinion after reading your responses to Hawley.
PS. I like your style though.

Danimal, I never said he "couldn't" tell anyone he wanted, I said it was a tacky way to handle it when his argument to me was that Tom had written about him on his blog before without consulting him first. Seems that a more fair (and equal) way to handle it would have been to come on here and put his complaint on the blog instead of going right to a letter to the editor. As for word twisting, yea, it happens, but it shouldn't, especially from someone who is in the process of bashing another for being unprofessional. I googled the guy, he's an attorney, a "professor" at ONU... really, if THIS guy can't make a stand up case when debating with me without having to resort to fabricating and telling complete lies about what I have said or think, then I have very little faith in his abilities as an attorney. Scary that he's actually teaching law...

Yeah Susan, it is scary that I teach law, that is if your idea of qualification for such a profession is that you believe it's plenty ok to traffic in symbols like the swastika, which you do (for now at least).

You have a standing invitation to attend my corporate law, antitrust law, administrative constitutional law and law and economics class. You will be shocked, because I'm a libertarian conservative. You (and Lucente) might learn a thing or two about civility in the public square (and corporate law, antitrust law, constitutional law and law and economics). We in the civilized public square have this weird issue with swastikas (and cross burnings), which you and Lucente don't share. (I mean this invitation sincerely, susan, because, I really think you would probably enjoy it. Look up my schedule on the ONU website.)

As for whomever it was who suggested that Tom Tebben and George Bush are public officials -- as opposed to the great Lucente, who must be contacted first before being challenged publicly -- Lucente is a public person also by reason of being a columnist and blogger. (If you go back in the blog, sir, I was responding to Susan's assertion that I was obligated to contact the great Lucente before I wrote a letter to the editor disagreeing with his defacement of the flag with the swastika. Because, at least in the eyes of Susan he is the great one, the great Lucente, the progenitor of freedom, thus free of the bounds of ordinary civility.)

Sorry for twisting your words, Susan, but they are your words after all. You should have thought twice before you got such a kick out of the swastika.

Danimal, , like you, I do not think Lucente should be fired, and I never suggested as much. (Susan read too much into my letter in that regard.) I said that in a large corporation and news organization, he would be fired. But that was merely to underline how serious an offense his use of flag and the swastika is. Given how much bearth Lucente is given at TLN, it would be very unfair for him to suffer such consequences without notice. I do believe, however, that TLN should tell him that there are some things that are beyond the pale (Susan, you should look up the expression "beyond the pale" to see what it means, because it will interest you).

Hawley,
Good post. I agree with much of what you say. You lay out such a good argument, that explains alot, you are a lawyer. I am envious of anyone who can articulate a position so well. I do my best to give the other side hell, of whatever issue I am arguing.

I get what Tom was trying to do with the swasticka thing, it was to shock people to wake up to the freedoms we are losing, but I think he could have gotten his point across just as strongly without it, Tom is a smart guy and could have rasied as much debate without the swastickas.

Scant, I get what Tom is trying to do also. I agree with him fundamentally on most things, just not so scalding so. This partiular thing -- the swastika/flag thing is standard issue debate team stuff, which goes back decades. That's why we're all having such fun with this. But thanks, Scant. You have an invite too.

Hey, Sus, how about a smile. Spartan.

Hawley,
So your lectures are open to the public? I would be interested. I don't know you from adam Hawley, so I will be scrutinizing you Hawley as any objective person would do so. Thanks for the invite.

Yes. You would have to introduce yourself to me and ask permission to sit in on the class before hand, of course. But yes, I would have no problem whatsoever. Because of that, open to the public would be an exaggeration. On the other hand, I doubt I have to worry about throngs of people. But I'll guarantee you an interesting 50 minutes.

Hawley, you're still doing it. Twisting words and making up things and accusing me of saying things I never said. You're not only unprofessional, you're a liar. I wouldn't take your class if you paid me.

Hawley said, "Hey, Sus, how about a smile. Spartan. " --- huh?

Ohhhh.... I get it! Duh. Sorry Spartan, didn't have a clue what you meant by that.

Well damn, I might have been nicer to you had I known it was you. Ok, you know my forum style, so maybe not, but still... Here I was beginning to think you were dragon22. Now that I know who you are, maybe I'll agree with you on some issues...not this one, obviously, but I will read your opinions because you were right a couple times in the past. (is that the smile you wanted?)

