Maybe it was Nancy Pelosi.

Sorry, I forgot that Nancy is over 50 and not a man. Maybe it was Tammy Baldwin.

Does he have a defense fund? I will donate. Doing the Hitler thing is soooo low life.
Really so we have to be such an imbecile to display a poster like that?

Could have been me. Except I'm not in that part of the country.

I agree ann. The Hitler reference is wrong, on many levels. It's kind of like flag burning, in my book. I don't see any real connection of Hitler to President Obama, Governor Walker or anyone else. Hitler was in a class of his own. But in the end condoning violence is wrong too.
Where was the picture with the table taken? If it is not the actual display it should be noted.

I don't know Greg... Are you sure Nancy Pelosi isn't a man?

I personally have not checked, I'd really much rather take their word for it. :+)

Just love the way Nancy Pelosi drives the knuckle-draggers nuts, probably because strong women bring out the worst in weak men.

Keif, Like Sarah Palin and Rebecca Kleefisch?
Pelosi being a woman does not bother me, Pelosi being delusional does.

Lol.. Nice one Greg. Keith just gave us a big dose of that left leaning hypocrisy. "Its OK when we do it, but not you guys".

I've never understood the Hitler reference myself, and I agree that it takes credibility from whatever point they were trying to make.

That being said, anytime we tried to point that out over the lefts use of the reference for Scott Walker and George Bush, we received nothing but insults in return.

I guess I am just not compassionate enough to understand the difference.

Any fool who does the Hitler thing should just expect a rude reaction.... That's the fallout from all that....

I guess the jackets and gloves should have been a clue.

John---prepare to lose more elections. Just sayin...........

U.S History has proven Democrats are the racists, they were in the past and are still.

Small minds run amok while the 1% turn this country into a Plutocrasy. Yet even otherwise inteligent people are allowing thier minds to be brainwashed by these greedy power grabbing thugs. By the way, honorable post Glenn. Happy Fourth to ALL.

I think calling Obama "a president who is very much Anti American, whom supports and funds American tax payers money to terrorist to improve their place of worship that by the way is their spot to teach their kids to hate Christians and Americans" really, *really* requires either some evidence or a retraction.

No Geoff, it actually doesn't require either evidence or a retraction. Whether you agree or disagree, the beauty of our society is that you are allowed the freedom to say or believe what you will.

Sometimes its a good thing, sometimes its not, but I don't think anyone here wants to live in a world were others get to make that call. Well, most of us don't anyway. I've always enjoyed the Hypocrisy of the left in regards to free speech. They are all about free speech as long as its left leaning free speech. Conservative speech they seem to always want to squash.

Terry, unfortunately you seem to be confusing "freedom of speech" with "freedom to make evidence-free allegations of treasonous activity and freedom from being called on it".

"I've always enjoyed the Hypocrisy of the left in regards to free speech." - examples?

Example: Fredonia Man Cited for Grabbing Anti-Obama Vendor by the Neck. Geo, in deffending Graeme Zelinski's lies, you would have defined this as plenty of examples.

Where is the hypocrisy here? In the article, someone physically attacked someone else, apparently on the basis of the latter's political expression. I don't see where the assailant claimed to say it wasn't ok for others to physically attack him on the same basis, nor do I see where "the left" is defending this action while simultaneously decrying similar attacks with different political motivations. I don't even see any hint that the assailant so much as identified themselves with "the left", only the black-and-white presumptions flying around that anyone not in support of impeaching Obama is necessarily a part of "the left" (there are more than two political camps in this country, you know).

"Geo, in deffending Graeme Zelinski's lies, you would have defined this as plenty of examples." - that's nice, but in that prior article's thread I established that in your estimation anyone who described 22 cases or fewer of assault, rape and/or murder as "plenty of violence" was not even an exaggerator but rather a "lying bastard". Since that is a patently unreasonable definition, you were clearly more interested in describing Zelinski as a lying bastard than actually establishing reasonable goal posts that could let you to be proven incorrect (on the subject matter at hand, at least).

No Geo, you provided zero examples and wanted to play another of your word games, that are only intended to shift the blame. Simple reasoning always proves you wrong, but you are too stupid to ever realize it.

Terry, Here is an example of Geo's line of thinking and why it is a waste of time replying to him. It starts in the 3rd post and goes for 35 or so more.
http://foxpoint.patch.com/articles/walker-signs-burned-and-destroyed-across-the-area

"No Geo, you provided zero examples and wanted to play another of your word games, that are only intended to shift the blame." - except I started out then by providing at least one of assault, plus another example of a death threat. If like Darling Sharpe you want to throw around wild accusations without being challenged to demonstrate their veracity, I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't care for them. As for my intent, well, of course it goes without saying that you my intentions better than I do (I thought they were to call out as such unfounded wild accusations which have no place in civilized discussion, but apparently you know better).

As it happens I'm perfectly happy to see (and encourage) public criticisms of the likes of Zielinski and Obama - but only criticisms for their real failings, not ones invented for the purposes of political attack.

"Simple reasoning always proves you wrong, but you are too stupid to ever realize it." - thanks for concisely proving your lack of interest in civilized discussion.

Yes Geoff, freedom of speech does even allow "freedom to make evidence-free allegations of treasonous activity and freedom from being called on it", when it comes to public figures. Courts, both conservative and liberal have been very clear on it. One of the few things they tend to agree on.

And as for the Hypocrisy, it is somewhat delicious irony that you would even ask that question in this article. You do not have to look that hard into the past to find plenty of articles, blogs, and heck even tweets from your own state democratic spokesman to find plenty of "Hitler" references used to describe conservatives such as Walker or Bush. Hell, the original "Hitler" poster started with anti war protesters showing pictures of Bush with the Hitler stash.

How about all of the claims from the left that Bush orchestrated the 911 attacks on our country to justify his wars? Would those not count as "evidence-free allegations of treasonous activity"? Did you speak out, calling for your left leaning fellows to provide either evidence or a retraction?

I would be surprised.

Groan... Terry, you don't seem to get it: by criticizing Darling Sharpe for calling Obama "very much Anti American, whom supports and funds American tax payers money to terrorist to improve their place of worship that by the way is their spot to teach their kids to hate Christians and Americans" without any substantiation whatsoever, I am in no way impinging on anyone's freedom of speech in any way whatsoever. I am in exercising my own. This is extremely clear from the fact that you can still read Sharpe's comment, for I have not magically removed it.

"And as for the Hypocrisy, it is somewhat delicious irony that you would even ask that question in this article. You do not have to look that hard into the past to find plenty of articles, blogs, and heck even tweets from your own state democratic spokesman to find plenty of "Hitler" references used to describe conservatives such as Walker or Bush." - um, so person A makes a Hitler reference, person B makes a Hitler reference, person C physically attacks person B (apparently) for making that Hitler reference. Who's being hypocritical in your mind, person A, person B or person C? It seems you can only justify a claim of hypocrisy by pretending that persons A and B are one and the same.

"How about all of the claims from the left that Bush orchestrated the 911 attacks on our country to justify his wars? Would those not count as "evidence-free allegations of treasonous activity"?" - absolutely they do. But that doesn't somehow justify anyone else's evidence-free allegations of treasonous activity. "But he did it too!" is a playground-level excuse. Sharpe should put up evidence of such in Obama's case or retract the allegation as baseless.

"Did you speak out, calling for your left leaning fellows to provide either evidence or a retraction?" - now you're implying that I am akin to those who make crazy baseless allegations. You might care to rephrase your question in a manner that doesn't have such an insulting subtext, at which time I might care to answer it.

Nice try Geoff. In debate we used to call that deflecting the premise.

"But that doesn't somehow justify anyone else's evidence-free allegations of treasonous activity. "But he did it too!" is a playground-level excuse."

It certainly doesn't justify the original comments about treasonous intent (which I don't happen to agree with BTW)... And had that been the point we are debating, it would have been a good point. But we are discussing the Hypocrisy of the left, and as such, "but he did it too" is right on point.

And in regards to "infringing on freedom of speech", wording is very specific. You didn't ask her, or even tell her, that you wanted a retraction. You stated it "required" evidence or a retraction.

Playing lawyer-ball with the English language? Maybe, but its a game we both have been playing here.

"And in regards to "infringing on freedom of speech", wording is very specific. You didn't ask her, or even tell her, that you wanted a retraction. You stated it "required" evidence or a retraction."

I've not impinged upon anyone's rights of expression. I fail to see why when I call for someone to either substantiate or retract such an outrageous statement as Sharpe's, the first thing you can comment on is that it amounts to some hypocritical restriction on someone's freedom of speech, or that it makes me a part of "the left" for that matter.

"Playing lawyer-ball with the English language? Maybe" - not just maybe, definitely. My use of the term "require" was based upon a presumption that by posting here Sharpe and other commenters are interested in rational discussion and establishing facts rather than throwing libels around. That's completely normal and a courtesy.

"In debate we used to call that deflecting the premise."

Except the *only* reason hypocrisy was ever in this subthread is because *you* introduced it by leaping to conclusions about me on account of your lawyer-balling, as you so eloquently put it. My motivations for my stance (including wording) are not only relevant, your false presumptions regarding them are the *entire* justification you have for your deflection of the premise away from unfounded allegations of Obama being a terrorist-funder.

To accuse me of deflecting the premise when you have done so yourself is, well, you know...

"loosing our freedoms and liberties" - can you be specific?

"Now we have a Tax, enforced by the IRS, paid directly to private corporations (insurance companys), owned by foreign banks." - presuming you're referring to the freeloader tax in the PPACA, that does not go directly to private corporations. The PPACA, as scored by the CBO, is a net positive for Federal government finances and hence goes towards reducing the deficit.

Gonna have a hard time seeing his face when he loses those freedoms. Last I knew of Sigmund, he was in Mexico, dodging arrest warrants.. And since according to the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access site, those warrants are still there....

I agree it's a major problem, but the fundamental cause is the voting system of winner-takes-all: third parties in such systems are always marginalized since they can't grow to competitive vote share sizes without drawing people's votes away from where they will make a difference in the current election. So the two-party system is stable this way, even if they're both terrible and a third party is full of great ideas and great potential leaders.

I like the look of the rate voting system myself, but as long as the two-party system endures, both such parties have an interest in not changing the voting system. George Washington was right about political parties.

Linda, you claimed that we are "loosing our freedoms and liberties". Why is it my responsibility to work out what you mean for you; why can't you just tell us instead of hand-waving something about losing liberty? I just want to know what you think you can't do now that you could do before.

I'm sorry I didn't exercise any mind-reading abilities, and I'm sorry but I haven't written anything pro-Obama here.

You equate the loss of the ability to freeload on those who do pay for ER's via their insurance with loss of liberty? That's rather like saying that the law against assault removes my freedom to punch strangers: while it's technically true from a narrow individualistic point of view it ignores everyone else's liberties that are trodden on in the process.

Ask David Prosser.

But seriously, yes it does. Might be a matter of the chances of getting a conviction on the basis of witness reports, or the details.

It could be both... and in fact the conduct does fit the legal definition of both.

The officer in question used his discretion based upon the circumstance to choose what he believed was the most appropriate resolution.

@Terry - or the officer allowed his personal bias to influence the decision...

Of course, in today's world we always have to find a ulterior and political motive to describe someones actions. I couldn't have simply been because he felt it the most appropriate action.

Would it help for you to know that according to the police report the victim was grabbed by the back of the neck not the front?

So which one do you prefer. Did he write the ticket were none was needed because he is a Obama supporter? Or did he write the ticket when he should have arrested because he is a Obama detractor?

We have enough problems in this country right now with everyone hating each other. I would rather choose to assume that he just did his job.

Yes a picture, of the drum bangers with it, is located at the top of this blog. Enjoy.

Not if they were criminals, he wouldn't. Deportation of criminal immigrants (the definition of which apparently includes misdemeanors for these purposes; see the link below) is way, way up under Obama; non-criminal deportations are down; total deportations are slightly higher than 2008 and pretty consistent since then.

http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/2011/12/20/how-many-criminals-is-ice-really-deporting/144722/

LOL... Thank you Sarah. Hope Geoff was paying attention to your last few posts. Many on the left get so indignant about the references to Obama and Hitler (references which once again I must say I don't agree with), but are more than willing to drop them for conservatives.

But Sarah, if your going to use history in a debate, you should know history. To begin with, what occurred in Nazi Germany was never about Immigration. Many of the families persecuted by the Germans were some of the oldest families in Germany and Europe. By definition, that's not immigration.

They also weren't even "conservatives". You are aware that the Nazi Party stands for the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)?

So Sarah, Hitler and his Nazi party were socialists (and union folk).

Now, I don't approve of making comparisons with anyone today. What occurred in Germany was something unique, and something we hope to never see again. But your attempt to re-write history to fit your point... that's just not right either.

"You are aware that the Nazi Party stands for the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)?

So Sarah, Hitler and his Nazi party were socialists (and union folk)."

You're not even trying now are you Terry? According to your "logic":

1. Hitler was upfront and honest (except when he didn't call his party the National Socialist German Workers Committing Genocide and Invading Europe Party).
2. The People's Republic of China must be by the People, for the People.
3. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy.
4. The German Democratic Republic was a democracy.

5. French fries are made in france.
7. Boston Store is in Massachusetts.

Nice Geoff... There is that topic deflection that you are becoming so well known for. I was not applying "logic" as you stated. Applying logic would be drawing a conclusion. I was simply quoting history. Even a casual bit of research into the origins of the Nazi party will show you were it came from. Don't take my word for it, look it up. The Nazi party was formed from the worker parties and socialists of Germany at the time. That is just the truth of it.

Again, though, I am not the one trying to make the claim that the Nazi's were similar to any of our current politicians. What occurred in Germany was unique to its time, and hopefully will never occur again.

But, since you insist on this path, Sarah made the comparison between conservatives views on immigration, and the Nazi persecution of the Jews. Again, look to history as your guide, as those who ignore it are doomed to repeat it.

Hitler used German resentment the Jewish people in his rise to power. The claims he made in justifying what he did centered around their wealth. He hyped on how they controlled too much of German business and industry; how they were hoarding their wealth amongst themselves and not sharing it with the German people.

A charismatic leader, harping on class warfare and using public mistrust of the wealthy to advance his agenda... No one wants to see that happen again, right Geoff? Just saying.... ;-)

You used the name - and the name alone - of the Nazi Party as evidence of your conclusion (whatever you later claim) that "Hitler and his Nazi party were socialists (and union folk)." When I point this out with world-of-duh counterexamples of why this was bunkum, rather than acknowledging the terrible weakness of this evidence you accuse me of "topic deflection" even when - yet again - my post was *completely* relevant to your point.

Your irrelevant introduction of the topic of "topic deflection" is itself a deflection of the topic away from the weakness of an argument of yours, and you thereby demonstrate your hypocrisy again, just as you did before.