I'm not sure if I came to the proper site. I was told this was a Hippy "hookup" site!!!??? Well here is my profile.
My name is Hippy Joe.
I live in my van in Seattle.
I sell crafts, and magical crystals for money.
My favorite food is Tofurky.
Any ladies interested let me know.
PEACE........

Keith Losermann's hair is turning white because he knows he's going to be canned soon.

First, his name is spelled Moussaoui. Google is your friend.

After citing a new CBS poll (while still ignoring Rasmussen)

Fine. Even with the better overall approval rating, the numbers are still damaging. 51% of Americans surveyed in that poll think Iraq is going to get worse in the next six months. Only 37% say that the U.S. can stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons (that drops to 24% if military force is excluded as an option). Just 39% say the U.S. is winning the war on terror (the lowest rating ever measured by Rasmussen). 43% rate Bush's handling of Iraq as "poor" (only 34% rate it as "good" or "excellent")...shall I go on?

He slammed Pat Robertson as "worser" for his comments about Islam. In typical Olbermann fashion, he did not explain how Robertson's remarks were wrong. Why address substance, when you can just attack the messenger?

Because Robertson has no substance. He's the worst kind of fear-monger there is - the kind that wraps his bigotry in pious words. The only reason that Disney/ABC can't dump his ass off their ABC Family cable channel is because of the ironclad contract they got stuck with when they bought the channel from...Rupert Murdoch and Fox.

J$ wrote:

"Harwood opined that, in the Mousawi trial, there was a "mistake by the prosecutor", citing it as an example of Bush administration incompetence. But it was a career attorney for the TSA who wrongly told witnesses about previous testimony."

Another important point from Andy McCarthy:

http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/092264.asp

There is no constitutional right not to have witnesses rehearse their testimony or inform themselves about the testimony of other witnesses. Court rules allow judges to order “sequestration” — so that the witnesses are not allowed to be present in the courtroom when other witnesses are testifying (and, logically, the functional equivalent is not to let the witnesses read the testimony of other witnesses before they themselves testify). Other judges have standing orders that, for example, the party who called a witness to testify is not permitted to speak to the witness while he is on cross-examination.

But these are salutary rules, not constitutional ones. Due process does not demand them, and the judge can impose such rules, or not, in her discretion. They are merely methods available, but not mandatory, to promote the truth-seeking process. It does not follow that the truth-seeking process is undermined without them. Indeed, many judges don’t follow them at all. [FOLLOW LINK & READ IT ALL]

In other words, Judge Brinkema created these rules, and is blowing a gasket because her rules were defied. They were SALUTARY rules, not Constitutional ones, and they were violated by a TSA attorney. I will leave it to the reader to determine why Judge Brinkema, a Clinton appointee, is making this sound like a breech of due process that would take the Death Penalty off the table.

Of course, Olby has no understanding of the law by choice, and his guests are no better. Like true dopes, Olby and friends avoid brain strain and go with what keeps them happy -- "the Bush administration is to blame"! Pathetic!

> Fine. Even with the better overall approval rating, the numbers are still damaging.

I know you think it's "fine" for Olby to cherry-pick the poll numbers he reports, choosing only the worst ones. That is not reporting. It's propaganda.

> He's the worst kind of fear-monger there is

So you too attack the messenger. Always easier and more incendiary than responding to the message. But then, Countdown viewers are so much more intelligent and well informed. That's why they can make personal attacks instead of reacting to substance. That's why Olby features Tom Cruise, Michael Musto, and puppets. To appeal to his intelligent audience.

don't forget "Oddball" J$. That captures the brilliant Alan Funt fans every time.

don't forget "Oddball" J$. That captures the brilliant Alan Funt fans every time.

Sometimes after a post it says "internal server error" even though the post has gone through (hence the double post).

That's why they can make personal attacks instead of reacting to substance.

Where is the substance in this?

"These people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now: I believe it's motivated by demonic power; it is satanic; and it's time we recognize what we are dealing with. But, political correctness will not face one religious ideology with the strength of another because they don't have the strength of another. And, so, they're caving in before this vicious assault, and the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination."

There's no there there - it's empty hate-fueled rhetoric.

It's empty because you say it's empty? Or because Olby tells you it's empty? Robertson was talking about the cartoon rioters. Where do you think he was wrong? They are not fanatics? They are not crazed? Do you claim there hasn't been an association between radical Islam and violence? Is it a crime against political correctness to suggest Islam is NOT a religion of peace? Why?

Or maybe it's just easier to call it empty and hateful. Avoid all that messy business of thought and logic.

I know you think it's "fine" for Olby to cherry-pick the poll numbers he reports, choosing only the worst ones. That is not reporting. It's propaganda.

I'll rewatch tonight's episode, but I'm pretty sure that Keith did not actually use the Presidential approval numbers from the CBS poll. So he doesn't always choose the "worst" polls. Also, I note you didn't bother to respond to all the other numbers from the Rasmussen polls I provided...

I will leave it to the reader to determine why Judge Brinkema, a Clinton appointee, is making this sound like a breech of due process that would take the Death Penalty off the table.

When you are a government prosecutor and have the power of the entire federal government behind you, your ethics have to be beyond reproach. You can go over testimony with a witness, but you don't provide them with transcripts of prior testimony and what amounts to talking points to defense cross. That skirts the edge of prosecutorial misconduct.

Where do you think he was wrong?

Calling it "motivated by demonic power" and "satanic" is not wrong? Not hateful? Not empty?

The next substantive thing Pat Robertson says will be the first.

Is it a crime against political correctness to suggest Islam is NOT a religion of peace? Why?

Because there are millions of Muslims who are peaceful, law-abiding citizens and lumping them together with the miniscule amount who are radical is a disservice to them. It would be like categorizing all Christians based on the actions of Fred Phelps.

> I note you didn't bother to respond to all the other numbers from the Rasmussen polls I provided...

What's to respond to? I didn't question anything about the Rasmussen numbers. I questioned why Olbermann selectively doesn't report them, because they aren't low enough to fit his spin point.

> you don't provide them with transcripts of prior testimony and what amounts to talking points to defense cross.

As a general statement that is false. It only applies when witnesses are sequestered, which they were in this case. Sequestration is a discretionary procedure that a judge can impose on a case by case basis. There are many situations where witnesses can sit in the courtroom and see the prior testimony going on in person. A judge's sequestration order should not be breached, but it is not as serious a violation as say some violation of someone's constitutional rights.

> That skirts the edge of prosecutorial misconduct.

Please try to pay attention. The prosecutor in the case had no idea the witnesses were seeing those transcripts. And when he found out, he immediately reported it to the Court. That is not prosecutorial misconduct, despite Olby and Harwood's ham-fisted attempts to portray it as such.

> Calling it "motivated by demonic power" and "satanic" is not wrong?

It's an opinion. Are we now going to say that opinions you disagree with are automatically wrong? Christians believe there are satanic influences. Do you think murderous rioters cannot possibly have satanic influences? You are free to believe that. But that's your opinion. I'm not about to call it empty or hateful.

Trekkie, why don't you convert to Islam.
You Lefties love that Demonic Religion so much.

Trekkie, why don't you convert to Islam.
You Lefties love that Demonic Religion so much.

Islam and Leftists suck!

As authentic liberal I oppose the goals of Islam.
I support Gay Mariage, Islam opposes that!
I support Women rights, Islam opposes that!
I support minority rights Islam opposes that.
Although I disagree with the Right on many issues, Islam is a bigger threat than Pat Robertson and his ilk any day of the week.
I don't see Christian suicide bombers.
Plus the Evangelicals are good allies of Israel.
What happened to us Liberals.
We used to be against totalitarianism!
It's sad to see my belief system hijacked by Pro-Islamic radicals like george Soros Keith Olberjerk.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Islam is our enemy not the Christian Riaght and Neo-Cons.
Where's kennedy and Truman when you need them.
Those were real Liberals!

Just shoot Olbermann!

I questioned why Olbermann selectively doesn't report them, because they aren't low enough to fit his spin point.

Not low enough? The numbers on who's winning the terror war are the lowest Rasmussen has seen since they started asking the question. If the point is to say the Bush Administration is "misguided" and "wrong" on Iraq, these numbers would fit within that mindset.

A judge's sequestration order should not be breached, but it is not as serious a violation as say some violation of someone's constitutional rights.

I don't know - the argument could be made that by coaching witnesses in this manner, you are denying the defense the right to confront the witnesses against them in a fair manner...

The prosecutor in the case had no idea the witnesses were seeing those transcripts. And when he found out, he immediately reported it to the Court.

As someone who's worked in a prosecutor's office, I know that it doesn't matter if he knew or not. It's the appearance of impropriety that is a killer, especially in a government office. If the judge thinks someone in your office is cheating to get a conviction, they will come down hard irregardless of whether the first chair prosecutor knew or not.

Are we now going to say that opinions you disagree with are automatically wrong?

No, but it's a matter of verbage. Pat Robertson can say that these people are wrong, that they are acting in a way that only encourages the stereotype that the West has of Muslims. But at the point where he starts throwing words like "satanic" around to characterize them he has left the realm of civilized debate and entered the realm where he is merely playing to the "They are bad. We are good." audience. You cannot have a debate with someone at that level - any argument you make will be deflected by "they are bad".

You are correct that Olberman stupidly slanted the prosecutors blunder in the terrorist trial by blaming Bush. But to characterise such conduct as simply not playing by the judge's rules is just as stupid.

The reason for not coaching witnesses and worse telling them to avoid mistakes made by other witnesses is outrageous.Of course it is not written in the constitution, but the right to a fair trial is.It is writtten in the rules of Federal proceedure and would have resulted in the same or worst result in any court in the country.

"Keith Losermann's hair is turning white because he knows he's going to be canned soon."

Coming up with a FOX/O'Reilly slam every day must be stressful, but I'll attribute it to bad karma ... one negative karma = 1 white hair. Go Keef!

PS I'm interested in a "plugging" from Norah O'Donnell.

I didn't characterize as "simply not playing by the judge's rules". And I said it was a breach, and that it shouldn't have happened.

What it cannot be characterized as is: 1. another example of Bush administration incompetence, or B. prosecutorial misconduct, or III. a serious constitutional violation. It is none of those. It was a stupid mistake by a TSA attorney, but it was a violation of a judge's discretionary ruling, period. The judge, for her own reasons, has sought to make it seem like the greatest violation in the annals of criminal law, which is simply ludicrous.

It dose make me mad for Olby to not use the correct poll numbers. The poll he has been showing us has Bush at 36%. But the CBS poll puts Bush at 32%. He needs to use the correct poll numbers like now!!!!!

Trekkie, you're a hypocrite.
Always attacking the Christian Right, who are Americans and defending the Musllim genocidal nuts. Truman and Kennedy must be twisting in their grave as to what happened to the American Left!

Trekkie has been knock out and left the building!
No more Trekkie!
he's a loser!

Always attacking the Christian Right, who are Americans and defending the Musllim genocidal nuts.

Pat Robertson has a long track record of trashing people both here (remember his comments about Disney World and Dover, Pa.?) and abroad. He cloaks his venom in the words of a minister, but he preaches a gospel of hellfire and damnation for those who disagree with his point-of-view.

He had to apologize for saying that "gays and feminists" were partially responsible for 9/11. He blamed Ariel Sharon's stroke on divine retribution and claimed Justice Ginsburg beleived in polygamy and reducing the age of consent to 12.

If attacking him is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

Oh, and Gaius...you have enough problems with the Cylons, so I'd recommend worrying about that okay?

What it cannot be characterized as is: 1. another example of Bush administration incompetence, or B. prosecutorial misconduct, or III. a serious constitutional violation. It is none of those. It was a stupid mistake by a TSA attorney, but it was a violation of a judge's discretionary ruling, period. The judge, for her own reasons, has sought to make it seem like the greatest violation in the annals of criminal law, which is simply ludicrous

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

I agree that this can't really be imputed to W, at least any more than his admin has created an atmosphere where bending the rules is OK (torture, eavesdropping) when 'national security' is involved.

THis was almost certainly prosecutorial misconduct. THis is america. In america you get a fair trial. I don't give a shit who you are.
That is what makes us better than those fuckers in the middle east

No one wants another attack. Everyone wants the people behind 911 to die like dogs. i just don't want 911 to turn into our reichstag fire.

"Prosecutors were at a loss to defend Ms. Martin's actions. "We really are left speechless," said U.S. attorney David J. Novak after conceding to the judge that Ms. Martin's conduct was "reprehensible.""

Trekkie, you crossed the line.
I'll get #6 after you! Lol!

Trekkie, Muslims hate Gays and Feminists.
So why don't you condemn them.
Justice Ginsburg who is an International Socialist does favor Polygamy and child sex.
Those are facts.
She also believes that International law superceeds U.S. law.
Kennedy and Truman wouldn't stand for that.
She's not a liberal like me, but a Socialist.

If you're a liberal then my name ain't NATHAN ARIZONA!!!!!

I think JDogg has returned:

rekkie, Muslims hate Gays and Feminists.
So why don't you condemn them.
Justice Ginsburg who is an International Socialist does favor Polygamy and child sex.
Those are facts.
She also believes that International law superceeds U.S. law.
Kennedy and Truman wouldn't stand for that.
She's not a liberal like me, but a Socialist.

---
What school do they teach:
Geopolitical Half-Truths, No-truths and Outright fiction - Makin your point while making yourself look like an ass - 101

My guess is liberty university.

Quit talking. Please. For your own good.

I am a Liberal and you're a Leftist.
Big Difference.
I support Gay marriage, Women rights, Minority Rights, Abortion, Universal Healthcare, Union Rights, Fair Taxation and a living wage.
I have mix feelings about the whole Iraq adventure but hope that we succeed.
You believe in the UN ruling everything and Muslims living undewr Sharia law.
It's funny that Islam is against everything us on the Center-Left stand for, but yet you Radical Socialist support the Radical Islamists!
wake up all of us in the West Right and Left must unite and stand up to this new for of Islamic Nazism.
We are all in danger.
Who's Jdogg anyway?

Keith Olbermann is an Aids infected fag like all you lefties.
Even you Mr Real Liberal!

Curious George,
I'm trying to explain to people on the Left about the threat we all face!
I don't need Homophobes like you making ignorant statements.

Nathan the Hotdog out for the count!

Trekkie, Muslims hate Gays and Feminists.
So why don't you condemn them.

Because it would be like condemning all Christians for hating gays and feminists. Some Christians don't hate gays and feminists. Some Muslims don't hate gays and feminists. I will not condemn an entire religious sect based upon the actions of a radicalized minority.

Justice Ginsburg who is an International Socialist does favor Polygamy and child sex.
Those are facts.

Whose facts? From where? I'm not doing your research for you. If you're going to level those kinds of charges, you better have the juice to back them up.

She also believes that International law superceeds U.S. law.

Is this Roper v. Simmons (2005)? There is substantial federal ground to reach the majority's conclusion. The court found the fact that 30 states outlaw the death penalty for juveniles and 12 others outlaw the death penalty altogether show that a "national consensus" had formed since their decision in Stanford v. Kentucky (1989) against the practice.

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion:
"Retribution is not proportional if the law’s most severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished, to a substantial degree, by reason of youth and immaturity."

Yes, the court did note international opinion, but only to the degree that it confirmed (not established or created) the Court's own position on the subject.

Trekkie It's a fact the Justice Ginsburg supports Child sex and Polygamy.
also Most Christians tolerate gays and feminists.
Most Muslims don't.
Only the ones that support them.
I wonder what FDR, Truman and Kennedy are thinking to see how low our great party has sunk!

Trekkie It's a fact the Justice Ginsburg supports Child sex and Polygamy.
also Most Christians tolerate gays and feminists.
Most Muslims don't.
Only the ones that support them.
I wonder what FDR, Truman and Kennedy are thinking to see how low our great party has sunk!

JDOGG was a clown with "the abriged dictionary of ideologies" who posted similar idiotic statements regarding "Libertarian nationalism" and sorts of other "isms"

Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism This-ism, that-ism, is-m, is-m, is-m

How the fuck do you know what i am. WHo the fuck are you to define the diff in liberalism and leftism. Your blatant straw man arguments are unbelievable.

So here we go...
====
ekkie, Muslims hate Gays and Feminists.
So why don't you condemn them.
======

All fundamentalist beliefs are for the weak-minded.

=====
Justice Ginsburg who is an International Socialist does favor Polygamy and child sex.
Those are facts.
==========

Evidence she is an international socialist?

Justice Ginsburg who is an International Socialist does favor Polygamy and child sex.
Regarding the age of consent, Ginsburg's report noted a 1973 Senate bill as an example of legislation that rejected the "traditional sex discriminatory fashion" in which the United States Code defined rape. The bill laid out three circumstances as constituting rape, including that "the other person is, in fact, less than twelve years old." But Ginsburg cited the bill only for the purposes of noting its gender-neutral language and did not address the merits of the clause regarding "age of consent."

In the case of polygamy, Ginsburg questioned the constitutionality of legislation that restricted the right to vote or hold office of bigamists or "persons cohabiting with more than one person." Ginsburg wrote that the provision "appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships" and recommended that it "be narrowed to avoid conflict with constitutionally protected privacy interests." She did not, however, state any beliefs regarding the act of polygamy itself.
====
Those are facts.
She also believes that International law superceeds U.S. law.
=======
Being aware of the existence of the rest of the world and considering standards among the rest of humankind is just indefensible, huh. She does not believe anything of the sort, and i challenge you find a quote where she says intl law "supercedes"(learn how to spell, dickweed) us law. you can't, because its not out there. should international law be considered when deciding some cases, especially human rights cases, absolutely. No supreme court justice believes it superceds us law, but many believe that it can be considered when deciding cases.
====
Kennedy and Truman wouldn't stand for that.
She's not a liberal like me, but a Socialist.
=====
please provide your definition of socialism, and evidence that justice ginsburg is a socialist.

---
AS for your next post:

I am a Liberal and you're a Leftist.
Big Difference.
=======
how am i a 'leftist'?
I support Gay marriage, Women rights, Minority Rights, Abortion, Universal Healthcare, Union Rights, Fair Taxation and a living wage.
====
Awesome
--------
I have mix feelings about the whole Iraq adventure but hope that we succeed.
==---
Iraq was the worst foreign policy move ever. I too, hope we succeed.
---------
You believe in the UN ruling everything and Muslims living undewr Sharia law.
=========
how the hell do you know that? I do not believe in the UN ruling everying. Do I think the un is a good thing? absolutely. Should they, as you say "run everything", absolutely not. The first iraq war sure was easier with UN support, wouldnt you say.

As for the whole sharia law thing. You must have pulled that straight out of your ass. I guess you are implying that if someone opposes the war - then they want iraqis to live under sharia law, at least that's all i can figure out from your idiotic statement. To make it all the more idiotic, iraq was the only major secular power in the mid-east until W ran into town. Brutal, yes. but secular. And if you are so hell bent on freeing the world - sign up, head out to every other nation ruled by a dictator (start with pakistan and saudi) and get ready to spend the rest of your life dodging bullets.
========
It's funny that Islam is against everything us on the Center-Left stand for, but yet you Radical Socialist support the Radical Islamists!
========
Again - not supporing radical islamists. Defending a religion that, if practiced in accordance with original doctrine, is not too far from christianity, does not mean we support people who pervert the message for political ends. I don't want a islamic theocracy, but that exactly what we are going to get with W's great folly.
=====
wake up all of us in the West Right and Left must unite and stand up to this new for of Islamic Nazism.
We are all in danger.
=====

Wow Do we invade iran now? Then the rest of the billions of muslims around the globe? It is a danger, but reactionary policies and fear-mongering will only make it worse. Iran was on its way - the kids embraced american culture and there was large movement underway to liberalize the country, and it was gaining strength. Until...well you know. W has fucked the world, and fear mongering idiots like you aided and abetted him.
Who's Jdogg anyway?

Trekkie It's a fact the Justice Ginsburg supports Child sex and Polygamy.
also Most Christians tolerate gays and feminists.
Most Muslims don't.
Only the ones that support them.
I wonder what FDR, Truman and Kennedy are thinking to see how low our great party has sunk!

Repeating your charges does not constitute proof. So I see no point in continuing this discussion since you have no intention to inject anything substantive into it.

In simpler words: YOU LOSE!

To Arizona ICE-Tea and Star Trek, The UN is antisemitic and is run by Euro-Socialists.
I don't advocate invading Iran, just being vigilant against the Islamic Nazis.
Islam is not a tolerant religion, look at what is happening in Holland where Theo Van Gough was killed and an ex Muslim woman member of Parlaiment is in Hiding.
Muslims in Europe and Canada want to be ruled by seperate Sharia law.
The only reason that doesn't happen here is because most Americans except the Olbermann followers wouldn't allow that.
I'm not advocating destroying Islam, but seperating from them.
We shouldn't allow Muslims into this country.
Their culture isn't comaptible with ours.
Period!
Just ask the Israelis, Indians and 2 million Sudanese Christians killed.

We shouldn't allow Muslims into this country.
Their culture isn't comaptible with ours.

I'm sure the Native Americans would have loved to say that to the Pilgrims.

Muslims in Europe and Canada want to be ruled by seperate Sharia law.

Again, where are you getting this? It makes no sense - unless Muslims comprise a majority in the lawful government and can change the law that way, the secular law will remain dominant (Sharia courts are offered as an alternative dispute resolution court in Canada, but they are not binding on non-Muslims and Canadian civil law supercedes them).

Unless you're saying that eventually the European governments will be overthrown, but that's not likely simply becuase the U.S. military interests in Europe would require us to act to protect our forward bases in Germany and Great Britain.

2 million Sudanese Christians killed.

Um, no. If you're talking about the current fight in the Sudan, it's primarily between the ethnic Black Muslims and the Arab-dominated Muslim government. 180,000 people have died and 2 million have been displaced, but the conflict is an ethnic (not a religious) one.

Trekkie once again this shows your ignorance.
The Sudan conflict I'm talking about is this one:

Government-sponsored genocide in Sudan:
About 75% of the people of Sudan are Sunni Muslim. Most of the rest are Animists and Christians. The predominately Muslim-controlled government in the north of the country has waged a civil war in Sudan since 1983. On 2000-MAY-02, Newsroom 1 wrote that the conflict has resulted in the deaths of about 2 million people, "mostly Christians and followers of animist religions. While the conflict has many contributing causes, religious factors are the key.

It ended becuase the US under Bush and Israel under Sharon aided the South Sudanese freedoom fighters.
Christians are now given autonomy and the post of VP in the Governement.
The Dafur conflict is totally different.

As for Sharia law, your own stements condemn you:

(Sharia courts are offered as an alternative dispute resolution court in Canada, but they are not binding on non-Muslims and Canadian civil law supercedes them).

Sharia law shouldn't be allowed at all to be an alternative.
Muslims in Europe want their communities to live under Sharia law and not the respective counties laws!
We are a Secular society and must preserve it.

Let me ask you a question Trekkie, would you like for Catholic and Evangelical priests to use Catholic Dogma or the bible as an Alternative in Civil Disputes?

Islam isn't compatible with Liberal Secular values.
Look at the Netherlands, why don't you respond to that.
That's why the Dutch have cut down immigration from Islamic countries and now force them to watch movies with Gay people kissing and Naked Women.
I slam is comaptatible?
Ask Theo Van Gough and Pim Fortuyn.

Wow, I love this!
2 Lefties going at it!
I give the edge to Real Liberal.
Although his intellect is way below my standards, it's light years ahead of Trekkie!
There's some hope for Real Liberal but none for the Klingon!

Trekkie once again this shows your ignorance.
The Sudan conflict I'm talking about is this one:

It's not my fault you weren't specific. When people say "Sudan", the first thing that pops in is "Darfur". Darfur is what pops up in Google when you input Sudan. I did what I felt was enough research.

So bcause I'm not pyschic, I'm an idiot? Wonderful argument you have there...

Sharia law shouldn't be allowed at all to be an alternative.

Rabbinical courts (Beth Din) are available here in the United States for Orthodox Jews to settle small disputes and get divorce decrees. Should they be disallowed as well?

Let me ask you a question Trekkie, would you like for Catholic and Evangelical priests to use Catholic Dogma or the bible as an Alternative in Civil Disputes?

Apparently you've forgotten that it does happen. The Catholic Church has a "marriage nullity tribunal" that handles annulments within the church. Without it, people who are Catholic (or who are remarrying into the Catholic faith) cannot be married in the eyes of the Church. So this already happens here in America. You just don't hear about it.

Trekkie loses once again!
This shows your peasant Intellectually challenged mind is useless!.
You're Intellectually retarded and a nonentity!

Death to Olbermann!

Death to Olbermann!