River Valley Blogs

Michael Welch: O-KAY!... wrote on Apr 12, 2008 12:18 PM:

" Don't worry -- I've always been 'the serious kid' and I've learned to stay away from parties too. Some day maybe we could discuss the differences and nuances of 'right' and 'left' and I hope look beyond the cliched labeling... "

Funny, Michael wrote on Apr 11, 2008 1:28 PM:

" You and I better both keep our day jobs and not try a career in comedy. Take care. "

Michael Welch: Still Sick?... wrote on Apr 11, 2008 12:08 PM:

" -- then he's just like you: left ill!... "

To Michael wrote on Apr 10, 2008 1:06 PM:

" Or if the mouse in the box is left and ill.....? "

Michael Welch: HA! Ha! Ah -- Um -- Stay Away From Stand Up Comedy Clubs Hmm... wrote on Apr 10, 2008 11:34 AM:

" Only if you suffer from Harsch's designation of a 'lazy mind'... "

To 3:15 wrote on Apr 8, 2008 1:08 PM:

" More ill than left? Aren't they the same?
"

Michael Welch: You Must Think Beyond The "Label"... wrote on Apr 6, 2008 3:15 PM:

" As for the so-called 'uni-bomber' I think he was more 'ill' than 'left.' There have been right AND left wing 'extremists' in recent history; the militant Muslims of al-Qaeda are really hyper 'conservative,' even 'reactionary' in that they dream of the revival of a great Islamic empire per the 8th, 9th centuries. So terms like 'left' and 'right' are just convenient designations, very rough, as are 'conservative' and 'liberal' -- what do you want to 'conserve' after all? Segregation? Legal racism? The US bill of rights? What do you want to 'liberalize'? Gun ownership? Mortgage lending laws? Opportunities for good paying jobs? When we use these terms we MUST understand they are relative and realize we should be more sophisticated about what they 'mean'... "

Michael Welch: The Nazis... wrote on Apr 6, 2008 3:01 PM:

" As for the National Socialists in Germany the party was stringently anti-communist and blamed the REAL Socialist party for the defeat in 1918. (The German second reich collapsed, the kaiser fled to Holland and the government was handed over to the socialists who had to negotiate a VERY UNPOPULAR armistice.) Communists ('Spartacists') took over in Bavaria and even Berlin (briefly) and Corporal Hitler joined a paramilitary right wing group to fight them. The nazis did have 'public works' projects but NEVER re: the communists took over industries but rather formed a 'government-corporate alliance.' Hitler's party was in actuality an extreme nationalist organization dedicated first to AH and to 'reforming' German society into a 'police state,' not a 'workers' state'... "

Michael Welch: You're Making Inaccurate Generalizations... wrote on Apr 6, 2008 2:51 PM:

" The Ku Klux Klan developed after the civil war as yes a 'militant arm' of white 'confederate' southerners who were usually Democrats. The south was Democratic because it was the Jeffersonian 'populist' party and populism in the slave south certainly did NOT in the 19th century include 'Negroes.' The southern Democrats remained a hyper CONSERVATIVE party (seeking to CONSERVE de jure racism in their society); and if you examine the civil rights laws of the 1950s and '60s you will find that it was northern LIBERAL Democrats (AND Republicans!) who developed the anti-segregation civil rights legislation we enjoy today... "

speaking of lefties wrote on Apr 5, 2008 7:29 PM:

" Don't forget that the KKK was the militant arm of the Democrat party. Also the National Socialist Party (Nazi) of Germany was the ultimate leftist organization. Recently in American history, Ted Kaczynski (the unibomber) was a leftist. "

Michael Welch: My Very Short Critique Of The American Left... wrote on Apr 5, 2008 12:18 PM:

" I will admit that the American left often played a questionable 'game' of apologizing and defending Soviet, Maoist, Viet Minh, Castroite communism in the face of obvious horrors. Even Norman Thomas in the '30s and '40s was more apologetic than he later admitted he should have been. There was indeed a covert spy network run by the Soviet KGB (secret ops) through the CPA (Communist Party of America) but by far MOST US party members knew nothing about it and did not knowingly participate in it. Socialists usually disliked the communists as I said though some were indeed 'co-opted.' The major conundrum was Hitler and nazism; lefties believed (not incorrectly) that only Stalin was REALLY 'fighting fascism' in the '30s and so they rationalized their support... "

Michael Welch: Like The Present "System"? Thank Franklin D!... wrote on Apr 5, 2008 12:08 PM:

