You have GOT to be kidding, scrappy. THAT'S the quote y'all are wigging out about!? He's talking about American citizens of Arab descent. Every word he speaks there is the truth and admirable. That has nothing to do with D'Souza's false premise.

Some of you folks are just blinded by bigotry. Come on. The president's job is to stand with all American citizens, of every descent and religious preference, against profiling and hatred. Not just the people who approve of. Your way would make us a very different kind of country -- like those you love to hate so much. You have just proved how absurd D'Souza's film is; thank you.

I'm truly embarrassed for anyone who declares out loud that Obama is a Muslim. They have no idea how ignorant they sound.

Sorry all. We were too busy watching and listening to debate to tweet or post. I tweeted a lot afterward @donnerkay and every factcheck I've seen @jxnfreepress and will continue to. Romney is not faring well in the factchecks tonight, which is likely to be a huge meme tomorrow when the dust settles.

As for me, I thought the president nailed it tonight, but I'm big on substance and facts over macho attacks. And I thought Romney looked rattled and hyper--not in a good way--throughout the whole debate. I was a bit embarrassed for him, but the pundits loved him, which shocked me, frankly.

Most shocking to me about Romney's statements was his complete embrace of the idea of the states taking on everything he wants to cut from the federal government. Mississippi ain't Massachusetts: We cannot afford to take on health care as that state did, in addition to more education costs and so on -- especially since we have been so devastated by the loss of government jobs, numbers that continue to rise even as private-sector jobs are coming back.

LIkewise, he vows to overturn Roe v. Wade and send all abortion decisions back to the states. That means that Mississippi state officials will outlaw any abortion as well as much contraception because our top officials support personhood although most Mississippians don't. In case it's not clear, that means that a woman won't be able to get an abortion to save her own life, a child if he father or a stranger rapes her, and in vitro would likely go away. Not to mention birth control pills. Expect this discussion in a future debate.

We need to listen carefully to what Romney is actually saying--and what that would mean for Mississippi.

Oh, and Romney's staff is already walking back his promise to keep regulations against pre-existing conditions. This ain't pretty.

More tomorrow. It's been fun!

That gets me, too, gwilly. Also amazing to me is that they tar the president based on a father he met once, who did him and his mother wrong, but would freak out if you tried to say something similar about Mitt Romney. I mean, his grandfather went to Mexico so he could engage in polygamy -- does that mean that Romney reflects his grandfather's values? Of course not.

Or an example closer to home: What about all the white people in Mississippi whose daddies and granddaddies were members of the White Citizens Council, Americans for the Preservation of the White Race or the Ku Klux Klan? Are we to assume that their children are carrying on their values if there is no evidence to support it? That is, we're supposed to go look up the last name of everyone in the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission archives in order to judge them based on the character of their fathers and grandfathers?

We work with a printer here that was started by some of the most ardent racists in the state's history. Do we assume that their children hold the same values? No. In fact, we LOVE that people are capable of rejecting the values they were raised with -- and President Obama wasn't raised anywhere near his father.

D'Souza is a neo-con and, thus, has an agenda in opposing Obama. And it is based on no small part on the neo-cons' desire to see us spend to the hilt on military to force American values on the world. Let's just be honest about what's going on here.

Verbatim: With national attention focused on the Presidential Debate tonight in Denver, the Margaret Walker Center wants to remind all Mississippians that the deadline to register to vote in the upcoming election is this week. Anyone can register at the Margaret Walker Center in Ayer Hall before the end of the day on Friday, October 5.

And, in that context, please make yourselves available for the 29th Annual Fannie Lou Hamer Memorial Symposium sponsored by our partners at the Fannie Lou Hamer National Institute on Citizenship and Democracy at Jackson State. The Hamer Symposium begins tonight, Wednesday, October 3, with a keynote address by Dr. Mary Coleman at 6:30 p.m. in the Dollye M.E. Robinson College of Liberal Arts and will be followed by a debate watch tonight and will continue throughout the day tomorrow.

For more information, see the attached Calendar of Events or contact Keith McMillan at [email protected].

Yes, Darryl is a model for us all. So is his other brother Darryl.

(Sorry.)

*I happily admit that my personal rights supersede your wishes for our rights. And, as those rights are constitutionally guaranteed, then all the better.*

Don't be so hasty, Darryl. I know a little about the Constitution. The truth is that no one's individual rights supercede all other concerns -- starting with the First Amendment. See: example of someone yelling "fire!" in a theater; due to the dangers to others, one's individual rights are superseded to assure the safety of the many. This is why the Constitution was established as a document that has to be continually interpreted as things (and types of "arms") change. At the same time, constitutional rights can never be granted based on a public opinion vote, but they can be limited based on public safety.

I haven't said anything about all Americans giving up their firearms. Sure, I'd prefer that no one had one, and no one ever used one, but that isn't realistic. What we're talking about here are very dangerous automatic (of various levels) and assault weapons; don't change the subject because you have no intelligent answer to what I've already said. Focus, Darryl.

*I am tired of the pandering to the least common denominator in our society.*

I could say the same thing back to you. People who argue that Americans should constantly live in fear and have no regulation whatsoever on firearms and weapons that they can stockpile don't tend to be brightest bulbs in the chandelier. Or very pleasant people. I'm tired of the U.S. pandering to that sort.

Nope, Darryl. I'd argue the opposite. Y'all's focus on semantics rather than the dangers of violent weapons does our nation a grove disservice. And the B.S. about guns not killing people is as insulting (and facile) example as y'all can come up with -- no one but the folks already in your holster (hardy har har) are going to buy that one.

Again, we'd respect y'all more if you would just admit that you have decided that your personal right to bear any kind of weapon you want is more important than the people who die as a result. Even if I or others disagree with it, that's an honest argument. And, frankly, more convincing.

*The guns in the wal-mart ad do not make it any easier to kill someone than any other guns legally for sale at Academy Sports or any other establishment.*

No one is arguing that Walmart-sold (partial)-automatics are more deadly than those sold other places, Riddell. That would be silly.

As for the old saw that people kill people, guns don't -- don't insult our intelligence. That saying only works on non-thinking people. Obviously people use guns to kill others (and themselves, as a dear member of my family did). Guns make it easier, quicker and potentially more deadly. Depending, of course, on how automatic the weapons is.

Don't come on here and argue stupid stuff. Be intellectually honest enough to admit what we all know to be true -- and THEN make your argument that it matters more that people have the right, which you believe the 2nd Amendment grants, to arm themselves however they wish because the right trumps the dangers to society. I can at least accept the honesty of that argument. What I can't stand is the lying and treating people like we're stupid about the dangers of guns.

Be a man and stand up for the Second Amendment as you see it. Don't bullshit us. It just won't work on this site.

Also, boyz, I just did a bit of reading up on "automatic weapons"—and it seems that your distinction isn't as much of a distinction as you might think. It seems like gun experts (something more than fan-boys) make more a distinction between semi- and fully automatic weapons, the point being that they are either partly (semi) automatic or fully automatic -- meaning, logically, that they are all "automatic." The only real question is HOW automatic.

I realize it's a matter of semantics, but that's kind of where y'all took us.

I'm more interested in the fact that Walmart is selling guns that are automatic to any degree. That may not be your concern, but that doesn't stop the rest of us from talking about that -- and if we feel like using the shorthand "automatic" for any gun that is any part automatic, then guess what? That's exactly what we'll do. Squeal about that all you want. ;-)