Susan, I don't think you should take Hawley up on his invitation, why waste the man's time? From some of your blogs, I don't think you are smart enough, or could keep your yap shut long enough to get anything out of his class!!
Be wise, be careful, be thoughtful, Be Blessed
Ciao "T"

Your post to Susan was very rude and uncalled for. Additionally, it added nothing of any intelligence to the debate.

TeeCee... you say something completely rude like that, then you tell me to "Be wise, be careful, be THOUGHTFUL, Be Blessed"...

Word of the day "Hypocrite".

Thank you, Eleanor.

OOOOO MAN. Hawley is a lawyer, and a teacher of law? I must remember not to judge. Its not up to me to judge. Judge not least ye be judged. It takes all kinds. Lawyers are needed.
But are not these the guys that can be paid to lie? Paid to denfend a guilty child molester? A murderer? Sexual preditor? PAid to try to get some one off, or a shorter sentence, even when they KNOW the cliant is guilty as sin?
The real job of a defence lawyer should be to make sure the accused's rights have not been violated. PERIOD. To see someone stand in a court of law and defend anyone by twisting the truth and outright lieing turns my stomach. And I dont care what you say, that happens every stinking day in every courtroom all over the USA. The trial lawyers job has been twisted and skewed to the point that it's all just ego and money. And then when they get rich enough, they become senators and such. Makes my skin crawl. I better stop there before i tell you what I REALLY THINK!!

Well said, Danimal.

Danimal, I totally agree with you. Totally. I was a corporate lawyer with a large corporate law firm. Represented railroads and energy companies and telecom companies. Trial lawyers are the lowest of the low. I don't know how to contradict your sentiment.

Great to be back in the circle of trust, Sus.

Sus, everytime I thing of the old days about "the queen bee" I bust a gut laughing.

Sus, everytime I thing of the old days about "the queen bee" I bust a gut laughing.

Hawley.... truth be told, I don't miss those days one tiny bit. I was glad when they shut that forum down. Got really sick of the childish game playing haters.

(Yea, you're back in the "circle"...you're still wrong, but you're back in. )

I agree, Sus. I felt the same as you about the old days. At the time though, it was sort of fun. I'll never forget how mad people got every tim I repeated the phrase "queen bee."

I will not be in the circle much now. But I would be honored if you you would show up to my class. It's not the kind of political science class you think. But it's also not a straight techincal law class. If you listen hard, you'll get the message -- i.e., the golden rule.

Hey, Hawley since you practiced law and teach it now, I bet you know some good lawyer jokes, so how about and lay one on us. Come on!

I'll tell you part of the best one ever told. About the guy who had sex with his goat and tried to hire the best lawyer he could get. He ended up hiring the most experiienced trial lawyer in town, one who was known for picking a jury who would acquit his client. Upon hearing the facts of the case, one of the jurors leans over to another and says, "you know, a good goat'll do that for you."

Believe it or not, Scant, that joke is over a century old. I think it's the best lawyer joke ever.

Nice desicration of the Flag Tom!

dan did not write that, unless its possible to use the same names.

dan,

The only way to protect your nickname is to actually become a member. Membership also means you won't have to type that code in each time you post or type in any other information when you are logged in.

If you are going to post a lot on this blog, I recommend becoming a member to save yourself some time.

~tjl~

I thought I was. Guess not
Thanx T

I think you already were a member, dan, because it looks like the names of people who aren't members show up in black but yours is green. It looks like both dan's are members... looks like it must be case sensitive.

Does appear so sus, thanx

Neither dan is a member.

The green only appears if the person has a link associated with his or her name.

A member logs in with a password and does not have to type the code and his or her name on every post.

Why is my name green then? I don't have link associated with my name (that I know of anyway)

Members have links to their member page. Non members only have links if they fill in the web address or e-mail blocks on the posting form, which you don't ever see because you are a member.

done deal thanx T

now I am confussed
I thought i was a member...but when i trye dto log in...which I thought I was cause i have a little welcome thing on the home page...and a coffee cup who is me...that lights up when i come to TLN home page...but i signed up to be a member and it said it was sending an email that I never got yet and now I don't even know if i am dreaming or what!!!!

OH CRAP...now it said i had to use a differant name because my name is in use by someone else...probably ME...now what do I do?

