River Valley Blogs

Cage Fighter to Darrall wrote on May 27, 2008 9:12 AM:

" Darrall, I will check out your response on the Bush blog, but you lose credibility on all these blogs when you make your own points without even attempting to address the concerns of the other side. Although we diagree, I believe my position has more credibility, by default, as you won't even address the points I and others make. In your last post here, I agree it is unfortunate that some men don't take responsibility. I am also sorry you don't like how biology works. But to leap from those points to the conclusion that an innocent party should forfeit his or her life because of this is completely unreasonable and baseless. Frankly, it is barbaric. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 25, 2008 4:19 AM:

" Cage Fighter: This my last response on this blog. Please see the "Despite Bush comments,..." for future responses. My response to last one here is that you want to end abortion. Until women aren't raped, being incest, or lied to by men making promises they don't keep, women should not bear the consequences of a man's time of folly. Abortion is the only last resort that prevents women from being used by men who don't always face their due punishment. This makes her equal. Again, it's the mental health issue as well as the physical well being of the woman I am concerned with. "

Kenneth W Krause to Darral Faas wrote on May 23, 2008 2:32 PM:

" It is unfortunate that a so-called civilized society allows the barbaric, systematic slaughter of its young. Also, as i stated on the other blogs your statement that women are inherently unequal and need a right to kill their young in order to be equal to men is itself sexist and chauvanistic. "

Cage Fighter wrote on May 23, 2008 11:47 AM:

" Darral, no one is suggesting that a fetus have a right that no one else has(the right to require someone else to give up their life so they may live). No one else has this right, so why would we give it to the fetus? I am merely suggesting that the barbaric practice of abortion on demand be put to an end. Sorry if you think that is unreasonable. "

Planet Stasiak wrote on May 23, 2008 10:27 AM:

" Just because you are consistent doesn't mean you are right. You can be consistently wrong, or your consistency can cause you to be correct less than one percent of the time. I don't accept your assertion that a fetus should have no rights. I believe the fact that a fetus is alive and is a human warrants protection under the law. Sorry you disagree. "

To Darrall wrote on May 23, 2008 10:24 AM:

" I don't accept your premise that this miniscule percentage opens a pandoras box. Nor do I accept your convoluted logic that ends with the conclusion that a fetus should not have any rights. Sorry, you have failed to make your case. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 23, 2008 9:56 AM:

" To 9:09am poster: But it's the miniscule percentage that opens Pandora's Box. Once again, you failed to answer the question. Choose between the woman and the fetus. Once you do, the reality becomes clear. I am at least consistent concerning this issue. That's why fetuses have no rights and should never do so. "

To Darrall Faas wrote on May 23, 2008 9:09 AM:

" Sorry, I thought we were talking about abortion on demand, not the miniscule percentage of abortions performed to save the life of the mother. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 23, 2008 12:36 AM:

" To 4:22pm poster: Cancer is made up of our blood cells that reject certain DNA codes. So we should not kill them, right? Wrong! Fetuses are made up of DNA also. It makes being pregnant a condition that can kill women. It also means a woman has the right to health care for herself and be treated equally like that of a man. It means fetuses should never have the right to supercede a woman's right to life. Finally, this prevents government from interfering with her right to live. But the biggest question for those advocating for fetus rights is this: Given the choice between the survival of the fetus or the pregnant woman, who do you choose if only one can survive? I choose the woman because she can have more pregnancies later in life and will be an equal member of society before the fetus ever will. "

Planet stasiak wrote on May 22, 2008 4:40 PM:

" You can say that as many times as you wish, Darrall. But, I still don't accept your premise that equality is dependant upon being allowed to kill another. "

To Darrall wrote on May 22, 2008 4:22 PM:

" And, I hate to be insulting, but I did post elsewhere that your other post is written flatulence. The fetus is not a virus or cancer-it is alive, yes, but is also has its own human DNA. Medical science and ultrasounds simply don't support your position. You are the one who doesn't view women as equals("no choice being born as such"? Please!). You think they need to be entitled to a right to kill in order to be equal to a man. Sorry, that is pathetic. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 22, 2008 2:23 PM:

" My other post elsewhere within these numerous blogs deals with pregnancy being treated like cancer. Pregnancy is a medical condition for which can kill a woman. She is not required to die to allow the ailment to live. Like a virus or cancer, she can seek treatment to remove it if need be which involves killing it. Her health supercedes that of the condition ailing her; you continue to penalize her for being simply a woman for which like race, she had no choice in being born such. Therefore, she can never be equal in your eyes, Cage Fighter or those like you. "

Cage Fighter to Darral wrote on May 22, 2008 12:44 PM:

" So, if none of your taxes went to pay for the erection or upkeep of a religious symbol, you would have no objection? Further, in the interest of being consistent, would you agree I should be under no obligation to fund abortions with my tax dollars? "

To Darrall wrote on May 22, 2008 12:33 PM:

" Regarding your post on abortion rights, you make very broad assumptions. The most glaring being that the unique medical condition of pregnancy should give one a license to kill. I do not accept this premise, and without that premise your arguement falls apart. "

To Darrall wrote on May 22, 2008 12:31 PM:

" You are incorrect regarding the Constitution. There is no separation of church and state. The only thing Congress is not allowed to do is to make a law establishing religion. The First Amendment(nor any other part of the Constitution) makes no guarantee that your tax dollars won't go to things you object to. You may wish this to be the case, but it isn't. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 22, 2008 11:21 AM:

" The Constitution does guarantee that "Congress shall make no law..." which includes my paying taxes for religious purposes. Expressing faith is a private matter and should be paid for by private means. If I choose to support it, I do so privately at my own expense. I'm not mandated by Congress or any government agency. When taxes are required to upkeep any religious symbol on public lands, I must object because this violates this sacred differnece. Whether I'm Christian or not makes no difference. I'm being required to pay for religious upkeep violating the First Amendment. This is where the separation of church and state begins. You can display them on private land where both ownership and upkeep are the owner's responsibility. Just don't make it mine without my permission. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 22, 2008 11:11 AM:

" To my 2:10pm poster: First off, men cannot have babies can they? Therefore, a baby must be born before he can kill it. Fetuses are just that. They rely on a woman for its survival. Because being pregnant is a medical condition, the patient has rights concerning treatment including terminating the condition. That goes for every patient, male or female. She is therefore not being given more rights, but exercising her equal rights for her complete health care needs. This includes privacy rights under the law. Medical records are private records concerning the treatment of her condition, including pregnancy. Your denial of these facts makes your case silly and opens your medical records up to my scruntiny and I'm sure you don't want others knowing your medical history no matter how clean your health has been. "

To Darral wrote on May 21, 2008 2:10 PM:

" Re your post Re Cranium: A man does not have the right to take the life of his baby, so laws permitting abortion gives women additional rights that men don't have, not equal rights. A man does not have the right to privacy when taking the life of another. The Supreme Court invented this right for women. Also, you have a right to your opinion regarding religious symbols on public lands. Just keep in mind-that is all it is-an opinion. My tax dollars go to support many things I find objectionable. But, there is nothing in the Constitution and no law that protects us from having to pay taxes for things we disagree with. The Supreme Court overstepped their authority by attempting to make law as opposed to interpreting it. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 21, 2008 1:07 PM:

" Now concerning religious symbols on public lands, it seems the scared religious sector wishes to continue imposing its will on the general public. This is about the look of government endorsing religion of one sort or another over the public as a whole. No religious symbol should be put on public lands that are paid for by all taxpayers and thus the general public. Religious people may have these symbols on their private land because they are responsible for any upkeep and does not impose such upon the general public. Government has no right impose itself in our churches or our homes without due cause (like a crime being committed that requires investigation). But government better not allow the Christian sect to express its beliefs on public lands that I and others who don't share such beliefs pay for its upkeep. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 21, 2008 12:52 PM:

" Furthermore, these rights granted to men are done in private as his medical records are not open for the public, so why must a woman's. She has the same right to privacy without unreasonable search or seizure. Without this same right as a man, she can never achieve equality in society. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 21, 2008 12:45 PM:

