I signed the petition and after seeing that 4 second clip it's not hard to see why Countdown's ratings are in the toilet. I think it's obvious Keith can dish it out but he clearly cant take it. I expect over the next few weeks that KO will slowly drift into madness.

from the transcript:

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I think, initially, Steve, when this was becoming more -- it was getting more press coverage, that's how he found out about it.

Yes, and so what? How is that a contradiction?

Well, what can you say about the show. There's so much. There's always too much.

No background on Jay Rockefeller -- although the guest offered some good background that deflated the lead, I thought.

The Libby segment was not enlightening. Except KO made a quip about "bird shot" at the end.

So, it's ironic that they had the White House press corps "expert" on the "bird shot" weekend on tonight -- the infamous David Gregory! Even though he was on a different topic.

Where did KO get the ratings information that he quoted? Was there a source? Did I miss it? Has his show's ratings gone up approximately 20% from last year? That means his show was at about 100,000 viewers last year? Now, it's 120,000. He quoted somewhere in the range of 150,000 on average. It's that high? Prove me wrong.

At least one mystery was solved tonight for me though! Before the almost funny part where all the MSNBC staffers line up to sign the petition, KO did identify this show as a "newscast."

There it is -- this show is a newscast. I heard Paul Harvey today and wondered if possibly Countdown was supposed to be some type of spinoff based on Harvey's show.

Pier pressure, good pun. Especially because the 15 small ports weren't mentioned again to any extent after the promotion on the intro.

In my opinion Keith's is the best cable news program. He has the guts and the intelligence O'Reilly lacks, and that often puts him on the correct side of the most important issues.

Only if the most important issues are related to BDS.

If a few dozen MSNBCers signed the petition, KO may be in trouble. That's a pretty high percentage of his audience.

Who does Olberman have naked pictures of,anyway, that networks keep hiring him. He offers nothing of entertainment or news value other than an hour a day for liberals to trash conservatives.

Keith Olbermann's a loser.
He probably used to get beat up in school, most Marxists do.
It's obvious he hate this country and wants Al-Qaeda to win.
May be he's a secret Jihadist sleeper cell member.
There is a tactic alliance between the Left and islamo-Fascists.
Maybe if the O'Reilly petition succeeds, KO can get a job at Al-Jazeera.
He definately is a 5th columnist.
I say deport him to his buddies in Iran!

JDogg you are so right.
KO is a very evil person.
That's why he's worried about the NSA terror spying program.
He communicates with his Al-Qaeda buddies and know he's caught.
he should be tried and hung for sedition!

I'm surprised O'Reilly is even commenting on this. Bad strategy. Smart that he hasn't mentioned Olbermann by name, but still we know who he is talking about. O'Reilly should just totally ignore Olbermann.

When O'Reilly went after Franken, it backfired on him. In my opinion, it would drive Olbermann more crazy if O'Reilly ignored Olbermann. This probably feels like a victory for Olby. The elephant has noticed the gnat.

You know what's going to be sad? I'd be willing to bet that the petition has more people signing it then Countdown has viewers.

This blog has been great for a laugh.

I think it's really amusing that O'Reilly fans are so threatened when someone calls out ol' Bill on his plainly obvious absurdities. O'Reilly's feigned "concern" for MSNBC is laughable, at best. He is obviously threated by Countdown (that airs opposite to The O'Reilly Factor), or he wouldn't even acknowledge it.

Popularity of a show isn't necessarily an indicator of quality. The average American knows more about what is happening on American Idol than they do about world events. Hamas who? Darfur where?

Catering to the uneducated masses is a good way to get ratings, for sure.

Responding to Eddy:

You know what I think is sad, people will sign that petition without ever actually watching the show or only watching a 4 second clip.

Do you actually have a mind of your own, or do you just always think what O'Reilly tells you to?

The reason the Fox News staff got the worst person win was not for doing the segment but for the caption, something Bill Maher also attacked tonight, but why let facts get in your way.

BTW, here's a link for a petition about your hero, falafel-boy.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/24/143441/509

Oh, and I see you only had the courage to pirate a four second clip. Too bad, because the nine minute and twelve second segment was hilarious.

Well, since it appear you've abandoned responsibility to provide proper context, I guess I'll do your job for you.

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/2006/KoOreillyPetition.asx

Responding to Jessica.

No, I usually do what O'Reilly tells me. See I've never seen Countdown ever. I go to this site to read about a show I've never ever seen. See by reading the stuff from this site I get the facts without ever having to watch the show. Just like I'm sure you get your facts about O'Reilly from the dreaded left wing blogs Mr. O wans people about.

Honestly I have seen Countdown many many times. I started watching last summer on vacation which was before I started watching the factor. The channels in the hotel were limited and I needed news so I saw this guy. I saw the oddball and I saw him throw his papers in the air and he entertained me enough to keep watching. I kept watching every night but then the great CIA leak came along and his show got mind numbingly boring. I came across this site and would read it as I saw the midnight replay. Mr. Dollar started making some good points so I figured why torture myself? Why not just watch O'Reilly and read this site? So I did and that's what I currently do. But if an episode of Countdown looks funny enough I'll tivo the midnight replay such as I did tonight.

Thanks for the generalized assumption about me, you really set yourself up to look foolish but then agian your probably a left wing liberal so your used to that kind of thing.

I was just wondering. If Hillary tried to business with a country that was part of the 911 attacks if the repukes would be doing the same song and dance? Just wondering????

tad baby, I see you're still spreading your lies around.
See, I'm not going to use insidious questions implying you are lying, I will come out and say it, like a real man!

Just one example:
You post that Keith said "On Wednesday the White House had said that the President learned about the port deal after the fact from news reports." You further emphasize "after the fact".
You also post "Now we're going to do something really sneaky."
The problem is you already did something sneaky. You emphasized "after the fact" to draw attention away from the message. The message was not that Bush learned about the deal after the fact, everyone knows he did. The message was that the White House claimed he learned about the deal from news reports.
This was a lie!
He learned about it from Andy Card before it became a big story (probably because Card had wind of the coming news).
Your obvious attempt at misdirection (dare I say a "weapon of mis-direction"?) is a lie!
You know what KO said, and what he meant, but you tried to spin it away. Since you knew all this, but CHOSE to report it differently, means you know you are a liar and a fraud.

I'll give KO credit after watching tonights show, you have to have some guts to go on the air and tell everyone your super low ratings and flaunt the fact that viewership is up a whole 20%. It takes guts to do that but then again the only people to hear him say that was the 150,000 people who watch him. Oh and Jessica I think your right O'Reilly probably does feel threatened by countdown. I mean in 2005 the 4 AM replay of the factor would beat the live episode of countdown over half the time... now it may only be 40, or even as low as 30% of the time!

Did anyone else find it odd when Keith talked about how O'Reilly's fans may die soon. Geez a comment like that... dont comments like that generally warrent someone... WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD status? Sure the caption on the Neil Cavauto show was bad but at least they were talking about the war in Iraq and not giving us updates on TomKat.

I may have missed it, but is this site called any of the following:

1. "Fox Fan Network against Olby"

2. "O'Reilly sycophant club against Olby"

3. "I love Bush so I hate Olby"

I'll answer for you. The site is called OLBERMANNWATCH. We watch OLBERMANN and comment on OLBERMANN. The main reason O'Reilly and Fox are so prominent here is because KEITH constantly mentions them and attacks them (along with the rest of you freaks who do the same on this site). Another reason is Fox beats MSLSD so badly in the ratings, and O'Reilly has 7 to 10 times Olby's audience. If Keith would do the damn news and stop attacking O'Reilly, then we would not talk about it so much. I am not an O'Reilly fan, and Fox is not my pet project.

I will say this to O'Reilly: if some crazy dude starts yelling at you on the subway to get your attention and you finally look at him, the nutcase becomes harder to manage. In other words, never get involved with a crazy person, especially a self-destructive one like Keith.

Now, to the business at hand. I saw part of Olby's rant. I was too annoyed to watch the whole thing, but I caught the part where he claimed that O'Reilly is threatened by him because Keith's ratings are going up, and that this is at least part of why O'Reilly started that stupid petition to resurrect Donohue! Keith is always in the ratings cellar, and his oh-so-special demo numbers are in the toilet, but he sometimes beats Paula Zahn and Wolf Blitzer, so in some way he is a ratings juggernaut threatening the guy with 2 million viewers? How crazy is that? Next, Olbermann will tell us he is influencing the White House and curbing global warming. Keith, the ONLY reason any other news host would pay attention to you is if YOU initiated the whole thing. That goes for O'Reilly and even Zahn and Blitzer (as well as for all normal women, no doubt).

The scariest thing is that this sick stalker (and many in his kook following) really think he is justified in what he does. What sane person thinks it is acceptable for a news host to attack another news personality on his show more that SIXTY TIMES? This is UNPRECEDENTED behavior in the HISTORY OF TELEVISION. That Keith's sick fan base thinks this is all okey dokey is the scariest thing of all. Do you psychos have any shame, or are you all too busy harassing people on buses and subways to self-reflect?

I can tell you this: Kaplan will undoubtedly have to take notice of Keith's wacky behavior at this point. No way can a "news" channel allow this to continue without becoming the LAST place people look for serious news of any sort.

Well said, KfK!

LOL!!

Thoughless rightwingers defending the irrelevant and attacking anything they disagree with are always good for a laugh.

Thanks!!

Kevin,

We don't attack "anything we don't agree with", we attack Keith Olbermann.

So you made the effort to come here, post, and defend your boy by feigning the air of amused disinterest that you think insults us.

Now THAT mickey mouse subterfuge would be "good for a laugh" if it weren't so damn puzzling. How do you people get so disingenuous and silly?

> I expect over the next few weeks that KO will slowly drift into madness.

LOL!

O'Reilly took an express train there years ago and he's still on the air...

You have a point, Swash.

Olbermann could only do better by going insane...

Stop you lefty geniuses! You are beating me into submission with your elegant prose and advanced reasoning:

"Thoughless rightwingers defending the irrelevant and attacking anything they disagree with are always good for a laugh."

Oh . . . I am slain! Such a thoughtful post which displays the careful consideration of all data will surely win every time! I made some arguments before, but they all crubled under the weight of your sly rebuke. Those schooled in the Olbermann dialectic are always at an advantage I must admit. I am just glad you didn't call us "Worst in the World," as that would have been the final nail in our coffins.

> He learned about it from Andy Card before it became a big story

You're doing the same thing Olby did: implying that he had a heads up before the news media started covering it. Coverage of this issue began TWO WEEKS AGO. Maybe not on Countdown, which was late to the story, but it did. I really don't care if Andy Card told him about the press coverage, or he aske Card about the press coverage, or whatever. MY point is that, in either case, it was still after the fact. McClellan has never said or implied otherwise. Anything else is irrelevant unless you are Olby trying to imply something that isn't true.

What he's implying is that the White House either:

1. Can't get it's story straight on when Bush was told

2. Is lying about when Bush was told

Remember, this is supposed to be the administration that's competent. And all they've done for five years now is demonstrate their utter incompetence.

Nice clip above -- that guy has issues

Swash I completely agree that is what he is implying. And he's basing it on his imagined distinction between "several days ago, I'm not sure of the exact date" and "six days ago". Throwing in an "after the fact" for the first to slyly suggest that the second version was NOT after the fact, when it clearly was.

There is no contradiction on when Bush was told or learned of it or whatever. Unless, like Olby, you want to conflate "several days, I'm no sure" into something inherently inconsistent with "six days". That's a typical Olby trick, and it may work with the blue bloggers but not with me.

The clip was Olby talking about O'Reilly?............. Oh,... I thought somebody just told Keith that he gets to take David Brock up the ass again. .... Never mind.

"Unless, like Olby, you want to conflate "several days, I'm no sure" into something inherently inconsistent with "six days" "

Webster says several is " more than two but fewer than many"

So I think we are safe

Let's not forget the more important question Olby needs to ask: "Who gives a shit?" With Olby, it's always the big conspiracy. The same conspiracy theories always run through his head and we get the questions: "When did he know?" "Who else knew?" "Is my filling transmitting my thoughts?" "Did I just dream that or is it real?"

The bottom line is CONGRESS set up the review process for the port deal, and the American people want it to be more transparent. Where the Hell is the big conspiracy? Bush wants to send the UAE a strong signal that he is not a disloyal jerk so he says he'll stand by the UAE since they are one of our only Middle Eastern allies in the war on terror. So what? Who cares when he knew? The only scandal is manufactured by Olbermann, just like this whole "controversy" with O'Reilly was manufactured by Olbermann. Keith is the kind of guy who would harass the neighbors, piss on their doorstep, steal their mail, and then scream "HOW DARE YOU HARASS ME. YOU ARE PERSECUTING ME" when the neighbors drop by to ask if there is a problem. The guy is a virus of ill will and paranoia, and Olbermannwatch is the cure.

Who gives a shit if the administration is being honest with us? I do...

The point is it DOESN'T MAKE ONE SHIT OF A DIFFERENCE WHEN BUSH KNEW. Bush would do what he is doing now if he knew a year ago or ten days ago. Bush is not trying to cover anything up and he is perfectly consistent. He wants the ports to go to the UAE because he thinks they are one of our only Arab allies and they aren't a threat to us. Where is the big conspiracy? How stupid are you?

Olbermann is the psycho trying to make something out of nothing. This same paranoid leftist mindset sees conspiracies behind faulty intelligence, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Katrina, the Presidential election, a hunting accident, Joe Wilson's escapades, and everything else that happens today. For the love of God, is there anything that happens today that you wackos think is NOT a conspiracy? When you go to buy your morning paper and it is sold out, do you think it is a grand plot to keep you from reading the news? If you go to see the latest Michael Moore fictumentary and it is sold out, do you blame "the man" for keeping you ignorant?

For once -- JUST FOR ONCE -- I'd like to see a dopey liberal hear hoofbeats and say, "hmmm . . that is probably a horse," instead of "hmmmm . . . that is probably an elaborate ruse to make me think there is a horse, but I know better and there is NO horse. In fact I heard it was a Wooly Mammoth and the Government is hiding it from us so that we don't see the real truth."

This same paranoid leftist mindset sees conspiracies behind faulty intelligence, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Katrina, the Presidential election, a hunting accident, Joe Wilson's escapades, and everything else that happens today. For the love of God, is there anything that happens today that you wackos think is NOT a conspiracy?

No, I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think it's all gross incompetence. This has to be the most ludicrously incompetent administration in history.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

> The point is it DOESN'T MAKE ONE SHIT OF A DIFFERENCE WHEN BUSH KNEW.

No, the point is are administration officials telling us the truth? Are they telling us the COMPLETE truth?

Their spotty record on this make it a question worth asking.

"Keith just neglected to report until tonight that there are 15 small ports that are also part of the deal. That fact was not breaking news elsewhere--only on The Hour of Spin."

Funny, last night on CD was the first time I'd heard about it. And I'm a news junkie. Perhaps someone can point me in the direction of where it was reported earlier...

Several days earlier on Fox, among other places.

Jessica wrote:

"No, I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think it's all gross incompetence."

I respond with "What the Hell are you talking about?" In addition, I follow up with substance rather than a dopey quote:

"Faulty Intelligence"

#1. THE CIA, NOT BUSH, gathers intelligence
#2. An Iraqi General recently gave us evidence that Saddam moved his weapons to Syria in commercial airliners prior to our invasion. After all, we gave Saddam all the time in the world to do so.
#3. There were TONS of uranium in Iraq -- enough to make millions of dirty bombs, and some of it was enriched. Last I checked, uranium is a WMD. Don't believe me? Check this out:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml

"Guantanamo"

Prison isn't fun, these people are terrorists, they deserve what they get. We picked these people up ON THE BATTLEFIELD fighting against our troops. Fake Koran flushing stories are the best you libs can smear the military with. Letting them loose to go back to fight us is stupid, so they stay where they are. Notice your liberal buddies have shut up about Gitmo recently? I wonder why?

"Abu Ghraib"

A few dopes abuse prisoners and this is Bush's fault? How about the fact that all these fools behaved ON THEIR OWN, as proven in court. How about the female General who ignored her commission? I know the liberal mantra is Rumsfeld personally told all of these low-ranking soldiers to put panties on prisoners' heads, but I am tend not to believe it.

"Katrina"

Hurricanes happen. If local and state governments refuse to be prepared, don't expect the feds to gallop to the rescue. Nagin and Blanco had plenty of buses, national guard and supplies, but the Governor and Mayor were incapable of managing the situation. Don't tell me "they couldn't have." That is a load of BS. Keeping supplies out of the SuperDome to "discourage people from staying there" was Blanco's bright idea. Expecting the Feds to fix a mess created by a Hurricane and ignored and, in many cases, made WORSE by local authorities is stupid. Federal agencies have a proud history of incompetence. Look at the IRS, for God's sake.

"The Presidential Election"

Bush won -- that is COMPETENCE!

"A hunting accident"

Corroborated by a dozen witnesses and the victim, who told Cheney he was sorry the VP had to go through all of this. Hunting is dangerous and accidents happen -- so what? So he didn't run to tell the hostile mainstream media that he was in a hunting accident -- why would he?

"Joe Wilson's escapades"

#1. There WAS uranium in Iraq (see above), and WILSON'S OWN INVESTIGATION indicated so. He lied in his Times Op Ed, and the the administration made the mistake of trying to set the record straight. Valerie Plame was not outed on purpose, she was not undercover, and her 4 year old son outed her in an airport for Christs sake. She poses for Vanity Fair and any other shoot she can. In short, these people are phonies. Just wait till the trial.

So, what are we left with? How does this make Bush incompetent? I'm sure I should have looked at your powerful analysis and been convinced that you were correct, right?

Regardless, my original point, before you changed the subject as you libs are wont to do when confronted with reality, is that you lefties love good conspiracy theories. Your response was off-topic and stupid, and you are lucky I wasted the time to address it.

Okay, here's your gross incompetence...

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, when aked about the deal on February 21st, admitted that he couldn't comment until he had more information. According to Federal Law, the Secretary of Defense is supposed to be a member of the oversight committee that approves this deal (See Executive Order 11858).

Secretary of the Treasury John Snow also made similar vague comments, and he was supposed to chair the damn committee!!!

When this deal was "unanimously approved", who approved it? Was it second-level or third-level staffers? What White House official gave the Administration's blessing (it sure wasn't the President)?

Definition of "Swashbuckler":

"An Elizabethan youth or ruffian often predisposed to street fight and duel, so called by the "swashing" sound created by sword and buckler on the belt as the youth swaggered about town. More likely derived from any person who roved the town, usually in gangs, hitting his sword against his buckler as a way of challenging innocent passers-bye to a fight."

That is you all right. No inncoent passer-by escapes your misplaced wrath. You have a lot in common with Olby.

KfK -- Man, you really drank all of the Kool Aid!!

"The Presidential Election"

Bush won -- that is COMPETENCE!

And this proves competence...how? I mean, at the time he was running for re-election:

He had the lowest job approval rating for an incumbent since Harry Truman.

A majority of Americans believed the country was heading in the wrong direction.

He was the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs during his first term.

The poverty rate went up, as did the number of uninsured Americans.

A $5.2 trillion dollar surplus over the next ten years turned into a $5.6 trillion dollar deficit over the same period.

This is competence?

Welcome back Trekkie -- where have you boldly gone recently?

I love the way the discourse goes here. I start by pointing out that this conspiracy theory fetish of leftists is annoying and absurd. The leftists then change the subject to the "incompetence" of the Bush administration. Suddenly I'm Scott McLellan at a hostile press briefing in front of the Olbermannwatch equivalent of the WH press corps. How far astray will you dopes head before actually addressing the original point?

Anyway, info about the committee can be found here:

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/

If you think all these people remember every transaction well enough to comment off the cuff to a hostile mainstream media, you are nuts. Who wouldn't say "I need to review the case?" I'm sure we will know more about this deal soon enough. Until then, why don't you rest your dilithium crystals, Trekkie.

Trekkie wrote:

"Bush won -- that is COMPETENCE!

And this proves competence...how? I mean, at the time he was running for re-election:"

Okey dokey! I guess winning is now really losing in the liberal handbook! Kerry was victorius by losing the Presidential Election in a grand display of competence!

Idiot

"Keith just neglected to report until tonight that there are 15 small ports that are also part of the deal. That fact was not breaking news elsewhere--only on The Hour of Spin."

Funny, last night on CD was the first time I'd heard about it. And I'm a news junkie. Perhaps someone can point me in the direction of where it was reported earlier...

Posted by: Swashbuckler at February 25, 2006 03:50 PM

Several days earlier on Fox, among other places.

Posted by: johnny dollar at February 25, 2006 03:52 PM

------
I'm a news junkie too - how bout a specific link, johnny...

> how bout a specific link, johnny...

You can't link to a broadcast. Someone, I don't remember who, had actually done their homework and reported that DP was also getting a bunch of small ports along with the Big Six. It wasn't exactly a secret, you know. Public knowledge.

Okay, so I point out fact that the neo-cons can't argue against, so what is their argument?
From tad baby, a return to the erroneous spin-doctoring that Olby "slyly suggest[ed] that the second version was NOT after the fact, when it clearly was." LOL, it is obvious to any rational person who listened to the comment (as a subordinate clause) that Olby included "after the fact" to make sure listeners understood that the Prez learned of the deal after the fact, not during, or even before. It's called journalistic integrity.
From KfK, a "Who cares" attitude. Let's see, who would care that this admin is either lying or incompetent. Hmm, who would care? I mean it's not like they were lying or incompetent about something important like foreign intelligence.

"The main reason O'Reilly and Fox are so prominent here is because KEITH constantly mentions them and attacks them"
Aha, a lie wrapped around in truth!
Why is it that BORe and Fox are so prominent here? Yes, indeed, because Olby mentions them and attacks them. That's what good people do - they attack evil.
But, where is the lie you ask? Easy. What sites does j$ consistently run/post on? Well, amazingly it seems to be sites that either trump up Faux News or trash it! What an amazing coincidence! Blogging takes up a lot of time, especially if you blog alot. Amazing how j$ has all this time to post here and there and anywhere Faux News is mentioned, isn't it? I mean one could almost make a career out of it, couldn't they?

Okey dokey! I guess winning is now really losing in the liberal handbook! Kerry was victorius by losing the Presidential Election in a grand display of competence!

Idiot

Right back at you.

I never said that Kerry was competent. I just said that winning an election doesn't prove competence. Both men could have been completely incompetent, with one being just slightly less incompetent than the other.

Just because a nag can beat another nag in a race doesn't make the winner Seattle Slew.

Why is it that BORe and Fox are so prominent here? Yes, indeed, because Olby mentions them and attacks them. That's what good people do - they attack evil.

So what is it about O'Reilly you find so evil? Is it the donations he gives to charities or is it trying to pass the Jessica's law in America? Because I can see how that would be evil.

And Trekkie I think what KFK is trying to say is that even though Kerry lost the election it wasn't over as the far left and KO included did all they could to find something that would reverse or delay the inevitable. Like he said the far left thinks everything is a conspiracy.

Trekkie,

Aren't you supposed to be over at the Olbermann fan site because you were treated so badly here at Olbermann Watch.

What? All the posts about how good Keith's hair looks didn't hold your interest?...

Trekkie writes: " never said that Kerry was competent. I just said that winning an election doesn't prove competence. Both men could have been completely incompetent, with one being just slightly less incompetent than the other.

Just because a nag can beat another nag in a race doesn't make the winner Seattle Slew."

As clueless as ever, Trekkie. What you did was to first argue that Bush winning an election was no sign of competence by claiming that Bush's poll numbers were down, and the poverty rate and the deficit were up.

Of course that it takes skill to win an election under the circumstances you've implied, never occured to you...

Now you're arguing that Bush winning no matter how great the odds, isn't much of an showing because Bush's contender (Kerry) wasn't thoroughbred material....

It just goes to show you what a moonbat you really are. You'd insult a fellow moonbat...in order to avoid acknowledging the most basic of compliments towards an opponent-- that winning elections, under difficult circumstances, takes skill.

You're very well suited for opining on Keith Olbermann's hair...

And here we were accused of arguing the irrelevant and attacking everything we don't agree with...

What's more emblematic of that than Radmon's comments accusing a cable channel and a cable channel commentator of "evil".

Remember when the left had a fit over Bush calling TERRORISTS "evildoers".... :D

OK Trekkie --

Bush fought an uphill battle against the entire mainstream media with constant attacks from billionaires like Kerry and Soros, but it was just sheer luck that he won! It was all Karl Rove and Corporate America! No skill here . . . move along . . . nothing to see.

As for "radmod," keep chanting "Bush lied" every chance you get. Seems to me like he is a straight shooter. He could have bailed on the UAE deal a la "BJ" Clinton and blamed someone else, but he stepped up, said what he believed despite public opinion polls that are strongly against him, and now he is taking the heat. Unfortunately for you, the public doesn't buy the "Bush is a liar" line. They know he is honest. They do get confused by the liberal media, as the purveyors of doom and gloom write articles about Iraq touting the "death toll," "lack of progress" and "imminent civil war" while they sip lattes in their Upper West Side appartments.

Where's Dopey-Wan?

Double shifts this week at Burger-World?

So now we have Olby Skywaker defending the airways from Darth O'Reilly and The Evil Fox Force.

Ludicrously incompetent administration in history! Well Jessica I've been driving past the mission on my way to the gym. Where are those homeless lines?

Trukkie...You're right abut John Kerry. I was at the Kerry Allentown Rally in 04. Best stand up I had seen in decades! I didn't know what was funnier, his routine or the zombies in the stands. That assult weapons ban line still kills me!

Ah...If only Keith's show were as funny as these looney blogs.

P.S. How about Jill Perry's hit and run! Kool-Aid? Comon' Jill admit it, you're a closet O'Reilly fan. Jill, JOIN THE DARKSIDE!

Eddy,

KO's tombstone will read "Here lies a man killed by his own thoughts" :)

Wait everybody!

You gotta check this out!

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=3941417

Whats up with this whole star-trek,wars whatever?
The Revolutionary Marxist COLLECTIVE? So is someone from the BORG gona show up on this site next? Now these are the people Keith should have on!

Watch the video and remember folks, before the murders,shootings,robberies,rapes, and other fun daily stuff in Philadelphia this was the BIG STORY ON ACTION NEWS.

Gotta love that looney left, they are sooo funny! But really, only two dozen protesters show up. And how many caught a ride over in the Action six newsvan?

Now I know where Dopey-Wan was. Hope his boss at Burger-World doesn't find out.

P.S. If somehow I screwed up the link go to www.wpvi.com and look for protesters call Minutemen hate group. This is KO times 1000! I gotta go back and see this crew one more time! THE LEFT......PRICELESS!!!!!!

Folks, please! Do we really have anything to fear?

Ya know now that I look at that video again. How many young Olbys were in that group? Not for the cause mind you, but to try and bag that Manela chick. Ah yes Keith, the good old days. Where is my Grateful Dead Lakeland Fla 82' c.d.? The difference? Keith still thinks it's the sixties.

"Keith just neglected to report until tonight that there are 15 small ports that are also part of the deal. That fact was not breaking news elsewhere--only on The Hour of Spin."

Funny, last night on CD was the first time I'd heard about it. And I'm a news junkie. Perhaps someone can point me in the direction of where it was reported earlier...

Posted by: Swashbuckler at February 25, 2006 03:50 PM

Several days earlier on Fox, among other places.

Posted by: johnny dollar at February 25, 2006 03:52 PM

------
I'm a news junkie too - how bout a specific link, johnny...

Posted by: nathan arizona at February 25, 2006 04:57 PM

> how bout a specific link, johnny...

You can't link to a broadcast. Someone, I don't remember who, had actually done their homework and reported that DP was also getting a bunch of small ports along with the Big Six. It wasn't exactly a secret, you know. Public knowledge.

----------
out of the millions of news organizations, pundits, bloggers and blowhards you can't find ONE example of this not being breaking news. a link to a broadcast is often called a "transcript" of that broadcast. I know o'lielly fans like to think his idiotic statements disapper into the ether never to be seen again, but alas, they don't. I'm not asking for much - just show that it was not "breaking news."

oh, and this site is pretty pathetic. Really.

For the lefties out there...I keep seeing about how incompetent this administration is, and that may be true. So that I can make a truly educated interpretation of the effectiveness of the Bush 43 administration, can someone tell me the number of terrorist attacks during the Bush years vs. the number of terrorist attacks during the Clinton years?+

ok - i'll bite - i assume in your 'truly educated' question you mean on us soil - bush 1 clinton2 - i guess that proves it - clinton was incompetent - bush is the best.

> you can't find ONE example of this not being breaking news

This "breaking news" can be found by anyone who goes to the company's website. Even when UPI reported it, which is when Olby finally tumbled to it (it had to be handed to him by a wire service), UPI stated that the info came straight off the company website.

I don't think something that's been sitting on a website for months or years can possibly be considered "breaking news".

So that I can make a truly educated interpretation of the effectiveness of the Bush 43 administration, can someone tell me the number of terrorist attacks during the Bush years vs. the number of terrorist attacks during the Clinton years?

Wow, what a nice fat gopher ball...

Let's see...under Clinton: Six - World Trade Center 1993, Oklahoma City (domestic) 1995, Riyadh 1995, Dhahran 1996, Nairobi and Dar es Salaam 1998, U.S.S. Cole 2000. Total killed: 439.

Under Bush: Five - World Trade Center 2001, Karachi 2002, Riyadh 2003, Jeddah 2004, Amman 2005. Total killed: 3,100.

You wanted numbers. There are your numbers.

you can't find ONE example of this not being breaking news

This "breaking news" can be found by anyone who goes to the company's website. Even when UPI reported it, which is when Olby finally tumbled to it (it had to be handed to him by a wire service), UPI stated that the info came straight off the company website.

I don't think something that's been sitting on a website for months or years can possibly be considered "breaking news".

Posted by: johnny dollar at February 26, 2006 12:49 AM

-------
God - just give it up - so i guess o'reilly, tucker, cavuto, et al. do their own investigative journalism and pull nothing off the newswire - or report nothing that was on the newswire. at what point does a position become so untenable you give it up? ever? won't that make you go crazy. The semantic cesspond this site and these arguments become is never-ending. at some point you have to admit that black is black and white is white - there has to be a baseline. i'm a news junkie - i didn't know it. upi found it important enough to report it. All news reports I heard to that time had mentioned only 6.

Oh P&O's site - only six when you look at the "ports"section here ya go..

You said "someone had reported" so was that someone p&o. So if all we are going to rely on is
company and government disclosures, and be required to sift through all that while maintain a
life i guess we don't need pesky reporters.

I think i'm gonna start putting on my waders and visiting your cesspool daily.

http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=71,207408&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL

just in case that horse still has a breath of life...

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.

Man, jealously isn't very flattering on any of you. Why don't you all just go back to school, get that broadcasting degree you all covet, try to get into news (which is one of the hardest businesses to get a foot in) so that you all can have your own newcast, get paid for it, and then a bunch a blowhards can start a blog about how much your show sucks, how much you suck, yet still watch like a fan.

And Cecelia, talking about Olbermann's hair? I think someone is developing a crush. I mean, why else would you go to an obvious fan site and read what those chicks say about his looks? Don't deny it any longer, you want Olbermann, don't you? Hell, the way Jonny Dollar talks about him, he probably wants to take it up the ass from Olbermann just as bad as you.

And like I've said the last time I was here (having a life takes a lot out of you) if you hate the show and the man so much, why don't you just try and stop watching the show?

Gotta love that trukie, Lets see three thousand were killed at W.T.C. if I'm not mistaken, so if were using trukie numbers that means only 100 have been killed since then? I guess than again we are debating someone who was a victim of outcome based public education. 1+1=3 right little Johnny?

But really I'd love to get the breakdown on that one.

By the way The U.A.E. already owns a few hotels(Helmsley Towers and if I'm not mistaken The Drake) and other buildings in New York so really psycho lefties guess what. You're terroists are already here. Their all driving taxis around Manhattan, And they all have A.C.L.U. lawyers. You're big fat one just went foul.

I was just over at tvnewser. No numbers for Thursday or Friday? Oh no! How bad were they?

I'm a liberal (I know this might be enough for the majority of people here to write a three paragraph rant on my views, but I'll continue), and for the life of me I can't understand the debate going on in this post here.

It started with simply a slam on Olbermanns viewer numbers, and a circle jerk of people in agreement, and then it progressed into an actual political debate on whether the port deal is right or wrong.

I'll be one to say, that I would prefer a government not to own United States ports (Arab or not), and all the Congress wants Democrats and Republicans alike (yes, those really psycho lefties are teamed up with some of your beloved republicans) is an oversight on something major like this before it goes through - is there anything wrong with that?

I can also understand the talk about the administration lying to the American public. A conspiracy - no, but a lie about when the President heard about a certain topic - yes, and I believe that needs to be discussed, especially if it's a topic this volatile.

The whole breaking news debate people are having on whether the issue on there being more than 5 ports was a big issue shouldn't even be being debated. Most 24 hour news stations report things and call it breaking news, even if it isn't, for the ports issue, I sure didn't know about it, so for me (and it looks like many others) it was breaking news, simply because it was posted on a website earlier that day doesn't change the fact that it is breaking news.

KfK wrote out a fairly long post about how things like Abu Graib, Guantanamo, Katrina, and faulty intelligence to lead us into war is in no way the current administrations fault (I admire your power to deflect problems away from the White House).

[i]Abu Ghraib[/i]

-You use the "Bad Apple" theory to describe Abu Ghraib, this is a theory tossed around in sociology and most sociologists agree that there is no such thing as one bad apple, and blame shouldn't rest with just this one person, but with all of society (and the society involved here is the military, not Bush's fault, but still not the fault of only a few select people in a select prison).

[i]Guantanamo Bay[/i]

I'm just going to state that it's almost funny how you assume everyone in Guantanamo Bay is guilty when it has been shown that many aren't, and the government (this you can blame on the Bush administration) is allowing an abusive prison like this to operate in Cuba. And the tactics used here violate so many civil liberties (and no, people to not give up these liberties because a government places them under arrest).

[i]Katrina[/i]

All levels of government are to blame here, but the fact that you seem to only blame the Local and State governments while leaving the Federal squeaky clean discredits you completely on your understanding of the issue. This was a government failure, not a partisan thing you can blame on one party or another. Government failed, bottom line.

[i]A hunting accident[/i]

I guess you're the type of person who thinks that government should just keep things from the American people. And I agree that it's just a hunting incident and it happens all the time, the fact that Cheney took so long to get the information out to the people, and that we still aren't sure about all the facts of the case it's a story. When the Vice President of the United States shoots someone it's a story. If the Vice President of the United States got was an alcoholic, it'd be a story, if something happens to the Vice President it's a story. And all the facts still aren't out.

So in closing, personal attacks on Olbermann or his ratings don't win an argument. Passing off your preferred political party as innocent does not help. And presenting your opinion about someone or something they have reported doesn't make it true, even if a whole bunch of people on a hate site agree with you.

Well, Jill there are plenty of fire ants that are more rational than you, but you certainly best them in fire-anty temperament. The majority of them are less venously natured than you.

But since they are more rational than you, their fire ant queen, I'm sure they shake their heads at the lack of insight you so incessantly display.

If I am obsessed and lustful towards Olbermann because I checked out a new fan site linked on this site, then who is it that you're enamored of on Olbermann Watch? Johnny? KfK? Puck? Understandable. They are intelligent men. But being that means they are completely out of your league.

Now, as for your advice about shutting up and not watching Keith Olbermann, well, back atya, Oh Queen of the Fire Ants... No one has held a gun to your insectile noggin and forced you to habituate this site.

So bug off, your royal highness... Go be the little pest that you are somewhere else.

Where does TVNewser get it's ratings numbers? Surely they are available elsewhere. They are becoming very lax in their reporting of these numbers lately.

Non-factor (you indeed are one)

So this is a "hate site"? Don't you think everything out of your mouth will be considered nonsense after people read that from you?

Thanks for that, I had a bet going with a friend of mine that someone would make fun of my name before they address any of the points in my post.

And yes, people may think it's nonsense, but if I've got even one person to see things in a slightly different light, I'm happy.

I liked it better when the nutcases left this site to its own devices. Oh well . . .

Hey "Nonfactor", I take issue with much of your post.

I will quote you and then respond.

"for the life of me I can't understand the debate going on in this post here. It started with simply a slam on Olbermanns viewer numbers, and a circle jerk of people in agreement, and then it progressed into an actual political debate on whether the port deal is right or wrong."

It started with a "slam" on Olby's ratings? If Olby's ratings are bad, that is a fact. How can that be a "slam"? Are we slandering him by mentioning his numbers stink? Are his bad ratings like a disease that should remain confidential? And when did anyone engage in an "actual political debate on whether the port deal is right or wrong"? I know I have not passed judgement on the deal, and I don't see any posts above doing so. There was a discussion about Olby's CONSPIRACY THEORY regarding the big COVER UP of when Bush knew. Can you read at all?

"I'll be one to say, that I would prefer a government not to own United States ports (Arab or not), and all the Congress wants Democrats and Republicans alike (yes, those really psycho lefties are teamed up with some of your beloved republicans) is an oversight on something major like this before it goes through - is there anything wrong with that?"

YOU are the one trying to argue the port issue. This was NOT the main thrust of the thread. Nice job changing the subject and then lamenting the subject matter you dope.

"KfK wrote out a fairly long post about how things like Abu Graib, Guantanamo, Katrina, and faulty intelligence to lead us into war is in no way the current administrations fault (I admire your power to deflect problems away from the White House)."

I initially stated that you wacky libs love CONSPIRACY THEORIES and listed a bunch of situations where lefties have pushed conspiracy theories. Instead of responding to my allegation, someone named "Jessica" said these were not conspiracies, but were all cases of the "incompetence" of the Bush administration. I begged to differ. Even though the words are there for you to read, you now push the argument further away from its original intent to assign "fault" to the administration. I could understand this much difficulty following the discussion if it were VERBAL, but these things are WRITTEN! PLEASE TRY TO READ BEFORE YOU POST!

Your post manages to get even worse. You say that Abu Ghraib is a reflection of the entire military. Instead of citing the bravery of our troops and the humanitarian efforts of the troops and saying that these are their defining acts, you choose Abu Ghraib. Very nice (and crazy) of you! You then try to defend the prisoners at Guantanamo! Well, you do love the underdog! Let me tell you that they were not ARRESTED. They were ENEMY COMBATANTS taken off of the battle field. As far as all your allegations of abuse, exactly what specifics do you have? You have no idea what is going on there, but feel free to make it up as you go along.

Katrina -- All levels of government are to blame here, but the fact that you seem to only blame the Local and State governments while leaving the Federal squeaky clean discredits you completely

I wrote: "Expecting the Feds to fix a mess created by a Hurricane and ignored and, in many cases, made WORSE by local authorities is stupid. Federal agencies have a proud history of incompetence. Look at the IRS, for God's sake."

If that isn't saying the Feds failed too, I don't know what is. What is wrong with you?

RE: Cheney's hunting accident: I guess you're the type of person who thinks that government should just keep things from the American people.

Oh, I see! Cheney was on a top secret Government mission when he had a hunting accident, and the fact that he didn't hold a press conference over his bloody friend's body left us in the dark and in crisis? He had a HUNTING ACCIDENT! SO WHAT? WHERE IS THE "COVER-UP"? He told the lady who owned the ranch to break the news. Cheney is guilty of disdain for the press and the White House Press Corps. I don't blame him.

I especially love the fact that the whole issue of URANIUM IN IRAQ is ignored in your post, 'cause that is just not something you want to see. Bush lied and people died, right? Where was your refutation of the article I posted?

You do finish strong with:

And presenting your opinion about someone or something they have reported doesn't make it true, even if a whole bunch of people on a hate site agree with you.

That is such nonsense. A site critical of a broadcaster who lies and twists the news to fit his views is a "hate site"? Look, you are entitled to be a dumb as you want as often as you want, but why do you have to show off how stupid you are? Don't you want to hide that?

As for someone making fun of your name, you NAMED YOURSELF "nonfactor," as in "I am a non-factor in this debate." How could you NOT expect to be made fun of for that? If you name yourself "non-intelligent" and proceed to attack people, won't someone make fun of your name? And who took that stupid bet anyway? Sheesh . . .

KfK

Nice source you have on that "Uranium in Iraq" - NewsMax is one of the most slanderous and biased websites in the world. They make Fox News look mainstream.

And, last I checked, a "dirty bomb" did not meet the definition of a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" according to the United States government. Uranium alone is not a WMD either because naturally-occuring and unrefined uranium has an incredibly weak radiological profile.

Nonfactor writes:

"And yes, people may think it's nonsense, but if I've got even one person to see things in a slightly different light, I'm happy."

Well, why don't you take it over to Democratic Underground. There's a very high probability that someone there will be swayed by nonsense.

If the DP World port sale goes through (they are purchasing a British company), they will lease, not own, terminals at 6 major ports.

These terminals will be used to unload containers from the ships. The terminals will be leased. There are 829 terminals at the 6 ports. DP World will lease/rent 24 of them. The workers at the terminals will be Americans.

The terminals cannot be sold. They are publicly owned. DP World will be given the right to rent the terminals.

In addition to the 6 ports, DP World will manage stevedore operations at 15 smaller ports. Stevedore operations are simply the movement of cargo from the ships to trucks for transportation or for storage.

Not one single inch of American property will be sold to DP World. They will not run the ports. They will manage terminals that they rent at the ports. The port authority will have the final word over the terminal operations.

And frankly, I have never seen so much misinformation on a topic in my 45 years of life. Just absurd.

SMG

"I expect over the next few weeks that KO will slowly drift into madness."

clearly, the voice of authority....

KEvron

"This blog has been great for a laugh."

for me, it's not exactly "ha-ha" funny, but i get your meaning....

KEvron

KfK, you really seem like someone who can't be convinced that what you say is wrong. Uranium isn't a WMD (sure it can be made into a part of one, but it isn’t a WMD so much as a piece of wood is a boat), and even if there was Uranium in Iraq that could be used to create what we know as Weapons of Mass Destruction (which, trust me, if there was it'd be a lot bigger story than some talking point of a biased right-wing site) that isn't enough of a reason for the administration to send the United States into a decades long war on the premises of "Eminent Threat".

Most of your response was a harp on certain words I used, but little to do with the issues I'd presented.

You think I'm blaming the entire Military Society for Abu Ghraib, but that isn't the case. The argument to the "Bad Apple" theory places the blame on not just a few bad apples, but on all society (Military Society, and American Society - For example, the "Bad Apple" theory would rationalize that individual Nazi soldiers aren't to take the sole blame for killing Frenchmen or innocent people, but the whole society of Germany at that time is to blame.), so don't worry, I'm not a solider-hating fascist.

Your response on Katrina - yeah, the state and local governments made everything a lot worse, and some federal agencies are just incompetent (and you mention the IRS here), I'll let you continue to think you aren't a bit biased here.

On your response to the hunting incident - CAPITAL LETTERS DON'T MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT ANY BETTER. The press was right to talk about the story, and was right to demand answers.

On the Uranium thing, I really thought you were joking. Are you saying now that the reason we invaded was because there might have been some low-grade uranium in Iraq? I thought the reason we invaded was because they were aiding terrorists and were an immediate threat to us here in the United States (Mushroom Clouds!).

And this is a hate site dedicated to Keith Olbermann, you know it, I know it, everyone who has ever seen this site knows it.

P.S. I named myself Nonfactor as a joke, and the fact that you’re harping on it makes it even funnier (to me). A liberal posting on this site might as well be regarded as a “nonfactor” before they even open their mouths.

Trekkie you pathetic hack,

Don't let my initial contention that lefties love conspiracy theories get in the way! Just push the discussion further away from its initial course. At what point does Gore 2000 make it in? Just asking.

Anyway, just because you don't like NewsMax doesn't mean the story is false. If you want to see it in the NY Times, they covered it a while back with no fan-fare on page A22 or so. You see, the NY Times didn't think a story about enriched uranium in Iraq was a big deal at all! After all, only 2 tons of it were enriched!

Now, anybody can read the story and decide for him or herself:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml

As for 500 tons of uranium, two tons of which is enriched, not being a weapon of mass destruction, that is a contention for the ages Trekkie. Man you are a tool.

Nonfactor,

Your sense of humor is so subtle that it is easy to miss. You are an artiste!

I am impressed that so many find uranium a harmless fun toy! I agree that, when enriched, it can provide 100% of your daily intake of carcinogenic material! Also, even if you don't have a nuclear reactor to fuel, it is a good idea to keep a few hundred tons around just in case!

Why do you lefty geniuses think Saddam had all that uranium anyway? Peaceful intent like the Iranians and North Korea? Why are you harassing all the normal people who enjoy calling Olbermann on all his lies? Don't we have to put up with enough lies from Olbermann without having his monkey swarm invade our website?

Hey Nonfactor,
Who cares about Abu Gharib and Guantamo!
Most people don't give 2 craps about the Islamo-Fascist in there.
It's funny how the left always calls the Right fascists but never the Jihadis.
It proves that Marxists like you and KO are in cahoots with the Muslims to destroy Western Civilization.
As much as you guys rail against the Christian Right you guys never condem the Islmo-Fascist!
Why is that?

Who cares about Abu Gharib and Guantamo!
Most people don't give 2 craps about the Islamo-Fascist in there.
It's funny how the left always calls the Right fascists but never the Jihadis.
It proves that Marxists like you and KO are in cahoots with the Muslims to destroy Western Civilization.
As much as you guys rail against the Christian Right you guys never condem the Islmo-Fascist!
Why is that?

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.

This is a classic example of the incompetence of the news media.

DP World will not take over port terminal operations anywhere. They will lease terminals at 6 ports where they will unload containers from ships. They will lease 24 terminals out of the 829 terminals at the 6 ports. All of the terminals will be publicly-owned.

Again, they will lease some port terminals at 6 ports. Their operations at the port will be approved (or not) by the port authority.

At the other 15 ports, they will run some stevedore operations. They will not run terminals operations at these 15 additional ports. Only stevedore operations.

Terminals are not ports. Terminal operations are not stevedore operations. Leasing is not purchasing.

So, the correct lede for this story should read:

A United Arab Emirates government-owned company will operate some leased terminals at 6 ports and manage stevedore operations at 15 other smaller ports.

But that doesn't sound as "sexy" as the UPI lead.

I've posted UPI about a correction but I might as well e-mailed Bin Laden.

Good friggin' grief.

SMG

Oh NO! Hide your eyes moonbats! The horrible unreliable "Investors Business Daily" has attacked one of your deepest held beliefs!

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060224

On second thought, I will FORCE you to see this. This, again, comes from INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY, one of the most reputable papers in the world. They have translated tapes that Saddam made during meetings. The results are frightening:

. . .as late as 2000, Saddam can be heard in his office talking with Iraqi scientists about his ongoing plans to build a nuclear device. At one point, he discusses Iraq's plasma uranium program — something that was missed entirely by U.N. weapons inspectors combing Iraq for WMD.

This is particularly troubling, since it indicates an active, ongoing attempt by Saddam to build an Iraqi nuclear bomb.

"What was most disturbing," said John Tierney, the ex- FBI agent who translated the tapes, "was the fact that the individuals briefing Saddam were totally unknown to the U.N. Special Commission (or UNSCOM, the group set up to look into Iraq's WMD programs)."

Perhaps most chillingly, the tapes record Iraq Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz talking about how easy it would be to set off a WMD in Washington. The comments come shortly after Saddam muses about using "proxies" in a terror attack.

The fact that you complete fools could say that Saddam's uranium "wasn't a WMD" is beyond maddening. Keep living free and stupid in the USA thanks to the rest of us. We'll take care of business, fight to the death AND put up with your childish antics. Aren't you lucky.

Interesting article. But as it was saying the end, the Saddam tapes will get as much media coverage as did Al Gore's remarks in Saudi Arabia.

How about some more arguments about how the media is controlled by conservatives.

I can't believe so many of you here feel that the invasion of Iraq was necessary, even knowing what we know now. Uranium isn't a WMD, if it was then it'd be a whole different story, but it isn't. Are we going to start invading every country we think has uranium?

All things we learn after the fact of the invasion are just talking points. The truth is, there were not WMDs, there was no immediate threat, and Iraq wasn't aiding terrorists. We aren't safer because we've invaded Iraq.

My third post on the website, and I've already been called a communist! Is that a record or something? In one post by JDogg he calls all people locked in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Islamo-Fascists, he claims that the left always calls the right wing fascists, and assumes that the left wing never denounces terrorism. You probably have a poster of Ann Coulter above your bed, don't you?

Dear Nonfactor,

The reason you are having trouble here is you can't seem to stay on track. You never address the salient points, and you continually get confused, pushing the discussion further and further from its origin. Remember, all this started because J$ pointed out that Olby was inventing a conspiracy theory about when the Prez knew about the port deal. Amazingly, we are now on WMD in Iraq. If people had just addressed the initial post, none of this would be happening. I do enjoy setting the record straight on these issues, so I will keep on truckin'. In fact, I consider you a "useful idiot."

Now, you ignore the FACT that Saddam had a nuke program and talked about using a "proxy" to facilitate a terror attack in Washington. Maybe you think that is cool, but I don't.

Saddam was not just another Dictator. He was a Dictator with a grudge against us for the first Gulf War. He tried to have Bush assasinated, he refused weapons inspections, and now we have tapes of him discussing his Nuke program as well as discussing a terror attack on Washington via a "proxy." Do you want to reserve judgement until the Saddam DVD comes out? Jeez!

You can't seem to digest anything you read. If you think Olby is the cat's whiskers and you don't want to hear otherwise, that is not going to happen here. If you want to convince us to ignore data and stop thinking for ourselves, that won't happen either. Exactly what are you trying to accomplish here? All I see is you wasting our time and making yourself look foolish?

As for the statement you made:

"KfK, you really seem like someone who can't be convinced that what you say is wrong."

I can be convinced by sound arguments and facts, neither of which you can provide. In fact, I would say that you described yourself quite well with that statement.

KfK, incase you didn't know this topic started as a debate between O'Reily and Olbermann. I haven't brought up any new topics, but simply responded to ones already in discussion; don't accuse me of staying on track when you yourself have that problem.

Where have I ignored any facts? Kindly point me out to where I have willingly ignored reputable facts. I have not denied Saddam's wishes to acquire weapons, I haven't brought up a conspiracy theory involving the tapes he's made (much to yours and many others chagrin), and I have definitely not said that an attack on Washing D.C. would be cool, so don't accuse me of it.

The problem with many people like yourself is you always want to pin liberals as evil, Godless, people who hate America and only want to see the President make a mistake; guess what, you're wrong. I'd love for this President to make America liked throughout the world, I'd like for him to 'unite' and not 'divide' America, but sadly, this isn't happening.

You have continuously ignored responses I have brought up in my replies, and have instead picked out a sentence or so you think you can write about and feel satisfied by that. You ask me what am I trying to accomplish here - I plan to discuss the events of this thread until I'm tired. I'm sorry if you think I'm wasting my time, I can tell you I'm not, and time is only a waste to me if I feel so.

I'm sorry you've been resulting to insults KfK, but believe it or not, I'm voicing my opinion just like you're voicing yours. So instead of responding to this topic, which is simply a rebuttal to your list of insults, respond to my previous one.

How desperate is Olby? Desperate enough to correspond with a third-rate cable-news-oriented website (TVNewser) just about every day! Not only that, he is "giddy" about his numbers! Again we see the Trekkie concept that losing is winning. Amazing how that works. But let us allow Keith to speak (from the TVNewser site):

Olbermann says: "Our show's never done better. We've beaten Paula [Zahn of CNN] for viewers in the demo 12 of the last 14 nights and the total audience numbers are giddying. But that [O'Reilly has] helped, I'm sure has never occurred to him. I really should send him a check every week. In the interim I just pray he keeps this up."

The total numbers are giddying? LAST PLACE is giddying? Talk about low standards! Beating Paula Zahn, an absolutely awful and biased no-talent, in a DEMOGRAPHIC is not a grand success. Olby knows his audience, though. He realizes his audience will buy anything he says without question.

And he hopes O'Reilly keeps it up? He has been attacking the guy for months -- more than sixty times! Olby once again proves himself absolutely pathetic and grotesque.

Nonfactor, engage someone else for a while. There is only so much of this I can take.

Yeah, Keith is on tomorrow, you should get your rest and ready your fingers to rant about whatever he says.

> can someone tell me the number of terrorist attacks during the Bush years vs. the
> number of terrorist attacks during the Clinton years?+

We don't know. The Bush administration stopped the State Department from publishing numbers on the number of terror attacks because the numbers were so absymal. However, that in and of itself is enough to tell any reasonable person that the numbers during the Bush administration are extremely bad.

> Let's see...under Clinton: Six
> Under Bush: Five
> You wanted numbers. There are your numbers.

By those numbers Bush loses. Clinton averaged 3/4 attacks per year, Bush averages one attack per year.

> So this is a "hate site"?

Sounds accurate.

> Don't you think everything out of your mouth will be considered nonsense after people
> read that from you?

Only the people that are living in an alternate con universe. Where up is down, black is white and hate is love.

> Who cares about Abu Gharib and Guantamo!

Anyone with a conscience. Apparently, that doesn't include you. It damn well doesn't include Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld.

> Bush won -- that is COMPETENCE!

No, that's an apathetic and idiotic American public.

Even if it were competence, competence in one area is not competence in others. Republicans are good at getting elected, they're total fuck ups at running the country.

To Non Factor and Swashbuckler,
The average American outside of the Northeats and west coast don't care about Abu Gharib and Guatamo!
That's a fact!
how come the marxist left doesn't condem the abuses in Iranian, Chinese, Nort Korea, Cuban and Syrian prisons?
As for terrorist attacks against the US, Under Clinton, there was The world trade Center in 93, Khobar Towers in 96, The embassies in Africa in 98 and the USS Cole in 2000.
Under Bush the only time the US was attacked, was on 9/11. That's it.
Al-Qaeda struck else where but noyt american targets.
I don't respect the left intellectual, quick to condem America except when Clinton bombed Schools and Hospitals in Kossovo supprting Albanian Islamo-Fascist!
But never a peep about castro, The Chinese or that dictaor Mugabe in Zimbawe.
I guess it's OK for Islamo-Fascist and Communist to do things.
But God forbid we give those barbarians a taste of there own medicine!
what Hypocrisy!

JDogg, I'm not sure if you realize this, but politics isn't based on what the average American thinks. Average Americans in the 1850s didn't care about slaves being free, average Americans in the 1950s didn't care about blacks having the right to vote, etc.

Congress needs to act as a check to the Executive branch and stand up against abuse and wrongful imprisonment. The judicial system is standing up for the prisoners in Abu Ghraib even though average Americans probably don't care. Some of Congress stood up for torture even though average Americans probably don't care.

Measuring the success of a president against terrorism isn't measured in how many attacks there have been, or how many people have died, the success is all in the appeal of America to the would-be terrorists, and the truth is, is that more people hate America now than they did 6 years ago, we all know that's a bad sign.

And JDogg, if you think that we should just invade every country that a terrorist group is based in, or where the leader operates from, you're way off-base, it isn't Hypocrisy, it's playing politics and making smart decisions to save lives.

If this is a hate site then Countdown is certainly a hate show.

It has a nightly segment labeling three people the worst in the world, the humor is invariably put-down humor, and the tone of the show is derisive.

Olbermann fans are veritable hate groupies.

I can see why Olby is "giddy" over his numbers!

The Scoreboard: Friday, February 17
25-54 demographic:

8pm:

1. O'Reilly (guest host): 256,000
2. Grace: 172,000
3. Zahn: 127,000
4. Countdown: 120,000 (Last place)

Total Viewers:

8pm:

1. O'Reilly (guest host): 1,459,000
2. Grace: 565,000
3. Zahn: 545,000
4. Countdown: 329,000 (last place)

Olby sez: I am GIDDY, GIDDY I TELL YOU! (Giddy means "crazy," right?)

Under Bush the only time the US was attacked, was on 9/11. That's it.
Al-Qaeda struck else where but noyt american targets.

Wrong, WRONG, WRONG!

2002 - U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
2003 - Housing compunds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2004 - U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
2005 - Three American hotels in Amman, Jordan

> That's a fact!

LOL!

Did a survey did you? Or you just pulling crap out of your ass?

> I can't believe so many of you here feel that the invasion of Iraq was necessary, even
> knowing what we know now.

It's ego. They can't admit they were wrong - just like their heroes Bush and Cheney.

Liberals, is it so hard to believe that Saddam hid weapons or transported them to avoid detection? Doesn't Keith love conspiracy theories? What about theories on WMD's. The difference being that there is credible evidence that WMD's were moved and kept hidden from UN inspectors and that KO wouldn't admit to them even if they were sitting on lap.

What? Seeing as Syria loves the US, they wouldn't help out Saddam? You guys are willing to give THEM the benefit of the doubt but not your own have a good defense of the Saddam tapes? I'm NOT country?(no, I'm not calling you traitors) Anyone saying the invading Iraq was necessary, but I can understand why it was done.

Nonfactor writes:

"Yeah, Keith is on tomorrow, you should get your rest and ready your fingers to rant about whatever he says."

You're so perceptive! Who'd have thunk THAT would be the purpose of this site...

> is it so hard to believe that Saddam hid weapons or transported them to avoid detection?

Generally speaking? No.

However, we told the world we KNEW where the WMDs were. You can damn well be sure we had round-the-clock surveillance (via satellites and AWACS) of some of those sites - yet nothing was found.

Before the invasion the CIA asked about 25 Iraqis here in the U.S. who had relatives back in Iraq that had been involved in WMD programs to visit Iraq and see if those programs were still active. EVERYONE of them came back and said that their relatives told them the programs hadn't been active for years. The administration chose not to believe them.

Cons, is it so hard to believe that the administration cherry picked intelligence to suit their desired agenda?

KfK writes:

"Trekkie you pathetic hack,

Don't let my initial contention that lefties love conspiracy theories get in the way! Just push the discussion further away from its initial course. At what point does Gore 2000 make it in? Just asking."

Trekkie not only serves as a living illustration of logical fallacies, he's also Exhibit A for a particularly nasty sort of mentality.

Trekkie has LONG been given full venue on Olbermann Watch to vent his non sequiturs and has returned to that task after going over to the new Olberamnn fan site and complaining about how badly he was criticised here and then avering how happy he is to now be a part of a site where he can be appreciated...

But one of Trekkie's first acts there was to suggest that the Olberamnn fan site remove all anti-Olbermann posts from the topic folders where they were posted and transfer and confine them to a folder labeled "Trolls". Trekkie reasoned that this way such posts would be tucked away, out of sight,in a folder where they would slowly disappear.

Well, welcome back to Olbermann Watch, Trekkie. Enjoy the site-wide exposure of your views that is provided to you by your gracious host. I'm sure you'll enjoy it without giving a thought as to how you schemed to limit that for conflicting opinions on another site.

What a guy...

It's ego. They can't admit they were wrong - just like their heroes Bush and Cheney.

Hell, I wanted us to take it(Iraq) after the first gulf war. I didn't any of that WMD crap. Just remove Saddam from power and be done with it.

Dem4Bush

With the proliferation of Nukes in the region (Pakistan, attempts in Libya and Iran), I am amazed that the debate still swirls about "WMD's". Saddam had enriched uranium, we now have tapes from as late as 2000 where he talks about his desire to make a nuke, the guy was refusing weapons inspections, etc. Nothing will convince the appeasement crowd that war is a good idea. I mean, one complete idiot above just claimed that some "relatives" of people in Iraq said the weapons programs were dead! Never mind the TAPES OF SADDAM talking about this stuff, we have some hearsay to rely on! People that blind and stupid are not worth addressing.

As Iran speeds ahead toward nuclear capability, all the while openly threatining to destroy Israel and the West, I see no groundswell of support for military action. Of course Hillary will get up and make a speech about how "troubled" she is so it goes on her permanent record, but nobody takes action. When will somebody finally have the balls to say enough?

With the lefty dimwits, it is all 20/20 hindsight. If Iran gets and uses a nuke, they'll scream, "why didn't somebody stop them." Until then, they'll harass Cheney, Bush, and the rest of normal America about total nonsense, and say Iran's nuclear ambitions are somehow the fault of the West.

I thank God that so many anti-defense and anti-capitalist bozos moved to Canada in the '60's and '70's. Would that more would make the leap to the socialist paradise up North.

By the way, I posted this before and it disappeared. TVNewser, a web site that reports on cable news and ratings, is hounded by a desperate Keith Olbermann regularly. You see, Keith is not satisfied with spinning on his own show, so he tries to invade other media sites to lie and obfuscate. But let us pull a quote by Olby from TVNewser:

Olbermann says: "Our show's never done better. We've beaten Paula [Zahn of CNN] for viewers in the demo 12 of the last 14 nights and the total audience numbers are giddying. But that [O'Reilly has] helped, I'm sure has never occurred to him. I really should send him a check every week. In the interim I just pray he keeps this up."

Now, Olbermann has done everything except go to O'Reilly's house with a megaphone to annoy the guy. He has attacked him 60+ times on Countdown. His attacks are personal and unprofessional and, quite frankly, downright bizarre, and he "hopes O'Reilly keeps this up". Keith tries to make it sound like O'Reilly is obsessed with him! What a shameless lying freak!

Keith says he is "Giddy" about his numbers! Numbers like these:

The Scoreboard: Friday, February 17
25-54 demographic:

8pm:

1. O'Reilly (guest host): 256,000
2. Grace: 172,000
3. Zahn: 127,000
4. Countdown: 120,000 (Last place)

Total Viewers:

8pm:

1. O'Reilly (guest host): 1,459,000
2. Grace: 565,000
3. Zahn: 545,000
4. Countdown: 329,000 (last place)

I am not a mathematician, but I know enough to say these numbers are nothing to be giddy about unless you want to fail.

How can a guy who lies, spins, and harasses be trusted to be a mailman much less a newsman? The answer is he can't be trusted and his ratings show it.

OK, it didn't disappear, but I love the post so much that I had to put it out there again!

As Iran speeds ahead toward nuclear capability, all the while openly threatining to destroy Israel and the West, I see no groundswell of support for military action. Of course Hillary will get up and make a speech about how "troubled" she is so it goes on her permanent record, but nobody takes action. When will somebody finally have the balls to say enough?

And just where are we going to get the troops to do this? The U.S. Army is so stretched right now that they cannot free up any sizable numbers to fight an additional conflict. The National Guard is similarly depleted (half of Army National Guard equipment deployed overseas is unaccounted for and has not been replaced).

Lobbing cruise missles won't work because Iran has "hardened" all of their nuclear sites against such an attack.

Thanks to being stuck in Iraq, there is nothing we can do about Iran. We just do not have the manpower without seriously jeopardizing something else.

P.S. - I note that my last comment went unanswered other than with personal attacks. Under commonly-accepted rules of debate, that means the point has been conceded.

I for one am tired keith olbermann claiming to be nonpartison when clearly he isn't. I encourage everyone on this site and others to e-mail him and expose him for what he is - a partison liberal hack.

OK Trekkie!

Thanks for picking out a peripheral point from my post to respond to. Never mind the WMD issue that was the central point.

Anyway, how the hell do you know what our military can and can't do Trekkster? Have you run the numbers and formulated a tactical plan? You don't know shit. I knew that absurd "we're in Iraq so our military is paralysed" argument would come up. You don't think there is any possible way the greatest military in the world could knock out nuke sites in Iran while in Iraq?

Anyway, I'll go along with your dopey assertion that our military could not possibly engage in tactical strikes against nuclear facilities in Iran. After all, you are a Trekkie, well versed in the art of war.

If that is the case, how about the other countries out there, Trekkie! Maybe they could pitch in. You know, France and all the rest. Oh, wait, they have no balls. But wait, those are the Europeans you lefties love so much! Oh, what to do what to do (hand wringing ensues). Maybe the UN? Oh wait, the Russkies wouldn't allow this to reach the UN! Oh what to do what to do (pulling of hair, gnashing of teeth). I guess we'll have to let the Iranians have nukes! Cue the New York Times to push for letting the Iranians nuke it up!

Now, you libs love the NY Times, so according to that crappy paper, it shouldn't matter if the Iranians get nukes! Here ya go:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/opinion/27posen.html?ex=1298696400&en=ee385c4bb0116f1c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Iranian nuclear weapons could be put to three dangerous purposes: Iran could give them to terrorists; it could use them to blackmail other states; or it could engage in other kinds of aggressive behavior on the assumption that no one, not even the United States, would accept the risk of trying to invade a nuclear state or to destroy it from the air. The first two threats are improbable and the third is manageable.

Okey dokey! It is "improbable" that we will be nuked, so let the Iranians do their thing. This op-ed is an example of lefty insanity. Therefore it belongs in the NY Times.

Would anybody like to push the debate further away from my initial post on liberal appeasement and WMD's? Perhaps a discussion of the NY Times?

Watching Olbermann's rantings against O'Reilly, I thought to myself not only should O'Reilly be taken off the air, he should be locked up in a mental institution. Olbermann is 100% nuts. He's delusional and pathalogical.

119 comments. Getting up there, Johnny!! But quality has suffered, unfortunately. Some good debate, though.

When the recruitment age is raised from 35 to 42, when cash bonuses for enlistment and re-enlistment are doubled, when you have National Guard units serving multiple tours overseas, when the number of "administrative separations" are down, when recruitment in general is down...tha tends to imply that there aren't enough people going in to replace the ones being killed or wounded.

Before 9/11, there were dozens of reports that said the United States was no longer capable of fighting a war on two fronts. Right now we are barely managing to do it (thanks to calling up everyone down to Individual Ready Reserve). Asking to open a third front is not possible.

Hell, even the guys at the Cato Institute indicate that there are no good policy options when it comes to Iran.

OK Trekkie!

You have your pulse on the state of the military! You have determined that we do not have enough troops to carry out the mission. Let me ask you this:

1. How would you carry out the mission?

2. How many troops would the mission require?

3. If you can't answer these two questions, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU BLABBERING ABOUT?

Leave the killing to the professionals and stick to what you know best -- Star Trek and whining.

Jim,

I am not sure this activity is good. We don't want to have people look at this site and tune in to Olby to watch the train wreck. Olby might creep out of last place as a result.

I am not sure this activity is good. We don't want to have people look at this site and tune in to Olby to watch the train wreck. Olby might creep out of last place as a result.

KfK:

That poses a very interesting hypothesis. If more people watched KO, wouldn't they be more likely to veer to the right. Certainly Olby could not sway any semi-intelligent person.

The good thing is that Olby is too obtuse to develop a large audience. I remember when I first came across his show. It was jazzy and seemed interesting on some level. As I watched, I tried to figure out the bizarre counting down deal and found it annoying. Then, his stammering and confusing sentence structure annoyed me further. In addition, the stories he covered were horribly ill-chosen. Without really paying attention to Keith's bias, I had already turned off his show despite an initial interest in its structure.

Ironically, I came across something Olby said on the net, saw this blog, and as a result have attempted to watch Olby for the sole purpose of fighting the good fight against misinformation and bias. That is why I worry a little about feeding the monster with this site. However, the factors I listed above, as well as others, ensure Keith will fail in the end. In addition, I know that if I were a Nielsen household, I would make a point of NEVER watching Olbermann.

Still no updates from tvnewser? It's Monday night and still the last ratings update is last Wed.? Were there any reruns of Deal or No Deal last Thur. or Fri. night on cnbc?

To Trekkie the Leftie and Non-Factor

Here's my response to this:

2002 - U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
2003 - Housing compunds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2004 - U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
2005 - Three American hotels in Amman, Jordan

the 2003and 2005 attack was not American Government property.
It was private, just like when your Islamo-Fascist buddies burned all those Mcdonald during the cartoon riots.
That should be terrorism too right?
When are you Marxist types going to Condem China, Nort Korea, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Zimbawe and venezuela for the abuses they're commiting in their prisons.
I say God bless tth abusers at Abu Gharib and Gauntanamo!
if I were there I would dip those islamic Barbarians in oil and burn them.
Until the other countries stop, we should keep doing what we're doing.
You Marxists are the same types that in the 30's, 40's 50' and 60'ds defended Stalin and mao but quick to condem Pinochet!
What Hypocrosy!

To Trekkie the Leftie and Non-Factor

Here's my response to this:

2002 - U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
2003 - Housing compunds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2004 - U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
2005 - Three American hotels in Amman, Jordan

the 2003and 2005 attack was not American Government property.
It was private, just like when your Islamo-Fascist buddies burned all those Mcdonald during the cartoon riots.
That should be terrorism too right?
When are you Marxist types going to Condem China, Nort Korea, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Zimbawe and Venezuela for the abuses they're commiting in their prisons.
I say God bless tth abusers at Abu Gharib and Gauntanamo!
if I were there I would dip those Islamic Barbarians in oil and burn them.
Until the other countries stop, we should keep doing what we're doing.
You Marxists are the same types that in the 30's, 40's 50' and 60'ds defended Stalin and mao but quick to condem Pinochet!
What Hypocrosy!

Gotta love originals like nonfactor, He call us a circle jerk than starts into I belive it was KFK for getting on his case. Just let me get this straight. In the p.c. world of the looney left calling certain people circle jerks are okay with nonfactor(how original). But don't say anyhting bad towards him and dude the usual dribble about this site being pathetic. It's not like WE HAVEN'T HEARD THAT ONE BEFORE!

Caught the olby clip off of I belive that lame daily kos whatever. Happy Days are here again? What? Keith you or you're one or two friends must view this site so let me ask you this one question. HOW MANY PEOPLE WHEN THEY WERE IN FRONT OF THAT COMPUTER REALLY WANT YOU GONE?????

Food for thought?

Still no updates from tvnewser? It's Monday night and still the last ratings update is last Wed.? Were there any reruns of Deal or No Deal last Thur. or Fri. night on cnbc?

I think Olby has convinced TVNewser to only give ratings when the Factor has a guest host, and then only the 25-54 demographics.

Which reminds me!! Nobody has come up with another source for these nightly cable ratings. Surely they are available somewhere other than the almighty TVNewser.

O'Reilly is the worst person in the world again.

Keith has got to LOVE tweaking Billy Boy's nose...

Keith calls O'Reilly on things he says, it's not like he's just naming him the worst person in the world for shits and giggles, he takes his radical and stupid quotes and exposes them.

To puck - I wasn't calling you guys circle jerks, because a circle jerk isn't a person, it's an event, and it's what you have going on here at this site, a circle jerk, and Olbermann is the cookie.

To JDogg - I really hope you don't think all those things you said about liberals, if you do I'm sorry. I know even the conservatives reading your posts have to be a bit ashamed. Originally you said there was only one terrorist attack since Bush took office, now you're changing your story, and I appreciate that. You say that us "Marxists" don't condemn China, or North Korea, etc. and I can only respond with - Are you crazy?! Many in the Democratic Party care about human rights, and condemn the countries that violate them. You expect there to be a huge news conference where all democrats in the world make a speech about how they don't support Saudi Arabia (which Bush recently named it and Egypt as our allies).

I also find it really ironic that you say we should condemn numerous countries for violating people's rights, and in the next sentence say we should, quote: dip those islamic Barbarians in oil and burn them. "Hypocrosy" indeed.

Keith calls O'Reilly on things he says, it's not like he's just naming him the worst person in the world for shits and giggles, he takes his radical and stupid quotes and exposes them.

Don't you think that Keith is a jealous jerk and obsessed with a better News host? Isn't that why he names O'Reilly WPITW? Didn't you see the quote above where he giddily crows about his amazing ratings and attributes them to O'Reilly? By the way, I think it is funny that Keith is in last place with terrible ratings and then thanks O'Reilly for the tiny audience Keith does pull!

To puck - I wasn't calling you guys circle jerks, because a circle jerk isn't a person, it's an event, and it's what you have going on here at this site, a circle jerk, and Olbermann is the cookie.

Wha . . .? Cookie? What the Hell is your major malfunction you freak.

Jim, Puck,

As far as I know, TVNewser is the place to go for these ratings. I tried to hunt down another source that would not be so erratic and failed. Maybe we should email Fox News to get a second site for ratings, since the Olby-loving TVNewser has a hard time posting the ratings regularly.

JDogg wrote (once I got through all the atrocious spelling):

the 2003and 2005 attack was not American Government property.

Neither was the World Trade Center. Should it not count either? The housing complex and those hotels were targeted by al Qaeda because they're American.

When are you Marxist types going to Condem China, Nort Korea, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Zimbawe and venezuela for the abuses they're commiting in their prisons.

Um, how about as often as we can?

I say God bless tth abusers at Abu Gharib and Gauntanamo!
if I were there I would dip those islamic Barbarians in oil and burn them.

Does Ann Coulter know you're stealing her lines?

Until the other countries stop, we should keep doing what we're doing.

And people wonder why we're disliked. *shakes head*

You Marxists are the same types that in the 30's, 40's 50' and 60'ds defended Stalin and mao but quick to condem Pinochet!

We codemned General Pinochet because our government was complicit in letting him come to power. The Nixon tapes and papers indicate that the Administration was very happy about Chile under Pinochet, despite the fact that his government was absolutely ruthless.

KfK wrote:

1. How would you carry out the mission?
2. How many troops would the mission require?

I would follow Congressman Jack Murtha's original resolution (House Joint Resolution #73) as submitted by him on November 17, 2005. It's still the best option out of a host of bad options.

Cecelia wrote:

But one of Trekkie's first acts there was to suggest that the Olberamnn fan site remove all anti-Olbermann posts from the topic folders where they were posted and transfer and confine them to a folder labeled "Trolls". Trekkie reasoned that this way such posts would be tucked away, out of sight,in a folder where they would slowly disappear.

I don't own the site in question. I made a suggeston to a query by the site's owner. One that, I may add, most bulletin boards on the internet adhere to in order to maintain some semblance of internet. It is certainly less draconian than several other conservative sites, where dissenting views (even well-articulated ones) are merely erased as if they never existed.

> Don't you think that Keith is a jealous jerk and obsessed with a better News host?

LOL!

Not a chance. Keith is really amused at O'Reilly. After all, O'Reilly is a lying, bombastic, egotistical nutcase - how can you NOT be amused by him?

Hey swash

I would and with Johnnydollar's permission, because it his site like to see you give us an O'reillywatch report for one week. One week you watch the show segment by segment and report to us how each night O'reilly is everything you say. I mean if it's such a comedy show it should be one week of laughs okay there MO ROCCA! I want you to point out how he lies in every segment, and show us the proof what a nutcase he is. And, since you're such an F'n genius how he is fooling apx.2.5 million views a night. Should be a piece of cake right? So gather up you're ghost writers and let's have it, okay? One week, Just one week. Hey after this you can start you're own O'reillywatch. I'm sure George Soros has a million lying around somewhere to throw you. Ya know I think at the end of the week we will LOL.

To Trekkie and Nonfactor,
I don't care what other countries think.
They hate us anyway.
2nd I'm not a conservative, I'm a Libertarian Nationalist, to me Bush is pussy!
You guys still don't answer my question why did your ilk condem Pinochet but never the Mullahs in Iran, Castro, Moa and Stalin?
I don't give a hoots about other conubtries that torture, as far as I'm concern we have a rightto that to these barbarian Islamo-Fascists.
I'm just pionting out the Hypocrosy of the left that condems America but never our enemies.
It's a too bad sedition laws aren't enforcethe only language the world understand is Might makes right.
Thats' reality, it'll always be that way till the end of the world.

I don't care what other countries think.
They hate us anyway.

They didn't used to. Here's a story - When Kennedy was facing the Cuban Missile Crisis, he sent Secretary of State Acheson to Europe to talk to Charles de Gaulle. Acheson explained the situation and that if the U.S. had to, they would remove the missiles in Cuba by force. He then said he would show de Gaulle the evidence. De Gaulle said "I don't want to see your evidence. I trust the President of the United States. Tell him we stand with him."

Allies are force multipliers. You gain allies by showing respect and gaining prestige. America should lead - with allies if it can, alone if it must.

You guys still don't answer my question why did your ilk condem Pinochet but never the Mullahs in Iran, Castro, Moa and Stalin?

Well, with Castro, Mao and Stalin it was the fact that people like you would then stand up and call them "Communist sympathizers". And Iran was a royal mess...

I don't give a hoots about other conubtries that torture, as far as I'm concern we have a rightto that to these barbarian Islamo-Fascists.

Not all Muslims are barbarians. But the more you rip into them and call them that, the more they move towards the radical movements.

I'm just pionting out the Hypocrosy of the left that condems America but never our enemies.

When we act no better than our enemies, I will stand up and scream to the heavens about it. What's the point of being for truth and justice if we're willing to discard them at the first moment of inconvenience?

It's a too bad sedition laws aren't enforcethe only language the world understand is Might makes right.

We tried sediton laws in the 1800s and during World War I. They didn't work too well then, either.

To trekkie, hate to pop your bubble, but the only reason that Europe pertended to like us at the time was that there were Soviet tanks in East Europe ready to pounce at them at a moment notice.
France is just jealous that it's a has been power.
We don't need phony allies, just real ones.
Alliances are only temporary.
Islam's goal is domination of the world.
That's why they split the world into the Dar es Islam and the Dar al haab (house of war).
just ask the Israelis, Lebanese Christians, Egyptian Copts, Sudanese Christians, Armenians, Serbians, Indians and Byzantines.
Ohh I forgot the Byzantine Empire was wiped out by Islamic invaders.
that's the problem with you marxists, you don't read history.

If MSNBC had any "smarts" and want to continue with a liberal news host (instead of KO) then they would do well to hire Rachael Maddow who appears with some regularity on the Tucker Carlson program and to me is the only good thing going on "Air America". She is intelligent, cheerful, informed and has something that very few of the liberals seem to possess and that is a sense of humor. Although there is plenty of room for improvement, the Sitution does have a few good things going for it and Rachael is one of those things. I am a regular viewer of Bill O'Reilly's program and some of the other Fox news programs but when I see a liberal like Rachael who makes some sense, then I think it should be noted.

The above post regarding Rachael Maddow was posted by "Gloria" and not JDogg66 that is showing. I can't figure out how this happens.

Alliances are only temporary.

Oh really? Then explain why NATO has not only existed for nearly six decades but also why it has also expanded in the last 15 years.

Islam's goal is domination of the world.
That's why they split the world into the Dar es Islam and the Dar al haab (house of war).

That's only one interpretation of Islamic teaching (and that particular interpretation is most similar to Fred Phelps' interpetation of the Christian Bible). Here's another (from a friend who is Muslim):

"Islam has a concept known as itjihad- basically, a religiously sanctioned method of interpreting religious law to reflect changing times.

Basically, this means, instead of four male witnesses of good religious sanding, what would be needed could be, for example, four elements of irrefutable forensic evidence, as well as other irrefutable evidence.

And regarding the separation of church (or mosque, whichever you prefer) and government: Basically, Islam tells rulers that, although they should do their best to implement Islamic laws whenever and wherever they could, in the end, it is the will of the people that must prevail. An Islamic leader that fails to listen to the people's will is no Muslim- so if the people don't want Islamic law, then an Islamic leader is obliged not to give them said laws. However, they must keep in mind the spirit of Islamic law- this means if the people want something that contravenes said laws, say, for example, honour killings of lynch mobs, than the ruler must move in to prevent said crime."

Painting all Muslims with the "extremist" brush is nice and simplistic, but it marginalizes the moderates who reject the Wahhabi extremism.

That's the problem with you marxists, you don't read history.

See, there you go. I don't agree with you, so I must be a Marxist. Never mind that the only true Marxist was Marx. Everyone else bastardized his theory to fit their own individual goals.

> then they would do well to hire Rachael Maddow

maddow is too far left for my tastes. heard her when she sat in for al franken on AA. While franken's radio persona isn't nearly as polished as maddow's, his ideas are more mainstream.

Cecelia wrote:

But one of Trekkie's first acts there was to suggest that the Olberamnn fan site remove all anti-Olbermann posts from the topic folders where they were posted and transfer and confine them to a folder labeled "Trolls". Trekkie reasoned that this way such posts would be tucked away, out of sight,in a folder where they would slowly disappear.

Trekkie answered:

I don't own the site in question. I made a suggeston to a query by the site's owner. One that, I may add, most bulletin boards on the internet adhere to in order to maintain some semblance of internet. It is certainly less draconian than several other conservative sites, where dissenting views (even well-articulated ones) are merely erased as if they never existed.

_________________________________________

Your suggestion was to banish dissenting posts on the Olbermann fan site into a folder a 'special' folder. This would mean that dissenting posts would be transferred from the context in which they were written (say a response to a comment posted in a particular folder) to a folder where readers would have no clue as to what these posts referenced.

As amusing as it is to see you point your finger at "conservative sites", after being called out for such a lack of respect for dissent, I am not laughing my sock off. Trekkie, just how seriously are posts taken when they're whisked off to folders labeled "Trolls", to use an example from the site where you suggested such an action...

But here you are, doing the usual non sequitur... this one being that some conservative sites do worse than what you suggested.... Here you are writing specious posts to this site, confident that they will be displayed and treated as every other post.

Well, you need to thank your host, Captain Kirk. Thank him that you haven't been treated in the way that you suggested that others be treated. And thank him that he's given you a site far more intellectually robust than the one where you whined about how badly you had been treated here on this site.

You'd be a real test to my commitment to free speech, Trekkie. But luckily for you, you're no challenge to the decency of Johnny Dollar.

You need to thank him that he allowed you to beam your silly adolescent self back over to Olbermann Watch, after you discovered that there is no intelligent life at the Olbermann Forum.

Trekkie, read history.
In the 7th Century the Middle east was ruled by 2 powers the Zorazstorian Persin Empire and the Christian eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire.
In 632 The Muslim Arabs declared a Jihad against both those powers. Within 100 years the armies of Islam destroyed the Persian Empire and the Spanish-Visigothic Kingdom.
They took Syria, Israel, Armenia, Egypt and Nort Africa from the Byzantine Empire.
At least 30 Million Greek and Latin speakers were wiped out in theis Jihad genocide.
By conquering the trade routes this knock Western Europe into a Dark Age.
They want to do it again!
The difference is that the US won't let them.
Well, I know you Leftist wouldn't mind that.
hey by the way NATO is an outdated organization.
We should only form alliances of convience, that's the normal historical way.
I can't wait for the end of this Marxist Globalization Internationalist crap!

Your suggestion was to banish dissenting posts on the Olbermann fan site into a folder a 'special' folder. This would mean that dissenting posts would be transferred from the context in which they were written (say a response to a comment posted in a particular folder) to a folder where readers would have no clue as to what these posts referenced.

Um, no. That's not how it works, since it's a "threaded" community rather than an "open" community. In a "threaded" community, a topic that is clearly designed to troll (ex. "Olbermann is a traitor") is moved completely. It is not locked. It is not deleted. It is merely moved.

Trekkie writes:

"Not all Muslims are barbarians. But the more you rip into them and call them that, the more they move towards the radical movements."

As you read the above statement and dry the tears from your eyes, while imagining a Hallelujah Chorus and Ten Gun Salute sounding in the background.... remember this is from a guy who has argued that the motivation for the WH to have argued against labeling the whole of the UAE as terrorist, is most likely a mercenary one...

But then our Captain Kirk is bit faster at perceiving his own righteousness than he is to see an political opponent's....

They want to do it again!
The difference is that the US won't let them.

Thank you for ignoring everything I said - since you obviously have no actual response to the arguments I raised, you have conceded those points.

Trekkie,

To use the sort of analogy that you just love.... I guess you'd argue that the ole USSR didn't stifle Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn they merely "moved" him....

But then our Captain Kirk is bit faster at perceiving his own righteousness than he is to see an political opponent's....

My problem with the port deal is not that a foreign company is going to manage them. It's that a foreign company wholly-owned by a government wants to. It's the same reason I had problems when the oil company owned by the Chinese government tried to takeover Unocal last year. I would have the same problem if a Chinese government-owned company tried to buy P & O.

With government-owned companies, it is difficult to tell where the corporation ends and the government begins.

Trekki, you're the one not answering the facts I brought up!
I'm of Spanish origin.
They came into my ancestoral homeland and killed 4 Million Sapnirads!
It took a war of liberation lasting 700 to drive the barbarians out.
the fact is your Mulim friend is not telling you the whole truth.
Islam is a genocidal reliogion ask the Israelis, Christian Lebanese and Christian Sudanese.
Why don't you answer the facts I'm bring to the table!
You can't becuase in your Naive world view only Western Civilization is capable of genocide.
Not a peace loving culture like Islam.
It's funny how the Left defends this regressive Fascistic societ where Women have no rights, Gays are killed and Minorities (non-Muslims) are 2nd class citizens.
At least us in the west are trying to adress our issues.
That's the difference!
Trekki read some history.

To use the sort of analogy that you just love.... I guess you'd argue that the ole USSR didn't stifle Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn they merely "moved" him....

Troll (internet usage) - a person who posts rude or offensive messages on the Internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants.

A long, impassioned argument that happens to take the other side is not trolling.

This:
"You people are blind, stupid, or just plain in on the whole scam. Olbermann is a menace and needs to stop with his campaign of lies and deception. He will be stopped when Kaplan has had enough with being last in the overall ratings and can go backmto sportscasting where he belongs."

Is trolling.

Trekkie still no answer to my facts!
Did it shatter you Marxist world view?

You sure did shut that Allah loving commie up!

Trekkie writes:

My problem with the port deal is not that a foreign company is going to manage them. It's that a foreign company wholly-owned by a government wants to.

It's the same reason I had problems when the oil company owned by the Chinese government tried to takeover Unocal last year. I would have the same problem if a Chinese government-owned company tried to buy P & O.

With government-owned companies, it is difficult to tell where the corporation ends and the government begins"

No, this wasn't your only issue. You couldn't just dissent from opposing views based on this argument. You also argued that the likely motivation for the WH having a dog in this fight is avarice.

Too, please go into more detail about your fears of UAE govt control of a business that runs some U.S. ports.

Trekkie writes:

"You people are blind, stupid, or just plain in on the whole scam. Olbermann is a menace and needs to stop with his campaign of lies and deception. He will be stopped when Kaplan has had enough with being last in the overall ratings and can go backmto sportscasting where he belongs."

Is trolling."

It would depend upon the context. Was the response in kind with the post that had generated that response?

Too, I don't understand why you would suddenly place the parameter of "a long impassioned argument" upon dissenting speech when the Olbermann forum is almost entirely composed of pro-Keith statements that are comparable in quality to your example of a troll post.

Again, if such posts here were immediately transferred to a special folder respectfully entitled "Trolls".... this site would be less "clogged" (as you have phrased it...) too.

Again, you should be thanking Johnny for his indulgence.

Cecelia writes:

You couldn't just dissent from opposing views based on this argument. You also argued that the likely motivation for the WH having a dog in this fight is avarice.

I have? Where? I know I've questioned the depth of the review, but that simply supports my earlier argument.

It would depend upon the context. Was the response in kind with the post that had generated that response?

That post was at the start of a thread. It responded to nothing.

JDogg66:

Trekkie still no answer to my facts!
Did it shatter you Marxist world view?

I did. You ignored my responses upthread or just threw back rhetoric without substance.

And I told you, the only Marxist was Marx - pure Marxism doesn't exist in this world.

Trekkie writes:

"Pure Marxism doesn't exist in this world."

I suppose you think it could exist if properly implemented, and the previous attempts were failures because of human error? Tell us Trek!

I suppose you think it could exist if properly implemented, and the previous attempts were failures because of human error? Tell us Trek!

Actually, I don't. It's not possible to run a purely Marxist government in the long-term. Marxism only works on paper - individuals who take up the Marxist rhetoric eventually warp it into something that still uses Marxist rhetoric and labels. These people claim to be Marxist, but they are not. (See: Leninism, Stalinism, Kautskyism, etc.)

Trekkie,
I threw historical facts at you.
Do you deny the Holocaust happened?
The reason I'm asking is that you're denying the Islamic Holocaust of Mediterranean Christians!
I've answered your Naive arguments with facts!
NATO is a relic of the cold war.
It's time for a realistic foreign policy based on our interests and not some George Soros Left-Wing Elitist Internnationalist fantasy!
The esiest way to deal; with Iran, Iraq and Syria would,ve been to destroy those countries Mongol style.
That's my critisism of Bush the Phony.
We have a few thousand Nukes, i want see if they work.
I paid taxes it's only fair.

The esiest way to deal; with Iran, Iraq and Syria would,ve been to destroy those countries Mongol style.
That's my critisism of Bush the Phony.

So basically you advocate thermonuclear war?

Because rest assured, the second we start firing our nukes other nuclear-capable countries will use their weapons as well.

What about Israel? You drop a nuke on Damascus you are certainly going to have fallout that'll drift into Israeli territory (never mind the eventual contamination of the water and food supply by radiation).

Don't talk to me about naive. You're the one who wants to turn the Middle East into a sea of glass, killing tens of millions of innocent civilians as well as a much smaller number of terrorists. If you really belive you can do that without causing the end of the civilized world as we know it, then you are the most naive person on the planet.

Wow trekkie, you seem an expert on Leftist Ideologies.
Castro and Chavez would be proud!

Wow trekkie, you seem an expert on Leftist Ideologies.
Castro and Chavez would be proud!

Just because I know about the ideological framework doesn't mean I support it.

And lay of the sarcasm, it's puddling on my carpet and making an awful mess...

We did it to the Japanese who were defiantely more honorable than these scum bags.
So what we kill a few million barbarians, they did it to to 30 Million Christians in the 7th Century.
Pay backs a bitch!

Mr. Spock,
When Keith Olbermann loses his job at MSNBC because of low rating, he always has Al-Jazeera International to fall back on!

Beam me up Scotty!

Hey hey, ho ho, Lefties like Olbermann and Trekkie gotta go!

Domo Arigato!

Keith Olbermann should just die!

Domo Arigato!

We did it to the Japanese who were defiantely more honorable than these scum bags.
So what we kill a few million barbarians, they did it to to 30 Million Christians in the 7th Century.
Pay backs a bitch!

Very nice. The problem with "limited nuclear war" is that is not limited. Even a nuclear strike at just the targets on your list would be enough to bring about nuclear winter, which would be the end of civilization (nuclear winter, in case you skipped that part of class, is when the planet freezes over as the ash and smoke from the attacks blot out the sun).

You're basically advocating an ELE (Extinction Level Event) as the planet becomes inhospitable to human life. That, sir, is plainly insane.

Mr. Spock,That's all crap.
When we bombed Hiroshims and Nagasaki, there was no Nuclear winter.
Hey how come you still don't answer the charge about the Islamic Holocaust against Christians in the 7th Century!
But you probably condemn the Crusades right!

beam me up Scotty!

When we bombed Hiroshims and Nagasaki, there was no Nuclear winter.

The bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined were implosion devices that had a total yield of 35 kilotons. One single Trident II (Mark 4) missle launched from a submarine has 8 thermonuclear warheads with a yield of 100 kilotons each. A Mark 5 Trident II uses 8 thermonuclear warheads with 465 kiloton yields. Scientific studies have shown that one Trident II Mark 4, fully deployed, would be sufficient to initiate nuclear winter.

Hey how come you still don't answer the charge about the Islamic Holocaust against Christians in the 7th Century!

Gee, I thought the Nine Crusades from the 11th through 13th centuries were enough blood spilled in vengance.

But you probably condemn the Crusades right!

I deplore that they happened because they were incredibly bloodthirsty and helped create the hostile environment that exists in that region now.

Mr Spock,
The Crusades were a Counter attack against Islam.
let me refresh your History:

In 1071 AD the Sejuk Turks defeated the Byzantines at the battle of Manzikert.
They conquered Syria and Anatolia(Now Turkey) from them.
Their armies were now at the Dardanelles opposite Constantinople.
In 1095 the Emperor Alexius ask the Pope for aid against the Muslims.
The Crusaders set out to the Middle east in 1096.
In 1099 Jerusalem was liberated.
then in 1187 the Muslims led by the Kurd Saladin defeated the crusaders.
In the 1290's Acre the last stronghold fell.
Then in the late 1300's and early 1400's the Islamic Ottoman Turks rose to power conquering the Balkans culminating in the fall of Greek Orthodox Constantinople in 1453.
they then advanced up to Vienna.
Finally the tide turned in Malta in 1565.
Then in 1571 The Spaniards and their Italian vassal states led by Don Juan de Austria crippled Islamic power in the battle of Lepanto!
They never recovered. Plus the Israelis wipped them in 48,56,67,73 and 82.
Plus India humiliated Pakistan in 1971 in East Pakistan, becoming Bangladesh.
that's what they're pissed about.
The fact that they have no armies capable of defeating non-Islamic powers like they did from the 7th-16th centuries.
they want to rule the world and they can't.
So they rely on homicide bombings and the Sympathy of Western Civilization hating Leftists such as yourself.
You still though didn't answer my question,
Why won't you condemn the Jihad of the 7th Century?
What was the excuse for that?

Once again Trekkie the Commie has no response.
It's official, He support the Islamic Genocide against Christians in the 7th Century.
He Trekkie just become Muslim and worship the moon God.
Oh I mean Allah, since you love their Women hating, Gay hating Minority oppression society!

Why won't you condemn the Jihad of the 7th Century?

You want me to condemn something that happend 1400 years before you or I were born? Something that was avenged by the Christians across three centuries of Crusades?

You didn't bother to respond to the arguments I provided. Then again, that's not much of a surprise.

Mr Spock,
I have more than responded.
You still haven't responded to my facts.
If you read my posting, after the crusades the Mulims struck back and then they were stopped.
The fact is you have no answers because it goes against you ideology.
The jihad of the 7th century killed 30-40 Million people.
the Crudes over 3 centuries killed no more than 5 million.
Which is worst.
Why did Islam start a war of agression on the Christian Byzantine Empire in the 7th Century?
Can you answer that?

Why did Islam start a war of agression on the Christian Byzantine Empire in the 7th Century?
Can you answer that?

I can answer only what the history books say: that the Islamic people of the time wanted to unite all Arab people, which meant expansion into the Syrian territories (at the time disputed by both the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanid Empire, who were both exhausted by war with each other). The attack succeeded because the Byzantines were overextended as a result of their program of expansion.

Don't presume to tell me my ideology. I do believe that killing is necessary, but only when all other options are exhausted. And I don't believe in killing indiscriminately (which is what nuclear war does).

Syrians at that time period weren't Arabs but Aramaic and Greeks.
the reason they started a war with the Byzantines was because their Religion teaches them to conquer all non Muslims.
that's straight from thr koran.
In fact had the Byzantines won at the battle of Yarmuk in 636 Ad the world would've of been better.
It wasn't the crusades that messed up the Middle East it was the Jihad of the 7th century.

Hey JDogg66 Islam sucks period.
Don't bother arguing with that Ignoramus Star Trekker.
Hey Captain Kirk, stick to your Lefty websites.

To JDogg66 and Curious Jerk,
I'm Muslim so cut the crap.
I'll cut your heads off and eat your children!
We will rule the worls one day!
Blessed is the Prophet Mohhamed peace be upon him!
Praise be to Allah!

that's straight from thr koran.

Again, that's from the literalist, fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran (which you delight in applying willy-nilly). But I explained this upthread and you ignored me then, so why should now be any different?

Trekkie, I've answered you with evidence.
Islam is like Nazism, Fascism, Maoism and Communism.
It's an enslaving ideology.
so here's another question for you.
Why are Women, Gays and Non-Muslims treated like crap in their countries?
Because the Koran justifies it.
If they didn't take the koran literally then that religion would be confined just to the Arabian peninsualla.

all I have to say is Fuck Allah and fuck Muhhamed.
Muhhamed married a 10 year old, did you know that?

JDogg, Allah will cast you soul to Iblis's domain and the Jin shall haunt your dreams.
Trekkie, us Muslims will spare your kind when we conquer the world.
Inshallah!

Screw Islam it sucks!
Go back to your country and screw your camel!

something tells me many of these comments are from saboteurs attempting to derail sensible debate here.

Bill Maher has an interesting philosophy, and I tend to agree with it. He says that, since Islam is a newer religion than Christianity, the Muslims in the Middle East are around 500 years behind us, they've had not enlightenment, they've had no revolution. If the people on this site can't remember, Christians in Europe were killing people over religion all the time, women had no rights - in a sense, it was an enslaving ideology.

I'm not saying that what the Muslims are doing right now is good, I'm just saying it's understandable. What many people in the country hate, is that they can't understand the Middle East - Just think of it as a Europe in the 1500s.

Non Factor,
That's a pathetic excuse for Islamo-Fascism.
Women were semi-opressed in Western Europe.
In the Greek Orthodox Byzantine Empire they had rights.
there were even Female Empresses.
that argument doesn't fly.
the Koran teaches oppression of Women and Non Muslims.
that's a fact.

Hey Iron Mike you die and get your 72 Virgins.
It never specifies Males or Females.

Trekkie,

No wonder you like Olbermann. You're the same sort of content tolitarian at heart. How am I to know what the context is for the post you site as being an example of a "troll post" on the Olbermann Forum fan site? That post is now exiled to a folder labeled "Penalty Box- Trolls". Was it first posted to that folder or was it consigned there?

Too, how does the gist of the post differ in quality and spirit from this "long impassioned argument" from you...written about Olbermann and his critics on the Olby Fan Forum:

"Hi! Found this site after spending quite a bit of time sniping the folks over at Olbermann Watch. Nice to find a place that supports our good buddy KO.

I've been a fan of Keith since his ESPN days and now Countdown is the only non-fiction show I make a habit of watching.

Don't listen to the haters - they want Keith to fail because if he goes cable media will just be another arm of the Administration. Someone needs to be the voice of dissent and KO is that man."

Notice Trekkie's description above of his post to the Olby Fan Forum. He refers to his 'work' here at Olbermann Watch as "sniping"

http://www.answers.com/topic/snipe gives the definitions of snipe as follows:

To shoot at individuals from a concealed place.
To shoot snipe.
To make malicious, underhand remarks or attacks.

Hardly sounds like the action of making long impassioned arguments ...now does it... you Klingon.

Nonfactor,

Mahler's remarks are hardly coherent let alone ground-breaking.

The fact that Islam is direly in need of an Enlightenment Era has been copiously written about and analysed. Especially as it pertains to those factors in western civiilization that encouraged this process in Christianity and to the characteristics of Christianity that made the religion malleable to the process.

If you ever took the trouble to know your enemy...you might learn that such things were very much a matter of neo-con thinking in formulating a policy of expanding democracy into the Middle East.

But encountering the issue through a comedian is better than nothing, I suppose...

Cecelia, It doesn't matter where you get the information as long as you get it. And the manifest destiny approach of the neo-cons in this country isn't working. It's that simple, spreading a Democracy, as we know it is not working. You must first change the thoughts and minds of the people, rushing into Iraq and introducing a democracy as quick as possible won't "fix" the Middle East.

The truth is, is that we can't fix the Middle East by simply invading and trying to establish a democracy.

Nonfactor,

I wasn't engaging in an argument on behalf of neocons, although you have just oversimplied their thinking. I suppose that bit comes straight from Bill Maher too.

The point I made is that you should consider knowing a bit about what you discuss. You asked for it, when you quoted Maher and seemed suggest that you have just encountered a much discussed topic.

And of course the source for information matters. You're certainly the king of throw-away lines.

Believe me Cecelia; despite how easy you'd like to say that my thoughts come straight from Bill Maher, you're quite wrong. I got the idea that Muslims were in a different culture, and that Christians had done the same thing, what Maher made me realize is only when Christians did it, I had never thought about that part before, but Christians were killing people in far more numbers than Muslims no more than 500 years ago.

So before you ignorantly say that I've quoted Maher, maybe you should look at exactly what he says.

Cecelia, baby, don't get mad when people quote liberals who make some sense. You, instead of talking about the topic, have instead only moved on to assuming that I've just learned about this topic and that I quoted an idea of Bill Maher.

I know about what I'm discussing, and the fact that you haven't replied to the matter just shows that you might be projecting onto me.

Nonfactor,

Didn't you just state that Islam was 400 years old? So you think the statement that 500 years ago Christians were killing more people than Muslims makes sense?...

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and take it that you mean Christians killed more folks before the Enlightenment than Muslims have killed.

So prove this, please.

And frankly you haven't' discussed anything. You've merely said that Maher had raised an issue about Islam not having had an Enlightenment. THAT'S not even historically true.

Uhh, no, I did not say that Islam was 400 years old; I said that Islam was a younger religion than Christianity.

My point, in case you missed it, is that things like this have happened before, and people calling radical Muslims fascists A) Doesn't make sense, and B) Can be applied to Christianity 500 years ago (assuming that the word Fascist works).

I even stated it in the first post: It's understandable to me, and many people hate what they can't understand.

Nonfactor writes:

My point, in case you missed it, is that things like this have happened before, and people calling radical Muslims fascists A) Doesn't make sense, and B) Can be applied to Christianity 500 years ago (assuming that the word Fascist works).>>

Well, it figures you would base so many faulty conclusions on a simplistic statement from a comedian. But...hey...you had to get your information from somewhere...right.

Well, it's awfully broadminded of you, Nonfactor, to launch into a defense of radical Islam because some political opponent on a blog board is a bit pissed off over riots over cartoons and fatwas against film artists, writers, and such... But what's a strange bedfellow or two when you can argue against a possible Bush supporter...right...

What an intellectual defense you've made too. Let's see.... you and Bill...say that Islame is a younger religion that Christianity and the Middle East has not yet had an Enlightenment (wrong) and that Islam is actually better on a kill-by-kill basis than Christianity at the same age.

Leaving aside the unfounded claims, did it ever occur to you that in order to make to your conclusions that some things need to be considered...such as ...whether or not Christianity and Islam have the same theological structure that allowed Christianity to change through the centuries. That's just ONE aspect of what merits consideration when taking on such a subject.

But why bother, when you can make unfounded statements and quote a remark from Bill Maher about a subject you admit to having only recently considered.

Well, it's awfully considerate of you to find it "understandable" when people hate what they can't understand, Nonfactor. The fact that you don't come close to understanding the topic either, is therefore merely incidental...

Umm, where am I coming to their defense? I just said it was understandable what they were doing, and I also said: "I'm not saying that what the Muslims are doing right now is good." If you think understanding a behavior is defending it, sorry.

Unfounded claims? You're one to talk. You know as well as I do that Christians have killed more people than Muslims have, hell, they're still killing people in Ireland, but that isn't a defense of Islamic Extremists, it's just a historical observation. I could spend my time just telling you all your unfounded claims, but that wouldn't be any fun for me, and I don't think I have all day to spend pointing out issues you can't back up.

Cecelia, if you're going to continue to be ignorant I'm just not going to respond to you. I did not quote Bill Maher - you'd see quotation marks if I had. I did not only recently consider this topic, if you read the last post I made you'd see that. Read, then type, you seem to be leaving out step one.

I love how you say I don't understand the topic, but I really do, it's kind of funny, I also love how you end your posts, it's like a neat little out-of-touch conclusion.

Nonfactor writes:

"Unfounded claims? You're one to talk. You know as well as I do that Christians have killed more people than Muslims have, hell, they're still killing people in Ireland,"

A unique argument here indeed. It seems I have made unfounded assertions by the act of not taking Nonfactor's claim completely on faith...The act of asking him to back up a claim, is unreasonable according to Nonfactor.

" but that isn't a defense of Islamic Extremists, it's just a historical observation."

If it's an historical observative then you'll have to the data to prove it. Spill it.

"I could spend my time just telling you all your unfounded claims, but that wouldn't be any fun for me, and I don't think I have all day to spend pointing out issues you can't back up."

Nonfactor has now surpassed mission creep and circular arguments. We have now entered warp space. Nonfactor has changed the scenario from my asking him to back up his claim (which he has refused to do via the brilliant argument that it's truth and everyone should know that...) to MY unfounded claims...that he doesn't have time to point out... New frontiers in logic, perhaps?... It's just too damn tedious and unfun for Nonfactor to have to back up his own assertions.

"Cecelia, if you're going to continue to be ignorant I'm just not going to respond to you."

It's ignorant to ask you to back up an assertion?

"I did not quote Bill Maher - you'd see quotation marks if I had. I did not only recently consider this topic, if you read the last post I made you'd see that. Read, then type, you seem to be leaving out step one."

Your having labeled the issue of an Islamic Enlightenment as compared to the Western Enlightenment as "Bill Maher has an interesting philosophy" is a little like someone reading the fifth amendment and then writing "Bill Maher has an interesting philosophy about speech. He believes it should be free..."

Nonfactor in all fairness to my liberal friends, I don't think think of you as being one. It just isn't fair to them.

200!

No one plays politics as cynically as these folks...

Will we see a...humorous...delightful....sparkling...witty...uplifting....bipartisan....WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD award?...

:D

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/60414c4c-a95e-11da-a64b-0000779e2340.html

"Bill Clinton Helped Dubai on Ports Deal

By Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington
Financial Times
Published: March 1 2006 23:50 | Last updated: March 1 2006 23:50

Bill Clinton, former US president, advised top officials from Dubai two weeks ago on how to address growing US concerns over the acquisition of five US container terminals by DP World.

It came even as his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, was leading efforts to derail the deal."

You're assumptions are still coming Cecelia. You want hard numbers of how many people Christians have killed over the years? Well I'm not going to give them to you, you can do a google search yourself, if you want to say I’m wrong back it up and then call me out on it; asking for me to research if Christians killed more people than Muslims is like asking me to research if George Washington was really the first President of the United States. If you honestly think that Christians haven't killed as much as Muslims have then it's hopeless to even continue talking with you.

And you're still harping on the Bill Maher thing, too funny.
--
Oh, and Keith talked about Bill supporting the Dubai ports while Hillary didn't yesterday.

Nonfactor,

So we now have misson creep from Christianity having killed more folks before the Enlightment than Muslims have since the inception of Islam... to "If you honestly think that Christians haven't killed as much as Muslims have then it's hopeless to even continue talking with you."

Well, Nonfactor if asking you to merely backup your own assertions sends you into a tizzy of proclaimations that everyone should simply take it as a matter of faith or ....as being self-evident...(as in those rights endowed by our CREATOR... :D ) then I'm afraid that my mentioning that you'd have to base your analysis of such things on proportionality since 2000 + years for Christianity is a bit more than 500 years for Islam...might really blow your silly pinhead anti-intellectual self.

But carry on, Nonfactor. You do your party proud in the sense that you're a walking endorsement for public education reform.

I love it when conservatives quote Thomas Jefferson's words and then hate it when people quote how he was the one who claimed a "separation of church and state" is upon us, and how he believes that God has no place in politics.

Like I said, asking me to give you evidence if Christians killed more people than Muslims is like asking me to give you evidence if George Washington was the first president. If you want evidence, do some research and then present it to call me out on it, if you can't do that stop whining. If you present something false I'll figure out if it's true or not, if it isn't I'll show you why you're wrong.

Again with the one sentence conclusions, keep it up!

Another jewel from Nonfactor....

In a non-sequitur he references Jefferson... who was a man of the Enlightenment, and thus demanded that concepts not be solely taken upon faith... as an example in an argument where Nonfactor is insisting that we simply accept his conclusions based upon no analysis other than his insistence that they are self-evident.

Well, done, putz!

I love it when the people from this website delete my posts when I say something they don't agree with.

Nonfactor,

My guess is that the only folks who want your posts deleted are embarrassed Olbyfans.

Olbermann foes LOVE your posts. Keep 'em coming. They are priceless!

Uhh, that makes sense.. I guess.. Except that these "embarassed Olbyfans" can't delete posts at this hate site.

Johnny,

Are you deleting this poor idiot's posts?

To the Marxist Islamic loving scum.
I am not a Nazi, I'm a supporter of the Stae of Israel, you guys sympathize with the Islamo-Fascist.
By the way the Nazi's were leftists hense the name National Scoialist!
Hugo chavez the new leftist idol is a Nazi.
I believe in a free society, economic and social values for all that makes me a Libertarian.
However I believe in freedom only for my country and real allies.
All other nations shoild be destroyed or made vassal tribute states.
On social issues I am to the left of Andy Warhol and John Lennon.
On foreign policy, I am to the right of Genghis Khan, Julius Ceasar and Phillip II of Spain.
Real Imperialism by conquest and domination, unlike the Iraq charade is the solution to all of America's social ills.
So to Swashbucket, Non-Person and that other Commie, I am Nationalistic libertarian or Libertarian Nationalist.
Also I'm Hispanic so I,m not a Nazi.
But that what Moaists like you do, accuse any one right of center of being a Nazi.
However the Nazi's were Left wing Racist Socialists.
So the Nazi's are your ideological comrades.
Comrades!

Nonfactor,
Christianity,was spread through peaceful means.
It became the dominant religion when Emperor Constantine converted.
Islam was spread by the sword:
anatolia, Armenia, Syria, Israel and North Africa 30-40 Million Greeks and Latins.
Visigothic Spain 4 million.
India 15 million
Balkans 20 million.
Those are historical facts.
Christianity's darkest moments were the inquisition and the destruction of the Native American people.
However if you add up the numbers the Muslims killed way more people.
The Muslims even brag about these genocides.
So Non entity stop kissing Islamo-Fascist ass!
Your staring to stink this board up!

JDoggie66,

Christianity is also the worship of God/Messiah who said his kingdom was not of this world and that he would not rule or reign until he bodily returned and established his kingdom.

You'd do well to remember that.

happened to stop by after a few weeks of not visting and see that ceclia is still posting nonsense. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

"the kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."

amen.

Obi-Wan:
First, the Gospel of Thomas is not part of the canon, and thus not the inspired Word. It is not a biblical text. Second, since this verse (saying 113 in Gospel of Thomas) has no context, we can only analyze the words of the quote itself. This quote, had you actually compared it to Cecilia's remarks, actually _supports_ her statement. The philosophy of the two kingdoms says that the kingdom of Christ (the invisible church) is separate from the physical kingdom of the world. This quote clearly reinforces the idea that the kingdom of God is the invisible church and it is not confined to one geographical area. Thirdly, my commentary here would have been unnecessary, had you followed the link you provided to the gospel of Thomas (a collection of 114 sayings attributed to Christ, without context) and the sublink comparing it with canonical texts. You would have seen that it is similar to Luke 17:20-21 where Christ says "The kingdom of God is within you."

For an example of conservative Christians who support the philosophy of the two kingdoms, I suggest reading the Lutheran-Missouri Synod statement http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=575
which shows that "conservative Christian" and "religious right" are not synonymous in this country because of the two kingdom philosophy.

So what? On what factual basis is Thomas lesser than the NT? The book of Revelation was not part of the NT for several years. If you made your argument during that interval, then how would Revelation be accepted and Thomas rejected? Furthermore, there is no evidence to your claim that the church has anything to do with the Kingdom of God as mentioned by Jesus. By his own admission, Paul never met Jesus so Paul's writings have no legitimacy greater than Thomas. Just because Paul says he had a vision of Jesus does not mean his words are any more inspired than your common televangelist.

So what?!? You are using a made-up text to attack someone's point, that's what. I guess I need to explain it in terms even you can understand. Pretend you said that Darth Vader is a villian. But I then rebut that with "Wrong! Stephen King wrote that Darth Vader is a hero." That argument makes no sense. In particular, the rebuttal quotes an invalid source. Get it now? You rebutted Cecelia's comment with an invalid source. Now, pay attention, because here it gets tricky. I also stated that the quote is without context, making it impossible to fully understand its meaning EVEN IF IT WAS A CANONICAL TEXT. And, since it is lacking a context, it can be (rightly) interpreted to _suppport_ Cecelia's comment. So your response had not one, but three faults. A proper rebuttal would have been something like "In Matthew 99, Jesus says 'I have come to conquer the nations of the earth by the sword.'" (And yes, this is a fictional rebuttal.) This rebuttal would have a legitimate source (in the eyes of the orgininal commentator), has context (the whole chapter) and can only be interpreted to refute the orginal claim.

You apparently didn't read my post. Try reading it and maybe we can have a real conversation. How do I know you didn't read my post? Because you continue to assume that Thomas is "made up" while the NT is not without any justification other than it's widely accepted. Unfortunately, that is not what determines truth. So, if you can't show me how Thomas is more fraudulent than the NT as you claim, then your claim is worth nothing.

Obi-wan, you are clueless as ever. Not only did I read your post, I followed your links AND researched various sites online. I agree a real conversation is impossible, because it is you who are missing the point. Or maybe, you are reading, but not comprehending my point. So, I try once more. Ok, here it goes. Main point: You are citing an invalid source for your critique of Cecelia's comment. "Orthodox" Christians do not accept the validity of the Gospel of Thomas nor is any theology derived from it. So when a comment about Christian theology is made, you can not cite it as a rebuttal. Period. End of discussion. When you post a rebuttal from a valid theological source, then we can have a discussion. As a sidenote, if you had read your own link, you would have seen the "Jesus seminar" portion of the article in which scholars support the notion of the quotes being "made up". (Hint: those rated pink, or neither pink nor red.) And take a look at saying 114. Yeah, that one makes sense: "every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." Now that's good theology.....

Going through the posts I did find drop on the floor LOL

Slushbucket thinks Al Frankin's views are more mainstream?

LOL You're Honor...LOL.....I rest my case!!

Just in case you ask SB I catch Lionel, much funnier and entertaining then Frankin ever was or will be. But he needs to get rid of that hapless side kick of his and get Bruce back from the WABC days.

2 kingdoms, the problem is that i base things on evidence, not theology or social proof. if you don't want to talk about evidence and would rather determine your reality based on what those in your theological bubble think, then yes, there is no conversation here.

Obi-Wan: You are right there is no conversation here. Ironically, it is you who have problems with evidence, since you treat all evidence as equal, regardless of source. And that is, for the millionth time, my point. Lets pretend the following conversation happened between 2 people, called A and B:
A: I see that Democrats want to take everyone's food away.
B: (A Democrat) That's not true.
A: It says so, here in the book "Democratic Plans" by Joe Conservative, page 113.
B: Is it footnoted?
A: No.
B: Context?
A: None.
B: So why is it valid?
A: Because I met the author and he seemed like a nice guy.
B: But our official party platform doesn't say we support this.
A: So? It says so in this book. Good enough for me. Democrats want to steal food.
B: But its not an official party policy and appears in no party documents.
A: Big deal! Who is to say that the platform is any better than this book?
B: All party policy comes from the platform. This book is irrelevant.
A: No, I like to think critically and look at facts. This book says you Democrats want to steal food and anyone who says otherwise lives in a dream world.
B: But you can't argue from this source. It's not official party policy.
A: Sure I can, I like the book.

And on and on it goes.

Sorry, Obi-Wan, I forgot. You must have been too busy patting yourself on the back for your openmindedness and focus on reality to read and comment on the link I had orginally provided. It is the official church documents of a major conservative denomination of Christianity in the United States that does NOT believe the US should be a theocracy. In fact they oppose the intent of the religious right. Doesn't quite agree with your original assertation. Those pesky facts....

You've made a lot of accusations without any evidence. For instance, "you treat all evidence as equal, regardless of source". The Church is not a contemporary source of Jesus. Paul was not a contemporary source of Jesus. Evidence obviously depends on the source but in the sense of 1st hand, 2nd hand account, etc...The parables seem to be the most direct link to Jesus, but everything else in the NT is further away from the real source. Again, my claim is that there is no evidence to show that Thomas is any more further from the source than the books written by Paul, for instance. Again, the Church that assembled the NT was not a contemporary of Jesus. The Church was the one that rejected Revelation as part of the NT and then accepted it later.

Dear Obi-wan:
You wrote 'You've [meaning me] made a lot of accusations without any evidence. For instance, "you [meaning you] treat all evidence as equal, regardless of source" '. This is because you wrote earlier "On what factual basis is Thomas lesser than the NT?" and proceed to argue that one is not better than the other. So, yes, that would be you giving these two sources equal weight. Compare that to my story above involving the Democrats. See the connection? But again, we stray from the orginal point, as explained in the story above. Finally, I should point out that you are engaging in another logical fallacy called "faking the connection". You assume that since I disagree with your method of argument that I must be in membership with the group of people who disagree with you. Examine the tone of the March 7, 8:24pm posting of yours. You are making an assumption that may or may not be true. Consider this situation: Mussolini made the trains run on time. I want the trains to run on time. Therefore, I must be a supporter of Mussolini. Faking the connection. Get it? (And you are extending it to "you must be anti-car".) Maybe I support the Gospel of Thomas, but that's all irrelevant. In this particular discussion, it can't be used as a source. And if you still don't understand why, then I can no longer help you. But one last bit of help: Your original statement should have been "There are some conservative Christians who have formed a political movement called the Religious Right, who use secular democratic political means to establish their theology on the United States, violating Jesus's command in Matthew to "Render unto Ceasar...." Compare and contrast this statement with your original post.
Sincerely,
Qui-Gon.