johnny, why do you care that MSNBC uses NBCs TAPE? MSNBC IS PART OF NBC NEWS

It's not a question of caring about it. It's being accurate in reporting how much of Countdown is original reporting, and how much is reruns.

so countdown should do all of its own original reporting and not use ANY resources from its bigger network: NBC NEWS??

I must be missing something. I don't see how posing the question: "Why the anemic response from the politicians on the other side of the fence?" is necessarily spin.

The author must not either because he attributes it to Keith's "mood swings"--a conjecture based on an allegation. Maybe it's the stress of trying to find something to complain about on a daily basis, but the author seems to be relying more on non-established (or at least poorly cited) tendencies rather than isolated events, hence "hour of spin."

For the record: I think Keith Olbermann has one of the biggest egos of in cable news.

KO must indeed read this blog as you say. He gave in and had a republican on and you didn't even mention her. You owe Keith an opology sir. She is even running for lt.governor! For shame. You guys finally have a candidate that admits she will do anything to get into office and not even the courtesy of a nod. That's right, porn star Mary Carey. God knows, she'll fit right in.

Mary carey was brought on to discuess of all things: porn idol!! he didnt bring her in to discuss the major issues of the day-and wow ONE republican on ONE day-this site has post after post of ZERO republicans to discuess the major issues of the day

You are wrong, in more ways than one:

1. We did mention her.

B. He didn't give in at all. We keep wondering when he will have on someone with opinions contrary to his own. There's no reason to think Mary Carey's platform is at all contrary to the beliefs of Keith Olbermann.

Why doesn't this site have a liberal do the blogging for a bit? Why are you so afraid of having someone blog with an opinion different than yours?

P.S. Johnny Dollar has no credibility.

Did anyone notice that Olberman who fancies himself as a legal expert(he disagreed with Roy Black re: Limbaugh's non-arrest)outdid himself tonight when he compared Moussani to the people hung for the haymaker massacres.

The point Judge Olberman was alluding to was evidently that Moussani was INNOCENT.

There has been a real argument that at Haymaker square where a bomb went off killing people the people charged were guilty of just "being there" and since they had nothing to do with the weapon were wrongly convicted.

The idiocy of showing off his knowledge (or lack) of history ended with Olberman defending a man who if he had been honest would have saved the lives of thousands. I'll admit I can't stand him but tonight he hit a new low.

> Why doesn't this site have a liberal do the blogging for a bit?

Mr Cox has made that offer repeatedly. What's stopping you?

Exxon alone, in 2005, paid $12 Billion more in INCOME taxes (federal and state) than in 2003 when oil prices were less. What if the Goverment gave up their WINDFALL receipts in return for a like reduction in selling price?

BTW, if as some would have you believe, there is price gouging one would expect to see the Company's gross margin increase (Sales less cost of goods sold = gross profit - gross margin is its % of sales)yet it has declined since 2003.

Enough of the unfounded bashing!

Nonfactor,

Is it not enough that Olbermann gives you a feast of propaganda every night? You need more of it here? OK ... I'll let my neighbor Mervin take the keyboard -- he loves Olby. Take it Mervin. . .

Thanks KfK! Hello fans! On last night's Countdown, KO KO'd the Rethugliocracy as he took on big oil. The new mantra of big oil is "supply and demand" but KO knows better. The supply is all controlled by big oil and we demand it -- how is that supply and demand? The little guy gets screwed! Way to go KO!

He then pointed out that the shoe bomber had second thoughts, and was really misguided and confused, just like Moussaui. Amazing how KO is the only one with the guts to report it!

KO also had Mary Carey on! Every time I see her I laugh, because she is a porn star and a RETHUGLICAN! It makes the wingnut conservative theocrats look so bad! I bet they all get so mad when Keith puts her on! Anyway, they talked about porn, which was cool!

And that's Mervin's Countdown summary, just for Nonfactor!

His rivals he glibly will slight
When confronted he hides with much fright
Meltdown is pure bunk
The host is a punk
He likes to talk smack but won’t fight

Regarding Krazy Keith's WPITW segment: His comparison of a ".04" blood-alcohol level to that of "lighter fluid" is hilarious considering the common DUI level in the USA is 0.08%.

Either

A. Olby didn't pass basic math (possible)
B. Olby didn't check the facts (probable)
C. Olby made a mistake (never)
D. Olby's not much of a drinker

Nonfactor,

This site doesn't need a formal "liberal blogger"; just the fact that you and others can contribute and refute anything Mr. Cox and JD$ say should be enough. So the opposing view is amply put forth, albiet not formally.

Which is entirely more than what Keith lets occur on his program!!!

eddie kay,

If Keith controlled the world, Rush would be in solitary for life, and Moussaoui would have stricken a plea deal with the Palm Beach prosecutor and would have been off parole in 18 months!

And if Rush ran the world the Polar ice caps would melt New Orleans would never get re-built. All drug users except himself would be in jail The U.S. would go bankrupt on a war that has nothing to do with terroism. (At least it didn't till we got there) and the goverment could set up a nice big brother inspired governemnt where they could spy to their little hearts content unchecked by any restraints at all.

Dan Rather disgraced, Aaron Brown gone, NY Times stock at 5 years low and lost credibility, new Rueters poll indicated 69 % of Americans don't trust media to give them the full story - too biased. UCLA/Missouri journalism study clearly proves blatant media bias.
Then the wizards at MSNBC/NBC put Opie on in prime time - with consistenlty horrible ratings. Opie's boss hell bent on self destruction - at expense of the owners of the company - the stockholders. Talk about self destructing - no wonder FOX lead all American media as most trusted. One day Laurence O'Donnell is kicked off MSNBC for "losing it" on the air - the next he is Opie's constant companion and supports Opie with all things anti Conserv, anti Bush and anti Repubs. Only in America.

when and was laurence o'donnell kicked off msnbc for "losing it" on the air

don`t crow too much about Fox being the number one most-trusted news outlet in America -- even tho it garned the top stop, that was only 11 percent of the respondents. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060503/tv_nm/media_survey_dc_4

and yes, when WAS laurence o`donnell kicked off msnbc? (um ... were you thinking perhaps of Robert Novak! for his storied outburst : )

The personal attack he does savor
But whines when they return favor
The orange hypocrite
Is so full of sh!t
All journalist rights he should waiver

O'Donnell, who had been on MSNBC's payroll as an analyst, was kicked out after a famous session on Scarborough Country where Joe was unable to get him to stop yelling "Liar! Creepy Liar!" at one of the swift boat guys. He was so out of control that nobody could get a word in edgewise, and even the MSNBC bosses were so embarrassed that they stripped him of his position at A-Mess-NBC and banned him from their air. He wasn't on for months until Olbermann (natch!) decided to rehabilitate him on Countdown.

michellemalkin.com/archives/000720.htm - 43k

or just google it - about 3 weeks before the election when the swifities were hurting Kerry

Laurence apparently was off his meds - Chris Matthews apologized for his behavior the next night on Hardball.

Great TV watching him implode. And where does he resurrect his career???? you guessed it - with Opie

Not to be too personal- but with Opie's face orange as it is - maybe the reason he does not have any contrarian views on his show is that his blood pressure would rise - and his face would get red - I think the orange and red blended together (like paint) would then turn permanantly purple. So... it may very well be for reasons of health and cosmetics that Opie does not allow dissenting viewpoints.

OK, thanks for the LO info. Here's another question ... are any of these reporters related?

Norah O'Donnell
Kelly O'Donnell
Lawrence O'Donnell

thanks.

. . .don't forget Rosie!

Watching Olbermann is like when you're driving in your car and slowing down when going by traffic accident. You don't want to look, but you can't help it. Your mentally thinking "Am I going to see a dead body." Only with Olbermann you're thinking "is this the show where Keith finally loses his mind on the air?"

Good site, keep it going!

Just saw "United 93" --

Everyone should see this movie, especially Olby. The events on United flight 93 can be seen as a microcosm of the world today. Will you cower in the back of the global plane with Jean Francois Kerry and Chirac hoping for the best, or will you rush the cockpit with W and Cheney? I know what Olby would do.

All you libs just keep bashing the war effort in Iraq and the NSA at home while waiting for Iran to disarm and you will soon find yourselves on your own larger version of United flight 93.

************************************************************
OLBY DILEMMA ALERT!!! OLBY DILEMMA ALERT!!! OLBY DILEMMA ALERT!!!
************************************************************

What will Olby do with this story?

Officers Claim Brass Interfered in Investigation of Rep. Kennedy Incident... Police labor union officials asked acting Chief Christopher McGaffin this afternoon to allow a Capitol Police officer to complete his investigation into an early-morning car crash involving Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.).

According to a letter sent by Officer Greg Baird, acting chairman of the USCP FOP, the wreck took place at approximately 2:45 a.m. Thursday when Kennedy's car, operating with its running lights turned off, narrowly missed colliding with a Capitol Police cruiser and smashed into a security barricade at First and C streets Southeast.

My oh my! Will the Kennedy scandals never end? Teddy must be ashamed!

Anyway, what will Olby do? Will he:

a) Ignore the story
b) Run the story with a stock NBC piece and no comment
c) Discuss the story with the word "alleged" used over twenty times
d) Quickly mention the story then drop it
e) Discuss the Kennedy scandals opening with Chappaquiddick in relation to this driving "accident" and cover-up, the Willy Kennedy Smith rape trial, the Cousin Skakel murder, the pedophile Kennedy who died in the skiing accident, and then discuss Teddy's disdain for wind farms when they obstruct his view from his compound on the cape?

Hmmmmmmm. . . which one will it be?

Well we know what he thought of the investigation into Dick Cheney's hunting accident. That was good for day after day after day of inquiries about was he drunk, etc. We'll see how this OlbyInvestigation compares.

`The events on United flight 93 can be seen as a microcosm of the world today.`

hardly.
and it`s about as simplistic a world-view as is humanly possible -- and precisely what the powers-that-be would like you to believe.

`If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.` -- James Madison

KO "there are no Democrats to blame for this"

"If Democrats are returned to power we will turn back the laws of supply and demand" Leading Demo Presidential Candidate, 2008.

If the Dems could have given Christopher Reeve the ability to walk how tough can remaking Economics be? It's barely even a science.

Why would a drunk driving Kennedy be a story? It's kind of dog bites man.

But it wouldn't hurt for the Park Police to check the reflecting pool for bodies.

A drunk driving Kennedy is so dog bites man. That's the best ya got?

I just hope the Park Police are checking all nearby bodies of water (reflecting pool, Potomac) for floaters. The only thing missing at the scene is, apparently, a woman. A drunk Kennedy at 2:45 without a woman? Man bites dog.

"SimpleMinds"

Ah yes! Please tell me what brand of sand you use to bury your head you dope. Do you think this is all a grand conspiracy to monitor your cell phone conversations about your love of pot and masturbation? Do you think the Iranians don't want to kill us all? Do you think the terrorists who killed thousands on 9/11 were harmless? Enjoy Olby -- you deserve him.

OLBY RATINGS OVER PAST WEEK

5/2/06

1. O'Reilly 2,016
2. Grace 526
3. Zahn 485
4. Krazy Keith 375 (last)

5/1/06

1. O'Reilly 2,330
2. Zahn 734
3. Grace 536
4. Krazy Keith 467 (last)

Oh boy! Keith is makin' his move! If only more homeless crack addicts and jihadists had access to televisions!

Sorry for the double post.

Regarding the above post about Teddy Kennedy's son drunky Pat (the apple who fell on the roots of the tree), Olby chose:

c) Discuss the story with the word "alleged"

A short little blurb with no commentary. The story is destined for the Meltdown vault of hidden stories, where things Olby reported because he had to are never mentioned again (see the McKinney fiasco).

I noticed Krazy made a bigger deal out of some other scandal at the infamous Watergate. I turned the channel before I could see whether the scandal involved someone with an (R) after his or her name. Gee, I wonder!

`Do you think this is all a grand conspiracy to monitor your cell phone conversations about your love of pot and masturbation?`

Don`t be an idiot. I never talk on my cell phone about my love of pot and masturbation.

`Do you think the Iranians don`t want to kill us all?`

Do you mean ALL the Iranians, the the vast majority of them? Of course not. The number of people in the ENTIRE world who genuinely want to do us harm is a minute fraction of the total population. So I think only makes matters worse to think that `The events on United flight 93 can be seen as a microcosm of the world today.`

Rather, the events on flight 93 are a microcosm of a microcosm of the world`s population.

`Do you think this is all a grand conspiracy to monitor your cell phone conversations about your love of pot and masturbation?`

Don`t be an idiot. I never talk on my cell phone about my love of pot and masturbation.

`Do you think the Iranians don`t want to kill us all?`

Do you mean ALL the Iranians, the the vast majority of them? Of course not. The number of people in the ENTIRE world who genuinely want to do us harm is a minute fraction of the total population. So I think only makes matters worse to think that `The events on United flight 93 can be seen as a microcosm of the world today.`

Rather, the events on flight 93 are a microcosm of a microcosm of the world`s population.

Oh boy! Keith is makin' his move! If only more homeless crack addicts and jihadists had access to televisions!

Actually if only more intellectuals watched television. Oh well Fox news and American idol have the sheep locked up

I'm sure you have some sheep locked up too, anonymous

"SimpleMinded" wrote:

"The number of people in the ENTIRE world who genuinely want to do us harm is a minute fraction of the total population."

Exactly! What is all the fuss! The "vast majority" of Iranians like the USA. So what if the people in control of the weapons want us dead? After all, Alladin the fruitseller, Zamin the boot polisher and the entire staff at Zekki's house of tabbuleh all love the USA! That should easily counter any threats made by Ahmadinejad!

Liberals prove again and again that their vision of the world is the correct one. Basically, Bush is overreacting to the 0.1% of the population with access to weapons and a desire to kill everyone in the USA! How short sighted! Here is a similar situation: I have a cancer on the tip of my nose, but by my calculations, it is only 0.01% of my body surface area! Doctors want to chop it off and I just laugh! They treat the cancer like it could kill me!

Microcosms are for idiots! Nuance is the balls! Long live pacifism! USA out of Palestine! Shitty '80's bands rule!

`Basically, Bush is overreacting to the 0.1% of the population with access to weapons and a desire to kill everyone in the USA! How short sighted! Here is a similar situation: I have a cancer on the tip of my nose, but by my calculations, it is only 0.01% of my body surface area!`

lousy analogy, but here goes. of course he`s over-reacting. he has cut off the entire nose (in order to spite the face).

rather, you do a small biopsy: bitch-slap afghanistan, execute Osama, and neutralize the Taliban.

what you DON`T do is polarize the entire country/world and alienate allies with evil-axis rhetoric and pre-emptive invasions/occupations of all the ragheads with oil in a misguided attempt to forcibly `stabilize` the region.

the first day after 9/11 the entire world was united behind the U.S. and the cover of the French national paper, Le Monde, had the headline "We Are All Americans!" -- but Bush squandered the global good will by buying into the neocon wetdream of forcibly democratizing the middle east.

dumb move. he shoulda played it smart and listened to the state department professionals instead of the likud-crazed neocons.

The really dumb part of the wet dream is that democracy dosen't work until a nation is stable with a stong industruial center. See South Korea which was a pretty authoritarian country until the growing middle class forced changes. If you try to force it too soon you get things like palatinians electing Hamas. or if you tried it in Pakistan the people would probably put a taliban style governemnt in place. it was a stupid stupid stupid idea. Neocons are dumb

Well, it seems there are many foreign policy experts on this blog! Who knew!

I guess "zionist kibitzer" wanted to wait on Saddam as he defied sanctions, shot at our planes etc.

Saddam did the SAME THING IRAN IS DOING you ass. What is your plan there? Send them an angry letter? Wait until they nuke somebody?

As for the premise that we are "making things worse" by fighting, you might want to revisit what happened on 9/11, as well as what the status of the Middle East was at that time. Things are better, not worse. The absurd belief that the United States has somehow created the problems in the Middle East lies at the core of your thinking. In other words, the core of your thinking is rotten.

`I guess `zionist kibitzer` wanted to wait on Saddam as he defied sanctions, shot at our planes etc.`

the sanctions were working. case in point: no WMDs; no imminent threat. waiting would have saved us half a trillion and 3K soldiers.

-----------

`Saddam did the SAME THING IRAN IS DOING you ass`

hardly.

-----------

`What is your plan there? Send them an angry letter? Wait until they nuke somebody?`

sanctions, global pressure, a real coallition. why not? it worked last time. case in point: no WMDs; no imminent threat.

-----------

`Things are better, not worse.`

Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!

"the sanctions were working. case in point: no WMDs; no imminent threat."

Oh yeah. Saddam was not an "imminent" threat, just like Iran is not an "imminent" threat. They said that about bin Laden too ass.

How 'bout reading about uranium in Iraq schmo:

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

"By April 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein had stockpiled 500 tons of yellowcake uranium at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant south of Baghdad."

Saddam was not an `imminent` threat

True.

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

Iran is not an `imminent` threat.

Probably not. Nukes ten years out ain`t immiment. Besides, North Korea has lots `o nukes. Are they an imminent threat? China too. Are they an imminent threat? Pakistan too. Are they an imminent threat?

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

They said that about bin Laden too ass.

Nope. They said he WAS an immiment threat, i.e., the infamous `Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.` that Bush and Condoleeza dropped the ball on.

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

`By April 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein had stockpiled 500 tons of yellowcake uranium at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant south of Baghdad.`

Unlikely. Where is it now? (Right Echo Chamber Response: `It was shipped to Syria before the U.S. invaded`). Or do you have another whopper you`d like to float for us?

Can you read? THE URANIUM WAS FOUND IN IRAQ AFTER THE INVASION. Now try to minimize the importance of that find. Couple that with the plans for a nuke that Saddam's chief scientist had hidden in his yard at Saddam's request for the day they could start the nuke program up again, and there you have it.

As for Iran being compared to North Korea, I don't believe I have heard this from the Koreans:

Addressing a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled "The World Without Zionism", Ahmadinejad said, "To those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible."

To a cheering audience that at several points erupted with chants of "death to Israel, death to America, death to England", Ahmadinejad continued, "Once, his eminency Imam [Ruhollah] Khomeini - leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution], stated that the illegal regime of the Pahlavis must go, and it happened. Then he said the Soviet empire would disappear, and it happened. He also said that this evil man Saddam [Hussein] must be punished, and we see that he is under trial in his country. His eminency also said that the occupation regime of Qods [Jerusalem, or Israel] must be wiped off from the map of the world, and with the help of the Almighty, we shall soon experience a world without America and Zionism, notwithstanding those who doubt."

You wouldn't know an "imminent threat" if it bit you on the ass. How do you know if they are close to getting a nuke by the way? The IAEA has no idea. They were thrown out of the country.

Nice blaming Bush and Condoleeza for Bin Laden and leaving BJ Bill Clinton off the list. BJ was the one who let him go underground you ass. BJ lobbed a cruise missile at him, and BJ's intelligence team let Bin Laden know his electronic devices were being monitored. Clinton turned down the Saudis when they offered Bin Laden to him. You see, BJ thought Osama wasn't an "imminent threat." As for the Bush administration, it had only been in office for a few months, and inherited a mess from you liberal jerkoffs.

Who's voice is on this tape talking about how the Saudis offered the US Bin Laden, and the US (Bill Clinton) turned him down? Who then denies that the US was offered Bin Laden?

Listen and see:

http://www.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3

`the 1.8 tons COULD BE used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.`

could be. may be. might be. insufficient casus beli.

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

`You wouldn`t know an `imminent threat` if it bit you on the ass.`

and i think the same of you, sir.

we`ve squandered world support, credibility, allies, half a trillion dollars, and 20,000 military including the casualties because of not being able to discern a truly imminent threat.

First you state:

"Unlikely. Where is it [Saddam's uranium] now? (Right Echo Chamber Response: `It was shipped to Syria before the U.S. invaded`). Or do you have another whopper you`d like to float for us?"

Then you find out that the uranium was in Iraq. Undaunted, you state:

"the 1.8 tons COULD BE used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.` could be. may be. might be. insufficient casus beli."

So the goal posts shift. Moonbattery at its finest! "Oh, he DID have uranium? So what!"

You wouldn't know an "imminent threat" if it bit you on the ass. How do you know if they are close to getting a nuke by the way? The IAEA has no idea. They were thrown out of the country.

You fucking idiot. it is possible to make pretty accuarate estimates based on where the program is at last vist. breath deep and get some fucking oxegyn to your brain.]

"Things are better, not worse."

Is there end in sight to your fucking stupid comments. yeah things are great there we are being greeted as liberators we didn't make IRAN stronger by giving the Shias control of the country no civil war in site over there things are peachy. Evolution needs to do you fucking idiots in. Fortunatly since you are proably a fucking creation science moron you won't see it coming.

`So the goal posts shift. Moonbattery at its finest!`

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

because we disagree on the fundamental underlying question: Was Iraq a sufficient threat to cost us what we`ve spent?

for me, there wasn`t enough uranium, enough WMDs, enough of a nuke-u-lar program, nor enough intelligence consensus. and finding the piddling amount of uranium you sited is evidence of that. current estimates of Iran`s nuke-u-lar capabilities say they`re ten years out, so Iraq was much further than that.

so once again, was Iraq a sufficient threat to cost us what we`ve spent? i say no -- because of the facts on the ground, you say yes -- regardless of the facts on the ground.

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

`When the facts change, I change my mind; what do you do sir?` -- John Maynard Keynes
.

As for the Bush administration, it had only been in office for a few months, and inherited a mess from you liberal jerkoffs.

I resent being called a jerk-off, I resent your implication and you sir, are the DUMBEST FUCKING PERSON ON THE PLANET! GET A LIFE, GET A JOB AND SHUT THE FUCK UP!

What an unhinged moonbat! You have "lost your shit," my liberal pal!

I appreciate your suggestions, however I have a job, I have a life, and I am pretty smart. You, sir, seem to be a lunatic.

Let's just say that we fall on different sides of the fence here. You are a Jimmy Carteresque liberal who believes that the USA is the root of all evil, and if we just acted more French, everything would get better. I am a realist who responds to threats aggressively. If an Iranian madman tells me he wants to kill me while he enriches uranium, I respond rather than wait. If a crazy man defies sanctions, shoots at my planes and refuses weapons inspections, I act. You sit back and wait. Good for you moron. Perhaps you should take some of your severely misplaced anger and direct it at the people who deserve it -- the TERRORISTS.

`I resent being called a jerk-off, I resent your implication and you sir, are the DUMBEST FUCKING PERSON ON THE PLANET! GET A LIFE, GET A JOB AND SHUT THE FUCK UP!`

Please don`t bait the rightwing nutjobs with expletive outburts; it allows them to neatly side-step cogent arguments placed to them in previous posts.

----------

`If an Iranian madman tells me he wants to kill me while he enriches uranium, I respond rather than wait.

with unwise and imprudent nationalistic militarism that produces unforseen/undesired results.

-----------

If a crazy man defies sanctions, shoots at my planes and refuses weapons inspections, I act.

with unwise and imprudent nationalistic militarism that produces unforseen/undesired results.

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

that`s what going off half-cocked means. and it don`t work (see Iraq).

Whateveryournameisegmoron

Exactly right! The French method is best! Nuance! Negotiation! When riots occur, surrender! Give the Iranians a free pass. Side with Hamas and the PLO. Good ideas one and all.

Answer me this, my confused pacificist:

Was Jimmy Carter a good President?

`Was Jimmy Carter a good President?`

False-dichotomy choice. Favored by those who view the world in the overly-simplistic extremes of black and white, all or nothing, with us or against us. Perfectly evidenced by the following:

`When riots occur, surrender! Give the Iranians a free pass. Side with Hamas and the PLO.`

Which leads to dangerous extremism and irrational false-choices. I would do none of those things. The world ain`t that simple pal, as much as you`d like it to be. There aren`t any black and white rainbows.

A little Bill Mahr humor

If you care about creationsim, flag burning, boys kissing more than messign up iraq, state of health insurance or the environment then 4 words for you.

the sylvan learning center.

A little Bill Mahr humor

If you care about creationsim, flag burning, boys kissing more than messign up iraq, state of health insurance or the environment then 4 words for you.

the sylvan learning center.

A little Bill Mahr humor

If you care about creationsim, flag burning, boys kissing more than messign up iraq, state of health insurance or the environment then 4 words for you.

the sylvan learning center.

an unhinged moonbat! You have "lost your shit," my liberal pal!

"I appreciate your suggestions, however I have a job, I have a life, and I am pretty smart. You, sir, seem to be a lunatic."

You are not smart. I hate to be the one to break it to you.

"Let's just say that we fall on different sides of the fence here. You are a Jimmy Carteresque liberal who believes that the USA is the root of all evil,"

And you of course completly mischarectrerize Carter because that's what idiots incapable of understanding that to critisize one aspect of your governmenr is not the same as hating it.

And example would be if I said you are a Bushlike neocon who hates his country so much that he is ruining our children's economic future by cutting taxes while spenging bilions on war that he passes the cost off to the next generation. get the idea?

and if we just acted more French, everything would get better.

Like a guest worker preogram that marginolizes immigrants and keeps them from integrating into society?

I am a realist who responds to threats aggressively.

You are a lunatic who responds to threats in such a way as to destroy world stability.

If an Iranian madman tells me he wants to kill me while he enriches uranium, I respond rather than wait.

Because nuking iran is a sane response as opposed to say at least attempting diplomatic channels first.

If a crazy man defies sanctions, shoots at my planes and refuses weapons inspections, I act.

regardless of the consequenses.

You sit back and wait. Good for you moron. Perhaps you should take some of your severely misplaced anger and direct it at the people who deserve it -- the TERRORISTS.

I would love to attack the terrorist stupid, where they are, on the Afhan/Pakistani border. as opposed to using Terroist attacks to mobilize the public and relazie that little project for a new America.

you really are dumb to live.

Fine rhetoric my liberal pals! NUANCE! RAINBOWS! JIMMY CARTER! All the pages of the liberal playbook out in the open.

I got news for you lefty a--holes -- the world may not be black and white, but you have to MAKE CHOICES. Liberals seem unable to make any choices other than raise taxes and yell at capitalists. In all of your posts, there is NOT ONE SOLUTION. You notice that?

It is no wonder you love Carter. As President you have to make choices. Of course, like a true liberal, Carter never did. He sat on his ass and waited. He waited for the Mullahs to take over Iran. He waited 444 days for the hostages to be released. He slumbered through the gas crisis. He watched while the Russians invaded Afghanistan. The most he could do was boycott the Olympics. In fact Carter was a waffling disgrace, and he is more of a disgrace as an ex-President praising Hugo Chavez and Castro. Here's a question for you idiots -- what do the problems in Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea have in common? Answer: Jimmy Carter. Jimmy C. went to North Korea during the Clinton years and came back with a fake treaty claiming they would stop trying to make nukes. All the while they were building a bomb. Nuance and negotiation at its liberal zenith. Jimmy helped undermine the Shah and hasten the Islamic revolution in Iran. In fact Ahmadinejad was one of the people who took the hostages. Jimmy also let the Russians run into Afghanistan since they knew Carter was a pussycat. In may ways, we are still cleaning up that shithead's mess. I can't wait until he is dead -- I will post a nice big eulogy on this site.

You hate Bush because he has the guts to choose. With all your "nuance" and "rainbow" talk, it is a wonder you can complete a post on Olbywatch.

By the way, if the world is so nuanced, why is Olby always speaking as though it is black and white? If there were ever a "black and white" thinker (orange and white, really) it is Olby. Another example of liberal confusion.

"And you of course completly mischarectrerize{sic} Carter"

Tell us about Jimmah --

Hey, Carter did do something! He blamed Americans for MALAISE! It was all our fault! Who woulda thunk it?

Fine rhetoric my liberal pals! NUANCE! RAINBOWS! JIMMY CARTER! All the pages of the liberal playbook out in the open.

uhh, and you lack of ability to actually analyze anyhting is out in the open

I got news for you lefty a--holes -- the world may not be black and white, but you have to MAKE CHOICES. Liberals seem unable to make any choices other than raise taxes and yell at capitalists. In all of your posts, there is NOT ONE SOLUTION. You notice that?

Well, i'm for going into Afhanistan and killing Al-Quadea. Your dumbass is for just blowing shit up anywhere for no reason. i think you must just like the pretty colors or something.

"You hate Bush because he has the guts to choose.

I hate anyone who choses to shred the constitution to increase his perosnal wealth and power. I also hate idiots so I of course hate you.

With all your "nuance" and "rainbow"
talk, it is a wonder you can complete a post on Olbywatch"

Well it would be a refreshing change if you could make a coherent argument in response to something. in stead of just name calling of course oversimplications work well when you are unable to comprehend nuance.

JT,

Exactly how have you posted any reasoned arguments here? You post one line and claim it is a refutation of everything stated before. How is this for an oversimplification:

"Your dumbass is for just blowing shit up anywhere for no reason. i think you must just like the pretty colors or something."

Pretty stupid statement. Not funny, not smart, not anything. Just because you believe with absolute certainty that you are correct does not make it so. I have not seen one factual post from you. It is all based on fantasy. Perhaps you should stick to gaming and Olbermann watching until you grow up enough to understand Olbermannwatch.

JT,

"Exactly how have you posted any reasoned arguments here? You post one line and claim it is a refutation of everything stated before. How is this for an oversimplification:"

Here is the difference between our two post you wrote:

"Let's just say that we fall on different sides of the fence here. You are a Jimmy Carteresque liberal who believes that the USA is the root of all evil,"

That statement of course is a generalazation based (I assume) On the fact that Carter has in past been an outspoken critic of this administration and has critsized some practices of the American Government. However it does not warrant the very large leap to the idea that an admirer of Carter hates America. one could argue that it is one's duty to speak up when something you love is headed in a direction you see as dangerous to your ideals.

I wrote in response to the above quote with:

"And example would be if I said you are a Bushlike neocon who hates his country so much that he is ruining our children's economic future by cutting taxes while spenging bilions on war that he passes the cost off to the next generation. get the idea?"

I used a generalazation of my own to demonstrate the fallacy. That is to say that while I beleive this war is very dangerous for our economic future It is a generalazation to leap to the conclusion that you hate America because you are in favor of it. I didn't think I would have to spell out the difference to you.

now in fairness some of my other posts have been down right incendiary. but they are in response to things like "You liberals are going to have to eat a great big shit sandwhich"

Not much of a serious conversation starter is it?
Just for kicks walk up to someone on the street and tell them to eat shit and see if they respond with an indepth of analysis of anything.

I'm perfectly willing to have a conversation on issues if you are. post why you are one of the 31% who still approve of the job this president is doing and i will be happy to respond. Please attack each point I made as opposed to name calling like the following example

Fine rhetoric my liberal pals! NUANCE! RAINBOWS! JIMMY CARTER! All the pages of the liberal playbook out in the open"
"

When you do that you are not exactly responding to any previous analysis. Let's see if you actually can do it.

Another fact-free post JT! Congrats! I also enjoyed the following:

generalazation x 3
critsized
spenging

Jimmy Carter was a horrible President and is the worst ex-President of my lifetime. I use him as a measure of liberal derangement syndrome. I will give you a link to material about Jimmy. Respond to these if you wish:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/lgf-search.php?searchWith=lgf&searchString=jimmy+carter&doSearch=search

Just click on the blue headings to read the individual stories.

Another fact-free post JT! Congrats! I also enjoyed the following:

what high school did you drop out of? your post as usual, completly ignored the analysis of my argument, I'm guessing because you're not smart enough to respond to it.

You want facts? here are some facts,

George Bush launched Arbusto Energy, in 1978. But it was a financial disaster from the very beginning and never turned a profit

here's another fact

Since 9/11, the U.S. government has imprisoned over a thousand people for minor violations of immigration law and held them indefinitely, sometimes without allowing them to consult a lawyer, even after concluding that they have no connections to terrorist activities

Another fact the war is costing far more than this adminstration said it would.

Now here is an opinion: this administration runs the country about as well as I would expect the Keystone cops to. See the differrence? probably not.

generalazation x 3

I glad you can recognize when a word is spelled incorrectly, now if only you stop making hasty Generalizations in your posts.

Jimmy Carter was a horrible President and is the worst ex-President of my lifetime. I use him as a

The worst ex-president of your lifetime is George McDumbass(Bush in case you are unable to figure out who I am talking about) but don't just take my word for it.

415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure."

there you go a fact. Just in case you are not smart enough to realize it I am talking about the part that says 81% of the historians said it. My opinion and most of the historians surveyed is that the president is a failure.

Now I want you to take a deep breath cuz you're gonna need to think real hard here. Follow the steps below.

Step 1) look at my post
Step 2) find a section you disagree with and then highlight that section.
Step 3) right click on your mouse and click "copy"

Step 4) go down to the box where you will type your followup, make sure it is the correct box.
Step 5) click "paste"
Step 6) This is the hard part(don't be nervous) Respond to my arguments.

You can do it!

correction:
The worst soon to be ex-president(If the impeachment gods are listening) of your lifetime

OK JT!

"what high school did you drop out of? your post as usual, completly ignored the analysis of my argument, I'm guessing because you're not smart enough to respond to it."

No facts here!

"George Bush launched Arbusto Energy, in 1978. But it was a financial disaster from the very beginning and never turned a profit"

Assertion, irrelevant

"Since 9/11, the U.S. government has imprisoned over a thousand people for minor violations of immigration law and held them indefinitely, sometimes without allowing them to consult a lawyer, even after concluding that they have no connections to terrorist activities"

Allegation with no factual back-up. Cite a legitimate source and post an excerpt.

"I glad you can recognize when a word is spelled incorrectly, now if only you stop making hasty Generalizations in your posts."

Nice work! "I glad" you corrected your spelling!

"415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure.""

1. This is opinion, not fact
2. History has a way of changing opinions. What did your Historians think of Reagan?
3. Last I checked, most Academics are liberals. Juan Cole is all over the website for your "nonpartisan" group, and that guy is a lunatic from the left like no other.
4. http://www.opinionjournal.com/hail/rankings.html (not that it means anything anyway).

Another fact-free effort! Your turn dopey!

I'm really proud of you KFK, you managed to do that whole cut and past thing all by yourself. See! Good things can happen when you make the effort. You even took a stab at my arguments, you often missed the point or said things that were downright nonsensical, but this is real progress! You should be very proud. Give yourself a great big pat on the back.

"what high school did you drop out of? your post as usual, completely ignored the analysis of my argument, I'm guessing because you're not smart enough to respond to it."

“No facts here!”

Well that is because the writing above is an opinion. I thought we covered this? Well, there is no help for it; we will have do some remedial work.

A) Fact: Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
B) opinion: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).

Now study hard here, there will be a quiz tomorrow.

"George Bush launched Arbusto Energy, in 1978. But it was a financial disaster from the very beginning and never turned a profit"

“Assertion, irrelevant”

Well I am asserting a fact then drawing a conclusion, George Bush did launch Arbusto energy in 1978, now that is a fact. It never did turn a profit, also a fact. However, I will admit that asserting it was a financial disaster was an opinion. Although I stick by that assessment and would term a company that is unable to turn a profit a disaster.

Now in a legitimate argument, the thing for you to do is challenge my facts, that is to assert they are incorrect and demonstrate why. An example would be to say something like the following , Arbusto Energy was actually founded in 1965 by John Doe. Another tactic might be to acknowledge my facts but challenge my conclusions. An example would be, yes the company had financial problems but you are blaming one man for the downfall of a corporation when there were many mitigating factors. Get the idea? If there is any confusion with the terms please see the above definitions.

"I glad you can recognize when a word is spelled incorrectly, now if only you stop making hasty Generalizations in your posts."

“Nice work! "I glad" you corrected your spelling!”

The problem that remains is correcting your logic. But hang in there we are working on it.

"415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure.""

1. This is opinion, not fact

OK Now in order to improve your logic we must improve your reading skills as well. The part of my post that is a fact, is that 81% of the historians surveyed voted that Bush’s presidency is a failure. I have copied and pasted my post below so you can read it again. Notice how I explain the assertion that the president is a failure is an opinion. The 81% surveyed is the factual part. See the above definitions again if you are confused. I’m sure you can have this mastered by the next post. I believe in you!

“there you go a fact. Just in case you are not smart enough to realize it I am talking about the part that says 81% of the historians said it. My opinion and most of the historians surveyed is that the president is a failure.”

2. History has a way of changing opinions. What did your Historians think of Reagan?

Don’t know how they thought of Reagan. I just know they felt this presidency was a failure in that particular survey.

3. Last I checked, most Academics are liberals. Juan Cole is all over the website for your "nonpartisan" group, and that guy is a lunatic from the left like no other.

If they are, fine. You can disagree with their opinion (see above definition if confused) that this president is ridiculous.

4. http://www.opinionjournal.com/hail/rankings.html (not that it means anything anyway).

Now you are in real danger of failing the class, and having to wear the dunce cap for the remainder of the semester. The link you gave doesn’t even cover the current presidency. The following is from your link.

“How 78 scholars in history, political science, and law rated the men from Washington to Clinton.”

Now I know reading is a problem for you, so i will spell it out. Clinton is the last president ranked in the survey.

Class dismissed.

This comment thread is now closed.