WOOOOOOOWWWWWW!  It is hard to read this info on Wigand’s testimony on where all the Smoke Free money came from (Scruggs, Motley, etc.) and not think of Jim Hood’s performance in Natchez.

This is a very interesting article and deserves more attention.

Just out of curiosity, is there any evidence that big tabacco didn’t do every damn thing Wigand accused them of?

The ends always justify the means . . . right?

When Wigand blew the whistle on big tobacco, his career was over.  What was he supposed to do?  Stock shelves at Wal-Mart?  He had to make a living to support his family.

Alan, it’s just absolutely amazing that you spend so much time looking into the conduct of informants who bust corporations, and won’t say the first word about the behavior of the corporate criminals who are the subject of the informant’s testimony.

As a seventy-seven year old ex-smoker, I do not believe there is a person on this earth who smokes without being aware of the dangers of doing so. Therefore I have believed all along that the suit against “Big Tobacco” was nothing but a plot to enrich Mike Moore and his cronies.

If Mr. Wigand did not like what he was doing, then surely his educational level would have made it possible for him to get employment elsewhere.  The whole situation is nothing but a greedy grab for money by a bunch of hucksters led by Scruggs.

Mr. Crowley Sez: “Alan, it’s just absolutely amazing that you spend so much time looking into the conduct of informants who bust corporations, and won’t say the first word about the behavior of the corporate criminals who are the subject of the informant’s testimony.”

Curtis; I am about to ruin your day by agreeing 100% with that post.

Dixie68,
If that was true, why did the tobacco companies lie about it all those years?

"I do not believe there is a person on this earth who smokes without being aware of the dangers of doing so.”

I would have to agree with that statement, to an extent.  I knew the dangers when I started smoking.  I started smoking after Wigand “stole” documents from his employer, and blew the whistle.  However, there was an entire generation of smokers who were lied to by big tobacco.  Even after they got busted with the “purloined” Wigand documents, tobacco executives gave perjured testimony to Congress when they claimed that they did not believe nicotine was addictive.  After they made those statements, I think everyone realized that everything that came from big tobacco’s mouth was bullshit.

Also, I would point out that Mississippi’s case against the tobacco companies was not brought to recover damages for individual smokers.  The lawsuit was brought to recover the expenses paid by Mississippi Medicaid to treat people for tobacco-related illnesses.  The tobacco companies put out a dangerous product that caused injuries to Medicaid recipients, and the taxpayers (that’s us) had to pick up the tab.  It’s only fair that the tobacco companies reimburse us for these expenses.

Dixie - I don’t disagree with the fact that anyone and everyone that smokes should know the risks, weigh the risks and decide on their own whether or not they want to smoke - their choice and no one else should be responsible for the harmful effects. I also don’t disagree that the attorneys involved had more interest in the money than winning something back for the people.
However, Wigand risked his life and lost his family over this. By his testimony, the tobacco industry caved on the false reports on health hazards but I think the main thing he did was convince the courts that the industry purposefully put chemicals that caused the usage to go up. They lied about that and paid $246B as a result. Had the whistle blower laws been in effect then, it is my understanding that he could have gotten up to 30% of that - but not sure that even the current whistle blower laws would have ever given him any where near that amount. I suppose $500K seems a bit high for an expert witness but none of this would have come down probably without him.
I do have a problem with it being a secret for 10 years and it’s just now coming out, though.

Could or would any of you tell me just how much of the tobacco settlement went to reimburse Medicaid for the money it has paid out for smoking related illnesses? Thanks.

Dixie - that would be like asking how much has the gambling gone toward education? Answer: I don’t know.

In 1948 I asked both my parents not to smoke for it was common knowledge that smoking was injurious to your health. They both died of lung cancer, smoking to the bitter end. It never occured to me that I should hold someone accountable for my parent’s decision, for both were well educated and intelligent.
I have found based on experience that youth is corrupt, the people suffer from oppressive taxes and age old truths are doubted. I don’t expect anything to change soon.

Thanks, HReagan. I really believe that in both cases the answer is: Very Little.

Curt, you said something that intrigued me that I had not gotten a chance to get back to . . .

Alan, it’s just absolutely amazing that you spend so much time looking into the conduct of informants who bust corporations, and won’t say the first word about the behavior of the corporate criminals who are the subject of the informant’s testimony.

Let’s see if I can put where I stand in a way that makes some sense to you.

Suppose, just suppose, that I had an inside source on the Scruggs defense team.  Maybe a paralegal or even a young lawyer.  They have an epiphany.  They come to find out beyond a shadow of a doubt that their client is totally guilty, but they think their guy might get off.  She has all kinds of evidence that she has slipped to me to publish on my site.  It is lock ‘em up and throw away the key stuff.  Privileged stuff.  So, I pay her a bunch of money to get her through (because she’s got to earn a living right?).  Let’s just call her a confidential informant that becomes a Y’allPolitics “consultant”.  How fast would you be yelling for her head as someone in the legal profession?  How badly would the law firm come after her and me?

I get that individuals and companies and even whole countries do bad stuff, and it sucks.  But 99% of the time, there’s recourse for it IN THE SYSTEM.  If “Big Tobacco” or “Big Oil” or “Big Whatever” are as evil and lawless as you believe, they’ll get theirs.  It may not be when or how YOU want it.

Curt for you to be a lawyer and to condone and even encourage that kind of vigilante “ends justify the means” behavior candidly gives me the creeps.

crowley:  i will go to my cremation with 100 percent faith that FAIRNESS exists in one place only, and it ain’t here on this earth.  how many of us enjoyed and bought into “The Insider”? guess who disney’s laughing at?
little did I know that wigand recanted testimony, deals were consummated on “backroads,” and VIPs had to be “touched” and “taken care of.” call me naive. guess how much I don’t care what you call me.  i believed that lady justice had her blindfold on the whole time.  what a fool i was.  you keep right on bolstering and defending these human saints you got conjured up in your mind.  it’s okay.  fact is, while we’re all finding our way through the collective FALL of man, we need folks like you to help us see all sides of our human dilemma.

.

Alan, I don’t even know where to start. 

As an initial matter, your analogy is, well, retarded.  The difference between your hypothetical and the cases that are the subject of our discussion, is that the informants in the actual cases were actual participants in the underlying crimes.  This is obviously a different situation than a criminal defense lawyer who is representing a defendant after the fact, and discovers information that makes him believe that his client is, in fact, guilty of past criminal conduct. 

Additionally, the lawyer in your scenario is specifically prohibited by law from disclosing the information you described.  He may not disclose client confidences, and any information so unlawfully disclosed is inadmissible against the defendant in any legal proceeding.  There is no similar rule regarding a chemist or adjuster or janitor or anyone else, which would prohibit these people from disclosing evidence of criminal activity by their employer.

The actions of Dr. Wigand and the Rigsbys are more analagous to a drug mule that “steals” a trafficker’s coke and takes it to the cops, or a staff accountant that “purloins” cooked books and exposes same to the public.

And I was intrigued by this statement: “If “Big Tobacco” ... [is] as evil and lawless as you believe....” “IF?” I think I’ll just let that statement speak for itself.

Alan, a new one—you’re retarded!!!

"Could or would any of you tell me just how much of the tobacco settlement went to reimburse Medicaid for the money it has paid out for smoking related illnesses?”

If I’m not mistaken (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), the Legislature alone has the authority to appropriate the proceeds of the settlement.  Exactly how much the Legislature has chosen to appropriate to Medicaid, I don’t know.

Liblen, I said the analogy--not its author--was retarded.  Read it again in the morning when you’re sober.

crowley:  yeah, yeah, yeah.  i know what you said and what you meant.  nice try.

Alan; the lady who exposed the World Com situation is now making the rounds in the Metro area...schools, book stores, signings, sightings (ha), etc. Would you address your feelings (in this same regard) about her and what she did? Maybe I misunderstand you; but, are you suggesting that people like her are the slugs of the earth? Where would Worldcom, it’s employees, Bernie specifically, his magical empire, and all the people whose finances he, ah, affected, be today, had it not been for her whistleblowing activities.

We could discuss Erin Brockovitch later.

Big difference on Cythia Cooper.  First of all, there was no sugar daddy plaintiff’s lawyer that paid her as a “consultant”.  No question that there is a place for whistleblowers, but there are lines, ethics and processes.

And Curt to your point, if the Rigsby gals were so convinced of criminal wrongdoing, they didn’t have to steal the docs (which is criminal).  They certainly didn’t do it with law enforcement’s advance knowledge, which could have just as easily been accomplished.  They substituted their own judgement for what they think is legally right/wrong.  They could have just gone the FBI or the AG or the US Atty and said “there is some malfeasance here and I know where the bodies are buried” and then helped in conjunction with law enforcement to help.  Period.  But they wanted to get paid.

This zeal that you seem to have for the ends justifying the means is exactly the same kind of zeal that has gotten the current crew in question in trouble.  I firmly believe that Scruggs, Hood, Langston, et al. all just convinced themselves that they knew “the truth” and what ever laws or ethics that they had to bend/break were justified in the end . . . until they got caught.

New to this blog.
Was Gov Barbour a lobbyist for the tobacco industry prior to Mississippi’s tobacco lawsuit?  At that time, I know the state AGs across the country were talking about bringing suit against the tobacco industry to recover medicaid cost for smoking related illnesses.  The tobacco industry folks knew this, and may have wanted to try to avoid a lawsuit by settling.  If so, could they have asked Barbour to talk with Senator Lott about it?  And Lott contacted Scruggs, and so on.  After the tobacco industry settled with MS, a lot of money was spread around.  And Barbour has been so adamantly opposed to any tax on tobacco, even to the point that Sen Robertson lost his re-election bid because he helped Barbour block a vote on the tobacco/grocery tax swap.  And Lott stepped down right before Scruggs was indicted.  Just a lot of really close connections here.

Alan said: “They substituted their own judgement for what they think is legally right/wrong.  They could have just gone the FBI or the AG or the US Atty and said “there is some malfeasance here and I know where the bodies are buried” and then helped in conjunction with law enforcement to help.  Period.  But they wanted to get paid.”
Well said, they knew law enforcement doesn’t pay for such info.

Eli and Alan: I know that both of you are probably aware that sometimes ‘people’ don’t trust systems, such as complaint procedures, or grievance processes or internal systems set up for employee issues. Merely devil’s advocate here. When there is distrust of the vehicles in place, people have every right to go outside the system to address their complaints. Every system within which I’ve ever worked had that disclaimer among its procedures. Nobody should feel locked into a certain reporting mechanism. That’s ‘complaints 101’. The women may be faulted for many things, however, not going to the cops is not one of them.

Not quite at this level, but assume someone in Philadelphia, Mississippi circa 1967 wanted to report some local shennigans. Using the theory both of you espouse, they would be told, “Hell, you knew you could talk to the police about this.” wink, wink, yeah, right.

Donn, one review of a Law and Order episode would have educated these women.  I am not convinced they had pure motives.  They wanted cash.  Period.  This ain’t 1967; and they certainly had no fear of lawmen, unlike some did in 1967.  I’m just saying, I’d have been more respectful of them had they done what in my estimation would have been a “common sense” approach.  “This is criminal.  Uhhhh, should we talk to law enforcement about this “criminal act?” Uh....????

Anyone else here go listen to Wigand at Muddflaps, I mean Millsaps, a couple of years ago?

Eli: Your theory is a personal theory, not one of universal applicability. If you’re a lawyer you know that. It’s of no relevance if you, or Alan or I or Joe The Bartender thinks the law can be trusted and therefore we should take our concerns to them. The only thing that matters is that “Complainant A” may have so distrusted the system that he chose to go outside the system to address his issues. The matter of theft aside (as I have no knowledge of that), any complainant is going to be allowed by any hearing officer at any level to seek the level of their own choice at which to file a grievance or complaint. I don’t care what year it is. That’s a fact that’s not going to change.

If my internal procedure here is that an employee will report issues of perceived sexual harrassment to her supervisor who in turn will bring that to my attention immediately, that is of no consequence in the matter of the employee who distrusts that system or does not want to go through the supervisor. Or for that matter if the employee does not trust ME and wants to make no complaint whatever at the facility level, they have multiple other avenues for filing complaints.

You guys are spending so much time faulting these two women for having taken a route of their own choosing rather than perhaps the route you perceive another person might have taken....or the one you in your wisdom think ‘should have’ been taken. Watch and see how much thought a judge gives that. As long as they did not violate the law, a judge will not give one hoot in hell what vehicle they chose for exposing what they perceived to be a wrong.

Plaintiff’s attorney: So, Mary, if I understand your situation, you had a policy in place that you chose to ignore, is that correct?

Plaintiff: Yes sir.

Plaintiff’s attorney: Well, what possible explanation can you provide the court for totally ignoring the policy or the handbook or the practice we find that others might have followed?

Plaintiff: I was scared shitless of reporting this to the authorities since they have coffee every morning with my supervisor and six of the local constabulary are related to officers of my company.

If I’m wrong, let an attorney tell me that, not wannabees.

If it’s a point of law I’m missing, I’ll certainly accept that.

Donn, I’m no attorney.  Not law enforcement either.  Just a common person, but with friends in both venues.  And I’m just sayin’....If I thought something “criminal” was going on, I’d go to law enforcement, but that’s just me.  It NEVER would have occurred to me to go elsewhere.  That’s just me.

That’s fine Eli, and it’s what you should have said to begin with, instead of insisting that the sisters had an obligation to follow the same path YOU might have followed. Not necessarily so. As a disclaimer I have no opinion on whether they broke a law or had honorable intentions. Have no idea. Let a court decide. I’m just reporting to you that they had/have absolutely no obligation to have contacted law enforcement. Nor does it matter what I might do if in a similar circumstance.

Well, Donn, I did say what I thought, to begin with.  I do still believe they were seeking a payout; otherwise, they would have gone to law enforcement, if they thought it to be criminal in nature.  Otherwise, what’s there to report, and why?  Guess I must be a tad disenchanted, huh?  And, of course, ultimately it really doesn’t matter how the info finally makes it to a courtroom.

Hey.............Wigg and the Sisters squeeled like little feeder pigs during castration, got a few bucks and never the twain shall meet. So, what’s with all the reflux. Ain’t nothing gonna happen sept to the Sisters who will find the job market a little snug unless off shore is a passion.

The Sistas told Dickie Warbucks.....I don’t for a second believe that the fact they informed one of the wealthiest men in the region who stood to profit greatly from the information as cosmic coincidence. 

As they say in the Delta, that dog won’t hunt.

I didnt know that evidence of a crime was subject to being “stolen” from a criminal.

As for the “sistas”, they pulled a hoax on Dickieboy as the information they stole is worth nothing so Dickieboy is having to fake it with bluffs, which is why he didn’t want Renfroe to get the stuff back and confirm that they had no damaging evidence.

Ship Island

If the documents the Rigsbys purloined is evidence of criminal activity, and if Jimmy the Hair has had a copy of the documents since that Monday morning after the data dump weekend when one of his staffer’s picked them up, and if Hood’s staff has reviewed this criminal evidence as he clumsily testified in Natchez, then why did Hood walk away from his criminal prosecution of State Farm?

”....then why did Hood walk away from his criminal prosecution of State Farm?”

I give up............

Ship Island:  Bingo!

Off topic but why are cigarrettes “legal” in 2008? Other dangerous products are sold in America but they have some “utility” and are not dangerous when “used as intended” by the manufacturer. If all dangers cannot be avoided then the products are sold with “warnings”. Cigs simply dont have any beneficial uses or “utility”.  In looking at the largest 50 donors to political parties in both the 2000 and 2004 election cycles I see on the “R” side corporate entities in the following industries...Alchohol, Gambling, Firearms and TOBACCO (family values?) while on the “D” side I see...schoolteachers, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, mailmen, policemen, waiters and waitresses, and yes, the trial lawyers who represent them, all making contributions through their evil unions. Follow the money folks.

mba.law; did you intend, on the D side, just to casually overlook, the screenwriters, the hollywood actors guild, the George Soros crowd, the AFL-CIO, ACLU types, Amnesty International, the greenies and environmentalist whackos, etc.?

You made an effort to represent the R side as non-people...industries, corporate giants, big old mean business, smokestacks and rooftacks. You made an effort to represent the D side as Mr & Mrs everyday working class American riding the tram to work, walking their puppies and sitting ‘round the kitchen table. Very disingenuous..................and silly.

quote by Donn:
<mba.law; did you intend, on the D side, just to casually overlook, the screenwriters, the hollywood actors guild, the George Soros crowd, the AFL-CIO, ACLU types, Amnesty International, the greenies and environmentalist whackos, etc.? >

Well, thanks Donn. You got to mba fore I did.

mba.law, you wrote that “schoolteachers, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, mailmen, policemen, waiters and waitresses, and yes, the trial lawyers who represent them” all donate to the democrats.  Do you really think that they ALL do?  You do realize that the country is split about 50/50 Republican/Democrat.  Is it your position that half of the population of the US are evil corporate executives in the alcohol/firearm/tobacco industries? 

As for why cigs are not illegal, whether something has “utility” is often in the mind of the beholder.  What “utility” does vodka have?  Chocolate cake?  Crisco?  Video games?  This is a free country not a nanny state.  Don’t like cigs?  Don’t smoke.

I’m not advocating one party over the other here, just providing info. Corporate America (owners in the “ownership society"), generally contributes to the Republican party and Labor (the “worker bees") contribute to the Democratic party. Neither a secret or a divine revelation. I like cigarrettes and gaming, used to like beer and hunting. Love my 3 guns. FYI chocolate cake and beer do in fact have nutritional value...cigarrettes dont, sorry. If the State of Mississippi took a leadership role and outlawed the sale of cigarrettes under a “state’s right” to enact legislation to “protect the health, safety and welfare” of its citizens what do you think the federal reaction would be? Cut off federal funds perhaps? Federal court would void the legislation as a violation of the commerce clause perhaps? WE all need leaders who are pragmatic, not partisan. I pay state and federal taxes on earned income and recieve nothing much in return. I have no political party that represents me.

I wasnt talking about voters either, the refrerence was to the largest 50 donors to each party for the 2000 and 2004 presidential election cylcle. I just wonder if the “family values” party holds its nose when it accepts campaign cash from the biggest homewreckers in America. Hard to reconcile.

mba: Which “family values” party? The new one or the old one? The “homewrecker” party...now that’s a catchy phrase...which party would that be?

I’m gonna submit that it’s whichever one is most likey to have as constituents that have more single parent head of households on social programs, with at least one family member having served time in a correctional faciltity(past or present), lowest literacy or educational level and the least earned income with the highest birth rates (I still can’t figure that last one out since most of them beleive in abortion on demand)

Help me out MBA...which one?

mba.law claims: “I’m not advocating one party over the other here, just providing info.”

Honesty is not particularly your strong suit.

mba.law (whatever that is) opines: I just wonder if the “family values” party holds its nose when it accepts campaign cash from the biggest homewreckers in America. Hard to reconcile.

In my opinion, having observed the situation since at before the day of Lyndon Johnson, the biggest homewreckers in America are the leaders of the Democrat party and the hundreds of congressmen in that group who have for the past 45 years encouraged the decline in family and of family. They have done that by persuading 35% of the population that the party is their spouse and their momma and their perpetual tit. Without this sort of nonsense there’s really no telling where ‘family values’ in this country might be today.

Okay. the Republican party did not run in 2000 and 2004 claiming they were the party that best represented “family values”. My mistake… or “misrepresentation” if you prefer. Corporations engaged in the alchohol, gaming, tobacco and firearms industries were the largest donors to the Republican party in 2000 and 2004 and labor unions gave the most to the Democratic party. I’m sorry if facts make you angry. I just cant for the life of me figure out which particular “ family values” the R.J. Reynolds, Seagrams and Harrahs corporations espouse..and Ann Coulter keeps telling me to vote for Hillary..insanity! I think I’ll take a Lexapro and smoke some Marlboro Lights on my way over to Vicks Vegas. Maybe I’ll win enough to buy myself some legislation!

Donn: No fair helping others answer the questions....you gave him the answer and that’s not fair. He needed to do his own homework and provide an answer based upon a few facts about the “homewrecker” party so he could provide a cogent answer on his own.

Here are the top contributors to the Democrat party in 2006. Show me ‘family values’:

Friends of Hillary $2,550,000

Kennedy for Senate 2006 $1,843,200

Hoyer for Congress $1,377,512

Goldman Sachs $1,186,653

Feinstein 2000 $1,101,500

Durbin for Congress Cmte $985,000

Friends for Harry Reid $837,500

Bill Nelson for US Senate $710,000

Friends of Rahm Emanuel $710,000

Nancy Pelosi for Congress $698,000

Friends of John Kerry $634,473

Carper for Senate 2000 $596,820

Barney Frank for Congress Cmte $547,000

Murtha for Congress Cmte $534,250

Rangel for Congress 2000 $502,500

Daniel K Inouye for US Senate $502,000

Friends of Robert C Byrd Cmte $500,000

Lot of People for Dave Obey $491,000

Friends of Jim Clyburn $477,500

Friends of Kent Conrad $476,836

45 years? Isnt that about the time that the feds said Billy Joe and Bobbie Sue had to go to school with Leroy and Yolanda? Isnt that about when your dad broke tradition with your grandfather and switched political parties?

MBA..............you be so silly. Go easy on us conservatives.

MBA.......You talking bout the Civil Rights Bill? If so, who do you think put that bill over the wall. Had it not been for a handful of Democrats and the bulk of Republicans, it would never seen the light of day. Do you think for one second that the Democrats thought this bill would pass..........especially Southern Dems? You lost yo mind.

STOP THE MADNESS ! ! ! Ya’ll are tilting at windmills thinking that you’re going to change his mind...especially using sneaky tactics like LOGIC and REASON to attempt to trick him into seeing the truth. It’s easier for me to beleive ole Belle is going to be the first person to sign the Impeach Jim Hood petition than getting MBA to open his eyes.

I’m just waiting to see the HomeWrecker’s Party Dancin’ with the Stars show...somebody gonna leave that dance mighty pissed off.

Peace Out and Unto You on this Blessed and Glorious Day that I’ve Wasted Most of and Intend to Use the Rest to Do Something Productive....like take a nap.

Awh Razor.............we just playing Political Basketball with him...............and, he’s the ball. I think we just got a 3 pointer.

Hey, I think all my kids belong to the Family Values Party...they like taking my money and spending it on stuff they like and I don’t need.

The remark about ‘Leroy and Yolanda’ sounds sort of racist to me. Was that your intention?

The identity of the 50 largest contributors to political parties during 2000 and 2004 is not my “opinion” so you need not worry about “changing my mind”. The only thing that I “opened my eyes” and did was to read this info and pass it along to ya. And yes, the “Billy Joe” and “Leroy” references did, in fact, elude to race. In his recent book Jim Herring’s son-in-law, Mr. Crespino, who is a professor at Emory arrived at the conclusion that Mississippi’s shift from a Democratic state to a Republican state occurred as a direct result of public school integration. Maybe you should tell Jim to straighten the boy out and to get ahold of himself for arriving at this conclusion based on HIS research.

...and Donn, mba.law is a “username”. I came up with this name by combining mba (a graduate degree in business wherein one learns how to make “profit") with law (in reference to a juris doctorate degree).  I have a law degree, but I’m still 6 hours shy of the MBA. I thought I should disclose that I dont yet have that degree even tough mba is part of the “username” since, in your opinion, honesty is not my forte.

Well MBA, How does the ‘good’ and enlightened prof explain the rest of the RED STATES and most all southern states? Hmmmm? I mean, how can or how does anyone arrive at any conclusion? Certainly not from carefully examined research. Next time you see the Professor, as him(?) why did AlGore lose his own state of Tenn. in 2000. This might prove to be interesting.

...and neither the anticipated MBA or the law degree are from “state_supported” or “public” unversities where theoretically you would find mooches and welfare queens who are on a government teat, unable or unwilling to fund their own educations.

Professor Crespino’s book was limited to Mississippi as I recall and if his research or conclusions are so flawed then maybe you can enlighten me.

Well MBA, for some reason I have some skepticism as per all your accolades in the field of Academics. You see, when our generation was in school, graduate school and post graduate studies, we learned stuff. One thing we learned was how to spot counterfeit bills and pseudo intellects. Then in the Military, I also learned how to deal with these types. When people toot their own horns, it’s usually because they don’t have a horn to toot. Sorry, I’m not impressed.

Yes...........I can enlighten you. Just ask the part you wish to have the flash.

mba.law sez: I have a law degree, but I’m still 6 hours shy of the MBA. I thought I should disclose that I dont yet have that degree even tough mba is part of the “username” since, in your opinion, honesty is not my forte.

Not sure what your point is. Why throw up your credentials? It’s your liberal posts I find entertaining, not your sheepskin. This is a forum of posts/comments/opinions, not one of shingles, or so I thought.

Can we assume that one day you might shoot for the Bar Exam?

Donn said “mba.law"..."whatever that is” and I was informing him that it was my “username” and how I arrived at same, wasnt “throwing up credentials”. A sarcastic response but I didnt attack his veracity as he did mine. I’m not going there. I’m just on here for sport and jocular reparte. I can find good and bad in both Republican and Democratic parties, platforms and participants. I can accept that I am a “subject” and not a “citizen” in twenty-first century America no matter which party is in power. I can piss any of you off apparently! Haha.

...look, I voted for Jim Hood and Chip Pickering. I have figured out that this makes me AT-LEAST half-stupid to ALL bloggers on THIS website.

Well MBA, it’s not your unique ability to ‘piss’ off as it is your ability to confuse and leave people hanging. I wanna know more about the Professor and all the stuff about MS and why it went with the GOP and such as this. You’re just a fountain of knowledge and I’m a sponge ‘soaking it up’. You ask for enlightment and, promptly went away. And, then you go hahahahah. What gives?

Being a displaced Texan, I bought a book about MS politics/history without paying attention to who the author was. It was well written and absolutely non-partisan. I did not previously know of Professor Crespino. He stated that Jim Herring was his father-in-law. I let a friend borrow the book and I cant recall the title. You can find it yourself on Amazon.

Yeah...........these days, just about anybody can become disconnected from clear thinking and common sense. Most usually ‘plug back in’ after some maturity bleeds into the hard drive. Some don’t. Ex: Algore, Clintons, Teddy K., Carter, McCoy, Holland, V-Pac Trial Lawyers.

You all are calling mba.law “he”, but I believe that person is a “she”.  Nothing in its rants sounds masculine, but, as usual, I could be wrong.

For those of you just joining us, for generally identifying the 50 largest campaign contributors to both the Republican and Democratic parties in 2000 and 2004, and for stating that Robert Crespino, a professor at Emory, wrote a book that reached certain conclusions about Mississippi politics, I have been deemed a megalomaniacal fabulist, and now an effete one at that. Not much other response to my two statements of fact other than to characterize them as rantings and ravings. Fun.

...a mentally deranged effete megalomaniacal fabulist I suppose since I am incapable of clear thought and without common sense. Stay tuned...I’m going to tell them Governor Barbour appointed Judge Randolph to the Supreme Court over BIPEC’s objection because he happens to be “fair” and see if, rather than calling Haley a “traitor”, they can morph me into a homosexual Nazi Communist!

Come on, tell me to go morph myself and you can have your 3-pointer! Getting sleepy?

When one posts seven out of nine posts in a string, does that indicate they are having a discussion with themselves?

”Being a displaced Texan, I bought a book about MS politics/history without paying attention to who the author was. It was well written and absolutely non-partisan. I did not previously know of Professor Crespino. He stated that Jim Herring was his father-in-law. I let a friend borrow the book and I cant recall the title. You can find it yourself on Amazon.“

Hmmm. ‘I’m a displaced Texan with a law degree who can’t/hasn’t passed the bar...one who bought a (well written) book without noticing who the author was, and although I think I read the book I loaned it out and can’t remember the title but you can go somewhere and look it up.’

It’s tough to wake up to this kind of riddle.........but I’ll press on.

I think the ‘misplaced Texan’ just dislikes MS but won’t go back to Texas for what ever reason yet accidently connects with a book and takes a theory by someone at Emory University (whose father in law is deep into the GOP) as proof positive as to why people (in MS) began voting using logic and reason. And, I thought I was a distinct part of the evolutionaly food chain.

You best watch out MBA, in early March, the ‘ding bat man’ will be in MS and, counselor, you can rest assured, you on the list of eligibles.