Bravo, Johnny.

Damn!

Quicktime stuff never runs for me!

Damn!

Quicktime stuff never runs for me!

Do you have QuickTime installed? If so, update to the latest version and it SHOULD play.

I did and it did.

Oh, my god was he THAT bad on election night!

The music is priceless and so is the ending! Thanks, Johnny!

Chris Matthews did all the heavy lifting on MSNBC election night.

I have updated QT but am getting a "plug in error" message?

I have updated QT but am getting a "plug in error" message?

Big grins!

Keith apparently cannot read very well with out going over things repeatedly.. but calling Bush anything other than what he is... SHITHEAD is being polite.

I have updated QT but am getting a "plug in error" message?

Dunno why the error. If you're using IE maybe try Firefox, or vice versa. Also, some reports say before you upgrade QT, remove the older QT first. Maybe that would help.

It is amazing, isn't it? On Monday, our generation's Edward R. Murrow openly calls (in one of his tiresome "Special Commentaries") for a Democratic victory on election day and then the next day he's co-anchoring (or co-stumbling) the newscast of that very same election.

And none of the media critics in the press say one critical word.

I think they ignore him.

Is there a link to look at a worst person in the world list?

How do you address a guy who titles himself "Johnny Dollar"? Is that like Richey Rich? Who gives themselves such a name? Kind of dumb like the video of Mr. Olbermann calling Mr. Bush... yep you guessed it...Mr. Bush. Let me know when Mr. Bush demonstrates the slightest hint of being presidential, I and others will then begin to honor him with a title that serves him the same. Until then "Mr." is a generous term.

Explain to me the poll that says 90% of the people dropping by this site taking your poll like Mr. Olbermann. And explain your bizarre representation of Mr. Olbermann's bias while living with Fox News being the epitome of bias with no comment from you all at all. Kind of like being a fish and having no ability to see water if you ask me.

I will assume that you are playing some charade to step up hits here in hopes of one day making money from this site. I can see no other explanation for your pathetic "tribute" of a social commentator that reflects the same outrage of the vast majority of thinking and semi-thinking population of this nation and for sure the entire planet. (see poll on Main page)

Crow is best served with humble pie yet you prefer sour grapes. I am enjoying a meal of steak and potatoes myself.

Happy dining.

"I will assume that you are playing some charade to step up hits here in hopes of one day making money from this site. I can see no other explanation for your pathetic "tribute" of a social commentator that reflects the same outrage of the vast majority of thinking and semi-thinking population of this nation and for sure the entire planet. (see poll on Main page)"

Was anyone arguing this sort of illogical and fanatical fan spiel about Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, or Bill O'Reilly in '94, '00, or'04?

If so..here's your comeuppance, whoever...

Everyone else continue rolling your eyes...

"a social commentator that reflects the same outrage of the vast majority"

Oy, now KO is a "social commentator".

Someone needs to tell him that he's no longer a new anchor on a news show. He's a, let's us bow our heads in respect, a "social commentator."

And remember to "cc" a copy of that notification to Dan Abrams and MSNBC. Because they keep telling us it's a new show and he's a newsman.

Interesting item: The nut who mailed the soap powder to KO was arrested in Los Angeles.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/12/D8LBTSG00.html

Apparently, he mailed threatening letters to Jon Stewart, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, and David Lettermann too.

He's an unemployed crackpot. Which is usually the case, isn't it.

Well, he'll now have a job making license plates.

Is Social Commentator anything like a Social Disease?

Hey, I'm down with the "social commenter" title. We've been trying to pin that sort of moniker on Olbermann since Countdown's inception. "Partisan pundit" would even more "truth in advertising"...

"Apparently, he mailed threatening letters to Jon Stewart, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, and David Lettermann too."

As someone commented previously here,aside from from his accusations against the Bush Administration, this scoundrel's actions are the only ones Olbermann has described as being terroristic in nature since 9/11...

Interesting item: The nut who mailed the soap powder to KO was arrested in Los Angeles.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/12/D8LBTSG00.html

Apparently, he mailed threatening letters to Jon Stewart, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, and David Lettermann too.

He's an unemployed crackpot. Which is usually the case, isn't it.

Well, he'll now have a job making license plates.

Posted by: Ohboy at November 12, 2006 10:48 PM

Interesting. I think I remember reading a lot of people saying that he made the whole thing up. I'm sure they will all apoligize since they demand total integrity and always are so noble themselves. I guess that's what happens when you stand up to bullies. Some rat disguised as a human needs to feel special by trying to shut you up. Keep up the good work Keith. If they are that pissed at you then you know you are doing good.

"the only ones Olbermann has described as being terroristic in nature since 9/11..."

Good point. He always uses the term "alleged" when reports of threats or arrests of terrorists are made.

Interesting how accusations of Bush Administration wrongdoing by KO never include that phrase?

E.g., Chris "Monkey" Wallace was smearing Clinton as part of a Bush White House plot or Drudge got a embarassing internal note from an ABC producer from the White House as part of the Administration's attacks on the press, et cetera et cetera.

No "alleged" or "reputed" qualifiers there.

Are you kidding me, "Coward Watch". Do you honestly believe Keith Olbermoron's ridiculous opinions represent the same views of the vast majority of Americans? What opium den are you living in?

The poll is slanted positively toward KO because blind lemmings like you and the blue blog crowd kept coming to it and voting on it.

Just like you tried to crash this website. You can't discuss issues. You can't have honest debate. You just named call, like your hero KO.

"I guess that's what happens when you stand up to bullies."

That's right, Keith...keep up the great courage it takes to hold down the job of anchorman on a world-wide cable news network primetime show and stand up to crazies...eh...powerful "bullies" like the bastard who did this to you...

"I guess that's what happens when you stand up to bullies. Some rat disguised as a human needs to feel special by trying to shut you up."

Keith Olbermann laboring in the coal fields of Manhattan and a television news set in order to speak truth to power---this powerful state psychiatric hospital frequent-flier who sent him Johnson Baby Powder, that is...

"Do you honestly believe Keith Olbermoron's ridiculous opinions represent the same views of the vast majority of Americans? "

- Umm, yeah. Certainly last week's election was a good represenatation of the fact.

It says a lot that someone would mock the fact that someone sent white powder through the mail in order to scare them silent. But of course the fact that the recipient was not a true American like the republicans makes it funny. He is a sissy for being scared. Right? How dare he even bother the police. Now if he was someone like O'Riely then we can call that terrorism because O'riely loves America. Keith is not deserving of being called an American I have learned. The fact that a bunch of dumb people who went out and practiced their right to vote agreed with him is only because they are stupid. Right folks?

hmmmm... I didn't know feeling that the president hadn't managed the war well and shouldn't have gotten us into Iraq in the first place and that there was too much corruption in Washington as embodied by Jack Abramoff... translated into thinking that the Administration used terrorism alerts politically...or that the Administration wants to do away with Constitutional rights...or that the majority is against the NSA spying on domestic calls to terrorist suspects....or even waterboarding...or were directly involved with Abu Ghraib, or that Bush, Rove, along with Diebolt executives, rigged elections... or that that they set up John Kerry... or Dan Rather...or were the cause of not having a 9/11 Memorial on Ground Zero, or....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Codas, I'm not mocking the fact of this bastard sending Keith the baby powder and I'm not mocking Keith for being terrified of it. Anyone would have been.

I'm merely mocking you and your idiotic formulations. So what else is new?

hmmmm... I didn't know feeling that the president hadn't managed the war well and shouldn't have gotten us into Iraq in the first place and that there was too much corruption in Washington as embodied by Jack Abramoff... translated into thinking that the Administration used terrorism alerts politically...or that the Administration wants to do away with Constitutional rights...or that the majority is against the NSA spying on domestic calls to terrorist suspects....or even waterboarding...or were directly involved with Abu Ghraib, or that Bush, Rove, along with Diebolt executives, rigged elections... or that that they set up John Kerry... or Dan Rather...or were the cause of not having a 9/11 Memorial on Ground Zero, or....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by: Cecelia at November 12, 2006 11:35 PM

Yeah you know it all to well and it means nothing to you because you are dead and have been for years.

"Yeah you know it all to well and it means nothing to you because you are dead and have been for years."

Well, if I were brain dead and had been since birth, like you, Codas, I might jump to the same conclusions that you jump to, without any evidence but my own opinion, but since I'm not, I don't. Nuff said.

Anyone who agrees with me is smart? Any one who disagrees with me is blind? Yeah, if you are dogmatic about your ideology.

Which is part of the reason why KO asks his guests questions and sometimes getting, "No." Or perhaps olbermannwatch.com has all its arguments vested in the wrong corner and refuses to believe that a liberal show can be decent. Hyperbole destroys credibility; a fact ignored on this website. Maybe if OW.com could spotlight some common ground with KO, then people would be less tempted to write this blog off as a walking ad hominem.

What is it cecelia that I am missing? Should I study Reagonomics or something. Is that what you dig? Is it love for the republican way or just your desire to stomp democrats like bugs that floats your boat? Are you alive or dead? By dead I mean are you just a repeat of some movie or book you read from some deceased author who died alone and insane? Or do you really think it doesn't matter that people you put your trust in abused their power and got a lot of people killed who didn't need to die. Are you a lawyer? Or a cop? Maybe the mayor? Or the principal of a bunch of junior high schoolers? Do you ever give an inch?

Brian,

The very fact that OW doesn't censor your rebuttal or anyone's else's belies any common ground with Keith Olbermann or his show.

But since Keith's guests are largely journalists, maybe this site should only allow journalists on to defend any accusations made against Olbermann, against Olbermann fans, or against you, personally, instead of allowing....well...you to do that...

Nahhhh.... Olbermann Watch is too "decent" for that...

Seems Mr. Dollar has a new hobby! Very nice work.

Codas,

If you bothered to poke your head outside of the blue-blog meme you call a thought life, you'd notice that I say very little about Democrats, certainly not much that is insulting...because I dont feel that way abou them...and say little about Bush...and say little about Republicans...and have repeatedly said I don't watch Fox News.... But you've managed to make every conversation about all these matters even when folks are discussing Olbermann's girlfriend... so spare me the...you're partisan and you don't give an inch bullshit because NO ONE here is more clueless rigidly idiotically fanatically party-driven than you...no one here turns every topic into a denunciation of their opposition as you do... no one stereotypes them more...and no one puts more malicious words and thoughts in their minds and mouths as you do.... while saying "bless you".. So again... spare me. And "bless" you too....

Brian,

You said "hyperbole destroys credibility".

Very true. That's why Olbermann Watch exists. KO's hyperbole is so far over the top that this site was created so that we can laugh about it every evening.

Let's do some nuance here:

Hyperbole destroys credibility when one is trying too hard to be serious. When one is mocking KO's hyperbole, and using humor to do so, that hyperbole is merely a parody of KO's hyperbole. Get it?

Codas,

If you bothered to poke your head outside of the blue-blog meme you call a thought life,....

You are very entertaining to me cecelia. You point out how partisan I am. NO shit sherlock. I'm not Republican, and it is republicans who made this site and despise Keith Olbermann who I happen to like. I love the debate, and I am thankful for this site.However it is YOU that degrades me again and again with almost every post calling me stupid in one way or the other. I got upset the first few times but now I see that is how you talk. And for your information I say bless because I mean it. Christ within you and me goes beyond my politics. I don't want hot coals on you, I want you to see Christs love in your enemy. Go ahead and be confident that you can rip my arguments and thoughts to shreds. You win cecelia. I am an uneducated former hop head who just left his job at the rehab center to now work as a nurses aid wiping asses and helping folks into bed out of the wheelchairs. 7.50 an hour. No benefits. Go ahead with your other friends and degrade my economic status and my education level. Dumb ass lazy cymbaline. Wake me up from my thoughtless life woman. squash me some more. I fucking love it.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/488120/890442

The person who sent the faux anthrax out to people was arrested.

Ya, it took around 12 hours for the government to show every name and photo of the 9-11 highjackers, but it took several years to find 1 white powder deliverer. Kind of funning how white powder was delivered to so called "liberals" and our crack National Security team could never find a culprit till the Dems got power.

Kind of funny, not funning, guess i should proof read

Dovidenia

"Go ahead with your other friends and degrade my economic status and my education level."

See what I mean.

I just wonder why I, or any other people here who don't hold your political opinions, bother to say anything at all. You know what we're thinking and are going to say before we do it, and it's generally something not very nice because that's how we really are, in your book.

I couldn't care less about your education level or your income and don't make fun of people for things like that. I come into contact with low age earners without much education, who are sharp as hell, everyday. You aren't one of them.

I jump on you because you stereotype people and though you say you love debate, never listen to a damn point anyone makes during it, but think that your launching into screeds against Bush, Limbaugh, and Republicans is all the argument you need no matter what the topic, particulary when you've argued yourself into a corner, which is nearly always. Heck---I could even tolerate that if you could do MORE than that...if you could say anything relevant or to the point WHILE you were doing that, as many other Olby fans here do.

So quit feeling sorry for yourself, Codas. You aren't picked on because you're speaking truth to corrupt power or because you're a righteous liberal dude or because Republicans lost the House and Senate...or whatever else you need to tell yourself to justify your preconcepts about people...you're picked on because you MUST formulate things in exactly THAT sort of way. It's all you have and worst of all, it's all you really think you need.

We're done with this now.

Didn't Olbermann accuse the Bush administration of sending him the white powder? If so, will there be an apology tonight from Olby regarding that reckless accusation?

Here's the transcript stating such. Anyone who calls this blowhard a hero is truly delusional.

"You instructed no one to mail the fake Anthrax [received by Olbermann], nor undermine the FBI's case, nor call for the execution of the editors of the New York Times, nor threaten to assassinate Stephanie Miller, nor beat up a man yelling at Senator George Allen, nor have the First Lady knife Michael J. Fox, nor tell John McCain to lie about John Kerry. No, you did not, sir."

Didn't Olbermann accuse the Bush administration of sending him the white powder? If so, will there be an apology tonight from Olby regarding that reckless accusation?

Here's the transcript stating such. Anyone who calls this blowhard a hero is truly delusional.

"You instructed no one to mail the fake Anthrax [received by Olbermann], nor undermine the FBI's case, nor call for the execution of the editors of the New York Times, nor threaten to assassinate Stephanie Miller, nor beat up a man yelling at Senator George Allen, nor have the First Lady knife Michael J. Fox, nor tell John McCain to lie about John Kerry. No, you did not, sir."

Nice point Red.....once again the faux-journalist's exagerations evaporate. The alleged terrorist has been apprehended by the fine and professional men and women of law enforcement. Congratulations!

Does anyone know if the (fake)Anthrax guy's habeus corpus rights were revoked?

Nate: "Ya, it took around 12 hours for the government to show every name and photo of the 9-11 highjackers, but it took several years to find 1 white powder deliverer."

What brand of crack do you smoke?

RedState, didn't KO also insinuate that President Bush was like Henry II and Thomas A Becket that same night.

Did I hear someone accuse OW and its better half of being overly hyberbolic?

EVILLY AND STUPIDLLY YOURS,

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Guaranteed to spout insane, gibbering drivel. Ask any KO fan.

No "SIR"'s???? I'm disappointed at you, SIR.

I just wonder why I, or any other people here who don't hold your political opinions, bother to say anything at all.
Posted by: Cecelia at November 13, 2006 07:33 AM

I wonder the same thing. You are always wrong about everything. KEITH OLBERMANN is great. But you seem.....to like to make statements....and write.....dots a lot....to make you seem smart....there are a lot of thoughtfull people here....who I respect....but your not one of them.

We're ...done... with this.... now.

Olbermann is actually a great commentator. I doubt people here would appreciate 6 years of Mr. Bush gaffas spliced into 60 seconds of tape.

Olbermann is actually a great commentator. I doubt people here would appreciate 6 years of Mr. Bush gaffas spliced into 60 seconds of tape.

Posted by: Bureax at November 13, 2006 12:58 PM

You don't need 6 years. One of his press confrences is enough.

"Olbermann is actually a great commentator. I doubt people here would appreciate 6 years of Mr. Bush gaffas spliced into 60 seconds of tape."

You are absolutely right, Bureax, all those years broadcasting football games were good for him! He has a fine orator's voice. But there is more to this video than just gaffas (sic) my friend. There is an absolute, complete lack of respect for the Office of the Presidency. I don't recall ever seeing a better example of this disorder than in KO. He isn't funny. He isn't particularly smart. He has nice hair. I hear he isn't that great in bed. Maybe that's what makes Keith so angry. Whatever, he's a tool and not a very good one at that.

"Olbermann is actually a great commentator. I doubt people here would appreciate 6 years of Mr. Bush gaffas spliced into 60 seconds of tape."

You are absolutely right, Bureax, all those years broadcasting football games were good for him! He has a fine orator's voice. But there is more to this video than just gaffas (sic) my friend. There is an absolute, complete lack of respect for the Office of the Presidency. I don't recall ever seeing a better example of this disorder than in KO. He isn't funny. He isn't particularly smart. He has nice hair. I hear he isn't that great in bed. Maybe that's what makes Keith so angry. Whatever, he's a tool and not a very good one at that.

"Olbermann is actually a great commentator. I doubt people here would appreciate 6 years of Mr. Bush gaffas spliced into 60 seconds of tape."

You are absolutely right, Bureax, all those years broadcasting football games were good for him! He has a fine orator's voice. But there is more to this video than just gaffas (sic) my friend. There is an absolute, complete lack of respect for the Office of the Presidency. I don't recall ever seeing a better example of this disorder than in KO. He isn't funny. He isn't particularly smart. He has nice hair. I hear he isn't that great in bed. Maybe that's what makes Keith so angry. Whatever, he's a tool and not a very good one at that.

This has been a long six years for everyone. After spending huge sums of money on Clinton to effectively nullify the remainder of his presidency with Monicagate what are we expecting ? Olbermann has no respect for the office of the president ? GWB was sworn in saying he would protect the United States constitution. Has he ? No , Olbermann isn't funny or particularly smart. What he is though is a man with guts enough to tell the truth as he saw it instead of playing the party line ( the truth democrats were too cowardly to). Hate him all you want, at least he isn't selling books attacking widows to make money.

"We're ...done... with this.... now."

Awwwwwwwwww......

This Olbermann Watch is just another installment of the Swiftboat crazies.
Crucify anyone who dares reveals the president is not wearing any clothes.
You guys are idiots !

Watch this :
Olbermann's ratings are up across the board and the coveted 25-to-54 age demographic increased 111 percent from the 2002 midterm election.

Keep watching. TDF

Today Olbermann is hot, in every sense of the word. He likes to say that the first step to creating one of his blistering editorials is to "get pissed off,'' and that's certainly how he sounds.

But there's something more to it, too. Conservatives may hate his attacks, but no one doubts that he comes across as one of the smarter guys in the room. When he laid into then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Aug. 30, he threw in references to Neville Chamberlain and the policy of appeasement. Let's see NBC network anchor Brian Williams pull that off...or gasp..can you imagine Hannity or O'Reilly ?( not that these two are actual newsmen)

Not that Williams would try it.

"Broadcast networks are not interested in the controversy,'' Olbermann says.

Well, maybe they'd better start thinking about it.

"I think,'' says MSNBC General Manager Dan Abrams, "that Keith Olbermann may become a model for the newscast of the future.''

Today Olbermann is hot, in every sense of the word. He likes to say that the first step to creating one of his blistering editorials is to "get pissed off,'' and that's certainly how he sounds.

But there's something more to it, too. Conservatives may hate his attacks, but no one doubts that he comes across as one of the smarter guys in the room. When he laid into then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Aug. 30, he threw in references to Neville Chamberlain and the policy of appeasement. Let's see NBC network anchor Brian Williams pull that off...or gasp..can you imagine Hannity or O'Reilly ?( not that these two are actual newsmen)

"Broadcast networks are not interested in the controversy,'' Olbermann says.

"I think,'' says MSNBC General Manager Dan Abrams, "that Keith Olbermann may become a model for the newscast of the future.''

Today Olbermann is hot, in every sense of the word.

But there's something more to it, too. Conservatives may hate his attacks, but no one doubts that he comes across as one of the smarter guys in the room. When he laid into then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Aug. 30, he threw in references to Neville Chamberlain and the policy of appeasement. Let's see NBC network anchor Brian Williams pull that off...or gasp..can you imagine Hannity or O'Reilly ?( not that these two are actual newsmen)

"Broadcast networks are not interested in the controversy,'' Olbermann says.

"I think,'' says MSNBC General Manager Dan Abrams, "that Keith Olbermann may become a model for the newscast of the future.''

Today Olbermann is hot, in every sense of the word.

But there's something more to it, too. Conservatives may hate his attacks, but no one doubts that he comes across as one of the smarter guys in the room. When he laid into then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Aug. 30, he threw in references to Neville Chamberlain and the policy of appeasement. Let's see NBC network anchor Brian Williams pull that off.

"Broadcast networks are not interested in the controversy,'' Olbermann says.

"I think,'' says MSNBC General Manager Dan Abrams, "that Keith Olbermann may become a model for the newscast of the future.''

4x Olbermann is hot.....I am very scared.

What a bunch of crap, Keith kicks O'Reilly's skinny ass.

http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater332.html

and

http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater324.html

Olbermann is so popular now that this site will probably become a testimony to his rising star.

"Olbermann is so popular now that this site will probably become a testimony to his rising star."

Hey, we were Olbermann Watchers when Olbermann Watchers weren't cool...

I especially can't wait for Drew Carey's swearing-in as Pennsylvania's junior United States Senator, eh Olbermann apologists?

I love all the spinning from the neo-nuts after this election.
They still don't get it, that their ways have been repudiated by the American people.

Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert can rightfully take a bow for helping to expose this administration's lies, corruption and incompetence, highlight the absurdities and make it so damn funny to boot.

There is not a single person on the right in their category, unless you count Mancoulter but people laugh AT her, not with her.

" love all the spinning from the neo-nuts after this election.
They still don't get it, that their ways have been repudiated by the American people."

Our "ways" have been repudiated by the American people?

Damn! We ARE cool!

Yup, if being the minority party and getting "thumped" is cool.

"Yup, if being the minority party and getting "thumped" is cool."

Worked for Olbermann... and what you wanna bet, that like most people, he played better offense than he will defense... and so will we... ;D

Apparently, he mailed threatening letters to Jon Stewart, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, and David Lettermann too.

He's an unemployed crackpot. Which is usually the case, isn't it.

Well, he'll now have a job making license plates.

NO, BUSH WILL PROBABLY GIVE HIM A MEDAL OF FREEDOM.

Bob,

The average American is working hard, taking care of their families and doing many, many other things than watching TV...especially cable (Comedy Central, HBO and MSNBC! don't make me laugh).....Look at these guy's ratings and compare them to the total number of people who voted and how they voted and you will see something interesting......they are NOT watched by a lot of people....relatively speaking.

Leave your echo chamber, dude, and discover that there are other things to do week nights, 8-11PM.

BTW, no cable TV in my house. I get all of this stuff from the web....Olbermannwatch serves as an amuzing distraction for me during the day and YouTube can give me the rest.

Also, what happened to the Olbermann apologists who always get upset when book sales and ratings are discussed in comparing KO to BillO?

Just wonder'n.

Keith has already commented that he'll give the Democrats 6 months before he starts including THEM in his "special comments" section.
He'll tear them a new a#shole if they deserve it.
Something you'd never see with those bozos over at Fox News .

"He'll tear them a new a#shole if they deserve it."

For your mouth to God's ear... Mr. Wonderful will lean on the Dems to go more to the left.

We'll keep our fingers crossed. We DO have a lot to look forward to! :D

Hey Cee...

So you MUST be a Bush supporter !
What does that say about your intelligence?

Care to defend his stifling of science,massive debt,
handling of the Iraq war and his overall general brilliance?

Jump in at any time.

Thank God , America did...on election day.

Cee, Bob wants to know if you feel as stupid for voting for Bush in '04 and for Republicans in your state in '06, as he does about voting for Kerry and his fellow Democrats in years prior....

Bob's a commiserater, Cee, it's not in him to let you suffer alone...

Bob,

Many an Olbermann apologist has attacked me for my support of our (still) fine president. Simply put, I reject your preconceived notions...

1 Science has advanced unabated despite the emotional rhetoric from liberal demagogues.

2 The will to be victorious in Iraq has been destroyed like in so many difficult conflicts in the last 60 years. I accept this as the continuing trend that started in the pre-Vietnam war era.

3 The national debt does not concern me. The amount of spending by the federal government does concern me and would like to see cuts in spending. I am taxed enough as a middle class wage earner and will not support any tax increase from either party. I saw my taxes increase under Clinton and the democratic congress in 1995 and hope not to see it again.

4 My VERY conservative republican representative won re-relection here in Blue NJ against a VERY liberal democrat. Joe Liebermann, who I love, also won. So, I conclude that the country is right of center....right where I ideologically am positioned.

However, you seem like a typical liberal so I hope you are prepared for some fun. The (fake)populist win by the democrats will not change them ideologically and the country will soon awake to their (true) radical agenda. Especially if they try to increase taxes.

re-election. Lieberman....my fingers are tired!

Also Bob.....

The loons on the left are already complaining about the reality.....

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611130001?src=newsbox-atrios.blogspot.com

Face it, Bob...the country just is not as leftist as you would like.

Cecelia:

Oh, I TOTALLY misuderstood Bob then.

You know us dumb, inbred neocons just can't understand anyone!

What's science anyway?

"our fine president"...you mean Chimpy ?
The man who embarrasses our country daily not only with his policies,( or lack of ) but his inability to speak the English language ?

1 Science has advanced unabated despite the emotional rhetoric from liberal demagogues.

Now the truth. Bush has stifled scientists in his own administration when they have come up with results that are different thanhis ideology.
This is good ?
Many have resigned in disgust.
He is anti science...and you support that.
Boy, are you uninformed on this subject !

2 The will to be victorious in Iraq has been destroyed like in so many difficult conflicts in the last 60 years. I accept this as the continuing trend that started in the pre-Vietnam war era.

You are so out of touch I won't take this much farther. No one is talking about "winning" in iraq any longer, even in the republican party. Winning means________.
You've had 6 years to come up with an answer to that.Your president and party has failed. Big time !...thus the elections.
You didn't learn the lessons of the Vietnam war, 30 years after the fact.Obviously it will take you as long to learn about Iraq.

3."The (fake)populist win by the democrats"
Is that how you personally are spinning this defeat ? TDF.

4. "The national debt does not concern me"
I can understand why !
When your party has created this extravaganza of debt,( which our children will pay for) pretend it doesn't exist.

I'm only here to help, Cee.

Bob and I are givers. It's not in us to take.

Bob,

Wow! Interesting! Are you talking about embryonic stem cell research?

Please tell me about any results that scientists have produced that have countered Bush's ideology and that they have had to resign(?) over.

Cee,

Since you're a physician, I know you will be especially interested in Bob's information.

It's not rude to call the president "Mr. Bush." It's in the AP stylebook, for heaven's sake. There's no reason to call him "President Bush" each time you refer to him. If one wanted to be rude, there are so very many accurate things one could call this man besides "Mr. Bush."

"Please tell me about any results that scientists have produced that have countered Bush's ideology and that they have had to resign(?) over."

You're kidding, right?
You admitted to not having cable TV. Do you have access to newspapers?... Do you only go to Hannity and Rush Limpballs sites on the internet?

There have been countless articles documenting Bush's abuse of the science community. Did you miss ALL of them ?

Chris Mooney wrote a book called the "Republican War on Science".Ever hear of it?
Probably not !I guess he made it all up. TDF.

Here are just some of the cases:
Reports of a former oil industry employee editing climate change reports from the White House. The president lending his endorsement to the teaching of so-called "intelligent design" alongside evolution in public school science classes. The resignation of a senior Food and Drug Administration expert due to continual politicking over the approval of Plan B emergency contraception (the "morning after" pill) over the counter.

There are testimonials from individuals who actually served in previous administrations: For example, former Nixon and Ford administration Environmental Protection Agency administrator Russell Train, himself a Republican. These people say they've never seen anything like what we're seeing now, and that's one powerful piece of evidence.

Susan F. Wood resigned last summer as the top official at the FDA in charge of women's health after Bush political appointees repeatedly overruled career scientists and agency medical experts about the need for and safety of nonprescription emergency contraception.

NJ's Christie Whitman, hardly a flaming liberal, resigned from her EPA post b/c of the administration ignoring her environmental reports.

If you haven't been living under some sort of rock (and really, it's been millions of years since our ancestors did that) then you probably heard of one George Deutsch, Public Affairs Officer for NASA. He became suddenly and embarrassingly famous when he tried to squelch the findings of NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen, who is quite outspoken about global warming. Hansen claimed (and has evidence to back it up) that Deutsch denied him interviews with the media, and a lot of NASA scientists have come forward again, with documentary evidence corroborating Hansen's story.

Deutsch also wanted another NASA scientist to make sure he put the word "theory" on a website everywhere the Big Bang was mentioned.

Yes, you read that correctly. Deutsch wanted the Big Bang to take a back seat to Intelligent Design. At NASA.

Most of the world is preparing for "green " policies because of global warming.They know how it is going to affect the global economy.Our anti-scientist president isn't quite on board yet.
Science used to be one of America's shining points. Now it's a 2nd class citizen under Bush.

Science is being used repeatedly as a political football by the Bush administration, and the particular issue almost doesn't matter .. so long as it's of consequence to some interest group that the administration is committed to appeasing.

You didn't know any of this ?
NO wonder you think George Bush is a "fine" man.
Ignorance is no excuse, but it seems to be yours.

Bob, are all employees and appointees of the Admin branch correct in their scientific judgments. Or only those who agree with you.

The warnings of impending doom due to Global Warming and Global Cooling have filp flopped with dizzying regularity every 20 - 30 years for the last century and a half. And they always overlap while the scientific community is gearing up to change the method of the destruction of life on earth.

Remember the oil well fires set by Saddam in Kuwait. All the screeching warnings of the drastic effect it would have on the world's weather. Didn't happen. The computer models were wrong. It was based on the particulates from the fires circling the globe. All I saw in the MSM was that they didn't get high enough. No explanation why, just didn't.

However, there are well documented examples in the modern era of natural events affecting global weather patterns. From: Astonomical Society of the Pacific.

"The year 1816 is still known to scientists and historians as "eighteen hundred and froze to death" or the "year without a summer." It was the locus of a period of natural ecological destruction not soon to be forgotten. During that year, the Northern Hemisphere was slammed with the effects of at least two abnormal but natural phenomena. These events were mysterious at the time, and even today they are not well understood.

First, 1816 marked the midpoint of one of the Sun's extended periods of low magnetic activity, called the Dalton Minimum. This particular minimum lasted from about 1795 to the 1820s. It resembled the earlier Maunder Minimum (about 1645-1715) that was responsible for at least 70 years of abnormally cold weather in the Northern Hemisphere. The Maunder Minimum interval is sandwiched within an even better known cool period known as the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about the 14th through 19th centuries"

Science still can't definitely explain the Little Ice Age in the last half of the last millenium or any of the embedded smaller variations.

You said: "You didn't know any of this ?"

And I will ask you the same question. You didn't know any of this?

If science can not explain that which happened in the recent past, what do you base your belief on that they can predict the future?

EVILLY AND STUPIDLY YOURS,

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Posting mad and evil drivel. Ask any KO fan.

The overwhelming % of scientists agree about global warming AND its causes.

What are you going to question next? Gravity?

You neo-nuts are amazing !

Thank God you were put back in your place with this election.

Bob, why am I not surprised by your answer. I should have realized that you hold this theory to be an article of faith. No room for further investigation or, God forbid, a change of opinion.

A theory is only valid as far as it can explain the known each and every time. As far as I know, gravity is still a verifiable theory.

The THEORY of Global Warming can not explain the recent past. Upon what do you base your unquestioning acceptance of its ability to predict the future?

I don't share your faith that teaches that a majority scientific community can not be wrong. It goes against the experience of mankind.

Eugenics anyone?

EVILLY AND STUPIDLY YOURS,

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Posting mad and evil drivel. Ask any KO fan.

Bob, you are very intolerant. BTW, it's now CLIMATE CHANGE....global warming was committing too much and they wanted some wiggle room.

I read Mooney's book. It was ok, but his understanding of ID was pretty poor. He, like you and most of the liberal elite, dismiss any discussion of life's origin that deviates from the imposed truth.

Mooney has an axe to grind and a specific politcal agenda. That's his right, but when one reads his polemic with that background in mind, one sees some pretty glaring omissions. One, he never goes into details where humanists or liberals "twist" science to fit their world view. Genetically modified foods have never been shown to be unsafe, and yet many in the left state the science supports their view. Animal rights activists have argued that animal testing isn't necessary when most scientists disagree. Some Democratic politicians have overstated the likelihood that embryonic stem cell research will produce quick cures; this is a false statement and plays on people's fears. Many respected scientists argue against Hansen's ideas and they are labeled "fringe," when they use the same data and processes. This last hurricane season will be mild despite what the climate change people warned us about.

So, allowing different points of view in a large administration does not mean scientific progress has stopped.

Fear.

Bob, give me one example where advance has not taken place because of policies during the past 6 years. You only site individuals complaining about their professional careers...people who have an agenda (including Whitmann) and cannot be safely regarded as unbiased.

It is THE BIG BANG THEORY, and THE THEORY OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION. They will always be theories by definition because the processes will never be proved within absolute certainy. Observation of the natural world has limits.

Embryonic stem cell research regulation on the federal level has caused states to increase their funding and there is MORE money going into this research than ever before. You lie if you say stem cell research has been thwarted by Bush. Also, with regards to OTC Plan B....there is a large portion of this country (responsible parents) that do not want their minor (under aged) daughters victimized by slimey adults....the federal government has once again made it easier for jail-bait predators to cover their crimes. Fine, it's the reality of the world and I hope, if you have a daughter, she is ready for it. God bless America. This was not only a science issue, Bob. Science has always ADVIZED puplic policy....NOT MAKE policy all by its self without other influences and opinions.

I do not worship the god of science like the secular, atheistic left does.

Keep it coming buddy....there's no living under the rock here is BEAUTIFUL "blue" north Jersey. Trap.

Big grins, JD. GJ

While Grammie and Cees ascribe to the GOP talking points, climate change is already threatening the planet with a spread of infectious diseases, which will move farther northward and to higher elevations. The World Health Organization projects tens of millions more cases of malaria and other infectious diseases.
Ecosystems are dying, animals and plants are becoming extinct, the ice caps are melting, hurricanes ARE becoming more intense,droughts and floods are becoming more prevalent..and it's only going to get worse.

Climate change is already affecting the world's food supply.

So according to you ( and of course Bush)we need more study before we should act.

The Bush Administration's resume already includes botching the Iraq War and the Katrina response.
Ya think we should take YOUR word on something even more important?

The rest of the world is developing strategies to try to stem the increase of climate change and then hopefully to reverse it.
Even hard liner Republicans have finally seen the light. They cannot continue to deny the overwhelming evidence that is right under their noses.( but for some reason YOU can't find your nose)

You really expect educated people to believe that increasing CO2 emissions is not going to have a disastrous effect on our planet ?

The denial of global warming is like the guy standing in a flooded house and looking out at the people in the boat and saying, "What? it's just a little rain. It will stop any minute."

I tend to trust sources like Scientific American,NASA, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union , the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences rather than you and the Bush administration.

Your track record is just a little suspect.

I also tend to think of wingnuts as yourself akin to those who deny the Holocaust ever existed.

The scientists of the entire world have overwhelmingly concluded that global warming is occurring, as evidenced by a recent (I believe UN) sponsored study signed by over 1600 scientists. The skeptics represent a small minority, many of them with financial connections to key industries opposing GHG emission regulation.

So when you get comments like "I do not worship the god of science like the secular, atheistic left does." and "I don't share your faith that teaches that a majority scientific community can not be wrong."...it's obvious that Grammie and cee represent the lunatic minority opinion.

Thank God we are putting those dark ages behind us.

"I do not worship the god of science like the secular, atheistic left does."

That's quite a profoundly ignorant statement on so many levels.
Probably at least as many as the reasons the Bush Cabal has MADE UP for invading Iraq.
( I think we're up to 6 now )

One last question: Is the insurgency in its last throes yet ?

Can't make this stuff up !

The Democrats are doing more in 6 days than the republicans did in 6 years.

http://www.forbes.com/infoimaging/feeds/ap/2006/11/09/ap3161866.html

Well, Cee, Bob sure thinks you and I got shot down. Do you agree with me that Bob would have been in the forefront of the movement to burn Galileo because he dared to question the accepted religious (our faithful left wing believers of today) and scientific community of his day?

You still did not offer an explanation of how the science that can not account for or use their computer models to predict the verifiable past should be depended so absolutely upon to predict the future.

It is a simple enough question. Upon what do you place your unwavering faith that these models will perform accurately when they can't perform even after the fact.

Nor have you addressed the reason that Climate Change is now the preferred terminology. Could it have anything to do with the the fact that the best science available can't decide from generation to generation whether cooling or warming will be the end of us?

Mankind is no larger than a pimple on a gnat's ass. Yet you are convinced that in the last twenty years we have progressed to omniscience.

And I am accused of being a fundy Christonazi. Your faith is unbounded. I'll wait and see what happens.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Oh, Cee, our latest instructions on what to think and say are coming in now. Must be nice to have the intellectual freedom that Bob has to be wrong. Bob sure doesn't have to parrot others. A true free thinker.

Bob, you included this in your rambling reply:

"I also tend to think of wingnuts as yourself akin to those who deny the Holocaust ever existed."

Have you always had this problem of wandering off into non sequitors, or is it recent?

I go beyond belief in the Holocaust. The Holocaust is an undeniable fact. But I will need a genius such as yourself to connect the idea of the Holocaust as disputable to the viability of currently popular scientific theory.

Did this idea spring full blown and deformed from your own intellect or did you get instructions from your left wing nut group?

Gee, what prompted me to accuse you of toeing the nutty left wing line? Could it be that as a brainwashed right wing nut case I assume that no one can think for themselves? :D

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

That's quite a profoundly ignorant statement on so many levels.

Posted by: Bob at November 13, 2006 11:29 PM

Ignorance is what some people get off on. It's like a totl denial of everything around them. The stench of the bs is so strong since the election here. So jovial and joyful in thinking they are smacking down the opposition. Losers. They are making themselves feel better by trying to remain in control by joining in a mob mentality against a great American. sick man. real sick. Keith Olbermann keep up the good work.

Jon Stewart. Steve Colbert. Keith Olbermann. The counrty listend to you. Laughed their ass off at the truth you shared, and acted accordingly. Thank you all. Keep up the good work.

Oh boy....I awake to the typical response of the left.

Poor Bob could not address my critique of Mooney's propaganda. Instead we once again see ad hominem attacks mentioning the dark ages and The Holocaust. No Bob, I do not deny The Holocaust occurred....I have seen the evidence of The Holocaust and it is overwhelming....including that there are EYE WITNESSES!

For now, let's stick with science, it's methods and usual process, ok?

Climate change can be explained many ways. It can also be framed in a different perspective with regard to processes that are beyond the control of humankind. Alternative theories have ALWAYS played an important role in any scientific pursuit. SCIENCE is supposed to allow for debate with regard to cause/effect, trends, predictive value, etc. But on this area, you want people to blindly follow the mantra that human activity is the only possibility for climate change. This is a very real possibility, however many people with just as impure backgrounds as the nice men and women you like to agree with want to ask questions....
SET UP THE GALLOWS!

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

Lots of nice stuff at that page that discusses the predictions your fine scientists have made and have been wrong about.....including more frequent and intense hurricanes, food supplies, etc.

Remember Bob.....science advises policy.....many things go into making the policy. I do not want to be told in 20 years that the thinking in 2006 was wrong and it put in policies that were unnecessary. Slow down and get all the facts. Have economic, social and political voices combine with the scientific to make good policy. Do not be fearful and reactionary.

My statement about worshiping a god of science IS a very deep and profound statement. I hope you take it to heart, Bob. It is not an ignorant observation because I have seen example after example after example in posts and in real life from more intellegent people than yourself.

I enjoy debating the truth, Bob, not participate in "talking points" tennis matches. I am not as you want to define me....but if you are too scared to truly deabte me, that's fine. Continue with your Comedy Central level of debate.....but remember it's only comedy! Continue lapping up the disjointed and factually wrong propaganda from KO.....but remember he's only a sports guy.

Oh, and codas, the chip on your shoulder is really keeping you down. Try becoming a little more dispassionate. Look and see that what you predicted here on OW never happened. People are accepting of the election results and still believe in their particular causes. If you think Grammie or I are "ignorant," you have not been paying attention. BTW, we discussed this "loser," issue before.....not accurate. I only predicted two things....Lieberman would easily beat Lamont AND my very conservative rep would win against the ultra liberal candidate in my district. That is what occurred and I accept the decision of my fellow citizens.

I am even more politically engaged now that ultra liberal, anti-religion secularists have made gains just as they did back in 1994 when conservative and moderate voices gained the upper hand. Progress for sane national policy since 1994 has been good, but more needs to be done. The future awaits.

Well, hey, Bob came up with some a scientist who resigned. Got to give him credit where credit is due although the net says the NASA scientist resigned because NASA told him he couldn't make speeches recommending particular government policies, since that's against their policy for all employees.

Christie Todd Whitmann is not a scientist, and she resigned after the fracas of the claims about World Trade Center environmental hazards, probably to limit the law suits she can be pulled into. She's a consultant in the field now for big business.

As for global warming and taking it seriously, there's room for improvement on both sides. That territory has just now gotten out of the hands of the anti-capitalist far left, into more reasoned and less hyperbolic discussion.

Too, since we are now in the presence of Bob's all knowing politicians...we'll see what wise legislation Pelosi, Byrd, and company mete out upon businesses here. Especially before '08... :D

"Ignorance is what some people get off on. It's like a totl denial of everything around them. The stench of the bs is so strong since the election here. So jovial and joyful in thinking they are smacking down the opposition. Losers."

This seems to be a theme here lately, and now even pea-brain is screeching it.

I guess you somehow thought that we'd all be on the verge of throwing ourselves off bridges after the last election. How anyone could think that about someone who does, afterall reside in this wonderful country, is beyond me, but obviously a great many of our liberal friends do think just that.

The only explainable to as to why their disappointed and think we're engaging in some sort of pretense by still getting up in the morning...and for why we are at a loss as to why they'd expect anything else, IS the difference in ideologies. We're conservative. We are not of the mindset where we think all answers come from govt. and therefore all answers should come from our political party. That's not a knock on Dems, it's just a difference in approach to life.

Get over it and move on. We have.

We're conservative. We are not of the mindset where we think all answers come from govt. and therefore all answers should come from our political party. That's not a knock on Dems, it's just a difference in approach to life.

Get over it and move on. We have.

Posted by: Cecelia at November 14, 2006 07:41 AM

No. You like to think your a conservative. Consevatives traditionaly haven't supported invading and occupying foreign countries or running up deficits. You support a failed administration. Get over them and move on.

"we'll see what wise legislation Pelosi, Byrd, and company mete out" .

Yes...let's see:

Sen. Barbara Boxer on Thursday promised major policy shifts on global warming, air quality and toxic-waste cleanup as she prepares to lead the U.S. Senate's environmental committee.The California Democrat replaces Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Inhofe had blocked bills seeking to cut the greenhouse gases contributing to global warming, calling the issue "the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people."

As chairman, Inhofe tried to overhaul the Endangered Species Act and supported the Bush administration's 2002 rules to roll back provisions in the Clean Air Act. He also promoted legislation that would have allowed the government to suspend air and water quality rules in response to Hurricane Katrina.

Yes...These are the policies that Cecilia, Cee and D support...unless they've just been playing ostrich .

Boxer said she intends to introduce legislation to curb greenhouse gases, strengthen environmental laws regarding public health and hold oversight hearings on federal plans to clean up Superfund hazardous waste sites across the country.

Talk about the proverbial out with the bad air, and in with the good air.

So according to C,C and D "I do not want to be told in 20 years that the thinking in 2006 was wrong and it put in policies that were unnecessary."
BUT YOU'D HAVE NO TROUBLE IF MOST OF THE WORLD WAS CORRECT ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND NOTHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT AND WE'D HAVE DISASTEROUS CONSEQUENCES.

No thanks...fortunately educated people have seen thru the folly of your lame ideas and are now acting and making constructive change as opposed to listening to the incompetents in the Bush administration.

None of the Bushies on this site have explained why they'd rather indulge and agree with the smallest of % of scientists on global warming rather than the vast majority. Some of this small minority have financial connections to key industries opposing GHG emission regulation.

Please explain why you are anti-science ....
could it be b/c our anti-science president has taken these positions?
..and you must genuflect at his idiocy ?

You know...it really doesn't matter what your motives.
It only matters now that we have a Congress that will put science first and political ideology ...last....unlike the past 6 years.

You still did not offer an explanation of how the science that can not account for or use their computer models to predict the verifiable past should be depended so absolutely upon to predict the future.

It is a simple enough question. Upon what do you place your unwavering faith that these models will perform accurately when they can't perform even after the fact.

I'll tell you exactly how: by scientific evidence and fact !
The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.
Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.
The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.
At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles.
Since the 1980's, the earth has experienced 19 of its 20 hottest years on record.

There is so much overwhelming evidence that indeed global not only exists but is adversely affecting our planet.

I don't know if education is beyond you Bushies but I'd like to help.

Read about your myths on global warming:

http://www.climatechallenge.gov.uk/understand/myths.html

Bob-
even if we concede your points (which I do not by the way)...there is no proof that this is man caused or than man can stop or change it in any form or fashion

Bob-
even if we concede your points (which I do not by the way)...there is no proof that this is man caused or than man can stop or change it in any form or fashion

Jon Stewart. Steve Colbert. Keith Olbermann. The counrty listend to you. Laughed their ass off at the truth you shared, and acted accordingly. Thank you all. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: codas at November 14, 2006 01:05 AM
------
one of their own lumping a "newsman" in with 2 comedians...kinda explains a lot if these are where they go for their news

Bob,

You have a most dangerous combination of 2 components of flawed thinking....1- you are naive, and 2- you think you are smart.

"It only matters now that we have a Congress that will put science first and political ideology...last" is the example of your naivete.

Nancy Pelosi and the other polical entities of your wing will always play politics first as shown by their reaction to the war on terrorism. I admit that they have been elected portraying "populist" intentions, but my not-so-bold prediction is that they will bow to their special interests....including the "green" radicals who are salivating currently.

"None of the Bushies on this site have explained why they'd rather indulge and agree with the smallest of % of scientists on global warming rather than the vast majority. Some of this small minority have financial connections to key industries opposing GHG emission regulation." is an example of your lack of intellect.

Bob, scientific inquiry is not a democratic process. In essense, scientific method is allowing continuing doubt to spur further investigation. The reasonable doubt put forth even by ONE scientist should cause pause to an ideologue who claims he can predict the future based on "scientific" models. Did you look at the website I posted?

The majority of SCIENTISTS (not the church) prior to Nicolaus Copernicus came to the scientific conclusion that the sun travelled around the earth. The majority of scientists accepted Christiaan Eijkman's conclusion that beriberi was caused by a germ. He ran great controlled experiments to "prove" his theory and even won the Nobel Prize. We now know for a fact that beriberi is caused by dietary thiamine deficiency. Eugenics was accepted by the majority of geneticists and biologists at the beginning of the 20th century. Most if not all of the foundational eugenics theories have been debunked.

These few examples started with a minority of scientists with a different opinion/observation that went against conventional wisdom. Bob, you and the other fascists want to stop free thinking and embrace debatable conclusions. Good luck with that one.

BTW, you never addressed my OTC Plan B point......why?

Bob-
even if we concede your points (which I do not by the way)

Of course you don't...you're a Republican...

...there is no proof that this is man caused or than man can stop or change it in any form or fashion.

All of the evidence and the scientific community says you are wrong about the cause and solution.
You can barely find any reasonable scientist that disagrees with this .
Get your head out of the sand, and catch a clue.

or better yet...show me all of the scientists that say global warming is not being caused by man.

I know a great many of you Republicans are anti-science. That's just another reason why rational Americans voted the way they did.

Well, promising and accomplishing are two different things, especially when it comes to doing things are going to cost businesses millions and that make senators fear that will new businesses from moving into their state.

As for the bit about genuflecting to Pres. Bush about global warming policy, conservatives didn't formulate their approach to such issued after the year 2000, anymore than some liberals suddenly came to argue for nationalized healthcare after Hillary's husband took office. Within your disappointment that your political opponents still hold on to their ideals and aren't demoralized by recent election losses and your argument that "true" conservatives don't like Pres. Bush, there should be some crumb of logic that rightly or wrongly when it comes to environmental issues, conservatives are conservatives.

I have no problem with your seeing the advent of Democratic control, as being the harbinger of utopia. Your political opponents are skeptical. That's natural. Things weren't that great 12 years ago.

But then this really isn't about any of that. This is about you wanting to rub the recent election loss in our faces, whether you're lauding Keith Olbermann or Sen Boxer. That's natural, I guess, but I am curious that so much anger against political opponents IN GENERAL (as opposed to one person in particular pissing someone off)remains with so many Democrats despite their victory.

bob-
popular theories of the time believed to be correct nearly unanimously, then proven wrong and swept into the dustbin of history:

- the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it

- the earth is flat and if you sail too far you'll fall off the edge

- the movements of the sun and the moon were explained by the gods

- bleedings could cure almost everything

favorite aquote: A person is smart. People are dumb. Everything they've ever "known" has been proven to be wrong. A thousand years ago everybody knew as a fact, that the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, they knew it was flat. Fifteen minutes ago, you knew we humans were alone on it. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow. -agent k , men in black

yes Cee..I get your point loud and clear.

You think there is not enough evidence to act on global warming...even though I gave much evidence BASED ON THE BEST OF SCIENCE HAS TO OFFER proving it's already occurring.

You want to wait, while species are disappearing and ice caps are melting.

The debate within the science community is over.
It's not WHETHER GLOBAL WARMING IS OCCURRING, IT'S WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO TO STOP IT AND REVERSE IT.

You can hypothesize all you like, but fortunately all around the world countries are putting in new "green" policies to counteract the effects of global warming.
The USA will be one of the last.
Whoever is our next president will do a 180 on this issue from the anti-science Bush administration.
Thank God the Democrats are already organizing bills to stop the madness....as I previously documented .

You stated your opinion.
The science community disagrees with you.

Do I need to prove to you where we'd be without science?
I think you can figure that one out all by yourself.

I get your point too Connor.
You want to play the fiddle while the earth burns.

18 of the past 20 years has been the hottest in history.
Species are disappearing faster than we can keep track.
Connor would rather take a wait and see approach.

Amazing !

Sure glad you and your minions do not form US policy any longer.

I have no problem with your seeing the advent of Democratic control, as being the harbinger of utopia.

I love how you put words in my mouth.
I'm cautiously optimistic about the Democrats.
After the complete disaster of the Bush administration, we all can take a deep sigh of relief knowing there will now be some oversight to the madness.

bob...you gotta stop talikng out of your backside,,,there is no way to win with you as you accept no other points of view as valid...

"All of the evidence and the scientific community says you are wrong about the cause and solution.
You can barely find any reasonable scientist that disagrees with this ."
ALL? Every scientist that believes in global warming are on the exact same page as far as cause and solution? If so, then why are there more and more studies being done...are they all finding and re-finding the exact same things? no...they are not read the journals (whoops, did i just admit that i read science journals? how could that bde?i am a republican and as such must be a neocon, staunch conservative, anti-science luddite...why the hell did i take all those physics, chemistry, astronomy classes and labs in college...i must hate science and not believe in it since W told me not too)

From all your posting I take it "reasonable scientists" are ones who agree with you and thus UNreasonable scientists don't? Not all scientists who disagree in varying capacities on global warming and man's involvement are sponsored by evil corporations...plus many of the die hard believers on your side are funded by environmental activist organizations or government grants from politicians who have an agenda...so why aren't they as fallible as their counterparts?

finally, lets look at your political dia tribe of a last line:
"I know a great many of you Republicans are anti-science. That's just another reason why rational Americans voted the way they did."
most republicans are anti-science--you have proof of this right? you can show that 50.0000000000000001% of R's are anti-science?

rational americans...these are the same rational americans you and your leftward kind have been decrying for years for voting in W (twice) and republican majorities in congress since 1994...all the while calling them stupid...but they tip in your favor now so they are rational?

so in your world is it rational to be a yankee fan and unreasonable to be a tiger fan?

"The debate within the science community is over.
It's not WHETHER GLOBAL WARMING IS OCCURRING, IT'S WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO TO STOP IT AND REVERSE IT."

Cee, there is NO debate within the science community! Everything about global warming is as concrete and evident as the law of gravity! There is NO room for discussion here. Sen. Boxer already knows what to do to help correct the situation! If you have disagreements with the solutions you're arguing that the earth is flat!

Now go say a few "Hell Bushes" as pentance for your heresy!

The Bush Watch :

Rep. Jim McDermott Says Make Murtha Majority Leader Because "The President's Worst Nightmare Is To Have To Sit At Breakfast With Jack Murtha....( He goes on to say)"Jack will be a real leader! "

This is just too precious !

"I love how you put words in my mouth.
I'm cautiously optimistic about the Democrats.
After the complete disaster of the Bush administration, we all can take a deep sigh of relief knowing there will now be some oversight to the madness."

Well, I'm cautiously optimistic by nature so I'm with you here, bubby.

But you'd seem a bit more cautious and less inclined to come off as see no wrong in my party type, if you weren't given to describing low unemployment, no terrorist attacks and markets up as a "complete disaster". But too, you did refrain from putting this one in all caps.

'Rep. Jim McDermott Says Make Murtha Majority Leader Because "The President's Worst Nightmare Is To Have To Sit At Breakfast With Jack Murtha....( He goes on to say)"Jack will be a real leader! "

This is just too precious !'

Interesting. So McDermott thinks that's the sort of argument that would persuade Charlie Rangel.

From all your posting I take it "reasonable scientists" are ones who agree with you and thus UNreasonable scientists don't?

There you go again...
As your brilliant president would say," you're misunderestimating my point".

You will never get all scientists to agree on everything.
What we have now...is that a huge majority of scientists agree what the problem is and that we need to attack it immediately.
The most recent sponsored study had 1600 scientists agreeing on this topic and signing it.

Care to give your list of scientists that disagree global warming is occurring?
Didn't think so !

Also..You still have not informed us why you align yourself with the small minority.

bob...you gotta stop talikng out of your backside,,,there is no way to win with you as you accept no other points of view as valid...

and

From all your posting I take it "reasonable scientists" are ones who agree with you and thus UNreasonable scientists don't?

You people are too much !

Yes...the vast majority of scientists agree global warming is occurring and needs to be addressed immediately.

Just explain why you take the small minority view on global warming .
There was a sponsored study on this issue that 1600 scientists agreed with and signed.
1600 scientists !

Let's see your list of scientists that don't think global warming exists.

Didn't think so.

I'M talking out of backside ?

You are so far off on this debate it's not even funny.

sorry for the duplicate

another question not answered by the Bush-lovers:

is the "insurgency in its last throes?"

Goog luck Bob. It is like talking to a cult here. You will only frustrate your own self and never move them an inch. They have seen the light of what they consider conservatism and they worship it like God. You will never read them saying anything that has doubt. No wafflers here. They are sure that everyone that doesn't see it there way is a liberal secularist atheistic loon who needs to be talked to like a child. I feel a lot of them are very angry and they blame non-republicans for all the evils of the world. Very sad.

Codas,

Surely not even you are dopey enough to think that Bob's intentions here are to persuade anyone of anything.

cecelia, I've been convinced of only one thing here. There is no convincing anyone anything.

You hit it on the head codas...the fact that they are still saying the jury is still out on global warming proves how delusional they are.

They won't/can't explain why they are holding on so tightly to an extreme minority opinion when the planet's health and survival is at stake.

We prize ideology and dogma over reason and science:
We are the Republicans !

The sky is falling!

another question not answered by the Bush-lovers:

is the "insurgency in its last throes?"

almost. pretty soon it won't be an insurgency at all. It will be a full scale civil war.

"The sky is falling!"

Don't forget "henny penny" you great big ninny.

Or the boy who cried wolf, you great big ...whatever rhymes with wolf...

Republican watch :

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - A Republican-led legislative panel claims in a new report on illegal immigration that abortion is partly to blame because it is causing a shortage of American workers.

You just can't make this stuff !

Jon Stewart, Bill Maher etc will never have a lack of material as long as republicans roam the earth.

Well there is wolfe, as in Tom Wolfe the writer. You were probably thinking of him while lamenting how sad you are in comparision. too bad for not much else rymes with wolf, You big ninny.

Well there is wolfe, as in Tom Wolfe the writer. You were probably thinking of him while lamenting how sad you are in comparision. too bad for not much else rymes with wolf, You big ninny.

Goog luck Bob. It is like talking to a cult here. You will only frustrate your own self and never move them an inch. They have seen the light of what they consider conservatism and they worship it like God. You will never read them saying anything that has doubt. No wafflers here. They are sure that everyone that doesn't see it there way is a liberal secularist atheistic loon who needs to be talked to like a child. I feel a lot of them are very angry and they blame non-republicans for all the evils of the world. Very sad.

Posted by: codas at November 14, 2006 11:21 AM
----
oh codas, codas, codas...you seemed more into reasonable debate before the election...you say "we" have no doubt "No wafflers here" and yet "you" (as in you all for those scoring grammatically at home) never seem to express any iota of doubt that "you" are in the absolute right and "we" are in the absolute wrong
This is followed by your line about how "we" are sure blah, blah, blah...basically intoning and enforcing that "you" believe "that everyone that doesn't see it there way is a NEOCON FUNDAMENTALIST loon who needs to be talked to like a child. I feel a lot of them are very angry and they blame non-DEMOCRATS for all the evils of the world. Very sad."

It is very sad that you think that way and not try to understand those that do not agree with you on all points. I expect it from Bob who seems to be an absolutist and antagonist based on his posts...but I had come to expect better from my ol' buddy codas

Cecilia reminds me of the knight in that Monty Python skit where he is doing battle with swords and after getting his arm, then leg, then other arm cut off...he still
insists" I'll pulverize you ".

TDF

Cecilia still won't explain why she is clutching for dear life to the extreme minority opinion on global warming and going against the vast majority of scientists.
Is it a republican thing ?
or just an anal thing?
Is there a difference?

"too bad for not much else rymes with wolf, You big ninny."

Best to give up rhyme for accuracy anyway, SLEEZEBALL.

Hardest job in the USA:

Defending the corruption, incompetence and bad policies of the Bush administration.
( not to mention his 3 books of Bushisms)
" Is our children learning " ?

After 6 years, you'd think you'd be exhausted.
I do admire your work ethic though.

Even Rush Limpballs has admitted of being tired of "carrying the water"( lying ) for you guys.

Bob---thanks for not adressing a thing in my post it says a lot

and as for your "sponsored study" who sponsored it?

and once again lets address the issue of majority of scientists (by ther way, the attitudes of those in that majority towards anyone who disagrees with them has caused the naysayers to do so anonomously to protect themselves professionally)...just because someone is part of a majority does not make them right..or so you thought so before 11/7/06

it just doesn't ever stop.....

This just in..
Washington ( AP )
Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion
of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, the
Bush administration said Monday, opening a new legal front in the fight over the
rights of detainees.

Now let me see...how many Mexicans or Poles etc. were involved in 9/11 and other terrorist acts ....
Hmmmmmmmm

Bob,

From WSJ Wednesday, April 12, 2006...

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

Richard Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

This is the issue....science lead by ideology like Olbermann's journalism lead by ideology. Don't be so naive, Bob.

and yet "you" (as in you all for those scoring grammatically at home) never seem to express any iota of doubt that "you" are in the absolute right and "we" are in the absolute wrong

Posted by: connor at November 14, 2006 12:38 PM

Simply not true connor. Many times I say things like. "Im not sure, I dont know, even something like, I am confused. You just don't see that coming from "you all". It's not republicanism or conservativism that make me crazy. It is republicans and conservatives who have convinced themselves that all other ways of life are unamerican or treasonus. They look the other way when members of their own party betray everything they SAY they stand for and point the finger at Kennedy for the millionth time or Clinton for the billionth time. If you can call Keith out for partisanship why not Limbaugh? "RELAX cecelia". He basicaly just admitted he has been lying to his listeners in defending his party because he thinks democrats are worse. How can anyone ever trust him again? That is arogance and it runs pretty damn deep inside of those types. Spiritual and moral integrity do not belong exclusively to them. But they preach to the choir and the choir then bashes down their fellow Americans without any doubt that their fellow Americans are at least the equal to terrorists.

Well, my post seems to have gone to limbo so I'll try again:

"Cecilia reminds me of the knight in that Monty Python skit where he is doing battle with swords and after getting his arm, then leg, then other arm cut off...he still
insists" I'll pulverize you ".'

Like you used something sharper than a butter knife... :D

"Cecilia still won't explain why she is clutching for dear life to the extreme minority opinion on global warming and going against the vast majority of scientists.
Is it a republican thing ?
or just an anal thing?
Is there a difference?"

No one is answering your "question"? aaaawwwwwwww....and with the honest and accurate way you frame your questions up?

Bob---thanks for not adressing a thing in my post it says a lot

Let me see...Connor..Connor..Oh yes. Weren't you the one doing your best imitation of Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burned?

and as for your "sponsored study" who sponsored it?

I believe it was the UN.

Please show me one..just one...where a group of legitmate scientists say global warming doesn't exist.
I'll wait.
I'll get out my accordion.

and once again lets address the issue of majority of scientists

Lets !

Connor. you obviously have no idea how science works.
They make the best judgement based on the data and evidence they collect.
Maybe you can explain why you accept the extreme minority opinion on this issue since Cecelia won't/can't.
Plus I've listed quite a few FACTS about how global warming is already affecting our planet.
Did you miss those too ?

If a large majority of scientists say the earth is in big trouble, at whose peril, and why should we dismiss them?

Why is it always the Republicans who are anti-science?
Is it in your DNA ?

codas....
yes limbaugh is an ultra conservative partisan as is Hannity, Coulter...hello? who does not admit that? but as far as KO goes it comes back to the claims of nonpartisan and title of newsman which none of the others listed try to carry

and as far as party matters go, why wouldn't he back r's that do not go as far as he wants when in the general election it is the choice of that person or someone who disagrees with him even more...

I think we had a discussion back before the election that you had said you weren't all that jazzed for Kerry back in 2004, but did you vote for Bush?

I admit to being a republican, but there is a range across a continuum in the party (JUST LIKE THERE IS IN THE DEMOCRATS)...this range of views within one's own party is what necessitates the primaries...but if McCain didn't win the primary or Buchanan din't win the primary, why should I vote for Kerry if I have more in common with Bush and try to get others to do so as well

"Now let me see...how many Mexicans or Poles etc. were involved in 9/11 and other terrorist acts ....
Hmmmmmmmm"

Here's Bob brand of rephrasing...

Actually, the immigrant in question is Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, who is thought to be an enemy combatant.

The case seeks to give the same enemy combatant status to foreigners captured within the U.S. as enemy combatants captured overseas. As enemy combatants arrested here, they will be tried before military commissions, not a civilian judge or jury, and establishes different rules of evidence in the cases. It also prohibits detainees from challenging their detention in CIVILIAN court.

The DOJ is arguing the case before the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, so it's hardly arbitrary.

Connor, Cee and Cecelia no one would believe that this site had a supposed debate on science and Global Warming.

We have been accused of playing the fiddle a la Nero, roaming the earth a la dinosaurs I assume and not caring if we bring the world to devestation.

Of course I don't care. Being a republican means that global disasters won't affect me. Right Bob? :D

And after all the words you have cranked out you still have not answered my first question.

If one uses the Computer Models that are predicting Global Warming and use them to explain recent global weather anolamies, this programs can not predict what actually occured. It predicts different scenarios. So, how do you place such fervent faith in those predictions.

Also, for the last 150 years the scientific community has flip flopped between Global Warming and Global Cooling as the beginning of the end of life on earth as we know it. As Cee mentioned, the PC term is now Global Climate Change.

In the past, this was self correcting. Dire predictions that after thirty or forty years was still a dire prediction. But a 180% about face as to the cause and measures man should take.

We now have a situation more analagous to Galileo and the Church. Any scientist who questions the methodologies or predictions of the faithful is branded a heretic.

You don't have a modicum of doubt that this supposedly monolithic scientific community could be wrong. And in this current climate we will grind any dissenter into the dust and never see any new evidence that will be vital to our future survival.

I think we should spend money on preparing for this possible Argamedden. But not where you seem to want to spend it. On disaster preparedness for any likely global climate change. Research in food crops and animals so that we will have available to us flora and fauna that can thrive in conditions that are not pvevalent on the earth now. This type of preparation is far more flexible and covers all the bases.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

No one is answering your "question"? aaaawwwwwwww....and with the honest and accurate way you frame your questions up?

So Cecelia.
Simple question...easy to answer.

Do you side with the overwhelming consensus of the science community concerning global warming...
or do you side with the small minority?

If you disagree that it's a small minority...prove it.

( going back to Copernicus and Galileo's time is not proving anything.)
You strike me as a pretty smart woman...you must know you have nowhere to run on this question...thus your most recent post about framing the question.

Thinking out loud...

How are you going to spin all the facts..about species dying, ice caps melting on the warming issue?

All of this is an "Inconvenient Truth" for you isn't it ?

Tough admitting you are wrong.
Kinda like Bush when he couldn't think of anything he did wrong.

I am not in a choir, codas. I respond to ideas and comments expressed on this site as they come. When a poster makes an erroneous claim like, "[Bush is] stifling science" I am going to respond because it is a lie.

There have been no talking points from anyone in my responses....I enjoy discussing/debating reasonable people. I call a spade a spade.....if someone is advocating from a secular humanism perspective, I am calling them on it. If they do not agree with my conclusion, then they have the same opportunity to post their side. If I characterize their position as anti-american or dangerous, they can post a rebuttal. No harm or foul.

I have been called inbred, idiotic, stupid, a sheep, a robot, brainwashed, repressed, fanatical, etc. No foul there as far as I am concerned. They are inaccurate descriptions, but I don't take it personally.

Bob---
OK fine...global warming exists...
even your studies have a hard time proving that man had anything to do with it, much less that man can do anything to stop it...

BTW I know from intimate experience how science works. do you?

the computer model that show what will happen to us as time progresses are very interesting...and very flawed...when they go back even 30 years as their starting point, they cannot accurately match what is going on even today!!! yet these same guys who can barely be accurate with the weather over a seven day period are absolutely correct beyond the shadow of a doubt looking 20, 30 or 50 years into the future...how do you KNOW they are correct...are you from 2056?

Also, as far as science works, it is generally the back and forth of scientific debate that advances knowledge...even if the otherr guy is a crackpot like galileo, copernicus, mendel, newton, einstein...prove them wrong and do not silence them, but prove them wrong again and have others come up with the same findings...then an idea is accepted as faqct scientifically (at least for a while (see:"there is nothing smaller than an atom", "it is impossible to go faster than the spped of sound" etc)...let the crackpots prove themselves to be crack pots

BTW...thanks for bringing up Al Gore's mockumentary
you do realize of course there have been scientists on your side (belief in global climate change, not global warming, that way they can take into account various inconsistencies) that have called some of the studies sited in his ouvre as junk science, right?

Bob,

I stated my feelings about the global warming issue above...but of course they weren't something you could run up the flag pole and salute it as a capitulation so you ignored them.

I said:

"As for global warming and taking it seriously, there's room for improvement on both sides. That territory has just now gotten out of the hands of the anti-capitalist far left, into more reasoned and less hyperbolic discussion."

Bob, you know perfectly well, you aren't asking a question in any real sense. You're merely harping on this precisely because you DO think that any sort of caveat about global warming initiatives and even the issue of how global warming is defined can be portrayed as tantamount to running from the issue, because the UN says so. You know perfectly well you don't want an answer or a discussion. You want a bludgeon. You want to be able to say "minority" several more times.

Well, whatever floats your boat, but don't expect me to take you or your questions seriously and to do anything more than toy with you.

And after all the words you have cranked out you still have not answered my first question.

If one uses the Computer Models that are predicting Global Warming and use them to explain recent global weather anolamies, this programs can not predict what actually occured. It predicts different scenarios. So, how do you place such fervent faith in those predictions.

I most certainly did.I specifically answered your question.I'll tell you again:
With the data and facts collected by the best scientists in the world.
It's not an opinion that hundreds of species are dying..it's not an opinion that the ice caps are melting...it's not an opinion that we've have 18 of the 20th warmest years in recorded history.
We've seen with the population of the world increasing every year, you don't have to go out on a limb to see it's a dangerous trend and not going to improve.
unless we take some solid, concrete action NOW.

I'll err on the side of caution.You'd rather wait until we've reached the point of no return.

Your view: Do nothing...while the earth keeps heating up, droughts and flooding increases,species disappear never to seen from again..etc.

Why is that the saner approach?

Now answer MY question.

Also...you are ignoring that most of Europe and parts of Asia have already taken steps to combat global warming.
Shall we wait until the water is up to our noses?

I'm not will to take that chance and ignore all the evidence.
Why are you ?
Why do you think we have science for Christ sakes?
Yes, I trust scientists when they come up with a consensus as serious as our planet's future.
the fact that you don't...is ..simply ridiculous..thus why none of your bushlovin buddies can explain why they don't.

24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=

Ocean Cooling Confounds Climate Models
Climate Science, August 14, 2006
A new study of ocean temperatures indicates significant cooling over the years 2003-2005. This unexpected result has implications for climate models. As Roger Pielke SR of Colorado State University says, "The explanation of this temporal change in the radiative imbalance of the Earth’s climate system is a challenge to the climate science community. It does indicate that we know less about natural- and human-climate forcings and feedbacks than concluded in the IPCC Reports."

Scientists wake up to EU's Kyoto failure
Planet Ark, World Environment News
The European Union is doing too little to achieve its goal of limiting global warming although it portrays itself as a world leader, some academics say..."Everyone talks about 2 degrees as if we were on target," said Kevin Anderson, climate scientist at Britain's Tyndall Centre. "EU and UK rhetoric is relatively strong but the policy is completely inadequate, and they're the best there is."

23. Carbon-Emissions Trading. The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as “effective” on p. 252, has crashed.

This "global warming" thing... what Watt is what?

JunkScience.com
October 27, 2006

Edited for formatting October 27, 28
Supplemental expansion boxes added October 27, 28
Switched IPCC TAR mirror link references from www.grida.no (oddly unavailable) to pame.arctic-council.org October 30
Comments on comments added November 10.
In global warming and climate studies, figures are often given in Watts per meter squared (Wm-2) -- what does that mean? Surface warming ratios are variously cited as 0.1 °C per Wm-2 forcing through 1.0 °C per Wm-2 -- and most everything in between -- which ones make sense? Are climate models programmed with reasonable assumptions on cause and effect? How is the world actually responding? Have claims of "the smoking gun for global warming" been validated? We'll try to sort it all out for you.

http://www.junkscience.com/fox/milloy123005.htm

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

The Known Consequences of Global Warming Hysteria

The man-made global warming hypothesis is far from being confirmed by observations, many of which suggest that it is false. Environmental daydreamers try to make it seem axiomatic that imaginary dangers of this warming should be remedied without waiting for proof. In fact, they ask that the scientific uncertainty should become a basis for worldwide regulation, which may enormously burden the people of the world, especially in developing countries. F.B. Cross, pro-fessor of business regulation at the University of Texas, warned that "the precautionary principle is deeply perverse in its implications for the environment and hurnan welfare." 94 To fulfil their dreams, however, environmentalists are ready to pay any costs: to impoverish entire nations and thus endanger the environment; to destroy the industry created by the toil and sweat of their forefathers: and to strangle our civilization. It is astonishing how easily and credulously a large part of society, exposed to concentrated media manipulation, has accepted the global warming mythology. One can understand the psychological and social reasons for this acceptance. However, the actions of the United Nations Organization and many governments, leading the Earth’s community into an economic and civilizational disaster, on the ground of a wanton specter, do not seem responsible. Is it perhaps too much to ask politicians to act reasonably, instead of for selfish, short-term interests?

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

OK fine...global warming exists...

Man...did you pop a blood vessel in admitting
that ?

even your studies have a hard time proving that man had anything to do with it, much less that man can do anything to stop it.

Wrong again...Co2 and other pollutants is the cause...
The solution?
less production of CO2.
I hate to make it so simple for you...but it really is.

This is not exactly breaking news.
Where have you been ?
Why do you think hybrid cars and alternative energy sources are all the rage?

Your answers reveal a startling lack of information on this topic.
You're not alone. People do need to be educated.
Unfortunately, you Bushlovers only adhere to the GOP talking points..thus why you are so uninformed.

Eco whackos strike out on Consensus bid one more time.
EDMONTON JOURNAL - 25 October 2002

The majority not always right: Most scientists see global warming, but it's just a show of hands

Lorne Gunter

Scientific truth is never determined by a show of hands. So it matters not a jot what the majority of scientists believe about global warming - if they're wrong.

The other day, a friend and colleague, whom I admire even if I usually disagree with him, argued, "If you have 853 scientists over here who say global warming is happening, and three over here say maybe it isn't, that's pretty convincing."

Not to me.

He was exaggerating the ratio of believers to skeptics - "a bit." But his central contention was that scientific consensus favours the global warming theory, so the skeptics can be dismissed.

Well, no they can't be - if they're right.

