Olbermann Exclusive: Dissecting new Book: Tempting Faith
By: John Amato @ 4:59 PM - PDT Submit or Digg this Post

Tonight on Countdown–David Kuo, who was the number two guy at the Office of Faith Based initiatives in the White House writes a scathing account of how the administration used Christians to grab and maintain power.

Olbermann Exclusive: Dissecting new Book: Tempting Faith
By: John Amato @ 4:59 PM - PDT Submit or Digg this Post

Tonight on Countdown–David Kuo, who was the number two guy at the Office of Faith Based initiatives in the White House writes a scathing account of how the administration used Christians to grab and maintain power.

Beginning tomorrow a more throuogh article will be copied and sent to local churches. Let's see how this election goes with all the pissed off religous folks not showing up to vote for the GOP... The Grim Reaper is here for you.

Yes, because we can trust everything coming from the minister of Democratic propaganda.

It won't happen. The fear of the Democrats is greater than their disgust at the moment with the House page scandal.

Ian.. David Kuo, who was the number two guy at the Office of Faith Based initiatives in the White House

What does that have to do with KO ? The guy is telling you what he saw as the number two man in the department.. this is great and thousands of letters and e-mails are being sent to churches in the next week. The grim reaper is here..

Brandon.. really then why do all the indicators lead to a huge democratic gain in less than a month.

Do you really believe ministers in this country are going to take to the pulpit and tell their churchmembers to vote Democratic? Get a clue.

No,, they will just not go to the polls.

I think that they will go to the polls for the Democrats... the ones that have wakened up to the truth: that there is nothing Christian at all about forcing away abortion, preventing the flag from being burned, fighting the war in Iraq, and politics itself.

Do you really believe ministers in this country are going to take to the pulpit and tell their churchmembers to vote Democratic? Get a clue.

Posted by: Brandon at October 11, 2006 08:36 PM

There not supposed to be telling anyone who to vote for. Maybe more people need to remember that.

Bill O'lielly,

So let me get this straight...

A) Bush is a "tool" for the Right-wing Christian fundamentalists who is being used to push their agenda

B) Bush was NOT a "tool" for the Right-wing Christian fundamentalists and was instead using them for their vote, but NOT pushing their agenda

You Leftists can't have it both ways...

You can't peg Bush as a "Fundie" and then in the same breath say he's not pushing a "Fundie" agenda

Which is it??

He has direct contact with his higher father and doesn't need his fundie friends until it's time to vote.

Well, Olby you are the Man on Fan expert, so I don't know why you're making fun of this woman on WPITW.

"Do you really believe ministers in this country are going to take to the pulpit and tell their churchmembers to vote Democratic?"

Not unless church going Christians suddenly started to embrace:
*Abortion on demand
*Single-sex marriage
*Free condoms for minors
*Free needles for junkies

Not topics heavily mentioned in prayers...

Oh look. Olby's libnut entertainment friends are here pimping their movies.

And of course, Olby has to denigrate a mature woman. Perhaps he abuses women in order to feel powerful.

how about

Not killing the innocent
Not taking the name of the lord in vain
Not loaning money at interest
Not bearing false witness
Not lying

Abortion on demand: We all have free will.

Single-sex marriage: They already despise homosexuals who are not married... why would they like Conservatives trying for "civil unions"?

Free condoms for minors: Some Christians don't want their kids getting flu shots...

Free needles for junkies: Who used hemp first? Yes... it was the farming settlers out in the west.

Not to mention the fact that I specifially stated "wakened Christians". The Christians who realize that people are to themselves to make their own mistakes --- There is not a need for the secret police to be out there forcing people to act appropriately.

Thinking of more things that are not needed for Christianity: Tax Cuts / ID acts / Abel danger for a president that is yesterday's news / other economic politics.

With calling Paris a slut, and saying the female candidate for AG in Wis. doesn't have a platform, but a platform BED, and his own womanizing the topics of blogs red and blue- why aren't we hearing anything from the NOW gang?

Oh, yeah- I forgot... Krazy is a liberal.

Silly me.

Olbermann Watch [us bicker] (aka- miss the point guy): That was the point.

"Abortion on demand: We all have free will". Even the unborn? WoW.

LawStudentSteve
Are you as concerned with Rush Limbaugh going through wives and girlfriends like nothing. Getting caught with viagra while unmarried and preaching moral values to America? Newt? Henry Hyde? How did they treat women let alone say insulting things about paticular ones.

Not as concerned as I was with Ted Kennedy KILLING a young girl, or Barney Frank running a gay escort service out of his house, or Gerry Studds actually having sex with minors...

Of course, when it comes to how Dems "treat women" (to use your words) I can't think of much worse treatment than the Governor of a State exposing himself to a state worker (Clinton/Jones) or grouping a grieving widow (Clinton/Wiley) or raping a woman (Clinton/Brodderick)... but that's just me... you know- one of those evil "neocons".

grouping = groping
(note to Mr. Cox- we need a spellcheck!)

...or a gramar-check

gramar = grammar (see?)

how about

Not killing the innocent
Not taking the name of the lord in vain
Not loaning money at interest
Not bearing false witness
Not lying

Posted by: Anonymous at October 11, 2006 09:02 PM

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

"killing the innocent": I do not think that Liberals want to kill the innocent--- but they will not stand in the way of another person that feels the need not to have a family at this time, does not want a little person comeing out of their body (who would), and people that just do not think that pre natal babies can even be considerend anything that is killable because... they are not alive yet in the first place!

"taking the name of the Lord in vain": Ah yes... secularists take the Lord's name in vain, do they?

"loaning money at interest": Like Bush's pork-barrel spending?

"bearing false witness": please clarify... if you were talking about proper judging... ...

"lying": yeah... you were talking about the law. In society we have got to treat the possibly innocent and even the possibly guilty properly. Please...

You have used accusations against Clinton. Wow. I never heard that one. Ted Kennedy didn't set out that night to kill a girl. You make it sound like he did. Is Barney Frank elected? Was Gerry Studds? Don't blame me. Republicans are the ones that claim moral values. They turn out to be just as human as the rest of mankind. Then people like you justifie them by pointing the finger at democrats past sins. SOS.

OlbermannWatch[usbicker]-
You really are "Miss the Point Guy".
I believe that Annon. was trying to be a good liberal and say that-
*Killing the Innocent: Bush/Neocons killing innocent civilians in Iraq
*Not taking the Lord's name in vain: Chenney's cursing
*Loaning Money... Evil Bush Tax Cuts
*Bearing False Witness: Foley
*Lying: Bush Lied/People Died!

Of course, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Annon said: "They turn out to be just as human as the rest of mankind".

That was my point, dumbass- YOU were the one who started "naming names" with Rush/viagra, et al...

I love how libs accuse others of doing EXACTLY what they do.

"taking the name of the Lord in vain": Ah yes... secularists take the Lord's name in vain, do they?

Posted by: Olbermann Watch [us bicker] at October 11, 2006 09:21 PM

Who takes the lords name in vain more than republicans. Claiming him to themselves while they kill their fellow man. YES. I know that you must think of muslims as monsters. They are your fellow man. Turning their back on the poor and pandering to the ricjh while claiming to be christian is taking the lords name in vain. Slandering others for their past sins that they have already confessed while claiming to be christian is taking the lords name in vain.

CommunityCollegeStudentSteve,
Maybe you need to learn the English language.

Clinton didn't rape or grope anyone. Those were lies made up by right-wingers. David Brock exposed all the lies. For someone who pretends to dislike gays, you sure do bow down for David Brock and Matt Drudge a lot.

Ted Kennedy didn't kill anyone. But I can give you a list of awful things right-wingers have done.

I like that!

Remember me? *Yes!!!

I love how libs accuse others of doing EXACTLY what they do.

Posted by: LawStudentSteve at October 11, 2006 09:28 PM

Thats what you did to start the thing. You accused democrats and then when I do what you did you call me on it. Look at what you said and your own self.

"...you must think of muslims as monsters. They are your fellow man."

What a crock of shit. My "fellow man" doesn't strap explosives to his body and deliberately kill children in school or elderly at bus stops. My "fellow man" doesn't behead journalists or rape/kill non-belivers.

Our enemies are the muslim SAVAGES that commit these atrocities every day in the name of thier god. And its because of people like YOU, Annon... that prove why we can not trust the Dems with national security.

Law student steve: My fellow man does not either --- and neither do any other Muslims that have done nothing except obey the law.

"...you must think of muslims as monsters. They are your fellow man."

What a crock of shit. My "fellow man" doesn't strap explosives to his body and deliberately kill children in school or elderly at bus stops. My "fellow man" doesn't behead journalists or rape/kill non-belivers.

Our enemies are the muslim SAVAGES that commit these atrocities every day in the name of thier god. And its because of people like YOU, Annon... that prove why we can not trust the Dems with national security.

Fine. Than don't claim christianity and take the lords name in vain. He said love your enimies. He said don't return eveil for evil. You are entitlrd to hate. They have asked for it. Just don't claim some moral christian mask when you support murdering your enemy. You prove I cant trust republicans with christianity.

Hey... everyone! Colbert(wannabe) is back! Good to see you, girl!

Tell me- why, when Anita Hill (bravely?) comes forward to complain that Clarence Thomas (gasp!) told dirty jokes and talked about porn, she was "harassed". Now, keep in mind- she followed him to two more jobs, but she was "violated". The libs and NOW gang sprung into action and gave us all that "high tech lynching".

Then, when Juanita Brodderick comes forward and says that she was actually RAPED- you hear nothing from ANYONE on the left. It was just "made up" lies from that vast, right-wing consipracy.

Then, when Juanita Brodderick comes forward and says that she was actually RAPED- you hear nothing from ANYONE on the left. It was just "made up" lies from that vast, right-wing consipracy.

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

Since when is it a party's duty to come forward when anybody gets anything, including what you first capitalized?

Wow... you really ARE miss-the-point-guy...

My POINT (pay attention now, MTPG) is that when Hill came forward, you couldn't keep dems/libs off the air condeming this sexual predator named Thomas.

When woman, after woman, after woman making claims ranging from exposure to rape come forward (including one who SUCCESSFULLY sued him under federal civil rights code) to accuse Clinton (some with witnesses including State Troopers), its all "cooked up" by the likes of Karl Rove.

Is this the Steve from a few days ago ???

J$,
Are you not smart enough to read a real newspaper? Why do you constantly link to right-wing sites? That newsbusters site you love doesn't even know the difference between Brian Williams and Brian Ross.

You realize you can't argue with any of Keith's facts so you don't. All we get from you is multiple insults for Keith and references to his sex life. We all understand you're obsessed with Keith's sex life and either jealous or in love. It's becoming creepy so you should seek professional help or tone it down.

Your quote from Wolffe is misleading. "It's just nonsense," refers to Bush's statement "Democrats want to wait until we're attacked again before defending the country."

David Kuo's book is about Bush using the evangelicals. Are you actually claiming it's wrong to quote a book? Are you going to go cry because Bush thinks you're "goofy?"

I notice the higher your meter rating is the more devastating his show towards Republicans. Also, the less you can argue with anything Keith says.

Colbert: Newsbusters corrected themselves... The big thing with me is... why they got to be the "Worst Person in the World" for that minor error?!?...

Colbert(wannabe)- you gloss over one very important fact: Krazy has (recently and increasingly) brought up the sex life of others. Nightly, he calls women "sluts" and makes bathroom jokes at thier expense.

If BOR began to call women sluts or talk about anyone's sex life- don't you think that people (like you?) would bring up his lufa/phone sex tryouts?

When Krazy brings it on himself its fair game!

Law Student: I think that that is different... Bill O' Reilly never insulted the person that he allegedly went with... Keith Olbermann happens to name call women... two different issues, and the Bill O' Reilly card doesn't work... or is this another one of your tricks & word games, again?

> Why do you constantly link to right-wing sites?

What in the wide world of sports are you talking about? What "right wing sites" are you referring to? The Associated Press is a "right wing site"? You shouldn't lie about who I 'constantly link to' when the proof that you're lying sits right atop this very page.

LSS--your kinda new here, let me explain the Olbyfanatics way of thinking: it's okay for Keith to call a woman anything he wants to. In fact, it's okay for him to talk about anyone in a derogatory manner, true or not. However, you are not allowed to make fun of Keith, question him, point out his mistakes and hypocrysy. That's all strictly forbidden and should not be discussed at all. So say the Keith Krazies. But me? I play by a different rulebook. And that's what really drives them over the edge. Play on Steve!

OW[UB], no trick. Colbert(wannabe) said that "multiple insults for Keith and references to his sex life". I was just responding that when Krazy puts himself in the fire, he might get burned.

Just as O'reilly would get burned if he started calling women "sluts" or saying that a candidate for public office had a platform bed. If BOR did that- people would call him out for his own sexual quirks.

Get it?

CCStudentSteve,
Weren't you claiming to be a high school student last week? Now you're pretending to be a law student? You are pathetic.

Anyone still claiming this crap is true isn't old enough to remember the 90's. The officers and women were lying. They contradicted themselves. They were on tape lying. We kept hearing there were tapes to prove all these allegations. The tapes were to be released any day. Hearings were held. More promises of earth-shattering tapes. Then it all came apart. The lies were exposed. The Republicans were embarrassed. The American people realized what a sham it all was.

Thanks, Brandon... that certainly clears things up :)

Law Student Steve: No... You are wrong on this issue:

Bill O' Reilly's back-stabbing one nighters

vs.

Keith Olbermann's mysogynist-esque name calling...

Two different issues... ...anyway you look at it.

Colber(wannabe) said: "CCStudentSteve,
Weren't you claiming to be a high school student last week? Now you're pretending to be a law student? You are pathetic."

Uh, no. I used to post as just "Steve". But, a few days ago- some crazy liberal (I know- that's redundant) started mass-posting under a lot of different names, including Steve. Since his rants were nutty (I know- redundant), I wanted to distinguish myself from him.

And just to summarize your last post: "EVERYONE BUT ME AND THOSE I BELIEVE ARE LIARS... EVERYONE!"

Colber(wannabe) said: "CCStudentSteve,
Weren't you claiming to be a high school student last week? Now you're pretending to be a law student? You are pathetic."

Uh, no. I used to post as just "Steve". But, a few days ago- some crazy liberal (I know- that's redundant) started mass-posting under a lot of different names, including Steve. Since his rants were nutty (I know- redundant), I wanted to distinguish myself from him.

And just to summarize your last post: "EVERYONE BUT ME AND THOSE I BELIEVE ARE LIARS... EVERYONE!"

Olbermann Watch [us bicker],
You really exagerate about everything. The democrats are Dhimmis who bow to Islamic rule. I don't know any Christian that wants to live under Islamic rule.

Red Wolf: I do not know of any prominent religious propers that would ever want to be bossed around by any other nation. What you had stated was a universiality. Thank You.

Olbermann Watch [Us Bicker],
the ayatollahs of Iran, Hizballah, Al-Qaeda, Hamas and The Muslim Brotherhood all call for the establishment of a global Islamic state.
What I don't understand is why the Left always defend the Muslims. Why not join the Right and defend our common Western Heritagen against them?

OW(us bicker),
"Bill O' Reilly never insulted the person that he allegedly went with."
Are you talking about Andrea Makris? He allegedly "went with" her how? He sexually harrassed her and paid her off when it was revealed she taped him.

CCStudentSteve,
You claimed Keith "nightly" calls women sluts. Prove it. The transcripts are on MSNBC. Copy and paste him calling women sluts every night this month.

Olbermann Watch [Us Bicker],
the ayatollahs of Iran, Hizballah, Al-Qaeda, Hamas and The Muslim Brotherhood all call for the establishment of a global Islamic state.
What I don't understand is why the Left always defend the Muslims. Why not join the Right and defend our common Western Heritagen against them?

/////////////DEFENDING BILL O'REILLY!\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Bill O' Reilly did his little conversation with Andreas Mackris... and she taped him. She was a correspondent to Bill O' Reilly's habit... why did any lawyer ever back her, except for $$$ & publicity. She is just as wrong as Bill O' Reilly --- only she wanted to embaress Billo... so she taped and sued. I would call it blackmail. I think Bill O' Reilly woulld, as well.

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/10/left_turns_on_o.html#more

Here Colbert. Here's some documentation for you.

Colbert(wannabe): What I SAID was-
"Krazy has (recently and increasingly) brought up the sex life of others. Nightly, he calls women "sluts" and makes bathroom jokes at thier expense."

In typical lib/dem fashion- you challenge me to prove he called women sluts "every night" for a month. Typical.

I was making reference to the earlier post by Robert where he mentions-

"- his deplorable remarks about a female colleague at ESPN
- his smashing an Ann Coulter doll to pieces on air while cackling maniacally
- his characterization of Rita Cosby as "dumber than a suitcase full of rocks"
- his incredibly vile references to Ann Coulter as a [slang for part of the female anatomy
- referring to Lindsay Lohan's mother as a "bag"
- there are at least two websites deveoted to discussing nothing but this very topic - and those are from his FANS!"

Robert also goes on to say (in case you missed it): "Keith's latest transgression against the fairer sex? Making a coarse sexual reference to Hilton, mocking her report of a criminal assault, and running the tagline "A Slut and Battery" throughout the segment - and it has raised eyebrows even on the left."

Robert then points out to those NEOCON websites like: Fish Bowl NY and The Huffington Post.

"Fish Bowl NY (with video):

Yes, you heard Keith Olbermann correctly. In case you missed it, here it is again:

Paris Hilton claims she was punched in the face yesterday morning at a nightclub in Hollywood [pause] 'Course she's had worse things happen to her face ...

And yes, that is what he meant. Also note MSNBC's "A Slut and Battery" graphic — perhaps Page Six wasn't so Olber the line with yesterday's unflattering Olbermann sex story after all.

The Huffington Post

...there is something really unseemly and misogynistic about that particular phrase - not only is it stunningly inappropriate for MSNBC and Olbermann (the recent holier-than-thou voice of America Wronged, lest we forget) to throw that label on anyone, but particularly in the context of a claim of assault, which diminishes the seriousness of an assault charge and suggests that assaults on 'sluts' are less worthy of serious consideration....a vile reference, and completely beneath what Olbermann holds himself out to be. Not exactly what one would call an Edward R. Murrow moment."

So, my point (again) is that Krazy gets away with denegrating women- and NO ONE at PMSNBC calls him on it.

But, you're right. I can't cite "every night" where Krazy calls a woman a slut. I also can't cite the nights when Sen. Robert Byrd says the "N" word... but, I hope you get my point.

Colbert(wannabe): When Ariana's site starts slamming you (and you're Krazy Keith)- you've got big problems.

SimpletonSteve,
I know you posted under Steve and under Steve last week you claimed to a high school student.

Do you know who Sheffield Nelson and Larry Nichols are? They had tapes of all the Clinton accusers admitting their accusations were lies. Go read the Starr Report. Why wasn't Clinton impeached, indicted, arrested for any of these accusations?

Colbert--you have no response to our discussion of Keith's problems with women? Are you changing the subject?

ColbertCunt(since you're so fond of names) said: "I know you posted under Steve and under Steve last week you claimed to a high school student."

You are a total fucking dumbass. Ask Mr. Cox or J$ to check the IP addresses... I posted as "Steve" and I have never claimed to be a high school student. I'm a 36 year old 2nd year law student with 14 years law enforcement experience.

Clinton WAS impeached (as well as DISBARRED) for his ADMITTED PERJURY in a federal civil rights violation case.

And, just to re-iterate: You're a total fucking dumbass.

ColbertCunt: You "KNOW" I posted stating I was a high school student just like you "KNOW" everyone accusing Clinton is a liar.

But, when has having any facts EVER stopped a lib from screaming what he "knows"?

I wish we could still post pics- go to this link:

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/061011/photos_ts/2006_10_11t163812_450x329_us_crash_newyork;_ylt=AiKfVpOksMs7F96Ds_txYS8DW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4MWhwbjJoBHNlYwNtdnBo

There is a PRICELESS pic of Alec Baldwin (of the Film Actor’s Guild- FAG) screaming at a police officer (much like ColbertCunt screams what he “knows”) for not letting him pass through a restricted area today at the plane crash site.

Doesn’t that office know that Alec Baldwin is a FAG member?

Our enemies are the muslim SAVAGES that commit these atrocities every day in the name of thier god. And its because of people like YOU, Annon... that prove why we can not trust the Dems with national security.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 11, 2006 09:37 PM
The wicked lie in secret places annon. Including the leaders of our country to.

A Prayer for the Overthrow of the Wicked
1 Why standest thou afar off, O LORD?
Why hidest thou thyself in times of trouble?


2 The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor:
let them be taken in the devices that they have imagined.


3 For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire,
and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth.


4 The wicked, through the pride of his countenance,
will not seek after God:
God is not in all his thoughts.


5 His ways are always grievous;
thy judgments are far above out of his sight:
as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them.


6 He hath said in his heart, I shall not be moved:
for I shall never be in adversity.


7 His mouth is full of cursing and deceit Rom. 3.14 and fraud:
under his tongue is mischief and vanity.


8 He sitteth in the lurking places of the villages:
in the secret places doth he murder the innocent:
his eyes are privily set against the poor.


9 He lieth in wait secretly as a lion in his den:
he lieth in wait to catch the poor:
he doth catch the poor, when he draweth him into his net.


10 He croucheth, and humbleth himself,
that the poor may fall by his strong ones.


11 He hath said in his heart, God hath forgotten:
he hideth his face; he will never see it.


12 Arise, O LORD; O God, lift up thine hand:
forget not the humble.


13 Wherefore doth the wicked contemn God?
He hath said in his heart, Thou wilt not require it.


14 Thou hast seen it; for thou beholdest mischief and spite,
to requite it with thy hand:
the poor committeth himself unto thee;
thou art the helper of the fatherless.


15 Break thou the arm of the wicked and the evil man:
seek out his wickedness till thou find none.


16 The LORD is King for ever and ever:
the heathen are perished out of his land.


17 LORD, thou hast heard the desire of the humble:
thou wilt prepare their heart, thou wilt cause thine ear to hear:


18 to judge the fatherless and the oppressed,
that the man of the earth may no more oppress.

Ironcially, "ANONYMOUS" said: "The wicked lie in secret places annon. Including the leaders of our country to."

See, this is (again) why we simply can't trust the dems with national security. Guys like Annon above call us wicked- but the SAVAGES that kill children and behead journalists are just "oppressed".

See, this is (again) why we simply can't trust the dems with national security. Guys like Annon above call us wicked- but the SAVAGES that kill children and behead journalists are just "oppressed".

Posted by: Anonymous at October 11, 2006 10:35 PM

You just don't get the point do you. Returning evil for evil is plotting your own destruction. If you are a believer in God, you handle things as a believer, not as a heathen murderer seeking vengence.

Justice and security are not vengence.

News host that a failed sportscaster?
Employers can't rid of him faster
He can't hold a job
Co-workers will sob
Where's the resignation of Hastert?

ColbertCunt... you still out there?
I know you've been discredited and no one on this site will/can ever trust/believe anything else you profess to "know" but you can still contribute.

Hellewwwwwwwwww?

Justice and security are not vengence.

Posted by: LawStudentSteve at October 11, 2006 10:42 PM

Where is the justice for any of the innocent, ours or theres who get caught in the middle of this shit? Where is the security, ours or theres. Another example of people who love to claim the moral high ground, and that God is with them, but when they hear his word they look for an angle. Where is your faith, not that it is for me to ask. It's just when you buy into the "lets kill them before they kill us" mentality I think we are in trouble with a power beyond ourselves.

CoDUH- in the immortal words from that epic masterpiece of cinema, "Billy Madison":

Mr. (CoDUH), what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Not hearing back from ColbertCunt, and not concerning myself with the incoherent ramblings of coDUH, I'm off to bed.

The "Grown-Ups" have to get up in the morning.

(oh, and a secret/decoded message to ColbertCunt:
"!flesruoy kcuf og")

I love it. You cant argue the point. You cant even see it. You must insult me, as everyone here does when someone confronts there moral hypocracy. Taking the Lords name in vain and then accusing liberals of being Godless. God does have mercy on my soul when he shows me not to follow earthly kings that brainwash people like you. May God have mercy on your soul also.

Student- using the word "cunt" in any context probably will offend many women. Maybe Keith using the word "slut" on his program isn't as bad since it was only directed to 1 woman. WHADYATHINK?

Less than an hour to go, I still haven't seen Hastert's resignation yet. Please tell me that Krazy didn't lie to us (again).

Omigod! KO called a journeyman pitcher - a 'journeyman' pictcher! Stop the presses!

Do you even know what a 'journeyman' pitcher is? I didn't, but, of course, I was smart enough to look it up before criticizing someone for using it.
In baseball, it refers to "a player with experience on a number of teams"
http://www.enlexica.com/sp/bb/index.html (The Language of Baseball)

Since you seem unable to post factually, I'll help you out:
"You will recall that, precisely seven days ago, David Shuster told Countdown viewers that Republican lawmakers said that in a week, Hastert would not be Speaker."
That is factual. Not your spin. Oh, sorry, but I took out the typical silly and erroneous adjective you used.

"U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily, and called for efforts to bring the Islamic militia and its supporters into the Afghan government. The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield."

- reported by the Associated Press after last week's visit to Afghanistan by Bill Frist.

I just had to share this as it caps off quite a few short exchanges I've had on this site today regarding the wisdom and righhteous awesomeness of Bush's war-waging.

Annoying Brittish Olbermannlover,

What is your plan for Afghanistan? Would you have invaded in the first place? Please enlighten us!

Sir Loin of Beef,

I respectfully disagree with Sen. Frist.

We CAN defeat our enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq...if we are truly willing to.

We have the nuclear capabilities to annihilate every living soul in those countries and to render it inhabitable.

We only need to "press the button"

You're a sick motherfucker, JustTheTruth. You're the enemy.

Posted by: indierik at October 11, 2006 10:57 PM

Especially since she is, eh? If not a sex-slut, she certainly is a media-slut.

Sir Loin of Beef,

Calm down

I am merely stating a fact.

Not advocating it.

Not at this point...

There's a reason every politician will not take the "nuclear option" off the table in any conflict.

I'm just amazed MSNBC hasn't pulled KO off the air. He's immature, and MSNBC is obviously immature too. Why doesn't K.O./MSNBC pick on another country other than the U.S.A. and it's allies? I am officially morphing MSNBC into all of my K.O. comments as they hired him, and they pay him, so they are responsible for his garbage.

It is comforting to know that Republicans treat Evangelicals the same way that Democrats treat blacks.

"Where ya gonna go? The other party? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!"

"Three "Mister" Bushes in just the spiel alone: a new Countdown record!"

Sorry, I have a better record for you:
In two days of talking about Clinton, KO referred to Clinton as 'Mr.', etc.*, but not 'President' TWENTY-SEVEN times! (NOTE: and Lincoln once as 'Mr.')

As a comparison, in just one day, Joe Scarborough did the same* THIRTY times! (Just twice 'President')
Similarly, in a Limbaugh tape on the show, Pill-boy called never called him 'President', just Mr. or 'Clinton' three times.

* Including just 'Clinton', but not "Clinton administration", etc. or it would've been more.

The point is it is ridiculous to complain that KO calls Bush, "Mr. Bush" when his tendency is to call everybody 'Mr.' just like Joe Scarborough, and damn near everybody else, except, IIRC, the more formal Tucker Carlson.

> KO referred to Clinton as 'Mr.', etc.*, but not 'President' TWENTY-SEVEN times!

Cite the two days so I can check the transcripts. If KO used the phrase "Mister" Clinton 27 times, then you have a valid point, and I'm sure if you have a valid point it will be no problem to cite the two days in question.

Posted by: Cato Freeman at October 12, 2006 12:17 AM

What a stupid comment. One of the reasons I have a prob with the Dems is their pro-minority attitudes.

BTW, cute, using the name of a freed 18th century slave. I bet you're a the typical White conservative.

Sure.
Sept. 25 & Sept. 28

I love it when the right wingers propose what they really think will solve everything:

Lets Kill em... invade their country, blow em up.

We got nukes! lets turn the place into glass.

Execute them.... Kill all those that we dont like.

How these morons can propose holocaust and genocide all the time with a clear concience is beyond me.

Thank goodness they are not in power... whoops...
Thank goodness we still have the rule of law and the constitut....

nevermind....

> Sept. 25 & Sept. 28

That didn't take long. There were 16 "Mister Clinton"s on those two shows, which means you are 11 short of the claimed 27. And these for a man who is not an incumbent still in office. We got 11 "Mister Bush"s on tonight's program alone!

Now why you would claim 27 instances when the transcripts show otherwise is beyond me, but it says something.

"The nuts" will know how Bush's Rove plays the Jesus card to promote Republicans while showing Christian conservatives contempt behind the scenes.

The book comes out Monday. Who do you think will shoot it down the most? I say it will be the exact people that Bush and Rove call "The Nuts" refering to Christian conservatives.

Just act of denying this will be a no win for the Rove clan.

God is great!

Hmm, I may have miscounted.
I got twenty-six times on the 25th alone.

from denbeste.nu :

What is the root cause of the war?

Collective failure of the nations and people in a large area which is predominately Arab and/or Islamic.

Economically the only contribution they make is by selling natural resources which are available to them solely through luck.

They make no significant contribution to international science or engineering.

They make little or no cultural contribution to the world. Few seek out their poetry, their writing, their movies or music. The most famous Muslim writer of fiction in the world is under a fatwa death sentence now and lives in exile in Europe.

Their only diplomatic relevance is due to their oil.

They are not respected by the world, or by themselves.

None of this has anything to do with historical Arab culture at its height, which was rich, powerful, and very impressive. It produced great literature and poetry, great science, and amazing architecture. It adopted and regularized place-value numbering, developed arithmetic and invented algebra. But that all largely ended several hundred years ago. All of the discussion above refers to the current culture of the region, and the people living there now.

Since this is a "face" culture, shame about this this has led to rising but unfocused discontent, anger and resentment.

A 2001 survey of Arab teenagers found that about half of them wanted to emigrate.

People in a face culture are not comforted by the accomplishments of their ancestors if they themselves have none. Others in the world don't respect a people because of what was done by their ancestors. Thus the monumental accomplishments of Arab civilization at its height are not material to any analysis of the current situation.

Some governments in the region have tried to focus it elsewhere so as to deflect it away from themselves. (The "Zionist Entity" is a favorite target.)

There's good reason to believe that the Saudis have actually made deals with al Qaeda and other dissidents. It's been alleged that there was an explicit deal with al Qaeda that if it made no attacks in Saudi Arabia itself, in exchange the Saudi government would not interfere with its fund-raising in Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi government has been involved in a devil's deal with Wahabbist extremists for decades, letting them have full control over roving bands of thugs armed with canes who would beat women wearing "indecent" clothing or walking without male relatives, or anyone at all who acted in any way that the extremists thought violated their interpretation of proper behavior. The Wahhabists have also been given vast amounts of money (billions of dollars) to support their efforts to export their version of Islam around the world, both to Islamic and non-Islamic nations. In exchange for this, the Wahhabists have turned a blind eye to the decadence (and sins) of the members of the Saud royal family and have not agitated for revolution against them.

All the nations in the region demonize Israel. Their schoolbooks are loaded with propaganda against the Jews, many of which repeat historical lies and slanders.

This amounts to a culture-wide addiction to "the cult of victimhood".

Ambitious leaders of various kinds of tried to use it for their own purposes.

Khomeinei and the Taliban used it to support revolutions respectively in Iran and Afghanistan.

Saddam used it to gain support for creation of a united pan-Arab empire ruled from Baghdad.

Why is the US fighting the war? Why were we attacked?

American success casts Arab/Islamic failure in sharp contrast. Politically, economically, militarily, technologically and culturally we set the standard and our accomplishments make their failure look particularly bad.

America is the largest and most important supporter of Israel. Arab leaders have used Israel as a scapegoat for their own failure, and part of that is to blame us since we refuse to abandon Israel. They have provided enough support to the Palestinians to keep the struggle going, so that their own people have someone outside to hate, which is why Israel is top of their shitlist. But that also causes them to hate us for our support of Israel.

America is secular. Islamic religious zealots have been preaching that much of Arab/Islamic failure happens because Muslims have not been sufficiently devout. Allah has not been fighting on their side because they were sinners who have turned away from the teachings of the Prophet and a true virtuous life. The zealots claimed that only by embracing extreme forms of Islam could they again gain Allah's favor and begin to succeed. But the US government and the American people do not follow those teachings, and America is a success. At the same time, in the nations where the extremists took power things got even worse. American success is heresy. In religious terms the only explanation for that is that America is in league with Satan, and Khomeinei said as much.

American culture and American ideas are very popular with many of the people who live in the Arab/Islamic belt in question, particularly among their young people. This is viewed with alarm by traditionalists of all kinds. Their own people were being seduced away from their traditional culture and extreme religious practices.

America has earned a reputation in much of the world as being rich, well-armed, but also cowardly; full of bluster but having no guts. Such events as our defeat in Viet Nam, our experiences in Beirut and Somalia, our half-hearted and largely ineffectual responses to the attacks against us in the 1980's and 1990's, and many other episodes contributed to the impression that we would not fight back if attacked, and that there was little risk in in attacking us, whether rhetorically or even violently.

America is the "top dog" in the world right now, and there was prestige associated with attempting to take down the "top dog".

Some advocated appeasement: reduce our military spending, massively increase foreign aid, stop supporting Israel and throw it to the wolves, and apologize, apologize, apologize.

Historically, appeasement doesn't work.

Those proposing this generally hold strongly leftist, post-nationalist political positions and assumed that since the terrorists evidently hated the US as much as the leftists do, that they must hate the US for the same grounds. But there's no reason to assume that al Qaeda or the other terrorist organizations that imperil us have any sympathy with what Fonte calls transnational progressivism, or that they would cease making plans for attacks against us if the US ratified the Kyoto accord or the ICC treaty.

This approach claimed that poverty and American foreign policy missteps in particular were the proximate cause of Arab/Islamic anger directed at the US. But there's no reason to believe that this is true.

al Qaeda's original political statement regarding the US did not include any such claims. (Later statements sometimes did at least touch on such things because al Qaeda was trying to gain support from leftists in Europe.)

Most of the terrorists who carried out the attack on 9/11 came from prosperous families. None of them came from impoverished backgrounds.

There doesn't seem to be any difference in the degree of hostility expressed towards the West in Arab nations which are relatively prosperous (e.g. Saudi Arabia) and those which are less well off (e.g. Syria).

Arab and Islamic hostility towards the US even in nations relatively unaffected by American foreign policy is far greater than in nations which have suffered far more at our hands, such as Viet Nam (which has been trying for years to reestablish normal diplomatic and commercial relations).

If the true root cause was anger and resentment caused by Arab shame at lack of Arab accomplishment, massively increased aid would not help. You do not make a man proud by giving him charity.

Irrespective of any other arguments against this approach, it wasn't politically possible in the US. The vast majority of Americans (especially America's Jacksonians) were in no mood to accept such a solution. The domestic reaction to those who advocated this solution was nearly uniformly hostile.

The microscopic solution was to respond "proportionally" with a token counter-attack, and then deal with the situation as one of international law enforcement, by attempting to find and arrest those who were implicated in the plot so as to put them on trial for it after extradition.

That's what we tried to do in the 1980's and 1990's, and it failed. bin Laden was already under indictment for previous attacks against us, and all diplomatic efforts to gain control of his person for trial over a period of several years had failed.

This policy in the 1980's and 1990's was part of what established our reputation in the Arab world as being cowardly.

Doing this after an attack as devastating as the one on 9/11 would have further reinforced our reputation for cowardice. It would have raised the reputation of all terrorist groups by showing that terrorism was a valid (and successful!) way of striking back.

Such a response would have encouraged further attacks against us which potentially might have been far more devastating, if the terrorists had managed to gain access to some sort of extreme weapon.

The small solution was to assume that al Qaeda was the entire problem, and to eradicate al Qaeda and all others who could be shown to be directly involved in the attack in September of 2001.

If we had concentrated exclusively on al Qaeda it would have left intact other similar movements, equally dangerous but not directly implicated in the attack against us. al Qaeda launched the attack against us but were not the only ones who had the ability or will to do so, and other groups had been and had every intention of continuing to launch such attacks against other targets (e.g. Bali, Israel, the Philippines, Kashmir).

This would have been a case of treating the symptom, not the disease. It would have left the deep discontent and frustration of the "Arab Street" intact, as fertile ground for the next demagogue to come along wishing the plant the seeds of jihad against the West.

The large solution is to reform the Arab/Muslim world. This is the path we have chosen.

The true root cause of the war is their failure and their resentment and frustration and shame caused by that failure.

They fail because they are crippled by political, cultural and religious chains which their extremists refuse to give up. The real causes of their failure is well described by Ralph Peters. Most of the Arab nations suffer from all seven of his critical handicaps, and the goal of reform is to correct all seven, as far as possible.

If their governments can be reformed, and their people freed of the chains which bind them and cripple them, they will begin to achieve, and to become proud of their accomplishments. This will reduce and eventually eliminate their resentment.

Their governments would then cease needing scapegoats.

Their extremists would no longer have fertile ground for recruitment.

This is a huge undertaking; it will require decades because it won't really be complete until there's a generational turnover. But ultimately it is the only way to really eliminate the danger to us without using the "foot-and-mouth" solution (which is to say, nuclear genocide).

The primary purpose of reform is to liberate individual Arabs. This is a humanist reform, but it isn't a Christian reform. There will be no attempt to eradicate Islam as a religion. Rather, Islamism as a political movement, and as a body of law, and as a form of government must be eliminated, leaving Islam as a religion largely untouched except to the extent that it will be forced to be tolerant. The conceptual model for this is what we did in Japan after WWII, where only those cultural elements which were dangerous to us were eliminated, leaving behind a nation which was less aggressive, but still Japanese. No attempt was made to make Japan a clone of the US, and no such attempt will be made with the Arabs.

more @ denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

Dude, while what you have may be commendable, no one's going to read it if you post like that.
Give an opening and then an url.
From what I've seen most people just ignore posts like that.

Actually radmod, I am a hispanic libertarian, so, technically, I could be considered a white conservative, but I am far from typical.

I only found out about the 18th century slave recently through a vanity Google search. I actually derived the first name from the Cato Institute and the surname from what I am (and many Americans think they are, but are not).

I don't think my comment was stupid at all. The Republicans pander to Evangelical Christians. The Democrats pander to blacks. Neither provide any real benefits to either group nor do they really give a shit about them.

Hmm, I can't seem to count anymore. Now I got 25 times on the 25th.

“The #4 story was not the resignation of Dennis Hastert.”

I am sooooo relieved! Dems need Dennis “I love pervs” Hastert around to be a further drag on the Repubs. Actually Hastert ought to resign his leadership post and from congress.

Lt CMDR. Charles Swift, thank you for your service. You were the only patriot on duty in the JAG. Johnny Dollar, on the other hand, doesn't think you are worthy of mention.

Sounds like trouble for Reid. No worries. All he has to do is donate the money to charity and all is forgiven, right?

This treason charge is news? How about, WHERE’S OSAMA? You could tell the Feds were pretty fired up about this, but seriously, who the heck is going to get excited about an indictment for this guy? If they can’t find Osama, what are the chances they’ll find this alledgedly treasonous citizen? One more thing, why bother with the formality of quaint notions such as “indictments”. They don’t have any evidence that the guy is willfully cooperating, but they charge him anyway?

On Sept. 25th, KO said:
1. onto Mr. Clinton
2. against Bill Clinton
3. Mr. Clinton‘s
4. that Mr. Clinton gave
5. that Mr. Clinton was
6. as Bill Clinton said,
7. gotten out of Clinton
8. use Bill Clinton as
9. how Mr. Clinton
10. Bill Clinton‘s interview
11. Bill Clinton did
12. has Mr. Clinton taken
13. entirely Mr. Clinton‘s.
14. Mr. Clinton responded
15. Mr. Clinton was brave.
16. Bill Clinton
17. Mr. Clinton with
18. that Clinton had
19. Mr. Clinton‘s
20. true Clinton had
21. not by Bill Clinton
22. Mr. Clinton quoted
23. Mr. Clinton did
24. Mr. Clinton helped

and I may have missed one or two.

On Sept. 25th, KO said:
1. onto Mr. Clinton
2. against Bill Clinton
3. Mr. Clinton‘s
4. that Mr. Clinton gave
5. that Mr. Clinton was
6. as Bill Clinton said,
7. gotten out of Clinton
8. use Bill Clinton as
9. how Mr. Clinton
10. Bill Clinton‘s interview
11. Bill Clinton did
12. has Mr. Clinton taken
13. entirely Mr. Clinton‘s.
14. Mr. Clinton responded
15. Mr. Clinton was brave.
16. Bill Clinton
17. Mr. Clinton with
18. that Clinton had
19. Mr. Clinton‘s
20. true Clinton had
21. not by Bill Clinton
22. Mr. Clinton quoted
23. Mr. Clinton did
24. Mr. Clinton helped

and I may have missed one or two.

That's very nice, but I'm not interested in how many times he said Bill Clinton, or just Clinton, or how many times he said George Bush, or just Bush. Even if you pick the one day when he spoke at interminable length about Clinton (as contrasted with today, when he didn't even do a "special comment" and still managed 11 instances of "Mister Bush").

We don't have a SomethingOtherThanPresidentMeter. If we did we've have double the numbers we have now. No, we have a MisterMeter, to document how often Olby snidely refers to a sitting president as "Mister" Bush, and JUST "Mister" Bush. Got that?

Ah, that's what that silly meter is?

I see, you changed your complaint. You use to complain about ALL the times he refused to call Bush 'President.'

"when he spoke at interminable length about Clinton (as contrasted with today"
"And these for a man who is not an incumbent still in office."
'nuff said.

From FishbowlNY

All of which brings today's Page Six item about Olbermann to a new level of nasty:

A 30-something office worker of Caribbean descent, KarmaBites1 said she struck up an e-mail friendship with Olbermann, whom she admired, and agreed to fly to New York to meet him last May. She says he came to her hotel room and opened a bottle of Merlot which he "spilled all over." Then, when "sexual activity began [in] less than an hour," Olbermann had difficulty. "I pretended he knew what he was doing," the embittered blogger writes. "I adored the guy. I didn't want him to think he was a dud in bed," so she faked experiencing ecstasy.

I would've never guessed in a million years that Man Under Desk, was not a real man. Maybe its time for a lil Viagra KK.

Harry Reid update from AMERICAblog. You're right Johnny, that dog don't hunt.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/apparently-harry-reid-is-bad-bad-man.html

Johnny Dollar said:

"but KO so far has refused to report on a Democrat financial scandal."

Because there is nothing there!

The "land swap" that is being called unethical occurred FOUR YEARS before Senator Reid purchased his stake in the land! He had no connection to the original swap, something that even the author of the piece admits.

The second charge is that Reid failed to report that he transferred the property to a corporate entity owned by himself and a close friend. However, Reid reported the land as "personally owned" (which he was allowed to do under the rules since it was not a "sale" but a "transfer") from the time he purchased it in 1998 until it was sold in 2004.

Third, the sale was not a "personal land sale". There is no box to differentiate a "corporate" sale from a "personal" one. Reid and his partner sold the land for the fair market value of $1.6 million dollars (it is now worth at least $5 million). He reported the transaction (again, there is no differentiation between a "personal" or "corporate" transaction).

Fourth, Reid paid ALL PROPER AND REQUIRED taxes on the land from 1998 to 2001 (when he owned it himself) and from 2001 to 2004 (when he and his partner paid proportional amounts equal to the stake in the LLC that held the land). He even paid a tax penalty when he was slightly late with one payment.

Fifth, the "rezoning" that occurred is a COMMON practice in the City of Las Vegas. Requests for rezoning occur almost every month and most are approved. In fact, at the time that the request was made, the Clark County commission was approving roughly 75% of "nonconforming" zoning changes.

In short, it's the same MORON AP writer JOhn Solomon is famous for. His method of writing is best described as "spaghetti" - throw enough at the wall and hope some of it sticks.

"All of which brings today's Page Six item about Olbermann to a new level of nasty"

Classic distract and attack. Truly, truly pathetic.

Maybe KO can borrow some Viagra pills from Rush. He seems to have a few extras.

"All of which brings today's Page Six item about Olbermann to a new level of nasty"

Classic distract and attack. Truly, truly pathetic.

Ah, I see. When you get that typical server error and you accidently refresh then that's when you double post. Just testing.

Tonight I watched part of Billo and he actually admitted he made a mistake and apologized to a Chicago newspaper. I'm not a regular watcher of Billo so I don't know what he's talking about. But the point is that he actually acknowledged a mistake, which is something all of the far-left bloggers say that he never does.

This leads into KO and his treatment of women on air and his personal life. Everyone knows about the story in the New York Post and previous bloggers have listed all of his derogatory comments about women on his show. Why doesn't he make a rebuttal? Billo did, twice that I know of. Can you imagine the outcry if Billo called a woman a slut? Or just put the label on the screen under a video of her like Krazy did? No one on the broadcast networks or CNN would ever do that.

It proves two things. KO can say whatever he wants because Democrats can say and do whatever they want because they are Democrats. Talk about a double standard; let a Republican say the things that Krazy Keith says and see what happens. And number 2, KO is so low in the ratings that nobody watches the show and doesn't know what is is saying.

let a Republican say the things that Krazy Keith says and see what happens.
Posted by: TomPepsi at October 12, 2006 04:10 AM

Ann coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Reagen, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, etc....EVERY DAMN DAY.

Exclusive: Book says Bush just using Christians
‘Tempting Faith’ author David Kuo worked for Bush from 2001 to 2003

More than five years after President Bush created the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, the former second-in-command of that office is going public with an insider’s tell-all account that portrays an office used almost exclusively to win political points with both evangelical Christians and traditionally Democratic minorities.

The office’s primary mission, providing financial support to charities that serve the poor, never got the presidential support it needed to succeed, according to the book.

Entitled “Tempting Faith,” the book is not scheduled for release until Oct. 16, but MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” has obtained a copy.

“Tempting Faith’s” author is David Kuo, who served as special assistant to the president from 2001 to 2003. A self-described conservative Christian, Kuo’s previous experience includes work for prominent conservatives including former Education Secretary and federal drug czar Bill Bennett and former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Kuo, who has complained publicly in the past about the funding shortfalls, goes several steps further in his new book.

He says some of the nation’s most prominent evangelical leaders were known in the office of presidential political strategist Karl Rove as “the nuts.”

“National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous,’ ‘out of control,’ and just plain ‘goofy,’” Kuo writes.

More seriously, Kuo alleges that then-White House political affairs director Ken Mehlman knowingly participated in a scheme to use the office, and taxpayer funds, to mount ostensibly “nonpartisan” events that were, in reality, designed with the intent of mobilizing religious voters in 20 targeted races.

According to Kuo, “Ken loved the idea and gave us our marching orders.”

Among those marching orders, Kuo says, was Mehlman’s mandate to conceal the true nature of the events.

Kuo quotes Mehlman as saying, “… (I)t can’t come from the campaigns. That would make it look too political. It needs to come from the congressional offices. We’ll take care of that by having our guys call the office [of faith-based initiatives] to request the visit.”

Nineteen out of the 20 targeted races were won by Republicans, Kuo reports. The outreach was so extensive and so powerful in motivating not just conservative evangelicals, but also traditionally Democratic minorities, that Kuo attributes Bush’s 2004 Ohio victory “at least partially … to the conferences we had launched two years before.”

With the exception of one reporter from the Washington Post, Kuo says the media were oblivious to the political nature and impact of his office’s events, in part because so much of the debate centered on issues of separation of church and state.

In fact, the Bush administration often promoted the faith-based agenda by claiming that existing government regulations were too restrictive on religious organizations seeking to serve the public.

Substantiating that claim proved difficult, Kuo says. “Finding these examples became a huge priority.… If President Bush was making the world a better place for faith-based groups, we had to show it was really a bad place to begin with. But, in fact, it wasn’t that bad at all.”

In fact, when Bush asks Kuo how much money was being spent on “compassion” social programs, Kuo claims he discovered “we were actually spending about $20 million a year less on them than before he had taken office.”

The money that was appropriated and disbursed, however, often served a political agenda, Kuo claims.

“Many of the grant-winning organizations that rose to the top of the process were politically friendly to the administration,” he says.

More pointedly, Kuo quotes an unnamed member of the review panel charged with rating grant applications.

“But,” she said with a giggle, ‘When I saw one of those non-Christian groups in the set I was reviewing, I just stopped looking at them and gave them a zero … a lot of us did.’”

“Tempting Faith” contains several other controversial claims about Kuo’s office, the Bush White House and even the 1994 Republican revolution in Congress.

I don't listen to talk radio so I don't know what most of these people are saying. I used to have a supervisor who played Rush; and I didn't like what I heard. What I've heard of Michael Savage and Michael Reagan I don't like. I can't stand Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. I don't know James Dobson. Sean Hannity is conservative, but not as radical as the rest of the group that you have listed. Ann Coulter I'm not sure of. From the interviews that I've seen I can tell that she is smart. But then she says all of these outragious far-right things. I think she is a lot like Sen. Hillary Clinton; saying one thing and doing another, there is some plan there, I just don't see it yet.

There are other people that I turn off from the other side too. They include Al Franken, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, Pres.(former not Mister) Jimmie Carter, and others that I cannot think of right now. How many of these call women fat-asses or sluts llike KO does?

Gee, when people attack the sainted former Pres.(not Mister) Clinton, Krazy calls them "sloven political hacks" or "monkeys". But when anyone with an axe to grind against the current administration writes a book their accusations are accepted at face value without any verification. Way to keep up that Democratic double standard KO.

NBC news has the perfect outlet to get their Lib friends eleceted in Nov. He's probably getting all the talking points handed to him by the 99 % Libs at NBC and the Dem Nat Committee. Nothing he will say will get hime fired ( has justas long as he is running the Dem campaign for NBC News
After that, they'll pull the plug and turn self rightous -
Oh that Ben Franklin and his "free" press

I don't know about NBC news, but Krazy Keith has definitely hitched his wagon to the far-left blue-bloggers. The Democrats should win the election. Not because they have a plan; but because the Republicans have done everything to shoot themselves in both feet and both hands. All the Democrats have done is sit-back and watch the Republicans implode. But next year, when it is too late, we will all see what Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are really up to, and it will be bad. 2008 can not come soon enough to put the Republicans back in charge again.

How many of these call women fat-asses or sluts llike KO does?

Posted by: TomPepsi at October 12, 2006 05:01 AM

Ann Coulter has advocated for the murder of judges and members of the press. I would say that's worse than calling someone a fatass. I don't like Keith resorting to that knid of talk either but he's not asking to have people wacked like some on the right. Lets face it. Most of these folks like Coulter say things to get people pissed off and get in the news.

Glad to see that the thinking normal folks here have given the left wing socialist progressive kooks a sound trouncing ! The hypocrisy of the left wing progressives is astounding and what is even crazier is that there is actually these poor ignorant progressive sheeples who belive this loonie olbermann and come here and defend him!
One of the funnier ones here is this O'lielly juvenile. After reading some of his posts and then reading the latest one responding to olbermann's latest hysterical reporting on the Bush administration's using and abusing Evangelicals. Now come on folks! Who among you out there really think for a minute that progressives or liberals like this olbermann loonie and his little cheerleader O'lielly really care about Evangelicals or Christians or even common sense? Olbermann will even make it sound like he is concerned for Evangelicals but as usual it is a liberal sham. Olbermann would use evangelicals just like he did the Foley scandal to drive a wedge between Republicans. The old divide and conquer would seem more like olbermann . He seems to want to use anything he can to persue his Bush derangement syndrome so prevalent with the far left kooks. Of course olberman along with other progressives will do everything except what they will do if God forbid they should get in power. Here is a thought: ultra liberal san francisco Nacy Pelosi as speaker! While all the libs and their nutty mouthpieces like olbermann do is direct attacks and sprout division among the right but they never say what the far left wingers will do if they get in power. Typical liberal strategy. The left has no sound reasonable ideas and they know that most of their policies and agendas are repugnant to most of the American people. Yet they will use the old strategy of divide and conquer.
While the futility of arguing with some pre- pubescent fifteen year old like O'leilly should be obvious there is good reason to inspect the intellect and reasoning of his/her effort to take any side to get their point across. These left wingers will do anything and everything to cloud the argument and defame and insult their opponents. In the melee and confusion and finger pointing that ensues they get away with not having to expose their true agendas and policies.
There is one good thing indicitive of olbermann's influence. His ratings or better said lack of them. If you look at the number of olbermann's viewers and take into account viewers of his show like myself who watch simply for the humor and stupidity of what passes for left wing thought today in America then his party and his ideology are pretty much dead in the water.
I also want to know one thing. Liberals and their little cheerleading sections like CNN and MSNBC always love to tout polls to make news. Clinton ran his so called presidency based almost entirely on polls. I want the self appointed and un-elected liberal media to do a poll on themselves. I would love to see what the polls would say on their approval rating .

"Way to keep up that Democratic double standard KO."

Actually, TomPepsi, its not a double standard at all, although I can understand how it might appear that way upon cursory inspection. The Clinton administration is in fact due a greater portion of respect and reverence due to the fact that they demonstrably performed with greater efficiency, intelligence, and empirical success than the insular pack of repressed homo pirates that sits in the White House and Pentagon currently.

"Way to keep up that Democratic double standard KO."

I can understand your confusion, TomPepsi, but even cursory inspection will prove that there is, in fact, no double standard. It turns out that the Clinton Administration is actually due a much greater portion of repect and appreciation dur to the fact that they performed with demonstrably greater degrees of intelligence, integrity, and success than has the insular pack of repressed homo pirates that currently occupies the White House.

"It turns out that the Clinton Administration is actually due a much greater portion of repect and appreciation dur to the fact that they performed with demonstrably greater degrees of intelligence, integrity, and success than has the insular pack of repressed homo pirates that currently occupies the White House"
Doth sayeth the Hamburgler man hisself!
Ya must have realy watched CN closely there burger boy! For 8 long years CNN- the Clinton News network gave the sleazoid commander in queef and his bitch wife a free pass.
Here is a hypothetical for all you Clintonistas out there. What would CNN and the other liberal media outlets have done to a Republican president accused of the same misdeeds, failings and general sleazy persuits that clinton did? I guess if you clinton you can rape and sexually assault and seduce subordinates in the Oval office and get away with it. But left some stupid gay Republican just IM and e-mail somebody and all hell breaks loose. Another perfect example of the double standard imposed by the self appointed liberal media watchdogs.
I also find it funny that some liberal "thinker" like sir loin of hamburger here would actually use such a GSAP "homophobic" slur like "homo pirates". I thought the gays were one of your politically correct protected species. Once again proving the liberal hypcrisy and double standard.
Do you liberals actually read or believe half the hypocritical bullshit you write? if you did you would see how sublimely ignorant and sadly humorous you sound. You left wingers cannot even see the bullshit because you are standing so deep in it.

New topic that is just so representative of the crazy left now dominating the democrats....

From DRUDGE....

NUREMBERG-STYLE TRIALS PROPOSED FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS

http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568

A U.S. based environmental magazine that both former Vice President Al Gore and PBS newsman Bill Moyers, for his October 11th global warming edition of “Moyers on America” titled “Is God Green?” have deemed respectable enough to grant one-on-one interviews to promote their projects, is now advocating Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming.

Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “bastards” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry.”

Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

2 comments....

1. I wonder if our brave lefty wonderboy KO will have this in his countdown tonight.

2. I also continue to wonder at how the liberal posters here (and KO) are so quick to condemn the right for supression of opinion and the demonization of positions when they use when they act likewise. Now the left says you're a Nazi if your research comes to a different conclusion on global warming. Terrific.

And some are considering giving the entire congress to people engaged in this line of thinking.....Oh boy.

Next, the left will want Nuremburg-like trials for religious dialogue they don't agree with....Yeah, give Nancy Pelosi that gavel....I can't wait to see what they try to institute.

radmod says:

Classic distract and attack. Truly, truly pathetic.

Would that be anything like calling a competitor by the name "Bill Orally" on a nightly basis?

Wait...I shouldn't say "nightly basis"...because one of KO's supporters will ask me to document that he calls him "Bill Orally" every single night.

Scratch that..He has called him "Bill Orally" often enough to become entirely offensive.

Is that "truly truly pathetic" also?

Mike, you totally miss the point. Bill Orally, Ann Cu**er, Rush, and Ailes are nothing but mouthpieces for the Bush Administration. Therefore, they deserve every bit of criticism, insult, and name-calling they get. They deserve our scorn and disrespect.

KO is the mouthpiece for the Left. He deserves all our praise and worship for speaking truth (well, half truth, sometime) to power. For attacking Mr. Bush and all the Republicans who stole the elections in 2000 and 2004. We need KO's non-partisan nightly attacks on the Right, and his "Special Comments" to show the world what evil Mr. Bush has done and return power to the Dems, where it belongs.

Scott,

Once again, attack the individuals you disagree with by saying they are only propagandists and shills.....

I could just say the same about Olbermann with his check presentation to former President Clinton and his use of democratic talking points....(Bush lied, Bush tortures, Bush is evil, etc). But no, I see O'Reilly, Coulter, etc. as conservatives and Olbermann, Alter, etc. as liberals. They are no more mouthpieces then their conservative counterparts....but the conservatives are correct in my opinion.

Olbermann definitely has a wrong-headed worldview and he displays it every night on COUNTDOWN.

Glad to see that the thinking normal folks here have given the left wing socialist progressive kooks a sound trouncing ! The hypocrisy of the left wing progressives is astounding and what is even crazier is that there is actually these poor ignorant progressive sheeples who belive this loonie olbermann and come here and defend him!
Posted by: Anonymous at October 12, 2006 08:06 AM

To tell you the truth, I don't come here to defend. Olbermann. He defends himself. The idea that you think left wing progressives socialist kooks, as you call them, are taking a sound trouncing here says a lot. It sounds like "mission accomplished" to me. Hypocricy??? You haven't been paying attention to your leaders have you. Sheeples? I see people following republican talking points like good little soldiers everyday. Nancy Pelosi? How about a speaker who is presently caught in a bunch of lies and at best, just looked the other way. You say they "cloud the argument and defame and insult their opponents. In the melee and confusion and finger pointing that ensues they get away with not having to expose their true agendas and policies." What is your agenda? I have been called every name in the book here. Words I never even heard before. The bullshit does run deep here and it's got "I am a super duper tough and fearsom freedom fighter and God defender against the liberal socialists and I ignore the death of American soldiers and American rights, and massive debt because Rush and Hannity told me to" all over it!

" "Way to keep up that Democratic double standard KO."

Actually, TomPepsi, its not a double standard at all, although I can understand how it might appear that way upon cursory inspection. The Clinton administration is in fact due a greater portion of respect and reverence due to the fact that they demonstrably performed with greater efficiency, intelligence, and empirical success than the insular pack of repressed homo pirates that sits in the White House and Pentagon currently.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 12, 2006 08:09 AM "

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHA..........hee hee

OH..OHH...Please mister Loin..no more, I can hardly catch my breath...thanks for the funny posts...I need that kind of laughter

" "Way to keep up that Democratic double standard KO."

Actually, TomPepsi, its not a double standard at all, although I can understand how it might appear that way upon cursory inspection. The Clinton administration is in fact due a greater portion of respect and reverence due to the fact that they demonstrably performed with greater efficiency, intelligence, and empirical success than the insular pack of repressed homo pirates that sits in the White House and Pentagon currently.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 12, 2006 08:09 AM "

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHA..........hee hee

OH..OHH...Please mister Loin..no more, I can hardly catch my breath...thanks for the funny posts...I need that kind of laughter

Posted by: connor_in at October 12, 2006 10:47 AM

You laugh while Americans are dying by the thousands in a foreign land. You think it's funny when a president calls himself "the decider" and lets other countries like North Korea and Iran grow stronger every day.

There should be a dogs that did not bark list. They list could have an newsworthy event that is not talked about, the list could be updated if the event is later brought up.

connor- are you a high school freshman in study hall or something? What the hell kind of post was that?

I have to say that of all the wingnut sites I visit, I have never been on one where the "locals" get beaten down by the trolls with such regularity.

For crying out loud codas...get real

we have our military in Iraq and Afghanistan, but when my 9 month old smiles at me I should be depressed

there have been outrages upon outrages that have occured in Africa for decade upon decade and yet I am happy when the Indianapolis Colts win a game

Former President Clinton lies under oath, is impeached and disbarred, but I enjoyed my wedding

MY GOD WHAT KIND OF TERRIBLE ANIMAL I AM!
I certainly hope that you, my dear codas, have no such inkling as to even start to smile at anything until all mankind lives together in peace and happiness and equality in Hillary-Land on Feb 1 2009 (I figure she'll only need the week and a half after her inauguration to make the world perfect)

For crying out loud codas...get real

we have our military in Iraq and Afghanistan, but when my 9 month old smiles at me I should be depressed

there have been outrages upon outrages that have occured in Africa for decade upon decade and yet I am happy when the Indianapolis Colts win a game

Former President Clinton lies under oath, is impeached and disbarred, but I enjoyed my wedding

MY GOD WHAT KIND OF TERRIBLE ANIMAL I AM!
I certainly hope that you, my dear codas, have no such inkling as to even start to smile at anything until all mankind lives together in peace and happiness and equality in Hillary-Land on Feb 1 2009 (I figure she'll only need the week and a half after her inauguration to make the world perfect)

"Former President Clinton lies under oath, is impeached and disbarred, . . "
Posted by: connor_in at October 12, 2006 11:05 AM

When all else fails the neocons always turn to the "B B B but Clinton" argument.

Indierik:
High School Diploma 1987
Bachelor of Science in International Economics & Political Science 1992
Masters in Business Administration 1996

Use of sarcasm and enjoyment of the hilarity I see posted by some on this site and other...continuous...

Come on, the guy said "reverence" for the Clinton administration...the only one I know for sure who got down on their knees for Clinton was Monica

"the only one I know for sure who got down on their knees for Clinton was Monica"
Posted by: connor_in at October 12, 2006 11:14 AM

And another example of the "B B B but Clinton" argument.

Isn't it time to replace that empty clip in your rifle?

Indierik: Please provide your defintion of neocon and then provide any and all proof you have of my belonging to such a group

BTW...thanks for cherry-picking your quote use...so what can I use to make a point if not history....OK how about this :
Barney Frank lets a male prostitute operate a prostitution ring out of his home/office...I enjoy a pep rally at school;
President Reagan gets shot...I played dodgeball in gym class;
Nixon leaves office ... I enjoy nap time in kindergarten

Come on, the guy said "reverence" for the Clinton administration...the only one I know for sure who got down on their knees for Clinton was Monica

Posted by: connor_in at October 12, 2006 11:14 AM

Reverence for the Bush fiasco? The only thing I can think of is smirking monkey.

Anon 8.06. you are right I do not give a flying shit about christians.. or muslims. or catholics or any of those loony rat bastards. I just like that Bush is pissing off those same addled jesus freaks. If the rapture came along today and killed all of them it would be a better place. After all that is what they want.

codas....please point out where I say I have "reverence" for Bush?

neoconner-
neocon (n and adj) an overly conservative wingnut with a stupidly aggressive stance on foreign policy without regard for ramifications. Also, rarely is it their ass that is on the line.

There are many other strains to my definition, but for times sake I'll just define the portion that is appropriate for this thread.

neocon (n and adj) an overly conservative wingnut with a stupidly aggressive stance on foreign policy without regard for ramifications. Also, rarely is it their ass that is on the line.

There are many other strains to my definition, but for times sake I'll just define the portion that is appropriate for this thread.

Posted by: indierik at October 12, 2006 11:43 AM
..................

Thank you for responding to my request for a defintion. I appreciate your time and honesty.

Now, please respond to the second portion of my original request:
"then provide any and all proof you have of my belonging to such a group"

Neoconnor- you're right. Judging by your childish posts like the one that has infinite "HAHA's" I have no way to decipher that you are part of such a group. So let me ask you some Q's to see if I was correct in my assumption:

Did/do you support the president in how he has fought the "War on Terror"?

Has your ass ever been on the line in combat?

Indie:
1) No, I have not agreed with every step the Bush administration has taken on the war on terror.

2) No, I was rejected by the Air Force for physical reasons

Now, my turn...please look up definition of infinite as it appears you are wrong on that count. Also, thank you for your judging me as childish as so far I can tell that a person with your vast intelligence over me can easily determine such an item as fact versus opinion (I choose to belive my post was comedy).

(I choose to belive my post was comedy).

Posted by: connor_in at October 12, 2006 12:18 PM

Well your sort Of right I guese. I did think it was funny. In a sad sort of way of course. It's good if you don't have reverance for Bush. He deserves none.

Connor, I feel like I may be being misled on your answer to #1. I didn't ask if you agreed with EVERY STEP of how the Bush admin has handled the current war, I asked about your support of it. To use an example- during the Gulf War in '91 I completely supported how Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf managed the war although, even to this day, I still have reservations about some of the STEPS he took. So I kinda think you dodged my question.

Please don't hit me with a dumb statement like "a person with your vast intelligence over me". I wasn't the person touting my degrees a few posts ago.

Also, my use of the word "infinite" was a conscious exaggeration. I'm sure you were aware of that.

codas:
Reverence for a politician is difficult...especially any in the modern age

I simply choose what I feel to be the lesser of the evils available to me. And remember, as we have a two party system, that means ther are only two (real) choices at the time of a presidential election. Now, when you as an individual have views on a myriad of items in the social, economic, international areas, etc...it is difficult to say that one particular candidate shares every belief with you. I am sure that you had differences of opinion with each of your party's last two banner carriers, Gore & Kerry.

Looking over the responses to the post I left this morning I notice many clear examples of retard neocon thinking:

Fist: they find their straw man to hide behind. One jackass focuses on my unfortunate use of the word "reverence" in regard to the Clinton admin and argues its meaning and implications as opposed to focusing on the failures/crimes of Bush. I respond to that particular dipshit: No I do not revere the CLintons and I appologize for using the word. Bill and Hillary are far too conservative for me to waste any reverence on personally. Now Bush is a murdering cocksucker; what are you going to do about it?

Some other bumblefuck uses the old liberal sterotype dodge to occupy his narrow attention spectrum by saying, essentially: "what kind of liberal are you to call people in the Bush administration Homos". Well, actually I referred to them as REPRESSED homos, which a totally different, almost entirely Republican phenomonenon responsible for shitloads of conservative overcompensation.

Anyway, you Republicans and neocons are worthless pieces of heartless shit that America needs to scrape of of our shoes.

indierik

"They" are really good at spinning around anything you say,and changing the meaning of what they say as soon as you call then on it. It must be a common trait that some people share. It is the makeup of the brain I am convinced. Republicans brains are not the same. They see the world alike. They are attracted to "strong" leader types. Like Mussilini. Money and power are the things that impress them. Rational talk gives them a headache. I will soon be insulted and called names very soon now. Of course they will say that only the liberal scum resort to name calling and insults. Denial. Another strong and shared trait.

I am sure that you had differences of opinion with each of your party's last two banner carriers, Gore & Kerry.

Posted by: connor_in at October 12, 2006 12:45 PM

You bet I did. It's your choice of the lesser of two evils that we disagree on. Gore or Kerry would not have made such a bloody mess.

I agree codas, and I would add "violent xenophobia as an avenue to self-respect" as another shared characteristic of our dipshit neocon countrymen/women. Most of the stupidest posters on this site and others I've trolled on truly seem to studioously ignore the painful logic of reality primarilly in order to facilitate their continued support of an impending race war - which they discuss with almost orasmic catharsis.

They are sick, lazy, banal examples of the worst humanity has to offer.

Indie:
So its ok for you to use conscious exaggeration, but not me with my HAHA post? Think of it as the fight between Peter and the chicken on Family Guy that went on for about 7 minutes of screen time (guesstimate)

Also, as far as dodging the question...I do not think I did...But I'll bite knowing strictly that you are simply trying to rev up for a HA! I KNEW IT! response...I do support the president in trying to fight terrorism (as general as that statement is)...if you do not attempt to stop terrorism, then the opposite must be true, that you allow terrorism (staying in the arena of generalities). This does not mean I agree with every step he has taken. I support the Colts, but disagree with letting Edge go to Arizona, & wish they would have done more to beef up the run defense, but I will still pull for them and hope they finally make it to and win the Super Bo...(I mean Big Game if any NFL lawyers are around)

PS: I wasn't touting degrees...merely showing that I was not how you condescendingly estimated "a high school freshman in study hall or something?" based on my "conscious exaggeration"...also, it was used to intercept any argument that because I call myself a republican, I must be an uneducated person who does not know any better as some of the more virulent of those who share your views tend to believe.

if you do not attempt to stop terrorism, then the opposite must be true, that you allow terrorism (staying in the arena of generalities). This does not mean I agree with every step he has taken. I support the Colts, but disagree with letting Edge go to Arizona, & wish they would have done more to beef up the run defense, but I will still pull for them and hope they finally make it to and win the Super Bo...(I mean Big Game if any NFL lawyers are around)

This aint football. This is life and death. If you make a tatical mistake in football you may lose yardage. Or you may lose the game. People are killed everyday because your "coach" is incompetent. Another trait. It has to be either or. You are for us or against us. You fight terror or you empower it. How about some thoughtful insight and wisdom on how to deal with a billion Muslims that aint going nowhere soon. Besides killing them all that is.

....well. codas, KfK on another strand last night clearly stated, with a chillingly exhalted tone, that use of our nuclear to "incinerate every man, woman and child in Afghanistan and Iraq and make both country's uninhabitable for centuries" is a reasonable option for solving our current problems.

This, I believe is in the backs - maybe fronts - of all their minds. This is why they care not at all about the THREE TRILLION DOLLAR national debt chalked up by the Bushies - they figure we can just nuke our creditors, or at least use these weapons to steal or extort the cash needed to meet the payments.

This, I believe is in the backs - maybe fronts - of all their minds. This is why they care not at all about the THREE TRILLION DOLLAR national debt chalked up by the Bushies - they figure we can just nuke our creditors, or at least use these weapons to steal or extort the cash needed to meet the payments.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 12, 2006 01:19 PM

It's another tatic. Run up the deficit. Cut taxes. Then when a responsible adult comes into office and asks the country for a sacrifice they say, see, they raise your taxes. Elect us. You can have it all. Of course you wont have a police force or a decent road to drive on. Don't get sick. And hey, I got mine, if you didn't get your it's your own fault. It's called selfishness. Another trait.

Ahh codas...I thought I was having a rational discourse with at least you...remember, just because I disagree with your opinion does not mean I would defend your right to speak it...

apparently, simply because I choose to vote for people with R after their name I:
have a bad brain
see the world exactly alike (with fellow R voters)
am violently xenophobic
Rational talk gives them (me, I assume) a headache
ignorant of "the painful logic of reality primarilly in order to facilitate their continued support of an impending race war - which they discuss with almost orasmic catharsis"
Like Mussilini
sick, lazy, banal examples of the worst humanity has to offer.
worthless pieces of heartless shit that America needs to scrape of of our shoes

Codas, Beef, Indie...One more time to try to keep things civil...please point out to me where I spun anything, changed the meaning of things an for the Nth time "provide any and all proof you have of my belonging to (the neocons)"

Please note, I am not calling you guys names
even though just in the last few posts, the people you guys disagree with, which apparently this morning has merely been me, have been called a myriad of names (including profane ones) - I can quote the above posts if you would like

I am sorry that calm rational discussion was not an option for you today...Thank you anyway

'I am sure that you had differences of opinion with each of your party's last two banner carriers, Gore & Kerry."

To my lasting shame, in the weeks after 9/11 I commented to a number of my friends and family that it might be a blessing that Bush had won instead of Gore, as I suspected that Gore would feel nervous pressure to "do something quick" in response to the attack. I felt that such a hurried response would prove to be wrong and disasterous. Bush, conversely, seemed at the time to be methodically taking his time in the effort to responsibly respond, and he gained my respect at that time. What a dumbass! Little did I suspect that he was merely getting the paperwork, legislation, and vendors' arrangements togather to facilitate the privatization of our military prior to making any move. No sense in aving a war if your friends aren't maximizing profits, right?

apparently, simply because I choose to vote for people with R after their name I:
have a bad brain
Posted by: connor_in at October 12, 2006 01:32 PM

Well? uh. I don't want to say... um...Yeah!

...oh, and connor: Kiss my ass you stupid fucking neocon freak!

**Reposted and updated**

Johnny Dollar said:

"but KO so far has refused to report on a Democrat financial scandal."

Because there is nothing there!

The "land swap" that is being called unethical occurred FOUR YEARS before Senator Reid purchased his stake in the land! He had no connection to the original swap, something that even the author of the piece admits.

The second charge is that Reid failed to report that he transferred the property to a corporate entity owned by himself and a close friend. However, Reid reported the land as "personally owned" (which he was allowed to do under the rules since it was not a "sale" but a "transfer") from the time he purchased it in 1998 until it was sold in 2004.

Third, the sale was not a "personal land sale". There is no box to differentiate a "corporate" sale from a "personal" one. Reid and his partner sold the land for the fair market value of $1.6 million dollars (it is now worth at least $5 million). He reported the transaction (again, there is no differentiation between a "personal" or "corporate" transaction).

Fourth, Reid paid ALL PROPER AND REQUIRED taxes on the land from 1998 to 2001 (when he owned it himself) and from 2001 to 2004 (when he and his partner paid proportional amounts equal to the stake in the LLC that held the land). He even paid a tax penalty when he was slightly late with one payment.

Fifth, the "rezoning" that occurred is a COMMON practice in the City of Las Vegas. Requests for rezoning occur almost every month and most are approved. In fact, at the time that the request was made, the Clark County commission was approving roughly 75% of "nonconforming" zoning changes.

Perhaps Reid commited a technical violation, but all the evidence indicates he kept the land in the open and on the up and up. The same cannot be said for Rep. Charles Taylor (R-N.C.) or Speaker Dennis hastert (R-Ill.), who conveniently "forgot" they owned land near areas that received substantial federal dollars and thus reaped a windfall when their property shot up in value.

In short, it's the same sludge AP writer John Solomon is famous for. His method of writing is best described as the "spaghetti" treatment - throw enough at the wall and hope some of it sticks.

kos talking points by Anon at 1:37 PM.....good job on that one....Democrats can't admit they are just as affected by power and lobbying then those evil republicans....snore.......How about Rep. William Jefferson (d)....who still has not been forced to resign by the oh so lily white democrats.

Hi! I am a dummocrap!
I generalize about the baddie neocons and then come unglued when they generalize about me!
I call them names and ridicule them based on my judgements with no evidence, and if they resopd in kind I simply say see, what irrational bumblefu**s they are.
I ignore news that tells me that tax revenue is at all time highs and deficits are being reduced faster than anyone had hoped and jobless rates continue to drop in a post 9/11 economy that was already in recession while my BJ Clinton boy was still in office.
I will show them how I rip on a sick individual like foley but defend Nambla
Karl Rove is evil and does backhanded dealing to keep the neos in power, but Soros is kind and grandfatherly who only has our best interests at heart
Neos only do bad things, but we don't, but we can as long as it goes against neos...then its ok
/sarc off

...and for the Anonymous poster who ridiculed me for departing from the Liberal Pary Line that he feels I should follow (when I called members of Bush administration "repressed homo pirates"):

I just learned that Denny Hastert lives with his long-time chief of staff, the unmarried Scott Palmer. Gay, gay, gay Republicans will destroy this country in their hopeless and desparate efforts to make their dead conservative fathers proud.

"in a post 9/11 economy that was already in recession while my BJ Clinton boy"

Posted by: Anonymous at October 12, 2006 01:46 PM

Again back to the "B B B but Clinton" argument.

Cee, instead of dismissing what I said as "talking points", how about you actually try to REFUTE them instead of glossing it over with a "tl;dr" response?

H, Im a reuglian
I generalize about socialist liberals who want to who have a secret agenda to let fags rule he world
I call them names and ridicule them based on my judgements with no evidence, and if they respond in kind I simply say see, what irrational bumblefu**s they are.
I ignore news that states that while the rich are making more, the middle class is dissapearing
I ignore news that hundreds of thousands of Iraq civilians have been liberated into the next life.
Fox and Limbaugh are the only voices of truth.
liberals say bad things but we dont, as long as it goes against liberals it's okay

Anon,

I wasn't going to make an issue about your selective reporting on the Reid article in AP but you (an kos) gloss over some damning facts.

1) The land deal was engineered by Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations

2) The unknown transaction allowed Reid to transfer ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to Brown's company without public knowledge, but still collect a seven-figure payoff nearly three years late.

3) After getting local officials to rezone the property for a shopping center, Brown's company Sold The Land In 2004 To Other Developers And Reid took $1.1 million of the proceeds, nearly tripling the senator's investment.

4) Third NON-PARTISAN experts agree Reid violated Senate ethics rules:

Kent Cooper, who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades in the FEC, said Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to Brown's company violated Senate rules."

Associated Press, 10/11/06)
Cooper: "This is very, very clear ... Whether you make a profit or a loss you've got to put that transaction down so the public, voters, can see exactly what kind of money is moving to or from a member of Congress. ... It is especially disconcerting when you have a member of the leadership, of either party, not putting in the effort to make sure this is a complete and accurate report ... That says something to other members. It says something to the Ethics Committee."

So, Anon, you're wrong. Senator Reid is just as sullied as Hastert (r), Jefferson (d), DeLay (r), or anyone else in the congress you want to name. Unethical behavior knows no party affiliation.

Annonymous,

I don't think Republicans are "irrational bumblefucks" because they cast insults at me; they're irrational bumblefucks because of the comic-book nature of their two-dimentional core beliefs and their crazed refusal to question them.

Next we can discuss why I think you guys are bloodthirsty paranoid rat-finks.

Sir Loin of Beef LIED: "KfK on another strand last night clearly stated, with a chillingly exhalted tone, that use of our nuclear to "incinerate every man, woman and child in Afghanistan and Iraq and make both country's uninhabitable for centuries" is a reasonable option for solving our current problems."

I said no such thing. Of course, propaganda comes second nature to leftists, especially European ones, so I am not surprised. The question is, why bother lying when the data proves you wrong? Olbermann would be proud of you Beefy -- lying to make a point is his favorite device.

Also Anon (kos), a democrat's opinion in the AP article that you leave out....

Stanley Brand, former democratic chief counsel of the house, said Reid should have disclosed the 2001 sale and that his omission fits a larger culture in congress where lawmakers aren't following or enforcing their own rules.

The Associated Press, 10/11/06)
Brand: "It's like everything else we've seen in last two years. If it is not enforced, people think it's not enforced and they get lax and sloppy."

Brand said the IRS might view the handling of the land taxes as undisclosed income to Reid.

Nothing there, Anon?......Yeah, right you liberal apologist.

Fuck you KfK, you did say that - I do not recall your exact wording, and perhaps I inverted "Iraq" and "Afghanistan", but that was what you wrote. Drop your straw-man defenses.

Perhaps you could find your exact quote and provide it for us, if anybody really cares.

Oops, well fuck ME instead. It was not KfK, it was JustTheTruth. I get these fake names confused. I apologize deeply for tagging you with such a reprehensible statement, and for my more recent outburst.

cee said:

"1) The land deal was engineered by Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations."

Yes, his name surfaced in this case. But Nevada is a small state (around 2 million people) and Brown is well known in both Democrat and Republican circles. Not to mention that the man who brought up Brown's name in the trial named just about every prominent Nevadan with political connections in an attempt to save his own neck.

"2) The unknown transaction allowed Reid to transfer ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to Brown's company without public knowledge, but still collect a seven-figure payoff nearly three years late."

HOW? Reid REPORTED that he owned the land EVERY YEAR (Disclsoure forms don't distinguish between owning land personally and owning it as part of a corporation). He PAID taxes on it EVERY Year until it was sold (for FMV) in 2004. The transfer to the LLC in 2001 was a "paper" transfer, not a sale. Therefore, Reid received NO profit (nor recorded a loss) and was not required to file a disclosure in 2001.

"3) After getting local officials to rezone the property for a shopping center, Brown's company Sold The Land In 2004 To Other Developers And Reid took $1.1 million of the proceeds, nearly tripling the senator's investment."

See my point earlier that rezoning requests like this were approved about 75% of the time. There was nothing improper about this.

As for the second, unless you have evidence Reid somehow manipulated the price, all you've shown is that Reid made a good business investment. If he had LOST money, would you still be harping on it?

"4) Third NON-PARTISAN experts agree Reid violated Senate ethics rules:

Kent Cooper, who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades in the FEC, said Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to Brown's company violated Senate rules."

IF it was a SALE for profit or loss, which the 2001 transaction WAS NOT. When you transfer land from your own name to an LLC that YOU OWN, there are NO issues of profit or loss.

You pathetic limey leftist hack. I do NOT accept your apology. You are factually challenged, mentally challenged, and annoying beyond belief. In other words, you are a dumbed-down version of your hero Olbermann.

It is annoying when you Eurolefties interlope in our domestic affairs while your country becomes a haven for jihadists, but libeling me is beyond evil.

This Senate ethics debate is getting tiresome. If Senators of either party are stealing money from society, they need to be crushed. cee, quit whining to us and start complaining to the PARTY IN POWER that has castrated the Ethics Commitees of both the House and the Senate and lets get some charges brought. Reid is nothing to me but one of 500 + powerful civil servants that need particular attention in regard to ethical behavior- if he broke the law I want it investigated.

What do you think about Pelosi's recent proposal to give the minority party sopeona powers in regard to ethics? Pretty good way to get a good productive tit-for-tat going between the parties, ensuring a relatively clean legislature. Seeing as how the Republicans are going to be the minority in a few weeks, this would seem to be something of an olive branch, if you ask me.

Limey?

Why is it that the Dems around here demand proof for our accusations and statements, but do not provide any proof for their own accusations and statements?

I tried to engage in a rational discussion earlier, and even played along and gave information though none was supplied in return only increasingly personal attacks that were made up of broad generalizations with no proof behind them. Plus, never any response to the fact that I kept asking for proof.

(Shrug): Because it's what liberals DO best?

Are you from England Sir Loin?

Limey. That sounds kinda racist. KfK- is your real name George Allen?

Again, I just can't please you liberals...you are all over the place....I was accused of not taking point by point the problem with the Reid ethic lapse and then meathead attacks me as a whiner?

Anon overlooks the fact that the LLC change was supposed to be reported, it was not. You can use the nice legaleze all you want...it still smells fishy to me. Nice that Reid hangs up on the AP too, that really looks good. Reid is a corrupt politician and, oh, isn't his son on the rezoning board that rezoned his property?

Okay I just got home and I'm doing a little catching up.

Olby said on Monday his book was number 2 on the Wal-Mart book list? I just looked at the list. O'Reilly's book was at number 5. And Olby's book wasn't even on the top 50 list!

Like so much of the crap this guy puts forth, it was strange to me that his Zombie Loons would be buying at Wal-Mart. Hasn't the Mothership banned all Libs from shopping at evil Wal-Mart?

Have some of you Loons been sneaking into Wal-Mart to do some shopping after the parking lot protests? Better not do it! I'll tell Howard Dean!

cee: don't bother...as you can see from my interactions above any attempts at reason are lost on them...I, like you, had hope...but experience tells us they are beyond all hope...

An example of typical Dem thought process:
Frau Olbermann: "The sky is blue."

Dems(all together): "The sky is blue and you R's are too ignorant and and racist to believe it, jacka**es!"

GWB: "The sky is blue."

Dems: " You murdering, facist, #@!%$**@, it is not...go $#@! yourself!

Yes, I hate the English. I am racist because I used the word limey. The origins of limey are quite racial. Sailors sucked on limes to prevent scurvey.

When I am not calling the English limeys, I am calling Americans "Gringo," which was derived from the song "Green Grow the Rushes Ho," once sung by marching American troops. Then I call Italians "WOPs", as the abbreviation for "without papers" is such a racial and grave insult. How about you spare me you nincompoop(another racial insult, as it might have derived from the judicial expression non compos mentis, (Latin) meaning "not of sound mind")?

KfK! My God man! Don't explain things to them or you'll give away detail of our conspiracy!

And whatever you do don't let them learn of the website that explains the conspiracy or they might be able to prove the conspiracy (along with the rest of 1/4 of our population...)
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/11/video-south-park-spoofs-truther-morons/

Cee said:

"Anon overlooks the fact that the LLC change was supposed to be reported, it was not."

Under Nevada law, the presumption is that each member of an LLC receives an ownership interest in the corporation equal to their contribution to the formation of the LLC. There is no need to have a document to record an ownership interest that exists as a matter of law. Nevada Revised Statutes 86.291.

"Nice that Reid hangs up on the AP too, that really looks good."

Reid hung up because he was AMBUSHED on the question - the AP had contacted Reid to do an interview on the midterms and on Iraq. They waited until the end to ask about this question, which was not planned (and the division manager of the Associated Press contacted Reid and APOLOGIZED for springing the question on him).

"[I]sn't his son on the rezoning board that rezoned his property?"

Rory Reid (Harry's son) was elected to the County Commission in 2003. The rezoning occurred TWO YEARS before that. So nice try, but next time go do some research before you try to smear someone.

Wow. We are sensitive today. I got called a brainwashedself-absorbed pompous onanistic blatherer yesterday but I know that you guys are way above name calling. I have also been called silly and that was the stupidest thing anyone evr said and on and on. I am guilty of all the 60 million deaths that the Stalinists and communists commited. And you never make broad generalizations with no proof behind them. I am Godless. Homo lover. Traitor. Wah Wah Wah because you don't like being talked back to. That is what it is isn't it.

I think what olbermann said was that at wal mart his book was being used for going #2. Haven't you heard that recently wal- mart ran outof toilet paper nationwide?
I also see that the queen of ground round has been having liberla temper tantrums lately also.
and the anonymous before me is a real hoot. Since when do reporters give the people a "heads up" before they ask them a question?? Ambush?? Yeah maybe they do give sleazy profiteering , non tax paying democrats a heads up before they call them on their bulshit. It did take CNN almost a full day to report on it. I guess they did not want to take Mark Foley's thunder away- how very considerate of them. It almost sounds like the clinton/olberkook interview. Now there is another liberal moron hoot. Maybe AP should have sent Reid a campaign contribution before they "ambushed" him.
In defending dingy harry reid the astute observer above mentioned the son and zoning changes. Yeah after reid probably had some difficulties hiding his sleazoid activities he figures having his kid- a democrat no doubt- installed so as to streamline the proccess of avoiding taxes, regulations etc. Maybe mr anonymous before me you should hold democrats to the same hight standard you expect of republicans or are you also a ted kennedy supporter?
I also find the hypocrisy of the left wingnuts here astounding. The distinguished senator fro west Virgina was a Klansman and actually used the word nigger in a public speech not too long ago but hey that's OK he is a DEMOCRAT and their standard because they are the party of the downtrodden masses is set much lower than the evil republicans right?
I wish you left wingers would put down the bongs and kool aid and quit getting all your news from thinkprogress.org and democratic underground and such. All the hypocrisy and defending these sleazy democrats it is making you sound, well, stupid.
at least o'lielly has not contributed his sixth grade wit lately but it must not be reccess yet.

"but I know that you guys are way above name calling"---Posted by: codas at October 12, 2006 03:56 PM

but apparently your kind isn't:

irrational bumblefucks
bloodthirsty paranoid rat-finks
Kiss my ass you stupid fucking neocon freak
sick, lazy, banal examples of the worst humanity has to offer
violent xenophobia
worthless pieces of heartless shit
REPRESSED homos
murdering cocksucker
jackass
retard

and all this just since 1247pm today!

Ok...your point?

CCStudentSteve,
I didn't mean to upset you. I'm sorry you're so sensitive.

"Nightly, he calls women 'sluts'." That is your exact quote. Do you not know what nightly means?
In typical conservative fashion you can't backup your claims with facts.

Clinton's perjury charges stemmed from lies about the Monica Lewinsky affair. What does that have to do with raping or groping other women? Why wasn't he indicted, impeached, arrested, anything for any of those things?

No I am not from England. I was born in Indiana.

I guess I should have predicted that the nom de guerre I chose for this site would cause some confusion with these two-dimentional thinkers. I am not a real knight! - "Sir Loin of Beef" was just a Warner Bros. gig that used to bust me up when I was a kid. He's not real!

But neither is George W. Bush and his entire line of Daffy Duck bullshit.

Anonymous posted:
"
"but I know that you guys are way above name calling"---Posted by: codas at October 12, 2006 03:56 PM

but apparently your kind isn't:

irrational bumblefucks
bloodthirsty paranoid rat-finks
Kiss my ass you stupid fucking neocon freak
sick, lazy, banal examples of the worst humanity has to offer
violent xenophobia
worthless pieces of heartless shit
REPRESSED homos
murdering cocksucker
jackass
retard

and all this just since 1247pm today!

"

I think this is most unfair! You are extrapolating this this list of vile curses and harsh epithets as being the agressive effluent of every progressive posting at this site; but this is absolutely not the case!

If I'm not mistaken each and every one of those well deserved labels were from my posts, so don't give these other guys credit where its not due (just kidding, TJ, coda, et al..you guys are great.)

Tom Pepsi and other reasonable conservatives,
What awful things do you suspect the Democrats will do? At best the Democrats will have 52 seats in the Senate and and 20-seat lead in the House? Bush can veto any legislation and the Democrats can't come close to overriding his veto. If anything, nothing will get done for the next two years (again).

"Clinton's perjury charges stemmed from lies about the Monica Lewinsky affair. What does that have to do with raping or groping other women? Why wasn't he indicted, impeached, arrested, anything for any of those things?"
Clinton paid them off that's how he got away with his sleaziness. I speculate that they were also probably severely intimidated or threatened if they continued.
With typical liberal hypocrisy the left wingers slough off any criticism of clinton yet I can just imagine their sense of fake moral outrage if that had been a Republican showering Monica Lewinsky with presidential DNA. Can anybody just imagine the little feminazi gals at NOW finding out a Republican President was having "sexual relations" with a subordinate intern?? CNN would STILL be covering the story!!
At least when the degenerate Foley got caught with his little gay secret he had the gumption to quit. Clinto had no such decency.
and now more personal insights from the Queen of ground round:
" I am not a real knight! - "Sir Loin of Beef" was just a Warner Bros. gig that used to bust me up when I was a kid. He's not real"
Um, yeah, he was not real and niether are you.
With the stunning wit and being full of s**t I wonder where the likes of some of the stunningly brilliant liberal rocket scientists like the hamburgler, colbert and O'leilly come from. Funny how they would come to a site that questions the validity and sanity of somebody so absolutely kooky like olbermann and try so vainly and pathetically to defend him and his POV. What are these folks trying to prove?? Do you fellows realize that instead of defending this olbermann you are only solidifying the resistance against him? If I were olbermann coming to this site (and I am sure he does) I would be saying to the likes of hamburger boy, colbert and o'lielly - "with friends like you who needs enemas"?

Anonymous, you are imagining things. Remember Gary Condit? Do you remember ANY OTHER STORY that got through while that one was hot(at least up until 9/11 took its deserved bandwidth place 24/7)?

Was anybody talking about the dead female intern found in Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough's office that summer? Barely a peep got out, even thoug the dead girl's family is far from satisfied with the infrmaton they've been able to recieve regarding the circumstances regarding their daughter's death.

Oh there's a double standard, alright.

All we have with Keith is allegations made by some woman. She has no proof of her claims. She admits meeting Keith and having consensual sex. Keith was a single man meeting a single woman. Now she's trashing him but what terrible thing did he do? O'Reilly sexually harrassed an employee. He denied it until it was revealed she taped him. Then he paid her off. He's a married man with children.

Beyond those facts you're all missing a huge point. Hypocrisy. William Bennett claimed people who gamble are immoral, evil, sinful. He's a gambling addict. Rush claimed drug users should all be in jail. He has his own drug problem. O'Reilly claimed to be a good Catholic and family man. He knocked people for any sexual behavior he deemed immoral. He was sexually harrassing one of his employees. Keith simply called these right-wingers out on their hypocrisy. He never claimed anyone who had sex outside of marriage was evil. He never preached religion and morals to America. He had consensual sex with a woman and is being slammed for being a hypocrite. All it proves is you people need a dictionary.

"With typical liberal hypocrisy the left wingers slough off any criticism of clinton yet I can just imagine their sense of fake moral outrage if that had been a Republican showering Monica Lewinsky with presidential DNA. Can anybody just imagine the little feminazi gals at NOW finding out a Republican President was having "sexual relations" with a subordinate intern?"
Posted by: Anonymous at October 12, 2006 05:48 PM

And yet again, the ole "B B B but Clinton" wingnut argument.

Colbert,
...and who can ignore the comparisons recently made by the right wing between Clinton having had sloppy sex with a 22-year-old intern and Foley carelessly trolling for sex with 15/16-year-olds for a decade. There is no moral equivolence.

Anon the Reid apologist:

It doesn't matter what Nevada State Law says, Reid did not report the transfer to the LLC to The Senate...from AP....."In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a limited liability corporation created by Brown. The senator didn't disclose the sale on His annual public ethics report or tell congress he had any stake in Brown's company."

It was a concern and appears like an improper gift...."Ethics experts said such informality raises questions about whether any of Brown's tax payments amounted to a benefit for Reid. 'It might be a gift,' Cooper said."

Also, from AP...."Stanley Brand, former Democratic Chief Counsel of the house ] said the IRS might view the handling of the land taxes as undisclosed income to Reid.

Sorry about the mistake on Reid's son, however, influence regarding the rezoning could have been applied because....

Former House Candidate Dario Herrera (D-NV), Hand Picked To Run By Harry Reid, Was Sentenced To 50-Months In Jail For Accepting Bribes While Chairing The Clark County Commission From 1998-2002. (Reid Says He's Abandoning Candidate Recruitment In Wake Of 2002 Fiasco Las Vegas Review-Journal, 12/15/03)

In 2002, When Sen. Reid Was "Pressed About All [Of Herrera's] Ethics Problems," He Said: "[Herrera Is] An Honest Man" And "Reaffirmed That Herrera Had His Vote Of Confidence." (National Journal's House Race Hotline, 3/12/02)

Still smells fishy.....good for the goose, Anon the Reid apologist....he'll make a great Majority Leader.....

cee,

I reiterate: Have you addressed these concerns to your Republican represetatives and senators?
If what you say is correct, this country is in dire need of some legislative ethics committees. Too bad ethics investigations simply do not happen under the Republicans. Why do you supose that is?

Sir Loin,

Anon was the liberal defending Reid's similar activity and making the argument that Republicans are only capable of corruption. You, on the other hand, want to claim that it is the laxity of the ethics oversight under the current congressional leadership excuses bad behavior. Funny, I thought Tom Delay resigned as did Duke Cunnigham. Democrats seem to like to stay and lie about their misdeeds and hope it blows over.

Oh yeah, just like homosexual predator Foley...he resigned. What about the democrats caught in sex scandal...Rep. Studds and President Clinton. Stay, lie, defend poor/unethical behavior....great values you liberals have...

I don't think any more rules are needed...they should be enforced and people should act honorably if they are caught and resign.

And Sir Loin,

There is moral equivalence...Clinton was Lewinsky's superior and held power over her. He was married and vowed to stay loyal to his wife under God.

The pages were similarly related to Foley....power/favor....and sexual relations outside of marriage between a man and a woman is morally wrong.

Consent issue and age is only a legal issue. Morally, both actions were wrong....black wrong....But again you are one of those postmodernists who see only grey...right?

cee- You trying to make Clinton's offense of adultery the equivalent of enticing underage boys is truly absurd. If you haven't seen NBC's "To Catch a Predator" series I suggest you check it out. They are the most disgusting humans I've ever seen walking this planet. At this time Foley has to hide out in rehab to probably avoid getting killed by some page's parents. I will not argue that what Clinton did was unethical. No reasonable person will dispute that, but by you suggesting what he did sexually was the moral equivalent of preying on children then you are a true wingnut that thinks only to vote "for the party" than "for our country".

I have a question- if you lived in FL-16 and Foley didn't resign, would you still pull the lever for Foley? (Let's assume that you are not allowed to write in a vote, and you absolutely have to choose between the R and the D. If you don't pull a lever none of your votes will count.)

Isn't this interesting, indierik?

I agree with cee that the power conection is a factor in both cases, but beyond that his psition is one of the most stark examples of moral relativism I have ever seen...and he calls me a postmodernist!

According to cee, the marrital status and personal relationship with God of each sinner (Clinton and Foley) is a major variable in the infractions committed by Clinton and Foley. Since of both of these cases are identified by cee as being roughly equivalent in moral terms ("both actions were wrong....black wrong"), it logically follows that if the God/Wife variables were altered in one of these samples then it could shift on the moral continuum in relation to the other. In other words, according to cee, if Foley were not married, then God would take a more good-natured positon in regard to his jacking-off with under-age boys, while that scoundrel Clinton would still face hellfire, and the wrath of godly voters for his foray with a consenting adult who came to him in search of her "presidential kneepads" (her words, not mine).

Sir Loin- I cannot imagine how the wingnuts would have framed the discussion had the child predator been a Democrat. I'm sure cee would have pulled out the stake, fuel and matches to torch the person with.

cee you still there? Are you hiding under the enormous desk Bill O claims that those "afraid" to face him are hiding under? I don't think cee wants to confront me. In yesterday's thread cee tried to call me out and was humiliated.

And Sir Loin,

There is moral equivalence...Clinton was Lewinsky's superior and held power over her. He was married and vowed to stay loyal to his wife under God.

The pages were similarly related to Foley....power/favor....and sexual relations outside of marriage between a man and a woman is morally wrong.

Well that is your opinion. my opinion is being a pedophile is morally wrong but what consneting adults do is between them.

cee said:

"Reid did not report the transfer to the LLC to The Senate...from AP.....'In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a limited liability corporation created by Brown. The senator didn't disclose the sale on His annual public ethics report or tell congress he had any stake in Brown's company.'"

For the third time - IT WAS NOT A SALE! Yes, Brown created the LLC but Reid was the other member of the LLC. If you move property that you own into the LLC that you are a part of, it is NOT a sale. It is a TRANSFER.

"It was a concern and appears like an improper gift....

Also, from AP....Stanley Brand, former Democratic Chief Counsel of the house, said the IRS might view the handling of the land taxes as undisclosed income to Reid."

When you give your proportionate amount of your share of an investment's costs, it is not a gift or income. It is upkeep. Go read Corporate Law.

"Former House Candidate Dario Herrera (D-NV), Hand Picked To Run By Harry Reid, Was Sentenced To 50-Months In Jail For Accepting Bribes While Chairing The Clark County Commission From 1998-2002."

It's irrelevant. Look at the County Commission records. On the same day that the zoning change was approved for the land owned by Brown and Reid's LLC, six other zoning changes were approved including one RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. Zoning changes in the fastest growing city in Nevada are COMMON. In 2001-2002, the commission received 370 requests for zoning changes.

Wrong again Sir Loin and indierik...but I understand why you are both unable to know right from wrong.

No matter what the marital status of Foley, his lusting after and trying to seduce teenage boys is morally wrong. No matter what the marital status of Mr. Clinton....sex outside marriage, morally wrong. Sin, is sin people, whether you want to realize it or not, and wrong is wrong. You, Sir_loin, live in a fantasy world of rationalizing bad behavior because someone else does something that's "worse," or "more perverted." Guess what? The relativity is only in your mind. You talked yourself into it.

By the way indierik...I'm a big fan of CSI and the NY Mets and I have been watching TV for the last two hours...I'm not afraid to put up my moral foundation based on Christ's humble word against your self-centered flawed worldview anytime. Keep it coming.

Also, Anon the Reid apologist, I'm through wasting bandwidth arguing with someone who wants to protect a hypocritical millionaire who uses his position to enhance his own position....tell it to the voters of Nevada.

And indierik...Foley would not get my vote, he needs to be prosecuted under applicable law and I think that would disqualitfy him in my mind (sarcasm).

The wonderful thing is that both Foley and Clinton can receive the forgiveness of their Lord if they want it. So can you.

Oh, and one last thing people....I'm going to bed now, so if I don't respond to your post, it is because I am asleep hoping my Mets pull it out tonight. Please let me know if you still think I am a moral relativist.

"You, Sir_loin, live in a fantasy world of rationalizing bad behavior because someone else does something that's "worse," or "more perverted." Guess what? The relativity is only in your mind. You talked yourself into it."

? What does this mean?

Yes, go to bed, cee. You're obviously too high to remain conscious.

cee said:

"Also, Anon the Reid apologist, I'm through wasting bandwidth arguing with someone who wants to protect a hypocritical millionaire who uses his position to enhance his own position....tell it to the voters of Nevada."

cee, I am a Nevada voter and trust me, I WILL make sure that everyone I talk to knows this is a load of cow chips (as we call it around these parts).