Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

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

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

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

    In

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

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

    In

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

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

    In

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

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

    KO Mini Blog



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

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

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

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


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

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

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

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

    ...they should be...

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

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

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

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

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

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

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

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

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

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

    Friends of OlbyWatch

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

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

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


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

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

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


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



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

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

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    December 14, 2006
    COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - DECEMBER 14, 2006

    "COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN" (8:00 P.M.-9:00 P.M. ET)

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • BALANCE OF POWER: Chris Cillizza, washingtonpost.com

    Keith delivered a somewhat underpowered opening spiel: Sen Johnson's brain surgery, the Dems plan investigations, candidates in Iraq, the Diana investigation, the latest from Jib-Jab, and more. KO served up the latest on the stricken Senator, with some help from Chip Reid. Thus began an Hour of Spin that would prove to be even more boring than it was tendentious.

    MADMAN

    After some name-dropping (Ooooh! I just spoke with Hillary Clinton!), Krazy Keith turned to the Dems plans for "oversight" and "ethics". Needless to say, no mention was made of the ethics questions raised about Reps Jefferson (D), Mollohan (D), or Murtha (D). Then KO went to another of his impartial, nonpartisan "reporters" for "analysis". Oh boy, here we go again.

    MADMAN

    Yes, none other than Slippery Shuster, who kicked things off by comparing upcoming Dem investigations to "turning over a rock" and finding a "worm". Taking a leaf from the all-important (to Keith, anyhow) blue blogs, Monkeymann put forward the notion that the Dem plans are "not ambitious enough", Slippery waved the fright wig ("Halliburton!"), and great thanks followed.

    #4 Political candidates go to Iraq, which quickly morphed into people (like Senators) attempting to "forge genuine diplomatic connections" (with our enemies) "being attacked by the White House". Earth to Olbermoronn: perhaps that's because diplomacy is the job of the executive branch, Einstein. We don't have 435 Secretaries of State and 435 unique foreign policies.

    In the next segment, it was Princess Di and the conspiracies that swirl thereabout. After mispronouncing "clandestine" (as he has every time he has used the word), KO introduced some rerun video from NBC, followed by a talk with Gerald Posner. A knowledgeable guest, but it was still a yawn. #2: Jib-Jab's latest video, Angelina Jolie, Paris Hilton, Joe Francis. #1: Celebrities hired for Christmas parties (with Jeffrey Ross and entirely too much phony, forced laughter from the infamous, deplorable one). In the Media Matters Minute, Citizen Keith managed to attack Fox, and Michael Crichton (semi-conservative). What happened to Billo? Didn't Media Matters post anything on him? Well actually they did, but it came too late for Olby's writers to insert it into his copy. So, will this item appear in KO's next Media Matters Minute? Is the Pope Catholic?

    OLBY

    Muted mongrels: It's ironic that yesterday the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann dedicated an entire segment of the show to clips from Tony Snow answering "I don't know" to various questions. Ironic because Edward R Olbermann still has said nothing about the miserably uninformed chairman-designate of the Intelligence Committee. Another historic high for the Dow Jones? Not on The Hour of Spin. KO has yet to say anything about the largest ever raid of illegal aliens. No time for that--we need more K-Fed news! No sneer, no raised eyebrow, and certainly no "worst person" nomination for Joy Behar, who, on national television, advanced the theory that Sen Johnson's illness was "man made" by GOP plotters. A NY senator is indicted for fraud and thievery. The New York Times protects him by not revealing his party affiliation (D). Krazy Keith goes a step further: he doesn't report the news at all! In his ongoing program to minimize all terror threats, Fat Ass spiked all reference to the FBI alert issued on news of the blind sheik's ill health. Finally, KO has yet to tell his viewers how Jack Abramoff implicated Sen Harry Reid.

    NAME

    Olbermann's book The book that bears Olberman's name is #319 at amazon, while Mr Bill's "Culture Warrior" rose to #15. The OlbyTome sunk to #1,751 at Barnes & Noble, but O'Reilly's book is up to #14, and is #3 on the New York Times Best Sellers List (a list KO's lame repackaging of old segments never even got on). In the Wednesday cable news race, Herr Olbermann ended up in third place, losing to The Factor by more than three to one, though he eked out a second place finish in the critical, beloved, all-important, coveted "key demo". Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 1 [LOW]


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (252) | | View blog reactions

    252 Comments

    I love how Keith does not "Great thanks" the NBC correspondent at the White House. Probably because he didn't claim the Republicans would filibuster the organizational vote. Shuster, on the other hand, just flat out said there is corruption EVERYWHERE. GREAT THANKS

    Oh boy. Top baby names for the year will be featured on tomorrow's CD. Which means that show will be as big as a dud as tonight's loser broadcast.

    olbermann is one of those insecure immature small minds that needs to knock people down in order to try and elevate homself. Now I am not saying that Kevin Federline(sp?) or any of the other people that the lord high gerbil meister herr olbermann chooses to denigrate do not deserve a level of criticsm but this nutjob takes it to the extreme.
    Olbermann needs to put people down and make childish innuendos about people in vain attempt to try and dignify and validate his own worthless self. I firmly believe that olbermann person has serious mental issues.
    and he only has people on his show that back up his churlish postions. Why is it he never has anybody on that might differ from his position? His mental affliction needs validation I suppose.
    If I were in charge of MSNBC I would be embarrassed to have his show on my network. the guy is a total jerk.

    Not many comments tonight. Shouldn't someone give him some credit for showing Tony Snow's apology to David Gregory. I would say that the apology actually shows Mr. Snow in a positive light, because he's a big enough man to admit when he is wrong, unlike our President.

    Anon, you sound like a 'nutjob' with mental issues yourself....a very judgmental nutjob!

    anon @ 9:24 who are you trying to kid O'lielly?? we all know that you are the gerbil boy and your classic stupis resonse always gives you away.
    we all know it you O' Lielly only you could post something so patently stupid. nice try O'lie now back to your gerbils!

    Snow wasn't wrong. "The problem with Gregory's question: "Can this report be seen as anything other than a rejection of this president's handling of the war?"...is that it was never meant to elicit a serious answer. It was designed to put Snow in an impossible position on television, and no one should be surprised that he pushed back." Snow is just a good guy.

    Great Thanks to Johnny D for another great summary. Citizen Keith was not extra deplorable, but deplorable none the less.

    Charles, your just wrong...why is it so hard for right wingers to admit when they or any of their heros are wrong?

    What Snow was wrong about was claiming it was a "partisan question". His answer should have simply been 'no', without the 'partisan' crap. He's big enough to admit but you are not.

    You think the press corps are there to get answers to yes/no questions from Tony Snow? It was a partisan question, dumbass. When Gregory asks a question designed to make the president look bad and push his liberal agenda, yea that's partisan.

    You think the press corps are there to get answers to yes/no questions from Tony Snow? It was a partisan question, dumbass. When Gregory asks a question designed to make the president look bad and push his liberal agenda, yea that's partisan.

    Snow did not need to apologize to Gregory. Gregory tried very much to "be" the news, making him deplorable.

    Actually anon 09:29, you are wrong like you guys are almost always wrong. The 09:24 'anon' comment was from Mike, as in me, not O'lielly, and I stand by my 'stupis' comment. Anyone who would spew out an inane mouthfull of hate like that is a "nutjob with mental issues".

    OT: Heard that O'Reilly is out on a "secret" story and that his whereabouts couldn't be mentioned.

    Could he be joining up with Michelle Malkin (and Eason Jordan) and going to Iraq to search for the famous "Jamil Hussein", the source for the AP story about the six Iraqis allegedly set on fire?

    Boy, will KO be purple with envy (that's green + orange = purple)?

    Ok Charles, so now it's 'dumbass' is it? Better than a damned jerk like you abviously are!

    More proof that right wingers cannot debate a point without resorting to insults! You show your lack of class with every post. How could a really nice guy like Mr. Snow possibly be a right winger, just an annomaly I guess!

    Also 'dumbass', the press is not supposed to make it easy on the press secretary. Snow should respond with class and usually does, unlike yourself!

    By the way Charles, you 'dumbass', the war is not a liberal/conservative issue! Invading and occupying a country that did not attack us was never a 'conservative' principal....never was, never will be, and only a complete idiot believes it is!

    well Mike my sincere apologies you know I meant stupid not "stupis" my typo. but the crux of the matter is you DO sound ignorant enought to be O;lielly. he posts the same type of illiterate drivel you just did and why the anon post anyway? trying to figure out which jerk to parrot?
    nice try but your support for a kook like olbermann and sounding like the celebrated moron O"lielly wins you tonights silver in the top three dumbass awards here on Olbermannwatch
    go for the gold- go ahead , I know you have it in you to take top honors!

    The war is a partisian issue and you are delusional if you think otherwise. If the war goes well...Bush looks good. This is the main reason the left is against the war.

    Meanwhile the troops are reenlisting to go back to Iraq at record rates and almost everyone of them expresses their hatred of the liberally biased media. They obviously think what they are doing is right.

    You, by the way, just proved it is a partisian issue with the "Invading and occupying a country..." comment.

    Well anon, I guess you have one point in that it might be 'stupis' to argue with an anon, someone who won't even come out of the closet and give themselves an identity.

    You and people like you think the one who can post the most insults in one sentence wins! If you say someone is stupid enough times, that must make it so!

    My definition of 'stupid' is being obsessed with a TV personality you can't stand to the point that you actually watch his show just to find more ammunition to try to use against him.

    You think Olbermann is biased, but he can't begine hold a candle to YOUR obsessive bias!

    Asking a question that is not meant to get a real meaningful answer is not as acceptable way to not "make it easy on the press secretary"

    If you want to know why we went to war read this:
    http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

    liberals want us to lose the war. the way they defend the terrorist muslims we all know whose side they are on. yet the righteous idignations spews forth from the likes of the mouths of olbermann.
    The NY times, Olbermann and their ilk all want failure . The only thing that they are not smart enough to realize is that our failure might very well include their own demise.
    If the leftists hate Evangelical Christians they are just going to love Isalmic law.

    Muslims are actually pretty conservative. They don’t like abortions. They hate homosexuals. They believe women are inferior and need to be covered so as not to tempt men who might rape them. They are very religious and don’t agree with ‘separation of church and state’.

    I have concluded that if it weren’t for terrorism, liberals would hate Muslims.

    I never said it wasn't a 'partisan' issue. It has become a partisan issue only because Bush and the Republicans elected to make it one. I stated the invasion did not follow established concervative principals, and I stand by that. You are the one who used the word 'Liberal', as if that label could be properly defined by opposition to the war.

    Are you claiming we didn't "invade and occupy Iraq"? What would you call it? So telling the truth makes it partisan in your world?

    When I was a young Air Force serviceman during the Vietnam war, I too thought we were doing the right thing at that time. However, I grew older and wiser with age. I THOUGHT for 30 years that our country had learned a lesson from Vietnam. Wow, was I wrong!

    ok what lesson did you learn young air force servicemean?

    As you seem to be implying that Liberals love terrorism, and that is just another cheap shot, but the extreme right just loves making cheap shots and playing loosely with the truth.

    You don't need to educate me about why we invaded Iraq. I know what the publicly stated reasons were and I know what the hidden reasons were. There would be far less controversy about it today if the Administration had been willing to conduct an HONEST debate about it, but they knew if they did that, they probably wouldn't get their war.

    "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

    If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

    President Clinton
    Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
    February 17, 1998
    ------------------------------------


    "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

    Former President Clinton
    During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
    July 22, 2003
    ------------------------------------


    "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

    Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
    Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
    September 27, 2002
    ------------------------------------


    "Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

    Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
    Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
    February 18, 1998
    ------------------------------------


    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

    We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

    Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
    Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
    September 23, 2002

    Only conseravtives hurl insults? Then someone sure as hell needs to tell Olby that so maybe he'll stop hurling insults at others. But then what would he have left to say on air if he gave up his slurs, slams, and insults?

    You seem to like to dismiss your own partisianship when all your liberal buddies were on the "we need to disarm Saddam" bandwagon.

    http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

    Charley said: "Muslems are pretty conservative", and "believe women are inferior". That sounds like an admission on your part that American Conservatives consider women to be inferior?

    I think it was plenty clear that I learned the Vietnam war was a mistake later on in life. The contrived Gulf of Tonkin 'incident' is a pretty good analogy to the contrived WMD claim, which I don't believe for a minute they actually believed were there.

    So Charley, was I 'liberal' in 2000, when I voted for this idiot we call Mr. President? But I sure was wrong.

    I think the correct label for me is 'Independent'. You see, I choose country and common sense over party, unlike many if not most Republicans AND Democrats these days.

    That said, I don't know a single 'Liberal' who I believe would have chosen the path Bush did had they been president. However, I really don't believe most of the conservatives would have done it either.

    You must be an Olbyloon as you manage to spin my list of things that liberals find to be sacred and accuse conservatives of thinking women inferior.

    Ok you think there were no WMDs. Well apparently almost all of congress was in on this conspiracy.

    Most of Congress was simply guilty of having no backbone and went along because that was the way the political wind was blowing. There were some who stood against the tide, and we should honor their judgment and patriotism today.

    You cannot mangage to put together a coherent argument. You just resort to claiming your superiority over the rest of us.

    If the "path" you are talking about is the invasion of Iraq...Obviously, in retrospect most people would not have invaded,...but as I proved with the quotes of important figures AND legislation that was debated in congress and got overwhelming support almost all our leaders though it was right to invade at the time.

    Our intelegence said WMDs, the British said so and the russians said so(the 3 best intelegences in the world). So unless your conpiracy therory involves a time machine and mind-control I think we can say there was no conspiracy.

    Show me where Al Gore ever advocated invading and occupying Iraq with American ground troups!

    This comment doesn't mean I love Al Gore. Remember, I voted against him in 2000...my mistake!

    Ironic too you talk about "political wind". Could that wind be causing all those democrats today to swap sides and claim they were decieved?

    Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust Saddam Hussein.

    The New York Times
    Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
    February 13, 2002

    It's no 'conspiracy theory'. It's not conspiracy theorists who believe intelligence was cherry picked. The prepondurance of evidence clearly shows the intelligence was cherry picked. There was never an honest debate about that.

    I clearly remember watching Powell's UN presentation (on Fox 'news', no less) and I sure wasn't convinced by the 'evidence' he was presenting to the world. Turns out he had his own personal doubts as well.

    As I already stated, I believe most of Congress lacked backbone and just went along with the tide. I also clearly remember that the vote was an authorization to go to was "as a last resort"! Many were duped because they didn't realize that he was actually going to do it, come hell or high water!

    Al Gore is all talk, and no walk. He never was going to have a "final reckoning" with anybody. He did little or nothing about "global warming" as VP, either.

    You didn't show me where Al Gore ever advocated actually sending in the ground troops. "regime change" had been policy ever since Bush 41 wisely chose not to go to Baghdad. Clinton also embraced "regime change", but again, it was never seen as a policy of actual invasion using ground troops until Bush and Co. took it literally, against Daddy's advice.

    The lesson here is don't do crack, while posting on Olbermann message boards.

    Read this book, then come talk to me...
    http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1591454042/ref=pd_rvi_gw_2/102-3585072-9713731

    Oh I love the Olbyloons. Now it's "they didn't advocate sending in ground troops." The Democratic senators voted for the war too dumbass. what do you think they thought that meant? that we weren't going to invade?

    " never try to teach a pig to sing- it wastes your time and it annoys the pig"
    that applies to any attempt to try and educate liberal-progressives on the errors of their ways and their self delusional ideology.
    the only thing that will unfortunately impress upon the leftists the peril of their wrongness is another attack and then that will only last for a short while. liberals always like to tell everybody how very smart they are but really have a tough time proving it to anybody other than themselves.

    I've already read plenty of books and I've clearly just overwhelmed you here since you had to resort to your "don't do crack" retort.

    You Neocon defenders really don't have to continue to be so defensive about this. Facts are facts and the truth will prevail in the end, as it must.

    The truth is we are in a much weaker position today as a result of all this. Hiding your head in the sand a little longer won't change that.

    So Al Gore's "final reckoning" is just about talking to dictators while drinking tea and watching "The View"? Oh thanks for clearing that up.

    And of course "consider[ing] ways to oust Saddam" meant he certainly didn't want troops. Just more lighthearted chat over biscuits. Because that solution has a great track record.

    Brandon...Sir 'DUMBASS' said "what do you think that meant, it meant we were going to invade": You obviously didn't read or comprehend my comment above on that very subject!

    The FACTS are that ONLY Bush and the Neocons ever advocating sending in the ground troops.

    You actually have presented no facts, just suspisions of the administration, and your mind reading of the other politicians.

    anon if we are in fact in a weaker position the why have we not been attacked again?
    I really belive that if the terrorists are busy fighting us Iraq then they will be too busy to attack us here in America.
    you might want to shake some of the sand off your head and realize that .
    and i don't accuse you of using crack.. you seem more like a hallucinogen man to me...just f---ing kidding , chill out man. just kidding.

    What books have you read about militant Islam?

    Keith Olbermann must be succesful in his ways to get every body here this upset...

    Ok anon 11:22, "If we are in a weaker position, why have we not been attacked again"? Wow, thats so easy!

    First off, how many years had it been PRIOR to 911 since we had been attacked on US soil? I believe you will see that the answer is 8 years (as in longer than 5). It took them 4 long years just to plan and carry out that attack, and, guess what, it wasn't Iraq or Saddam that did it!

