Sorry, adam, but the dems have run congress all but twelve years of my life. Give me a break. They didn't have a voice in the "Great Society'? Or the Bay of Pigs? Or Vietnam. Oh, my bad, that was Nixon's war. I forgot my revisionist history. Liberal bashing by the media? This BS is why more of us don't contribute here.

You have a point, mattloch, and a pretty good one, I must say.  I can assure you that your comments will never be deleted by me, from any blog threads that I post.

"Ron's big complaint was that I "slam" the President. So what?" 

That's right, dusty.  Taking shots at the prez is not considered a personal attack since he's a public figure.  But we should be careful about which presidents we compare one another too.  I, for one, would be extremely insulted if someone where to compare me to Jimmy Carter, who recently wanted one of his own comments censored from his new book because it made obvious his sympathy for those who commit terrorist acts against Israel. 

I came across a direct quote, and it was from an old media publication.  I don't recall the name of the newspaper where I came across the quote.  It also quoted Jimmy Carter---more specifically, his expressed desire to have the comment removed in subsequent published copies.  I will keep looking, and if someone is able to produce the quote before me, be my guest.  Here is a link to CNN's coverage of the book controversy, which also contains footage of Carter's response:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/...

Mattloch

The reason that Ron deleted you is because he said he was going to in his post. He said he didn't want to hear from you or dusty or pp2 or any lib. Ron was asking for input from conservatives and that pretty much leaves you out.

He was deleted for calling all of you libs descendants of Jimmy Carter. Somebody took offense. Without a cuss word in the post.

"Do you contend that his original blog wasn't libelous? Do you have any proof that the Californian has censored "conservative" posts while allowing similar "liberal" posts to remain?"

It wasn't my point to make with The Californian, it was Ron's.

"I don't think anything he said could even be construed as humorous, sarcastic, or otherwise justified. I don't think what he said was all that bad. I found it funny in a "grade school playground" -kinda way; totally separate from it's (intended) humor."

His attempt at humor wasn't that bad. It made me smile. It sounds like you're not sure if you thought it was funny or not tho.

I don't post on here much anymore, because it's a waste of time.

There are people arguing about subjects who aren't qualified to even have an opinion.

-People with NO management experience or skills whining about how big corporations are managed

-People who have NEVER been in the Military whining about how the Military is run

-People lambastering and blasting public figures. Being critical of effort or outcome doesn't require that level of squaller to be blasted onto an individual.

-People going Over the Top aggressive on anyone who just might have a differing viewpoint (no listening, no pondering, straight to "Over the Top".

I've read and posted here long enough to figure out what most of the regulars are all about. Nothing changes, so it's become a waste of time...............................

"Its sad when an adult acts like a 3 year old having a temper tantrum, lashing out at anyone because he doesn't get his way."

What is sad is that you did not speak up at all when a poster told Nancy "At least I don't have to sit around playing with myself, old lady".

I don't hold you accountable for what someone else said.  An admonishment for civility tho was sadly lacking from all liberals that day. It is to bad that you don't remember the conversation as you were in on it.

The folks who run this blog community get to decide what belongs here and what does not.  They may have their biases, but they are the gate keepers.  Those who run public parks want to maintain the parks and don't want those parks covered with trash. 

I believe a blog community is like a park.  People should feel welcome and they should feel safe.  If they feel threatened, then they will not really feel like coming back.  Personally, if I say something that somebody takes offense to, whether an examination of the content reveals that I crossed the line or not, I will delete my own comments and apologize to the person I've offended.  Free speech is not a license to verbally abuse, attack or threaten others.  I'm not saying that Ron's intent was to do any of these things, but I think that if a person feels offended, it is better for the person who made the comment to apologize and get rid of the comment that was experienced as offensive by the individual or party raising the objection. 

Steve, you don't think liberals are generally as funny??????????

You mean, you think  William Buckley and Rush Limbaugh are funnier than Jon Stewart, Al Franken, Bill Maher , Lewis Black and Steven Colbert?

Man, do you find traffic reports hilarious too? ; )

No, dusty, I don't think you shoud defend any conservative, we would have no way to call the paramedics for your ensuing heart failure.(sad attempt at humor)

I don't read my post as a demand just an observation.

mattloch,

Man, here you go again.

"But to people have to have military experience to talk about the military?" - No, not to talk about the Military. To criticize the way it runs, Yes, a little first-hand experience would go a long way towards constructing a credible opinion.

"Do people have to run their own business to talk about business practices?" - No, not to talk about business practices. To criticize, demoralize and demand Government intervention, YES, again, a little first-hand experience would go a long way towards constructing a credible opinion. The free market takes care of business gone nuts.

"Do people have to be raped to validate their opinions on sentencing guidelines of rapists?" This one wasn't on my list..........Scope Creep............Scope Creep.

"Do people have to hold elected office to have a valid opinion about how the government should behave?" - No, again, you've taken what I said out of context. This is very annoying.......You do it all the time.....................What I said was "-People lambastering and blasting public figures. Being critical of effort or outcome doesn't require that level of squaller to be blasted onto an individual." Being critical of the effort or the outcome.....OK. Being personally critical of the person exerting the effort or responsible for the outcome.......NOT OK. If you can do better, then go and do it. Don't sit back and attack the person who's actually there trying to do it.

My expectations are plenty realistic.

Being critical of government actions is the DUTY of ALL citizens when they feel that ANY individual who controls their lives is not doing a good job.

The effect an administrative leader has is on EVERY American citizen regardless of their education or personal life experience, whether that leader be conservative or liberal.

If a leader cannot take criticism in any form (read Dick Cheney), then he is not a leader.

Tony, not to be disrespectful, but you seem a lot less interested in participating in political discussion since the popular view has stopped corresponding to your view.  You try to belittle the beliefs of a small group of dedicated people and that's fine.  But in a few years when you do move back to Bako, don't be surprised when the town agrees more with the group that kept pushing, kept putting in the time and making the arguments and putting together the facts.

What you'll also notice is that Sam has banned intellegent disagreement on his blog.  You could go over there for a peaceful time, though that's the only place on these blogs where you are guarenteed to get  "War, Bad... Military, -Bad... Republicans, -Bad... President, Vice-President, -Bad – Bad (they’re Republicans).... Corporate America, -Bad... Anything that cost more than you can afford, -Bad.... Anybody that is more successful in life than you, -Bad.... Religion, -Bad.... Values, Morals, -Bad....".

You can also start your own blog here and post whatever you want.  Of course, if you read the liberals' posts with the same eye you apply to Sam's stuff, you'd find you agree with us more than we disagree.

Tom,

It's the approach that turns me off more than anything else..........Several here attack to person, not the idea, effort or result. That's the dead horse that continues to be beat..........I tried to make that point with the "Jimmy Carter thing" and "Abortion Thing"................Maybe I failed.

I understand where Sam is coming from. I don't see intelligent disagreement here. I see opinions based on what has previously been said or written by some self-professed expert with no more experience than Rush Limbaugh. I don't listen to him either. He's a NUT!  We both know what the average opinion is like. Everyone has one, and they all stink.

This whole "find it on the internet to back up my opinion" thing is stupid. It doesn't mean a thing to me. If you look hard enough, you'll find something to substantiate the idea that the Earth is flat.

Kern County won't end up being like this blog. Nowhere except the San Francisco area is. The rest of America falls somewhere Right .

I do a lot of traveling around the country and interacting with people in my job, so I get a pretty good idea of what people around America think. Trust me, most of the people on this blog here are WAY out there. My thoughts are closer to normal. I may even fall a little to the left of normal. I just got off of the road for a week. I was on both coasts and throughout the midwest. This recent trip gave me something to gauge things by. From my most recent experience, as Ron says, this "Rat Pack" is WAY OUT THERE.

The present admin has been hammered pretty good, just like Clinton was Tony. Comes with the turf, but this admin has sure given it's critics plenty to hammer them with.

But I don't think I've seen even the most liberal blogger say they hated the military. Heck, even the military doesn't agree with Bush' tactics.

I agree with you about internet links Tony. But a savvy person can usually figure out the hype from what is real. In other words, if a study about tobacco is funded by R.J Reynolds, or a study on the demise of the whale is funded by Greenpeace, you have to consider the source.

Unfortunately, our media has gone from reporting the news, to full time editorializing. I admire you for thinking on your own and not blindly following a particular label. If everyone did that that, we'd have a much more honest debate in the congress, on the blogs, and on the street.