" I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean -- unless you are equating 'liberalism' with 'the left'; but you see the ACTUAL 'left' (socialists, communists, anarchists etc.) disliked (still do!) the liberals or progressives more than the 'conservatives.' Norman Thomas was once queried 'Did President Roosevelt carry out a socialist program with his "New Deal"?' And Thomas riposted 'Yeah -- he carried it out on a stretcher!' That is, liberals are wed to 'the system' which they wish to 'reform,' not eradicate, while socialists want a truly egalitarian society -- or as close as you can get. During the depression years of the 1930s -- oh '31-35 say -- folks got as CLOSE to wanting an economic 'revolution' in the US as we ever got, BUT it did NOT happen -- why? FDR, the rich liberal, SAVED corporate capitalism... "

To Michael wrote on Apr 4, 2008 1:57 PM:

" Yes, that is what I would have said. Actually, though, if you are talking about what is apparent and what is reality, I would say both sides have had a hand in it-they balance each other out, so to speak. "

Michael Welch: The "Anti-Left" Argument?... wrote on Apr 4, 2008 12:19 PM:

" What I THOUGHT you might say in your defense is that the radical 'communist' left in Russia, China, the central European states, Cuba, Vietnam et. al. has exploited the 'masses' for the great benefit of their SO-CALLED 'egalitarian' ruling class and have/had developed, mainly, very adept military-secret police-industrial 'complexes' (to coin a phrase) but per the ordinary folks hadn't done much more than slaughter millions of them. And you'd be correct in large part -- BUT MY reply to that would be that I was referring to the AMERICAN left which meant the Socialist as well as Communist party and neither EVER had power in the US. The socialists, whom I identify with, were 'anti-communist' actually and often pacifist. So: was that what you MIGHT have said?... "

Michael Welch: Those Who Have Eyes, Let Them See!... wrote on Apr 4, 2008 12:09 PM:

" Well I offer you our present reality as 'proof'; in other words I thought my premise currently could obviously be 'seen' -- especially as unemployment rises alarmingly this first economic 'quarter.' Now a decade and a half ago Ross Perot mistakenly observed that the NAFTA agreements of the Bush-Clinton administrations would cause 'a giant sucking sound' of jobs to Mexico but in that he was wrong -- the 'sucking sound' is of jobs to China, India and other rising Asian outsourcers. And we're in a war with, admittedly by even its advocates, 'no end in sight' and since when? 1990 actually. And the rich get richer etc., and how's YOUR portfolio and 401K doing lately eh?... "

To Michael and Harsch wrote on Apr 3, 2008 4:18 PM:

" Okay, I made the "leftist" remark. I realize I offered no support for my position. I did so hoping to point out that you(Michael) offered no evidence to support yours either. All you stated is you see what it leads to. But you fail to support your position with evidence that it is the rightist view that is the cause...so, let's hear it! :) "

Michael Welch: AND? --... wrote on Apr 3, 2008 1:23 PM:

" Okay -- so argue it. How HAS a 'leftist' view 'led us' to this? I'll reply tomorrow in what I hope becomes an interesting exchange... "

harsch wrote on Apr 3, 2008 1:21 PM:

" This is precious: 'One could argue that it is the "leftist view" that has lead to the things you mention.' But one doesn't apparently. "

Harsch: hats off to phil o'bates wrote on Apr 3, 2008 1:20 PM:

" I don't know if Brian G Smith has kids, but he claims to have a job. Welch does have a job, but no kids. I refuse to confess. What I will say is that Phil O does me a service by selflessly posting when it is such a ridiculous waste of time and only losers engage in it, for it is people like him who keep me interested and posting. Thank you, Phil. "

To Michael wrote on Apr 3, 2008 12:52 PM:

" One could argue that it is the "leftist view" that has lead to the things you mention. "

Michael Welch: Keep Doing "THEIR" Dirty Work For "Them" Eh "PO'B"?... wrote on Apr 3, 2008 11:59 AM:

" Oh gee -- commenters commenting that other commenters comment too much! What seems ODD about that hmm? 'PO'B' can do what he likes, comment or not, I don't care; he presents however the most cogent 'religious right' view, rather than the hyper frustrated 'up yours' of the 'Krusty' type. I was once quite sympathetic to a rightist view but I've seen over the decades what it leads to -- endless wars, corroded lives for the poor and working class and even more and more stress on the 'middle class' while the ONE PER CENT controls over fifty per cent of American wealth. This is okay with 'PO'B' -- so fine, that's his view; but yes I disagree with him too... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Apr 2, 2008 5:27 PM:

