Posted by otterfan (anonymous) on June 13, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I will be voting for Norm Coleman. I like him!

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on June 13, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Coleman will win easily. His record is very strong as working for MN. Top that off with an extremely poor choice from the Dems and you have a landslide victory in November. Thank God....Franken is a pathetic joke.

Posted by andtongs (anonymous) on June 13, 2008 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe that if Jesus walked the earth today he would vote for Norm Coleman. And so will I.

Posted by FungusAmugus (anonymous) on June 13, 2008 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ya Norm is Awesome, I can't believe that there would be anybody that would say that he and his administration hasn't made thing as great as they are! He has shown he is a true patriot by backing everything our great president Bush has done no questions asked! And just look how great things have turned out!
Our Economy is better than it has ever been, inflation and the cost of living is dropping like a rock, he has stimulated Minnesota bussinesses so everyone in Minnesota are makes wages fit for a KING!! and that's why those Democrats who want to raise the minimum wage are wasting thier time.
We are so safe because the whole world love's and looks up to us,and if they don't we will bomb them and change thier minds!
He has given money to medical facilities for new technology because those facilities can't afford to pay for stuff like that because they are so poor, because they give treatment to EVERONE and make them pay next to NOTHING! just look how great our facility in Fergus Falls is, if you are sick they give the best treatment to everyone and so cheap that everyone can go there, infact it's so cheap most people don't even have insurance, you should be greatful we are lucky enough to have a new facility like the Mel Center a facility that everyone can enjoy because it's available to everyone and is extremely affordable!
Our schools are being funded to the hilt, in fact just look at the new facilities we are getting in Fergus Falls! I just can't believe the people who say the schools might be having a hard time finacially, wake up people!!!! our schools have more money than anywhere else in the world, they even pay the teachers so much that many of them are RETIRING EARLY!! take Fergus Falls again for instance, look at how many teachers get to retire early again this year!! they truely should send Norm a personal thank you, I would think.
And yes, Jesus I believe would vote for Norm after all Norm is a Repubican, and Republicans carry out the word of Jesus and if you don't want to listen they will torture you until you do, and of course the Republican party is known worldwide for bending over backwards to help the sick and the poor, just look how well they do in the US, they have done such a good job they eliminated the sick and the poor they don't even exist here!
I definitely agree this country and state needs to keep going in the direction it's going, anyone can see things have never been better and we owe it all to Norm and the Repubican administration who have made the great decitions to get us in the state we all enjoy now!

Posted by Newshound (anonymous) on June 13, 2008 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Norm Coleman is the most unctuos, patronizing politico I have seen in a long time....and believe me I have SEEN some. The tragedy is that the poor misbegotten D's are putting a buffoon agains thim. Coleman will win, and that will-if history is any guide-assure that the slimebag will be there forever.
Truly, the election of Coleman is NOT in the best interests of Minnesota. Or the nation for that matter.
The guy slithers!

Posted by buzzman55 (anonymous) on June 14, 2008 at 3:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'M FROM THE TWIN CITIES AREA AND WE'VE KNOWN FOR YEARS THAT NORM COLEMAN IS A LIEING POLITICAL HACK. UNFORTUNATELY GREATER MINNESOTA THINKS THIS CLOWN IS GOD. NO, INDEED IF YOU REALLY FOLLOW CONGRESS AND STORMIN' NORMAN'S VOTING RECORD YOU WOULD SEE THAT HE IS BUSH'S YES MAN.HE HAS VOTED AGAINST MOST THINGS ARE ARE IMPORTANT TO MINNESOTA. GO TO WWW.CONGRESS.ORG FOR THE PROOF ON THIS STIFF. THE PROBLEM IS THAT MOST MINNESOTA VOTERS AREN'T EDUCATED ON WHAT REALLY MATTERS FOR MINNESOTA AND THE COUNTRY. DON'T DISAPPOINT ME UNEDUCATED VOTERS VOTE FOR STORMIN' NORMAN!

Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on June 14, 2008 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Dems could run Elmer Fudd against just about any republican this year and win by a landslide. Whoever mentioned Jesus needs to understand that Jesus was a socialist. At least he preached socialist ideals. He was terminated by rightwingers caused his teachings were a real threat to those rightwingers in power. Read your bible once in a while. The Dems tried to get some legislation going in the senate last week that would have addressed the high gas prices. Namely, a windfall profits tax and regulation on market speculation which would have brought the price of oil back down; but they need sixty votes to get anything to the floor. The republicans blocked it. Oh well, Bush would have vetoed it anyway. Big Oil is a monopolistic oligopoly (sp) and needs to be broken up just like Standard Oil was in the early part of the last century. Until that happens, get used to $5.00/gal to $6.00/gal for gasoline. We also desperately need to redo these free trade agreements. Unless you all want to earn the same wage as your Mexican and Chinese counter-parts. You jobs will continue to disappear until the wage market equalizes.

Posted by wes (anonymous) on June 16, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You have to remember we are in a transition period from
capitalism to socialism, the road will be rough for awhile
but when the redistribution is done then everybody will be
happy like in the USSR.

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 16, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher,
whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor
struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got
around to Obama and his bid to be our President.

The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, Obama is a 'post turtle'.'

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a
'post turtle' was.

The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road
and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's
a 'post turtle'.'

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he
continued to explain. 'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he
doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up
there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb a** put him up there.'

Posted by pilsnerurquel (anonymous) on June 16, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Posted by notadrone (anonymous) on June 16, 2008 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey mgdbottled: You said: "Whoever mentioned Jesus needs to understand that Jesus was a socialist."

Nope. Nothing of the sort. Jesus wanted people to feel compelled to give, out of the goodness of their hearts.

Socialists want your money, whether you object or not.

You're quite the dumbas$. Leftists always say the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Posted by Mel (anonymous) on June 16, 2008 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The 'post turtle' story reminded me of this old story;
The beauty of this story is,, you cannot change the partys, it just plain will not work!!!

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS

A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He
reduced altitude and spotted a woman below. He
descended a bit more and shouted, "Excuse me,
can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet
him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The woman replied, "Your are in a hot air balloon
approximately 30 feet above the ground. You are
between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude
and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude."

"You must be a Republican," said the balloonist.

"I am," said replied the woman. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you
told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what
to make of your information, and the fact is I am still lost.
Frankly, you've not been much help so far."

The woman below responded. "You must be a Democrat."

"I am," replied the balloonist, "but how did you know?"

"Well," said the woman, "you don't know where you are
or where you are going. You have risen to where you
are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a
promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you
expect me to solve your problem. The fact is you are in
exactly the same position you were in before we met, but
now, somehow, it's my fault."

Posted by Carl (anonymous) on June 16, 2008 at 11:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jesus was a socialist? That means socialism is a religion. The US Constitution requires the separation of church and state. That means the Democratic platform is unconstitutional and just got blown out the window. No wonder they interpret the constitution differently than what is written. They have to. All socialists are religious zealots that impose their beliefs on everyone else. They say "We have found a better way, live like us. You must, cause we will twist you to our will anyways. Your business is our business." Gosh folks, that explains why they are always such busybody's meddling in everyone elses lives through stupid idiotic controlling laws. Through universal health care, redistribution of wealth, meddling in the free market through price controls, and environmentalism they are able to control every aspect of our lives. There is absolutely no liberty or freedom in the Democrats socialist platform. All people are subjects to their will whether they agree with them or not. Anyone who doesn't agree with or follow them are mean-spirited, evil, uncaring, hypocritical, ungodly, and must be silenced. Some day, folks, when the socialist religious zealots have attained their goal of a totalitarian government they will give each person the "choice" to comply with it, or be hog-tied and beheaded. I will say "Give me liberty, or give me death." YO DEMOCRATS, KEEP YOUR STUPID RELIGION OUT OF MY LIFE! I DON'T LIKE IT AND I DON"T WANT IT! SO BLEEP OFF!

Posted by Mel (anonymous) on June 17, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Do not make politics your religion,

Posted by Woodtick (anonymous) on June 17, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Carl - well said.

Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on June 17, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's such a shame that so many Americans are uneducated ignorant people. Those are the people who form the base of the republican party for the most part. Two of five can't even name the three branches of the US Government. Only one in seven can point out Iraq on a world map. Here in Michigan, all heck is being raised cause there's a heated debate over whether Algebra should be a required course in high school. Really pathetic. It appears to many uneducated people have graduated from high school in the last several decades. Makes me wonder just what is happening or not happening in our schools. They're certainly not educating a good portion of the students. It's also a shame that this country ended the military draft. Every citizen whether male or female should have to serve at least two years in some type of service to their country. It builds character.

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on June 17, 2008 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yep, it's the Democrats who are pushing religion and big government onto the country. Sure.

I mean, who are they to oppose the marriage amendment, prayer in schools, displaying the Ten Commandments on government property, teaching creationism or Intelligent Design in public schools, and the like.

Posted by Carl (anonymous) on June 18, 2008 at 1:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

None of those issues you listed establishes or leads to a totalitarian state that extinguishes freedom and liberty. People are still free with the marriage amendment, prayer in schools, displaying the Ten Commandments on government property, teaching creationism or Intelligent Design in public schools, and the like. People cannot be free when they are subject to and have become dependant upon a totalitarian government that meddles in every aspect of their life. There is no personal freedom. If the Democrats want to live like that, they can, just keep it amongst themselves. They don't need to impose it on me. Make it only for Democrats by Democrats, and paid for by Democrats. If it is such a wonderful way to live they won't have any problem finding people to join their party by the droves.

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 18, 2008 at 7:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To: mgdbottled: I assume that moniker stands for Miller Genuine Draft in bottles. You REALLY need to lay off the sauce. You claim obnoxious statements about republicans which is to infer there are legions of liberals who CAN find Iraq on a map?

Yeah, the genius element of the democrat party offers Al Franken for Senate. Wow. I figured out your family tree: I just know your wife has asked you: "Honey, if we ever get divorced and you remarry, will be still be cousins?"

It's the core thinking....

I'm reminded of the time that Catherine - a little girl in our old neighborhood - told me that she wanted to be President one day.

Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there with us - and I asked Catherine - 'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?'

Catherine replied - 'I would give houses to all the homeless people.'

'Wow - what a worthy goal you have there Catherine.' I told her (while both parents beamed), 'But, you don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and clean up all the dog poop in the back yard and I will pay you $5 dollars. Then we can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $5 dollars to use for a new house.'

Catherine (who was about 4) thought that over for a second, and then replied, 'why doesn't the homeless guy come over and clean up the dog poop himself, and you can pay him the $5 dollars.'

Welcome to the Republican Party Catherine.....

Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on June 18, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Huh, I would have told little Catherine, "Well, Catherine...
#1. Tbag, here, probably would not even let the homeless guy enter his white picket fence for fear that Mr. Homeless would steal his gardening tools or some food from his garden, and
#2. If Tbag did allow the homeless guy to pick up his dog poop, he would not be paying him $5, he would be paying him $1 cause he's a stinky homeless guy who will probably just go buy some liquor anyway, and the week after that, recognizing that the stupid homeless guy did all that work for only a dollar, he would only pay him 50 cents, and the week after that 25 cents, and so on until the homeless guy stopped coming by to pick up Tbags yard. But, hey, what does Tbag care, he has a nice clean yard for only a $1.75. Right?

Welcome back Catherine.

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 18, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

O Amy O:

I suggest some college classes in poly sci and logic, and perhaps some remedial reading as well to help you understand what you read.

Can I interest you in cleaning my yard? Sounds like it might be a promotion for you to an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.

Generosity is based on free will - not the Robin Hood school of economics.

You might sell your B.S. to a four year old (indoctrinate early I always say,) and then you'll have added to the swarms who someday will vote for the Al Frankens and Curious George (Presidential contender)....

Posted by Carl (anonymous) on June 18, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course, the government would throw the homeless guy in jail for conducting business without a license and not reporting his income. Tbag would get fined for smoking a stogie on his back deck as he watched the homeless guy work.

Also, I notice in posts on this site by democrats always mentions or alludes to their belief that people who disagree with them are mean-spirited, uncaring, uneducated, judgemental, selfish and even stinky. They always assume the worst in people and they mention those stereotypes to justify their excuse to empower the government.

The previous post by AmyO is an all out personal attack on Tbag assuming her stereotype of him. I have no clue who he is but I'm willing to bet he's not what AmyO has implied him to be. Tbag only mentioned a homeless guy, it was AmyO that noticed that the homeless guy was a possible thief, stinky, alcoholic and stupid. And of course, she assumed that Tbag be would be judgemental, mean-spirited, uncaring, and cheap.

Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on June 18, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Right, Carl, but suggesting that someone and their wife are "cousins" is not an "attack" at all is it? Give me a break. If Tbag can throw out the zingers as he obviously loves to do in his posts, I think he can probably handle it if others do the same. Also, I personally find that making claims like Senator Obama "doesn't belong up there" and referring to Senator Obama as "Curious George" (i.e. a monkey) particularly offensive. Call it "mean-spirited," call it "judgmental," call it whatever you want, but I think it says a lot about the kind of person this "Tbag" really is.

BTW, Tbag, I aced logic when I took it.

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 18, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, Amy O:

Let's see, who was the other close candidate? Oh that's right, Hillaryarious. Missing law files from Rose Law Firm, FBI files on her desk that went missing, out and out lied to Tim Russert about running for president, staying with the proven "cheater" who found several other women preferable to the "H" and, and....

Rest assurred I deeply resent these types of people running for president against a loyal Senator who served his country as a POW for 5 years.

Jokes about marring cousins in West Virginia e.g. go back to the days when I was kicking the slats out of my crib. I, for one, find it appropriate in those instances to call a spade a spade when someone says something as stupid as republicans make up the uneducated and ignorant political base for their party.

Let's look again at your heros: Bill "I did not have sex with that woman!" Clinton. Al Franken who jokes about rape - that's really a hoot - what a comedic mind, perfect for the senate.

I suggest you read some Ann Coulter; "Godless - the church of liberalism." "Dutch" by Edward Morris, and for comic relief: Arianna Huffington, "Fanatics and Fools." Oh, and a don't miss: "100 People who are Screwing up America" by Bernard Goldberg

And how about the books about Abraham Lincoln who was a member of the GOP - in case you forgot, he freed the slaves and changed the atmosphere of an early America then and forever at the risk of thousands of lives fighting the civil war and the division of North and South forever, but he felt it was "the right thing to do."
You question my character. I can handle it. My skin is thicker than you might imagine, and I suspect that continuing an argument with someone with probably at best a room temperature I.Q. is unproductive at best.

I'm a U.S.Army veteran of the Viet Nam era. I served my country and received an Honorable Discharge. I owned my own company for 25 years and paid my employees fair wages. I fight back the tears every time this fine city raises (currently 1,415) American flags on special occasions and respect their knowledge of the rule to take them down late afternoon unless they can remain lit.

In 2000 I served as a juror on a two month 1st degree murder trial; proudly. (The criminal got life without parole for kidnapping and killing a young convenience store clerk from Moose Lake, MN and was the first conviction of 1st degree murder without a body in the history of Minnesota.

I have been married to the same wonderful wife for over 38 years; we had three children who have since given us six grandchildren. You question my character???

This forum can be fun and interesting if we don't take ourselves too seriously and respect each other's opinions.

Thanks to "Carl" for pointing out your inaccurate conclusions.

Posted by Mel (anonymous) on June 18, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This has been a hoot, Carl, you and Tbag must have a darn good IQ.
The religion of liberalism is not a good thing. Do not let the dems take the place of God. Never again have a 'Wellstone memorial' like the one we witnessed.

Posted by Carl (anonymous) on June 19, 2008 at 12:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, don't let the Dems religion take the place of government. Then we're dead. We could end up like a Jew in WW2. If Hitler would not have been able to establish his religion in the government, he would not have been able to do what he did.

Oh yeah, when I talk about the Democratic platform, I'm not I'm not talking about the one that they have posted on their website. A conservative would agree with most of that. I'm talking about the socialist progressive laws and regulations that head towards a totalitarian government that they attempt to impose on us.

Once again, they can exercise their religion among themselves all they want, I'm okay with that, just don't impose it on me. I don't want it. All I want is my freedom, liberty from an controlling intrusive government, and free will. None of that exists in a totalitarian government.

Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on June 19, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, for someone who claims to have thick skin it sure is easy to get under it, isn't it?

Please tell us, Tbag, (since you are apparently revealing the inner workings of your "character") why is it that Senator Barack Obama "doesn't belong" where he is?

Posted by sametoyou (anonymous) on June 19, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Be carefull. If Norm doesn't get re-elected, he'll get mad and leave for another state, change to whatever party he can get elected for something, and we'll have to make due without him.

Posted by Carl (anonymous) on June 19, 2008 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Carl said: "Also, I notice in posts on this site by democrats always mentions or alludes to their belief that people who disagree with them are mean-spirited, uncaring, uneducated, judgemental, selfish and even stinky. They always assume the worst in people and they mention those stereotypes to justify their excuse to empower the government.
The previous post by AmyO is an all out personal attack on Tbag assuming her stereotype of him. I have no clue who he is but I'm willing to bet he's not what AmyO has implied him to be. Tbag only mentioned a homeless guy, it was AmyO that noticed that the homeless guy was a possible thief, stinky, alcoholic and stupid. And of course, she assumed that Tbag be would be judgemental, mean-spirited, uncaring, and cheap."

AmyO said: "Right, Carl, but suggesting that someone and their wife are "cousins" is not an "attack" at all is it? Give me a break. If Tbag can throw out the zingers as he obviously loves to do in his posts, I think he can probably handle it if others do the same."

I stand by my above statement and believe I'm right. Zingers aren't supposed to be taken seriously and shouldn't be used in stories of logic. If they are the conclusion must not be taken seriously neither. There weren't any zingers or attacks in Tbags logic story, only before it. Since your response contains zingers the conclusion of "Welcome back Catherine" can't be taken seriously. Since Tbags story didn't contain any zingers, yours mustn't neither. So in order for your conclusion of "Welcome back Catherine" to be taken seriously, you have to try again. This time no zingers or personal attacks. And you can't prove my above statement right neither.

I am uneducated and ignorant. You aced logic. Should be a piece of cake.

Tbag, mel and I are all ears.

Posted by Woodtick (anonymous) on June 20, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tbag, mel, Carl - you guys rock!

Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on June 20, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, Carl, I think you've proven yourself partially correct by your brilliant use of the word "neither."

As to the rest of your post, the interesting thing about formal logic is that if you set up "rules" for the equation (such as A = B, and B = C, therefore A = C) you must be able to actually prove that A = B and B = C. Do you follow me so far? So I were to say, "My car is a Buick. All Buicks have tires. Therefore, my car has tires." In order for this equation to actually be true, and probably be used in our discussion, we would both need to agree on the merits of the rules initially set up. For example, is it true that all Buicks have tires? Well, no. There are probably plenty of Buicks sitting in junk yards or in people's back yards that don't actually have tires on them. So, perhaps my car is sitting in my back yard up on bricks without any tires. In cases like these the logical equation, though on it's face seems sounds, the rules themselves are quite debatable. In these case, "If, then" rules are the appropriate way to go. For example, "My car is a Buick. If all Buicks have tires, then my car has tires." Such is the case with the situation you just set up. Let's take a look, "Zingers aren't supposed to be taken seriously and shouldn't be used in stories of logic. If they are the conclusion must not be taken seriously neither." This, in itself is a pretty debatable point, don't you think. Consequently I think it would be more appropriately set up as follows...

1. If zingers aren't supposed to be taken seriously, then they shouldn't be used in stories of logic.
2. If zingers shouldn't be used in stories of logic and they are used in stories of logic, then their conclusions must not be taken seriously "either."
3. Therefore, if zingers aren't supposed to be taken seriously and they are used in logic stories, then the conclusions of those logic stories can't be taken seriously.

Do you see the relationship between these statements? Would you like to debate the merits of them? Let's take a look at the first part, "zingers aren't supposed to be taken seriously." Sure, I'd agree with that. However, just because zingers aren't supposed to be taken seriously doesn't mean that they are categorically disqualified from being used in a logical equation. Right? For example,

1. AmyO is a moron. (that's a zinger, right?)
2. If AmyO is a moron, then she has no idea what she's talking about.
3. Therefore, AmyO has no idea what she's talking about.

If we both agree that AmyO is a moron and that morons have no idea what they are talking about, even though this logic equation contains a "zinger" it would seem perfectly valid and appropriate to use it in our discussion. Don't you think?

Please let me know where you see my line of reasoning going astray. I'm all ears. ; )

Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on June 20, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, Carl, I believe it would be appropriate to point out that "logic stories" that contain "zingers" where the "zinger" is debatable, but isn't an essential part of the equation are also completely valid in my opinion. For example,

1. All cars are green. (hypothetically let's just say they are)
2. AmyO is a moron.
3. Therefore, my car is green.

Even if you and I disagree on rule #2, if we agree on rule #1, the conclusion can still be taken seriously or is "true." Right? So, even though this "logic story" contains a zinger and the zinger might not be meant to be taken seriously, the conclusion must still be acknowledged as truth or "taken seriously" if we agree on the truth of rule #1.

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 20, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To Amy O: I promise I won't call you a "moron" in this forum, but you do make me wonder.

Do you really think you got "under my skin?" Please explain why - did I miss something?

You ask me why Obama does not belong in the White House. You will find a slew of answers at www.obamatruth.org. The newspaper would need to level a forest to furnish enough paper to accomodate my repeating all of the ammunition you'll find there, if you have the intestinal fortitude to explore the site.

Do a search on "why does Americans feel Obama is a racist?"

After you complete your search, ask me again why Obama does not belong in the White House. Do your homework before you decide to go to battle with someone who has!

By the way, your drivel about logic should qualify you for "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?"

John McCain has proven his character and paid his dues, not only as as Viet Nam POW, but as reflected by his service in the Senate - a bit more than one term....

All my best; hope you can learn something. Seriously. I have no reason to hate or otherwise disrespect you, but I CAN disrespect your opinions, especially thte wrong ones- which seems to be a recurring theme....

Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on June 20, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ha! I love it! You guys are a riot! "I promise I won't call you a moron, but you might be just smarter than a 5th Grader." Also, Tbag, you didn't say that Obama doesn't belong "in the White House." You said that Obama "doesn't belong "where he is." When you said Obama is a "post turtle" and that "he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there..." you are inferring that Senator Obama already is in a position that he doesn't belong in... "he didn't GET up there by himself..." "he DOESN'T know what to do while he IS up there" Well, Barack Obama IS currently a Senator from the state of Illinois and is the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee. Why does he not "belong" in this position? And let me clarify, I'm not asking you why he doesn't meet your personal standards for a Senator or a Presidential nominee, I'm asking you why he doesn't "belong" as the presidential nominee. There is a big difference between the two. One is a measure of qualification while the other is an absolute quality.

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 20, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tbag's story above on June 18, 2008 at 7:35 a.m., describes a Republican very well: someone who is responsible for creating a mess, expects the president to clean it up (except in the real world it's cleaned up with taxpayers dollars termed a 'superfund') and then he washes his hands of it all. Later, having enjoyed the best years of his doggies life, he probably has it put down so as not to be bothered by its 'old age' problems (analogous to what happens when faithful employees near retirement age - they're fired).

The 12 years leading up to 'The Great Depression' of the 30's were all Republican presidents at the helm. It took a Democrat, FDR, and his New Deal to put us back on course and get things back to normal for everyone then.

And what has Bush, the latest corporate/Republican POTUS, left for the next Democrat POTUS to clean up? How much will that cost all of us . . . and generations to come?

When Reagan was POTUS he created Reaganomics, aka: supply-side economics and Trickle-Down Theory economics. It was the first time the Republicans reared there ugly heads in public and overtly showed that their agenda, point blank, was to favor the rich over the majorty of people in America. It was suddenly a time of 'government for the rich, by the rich' instead of 'government by the people, for the people'. He also repealed the 'Fairness Doctrine' that required the media to report 'fair and balanced' facts. Since then the media's gone purely corporate and truth is the casualty in favor of what pads the shareholders' bottom lines.

You Republicans claim the laissez faire system, without government interference, is the best way to go. So explain how great this gas crisis is . . . and the subprime fiasco. Without government oversight the crooks would reign supreme.

As for religion in politics - it's the Republicans that capitalize on that. How many of Haggard's Whores put Bush over the top? You remember him, he was the most prominent of evangelical Christian leaders in the U.S. with a church of many tens of thousands. He and Bush were tight. They had weekly telephone conferences where they likely discussed the state of the moron-majority and affirmed that they were all still on board with support for a bogus agenda they perpetrated against this nation under the pretense of God's glorious work. What a hoot, they must have laughed for hours-on-end over that one. Probably Bush does, anyway.

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 20, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Amy, Amy, Amy: you didn't do your homework assignment now, did you. You are 100% correct in stating my position as against Obama being a Senator OR a Presidential candidate.
The web site I gave you will dispell your confusion. SO READ IT.

A high school debate team would eat you for an afternoon snack - you have yet to offer why Obama does qualify for either position, but I've given you more than plenty to research and chew on.

And to edrule3:you presumptive jerk: Your remarks about putting down my elderly dog were correct - not for my benefit, but for his. What kind of person would kill a family member (for all practical purposes) for the sake of convenience. Just last year I had to have my loyal friend put down - for his sake. He was getting just too old and the cancer and difficulty in walking convinced us it was the right thing to do. The humane thing. Who the H*** are you to judge me from the position of pure ignorance. That was a personal attack and was not only uncalled for, but waaaaaay out of line.

The "New Deal" - ya, a chicken in every pot right? How about you lazy liberals work for a living instead of sponging off those who do. Here's a thought: A. Lincoln said better to remain quiet and thought an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Thank for showing us all the real you.

That's one the biggest troubles of a liberal - you have a mind set and regardless of evedence to prove your position to be in the wrong, you just can't let go. Afraid the GOP would cut off your food stamps?

Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on June 20, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, your skin is getting thinner by the post, T. LOL!

"you have yet to offer why Obama does qualify for either position" - Really? Okay, how about this, he qualifies to be a senator because he is at least 30 years old, he had been a U.S. citizen for at least nine years at the time of his election to the Senate, and he is a resident of the state he was elected to represent. He qualifies to be a Presidential Nominee because he has accumulated more than the 2118 delegates required to be the Democratic Presidential Nominee.

You however, though you claim to be knowledgeable of "debates" and what it takes to win them, seem to continually attempt to shift the scope of this one. I'll ask you one last time and then I'm done... Why is it you believe Senator Obama does not BELONG in the position he is in? I am not asking you why you believe he is not SUFFICIENTLY QUALIFIED to be a senator or a presidential nominee. I am asking you why you think he is has less of a right to represent the people of his state than anyone else in it?

Have a good one, fellas! It's been a blast being call an idiot by the likes of you two who can't spell or use proper grammar. LOL!

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 20, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If we had good government they'd focus on policies that provide good jobs for everyone - possibly in the alternative energy sector. BTW T, I referred to the Catherine analogy you made and had no idea you even had a dog, let alone killed it, you twit! And since there was no rebuttal on the rest of my post I must be right-on with all that as well. But your suppositions that I'm a liberal and etc. is way off. I may be a liberal on some issues though. And since your dog's been gone for a while now - don't you think it's about time you did something about the mess in your backyard?

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 20, 2008 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

O.K. He has the legal right according to the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

Your ignorance and your terminal recalcitrance to explore the web site I gave you, TWICE, indicates your reluctance to admit you might, be misguided.

I guess I finally understand your question - why do I think he doesn't qualify for the races and positions? Because uneducated people like you buy into his B.S. and the arrogance of his wife, just like you did in high school popularity contests based on everything BUT knowledge and experience.Just popularity contests. Well, homecoming king and queen didn't have a chance of protecting us against Iran developing a nuclear bomb capability and all the other possible threats against our country.

You want to be a whiner "save the whales" type? Please do so, but not in this forum.

As regards the difference between qualifications and quality, for the LAST time, read the information in the sites I gave you: A typical Liberal trait: cover your ears and chant "la la la la la la la la la etc to drown out any reference to the truth.

Oh, and you can accuse me of being one who can't spell or use proper grammer; maybe I don't waste a lot ot time proofing these posts, but for what it's worth, I'm already a published author of a feature article in a world-wide professional journal.

So some day when you graduate grammer school, lets continue this conversation - assuming you liberals haven't destroyed the free press.

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 20, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Isreal's got nukes. They're evicting Palestinians from their homes at astronomical rates. They beat them, kill them, build walls separating them from their grazing lands and potable water supplies, etc. etc. Then they build illegal (according to the U.N. and international laws) settlements on the stolen land. They claim, "God gave this land to me". How utterly conveinient. They have recently sent out over 500 eviction notices to Palestinians in Gaza. Many of these people's ancestry go back thousands of years on that property. The Jews intend to build resorts as the recent evictions are for properties along the coastline. Iran and the rest of that region are just waiting for the day the Jews arrive at their doorsteps with their tanks. Can you blame them for wanting to protect what's rightfully theirs? You can see one example of Jewish settlers here, watch "The Hilltop People", chapter 1 at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...

This is pretty old stuff. Since the airing of this, the Isreali Prime Minister, Yitzak Rabin, whom ordered the bulldozing of the illegal settlements, was murdered by Zionist Jews. He was a good man. Today these settlements are being built at a fevered pitch. If you don't have DishNetwork then you're not getting the world news from reliable sources. Remember: religion is a business - always has been from the start in antiquity.

Speaking of ancestry Tbag, andtongs, Norse, otterfan, Carl, Mel, Woodtick, notadrone, Wes, Luke Friedrich, Austin Culp, thethinker, 89Heritage, etc. etc., do you know your's?

The Roman Empire, once the Jews managed to find their way into it via the Christian movement, imposed a reign of terror on all of Europe so immensly horrifying that those who survived had no other choice than to convert and begin raising their young to 'believe' the lies. In the proccess, everyone's heritage was abolished and a surrogate heritage was imposed upon them . . . in the form of "The Bible", a heritage belonging to the Jews. Think about it - they call the rise of Christianity in Europe 'The Dark Ages' for a reason. If you can't recollect anything about the heritage of your ancestry from Europe, if no stories of your true past exist from times beyond a few hundred years, and instead you tremble at the thought of the power of the 'Holy Bible', then likely you are the resultant epitome of the affections of the ruthless scourge that pervaded Europe for many centuries upon your own ancestors, waged by the rich and power-seeking elitists whose offspring today bask in your ignorance as they glow in their own pride of heritage and wealth. (continued)

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 20, 2008 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Are you one of the multitudes of Americans whose true ancestry, your true heritage is lost forever? Well now you know - you've learned something new today. So quit dishonoring your ancestors by succumbing to the lies that destroyed their world, their culture, their lives. We don't have to live that lie that was forced on our ancestors thousands of years ago under threat of death by the most heinous means perpetrated by the church. We are Americans.

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 20, 2008 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BTW - Many thousands of Palestinians, now in refugee camps, are Christians.

Posted by Carl (anonymous) on June 20, 2008 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, AmyO, your right, the conclusion can be true even with zingers.

I made this statement, "I notice in posts on this site by democrats always mentions or alludes to their belief that people who disagree with them are mean-spirited, uncaring, uneducated, judgemental, selfish and even stinky. They always assume the worst in people and they mention those stereotypes to justify their excuse to empower the government.
The previous post by AmyO is an all out personal attack on Tbag assuming her stereotype of him. I have no clue who he is but I'm willing to bet he's not what AmyO has implied him to be. Tbag only mentioned a homeless guy, it was AmyO that noticed that the homeless guy was a possible thief, stinky, alcoholic and stupid. And of course, she assumed that Tbag be would be judgemental, mean-spirited, uncaring, and cheap."

You proved me right.

Posted by Carl (anonymous) on June 20, 2008 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just wanted to see if you could do it without using the negative stereotypes you have of people.
You can't.

Posted by Carl (anonymous) on June 21, 2008 at 12:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"And you can't prove my above statement right neither."

"Well, Carl, I think you've proven yourself partially correct by your brilliant use of the word "neither."

You better not say that you "forgot" you weren't supposed to prove me right.

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 21, 2008 at 5:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To: edrule3
Israel is the correct spelling by the way. And I could care less about you're being anti-semite; you've lost track of the conversation and are way off topic.

Please clear this up - am I a "twit" for not paying homage to your rage? Or am I a "twit" for giving my ailing dog a peaceful end in lieu of the inevitable - dying a long and slow miserable death?

You're welcome to come and clean up my back yard - sounds like the epicurian experience would fit right in with the rest of your diet.

We can argue all day and all night whether "W" did the right thing or not, and we can kep re-hashing history from thousands of years ago, what a waste of time.

The current issue at hand is what do we do now with Iraq, Iran and others who chant "death to the Americans?" Oh wait, I already guessed your answer oh wise one, sit them down with a nice cup of Arabian coffee and teach them some middle east history. Bring in Cliff Klaven as an expert on the subject - you two seem to share a lot in common.

Back to where this all started - Al Franken is the poorest imaginable choice for MN Senator, and your racist buddy Obama is the poorest choice for President. Period.

It just occurred to me - you're one of those guys in the Geico cavemen ads aren't you?

Why did we ever do away with "shock treatment?"

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 21, 2008 at 6:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Executive Editor
Published: Saturday, June 14, 2008 9:55 PM CDT
Al Franken won at the DFL State Convention last week.

despite the “Saturday Night Live” comedian’s history of some raunchy, perverted and really nauseating attempts at satire — with women the target — in writings, on television and on radio. He did so in a “Playboy” article; he did so on “SNL;” and he did so on “Air America.” And he didn’t go for the cheap laughs and shock value just using the most basest of comedy’s common denominators — sex. He did so trying to make a funny out of the ugly violent crime of rape against women.

But rape? There is absolutely zero, nada, nothing funny about such a horrific act.

And we can sleep well knowing that if Franken is elected and is one of two U.S. senators from Minnesota in that select government chamber of only 100 he won’t take to the podium and do one of his old offensive skits.

But why did it take so long — last Saturday, the day of the Senate endorsement — for Franken to finally publicly apologize for the jokes and comments and writings that so degraded women? Because he was forced to do so by Democrats of high character such as U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum and U.S. Rep. James Oberstar. And also because he realized he could lose the endorsement. As such, it then became the most insincere of apologies.

Look, Franken is a satirist and proud of it. And he should be. He’s worked his craft well and it’s built him a good life. And, on stage, in writings and one-on-one he can be a very funny man.

But he’s not running for Minnesota’s “Jester Laureate.” He wants to serve the state in the U.S. Senate and defeat Republican Sen. Norm Coleman.

That means big issues and clear stands on those issues will be most important in the election as voters make their choice — as they should be. However, just as Coleman’s political record of votes and history of changing political parties will be an issue, so too will be Franken’s positions on issues and his comedic record of jokes, which includes far too many that debased women. For both the current U.S. senator and the U.S. senator wannabe that just comes with the territory.

But regardless the outcome of the November election, the DFL Feminist Caucus will not be a winner, even if its candidate is successful. A no-endorsement would have been more meaningful and honest and would have sent the right message to everyone from the group that should have been a much better watchdog for women on how they are portrayed.

Posted by Carl (anonymous) on June 21, 2008 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"1. AmyO is a moron. (that's a zinger, right?)
2. If AmyO is a moron, then she has no idea what she's talking about.
3. Therefore, AmyO has no idea what she's talking about.

If we both agree that AmyO is a moron and that morons have no idea what they are talking about, even though this logic equation contains a "zinger" it would seem perfectly valid and appropriate to use it in our discussion.

Also, Carl, I believe it would be appropriate to point out that "logic stories" that contain "zingers" where the "zinger" is debatable, but isn't an essential part of the equation are also completely valid in my opinion. For example,

1. All cars are green. (hypothetically let's just say they are)
2. AmyO is a moron.
3. Therefore, my car is green.

Even if you and I disagree on rule #2, if we agree on rule #1, the conclusion can still be taken seriously or is "true." Right? So, even though this "logic story" contains a zinger and the zinger might not be meant to be taken seriously, the conclusion must still be acknowledged as truth or "taken seriously" if we agree on the truth of rule #1."

Well, Amy, you win, I give up. Using your rules of logic we have all reached the same conclusion.

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 21, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tbag, you're a twit because your posts have no substance and you're irritating. I'm not an anti-semite. I am an anti-illegal-zionism patriot of the United States who's pointing out that Iran hates us because you morons back the illegal zionism taking place in the Middle East (BTW - you're the one who brought Iran into the conversation). It is especially irritating that you choose to use the demonizing tactic of calling me an "anti-semite", which is typical of the republican 'twit' agenda. It's a knee-jerk reaction. You've been conditioned to react that way. You are a real simpleton - in a complex world you narrow everything down to the simple binary dualism of: it's either good or evil.

It should be of grave concern to all of us that the Palestinians are losing their homeland at an alarming rate. This insanity is sure to spread beyond Palestine. The zionists have infiltrated our government and intend to use the U.S. as their personal muscle to support their illegal hegemony:

http://ftp.youtube.com/watch?v=DwpO-NAJP...

http://ftp.youtube.com/watch?v=ERX8WpM_c...

Both Fraken and Coleman are Jews, but I'm pretty sure Al isn't a zionist. I don't know about Normie though. Bush is surely a zionist. He's pledged our nuclear arsenal to their illegal cause. He calls Israel a democracy. What a joke. A democracy is what we have here in the U.S. where all people have representation. There, only Jews have representation. A true American patriot would advocate everyone worldwide be afforded what our constitution affords us, and nothing less.

One has to wonder about W's true roots as well. Apparently, an ancestor of the Bush bloodline was a professor at Harvard. His name: George Bush. He wrote a book in 1844, "The Valley of The Visions", wherein he advocated the U.S. help restore the Jews to a Palestinian homeland - a movement coined 'Restoration':

http://aipac.org/Publications/SpeechesBy...

So pull your head out and get it straight, Tbag, the U.S. is getting deeper and deeper into this zionist thing and if we don't all wise up soon we'll be sending our sons and daughters to die for their illegal cause . . . oh but wait, is it possible that is what's going on now in Iraq, to some extent? I don't think you'll find a zionist in the world who is against what we're doing there. Watch out for incidents that escalate the situation in the near future. We'll probably have one of our ships hit in the Strait of Hormuz, or some such instigation and it'll likely be a 'false flag' one.

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 21, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To: edrule3
Zi·on·ism Audio Help (zī'ə-nĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.
Couple of key words in this definition: "growing anti-Semitism; reestablish a Jewish homeland."

Twit: twit Audio Help (twĭt) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. twit·ted, twit·ting, twits
To taunt, ridicule, or tease, especially for embarrassing mistakes or faults. So thanks for the compliment; awfully nice of you to offer an actual compliment in the middle of your diatribe.

"Iran hates us because you morons back the illegal zionism taking place in the Middle East" (According to you.)

"your posts have no substance and you're irritating." Best stated by Col. Jessup in "A few good Men": to wit: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!'

Although tempting to just call you an a** hole and ignore any more of your drivel, I think I'll say a little prayer and ask that if it's not already too late, you don't reproduce more of your kind. What is your drug of choice anyway?

By the way idiot, Israel has been an important ally in that part of the world with whom we have a long standing promise to assist in their survival. Your hero at the helm in Iran has indicated his sincere desire to "nuke" the Jewish homeland off the face of the planet. You accuse me of seeing things only in black and white? Well oh ye who has chosen blinders to that with what you disagree will have to tell us where exactly is the grey area in Iran's agenda?

I owe you a compliment in return for what you've given me: You are truly not without worth - you can be held up as the epitome of a bad example.

All my best....

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 21, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow! You remind me of another twit who used to post here, Brian Brovold, aka: tuffgooey2000. This twit had the audasity to pompously extoll himself as some kind of hero then suddenly had all his posts removed by the staff at the DJ and we didn't hear from him until he decided one day to teach everyone in an opinion article about proper online etiquette. That you, moron?

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 21, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the history lesson ed. I understand your need to fantasize so I'll be anyone or anything your little warped mind desires.

(Audacity is the correct spelling.)

I, for one, will leave it up to the other interested readers (both of them) to decide for themselves who the pompous a** is here.

Again, all my best....

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 21, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wrong tird! C'mon secretary Tbag, spellcheck that. I post on several major papers' comment sections and get plenty of replies. More do than don't appreciate the alternate world view offered in my posts. . . especially the younger generations of true Americans who've not been caught in the trap of tradition that your ancestry has obviously passed on to you. Jump on the zionist's bandwagon fool. Help them pervade the world with their agenda and when it's time, they'll repay you with your ticket to meet your maker, as they do all gentiles, aka 'the goyim'. Unless of course, it was your ancestors that were the victimizers during the Dark Ages (BTW - I meant to write hundreds of years, not thousands in my 9:52pm post). That would explain a lot. But, having read your crap I'm sure you're just a product of the tradition, the lie . You're the one who can't handle the truth. OPIATES!!!

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 21, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Question ed ol'buddy: Is your head wrapped in a diaper and your daily garb is a robe? The answer might help me understand what the he** is wrong with you.

As always, my best to you and yours - if you have any "yours".

Sure am glad the taxpayers bought computers and internet access for the assylums.

As to you're responses to your posts in "several newspapers, I guess more people like watching Jay Len9o than don't. I suggest your logic is a bit flawed.

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 21, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No rebuttals to anything I've conveyed, just zingers. Guess that's all you're capable of. Viet-nam era vet, huh? For an old fart you sure are immature. Do your kids think you're a childish twit, too? Have you ever thought about attacking the content of my posts? Well mediocre-man, I sincerely doubt you've had the depth of college level coursework required to do that. So, if you can't then you offer nothing and I'll get back to the real world. What a shame, I got all that edecashun from my liberal GI Bill and you're unable to compete up here at this level. You just keep on living in your make-believe world. Typical neo-con, led like a cow by his nose-ring by Halfwitty and Limpbone-types because you never learned to think for yourself outside the box they've put your little mind in. LOL

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 22, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To:edrule3:

I've put up with your libel long enough. Looking back you've called me (6/20) a person who "killed" my dog because of old age inconvenience. That dog happened to be my own "man's best friend" and your idiotic drivel was the 1st personal attack on me with NO knowledge of who I am and what I stand for. Humanely putting an ailing animal out of his misery is the right thing to do - I guess you can't grasp the concept tho.

6/20: called me a "twit". You're displaying your level of maturity in full color.

6/20: "If you don't have Dish Network" blah blah blah like they are the see all and know all broadcast outlet in this country. What's your favorite, Gilligan's Island re-runs or the cartoon networks? (End of part 1)

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 22, 2008 at 9:01 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 22, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Word

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 22, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To the readers of this comment section (Pbag notwithstanding):

I hereby declare victory according to the conventions of general debate as it has been nearly ten hours and the thin-skinned, boo-hoo, cry-baby-man has not posted a thing in response to my last post in which I got the final "WORD" in. According to convention the one with the final word is generally considered the VICTOR!!!!

Posted by Carl (anonymous) on June 22, 2008 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Everything I've thought of the socialists have been confirmed.

Posted by Carl (anonymous) on June 22, 2008 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I win.

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 22, 2008 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You confuse socialism with democracy.

Posted by Carl (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 12:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nope, socialists impose their religion by trying to create a majority or the illusion of one by telling the people how awful and rotten everyone and everything is. They expect and assume the worst in people. Anyone who doesn't agree with or follow them are mean-spirited, evil, uncaring, hypocritical, ungodly, and must be silenced.

Posted by Woodtick (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

edrule3 - my vote for the victor of the back and forth banter is tbag - hands down. Declaring YOURSELF the victor doesn't quite cut it. At least tbag had some substance to his posts and not just hyperbole. In case you didn't bother to read tbag's last post, he told you he was through dealing with you. Good riddance to you.

Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow. Okay, now you guys are taking this place WAAAAYYYYY too seriously. And it makes it incredibly "un-fun." Tbag: do you realize you're calling people an "A-hole," saying that they live in an asylum, that they would "fit right in as" a nazi, etc. (and that's just in a couple of your recent posts) while at the same time admonishing another for their "repeated personal attacks." Do you not see the contradiction? edrule: I agree with Woodtick in that "declaring yourself the victor doesn't quite cut it. Remember "Mission Accomplished?" Yeah, that worked out real well didn't it?

Everyone needs to lighten up and talk about something substantial instead of each other. After all, for all you know, everyone else on here is the same person... Hmmm?

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Woodtick - thanks for the thumbs up.

AmyO: please review the posts primarily between the "clown" and myself over the past few days. I will admit I may have made an ocasional faux pas however, in reply to the venom he was constantly spewing I believe I was overall pretty civil under the circumstances. You may recall, this back and forth started with him saying that I killed my dog to avoid the extra care in his old age, and went down hill from there: e.g. "moron", "mediocre man", "half wit" and on and on.

The last straw (as I said), was when he brought my relationship with my children into the fray: that was way out of line and totally uncalled for.

You and I had our disagreement, but I think we treated each other with a degree of respect and I offer my thanks to you as well.

For what it's worth, "Willie", a springer/lab mix was one of the best dogs we've ever had and it truly hurt both my wife and I very deeply to make conditions the best we could to help him "go quietly into the dark night."

I'm sorry you had to be privy to this nastiness and I would otherwise apologize for some of what I've said except for one fact: constant name calling, character attacks, insults with regard for my service to this country and the like, and finally insulting my relationship with my children as to how they view their father was over the top. Sorry, I had had enough. In the end, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, I think we'd all agree it's a duck and should be identified as such: please replace the noun "duck" with whatever you deem appropriate.

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Word!

Posted by Carl (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Word!

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 24, 2008 at 4:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This will have to be my final post regarding Tbag. I want to clarify that Tbag is the one who attacks everyone and then sanctimoniuosly claims to be the victim when a counter-zinger comes back at him. Poor Tbag. My first post in the comments section to this article was posted on June 20 at 1:09 p.m. the following is that post:

[Tbag's story above on June 18, 2008 at 7:35 a.m., describes a Republican very well: someone who is responsible for creating a mess, expects the president to clean it up (except in the real world it's cleaned up with taxpayers dollars termed a 'superfund') and then he washes his hands of it all. Later, having enjoyed the best years of his doggies life, he probably has it put down so as not to be bothered by its 'old age' problems (analogous to what happens when faithful employees near retirement age - they're fired).]

If anyone can show me how I made claims that 'HE' killed his dog in that first post, then please enlighten me. My post was a simple analogy of how wealthy Republicans operate in the business sector. It was designed to typify their willingness to externalize the costs of cleaning up their messes by placing the burden on the public sector. I don't know Tbag and did not know anything about his dog or that he even had one. Tbag has pulled a typical Limpbone (Rush Limbaugh) and Halfwitty (Sean Hannity) stunt here by crying foul and then demonizing me as a heartless and cruel person. . . a red herring tactic designed to avoid focussing on real issues. He had no rebuttal for anything substantial that I conveyed in my post. He simply made this all about how poor little Tbag got wronged. BOO-HOO!! His follow-up post on June 20 at 4:03 p.m. is thus:

[And to edrule3:you presumptive jerk: Your remarks about putting down my elderly dog were correct - not for my benefit, but for his. What kind of person would kill a family member (for all practical purposes) for the sake of convenience. Just last year I had to have my loyal friend put down - for his sake. He was getting just too old and the cancer and difficulty in walking convinced us it was the right thing to do. The humane thing. Who the H*** are you to judge me from the position of pure ignorance. That was a personal attack and was not only uncalled for, but waaaaaay out of line.]

As you can see, it was Tbag who made the first 'personal' assault by calling me a "presumptive jerk". (Continued)

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 24, 2008 at 4:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Amazingly, Tbag has had the gall to make lewd accusations against MGD and his family (claiming inbreeding), racist remarks regarding the Democrat POTUS-to-be (calling him Curious George - a monkey) and bashing the whole Democrat party in general, just to name a few of his outright abrasive and hypocritical comments posted here. He claims in one of his posts that he is not "thin-skinned" as if he is tough enough to handle the zingers and cries like a two-year-old for being called a 'twit' and asking if his kids see him in that light, as well (seems there is a raw nerve there, huh?). He chomps at the bit to slip into the record what a great military hero he is, complete with all his medals - all the while boo-hooing about Ed the evil one who called him names. What a hypocrit. I wonder if the guys from his unit are watching him deteriorate like this. Hell, I've got to wonder if he even served now. Anyone can make grandiose claims about themselves when they post anonymously.

He says he's voting for McCain because he 'served' and was a POW for five years. Kerry served even more honorably. So, by that qualification, did Tbag vote for Kerry in that election . . . or the malingering Bush? And if Bush - why? McCain's record reflects some thirty-odd incidents of collaborating with his captors and later tried to keep the U.S. from resurrecting the search for MIAs and POWs in Nam. Many authorities question his motives for that. What was he trying to hide? Kerry's only problem was that he openly told the truth in a senate investigative hearing regarding real atrocities that were going on over there . . . not something the general public likes - the truth about war. It's much more pleasant to believe we're pureists and so we invent a new truth when the real one doesn't serve us. Like with all the evidence of the rise of Christianity being terror-based. Some people will deny the scholars and the Vaticans own records of that truth rather than suck it up and step into the real world.

I could go all night analyzing the short-comings of Tbag, but for what. Everything I've said here is common knowledge to the astute readers already, and it's they whom I would rather have discussions with. All-in-all, Tbag has added no intelligent substance to this discussion worthy of note. And yet, he has a following, what's up with that, Carl? Word!

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 24, 2008 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
Cyrus Ching

(But I forgot for a while.)

Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on June 24, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just curious, how old are you guys?

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 24, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm retired.

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 24, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LMAO . . .Word!

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 24, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well AmyO, I hope you know what that means - it must be a generational thing. The closest I can imagine is "axe me about ebonics...."

Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on June 25, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe it just means that he's trying to get the last "Word." And LMAO, means "laugh my butt off." I can only assume he is laughing because he thought about the question that I asked and is realizing how old he actually is and how old you are and how old Carl probably is and how you are all acting like 3 year olds.

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 25, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I didn't get into this discussion to be the "victor". Nor did I seek the personal attacks I've already pointed out the self proclaimed anti-semite chose to throw my way. I have no reason to have the "last word." That need is more in line for someone with an ego a bit to large for his dunce cap, and, with the attitude displayed herein. Growing to be a mature adult requires knowing that name calling will prevent that growth from happening.

I also have no problem with defending my character.

So AmyO, I'm sorry you feel this way andd I truly do wish you the best. I'm surprised you took (apparently) no offense to his LMAO remark in response to your question about age.

It's been said the character is who you are when alone in the dark. Guess it shows in how you treat others in the light of day as well. And I have a hard time understanding where lies the humor (read sarcasm) directed your way in response to an honest question. I knew it was going to result in the "trip to the woodshed" you gave us; regardless in spite of the response I believe an honest question deserves an honest answer.

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is not a vegetable but a fruit.

Wisdom is knowing you don't add it to a fruit salad.

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 26, 2008 at 1:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

WTF?!? Is he drunk at 1 in the afternoon? This time I'm ROTFLMAO! . . . Word!

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 26, 2008 at 6:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Know what? If someone with half a brain and a tiny bit of proof he was not raised by wolves, I might give serious consideration to his/her opinion. In the meantime, take off the panties and give them back to the little girl you took them from.

You have my sympathy - must be a hard life knowing the best qualities in a human being ran down your dad's leg. At least I can be happy you are rolling where you best fit in - how are the cockroaches doing today anyway? Are they getting fat and sassy off your leaking brain cells?

Isn't 1 AM way past your bed time. A better diet and more sleep might help your situation - you could learn to talk out of your mouth for a change. (Let me know if you don't understand the implication of that last statement - I'll try to make it in terms you can grasp - I'm used to talking with adults who don't display a need to have their mouths washed out with soap....

Posted by Tbag (anonymous) on June 26, 2008 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh by the way - I forgot to ask: Have you dropped the habit of rubbing your foot against the guy in the next stall yet?

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 26, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Uh-Oh! The man talks of enticing little girls to come to his house with the promise of $5 (in his June 18, 2008 at 7:35 a.m. post, above), then talks of little girls' panties in his latest post . . .uh-oh! Wonder where he spends his time on his PC. What's this thing he has with little girls . . .why the recurring references to them?

"Hello Pbag, I'm Chris Hanson with Daline NBC and we're doing a story on . . . ." Uh-Oh. Word!

Posted by freda (anonymous) on June 26, 2008 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

81 comments??? You have got to be kidding! Here, I have the answer, just vote for NORM not ab-norm-Al.

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 26, 2008 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You betchya and I'm shootin for 100 just to see if it can be done. LOL! BTW What's with the title of this article, Luke Friedrich? I don't recall Norm Coleman ever giving cudos to Al.

Posted by freda (anonymous) on June 26, 2008 at 11:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wouldn't be surprised that it was not Luke's article title, but the product of the journal's editorial dept. I wouldn't expect Franken to laud his opponents accomplishments. But then again, McCain is happy to do it for Obama.

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you're suggesting McCain is civil in his campaigning then I might be inclined to agree. But it's what we know about him when he's not in the spotlight that concerns me. He once hit a woman so hard she flew across his office and into a wall. She was pestering him regarding her loved one who was MIA/POW in Viet Nam. Apparently, McMain was trying to keep the resurrection of the search for them from happening. Many say he's got a lot to hide from the years he spent as a POW. Many incidents of his collaborating with the enemy are documented.