River Valley Blogs

To eight forty seven am poster wrote on Jul 28, 2008 10:17 PM:

" kamikazefaase can do whatever he wants as long as he follows Jimmy's guidelines. "

To Darrall wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:47 AM:

" I am not calling anyone out. I am simply stating pick one moniker(real, alias, whatever) and stick with it. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:06 PM:

" Since you wish to state your views, I was addressing Pfrancis' viewpoint concerning how Bush was making us so safe. Since this party brought it up, it became fair game. So unless you wish to join the conversation, you seem to not see what is going on here. But you do wish to call Darrall out. When you ID yourself, maybe he might consider doing the same. Having to deal with the baloney from the conservative chickens in here is plenty reason to wait until the rule is everyone must post with only their names so we can have an honest conversation with real people instead of behind alias or monikers. "

To Darrall Faas wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:00 AM:

" Re 4:32am--why not just give up the charade? Pick one moniker and stick with it. We were discussing conservative and liberal commentators. How does your Bush-bashing apply here? "

kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:32 AM:

" Bush went into Iraq based on his own lies and got fools like Pfrancis to believe him too. I never did. By attacking Afghanistan saying they were housing bin Laden without "REAL" evidence, Bush used the invasion to really set up a puppet government that would answer to the US. This tactic has already failed in the Middle East with the Shah of Iran and Iraq's previous leadership now deposed for failing to do the same. By taking the fight there, we've encouraged the terrorists in recruiting more for their cause of destroying imperialistic America. By not capturing bin Laden, we've only served Bush's blind ambition and not made ourselves safer just not because we haven't been attacked. Besides, we were attacked because of Bush's negligence and have since acted out of his paranoia. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Jun 16, 2008 3:38 PM:

" Re 11:13am. Re the last sentence of my first post. I was using the words Jimmy used in his blog(see paragraph 3 of this blog). I was holding Jimmy to the same standards he holds others to. Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant. The question is whether Jimmy believes it, and whether he applies these standards consistently or selectively. I have no strong opinion one way or the other regarding Sean Hannity. I agree with some things he says and disagree with others. But, I can't say I have ever found him to be a bigot. When someone alleges this about him or anyone else, some type of proof or examples would be nice. "

Michael Welch Lying About -... wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:41 AM:

" If one investigates why there have been no more 9-11 type attacks one might well decide that they haven't occurred because the Bush administration has seen no futher 'need' of another. I strongly recommend people read the David Ray Griffin critiques of the 'official' 9-11 conspiracy theory -- after all if you believe the 9-11 commission report you also believe in A 'conspiracy.' I've read 'The New Pearl Harbor,' 'Debunking 9-11 Debunkers' and am now reading 'The 9-11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions' and the questions they raise also relate very specifically to 'lying' by our government... "

To Kenneth Krause wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:13 AM:

" I did in my 9:18 pm post. I've listened to him before and he DOES sound exactly like Jimmy described. Your not blinded by the fact that you like him and listen to him are you? You don't have to base opinions on "polls" either. That's not how you get all your "data" is it? You can get a lot of answers by what you hear. You shouldn't stop listening. I also don't believe your last sentence of your first post and I really don't think you believe that either. "

To Yo wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:03 AM:

" Did you forget that the people responsible for the 1993 WTC bombings were caught? They are sitting in prison to this day. Also, Iraq was NOT considered a civil war until AFTER we got there. Rwanda in the nineties was a classic example of genocide and the Republican congress as well as most people in this country didn't want to have anything to do with it even after the Red Cross was giving us all the bloody details. We didn't precipitate the civil war in Darfur. "

Froto wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:26 AM:

" MY My what a diverse amusing collective of self proclaimed PHD's of world knowedge. Amazing what happens to some people when the old fashion horse blinders are worn.
This could be comedy central if only the combined intellect shown here was not so narrow. "

Kenneth W Krause to Harsch wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:37 AM:

" The point I was getting at is that Jimmy offered no evidence for his assertions regarding Hannity being a bigot and a nincompoop on the previous blog, nor did he offer any evidence on this blog that conservative commentators use non-qualified statements of fact more often than liberal commentators. If I am wrong about either of these things, please direct me to the evidence he offered. Yes, Jimmy does mention a favorite phrase of Hannity is "People are saying", but that tells us nothing regarding those 2 points he is asserting. "

Yo wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:18 AM:

" To Dear Pfrancis: Did you forget that Bill had Eight years! to get Bin Laden after the 1993 bombing of the trade center. BOTH sides are to blame for being a nation asleep. As far as Saddam being toothless...ask the kurds how toothless he was, ask those who opposed him in any way. The left says we should be in Darfur, but not Iraq. Iraq they say is a civil war, so is Darfur, so what's the difference...genocide - oops it happens in both places. "

Dear Pfrancis wrote on Jun 16, 2008 2:38 AM:

" You neglect the glaring FACT that 9-11 attacks occurred 9 months into Bush's first term. Bush failed to protect the Nation....he had nine months to do something and instead he rewarded the Taliban $43 million in May of 2001 for their "help" in the war on drugs. Nice move Bush....you paid money to the criminals who attacked the US. Bush should go commit hari-kari and save some honor for his dishonorable family. = BrianGSmith "

Pfrancis wrote on Jun 15, 2008 7:31 PM:

" For all of you who are attacking the current president...remember this:

THERE HAS NOT BEEN EVEN ONE ATTACK ON THIS COUNTRY SINCE 9-11 THANKS TO THE WISE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY OF TAKING THE FIGHT TO THE TERRORISTS, ESPECIALLY IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN...

Thank you president Bush...job well done...the next president couldn't do any better... "

Dear Yo wrote on Jun 15, 2008 4:52 PM:

" Saddam was toothless. There is as much proof or raperooms and the funding suicide bombers as there is/was for WMD and mushroom clouds. Give up the lie.....Iraq posed absolutely no threat ot the US....nothing what so ever. If Hillary or Bush would have READ the intelligence from the intelligence agencies they'd had see as clear as Feingold, Obama and others (myself included and many familiar names on these boards too) that Iraq was CONTAINED....wonderfully contained. I wouldn't believe neither Bush nor Saddam. - BrianGSmith "

Michael Welch Led Into Wars By Lies -- Often... wrote on Jun 15, 2008 2:36 PM:

" The Vietnam war began as full blown enterprise because of a 'lie.' Initially the 'gulf of Tonkin' incident was a confused mish-mash of assumptions and false signals built on a subterfuge -- that the US navy was NOT violating north Vietnamese waters when it was, regularly. Once the analysts in the pentagon figured out that those assumed 'attacks' on two US vessels were mistaken, it was also decided that the facts of the incident could be uh 'withheld' from the public, instead those first reports confirmed whereupon the congress would be asked to pass a resolution giving the president broad powers of military response. Sound familiar? Your leaders though always lie for 'the good of the country' -- THEY believe... "

Michael Welch Political Lying... wrote on Jun 15, 2008 2:27 PM:

" In Frank Capra's great 1939 film depiction of American politics, 'Mr Smith Goes To Washington,' James Stewart as the naif appointed to the senate, 'Jefferson Smith,' is told the facts of life by his state's political boss -- namely that Smith's ideal, the senior senator known as 'The Silver Knight,' is boss-controlled and even involved in a major graft scheme. Amiably Edward Arnold as 'Jim Taylor' relays the info gently but 'Smith' retorts stubbornly -- 'You're a liar!' He can't believe his hero, in the exalted position of a senator, would ever do morally questionable things. Lying is however not unknown to leaders in US history, whether it deals with remembering the Alamo, or the Maine, Pearl Harbor -- or 9-11... "

Michael Welch Read Again Uncareful Reader... wrote on Jun 15, 2008 2:17 PM:

" EVERYONE who comments here is expressing an opinion; I think that's a universal assumption -- someone (anonymous of course) seems to have an 'opinion' about me. However that someone does not read carefully enough; the point I'm making below is that even those, like Laura, Cindy and Nancy, who PRESENT themselves as worshipping wives with fixed smiles aren't. Read my comments again -- Laura is pro-choice; Nancy was a major asset in the Reagan administration and I'm sure Cindy McCain has a 'mind' of her own. Michelle Obama is only more forthright, at times, in revealing her own mind. It's safer as a political wife to SEEM a 'dolly' but NO woman really is... "

Harsch...Clinche or not Cliche wrote on Jun 15, 2008 8:52 AM:

" Hillary's obligations were different from Bush's. Bush lied directly, Hillary lied indirectly. Any moron at the time should have known that the U.S. government was lying, that they were in a rush to go to war, that the UN was handling the 'situation' quite well. Hillary's obligation was to have the guts someone in her position should be presumed to have, the guts to call out the liars. She has a lot of company, but when it comes down to it that stupid cliche involving lied/died does fit. She did lie and a lot of people, estimates are over 1 million, died unnecessarily. "

Yo wrote on Jun 15, 2008 7:40 AM:

" To Richard Cranium: Hillary said she READ the text of the report. The CIA is everybody's not for the executive branch alone. Hillary has security clearance to read such items. Did you forget about the reports of Saddam's oil for food fiasco, paying suicide bombers families for attacks against the west, starting a war with Iran then Kuwait to get as much power as possible. If you want to believe Saddam over GWB then you didn't learn much from Chamberlin's meeting with Hitler. "

Dear Richard Cranium wrote on Jun 15, 2008 6:01 AM:

" Have to disagree on the level of Hillary's duplicity in the Iraqi war vote. As I wrote to "Yo" below, Feingold and 23 other US Senators saw similar intelligence and voted against Bush. Hillary had to prove, she thought, she had the cajones to vote for war......she lost that gamble because it would have been far more security wise to vote against sending US troops into a wasps nest-quagmire combo. I was reading plenty of official information online that clearly argued Saddam was toothless, was no threat to us or his neighbors and he had no connections to Al Qaeda...IN FACT they were ENEMIES. We sgoulda used Saddam to hunt down Al Qaeda in the ME....if we were Machavellian REAL POLITIK smart. - BrianGSmith "

Dear Yo wrote on Jun 15, 2008 5:56 AM:

" Well...I agree with you. Clinton had the same info as Feingold, for example.....yet they saw two totally different scenarios and voted opposite each other. Clinton is lying when she tries to say she was misled or duped.....the recent Senate Report on 9-11 confirmed the Administration was lying and there was plenty of intelligence available for everyone to make informed decisions. In the end many Dem's and Repub's voted with Bush to avoid the appearance of being weak (over appearing smart). Clinton failed at that crucial vote and that is why she lost the primary. In a perfect USA every politico that voted for the Iraqi idiocy should be voted out of office....left, right or center. - BrianGSmith "

A wonderful example of a non-qualified statement from R.C. wrote on Jun 15, 2008 5:23 AM:

" He says Hillary just took Bush's and Cheney's word. He also insinuates that the CIA only releases what Bush want's because it is 'his'.

I don't know which is worse....painting Hillary as an idiot who doesn't really read the intelligence reports and just trusts the men in office, or showing others that Richard Cranium doesn't have a clue on what the Senators based their decision to go to war on?

People on the left can't make up their mind. Either Bush is an bumbling idiot or he is an evil mastermind, able to fool the smartest Democrats elected to office (like Edwards, Kerry, and Clinton). "

Richard Cranium wrote on Jun 14, 2008 8:37 PM:

" To Brian: To you and anyone else that would like to put that "whitey" comment where it belongs, check out fightthesmears.com. Just another way of letting people know what a low life Rush Limbaugh really is. "

Richard Cranium wrote on Jun 14, 2008 8:34 PM:

" To Yo: Clinton voted the way she did because she believed what Bush and Cheney were telling her. She believed what Bush and Cheney were telling everyone. Did you forget that Cheney was telling the country that Hussein was developing missles that could hit our coastal cities? Rice was talking about mushroom clouds. Clinton doesn't have her own private CIA. What was she supposed to do under those circumstances with what was presented to HER? If she would have voted differently she would have been castigated for being soft on defense. She's not the one who lied. Now if you want to say she supported those liars... "

Yo wrote on Jun 14, 2008 3:08 PM:

" I think you missed my larger point Brian. Hillary stood on the floor of the senate and said she had read the same report the President did, declared it credible, vote to support GW. How is it that she didn't lie? How is it that she didn't fabricate, deceive, etc. etc. etc. Hillary Lied, people died. Just go ahead and say it, she voted for the war. Just say it already. "

stupid is wrote on Jun 14, 2008 2:10 PM:

" Well Mikey it is not difficult to figure out that you are a demo-god. You determine that only Rep wives can be dollies as you never mentioned any Demo wives as such. This is fact not my opinion. You also should not have the word "everyone" used when you truly do not mean everyone. Everyone that posted DID NOT render an opinion. But of course you will not admit any wrongdoing will you? "

Google McCain and terrorists.... wrote on Jun 14, 2008 2:03 PM:

" While googling the Obama's Google the Bush's and McCains. Bush's have Nazi connections and Saudi-Wahhabi connections as well as direct connections to the Bin Laden family (Carlyle Group still employs them). McCain's got lobbyists...tight buddies...who have been recently accused of carrying relations with international players that pose a THREAT TO THE US. Michele Obama is Barack's first and only wife.....same can't be said of the Clinton-like McCain and his numerous wives and concubines. "

RE Bush Lied People Died wrote on Jun 14, 2008 1:59 PM:

" Dear Yo....You obviously missed the bipartisan Senate report and the recently released conclusions stating unequivocally that Bush lied, exaggerated, made up and misled the Nation about Iraq, the threat and Saddam's connections to Al Qaeda. Bush did lie. The war is based on bs.... He will be tried someday and hopefully meets his maker with the same dignity he required of others convicted or murders in Texas while he was Governor and executioner. - BrianGSmith "

RE Joni Hobo wrote on Jun 14, 2008 1:54 PM:

" Hobo's unsubstantiated slurs and slanders are simply part of the right wing noise playbook. Weeks ago Hobo and others like him/her were predicting a huge Michele Obama PR "bomb" would be released....a recording with her allegedly cursing 'whitey'. Well....that bombshell hasn't materialized, lying only in the bigoted fantasies of those who purveyed it. Hobo continues the pathetic, lowlife dungflinging with his/her posts thus far on this thread. If any folk have terrorist ties it is those who hold hands with Wahhabi leaders and have business dealings with Bin Laden's family. - BrianGSmith "

Michael Welch More Examples... wrote on Jun 14, 2008 11:37 AM:

" Barbara Bush once smeared Geraldine Ferraro as a 'rhymes with rich' witch er which er uh, actually THAT more aptly characterizes 'Bar' really. The family uses her politically as an ultimate weapon, planting her in a front row whence she fixes what is known as 'the stare' on an opposing candidate. In 1988 she had to be somewhat 're-tooled' as a 'retiring' Gran'ma -- suddenly she became absolutely mute concerning her well known pro-abortion rights views. (It is also known that Laura Welch Bush is pro-Roe v Wade, according to ex-Sen Lincoln Chafee's new memoir.) These women are ALL 'real people,' not dollies; but underground campaigns feed off the bottom and stereotype mercilessly... "

Michael Welch Who Is Michelle Like -- Nancy... wrote on Jun 14, 2008 11:27 AM:

" And again another of my observations is clearly apt -- Michelle Obama IS indeed the 'next' prime target of The Dirty Campaign. Not that this is unique; the only 'acceptable' wife of a candidate (for some) is practically a comatose 'doll' smiling constantly -- rather like Laura APPEARS, or Cindy McCain for that matter. Nancy Reagan became notorious for her 'fixed adoration' no matter how many times Ronnie repeated himself but we found that Nance has a considerable brain, as she led the charge to restore RR's image and white house staff after the Iran-contra disaster and convinced Ronnie to finally talk to Gorbachev. If Michelle Obama may well be in 'the Nancy Reagan tradition' this country will be better off for it... "

Michael Welch Jimmy Is A COLUMNIST Not A Reporter... wrote on Jun 14, 2008 11:18 AM:

" FIRST, EVERYONE commenting here is stating OPINION -- one hopes with some modicum of 'fact' or presumed fact behind it. ANYONE who already judges another opinion as 'hating' America is obviously revealing HIS bias. Jimmy Gillman is a commentator or columnist with a blog -- he deals in opinion (ours and his); he's NOT writing a news story any more than is say Cal Thomas when he may appear on the Trib OPINION page. Jimmy's and anyone else's viewpoints may be disputed -- which is what Jim means when he asks What do YOU think? But the perception that ONLY if one is presenting Carlson, Hannity et. al., in a positive way also is this 'objective' is wrong. One PRESENTS one's view -- and then it gets debated. Understand?... "

Davidinlse wrote on Jun 14, 2008 9:15 AM:

" RE: Johnny Hobo Just because some simpleton with an ax to grind post's garbage on the internet does not make it true. "

Yo wrote on Jun 13, 2008 10:37 PM:

" Non qualified assertions on television, but not in print? Like liberally quoting Republicans but no Democratic quotes? How about the assertion of a "vast right wing conspiracy" - which has never been proven to ever exist, beyond Hillary's imagination. How about Bush Lied, People Died, without knowing what was in the reports that he was reading. The same reports that Hillary said were credible when she voted to support the president. - she didn't lie of course, but Bush did????? How are both of these "truths" in the media? "

To Kenneth Krause wrote on Jun 13, 2008 9:18 PM:

" Well, let me help you then. Talk radio programming is dominated by conservatives by an 8 to 1 margin. Just the law of averages would make the argument hold water wouldn't it? And if you don't think Hannity is a bigot you have some serious soul searching to do. Try to set your re-conceived notions aside for once and just think about what your saying. "

to Jimmy wrote on Jun 13, 2008 6:19 PM:

" If you want to be taken seriously as a journalist, you would have titled this something like "The non-qualified statement of fact a favorite of TV commentators." Then provided examples of conservative and liberal commentators making such statements. For examples of liberal non-qualified statements you could check places like Accuracy in Media. Your posts and the slant you put on them shows you to not be fair but biased with a left wing slant. "

Harsch to KWK wrote on Jun 13, 2008 5:42 PM:

" Interestingly, in this very post Jimmy is beginning to express his grounds for the statements about Hannity, but you can't see it because, I assume, you agree with Hannity. Your blogger is beginning to give you what you want and you don't see it and refer to a past post. Think about it. "

Cage Fighter to BrianGSmith wrote on Jun 13, 2008 4:47 PM:

" Brian, on what polls or data do you base this claim on? Whenever you level baseless accusations against others, I am going to call to attention your other lies. "

Johnny Hobo wrote on Jun 13, 2008 4:34 PM:

" Just Google "Michelle Obama quotes" and you'll find plenty of objectional stuff, to red-blooded, flag saluting (and wearing) Americans. Obviously, if you're a "world citizen" and proclaim a hatred of anything American, well old "Michelle my Belle" is your girl. "

To BrianGSmith wrote on Jun 13, 2008 4:12 PM:

" Did you see the post by Kim Duk the other day on women with power in the workplace? It seems a powerful woman is a turn on, not someone to be feared. "

just al wrote on Jun 13, 2008 4:09 PM:

" uhoh you are assuming that I am a conservative? you ought not do that. "

Davidinlse wrote on Jun 13, 2008 1:47 PM:

" RE: Uh oh wrote on Jun 13, 2008 11:22 AM:
Since this blog is specifically about making statements, without factual backup, I'm questioning your "Tucker "Sara Lee" Carlson" comment. Be specific, please don't reply that I heard it somewhere. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Jun 13, 2008 1:00 PM:

" Tucker, like many on the right, are afraid of women...especially powerful women. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Jun 13, 2008 11:34 AM:

" Re uh oh. Maybe or maybe not. But, since no source was provided, we will never know. "

Uh oh wrote on Jun 13, 2008 11:22 AM:

" If you were to quote, say, Media Matters or Columbia Journalism Review, they'd be derided as Left Wing propaganda tools, probably invoking the name George Soros. Mr. Krause and Just Al will ask for data and then dismiss the source. (MM or CJR will, for the record, carefully document their claims with transcripts and or video.) Tucker "Sara Lee" Carlson, whose family will continue to buy his meager talent "face time," will pass on Drudge Report/Rush Limbaugh traif as kosher. Both of the latter two sources I have caught dead in lies--"I never said that!" when I had heard or read it myself. "

Michael Welch New Target Of The Dirty Campaign... wrote on Jun 13, 2008 11:19 AM:

" Attacking someone's favorite commentator is usually a problematic proposition -- but what is REALLY INTERESTING to me about the Tucker Carlson assertion is NOT so much the WAY he puts it (re: 'Bugs' and Big Jim Garrison -- just another 'piggy grunt') but the implication. The Dirty Campaign requires more 'dirt'; recycling the crypto-Muslim 'Manchurian candidate' plus Jeremiah Wright plus the usual abortion charges (YAWN!) has gotten old (so old on THIS blog that they all have long white beards!); 'fresh' territory is now seen as Obama's wife -- intelligent, ASSERTIVE, opinionated, she redounds with Eleanor R-Hillary hate possibilities. It's NOT that Michelle Obama IS a 'polarizing factor' -- it's that she's going to be MADE to appear so... "

just al wrote on Jun 13, 2008 10:08 AM:

" Kind of like this article, you assert that conservatives frequency is more than liberals. By what fact finding mission did you find this information? "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Jun 13, 2008 9:58 AM:

" Well, Jimmy, I have to say this is pretty ironic considering your unqualified, baseless assertions regarding Sean Hannity a couple days ago. If I recall, you called him a bigot without providing any proof whatsoever, even when asked for it by myself. I also find this commentary ironic in that you assert this "practice" occurs with more frequency among conservative commentators than among liberal commentators, without providing any facts to support this assertion. Let me ask you this, Jimmy: On what polls or data do you base your claim? Or, is this blog simply sloppy innuendo masquerading as journalism? "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »