River Valley Blogs

Joan to Michael wrote on Jan 14, 2008 8:21 AM:

" I am over it which is why I have been ignoring you for several months. Then you asked why more women don't post(scroll down and see for yourself) and I gave you an answer. You could have let it drop at that point, but you are choosing to drag this thing out. I was perfectly content to let it go. "

Michael Welch: Okay "Go For The Gold" In Whineability Sure... wrote on Jan 12, 2008 10:18 AM:

" Discuss an issue with me please is what I obviously ask in vain; don't constantly have 'issues' with me me me -- after all I'm not married to you (Thank God! or 'God'! we both could say hmm) and so I have no obligation (in my mind at least but not apparently in yours) to 'make you feel good.' As for disparagement of ol' Welchy -- if you haven't read any you're just NOT paying attention; take a look at my pal 'Krusty' on the last Jimmy piece for the latest -- he just compared me to dreck which is pretty harsh huh? (Even 'Harsch' thinks so!) Well 'she loves me she loves me not!' but her complaining never ends so enjoy! No doubt I'll keep hearing your big engine whine!... "

Joan to Michael wrote on Jan 11, 2008 3:14 PM:

" I have been participating in the blogs, just not responding to your posts in particular. I WAS discussing the issues with you previously when you all of a sudden called me a stalker. Yet, now you are disappointed that I refuse to discuss the issues. Is it that you only want discussions with people who agree with you? If they disagree with you too often, do they become a stalker? "

Michael Welch: How 'Bout Getting Over It Huh?... wrote on Jan 11, 2008 1:14 PM:

" Joan: I characterized your views as mine are continually characterized by you. I assume you have other aspects to yourself than what you present to me; I suggest you show them on this blog. My views and my comments seem inordinately important to you; I don't quite understand that -- you're 'boiling bunnies' again. I still suggest you drop 'me' as your ONLY subject lately and start talking about the issues that interest you. If you can't do that -- if I'm to be your perpetual topic -- I just find that bizarre and yes obsessive -- 'fatal attraction' indeed; fatal to your intellect... "

Joan to Michael wrote on Jan 11, 2008 12:34 PM:

" I specifically avoided responding to you for months because I am not vindictive and I didn't want discussions to be about me and you. Then, you posted wondering why more women don't post, and I gave one womens answer. I believe it is you who is vidictive and obsessed. If you want people to discuss the issues, respect them when they disagree with you. Don't call them names. "

Michael Welch: Find A Subject Other Than "Me" Joan And You'll Be Happier... wrote on Jan 11, 2008 10:41 AM:

" Again NOTHING to say but about 'me'; why the obsession? Write about the presidential election, about Hillary, McCain, Obama -- why ALWAYS 'me.' Your 'mistake' is not to do what Hillary does -- engage, talk about issues, stop making this some sort of personal grievance session like 'Johnny Hobo's been doing. Don't SOUND so 'childish, petulant' etc. and you won't be characterized as such. Grow up! in other words and share your brain, your ideas and not your apparently endless vindictiveness... "

Joan to Michael wrote on Jan 10, 2008 1:28 PM:

" My mistake. I mistakenly took you calling me a stalker because I responded to you as name calling. My mistake. I mistakenly took you calling people who disagree with you pathetic, childish, and petulant as name calling. Again, my mistake. Odd, I can't find where anyone called you names, yet you always claim to be the victim. Go figure. "

Michael Welch: A Democratic Presidency? "Competent"... wrote on Jan 10, 2008 11:39 AM:

" The REAL question re: Hillary or ANY of the Democratic candydandydates is HOW will they govern, not can they win? (A Democrat CAN certainly win as I said below.) I believe HRC would actually ratchet up the war in Afghanistan (the 'popular' war) but devise a phased withdrawal from PARTS of Iraq, however ALWAYS maintaining the oil fields of our most reliable 'Iraqi' allies the Kurds. SOME kind of health care program (NOT unfortunately a Canada-European style) will result (better than nothing) plus more federal spending to 'prime' the economy and some overdue regulating of the housing loan market. Abortion rights will be secured; gay rights at least not opposed though Hills isn't bold enough for gay marriage I'd say. Some needed supreme court appointments too. 'Business as usual' in other words, not as W-ish disaster after disaster... "

Bugs to Krusty wrote on Jan 10, 2008 11:12 AM:

" I don't think Mr. Welch is going to leave anytime soon...so slumber on, Krusty. "

Michael Welch: The Democrats WILL Win In November... wrote on Jan 10, 2008 10:30 AM:

" Back to the topic I think Hillary can and is likely to win in Nov because a McCain will run on the gwot, the endless war, and Huckabee say will alienate the more secular 'independent' vote. Eight years of a Republican, especially George W, in the white house will seem 'enough' and either Hillary or Obama will fit as 'experienced change,' to put the concepts together. Iraq will remain the continuing chafing sore but there's no draft as during the Vietnam war so most folks can remain 'detached'; the likely recession plus the need for national health care will be the two big issues and Hillary can 'handle' them better or as well as anyone else; she's part of 'the system' after all... "

Michael Welch: What BORES THEY Are!... wrote on Jan 10, 2008 10:21 AM:

" Many of the rightists commenting here are a pretty bizarre group really; this 'Johnny Hobo' seems rather ill; he apparently fantasizes some comments and then pretends he never made others. 'Joan' is just as boring as I'm supposed to be; she makes me as sleepy as I make 'Krusty.' I appear to be her ONLY topic; she wrote NOTHING about the primary, Hillary or McCain; once more it's ALL ABOUT 'ME' and how 'bad' I make her feel. So sorry Uncle Albert! 'Bugs,' Brian Smith, 'Big Spender' and myself at least write about the subject and provide more than these REALLY personal attacks the right-wingy dingies specialize in. When they can't cut the mustard they smear it; they do it EVERY time -- they're the ones who are truly TEDIOUS, BORING and some seem really demented... "

Jimmy to JH wrote on Jan 10, 2008 9:09 AM:

" You've made this baseless, tired old accusation before. I do not re-edit my posts -- ever! And the notion of my posting "one in five" of your comments is total baloney. And I've never put up a comment and then turned around and deleted it. The only comments I do not post are the ones that contain extreme, personal invective, profanity or personal ill wishes, as I've stated previously, and you know that. Stop whinning and playing the victim, or go get a job with Bill O'Reilly. Better still, show me the proof, and stop calling me a liar. As you would say, "I dare you!" "

Johnny Hobo to justaguess wrote on Jan 10, 2008 6:54 AM:

" Don't fret, Jimbo believes in free speech as passionately as someone like, say, Nicolae Ceau�escu. Jimbo frequently deletes posts (about one of every five of mine make it online) or re-edits what he writes. It's an old socialist trick. His sycophant disciples, Michael, Big Spender, Bugs get free reign too. Live with it! "

justaguess wrote on Jan 10, 2008 6:36 AM:

" Sigh, I am not going to dignify the slurs here. Unfortunately this Presidential race will be a gender/race issue; one cannot pick up a paper or turn on the news not to hear that. You really have to dig to find dirt. Sorry I missed the fact that you post more than once as the front web page of the La Crosse Tribune does not suggest that. Shrillary...I am laughing. Never assume. Women will not post here due to the dialogue you invoke. "

To justaguess wrote on Jan 10, 2008 6:07 AM:

" Using your theory, Bill & Hill are showing their racial prejudice when they claim Obama is inexperienced. Of course he doesn't have "her experience" as he is a black guy and not a WASP. "

Big Spender wrote on Jan 9, 2008 10:07 PM:

" Democratic voters had better get serious about winning in November--we'd all like to see a woman or a minority member as President, but that person must be qualified. The Dems had plenty of possibilities: Barbara Boxer tops the list. But a few years in the Senate and eight years as 'First Lady' doesn't cut the mustard. Obama and Edwards are similarly weak in that regard. Bring in Boxer, Feinstein, or Conyers if you want to break the white male lock on the Presidency. Independent voters (the ones who really count in November) aren't going to put the political chameleon Hillary into office--Dem voters are setting their party up for a landslide defeat in 2008. Hillary is the Republican's savior next election--she's a veritable human wrecking ball set to obliterate the Democratic party. "

If it's sexist for a man, what's it for a woman? wrote on Jan 9, 2008 8:20 PM:

" I see that justaguess implies that men who don't support Hillary do so out of sexism. No doubt true of some. But what about women who don't support Hillary? If you're going to label the male non-Hillary supporters sexist or imply that they are threatened because she's female, what do you call the women who don't like her, and what's their motivation or reasoning? Isn't what's good for the goose good for the gander, or is it women like justaguess who are using a double-standard? Just a thought. "

More to justaguess from Jimmy wrote on Jan 9, 2008 6:19 PM:

" All of your comments have been posted, some of them regarding Hillary are shown in the comment section of yesterday's post; perhaps these are the comments to which you are referring. If you intended any of those comments to be posted underneath today's comment, then you entered them on the wrong post. The system will only post the comment to the board under which it was enetered, and I cannot make any alterations. "

To justaguess from Jimmy wrote on Jan 9, 2008 6:13 PM:

" I have absolutely not altered any wording on this post, including today's entry or any of the comments it's generated; none whatsoever, not a single one or a single word, so I have no idea to what you are referring. "

justaguess wrote on Jan 9, 2008 5:07 PM:

" I see you edited your wording Jimmy, why is that?? "

justaguess wrote on Jan 9, 2008 5:05 PM:

" I see my past comment did not make this blog. I never realized how much a women running for President would threaten the male masculinity. If a women cries she is weak, if a man cries he is compassionate. If a women is agressive she is a witch and a man is strong. Ah yes, remind me again how this is not wrong. "

Krusty wrote on Jan 9, 2008 3:49 PM:

" I was trying to read "michael welch's" posts and I fell asleep. Somebody wake me up when he leaves "

Bugs to Johnny Hobo wrote on Jan 9, 2008 1:48 PM:

" Good point; if you read what she actually was saying in the cafe, it was basically gibberish, but it was said with emotion and the concomitant welling up of tears. Poor Ed Muskie. He cried and lost New Hampshire. Hillary did the same thing and won. Go figure. "

Johnny Hobo wrote on Jan 9, 2008 1:03 PM:

" Shrillary appeared on another talk show on Sunday and had an "emotional moment." Her campaign focus-grouped the session and then scripted her Monday "emotional moment" in Portsmouth on Monday. I thought you would have picked that one up Jimbo. "

Joan to Michael Welch 10:22am post wrote on Jan 9, 2008 12:30 PM:

" Well, Michael, I have commented many times in the past, sometimes responding to your posts, sometimes others. I am a woman, so you labeled me as a "stalker". Because of this, I have avoided responding to your posts as name calling back and forth simply doesn't appeal to me. Not sure if EVERYONE who responds to you is labeled a stalker, or just the women who respond to you. Perhaps intolerant and childish are the names you reserve for men, and stalker is what you attach to women. If you don't want people responding to you, why post? It seems you respond just as much, if not more, than your alleged stalkers. In fact, it wouldn't be a stretch to say you monopolize these boards. Try arguing the merits instead of name calling. "

Michael Welch: "Primary" -- In Wis... wrote on Jan 9, 2008 12:11 PM:

" Re: McCain the senior senator from my new state, that 'Hill vs Mc' might come true; I think Big Jawn won because of the dearth of quality in the Repub candidates; I mean who's been MORE disappointing than Fred Thompson -- say other than George W himself? Last night I watched the old '60s Robert Drew documentary 'Primary' about JFK vs Hubert Humphrey in Wisconsin in 1960 and saw the 'old country' I recall -- Sparta, Tomah, Mindoro and all those rock-faced German and Norwegian farmers showing virtually nothing in their faces as they listened to Humphrey -- until the end when they applauded. And the eager teenaged girls in cat's-eye glasses literally chasing after Jack along a Sparta street! 'Hube the Cube' (square -- anyway you look at him) contra Jack the Movie Star in a rainy grainy rough-looking Wis April -- quite a 'story' too!... "

Michael Welch: Clintons Without Uh Tears? Part Two... wrote on Jan 9, 2008 11:02 AM:

" Corruption in our politics like violence 'is as American as cherry pie' and one only need examine say the machinations electing Thomas Jefferson in 1800 to realize the levers of 'democracy' are manipulated. Most voters really don't care -- unless they have a partisan reason to attack one set of the corrupted to benefit the set they prefer. The legend of the pristine voter trudging to the polls bright-eyed etc. to choose 'the best man' er woman is one of our dearest, but 'the best' is usually left behind in favor of the most connected and vetted. Jerry Brown would have been a fresher voice in '92 for 'change' but the system never wants profound change by definition, only the APPEARANCE of such. As 'The Boss' says to 'McGinty' in the 1940 Preston Struges film 'The Great McGinty' -- 'I AM the "reform party"!'... "

Michael Welch: Talkin' Clinton Part One... wrote on Jan 9, 2008 10:47 AM:

" Since this is 'third in a series' of Jimmy's blogs re: Hillary & the Clintons I'll comment on 'the vast right wing conspiracy' alluded to on the other stories. As gov of Arkansas Bill I believe was involved in the covert CIA-black ops out of Mena (in the western part of the state) that during the Reagan '80s moved war materiel to the anti-Sandinista contras and illegal drugs to pay for them back into the US. I think Clinton had to made aware and was possibly 'paid off' to cooperate. I also believe 'Whitewater' was a shell game to funnel money into Clinton campaign coffers and that Hillary engaged in insider trading. Foster's death has never to me been sufficiently resolved; what role the Clintons may have had I'm not sure but the circumstances of the 'suicide' do appear rather bizarre... "

Michael Welch: "I Wanna See You Cry Now -- Cry Cry Cry"... wrote on Jan 9, 2008 10:22 AM:

" So we'll see Mitt Romney in Michigan misting it up as he recalls SEEING his father George marching shoulder to shoulder 'with Dr King'? And Mike Huckabee with a wisp of the moist remembering his favorite episode of 'Walker, Texas Ranger'? I sometimes wonder how many women comment on these blogs -- unless someone names herself 'mom' I don't know and of course it's so easy to play 'avatar.' I assume that there are more males here because it's a rough haul -- some think I'm 'mean' but I'm not substantively different in tone than others. Maybe if more women commented we'd have a sense of how they resent the denigration of Hillary, the 'only' woman in the campaign after all. Maybe that's what happened in NH?... "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Jan 9, 2008 10:07 AM:

" Well, it was good news for Hillary's staff as apparently many of them would have lost their jobs if she lost. "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Jan 9, 2008 10:06 AM:

" New Clinton campaign slogan: Vote for Hillary or She'll Cry. "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »