Let the games begin!!!

Just glad to know you already knew who Marc Klaas was. (Now you can learn how to correctly spell his name.)

About Olby's ratings: You were right, Bob. He's falling fast. And on the night of his long-winded rant...

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2006/10/06/thursdays-numbers-17/#more-3488

Marc Klass BITCHSLAPPED the Repugs!

Good one Marc!

How come the Stalinists here hate free speech so much?

"The #1 site on the web relating to Keith by links {170} is Olbermann Watch. Their whole goal is to shut Keith up."

FASCIST REICHWINGERS! I bet the people here are the same Xtian Nutters who are trying to get Harry Potter banned!

GOP = American Taliban

Another fine show by Keith. So glad he is there.

Where are all the Looney Reichwingers today?

Are they..

Drunk trying to dull the pain of the oncomming loss of the house (and maybe senate too) to the Dems?

Online in chatrooms trying to pick up underage boys, like their heroes Mark Foley, Jeff Gannon and Matt Drudge?

BWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAH!

See ya losers Monday!

Marc Klass BITCHSLAPPED the Repugs!

Good one Marc!

Posted by: AWOLBUSH at October 6, 2006 08:53 PM

Does this type of eloquence reqire a graduate degree? Just curious.

The article written is inexcusably conjecture-ridden. Providing evidence to your (reasonable) claims would do wonders for this site's credibility.

I saw George Soros went a bit nutty w/ Neil Cavuto the other day. I know its only been a couple of days but surprisingly Media Matters hasn't had time to put the video on their website yet. They'll probably do tomorrow, don't you think;)

thank you again, J.D., for another honest and entertaining rendering of our favourite non partisan "news" hack, and his hour of spin.

Keith's "book" sales fast approach none
While O'Reilly's is Times number one
Krazy Keith's always last
Just check out his past
Failed jobs because there's been a ton

Wow, Kenny Rogers pitching.

Hey Bob-

Could you put up something on the site so that during the show, people could talk to each other, then leaving the area that reviews the shows open to people who have -hopefully- read it? It's getting a little tedious to read through people saying 'Did you see that?' or 'Can't wait for Keith'...

Just a suggestion.

Keith Olbermann is the brightest and most courageous newscaster currently working. He must really scare you a lot! Why else would you have a website devoted to vilifying him?
Intelligent people who want to hear the TRUTH watch "Countdown." Unfortunately, there are a lot more people out there who aren't very intelligent and who don't want to hear(or ackowledge)the truth. The highest ratings don't usually go to tv shows that appeal to our higher selves.
You seem to be a very unenlightened, angry person who is threatened by a person of high values. Keith Olbermann is a true patriot.

Keith Olbermann is the brightest and most courageous newscaster currently working. He must really scare you a lot! Why else would you have a website devoted to vilifying him?
Intelligent people who want to hear the TRUTH watch "Countdown." Unfortunately, there are a lot more people out there who aren't very intelligent and who don't want to hear(or ackowledge)the truth. The highest ratings don't usually go to tv shows that appeal to our higher selves.
You seem to be a very unenlightened, angry person who is threatened by a person of high values. Keith Olbermann is a true patriot.

Did anyone see any numbers on David Letterman, when Man Under Desk was on?

The Geneva Convention applies to soldiers of an army of a country. Can anyone spin the globe and please point out the country of Al Qaeda to me? Who is their president or prime minister? What is their flag? What uniform does their soldiers wear? Maybe Krazy Keith can find out the answers to these questions in the land of OlbyLoon. The prisoners in Guantanamo are terrorists and do not deserve the rights of REAL soldiers from real countries under the Geneva Convention. They do not rate the rights of an American, they do not rate an American trial, they only rate a military tribunal.

Hi my name is Krazy Keith Olberdone.....and I'll be your waiter tonight.

Krazy's ratings keep going up yet he stays in last place....go figure

----Slippery claimed to have the goods on all the "false charges" being made. Being made by whom? Shuster didn't specify, but it will surprise no one that every last "false" charge discussed was by a Republican. Fancy that. Hastert: the Dems had this story first. Slippery: the source for ABC and The Hill was a Republican. As if that was "proof" that the Dems still could not have had the story first. Hastert: the GOPers worked to get Foley to resign.----

Johnny, you ignorant slut. Three republicans accused Hastert, that is what Shuster specified. Were you paying attention? I'm guessing you had your ears plugged and were singing la-la-la-la-la-la-la as loud as you could.

Many prominent conservatives are asking for Hastert's resignation. Yes, he IS damagaged goods.

Let the Tivo run, Hastert was told many times and did nothing. Just ask Boehner, Fordham and Reynolds. Only problem is that Hastert is calling his fellow repubs liars and claiming no one told him before Friday last week.

Polly Klaas's father has every right to be outraged by this incident. Accusing him of taking Olby pills was a new low for this blog.

Your "Emmy Worthy" paragraphy is largely incoherent which is typical for right wingers these days. What the heck are you saying?

Oh, but if only Warner was Secretary of Defense instead of blood-and-guts Rumsfeld. Oops, that was a smear on General Patton. That should be just-blood-and-guts Rumsfeld.

Funny you should mention Newsmax. Didn't they employ a gay male prostitute for their Whitehouse correspondant? Nothing wrong with him being gay, but he wasn't even a journalist and apparently checked into the Whitehouse and didn't check out. Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman, do you know what he was doing?

Leslie Sanchez, can you name one Democrat that is praying for another 9-11? I think you might be projecting there.

Mark Foley's in rehab now, but as soon as he gets out he wants to turn over a new page. Leno

Hi my name is Krazy Keith Olberdone.....and I'll be your waiter tonight.

Krazy's ratings keep going up yet he stays in last place....go figure

Posted by: Anonymous at October 7, 2006 12:54 AM

What does his ratings have to do with what he is saying? Is popularity the only thing that matters? If his show was number one would that change the way you think about what he says? The fact that there is a website that is set up for the sole purpose of tearing him down says he is having an effect on someone. I am glad he is on the air and I will continue to watch him wether or not his show is a hit. Deal with what he is saying, not his ratings numbers.

"Lie, lie, lie....I have been hearing it for almost eight years now and I still do not understand why people just want to cut off all discussion by calling their opponent a liar? Argue, rebut, do something else so that we can generate some kind of dialogue and get along.

Posted by: cee at October 6, 2006 10:48 PM"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh? The name of this page is Olberman Watch. What do you expect to find here? Think about all the slanted propaganda news out there on all the cable and network television. CNN Fox MSNBC NBC ABC CBS, it is all bullshit pretending to be informative useful information. It's like arguing about whether black or white is more like red. All this back and forth about Clinton is so fucking stupid.

Washington DC is a corporate occupied territory. Both Democrats and Republicans are owned by big money. One is more cynical than the other though. The fact that Republicans have a totally fake theme of being the "party of family values" makes them all the more disgusting.

Bill Clinton is a very good politician and so is his wife. Are they more likely to put an end to big money coming before the American voter? No way. But are they what the Rush Limbaugh ditto heads make them out to be? No fucking way. Hannity and Limbaugh are so hung up on the Clintons I am certain they have nightmares about him. All this referring to what the Clintons did and didn't do; is this the way the party of "personal responsibility" demonstrates how the Republicans take responsibility for anything that goes wrong under their watch? You bet it is. Totally hypocritical dumb asses. All day today they are talking on Fox and Billy O'really about how the Democrats kept Mark Foley's secret for an opportune time. Forget the fact that the entire republican congress did the same to protect their hold on power. What a fucking joke these sleaze bags are.

Arguing with people that defend the Bush crime family and this corrupt beyond corrupt republican controlled congress is a waste of time. Telling them off is the only commentary they are worthy of.

> Three republicans accused Hastert, that is what Shuster specified.

Escape, you ignorant slut, how exactly does that prove that Dems didn't have the information before it went public? I can accuse Keith Olbermann of being a slovenly partisan hack, but that's not proof that no other people had the information first.

> Funny you should mention Newsmax.

The funniest thing about me mentioning Newsmax isn't that I didn't mention Newsmax at all.

Talk about "ignorant"!

Talk about "incoherent"!

As I was driving home from work today, I heard an audio repeat of keith Olberman's commentary last
night "Lies upon Lies". Before today, I didn't even know who he was. What I heard was something that I couldn't ignore and had forgotten could even exist in the dung heap that passes for "news"
these days..THE TRUTH. God Bless Keith Olberman.

I heard KO on the first part of his hour on Dan Patrick's radio show. Patrick kept talking about how down Olby seemed and kept trying to cheer him up.

I figured w/ the Foley scandal and the ratings boost KO had this week, he'd be ecstatic.

Then, I saw last night's cable news ratings and it all made since. O'Reilly had more than 2,300,000 viewers Thursday night. Poor Keith, despite his heavily hyped "special comment", had 500,000.

For you buffoons who buy into KO's b.s. about how great his ratings are, that means O'Reilly's audience outnumbered Olbermann's 4 1/2 to 1.

Oh, and O'Reilly's book will be the new #1 on the NY Times bestseller list. Where's KO's? Oh, that's right. It never made the list.

"For you buffoons who buy into KO's b.s. about how great his ratings are, that means O'Reilly's audience outnumbered Olbermann's 4 1/2 to 1."

And this means what? It means there are a hell of lot of dumb asses in this nation. The idea that numbers of viewers means approval is another perspective. I watch O'really all the time and think he is a fantastic propagandist. He's a typical Irish blow hard. I know I am one too. I grew up in a catholic Irish neighborhood and I know his kind. When in high school my friends and I put a target on the back of a--holes like him. The bigger they were the more justified it was in kicking their ass if they were a bully. Nothing like having a guy twice your size act like he was a tough guy and then seeing him submit when he's challenged on the ground, man to man. Today the blow hard O'really has the protection of adulthood and maturity but you can bet when the guy was underage he got his bullshitting ass kicked regularly by real toughs who could put there money where their mouth was. We were not like all these sissies today who gang up or use weapons. In the old days boys were allowed to fight without the cops and lawyers getting involved. Our fathers (yes we had fathers back then) taught us the rules. No kicking in the balls and no punching in the mouth - O'really is a punk and all the blow hards with no brains love the guy cuz they think they too can be like him - a tough guy! But it is all talk.

Like you "bigred" O'really is an a--hole that would sell his soul to the devil if it could make him just appear to be a real man. You're lost blow hard that looks up to bigger blow hards as someone to be like. It's too bad you didn't have a father that could have taught you how to be a real man!

I say you act just like a punk!

Johnny, you poor, misguided scrag!

I'm old enough to have watched the original airing of those SNL skits. Don't take it too personally. Those were our favorite lines back in the day.

---Escape, you ignorant slut, how exactly does that prove that Dems didn't have the information before it went public? ---

Ummm.... do you have evidence they did? All evidence seems to point to Repubs knowing years in advance. Why didn't Dems use it in the 2004 election if they knew then? Sorry, this is a Republican scandal no matter how much you wish it wasn't.

Newsmax, my bad. What about Jeff Gannon anyway. Approve? Disapprove? Democrat's fault? At least he didn't proposition any pages? You decide.

Keith Olbermann is the brightest and most courageous newscaster currently working. He must really scare you a lot! Why else would you have a website devoted to vilifying him?
Intelligent people who want to hear the TRUTH watch "Countdown." Unfortunately, there are a lot more people out there who aren't very intelligent and who don't want to hear(or ackowledge)the truth. The highest ratings don't usually go to tv shows that appeal to our higher selves.
You seem to be a very unenlightened, angry person who is threatened by a person of high values. Keith Olbermann is a true patriot.

Posted by: Cynthia Montgomery at October 6, 2006 11:50 PM

Cynthia, what planet did you drop in from? Or have you been drinking KO koolaid?

> Ummm.... do you have evidence they did?

Ummm, that's irrelevant. To counter Hastert's charge that Dems knew before Republicans, Slippery pointed out that the sources for two publications were Republicans. Period.

THAT DOES NOT PROVE HASTERT WRONG! It's completely within the realm of possibility that Dems knew about it before these two publications got ahold of it.

Is that evidence that Dems actually DID have the info before Republicans did? No. I never claimed otherwise. My point is, Shuster's "rebuttal" to Hastert's claim should have been: there's little or no evidence to support what Hastert said. But for him to "rebut" Hastert with an irrelevancy (GOPers were the source for two publications) is just a little semantic sleight-of-hand to make it sound like he's disproving Hastert when he's doing nothing of the kind.

It's one of the reason's he's "Slippery" Shuster.

Wow, punked you sound like a real working man's "bad-ass", calling people "a--holes" from the safety of your own vermin hole. I for one am certainly impressed at your junior highschool antics. You make the rest of your weed smoking,folk music playing, socialist amigos look brilliant.

"thank you again, J.D., for another honest"
Quite frankly, here is someone who is completely deluded.

"Providing evidence to your (reasonable) claims would do wonders for this site's credibility."
It would if the claims were true and not full of spin. However, providing evidence is not exactly JD's forte.

"October Surprise" was not Olbermann's phrase but a repetition of what Hastert had called it.

"sex scandal."
Yep, let's blame KO for using the same phrase that, as far as I can see, EVERY media outlet is using, including – yep, you guessed it, your bosses at Fox News. Googling "foley sex scandal" returned over 300,000 hits.

"Hastert: the Dems had this story first. [Shuster]: the source for ABC and The Hill was a Republican. As if that was "proof" that the Dems still could not have had the story first."
Why did you leave out the part that Hastert claimed the Dems knew about it a day or two before he did, but then offered no proof? Likewise, you left out the part that ABC's Ross said he only told Reps and not the Dems.

"Hastert: the GOPers worked to get Foley to resign. Shuster: the "timeline" says otherwise."
What no 'refutation" of this fact?

"Then "what did Hastert know and when did he know it?". Clip of Hastert: I learned about it last Friday. Shuster cited various people who claim they told Hastert about it earlier, including Kirk Fordham."
Various people? Hah! Why not mention that the various people were John Boehner ("this spring") and Tom Reynolds ("a year ago"). I guess those people are unimportant, eh?

"[Shuster] did not mention any of the denials by Hastert's office"
a) Why mention it? It's obvious to Olby-watchers that they deny it.
b) Shuster had shown Hastert's claim he had heard about it last Friday. That in itself is a denial.

"Except of course for the one [poll] showing George Allen …"
Interesting way you put this. Did KO give a poll that indicated ANY Senatorial race? No, he did not. I can't ever recall him giving numbers like that, he always gives general poll numbers.
Even if he had, I wouldn't blame him for not using the Zogby Poll. I was checking out the polls yesterday when I came across the Zogby. I found it strange that Menendez in NJ had taken such a big lead (+11pts) when lately in the past he had been down several points. Likewise, Allen suddenly seemed have the same lead in VA. A little investigation and I found that that Zogby poll differed from other polls in battleground states, by an average of 6 points! While most of the differences favored Reps, some of the most dramatic I saw were 9pts. in NJ, and 8pts. in MD in favor of the Dems.

"a slur against a Congressman (R) trying to "smear" his opponent"
While you may be technically right, I find it strange to call it a slur that KO reported about Congressman Tom Feeney (R-FL) photoshopping his opponent's head onto the body of Hugh Hefner and showing him on the cover of Hustler magazine and then sending it to people in the district in the mail.

"but she was "repeating" the administration's "line" and blaming a "scapegoat""
Umm, this was true. KO said she was "repeating the consistent line" of the administration and was blaming the media as a scapegoat. How is that wrong? That would be like reporting that the Boy Who Cried Wolf cried wolf, but not mentioning 'again'.

[Here I note that you didn't mention anything about the Biden plan. Of course, the goal of the neo-cons is to keep saying Dems don’t have plans, so I shouldn't be surprised you didn't mention it.]

"Olbermann praised Warner for "listening to the military leaders" and being a true Senator."
I hope you are not trying to slur the only good Senator we have here in VA. Warner is a conservative, not a neo-con. This administration is not listening to the military leaders and has consistently given the line that things are going well. Allen (R-VA) repeats the same line as Bush. Since Warner is highly unlikely to be beat in any election before he retires he can actually disagree with the administration.

Since KO brought up the other day that Billo's book has been available only a week and his 6, has anyone done a total sales comparison (not that that would be favorable for our hero KO). Or how about the fact that Billo is debuting at #1 on the NYT best seller's list, while KO peaked at #18 on the 15 book list?

No, better to compare it to the 2nd biggest children's book series like EVER than directly compare it to KO's insightful tome.

> Or have you been drinking KO koolaid?

I like the way that sounds. But we need to polish it up a bit. I think the official Style Book for Olbermann Watch should dictate that it be referred to as: KOolaid.

"Shuster's "rebuttal" to Hastert's claim should have been: there's little or no evidence to support what Hastert said."

Stop the TIVO!
That's EXACTLY what Shuster did!
Shuster said "Hastert won't tell us how he knows this or who his sources are." He then went on to point out that the people who broke the story told Reps not Dems.

God bless KO.

Johnny Dollar---It's completely within the realm of possibility that Dems knew about it before these two publications got ahold of it.---

That my friend sounds like......

Truthiness-reference to the quality by which a person claims to know something intuitively, instinctively, or "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or actual facts.

Awol writes: "Where are all the Looney Reichwingers today?"

How about a third option: out enjoying a Friday night to start the weekend instead of sitting at home alone desparately awaiting the next (first) witty, insightful KO slur against Republicans.

Hi my name is Krazy Keith Olberdone.....and I'll be your waiter tonight.

Krazy's ratings keep going up yet he stays in last place....go figure

Posted by: Anonymous at October 7, 2006 12:54 AM

What does his ratings have to do with what he is saying? Is popularity the only thing that matters? If his show was number one would that change the way you think about what he says? The fact that there is a website that is set up for the sole purpose of tearing him down says he is having an effect on someone. I am glad he is on the air and I will continue to watch him wether or not his show is a hit. Deal with what he is saying, not his ratings numbers.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

KO= laughing stock of the cable news biz!

Awol writes: "Where are all the Looney Reichwingers today?"

How about a third option: out enjoying a Friday night to start the weekend instead of sitting at home alone desparately awaiting the next (first) witty, insightful KO slur against Republicans.

Hit_escape: Nice diversion. Confuse Newsbusters with Newsmax, then insist on still trying to make a point about Jeff Gannon, who is totally irelevant to the issue at hand. However, I'll go ahead and bite.

Whether or not Jeff Gannon had training as a journalist, the fact that an organization made him their White House Correspondent (your words) makes him a journalist. Was he a partisan? Probably. But the left chose to make his sexual orientation an issue.

Apparently, you also reference rumors about Ken Mehlman's sexual orientation. Again, irrelevant, but interesting that you feel the need to bring him into the conversation.

No matter how much what Foley did disgusts me, he was elected and reelected despite rumors about his sexual orientation.

What do these three have in common? They rose to the pinnacles of their profession based on their merits, regardless of how they fornicate. The left in general, and tonight you in particular, on the other hand, has seized every opportunity to make issue of their (alleged in some cases) sexual practices.

Do I care if any of them are gay? Nope. Do you?

KO ratings are like a screw in a flat tire..you can blow it up and it will stay up for a short time but it will go flat again because it still has a screw in it....and KO is that screw..he can get some buzz for a "special comment" and get some increase in ratings but once people find out its the same left-wing one sided show it always was the viewers leave again.

If MSNBC really wants ratings with Countdown they should pair KO with a conservative to counter him..people would tune in to see KO have to debate and defend his views.

Oh and you got to know KO has to be ticked about O'Reilly's book out performing his... karma's a bitch KO..you made such a big deal about your book and now O'reilly's beating you there too. :)

So you are making fun of Olberman getting a terrorist threat! Would it be funny if someone sent some "powered soap" to you?

So you are making fun of Olberman getting a terrorist threat! Would it be funny if someone sent some "powered soap" to you?
************************************************
KO had no problem making jokes when O'Reilly reported that the FBI had warned him that he and other FOX people were on a terrorist hit list..so whats good for the goose.

The arguements from the Olbermann despisers are getting really weak. It's mostly calling him funny names or insulting the inteligence of his viewers. A few people make a case for the fact that anyone who believes what Keith is saying is a communist supporter or trying to squash down Christians but love Muslims. Yes, I would feel if I was a supporter of the {right} that Keith ia a partisan aginst me. The only voice in the media who is coming out and saying it, "I'm not with you guys" as opposed to the many many voices on the right who push right wing propaganda on a daily basis, is attacked for lying and distorting the truth while the real truth has been smothered by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter for years now.

Scott,

I agree with you fully.

I am a conservative Christian, someone many on this blog like to denegrate and dehumanize. The issue of what someone does with other consenting adults is, for good or ill, not for regulation in our society. It is a part of the law and I respect the law.

However, I do not believe it is healthy for my children to be exposed to a lifestyle that glorifies sexual behavior I consider immoral. People are so quick to say, "Do not discriminate against openly homosexual individuals." Okay, my logical next question is, "How do we balance my rights against someone else's claim to a right that may violate my rights?" It is easy in the case of Mr. Foley.....His proclivity lead him to proposition adolescent boys. He should not be allowed to supervise children (By the way, it has been discussed before...what Foley did was NOT pedophilia, it was hebephilia...but who cares about being accurate when discussing crimes commited by republicans?)

If an individual is so uninhibited that his or her private sexual practices are a topic of public discussion, I do not want my child around that person alone....whatever they are attracted to...gay, straight, whatever is under the sun. So when it comes to unsupervised activity with adolescents, I do not want my family's value system violated or my child abused) physically or mentally) by anyone.

Being, "out," as the gay community puts it, is not a problem of society accepting homosexuals. It is the request for freedom to add yet another unnecessary, distasteful sexual subject to the open discussion in the public square.

I am not worried about my children being made, "gay." I am concerned that they will be exposed to, what I believe, is a lifestyle choice that is wrong and does not glorify God. Just like I believe polygomy, sex outside marriage, divorce, and other practices are not what God intended, homosexual behavior (not the people who dot it), is the problem. I teach my children to love all individuals, whatever their behavior, and to serve all individuals, no matter what their behavior. However, with a person's choices and behavior, we should use the entire biblical canon as a guide for what is right and wrong, not use what "seems" to feel right or what other people say is right, or what they do.

I do not follow the modern secularists' mantra, "Live and let live." I try to follow, with God's help, "Live to glorify The Lord, and let live." Discernment and judging what is right and wrong is a basic function of the human being and this is the system I use.

Hey codas, I responded specifically to specfics of Olbermann's accusations against Bush in his Special Comment 10/5/06. "Lie, lie, lie."

Yes, I may have tried to be humorous by messing with his name (overlook it), but I believe it is a valid argument, and I know it is my opinion.

The problem with Olbermann is that he thinks his opinion is fact....like all demogogues.

we should use the entire biblical canon as a guide for what is right and wrong,
Posted by: cee at October 7, 2006 07:04 AM

I'm sorry, but that is the mindset that worries me. Do you really want to use the Bible "which by the way I respect, read and do feel is God inspired" as the basis for right and wrong? Where do we draw the line at Moses law, Stoning non-virgins? How about gathering sticks on the Sabath?
"How do we balance my rights against someone else's claim to a right that may violate my rights?" you asked. That's a good question. I can ask it also of you. The Amish have answered it but if you want to live in our society you are just going to have to educate your children about your values. We live in the midst of many ideas and lifestyles. I have said it before and I will say it again. I don't want to live under Moses's law. The Jews of the old testemant tried and failed. Practice your faith. Don't expect the world to.

It's funny how the majority of the posts on this site are now from folks outside the same 5 sycophant posters. Karl Rove wouldn't be proud of you, but hell, it's still funny.

Also of note* this site no longer promotes itself as "tastlessly mocking". Did that not poll well? Did it not look professional? What's the deal, boys?

And what's with the meaningless polls? At least when the Torch has polls there are a reasonable number of options. Somebody forgot their notes on skewed statistics, no?

Holes in logic: pedophilic advances don't = sex scandal? That's funny, not intentionally funny, but unintentionally funny.

Sarah. Bite me. No really! Bite me

Codas, you confuse the punishment and the crime. Just because we do not cut off someone's hand after we prove they stole something does not mean stealing is now okay. Stealing is still wrong. Just because we do not stone people if they are found to be fornicating or commiting adultery does not mean God now says it is okay to have sex before or outside of marriage. The law's punishments were for the Jewish nation after their exodus from Eqypt. As a Christian, Christ did not destroy the law...he fulfilled it/paid the punishment and only through Him can I keep from doing what is wrong in the sight of God.

Name me one thing in the bible that is prohibited that is impossible for a human being stop doing and I will give up the point.

I will address your society question presently.

The moonbats are coming unhinged. They really think this Foley deal is the Holy Grail for them. The average American sees right through the hypocritical nonsense they are spewing.
Olbermann is by far the most hateful 'desk jockey' I have ever seen.

Can you imagine what the response would be if O'Reilly or Hannity used the same rhetoric as OlbyTard?

It's downright laughable that the libtards who have posted comments here think Olby is a beacon of light in the darkness. Whenever a left wing MSM pundit regurgitates rude comments concerning the President, the moonbats all scream "Olby for Pres" or "Colbert for Pres".
As if rudeness is the benchmark and prerequisite for political accuity.

Yes Sarah, if you use Bill Clinton's defense for defining sex....that was the irony, and the subtle point many were making. Of course it's a sex scandal.

Oh, and by the way, instead of silly, superficial attacks on the site or the small number of posters you're seeing, why don't you try to debate me, honestly? I'm ready for you.

Name me one thing in the bible that is prohibited that is impossible for a human being stop doing and I will give up the point
Posted by: cee at October 7, 2006 08:30 AM

I agree with that. That is what I am saying. If you wish to follow his law, you can. I don't mean to say it's okay now to break his law because we don't stone people to death for it. I just think there are people who are of the opinion that they are obligated to make others follow his laws. Laws of common decency are pretty much universal and not based on the old testemant alone. I love the fact that we have freedom of religion in this country, and would like it to always be that way. You cant deny, though you may call me paranoid, that there is an element in certain segments of Christianity in this country, who have a lot of power now who would like to see some good old fasion old time religion imposed into our legal system.

Codas, there are certain segments of Christianity, secular society, Islam, and other groups that want to see some aspect of their worldview imposed into our legal system.

An example, teaching sexuality in the public school system. Secular organizations who say homosexuality is a normal orientation and a normal choice as a publicly discussed lifestyle want children to be instructed in this idea exclusive to other points of view as part of educating about sexuality. I have seen in my own state of New Jersey, allowing this as young as 6 years of age. I disagree. Some want it to be a part of the law that would criminalize teachers and districts that do not have this view as part of their curriculum. What is the difference? This is why public schools should only be teaching math, reading, history, science and not values with regard to sexuality.

The tendency to try to seize control of minds is on both sides and so often the liberal infiltration is ignored while the conservative infiltration is blown up and demagogued.

Another example, the tax structure. It is conventional wisdom now that the secular government is in the business of taking care of people from infancy to grave. Great intent, but this has resulted in severe limits to our freedom. The conventional wisdom is also to redistribute wealth, with some very liberal views that there should be unfettered governmental seizure of property if it is deemed beneficial to the society. What is the difference of this morality being forced through law and taxation and my religious beliefs being integrated into law? Specifics can be argued, but it is my opinion that the founders' intention was to have a weak federal system that had specific powers that mostly involved security, war and commerce....not social engineering.

"Name me one thing in the bible that is prohibited that is impossible for a human being stop doing and I will give up the point.

I will address your society question presently."

You cannot completely cease in putting yourself at the center of the universe. Even Mother Teresa, in her most charitable moment, was in the next instant putting her thoughts, her wishes, her needs, her will above what she knew of God's. She'd have been the first to admit it.

There is nothing in Christianity that teaches that people can know God and be saved by the power of their will. Quite the opposite.

Cee.
We agree on something else. I think schools should just teach math, science and all that. They have enough to do without trying to guide morality.

Cecelia.
As usual, I'm not sure if I am understanding what you mean. "There is nothing in Christianity that teaches that people can know God and be saved by the power of their will. Quite the opposite." I think it's the age old faith and works question? The truth is, both sides are half right I think. Forgive us are tresspases as we forgive those... Forgiveness is a work. Paul thought about things diffrently than Christ. I know that's hard for people to believe, but it's true.

Not my point Cecelia. Salvation through grace alone is truth.

My point was with regards to the law and yes, I can will myself to pick up sticks on the sabbath, not steal my neighbor's ox, not sleep with my neighbor's wife, not lie about my cousin's side-business, or not ignore my neighbor's suffering. It's the choice of following what is right that is possible, not easy, but possible.

Doing all the right things is not what saves us from the punishment. That is the first stumbling block for many who see that as what being a Chirstian is. It is the gift of the atonement of Christ's death that does the saving. Sanctification is the process by which I realize and then allow Christ's will to dominate my action. That is the ongoing process, the second challenge and what both Christians and nonbelievers have a struggle with.

"Forgiveness is a work. Paul thought about things diffrently than Christ. I know that's hard for people to believe, but it's true."

You can be transformed by God in as much as you "work" to submit to his will. But you can't be saved by that action. It's not good enough.

Hate to bore with more of my ramblings Cee and Cel, but this discusion is an example of the dangers of a "people of faith" vs. seculurism" thing. You both seem protestant. Am I correct?
I'm not. My church believs in works. Non-Christians can do Gods will and be justified. "Not all who call me lord...
Why do you call me Lord and not do what I say... I am coming to give to every man according to his works... God is not mocked, As a man sow, sow shall he reap.
I know better that to go on because I am sure you could quote several "grace" lines and we could go on and on. Who can deny grace or doomed, but there is something to be said for humans who know the right thing to do, and do it without the promise of some reward.

Punked spewed: "The bigger they were the more justified it was in kicking their ass if they were a bully. Nothing like having a guy twice your size act like he was a tough guy and then seeing him submit when he's challenged on the ground, man to man"

Bully Kowardly Keith must need a justifiable ass-kicking then. Meltdown's chief misogynist has taken cheap shots at women colleagues Nancy Grace, Ann Coulter, ED Hill, Katie Couric, Michelle Malkin, etc. etc. etc. A real "tough guy". Challenge Keith "man-to-man"? How is that possible when Keith has no testicles?

When Keith comes out from behind mommy's skirt (or under his desk) I'm sure Geraldo Rivera would be more than happy to make Keith "submit".

hey jack
Geraldo Rivera is a dick

codas,

Good works are fundamental to Christianity, but it's illogical to say we must do them to be saved by God while simultaneously saying that we shouldn't do them in order to receive a reward.

The desire to escape hell is not a mercenary desire. It's one that fully acknowledges the holiness of God, the desirability of that goodness, and the fallen nature of man.

As for justification through works, the Pope would disagree that salvation comes through obedience to Judaic law.

So would Moses.

Cecelia

When i think works, i think of mercy, forgiveness, praying for someone you don't even like. That kind of thing. That is where the rubber hits the road so to speak for me. Judaic law is the very thing that makes me want to run like hell from people who think we need to impose that kind of thing. I get what your saying though.

Looks like all this publicity for Newsbusters is having an effect on it's site. I can't even access it.

Going upstream a bit, someone commented on Soros and Cavuto. Soros essentially 'Clintoned' Cavuto when Cavuto asked a question Soros didn't like. I forget the exact words but Cavuto was trying to make a point about the hypocrisy of Soros setting up at least one of his mutual funds overseas to avoid paying federal taxes while calling for higher taxes on the rich. And since we all know that Hypocrisy has an (R) after it there can be no democrats guilty of this so the question was clearly out of bounds (snicker).

Like Clinton, after turning on the questioner he did provide a defense of sorts: his management company and his own personal taxes are subject to US taxes. I think that's a fair defense though he probably should have elaborated. You know, answer the question instead of throwing a hissy fit that you studied hard for the 'favorite color' question and it never came up.

I assume his point was that the mutual funds earnings are mostly realized as management fees which are subject to US taxes and not due to the back office activities that are largely a commodity. But there is clearly some tax advantage to what he is doing - probably just not much from a big picture perspective. I think Cavuto had a better case relative to his support of the Democrat party when the party gets the vapors over exporting of jobs and Soros has jobs that could be in the US but are outside.

Do I care if any of them are gay? Nope. Do you?

Posted by: Scott at October 7, 2006 03:06 AM

Nope, me neither. Its just hard to fathom that they are members of a politcal party that consistantly works against gay's own best interests.

Currently there is a list that outs most of the gay republican staffers. Its a vehement response from within conservative circles to purge the ranks and blame gays for protecting Foley. Ironically, Fordham, who was outed, tried to warn Hastert two year ago and was rewarded by being scapegoated for Foley.

hit_escape, Do you have a source for your information regarding the claims in your last paragraph?

"Whether or not Jeff Gannon had training as a journalist, the fact that an organization made him their White House Correspondent (your words) makes him a journalist. Was he a partisan? Probably."

Jeff Gannon was "probably" partisan?
How about "without a doubt"?
Its spin like this that gives the majority of the people on this site so little credibility.

Do I care if any of them are gay? Nope. Do you?

Posted by: Scott at October 7, 2006 03:06 AM

Do you care if any of them are pedophiles?
Do you care if anyone in charge did nothing about it while allowing the pedophile pass legislation against his own crimes?

I don't recall too many dems overly concerned about anyone being gay. Pedophiles on the other hand are a different story.

The only time anyone's homosexuality comes into play is when a political party spends so much effort to deny rights to gays and then turn out to be gay themselves. For a republican to be gay is like an African American joining the Klan.

Do I care if any of them are gay? Nope. Do you?

Posted by: Scott at October 7, 2006 03:06 AM

Do you care if any of them are pedophiles?
Do you care if anyone in charge did nothing about it while allowing the pedophile pass legislation against his own crimes?

I don't recall too many dems overly concerned about anyone being gay. Pedophiles on the other hand are a different story.

The only time anyone's homosexuality comes into play is when a political party spends so much effort to deny rights to gays and then turn out to be gay themselves. For a republican to be gay is like an African American joining the Klan.

Do I care if any of them are gay? Nope. Do you?

Posted by: Scott at October 7, 2006 03:06 AM

Do you care if any of them are pedophiles?
Do you care if anyone in charge did nothing about it while allowing the pedophile pass legislation against his own crimes?

I don't recall too many dems overly concerned about anyone being gay. Pedophiles on the other hand are a different story.

The only time anyone's homosexuality comes into play is when a political party spends so much effort to deny rights to gays and then turn out to be gay themselves. For a republican to be gay is like an African American joining the Klan.

"How do we balance my rights against someone else's claim to a right that may violate my rights?"

You don't.
Your rights are YOUR rights.
Their rights are THEIR rights.

You don't have the right to limit someone else's rights. Your rights cannot take away someone else's either. Sorry.

"I do not follow the modern secularists' mantra, "Live and let live." I try to follow, with God's help, "Live to glorify The Lord, and let live." "

That is great. I'm sure that works for you. It may not work for everyone though, and other people have a right to their own mantras.
Some of those mantras may even include loving someone of the same sex, even if that happens to step on your idea of perfection and godliness.

"I do not follow the modern secularists' mantra, "Live and let live." I try to follow, with God's help, "Live to glorify The Lord, and let live." "

That is great. I'm sure that works for you. It may not work for everyone though, and other people have a right to their own mantras.
Some of those mantras may even include loving someone of the same sex, even if that happens to step on your idea of perfection and godliness.

HORNY 52 YO MALE SEEKS TIGHT TEEN

Horny old man seeks an illegal affair with hot young boy. Must be tight, 7"+, into crazy $hit, and like to call me Grampy.
Please respond with cock pic.

Former Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office.

HORNY 52 YO MALE SEEKS TIGHT TEEN

Horny old man seeks an illegal affair with hot young boy. Must be tight, 7"+, into crazy $hit, and like to call me Grampy.
Please respond with cock pic.

HORNY 52 YO MALE SEEKS TIGHT TEEN

Horny old man seeks an illegal affair with hot young boy. Must be tight, 7"+, into crazy $hit, and like to call me Grampy.
Please respond with cock pic.

Rep. Barney Frank. The outspoken Massachusetts Democrat hired a male prostitute who ran a prostitution service from Frank’s residence in the 1980s. Only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to censure him in 1990.

Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.

Point the finger. Redirect. Change the subject. Blame the victom. Blame the liberals, msn, Soros,pages. They did it too. On and on. No accountabilty.

Foley is gone. Frank is still there so is Jefferson. Condit would not leave. Accountability? Huh?

I thought the piece Olbermann did the other day on lightning was dumb. He's always trying to act so smart. Its always "science this" and "science that". If its not new info on lightning, he's trying to tell us global warming exists. Or evolution. Or dinosaurs. Or any other lies those smarties and scientists try to force down our kids' throats.

Everyone knows global warming is a friggin lie started by the left so we would think they're so smart. Did god ever talk about it in the bible? HUH?? Didn't think so. Its a lie.

So is evolution. Everyone knows Adam and Eve is all the science anyone needs. Every race on this planet came from two people, plain and simple. Actually one person, since Eve was made from Adam's rib. Now that makes perfect sense. The bible isn't a book written thousands of years ago to teach lessons, it is a scientific account of the world.

Dinosaurs are also a lie, and the bones were put here by lefty scientists to try to confuse the kids. If there ever was a dinosaur you can be sure Adam was riding one like in the cartoons.

Now we have new info on lightning? PLEASE.
Everyone knows lightning comes with thunder. And everyone also knows thunder comes when God is bowling. DUH.
Lightning is when he gets a strike. Any friggin six year old can tell you that.

Keith Olbermann and his smarty scientist friends can all kiss my a$$. They think they are so much better with all their book-learnin. They should spend a little more time in church and a little less time in the libraries, the friggin nerds.

All conservatives are hillbillies who don't believe in darwinism or science.

Codas wrote:

"Blame the victom[spelling]. Blame the liberals, msn[microsoft network? why?], Soros,pages."

Codas, please take night classes, learn to read and write properly, then return.

Johnny Dollar said:

"After great thanksing the Wolffe Man, KO picked up one of today's blue blog talking points to complain about the President issuing a signing statement, a practice that never bothered the Orange man until a Republican was in the White House."

Because EVERY President who has used "signing statements" before this used them to say "I object to this law, but I will enforce it as far as I see fit." President Bush issues signing statements that say "I object to this law and I will not enforce it."

WHY does the president feel that putting minimum qualifications on the position of FEMA Director is objectionable (and don't give me the same bullshit answer the President gave because it doesn't narrow the field of candidates that much)?

President Bush cannot selectively choose which parts of bills he wants to enforce and parts he refuses to enforce. That's in effect giving him the power to Line Item Veto. A power that the REPUBLICANS got the Supreme Court to strike down as unconstitutional when it was given to President Bill Clinton.

Codas, please take night classes, learn to read and write properly, then return.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 7, 2006 08:36 PM

I'd love to take some night classes. You paying? I know my spelling sucks but not as much as my tyypinnggng.

"All conservatives are hillbillies who don't believe in darwinism or science."

......{simply shakes head sighing to self comtemplating man's inability to engage in civil discourse of ideas without devolving into tired, insipid name calling...George (Washington), Tom (Jefferson), Ben (Franklin), Alexander (Hamilton)...what hast thou wrought?}

Hey Billy Bob, You find it strange that some Christians believe the biblical account of Adam and Eve. Then you go on:

Actually one person, since Eve was made from Adam's rib. Now that makes perfect sense.

From what I've seen on Discovery and read for the last several years modern science states that all of mankind can be traced back gentically to one woman. They have given her the name Eve. Fancy that.

I don't find it stange or warped that all mankind can be attributable to the first woman who reproduced. What others want to believe is OK with me.

Wtat I do find strange and disturbing is that a presumably intelligent modern man would take the time to write a long post vibrating with anger, comtempt and frustration because some in the world disagree with him.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

PS In passing, the term Global Warming is becoming passe with the climatoligists. They now prefer Climate Change. That way when they use the same records to change the clarion call of impending doom from Global Cooling to Global Warming every few generations they don't feel so silly.

I asked a very difficult question.....

"How do we balance my rights against someone else's claim to a right that may violate my rights?"

On 10/7/06, 2:33pm, The Truth flippantly retorted.....

"You don't.
Your rights are YOUR rights.
Their rights are THEIR rights.

You don't have the right to limit someone else's rights. Your rights cannot take away someone else's either. Sorry."

HEY EVERONE, GREAT NEWS!!!!! In 5 sentences and an imperative, The Truth solves the conflicts that have ever, or will ever, occur between willful, fallen humankind.......Congratulations! (sarcasm for those of you not getting it)

I hope the misnamed -The Truth returns to engage is some real dialogue instead of trying to marginalize me, call me names or be quaint in responses that have no intellegent thought behind them.

The Truth, if limits can't be placed on rights, explain to me my inability to leave my home right now (its 5:45 in the morning), walk over to my neighbor's home (her name is Louise, she's a saint), break down her door, walk into her den, take her new plasma TV, set it up in my family room and watch the morning shows? I really want to indulge in my desire to watch GMA on a plasma...but I just can't afford it!

The Truth.....if limits can't be placed on rights, expalin to me why everyone is so upset with Mr. Foley? Why can't he indulge in his desires, pursue his homosexual (not pedophilial by the way) tendencies and IM/e-mail young, hot men?

The truth is, The Truth, that all human rights have to be limited becasue there is inevitable conflict between individuals in the exercise of said rights. Hello? Are you keeping up with me?

Using Thomas Jefferson's wonderful prose, I will apply The Declaration of Independence to our situation. Now remember, The Truth, this document was only signed by a few rather historically unimportant and uninfluential men, so many thought it was silly at the time. Firstly, rights were deemed granted by a creator. Secondly, T. Jefferson ranked those rights as 1) Life (cannot have the others if you are dead), 2) Liberty (all have a right to exercise "free will" with limits agreed upon so that #1 is not violated and that #3 can occur), 3) Indulgence (subservient to #1 and #2).....

Previous to this writing, goverments/rulers told their charges what they could and could not do pretty much arbitrarily. Now, there was a written-down novel idea that God was the giver of rights and they were pretty broad.....from living to pursuing desires and happiness. Wow! What a great idea. People can eat, be warm and physcially safe in their homes, go on vacation, enjoy their hobbies, have sex with whoever or whatever they desire, etc.

It seems pretty logical that these rights are listed in the order that they are. Of course, I added the parenthesis to expalin the reasoning behind the order...there has to be logical limits to freedoms (liberties) because some nasty people willfully decide to arbitrarily take away the rights of others (be they the government, the king or queen, Mr. Foley or Louise's nasty Christian neighbor).

I would like to go on, but I have to get ready for the day. Please try to remember that that pedestrian in the crosswalk has their right to life and it is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more important than your right (and I am talking to you, The Truth), to indulge in speeding around in your car without yielding.

cee - conservative evangelical "enfant terrible"

Keith Anally knows what REAL butt sex is but yet he still insists that Mark Foley is involed in a sex scandal when there was no sex involved.

PS. Doesn't Keith refer to Bill O'Reilly as Bill Orally? Just curious?

Except it just came out... he's having sex with them... oh darn, so much for the "no sex" viewpoint of this scandal.

How long will you CONS go on lying and denying for the a**holes who are running this country into the ground?

Too late I see... Someone has finally posted the"there was sex news".
Everybody needs to get in line with one thing here, the truth.
I don't want to heaer about something that happened under another administration.
This administration got the job by promising an agenda to a so-called, growing conservative, grass roots,christian base.
Apparently, immoral,letcherous,homo-sexual assaults on the wide-eyed trusting youth of the heartland carries the same weight as murder, torture, the plundering the Nation's wealth, and ravaging our armed services while raking in dividends from corporate lobbys'. You know... ethical confusion. Let's do a Senate Hearing to gain some insight (sic). After all we don't want to point fingers do we?
Never again should members of either party get a free walk on a missunderstanding of the law or ethical behavior

I see I'm too late to post the bad news; 'they did have sex'.
Oh well.
Personally, both parties/sides need to get behind one line and stick to it.
TRUTH!
The Bush administration was elected by laying a Blue-Plate-Special conservative, christian oriented agenda on the table of grass root, conservative, christian americans.
The administrations' actions since 9/11 were achieved with the help of loyal Republicans and, either, gutless, or wildly misinformed Democrats.
Well Georgie B. & Crew the piper is at the door demanding payment. No spin here Boys.
Otherwise this charge of predatory, diviant, immoral, lecherous, homo-sexual activity will carry no more weight than the Republican/Democrat
Parties consensual authorization of torture, murder, plundering of our National Treasury, the ravaging of our Armed Forces and, of course, the abbrogation of the Constitution of the United States.
You know...
Yet another misunderstanding of the Rules of Ethical Conduct.
Make it a law you clowns; any violation of ethics automatically results in forfieture of office/ all benefits and a real 1 year minimum jail term.
While your at it specify the Presidential Pardon to NOT permit government employee's any consideration. Repubs... your on the way out, Dems, you are on deck. But, who really cares?
Yeah, your getting lip service from your bases but neither party is trusted by anyone with a brain...

I see I'm too late to post the bad news; 'they did have sex'.
Oh well.
Personally, both parties/sides need to get behind one line and stick to it.
TRUTH!
The Bush administration was elected by laying a Blue-Plate-Special conservative, christian oriented agenda on the table of grass root, conservative, christian americans.
The administrations' actions since 9/11 were achieved with the help of loyal Republicans and, either, gutless, or wildly misinformed Democrats.
Well Georgie B. & Crew the piper is at the door demanding payment. No spin here Boys.
Otherwise this charge of predatory, diviant, immoral, lecherous, homo-sexual activity will carry no more weight than the Republican/Democrat
Parties consensual authorization of torture, murder, plundering of our National Treasury, the ravaging of our Armed Forces and, of course, the abbrogation of the Constitution of the United States.
You know...
Yet another misunderstanding of the Rules of Ethical Conduct.
Make it a law you clowns; any violation of ethics automatically results in forfieture of office/ all benefits and a real 1 year minimum jail term.
While your at it specify the Presidential Pardon to NOT permit government employee's any consideration. Repubs... your on the way out, Dems, you are on deck. But, who really cares?
Yeah, your getting lip service from your bases but neither party is trusted by anyone with a brain...

I'm sure its far too late to respond to this but...

"The Truth, if limits can't be placed on rights ..."
Posted by: cee at October 8, 2006 05:46 AM

Umm, you completely misqouted/misrepresented what "The Truth" said. "The Truth" said:
"You don't have the right to limit someone else's rights. Your rights cannot take away someone else's either."

There was no mention of 'limits' on rights, just the "right to limit someone else's rights."
In the examples you mentioned, you would be infringing on someone else's rights, that is, "your rights cannot take aways someone else's" rights, namely privacy, life, etc.

Interesting, you consider "the pursuit of happiness" to be 'indulgence'? While indulging ones' self may make one happy, happiness is not indulgence. Do you consider it 'indulgent' to own a house, a car, or to have a child? I certainly hope not!

"there has to be logical limits to freedoms"
There are and The Truth pointed them out: "your rights cannot take away someone else's"

"It seems pretty logical that these rights are listed in the order that they are."
Yes, there are, but perhaps not in the way you think. I have read that TJ wrote it in this order simply for the meter(?). While a reasonable assumption, it is nonetheless illogical to assume that the order was meant to indicate priority.
"I bought an apple, an orange, and a banana at the store". Which of these was more important to me? Is the apple the first one I bought, or the first one I took out the bag? Or maybe I am just combining articles and alphabetics: an 'a' and 'o', and a 'b'. See?

The Truth was correct. You have whatever rights you have as long as they do not impinge on anyone else's rights.

Consider: You have the right to bear arms. However, as in the case of one Southern state (I can't remember which) you do not have the right to bear arms within 500 feet of a polling place. Why? Because I have the right to vote, and your right to bear arms may prevent my right to vote because you carrying weapons may deter me from voting.
Why was this a law? Because redneck Republicans would sit outside polling places in an effort to intimidate black voters from voting, that's why.

you..are an absolute moron

you..are an absolute moron

Radmod, Many of our founding fathers considered the right to own property and pursue our interests to be the bulwark right that assured the first and foremost rights, life and liberty.

None of these rights can exist alone. The easier it is for people to shape their own lives and become prosporous the more dificult it is for government to deny them of the most essential rights of life and liberity.

The genious of those men. That last right contributes to the ability to acquire the property that keeps the government in check.

In that era there was virtually no horizontal movement for the vast majority. Born to a tenant farmer you were locked in tenant farming for life. Born to a family of merchants, you were a merchant.

Your viewpoint is so shallow. I believe it comes from two things. The misconception that the constition is designed to protect us from the stonger and more talented individuals rather than from government. And not understanding that with rights come responsibilities.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

radmod,

I limit my own rights to allow others to have their rights in my own behavior, how I act.

The Truth made a totally irrelevent argument against my question, "How do we balance my rights against someone else's claim to a right that may violate my rights?"

"We" is society....everyone.....corporate and individual. If you and The Truth can so easily say, "You have whatever rights you have as long as they do not impinge on anyone else's rights." then I guess we do not need anymore laws, votes or discussion. Having rights is the start....what I do with them, my behavior, is the dicey question. You superficially addressed the issue because you leave it in the theoretical and not the real world application.

Your answer, interstingly, comes in the final paraprapgh and is the example of your flawed thinking....Totally rely on government to form individual behavior with laws and policy....be honest with yourself radmod....is that really the best answer?

Great question, and an easy one....."Do you consider it 'indulgent' to own a house, a car, or to have a child? I certainly hope not!"

Yes I do....Christ teaches me to make myself last and to put others ahead of me. Christ defines it very clearly...Love God with all your heart, soul, might and treat your neighbor as you would treat yourself.

Nothing in there for me, me, me first....That's the issue with liberal thought....me central....And this is why I believe the founding fathers saw fit to call for personal sacrifice...and that idea continued to be a value through-out the country's past...Now, forget about it in most of the population.

If you actually think striving to have those material/temporal things are not how people try to make themselves "happy" then I don't know where to begin. The gratification of desire, or indulgence, has only one goal....pleasure or happiness.

"Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness".....the founding fathers were wise enough to know that they could not guarantee happiness...no man can....just get the government out of the way to allow it....WITHIN REASON....

Now, if you want to talk about CONTENTMENT, that is a different issue....Contenment is much deeper and important than happiness.....not relying on material/physical gratification but "true happiness" in whatever your situation is.

Anon at 07:30 AM was cee.

One last thing....If an order of priority of individual rights does not exist, how could anyone conclude when the rights of individuals impinge (using your word) on another's rights? Your lack of belief in absolute truth is starting to show, radmod.

Isn't funny that all these sports guys who know all about what to do and how to coach, and how to hit that un-hittable fast ball--all never played sports-ever. Let’s look at crazy Keith----on his bio--it said the orange man tan was busy at 14 writing a book about coaching. Now while other 14 yr olds were out wasting their time--the orange glow KO was typing away inside with Mommy--instead of say--playing a sport like a normal kid. IN fact the orange man--who in his interview --err make out session with bj Bill Clinton--whose questions to the former president were drowned out by the slurping noises Olby was making in bj Bill's lap made a career out of talking about sports other people--not Olbytard-play.
Olbermann received a bachelor’s of science degree in communications arts from Cornell University. And this makes the most hated man at ESPN an expert in exactly what? Lets se--President Bush has a BA from Yale--and a MBA from the Harvard B School. What does man tan olby have again? Oh yea-----little olby went to a private big bucks high school------and the best the putz was able to do was Cornell? My pet Airedale could get into Cornell----and yes my Airedale unlike the sports guy god olby--plays catch ----unlike olbytard whose only sport is lap diving into bj Bill's lap at each and every chance he get s to suck up to said Mr. Clinton. So now MSLSD gives olbytan an hour to parrot Kos and the rest of the lefty tin foil hat squad? And olbytard still can't get the ratings Nachman and poor crazy Phil got?
Olbyloon and his big bachelor’s of science degree in communications arts, hmm---come to think of it--I have one of those--I was at the Mets game and dying for some cracker jacks----and instead of something useful like a decoder ring--or plastic T-Rex----all I got was a bachelor’s of science degree in communications arts from Cornell University----so I tossed it away with my empty soda and hot dog wrapper.

* corrected for spelling errors*

Isn't funny that all these sports guys who know all about what to do and how to coach, and how to hit that un-hittable fast ball--all never played sports-ever. Let’s look at crazy Keith----on his bio--it said the orange man tan was busy at 14 writing a book about coaching. Now while other 14 yr olds were out wasting their time--the orange glow KO was typing away inside with Mommy--instead of say--playing a sport like a normal kid. IN fact the orange man--who in his interview --err make out session with bj Bill Clinton--whose questions to the former president were drowned out by the slurping noises Olby was making in bj Bill's lap made a career out of talking about sports other people--not Olbytard-play.
Olbermann received a bachelor’s of science degree in communications arts from Cornell University. And this makes the most hated man at ESPN an expert in exactly what? Lets se--President Bush has a BA from Yale--and a MBA from the Harvard B School. What does man tan olby have again? Oh yea-----little olby went to a private big bucks high school------and the best the putz was able to do was Cornell? My pet Airedale could get into Cornell----and yes my Airedale unlike the sports guy god olby--plays catch ----unlike olbytard whose only sport is lap diving into bj Bill's lap at each and every chance he get s to suck up to said Mr. Clinton. So now MSLSD gives olbytan an hour to parrot Kos and the rest of the lefty tin foil hat squad? And olbytard still can't get the ratings Nachman and poor crazy Phil got?
Olbyloon and his big bachelor’s of science degree in communications arts, hmm---come to think of it--I have one of those--I was at the Mets game and dying for some cracker jacks----and instead of something useful like a decoder ring--or plastic T-Rex----all I got was a bachelor’s of science degree in communications arts from Cornell University----so I tossed it away with my empty soda and hot dog wrapper.

* corrected for spelling errors*

Deplorable Keith Olbermann?

I salute the man. You people are dispicable.

Well - looks like the vast majority of your readership think that you are a complete wanker. I am proud to count myself in their number.

Well - looks like the vast majority of your readership think that you are a complete wanker. I am proud to count myself in their number.