Go Bill! Proud to have made your acquaintance!

When will he be back and we will join him! To cut another liberal voice from the paper is just wrong. We will bring our lawn chairs and our coolers and stay until this is resolved, anyone want to organize this one?

This getting any coverage?

Surely the Knox News is all over it.

The shopper has no fear of the parent company, call Ms. Bean and I bet she would be there in a flash!

This guy is really on the right track he just needs us to support him. I bet WATE and WVLT would also be there for their noon news if someone would just e mail this blog over to them? Anyone have their address?? This could really grow.

Ms. Margaret

What a worthless, spineless, corporatist, piece-of-crap excuse for a "newspaper"! I subscribe solely for the benefit of my 85-year-old mother -- who, like me, is an expatriated Knoxvillian far from home -- if it wasn't for her I'd cancel these sorry, cowardly bastards in a heartbeat.

Darrell Sherrod
Kokomo IN

Wow ... I am inspired by Mr Williams!

The company I contract to wants me to test and develop software for a client, but I would rather work on server issues. We've been going around and around about this ... imagine, they want to tell me what to do while I am working for them! The nerve!

They were paying him to write his opinions and then telling him what opinions he could have...that is censorship and it is against the First Amendment which the press is supposed to uphold."

Outstanding way to look at the mess!

I loved the earlier line about calling security.

Any word on when this guy will be back so we can drop by?

How typical ... no wonder "progressive" is becoming a pejorative ... like "liberal" has. With the media so severely biased to the left, I would not think that the loss of one deranged columnist would get so many pairs of panties all in a frenzy. And Mr Williams most definitely is deranged, his rants over the years have moved farther and farther from reality as the BDS set in and festered away. Even when he wrote on liberal subjects with which I agree, I found him to be uncomfortably embarrassing in the way he presented his views. He is no loss to the KNS.

The fact is, Mr Williams was informed many times what his job duties were ... to write on local issues. He did not comply. McElroy tried to give him a compromise, one that would allow him to continue writing on the subjects he chose, just less often.

Ultimately, the departure of Mr Williams from the KNS is the CHOICE of Mr Williams alone, he is responsible for this outcome and no one else. Calling it censorship is simply disingenuous at best, dishonest would be most accurate.

A job is a job and the boss is the boss. If you don't want to do the job your boss demands of you, then you should do like Williams and leave.

It's called taking responsibility for one's actions and the consequences that result.

And Mr Williams most definitely is deranged, his rants over the years have moved farther and farther from reality as the BDS set in and festered away.

So is that your diagnosis as a medical professional? Can we see your credentials? And the HIPPA signoff on releasing private patient info?

But seriously, that's a bit out of line.

Such anger ... my goodness. Personal attacks, disingenuous statements, dishonesty. Just like Williams! But again, so typical.

FYI ... I most certainly know what an opinion is. Do you know what the difference is between local and national? Apparently this is causing some confusion here, just like it did for Mr Williams.

It doesn't require a medical degree to recognize derangement and disconnect from reality, unless one suffers from it themselves ... then the rose-colored glasses get a little cloudy.

-----
Disingenuous much?

Leftie debate tactic #3,752 - argue dumb points until everyone is tired of the stupidity.

Leftie debate tactic #2,378 - pick nits that are irrelevant to the actual topic at hand.

Batting .1000 today .. congrats!

-----(Notation for the impaired - what follows is called a .sig tag. It's not all that complicated. Really.)-----
Disingenuous much?

Bush is the Commander-in-Chief.

(Which is everyone's misfortune.)

Oh yeah! That's right. History only began with Bush became president in 2000. Everything that occurred prior to that ceased to exist the moment he took the oath of office ... NOW that all makes sense! Isn't that convenient!

Heh. Nice try.

-----
Disingenuous much?

To borrow the analogy in Animal House, those Democrats screwed up. They trusted The President of the United States, and his word about Saddam Hussein's alleged crimes. All the key points of which were phony.

And unlike this POTUS, they would acknowledge they are human. Given the circumstances, though, including complete lack of remorse from those who pulled the trigger and would have done so regardless, I can understand HRC's (and the rest of those Dems') reluctance to apologize.

"To borrow the analogy in Animal House, those Democrats screwed up. They trusted The President of the United States, and his word about Saddam Hussein's alleged crimes. All the key points of which were phony.

"And unlike this POTUS, they would acknowledge they are human. Given the circumstances, though, including complete lack of remorse from those who pulled the trigger and would have done so regardless, I can understand HRC's (and the rest of those Dems') reluctance to apologize."

This fascinates me. I understand the sentiment, but on the other hand, if you want to be the president of the free world, shouldn't you know better than to take somebody's word for it? Shouldn't you have come to a different conclusion? Gee whiz, I was duped! That argument is laughable.

"So you're saying that when someone lies to you and gives you false evidence, and you have NO ACCESS (for reasons of national security of course) to anything that will lead you to believe that they are NOT telling the truth that you are STILL not supposed to believe them?

"Man, if the Dems had done THAT can you imagine all the screaming that would still be going on from the right-wingnuts?"

Um, what? Plenty of Democratic politicians votes aginst the war authorization. I guess they somehow resisted that irresistable force. For example, from (link...), those who voted nay on October 11, 2002, against Joint Resolution 114 – the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002:

" ... let's take a moment to look at the names and the words of the Senators who defied bullying by Team Bush and had the wisdom and courage to vote "nay" on October 11, 2002.

Here are the brave ones:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Russell Feingold (D-WI)
Robert Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
James Jeffords (I-VT)
Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Oh and by the way...they did not vote for a "War with Iraq" they voted to allow the use of force to combat terrorists"

I love your style and your thoughts but I kinda think you are slipping on the vote. Read it and you will see what they voted on and yes the word IRAQ was in it.

Today is not the time to bitch about why we are there and it sure isn't the time to go after Bush (cause he can't be elected again) but it IS the time to stop the fighting inside our party, pick Hillary to be the next President and move on.

Look, she promises to have us OUT in 90 days, so there is the FIX to the problem. Now if we can get the country to believe in her we need to spend our time working to get her elected and not re-hashing what could have or would have been.

Lord help us all we could go back to LBJ and his love of war if we wanted but lets just stick with O8..get Hillary elected and bring everyone home in 90 days!

Also after seeing Al last night (he looked outstanding and was the most funny person on stage) it is a sure bet he will not get back in the game. If he had then I might have looked at him as VP with Hillary, unbeatable!

talidapali, I'm not saying anybody is a mind reader. I'm saying that there are a fair number of politicans who have opposed the Iraq war from the start, on principle. I know, it's a crazy concept.

In my opinion, part of the reason why Bush won re-election is that the Democrats did not put up credible anti-war opposition.