It's Hemmer Time

Good research Amy! In fact, so good, you would never make it in the mainstream, liberal media. The "bible" that the media follows is a book called "The Essence of Journalism," by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenthal. In that book the authors make up the "ten commandments" for journalist to follow and what the people should expect. Not one commandment is about the news being fair and balanced. This is why none of this will make the press! And for those that don’t believe this? Go to Lexus Nexis and see how many articles or news stories there are about these findings in regards to Obama.

E-mail this to the Journal/Sentinel, New York Times and most other media outlets. Think anyone would have the guts to actually print it?

Ok, so what about McCain he has just as many far right suporters that have also blamed the USA for 911 called for the assintion of foreign leaders and the damnation of those who disagree.

David Otto:  I have said time and time again that John McCain is not my first choice for a Republican candidate, given that he is a bit too liberal for my tastes.  Yet, he is a former military man and loves this country - he is proud of it.  He is the polar opposite of Mr. Obama.

Any examples from your initial comment?  I'd like to find out what radical groups and/or terrorists support McCain and are funding his campaign.

Sorry Shoe Guy - I'm not going to post your pro-Obama pic, without a comment on my blog site.  I will post any comments, however "pointless", of course, but I'm not giving you a forum to plaster a pic of your guy on my blog site without any reason why than other than to give Obama a free advertisement.

I think politically uninformed and racists like McCaine. Thats ok with me. Its your blog you can do what you want. I think your mad because my HTML pics always look good and your pics are always pixelated. I can show you how I do it if you would like?

That's OK.  I'm kind of learning as I'm going in regards to the pics.  I have been downloading off the Internet, and in trying to increase anything in size it tends to distort things.  However, I have gotten some other helpful info. from other sources that should allow me to have better pics should I wish to use them in the future.  Thanks for the offer, tho.

I heard yesterday that Senator Obama gave another speech of lies, even claimed to be a Christian. How dare him........

Marred25:  Desperate times call for desperate measures.... Obama's gotta do whatever he can to salvage his sinking campaign.

So I ask the group this, what is so bad about President Chaves? He has put his people first by Nationalizing the peoples recourses so multi nationals( read colonial powers in a different suit) can not take the profits away and brake the backs of the workers in that land. President Bush on the other hand has subverted democratic discourse by creating "free speech zones," intimidating voters and spying illegally on the worlds citizens. If president Bush were in any other country that we did not like we would have labeled him a dictator years ago, and would have questioned the tactics he used to get elected.

Mr. Otto...I can't even answer your question. You don't know what is wrong with Chaves? May I ask a simple question? Where do you get your news from? Amy...make sure this blog is heard again just before the elections. America needs to know this. Stories like this are easy to find out whether it's truthful or not. Just watch the media and how they handle it. No comment? Pretty accurate!

Mr. Otto:  "What is so bad about President Chavez?"  He has not "put his people first" - he has put himself first.  Follow any of the stories about Chavez's rise to power and what is occurring now in Venzeuela?  Running on a platform that appealed to the 80% of the Venezuelan populace that lived in poverty, Chavez began his rise to power.  He has restructed the government and rewritten the Constitution to give himself a clear majority of power as well as allowing himself unchecked power to remove judges, should he deem fit.  One of Chavez's "reforms" was to seize the lands owned by wealthy landowners and redistribute them to small farmers.  Chaos erupted over this plan, with Chavez being removed from office for a short time before getting back into power.  During this time over 100 people were killed in the riots that took place over Chavez's proposal.  On December 2, 2002, a strike at a Venezuelan Oil Company was cracked down upon by Chavez - with 18,000 people being dismissed because they were not seen as being loyal to Chavez.  Chavez later admitted to the dismissals as the first step in allowing himself more control over the company (PDVSA) itself.  The media itself in Venezuela is largely against Chavez, with numerous reports of violent threats and intimidation taking place from pro-Chavez gangs.  Chavez himself has started to crack down on the media - regulating political content, pornography and violence.  This crack down eventually extended to include limits on what Chavez deems "disrespectful" or "insulting" articles.  The media can go to prison for 30 months if found guilty of going against Chavez's legislation.  Later, to give himself more control over the Supreme Court of Venezuela, Chavez passed legislation allowing himself to appoint more Supreme Court justices, balancing the court to give him a clear majority in the judicial branch of government.  Chavez is also close friends with Fidel Castro and has had ties to Saddam Hussein.  Chavez supports known far-left terrorist groups in South America.  The National Guard of Venezuela and police force have been accused of intimidation and bullying of anyone who opposes CHavez.

Chavez also works hard to unite much of South America against foreigners - especially the United States.  

 So, Mr. Otto - other than that, I guess Chavez is a great guy.....

To continue, your claims against President Bush are false.  "Intimidating voters"???

What? Where? When?  "Spying illegally on  the worlds citizens?"  - Try "spying on suspected terrorists" and you might have a point.

It is a sad commentary on our country that you find it necessary to rally and support left-wing radicals while at the same time bashing your own President.  What an upside down world we live in....  

David...will you let me know what news outlets you read and watch for your world and political news? If you would be so kind and help me, I would appreciate it. I'm studying about liberals (not school related, but on my own.) as to why so many are so unhappy with our country, our President, and like you - but no disrespect intended – who think dictators like Chaves are good leaders. You could probably tell by my past blogs and letters to the LCR that I was a liberal and very extreme in my political and environmental views and beliefs. I changed to a centrist, which is an interesting story I will not bore you with, which is why I’m doing this study. Respond to my email through my blog and I will NOT publish your answer. All I ask is that you be 100% honest and not try to fool me. Please respond one way or the other so I know you at least saw this comment on Amy’s blog. Jeff Blackwell, you too please?

Just a few points, Mr. Bush was appointed his first term, if you wold like to see voter intimidation just go to the "bad neighborhoods" during voiting times and notice the increased police presince, look around you may even see flyers reminging "felons that they can not vote," witch is only true if they are under state supervision, after they are released form probation of any kind of minding they may continue to vote. Also in minority rich districts many people find that they are not on the voting logs and are turned away. I can offer many other observations on tis subject but latter. Also I will not use republican talking points for illegal programs. On to Jim, I dont have any problem disclosing my news sources, theses are honest and true, I think most of all though I think for my self. I ask that you disclos your news sources please. Jim, I am happy to tell you where I get my news. i often read the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, La times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal. Also I surf the net and read the BBC, the Guardian Unlimited and Google News. Also I occasionally watch Fox, CNN and DWT ( I may have the initials wring its an english language German news program). The point is I try to get perspectives from many different points of view. Also you might find it interesting that much of my family lives through out Europe form Scandinavia to the Iberian peninsula, so visiting them and seeing how the world operates outside of the States has also shaped my point of view. David Otto

Mr. Otto:  Perhaps there is an "increased police presence" in bad neighbor hoods to combat crime?  (Just a thought).  I'd like to see a flyer reminding people that "felons cannot vote" - here in Wisconsin we've discovered after elections that they do indeed vote!  We could use flyers like those!!!   I would say based on observations just in Milwaukee and other Wisconsin areas that no one is afraid to vote - actually people can easily be persuaded to vote if given cigarettes (we've seen that in Milwaukee, too!).  And some people even vote twice - they aren't afraid or intimidated by a police presence!  Oh, but they have to vote Democrat or it doesn't count and we may actually have to resort to Voter ID if Republicans start to cheat like Democrats!  Thanks, Governor Doyle!!!

You would be correct if it were all of the time, but its not. Also I have been to poling places and witnessed what I speak about first hand. In the 2004 election there were line out side th door at most poling places, not due to record turn out, but due to broken machines, lost voter registrations, and lack of personnel to man poling places. Once officials found out that outside observers were on route to find out what if any irregularities were happening, they found a way to move the lines in side. Out side observers are not allowed in side poling stations only out side. Every one I spoke with felt disenfranchised by the wait, some times 4 hours long, and felt like they were being treated like criminals, not citizens. Furthermore you are right, people have committed fraud in the past, and being so concerned with fraud I am sure you are against electronic voting given the high probability they can be hacked.

David Otto:  "Disenfranchised by the wait"???  Did they get to vote or not?  If they did, they weren't "disenfranchised".  Our voting system is not perfect - machines do indeed break down.  I don't think that is an evil plot by the Bush administration to influence elections (unless Bush and Cheney were out the night before tampering with all the machines, which some lefties probably would believe..), rather it is probably defective voting machines.  Lack of personnel at the polls?  Whose fault is that?  It may just be difficult to get poll workers.  In those cases, voters need to understand that in order to vote, it may take awhile.  But it is worth the wait.  What you witnessed probably is not common and doesn't speak for the majority of polling places.    

Mr. Otto…thanks for your reply and answers. I appreciate that very much. The best way to answer your question as to where I get my political news from is to let you know where I don’t get it from. And foreign countries are my number one non source, so to say, for any political news about the U.S. I do not and most likely will never trust political news from the NY Times and the other ultra liberal news sources you mentioned. Why? This is the best example and one you and others should strongly consider. These liberal presses you mentioned have gotten themselves into some serious trouble when so many were caught lying in their stories and editorials. And all to hurt Bush and Republicans in an effort to win presidential elections or change our perception. The NY Times, CBS, News Week, just to mention a few, had their best ( or worst) journalist and their top brass terminated by their own liberal peers after they were caught with lies and fraud with their stories. That is too much for me to forget. Dan Rather, once my number one source for news when I was a liberal, is one of many examples as to how pathetic the mainstream media has become. I no longer read the Milwaukee J/S except sports and business news. My main source for balanced political news is Hannity and Colmbs on FOX News and my other sources are books. I look at the book to see the footnotes and their sources. I read “Bias” and recommend that book for you and others who put too much faith and trust in those liberal papers you mentioned, because the author is a card paying liberal democrat and worked as Dan Rathers co-anchor. I read books about the Clintons from press reporters and those that lived with them or were very close to them. This is how I learned how corrupt the Clintons are and why I could never vote for someone as president who is this corrupt. That will hurt this country more than anything. Hope this answers your question. And thanks for you response and help.

Now that I have stopped laughing I can try to respond, Mr Hayett do you realize That Colmbs is paid to make Hannity look the all knowing Republican. H&C is entertainment not news, and it is just has biased has the liberal rags and tv news programs you mentioned? Turn off the tv and start thinking for yourself...........Amy your problem is you will vote for McCain even though you admit he is not your first chioce, so long as people vote for the lesser of two evils instead of demanding leadership we will continue to have the Bush and Clinton type presidents. By the way who would your first choice be and why would they have to be a Republican?

marred25:  I really liked Fred Thompson a lot and was sad to see him drop out of the race.  He seemed like a strong conservative candidate.  He also stood up to Democrats, was very articulate and didn't mince words they way many politicians tend to.   My ideal candidate would not have to be just a "Republican", but a conservative one at that.  I also liked Mitt Romney and think he might have a chance in 4 years.   I also would have liked to have seen Condoleeza Rice as a candidate.  She would have put both Obama and Clinton to shame.  They would not have stood a chance in a debate against her.   She is smart, conservative, diplomatic and tough.

Unfortunately, she chose not to run.  Perhaps McCain would pick her for VP, but I don't know if she'd agree to it.  Seems she wants to leave the Washington, D.C. spotlight in November.  I'm keeping my fingers crossed that she'll agree to the VP spot if asked.

Is McBush still in the race last I looked it was Obama vs Clinton. Look Tom Hanks supports Obama and he is not a terrorist. He was in BIG! Good movie too! Stay classy Lake Country!

The Shoe Guy:  Wow - so yet another clueless Hollywood celebrity is an Obama follower - what a surprise!  Obama is on his way out - have you been following news stories or the talking heads?  He's in deep trouble and he knows it.  People are figuring out this guy doesn't have a clue and has a socialist anti-American agenda on top of it.  Better to find this out now than in November - although if the media had been doing their jobs, we would have known about Obama's "issues" much earlier and he would have been out of the race long ago....

married 25...your comments about FOX and H&C tell me that you never watched that balanced newscast. It just so happens to be that the most recent ratings show FOX (O’Reilly and H&C) to be the most balanced news outlet and the fastest growing news outlet on TV. Watch it some day. It will help you see the truth in politics. Can you show me where your facts came from about Alan Colmes being a stooge for Hannity? Love to see that data!

So, let me get this straight, if you question capitalism, are liberal or think that America has room for improvement you are anti-American? Why?

So we want to talk about trouble. Lets talk about McCain and the FEC. John McCain with violations of campaign finance law for spending beyond limits imposed by his decision to take public financing. He cant run his campaign right and we want to give this guy our tax money. Tom Hanks is not a clueless hollywood celebrity, Heidi Montag is and thats the type of person McCain gets.

David Otto:

To answer your questions, it depends on what you are asking about capitalism.  If you wish to replace it with socialism or marxism, then I would say you are anti-American.  As for if you are a liberal are you automatically anti-American, I would say no.  However, I define that by being a moderate liberal - then at least there is the potential you can eventually be cured.  If you are an extreme left-wing liberal, then yes, you are an anti-American.

As for the last part of your question, I think everyone would say America could be improved - nothing is perfect.  However, if the improvement involves turning into a socialist or communist society - or serves to weaken or destroy America, then I would say you are anti-American.

Oh, I am still waiting - you never answered my question put to you as to what terrorist or radical fringe groups support McCain and his campaign.  I'm still waiting for names/examples.

Amy, Still researching... but I find it disapointing that you dissmiss systems of government that you do not agree with.

Maybe Miss Hemmer should think about my name...maybe she would realize she is just like all the rest of the fear mongers out there.  Oh no, if we elect Obama the terrorists are going to move in next door, and the next thing you know little Sally has a C4-laden vest on and is chanting, "Praise Allah! The Jihad is here infidel Americans!"  Now, don't get me wrong, the President has influence, and he certainly has power, but is he really a 'Decider'?  I think he CAN make things happen, but I don't think the President can just do anything he wants.  If we elect Obama he is not going to meet with President Chavez for tea and crumpets and a talk on aligning forces, he is going to speak to him as a man, he will give Chavez a real chance to explain himself.  We need to have someone who is open to dialogue with these kind of people.  The Bush Administration does not have any interest in speaking with the likes of Chavez, Ahmadinejad, or Jong-Il...but what would be the harm in just feeling them out a little?  It is always good to speak to people before dropping high explosives on them.  Sometimes you gain valuable knowledge in doing so.  Either way, I'm gonna go get some food now, so I'll check in later.  You all have a splendid evening!  P.S.  Sorry for the sporadic, and borken thoughts...I'm really hungry and am typing this in like three minutes time...

Oh, also, before I forget, do you think it is possible that Mr. Obama is the Anti-Christ?

Shoe guy...I could end this debate it one short statement, but most liberals either don’t get it or don’t like the truth.

The greatest form of flattery for this presidency is not about what American does or does not endorse who for president, but what terrosist groups, terrorist states and dictators endorse your foe. Do any of these terrorists endorsing Obama and his allegiance and friendships with known terrorist who tried to kill innocent Americans bother you at all? Can any liberal honestly answer this question?

Let’s see!!!!

Thinking one knows all arrogant:  Fear mongers?  There is a proven enemy out there that wishes to kill us.  Remember 9/11?  Terrorists?  I think we do need to be fearful.  If we pretend there are no terrorists trying to destroy us, the end of the United States will be closer than you think.

I am glad that the Bush Administration and President Bush do not wish to meet with enemies of the United States.  All that would do is lend an air of credibility to those countries.  When people like Hugo Chavez go around inciting other countries against the United States, why should we have a sit-down with a bully?  That gives the bully power.  Best to ignore them unless they threaten the safety and security of the United States and it's citizens - then all bets are off.  And Kim Jong?  Didn't Clinton broker an agreement with him in 1994 regarding the production of nuclear weapons? It was discovered later that Jong totally ignored this agreement...  Guess talk did a lot of good there.

As for Obama being the anti-Christ.  Haven't had a chance yet to check his scalp for "666".......

Jim,

I like Amy would not consider Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton my ideal candidates. While I agree with the general them om both of their campaigns and feel the election of either would better America. As to your question, I refuse to be manipulated by terrorist and abandon the principles I have simply because a group of people I dis like have spoken favors for Mr. Obama. I plan to vote for the Democratic nominee who ever it may be, because I could never vote for Mr. Mc Cain who plans to continue most if not all Mr. Bush's failed economic and foreign policies.

You guys talk about liberals like being one makes you a terrorist in and of itself.  That will really get you somewhere...you have won the argument.  And, you having a chance to check someone's, anyone's scalp does not shock me.  You come across like the wack-job type of person who might go crazy, kidnap their arch-nemesis, and shave his head, just to check for the 'Mark of the Beast.'  Oh yeah, one single meeting with Kim Jong-Il gone wrong does not mean actually communicating with the alleged enemy is not a concept worth entertaining.  Being close-minded may be something we are all guilty of sometimes, but I think people who get their mind set on something enough to actually dedicate some serious time to a blog like this just happen to be more close-minded than the average folk...you need to defend your persona, your niche if you will, in this blog community you have dedicated your time to everyday of your lives...and I honestly think that because of this you have some blinders on; you refuse to accept the fact that there is a grey area in everything.  If one side had it all right, more than a teeny, tiny majority in government would exist; however, it does not...you seem to think you, and 'your side' has it all right...is that not a little arrogant of you?  You presume you know what the best will be for everyone...like we are all of the same mindset as you...we all want the same as you?  We are all just inferior to you, clearly.  You have gained so much knowledge in your lifetime, and you have such a higher understanding of this world, you amaze me.  I wish to engage in, with you, a sophisticated, fair and balanced discussion.  I invite you to Imaginationland where you can rule the world with your fantastically genius ideas, and you'll see just how happy the world is...Dictator Hemmer...I can see it now.  That is truly Hell on Earth!  Actually, much worse.  J/k Hemmer, I luvs ya!  Kisses!

"Shoe guy...I could end this debate it one short statement, but most liberals either don’t get it or don’t like the truth." Well Mr. Hayett I'm not a liberal so lets hear it or see it as this is a blog. "Remember 9/11?  Terrorists?" I do but Bush doesnt.

<a href="www.putfile.com/.../8105207"><img src="img2.putfile.com/.../12523575575.jpg" alt="Click to enlarge"></a>

So Amy you do not consider Iran, North Korea or China "enemies of the United States"?

To Mr Hayett, I do watch H&C when I can and I also catch BILL "O" now and then. Very entertaining, so is Judge Judy............

ThinkingOneKnowsAllsArrogent...I want to quote a few sentences from your recent comment. These words, which are turned into ones thoughts and later into the actual truth, are where the root of the problems between liberals and conservatives lie: The war.

You said, “We need to have someone who is open to dialogue with these kinds of people.  The Bush Administration does not have any interest in speaking with the likes of Chavez, Ahmadinejad, or Jong-Il...but what would be the harm in just feeling them out a little?  It is always good to speak to people before dropping high explosives on them.  Sometimes you gain valuable knowledge in doing so.”

There’s the problem. But what I’m about to tell you rarely, if ever, was in the liberal media outlets you use as your political and world news sources. All three of these vicious, human rights violators, that hate all Americans, including liberals, have been approached by President Bush or his staff on many occasions. They all chose to NOT talk with our diplomats. Saddam was given many opportunities by Bush to leave Iraq along with his sons - the murderous villains who used WMD’s on hundreds of thousands of innocent Kurds – but chose not to leave. The highly liberal UN tried for over 10 years to get Saddam to talk or even comply with the WORLD rules imposed on him.  And don’t forget that Clinton gave Jong II the nuclear reactors that were supposed to be used for peace and not weapons to be used on us Americans, as Jong II has said he will do. Doesn’t any of this bother you? Why? Here is another bit of history that few want to remember. The Unites States, with the exception of the Civil War, never started a war. We or our allies have been attacked. And for what reasons?

Shoe guy...went to your web site, but not sure what you are getting at. Sorry. You think Bush forget 9/11? Where in world did you get that from? Is that the latest in liberal lies from our mainstream media? When was the last time we were attacked? Where are the terrorists now? IRAQ!!!!! If you want to fight those that killed so many innocent Americans for no reason at all, than where do these liberals propose we do it?

Married 25...glad you do watch some non-liberal news. Truth is interesting, isn't it!

marred25:  I don't understand your comment.  I do consider Iran and North Korea to be enemies of the United States.  President Bush has continued to deny a meeting with them, only allowing for possible bilateral talks from Condoleeza Rice and foreign ministers of Iran at a conference on Iraq.  In regards to North Korea, Bush will only meet with them in a "mulitnational" forum - meaning other countries as well as ours will discuss how to handle North Korea and it's possible nuclear threat.  China at this point in time is neither an enemy of friend of the United States.  It doesn't fall in the same category as Iran or North Korea.    

Mr. Otto...would you let me know as to what "failed economic and foreign policies" you are talking about? That's the main theme with our liberal press, like the NY Times, ABC, etc., that is thrown at us daily. But none backs there hate with any truth. Maybe you have some facts, not opinions, which could shed some light on these liberal stories?

Shoe Guy...want to know the truth and the latest on campaign finance and who are the violators and who bends the rules? Read today’s Wall Street Journal Op-Ed "The Reformers Who Ruined Politics."

In getting back to the main topic of this blog, why haven't liberal readers expressed any outrage or disgust that terrorists and radicals are supporting Obama would like to see him as our next President? Isn't that a bit troubling?

Amy You said "I am glad that the Bush Administration and President Bush do not wish to meet with enemies of the United States." Yet you just gave two example of Bush's administration willing to talk to theses country's leadership and you agree they are both "enemies" of the USA? And how can you not consider China not an enemy, because most of the money the US borrows(to pay for rebate checks for example) it borrows from China, and China's trade policies are directly responsible for the current weak dollar which has a lot to do with the current drain on our economy. You do not believe China is backing terrorist groups that will continue to put a drain on our military? Not a bad strategy, weaken our economy and string out our military then attack. China is more an enemy of the US then any of the countries or leaders you have previously mentioned, not all wars are fought with guns and bombs. Read "Executive Sanction" by David Compton. Mr Hayett if H&C is "non-liberal" doesn't that mean they are biased and if they are biased how can they present the news in a balanced way? Just an independent thought Jim, you should try one!

marred25:  I gave two examples of the Bush Administration willing to have "bilateral" talks with those countries - meaning Bush himself will not meet with them, and his representatives will not meet with the leaders of those countries directly.  It is these indirect talks that may pave the way for future negotiations, should our enemies decide to go along with our guidelines as to how to end their nuclear programs or other suspect actions that could endanger the United States.  Sorry, I should have made myself clearer.  China may indeed become more of a threat to the United States in the future, but for right now they are a non-issue - like I said to be considered neither friend nor foe.  (Our big issue with them is their pathetic record when it comes to human rights violations.)  Our energies are directed in the Middle East and fighting terrorism.    I don't know about the Chinese sponsoring terrorists groups that are putting a strain on the U.S. military.  Any references you can point me to?  

Mr. Hayett-You have enlightened me! I am now a staunch Republican, so now my main concern is widening the gap between the rich and the poor. I am all about taking money from lobbyists in return for my vote...oh, wait, this isn't a practice that only Republicans engage in, all politicians do! Your beloved Republican party is NOT perfect. Neither of these parties are. How do you know what media outlets I use to get my news? I actually read various national newspapers, check out ALL of the cable news stations and really get a varying array of viewpoints. You assume people who argue agianst conservatives/Republicans are liberals, and not something in between. I do not claim to know what is 'right' for our country, but you seem to. So does Miss Hemmer. It is great to know you guys are so all-knowing about these extremely complicated problems. You must be the only ones in the country. Too bad you're not in public office, then all our problems would be solved. I think Saddam did need to go, but should he/Iraq really have been our main focus? We should have finished the job in Afghanistan, capturing Osama. We did not do this. We shifted our focus to Iraq...and lost sight of the problems in Afghanistan. That may be why insurgents have been ramping up their efforts in that country in the last couple years. It's like we only respond to problems...instead of being proactive...well, I guess you consider our time in Iraq as proactive...it may be to some degree, but it was still not the most prudent decision we could have made when we started that conflict. You say we didn't start the Iraqi conflict? We dropped the firdt bombs. We started the fighting, no? I guess Saddam's refusal to leave started the fighting to you. But, someone has to pull a trigger, or flip a switch to actually start the military conflict. I guess you have some clever twist on how Iraq did this...you know, like symbolcally or some crap like that. you have a way of putting a twist on any argument you get into. like it is a genius mive; but it is really just a stretch. You constantly are stretching the argument to another issue or idea. Oh, here's the main problem with you and Miss Hemmer's arguments lately: Miss Hemmer has said that we do ask the leaders of these 'evil' countries to come and talk with us, if not personally, is some facet. You said, "All three of these vicious, human rights violators, that hate all Americans, including liberals, have been approached by President Bush or his staff on many occasions. They all chose to NOT talk with our diplomats." Miss Hemmer says: "meaning Bush himself will not meet with them, and his representatives will not meet with the leaders of those countries directly." She says we never asked them to meet with our diplomats. She says we asked for indirect talks...no meeting or talks with our diplomats. You seem to say the opposite. You seem to imply that we wanted to have Bush or his actual reps speak with them...maybe you just did not make yourself clear on this, or maybe I can't understand your argument there, but either way, you seem to contradict one another on this. We started the war in Iraq. Telling Saddam to leave, and then attacking when he would not sure seems like we started the war. Also, it was not necessary to go after Saddam at the time. We have found no WMDs there. We are even having trouble proving we have found components of WMDs, or the locations that may have been able to create them. This was our main justification for going in in the first place, no? I'm glad Saddam is gone, and dead, but I don't think that it has been worth the 5000 lives we've personally lost; not to mention the tens of thousands of civilians who have died. I suppose you will have some poetic defense for us losing 5000 brave men and women for this great cause...and it was good that we got rid of Saddam, and it is good we are killing terrorists. But, it is not good that we are angering the world community more...and that we are creating more extremists...more people willing to attack us. You claim to not be aware of our foreign policy errors. If you cannot realize that this Administration has not been good for our foreign policy image, YOU are the one in denial. YOU are the one who doesn't want to believe the truth. The Bush Administration has not implemented good foreign policy. This is why people like Rumsfeld have said that they were not in agreement with many of the policies that the rest of the Administration wanted to propogate into the international community. Rumsfeld said he personally would have done things differently than how things happened with the Ware on Terror, especially in Iraq. He took a lot of heat for these failures in foreign policy, and it turns out he wasn't even the person responsible for implementing them. He was sick and tired of acting like everything was going as planeed, this is one reason he agreed to step down. Do you think we went into Iraq well-prepared? President Bush has said we had no 'Plan B' for Iraq if things did not go well right away. We expected to be out of Iraq in less than a year after the conflict began. We expected little resistance. We completely underestimated the insurgents ability to carry out attacks on us, as well as tot he extent that they have. We have admitted all these things...yet you still tout this as good foreign policy? You don't know where our foreign policy has failed? You must be the ones not willing to accept the truth. I wish I knew what the best thing would be to do concerning this War on Terro, but I do not...do you? you act as if you do, and this is totally arrogant...you DON'T KNOW! No one really knows...maybe God does, but to be honest I don't even KNOW if God exists...I think he does, and i have faith that he does, but I won't claim to KNOw this - it is arrogant saying you KNOw something that no one can actually claim to explicitly KNOW. Once again, it is great to converse with you omniscient bloggers - you are truly my heroes!

Thinkingoneknowsallarrogant:  After reading and re-reading your latest comment in an effort to understand it, I wish to make one point clear.  President Bush has stated he will not meet with the leaders of Iran, Norht Korea or Venezuela.  The door is open for multinational talks or bilateral talks with said countries (excluding Chavez), meaning U.S. diplomats or representatives may discuss issues with diplomats or representatives of those countries in the future, if desired.  Otherwise, Bush has made it clear that he will not deal with our enemies one-on-one, which I agree with.  Although well-known U.S. ambassadors like Sean Penn enthusiastically have met with Hugo Chavez and Jimmy Carter loves to get cozy with terrorists, Bush has more character, smarts and class than either of those two combined.  The United States is a super power - the greatest nation on the face of the earth.  For us to grovel at the feet of our enemies to become "friends" won't work and Bush is smart enough to realize this.  Clinton seems to agree with Bush at this point.  Obama does not - and continues to show how clueless he would be as a leader.

"Obama does not - and continues to show how clueless he would be as a leader." Clueless like this guy?

The Shoe Guy:  The same video yet again!!!??? Got anything new?  Obama has had more issues and gaffes in the past few months than one can count.  Watch any of the debates?  Why don't you send me a "You Tube" of Obama explaining his economic strategy of raising capital gains taxes "to be fair" -(even when the moderator has to explain to him what the result of such action would be - talk about clueless!)....  You need some new material, Shoe Guy.  And I don't think McCain is going to be the one giving it to you...

Hey, the colonel, remember when you said, "E-mail this to the Journal/Sentinel, New York Times and most other media outlets. Think anyone would have the guts to actually print it?" The answer is No. No respectable mewspaper or media outlet would publish this garbage. If Miss Hemmer had any idea how to write an article that a media outlet would even entertain publishing, she would have already demonstarted this. Unfortunately she has not. I had my friend who works on The Shepard Smith Show read some of this stuff. I respect his opinion because he has worked his way onto cable TV's most popular news show and is only 24 years old. He is an Independent and has, in my opinion, some of the best insight on politics. I will not refer you to any of his work because I'd rather keep his name anonymous. He researches and edits much of what is reported on on the show he now works for and he told me that he sees something like this blog just about everyday from some housewife in the midwest wanting to be published. He initially told me that he's already seen this blog. Later he told me how it was not the same, but sounded nearly identical to this other woman who lives in Iowa and is a super-conservative-fanatic. I asked him if anyone would ever consider publishing this kind of work. He said that the research is well done, but that the writing style is lacking. Now, you may be a substitute teacher, and may have a college degree, but that does not make you some leading expert on these issues. You are just like every other blogger out there who THINKS they know what they are talking about. Your sources are credible, the information you gather is relevant, but the way you present your argument stinks. You force your opinion on others. It is not even done subtly. You should think about entertaining the idea that it is possible that you don't know everything. I know that is a hard concept for you to grasp, but you need to do it. Being a completely one-sided debater makes you seem arrogant. You need to allow for the possibility that you are wrong, and the other side is right. But, as is obvious here, you beleive you've got it all down. You could run the country single-handedly. You'd do everything right that people now are doing wrong (in your opinion). And, you say Obama cannot think on his feet...have you ever seen McCain debate? He is terrible! He comes across as a dead person...like 'Weekend at Uncle Bernie's.' I believe he will beat Obama too, but only because it is Obama running, and not Hilary. Also, your last line in your new post about McCain's imminent defeat of Obama...it says how he wishes to do this and that...that he wishes to lose a war...? I don't think he would want to lose a war. Why would he? What would he have to gain? You also say he hates his country. He has never said this and there is no reason to believe so. So what, he wouldn't say he loves our flag. I think the flag is good, but am I in love with it? No, it is not necessary to love a flag in order to also love the country it represents. That is just ridiculous to claim that. I'm not a fan of Obama, but making claims that he does not like his country are ridiculous. I suppose he hates the country and is out to sabotage it? That sounds like something you'd hear from the conspiracy theorists...you know, the UFO, Bigfoot, and Ghost people? Are you a conspiracy theorist? I hope not, that would lose you all the credibility you've built up...you know, the two tiny specks of it you have. Once again, Miss Hemmer wins the debate. She knows it all. She's the only one here who can explain the world to us. Listen closely, she may even know when you'll die...and how it will happen...bored to death from her regurgitated far right-wing 'media' tid-bits.

Oh, when you say Bush has class, character, and SMARTS, you make us all laugh. Trying to claim Bush is SMART is hilarious. Have YOU ever seen him make a speech? Why do you think that all late night shows set their calendars for their jokes for when Bush makes a speech? All they have to do is replay parts of his speeches. They are so bad, and he seems so clueless in them that it is hilarious. It's too bad we have someone that clueless in the White House. Bush, intelligent, that is a good one. He speaks about education problems in the country, but cannot use proper grammar in doing so. This is a great way to show the word we are serious about improving education. Bush could be outwitted by a sandwich. Now, not just any sandwich could outwit our Prez, it would have to be a Reuben or a Philly Cheesesteak...some kind of speacialty sandwich. A bologna sandwich would match right up with Bush though. They'd have a serious stalemate going. They'd exchange less than truthful statements all day long. You'd never see such a fierce debate. Bush v. Bologna Sandwich...winner: Bologna Sandwich! I think the same result would occur if Miss Hemmer went and debated with a bull...you can finish this thought however you'd like to. "It's like bologna. 'Cept in Texas where we say Bull." Yeah, you're right, he's a smart guy. Barely graduating from college...yeah, he's so smart it is insane! "Put food on our families...Our children IS learning." Yeah, these are the same quotes you often hear when someone is criticizng Bush's intelligence...but, they are the epitome of everything he has ever said. I have yet to hear a speech by Bush that makes me want to respect him. I have honestly heard many pre-college students deliver speeches more effectively. And, you think he's got a lot of class? Yeah, with that smirk he's always got going...he seems to act condescending, or cocky towards people all the time. He is a terrible public speaker, but I'm sure you will formulate an argument saying he is a great speaker, and here's why. Remember when he made fun of the blind reporter? That showed a lot of class. Knowingly making light of this man's handicap...that is class? It may have been a joke, but it was the least classy joke I've ever heard.

"You need some new material" as do you your obama sucks and McBush is god is getting a little old. The colonel "In getting back to the main topic of this blog, why haven't liberal readers expressed any outrage or disgust that terrorists and radicals are supporting Obama would like to see him as our next President? Isn't that a bit troubling?" Its a paly on their part they want Mcbush. So he will send the army into Iran. Just like how they got Bush to go into Iraq! I want the person that did 9/11 to us. And he had not a thing to do with Iraq or Iran. And why are we still in Iraq It was like "mission accomplished" a long time ago. So lets bring my friends home before another one has to give their life for this terrorist recruiting war. Jim "You think Bush forget 9/11?" Yes! How long does it take you to find one person? The picture does not have to do that much with the blog. Its just a new thing I am trying. Its form the dave chapelle. "I didn't want to have to say this but...the motherFacebooker bought some yellowcake, OK? In Africa. He went to Africa and he bought yellowcake." funny stuff -my friends and I saw a platypus

ThinkingOneKnowsAllArrogant:  Thanks for your comments!  When comments get as hateful and outrageous as yours, I know I've hit a nerve.  Guess I'm doing something "right" (no pun intended)!!!  Keep those comments coming!

To The Shoe Guy:  I almost didn't print your comment because it is getting a bit borderline obscene.  Thankfully you substituted the wording.  Please keep it clean in the future.  ALso, I don't understand the stuff about "my friends and I saw a platypus".  How does that apply to the subject of the blog or any past comments?  If I was Jeff Blackwell, I would have deemed your comment "pointless" and not printed it....

The paltypus does not apply the to subject. That was my signature. It would have looked like my singnature if LLC would have spent and money on a good blog program. Someone might want to tell them to buy some more bandwidth this page is slow to load alot of the time. Tell the online editor that his code is not right too. This page is very open to a hacker and a Denial-of-service attack. I did keep it clean not a one time did I have a bad word in that post. Im going to have to ask you the same amy do not slander Mr. Obamas name anymore.

The Shoe Guy:  Thanks for the explanation.  Also, I will pass on your suggestions to our blog manager.  Thank you.

Please give me some examples of how I have slandered Mr. Obama. His own words and actions speak for themselves - I comment on them.  I haven't called him nasty names or any swear words.  Based on his own background, words,beliefs, and associates,  I  think he is a dangerous man and a threat to the United States.  He must not be the next President.

Yeah, my last comments were so outrageous you could not even formulate an intelligent response to them. I guess that's what happens when someone hit one of YOUR nerves. Did you not like some of the truth I was telling you? That some of your claims are OUTRAGEOUS! Keep your weak blog coming, and keep on ignoring comments that hit a nerve. I know my last two comments on here have some good points; you just refuse to respond to tough questions and assertions.

Thinkingoneknowsallsarrogant:  What are your tough questions and assertions?  "President Bush can be outwitted by a sandwich?"  "He's so smart he's insane?"  You're not in love with the flag, so why should we question Obama's patriotism?  And you have a 24 year old friend who works for some cable tv station that doesn't like me.  What am I supposed to comment on?  Maybe the part about how can I believe Obama wants to lose the war....well, maybe it's because he wants to pull the troops out of Iraq right away and totally abort the mission.  It's called "losing".  Other than that, it might just be me, but I have to read your comments many times over before I can kind of understand what you are trying to say....no disrespect intended.

ThinkOnesKnowsAllArrogant...after reading your comments I'm not about to call you a name, but I have no better word or definition for you except you seem to be a hypocrite. You say one thing about conservatives, but make the same comment when you try to define liberalism. By the way, as I asked you in the last blog, why have you not answered my questions when powerful facts are put in front of you? All you do is attack. Is this to cover up the truth? You also mentioned why Amy’s article was not published in newspapers like the NY Times. Do you know what paper is the most liberal paper in the country? Do you know what paper lost many journalists and many top board of directors and why? The NY