" To re Cranium May 13 @8:34am: It is okay for McCain's judges to "interpret the law as opposed to making new law". How does one not do so if overturning the law involve? You don't overturn law without basis. In the case of Roe, it was based on a woman's right to self determine her own health care and not be imposed by her sex. In order for her to be treated equally as a man, she must have the same ability to make decisions that men can. All Roe confirmed was a woman's sex organs are hers like that of men's and in health care, she has the right to make the decision of whether her condition of being pregnant imposes upon her health: physically or mentally. This is a basic human right to self determination among those living, thereby not recognizing potential life. "

To am poster wrote on May 14, 2008 9:15 PM:

" I see where your going with your interpretation of what McCain said but I believe he was just trying to placate the extreme right wing of the Republican party. I didn't say McCain wasn't a smart man. In fact, McCain is smart enough to know that if he doesn't have their vote he loses to Barack Obama in a landslide... "

Michael Welch Osamas Favorite Movie... wrote on May 13, 2008 11:46 AM:

" I know there is another 'Tripoli' but someone still, obviously, needs a high school US history book; he must have slept through THAT class but then join the crowd. Books (remember books!) have been written about the Barbary wars and there's really a very good presentation in Wikipedia. No Persians okay? That's Thermopylae and the '300' and Marathon and the dates are about 2000 years before. North Africa by the way is not primarily 'Arab' but 'Berber' -- they are Muslims sure, but that's part of the 'Barbary' ('Berbery') aspect. John Milius has a very fine film titled 'The Wind and the Lion' with Sean Connery as 'the last of the Barbary pirates' (albeit on land) who mixes it up with Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. Milius says it's Osama bin Laden's favorite pic -- as well as used in Marine Corps officers' training!... "

Re Cranium wrote on May 13, 2008 8:34 AM:

" You are absolutley correct. But, I will take a stab at what Mccain was getting at. There are activist judges who take it upon themselves to legislate from the bench, such as those judges that invented an addendum to the First Amendment that states religious symbols are not allowed on public land. These would be the same judges who invented a right for women to kill their unborn baby, under the guise of some right to privacy. Now, we know full well the Constitution doesn't say or imply either of these things, and McCain would want judges that can un-do the mistakes of the past, and who will interpret law as opposed to make new law. "

harsch wrote on May 13, 2008 3:43 AM:

" Professor Cranium is absolutely right, but it is a political tradition that the president chooses judges based on political bent. Like campaign finance practices it is an obscenity that should be curbed. I would favor an amendment to change the right to select judges being given over to a bipartisan congressional committee. "

Richard Cranium cont... wrote on May 12, 2008 10:25 PM:

" Their selection should not be based on any pre-judging of cases that might come before them. "

Richard Cranium wrote on May 12, 2008 10:24 PM:

" John McCain said in a speech last week, that as President, he would appoint federal judges who favored overturning Roe vs Wade. He also said he thinks that Federal judges should be responsive to the will of the people. It's hard to believe he's served so long and hasn't learned the basic division of responsibilities among the three branches of government. The judiciary is the one branch of our government that is responsible to the Constitution, the law and to justice. It is the only branch that protects the minority from the potential tyranny of the majority. If, perchance, judicial justice matches the will of the people, it's a nice coincidence. But judges should never base their decisions on what the people say they want. And the selection of judges should be based on their ability to know the law and to administer justice fairly. "

Bugs to Yo wrote on May 12, 2008 9:17 AM:

" Man, Yo, you seem a bit mixed up on the Tripoli thing. And Sirhan did not kill Robert Kennedy. The fatal shot was fired into RFK from behind. Sirhan was always in front of Kennedy. There were more shots fired at RFK than were bullets in Sirhan's weapon. That tells it all. "

Bugs Raplin wrote on May 12, 2008 9:03 AM:

" I don't think most poeple, including my dear brother Michael, have any idea how evil--yes, that's the right word--evil Hillary Clinton is. Much more evil than John McCain. As to Iraq, I don't see much of a difference between Hillary and McCain...and Hillary has already signaled her intentions to support an attack on Iran. As to abortion, I oppose it. I don't believe human beings with hearts beating ought to be vacuumed out of existence. And if anyone thinks McCain will do anything to stop it, they're being fooled, just like Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 fooled them. "

To Dear Izzy wrote on May 12, 2008 8:54 AM:

" No, Starfish acknowledges that Barak Hussein Obama spoke against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. After all, he defended his doing so many times. "

To To Bugs Raplin wrote on May 12, 2008 8:52 AM:

" Re 5/9 8:44pm What makes you think that Bugs supports a womans right to kill her unborn baby? "

Yo wrote on May 12, 2008 8:06 AM:

" To Yo: No apologies needed. This is a free society, free to speak whatever is on your mind. That's my whole point! If we don't stop the likes of those who want to create a caliphate, we will lose all of our freedoms: Speech, Faith, etc. Don't take for granted the only reason we have these rights - the American Soldier, who has kept us free since our founding. What if: Hitler, Pol-Pot, Stalin, etc had met little or no resistance from whom they were fighting with - US and western civilization in general. Where would we be? "

To Yo wrote on May 12, 2008 6:52 AM:

" Before I get real I'm going to give others a chance to respond. He, He, He... By the way, I do apologize. I didn't know George W Bush worked for the CIA. "

Yo wrote on May 11, 2008 10:15 PM:

" To Yo: Same thing when GWB was first elected? No, 1. GWB worked for the CIA for a year(inside knowledge) 2. He ran multiple business ventures, including a baseball team. 3. He governed one of the largest states in the Union(budget management skills). Senator Obama after 2 yrs of senate experience(responsible for only his votes). Hillary - more senate experience(responsible for votes) have never made out a budget, fought with a legislature of any kind, never met a payroll, never even gleaned lessons from failing in business(before you bring up GWB'S disappointments). Yet they have experience(in your eyes, as well as others) - are you serious? - get real "

re end of days wrote on May 11, 2008 6:27 PM:

" I agree with most of what end of days posted. I don't think it matters who gets elected though. McCain or Hillary are not going to lead America closer to G_d than Obama. I realize non-Christians won't accept or understand Biblical prophecy, but they will recognize End of Days accuracy when it becomes reality. "

To Yo wrote on May 11, 2008 4:08 PM:

" Were you saying the same thing about on the job training when George W Bush was running for President? "

Dear Izzy wrote on May 11, 2008 1:01 PM:

" You are a liar. Starfish ridicules your annoying repititious posting... No one on the left on these blogs even recognizes your abusurd 'kill the infants babble'....guess who "

Dear End of Days wrote on May 11, 2008 12:59 PM:

" You write nothing but BS.....the scriptures don't say anything about the end of days....that krappe was created in the 19th century. read the bible....jesus said he would return before many of the people he was speaking to at the time died. that's in the bible, the 'word of god'....so deal with it. BrianGSmith "

Yo wrote on May 11, 2008 12:03 PM:

" Obviously Tripoli is in Lebanon. Lebanon is in the mid-east, not Africa. Persia, or Iran as it is called today played host to the pirates I mentioned earlier. Sir han, Sir han, shot RFK, (that's Robert Kennedy for those who don't know) and he was from Iran. They want us to believe in their religion, convert, become a one world gov't with them in charge. The Caliphate of 200 yrs ago is trying to make a comback. Wake up! We need a REAL leader. The Presidency is not an on the job training program. It's a REAL responsibility with real consequences. Mailaise & multiple attacks were tried once(carter & clinton). We can't afford that anymore "

Richard Cranium wrote on May 10, 2008 8:41 PM:

" To Yo: I certainly don't agree with your assessment that the two Democratic candidates "hate" the military.I think Obama is going to command more respect from everyone around the world. More respect than any leader in this country in decades.I also don't agree with you that during the nineties our agencies "did nothing" to try and stop attacks. They actually foiled a number of potential attacks and they did it without a lot of the clues that were available such as the ones George W Bush received leading up to 9-11. Also, I am thinking of our children's futures. That's why I would never vote for John McCain under any circumstances. Never... "

Richard Cranium wrote on May 10, 2008 8:28 PM:

" Obama today said he would be open to campaigning with McCain in "town hall events". He also warned that McCain's ties to the "Keating Five" and savings and loan scandal are fair game. He also called McCain's support for a temporary halt in the gas tax a pander and a gimmick. (Obama once supported a temporary gas tax suspension but admits that it was a mistake). I'm getting to like this guy more everyday. If he keeps it up he's going to crush McCain in a landslide. "

McCain leads in Wisconsin wrote on May 10, 2008 6:48 PM:

" According to Rasmussen McCain tops both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama by a 47% to 43% margin. Overall, McCain is viewed favorably by 58% of Wisconsin voters and unfavorably by 40%. Obamas ratings are 51% favorable, 48% unfavorable. Clinton earns more negative feedback, with 46% who view her favorably and 52% who do unfavorably.

Nationally, voters trust Democrats more than Republicans on the economy. At the same time, however, they trust McCain more than either Democrat. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Wisconsin voters are at least somewhat worried that the next president will raise taxes too much and harm the economy. In Wisconsin, 59% of voters oppose a raise in the capital gains tax. Nearly half (49%) of voters believe a raise in the tax would hurt the economy. Nationally, 65% of voters are opposed to a raise in the capital gains tax. "

Harsch...Piracy wrote on May 10, 2008 4:53 PM:

" The Barbary Coast is part of northern Africa. The pirates were not Persian. There may be a baseball team in Iran called the Mashhad Barbary Pirates, though, for all I know. "

Michael Welch And You Think The Halls Of Montezuma Are In China... wrote on May 10, 2008 11:41 AM:

" By the way the Barbary pirates were from uh 'the shores of Tripoli' (remember hearing that phrase 'somewhere' huh?) and Tripoli is on the Mediterranean shore of north Africa. The pirates victimized that ancient 'middle sea,' attacking merchant vessels of all nations, and so President Jefferson decided to conduct a kind of extra-constitutional 'police' operation in the name of international commerce. Iran is geographically HUNDREDS of miles to the east on the Persian gulf and closer to India; true, the Iranians or Persians sailed the Mediterranean when they colonized Asia minor (Turkey) and rivalled the ancient Greeks in BCE. The US has NEVER fought Iran; rather, under the tyrannous shah, it was an American ally... "

Michael Welch Obama Is President And The End Is At Hand... wrote on May 10, 2008 11:26 AM:

" The great divide here isn't narrowing -- but for 'Bugs' stating a preference for McCain over Hill-Bill. Well McCain is indeed a capable candidate yet I believe 'Bugs' may have been exaggerating so to emphasize his extreme distaste for the Clintons? (Perhaps he'd actually vote Nader in such a case?) The paranoid right's perception of Obama seems determined to believe he's the Muslim Manchurian candidate; and now we're off into space with LaHayean fantasies -- the next proposition will surely be that Obama is the anti-Christ or am I 'late'? Has someone already said it and I missed it? So many embrace nonsense over analysis; is it too cold there in the basement?... "

Tess Trueheart wrote on May 10, 2008 8:22 AM:

" How come Johnny Hobo's answer to Jimmy keeps getting censored? (Sounds mysterious, since Jimmy admantly maintains that he doesn't censor JH, but I guess the cat is out of the bag now.) Pressing on to current issues, Hillary has no reason to drop out of the campaign. If Barrack Hussein Obama can't handle having his background vetted, then so be it. I'm sure that the GOP has plenty to throw at him (drug dealing, homosexual liason, a b*stard-kid are some of the murmurs I hear) in the general election. While I'm not a republican (dyed-in-the-wool libertarian here) I think America will get caught in a red tide this November. "

Yo wrote on May 10, 2008 12:14 AM:

" To:To Bugs Raplin - Historical perspective - we've been fighting Iran on and off since George Washington's time. They were called the barbary pirates. Women's rights to kill another human inside themselves - including the unborn girls who were aborted? What about their rights? McCain represents a war hero who appreciates and understands how and when to use the armed forces. The other two hate the military and command zero respect from the countries we are fighting with. We need a LEADER, not a "star" or inexperienced co-presidency repeat of the 1990's when we were attacked almost every year and did nothing to stop it. Think of your kid's futures, or lack of, if we get blown up due to incompetence. "

hillary has just as many reasons to stay in as osama wrote on May 9, 2008 11:00 PM:

" obama hasn't wrapped this thing up. hillary could win three blow out victories in w.v., kentucky, and p.r. which could boost her popular vote by about 500,000. she will point out that obama's major popular vote boost came from only one state, illinois. if obama doesn't get the required delegates, hillary can make the superdelegates actually vote, instead of just postulate about who they say they'll vote for. the good or bad side effect is that by both of these two candidates refusing to quit, it saps funds for all the other democrat candidate campaigns. hillary shouldn't quit and neither should obama. the superdelegate solution should be used like it was devised for. "

Old yeller wrote on May 9, 2008 9:58 PM:

" Just like with the McCarthy fella;
Have you no decency ma'am? "

To Bugs Raplin wrote on May 9, 2008 8:44 PM:

" If your willing to vote for McCain over Clinton your a complete idiot. Don't ever complain about the length of the war or war period then. Don't ever complain about a women's rights regarding abortion then either. Because women will have fewer choices under McCain. And, McCain is the one who represents another Bush term, not Clinton. Wow, you are something else... "

End of Days wrote on May 9, 2008 6:09 PM:

" Barak Obama will win the election. Scripture tells us that we are in the last days before the Tribulation and the final return of Christ as King. In these days, which were prophisized thousands of years ago, Israel will be abandoned and surrounded by a world of enemies. America has been Israel's main ally, but when Obama becomes President, he will abandon Israel. I believe that action will cause G-d to remove his protection from us as a nation and we will no longer be a force in the World. You will also see Israel level Damascus shortly after Obama signals to the Arab World that Israel is alone. I don't hope for all of this distruction, but it will come about, so prepare your heart. "

To To Izzy wrote on May 9, 2008 3:36 PM:

" Check out the Clintion Blog again. 8:39am 5/8 Izzy asks Starfish to confirm story. 12:06pm post from Starfish confirming this. Izzy thanking Starfish for his acknowledgment at 2:03pm.
Heck, read more of the Chris Wallace blog and other blogs the following days. There are many posts from Starfish defending Barak Hussein Obama speaking out against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.(which is an acknowledgment that Obama indeed did speak out) "

To Izzy wrote on May 9, 2008 3:04 PM:

" Wrong again Izzy. I looked through that blog. Starfish made no such comment. "

Operation Chaos wrote on May 9, 2008 2:59 PM:

" Without Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos," Shrillary would be long gone: she owes her continued drawn-out campaign to crossover white racist dittoheads. She's still around only thanks to anti-black Republican election tampering.

Real Democrats know that Shrillary is really just "Bush Lite," as Obama said. She's for more war, more NAFTA outsourcing, more free stuff for rich corporations. She's a former Wal-Mart board member!

Obama did well in Indiana, a state that had several hundred thousand KKK members back in the 1920s and is still heavily divided by race. Without Indiana's vestigial KKK types, who now are counted amongst Limbaugh's dittoheads, Shrillary would have lost in Indiana by a wide margin.
"

To Johnny Hobo from Jimmy wrote on May 9, 2008 2:16 PM:

" If you really want to be correct, then the appropriate term is not the "mentally and physically disabled." It's person first, i.e. "persons with mental or physical disabilities." A person is not physically disabled, they are a person with physical disabilities. And don't infer my acceptance of certains words or phrases on this blog simply because I have not commented or taken issue; if I did that with every comment containing some word or phrase I didn't approve of, I'd have to spend all day long doing nothing but. "

Izzy Fabin wrote on May 9, 2008 1:26 PM:

" On the Clintons Must Be Stopped blog, and many other blogs, Starfish(a BHO supporter) did indeed admit that Barak Hussein Obama spoke against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Bugs, another BHO supporter, accused Barak Hussein Obama of moral cowardice. "

Planet Stasiak wrote on May 9, 2008 1:23 PM:

" Re 11:23am-considering my entire family is Catholic, no, I did not appreciate that. Nor did I appreciate being called a racist by Brian?Smith because I am Black and dislike Wright. "

To To Hillary and Restraint wrote on May 9, 2008 1:18 PM:

" So, you don't believe he spoke against this act? "

Michael Welch Well WE Will Never Know Eh... wrote on May 9, 2008 12:58 PM:

" Re: 'Bugs' after all WE THE FOLKS never actually 'know' these people so in a way their outward characters are irrelevant. Eisenhower with his famous uh 'killer smile' was in person a rather cold guy who bristled (as did George Washington) when someone DARED to touch his arm or put a hand on his back. George W is a fella who can put people at ease, joke casually and indeed must have been a fun guy at a party but that's not what we 'hire' them to be. The stuff I've read about HRC is only what those relative few who get close enough can perceive; for the rest of us she's behaving selfishly and stubbornly re: the nomination when it's obviously time to pack it in and help Obama beat McCain. She's even out of the money. Time (past time) to end it, Hill... "

Bugs to Michael wrote on May 9, 2008 12:55 PM:

" You left out Izzy Fabin. That's gonna make him angry. "

Bugs clarifies for Michael wrote on May 9, 2008 12:26 PM:

" Hillary pleasant? Oh please....If there were just two choices-McCain and Hillary-I'd vote for Big Jawn in a minute. "

Barack Hussein Obama wrote on May 9, 2008 12:25 PM:

" will side with his brothers against Israel and against the US becoming energy independent from the Middle East Oil. B-HO will bring change alright, but not the good kind of change. B-HO will bring hope alright, hope for all those Muslim terrorists that want to see America defeated.

Childish are those who don't see Barack Hussein Obama's real threat and danger, but are living in a childish dream of singing Kum by Yah by the campfire with those who want to kill us and destroy our freedom. "

Johnny Hobo to to Johnny Hobo wrote on May 9, 2008 12:13 PM:

" I did, and do, remain affronted by BrianGSmith and Robert Freedland's usage of "retarded" and "handicapped" as slurs. However, Mr. Gillman has not objected to the use of those words as slurs, and as such, I will respect Mr. Gillman's tacit assent to usage of those aformentioned words as slurs and its disparagment of the mentally and physically disabled. "

Michael Welch Johnny And Tess -- Our Meanie Teenies... wrote on May 9, 2008 12:03 PM:

" In a certain sense maintaining the often truly bizarre comments of 'Johnny Hobo' and 'Tess Trueheart,' the brother and sister of the spear, 'the two-backed beast' re: Shakespeare, helps to understand the desperation of the cracked pot right. I also admit it is usually difficult to differentiate 'JH' and 'TT' from the likes of 'Angry Ernie' or 'Gunny' -- they MUST (we think) be having us on, as per their comments re: Israel and Jimmy's 'love' for Adolf H (talk about a wacko assertion!) or 'my' fantasized opposition to Obama seem only meanie teenie harassments to annoy the adults. Once in a while (yell BINGO!) they barely manage a real idea but no one knows if they mean it or even 'care' -- about anything really. Consequently they've made themselves continuous jokes on the Jim blog and they are essentially irrelevant... "

To Johnny Hobo wrote on May 9, 2008 11:57 AM:

" It's easy to guess what your middle name is! And weren't you the same guy who got all upset over someone else using the words "hadicapped" and "retarded?" Or was that just for show? "

Johnny Hobo to Rocket wrote on May 9, 2008 11:36 AM:

" Hey sonny boy, I think thee needs to get some glasses or go review your third grade reading skills. I said, "a middle name," not, "her middle name." (Diane, but the way, for you folks scoring at home.) As usual, Jimmy's middle name screed a few days ago was full of ignorance and only matched by his arrogance. Use of three names, i.e., John Wilkes Booth, Barrack Hussein Obama, is as old as the republic itself. Again, Jimmy has retarded political social discourse and mentally handicapped us all. "

Michael Welch Dil For President... wrote on May 9, 2008 11:32 AM:

" As for McCain I think he is an 'honorable man' but 'Brutus too was an honorable man' etc., meaning that if Big Mac is content or determined to maintain -- however noble his motivation -- his identification with an unnecessary war with no end in sight I can't perceive his victory even contra Hillary -- oh 'Bugs' you ought to vote for Nader then! I myself rather admire Nancy Pelosi, even Dianne Feinstein; and frankly we've had TWO women as secretaries of state within the past ten years and I don't see a great deal of difference between their presidings and the males who preceeded them. (What I actually would prefer is a transgender president! NOW for something REALLY DIFFERENT!!!!...) "

re jimmy hobo wrote on May 9, 2008 11:29 AM:

" Obama is a mole for al qaeda? hahaha!!!(catches breath)hahaha!!! Keep making your party look stupid. I love it. "

GROW UP wrote on May 9, 2008 11:26 AM:

" Again with calling Obama by all three names. Jimmy, you should add an age limit for your posts. You should have to be above 10 years old to post. Then we would weed out the crap I'm sick of reading.
Face it...it's juvinile. Desperate blind conservatives and the anti-americans who use a man's middle name to try and attack him should focus on the issues...not a man's given middle name.
It's Pathetic. Even a lot of my good republican friends (you know, Jimmy...the ones that are conservative but also can see things moderately and work with liberals on issues to strengthen the country) are getting sick of the name-calling wackos coming out of the woodwork to jump off the cliff while waving their elephant flag.
Not that the Dems have put up stellar candidates either...it seems both parties have been overtaken by extremists.
Bill Richardson for Pres. "

Hey Stasiak wrote on May 9, 2008 11:23 AM:

" Do you like the preacher that McCain has aligned himself with? You know, the guy who blames Katrina on a gay pride parade and calls Catholics evil cultists? "

Michael Welch Hillary AND Obama... wrote on May 9, 2008 11:22 AM:

" I'm one of those who doesn't 'hate' Hillary; I understand her to be a rather pleasant person to deal with tete-a-tete; that the booming laugh is genuine; further she is actually dedicated to her concept of ideals. At the same time she seems inordinately ambitious and maybe that IS a 'sexist' perception because a very junior senator from Illinois MUST indeed be inordinately ambitious to run for president without even having served a complete first term! However I perceive the Clintons as contentious, secretive and arrogant at times with, granted, personal charms but then W has those too. Obama appears to be what he MAY be -- thoughtful and after some initial bumps, cautious but never losing a sense of boldness and of course he MAY (again) mark a rebirth for liberalism... "

Not McCain wrote on May 9, 2008 11:21 AM:

" Please not McCain because he will keep George Bush's sheep. "

To Hillary and restraint wrote on May 9, 2008 11:21 AM:

" Here we go again. This same knucklehead wants us to look at the first post under the Chris Wallace topic. Here is the relevant sentence: "Barak Obama was the only Senator to speak against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which protects babies who are born alive after a failed abortion. In other words, it prevents flat-out infanticide."
What numbers are you talking about. What did he say? The person who posted this just made it up as no one has actually shown us a quote from Obama. Give it up. You are embarrasing yourself. "

Rocket wrote on May 9, 2008 10:47 AM:

" Johnny Hobo- Your argument is weakened severely when you try to be funny and point out you used Hillary's middle name- except as we all know, it's actually her maiden name. Good try though. "

Planet Stasiak wrote on May 9, 2008 9:25 AM:

" Any bets on whether Brian?Smith will call me a racist because I am Black and dislike Barak Hussein Obama and Jeremiah Wright? "

Johnny Hobo wrote on May 9, 2008 9:24 AM:

" Jimmy, this is politics, not dancing (prancing?) the Virginia Reel at a Ladies Club tea social. Hillary Rodham Clinton (notice a middle name usage there Jimbo?) is willing to take on all comers. (A characteristic that separates her from al-Qaeda mole Barrack Hussien Obama.) With Hill in charge, the US's enemies will face the swift sword of death. A little history lesson for you Jimbo, a "scorched earth" policy enabled the Red Army to defeat your buddy Hitler. "

Bugs Raplin wrote on May 9, 2008 9:18 AM:

" I totally agree with "Sigh"...I'd vote for McCain before I'd vote for Hillary. "

Hillary and Restraint wrote on May 9, 2008 9:06 AM:

" Hillary has shown remarkable restraint. She should bring up that Barak Hussein Obama was the only Senator to speak against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Before everyone jumps on my case, Starfish is fully aware of this as he defended Barak Hussein Obama for speaking against this act. For more numbers and specifics, see the first post on Jimmys "Three Cheers for Chris Wallace" blog. "

Sigh ... wrote on May 9, 2008 9:02 AM:

" Who does Hillary think these (allegedly) blue collar white folks are going to vote for in a general election? Most of them are Democrats and are going to vote for anyone but a Republican. Sure some may go to McCain, but not most. If Hillary does manage to steal the nomination this life long democrat will either sit this election out (which I've never done) or vote for McCain. We must be rid of these sleazy, evil people. "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »