well charlie, at least maybe we just can agree on good music. i notice you listen to some red dirt texas music. i have had more than one conversation with mr. billy joe. i walked his son.....eddie, and his wife to their van one night. about two weeks later he od'd. what a waste of talent, and what a great god loving man billy joe is.

R.I.P. eddie.........and god bless billie joe shaver.

Charlie,

You said, "The election of Barack Obama presents a chance for the citizens of this country to think of others rather than their own selfish interests, and to help the new administration move America further along its path of progress. May all our leaders be kept safe and may we all do our part to help heal, rebuild and restore her economic, political and spiritual health."

I find it interesting that this was not your take when President Bush was elected twice. I do agree with your hope for such progress, economic, political, and spiritual, but it can only be attained if Republicans do not engage in the same shenanigans that your side of the aisle engaged in during President Bush's terms. Hollywood and Democrats made demeaning movies about him, wrote damning books about him, constantly blamed him for everything from 9-11 to Hurricanes. Not much about the mortgage crisis was hung on him due to the fact that the democrats were promoting the failing policies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Such activity demeans our President, whoever he is as well as our country. Granted, it comes from both sides even as it did against Clinton from Republicans (of course Hollywood didn't engage in that side).

This seems to be the case as it stands today in America. When Republicans win, we're cheaters. When Democrats win we're racists. And though I am aware of the fact that some nutcases could be targeting Obama for assassination, that is not exclusive to Democratic presidents. Remember the attempts on President Ford? And what about the assassination attempt on Reagan that came closer than most realize? Were their assailants rednecks? I'm tired of Southern jokes from the elitist who think that only dumb southerners vote for Republicans and only those of "deep redneck persuasion" are potential assassins. You might need to consider Farrakhan's Nation of Islam followers as potential assassins if Obama doesn't tow his Muslim line.

Furthermore, look at the electoral county maps around the country and you'll find that the land mass of this nation is red. Only the metropolitan areas like NY, LA, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, etc. carry the Democrats to power periodically. Places where crime is at the highest rate and welfare is overwhelming their budgets. Of the 58 million who voted for McCain (I'm not a big McCain fan) most of them were in Northern and western states as well as the south "redneck" country. To the surprise of many, NY as a state is primarily red accept of course for the NY city, Syracuse and Buffalo areas. I'm tired of this byword, REDNECK to generally describe people from the South (Arkansas included) who believe in eternal virtues instead of temporal gain and happen not to vote for Democrats, which is most of the south.

And don't worry about "The mouth of the Misssissippi" (nice!) or Hannity, I'm sure that the free speech Democrats, with the assistance of the ACLU and liberal judges have something up their sleeve like, the "Fairness Doctrine." That way we would be better served to get the politically correct news from CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times and FOX. That is if Fox is allowed to stay on the air with the Democrats in charge.

I conclude: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Razorback:

"I find it interesting that this was not your take when President Bush was elected twice." Just wondered from whence you arrived at this conclusion. Are there articles "out there" of which I am unaware. I thought Charlie just started a column on Sept. 15 of this year. I would find it difficult to believe that Charlie Crow would not want America moved further along its path of progress and all our leaders to be kept safe while "we all do our part to help heal, rebuild and restore her economic, political and spiritual health" regardless of administration affiliation. If you believe that Democrats would not want our country and its citizens to have the most success possible just because there is a Republican administration, then you are blinded by your own belief system.

Regarding all the whining and crying about the mistreatment of Republicans--horsefeathers!

Charlie & Ann,

It is with great fear and trepidation that I enter into dissent with two people of such acumen and articulation. Especially as it appears that both of you seem to possess such a revolting nature toward those who would ever question your system of thought and philosophy of politics. I suppose your reaction would explain the desire among Democrats to impose a "fairness doctrine" that would effectively subvert our nation's long standing principle called freedom of speech.

I cannot know if either of you would hold to such a practice, nor, as Ann insinuated, I cannot know your personal motives or desires for this nation. But one thing I do know is that the majority of Democrats from Hollywood and Washington who speak, speak with such venom about a sitting President as to make all decent Americans blush with shame before our enemies.

Furthermore, I find your mode of discussion to be repulsive and divisive. Instead of sticking with your valid assessments of dissent against Republicans you lower yourself to derogatory appellations. When you speak, it as though wisdom is flowing forth from great minds, but when Republicans speak, we're designated as "windbags" who "condone boorish language and behavior." When "Faux" reports its slanted, when CNN reports its truth. When Republicans object its "whining and crying" when you object it is divine justice.

Your assessment of me is wrong in that you apparently believe that I have foolishly agreed with all of Bush's policies. That's a false assumption. I disagree with almost all of his domestic policies and he spent more money than any Democrat in history. I'm glad his term is ending but I'm not very optimistic of the man replacing him who appears to be a socialists (I hope I'm wrong). We will see in the days ahead if the "Messiah" as Farakkan designated Obama (Something Obama never rebuked) can save the world.

"Horsefeathers" is a good word for your seemingly denied bias. I admit my bias, but your view is as pure as the wind-driven snow. Maybe we're all in the dark. But good grief, stick to facts and stop articulating your disdain for the people who oppose your political philosophy. I guess you took heed to Obama's earlier admonishment, to "get in those people's faces." How can we actually discuss political issues of importance when name calling is in vogue?

One more thing Charlie. Your "ist mir egal" attitude toward the other half of Americans who also have political opinions explains much of the current problem in America. For myself, "Ich bin anderer Ansicht." Men have died for the right of dissent among free peoples!

By the way, Liquor is bad for the liver! (Just a joke, don't get mad)

Razorback:

My original response here, first of all, was to your comments regarding Charlie's column dated Nov. 17.

My response, in essence, said how can you contend that Charlie and/or Democrats would not want Americans to support President Bush when he was twice elected? Charlie has never siad that in this paper; and, to my knowledge, this is the only comumn that he has written. I was saying that you made those statements from your conservative heart and mindset which does not allow you to think any other way or believe anything to the contrary; otherwise, you would not jump to such conclusions and state such a falsehood. You did not respond to that.

I then said that those who cry "poor me" in such a way to suggest that they are the only ones being either attacked or exposed are foolish. I assure you the liberals have had their fair share of unkind words and pictures and videos portrayed about them. You did not respond to that.

Instead you veer off into another direction involving vague generalities. Try being specific.

I have not responded to your comments about the Fairness Doctrine because something about the word "fair" seems, well, fair. I honestly do not understand how encouraging both sides of an issue to be heard could deprive or restrict one of his or her freedom of speech. Even the Supreme Court has said as much, and you Republicans certainly believed in the Supreme Court's wisdom when it suited your purpose of getting George Bush elected.

What venom about a sitting President?? One cannot deny facts.

Regarding Fox and its staff. I, personally, have heard so many lies, distortions and half truths from the names that Charlie mentioned. For example, when Sarah Palin was found guilty by her legislators of unethical behavior and abuse of power for her actions over the "troopergate" event, then found not guilty by a special committee appointed by her, Fox only reported that she had been found not guilty by the special committee looking into the event. They completely omitted that the committee was totally appointed by her. That is propaganda or half truths. Fox does it all the time. CNN reported both pieces of information.

Regarding Obama being termed the Messiah, if Obama rebuked every false statement made about him, he would not have time to do anything else. He cannot control what others choose to espouse.

Your assessment of my use of the word "horsefeathers" is completely incorrect and offensive to me. "Horsefeathers" was in regard to your whining and crying about all the unfair treatment of conservatives. Again, liberals feel just as disparaged. You do not have a copyright on feeling abused.

I have never indicated in any way that you agreed with all of Bush's policies. Another false statement.

Finally, excuse me--name one incident where I have articulated disdain for PEOPLE who oppose me. I articulate disdain for their lack of truth and/or knowledge but not for the people.

You clearly stated that I exhibit disdain for PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE ME.

"The majority of conservatives, especially their national spokespeople seem always bitter, mean-spirited, greedy, and fearful." This was commenting on the actions of a group of people based upon a specific example that I had observed myself. It was not due to the fact that they had opposed me! All of your other quotes are the same. I express disdain for people's actions or words based upon what they are doing or saying not because they disagree with me. Disagree all you want, but stay the course; address the issue; argue the point(s). You do not even know me, and to say that I have disdain for people is quite a stretch and "mean spirited," Brother Roy. You have not proven anything.

I, personally, deplore the mud-slinging, but no one is immune and both sides have gotten their fair share. Bill Clinton was attacked viciously from the beginning of his run for President in as vicious a manner as was Bush. He was even impeached. I'll be glad to move on if you will stop distorting what I say and my Party. My grandfather used to say, "If you can't take the heat; stay out of the kitchen."

Ann,

My last post was posted before I read your last one. Sorry! And I must say, I can take the heat, but I would prefer a six-egg omelet while I'm in the kitchen. Let us lay down our swords and discuss the issues. You are a formidable foe in the field of political battle and you wield your sword with great ferocity. I respect you, but I don't agree with much you have to say. I'm certain that you could say the same of me, but I'm willing to be a good sport if your game. HOW BOUT" IT? You take the first volley.

Roy Hargrave

humm!

Dear Charlie,

As to your statement, "Even though I was deeply disturbed by the way Bush won, e.g. when the Supreme Court awarded him the election, I accepted the reality and indeed hoped for the best." Now I appreciate your acceptance of the reality and your hope for the best, but the implication of, "the way Bush won, still continues to propagate something that is essentially false if the recount had occurred. Also, we're not even mentioning the fact that the Networks called the election for Gore in Florida one hour before the polls in the Panhandle were closed, which leans heavily Republican. Numerous papers in Florida estimated that the early call by the networks so discouraged voters who were in long lines that it cost Bush approximately 10,000 -- 20,000 votes. This is also a fact that is rarely, if ever stated, while history is gradually revised.

Lets consider the evidence in the spirit of friendly dissent concerning the facts as they stood, most of which were published facts by entities that could not be described as in Bush's corner. Let me begin by responding to what seemed to be an implication that Bush was merely awarded the election of 2000 by the Supreme Court. That card has been played millions of times over the last eight years through every avenue available and I must admit that it is partially as well as technically true, in that the Supreme Court did in fact determine what they deemed proper that subsequently halted the recount.

The problem, however, with the general consensus held by Democrats, fails to factor in the makeup of the court at the time of its decision. The majority of the Supreme Court in 2000 tended toward a more liberal view or for argument sake, I will stipulate that it held generally a moderate view. Lets consider who made up the court at that time? William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer. Three of these Justices were conservative: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy leaned toward conservative but periodically moved toward the other side. Four were liberal: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. O'Connor was usually the wild card on the court in 2000. So we have 3 strong conservatives, one who leaned conservative and 4 liberals and one wild card who tended in her last five years to vote with the more liberal element. That means that the court was most certainly not bias toward the conservative element but rendered their judgment based on the facts. Therefore it was not the shenanigans that the far left has so often regurgitated in the Media and Hollywood for the past eight years. I know the argument that they had no right to engage in a state battle, but the Florida Supreme Court had encroached the legislative branch by determining against the present law of the state of Florida. Though I would tend to agree with state's rights I find it odd, that liberals, who tend to lean more upon the Federal branch of government, denounce this single act as an encroachment when the Supreme Court had already done so on issues like abortion and other vital state referendums that were established by individual states. That is extremely selective.

But the real proof that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox for that matter have rarely spoken of over the last eight years, is the Media consortium that came to Florida after the decision to determine the outcome if the recount would have taken place. It cost nearly $1 million in pooled funds and some 10 months of work. This is well known in Florida, but most of the country has not clearly understood the facts of it. This consortium consisted of the St. Petersburg Times, (left leaning) the New York Times (Liberal) the Washington Post (Liberal), the L.A. Times (Liberal), Wall Street Journal (Conservative) Associated Press (Moderate) and CNN (Liberal).

The results were published in headlines as follows: "Florida Recounts Would have Favored Bush" (Washington Post), "Bush Still Had Votes to Win in a Recount" (L.A. Times); Florida Recount Study: Bush Still Wins" (CNN.com), "Ballot Recount Supports Bush Win" (St. Petersburg Times), "Under the Two most likely scenarios, Bush Won Recount" (Palm Beach Post). Though this is strong public evidence, it fails to take the Panhandle debacle mentioned earlier into consideration. Which leaves no doubt in the minds of people who know the facts as to who would have won if the recount would have continued.

The continuation of false propagation in this matter is partly due to the power of Hollywood Documentaries and movies as well as the left-leaning media's propensity to bury good news for Republicans. (Whining & Crying!)

My next post will address your statement that Bush has brought us to the brink of financial ruin.

Roy Hargrave