Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    tonyome wrote: <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/07/28/voxs-laughable-praise-of-keith-olber... [more](11)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

    syvyn11 wrote: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/keith-olbermann-reviving-worst... [more](9)

    In

    Former Obama Support/Donor Releases Song Supporting Romney/Ryan: "We'll Take It Back Again" by Kyle Tucker

    syvyn11 wrote: @philly I don't see that happening. ESPN has turned hyper left in recent... [more](64)

    In

    Blue-Blog-a-Palooza: Ann Romney Edition!

    djthereplay wrote: By mkdawuss on August 29, 2012 6:17 PM Will John Gibson be having a "Red-B... [more](4)

    In

    No Joy in Kosville...Mighty Olby Has Struck Out

    djwolf76 wrote: "But the FOX-GOP relationship (which is far more distinguished and prevalen... [more](23)

    KO Mini Blog



    What's in the Olbermann Flood Feed?
    Subscribe to Olbermann Flood Feed:
    RSS/XML

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

    Got OlbyPhotos? See some on Flickr? DO NOT email us. Send us a FlickrMail instead. Include a link to the photo. If we like the photo you will see it displayed in the Olby Flickr Flood above.

    New to Flickr? Sign up for a FREE Flickr account!


    Got some OlbyVideo? See some on YouTube? DO NOT email us. Send us a YouTube Messages instead. Include a link to the video. If we like the video you will see it displayed in our favorites list in our YouTube page.

    New to YouTube? Sign up for a FREE YouTube account!

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

    If they're not on Keith's payroll...

    ...they should be...

    Crooks & Liars
    Daily Kos
    Eschaton
    Huffington Post
    Media Matters for America
    MyDD
    News Corpse
    No Quarter
    Raw Story
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    TVNewser
    Keith Lovers

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

    Drinking with Keith Olbermann
    Either Relevant or True
    KeithOlbermann.org
    Keith Olbermann is Evil
    Olbermann Nation
    Olbermann.org
    Thank You, Keith Olbermann

    Don't Be Such A Douche
    Eyes on Fox
    Liberal Talk Radio
    Oliver Willis
    Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site I
    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site II
    Keith Olbermann Links
    Olberfans
    Sports Center Altar
    Nothing for Everyone

    Democratic Underground KO Forum
    Television Without Pity KO Forum
    Loony KO Forum (old)
    Loony KO Forum (new)
    Olberfans Forum (old)
    Olberfans Forum (new)
    Keith Watchers

    186k per second
    Ace of Spades HQ
    Cable Gamer
    Dean's World
    Doug Ross@Journal
    Extreme Mortman
    Fire Keith Olbermann
    Hot Air
    Inside Cable News
    Instapundit
    Jawa Report
    Johnny Dollar's Place
    Just One Minute
    Little Green Footballs
    Mark Levin
    Media Research Center
    Moonbattery.com
    Moorelies
    National Review Media Blog
    Narcissistic Views
    Newsbusters
    Pat Campbell Show
    Radio Equalizer
    Rathergate
    Riehl World View
    Sister Toldjah
    Toys in the Attic
    Webloggin
    The Dark Side of Keith Olbermann
    World According to Carl

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

    Age of Treason
    Bane Rants
    The Blue Site
    Cabal of Doom-De Oppresso Libre
    Chuckoblog
    Conservative Blog Therapy
    Conservathink
    Country Store
    Does Anyone Agree?
    The Drunkablog!
    Eclipse Ramblings
    If I were President of USA
    I'll Lay Down My Glasses
    Instrumental Rationality
    JasonPye.com
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Last Train Out Of Hell
    Leaning Straight Up
    Limestone Roof
    Mein BlogoVault
    NostraBlogAss
    Peacerose Journal
    The Politics of CP
    Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
    Rat Chat
    Return of the Conservatives
    The Right Place
    Rhymes with Right
    seanrobins.com
    Six Meat Buffet
    Sports and Stuff
    Stout Republican
    Stuck On Stupid
    Things I H8
    TruthGuys
    Verum Serum
    WildWeasel

    Friends of OlbyWatch

    Aaron Barnhart
    Eric Deggans
    Jason Clarke
    Ron Coleman
    Victria Zdrok
    Keith Resources

    Google News: Keith Olbermann
    Feedster: Keith Olbermann
    Technorati: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Countdown
    Wikiality: Keith Olbermann
    Keith Olbermann Quotes on Jossip
    Keith Olbermann Photos
    NNDB Olbermann Page
    IMDB Olbermann Page
    Countdown Guest Listing & Transcripts
    Olbermann Watch FAQ
    List of Politics on Countdown (by party)
    Mark Levin's Keith Overbite Page
    Keith Olbermann's Diary at Daily Kos
    Olbermann Watch in the News

    Houston Chronicle
    Playboy
    The Journal News
    National Review
    San Antonio Express
    The Hollywood Reporter
    The Journal News
    Los Angeles Times
    American Journalism Review
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    St. Petersburg Times
    Kansas City Star
    New York Post/Page Six
    Washington Post
    Associated Press
    PBS
    New York Daily News
    Online Journalism Review
    The Washingon Post
    Hartford Courant
    WTWP-AM
    The New York Observer
    The Washington Post


    Countdown with Keith Olbermann
    Great Moments in Broadcast Journalism
    Great Thanks Hall of Fame
    Keith Olbermann
    MSM KO Bandwagon
    Olbermann
    Olbermann Watch Channel on You Tube
    Olbermann Watch Debate
    Olbermann Watch Image Gallery
    Olbermann Watch Polling Service
    OlbermannWatch
    OlbyWatch Link Roundup
    TVNewser "Journalism"

    July 2013
    September 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


    Mailing List RSS Feed
    Google Groups
    Subscribe to Olbermann Watch Mailing List
    Email:
    Visit this group



    XML
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    R|Mail
    Simpify!
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    July 3, 2006
    KO OUT

    The infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann was not in studio tonight. Instead of a new edition of Countdown, we got a taped rerun of the 2005 Oddball Festival, just in case you missed it 11 hours ago, the last time it ran. In place of our nightly summary, we offer you a few minutes of listening pleasure, courtesy of Matt Drudge. It's not primarily about Krazy Keith, but there are a couple of Olby references [mp3 audio]:


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (154) | | View blog reactions

    154 Comments

    When you start off a rant by complaining about something Robin Williams said you know it's going to be bad. Accusing Robin Williams of adding "hate" to politics is silly since Williams would make that joke about anyone in the public arena. And then because Drudge is angry Rush is being made fun of he has to make fun of others...great.

    Nonfactor, how much are you paid? You must get something for being such a complete and total shill for anything anti-conervative or leftist.

    Robin Williams is an unfunny tool, as are most of these flaming left wingers. Luckily, Williams is at the end of his career.

    As for what is in KO's medicine cabinet, I suspect he has antdepressants (although he denies taking them), date rape drugs, hair growth potions, a retainer, and one of his mother's wigs.

    "Herpes man" now thats funny. Go Drudge. I love Limbaugh and his in your face brand of radio. Nanu Nanu.

    This isn't about right or left. I wasn't trying to make my post partisan. I was pointing out that when somebody starts a rant complaining about Robin Williams of all people you just know there's going to be no point at all.

    Robin Williams can joke about Rush, and you can joke about Olbermann, but when you're trying to make the point that the left is playing "hate" politics and you turn right around and toss out insults for the better half of your rant it's pathetic.

    Most of your posts, KfK, would be pleasant to read and discuss, but when you start insulting the people you're talking to or people you aren't (see the last sentence in your post) it makes you look like a pissed-off wingnut with no point.

    One of his mothers wigs LMAO. Thats funny stuff KfK. What was Williams last big movie? Help i can't think of 1.

    Wow, Did anyone else know Matt Drudge was that stupid? That was the first time i have ever listened to him.

    Drudge: "Don't you have the right to know what keith Olbermann has in his medicine cabinet? isn't that your right? If it is not how is it your right to know what rush Limbaugh has."

    Uhh, everyone it is your right to know what Keith has in his medicine cabinent, if he tries to bring it in the country and gets caught with it by customs and he has a prescription drug without a prescription. Then it is your right to read about it in the press. If he keeps his cabinet in his bathroom, however - not your right.


    "Robin Williams is an unfunny tool, as are most of these flaming left wingers. Luckily, Williams is at the end of his career."


    Robin williams is very funny. So is Dennis Miller who leans more to the right and and has dropped some Doozies on Bill Clinton. Anne Coulter - not funny.


    KfKwrote:
    "As for what is in KO's medicine cabinet, I suspect he has antdepressants (although he denies taking them), date rape drugs, hair growth potions, a retainer, and one of his mother's wigs."

    ...man-tan lotion, viagra, Ashleigh Banfield's glasses, eyebrow brush, numerous mirrors,...

    What i like about Limbaugh is even loaded he is great at what he does. I am so glad he beat the rap.

    I think Coulter's very funny but you do have to agree with her to "get it". Black humor at it's finest.

    Robin Williams, the antithesis of comedy. What an insufferable dipshit. One or two OK movies over a 25 year period. Nothing of any consequence in 20 years. His stand-up act is composed of stolen material from other comics. Some career.

    The left rewards failure so Robin will keep getting movie parts. The more rabid he acts towards conservatives the more attention he gets. He knows the scam. Anyone know how the Dixie Chicks concert tour is going?

    Good morning vietnam was terrific (First oscar nomination,) As was Awakenings, As was Dead poets Society (Second Oscar Nomination), Good Will hunting was decent (Won the oscar) Alladan is a children's classic. The Fisher King is good. Being Human is good. What dreams may come is good ( The title is from hamlet Act III scene I if you get around to it). Insomnia is also quite good. in fairness lots of not so good as well.

    Why is my it my hunch that your idea of a brilliant comic is Jeff Foxworthy?


    anyway back to politics. I can hear Johnny Dollar chiding us for not sticking to Olbermann.

    If you think KO is a news man you might be a leftist.

    I'll have you know that Robin Williams' latest blockbuster "RV", released in April, is already at your neighborhood Walgreens in the "Dollar or Less" rack. Brilliance gnawed away by cocaine?

    "If you think KO is a news man you might be a leftist."

    I knew it. No accounting for taste.


    Great innovators and original thinkers and artists attract the wrath of mediocrities as lightning rods draw the flashes.
    - Theodor Reik

    Git-er-done!! Yeeee-haw!!!

    Actually, he hasn't been very funny since he got off the cocaine.

    Emo Philips was always considered to be one of the great innovators of the form, only to be crucified for his odd haircut...

    The two I referred to are: "The World According to Garp" and "Moscow on the Hudson" (as well as his turn as "Popeye" -- too bad it had no real story).

    Having heard KO talk about this (all week), I was struck by the feeling that while he has all his fingers and toes crossed that Rush will lose his PTI deal, it was more glee in having the opportunity to say "Rush uses Viagra" everynight.

    It seems that for many on the left, particularly the blogs, the facts of the incident were far outweighed by the chance to say Rush and Viagra over and over.

    It strikes me similar to the guys trying to "out" gay Republicans. You know for a fact there are guys in the media, reporting this story, blogging about it, writing about it, that use Viagra everytime they are fortunate enough to get laid. And women who wouldn't get it from their significant others without that little blue pill. But the chance to smear Rush as needing help, is just too much to pass up.

    I just hope Rove stays on the Viagra cause he is screwing the hell out of them Dems. And he shouldn't quit.

    He believes his words are prophetic
    But his emails prove he’s pathetic
    Insipid and mean
    Correspondence obscene
    For sex he needs a prosthetic

    Herpes, you da man!!!

    Edward Lear with a touch of Dr.Seuss!

    Jeez Louise!

    There is a new depraved revelation regarding our beloved Olby. The girl (in her 20's I believe) whom Olby used and abused after a nerdiferous whirlwind e-mail romance had this to say on her "blog":

    "And a specific word of advice for one person in particular? Stop using the Shakespeare line post-climax. It's really dorky and so not a turn-on."

    The title of her blog is:

    "For this relief much thanks"

    A quote from Shakespeare. The spermiferous, horniferous Keith Olbermann utters the phrase "for this relief much thanks" after he limps and sputters to climax.

    When I read that, I had the dry heaves. What kind of a kreepy old koot says that after sex? And how insane is Olby for making fun of anyone else's sex talk (or anyone else period)? Imagine how many women immediately said "what have I done" when they heard Kreepy Keith smarmily mouth those words post-coitus? And does Keith realize he is basically saying "thanks for gettin' me off" in a fancy way? That subway door did more damage than I thought!

    As far as what Shakespeare quote best suits Olby:

    "Now is the winter of our discontent."

    --From King Richard III

    --The opening words of this play reflect the persona of Richard, a deformed angry man who hates the world that he believes hates him. In this soliloquy, we see the workings of his mind, and how he is always aware of his hideous appearance. "Deformed, unfinished, sent before" his "time into this breathing world, scarce half made up," his personality has grown warped. He is so ugly that the dogs on the street bark at him; women scorn him. And, so, since he "cannot prove a lover" he is "determined to be a villain."

    Sounds like Krazy Keith to me!

    Sounds like Krazy Keith to me!

    KfK, someone should have told you "You can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit."

    Again, you offer "proof" that is nothing but vapor. Can't be corroborated, can't be substantied...hell, soesn't even make ONE DAMN IOTA OF SENSE!

    I mean, come on, Shakespeare! Are you serious? And not even something someone would remember, but a throwaway line by a guard in Act I of Hamlet.

    I'm sorry, but you've just buried the needle on the "bullshit" detector. You owe me $55 for a new one.

    "And a specific word of advice for one person in particular? Stop using the Shakespeare line post-climax. It's really dorky and so not a turn-on."

    Well, that is because you are really stupid and need cultured.

    The two I referred to are: "The World According to Garp" and "Moscow on the Hudson" (as well as his turn as "Popeye" -- too bad it had no real story).

    those are all good. I'd like Moscow on the Hudson quite a bit.


    >It strikes me similar to the guys trying >to "out" gay Republicans."

    Well, I'm not going to lump all republicans together, but members of this party have pushed for laws banning gay marriage and have reacted quite strongly against gay rights in general. When it turns out that some end up being gay, people of course want to expose that. It demonstrates hypocrisy.

    His post-coitus comments are creepy
    “For relief, much thanks, now I’m sleepy”
    For groupies he’s trolling
    Mr. Shakespeare is rolling
    Keith‘s “C” list but acts V.I.P.

    Reason 116 why I love this site:

    This - "I just hope Rove stays on the Viagra cause he is screwing the hell out of them Dems. And he shouldn't quit" - is funny.

    For all you OlbyLoons out there, please raise your hand if you are happy that Rush Limbaugh was detained by U.S. Customs in Florida for possessing a prescription for Viagara made out in the name of his doctor.

    Come on...higher!

    Now, please raise your hand if you are upset over news reports that the government is monitoring SWIFT payment instructions and call data records?

    Lastly, please reconcile for clear-thinking readers how it is BAD when the government collects and analyzes financial and communications data to track terrorists which MIGHT BE abused in some vague, undefined way and GOOD when U.S. Customs officials abuse their right to inspect the luggage of American citizens re-entering the country by informing the press when they find something embarrassing in Rush Limbaugh's luggage even though the information is not part of the public record and no charges have been filed and?

    Oh wait, our privacy as American citizens trumps all when it comes to the War on Terror but in the War on Conservatives all is fair in love and medication to make love. Right?

    >His post-coitus comments are creepy
    “For relief, much thanks, now I’m sleepy”

    Now THAT is poesy!

    I bet Keith Olbermann was the one who went after me for my post! Very defensive and illogical, bordering on desperate.

    I will never think of "Hamlet" in the same way again. That Olby - The Bard of Secaucus.

    The votes held so far on gay marriage have crossed party lines in there success. So the issue isn't just Reps/Cons against it,though they proudly lead the way. But lets be honest with the topic. Men straight or homosexual have the equal right to marry the opposite sex under current law. Women ditto. What the supporters of homosexual marriage want is special treatment under current laws. Doesn't matter what side your on they already have equal rights they seek special rights.

    "find something embarrassing in Rush Limbaugh's luggage even though the information is not part of the public record and no charges have been filed and?"

    Actually, I would be against the information being given to the press until there is a conviction. However, one can hardly expect the press to ignore this once they have wind of it. If the situation were reversed Robert and this was Keith, accused, would you hush up about it? assuming keith was known for tough drug law stances?

    Also, What are the facts in this case? Did some one in customs tip off the press? if so i would condem that. However, Rush getting searched is something that happens at customs. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the searches are done at random.

    "Now, please raise your hand if you are upset over news reports that the government is monitoring SWIFT payment instructions and call data records?"

    Have to look up more about that one. I am against the phone database and monitoring international calls without a warrent though. The potential for abuse is to great and not just by this admistration. (Although i don't trust them at all).

    >However, one can hardly expect the press to ignore this once they have wind of it.

    Yes! Especially when the liberal prosecutor in Palm Beach makes sure of that!

    Keith's ratings from this Friday must have been horrible -- TVNewser hasn't posted them yet. When he does, I will send them right to Dan Abrams. I love doing that!

    Scooter said, "What the supporters of homosexual marriage want is special treatment under current laws. Doesn't matter what side your on they already have equal rights they seek special rights."
    ---------------------------------

    This is simply an uneducated opinion.

    Most proponents of gay marriage want tax breaks given to hetero couples, power of attorney and next of kin rights given to hetero couples. Property rights given to hetero. All rights currently not afforded to gays and lesbiens who want to get married. But, the real crux of the argument, they want to be treated equally as straight couples. To afford all the afore mentioned rights to hetero couples and not gays is viewed by the gay/lesbien community as discriminitory.

    Curious, scooter... you said they want 'special rights.' Care to tell us what 'special rights' to which you are referring? Or would you prefer to simply throw out accusations without substantive backing, to which you are accustomed?

    You know man marrys woman/ women marrys man..not special. Man marrys man/ women marrys women "different" aka special. Rule of thumb if you have to re-define a word you might be the one seeking special consideration. Again I would type slower but it doesn't seem to help when typing.

    Your examples are not special. I'm asking what RIGHTS are special. Expl, property, tax, next of kin. What rights are special, scooter?

    Tax breaks given to married couples. Does the term marriage penalty ring a bell? Well won't that be jim dandy when groups of six want marriage rights for medical insurance. We can again re-define the word to help the group seeking "special" treatment.

    Rule of thumb if you have to re-define a word you might be the one seeking special consideration.

    Again, that was the argument being pushed to quash interracial marriage - it would be "redefining" the "traditional" belief about what marriage is.

    They are asking for the same right that heterosexual couples have - to enter into monogamous union with another person and gain the same benefits (the ones James laid out above) that "straight" couples have.

    I don't know what or when inter-racial marriage arguments were made at the time. You would probably know better with Robert(KKK) Byrd on your team. So do tell.

    scooter avoided answering the question by saying, "You would probably know better with Robert(KKK) Byrd on your team. "
    --------------------------------------

    First, you avoid answering the question...

    Second, Democrats are the ones who signed the Civil Rights Bill (over republican opposition)

    Third, Democrats are the party of minorities and inclusion. Membership numbers bear it out, you can't deny it.

    Fourth, answer the original question, scooter.

    They have the same right as heterosexuals have.TO MARRY THE OPPOSITE SEX. Anything else is going to be a change. AKA special treatment.

    Well shcucky darn it must be true James said it with such conviction.The special right is to marry the same sex. Answered.
    By your logic all union members also vote Democrat. Well tell me just when are you going to start including them in Senarorial campaigns? And when are you going to include them in a chance at running for President as a Democrat? Membership bears it out but seats at the power of table are denied them. Man how tough must it be to chew and swallow that bilge for black-americans. About how included they are by the Democrats when the truth is it's a white male dominated party. Your idea of inclusion is letting the most rabid anti Bush black you can find speak at the convention and then tell them that is inclusion. If they buy good for you. The truth is much more obvious.

    scooter avoided answering the question by saying, "You would probably know better with Robert(KKK) Byrd on your team. "
    --------------------------------------

    First, you avoid answering the question...

    Second, Democrats are the ones who signed the Civil Rights Bill (over republican opposition)

    Third, Democrats are the party of minorities and inclusion. Membership numbers bear it out, you can't deny it.

    Fourth, answer the original question, scooter.

    They have the same right as heterosexuals have.TO MARRY THE OPPOSITE SEX.

    That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard on this topic. You mean to say that in order to get rights, they have to marry someone THEY DON'T LOVE? Isn't that making more of a mockery of the concept of marriage?

    It's a bullshit argument. You KNOW it's a bullshit argument. So why in the hell are you even TRYING to pass it off as legitimate?

    Apparently KO isn't the only one out, the entire MSNBC newsroom has the night off. I haven't seen more than 2 minutes all evening about a major international crisis in North Korea on that 'news channel.' This is truly unbelievable, FNC and CNN are wall-to-wall, and MSNBC is airing documentaries!!!

    scooter said, "Man how tough must it be to chew and swallow that bilge for black-americans. About how included they are by the Democrats when the truth is it's a white male dominated party. "
    ---------------------------------------------

    A record number of 43 black of African-American members serve in the 109th Congress; 42 in the House of Representatives, one in the Senate.

    There have been 117 black members of Congress. 112 elected to the House. Five to the Senate.

    The majority of black members (90) have been democrats; the rest (27) were republicans.


    Gosh, scooter... by those numbers your mockery of democrats not being inclusive is pretty much shot to shit. Especially when you compare it to the republicans record of putting blacks in power.

    You're wrong, scooter... again.

    Just speaking "TRUTH" to stone walls i guess. I wasn't saying they should marry someone they don't love. I was simply saying-the truth-they already have the same right as anyone else. It's not a hard concept.

    KK's "smooth" line after sex is "For this relief, much thanks". Which makes you wonder, what "smooth" line does Keith use before the "act"? I think I found the answer: (from the May 9 MSLSD transcript):


    OLBERMANN: . . . here kitty, kitty, kitty... Here kitty, kitty, kitty. . .

    Let's see, an image is coming to my mind . . . a faux news character who is pompous, obsessively jealous of his vastly superior competition, extremely sensitive to criticism, whose ratings are continually abysmal and spouts lines he thinks are witty and erudite but are actually stupid, boring and reflect his own deep seated insecurities . . . yes, i think it's becoming clearer now, it's . . . Ted Baxter!!! (What did you think I was going to say, Keith Olbermann? Well, on second thought, now that I think about it . . .)


    13% of population, 90% vote Dem, 1% senators.
    Under republicans 2 Secratary of States.
    Now whats the highest appointment a Dem has ALLOWED?
    1 Supreme Court Justice--Republican Appointment.
    Now those are power positions. But you don't have to convince me(but your trying awful hard) you need to keep fooling the "included" groups.

    I know a few guys who think Robin Williams is the greatest, but I just don't get it. I have NEVER thought anything he did showed any humor whatsoever, but some people think he's the best. I never liked him as the "Mork" character or in anything else, for that matter.

    I was simply saying-the truth-they already have the same right as anyone else.

    If anyone is acting like a stone wall, it's you. The argument is very plain - if you tell them they can't marry the person they love because that person is of the same gender, you are DENYING them that right.

    No one is asking to expand the definition of marriage. Pick up a copy of Webster's Dictionary - you'll see that the second definition for "marriage" is specific to same-sex unions.

    James writes:

    "Second, Democrats are the ones who signed the Civil Rights Bill (over republican opposition)"

    James, why don't you get your facts straight before you contribute to this site? Here's the real story of the GOP involvement with the civil rights bill which you leave out:

    "Because of the problem with a possible Senate filibuster, which would be imposed by Southern Democrats, the diverse aspects of theAct were first dealt with in the House of Representatives. The roadblock would be that Southern senators chaired both the Judiciary and the Commerce committees.

    Kennedy and LBJ understood that a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats was the key to the bill's final success.

    Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.

    Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

    First, you avoid answering the question...

    Second, Democrats are the ones who signed the Civil Rights Bill (over republican opposition)

    Bizarre that more Republicans voted for it in considerably higher percentages than Democrats (you can look up the Roll Call vote) and that LBJ went to the GOP to get it passed since the icons of the Democratic party (the Gores, the Fulbrights, et al) were fervent segregationists, isn't?

    Third, Democrats are the party of minorities and inclusion. Membership numbers bear it out, you can't deny it.

    You don't see conservatives calling blacks "Uncle Tom" or "Sambo".

    You DO see libs doing that.

    And, as has been mentioned A LOT, there is a Klansman in the Congress.

    He ain't a Republican.

    That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard on this topic. You mean to say that in order to get rights, they have to marry someone THEY DON'T LOVE? Isn't that making more of a mockery of the concept of marriage?

    No, but it IS a pretty clear-cut definition of equality. Any man can marry any woman. If you don't want equality, then you want "special rights".

    That is why gay marriage and interracial marriage aren't even remotely comparable.

    Gosh, scooter... by those numbers your mockery of democrats not being inclusive is pretty much shot to shit. Especially when you compare it to the republicans record of putting blacks in power.

    Dems have had how many black Sec. of State?

    Bush had 2.

    2 more than the Democrats have had in their entire history combined.

    If anyone is acting like a stone wall, it's you. The argument is very plain - if you tell them they can't marry the person they love because that person is of the same gender, you are DENYING them that right.

    There is no right to marry the person you love. Hate to break it to you.

    See, if the person YOU love doesn't love you, then not getting married isn't exactly a violation of your rights.
    -=Mike

    "There is no right to marry the person you love. Hate to break it to you."

    This is my problem with Repulicans in a nut shell. A lot of you guys basically are not too keen on liberty. marriage is a private contract between two people. it has nothing to do with the govermnet. it has nothing to do with you. If I want to marry 12 people - none of your business. If i want to marry a black women or a black man - none of your business. What is so hard about letting consenting adults live as they please?

    Hank, why don't you get YOUR facts straight...

    There WAS a fillibuster... an 83 day fillibuster led by mostly republican conservatives, racists and segregationist - NOT a possible fillibuster, as you allude to.

    Now, Leading the charge was Senator Byrd, who I think we all believe is a racist (myself included), but the one charging against him, democrat Humphrey from Minnesota.

    See, scooter, I'm not a blind follower of my party. I see and call-out the ones (like Byrd) who do harm to the country as much as I compliment the ones who do good. In your opinion, however, republicans can do no wrong. That is short-sighted.


    As for the greater percentage of republicans voting for civil rights that democrats... let's look a little closer at those numbers. Closer than you would have us look...
    ---------------------------------

    By Party and Region
    The House:

    Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
    Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
    Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
    Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)


    The Senate:

    Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
    Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
    Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
    Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

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

    So, lets examine these numbers.

    Hardly anyone voted for Civil Rights in the south because they knew they'd be voting themselves out of office.

    In fact, there were 11 southern republicans at the time (House and Senate). NOT ONE voted for the amendment.

    By contrast, there were 107 democrats (House and Senate). 8 of them voted in favor of the amendement. Not a lot, but at least there were some.

    And if you look at the northern members, you can see the percentage of democrats who voted for Civil Rights exceeded the percentage of republicans by nine and 14 percent in the house and senate respectively. Only ONE northern democratic senator voted against it!


    So, as you can see, Hank... the only reason your overall percentages say republicans voted more in favor of Civil Rights than democrats is because you don't consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of southern members were democrats, who didn't want to vote 'aye' and piss off their consitituancy.

    Yes, they were chickenshit, but you can't say there were the only chickenshits because NOT ONE SOUTHERN REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IT EITHER. At least a few southern democrats did.

    And, again, in the north a greater percentage of dems voted for it than republicans... where there was no political pressure not to.

    So, sorry Hank... you're wrong... again.

    Next time research numbers instead of blindly cutting and pasting, which you're wont to do.

    This is my problem with Repulicans in a nut shell.

    What? Facts?

    A lot of you guys basically are not too keen on liberty. marriage is a private contract between two people.

    But it's no more a "right" than driving.

    Again, you can't have a "right" that demands somebody else's consent.

    If I want to marry 12 people - none of your business.

    Seeing as how you'd be sucking me dry financially --- as tends to be the case with bigamous couplings --- yeah, it pretty much IS my business.

    If i want to marry a black women or a black man - none of your business. What is so hard about letting consenting adults live as they please?

    What's so hard about allowing the people to decide what they want?

    Is democracy REALLY that bad to the left?

    There WAS a fillibuster... an 83 day fillibuster led by mostly republican conservatives, racists and segregationist - NOT a possible fillibuster, as you allude to.

    Since the Dems had 248 members in a 435 seat house --- thou doth protesteth too much.

    And funny that you ignore that Republicans DID vote, at a much higher percentage, for the bill than did Dems. You can try to disown the Southern Dems (Fulbright was SUCH a liberal, right?), but it doesn't quite wash.

    History is what it is, not what you wish it to be.

    In fact, there were 11 southern republicans at the time (House and Senate). NOT ONE voted for the amendment.

    11 Southern Republicans.

    10 in the House.

    Out of 104 Southern Reps.

    Or --- less than 10% of them.

    There was 1 Republican Southern Senator (Strom Thurmond)

    Out of 22.

    Or less than 5% of them.

    Yup, it was those Southern Republicans who caused all of those problems.

    So, as you can see, Hank... the only reason your overall percentages say republicans voted more in favor of Civil Rights than democrats is because you don't consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of southern members were democrats, who didn't want to vote 'aye' and piss off their consitituancy.

    And that changes things in what way, exactly?

    Yes, they were chickenshit, but you can't say there were the only chickenshits because NOT ONE SOUTHERN REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IT EITHER. At least a few southern democrats did.

    All 11 of them.

    Out of a possible 126.

    Or less than 10% of them.

    You can try and sugarcoat history and claim that Southern Dems weren't REALLY Dems if you wish --- but we'll just have to sit back and deal with those pesky "facts" you find so loathesome.
    -=Mike

    This is my problem with Repulicans in a nut shell.

    What? Facts?

    A lot of you guys basically are not too keen on liberty. marriage is a private contract between two people.

    But it's no more a "right" than driving.

    Again, you can't have a "right" that demands somebody else's consent.

    If I want to marry 12 people - none of your business.

    Seeing as how you'd be sucking me dry financially --- as tends to be the case with bigamous couplings --- yeah, it pretty much IS my business.

    If i want to marry a black women or a black man - none of your business. What is so hard about letting consenting adults live as they please?

    What's so hard about allowing the people to decide what they want?

    Is democracy REALLY that bad to the left?

    There WAS a fillibuster... an 83 day fillibuster led by mostly republican conservatives, racists and segregationist - NOT a possible fillibuster, as you allude to.

    Since the Dems had 248 members in a 435 seat house --- thou doth protesteth too much.

    And funny that you ignore that Republicans DID vote, at a much higher percentage, for the bill than did Dems. You can try to disown the Southern Dems (Fulbright was SUCH a liberal, right?), but it doesn't quite wash.

    History is what it is, not what you wish it to be.

    In fact, there were 11 southern republicans at the time (House and Senate). NOT ONE voted for the amendment.

    11 Southern Republicans.

    10 in the House.

    Out of 104 Southern Reps.

    Or --- less than 10% of them.

    There was 1 Republican Southern Senator (Strom Thurmond)

    Out of 22.

    Or less than 5% of them.

    Yup, it was those Southern Republicans who caused all of those problems.

    So, as you can see, Hank... the only reason your overall percentages say republicans voted more in favor of Civil Rights than democrats is because you don't consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of southern members were democrats, who didn't want to vote 'aye' and piss off their consitituancy.

    And that changes things in what way, exactly?

    Yes, they were chickenshit, but you can't say there were the only chickenshits because NOT ONE SOUTHERN REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IT EITHER. At least a few southern democrats did.

    All 11 of them.

    Out of a possible 126.

    Or less than 10% of them.

    You can try and sugarcoat history and claim that Southern Dems weren't REALLY Dems if you wish --- but we'll just have to sit back and deal with those pesky "facts" you find so loathesome.
    -=Mike

    To sum up everything I wrote above...

    - A greater percentage of southern democrats voted for civil rights legislation (7%) than southern republicans (0%).

    - A greater percentage of northern democrats voted for civil rights legislation (95%) than northern republicans (85%).

    The northern vote is, again, especially important because there was not political pressure from the less racist norther population, as opposed to the south... where NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IT.

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

    Last tip, hank... do your research...
    ------------------------------------
    Hank said,"Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time."
    -------------------------------------
    NO THEY WEREN'T!!! Mike Mansfield,a Dem from Montana was Senate Majority Leader! John McCormack a Dem from Mass. was the Speaker!

    House Membership:

    248 Democrats
    172 Republicans

    Senate Membership

    67 Democrats
    33 Republicans
    -------------------------------


    Seriously, Hank... look at your own numbers....


    --------------------------------
    Hank said, "Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96."
    -----------------------------------------------


    Thanks for only stating the House numbers there as well... but, again. if you READ YOUR OWN NUMBERS you will see that the Republicans were NOT in control.


    Again, hank... a little more effort next time. You're making yourself look pathetic.

    Last tip, hank... do your research...
    ------------------------------------
    Hank said,"Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time."


    My mistake here. I thought I saw you wrote MAJORITY... not minority. My fault.


    Doesnt change the fact that a greater % of northern dems voted for civil rights than norther reps... and a greater % of southern dems voted for civil rights than southern reps. period.

    To sum up everything I wrote above...

    - A greater percentage of southern democrats voted for civil rights legislation (7%) than southern republicans (0%).

    - A greater percentage of northern democrats voted for civil rights legislation (95%) than northern republicans (85%).

    The northern vote is, again, especially important because there was not political pressure from the less racist norther population, as opposed to the south... where NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IT.

    Which makes the Republicans overall voting by a larger percentage all the more impressive.

    Again, I simply have, you know, facts. Do the math.

    And don't even WASTE the energy claiming how enlightened the North is as opposed to the South. Boston had some REALLY nasty problems with school integration. And NYC was, for years, a powder keg of racial hatred.

    You speak like a man who has never set foot in the South.

    Heck, keep one thing in mind --- the Dems had a FILIBUSTER-PROOF majority in the Senate. It STILL required Republicans to pass it.

    Thanks for only stating the House numbers there as well... but, again. if you READ YOUR OWN NUMBERS you will see that the Republicans were NOT in control.

    Which makes LBJ'S requirement to use them to pass it all the sadder.

    Doesnt change the fact that a greater % of northern dems voted for civil rights than norther reps... and a greater % of southern dems voted for civil rights than southern reps. period.

    Which is immaterial when ALL of the Republicans voted in larger percentages than ALL of the Democrats.

    But nice try to frame things to cover that up.

    When you don't have facts, you have to go to gimmickery.
    -=Mike

    Mike, your arguments are immaterial. An amendment vote requires two-thirds the house and two-thirds the senate. I don't believe at any time in our nation's history have democrats or republicans held 2/3 or more over the opposition in either body.

    If that's true (which I think it is), then ANY AMENDMENT EVER PASSED couldn't be done without the opposition's votes. So by our logic, the minority party should be credited with any amendments passage? That's idiotic.

    Your argument is pointless.

    Democrats were the only party to vote for Civil Rights in the south. And MORE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OVERALL than republicans.

    Deal with it... Democrats passed equal rights.

    And it's not gimmickery... More Dems in the south voted for civil rights than reps... more Dems voted in the north than reps. Those numbers don't lie.

    James,

    Math really isn't your strong point, is it?

    "An amendment vote requires two-thirds the house and two-thirds the senate. I don't believe at any time in our nation's history have democrats or republicans held 2/3 or more over the opposition in either body."

    "Senate Membership

    67 Democrats
    33 Republicans"

    The above quotes are from your posts. Just a quick summary. 2/3 of 100 is 66.666666667. 67 is more than that. The Democrats in the the Senate had a filibuster-proof super majority. And yet there was a filibuster for 83 days. In fact, "Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure."

    Mike, in June 1964 Strom Thurmond was still a Democrat. He did not change parties until the 1964 elections (around September, 1964).


    So, as you can see, Hank... the only reason your overall percentages say republicans voted more in favor of Civil Rights than democrats is because you don't consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of southern members were democrats, who didn't want to vote 'aye' and piss off their consitituancy. So you admit even on something as important as civil rights Democrats pander for popularity rather than vote there conscience. Some things don't change thru the years. Albert Gore Sr. you want blacks to have civil rights? NAY. RObert Byrd? Nay. William Fullbright? Nay

    Some people (Scott) can't diferentiate Southern Democrats between normal Democrats and Republicans. The Democratic party had split into Southern (pro-slavery) and Northern (anti) sects.

    To try to compare Strom Thurmond or Zell Miller or Lester Maddox or any Southern Democrats to the Democrats of today is assinine. And to see Scott attempt to claim that Democrats don't want Civil Rights because people who didn't believe in the Democratic way but called themselves Democrats started a filibuster is pathetic.

    Nice post Non. Use absolutely nothing posted I've ever posted and call me uninformed and pathetic. Do you even read, or just blindly post.

    What part of my post was incorrect? Was Strom Thurmond a Republican or Democrat in 1964? Were there not 67 (actually it was 68, James number is wrong) Dems in 1964? Isn't that more than 2/3 of 100?

    I haven't claimed anyone didn't want civil rights legislation passed. What I did was try to correct facts that both James and Mike got wrong so the argument could at least be made on the facts. Something you obviously don't get.

    Some other facts that are wrong in the above. KY was represented by 2 Republicans, Thruston Morton and John Sherman Cooper. Both vote for the 1964 CRA.

    Keep the facts accurate, and I could care less what you argue. Don't change Senator's party affiliation because you don't like how they voted.

    The fact that in 1964, 99 years after the 13th Ammendment abolished slavery, the Democrats had a "pro-slavery" wing is pathetic. Trying to turn them into Republicans, either by ignorance or to help support your view of your party is even more pathetic. And lacking any reading comprehension skills is more pathetic still.

    Just because you put a title after your name doesn't mean you believe in the views of the party. You really have to understand the way the Democratic party worked until the 1980's.

    You don't have to state something when you're implying it, and you weren't all too subtle.

    Scott,

    Nonfactor is right. To understand the Democrat party, you must ignore all inconvenient facts. Just do what John Kerry does -- make it up and run with it.

    The key is to assault reality with all your might. If you are on tape saying something, assault the messenger and ignore the tape.

    Ignoring reality is really wonderful! Terrorists then become "freedom fighters," economic growth becomes "the excess of the rich," freedom becomes "quaint." Socialism works in this fantasy universe, and Democrats from the old South are cleansed of their racist past. Join Non Scott -- it is your only hope.

    Medals? Ribbons? whose my medals? My ribbons? It doesn't matter, right?

    Wow. Have you guys not heard of the "southern strategy"? You know, the Republican strategy to win influence in the South by exploiting wedge racial issues? Why do you think the South votes Republican now?

    But I guess only posters at this site would think that Repbulicans are squeaky clean when it comes to racial issues.

    Anon, you forgot Non's upcoming response, which will include the statement "Who cares how many mistakes are made. It still says something."

    Abe is right!

    The Republicans held all Dixiecrats at knifepoint and forced them to be racist! It was a pre-Rovian plot!

    Thanks Abe -- what would we do without you? And how much would our Government save?

    James:

    Scooter, Scott, and Mike SC have rebutted your lame attempts to reframe the facts. Two main points:

    1. If you want to make a deal about how the northern Dems voted strongly for the 1964 Civil Rights bill, that's fine James, but your point that got all this started was your atempt to say that the Dems are THE party of civil rights. However facts are facts and the history of southern DEMOCRATS in standing in opposition to civil rights during this time is irrefutable. The fact that you blithely excuse their behavior by stating they didn't want to "piss off" thier racist constituents is just breathtaking in its audacity. Apparently the cowardly behavior of Sens. Gore Sr., Fulbright, Byrd, et. al. is OK because they have a (D) behind thier name.

    2) Before you try to claim that the passage of civil rights is exclusively the province of the Democrats why don't you do some research and find out about the efforts of Republican Senator Everett Dirksen to win support for the 1964 bill. Even LBJ acknowledged it wouldn't have happened without him. Republicans deserve a lot of credit for getting this bill passed James and you are unwilling to give it to them.

    Why don't you all save us some time - go read "Master of the Senate" by Robert Caro. Then you will all know what you are talking about it and can stop hijacking these important OlbermannWatch threads to advance your uninformed theories about Senate politics.

    Few of you seem to understand that the Senate rules today are very different than the Senate rules prior to 1964. The fight in the Senate was not over Civil Rights (there was enough support among Senators to pass Civil Rights legislation for many years). The fight was over "cloture", a Senate rule on ending fillibusters. Watch "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" to understand how Southern Senators (who were Democrats) used the threat of a Jimmy Stewart style fillibuster to block voting on Civil Rights legislation going back to the 1920s. Through a series of parlimentary maneuvers they had the power to effectively shut down the Senate at any time.

    You will also want to understand how the seniority system worked in the Senate. Southern Senators were effectively elected for life terms (see Strom Thurmond for a more recent example). Since they were there longer they ran every single Senate committee, no legislation could get to the Senate floor without going through a Southern Senator.

    You might also want to know that the infamous "Jim Crow" laws passed in the 19th century to disenfranchise black voters were enacted by Democrats. It was those laws that were being defended in the Senate where opponents were attempting to pass federal legislation which would would supercede/outlaw those laws.

    What changed was Lyndon Johnson, a closet civil rights proponent, who convinced the Southern Senators to elect him Senate Majority Leader. Once in the leadership he "sold out" the Senators who put him in power (with an eye towards running for President) to get a vote on cloture. Once he got the cloture vote passed, and Southern Senators could no longer threaten fillibuster, Johnson was able to push though the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other social legislation as part of his Great Society program (which was basically Kennedy's New Frontier program).

    In 1964, Johnson won a landslide victory (the largest margin of victory ever in a Presidential race) but lost the states of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina to Barry Goldwater.

    You might also want to familiarize yourself with George "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" Wallace. You can't study Southern politics without understanding Wallace who was anti-segregation in the fifties, flipped to become staunchly pro-segregation throughout the sixties and then flipped again in 1970 when he beceame a born-again Christian.

    In 1964, he won the Democratic primaries in two NORTHERN states - Wisconsin and Indiana - as well as one border state - Maryland. In the 1968 Presidential election, Wallace ran as an Independent and won Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi as well as one electoral vote from North Carolina. In 1972, Wallace ran again as a Democrat and swept Florida. While campaigning in Maryland he was shot by a would-be assassain. He went on to win Maryland, Michigan, Tennessee, and North Carolina after the shooting but lost the nomination to McGovern.

    Nixon's so-called "Southern Strategy" was in response to Wallace's success in peeling off Southern states as an independent, Recall that Goldwater got many southern states by default because they were anti-Johnson not pro-Goldwater. If not for Wallace and his pro-segregation appeal in 1968, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi would have most certainly gone for Nixon.

    The issue of segregation split the Democrat party creating the very real possibility that a candidate like Wallace could throw the Presidential election into the House of Representatives (Wallace's goal). The GOP goal became to use a "law and order" platform to appeal to White Southern voters and use code-words like "states rights" to signal support for their segregationist views.

    We continue to see the effect of this today in the Democratic party which has not been able to elect a non-Southern President since JFK (Johnson, Carter, Clinton).

    Anywho...go read the book.

    Actually, a southern democrat WAS elected president since JFK. His name was Al Gore in 2000.

    ABE -- SHIELD YOUR EYES. DUCK AND COVER.

    ROBERT, HOW COULD YOU? HOW DARE YOU!

    James you insufferable idiot,

    Bob said "We continue to see the effect of this today in the Democratic party which has not been able to elect a non-Southern President since JFK (Johnson, Carter, Clinton)."

    I know these double-negative sentence structures can be tough to comprehend. Maybe Bob could rewrite the sentence for you. Al Gore is another example of a Southern Democrat who came close to the Presidency.

    Of course he LOST, hence he is now pushing bad propaganda instead of coddling the leftist dictators and terrorists you lefties so love.

    >What? Facts?

    No that Republicans tend to believe that the state has the right to interfere in people's lives.

    >But it's no more a "right" than driving.

    In the 1950s interacial marriage wasn't legal in over half the states - I beleive it was still a right. Not a legal, right granted, but a right. It was also illegal under the taliban for women to not appear in public without a burka. Do you believe they had that right? Or do you beleive that the taliban goverment had the right to decide whether appearing in public without a burka was a freedom a woman possess? I sure hope it is not the latter.

    In a nutshell I believe every individual not deprived of it by due process, has liberty. You seem to believe that the state chooses which rights people have.

    >Again, you can't have a "right" that demands ?somebody else's consent.

    Why not, If both people consent to it? If steve and Adam decide they want to marry as long as Seve and Adam agree to it how is it your business?

    >Seeing as how you'd be sucking me dry >financially --- as tends to be the case with >bigamous couplings --- yeah, it pretty much IS >my business.

    No it is not. It is not your responsability to pay for it, but it is certainly none of your business.

    >Is democracy REALLY that bad to the left?

    Yes if it interferes with minority rights. 3 wolves and lamb vote on what's for dinner. Fair to the lamb? it's called a tyranny of the masses. hypothetically speaking if for some reason the majority got a bug up it's ass and voted to eliminate free speech woud you be for that? Do you hate Democracy so much that you would try to stop it? I hope so, but I wonder about you.

    >No that Republicans tend to believe that the >state has the right to interfere in people's >lives.

    In fairness I shouldn't say all Republicans. Dick Cheney differs with the president on this issue does he not?

    JT writes:

    "If I want to marry 12 people - none of your business."

    While I completely disagee with you, at least you are willing (unlike most gay marriage proponents) to recognize and acknowledge the natural logical prgresssion of what lies in store if gay marriage becomes legal.

    "While I completely disagee with you, at least you are willing (unlike most gay marriage proponents) to recognize and acknowledge the natural logical prgresssion of what lies in store if gay marriage becomes legal."

    I doubt many people would choose that path, but so what if they did? As long as it is consenting adults, who cares? What is it about other people's behavior that scares people so much they want to regulate it?

    "While I completely disagee with you, at least you are willing (unlike most gay marriage proponents) to recognize and acknowledge the natural logical prgresssion of what lies in store if gay marriage becomes legal."

    I doubt many people would choose that path, but so what if they did? As long as it is consenting adults, who cares? What is it about other people's behavior that scares people so much they want to regulate it?

    "In fairness I shouldn't say all Republicans. Dick Cheney differs with the president on this issue does he not?"

    I wouldn't hold Cheney up as a defender of individual rights against the state.

    JT writes:

    "As long as it is consenting adults, who cares? What is it about other people's behavior that scares people so much they want to regulate it?"

    So, anything goes, huh? Are there any marital arrangements between consenting adults that you would not be willing to recognize as legitimate?

    Anonymous wrote:

    "Abe is right!

    The Republicans held all Dixiecrats at knifepoint and forced them to be racist! It was a pre-Rovian plot!"

    If by "held at knifepoint" you mean "backed states' rights initiatives in a backdoor attempt to woo racist southerners." then your assessment of my point is right on the money.

    If by "held by knifepoint" you mean to create a strawman argument and rewrite history, then you are an ignorant tool.

    "So, anything goes, huh? Are there any marital arrangements between consenting adults that you would not be willing to recognize as legitimate?"


    Can't think of any. As long as: 1) it is consensual and 2) it is between adults.

    per James:

    "Actually, a southern democrat WAS elected president since JFK. His name was Al Gore in 2000."

    Actually, JFK wasn't elected. He won Illinois thanks to the Daley political machine in Cook county and similar fraud in Texas. Total national vote margin just 113,000 (Illinois only 9,000).

    Unlike Gore, Nixon (whatever else you might say about him) at least had the good graces not to subject the country to an extended and extremely disruptive contention of the election 'results'.

    Please see:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36425-2000Nov16?language=printer

    thanks,

    -OM

    per James:

    "Actually, a southern democrat WAS elected president since JFK. His name was Al Gore in 2000."

    Actually, JFK wasn't elected. He won Illinois thanks to the Daley political machine in Cook county and similar fraud in Texas. Total national vote margin just 113,000 (Illinois only 9,000).

    Please see:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36425-2000Nov16?language=printer

    A fabulous example of why Bill O'Reilly finds it easy to make fun of San Fransico:
    http://www.zombietime.com/world_naked_bike_ride_2006/

    JT, you said:

    -------------
    "So, anything goes, huh? Are there any marital arrangements between consenting adults that you would not be willing to recognize as legitimate?"

    Can't think of any. As long as: 1) it is consensual and 2) it is between adults.
    -------------

    I agree - marriage must be consensual and be between adults. But I'd like to know more detail regarding your exact definition of marriage?

    thanks,

    -OM

    consensual or consentual? hmmm?

    consensual or consentual? hmmm

    Great addition to the debate. way to refute that point.


    forgot to include my pseudonym in previous post: OM = eauman.

    regarding "consentual" - Sorry, Not in Webster's...

    -OM

    forgot to include my pseudonym in previous post: OM = eauman.

    regarding "consentual" - Sorry, Not in Webster's...

    -OM

    >I agree - marriage must be consensual and be >between adults. But I'd like to know more detail >regarding your exact definition of marriage?

    I think of marriage as a contract between adults in which they agree, for as long as they are married, to live together as spouses - to form a family. Although I don’t mean just the traditional family. I think a married couple whether man and women or man and man, or woman and woman can form a family with each other. I think that spouses should each have most of the rights traditionally associated with the union. Meaning if a gay man ends up in a coma, his partner has the legal right to come visit him, that kind of thing.

    Per JT: "I think of marriage as a contract between adults in which they agree, for as long as they are married, to live together as spouses - to form a family. Although I don?t mean just the traditional family. I think a married couple whether man and women or man and man, or woman and woman can form a family with each other. I think that spouses should each have most of the rights traditionally associated with the union. Meaning if a gay man ends up in a coma, his partner has the legal right to come visit him, that kind of thing."

    Interesting. Additional clarifications if you don't mind:

    1. The notion of family seems to figure prominently in this definition. What is your definition of 'family'?

    2. Why do you say "most of the rights" rather than "all of the rights"? Which ones might be excluded and why?

    3. What role should government play in endorsing or legitimizing a marriage union as you define it?

    4. What (if any) legal obligations to each other should be assigned to same-sex marriage parnters? Is community property involved? Is legal action required to resolve the financial and familial aspects of broken unions.

    Thanks,

    -OM

    God, how I wish KO wouldn't take so many days off and leave us to these discussions.

    Interesting. Additional clarifications if you don't mind:

    Not at all, but I don't have time right now. will have to get it to it later this evening.

    Lets get ahead of the curb on this one. We can write the next set of childrens text books.....My 6 Dads......My Pop and his harem.
    It's un-natural behaviour they must try to normalize. First they destroy the traditional marriage.Or at least make a mockery of it. Then they can work on age of consent thru NAMBLA and the ACLU. Thats how leftists must work when out of power. And once the family unit is damaged enough maybe people with think Leftist ideas make more sense. Abortion normal-Having children old fashioned. Queer couplings why not? Marriage a thing of the past. STDs everybodys got at least one. Monogamy BORING. So on so on. JT will be the leader,with the help of his 3 husbands and 2 wives.LEFTIST NIRVANA.

    JT wrote:
    "Can't think of any. As long as: 1) it is consensual... "

    Then when taking multiple marriage partners (the natural progression), the existing spouse(s) involved would legally have to grant consent.


    Scooter,

    I thought long and hard about what you have written (it inspired me to really think about this issue) and I have very carefully crafted a reply.


    >>Lets get ahead of the curb on this one. We can >>write the next set of childrens text >>books.....My 6 Dads......My Pop and his harem.
    >>It's un-natural behaviour they must try to >>normalize. First they destroy the traditional >>marriage.Or at least make a mockery of it. Then >>they can work on age of consent thru NAMBLA and >>the ACLU. Thats how leftists must work when out >>of power. And once the family unit is damaged >>enough maybe people with think Leftist ideas >>make more sense. Abortion normal-Having >>children old fashioned. Queer couplings why >>not? Marriage a thing of the past. STDs >>everybodys got at least one. Monogamy BORING. >>So on so on. JT will be the leader,with the >>help of his 3 husbands and 2 wives.LEFTIST >>NIRVANA.


    HAHAHAHAHAHA

    1. The notion of family seems to figure prominently in this definition. What is your definition of 'family'?

    Basically I mean the two spouses. Children optional. Assuming they can have them.

    2. Why do you say "most of the rights" rather than "all of the rights"? Which ones might be excluded and why?

    Honestly I can't think of any that should be excluded. I said most because I am not familiar with all the breaks given to married couples. Or any of the penalties for that matter.

    3. What role should government play in endorsing or legitimizing a marriage union as you define it?

    I don’t see a reason government should have any role in endorsing a marriage union.

    4. What (if any) legal obligations to each other should be assigned to same-sex marriage parnters? Is community property involved? Is legal action required to resolve the financial and familial aspects of broken unions.

    In my perfect world scenario this is all handled contractually beforehand.

    hope this clarifies my position.


    "Then when taking multiple marriage partners (the natural progression), the existing spouse(s) involved would legally have to grant consent."

    yeah.

    People could marry their own parents to get benefits, collect social security benefits, maybe a continuation of pension legacy benefits, and pass that on thru marriage to their children. Then marry the doggie and hope for veterinary benefits at employer expense. JT your onto something here and in 20 yrs it will all seem quite normal.( Kinda like abortion does now,except without dead babies.) The possibilities are enormous. Think about it someday you could marry your clone. Wow marriage in the future will be very exciting. And thats way cool cause its nobodys business anyhow what kinda marriage/contract Janet and Bob and Rover and Cindy and Paul and Paula and Lassie enter into.

    Maybe next we can re-define "death penalty" to mean cake and ice cream. And "mandatory sentence" to mean hurry back to your old neighborhood and victimize more people. OOOPPS you leftists already did that....well there's other institutions to "fix" keep brainstorming.

    That's right scooter, let's take the most ABSURD example and try to pass it off as NORMAL liberal thought.

    Incest is illegal. Beastiality is illegal. Mainstream liberals who support the concept of same-sex marriage DO NOT SUPPORT these, nor do they support bigamy, polygamy or pedophilia.

    Quit the fear-mongering. It makes you look like a dope.

    Abortion used to be illegal.
    Bestiality illegal(not in Oregon)
    Incest illegal.
    See were i am coming from? Normalize it, de-sensitize it, then get Judges to implement it. You say i take the extreme Absurd example. I say it is liberal thinking. Hell i backed it up. Abortion 40 years ago would have been ABSURD. Now not. Case closed.
    Fear mongering to you is exposing groups like the ACLU and there support of NAMBLA's right to solicit sex with children. You know they do it. You just don't disagree with them or you won't turn on your favorite liberal mouth piece.

    I say it is liberal thinking. Hell i backed it up.

    And I say you are a troglydyte. I would knock your teeth in, but I wouldn't want to waste the energy on an a--hole like you.

    I am a pro-choice pro-same-sex marriage liberal. I am not a supporter of pedophilia or bestiality and neither are 99.9% of the people that call themselves liberal.

    You better be pro long term disabilty.LOL. I made my point. You don't dispute that, just name call. YOU DON'T SPEAK for 99% of anything, just your pathetic self. But that stat shows your willingness to lie and say anything(but facts)to defend your position. YOUR A JOKE. Now meet after school and we'll settle this.LOL

    What did Anonymous say after losing his virginity?....... Get off me dad your messing my hair up.

    Mike, your arguments are immaterial. An amendment vote requires two-thirds the house and two-thirds the senate.

    1) The Dems actually had 2/3 in the House.
    2) Was unaware we were ever discussing Amendments. Feel free to point out where that became a topic.

    If that's true (which I think it is), then ANY AMENDMENT EVER PASSED couldn't be done without the opposition's votes. So by our logic, the minority party should be credited with any amendments passage? That's idiotic.

    Seeing as how the Civil Rights of 1965 was a law and not an Amendment...

    Democrats were the only party to vote for Civil Rights in the south. And MORE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OVERALL than republicans.

    Since the Dems were pretty much the ultra-dominant party in the South, am I supposed to be wowed?

    Deal with it... Democrats passed equal rights.

    Never said they didn't.

    Just that the GOP voted for it in larger percentages.

    But feel free to continue disproving arguments nobody made.

    Some people (Scott) can't diferentiate Southern Democrats between normal Democrats and Republicans. The Democratic party had split into Southern (pro-slavery) and Northern (anti) sects.

    Which was news to the Democratic Party that held power in Congress due to those Southern Dems that remained in the caucus.

    But, hey, fiction can be fun.

    To try to compare Strom Thurmond or Zell Miller or Lester Maddox or any Southern Democrats to the Democrats of today is assinine.

    Well, Thurmond and Miller weren't Klansmen, so they wouldn't fit in well. You're right on that one.

    Just because you put a title after your name doesn't mean you believe in the views of the party. You really have to understand the way the Democratic party worked until the 1980's.

    Yet the Dems who loathed them so used them to keep power in Congress.

    Pesky situational ethics.

    Wow. Have you guys not heard of the "southern strategy"? You know, the Republican strategy to win influence in the South by exploiting wedge racial issues? Why do you think the South votes Republican now?

    Because the Dems got in bed with whackjobs thanks to the anti-war movement in the 60's and 70's.

    If you must know...

    It'd take a leftie like Kevin Phillips to think of that.

    But I guess only posters at this site would think that Repbulicans are squeaky clean when it comes to racial issues.

    No.

    But they have infinitely less to apologize for or explain away than Dems.

    Republicans gave women the vote.
    Gave blacks the vote.
    Freed slaves.

    The Dems...obstructed all of those initiatives.

    No that Republicans tend to believe that the state has the right to interfere in people's lives.

    Who supported speech codes?
    Insane "sexual harrassment" law?
    Hate crime law?
    Who burns papers on college campuses (not conservatives, to give you a hint)
    It wasn't conservative justices who ruled in favor of New London, CT in the Kelo decision.
    It wasn't Republicans who overwhelmingly supported CFR.

    In the 1950s interacial marriage wasn't legal in over half the states - I beleive it was still a right.

    You would, of course, be wrong.

    Something can be legal and NOT a right, you know.

    And interracial marriage and gay marriage are not even in the same state, much less the same ballpark.

    Not a legal, right granted, but a right. It was also illegal under the taliban for women to not appear in public without a burka. Do you believe they had that right?

    You seem to mistake "something legal" for "right".

    Smoking is legal. It ain't a right.

    Or do you beleive that the taliban goverment had the right to decide whether appearing in public without a burka was a freedom a woman possess? I sure hope it is not the latter.

    The Taliban had every chance to do what they wished. It's what a government is empowered to do.

    They have been deposed --- much to the chagrin of the anti-war loons who protested that war inside of 2 weeks of the WTC being attacked. Thus, the women of Afghanistan have ACTUAL rights now.

    In a nutshell I believe every individual not deprived of it by due process, has liberty. You seem to believe that the state chooses which rights people have.

    Seeing as how states routinely violate them with no harm done to them --- they aren't rights there.

    Whether they should be or not is immaterial and a different debate.

    But, it's odd you have to go to the Taliban to try and make an argument.

    Why not, If both people consent to it? If steve and Adam decide they want to marry as long as Seve and Adam agree to it how is it your business?

    Because they'd have a right that I do not have. I can no more marry a man than a gay man can.

    See, that's called "equality".

    But, you don't seek equality. You never did.

    To be given special rights, there is a mechanism to get them.

    It's called the legislature. Make a case and present it there.

    No it is not. It is not your responsability to pay for it, but it is certainly none of your business.

    Seeing as how I'd have to pay for it --- oh, yes, it very much IS my business.

    Yes if it interferes with minority rights.

    At least you admit that you are not a supporter of democracy. It was a gutsy confession, most likely.

    it's called a tyranny of the masses.

    Tyranny of the minority is preferrable?

    Note that I don't oppose the concept of gay marriage. I vigorously oppose them going outside the democratic system to get what they want.

    I find the Religious Right far preferrable to the gay marriage advocates. At least the whackjob right puts their views up to a vote of the populace.

    hypothetically speaking if for some reason the majority got a bug up it's ass and voted to eliminate free speech woud you be for that?

    Seeing as how I don't waste my time with hypotheticals, I'll say that your side has done more to eliminate free speech than the right has.

    FAR more.

    I can give you a laundry list of the restrictions the left has put on speech on college campuses, in print, on TV, in everyday life --- if you so desire.

    Do you hate Democracy so much that you would try to stop it? I hope so, but I wonder about you.

    I do my part. I keep libs out of office by the vote.
    -=Mike

    Excellent point by point rebuttal MikeSC.
    Thats how to debate an issue.

    Because the Dems got in bed with whackjobs thanks to the anti-war movement in the 60's and 70's.

    Oh, no. Nixon's "southern strategy" was a way of gaining southern support by appealing to segregationist ideas, or at least a tolerance of those ideas through the bogus "states' rights" idea. The anti-war movement was closely linked to the civil rights movement, so you may have a point that racist southerners would be put off by that.


    But they have infinitely less to apologize for or explain away than Dems.

    Republicans gave women the vote.
    Gave blacks the vote.
    Freed slaves.

    The Dems...obstructed all of those initiatives.

    The Republican party has, with the Southern strategy, attracted racist southerners and alienated black voters. Any cursory study of election results and polling will bear this out. Today's Republican party is not the party of Lincoln.

    Find a racist Southerner and ask if he or she is a Republican or Democrat. I'd guess 9 to 1 would say Republican.

    No Abe you find a racist southerner. You seem so sure the beast exists and in your mind white too. Am i right?
    You know the most recent racist comment i can remember was Democrat Ray Nagin saying he wanted New Orleans to be a chocolate city.
    See how easy it was for me. Now you try it.

    If were playing a "i'd guess" scenario i'll take a whirl at it. I'd guess Democrats 9 to 1 think blacks are inferior and need help in every aspect of there lives. I'd guess Democrats by 9 to 1 think blacks aren't as intelligent as others in society and need rigged admission policies to get college placement. I'd guess Democrats by 9 to 1 think black people wouldn't be able to feed and cloth themselves without benevolent white liberals standing up for them. Democrats discriminate against blacks every time they expect less from them than they expect from white folks. Now theres some racism for you.

    Furthermore quit pretending the south has a monopoly on racism. Abner Louima NY,NY case.
    Rodney King-LA,CA many many more examples. And correct me if i am wrong but these are enlightened liberal havens were these incidents occured.GAME.SET.MATCH.

    Abe hurry back from KOS and speak up.

    Oh, no. Nixon's "southern strategy" was a way of gaining southern support by appealing to segregationist ideas, or at least a tolerance of those ideas through the bogus "states' rights" idea.

    See, this is where somebody would provide proof of their claims. You know, like EXAMPLES of Nixon's policies that would be championed by bigots.

    Seeing as how he was SUCH a far right-wing guy.

    Just as a heads up.

    The anti-war movement was closely linked to the civil rights movement, so you may have a point that racist southerners would be put off by that.

    No. We got put off by the cheering for America's defeat.

    And the anti-war left got in bed with the Black Panthers. Now, if you want to call THEM the civil rights movement, feel free.

    I'd find it insulting, personally, but hey, it's your call.

    The Republican party has, with the Southern strategy, attracted racist southerners and alienated black voters.

    Again, I'm sure you are loaded with examples that you...well, I guess you forgot to include any of them.

    Pity.

    Today's Republican party is not the party of Lincoln.

    And today's Dems aren't the party of Truman.

    Now that we have the irrelevant points out of the way, you can get down to explaining away the long history of racism and support of slavery that was a hallmark of the Democratic Party.

    Find a racist Southerner and ask if he or she is a Republican or Democrat. I'd guess 9 to 1 would say Republican.

    Since you claim that we here are so utterly racist, feel free to back up your claims.

    You don't see the Republicans assuming that blacks (and the elderly, for that matter) are "too dumb" to know what they need. You DO see Dems treating both groups like children, which is a little pathetic.
    -=Mike

    > made my point. You don't dispute that, just >name call.

    No, you didn't make a point, but you really think you did, that is the true indictment of of our schools.

    What did Anonymous say after losing his virginity?....... Get off me dad your messing my hair up.

    HOW DARE YOU, YOU MOTHER-FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT! IT'S NOT FUNNY, a--hole! THIS IS DEFAMATION AND I WANT THIS MAN'S IP ADDRESS NOW OR I WILL SUE OLBERMANNWATCH, ROBERT COX AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU FOR DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER.

    HOW DARE YOU, YOU MOTHER-FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT! IT'S NOT FUNNY, a--hole! THIS IS DEFAMATION AND I WANT THIS MAN'S IP ADDRESS NOW OR I WILL SUE OLBERMANNWATCH, ROBERT COX AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU FOR DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER.

    BWA HA HA HA!

    You're silly.

    It's even funnier because "Anonymous" could be any of a large group --- but you assumed it was you.

    Wonder why.
    -=Mike

    HOW DARE YOU, YOU MOTHER-FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT! IT'S NOT FUNNY, a--hole! THIS IS DEFAMATION AND I WANT THIS MAN'S IP ADDRESS NOW OR I WILL SUE OLBERMANNWATCH, ROBERT COX AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU FOR DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER.

    BWA HA HA HA!

    You're silly.

    It's even funnier because "Anonymous" could be any of a large group --- but you assumed it was you.

    Wonder why.
    -=Mike

    I believe Mike's choice of words was directed towards me and I have no problem with it. Actually it was quite amusing.

    It's even funnier because "Anonymous" could be any of a large group --- but you assumed it was you.

    Because, moron, we we having an argument (look at the back and forth starting July 5th at 8:40 pm and ending same day at 9:18pm). It's not hard to see the thread.

    As for my anonymity, it's to avoid being verbally abused via e-mail by people with more...aggressive tendencies.

    I have not yet began to defame you sir. But i shall when i find the time defame all anonymous/chickenhawks who threaten to "knock my teeth in".LOL dish it out. then take it. now straighten your hair it's a mess...again.

    The latest in Olbermannville is that they are threatening to sue anyone who "attacks" Keith. Their attacking of us or anyone who they feel has wronged Keith however is perfectly legal. Good look finding the court that will agree with that Olbyloons.

    You don't see the Republicans assuming that blacks (and the elderly, for that matter) are "too dumb" to know what they need. You DO see Dems treating both groups like children, which is a little pathetic.

    I'm sure this is a very comfortable position for you, but it belies the fact that African-Americans vote about 90% democrat. But I guess you would say they are "too dumb" to realize what is good for them?

    See, this is where somebody would provide proof of their claims. You know, like EXAMPLES of Nixon's policies that would be championed by bigots.

    I don't have time to babysit someone who is ignorant of recent history, but here is a link to the RNC chairman apologizing for using racial wedge issues:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html

    And today's Dems aren't the party of Truman.
    Now that we have the irrelevant points out of the way...

    You were the one who brought up the Republican party's great history, and I am the one showing you how they sold out this history, and quite recently too.

    you can get down to explaining away the long history of racism and support of slavery that was a hallmark of the Democratic Party.

    I don't defend the past wrongs at all. The Democratic party has a shameful history of race relations. My point was to point out how Republicans have exploited the issue more recently and to stop all this Republican backslapping when both parties have nothing to crow about on the issue. By the way, credit where credit is due, I appreciate Melman's apology and hope it will be a sign of better things to come from Republicans.

    JT responded:

    -------------
    1. The notion of family seems to figure prominently in this definition. What is your definition of 'family'?

    Basically I mean the two spouses. Children optional. Assuming they can have them.
    -------------

    I wonder what you mean by 'spouse' then. I would guess you define it to mean "An adult who has entered into a agreement to permanently share property and living arrangements based on a loving relationship". OK:

    --------------
    3. What role should government play in endorsing or legitimizing a marriage union as you define it?

    I don't see a reason government should have any role in endorsing a marriage union.
    --------------

    Then I don't see what the problem is, JT. People can already go ahead and declare themselves married to whomever they like. I don't believe anyone here has suggested that you shouldn't be allowed to 'say' whatever you want in that regard (as long as there is no attempt illegally gain benefit by deception).

    I am however questioning explicit government endorsement of same-sex marriage. Thus, I claim there should be no special status assigned to such relatioships - no tax breaks or joint filing, no community property protections, no legally mandated rights to any other privileges or benefits accorded to a conventional (governmentally recognized and underwritten) marriage. That includes any requirement for companies to extend the same benefits to same-sex parnters of their employees that are given to legally married spouses.

    -------------
    4. What (if any) legal obligations to each other should be assigned to same-sex marriage parnters? Is community property involved? Is legal action required to resolve the financial and familial aspects of broken unions.

    In my perfect world scenario this is all handled contractually beforehand.
    ------------

    So what entity enforces the contract: the government? Oops!

    But of course we don't live in a perfect world. Lovers 'cheat' on each other or fall out of love, bitter disputes over child custody and division of shared property ensue, and deception and unethical motivations can come into play. But since you don't see a need for government recognition of the special status (endorsement) of the marriage union, the parties involved would likely be on their own when problems arise.

    ------------
    hope this clarifies my position.
    ------------

    Yes. I believe you have defined the 'life partner' version of the "boyfriend/girlfriend living together" relationship:

    a. The parties love each other enough to want to share posessions and space on a semi-permanent basis.

    b. The parties declare their commitment both verbally and via finger rings or other arbitrary adornment.

    c. The relationship is not explicitly associated with the potential for production of offspring.

    d. The government does not recognize, nor endorse, nor in anyway assign special status or privileges to the relationship.

    I don't see where we disagree then.

    thanks,

    -OM

    JT wrote:

    "If I want to marry 12 people - none of your business."

    So I asked JT:

    "So, anything goes, huh? Are there any marital arrangements between consenting adults that you would not be willing to recognize as legitimate?"

    And JT responded:

    Can't think of any. As long as: 1) it is consensual and 2) it is between adults.

    To which I responded:

    "While I completely disagee with you, at least you are willing (unlike most gay marriage proponents) to recognize and acknowledge the natural logical prgresssion of what lies in store if gay marriage becomes legal."

    Scooter picked up on the point I was making and wrote this salient observation:

    "People could marry their own parents to get benefits, collect social security benefits, maybe a continuation of pension legacy benefits, and pass that on thru marriage to their children. Then marry the doggie and hope for veterinary benefits at employer expense. JT your onto something here and in 20 yrs it will all seem quite normal.( Kinda like abortion does now,except without dead babies.) The possibilities are enormous. Think about it someday you could marry your clone. Wow marriage in the future will be very exciting. And thats way cool cause its nobodys business anyhow what kinda marriage/contract Janet and Bob and Rover and Cindy and Paul and Paula and Lassie enter into."

    Of course, this got a rise out of JT:

    "Mainstream liberals who support the concept of same-sex marriage DO NOT SUPPORT these, nor do they support bigamy, polygamy or pedophilia."

    See, JT and those "think" like him want to open Pandora's Box, but not all the way, mind you. I guess I have to take back my statement I said to JT earlier in which I praised him for being honest enough to acknowledge the "natural and logical progresssion of what lies in store if gay marriage becomes legal".


    >I wonder what you mean by 'spouse' then. I would guess you define it to mean "An adult who has >entered into a agreement to permanently share property and living arrangements based on a loving >relationship". OK:

    That part I agree with. I would also grant any of the benefits received by hetero couples.


    >I am however questioning explicit government >endorsement of same-sex marriage.

    >That seems to indicate a belief that big brother has the right to determine who gets married. If >government decides for some strange reason that straight couples can't marry would support you that? >Or is it just anything outside what is traditionally done that you are uncomfortable with?

    >Thus, I claim there should be no special status >assigned to such relationships - no tax breaks or >joint filing, no community property protections, >no legally mandated rights to any other >privileges or benefits accorded to a >conventional (governmentally recognized and >underwritten)

    Why? If you don't mind I'd like to see an explanation of how Power of Attorney between a gay couple in anyway harms you? In anyway harms society? Explain to me why a man and women married should receive a tax break while a man and man should not?

    >That includes any requirement for companies to >extend the same benefits to same-sex partners of >their employees that are given to legally >married spouses.

    I am against hetero couples receiving benefits if gay couples can't I see no reason why the double standard should exist.


    >So what entity enforces the contract: the >government? Oops!

    No oops involved. I see government as the arbitrator of disputes. Of course they would have the right to settle a contract dispute. I do not believe the government has the right to say who enters in a contract with each other though. Again as long as they are adults of sound mind and body it is none of anyone's business.

    >But of course we don't live in a perfect world. >Lovers 'cheat' on each other or fall out of >love, bitter disputes over child custody and >division of shared property ensue, and deception >and unethical motivations can come into play.

    And governments try to regulate people's lives far more than they should. You are right it is not a perfect world.

    >But since you don't see a need for government >recognition of the special status (endorsement) >of the marriage union, the parties involved >would likely be on their own when problems arise.

    No, contract law could cover this. I see no contradiction which I think you are trying to demonstrate. I believe the government can step in and settle a dispute over a contract. I don't think the government has the right to stop two people from entering into a contract with each other however, based on their sexual orientation.

    >d. The government does not recognize, nor >endorse, nor in anyway assign special status or >privileges to the relationship.

    Not quite. The rest of my position I felt you summed up accurately but I think this is a bit off. I don't see any marriage as something that should receive special status. But while that status does exist for Hetero couples I believe it should exist for same sex couples.

    > I don't see where we disagree then.

    I am sorry but I do. I really see no role, other than that of arbitrator for the government in any marriage. However, as long as the government is willing to give a special status designation to two people who join in a union with each other as long as they are man and wife I don't see enough of a difference to have that status denied a man and a man. Until the government gets out of the marrying business which I think it should I want same sex couples to recive the same designation as opposite sex couples.

    Anyway nice having a civil discussion for a change. I can see we are probably just going to have to agree to disagree.

    I have not yet began to defame you sir. But i shall when i find the time defame all anonymous/chickenhawks who threaten to "knock my teeth in".LOL dish it out. then take it. now straighten your hair it's a mess...again.

    YOU THINK YOU'RE FUNNY, DON'T YOU? WELL GUESS WHAT, a--hole, YOU HAVE GOTTEN MY COMPLETE ATTENTION. YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A SMALL MAN HIDING IN CORNERS AND TAKING CHEAP SHOTS. INSULT MY FAMILY ONE MORE TIME AND THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY. YOU CAN BET ON THAT, YOU LITTLE PRICK!

    JT said:

    ---------------
    >I am however questioning explicit government >endorsement of same-sex marriage.

    That seems to indicate a belief that big brother has the right to determine who gets married. If government decides for some strange reason that straight couples can't marry would support you that? Or is it just anything outside what is traditionally done that you are uncomfortable with?
    --------------

    Ahem. The government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people". In this case, society (i.e., the people) has defined an endorsement and underwriting of heterosexual unions as a recognition of the special status that those relationships have in the hearts and minds of the human race. To date, there is no such consensus regarding homosexual unions which are comparatively rare and of far less apparent value to society in general.

    ---------------
    >Thus, I claim there should be no special status assigned to such relationships - no tax breaks or joint filing, no community property protections, no legally mandated rights to any other privileges or benefits accorded to a conventional (governmentally recognized and underwritten)

    Why? If you don't mind I'd like to see an explanation of how Power of Attorney between a gay couple in anyway harms you? In anyway harms society?
    --------------

    I have no problem with a Power of Attorney agreement between gay partners any more than I would object to such an agreement between individuals in a simple friendship relationship.

    --------------
    Explain to me why a man and women married should receive a tax break while a man and man should not?
    --------------

    Because underwriting the union of a man and a woman is society's way of helping to guarantee its own survival. There is no such broadly accepted motivation for underwriting gay unions.

    --------------
    >That includes any requirement for companies to >extend the same benefits to same-sex partners of >their employees that are given to legally >married spouses.

    I am against hetero couples receiving benefits if gay couples can't I see no reason why the double standard should exist.
    -----------------

    Of course it's not a double standard except that you insist that it is. Society has very substantial reasons for explicitly promoting heterosexual marriages. On the other hand, I am NOT saying that companies should be prohibited from providing such benefits to gay partners - far from it. I am only saying that government should not *require* it.

    ----------------
    I don't think the government has the right to stop two people from entering into a contract with each other however, based on their sexual orientation.
    ----------------

    I don't have a problem with contracts between gay partners, so we agree. Any government service (including the enforcement of contractual agreements) that is available to unmarried parties should be available to partners in a gay union. But I have a problem with government explicitly underwriting such relationships and that includes assigning any special privileges to them. After all, I'm a taxpayer and we are talking about issues that affect how to my taxes are used.

    -------------
    However, as long as the government is willing to give a special status designation to two people who join in a union with each other as long as they are man and wife I don't see enough of a difference to have that status denied a man and a man. Until the government gets out of the marrying business which I think it should I want same sex couples to recive the same designation as opposite sex couples.
    --------------

    You appear to ignore any discussion of why the institution of marriage and society's endorsement of it arose in the first place. Else, you would have to admit the distinctions between conventional marriages and homosexual unions.

    -------------
    Anyway nice having a civil discussion for a change. I can see we are probably just going to have to agree to disagree.
    -------------

    Probably. The definition of terms helped a lot.

    -OM


    Yes i thought it was quite funny. You know the saying its real funny till someone gets hurt, and then its HILLARIOUS !!! Guess now its Hillarious. Don't be such a poor sport. I'm not that upset you called me a MFer. Not enough to cry like a bitch anyhow. Anyhow lighten up. GEEZ.
    But seriously give it a rest because i am quite capable of pushing your buttons with comments because your thin skinned. Just waiting to be offended and play the victim. So zip it or you will have your chance,again.

    By the way i think anonymous is Charlie Sheen. Just my .02 worth. But i'm not saying which anonymous, so don't nobody go threatening me.

    You guys are killing me, I'm laughing so hard.

    This - "THIS IS DEFAMATION AND I WANT THIS MAN'S IP ADDRESS NOW OR I WILL SUE OLBERMANNWATCH, ROBERT COX AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU FOR DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER" - is priceless.

    Maybe the OlbyLoons can try cases in a special OlbyLoon Court where you anonymous posters can defame other anonymous posters and win huge judgements against each other. Maybe they can pay off the judgements in Monopoly money!

    That's a great idea for Dan Abrams Mr. Cox!

    "Kountdown Kourt" with Krazy Keith as the judge. Various anonymous posters will sue each other for slights that occured on message boards. They will appear with bags over their heads a la the "unknown comic" and demand huge sums of money. Keith will decide who deserves what, and the winner gets "Kountdown Kash," which will be a huge commodity in the Olbybased community.

    I smell a hit for MSLSD!

    Because, moron, we we having an argument (look at the back and forth starting July 5th at 8:40 pm and ending same day at 9:18pm). It's not hard to see the thread.

    And the anonymous person takes it personally.

    It's cool that you don't see how comical it is.

    s for my anonymity, it's to avoid being verbally abused via e-mail by people with more...aggressive tendencies.

    I'm not sure what I wrote that implied that I cared.

    I'm sure this is a very comfortable position for you, but it belies the fact that African-Americans vote about 90% democrat. But I guess you would say they are "too dumb" to realize what is good for them?

    No. They've just been given an overwhelmingly and incorrectly negative views of Republicans. They've been misled by those who most vocally claim to represent them.

    I don't have time to babysit someone who is ignorant of recent history, but here is a link to the RNC chairman apologizing for using racial wedge issues:

    Just one. You'd think you could name, you know, one.

    You'll note no, you know, examples were presented by Mehlman.

    You were the one who brought up the Republican party's great history, and I am the one showing you how they sold out this history, and quite recently too.

    The GOP has had a non-stop history of excellent treatment of all groups.

    Dems have not.

    You are doing a really poor job of actually disputing that.

    I don't defend the past wrongs at all.

    You pretend that they aren't really that bad --- especially when compared to those evil Republicans.

    ...who only gave women the vote, freed the slaves, and gave blacks the vote --- only to see Democratic state legislatures deny it to them.

    My point was to point out how Republicans have exploited the issue more recently and to stop all this Republican backslapping when both parties have nothing to crow about on the issue.

    You claim all of this exploitation without, you know, POINTING to any.

    What constitutes "exploitation" for you?

    It's quite a valid question and a pretty basic one for any debate.

    By the way, credit where credit is due, I appreciate Melman's apology and hope it will be a sign of better things to come from Republicans.

    Well, there aren't many groups who lack rights anymore.

    So, feel free to be a Dem and take credit for the heavy lifting of the opposition you condemn.
    -=Mike

    Mike, okay you like to be spoonfed huh?

    From NewsMax, the rightwinginist site I could find:


    "In 1964, the Republicans changed their Southern strategy to a new model – that of direct support for Southern opposition to desegregation. This strategy cost them the outer South, but gained them the Deep South. It also severed the party from blacks, and that proved to be permanent."

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/23/172743.shtml

    Now, do you want me to wipe your chin for you?

    Mike, okay you like to be spoonfed huh?

    From NewsMax, the rightwinginist site I could find:


    "In 1964, the Republicans changed their Southern strategy to a new model – that of direct support for Southern opposition to desegregation. This strategy cost them the outer South, but gained them the Deep South. It also severed the party from blacks, and that proved to be permanent."

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/23/172743.shtml

    Now, do you want me to wipe your chin for you?

    Mike, okay you like to be spoonfed huh?

    You, astonishingly, have yet to provide an EXAMPLE of these "divisive" tactics.

    Come on, I'm sure you can do it.

    Now, do you want me to wipe your chin for you?

    Well, the spittle from laughing at your constant attempts to do everything BUT provide ACTUAL examples is irksome.

    And you didn't mention this from the article:
    Analysis by UPI political analyst Jim Chapin, a former adviser to Mark Green, New York City's public advocate.

    Mark Green, in case you aren't aware, ain't exactly right-wing. Ain't exactly moderate. He's a pretty left-wing individual.
    -=Mike

    Mike,

    I'm sick of educating you. Newsmax is a very rightwing site and they don't have a problem with that article (and whre are your examples of Mr. Green liberalism, since you just love examples). Ken Mehlman was apologizing for nothing, right?

    Geez.

    I'm sick of educating you.

    You have yet to start.

    Newsmax is a very rightwing site and they don't have a problem with that article (and whre are your examples of Mr. Green liberalism, since you just love examples).

    Mr. Green basically pissed away his political career in his anti-smoking jihad in NYC.

    And, again, the shallow analysis doesn't include such basics as EXAMPLES.

    Really, is it that hard to follow?

    Ken Mehlman was apologizing for nothing, right?

    Much as Bush did when he apologized for the comments on British intel and yellowcake.

    THey apologized even though they did nothing wrong, simply to placate the left.

    Which is a mistake. You can't placate the left.
    -=Mike

    I'm sick of educating you.

    You have yet to start.

    Newsmax is a very rightwing site and they don't have a problem with that article (and whre are your examples of Mr. Green liberalism, since you just love examples).

    Mr. Green basically pissed away his political career in his anti-smoking jihad in NYC.

    And, again, the shallow analysis doesn't include such basics as EXAMPLES.

    Really, is it that hard to follow?

    Ken Mehlman was apologizing for nothing, right?

    Much as Bush did when he apologized for the comments on British intel and yellowcake.

    THey apologized even though they did nothing wrong, simply to placate the left.

    Which is a mistake. You can't placate the left.
    -=Mike

    "You have yet to start."

    Finally something we agree on.

    "THey apologized even though they did nothing wrong."

    Wow. It doesn't bother you that this makes no sense at all?

    Wow. It doesn't bother you that this makes no sense at all?

    Ahh, the concept of a battle not worth fighting is added to the list of things you are ignorant of.
    -=Mike

    en you start off a rant by complaining about something Robin Williams said you know it's going to be bad. Accusing Robin Williams of adding "hate" to politics is silly since Williams would make that joke about anyone in the public arena. And then because Drudge is angry Rush is being made fun of he has to make fun of others...great.

    Posted by: Nonfactor at July 3, 2006 09:32 PM

    Nonfactor, how much are you paid? You must get something for being such a complete and total shill for anything anti-conervative or leftist.

    Robin Williams is an unfunny tool, as are most of these flaming left wingers. Luckily, Williams is at the end of his career.

    As for what is in KO's medicine cabinet, I suspect he has antdepressants (although he denies taking them), date rape drugs, hair growth potions, a retainer, and one of his mother's wigs.

    Posted by: KfK at July 3, 2006 09:40 PM

    "Herpes man" now thats funny. Go Drudge. I love Limbaugh and his in your face brand of radio. Nanu Nanu.

    Posted by: scooter at July 3, 2006 09:43 PM

    This isn't about right or left. I wasn't trying to make my post partisan. I was pointing out that when somebody starts a rant complaining about Robin Williams of all people you just know there's going to be no point at all.

    Robin Williams can joke about Rush, and you can joke about Olbermann, but when you're trying to make the point that the left is playing "hate" politics and you turn right around and toss out insults for the better half of your rant it's pathetic.

    Most of your posts, KfK, would be pleasant to read and discuss, but when you start insulting the people you're talking to or people you aren't (see the last sentence in your post) it makes you look like a pissed-off wingnut with no point.

    Posted by: Nonfactor at July 3, 2006 09:45 PM

    One of his mothers wigs LMAO. Thats funny stuff KfK. What was Williams last big movie? Help i can't think of 1.

    Posted by: scooter at July 3, 2006 09:48 PM

    Wow, Did anyone else know Matt Drudge was that stupid? That was the first time i have ever listened to him.

    Drudge: "Don't you have the right to know what keith Olbermann has in his medicine cabinet? isn't that your right? If it is not how is it your right to know what rush Limbaugh has."

    Uhh, everyone it is your right to know what Keith has in his medicine cabinent, if he tries to bring it in the country and gets caught with it by customs and he has a prescription drug without a prescription. Then it is your right to read about it in the press. If he keeps his cabinet in his bathroom, however - not your right.


    Posted by: jt at July 3, 2006 09:55 PM

    "Robin Williams is an unfunny tool, as are most of these flaming left wingers. Luckily, Williams is at the end of his career."


    Robin williams is very funny. So is Dennis Miller who leans more to the right and and has dropped some Doozies on Bill Clinton. Anne Coulter - not funny.


    Posted by: jt at July 3, 2006 09:59 PM

    KfKwrote:
    "As for what is in KO's medicine cabinet, I suspect he has antdepressants (although he denies taking them), date rape drugs, hair growth potions, a retainer, and one of his mother's wigs."

    ...man-tan lotion, viagra, Ashleigh Banfield's glasses, eyebrow brush, numerous mirrors,...

    Posted by: Jack at July 3, 2006 10:01 PM

    What i like about Limbaugh is even loaded he is great at what he does. I am so glad he beat the rap.

    Posted by: scooter at July 3, 2006 10:02 PM

    I think Coulter's very funny but you do have to agree with her to "get it". Black humor at it's finest.

    Posted by: scooter at July 3, 2006 10:05 PM

    Robin Williams, the antithesis of comedy. What an insufferable dipshit. One or two OK movies over a 25 year period. Nothing of any consequence in 20 years. His stand-up act is composed of stolen material from other comics. Some career.

    Posted by: RobinWilliamsStoleMyAct at July 3, 2006 10:06 PM

    The left rewards failure so Robin will keep getting movie parts. The more rabid he acts towards conservatives the more attention he gets. He knows the scam. Anyone know how the Dixie Chicks concert tour is going?

    Posted by: scooter at July 3, 2006 10:11 PM

    Good morning vietnam was terrific (First oscar nomination,) As was Awakenings, As was Dead poets Society (Second Oscar Nomination), Good Will hunting was decent (Won the oscar) Alladan is a children's classic. The Fisher King is good. Being Human is good. What dreams may come is good ( The title is from hamlet Act III scene I if you get around to it). Insomnia is also quite good. in fairness lots of not so good as well.

    Why is my it my hunch that your idea of a brilliant comic is Jeff Foxworthy?


    anyway back to politics. I can hear Johnny Dollar chiding us for not sticking to Olbermann.

    Posted by: jt at July 3, 2006 10:21 PM

    If you think KO is a news man you might be a leftist.

    Posted by: scooter at July 3, 2006 10:24 PM

    I'll have you know that Robin Williams' latest blockbuster "RV", released in April, is already at your neighborhood Walgreens in the "Dollar or Less" rack. Brilliance gnawed away by cocaine?

    Posted by: RobinWilliamsStoleMyAct at July 3, 2006 10:27 PM

    "If you think KO is a news man you might be a leftist."

    I knew it. No accounting for taste.


    Great innovators and original thinkers and artists attract the wrath of mediocrities as lightning rods draw the flashes.
    - Theodor Reik

    Posted by: jt at July 3, 2006 10:29 PM

    Git-er-done!! Yeeee-haw!!!

    Posted by: RobinWilliamsStoleMyAct at July 3, 2006 10:29 PM

    Actually, he hasn't been very funny since he got off the cocaine.

    Posted by: Scott at July 3, 2006 10:32 PM

    Emo Philips was always considered to be one of the great innovators of the form, only to be crucified for his odd haircut...

    Posted by: RobinWilliamsStoleMyAct at July 3, 2006 10:37 PM

    The two I referred to are: "The World According to Garp" and "Moscow on the Hudson" (as well as his turn as "Popeye" -- too bad it had no real story).

    Posted by: RobinWilliamsStoleMyAct at July 3, 2006 10:43 PM

    Having heard KO talk about this (all week), I was struck by the feeling that while he has all his fingers and toes crossed that Rush will lose his PTI deal, it was more glee in having the opportunity to say "Rush uses Viagra" everynight.

    It seems that for many on the left, particularly the blogs, the facts of the incident were far outweighed by the chance to say Rush and Viagra over and over.

    It strikes me similar to the guys trying to "out" gay Republicans. You know for a fact there are guys in the media, reporting this story, blogging about it, writing about it, that use Viagra everytime they are fortunate enough to get laid. And women who wouldn't get it from their significant others without that little blue pill. But the chance to smear Rush as needing help, is just too much to pass up.

    Posted by: Scott at July 3, 2006 10:45 PM

    I just hope Rove stays on the Viagra cause he is screwing the hell out of them Dems. And he shouldn't quit.

    Posted by: scooter at July 3, 2006 11:01 PM

    He believes his words are prophetic
    But his emails prove he’s pathetic
    Insipid and mean
    Correspondence obscene
    For sex he needs a prosthetic

    Posted by: Herpes man at July 3, 2006 11:32 PM

    Herpes, you da man!!!

    Edward Lear with a touch of Dr.Seuss!

    Posted by: Wyatt Wingfoot at July 3, 2006 11:52 PM

    Jeez Louise!

    There is a new depraved revelation regarding our beloved Olby. The girl (in her 20's I believe) whom Olby used and abused after a nerdiferous whirlwind e-mail romance had this to say on her "blog":

    "And a specific word of advice for one person in particular? Stop using the Shakespeare line post-climax. It's really dorky and so not a turn-on."

    The title of her blog is:

    "For this relief much thanks"

    A quote from Shakespeare. The spermiferous, horniferous Keith Olbermann utters the phrase "for this relief much thanks" after he limps and sputters to climax.

    When I read that, I had the dry heaves. What kind of a kreepy old koot says that after sex? And how insane is Olby for making fun of anyone else's sex talk (or anyone else period)? Imagine how many women immediately said "what have I done" when they heard Kreepy Keith smarmily mouth those words post-coitus? And does Keith realize he is basically saying "thanks for gettin' me off" in a fancy way? That subway door did more damage than I thought!

    As far as what Shakespeare quote best suits Olby:

    "Now is the winter of our discontent."

    --From King Richard III

    --The opening words of this play reflect the persona of Richard, a deformed angry man who hates the world that he believes hates him. In this soliloquy, we see the workings of his mind, and how he is always aware of his hideous appearance. "Deformed, unfinished, sent before" his "time into this breathing world, scarce half made up," his personality has grown warped. He is so ugly that the dogs on the street bark at him; women scorn him. And, so, since he "cannot prove a lover" he is "determined to be a villain."

    Sounds like Krazy Keith to me!

    Posted by: KfK at July 4, 2006 02:12 AM

    Sounds like Krazy Keith to me!

    KfK, someone should have told you "You can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit."

    Again, you offer "proof" that is nothing but vapor. Can't be corroborated, can't be substantied...hell, soesn't even make ONE DAMN IOTA OF SENSE!

    I mean, come on, Shakespeare! Are you serious? And not even something someone would remember, but a throwaway line by a guard in Act I of Hamlet.

    I'm sorry, but you've just buried the needle on the "bullshit" detector. You owe me $55 for a new one.

    Posted by: Anonymous at July 4, 2006 02:30 AM

    "And a specific word of advice for one person in particular? Stop using the Shakespeare line post-climax. It's really dorky and so not a turn-on."

    Well, that is because you are really stupid and need cultured.

    Posted by: JT at July 4, 2006 03:27 AM

    The two I referred to are: "The World According to Garp" and "Moscow on the Hudson" (as well as his turn as "Popeye" -- too bad it had no real story).

    those are all good. I'd like Moscow on the Hudson quite a bit.

    Posted by: JT at July 4, 2006 03:31 AM


    >It strikes me similar to the guys trying >to "out" gay Republicans."

    Well, I'm not going to lump all republicans together, but members of this party have pushed for laws banning gay marriage and have reacted quite strongly against gay rights in general. When it turns out that some end up being gay, people of course want to expose that. It demonstrates hypocrisy.

    Posted by: JT at July 4, 2006 03:45 AM

    His post-coitus comments are creepy
    “For relief, much thanks, now I’m sleepy”
    For groupies he’s trolling
    Mr. Shakespeare is rolling
    Keith‘s “C” list but acts V.I.P.

    Posted by: Moral Force at July 4, 2006 09:16 AM

    Reason 116 why I love this site:

    This - "I just hope Rove stays on the Viagra cause he is screwing the hell out of them Dems. And he shouldn't quit" - is funny.

    For all you OlbyLoons out there, please raise your hand if you are happy that Rush Limbaugh was detained by U.S. Customs in Florida for possessing a prescription for Viagara made out in the name of his doctor.

    Come on...higher!

    Now, please raise your hand if you are upset over news reports that the government is monitoring SWIFT payment instructions and call data records?

    Lastly, please reconcile for clear-thinking readers how it is BAD when the government collects and analyzes financial and communications data to track terrorists which MIGHT BE abused in some vague, undefined way and GOOD when U.S. Customs officials abuse their right to inspect the luggage of American citizens re-entering the country by informing the press when they find something embarrassing in Rush Limbaugh's luggage even though the information is not part of the public record and no charges have been filed and?

    Oh wait, our privacy as American citizens trumps all when it comes to the War on Terror but in the War on Conservatives all is fair in love and medication to make love. Right?

    Posted by: Robert Cox at July 4, 2006 10:32 AM

    >His post-coitus comments are creepy
    “For relief, much thanks, now I’m sleepy”

    Now THAT is poesy!

    I bet Keith Olbermann was the one who went after me for my post! Very defensive and illogical, bordering on desperate.

    Posted by: KfK at July 4, 2006 10:48 AM

    I will never think of "Hamlet" in the same way again. That Olby - The Bard of Secaucus.

    Posted by: Philly at July 4, 2006 11:58 AM

    The votes held so far on gay marriage have crossed party lines in there success. So the issue isn't just Reps/Cons against it,though they proudly lead the way. But lets be honest with the topic. Men straight or homosexual have the equal right to marry the opposite sex under current law. Women ditto. What the supporters of homosexual marriage want is special treatment under current laws. Doesn't matter what side your on they already have equal rights they seek special rights.

    Posted by: scooter at July 4, 2006 12:50 PM

    "find something embarrassing in Rush Limbaugh's luggage even though the information is not part of the public record and no charges have been filed and?"

    Actually, I would be against the information being given to the press until there is a conviction. However, one can hardly expect the press to ignore this once they have wind of it. If the situation were reversed Robert and this was Keith, accused, would you hush up about it? assuming keith was known for tough drug law stances?

    Also, What are the facts in this case? Did some one in customs tip off the press? if so i would condem that. However, Rush getting searched is something that happens at customs. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the searches are done at random.

    Posted by: JT at July 4, 2006 01:20 PM

    "Now, please raise your hand if you are upset over news reports that the government is monitoring SWIFT payment instructions and call data records?"

    Have to look up more about that one. I am against the phone database and monitoring international calls without a warrent though. The potential for abuse is to great and not just by this admistration. (Although i don't trust them at all).

    Posted by: JT at July 4, 2006 01:24 PM

    >However, one can hardly expect the press to ignore this once they have wind of it.

    Yes! Especially when the liberal prosecutor in Palm Beach makes sure of that!

    Posted by: Anonymous at July 4, 2006 02:26 PM

    Keith's ratings from this Friday must have been horrible -- TVNewser hasn't posted them yet. When he does, I will send them right to Dan Abrams. I love doing that!

    Posted by: Mean Mr. Mustard at July 4, 2006 02:52 PM

    Scooter said, "What the supporters of homosexual marriage want is special treatment under current laws. Doesn't matter what side your on they already have equal rights they seek special rights."
    ---------------------------------

    This is simply an uneducated opinion.

    Most proponents of gay marriage want tax breaks given to hetero couples, power of attorney and next of kin rights given to hetero couples. Property rights given to hetero. All rights currently not afforded to gays and lesbiens who want to get married. But, the real crux of the argument, they want to be treated equally as straight couples. To afford all the afore mentioned rights to hetero couples and not gays is viewed by the gay/lesbien community as discriminitory.

    Curious, scooter... you said they want 'special rights.' Care to tell us what 'special rights' to which you are referring? Or would you prefer to simply throw out accusations without substantive backing, to which you are accustomed?

    Posted by: James at July 4, 2006 03:56 PM

    You know man marrys woman/ women marrys man..not special. Man marrys man/ women marrys women "different" aka special. Rule of thumb if you have to re-define a word you might be the one seeking special consideration. Again I would type slower but it doesn't seem to help when typing.

    Posted by: scooter at July 4, 2006 06:25 PM

    Your examples are not special. I'm asking what RIGHTS are special. Expl, property, tax, next of kin. What rights are special, scooter?

    Posted by: James at July 4, 2006 06:33 PM

    Tax breaks given to married couples. Does the term marriage penalty ring a bell? Well won't that be jim dandy when groups of six want marriage rights for medical insurance. We can again re-define the word to help the group seeking "special" treatment.

    Posted by: scooter at July 4, 2006 06:35 PM

    Rule of thumb if you have to re-define a word you might be the one seeking special consideration.

    Again, that was the argument being pushed to quash interracial marriage - it would be "redefining" the "traditional" belief about what marriage is.

    They are asking for the same right that heterosexual couples have - to enter into monogamous union with another person and gain the same benefits (the ones James laid out above) that "straight" couples have.

    Posted by: Anonymous at July 4, 2006 06:35 PM

    I don't know what or when inter-racial marriage arguments were made at the time. You would probably know better with Robert(KKK) Byrd on your team. So do tell.

    Posted by: scooter at July 4, 2006 06:40 PM

    scooter avoided answering the question by saying, "You would probably know better with Robert(KKK) Byrd on your team. "
    --------------------------------------

    First, you avoid answering the question...

    Second, Democrats are the ones who signed the Civil Rights Bill (over republican opposition)

    Third, Democrats are the party of minorities and inclusion. Membership numbers bear it out, you can't deny it.

    Fourth, answer the original question, scooter.

    Posted by: James at July 4, 2006 06:43 PM

    They have the same right as heterosexuals have.TO MARRY THE OPPOSITE SEX. Anything else is going to be a change. AKA special treatment.

    Posted by: scooter at July 4, 2006 06:44 PM

    Well shcucky darn it must be true James said it with such conviction.The special right is to marry the same sex. Answered.
    By your logic all union members also vote Democrat. Well tell me just when are you going to start including them in Senarorial campaigns? And when are you going to include them in a chance at running for President as a Democrat? Membership bears it out but seats at the power of table are denied them. Man how tough must it be to chew and swallow that bilge for black-americans. About how included they are by the Democrats when the truth is it's a white male dominated party. Your idea of inclusion is letting the most rabid anti Bush black you can find speak at the convention and then tell them that is inclusion. If they buy good for you. The truth is much more obvious.

    Posted by: scooter at July 4, 2006 06:55 PM

    scooter avoided answering the question by saying, "You would probably know better with Robert(KKK) Byrd on your team. "
    --------------------------------------

    First, you avoid answering the question...

    Second, Democrats are the ones who signed the Civil Rights Bill (over republican opposition)

    Third, Democrats are the party of minorities and inclusion. Membership numbers bear it out, you can't deny it.

    Fourth, answer the original question, scooter.

    Posted by: James at July 4, 2006 06:57 PM

    They have the same right as heterosexuals have.TO MARRY THE OPPOSITE SEX.

    That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard on this topic. You mean to say that in order to get rights, they have to marry someone THEY DON'T LOVE? Isn't that making more of a mockery of the concept of marriage?

    It's a bullshit argument. You KNOW it's a bullshit argument. So why in the hell are you even TRYING to pass it off as legitimate?

    Posted by: Anonymous at July 4, 2006 07:02 PM

    Apparently KO isn't the only one out, the entire MSNBC newsroom has the night off. I haven't seen more than 2 minutes all evening about a major international crisis in North Korea on that 'news channel.' This is truly unbelievable, FNC and CNN are wall-to-wall, and MSNBC is airing documentaries!!!

    Posted by: Um... at July 4, 2006 07:07 PM

    scooter said, "Man how tough must it be to chew and swallow that bilge for black-americans. About how included they are by the Democrats when the truth is it's a white male dominated party. "
    ---------------------------------------------

    A record number of 43 black of African-American members serve in the 109th Congress; 42 in the House of Representatives, one in the Senate.

    There have been 117 black members of Congress. 112 elected to the House. Five to the Senate.

    The majority of black members (90) have been democrats; the rest (27) were republicans.


    Gosh, scooter... by those numbers your mockery of democrats not being inclusive is pretty much shot to shit. Especially when you compare it to the republicans record of putting blacks in power.

    You're wrong, scooter... again.

    Posted by: James at July 4, 2006 07:07 PM

    Just speaking "TRUTH" to stone walls i guess. I wasn't saying they should marry someone they don't love. I was simply saying-the truth-they already have the same right as anyone else. It's not a hard concept.

    Posted by: scooter at July 4, 2006 07:09 PM

    KK's "smooth" line after sex is "For this relief, much thanks". Which makes you wonder, what "smooth" line does Keith use before the "act"? I think I found the answer: (from the May 9 MSLSD transcript):


    OLBERMANN: . . . here kitty, kitty, kitty... Here kitty, kitty, kitty. . .

    Let's see, an image is coming to my mind . . . a faux news character who is pompous, obsessively jealous of his vastly superior competition, extremely sensitive to criticism, whose ratings are continually abysmal and spouts lines he thinks are witty and erudite but are actually stupid, boring and reflect his own deep seated insecurities . . . yes, i think it's becoming clearer now, it's . . . Ted Baxter!!! (What did you think I was going to say, Keith Olbermann? Well, on second thought, now that I think about it . . .)


    Posted by: Anonymous at July 4, 2006 07:15 PM

    13% of population, 90% vote Dem, 1% senators.
    Under republicans 2 Secratary of States.
    Now whats the highest appointment a Dem has ALLOWED?
    1 Supreme Court Justice--Republican Appointment.
    Now those are power positions. But you don't have to convince me(but your trying awful hard) you need to keep fooling the "included" groups.

    Posted by: scooter at July 4, 2006 07:16 PM

    I know a few guys who think Robin Williams is the greatest, but I just don't get it. I have NEVER thought anything he did showed any humor whatsoever, but some people think he's the best. I never liked him as the "Mork" character or in anything else, for that matter.

    Posted by: Missy at July 4, 2006 07:23 PM

    I was simply saying-the truth-they already have the same right as anyone else.

    If anyone is acting like a stone wall, it's you. The argument is very plain - if you tell them they can't marry the person they love because that person is of the same gender, you are DENYING them that right.

    No one is asking to expand the definition of marriage. Pick up a copy of Webster's Dictionary - you'll see that the second definition for "marriage" is specific to same-sex unions.

    Posted by: Anonymous at July 4, 2006 07:35 PM

    James writes:

    "Second, Democrats are the ones who signed the Civil Rights Bill (over republican opposition)"

    James, why don't you get your facts straight before you contribute to this site? Here's the real story of the GOP involvement with the civil rights bill which you leave out:

    "Because of the problem with a possible Senate filibuster, which would be imposed by Southern Democrats, the diverse aspects of theAct were first dealt with in the House of Representatives. The roadblock would be that Southern senators chaired both the Judiciary and the Commerce committees.

    Kennedy and LBJ understood that a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats was the key to the bill's final success.

    Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.

    Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

    Posted by: hank at July 4, 2006 09:48 PM

    First, you avoid answering the question...

    Second, Democrats are the ones who signed the Civil Rights Bill (over republican opposition)

    Bizarre that more Republicans voted for it in considerably higher percentages than Democrats (you can look up the Roll Call vote) and that LBJ went to the GOP to get it passed since the icons of the Democratic party (the Gores, the Fulbrights, et al) were fervent segregationists, isn't?

    Third, Democrats are the party of minorities and inclusion. Membership numbers bear it out, you can't deny it.

    You don't see conservatives calling blacks "Uncle Tom" or "Sambo".

    You DO see libs doing that.

    And, as has been mentioned A LOT, there is a Klansman in the Congress.

    He ain't a Republican.

    That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard on this topic. You mean to say that in order to get rights, they have to marry someone THEY DON'T LOVE? Isn't that making more of a mockery of the concept of marriage?

    No, but it IS a pretty clear-cut definition of equality. Any man can marry any woman. If you don't want equality, then you want "special rights".

    That is why gay marriage and interracial marriage aren't even remotely comparable.

    Gosh, scooter... by those numbers your mockery of democrats not being inclusive is pretty much shot to shit. Especially when you compare it to the republicans record of putting blacks in power.

    Dems have had how many black Sec. of State?

    Bush had 2.

    2 more than the Democrats have had in their entire history combined.

    If anyone is acting like a stone wall, it's you. The argument is very plain - if you tell them they can't marry the person they love because that person is of the same gender, you are DENYING them that right.

    There is no right to marry the person you love. Hate to break it to you.

    See, if the person YOU love doesn't love you, then not getting married isn't exactly a violation of your rights.
    -=Mike

    Posted by: MikeSC at July 4, 2006 10:14 PM

    "There is no right to marry the person you love. Hate to break it to you."

    This is my problem with Repulicans in a nut shell. A lot of you guys basically are not too keen on liberty. marriage is a private contract between two people. it has nothing to do with the govermnet. it has nothing to do with you. If I want to marry 12 people - none of your business. If i want to marry a black women or a black man - none of your business. What is so hard about letting consenting adults live as they please?

    Posted by: JT at July 4, 2006 11:48 PM

    Hank, why don't you get YOUR facts straight...

    There WAS a fillibuster... an 83 day fillibuster led by mostly republican conservatives, racists and segregationist - NOT a possible fillibuster, as you allude to.

    Now, Leading the charge was Senator Byrd, who I think we all believe is a racist (myself included), but the one charging against him, democrat Humphrey from Minnesota.

    See, scooter, I'm not a blind follower of my party. I see and call-out the ones (like Byrd) who do harm to the country as much as I compliment the ones who do good. In your opinion, however, republicans can do no wrong. That is short-sighted.


    As for the greater percentage of republicans voting for civil rights that democrats... let's look a little closer at those numbers. Closer than you would have us look...
    ---------------------------------

    By Party and Region
    The House:

    Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
    Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
    Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
    Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)


    The Senate:

    Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
    Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
    Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
    Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

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

    So, lets examine these numbers.

    Hardly anyone voted for Civil Rights in the south because they knew they'd be voting themselves out of office.

    In fact, there were 11 southern republicans at the time (House and Senate). NOT ONE voted for the amendment.

    By contrast, there were 107 democrats (House and Senate). 8 of them voted in favor of the amendement. Not a lot, but at least there were some.

    And if you look at the northern members, you can see the percentage of democrats who voted for Civil Rights exceeded the percentage of republicans by nine and 14 percent in the house and senate respectively. Only ONE northern democratic senator voted against it!


    So, as you can see, Hank... the only reason your overall percentages say republicans voted more in favor of Civil Rights than democrats is because you don't consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of southern members were democrats, who didn't want to vote 'aye' and piss off their consitituancy.

    Yes, they were chickenshit, but you can't say there were the only chickenshits because NOT ONE SOUTHERN REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IT EITHER. At least a few southern democrats did.

    And, again, in the north a greater percentage of dems voted for it than republicans... where there was no political pressure not to.

    So, sorry Hank... you're wrong... again.

    Next time research numbers instead of blindly cutting and pasting, which you're wont to do.

    Posted by: James at July 4, 2006 11:54 PM

    This is my problem with Repulicans in a nut shell.

    What? Facts?

    A lot of you guys basically are not too keen on liberty. marriage is a private contract between two people.

    But it's no more a "right" than driving.

    Again, you can't have a "right" that demands somebody else's consent.

    If I want to marry 12 people - none of your business.

    Seeing as how you'd be sucking me dry financially --- as tends to be the case with bigamous couplings --- yeah, it pretty much IS my business.

    If i want to marry a black women or a black man - none of your business. What is so hard about letting consenting adults live as they please?

    What's so hard about allowing the people to decide what they want?

    Is democracy REALLY that bad to the left?

    There WAS a fillibuster... an 83 day fillibuster led by mostly republican conservatives, racists and segregationist - NOT a possible fillibuster, as you allude to.

    Since the Dems had 248 members in a 435 seat house --- thou doth protesteth too much.

    And funny that you ignore that Republicans DID vote, at a much higher percentage, for the bill than did Dems. You can try to disown the Southern Dems (Fulbright was SUCH a liberal, right?), but it doesn't quite wash.

    History is what it is, not what you wish it to be.

    In fact, there were 11 southern republicans at the time (House and Senate). NOT ONE voted for the amendment.

    11 Southern Republicans.

    10 in the House.

    Out of 104 Southern Reps.

    Or --- less than 10% of them.

    There was 1 Republican Southern Senator (Strom Thurmond)

    Out of 22.

    Or less than 5% of them.

    Yup, it was those Southern Republicans who caused all of those problems.

    So, as you can see, Hank... the only reason your overall percentages say republicans voted more in favor of Civil Rights than democrats is because you don't consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of southern members were democrats, who didn't want to vote 'aye' and piss off their consitituancy.

    And that changes things in what way, exactly?

    Yes, they were chickenshit, but you can't say there were the only chickenshits because NOT ONE SOUTHERN REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IT EITHER. At least a few southern democrats did.

    All 11 of them.

    Out of a possible 126.

    Or less than 10% of them.

    You can try and sugarcoat history and claim that Southern Dems weren't REALLY Dems if you wish --- but we'll just have to sit back and deal with those pesky "facts" you find so loathesome.
    -=Mike

    Posted by: MikeSC at July 5, 2006 12:15 AM

    This is my problem with Repulicans in a nut shell.

    What? Facts?

    A lot of you guys basically are not too keen on liberty. marriage is a private contract between two people.

    But it's no more a "right" than driving.

    Again, you can't have a "right" that demands somebody else's consent.

    If I want to marry 12 people - none of your business.

    Seeing as how you'd be sucking me dry financially --- as tends to be the case with bigamous couplings --- yeah, it pretty much IS my business.

    If i want to marry a black women or a black man - none of your business. What is so hard about letting consenting adults live as they please?

    What's so hard about allowing the people to decide what they want?

    Is democracy REALLY that bad to the left?

    There WAS a fillibuster... an 83 day fillibuster led by mostly republican conservatives, racists and segregationist - NOT a possible fillibuster, as you allude to.

    Since the Dems had 248 members in a 435 seat house --- thou doth protesteth too much.

    And funny that you ignore that Republicans DID vote, at a much higher percentage, for the bill than did Dems. You can try to disown the Southern Dems (Fulbright was SUCH a liberal, right?), but it doesn't quite wash.

    History is what it is, not what you wish it to be.

    In fact, there were 11 southern republicans at the time (House and Senate). NOT ONE voted for the amendment.

    11 Southern Republicans.

    10 in the House.

    Out of 104 Southern Reps.

    Or --- less than 10% of them.

    There was 1 Republican Southern Senator (Strom Thurmond)

    Out of 22.

    Or less than 5% of them.

    Yup, it was those Southern Republicans who caused all of those problems.

    So, as you can see, Hank... the only reason your overall percentages say republicans voted more in favor of Civil Rights than democrats is because you don't consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of southern members were democrats, who didn't want to vote 'aye' and piss off their consitituancy.

    And that changes things in what way, exactly?

    Yes, they were chickenshit, but you can't say there were the only chickenshits because NOT ONE SOUTHERN REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IT EITHER. At least a few southern democrats did.

    All 11 of them.

    Out of a possible 126.

    Or less than 10% of them.

    You can try and sugarcoat history and claim that Southern Dems weren't REALLY Dems if you wish --- but we'll just have to sit back and deal with those pesky "facts" you find so loathesome.
    -=Mike

    Posted by: MikeSC at July 5, 2006 12:16 AM

    To sum up everything I wrote above...

    - A greater percentage of southern democrats voted for civil rights legislation (7%) than southern republicans (0%).

    - A greater percentage of northern democrats voted for civil rights legislation (95%) than northern republicans (85%).

    The northern vote is, again, especially important because there was not political pressure from the less racist norther population, as opposed to the south... where NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IT.

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

    Last tip, hank... do your research...
    ------------------------------------
    Hank said,"Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time."
    -------------------------------------
    NO THEY WEREN'T!!! Mike Mansfield,a Dem from Montana was Senate Majority Leader! John McCormack a Dem from Mass. was the Speaker!

    House Membership:

    248 Democrats
    172 Republicans

    Senate Membership

    67 Democrats
    33 Republicans
    -------------------------------


    Seriously, Hank... look at your own numbers....


    --------------------------------
    Hank said, "Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96."
    -----------------------------------------------


    Thanks for only stating the House numbers there as well... but, again. if you READ YOUR OWN NUMBERS you will see that the Republicans were NOT in control.


    Again, hank... a little more effort next time. You're making yourself look pathetic.

    Posted by: James at July 5, 2006 12:46 AM

    Last tip, hank... do your research...
    ------------------------------------
    Hank said,"Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time."


    My mistake here. I thought I saw you wrote MAJORITY... not minority. My fault.


    Doesnt change the fact that a greater % of northern dems voted for civil rights than norther reps... and a greater % of southern dems voted for civil rights than southern reps. period.

    Posted by: James at July 5, 2006 12:51 AM

    To sum up everything I wrote above...

    - A greater percentage of southern democrats voted for civil rights legislation (7%) than southern republicans (0%).

    - A greater percentage of northern democrats voted for civil rights legislation (95%) than northern republicans (85%).

    The northern vote is, again, especially important because there was not political pressure from the less racist norther population, as opposed to the south... where NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IT.

    Which makes the Republicans overall voting by a larger percentage all the more impressive.

    Again, I simply have, you know, facts. Do the math.

    And don't even WASTE the energy claiming how enlightened the North is as opposed to the South. Boston had some REALLY nasty problems with school integration. And NYC was, for years, a powder keg of racial hatred.

    You speak like a man who has never set foot in the South.

    Heck, keep one thing in mind --- the Dems had a FILIBUSTER-PROOF majority in the Senate. It STILL required Republicans to pass it.

    Thanks for only stating the House numbers there as well... but, again. if you READ YOUR OWN NUMBERS you will see that the Republicans were NOT in control.

    Which makes LBJ'S requirement to use them to pass it all the sadder.

    Doesnt change the fact that a greater % of northern dems voted for civil rights than norther reps... and a greater % of southern dems voted for civil rights than southern reps. period.

    Which is immaterial when ALL of the Republicans voted in larger percentages than ALL of the Democrats.

    But nice try to frame things to cover that up.

    When you don't have facts, you have to go to gimmickery.
    -=Mike

    Posted by: MikeSC at July 5, 2006 01:38 AM

    Mike, your arguments are immaterial. An amendment vote requires two-thirds the house and two-thirds the senate. I don't believe at any time in our nation's history have democrats or republicans held 2/3 or more over the opposition in either body.

    If that's true (which I think it is), then ANY AMENDMENT EVER PASSED couldn't be done without the opposition's votes. So by our logic, the minority party should be credited with any amendments passage? That's idiotic.

    Your argument is pointless.

    Democrats were the only party to vote for Civil Rights in the south. And MORE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OVERALL than republicans.

    Deal with it... Democrats passed equal rights.

    Posted by: James at July 5, 2006 02:03 AM

    And it's not gimmickery... More Dems in the south voted for civil rights than reps... more Dems voted in the north than reps. Those numbers don't lie.

    Posted by: James at July 5, 2006 02:05 AM

    James,

    Math really isn't your strong point, is it?

    "An amendment vote requires two-thirds the house and two-thirds the senate. I don't believe at any time in our nation's history have democrats or republicans held 2/3 or more over the opposition in either body."

    "Senate Membership

    67 Democrats
    33 Republicans"

    The above quotes are from your posts. Just a quick summary. 2/3 of 100 is 66.666666667. 67 is more than that. The Democrats in the the Senate had a filibuster-proof super majority. And yet there was a filibuster for 83 days. In fact, "Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure."

    Mike, in June 1964 Strom Thurmond was still a Democrat. He did not change parties until the 1964 elections (around September, 1964).


    Posted by: Scott at July 5, 2006 06:33 AM

    So, as you can see, Hank... the only reason your overall percentages say republicans voted more in favor of Civil Rights than democrats is because you don't consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of southern members were democrats, who didn't want to vote 'aye' and piss off their consitituancy. So you admit even on something as important as civil rights Democrats pander for popularity rather than vote there conscience. Some things don't change thru the years. Albert Gore Sr. you want blacks to have civil rights? NAY. RObert Byrd? Nay. William Fullbright? Nay

    Posted by: scooter at July 5, 2006 07:01 AM

    Some people (Scott) can't diferentiate Southern Democrats between normal Democrats and Republicans. The Democratic party had split into Southern (pro-slavery) and Northern (anti) sects.

    To try to compare Strom Thurmond or Zell Miller or Lester Maddox or any Southern Democrats to the Democrats of today is assinine. And to see Scott attempt to claim that Democrats don't want Civil Rights because people who didn't believe in the Democratic way but called themselves Democrats started a filibuster is pathetic.

    Posted by: Nonfactor at July 5, 2006 07:05 AM

    Nice post Non. Use absolutely nothing posted I've ever posted and call me uninformed and pathetic. Do you even read, or just blindly post.

    What part of my post was incorrect? Was Strom Thurmond a Republican or Democrat in 1964? Were there not 67 (actually it was 68, James number is wrong) Dems in 1964? Isn't that more than 2/3 of 100?

    I haven't claimed anyone didn't want civil rights legislation passed. What I did was try to correct facts that both James and Mike got wrong so the argument could at least be made on the facts. Something you obviously don't get.

    Some other facts that are wrong in the above. KY was represented by 2 Republicans, Thruston Morton and John Sherman Cooper. Both vote for the 1964 CRA.

    Keep the facts accurate, and I could care less what you argue. Don't change Senator's party affiliation because you don't like how they voted.

    The fact that in 1964, 99 years after the 13th Ammendment abolished slavery, the Democrats had a "pro-slavery" wing is pathetic. Trying to turn them into Republicans, either by ignorance or to help support your view of your party is even more pathetic. And lacking any reading comprehension skills is more pathetic still.

    Posted by: Scott at July 5, 2006 07:21 AM

    Just because you put a title after your name doesn't mean you believe in the views of the party. You really have to understand the way the Democratic party worked until the 1980's.

    You don't have to state something when you're implying it, and you weren't all too subtle.

    Posted by: Nonfactor at July 5, 2006 07:43 AM

    Scott,

    Nonfactor is right. To understand the Democrat party, you must ignore all inconvenient facts. Just do what John Kerry does -- make it up and run with it.

    The key is to assault reality with all your might. If you are on tape saying something, assault the messenger and ignore the tape.

    Ignoring reality is really wonderful! Terrorists then become "freedom fighters," economic growth becomes "the excess of the rich," freedom becomes "quaint." Socialism works in this fantasy universe, and Democrats from the old South are cleansed of their racist past. Join Non Scott -- it is your only hope.

    Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2006 08:06 AM

    Medals? Ribbons? whose my medals? My ribbons? It doesn't matter, right?

    Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2006 08:25 AM

    Wow. Have you guys not heard of the "southern strategy"? You know, the Republican strategy to win influence in the South by exploiting wedge racial issues? Why do you think the South votes Republican now?

    But I guess only posters at this site would think that Repbulicans are squeaky clean when it comes to racial issues.

    Posted by: Abe at July 5, 2006 08:54 AM

    Anon, you forgot Non's upcoming response, which will include the statement "Who cares how many mistakes are made. It still says something."

    Posted by: Scott at July 5, 2006 09:13 AM

    Abe is right!

    The Republicans held all Dixiecrats at knifepoint and forced them to be racist! It was a pre-Rovian plot!

    Thanks Abe -- what would we do without you? And how much would our Government save?

    Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2006 09:43 AM

    James:

    Scooter, Scott, and Mike SC have rebutted your lame attempts to reframe the facts. Two main points:

    1. If you want to make a deal about how the northern Dems voted strongly for the 1964 Civil Rights bill, that's fine James, but your point that got all this started was your atempt to say that the Dems are THE party of civil rights. However facts are facts and the history of southern DEMOCRATS in standing in opposition to civil rights during this time is irrefutable. The fact that you blithely excuse their behavior by stating they didn't want to "piss off" thier racist constituents is just breathtaking in its audacity. Apparently the cowardly behavior of Sens. Gore Sr., Fulbright, Byrd, et. al. is OK because they have a (D) behind thier name.

    2) Before you try to claim that the passage of civil rights is exclusively the province of the Democrats why don't you do some research and find out about the efforts of Republican Senator Everett Dirksen to win support for the 1964 bill. Even LBJ acknowledged it wouldn't have happened without him. Republicans deserve a lot of credit for getting this bill passed James and you are unwilling to give it to them.

    Posted by: hank at July 5, 2006 10:31 AM

    Why don't you all save us some time - go read "Master of the Senate" by Robert Caro. Then you will all know what you are talking about it and can stop hijacking these important OlbermannWatch threads to advance your uninformed theories about Senate politics.

    Few of you seem to understand that the Senate rules today are very different than the Senate rules prior to 1964. The fight in the Senate was not over Civil Rights (there was enough support among Senators to pass Civil Rights legislation for many years). The fight was over "cloture", a Senate rule on ending fillibusters. Watch "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" to understand how Southern Senators (who were Democrats) used the threat of a Jimmy Stewart style fillibuster to block voting on Civil Rights legislation going back to the 1920s. Through a series of parlimentary maneuvers they had the power to effectively shut down the Senate at any time.

    You will also want to understand how the seniority system worked in the Senate. Southern Senators were effectively elected for life terms (see Strom Thurmond for a more recent example). Since they were there longer they ran every single Senate committee, no legislation could get to the Senate floor without going through a Southern Senator.

    You might also want to know that the infamous "Jim Crow" laws passed in the 19th century to disenfranchise black voters were enacted by Democrats. It was those laws that were being defended in the Senate where opponents were attempting to pass federal legislation which would would supercede/outlaw those laws.

    What changed was Lyndon Johnson, a closet civil rights proponent, who convinced the Southern Senators to elect him Senate Majority Leader. Once in the leadership he "sold out" the Senators who put him in power (with an eye towards running for President) to get a vote on cloture. Once he got the cloture vote passed, and Southern Senators could no longer threaten fillibuster, Johnson was able to push though the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other social legislation as part of his Great Society program (which was basically Kennedy's New Frontier program).

    In 1964, Johnson won a landslide victory (the largest margin of victory ever in a Presidential race) but lost the states of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina to Barry Goldwater.

    You might also want to familiarize yourself with George "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" Wallace. You can't study Southern politics without understanding Wallace who was anti-segregation in the fifties, flipped to become staunchly pro-segregation throughout the sixties and then flipped again in 1970 when he beceame a born-again Christian.

    In 1964, he won the Democratic primaries in two NORTHERN states - Wisconsin and Indiana - as well as one border state - Maryland. In the 1968 Presidential election, Wallace ran as an Independent and won Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi as well as one electoral vote from North Carolina. In 1972, Wallace ran again as a Democrat and swept Florida. While campaigning in Maryland he was shot by a would-be assassain. He went on to win Maryland, Michigan, Tennessee, and North Carolina after the shooting but lost the nomination to McGovern.

    Nixon's so-called "Southern Strategy" was in response to Wallace's success in peeling off Southern states as an independent, Recall that Goldwater got many southern states by default because they were anti-Johnson not pro-Goldwater. If not for Wallace and his pro-segregation appeal in 1968, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi would have most certainly gone for Nixon.

    The issue of segregation split the Democrat party creating the very real possibility that a candidate like Wallace could throw the Presidential election into the House of Representatives (Wallace's goal). The GOP goal became to use a "law and order" platform to appeal to White Southern voters and use code-words like "states rights" to signal support for their segregationist views.

    We continue to see the effect of this today in the Democratic party which has not been able to elect a non-Southern President since JFK (Johnson, Carter, Clinton).

    Anywho...go read the book.

    Posted by: Robert Cox at July 5, 2006 11:17 AM

    Actually, a southern democrat WAS elected president since JFK. His name was Al Gore in 2000.

    Posted by: James at July 5, 2006 11:42 AM

    ABE -- SHIELD YOUR EYES. DUCK AND COVER.

    ROBERT, HOW COULD YOU? HOW DARE YOU!

    Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2006 11:44 AM

    James you insufferable idiot,

    Bob said "We continue to see the effect of this today in the Democratic party which has not been able to elect a non-Southern President since JFK (Johnson, Carter, Clinton)."

    I know these double-negative sentence structures can be tough to comprehend. Maybe Bob could rewrite the sentence for you. Al Gore is another example of a Southern Democrat who came close to the Presidency.

    Of course he LOST, hence he is now pushing bad propaganda instead of coddling the leftist dictators and terrorists you lefties so love.

    Posted by: KfK at July 5, 2006 11:51 AM

    >What? Facts?

    No that Republicans tend to believe that the state has the right to interfere in people's lives.

    >But it's no more a "right" than driving.

    In the 1950s interacial marriage wasn't legal in over half the states - I beleive it was still a right. Not a legal, right granted, but a right. It was also illegal under the taliban for women to not appear in public without a burka. Do you believe they had that right? Or do you beleive that the taliban goverment had the right to decide whether appearing in public without a burka was a freedom a woman possess? I sure hope it is not the latter.

    In a nutshell I believe every individual not deprived of it by due process, has liberty. You seem to believe that the state chooses which rights people have.

    >Again, you can't have a "right" that demands ?somebody else's consent.

    Why not, If both people consent to it? If steve and Adam decide they want to marry as long as Seve and Adam agree to it how is it your business?

    >Seeing as how you'd be sucking me dry >financially --- as tends to be the case with >bigamous couplings --- yeah, it pretty much IS >my business.

    No it is not. It is not your responsability to pay for it, but it is certainly none of your business.

    >Is democracy REALLY that bad to the left?

    Yes if it interferes with minority rights. 3 wolves and lamb vote on what's for dinner. Fair to the lamb? it's called a tyranny of the masses. hypothetically speaking if for some reason the majority got a bug up it's ass and voted to eliminate free speech woud you be for that? Do you hate Democracy so much that you would try to stop it? I hope so, but I wonder about you.

    Posted by: JT at July 5, 2006 11:56 AM

    >No that Republicans tend to believe that the >state has the right to interfere in people's >lives.

    In fairness I shouldn't say all Republicans. Dick Cheney differs with the president on this issue does he not?

    Posted by: JT at July 5, 2006 12:05 PM

    JT writes:

    "If I want to marry 12 people - none of your business."

    While I completely disagee with you, at least you are willing (unlike most gay marriage proponents) to recognize and acknowledge the natural logical prgresssion of what lies in store if gay marriage becomes legal.

    Posted by: hank at July 5, 2006 12:21 PM

    "While I completely disagee with you, at least you are willing (unlike most gay marriage proponents) to recognize and acknowledge the natural logical prgresssion of what lies in store if gay marriage becomes legal."

    I doubt many people would choose that path, but so what if they did? As long as it is consenting adults, who cares? What is it about other people's behavior that scares people so much they want to regulate it?

    Posted by: Jt at July 5, 2006 12:39 PM

    "While I completely disagee with you, at least you are willing (unlike most gay marriage proponents) to recognize and acknowledge the natural logical prgresssion of what lies in store if gay marriage becomes legal."

    I doubt many people would choose that path, but so what if they did? As long as it is consenting adults, who cares? What is it about other people's behavior that scares people so much they want to regulate it?

    Posted by: Jt at July 5, 2006 12:40 PM

    "In fairness I shouldn't say all Republicans. Dick Cheney differs with the president on this issue does he not?"

    I wouldn't hold Cheney up as a defender of individual rights against the state.

    Posted by: SamIam at July 5, 2006 12:42 PM

    JT writes:

    "As long as it is consenting adults, who cares? What is it about other people's behavior that scares people so much they want to regulate it?"

    So, anything goes, huh? Are there any marital arrangements between consenting adults that you would not be willing to recognize as legitimate?

    Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2006 01:01 PM

    Anonymous wrote:

    "Abe is right!

    The Republicans held all Dixiecrats at knifepoint and forced them to be racist! It was a pre-Rovian plot!"

    If by "held at knifepoint" you mean "backed states' rights initiatives in a backdoor attempt to woo racist southerners." then your assessment of my point is right on the money.

    If by "held by knifepoint" you mean to create a strawman argument and rewrite history, then you are an ignorant tool.

    Posted by: Abe at July 5, 2006 01:02 PM

    "So, anything goes, huh? Are there any marital arrangements between consenting adults that you would not be willing to recognize as legitimate?"


    Can't think of any. As long as: 1) it is consensual and 2) it is between adults.

    Posted by: JT at July 5, 2006 01:04 PM

    per James:

    "Actually, a southern democrat WAS elected president since JFK. His name was Al Gore in 2000."

    Actually, JFK wasn't elected. He won Illinois thanks to the Daley political machine in Cook county and similar fraud in Texas. Total national vote margin just 113,000 (Illinois only 9,000).

    Unlike Gore, Nixon (whatever else you might say about him) at least had the good graces not to subject the country to an extended and extremely disruptive contention of the election 'results'.

    Please see:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36425-2000Nov16?language=printer

    thanks,

    -OM

    Posted by: eauman at July 5, 2006 01:09 PM

    per James:

    "Actually, a southern democrat WAS elected president since JFK. His name was Al Gore in 2000."

    Actually, JFK wasn't elected. He won Illinois thanks to the Daley political machine in Cook county and similar fraud in Texas. Total national vote margin just 113,000 (Illinois only 9,000).

    Please see:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36425-2000Nov16?language=printer

    Posted by: eauman at July 5, 2006 01:10 PM

    A fabulous example of why Bill O'Reilly finds it easy to make fun of San Fransico:
    http://www.zombietime.com/world_naked_bike_ride_2006/

    Posted by: DavidBrock at July 5, 2006 01:21 PM

    JT, you said:

    -------------
    "So, anything goes, huh? Are there any marital arrangements between consenting adults that you would not be willing to recognize as legitimate?"

    Can't think of any. As long as: 1) it is consensual and 2) it is between adults.
    -------------

    I agree - marriage must be consensual and be between adults. But I'd like to know more detail regarding your exact definition of marriage?

    thanks,

    -OM

    Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2006 01:25 PM

    consensual or consentual? hmmm?

    Posted by: Dan at July 5, 2006 01:33 PM

    consensual or consentual? hmmm

    Great addition to the debate. way to refute that point.


    Posted by: Jt at July 5, 2006 01:40 PM

    forgot to include my pseudonym in previous post: OM = eauman.

    regarding "consentual" - Sorry, Not in Webster's...

    -OM

    Posted by: eauman at July 5, 2006 01:45 PM

    forgot to include my pseudonym in previous post: OM = eauman.

    regarding "consentual" - Sorry, Not in Webster's...

    -OM

    Posted by: eauman at July 5, 2006 01:45 PM

    >I agree - marriage must be consensual and be >between adults. But I'd like to know more detail >regarding your exact definition of marriage?

    I think of marriage as a contract between adults in which they agree, for as long as they are married, to live together as spouses - to form a family. Although I don’t mean just the traditional family. I think a married couple whether man and women or man and man, or woman and woman can form a family with each other. I think that spouses should each have most of the rights traditionally associated with the union. Meaning if a gay man ends up in a coma, his partner has the legal right to come visit him, that kind of thing.

    Posted by: JT at July 5, 2006 01:59 PM

    Per JT: "I think of marriage as a contract between adults in which they agree, for as long as they are married, to live together as spouses - to form a family. Although I don?t mean just the traditional family. I think a married couple whether man and women or man and man, or woman and woman can form a family with each other. I think that spouses should each have most of the rights traditionally associated with the union. Meaning if a gay man ends up in a coma, his partner has the legal right to come visit him, that kind of thing."

    Interesting. Additional clarifications if you don't mind:

    1. The notion of family seems to figure prominently in this definition. What is your definition of 'family'?

    2. Why do you say "most of the rights" rather than "all of the rights"? Which ones might be excluded and why?

    3. What role should government play in endorsing or legitimizing a marriage union as you define it?

    4. What (if any) legal obligations to each other should be assigned to same-sex marriage parnters? Is community property involved? Is legal action required to resolve the financial and familial aspects of broken unions.

    Thanks,

    -OM

    Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2006 03:32 PM

    God, how I wish KO wouldn't take so many days off and leave us to these discussions.

    Posted by: Scott at July 5, 2006 03:45 PM

    Interesting. Additional clarifications if you don't mind:

    Not at all, but I don't have time right now. will have to get it to it later this evening.

    Posted by: jt at July 5, 2006 03:53 PM

    Lets get ahead of the curb on this one. We can write the next set of childrens text books.....My 6 Dads......My Pop and his harem.
    It's un-natural behaviour they must try to normalize. First they destroy the traditional marriage.Or at least make a mockery of it. Then they can work on age of consent thru NAMBLA and the ACLU. Thats how leftists must work when out of power. And once the family unit is damaged enough maybe people with think Leftist ideas make more sense. Abortion normal-Having children old fashioned. Queer couplings why not? Marriage a thing of the past. STDs everybodys got at least one. Monogamy BORING. So on so on. JT will be the leader,with the help of his 3 husbands and 2 wives.LEFTIST NIRVANA.

    Posted by: scooter at July 5, 2006 05:29 PM

    JT wrote:
    "Can't think of any. As long as: 1) it is consensual... "

    Then when taking multiple marriage partners (the natural progression), the existing spouse(s) involved would legally have to grant consent.

    Posted by: Jack at July 5, 2006 05:49 PM


    Scooter,

    I thought long and hard about what you have written (it inspired me to really think about this issue) and I have very carefully crafted a reply.


    >>Lets get ahead of the curb on this one. We can >>write the next set of childrens text >>books.....My 6 Dads......My Pop and his harem.
    >>It's un-natural behaviour they must try to >>normalize. First they destroy the traditional >>marriage.Or at least make a mockery of it. Then >>they can work on age of consent thru NAMBLA and >>the ACLU. Thats how leftists must work when out >>of power. And once the family unit is damaged >>enough maybe people with think Leftist ideas >>make more sense. Abortion normal-Having >>children old fashioned. Queer couplings why >>not? Marriage a thing of the past. STDs >>everybodys got at least one. Monogamy BORING. >>So on so on. JT will be the leader,with the >>help of his 3 husbands and 2 wives.LEFTIST >>NIRVANA.


    HAHAHAHAHAHA

    Posted by: JT at July 5, 2006 05:59 PM

    1. The notion of family seems to figure prominently in this definition. What is your definition of 'family'?

    Basically I mean the two spouses. Children optional. Assuming they can have them.

    2. Why do you say "most of the rights" rather than "all of the rights"? Which ones might be excluded and why?

    Honestly I can't think of any that should be excluded. I said most because I am not familiar with all the breaks given to married couples. Or any of the penalties for that matter.

    3. What role should government play in endorsing or legitimizing a marriage union as you define it?

    I don’t see a reason government should have any role in endorsing a marriage union.

    4. What (if any) legal obligations to each other should be assigned to same-sex marriage parnters? Is community property involved? Is legal action required to resolve the financial and familial aspects of broken unions.

    In my perfect world scenario this is all handled contractually beforehand.

    hope this clarifies my position.


    Posted by: JT at July 5, 2006 06:16 PM

    "Then when taking multiple marriage partners (the natural progression), the existing spouse(s) involved would legally have to grant consent."

    yeah.

    Posted by: jt at July 5, 2006 06:17 PM

    People could marry their own parents to get benefits, collect social security benefits, maybe a continuation of pension legacy benefits, and pass that on thru marriage to their children. Then marry the doggie and hope for veterinary benefits at employer expense. JT your onto something here and in 20 yrs it will all seem quite normal.( Kinda like abortion does now,except without dead babies.) The possibilities are enormous. Think about it someday you could marry your clone. Wow marriage in the future will be very exciting. And thats way cool cause its nobodys business anyhow what kinda marriage/contract Janet and Bob and Rover and Cindy and Paul and Paula and Lassie enter into.

    Posted by: scooter at July 5, 2006 08:25 PM

    Maybe next we can re-define "death penalty" to mean cake and ice cream. And "mandatory sentence" to mean hurry back to your old neighborhood and victimize more people. OOOPPS you leftists already did that....well there's other institutions to "fix" keep brainstorming.

    Posted by: scooter at July 5, 2006 08:34 PM

    That's right scooter, let's take the most ABSURD example and try to pass it off as NORMAL liberal thought.

    Incest is illegal. Beastiality is illegal. Mainstream liberals who support the concept of same-sex marriage DO NOT SUPPORT these, nor do they support bigamy, polygamy or pedophilia.

    Quit the fear-mongering. It makes you look like a dope.

    Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2006 08:40 PM

    Abortion use


    Look, I'm Ann Coulter! Weeee!

    Hey look at me everybody, I'm a trolling bitch!

    I love the smell of Keith Olbermann in the morning, he smells, smells like, well, like my ASS!

    This comment thread is now closed.