If you insist on being impressed by numbers, go to www.oism.org/pproject, Website of the Oregon Petition Project. There you can view the signatures of more than 17,000 scientists who dispute the science behind global warming alarmism. That's nearly seven times as many scientists as worked on the UN's last pro-Kyoto, climate change report.

http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1430.htm

Bob...last one...a list of the very few in the minority:

Anti Global Warming Petition

Names by State

States: AK, AL, AP, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, PR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY

http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/listbystate.htm

The solution?
less production of CO2.
Posted by: Bob at November 14, 2006 02:25 PM
------
you want to volunteer to stop exhaling...

educate yourself...check out just a few of the items posted

Connor..you are funny.
Opinions are like a--holes..everyone has one.

The point you and the others refuse to believe? admit ? ..is that the important word is "consensus".
You are going to find your stray business person( give me a break, you can't find the motivation there?)
or scientist...some that are paid off by the oil companies..HmmmmmmmmI wonder where the oil companies stand in fixing global warming...

1600 scientists met to give their findings.The majority of the science community is in agreement on this issue.
We have startling evidence of how it's affecting our planet NOW..,..of which I have listed just a few examples.

You mentioned Al Gore's movie. Did you see it?..or just reading the right wing blogs?

I am putting this issue to rest b/c obviously I have seen the pigheadedness of the right on this important issue and it ain't pretty.

This matter affects every living thing, whether or not you play ostrich with the issue.

"Best to give up rhyme for accuracy anyway, SLEEZEBALL."

Agreed. you big LUSH!

you want to volunteer to stop exhaling...

From the ridiculous to the sublime.

Did human beings exhale before the internal combustion engine?

So what's different now ?

So the millions of automobiles and factories across the world have nothing to do with the increase of CO2 ?

Social Studies 101.

more than just stray business men here:
http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/listbystate.htm

counter point to your consensus argument here:
http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1430.htm

Bobby boy-
please check these items out among the others i posted here oh so quickly...many more to be had...

or you can simply ignore them the way you have any other point that's been brought up

(personally my favorite was your discounting of Galileo and Copernicus because they are not of your "time"---not because they were right in the face of near absolute consensus in the wrong)

All you have been doing is simply re-stating generalizations with very few facts...saying you are responding to points made against you when you are not (see computer modeling argument)...saying there is a consensus, when there is not...oh and yaeh, calling it global warming when those among you have moved on to global climate change

Enjoy life in your flat earth centered universe Bob!

All of this because Bob made the grand statement that republicans are anti-science....well, I'm satisfied.

Connor...concerning your anti global warming petition...
How many of these people are scientists?

Just b/c someone has a PhD doesn't make them a expert on global warming.

I'll trust the experts.
Your children's and grandchildren's life may depend on it.

Sad how you are so cavelier with their health and lives.

You are fighting a losing proposition here.

I even read the comment from your link that said CO2 is actually good for the environment!

Let's have a show of hands of scientists that agree with that ditty !

You guys make for some good comic relief !

Psssssstttt...CONSENSUS.

counter point to your consensus argument here:
http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1430.htm

Connor uses a right wing whacko site from 2002.
You can't be serious.
You're countering the majority of the science community with a right wing site from 2002 ?

You've lost all credibility( not that you had any)

From Cee..

All of this because Bob made the grand statement that republicans are anti-science....well, I'm satisfied.

How do you justify many officials from previous Republican and Democratic administrations saying just that.
The Bush Administration is anti-science!

I forgot..you're satisfied.
Doesn't take much to satisfy you.
Too funny for words !

I admit defeat. One can not argue with a dearly held faith in an article of someone elses religion.

Are the icecaps melting? Possibly. But they have melted and reformed throughout the earth's history. There was a time when the entire world was buried in ice. The activity of the sun waxing and waning, the little wobbles that change the earth's orientation to the sun and volcano activity and continental plates crashing together all have affected the amount and placement of ice through billions of years of the earth's history.

And all of a sudden man has figured out why and how to stop it. On the basis of a hundred years or so of some temperture increases. And this increase is folloowing a five hundred year long ice age.

Man has not indentified all the species and tabulated how many have died off, much less what caused them to die off.

The history of the world has always been that some die off and others take their place. And the ongoing and sometimes mass extinctions over hundreds of millions of years were not caused by man. How old is modern man?

You might want to google new species and see the number of hits addressing new species and extinct species.

And have you ever wondered what changes, if any, man might cause by artificially propping up species that in the natural scheme of things would have died off.

Now, if you confine yourself to either one of the mutually exclusive charges you make. I am either engaging in herd activity to bolster my self esteem OR I am a shrill minority going against all the right thinking scientists and world.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

And you STILL have not explained upon what basis you trust Global Weather changes using models that can not predict B, which is a known quantity, from A, another known quantity. If these models fail using all knowns why do you refuse to accept that they might be just as wrong in predicting the unknown.

Consensus

in the pre civil war south the consensus was that blacks were only good to be slaves

from 1994 to 2006 the consensus was that the republicans should be in charge of both houses of congress

prior to Chuck Yeager's flight the consensus was that man could not travel fater than the speed of sound

prior to 1900, the consensus was that man could not fly

prior to columbus, the consensus was that the earth was flat or at best he would sial straight to india, either way the north & south american continents did not exist

prior to darwin, the consensus was that mankind was created by god

prior to steve jobs experiment in his garage, the consensus was that computers would always be huge room size items

prior to jimmy carters election, the consensus was he would be a good change from the Nixon Ford era

should I go on or do you still believe that the majority is proof of correctness?

BTW plants need co2 to survive so they can change it into o2

Agreed. you big LUSH!

Double AGREED! :D

Man's ability to manage the environment is horrid at best: see the history of managing Yellowstone national park

To all the Cs. Any new word on our Safe from Global Devestation for good repubs and Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter clones.

You see Bob, that is why we lie about global warming. The future of the earth won't affect us.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

And you STILL have not explained upon what basis you trust Global Weather changes using models that can not predict B, which is a known quantity, from A, another known quantity. If these models fail using all knowns why do you refuse to accept that they might be just as wrong in predicting the unknown.

"Double AGREED! :D"

triple AGREED!

"tipple" AGREED!

(clinking glass with Janet)

Connor : All you have been doing is simply re-stating generalizations with very few facts...saying you are responding to points made against you when you are not (see computer modeling argument)...saying there is a consensus, when there is not.

You obviously haven't read my posts or you are as disingenuous as you sound.

So why do you try to make it seem as if there is major scientific disagreement on global warming ? The reason is because a few noisy skeptics... most of whom are not even scientists .. have generated a lot of chatter in the mass media. At the National Press Club recently, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen dismissed the consensus as "religious belief." To be sure, no scientific conclusion can ever be proven, absolutely, but it is no more a "belief" to say that Earth is heating up than it is to say that continents move, that germs cause disease, that DNA carries hereditary information or that quarks are the basic building blocks of subatomic matter. You can always find someone, somewhere, to disagree, but these conclusions represent our best available science, and therefore our best basis for reasoned action.

I'll say this one last time.You can believe right wing whacko sites and lone wolf scientists or you can believe NASA, Scientific American,National Academy of Sciences,The American Meteorological Society , the American Geophysical Union, American Association for the Advancement of Science ,United Nations Environmental Programme,Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change etc. etc.

Our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

The chatter of skeptics is distracting us from the real issue: how best to respond to the threats that global warming presents.

The fact that you Bushies haven't even gotten there yet...is your problem.

"'tipple' AGREED!

(clinking glass with Janet)"

Oh what the hell. I'll have what their having.

Hey Bob, cultish isn't it. They cannot be wrong.

And you STILL have not explained upon what basis you trust Global Weather changes using models that can not predict B, which is a known quantity, from A, another known quantity. If these models fail using all knowns why do you refuse to accept that they might be just as wrong in predicting the unknown.

To my special ed friend who didn't get it the last 2 times I answered.
I'm not indulging you again.
My answer is this:

Because if all the scientists are wrong( highly unlikely)we erred on the side of caution.
If they are right...and they probably are..the future of the planet is at stake.

So (un) noble of you to take that chance with life as we know it on this planet.

GOP News Watch
( or more succinctly GOP comedy hour )

Newly Elected Conservative Rep Bachmann: "My No. 1 Goal Is To Not Go To Jail."

The bar has dropped considerably for the Neo-cons !

Tipping my wine glass...Clink clink.

Bob stated:

"Because if all the scientists are wrong( highly unlikely)we erred on the side of caution.
If they are right...and they probably are..the future of the planet is at stake."

"So (un) noble of you to take that chance with life as we know it on this planet."

OK -- now if you could just extend that logic to the war on terror, you might make sense, Bobby. You see, "Global Warming" is far less likely to harm us than Iran with a nuke. So why are you lefties able to worry about the pie in the sky possibility while ignoring the rabid jihadists who is trying to kill you? Bush went to war based on better data than the Global Warming wackos have, yet he is evil? Can't you just use the same argument for the Iraq war (and for intervention in Iran)?:

"Because if all Bush and Cheney are wrong( highly unlikely)we erred on the side of caution.
If they are right...and they probably are..the future of the planet is at stake."

"So (un) noble of you to take that chance with life as we know it on this planet."

Of course this argument will hit your metal head and fall lifeless on your keyboard.

We are a cult, Codas. We have the number of the beast--1600 (Bob's swarm of scientists) tattooed into our hairlines and we call ourselves the Cult of the Anti-Crisis...

"Newly Elected Conservative Rep Bachmann: "My No. 1 Goal Is To Not Go To Jail."

The bar has dropped considerably for the Neo-cons !"

Michele Bachmann is a NEOCON????

(Should we have known by her last name, Bob?)

Got you. Your basis is that just because it has never been right in accounting for known events does not mean that, just like a blind hog, even it can sometimes find an acorn.

And on this basis you want to turn the world upside down without a thought to those consequences.

And the fact that I favor a wait and see approach while scientifically exploring all possible avenues is because I am dyslexic. And the fact that I believe mankind should be working towards considering as many different possible futures and ways of surviving with the least pain and suffering for all makes me narrow minded.

Your policy strikes me as a full steam ahead approach and if I'm charging hell bent for leather in the wrong direction, not my fault. I just believed what every one in the MSM told me to believe. Its not my fault that the only thing I heard was exactly what I wanted to believe.

In an area as virtually unlimited as global climate and the myriads of things that contribute to it your certitude is incomprehensible to me.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

OK -- now if you could just extend that logic to the war on terror, you might make sense, Bobby. You see, "Global Warming" is far less likely to harm us than Iran with a nuke. So why are you lefties able to worry about the pie in the sky possibility while ignoring the rabid jihadists who is trying to kill you? Bush went to war based on better data than the Global Warming wackos have, yet he is evil? Can't you just use the same argument for the Iraq war (and for intervention in Iran)?:

The answer is no,,of course not.

And my logic on global warming makes perfect sense ! You know that too.
But since you put party over country, you can't bear to agree with me.

And your generalizations on lefties prove you flunked Logic 101.

No "lefties" ever said we shouldn't fight the war on terror.The godawful way your Bush administration has gone about it, is another story.

Bush went to war to revenge 9/11. The idiot just attacked the wrong country.The 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia.
Afghanistan was appropriate and no one disagreed with that.
But Iraq...Iraq...his obesssion with Iraq has created an resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan..like we were never even there.

So are you OW flunkies still part of the 15% of Americans who believe going into Iraq was a good idea?

Iraq is a disaster.Funny how you don't mention that.( the dirty little secret that Bushies can't mention)

Thank You Keith for keeping to remind us how many days it's been since Bush proclaimed " Mission Acccomplished."

The Civil war in Iraq is putting our troops in the crossfire. October was one the bloodiest months of the war.
Let me guess you OW flunkies believe in staying the course!
Even the White House had to change that propaganda slogan b/c even they realized how ridiculous it is to stay the course when you're losing.

The election was about 3 things:( mostly)
Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.
This is why you lost.

Anyone of you neo-nuts have the integrity yet to admit you were wrong about this War in Iraq?

Bob,

My response, "All of this because Bob made the grand statement that republicans are anti-science....well, I'm satisfied." was in response to what I thought would have been your last post on the subject....ending....

"I am putting this issue to rest b/c obviously I have seen the pigheadedness of the right on this important issue and it ain't pretty."

But alas, there is no end.....I tried to argue that people disagree about the issues based on scientific principle, including republicans. People also disagree based on social, moral, religious and cultural principles. Just because I may be against the use of nascent human life in scientific experimentation does not make me anti-science. You may try to demagogue the issue and call me anti-science, but you would be lying. The same can be said with regard to global climate change. If this is "pigheadedness" or "cult-like behavior," than I guess I have missed something.

Your political colleagues may have won a majority in the legislative branch of the federal government, but do not assume the majority of the country agrees with the far left wing of the democratic party. To do so will surely result in another dramatic change in 2008. (One can only hope and pray!)

I am now satisfied that I tried to show that I am a thinking, rational and kind person who just happens to support The President on major issues.

With regards to the, "last throes," statement...
the VP was confronted with this silliness 2 months ago.

Dick Cheney on MEET THE PRESS 9/10/06:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, Tim, I think people obviously are frustrated, because of the difficulty, because of the cost, because of the casualties, but you cannot look at Iraq in isolation. You have to look at it within the context of the broader, global war on terror. Remember what we’ve been involved in here. We’ve been involved in Afghanistan, take down the Taliban, stand up to the regime, etc. Pakistan, we’ve gone in and worked closely with Musharraf to take down al-Qaeda. Saudi Arabia, same thing. In all of those cases, it’s been a matter of getting the locals into the fight to prevail over al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda-related tyrants.

Now comes Iraq. Now we’ve got people saying, “Gee, get out of Iraq. You ought to pack it in and go home. It’s unrelated.” Now you’ve got hundreds of thousands, millions of people out there who have staked their fate in some extent on the United States. Think of all those people who turned out in the face of assassins and car bombers to vote. Think of the hundreds of thousands of folks who’ve signed on to the security forces of Iraq and Afghanistan. Think of Musharraf who puts his neck on the line every day he goes to work, when there’ve been attempts on his life because of his support for our position. And they look over here and they see the United States that’s made a commitment to the Iraqis, that’s gone in and taken down the old regime, worked to set up a democracy, worked to set up security forces, and all of a sudden we say it’s too tough, we’re going home. What’s Karzai going to think up in Kabul? Is he going to have any confidence at all that he can trust the United States, that in fact we’re there to get the job done? What about Musharraf? Or is Musharraf and those people you’re talking about who are on the fence in Afghanistan and elsewhere going to say, “My gosh, the United States hasn’t got the stomach for the fight. Bin Laden’s right, al-Qaeda’s right, the United States has lost its will and will not complete the mission,” and it will damage our capabilities and all of those other war fronts, if you will, in the global war on terror.

MR. RUSSERT: But the alternative view is that this has been a fundamental set of misjudgment, there were no weapons of mass destruction, there was no linkage of Iraq to September 11 and that there’s a, there’s a disconnect between rhetoric and reality. I want to go back to May 30, 2005, when you said to the American people and to the world,

****“I think the level of activity [in Iraq] that we see today, from a military standpoint, I think will clearly decline. I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.”

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I think there’s no question, Tim, that the insurgency’s gone on longer and been more difficult that I had anticipated. I’ll be the first to admit that. But I also think when we look back on this period of time 10 years from now—and this is the context in which I made that statement last year—that 2005 will have been the turning point. Because that’s the point at which the Iraqis stepped up and established their own political process, wrote a constitution, held three national elections, and basically took on the responsibility for their own fate and their future.

The VP states the truth. He admits that he was wrong about his initial assessment of the insurgency (despite what the left says) and that the insurgency is now the tool of the enemy to defeat and humiliate The United States.

If we leave these people in Iraq to fend for themselves, we have NO HONOR. The insurgency is now the test for our new Congress....let's see what Pelosi and Co. want to do.

It echos in the House chamber......

Cheney's words.....

“My gosh, the United States hasn’t got the stomach for the fight. Bin Laden’s right, al-Qaeda’s right, the United States has lost its will and will not complete the mission,” and it will damage our capabilities and all of those other war fronts, if you will, in the global war on terror.

Grammie...there are so many holes with your arguments that I'm not going to even attempt to list them.
I've wasted too much time on you Flat Earth Society Members.
You love to spit in the face of our best scientists b/c of ...I guess financial reasons....you and your ilk never have made that clear.
Wait and see ...wait and see...
How many more species must perish before you catch a clue?
Maybe when the 2008 GOP nominee comes out for sanity on the global warming issue, then you'll change your mind.( my guess)

"The don't call it global warming anymore, they call it climate change".
I guess semantics is more important to you than the actual problem.

Anyone of you neo-nuts have the integrity yet to admit you were wrong about this War in Iraq?

Posted by: Bob at November 14, 2006 04:43 PM

No Bob. The sun will melt the earth before you will see the words "Yes I admit that Bush was wrong about Iraq and global warming is for real". There is no chance. None. Zero. Their heads would explode if they ever see how far from truth they really are.

To all the Cs in this discussion, Grammie calling. I'm really excited. I think that I have irrefutable proof of a hitherto unknown scientific truth. The main premise is ROCK SOLID:

Those who disagree in any way with KO and his world wide minions are ALWAYS WRONG.

I need a little help though in mapping out the subsets of why we are ALWAYS so dead wrong. The evidence and concommittant universal phrases are so numerous and wide ranging that it will take more than one liitle old lady to catergorize.

Just to throw a few obversations out there, I've definitely observed the following:

Stupidity - universal among KO dissenters. See especially any disagreement with a select scientific community.

Evilness - many duplicate subsets. Ask any KO fan.

Brain Washing - universal. From Rove, to Rush, to Coulter, to Cee, to Cecelia, to Conner, to my dear departed Chubby Hubby and many others.

Greed - a few truths I have confirmed are war proffiteers, Halliburton and Fox News.

Sadism - I need help on this one. It does seem to be a weak corrollary to some of the above. As always, open to debate, er scratch that, open to the instructions through our tin foil hats.

Alledged 'terrorism' - can be found in KO's rants. No justification from the nonexistent

Christian - not only wrong but also a believer in the WRONG faith.

I can't tell you how much better I feel now that I know the truth according to KO and his minions.

No more reading and sifting through divergent opinions. And no more having the audacity to question my high minded betters. The relief of acquiesing to the true faith.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Bob concluded....

"The election was about 3 things:( mostly)
Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.
This is why you lost."

NO Bob, that is why YOU WON!

FROM AP 10/14/06.....

"Though voters apparently embraced the Democratic mantra of changing course in Iraq, a majority of the public did not detect a clear Democratic blueprint for ending the war. Fifty-seven percent of all adults in the AP-Ipsos poll said Democrats do not have a plan for Iraq; 29 percent said they do. The poll of 1,002 adults has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

"That finding strikes at the heart of a Democratic dilemma. The party has been of one voice in criticizing President Bush's strategy for the war but has been more equivocal on how to move in a different direction."

I wonder if Olbermann will have anything to say about this early conundrum?

Grammie....

I am beaming a message to your tin foil antennae.....

The two "eds"

Don't forget KO dissenters are also always:

UNREAD and INBRED.

Did you copy that?

If we leave these people in Iraq to fend for themselves, we have NO HONOR. The insurgency is now the test for our new Congress....let's see what Pelosi and Co. want to do.

You republicans have created this godawful mess, and now you want the Democrats to bail you out.
How funny is that !
Let me clue you in....There is no fixing Iraq.
Chimpy invaded a country without even knowing the regional differences. He didn't know a Shiite from a Sunnis.
( Why should a president have a working knowledge of history ? As long as we felt good having a beer with him)
Even though the regional differences existed long before we invaded Iraq, we have made this situation even more unstable, with our soliers getting caught in the crossfire of this civil war.
It 's now a disaster with us there, and it will continue to be a disaster after we leave.
You say we have no honor if we leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves.
So big of you to sacrifice more of our young boys to keep our honor.Not to mention the original goal (Reason #5) was for the Iraqis to hold their own.
As long as we enable them with us there, they will never be able to fend for themselves.
The fact that we have built the largest embassy in the world in Iraq, means (if Bush gets his way, and he doesn't any longer)We have no plans to go anywhere for a long time.
Then there's the corruption:
I was listening to a soldier talk about how he felt about doing the same work , the same job as many Halliburton workers, but they were making 10-20 times the salary he was.
These soldiers are sacrificing and putting their lives on the line and Halliburton comes in there making their billions...and wasting as much.
There has been no oversight into the corruption and billions wasted in that country.
The Republicans just wrote a bill excluding any oversight into this corruption...if you can believe that.
Thank God the Democrats put that high on their list of things to do to make sure there will be oversight into the fraud and corruption.
There needs to be accountability into this mess. The GOP Congress shirked their duty and gave Bush and Halliburton a free rein in that country.
The Bush administration has not been correct about anything they have done in Iraq,yet the spineless GOP Congress just smiled and looked the other way.
And now you want the Democrats to fix everything !
No one is fixing this mess !

It's a shame no democrat ran on your assessment of Iraq, Bob. I guess the American people had it wrong. PESSIMISM HAS WON THE DAY!

Oh well.....America loses another war because people are willing TO accept defeat.

So big of you to sacrifice THOUSANDS of good, trusting Iraqis in fearful reaction to the realities of war.

I can't tell you how much better I feel now that I know the truth according to KO and his minions.

No more reading and sifting through divergent opinions. And no more having the audacity to question my high minded betters. The relief of acquiesing to the true faith.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at November 14, 2006 05:55 PM

Sarcasm may be entertaining but does it show maybe frustration with having to come up with real answers and not just a smack down of the questioner? Your not always wrong. It is just your belief that you are always right that makes it so hard for "you all" to have a discussion without eventualy saying getting to the
your stupid, your silly, why do I answer you, mode that "you all" always end up in.

PESSIMISM HAS WON THE DAY!

Oh well.....America loses another war because people are willing TO accept defeat.

So big of you to sacrifice THOUSANDS of good, trusting Iraqis in fearful reaction to the realities of war.

Posted by: cee at November 14, 2006 06:43 PM

Delusional thinking can lead to bad things. If someone has a gun to your head and is going to pull the trigger it is not pessimistic to think you are about to die. Your leaders walked the military into a strangers house and now has to face the consequences of that stanger being in the house with them. Or rather the military does. Same thing with Vietnam. It is easy to delude your mind and say we didn't try hard enough. Bullshit. 58.000 soldiers died in Vietnam. How many do you need to die in Iraq?

Delusions road is a two way street.....it is easy to delude your mind and say we did the right thing abandoning millions of trusting South Vietnamese to the slaughter and tyranny of the Viet Cong.

Hurrah for Islamic Terrorism.

Hurrah for Islamic Terrorism.

Posted by: cee at November 14, 2006 07:40 PM

More sarcastic dishonesty. Who said Hurrah for Islamic terrorism? You people do this time and time again. So I am the enemy because I am not a republican. You are a liar and a hypocrite.

A letter to the editor of my college alumni magazine:

About three years ago, I visited the
Hanoi Hilton. Nearby was a “war crimes”
museum, in which large pictures of Jane
Fonda and John Kerry were posted.
Above was the text, “These are our
friends. They understand us.”

After the war, the third-ranking official
of the Vietnamese regime proclaimed, “We
did not win the war on the battlefield; we
won it on the streets of America, where, in
a few days’ time, we could call out many
thousands of demonstrators to promote
our cause.”

Such movements were with us in the
1930s and 1940s also, but “progressive”
historians should find it disconcerting
that the rage for “give peace a chance”
dropped off dramatically after the draft
was terminated. Does this not say
something significant about the real
agenda of the valiant non-warriors?

Prior to World War II, the peace
crowd was an integral part of U.S. unpreparedness, even though the Japanese
clearly were increasing as a dire threat.
Those old enough may remember the
cries of “peace at any price” and “better
red than dead.”

Peace movements are effective, but the
effect is to encourage malefactors and to
sap the commitment of their adversaries.
Strength and readiness and will are what
“give peace a chance.” Thankfully, there are
still those military “angels with dirty faces”
out on the point around the world to
ensure that the progressive peaceniks
have the great privilege to demonstrate
their naïveté as they reach for “feel good”
and the high moral ground.

I think this letter sums up my feelings about Bob's and codas' conclusions.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Or as you would say about what jesus taught Hurah for Islamic terrorism. Would you stone him to death or have him waterboaded?

My son, if sinners shall entice thee, consent not to them.

1:11. If they shall say: Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood, let us hide snares for the innocent without cause:

1:12. Let us swallow him up alive like hell, and whole as one that goeth down into the pit.

1:13. We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoils.

1:14. Cast in thy lot with us, let us all have one purse.

1:15. My son, walk not thou with them, restrain thy foot from their paths.

1:16. For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood.

1:17. But a net is spread in vain before the eyes of them that have wings.

1:18. And they themselves lie in wait for their own blood, and practise deceits against their own souls.

1:19. So the ways of every covetous man destroy the souls of the possessors.

Cee, it is so unreasonable of you to expect that the PARTY OF THE RIGHTEOUS have an idea of how to cure the PESTILENCE left by the Evil Republicans.

To quote Bob above:

"The Bush administration has not been correct about anything they have done in Iraq,yet the spineless GOP Congress just smiled and looked the other way.
And now you want the Democrats to fix everything !"

You know the truth of it. Whatever unfolds is OUR fault. They will hopefully finally formulate a policy. And if this policy causes more harm than good their hands are clean.

Well, no Bob. I neither expect nor anticipate that you will fix anything. As usual your pre game plan is unbeatable. You will be the savior or you will be blameless because no one could correct the morass that you took over.

I have asked this question many times and have yet to have anyone answer.

What is your solution and what outcomes do you expect as a result.

I am polishing up my 20/20 hindsight glasses so I don't miss anything.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

That most be a soothing philosophy. No matter what I do I am always blameless.

cee,

if you want to justify rejecting peace in your mind, you do it. That is the result of being brainwashed by endtimes books and pastors who think they are Gods gift. Jesus said Blessed are the peacmakers and you say war is the answer. You don't deny that it is and even call those who seek peace terrorists. I feel sorry for you cee.

Codas, I gave up discussing biblical exegesis with you weeks ago. The passages you like to use for rhetorical exercise are nice for bumper stickers, but we both know The Way goes a lot deeper.

Let's make a deal....If you are willing to live by all of the beatitudes I'll get together with you and we'll both go over to Iraq and live them out. You ready? Those two at the end are particularly challenging....

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Ready to be His representative 100% of the time....24/7, codas?

Ready to be His representative 100% of the time....24/7, codas?

Posted by: cee at November 14, 2006 08:40 PM

No. Neither are you but you are the one that claims to be born again and fighting against secularists. You are just as scared as everyone else is and you trust in the gun more than God. Just admit it. Are you spiritualy superior in ANY way? No. I don't claim to be either but when I am confronted with those who claim they are persucuted for his name sake and then call peacful loving people friends of terrorists than I know what I am dealing with. If it comes down to his way or your neck you choose a gun.

Keith is the liberal version of Rush LimBla Bla Bla. I happen to respect him and his thoughts and at least he tells the truth. Rush is an Oxycontin addict and lies about everything. He is so mad right now because of the "Blue Wave" he is squirming like the lowlife worm he is . If you don't like Olberman don't frigging watch him you sad sore losers. Now you know how we felt in 04

Keith is the liberal version of Rush LimBla Bla Bla. I happen to respect him and his thoughts and at least he tells the truth. Rush is an Oxycontin addict and lies about everything. He is so mad right now because of the "Blue Wave" he is squirming like the lowlife worm he is . If you don't like Olberman don't frigging watch him you sad sore losers. Now you know how we felt in 04

Keith is the liberal version of Rush LimBla Bla Bla. I happen to respect him and his thoughts and at least he tells the truth. Rush is an Oxycontin addict and lies about everything. He is so mad right now because of the "Blue Wave" he is squirming like the lowlife worm he is . If you don't like Olberman don't frigging watch him you sad sore losers. Now you know how we felt in 04

1:24. Because I called, and you refused: I stretched out my hand, and there was none that regarded.

1:25. You have despised all my counsel, and have neglected my reprehensions.

1:26. I also will laugh in your destruction, and will mock when that shall come to you which you feared.

1:27. When sudden calamity shall fall on you, and destruction, as a tempest, shall be at hand: when tribulation and distress shall come upon you:

1:28. Then shall they call upon me, and I will not hear: they shall rise in the morning, and shall not find me:

1:29. Because they have hated instruction, and received not the fear of the Lord,

1:30. Nor consented to my counsel, but despised all my reproof.

1:31. Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way, and shall be filled with their own devices.

1:32. The turning away of little ones shall kill them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.

1:33. But he that shall hear me, shall rest without terror, and shall enjoy abundance, without fear of evils.

Codas, you are remarkable in your persistent obtuseness. You said:
==========================
"Sarcasm may be entertaining but does it show maybe frustration with having to come up with real answers and not just a smack down of the questioner? Your not always wrong. It is just your belief that you are always right that makes it so hard for "you all" to have a discussion without eventualy saying getting to the
your stupid, your silly, why do I answer you, mode that "you all" always end up in.

Posted by: codas at November 14, 2006 07:24 PM"
==========================

Yep, I just pulled all these ad hominem attacks out of the air. No KO fan ever refuted my opinion solely with these mild examples and dozens of additional more reprehensible ones.

And my SARCASM offends you. Codas, if I offend you lets pray that you don't get on the wrong side of lady Rump of lamb, blogger doe, o'leily, coward, blind rat and any other number of intellectual giants who resort first, last and always to the vilest ad hominem attacks that their stuck on filth brains wallow in.

I have never called you stupid and silly. I have questioned your reasoning ability based on stream of consciousness quotes taken directly from you. You are so often sloppy with language, ramdom insults scattered about and non sequitors that a reasonable person can hardly ignore it.

And need I remind you of your boast to Cecelia, I think, that you have been waiting for this day to gloat and that you have been vindicated by the American people speaking and kicking us out and a new day has dawned and we better realize it and....what, Codas?

Codas, the impression you leave me with is that short of the world acquiesencing and bowing down to your perceived greatness nothing will satisfy you.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

And, Codas, please spare me the biblical and religious sermons and exhortations. It has amazed me that I am so frequently accused of being an evil rascist fundy Christonazi bigot. I challenge you to find once where I cited this as an authority for what I said. Based on a totally different foundation I frequently find myself at the same conclusions as religious people.

In my mind this is neutral. It is neither a condemnation nor accolade.

Codas, the impression you leave me with is that short of the world acquiesencing and bowing down to your perceived greatness nothing will satisfy you.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Now your getting the idea. Seriously Janet. I know you don't call me stupid and silly, that is cecelia's job, and you are someone I have come to respect here. Cecelia makes me nuts and maybe it is because she has felt insulted from others here that she feels she needs to do the stomp on me even when I am trying to agree with here on some things. You seem to not be afraid to agree or disagree.

keith is great

Hey Bob, cultish isn't it. They cannot be wrong.

Posted by: codas at November 14, 2006 03:56 PM
---------
Code....buddy...take a look at my posts...
I have done nothing but stand up for the scientific give and take that , generally, takes place in that arena...by this very tool which science uses to advance our knowledge, there is every chance I could be wrong as well...our friend Bob is the one taking an absolutist postion...or are you not including me in your "They"

PS did you ever get a chance to read that article by orson scott card? I was very interested in your perceptions/reactions/conclusions...

Clapton is God

or are you not including me in your "They"

PS did you ever get a chance to read that article by orson scott card? I was very interested in your perceptions/reactions/conclusions...

Posted by: Connor at November 14, 2006 10:46 PM

No connor. I don't put you in the same box as some here. What was that link again?

"Clapton is God."

He just may be....but Derek Trucks is a better guitarist.

This opinion was taken from someone who knows.
Eric himself !

TDF

And do you want to hear something strange?
Vince Gill is probably as good as either of them.He's just not as flashy.
This opinion comes from most musicians in the industry that have played with him.

Good segment on Scarborough Country tonight on Bill Maher outing closeted republican politicans.
The discussion centered around them being hypocrites if they blast gays and fight to curtail their rights and then live that lifestyle themselves in their personal life....as opposed their own right to privacy no matter what.
We've been finding out that many of the self righteous republican politicans that have been demonizing gays for years have been fudge packers themselves.

This is too good not to share:

FOX NEWS INTERNAL MEMO:
"Be On The Lookout For Any Statements From The Iraqi Insurgents'Thrilled At The Prospect Of A Dem Controlled Congress."

This Fox News memo was written by the network's Vice President of news. The memo details Fox's game plan the day Democrats won control of both the Senate and the House.

You mean they're not fair and balanced ?

Nice, Bob.

So in other words, if you're gay and not a liberal, other liberals will go against their espoused views on privacy and have the fact that your gay broadcasted in print or aired on television.

As a human being, who also happens to be gay, you're not allowed the most basic of human rights-- the right to formulate your own views of the world and work out your own political beliefs without being made a public spectacle.

No in order to merit basic privacy, you must think a particular way, because the champions of human rights have you under threat. They'll broadcast your private life via the media, because you deserve that for having views about traditional society and about sexuality within that society that don't mesh with theirs.

That's not acceptable if you're gay. You're not a human being, you're a political constituency....

...or else....

codas-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/the_only_issue_this_election_d.html

demonizing gays-- does NOT mean that you:

Want gay folks publicly stoned

Want gay folks fired from jobs

Want gay folks jailed for sexual acts

Nope, DEMONIZATION is defined as---

not wanting to change the law for traditional marriage

holding religious precepts that label homosexuality as sinful

not wanting nebulous "civil rights" legislation that might set an intrusive legal precedent for religious and quazi-religious groups

believing that since most same sex sexual acts are practiced by people who are attracted to the opposite sex as well, that nearly all societies have encouraged heterosexual relations and marriage as the foundation for societal atability and continuance

It doesn't take much to "demonize" gay folks. It merely takes not being a liberal....

Here's what is chafing me at the moment, every time someone dares to criticize a liberal and point out any of their misdeeds or flat-out lies, you're accused of "swiftboating" them. The liberals really want no dissent whatsoever unless it's them hurling labels and accusations at conservatives, which of course, is still perfectly acceptable and encouraged.

Right on Cecelia.

If a person wants to support keeping private sexual proclivities private, that is their right unless they are conservative.

I have a wonderful gay couple in my practice. They have been together for 50 years! One is 82, the other is 78. They live together.

They are best friends. That is how they have always described their relationship. They are "roomies"....another description. They have expressed dismay over the entire "outing" trend. In their opinion....it is nobody's business what they do, and they do not seek approval from society. They do not discuss their personal behavior.....ever.

And you know what, when one of them gets sick someday and is dying, I will have NO problem talking to the "friend," because I know he cares about him. No law is needed to give me permission to deal with these fine gentlemen the same way I deal with anyone. They do not want to be married, they do not want "rights." They are happy without being, "out."

The radical left has an issue and passes ad hoc judgement on people who choose not to participate in their "cause." It is intolerant, wrong and evil.

I believe homosexual behavior is a sin. But I am not the judge. I will teach my children both of these values as well.

I hope my children get to meet my patients because they are lovely people. It is not my child's business to know their personal issues, I only know them because I am their doctor. I pray for them just as I pray for all of my patients and myself in struggles of sin.

Am I demonizing anyone?

Didn't Maher try to out Ken Melmann? Can Bob give me an example where Mr. Melmann "blasted" gay people or tried to curtail their rights?

So cecelia is gay but still wants to deny gay people their rights.
Now I've heard everything !
That 's what the show last night was all about.
That particular hypocrisy !

I loved your description of what demonizing gays ISN'T...ESPECIALLY :

"not wanting nebulous "civil rights" legislation that might set an intrusive legal precedent for religious and quazi-religious groups."

There just isn't enough spin in the world for you republicans, is there?

We all know that the GOP is not exactly the "tolerant" party. As a matter of fact we know how they do run out the "gay" issue before ever election and then expect to SCARE their base into forgetting all of their misdeeds and voting their way upon the fear that Mike and Steve will move next door to them.

It's common for republicans to be intolerant of people's rights..especially gays.But I've never heard of a gay person following that jackboot philosophy.Republicans consistently put party over country, but this is the first time I've seen a gay person put party over their own sexuality and people.
You've really opened my eyes , Cecelia, to this new phenominom even though I'm appalled by your betrayal to your own people.

"Your people"

Bob, you are a bigot.

demonizing gays-- does NOT mean that you:

Want gay folks publicly stoned.

You're such a flaming liberal !!!

But seriously...that's a classic line. My gay friends will love that one !

Bob-
are you saying that democrats are the tolerant party? the ones who develop and endorse and enforce political correctness to the point that you can't have free speech and can't express religion...they are tolerant?

Bigot: (Bob) a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

can't have express religion?

Oh really...

where?

Talk about lying !

If you're talking about the separation of church and state...yes...Democrats believe strongly in that....as I do.
You talking about praying in public schools?
Should we have a Christian prayer, then a Jewish prayer , then a Muslim prayer?

You Ow'ers follow the right wing mantra hook , line and sinker don't you?

Bigot: (Bob) a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

The right wing pack of wolves are smelling blood !

I'm a bigot...that's funny.
I'm the least prejudice person on the face of the earth.
You have one of your own OW'ers that is gay but want to deny gays their rights, and I'm the bigot.

I'm glad I've found this site.It's provided me with a week's worth of belly laughs in one day.

Bob,

You are intolerant of someone who wants to keep their personal and private behavior as they want to keep it.....their choice, their opinion....either publicly known and fought for or held in confidence, private.

Read the definition you fool!

There is a difference between being prejudiced and being bigoted, Bob. Learn the difference and then you'll mature as a human being......it's a good thing!

Liberal democrats are the most bigoted people I know. It's "My way, or the highway!"

Liberal democrats are the most bigoted people I know.

Right !

And you hang around with so many , I'm sure !
TDF.

That's why African Americans and gays overwhelmingly vote democratic.

More belly laughs !

The right wingers are now trying to spin the earth off its axis by saying the Republican party is the party of tolerance and the Democrats are bigots, intolerant etc.

Talk about denying the history of your party,including right up to present day !

Delusional.

The spin is so thick around here I'm getting dizzy !

Bob-
are you saying that democrats are the tolerant party? the ones who develop and endorse and enforce political correctness to the point that you can't have free speech and can't express religion...they are tolerant?

Posted by: Sacry Uncle at November 15, 2006 09:38 AM

------
can't have express religion?

Oh really...

where?

Talk about lying !

If you're talking about the separation of church and state...yes...Democrats believe strongly in that....as I do.
You talking about praying in public schools?
Should we have a Christian prayer, then a Jewish prayer , then a Muslim prayer?

You Ow'ers follow the right wing mantra hook , line and sinker don't you?

Posted by: Bob at November 15, 2006 09:44 AM

---------
Well at least we know Bob is athletic as he can jump to conclusions extremely well...see my post and where he took it to

First of all, your non response to PC denying free speech is a welcome admission on your part...

Second, check my post for any mention of school prayer...heck use your browser under "Find..."

...I'l wait while you look

Bob....YOU JUST PROVED CECELIA'S POINT....HA, HA!

C posted: "No in order to merit basic privacy, you must think a particular way, because the champions of human rights have you under threat. They'll broadcast your private life via the media, because you deserve that for having views about traditional society and about sexuality within that society that don't mesh with theirs.

"That's not acceptable if you're gay. You're not a human being, you're a political constituency."

Bob said: "That's why African Americans and gays overwhelmingly vote democratic"

Wow, what a nice way to talk about them people (your own words, you fool).

The most dangerous bigot is the bigot who claims not to be one. That is YOU, Bob.

Hypocrisy by the left is always SO easy to find!

Bob---
you appear to be part of the far left...your wing of your party looks to keep people divded into races and classes and sexes and age levels...you treat treat member of each of the differing areas differently

in my wing of the republican party I don't care in your rich or poor; black, white, red, brown, yellow, etc; male, female, or somewhere in between; old, middle age or young; I want to treat everyone the same...if someone wants to act someway different than me, fine...I don't have to like it and I can say that if I choose the way they can say the same thing about me...I tolerate it...your party has a cow and rips the speaker apart if someone says anything untoward about some diverse person...you do not tolerate the speaker

This is the USA, i don't have to like everything and everyone, but I tolerate them...you cannot even seem to tolerate those of us who call themselves republican, and you think you are tolerant?

Connor,

That article states:

"So ... which America is operating now in the Muslim world?

In Iraq and Afghanistan -- but especially Iraq -- President Bush is behaving according to America's best and most honorable tradition. We did not come to destroy, we came to liberate and rescue, he says -- by word and deed. We bring freedom and opportunity. Our money will help rebuild your devastated (or never built-up) economies; our expertise will help train your most talented people to be ready for prosperity and self-government; and our military will keep enemies from overwhelming you as you reinvent yourselves.

Instead of leaving an empty house, swept clean but unprotected, waiting for the devils of Islamic puritanism to come take over, President Bush has sworn that America will bring democracy, and that American soldiers will do their best to protect the decent, ordinary people until they are able to protect themselves."

I think the idea that America will bring democracy is not being realistic. It aint gonna happen that way. If I believed it was something that could happen, I would support it. All the evidence to me says that we will be trapped forever and made weaker and poorer by the hour. These people need security right now more than democracy. It is a fantasy to believe that we can pull off what this article says.
"Bin Laden predicted it. The Democratic Party in America is following his script exactly."
Another point of view is that Bin Laden baited us into a war that he knows the American people will not support. Bush took the bait. That was his mistake and to blame the democratic party for losing a war because Bush's strategy was flawed is wrong. The idea that this is the best run war in history makes me sure the man that wrote this article has no sense of reality. I could go on......obviously I don't buy what this guy says.

A liberal blogger on dailykos confirms my worst opinion of the left in this country:

"For our men and women in uniform: 1) Body armor NOW. 2) Vehicle armor NOW. 3) Full funding of VA services NOW. 4) Unrelenting pressure on the president NOW to present his "plan" for getting us out of Iraq. (He, not you(the democratic congressional leadership), is the Commander-in-Chief. This is his hot potato.) Our troops have been through---and continue to go through---hell. Let's reverse the Republican course and start showing `em some goddam respect."

Talking points for governance. 1-3 are nice and easy to agree on. #4 is the telling one.

Leadership is doing. What is "unrelenting pressure?" According to the left, the American people put the democrats in charge BECAUSE of Iraq. Unrelenting pressure? What is that again? No plan for victory, not even a plan for surrender. This is a poor excuse for leadership.

"Hot potato?" I thought we were all in this TOGETHER. What happened to bipartisanship?

For the liberal democratic party, I guess bipartisanship is only when positive POLITICAL results can be guranteed and insure re-election.

In a word: "Sad."

Am I demonizing anyone?

Posted by: cee at November 15, 2006 08:52 AM

Read the definition you fool!

Liberal democrats are the most bigoted people I know. It's "My way, or the highway!"

Posted by: cee at November 15, 2006 09:56 AM
The most dangerous bigot is the bigot who claims not to be one.
Hypocrisy by the left is always SO easy to find!

Posted by: cee at November 15, 2006 10:13 AM

So you say you believe homosexuality is sin but you demonize no one. You also state "The most dangerous bigot is the bigot who claims not to be one" while you call your fellow man a fool, while saying you say liberals are bigoted and say my way or the highway. CONFUSION. I don't know what to say cee. MERRY CHRISTMAS!

codas-
I was just curious as to what you thought of his arguments as it was obvious from the article that he had thought it thru carefully and in great detail before rendering his views...that's cool, I did not expect you to convert or anything, just thought it was thought provoking and thought you might find it an interesting piece

codas....

"My way or the highway" was in reference to the politcally correct left's attitude, not mine. I do not believe in such rules. In person to person interactions, I feel that if you have a difference of view with someone, you accept (agree to disagree) and move on. Bob keeps insisting I am the intolerant one while he condones outing closeted homosexuals. Do you agree with him, codas? If you do, you are bigoted as well.

My reference to Bob as a fool is because he does not understand his own violation of people's dignity in judging them for NOT publically discussing their sexuality. It is very simple to see that it is wrong to pull people out of ANY closet they choose to be in. It is evil. Intolerance exists on the left and you guys just don't admit it!

Read my initial post on the subject in response to Cecelia....it is my real world example.

Bob---
you appear to be part of the far left...your wing of your party looks to keep people divded ....

And the generalizations and presumptions about me and Democrats are running like wildfire here.
You people are hysterical..

The FAR LEFT !..THE BOOGEY MAN !

Your venom, hatred and lies about liberal democrats cloud your vision of the truth. Not that you care much for the truth. That is obvious.

You are Republicans..I've heard here today that you are the party of tolerance !
One previous campaign slogan was The party of family values !
You are the party of Ted Haggard and Mark Foley(and Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney, Darth Cheney etc)
Since I know one of your favorite preoccupations is to ignore and keep your head in the sand over the hypocrisy in your party...let me remind you of Ted Haggard.

Ted Haggard is a man of God.A role model. A good married family man. He was thought of very highly under this president.He had weekly phone conferences with the White House to discuss their strategies for gay bashing.
Fine Christians..all around !
Just because Ted liked to indulge in methamphethamine fueled sex with gay prostitutes doesn't preclude him from the party of family values does it ?
Give me an H...Give me a Y...give me a P..etc.
Hypocrisy !
Something you OW'ers love to play ostrich about.

Politicans who live their lives as good family men bash gays for a living and then have a secret gay lifestyle.....are open game because of their hypocrisy.
The public should have a right to know what hypocrites they are.
I guess you disagree.
I'm not surprised.
Party over country is your mantra.
Party over common sense !

You want to keep this discussion going? Fine !
Next up: Jeff Gannon. The gay prostitute that Karl Rove planted in the White House press corps to lob softball questions at President Bush.
( taking a place reserved for a real journalist)

Someone mentioned free speech?
Is this your version of free speech and the public's right to know ?

Wanna talk free speech under this administration ?
How anyone who has a difference of opinion or questions the Iraq war is labeled a traitor, and unamerican ?

I didn't think so.

Maybe we shouldn't have exposed Mark Foley either.
A republican pedaphile that the Speaker of House knew about, covered it up along with other high ranking republicans.

The party of family values indeed !

The fine Americans at this site still appear to be in denial why you lost this election....and why the Democrats now run both houses of Congress.

Actually the list is quite long with the lying, corruption, war profiteering, botching the Iraq war, incompetence...on and on...
But it was probably Mark Foley scandal that got many Americans attention !
All those minor things like no post war planning, war profiteering etc didn't mean much to some people.
But when the gay pedaphile story broke, then people's attention was really piqued !

You just can't make this stuff up !

Bob, I'm not gay but if I were I certainly wouldn't trust my fate to the likes of you.

I'd take the types who think I'm sinning and going to hell and who don't want traditional society changed for me, before I'd put myself in the hands of someone who declares their concern for me while insisting that I don't deserve the benefit of their principles unless I think exactly as they think.

THAT'S the mindset of a tyrant.

"But seriously...that's a classic line. My gay friends will love that one !"

Oh, your gay friends might enjoy that statement more than you imagine, Bob.

They might be damn tired of you telling them what political ideology they must hold and what party they must belong to in order for you not to make them a public spectacle.

Oh, your gay friends might enjoy that statement more than you imagine, Bob.

You are correct, Cecelia...one of my gay friends is laughing at you as I write this.

One of his comments was ( one that I can repeat here)
"Is this woman for real"?

Im afraid so !

Bob
it is nice to know you have gay friends, do you have jewish friends and black friends etc?

I seem to recal a PSA that told you if you call them your (blank) friend and not just a friend, then you racist/sexist/ect

We've been finding out that many of the self righteous republican politicans that have been demonizing gays for years have been fudge packers themselves.

Posted by: Bob at November 14, 2006 11:58 PM

Bob, as you are the Exalted Tolerant One I will follow your lead in an effort to weed out my own bigotry.

Is the term you just used above merely acceptable or is it the term of choice for those who are tolerant.

Just wondering, why are you so apparently obsessed with homosexuality ? I assume you wouldn't condone someone snooping through Abortion Clinic records and outing the pro life minister's teenage daughter. Or, perhaps you would. Got to keep the Hypocrisy Police busy. Someone sainted one has to know so they hold up the intolerance of others for all the world.

You are a piece of work.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Cecelia, still drinking my Grey Goose martinis. Would love to share a few with you one day.

"Wanna talk free speech under this administration ?
How anyone who has a difference of opinion or questions the Iraq war is labeled a traitor, and unamerican ?

I didn't think so."

Political parties don't imbue morality to individuals, Bob, anymore than going to a church does that. One can be a mamber be a member of a party that believes it's moral for the govt to provide health care to all citizens and still be a rotten individual.

It's wrong when individuals call war dissenters traitors, if indeed that's what's being charged. It's also wrong to mistreat gay people simply for not holding the same views you hold and all the tolerance in the world that is preached by your particular party won't change that about anyone who does such a thing.

I understand why Bob was perplexed and thought we were "spinning" because no conservative here was suicidal about the last election. He doesn't have an identity outside of party allegiance. That is belongs to what he feels is the most moral political party means he is "moral" by osmosis. He doesn't have defend himself to a Republican. They are immoral individuals by virtue of their political party.

Therefore, he doesn't have to talk to PEOPLE when he conveys that he takes great personal delight in gays who are conservatives being outed. He has only to mention that he's a Democrat and throw Foley (who is a creep, but as far as I know has not been charged with pedophilia-- a crime) or Coulter, etc.

Although, Bob's smarter and vastly more interesting than Codas, bottomline-- he's shares Codas' belief that political party is the ultimate all-situational argument.

They might be damn tired of you telling them what political ideology they must hold and what party they must belong to in order for you not to make them a public spectacle.

Talk about a leap of judgement!
You have some imagination !

Yes...I go around telling people what they should believe and what party they should belong!

You really are a fool !

and I'm a racist and a bigot and...because I referred to George as my "gay " friend.
He didn't mind it, but you did.
How funny is that !

FYI: I don't go around labeling any of my friends.
George told me to "tell those nutcases over at OW that your gay friend wants to puke over reading their comments. "

You "nutcases" are so far removed from reality it isn't funny.
That's me talking now.

George says," F#ck off " and " stop speaking for MY PEOPLE."

Bob, I knew about the Hypocrisy Police. But now I find out we have a Patriot Police, sworn to turn every disagreement with the liberal left into a charge of treason. They sure must keep you busy.

You must have a rewarding life. Always right and always morally superior. Always able to see into the minds, hearts and souls of those who disagree with you.

How do you manage it all? Sorry, you don't have to answer that question because I figured it out. You don't have to read and listen to what others say. In your wisdom you KNOW what they mean and no point in letting their words confuse you.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"Cecelia, still drinking my Grey Goose martinis. Would love to share a few with you one day."

If not in this life, Janet, we'll toast away with the folks we encounter in the next one. I'm sure a Grey Goose martini dirty is the drink of choice in heaven.

"FYI: I don't go around labeling any of my friends."

really bob?

"I referred to George as my "gay " friend"

yep, you don't label any of your friends...how could we make such a mistake?

"Oh, your gay friends might enjoy that statement more than you imagine, Bob.

You are correct, Cecelia...one of my gay friends is laughing at you as I write this.

One of his comments was ( one that I can repeat here)
"Is this woman for real"?

Im afraid so !"

Well, Bob, with the restrictions you put on the thought life of gay folks it doesn't surprise me that a gay friend of yours would think he spoke for most gays, or that you'd think you had made some sort of relevant point by relating the story...

Wow, Bob, I'm reaaaaally impressed now. You have a gay friend. Did you get a medal for that?

Now I know that any answer I get from you will be absolute truth.

Is the term 'fudge packer' that you so casually used acceptable or preferred?

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Seriously Bob,
Do you have any friends or friendly acquaintances that are located anywhere along the continuum of moderate to conservative republicans? If so, how do you interact with them in political discussions?

Bob writes "You "nutcases" are so far removed from reality it isn't funny."

Bob's Gay Friend George said, '"Is this woman for real"?'

No wonder they're friends, they share the same level of eloquence.

thru all of my laughter of your wrongheaded views...I want to be serious for just one moment.

I thought I made myself clear, but I've seen how you "nutcases" ..thanks, George...like to distort and run with everything I say.

I don't believe any gay person should be outed...ever..

unless he is a POLITICIAN who bashes gays and then lives that lifestyle.The public DOES have a right to know of his hypocrisy.

A citizen's privacy is tantamount to the basic rights we have in this country. Thus my objections to this president's warrantless spying, but that's another story.

But it's funny how the wolves here are jumping all over the right to privacy issue...but..let me guess... you approve of warrantless spying?

But for this occasion...
I'm going to out another politician...

ready?

Barney Frank is gay !

OK...now you can go back to distorting my points and letting your imaginations run away from you.

Remember how Nancy Pelosi exploited the female card before the midterm elections? "Maybe it will take a woman to clean up the House and a new speaker to restore civility," she bragged.

Women, she implied, do a better job than men because we presumably know how to get down on our hands and knees and scrub the mold and mildew out of every corner and crevice of our own domiciles.

But from the way she's acting, Nancy Pelosi doesn't know spic from span. She's conducting Beltway business as usual, just like the good old boys she demonized throughout the campaign. (Madame Pelosi just happens to do it in an Armani aqua blue-gray pantsuit that gets thumbs-up from obsequious Washington fashion writers.)

Well, a back-scratching corruptocrat in pastel is still a back-scratching corruptocrat. Case in point: Which congressman is Mrs. Clean considering as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence? Impeached federal judge Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., who took bribes, lied under oath and was kicked off the bench.

And which colleague is she backing for House majority leader? One of Congress's leading dirtbags: Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.

As if his extremist cut-and-run war strategery weren't bad enough, Murtha's (un)ethical record is enough to make even liberal apologists blush.

Unfortunately, Murtha's defeated opponent, Diana Irey, couldn't get folks to pay enough attention to his Abscam past during the campaign. But now that he is poised to assume the speakership and all its attendant perks and privileges, the Abscam scandal is front and center.

In 1980, Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator in a massive bribery probe -- in which undercover FBI agents videotaped Murtha entertaining a $50,000 bribe from agents posing as emissaries for Arab sheiks trying to enter our country illegally. Democrat defenders of Murtha scoff that the story is "old news." (Liberal math: Abscam story from 1980 equals "old news." Bush National Guard story from 1973 equals "new news.")

But only recently have we been reminded of Abscam transcripts that paint an even uglier picture of Murtha than the short snippet of publicly available FBI video in which Murtha turned down the bribe. As noted by The American Spectator, an old Jack Anderson column reported these little-noticed parts of Murtha's conversation with the undercover agents:

"I want to deal with you guys awhile before I make any transactions at all, period. . . . After we've done some business, well, then I might change my mind. . . . "

. . . "I'm going to tell you this. If anybody can do it -- I'm not B.S.-ing you fellows -- I can get it done my way." he boasted. "There's no question about it." . . .

But the reluctant Murtha wouldn't touch the $50,000. Here on secret videotape was this all-American hero, tall and dignified in a disheveled way, explaining why he wasn't quite ready to accept the cash.

"All at once," he said, "some dumb [expletive deleted] would go start talking eight years from now about this whole thing and say [expletive deleted], this happened. Then in order to get immunity so he doesn't go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people. So the [S.O.B.] falls apart." . . .

"You give us the banks where you want the money deposited," offered one of the bagmen.

"All right," agreed Murtha. "How much money we talking about?"

"Well, you tell me."

"Well, let me find out what is a reasonable figure that will get their attention," said Murtha, "because there are a couple of banks that have really done me some favors in the past, and I'd like to put some money in. . . . ["]

So much for restoring cleanliness and civility, eh, Nancy?

Abscam isn't Murtha's only ethics cloud.

Defense industry lobbyist Paul Magliocchetti, a former colleague of Murtha's who worked as a senior staffer on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, has reportedly funneled some $300,000 in campaign contributions to Murtha over the last three election cycles -- either through his company, PMA, or its clients. They've reaped rich rewards: In 2006 alone, PMA clients received at least 60 earmarks worth some $95 million. Murtha also aided Democrat Congressman Alan Mollohan, who remains embroiled in a federal contracting corruption probe.

In 1992, Bill Clinton pledged to run the most ethical administration in history. We know how that went. Fourteen years later, Nancy Pelosi has recycled the pledge -- and is now well on her way to recycling the same old soiled legacy.

Bob-

I am sorry if quoting you directly distorts your points

I think Bob picked up his toys and went pouting home.

I hope it was nothing any of us said.

Poor wittle Bobbyums. Those mean rascally republicans DISAGREED with him again. And Bobbykins knows he's always right. He is a left wing democrat.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Seriously Bob,
Do you have any friends or friendly acquaintances that are located anywhere along the continuum of moderate to conservative republicans? If so, how do you interact with them in political discussions?

Since you asked a serious question, I respond in kind.

Many of my conservative friends feel the same way as Andrew Sullivan, the gay conservative writer.
Andrew Sullivan is one of the leading conservative voices in this country, and the last thing I rememeber him saying before the election was
" The republicans have got to be stopped.The Iraq War is a disaster.. they outlawed habeous corpus for Christ sake.
The only way you can stop them is by voting democratic."

So many of my conservative friends have seen what a failure this administration has been and we have found many things we agree on now.
The hard liners...my friends that put party over country...like those at this site...
I just don't discuss politics.We'll just have a beer and listen to some jazz.

"POLITICIAN who bashes gays and then lives that lifestyle"

Well, then you have a agreed with us all along. It's been Bob's Gay Friend George who has differed...

Define "bash", because a gay person/politician certainly have been taught that homosexuality is a sin and feel quilty about it (as someone taught that pre-martial sex is a sin might feel quilty after engaging in it or even thinking about engaging in it)and might vote against a gay marriage bill, or against giving homosexuality an official minority status, or be against the suggestion that homosexual practices are not sinful....while simultaneously struggling with the temptation.

Well, I'm sure 1600 scientists somewhere say that any particular side that Bob argues is irrefutable.

Cecelia-
from an unnamed sponsored study

Cecelia-
from an unnamed sponsored study

I'll do my best Ronald Reagan impression:

"There you go again".

I've already listed the study was UN sponsored.

OK...now back to "misunderinterpreting" my points.

Did you enjoy my Bush impression ?

I'm sorry Bob..you did say UN study, I forgot...that bastion of free thought with no agenda...

I'm sorry Bob..you did say UN study, I forgot...that bastion of free thought with no agenda...

They only brought together the leading scientists in the world to discuss probably THE most important issue ever facing our planet.

No agenda.

Way to keep those GOP talking points percolating.
Hannity and Rush Limpballs would be proud !

OK...now back to "misunderinterpreting" my points.

Posted by: Bob at November 15, 2006 12:44 PM

I love it and I don't feel so alone anymore. Thank you Bob. Are you enjoying cecelia? She's a treat aint she.

yeah...Cecelia is a real peach !

The female Zell Miller.

I love it and I don't feel so alone anymore. Thank you Bob. Are you enjoying cecelia? She's a treat aint she.

yeah...She's a real peach !

The female Zell Miller !

The female Zell Miller !

Posted by: Bob at November 15, 2006 01:05 PM

That is a scary vision.

Bob, there are a lot of serious and sincere conservatives on this site. All of us would be glad to engage in an honest open debate with someone who doesn't agree with us.

But, with 2 or 3 exceptions, I have yet to encounter anyone who didn't start and end with personal slurs; Howls of indignation because there are 'gasp' dishonest and immoral conservatives; Accusations of greed, bigotry, racism, callousness and every other moral lapse known to man.

If you want an honest sincere debate start off that way.

And remember that words mean something. I just don't think complaining that two simple declarative sentences made by you and pointed out to you is a distortion.

A simple that is not what I meant followed by your explanation will do just fine. You did not mean what you wrote is fine.

You have no problem holding your own in slinging distortions around. The impression I get is that you argue from your conception of your opponent's views rather than what they say.

When you are making an effort to be serious you still can't refrain from ascribing immoral motives to those you disagree with you as below:
===================
..many of my conservative friends have seen what a failure this administration has been...The hard liners...my friends that put party over country...like those at this site...
===================

It is not surprising that you find yourself on the other end of your own brand of rhetoric.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

The impression I get is that you argue from your conception of your opponent's views rather than what they say.
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at November 15, 2006 01:10 PM

You just described cecelia.

Codas, there you go again. Cecelia isn't in the same league, much less the same ballpark, with some of the charmers trolling these waters.

And that includes both you and Bob.

Got to go run an errand. If either of you want to continue this chat I'll be back shortly.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Codas, there you go again. Cecelia isn't in the same league, much less the same ballpark, with some of the charmers trolling these waters.

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at November 15, 2006 01:22 PM

I troll these waters as you would say because it is fun. I have gotten a full dose of the mindset of the kind of people who have been electing our represenitives for the past few years. I admit that other than being around 12 during Nixons self destruction I never paid any mind to politics until I got a load of the house managers hit squad that assasinated Bill Clinton in broad daylight in front of the whole country. I learned then that the civil war was never finished. I started reading Charley Reese after that and HE, not Daily Kos or any of the left leaning web sites that people here assume all liberals adore inspired me to pay attention a little more to politics. Conversing with the likes of a cecelia reminds me of a lady I worked with during Clintons impeachment. "Don't you a--holes know he lied?" she yelled at me then. It's funny how when Bush or Cheney or Rumsfield didn't tell us the whole truth at the least, and lied outright for the most part about WAR not cumming on a friends dress the same truth seekers now look the other way. Why is that? Didn't one of the generals say recently about Iraq "it depends on what the definintion of the word WIN is". Why was it okay for the republican leadership at Clintons time to get this country totally centered on the importance of impeaching him, but now if you aren't 100 per cent behind the decider you hate America first? If you like Keith and agree with him you are too partisan? Anyway, cecelia thinks I am dumb and boring and that lady at work thinks I am an a--hole but I think the truth is that some people got hoodwinked by a bunch of vengeful and hateful oppurtunist who wanted revenge for Nixon, and for the south, and used christians as a voting block to attain power and it worked. Using gays and abortion as their moral compass they stole the souls of a lot of good and well meaning Americans. Now we are at war. We are in debt. We are divided again. Will someone tell me something besides stay the course please.

"I think the truth is that some people got hoodwinked by a bunch of vengeful and hateful oppurtunist who wanted revenge for Nixon, and for the south, and used christians as a voting block to attain power and it worked. Using gays and abortion as their moral compass they stole the souls of a lot of good and well meaning Americans. Now we are at war. We are in debt. We are divided again."

codas....am I right to assume the "hateful opportunist" you are referring to is George Bush?

codas....am I right to assume the "hateful opportunist" you are referring to is George Bush?

Posted by: cee at November 15, 2006 02:34 PM

No. I think there are "bunch" of them. I actually think Bush is probably a well meaning but misguided soul who is being manipulated by corporations and people in high places. And a twisted version of Christianity in my opinion.

I actually think Bush is probably a well meaning but misguided soul who is being manipulated by corporations and people in high places.

Posted by: codas at November 15, 2006 02:49 PM

------
Holy Crap codas buddy....

don't let some of way-out-theres from your side (or mine for that matter) see this kind of thing...you'll blow their minds and alienate yourself completely...people around here may start to think you are (GASP) a moderate capable of independent thought...

hurry and see if it can be retracted

whoops...codas that last one directd to you was from me, Connor

Today, President Bush visits Vietnam for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, looking to burnish his foreign-policy credentials. He's off to a miserable start.

Yesterday, the White House website featured a graphic with the flags of the three countries he's visiting on his trip Singapore, Vietnam, and Indonesia. One problem: instead of displaying the Vietnamese flag, the White House graphic featured the old flag of South Vietnam. That flag hasn't been the official flag of Vietnam since South Vietnam surrendered to North Vietnam in 1975.

The display of the old flag is highly incendiary to the current Vietnamese government. NPR reported last year the display of the old flag anywhere in the United States, much less on the White House website could create tension amid warming relations between the United States and Vietnam.

These bunglers have already been titled" The gang that can't shoot straight". But this is getting ridiculous.
Isn't there anyone in this White House that can do anything correctly?
They have given the the word "incompetent" a whole new meaning !

Ok...OW'ers.Let form a line in making excuses for this most recent bungling.

Codas, I'm going to try to understand what you saying and why.

--------------------
"I troll ...because it is fun. I have gotten a full dose of the mindset of the kind of people who have been electing our represenitives for the past few years."

I take this 'full dose of the mindset' to mean that you read OW fan's through your own prism of how they think and deliberate. And this gives you insight into their opinions and motives rather than what is in front of you in black and white. In short, you know our minds and motivations better than we do ourselves.
---------------------

"I admit that other than being around 12 during Nixons self destruction I never paid any mind to politics until I got a load of the house managers hit squad that assasinated Bill Clinton in broad daylight in front of the whole country."

Your poliical life began during the impeachment of Clinton and his acquittal in the senate. I assume that is what you meant. OK, I'm being sarcastic. But your words are so laden with hyberbole, contempt and emotion that a reasoned response seems pointless. "hit squad'; 'assasinated'; 'in broad daylight'.
--------------------
" I learned then that the civil war was never finished."

I could draw several conclusions from this statement I guess. Repblicans and/or conservatives are rascist. That the motivation of repubs/conservatives are based on that rascism. Their polical actions are hidden rascism.
---------------------
"I started reading Charley Reese after that and HE, not Daily Kos or any of the left leaning web sites that people here assume all liberals adore inspired me to pay attention a little more to politics."

I am not famliar with Charley Reese. I did google him but couldn't get a handle on him in only five minutes. I see from a thumbnail sketch that he is a conservative considered by some to be a libertarian and has switched parties several times and is now a democrat.

Your disavowal of Kos and other such sites as a basis for your opinions is fine by me. However, your protesting that you are your own man makes me wonder why you so often accuse others of doing the same thing.
---------------------
" Conversing with the likes of a cecelia reminds me of a lady I worked with during Clintons impeachment. "Don't you a--holes know he lied?" she yelled at me then. It's funny how when Bush or Cheney or Rumsfield didn't tell us the whole truth at the least, and lied outright for the most part about WAR not cumming on a friends dress the same truth seekers now look the other way. Why is that? Didn't one of the generals say recently about Iraq "it depends on what the definintion of the word WIN is". Why was it okay for the republican leadership at Clintons time to get this country totally centered on the importance of impeaching him, but now if you aren't 100 per cent behind the decider you hate America first? If you like Keith and agree with him you are too partisan? Anyway, cecelia thinks I am dumb and boring and that lady at work thinks I am an a--hole but I think the truth is that some people got hoodwinked by a bunch of vengeful and hateful oppurtunist who wanted revenge for Nixon, and for the south, and used christians as a voting block to attain power and it worked. Using gays and abortion as their moral compass they stole the souls of a lot of good and well meaning Americans. Now we are at war. We are in debt. We are divided again. Will someone tell me something besides stay the course please."

Codas, the above is such a scatter shot approach and a bit long. So I'll point out what I glean from it.

Your perceived mindset of me and any who agree with me seems to be:

1. We are manipulative hypocrites.

2. We use personal insults to advance our ideas.

3. We don't disagree on policy, we believe that others are traitors.

4. We are hoodwinked and have been coopted by some evil men.

5. We are rascists and use religion to deceive our enemies.

6. We have had our souls stolen, or we stole the souls of others.

Codas, I can understand why having a constructive exchange of ideas with you and many others here is impossible. If you perceive me as your words indicate every opinion and belief I express is already de facto either wrong and stupid, manipulative, evil, someone elses opinion or a deliberate insult to you.

What does surprise me, though, is the abuse you heap on others, especially Cecelia. Has it ocurred to you that the blow back you are getting are your own words and ideas.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Codas,

It seems you've had the good fortune to have worked places where you've had the benefit of several insightful colleagues...

Apparently Freeper Chad Castagana, the man who sent the phony anthrax letters to Olbermann, Pelosi and others worshipped Malkin and Coulter. What a surprise !
Conservatives often complain about pop culture images influencing their kids (Bill O'Reilly recently attacked society because Saw III was a hit in movie theaters) so now the question must be asked. Are the rantings of right wing zealots influencing their readers into acting like terrorists?

Bob...keep up, son (borrowed that from blindrat)

this has been bandied about in various threads...and the question that comes back is what about the person who sent the same threat to a conservative journalist, does that mean that KO is responsible for him?

bob-
also leads too: if bill o is an idiot for attacking Saw, what is tipper gore for attacking the music industry a few yrs ago

Bob, you really are a deep thinker. With your usual laser beam focus you have identified the burning question of the day and stripped it of any distractions.

Are pop culture icons' messages geared to youngsters whose minds, core beliefs and values are still in the impressionable and formative stages equivalent to and have the same impact as the "rantings of right wing zealots ".

Lets not bring moderate discourse (left wing zealots' rantings) into the question. Lets not quibble over any differences in form, format or audience reach.

And, heaven forbid, lets not place any onus on the PERSON who did it. Obviously, in your mind, the onus must belong on YOUR POLIICAL OPPONENTS!

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Bob, you really are a deep thinker. With your usual laser beam focus you have identified the burning question of the day and stripped it of any distractions.

Are pop culture icons' messages geared to youngsters whose minds, core beliefs and values are still in the impressionable and formative stages have the same impact as the "rantings of right wing zealots ".

Lets not bring moderate discourse (left wing zealots' rantings) into the question. Lets not quibble over any differences in form, format or audience reach.

And, heaven forbid, lets not place any onus on the PERSON who did it. Obviously, in your mind, the onus must belong on YOUR POLIICAL OPPONENTS!

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

bob-
also leads too: if bill o is an idiot for attacking Saw, what is tipper gore for attacking the music industry a few yrs ago.

A few years ago?..like in the early 80's?

What ..no mention of Calvin Cooledge's wife's impropieties?

Obviously, in your mind, the onus must belong on YOUR POLIICAL OPPONENTS!

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Grammie...Grammie...How I love ya, how I love ya,
my dear ole Grammie.

Of course you didn't answer my question, but did your usually spin job . ..and turned it away from your boys and onto the other side.

"It's hard work" ( who said that ?)
constantly trying to deflect the onus away from her gang of thugs, liars and clowns.
You must be exhausted !

What do you get if you like opera and phone sex harrassers?
You get a Bill O'Reilly opera !

O'Reilly Opera Much Better Than Cats

While the sexual harassment allegations levied against Bill O'Reilly by former Fox News producer Andrea Mackris might seem like fodder for a made-for-TV movie, some have decided to elevate the he-said/she-said back-and-forth to a more refined art form. Enter Igor Keller, a tenor saxophone player from Belltown, Washington, who has re-imagined the O'Reilly saga as a 31-part, concert-length baroque oratorio titled, rather theatrically, Mackris v. O'Reilly. Keller's opus doesn't cut any corners: The libretto opens with a reading of the original complaint filed by Mackris and runs through seven chorales, four recitatives, and numerous arias before the denouement, which features a dramatic reading of the settlement O'Reilly (played by Charles Robert Stephens, once hailed by the New York Times as a "baritone of smooth distinction") reached with Mackris.

For this "culture warrior" who puts himself up as a paragon of virtue each night on his right wing talk show, I'm sure Bill-O will love this opera !
Actually O' Lielly loves anytime he's in the spotlight.
"Now shut up, just shut up !"

Janet,
you said,
"I take this 'full dose of the mindset' to mean that you read OW fan's through your own prism of how they think and deliberate. And this gives you insight into their opinions and motives rather than what is in front of you in black and white."

Well, I think seeing through ones own prism goes on with you, me, and everyone here don't you think.

you said,

""hit squad'; 'assasinated'; 'in broad daylight'."

You bet. That is my opinion Janet. Though Cliton is the one that handed them the gun to use, the house managers attempted and FAILED to politicaly kill him.
You said,

"I could draw several conclusions from this statement I guess. Repblicans and/or conservatives are rascist. That the motivation of repubs/conservatives are based on that rascism. Their polical actions are hidden rascism."

Well Janet at the time of the impeachment, I was learning that the civil war was more of a states rights issue that included slavery. I also was open to what I was hearing about that point of view. One of the people I was learning from was Charley Reese. He has an article 3 times a week in my local paper. He excuse my french Pisses people off" all sides. He despised Clinton. He loves Washington and Eisonhower and just about everone else is a liar in his take.

My choice of political website starts with TheModerateVoice. Then Andrew Sullivan. Crooks and liars. Then I found this wonderful place that I am learning a lot from. Don't assume it's bad about republicans, or that I think so much of myself that I just come here to aggitate. I tried to talk and learn from cecelia. She is clever and very smart and I want to hear things from another perspective. If I walk away from a conversation with a new take on something, even if I didn't come out and say, OH YES I SUBMIT. YOU ARE CORRECT, maybe I am the better for it. But I always end up walking away from her feeling like a retard. I can hear her now saying, "Maybe that's because you are one". Am I right cecelia?

I have asked this question many times and have yet to have anyone answer.

What is your solution and what outcomes do you expect as a result.

Funny Grammie...that you ask questions of others, you dare not give an answer yourself.

All of the poseurs at this site who pontificate about losing honor and sacrificing Iraqis, accepting defeat etc.have not dared give a solution to this war.

I HAVE answered this question.
This war has no solution.
It 's a disaster if we stay, and it will continue to be a disaster(possibly) if we leave.
I've listened to countless people who know a hell of a lot more than me on this subject.

George H W Bush knew over a decade ago that if you take troops into Baghdad, it's a losing situation. Did Junior listen to Daddy? Of course not !
Chimpy, with his superior understanding of world history and the political climate of the Middle East( He didn't have the foggiest idea about the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite)
marched into Iraq without a clue or understanding of the consequences.
As the situation in Iraq deteriorates daily, and everyone except the staunchest demogoges(sp)realizes we are in way over our head, the only sane approach is to get our soldiers the hell out of there, before another single one has to lose their life for reasons they can't explain.
Yes...I do wish the Democrats had the balls to say this publicly, but they have been pounded down unmercifully and their patriotism questioned each time anyone has hinted at this solution.
Only Jack Murtha has had the balls to say what a great number of Americans have been saying for awhile now.
The fact the insurgency only makes up a small % of the people firing at our troops has been lost on many people.
Most of the opposition are native born Iraqis defending their country against the invaders.
Now George Bush's war has spun a civil war into the mix where our troops are getting caught in the crossfire of the two opposing factions.
Since the Bush policy is "we stay no matter what logic tells us" our generals know it's not safe to tell the truth to the commander in chief.
Enter the election....
Bush knows now that the American people have spoken concerning this war, and we will see a slow withdrawal from this hellhole that Bush has created.
I know the right wingers at this site don't care how many of our troops have to be sacrificed rather than admit this war was a mistake, but ONLY because the Democrats won, will this war not go on and have the American bodies continue to pile up.
Staying the course ( when we are losing) is not a solution.
We have found, just like in Vietnam, that the invaders are always at a disadvantage and the natives of the country being invaded will never back down.
We cannot kill everyone in the Middle East.The best we can hope for is to minimize the American casualities until our men and women are out of harm's way.

We cannot kill everyone in the Middle East.The best we can hope for is to minimize the American casualities until our men and women are out of harm's way.

Posted by: Bob at November 15, 2006 07:29 PM

Depending on who reads that post from you bob you wil read some saying oh yes we can kill everyone in the middle ease, "except" of course the Israelies. After America leaves Iraq all the killings will then be blamed on the democratic leadership for giving in to Bin Ladens wishes. The fact that 6 marines were killed today just passes over some peoples mind like nothing. If 6 marines got killed in Clintons entire 8 years they would still be raving about it.

Bob, I tried to elucidate the differences between adults having untoward and possible harmful influences on young impressionable minds, a free expression of opinions and an incitement and inducement to violence and criminality.

You made the argument that if one accepts Bill O re pop culture icons, then it must follow that 'right wing zealots' (your description that excludes the existence of other zealots) are responsible for the attack on KO.

If you place any onus on the perpretator you certainly concealed it well. Nor did you make a valid either or argument,

If you want to restate your argument, please let me know.

And I obviously misunderstood. You had no intention, I'm sure, of dashing off a quick one liner 'gotcha'.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

You only wanted to understand how others

Well, Bob, I got your answer. You have no answer except to criticise, wring your hands and moan that all those evil other people are responsible. Oh, woe is me. What can a good man like me offer.

You imply that you are well versed in my opinions and the foundation that they are based on. Well, you have obviously missed a lot of what I've posted.

When I was a novice to this new world I actually laid out eight and nine paragraphs of my position, what I based it on and what I believed were the dangers of certain changes. The only response I ever got was I was a Karl Rove plant or a rush limbaugh clone.

I no longer am that naive. What kind of a reasonable answer should I formulate to answer loaded questions premised on statements from above: "I know the right wingers at this site don't care how many of our troops have to be sacrificed rather than admit this war was a mistake"

The only answer that would be acceptable to a locked tight mind like yours is: every last mother's son as long as I don't get embarassed.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Bob, I tried to elucidate the differences between adults having untoward and possible harmful influences on young impressionable minds, a free expression of opinions and an incitement and inducement to violence and criminality.

If I were an English professor, ( instead of a History one )I would say you use way too many words to express your points.
As a guy checking this site at 11:24PM at night and reading your above run-on rambling sentence, I will just say it makes my head hurt.
Sweet dreams, Sadie Hawkins, I mean Grammie Hawkins.

Keith Olbermann had a great show last night.Among other things
he expounded on how Fox News got caught with their pants down when someone at Fox( someone with a conscience, perhaps?)leaked a memo proving that "they decide" way before they report.
If you remember how the right wing foamed at the mouth when they discovered the Dan Rather bias,wonder if they will be as rabid concerning this obvious example of Fox News' bias.
I wouldn't bet on it !

Also it was discovered that when Dick Cheney travels, one of his requirements for his hotel room is to have Fox News playing on the TV when he arrives.
Fox is the official station of the White House( it's always on in the White House and on Air Force One)It's almost comical how Fox's talking points are identical to the White House.
I wonder where policy originates.Fox or the White House ?
God forbid the vice president ever turn on another news station and find out what a horrible job he's doing!
TDF.

bob-
also leads too: if bill o is an idiot for attacking Saw, what is tipper gore for attacking the music industry a few yrs ago.

A few years ago?..like in the early 80's?

What ..no mention of Calvin Cooledge's wife's impropieties?

Posted by: Bob at November 15, 2006 06:30 PM

--

Bob-
you like to berate for other not answering you yet you do not answer many things placed in front you...

above is your response to my 448pm post but no adressing my 445pm post

and while we are at it...apparently you are a history professor! (from your 1128mp post) fantastic! but what history do you teach if 1985 and forward does not matter (Tipper went and created the PMRC 1985 and held senate hearings either that year or shortly thereafter), this occurrence sent major wave thru popular culture

Also, please educate this poor soul on what we as republicans can and cannot bring up from the past (even something as simple as a cutoff year we are not allowed to go beyond). I have now been berated on this site for bringing up the 70's (Carter as the 2nd to last of the most recent D presidents), the 80's (Tipper Gore, Tip O'Niel, and any other D with Tip as part of their name, much less the start of the first term of the most recent D prez), and the 90's (the last time a D was prez and the last time D's held majorities in both houses of Congress). Since I missed anywhere on this site that tells me I cannot go back before W took his first oath of office, for any sort of relevant reference, I admit I need your help...if you are unsure, please check with your 1600 scientist friends from the UN and they can set us both straight.

Much Thanks and looking forward to a reply to the 445pm post!

bob-
also leads too: if bill o is an idiot for attacking Saw, what is tipper gore for attacking the music industry a few yrs ago.

A few years ago?..like in the early 80's?

What ..no mention of Calvin Cooledge's wife's impropieties?

Posted by: Bob at November 15, 2006 06:30 PM

--

Bob-
you like to berate for other not answering you yet you do not answer many things placed in front you...

above is your response to my 448pm post but no adressing my 445pm post

and while we are at it...apparently you are a history professor! (from your 1128mp post) fantastic! but what history do you teach if 1985 and forward does not matter (Tipper went and created the PMRC 1985 and held senate hearings either that year or shortly thereafter), this occurrence sent major wave thru popular culture

Also, please educate this poor soul on what we as republicans can and cannot bring up from the past (even something as simple as a cutoff year we are not allowed to go beyond). I have now been berated on this site for bringing up the 70's (Carter as the 2nd to last of the most recent D presidents), the 80's (Tipper Gore, Tip O'Niel, and any other D with Tip as part of their name, much less the start of the first term of the most recent D prez), and the 90's (the last time a D was prez and the last time D's held majorities in both houses of Congress). Since I missed anywhere on this site that tells me I cannot go back before W took his first oath of office, for any sort of relevant reference, I admit I need your help...if you are unsure, please check with your 1600 scientist friends from the UN and they can set us both straight.

Much Thanks and looking forward to a reply to the 445pm post!

if you are unsure, please check with your 1600 scientist friends from the UN and they can set us both straight.

It's obvious that there is nothing going to set you "straight", Connor .
Plus, I'd rather take the words of scientists than ( going out on a limb here) the right wing blogs and Fox News you probably genuflect to.

New flash:the Calvin Cooledge remark was a joke !
I know humor is a foreign concept to you.

To answer your original question, I was very much on Frank Zappa's side on the Tipper Gore music censorship issue.
Now...feel better ?

I understand that Donald Rumsfeld refuses to vacate his office since he ..ahem...resigned.( was fired)
He's been living out of his office since that day.

It appears that he has no post resignation plans !

http://www.gocomics.com/tomtoles/2006/11/14/

Bob (or codas or blindrat or from one of the anonomous' that lean left:

SERIOUSLY!
From your point of view, is it OK to bring up items from the 70's 80's or 90's or any part of history beyond january 2001?

also, in response to:
Are the rantings of right wing zealots influencing their readers into acting like terrorists?

Posted by: Bob at November 15, 2006 04:27 PM

The question that comes back is what about the person who sent the same threat to a conservative journalist, does that mean that KO is responsible for him?

Finaly, as to the sense of humor, check with your compadres...the first times I posted here, I was attacked by them for being humorous while we have soldiers in harm's way...but apparently that OK for you to make jovial remarks and not bee attacked for it

SERIOUSLY!
Please let me know from when, historically, we can take examples we feel are relevant to an argument...
only post 1/2006?
1990's?
1980's?
1970's?
1960's? (I personally haven't used this one, but Vietnam being referenced by numerous others around here)

Heck I tried to use Galileo and Copernicus and you belittled the arguments based on their historicl nature. But you get to use Silent Cal

Also, in refernce to:
Are the rantings of right wing zealots influencing their readers into acting like terrorists?

Posted by: Bob at November 15, 2006 04:27 PM

When someone attacked a conservative journalist in the same fashion, is it KO's fault?

Finally, as far as the sense of humor thing goes. I apparently am not allowed to here according to some on your side of the aisle...my first posts were humorous ones, but I was berated for making light while we have soldiers in harm's way...but apparently its OK for YOU to joke while soldiers are in harm's way and not be shouted down

sorry for the double post...we appear to be having problems with the site again

referal for Connor:

See Dr.Venuti..he can prescribe something.
856-756-2856

Connor : I feel that you just may pop before you get the meds you need...so I'll answer your question.

Feel free to go back as far as Paleolithic cave paintings if it will make you feel better.

I read in the news today that Bush is bashing the new Democratic Congress in Asia, even before they have a chance to do a single thing, actually before they even take the reins.
Why did he feel the need to go to Asia to start bashing the new Congress ?

Signed Natalie Maines
( Dixie Chicks)

Dearest Bob...
I take no medications

Since you seem to go to that as your first choice and have Dr name and number so readily available I can only assume you partake of various opiates (I get this from observing your posts), so go ahead and continue to take all you feel you need to keep reason at bay.

As far as the history thing goes...I suppose that you now retroactively take back your posting complaining of my usage of any references to Tipper and my scientist friends Copernicus and Galileo....thak you for now conceding those posts...

Oh, and since the prescriptions have apparently clouded you once again, here's this question again..or are you conceding that point as well?

Are the rantings of right wing zealots influencing their readers into acting like terrorists?

Posted by: Bob at November 15, 2006 04:27 PM

When someone attacked a conservative journalist in the same fashion, is it KO's fault?

Connor..Why do you answer my question with ...another question?

You complain that I didn't answer yours...yet you didn't answer mine?

And you also assume that I "take things back".

It must be very exciting living in your own private fantasy world.

Breaking news :

Thursday, November 16, 2006; 10:44 AM

Democrats this morning unanimously selected Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to be the speaker of the house when the new Congress meets in January.

Rush Limpballs is twitching in his seat, almost as much as when he mocked the handicapped.
(mocking the handicapped must be filed in his'things to do list 'in his "moral crusader" folder)

What ever happened to Karl Rove's statement that he had the "real numbers" promising a GOP victory?
Are they the same figures he uses in calculating the debt and then proclaiming the economy is in great shape?

Whatever happened to Sean Hannity's countdown to election day, when he promised the GOP will continue to
control the Congress ?
Quote: " I can't wait" !

You don't have to wait any longer, Sean !

Financial experts on Tuesday warned climate change could so amplify the effect of weather disasters that droughts, storm surges and other natural catastrophes could cost as much as a thousand billion dollars in a single year by 2040.

This news item follows a series of similar ones by insurance companies.

So you have our science community, financial experts, and insurance companies saying the same thing !

Maybe we should listen to Cecelia and Grammie and wait until 2039.

and connor..have to include Connor. Don't want to get Connor even more upset.

Bob---
Sorry you missed it from earlier as the question was not addressed to me at first and was answered by another...

"Are the rantings of right wing zealots influencing their readers into acting like terrorists?" Posted by BOB
Duh...NO! An invidual's actions are his own...that is my belief. I was trying to see if you believe the same with my question back to you. By your posing the original question, I am taking it that in the case of the guy who acts against lefties, you believe he did it because of the tlak of Coulter and Malkin and Ingraham. But in the case of the guy ataacking a rightie, you probably do not attribute anything to KO and his ilk (Matthews, Franken, et al)

NOW I look forward to your answer

As far as believing that you take things back, I apologize...and eagerly await new responses from you in our previous arguments since you turned them back with attacking the age of my references. However, since you conceded that I can use references back to "Paleolithic cave paintings", your responses are no longer valid and I am sure the new ones will be thoughtful and precise.

I'll check back later...

Anon-
Financial experts and Insurance Companies?
Be careful, I don't think Bob will like that! They agree with his position, but they are not scientists and they are probably not part of his UN 1600; therefore, he probably will not trust their views.

Earlier, I brought up links to people with opposing views both in and outside of the scientific arena and he belittled those outside the scientific arena.

"Maybe we should listen to Cecelia and Grammie and wait until 2039."

Well, based on the utterly delightful piece I excerpt below, I see that you've wasted no time in doing your part to forestall the crisis, Anonymous:

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- Air pollution may be just the thing to fight global warming, some scientists say.

Prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate, said a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere could act as a "shade" from the sun's rays and help cool the planet.

Warming Caused by Natural Cycle, Not Humans; NCPA Adjunct Scholars Avery and Singer Outline Unstoppable Climate in New Book

11/16/2006 11:29:00 AM

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=76455

Cecelia..you still haven't answered why you're taking the small minority opinion.
The bulk of the science community, financial experts and insurance companies have no effect on you, but a stray article here and there has an immense effect on you.

Please explain why.

Anonymous,

It won't help you if I try to explain to you why an article that says pollution is the answer to a environmental crisis, would be something I found delightful.

People are able to perceive irony or they aren't.

Bob, I'll try to emulate your and Codas's incisive style.

Financial and insurance experts predicted the future? Or, do they predict based on if, than.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

You are an inspiration. Hillbilly rascists need instruction. I am so lucky. Bob helps me. Codas helps me. Coward helps me. Blindrat helps me. I am so glad to learn from my betters.

Thank God the world isn't waiting or taking your lame opinions.

NAIROBI (AFP) - UN chief
Kofi Annan demanded that world leaders give climate change the same priority as they did to wars and to curbing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
ADVERTISEMENT

Annan made the appeal as he launched a three-day gathering of environment chiefs, tasked with stepping up action against global warming.

In his valedictory speech to the annual meeting, the UN secretary-general painted a sombre tableau about the effects of climate change, especially on impoverished countries that were least to blame for it.

And he lacerated the fast-shrinking minority of politicians or scientists who still denied there was any threat as "out of step, out of arguments and out of time."

How does it feel to be in the "out of step" category?
Same way you felt on election night ?

The world is acting...Grammie Connor and Cecelia pontificate.
I guess they're waiting for Limbaugh to give them the word that global warming is real.

I would estimate that even after that thousand billion dollar figure in damages comes true, the Flat Earth Society members here will still say..."I'm still not convinced" !

Janet

What anonymous doesn't seem to get is that even now these financial experts and insurance company executives are planning on using this issue to raise his/her rates....

Bob-
your posting advertisements now?

oh and I love you think you are making a new AHA!point by pointing to a new article showing an already mentioned position by the UN's Kofi (have you sited the UN before, I forget).

It so cute!

Now I see...The Flat Earth Memebers are worried about their taxes going up.
Doesn't matter if they have the earth to place the house to pay the taxes for.

The Bush trillion dollar debt( which is already a reality) doesn't faze them. We shouldn't act on climate change b/c of fear of their taxes going up !

Do you have any idea how idiotic you are !

Well, we've certainly seen many appeals to authority to here. Everyone from 1600 scientists to Bob's Gay Friend George. But a "thousand billion dollars" estimate in damages. Now that's REAL expertise!

Well, we've certainly seen many appeals to authority to here. Everyone from 1600 scientists to Bob's Gay Friend George. But a "thousand billion dollars" estimate in damages. Now that's REAL expertise!

The world is acting...Grammie Connor and Cecelia pontificate.
I guess they're waiting for Limbaugh to give them the word that global warming is real.

I would estimate that even after that thousand billion dollar figure in damages comes true, the Flat Earth Society members here will still say..."I'm still not convinced" !

Posted by: bob at November 16, 2006 01:01 PM

----
Bob,bob,bob,bob,bob...

you just keep swinging and you just keep missing...

there is no pontificating here...I am for open debate as has been done in science for centuries...you are the one choosing an absolute, therefore, you are pontificating, not I my dear fellow..."the Flat Earth Society members here" would be you!

Next,
DAMMIT, make up your freaking minds! Do I get my orders from Rush? Hannity? O'Reilly? Ingraham? Coulter? You guys keep changing who I am supposed to get my orders from!

PS: Many financial experts and insurance companies(who are not scientists but you accept now compared to yesterday when non-scientists didn't count) refer to thousand billion dollar figures as trillions

Oh and check out the website I created overnight for this very argumaent:
Warming Caused by Natural Cycle, Not Humans; NCPA Adjunct Scholars Avery and Singer Outline Unstoppable Climate in New Book

11/16/2006 11:29:00 AM

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=76455

Posted by: Connor at November 16, 2006 12:31 PM

As the water is rising above Cecelia's neck and about to cover her,she'll be tuning into Rush Limbaugh to see what he has to say.

"yes, the MSM and the liberals are responsible for this devastation of the earth."

Like I said, Thank God the world ( and the people who can do something about it) is taking this threat
seriously, and not listening to people like Cecelia.

Calling all Cs, calling all Cs. I want to share the great jolt of my conversion with you.

It is so simple I can't believe I didn't see it before. Brace yourselves.

The World According to Bob's 1600 scientists.

No more divisiveness. No more questioning and searching. No wasted money on false starts. No more political parties.

Bob will consult his 1600 scientists, tell us the answer and the world will walk in lockstep where Bob leads us.

I must go now. I wish to bask in the heavenly grace from Bob that is now flowing through my soul.

Saint Janet of Grammie

DAMMIT, make up your freaking minds! Do I get my orders from Rush? Hannity? O'Reilly? Ingraham? Coulter? You guys keep changing who I am supposed to get my orders from!

Like they differ even a little bit?

funny

Bob-

Love your Quizno's ads by the way in addition to the advertisement you posted earlier

I'm well aware that you're the source of something that's pile up to my neckline, Bob, but it ain't water.

Like they differ even a little bit?

funny

Posted by: Anonymous at November 16, 2006 01:22 PM

----
Obviously another well informed lefty who does his own research to reach his own opinions and aren't just fed them by KO and his minions ( I believe that is the phrase the left here likes to use)

Anonymous,
Try spending just 1 hour of your life reading anything by those listed above (not even 1 hour on each, just 1 hour in totality, mere minutes of each)...you will see varying degrees of conservatism (not republicanism, conservatism)...

Good Luck with your education!

"I must go now. I wish to bask in the heavenly grace from Bob that is now flowing through my soul."

I think you've just landed on what Douglas Adams called a "Bob-fearing Planet", Grammie.

Douglas Adams

He will be missed...

Thank you, I think. Who is Douglas Adams?

Just googled and got a taste. My son had "A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" and put it with his to go with him pile of books when he left my nest.

I think I will look into this.

Thanks

Saint Janet of Grammie

Douglas Adams is missed along with Janet's post.

Can't wait till Grammie meets Doug in person.

There's no way to reply to that remark in a way that would do it justice.

There's just no way.

Putnam Wants To Know: Where Were The Rednecks?

"White rednecks" who "didn't show up to vote for us" partly cost GOPers their cong. majorities, Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL) told fellow Republicans today.

The republican base !
Kind of says it all doesn't it ?

Putnam Wants To Know: Where Were The Rednecks?

"White rednecks" who "didn't show up to vote for us" partly cost GOPers their cong. majorities, Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL) told fellow Republicans today.

The republican base !
Kind of says it all doesn't it !

LOS ANGELES - Al Gore has entered the Academy Awards campaign. "An Inconvenient Truth," which presents the former vice president's case about the dangers of global warming, is among 15 feature-length documentaries that made the short list for Oscar consideration, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced Thursday.

The U.S. war in Iraq and its ramifications also are well represented among potential documentary nominees. On the Oscar short list is ''Shut Up & Sing,'' which examines the backlash against the Dixie Chicks after lead singer Natalie Maines told a concert crowd on the eve of the war in 2003 that the country trio was ashamed President Bush comes from Texas, their home state.

Other Iraq-related documentaries up for consideration include ''The War Tapes,'' edited from footage shot by troops serving in Iraq; ''The Ground Truth,'' FEATURING IRAQI VETERANS DISCUSSING THEIR DISILLUSIONMENT WITH THE WAR; and ''Iraq in Fragments,'' offering portraits of Iraqis coping with the U.S. led occupation.

Also in the running are two documentaries featuring church leaders involved in sex scandals. "Jesus Camp," which follows children being groomed in evangelical beliefs, features a scene in which superstar minister Ted Haggard condemns homosexuality. Haggard has since been fired from his megachurch amid allegations he had sex with a male prostitute and took drugs.

Haggard had weekly phone conferences with the White House to discuss their gay bashing strategies. The White House has stopped taking calls from Haggard.
Wonder why.
Any suggestions ?
I thought the president was loyal to his friends !

Wow! Hollywood promoting/rewarding films with a liberal bias? How could that happen?

Remember Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 was in that same category.

Just because something is in a documentary does not mean it is accurate or truthful

I have a few suggestions for you Bob.....

1) Reveal your source that states "The White House," has been called by Reverend Haggard recently and he was told to shove off.

2) Reveal your source that "The White House," and Reverend Haggard discussed gay bashing strategies.

3) Define gay bashing strategies.

4) Please explain your conclusion regarding Reverend Haggard's theology. Are you implying Reverend Haggard only condemned homosexulity in his carrer as a minister? I have also heard his sermons on adultery (he is possible guilty of this also), fornication (he is allegedly enabling someone in this sin as well), lying (possibly guilty), breaking civil law (possibly guilty), greed, stealing, pride, selfishness, and idolatry (possible guilty of this as well).

I am looking forward to your response.

Wow! Hollywood promoting/rewarding films with a liberal bias? How could that happen?

Show me where any of these films had a "liberal bias".
Did you see any of them ?

Cee is funny....reveal, show me , prove it,,,etc.

I have given countless valid sources for many of my points. You and your minions have scoffed at them all and if you ever give any counter links ( rarely), they are flimsy at best.
All calls coming into the White House are documented. There are reporters who have revealed Haggard's weekly calls.
Want more proof..do some research yourself.

If you need definitions and examples of what the republicans have done the past 6 years in the gay bashing arena, you just haven't been paying attention.

You and your minions have scoffed at them all and if you ever give any counter links ( rarely), they are flimsy at best.
Posted by: bob at November 17, 2006 11:47 AM
------
bob, so YOU and YOUR minions are scoffing at cee's and other's links? but your's are valid?

do you ever read your own stuff and really explore it?

For example...there is ample proof that the War in Iraq has become a disaster, yet you OW'ers still don't want to believe it to be true.
Factual evidence,troops themselves and even video proving these points still don't rouse you from your dogma and blind faith in this bumbling administration.

Feel free to DISPROVE any of my points.
You have yet to do it.

Bob-
there is also ample proof FROM THE TROOPS ON THE GROUND that the war is not a "disaster"...there are problems, yes, but name one person here who has said the war is going perfectly ...NO WAR DOES

Make an actual point not a declarative generalizations, and we might try...

PS:thanks again for ignoring posts to you and only crying boo hoo

bob, so YOU and YOUR minions are scoffing at cee's and other's links? but your's are valid?

What links ?...show me these so called links proving the republicans aren't gay bashers, Haggard didn't make weekly calls to the White House , etc.
It's very easy sitting there being a cynic, isnt it ?

I hate to use the election again as an example,,,but it's apropo b/c it was a denouncement of your views.
...but you won't ever believe it.

OK guys. Let me give you some sources of your own to cite, a la Bob citations.

FBI reveals Bob is a bought and paid for provacateur. Proof is classified. High ranking Dem officials linked to coverup to keep the proof classified.

Local police divulge Bob's phone records. Cites records as proof that Bob conspired with fellow travelers of the Islamofascists. Detaols to follow whenever actual conversations are available.

NYT reports that Bob refused to answer the question: When did you stop beating your wife? Cited by insiders as proof positive that Bob not only beat his wife, but has not stopped doing so.

Sources are all well known high ranking officials of the congress, FBI, NSA and several Police Commissioners.

Keith Olbermann

LOL

Feel free to DISPROVE any of my points.
You have yet to do it.

Posted by: bob at November 17, 2006 11:58 AM
-You have yet to PROVE them

there is also ample proof FROM THE TROOPS ON THE GROUND that the war is not a "disaster.

Right..funny how they change their tune AFTER they leave Iraq and aren't beholding to the military any longer or fearful of retribution.
If you think the soldiers are free to speak out ( even though some have the courage to) you are naive at best.

65% of Americans feel this war was a mistake.
I read, listen and pay attention to every bit of news and information I can get my hands on.
The only ones saying this war isn't a disaster, are the ones afraid of losing their jobs or of course... blind faith loyalists to the proven liars in the White House.

This election was a referendum of the War in Iraq.
Even Bush knows it...but you...still are playing ostrich !

It's very easy sitting there being a cynic, isnt it ?

Posted by: bob at November 17, 2006 12:04 PM
-
I don't know...how easy is it for you?

bob-
The most of the troops that come home and hear the press reports cannot believe what they are hearing. These are men and women who may or may not have been injured, who may or may not have re-upped (and an incredible percentage has)...so, considering you "read, listen and pay attention to every bit of news and information I can get my hands on" apparently you need to look harder or look and find different sources

Wonder if any of you OWer's have seen the films: "The Ground Troops" or the "War Tapes" where our troops discuss how badly the war is going and how they feel they've been duped by the White House.

I'm guessing you haven't, because if you did, it would wake you from your slumber and open your eyes and YOU would be singing a different tune.

Soldier's responsibilities are to follow orders and not ask questions.So when you listen to THESE troops you eat it up and question nothing.

But when you get really courageous troops that are willing to face the consequences of telling it like it really is and even show you on film, you'd have to be a moron to doubt them.

We don't get any OFFICIAL information from the White House any longer from Iraq b/c it has been deemed TOO DANGEROUS to go there and gather information.

Funny how the "active" generals all tell the White House what they want to hear.( they want to keep their jobs)
But retired generals are up in arms about yes..the disaster that is ocurring.

SO much easier to sit there and wallow in your own ignorance while the truth is passing you by.

Let's see...the War in Iraq has been successful, there isn't global warming...and if there is..man isn't causing it .Dick Cheney and George Bush are doing a great job. The massive debt isn't important.And Republican base isn't known for gay bashing.
It's Ok for the GOP Congress to ignore war profiteering, b/c after all, there isn't any.
Bush listens to his own scientists. And voting the Republicans out of Congress was not a message to you.

Does that about cover it ?

bob bob bob bob bob bob bob.......

you just don't get it, do you mr absolutist?

I'm getting closer and closer in being a
regular OWer !

Pt. 2

Bush served valiantly during the Vietnam War and just b/c no one in his squadron ever remembers seeing him, means they all must have been liberals.
From Jan 01 - Sept 10 , 2001, Bush had a laser focus on AL Qaeda and Bin Laden, b/c he really did take the Clinton Administration's warnings seriously.
Even though 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, he was not responsible for it.
The 8 Northeast states that sued the Bush administration for neglecting his responsiblilities on pollution control was really a liberal plot.
Bush really didn't dismantle many of Clinton's pollution laws.( that damn liberal media again)
Bush really hasn't alienated most of the world, and when Americans go to other countries, they are very pleasantly surprised how kindly they talk about Bush invading Iraq.
Bush is fighting the pharmaseutical companies to allow seniors to either buy their meds in Canada, or get them cheaper.
When Dick Cheney had those secret energy meetings with the heads of the oil companies, he pushed them to support alternative energy sources.
The Jack Abramoff scandal was overblown by the liberal media.
Keith Olbermann is the worst person in the world !
The Bush Administration has made Halliburton account for every penny spent in Iraq.
The stores in Iraq are ordering countless boxes of roses getting ready to throw at our troops.
80% of the Iraqis want us to stay. And when it was reported that 60% of the Iraqis felt it was justified in killing Americans, that was just plain made up by Air America.
Fox News is fair and balanced and Rush and Hannity are really hard on Republicans and give the Democrats a fair shake.
And.....drum roll...
Everything that has negatively happened in the US during the past 6 years has been Bill Clinton's fault.

I'm almost a full fledged Republican.

I'm beginning to see the light...
I'm even beginning to hate queers.
They really can change you know....with the right therapy.

That's right bob...I am glad you got your prescription from your doctor friend....

kick of your shoes relax and float downstream

George Bush's newest Bushism,"We'll succeed unless we quit," has to be one of the president's most ridiculous and dangerous statements about Iraq since, "Those weapons of mass destruction have to be around here somewhere." No wait. It was one of the most dangerous things he's said since, "It'll be just a comma." That's not it. Since, "Bring 'em on," maybe? Ah hell. There are so many stupid, dangerous and ridiculous things he's muttered with a smirk about this war, you could probably document them on enough paper to build a giant paper bridge from Washington to Baghdad allowing our soldiers to walk home.

Speaking of stupid statements,( it's hard keep up with them all)right wing pundit Glenn Beck interviewed Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), who became the first Muslim ever elected to Congress on November 7, and commented to Ellison "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. "

The right wing is just getting crazier and crazier.

I saw this interview and it took place at CNN.Glenn Beck is not an anchor; he is a talk radio blowhard like Hannity. CNN is trying to lure some of the FOX fanatics over for ratings. Frankly, I think it is good for these idiots to have a platform as nothing exposes their warped thinking like having it on display. The more Michelle Malkins, Melanie Morgans, Laura Ingrahams, Ann Coulters... out there, the better. It's like watching a skinhead rally or those church members who protest gays at soldier's funerals. Glenn Beck is not the worst, but it is bothersome to see him interviewed on regular news programs like he is some sort of expert.

I saw this interview. It was on CNN. Glenn Beck is not an anchor; he is a talk radio blowhard like Hannity. CNN is trying to lure some of the FOX fanatics over for ratings. Frankly, I think it is good for these idiots to have a platform as nothing exposes their warped thinking like having it on display. The more Michelle Malkins, Melanie Morgans, Laura Ingrahams, Ann Coulters... out there, the better. It's like watching a skinhead rally or those church members who protest gays at soldier's funerals. Glenn Beck is not the worst, but it is bothersome to see him interviewed on regular news programs like he is some sort of expert.

Tony Blair has admitted that British intervention in Iraq has been a disaster last night - sending shockwaves through Westminster.

In his frankest admission about the war to date, Mr. Blair admitted that Western forces have been powerless to stop the descent into violence.

So our top ally is now at odds with the Bush administration.
Thinking people thruout the world are no longing buying into the Bush adminstrations fantasies on Iraq but
with their superior knowledge,Cee, Cecelia, Connor and Grammie are still "carrying the water" for Chimpy and Cheney.
How quaint !

LONDON -- Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a television interview broadcast Sunday.

"If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi Government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," he said on the BBC's Sunday AM breakfast show.

And Kissinger has been advising Bush on Iraq.
Seems that Bush doesn't listen to anyone.

The weekend after the statue of Saddam Hussein fell, Kenneth Adelman and a couple of other promoters of the Iraq war gathered at Vice President Cheney's residence to celebrate. The invasion had been the "cakewalk" Adelman predicted. Cheney and his guests raised their glasses, toasting President Bush and victory. "It was a euphoric moment," Adelman recalled.

Forty-three months later, the cakewalk looks more like a death march, and Adelman has broken with the Bush team. He had an angry falling-out with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this fall. He and Cheney are no longer on speaking terms. And he believes that "the president is ultimately responsible" for what Adelman now calls "the debacle that was Iraq."

Adelman, a former Reagan administration official and onetime member of the Iraq war brain trust, is only the latest voice from inside the Bush circle to speak out against the president or his policies. Heading into the final chapter of his presidency, fresh from the sting of a midterm election defeat, Bush finds himself with fewer and fewer friends. Some of the strongest supporters of the war have grown disenchanted, former insiders are registering public dissent and Republicans on Capitol Hill blame him for losing Congress.

According to the braintrust at OW..all of these people "must not get it and are absolutists" like me.

Too damn funny !

Anyone still believing the Iraq War has been worth it, or it's been successful in anyway is not dealing with a full deck.
Believing something is true when all the facts and reality tell you otherwise,makes you a candidate for your local mental health facility.

FOX PARENT, "NEWS" CORP, CANCELS O.J. SIMPSON BOOK

-- Murdoch Blames New Democratic Congress, Main Stream Media, Clintons --

NEW YORK -- News Corp., the parent company of book publisher HarperCollins and the FOX network, has canceled publication of the O.J. Simpson book and television special "If I Did It". Expressing dismay that FOX has decided to abandon its for-profit pandering of an immoral, opportunistic murderer in favor of sticking to its for-profit pandering of an immoral, opportunistic Republican party, News Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch stated, "If we'd held the House, or at least the Senate, we could have pushed this thing through, but there's no way now. It's a real shame."

Funny how no Ow'er has spoken out against Fox News getting caught with their pants down verifying their lack of fair and balanced reporting. (with that internal memo that was leaked.)
Mum's the word when the right is in the WRONG.

ALso funny how all the OW'ers have disappeared with Tony Blair and all the high level right wingers coming out against the Iraq War.

Bob.....

I have not gone anywhere....it just seems pointless to try and debate you since you make no sense...you make gross generalizations without support and rely on ad hominem attacks only.

Funny Anon. It is funny how Murdoch pulls OJ's special and apologizes....what an evil and greedy man....Also, Bob and Anon, do you think Olbermann will discuss this issue especially after BillO (a FOX minion), called for a boycott of his employer?

Bob, your side is devoid of substance and intellect. The hard work of restoring freedom in Iraq does have less support everyday....to the dismay of millions of trusting Iraqis. Nice.

crickets ...

Bob, your side is devoid of substance and intellect. The hard work of restoring freedom in Iraq does have less support everyday....to the dismay of millions of trusting Iraqis. Nice.

You just offer rhetoric and bullshit.My side has been CORRECT, much to your dismay. We've just seen the truth way before you have b/c we didn't let ideology get in our way of common sense.

We're devoid of intellect eh ?... yet everyone from Kissinger to Blair to the architects of the Iraq War have seen what a disaster YOUR party has made of Iraq.
Those "trusting Iraqis" want us the hell out of their country, yet you want us to stay. Nice.

Bob.....

I have not gone anywhere....it just seems pointless to try and debate you since you make no sense.

I make no sense...yet all I do is post news items that report on the hardest right wingers who have come to their senses about this war, yet you still are living in your fantasy world.
You are dead wrong on Iraq but too pig-headed to admit it.

As I have shown, you don't need to use liberal or even moderate voices any longer to illuminate how badly the conservative movement has been decimated by the current republicans.
Here is an exerpt from one of Andrew Sullivan's blogs who just happens to be a strict conservative....comparing Bush to Reagan.

Ronald Reagan did indeed presage some of the worst aspects of today's degenerate Republicanism. His deficit spending, his subversion of constitutionalism in Iran-Contra, his coded appeal to Southern bigotry when beginning his campaign, and his dithering on the HIV epidemic are all fore-runners of later abuse. But they were mild in comparison to Bush.

Reagan would never have signed the biggest increase in entitlement spending since LBJ; Reagan's domestic spending record was far better than Bush's; Reagan raised taxes when he felt it necessary; he reformed the tax system in his second term; he vetoed pork; his Supreme Court nominees were diverse; he would never have gone to war in the reckless, unplanned way the Bush administration did in Iraq; and his foreign policy was a blend of deep conviction but also pragmatism, as he reached out to an imploding Soviet Union in his final years. Even on Iran-Contra, he eventually fessed up, and apologized.

Historians, Democrats and Republicans seldom agree on anything. But one thing most agree on is that the presidency of George Walker Bush will go down as probably the worst ever in American history.

Here is an exerpt from an editorial from the Republican Bible: The New Republic !

"At this point, it seems almost beside the point to say this: The New Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war. The past three years have complicated our idealism and reminded us of the limits of American power and our own wisdom.

Since some of you love to put down Keith Olbermann but don't actually WATCH Keith's show ( no cable TV?, really ! How's those rabbit ears working for you )Keith had another great special comment to our president about the lessons of Vietnam. Since so many of you parallel Bush's ignorance of the lessons of the Vietnam War, Here is the transcript :

It is a shame and it is embarrassing to us all when President Bush travels 8,000 miles, only to wind up avoiding reality, again.

And it is pathetic to listen to the leader of the free world, talk so unrealistically about Vietnam, when it was he who permitted the "Swift-Boating" of not one but two American heroes of that war, in consecutive Presidential campaigns.

But most importantly important, beyond measure his avoidance of reality is going to wind up killing more Americans.

And that is indefensible and fatal.

Asked if there were lessons about Iraq to be found in our experience in Vietnam, Mr. Bush said that there were and he immediately proved he had no clue what they were.

"One lesson is," he said, "that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while."

"We'll succeed," the President concluded, "unless we quit."

If that's the lesson about Iraq that Mr. Bush sees in Vietnam, then he needs a tutor. Or we need somebody else making the decisions about Iraq.

Mr. Bush, there are a dozen central lessons to be derived from our nightmare in Vietnam, but "we'll succeed unless we quit" is not one of them.

The primary one which should be as obvious to you as the latest opinion poll showing that only 31 percent of this country agrees with your tragic Iraq policy is that if you try to pursue a war for which the nation has lost its stomach, you and it are finished. Ask Lyndon Johnson.

The second most important lesson of Vietnam, Mr. Bush: if you don't have a stable local government to work with, you can keep sending in Americans until hell freezes over and it will not matter. Ask South Vietnam's President Diem, or President Thieu.

The third vital lesson of Vietnam, Mr. Bush: don't pretend it's something it's not. For decades we were warned that if we didn't stop "communist aggression" in Vietnam, communist agitators would infiltrate and devour the small nations of the world, and make their insidious way, stealthily, to our doorstep.

The war machine of 1968 had this "Domino Theory."

Your war machine of 2006 has this nonsense about Iraq as "the central front in the war on terror."

The fourth pivotal lesson of Vietnam, Mr. Bush: if the same idiots who told Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon to stay there for the sake of "Peace With Honor," are now telling you to stay in Iraq, they're probably just as wrong now, as they were then Dr. Kissinger.

And the fifth crucial lesson of Vietnam, Mr. Bush, which somebody should've told you about, long before you plunged this country into Iraq is that, if you lie us into a war your war, and your presidency, will be consigned to the scrapheap of history.

Consider your fellow Texan, sir.

After President Kennedy's assassination, Lyndon Johnson held the country together after a national tragedy not unlike you tried to do.

He had lofty goals and tried to reshape society for the better. And he is remembered for Vietnam and for the lies he and his government told to get us there and keep us there and for the Americans who needlessly died there.

As you will be remembered for Iraq and for the lies you and your government told to get us there and keep us there and for the Americans who needlessly died there and who will needlessly die there tomorrow.

This president has his fictitious Iraqi W-M-D, and his lies (disguised as subtle hints) linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11, and his reason-of-the-week for keeping us there when all the evidence has, for at least three years, told us we needed to get as many of our kids out, as quickly as we could.

That president had his fictitious attacks on Navy ships in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, and the next thing any of us knew, the Senate had voted 88-to-2 to approve the blank check with which Lyndon Johnson paid for our trip into hell.

And yet President Bush just saw the grim reminders of that trip into hell:

Of the 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese killed;

Of the 10,000 civilians who've been blown up by landmines since we pulled out;
Of the genocide in the neighboring country of Cambodia, which we triggered;

Yet, these parallels and these lessons eluded President Bush entirely. And, in particular, the one over-arching lesson about Iraq that should've been written everywhere he looked in Vietnam, went un-seen.

"We'll succeed unless we quit"?

Mr. Bush, we did quit in Vietnam! A decade later than we should have; 58,000 dead later than we should have; but we finally came to our senses.

The stable, burgeoning, vivid country you just saw there is there, because we finally had the good sense to declare victory and get out!

The Domino Theory was nonsense, sir. Our departure from Vietnam emboldened no one. Communism did not spread like a contagion around the world.

And most importantly as President Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State Lawrence Korb said on this newscast Friday we were only in a position to win the Cold War because we quit in Vietnam.

We went home. And instead it was the Russians who learned nothing from Vietnam, and who repeated every one of our mistakes when they went into Afghanistan. And alienated their own people, and killed their own children, and bankrupted their own economy, and allowed us to win the Cold War.

We awakened so late but we did awaken.

Finally, in Vietnam, we learned the lesson. We stopped endlessly squandering lives and treasure and the focus of a nation on an impossible and irrelevant dream.

But you are still doing exactly that, tonight, in Iraq.

And these lessons from Vietnam, Mr. Bush, these priceless, transparent lessons, writ large as if across the very sky, are still a mystery to you.

"We'll succeed unless we quit."

No, sir. We will succeed against terrorism, for our country's needs, towards binding up the nation's wounds when you quit the monumental lie, that is our presence in Iraq.

And in the interim, Mr. Bush, an American kid will be killed there, probably tonight or, if we're lucky, not until tomorrow.

And here, sir, endeth the lesson.

Is bob still talking??????

no, Keith is today.

Obvious you can learn something, as could the president.

Plus I love when you defend the Iraq war. There are about 6 of you left in the world.

Bob,

Seriously, there is no reason to argue with you anymore. Your arguments are always right and our are always wrong (no middle ground), your sources are always completely accurate and valid (when listed) and ours are ignored or belittled no matter what, and (you think) you have responded to our points in an articulte, reasoned, and non-partisan manner, but our responses are mere hyperbole.

Why should we even bother to respond to when their is no honest debate of any kind involved?

Don't be shy, ANon.

Since Keith so eloquently spelled out the parallel lessons of the Iraq and Vietnam Wars, I wonder if you did learn anything, or still believing the lies some on the right have told you.

Here's a good question for all of you OW'ers:

Since the staunchly conservative magazine the New Republic had the integrity to admit they were wrong about the war when they said:
"At this point, it seems almost beside the point to say this: The New Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war. The past three years have complicated our idealism and reminded us of the limits of American power and our own wisdom."
...is there anyone out there who has some courage and integrity to admit THEY'VE made a mistake about this war ?
..or are going to hold strong to their views despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Since I need to go teach a class on Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex and how most wars are fought to feed this monster rather than the lies they feed the people, I'll check back later and see if anyone has responded to my question.

Bob-

please go to the thread for last night's show for that debate which is already being conducted

DEBATE?

There was nothing factually incorrect that Keith Olbermann said in his special comment. He was right on the money.
There is such a thing as RIGHT and WRONG.

"There is always another side"
No...sometimes there are things called FACTS.

Want to DEBATE whether we have a balanced budget ?

TDF.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The
United Nations said Wednesday that 3,709 Iraqi civilians were killed in October, the highest monthly toll since the March 2003 U.S. invasion and another sign of the severity of
Iraq's sectarian bloodbath.

But according to Bush, there is no civil war going on.

And the chickenhawks here at this site still want to continue the carnage and think the US is going to stop this madness....as our soldiers keep getting slaughtered in the crossfire.

Can you name me one war in which there were no civilian casualties?

So does that inane question mean you support continuing the carnage?..when there is no plan or end in sight.

So does that inane question mean you support continuing the carnage?..when there is no plan or end in sight.

There are no easy outs in this war. Cut and run is not an option. I'm not sure winning is possible either. I'm just saying that your supposed outrage over how many civillians have been killed is not a good argument for/against this war as civillians are killed in every single war that has ever been fought. The price of victory is steep in all wars for one side, and sometimes, usually more often than not, both sides. But your grasp on history is not good if you think that no civillians were ever NOT killed in a war.

But your grasp on history is not good if you think that no civillians were ever NOT killed in a war.

Your comprehension is as weak as your points.
Did I make any comments that said civilians don't die in wars ?

More Americans have died in Iraq than died on 9/11.
The hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians that have died due to Bush's ill conceived invasion of the country that didn't attack us is just one of the reasons we need to leave their country.
Another is that the vast majority of Iraqis WANT US OUT... and a startling % of Iraqis have said that it's OK to kill Americans.

Your comment" the price of victory"...is laughable.
No one is talking victory any longer...even the generals.
It is an unwinnable war that the Chimpy and Cheney got us into.
Staying longer and continuing the body count shows there are many who never learned the lessons of the Vietnam War.
"There is no easy way outs in this war".
Actually there is.Do what we did in Vietnam after we finally admitted our mistake in being there: DECLARE VICTORY AND GET OUT.

In Vietnam, the Republicans came up with lame slogans ( just like now with "cut and run")
like "Peace with Honor" that extended that war.
Just like in Vietnam, how many more should die( in Iraq) for a mistake ?

You really are delusional. Sorry my sympathies don't like with the Islamic terrorists like yours do. Have you thought about joining Al-Quaeda? Or are you already a member like your buddy Olby?

"There are no easy outs in this war. Cut and run is not an option. I'm not sure winning is possible either."

Very true.
Whatever you wanna call it, "cut and run" ... "redeployment" ... "going long" ... the U.S. has been progressively losing control.
Some combat units are on their fifth tours.
The status quo cannot be maintained, and like it or not, the deteriorating conditions are evidence of that.
The Bush admin agreed to Baker-Hamilton because that's the direction things are heading.
A blind man could see it.
And it doesn't make one a terrorist sympathizer to say as much.
In the end, despite some U.S. presence (remember the permanent bases) the big winners will be Syria and Iran.
Which means the U.S. took a relatively stable, non-sectarian Iraq, and made it safe for theocracy, a Sunni theocracy.
In short, another Iran -- just what the world DOESn't need.
And it was all brought to you by the neocon-suckered fools at BushCO.
Thanks dumbshits.
Now go pick up your medal of freedom.

A survey of the Iraqi people just released by WorldPublicOpinion.org (WPO) shows that most Iraqis support insurgent attacks on American troops and the majority of those polled want the U.S. out of their country.

What a coincidence: Every poll done in the United States in recent months shows that Americans also want us the hell out of Iraq. The only people who seem deaf to this are George W. Bush, his administration and the bulk of Congressional Republicans.( and the Ow'ers)

The WPO poll, which took place in September, showed that 71 percent of the Iraqi people want the U.S. military occupation to end within a year, with 61 percent of them favoring violence against our troops.

Other poll results:

* 58 percent of Iraqis said inter-ethnic violence would decrease if the U.S.-led forces pulled out.

* 78 percent of respondents say that U.S. military presence is "provoking more conflict than it is preventing."

* 53 percent believe a U.S. timeline to withdraw would strengthen, not weaken, the Iraqi government.

If you have any question why the iraqis hate us over there, just watch this video from Iraq:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=m9A_vxIOB-I

It appears that Grammie and her cabal are to the right of the oil company Monguls>>>>

Energy Firms Come to Terms With Climate Change

By Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 25, 2006;

While the political debate over global warming continues, top executives at many of the nation's largest energy companies have accepted the scientific consensus about climate change and see federal regulation to cut greenhouse gas emissions as inevitable.

The Democratic takeover of Congress makes it more likely that the federal government will attempt to regulate emissions. The companies have been hiring new lobbyists who they hope can help fashion a national approach that would avert a patchwork of state plans now in the works. They are also working to change some company practices in anticipation of the regulation.

"We have to deal with greenhouse gases," John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., said in a recent speech at the National Press Club. "From Shell's point of view, the debate is over. When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, 'Let's debate the science'?"

Pretty funny if you remember the cabal's climate change comments.

To the Sitemaster,
....on second thought, would it actually be as if you could see ANY wider landscape?? That perhaps Olbermann and MSNBC are actually on your side? That they curiously manage to avoid legitimate, hard-hitting 9/11 Truth Movement (google it) concerns as well as any other mainstream corporate giant?

Looks like this site has folded. Rolled up the sidewalks and gone home. It's understandable considering the right wing cabal have been proven wrong on global warming, the Iraq War and everything concerning Bush.

I'd hide too, if I was wrong about so many things.

Baker Report has just been released. It proves the Bush Administration has been lying to us about the ahem...success of the Iraq War.

If I was a parent of a fallen soldier, I'd sue the government and demand Bush be impeached.

Reminds me of an old Pete Seeger song he wrote about the Vietnam War..."Waist deep in the Big Muddy, and the big fool says it push on ! "

and I ask....

Who will be the last soldier to die in Iraq for Bush's mistake ?

Ummmm...Bob...do you know how to use the internet?

scroll to the top of the page and use your mouse to click on the large font words OLBERMANN WATCH

that will take you to the main page of this site and you can see that it has been rolling along nicely...they simply have a new page for each day and other topics as well...it's ok if you don't check it out though...would probably promote man caused global warming