" First, I'm not Krusty, nor do I know who Krusty is. No, I didn't go on vacation but was busy with real work and life. It's when I have some free time that I come back to these play grounds and see what's all a stir. I think people like Michael and Brian don't have kids or jobs or any other life, so blogging is their life. That's pretty sad. I find it funny that Brian thinks that Obama's website is the best place to find out about him. Yeah, and McCains website is the best place to find out about him. NOT! I certainly don't see any 'Solomon type' wisdom from Obama, but Clinton type BS accompanied with the media ignoring his HUGE errors in judgements. But Hey, follow him if you like, I wont. "

One Man Think Tank wrote on Apr 2, 2008 4:51 PM:

" Starfish, responding to your own posts now, eh? "

Starfish wrote on Apr 2, 2008 3:52 PM:

" To 2:13 PM

Thank you. "

To "Dear Kim" wrote on Apr 2, 2008 3:07 PM:

" Kim wasn't lying. She was referencing the first post on the Chris Wallace blog. I believe it is a documented fact that Obama opposed and spoke out against this measure. If you have information that refutes this, please share. Otherwise, I assume it is accurate. "

Dear "Kim" wrote on Apr 2, 2008 2:13 PM:

" You make no sense.....and you are a total liar. By your own statements the vote for whatever bill you're hissied up over was UNANIMOUS 98-0. That means no one voted against it......doh!!! Your absurd claim that Obama suuports killing born kids is pathetically bizarre and a transparent smear attempt. Why don't you go party with all the other infanticide boneheads and take the "osama, yo'mama and pajama" girl with you. "

Michael Welch: Big Jawn Names -- DAN QUAYLE!!!!!... wrote on Apr 2, 2008 12:54 PM:

" Gee I just read the AP story about McCain's potential running mates and it mentions Dan Quayle as a primer on how NOT TO -- 'So?' as the Dickster would say; SO: I think Mac Attack oughta pick the Quaylester; I mean there was a guy who 'got no respect!' -- the veeper equivalent to Rodney Dangerfield. Whether buying sex dolls in Chile (Chile under Pinochet -- what a FUN place for popcorners! YUM!) or spelling 'potato' 'potatoe' ('There's a "toe" in there somewhere kids!') -- 'After the spelling lesson I'll read ya a story 'bout a pet goat okay?!' -- Danny just got no love at all in this media bias mange. Big Jawn could grab him (probably not TOO busy these days) and if he's elected we'd have a real good time with the vice president again! MMMMMM MMMM!!!!... "

Michael Welch: "President McCain"? Sure It Could Be... wrote on Apr 1, 2008 11:29 AM:

" Well McCain could certainly be the next president; his reputation with the general voting population is markedly higher than is W's at the moment. The columnist David Broder recently wrote that McC was underestimated as a 'strategic' thinker re: foreign policy and was not so dedicated to war scenarios as presumed. Gee I hope so. The mix of bad economic news plus recent bad war news and the 'time for a change' aspect means the Democrats have the 'edge'; but voting for prez is an 'interior' psychological process as well as due to 'exterior' events. (I do expect Big Mac to come up with a 'plan' -- 'secret' or otherwise -- to the end the war however...) "

Starfish wrote on Apr 1, 2008 9:20 AM:

" And it will soon become apparent that the standard-bearer of the GOP is, sadly, a vet with untreated post traumatic stress syndrome who, when unexcited, can speak in gentle humane tones and charm the bejesus out of reporters but when agitated is explosive and irrational. I agree that Obama--admittedly without the experience of Cheney or Rumsfeld or, even, the Village Idiot from Crawford--has the raw talent and vision to do the job like no other we've seen in recent times. "

Kim wrote on Apr 1, 2008 8:43 AM:

" No, Starfish, this is exactly where politics DOES belong. It is the job of the politicians to protect those who can't protect themselves. Obviously, the other politicians recognize this, or the vote would not have been 98-0. "

To Harsch and Starfish wrote on Apr 1, 2008 8:33 AM:

" I am only going by what the definition of infanticide is, which is the deliberate killing of newborn children. Because the children are already born, it is different from abortion. The first post on the Chris Wallace blog shows that Obama does indeed support infanticide. Again, I am sorry you find the word "ugly", but it is what it is. I can't help it. "

Dear "p O'B" wrote on Apr 1, 2008 3:44 AM:

" I'm far from blind my friend. Quite the opposite. Obama certainly is young but possesses "Solomon-like" wisdom beyond his years. As has been demo'd with Cheney-Rummy, et al.....experience can also lead to huge failure.....huge detachment from reality. I don't want another Politico attached to Nixon's era in the White House evr again...Go to Obama's website and read his platform...read his recent economic speeches.....the guy's simply the smartest cat in the race.......and the Nation desperately needs someone with brains over "gut" impulses and voices from false gods. - BrianGSmith "

Dear "Richard Cranium" wrote on Apr 1, 2008 3:40 AM:

" You make great points. Once McCain is under the spotlights his monstrous shortcomings will be exposed. The race for President was in the Democratic Primaries and Obama smoke the #1 seed and favorite of the "system"...McSmae has been flip-flopping so quickly and suddenly on many of his "maverick" stances that we could cover him in copper wire, surround him with big electro magnets and produce enough electricity to power a few Western States. - BrianGSmith "

Richard Cranium wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:12 PM:

" We are going to get to McCains "real record of work" soon enough, don't you worry. Just for starters were going to examine his stance against Bush's tax cuts not once but twice. Now, he is for them and says he would like to make them permanent. Sounds like a flip flopper to me. Next, we'll examine his stance on immigration, then his NAFTA stance - he wouldn't change a thing with it, his 100 year's in Iraq comment, whatever way he may have meant by it. His comment about not knowing much about the economy. (He couldn't even manage his own campaign money). THE KEATING FIVE. These are all gifts that should just keep on giving to the Democrats in the upcoming months. "

To POB and Krusty wrote on Mar 31, 2008 9:58 PM:

" I see Phil O Bates and Krusty the clown are back after a two week layoff. You guys go on vacation together or what? Your not the same person are you? And you think Michael and Bugs are idiots? What are you smoking? "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Mar 31, 2008 6:31 PM:

" Tell that to the Democrats Jimmy. With their constant fighting, they will be the ones who put McCain in the White House. For those Obamiacs like Brian Smith, they are blinded by style over substance. Now, personally I dislike McCain, but he does have a record of working across the aisle, talking his mind regardless of the political winds, and he is consistant on fighting the Islamic Terrorists. Obama says lots of things like "change" but he has no record of accomplishing any such change. What little record he has is the typical tax and spend/cut and run liberal. Polls show that independants aren't swayed by Obama's gift of gab but by McCains real record of work. "

Starfish wrote on Mar 31, 2008 3:37 PM:

" And, Kim, I'm sorry that your are "not swayed" by my arguments but these straw man arguments shine the light on unsavory areas of life and death. The whole truth is complex and painful. Invectives of "INFANTICIDE!" hurled at a politician that knows where politics does not belong are not productive. This is a low blow to taint an honorable, considerate man. "

Starfish (con't) wrote on Mar 31, 2008 3:31 PM:

" So consider this: a couple has a premature delivery at 16 weeks and, knowing that the infant has no chance of survival, they want to quietly hold him while nature takes its inevitable course. But no! By political decree, the hospital staff is required to insert IV's, breathing tubes, and sensors so that the final moments of life can pass in a sterile incubator, absent the touch of a grieving patent. Yeah, you zealots really know how to pick your causes. . . "

Starfish wrote on Mar 31, 2008 3:26 PM:

" I know the vapid histrionics of the zealots would evoke a bayonet-wielding Feminazi committing infanticide but this is not the way it is. The original BAIPA law was (deliberately?) vague in the 2002 version; it described as "alive" a fetus that is breathing, has a beating heart, a pulsating umbilical cord, OR muscle movement. Then, in 2005, in response to "inquiries" to HHS (Secretary Leavitt wouldn't say from whom), the BAIPA law was appended with guidelines to include "withholding of medical care� (read: heroic measures). The law could apply to a 14 week fetus-�a full two months before the most optimistic estimate of viability and it would apply regardless of spontaneous or induced abortion. "

harsch on the fact that I always hated the crust wrote on Mar 31, 2008 2:55 PM:

" Krusty renders Michael Welch in quotes? "

harsch wrote on Mar 31, 2008 2:37 PM:

" It would be helpful if one of the anti-infanticidals would describe the precise circumstances they are referring to. Generally infanticide refers to killing infants, who are generally considered relatively newly born children; that is, including standard premies born in the 7th or 8th month. McCain, for instance probably does not believe in infanticide, but is in favor of policies that inevitably kill great numbers of children. Is he secretly in favor of infanticide? "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Mar 31, 2008 2:27 PM:

" Krusty, I don't think you're an idiot; just misguided with a limited vocabulary. "

Krusty wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:48 PM:

" To Bugs: Don't worry, I still believe that you and "michael welch" are idiots. I just haven't had the chance yet today to fit it in one of my comments "

Come on Starfish wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:30 PM:

" 98-0 is pretty convincing. Its not like the poster is taking a radical position here. You are. And Brian, I am not sure why you are so fixated on aborion. This concerns born children. "

Claude Bolock wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:09 PM:

" Starfish, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act does not call for heroic measures to keep a baby alive. It simply prevents anyone from deliberately killing the baby. Opposing this measure is mind-boggling. "

Kim to Starfish wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:06 PM:

" Sorry, I am not swayed by your argument. Infanticide(deliberately killing a live, born child)is immoral. And I happen to be pro-choice. "

To BrianGSmith wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:02 PM:

" Try keeping up. See the first post on the Chris Wallace blog. We are talking about born kids. "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:56 AM:

" Congrats to Krusty. He actually posted something without calling someone an idiot. Maybe he's mellowing... "

Starfish wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:15 AM:

" To 9:11 AM: now that you have presented these two "witty comments" (can we get a second opinion?), you can go back to fishing lint out of your navel. See you back here tomorrow. "

To Question wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:14 AM:

" Not sure of the exact definition, but I gotta think Obama would fit the bill. Look at the first posting under the Chris Wallace blog(referenced by Claude). Despite the kicking and screaming by Obama supporters, no one has refuted this. "

Starfish wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:14 AM:

" Let's do a little mental exercise, Mr. Bolock. Suppose you had a baby born at 33 weeks--a potentially viable life that will need neonatal intensive care. Suppose, further, that due to this ridiculous political intrusion on the medical industry, that neo-natal "slots" were all filled up keeping 16 week old fetuses "alive." Your child, then, had to be transported to a another location where a "slot" was available and died in transport. Who would YOU sue? Obama? "

Krusty wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:08 AM:

" Actually the way the story went is, a soldier asked chelsea clinton what she feared most. Her reply was Osama, Obama, and most of all, my momma. "

Starfish wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:08 AM:

" How does a 98-0 Senate vote reflect Obama "going against" the entire Senate? Is there a vote hidden there in the ZERO that I can't see? Once more on this "infanticide" issue: when a doctor/medical professional determines that nothing can be done, the patient is made as comfortable as possible. A second trimester fetus, severed from the womb, falls into the "nothing can be done" category. Yes artificial means can be attached and life can be prolonged but for what? A technological exercise to move the goalpost of viability? Like with the disingenuous grandstanding of the Terry Shiavo Affair, zealots have tried to politicize a complicated, deeply personal issue. In the Illinois State house, Obama properly left the ball in the court of the medical professionals. You make no sense. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Mar 31, 2008 9:41 AM:

" Infanticide can onloy occur when infants...born kids...are killed. You'll need to come up with something more relevant. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Mar 31, 2008 9:40 AM:

" Obama will smoke McSame.....after one or two debates the 72 year old cooter will be exposed for the mental lightweight he is. Just follow the money folks.....Obama raises more in a week than McSame does in 3 months. Those are all $100 donations from a hungry and teeming public. We're freaking lucky to have a candidate, from either party, the caliber of Barack Obama. "

You pays Yer Money and You Picks Yer Candidate.. wrote on Mar 31, 2008 9:11 AM:

" Oh, and don't forget the comment a soldier made to Chelsea Clinton when she asked him what he feared most "Osama, Obama, and Yo Mama". There, I got both of these witty comments out of the way. Now, let the discussion begin. "

Claude Bolock wrote on Mar 31, 2008 9:08 AM:

" Obama going against the entire Senate regarding the infanticide issue(as brought up on the Chris Wallace blog) had to have hurt him. I have to think most Democrats were leaning toward him as opposed to Hillary, and this may cause a more even split again. "

Question regarding a definition.. wrote on Mar 31, 2008 9:05 AM:

" What exactly is the definition of "zealot?" I don't have a Websters handy. It seems to me Jimmy and others like to use the term to refer to people who disagree with them. "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »