River Valley Blogs

To 9:21pm wrote on Apr 22, 2008 8:35 AM:

" You are correct-currently we don't put doctors who perform abortions in jail since abortion is legal. That is what I would like to see change. I am not making a definite assertion whether women should be jailed who have abortions-I am saying I am not sure. It would probably have to go on a case by case basis. Good discussion... "

To 9:20 am poster wrote on Apr 21, 2008 9:21 PM:

" It sounds like were pretty much on the same page.Currently, though, a doctor isn't breaking the law so you can't put them in jail. And not only that, not all abortions involve doctor's... "

To 6:06pm wrote on Apr 21, 2008 9:20 AM:

" I agree. We need to prevent the desire to abort. I don't think I have a better answer as to how to accomplish this than anyone else. Not sure about jail for the woman, but am pretty sure the doctors that violate their Hippocratic Oath should definitely do some time. "

To 11:05 am poster wrote on Apr 19, 2008 6:06 PM:

" The obvious solution as we have mentioned a number of times if you are following is to try and prevent the desire to abort. If you want to make something illegal try to come up with some solutions to the problem. It's easy to say what other people should or shouldn't do. What would YOU do to help? For example: Would you adopt an unwanted baby? And keep in mind that's just one possible scenario. There's no one easy answer to complicated problems sometimes but there can be several things you can do to help. That's the million dollar question. What is the solution and what can we all do to help? In this country we put rapists and thieves in jail. Is that what you want to do with people that have abortions? Do you really think that would help? "

10:15am wrote on Apr 19, 2008 11:05 AM:

" I don't have a solution to the problem. I fully admit that. Do you? I also don't have a solution to the problems of stealing and rape. But, I do know they should both be illegal. "

To 10:15 am poster wrote on Apr 18, 2008 9:27 PM:

" My point, even if you really are a women is... (and I think you know why I made that comment), what is your solution to the problem? You didn't answer the question. All your trying to do now is make it illegal again. That didn't solve the problem before as I said and you want to go back again? WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM? Over 50% of the prison population in this country is incarcerated because of the drug trade. Those drug laws don't appear to be "decreasing the desire" do they? By the way, there is negative consequences to abortion even if it's legal. "

To To 8:41am wrote on Apr 18, 2008 10:15 AM:

" Why would it make a difference if the poster is a man or woman? I happen to be a woman and I agree with the post...so what's your point? Being against killing is a gender neutral issue. Your other point is flawed. That is like saying we need to eliminate the desire to steal as opposed to making stealing illegal. Laws are meant to decrease the desire to do something due to the negative consequences. People steal even though stealing is illegal-so what? Does that mean we should legalize it? Following your logic, we would have no laws. "

To 8:44pm wrote on Apr 18, 2008 8:51 AM:

" Preventing the desire of everyone to ever abort will never happen. But, that desire can be decreased by criminalizing it. Other than that, I have nothing for you. Sorry.
"

To 8:41 am poster wrote on Apr 17, 2008 8:44 PM:

" I'm betting your a man aren't you? And after you get it overturned, what is your solution to the problem? We still had abortions without ROE vs Wade. Are you willing to adopt an unwanted child? If your a Republican, I thought you wanted less government? Harsch responded to you in his last post (and I agree) that the solution would be to prevent the desire to abort. How are you going to do that? If you want to change the law, you should have a plan of action in place or you will never succeed. In other words, the problem doesn't go away simply by changing the law back to the way it was. We already know that didn't work. Come up with a plan to prevent the desire to abort and you will be onto something. "

To 7:12am wrote on Apr 17, 2008 8:41 AM:

" I am not sure what you are asking. I am simply proposing that Roe v Wade be overturned, and that women don't have the right to take the life of their babies. "

To 4:36 pm poster wrote on Apr 17, 2008 7:12 AM:

" If your not going to have it legal, than what is your answer to the problem? It's one thing to be against something but how about a solution? "

To Harsch wrote on Apr 15, 2008 4:36 PM:

" I don't disagree with most of your last post. The only thing that makes me uneasy is the insinuation that it should be legal because people will do it anyway. For obvious reasons, I reject that as an arguement on whether something should be legal or not. Yes, we will always have people that break the law. But, we still need laws. Thank you, though, for a thoughtful post. "

Harsch wrote on Apr 15, 2008 2:14 PM:

" I think abortion is about the most difficult issue to resolve. I don't like it, but it is done, and was done when illegal and would still be done if illegal again. The wealthy would be flown to where it is legal and the non-wealthy would get it done under less safe conditions. The only possible solution is to prevent the desire to abort, and I don't see that happening. A defensive war is ugly, but understandable. A 'pre-emptive' war is a dehumanizing act, victimizing especially the attacked, but also the attackers and the supporters of the attack. The fact that the Iraq war was unnecessary entirely, backed by lies, and has led to innumerable war crimes (starting with ordering the attack) probably doesn't even make it worse. So, yes, I'll take the fetus, still entirely human in any good sense of the term. "

Harsch wrote on Apr 15, 2008 2:06 PM:

" I find abortion one of the most difficult issues to resolve. I don't like it, I don't like the absurd arguments it leads to, especially the rather ugly one about when a human is a human. On the other hand, like it or not, women have abortions, and if it illegal they will still do it, which means as has often been noted here that rich girls will be flown to where it is legal and the poorer will have it done under less safe conditions. I think the only answer lies in preventing the desire to do it and I don't know how that can happen. "

To Harsh wrote on Apr 15, 2008 12:54 PM:

" I would have guessed your answer would have had something to do with a lazy mind or a mouse in a box. "

Saddlebag Face to Harsch wrote on Apr 15, 2008 12:28 PM:

" I guess I would have thought a more appropriate response to their question would have been "what appalling beliefs?" It is quite possible to oppose the killing of innocent babies but to support a "just" war(I know there is much debate on whether this war is indeed just). Not that it makes it less tragic, but the soldiers do,after all, know what they are getting themselves into, whereas the babies are just arbitrarily killed by their own mother and someone who took an oath to do no harm. I happen to oppose abortion and the war. I know of people who support the war and oppose abortion. Most astonishing to me are those who oppose the war but support abortion rights. "

To Rick Harsch wrote on Apr 15, 2008 12:00 PM:

" By the same token, would you agree that it would be impossible to oppose the war in Iraq, but support abortion rights? "

Harsch wrote on Apr 15, 2008 10:24 AM:

" When asked recently about why Americans, who are 'free and democratic', hold such appalling beliefs and support such a deadly government, I posited that Americans don't exercise their right to debate. On this blog people are rarely convinced that they are wrong. To take a neutral instance, it appears to me to be impossible for anyone who opposes abortion to support the war in Iraq; yet it seems that many rate the life of a fetus, or not-yet-born-baby far higher than the already-born Iraqi. I find this astonishing. "

4:46pm wrote on Apr 15, 2008 9:17 AM:

" I noticed you avoided answering the question. I never asked if you thought Dems would do this. I asked if you would have a problem with it if they did. Sorry to burst your bubble, but both sides play the political game. "

To Starfish wrote on Apr 15, 2008 9:07 AM:

" When you used the phrase "right to life whacko", I assumed that meant you were against life. My mistake. "

Starfish wrote on Apr 15, 2008 8:26 AM:

" 4:28 PM: I didn't say "right to life whacko," I said "right to life" whacko because this narrow band as defined by you makes the term "right to life," a seemingly self-apparent phrase, into a whacked-out, overarching world view. This unmitigated disaster could EASILY be foreseen when it became clear that unqualified people and firms were being chosen on the basis of politics rather than expertise. And who says I'm against life? You? I am not, I assure you. I just happen to live in a real world where function is impeded by vain platitudes.

4:46 PM: Why would the contractors take any position at all? Because the Bush-appointed personnel vetted them on it! Duh! And, no, I don't think a Dem would vet a contractor for being pro Roe v. Wade. "

To you, my love wrote on Apr 14, 2008 5:44 PM:

" Instead, why don't your reply to what I wrote? "

9:48am wrote on Apr 14, 2008 4:46 PM:

" Starfish, I don't see how your post addresses my point at all. Why would the contractors take any position at all? They should have been denied the contract due to pure stupidity, if for no other reason. I am guessing you would have no problem if someone like Obama was in power, and he did the same thing, but reversed. "

To Starfish 3:01pm wrote on Apr 14, 2008 4:28 PM:

" I am confused. "right to life whacko". Hmmmm. That seems like an oxymoron. That is, the ones who DON'T believe in a right to life are the whackos. But, okay, I will go with it. If you are against life, why would it matter to you if buildings fall down? Or if food is rotten? or water contaminated? That would seem to fit in with your agenda. Anyway, in reality, this unmitigated disaster could not have been easily foreseen. It could have also happened to one of those whacky pro-abortion contractors had they gotten the job. Basically, all other things WERE equal. "

To Rick Harsch wrote on Apr 14, 2008 3:15 PM:

" Why don't you go back to talking about mice living in boxes? What does this have to do with McCain or Condi? As a professional writer, do you realize people can google your comments? Stop embarrasing yourself with all these unrelated rantings. "

Starfish to 9:48 AM, 10:20 AM wrote on Apr 14, 2008 3:01 PM:

" MAN! You guys are really serious! You really don't see a problem with this at all, do you? Well, LET'S ASSUME, for one brief, naive moment, that ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, there were two bids on the job--same services, same price, same everything--except that one of the bidders was a bird-of-the-same-feather (a "right-to-life" whacko). Then, I suppose I have to relent and say: to the victor go the spoils. In the real world, however, giving contracts out to unqualified political brethren has produced a sheer, unmitigated catastrophe. It has�literally�sickened our soldiers with rotten meat and contaminated water, produced buildings that fall apart before they are finished, and squandered billions upon BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars. But, HEY! What does it matter as long as they�re anti-abortion? "

To Harsch wrote on Apr 14, 2008 3:01 PM:

" Maybe it was because of you that you were being followed. Maybe it had to do with your lazy mind. "

Mavis Thesing wrote on Apr 14, 2008 1:35 PM:

" Why don"t the Democrats ever get the picture? The fact that MaCain thinks Roe versus Wade should be overturned may be the reason he will get elected "

Michael Welch: Those Little Town Blues, Are Melting Away --... wrote on Apr 14, 2008 1:28 PM:

" 'Small town America' is NOT -- even Louie B. Mayer understood that -- Andy Hardy's neatly trimmed Victorian home with his sympathetic mom and stern but fair Judge Dad. 'Let's put on a show!' wouldn't be Mickey and Judy at the local high school auditorium as much as it would be dangerous road races down 'country lanes' fueled by beer and ennui. I'm not saying that there is no 'decency' -- but small town is NOT intrinsically more 'moral' than big city; it is usually more protected, more opaque, more 'behind closed doors.' There's even Ronnie Reagan's BEST movie (by his own lights!), 'Kings Row,' that reveals the dark heart of small town. RR got out of his -- Dixon, Illinois -- and NEVER went back to live there again... "

harsch wrote on Apr 14, 2008 11:49 AM:

" As a small town midwesterner--something most of us can say--I recall many things...the time my best friend stopped somewhere between Antigo and La Crosse and was held against a door while his girlfriend was molested; from La Crosse I remember my Japanese friend being beaten for being Hmong and nearly losing his eyesight; I remember my Pakistani friend in La Crosse being attacked for being Libyan once and then again for being Cuban (early eighties--figure it out); and I remember traveling from La Crosse to Phoenix in 1981 with three Indians and stopping only in small towns and receiving many hostile stares, no politeness, being followed for forty miles on the interstate into Phoenix, all the way to my Phoenix friend's house, where I asked him if he had a shotgun (he did, the car drove off)... "

Michael Welch: If Not Stolen, Presidential Elections Are Decided By --... wrote on Apr 14, 2008 11:41 AM:

" Obviously we shall see IN November what November brings; NO ONE is elected NOW, by ANY polls, or President Thomas E. Dewey call your office. What issues WILL 'decide'? -- well NOT abortion or even working class cultural angst (the US working class is being systematically 'exported' to China anyway) but the economy, which is ill and the war which has no end in sight with an ever mounting budget and more and more strain on that 'volunteered' military, with its increasing number of broken bodies and troubled minds. McCain I think CAN WIN, IF he comes up with some sort of 'plan to end the war' plus an broad economic stimulus 'package.' It will not be 'easy' for a black intellectual to be elected president, I grant that, but if real 'change' is wanted then that too is hardly impossible... "

4:18pm to starfish wrote on Apr 14, 2008 10:20 AM:

" Anytime a contractor is given a job, it is a "reward", in a sense. It means you chose them over others. True, their views may not relate directly to the task at hand. But why should Bush reward people who support arguably antisocial policies when he can easily get someone to do the same job who doesn't support these policies? "

To Starfish wrote on Apr 14, 2008 9:48 AM:

" Exactly, which is why it was foolish for the contractors to take an official position one way or the other, but in particular THAT official position. "

Starfish wrote on Apr 14, 2008 8:44 AM:

" To Apr 11, 2008 4:18 PM:

Are you serious? WHAT IN THE WORLD does "concern for the unborn" have to do with whether a contractor can provide our troops meat that isn't rotten? "

To Travis wrote on Apr 14, 2008 8:41 AM:

" I would agree if it was not for a fact that another poster brought up regarding McCain trying to take food out of families mouths who are trying to make a living. He spearheaded a campaign to ban MMA(mixed martial arts) because he was afraid the sport would overtake the popularity of boxing. The reason is because he was a fan of boxing and had political ties to it. This may have to be a year where everyone just goes to the polls holding their nose. "

Travis wrote on Apr 14, 2008 8:09 AM:

" I have looked at all the candidates backgrounds and John McCain is by far better than the other 2. A true American! "

To 5:35 pm poster wrote on Apr 14, 2008 6:58 AM:

" You related to Phil O Bates? ARE you Phil O Bates? I'll bet you get all your news from Rush and FOX don't you? "

To Travis wrote on Apr 14, 2008 6:57 AM:

" Have you LOOKED at McCains back round yet? Try that and then come back and tell us that you trust him... "

To Michael wrote on Apr 13, 2008 8:25 PM:

" Yes, Starfish does always have a way to work those things in, doesn't he? "

Guess what Michael? wrote on Apr 13, 2008 5:35 PM:

" Those "schmopics" will be a major decider in who gets to be the next president. Number one probably being abortion. Obama has a record that proves he is for killing babies who survived abortion. THAT'S HORRIBLE! Obama has just ripped into "small town" people by saying that they "cling" to their religion, and yet hate people different then themselves or hate immigrants. Guess what religion most "small town" people are? Christian. So he's saying Christians that lose their jobs become more racist and hateful. He's Wrong. Will Barrack Hussein Obama seem more Christian or more Muslim when comparing his liberal stances toward Israel to those of McCain? So liberal that he will look like a certain German socialist many Jews know about. "

Michael Welch: Topics Shmopics!... wrote on Apr 13, 2008 2:43 PM:

" Also almost EVERY topic lately winds up about abortion, creationism and the assumed 'superiority' of a literalist view of Christianity. Some Jimmy blogs start right off with these subjects; okay but after a while it gets a bit boring. Then someone starts with the O'Reilly-Coulter stuff re: 'liberals' as 'socialists' and an Obama or Hillary program as 'socialism.' NOW guys like Harsch 'n' me KNOW this liberalism ain't socialism -- not that we wouldn't prefer SOME MORE populist liberalism versus the usual corporate conservative kind! Another important point is that 'terms' ARE relative -- what is labeled 'conservative' now would have been very liberal indeed 100 years+ ago at the time of say President William McKinley... "

Michael Welch: Poor Ol' America! Nobody Cares About Your (Real) Life!... wrote on Apr 13, 2008 2:18 PM:

" There are 'lazy minds' commenting that call 'liberalism,' 'socialism' and have no apparent understanding of American history as it actually occurred rather than as the imagic patriotic pageant they've been told began with oh Ronald Reagan and evolved to its uh 'highest' form with 'W.' Sometimes it strikes me that the present has a context called 'the past' that one MIGHT attempt to comprehend so that egregious mistakes like calling Barack Obama a 'socialist' would NOT happen -- at least NOT so often. Perhaps that IS a naive view but then as an added bonus, I have also provided myself with something interesting to read... "

Travis wrote on Apr 13, 2008 8:07 AM:

" I will vote for John McCain. He is the only person I trust. Shame on Jimmy Gillman for posting a link to moveon.org . Readers of the LaCrosse Tribune deserve much better. "

Eddie wrote on Apr 12, 2008 8:22 PM:

" What disgusts me the most about Rice is how she talks down to other national leaders. "Condescenda" Rice should be her name. She is so arrogant and patronizing (like her boss) that she claims the right to tell other heads of state how to run their countries. If anything can be said about the Bush/Cheney/Rice administration, it is that they think they own the world. Makes me want to puke. "

Obama excusers are out I see wrote on Apr 12, 2008 8:17 PM:

" You guys overlook the real gaffe. It's not about saying people are bitter, it's about labeling what he thinks small town people do with this bitterness. He said "...they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment..." Antipathy is disgust, abhorrence, detestation, or hatred. That's complete BS!!! When times get tough people do cling to religion, but the rest paints a picture of rednecks hating "people who aren't like them" or are "anti-immigrant". Losing your job has nothing to do with being against ILLEGAL immigration. Losing your job doesn't make people racists. You Obamabots will drink his Kool-aid but this small town person will not. "

To Harsch 3:39am wrote on Apr 12, 2008 7:05 PM:

" It depends. Is it the mouse going to the hospital? And is the hospital a box? "

BrianGSmith wrote on Apr 12, 2008 4:27 PM:

" I know alot of guys that would love to tap Condi. Condi would be the most pathetic candidate because she was the orst Nat'l Security Advisor we've ever had.....9-11 happened under her nose, all the warnings were there. Honestly, when Condi speaks I recoil in anguish....her voice sounds like sharp fingernails raking a chalk board and projects no confidence. Let's list all of Condi's "successes" as Sec.of State.....not. Condi as a VCP is a JOKE......she's hoorible, a huge failure and unworthy. "

Eddie wrote on Apr 12, 2008 4:02 PM:

" 10:14am, Obama told the TRUTH. What he described is exactly what happens to communities when jobs leave and unemployment and poverty set it. People become frustrated, angry, and bitter. They often turn to alcohol or illegal drugs. They tend to want to blame someone ELSE for all their problems. This dysfunction occurs in many countries. 1930's Germany is one good example. "

McCain & Condi wrote on Apr 12, 2008 3:28 PM:

" What do these last several posts have to do with this topic? "

Michael Welch: Obama's A Smart Guy Indeed... wrote on Apr 12, 2008 12:29 PM:

" Actually the quote from Obama does indeed seem 'bright' AND unusually brave, refreshingly apart from the pandering of multi-millionaires like McCain and Hillary re: the 'optimism' of the working class. I've been working class all my adult life and the last thing I'd say about blue collars is that they are 'optimistic.' More often they're very skeptical; they believe in lottery tickets and 'luck'; they expect little from politicos no matter what their union reps extol in their name. Racism, religious fervor, gun love, dedicated drinking and carousing -- sounds a lot like blue collars I have known and not 'all' certainly but there is a corner tavern culture in which everything Obama said does come out after a few beers... "

Michael Welch: All Is Relative In Politics Too... wrote on Apr 12, 2008 11:43 AM:

" Throughout most the 19th century periodic 'panics' (later called 'depressions') would occur but Washington DC did almost nothing either to stifle such ballooning bubbles of corruption (hmmm see recent history too) or to mitigate the effects of. Who killed Custer? The great panic of the 1870s you could say, because all the gov would do is decide to 'permit' hundreds of indigent folk to 'invade' the Black Hills of South Dakota looking for gold and the resultant turmoil with the Lakota over their promised tribal land led to the 1876 expedition that slew 'Long Hair.' Yes compared to ANY 19th century prez of ALL parties, even George W. Bush would be a raving liberal, almost 'communistic' in their eyes... "

Michael Welch: And THE BIG ISSUE OF THE 1800S -- Tariffs!... wrote on Apr 12, 2008 11:32 AM:

" Of course we have -- even with this awful Bush-Cheney albatross -- in actuality a 'liberal' government no matter who is president. Ron Paul ran as the TRUE 'anti-liberal' candidate -- or ironically as the 'classic' liberal which was the designation for minimalist government and almost NO economic intervention (it was a new concept then you see!) in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, especially in Britain. US federal behavior economically meant virtually null in the 1800s except for tariffs -- tariffs were BIG policy concerns and the Democrats were anti-tariff and Whig-later Republicans pro-tariff. Tariffs had MORE impact on elections before the 1850s than did slavery... "

Michael Welch: Socialism We Hardly Knew Ye!... wrote on Apr 12, 2008 11:21 AM:

" Every now and then I try to explain the difference between socialism and liberalism by pulling out the clever chestnut of perennial Socialist party great man Norman Thomas to the question Did FDR carry out a socialist program with his New Deal? Yeah NT would riposte (sure he used the reply more than once -- I heard it for the first time on a very fine ABC tv documentary series in 1965 titled simply and appropriately 'FDR') he carried it out on a stretcher. What did that mean? It meant 'the means of production' -- industry and business control -- remained entirely in private hands while the gov came up with public projects and essential subsidies. There WAS however SOME REAL 'socialism' in say the Federal Theater Project, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Federal Writers' Project and others... "

Obama thinks small town Midwesterners are bitter racists wrote on Apr 12, 2008 10:14 AM:

" "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." That's a real bright statement, Mr. Barrack Hussein Obama.
"

Harsch wrote on Apr 12, 2008 3:39 AM:

" So if someone refuses to go to the hospital and no one arrests him national health care is not socialist? Okay, back to socialism--workers share equally in the spoils with their managers; real redistribution of income--no CEOs making 500 times what their workers make, not even 2 to 1; nationalization of all essential economic sectors. Health care is like water and energy--essential to survival, it is every government's obligation to provide it. Otherwise why form collectives called nations? "

McCains Wife wrote on Apr 11, 2008 9:22 PM:

" And just wait until we can zero in on his wife's back round! This is going to be fun! Go Obama! "

Kindasleazy Rice wrote on Apr 11, 2008 9:19 PM:

" If she did accept the Vice President role it would be in keeping with her past. Kindasleazy has never held an elected position in her whole life. She has said numerous times that she doesn't want to run for President. If she was McCains VP and he died in office, (given his age there's a good chance of that), you can see where I'm going with that... I believe she lied to Congress numerous times about the war effort, just like Colin Powell. I think if she steps into the spotlight her past will catch up to her. I also believe she is one of the worst Secretary of States ever and honest to goodness can't recall ANY accomplishments during her tenure. I also believe she helped set up Bhutto like a tame duck on a Dick Cheney hunting trip. "

Eddie wrote on Apr 11, 2008 9:05 PM:

" Condoleezza Rice is an oil corporation puppet as well as a former trustee of the RAND Corporation (1991-1997). A 1994 RAND publication, ["U.S. Nuclear Strategy for the Post-Cold War Era"], noted: "The dependence of the West and Japan on Persian Gulf oil and the power and wealth that comes from controlling that oil guarantee the U.S. interest in that part of the world for as far into the future as anyone can see." With scum like Rice in Washington, D.C., we will ALWAYS have our soldiers die in the Middle East. ALWAYS. "

Harsch wrote on Apr 11, 2008 5:45 PM:

" Cunning imitation of Welch, but to what dark end? "

Come on, Harsch wrote on Apr 11, 2008 4:34 PM:

" You can do better than that. You are letting your lazy mind get the best of you again. "

MK to Harsch wrote on Apr 11, 2008 4:20 PM:

" It is socialist only if the mouse dying in the box can be drafted. "

To Starfish wrote on Apr 11, 2008 4:18 PM:

" I am confused. In your 2:59 pm post you listed unethical things the President has supposedly done. But, in the list you mentioned "vetting Iraq reconstruction contractors for their stand in Roe V Wade". Wouldn't this be an example of a good thing he has done? Taking a stand for life? Not rewarding contractors who support the slaughter of the unborn? Unless of course you mean he vetted the contractors who oppose the decison reached in Roe? "

Michael : Big Jawn taps Condi.....you gets what's you pay for wrote on Apr 11, 2008 4:02 PM:

" Imagining Big Jawn tap Condi raises many interesting mental pictures. Unfortunately I'm too old for thoughts like that and so is Big Jawn. He only wishes he could tap that. "

Starfish (con't) wrote on Apr 11, 2008 3:05 PM:

" But wait: he DID catch the anthrax villain, didn�t he? Oh well, at least we�ve had decent job growth? Whups! Stable markets? Not quite. In a poll of 109 historians, 61 percent of them rank Bush as the �worst ever�; 96 percent place the Bush presidency in the bottom tier of American presidencies; and 98 percent label his presidency a �failure.� "

Starfish wrote on Apr 11, 2008 2:59 PM:

" MK, you may have not noticed that I listed: the adamant deregulation of the banking industry--where bail-outs are gladly accepted but regulation is not; gutting of government oversight with fox-in-the-chicken-coop appointments--note the surge in mining accidents; politicization of the Justice Department leading to the jailing of Georgia Thompson and Don Siegelman; vetting Iraq reconstruction contractors for their stand in Roe v. Wade; total incompetence EVERYWHERE you look. . . Safe since 9/11? Well, the guy you call my hero (he was not--though his presidency SURE LOOKS GOOD after this one) kept us safe from 1993 on INCLUDING the demonstrable thwarting of the �Millennium Plot� at the Vancouver crossing. That Bush has kept us safe is a platitude, a vain proclamation that is more likely just a result of an adversary capable of waiting us out. "

Harsch to MK wrote on Apr 11, 2008 2:36 PM:

" War is a federal undertaking. Is it socialist? "

To 9:37am wrote on Apr 11, 2008 1:30 PM:

" I saw that letter also. I think it was satire. "

MK wrote on Apr 11, 2008 1:29 PM:

" Democrats are such angry people, I point out the flaws in their arguments and all they can come back with is a dis (not a word I know) on how I improperly used a word. "

MK wrote on Apr 11, 2008 1:26 PM:

" My fault Starfish I did use the word sight when it should have been cite. Forgive me for my misword (I know this is not a word so don't blast me again) use. I thought we were debating politics not grammar and spelling. This is a blog after all, not a professional essay. "

MK wrote on Apr 11, 2008 1:23 PM:

" Starfish by the way I didn't use the word sight (which you so cleverly tried to correct me on) I used the word slight learn how to read. "

MK wrote on Apr 11, 2008 1:21 PM:

" Starfish good debate technique criticizing ones word use in a blog. Watch yourself because if you make a mistake in future posts I'll point it out. "

MK wrote on Apr 11, 2008 1:18 PM:

" Harsh explain to me how Federally funded health care is not socialism. "

According to a WNBC/Marist poll wrote on Apr 11, 2008 12:43 PM:

" a McCain/Rice ticket would beat a Obama/Clinton ticket in New York. McCain might go for it just because winning New York's 31 electoral votes (which are normally placed in the Democratic bank) would be a HUGE blow to whomever gets the nomination. www.maristpoll.marist.edu/nyspolls/GV080409.htm "

Michael Welch: Whattaya Want With Yer Big Mac, Fella? Rice???!... wrote on Apr 11, 2008 11:28 AM:

" Big Jawn is like Hillary-Bill -- 'the closer you get the more you need Noxzema.' The Bush presidency has deteriorated to the point that GWB's become Harry Truman's 'rival' for most unpopular war prez; and McCain if he is smart (and he's not a W-ish dolt) will take the cue from Eisenhower in '52 and 'go to Iraq' with an idea of figuring out how to extract. That would be one way to overcome 'McCain = no end in sight.' Any veepster has to be 1) younger (not so hard); 2) more appealing which is the real conundrum. (NOT 'Condi' -- please!) Huck'd be okay; not uh 'experienced' but personable and if death did NOT take a John holiday, Huck has expressed some askance re: Vietnam er Iraq. But if you decide to leave Mac 'just for us' here in AZ we won't be sore -- honest... "

Harsch to MK wrote on Apr 11, 2008 11:19 AM:

" 1. I am not a liberal. 2. I believe you are not racist. 3. I believe that many Americans are racist and that Republicans are cynical enough to try to find a way to exploit that 'fact'. 4. If you think that any American candidate is socialist then you don't know what socialism is. 5. I don't know whether or not more Democrats are basing their votes on race or gender and I don't think you do either. "

Starfish wrote on Apr 11, 2008 11:04 AM:

" A correction on my last post: the campaign appearance where McCain excoriated his wife, Cindy, was in 1992, not 2000.

And MK: the "Southern Strategy" of co-opting the old "Solid South" is not apocryphal, it is well documented--witness the gubenatorial race in Tennessee in '06. That YOU are clearly above such petty considerations is not suggested and methinks thou protests too much. What's at issue here is your language usage: i.e. "sight" versus "cite." "

MK wrote on Apr 11, 2008 11:01 AM:

" I suppose that since I'm conservative I can't understand English. Very clever comeback. You may be opposed to certain things our current president has done however have we had a terrorist incident in this country since September 11th? As far as appointing personal of his own choosing in the Justice Department is concerned, all presidents including what I'm sure is your hero Bill Clinton, did this as well. What government watchdogs of any significance has he "gutted"? Since being president, Bush has kept this nation safe from domestic terrorism (following Sep. 11th), protected the rights of the unborn by making late term abortion illegal, and appointed Supreme Court judges with more than an slight bit of moral aptitude toward their character and decision making. "

MK wrote on Apr 11, 2008 10:15 AM:

" How is it that conservatives, like myself, are labeled by liberals as racists. Harsch for you to imply that is just plain wrong. I would vote for a black man or woman, for that matter, if they shared most of my political philosophies. I do not base my vote on race or gender, as it seems more and more Democrats do. I will not vote for either Hillary or Barrack because of their socialist ideologies. What's backwards to me is that so many people feel inclined to vote for either Hillary or Barrack simply because of their skin color or gender, not because of where they stand on certain issues. "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Apr 11, 2008 10:09 AM:

" This is off topic. Please forgive me, but a most wondrous event has occurred. Bill Clinton has raised the Bosnia sniper lie issue, just when it was fading. This is without question the stupidest thing he could do. Oh those Clintons. They are so morally deficient, they must continue to lie about their lies. So reminescent of Dubya/Cheney. Go Obama!!! "

