Might this be an Olby-free week? Could we be so lucky?

I'm surprised KO didn't rush to a local television studio to tape a special segment on how Andrew Card's resignation was really the behind-the-scenes shenanigans of Karl Rove. After all, in Olbermann's world (man, is **that** a frightening zip code) all roads lead to the evil Karl Rove, don't they?

Thanks for watching Countdown, Johnny. I just can't bring myself to watch anymore.

________________MATCH GAME_______________________
MATCH THE QUOTE WITH THE PERSON THAT SAID IT.
A. A LIE TOLD ENOUGH BECOMES THE TRUTH.
B.WHO SAYS I'M NOT UNDER SPECIAL PROTECTION FROM GOD?
C.AMERICA IS IN IMMINENT PERIL...ROTTING FROM WITHIN.
D. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT,WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WAR, WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT PEACE.

ANSWERS. A=LENIN B=HITLER C=JERRY FALWELL D=BUSH

I thought Olbie one note Kanobi ( sp ?) was on last night innterviewing that tortured soul Michael Schiavo. Maybe he couldn't be in the same building as those horrible Schindlers.
On another disturbing note, I understand some left-wing women find him sexy? Makes sense. Didn't they dig George " I'm not threatening " Steponallofus? Regardless, I'm pretty sure Keith is asexual. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

My extra " n " in my last post was actually a subconsious protest over Keith gratuitous use of an extra " n " in his last nname. The mann's arrogannce knnows nno bounnds.

wow, this is such a cute little website. Just precious. I'm sure your parents are so proud.

I'm sure any moment now, they'll holler down to the basement and let you know that, too. And maybe send down some cookies.

I guess, for every person whose face appears on TV, there's going to be someone in the world with an irrational hatred for them, and enough free time to devote to blogging about it. You could have gone after the Freemasons, or the Trilateral Commission. Instead, you go after Keith Olbermann.

Precious.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY "CLAIMS" TO BE THE PARTY OF LINCOLN. I SAY -O'REALLY-? HERE IS A QUOTE FROM THE "FOUNDER" OF YOUR PARTY.
"WHAT IS CONSERVATISM?" "IS IT NOT ADHERENCE TO THE OLD AND TRIED, AGAINST THE NEW AND UNTRIED"?
I'M NOT TRYING TO SCARE YOU ARE OR ANYTHING, BUT THAT SOUNDS A LITTLE -PROGRESSIVE- TO ME. BUT BEFORE YOU ASK, LINCOLN PROCLAIMED THAT
STATEMENT ON.
FEB,27,1860

whatever snooky

cwaaazy wabbit spin isn't in.

bluefire so what? there are old things that have been passed down that were good and bad, some bad, at that time Lincoln could have been talking about slavery and wanting to stop it.

btw it isn't so much a party thing, many of the differecnes is that modern day democrats for the most part have gone degressive, while saying it is progressive. when you look at the statements and positions of John F kennedy, many of them are close to Reagon, and JFK was a early 60's liberal at the time. If he ran today on his issues he would be labled a republian, time have changed sadly with the dems. by the same token Bush is spending too much and not acting traditionally conservative in this area, but I guess he isnt the only one in the GOP. I guess there is a difference betwen a conservative and a neo-conservative and some have labeld him.

Reagon was a democrat. He said he never really left the party, but that the party left him, yeah they went secular.

Matt-- I must admit that neo-convicts and conservatives are a hard bunch to get a clear picture on. For example Condi Rice is pro-choice. Than we have Giuliani, he is pro-choice, believes in gun control, rights for gays, and was married three times.Than you got Mccain, he was for same sex marrige before he was against it. Now the issue of immigration has come into the light. The republicans are split on this matter. You have half of them that dont want no new brown people in the states. But than you have the other half that needs people willing to work for slave wages. Sorry I guess it was unfair of me to broad brush like that.

Bluefire:
WHAT IS CONSERVATISM?" "IS IT NOT ADHERENCE TO THE OLD AND TRIED, AGAINST THE NEW AND UNTRIED"?
I'M NOT TRYING TO SCARE YOU ARE OR ANYTHING, BUT THAT SOUNDS A LITTLE -PROGRESSIVE- TO ME.

How exactly is favoring the status quo or the accepted traditions and practices - the "old and tried" - in any way "progressive"?

Accepting past traditions - or as Lincoln called them "the tried" - is in the long conservative tradition of Edmund Burke and Friedrich Hayek and many others who talked about the natural evolution of institutions and societies.

Society - the rules and customs and traditions within it - is like an organism that grows and evolves and changes over time. Time tests these new changes and the "old and tried" win out.

And so that is why, in part, many conservatives are against, for example, gay marriage. From a Lincoln point of view, marriage is a long held tradition or practice that cannot be treated lightly.

It's the so-called "progressive" who want radical changes in American society. They wish to abandon the "old and tried" in favor of entirely different things. They want to change the definition of marriage, they wish to eradicate completely any idea of religion being allowed in the public square, they wish to radically re-write American history, they wish to radically change the concept of sovereignty and a thousand-and-one other extreme changes.

Progressives has historically prided themselves on celebrating the new against the old and have mocked such things as traditions as being remnants of a past that no longer informs the present.

Sorry, Bluefire, you've got your history and your concepts completely upside down.

SMG

I'd like to be the first to congatulate Keith Olbermann on his impending marriage to Michael Schiavo. I understand that it was love at first slander. The ceremony and reception will be held in the colon of Dana Millbank. More details as they become available. Good day and good luck.

The real question is "where was Olby?"

Was he hiding under his desk?

Did someone forget to file a written request that he do his show?

Was he protesting something?

And another more important question:

Will his ratings improve when he is on vacation?

To Olby for taking the night off...Great thanks.

Dear SMG, I enjoyed your response to my post. So I am under the impression you are a self proclaimed conservative. I am just gald that we live in the time that we do now, so that we can enjoy an open disscussion about the issues over the net.But if we were to have lived two hundred+ years ago it would not have been the same story. You being loyal to the British crown. And I, with thoughts of revolution. Let's just be glad it is 2006 and not 1776.

Hey Bluefire:
There are plenty of Racist Dems. Chris Matthews last night was having out with Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL)about the issue. He claims illegals are depressing wages and said he agreed with Pat Buchanan. Also stop your ignorance, not all Spanish people are brown. So it's leftists like you who are the real racists. Go to Miami and you'll be shocked at Blond haired spanish speakers

First of all calling chris mathews a dem is like calling san fran a republicain hotbed. His brother is even running as a republican and he always gets out all of the republican talking points. So all of those points of view he was spouting were coming from a confirmed republican. Pat Buchanan says that the war in Iraq is a war of choice, and I agree with him. As far as blond haired spanish speakers??? If you consider that one lives about four doors down from me I dont think I would be too suprised to see more of them. Also Mexican's NOT Spanish people only make up 50% of the illegals coming into the country. You don't hear outrage about the other 50%.

Bluefire:
You being loyal to the British crown. And I, with thoughts of revolution. Let's just be glad it is 2006 and not 1776.

Sorry, you're confusing change with improvement or progress. Not all changes are beneficial; some are bad, some are good. Correct?

Conservatives have never been against all change. Indeed, conservatives today in Washington are advocating a whole series of reforms, many of which are vehemently opposed by your side. Everything from proposals for social security reform to school vouchers to military policies have all been fought by the liberal/left.

The concern, of course, is whether what is being advocated is an improvement on the current situation or whether it will make the situation worse.

Now you folks on the Left think Bush's policies will make things worse. And so you defend the status quo. Using your narrow definitions, it's your side that is "conservative" and my side that is "liberal."

Using today's practices - since you on the Left are opposing all changes - you would be a "conservative" defending the Crown and I'd be a "liberal" fighting alongside General Washington.

But this is a misunderstanding of the political concepts of "conservatism" and "liberalism."

The key to embracing a change or reform - and this is what Lincoln and conservatives mean -is determining whether the change being advocated is based on sound principles - the "old and tried" - or whether it is based on radically new and never-tested ideas that have no historic or sound basis.

The problem with the political Left is that too many changes or reforms advocated ignore the lessons of the past. You have no sense of the organic nature of societies and institutions, you have little interest in whether human beings have a fixed nature (or a nature at all), and you reject history as being, in Voltaire's words, a "trick played upon the dead."

Change can be good if it based on sound underlying principles. Principles that are the "old and tried" methods of ordering things.

It's not so good if the change ignores history and the lesson of the past.

Nice try though.

SMG

Matthews is a former staffer for Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late congressman from New York who was a. .. . DEMOCRAT!!!!

Matthews is a former staffer for Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late congressman from New York who was a. .. . DEMOCRAT!!!!

No, Matthews was chief of staff for the late Tip O'Neill, Democratic congressman from Massachusetts and the Speaker of the House during the 1980s.

I think you're confusing Matthews with Tim Russert, who worked for Moynihan.

Whatever the case, anyone who thinks that Matthews is a Republican or his show is just a repetition of GOP-talking points is smoking something awfully strange.

And inhaling deeply too.

Probably mainlining the stuff.

SMG

Bluefire, your racism reveals itself, Mexicans are part of the Hispanic community. There are White Mexicans like Salma Hayek and Vicente Fox. This just proves that Leftists are just as racist as the Buchananite Right. why does the left call Hispanics people of color? We come in all colors. Please explain.

Dear Mr. Hank, Matthews is a (former). Babe Ruth was a former Red Sock. -Former- speaks volumes.Also the guy that gave a keynote speech at the last Repulican Convention was a DEMOCRAT!!!! Zell Miller remember him? You know the guy that challenged Chris Mattews to a duel. Anyway hank check ya later...Bluefire P.S Hank, did you hear about Ann Coulter? She has 30 days to explain to Florida State why she commited a felony. If you don't believe me look it up. Don't take my word for it.

Bluefire:
Dear Mr. Hank, Matthews is a (former).

Are you saying that the personal views of journalists never influence their reporting or news coverage?

Or that they are totally and completely objective and never, consciously or not, have their own views affect their news judgment?

About 75-80% of the reporters in Washington voted for Kerry. And voted for Gore. And voted for Clinton. And et cetera, et cetera.

And in no case did their own views ever seep into their reporting?

What are they robots? Or human beings?

SMG

Chris Matthews has worked for four Democratic politicians. He was a presidential speechwriter for four years during the administration of Jimmy Carter. He served as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill for six years. He worked in the U.S. Senate for five years on the staffs of Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie before running for the House of Representatives as a Democrat.

In addition he has taken a consistent leftie stance on his show when I have watched him. Only a hard-core lefty would call him "conservative." Of course, Bluefire is left of Hugo Chavez.

As for Bluefire's injection of skin color into the issue of illegal immigration, I would expect nothing less. One of the basic tenets of liberalism is that certain people are inherently underpriveleged no matter what. If some of these stereotypes are violated (e.g. by Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzalez), the left attacks. Just look at what they tried to do to Michael Steele, and what they have been doing to Condi Rice. Bluefire is an ideologue with no understanding of his own inherent bias.

By the way, this is Olbermannwatch -- a site about Keith Olbermann. It is not the "Minuteman" site, and it is not "Bluefire's Radical Liberal Emporium and Hashish Clearance House."

Bluefire,
Why are you avoiding my question. Why do those on the left call Hispanics people of color when we can be any color? Is it ignorance or racism?
Answer before you continue with your Left wing diatribes.

Everyone else,
Don't respond to Bluefire until he responds to my accusation of Leftist racism. They are always quick to accuse the right of racism, now I have turn the tables.
Bluefire, I'm waiting for your answer.

Bluefire's Radical Liberal Emporium and Hashish Clearance House."

Good point.

When you've reached the point where there is an actual discussion over the idea that Chris Matthews (!) is an apologist (!!) for the Republicans or that his show is a GOP talking points hour you're in a place that even Dante couldn't imagine.

Anyway, thanks to JD for the work/site.

That's it I'm going back to my original blog site. And I'm not talking to you guys anymore. If anyone still wants to chat with me I'll be on the leftcoaster blog. At least they are not mean to me, and make me feel welcome. Signing off
BLUEFIRE!!!!!!

To everyone here
I just proved the hypocrisy of the left! He didn't refute my charge of Leftwing racism. Sop if in the future any leftist accuse any of you as racist ask them, Why does the left refer to Hispanics as people of color when they can be of any color? Bluefire had no answer becuase I exposed their racism. This is a lesson to all on the right. I turned the tables and enjoyed the result! Now I'm gointo go to his blog and ask that question!

Boo hoo hoo! Sorry we were "mean" to you Bluefire, especially since all the things you said were so nice! Since you are going, here are a few of your greatest hits:

*********************************************************
BLUEFIRE'S FINEST CONTRIBUTIONS:
*********************************************************

I was wonderin who the Wing Ding Bing a Ling's are gonna vote for in 08???? Posted by: Bluefire at March 11, 2006 11:39 AM

I would never compare bush/hitler although hitler was evil.
Hitler served in combat.
Hitler conducted many successful military adventures.
Hitler completed his military service.
Hitler was worshiped by the vast majority of his country.
Hitler was VOTED into his office by the majority of people. I could go on forever but why bother. Now if you see aspects that are simular between the two. I have nothing to do with that. Also I know that the Kaiser appointed Hitler to be the Fuher. But that was after Hitler had won the position he held in a fair, and open election.
Posted by: Bluefire at March 23, 2006 04:53 PM

Now I am am sure all you right wing ding a lings are just SHOCKED that a right winger would ever do anything like that, aren't you? Posted by: bluefire at March 25, 2006 02:19 AM

If I wanted to engage in a battle of wits I certainly wouldn't come to a site like this. I feel that would be an insult to my intellect.Your favorite liberal BLUEFIRE.
Posted by: Bluefire at March 25, 2006 12:10 PM

To KFK--
This being an election year, and me being a liberal. I hope and pray that what you say is true about Rum Rum and Cheney not going anywhere. Please tell me that is a true statement. Please tell me it is. Because I know Rove has been trying to get rid of Cheney for the longest!!!!!!! Could you imagine if they were smart and moved lets say Dirty Rice into the V.P spot. I think the #'s for the republicans would go up at a minimum of 10 points. KFK I give you the last word, go......
Posted by: Bluefire at March 27, 2006 01:52 PM

and finally:

Matt-- I must admit that neo-convicts and conservatives are a hard bunch to get a clear picture on. For example Condi Rice is pro-choice. Than we have Giuliani, he is pro-choice, believes in gun control, rights for gays, and was married three times.Than you got Mccain, he was for same sex marrige before he was against it. Now the issue of immigration has come into the light. The republicans are split on this matter. You have half of them that dont want no new brown people in the states. But than you have the other half that needs people willing to work for slave wages. Sorry I guess it was unfair of me to broad brush like that.
Posted by: Bluefire at March 29, 2006 09:03 AM

Notice how the name "OLBERMANN" never appears in any of his posts? Bluefire, we will miss you. Your posts had nothing to do with the site, and you are a kook, but you were OUR kook!

Because by calling Hispanics people of color, it helps us set up our straw man arguement that conservatives/Republicans are racists, uh, I mean, wait a second, AAAAAHHHHHHHHHH.

Freshly Extinguished,
BLUEFIRE

I defeated Bluefire with help from everyone else!

Does anyone know when or if admitted Freemason and Trilateral Commission member Keith Olbermann will have the Schindler family on his program? I won't hold my breath. I'm glad he's back tonight, though. I think he came down with a case of " Dammit, Joe Scarborough is going to have the Schindler family on his show so I'm going to take Tuesday off." Posted on March 29th, 2006, Day 12,675 of Keith's man crush on Bill O'Reilly.

Does anyone know when or if admitted Freemason and Trilateral Commission member Keith Olbermann will have the Schindler family on his program?

When they stop denying reality. They continue to assert that Terri could have recovered, despite the fact that the final report from the medical examiner backs up every claim that Michael Schiavo had made - that Terri's brain was too severely degraded for any known medical treatment to work.

Trekkie is so right! You see Patrick, the mother and father of a brain damaged woman refused to write her off. Since they denied the devastating clinical reality and instead desired to take care of the daughter they loved even though she would most likely not improve at all, they are rightfully banned from Olbermann's show. How dare they not realize the truth. I believe Keith also hated Peter Jennings because he refused to admit his lung cancer was a death sentence, and Keith stated he would never have him on. In addition he despised Christopher Reeve, who refused to admit his paralysis was permanent. You see, Olby is nothing if not objective and consistent. He never takes sides in a story and he always plays it down the middle, just like Trekkie.

Okay, so maybe my words were a bit muddled. What I meant to say was that now, despite overwhelming evidence that Terri Schiavo was beyond the reach of medical science, they continue to insist that treatment was possible.

That's not compassion, it's denial.

I just hope I have a peaceful, 14 day long dying process without food and water, without my blood relatives present because they were barred by my psychotic wife, with just my adulterous wife there with her ghoulish lawyer after she took time away from her lover and two bastard children. Talk about a beautiful death. I'll check back later after I have a hamburger, er, I mean artificial life support.

I just hope I have a peaceful, 14 day long dying process without food and water, without my blood relatives present because they were barred by my psychotic wife, with just my adulterous wife there with her ghoulish lawyer after she took time away from her lover and two bastard children. Talk about a beautiful death. I'll check back later after I have a hamburger, er, I mean artificial life support.

I just hope I have a peaceful, 14 day long dying process without food and water, without my blood relatives present because they were barred by my psychotic wife, with just my adulterous wife there with her ghoulish lawyer after she took time away from her lover and two bastard children. Talk about a beautiful death. I'll check back later after I have a hamburger, er, I mean artificial life support.

Would you like to, you know, actually respond to my post instead of spinning badly-slanted and factually inaccurate hypotheticals?

I kind of agree with Trekkie here.

But there are some things that troubled me.

1. If the parents of Terry Schiavo wanted to care for here using donated money and not tax payer money, why not let them?

2. I do not know if this is true or not but I heard he did not allow the parents to be at her side when she died. If it is true, to be frank, then that would be f***ed up.

Basically, I think they it was a good decision to let her die but I question Michael Schiavo's motives. If he had handled it differently, all this controversy could have been avoided.

Question concerning Florida law. If he had a common law wife and two children why he not viewed as having divorced his wife? Why should he continue to have the final say over her parents even after he clearly moved on?

Patrick's post was great. Trekkie: Your post uses the critical word now. Sure, in hindsight, it is conclusively established that Terri's brain damage was irreversible. But, while she was living there was no such consensus and doctors with fine credentials thougtt she could be helped. This is not an exact science Trekkie and many times only an autopsy will show whether a person could have been helped or not. Of course, all we have to go on that Terri wanted to die is the word of her Michael Schiavo, who clearly had a conflict of interest. Do you really belive Michael Schiavo when 22 year old Terri supposedly said she wanted to die rather than being kept alive? What supporting evidence backs up Micahel Schiavo's assertions?

Factually inaccurate hypotheicals? No, I'm pretty sure it took Terri 14 days to be slowly murdered, that Michael and the Grim Reaper were the ones in the room when she died, that her parents, brother and sister were not allowed to be present, and that he fathered 2 children with a woman who was not his wife. Facts are easy to stand by. But I respect the fact that he didn't divorce Terri. After all, Marriage is sacred. To Hank and KfK, thanks for the kudos. OLBERMANN UBER ALLIS

Keith doesn't realize that he can have the Schindlers on and expose them for what they are: hired guns of the vast right-wing conspiracy our future president warned us about several years ago. I mean, Paula Zahn could barely tolerate them the other night but she had them on HER rarely watched program. And it wouldn't take long for them to stick their foots in their mouths with phrases like " We loved Terri very much" and " We miss Terri everyday."Come on Keith, conjure the ghost of Edward R. Murrow and ask him what he'd do. Use the Farce, Keith, use the Farce.

The absence of the Schindler family on Keith's little local cable access show continues to be the elephant in the room. He made a point of doing an interview with the husband of the year, then aired a partial replay the next night when he was awol. You are an embarassment to your profession, Olby. In fact, you put the ass in embarassment. But you made up your mind that Terri should die the moment you saw people like Randall Terry outside the hospice praying. There was no way you could get out of the gutter in the morning and have her still alive. Alas, if you had the Schindler family on, you'd lose your left-wing composure inside of 30 seconds. Maybe you're being prudent not to have them on. As Clint said in Magnum Force, " A man has got to know his limitations."

But you made up your mind that Terri should die the moment you saw people like Randall Terry outside the hospice praying. There was no way you could get out of the gutter in the morning and have her still alive.

Are you quite finished? The courts gave the choice to Michael Schiavo as her legal guardian. The Schindlers tried to have him removed through proper channels, but every court they appealed to for substantive relief denied their claims.

My position is that the court's decision had to be followed. They exhausted all of their appeals, from the lowest state court all the way to the nine learned folks in Washington, D.C. At the point that a final judgment has been entered, it must be carried out absent clear and convincing evidence of judicial error.

Here's a question - would you have been happy if the Florida National Guard had been called out to stop what was happening?

The court should have taken away Michael Schiavo's guardianship because he was not acting in her best interest (to have the best shot at living as long as possible). There is no corroborating evidence that Terri ever said she wanted to die rather than getting medical care other than Michael Schiavo's family and friends. For an issue an important as this, there should be better evidence that Terri actually wanted this. Given what Micheal stood to gain and the weakness of the evidence to support his claim that this is what Terri wanted, do you personally, Trekkie, believe him?

Given what Micheal stood to gain and the weakness of the evidence to support his claim that this is what Terri wanted, do you personally, Trekkie, believe him?

What I believe personally is not relevant.

"We have reviewed that testimony and conclude that the trial court had sufficient evidence to make this decision. The clear and convincing standard of proof, while very high, permits a decision in the face of inconsistent or conflicting evidence...
In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did."

In re Guardianship of Schiavo (Schiavo I) 780 So.2d at 180.

Courts make errors, sir (want to defend Plessy v. Ferguson?). Therefore, what you believe IS relevant. You seem to have an opinion about everything else, but you want to punt on this one, eh?

Therefore, what you believe IS relevant. You seem to have an opinion about everything else, but you want to punt on this one, eh?

As I said, my personal opinion is not relevant. I support the outcome because the law was followed.

I support the outcome because the law was followed.

Just as you, of course, whole-heartedly supported the ruling in Bush v. Gore.

(sorry, you left an opening and I had to take a swing)

SMG

If denying reality was a deal breaker regarding an appearance on the KO show, then doesn't that eliminate 100% of his guest rotation and a few posters on this site. Not a sermon, just a thought. And no, I'm not finished, quite or otherwise. That little decision that was posted regarding the guardianship of Terri was frightening. Support tubes? They couldn't actually say Feeding Tubes. And what telepathic powers these judges have to decide what Terri would tell us if she were able to speak. Nothing that would be construed as subjective in that, hmm? And yes, the Natural Death Process. Starving and dehydrating to death is a natural death process, just like dying in your bed at a ripe old age. And there was St. Michael on with Olby stressing how important a living will is. Why? All you haveto do is claim your incapacitate loved one told you her opinion on end of life issues after watching the CBS Sunday night movie. And then find a judge without a soul to concur. If I've learned anything, it's that starving and dehydrating to death in a concentration camp is genocide because the victim could actually talk and beg for his life during the "Death Process" but starving and dehydrating Terri Schindler to death is a dignified death because she probabley told something to Michael but not to her blood relatives. Good times, man, good times.

Just as you, of course, whole-heartedly supported the ruling in Bush v. Gore.

(sorry, you left an opening and I had to take a swing)

Well played, sir. Bush v. Gore was a unique case that the Supreme Court said sets no precedent and cannot be applied to any other cases.

The Terri Schiavo case was decided on well-settled Florida law and precedent.

And then find a judge without a soul to concur.

Oh, yes. Blame the judges, despite the fact that the judges followed the law. Conservatives are so big on "following the law", except when you disagree with the decision...

Well, since the FISA Court of Review has spoken on the President's authority to wiretap and search without a warrant, and FISA Judges themselves have testified as to the legality of the NSA program, I presume, Trekkie, that you will follow the law. Right?

Call me old fashioned but I just have a hard time imagining how a husband could deny his wife food and water for 14 days. I mean, I'm open to any info on how that's a dignified death. I had an uncle who collapsed a year ago in May the morning of his 40th wedding anniversary from a severe brain hemmorage and was brain dead by the time he arrived at the hospital. My aunt kept him on a ventilator....VENTILATOR..... for one day so my cousin could fly home to say goodbye. They then took him off REAL life support and he died within minutes. He died with all his children and some extended relatives present. To have kept him alive would have been to no avail. To compare my uncle's and Terri's death is absurd. That's pretty much what one does if one claims Terri was on life support and died a natural death. And I'm all for law inforcement coming to the aid of those in need, including the National Guard.

You refuse to say Trekkie whether you believe Michael Schiavo when he says Terri wanted death over medical care. You then cite the court case to answer an entirely different question (whether the trial court's opinion was, in the judgement of the appeallate court, supported by sufficient evidence). Krazy Keith certainly seems to belive Michael Schiavo and lauds him by slobbering all over him during the interview. See, there are court cases where the court may have properly applied the law, but I can distinguish between a correct legal result and whether the winning party is honorable or not and I am not afraid to say what I think. Michael Schiavo is disgusting and lacks any semblance of credibility, and since you won't defend him I would assume that you find KK's ass kissing of Mr. Schiavo to be pretty revolting as do others with any sense of moral compassion. In short, Michael Schiavo is no hero in this and shouldn't be treated as such. For that KK should name himself as WPITW.

Michael Schiavo is disgusting and lacks any semblance of credibility, and since you won't defend him I would assume that you find KK's ass kissing of Mr. Schiavo to be pretty revolting as do others with any sense of moral compassion.

I don't feel that's he's a sinner or a saint. That's why my feelings are irrelevant - I don't have any with respect to him as a person.

Well, up to this point Trekkie I thought you were at least expressing yourself sincerely, but your last post shows that you have abandoned that stanadard. You have no opinion about Michael Schiavo's credibility? You want me to believe that? When Micahel Schiavo made the claims that he made about Terri supposedly telling him that she wanted death over medical treatment, did you shut off your sense of inquisitiveness, your questions about whether Michael Schiavo was credible? I have trouble believing that any person who comes to this site just turns off their brain for any major news story as you claim to have done regarding this story. Trekkie, you are blurring the issue. I am not asking you a question about your feelings and emotions. I am asking you a question of deductive logic. You have heard Michael Schiavo's claims, you understand what he wants us to believe. Again, given what he has to gain and the weakness of the supporting evidence, do you believe him? This case is no different than Scott Petersen and OJ-- the whole nation was riveted on it and everyone has an opinion about their credibility. What say you? (and don't duck my question this time)

Well, up to this point Trekkie I thought you were at least expressing yourself sincerely, but your last post shows that you have abandoned that stanadard. You have no opinion about Michael Schiavo's credibility? You want me to believe that? When Micahel Schiavo made the claims that he made about Terri supposedly telling him that she wanted death over medical treatment, did you shut off your sense of inquisitiveness, your questions about whether Michael Schiavo was credible? I have trouble believing that any person who comes to this site just turns off their brain for any major news story as you claim to have done regarding this story. Trekkie, you are blurring the issue. I am not asking you a question about your feelings and emotions. I am asking you a question of deductive logic. You have heard Michael Schiavo's claims, you understand what he wants us to believe. Again, given what he has to gain and the weakness of the supporting evidence, do you believe him? This case is no different than Scott Petersen and OJ-- the whole nation was riveted on it and everyone has an opinion about their credibility. What say you? (and don't duck my question this time)

You have no opinion about Michael Schiavo's credibility? You want me to believe that?

You're not gonna rest until I say something. Alright, I don't think he's completely credible, but he has more credibility than her family and that's all that matters. Happy?

not hardly trekkie.

No, I am not happy because the point of my posts is not to get you to say something but to get you to answer my question, which you still you haven't done. My question was very specific about Micahel Schiavo and you gave a rather general unsupported opinion comparing Micahel Schiavo with the Schindlers. But lets think about the answer you gave. You think the Schindlers have little credibility? How so? You might say they were mistaken about the possibility of Terri regaining brain function, but they were relying on highly competent doctors who opined that Terri could improve if given proper rehabilitative care (which Michael Schiavo denied her to the point of not even allowing her to go outside, what a hero). By all appearances, the Schindlers were certainly sincere about this and there is no evidence that I know of that their motives were driven by anything other than thier desire to care for thier daughter and improve her health. Michael Schiavo has made accusations against the Schindlers in an effort to besmirch them (they supposedly sent him threatening notes, Mr. Schindler has supposedly approached Schiavo after the malpractice settlement and wanted to know when he was going to get HIS money). The Schindlers have denied that these accounts happened as Schiavo says they did. Are these the issues, Trekkie about which you give Michael Schiavo more credibility than the Schindlers? Based on what you have seen concerning the way Schiavo has acted in this manner, you think he is the one who has more credibility? Why? Here is a man who actually did care for Terri during the first 2 or 3 years after she collapsed. Then suddenly only after the malpractice settlement money comes in does he announce to the world that Terri's REAL desire was to die rather than get medical care and he is gonna see to it that that happens. This is your man with more credibility than her parents? I have given you very specific reasons why I think Schiavo is not REMOTELY credible, not just lacking "complete" credibility, as you charitably say in your previous post. So, Trekkie if you are going to slander the Schindlers by saying they are less credible than this piece of trash, tell me why. And while you are at it, give me an answer to my specific question: Given what Michael Schiavo stood to gain and the weak supporting evidence, do you believe Micahel Schiavo when he says that Terri wanted death over medical treatment?

Given what Michael Schiavo stood to gain and the weak supporting evidence, do you believe Micahel Schiavo when he says that Terri wanted death over medical treatment?

I've said my piece. If you don't like it, lump it. At this point it's all academic anyway...

Yes, you have said your piece but you didn't answer my question. And it is not academic at all, sir because Micahel Schiavo has been lionized by the Olbermanns of the world and I'm trying to point out that a critical analysis of Michael Schaivo's actions shows someone lacking in credibility and honor and the fact that you won't (because you can't) defend him reinforces my point.

I'm trying to point out that a critical analysis of Michael Schaivo's actions shows someone lacking in credibility and honor and the fact that you won't (because you can't) defend him reinforces my point.

I won't defend him because: 1) it's not my job to defend everyone that Keith invites on the show, 2) you've already made up your mind and 3) people would be better served reading the two books that have been published and then making up their own minds.

Maybe my mind is made up and maybe it is not-- however others reading this site might not have made up their minds one way or the other so something you have to say in Michael Schiavo's defense (if there is anything to be said for him)might win the day for your viewpoint that Schiavo has more credibility than the Schindlers, a claim that you made earlier but won't tell us why you think so. Do you expect some new earthshaking revelation to come out of these two books?-- I don't. This case has been examined from all points of view and the new books will be a mere restatement of the arguments for both sides. We know all there is to know, we don't need to wait for the books to come out to know what the facts are.

I never said it was your job to defend all guests that come on Krazy Keith's show-- I am merely asking you to tell us why you have so much faith in his credibility versus that of the Schindlers. I am not asking you to defend all guests that come on KK's show-- just this one whom YOU have elevated above the Schindlers. I think it is fair to ask why you would hold such an opinion.

Maybe my mind is made up and maybe it is not-- however others reading this site might not have made up their minds one way or the other so something you have to say in Michael Schiavo's defense (if there is anything to be said for him)might win the day for your viewpoint that Schiavo has more credibility than the Schindlers, a claim that you made earlier but won't tell us why you think so. Do you expect some new earthshaking revelation to come out of these two books?-- I don't. This case has been examined from all points of view and the new books will be a mere restatement of the arguments for both sides. We know all there is to know, we don't need to wait for the books to come out to know what the facts are.

I never said it was your job to defend all guests that come on Krazy Keith's show-- I am merely asking you to tell us why you have so much faith in his credibility versus that of the Schindlers. I am not asking you to defend all guests that come on KK's show-- just this one whom YOU have elevated above the Schindlers. I think it is fair to ask why you would hold such an opinion.

sorry for the double post. experiencing technical problems getting my psots to go through

I haven't had any artificial life support since dinner last night. I've gotta stop skipping meals like this.