    DO you REALLY believe that invading Iraq has somehow prevented terrorist attacks in the US? I didn't think anybody actually believed that bull. How naive! Could it be that we have been far more vigilant since 911...could that have anything to do with it? Could it be that almost every PD of any size in the country has formed an anti-Terrorist unit?

    Invading Iraq has increased hatred for us in the Muslem world exponentially. How does that make us safer?

    Question: If you really believe that us fighting Shiaa's and Sunni's in Baghdad is somehow making you safer over here, then ask yourself if you think it's fair that young Americans in Iraq are the ones who have to be the ones to die just to make you feel more secure over here. Thats sounds a little selfish to me.

    all I needed to know about militant islam I learned on sept 11.

    Anonymous, you have the intellect of a single-cell organism. When you vote for war, you vote to invade. There is no spinning that, although God knows you're trying. But continue on, you're just making yourself look like a bigger dumb ass than we already know you are. It's actually quite amusing. No wonder you hide behind the name anonymous. I wouldn't want to put my name to such pitiful posts either.

    Looks like everybody has gone "Anonymous" tonight. I can't keep track of you people. Name yourselves, please. Make one up. It's not that hard.

    No Rico, it's very difficult for them. If you haven't figured it out yet, some of them aren't that bright.

    "all I needed to know about militant Islam I learned on Sept 11": Ignorance like that is exactly how we got bogged down in the middle of a Civil War that we set in motion in Iraq.

    But hey, relax: The president of the United States didn't know much about it either.

    Johnny $ is already take, by the way... so don't use that name...

    If you belive they hate us because of Iraq, Israel, foriegn policy, or any other ridiculus thing you really should read up on the idelology and motivations of people who strap bombs to themselves and run into a hospital to detonate it.

    The Soldiers believe what they are doing is right. You are selfish in that you hate Bush so much you can not support them, when they believe in the mission. Selfishness is hoping for failure and trying to assign unjust blame. Hating Bush more than you love your country is selfishness.

    For the Clintons Keith gets a boner
    Like Bubba he'll be a sperm donor
    He talked to Bill's Mrs.
    A big ass he kisses
    Did he pay her or was it on loaner?

    No Brandon, you show what a tunnel visioned dumbass with every new post new make, ironically calling other people 'dumbass'es'.

    I didn't spin a damned thing check the record. The vote for war was an authorization to go to war AS A LAST RESORT AFTER ALL OTHER METHODS WERE EXHAUSTED. Many people, including me, thought that vote might be used strictly as a bluff against Saddam. That is FACT , and that is history. Calling people a 'dumbass' doesn't change facts.

    As for intelligence, you are like a typical Neocon so called conservative. You see everything in black and white, good or evil. Sorry but life just isn't that simple and never will be in this world.

    Hating Bush more than you love your country is selfishness.

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

    Correction: replace "your" with "his". Bush has done so little as a leader of the whole nation, or others ideologies.

    President Bush is woefully ignorant of the ideology of our enemies, but I am not here to defend him, but to defend the truth that has gotten burried in the "hate Bush" fervor.

    Yeah... "enemies" such as Mr. Baker and Mr. Simpson.

    survival IS selfish amigo, it's right up there with self preservation and the strong desire to wake up in the morning and not see planes flying into bulidings.
    I was under the silly assumtion that AlQueda had something to do with the 9/11 attacks, you know miltitant, terroristic muslims and all that and I was under the even sillier idea that that is who we were fighting in iraq.
    to me it seems to draw al-queda into Iraq and fight them THERE was a kinda brilliant idea .Iran is probably a greater threat than Iraq was so it also makes sense to flank Iran by being in Afhganistan and Iraq which if my geography lessons were correct keep Iran centrally located so to speak.
    look everybody thought Iraq had WMD's. they probably did tho few have the testicular fortitiude to say that now. What were we supposed to do ? yell clean up in aisle 7, and oops excuse me no WMD's here and slink out of Iraq?? Bush $! should have let Schwartzkopf march right on into Bagdad in Desert storm and be done with it then. If Husseien was held accounatable by the Un he would be still dancing his tune and re-arming and I suspect every cognizant non partisan would recognize that,
    the liberal media is doing AGAIN EXACTLY what it did in Vietnam... not letting us win. and the gullible American people have taken the partisan media's defeatsim hook line and sinker..again
    war sucks.. but losing a war sucks much worse..

    The American people voted for Bush twice and a republican senate twice. You are correct about the gullibility.

    You think the congressional vote to go to war wit Iraq was a "bluff"? Nice mind reading.
    I just want to know when, exactly, has diplomacy ever worked with loony dictators?

    Charley - you have it backwards:

    Hating Bush because of what he has done to my country is very patriotic. Sitting on your ass over here and cheering the troops on while they try to referee a Civil War that Bush created in selfish.

    I support the soldier's so much that I don't want to see another one of them killed or maimed for an incoherent reason you cannot even articulate.

    You don't have a clue what the "soldier's think"! You know what some of them think, and you know what some of them say. They are not exactly free to speak their mind without fear of retribution nor do they have much of a forum to say what they believe.

    You call it "hoping for failure"> That is the standard Neocon line to try to shame and quiet the opposition, but using that line is shamefull in itself.

    You want 'victory', and that's very noble, but can you articulate exactly what victory is going to look like? How are we going to know when we have won?

    Ask yourself this, if we spend several more years there and another 3000 soldiers are killed and 20,000 more are maimed, and we still have chaos in Iraq, how are you going to feel about those additional 3000 who were sacrificed for nothing?

    When Carter was in office it was... Jimmy Carter is truly one of thee smartest presidents we have ever had... we should have re-elected him.

    A bluff backed up with a promise of overwhelming force is a far different thing than diplomacy.

    If the soldiers (who are reenlisting at record rates to go back to Iraq) still believe in the mission, than I support them.

    Your "civil war" is a centurys' old struggle between sunnis and shiites.

    Yes i have talked to soldiers, i do know what they think, and they all express hatered for the media that lies and distortes the image the people here have.
    http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/12/the_military_and_the.php

    Victory in Iraq is only a small front in this war. I want total victory over the idelology that threatens our very existance.

    It's amazing how you guys on the right love to blame everything on "the liberal media". If it just wasn't for that damned "liberal media", we'd have solved all he world's problems by now.

    The media's job is to report the facts, whether we like those facts or not.

    Carter smart?? it was amazing that he could even go to the bathroom by himself and i heard that too was in question. carter was the first American president to prove to the islamic terrorists that we could be as big a bunch of pussies as they wanted us to be.
    In my book carter was the worst president in my lifetime and today he is STILL a moron.
    and America voted for Republicans because the democrats sucked.
    Kerry proved we made the righ choice in '04 by opening his big, dumb , condescending,new england liberal mouth.
    my only problem is deciding who is a bigger moron now- kerry or carter.

    Listen, as long as you insist that your heros in the democratic pary were bluffing in everything they said and approved to get us to war, I'm going to have to end this here... you are clearly delusional with Bush hate. Why don't you just put on a tin foil hat and blame Bush for Katrinia, 9/11, and "the worst economy since the depression"-Pelosi,a month ago

    God help this country when we can't even get support to remove one of the worst genocidal dictators in history who was "as little as a year away from a nuclear weapon"(NYTimes 3 weeks ago)

    Charles: You have talked to and heard the opinions of SOME soldiers, not all of them.

    What are you going to do personally to help achieve this "total victory over this ideology that threatens our very existence"? What are you personally going to sacrifice?

    How do you 'defeat' an idealogy? Do you beat an idealogy with bullits? I happen to believe that "America's very existence" cannot possibly be defeated by an idealogy. We can only defeat ourselves from within by making irrational decisions that threaten our very democracy. Irrational fear is one of those things that could defeat us from within.

    You have shown you have no understanding of the idelology yet you contend that it can't beat us. I am willing to sacrfice myself. And ALMOST ALL soldiers believe what they are doing is right and hate the media. FACT.(they kind you don't like)

    Well, there you go again talking about "my heroes in the Democratic Party. I thought I pointed out they they showed no backbone and that I voted for Bush in 2000 (when he claimed he was against foreign interventionism).

    As for the NY Times, it's amazing how you so called conservatives love to villify them when they report something you don't like and hold them up as an example when they report something you do like. Judith Miller of the Times was very instrumental in helping them make the false claim of WMD in the war build up. What is it...do you love the NY times, or do you hate them?

    Anyone claiming Saddam was a year away from nuclear weapons at the time when we invaded is clearly delushional, be it the Times, or anyone else. I'll bet that article was referring to prior to the first Gulf War or when Israel attacked.

    Please scroll up, I can't be bothered saying things 2341733 times. Take off the foil hat.

    Charles: Im going to turn in now and end this for now. I wnat to thank you for not resorting again to calling me a 'dumbass' like you did in your second post.

    One thing I DO believe strongly is that we are BOTH patriotic Americans speaking about what we believe is best for America.

    I agree and I only ask that, regardless of your views on Iraq, you attempt to learn more about the idelology that commands and inspires our enemies.

    "One thing I DO believe strongly is that we are BOTH patriotic Americans speaking about what we believe is best for America."
    Geez , now there is one hell of an idea and i applaud you for it!
    I think we used to call that "patriotism" back in the old days.
    good night

    The only enemies of the American way that can take down the good old U.S.A. are enemies from within, not within the population, but within the government. Just my thoughts.

    Are you freakin' kdding me???

    Look, I NEVER watch this doofus' train wreck of a show (primarily because I get far more out of scooping up dig crap, intellectually speaking, of course), but happened to catch the complete comedic death of Jeffery Ross at the end of tonight's broadcast.

    At the tail end of this douchebag's excuse for a news show, he bleated (as retarded children are wont to do) something about Tony Snow apologizing to that f*ckwit David Gregory. HUH? Excuse me, but is Olbywethispants so delusional as to believe that somehow DG warrants an apology from ANYBODY???

    Hey, I mighta missed something here, but considering the caliber of complete tools who worship at the altar of ignorance that is Olby, I don't really think so. However, is Tony Snow has somehow apologized to any moonbat troll with an NBC press pass, than I'd certainly like to know about it.

    Typical moonbat...brings a social worker to a gunfight.

    And of course, as is the case with most of us here who actually, you know, HAVE A JOB, I find the typical intellectual kindergartners, still trying to fly the flag of LemmingWood.

    Look sportos, I know this is painful for you, so I'll do you all a favor and let you cut in line when it comes to dressing out in those oh, so classy orange duds and plastic handcuffs.

    Jesus, I wish to God Almighty just ONE of you f---wits were flying out of LAX on the 24th!!!!

    I'd just adore buying you a drink!! Really, I would!

    "Typical moonbat...brings a social worker to a gunfight."
    that's f---ing beautiful!
    may I have your permission to use that in future "conversations" with the tofu and traitor crowd??

    Is it me or when Krazy Keith ran the jib jab segment, in full view on the screen was f---IN NUTS!
    Granted this is cable and no one watches this show, but what newscast other then Man Under Desk, puts that on the screen.
    Also making a mockery of Andrea Jaegger for becoming a nun-class act Keithy- Ole Edward would be proud!

    I'll take Olbyloons anyday if the definition of their polar opposites are trogladites like hollywoodneocon.

    Is it me or when Krazy Keith ran the jib jab segment, in full view on the screen was f---IN NUTS!
    Granted this is cable and no one watches this show, but what newscast other then Man Under Desk, puts that on the screen.
    Also making a mockery of Andrea Jaegger for becoming a nun-class act Keithy- Ole Edward would be proud!

    Is it me or when Krazy Keith ran the jib jab segment, in full view on the screen was f---IN NUTS!
    Granted this is cable and no one watches this show, but what newscast other then Man Under Desk, puts that on the screen.
    Also making a mockery of Andrea Jaegger for becoming a nun-class act Keithy- Ole Edward would be proud!

    Sounds like Hollywood is woefully dissillusioned by people claiming to be fair and balanced and half their brain tied behide their back. It is sad when the fact are glossed over to listen to opinion but 2 bit figure heads. If a person would investigate all forms of media, they would understand the difference between offical sounding commentary and the facts (truth) of what is going on.

    "Is it me or when Krazy Keith ran the jib jab segment, in full view on the screen was f---IN NUTS!"

    It's just you. I reran my TiVo and the name of the video is NUCKIN FUTS.

    not "but 2 bit figure heads." I meant "by 2 bit figure heads."

    some spineless twit whined...

    "trogladites like hollywoodneocon"

    First of all, nitwit, you spelled it wrong. If you're going to insist upon flaming people, please have the common courtesy of using the English language properly (unless, of course, you're one of those dipshits that simple adore any language other than the one you were taught, because you think it's "bitchin" to be different).

    Secondly, sweetie, try to have a point in your retort. Otherwise, you just confirm that you're every bit the petulant little asswipe we suspect you of being.

    Now get to bed. You have a quiz in the morning.

    And yet another little lemming squealed...

    "Sounds like Hollywood is woefully dissillusioned..."

    I have to simply laugh at the utter simplicity of this idiot's opinion. Had he/she/it bothered to consider the context of my post, the thoroughly repugnant little shit would have responded to OlbyHelpMeMommaIJustCrappedMyDrawers' opinion that somehow, Tony Snow decided to drop trou to David "Don't Hate Me Because I'm Stupid" Gregory.

    Typical moonbat, bring ignorance to a gunfight.

    I almost feel sorry for the little bastard, except that I really want my frap prepared correctly when I go to Starbucks tomorrow morning, and I fear this little shit just might envy my studio backlot pass.

    Now get back to class, dipshit. Your pathetic little script isn't gonna whore itself out on it's own.

    HollywoodNeoCon,

    Damn you're a bitter, petty, and vindictive troglodyte. Fun to read though.

    LMAO,
    Josh

    Charles Martel,

    Just accept it that the republican led congress and president really blew it. Posting some quotes from some democrats does nothing to minimize the horrible job this administration did in planning and executing this war. It's people like you who think partisan politics and attacks really count for something. You deny the realities in order to prove a worthless partisan point. Yes you are right, the democrats failed this country too. Does that make you feel better? Do you feel smarter now. Is your political ideology so important to you that you could care less how many more troops and civilians die as long you hope the people and ideas you have supported will be proved right at some point in the future? Well so far three years and counting and not one thing this administration told us would happen has come true. On top of that there are people like you out there ridiculing people for feeling upset at this administration becasue of this. You hold on to a vision that was fed to you that has never come close to being realized. You have spent the past three years hoping that things would get better. Not because it would be good for our troops or for the people of Iraq. You don't really care about them anyways. They are just a means to your end. Some symbolic fodder for your personal political battle. You care only about you and your obsession to be the political victor. To have your ideology validated in the war of ideas in this country. You blame the left for our failures. Well this war was not started by the left. This war was not run by the left. This war was not planned by the left. At least be true and recognize the failure of this war to now rests on the administration you voted into power. I would feel the same way if the democrats ran things but they didn't. This is not a partisan issue for me and never will be. People in this country need to learn to get over themselves and not feel this need to have their ideas and intellect validated by who they voted for or against.

    Jimmy Carter? Best President?

    Let's see....American Hostages being paraded daily in front of the news cameras.......Gas Lines out the wazo with gas prices skyrocketing......Mortgage and other lending rates around 20%.......Yeah I would call that a hat trick of ineptness! But hey, whats a "Tin Foil Hat Loon" like Bicker Boy suppose to do? He only has a limited brain capacity. There being the need for selective memory.

    Oh Mike!

    9:20 you post, " Not many comments tonight." Oh Mike, now I guess I have to remind you and you're little "S.P." crowd what time of year it is. First off, The majority of us have a little device called a TIVO. A marvelous little invention, you and you're friends should check it out. But I digress. You see Mike it's getting to the time of year when the majority of us are putting the final touches on our Christmas (YIKES!)shopping. Many of us who have office or other jobs are having our Christmas (DOUBLE YIKES!) parties. And there are many of us like HollywoodNeoCon who are putting on the final touches of our transportation plans so we can be home for the Christmas (TRIPLE YIKES!) holiday.

    Yes Mike, for the rest of us. The world doesn't stop when Olby comes on. Check the ratings.

    Mike, Still looking for that George Bush apology? Maybe you should go into the recording studio and cut this song. "All I want for the winter solstice is a George Bush apology." And Mike I've also got the name for the b-side. "Should've, Could've, Would've, (The Ballad of the Monday Morning Quarterback)". You could do a duet with Bicker Boy!

    Olby said he was in touch with Hillary, how nice. Well you have to figure it was going to happen. Now that it looks like Al Frankin is gone goodbye from Dead Air America. How is Hillary going to have her super puff pieces put out in the media? And if you folks think she won't just do exclusives with Olby. A little history lesson. When Hillary first ran for Senate, she gave an exclusive interview in the New York City area to Bill Mazer. Who? You might ask? Yes Bill Mazer! A daytime radio talkshow host. Who, by the way was also a failed sportscaster on a local channel (5) in New York City. If he is still alive, he did have a daytime talk show that streamed out of Yonkers or Westchester. You should check him out. He makes Olby look like a conservative!

    Before I go I just got an e-mail that said Bill Mazer is still alive! And on the schedule at www.wvox.com 3p.m.-6p.m. e.s.t. out of New Rochelle. Hey Rob and Laura Petre's old hometown! I just checked out their homepage. They still have their Saint Patrick Day Photos up! Oh Mike, you'll love this station, right now their playing music from about sixty years ago, and with Bill Mazer. You can play Should've, Could've, Would've, all day!

    "If you belive they hate us because of Iraq, Israel, foriegn policy, or any other ridiculus thing you really should read up on the idelology and motivations of people who strap bombs to themselves and run into a hospital to detonate it.

    The Soldiers believe what they are doing is right. You are selfish in that you hate Bush so much you can not support them, when they believe in the mission. Selfishness is hoping for failure and trying to assign unjust blame. Hating Bush more than you love your country is selfishness."

    Read up? where? Victor Davis Hanson, perhaps? This post by "Charles Martel" is delusional in its every aspect - the Hammer just misses the nail by a mile.

    Perhaps Charles should read a few recent opinion polls regarding why larger and larger numbers of Muslims are joining ranks with our enemies. Or he could read these articles that suggest he is batshit crazy:

    http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2005/nf2005076_7420_db056.htm

    http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1418817.htm

    http://www.alternet.org/movies


    Also, your point that our country should be held emotional hostage to the dangerous misconceptions that you claim are inculcated in our military is ridiculous.

    Why would Olbermann care about the arrest of the illegals? Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats care. Everyone knows that they are here. Even with the threat of terrorism, Bush did nothing for four years.

    Lame.

    Since when has a vote for war meant that it was only to be used as a last resort? Jesus Christ, I can't believe you're that ignorant. I mean, it goes without saying that if you think Olbermann is the reincarnation of Edward R. Murrow that you're sadly lacking in IQ points, but sorry, when the Dems voted to authorize the war in Iraq they knew damn well preperations were being made and it means that it was on, not as some sort of "last resort" as dear, deluded Anonymous is trying to spin here.

    Brandon,

    Here is the text of 107-243 ("AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
    FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002")

    (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the
    United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.


    Since UN weapons inspectors were in place and doing their jobs AND not wanting to leave, I would say that Bush hadn't met the requirements. But, feel free to spin, anyway.

    No nomination of O'Reilly as WPITW this week? KO must be slipping. I suspect that Keith will take a jab at "Bill-O" today before O'Reilly begins his vacation next week.

    The UN is a failure. It is hard to find one situation in which thier actions actually worked.

    Idiotanon- Then why did all those democrats also vote to authorize the war idiot. You must be smarter than every democrat and republican. Spin not needed.

    There is no terrorist threat. They wouldn't hate us if we would just appease them. It worked so well with Arafat and Assad. My solution is to talk and talk and talk and do nothing. Then when someone actually tries to do something, I will complain and yell and scream of fascism, further hamstringing our efforts and then I will claim victory when the half hearted effort fails. I am a liberal loon, my logic is undeniable and my treachery goes unpunished. I will be the death of us all. Bush is the devil.

    Don't forget Section 2 of the AUMF:

    "SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
    The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
    (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
    (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

    Now, statutory construction being what it is, it is clear from the text that Congress supported a DIPLOMATIC effort first, THEN the military option.

    Benson,

    They didn't vote to authorize the war. You really must be stupid not to remember that the weapons inspectors were IN. That satisfied the UN articles. Bush told them to get out or be killed.

    Try not being ignorant this early.

    What did they vote on stupid... lunch?

    Idiotanon- Food for your shallow mind. NOTE: has nothing to do with inspectors- Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought and passed by a vote of 296-133,

    Benson,

    Wow! You get dumber all the time. Couldn't even read the text of the resolution that I graciously provided. Have someone read it to you. It allows force if the UN resolutions aren't met. They were being met. Don't know how I can make it simple enough for you.

    Anon (10:41),

    So, here's another idiot who couldn't read the text of the resolution. Too bad. You girls look pretty dumb ignoring the text. Where are your facts? You got a speech of a democrat stating that we should go to war REGARDLESS of UN resolutions?

    No, as with all dumb neocons, you've got nothin'.

    I am serious anon- you are an idiot. can't even argue with an idiot. We'll commence this argument when you graduate junior high school. Inspectors were not cooperated with. But its only been 4 years for you to conveniently forget that. That is why you are always going to be an idiot.

    "What did they vote on stupid... lunch?"

    They foolishly voted on giving Bush the power to use our military to combat "global terrorist groups" as he saw fit, as emergencies might develop. Bush then used this overly trustful political resolution as a "letter of marque" to commit internation piracy on an uninvolved nation state. This was possible because of the dreadful boredom, banality, and absence of critical thinking skills that afflicts the majority of American minds.

    Who are the "realists" these days? Those who question blatant conflicts of interest between our leaders and war-profiteering corporations, demand that basic accounting principles be applied to our vast war-time expenditures, and critique the disarticulated sequence of casus belli used to rationalize this war; or the bleeding heart right-wingers who scream about "wars on Christmas", who disdain legal and economic accountibility for those governing our socviety; eschew social/economic explanations for international conflict in favor of magico/religious "clashes of civilizations", and who fetishize the intrinsic goodness and wisdom of a hereditary ne'er-do-wellpresident who can't articulate a simple sentence in his native language?

    Benson,

    "...We have also noticed, in listening to and reading the inspectors' reports, that a lot of progress has been achieved, that weapons are being destroyed every day. Of course, we haven't reached the full goal yet, but the inspectors are telling us -- and they will say that again on Tuesday [in their report to the Security Council], I am sure – that we are within reach of our goal, and that we can do that without war. That is precisely my goal, my objective..."

    http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/03/16/sprj.irq.amanpour.chirac/index.html

    There are plenty of other articles, Benson; but, you are too stupid to remember recent history. As usual, I provide facts and you provide whining.

    Iraq a "piracy on an uninvolved nation state. "?

    Whatever you call Iraq... they gave the mandate to Bush to oust Hussein in Iraq, and he did. Like it or not, you can not go back and change that resolution or its results. Bitch now all you want about the war. That is your right, and I fight for it. But don't change the premise or enviroment around the 2002 resolution 4 years later.

    Anon- you are giving ME ammo.

    Does that article say 2003? From CNN? From Chirac, that puss from the land or surrender? Try again!

    Chirac was right. Bush was wrong, dummy. Even Republicans are admitting it. Too bad you are dumber than even the average Republican.

    And, a wartime deserter knows quite a bit about surrender. Bush is the ultimate "puss".

    idiot- chirac is not right. you should move to france, you may shine among those idiots. here you just bring the intelligence curve way down. your allies are- chirac, chavez, kofi? you are on the wrong side softee.

    Let's see...

    No WMDs, not greeted as liberators, infrastructure still destroyed, no connection to 9/11, war didn't "pay for itself" with Iraqi oil...

    Hmmm, so what is the definition of "right" and "wrong" in the trailer park where you live, Benson?

    I THOUGHT for 30 years that our country had learned a lesson from Vietnam. Wow, was I wrong!
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Considering HOW many people were massacred after we left there?

    Looks like we did learn our lesson.

    You keep changing the subject dummy. I thought we were talking about Bush not having any authority for the war. SO you lose that arguement and change the subject? Take your ball home weenie, you can't play here.

    benson,

    Iraq was not anywhere near being on the table when they voted. Cheney and Rummy pulled that out of their ancient asses as soon as the foolish and overly credulous vote was cast. On what do you base your assertion that congress was entertaining an invasion of Iraq when they gave Bush such plenary military powers?

    and yes - piracy. Iraq's potential oil production was looted (being off the market - prices for other producers rises) and the American taxpayer was robbed, and is being robbed in the name of a war on fiction.

    You don't need to educate me about why we invaded Iraq. I know what the publicly stated reasons were and I know what the hidden reasons were.
    *****************************************************
    Do tell what those hidden reasons were please.

    Wait a sec... if you know about them, how are they hidden? If they are hidden, how do you know about them then?

    Somebody wanted us to read an article:

    But again, the goal is a common goal. A goal shared by all members of the Security Council, all 15 of us. And it is indeed the goal of the international community as a whole. We have to disarm Iraq.

    CHIRAC: "We can't just leave that Iraqi dictator in a position where he can hold weapons that he could use, and we don't know what he could use. Or rather we have too clear an understanding of what he might do with them. That is clear, I think. But we have to do that in the most reasonable conditions, the most normal conditions, and I think today, as I have said, we have to go through with inspections."

    So Chirac believed that Saddam had WMD. Chirac thought inspections would get rid of the WMD.

    I dunno- maybe because they now call it "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"

    >>You keep changing the subject dummy. I thought we were talking about Bush not having any authority for the war. SO you lose that arguement and change the subject? Take your ball home weenie, you can't play here.

    More idiocy. I never stated that Bush had no authority for war. I said that the Democrats didn't vote for a war in Iraq. Read the posts rather than scanning them for words that you understand. There's a good girl!

    >>I dunno- maybe because they now call it "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"

    Benson never quite got past the title to the text. What an idiot!

    "And, a wartime deserter knows quite a bit about surrender. Bush is the ultimate "puss"."

    Amen. Is anyone else aware that we have already surrendered to Osama bin Laden? Explicitly and to the letter of his demands on us.

    Before and after 9/11 Osama made clear statements that his primary grievance against the US was in regard to our military presence in Saudi Arabia. Well, Bush removed the last of our troops from the Arabian penninsula in 2003, and sent them to Iraq to destroy the regime of the "socialist/secular" nemesis of Osama. All of America's intelligence agencies concur that the Iraq invasion has proven to be a recruitment/status windfall for Al Qeada - the icing on our abject capitulation.

    Being nothing if not an eternal optimist, Little Lord Bush has no problem with turning this humiliation for America into a cash-cow for his oligarch freinds.

    THAT'S why we haven't been attacked by Al Qeada -Bush made himself, and all of us, Osama's bitch.

    You didn't show me where Al Gore ever advocated actually sending in the ground troops. "regime change" had been policy ever since Bush 41 wisely chose not to go to Baghdad.
    ***************************************************
    WISELY??????
    Dude! If Bush I had gone into baghdad and cleaned up Saddam the first time, we would have never been in this mess in the first place.

    That was such a momumentally stupid decision I can't believe you said it was a good idea.

    So when the house voted to give him the power to use force after we had already invaded afghansitan AND we were threatening Saddam? Where do you think this authorization was going to be used.

    Wow- that's interesting. Immediately after posting my last message I got the message that my other computer was blocked from this site, and I have been unable to reconnect. f---ing pussies.

    benson,

    The authorization was to be used to force Hussein to let UN weapons inspectors in. It did.

    Beef,

    Just an outage. I had trouble a few minutes ago, but it is alright now.

    Before and after 9/11 Osama made clear statements that his primary grievance against the US was in regard to our military presence in Saudi Arabia. Well, Bush removed the last of our troops from the Arabian penninsula in 2003, and sent them to Iraq to destroy the regime of the "socialist/secular" nemesis of Osama. All of America's intelligence agencies concur that the Iraq invasion has proven to be a recruitment/status windfall for Al Qeada - the icing on our abject capitulation.
    ====================================================

    Considering that Osama was using our iraq policies back in the 90s when clinton was prez, I think what we do doesn't matter as they will be able to spin it into any kind of recruiting tool they want.

    So if it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't problem, I'll go with the option that hurts my opponent the most. Since Iraq was giving shelter and sponsering to terrorists (including Bin Laden's crew), I say I agree with cutting their legs from under them.

    I agree on the partisan nature of the war and its reasons for being so partisan. But the democrats cannot NOW be against the war and for the troops at the same time. Every soldier that dies makes Bush look worse, and empowers the Dems. So in a twisted way, the Dems benefit from every lost life. (Murtha, who I disagree with does not toe that line though. He is for immediate pullout which obviously saves soldiers lives, but does not necessarily protect the US citizens) Way too complex, but gonna post anyways

    Grim,

    Bush I stated that invading Iraq would've been a big mistake. Too bad his son didn't listen. Bush I isolated Hussein from the Kurds (eventually) and kept the pressure. That would've been sufficient and we could've finished what we started in Afghanistan.

    ANON: Not being confrontational- when would you say we could leave afghanistan? After Osama is dead? Seriously. Signed curious...

    Kurt Kssel,

    The war hasn't made him "look good" - despite the herculean propaganda efforts his cabal has waged - but it sure as hell has made his friends and associates rich!

    Bush already was rich, and his childish maunderings in regard to his eventual "legacy" have made it clear that he IS concerned with "looking good" - but too bad for him he's just a clue-less tool of the Military Industrial Complex, for whom Cheney, Rove, and (until recently) Rummy have been acting as his baby-sitters.

    The naive fallacies of "Realism" are clear in this whole horendous situation: leaders are NOT automatically concerned with the best interests of the state. Some are pirates, some are just rubes.

    Sir: And not every Republican is malicious..

    Think Olielly got picked up for possession????

    "Since Iraq was giving shelter and sponsering to terrorists (including Bin Laden's crew), I say I agree with cutting their legs from under them."

    First: you're completely wrong. Second; you're not paying attention.

    Iraq harbored no Al qeada - Saddam and Osama were anathema to one another, vying for their diametrically opposed visions of Islam. You are either imbecillically credulous in this regard, or you are intentionally making shit up.

    ...and I don't know many people who would argue that providing an organization with the public-relations tool by which they could increase their numbers by 150% (20,000 Al Qeada in 2003/ca. 50,000 today) represents "cutting their legs from under them."

    benson,

    We should leave Afghanistan when the job is done. If we control so little of the country that opium prices are at an all time low, when we do leave, the Taliban will walk in immediately.

    Grim,

    Bush I stated that invading Iraq would've been a big mistake. Too bad his son didn't listen. Bush I isolated Hussein from the Kurds (eventually) and kept the pressure. That would've been sufficient and we could've finished what we started in Afghanistan.
    =====================================================
    ???????
    But Bush I DID invade Iraq.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Storm

    If he had gone on into Baghdad and removed Saddam instead of stoping at the city limits we would have been spared all this current trouble.

    Tofutti-
    Did you get the Reynolds Wrap I sent you to make yourself more hats?

    Cmon Anon- when is the job done?

    "If he had gone on into Baghdad and removed Saddam instead of stoping at the city limits we would have been spared all this current trouble."

    No, they would have experienced all this trouble 10 Years earlier.

    HAHAHAHAHAHHHHAAAHAHA...

    Damn, Bear, that was funny! Whew!

    Sorry Beef, I disagree.

    A lot of things change in 10 years and there's no reason that today's events would have been identical 10 years ago or 10 years from now.

    For one thing, didn't we have a lot more of the world behind us then?

    And what about the terrorists? (not to mention we wouldn't be "stretched thin" by splitting our attention between Iraq and Afganistan)

    Surely you're smart enough to realize that things change (though i'm starting to have my doubts).

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at December 15, 2006 12:01 PM

    ---
    If we are increasing their numbers and forwarding their cause by us bieng there, why would they be happy that Dems won on a platform of cut & run?

    The 'hidden' reasons for going to war were sytematically trotted out to replace the original justifications as they fell by the wayside after the invasion....falsified reasons like WMD, "mushroom cloud", Saddam's supposed connections to 911, "Atta met with Iraqi officials", uranium tubes, Saddam's supposed aliances with Al Queda, etc., etc.

    As each justification fell like a house of cards, they were masterfully replaced with new ones, such as...."create a new Democracy in the Middle East and it will flower all over the region", "the world is better off without Saddam", "we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here", "look, Al Queda IS in Iraq", even though they weren't before we invaded, "we have rid the world of a tyrant", etc., etc., etc. Unfortunately this was soccessfull in carrying them through the 2004 election.

    The Neocons now want us to forget about all the original justifications, and how they all turned out to be false. They want to blurr the truth about how we got there so that people believe there actually is something to debate about, But there is no real debate; the truth is what it is and all you have to do is go back and look at the record to expose it: We went to war based on lies....we invaded a country that did not attack us and did not even want war....we sidetracked the real war on terror....we gave up on the real enemy, Bin Laden, you know the one who actually DID attack us....Al Queda and Saddam actually disliked and distrusted each other....Iraq was a pressure cooker of ethnic and religious hatred; like it or not, Saddam's brutality held the lid in place on this pressure cooker...etc....etc.

    We knew or strongly suspected all of this BEFORE the invasion, at least some of us did. The problem is that the doubters were kept completely out of the discussion.

    Those are the FACTS. You can try to keep the fog machine going, but it won't work in the end.

    HAHAHAHAHAHHHHAAAHAHA...

    Damn, Bear, that was funny! Whew!

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at December 15, 2006 12:06 PM

    ----
    Glad you liked the gift...Merry Christmas

    "A lot of things change in 10 years and there's no reason that today's events would have been identical 10 years ago or 10 years from now."

    I concede your point, Grim. We also did not have the asylumn under the control of the inmates at that time to the degree we do today - so yes, it might not have been as wholly disastrous an undertaking in 1991 as it is currently.

    But not having done it in 1991, when as you argue conditions may have permitted a more amenable outcome, why should anyone think it wise or necessary to attempt this weird, amorphous thing in 2003?

    The 1991 Gulf War was NOT in response to the 1986 gassing of Kurds, or the 100,000's killed in the Iran/Iraq war - but these are both excuses that have been pulled out of crusty neocon asses to explain this invasion - where is the logic in that?

    There is no explanation but piracy. Occam's Razor.

    ANON: Every neo-con (me included) stops listening to your rant as soon as you say "lies." You have a lot of good in your rant, until you go into 'election talking point'. "Bush lied" only works in those lefty hate blogs.

    There is no explanation but piracy. Occam's Razor.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at December 15, 2006 12:18 PM
    ____________

    you came up with Piracy using Occam's Razor?

    do we need to discuss your meds again?

    The 'hidden' reasons for going to war were sytematically trotted out to replace the original justifications as they fell by the wayside after the invasion....falsified reasons like WMD, "mushroom cloud", Saddam's supposed connections to 911, "Atta met with Iraqi officials", uranium tubes, Saddam's supposed aliances with Al Queda, etc., etc.

    The Neocons now want us to forget about all the original justifications, and how they all turned out to be false. They want to blurr the truth about how we got there so that people believe there actually is something to debate about, But there is no real debate; the truth is what it is and all you have to do is go back and look at the record to expose it: We went to war based on lies....we invaded a country that did not attack us and did not even want war....we sidetracked the real war on terror....we gave up on the real enemy, Bin Laden, you know the one who actually DID attack us....Al Queda and Saddam actually disliked and distrusted each other....Iraq was a pressure cooker of ethnic and religious hatred; like it or not, Saddam's brutality held the lid in place on this pressure cooker...etc....etc.

    Those are the FACTS. You can try to keep the fog machine going, but it won't work in the end.
    **************************************************
    Facts? You need to get yours striaght.

    1) How many times am i going to have to point out that Iraq HAD attacked us before? There was the '93 WTC bombing remember?

    2) How much freakin' evidence do you need that Saddam was in bed with terrorists?
    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0RMQ/is_41_10/ai_n15622078
    ___________________________________________________
    There could hardly be a clearer case--of the ongoing revelations and the ongoing denial--than in the 13 points below, reproduced verbatim from a "Summary of Evidence" prepared by the U.S. government in November 2004. This unclassified document was released by the Pentagon in late March 2005. It details the case for designating an Iraqi member of al Qaeda, currently detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an "enemy combatant."

    1. From 1987 to 1989, the detainee served as an infantryman in the Iraqi Army and received training on the mortar and rocket propelled grenades.

    2. A Taliban recruiter in Baghdad convinced the detainee to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in 1994.

    3. The detainee admitted he was a member of the Taliban.

    4. The detainee pledged allegiance to the supreme leader of the Taliban to help them take over all of Afghanistan.

    5. The Taliban issued the detainee a Kalishnikov rifle in November 2000.

    6. The detainee worked in a Taliban ammo and arms storage arsenal in Mazar-Es-Sharif organizing weapons and ammunition.

    7. The detainee willingly associated with al Qaida members.

    8. The detainee was a member of al Qaida.

    9. An assistant to Usama Bin Ladin paid the detainee on three separate occasions between 1995 and 1997.

    10. The detainee stayed at the al Farouq camp in Darwanta, Afghanistan, where he received 1,000 Rupees to continue his travels.

    11. From 1997 to 1998, the detainee acted as a trusted agent for Usama Bin Ladin, executing three separate reconnaissance missions for the al Qaeda leader in Oman, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

    12. In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.

    13. Detainee was arrested by Pakistani authorities in Khudzar, Pakistan, in July 2002.

    Interesting. What's more interesting: The alleged plot was to have taken place in August 1998, the same month that al Qaeda attacked two U.S. embassies in East Africa. And more interesting still: It was to have taken place in the same month that the Clinton administration publicly accused Iraq of supplying al Qaeda with chemical weapons expertise and material.
    __________________________________________________
    Please read the whole things so you can offer at least knowledgeable posts.

    I love how people like to accuse "right-wingers" of ignoring the evidence right in front of them even as they themselves ignore the plethora of information that might tweak their mistaken view.

    Grim,

    I did mean Bagdad. If Bush had invaded the capital to take Saddam out, it would be exactly as it is today. There is no difference except that his forces were less decimated and his economy was stronger back then. Look at the trouble we had when Bush invaded Somalia.

    I concede your point, Grim. We also did not have the asylumn under the control of the inmates at that time to the degree we do today - so yes, it might not have been as wholly disastrous an undertaking in 1991 as it is currently.

    But not having done it in 1991, when as you argue conditions may have permitted a more amenable outcome, why should anyone think it wise or necessary to attempt this weird, amorphous thing in 2003?

    The 1991 Gulf War was NOT in response to the 1986 gassing of Kurds, or the 100,000's killed in the Iran/Iraq war - but these are both excuses that have been pulled out of crusty neocon asses to explain this invasion - where is the logic in that?

    There is no explanation but piracy. Occam's Razor.
    ***************************************************

    Good to see we can at least agree Beef that things would have been different then and now.

    But now we get to a new problem. You point out that if it wasn't a great idea to do it in '93, why would it have been a good idea in '03. That explination is simple enough. If the pattern held, then it would have been even WORSE to do it in '13.

    If a problem is getting worse and worse, then delaying addressing it isn't going to help anything.

    Now you and I can argue over whether it was a problem that we needed to address, but that's fine, I assume we each have our own opinions on that. I'm answering your question on that particular point of agreement between us.

    The flaw in your logic, Grim, is thinking that we needed to do it at all.

    Cee..you said you offered to participate in a "deep and interesting debate between your secular humanist world view that derives from foundations of failed ideologies and my world view based on Judeo-Christian respect for God's authority over creation...including His absolute authority, just commands and available grace to all of humankind."

    One of the problems with engaging you in a debate is that you start with a false premise and then say let's debate.
    Just about in every correspondence you've ever directed towards me, you've called me a "secular humanist".
    The secular part of the phrase implies a lack of belief in God. So right there, you are 100% wrong in your CONJECTURE about me.
    The second part of that phrase ..humanism.... stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason.
    That I do identify with.

    I can understand that a person such as yourself who "agrees with George Bush on almost every issue" would find someone as myself who uses "reason" to be extremely distasteful.
    Another trait that includes humanism is critical thinking.
    Thus the basis of my last post to you.
    I'm not sure if you lack critical thinking skills or are just so blinded by your dogma that it's an anathema to you.
    And even if I wanted to play along with you and accept your portrayal of me as a "secular humanist"..The CONSISTENT emphasis on critical thinking gives secular humanism a big advantage over mainstream religion....so your "failed ideologies" point is right out the window.
    Now you also love to throw in the "elitist" term.
    This term by definition implies snobbery and thinking that you know everything.
    Well HELLO...that fits you to a "T". So coming right back at cha fella !

    Your line "your secular humanist world view that derives from foundations of failed ideologies and my world view based on Judeo-Christian respect for God's authority over creation...including His absolute authority, just commands and available grace to all of humankind."
    is as pretentious as it has NOTHING to do with debating about politics.
    You're a Middle Ages type guy,whereas I'm an Enlightenment type guy.
    Critial thinking and reasoning is my forte where belief in dogma is your forte.
    This is where you go horribly and tragically wrong in your support of George W. Bush.
    Now as far as politics go...you say my points are Democratic talking points and opinion.
    Again...you have your head up your ass with those points b/c what I bring to the table are FACTS, not opinion...and if some of my points are embraced by the democratic party ...your view means they have to be wrong..which is pretty silly and woefully uneducated.
    You say,"I TRUST George Bush to do what is right for me and my family, and finally, I am fully aware of the alternatives to his policies and attitude."
    Really !
    Our current debt which is around $44 trillion or $147,312 per man, woman and child will put a possible insurmountable burden on YOURS and my children,but you're fine with that !
    This debt doesn't only affect the future and our children,each added dollar of new debt produces less increased national income. America has become more debt-dependent... than ever before.

    So in your opinion, a bankrupt country is good for you and your children.

    Keeping in the economic realm, Bush continues to push for a war he can't pay for. Believe it or not, winning the war in Iraq was never the Bush administration's highest priority. Saving its tax cuts was more important. That was once spoken of as a moral problem. Now it's a practical barrier to a successful outcome.

    Until recently Bush's refusal to scale back any of his tax cuts was discussed as the question of shared sacrifice: How could we ask so much from a courageous group of Americans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan but not ask even the wealthiest of their fellow citizens to part with a few extra dollars to support an endeavor supposedly central to our nation's security? On the contrary, even after we committed to war in Iraq, the administration pushed for yet more tax cuts in dividends and capital gains.
    Now we know that the decision to put the war on a credit card is not simply a moral question. The administration's failure to acknowledge the real costs of the war...and to pay them... has put it in a corner.

    Bush's options in Iraq are severely constrained because our military is too small for the foreign policy he is pursuing. Sending more troops would place even more excruciating burdens on members of our armed forces and their families. And the brass fears that an extended new commitment could, quite simply, break the Army.

    Yet, instead of building up our military for a long engagement and levying the taxes to pay for such an enterprise, the administration kept issuing merry reports of progress in Iraq....which the ISG has proven to be a lie. Right through Election Day this year, the president continued to condemn anyone who dared suggest that maybe, just maybe, we should raise taxes to pay for this war.

    Out of touch, removed from reality is this president that you agree with.

    I could also get into a lengthy point about how Bush's war in Iraq have made us more unsafe and has created more terrorism around the world, but if you do any reading at all instead of only the White House propaganda, you already know this.
    You've already heard this from generals, reporters and scholars alike.( oh right, you have no respect for scholars...then just take the generals' words.)


    Another of my points is that the Bush's environmental policies have put forth increased mercury in our water.You also label that an opinion.
    I had this very discussion with a member of the blind patriots group that you belong. He said, "Show me the evidence". So I gave him ...oh..about 15 articles on the topic. His response was,"Doesn't mean anything".

    I wonder if you consider your children's health important.
    From the Bush Administration's earliest days in office, it has exhibited a disregard for the public health impacts of toxic chemicals.In 2001, the EPA announced it was delaying the implementation of regulations to lower the allowable amounts of arsenicin drinking water to 10 parts per million..a new standard proposed by the Clinton Administration.Only after a storm of criticism did they announce the adoption of the proposed Clinton standard.
    As a physician, I wonder if you would encourage your patients to include more arsenic in their diets.
    And that was right out of the box, as president in 2001.
    Let's move on to current day...
    In April 2006 reports surfaced that the Bush administration was making it difficult for climate research scientists to speak truthfully about global warming. Examples included a 2002 report of the Interior Department censuring a news release because it would cause "great problems in the department. In November 2005 Bush censors "purged key words from the press releases, including global warming, warming climate, and climate change". Officials also attempted to alter what scientists told the media and bar researchers from talking to the media about policy matters.

    Evidence from numerous sources reveals that Bush and the Republicans have actively encourage industry, land developers, and polluters to wantonly extract the nation's natural resources and degrade the air, soil, and water while refusing to rein in oil usage and air pollution or enforce energy conservation.

    George Bush and his administration have obstructed the laws that have protected our nation's air, water, public lands, and wildlife for the past thirty years, enriching the president's political contributors while lowering the quality of life for the rest of us. They have orchestrated these rollbacks almost entirely outside of public scrutiny... and in tandem with the very industries that our laws are meant to regulate, the country's most notorious polluters.

    I'm a big Constitution guy, as you are a Bible kind of guy.
    Since this discussion isn't about religion...let's talk about our basic rights and freedoms.
    This issue is in today's news , let me quote:
    "The Bush administration is trampling on the First Amendment and well-established criminal law by trying to use a subpoena to force the American Civil Liberties Union to hand over a classified document in its possession. The dispute is shrouded in secrecy, and very little has been made public about the document, but we do not need to know what's in it to know what's at stake: if the government prevails, it will have engaged in prior restraint, almost always a serious infringement on free speech and it could start using subpoenas to block reporting on matters of vital public concern.

    If the A.C.L.U's description of its secret document is correct, there is no legitimate national defense issue. The document does not contain anything like intelligence sources or troop movements, the group says. It is merely a general statement of policy whose release might perhaps be mildly embarrassing to the government. Given this administration's abysmal record on these issues, this case could set a disturbing and dangerous precedent. If the subpoena is enforced, the administration will have gained a powerful new tool for rolling back free-speech rights one that could be used to deprive Americans of information they need to make informed judgments about their elected leaders policies and actions.

    Of course you're going to disparage the A.C.L.U. because you are against any organization that is a watchdog in protecting our freedoms.
    I'm pretty sure( going out on a limb here) that you would give up a number of our freedoms for the false reality of keeping us safe.
    Just remember the quote by B. Franklin how we don't deserve liberty if we sacrifice our freedom for the illusion of safety.

    Concerning the other issue in today's news,this has been the Bush's Administration's MO...to try to cover up anything that may embarrass them or make them look incompetent.
    Too late for that !
    I could sit here all day and list facts proving that point.

    In the past you just waved your hand and said you disagree with it.That is the ultimate cop-out.What I have included in this post has been documented and proven to be true,much to your chagrine.

    You accuse me of saying that "the conservative is a follower who does not ask questions and blindly supports the leader..
    Again..you are putting words in my mouth.There ARE conservatives who think critically, use reason and logic when evaluating our national and international problems.You're just not one of them.


    To sum up,this administration has sacrificed respect for the law, public health, scientific integrity, and long-term economic vitality on the altar of corporate greed.


    And Cee gives a big thumbs up to that !

    The flaw in your logic, Grim, is thinking that we needed to do it at all.
    ****************************************************

    Read what I said to Bob:
    "Now you and I can argue over whether it was a problem that we needed to address, but that's fine, I assume we each have our own opinions on that."

    Bob,

    So basically you are saying that GWB is trying to bring about the end of this country andpossibly the end of mankind as we know it all for personal gain of himself and a select few of their cronies? And that his and their kids or grandkids are not important since he is destroying it soooo quickly?

    Not ONLY for "PERSONAL GAIN"...but thru stupidity , stubbornness, and right wing ideology.
    The facts speak for themselves.
    Come to any conclusion you like.

    Not ONLY for "PERSONAL GAIN"...but thru stupidity , stubbornness, and right wing ideology.
    The facts speak for themselves.
    Come to any conclusion you like.

    Posted by: Bob at December 15, 2006 12:51 PM

    -------
    so only left wing ideology can save us? (based on your post)

    Grim: You can say Iraq was behind the 93 WTC bombing ten thousand times, but that doesn't make it true. Even this neocon administration hasn't tried to make that claim!

    Let me clarify. It has been proven that oil companies,polluters, pharmaseutical companies etc have profited from the policies of the Bush Administration, with the detriment of the health and welfare of the American people, and future generations.
    What Bush's rationale or motivation for all of this is debatable.What isn't debatable is that it has occurred.

    so only left wing ideology can save us? (based on your post)

    One of my main gripes with you bozos is that you put words in people's mouth and make false assumptions.

    Not allowing polluters to rein free at the expense of our health, giving our elderly and others the opportunity to buy cheaper meds from Canada,not giving tax breaks to oil companies that make billions in profits,and not sacrificing our children's futures by running up a strangling debt....is just plain common sense...not ideology.
    Is that clear enough for you?
    Or maybe you feel all of these things are fine and dandy with you ?

    "Meanwhile the troops are reenlisting to go back to Iraq at record rates and almost everyone of them expresses their hatred of the liberally biased media. They obviously think what they are doing is right."

    But Charles, don't you know that they didn't study hard and do their homework so they ended up "STUCK in Iraq". The liberals have to save these poor souls from themselves. After all, they are the ones with the PhD's in art history and 19th century poetry.

    "But Charles, don't you know that they didn't study hard and do their homework so they ended up "STUCK in Iraq"."

    Very amusing. Now, why aren't y'all going after Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR). After all, he's the one who said this:

    "I find examples like the British generals day after day in the first world war would send thousands of their men running into machine guns and not make adjustments. I find that criminal.

    And when we send our young folks out in vehicles that cannot take out, er, er accept these kind of blasts to them without taking their lives I don;t find that smart. I find that derelict in duty..."

    The silence is deafening.

    almost everyone of them expresses their hatred of the liberally biased media.

    What a crock of shit that is !

    You dismiss organizations like Iraqi War Veterans Against the war and others.

    http://www.ivaw.org/

    Out of the 6 Iraq war vets that ran for Congress, 5 of them ran as democrats and are against the war.

    Many troops are being FORCED to go back after they finish their term.
    My nephew just got called back after serving for a number of years.
    He says "most troops won't/can't speak out against this war until they are civilians again."

    Not to mention the military has censored the troops from reading antiwar material while they are in Iraq.
    Fox News and right wing blogs are permitted of course.

    There are some troops that feel as you portrayed, but to say most is just another example of you bozos making things up.

    Grim: You can say Iraq was behind the 93 WTC bombing ten thousand times, but that doesn't make it true. Even this neocon administration hasn't tried to make that claim!
    ****************************************************

    Ok.... how many times am I going to have to post my evidence for anyone to... you know, actually READ it?
    Here are some links and I'll even post the relevant parts for you morons.
    _________________________________________________
    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_22_53/ai_79665380
    "Laurie Mylroie's book, Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America, reports persuasively that Saddam Hussein was the sponsor of the 1993 attempt on the World Trade Center."
    _________________________________________________
    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_n42/ai_17839897
    "a man who had entered the United States on an Iraqi passport under the name of Ramzi Yousef...It is of considerable interest, therefore, that a very persuasive case can be made that Ramzi Yousef is an Iraqi intelligence agent, and that his bombing conspiracies were meant as Saddam Hussein's revenge for the Gulf War. ...When I put it to them that Iraq was probably behind the Trade Center bombing, they replied, "You may be right, but we don't do state sponsorship. We prosecute individuals." ...n fact, the New York FBI office suspected an Iraqi connection early on, but the Washington brass seemingly wanted to tell America that they had already cracked the case and caught most of the perpetrators. ...That, indeed, is the most straightforward explanation of the World Trade Center bombing: that it was an Iraqi intelligence operation, led by Ramzi Yousef, with the local fundamentalists serving first as aides and then as diversionary dupes."
    __________________________________________________
    And even if Iraq wasn't behind it, they sheltered the suspect who was.
    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_24_53/ai_80454780
    "Another key suspect, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was released after being held by the FBI in New Jersey and fled to Baghdad, where he is living under the protection of the Iraqi government."

    Let the swiftboating of Senator Smith begin !

    next up: The Grim Challenger will post right wing blogs PROVING WMD were found in Iraq.

    TDF

    So Grim, you ready to concede your error that fascism is a left wing philosophy?..or afraid to ask anyone who might know?

    What the heck is "swiftboating" supposed to mean as a term?

    Telling negative things about someone that they said or did in the past (and is a matter of public record)?

    If so, then isn't Bush swiftboated almost every freakin' day?

    Grim:

    What you posted is not 'evidence'. It's called heresay. So does that also mean that Yousef's mentor, the "Blind sheik", who is presently in an American prison also an Iraqi agent?

    You don't launch wars based on heresay speculation ten years after the fact.

    By your logic, a more compelling reason to go after Saddam might have been his plot to kill Bush's daddy. That, at least is held as more of an established fact.

    What the heck is "swiftboating" supposed to mean as a term?

    It's as if Grim was just born yesterday.

    Telling negative things about someone that they said or did in the past (and is a matter of public record)?

    Wrong , Grim.This is from Wikipedia:
    Swiftboating is American political jargon for an ad hominem attack against a public figure, coordinated by an independent or pseudo-independent group, usually resulting in a benefit to an established political force.

    This form of attack is controversial, easily repeatable, and difficult to verify or disprove because it is generally based on personal feelings or recollections. It frequently refers to a campaign that uses viral marketing techniques to sell the allegations. By using credible-sounding sources to make sensational and difficult-to-disprove accusations against an opponent, the campaign leverages media tendencies to focus on a controversial story.

    If so, then isn't Bush swiftboated almost every freakin' day?

    Wrong again, read the definition again....especially the part that says"difficult to prove"
    All you need to do is report EXACTLY what Bush does,to show how wrong or deadly his policies are.

    So Grim, you ready to concede your error that fascism is a left wing philosophy?..or afraid to ask anyone who might know?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I don't see how using findarticles.com counts as using right wing blogs but anyway...

    Ummm..... I have asked people that know Bob. (do I have to post the article again?)
    http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/this-article-is-published-on-internet.html
    Plus simple logic says that the extreme of "right-wing" isn't fascism, but anarachy. (of which there was a party - i think there still is) in Britian.

    Tell me oh 'great' professor, where do the anarchists fit into your scale?

    "Swiftboating" is wrong when it's about Democrats, however insulting George Bush every single minute of every single day is a noble effort in the mind of the Olbyloon.

    Just as the ridiculous idea that the Democrats in the Senate didn't know what they were voting for when they voted on the war resolution. I honestly can't believe that this Anonymous idiot insists otherwise, but considering they think Ko is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I'm not too surprised they would indeed be that dumb to a) believe it and b) think they could convince other people of it. I guess it's the arrogance of the left that never ceases to amaze me. Even when they are 100% wrong, they won't admit it and will find a Republican to blame for it some kind of way, even when it's a war their senators voted for and KNEW they were voting for.

    Even Bill Clinton believede there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at the time we invaded and said so in public, on more than one occasion. That is all convieniently forgotten of course because Anonymous wants to continue to insist there were no valid reasons to invade Iraq and that oh yeah, the Democratic house and senate members were so stupid they had no idea whatsoever what they were really voting on. Okay well if you insist they are that stupid, I guess I'll just go along with your belief that your own leaders are cretins.

    And there have been reports that both conservative and liberal websites have been blocked by the military. Honestly, you people really need to check the veracity of everything you read on your liberal websites because many times what is being reported as "fact" is far from it.

    And as to the argument that George w. Bush is some sort of brilliant genius who has a master plot to take over the world, could someone please explain to me how that jives with the prevailing lberal opinion that he's an idiot? He surely can't be both can he? Oh, I forgot. Olbyloon logic, which of course is hypocritical and totally devoid of any common sense or rationale.

    Grim:

    What you posted is not 'evidence'. It's called heresay. So does that also mean that Yousef's mentor, the "Blind sheik", who is presently in an American prison also an Iraqi agent?

    You don't launch wars based on heresay speculation ten years after the fact.

    By your logic, a more compelling reason to go after Saddam might have been his plot to kill Bush's daddy. That, at least is held as more of an established fact.
    ***************************************************
    Anon, International policy isn't court. Wars have been fought for FAR less that heresay speculation. (Not saying that they should be.) Besides, as far as sp00ks go, how often are you going to have much more than heresay speculation? usually many YEARS after the fact (i.e. the rosenburgs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethel_and_Julius_Rosenberg)

    What the heck is "swiftboating" supposed to mean as a term?

    It's as if Grim was just born yesterday.
    ****************************************************
    Yeah, you must be a college professor since you're so full of yourself that the fact that some people might arrive at different conclusions form the same data or even be humble enough to admit a misunderstanding never enters your small mind.
    My point was that I've heard so MANY different definitions that I'm wondering what it's supposed to mean. From your own wikipedia article that you linked:
    "exposing the lies, deceit and fraud of self-glorifying public officials or candidates for office who exaggerate their military service by lying about their feats of heroism and combat wounds."

    Besides, I didn't think the vets' charges would have been that "difficult to verify" since all Kerry had to do was release his military records.

    So by that standard...
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    If so, then isn't Bush swiftboated almost every freakin' day?

    Wrong again, read the definition again....especially the part that says"difficult to prove"
    All you need to do is report EXACTLY what Bush does,to show how wrong or deadly his policies are.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    we can amend the definition to say "difficult to prove by the target's own actions".

    Oh, and then there's...
    _________________________________________________
    "...coordinated by an independent or pseudo-independent group, usually resulting in a benefit to an established political force."
    _________________________________________________
    hmmm.... moveon.org????

    How about all the MIHOP and LIHOP morons out there Bob? Aren't they "swiftboating" Bush every day? Seems they fill all the criteria the definition posts.

    Looks like I'm right again.

    Even when they are 100% wrong, they won't admit it and will find a Republican to blame for it some kind of way, even when it's a war their senators voted for and KNEW they were voting for.
    ****************************************************
    Of course, they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being 100% wrong and unable to admit it...

    [Insert your own projection joke here]

    So guess we can all agree on not going anywhere since both sides think the other is 100% wrong and unable to admit it. (i say maybe we're ALL wrong and we just need to establish what percent)

    *************************************************
    Even Bill Clinton believede there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at the time we invaded and said so in public, on more than one occasion. That is all convieniently forgotten of course because Anonymous wants to continue to insist there were no valid reasons to invade Iraq and that oh yeah, the Democratic house and senate members were so stupid they had no idea whatsoever what they were really voting on. Okay well if you insist they are that stupid, I guess I'll just go along with your belief that your own leaders are cretins.
    **************************************************
    Anyone going to point out the obvious conclusion?

    Assume: Bush is an idiot.
    Assume: The democrats of congress were duped.
    Therefore: The democrats of congress are dumber idiots than Bush.

    Not that I'm saying I agree with any of that. I'm just summing up the posts of those who do and pointing out the logical conclusion of them (must be careful though, for some logic could make their 'brains' explode).

    Chellenger Grim,

    At least the second of those articles is nonsense. Clinton was attacked during the Monika Lewinski scandal for trying to divert media attention away from the scandal to Iraq by focusing too much effort there. Now you want to say he didn't do enough because of the scandal? It's just contradictory.

    Besides, under the Clinton administration the antiterrorism budget for the FBI was tripled. It was Clinton that issued a presidential directive for the assassination of Bin Laden. And, appointed Richard Clarke to come up with a blanket plan to deal with Al Qaeda. Which he did. It included essentially everything America has done in Afganistan since 9-11, and more.

    Sincerely,
    Josh

    Sorry, I didn't mean Iraq. I meant Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

    Ummm..... I have asked people that know Bob. (do I have to post the article again?)
    http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/this-article-is-published-on-internet.html

    The Grim Challenger still can't challenge.
    He uses JOHN RAY'S DOCUMENTS....to actually...make of fool of himself.

    Grim continues to try to rewrite history and even the definition of words.
    Fascist right wing dictator has been used 10's of thousands of times in history books and documents.
    The basic concept of Fascism, as elaborated by Mussolini, was that the State was absolute before which individuals and groups were all relative.

    Does that sound like left wing to you?

    Listen Grim, I know it's hard ..actually impossible to admit you're wrong.
    Do you tell a lawyer, you know more about the law ? Do you tell a carpenter how to frame a house?
    Then don't tell a history prof the meaning of words you don't understand?

    Brandon:

    If nothing else is clear on this site, YOU are clearly out of you league intellectually in this debate!

    ALL you do is parrot tired old right wing talking points that have been discredited many times over....and call people things like 'idiot' and 'stupid' over and over again.

    Throwing insults at people like that way doesn't make
    them stupid, and it certainly doesn't make you look smart...quite the contrary!

    Once again, you see the world through a simplistic, tunnel visioned lens....us vs them, 'good' vs evil, right vs wrong, "you are either with us or you are against us". To you there is no such thing as nuance, compromise, or self criticism.

    Trouble is Brandon, old Buddy, the world just isn't like that, whether you like it or not!

    The next time you are overcome with the temptation to stamp your feet and hurl around inane and meaningless insults around like that in order to cover up your own inability to form a coherent argument, take a look in the mirror first.

    The RIGHT WING AGENDA CONTINUES:(to hurt people)

    Despite this year's victories at the ballot box and against Social Security privatization, a recent article in The New York Times made clear that right wing attacks on Americans' retirement security continues.

    The story itself was overly alarmist. It omitted key facts about a San Diego public pension case and failed to mention that, by and large, public pensions are well funded and backed by law.
    The truth is, public employee pensions overall are fiscally sound and subject to strict oversight.

    But these inconvenient facts mean nothing to right wing ideologues who want to gut Americans' retirement security. And they think the public will go along if they gin up a false crisis about the state of public pensions today.

    Sound familiar? It should. That's exactly the strategy that Social Security privateers pursued last year. They failed miserably. But now they're back with a new plan to gut retirement security: pick off public employee pensions, then raid pensions in the private sector.

    Their ultimate goal, of course, is to make pensions altogether a thing of the past; to promote a society in which the wealthiest continue to horde huge resources while the American Dream is dismantled for everyone else. To real people, that means risking financial turmoil just by getting sick or growing old.

    Progressives beat back the right wing's opening salvo on public pensions. In 2005, millions of Californians joined their local police, firefighters and nurses to scuttle Arnold Schwarzenegger's scheme to gut public pensions. But as the Times underscored, the assault of misinformation from opponents of retirement security continues.

    Just as quality health insurance for every American is essential, so too is a retirement that guarantees Americans the dignity, respect and security we've earned. That's why we must fight the right wing's attacks on public pensions, just as we did on Social Security. Retirement security is too important.

    who cares about pensions or security. As long as those ungodly gays can't marry.

    Yeah, Grim, I arrived at "piracy" via Occam's Razor: The simplest valid explanation is most likely to be the right one.

    For oportunistically, episodically literal righties like you I should clarify that I am not implying the involvement 60-gun galleons, hook hands, and eye-patches - I am referring to corporate plunder of mixed international parties conducted under quasi-legitimate governmental mandates - piracy.

    Each and every one of the explanations the Bush administration offers in regard to its precision tailoring of chaotic conditions in Iraq requires huge leaps of logic and the strict compartmentalizing of all of its other self-contradictory explanations safely away from one another. This is complexity, discouraged by Occam's Razor.

    However, standing right out front all over the place in regard to this war are blatant government/corporate conflicts of interest; reams of official lies; overt redefinition of goals, freinds, and enemies; etc. All of this ties neatly together into an articulated case against the Bush administration for crass war profiteering on false pretenses. Simple, self-supporting sequence of logic. If you don't want to call that piracy, that's fine, but don't make your weak lexicon the issue here.

    and we keep killing towelheads over there.

    My world view is simplistic? What about yours which is that Republicans are evil and always wrong and that Democratics are always right. Even when they voted for the war in Iraq because the poor dumb bastards just didn't understand what they were voting for. I've killed you here on any number of arguments (Jose Padilla, supermax facilities and the whole laughable exchange JD and I had with you re Fox News "spiking" a story). You don't know your head from your ass but thanks for continually showing yourself to be the idiot you are. You are so wed to the philosophy of the Dems that you can't admit they are capable of being wrong. You can't admit they voted for this war and are every bit as culpable for it as the Republicans are. You can't admit that Olbermann is a partisan hack. You can't admit he's a hypocrite, you can't even admit when he's wrong without trying to find someone else to blame it on, just as you're trying to do right now with the war "argument". You're just WRONG. No damn wonder you won't put your name on anything. I wouldn't either if I were you.

    There was a ceremony today honoring Rumsfeld. Bush said: "This Man Knows How To Lead.The Country Is Better Off For It"
    yes, his post war planning was a marvel to behold
    ( for OBL)

    Bush went on to say, "We've been through war together."

    Hilarious! What a nitwit !

    I hear any day now that Rummy will be getting the Medal of Freedom.Afterall, he did help Bush botch the war in Iraq.
    Isn't that what happens to disgraced members of the Bush Administration?
    They get medals.

    This gang of morons would be hysterical if they didn't cause the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

    "This is complexity, discouraged by Occam's Razor."

    After what must be reams of stuff that would qualify you to be head writer for the Paranormal Society, a Geraldo Rivera special, or an Oliver Stone project, the particular freudian could bring one to tears, if only as an illustration of the life-sucking, indurement producing, effects of utter fanaticism upon an audience and a blog-board.

    ...yeah, Bush also said he'd come to respect and rely on Rummy's "strategic foresight".

    Well, I for one believe every word.

    ...Of course, the plans and objectives at issue were the intentional creation of chaos and the ravaging of the US treasury through a simplistic but costly shell-game involving a trumped-up war and an invisible "reconstruction" in which private contractors are held to no standards whatsoever. Their strategies worked fine for what they were intended.

    News alert: Brandon's panties are in a bunch !

    "I've killed you on a number of arguments"

    Observation: How come the only humor that comes from the right wing is totally unintentional !

    I can whip off dozens of great comedians from the left.Name one from the right!

    Ann Coulter doesn't count. People laugh AT HER, not with her.

    I know there is no one who is more of an idiot than George Bush, but he's actually trying NOT to be funny.
    "Is our children learning? "
    (and 3-4 volumes of hysterical Bushisms)

    The Grim Challenger still can't challenge.
    He uses JOHN RAY'S DOCUMENTS....to actually...make of fool of himself.

    Grim continues to try to rewrite history and even the definition of words.

    Listen Grim, I know it's hard ..actually impossible to admit you're wrong.
    Do you tell a lawyer, you know more about the law ? Do you tell a carpenter how to frame a house?
    Then don't tell a history prof the meaning of words you don't understand?
    =================================================
    First of all 'professor' (and I use that term losely), I didn't know that history professors were the ones writing dictionaries. So yeah, I do challenge your 'understanding' (again, a term I use losely) of it.

    =================================================
    Fascist right wing dictator has been used 10's of thousands of times in history books and documents.
    The basic concept of Fascism, as elaborated by Mussolini, was that the State was absolute before which individuals and groups were all relative.

    Does that sound like left wing to you?
    =================================================
    Actually... yeah it does.
    ________________________________________________
    "All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State." -- 19th century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel
    _________________________________________________
    So according to "bob" our resident "professor" the mentor and inspiration of Karl Marx was right-wing.

    GOOD NEWS EVERYONE! Communism is in fact RIGHT-WING EXTREMISM. Bob just said so.

    Here's a hint Bob, who advocates for less government control and regulation? Conservatives or liberals? Conservatives or Libertians? So by your logic, conservatives (and even more so, libertarians) who advocate LESS government control and regulation of the market etc etc, are just like, "Mussolini, was that the State was absolute before which individuals and groups were all relative". I guess there's one of two things we can thus conclude about Bob.
    1) He goes to opposite university where up is down and black is white.
    2) He in fact teaches history in another country where "left-wing" and "right-wing" can have different terminologies than USA traditional alignments.

    Of course, there's always the possiblity that he's an aboslute idiot, but I prefer to think better of him.

    Oh, and I guess you should go get on Wikipedia then and get some things straightened out no?
    =================================================
    Most scholars agree that a "fascist regime" is foremost an authoritarian form of government, although not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. Authoritarianism is thus a defining characteristic, but most scholars will say that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian regime fascist. It is common practice to define a fascist government as a "right-wing dictatorship". However, there is no universal definition of "right-wing" and the number of conservative and libertarian scholars and political commentators see fascism as a form collectivism or socialism, rooted in left-wing political ideas. For more on this concept, see Fascism and ideology.
    ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
    ============================================
    Outside the United States (where capitalism is supported by a broad range of politicians and people from the left and the right), the most notable distinction between left and right is in economic policy. The right advanced capitalism, whereas the left advocated socialism (often democratic socialism) or communism. Some on the right advocate laissez faire capitalism, tending toward minarchism, with little government intervention in the economy other than to control the money supply and little taxation except to support military and police functions. At the other extreme within what is usually considered right of centre, the centre-right Gaullists in post-World War II France advocated considerable social spending on education and infrastructure development, as well as extensive economic regulation and even a limited amount of the wealth redistribution measures more characteristic of social democracy.
    ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
    (yeah Bob, that does NOT sound like Fascism at all to me)
    ==================================================
    Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State. (p.15)
    ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_Fascism
    (hmmm..... translation: we disagree with socialism's methods, but agree with their reasons)
    ==================================================
    At the same time, fascists claimed to offer a radically new approach to politics, and a new form of government that could reshape society.[3] Thus, fascism attempted to be both conservative and radical. Benito Mussolini embraced this apparent contradiction, saying "I am a reactionary and a revolutionary."
    ...
    Many authors have argued that totalitarian governments existed in the 20th century, though there is disagreement on which governments were totalitarian and which ideologies created them. Nazism and Stalinism are the two ideologies most often considered to be totalitarian, and Hitler and Stalin are the two people most often given as examples of totalitarian leaders. They both held absolute power in their countries and had personality cults built around them. They both used similar means - extreme forms of censorship, police state tactics, and mass murder - though their goals were different.
    ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#Fascism_and_conservatism
    (hmmm..... seems fascism might be right of communism, but still pretty left of center)
    =================================================
    Both countries engaged in very strong collusion between business and government, with the result that businessmen had a degree of control over state policy and the state had a degree of control over the economy. Using this mechanism, Fascists and Nazis were able to fix prices, determine the level of wages, and put up barriers to entry in important markets (so as to give their business allies the power to form oligopolies or monopolies). Also, Fascists and Nazis placed high tariffs on imported goods, for the purpose of achieving economic self-sufficiency (autarky), which would enable them to wage war without fear of international economic sanctions.
    ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#Fascism.2C_capitalism_and_socialism
    (WOW, who tries to employ a lot of those policies today? Anyone pay attention this last election season?)
    =================================================
    Although specific means of achieving these ends are not agreed upon by different left-wing groups, almost all those on the left agree that some form of government or social intervention in economics is necessary, ranging from Keynesian economics and the welfare state through industrial democracy or the social market to nationalization of the economy and central planning.
    ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing#Left-wing_issues
    (hmmm.... anyone notice how the last item seems to match fascism exactly?)
    ==================================================
    Dear 'professor' please try thinking outside the box or at least study some history yourself and think for yourself rather than just parroting what prior professors taught you.

    The Grim Challenger still can't challenge.
    He uses JOHN RAY'S DOCUMENTS....to actually...make of fool of himself.

    Grim continues to try to rewrite history and even the definition of words.

    Listen Grim, I know it's hard ..actually impossible to admit you're wrong.
    Do you tell a lawyer, you know more about the law ? Do you tell a carpenter how to frame a house?
    Then don't tell a history prof the meaning of words you don't understand?
    =================================================
    First of all 'professor' (and I use that term losely), I didn't know that history professors were the ones writing dictionaries. So yeah, I do challenge your 'understanding' (again, a term I use losely) of it.

    =================================================
    Fascist right wing dictator has been used 10's of thousands of times in history books and documents.
    The basic concept of Fascism, as elaborated by Mussolini, was that the State was absolute before which individuals and groups were all relative.

    Does that sound like left wing to you?
    =================================================
    Actually... yeah it does.
    ________________________________________________
    "All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State." -- 19th century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel
    _________________________________________________
    So according to "bob" our resident "professor" the mentor and inspiration of Karl Marx was right-wing.

    GOOD NEWS EVERYONE! Communism is in fact RIGHT-WING EXTREMISM. Bob just said so.

    Here's a hint Bob, who advocates for less government control and regulation? Conservatives or liberals? Conservatives or Libertians? So by your logic, conservatives (and even more so, libertarians) who advocate LESS government control and regulation of the market etc etc, are just like, "Mussolini, was that the State was absolute before which individuals and groups were all relative". I guess there's one of two things we can thus conclude about Bob.
    1) He goes to opposite university where up is down and black is white.
    2) He in fact teaches history in another country where "left-wing" and "right-wing" can have different terminologies than USA traditional alignments.

    Of course, there's always the possiblity that he's an aboslute idiot, but I prefer to think better of him.

    Oh, and I guess you should go get on Wikipedia then and get some things straightened out no?
    =================================================
    Most scholars agree that a "fascist regime" is foremost an authoritarian form of government, although not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. Authoritarianism is thus a defining characteristic, but most scholars will say that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian regime fascist. It is common practice to define a fascist government as a "right-wing dictatorship". However, there is no universal definition of "right-wing" and the number of conservative and libertarian scholars and political commentators see fascism as a form collectivism or socialism, rooted in left-wing political ideas. For more on this concept, see Fascism and ideology.
    ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
    ============================================
    Outside the United States (where capitalism is supported by a broad range of politicians and people from the left and the right), the most notable distinction between left and right is in economic policy. The right advanced capitalism, whereas the left advocated socialism (often democratic socialism) or communism. Some on the right advocate laissez faire capitalism, tending toward minarchism, with little government intervention in the economy other than to control the money supply and little taxation except to support military and police functions. At the other extreme within what is usually considered right of centre, the centre-right Gaullists in post-World War II France advocated considerable social spending on education and infrastructure development, as well as extensive economic regulation and even a limited amount of the wealth redistribution measures more characteristic of social democracy.
    ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
    (yeah Bob, that does NOT sound like Fascism at all to me)
    ==================================================
    Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State. (p.15)
    ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_Fascism
    (hmmm..... translation: we disagree with socialism's methods, but agree with their reasons)
    ==================================================
    At the same time, fascists claimed to offer a radically new approach to politics, and a new form of government that could reshape society.[3] Thus, fascism attempted to be both conservative and radical. Benito Mussolini embraced this apparent contradiction, saying "I am a reactionary and a revolutionary."
    ...
    Many authors have argued that totalitarian governments existed in the 20th century, though there is disagreement on which governments were totalitarian and which ideologies created them. Nazism and Stalinism are the two ideologies most often considered to be totalitarian, and Hitler and Stalin are the two people most often given as examples of totalitarian leaders. They both held absolute power in their countries and had personality cults built around them. They both used similar means - extreme forms of censorship, police state tactics, and mass murder - though their goals were different.
    ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#Fascism_and_conservatism
    (hmmm..... seems fascism might be right of communism, but still pretty left of center)
    =================================================
    Both countries engaged in very strong collusion between business and government, with the result that businessmen had a degree of control over state policy and the state had a degree of control over the economy. Using this mechanism, Fascists and Nazis were able to fix prices, determine the level of wages, and put up barriers to entry in important markets (so as to give their business allies the power to form oligopolies or monopolies). Also, Fascists and Nazis placed high tariffs on imported goods, for the purpose of achieving economic self-sufficiency (autarky), which would enable them to wage war without fear of international economic sanctions.
    ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#Fascism.2C_capitalism_and_socialism
    (WOW, who tries to employ a lot of those policies today? Anyone pay attention this last election season?)
    =================================================
    Although specific means of achieving these ends are not agreed upon by different left-wing groups, almost all those on the left agree that some form of government or social intervention in economics is necessary, ranging from Keynesian economics and the welfare state through industrial democracy or the social market to nationalization of the economy and central planning.
    ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing#Left-wing_issues
    (hmmm.... anyone notice how the last item seems to match fascism exactly?)
    ==================================================
    Dear 'professor' please try thinking outside the box or at least study some history yourself and think for yourself rather than just parroting what prior professors taught you.

    Yeah, Grim, I arrived at "piracy" via Occam's Razor: The simplest valid explanation is most likely to be the right one.
    ====================================================
    Ummm..... I didn't make any comment on your "occam's razor" comment. You can talk about "piracy" all you want, we all know that Ninjas are better.

    It will take multiple posts to show how Bob confuses his opinion with what he thinks are facts. Oy. Worse yet....Bob is a professor who describes his unsupported conclusions and speculation of the future as fact. Oy. Since I will be going out with my wife tonight for dinner and a movie, the posts will be spaced and sporadic.

    Oy, here it goes.....

    Bob,

    Your words, "Our current debt which is around $44 trillion or $147,312 per man, woman and child will put a possible insurmountable burden on YOURS and my children,but you're fine with that !
    This debt doesn't only affect the future and our children,each added dollar of new debt produces less increased national income. America has become more debt-dependent... than ever before."

    At the end of his post, you said you posted facts. Bob, Bob, Bob, the only fact in the first part of your editorial I will address (I am assuning it is accurate), is, "Our current debt which is around $44 trillion or $147,312 per man, woman and child." The rest is shrill fear that ASSUMES current government projections of both revenue (money they get from taxes), and spending. The speculation of INSURMOUNTABLE is very debatable as studies show the tax cuts over the last 6 years have resulted in increased treasury revenue that defied all liberal projections that revenues would decrease. Over the long term, as the economy works without government intrusion, revenues will continue to increase because people will be making more money.

    Now I know you support government redistribution of wealth...(o=opinion)

    "Bush continues to push for a war he can't pay for.o Believe it or not, winning the war in Iraq was never the Bush administration's highest priority.o Saving its tax cuts was more important.o That was once spoken of as a moral problem. Now it's a practical barrier to a successful outcome.o

    "Until recently Bush's refusal to scale back any of his tax cuts was discussed as the question of shared sacrifice: How could we ask so much from a courageous group of Americans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan but not ask even the wealthiest of their fellow citizens to part with a few extra dollars to support an endeavor supposedly central to our nation's security?o On the contrary, even after we committed to war in Iraq, the administration pushed for yet more tax cuts in dividends and capital gains.

    "Now we know that the decision to put the war on a credit card is not simply a moral question. The administration's failure to acknowledge the real costs of the war...and to pay them... has put it in a corner."o


    To hold all of those opinions is your right. I disagree and would like to see further dismantling of the huge federal system that taxes the citizens at multiple levels so that money can be sent back to the states in grants and entitlements. Increasing taxes is wrong since right now, people pay an already large amount of money in taxes and there is such waste at the federal level. As a middle class individual, 1/3 of my income goes to Washington. If I was a billionaire, it would still be wrong for a government to arbitrarily take 1/3 of my income and if I was poor, it still would be wrong for 1/3 of my income to be taken from me.

    You see Bob, your world view that government knows best with regards to economic and social policy is wrong and it leads you to the OPINION about the future. If the government would cut discretionary spending, restructure Social Security (which is a tax BTW, NOT a self funding retirement program), restructure Medicaid and stop pork, we would again have a surplus. Those are the solutions that should be undertaken.... NOT raise ANYONE's taxes.

    You want others to pay more taxes....that is your opinion as well.

    So Bob, I will return to dismantle what you call "facts." I know what I have stated is opinion, including....

    I believe the current federal goverment we have now is too large and has fundamentally become something it was not meant to be....the mommy state you liberals like to have. My Judeo-Christian world view relies on an individual's pursuit of personal holiness with the indwelling of Christ as the replacement of the hollow and impersonal government programs you would rather have functioning to try to bring compassion and help to people. The traditional family with responsible parents has been dismantled by the liberal social and economic policies. We have been trying your failed way full force for over 40 years and look at the sorry results.

    Again Bob, these are my opinions! Please try to keep that in mind.

    More to come....there is so much to address....especially the environmental assumptions!

    Grim's been goggling his brains out....How funny is that!
    Grim must be unemployed and have nothing better to do.He's still trying to tell a carpenter how to frame a house.

    Your house of cards is crumbling, Grim.

    Fascist means left wing !TDF.
    And I'm supposed to think outside the box !
    Maybe that carpenter should use a screw driver to pound those nails.

    Grim Grim Grim..you are so out of your league .
    Hey...We found our one right wing comedian !

    Brandon,
    if you go back thru this site, you will see Tofutti tells people that the democrats didn't vote for the war...a large number did (actually more than voted to go to war back in 1991), but not all...so his argument was that dems didn't vote for the war only some (even if that some was a majority)...and I might be mistaken, but I think he ignores the house and simply focuses on the senate's vote.

    of course then again, Tofutti get W and Jack Sparrow mixed up nowadays...as he has come to the conclusion recently that its all about piracy

    "Dear 'professor' please try thinking outside the box or at least study some history yourself and think for yourself rather than just parroting what prior professors taught you."

    Grim;

    "Parroting" is a funny barb to throw at the end of a record-setting cut-and-paste fandango, don't you think?

    Anyway; did you actually read any of the definitions you snatched? Much falls uncomfortably close to describing the policies of this administration - particularly the aspects relating to "corporatism" (a term I did not see in your post, but which is widely considered to be synonomous with "fascism" - It was in fact Mussolini's preferred descriptor).

    The exclusive patronage of party-loyal monopolies is the hallmark distinguishing fascism from other forms of authoritarianism - Government and Industry are a unitary force. How many times have right-wingers here and elsewhere defended the no-bid contracts reaped by Halliburton as standard business; "No other company could do the job" they say. Categorical Bullshit.

    But with Cheney, their once-and-future CEO, dishing out the work, its a sure thing that no one else will get a chance.

    Chellenger Grim,

    At least the second of those articles is nonsense. Clinton was attacked during the Monika Lewinski scandal for trying to divert media attention away from the scandal to Iraq by focusing too much effort there. Now you want to say he didn't do enough because of the scandal? It's just contradictory.

    Besides, under the Clinton administration the antiterrorism budget for the FBI was tripled. It was Clinton that issued a presidential directive for the assassination of Bin Laden. And, appointed Richard Clarke to come up with a blanket plan to deal with Al Qaeda. Which he did. It included essentially everything America has done in Afganistan since 9-11, and more.

    Sincerely,
    Josh
    ==================================================
    Josh, I think you were trying to cover too many points there at once such that they were muddled. Which article were you referring to?

    As someone else stated previously, I do have a life so I am commenting late to Anonymous Mike. If the Democrats only voted because they thought war was only to be used as a last defense, why haven't they made your argument? The only point I heard any of them make was that they were mislead. It will be interesting to hear Hillary's defense of her reason for voting yes (as well as anyone else who runs and voted for the war.) Kerry was destroyed by the "I was for the war before I was against it" or whatever the hell he said. Maybe you can hire yourself out to make their arguments for them because you seem to be the only one voicing their opinions.

    It's true that no one can say what every soldier is thinking and that many have been called back into service. That does not explain those who willingly re-enlist and how every reporter notes the high morale of the troops. Those serving do have ways to convey their opinions. Maybe the majority of the men and women serving choose to watch Fox News. I have a hard time beleieving that they are forced to watch only Fox and have limited access to the internet. (Someone had mentioned their inability to state opionions). I think that the post traumatic stress disorder suffered by so many is heightened by the constant barrage of what a failure their mission is.

    I am not a Bush supporter in all respects. But he is painted as the worst person who ever lived. This war can be stopped by cutting the funds. No one will do it but Dennis Kucinich. There are only two choices- go all out to win (and not care about collateral damage) or get out. A gradual withdrawal will certainly result in a huge death toll.

    Cee's going to revise all of the Bush policies on the environment too.
    Revisionist history !
    Spare me.

    "if you go back thru this site, you will see Tofutti tells people that the democrats didn't vote for the war...a large number did (actually more than voted to go to war back in 1991), but not all...so his argument was that dems didn't vote for the war only some (even if that some was a majority)...and I might be mistaken, but I think he ignores the house and simply focuses on the senate's vote."

    I don't know if you're a bigger dipshit or a bigger liar, Bear. I have never asserted any such garbage. I know the exact counts of which honorable statesmen voted against the foolishness, and which equivocating mercenaries voted for it. Those who voted for it will never get my support or vote.

    ...but partisanship is in your blood, and you are only capable of thinking within the framework provided for you, so you are not exclusively responsible for your own balderdash.

    Grim;

    "Parroting" is a funny barb to throw at the end of a record-setting cut-and-paste fandango, don't you think?
    =================================================
    Oh, sorry beef, that I'm trying to use EVIDENCE to support my position. Guess I should just say it's so without any support like bob right?

    ==================================================
    Anyway; did you actually read any of the definitions you snatched? Much falls uncomfortably close to describing the policies of this administration - particularly the aspects relating to "corporatism" (a term I did not see in your post, but which is widely considered to be synonomous with "fascism" - It was in fact Mussolini's preferred descriptor).
    ==================================================
    Umm.... yes I have, and there's also no shortage of "right-wingers" that have complained about how "leftist" this current administration is. So essentially... you proved my point (thank you!). Why don't we compare a lot of those statements to say... someone who's policies conservatives WERE much more pleased with. Like... Reagan?

    ==================================================
    The exclusive patronage of party-loyal monopolies is the hallmark distinguishing fascism from other forms of authoritarianism - Government and Industry are a unitary force. How many times have right-wingers here and elsewhere defended the no-bid contracts reaped by Halliburton as standard business; "No other company could do the job" they say. Categorical Bullshit.
    ==================================================
    Well I certainly don't like government and industry being 'unitary' forces. I thought I heard once somewhere that there were some other companys that wanted to compete with haliburton for their contract. Anyone give me some sources on this? (and again, see above my statement about how many right-wingers are TICKED at this current administration)

    ==================================================
    But with Cheney, their once-and-future CEO, dishing out the work, its a sure thing that no one else will get a chance.
    ==================================================
    Yeah..... that is bull, competition is good!

    ...Oh, I see how Bear's brain is grinding: I HAVE asserted that the vote itself did not pertain to the invasion of Iraq, and that is a fact I have yet to see anyone dispute, despite my request. Bush was unwisely given powers to engage international terrorists as he sees fit, but this clearly did not apply to Iraq.

    Grim's been goggling his brains out....How funny is that!
    Grim must be unemployed and have nothing better to do.He's still trying to tell a carpenter how to frame a house.
    ==================================================
    Actually no, I have a job. You're posts are just so pathetic that I only need a fraction of a second to destory them.
    Oh, and I haven't been "googling", I've been using wikipedia and findarticles.com moron.

    Oh, and I may not be a carpenter, but I can tell the difference between a sturdy frame and a weak one (hint: the weak one falls over in the first wind).

    ==================================================
    Your house of cards is crumbling, Grim.
    ==================================================
    Umm..... ok.
    Man, I guess it HAS been too long since I've been in college. I remember back when you had to use EVIDENCE to support your claims. But then again, I majored in science (biology and computers exactly), a REAL discipline, not one of the joke humanities.

    ==================================================
    Fascist means left wing !TDF.
    And I'm supposed to think outside the box !
    Maybe that carpenter should use a screw driver to pound those nails.
    ==================================================
    Well if he's putting up a triangle framing for the roof, maybe that carpenter should be using SCREWS instead of NAILS anyway since screws have a stronger hold value and are less likely to work loose as the house settles and so forth through the years.

    ==================================================
    Grim Grim Grim..you are so out of your league .
    Hey...We found our one right wing comedian !
    ==================================================
    You're right. *sigh* Maybe I can go find a place with intelligent people to talk to. It's no fun picking on mental weaklings.


    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    and we keep killing towelheads over there.

    Posted by: Cee and Grim's friends at December 15, 2006 02:58 PM
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Ummm..... I know that you're not either of my friends.

    And I have nothing against towelheads. I have a low opinion and hatred of ALL people. I say, just set off all the nukes and do the universe a favor by removing this fluke of evolution that's called humanity.

    But with Cheney, their once-and-future CEO, dishing out the work, its a sure thing that no one else will get a chance.
    ==================================================
    Yeah..... that is bull, competition is good!

    Posted by: Challenger Grim at December 15, 2006 03:46 PM

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


    But Grim, curtailing competition through partisan cronyism is the undifferentiated modus operandi of the Bushies! If you agree about Halliburton you must accept the equally explicit and shocking corporate socialism that dictates the entirety of the "reconstruction".

    Jay Garner back in 2003 was all set to have IRAQIS compete for the contracts to rebuild their own country - (can you as an economic conservative think of a better way to engage a populace in creating a functional civil society than providing such a powerful economic engine?) - and for that very reason he was shit-canned and the cut-throat Bremmer was installed in his place. That was the point at which everything went to hell in Iraq, because all indigenous hope was destroyed and the country became a feeding trough for Republican contractors at the expense of the American taxpayer. Any congressional, or even executive oversight of the contractors' activites has been energetically resisted by the administration/Republicans, and most detailed reports suggest that we and the Iraqis are getting exactly NOTHING for the hundreds of billions we've paid out.

    The scam was clear to the Iraqis, who quickly began joining the very secular insurgency in desparate and furious droves.


    I have a low opinion and hatred of ALL people. I say, just set off all the nukes and do the universe a favor by removing this fluke of evolution that's called humanity.

    Grim's a scary and ignorant dude.Even when he's out of his league, like with Bob, he stills postures and beats his chest and insists he's correct !

    But Grim, curtailing competition through partisan cronyism is the undifferentiated modus operandi of the Bushies! If you agree about Halliburton you must accept the equally explicit and shocking corporate socialism that dictates the entirety of the "reconstruction".
    =====================================================
    ^See above where I said: "there's also no shortage of "right-wingers" that have complained about how "leftist" this current administration is". Count me as one of them.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Jay Garner back in 2003 was all set to have IRAQIS compete for the contracts to rebuild their own country - (can you as an economic conservative think of a better way to engage a populace in creating a functional civil society than providing such a powerful economic engine?)
    ==================================================
    That does sound like an awesome idea. *sigh* oh well.

    Grim's a scary and ignorant dude.Even when he's out of his league, like with Bob, he stills postures and beats his chest and insists he's correct !

    Posted by: voice of reason at December 15, 2006 04:11 PM
    ====================================================
    Hey bob, you should look at getting your multiple personalities taken care of.

    ?????

    ...so where exactly do you stand in regard to this phony war/occupation, Grim?

    "Lots of right-wingers" see the truth, according to you, but still throw their political franchise behind Bush et. al.? That's insane, irresponsible, and self-defeating, if you ask me.

    Grim makes the claim that Bush is a "lefty" - a claim made by Vigery and other paleo-conservatives in the effort to preserve some status for the conservative movement. At this stage such simplistic labels become meaningless, and you have to dig a little deeper.

    Bush's administration weilds power through corporate socialism that is true, but calling that "left-wing" is disingenuous. Corporate socialism by its very nature swamps democracy, as the government-managed market (euphemistically referred to as "free") becomes the place where ideas are exchanged and social decisions made.

    I think Grim objects to "lefties" because of the social programs, safety-nets, and industrial regulation that they espouse; he thinks this is a mandate of of politburo some where. In fact, it is the natural mandate of democracy - when people get together to reach consensus, it inevitably begins to reflect the interdependency of society, and the recognition of positive and negative externalities that can only be consistantly addressed through taxation and redistribution.

    Bush's programs in Iraq and the US, however, directly reflect Grim's misconceptions regarding what he thinks of as the left - a monolithic, elitist, agenda-laden approach in which the decision-makers and the sources of their influence are the sole benficiaries of public policy.

    ?????

    ...so where exactly do you stand in regard to this phony war/occupation, Grim?

    "Lots of right-wingers" see the truth, according to you, but still throw their political franchise behind Bush et. al.? That's insane, irresponsible, and self-defeating, if you ask me.
    =====================================================
    I must admit, I find myself sort of on John Derbyshire's side: We should have just gone in, beat the tar out of them, made them cry and then gone on our way.
    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmYxNjgzMjFkMTQ3MDE1ZTIyYzFlNDc3ZWFlZjY4NzI=

    However, that's not what has been done and now we've made a big mess of things, so I do believe we should try and clean up our screw up before we wash our hands of it.

    Now do I think Bush is doing a good job of it? Well... he's probably doing a better job than a lot of people would, but then I think this situation has hit the fubar point so badly that anyone in his position is going to be lose lose.

    Finally, this is a little personal for me as my uncle is over there (he works for the american embassy and yes, he actually CHOOSE to go over there). So far his emails have been pretty hopeful, so I've been behind him (supporting his goal and mission) more than I've been behind Bush.

    Grim,

    This article.

    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_24_53/ai_80454780

    It's utter nonsense. It is simply contradicted by reality and even conservatives own assertions pre 9-11.

    Sincerely,
    Josh

    Well, you and your uncle have problems, Grim.

    You recognize the fascistic cronyism operating between the administration and the bigest contractors over there; you do not dispute that nothing seems to be getting built; you appear to agree that instead of democracy/capitalism we are operating a system of military corporatism...

    - where in the hell does your meek optimism come from? Is it that you really don't care what your country does or doesn't do in your name? Based on the posts I've read, that would be my conclusion of your hay-wire jumble of opinions.

    Grim's now paranoid that others are ganging up on him.

    Booooo !

    Bob-
    Considering that 432pm 434pm & 435pm are all from people disagreeing with Grim and posted by three different people, please explain why he wouldn't feel ganged up on?

    Grim makes the claim that Bush is a "lefty" - a claim made by Vigery and other paleo-conservatives in the effort to preserve some status for the conservative movement. At this stage such simplistic labels become meaningless, and you have to dig a little deeper.
    ==================================================
    Is it ever too much to ask for someone to actually READ what I wrote?
    What I said was that bush is considered "leftist" for many conservatives. It's obvious he is right of center, but just barely. He's still left of most standard conservatives (i.e. Reagen) just as Fascism is 'right' of communism but still is left of center.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Bush's administration weilds power through corporate socialism that is true, but calling that "left-wing" is disingenuous. Corporate socialism by its very nature swamps democracy, as the government-managed market (euphemistically referred to as "free") becomes the place where ideas are exchanged and social decisions made.
    ==================================================
    Wait, are we discussing an american version of left/right or another country's? The extreme end of 'leftism' (as defined in america) would be communism which... isn't known as being very democratic. So are we agreeing or disagreeing on this? Because I will have to say I agree with john stossel when he said, "I'd call myself classically liberal."

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I think Grim objects to "lefties" because of the social programs, safety-nets, and industrial regulation that they espouse; he thinks this is a mandate of of politburo some where. In fact, it is the natural mandate of democracy - when people get together to reach consensus, it inevitably begins to reflect the interdependency of society, and the recognition of positive and negative externalities that can only be consistantly addressed through taxation and redistribution.
    ==================================================
    1) Yeah, I'm not a big fan of government intruding on people's lives. When you start allowing a "safety net" then you allow the government to define success and power over you because they can always threaten to take that net away. I'd be much happier with local charities and organizations (local communities) providing a safety net than an incompetent government ("the people that can help you best are your neighbors.")

    2) And yeah, i'm not a very big fan of pure democracy, I'm a fan of federalism. Ever looked at the bill of rights? It's very undemocratic. After all, if 51% of the people want to tell the other 49% to shut up, shouldn't they be able to? Majorities can be just as tyranical as a single man.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Bush's programs in Iraq and the US, however, directly reflect Grim's misconceptions regarding what he thinks of as the left - a monolithic, elitist, agenda-laden approach in which the decision-makers and the sources of their influence are the sole benficiaries of public policy.
    ==================================================
    Well again, that's how the left is defined here in america. After all, doesn't that sentence up there perfectly describe communist russia?

    Well, you and your uncle have problems, Grim.

    You recognize the fascistic cronyism operating between the administration and the bigest contractors over there; you do not dispute that nothing seems to be getting built; you appear to agree that instead of democracy/capitalism we are operating a system of military corporatism...

    - where in the hell does your meek optimism come from? Is it that you really don't care what your country does or doesn't do in your name? Based on the posts I've read, that would be my conclusion of your hay-wire jumble of opinions.
    ==================================================
    Well... i guess you could say that my 'optimism' comes from the fact that "cronyism" has been around since the beginning of the world (and is a far more powerful corrupter than money) but things continue on.

    And though I think a better job could be done, I haven't heard anyone offer up a better proposal. (i mean, talk with Iran and Syria???? wtd?) And I also think our honor will be even MORE damaged if we cut and run. It'll send a message to anyone that being our friend is pointless and we'll abandon you the second it becomes inconvient to us.

    Grim-

    You gotta stop expecting them to BOTH read AND comprehend your posts.

    That is something they expect of anyone else, but especially Bobby & Tofutti, they simply pick and chose what they want to read/comprehend/accept or deride/& then respond too.

    PS did you check out my response to your global warming comment from earlier today in the other node here?

    Grim's now paranoid that others are ganging up on him.

    Booooo !
    ====================================================
    ummm...... what?

    Bob seems to be finding things that aren't there again.

    PS did you check out my response to your global warming comment from earlier today in the other node here?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    yeah fred, I'm posting replies as I can get around to them.

    "
    Well again, that's how the left is defined here in america. After all, doesn't that sentence up there perfectly describe communist russia?"

    It does; it also describes Hitler's Germany; Franco's Spain; and Bush's America. Looks nothing at all like the constitutional democracy beloved by every American Democrat and socialist I have ever met.

    And Federalism's time is ending - I predict the next constitutional ammendments will address the fact that those aspects of our system were designed for horse-and-buggy/pony express days. Political regionalism is not a good paradigm in a century wired for the internet and in which they just conducted the first matter-energy-matter transport under laboratory conditions. We will still be represented in congress based on locality, I suspect, but that representation will be realized on a wider basis, with multiple legislators representing the people within lager districts, eliminating the perennial problem of redistricting and the two-party stranglehold.

    It does; it also describes Hitler's Germany; Franco's Spain; and Bush's America. Looks nothing at all like the constitutional democracy beloved by every American Democrat and socialist I have ever met.
    ==================================================
    So looks like you've met some conservative democrats. ;-)

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    And Federalism's time is ending - I predict the next constitutional ammendments will address the fact that those aspects of our system were designed for horse-and-buggy/pony express days. Political regionalism is not a good paradigm in a century wired for the internet and in which they just conducted the first matter-energy-matter transport under laboratory conditions. We will still be represented in congress based on locality, I suspect, but that representation will be realized on a wider basis, with multiple legislators representing the people within lager districts, eliminating the perennial problem of redistricting and the two-party stranglehold.
    ==================================================
    Oh god I hope not.

    Lord Jabootu, please let me be dead or long gone before then.

    Ganging up? Well, we're debating for sure - that's kind of why we come here - and Grim is about the only rightie here today that can put ten words together in a coherent sentence. But I'll lay off for the night if you are getting stretched thin, Grim.

    Ganging up? Well, we're debating for sure - that's kind of why we come here - and Grim is about the only rightie here today that can put ten words together in a coherent sentence. But I'll lay off for the night if you are getting stretched thin, Grim.
    =====================================================
    Nah, I just had a SERIOUS program bug crop up so my attention is focused here less and less.

    Oh, and soon some friends and I will be heading off to go see Eragon (and probably hang out afterwards to play games) so don't be surprised if I grow quiet till late tonight or tomorrow.

    I wrote: "It does; it also describes Hitler's Germany; Franco's Spain; and Bush's America. Looks nothing at all like the constitutional democracy beloved by every American Democrat and socialist I have ever met.
    ==================================================
    Grim wrote: So looks like you've met some conservative democrats. ;-)"


    This reflects the fallacy under which the American Right operates in regard to the nature of a free society.

    Large, complex modern societies cannot - repeat CANNOT - avoid regulation by some recognized and effective governing entity. The idea that an economy can be "deregulated" short of balls-to-the-wall blood-spilling anarchy is a preposterous myth. There always are rules by which the exchanges take place. But it must be decided whether the rules will be consistant, statutory, and equitable for the whole of the society; or be an arbitrary quarterly business plan for an international energy conglmerate.

    We've got something like the latter going on now.

    Large, complex modern societies cannot - repeat CANNOT - avoid regulation by some recognized and effective governing entity. The idea that an economy can be "deregulated" short of balls-to-the-wall blood-spilling anarchy is a preposterous myth.
    ====================================================
    Again, we'll have to agree on definitions first.

    If you're talking about rule of law and private property, of course, you have to have those or you don't even have a society period.

    Now if you're talking about rules/regulations beyond that... well then that's where the philosophies divide isn't it?

    http://2006.weblogawards.org/2006/12/best_blog.php

    Daily Kos has been cheating this poll. Vote LGF attempt to balence it out.

    Anonymous opined, "We've got something like the latter going on now."

    Oh yeah, that's specific.

    With all of the interesting commentary, it brings to mind that there is no real debate before we elect the people that we do. People don't know the issues or the implications. The working poor are not able to engage in this kind of rhetoric. They are busy trying to get from point A to point B, and keeping their kids fed, homework done and activities on schedule. I like to read comments on this website because it gives me food for thought. I homeschool and barely have 15 minutes to myself. My husband works two jobs in this great economy to make ends meet. I still don't hate Bush because I don't see anyone with a plan to help the working poor. Billions of dollars have been spent on Iraq but more importantly precious lives have been lost. I don't believe that Bush had completely selfish intentions for this war. People hate him so much that they want the war to fail to claim their own victory. Who is being self-serving?

    Your definition of "rule of law" must be pretty specific - you seem to be saying that keeping others from holding you up at gunpoint is a sufficient level of regulation for a government to exercise. What about externalities? How is it just, equitable, or sustainable when certain politally favored industries can ignore the most aggregious side-effects/waste products of their going about their business - leaving society in general to pay the often massive or insurrmountable costs. Do you think conservatives actualy limit legislation? They don't; in fact, they've vastly expanded over the past six years the number of laws limiting individual/citizen response to infractions by monopolistic cartels. Whether its price-fixing on behalf of Big Pharma at the cost of all of us; or vastly expanding the range of potential "deadbeats" for the credit industry (with a lot of help from some Democrats); Republicans/conservatives regulate as energetially as anybody - just to the advantage of a different/smaller demographic.

    Specific regulation is needed to protect the commons, and to equitably distribute their proceeds. The bigger and more complex the society/ the more massive the stack of statutes it will require to preserve stability.

    That last one was to Grim

    sharm;

    Concerned about the working poor? Check out Dennis Kucinich. He just announced another run for Pres in 2008 - not much hope but a perfectly logical, honest set of analyses and proposals geared toward economic justice.

    Sharm:

    You seem reasonable but you are COMPLETELY wrong when you say anti-Bush people "want the war to fail to claim their own victory". That would be so despicable if it were true, but it's not!

    I can certainly speak for myself on this point but I believe it applies to many of us. I am anti-Bush because of what he has already done to my country, mostly by starting this war. I believe in my country first and NOBODY, but NOBODY has rooted harder for us to win and for things to turn around that I have!

    If it turned around tomorrow and things went well for us from this day on, it would STILL not vindicate Bush's decision to invade a country that did not attack us on false premises. Our country has been damaged with massive debt, lost young lives, and severly injured vets that are going to need care for the remainder of their lives. 'Winning' or 'losing' will not change that.

    I fail to understand why so many on the right have a problem with holding a man who has displayed gross incompetence in the process of getting our country in deep trouble? It didn't have to be this way.

    We don't hate Bush. We hate the lies. We hate the incompetence. We hate the secrecy. We hate the refusal to seek balanced council.

    Every entity in America expects it's leaders to perform competently and ethically. So why are so many giving Bush a pass?

    I voted for Bush in 2000, but I voted for a candidate that claimed he was for integrity, honesty, openess, bi-partanship, but mostly, he was against foreign interventionism. He certainly has let every one of us down who expected him to keep those promises.

    Mike,

    Well, I hate him. For all the actions you listed, but they cause me to really hate him and not just his works.

    Grim "Well... i guess you could say that my 'optimism' comes from the fact that "cronyism" has been around since the beginning of the world (and is a far more powerful corrupter than money) but things continue on."

    Yep, "things" continue on; things like wars started for profit. Wouldn't it be great to get the graft under control?

    "And though I think a better job could be done, I haven't heard anyone offer up a better proposal. (i mean, talk with Iran and Syria???? wtd?) And I also think our honor will be even MORE damaged if we cut and run. It'll send a message to anyone that being our friend is pointless and we'll abandon you the second it becomes inconvient to us."


    A better proposal was offered - "don't invade Iraq!" More recently: "Get the f--- out of Iraq".


    Yes; talk with Iran and Syria - what kind of pussy is afraid to talk?

    You're worried about leaving Iraq "damaging our honor? Have you ever heard of "Vietnam"? Staying there for 10 years destroyed our honor and our military - only upon bailing out did we repair our international standing and start thinking about rebuilding our armed forces. Your argument here is indistingishable from the knee-jerk obstinance and cock-eyed diplomatic teory that kept in SE Asia for so long.

    Grim,

    "He's still left of most standard conservatives (i.e. Reagen) just as Fascism is 'right' of communism but still is left of center."

    No one, except you, places Fascism "left of center." Fascism is farther right than conservatism. It's the farthest right form of government ever devised. It is the total and exact opposite of Socialism. Where on Earth did you get the ludicrous idea that it is left of center? Fascism is the form of government the KKK would run if it were allowed. If you are right of Fascism, then god help us all.

    Severely disturbed by Grim,
    Josh

    I am glad to see that Professor Honeydew (aka Bob)was posting eloquent against other fair minded and freedom loving individuals since my last visit.

    The OPINIONS expressed by Sir Loin of Milquetoast and Professor Honeydew continue to show the abject exiguity of residuum resulting from their secular humanist world views....God Bless 'em.

    I will return to the methodical analysis of Professor Honeydew's diatribe.

    Bob, Bob, Bob....You fell into a bad trap with your following point....

    "In 2001, the EPA announced it was delaying the implementation of regulations to lower the allowable amounts of arsenic in drinking water to 10 parts per million..a new standard proposed by the Clinton Administration. Only after a storm of criticism did they announce the adoption of the proposed Clinton standard."

    Hey Professor Honeydew!.....your hero was in office for eight years and only put that new arsenic regulation in as an executive order IN LATE 2000, along with the pardons he granted to Marc Rich and others for their cash gifts. If he was so concerned about my child's health and the evidence was so convincing that the lower levels were required, why did he not act on reducing arsenic levels in 1992?

    Ralph Nader (not my usual ally) has a very good theory....I quote....

    "Clinton issued these standards just before he left office in all these areas...And he did it for two reasons: his historic legacy, and to lay a trap for George W. Bush. And he fell right into it."

    Wow! Someone playing politics! I am SOOOOOO surprised!

    SCIENTIFIC study after study show Americans have not suffered any ill effects from drinking water containing infinitesimal amounts of arsenic since the limit now in effect was adopted 59 years ago. That standard, .05 parts of arsenic per million, had a built-in four-fold safety margin. That means that the level of arsenic in the water would have to be four times the legal limit before it would pose any threat to health.

    Anything can be a poison if it is in high enough doses....chlorine, fluoride, etc. Levels are closely monitored and kept at a reasonable level, BUT THE "POISON" IS STILL PRESENT! Arsenic is a natural element that will be present no matter what man does and 10 ppb is a ridiculous level...and I am sure Clinton knew it!

    Furthermore, it makes no sense to base regulation changes on anything like emotion. Instead, they should be based on sound science. Clinton made an arbitrary decision based on questionable studies, most of which involved populations in other countries which were exposed to significantly higher levels of arsenic than those found in the United States.

    It is also helpful to note that any community in the country now has the authority to lower arsenic in its drinking water to whatever level it chooses below 50ppb. The reason communities have not lowered their levels to 10ppb is that the health benefits have not been shown to justify the enormous cost.

    The American Water Works Association has stated, "At the level of 10 ppb or lower, the health risk reduction benefits become vanishingly small as compared to the costs."

    The costs, however, are real. The American Water Works Association, which supports a reduction in the current arsenic standard, has estimated the proposed rule would cost $600 million annually and require $5 billion in capital outlays.

    "As a physician, I wonder if you would encourage your patients to include more arsenic in their diets."

    Nice foolish statement, Professor Honeydew. No, I am sure that my VERY FEDERALLY regulated local water company is doing their job.

    So Professor Honeydew, your demagogic arsenic scare tactic failed....The other environmental fear you and you lefty comrades try to use on my fellow unsuspecting citizens will have to be confronted later....I have to work today to pay my burdensome taxes.

    Josh...

    A quick attempt to reverse the liberal indoctrination you have invested so much into....

    Fascism is is a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism. The ideology of economic justice could be "socialist," under such a reqime based on Marxist-Leninist theory that socialism is intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

    You see, the economic goals of the left would eventually result in Fascism, but the left does not want anyone to actually think that could happen! Anybody who can read and study history will find that too much economic control by the centralized government ALWAYS results in some degree of Fascism.

    Think about it, Josh.

    Professor Honeydew said,

    "And even if I wanted to play along with you and accept your portrayal of me as a "secular humanist"..The CONSISTENT emphasis on critical thinking gives secular humanism a big advantage over mainstream religion....so your "failed ideologies" point is right out the window."

    Where do I start?

    The movement of humankind from revelation as authority, to nature as authority to experience as authority is historical fact. I am assuming
    when Professor Honeydew makes the broad claim about mainstream religion NOT consistently employing critical thinking he is placing religion into that historical time frame prior to The Enlightenment. This rhetorical tactic is common among the educators of the west and is self serving. Since many do not have any authoritative knowledge of "religion," dismissing it as a tool to find truth is the easy way out. This same superficial attitude simplifies the debate and results into all variations of historical inaccuracy.

    The professor's OPINION of mainstream religion is exactly that: Opinion....not fact. If we want to look critically at the results of relying on EXPERIENCE for moral authority, let's do it, but lets do it honestly.

    Because that is really what it comes down to, doesn't it? "Critical thinking," is really arriving at conclusions based on human experience. If this is the consistently lone process Professor Honeydew wants to employ to form his world view, and he says it is the only way, then we do indeed have something to talk about. You can't dismiss my approach by simply saying, "your point is right out the window."

    That's the problem with today's academia....total reliance on experience for truth. Even Emerson ultimately had a problem with this approach.

    Cee,

    Nice rewriting of history Cee. But that's not how it works. It's not the economic goals of the left that lead to fascism. It is the imperialistic goals, reactionary nature, and blind devotion to the state of the right that leads to fascism.

    Sicerely,
    Josh

    No Josh, look at what every Fascist state (right or left) had to have in order to exist.....centralized economic control over the citizenry.

    The resources to do all of those nasty things....invade other countries, control the press, strike fear into the populace REQUIRES centralized economic control.......Whether the fascist gets it through taxes or state ownership of property.....it really does not matter.

    The definition has been changed in order to pigeon hole such authority as, "right-wing." It is a distiction without a real world application.

    Word origin is important....fascismo, is derived from fascio, "bundle, (political) group." The fasces, (a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power) is fitting for the definition of authoritarian nature of the ruling entity....Now tell me Josh, what is the real world difference, practically speaking, of
    someone like Mussolini and someone like Castro on the freedom of the individual.....In my opinion, none.

    Authority, or "knowing better," is placed in a person or elite few who control the populace.

    Following through to the logical conclusions of most leftist ideology in the current policital discussions of our country, it sounds a lot like the Democratic party line to me....I think they are, "left of center?"

    Sounds like Fascism was what the founders of our country wanted to AVOID.

    Grim,

    "He's still left of most standard conservatives (i.e. Reagen) just as Fascism is 'right' of communism but still is left of center."

    No one, except you, places Fascism "left of center." Fascism is farther right than conservatism. It's the farthest right form of government ever devised. It is the total and exact opposite of Socialism. Where on Earth did you get the ludicrous idea that it is left of center? Fascism is the form of government the KKK would run if it were allowed. If you are right of Fascism, then god help us all.

    Severely disturbed by Grim,
    Josh
    ==================================================
    1) I'm not the only person with that idea. (check out NRO sometime)

    2) The total and exact opposite of socialism would be anarchy. Duh!

    3) So let's see here... currently in the US, the left favors more government regulation and power (any deny that?). The right wants far LESS government power, regulation etc etc (any argument?).

    So tell me... how does one go from wanting LESS government to fascism? That's like saying that someone prefers black so much they become white. ???? Did you even read any quotes I posted by mussolini? Did any of them sound familiar?

    Just trying thinking about it logically (tough, but try) for half a second. The extreme of right-wing isn't fascism, it's ANARCHY.

    Again, if anyone wants to dispute me on this, then please tell me where anarchy would fit and why.

    OH, and do tell all the ways that fascism differs from communism too.

    Finally, to prove my point, I quote:
    "A conservative designs the government with the idea that his worst enemy will be running it.
    A liberal designs the government with the idea that HE will be running it."

    Challenger Grim,

    Ahhh, I see why you are confused now. You think I am incapable of thought and, apparently, that people who think fascism is right wing aren't a severe minority.

    A) "The Russian Revolution also inspired attempted revolutionary movements in Italy with a wave of factory occupations. Most historians view fascism as a response to these developments, as a movement that both tried to appeal to the working class and divert them from Marxism. It also appealed to capitalists as a bulwark against Bolshevism. Italian Fascism took power with the blessing of Italy's king after years of leftist-led unrest led many conservatives to fear that a communist revolution was inevitable (Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci popularized the conception that fascism was the Capital's response to the organized workers' movement). Mussolini took power during the 1922 March on Rome." taken from Wikipedia.

    "Fascist movements like Rexism in Belgium and the Christian Social Party also combined fascist and conservative populist Roman Catholic elements" same place.

    "In modern Western countries, the political spectrum usually is described along left-right lines, based on the seating of the liberal and conservative members of the Legislative Assembly of France in 1791, where liberal and conservative were partly defined by attitudes towards the ancien regime. (See section Historical origin of the terms.) This traditional political spectrum has come to be defined along an axis with socialism and communism, ("the Left") on one end, and nationalism and Fascism ("the Right") on the other. " and again from wikipedia.

    In other words, fascism was the conservatives' reactionary answer to failed socialist policies.

    B) Wow, you were right about Anarchy being the "exact" opposite of socialism. I bow to your intellectual prowess. Except, to say, that most political historians clearly place fascism right of conservatism still. Despite what you may want to believe.

    C) Yes, currently I do deny that the left favors more government regulation and power. Considering said left is currently trying to dismantle the objectionable if not unconstitutional programs inacted by the Republican party during their recent tenure. Generally though, no, the American left favors government intervention whenever it percieves a want for equality. While, conservatives simply believe the problem might go away on it's own, if you help the money flow that is.

    D) Fascism is different than communism because the state does not own all property by virtue of being the state. It just so happens to own all the property by virtue of being run by all the rich landowners. It promises all the benefits of capitalism, but is the worst of what capitalism can become.

    E) If you are going to quote something/someone, maybe you could try to attribute it somehow. I would do better than attributing mine to wikipedia, but wikipedia just so happens to be written by everyone.

    Sincerely,
    Josh

    "Wikipedia just so happens to be written by everyone"

    No Josh...you're wrong...wikipedia is one of millions of sources and written with conventional wisdom and by those in the majority of the particular field it is using...history, political science, etc.

    Secondly, you are correct to characterize the opinion of Grim as one of the minority....then you admit your post is an opinion held by a majority. Well, we have agreement....we have two different opinions about the definition of fascism. At last....agreement.

    Please remember, Josh, a majority point of view NEVER confers validity.

    Your quotes have not convinced me to change my opinion, Josh, because even the dictionary allows my opinion of what fascism is, in truth....

    a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

    b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

    c. Oppressive, dictatorial control

    There is no mention of right/left, capitalism/socialism, anarchy/oligarchy in the definition. One may use an HISTORICAL context to parse the definition...but the BASIC definition still remains....ABSOLUTE/CENTRAL AUTHORITARIAN CONTROL WITH A SYSTEM.

    Using fascism as an adjective to describe the current political system, in various veins, of our country, is applicable. Both liberals and conservatives use the term. What makes me laugh, however, is the typical defense of American liberal policy you even used....

    "Generally though, no, the American left favors government intervention whenever it percieves a want for equality. While, conservatives simply believe the problem might go away on it's own, if you help the money flow that is."

    Please tell me what areas the American left does NOT percieve a want for equality? IMHO, there is none. I am sure the intentions may make you feel better about the possible intervention, Josh, but the means are the same...use of the government system, fear and terror are used to implement them (especially rhetoric from the typical far left), and I am sure I could find millions who would express the policy oppresses them in some way.

    The second part of your claim actually contradicts the previous point about "dismantling" a system. How could there be a system to dismantle if conservatives believe the problem will just go away.

    SO....Josh, on a test in a typilcal university here in The United States, the typical indoctrinating liberal professor may WANT me to answer the following test essay entry.....

    A) DEFINE FASCISM.

    with a regurgitated answer that fits his/her liberal world view. I suspect your post could earn me an, "A." However, that incentive does not instantly make your or the prof's opinion TRUTH. It is still an OPINION that I disagree with and, although perhaps earning an "F," I know my opinion is well founded, logical and I would be able to defend it.

    Indoctrination is what usually occurs in our schools now, Josh, NOT free thinking. Grades by authoritarian teachers are used to coerse people to a point of view and then they call it, "truth."

    Josh, your post has opened my eyes!

    Except... I have to wonder... what then makes communism left wing? Because by your description, it would seem that the old USSR was 'right' wing then.

    And I'm not sure where the quote came from, I"ll have to look for that.

    But from the own wikipedia article:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
    "1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination"
    ==================================================
    hmm.... anyone else reminded a lot about the Democratic party?

    So tell you what, if you continue with this idea that fascism is right-wing, I'll concede that point if you'll then admit the logic that the democrats of today are then, right-wing themselves.

    Sigh,

    Maybe it is I who should concede your point. You in turn have opened my eyes to how the Republican party, under this administration, and nearly the entire reactionary base that elected them took a huge dose of liberalism, to become even more leftist than the Democrats. That sound right to you?

    Inqusitively,
    Josh

    Oh, and that quote from Wiki you pulled...
    sounds much much much more like the current republican landscape than the democrats. Just so ya know.

    Josh

    Josh, I will have to say that I would agree with you. Though do a search through some conservative blogs and see how many critisized "compassionate" conservatism.

    However, as for the party 'landscapes'... I'd have to say I still find the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy to still be further left than a lot of republicans who could rightfully be considered less than conservative.

    Now for shifting the debate (since I guess we've agreed upon the ground rules) here's why I'd check more democrats than republicans on this:
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions
    (global warming? iraq war? outsourcing? Claims of those as crisis have been made by _____? So far about the only crisis a lot of republicans have been harping about would be terrorism in general. So I have 1 instance vs 1+ instances... have to vote democrat on that standard)

    2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits
    (Doesn't the democratic party claim themselves as the 'party of the victim'? I mean, there's democraticundergound.com and it's meant as a SERIOUS title [no hint at a winking sarcasm at all]. Again, about the only time I can think of republicans maybe doing this would be [again] in the war on terror but they do point out that it's ALL of us that are victims, not just their group. Vote for D on this.)

    3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts
    (I know you're going to immediately say this covers George Bush but you have to understand perception here. Side A sees Bush as having violated 20,000 laws while Side B does not. It's not that republicans think he's above the law, it's that a lot of them think he's done nothing against it to begin with. Now when I compare a lot of liberal and democrats' support of courts.... Again I'd have to vote for D on this one.)

    4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint
    (I'd really have to vote a N/A on this one since I don't think either side is really leaning toward this. I might hesitently vote D on this one just because leading up to and since the election this year there seemed to be an implication [and outright in some cases] that the House "belonged" in control of the democrats. But again, I'd still vote N/A.)

    5. fear of foreign `contamination"
    (hmmm..... on this one... not sure. On the one hand you have democrats support tariffs, decrying outsourcing, and they were the ones that raised a fuss over the port deals. Then you have illegal immigration which does enjoy slightly more support from D than R. However most R's aren't against immigration (encourage it anyway) they are just against the ILLEGAL part of it. I would probably vote D on this, but it's a close vote, they win out just barely I will admit [and I will also admit I might change my vote if you asked me another time].)