Robin Smith is.............and.............then there was the time she..................and that's all I have to say.

I love this cartoon, but have no comment about Robin Smith.

Also, I love the new site design. If the rest of you haven't registered and customized your home page, you should give it a try. You can move features around so that your favorites are displayed wherever you want them.

You can even add material from outside sources to the Times Free Press home page, so rolando can get FOX News right on this site now.

It's really nifty. Of course, I moved the Clay's cartoon to the top of my home page.

Great cartoon, Clay! It was really nice of you to welcome Robin Smith to the race.

Actually, we need more people like Robin Smith out there seeking public office and continuing to represent the Republican Party. After all, she may well be a shining example of a modern thinking, right leaning female politician.

Only in America could someone like Robin Smith take an unsolicited and unwelcome statement of support by Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan and twist that into the assertion that our now elected President holds any of the same views that Farrakhan has declared.

Mimicking a kooky talk radio host and standing in defiance when the Party's candidate for President condemned the citing of Barack Obama's middle name in a negative manner. It was extremely pathetic and totally disingenuous. It backfired too.

I am a former Republican. The past two Presidential election shenanigans by Republicans were inexcusable. I doubt that I will ever support the party ever again. The main reason that I have come to detest the Republican Party is because the distortions of the truth and the outright lies are far too easily discovered.

If there is one thing that politicians on both side of the aisle should be understanding these days, it is that the previously tried and true methods of using scare tactics to sway opinions and votes is no longer working. People are tired of it. People are slowly waking up. Insulting their intelligence is not going to win elections anymore.

February 27th of last year, Robin Smith was quoted to have stated that, "John McCain has to be elected. Robin Smith doesn't," She went on to state, "We have a duty to inform the Republican base."

Robin Smith seems to be rather fond of middle names. What is her middle name? I want to learn it so that I can be sure to show her the same respect that she did our President while he was running for office.

alprova, as a former Republican welcome to the club. It took Ronald Reagan to break me from the habit, and I was the first in generations back to the civil war. Democrat politicians lie too, it's just they are more open and don't try to be deceptive about it, nor pretend to be a moral authority.

We really need a third party to represent "We the People". Both parties have failed the American People.

That's true, EaTn...look at Dear Leader, Pelosi, Reid.

At least the former told us exactly what he intended to do when elected and he is carrying them out. Gotta hand THAT to him and that's a first.

---------------------------------

Oh, alprova? Dear Leader is worse than Farrakhan...much worse. The latter is a recognized, bigoted demagogue while the former is...well...a communist wannabe. Did you notice the way he [DL] fell in lockstep with MiniCastro, Chavez, and Ortega and soundly criticized the Honduran defense of its democracy against an attempted takeover by its socialist leader? Wouldn't surprise me if DL supplied military hardware and troops to help in the democracy's overthrow by outside armies to rethrone the dictator. Or did you notice all that with the Mickey Jackson news flood on DailyKos, ABC-WH, et al? The exiled former Honduran leader should have taken notes on how Dear Leader seized power last Nov 4.

I'm new to this Robin Smith stuff, but it seems to me that her previously expressed concerns about Barack Hussein Obama (that is is name, isn't it?) regarding his treatment of Israel (turning his back on 40+ years of US policy towards our only reliable ally in the Middle East) are coming to fruition, eh?

Uh, rolando... are you actually calling a coup d'etat by the Honduran military and the ousting of a democratically elected president a 'defense of its democracy'?

What kind of Orwellian doublespeak is that, rolando?

Your rhetoric is so outrageous, I don't think that even you believe it.

Talk about Much Ado About Nothing!

really, rolando-

- First, the military abducts President Zelaya (in his pajamas, no less), they shove him in a van and throw him on a plane to Costa Rica.

- They quickly swear in the president of Congress as interim president, while moving against President Zelaya’s allies.

- The military detains the county's Foreign Minister and the mayor of San Pedro Sula (the second largest city in Honduras), they cut off the electricity in the capital of Tegucigalpa, and impose a 9:00 pm. curfew.

- With tanks were patrolling the streets, military planes flying overhead and soldiers guarding the main government buildings, the military proceeds to shut down the government television station and any stations that might support the now ousted president. The television and radio stations that were allowed to continue operating could broadcast no news.

How in the world can you call that 'defending democracy'?

Isn't it just this kind of authoritarian government action that has you hugging that gun of yours so dearly? You've officially gone off the deep end, rolando.

Rolando, do you work hard at being obtuse, or are your writings an application for a new career as a comedian?

First of all, Farrakhan is not an established political leader or an elected official to represent more than a handful of people. Our President made it clear to everyone who put a microphone in his face that he was not pleased with the man's announcement of support and that he outright rejected it. Farrakhan is a man who takes his personal beliefs to a bigoted, misguided and illogical conclusion, like so many others who express similarly extreme religious platitudes. How delightful it must have been for the right to find an example of a religious kook among the oft perceived, Godless left, to hold up in a pathetic attempt to demean a political foe.

The policy of this nation, despite your conspiratorial assertions, has never been to endorse or support military overthrows of any democratically elected leader without international support being a part of the equation, unless a portion of a nation's citizens are in grave danger, and until after all other means to resolve dissension have been exhausted.

You give our President an impressive amount of credit if you think that in the span of a little over five months, that he was able to arrange or participate in a coup d'etat under the radar of so many who would love to find a reason to oust him as our own leader, given half the chance.

And last, but not least, I am in complete awe in marveling and witnessing what must be a stroke of genius in your assertion that the death of Michael Jackson is now a left wing conspiracy. This is a totally unexpected, unimaginable, and an unimpressive new low.

Is it just me, or am I waking up to the fact that those who consider themselves to be aligned on the right side of the aisle, are totally losing the ability to use their brains to arrive at logical conclusions?

It is going to be a long, hard seven and a half years ahead for some people who still cannot see past the end of their noses to understand why President Barack Obama is where he is at the moment. I'm calling my broker in the morning and telling him to arrange a purchase of some stock in Kleenex.

And Democrats are purported to be the Kool-Aid drinkers?

Walden, although admitting that I am not completely versed in all aspects of the issues that encompass our support of Israel, their persistent refusal to come to the table to negotiate that land be set aside for a Palestinian State is becoming a sticking point that more and more people are finding harder to defend.

It is at the root, in my humble opinion, as to why Israel continues to be despised in the region, and why our support of Israel causes the United States to be criticized by so many anchored in the Middle East.

Through our assistance, Israel was allowed to stake their claim of land. While they do not deserve to be wiped off the face of the earth, no peaceful resolution to any dispute will ever take place, unless Israel recognizes the simple fact that the Palestinian people deserve a land to call their own as well.

I support President Obama for at least asking why carving out an area for Palestine does not deserve serious consideration, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that they truly desire to live in peace.

For almost 50 years, that nation has survived by pointing guns at their enemies. At times, they have used them relentlessly, albeit defensively. But there comes a point and time when they need to understand that something has to give. This stand-off has gone on far too long. I equal it to picking a scab so that a wound never heals properly.

So that I am not accused of being off-topic, I am very interested in knowing if Robin (?) Smith would support our President in his effort to bring Israel to the discussion table to seek a peaceful resolution with Palestinians.

Clay, this is priceless. How funny.

alprova - an interesting read of rolando's post - his response will no doubt be equally interesting :)

Lordy, Lordy...where to start? Toonfan, OllieH, or alprova?

In order:

toonfan, your thumbnail "interpretation" of events in Honduras is, much like mine, incomplete. But mainly because we are viewing events there from opposing sides. Yes, Zelaya was democratically elected -- over 3 1/2 years ago -- but with only one four year term permitted under their constitution... He did not like that and was pushing a Chavez-like referendum to change the constitution to allow him to run again.

Forces within the country did not approve of having their constitution changed willy-nilly to permit another Chavez-type President-for Life takeover; they took steps to remedy the situation -- effective steps with no loss of life I am aware of. We don't particularly take to the idea of basic changes to OUR country, either...witness the Tea Parties and Dear Leader's steady drop in poll ratings.

The only western hemisphere countries publicly and vocally opposing Zelaya's exile were the three communist countries -- with an immediate [!] condemnation from Dear Leader. All this after hemming and hawing for three days [!!] after the Iran uprising. Says something right there. Factoid -- Communist leaders do not like to see other countries throw out communism in favor of democracy. Says something else right there. Dear Leader has gone so far as to deny military aid to Honduras.

[continued]

Well, OllieH, THAT was an interesting take of how a sovereign nation protects itself from foreign influence -- were that WE had such a system to protect OUR shores. [Dear Leader now wants National Guard troops to guard our borders...without weapons, no doubt...and without declaring martial law.]

All of those things you list are what happens when a country casts off an oppressive leader; it is done for continuity. When the dust settles, normal law proceeds. That's what WE did...several times. We ALL held our guns in each of those...Americans do that.

[continued]

alprova -

Talk about being obtuse -- your second para, 9:03 AM defines the word.

It later took you seven lines to explain what you should have clearly stated first time around -- Brown [evidently] took Dear Leader to task because Farrakhan supported him.

Or course, Dear Leader threw Farrakhan under the bus...along with his father, his no-relation "uncle", his poverty-stricken half-brother, his on-the-dole "auntee" in New York, and his minister of 20 years give or take, to name just a very, very few.

But equally significant was Dear Leader's NOT throwing his mentors, his Chicago convict buddies, and his dear friends in Weather Underground under anything [except the carpet, perhaps]. So far as we can tell, he STILL subscribes to THEIR philosphies.

Another thing, alprova, Dear Leader is more the scheming, enabling type; we have all seen them -- those unable or unwilling to make a move or say anything without someone else taking the blame when it goes t!ts up. I credit him with nothing extraordinary...nothing any other Chicago Democrat has in any case.

You don't know much history, do you? Use Cliff's Notes or something? Ever heard of Lend-Lease? How about VietNam? Granada? The War of Northern Aggression [US Civil War], perhaps? Or any of our other wars?

Penultimately, where did I say Mickey Mo...oops...Jackson's death was any kind of plot? Where do you people come up with this stuff, Franken's writers or maybe Letterman's?

Finally, Dear Leaders poll numbers have been in constant decline for some time now...he will be lucky to be semi-effective this time next year. Good luck with that Super Majority -- you will need it.

Rolando, please take a breath and look up from your notes for a minute and try entering into a REAL discussion where you are absolutely allowed and encouraged to offer your own thoughts. Everyone has heard the talk show rhetoric many times.

If Republican John McCain had received a public endorsement from Republican David Duke of Louisiana, and then in turn publicly denounced such an endorsement, would you be making the same argument? Of course not. Your glue formulation only sticks to Democrats, at least in your mind anyway.

Politicians, even when they are Democrats, are allowed to reject support from people whom they do not agree with. Give up the ghost. No one with a brain sees it. I find that one of the most admirable of traits that our President has demonstrated time and again, is to not give any acknowledgment to those offering unfounded and childish taunts, much like can be witnessed on any elementary school playground.

Not that it deserves a defense, but if you were to take just an hour to delve into the life and chronology of events of surrounding the 'notorious' Mr. Ayers, you might discover that the man isn't even close to being the monster that some have attempted to make him out to be. That Sir, is merely one of the many lies and distortions that the right are guilty of dispensing. Your repetition here does not make them any more true.

I know lots about history. What I don't buy into, is this insidious notion that everything is a conspiracy. If I did, the sad fact is that the incursions you mentioned have 'Republican Initiative' written all over most of them, or didn't you get the memo?

I refer you to my previous words on this nation's policy as to when we officially involve ourselves in matters pertaining to other Governments. Just as some employees of any employer will depart from policies in place and be reprimanded or dismissed for doing so, the same thing can happen by those who work in high places in our Government. Case closed.

What else could someone derive from your mentioning that Michael Jackson's death seemed to drown out more important issues that you would have liked to have seen covered? After all, Republican Governor Sanford must have sighed in immense relief at his being removed from the front pages, don't you think?

Poll numbers mean nothing. If they did, Prsident Obama would have lost the election. I doubt he is bothered much by any perceived slide in his poll numbers. He walked into the White House well aware that the previous administration had failed to clean up after their mess, and that there were many cracks in the foundation in need of extensive repairs.

Talk to me in a couple of years. It will take that long to begin to repair the mess left for him to deal with and to see any appreciable improvements completed.

Alprova-
I appreciate your thoughtful response to my post. I think my biggest concern is the sense that Obama is way too sensitive to Palestinians/Islam/Muslims and not sensitive enough to what I consider to be the good guys (Christians, Israelis, pro-Democracy groups, etc.). This marks a serious departure from our traditional world view, so I admit it is frightening. We need to remember who our friends are, and not throw them under the bus.

No one here, especially me, condemns Dear Leader for picking his supporters; it is when he clings to the one and destroys the others... Those he picks and rejects are telling choices and reveal much about him. [So far as I know, McAmnesty's birthplace, his upbringing, and his political beliefs are not in question here. Save it for another time, perhaps.]

Dear Leader disavows some, refuses to discuss the disavowals [perhaps considering himself above such things], and ignores -- even denies -- his past. The question of his constitutional qualification to even hold the office remains unanswered. His arrogance toward us knows no bounds, although he is not above bowing to foreign potentates. He demeans the office.

I don't need even 1 minute to "delve into" Ayers' and Dohrn's lives; I was in my majority and lived through the period. Pity they weren't caught in the same premature blast in NY their cohorts torched off. They are both unrepentant terrorists and still hold their views of 50 years ago. As with Hanoi Jane, we will never forget their traitorous actions.

Your comments on our "interference" in foreign politics are shallow; following our emergence after WW2, we became a world leader. The duties of the position include steering others.

Time for coffee on the front porch. Later.

walden- you are correct that we need to keep Israel on top of our priorities. They may be a reason for the instability in the reason, but they are also key to maintaining a balance. Some may not consider religion in the equation, but the same God we pledge allegiance to is the one who said that He would bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel. I for one feel we should consider this promise, since the re-establishment of Israel in 1947 was a promise He made to the prophets over two thousand years earlier.

Rolando, the fact that you compared Obama's reaction to the situations in Iran and Honduras must mean you equate the two yourself. I would agree with that comparison, except in Honduras they aren't hijacking democracy through a questionable election process, they're discarding democracy altogether.

Both situations are bad, but to me, (and violence aside) the action taken by the Honduran military is the more egregious violation of democratic principles.

The people of Honduras elected Zelaya. Three and a half years into his four year presidency, he was trying to organize a referendum to consider a change to the constitutional term limits of his office. The courts ruled against the referendum (basically denying the people a right to vote on the provisions of their own country's constitution). After Zelaya organized a demonstration to protest the court decision, he was kidnapped in the middle of the night by hooded military thugs, and forced out of the country.

You really need to be consistent, rolando. Just because you don't like Zelaya socialistic politics, doesn't mean you should support such an anti-democratic reaction to his presidency.

You must believe that the end justifies the means, because in all of the other debates we've had, you always exalt the will of the people over the authority of the courts. Apparently, your commitment to this view changes depending on the circumstances of the story.

As for the official condemnation of the coup- it most certainly was NOT limited to the left wing countries you mentioned. Governments all over the Western Hemisphere, and from across the ideological spectrum, found this to be an issue on which they could all uniformly agree.

I found official statements condemning the coup and ouster of President Zelaya from Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

If you're counting, rolando- yes, that's pretty much the entire western hemisphere.

Where do you get your information, rolando? It's really hard to debate with a person who doesn't use reality as a starting point.

You go, Robin!!! We need someone with a spine to speak the truth. I guess nice is in the eye of the beholder?

Phil- It's interesting that you should use the word 'truth' when referring to Robin Smith.

Ms. Smith, the architect of the the (now infamous) 2008 race-bating GOP press release (which showed Obama in African dress and referred to him by his middle name), said this after being criticized about the message-

"This release originally referenced a photo of Sen. Obama and incorrectly termed it to be “”Muslim” garb. It is, in fact, Somali tribal garb, hence, we have deleted the photo. Also, in order to diffuse attempts by Democrats and the Left to divert attention from the main point of this release - that Sen. Obama has surrounded himself with advisers and received endorsements from people who are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel - we have deleted the use of Barack Obama’s middle name."

She also denied the statement she made to Kent Williams (after he participated with Democrats to be elected Speaker of the Tennessee House). The statement to Williams, "Congratulations, speaker. It's hard to kill the Devil, but in two years you're a dead man" was actually, according to Robin, directed at former speaker Jimmy Naifeh.

Robin Smith's relationship with the truth is, apparently, a casual one.

Have any of you talked to anybody in Honduras? Or do you get all of your information from our "unbiased" media be they conservative or liberal? I would bet not. I've spent a LOT of time in Honduras and the people I know, from business owners to factory workers by far want Zelaya gone. They see Honduras following Venezuela down the tubes and want no part of it. So everybody can sit up here in comfort and safety behind the keyboards and pontificate as usual. What Zelaya tried to pull was illegal - period - end of story.

For a first hand perspective, go here

http://lagringasblogicito.blogspot.com/

What did Zelaya try to pull, Sailorman? A referendum of the people's will?

Oooooh, that's scary.

Nice blog photos, Sailorman. It's funny though, that you hold up that as being more authoritative than media accounts.

No doubt the Zelaya opposition can put throw a good party- they have all the money. Truth is, the middle to upper class (the folks you undoubtedly hung out with, Sailorman) didn't support Zelaya, but the poor of Honduras loved him. Unfortunately for ruling class, most of Honduras is poor (it's the second poorest country in the hemisphere). So, that would mean, mucho support for Zelaya.

No wonder the ruling oligarchs didn't want a referendum. Know wonder the couldn't defeat Zelaya through democratic means. they had to put the boot down.

I guess the people (who count) have spoken.

Robin Smith and her brand of Republican's have used the most vile racism I've seen in the country. They pit Christians against Muslims, black and brown against white. Nothing is sacred or off limits.

Amazing to me that the Corkers are welcoming her with open arms. It's obvious, we don't know Bob Corker, yet.

Vanity Fair just wrote a piece about our piece from Tennessee.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politic...

OllieH I didn't say it was more authoritative. I said it was a first hand perspective. But then I guess you would know better than someone who actually lives there. You believe the media?? rofl yeah right.

"Amazing to me that the Corkers are welcoming her with open arms. It's obvious, we don't know Bob Corker, yet."

You don't remember the "Call me Harold?" quip in the Corker senate race? I'm sure people didn't think of this when they pulled the leaver in the voting booth.

Isn't it typical? Rolando decided to twist the subject completely around, as if my question was a personal attack on McCain. It wasn't. You cannot "pick" your supporters. They pick you, sometimes when they are not welcome to do so.

Uh...it's amazingly funny that you brought up a subject that was not part of the debate, but since you did, you made it fair game. I seem to recall that there was more than a little discussion over John McCain's place of birth, which was in the Panama Canal Zone.

You see, the difference between yourself and I, is that I judge people by their own words and their own actions. People can be polar opposites in all things, yet can be pals, or is that prohibited in your ultra conservative and nit-picking world?

There is no question in the minds of those who made the decision that Barack Obama was constitutionally qualified to run for office, whether or not his birth certificate was valid. Why is he silent on the subject? Some things simply do not deserve to be proven to kooks who demand it. Do you know how utterly silly all this hoopla over the President's birth certificate truly is?

You Sir, can contact the appropriate vital records department in Hawaii and for a fee, you can purchase your own copy of the man's birth certificate. TMZ obtained copies of the birth certificates for Michael Jackson's two oldest children and published them on the TMZ site yesterday. Most states have transferred eons of vital records into computers. When someone wants a copy of a birth certificate...presto, it's printed out and appears to be very similar to an automobile title.

On the Ayers issue, he had no hand in anything that resulted in harm to another human being, and before you make the attempt, if the FBI couldn't charge him, what makes you think you can? His statement that he "didn't do enough," was taken totally out of context. He didn't do enough to force our Government to stop our involvement in a mindless war and rile people enough to force our Government to halt the illustrious draft. But you'd never realize that in a hundred years, because you will not go to the source to discover the facts. You find the lies told by others to much more comforting.

You find my quoting our nation's foreign policies to be shallow, despite the fact that they are easily quoted in international treaties that our leaders signed post WWII. I'm crushed. Being a "world leader" doesn't translate into our being responsible to intervene in every conflict that breaks out in other nations. Sometimes we need to be good neighbors and to simply mind our own business.

But then, only nosy and arrogant people would disagree. You lived it. I commend you for that and for your service, if that is what you are asserting. But you did live to be able to discuss it today. 57,000 (apprx.) of our young men did not. I was directly related to two of those men.

Is that the best we can do more GOP? I was hoping for a strong dem canidate for our congressional rep.

I'm trying!

alprova - I'll agree with you that the birth cert issue is bogus if you'll agree you're dead wrong about Ayers. He admits the bombings regardless of what charges were or were not filed. He, and his equally nuts Bernadette, should have been stood against a wall and shot. As far as I'm concerned, it's still not too late. He should be happy the country he despises so has laws that saved his a$$.

"In his 2001 book Fugitive Days, Ayers recounts his life as a Sixties radical and boasts that he "participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972." Of the day he bombed the Pentagon, Ayers writes, "Everything was absolutely ideal.... The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them." He adds:

"There's something about a good bomb … Night after night, day after day, each majestic scene I witnessed was so terrible and so unexpected that no city would ever again stand innocently fixed in my mind. Big buildings and wide streets, cement and steel were no longer permanent. They, too, were fragile and destructible. A torch, a bomb, a strong enough wind, and they, too, would come undone or get knocked down."

In a 2001 interview, Ayers expressed his enduring hatred for the United States. "What a country," he said. "It makes me want to puke."

All told, Ayers and Weatherman were responsible for 30 bombings aimed at destroying the defense and security infrastructures of the U.S. "I don't regret setting bombs," said Ayers in 2001, "I feel we didn't do enough."

Why are you anxious to jump to his defense? Or are you just trying to PO Rolando.

Let's see, where was I? Oh yes, talking with alprova.

It isn't enough to just know history by rote, you must be able to apply the lessons learned to today's issues. You apparently do not do that.

Our entire history has been one of "interfering" in the affairs of other nations -- matter of fact, we do it quite well or used to.

Take the Monroe Doctrine, for example...a bit ragged around the edges these days but still in effect -- if anyone chooses to enforce it.

How about that Marshall Plan? Heard of it?

Maybe the Panama Canal project? No? Hm-m-m, we'll find something...

The Truman Doctrine? He was a Democrat, maybe he rings a bell...

Shall I go on or do you get the idea, alprova?

Up until this "leader" and perhaps part of the last one, we most certainly stepped up to our responsibilities world-wide, to include facing down Russia. [Can anyone even imagine Dear Leader doing that to anyone but a Honduras? He runs scared from North Korea, for God's sake.]

Sailorman, read what you posted to look for the first clue as to the what's and why's that he joined the group and caused mayhem. Look at the targets. He absolutely admits to being part of bombings, but he didn't have the know how to create or rig a bomb. His personal involvement pretty much ended when he blew up toilets in the Pentagon, for the most part.

Your user name tells me that you may have served. God Bless You. You are on opposite sides of the issue before we begin to discuss it, and I understand why there may be such a difference. You may have volunteered to serve. But were you drafted against your will to be thrust on a plane to go to nation on the other side of the globe, dropped in a jungle, and told to kill as many slant eyed people as you could find?

Ayers was demonstrating against our Government. The man was never proven to have been involved in so much as one bombing that harmed another human being. He may have been guilty of being present when Government property was destroyed.

His beef was not with Americans. It was with a Government that would send our young to their premature deaths to protect a nation that did not want us there. When he referred to "we," it was as a collective group in reference to the men and women who made up the group.

I defend the man because he, like myself, would take up arms against anyone who would dare attempt to take my child and force them to defend any nation other than our own. If I had been just a few years older back then, I might very well have joined them. Is it Radical for a group of college kids to bomb Government property in protest? Without question it is. Was it justified? The answer to that question all depends on whether or not you feel that the Government was correct in drafting our kids.

I draw the line at our physical borders. If we were invaded by a foreign faction, I would gladly and proudly take up arms to defend this land against all enemies. If a radical group of Americans attempted to take over or terrorize any part of our peaceful nation in defiance of our laws, then sign me up for that too.

But who has the right to sell me the notion that Americans are free, given what happened in 1965, where freedom was at the point of a gun? And further, if that makes me a (enter the description of one's choice), or less of a man because I oppose entering fracases of other nations, then I can live with that just fine.

Alprova There is no justification of his actions no matter how you spin it. what will happen when the people get tired of being raped by our government? A revolt? What then? What happened to rule of law? I suppose "the man" was suppressing Ayers and his herd of killers. He admits the bombings and his and Bernadette's participation freely and yet you blithely ignore it. If the government was as bad as you say, "they" would have seen to his disappearance. Who has the right to sell us on the notion Americans are free given what's happening today? Certainly not the current "leadership".

As for other nation's problems, we should stay out be it Israel, Honduras, or Iran. If they raise one finger against us, they should pay dearly. Diplomacy doesn't work anymore - if it ever really did.

Rolando, I think it's clear that you consider it the duty of the United States of America to be in charge of the world and you think it's a-okay to send our young to their deaths for such noble causes. Nothing would change your mind. So be it. My horse is dead. Please don't try to beat it any longer.

Your opinion, thank goodness, doth not a policy maketh. It is of little consequence what either of us thinks when it comes right down to it. What does matter, and what our leaders are taking notice of, is that the vast majority of the American people want the practice of meddling in the affairs of other nations to stop.

And after this debacle started by the former President, it may well be a long time before the people of this nation will ever jump on board with any suggestion to enter into another war, unless it is in clear defense of THIS nation.

You and the usual suspects are trying so hard to convince anyone who will listen or read that the President is "scared to death of North Korea." How many times must it be pointed out that our President will not entertain any taunts by a playground bully? When one relents and indulges the demands of a misbehaving child, it merely encourages more of the same.

Why not point out how GWB dealt with the man? Didn't he put the man in his place while he was in office? Not quite. He spent 8 years ignoring the man completely, and refused to give in to his demand for one-on-one talks. GWB did eventually bribe the man, and now you see where that has led. He took the money, went back on his word, and now the petulant child wants more.

He's upped his demands. Now he's making more playground threats of bodily harm if he is not taken seriously. He's taken a bold step by lighting the fuse to four firecrackers which have at least some people oohing and aahing and apparently trembling in fear.

Is our current President one of them? I doubt it. The man seems to be in control of his emotions, and there are plenty of advisers on top of all the little details surrounding that little man of the north. They inform the President how to react, exactly what to say, and how to go about the process of ignoring the man's demands just like GWB did while he was in office.

alprova - not only do I want the practice of "meddling" as you put it to stop, I want all foreign aid to stop. Food, all the offices we operate overseas, all the AIDS meds to Africa - all of it. It would be different if were 1 - using our own money and 2 accomplishing anything worthwhile. we do it all with money we're borrowing from China and it accomplishes little other than to make the rest of the world dislike us even more and dictators even fatter.

btw for a resident's view of Honduras and its prez, I suggest:
http://ccv.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=35...

Sailorman, We'll probably never see eye to eye on Ayers, and we'll have to agree to disagree, so If I may be allowed a few more thoughts...

Bill Ayers was a scared man in his early 20's when all of this began. I wasn't the most rational person at that age either. I made all kinds of stupid decisions. He was facing the prospect of being forced into a situation where his life may well have been sacrificed for a cause which very few people understood at the time. Not many understand it today either. At least give the man a minimal amount of latitude for being naive, illogical, and scared to freaking death.

His decision to protest both the war and the draft in the manner that he did was criminal for sure, but a complete act of desperation. The man did eventually turn himself in to face charges, and he was prepared to suffer all the consequences. They turned him loose. You can't blame him for that. The Government could not prosecute him. The evidence was too weak.

Now people can consider him whatever they want, but the man has lived an exemplary life from that day on, and to the best of my research and accumulated knowledge, he has kept a very low profile as well, with the exception of published writings, both in print and online, containing words that are often misquoted and overly analyzed by those who despise the man as a traitor.

Our Government on the other hand, has never apologized for the 57,000 plus lives that were cut short in a war that was never properly declared, many or most of them were put in harms way against their wills and forced to support and take up arms against a nation that had never harmed an American until we inserted ourselves onto their soil.

Bill Ayers killed no one. Our Government killed tens of thousands of our people, not to mention the nearly one hundred thousand opposing troops, tens of thousands of civilians, and scores of others that were killed during the throes of combat. And why? No one knows.

You tell me who has more in terms of collateral damage to answer for.

Sailorman, I am pleased to see that we do agree on something.

Monetary, food, other aid, and support should come to a screeching halt, unless it is STRICTLY humanitarian in nature, and if it bypasses the dictators to benefit as many of the people as is possible.

Has anyone noticed in all this back and forth between a few people, how the original cartoon and response was immediately waylaid by a non relevant post by a certain person.

I haven't been able to post earlier this morning but the errors have apparantly been mended, and I am disgusted how that person has managed to sidetrack a group of intelligent, and aware people from the immediate concern of the blog. It is to laugh!

Sorry! I couldn't help noticing.

Let's get back to Robin The Hood Smith,Fascist.

Clara is right.

I'm sure people would love for Robin Smith to join in the conversation and express her views on these various subjects.

The only problem is that it's doubtful that she has had time to form any opinions on them yet.

It's likely that she has been spending a great deal of time consulting with her chief campaign strategist, Bill Cunningham, for pointers.

You see it takes some time to flip through all those pesky radio commercials to get to the hate of the matter.

Thanks for the observation Clara,

I noticed the very same thing about rolando; however, I have very muched enjoyed reading alprova's well articulated responses to rolando's diversions.

As I've said before, Clay could draw virtually anything and rolando will twist it to find a way to bash Obama.

In his defense, I don't think he can help it. I know people like him with very narrow world views. To maintain their world view they must constantly bend reality to conform it. Sometimes the conformations cause a complete break with reality. rolando's breaks from reality and the sarcasm do distract us all from any truths he may utter.

He seems more focused on winning an argument than getting things right.

In this way, he's kind of like Robin Smith.

Yes Moonpie!

Alprova

"Bill Ayers was a scared man in his early 20's when all of this began." So was I but it didn't occur to me to blow people up. He was and is a domestic terrorist every bit as guilty as McVeigh and Kaczynski.

"Bill Ayers killed no one." It wasn't for lack of trying.

Using the Vietnam war and the gov's dismal, and continuing, failures to justify what Ayers did is disingenuous at best. You're right - we will never agree on Ayer's. Nice that we do on the other. Have a great 4th.

Clara, you rabble-rouser, you.

The conversation certainly did take a dramatic turn somewhere along the way, and that's a shame, because Robin Smith can use all the scrutiny she can get. But it's fairly typical for these 'discussions' to take a turn or two during their course. That's how many conversations in real life go, and I don't really expect this forum to be any different.

All that being said, I will get back to the subject at hand- Ms. Smith.

Credo posted a link earlier in this forum to a short Vanity Fair piece about Robin Smith's candidacy. That, coming on the heals of a long piece in Vanity Fair on Sarah Palin (It Came From Wasilla)- http://tinyurl.com/krnbhk -I noticed some similarities between the two women.

- They're both strong-arm politicians. It's not about compromise with either of them, it's about conquest. If you oppose them, they hold a grudge, and either will take you down given the chance.

- They both have a tendency to... gee, lie is such a strong word, so let's say... they both have a tendency to revise their stories on events without qualm or hesitation.

- Both Sarah and Robin seem to have a healthy persecution complex... or, they use this perceived persecution to deflection criticism. If either is held accountable for what they've done in the past, they immediately characterize it as an attack by the 'liberal press'. Questioning the biases of your critics does not blunt the criticism, it only makes you look like a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

- Lastly, both seem to aspire to positions beyond their modest abilities. We've already seem Sarah Palin in action, and what an embarrassment that was. Smith may not have the barracuda's charisma (for lack of a better word), but she HAS to be smarter than the future ex-governor from Alaska.

I'll be very interested to see how Smith wears over time. Let's see how someone who's always been behind-the-scenes does in front of the camera. That glare can be very bright, for a creature who seems to prefer living in the shadows.

Well hello Ollie - Let's "drift" back to Honduras for a second. Glad you liked the pictures on the blog I linked. Did you read any of it? Here's one without pictures from an American retiring to Roatan. He's been there for years off and on. Ohmygod he's one of those people you would define as "elites" but don't make the same erroneous assumption you made about me as to who we talk to there. Since you apparently know nothing of Honduras other than what you've assumed or been fed by our media, please take the time to read the post by K8sMate - you might just learn something. Happy 4th.

http://ccv.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=35...

Thanks for the link, Sailorman. I'll go and check it out.

You're right about me getting most of my information from newspapers and the news media. But, I, for one, have no real qualms as to it's veracity.

I have been to Honduras a few times myself. A former job sent me to Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Costa Rica on several occasions. So, even though I have been to most of Central America, and a few countries in South America, my time there was limited. So, like I said, most of my hard information comes courtesy of various news sources.

What did strike me about most of the countries (since I got to travel outside the major cities) was the tremendous disparity in wealth. It's something I always notice, wherever I go, be it San Francisco or San Salvador, but I was totally unprepared for the kind of poverty I saw in places like Honduras.

Now, don't get me wrong, the people seemed happy enough, even though they had far from enough to get by. But I can see how the general populous would embrace a more socialistic agenda, as the one promoted by President Zelaya.

I've seen it all before. I for one, would prefer to see a resentful underclass earn their political power at the polls, than to take it at the barrel of a gun.

A government that frustrates attempts at the former, will only inspire the latter.