I can't wait to see how you conservatives defend Rice. That's the great thing about this site. I don't have to listen to Rush to know exactly what he says about everything.

KO finally has a real Republican villain to flog and the "honor amongst thieves" (er. . . I mean "honor amongst pervs") principle prevents Olby from going full-tilt. Will he sweat tonight while discussing internet malfeasance? Will we see streaks in his orange facade?

I have some hard-hitting questions. How many IM's has Keith sent to underage persons? When did MSLSD know about them? How about e-mails? Did Danny Abrams know?

REAL SNEAKY PILLOW BITER- YA GOT HE FIRST POSY HERE
BUT IT'S JUST LIKE THE OTHER DAYS
NOBODY WILL LISTEN TO YOU OR RESPOND TO YOUR STUPID WHINY POSTS HERE EITHER

HEY COLBERT THERE IS JOHHNY DOLLAR WHY DON'T YOU GO WHINING TO HIM AGAIN!!
COLBERT YOU PILLOW BITIN FOOL
GO WHINE LITTLE COLBERT
MAYBE IF YOU ARE GOOD ENOUGH OLBERMANN WILL LET YOU SIT IN HIS LAP
GO WHINE SOME MORE COLBERT BUT NOBODY WILL LISTEN

WHITE HOUSE IGNORED GENERALS' TROOP REQUESTS

-- Powell Doctrine Not Well Suited For Quagmires --

WASHINGTON -- The White House has dismissed the current division over U.S. troop strength in Iraq by suggesting that former aides are simply aggrieved that their advice was ignored. "These Generals are merely disgrunted former employees," said Bush, "Troop levels in Iraq are decided by commanders on the ground ... unless, of course, they ask for more troops."

SO IF BUSH DOES PUT MORE TROOPS IN IRAQ THE LIBERALS WILL SCREAM "ESCALATION" JUSY LIKE THEY DID IN VIETNAM.
FOR ONCE, JUST ONCE I WANT TO HEAR THE DEMOCRATS BE HONEST AND COME OUT AND ADMIT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT NO MATTER WHAT BUSH DOES IT WILL NOT BE ENOUGH FOR THEM.

"JUST ONCE I WANT TO HEAR THE DEMOCRATS BE HONEST AND COME OUT AND ADMIT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT NO MATTER WHAT BUSH DOES IT WILL NOT BE ENOUGH FOR THEM."

I'm an independent, and I'm not sure there's anything this government can do to redeem itself in my eyes after the last six years.

I still don't get why we went into Iraq. I don't get why we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars there when we have other areas that need the money more. I don't get why we thumb our nose at the world on a regular basis. I don't get why we don't demand accountability, at any level. I view myself as a fairly rational human being, and if someone can explain it to me and cite appropriate evidence, then I'll certainly consider it, but I view this entire administration to this point as an unmitigated disaster that has been snowballing.

It's cost our troops, it's cost our money, it's cost our "political capital" ... I'm _hardly_ a democrat, but I just don't get Iraq or the lack of accountability. When you don't want to be held accountable, you have something to hide.

Sorry, didn't mean to get venty. I have friends in Iraq. I can't figure out why they're there.

YOU ARE NOT AN INDEPENDENT YOU ARE COLBERT THE PILLOW BITER BORN IN THE ANUS OF CIVILIZATION
WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO KID SANITY?
AS USUAL YOU ARE A LIAR
FIRST OF AL I DO NOT BELIEVE FOR ONE MINUTE YOU HAVE FRIENDS AT ALL LET ALONE FRINED IN IRAQ- YOU ARE SO FULL OF SHIT COLBERT
MORE COMEDY FROM THE WHINER:
"I view myself as a fairly rational human being"
" THEN YOU ARE REALLY ALL ALONE COLBERT BECAUSE YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO FINDS YOU RATIONAL
MAYBE YOU MEAN RECTAL INSTEAD OF RATIONAL COLBERT I GUESS YOU JUST MISSPELLED ANOTHER WORD
THEN COLBERT INSANTIY WHINES SOME MORE AND BEGS ACCEPTANCE IN HIS USUAL PITIFUL PILLOW BITING WAY:
"Sorry, didn't mean to get venty"
MAN GET YOURSELF A TISUE AND GET OVER YOURSELF AND JOIN THE REAL WORLD COLBERT SANITY WILLAMS OR WHATVER YOU ARE CALLING YOURSELF THIS MINUTE
YOU ARE PATHETIC

"There is nothing anyone on TV can say that deserves this level of adolescent, fetishized "scrutiny"...do you sit up at night worrying about whether their might be grubs eating your lawn?

- Think Progress

Let's see,

You think I'm some other guy that disagrees with you. Who could POSSIBLY disagree with a guy that talks in all caps all the time and speaks in incomplete sentences like a crying child. Who, I ask you, who?

"YOU ARE PATHETIC"

O'rly? Sez... who, the kid in the corner? Do you have a job?

AHH THINK PROGRESS POSSIBLY THE NUTTIEST LIBERAL LEFTARD SOCIALIST WEBSITE ON THE NET
ANYBODY WANT TO SEE THE X-FILES MASQUERADING AS POLTITICAL THINKING GO CHECK OUT thinkprogress.com
THIS IS THE NATIONAL MONNBAT CONSPIRACY THEORY WEBSITE FOR THE MENATALLY CHALLENGED
THINK PROGREESS PROVES THAN LIBERAL LEFTARDS ARE IN FACT LIBERAL LEFTARDS.
MORE NUTTINESS FORM THOSE WONDERFUL MOONBATS!

"ANYBODY WANT TO SEE THE X-FILES MASQUERADING AS POLTITICAL THINKING GO CHECK OUT thinkprogress.com"

Titillating.

"THIS IS THE NATIONAL MONNBAT CONSPIRACY THEORY WEBSITE FOR THE MENATALLY CHALLENGED"

I hear that the menatally challenged don't have much control over the engeelish.

"THINK PROGREESS PROVES THAN LIBERAL LEFTARDS ARE IN FACT LIBERAL LEFTARDS."

Ipso facto. Mea culpa.

Ok, at first I thought he genuinely was following me around calling me Colbert, but I'm starting to think he's genuinely funny. Or she. Darn internets.

COLBET MADE ANOTHER FUNNY!
COLBERT YOU ARE NOT REAL SMART ARE YOU?
NOW YOU HAVE THE STUPIDITY TO CALL YOURSELF SANITY- THAT'S REAL-REAL FUNNY
I HAVE SEEN ROAD KIL THAT HAS MORE BRAINS THAN YOU COLBERT SANITY WILLIAMS PILLOW BITER
YOU SHADOW COLBY YOUR SHADOW
NO MATTER WHAT NAME YOU USE YOUR SYNTAX AND STUPIDITY ARE ALL THE SAME AND I WON'T GET TIRED OF SHOWING WHAT AN a--hole YOU ARE
YOU CAN RUN BUT YA CAN'T HIDE PILLOW BOY
SO WHAT DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT NOW COLBERT SANITY NEW TO THIS SITE??
PICK A TOPIC ANY TOPIC

"COLBERT SANITY WILLIAMS PILLOW BITER"

I think I'll name my next dog this. You are unconventionally funny.

"NO MATTER WHAT NAME YOU USE YOUR SYNTAX AND STUPIDITY ARE ALL THE SAME"

I'm sorry, are there other forum members with decent grammar and control over the english language? Where? Or are they all just PILLOW BITER to you?

"SO WHAT DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT NOW COLBERT SANITY NEW TO THIS SITE??
PICK A TOPIC ANY TOPIC"

Hmm. I am new to this site. How about Secularism. What's the big deal?

Its a shame that the screaming maniac is ruining what there was of decent discussion here. I am sure there has to be a way to at least delete the guys messages. I can read and learn from people who disagree with me but this is a waste of my time if this is what this place is gonna be. It's obvious he is abusing this site.

ANONYMOUS COLBERT O'LIELY YOU ARE ABOUT AS DUMB AS A BOX OF ROCKS - YOU ARE GETTING TO THE POINT YOU ARE LYING SO MUCH YOU CAN'T KEEP YOUR LIES AND BULLSHIT STRAIGHT.
AND ALL YOU CAN DO IS WHINE
JUST LIKE YOU DID YEASTERDAY WHEN YOU GOT CAUGHT LYING AND CRYING ABOUT IT.
YOU AWNT TO KNOW WHAT'S TITILLATING??
SHOWING HOW STUPID AND LYING AND HYPOCRITCAL YOU LEFT INGNUTS ARE
IT COULD BE A NEW SPORT
OPEN SEASON ON LIBERALS
NO BAG LIMIT- NO LISCNECE REQUIRED
JUST USE THEIR OWN WHINING STUPIDITY AGAINST THEM
WHA WAH COLBERT NOBODY CAN HELP YOU YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN NOW

This reminds me of the scrubs episode where all the old man could do was say "Pickles" ...

Dear Lord, I'm agreeing with Codas.

AH MORE FUN WITH COLBERT
I DON'T CARE WHAT DAMN IDIOT SHOWS YOU WATCH COLBERT- NOBODY DOES
WE ALL KNOW WHO YOU ARE
KEEP UP THE CRAP- YOU ARE JUST MAKING A FOLL OF YOURSELF
ARE YOU GOING TO START WHINING AGAIN??
THAT WAS FUNNY
GIVE IT UP DUDE- ITOLD YOU I WOULD REPLY TO YOUR EVERY POST I MEANT IT
DON'T TALK ABOUT YOUR PATHETIC TV SHOW
THIS WEBSITE IS ABOUT OLBERMANN
GET WITH THE PROGRAM- THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOUR FAVORITE GAY TV SHOWS
YOU ARE REAL DUMB- PILLOW BITER
FIGURES YOU WOULD PICK UP ON A WORD LIKE PICKLE YOU PICKLE SWALLOWER . YOU LIKE PICKLES DON'T YOU COLBERT?? YOU AND O'LIE
HAHAHAHAHA COLBERT I TOLD YOU YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW.....

This is fun!

"KEEP UP THE CRAP- YOU ARE JUST MAKING A FOLL OF YOURSELF"

Touche. Let me rebutt with: "THAT WAS FUNNY"

"YOU ARE REAL DUMB- PILLOW BITER"

PICKLES!

Whoops, the one that ended with "PICKLES!" was me. (Of course!)

GET RID OF THIS SCUMBAG WHO ATTACKS AND SAYS STUPID SHIT THEN CHANGES HIS NAME
FROM COLBERT TO O'REILLY TO SANITY TO NEW TO THIS SITE TO WR WILLIAMS.
THIS PECKERHEAD ALWAYS SAYS SHIT THEN CHANGES HIS NAME. GET RID OF THIS GUY AND I'LL TALK AGAIN
I DID NOT START THIS
BUT I WILL FINISH IT
I APOLOGIZE TO THE CIVIL FOLKS HERE BUT UNTIL THIS WEBSITE GATS SOME CONTRO OVER THE ATTACKERS LIKE COLBERT - AND ALL OF HIS NAMES I WILL CONTINUE TO FOLLOW HIM
EVEN IF IT MEANS I GET BANNED IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WORTH IT SO YOU FOLKS COULD BE FREE OF THIS COLBERT-ORIELLY OR O'LIELLY' NEW TO THIS SITE- SANIT- WILLIAMS OR WHATEVER HE CALLS HIMSELF THIS MINUTE
HE HAS BEEN DOING HIS SHIT FOR DAYS- JUST PLAYING GAMES
HEY LOOK AT IT THIS WAY :I AM BRING TWO DISPARATE PERONALITIES LIKE CODAS AND BRANDON TO SOME FORM OF CONSENSUS

I really hope that you're intentions are to be funny, because I'm thoroughly entertained, as I hope was your intention.

I've been posting only a few hours and I'm already your worst nightmare with six personalities. Awesome. Lets do lunch!

I REST MY FUCKING CASE

Whoops, posted anon again.

LIKE I SAID - I REST MY FUCKING CASE

That's riverdog. He's upset because another poster proved he was lying about serving in the military.

Oneliners are in again?

PICKLES!

Are you Colbert the pillow biter?

Hey Mods,, how about blocking that tools IP address ?

I said it was Rivermutt a while back, but it is easier to just ignore the infantile little guttersnipe.

The Mark Foley republicans really show their true colors with the constant references to gay sex. It is the demons of sexuality that haunt them. Guns and hunting, race cars and trucks are the safe subjects. They clam up when the conversation gets analytical fearing that others might get a sense of the secrets they hide within. These are the people that become the Jeffery Dahmers of this world. The bulk of serial killers come from the white southern protestant world of uncle rape and sexual demonization. Homophobia is literally about survival in their world. The attacks on personality types like KO's are common though out their social circles. Anyone that says it how they see it is a threat to them. Gay bashing is the logical response and done purely in self defense!

Although everyone likes a good mystery - you are ALL wrong.

POR LITTLE COLBERT is a new commenter.

Sanity is also a new commenter.

At least they are both new based on IP address.

State of denial about State of Denial.

I always said Bush and company new the terrorists from Saudi Arabia were up to no good and that is why Condi let it be known she didn't want to know about it.

THEY WANTED THEIR PERL HARBOR TO GET THE NATION AND THE WORLD BEHIND THE IRAQ ADVENTURE!

That said, the use of ALL CAPS is about as obnoxious as spamming the site. Consider this a warning that the mood may strike me and I may begin to ban such commenters.

"Sanity is also a new commenter."

I've been here a few hours and I'm that other guy's worst nightmare, complete with six other personalities in my closet. I'd love to see Cee's response to my comment a few threads ago, because that's what I really am waiting around here on. I want to have that discussion.

But till then, Pickles!

ok Por Little is new... congrats Rivermutt you are now in second place.. Here is a shiny silver dime.

Stupid...lack of...autosave...

A sure show stopper is the skinny on the secret sexual desires they are terrified of showing. Everyone knows we all have relative anonymity here but the terror still erupts simply because it gives them pause to think if it shows here in the venue then perhaps too in their private and social life. This is why they hate people like KO - say how you see it and they attack out fear of being seen as they secretly are!

The Mark Foley republicans really show their true colors with the constant references to gay sex. It is the demons of sexuality that haunt them. Guns and hunting, race cars and trucks are the safe subjects. They clam up when the conversation gets analytical fearing that others might get a sense of the secrets they hide within. These are the people that become the Jeffery Dahmers of this world. The bulk of serial killers come from the white southern protestant world of uncle rape and sexual demonization. Homophobia is literally about survival in their world. The attacks on personality types like KO's are common though out their social circles. Anyone that says it how they see it is a threat to them. Gay bashing is the logical response and done purely in self defense!

People who talk loud and try to run the conversation are just as obnoxious on the net as they are in real life I am learning.

Leadership. Oh that we had it now.

"That said, the use of ALL CAPS is about as obnoxious as spamming the site. Consider this a warning that the mood may strike me and I may begin to ban such commenters."

Explain the use of all caps as a justification for banning. Could it be the message is what you despise?????????

Oh is all question marks forbidden too?

You suck you pussy, you can dish it out but you can't take it. Nothing could appeal to me more than being banned here it would be the clearest vindications of my perspective on you pussies.

You suck!

How come none of these retired military men never say anything while they are still in the military ?

If they wanted to be a true American heroes they are waiting too long before they stand up to this incompetence. I wonder if you were to allow those in the military to vote on their confidence in Rumsfield it would be a pretty low percentage.

The clincher is right here. This kind of commentary derives the threat of being banned. This what flips their switch the most.

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

The Mark Foley republicans really show their true colors with the constant references to gay sex. It is the demons of sexuality that haunt them. Guns and hunting, race cars and trucks are the safe subjects. They clam up when the conversation gets analytical fearing that others might get a sense of the secrets they hide within. These are the people that become the Jeffery Dahmers of this world. The bulk of serial killers come from the white southern protestant world of uncle rape and sexual demonization. Homophobia is literally about survival in their world. The attacks on personality types like KO's are common though out their social circles. Anyone that says it how they see it is a threat to them. Gay bashing is the logical response and done purely in self defense!

As the Romans used to do when the Christians were being fed to the lions... thumb pointing down.

Let's talk about the "warnings" we had regarding Al-Qaeda's intentions to kill Americans.

I'll give you Bin Laden's own words from his 1998 Fatwah:

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it,
...
We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it."

That was almost 3 years before Bill Clinton left office.

Discuss...

The military are really not set up in this country to be standing up against the government. They have enough to do. It is the rest of the countries job to ensure that our president "any of them" do not abuse them, and use them for any other purpose than the defense of this country.

Codas.... I have never understtod the desire to be in the military. however I cannot but help think that the safety of their fellow soldiers and their countrymen would make at least one of them stand up and call this what it is.

"Codas.... I have never understtod the desire to be in the military. however I cannot but help think that the safety of their fellow soldiers and their countrymen would make at least one of them stand up and call this what it is."

If you have even a moderate interest in science fiction and military history, read the Honor Harrington series. Sci-fi, but the values of the main character and the challenges she runs into are worth the read. The political intrigue of the later books is also... interesting, given the current political climate.

"Codas.... I have never understtod the desire to be in the military. however I cannot but help think that the safety of their fellow soldiers and their countrymen would make at least one of them stand up and call this what it is."

If you have even a moderate interest in science fiction and military history, read the Honor Harrington series. Sci-fi, but the values of the main character and the challenges she runs into are worth the read. The political intrigue of the later books is also... interesting, given the current political climate.

Sigh, both of those were me. Pickles!

That was almost 3 years before Bill Clinton left office.

Discuss...

So you are saying that George Bush and all the hillbillies that voted for him thought Bin Laden called off his fatwah when Bush began his presidency? You think there were no white southern protestant senators and representatives hound Bill's dick and threaten "wag the dog" every time he tried to carry out military operations? Who brought Bill's private sex life and plastered the corporate owned right wing media in this nation? Who sucked all this sex and lying about sex garbage? You think Clinton did this against himself? Did Bill Clinton put all the republicans up to hounding him and threaten "wag the dog"?

Any fool knows who did what. Only idiots pretend it was Bill Clinton that controlled Bush when Bush was president and did nothing so he could carry out his Cheney/Halliburton plan to turn Iraq into gold mine for all his corporate masters.

Only the kulture of the Khristian Klan would suck this garbage up.

Bill O'lielly,

Is there any chance that many who serve in the U.S. military may have a differing opinion than yours (and that's all you have...an opinion...a different viewpoint) and that they truly believe in what they are doing is worthwhile?

Any chance at all??

Disgrace for the republican party for covering up the Mark Foley email scandal. Typical hypocritical homophobic party! Even when it is the sexual abuse of a child. Uncle rape kulture covers it up.

I know Blame it Bill Clinton!

Hey, "It's all Bill Clinton's Fault!"...

You got it all wrong.

Bill Clinton isn't to blame for 9-11.

George Bush isn't to blame for 9-11.

AL-QAEDA is to blame for 9-11.

I was merely pointing out the fact that EVERYONE knew that Al-Qaeda was out to kill Americans.

Just the Truth.. Of course it is possible, obviously likely. I admire people who give up their life for their country, but what is it that stops them from speaking up while they are in the military ? I help my mother who is 72 years old and a staunch democrat and Bush hater accumulate supplies for the Marines over in Iraq. She has collected over 15 tons of supplies in the last three years and has a network of people that help her. I want this war over not to make Bush a failure I want our bravest to be home, and as far as Iraqi's sorry they have made their own bed. Bring them home.. Honor them and buy them a drink.

"I was merely pointing out the fact that EVERYONE knew that Al-Qaeda was out to kill Americans."

Yea and I am Santa Claus. You made the reference strait from Rush Limbaugh Bill O'really Rove talking points.

Why make the Clinton connection and then deny it?

Give me a break. You are a fake!

"It's all Bill Clinton's Fault!",

Only a moron thinks that all Republicans are homophobic.

I let you in on a little secret, genius.

- I'm an Atheist.
- I could care less if gays marry
- I'm pro-choice
- and I always vote Republican

so...you were saying...

I'll make another Clinton connection for you to prove a point.

In 1998 Bill Clinton took military action against Iraq based on the same WMD evidence and citing the same UN approval as Bush did in 2003.

I SUPPORTED Clinton's action in 1998 and I supported Bush's action in 2003.

Did you?

"- and I always vote Republican"

Out of habit, or because you've weighed the offerings and relative capability to follow through of each party?

A team of Army Rangers could have killed OBL.. why didn't that happen under the reign of either of them ? One reason.. the easiest answer can be found in the excellent documentary from last year " Why We Fight "

Dear Mr. Cox,
Youv've got my vote to try and keep some of this to a minimum.
For tonight though, I've had my fill.
Goonight.
Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"Out of habit, or because you've weighed the offerings and relative capability to follow through of each party?"

Because on the "larger issues", I tend to agree with the Republican party.

Typical deceptive language from a losing argument. Tell me of these two presidents the costs of these "military operations"? The cost in human lives and the cost in dollars? The cost of America's reputation in the world?

What but a fool that listens to Rush Limbaugh too much would assume anyone but an idiot would see Bush and Clinton as comparable? Or the horrendous failure Bush has perpetrated in Iraq?

What an ass!

"A team of Army Rangers could have killed OBL.. why didn't that happen under the reign of either of them ? "

I believe that even if Bin Laden had been captured or killed during Clinton's Presidency, 9-11 still would have happened.

"Because on the "larger issues", I tend to agree with the Republican party."

Which ones? I bought fiscal responsibility because I wanted to keep a good thing going, and now we have Iraq... I don't buy Iraq. I regret my earlier thinking.

"I believe that even if Bin Laden had been captured or killed during Clinton's Presidency, 9-11 still would have happened."

I'm confused as to how leaving him alive is a good thing. We trained him during the Reagan (?) years, he's a source of funding as well as an expert in many things that we taught him... how is him being alive aiding a terrorist movement a good thing given how long he's been on our raidar as a target for elimination?

Post starting with "Which ones" was me. Stupid...lack of...autosave...

"Dear Mr. Cox,
Youv've got my vote to try and keep some of this to a minimum.
For tonight though, I've had my fill.
Goonight.
Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie"

Hmmm anyone wonder how the "Grammie" Janet Hawkins appears out of the blue and makes reference to Robert Cox's threat:

That said, the use of ALL CAPS is about as obnoxious as spamming the site. Consider this a warning that the mood may strike me and I may begin to ban such commenters.

"Posted by: Robert Cox at October 2, 2006 08:05 PM"

The two names are both the only names highlighted and one materializes when the other needs back up. As I said before they are the same person. How lame!

"What but a fool that listens to Rush Limbaugh too much would assume anyone but an idiot would see Bush and Clinton as comparable? Or the horrendous failure Bush has perpetrated in Iraq?"

First, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh and I don't watch O'Reilly...I occasionally watch Olbermann.

Second, if the cost in human lives should dictate when we pull out of a War, we would have lost the Revolutionary War, WWI, and WWII.

- I'm an Atheist.
- I could care less if gays marry
- I'm pro-choice
- and I always vote Republican

so...you were saying...

Posted by: JustTheTruth at October 2, 2006 08:42 PM

You may vote republican but the "most" of the people you are voting for do not share your ideas obviously. Are you voting for them or against democrats? You are aiding people who are the complete opposite of what you believe to shape the world. Why?

- I'm an Atheist.
- I could care less if gays marry
- I'm pro-choice
- and I always vote Republican

so...you were saying...

Posted by: JustTheTruth at October 2, 2006 08:42 PM

Plain and simple you are a liar and write this crap simply because your dumb hillbilly brain can't conceive of arguements that can support your political aliances. Why don't call yourself an Christian evangelical atheist while your at it. It would make about as much sense.

Your a fool!

"You may vote republican but the "most" of the people you are voting for do not share your ideas obviously. Are you voting for them or against democrats? You are aiding people who are the complete opposite of what you believe to shape the world. Why?"

I'm an Atheist - nobody is trying to force religion on me

I'm pro-choice - Abortion is legal

I could care less if gays marry - That's up to each State to decide.

I agree with Republicans on the larger National Security and Fiscal issues.

So I vote Republican.

"First, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh and I don't watch O'Reilly...I occasionally watch Olbermann."

Yeah and your Christian atheist too right?

"Second, if the cost in human lives should dictate when we pull out of a War, we would have lost the Revolutionary War, WWI, and WWII."

Huh? So the adventure in Iraq is on the same level as revolting for freedom from taxation without representation and just plain freedom? WWI and WWII are now on equal footing with attacking a nation that did nothing to the US and nothing to our allies? (Kuwait is no ally of ours). Sadam held in check our nations most current mortal enemy Iran and you know are defending this failed adventure like it stands on equal footing with the most important wars in the history of the planet? What an idiot. Pure Rush Limbaugh talking points!

I'm an Atheist - nobody is trying to force religion on me

Posted by: JustTheTruth at October 2, 2006 09:09 PM
Nobody is forcing me either, that is, there not making go to a certain church or anything, but I do feel like we are not that far away from a theocracy unless there is a big change over coming this fall. Read some of the posts on this site, the ten commandments being the basis for our laws and Mosiac law talk. That is a dangerous slope if you ask me. I am not an atheist but I don't want others religion dictating policy.

"I am not an atheist but I don't want others religion dictating policy."

Then your enemy is not the Republicans (including me)...your enemy is Islamic fundamentalists.

I'm an Atheist but I also respect the values that religion adds to society. I just don't believe those values come from a higher power.

So no...I'm not the least bit afraid that Republicans will trample on the freedom of religion

However, I take it very seriously when someone says, "Convert to Islam or die".

"However, I take it very seriously when someone says, "Convert to Islam or die"."

When was the last time that happened on US soil?

When was the last time a nation (as opposed to a bunch of extremists) enforced or endorsed such policy?

However, I take it very seriously when someone says, "Convert to Islam or die".

Posted by: JustTheTruth at October 2, 2006 09:31 PM

I could find verses out of the old testament that some of the people you are voting in believe absolutley that are as disturbing as the one you used. Of course I do agree "they" are more likely to blow us all up.

I am a true athiest and I believe religion is needed for people that are less able to understand themeselves, people, the world and how it works. What I don't approve of is the wholesale prostitution of religion like it is done in this nation within the protestant religions. These pimps who sell Jesus like a whore are the ones I despise. But the ones I despise the most are the ones who call themselves "Christian" and defend these pimps who sold their religious soul just to rub elbows with the rich and powerfull. People like Jerry Farwell and Pat Robertson. Where is the Robertson Watch web page run by people calling themselves Republican and Christian? Where?

Total disingenous fools who could give a shit about God or country. The Republicans have drove our nation into the highest debt ever. They have drummed up more hate for Americans than ever before, and they have turned the religion I was born and raised in into pimping and whoring for power and profit.

Pimps and Whores

"When was the last time that happened on US soil? When was the last time a nation (as opposed to a bunch of extremists) enforced or endorsed such policy?"

I don't understand your questions...does this mean ignore the threat?

Um...you do remember 9-11 don't you? U.S. soil. Islamic Extremists. ring a bell??

"Um...you do remember 9-11 don't you? U.S. soil. Islamic Extremists. ring a bell??"

Oh yea that's right Sadam Hussein blew up the World Trade Center. Bush family House of Saud? Their nation didn't contribute the 19 men who flew the planes it was all Iraqi's who killed nearly 3000 Americans.

Too much Fox News!

well I see that finally some sense of moderation is here. but it's kind of late. I started posting here because I thought that this was to be site critcal of a sorry ass sportscaster turned liberal democratic mouthpiece. silly me I was thinking that this was true conservative website But I see I was wrong and that the inmates are in charge of the assylum.
I came here and posted with criticism of olbermann and the lunatic left but the lunatic left supporters of olbermann like olbermann himself cannot tolerate dissent. The left wingnuts come here in full attack mode, use different names , dis veterans and their service, lie themselves about almost everything and then nothing gets done about it. Continue on the path of little or no moderation of the site and the left wingnuts will take over.I have seen it before in unmoderated or poorly moderated sites. After awhile Cox all you will have is liberals and supporters of olbermann running the site and little old women talking about vodka and kidney stones.
Cox you say that if the mood strikes you you will ban users of all caps how about getting into the mood to moderate your damn website and keep the liberal yahoos off?? how about that? So I hope you enjoy the company of the likes of o'lielly and colbert in all their manifestations beacuse I am going back to the real conservative websites that have real moderators and there is some control over the content and users. Within weeks all you will have another liberal free for all. Maybe I'll start my own real anti-olbermann website because I get the feeling sometimes this website is just a cover for olbermann to collect his supporters. There seem to be more olbermannites than olbermann critcs descending upon this site.
Olbermann watch indeed Mr Cox.It's more like a free website for olby lovers to continue on with olbermann logic and liberal bias. It seems like you have your own little homosexual cheerleading club within already so you are halfway there.
Too bad this could have been a good website to keep olbermann's bullshit in check.
I know that you will most likely delete this post Cox do go ahead and MODERATE THIS!
at least you will be finally doing something

"Um...you do remember 9-11 don't you? U.S. soil. Islamic Extremists. ring a bell??"

So? In the long term? If we had the inclination, we could remove the middle east from the map. PERIOD. The middle east knows this, which is why you won't see any middle eastern nation taking credit for these actions... or provoking us.

I am a true athiest and I believe religion is needed for people that are less able to understand themeselves, people, the world and how it works.

Posted by: Pimps and Whores at October 2, 2006 09:36 PM

As a liberal minded individual who desoises the Robertson and Farwell version of Christianity I have to say that the idea that I need religion because I am less able to understand myself than an atheist is something I would have to disagree with. An atheist is just as much "true believer" as Robertson. How can you be so sure? There is no way you can be other than you have faith that there is nothing out there. Your wrong of course in my opinion because everything I see and hear and feel gives me faith that there is something out there. Show me "oblivion" somewhere and you will have converted me. Is that what you believe in? Oblivion? What else is there then?

Sadam Hussein was a secularists that tortured any islamist fundamentalists that got cocky in Iraq. He was a mortal enemy of the islamists. Enemy's may conspire against a common enemy but Sadam was a survivalist he was not about to wake a sleeping lion anymore than Kuwait had already done. Sadam hated Isreal but he was shroud politician that had nothing to do with islamists. Only those who suck up Cheney/Haliburton propaganda believe Sadam was connected to 911.

desoises was supposed to be despises. Bad typer I am!

"Oh yea that's right Sadam Hussein blew up the World Trade Center. Bush family House of Saud? Their nation didn't contribute the 19 men who flew the planes it was all Iraqi's who killed nearly 3000 Americans." - posted by Bandar Bush

No...it was Islamic extremists...and that is why we went into Afghanistan.

The Iraq War in 2003 was a 12 year continuation of Bush senior and Clinton's policies. We CAN do 2 things at once. Clinton needed no such 9-11 attack to justify his use of force against Iraq in 1998 (an action which I supported...did you?).

"Only those who suck up Cheney/Haliburton propaganda believe Sadam was connected to 911" - posted by Enemy of Islamists

I've never said nor believed such a thing...again...you should really try to avoid making generalizations when talking to people. It makes you sound foolish.

I'll say it again: Clinton needed no such 9-11 attack/connection to use military force against Iraq in 1998. An action that I FULLY supported. Did you?

Just the Truth

"In 1998 Bill Clinton took military action against Iraq based on the same WMD evidence and citing the same UN approval as Bush did in 2003."

Well your statement is somewhat misleading yet I see the truth you are headed for. Clinton orderd those strikes due to Iraq'a refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors that were on the ground there. Saddam had announced he was no longer going to submit to the inspections hence the military action.

2002/2003- Inspectors go back to Iraq This is were Bush was right. They let them back in out of fear of action. The problem was that they were following US intelligence leads and finding nothing. In fact the inspectors continually argued that US intelligence was wrong. Yes Iraq was good at misleading inspectors but US intelligence was just as misleading. You have to remember this is before we ever went to war and the people on the ground were questioning our intelligence yet we still went to war citing this same intelligence. Clinton's action was a direct response to action by Saddam. Bush's action to topple Saddam was not. Weapons inspectors had confirmed then what we accept now, there was no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons programs or stockpiles in Iraq. We ignored this and still attacked. So I think when you use the 1998 atack to justify the 2003 War, you are wrong. While they both involved the topic of WMD's, the circumstances leading to them were very different. So I'd say your name should be more like Just the Truthiness.

Show you me faith and I will show you cattle and sheep. Logic and reason tells you that there is no basis in logic or reason to believe with faith or any other way that their is "something" out there. Faith in religious matters means, "I accept without proof". Factual basis for beliefs means you make conclusions based on evidence that testable and verifiable.

The first time you have child in need of an emergency room doctor why not for go that and put your "faith" in natural herbs or a witch doctor or even Pat Robertson for healing your child. What will you do? You will choose the institution of medical science not hocus pocus faith garbage.

The idea that there is a god in heaven with a spot light on your rich fat privileged western culture ass but not on a little girl being raped in Sudan demonstrates the degree of self centered thinking fat lazy people are capable of.

Anonymous,

Regarding Iraq...

It is a fact: Iraq had WMDs (at some point in time) and this fact is undisputed...even the Iraqis admitted it.

You are quite correct that in 1998 the weapons inspectors left Iraq...having not completed the job.

It is also a fact that prior to 2003, the exact state of Iraq's known WMDs was still unknown. Read UN RES. 1441 from Nov. 2002 passed unanimously and stating exactly that.

btw, if you having any evidence or report PRIOR to 2003 stating that Iraq had destroyed it's WMDs and was in compliance, I'd love to see it.

So...at which between 1991 and 2003 was Iraq in full compliance?

Oblivious.
Logic and reason are what brings me to my faith. I didn't have a big "spiritual" episode like some or see God in a burning bush. What is a human being? Do you think you know from your reasoning? Why do you think that a little girl being raped in Sudan is proof their is no God. You don't believe in free will then? If you see a rock and a wristwatch you know the elements made one and a thinking mind made the other. Why would the thinking mind now be thought of as just being made up of the elements. The watch maker had a maker. That's my reasoning anyway.

Yes Iraq did have WMD's at some point.True

Yes UN resolution states that True

Iraq was not in full compliance True

Weapons inspectors on the ground criticized and disagreed with our intelligence as not consistent with what they were finding. They also complained of not having the right amount of time after not being in there for 4 years. They had less than 5 months. The evidence they were collecting was pointing to the results we know now. True

UN did not give us permission to invade Iraq True

We invaded even though we were being told our intelligence was wrong before the war. True

"So...at which between 1991 and 2003 was Iraq in full compliance?"

So which is it, was Iraq invaded for being complicit in 911 or for failing to allow the verification of no wmd's? Do you think anyone believes that Bush would have allow a condition where the US could say we know for a fact that Iraq has no wmd's? No way!

Bush and the Rove propaganda machine went through a lot of trouble to blur the media over with a connection between Iraq and 911. You seem to want to pretend that Bush never made the 911 connection and always communicated that we will be in a war for "a long time" spend thousands of American lives hundreds of billions of dollars over wmd verification? What kind of a game are you playing? You can't have it both ways. 911 or WMD's.

Or was it control over an oil rich nation that would bring billions in profits for war profiteering buddies of Dick Cheney's at Halliburton and others?

Who but a fool would think this huge fiasco is about WMD's. What a fucking joke!

Just the Truth,
You claim you agree with the Republicans fiscal policies? The policies which have run up massive deficits? Or the rhetoric which pretends they are for fiscal responsibility?

"UN did not give us permission to invade Iraq. We invaded even though we were being told our intelligence was wrong before the war." posted by Anonymous.

False and False.

We had the same UN authorization which the Clinton Administration cited in 1998.

Here's the quote from the then U.S. Ambassador to the UN Peter Burleigh - 1998 "the coalition today exercised the authority given by Security Council resolution 678 (1990) for member states to employ ALL NECESSARY MEANS to secure Iraqi compliance with the Council's resolutions and restore international peace and security in the area." http://www.un.int/usa/98_237.htm

And, please show me a report or statement PRIOR to 2003 which said our intelligence was wrong.

Sanity wrote: " When was the last time a nation (as opposed to a bunch of extremists) enforced or endorsed such policy?"

Apparently you missed the several days of wall to wall news coverage on the death sentence of the Afghani man who converted from Islam to Christianity. That was the sentence by an Afghani court, officialy a branch of the Afghan government, enforcing Afghan law.

The simple fact that it is a law would, I would think, show the Afghanistan "endorses such policy." I would go so far as to say that although the sentence was not carried out, due to overwhelming pressure from the West, that the simple conviction and sentencing could be construed as "enforcing...such policy."

As for whether or not this has happened on US soil is a moot point. No US embassies have ever been attacked on US soil, nor have personnel been held hostage for 444 days. Does that mean there is no threat of this to American citizens or property. No US warship has been blown up by terrorists on US soil (or in US territorial waters). Again, I suppose that means it is not something we should worry about.

On the other hand, the two Fox News employees kidnapped were forced to "convert" to Islam at gunpoint just weeks ago. Steve was an American citizen. So that is a real threat.

"You claim you agree with the Republicans fiscal policies? The policies which have run up massive deficits? Or the rhetoric which pretends they are for fiscal responsibility?"
- Posted by: Colbert at October 2, 2006 10:17 PM

When your in a War, you tend to run up deficits.

Study the National Debt as a % of GDP during WWII.

We have a $13+ trillion economy...we'll be fine.

"The watch maker had a maker. That's my reasoning anyway."

Oh boy the watch maker analogy. Again I say. As an atheist I make no conclusion that a rock has a maker but that a watch does. The watch maker is on the same level as the rock. There is no evidence that either has a maker. For you to argue else wise will be easy to discredit.

Buhda said: "I am not god, if you worship me now or after I die, you only worship yourself." When was the last time a Buddhist killed in the name of god?

This is the story of man. He invents a god in his image and then worships it. The animal instinct to serve the self - ie survival at any cost. The simplest of minds worship at the alter of self preservation. Like a spider or monkey simple men follow simple thinking. Again your vile self centered self worshiping arrogance accepts a god looking out for you and yours while innocents suffer all over the world at your expense (privileged western lifestyle).

You and I are different in that I do not worship an image of myself in oblivion. This means I, like you follow the natural instinct to promote myself. Unlike you I am fully aware of it and unlike you I therefore am in a better position to control my self worshipping desires.

Who are the biggest murdering a--holes on this planet? Two warring groups both worship an image of a man as their god - Muslims and Christians. Both have a long history of terror as the way they govern over others. Read Sagan's, Demon Haunted World, to learn more about the long history of the use of terror by the church.

Religion is for simple minds. It should be in the hands of pimps and whores who sell it off to sleazy politicians!

Does the NY Times even have a list of political best-sellers?

Just The Truth,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/

Scott,
Doesn't your argument about Afghanistan refute claims Afghanistan is some great democratic success story?

The fact is the Left is allied with Islamists. They both want to destroy the Judeo-Christian way of life.

"You claim you agree with the Republicans fiscal policies? The policies which have run up massive deficits? Or the rhetoric which pretends they are for fiscal responsibility?"
- Posted by: Colbert at October 2, 2006 10:17 PM

When your in a War, you tend to run up deficits.

Study the National Debt as a % of GDP during WWII.

We have a $13+ trillion economy...we'll be fine.

You dumb sob, how dare you say this. You have children with no health insurance? You smug MF you quote Limbaugh garbage and think it is thoughtful discourse. When was the last time you took care of a sick child and you had no way to pay the medical bills? The middle class in this nation or flipping the bill on the adventure for Halliburton and you compare it to WWII as though they are on equal footing. This $300 billion cost is being paid by the middle class at a time when tax cuts to the richest 1% of Bush buddies is enacted.

You make me sick with your callus disregard for who is paying for this war not just with dollars but with lives. What an a--hole you are!

"The fact is the Left is allied with Islamists. They both want to destroy the Judeo-Christian way of life."

I am ready for a laugh. Tell me what the Judeo-Christian way of life is.

Just The TruthColbert,

There are a couple of telling statements in those links:

"The inspectors find themselves caught between the Iraqis, who are masters at the weapons-hiding shell game..."

"inspectors told the council they had not found any weapons of mass destruction, but they urged Iraq to be more cooperative."

"they were still investigating and had not ruled out the possibility that Iraq does possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. "

"Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated, "immediately, unconditionally and actively," with UNMOVIC, as is required under Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441...The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions"

"these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance."

Just The Truth,
Comparing Iraq to WWII is an absurd comparison. After WWII we begn running surpluses and lowering the debt as a percentage of GDP. This continued until 1982. Reagan and Bush 41 began running up massive deficits. Clinton began lowering the debt as a percentage of GDP. Then Bush 43 reverted to Reagan's form.

"The traditional pattern of running large deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982 [Reagan's first budget year], partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992.
-www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf.

A Way Of Liffe,
so you deny there's a Leftist-Islamic alliance?

Anonymous,

You gotta calm down...you're hatred is palpable.

Nobody takes you seriously when you go off on a expletive-laden tirade to make a point.

Take a deep breath, count to 20...and try again to explain how the rich in this country should be punished and forced to pay for the health care of a child who's own parents won't work to pay for his/her healthcare.

Colbert,
Why is the Left allied with Islamists?

relevance."

Yes relevance of WMD when the Rove propaganda machine let go of the WMD thing and submerged the American media in the connection between Sadam and Al Qaeda.

This whole discussion is an exercise of who can nail down details. Details in an irrelevant aspect of the misguided attack on a sovereign nation.

Red Wolf,
The Islamists agree with the religious right on every issue. You hate gays, think women are inferior to men, hate porn/smut of any kind, hate sex, hate abortion rights, etc.

Colbert,

The National Debt and deficit doesn't really concern me too much.

These are the numbers I look at:

? DOW - 11670.35
? NASDAQ - 2237.60
? GDP - 13 trillion

At some point we'll have to cut some spending here or there...and raise taxes...but we'll make it through...I'm not concerned.

A $13 trillion economy generates a lot of tax revenue.

" pay for the health care of a child who's own parents won't work to pay for his/her healthcare."

Here you have it. A complete Rush Limbaugh a--hole quoter. You dumb fucker. You have no clue how many people in this nation have both parents working and no way to afford health insurence. You are the best example of a stupid a--hole if I ever saw one. You are the pride of the right wing idiots. A poster child of ignorance. I dare you to go down to your local pub and stand up like the man you pretend to be in the safety of anonimitty of the sight and say out loud that children without health care have parents who won't work and see how long you are standing after that. Your pussy coward ass would be stomped so fast your head would spin. You are the cream of the crop of low lifes on this page. Typical slave of corprate masters and a sheep of Fox News and Rush. What a low life hick you are.

Colbert,
Not everyone on the Right is a member of the Religious Right. Your prejudism and narowmindedness shows. I'm Libertarain-Right.
The Leftist-Islamic alliance was on full display during the Hizballah-Israel conflict. When Leftists papres like the NY Times and Leftists organization such as Reuters were openly condeming Israel, but praising Hizballah. The Iranian President's kid glove interviews with Mike Wallace and Anderson Cooper.
Also Hollywood always mocks religion. But there's one religion that never gets mocked, Islam. In Europe the Leftists alwys bow to Islamic pressure.
Please I'm just want an honest answer for the Left's sympathy for Islam?

AFGHANISTAN?!?! AFGHANISTAN?!?!?
WOMEN ARE NOT BEING KILLED IN STADIUMS
WHILE TERRORIST THUGS WATCH. THEY GO TO WORK AND SCHOOL
OR STAY HOME AND HAVE CHILDREN.
YOU AND YOUR PILLOW BITER ANKLE GRABBERS
WANT TO HAVE YOUR CAKE AND SPIT IT OUT TOO,
AND WHINE AND COMPLAIN ABOUT RICE
AND BUSH WITHOUT KNOWING WHATS GOING ON ON THE GROUND.
AND ANOTHER THING, THAT PAGE KID PROBABLY
WAS BRIBED BY A DEMOCRAT
AND FOLEY WAS A DEMOCRAT
BECAUSE HE IS A KNOWN GAY
AND WE DONT WANT THEM IN THE GOP.

ITS JUST LIKE 911 WIDOWS BITCHING ABOUT STUFF.
NOW A PAGE WHOSE A DEMOCRAT TURNS ON FOLEY
WHOSE REALLY A DEMOCRAT AND EVERYONE WANTS
TO BLAME IT ON BUSH.
BUT ONLY LEFTARDS ARE BUYING IT
SO SAD THAT AFGHANISTAN
ISNT A SOCIALIST PARADISE
HA HA HA!

Colbert and comarades,
here's another example of the Left's love of Islam

Spaniards tone down exploding Mohammed at fiestas
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061002/wl_nm/religion_spain_mohammed_dc

Low Life Hick,

Seriously...you gotta calm down. You're expletive-laden tirades are unnecessary.

Take a deep breath, count to 20...and try again to explain to me how I am responsible for the inability of a child's parents to make enough money to afford basic health care for their child. It seems quite simple to me...if you can't afford a child...don't have a child. But if you do, please...I beseech you, don't expect me to finance it.

I don't believe in Socialism. I know...I'm evil.

Did we all see Keith Olbermann today? :-)

Hey JustTheTruth,
Isn't it Ironic that the same Leftists Socialists that always attack Religious people always defend the Islamic faith when it's attacked.
Why do you think that is?

Hey JustTheTruth,
Isn't it Ironic that the same Leftists Socialists that always attack Religious people always defend the Islamic faith when it's attacked.
Why do you think that is?

Are we ganging up on someone ?

Religion is for simple minds. It should be in the hands of pimps and whores who sell it off to sleazy politicians!

Posted by: Watch Maker at October 2, 2006 10:30 PM

Your right. Religion is for simple minds. Belief in something greater than your ability to comprehend whats around you is not. I can respect anyones choice, even yours because what I believe brought me here brought you also. I think you are rejecting a God that is false. We are sold an earthly king and told to worship him or die. If you go beyond what you are offered and just look for "it" in the people around you, you might find something. I respect Sagan. I do believe in God but I couldn't give you proof. I sense him like a sense someone in the room with me. Call me a lunatic but I do. I do know also that just because people profess him doesn't mean they really think he's there. And the soviet union, China and Hitlers lying ass that he was a Catholic did a lot of killings you have to admit.

The simplest minds do not look for religion...

... or ... perhaps a belief...

As always the lefyties don't answer.
Why does the Left support Islam?

Good question... ask Bush.

Just The Truth,
Deficits and debt don't concern you too much? You're the one who mentioned fiscal responsibility as a major reason you vote for Republicans. A major problem with a huge debt is thne interest on the debt which must be payed. If you only pay the interest and run deficits, the debt amount continues to grow. Thus, the interest you must pay each year continues to grow. If we continue growing the debt at this pace, within the next decade we'll spend more money paying the interest on the debt (which we must pay) than we currently spend on everything.

I think just the truth left...

Red Wolf,
I remember such liberals as Pat Buchanan condemning Israel and claiming Hizballah won.
Hollywood attacks Christianity and praises Islam?

If I were you I wouldn't read much history about U.S.-Israeli relations. You'd quickly learn the liberals have been on the side of Israel while the conservatives have taken the side of Islam.

In Keith vs. Bill, Oafie loses
TV, book sales, he amuses
Telling tall tales
About imaginary sales
Is just one of Keith's many ruses

Colbert,

We owe much of that debt to China. Communist China.

When Communism finally collapses in China, and it WILL collapse, we will be forgiven much of that debt in exchange for investment in business there.

And in the worst case...we just don't pay it.

And when China gives us the "evil eye", we say, "What the fuck are you lookin' at"...and they'll flinch.

Problem solved.

"That was almost 3 years before Bill Clinton left office.

Discuss...

So you are saying that George Bush and all the hillbillies that voted for him thought Bin Laden called off his fatwah when Bush began his presidency? You think there were no white southern protestant senators and representatives hound Bill's dick and threaten "wag the dog" every time he tried to carry out military operations? Who brought Bill's private sex life and plastered the corporate owned right wing media in this nation? Who sucked all this sex and lying about sex garbage? You think Clinton did this against himself? Did Bill Clinton put all the republicans up to hounding him and threaten "wag the dog"?

Any fool knows who did what. Only idiots pretend it was Bill Clinton that controlled Bush when Bush was president and did nothing so he could carry out his Cheney/Halliburton plan to turn Iraq into gold mine for all his corporate masters.

Only the kulture of the Khristian Klan would suck this garbage up.

Posted by: It's all Bill Clinton's Fault! at October 2, 2006 08:32 PM"

Its unreal that even one person let alone 1/2 the Dems can believe Iraq was about war profiteering. Those companies have massive government contracts for logistics during peace time and under Clinton. Oil companies made bundles selling oil long before the invasion of Iraq and will long after. Clinton wasnt a real leader and thats what kept him from doing more than wag the dog. He led by polls and wasnt comfortable sending soldiers to war because of his past as a conscience objector/pro-communist positions he'd taken during Vietnam War. A real leader would have ignored the people accusing wag the dog and went ahead and did what he and his advisers thought best. Clinton wasnt that leader. Gore was even weaker and Kerry an admitted war criminal was even worse. Sorry for your luck but thats the team you fielded. Bush is doing what he thinks best. Can and does take the heat for his actions. If you dont like it vote against him in 2008. Billy retreated with disgrace from the Somalia Black Hawk Down debacle. You cant pin that on wag the dog. Clinton was a pathetic war time leader for 2 reasons: 1) He didnt realize there was a war(all the attacks went right over his head) 2) War is bad for polls(and he governed by them).

Bush freed 2 countries from terrorist regimes. Even if others take there place. Those countries have held elections and are trying hard, even under daily terror attacks. Hats off to those brave peoples.

Kulture of the Kristian Klan(KKK I presume is implied), well certainly you would have a better chance of recognizing KKK when you see it. As a yankee I only know the name of one KKK member and he is a Democrat Senator from West Virginia named Robert Byrd.

You used the word hillbilly. So which is it? Republicans are the wealthy people or are they the hillbilly type. And the welfare queens that vote Democrat, are they worthy of insult? Yes. At least the "hillbilly" takes care of his own. Has honor and knows right from wrong. But you seem not to. Give me the Hillbillys everyday and twice on Sunday.

And when China gives us the "evil eye", we say, "What the fuck are you lookin' at"...and they'll flinch.

Problem solved.

Posted by: JustTheTruth at October 2, 2006 11:35 PM

Or they won't.

riverqueer,
A conservative brought up Afghanistan. They don't have frredom of religion. Converting to Christianity is punishable by death. The women are forced to wear burkas. Women are not allowed to go to school or work or out alone. Unless they're willing to be killed. I know you love this. We only control a small part of the country. The Taliban is stronger than at any time since we invaded. Poppy-growth is at record levels.
Afghanistan is an Islamist/Christian radicals paradise.

That page kid is a lying evil-doer? You NAMBLA people hate kids who get uppity and tell what you did? Foley's a conservative Republican who was protected by Republicans who knew what he did.

Religion is for simple minds. It should be in the hands of pimps and whores who sell it off to sleazy politicians!

That should read: "...Should NOT be in the hands of..." The "not" was left out by shear speed typing.

Sagan's say at any time in human history only around 5% of the population of all peoples are non believers of myths. I am one of those people. I think New Agers are as wrong as old fashion theists. They all are socially predatorily. Meaning they feel more secure being in on a pyramid scheme on a social level. "I submit to someone and someone else submits to me as expert on the myth we have accepted. All of it leaves people open to manipulation by others. The question is the good and the bad of religion worth the final outcome? Well most people who are religious are so because they submit to the religion of the society they live in. It is only once they are in the religion that they are swayed to resist submission to that which opposes the beliefs of the religion. Other wise it is the atheists that are true individuals that resist the myths of the cultures they live in. A true anti social person is one who defies the structure of social control. Secular Laws in a free society are not about social control just enforcement of social laws. Secular law in a nonthiest society is not based on myth or shouldn't be.

In this nation if the "base" of the republican party had it there way the constitution would be trashed and the bible would rule. These are the American Taliban who think sheer numbers should rule and have no clue what the bases of constitutional law is.

This is why true conservatives despise the Bush republicans and are daily growing more weary of the idiots like Rove who pull the strings behind the scenes.

This November the truth will be shown about who is the base of the republican party, brain dead idiots that feel power in numbers or instinctual freedom fighters who know their American history and what our fore fathers fought and died for. Fools who listen to propaganda from Limbaugh and Hannity will soon be showing new stripes as they try to pretend they never supported Bush at all.

November 9th we can all come back here and see who is right.

I am an older person who has know enough real NRA red blooded conservatives that could take or leave religion and always fight against a government that hood winks voters while sneaking under the rug more and more decay on our freedoms. All this, I have nothing to hide they can spy on me" crap goes against everything true conservatives stand for. This current generation of cable TV/video game blow hards have a lot to earn. Go knock on your father/uncle's locked bedroom door. Tell him to turn off the porn and tell you what real conservatives used to be all about!

Red Wolf,
Why does the right support Timothy McVeigh and other Christian terrorists?

Just The Truth,
You are the dumbest son of a bitch on this planet. I realized products of incest were dumb. But you take the cake.

In this nation if the "base" of the republican party had it there way the constitution would be trashed and the bible would rule. These are the American Taliban who think sheer numbers should rule and have no clue what the bases of constitutional law is.

Posted by: True Conservatives at October 2, 2006 11:47 PM

I think your right and thats what frustrates me as a non-republican. Thier pushing of thier version of Christianity paints me into the corner of being a Godless liberal when in fact I believe in a God who gave me a rebelious spirit for a dam good reason. That is to prevent power hungry religious hypocrites from taking control.

anon,
Clinton left Somalia six months after Black Hawk Down. The conservatives wanted to run away immediately. You can't blame them though. They were following Reagan's cowardly example of cutting and running from Beirut.
Clinton didn't serve in Vietnam but Bush did? Kerry is an admitted war criminal? He won three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. Let's put that up against Bush's war record.

Why didn't Bush do anything about al Qaeda before 9/11? If he's such a great leader why did he wait for 3000 Americans to be slaughtered? Other than it's been a huge help for him politically.

People such as riverdog have stated the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to make sure the majority decides everything. Today's "conservatives" hate what this country was founded on.

"That is to prevent power hungry religious hypocrites from taking control."

The "base" of the Bush republicans is the working class bible belt kulture of the klan. The humiliation of the south being burned and hundreds of thousands of poor white men dead fighting for slave masters is just the tip of the ice berg in the mental complications of "evangelicals". The need to paint themselves as moral stems from a long history of immorality brought to light during the years to end segregation - another humiliation and historically significant time in the compounded crushing of this non repentant kulture of the klan. Always clinging to the past with the confederate flag everywhere. So the monopoly on morality and patriotism is a reflection of their greatest desire to be one of us - real human beings that don't live with the stigma of bible in one hand chains of slaves in the other as the foundation of their fathers culture.

As long as you ignore the significance of these things you fail to understand the motivations of these peoples. Always immoral always deceptive always willing to jump on any band wagon that will free them from the sins of their fathers. Yet they do not repent. The confederate flag lives on and as does the ignorance!

Out of curiousity, I thought I'd come back by and see if, after getting bashed so many times for his lies, j¢ felt it was safe enough to go back to his old ways of bald-faced lying.

So I thought I'd see how long it would take to find a bald-faced lie. Answer : Less than a ten seconds! All I did was start a few paragraphs down, a few sentences within.

j¢ claims that KO "regularly fails to identify" L. O'Donnell as a Democrat. Bull!
KO regularly identifies O'Donnell as working with/for HuffingtonPost. I guess that since KO doesn't scream "he's a damn liberal Dem" it ain't good enough.

In addition, KO is always keen to identify when someone/some poll is related to MSNBC. Amazing, you never hear stuff like that on Faux News.

Sign, I guess that means I might have to spend some time making sure that people know that j¢ is lying, yet again.

So let's start right off the bat (forgive me if I'm being redundant):
"... not know the difference between emails and instant messages, or is he deliberately obfuscating?"

1) Google 'Foley' and 'emails' and you will see that everyone uses the term 'emails', including Fox news. Why?
2) Becaue they were emails! Does Einstein j¢ not know the difference between emails and instant messages? Does he not realize that IMs are a form of email?
From dictionary.com : a computer application which allows for communications in real time, a live chat and email service.

Loving it!! The Southern Conspiracy "Pat Clancy" guy is back!! Clancy, you know too much,Be careful or Colonel Sanders and his moonpie hit squad will pay you a visit..

> KO regularly identifies O'Donnell as working with/for HuffingtonPost. I guess that since KO doesn't scream "he's a damn liberal Dem" it ain't good enough.

Jim Pinkerton also writes for Huffington Post. Is he a Dem too?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-pinkerton/

Fact is, KO regularly fails to identify O'Donnell as a Dem. Just as we said. Plain fact.

> everyone uses the term 'emails'

All you have to do is follow the link to realize that the Dems are deliberately telling their people to confuse the two. It's straight out of the Dem playbook, and just like Olby, "radmod" parrots their talking points.

Because he can't dispute obvious statements of fact, "radmod" just lies about something else.

If you can't read English and don't know what you're talking about, you just might be an OlbyLoon.

I see you are yet again ignoring what I actually wrote.

For example, I said they WERE emails. Have you seen them? I have. The 'messages' were BOTH emails and IMs. IMs are types of emails, therefore it is right and proper to use the term 'email'. I suppose you think they should say "emails and instant messages"? Yeah, right.

As to the "Dem" thing. I have no clue who Jim Pinkerton is (I don't go to HuPo(like WaPo?) ), so I wouldn't know anything about him. However, if I hear someone is from it, I would automatically presume they were liberal. What would you prefer, oh wise one, that he calls them "Democrat"? That would be ridiculous, and you know it. Spin on.

> I have no clue who Jim Pinkerton is (I don't go to HuPo(like WaPo?

Oh, and you cite it as proof of your nonsense that I told a "bald-faced lie"?!?!?!? Something you know nothing about?

Thank you for proving that you truly do not know what you're talking about. So much for that.

KfK said:

"I have some hard-hitting questions. How many IM's has Keith sent to underage persons? When did MSLSD know about them? How about e-mails? Did Danny Abrams know?"

KfK, it's been...what, six months? And still...not a scrap of evidence, not even from the prson who claims to have ALL the evidence.

It's done. Find another dead horse to flog.

Bill O'liely said:

"How come none of these retired military men never say anything while they are still in the military?"

Um, because if they did they would have been COURT-MARTIALED under Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Article 88 is the "contemptuous words" offense and states that any officer who shows contempt towards the Commander-in-Chief can face dishonorable discharge and a very long stretch in Leavenworth.

Colbert,

Yes Kerry is an admitted war criminal. Taped testimony before a house/senate hearings "ghengis khan" and "free fire zones" speech. Selective memory?

You forgot to defend your Klansman Senator from West Virginia.

I wont try and defend Reagen for Beirut. But just remember he was busy bringing down the Soviet Democrat Party.

Wow 6 whole months before cutting and running? Is that a new Democrat record post Vietnam? Every consider winning a conflict? Lets not kid our selves Clinton withdrew to a safe distance after that day and hid behind the do nothing UN. Why lie about the facts?

I find the comments flowing from the admitted atheists on this site intriguing. Characterizations of intelligence based on one's belief in a creator is also noted.

What is amuzing is the same poster "worships" his or her brain. Human "logic" and it's creations have just as much practical effect on our lives as religion and it's creations.

Postmodernism gave us, "God is dead." Nietzsche's logic driven, "self-preservation recognizing" ideas lead to atrocities pretty much as bad as anything religious wars have destroyed. The contest for "WORST PHILOSOPHY IN THE WORLD" is not yet finished and secularists want another crack at it.....

Humankind, left to its own devices will not result in the "Trekie" world people like Watch Maker HAVE FAITH IN. And yes, it is "faith" because the result of the philosophy CAN NEVER be proved in the present. We can only judge the philosohpy (world view) based on what it resulted in, in the past.

Like I said. An atheist has as much faith as a fundimentilst. It's more of an anger at God I think. An agnostic at least keeps the door open.

Since no one is prepared to defend Foley let me go ahead and give it a try.

Regarding the EMAILS v. IM debate...

The "emails" were, in fact, not emails. If you do your homework you will learn that the "emails" posted on the ABC News site were actually documents prepared using a word processor and formattted in email format (shades of Dan Rather?). The reason for this is that the source for the emails refused to provide the actual emails and, instead, dictated the contents over the telephone to the person who made them available to the media. Please note that I am not saying that the content of the "emails" were not inaccurate - Foley resigned which seems a pretty good indication of his guilt - only that they were not, technically, either emails or IMs. Some might be interested to know why the person on the other end of that phone call did not simply summarize the content rather than take the odd step of attempting to re-create the original email.

Either way, the emails did not magically appear. If you look into their provenance you will find that the story first came to the media's attention when one of the pages was interviewed by the St. Petersburg Times. St. Pete Times spiked the story. Some people on the Hill knew about it. My guess is that word got around that the emails were out there. What we do know is that folks affiliated with George Soros did the digging and ultimately came up with what we might call the "original" "emails". The copies of the IM chats were separate documents.

If you like conspiracy theories then you might consider that perhaps the Soros folks learned of Foley's actions and set about to entrap him just as many folks speculate about Andrea Mackris who left Fox News for CNN but went back to Fox a few months later at which point she began recording her phone calls with O'Reilly. In the Foley case, knowing of his proclivities, they found someone willing to contact Foley and draw him out to create a record.

I will toss a little more fuel on the fire.

If Foley was attracted to 16 and 17 year old boys then he was engaged in ephebophilia (post-pubescent) not pedophelia (pre-pubescent). The media - and most people - do not make such a distinction and pedophilia is generally used to describe any attraction or sexual contact involving an adult (over 18) and someone below the age of consent (in DC, over 16).

Based on the reports so far (and I expect we will be hearing lots of new information in the coming weeks) it appears that Foley is not "guilty" of anything. It is not against the law for Foley to have had sex with a boy over the age of 16. It is certainly not against the law for Foley to send suggestive or explicit emails to them. What I expect will happen is that we will find that the "crimes" committed by Foley will involve things like lying in his financial disclosures about how he spent money (e.g., he probably would not have disclosed paying for a hotel to hook up with a former page).

Further, the reports do not say that Foley was "trawling" for underage boys on the internet but rather communicating with boys he already knew. Since the boys were above the age of consent, that he was using the internet to continue established relationships not make new ones and there appears (so far) to have been no coercion or mispresentation involved, the various pedophile predator laws do not apply.

In other words, what we have here is a gay man who was attracted to and may have had sexual relationships with other consenting men. It appears no laws were broken and that the only real "crime" here maybe a lack of judgement on Foley's part in fully appreciating the political reaction to his actions becoming known. He certainly appears to have been disenguous and a hypocrite but - so far - he is not a criminal.

In light of this then, the left is rank with hypocrisy itself. These are the same people who heralded "Lawrence v. Texas" as a great victory for gay Americans - that sodomy among two consenting adults in the privacy of their home could not be a crime. The same folks who had no problem re-electing a Democratic Congressman who did precisely what Foley is now accused of doing (consensual "sexual" relationships with male pages). The same folks who defended Bill Clinton on the grounds that the Paula Jones was "just about sex" and that his affair with Monica Lewinsky was "private" (even though she was a White House intern and the sex occurred in White House offices).

I am sure everyone agrees with everything I wrote.

Right?

COLBERT YOU ARE LIKE A LITTLE LEG HUMPING POODLE.
YOU HATE THE RIGHT WINGERS BECAUSE WE WON'T LET LITTLE WHINY FAGGOTS LIKE YOU GET MARRIED.TOO BAD YOU WERE NOT LEFT ON FENCE SOMEHWERE OUT IN WYOMING. BUT YOU COULD BE

Robert wrote:

"I am sure everyone agrees with everything I wrote.

Right?"
Mostly I do agree with you, Robert, EXCEPT for a couple of things....

Regarding Foley's proclivities it is termed, hebephilia. Hebephilia describes adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty. As laypeople, many automatically call Mr. Foley a pedophile, however clinically the mainstream behaviorists would need more data and probably call him a hebephile. The Catholic Church Scandal was almost entirely homosexual hebephiles.

Also, Foley has not been accused of having sexual relations with any page, yet. Previous scandal (Clinton, Studds, Frank), actually involved sex acts in more than inappropriate circumstances. My claim of democratic hypocricy also arises from the fact that liberals defend private proclivites UNLESS they are a republican. POLITICS!

My claim of democratic hypocricy also arises from the fact that liberals defend private proclivites UNLESS they are a republican. POLITICS!

Posted by: cee at October 3, 2006 09:46 AM

BECAUSE. Republican pretend they are holy and pure. So they invite what they GET.

"Anonymous" wrote:

"KfK, it's been...what, six months? And still...not a scrap of evidence, not even from the prson who claims to have ALL the evidence [about Keith's inappropriate internet use]"

Indeed anonymous! However, digital data never disappears! 6 months is the blink of an eye. It was more than six months after Foley's shenanigans, wasn't it?

As for Mr. Foley the ephebophiliac, he now joins the ranks of vilified homosexuals with Mr. Gannon. Seems leftists love Gays, unless they are Republicans!

Bob,

I thought the gist of the Foley case was that the pages were complaining about being harrassed by Captain Kangaroo Pants.

So codas....

An argument is a argument.....Democrats defended Bill Clinton for having sexual relations with a subordinate by saying it was private behavior and not under the jurisdiction of the special prosecuter. Foley's actions are disgusting and I am not defending him, he should be investigated.....But I didn'd defend Clinton's behavior either. That's the difference and why hypocrisy is apt here. Same with the 1983 scandal with Rep. Studds (D)....he claimed private behavior between two consenting adults. He was returned to the house for goodness sakes by his liberal district!

Foley resigned, rightly and bravely.....give him that much. He did not claim conspirisy, lie and drag this out for months like Clinton did....."I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."

typos, sorry...."didn't" and "conspiracy"

Welcome back Robert.

"I am sure everyone agrees with everything I wrote.

Right?"

Yes. I do. I agree with it's totally defeatest spirit, which is that Republicans are only defended by their own completely understandable incompetence, by vauge conspiracy theories, and by moral relativism. No doubt it will be followed up by a defense of the whole house Republican hierarchy that pretty much knew the guy was a creepy hipocritical letch but elected to look the other way while the guy tried to hold young independent seats just so they could hold an old Republican seat.

And that defense will be great too, because the spirit of that is the same as the whole line you guys are using to defend your whole tangled web of lazy incompetance. We can't have been expected to know the intel was bogus, we can't have been expected to anticipate the levy breech, no one ever could have dreamed of people flying airplanes into buildings, we can't have been expected to know about the insurgency, we can't have been expected to know how many troops would be required in Iraq or how much it would cost, we can't be expected to find just one man in a whole big sovereign country, we can't have expected the Taliban to make a comeback just because we pulled back, we can't be expected to know our asses from a hole in the ground.

You're right.
You can't.
That's the problem.

"It is certainly not against the law for Foley to send suggestive or explicit emails to them."

I believe that is very likely wrong, though you seem to have knowledge otherwise. In an odd twist created by the legislature, it would have been legal for him to physically buggar the youths at age 16, but illegal for him to solicit or suggest same over the internet before 18. I'm not sure there is any provision for "continuing contact not originally initiated over the internet" as you are suggesting, but if you can cite it I will withdraw...

I also dearly love this:
"then he was engaged in ephebophilia (post-pubescent) not pedophelia,"

you need to run more with that, and this too:

"These are the same people who heralded "Lawrence v. Texas" as a great victory..."

Beautiful. If you don't think the legislature should be able to govern which sex acts which people can do in which private bedrooms, but you don't support sexual predation of minors in the public workplace either, then you are a leftist hippocrite.

You guys are simply coming apart at the seams. Come on Thrasymachus, you are the glue that holds this little popsicle stick tower together. Get on the ball. You forgot to even mention Olberman in that defense, too. This is Olbermannwatch.com, I remind you.

"ephebophiliac"

GI condition resulting in the spattering of all your colleagues...

Erie Bob is earning his title today.....

So much to digest, so much propaganda....

The talking points are so consistent it is impressive. Innocent until proven guilty after a full investigation is not good enough for Erie Bob....Hastert is guilty, Foley is guilty....I am glad you can know this by just reading papers and watching TV.

Robert discusses Foley's problem from a certain point of view and it is attacked without documentation.....Olbyspeech strikes again!

The idea of age of consent, definition of a minor, and what sex predator is will be defined in due time, Erie Bob....and I hope Foley is put away for a long time. It is the flagrant politicizing of this that smells fishy and you can't deny that.

It was my understanding that Hebephilia and Ephebophilia were the same thing. Anyone have a dictionary handy?

Yes, sorry Robert, they are interchangable.

Eric Bo wrote: "If you don't think the legislature should be able to govern which sex acts which people can do in which private bedrooms, but you don't support sexual predation of minors in the public workplace either, then you are a leftist hippocrite."

It is not "sexual predation" for an adult to solicit or have sex with someone over the age of consent. The "majority" age refers to voting age which was 21 and is now 18 and has nothing to do with age of consent for purposes of having sex. So, for purposes of this argument the boys involved were not "minors". I am not aware of any reports that there was ANY sex involved at all and certainly not in any workplace, public or private. While it would hardly shock me if some of this came out latter, what you have stated is, as usual, false.

Hebephilia and Ephebophilia-- also known as Hugh Hefner Disease.

Clinton had a marriage issue. We should have never heard about it. They could have went to his office and said "we know about Monica, knock it off." Instead they impeached him. Foley has got some issues, and didn'r resign bravely. You no he had no choice. As far as him being in a rehab, I wonder if he even was a drinker. When you check into a rahab in my state, you have a bunch of confediality laws making sure you don't have to talk to anyone you don't want to talk to.

"Hastert is guilty, Foley is guilty....I am glad you can know this by just reading papers and watching TV."

Didn't say that and I haven't watched TV or read a paper since this thing broke. My response was to Robert's provisional claim that no law was broken. I think he is likely wrong in his legal interpretation given the assumptions he is making, subject to correction.

"and I hope Foley is put away for a long time."

So did you just find him guilty, Mr. Pot?

"It is the flagrant politicizing of this that smells fishy and you can't deny that."

Uh-huh. Flagrant politicizing of the Republican head of the program for protecting minors getting busted for sexual predation of minors...a position he held at the behest of the Republican leadership that knew he was a letch but looked the other way. Ridiculous. What happened to you people? Honor and dignity of the office...

"confidentiality". I am going to learn to spell and type at the same time one day

"It is not "sexual predation" for an adult to solicit or have sex with someone over the age of consent. "

In any event, if you will read more slowly you will see I just said "if you don't support sexual predation..." I wasn't talking about a legal argument there in the part you cite. I was saying I think it's wrong for a older person of great power to try and seduce minors from their workplace, and I think that is not hipocritical to hold that view and the view that the legislature shouldn't regulate private sexual relations in a way that clearly discriminates against homosexuals.

You lawyers do often confuse what is legal and what is moral, so you get a pass on that. The bowler hat brigade strikes again!

As to the legal argument Robert, you are saying there is no difference in the law for internet solicitation? I thought that it was specifically age 18 for that, by that John Walsh law or whatever, but you are saying no? I'll check on that. You could be right. You cetainly seem sure of yourself.

"What happened to you people? Honor and dignity of the office..."

How nice, EBO, this harking back to the long and splendid history of Republican presidential tenures that you, no doubt, admired.

And.... maybe you're doing just a bit of your typical grandstanding...

Subject to your review, Robert, I submit the following. Check out 111 (14)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4472

"How nice, EBO, this harking back to the long and splendid history of Republican presidential tenures that you, no doubt, admired."

Yup. I was a fan of the gipper, though by the Walsh law I was technically a minor for part of his tenure. Voted for Bob Dole too. The ED would have been a political strength, in retrospect.

But will the moral relativism never cease with you people?

I think Robert's gone into executive session to try and come up with a more Republican friendly defense than that first shot. Let's see what bubbles up from the Republican swamp this time. I'll bet it's something that inadvertantly suggests all gays are predatory, even though "some of his best friends..."

Oh wait, Ben Stein already cornered that market. I think he's going to have to go back and flesh out the evil George Soros conspiracy thing maybe.

FAGS ARE FAGS. THEY WILL PREY ON YOUR KIDS. ALL FAGGOTS SHOULD BE IN JAIL.

Actually Robert, I'm sitting here wracking my brain and I just can't really see any defense you can use that is going to help Republicans on this. The best line is probably the one that is starting to spread a bit, that since democrats are all homosexuals and like homosexuals and have made homosexuality acceptable and fun, this is just how society is now and there is nothing you can do, because that is just how homosexuals are. So vote for more homophobic (or at least closeted) Republicans to keep them in their place and keep your children safe from...er...scratch that.

Well, just rewrite it a bit, play up the "we didn't know" or "we forgot" thing, and then maybe go back to the "this is Olbermannwatch thing" that you guys use to end topics.

"Yup. I was a fan of the gipper, though by the Walsh law I was technically a minor for part of his tenure. Voted for Bob Dole too. The ED would have been a political strength, in retrospect.

But will the moral relativism never cease with you people?"

I'll take your word for EOB and of course Elizabeth Dole would have been a political strength...

As for the moral relativism and it never ceasing with "you people".... which people are you taling about? Bay Bucchanan? Newt Gingrich? Cee? Or maybe it's as I suspected and you really do view Bob Cox as father/monolith.

It doesn't seem like you can take yes when you do get it as an answer from some of "you people" and you certainly seem bound and determined to make this topic a one-trick-pony where any sideline discussion of hypocrisy...etc... is opportunity for you to get on a soapbox and demand that there be no deviation into peripheral discussions on a particular topic or that somehow such an expansion is tantamount to having added to or misunderstood what you have written. The only time you're going to be agreeable to broadening things is when Johnny is making a point about Olbermann.

But you like here and it gives you an opportunity to grandstand till whoever you're demagoguing halts it. That's why you implored all your buds not to waste their time here. You're not about to enjoy not being able to write their scripts and they get in your way.

AIDS CURES HOMOSEXUALITY

"As for the moral relativism and it never ceasing with "you people".... which people are you taling about?"

I did mean to extend it to the whole family of Republican shills here, of whom Cox is clearly alpha-dude and father figure. He launched in with this:

"he left is rank with hypocrisy itself. These are the same people who heralded "Lawrence v. Texas" as a great victory for gay Americans - that sodomy among two consenting adults in the privacy of their home could not be a crime. The same folks who had no problem re-electing a Democratic Congressman who did precisely what Foley is now accused of doing (consensual "sexual" relationships with male pages). The same folks who defended Bill Clinton on the grounds that the Paula Jones was "just about sex" and that his affair with Monica Lewinsky was "private" (even though she was a White House intern and the sex occurred in White House offices)."

That's moral relativism or the worst kind, with a blind eye turned to sexual predation by the powerfull over the weak which is the real issue here, as much as Republican ears can only hear HOMOSEXUAL, HOMOSEXUAL, HOMOSEXUAL reverberating in their ears.

"it doesn't seem like you can take yes when you do get it as an answer..."

You are talking about what in particular? Where is the yes?

"That's why you implored all your buds not to waste their time here."

I'm imploring EVERYONE not to waste their time here, or at least to see through it's shammier aspects. This is an important role and it counters the most pernicious threat the internet media has to offer.

Erie Bob wrote "I think it's wrong for a older person of great power to try and seduce minors from their workplace".

Me too! I also OPPOSE legislatures regulating private sexual relations. AND I agree that homosexuals should not be discriminated against. I am also FOR sunsets, walks in the rain and pina coladas. I am definitely OPPOSED to child rape, mass murder and steroid abuse by professional athletes. Wow, we are covering some controversial ground here.

These are hardly the issues I was raising above. I just find it amusing for the lefties to make such a fuss about Foley being gay or Foley abusing his position of authority to engage in what so far appear to be consensual conversations of a sexual nature after spending the last few years arguing the exact opposite when it came to Lawrence or Bill Clinton's sex scandal.

I am perfectly willing to say that Foley is a tremendous hypocrite and that anyone who does anything other than condemn him and any who might have shielded him for that is a hypocrite themselves. Now, can you admit that those on the left who are attacking Foley using the same lines used to attack Clinton over Lewinsky are not also hypocrites?

"I did mean to extend it to the whole family of Republican shills here, of whom Cox is clearly alpha-dude and father figure. He launched in with this"

Well, I'm sure Bob is gratified to be father/monolith to all Republicans here and I'm gratified that my suspicions of your daddy-issues are validated.

"That's moral relativism or the worst kind, with a blind eye turned to sexual predation by the powerfull over the weak which is the real issue here, as much as Republican ears can only hear HOMOSEXUAL, HOMOSEXUAL, HOMOSEXUAL reverberating in their ears."

Well, of course anything that's more complex than a Brady Bunch episode, smacks of moral relativism to you, particularly when you can posture and pin it on conservative people who have the teremity to come to Olbermann Watch....

There is nothing relative in discussing the side-line Foloey issue of hypocrisy among democrats and of mentioning that these are the same folks who would argue that relationships between legally designated adults are sacrosant and private. That we're talking about emails that were termed a bit "overly-friendly" by the FBI but ruled out as being conclusive enough to launch an investigation is very a part of the issue though, moral collossus that you are, you'd like to frame up that discussion as an attempt to sidestep any ethical consideration.

But we aren't talking strict legalities. Hassert was in a position where he had to decide to remove Foley for something (the emails) the FBI found inclusive. It's not legalism to discuss that and to discuss the delicate position of having to tell a known gay man that he must step down because it's assumed that he's a predator...though the FBI can find nothing conclusive enough to launch and investigation, and the fact that as both a friend and pol, you're likely making excuses for the Foley as well. How's that homophobic...

"I'm imploring EVERYONE not to waste their time here, or at least to see through it's shammier aspects. This is an important role and it counters the most pernicious threat the internet media has to offer."

And we don't even have an MSNBC news show or a book out...

Of course you're imploring them not to waste their time. You can't write their scripts and you'd rather they stay some place where the moral issues are easy. Say .... Cartoon Planet.

Blerie Bob: "Actually Robert, I'm sitting here wracking my brain and I just can't really see any defense you can use that is going to help Republicans on this."

How about the "this is one man, not all of Republican Congress" defense? You know, the defense that is based in reality. If you want, we can globalize this and we can talk about Barney Frank (prostitution from his appartment), Robert Byrd (KKK anyone?), Patsy and Teddy Kennedy (drink, drive and kill is their motto), and William Jefferson (money in his freezer makes him happy) -- you know, criminals who remain in Congress and happen to have big D's after their names. This is a political manoever, and if it succeeds we are doomed.

If Leftists control the House and Senate, we will all suffer. We will assume the stance of the defeated rather than victors in Iraq, much like the grotesque Spanish did after they were bombed.

For all who doubt we are destroying al Qaeda, here are some facts about the al Qaeda clowns hiding in Waziristan:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/184782.php

http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/What%20Extremists%20Say/Letter%20Exposes%20New%20Leader%20in%20Al-Qa%60ida%20High%20Command.aspx?PageView=Shared

Excerpts from al Qaeda clown's letter to Zarqawi:

DATE: 11 DECEMBER 2005

"The path is long and difficult, and the enemy isn’t easy, for he is great and numerous and he can take quite a bit of punishment as well."

"I command . . . that you send messengers from your end to Waziristan so that they meet with the brothers of the leadership, and the rational and experienced people and the shaykhs here, because you have a greater chance to send messengers (brothers that you choose) than your brothers have here. God willing, you have the ability to enlist guys and men who have not been exposed, and who can move about and carry messages and convey responses to you and such."

"I am now on a visit to them and I am writing you this letter as I am with them . . . They wish that they had a way to talk to you and advise you, and to guide and instruct you; however, they too are occupied with vicious enemies here. They are also weak, and we ask God that He strengthen them and mend their fractures. They have many of their own problems, but they are people of reason, experience, and sound, beneficial knowledge.

"I say: the most important thing is that you be patient, forbearing, and persevere until the final moment, for indeed your enemy is also patient and he is betting that there will be a moment in which you are weak, that you fail and fall apart internally, may God not make this His judgment."

There is so much more. Seems the al Qaeda freaks are on the ropes, but don't look for this on CNN. Keith was going to cover this on Countdown, but he dropped the segment to leave ample room to insult fat people.

Erie Bob,

I checked out S. 111 (14) of H.R. 4472 and for purposes of the act it defines "minor" as under 18.

And you think this somehow "proves" something?

I already know what a "minor" is dopey. But the term "minor" is relative to the term "major" as in the Constitutional definition of "majority" as in the "age of majority" as in the age at which a person can vote. The term "minor" is a genric term meant to indicate when a person is considered an adult for certain legal purposes. You do know this, right?

So, depending on the legal issue in question a person is 17 or 18 or 19 can be a minor in some cases and a "major" in other cases and depends on whether you are talking federal law or state law and, if state law, which state. From what I have read, a person is consider a "major" in terms of sexual consent at the age of 16 in Washington, DC. On their 18th birthday a person might be considering a "minor" for purchasing or consuming alcohol but "major" for voting, serving in the armed forces. On the day before their birthday they would have been major for sexual consent but minor for voting, military service and alcohol.

In the case you site, a person is considered a "minor" if they are under 18. It only has relevance to this particular law which is about who is to be included in a database for CONVICTED child molesters. Foley has not even been ACCUSED of such a crime so you are WAY ahead of yourself here.

With all that said, let me be clear that I would not want Foley inviting any of my kids over for a slumber party but it is really far removed from my point which is that the left is being laughably hypocritical in their "outrage" over the Foley matter based on what is currently KNOWN.

"These are hardly the issues I was raising above. I just find it amusing for the lefties to make such a fuss about Foley being gay or Foley abusing his position of authority to engage in what so far appear to be consensual conversations of a sexual nature after spending the last few years arguing the exact opposite when it came to Lawrence or Bill Clinton's sex scandal."

That brings up an interesting point to ponder.

Since Gloria Steinum denied that Kathleen Wiley had a claim to sexual harrassment because Clinton had stopped when she asked him to stop (the "one free grope rule"), I wonder if Steinum would agree that Foley had one free pass at of-age senatorial pages?

agreed...you are a complete fool.....
truth hurts....pathetic site...

"agreed...you are a complete fool.....
truth hurts....pathetic site..."

From our experience here on Olbermann Watch, I'll translate this:

I'm angry that you're writing things I disagree with.... but at the same time...I like the challenge you present....I'm thrilled with the freedom you allow...I probably won't be able to stay away from the place...

Welcome to Olbermann Watch, Maria.

The Hotline has a great play-by-play on the Foley thing from the perspective of both the Republican and Democrat "handbook".

It's interesting and funny.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/

(moral collossi-- should avoid the above in order not to offend their delicate sensibilities)

"amusing for the lefties to make such a fuss about Foley being gay..."

You are crossing the line into laughable dishonesty Robert. No one is doing that. You, Stein, and the Republican base are the only ones suggesting that homosexuality is the issue here for anyone, and it is obvious to me why. It's because of the political marriages your party made with the homophobes. You do a lot here that I think is foolish, but not that much that is shamefull. This is.

"Now, can you admit that those on the left who are attacking Foley using the same lines used to attack Clinton over Lewinsky are not also hypocrites?"

Show them to me, Mr. Cut-and-paste-don't-falsely-summarize. Show me the lines. And then I'll agree, and then you can rest easy in your moral relativism with the conclusion that your boys are not that much worse than Bill Clinton.

But what I doubt you will understand is that the real meat of this story is not about the actions of an individual that belongs to a party, but a pattern of behavior on the part of your entire party, top down, that wavers between incompetence and criminal neglect. You've got a guy that you know has a very special interest in sexual predation of the young, and you've got emails to a young page asking for pictures. It was an open secret. Pages were warned about this guy when they came in. But somehow, Hastert, who initially misrepresented what he knew -- on instinct one presumes -- can't be expected to have looked into it further than asking Foley if he was breaking the law? It is patently ridiculous. Go ahead and redirect the conversation with your Clintonic moral relativism. I'm sure that will play well with KfK at least.

Well, I'll set aside the name calling, dopey, except to say that it is unlawyerly and uncivil. You do understand that, right, Mr. Moral Relativism?

"Foley has not even been ACCUSED of such a crime so you are WAY ahead of yourself here."

Well if I'm way ahead of myself, you are way way way ahead of yourself in declaring the following:

"It is not against the law for Foley to have had sex with a boy over the age of 16. It is certainly not against the law for Foley to send suggestive or explicit emails to them."

Which is all I was saying in the first place. What about this little number and it's definition of "minor?"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002251----000-.html

Cecelia, I'm going to wait for you to calm down and get off your egotistical moral low horse to respond to you. Maybe moral relativism is the right thing for you, maybe you need it.

What does morality have to do with us gods and children of gods?

Sounds better in german.

"What does morality have to do with us gods and children of gods?

Sounds better in german."

And I love the gold toga!

a) j¢ : Just because I don't go to HuffPo* doesn't mean I don't know what it is: a liberal website. You can correct me if I'm wrong. Just like I know that WaTimes is a Republican newspaper and Faux News is a Rep propaganda machine. (Those on the other hand I know to be true)

b) bobbyC, sorry, no, I don't agree. My understanding is the first 'messages' reported (you know, the 'over-friendly' ones, as you guys call them) were emails. The later, sexually explicit ones, are IMs. However, the truth, which I realize you guys have trouble understanding, is that news orgs try to compress things to get as much info as possible out in the smallest amount of time. Thus, rather than say "emails and instant messages" most newspersons (including Fox' propaganda machine) use the terms 'email' or 'messages' because both are accurate. As mentioned before, IMs are a form of e(lectronic)-mail. It would be the same as calling "apples and oranges" fruit.

c) Homosexuality? Please, no-one one the left (AFAIK) is calling it homosexuality. It isn't. Just like rape isn't sex, pedophilia (whatever) isn't homosexuality. Now I know you guys are trying your best to portray Dems as gay-bashers, but, sorry, it doesn't fly. Repugs are the gay-bashers -- that is FACT.

oops, forgot my sig ...

radmod

Bob wrote: '"It is not against the law for Foley to have had sex with a boy over the age of 16. It is certainly not against the law for Foley to send suggestive or explicit emails to them."'

EBO wrote 'Which is all I was saying in the first place. What about this little number and it's definition of "minor?"'

It is about legalities...it's not about legalities...

It's about ELECTING DEMOCRATS!....

The real question we should be asking:

"How will Kooky Keith handle the story tonight?"

We all know the story scares him -- it hits too close to home. However, it is the darling story of the MSM and the DNC. So, will Olby make this the #5 story (that's the "#1" story to those of you unfamiliar with "Olbylogic"). And how will he avoid discussing "improper e-mail correspondence"? After all, Keith's digital closet ate MSLSD is plastered with nudie photos of gullible viewers), so the topic must make him wince.

So, I ask all of you, "where will the lazy, krazy Keith Olbermann, known participant in inappropriate e-mail exchanges from work, place this story?"

Care to take a guess Blerie Bobby?

Erie Bob,

As part of "you people," I would like to argue about what liberals think of pedophilia and its rise in our society.

Look at the back and forth I had with hit_escape, codas et al beginning at September 30, 2006 01:15 PM under COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - SEPTEMBER 29, 2006.....

Tough way to find out Mark Foley is a conservative Democrat. And if I was him while all eyes and ears are on him he should admit as much. Convert to Democrat. Join the ACLU and NAMBLA and quit being a hippocrite.

I'm sorry, not codas.....Colbert.....

You have misread the conversation Cecelia, but then you are trying to butt into someone else's direct exchange, so what do you expect. My original reference was that it was Robert who was jumping to conclusions in saying Foley committed no crime. I think he may be wrong, as cocksure as he portreys himself. I am not claiming such certainty, I am saying his certainty is phoney.

"It's about ELECTING DEMOCRATS!...."

Amen sister! I want these losers out, and they are going out. And when these radical freaks are gone and we have a real competent moderate conservative party again, I'll be voting for them. Like I did before. Too bad you OW'ers can't admit your goal is simply the opposite, but keep Olbermann's skirt handy to hide under when you can't or won't argue policy directly. The Foley incident is relevant because of the incompetence in oversight, the lying, and dodging of accountability.

KfK

"Give a man a fish & he’ll eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish & he’ll eat for a lifetime.
(Conservative point of view)

Tax a man for fishing.
Use his fish to feed your constituency.
Regulate fishing in such a way that he can no longer make a profit fishing & goes out of business.
Give him a fish so he can eat.
Then, give him a tax return as if you had taxed him for the fish you gave him.
Then, raise his taxes because he has more fish now.
Subsidize the failing fishing industry.
Raise taxes to pay for subsidizing the failing fishing industry.
Pass a law creating more fish.
Fund a three year study to find out whether fishing causes global warming.
Give some of his fish to illegal aliens.
What the hell, they’re voting now too right?
Pump money into a failed education system for socialization programs, so his children will feel good about themselves and others whether they have fish or not, yet be so illiterate that they will believe this system to be optimal.
(Liberal point of view)

Give a man a fish & he’ll eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish & he’ll spend the day in boat drinking beer.
(My point of view)"........From a joke site....

"As part of "you people," I would like to argue about what liberals think of pedophilia and its rise in our society."

Supposing there has been such a rise, I think it's bad. Hope that doesn't just blow your whole image of "liberals" or whatever you want to call me.

"The Foley incident is relevant because of the incompetence in oversight, the lying, and dodging of accountability."

Excuse me Erie Bob.....The man resigned, there are investigations out the wazoo and NO ONE has been proven to have lied. The FBI and the press even passed on the stuff earlier....so what about their accountability.

The faux indignantion for, "protect the children," is being used for political ends and it is beyond the pale.

First, politicize war for power, now politicize child sexual abuse.....I never imagined the left of this country would become so unhinged!

Buhda said: "I am not god, if you worship me now or after I die, you only worship yourself." When was the last time a Buddhist killed in the name of god?"........

Answer? Hmmm..
"Please get your fact correct. Buddhism is struggling in the places you are talking about, it may be noblest thought but is not practical and is not capable of standing against extremely hostile monolithic cults." They dont kill so they die. Does this help answer the question?
Maybe they should.......

I was speaking to the reasons behind why sexual abuse of children is rising....not that I believe liberals think the rise is good.....sorry I did not make that clear.

"NO ONE has been proven to have lied"

Well, Hastert's accounts and the accounts of the Repubs under him differ. So someone is lying.

"The FBI and the press even passed on the stuff earlier....so what about their accountability."

Ah, sorry, I didn't realize it was the St. Petersburg Times' responsibility to keep the House in order. I sort of thought that was the responsibility of the speaker. My bad.

"I was speaking to the reasons behind why sexual abuse of children is rising....not that I believe liberals think the rise is good.....sorry I did not make that clear."

Well personally I kind of doubt that it is rising in absolute terms. I think it is an ages old problem that is being reported much more frequently now because people are beginning to understand how to talk to children about it-- that is, how to make them more comfortable reporting it. Also I think it is getting more media attention because the media can make a lot of money by reporting on it. Holloway and Ramsey were essentially a wholly owned subsidiaries of Fox News. It increased their ratings by riveting in a mix of fearfull parents and purient pseudo moralists.

This stuff went on in the 1950's, probably as much as it does today if I had to guess. If you were to somehow conclusively show that it has absolutely increased, then my first suspect would be that older men feel less powerfull now that women are more assertive and independent, and some seek to recapture that lost feeling of dominance by expressing it with children. Maybe it has an inverse correlation with wife beating.

EB says--

"but keep Olbermann's skirt handy to hide under when you can't or won't argue policy directly"

You are confused, EB. In my experience, this is a site about the journalistic ethics of Orange Boy as much as anything else. Are there discussions about policy here? Sure, because Orange Boy, the self-proclaimed non-political "news" anchor for MSLSD, constantly drags his politics into his purported "news" show. Sometimes the journalistic ethics (what little there is of such commodity in Olby's case)issues intersect with policy discussions, other times discussions these discussions run on seperate tracks. And of course, we like to have some fun here and mock Orange Boy because his desperation to be taken seriously while exhibiting such craven genuflection to the spokespersons of one side of the spectrum is too tempting to pass over unremarked upon.

Point is, comments on Orange Boy's journalisitic ethics or his foibles are just that -- comments on those subjects. Your conclusion that those who criticize Olby's ethics or his foibles "can't or won't argue policy directly" is silly and without foundation-- as is much of what you say here.

Founding Philosophy: The Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA) is the militant wing of the Democratic Karen Buddhist Organization (DKBO). In 1994, the DKBO splintered off from the Karen National Union (KNU), the largest and oldest of Burma’s insurgent groups. The Karen are an ethnic group in the north of Burma that has waged war against the ruling Burmese government for over 50 years. Heavily oppressed by the current military junta, many Karen live in refugee camps in Thailand.

The DKBO split off from the KNU for religious reasons. Most Karen are Buddhist, but the ruling hierarchy of the KNU was entirely Christian. When the DKBO split from the KNU, the ruling Burmese Junta, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), immediately took the opportunity to form an alliance with the DKBO. At present the DKBO, and their military wing, the DKBA, are fully funded by the SPDC. DKBA troops are essentially an SPDC militia, and have conducted brutal campaigns against both the KNU and innocent Karen villagers in Burma and Thailand. Although the DKBA is guilty of numerous atrocities, they cannot be defined as an independent terrorist group. Rather, the DKBA enjoy widespread support from the ruling junta, one example of the oppression and terror that the SPDC has exhibited throughout their rule.

"You have misread the conversation Cecelia, but then you are trying to butt into someone else's direct exchange, so what do you expect."

Oops...since this is public discussion board, I hadn't thought of it as "butting into" someone's converstaion. I didn't mean to impede you and Bob.

(Daddy still loves me best...)

hank.

"Oops...since this is public discussion board, I hadn't thought of it as "butting into" someone's converstaion."

I wouldn't have either if you had followed the whole thing.

"(Daddy still loves me best...)"

Why, because you think torture is funny?

"Just the Truth,
You claim you agree with the Republicans fiscal policies? The policies which have run up massive deficits? Or the rhetoric which pretends they are for fiscal responsibility?

Posted by: Colbert at October 2, 2006 10:17 PM"

With most major metropolis's in full fiscal crisis and governed by Dems do you wanna have that debate? Anti-business, over regulating nanny cities who over tax, under represent and still cant get universal health care. Even with punitive tax rates. Big city unions and local government pensions are gonna make conservatives of everyone who doesnt have the nipple of government in there mouth. Total control of education but a busted system that fails the children. Utopia indeed. It would be funny if it werent so crippling to those mired in the cycle of poverty liberalism causes. You dont wanna have that debate Colbert or do you? Cause its easy to get stats on those things.

I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST FAGGOTS. I THINK EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE ONE HANGING ON THEIR FENCE. EVERYBODY HERE WHO DEFENDS THE QUEERS WILL REGRET IT WHEN THE DAY COMES THAT THE FAGS WANT YOUR KIDS. ALL FAGGOTS ARE CHILD MOLESTORS.

Anon... please leave, you twisted little effing guttersnipe.

Robert, the way I read the law, it is illegal for Foley to have sent the kid an email if he asked for any kind of graphic material from him in return. If that is the case, he would have violated the federal statute I referenced which defines a minor for that purpose as younger than 18 years. Apparently it is specifically for graphic material (as in pictures in any form).

I don't know (do you?) what the contents of the communications were, but suffice to say that it is simply wrong to say that he cannot have committed a crime by sending sexually explicit emails to a 16 year old. He may have if he was soliciting for something in return, and the age of consent in DC would not matter.

Colbert,

"Doesn't your argument about Afghanistan refute claims Afghanistan is some great democratic success story?"

First of all, I made no argument about Afghanistan. I merely posted factual information rebutting a previous, erroneous, claim that no government endorses forced conversions.

Obviously, any democracy in its infancy will have problems. Just look at the first important SCOTUS ruling, Marbury v. Madison, in which the Supreme Court claimed the right to rule on the constitutionality of actions by the executive and legislative branches. It was directly the result of Thomas Jefferson's attempt to bypass duly executed orders by his predecessor and the Congress.

Whether or not we might agree with the laws as laid out in Afghanistan, the laws were written by a duly elected legislature. So if you ask is this a sucess story, I would say, that representatives elected by the people of Afghanistan wrote a Constitution and Code of Laws to govern the people. Women now have rights unprecedented in Afghan society. Maybe they have not yet reached the American ideal of a representative democracy, but consider that this is a new form of government, learning on the fly, and I would say, yes it will be a success.

I also notice that Sanity has been curiously quiet since my post. And Colbert's only criticism was to go off-topic attacking the claims of the success of the Afghanistan version of democracy. Irrelevant to the points made in my post, and to the post which I was addressing.

Back to the typical leftist techniques when all else fails. I suppose if I said "My first car was a 1983 IROC," you would say "Bush has totally screwed up the war in Iraq."

Colbert,

"Doesn't your argument about Afghanistan refute claims Afghanistan is some great democratic success story?"

First of all, I made no argument about Afghanistan. I merely posted factual information rebutting a previous, erroneous, claim that no government endorses forced conversions.

Obviously, any democracy in its infancy will have problems. Just look at the first important SCOTUS ruling, Marbury v. Madison, in which the Supreme Court claimed the right to rule on the constitutionality of actions by the executive and legislative branches. It was directly the result of Thomas Jefferson's attempt to bypass duly executed orders by his predecessor and the Congress.

Whether or not we might agree with the laws as laid out in Afghanistan, the laws were written by a duly elected legislature. So if you ask is this a sucess story, I would say, that representatives elected by the people of Afghanistan wrote a Constitution and Code of Laws to govern the people. Women now have rights unprecedented in Afghan society. Maybe they have not yet reached the American ideal of a representative democracy, but consider that this is a new form of government, learning on the fly, and I would say, yes it will be a success.

COLBERT IS JUST UPSET BECAUSE HE IS A POOR LITTLE REPRESSED BUTT SLAMMING HOMO. HE HATES NORMAL PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY WON'T SUBMI TO HSY FAGGOTRY.
POOR LITTLE COLBERT- ALL HE CAN DO IS WHINE.
IS YOUR ASS STILL SORE COLBERT-FAG?

COLBERT IS JUST UPSET BECAUSE HE IS A POOR LITTLE REPRESSED BUTT SLAMMING HOMO. HE HATES NORMAL PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY WON'T SUBMIT TO HIS FAGGOTRY.
POOR LITTLE COLBERT- ALL HE CAN DO IS WHINE.
IS YOUR ASS STILL SORE COLBERT-FAG?

COLBERT IS JUST UPSET BECAUSE HE IS A POOR LITTLE REPRESSED BUTT SLAMMING HOMO. HE HATES NORMAL PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY WON'T SUBMIT TO HIS FAGGOTRY.
POOR LITTLE COLBERT- ALL HE CAN DO IS WHINE.
IS YOUR ASS STILL SORE COLBERT-FAG?

The IP address for Riverdog (and his various aliases) has been banned from this site. If he turns up via another IP address that will be banned too.

Anon,
Clinton kept troops in Somalia for six months. We were there on a peace mission, not fighting a war. We were not trying to "win a conflict."

The Republicans cut and ran from Vietnam. Many conservatives now blame Bush 41 for not finishing the job in Iraq. Reagan used proxies (future terrorists) to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Afghanistan and Iraq are far from being won at this point. What wars have the Republicans won?

Anon,
Indeed it is easy to get stats on poverty. Since the War on Poverty began, the poverty rate has fallen from 19.5% to 12.6% now. It was 11.3% before Bush took over.

I already explained the cause of a significant portion of state and local financial problems. It is due to underfunded mandates and national financial problems.

Total control of education? You must be referring to the No Child Left Behind.

NY and other liberal states are offering forms of universal healthcare. Nice try.

Anyone see Foley get labled a democrat on fox news the factor? despicable is it not?

Colbert wrote: "Clinton kept troops in Somalia for six months. We were there on a peace mission, not fighting a war. We were not trying to "win a conflict.""

You really have no idea what happened in Somalia, do you Colbert? Clinton changed the mission in Somalia from food relief to disarming warlords. It is called "mission creep" and it got people killed. Read before you post.

If Foley had not been in authority over these individuals, he might have been within the law.

HOWEVER: since this was a page and he was a Rep, he falls into the "authority" category, as would a teacher or employer. This may make his acts illegal under other portions of the relevant laws, in the same way a high school teacher may not engage in such behavior with an 18 year old senior.

Most importantly, his actions were highly unethical and were most certainly violations of any rules he agreed to abide by as a Rep. And yes, Clinton's actions were wrong, too.

To those of us who oppose the Right, the most important issue is the hypocrisy of those who claim to have some sort of moral high ground over the Democrats, yet seem to be even more prone to these kinds of scandals.

The far right wants to paint Democrats as some kind of moral vacuum. So the scandals really point out hypocrisy.

Where's our moral collossus Erie Bob Olberloon?

Hey, EBO!!! HELLLLOOOOO!

The woman who is likely to be Democrat presidential candidate in '08... is saying EXACTLY what I said about the torture issue!!!

http://blogs.nydailynews.com/dailypolitics/archives/2006/10/clinton_on_tort.php

In the mid 1990's Marky Feeley was also a regular at The Govenors Club, a restaurant in West Palm Beach and he loved the Boy's working there too. The restaurant had all men waiters and the cutest BusBoy's around. Everyone knows the BusBoy's DROVE the Bus and PACKED the DISHES well. And the perk was the Boy's could drive his 325 BMW convertable after the GOOD SERVICE.