Politics Extra: What do you think?

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

What do you think?

A suggestion from a reader:

To Enquirer Political Reporters.

Simply announce that the bold type guy is no longer welcome on the site and stop posting his bile.

Trust me, anyone with a brain on these blogs will cheer and be supportive. Are his/her ridiculous posts freedom of the press?

You wouldn't print a letter to the editor from namecalling, no substance person.

64 Comments:

at 1:17 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

Same goes for anyone who uses the non-word "Repugnicant." I'm more liberal than any of those idiots, combined, but the non-word makes me cringe. Stop letting people sink to the level of cheap hacks like Bill Frist (remember "Defeatocrats?"). Let's raise the level of debate and have some civilized conversations. You may have the right to say what you will, but I have the right to call you stupid, too.

at 1:19 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

"hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!"

: )

at 1:28 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

I agree. The poster is annoying and never has a point. Please ban him/her.

at 1:31 PM, February 13, 2007

Brah Coon said...

Naw, he's not all that bad. Occasionally amusing even.

Anyway It might set a dangerous precedent. *gulp!* Who might be next? Banishment is a bit harsh, I'd say.

at 1:38 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

instead of banning him how about just not approving post with personal attacks or name-calling from anyone?

at 1:46 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

Indeed. Ban that dipstick.

at 1:47 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

That's a slippery slope to start banning people whose comments you find objectionable. It takes, what, 2 seconds for your eyes to skip over that guy's comments?

Banning people for violating clearly defined, non-subjective rules (like no profanity) is one thing. Banning for content is another, and not recommended.

This is a blog, get over it.

at 1:49 PM, February 13, 2007

Brah Coon said...

Send him to bed with no din-din! Wash his mouth out with soap or something. Let's not become a mob about this! Sheesh ...chill out.

at 1:57 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

I find him as annoying as anyone, and usually I skip right over his posts once I identify him. In fact the rare times I bother to respond to him I outright refer to him as, "annoying bold-face guy". But I don't think banning him will do any good. He could just clear his cache/reset his modem and be back anyways, and I know the bloggers here don't have the time to spend all day trying to track him.

I also don't agree with banning someone just because they're annoying or always wrong. I think a better solution is to ban certain types of behaviors - such as: 1)going completely off topic; 2)making personal attacks on other posters; and 3)being very repetitious from one post to the next. We have lots of problems with #1, and #3 would help with the annoying bold-face guy.

at 2:03 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

As the poster of this idea and in response to your comments. I certainly would not suggest anyone be banned based upon content. My issue is and my other post in response to this person has been about the lack of content and no real rational thought. I do appreciate opposing viewpoints and would like to think of myself as totally open to ideas that may counter my own thinking, but enough is enough. This blog isn't a right of ours, it's an opportunity to express views to one another. Although his post are not profanity, they are close enough and cross the line of civility. That being said......let the majority rule.

at 2:08 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

I suggest banning Carl Weiser, who posted this suggestion to dump the bold-type guy.

To my knowledge, the bold-type guy never lied to reporter Joe Strupp of Editor & Publisher. Weiser apparently did just that a couple years ago when he told Strupp that the Enquirer had depended on elections experts re: the 2004 Ohio Presidential vote count. When asked to name the experts, Weiser refused to name them. There's no logical reason not to name on-the-record experts. That means Weiser lied to Strupp.

Never mind Weiser's breathless minute-by-minute reportage on Bush's trip here a couple years ago.

Mr. Weiser, mind your own glass house before throwing stones.

at 2:28 PM, February 13, 2007

Brah Coon said...

Yeah man, I'm always up for a mutiny. That's something else altogether. Better than ganging up on that poor simple-minded bold type guy. Well, Weiser?

at 2:37 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

What an absolutely ridiculous and fascist idea - where do we live? Russia?
censoring profanity is one thing - all0ow freedom of speech is another.

How canthe enquirer have attorneys in court defending free speech one minute and then suggesting censorship another --
how ridiculous!!!!!!!

If Wieser suggested this - as a supposed "newsman" - then I'm scared!!!!

at 2:42 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

Ban BPB. He offers not substance and no comentary. Only insults of anyone who he does not agree with. If he can learn how to post and behave like an adult, let him back on. Otherwise, the name calling is pointless and fails to advance the debate on any issue.

at 3:05 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

How about a 30 day suspension? Maybe that might encourage him to sit back & grow up a bit.

at 3:40 PM, February 13, 2007

JohnDWoodSr said...

Here's an idea--instead of banning this gentleman, which is the harshest form of censorship, allow him to continue to blog. Instead, simply ban any comments typed in bold-face!!! It would lower everyones blood pressure, including his, and leave this forum open to all. He simply does not realize that you can't sway the opinions of rock-heads by throwing more rocks, so he will have to learn a better way.

at 4:00 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

As someone who has been slandered here with factually incorrect material, I can tell you that the Enquirer has been more than fair when factual errors are pointed out. Those comments are removed.

I think some sort of decorum should be enforced here, though I detest censorship. Just like you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre (unless, I suppose, there actually is a fire), they can come up with rules here.

Some of my suggestions:

1. Posts should be relevant to the topic. At the very least, if the post does not mention anything or anyone that was mentioned in the Enquirer article posted here, it should not be approved by the moderator.

2. Personal attacks and name-calling posts should be banned.

3. Any post containing information the moderators realize as containing factually incorrect information should not be posted.

4. Notice that I am calling for banning posts, not posters. There is no need for the moderators to get into the business of blocking IP addresses when they are moderating each post.

at 4:04 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

Well, the wRong wingnut whacko fishwRap gets busted for their "bushwhacking" political bias and they attempt to shoot the messenger !

Oh yes, and when they don't like what you have to say, you too shall be banned !

Maybe the fishwRap could help the elephant dung slingers monitor our emails, phone calls and scan our mail, as well !

Hey, We didn't realize there were so many followers !

That's it, we're getting on the stump and run for office !

Not !

All in good humor, all in good humor, folks !

Seems we can change the state and change the nation, but, the fishwRap and Hamilton County will suppress constitutional rights before they see the light !

No worry, it is not the first time the wRong wingnut whackos attempted to suppress free speech:

Hamilton County Republican Party .com

PATHETIC !

HAD ENOUGH, VOTE DEMOCRAT 2007 !

at 4:55 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

there are so many things that the current administration has done that are obscene and tasteless and yet all the group can do is get their collective underwear in a bunch because of the bold faced poster?

you defeat the purpose of the blog if you banish because you don't like what he says. his style is obnoxious but hey, its a big world out there. i'd much rather see bronson fired then bpb banished because i pay to get the enquirer.

at 5:27 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

Apparently some folks dont seem to understand the concept of "censorship". Censorship occurs when the government puts you in jail for stating your opinion or an opinion that government doesn't like. The Enquirer, is NOT the government, a governmental agency or any wing whatsoever of any government. Yes, we have free speech. Yes, we can say whatever we like. However, the Enquirer has no obligation at all to print anything that any of us say. They are a private business that has its own discression when it comes to publishing. If it choses not to allow someone to post, that is within their rights to do so. PBP guy can bold post to his heart's content and he'll never be put in jail for it. However, the Enquirer has no obligation to publish any of it.

at 5:44 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

As a lefty, I am all for banning this guy.

at 5:52 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

Alright. I read this blog everyday and find his comments comepletely distracting and annoying.

However, I was going to oppose banning him, until I scrolled down to find his post. Then my opinion changes.

Ban him, at least until he changes his tone and contributes something to the discussion.

at 5:53 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

".....Apparently some folks ... has no obligation to publish any of it....."

So, wRong wingnut whacko, we should grant freedom of the press to publish any propaganda they choose or suppress anything they choose !

And who monitors the press ?

Your wRong wingnut whacko analysis seems more fitting to Mao and his "Little Red Book" !

PATHETIC !

HAD ENOUGH, VOTE DEMOCRAT 2007 !

at 6:29 PM, February 13, 2007

Brah Coon said...

Spare him! Frankly, he's starting to make a little sense. I think he's speaking in parables and such.
He might be a prophet of God. Can you prove he's not? We don't want to make THAT mistake again. Oiy vey!

at 6:37 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

When "bold endeavors" receive more posts than serious political issues, Well, that's just:

PATHETIC !

at 7:39 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

"So, wRong wingnut whacko, we should grant freedom of the press to publish any propaganda they choose or suppress anything they choose !"

Read your first ammendment. That's pretty much the gist of it. You have the right to say what you like. But you have no right anywhere for it to be published. If I'm wrong, let the legal counsel of the Enquirer show it, but since I previously worked in journalism I feel pretty confident of my statement.

Who monitors the press? The public does by its sales. If it does a poor job of reporting the facts, it's sales go down. Sales go down and they go out of business. Much like any profession, it's personal pride and a dedication to doing the right thing that drives them.

Did you understand that? Or was my description of a free-market economy used in a capitalist system more inclined to be included in Mao's little red book?

Yes, BPB, I've had quite enough of you. Yes. You are PATHETIC!

Please ban this individual until he learns how to post like an adult.

And good job of staying away from the name calling.

at 8:16 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

Since you ask, I might as well respond...

I will reserve my comments until tomorrow morning so that other people (at home tonight during an ice storm) can have the chance to respond as well.

One suggestion is that this individual be bold enough to identify himself, at least once. I'd like to meet him.

Jim Parker
Future Democratic Candidate for US Congress
From Cincinnati to Portsmouth and everywhere in between

2005 & 2006... 2010

at 8:17 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

Wow, I'm humbled !

Like your work alter or abolish !

America the Ugly today !

Recommend all visit your profile and blog !

Great work !

at 8:39 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

While I am far-left, and I often disagree with the Bold type guy's methods, I think banning him is a bad idea. This should be a free market of ideas, where even bad ideas and non-sense are allowed. The truth is only reafirmed when it is challenged. It is a healthy forum when we can have the intellectuals of Cincinnati exchanging ideas with the village idiot. Maybe some find the bold type guy obnoxious or uneducated, but if he really bothers anyone that much, why don't they just scroll past his comments?

at 9:29 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

Since we are on the topic of monitoring, check out what the wRong wingnut whackos have in store:

Republican calls for email and IM monitoring

ISPs would have to keep records of emails, IM and website visits

Iain Thomson, vnunet.com 09 Feb 2007

A bill introduced to the US House of Representatives would require ISPs to record all users' surfing activity, IM conversations and email traffic indefinitely.

The bill, dubbed the Safety Act by sponsor Lamar Smith, a republican congressman from Texas, would impose fines and a prison term of one year on ISPs which failed to keep full records.

Catch the full story:

wRong wingnut whacko window peaking

PATHETIC !

HAD ENOUGH, VOTE DEMOCRAT 2007 !

at 10:21 PM, February 13, 2007

Anonymous said...

Do us all a favor and squelch this guy.

at 12:08 AM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

"Weiser told Strupp that the Enquirer had depended on elections experts re: the 2004 Ohio Presidential vote count. When asked to name the experts, Weiser refused to name them. There's no logical reason not to name on-the-record experts. That means Weiser lied to Strupp."

Yes, Weiser did refuse to name his experts. He was asked several times on this blog and refuses to answer. Are you a liar Mr. Weiser?

All you have to do is answer the question. Who were the experts that you asked about the 2004 election?

You said that they said there was no conspiracy. We have proof that there was. There were convictions two weeks ago because of illegaglities in the 2004 recount Mr. Weiswer.

Have you read the Conyers report? Did you read Bobby Kennedy jr article in Rolling Stone "Was the 2004 Election Stolen? The answer was yes.

You all censor people in your paper so go ahead and censor your blog, but Mr. Weiser if you can't tell us who your experts are you're a coward, a liar and unfit to call yourself a journalist.

at 12:50 AM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

How ironic- the Enquirer's legal team was in court today talking about free speech and freedom of the presss to write their scoop story on the Carrolls and then with the other hand posts this discussion to censor free speech on its blog?

How very ironic

Or is it one of those, good for the gander not for the goose things?

Kind of puts a dent in their positionin court today - there are exceptions to the rules, eh?

at 8:47 AM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

"...substantless. irrelevant. wouldn't be surprised if it's Dave Gallagher. let him post but put his posts on their own blogpage....."

Does: substantless = substanceless ?

Does: if it's Dave Gallagher = if it's not Dave Gallagher ?

We say: take all grade-school drop-outs and place them in their own little corner with a dunce hat !

PATHETIC !

HAD ENOUGH, VOTE DEMOCRAT 2007 !

at 8:47 AM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

All you have to do is answer the question. Who were the experts that you asked about the 2004 election?

We're waiting, Mr. Weiser. It's a legitimate question and obviously this isn't going away.

at 8:59 AM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

".....Did you understand that? Or was my description of a free-market economy used in a capitalist system more inclined to be included in Mao's little red book?..."

Naive, period !

Seems this country has the "Way" while a claimed "free market" system is illusionary !

It is unconstionable when 1 % of a nations population controls 90 % of the wealth !

"Free Market", hardly !

and thanks for the "personal" attack !

PATHETIC !

HAD ENOUGH, VOTE DEMOCRAT 2007 !

at 10:17 AM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

".....Maybe some find the bold type guy obnoxious or uneducated, but if he really bothers anyone that much, why don't they just scroll past his comments?..."

bold type guy = Gender bias ?

Obnoxious - maybe !

Uneducated - Not !

Scroll past = Agreed !

We have not chosen to be the leader, the public has appointed us !

There sure is a lot of followers !

Why does the public spend countless hours monitoring "bold endeavors" !

Why are we not fulfilled with productive dialogue ?

Please guide us toward just one productive comment on an issue within the current page of posts !

Sorry, we can't find it ! Ours included !

We merely provide extreme examples of one party rule rhetoric !

We make a comment on a post, then we become the center of attention !

Small fish in such a large pond to be crowned the "prize catch" !

Had the fishwRap and political blog served the public, fair and balanced, there would be no need for "bold endeavors" !

Without "bold endeavers", "NOONE" would have nothing to comment about !

For us that's:

PATHETIC !

HAD ENOUGH, VOTE DEMOCRAT 2007 !

footnote: noone - their words not ours, but then, some call us uneducated !

lol, lol, lol

at 10:17 AM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

at 10:46 AM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

OOOps. The weather has the internet acting funny !

Went to blank page didn't think post submitted ?

Not spamming !

Sorry !

at 10:51 AM, February 14, 2007

Brah Coon said...

Hey bold type ..ermm person. I thought you were " humbled" ? You sure ain't acting humbled. Chill out before I start yelling: CRUCIFY HIM OR HER!

at 11:00 AM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

I think it's your blog and you have every right to choose what you want to appear on it. Contrary to what some may believe, you are not obligated by the Constitution to give anyone a voice. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but does not (for now, anyway) dictate how any private entity conducts its business. Just as with letters to the editor, comments can be edited or omitted entirely at the paper's discretion.
I don't understand the righteous indignation or sense of entitlement some people have when it comes to how the Enquirer operates.

That all being said, if it were my blog, I wouldn't approve his comments because 1) they don't make any sense, 2) they are inflammatory, and 3) they contain nothing of substance or value. I would also second the motion of not approving any post that contains made up words like "Repubnicant", but that's just my opinion.

at 11:05 AM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

The fruitloop who blathers in bold should not only not be banned; he should be encouraged. He's so closely tied to the Democrat party now that he's doing a yeoman's job of sullying the image of that party. I cheer whenever he winds up his blithering with "vote democratic." Who in their right mind would want to be be identified with such an idiot? Sooo, BS in Bold, keep on keeping on! You've got fans, and many if not most are Republicans.

at 11:41 AM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

"....and many if not most are Republicans...."

And yes the majority !

VOTED DEMOCRAT !

lol, lol, lol

at 11:45 AM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at his house ...

"Dad, here's my report card"

What is it I see on this fishwRap ?!

All C's !

Your answers are all wRong !

The wingnuts must be wResponsible !

I will "sling" elephant dung at them !

But you are

PATHETIC!!

HAD ENOUGH, GO STUDY 2007 !

at 11:47 AM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

To the best of my knowledge this blog isnt the lunch table at junior high school. You cant ban someone simply because they are strange, annoying and you dont agree with them.

I have noticed openly racist statements on this blog but no one is outraged by that. I have seen good people mocked and ridiculed because of something personal when the issu at hand is political, yet no one is outraged when that happens.

For crying out loud its a blog, you know an OPEN forum. I suggest if BPG is to annoying (or Nate, or any other rediculous character) you have the ability to ignore it and be thankful we live in a society where you have the right to disagree with them.

Get over it and stop acting like seventh graders jsut because you dont like the guy.

at 11:49 AM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

"...Chill out before I start yelling: CRUCIFY HIM OR HER!..."

It won't be the first attempt at crucifixion, but, we are always resurrected !

hamilton county republican party .com

PATHETIC !

HAD ENOUGH, VOTE DEMOCRAT 2007 !

footnote: Hey, maybe if you just ignore "bold endeavors", they'll just go away !

at 12:37 PM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

"...Not allow anonymous postings. Make everyone register...."

What would that solve ?

There is a constitutional right to speak anonymous !

The Supreme Court has upheld !

National ID ?

Not in a society where there is a political glass ceiling, such as:

Carl Rove and the state street boys hiring based on political ideology !

Without the right to speak anonymous we might, as well, usher in a dictator and make them the decider !

Oh no, Mr. Bill !

Besides, what prevents anyone from registering with a fictionist identity !

But hey, thanks for revealing the inner thoughts of a wRong wingnut whacko !

PATHETIC !

HAD ENOUGH, VOTE DEMOCRAT 2007 !

at 12:55 PM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

Cincy911Truth, of course I don't believe the banjo-eyed twit in bold represents the rank and file members of the Democrat party. I wrote that he is simply doing a marvelous job of embarrassing the members of and smearing the image of that party. He's such a dunce, he either doesn't know or knows and doesn't care. His pejorative verbal ejaculations are so inane that I strongly suspect he may simply be suffering from an acute lack of gray matter between his ears. And he may write in bold merely because he doesn't know how not to.

at 1:00 PM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

Well gang, have to go purchase more property for our think tank !

The "Leaders" have to get back to business !

Now, all you followers, keep posting here !

Keep ranting about all those "bold endeavors" and how we can conspire to force them into the "stoning" arena !

Make this the most active post on "Political Extra" !

Help us demonstrate how shallow-minded the supporters of the wRong wingnut whackos are !

Post as ANnOY, sock-puppets, and how to become a good little conformist and never be so "BOLD" as to offend a wRong wingnut whacko !

Tell us about how you're willing to goose-step through the elephant dung for your decider !

Yes, click your heels as well !

PATHETIC !

HAD ENOUGH, VOTE DEMOCRAT 2007 !

at 2:00 PM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

It is good to know who the bold-faced idiot and a guy who thinks the government was involved in 9/11 (Cincy9/11Truth) support!

at 2:40 PM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

I can deal with the bold font.

It's the lack of a coherent sentence from this guy that drives me batty. That and the fact he has never met an exclamation point he didn't like. And the personal attacks in every post - yeah those are annoying too.

Read some of the drivel in the story comments on the news site, especially the third-grade level rants about the Carrolls and Amy Baker. These people look like doctoral candidates next to this guy.

at 5:40 PM, February 14, 2007

Nasty, Brutish & Short said...

Ban the bold faced commenter, and let him start Bold Faced Blog. It is too hard to read, and it totally disrupts the thread.

at 6:48 PM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

"...BFB is jim Shiffren..."

Shhhhhhh, they'll call you a whistleblower !

at 10:18 PM, February 14, 2007

Anonymous said...

US Army sued for blog monitoring

EFF reacts to covert programme to monitor soldiers' blogs

Iain Thomson, vnunet.com 08 Feb 2007

The Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) is suing the US Department of Defense (DoD) for failing to come clean on a campaign to monitor soldiers' blogs.

The EFF formally requested details of the programme under the Freedom of Information Act, but went to court after the DoD failed to provide any details.

The complaint alleges that the DoD undertook systematic blog monitoring, and sought to delete information that it did not like.

"If the Army is colouring or curtailing soldiers' published opinions, Americans need to know about that interference," said EFF staff attorney Marcia Hofmann.

"Of course, a military effort requires some level of secrecy. But the public has a right to know if the Army is silencing soldiers' opinions as well. That is why the DoD must release information on how this programme works without delay. "

According to news reports, the DoD set up a special group to monitor the blogs and electronic mail of troops under an initiative called the Army Web Risk Assessment Cell.

Some bloggers have told reporters that they have cut back on their posts, or shut down their sites altogether, because of the monitoring programme.

at 2:48 PM, February 15, 2007

Anonymous said...

PATHETIC !

HAD ENOUGH, VOTE DEMOCRAT 2007 !

WONDERFUL !

I'VE

at 2:49 PM, February 15, 2007

Anonymous said...

WONDERFUL !

I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF BOLD TYPE GUY, HE'S DESTROYING THIS BLOG. VOTE TO REMOVE BOLD TYPE GUY !

at 3:37 PM, February 15, 2007

Anonymous said...

cincy911truth: you're off-topic, and delusional to boot. Be careful when you go outside with your tin-foil hat on.

anon 10:18 2/14: Not sure what the point of that post is. This isn't a publicly-funded site.

at 6:31 PM, February 15, 2007

Anonymous said...

"...anon 10:18 2/14: Not sure what the point of that post is. This isn't a publicly-funded site...."

Typical wrong wingnut whacko left blinded by elephant dung all over their face !

If you think the fishwRap is not receiving tax dollars, We have some "banks" project to sell ya !

Click your heels and help the wRong wingnut whacko efforts of suppression !

Remain silent, the decider may just go away !

PATHETIC !

HAD ENOUGH, VOTE DEMOCRAT 2007 !

at 11:28 PM, February 15, 2007

Anonymous said...

What do I think?

What do I think?

Now that's a $350,000 Mommy and Daddy P&G question.

I thnik that DAVID PEPPER is the BOLD BLOGGER.

at 11:47 PM, February 15, 2007

Anonymous said...

Bold face type guy is a major distraction and detraction. I ask that his posts be thoroughly screened for irritants before they appear. Rational discourse would be a plus from this guy.

at 9:24 AM, February 16, 2007

Anonymous said...

Let's face it, folks. BS in Bold probably isn't going away. He is so dense that he glories in the derogatory remarks directed against his drivel. Single-handedly, he irritates everyone across the political spectrum--Dems because he persists in claiming allegiance to the Democrat party and Republicans because his nonsense yellings are utterly inane and specious. Best to merely ignore and refuse to acknowledge anything he writes at any time. Maybe like a mangy, stray cat you refuse to feed, he'll just go away.

at 9:39 AM, February 16, 2007

Anonymous said...

Yet another non-sensical post by the bold face blogger. And, true to form, he just uses the same ridiculous phrases over and over again. It's pretty comical.

cincy911Truth, I took the advice you posted and Googled your catch phrases. Quite frankly, I was startled by what came up first:

http://ochremedia.com/blog/media/mindHat.gif

at 10:10 AM, February 16, 2007

Anonymous said...

"...Rational discourse would be a plus from this guy...."

this guy = Gender bias ?

Nothing like good, old fashion, rational dialogue !

Keep "following" and we'll keep "LEADING" !

PATHETIC !

HAD ENOUGH, VOTE DEMOCRAT 2007 !

at 8:42 PM, February 16, 2007

Anonymous said...

"....Republicans because his nonsense yellings are utterly inane and specious....."

Typical wRong wingnut whacko, elephant dung propaganda !

When the cronies don't like the message they attempt to shoot the messenger !

Take for example:

The case of the "convicted Taft", wRong wingnut whacko, appointee "mad brad" !

Just like the corrupt "taft", this misleading political hack attempted to use the county courthouse, county phone lines, county personnel for his personal campaign use:

What do you mean I can't use county funds, county office, county personnel, county phone lines to run my misleading election campaign !

I wonder why "mad brad's" website was modified ?

I wonder if there are ethic charges forthcoming ?

There are Doer's ! There are "Leaders"

Then there are "followers", TNP !

PATHETIC !

HAD ENOUGH, VOTE DEMOCRAT 2007 !

Previous Posts

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

What do you think?

64 Comments: