River Valley Blogs

Bugs to 2:22 pm wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:04 AM:

" Ah, yes the Bugliosi book. There's a picture in that book where one sees the alleged corpse of JFK and the back of his head is perfectly intact, no wound whatsover. Anyone familiar with the assassination, particularly the doctors and nurses who treated the president at Parkland Hospital, all described a huge gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, the occipital parietal area. Bugliosi is the fraud. Mark Lane is a man who speaks the truth. "

To 8:10 again wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:09 PM:

" Don't underestimate the thickness of my skin either. The measure of a person is how you deal with people not when their skin is thick but when it is thin. Believe me, I'm happy your not a police officer. "

To 8:10 am poster wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:06 PM:

" Gun laws CAN do something to prevent the "criminal element" from obtaining guns by making it harder for them to get them in the first place. More guns CAN mean that it's easier for them to get them because of shear numbers alone. I said before I don't believe your theory of more guns less crime. I believe it would be just the opposite. By the way, I know lot's of guys that are "good shots" but can't hit the broadside of a barn. (especially with a handgun). Most handgun crimes are committed within a distance of ten feet or less. Concealed carry didn't do much to help Ronald Reagan did it? People often forget he wasn't the only one shot that day. By the way, officers are an "after the fact element" in a lot of crimes that go down, not just violent ones. "

Mark Lane is a kook and a fabircator wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:22 PM:

" Try reading the chapter on Mark Lane by Vincent Bugliosi in his book, Reclaiming History, and you'll learn how easy it is to debunk people like Lane, whose lies and fabrications are addressed one-by-one in exhaustive detail. Lane is a charlatan. "

Bugs to 12:26 pm wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:59 PM:

" You know your stuff. If you want an excellent book to read, try Mark Lane's "Plausible Denial" in which Lane convinces a Florida jury that the CIA and E. Howard Hunt were involved in the assassination. "

To Bugs wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:26 PM:

" I haven't looked at the evidences on the JFK mess in awhile, but I side with you...Oswald was a patsy. Now remember, I vote Republican, but one thing I remember reading was that W's dad was a CIA operative or director in Texas at the time of Kennedy's asassination. Part of his job involved Cuban operations. The Cubans teed off the Italian mafia by taking over all of their Cuban Casino's and land. Remember that the CIA was only about 15 years removed from being the OSS. The OSS was formed largely by Italian mafia types to battle Mussolini. The way the CIA operates and raises funds was learned from the mafia. Anyway, the ties between CIA (Oswald, Bush), mafia (Jack Ruby) dirty politics (Kennedy-Chicago deal) renigged promises (Bay of Pigs) bad evidence (single bullet theory) and ignoring evidence (Warren Commision) opens ones eyes to real evil. "

Bugs to 7:51 am wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:33 AM:

" Oswald's rifle was defective in that its scope was off; it was a manual bolt action Italian Mannlicher Carcano, described as one of the worst rifles ever designed; eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza stated that the second and third shots came right after each other; that proves Oswald was not a lone gunman, because of the time it takes to recycle a manual bolt action rifle; Incidentally, the first weapon they found on the 6th floor of the Depository was a German Mauser, but that disappeared very quickly as it didn't fit the "Oswald did it all by himself" fantasy. "

to the unknown poster part 2 wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:10 AM:

" Plus, your illustration of my one round and your multi-round Glock, demonstrates my original point, danger is not in the weapon but in the one pulling the trigger. If I'm a good shot or have evil intent, your multi-rounds mean nothing. Allowing more law abiding citizens to carry will have a negative impact on criminals wanting to do evil. If more law abiding citizens had even minimal training, it would have even a great impact. Face the fact that more gun laws do NOTHING to stop the criminal element from carrying concealed. They only prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. And if you are a cop, you also know that you are an 'after the fact' element when violent crime goes down. Your ability to carry is only an aid if crime happens in your specific presence. "

To the unknown poster wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:51 AM:

" Just because you've "carried for 15 and hunted for 20 years" that doesn't equate to being correct. Ted Kennedy has been a Senator for 45 years, but that doesn't make his ideas correct. The "now we are getting somewhere" remark wasn't meant as condescending but an exclamation of progress (which rarely happens on these blogs). The fact that you take offense to it says alot about the thinness of your skin, or your inability to accept criticism, or your inability to admit your own errors. Now, like Bugs would say, Oswald was never proven to have shot Kennedy. Two, if it was Oswald, he used a bolt action and got off 3 (?) rounds. So if the "assault weapons" ban had been in place back then, restricting clip size or grip style would have had NO effect. "

To 12:30 pm poster wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:25 PM:

" Just so were clear though, I feel we need to try to do what we can to keep handguns OUT of the hands of children. There should be no place for them in school's, and that includes college campuses. As I said in a previous post, it's a major problem in larger cities.Not so much in LaCrosse. I'm a little more informed about firearms than you think. I've carried for fifteen year's and hunted for @ twenty. Your theory about magazine size doesn't even hold water. (notice I said magazine? Clips are what little girls wear in their hair). I'll give you an example. If you have one bullet in your gun and my Glock has ten, guess who gets killed if you miss? This really does involve more than just size. And protection involves more than just the person carrying. I make decisions about that everyday. "

To 12:30 pm poster wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:53 PM:

" Look, I gave you my opinion and your getting a bit condescending for me with your "now were getting somewhere remark". There's a number of "if's" in your posts too. It shouldn't boggle your mind at all that someone has a different viewpoint than your's. In a perfect world everyone would be law abiding citizens. We both know that's not the case. I believe an AK47 is more dangerous than my Glock 9MM for distance reasons alone. Oswald never would have hit Kennedy at that distance with my Glock would he? I could give you several other reasons why I feel they are more dangerous but this thread isn't about assault weapons. Were all getting off track a little here. "

to 5:45 part 2 wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:44 PM:

" Kaczynski was a leftist nut. The term is most often associated with social democracy and social liberalism.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leftism) & (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unibomber) Read the psychological analysis section. Yes, we all, Oswald, Kaczynski, Clinton, you and me, make decisions to do things in life. I wasn't excusing or down playing what those guys did, but pointing out that nobody made them do it, they chose to do it. "

to 5:54 wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:30 PM:

" Now we are getting somewhere. You emphasized that it was your OPINION that "assault weapons" are more dangerous. It boggles my mind how anyone with any knowledge of firearms would think that a 30 round clip makes a 7.62x51mm more dangerous than a 7.62x51mm with a 10 round clip. What makes a firearm dangerous isn't the grip or the clip, but the person in charge of the trigger. As for firearms in schools, if an adult is a law abiding citizen (and I would even say has passed a firearm course) then they would be a great protection against people who want to shoot up our children. As for children, we need to train them early about firearms, so that they understand safety, but no one talked about CCW for children, so you are just going off track. "

Bugs Big Mistake wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:09 AM:

" Regarding Oswald, it should read "was murdered"-not murdered. Oswald killed no one on 11/22/63. Sorry for my error. "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:30 AM:

" Just for the record, Oswald was a CIA "dangle" sent to spy on the Soviet Union. The Soviets figured that out, so he came home. He was also an FBI informant right up to the time he murdered. More importantly, he was set up by the gocvernment to take the blame for the assassination. A pawn moved around on the chessboard, just like James Earl Ray and Sirhan Sirhan. "

Bugs to 9:39 pm wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:25 AM:

" I believe the government motive was to take away our liberties...sort of like Bush has done with 9/11. You always have to remember..the Bushes and the Clintons are allies...both working towards a New World Order where US sovereignty no longer exists. "

Bugs to 9:34 pm wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:22 AM:

" I thought the Hillary Wynette thing was more satire than name calling. From my study of Flight 800, it was an errant military missile, which the FAA and NTSB covered up. Usually when a terrorist attack occurs, the perpetrators claim it as their own work; that nevered happened with Flight 800. Study it more and I think you'll end up with the same conclusion. "

Bugs to 9:25 pm wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:17 AM:

" You betcha. Can't prove the Clintons killed Vince, but the case itself is invaluable for understanding how things really work in this country. No forensic evidence for "suicide" but the media and the establishment politicians all united behind this falsity-just like they did with JFK, RFK, King, Waco, Oklahoma City, and 9/11. "

To 12:23 pm poster wrote on Mar 16, 2008 5:45 PM:

" Wrong again. If you re-read my past post's, where is "vague generality's and not the truth"? The definition of "assault rifle" is - any of various automatic or semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use. My OPINION is they are more dangerous. That's why I want to keep them out of the hands of children and out of schools. I never said I wanted to deconstruct the 2nd Amendment did I? You think Oswald killed just because he made a "bad decision" huh? That's really smart thinking. Ted the Unibomber WAS a rightwing nut too. And he made a "bad decision" too huh? Thanks for reminding me and everyone else about that too. I'd like to thank you again for letting us all know that MLK Jr was a Republican. I didn't know that... "

to 11:02 wrote on Mar 16, 2008 12:23 PM:

" You proved my point that you deal in vague generalities and not truth. Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill because he was a Republican or a Marine, but because he made a bad decision. The Unibomber didn't bomb people because he was a Democrat but because he made bad individual decisions. "Assault weapons" are no more dangerous than any other rifle, shotgun, pistol, or revolver you can purchase. "Assault weapon" is a scare tactic to get those uninformed masses to support deconstructing the 2nd Amendment.
One other truth you should look into, the Nazi party was the National Socialist Party. Look at things they stood for (like gun control) and ask yourself which party in America advocates socialism? (Hint: It starts with a D.) "

To 6:37 am poster wrote on Mar 16, 2008 11:02 AM:

" First: I do own a shotgun and that's not an assault rifle is it? Second: I do own a handgun, a Glock 9mm. That's not an assault rifle neither. Is It? Third: I didn't say anything about the marines did I? I implied that Oswald was a rightwingnut Republican.(which he was). I'm sorry, I didn't know that Martin Luthor King was a Republican. I guess that's news to me. "

To 6:30 wrote on Mar 16, 2008 6:37 AM:

" First, get out of your house, head down to Gander and talk to any of the gun reps about what an "assault weapon" is. Do you own a shotgun? That's an "assault weapon" of WWI. Do you own a semi-automatic? Most battle field "assault weapons" are semi-automatic. The Brady Bunch has their definition of what an "assault weapon" is (clip size, pistol grip, etc.) but basically it's based on cosmetics, not firepower or battle field use. Second, Lee Harvey Oswald was a US Marine, so I suppose you want to disband the Marines? Third, what did Abe Lincoln and MLKjr. have in common? They were both Republicans. "

To OKC wrote on Mar 15, 2008 6:30 PM:

" I believe the banning of assault rifles is good for America. All of the radical militia types are rightwingnut Republicans. You don't think Lee Harvey Oswald was a Democrat do you? "

OKC wrote on Mar 15, 2008 10:35 AM:

" Billy Bob Clinton was very big against the 2nd Amendment and the way to restrict or justify over ruling it would be to demonize it. If the OKC bombing could be pinned on a radical militia, 2nd amendment types, then passing legislation banning assult weapons that these groups supported would be seen as good for America. Read the book "Other's Unknown" for some insight to the Clinton Administrations blocking of information. Check out a few websites.

http://www.stopcovertwar.com/McVeigh.html

http://www.jaynadavis.com/story.html

http://independence.net/okc/congressbombreport.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/okm.htm "

To Bugs wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:39 PM:

" I forgot to ask one more thing. What is your thinking behind the government blowing up the building in Oklahoma City? I guess I've never heard that one. This is getting fun. I sure wish there was a conspiracy group I could get involved with. It would be fun to pick other people's minds on some of this stuff. It's great. "

To Bugs again wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:34 PM:

" Your at your best when you don't call people names. Even if it's Hillary. Sorry I don't agree with you. I did take your advice from a past posting and have ordered several of Griffins books. I also wanted to tell you that I don't believe flight 800 was shot down by an "errant" military missile at all. I believe it was shot down deliberately by a stinger missile. I suspect that since the eighties numerous shoulder mounted launchers have been smuggled into our country piece by piece. Terrorists already on American soil could be just waiting for the right time to start using them . Flight 800 might have been just a warm up. "

To Bugs wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:25 PM:

" And that's exactly why nothing has come of it. You can end up suspecting all your life to no avail. Like I've said to a number of you before, I'm an evidence guy. If you had enough you would have a case. You don't so... I "suspect" Paul Wellstone was killed too. I can't prove the Bush Administration was behind it though. Not enough evidence for a case. "

Michael Welch: History IS A Series Of "Conspiracies"... wrote on Mar 14, 2008 12:43 PM:

" I myself spent many years thinking the 'conspiracy theories' re: the Kennedy and King assassinationS (TWO Kennedys killed remember) were fantasy but I did finally realize (with research) that the closer you get the more the 'official' versions need 'Noxzema' -- to play on an old familiar (to some of us ancients) tv ad. I am NOT as well versed on the Vince Foster and 9-11 stuff as 'Bugs' but from my experience I no longer automatically poo-poo these ideas because there are OBVIOUSLY 'strange' oddities about these events that remain unexplained -- at least convincingly. People DISPARAGE 'Bugs' here but I notice they NEVER actually respond with counterarguments -- they only say 'Bugs' is 'bugs.' That's NOT enough... "

Bugs to 9:10 pm wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:06 AM:

" Well, I'll support Obama, but not Hillary Wynette. She's too evil for my tastes. "

Bugs to 9:04 pm wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:02 AM:

" I cannot conclusively state that the Clintons had Vince murdered, but the circumstantial evidence leads me to believe that. The forensic evidence, however, definitely proves that his death was not a suicide. Study the evidence-both forensic and circumstantial. "

Bugs to Phil-pt 2 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:58 AM:

" Absolutely! JFK, RFK, and King-all killed by the government and blamed on patsies; Flight 800 was brought down by an errant military missile; and it was the govt that blew up the Murrah Building-McVeigh's truck bomb simply was not powerful enough to cause the destruction that occurred. Those are the conclusions one reaches if one studies the evidence "

Bugs to Phil wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:53 AM:

" Interesting. Thanks for the reply. I've studied 9/11 thoroughly. I've read about 10 books on the subject-the best ones being David Ray Griffin's. I've also seen 3-4 videos-the latest being the final cut of Loose Change, where there is video of Transportation Secretary Mineta testifying before the 9/11 Commission that Dick Cheney was monitoring whatever it was that hit the Pentagon. Why didn't Dick order it shot down? The Twin Towers had already been hit, but Cheney did nothing to protect the Pentagon. But that's just one aspect to 9/11. The only rational conclusion one can reach after studying the evidence, is that it was an inside job. This is the same reasoning behind my belief that Vince Foster was murdered-a study of the evidence. "

To Bugs wrote on Mar 13, 2008 9:10 PM:

" And by the way, I am supporting the Democratic nominee whoever it is because I don't want a Republican near the White House again. They can't manage the economy and are a bunch of war mongers. So, because of people like you the Democrats will just continue to lose elections and not appoint Supreme Court Justices. That's what I mean when I said in another post that the Dem's always stab each other in the back. I wish I didn't belong to the party of stupid but the alternative is to belong to the party of evil and I just will never, never, never do that. "

To Phil & Bugs wrote on Mar 13, 2008 9:04 PM:

" Oh Thank You for letting me know about conspiracy theories. I didn't know that... I have studied each of the stories you mention but the difference between me and you and some others on here is that I don't accuse someone of murder because of political hatred which you fellows have been implying. Like you find 9/11 lacking, which I don't, I find your reasoning regarding Foster lacking. I guess we can all just agree to disagree. "

Phil to the Vince coverup denier wrote on Mar 13, 2008 6:16 PM:

" So the basis of your belief that it couldn't be true is that something would have been done about it already? So you live in the imaginary world where time will bring all truth to light? As for conspiracies...they go on all the time. A conspiracy is simply people working togather to hide something. The more powerful the people or organization the greater amount of activity can be hid. The government is a huge conglomeration of many powerful people and groups vying for power. In that fight, many inconvienent truths get buried. I was in the military and witnesses small conspiracies. It would be nieve to think that bigger conspiracies don't happen. If you did a little studying on JFK, or Oklahoma City bombing, or flight 800, you will see huge gaps in the offical story. "

To Bugs from Phil wrote on Mar 13, 2008 6:05 PM:

" I have looked at the accusations that 9/11 was an inside job, and I find it lacking. As for my Presidential vote...I'm not sure yet. One day I'm thinking anyone is better then Hillary or Obama, the next I'm thinking McCain is nuts and a liberal to boot. If the Republican party gets away with putting a liberal in the WH then I can be sure they will ignore the conservative wing. However, if Hillary or Obama get in, the Republicans can unite around a conservative opposition. Remember, Bill and Hillary caused the Republican revolution of the 90's and temporarily revitalized conservatism in America. I'll probably leave the Presidential space on my ballot blank. "

Michael Welch: Almost Heaven, Florida And Michigan... wrote on Mar 13, 2008 12:08 PM:

" Hillary could win the nomination if Michigan and Florida are seated as is and she could gather enough super delegates; that in fact is obviously her strategy now. The question remains whether dangling the vice presidency before Obama would mitigate the disappointment and discouragement of black Democratic voters and even of the many white admirers of BHO, especially the younger. If Obama goes along with the deal 'for the good of the party' the answer is maybe it would work; otherwise a disaffected chunk of Democrats might well stay away and thereby elect McCain. So: glad Ron Paul and Ralph Nader might be on your ballot? Hillary vs McCain is NOT a pleasant prospect, as 'Bugs' implies... "

Bugs to 3:44 am wrote on Mar 13, 2008 8:11 AM:

" I assume Phil is for McCain, who could easily win in November if Hillary is the Democratic nominee. I know I'd never, never, never vote for her. "

Bugs to 3:42 am wrote on Mar 13, 2008 8:09 AM:

" Yeah, I just started picking up the Chicago paper instead of the Journal-Sentinel to get more news on the Cubs. It's a very fine paper. But anyway, don't you find it amazing that Hillary would offer the vice-presidency to someone she doesn't think is ready for the presidency? Isn't the conventional thinking on this that the choice should be someone who is ready to step into the presidency should the president die? "

Bugs to 3:31 am wrote on Mar 13, 2008 8:04 AM:

" My point is that both the Clintons and the Bushes are corrupt and evil. I suspect most folks who've read my blogs understand that by now. "

Bugs to Phil wrote on Mar 13, 2008 8:00 AM:

" I am gratified to hear your comments on Vince Foster and the evidence. Do you have any interest in the overwhelming amount of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job? Just curious. "

Bugs to 9:38 pm wrote on Mar 13, 2008 7:58 AM:

" Well, here we go again. Hillary is desperate. She planned to have this thing wrapped up on Super Tuesday, but it just didn't work out. She's found out how unpopular she is. So, she goes negative. It's the only way to save her candidacy. She questions Obama's readiness and her faithful minions in the media echo it. And then she gets the shrew of '84 to raise the race issue, which the media will now trumpet. When lily-white states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Wyoming etc. vote Obama in overwhelming numbers, that's evidence to me that Obama's race is not a real issue, just an indication that Hillary will do anything to win. "

To Bugs wrote on Mar 13, 2008 3:44 AM:

" You may thank O'Bates for his Foster support but something tells me you won't be getting that from him regarding Obama. "

To 7:50 am Bugs wrote on Mar 13, 2008 3:42 AM:

" That article you mention is only a couple of days old. This is an issue that's been bandied about for several months. I read that paper as well as four others every day. It's been in all of them and on the television news. They both have been presented that scenario exactly as I posted weeks and weeks ago. The only thing new that was added was the appearance of her questioning his readiness to be commander in chief. And like I said in another post, lot's of people are wondering about that. (including me). This is a political campaign. Obama has to be able to handle stuff like that because he's going to get it a lot worse from McCain. Just wait till Phil O Bates gets a hold of him. He'll be bringing up Obama's past cocaine use from two decades ago... "

To Phil O Bates wrote on Mar 13, 2008 3:31 AM:

" You sure sound like a conspiracy theorist. You remind me of Bugs in reverse. Your asking questions about things that aren't evidence. That was garbage trumped up by Drudge year's ago and perpetuated by Rush Limbaugh through the year's. Nothing came of it then and nothing has to date.It would have by now if any of it was true. It hasn't because it isn't. Even if it was true about that"cattle trading", you can't possibly be serious about a thousand dollars when the KNEEL BUSH'S of the world stole COUNTLESS thousands of dollars during the Savings and Loan crisis during the eighties. Remember that REAL scandal? The one the American people are STILL paying for Phil? "

Phil O'Bates to 10:50 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:43 PM:

" If you are truely an evidence guy, then study the evidence revealed at the website I posted. I'm not the main thing suggesting that the Clinton's either killed Vince or just covered it up, the evidence is the main thing which suggests it. As to Hillary being the most examined candidate is silly. You have to go onto the internet to find out details about the details about Clintons scandals. The main stream press ignores it or covers it up. When was Hillary ever grilled about her miraculous cattle futures trading? or how FBI records wound up on her desk? Check out http://prorev.com/wwindex.htm "

To Bugs wrote on Mar 12, 2008 9:38 PM:

" A lot of people are questioning Obama's readiness to be Commander in Chief. I've done so several times on here saying I think it will take him two year's just to find the bathrooms in the White House. That's a legitimate concern for lot's of people. If more people would have been as concerned about things like that in 2000, George W might not have been elected. And now our nation is paying dearly for it. I don't want another learn on the job President. I do think Obama would be a good candidate in four to eight year's. That being said, I'm not going to stab the Democratic nominee whoever it is in the back like so many Democrats end up doing. I think it would be a good ticket and I'm going to support the winner. "

Bugs to 10:50 pm wrote on Mar 12, 2008 7:50 AM:

" Chicago Tribune (3/11/08) "The Clinton campaign has pressed the idea of a Clinton/Obama "dream ticket" as a way to win over Democrats torn between the two, while at the same time questioning Obama's readiness to be commander-in-chief." "

To Michael wrote on Mar 11, 2008 10:51 PM:

" I think no matter who the Democratic nominee is they better watch their back. They better have the best security money can buy especially if they continue to talk about ending the war... "

To Phil & Bugs wrote on Mar 11, 2008 10:50 PM:

" Having a "hand in" a cover up and "having someone killed" are two very different things. And you have suggested that the Clinton's had their friend killed. I'm not buying that for one minute. We could go on and on about this but I'm an evidence guy. Not a conspiracy theorist. Hillary did not suggest him for VP, she was asked FIRST if she would consider him for the spot and she said yes. He has NOT said the same regarding her. Get your facts straight or you will always just be a theorist. Are you sure your not getting your news from Europe? Hillary has been scrutinized more than any of the candidates period. And I think she's handled most of it quite well... "

Michael Welch: Trains, Automobiles And Planes -- Watch It!... wrote on Mar 11, 2008 12:13 PM:

" I am not trying to blow this media thing into a big deal; 'Bugs' is obviously correct in characterizing the 'mainstream media' as catering to power and protective of 'the system.' And he's not 'wrong' about Hillary especially but I do think there's division in the establishment re: Obama who is after all a Chicago politico of sorts and hardly a 'radical.' He could be uh 'malleable' so to speak but I don't believe 'they' can figure him out yet -- i. e. can they 'use' him, 'train' him OR will he REALLY want that 'change' he keeps talking about. When 'Bugs' wishes BHO more attention to his personal security I do agree 100% -- watch yer back Barack!... "

Bugs to Harsch wrote on Mar 11, 2008 8:51 AM:

" Well, the Wyoming results are just a continuation of the drubbing that Hillary is getting. She's not only getting beat, she's getting beat badly-by huge margins. If things were reversed, I am absolutely, positively sure the media pundits would be all over Obama to get out. And now Hillary has the unmitigated gall to suggest that Obama be her vice-president. Man, oh man, is that ever an indication of her supreme arrogance. Will the media ridicule her for this? I doubt it very much. "

Bugs to Phil wrote on Mar 11, 2008 8:45 AM:

" Thanks for the support vis a vis Vince Foster. Once one understands what happened to Vince, one understands the reality of the Clintons. At least that's my opinion. "

Bugs to 10:03 pm wrote on Mar 11, 2008 7:43 AM:

" Perhaps Harsch is getting his news from European sources. My examination of the media convinces me that Hillary is not getting the scrutiny she deserves. As far as Vince Foster's murder, I laid down a bunch of info. supporting that conclusion in the "Hillary/Fear Card" blog. Check it out and let me know what you think. "

harsch wrote on Mar 11, 2008 6:31 AM:

" In other words, this is not an issue on which right and wrong can be determined, so Bugs' inflexibility can not be gauged here. "

HARSCH on BUGS wrote on Mar 11, 2008 6:30 AM:

" Bugs did not admit he was wrong, but he did use the word perception. In favor of his argument we might consider that the media in the U.S. has shifted from basically pro-Administration/big business to right wing lackeys in general. In that case most media must be discounted in this debate, for the Republicans have self-intererst--they want McCain, so what they have to say about the Dems is irrelevant. Chris Matthews is a definite Hillary hater, but he is also a scattershot, unreliable buffoon. I think Bugs would be right if it were not for the excitement that Obama creates that the media occasionally gets swept up in. Still, the argument that if Hillary were in Obama's place and won Wyoming (Wyoming!) the media would be calling for Obama to desist is rather weak. "

Phil O'Bates sides with Bugs on one issue wrote on Mar 11, 2008 12:33 AM:

" Vince Foster. No reasonable person could look at the evidence surrounding Vince and come to the conclusion that the Clinton's didn't have a hand in at least covering up what really happened. Read this link if you aren't up to speed on the Vince coverup.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/foster.html "

To Bugs Raplin wrote on Mar 10, 2008 10:03 PM:

" The funny thing about you is that you never seem to change your mind even when your wrong. (or when you can't present evidence like Vince Foster). I agree with Harsch. If you keep a close eye on the media your not seeing what most Americans are especially regarding Clinton. When a guy like Chris Matthews describes getting all tingly when Obama speaks, he's all but endorsing him. And Matthews isn't the only one. Most Republicans that I talk with want Obama to be the nominee. Why do you think that is? When we get the nominees perhaps the media will start dissecting the candidates-dare I say in an even-handed way.If the big guys don't, the bloggers will. "

Bugs to Harsch wrote on Mar 10, 2008 4:56 PM:

" Sorry, that's not the perception I have...and I keep a close eye on the media. "

harsch wrote on Mar 10, 2008 4:05 PM:

" I seen a lot of media Hillary attacks--a lot of them; and discounting the ones from the clear loon right, I would say they have been more numerous than the attacks on Obama. "

Bugs to Michael wrote on Mar 10, 2008 2:01 PM:

" BGS and another poster have stated that it's virtually impossible for Hillary to secure the nomination without some overwhelming votes in the remaining primaries, and taking all the Super-delegates. That meshes with an analysis I read. So, like I said, if the situation were reversed, there'd a hue and cry from the media pundits for Obama to get out and unite the party. But there's nothing but silence from the media. Hence, my conclusion the media are in the Clinton's pockets. They've been there since Day 1. "

Michael Welch: I Believe The Media Is More Bemused Than We!... wrote on Mar 10, 2008 12:23 PM:

" I often agree with 'Bugs' but I'm not sure 'the media is in the Clintons' pockets'; in fact I think the situation is flummoxing really: the race for the Democratic nomination was NOT supposed to go on this long; that's what that super duper Tuesday waaaay back on Feb 5 was to accomplish. I thought it would -- but clearly I misjudged and Brian Smith and Jimmy Gillman were more correct in asserting that those super delegates at the party convention in Denver would 'decide.' Hillary is behind in delegate count yes but not FAR behind; she's not Mike Huckabee. Yeah BGS said this convention will mean something; surprisingly, like say 1960, it will... "

Michael Welch: Obama -- "Going For The Bold"?... wrote on Mar 10, 2008 12:01 PM:

" Obama as a community organizer had sporadic successes but he was unable to effect his major 'dream,' an organization of black churches and ministers as the (potentially) most potent force for bettering people's lives on the south side. However he achieved 'small' victories. As a legislator in Springfield he led in the passage of a major campaign reform bill and eventually became a significant 'player' in the Illinois senate. As are most liberal politicians who achieve any political heights, Obama is predominately a 'cautious' (albeit ambitious) man who means well in that liberal sense. He stikes me very much as a John F. Kennedy OF 1960, i. e. as a charismatic possibility who COULD be, really, a much 'bolder' president OR a relatively careful one. I think he'd try for the 'bold'... "

Michael Welch: And More... wrote on Mar 10, 2008 11:47 AM:

" As president of the 'Law Review' (a position which is essentially an editor-in-chief) BHO was regarded as liberal yes but not rigidly doctrinaire, appointing conservative law students to some major positions as well and treating more conservative thought with a 'fair hearing.' Later in the Illinois state senate Obama as a liberal Democrat often worked with even conservative suburban rural Republicans. Upon graduating from Columbia he had moved to Chicago's south side to work as a community organizer for the poor black neighborhoods after rejecting numerous offers of much more high paying jobs for a magna cum laude graduate... "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Mar 10, 2008 11:44 AM:

" Hillary got creamed in Wyoming. Where are the media calls for her to get out? Man oh man, if the situation was reversed, they'd all be clamoring for Obama to concede; the media pundits would be heckling Obama about dividing the party and giving the election to McCain. Do you finally see, people? Has it hit home yet? The media are in the Clinton's pocket. "

Michael Welch: More About Obama... wrote on Mar 10, 2008 11:39 AM:

" Obama is at heart a liberal intellectual; his church is Trinity United Church of Christ and while that south side, mostly black, Chicago congregation is one of the largest in the country, it is a 'liberal' minded Christianity more concentrated on this world than the next. Obama's Hawaiian upbringing also emphasized the integration of diverse peoples in an easy going ambience. However BHO, always a 'good student' but not always working to his ability, became a diligent probing mind at Occidental College in Los Angeles and especially later at Columbia University in New York. At Harvard Law School he was the president of the prestigious journal the 'Harvard Law Review'... "

Johnny Hobo to To Johnny Hobo wrote on Mar 9, 2008 9:08 PM:

" My dear brother or sister, I trust the burden on your heart is such, that only you and the healing hands of the Redeemer can lift your burdern. I pray for you my brother/sister. "

To Johnny Hobo wrote on Mar 9, 2008 11:19 AM:

" You sound just like one of those old time preachers brother. Next time try preaching the truth. "

Johnny Hobo to To Johnny Hobo wrote on Mar 8, 2008 7:55 PM:

" A quick look at postings will easily establish that you reached that conclusion. I trust, my dear brother or sister, that you will follow your heart and head in exploring this very real threat. Go in peace... "

To Michael Welch wrote on Mar 8, 2008 4:48 PM:

" You ain't seen nothin yet. Just wait until Rush Limbaugh starts in on him. He's pretending like numerous other Republicans to "like" him. Why else do you think they WANT him to win the nomination. They know that liberals like yourself vote with their heart and not their constitution. Whereas Republicans are always willing to do whatever it takes to win. Democrats STILL haven't learned that yet. "

To Johnny Hobo wrote on Mar 8, 2008 4:41 PM:

" No Johnny Hobo, your the one that brought it up. It must have been a concern of YOUR'S. "

harsch to welchy wrote on Mar 8, 2008 11:43 AM:

" It's worse than that--it's lowest common denominator insanity that is far more widespread in America than homosexuality and indeed dangerous whereas the latter is not. "

Michael Welch: "Swift Boat" To Starboard -- Far Starboard... wrote on Mar 8, 2008 10:56 AM:

" The fantasy raised below that Barack Obama is a crypto-Muslim is the sort of dark slimy side of American politics that accuses people of attitudes they have never expressed in word or deed; and it accuses by outward appearance alone while relying on inner prejudices. Obama is a liberal and sensibly opposed to the Iraq war; he is not a 'radical' of any kind but actually a rather cautious political man who has great ambition. He's described in the Mendell bio I mentioned as 'a DEVOUT Christian'; in other words as a person with indeed the spirit of the convert. I predicted there'd be considerable 'swift boating' of Obama now that he could be the Democratic nominee and the next president. Well there it is... "

Johnny Hobo wrote on Mar 8, 2008 10:24 AM:

" Barry Hussein Obama's words indicate his hatred of America, as Hannah Montana would say, "Like, duh!" I never said that old Barry was a KGB/al-Qaeda mole, but certainly based on his radical Islamic childhood and adolescence, once could certainly wonder. (Thanks goes to our dear brother Michael for bringing this to light.) The fact that you reached that conclusion clearly indicates it is a concern and suspect of yours. "

To Johnny Hobo wrote on Mar 8, 2008 7:26 AM:

" You are one mixed up dude if you think Barrack Obama hates America or is a "mole". You have a bigger imagination than Bugs. "

Johnny Hobo wrote on Mar 7, 2008 1:47 PM:

" My dear brother Michael adeptly points out the strong Muslim influence on Barry Hussein Obama and that molds his--and his wife's--hatred of all things American. (His refusal to place his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance & National Anthem; her hatred of all things American except Barry's candidacy.) Anyone who remembers and has studied the KGB from the Soviet era remembers that they would spend decades grooming sleeper moles in US government agencies and let them slowly rise to positions of authority. The KGB operated in numerous Muslim states, one can only wonder if al-Qaeda picked up the same techniques? "

Johnny Hobo wrote on Mar 7, 2008 12:59 PM:

" BGS, it's a beautiful,sunny (albeit a tad chilly) day! Take off your tinfoil hat, come out of your basement bunker and enjoy some fresh air. There isn't a black helicopter in sight! "

Michael Welch: More On Obama... wrote on Mar 7, 2008 10:54 AM:

" Obama's father was a rather imperious person who had been a goatherd as a child but whose considerable intellect led him eventually to scholarships at schools in London, Hawaii and then Harvard. His mother was also extremely bright but very idealistic, sometimes to the point of naivete. She was immensely important in encouraging her son to be proud of his racial background, especially his Kenyan heritage as well as of the black American 'experience.' Consequently Obama is a proud, very intelligent and self contained man who at the same time has an idealistic vision of American 'pluralism'... "

Michael Welch: The REAL Obama... wrote on Mar 7, 2008 10:46 AM:

" I've started reading Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell's 2007 biography 'Obama: From Promise to Power' and may I highly recommend it for those who really know only snippets of his very fascinating life. He is indeed born of a black Kenyan father (he's named after him; the father's family is Muslim but the father was an atheist) and a very intellectual and idealistic mother born in Kansas but raised largely in Hawaii. Obama's step father was Indonesian, Muslim but non-practicing, and Obama lived an early adolescent life of what passed as 'middle class' in Jakarta but eventually was sent back to live in Honolulu, where he was born, so to attend an exclusive private high school mainly for 'haole' (white) kids and paid for by his wife's parents... "

Tess Trueheart wrote on Mar 7, 2008 9:37 AM:

" "Howard Dean...on NPR...." So, that explains what happened to the old Tass news agency! "

my three cents worth wrote on Mar 7, 2008 9:35 AM:

" it's apparent the only way to a victor between Obama amd Clinton, is to get ahold of Vince McMahon, and have him set up a 'cage' match for Wrestlemania, winner take all. but seriously, Clinton will be the victor, the fix is in, seems like they are headed for yet ANOTHER primary in MI and FL, the DNC doesn't do a very good job of sticking to their word. and a Clinton/McCain contest? McCain. Clinton just carries way too much baggage. but if a decent 3rd party canidate arose, there would be a very good chance of them winning the whole thing, people are very sick of 'politics as ussual', and that's all that comes from either the Dems of the Reps. "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Mar 7, 2008 7:33 AM:

" So why aren't the political media pundits calling for Hillary to get out? Because the Clintons have the media in their pockets, that's why. Be careful, out there, Barack. "

To BGS wrote on Mar 7, 2008 6:56 AM:

" There is going to be a lot of things happening before the election yet. Did you know that Pennsylvania has the highest age of any state in the country? It's leaders mirror Ohio's and the economy is similar too. Do you think that's going to be good for Obama? He talks a good game and he's getting you folks caught up in Obamamania but he better have some substance soon. If he's having a hard time with Hillary just wait until the Republicans and John McCain get a hold of him. "

To Harsch wrote on Mar 7, 2008 5:00 AM:

" The �common denominator� in these four attempts is that the perpetrators were all mentally ill who had previously been considered quirky but harmless, kind of like several people who post on this blog. "

To Harsch wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:59 AM:

" Actually if you go by recent history, it is more likely that there will be an assignation attempt on McCain than Obama. The last 4 legitimate attempts on Presidents or presidential candidates weren't committed by members of the "basic loony right wing paranoid side" nor where the victims liberals.
Maybe you have forgotten or maybe it was before your time, so such 4 attempts are as follows: 1. G. Wallace shot by A. Bremer (who was looking for publicity); 2. S. Fromme (a member of the Charlie Manson Clan) tried to fire a gun at point blank at G. Ford: 3. S Moore (who is no longer in Jail) fired one round at G. Ford: 4. R. Reagan was shot by J. Hinckley (who was trying to impress actress Jodie Foster by mimicking a scene from the movie Taxi Driver).
"

bgs from harsch wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:51 AM:

" You can explain it to me in person. "

ticket to ride wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:49 PM:

" I love watching the democrats implode. How predictable. "

Dear harsch wrote on Mar 6, 2008 8:58 PM:

" Yeah...O'bama has an insurmountable lead. Clinton would need 75% of the vote and all the supers to win. Ain't happenin'. SHe's playing the fear card we all have come to hate with a smoldering passion. I'm about to go off. My biggest fear is the news that Bush will relieve Admiral "Petreus is a chickenskit" Fallon who said we'd never invade Iran under his watch. Once removed, we attack Iran, Directive 51 of the Fed Emergencies Act goes into play and many of us Patriots find ourselves in armed conflict or in a temporary detention center built by Kellogg, Root and Brown (already awarded). - BGS "

Dear Kim D wrote on Mar 6, 2008 8:53 PM:

" " I just read a news item in which an American journalist asked a US commanding officer what he feared most. The man replied "our commander-in-chief, I've heard he's a thief, he's caused us much grief, could he please leave our country and give us relief. " "

War Veteran wrote on Mar 6, 2008 8:52 PM:

" " I just read a news item in which an American journalist asked a US soldier what he feared most. The man replied "our commander-in-chief, he's a thief, he's caused us much grief, will you please leave our country and give us relief. " It's a true story. "

Dear "Problems ahead for Democrats" wrote on Mar 6, 2008 8:50 PM:

" I've got my tickets booked for Denver. If anything 68ish comes into play don't expect us to take batons to the head......we ain't playing that game. This is a new world. Jefferson will be with us. - BrianGSmith "

Dear Tess Trueheart wrote on Mar 6, 2008 8:46 PM:

" You are poorly informed. O'bama wasn't on the Michigan ballot. The Wolverine State will have to do a do-over. Florida is another story. O'bama's lead is insurmountable and watch him totally humiliate the carpetbagging Senator from New York in the next debate. Pennsylvania is in play. Obama made huge gains in Ohio and Texas...originally down by double digits in both. The establishment fears O'bama....more reason to love him and garnish him with donations. - BrianGSmith "

Starfish wrote on Mar 6, 2008 8:19 PM:

" I'm not prepared to follow our friend Bugs down the rabbit hole, but, as I watch the election coverage rachet up with Superbowl-type fervor, one thing seems at least possible. $55,000,000 in a month is a lot of money, but in war machine currency, it's chump change. As we marvel breathlessly at the fund-raising prowess of The One from Illinois--and search his closet for Farrakhan-like skeletons--the Eternal Warrior cozies up to a bigotted End-if-Day-er with barely a whisper. Then it becomes clear to me: we'll have our contest decided however we are told. Your last few posts, responded to by Osamabamamama and his minyans, continue to underscore the fact that the Villiage Idiot from Crawford is just the beginning of the fun. "

Tess Trueheart wrote on Mar 6, 2008 6:09 PM:

" Don't be surprised if the Clintons pull a "Vince Foster" of our buddy, old "Osama Obama." "

Problems to Harsch wrote on Mar 6, 2008 4:53 PM:

" http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010 "

Harsch re: 1:02 post wrote on Mar 6, 2008 4:41 PM:

" http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1078024 "

Super Secret Bonus delegate wrote on Mar 6, 2008 3:43 PM:

" I do not exist and was never here. "

Avet wrote on Mar 6, 2008 3:05 PM:

" Did you hear what Chelsea Clinton was told by a returning vet when she asked him what he loved most? "Bush, Tush, and Rush." "

harsch to bugs wrote on Mar 6, 2008 2:45 PM:

" Since so many think you're a loony, I feel compelled to say that a couple weeks ago I got the very strong feeling that Obama would be assassinated. When I expressed it, and was asked why, forced to explain it I could only say that he's on the wrong side of three potentially lethal foes: the Bush side, the Clinton side (though I don't know this with certainty) and the basic loony right wing paranoid side. With all the insane disinformation about him being an al Qaida infiltrator being flung electronically about, imagine all the lone gunmen, not to mention the martyrs for hire. "

Harsch re: 1:02 wrote on Mar 6, 2008 2:42 PM:

" Is this delegate information true? Can anyone who knows number it out for me. If it is, I withdraw my previous post. "

anonymous harsch wrote on Mar 6, 2008 2:17 PM:

" I fear hugs from bugs without ear plugs "

Tess Trueheart wrote on Mar 6, 2008 1:48 PM:

" Just a reminder that Hillary won both Michigan and Florida (both going away.) Factor the delegates she has already won in and she can easily cruise to the nomination. "

Bugs Raplin to 1:02 pm wrote on Mar 6, 2008 1:46 PM:

" I think you said it very well, and I'm glad you brought up assassination, which I fear may be Obama's fate, because I can't imagine him dropping out. I think the only way he would drop out is if he's told directly by someone in authority that he'll be killed if he continues. Please don't scoff. This is how things operate in this country. Just remember the Kennedy's and King. Or Vince Foster "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Mar 6, 2008 1:04 PM:

" I just read a news item in which an American journalist asked an Iraqi citizen what he feared most. The man replied "your commander-in-chief, I've heard he's a thief, he's caused us much grief, will you please leave our country and give us relief. "

Problems ahead for Democrats wrote on Mar 6, 2008 1:02 PM:

" Because the Democrat Party distributes delegates proportionally, Obama is locked in to be the Democrat candidate. It is mathematically impossible for Clinton to ever catch up. Even if she wins every remaining state with 60 percent of the vote, she won�t close the elected delegate gap. So unless Obama drops out, or gets assasinated, Clinton shouldn't get the nod. Clinton though is wanting to change the rules because as she says what matters is that she has won �core battleground states.� She�s won, �states that the Democratic nominee must carry in November,� like New York and California. Will the Obama supporters surrender what should be theirs because Clinton thinks it's best? I doubt it. Denver 08 will make Chicago 68 look like a birthday party. "

To:Barack 10:05am wrote on Mar 6, 2008 12:39 PM:

" McCain would try to get this banned because he would be afraid it would cause people to lose interest in boxing, a much more violent sport. "

Re:9:27am wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:09 AM:

" Yeah, why all the in-fighting? Let them both run. Simple. "

To : Kim D wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:03 AM:

" You crack me up. The phrase he used was actually "Osama, Obama, and Yo mama." It's all in the wording. Funny. "

Michael Welch: Let's Make A Deal! (Uh Not "New Deal")... wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:27 AM:

" Also as Howard Dean the national committee chair said on NPR yesterday if the Democratic party supers arranged to nominate a candidate (let's guess 'Hillary') who did not come to convention with the most primary and caucus delegates (let's also guess 'Obama') that would 'split the party' as they say and likely elect McCain. Any 'NO SMOKING'-filled room kind of stuff would be absolutely deadly to the veneer of 'change.' McCain, as Brian Smith once observed here, is the endless war personified BUT a perception that Obama 'was robbed' would dampen the vital to Democrats black vote considerably. (Hills wants to entice BHO with the vice presidency but I doubt he would comply with that crass a deal...) "

Michael Welch: Don't Get Your "Hope" Up TOO High... wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:18 AM:

" American presidential campaigns have a discouraging similarity; the NYTimes editorial bemoaning those similarities is itself just one of the usual suspects. The 'truth' (ta-TAA!) is that Americans first ELECT a president and THEN spend four years getting some idea of who or what they elected. It's all a role of the dice, primarily because -- look: presidents are ALL beholden to the wealthiest and therefore most powerful economic interests; a prez who'd behave 'radically' -- e. g. a Ron Paul or a Ralph Nader -- is impossible, marked for political assassination if not uh a literal one. Obama MAY be 'the best POSSIBLE' but that's not likely to be say 'Franklin D. Roosevelt Jones'... "

harsch wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:17 AM:

" I think the smart thing for the two to do is simply reconcile all differences and combine in one ticket with Clinton on top because her age and the perception that Obama's lack of experience matters. There seems little to hope for with either as president, yet McCain is frightening. "

139er wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:09 AM:

" I believe that the tie should be broken by the "super?" delegates based on popular vote count. "

Barack NMN Obama wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:05 AM:

" UFC cage fight. "

Re:McCain wrote on Mar 6, 2008 9:30 AM:

" People have told me I will be throwing my vote away, but I will probably go with whoever is on the Libertarian ticket. Normally, I would vote McCain because he would be the absolute best concerning foreign policy. But, he tried to ban UFC(MMA) events several years ago because of his political ties to boxing. I simply can't see, with all the concern about the economy, having someone running our country who actively attempts to put companies out of business and people out of work. "

Question wrote on Mar 6, 2008 9:27 AM:

" Why not just put them both on the ballot in November? "

Kim D wrote on Mar 6, 2008 9:25 AM:

" Interesting story concerning Obama and Hillary. Recently, Hillarys daughter Chelsea was visiting our troops. She asked one of our servicemen what he feared most. His reply to her was "Barak Obama, your mother, and Osama Bin Laden." "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »