The Hammond Report

Nope, Andy's right. His blog, His rules.
I agree with most of what citizen usually says but if it can't be said in a civil manner, it ain't worth reading.
Jabs are good but, hate speech has no place in any discussion.
Andy's comments are mostly civil even though he disagrees with me and everybody knows I'm always right.

You don't even get it Andy, and it is a little sad that you dont. You put out a rumor mongering post about a video that does not exist. What a. citizen was doing was pointing out that there was as much fact behind what you said as what he said.

If you have ever wondered why no one in the blogosphere respects you, that post on Michelle Obama might explain it. You just said «There is something really bad coming out about Michelle Obama» without regard to real facts or anything remotely resembling evidence.

Seriously Andy, you are peddling muck here and you stink of it.

Andy, it is a sorry state if you actually believe you have never gotten personal, but I have been offended many times by your plain insinuations that I hate America, like soldiers dying, want us to fail in Iraq, and that my candidates would destroy the country.

Those have all been, while not directly meant for me, personal to me. So how the fuck do you get off saying you don't get personal?

Even the part above where you state that Shane «thought it was hilarious» is personal, because you are accusing him of something there. How is that any different; calling someone a molester of saying someone would like molesters?

Seriously, Andy, I want to know...

Additionally, your smear of Shane is completely off base. Ask any numbers of Conservative bloggers other than yourself like Craig or TMM, they will certainly tell you that they have mutual respect with Shane.

Your the odd man out on that count.

I have to say that a comment like that is unnecessary, but there have been several unnecessary personal comments made on this blog. I have commended Andy before on having a forum like this for discussion of heated topics. However there are a couple of bloggers other than a.citizen that have gone overboard. NAZZ55, Jebster, and intimidator consistently make personal attacks towards other while trying to make a point. What or who gives them a right to think their point is more valid because they use personal attacks at the same time. In reality the three of them along with a.citizen need to grow up and educate themselves on how to speak beyond the 5th grade level. Name calling is so uh...mature? Sticks and Stones...blah blah blah!

Andy, the fact is that I thought the comment was off base and uncalled for. The same point could have been made in more civil terms.

Just because you didn't make it up, does not make it 'ok' to pass around stories that are not supported by any sort of facts. I will refer you to exactly what Obama said:

«We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it,» Obama said to the McClatchy reporter during a press conference aboard his campaign plane. «That gives legs to the story. If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it.»

You peddle muck Andy.

What's more, Colby was dead on when he said that the sad part is that you aren't even introspective enough to understand when your attacks are personal.

«I'm not looking for your respect and would be concerned if I had it. I've been around long enough to understand the only way to get your respect is to compromise one's values and agree with you.»

Probably the most accurate and most brilliant thing you've written, Andy.

Shawn Mason and Colby Natale are diseased people. You can get contaminated by just arguing with them, much less agreeing with them.

Goodness gracious, all this uproar about spreading a rumor. Andy even cautioned that it was a rumor. I'm actually one that thinks there is enough dirt on Obama without this rumor, and it's a distraction from the revelations of Obama's true nature. Every time one turns around Obama has to toss somebody under the bus that surprises him. Lack of introspective is the least of Obama's issues, lack of judgement is a much more pressing problem for him. Obama is surprised more often than Ed Bangs.

Heck, apparently I knew more about his friends than he did. I wonder if Obama knows Francis Fox Piven. Link She seems like the kind of lady that would hang in his circles.

I do know if Dan Rather peddles a rumor, it gets good press from the left. There are still numbskulls on the left that deny that the that the forged documents that caused Rather's documents were forged.

I've been lurking around all these blogs for a few months now...reading voraciously. I've started coming out of lurkdom to comment here and there on posts that interested me. I usually will avoid something like «this» at all costs...but this time I can't.

Andy- I was on your side of the political fence my entire life. And I can say that I used to sit around, satisfied that I was better than «them»...the dirty liberals. I felt so moral in comparison. And that attitude bled into the way I thought of them and talked to them. I felt it was all okay, though, because I was so righteous.

It's not okay though. It doesn't mean I think that it's okay that a. citizen chose that particular scenario to make his (valid) point...but, Andy, I have seen with my two eyes instances where you attempt to take down good people with your words. Telling them they want to see American soldiers die. And, Operation Chaos? Playing games with the voting will of your American brothers and sisters? You are not innocent here. Can you not humble yourself to see that?

And respect? You don't owe it to anyone...and no one owes it to you. As the saying goes «Respect is earned».

In this online world, a few have earned mine: Colby Natale, Wulfgar, and the infamous Shane C. Mason along with a few others. They are clear in their arguments, fair in their criticisms, and quick to call out those in need of calling out. (Not to mention funny and quick witted. Which can go a long way when trying to criticize another.)

Personal attacks seem to abound in your presence. Either directed against you...or lobbed by you. This is an indicator of your character.

My opinion of you? You are quick to judge and slow to understand. Truth is, you have a chance in this kind of forum to affect real and positive changes, but you seem hell bent on playing games and calling names.

So, that's my long-winded, personal, likely very ineffectual comment to you.

Checker 8: So, who is «Shawn» Mason? Is that Shane's rogue twin? Wondered if you knew who you were insulting.

A lurker that suddenly emerges and attempts to claim moral high ground gets no respect from me.

Politics ain't beanbag.

Thanks Andy for calling the others out. You know how I feel about Operation Chaos, the current administration, etc. And although I don't agree with you, I do think that everyone's view deserves to be heard. And political humor is only that, humor that in which sometimes makes us think. Sometimes I feel the need to defend myself, and others, including you. Which is why I'm saying to the others, I have made Andy smile with my down the middle, or liberal ways. Andy has even posted a link that I provided which was hurtful to GWB. Yes, Andy provided links that are a hundred fold to mine, but it is his blog. And with all due respect, he is in control over his blog, the articles he comments on, etc. But he is not in control of our freewill to vote for whomever, blog where ever, or what we personally believe. Nuff Said.

Cardiac: I wasn't claiming moral high ground. In the end, we are all equal in that we rock at some things, and suck at others.

I expect no respect from you nor anyone else. If you want to disqualify me based on a personality quirk that requires I observe before engaging, that's fine by me. I try, and sometimes fail, to not judge a person on the first impression, which is why I haven't commented before.

I did engage today, because I wanted to. Simple as that.

I'm respected by the people I care about in life, I imagine you are too. That's good enough for me.

Vertere's insistance that he was not trying to claim moral high ground is further eroded when he says based on a personality quirk that requires I observe before engaging,. That little comment implies that the rest of us don't observe before engaging, or that in the least he stands out from the norm by his ability to do such.

Little statements like that make me wonder who it is that lacks introspection.

Cardiac: I apologize. I did not mean to imply anything about anyone other than myself. I have no way to base an implication of your observation/engage habits, as I cannot know how long you or anyone lurked through these pages before commenting for the first time.

I was remiss because I digressed from the original point of the post when I commented. It was an emotional rather than rational response. Although, I stand by what I said to Andy.

Vertere = Liberal Shill

Take a stand, girlie man.

This aint no party, this aint no disco.

You want to run a school playground, go someplace else.

DC Kidd: There's really no way to respond to that nonsensical comment.