State Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver finds free expression of thought on blogs to be dangerous, mentally ill and frightening…so stop reading Peach Pundit immediately, or else!

Hailing from the 83rd District, Democrat State Representative Mary Margaret Oliver (Website | Facebook) is scared. Frightened, even. Terrified beyond any capacity for rational thought. She sees something on the horizon even more horrendous than this, this or even this.

The problem? Peach Pundit. Us. Okay, not just us, but we’re included in the group known as “bloggers” that Mary Margaret Oliver finds so vile, so offensive, she can barely contain her terror.

Case in point from Her Highness:

There’s this little industry out there — ‘gotcha’ complainers. I think those people are not a helpful part of the political dialogue. I’m aware that there’s an element of politics that’s a pretty dangerous crowd. Seriously dangerous people. Some of them are mentally ill.

“Have you read the blogs? There’s a negativity and a hate-mongering that’s frightening to me.”

Dangerous. Mentally ill. Hate-mongering. Frightening. These are all the adjectives that a so-called “responsible” legislator feels are acceptable in describing people exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

Who I find offensive and hate-mongering is Mary Margaret Oliver. Further, Mary Margaret Oliver is a mentally ill and frightening individual if she truly is against political discourse by labeling it as coming from “a dangerous crowd.” I’m sure her delicate and refined sensibilities aren’t bothered in the least by liberal blogs Aikido School of Savannah and Georgia Liberal. No, it’s just those wretched, vile Conservatives, you see!

But Mary Margaret Oliver has already proven herself no friend of liberty and individual responsibility. Whether it’s hanging out with her treasonous friend of 18 years, Jane Fonda (PHOTO – Mary is the socialist in the middle), or trying to tell you when you can use your phone, when you can text someone, if you can afford a cigarette, when you can take a drink and how you can ride in your car, Mary Margaret Oliver believes she knows best for you and how you should live your life. From the cushy, elitist surroundings of the faculty lounge at Emory University where she is a visiting professor, I’m sure the “chaos” of people exercising their rights and speaking truth to power is a disturbing concept.

Maybe one day she shall have the maturity to understand the concept of free speech…and when she again speaks such fatuous nonsense, not sound an alarm when her rhetoric is again accurately pointed out to be the baseless ravings of a sad woman.

99 comments

  1. polisavvy says:

    Oh, good Lord! Are you kidding me? What a heifer! I don’t think that we are or should be considered mentally ill because we voice our opinions (which is the whole purpose of this type of thing) which may be contrary to her opinions. The Constitution that everyone talks about pretty well give us this right. I wonder if she has ever read the Constitution? If not, and you’re reading, go ahead and check out the First Amendment. My suggestion to her is that if she doesn’t like Pundit, then why does she continue to read it?

  2. Icarus says:

    Do you remember who else doesn’t want you to read Peach Pundit?

    That’s right. John Oxendine.

    Can you think of two people who disagree more than Mary Margaret Oliver and John Oxendine? I didn’t think so.

    Peach Pundit: More worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize than the current title holder.

    • polisavvy says:

      Two thumbs up on both accounts. Laughed over the Nobel Peace Prize comment. I still don’t see what he did/does to deserve it. 🙂

    • IndyInjun says:

      Peach Pundit: More worthy of a Nobel Economics Prize than the current title holder.

      Eric is more worthy of Man of the Year than the current honoree.

      I am joking on neither account.

      I can’t believe I posted that.

      Ms. Margaret evidently aspires to quail hunt with lobbyists while tweeting about the fashion show she is attending without worry that we, the “mentally ill”, will take note.

      There’s this little industry out there — ‘gotcha’ complainers. I think those people are not a helpful part of the political dialogue.

      She just WISHES that all we did was complain, like the former ‘leadership’ There have been numerous times since this Punditeer began participating here, that the PP community got a lot more vocal, in every sense of the word, in person.

      Furthermore I have to really salute the motivated, involved PP folks who so closely scrutinize the legislature while it is in session and stay focused on issues so important to Georgians. I don’t agree with many of the front page posters, but their contributions are great and largely unheralded.

      Buzz does yeoman’s work with live blogging events. Jason stays on top of things. Erick allows free thought to an extent that one wonders how he can be the same Erick as the one at RedState. Icarus has a pretty sound sense of judgement on most candidates and issues, meaning that he and I agree (ha!), all the while he want to tear each other’s heads off over economic policy and the relative performance of several of our DC pols.

      I can’t believe I wrote that, either.

      So, yeah Ms. Margaret, maybe you have a point, but if you think everyone here is in lockstep, you have to be the one with mental problems.

      • LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

        I’d agree with you, except Icarus has done more positive things for PP in the hecent past than Erick.

        • IndyInjun says:

          Well, it IS Erick’s site, and the fact that he allows it to be fairly open to divergent POV’s is light years away from RedState. It takes something to span that diversity. I also like Erick’s direction in the last year, because he really has gone after the “republicans” who flushed party principles down the toilet.

          Give me a little credit for giving Icarus credit. After the hell he has given me and has been returned by me, how many people would not have taken it personally?

          Icarus HAS done a tremendous job and I agree with him 75% of the time.

          This is all POLITICS, something we are passionate about, probably enough to come to blows over sometimes, but being POLITICS, our individual quirks are something we should be able to put aside.

          Now that that is over….back to our usual strutting and posturing………………..

    • macho says:

      The only thing Oxenedine agrees on is trying to appeal to the largest voting blocks possible. His campaign positions happen to differ with Mary Margaret Oliver, because GA is a red state.

  3. Harry says:

    “What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other’s folly — that is the first law of nature.” – Voltaire

  4. Ken in Eastman says:

    Mary Margaret Oliver channels her inner-Pelosi:

    I’m aware that there’s an element of politics that’s a pretty dangerous crowd. Seriously dangerous people. Some of them are mentally ill.

    • macho says:

      Oliver’s attitude towards private property is about as dangerous as it gets. At least the guy robbing you at gunpoint is honest about stealing your property.

  5. seenbetrdayz says:

    Suddenly the Constitution is important here on PeachPundit.

    *Sniff.* I think I have something in my eye.

    • Ken in Eastman says:

      +1

      But of you were Bill Clinton you could concentrate and make your post shed one little tear that would slowly trickle down the page, glistening its path.

  6. BuckheadConservative says:

    She has a point. Blogs do violate our basic right to never ever be offended by someone’s words. I forget which one that is. Little help…?

  7. AthensRepublican says:

    Pete you hit the nail on the head. Mary Margaret Oliver would not be at all bothered by the rantings of the “truthers” or any other garbage from the far left wing.

  8. Ida Claire says:

    “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” – H.L. Mencken
    I believe this quote describes this daft women quite well as it does most of her kind.

  9. Rick Day says:

    *quickly scrools down*

    I predict this was written by…Pete.

    Now I’ll have my say and then look.

    IS SHE TALKING ABOUT US? YEAH SHE IS. NO SHE IS NOT. SHUT UP, BOTH OF YOU.

    *ahem* mentally ill?

    *scrolls up* tsk..Pete…so predictable!
    Ah, well; it works for Beck.

  10. Progressive Dem says:

    There is irony here.

    Regular readers of PP would not be surprised that front page poster Pete did not bother to explain the context for Rep Oliver’s comments. And before we get to the context, let’s be perfectly clear she never mentioned PP as implied by Pete.

    It seems Jim Galloway was writing a piece about the joint House Senate Ethics committee meeting: “One of the most detailed proposals came from Atlanta attorney Doug Chalmers, who has strong GOP connections.” Chalmers called for a “loser pay” provision in the ethics legislation and said this:

    “All too frequently, complaints are filed against elected officials and lobbyists by individuals with a political agenda. In a number of these cases, the complaints are substantially frivolous, making allegations that are flatly inconsistent with the law or factual assertions that are demonstrably false from reports that are already on file with the Commission and publicly available. In many cases, the persons filing the complaints also do not bother to show up at the Ethics Commission hearing when their complaints are heard.”

    “In other words, individuals are currently able to file frivolous complaints, require elected officials and lobbyists to incur costs to defend them, not bother to show up at the hearing to support or defend their allegations, and they are able to do this with impunity and without fear of consequences.”

    “The Act should be revised to authorize the Commission to require payment of defendants’ attorneys fees against anyone filing a complaint when either of the following is true: (a) the complaint is deemed by the Commission to be frivolous, either factually or legally, or (b) the complaining party fails, without good cause, to show up for the preliminary hearing on the complaint. A provision like this promotes equity, because it gives the responding party an opportunity to confront his or her accuser, and to recoup his costs if a complaint is frivolous.”

    Galloway asked Rep Oliver to comment about the loser pay provision. No doubt because she has introduced ethics legislation and because she is an attorney and occasional lecturer at Emory Law School. So in giving her answer in support of the “loser pay” provision, she points out that world is full of crazies who distort facts and reality with venom, prejudice and hate. Have we ever seen that on PP? How about the AJC blogs? How about Red State or Daily Kos? When was the last time you blogged on the AJC? Seriously have you seen the comments? Many of them are really ignorant. They may be examples of people’s opinions, but they are often not even in the factual ballpark.

    Rep Oliver never mentioned PP. Unlike Commissioner Oxendine, she didn’t say anything specific about not reading PP. She never suggested limiting free speech in any way, shape or form. She merely used the ranting on “blogs” as evidence that there are some crazy people whose blood seems to be boiling and who are willing to say anything with little substance behind their statements. In rare instances PP has banned people from posting because their comments are: filthy, libelous or in some other way over the top. So let’s not get all teary-eyed about impinging on our First Amendment rights. People like that, in her opinion, might file frivolous ethics complaints and might be subject to the “loser pays” provision. BTW aren’t conservatives in favor of “loser pays”?

    • ByteMe says:

      But it got all the Republicans to sing Kumbaya over something that didn’t involve tea! Why are you trying to ruin that?

    • GOPGeorgia says:

      Personally, in most cases, I am in favor of each person paying for their own attorney out of their own pocket. Loser pays might be appropriate when two parties are suing each other for money. If you adopt loser pays in all cases, a whistler blower, might not only risk their job, but thousands of dollars when calling attention to something that is unethical. I might be OK with loser pays for attorney fees in frivolous litigation, but I’d want to see what the thresholds are to trigger that.

      If a State Rep made an ethics complaint about a former Speaker possibly having an affair with a lobbyist with no proof other than “everyone knows,” would you be in favor of that State Rep. paying for the Speakers attorney to defend himself from the frivolous litigation? It had no proof supplied with it, it was dismissed, so therefore was it frivolous?

      • ByteMe says:

        There needs to be a mechanism for determine frivolity, but letting the politicians who are supposed to police themselves make that call seems… self-serving.

  11. Dear Peach Pundit Front-Page Staff –

    The next time some politician takes a shot at “gotcha”-style bloggers, who show signs of being mentally ill and full of hate… do you think you could MAYBE find someone other than Pete to author the response?

  12. bgsmallz says:

    What a bunch of crap.

    Would anyone ever argue that there isn’t an element in politics that are mentally ill? That are dangerous? I’ve seen them at meetings and read about them in the paper. To someone take this comment as an affront against liberty is just stupid.

    Plus, as pointed out, Pete dropped the key sentence in the quote…i.e. the sentence that gives us context.

    “I support attorney fees for frivolous complaints. There’s this little industry out there — ‘gotcha’ complainers. I think those people are not a helpful part of the political dialogue. I’m aware that there’s an element of politics that’s a pretty dangerous crowd. Seriously dangerous people. Some of them are mentally ill.”

    There isn’t one iota in that statement that asks to strip away any rights. There is a criticism…which apparently Pete can’t take very well…thus the butchering of Ms. Oliver’s quote….and support for requiring losers who bring frivolous complaints to *gasp* have to pay attorney’s fees for having drug the other side into a frivolous complaint. What a vile liberal!!!!!

    I’m going to make a broad statement here…but Pete has lost all credibility with me as a poster. His posts are skewered, factually inaccurate and often misrepresent quotations and sources. He does a disservice to this blog and its mission to provide an accurate discussion on GA politics.

    • drjay says:

      i generally agree with the idea of loser pays for “frivolous” complaints, but i’m not sure i agree with loser pays just as a rule, a complaint can not be frivolous and some fancy pants lawyer may still be able to beat the complaint, by showing the letter of the law was followed even if the spirit was not, or b/c some i was not crossed or t not dotted on some paperwork, and then a “loser” is stuck witht he bill even though they were not being frivolity was not there intent…a citizen should not be afraid of making a serious complaint against a politician for fear of a penalty for being “wrong”

      • Mad Dog says:

        dr jay,

        Both the loser and the winner already pay in advance usually for dubious legal services in a rather dubious legal process.

        I would not further limit access to what can only be loosely called justice. [Except for cases of involving me as defendant… as if that would ever happen.]

        Perhaps the threat of a fine via loser pays … But I have filed an ethics complaint knowing it would be rejected without a hearing. Should I have been punished for that? It’s a forum for publishing evidence of ethical misconduct. And it puts the accuser’s name front and center.

        We might already have recourse against idiots … and patently false allegations.

    • Chris says:

      “Would anyone ever argue that there isn’t an element in politics that are mentally ill? That are dangerous? ”

      Glenn Richardson has left office.

        • Mad Dog says:

          One at a time. One at a time is how we clean house. Look at all those changes not made after Richardson ‘left.’

          Some people prefer the order in tyranny over the chaos of democracy. Is that nuts?

  13. Progressive Dem says:

    I think Pete’s post is an excellent example of Rep Oliver’s observation: “There’s this little industry out there — ‘gotcha’ complainers. I think those people are not a helpful part of the political dialogue.”

    He really added nothing constructive to the political dialogue. Someone like Pete might file a frivolous ethics complaint. Political operatives that simply want to harass the opposition through frivolous ethics charges, false statements and deliberately misleading conclusions are not making a contribution. Their goal is to simply create problems. In a complex world, we need problem solvers, not brick throwers.

    • polisavvy says:

      But, what if a so-called “frivolous ethics complaint” leads to something more? What would be your opinion of that? Not all ethics complaint are a total waste of time. They have, on occasions, led to something more telling. It should not matter if it is filed by a Democrat or a Republican, if it leads to something, then it has served it’s purpose. In my opinion, there are probably just as many “frivolous ethics complaints” filed by the Democrats.

  14. griftdrift says:

    Combine this statement,

    “In a complex world, we need problem solvers, not brick throwers.”

    with this statement,

    ““Have you read the blogs? There’s a negativity and a hate-mongering that’s frightening to me”

    And the irony meter breaks.

    • Progressive Dem says:

      Two statements from two different speakers. You’ve seen the racism and crazy factor on the AJC blogs. They aren’t adding to the political discource. Is she supposed to fix that? You’re going to need Ghandi, King and Mother Teresa for that job. She is dealing with the now and practical problem of ethics reform.

      • griftdrift says:

        And I’m not talking about the ethics reform part of the article. I’m talking about her calling “blogs” “frightening” and “hate mongering”.

        Please point out the ones that are “frightening” and “hate mongering”.

        * Athens World
        * Atlanta Magazine’s Cityscape
        * Atlanta Unfiltered
        * Atlanta Unsheltered
        * Beyond The Trestle
        * Blake Aued’s In The Loop
        * Blog for Democracy
        * Blue Heart Of Dixie
        * Buzz Brockway
        * Chamblee54
        * Cracker Squire
        * Decatur Metro
        * Dekalb Officers
        * Dora-Blog
        * DownRight
        * Fresh Loaf
        * Georgia Legislative Watch
        * Georgia Liberal
        * Georgia News Beat
        * Georgia Political Digest
        * Georgia Women Vote!
        * Going Through The Motions
        * Good Will Hinton
        * Heneghan’s Dunwoody Blog
        * inDecatur
        * Jason Pye
        * Joe Ventures
        * Left On Lanier
        * Live Apartment Fire
        * Lucid Idiocy
        * Mostly Media
        * Peach Pundit
        * Pecanne Log
        * Political Insider
        * Reporter-Cub
        * SW Georgia Politics
        * Terminal Station
        * The Exercise of Vital Powers
        * The Other Athens
        * The Saporta Report
        * Tondee’s Tavern
        * Voice of Moderation / Oconee Politics
        * Walk In The Brain

  15. Progressive Dem says:

    First, you can’t do what Pete does and separate the comment from the context. She used crazy behavior as exhibited in the anoynmous blog word as evidence of irrational and unsubstantiated ethics charges and the need for loser pay. I don’t interpret her comments as a blanket condemnation of bloggers. Second, most of the blogs you’ve listed include reasoned discussion, but PP has it’s share of problems. I notice you didn’t list Red State either. There are plenty of examples of crazy to go around. Third, I’ll have to continue later. I got to go.

  16. griftdrift says:

    1. Her statement says blogs are “frightening” and “hate mongering”. There are no qualifications to the use of the term blogs. It’s a monolithic statement that reveals her absolute ignorance of the online world – even one as small as Georgia politics. You make true the Republican talking point that vast generalizations are only okay if you are a Democrat.

    2. I didn’t list Red State because it’s not on my blog roll. And the generalization continues. I didn’t list the crazy ones therefore I’m trying to paint a select picture. I listed every major Georgia blog I know. Please. Once again (with the exception of Peach Pundit which has “problems”) point out the ones that are “frightening” and “hate mongering”.

    3. Feel free to get back to me any time.

    • Progressive Dem says:

      If you were directing somebody where to look for …. lawnmowers, you might send them to residential garages. Not every garage has a lawnmower, but it is a good place to find them. If you were needing an example of a place where hateful speech could be found, Mary Margaret Oliver might suggest political blogs. Not all have hateful speech, but it is a good place to find some.

      Her comments were about the divisive and uncivil political environment in which we live. Anonymous blogging hasn’t seemed to improve the political environment, nor has 24 hour cable news programing or talk radio. Yes, bloggng has provided a new outlet for the conversation and there are many good sites. However, some of the anonymous blogging on PP, AJC and Red State is akin to an angry mob – loud, not particularly informed and recklous. There is nothing beneficial about these posts, and there is little reason to defend them in a monolithic support for the blogosphere.

      • IndyInjun says:

        Its politics, for heaven’s sake.

        Politics has not been civil in the USA, EVER.

        In the 1800’s there were canings and beating on the floor.

          • griftdrift says:

            So you agree. Monolithic generalizations are okay….as long as they are coming from a progressive.

            Like the lawnmowers analogy.

            But you still haven’t shown me who’s hateful and fear mongering on my list.

            Instead it’s once again the hobgoblin of anonymous bloggers.

          • IndyInjun says:

            Old Hickory would disagree with you. He died still carrying bullets from 3 shootings.

            He was said to have “rattled like a bag of marbles”

          • Progressive Dem says:

            The purpose and intent of her comments were not to make a monolithic generalization about blogs. (Why is this hard to understand?) You and Pete have the same defensive reflex to defend all blogging. Read her quote in the context it was made. As listeners or readers, we are expected to apply reasoning to fully understand the meaning of what others say. We don’t take everything for a word for word, strict and literal interpretation (see Bible).

            She was commenting about ethics reform and pointed out where you can find hateful, crazy speech. Blogs are such a place. In pointing to blogs as an example of uncivil behavior, MMO was not limited to your list of approved sites. Frankly, I don’t have the time or inclination to keep up wth 50 blogs. I’m familiar with a few of those sites. If you want to make a monolithic generalization about the quality and integrity of your sanctioned blogs, go ahead. I think we all know that PP has its share of crazy. I wouldn’t be surprised that the others on your list from time to time, perhaps rarely, don’t also have their share of wacky.

            Glad you liked the lawnmowers. Here’s another. If you were looking for Bibles, you might check motel rooms.

          • griftdrift says:

            I understand it because SHE FRAKKIN SAID IT.

            Substitute any other group of people for “blogs” in her statement and see how it reads.

            I may reflexively defend blogs but you reflexively defend abject ignorance.

          • Ken in Eastman says:

            griftdrift,

            Fully agreeing with you twice in a single day is a shock to the system. I’m going to go do something else for a while – maybe earn some money. Yeah, that’s it!

    • Ken in Eastman says:

      Holy moly! I’m in total agreement with griftdrift (on this particular statement at this particular time, coupons may expire)!

      Wow!

      The real hatemongering is when people attempt to stifle free speech with wild, unsubstantiated accusations and generalizations. Like I said earlier, MMO is channeling Nancy Pelosi.

      • Ken in Eastman says:

        OK, I am going to go do something else because one again I agree with griftdrift fully.

        I am desperately trying to hold on until 5 o’clock because with that realization, I need a drink!

    • polisavvy says:

      Now, they are frightening (at times)! Especially Olbermann. I expect him to start foaming at the mouth almost every night. He speaks pure venom; but, I guess she thinks that type of dialogue is okay.

      • polisavvy says:

        And another thing, I might disagree with posters on here; but, I would never call them fools, crazy or insane just because I don’t see eye to eye with them. (I am not saying you call people names). Olbermann, on the other hand, speaks with such hatred of those who disagree with him that he’s uncivilized. Beck does the same thing at times; however, he usually tempers his rants with something relatively concrete to back up his comments.

  17. Red Phillips says:

    “the group known as “bloggers” that Mary Margaret Oliver finds so vile, so offensive, she can barely contain her terror.”

    That sounds a lot like how the militant centrists on this blog react to Ray McBerry. 🙂

    • Chris says:

      Actually, we react to McBerry the same way we react to Oliver, with scorn and derision. At least Oliver has managed to be elected to office.

      • Red Phillips says:

        “with scorn and derision”

        Well Chris that is partially the point. You react with scorn and derision based on visceral emotions without bothering to make an actual argument. Real mature discourse.

        MMO is a leftist reacting viscerally to the right because it offends her liberal sensibilities. The Anti-McBerry jihadists are centrists or center right reacting viscerally to someone farther to their right because he offends their centrist sensibilities. It is really the identical phenomenon you are criticizing in MMO, just the starting point is different.

    • IndyInjun says:

      Sorry. I have let my usual compatriots down this time.

      It was one thing when McBerry was the only option versus Sonny.

      I is quite another when there are 3 other candidates that I can find acceptable and who have a chance at winning, although none of them are in the top 2 positions at the moment.

      I guess I will have to surrender my paleocon credentials?

  18. Game Fan says:

    “Paleocon” entails more than “followers” of Buchannan although I did support him is his Presidential run. I’m from the paleo camp, if you were to make the “corporate interests” the crux of neoconservatism, and the Constitution the basis of paleoconservatism which it is. Of course a lot of Paleos probably don’t get where I’m coming from. In fact, many haven’t a clue although I actually may be the most consistent blogger on this site wrt the issues.

Comments are closed.