HEY!!!!,...Now I got it...no more chalupa (lol) challange to post....
Tom!!! I did get the email...it was from you and it went to my SPAM folder..(imagine that )Anyway....But
I DID SOMETHING RIGHT

YIKES!!!!! that was stupid...sorry...200 is really big I guess
thats better

SCANT...SUSAN...I FOUND IT!!!!!
TOM gave me an edit button all of my very own...no how do I spell check?

and what does the 'ban' mean?

Spelling check does not work. I am still trying to work that out.

Ban will ban the user. I don't know what will happen if you click it. I guess you would ban yourself. I should probably take that out. It is really for me to ban users, but you don't have that kind of access, or at least you shouldn't.

Danimal can edit now...Cool. Tom, I take back what I said about you running a Nazi like blog, You the Man!

Daaaaang, danimal, you really should warn people before you do that. I wouldn't recommend trying out your "ban" button..maybe just stick to your new "edit" button for now. And hey, how did you get Tom to give you one for free???? You wouldn't believe what I had to pay to get mine!

Thanks for the info Tom.....but as you know, I am the worstest spellerer on hear and kood use a spel buten
Susan, don't worry. I dont type good enough to use all that BBcode stuff very often.
Did you guys see where dan/Dan has a split personality now? About time he admitted it eh?

I knew there was something wrong with Dan, or dan. We need to raise a fund for them. We can call it, "Split personality disorder for the Dans." I am here for you dan/Dan, I know somebody who has a straight jacket they are not using. dan/Dan you know I love getting your goat, so come on and explain your split personality.

You didnt "get" my goat, scant. I didnt know you liked animals that way, but, to each thier own!

dan,
Ease up man. I was giving you a friendly ribbing, it was meant to joke around with you. You liberals have no sence of humor.

No it wasnt, it was more crap from you and danimal, joking and trying to be funny at others expence, are different things. You, whateveryouaretoday, have no common sense, and you are not funny. Kinda lable people all the time, and it makes you wrong most of the time.

BTW scant, ever find that SS surplus you never heard of?

BTW scant, what loser will you be voting for?

dan, if I offened you then I apologize. I was trying to have a friendly joke with you.

You got one thing right, all of the canidates running for president are all losers. I can honestly say I have know idea who I will vote for. It sure won't be for Obama - the hater of America.

Please expand on your comment of the SS surplus.

LOL nice try scant. YOU will vote for a loser, Obama will win. hates America rhetoric is all ya got? LOL! You really should get out more. any more bad jokes, or misinformation you want to share?

Well screw you then dan, I was trying to be apologetic in my responce to you if I had offended you, but you, I think, didn't find it offensive, or didn't care. So I take it back, your un-grateful and do not have the ability to see humor even if you triped over it. I don't speak for Danimal, so ask him about his type of humor, but I for one, GET, his jokes and can see when someone is trying to get someones, "GOAT." You do not, cause you are wound so tight you can see striaght.

Yea, I got a joke for you. "What do liberals and a Fart have in common? - They both stink and will eventually fade away."


Obama is a hater of America, you only need to look at his vist to Germany where he bad mouthed America. He is a hater of this country and should not be given the office of the president. He will not get elected, I garentee it.

yada yada yada He bad mouthed America? You "garentee" , I say you cant spell, or predict. You are just a bully, and I called you out, for what you are. BTW, I have agreed with TL, on the last several issues. And the only thing I have said, is I AGREE.
And you and the usual mouths cant handle it. GROW UP! People dont always agree.
And should not have to listen to you and your minions insults, everytime someone post a different view from yours. What a concept heh? Look at what you loudmouths gave us with your votes! Ever find that SS surplus, you never heard of?

oh my, the native is restless tonight...dan/Dan, ease up. Your relentless attacks on Scant are pathetic. You bash him for spelling, then you can't even see where one paragragh ends and another begins. I, and many others on here find your opinion somewhat lacking in thought. That you "agree" with Tom on a few issues has nothing to do with anything. We don't keep score here. However if we did, it would be something like: dan/Dan 0..... everybody else undefeated.
Come on TOM...3-4 days without a new thought on the blog? See what you have done to dan/Dan? He is going bonkers waiting for someone to agree with so he can feel as if he had a thought himself. Hook a brohter up man. Post something!

dan,
Thank you for pointing out my mis-spelling, that was the first mistake I have made in three months, my average is every six months, I must be slipping.

Bully.....are you kidding me? I am far from that. I don't care if you agree with TL. I will agree with him too on some subjects. If telling the truth is being a bully then I geuss I am. I have never had any minions that followed my lead, but I like the idea of people following my lead,.....you really think people look up to me that way? Thanks for stroking my ego!

You took offence to my post about joking with you about split personalities, I know that there where two different dans, I was just trying to joke with you and lighten up the blog, you took it wrong, and I apologized for it. If you can't accept that, then it is on you my friend.

I do not mind someone with a different point of view than mine, I like the debate, and there are times someone has swayed me to their way of thinking. Some advice for you dan is that you need to start putting up some proof to what you are saying. I, and many others here have given you many links and articals to back up what we say, but you offer nothing more than, that you just keep saying, "you don't believe it." So when you are pushed to back up your rhetoric, then produce some proof of what your saying, untill then no one will take you seriously.

Okay dan, clue me in on your statment about the SS surplus, and please, when you do, site me some source I can go to check it out.

more yak from danimal, expected blabber.
Scant, I guess you get it, how did it feel? OK, about the SS surplus, you knew nothing about. How do you think they pay people now? There is more coming in, than is going out.
For now. WHAT RHETORIC, have you asked me about? WHJAT statement have I claimed as fact, that is incorrect? BTW that "proof", if I give, you will just cry about sources, give me one of your many unbiased honest sources, we will start there. IMO ALL of the jokes and insults get thrown by the same people, at the same KIND of people. That kills any real debate, wich I think is the point of scant and danimal as well as others.

dan, you acusse me of not spelling well. Go back and read your last post. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. HA HA. Busted dan.

scant, I guess you dont get it? Oh well!

DID YOU MISS THE POINT? You seemed to ignore the questions also, so why even speak? Thats my point.

dan/Dan...did you figure out how to become a member yet?
Now for your qustion about SS. And my source is SSA.gov, but don't knock the source, as you stated above that would be wrong.
SSA takes in more in taxes, at this point, than it pays out. However, any extra money is 'borrowed' (taken/stolen/ripped off/highjacked) by the US treasury, which in turn issues "special bonds". In 1950 there were 16.5 workers paying in for every 1 getting benifits.
Today, this year, that number ratio has depleted to 3.3 paying for every 1 getting SS. Within 40 years that number is expected to decline to 2 paying in for everyone pulling out. The math is not to hard for most people.
Now, let me ask a question of you. What do you mean by: The joke and insults being thrown by the same people at the same KIND of people? Just what KIND of people are you?
Are you somehow differant then the rest of us? Please explain that comment.

=DJS=

Maybe you, dan/Dan are a bigfoot? Perhaps you are cro-magnon? Or a neanderthal?
You are no doubt a liberal, which puts you close to all of the above, in that, one day, with any luck at all, you will be extinct too.
It's funny how the only time you ever have an opinon worth a red cent, it's to agree with Tom on something he actualy gave thought to. The rest of the time, you just bash people for doing the very same thing you do most of the time. I don't think you could debate Homer Simpson and and win. Yeah, I know, Homer is a cartoon. But most of your liberal opinions are funny too.
=DJS=

Danml as usual, is confused. I dint have a question about SS, scant did. I never said, it would be wrong to knock sources, (some need knocked), only that is what Y'all do EVERYTIME! And ignore the content.
What did I mean? Simply that the insults come from YOU, and a few others, and is almost ALWAYS directed at liberals, (D) or minorities, and those who dont agree with YOU.
Still confused? And yes I would like to believe I am DIFFERENT than you.
Just couldnt post without isults, inuendos, accusations, and just plain ole crap, could ya?
So as usual, not only were you wrong, you went back to the old sling crap and nonsense playbook, had ya all fiquerd out danimal. I knew scant was playing, and so was I. But I meant what I said, and said what I meant. What "liberal" opinions?
I think you are trippin on something, I HAVE NOT bashed peoiple for thier views, ONLY for thier insults, and lack of substance. And ONLY at those who TREAT others with no respect, that would be YOU!
So Mr know it all, what do you want to debate? Lets see what ya got, m st Homer heh?
Should be easy for ya to show the liberal how stupid he is heh? Bring it on!