Tess Trueheart wrote on Apr 11, 2008 10:02 AM:

" Hmmm. I'm not sure this is a tough choice here. Either voting for a guy who supports the war on terror and sees the sanctity of the pre-born or voting for a guy who has a radical Islamic background and whose chief spiritual advisor (the Rev. Wright) is a radical ex-Muslim according to the New Republic "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Apr 11, 2008 10:01 AM:

" I think Jimmy was correct a few months back when he said that Huckabee would be the choice. If I'm wrong on that, I apologize to Jimmy. But Huckabee would be a "sop" to the evangelicals, which McCain needs to shore up his base. However, if elected, McCain will do nothing to eliminate abortion. "

Starfish wrote on Apr 11, 2008 9:50 AM:

" After all the grief the media gave John Kerry for marrying wealth, let's see how they square off on Sen. McCain. Taken as too controversial and vulgar to report was a horrible epithet ("c" word) snapped at poor Cindy during a campaign appearance in 2000.

And MK: SIGHT all the misguided Bush policies? I've been doing that for 7 years. If you like, I'd CITE them for you. In English. For starters, how about the adamant deregulation of the banking industry? Gutting of government watchdogs? Politicization of the Justice Department? Hiring politicos for the reconstruction of Iraq? Now can you SIGHT them? "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Apr 11, 2008 9:48 AM:

" If McCain wins, it will be because Hillary stole the nomination from Obama. There's no way McCain will beat Obama, because most Americans are fed up with Iraq, and Obama is our best bet to get out of there. McCain just offers more war. "

Mike to Harsch wrote on Apr 11, 2008 9:42 AM:

" Boy, I am going to have to emphatically(but respectfully) disagree with you. I think you are stuck in the dark ages. "

Re #9(religious right) wrote on Apr 11, 2008 9:37 AM:

" How about the extremists on the other side? They are out there. Look at the letter in todays paper from Justin Ahrens. I stated in another blog that I would be certain this is an ACLU parody post if it was a posting on a blog. But, since he signed his name, there is a good chance he really believes these things. "plain and simple", "No matter what the circumstances" , "contrary to the Constitution", "religious symbols, practices, and displays are prohibited"....I can't believe it! It goes on and on. Where do people get these ideas? When you talk about the extreme religious right, talk about the other extreme also. I am surprised he didn't savage that kid in Holmen who had a religious symbol on his art project while he was at it. Yikes! "

Consequences Creed wrote on Apr 11, 2008 9:29 AM:

" You think McCain is bad? What about our other choices? A recent happening illustrates a salient point. Chelsea Clinton was visiting our troops overseas. She asked one of our soldiers what he feared most. His reply to her was "Osama, Obama, and Yo Mama." "

To Jimmy wrote on Apr 11, 2008 9:27 AM:

" You do realize that his opposition to abortion is looked at as a good thing by a great number of people, don't you? In your last sentence before referencing the link, you act as if it is a given that everyone would agree that opposing abortion is a bad thing... "

harsch wrote on Apr 11, 2008 9:23 AM:

" The question many Europeans ask is whether Americans would really elect a black president. I think the conservative mind is dark enough (no pun intended) to keep Rice off the ticket to keep race alive as an issue, whether hidden or open. "

MK wrote on Apr 11, 2008 9:20 AM:

" When November rolls around an Sen. McCain is our next president I don't want to hear anymore statements from Democrats about, "countless failed and disastrous policies of the Bush Administration". When you use words like countless, as a news journalist, you better be ready to sight all the policies that you believe fall under this classification. Squabbling by Democrats goes to prove that they are the party in turmoil, that they are the party that can't decide amongst themselves what is best for our country, and finally that they are setting themselves up for massive disappoint in 7 months time. "

Cleveland Steamer wrote on Apr 11, 2008 9:11 AM:

" Take the one out of that list that talks about him being rich. There is nothing wrong with him giving people who aren't as well off as he is advice on saving money rather than handouts. Replace this on the list with the fact that he wanted to ban Mixed Martial Arts fighting, which would prevent fighters and promoters of this sport from making a living. The reason for his proposed ban: he is a boxing fan and was afraid MMA would overtake it in popularity. "

Question wrote on Apr 11, 2008 9:06 AM:

" So, how is #4(Not supporting a womans right to choose to kill her baby)a bad thing, or "not all that pretty'? "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »