Joe Cirincione? Joe Cirincione?? Why this f**king guppy when he coulda got big kahuna Scott Ritter?

Oh, sorry, Ritter's down to the DQ or BK looking for a 'date.'

Helen Thomas? The fourth of the Gorgon sisters, so hideous the other three kept her locked away...

If any conservative is still holding onto this WMD story they're truly lost. Sorry.

finally got around to the Senate vote

Yeah, you had to wait a whole story until he mentioned it! Oh my! Schuster's report was fairly bi-partisan criticizing the Democrats and Republicans alike. But you don't want to mention it so you skip onto story 3.

You then lament how Keith didn't mention O'Reilly's offence to warrant a news column, as if there were some felony. I'm still waiting to see if you ever list why O'Reilly gets named Worst Person in the World when he says stupid things (i.e. giving the terrorists the OK to blow up San Francisco).

The ratings game you try to play though is really ridiculous. Just look at the ratings Olbermann had on Monday and Tuesday, but you don't want to post those, you'd much prefer posting his ratings on a night where nothing really happened. I don't really know if you are trying to say "in your face Keith" when you post the ratings, but it isn't working.

Quick, lets end in a fallacy to top off this "review." Done.

**** POP QUIZ ****

Who said it?

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

Answer:

- Bill Clinton, 1998 regarding his MILITARY action against Iraq. An action which, 5 years later in 2003, he said had NOT destroyed Saddam's WMDs.

****************************************

Can you blame Olby for defending this lovely young princess:

I mean look at her! That soft redundant skin! Those deliciously-wrinkled lips! Mmmmmmmm . . . the stuff that dreams are made of! Not since this sexy bitch have I been so aroused:

As for WMD's, that is Soooooo last year! I mean, like, who cares anymore?

Yes, everyone should read the "hidden" piece written by Joseph Cirincione that Johnny Dollar has so cleverly dug up only to use one small quote out of context. Read the whole thing, we knew he had caches of OLD chemical weapons he might use, that's what Cirincione was saying.

Once again, if you fall for Johnny Dollar's spin, that makes you an idiot.

=================

Why We Won?t Go to War

by Joseph Cirincione, Senior Associate and Director, Non-Proliferation Project

Reprinted from Le Monde, December 9, 2002

The U.S. administration has convinced most journalists and world leaders that it will soon attack Iraq. The rhetoric is escalating and so are military movements. There are now 60,000 U.S. troops on the border of Iraq and 45,000 more could fly in with short notice to marry up with pre-positioned equipment. Leaked plans detail a ferocious, short war to isolate, then topple Saddam Hussein. Arab leaders publicly oppose a war, but news reports indicate their quiet support. President George Bush seems ready to let loose the dogs of war at any moment.

Which is precisely why he will not have to.

The unanimous Security Council resolution ordering Iraqi compliance with United Nations inspections--and the credible threat of war should Iraq not comply--make it very likely that Saddam will cooperate with UN inspections. The early inspections have gone well enough and Iraq will likely provide volumes of information on December 8, as required by the UN resolution. The declaration will not be full or complete, but it may reveal information Saddam believes the US already knows, such as secret imports or caches of old chemical weapons. It will not be obvious any time soon that Saddam is not cooperating. It will be very difficult, even for the most bellicose in the U.S., to initiate a war if Saddam does not blatantly obstruct inspections.

This is the very trap that hard-liners in the administration feared and why they did not want the president to go to the United Nations at all. But after the president?s powerful September 12 speech to the General Assembly, after months of work to unite the Security Council, President Bush cannot simply walk away from diplomacy. As he has said, war is neither inevitable nor unavoidable as long as Saddam agrees to disarm.

But it is more than diplomatic considerations that argue against war. There are many serving and retired military who believe that war is neither necessary nor easy. In the best-case, the war could be over in days. But there are several very plausible scenarios that could turn the war into a catastrophe. These include the use of chemical or biological weapons against US troops; an attack on Israel that prompts an Israeli counter-attack, possibly with a nuclear weapon; the siege of Baghdad resulting in thousands of Arab and US casualties. Even if all goes well, US troops will have to occupy Iraq for years. "Are we prepared to occupy Iraq for the next 30 to 50 years?" warns former Reagan Secretary of the Navy James Webb, with our troops as "50,000 terrorist targets."

The push to invade Iraq does not come from the military. Retired General Anthony Zinni, former head of the US Central Command and President Bush?s special envoy for the Middle East, speaks for many when he argues, as he did this October at a Washington conference, "If we see this as a beginning of a chain of events, meaning that we intend to solve this through violent action, we're on the wrong course. First of all, I don't see that that's necessary. Second of all, I think that war and violence are a very last resort, and we have to be careful how we apply it, especially now in our position in the world." Zinni argues that our first priorities ought to be to restart the Israel-Palestinian peace process; encourage Iran?s turn towards moderation and rebuild Afghanistan. Iraq is way down his list of urgent issues.

There are also powerful economic arguments against war. A November study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington concludes that a sustained conflict would collapse stock prices, send unemployment to 7.5 percent, plunge the US into a recession, and drag down European economies. Estimates of the direct cost of the war range from $60 billion to over $200 billion. In 1991, the Arab nation paid for most of the Gulf War. This time, it is very unlikely that any other nation will pay the bill. Even in a best case, the war will add to the growing federal deficit that George Bush has generated in just two years.

This is why many senior Republicans have counseled the president not to go to war. They remember what happened to the former President Bush after his military victory. With the US economy still fragile, a war could ruin both it and Republican political prospects. Former Secretary of State James Baker and former general Brent Scowcroft urged Bush last August to turn to the United Nations instead. Now Scowcroft again urges patience. In a November 21 op-ed in the Washington Post, Scowcroft praises Bush?s UN victory and urges him now not to war, but to devote "the same kind of skill, audacity and laser-like attention to the Israeli-Palestinian issue."

While many of the American media are promoting "countdowns" and "showdowns" with Iraq, the American people are not pushing the president to war. Polls show that while over 60 percent favor the use of force in Iraq if sanctioned by the United Nations, only 30 percent want the U.S. to go to war alone. The public would undoubtedly rally around the president at the start of a war, but if it goes badly, the weak public support could turn into a backlash that would drive the president and his party from power. Politically, economically and military, war with Iraq is a high-risk operation.

For these reasons, it is not likely that the United States will go to war anytime soon. Two miscalculations could change the equation: Saddam could do something stupid that provides the excuse for war, or Bush could be persuaded by the siren songs of his hard-line advisors that war is both necessary and easy. History shows that illusions of grandeur can overcome even the most persuasive factual analysis.

HOW DARE YOU!

How dare you call Helen Thomas a dog sir! I hope you die. Go fuck your mother. You are twice as ugly as Ann Coulter. Die die die die die.

You have NO CLASS! You are on THIN ICE!

Sincerely,

Keith Olberman
KOlbermann@msnbc.com

**If you have received this message in error, please delete it. All MSNBC material is copyrighted unless otherwise stated. All professional correspondence subject to oversight by the office of communications. If this is an obscene e-mail from Keith Olbermann, assume an intern did it and do not distribute.

Saddam had OLD uranium and OLD chemical weapons! I eat those for breakfast.

The USSR has OLD nukes! Who cares about them?

Anyway, old chemical weapons are fun! Just look at this:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2004/2004-02-10-03.asp

Uranium takes no time at all to degrade! Just put it in the basement and wait:

uranium-234: half life = 244 thousand years, 0.0055% of all uranium.
uranium-235: half life = 704 million years, 0.72% of all uranium.
uranium-238: half life = 4.5 billion years, 99.28% of all uranium.

Dear Anonymous,

Please post some kind of pseudonym and stick to it so that at least I know who is responding to my response to you. Else, I won't even bother the respond at all.

Not too much to ask, is it?

thanks,

-OM

HOW DARE YOU COMPARE THAT POOR DOG TO HELEN THOMAS!

Sir, we demand a retraction, a correction, and a bag for Helen's head.

Where did you hear the terms "Old Uranium"?

Geologic half life is used to determine the age of things and not the potency of nuclear weapons anyways. Nukes don't stay active for 4.5 billion years if that's what you seem to be hinting at.

nonfactor, once again I am amazed at the unflappable support you show for your treasure, Keith Olbermann. I think Bill O'Reilly deserves a lot of the negative reaction he gets. He is an unmitigated blow-hard. Having said that, I'll add that having guests with viewpoints other than his shows courage. He reads hate mail every night on the air. He doesn't have a lacky off to the side of the teleprompter chuckling. Keith has bestowed upon himself the luxury of never having to defend his opinion on his show. It's called " Empty Scrotum Syndrome". Praytell, name a single Fox News host or any conservative television host, anywhere, who operates like that?

***** BREAKING NEWS *****

Link between recent human contributions and Global Warming DISPROVEN

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13474997/

...
Study concludes: Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years
...

What does this mean??

400 years ago when the Earth's population was less than 1 billion people and there were NO automobiles...the Earth's temperature was at/higher than it is currently.

Conclusion:

The claimed recent human contributions to this so-called Global Warming are insignificant.

Says this study which looked at .000000008% of the timeline of Earth's estimated 4.5 billion year history....now that's a statistical sample if I ever heard one.

****************************************

great post dis-proving global warming. every time they open there mouths they go on record..I love it. the kennedys and gores and streisands burn way more fuel in a year jet-setting than i will be able to in a lifetime. I guess it causes them endless guilt. well maybe they should. seems they are the problem and never the solution.IRONIC.

***** POP QUIZ *****

Who said it?

"But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear."

Answer:

- Osama Bin Laden, 1996 Fatwa regarding Bill Clinton's "REDEPLOYMENT" of U.S. troops from Somalia

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
*********************************************

I heard the term "old uranium" from the same people talking about "old chemical weapons."

As for you stupid question, there were 1.8 tons of ENRICHED URANIUM at Tuwaitha. That is U-235 with a half life of 704 million years and the ability to be used in nukes. The rest would be the other isotopes. Exactly what would it matter? Are you trying to say that the difference between 4.5 billion years, 704 million years and 244,000 years means anything? Are you saying we should have waited out Saddam because it would only have taken 704 million years, not 4.5 billion, before his uranium degraded by one half? I bet you are!

The Reason Hit & Run blog said it best:

"Another signal of how sad this is? Alan Colmes was able to punk Santorum."

Keith hardly ever goes into a full blown opinionated montage like O'Reilly or most other 24 hour news hosts.

I don't know where you get your definition of courage, but to me it doesn't mean having on someone with a different opinion than you with weak arguments and a microphone that you control.

If you look into Bill O'Reilly's eyes and see courage then I don't know what to say.

(Keith DOES, on occasion, have stories/reports which take the opposite opinion from his own)

***** POP QUIZ *****

Who said it?

"A supposedly credible story of an al Qaeda plot to release poison gas into the New York City subway system just before this country went into Iraq in March 2003....yet another dose of doubt...why did it take three years and three months before we heard about this, quote, unquote, ?credible poison threat??"

Answer:

- Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, right before he cut to a news report by Andrea Mitchell, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent of MSNBC who reported that:

* a CIA source inside of Al-Qaeda detailed the plot
* NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg was COMPLETELY posted by Washington D.C. that this was a REAL threat
* Ron Suskind, an author with a very critical analysis of the Bush Administration, also detailed this plan saying that an al Qaeda cell came within 45 days of striking the subway, and could still be in the U.S.

************************************************

There's no issue that Keith is sometimes forced to use NBC reports that deliver the news straight, as Andrea Mitchell usually does. But when the report is over, whom does he INTERVIEW? Someone to parrot his claim that it's all phony and fake and made up. Keep your eye on the interviews. They are the heart and soul of OlbySpin.

Seven Arrested in Alleged Plot Against U.S. Buildings
Chicago's Sears Tower and Others Targeted, Feds Say

<a h
MIAMI (June 23) - Seven people were arrested Thursday in connection with the early stages of a plot to attack Chicago's Sears Tower and other buildings in the U.S., including the FBI office here, a federal law enforcement official said.

The recycled tape on valet parkers stealing is ancient. It was on the Today show a couple weeks ago.

I know KO gets a hard time here about not having dissenting opinions on his show, but based on the way he defends himself (by email, at least) isn't that probably a good thing? Picture this:

KO: "Isn't the arrest of Rep. William Jefferson, who often voted in favor of Republican initiatives another sign of the Republican corruption, if not over taking, at least contaminating everything it comes in contact with?"

Guest: "Not really, Keith. Rep. Jefferson has had a history of allegations of wrong doing, dating back to before he was elected. It seems this time the chickens have come home to roost."

KO: "You don't know your a## from your elbow. Go f### your mother."

Nope, better to leave off the dissenters.

This is actually a very good point. When Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity say something stupid, it is usually made as a statement and they let their guest respond to it, even if they know that it will be something that the guest will respond to with hostility.

It is not Olbermann's style to have a confrontational program, so he has guys on that he can just chat with. Then, if he has some type of nutty hypothesis, he phrases it in the form of a question, so even his guest says something like, "I very seriously doubt it, Keith", he gets the question out there for his audience to chew on. In other words, he gets his guest to do his dirty work for him.

I'm so glad that I only watch these "news shows" for entertainment purposes.

BTW, Johhny, not a criticism, and doesn't change the message, but point of fact. It wasn't Rep. Peter King, R-NY. It was a guy from Iowa. I think it was Steve King. I just know it wasn't Peter.

You are right, of course. Too much Olby is affecting my brain! Correction made.

Can someone name three right wing journalists/commentators/pundits/columnists that Olberdumbass has had on his show, ever?

I've changed my mine. Olbermann is an anti-American Jerk. He supports Al-Qaeda. He doesn't speak for us. Hey what about those American Muslims that plotted to blow up the SEars Tower. I doubt Olberjerk will discuss them!

Olbermann's Mother must be Mexican! the reason I'msaying that is because I hate them. I hate Keith Olbermann too!

"Can someone name three right wing journalists/commentators/pundits/columnists that Olberdumbass has had on his show, ever?"

Einee, Minee, Moe!
I'm fair and balanced!

"Keith hardly ever goes into a full blown opinionated montage like O'Reilly or most other 24 hour news hosts."

Yes Keith is an honest Jihadi. He hates America and misses Zarqawi.He only speaks truth to American Power. Islam he has converted to so they get a pass!

"Keith hardly ever goes into a full blown opinionated montage like O'Reilly or most other 24 hour news hosts."

Yes Keith is an honest Jihadi. He hates America and misses Zarqawi.He only speaks truth to American Power. Islam he has converted to so they get a pass!

I'll admitt, my idol Mao is honest!

Islam according to my brother Keith Olbermnann is aq religion of pieces! I thank my Leftists brothers for demoralizing America against us! Keith Olbermann will be remerbed by Allah for defending the Dar-Es-Islam aginst America. Keith Olbermann a new Phrophet Peace be upon him! He will make sure America will be conquered and Dhimmitized!

Praise be to Allah. Keith Olbermann is his Prophet!

I hate the Judeo-Christian God. But I love Allah!

I hate the Judeo-Christian God. But I love Allah!

I support Child Molesters. That's why I hate O'Reilly! I am one!

I hate Hispics with Israeli Fiances. Since I'm a Phony Jew who doesn't believe in the God of Isreal!

I hate Hispanics with Israeli Fiances. Since I'm a Phony Jew who doesn't believe in the God of Israel!

I hate Hispanics with Israeli Fiances. Since I'm a Phony Jew who doesn't believe in the God of Israel!

I Love Islamic terrorists. They hate the Christian Right!

"There's Mark Corallo, Karl Rove's spokesman, looking dashing in a blue shirt, big tie. Libby defense fund organizer Barbara Comstock, ravishing in white. Spencer Abraham, in a natty brown suit..."

and NBC's new fashion critic, Keith Oafermann, sporting Ashleigh Banfield's glasses, a striped shirt and striped tie?!

There's only one side to his topic
No retort or debate? That's myopic
The guests lick his boots
Blue blogs in cahoots
His ratings have become microscopic

Just reading through the comments the last couple days, especially the guy(s) who think its cool posting crap over and over using accepted commenters handles, I am struck with one thought.

Can you tell school's out?

Keith Olbermann is not only the worst person in T.V, he's probably the most ignorant and pig headed.

If Keith is a real man who can back up what he says, why doesn't he consume some expired rat poison? Remember since it's expired it shouldn't hurt him.

C'mon Keith, drink some expired rat poison .. If you're a real man!

Unless you do this you're just a ignorant, hypocritical fool!

This is the email I send to Keith Baby every time the ratings come out ( with some variations changing but always the same premise ) and I never get an answer.

FNC O'REILLY 2,149,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,735,000
FNC GRETA 1,353,000
FNC HUME 1,240,000
FNC SHEP 1,185,000
CNN KING 1,007,000
CNN COOPER 912,000
CNN DOBBS 793,000
CNN ZAHN 625,000
CNNHN GRACE 497,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 251,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 246,000

Hear we go again. The question that never gets answered. You know the question. “Who the heck are you blowing to stay on the air”? I mean LOOK Larry is kick’ in your ass. Oh the other night I switch over to you and you had that “Head Thing” going, like Larry… Here’s your big fucking head all blown up, just like Larry.

KEITH WANTS TO BE LIKE LARRY!

P.S. Keith you got something on your lip

This is the email I send to Keith Baby every time the ratings come out ( with some variations changing but always the same premise ) and I never get an answer.

FNC O'REILLY 2,149,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,735,000
FNC GRETA 1,353,000
FNC HUME 1,240,000
FNC SHEP 1,185,000
CNN KING 1,007,000
CNN COOPER 912,000
CNN DOBBS 793,000
CNN ZAHN 625,000
CNNHN GRACE 497,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 251,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 246,000

Hear we go again. The question that never gets answered. You know the question. “Who the heck are you blowing to stay on the air”? I mean LOOK Larry is kick’ in your ass. Oh the other night I switch over to you and you had that “Head Thing” going, like Larry… Here’s your big fucking head all blown up, just like Larry.

KEITH WANTS TO BE LIKE LARRY!

P.S. Keith you got something on your lip

Give Keith credit-- he got more viewers on Wednesday than Hardball. So what if Hardball had a guest host.

He's moving up the list! He's now in 11th place (out of 12). Way to go Keith!

Let's face the facts here. He has the fourth lowest of the five news shows on the cable news networks in the 8pm newshour. And don't quote crap about demos-he tanked the other night (Wednesday) in those as well. He uses commentators and interview subjects who will parrott his own opinion and then uses pieces which not only have been recycled on other NBC shows but which have also been used previously on Countdown such as the Valet piece that ran last night.

How'm I doin'? You like the big changes? You know, I had Olbermann change color from apricot to tangerine! Yup -- I think it plays better in the sticks!

I have other initiatives in the barrel! On the bottom, we have Unger, ready to make his move to a full-time slot. Together with a wooden puppet that will sit on his left, "Leftward Ho" with Brian Unger debuts in August. Brian will work the puppet, who will be a fully down-the-middle political analyst. First guests include Fidel Castro's butler, Hugo Chaves' manicurist, and Keith Olbermann. Some sample dialogue:

PUPPET: Unger, why don't you tell it like it is! Bush is a fascist dunderhead chickenhawk!

UNGER: Oh puppet! Ha ha ha ha ha

Ah yes! This is what I call "can't miss" TV! We will get all the mainstream puppet lovers with this centrist puppet!

We are also working on a vehicle to replace "Weekends with Maury and Connie." The new show stars Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins and is called, "Real People, Real Opinions." This show will be all about the opinions of John Q Public. Here's a sample:

SUSAN: Today, we will be interviewing San Fransiscans, asking their opinion of the military.

TIM: Time to hear from Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public!

SUSAN: We take risks, Tim! Tomorrow, we will be heading to New York to ask people about George Bush.

TIM: We could hear just about anything, Susan!

I can not wait to see our latest initiatives bear fruit. Connie and Maury were a triumph, but Tim and Susan will be a phenomenon.

Here's another email I send to Keith:

Keith,

I want your moustache to tickle my taint.

Sincerely,
Brian

From NothingButTheTruth's article:

“The numerous indications that recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia, in combination with estimates of external climate forcing variations over the same period, supports the conclusion that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming,” the panel wrote.

Thank you for pointing me to this source. I had gotten all my news form rightwing blogs and did not realize that there is a scientific consensus on human caused global warming. I appreciate your attention to the truth and hope it bodes well for you in all your future endeavors.

P.S. You're an idiot.

Meltdown is the cable news bore
Guest moonbats like Dean and Algore
They must not give a damn
Keef's a journalistic sham
Moneyshot for ratings like a whore

Keith acts like a 10 year old child
His accusations go way beyond wild
If I were attacked as much
As O'Reilly and such
Police charges would have to be filed

Here's an idea of how factually correct Olbermann is on any given night. He couldn't even get my frigging birthday correct last night. It's JULY 22nd, not June 22nd as Olbermann claimed on last night's program.

He's the primetime cable "news" hack
Paste and read cuz he doesn't know jack
Smear Ann Coulter as gay
Call it a day
But it's Keith sucking hairy nutsack

Sunday’s “Meet with the mess” with special guest Keif Opie

Host: Keif, you have been in the news lately, seemingly kind of irrational, responding ludicrously to e-mails sent by admittedly harsh fans, why use the kind of language you do
Opie: Well Tom, I didn’t really write them. Bill O’Reilly did

Host: Keif – your obsession with Bill O’Reilly seems like the tabloid’s obsession with Brittany Spears and Tom Cruise. No serious journalist has ever used such a, well, has been so, I mean what the heck is the matter with you.
Opie: You don’t understand Tom, in the age 57 years, 6 months, 5 days, white, females named Jenny, from Virgina - demographic I am killing O’Reilly in the ratings.

Host: Keif - you don’t just attack O’Reilly, you even stated another anchor on your own show was dumber than a suitcase full of bricks, you have burned bridges at many former employers, do you think you are respected by fellow journalists?
Keif: If I wasn’t respected I would never get Dana Millbank, Craig Crawford, Laurence (liar, creepy liar) O’Donnell on my show. You just don’t get guests with their “colored” background without being THE best

Host: But Keif, it’s now been 1,000 days since you have had – what we journalists like to call – a non partisan exchange on your show
Keif: Look, if you want Fox news with opinions from all over the place – I mean looking at stories from every angle – that’s not journalism. We present one anti Bush view – and every night I have a guest host who completely agrees with me. I mean – two of us can’t be wrong.

Host: With your ratings being bottom of the barrel, you’re horrible pattern of attacks against fellow reporters and vulgar responses to e-mails, what kind of future do you see for yourself at NBC
Keif: Well Tom, all that doesn’t matter. I don’t report to anyone.

Host: Keif, you have to be one of the most biased, and I’ll use this term lightly – journalists - on TV. I mean Moveon.org backs you, you get much of your information from Media Matters, your guests write columns for the Huffington post, I mean do the words fair and balanced mean ANYTHING to you
Keif – of course they do. Let me give you an example. Look how we covered Karl Rove. I mean everyone knows he is guilty and we were very fair in presenting many, many different repercussions the Rove indictment would have on the flawed Bush administration

Host: But Keith – Rove wasn’t indicted
Keif: You know. Maybe not technically indicated, but all of us at Meltdown know for darn sure he was guilty, I mean, and I don’t necessarily have to take all the credit for this we actually were the first to break the story, David Shuster broke that story right on Countdown. And, I might add - was quickly added to the MSNBC staff

Host; Keif we’re running out of time but my final questions is your appearance. I mean your hair color changes often, your face looks almost orange…
Keif – let me cut you off right there, I mean, everyone, I mean, scientology aside, the climate on Venus, I mean, it’s just another racially motivated attack on me, being from Venus. As we like to say on Venus- good luck and good night

Images
---------
by Tyrone Greene

Dark and lonely on a hot summer night.
Kill my landlord, kill my landlord.
Watchdog barking -- Do he bite?
Kill my landlord, kill my landlord.
Slip in his window,
Break his neck.
Then his house
I start to wreck.
Got no reason --
What the heck!
Kill my landlord, kill my landlord.
C-I-L-L ...
My land - lord.

The Pic Above is obviously a group culled from a " Broad Strata" of American society.

I see the Kossacks, in addition to calling the guys wannabes and the arrests "questionable" and political, are now posting that the group is a bunch of Christian fanatics.

Do these people deal in any facts?

58 comments. Things are back to a normal pace without JM to kick around.

COX: you know wether the herewith quoted post from JM is really his or an impersonators, by your IP knowledge. If these are by an imposter, I would like to know why you would allow such garbage to be identified as a real poster's post.

" I hate Hispics with Israeli Fiances. Since I'm a Phony Jew who doesn't believe in the God of Isreal!

Posted by: jmorris724 at June 23, 2006 03:16 AM"

There were a couple of other pieces of garbage supposidly posted by JM that step over the line of proper discourse.

Wierd,

I don't "allow" or "disallow" anything so why would you ask me abou this. Are you asking me to require registration for all comments and to moderate every thread? Do you want me to ban certain commenters? Do you want me to prevent people from using aliases to post.

From a commenter named "O'reilly is weird" this seems the height of hypocrisy.

I've said this in the past but I will say it again. Anyone is free to comment here and if they want to use a made up name they can do that. That's different than me having to respect you - or anyone else - for doing that. If you want to comment here but hide your identity from me don't ask me to give a damn what you say or think.

Let me make sure you understand me. I am the biggest ahole on this planet, and anyone who disagrees is a LOOOSER!!

Robert, you're right. I'm a total loser!
Just like my idols Zarqawi and Keith Olbermann!

I'm a loser too!

If the 500 artilary shells that were found in Iraq were so harmless, maybe we can park them in Keith's Mama's garage for a few years? Do you think he will mind? I didn't think so.

Keith Olbermann is a scumbag! He's a Jihadi hack. I hope he goes to Iraq! I know for a fact the some soldiers might let something happen!

Hey Leftists Islamic lovers, Look what the religion Peace advocates
Hamas: Islam will conquer US and Britain
http://www.pmw.org.il/LatestBulletins.htm#b220606

Here's a quote
"We will rule the nations, by Allah’s will, the USA will be conquered, Israel will be conquered, Rome and Britain will be conquered...

The Jihad for Allah... is the way of Truth and the way for Salvation and the way which will lead us to crush the Jews and expel them from our country Palestine.

Just as the Jews ran from Gaza, the Americans will run from Iraq and Afghanistan and the Russians will run from Chechnya, and the Indian will run from Kashmir, and our children will be released from Guantanamo.

The prisoners will be released by Allah’s will, not by peaceful means and not by agreements, but they will be released by the sword, they will be released by the gun."

What do you Leftists have to say now?
Please respond Lefties!

They can take over. They're bettre than the Christian Right and Bush

What do you Leftists have to say now?

Palestinian Media Watch? *busts a gut laughing*

Give me a credible source and then we'll talk, wingnut.

So you think it's bull. I slam is the religion of peace right?

You're probably happy about this right! Leftists/Jihadi supporter!

From HamburgERRRRRRRR's post:

"The numerous indications that recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years
...
Thank you for pointing me to this source. I had gotten all my news form rightwing blogs and did not realize that there is a scientific consensus on human caused global warming. I appreciate your attention to the truth and hope it bodes well for you in all your future endeavors.

P.S. You're an idiot."
_______________________________________

Thanks!

but enlighten me, Genius...

If the recent warmth trend is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years then...

What caused the Earth's temperature to be the SAME 400 years ago as it is today?

Answer that and then prove that the cause of the warming 400 years ago is NOT the cause for today's same warming trend.

Then...maybe I'll accept this so-called "Global Warming caused by recent human activity" theory.

I shall await your conclusions...

Hey, didn't those big fat dinosaurs expel tons of CO2? Each of those Brontosauruses was the size of a 747! Those big fat lazy dinosaurs were CO2 MACHINES! I heard Al Gore say dinosaurs became extinct because they warmed themselves to death. The ice age was a big cover-up perpetrated by the Dinosaur Government to hide the truth.

Now, I personally believe all liberals should avoid excess CO2 production. Here are some suggestions:

1. Don't let your car exhaust get into the atmosphere. Simply place a hose in the tailpipe and run it into the car. Be sure to close the windows, or CO2 will get into the sky and heat you to death.

2. Don't exhale into the atmosphere. If you breathe do it inside your house. Don't go outside. Don't talk -- that produces extra CO2. Don't move either -- that increases CO2 production. If you must go outside, place a clear plastic bag over your head and make sure it is air tight. We don't want CO2 getting out.

3. The planet is overpopulated. As a concerned person, death is a fine option. Just do it in a manner that doesn't increase CO2 production. Hanging is generally carbon-neutral and a great method!

Can you link me to the quote where you "heard Al Gore say" that? And Dinosaurs didn't die because of the Ice Age.

Nonfactor wrote:

>Can you link me to the quote where you "heard Al Gore say" that? And Dinosaurs didn't die because of the Ice Age.

That is exactly my point! Finally someone smart enough to understand my argument! Nonfactor, you and I are like peas in a pod! Do you have any Countdown gear? I have the "anti-factor" earplugs and the "rightwing propaganda" blinders. I am saving up for my "Conspiracy is the Norm" t-shirt and my "you are entering the cyclotron zone" jacket.

Anyway, I agree that the ice age didn't kill the dinos. It was global warming from CO2 emissions. Those big brontosauruses were like SUV's on steroids. They were like Hummers to the fiftieth power. And those huge flying things -- imagine the CO2 output!

Stop the Warming,

I think it was CH4, not CO2 that killed the dinosaurs.

Well, Scott, considering the dinos all kicked the bucket during the Fartaceous period, you have a point. However, I am sticking with my own theories, thank you!

I don't have time to explian climate modeling to you, Mr. Truth. But nobody says the Earth has always been the same temperature. Lots of "forcings" affect climate, include H2O, CO2 (and other GHGs) the sun's output, etc. The only forcing that explains the recent warming (and it explains it perfectly) is human CO2 output.

There you go.

Oh! Global warming is sooooooo simple! Never mind the studies that have shown an increase in the temperature on Mars! I guess we did that too? Or the "Inconvenient Truth" that the CO2 emitted by soil DWARFS the emissions by humans! I guess you missed that study!

When you lib turds pretend to be scientists, it is just sad. Stick to worrying about the people you consider your lessers and undermining the war effort -- it is really what you do best.

Liberals are unscientific chicken littles wrote:

"When you lib turds pretend to be scientists, it is just sad. Stick to worrying about the people you consider your lessers and undermining the war effort -- it is really what you do best."

When you wingnut shits think you know anything about science it makes me laugh. Keep at it, because you're on the wrong side of science and facts (yet again) as your irrelevant references indicate. Why don't you stick to figuring out how to get rid of Mexicans and homosexuals and figuring out how to lick your own gentialia--it is really what you do best.

I saw this on Powerline...

"Tom Lipscomb has forwarded us a copy of his "modest proposal for Keith Olbermann" that he has sent to the MRC:

Here is a proposition you should set up for Keith Olbermann.

Chemical weapons certainly do deteriorate with age. But unfortunately they do so unreliably, as those unfortunate enough to crack open a chemical shell left over from World War I can testify.

But since Mr. Olbermann is so confident that the WMD alluded to by Santorum et al are �weapons of minor discomfort� only likely to give you a �burn if you rub these weapons directly onto your skin,� the Media Research Center should propose to make special arrangements with CENTCOM for Mr. Olbermann.

You should propose to offer him the opportunity to personally select any one of the hundreds of �weapons of minor discomfort� in CENTCOM�s storage in Iraq, open it, and rub it directly on his skin.

You should agree to pay his travel expenses and any medical expense he may have for the �minor discomfort� of a �burn.� But for anything more dire, he will have to rely upon his own resources, or life insurance benefits, including the costs of shipping a contaminated corpse home. "

I saw this on Powerline...

"Tom Lipscomb has forwarded us a copy of his "modest proposal for Keith Olbermann" that he has sent to the MRC:

Here is a proposition you should set up for Keith Olbermann.

Chemical weapons certainly do deteriorate with age. But unfortunately they do so unreliably, as those unfortunate enough to crack open a chemical shell left over from World War I can testify.

But since Mr. Olbermann is so confident that the WMD alluded to by Santorum et al are �weapons of minor discomfort� only likely to give you a �burn if you rub these weapons directly onto your skin,� the Media Research Center should propose to make special arrangements with CENTCOM for Mr. Olbermann.

You should propose to offer him the opportunity to personally select any one of the hundreds of �weapons of minor discomfort� in CENTCOM�s storage in Iraq, open it, and rub it directly on his skin.

You should agree to pay his travel expenses and any medical expense he may have for the �minor discomfort� of a �burn.� But for anything more dire, he will have to rely upon his own resources, or life insurance benefits, including the costs of shipping a contaminated corpse home. "

I saw this on Powerline...

"Tom Lipscomb has forwarded us a copy of his "modest proposal for Keith Olbermann" that he has sent to the MRC:

Here is a proposition you should set up for Keith Olbermann.

Chemical weapons certainly do deteriorate with age. But unfortunately they do so unreliably, as those unfortunate enough to crack open a chemical shell left over from World War I can testify.

But since Mr. Olbermann is so confident that the WMD alluded to by Santorum et al are �weapons of minor discomfort� only likely to give you a �burn if you rub these weapons directly onto your skin,� the Media Research Center should propose to make special arrangements with CENTCOM for Mr. Olbermann.

You should propose to offer him the opportunity to personally select any one of the hundreds of �weapons of minor discomfort� in CENTCOM�s storage in Iraq, open it, and rub it directly on his skin.

You should agree to pay his travel expenses and any medical expense he may have for the �minor discomfort� of a �burn.� But for anything more dire, he will have to rely upon his own resources, or life insurance benefits, including the costs of shipping a contaminated corpse home. "

>Keep at it, because you're on the wrong side of science and facts (yet again) as your irrelevant references indicate.

Okey Dokey! You are the only person on the planet with definitive proof that climate change is directly linked to humans! Why is it that crazy people are always the ones seeing UFO's and Olbermann fans are always the only ones who have information like yours? I'll tell you why -- 'cause both are paranoid crazy loons.

You have no idea what I referenced. You have nor "references" yourself. Try to read this moron:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=1439

Once you are done not reading it, feel free to post something stupid.

'Nobel Prize for Liberal Science', great URL link! Thanks for sharing.

-OM

Hi Ho!

Everybody go on over and check out Drudge. I just got home and he has a developing story about A-MESS dropping some of its talks shows!! No mention of our pal, but. Is he out their sweating?

Puck

I just saw that. What will go first? I bet Olby stays for now, but who knows?

Always check TV Newser Puck! Seems the failing prime-time line-up will repeat in the AM. What a bold strategy!

From TVAbuser:

"MSNBC Repeating Prime In The Morning"

Don Imus is taking next week off, so MSNBC is trying something new. Instead of running live news from 6 to 9am, the net will run repeats of primetime shows. On Monday, it'll be Hardball at 6 and 8, and Countdown at 7 and 9; the rest of the week, it'll be Carlson at 6, Hardball at 7, Scarborough at 8, and Countdown at 9, according to a tipster. MSNBC started re-airing Countdown at 9am a couple months ago...

Let me tell you, this is the dumbest strategy in the world. You need credibility as a news station. Repeats in the AM, no live news and a bunch of wacky lefty shows will add up to even worse rating than before. So far, Abrams is looking like one dopey dude.

Let's see how many more naughty e-mails surface. That could push the suits at 30 Rock over the edge.

Good link, Nobel Prize for LIberal Science.

I don't wnat to ehar anything from so called scientists! I want my information from a partisan memeber of congress who takes money from the energy industry. Don't give me bullshit about a scinetific consensus, you Al Qaeda hugging freaks. Al Gore's movie is BS cause someone told me it is, and I'd believe a midget in a sweaterdress before I'd believe years of detailed and verified scientific research by liberals scientists who secretly masturbate to picture of Hitler and Saddam and Olbermann

What a waste of a post. At least try to post something worth reading, or post a link to your "scientific data" that proves a failed dimwitted Presidential candidate knows something about climate change.

THIS JUST IN!

ROSS PEROT INVENTS COLD FUSION TECHNIQUE! WALTER MONDALE REVOLUTIONIZES SUPERCONDUCTORS! JIMMY CARTER DESIGNS NEW SPACE SHUTTLE! AL GORE IS WORLD RENOWNED CLIMATOLOGIST!

For the non brain dead:

www.realclimate.org

Note the science!

Ah yes! RealClimate! So you throw an entire website out there rather than a scientific article! Nice job! RealClimate is the be all and end all:

http://debunkers.org/intro/index.php?p=75

Keep praying to the global warming gods wacko.

Wow, Mr. Anonymous, do you actually think that something as complex as global climate can be reduced to a single article?

The response to realclimate you post is interesting. Read the response from one of the climate scientists posted on that site you provide and then the response to the response. Who references scientific articles and who whines without any facts?

Here is an article that shows a recent review of literature on GW showed that of 928 peer eviewed articles, exactly zero argue against the consensus position:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

If you don't believe that, I don't know what to tell you. I'm sure you'll go on and on about the U.N. and communists or something, but this issue is a real loser for the Repbulicans, so I have no real interest in converting any of you rabid righties to the cause. Meander along in your ignorance if you must.

Hurray for cartoons! Good job Olbyites! How about a "family circus" cartoon too?

As for the aptly named Hamburger:

>do you actually think that something as complex as global climate can be reduced to a single article?

Exactly the point dope. It is too complex, hence multiple articles, multiple opinions.

As for the "consensus" of which you speak, the issue is whether human beings are to blame for Global Wrming, not whether there is currently a warming trend. Therein lies the real issue, currently being obfuscated by the miserable Al Gore. Show me a paper which can definitively link humans to global warming and I'll believe you.

I certainly don't have the answer, and limiting pollution is always a good idea. Crippling our economy on a whim is a rediculous idea. Of note, Al Gore doesn't believe this shit himself as he jets around the country more than any other human alive creating more greenhouse gas than entire cities do.

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/K/5/pub5394.html

Articles like this point out the danger in swallowing the idea that we determine all climate changes. So much for your "consensus opinion.

Read this as well:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/

"Mann wrote the part of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) that proclaims that nearly all of the climate change seen during the last two millennia occurred during the 20th century and that it is due to human activities. The report contends that industrialization put carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, leading to increasing global air temperatures. Furthermore, based on Mann’s work, the IPCC claimed that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the last millennium and 1998 was the warmest year. But a review of the data shows that these claims are untenable. Mann’s research is clearly the outlier.

Consider that if 1) the amount of uncertainty is doubled (an appropriate representation of the “sheath”), 2) appropriate 20th century increases in observed air temperature are applied (a correct representation of the “blade”), or 3) the period from A.D. 200 to 1900 correctly reproduces millennial-scale variability (a reliable representation of the “shaft”), then one can have no confidence in the claim that the 1990s are the warmest decade of the last two millennia. The assertions of Mann and his colleagues — and, consequently, the IPCC — are open to question if even one component of their temperature reconstruction is in error, let alone all three!"

Human CO2 emissions are not responsible for the unprecedented rise in global warming.

The need for several hundred thousand troops in Iraq is wildly off the mark.

I don't think anyone anticipated the levees would break.

We believe that Sadaam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.

The Social Security system is in crisis and must be privatized.

There is overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.

The United States does not condone torture.

We know where the WMDs are -- They`re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Iraqi oil will pay for the war.

Nobody ever thought they would fly airplanes into buildings.

It is hard to imagine we will need more troops to stabilize post-Sadaam Iraq than we would need to topple Sadaam`s army.

Blahblahblah KfK:

"Exactly the point dope. It is too complex, hence multiple articles, multiple opinions."

and

"Show me a paper which can definitively link humans to global warming and I'll believe you."

First, multiple papers does not mean multiple opinions. Second, I have said I cannot produce such a paper. It is the totality of the evidence, numbnuts.

If you'd look at anything other than rightwing blogs you'd find your proof, along with independent reproductions of Mann, et al's "hockey stick." Real scientists consider that debate closed. Scientists with an ax to grind or a political motive keep the discredited attacks alive.

Like I said, the Republicans will bury themselves on this issue. And I intend to watch them do so. Good luck!

Oh I see! It is the "big picture." Your defense of Mann is typical.

Mr./Ms. HamburgERRRRRR said:

"First, multiple papers does not mean multiple opinions. Second, I have said I cannot produce such a paper. It is the totality of the evidence, numbnuts."

Right. You can't justify your position with solid scientific citings but we plebian intellects should simply accept your unsubstantiated assertions that your position is based on an undeniable totality of evidence and left as an exercise for the ill-informed. Sounds like very lazy opinion formation. And your little "numbnuts" says it all - you can't come up with support for your position with a clear discussion of facts, so you fall back on the time tested "numbnuts" retort. Good one!

So much so the superior intellect of the liberal elitist brain trust...

-OM

eauman,
The "numbnuts" response was to KfK, who initiated the namecalling with "dope." Nice double standard.

I've already posted an article that discusses the scientific consensus. I have no interest in going further. If you want real information, visit a real science site and not a rightwing site or a energy lobbying group.

If not, fine. I don't care. I've argued with rightwing hacks before. You can present all manner of scientific evidence and they will troll the rightwing sites for irrelevancies and already discredited information (case in point, KfK's work here). I just want to be one of the first to say the right will get murdered on the global warming issue as the average American is waking up to reality. When you get murdered on it, remember what I told you as you troll your right wing websites for good things about a rapidly changing climate.

KfK--

Yes the global climate is big picture. Go figure, huh?

My defense is typical because it is accurate. Look it up yourself. Or pretend you did.

HamburgERRRRRR offered:

"My defense is typical because it is accurate. Look it up yourself."

Sorry pal, that is the 'typical' part of your response. Obvious conclusion, leave it all up to the "reader as an exercise". Lazy debating tactic, friend.

Also:

"I've already posted an article that discusses the scientific consensus."

Wrong - you have presented an article that *purports* to discuss an alleged scientific consensus. No doubt there is a consensus that global warming is indeed happening. There is no consensus regarding the *degree* of contribution (possibly negligible) that is made to the phenomenon by the human population. Note that it was hotter 400 years ago than it is now. I wonder what component of that hot spell was due to human enterprise.

So much for objective scientific reporting...

Tsk.

-OM

I said I'm not debating you, eauman. Read the article that I posted. There is a consensus on _human caused_ global warming. I mena, why would I debate with someone who can't even read a simple article?

"purports" = "It did not come from a rightwing site, so I don't believe it"

HamburgERRRRRR said:

"I said I'm not debating you, eauman. Read the article that I posted. There is a consensus on _human caused_ global warming. I mena, why would I debate with someone who can't even read a simple article?"

OK, I did.

Now it's your turn:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

Read the whole article, please (it's only one page).

regards,

-OM

Well, eauman, you can't get any more partisan than a majority press release from the senate. All the "climatologists" cited in the article are close to the energy industry or conservative think tanks. Their work (if they even still do research, Dr. Tim Ball is retired) is not taken seriously by the vast majority of climate scientists. And, as I point out to KfK, the original "hockey stick" study was criticised, but has been verified by researchers recalculating Mann's data as well as independent studies.

In short, your link is full of distortions and half-truths. Head over to Real Climate if you are really interested. If you're not, I don't really care.

>>Note that it was hotter 400 years ago than it >>is now. I wonder what component of that hot >>spell was due to human enterprisThis is not >>exactly true.

Not quite true. Here is what the National academy of Sciences said on on the matter.

'recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.'"

I said: "Note that it was hotter 400 years ago than it is now. I wonder what component of that hot spell was due to human enterprise."

You said: "Not quite true. Here is what the National academy of Sciences said on on the matter. 'recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.'"

I stand (incrementally) corrected. Here is my revised statement:

Note that it was hotter several millenia ago than it is now. I wonder what component of that hot spell was due to human enterprise.

Now - can anyone provide some insight here, please?

thanks,

-OM

Eauman,

You will get about as far arguing with the Global Warming crowd as you will get with religious fanatics. They believe humans are the cause. because they "know it is true" they will not engage in sensible discussion. Nothing I have read convinces me that humans are the cause of warming trends (and I have looked, believe me). Blind faith and science don't mix. And the combo doesn't sell either (just look at the crappy box office on "An Inconvenient Truth").

If you point out that Global Warming models are based on assumptions, and different assumptions will lead to different results, they will scream "MY MODEL IS CORRECT!" If you ask for a clear review of their convincing data, they scream "LOOK AT THIS WEBSITE!" or "IT'S TOO COMPLICATED TO EXPLAIN!"

Here is a good piece that puts it in perspective:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15666

>"The truth is that the Earth's temperature is always changing to some extent, up or down. Within historic memory, the canals of Venice froze solid during the medieval Little Ice Age, and Greenland was verdant enough, during a warm spell, to earn its (currently) wildly inappropriate name. Over longer geological periods, the Arctic has sported palm trees (no polar bears then!) and the latitude of Connecticut was under a mile-thick layer of ice. Just now, according to Dr. Singer, we are seeing a warming trend of about one-tenth of a degree centigrade per decade, or roughly a degree per century."

It is worth reading the whole thing. Warming trends do not mean the end is near, and it is highly probable that humans are a minute part of the equation.

Euman --

Check out this site -- some good info

http://www.sepp.org/keyissue.html

"Global Warming models are based on assumptions"

Well, yes nad no. They are mostly based on collected data and physics. Future models are based on some reasonable assumptions--for example that CO2 emissions will continue to grow at the current rate and that there will not be abnormal volcanic activity.

Moreover, the climate models are startlingly accurate in recreating climate patterns over the past 150 years:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

CLimate modedls are not perfect, but they do prove to be accurate. Incidentally the biggest unknown is how much future industrialization and land use change there will be.

Stub - A

have you looked at this site:

http://www.sepp.org/keyissue.html

Well, I see what you're saying with the Sepp article. I don't trust the U.N. either, but it looks like the page has some old data on it.