River Valley Blogs

To Darrall wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:30 AM:

" Yes, I understand that is your opinion. What is truly horrifying is others share your opinion. My point is I don't beleieve one should be allowed to legally harm another because of their personal opinion. You are resorting to dehumanizing the victim to justify mass murder, just as the Nazis did to the Jews. They honestly thought Jews were NOT PEOPLE, but things. This is how many Nazi officers were able to justify the horrific acts they committed. My point is-you are entitled to your opinion, but should not be allowed to harm others because of your opinion. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 31, 2008 4:07 PM:

" To "To darrall": If you read my previous post you would see that I treat fetuses as NOT PEOPLE, but things. Fetuses have no independence, no souls, nothing. They're the byproducts of a sexual encounter meaning nothing until birth. Once born and the cord cut, they become among the truly living. Otherwise, they act like viruses that can attack a woman at any time. So they must be treated like health care risks until they're born and no longer relying on a woman for survival. Certain people want to make fetuses human beings with souls while within the womb, but this is foolishness. They haven't developed neither to capacity to live or learn outside the reliance of the womb. Like other things in our environment that can attack us everyday, fetuses to me are given the same status thereby permitting their demise. "

To darrall wrote on May 30, 2008 10:54 AM:

" So you think Kenneth should be ashamed that men can't get pregnant? You are entitled to your personal views, but I don't think someones personal views should allow them to cause harm to another. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 30, 2008 9:41 AM:

" To Kenneth Krause: Since you did bring up something that you wish I would address, I will try. The fetus to me is SOMETHING not SOMEONE. It relies on the woman for food and potential breathing, just like tape worms, viruses, and bacteria inside anyone's body. Therefore, she is fully entitled to the best health care available. Until birth and the embilical cord is cut, that fetus relies on a woman to survive. Conceived in sin, this fetus is NOT so innocent as you think. Furthermore, the sin is borne completely by the woman because the man's part is his contribution of sperm and not being require to carry the responsibility for nine months. It's the lack of shame that men don't carry that should bother you too in this too permissive society. Destroying the fetus makes equal the risks placed on a woman when you consider the roles involved. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on May 29, 2008 8:33 AM:

" I will also offer a final thought. Just because we are far from a civilized society doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best to change that. I think a way to do that would be to not allow women to arbitrarily kill their young under the umbrella of healthcare. You think increasing fines for littering is a step toward being more civilized. We may just have to agree to disagree, but you still havent made a case that causing harm to another is not a reasonable restriction to individual liberty. And, all of our laws are about exceptions. So, making an exception to save the life of the mother would not open a pandoras box. It would be just that-an exception. Thanks to everyone for discussing. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 28, 2008 2:50 PM:

" One lasting thought: Today's society is far from civilized. There is plenty of death, destruction and lack of civil obedience. People are constantly trying to get by with something and generally over the price of someone. The big thing is "using other people's money". This is why scams are so prevelent. Our laws concerning identity theft are a joke and enforcing those on the books are being made worthless. Fines need to be raised significantly in many areas including littering, speeding, drunk driving and more. Required prison time for certain crimes threatening society needs to be better increased and used by too lenient judges who need to justify their actions before the general public who expect protection for themselves and punishment for lawbreakers. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 28, 2008 2:23 PM:

" To Cage Fighter: My argument is more than just a fetus has no rights. It has to do with common sense. It deals with once you open Pandora's box, it has no exceptions and Roe did that. Any case concerning a woman's health, both physical and mental, is best resolved in a doctor's office, not in some back alley. Giving fetuses rights hampers womens medical care and you finally acknowledge that. My arguments were consistent and without exceptions thus not needing more laws and lawyers to tangle up the courts. This was also about equal rights for women. Other issues included the facts concerning women's pay related issues because men aren't the primary care givers in most cases, thus reducing women's availablity to work. There's more to this issue than your side wishes to acknowledge because women bear the consequences men don't. "

Cage Fighter wrote on May 28, 2008 9:41 AM:

" To not have a law because of some issues it may or may not raise is pure laziness. I do not accept your premise that abortion must be completely legal in any and all circumstances or completely illegal in any and all circumstances. I believe the protection of innocent life is a valid reason for restricting individual freedom. You have yet to show that is not the case. In fact, you support other laws that do so. I have addressed many other topics on many other blogs. Abortion simply happens to be what we are discussing here. So, I am anti-abortion, but I am also "pro" and "anti" regarding many other issues, as we all are. I can't think of anything more that can be said that hasn't been said already regarding this particular topic. Peace out. "

To Darrall wrote on May 28, 2008 9:22 AM:

" Your view is only based in reality in the sense that at the present time, the law does support your position. This is what I meant by circular reasoning(i.e fetuses have no rights by law, therefore abortion should remain legal) also(abortion should remain legal because fetuses have no rights). In a nutshell, that is your whole arguement. Yes, if abortion were made illegal, the fetus would be gaining a right and the woman would be losing a right. The only right she would be losing would be the right to arbitrarily kill another, which is a reasonable restriction on individual liberty in a civilized society. So, if that's all you have, you do lose. But, thanks for the discussion. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 28, 2008 3:08 AM:

" Cage Fighter: I haven't failed to address anyone concerning a woman's right of choice concerning abortion. If you read the entire blogs, I consistently address the issue in its basic format. I cannot accept a fetus ever having any rights because that goes against the main concept from point 4 of my 8:09pm blog...if given a situation where a woman's physical survival is based upon the need to kill a fetus, I support the woman's survival over the fetus everytime with no exception. Fetuses can't survive without the woman until birth and there is no guarantee of that. That is why their existence can be terminated because they inflict themselves upon woman like a virus does to its host in biology. Giving fetuses any rights disrupts the laws of nature and women's right to equality. You haven't won the debate because your way causes more legal issues than it solves. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 28, 2008 1:57 AM:

" To May 27 @8:52am poster: My logic isn't faulty or as inconsistent as yours. You want the fetus to have rights it presently doesn't have and make women surrender theirs particularly their mental health ones. Women become pawns under your thoughts rather than the equal partner in any relationship. My position here is consistent with reality; my May 26 @8:09pm proves this. Pro-life is inconsistent because either all abortion is wrong and therefore should never be permitted or the exceptions go against the definition of prolife. Besides true prolifers are against taking a life in all circumstances, including wars, suicides, and homicides. You only address abortion making you an antiabortionist, nothing more. "

Cage Fighter wrote on May 27, 2008 9:20 AM:

" Darrall, as I stated on another blog, you repeatedly make your points without addressing the other sides point. This causes you to lose credibility. If we are willing to make our case, as well as address the points you make, but you refuse to do the same, we win the "debate", so to speak, by default. You have made a case that it is unfortunate some men don't take responsibilty for their actions, and you have made it clear that you don't like how biology works. But you have never made a case as to why an innocent party should be required to forfeit his or her life based on the whim of someone else. As I said on the other blog, your conclusion is unreasonable, baseless and barbaric. "

To Darrall Faas wrote on May 27, 2008 8:52 AM:

" You make good points in your 3:47am post. I am afraid your other posts consist mainly of circular reasoning and faulty logic. This is most apparent in point 2 of your 8:09pm post. In essence you are saying abortion should be legal because fetuses have no rights. When you consider the pro-life argument is that fetuses SHOULD have rights, and that is in fact the goal of the pro-life movement, your argument simply falls apart from there. If fetuses did have rights, one would be unable to force a woman to give her own life for the fetus. But, the woman wouldn't be allowed to kill her baby for her own mental well-being no more than you would be allowed to kill me for your mental well being. Although your responders addressed your specific points, you seem unable to address their points. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 26, 2008 8:09 PM:

" To all my opponets concerning abortion: I remain consistent in this area based on the following premises: 1) a woman is entitled to complete control of her body and health care related issues whether physical or mental; 2) fetuses have no rights and depend on the woman for existence and survival until birth; 3) men cannot bear children and in order for women to be treated equally, they must not be required to do so; 4) if the choice is between a woman surviving the pregnancy or the fetus, I choose the woman to save, thereby making abortion legal; 5) when all the above are added together, and now with pharmacists exercising their self imposed discretion concerning birth control methods including pills like "Plan B", abortion remains the only final means for women to exercise her rights to herself and controlling her body. This makes me pro-choice! "

Darral Faas wrote on May 25, 2008 4:01 AM:

" Kenneth W Krause: When a man can become pregnant, then he is equal to a woman and can bear the consequence of his actions. But because he cannot, a woman in order to be equal to a man must be able to shed the same responsibilty he can. This makes her equal and you victimizing women because of her sex. She must be able to control what happens to her body like any man can. I simply state that if a man cannot be forced to be pregnant, neither should a woman be forced to do so against her will. While there are women willing to sacrifice themselves to give birth, not all women feel this way. And I won't force women to sacrifice themselves just because they are women. That's why I'm pro-choice. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 25, 2008 3:47 AM:

" CF: Your argument fails to take all facts into consideration. We make and fight wars that serve our own interests. We permit people to have guns that people shouldn't like the mentally ill so we don't violate their rights, yet they can turn them on the innocent public at a whim. Our streets are flooded with guns in gangs or drug related criminal activity, yet the NRA fails to use its might to stop this. Killing is done without much thought these days...video games, movies, and TV only contribute the desensing of people. Therefore, it's no wonder abortion is so easy. People do think they can get away with murder and don't fear its consequences. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 25, 2008 3:35 AM:

" To 10:33am from May 23 poster: The answer to your question lies within the consistency of my response. If a woman in order to live even for herself is permitted to have the fetus killed for her physical survival, then she is permitted to do this for her then mental state as well. This creats abortion on demand and thereby keeps consistent my argument concerning this being a health care related issue as addressed in Roe. You may not like it but that keeps all things consistent with reality. You cannot rule one way and expect that today's mental health issues be ignored. The fetus suffers only because it has no true legal rights and by granting it any rights, you mess with the woman's physical or mental health for which she is fully entitled to secure. "

Sorry wrote on May 23, 2008 3:38 PM:

" My "2" was cut off-I was saying well said to Izzy and the 2 posts before izzy. "

To Izzyand the previous posters wrote on May 23, 2008 2:41 PM:

" Well said. "

Kenneth W Krause to Darral Faas wrote on May 23, 2008 2:25 PM:

" It is shameful that in a so called civilized society we allow the legal, systematic slaughter of our most vulnerable members. Your arguement that women are inherently unequal and therefore need this right to kill in order to be equal is itelf sexist and chauvanistic. Your arguement that being in a unique medical condition justifies killing is abhorrent. As a Libertarian, I am all for individual freedom. But, when you attempt to use freedom in order to harm another, the Government should step in. The role of Government should be to protect everyone. "

CF to Darrall wrote on May 23, 2008 11:26 AM:

" Darrall-NO ONE, man, woman, or child is required to sacrifice their life for anyone else. No one has the right to require the life of another person so they themselves can survive. I fail to see how this translates to the idea that anyone should be able to be arbitrarily killed by another. "

To Darrall wrote on May 23, 2008 10:33 AM:

" Are you disussing abortion on demand or the miniscule percentage of cases where abortion is necessary to save the mothers life? Because they are 2 different discussions, and people who feel one way about abortion on demand may or may not feel the same way about an abortion to save the mothers life. So please clarify. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 23, 2008 10:04 AM:

" From my response on the blog sectioned, "And the Earth shall be scorched", I ask you responders the same question. Given the choice between the fetus and the woman for which only one can survive, who do you choose? I will always choose the woman. Simple and consistent. By not giving fetuses any rights, the choice is simple. If you give fetuses rights, then you mock women everywhere by making their lives meaningless. "

Izzy Fabin wrote on May 23, 2008 9:52 AM:

" I can just picture Darrall getting all red in the face and infuriated when these communities ignore incorrect Supreme Court decisions, then are successfully defended by these organizations(for free, nonetheless) against lawsuits. I picture him in his basement, wearing his tin foil hat, at his computer(with Star Trek on the TV). Periodically, he sticks his head out the window looking for black helicopters. Also, I see him scanning community papers and glancing furtively from side to side, afraid someone, somewhere is going to violate his rights. To make himself feel better, he strolls down to the local abortion clinic(tin foil hat intact), and takes comfort in the fact that he is at least more powerful and a "bigger man" than the babies being discarded. "

Cage Fighter wrote on May 23, 2008 9:30 AM:

" Darrall, the numerous lawsuits to attempt to have these symbols removed are usually not successful. A previous poster brought up Liberty Council. Also, check out the Alliance Defense Fund's website. The "bank" of the local governments have not been broken, as both of these organizations defend the communities free of charge. Sorry, there is no separation of church and state. Your ideas are pretty scary, and you have a right to them. But, thankfully, they aren't reality. "

To Darrall wrote on May 23, 2008 8:52 AM:

" Please allow me to respond to your posts addressing Izzy and CF. For the most part, the Supreme Court rulings that you reference are irrelevant. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret law, not make new law. When they overstep their authority and make new law, their decisions should be and are ignored. Witness the communities who have been sued for public displays of religious symbols, and won(check out Matt Staver and Liberty Council's website for many cases they successfully defended). Also, your ridiculous example saying it is OK to desecrate anything because "it belongs to you too" shows your ignorance of the law. Why do you think kids get arrested for graffiti on park benches? Again, if you desecrate something simply because you don't think it belongs somewhere, you do so at your own risk. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 22, 2008 11:50 PM:

" To Izzy: Desecrating these religious symbols is your own fault. Being in public places, drunks can urinate on them or kids can spray paint graffiti with my blessing because they belong to me too. If the statues become cracked or broken, I must exercise my right to say no to its repair or I reserve my right to sue to prevent such taxes being spent on it. On private property, they belong to the owner. Since the law backs my position concerning these religious symbols not belonging on public lands, it's time to adhere to the law or face the kind of lawsuits that will begin breaking the banks of local governments resulting in severe service cuts or significantly higher taxes to pay for losing the lawsuit. Then these monies can go to financing abortion clinics everywhere. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 22, 2008 11:28 PM:

" Cage Fighter you're in error. The courts have rule contrary to your belief and are the law of the land. Religious statues have no right to be on public lands or they wouldn't be involved in continous lawsuits to be removed. Congress plus all government levels are not permitted to allow religious symbols on public lands or pay for such maintenance. Separation of church and state exists to prevent religion and state from intertwining and abusing potential power. Bush is proof of foolhardiness and what can happen when religion and state abuse power. While not a preacher, he used his pulpit to wage a religious war while failing to go after the terrorists who actually attacked America. I will continue to act for the removal of all religious symbols on public lands so all Americans, not select Christian demoninations, can enjoy the entire parks system. "

Izzy Fabin to Darrall wrote on May 22, 2008 4:33 PM:

" But, all this talk about permanency, rotary lights, no legitimacy, quiet advocacy, etc. is only your opinion. Advocating desecration of something you disagree with is setting yourself up for the same from people who disagree with you. "

Cage Fighter to Darrall wrote on May 22, 2008 3:55 PM:

" Regarding your 1:22pm post-Yes, states and local Governments are bound by the same Constitution. Therefore, no state or local Government can make a law establishing a religion. The mere presence of statues or other forms of religious expression on public land is not a law, therefore there is no violation. Again, you have no inherent right to not be exposed to things you disagree with. Sorry, but that's how it is. "

To Darrall wrote on May 22, 2008 3:49 PM:

" Your 1:49pm post is written flatulence. A baby isn't a cancer-it is a human being. Of course a fetus is an unborn child. What else would it be? It has its own heartbeat, indicating it is alive. It also has its own human DNA, indicating it is human. I would no more agree someone should have the right to kill a fetus because they don't "believe" it is an unborn child anymore than I would agree that someone should have the right to kill a Black person because they don't "believe" Blacks are human. Your "beliefs" should not give you free reign to harm others. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 22, 2008 1:49 PM:

" Planet Stasiak, I disagree with you completely. Not all people agree with that a fetus is simply an unborn child, especially early on. As a result, abortion is a means of treatment for a pregnant woman not wanting to be pregnant for whatever health reason she gives just as she would be treated for any other ailment requiring treatment. To me it's like treating cancer. I wouldn't want it, would you? Therefore, I would seek treatment to rid myself of it. To me, the same rule applies. And that is what Roe was all about. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 22, 2008 1:39 PM:

" To 12:49pm poster: I don't have a problem with the Rotary Lights if they are paying both a fee and the electrical costs during the Yuletide season because they are removed once the season is over. A statue remains permanent and those type of religious symbols have no legitimate purpose for all to enjoy on public lands. The difference is in the permanency of the item. This proves sponsorship by quiet advocacy and thereby needing removal. Concerning your question on abortion, unless we all are paying this as part of health care like insurance, I don't like that those against such are paying for it either in that manner. Abortion clinics should be self substaning without taxpayer funding. But no one should interfere with the doctor/patient relationship either in that case. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 22, 2008 1:22 PM:

" Concerning religious artifacts, there is no law permitting them on public property. You believe Congress made no law, but when my income taxes comes back to local governments in the form of grants or aids that goes to parks and upkeep, that is a violation right there of the Constitution. Furthermore, because states and local governments are bound by the same Constitution, they openly violate this area as well. Therefore, take your religious stuff out of public lands and take care of them yourselves. Because religious zealots fail in the showing of meekness as the BeAttitudes reflect, I advocate desecrating these symbols unless they are removed. No one should be forced to see their tax dollars being used for religious sponsorship. If you don't wish their harm, you have the means to have them on private lands. "

Question for Darrall wrote on May 22, 2008 12:49 PM:

" So, if your tax dollars were not used for the erection or upkeep of a religious symbol on public property, you would have no problem? Or, would you at least agree there is no Constitutional violation? And, in the interest of consistency, would you also agree no one should be required to help fund abortions with their tax dollars? "

Planet Stasiak to Darral wrote on May 22, 2008 12:25 PM:

" Darral, religious views aside, people don't think it should be legally permissable for a woman to kill her unborn child. So, yes, a law to that affect would be imposing their beliefs on others. Just as all of our laws(murder, rape, stealing) are peoples beliefs being imposed on others. "

Cage Fighter wrote on May 22, 2008 11:30 AM:

" Well, Darral, you don't like that the law permits religious symbols on public property, and you object to how some of your tax money is used. You go ahead and work to change those laws. I don't believe the law should allow a woman to kill her baby. That would fall under "harming others", which I believe the Government has a duty to prevent. I will do what I can to change that law. "

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

" re 10:43am,10:57am. You are adding to CF's example. The point was, the Government would certainly be involved if a father went to his doctor for the purpose of killing his baby in the doctors office. So, there is no "rule" that says just because a barbaric act against another takes place in a doctors office, that there would be any expectation of privacy. Sorry, I don't buy the "woman being penalized because of her sex" arguement. It is simple biology. Her biological makeup and/or medical condition should not be license to take the life of another. "

To Darral wrote on May 22, 2008 11:14 AM:

" Re end of 10:18am post. Right-"Congress Shall Make No Law..." As far as I know, Congress did make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Hence, no violation. The Constitution does not say your taxes will never go to support things you disagree with. Hey, I wish we had that right, but we don't. Like my momma always used to say "Sometimes it just beeeeeez that way." And, yes, even though a symbol may be permanent, you have every right to not look. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 22, 2008 10:57 AM:

" Concerning the privacy issue raised in the Cage Fighter example the party being treated would be the child, not the father. The father maybe seeking relief but is abdicating his responsibility to society. While there are those who think a woman terminating the pregnancy is doing the same, the difference is that she is ending her medical condition because pregnancy is an extention of her health care needs. If society can find a way to pay for the care of the fetus, then it need not die if viable to survive. If a fetus needs a woman to survive, then it's not viable and the woman remains penalized for her sex thereby she is not equal under the law. Men cannot see this beyond the little dribble they contribute. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 22, 2008 10:43 AM:

" Cage Fighter: You mention the father bringing in his child to the doctor's office to kill him. This means the child is surviving outside a woman's womb and not reliant on her health for survival? If dad does what you say here, the child can be taken away from him and given to others in society to raise. It's not that way with a pregnant woman, is it? You cannot take the fetus without birthing it. With the cost of such medical care, are you willing to pay for it? I'm not without health care reform so everyone is contributing to everyone's care. Evenso your wishes here would make health care costs skyrocket. Fixed income especially the elderly will love you! "

Darral Faas wrote on May 22, 2008 10:18 AM:

" Religion should never be shoved down one's throat. Looking away is not an option because it's right there without avoidance. Public land means belonging to all the general public, not reserved for a select few. When one gives a speech on public land, once the speaker is done, everyone goes their own way with little reminder of it with the possible exception of some possible article in the newspaper. With a headline, you can avoid the rest of the article if you wish. This is not true with a religious artifacts on public lands. It remains permanent and doesn't leave with those bringing it with them. This means taxpayers are paying for its upkeep in their tax bill. With people not able to refuse to pay these bills, it means I'm required by law to support religion against the Constitution which says, "Congress shall make no law...". "

Izzy Fabin to Darrall wrote on May 22, 2008 10:03 AM:

" Also, check out the "earth scorched" blog for a post that addresses your other points. I don't want to regurgitate what others have already stated. "

To Darrall wrote on May 22, 2008 9:02 AM:

" If you really think being exposed to views you disagree with is "causing harm" to you, why are you even on a message board? Looking away isn't an option? Are you serious? Would that mean no one would be allowed to speak in a public parkon anything Darral Faas might disagree with? It looks like Cage Fighter addressed your other points on the "sin-cities" blog. "

Cage Fighter to Darral -part wrote on May 22, 2008 8:46 AM:

" Regarding religion being shoved down peoples throats-I don't believe it is as a matter of law. Of course looking away is an option. If you were forced by the Government to pay homage to a religious symbol upon entering a park, THAT would be having it shoved down your throat. Lots of things in life offend me. But, no one has the right to not be offended. In fact, being offended is part of free speech and free expression. Whether you like it or not, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits religious symbols on public land. "

Cage Fighter wrote on May 22, 2008 8:41 AM:

" I believe the Government has a right and a duty to be anywhere, including a doctors office, where anyone, man or woman, would cause harm to another, particularly to our most vulnerable citizens who can't speak for themselves. If a man took his infant son to his doctors office for the purpose of killing him, I would expect the Government to be there. And it would be. However, the same Government allows a woman to kill her child under the guise of a right to privacy. I find this abhorrent and will do my best to change it. See my 1:39pm post. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 21, 2008 6:34 PM:

" BTW Cage Fighter: Can I count you in as far as stricter laws on things like identity theft or preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands? Or do need more voter ID bills that do so little to get people to vote? How about fixing health care? Or making sure our infrastructure of roads, bridges, and other transportation needs are met? What about ending a major mishap of foreign nature that is soaking our economy for what it can help our citizens? It's too bad Bush had trouble knowing the difference between our real enemy, the terrorists who inflicted themselves on us, and Iraq who could only threaten with rhetoric as was proven by not finding any WMDs. Bush's loss of focus has cost us plenty. Finding solutions to these problems is not just about money but values. We need to regain the focus he lost for us. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 21, 2008 6:12 PM:

" To Cage Fighter: I'm glad we concluded at least that point. However, we need to redefine what how having religion shoved down people's throat on public lands and in the doctor's office is following the example of bringing no harm to others. Looking away is not a true option when it comes to the general public. Nor is having a government agent in every doctors office with female patients. Here is where freedom means nothing comes between us and everyone being truly free to pursue happiness. "

Cage Fighter to Darral wrote on May 21, 2008 1:39 PM:

" Your key phrase being "as long as they bring no harm to others". That is my point. We impose our beliefs on others daily with our laws. It is your belief we should not be allowed to harm others. I share that belief. And most of our laws reflect that. Those laws that fall short of reflecting that, I shall do my best to change. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 21, 2008 11:54 AM:

" To Cage Fighter: Because Christians believe in submission, not freedom. Look at those from the compound for example. No real thought process and no freedom either. It maybe a cult but like the basic principles of religion, it promotes that God has the answer for everything thereby requiring submission. Furthermore, they promote the so-called God's law over government inspite the consequences they impose on others. Personally, if you believe in God's laws, live them in peace without forcing them upon others who don't believe as you do. However, remember there are others who don't share your beliefs that rightfully live within this country and as long they bring no harm to others including you, then let them live in peace as well. Simply by imposing your laws, you openly impose your will of submission on others while I seek to grant freedom and peace for all those living today. "

To pm poster wrote on May 20, 2008 10:02 PM:

" And your point is? "

to darral faas wrote on May 20, 2008 3:20 PM:

" the king james version is translated from the hebrew (when you are talking about old testament stuff). the hebrew word used in exodus 20:13 and deuteronomy 5:17 is ratsach. ratsach means murder, assassinate, premeditated as a personal avenger. the king james version is the best common version around, but it does have few weaknesses in some of it's wording. you have to avoid many other verses, old and new testament, to get that there is no cause for just fighting. micah 6:8 says to do justice or mishpat in hebrew. mishpat envolves carrying out judgement on evil or protecting the good. romans 13:4 echos that idea in governments being the minister of G_d by punishing evil.
"

Cage Fighter to Kamikazee Darral Faas wrote on May 20, 2008 9:31 AM:

" You don't get it. Start over. Read each post starting at the bottom and end with my 5/16 2:39pm post. You stated you don't think people should impose their beliefs on others. I stated we do so all the time through our laws. Why is that so hard to understand? Why is it ok for you to impose your beliefs, but not ok for others to impose theirs? "

Bugs Raplin to Harsch wrote on May 20, 2008 9:06 AM:

" Hey, buddy, you're not the only great athlete in the blogosphere. Johnny Hobo was all-state in tiddly winks. This sport is no longer sanctioned by the WIAA, but when it was, huge crowds would congregate at Mary E. Sawyer just to see Johnny tiddly the wink. He was a true champion. "

Bugs Raplin wrote on May 20, 2008 9:03 AM:

" The late great Harry Caray cheered Cubs fans everywhere with his trademark, "Holy Cow" and "Cubs Win" "Cubs Win." Harry had that great love and admiration for the game, and was always honest with the fans. Come November, I'm going to borrow a bit from that great announcer. I'm going to march from my residence on Farnam St. all the way down to John's Bar bellowing, "Obama Wins, Obama Wins." Ding dong Bush is gone. "

Tess Trueheart to Oh my wrote on May 20, 2008 6:50 AM:

" "On my!" is Dick Enberg's trade-mark phrase. Give it back. I don't know Mr. Hobo (Jr.), in volunteer work I have done for Easter Seals, I hear that his father was a long-time advocate and volunteer. I understood that Mr. Hobo lives in New York City/Long Island. I went to grad school in NYC, but that's as close as we get. I'm glad I could make you hot. Have a wonderful day, pass it on! "

Darral Faas wrote on May 19, 2008 11:33 PM:

" To Tess Trueheart: Sorry to give you a slight correction: Every King James Bible says, "Thou shall not kill" not "Thou shall not murder" even though this would make more sense when it you consider hunting or killing any animal for blood sacrifices on the altar. However, this does not excuse those who use self defense or fight in wars because God is suppose to smite their enemies. It appears that misuse of Biblical scripture can be done for whomever wishes to do so. So if we are to be this so-called "Christian nation", we certainly don't follow even its basic principles. "

Harsch to Bugs wrote on May 19, 2008 2:11 PM:

" Funny analogy, considering I always had a Bible at courtside and after every point won I screamed 'Another one for GOD!' Interestingly, a recent poll showed that the southeast corner of Wisconsin, where I played, has the highest number of atheists in my age group of any similarly populated area in the country. "

Bugs to Harsch wrote on May 19, 2008 1:12 PM:

" Yes, Rick, your tantrums made McEnroe and Connors look like theologians. Tough luck for you to develop the most nasty tennis elbow in the history of sports medicine. You coulda been a contender. "

Harsch...getting back to what matters wrote on May 19, 2008 12:13 PM:

" The Brian G. Smith wrestling nastiness seems to be a dried up well, so how about someone remembering my brilliant high school tennis career in which I won conference in tennis despite furious tantrums, nasty net play aimed at injuring unwary opponents, uncreative swearing. Come on, please, I need the attention. "

Oh my wrote on May 19, 2008 11:52 AM:

" My darling Tess (who has so aroused me): is it true that you are really Johnny (The Hawaiian) Hobo in drag? Oh my. I'm not a little creeped out, though: you only make me hotter than EVER. "

Michael Welch Johnny-Tess Once Again Scurries From Under The Sink... wrote on May 19, 2008 11:47 AM:

" Every point I make regarding the 'Johnny-Tess' beast seems confirmed EVERY time 'it' comments -- just see below: Jimmy's a Jew so that's his 'vulnerability' to such as 'Johnny-Tess'; consequently the snide, irrelevant George Lincoln Rockwell-ish remarks, which are SO typical of anti-Jewish prejudices -- anything associated with Jewish culture is treated condescendingly and crudely. As for Harsch and 'Lebanon,' is the point that Lebanon is a political morass 'run' in part by Israeli-allied Maronite Christians, Iran-supported Hezbollah and puppets mastered by Syria? Is Harsch supposed to say 'Granted'? If that's your point then yeah I don't see why he'd disagree but as Dick Cheney would put it 'So?'... "

Harsch wrote on May 19, 2008 11:30 AM:

" I think it was William Bennet who over the weekend tried to make an issue of whether or not you Americans are a superior country. the problem with Carter was that he suggested to people who are not superior that they in fact are not superior (in this austerity context). Again the main issue is the talking point versus substantive talk. "

Harsch to nice answer wrote on May 19, 2008 11:26 AM:

" I don't know how to phrase this without a quixotic element, but I actually did attack an idiot who was easy pickings. And of course he doesn't realize it. Thoush I do give you a little credit for having the minimal creativity to call someone you don't understand an elitist. Unfortunately that's an admission. "

Tess Trueheart wrote on May 19, 2008 8:16 AM:

" As "Curious George-lovable" as he is, Barrack Hussein Obama needs to cut his Jimmy Carter act post haste. His recent diatribe, 'We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.' Is beginning to sound like Carter's "Malaise Forever!" screech. Even the most adherent Jew or Jewess won't vote for someone who wants to ration their matzah ball and Manischewitz intake and trips to Miami. Right, Jimmy? "

Bugs Raplin wrote on May 19, 2008 7:22 AM:

" First, a big thank you to Michael Welch. Second, George Bush was just an accessory to 9/11-the man simply doesn't have the intelligence to engineer something like that. Cheney was probably the mastermind. It's interesting to note that my critics usually just call me names when I post that 9/11 was an inside job; they hardly ever attempt to challenge the actual information (the evidence) that I've learned from reading authors like David Ray Griffin, Jim Marrs, and Kevin Barrett. I again urge everyone to read Griffin's "Debunking 9/11 Debunkers." The introduction is worth the price of the book as Griffin nails the political left for its callous disregard of the 9/11 truth movement. "

Nice answer wrote on May 19, 2008 5:44 AM:

" for an elitist. Basically, you have said we are the only outside force that won't let these other countries act independently. You are either blind or ignorant. I really don't need an answer from you, because I know you are not correct. There will always be opportunists who will fill the vaccum once we "stay out" of their business.
It is clear you would rather attack idiots who post stupid comments than to discuss legitimate questions posed by nonidiots. It is called easy pickings. But the point is because it is easy anyone, including elitists, can do it.
"

Harsch wrote on May 18, 2008 2:32 PM:

" I'm sorry, I don't mean to be impolite--I'm still waiting for an intelligent and relevant question, preferably one that follows on an intelligent and relevant engagement of one of my posts. "

No Reply from Harsch yet wrote on May 18, 2008 9:46 AM:

" on if he has ever heard of a country called Lebanon. Apparently when he has no answer, he has no answer. "

Tess Trueheart wrote on May 17, 2008 10:44 PM:

" Just an FYI for you folks. The Commandment reads, "You should not murder...." Not the usually misrepresented, "You should not kill...." Just a bit of shinning light of sunshine into the grey world of you socialists. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 17, 2008 8:56 PM:

" I don't believe Bush masterminded 9/11. That would require brains and he has shown none of that while in office. He couldn't even read a simple report forewarning of such potential event. Now, Cheney is another matter. As a CEO type with his own hidden agenda looking to pocket the war profits through his conduits, he could easily do this while snowballing both the public and Bush. He managed to avoid prosecution while shooting his "hunting buddy". Other actions have brought resulted in the significant increase in the military-industrial complex spending while failing the soldiers who have to do the dirty work and sacrifice with their lives. But neither Cheney or Bush care as long as theirs and their cohorts pockets are being lined with taxpayers money. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 17, 2008 7:34 PM:

" To May 16th poster @2;20pm: My views on abortion are simple: the life and health of a woman is to be preserved at all costs over the "potential" life of a child because she is among the living first with the opportunity to contribute to society sooner. Once the umbilical cord is cut, the fetus becomes a child independent of a mother's womb and can be raised by society, if needed. However, until society is willing to expend the costs of medical care for the "vegetative state of the newborn" in a time fiscal restraints on both government and the insurance industry, while those members of society advocating for BAIPA are willing to sacrifice themselves on such newborns behalf, then unforunately allowing such loss is in the betterment of society. This allows grieving and closure for those truly involved without society pressing itself into a very private matter. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 17, 2008 6:33 PM:

" To Cage Fighter: Not all your so-called Christian beliefs are LAWS on the books. Of the 10 Commandments, how many of them are laws? Stealing, killing and lying each have exceptions, even moreso during a time of war. Coveting has no law, nor does issues dealing with the first three concerning no other Gods or graven images or keeping the Sabbath. Honoring mother and father not required. Even the marriage laws aren't enforced unless children are being exploited, for example in the polygamy cases in our Southwest. So your basic principle is skewered. In a free society, this was bound to happen. In a Christian society, there would be no tolerance. But we learned that society comes with a cost: witch trials, slavery, and no women's rights. "

Michael Welch A Word For Bugs... wrote on May 17, 2008 1:52 PM:

" Off the 'J-T' scandal I'd like to defend 'Bugs's views -- and may I say that although I disagree with this critic I think he has formulated his opposition firmly but without crude distortion. I think however he is unfair to say 'Bugs' has no evidence because 'Bugs' usually refers to books, particularly by David Ray Griffin (the points of view of which one may question of course), but obviously 'Bugs' and most of us haven't the personal resources to 'investigate' on our own but must rely on those who do. 9-11 is akin to the attitudes re: the Kennedy assassination circa 1968 say -- i. e. the general public is just getting familiar with the 'alternative history,' as Oliver Stone might put it. As years go by I doubt 'Bugs's ideas will be treated so dismissively as that evidence piles up... "

Michael Welch RE-READ Johnny-Tess -- Theres More To It... wrote on May 17, 2008 12:40 PM:

" I think your response to 'Johnny-Tess' is on the mark as far as it goes but too mild. The attacks go beyond making truly crazy accusations about Jimmy or his family but are consistently disdainful of American Jews, and Israeli ones for that matter (the murderers of 'millions' this 'Johnny-Tess' asserts!); and moreover this 'J-T' CONTINUALLY distorts Jimmy's opinions, MY opinions, for example, and THEN accuses ME of 'lying' when I discover a mistake about an off-the-wall topic suddenly become some large debate. Re-read, I ask you, the 'J-T' comments at least going back to the Israel-as-ally Jim blog and if you don't honestly get a creeped out sense of this 'thing' maybe you have just gotten too used to 'it'... "

To Michael Welch wrote on May 17, 2008 12:20 PM:

" I enjoy reading your comments, and I think you might be on to something with this Johnny-Tess thing, their maybe being one in the same. I remember reading a while back in a Tess comment about Jimmy supposedly censoring JH. Whether that's true or not, how would she know? I agree with you that it would be nice if people like Tess and others stuck to the topic instead of shooting barbs at people's families. "

Michael Welch And Where Are The REAL Republicans... wrote on May 17, 2008 12:04 PM:

" I think too some of the other rightists, the genuine Republican conservatives who only TOO occasionally comment here, MUST be getting uneasy with such as 'Johnny-Tess,' no matter how much doubt they have about a President Obama. Do these Repubs REALLY want to be associated with this dirty creepy junk spewed out by 'Johnny-Tess,' his imitators or other alter egos? I think, ironically, I am virtually the only person saying ANYthing positive about McCain, a candidate I do not support and am disappointed in but feel is a better man by far than George W. Otherwise it's all just 'anti-Obama.' But WHEN are the REAL Republicans going to step up and speak out against these creeps? It's long past time... "

To Welch and Harsch from Jimmy wrote on May 17, 2008 11:49 AM:

" Regarding both of your most recent posts, I could not agree more, my friends. Both of your observations are right on the money and, as usual, well stated. "

Michael Welch The REAL Crypto-Nazi Is Johnny-Tess... wrote on May 17, 2008 11:48 AM:

" I'm also curious about the current 'Johnny-Tess' obsession with the American nazi George Lincoln Rockwell -- that seems to have come right out of the blue but interestingly 'Tess' starts it and then voila! 'Johnny' happens to have a bio of GLR! Hmmm. And then 'Johnny-Tess' also obsesses with Jimmy's Jewishness, continually insulting him as some sort of crypto-nazi-Muslim 'lover' who wants to see his female relatives in burkas. The tone of all this (plus the recent attacks on Israel for reputedly killing 'millions'!) goes beyond sarcasm to a very creepy level. So who's the REAL 'crypto-nazi' here; who's the admirer of the 'martyred' Lincoln Rockwell, assassinated coming out of a shopping center laundromat in 1967? 'Johnny-Tess' I think... "

Re Tess slandering Jews wrote on May 17, 2008 11:44 AM:

" So you agree with the sentiment that American Jews are mere protestant socialists. So let's see now, you're an admirer of former American Nazi Party president George Lincoln Rockwell; you've reduced all American Jews to "mere" socialists; and like so many bigots, you hide behind a ficticious name. Yeah, I'd say that makes you anti-Semitic. I don't even know why Mr. Gillman posts your dribble. "

To Tess wrote on May 17, 2008 11:33 AM:

" Your latest comments confirm your status as an anti-Semite. By the way, Tess, please tell us your real name. What are you hiding? "

Michael Welch The Dirty Campaign... wrote on May 17, 2008 11:30 AM:

" What's basic in the responses below are the lines of the sub-candidate campaign contra Obama, i. e. what McCain will NEVER say but his secret Roveian stooges will. The smears began on this blog primarily with that self-vaunted 'Christian' 'Phil O'Bates' who has since temporarily retired, having planted the muck. The line first is that Obama is the Muslim Manchurian candidate, ready to 'surrender' the nation to al-Qaeda -- on Day One apparently. The second line has to do with the ever obsessive, getting murkier all the time anti-abortion view; the third involves some apocalyptic alarm at the end of American 'civilization' should Obama be elected. Muddling it all are some of those truly bizarre comments from the 'Johnny-Tess' beast among others. Yeah it's going to be a long campaign... "

Harsch to Jimmy wrote on May 17, 2008 8:34 AM:

" A while back you had a blog on how dumb Americans might be getting. I would like to see a discussion on how DANGEROUSLY dumb Americans are likely to get. It was the nuke the 'enemies' post below that got me thinking. Intellectually it's on the order of the infanticide posts and normally to be ignored, a Hitlerian psyche without the external circumstances to be bizarrely yet coherently obsessed with (lebensraum, judenfrei) But if the decline in the ability of Americans to think continues along with a maintenance of American power and wealth (or, alternatively, along with a decline in wealth attributed to 'evil-doers'), how likey are we to see some big bangs in the relatively near future? "

Jews for Obama wrote on May 17, 2008 4:13 AM:

" American Jews, from my profound understanding of them, are nearly 100% behind Obama. American Jews are an extremely well informed and wise population and all of my J friends support Obama. And why not? Obama is the smartest guy we've had run for President in decades. Obama's pledge to deal with the Palestenian crisis with a fair and steady hand is exactly what American Jews and most Israeli's want. Most Israeli's want HAMAS recognized (they won an election by a landslide) and they want to deal withHAMAS to end the bloodshed. Sadly too many dito heads and pinheads run the USA and participate on these boards. - BrianGSmith "

Tess Trueheart wrote on May 16, 2008 11:52 PM:

" I remember that a disciple of Meir Kahane (famous Jewish leader for you public school grads) spoke to the Hillel group at my undergrad college. He talked about how American Judiasm had abandoned all things related or expressive of Judiasm. In fact, as the speaker stated, American Jews were mere socialist protestants...without the founding of America. Judging by Jimbo's apologetic post for radical Islamo-facist Barrack Hussein Obama, you can certainly see why. Jimbo must like his wife and daughter in a burka! BTW Jimbo, please tell us what Journalism school you graduated from? What are you hiding??? "

to appeasement wrote on May 16, 2008 9:57 PM:

" I vote yes to nuking those who threaten us. first do Tehran, then Mecca, then N. Korea. I guarentee you that would bring alot more peace to the world then trying to negotiate with these crazy people. "

Harsch says wrote on May 16, 2008 7:57 PM:

" "They are all countries with extraordinary histories and it is their time now to govern themselves, establish their diplomatic strategies, and, if unprovoked, perhaps make steps towards reconciliation with old enemies (Sunni-Shiite to name one; Turk-Kurd, to name another, and most obviously Israeli-Palestinian). The first pre-requisite is that they be left to act independently in their region" - the only problem is that the USA is NOT the only country who works to keep them from acting independently. Did you ever hear about a Country called Lebanon? There is more than one country interested in increasing their influence and power in the world. "

Saddlebag Face wrote on May 16, 2008 4:45 PM:

" This talk about infanticide and abortion reminded me of a story. When my mother was pregnant with me they did an ultrasound and found out she was having twins....a few weeks later, they discovered that I had reabsorbed the other baby. Do I regret this? No. I believe his tissues made me stronger. I now have the strength of a grown man AND a little baby. "

To Poster wrote on May 16, 2008 3:36 PM:

" Why haven't you responded to Starfish (11:22)? "

Good blog Jimmy wrote on May 16, 2008 3:03 PM:

" McCain said it best when he said it's about oil! We don't really give a damn about Iranian ideology one way or the other because we're there for the oil. Do we care about Bolivia's ideology? Our thirst for oil gives Iran the money it needs to finance its nuclear ambitions; we give Russia the cash it needs to build missiles aimed at us; we give the Saudi Wahabists the cash they need to finance Bin Laden. So if you want to fight anti-American tendencies in the Middle East and elsewhere, haul your SUV to the junkyard!

Recall that Iran had a democratic government under Mossadegh during the fifties; when Mossadegh tried to nationalize the oil reserves in Iran, we sent in the CIA (Kermit Roosevelt, Teddy's grandson) to overthrow him and installed the dictatorial Shah. Told you, it's about oil! "

MK wrote on May 16, 2008 3:01 PM:

" The problem is Bugs can't prove anything. He won't believe credible scientific findings (google 9-11 conspiracy theories and click on Popular Science Link) that debunk these unfounded ideas that 9-11 was an inside job. The only thing he believes isn't corrupted by the government is himself, yet he wants to support a candidate that will put the government in charge of everything. Since he's probably confined to his house and has never left Wisconsin or Minnesota he'll never go to Washington or New York to investigate for himself. The boogey man will never die no matter how hard the rest of us try to convince him otherwise. "

Cage Fighter to Kamikazefaaseaka Darral Faas wrote on May 16, 2008 2:39 PM:

" Our beliefs are imposed on others daily. It is what we call laws. "

To Darral Faas wrote on May 16, 2008 2:20 PM:

" What about "born alive" don't you understand? The post wasn't about infanticide against the unborn through abortion. It was concerning Barack Hussein Obamas support for infanticide against those already born. Also, as you can see right on this blog, the pendulum swings from "there is no truth to Obama speaking out against this act" to "Obama is justified in speaking out against this act." Come on guys, get your stories straight. Which is it? Is Starfish a liar also? After all, he acknowledges Barack Hussein Obama spoke against this act. "

Dear Joni Hobo wrote on May 16, 2008 2:19 PM:

" Define "appeasement" and tell us all what Chamberlin did to appease Hitler? Reagan talked to the Iranians and Bush's father was sleeping with Saddam....please tell us what TF you mean. Our troops in iraq are currently paying the same jihadis that were bombong us.....ain't that appeasing the enemy? Idiots. BrianGSmith "

re bugs wrote on May 16, 2008 2:17 PM:

" you say bush and cheney murdered 3000 people on 9/11. so prove it. i've read a lot of your posts and you have no proof only your assumptions. calling someone a murderer without proof is slander. slander is murder of character. you had better be sure of your accuasations or you turn yourself into a murderer. "

MK wrote on May 16, 2008 2:14 PM:

" I wonder if the Clinton Administration would have been responsible for 9-11 had they been in charge of our country when it happened? Its amazing how a person that the far-left considers to be an bumbling idiot can mastermind the single greatest one day tragedy in American History in a little under 8 months time. "

MK wrote on May 16, 2008 2:08 PM:

" Bugs-It is impossible to have a reasonable conversation with someone who believes in the boogey man. You really should think about getting some mental help (and I don't write this as a tongue a cheek commentary). By the way stop playing God its insulting. "

Why some Jews wont vote for Barack Hussein Obama wrote on May 16, 2008 2:08 PM:

" -BHO's 20 year following of Jeremiah Wright who not only endorses well known anti-semite Louis Farakan but also has published Hamas manifestos and denies that Israel is a state.
-BHO has still not rejected Loopy Farakans endorsement.
-BHO's work to defeat the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
-BHO's work with admitted terrorist Ayers on the Woods Fund which gave money to palestinian terrorist supporters
-BHO's ties to Tony Rezko, a corrupt finicier with ties to Islamic terrorism.
-BHO's endorsements by: the Communist Party of Ill., Socialist Party USA, the New Black Panther Party, and the Hamas Terrorist Organization.
- "

MK wrote on May 16, 2008 2:04 PM:

" Earth to Appeasement-It has been an American Policy to avoid negotiations of any sort with known Terrorists Organizations. This policy had been in affect for many years before the Bush Administration. Terrorists are an enemy that have no reasons to talk with anyone. Unless they get what they absolutely want they are going continue to do what it is they do. Compromise is a foreign word in their vocabulary. They don't know how to compromise and never will compromise with anybody. "

Michael Welch What An Obama Presidency MAY Mean... wrote on May 16, 2008 1:56 PM:

" Re: 'Bugs' -- hmmm: I get it. And as a guy who already voted for Obama and shall again, I don't expect 'utopia' at all; I only assume that he as president will maintain his promise to remove US troops from Iraq over a 'reasonable' time period, say by the end of 2009. I also expect a more liberal agenda -- yes indeed support for abortion rights, same sex marriage (bravo California by the way!), the naming of more liberal judges and justices, an immigration bill uh John McCain would vote for eh, a health care plan at least better than what we have now (nothing) though I don't think the Big O will go 'all the way,' i. e. single payer -- yet. (That's the second term?!...) "

Bugs to MK wrote on May 16, 2008 1:46 PM:

" Cheney and Bush murdered some 3,000 Americans on 9/11, so they're 1)likely to go to hell if there is such a place, and 2) Bush is not "our" president as he stole both the 2000 and 2004 elections. "

Hillarious Barack Hussien Obama wrote on May 16, 2008 1:46 PM:

" He squeals with a guilty conscience, even though George Walker Bush never mention Barack Hussein Obama, and the libs like Jimmy come to his aid and say "nothing here. Move along." Imagine if George Walker Bush had said something like "pedophiles should be locked up" and John Sidney McCain immediately said "I object to President Bush criticizing me", what would be the obvious inferance and what would the press do? You KNOW they would be all over the place with stories looking into McCain's connection with pedophilia! If Jews want to vote for Barack Hussien Obama, it wouldn't be the first time that they put their trust into someone who saught their ultimate demise. "

Hey Harsch wrote on May 16, 2008 1:25 PM:

" And Brian. . . Do you really think it's "these" infanticide commenters? I think it's one person trying to get on our nerves. "

Bugs to Michael wrote on May 16, 2008 1:25 PM:

" If Obama picks Hillary, he's signing his death warrant. "

MK wrote on May 16, 2008 1:22 PM:

" The reverse psychology tactics of the far-left has confused so many good people in this country. I have relatives you think Barack and Hillary are going to make their lives so much better. Yet when you ask them how they draw a blank, deer-in-the-headlights look. The empty promises of hope and change have helped to convinced people that life means nothing (abortion and infanticide), the government should be in charge of everything (healthcare, regulations on nearly everything), and that terrorists are normal thinking, rational people who will sit down and negotiate their behaviors around a cup of coffee. "

Michael Welch The US At Its Own Game -- Old Chap... wrote on May 16, 2008 1:20 PM:

" I agree with Harsch about the nature of the current 'Great Game.' That was Kipling's call in 'Kim' re: the British 19th century rivalry with czarist ('tsarist'?) Russia over Afghanistan of all places with greedy bear eyes on that ripe plum pudding of India as well as on Turkey, the Dardenelles straits and its gateway to the exotic exploitable East! Spies, flies and chases and later of course middle east oil; then the uh 'colonists' got involved, not to mention the Jews and this lower class upstart in Germany, CORPORAL Hitler -- NOT Sandhurst hmmpf! So the US is in the briar patch all right, all oily and bloody, with the Russkies just watching and Israel uh cheering, but quietly, so as not to cause undue attention... "

MK wrote on May 16, 2008 1:16 PM:

" Darral so using your own definition of pregnancy you, and the rest of us for that matter, were nothing more than a medical condition at the beginning of life. It truly amazes me how many Americans devalue the importance of human life. If unborn children are nothing more than medical conditions why than should we concern ourselves with other kinds of murder? Why should the government prosecute those who kill? Maybe when a murderer killed it was their form of psychological therapy, their way of exercising demons. Why not claim mental illness and be fully excused because like in the case of pregnant women what they are experiencing is only a medical condition? "

Appeasement wrote on May 16, 2008 1:11 PM:

" Since when is talking to an enemy appeasement? Two years ago McCain advocated talking to Hamas. Of course, Mr Straight ... I mean DoubleTalk has changed his mind so he can pander to the right wing of his party. Back when he still thought for himself he knew talking isn't a commitment to action. Perhaps some of these poster would be happier if we just nuked everyone who pisses us off. "

Michael Welch And A Question For Bugs... wrote on May 16, 2008 12:29 PM:

" Re: the idea that there may well be an Obama-Clinton ticket (ex-gov of NY Mario Cuomo is one who is promoting it) the recent John Edwards endorsement has some folks pumping JE to reprise his 2004 veep spot but with Obama this year. I myself think Gov Bill Richardson of my beautiful 'neighbor' state to the east, New Mexico, would be an apt choice as Obama wants of course to attract the hispanic vote. And I wonder -- 'Bugs' wrote that in a choice between Hillary and McCain he'd rather have a Big Mac; so would Hills as vice make that difference also?... "

MK wrote on May 16, 2008 12:06 PM:

" Real intelligent blog Bugs. You made absolutely no reference to the article and became God by professing that our president and vice-president are going to hell. So you are God now? Interesting! Real mature. Why not make some sort of statement regarding the article? How is it that comments such as yours are considered mainstream and ok, yet when our president brings into question the philosophy of Sen. Obama to hold negotiations with terrorists it is unspeakable? If it is ok to constantly bash President Bush's stance on Iraq and the economy why than can't he fight back with words of truth about what Sen. Obama plans on doing as president? "

Concerned Citizen wrote on May 16, 2008 12:01 PM:

" I am very offended. Using someones middle name is blatant racism. "

Johnny Hobo wrote on May 16, 2008 11:57 AM:

" Bush address to the Knesset was absolute brilliance. Understanding that a policy of appeasement would never work with Iran, Hamas and a number of other terroristic governments and entities. Despite the Pollyanna-like, rose-coloured lens wearing views of Jimmy and many posters on this forum, a snake remains a snake. Whether it's a leader in Tehran or the junior senator from Illinois. The fact that Jimmy and the Barrack Hussein Obama supporters can only resort to name-calling is all you need to know about their lack of substance. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 16, 2008 11:53 AM:

" To Mike Sanders: I don't have to defend Barack for dealing with the today's issues including negotiating with terrorists and his position on abortion. I believe in a woman's right of choice because its her health, not mine. Pregnancy is a medical condition and shouldn't be forced upon her based on her sex. Being a male and unable to be pregnant doesn't give either of us an excuse to impose our will upon the female. Until you can bear the consequences of being such, don't impose your beliefs upon her. Concerning terrorists, we have always negotiated treaties and other agreements with our enemies to resolve conflicts or promote trade. History has many such instances. So your slam on Barack is just that. Your conservatism is getting the best of you in this case. BTW, many people consider me a moderate fighting for those who are paying for the Bush miscues. "

Michael Welch Macs Dilemma... wrote on May 16, 2008 11:32 AM:

" The Bush administration has actually dissipated its years in not really working very hard for a settlement -- the Israel-Palestine dilemma seems to me to have served primarily as something for Condi to do since the state department has always played second to the defense dept since the administration's beginnings. Rice has at least acquired a massive amount of frequent flyer credits I'd say. As for McCain I commend his new realism; the Iraq war MUST acquire a timetable; any president will need to develop one no matter what he has to say, now, to his party constituency. Jimmy IS 'too tough' on Mac; as for W, well we only count the days eh?... "

Starfish wrote on May 16, 2008 11:22 AM:

" Mr. Sanders, the Born Alive infant Protection Act (BAIPA) was red meat for you lunatics that had no medical legitimacy whatsoever (believe it or not, medical professionals do the right thing. After anonymous complaints to HSS Sec Leavitt in 2005--he'd never say from whom--BAIPA was expanded to include "withholding of medical treatment" which means, my excruciatingly dim little friend, that valuable hospital resources MUST be expended to make a non-viable fetus into a vegetable--WHETHER INTENTIONALLY ABORTED OR NOT. That is, a doomed baby, instead of being allowed to expire in the arms of his grieving parents, will now be yanked away and hooked up to life-support. That Barak Hussein Obama may have had the courage and wisdom to realize this, instead of behaving in the politically expedient manner, INCREASES my respect for him. "

Michael Welch Obama And The Pledge... wrote on May 16, 2008 11:21 AM:

" Most Jews will vote for Obama because American Jews are liberal in spirit and have, of necessity, a strong sense of social justice. Obama may not however be their 'fave' but he is NOT the American left's dream candidate either but a politician; and he is bright enough to realize that after this 'endless' campaign he has to unify -- and as per his appearance at the Washington celebration of Israel, Obama will maintain his 'pledge,' the pledge ALL Democratic and Republican nominees MUST make, to 'defend Israel.' I think also he will TRY harder to fashion a peace of sorts and a Palestinian state, though how 'viable' may remain a question. Israel has nothing to fear re: Obama; yes I would say that's quite clear... "

Harsch wrote on May 16, 2008 11:17 AM:

" Iran and Syria and Turkey are flawed regimes, the first two of which have had bad experiences with the west which were not invited by their misbehavior. The Middle East is THEIR region, and Israel's and Saudi Arabia's, etcetera. If any of these countries are treated as enemies by the U.S. they will behave as enemies. The Great Game was played in their region for too long for them not to now be playing their own REGIONAL great game. They are all countries with extraordinary histories--though perhaps Iraq's has been irretrievably wiped out--and it is their time now to govern themselves, establish their diplomatic strategies, and, if unprovoked, perhaps make steps towards reconciliation with old enemies (Sunni-Shiite to name one; Turk-Kurd, to name another, and most obviously Israeli-Palestinian). The first pre-requisite is that they be left to act independently in their region. "

Harsch wrote on May 16, 2008 11:10 AM:

" The lessons to be drawn from Chamberlain are always mis-stated or misunderstood because the situation has not repeated itself. He was up against a clear menace that he hoped he could contain long after it should have been clear he could not. The closest to that situation we have come since is the United States--but no one can contain the U.S. and so they are appeased with fervor no matter what they do. "

Harsch wrote on May 16, 2008 11:07 AM:

" The funny thing about all these infanticide conspirators is that they are a set block of voters who influence absolutely no one. I think Michael Welch(y), for one, would view the nasty children this way, too. They are an isolated, tiny minority, and whether or not they need psychological treatment is beside the point. The don't matter. And perhaps the knowledge on the part of some that this is so is what leads to the foolish blogs with their incessant dolteries. "

Izzy Fabin wrote on May 16, 2008 10:34 AM:

" So, do we have a right to be critical of Barack Hussein Obamas support of infanticide? Si or no? "

Hey Sanders wrote on May 16, 2008 10:32 AM:

" That infanticide plane don't fly in these airways. Liars burn in hell too you know. - BrianGSmith "

To Mike wrote on May 16, 2008 10:17 AM:

" Shhhhhhh....don't you know, no one is allowed to be critical of Obama or use his middle name? This makes you guilty of racism. "

To Bugs wrote on May 16, 2008 10:16 AM:

" Well, if the Bible is correct about Hell it is probably correct on how you end up in Hell. And, I am not sure God would use conspiracy theories as a base to determine where someone spends eternity. "

Mike Sanders wrote on May 16, 2008 9:20 AM:

" This is quite an attack on Bush, when it should be an attack on Barack Hussein Obama. Bush has been criticized, sometimes rightly so, and taken his lumps. But, we dare not criticize Barack Hussein Obama for cavorting with anti-Western, anti-Semitic terrorists, or we are labeled as intolerant and racist. Don't even get me started on the response people get when they bring up Barak Hussein Obamas outspoken support of infanticide. When it was first brought up on the Chris Wallace blog, people attempted to defend it. Then, when they realized they were attempting to defend the indefensible, they denied it completely, attributing it to the figment of someones imagination. Now, on the last couple blogs, it is once again acknowledged as fact that he was the only Senator to speak against the Born Alive infant Protection Act. "

Bugs Raplin wrote on May 16, 2008 9:17 AM:

" Remember when Jerry Ford proclaimed that our long national nightmare was over with the resignation of Richard Nixon...well, those two years of Watergate were NOTHING compared to the hideous experience of the Bush administration. I am on record from past religious discussions as not believing in hell...but I'll say this, if I'm wrong and there is such a place, Bush and Cheney and the neo-cons responsible for 9/11 and the resource wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will surely end up there. "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »