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


    January 5, 2007
    COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - JANUARY 5, 2007

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

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • THE NEW CONGRESS; PRESIDENT BUSH AND IRAQ: Jonathan Alter, Newsweek senior editor and MSNBC Political Analyst; Richard Wolffe, Newsweek chief White House correspondent and MSNBC political analyst
    • SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-ARIZ.) AND THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Arianna Huffington, The Huffington Post

    The opening spiel started off the Big News of the Day. This is Big. Really Big. It's That Big. Democrats sent a letter to President on Iraq. And Obama (D). And Biden (D). John McCain on the "far-far right". Plus Oddballs of the month. Herr Olbermann's noxious bellowing was the first indicator that this would be an Hour of Spin for the record books. And that it was, capped by yet another instance of Keith Olbermann lying about Bill O'Reilly.

    MADMAN

    "The Democrats" are opposed to a surge. Biden, being the great intellect that he is, says Iraq is lost and Bush is trying to fob it off on his successor. Reid (D) and Pelosi (D) oppose a surge. KO asked lefty Jonathan Alter if all hopes of winning over Dems evaporated (Rule #1), and the lap dog immediately agreed. He wondered if the Dems will cut funds from our troops, and Krazy Keith mumbled his agreement in the background. Great thanks.

    KO reported: Chuck Shumer (D) said "there is no plan". Mary Landrieu (D) was also cited. (Are you starting to sense a pattern regarding whose comments are newsworthy and whose are not?) The Wolffe Man was asked if the President really didn't have enough time to make a decision. Huh? Monkeymann was complaining a few weeks ago that he was taking too long to make a decision! Don't try to make sense out of it. It's OlbyLogic. Biden (D) referenced again by KO. Wolffie suspects the plan is already in place, and (gasp!) Biden is overstating it. Tony Snow criticized for asking for the Dems to produce a plan ("ridiculous", sez Wolffie). KO: there's a sense "Mister Bush doesn't know what he's doing". Wolffe Man: Karl Rove strategy. Aha, he played the Karl Rove card.

    Next a slam at Dan Burton (R) because he didn't vote for Nancy Pelosi's "ethics" bills (because he thought it was too weak). Olby slammed Burton's ethics because--get this--a far-left special interest group once wanted him to be investigated, but couldn't find one member of the House in either party who took their claims seriously enough to file a request. An archetypical OlbySmear--he's guilty because he was never charged with anything. Regurgitated NBC video on Pelosi & Co, and oddball, followed.

    MADMAN

    Then it was time for Keith's favorite kind of segment: the kind where he and a chosen sock-puppet join forces to attack one of Herr Olbermann's hated "enemies". And it wasn't hard to see this coming. When Bill O'Reilly disagreed with Sen McCain, Olby brandished the Senator like a whip, slamming Mr Bill for daring to disagree with the vaunted Richard McCain. But the problem with the Appeal to Authority (one of Edward R Olbermann's favorite fallacies) is: what happens when the Authority doesn't agree with you? In the case of Monkeymann, the answer is obvious: attack, attack, attack! During his Speshul Komment, McCain was ridiculed, with Krazy Keith even suggesting the war hero was losing touch with reality. Why did Olbermoronn claim the Senator was delusional? McCain dared to support a troop surge. Those who disagree with The Great and Powerful Olb must be destroyed, so KO fired another salvo, making Richard McCain a "worst person" based on cherry-picked quotes lifted (without attribution, of course) from Think Progress, an unreliable source. And since the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann takes a back seat to no one when it comes to obsessing over eeevil enemies and not letting go, tonight we got a whole segment designed to attack and defame the Authority who dared to disagree with the Fat Ass.

    So it was on to condemning the "far-far-right" Sen Richard McCain with Madame Arianna, sounding more than ever like the spawn of Zsa Zsa Gabor and Count Dracula. "The wheels are coming off", bloviated Herr Olbermann; people don't respect him any more. HuffPo was the ideal Countdown guest--a human Xerox machine raising OlbySpin to the second power. KO: McCain is "gaming". HuffPo: it's all "calculation"; McCain doesn't know what he's talking about; Jack Murtha (D) has all the answers. KO: he's trying to pull off a "little dance" and he'll be associated with the "failed bloodletting that would follow a surge". (Note Olby's Kreskin-like ability to tell the future.) Plus McCain's a flip-flopper. HuffPo: "absolutely". To watch Olbermann throw a war hero under the bus merely reinforced the fact that if this were 1972, Keith Olbermann would be Jane Fonda.

    Aging action heroes (more recycled video from NBC), Britney Spears, Oprah Winfrey, and even more oddball. In the Media Matters Minute, this little item was made to order for some OlbySnark. But Kourageous Keith, who answers to no one, isn't about to bite the hand that feeds Dan Abrams. So instead we got another O'Reilly attack, this time for a respectful interview with Andrea Mitchell. Wait, that interview was on at the same time as The Hour of Spin. Doesn't that mean...? Right. Olbermann hadn't even seen it. What's more, Fat Ass claimed O'Reilly was "attacking Chris Matthews and me", "pushed around" Mitchell, and then told her "you're OK". In fact, O'Reilly never "pushed around" Andrea Mitchell, and, more to the point, he didn't attack, mention, or in any way reference Olbermann at all. He never came up in the interview whatsoever. Where did KO get the idea that he did? He made it up! Yes, it's Another Olbermann Lie.

    KO also slammed Michelle Malkin for doing some investigative journalism about sources used by AP. So let's see. KO slams an interview without seeing it? Perfectly fine. Malkin seeks accountability in reporting? Eeeeevil. The inverted morality of Edward R Olbermann.

    OLBY

    Taciturn Terriers: Let's see... Job reports better than expected, unemployment at a six-year low. Zawahiri issues a jihad to IslamoNazis in Somalia. Terror leader deported. National Guardsmen are overrun and forced to retreat at the Mexico border. (Hmm, if this had happened in Iraq, would Herr Olbermann, instead of spiking it, make it headline news? Ya think?) Illegal aliens may get social security benefits. U.N. troops reprimanded for sexual abuse. Bill Clinton authorized thief and liar Sandy Burglar's trip to the National Archives. Disgraced, under-investigation Congressman William Jefferson (D) gets a standing ovation. Why are these stories not news on OlbyPlanet? Because Countdown is the most biased hour of news on television. But you already knew that.

    NAME

    Olbermann's book The book that bears Olberman's name continues to soar at amazon.com: it's now all the way up to #5,089; Mr Bill's "Culture Warrior" is #74. The OlbyTome slipped to #2,551 at Barnes & Noble; O'Reilly's book is #539 there, as well as being one of the year's top ten best sellers. On Thursday night's spine-tingling, engrossing edition of The Hour of Spin, Bill O'Reilly beat our favorite discredited sports guy by nearly four to one! Viewers preferred Howie to Olby, as Countdown sunk to a miserable fourth place, behind Nancy Grace and a rerun of Deal of No Deal, both in total viewers and in the critical, beloved, all-important, coveted "key demo". Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 4 [GUARDED]


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (874) | | View blog reactions

    874 Comments

    Come on wingnuts, you gotta give it up to Keith for reporting on the Dems partying with lobbyists.

    GO GATORS!!!!

    Are you sure that wasn't a plot orchestrated by the "irrational right" as Olby calls them? He's such an objective "journalist."

    "you gotta give it up to Keith for reporting on the Dems partying with lobbyists."

    I guess to you lefty loons, one story every three years critical of the Democrats constitutes balance?

    Half a cheer for this generation's Edward R. Murrow for such hard hitting reporting.

    Still no terrorist or terrorist organization has been named WPINW!!!!!

    Andrea Mitchell can only see biased on FOX!!!!! NOT on NBC,CBS,or ABC.......ONLY FOX!!!!!!!

    Indierik,

    There's going to be lots of GATOR BURGERS made on Monday night.

    GO BUCKEYES!!!

    who is Richard McCain?

    Richard McCain is John McCain, or so says Olberdolt.

    Excellent, Edward. Props!

    I have to chip in to my favorite site!

    After criticizing NBC's reporting, O'Reilly had the decency to have Andrea Mitchell on to defend her network.

    See Mr. Olbermann, that's called being an adult. If you criticize folks, at least have the gonads to have them on to defend themselves.

    'Course, you've smeared so many folks these past three years that your show would only consist of people defending themselves from your defamation.


    Has anyone ever seen Krazy Keith and Rosey O'donnell in the same room at the same time?

    'Regurgitated NBC video on Pelosi & Co, and oddball, followed.'

    How did I just know that this was going to be blown off on this truly objective blog....

    THIS STORY WAS A TIME FOR ALL REPUBLICANS TO REJOICE... Read my blog from ~8:22 pm...

    I knew you'd blow this off, Johnnie Dollar... You are a fake... A fraud.... regurgitated nbc video? please... It was clearly a story about the Democrats & their hypocrisy on the campaign finance reform bill.. Yet you choose to focus on Olbermann's alleged 'slandering' of the unslanderable, Dan Burton... When Olbermann reported that Burton had, in comments regarding his being the sole vote against the new lobbyist reform bill, actually voted against it because it wasn't 'strict enough for him...'

    You, & your employer Bill O'reilly need help... You guys really hate Olbermann that much, eh?

    After criticizing NBC's reporting, O'Reilly had the decency to have Andrea Mitchell on to defend her network.

    See Mr. Olbermann, that's called being an adult. If you criticize folks, at least have the gonads to have them on to defend themselves.

    'Course, you've smeared so many folks these past three years that your show would only consist of people defending themselves from your defamation.


    > regurgitated nbc video? please... It was clearly a story about the Democrats & their hypocrisy on the campaign finance reform bill

    Yes it was. But if you've read this site for any length of time, you know that we concentrate on OLBERMANN, and rarely comment on the contents of the regurgitated NBC reports that he is forced to run. If you want to bring up the contents of these rerun segments, that's what the comments are for. My writeups are about Olbermann. Except for the occasions when Fat Ass does something dishonest, like edit the taped reports to make them more favorable to Dems, the taped reports are identical to what are seen on other shows and don't interest me.

    Doesn't that mean...? Right. Olbermann hadn't even seen it.

    Wait, since the 1950's (where I realize that most conservatives wish we permanently resided,) we've had a couple of inventions... Has anybody ever heard of the VCR? TiVo? or, G-d forbid, the internet?

    & FOX News does rerun oreilly twice each night, (neither of which conflicts with KO's one rerun on msnbc...,) so why pick on the man for simply doing his job & watching the competition... I'll bet you wouldn't say the same thing to your boss, Johnnie... FRAUD!!

    Yet you choose to focus on Olbermann's alleged 'slandering' of the unslanderable, Dan Burton... When Olbermann reported that Burton had, in comments regarding his being the sole vote against the new lobbyist reform bill, actually voted against it because it wasn't 'strict enough for him...'

    Posted by: PROUD to be a LIBERAL at January 5, 2007 09:15 PM

    ok, JOHNNIE FAKE DOLLAR, what do you have to say about the rest of my post, now... The whole, hmmmm... 75% of it that didn't focus on the 'taped segment?'

    > & FOX News does rerun oreilly twice each night, (neither of which conflicts with KO's one rerun on msnbc...,) so why pick on the man for simply doing his job & watching the competition

    So Olbermann watched the interview while he was interviewing The Wolffe Man, or Zsa Zsa, or rattling off his nightly oddball? The interview aired for the first time tonight. Olby was perfectly happy to condemn a movie he never saw, so it should be no great surprise that he's willing to condemn an interview he didn't watch.

    where oh where has donra pa gone. did you get mad so you took your bottle and went home come back. maybe the 9/11 truthers are back on for the friday night meeting. alright i won't make fun of your income or your choose of wine. olberdud still blows and the and his sheep still follow. J$ ROCKS keep the heat on. GO BUCKEYES!!!!!!!!

    I wonder how Andrea Mitchell feels about KO's characterization of her interview with BillO. If I recall correctly he said that O'Reilly had Mitchell on to "beat up" on her. He then suggested that Bill wouldn't have the guts to interview him.

    To me this seems a little dismissive of her ability to hold her own. I'm not a huge fan of Ms. Mitchell but she is a serious journalist with nearly forty years in the business. Is she yet another female colleague that KO has little or no respect for?

    PtBaL: The rest of your post? About Dan Burton? If you had a point in there, it eluded me. It was Olby who came up with the unique theory: guilty because he was never charged. What exactly do you take issue with in my superb, definitive recap?

    if it truly did run tonite (& not last night, as [I believe] Olbermann suggested,) then maybe he watched it during your aforementioned 'taped segment... He must, at least, have spoken with Andrea Mitchell about it, no?

    Oh yeah, the taped segment that ran, what, two minutes? That enabled him to watch a ten-minute interview? I don't know if Mitchell spoke to him or not (if she did, she's a liar, since O'Reilly did not "push her around"). Neither did he say one word about Olbermann, contrary to what Olby claimed. That leads me to believe he didn't, and, like the 9/11 movie, condemned it without seeing it. I don't know what other rational explanation there could be. It aired while he was on the air, and he lied about its content.

    KO reality check....

    CABLE NEWS RACE
    THURS, JAN 4, 2007
    VIEWERS

    FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,505,000
    FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,802,000
    FNC SHEP SMITH 1,374,000
    FNC HUME 1,258,000
    FNC GRETA 1,194,000
    CNN KING 1,014,000
    CNN COOPER 835,000
    CNN DOBBS 814,000
    CNNHN GRACE 676,000
    MSNBC OLBERMANN 665,000
    MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 648,000 CNN ZAHN 643,000
    CNNHN BECK 467,000
    MSNBC MATTHEWS 424,000

    J$- do you happen to have Olby's viewer ratings from a year ago? I'm really curious to see how much this website has effected his viewership. Maybe the "Paris Business Review" that Bill O likes to site will have something on it?

    IT'S GREAT! TO BE! A FLORIDA GATOR!

    Thanks, PtBaL, spurred on by your comments, I went back and reviewed the tivo of the O'Reilly attack. Sure enough, you helped me spot Another Olbermann Lie, which I will incorporate into the recap. Keep 'em coming!

    Hey Olberterd! When are you going to apologise to Al Pujols for your unwarranted, unfounded doping allegations?

    He then suggested that Bill wouldn't have the guts to interview him.
    *****************************************
    Ok we know thats a lie...O'Reilly has gone on programs with hosts that have openly attacked him so we know he's not afraid ..its the other way around...theres no way in hell KO would interview Bill because as we all know KO will not have anyone on his show that would disagree with him and he never gose on any program where he'll be challeged.

    "To me this seems a little dismissive of her ability to hold her own. I'm not a huge fan of Ms. Mitchell but she is a serious journalist with nearly forty years in the business. Is she yet another female colleague that KO has little or no respect for?"

    Remember....Keith Olbermann is a misogynist. In his mind, Bill O'Reilly HAS to beat up on Ms. Mitchell...it is what Olbermann would do in O'Reilly's place.

    People who have no respect for women are usually the ones most vocal in judging how others are mistreating women. Keith just cannot help himself.

    I've said it before....PROJECTION is a common problem for those with personality disorders, like Mr. Olbermann. It is also seen frequently in the other affliction he (and most of the leftist posters on OW) has.....

    being a liberal.

    "Fat Ass claimed O'Reilly was "attacking Chris Matthews and me", "

    Good one, JD. O'Reilly NEVER mentioned Mr. Murrow, Jr. much less attack him.

    And he didn't attack Matthews; he simply called him a liberal and mentioned that he (Matthews) was once Tip O'Neill's Chief of Staff.

    So what are the odds that on Monday, Olbermann will retract his lie about O'Reilly, and apologize? The same that he will do it for all his other lies about O'Reilly: Slim and None. And Slim just left town.

    PtBaL - the O'Reilly/Mitchell aired tonight... not last night. If you want to see it, here's the link: http://newsbusters.org/node/9994

    It WAS fantastic... Bill DESTROYED her, but never raised his voice, didn't interrupt, and didn't call anyone names. It was questions and facts... and Mitchell could only stammer and frown. And Keith wasn't even brought up... not even an almost.

    Proud said to Johnny: "you and you're employer, Bill O'Reilly".

    In looking through the many responses that Johnny made after that, I didn't see him refute that.

    Is that true?

    > In looking through the many responses that Johnny made after that, I didn't see him refute that.

    Yes. He pays me with untraceable funds to my Swiss Bank Account, and I report to him twice a day by secure videophone to get my marching orders. Then I go to a secret page on the Factor website to get all the talking points, and before I print anything Rupert Murdoch first reviews it and revises it as necessary.

    Man you found me out.

    "Man you found me out."

    Shoot, since your cover is shot, maybe Limbaugh will hire you.

    Frankly, I don't know how you can stand watching this appalling pretend news show with its pretend news anchor. Geezus, Edward R. Murrow, were he around today, would throw himself into a live volcanoe if he knew that anyone would consider Olbermann even remotely comparable to him.

    Disgrace to journalism, really.

    "Geezus, Edward R. Murrow, were he around today, would throw himself into a live volcanoe if he knew that anyone would consider Olbermann even remotely comparable to him." - Ohboy

    Whatever Ohboy. In Murrow's era you'd be defending McCarthy and calling him the looney left.

    An old Jewish proverb, roughly remembered, goes something like: " A liar believes he is always being lied to. A thief believes he is being stolen from...."
    Fat Ass Keith always see's misogyny.
    Fat Ass Keith always see's "worst people in the world".

    Clever response Johhny, but I see you didn't really deny it.

    Hey guys, since you keep referring to KO's "fat ass", tell me, does he really have a fat ass?. Not that it should really matter.

    "Hey guys, since you keep referring to KO's "fat ass", tell me, does he really have a fat ass?. Not that it should really matter."


    Johnny, I think some of your Olbyisms are going to have to go into the FAQ section.

    "In Murrow's era you'd be defending McCarthy and calling him the looney left."

    And you'd be defending Hiss and the Rosenbergs and would be calling them innocent patriots railoroaded by the evil conservatives.

    See, I can spit too.

    > I think some of your Olbyisms are going to have to go into the FAQ section.

    That's what the Olbersaurus is for.

    > Clever response Johhny, but I see you didn't really deny it.

    Nothing gets past you, does it? What difference does it make? Does it mean Olbermann doesn't slant the news? Does it mean he really didn't lie about O'Reilly tonight? Is that the only straw you can grasp on to divert attention from the lies of Keith Olbermann?

    Indierik:

    The anti- Olbermann folks are not going to answer your question about KO's ratings from a year ago, because they don't want to acknowledge that his viewership has grown tremendously despite this site, but I will.

    His average ratings for January 2006 was 387,000. Clearly he is WAY up, and typically doubling those numbers these days. 665,000 was actually more or less an off night for him these days.

    Source: Inside Cable News.

    wonderful review !!

    I have personally noted Keiths womanly hips, and feminine gait, when i saw him walk onto the Leno stage last year. Put me off my dinner. As for the "Fat Ass" nickname, it's the same nickname Keef uses for Roger Ailes, the very successful man behind Fox News.

    Cecelia,
    I apologize for jumping the gun. Me and any other RED are different people.

    Rico,
    Me peeps what's the deal!
    "Has anyone ever seen Krazy Keith and Rosey O'donnell in the same room at the same time?"

    I hope Olbermann attacks Donald Trump! Trump will destroy him and expose Keith's mental insanity. If Keith attacks the Donald. Trump will Ether Olbernutt.
    Keith attack Donald bring it on you duffy herb! Attack a Queens Kat you Kornabll!

    Red Wolf,

    No apology necessary. You didn't jump the gun, I did.

    Anonymous,
    Olbermann has a diversified audience. From Leftists to Islamic Jihadis. I'm suprised it isn't higher with all those fans in Iran. ask Robert Cox about Sanjay a fan from the Iranian Military. RCOX even posted the IP adress. It funny can some one please expalin the Leftists-Islamic-Nazi alliance?

    I'd say Trump sounded like a lunatic going after Rosie. Even O'Reilly advised him to tone it down and take the high road, but Trump new better. A Trump attack on Olby would do nothing but help KO.

    Trump would tear Olby an appart. I hope Olby brings it. Someone need to puts him in his place! A Mental asylum!

    I have good news, more good news, real good news, bad news, & possibly bad news... so here is the good news list:

    Good News: I am back in the mood to defend Keith Olbermann!

    More Good News: I take back much of what I have stated about Keith Olbermann on January 4's chat!

    Real Good News: The reason why I got mad at Keith Olbermann (for calling Geraldo a "little dick" that is getitng cancelled) has not come into fruition -- yet.

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

    Bad News: I have just made a jack*** out of myself... sorry... sorry...

    Possible Bad News: Can we still discuss Joe Scarborough ?

    Cee,
    "People who have no respect for women are usually the ones most vocal in judging how others are mistreating women. Keith just cannot help himself.

    I've said it before....PROJECTION is a common problem for those with personality disorders"

    I think I understand what you're saying. It's like the people who claim homosexuality is a sin are actually homosexuals themselves. By the way, haven't you bashed gays on here?

    Colbert,
    Your hero almost had a nervous breakdown the other night. Care to discuss that? I hope Trump attacks him. Olby will be in Bellvue in a few seconds. Jihad Keith can't stand criticism so he would have a mental collapse!

    I saw American Dreamz and Jackass2 tonight. That must be better than watching Countdown to breakdown!

    Redwolf,
    You do realize the Nazi's and Islamists are on the far right don't you?

    Any first year medical student will notice with in minutes of reading this site that KO is a psychopath. He is not responsible for his condition but his actions therefor I can not belive his employers allow this spectical to be produced for public consumption let alone profit. This is sick. I have not and will not watch his program for that reason.

    Lets see, the "leftist-Islamic-Nazi alliance" is a loosely formed band of extremists bent on conquering the known world, including Iceland!

    They have a leadership consisting of David Duke, The President of Iran, as well as some well known Hollywood people I can't name for legal reasons. They use mostly German born skinheads as their advance people because using Middle Eastern born Muslems would attract too much unwanted attention.

    You have to be really carefull because they could be lurking anywhere, even around your local tattoo shops and high end coffee shops posing as yuppies. They also love to hang around local Flea markets selling fake high end watches to finance the movement, so if you see a guy with a lot of watches on his arm, run like hell and report it to Homeland Security!

    If everybody works together and the president opens enough mail, we can stop these people before they destroy us all.

    Colbert,
    "Redwolf,
    You do realize the Nazi's and Islamists are on the far right don't you?"

    If that's the case why does the Left always defend Iran, Al-Qaeda and Hizballah? Iran had a holocaust denying conference that had David Duke?
    Plus Bill Maher himself said that "Hitler was a Socialist".
    Once again expolain the Islamic-Nazi-Leftist alliance?

    I've read several comments about keith "losing it" and such the other night. I wish someone would fill me in.

    DUGUN,
    You're one of those faith-based people I see. You are smart enough to realize this site has a point of view which slants their coverage? People with intellectual curiosity or intelligence will verify what someone tells them. Especially if it is obvious the person has a bias. Also, J$ rubs O'Reilly down with the loofah every night.

    "Hitler was a Socialist": Well, he did murder every Jew pretty much equally without regard to Social Status. Seating arrangements on the cattle trains, as I understand it was pretty much first come, first choice.

    But on the other side of the coin, it was pretty much only the Jews that were afforded this special treatment, and in a true Socialist Society, everybody would be treated equally, regardless of Religoius affiliations.

    No, Bill Maher was wrong!

    > People with intellectual curiosity or intelligence will verify what someone tells them.

    Oh like Olbermann claiming O'Reilly attacked him tonight? How did he verify that? Oh wait, he didn't. Ergo, he is unintelligent, pr Colbert. QED.

    Redwolf,
    Do you know who David Duke is? You think he';s a leftist? Maybe Pat Buchanan is a leftist too in your warped world?

    Cecelia: He did not really lose it. Not only that, but there has been things that were even worse than getting visibly upset over national news & current events ... like say ... a penguin movie ?!?!? v v v v v v v v

    J$,
    How do you know if KO verified it or not?

    Hitler was defeated because of a the leadership of a liberal, namely FDR.

    Same difference with Countdown and penquin movies, OWUBIT.

    They're both about oily mammals who waddle around barking.

    keywords: Olbermann defends the Constitution that Bush is trashing.

    "His average ratings for January 2006 was 387,000. Clearly he is WAY up, and typically doubling those numbers these days." - Anon

    Thanks for pulling those #'s. I knew J$ would be too gutless to post them.

    "Maybe Pat Buchanan is a leftist too in your warped world?"- Colbert

    Colbert, what's scary is Buchanan is a leftist compared to the degenerates that have hijacked the Republican Party.

    those were not keywords... game over, Colbert... you lose the word game (for tonight)

    Wow, Keith is 'oily'?

    No wonder you hardly ever see anyone else in the studio with him! Yet I'm still confused because I never see him "waddling around" because he never gets up. Is that because if he did, we would see him "waddling around"? That would be probably be good for 'Oddball' though!

    Colbert, my conclusions are based only on my medical opinion. Faith or bias has nothing to do with medicine. Try this, produce a show based on a retarded person hosting a show about the latest eletronic devices. See how far that goes with the attorneys' representing "the show" after the first viewing. To the trained professional there is no difference.

    Colbert writes:

    "I think I understand what you're saying. It's like the people who claim homosexuality is a sin are actually homosexuals themselves. By the way, haven't you bashed gays on here?"

    This is Colbert's way of calling opponents homosexuals while pretending to dislike such societal stigmas.

    DUGUN,
    It's cute you're pretending to be a doctor but you admitted you refuse to watch the show and only "diagnosed" Keith from the biased posts on this website. If you're going to pretend to be a doctor try harder.

    > How do you know if KO verified it or not?

    Well, that has to be the most confusing question I've been asked in a while. How in the wide world of sports could KO POSSIBLY have verified something that WASN'T TRUE? You can't "verify" a falsehood.


    FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,505,000
    FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,802,000
    FNC SHEP SMITH 1,374,000
    FNC HUME 1,258,000
    FNC GRETA 1,194,000
    CNN KING 1,014,000
    CNN COOPER 835,000
    CNN DOBBS 814,000
    CNNHN GRACE 676,000

    Hey ! You are all smart people ... tell me if you think that the Drudgereport is playing mind games with the stat's ?!?!?

    Why is Bill O' Reilly's name on the top of the list called "FOXNEWS" Where-as all of the other FOX titles are all "FNC" ???

    "Why is Bill O'Relly's name on the top of the list"?

    Easy, because there is STILL a lot of Gullible people out there who think he actually is a culture Warrier, and also believe the Duke rape case is just as newsworthy as the war in Iraq!

    Of course O'Reilly doesn't want to talk about the Iraq mess, even he couldn't spin that into something postitive for his side.

    I appreciate the input ... but that really was not the question ... The question was why is Bill O' Reilly's program read a different network than other programs of thee exact same network ?!?!?

    You can spin anything ... 'The war is going great ! All of the damage here and there is caused by /// yadda - yadda - yadda ... ' I think this war is not half bad ... at least Saddam Hussein actually threatened H.W. ...

    Cecilia,
    I am simply stating that, by Cee's logic, someone who bashes homosexuals is a homosexual. I didn't say being a homosexual is bad or say anyone I disagree with is a homosexual. I said, according to Cee's logic, people who say homosexuality is a sin are homosexuals.

    J$,
    Saying someone "attacked" someone is a characterization or opinion of an event. It may be a reasonable or unreasonable characterization but it is an opinion.

    ... get rid of Saddam Hussein ... he is truly a bad person ...

    How is FOXNEWS different from FNC, which is FOX News Channel? Isn't it just two different ways of saying the same thing?

    You get off on some weird tangents.

    Not so fast Colbert, I can be reached at my site psychologytoday.com ..... my name is David.

    Anon at 12:35 am was me. Sorry.

    The right wing likes to play the mind games and use our subconsciouses. This website loves to do those types of things. they _______ ...

    * leave polls up extra long...

    * when Keith Olbermann is getting good publicity they do not post a bad picture of him up on the website...

    * when Keith Olbermann is actually doing the best programming of his life ... they do not organize the break - down of his episode and comes in short, the breakdown...

    * play word games. Just now Dollar used Keith Olbermann's alternate career as a reason that Keith could not fact check information.

    QUOTE OF THE DAY !

    Wondering if the righties like Grim, Cecilia,Cee etc. are against investigations into corruption and war profiteering by this administration.


    Posted by: Anonymous at January 5, 2007 04:45 PM

    Any investigation that would bring to light war profiteering would immediatly be dismissed by these folks as a partisan witch hunt. Like a vampire can't see themselves in a mirror, these folks can't see the corruption they are supporting. Half of them may see it, but they choose to defend it just because they think they must be against anything that isn't republican and they enjoy pissing offf liberals. There is no real integrity or love of justice, only a thickheaded defense of the undefendable.

    DUGUN,
    Your website. I checked "About/Contact" and didn't notice a David listed. The therapists are searchable by last names. I could make up a full name of one of the people I found and you couldn't prove it wasn't true. Your attempt at proving to be a doctor failed miserably again.

    Cee already has his excuses lined up if the war in Iraq ends up as badly as it is going now.

    It's gonna be the Librals fault! No kidding...see his posts from today and yesterday!

    Posted by: johnny dollar at January 6, 2007 12:24 AM

    Go there for my favorit post. My post of the day.

    > J$, Saying someone "attacked" someone is a characterization or opinion of an event. It may be a reasonable or unreasonable characterization but it is an opinion.

    Is there an Olbermann Reality Distortion Field? Are the Olbypologists deliberately trying to confuse the issue or are they as dense as they claim?

    There is no "opinion" about whether a statement is an "attack" or not if THE STATEMENT WAS NEVER SAID. I will try this again slowly, so even OlbyLoons can understand it...

    Olbermann. Said. O'Reilly. Attacked. Him. Tonight.
    O'Reilly. Never. Mentioned. Olbermann.
    O'Reilly. Never. Referred. To. Olbermann. Even. Obliquely.
    OLBERMANN. NEVER. CAME. UP. IN. THE. O'REILLY. INTERVIEW.

    That's not my opinion. That's fact. Olbermann made up, created, LIED that he was attacked when he was never even mentioned.

    Clear now?

    Sheesh.

    Doctor or no, how could Dugan possibly "analyze" Olbermann if he refuses to watch the show?

    The US Army following in FEMA's footsteps:

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army said Friday it would apologize to the families of about 275 officers killed or wounded in action who were mistakenly sent letters urging them to return to active duty.

    The letters were sent a few days after Christmas to more than 5,100 Army officers who had recently left the service. Included were letters to about 75 officers killed in action and about 200 wounded in action.

    "Army personnel officials are contacting those officers' families now to personally apologize for erroneously sending the letters," the Army said in a brief news release issued Friday night.

    The Army did not say how or when the mistake was discovered. It said the database normally used for such correspondence with former officers had been "thoroughly reviewed" to remove the names of wounded or dead soldiers.

    "But an earlier list was used inadvertently for the December mailings," the Army statement said, adding that the Army is apologizing to those officers and families affected and "regrets any confusion."

    Confusion? What confusion could there have possibly been ? My Lord !
    Seems to be business as usual under this administration.

    Colbert, you have just joined the ranks of the insane... its good to have you here I am sure we can help, please forward your insurance provider and personal information to the last address....really...we can make a difference in your life starting today, we show nonstop reruns of countdown to all of our patients! We look foward to seeing you.

    So is there now another 'doctor' diagnosing Olbermann on the air in addition to Red Wolf?

    "I am simply stating that, by Cee's logic, someone who bashes homosexuals is a homosexual. I didn't say being a homosexual is bad or say anyone I disagree with is a homosexual. I said, according to Cee's logic, people who say homosexuality is a sin are homosexuals."

    Colbert, that only makes sense if Cee had not accused Olbermann of having had a track record of being disrespectful to female colleagues.

    That's not the same as merely saying "it takes one to know one".

    Speaking of the upcoming corruption investigations --Here's one scenario that may occur once they begin----
    Written by Paul Begala:

    On October 19 I debated Bob Novak at Emory University. The topic was "Civil Liberties in a Time of War." In the debate I predicted that, after the Democrats captured the Congress, Pres. Bush would provoke a Constitutional crisis by refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas.

    Pres. Bush, I predicted, will effectively tell Speaker Pelosi, "You send the Capitol Police to enforce your subpoena. I'll send the 82d Airborne to resist them. Let's meet on the Mall and see who wins."

    Novak said I was crazy. It's beginning to look like I was right.

    The only reason George W. Bush would turn loose of White House Counsel Harriett Miers - who gazes upon our president with an adoration and veneration bordering on idolatry - is because he wants a war-time consigliere.

    In a way that might make Harry F. Byrd proud, our president is about to embark on a policy of massive resistance. He will instruct his lawyers to delay, deny and refuse to comply with any effort by Congress to get to the bottom of official corruption - especially as the billions squandered or stolen in Mr. Bush's war. He'll try to run out the clock, then take his chances with his hand-picked right-wing judiciary. (Keep in mind the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, through which this dispute would flow, includes such Bush appointees as Brett Kavanaugh, a Ken Starr protege whose work in the Bush White House was described by Henry Waxman as promoting "an imperial presidency." And the Supreme Court has such presidential suck-ups as John Roberts and Sam Alito.)

    Thank God the American people - and Nancy Pelosi -- have given the responsibility of oversight we have constitutional heroes like Waxman and John Dingell. They are fair and tough. But even in their combined 83 years experience in Congress they have not seen a crowd that has more contempt for the Constitution than the Bush-Cheney team. I would not be surprised to learn that, in anticipation of receiving congressional subpoenas, the Bushies were having shredding parties that would make Ollie North and Fawn Hall blush.

    Let's all watch to see who Bush appoints to replace Ms. Miers. If he chooses someone like David Addington, Vice President Cheney's chief counsel, we'll know Mr. Bush intends to shred yet another Article of the Constitution.

    Is there anything left of the Constitution to shred?

    Bush appears to have "run the table" on that.

    Cecilia continuing with the excuses for her right wing brothers.
    It's a hoot to watch.
    ATTACK THE LEFT,but cover her wing nut brothers.

    DUGUN,
    It's odd. You threw out your first name and a website anyone could find as "proof" that you're a doctor. When challenged about the insufficiency of that you immediately attack instead of offering any more information or explaining how what you've said proves anything. You neglected to refute any point I made. Next time you decide to pretend to be a doctor figure out a better story.

    (((Pres. Bush, I predicted, will effectively tell Speaker Pelosi, "You send the Capitol Police to enforce your subpoena. I'll send the 82d Airborne to resist them. Let's meet on the Mall and see who wins.")))

    Since this rabid Chimp doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected, he'll be capable of anything.
    Hold on to your hats for the next 2 years.

    The GOP leadership just may have to step in and duct tape him to a chair in order for them to even have a fighting chance in 08'.

    Oh, please, Anonymous, I'm not attacking Colbert.

    We've known each other around here forever.

    Ok, I will work on it....its been fun though, after all that is what this site is all about is it not? See you again Colbert, be ready and on your best game, I will be back or what ever the line is......my wife calls and I think she has love on her mind.............later dude!

    Paul,
    FDR was a Nationalist. In fact I wish he was president instead of Bush. He'sd crudh Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan like he did Japan and Germany.

    Colber
    "Do you know who David Duke is? You think he';s a leftist? Maybe Pat Buchanan is a leftist too in your warped world?"
    They're both anti-Jewidh. Just like Islamists and the Left.

    QUOTE OF THE DAY !

    Wondering if the righties like Grim, Cecilia,Cee etc. are against investigations into corruption and war profiteering by this administration.


    Posted by: Anonymous at January 5, 2007 04:45 PM

    Any investigation that would bring to light war profiteering would immediatly be dismissed by these folks as a partisan witch hunt. Like a vampire can't see themselves in a mirror, these folks can't see the corruption they are supporting. Half of them may see it, but they choose to defend it just because they think they must be against anything that isn't republican and they enjoy pissing offf liberals. There is no real integrity or love of justice, only a thickheaded defense of the undefendable.


    Posted by: The Decider at January 6, 2007 12:41 AM

    Decider, you forgot to mention who said that. I believe it was.....Donora Pa.

    Could you imagine all the Gold Star mothers who had to go to the mailbox and read the letter from the army urging her dead or wounded son to re-enlist!!
    This happened 275 times ?

    Blows me the f--- away !

    Donora Pa,
    Like George Soros's profiterreing from currency manipulation in SE. Asia that resulted in economic collapse that affected Millions?

    Yes you did Donora. Sorry for omitting it.
    Great job !

    Redwolf,
    It was the leftists who pushed for the creation of Israel. The righties were against it and have been against the Jews forever. The righties sided with the Islamists. You should learn some history.

    Colbert,
    The Left did not ush for the creation of Israel.
    Nationalist Liberals like Harry Truman did. Back then the bLeft was split between the Stalinist Internationalists and Liberal Patriots. Unfortunately today's Left support Islam.
    In fact my fiance is Israeli. The biggest supporters of Israel are the Christian Right. The Left support Islamists like Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs. Why is the media Anti-Israel.

    Colbert,
    It's the Left led by George Soros and Cindy Sheehan that hate Israel. Let's not forget the Left like Olbermann supporting Hizballah against Israel.

    Red Wolf knows history like Dick Cheney knows gun safety.

    Bob,
    "Red Wolf knows history like Dick Cheney knows gun safety"
    When did the war between Islam and the West begin? Hmm?

    "Any investigation that would bring to light war profiteering would immediatly be dismissed by these folks as a partisan witch hunt."

    I think Grammie used the exact words too( witch hunt)
    Boy, do we have her number !

    The west isn't fighting Islam. Islam is a religion.

    Go discuss aiming straight with Darth Cheney.

    Bob,

    Islam is the religion of peace right?
    Read this article

    http://www.arabnews.com/?page=5§ion=0&article=90641&d=5&m=1&y=2007


    Bob,
    When did Islam 1st attack Western Civilization? You didn't answer me. I thought you knew more history than me?

    Everyday I keep hearing "Bush is shaking up his team."
    That's like the first NY Mets team trading for a middle relief pitcher.

    Answer my question I asked. Remeber I don't know history, right?

    Islam is a religion of war and terror. Islam appears to be at war with all of "Non-Islam".

    Bob,
    Why is it when it comes to Islam the Left gets touchy?

    "I thought you knew more history than me?"

    Anytime you want a ringing endorsement of Bob's abilities, just ask him.

    Cecelia,
    You saw my apology right?

    Red Wolf,

    I did see it and respond to it. There was no need for you to apologize, the mistake was mine.

    Cecelia,
    Why does the Left get touchy on Islam? Maybe because they know their ancetors The Stern Gang and the Red Brigade was allied with the Muslim Brotherhood and the PLO?

    What you know about history, red Wolf could fit on the head of a pin.

    There are 1.3 billion people in the world of the faith of Islam.

    The vast majority are peaceful loving people.

    The world is at war with the small % militant side of the people who practice Islam.
    Most devout Islamics abhor what this small % is doing as much as we do.

    One of your problems ( amoung many) is with terminology.

    Cecelia,
    Why isn't the Left outraged over Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis that are denying people with dogs and alchol rides. Isn't that religious descrimination?

    Bob,
    Did Islam spread peacefully? Most Muslims support Hizballah and Al-Qaeda. In fact when Ahmadinejad travels to other Islamic countries he's viewd as a hero.
    Hey why does the Left hate American Evangelical Christians but defend Muslims that would cut their heads off?

    Bob,

    How could you possibly know that the vast majority [of Muslims] are peaceful loving people? I haven't heard them say so. The fact is that very, very few Muslims have publicly condemned their terrorist brothers.

    Anytime you ask an opinion out of Cecilia, she stutter and stammer and bloviate..and end up not saying a single thing.

    She finds it easier to be the cynic rather than come out and actually saying something.

    Still waiting for that list of GOP accomplishments during the last 6 years, Ceals.

    Not up to the task ?

    Bob,
    Why does the Left get touchy about Islam. But yet attack American Evangelicals, Religious Catholics and Israeli Jews?

    "Most Muslims support Hizballah and Al-Qaeda".

    Where did you get this information?

    ....besides pulling it out of your ass.

    Show me some proof of this ....ahem...fact of yours.

    The ignorance level in here is a little too much to deal with.

    Bob, you tell us.

    How many Muslims support Islamic terrorism?

    A) Too f---ing many.
    B) Just the right number.
    C) Not enough.

    Bob,
    Why do you Leftists get touchy about Muslims? Also do you think it's right for Muslim cab drivers in America to not permitt people with dogs or alcohol. Isn't that descrimination? I thought the left is against that?
    Also look at opinion polls in Muslim countries, Al-Qaeda and Hizballah have high ratings.

    Rico,
    Bob is awaiting orders from Soros about the answers to my questions. Imagine if I asked Olbermann! He's start getting red in the face, running out of breath, shaking and almost cry! Oh bwait he did that on Tuesday during his Special "ED" Comments!

    Red Wolf,

    I consider Soros to be the biggest dingbat of them all, while Keith is the most constipated/unhinged of them all.

    Rico with his Bill Oreilly ( Newsbusters.org)multiple choice questions.

    I teach a course on the Middle East.You obviously need a little edjamacating.

    Islam has a whole spectrum of positions. Some Muslims are liberally-minded and adapt themselves to democratic and pluralistic values, others are fundamentalists who struggle actively for a reformation of society, and still others are militant extremists prone to violence. Among the dedicated Muslim activists are peace-loving conservatives as well as the terrorist jihad supporters.
    Most Americans think they're all the same but you shouldn't lump all Muslims and Islamic fundamentalists together.
    But I gather it's much easier for you to place them all in a neat and tidy bowl of hate.

    Bob, you tell us.

    How many Muslims support Islamic terrorism?

    A) Too f---ing many.
    B) Just the right number.
    C) Not enough.


    Posted by: Rico at January 6, 2007 02:27 AM

    Probably the same per cent of Americans who support attacking countries in the middle east and accidently killing old ladies and blowing arms off of children. Sometimes people can turn into the very thing they hate in others. Fear can do that. They fear us and make us their devil. People here do the same to them. The rest of us get stuck in the middle of a bunch of killers.

    Bob,
    "But I gather it's much easier for you to place them all in a neat and tidy bowl of hate."
    Just like they lumped together the Zorastorain Persians, Orthox East Romans and Catholic Spanish Visigoths? A real peacful religion. Hey how did Islam spread? Peacefully right, mr Historian?

    Bob,

    If you want to correct me you can do it by answering my question. You couldn't possibly mind multiple choice questions, since all leftist pollsters do the same thing.

    My definition of "dingbat" is a person who reviews, rather than answers, direct questions.

    Donora,

    Thank you for your answer. Does that mean we did it wrong in World War II? We did a whole lot of annihilatin' then.

    Rico,
    These jokes will get the Left mad. Hey they can crack Christian jokes right!

    Q: How come the Taliban are not circumcised?
    A: It gives them a place to put their bubblegum during a sandstorm.

    (Q): A deadly snake and a Muslim are both approaching you rapidly, you are a dead shot, you have a gun, but only one bullet, which one do you shoot ?
    (A): The MUSLIM of course !! The snake only bites when provoke. We know the Muslim’s intention.

    I don’t personally have anything against Muslims.
    In fact, I think everyone should own one or two !!

    Q: What do female Muslims use for birth control?
    A: Their faces.

    Q: What’s the difference between a Muslim and a dead horse?
    A. It’s no fun beating a dead horse.

    Q. What’s the difference between an American BBQ and an Islamic BBQ?
    A. In America, Humans roast animals over a fire. In Islam, it’s the other way around.

    Q. What do you say to a Muslim with his arm all the way up a camel’s rump?
    A. “Having car trouble?”

    Q. What’s the difference between Cindy Sheehan and a terrorist enemy?
    A. I don’t know either.

    Q. What’s the difference between Michael Moore and a one ton CARE package?
    A. Michael Moore, if sliced real thin, can feed a larger Afghan village.

    Q: What’s the definition of a virgin in the Middle East?
    A: Any camel that can run faster than an Muslim.


    "He's start getting red in the face, running out of breath, shaking and almost cry! Oh bwait he did that on Tuesday during his Special "ED" Comments!

    Posted by: Red Wolf at January 6, 2007 02:36 AM"

    Dam Red Wolf when are you going to get another descriptive? This imagery of "red in the face, running out of breath, shaking and almost cry!" You've beat it death man. Ain't got anything else? Anything?

    It ain't you breaking anyone down it's just you exposing what's in your head. A vulnerability of breaking.

    All this "breakdown" talk is your way of wishing that those on this page who support KO would have this fabricated descriptive of your transfer to them. Clearly you're saying you wish you could gain some ground here.

    Last I checked every poll at this page, that is supposed to hate him, shows he is liked by a clear majority taking Cox's polls on Keith.

    What you are projecting is your own wish for a break, and a breakdown by those against you. Ain't happenin my friend!

    You're not home yet


    The Buffalo,
    There was alot of Pork in that video! You make get your muslims friend mad about that.
    Olbermann did almost breakdown. I saw his comment 8 times! I showed even my Leftwing friends. They thought he was crazy. Look at the comments, he was shaking, tearing and face was red. Will you deny that.
    Hey I'll take rednecks over your Islamic suicide buddies any day!

    Rico,


    This is not the second world war. We were attacked by a bunch of nuts from Saudi Arabia mostly who died in the process. The big shots that planned it were not caught. Saddam was not an Islamic extremist. We are occupying a foreign country now and you wonder why we are making enemies.

    Donora Pa,
    they're all the same shit. We should've mobilzed like we did during WW2 and crush Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and then came home. Do like the Mongols did and bset them back centuries!

    Donora,

    So what? No war is any other war. World War II wasn't World War I.

    If we had invaded Japan before Dec. 7, 1941 would you have complained that "we are making enemies?"

    Saddam was the pre-eminent Islamic terrorist in human history. He has killed and terrorized more Muslims than any Muslim who ever lived, and a few infidels, too. Just because he owned his own country, rather than lived in a cave, doesn't mean he wasn't a terrorist.

    The piece of garbage going by the name Red Wolf wrote:

    "Rico,
    These jokes will get the Left mad. Hey they can crack Christian jokes right!

    ..."

    Hey You dumb mother f---ing a--hole. It's called "Islam" when you are drawing comparative analogies to Christianity. Not "Muslims" you scum sucking KKK pig.

    You are one ignorant back water white trash low life scum of the earth.

    You think you can just make racist jokes like that about Muslims as though it doesn't matter here?

    If Cox Doesn't ban you he is no better than you.

    You suck, if I could spit in you hillbilly face I would do it while I held your mouth open.

    Nothing like showing your true colors. Now you know why the whole world is hating this nation as each day goes by. Because KKK low lifes like you spout your tooth rot mouths off. Go back to Mississippi or what ever back water you came from.

    You're the biggest a--hole to ever frequent this place!

    Rico,
    Donora and Bob are just following their Chairman Soros's order! Islam must be defended at all cost!

    Having seen the O'Reilly interview in question, I have to agree with Keith. He certainly attacked NBC, mentioned Matthews by name and called him a liberal, went after Andrea Mitchell, and then apologized for "using you...because you are fair and its not your fault."

    Of course when O'Reilly goes after NBC he means Olbermann, and the rest of them. He just won't used KOs' name, for reasons Bill has articulated before. As such, Olbermann didn't lie, or even stretch the truth. Give it to him when he gets it, guys.

    As for Malkin, it turns out she was on a witch hunt, and the AP got it right. So, Olby is 2-0 at the end there.

    Rico if you do anything less than condemn Red Wolf for his racist shit you too are no better.

    Do it know be f---ing ignorant pussy the rest of the time pose here!

    I intend to email Cox and demand he ban Red Wolf. Garbage like that has no place in civil society.

    He is through back to segregation, a true racist coward.

    Buffalo Stomp,
    I'm about to throw egg on your face. I'm not "white trash" although you love Muslim trash. I'm Latin. My ancestors were almost exterminated by these rock worshipers in the 7th and 8th century! Ever heard of the Reconquista?
    Hey even if I was "White trash" I thought the Left belives in tolerance of different peoples and viewpoints. Only Muslims are allowed to have opinions right?

    Red Wolf,

    I have to tell you that I wouldn't say some of those jokes. My insults are directed at the dingbats. But you are "making friends and influencing people" all over the place.

    Rico,

    If we had attacked Japan before Dec, 7 we would have been no better than them. Saddam was a rithless dictator who didn't come close to being an Islamic anything other than for appearence sake. Think about Red Wolf and ask yourself if you are that f---ed up. I don't think you are. Not wanting to kill them all before they kill us does not make me a Soros follower or a terrorist lover. It makes me sane, unlike the Red Wolf who entertains himself by saying stupid shit that he could never back up.

    Buffalo,
    I'm Hispanic. My ancestors were victims of Islamic agression. I thought you Leftist understand how us minorities feel about past injustices done to us!

    You are gone Red Wolf. You are too stupid to realize what you have done.

    Cox really has no choice but to ban you from this sight. I wouldn't have to say one word to him. Anyone who sees what you wrote and glances over it as though it was nothing is just as stupid as you.

    You and Rico can shove that Latin shit up your ass. I am eight different nationalities and it gives me no right to be a public racist.

    What you do you do with callous disregard for others. You are one dumb f---er. The real McCoy of KKK a--holes who has no place here. You suck you piece of shit!

    Your gone a--hole!

    Buffalo/
    "You and Rico can shove that Latin shit up your ass."
    You just made a racist statement. I'll email cox what you just said. I thought the Left symapthized with us minorities. My ancestors were oppressed by Muslims! I have a grudge. My ancestors were victims! Doesn't the Left support Minority victims?

    Dora,
    "unlike the Red Wolf who entertains himself by saying stupid shit that he could never back up."
    I was in the Army 96-98, I served did you?

    "It makes me sane, unlike the Red Wolf who entertains himself by saying stupid shit that he could never back up.

    Posted by: Donora Pa at January 6, 2007 03:22 AM"

    Are you blind too? You have no outrage for what Red Wolf wrote about Muslims a few posts back?

    You pretend to give a shit about issues or are you too stupid know out right racist shit?

    What if he said this things about Jews or African Americans? You think your feeble brain would register that?

    You are a faking gutless poser Donora!

    Dora,
    "unlike the Red Wolf who entertains himself by saying stupid shit that he could never back up."
    I was in the Army 96-98, I served did you?


    Posted by: Red Wolf at January 6, 2007 03:29 AM

    I don't care if you served or not. It doesn't give you the right to talk like a maniac.

    It makes me sane, unlike the Red Wolf who entertains himself by saying stupid shit that he could never back up.

    Posted by: Donora Pa at January 6, 2007 03:22 AM"

    Are you blind too? You have no outrage for what Red Wolf wrote about Muslims a few posts back?

    You pretend to give a shit about issues or are you too stupid know out right racist shit?

    What if he said this things about Jews or African Americans? You think your feeble brain would register that?

    You are a faking gutless poser Donora!

    Posted by: The Buffalo at January 6, 2007 03:29 AM

    What the heck are you talking about?

    The Buffalo,
    Genocide was commited against my ancestors by Muslims. My people were victims! I thought the Left uderstood victimhood!

    "What if he said this things about Jews or African Americans? "
    You insulted Latins and White "trash". Does that make you any better? Like Olbermann you have double standards!

    The racist Red Wolf wrote:

    "My ancestors were victims! Doesn't the Left support Minority victims?

    Posted by: Red Wolf at January 6, 2007 03:27 AM"

    Excuses are not reasons. Try telling that to a judge in a court of law and you would do more time for insulting his or her intelligence.

    You are no more "Latin" than I am or anyone else of mixed european decent. You a piece of garbage and if you don't get banned I will eat crow.

    Dream on that my use of the word makes me a racist. Just one more indication to how stupid you are. You don't even know what the word "racist" means.

    You are a piece of trash, and if Rico doesn't find another playmate he is no better!

    What I say about you I say for your whole family if they think are like you.

    You're a dumb f---ing a--hole!

    too hostile for me. Nighty night.

    Posted by: Donora Pa at January 6, 2007 02:44 AM

    Posted by: Red Wolf at January 6, 2007 02:48 AM

    Posted by: Donora Pa at January 6, 2007 03:03 AM

    You posted 4 minutes before Red Wolf's Racist shit and 15 minutes after it.

    Are you able to pan up the page to 2:48 and see what he posted?

    The Buffalo,
    You're a racist anti-Hispanic bigot. You insulted my Latin ancestory. Just to brake it to your racist ass, I won't get banned. I've been here longer than you. You have to attack me personally because you don't like what I say. Hey It's a free country get used to it. I thought the Left was tolerant of different views and minorities! You insulted Hispanic so you have no morally high ground to stand on.
    You are the weakest link. Goodbye!

    Buffalo,

    Go back to Mississippi? What's wrong with Mississipians?


    Why has the Afghan Muslim who converted to Christianity unable to safely return to a Muslim country? Why did he have to be declared insane?

    sharm,
    It's funny how the Left claim they're tolerant. Yet they hate White Southerners and anyone with a different opinion. I guess their idea of tolerance is the same as Stalin's idea of Democracy!

    "sharm,
    It's funny how the Left claim they're tolerant. Yet they hate White Southerners and anyone with a different opinion. I guess their idea of tolerance is the same as Stalin's idea of Democracy!

    Posted by: Red Wolf at January 6, 2007 03:50 AM"

    I guarantee you there are more white southerns who hate you than "lefties" on this page do. You are an outcast in the south these days. Your kind are thankfully dying off with no one missing any of you. Your kind has filled the darkest chapters of this nations history.

    You and your kind are now as you always have been, an embarrassment to this nation.

    You're scum and you're gone!

    I am not defending the propriety of the jokes but they elicited the hidden biases.

    Buffalo,

    You didn't respond to your generalization of those from Mississippi. Or why the Christian Afghan cannot return to his Muslim country.

    "You and your kind are now as you always have been, an embarrassment to this nation."

    Bashing Hispanics again. Why do you hate Spanish people?
    Your ancestors were immigrants too so don't be a hypocrite.

    "Your kind are thankfully dying off with no one missing any of you."
    In case you haven't noticed the Latin population is growing. I guess your part of the Buchanan/Dobbs/Matthews hypocritical racist American viepiont. You want to ban me! You should read your own racist rantings. Spoken like a true Olbyloon!

    Keep clinging to that "I'm a minority too" garbage. It really makes you look pathetic.

    You're a piece of trash

    Buffalo,

    You didn't respond to your generalization of those from Mississippi. Or why the Christian Afghan cannot return to his Muslim country.

    Posted by: sharm at January 6, 2007 04:04 AM

    You let me know what the hell being from a state (Mississippi)has anything to do with racists remarks? Then tell me what the hell bigotry in Afghanistan has to do with the norms of American culture.

    Your an idiot with nothing to offer. RedWolf is a pathetic ignorant a--hole with no hope for redemption.

    You gotta be a real dumb a--hole to think you can post shit like that and get away with it.

    I know what it means to have been in the south before segregation was outlawed and have the scum racists refuse to serve me in a public establishment. If you read the "jokes" Reda--holeWolf wrote and you are not disgusted then you are no better than him.

    Tell me when you have read them what you think and I will tell you what I think of you.

    Red Wolf:

    You said leftists "hate white Southerners". Interesting observation but very confusing.

    I keep getting called a 'leftist' on this site yet I AM a white southerner myself.

    Gosh, I guess that means I must hate myself!

    Mike, pan up the page read this and tell Red Wolf what you think.


    Posted by: Red Wolf at January 6, 2007 02:48 AM

    I won't repost it. It is too vile.

    Buffalo, I already have and yes, in my opinion the 'jokes' are ignorant and repulsive, but I have heard a lot of repulsive jokes about every subject imaginable in my lifetime. In addition, I really don't want to get too involved in this pissing match. I have to leave in a few minutes anyway.

    One piece of advice I would give to you is to try not let them see that what they say bothers you so much.

    Oh it bothers me and I am being deliberate in my holding back nothing.

    I am not one who mixes outrage with weakness. RedWolf has always been a slam dunk for me. I enjoyed his being the dirtball of the pac here, but this kind of racist shit requires an appropriate amount of outrage.

    RedWolf really has nothing left to offer after this. This page is not about that kind of hate. Yes we all push the envelope here but there is a line that has been crossed here that is a liability to the reputation of the page. I like Keith Olbermann and I have always liked this page. I would being willing to bet Keith Olbermann likes it too.

    RedWolf is scum and should be treated as such.

    easy donora i think your back on the juice. nice to see you come back to enlighten us with your venom. and to you bob your right all moslems are not terrorist but all terrorist are moslems. don't forget donora you have to make that check last and it is only the first week of january. olbermoron still blows its just a figure of speech.

    Oh my.....again the religious bigotry comes to full force after midnight....

    Red Wolf should keep his jokes to himself....as soon as I started reading his post I scolled down and bypassed it......just like I do when people like Proud, Buffalo, OZ (Colbert), Professor Honeydew (Bob), Sir Loin of Milquetoast, donora, Coward Watch and many, many, many others start their anti-Semetic and/or anti-Chistian hate speech. However, of what I read of his bigoted remarks, they are NO different than the screeds posted by the leftists....so let's stop the whining!

    It is painful to read hate directed towards anyone....if it is not painful to write it as well..you'd be well advised to meditate about what you are writing.

    Next subject....truth stick ready to poke that curtain hiding that great lever puller.....The Great and Powerful OZ....

    OZ (Colbert): You responded to my projection issue, "I think I understand what you're saying. It's like the people who claim homosexuality is a sin are actually homosexuals themselves. By the way, haven't you bashed gays on here?"

    No, Colbert....the people who are most vocal about other's homosexuality are most commonly projecting their lack of sexual discipline....many end up being adulterers, fornicators, exploiters of prostitution and yes...some are participating in homosexuality.

    And, although I know your last question is not out of concern for my sexual purity...I will answer it anyway....No, I currently do not have a need to confess to these sins....I try to stay in Christ's grace that temptation to indulge my fallen soul's lusts is defeated by his power, as it inevitably comes up. Just as I pray for His grace to not fall into the temptation for any sin.

    Now, Christ clearly states what God considers right with regard to sexual activity. Humankind has been screwing (no pun there!) that up since the beginning....look in the bible....

    polygamy was even practiced by the great patriarch, Abraham

    fornication...Abraham also guilty of this one, as was King David

    adultery....oh my, King David even committed murder in connection to his sexual sin

    So you see OZ, sexual sin is no different than any other sin to the true follower of Christ. The secular left's hypersensitivity to the discussion of sexual sin does not make those who hold to traditional values "bashers." I have friends who struggle with all of these issues (except polygamy), including homosexuality, who I love dearly and they know my beliefs and Christ's teachings. We eat, work and have fun together as brothers and sisters....Many have come to a life changing point and experienced His grace is defeating their temptation...just as I have seen those stuck in lives of abuse, addiction, greed and self-destruction be redeemed.

    So, if I have "bashed," please point it out and I will apologize. Otherwise, stop the lever pulling OZ with regard to twisting my words....

    Olbermann has little respect for many types of people and when he projects his weakness to O'Reilly, or anyone else, I will call him on it....The same with you, Proud, Buffalo, Professor Honeydew (Bob), Sir Loin of Milquetoast, donora, Coward Watch and many, many, many other faux humanitarians who can't seem to tolerate conservatives, Evangelical Christians, "The Jews" (the professor's language), or anyone else who bases ANY portion of their value system on wisdom prior to Nieztche, Marx or Darwin.

    Buffalo,

    The comment about Mississipians is a generalization, stereotype. you have made. With regard to the comment about Muslims, it has been stated that they are generally peace loving. The war on terror is Bush's war, according to many, that has no merit. Olby promotes this. Christians (non-Muslims) are not safe. 9/11 proved this. Olby and those who follow him ignore the fact that he ignores any story that would conflict with his supposed non-biased presentation of things. If the radical Islamists are few, then the reason they have power they do is because people are either afraid or they condone.

    BTW, Cee, not to get into a religious discussion here but do you remember that David's baby who was born of the illicit affair died right after birth. David then wrote one of his greatest Psalms (51). I don't have my Bible handy but I think that's it.

    To Johnny $ if you happen to catch this. Not long ago, Olby made a big issue of Bill O'Reilly saying just let the Sunnis and Shiites kill each other. Bill Press was on Tucker (I believe) last week maybe and said the very same thing.

    Great point sharm...thank you for reminding me that the ultimate goal for Jehovah is forgiveness (restoration of relationship), not judgement...

    PSALM 51

    For the director of music. A psalm of David. When the prophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba.

    Have mercy on me, O God,
    according to your unfailing love;
    according to your great compassion
    blot out my transgressions.
    Wash away all my iniquity
    and cleanse me from my sin.

    For I know my transgressions,
    and my sin is always before me.

    Against you, you only, have I sinned
    and done what is evil in your sight,
    so that you are proved right when you speak
    and justified when you judge.

    Surely I was sinful at birth,
    sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

    Surely you desire truth in the inner parts [a] ;
    you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.

    Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean;
    wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.

    Let me hear joy and gladness;
    let the bones you have crushed rejoice.

    Hide your face from my sins
    and blot out all my iniquity.

    Create in me a pure heart, O God,
    and renew a steadfast spirit within me.

    Do not cast me from your presence
    or take your Holy Spirit from me.

    Restore to me the joy of your salvation
    and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.

    Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
    and sinners will turn back to you.

    Save me from bloodguilt, O God,
    the God who saves me, and
    my tongue will sing of your righteousness.

    O Lord, open my lips,
    and my mouth will declare your praise.

    You do not delight in sacrifice,
    or I would bring it;
    you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.

    The sacrifices of God are [c] a broken spirit;
    a broken and contrite heart,
    O God, you will not despise.

    In your good pleasure make Zion prosper;
    build up the walls of Jerusalem.

    Then there will be righteous sacrifices,
    whole burnt offerings to delight you;
    then bulls will be offered on your altar.

    Has anyone seen the recent ads (on Fox News no less) by MSNBC. The ad states their viewer numbers are up for the year 2006 by 8% while CNN's are down 7% and Fox's down a whopping 14%!

    Then you get this single day total on Drudge...

    CABLE NEWS RACE
    THURS, JAN 4, 2007
    VIEWERS

    FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,505,000
    FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,802,000
    FNC SHEP SMITH 1,374,000
    FNC HUME 1,258,000
    FNC GRETA 1,194,000
    CNN KING 1,014,000
    CNN COOPER 835,000
    CNN DOBBS 814,000
    CNNHN GRACE 676,000
    MSNBC OLBERMANN 665,000
    MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 648,000 CNN ZAHN 643,000
    CNNHN BECK 467,000
    MSNBC MATTHEWS 424,000

    Mr. Keith would be dead last if it weren't for everyone else on "his" network.

    You know, 100% times nothing is still nothing...

    Has anyone seen the recent ads (on Fox News no less) by MSNBC. The ad states their viewer numbers are up for the year 2006 by 8% while CNN's are down 7% and Fox's down a whopping 14%!

    Then you get this single day total on Drudge...

    CABLE NEWS RACE
    THURS, JAN 4, 2007
    VIEWERS

    FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,505,000
    FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,802,000
    FNC SHEP SMITH 1,374,000
    FNC HUME 1,258,000
    FNC GRETA 1,194,000
    CNN KING 1,014,000
    CNN COOPER 835,000
    CNN DOBBS 814,000
    CNNHN GRACE 676,000
    MSNBC OLBERMANN 665,000
    MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 648,000 CNN ZAHN 643,000
    CNNHN BECK 467,000
    MSNBC MATTHEWS 424,000

    Mr. Keith would be dead last if it weren't for everyone else on "his" network.

    You know, 100% times nothing is still nothing...

    Has anyone seen the recent ads (on Fox News no less) by MSNBC. The ad states their viewer numbers are up for the year 2006 by 8% while CNN's are down 7% and Fox's down a whopping 14%!

    Then you get this single day total on Drudge...

    CABLE NEWS RACE
    THURS, JAN 4, 2007
    VIEWERS

    FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,505,000
    FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,802,000
    FNC SHEP SMITH 1,374,000
    FNC HUME 1,258,000
    FNC GRETA 1,194,000
    CNN KING 1,014,000
    CNN COOPER 835,000
    CNN DOBBS 814,000
    CNNHN GRACE 676,000
    MSNBC OLBERMANN 665,000
    MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 648,000 CNN ZAHN 643,000
    CNNHN BECK 467,000
    MSNBC MATTHEWS 424,000

    Mr. Keith would be dead last if it weren't for everyone else on "his" network.

    You know, 100% times nothing is still nothing...

    Has anyone seen the recent ads (on Fox News no less) by MSNBC. The ad states their viewer numbers are up for the year 2006 by 8% while CNN's are down 7% and Fox's down a whopping 14%!

    Then you get this single day total on Drudge...

    CABLE NEWS RACE
    THURS, JAN 4, 2007
    VIEWERS

    FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,505,000
    FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,802,000
    FNC SHEP SMITH 1,374,000
    FNC HUME 1,258,000
    FNC GRETA 1,194,000
    CNN KING 1,014,000
    CNN COOPER 835,000
    CNN DOBBS 814,000
    CNNHN GRACE 676,000
    MSNBC OLBERMANN 665,000
    MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 648,000 CNN ZAHN 643,000
    CNNHN BECK 467,000
    MSNBC MATTHEWS 424,000

    Mr. Keith would be dead last if it weren't for everyone else on "his" network.

    You know, 100% times nothing is still nothing...

    Sorry, didn't mean to post that so many times! How did THAT happen?

    Mike,
    I wasn't refering to you. You come across more like a Liberal than a Leftists. Big diference. A liberal may disagree with our government, but still wants the best for our nation. A leftists wants to see us defeated so we can be subjegated to the "Global Community". This clown Buffalo kept attacking White Southerners. I'm Hispanic but I live in the South and have plenty of "Redneck" friends. I took offense. Just because you live in the South doesn't mean your a Rightwinger!

    To Everyone,
    The reason I posted the jokes I did is because I knew it would upset these hypocritical Leftists.
    They crack Jew jokes,Chinese jokes (like Rosie) Redneck jokes and Hispanic jokes. But God forbid you crack Muslim jokes. Why are they so protected? Why is it all groups can be mocked but not Muslims? Why? They've been attacking us since 1979.
    As a Hispanic, if we can be mocked so can Muslims.
    As for the persoanl stuff between me and Buffalo, he started it.
    He called me a KKK memeber. When I pointed out that I'm Latin he me and Rico's Latin ethnicity. He then proceeded to say we are disappearing and are a shame onto this country. It's funny he defends Muslims but attacks Hispanics. I didn't know those 19 Hijackers were Spanish!

    To the Lefties ( Not Liberals),
    For the record before you begin your attacks on me as a Klansman I'm Espanol/Siciliano/Dominicano/Boriqua(PR) with an Israeli Jewish(Sephardic)fiance. Hardly qualifying me for the Klan!

    Here are the ground rules for debate at Owatch as decided by the Loons. They may insult us, call us rednecks, attack our religion, etc. However, not only are they not to be questioned, there is to be absolutely NO criticisim of them or name-calling towards them at all. If you break this rule, they'll loudly announce they will no longer discuss any issue with you because you've hurt their feelings. They're a very fragile lot you see, they love to dish it out but they can't take it. And there is nothing they love more than a good double-standard. They can insult us, we are not to return the favor to them. Got it? Yes, I know it doesn't make any sense but since when did an Olbyloon make any sense?

    How true, Brandon, the right-wingers on this site are so nice and polite, stating their well-thought-out points without name-calling, insults, ad-hominem attacks and with respect for other opinions.

    How could we liberals not realize this?

    Paul Falduto,
    Good morning. Buffalo started his attacks on me. read the posts. I just defended myself.
    Question, why does the Left get sensitive about Muslim jokes but is OK with Redneck or Asian jokes? Why are Muslims so special?

    Just a small observation.....Buffalo asked Red Wolf be banned....This was uncalled for simply because Buffalo, (him or herself), has a history of bigoted comments as well and is in no position to be judging anyone with regards to their language, content or whatever.

    I would just as soon drop the entire debate on who's more or less intolerant and get back to the more interesting issues.

    Paul,

    If there were no insults thrown in with the debate it would be too boring here. I try to do a little of both. I don't mind receiving a few insults myself. In fact, I find some insults of me to be quite funny. But we all need to have a little balance, and to not go overboard. Some posters, from both sides, are mostly overboard. When I come upon a lefty whose "arguments" are mostly insults, I will mostly insult that person in return. I would expect you to do same with anybody on the right who mostly throws out insults at your side.

    My New Year's resolution was to never view anything on MessNBC again but considering KO criticized O'Reilly on his Andrea Mitchell interview before Olby actually had time to watch it means I can do the same, right? I suppose that you can add clairvoyance to Keith's many abilities(as well as being adept at spinning lies). This is just a classic example that KO can dish it out but he can't take it!!!

    Jay Williams,
    You missed Olbermann's near nervous breakdown during his Special"Ed"Comments. He was shaking, his face was red and he started almost tearing! It was a great tv! One more of these comments and he'll breakdown live on tv. That'll be funny to watch!

    "Proud said to Johnny: "you and you're employer, Bill O'Reilly".

    In looking through the many responses that Johnny made after that, I didn't see him refute that.

    Is that true?"

    Posted by: Anonymous at January 5, 2007 10:21 PM


    Of course it's true, ann.. Would you just 'volunteer' to do such a thankless task? He can deny it all he wants. But the fact of the matter is, he is an employee of the 'Big Falafel' (as KO would call him.)

    Note how OlbyLoons use the same tricks and techniques as the Great Olb himself. Spout off about something with no information at all, without caring if you're telling the truth or not. I invite PtBaL to back up his statement about whom I work for. Document it. Prove it. Otherwise, he just pulls his "facts" out of the same rearward location that Keith Olbermann does.

    To the Lefties ( Not Liberals),
    For the record before you begin your attacks on me as a Klansman I'm Espanol/Siciliano/Dominicano/Boriqua(PR) with an Israeli Jewish(Sephardic)fiance. Hardly qualifying me for the Klan!

    When you're wearing your white hood, Red Wolf, your nationality doesn't matter. You're just one of them !!

    Wear your KKK apparel with pride.

    With regards to Senator McCain's position on Iraq troop levels....

    From AP, today.....

    "I have presidential ambitions, but they pale in comparison to what I think is most important to our nation's security. If it destroys any ambitions I may have, I'm willing to pay that price gladly," McCain said Friday, brushing aside scenarios of political fallout.

    "A decorated Vietnam war veteran considered one of Congress' authorities on military matters, McCain has long said the United States did not send enough troops to Iraq for the 2003 invasion. He has been a vocal advocate of sending thousands more troops to the war zone to calm sectarian violence that has ravaged Baghdad and beyond."

    ###
    So I ask the Olbermann apologists....Is there any evidence of Keith Olbermann's conclusions on John McCain as outlined in his lastent "Special Comment?"

    I will refresh your memories....

    "The former labor secretary, Robert Reich, says Sen. John McCain told him that the "surge" would help the "morale" of the troops already in Iraq.

    "If Mr. McCain truly said that, and truly believes it, he has either forgotten completely his own experience in Vietnam ... or he is unaware of the recent Military Times poll indicating only 38 percent of our active military want to see more troops sent ... or Mr. McCain has departed from reality.

    "To those Republicans who have not broken free from the slavery of partisanship, those bonded still, to this president and this administration, and now bonded to this "sacrifice" proceed at your own peril.

    "John McCain may still hear the applause of small crowds, he has somehow inured himself to the hypocrisy, and the tragedy, of a man who considers himself the ultimate realist, courting the votes of those who support the government telling visitors to the Grand Canyon that it was caused by the Great Flood.

    "That Mr. McCain is selling himself off to the irrational right, parcel by parcel, like some great landowner facing bankruptcy, seems to be obvious to everybody but himself.

    "Or, maybe it is obvious to him and he simply no longer cares."

    Is John McCain really supporting a troop surge for political purposes? Please explain to me how McCain doing what Olbermann says he is doing would help him win the Republican Nomination.

    John Cash- Please don't even respond to those leftist dimwits. You do a great service exposing KeithO's lies day-in-and-day-out.... This site is priceless and one of the best on the web. It attracts loons from all over that can't even defend KO. KO has begun nuttier than Stewart Smalley lately.

    That's right those with whom I disagree are racists.

    Sorry- KO has become nuttier than Stewart Smalley lately.

    Note that Olby uses a quote not from McCain, but rather a quote that Robert Reich claims McCain said to him in a private conversation. Undocumentable. And where did Olby get this quote from? A Daily Kos posting that ran just a few days before the Speshul Komment.

    You can just about write off McCain as a valid 08' presidential candidate with his calling for more troops.
    This is directly the opposite approach favored by the American people.
    The Chimpster thumbs his nose at the will of the American people, even though he is supposed to be a servant of the people.
    But Bush isn't worried about being reelected.
    There is no question Bush is calling for more troops for political purposes...he's desperately trying to save his irrepairable legacy.
    I don't believe McCain's reasons are political but....
    McCain just put his feet in cement with his Iraq views and disqualified himself in the eyes of the American people for 08'.

    So true J$....Keith Olbermann employing personal attacks on a Vietnam Veteran's character and motives based on flimsy documentation.....

    Do I correctly recall Olbermann ranting "foul" when the Vietnam Veteran Kerry was attacked for his position on Iraq by Republicans?

    The list of hypocrisy on COUNTDOWN seems to keep growing.

    McCain has no chance of being president. He has been wrongly defined as being a maverick. He is in fact anything but. Whenever Bush wanted him to, he towed the line. I know that Olbermann haters here are still under the delusion that they represent the majority of this country and think McCain does also. Wrong. Again.

    "> I think some of your Olbyisms are going to have to go into the FAQ section.

    That's what the Olbersaurus is for.

    > Clever response Johhny, but I see you didn't really deny it.

    Nothing gets past you, does it? What difference does it make? Does it mean Olbermann doesn't slant the news? Does it mean he really didn't lie about O'Reilly tonight? Is that the only straw you can grasp on to divert attention from the lies of Keith Olbermann?"

    Posted by: johnny dollar at January 5, 2007 11:05 PM

    Thank you for making my point. But you see, Johnny Fraud, it has to do with something that you on the right consistently ignore; OBJECTIVITY! If indeed you are working for the competition, then how can you possibly claim to be objective? The answer to this question is obvious to any of us with brains of our own (my apologies for excluding you Cee, cecilia, Grannie, Red wolf, & others): you can't! Therefore, you are a FRAUD... JOHNNY FRAUD!

    By the way, your web site identifies you as a woman... Is this the case?

    "Keith Olbermann employing personal attacks on a Vietnam Veteran's character and motives based on flimsy documentation....."

    Kinda reminds me of when the Bushies attacked John McCain, the proven war hero, while campaigning for their proven war zero.

    I bet Lapdog would love to forget about that incident.
    No..wait...he'll wrote 2500 words proclaiming it didn't really happen.
    LMAO

    "Keith Olbermann employing personal attacks on a Vietnam Veteran's character and motives based on flimsy documentation....."

    Kinda reminds me of when the Bushies attacked John McCain, the proven war hero, while campaigning for their proven war zero.

    I bet Lapdog would love to forget about that incident.
    No..wait...he'll write 2500 words proclaiming it didn't really happen.
    LMAO

    "Therefore, you are a FRAUD... JOHNNY FRAUD!"

    Is there some sort of pharmeceutical that causes hysteria, that they pop along with their Flintstones, or is it a hormonal imbalance that effects their emotional as well as cognitive state?

    Your prediction regarding McCain relies on ultimate failure and/or no positive progress IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS in Iraq, Professor Honeydew (Bob).

    Are you willing, here and now, to say there will be definite resolution of the Iraq War in American defeat by November 2008?

    We on the left are completely objective. We know when we admit when we are wrong. We weren't wrong about peace through strength or that tax cuts would devastate the economy. We are much better at declaring things failures prematurely. We use words like quagmire and failure like drinking the half empty glass of metaphorical water that is our lives. See things are bad. They are always bad. There is strife and struggle and that is why we hate.

    > By the way, your web site identifies you as a woman... Is this the case?

    Haha! You are batting a thousand. First you put forward the notion that an interview that aired Friday somehow aired Thursday, a metaphysical impossibility (something cannot be viewed before it actually happens). Then you decide to announce whom I work for, with zero evidence, and make the fallacious claim that somehow changes the accuracy and insights that appear on this site. (Oh look! I've made up the fact that J$ works for O'Reilly, so that proves Keith didn't really LIE about O'Reilly tonight. OlbyLogic exemplified.)

    And now, to top it off, you make another absurd claim, this time about my website.

    I realize it's hard to be an Olbypologist when he has been caught lying yet again about the eeevil O'Reilly, but really, is "attack the messenger" all you've got?

    "Kinda reminds me of when the Bushies attacked John McCain, the proven war hero, while campaigning for their proven war zero."

    Please give me specifics.....I do not recall Bush or any of his campaign representatives making undocumented charges against John McCain or impugning his service to our country, for that matter.

    The only reports I have ever seen were media stories claiming people were making questionable allegations in push poll calls during the Republican Primary....But guess what....both campaigns did it and Bush was also the target of under-handed hardball tactics with regards to his alleged DUI, just before the New Hampshire Primary.

    There is a difference between "a journalist," as Olbermann pretends to be, and a political rival during a heated PRIMARY, using personal attacks.

    Olbermann is shameless, a whiner AND a hypocrite.

    Also, George Bush never whined about how he has been treated by his political opponents, he takes his hits....and BTW, neither has McCain whined....the only people complaining about the primary allegations have been the media and liberals trying to suggest conservative repubs are the only ones who play hardball.

    If we leave Iraq, it is not a "defeat," it simply the end of our occupation of it. Occupations are not "won" or "lost" they simply end at some point. We can and should work closely with the Iraqis to help them to a political solution, which is the only solution there is.

    We also need to fufill our promises to help them rebbuild their infrastruture, which we have so far failed to do.

    Henry Kissinger, hardly a liberal, has said we cannot "win" in Iraq. And how can we? We are fighting not a foreign invader, but the Iraqis themselves, or at least a significant portion of them.

    And, of course, they are fighting each other.

    There is nothing to "win" in Iraq and nothing to "lose" either. It is up to Iraqis to build a stable government, again with our political help, not our military intervention.

    And I hope that those like cee, who didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam (it appears that he or she wasn't even alive then from his/her previous posts) and the other "armchair warriors" who are so quick to endorse unilateral military intervention anywhere in the world for any reason we want, will learn their lessons this time around.

    Our military is for defending this country, not for invading others who have done nothing to threaten us.

    See things are bad. They are always bad. There is strife and struggle and that is why we hate.

    Posted by: Loon at January 6, 2007 12:01 PM

    There must be a word for a person who pretends that they are something they think they are not. Sarcasticly using this personality to try to make a point of how stupid they seem to themselves and enlighting the rest of us. You never say anything from your own mind other than pretending to be someone elses mind. You must have some medicine you can take. You should try looking in the mirror a little more about what you think you are not. You are in fact a loon, but not for the reasons you say you are.

    From the Dallas Morning News, 12/2/99:

    "In recent weeks, the Bush campaign has been accused of - and has denied - spreading rumors that Mr. McCain may be unstable as a result of being tortured while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. Several Senate Republicans, among them party leaders who favor Mr. Bush for president, have been identified in published reports as being responsible for privately pushing the allegations. Also, James B. Stockdale, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam who ran as Ross Perot's running mate in 1992, said he got a call from a friend close to the Bush campaign soliciting comments on Mr. McCain's 'weakness.'"

    Anonymous post at 12:21 was mine.

    That's absolutely right we lefties don't own mirrors. We don't do the self-reflection thing. Then we may actually have to admit that all our bitching and all the inadequacies that we see are actually the ones we see and hate in ourselves. We choose ignorance and claim nuance. We choose skepticism and call it intelligence. We choose hate and call it enlightenment. We point out hypocrisy while ignoring our own which in turn makes us hypocrites. We are loons and our circular "logic" is mind-blowing, and when our bullshit is called we attack. Ignorance is bliss except we live without the bliss.

    "In recent weeks, the Bush campaign has been accused of - and has denied - spreading rumors that Mr. McCain may be unstable"

    That sounds remarkably like what Olbermann did last night to McCain.

    Of course, he won't allow McCain or anyone else on the show to defend the Senator, will he?

    Just smear and run. That's KO's MO.


    BIDEN: SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS, CHENEY, UNDERSTAND THAT IRAQ LONG LOST

    -- But Bush And His Apologists Too Stupid To Figure It Out --

    WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Thursday that he believes top officials in the Bush administration have privately concluded they have lost Iraq and are simply trying to postpone disaster so the next president will `be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof,` in a chaotic withdrawal reminiscent of Vietnam. `I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost,` Biden said. `They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy -- literally, not figuratively.`

    "Cecelia,
    Why does the Left get touchy on Islam? Maybe because they know their ancetors The Stern Gang and the Red Brigade was allied with the Muslim Brotherhood and the PLO?"

    Posted by: Red Wolf at January 6, 2007 02:04 AM

    The Stern Gang was allied with the Muslim Brotherhood & the PLO, now? Please, Red Wolf... Even for a Right Wing Nutcase, you are an idiot...

    I don't think there's anything inherently mean, unethical, illogical, or fattening about questioning anything about John McCain personally or professionally.

    I think the left specializes in making the case that someone, who happens to agree with them about something, is some sort of iconic figure and it's tantamount to sacrilege if they are scrutinized and criticised, ala Cindy Sheehan, Congressman Murtha, Pat Tillman's brother, etc.

    The rub comes with making McCain such a figure until he disagrees with your opionion, as Olbermann did.

    But then this IS a guy who gives on air lectures about Bush pitting one American against the other, and then charges McCain with seeking the vote of extremists (social conservatives).

    As always, Olbermann stirs up the cesspool and then blames his opponents for the stink.

    J$- In your nightly summary you always criticize Keith (fairly, I will add) for not reporting stories that would negatively impact the left. Yet, last night Olby reported the Dems had a get togetha with 200 lobbyists (this is hardly a Pro-Dem story). If you're going to slam Olby for not reporting stories you feel are news worthy you better report the ones you feel are. You're ommission is dishonest.

    GO GATORS!!!

    We point out hypocrisy while ignoring our own which in turn makes us hypocrites. We are loons and our circular "logic" is mind-blowing, and when our bullshit is called we attack. Ignorance is bliss except we live without the bliss.

    Posted by: Loon at January 6, 2007 12:24 PM

    What exactly are you doing? What do you believe in other than pointing towards the left? How ignorant are you to try to think for me and speak for me? What kinda bullshit have you been believing? What sollutions do you have? What contribution have you made besides being a sarcastic a--hole? Do you think you are being clever, or do you just like being an a--hole for your own entertainment? Say something that isn't condecending and spitefull and maybe you might make a point other than you are a loon.

    Yeah we never say anything bad about Lieberman or completely ignore him when he loses a primary and then kiss his ass when he wins the general. Ignorance of our own hypocrisy is fun. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

    My gosh, Cecelia, you conservatives are surely quick to excuse your own when they cross the line.

    Of course it is appropriate to ask questions about McCain and his political positions.

    But what happened in SC in 2000 was just another GOP smear, which they are good at in SC.

    Look what Lee Atwater did in 1978 to Max Heller.

    Uh Paul....the Bush campaign denied these allegations...Now I know your opinion of "The Bushies" and would say they are lying...but your and the press OPINION is irrelevant. Unless you have specific proof, then it is all debatable speculation.

    However, please note that John McCain himself never directly accused Bush of the tactics you are alleging...in fact, McCain endorced Bush in 2000 and 2004 and is currently benefitting from Bush's donor list over Rudy. John McCain knows how to play hardball, he knows what both party's primary politics is all about and never whined about the tactics used....Olbermann, on the other hand, cries foul then does the same thing himself....that is hypocrisy.

    Also, I never hear the press or liberals talk about how Gore treated Bradley in their 2000 primary.....just as hardball as McCain/Bush....so stop the whining!

    Gosh cee, the Bush team denied it? How surprising!

    I think the left specializes in making the case that someone, who happens to agree with them about something, is some sort of iconic figure and it's tantamount to sacrilege if they are scrutinized and criticised, ala Cindy Sheehan, Congressman Murtha, Pat Tillman's brother, etc.

    Posted by: Cecelia at January 6, 2007 12:31 PM

    And I think the right specializes in making the case that because you disagree with them that you have made an iconic figure out of Sheehan, Murtha, McCain, etc... I don't need them to tell what I should think and I never thought McCain was anything other than what he has claimed to be. A conservitive Republican. I don't expect him to be otherwise.

    > last night Olby reported the Dems had a get togetha with 200 lobbyists

    He didn't report it. He didn't even mention it. It was part of the recycled NBC video that was run, but despite his claims ("I answer to no one") he doesn't have total control over which NBC reruns will appear on his show.

    If you had read more of the comments before making an accusation, you would learn that we rarely analyze the NBC reruns that appear on Countdown. Just look over as many of the recaps as you like. Our focus is on Countdown and what Olbermann says and does. Stuff that is just being rerun from other programs doesn't tell much about Olby, so we usually ignore it.

    We did not make this a dog that did not bark because it was covered. If we had included it as such you would have a claim of dishonesty. But you make the charge anyhow, apparently unaware that this is OLBERMANN Watch, not Norah O'Donnell watch. We're concerned with his spin and his words and his LIES. I think if you want an example of dishonesty, Olby's lies about O'Reilly make for a much better example.

    Of course the Bush team denied it and of course Bush didn't do it himself. Bush may be the worst President in US history, but he's not stupid!

    Paul,

    Republicans are allowed to smear Republicans.
    Democrats are allowed to smear Democrats. Watch what the Hillary campaign does if Obama takes the lead against her. They'll be questioning his ancestry and every homework assignment he ever did in law school.

    I'm not saying that I am in favor of smearing, though.

    Sorry, Rico, no one is "allowed" to smear anyone.

    If you want to attack your opponent on issues, fine.

    But the attacks on McCain were personal and they were wrong in any event.

    My gosh, Cecelia, you conservatives are surely quick to excuse your own when they cross the line.

    "Of course it is appropriate to ask questions about McCain and his political positions.

    But what happened in SC in 2000 was just another GOP smear, which they are good at in SC.

    Look what Lee Atwater did in 1978 to Max Heller. "


    Well, your problem lies with your assumption that my post is meant to excuse dirty campaign tactics.

    If I jumped to conclusions like that I'd would assume that your failure to mention any Democratic dirt was the same as excusing your side.

    I hope you'll agree that this makes no sense.

    "Yeah we never say anything bad about Lieberman or completely ignore him when he loses a primary and then kiss his ass when he wins the general."

    Poor example, Loon. Nobody is kissing Lieb's ass. He has been neutered. Particularly since the Dems have the Senate majority without Joementum's vote. He's free to follow his heart and join the Republican Party if he wishes.

    "But the attacks on McCain were personal and they were wrong in any event."

    TRY to stay on point Paul......

    So Olbermann was wrong to attack McCain in his Special Comment?

    Thinking for you and us takes all of five seconds. I take the mind of a normal person and take away reason and accountability and wa la! It's loony time. Here's a little test.

    If you think that 9/11 was inside job,
    If you think there is no Islamo Facist threat,
    If you think Bush is the most dangerous person in the world,
    If you think Saddam was part of Al Queda,
    If you refuse to acknowledge that Saddam broke International laws requiring action,
    If you think the war is going well,
    If you think that supporting the troops means that a congressman can compare those troops to the gestapo, or the SS,
    If you think Cindy Sheehan is sane,
    If you refuse to acknowledge that Cindy Sheehan's son volunteered then re-enlisted and used his own free-will,
    If you think you know better for others than they know for themselves,
    If you think Noam Chomski has a point,
    If you think the earth is only 6000 years old,

    ....then you are a freakin loon.

    If you answered yes, well to any of these questions, then it is a miracle you learned how to tie your own shoes much less operate a keyboard.

    Hey the world needs ditch diggers too.

    Indierik,

    With Sen. Tim Johnson still not able to speak you probably shouldn't throw ole' Joe off the island just yet.

    But to more important things: GATERBURGERS!!!

    I don't need them to tell what I should think and I never thought McCain was anything other than what he has claimed to be. A conservitive Republican. I don't expect him to be otherwise."


    Oh good!

    Cee: Please give me specifics.....I do not recall Bush or any of his campaign representatives making undocumented charges against John McCain or impugning his service to our country, for that matter.

    Always fun to observe Lapdog's poor memory when it comes to the unseemly side of his boys !

    In the 2000 primaries, George W. Bush's supporters spread nasty rumors about what five and a half years in a North Vietnamese POW camp might have done to McCain's sanity.

    Does that not have a Rovian stink to it ? !

    Then there were the calls to potential white voters in South Carolina to inform them that McCain had a "black baby." (He and his wife adopted a child from Bangladesh.)

    This is enough to make anyone's stomach queasy...except the ultimate Bush lapdog.

    Cee's laser - like glacoma vision when it comes to the GOP misdeeds always makes me laugh.

    Once Joe Liebermann lost the primary, he was no longer the Democratic candidate and Democrats rightly supported the choice of Democratic primary voters in CT. That's the way the system works.

    And Dems have hardly "ignored" Liebermann since he won. He is caucusing with them and has the same senority and committee assignments, including chairing the Government Affairs Committee and a seat on Armed Services.

    "Poor example, Loon. Nobody is kissing Lieb's ass. He has been neutered. Particularly since the Dems have the Senate majority without Joementum's vote. He's free to follow his heart and join the Republican Party if he wishes."

    Yeah no one was worried about Lieb jumping to the Republicans and giving control of the Senate back to the Republicans. Just like no one was scared about Tim Johnson's stroke. WeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

    "So Olbermann was wrong to attack McCain in his Special Comment?"

    I think he was wrong on what he said, it wasn't "wrong" to have made the comments.

    Wouldn't it have been nice (and heart attack producing)if McCain had been invited on to answer the criticism, like Cooper, Matthews, Blitzer, Scarborough, O'Reilly, H & C nearly always do.

    If you answered yes, well to any of these questions, then it is a miracle you learned how to tie your own shoes much less operate a keyboard.

    Hey the world needs ditch diggers too.

    Posted by: Loon at January 6, 2007 12:52 PM

    Well at least you put some good ones in there that I can see a little better that you know a loon comes in all colors and political parties.

    "If you had read more of the comments before making an accusation, you would learn that we rarely analyze the NBC reruns that appear on Countdown. Just look over as many of the recaps as you like. Our focus is on Countdown and what Olbermann says and does. Stuff that is just being rerun from other programs doesn't tell much about Olby, so we usually ignore it." - J$

    Nearly every story covered on Countdown has used film footage and interviews from other NBC programming. Had one of the stories been "anti-neocon" and Keith not commented at the end you would have included that segment in your summary. Plus, before this Dem/lobbyist segment ran I don't recall Keith saying "In the news my producers are forcing me to report".

    Your reply to me was a complete dodge.

    GO GATORS!!!

    There is no such thing as "Islamo Facism."

    Isamlic extremism, yes, but fascism is a melding or the state and large corporations, as the original and purest facist Mussolini himself stated.

    Yes, Islamic extremists are "bad people." but that doesn't mean that every pejorative term applies to them.

    Poor Professor Honeydew....he can't understand that although political hardball occured and allegations were made, Senator McCain has never parted ways with Bush....If he was treated so badly by Bush and Rove, why does he not pursue any recourse against them?

    Why does he accept support from Bush's friends now?

    You all seem more upset about all this than the victim.

    And again, the professor misses the whole point about Olbermann....but what else should I expect?

    Instead it's about me for the professor....ok, fine.

    \> By the way, your web site identifies you as a woman... Is this the case?

    ... but really, is "attack the messenger" all you've got?

    Posted by: johnny dollar at January 6, 2007 12:11 PM

    Well, Johnny FRAUD, let's take this piece by piece (you know, kinda like bite sized morsels for those among us who are morons...)

    1. "Haha! You are batting a thousand. First you put forward the notion that an interview that aired Friday somehow aired Thursday, a metaphysical impossibility (something cannot be viewed before it actually happens)."

    As I said in my second post about this subject, "if it truly did run tonite (& not last night, as [I believe] Olbermann suggested,) then maybe he watched it during your aforementioned 'taped segment... He must, at least, have spoken with Andrea Mitchell about it, no?" If I was wrong, I apologize. I may have misheard Olbermann on tv last night. But to go crazy on me for making a mistake of this magnitude only goes to show your pettiness.


    2. " Then you decide to announce whom I work for, with zero evidence, and make the fallacious claim that somehow changes the accuracy and insights that appear on this site."

    That might be, because it would!! Whomever pays for this site is paying for it for a reason, obviously. Perhaps it's not O'reilly? Who knows? It might be George Soros, angry that Olbermann didn't give him credit for him buying Keith Lunch sometime. How the heck am I supposed to know?

    But do you seriously expect me to believe that this has nothing to do with objectivity? & you still haven't denied my claims, once again leading me (& all others in this room with a brain located above their shoulders [as opposed to in their rear-ends]) to believe that my 'claims' are truth...

    3. "(Oh look! I've made up the fact that J$ works for O'Reilly, so that proves Keith didn't really LIE about O'Reilly tonight. OlbyLogic exemplified.)"

    Where did I say this, Johnny FRAUD? I am still lokking for your reference...

    4. "And now, to top it off, you make another absurd claim, this time about my website."

    It is not an absurd claim, & it is not just me who has made it... I am pretty sure that over the course of the past couple of days somebody else (an anonymous, maybe) said that the link on your name took you to a site that had a picture of a woman up, inferring that she was johnny Dollar.... I checked that site, & do you wanna know what? he was correct!! I am simply asking youif this is the case... I was not inferring that it was a 'bad thing' if you were, but simply asking for a clarification... Can you please clarify it for me, now?

    5. "I realize it's hard to be an Olbypologist when he has been caught lying yet again about the eeevil O'Reilly, but really, is "attack the messenger" all you've got?"

    Once again, i am NOT an 'Olbypologist.' while I do like Keith Olbermann, & I do see a lot of good things in his journalistic ability, I would not characterize myself as blindly following anybody... You, on the other hand, would go to your death for your hero (&, until refuted, the man I WILL STILL refer to as your Boss,) Bill O'reilly. (Who, by the way, got his ASS handed to him the other day when he visited this site.)

    So, basically, Johnny FRAUD, I still wait for my questions to be answered... I await your response.

    Wouldn't it have been nice (and heart attack producing)if McCain had been invited on to answer the criticism, like Cooper, Matthews, Blitzer, Scarborough, O'Reilly, H & C nearly always do.

    Posted by: Cecelia at January 6, 2007 12:59 PM

    As much as I admire Keith, I have to sat I agree with you cecelia. The only thing is if his show turned into another yelling over other peoples words show like foxes, I would never watch it again. I would like an occasional confrontation with some other minds on his show though.

    \> By the way, your web site identifies you as a woman... Is this the case?

    ... but really, is "attack the messenger" all you've got?

    Posted by: johnny dollar at January 6, 2007 12:11 PM

    Well, Johnny FRAUD, let's take this piece by piece (you know, kinda like bite sized morsels for those among us who are morons...)

    1. "Haha! You are batting a thousand. First you put forward the notion that an interview that aired Friday somehow aired Thursday, a metaphysical impossibility (something cannot be viewed before it actually happens)."

    As I said in my second post about this subject, "if it truly did run tonite (& not last night, as [I believe] Olbermann suggested,) then maybe he watched it during your aforementioned 'taped segment... He must, at least, have spoken with Andrea Mitchell about it, no?" If I was wrong, I apologize. I may have misheard Olbermann on tv last night. But to go crazy on me for making a mistake of this magnitude only goes to show your pettiness.


    2. " Then you decide to announce whom I work for, with zero evidence, and make the fallacious claim that somehow changes the accuracy and insights that appear on this site."

    That might be, because it would!! Whomever pays for this site is paying for it for a reason, obviously. Perhaps it's not O'reilly? Who knows? It might be George Soros, angry that Olbermann didn't give him credit for him buying Keith Lunch sometime. How the heck am I supposed to know?

    But do you seriously expect me to believe that this has nothing to do with objectivity? & you still haven't denied my claims, once again leading me (& all others in this room with a brain located above their shoulders [as opposed to in their rear-ends]) to believe that my 'claims' are truth...

    3. "(Oh look! I've made up the fact that J$ works for O'Reilly, so that proves Keith didn't really LIE about O'Reilly tonight. OlbyLogic exemplified.)"

    Where did I say this, Johnny FRAUD? I am still lokking for your reference...

    4. "And now, to top it off, you make another absurd claim, this time about my website."

    It is not an absurd claim, & it is not just me who has made it... I am pretty sure that over the course of the past couple of days somebody else (an anonymous, maybe) said that the link on your name took you to a site that had a picture of a woman up, inferring that she was johnny Dollar.... I checked that site, & do you wanna know what? he was correct!! I am simply asking youif this is the case... I was not inferring that it was a 'bad thing' if you were, but simply asking for a clarification... Can you please clarify it for me, now?

    5. "I realize it's hard to be an Olbypologist when he has been caught lying yet again about the eeevil O'Reilly, but really, is "attack the messenger" all you've got?"

    Once again, i am NOT an 'Olbypologist.' while I do like Keith Olbermann, & I do see a lot of good things in his journalistic ability, I would not characterize myself as blindly following anybody... You, on the other hand, would go to your death for your hero (&, until refuted, the man I WILL STILL refer to as your Boss,) Bill O'reilly. (Who, by the way, got his ASS handed to him the other day when he visited this site.)

    So, basically, Johnny FRAUD, I still wait for my questions to be answered... I await your response.

    cee, who exactly is "Professor Honeydew?"

    I know you Olbermann bashers have your "funny" names for his regular guests, but those of us not obsessed with Olbermann really aren't aware of them and don't get your "jokes," so it's difficult to respond to your posts when we don't know who in the hell you are talking about.

    "I would like an occasional confrontation with some other minds on his show though."

    Don't hold your breath.

    Olbermann Watch provides some balance, I think, D.

    (Bob, by all means, hold yours.)


    "Cecelia,
    Why does the Left get touchy on Islam? Maybe because they know their ancetors The Stern Gang and the Red Brigade was allied with the Muslim Brotherhood and the PLO?"

    Posted by: Red Wolf at January 6, 2007 02:04 AM

    The Stern Gang was allied with the Muslim Brotherhood & the PLO, now? Please, Red Wolf... Even for a Right Wing Nutcase, you are an idiot...

    Is Keith Olbermann ALWAYS wrong? Are his guests ALWAYS wrong? From reading this site, it appears that way.

    johhny, have you EVER said ANYTHING positive about Olbermann or his guests?

    Perhaps you have. I haven't been on this site that often and if I am wrong I apologize in advance. But the half-dozen or so digests of his show I have read would indicate to me that I'm correct.

    The Doctor wanted proof of the smears on McCain..
    I provided them.
    Instead of having the tiniest shred of integrity about it...he says "Poor Professor Honeydew....he can't understand that although political hardball occured and allegations were made, Senator McCain has never parted ways with Bush....If he was treated so badly by Bush and Rove, why does he not pursue any recourse against them?

    So it's political hardball....I see.
    Those unseemly smears were playing hardball !

    And the fact that McCain HASN'T parted ways with Bush gives good question into McCain's character and his political motivations after those smears.

    You have embarrassed yourself again , Cee.
    If a Democrat created smears such as these..you'd be frothing at the mouth over them.

    But with you... again...you justifiably earned your nickname "Dr. Lapdog" !

    "With Sen. Tim Johnson still not able to speak you probably shouldn't throw ole' Joe off the island just yet." -Rico

    "Just like no one was scared about Tim Johnson's stroke." -Loon

    I'm sure Sen. Johnson is having the best medical care the Democratic Party can get for him and no matter how hard the neocons wish for his health to fail it is not going to happen.

    Rico- sorry my friend, OSU is just like the the rest of the Big 10- TOO SLOW!!! I'll take the reptile over the weed any day, any year. CHOMP! CHOMP!

    GATOR DONE!!!

    "cee, who exactly is "Professor Honeydew?"

    I know you Olbermann bashers have your "funny" names for his regular guests, but those of us not obsessed with Olbermann really aren't aware of them and don't get your "jokes," so it's difficult to respond to your posts when we don't know who in the hell you are talking about."

    Posted by: Paul Falduto at January 6, 2007 01:11 PM


    From what I understand, Paul, Bob refers to Cee as Dr. Lapdog... Whereas Cee refers to Bob as Professor Honeydew... Why either of these names stick I do not know (other than for the fact that Bob claims to be a college Professor & Cee claims to be a dr.) Would you two please explain these monikers for me?

    "you still haven't denied my claims, once again leading me (& all others in this room with a brain located above their shoulders [as opposed to in their rear-ends]) to believe that my 'claims' are truth..."


    Yes, this really really makes sense to the boy.

    "Can you please clarify it [his gender] for me, now?"

    Johnny, can you prove yourself innocent of being a woman. Otherwise Proud wil argue this means you're "guilty".... :D


    Indierik,

    If the Democrats have Tim Johnson on Hillary Health Care then he is doomed. But I personally wish him well.

    But to more important things: a single Buckeye is bigger than the brain of a Gator, and a Gator is just a lizard on steroids.

    Can we agree on something? I say that Nancy Pelosi looked hideous the other day. There should be a quota of one face lift per person. Otherwise the results can be disastrous.

    Oh, Cecilia, I'm down on my KNEES....
    I'M BEGGING YOU PLEASE TO GO HOME!! NOW...

    Why not provide my entire quote, Cecilia, instead of taking bits & pieces of it as you see fit? Well, perhaps because it would make you seem like the jackass you are...

    "I was not inferring that it was a 'bad thing' if you were, but simply asking for a clarification... Can you please clarify it for me, now?"

    I will argue thatr you are guilty of hypocrisy, cecilia... That is for sure... &, BTW, Bob, I liked the 'bird shit' analysis of her that you provided yesterday... It expecially makes sense to me now that I am the one cleaning it off of me...

    > Once again, i am NOT an 'Olbypologist.'

    Really? You could have fooled me. Shall we put it to the test? Did Olby LIE about O'Reilly Friday night? What say you to Olby's top 10 lies of 2006? Do you concede all of them, or even some of them, are, in fact lies?

    Once we establish YOUR bona fides, then maybe we can get to your preposterous claim that my website identifies me as a woman, or that I secretly draw a paycheck from Bill O'Reilly.

    "I was not inferring that it was a 'bad thing' if you were, but simply asking for a clarification... Can you please clarify it for me, now?"


    Hey, I was just using the same sort of thinking that you used. If J. isn't able or doesn't bother to convince you otherwise of any charge you make, the charge is therefore true.

    I knew the "guilty until proven innocent" thing was a bit above your head and that you'd take it literary to mean that being a woman confers something "bad", but hey, there are some people here who can think abstractly and who might have enjoyed it...

    About this whinning over me commenting on what you write, you post publicly with full knowledge that someone can point out your fallacies. Your stupidity is no one's problem but your own.

    Johnny Dollar,

    This is a terrific site. The lefties who post here should be grateful that you allow them to do so. I don't see right wingers allowed to post comments on Daily Koz. You are a most gracious host, and your daily autopsies of Krazy Keith Olberturd's show are 100% correct.

    Rico, you are a clear thinker and a great American.


    BUNGLING BUSHIES MANAGE TO MARTYR SADDAM

    -- COALLITION TRIAL, TURNOVER, EXECUTION QUESTIONED; NUREMBERG IT WASN`T --

    WASHINGTON -- U.S. President George Bush says Saddam Hussein could have been hanged in a more dignified way, while one of his closest Arab allies says the hanging has turned the former Iraqi dictator into a martyr. In his first comments on the televised hanging, which has inflamed sectarian passions in Iraq before an announcement this week of a new US war strategy, Mr. Bush said he expected the Iraqi Government to conduct an investigation but that the execution was just. `I wish, obviously, that the proceedings had ... gone in a more dignified way.` Mr. Bush said. `We expect there to be a full investigation of what took place.`


    Johnny Dollar = Mark Koldys

    What's sad is O'Reilly was right last night when he said some on the left want the U.S. to lose to Iraq, and that's exactly the crowd Olbermann is trying to appeal to. It's really sickening.

    "What's sad is O'Reilly was right last night when he said some on the left want the U.S. to lose to Iraq, "

    O'Reilly is grossly unfair - and inaccurate - when he makes statements like this. The majority of people on the left are patriotic and good people. Often wrong, in my view, but not bad people.

    Sure, there are _some_ on the left - Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan et al - that are so anti-American that they want us to lose. But they are a fringe on the left.

    Most on the left want Bush to not succeed in Iraq. Not the US to lose. Somehow, they've convinced themselves that a Bush loss would not be a US loss.

    I can't fathom how they make this distinction; but they do. They just hate Bush and the neocons and Repugs/Rethugs so much, that they believe that anything that hurts them is good for America.

    To be sure, there are people on the conservative/Right who feel the same way about the left.

    But O'Reilly is pretty close to Olbermann "let's smear everyone" territory when he uses the language he does. And that's not good.

    "Hey, I was just using the same sort of thinking that you used. If J. isn't able or doesn't bother to convince you otherwise of any charge you make, the charge is therefore true."

    No you weren't... You are incapable of thinking (sanely) for yourself... As you have again proven with this post. I never said that. All I was asking for was clarification. I realize that in your life, everything is black & white. But in the real world, outside of DUGAN's mental institution (where you appearently reside,) we ask questions to get answers. I have asked Johnny FRAUD over & over & over again who funds this site. He has refused to tell me. It leads me to believe that he is hired by somebody with alot of money, has a reason to dislike Keith olbermann, & is a right-wing nutcase. hence, my assumption about O'reilly...


    "I knew the "guilty until proven innocent" thing was a bit above your head and that you'd take it literary to mean that being a woman confers something "bad", but hey, there are some people here who can think abstractly and who might have enjoyed it.."

    Once again, I never said that being a woman was bad. (Unless of course, being that woman means being like you. In which case it is a VERY BAD THING!) All I said was that if he/she/IT was a woman, I was interested. 'Guilty until proven innocent thing?' Please... Spare us, cecilia....

    "About this whinning over me commenting on what you write, you post publicly with full knowledge that someone can point out your fallacies. Your stupidity is no one's problem but your own."

    You are correct about the fact that I post freely. But I am correct when I say that taking my comments out of context is innacurate & furthermore serves no point other than to get in the way of an otherwise free argument.

    I should note, Cecilia, that if you continue to take my quotes out of context, I will no longer reply to your posts. Because that is my free right also...

    Look out above, she's shitting again....

    "Jubilation,
    She loves me again,
    I fall on the floor and i'm laughing."

    "What's sad is O'Reilly was right last night when he said some on the left want the U.S. to lose to Iraq, and that's exactly the crowd Olbermann is trying to appeal to. It's really sickening."

    Posted by: bigred at January 6, 2007 02:15 PM

    No, what's sad, Big Re(i)d, is that you actually believe him...

    Johnny Dollar = Mark Koldys

    Proud, when he asked Letterman and Rosie if they wanted the U.S. to win in Iraq, they refused to answer. What does that tell you?

    Do you want us to win? And don't answer with a bash on Bush. Just say yes or no.

    Ohboy,

    I know how they "make this distinction". It's called cognative dissonance. The kind of thinking that gets one on the OJ jury.

    "I know how they "make this distinction". It's called cognative dissonance. "

    Yeah, I guess so. But all people suffer from that regardless of political ideology. It's a human trait.

    Like the argument that we need to "end the war in Iraq by leaving." Well, we all know (or should), that if the US pulls out of Iraq the war will not end. Heck, things will get worse.

    The Sunnis and Shi'a will continue to fight. Iran and Syria will continue - probably increase - their assistance to favorable groups. And if the Sunnis start to get massacred (as they will), the Saudis and other Sunni dominated nations will try to intervene to stop the bloodshed.

    Not sure how folks think that the war will end if we leave. What are they looking at?

    Proud, when he asked Letterman and Rosie if they wanted the U.S. to win in Iraq, they refused to answer. What does that tell you?

    It tells me that Letterman is much deeper than oreilly & that Rosie O'donnell stinks... I never liked her. I couldn't stand her on her old VH1 show, stand-up spotlight. I didn't like her own show. I won't even watch 'The View.'

    Do you want us to win? And don't answer with a bash on Bush. Just say yes or no.

    That is impossible... Because what does winning the war entail? Does it mean that Iraq is left the way we found it? Does it mean that we have no more casualties? Does it mean that Iraq has a Democracy? In general would I like the US to win? Yes. But it is not that black & white. A better question to ask is, how many American lives would you pay to win this war? There's only one answer to that question, as far as I am concerned... Certainly not 3000...

    How many lives would you have paid to win World War 2? Or the Civil War? Of our indepedence from Britain? In today's media environment, we would have lost all 3.

    Winning in Iraq means they have a stable government that does not harbor terrorists who are a threat to us and other countries.

    That is possible, but democracies don't happen over night. Look how long ours took and how many lives were lost before everyone was allowed equal rights.

    I agree the loss of life has been tragic. I also think it's important to remember there is a real mission over there that is worth winning, although most libs like you can't see it.

    Ohboy,

    Leftists truly do not care if there is war or no war. They only care if WE are at war with anybody. If we aren't then the leftists are reasonably happy.

    "I don't see right wingers allowed to post comments on Daily Koz."- Rico

    Screw Kos. I had enough of him and his followers when he/they turned his back on Harold Ford Jr. Why don't you try mediamatters.org? They let wingnuts post on their site. Also, I've been banned on several wingnut sites, so don't try to make it seem like all the righties encourage an open discussion.

    "Rico, you are a clear thinker and a great American." -J$

    Dollar, you're applying this compliment to a racist that has used terms like "ragheads" on this site. Just what is your criteria in determining who is a "great American"?

    IT'S GREAT! TO BE! A FLORIDA GATOR!

    > Dollar, you're applying this compliment to a racist that has used terms like "ragheads" on this site.

    I didn't see any such posting, but if Keith Olbermann can insult a Jew by calling him a "monkey", then raghead seems pretty tame by comparison, no?

    Indierik,

    Arabs/Muslims are not a race. Therefore it is not even possible to racist against them. And if they were a race it still would not be racist to refer to their attire. You are so silly.

    Now I'm really putting the hex on those GATORS. They are as good as doomed.

    "I also think it's important to remember there is a real mission over there that is worth winning, although most libs like you can't see it." - bigred

    I've heard enough of these stupid remarks. How many Americans are now opposed the war in Iraq? 70%? Are all of these folks "bed wetting liberals"? Also, if liberals were committed against ALL war can you explain why there was no one I can recall that was against going into Afghanistan?

    Reasonable thinking people realize that war is at times necessary, but this misguided adventure in Iraq certainly is not.

    "They only care if WE are at war with anybody. If we aren't then the leftists are reasonably happy."

    Or if we are supporting one side in that war. E.g., a Israel.

    Does any liberal/leftist reading this believe that if we just leave Iraq, the war would be over?

    All the evidence I've seen is that the regional powers will increase their assistance to groups aligned with them. The Shi'a will slaughter the Sunnis since we won't be there to at least restraint them somewhat. The Sunnis elsewhere in the region will clearly not just sit by and watch that happen.

    There will be millions of women and children caught in the middle of this increased war. Millions of refugees will be trying to leave.

    My god, as bad as things are now - and I admit that - it will be a hundred times worse if we just "end the war by leaving."

    Don't Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi see this? What are thinking? Clearly they don't want that to happen.


    "How many lives would you have paid to win World War 2? Or the Civil War? Of our indepedence from Britain? In today's media environment, we would have lost all 3."

    I would have paid an extraordinarilly higher price to win any of the three wars you mention, because they were wars worth fighting, with clear objectives, & our nations future was on the line. They were all fought in Defense of our freedom. Not for some inane political objective, or oil, like the war in Iraq. Our future as a country was on the line, unlike in the Iraqi debacle.

    & while it would have been considerably more dificult for America to fight any of those wars today, we do not know how any of them would turn out. So, Big Re(i)d, what should we do about the media to ensure that we can win any forthcoming big wars? Should we put limits on our journalists freedoms? Should we limit the way Americans get their information?

    "Winning in Iraq means they have a stable government that does not harbor terrorists who are a threat to us and other countries."

    We will never be out of Iraq, if that is the case. Because there will always be forces in any country that threaten other countries. Look, we've got Red Wolf in America, for example. He threatens any country that is Muslim. How would we like it if China, for instance, were to bring their troops over here and tell us they are 'not leaving until America eradicates' all of our terrorists like Red Wolf. I would be, justifiably, I think, outraged.

    This should not by any means imply that I am supporting terrorists. It is just another way of looking at things.

    'That is possible, but democracies don't happen over night. Look how long ours took and how many lives were lost before everyone was allowed equal rights.'

    This is a good point, but ignores the basic question: How many lives would I pay for a free Iraq? Nowhere nearly as many lives as I'd pay for a free America.

    "I agree the loss of life has been tragic. I also think it's important to remember there is a real mission over there that is worth winning, although most libs like you can't see it."

    But what is that mission? Is it providing a free Iraq for Iraqis? If so, should we not let them fight their own battles? If there is a real mission other than this, then it must be stated to the American people... Which President Tumbleweed obviously hasn't yet done...

    "I didn't see any such posting, but if Keith Olbermann can insult a Jew by calling him a "monkey", then raghead seems pretty tame by comparison, no?"

    Posted by: johnny dollar at January 6, 2007 04:28 PM

    Johnny FRAUD, when did Olbermann call a Jew a monkey? You'd nbetter nsubstantiate that allegation.

    "I didn't see any such posting, but if Keith Olbermann can insult a Jew by calling him a "monkey", then raghead seems pretty tame by comparison, no?" -J$

    Real great reasoning, J$. Instead of being the bigger man and not saying a racial slur yourself you'll just return the favor. First off, I hate the word "monkey". In my memory, this was the first racial slur directed to me when some rednecks driving down the road decided to call 7 year old indierik this word. Secondly, I've never heard this term used to describe a Jew. I could be wrong, but I've personally never heard it.

    YOU'LL ALL BE GATOR BAIT!!!

    > Johnny FRAUD, when did Olbermann call a Jew a monkey? You'd nbetter nsubstantiate that allegation.

    Oh, like you substantiated the allegation that it's a "fact" that I work for Bill O'Reilly? Or that my website says I'm a woman? Or the most laughable one, that you are NOT an Olbypologist?

    I don't have to substantiate anything to you, considering that I posed a simple question to you at 1:33 in this very thread, and instead of answering it you ran away. I don't know if you were too cowardly to answer a question, or whether you had to get instructions, or what, but you ran away from that discussion, hoping that nobody would notice. Well I did.

    Indierik,

    Krazy Keith called Chris Wallace a monkey when Wallace dared ask Bill Clinton a couple of questions late in 2006. That is well documented. The Arab press, on a daily basis, has cartoons of Jews as monkeys.

    Again, insulting somebody's attire is not a racial slur, and Arabs/Muslims are not even a race.

    What the hell is "re(i)d" ?

    No,, I neveer ran away from it....

    As a matter of fact, I tried to answer it... But the g-ddamned website swallowed my posting... I will attempt to reconstruct it for you here, but it will take me awhile....

    & Yes, you most certainly DO have to substantiate yourself to me. BECAUSE, AS A JEW, I AM VERY INTERESTED IN THIS. I would like to see cites... As in an ACTUAL transcript from the show when he said this... Not some garbage from this website, like you cite in yoiur '10 toop lies' garbage...

    Proud,

    Google search:

    Keith Olbermann Chris Wallace monkey

    I know for a fact he called Wallace "a monkey" in a reporter's suit. I saw that show. It was the night after the Clinton interview, if I remember correctly.

    > Not some garbage from this website, like you cite in yoiur '10 toop lies' garbage...

    Well, there seems to be little question now about whether you are an Olbypologist or not. It's "garbage", with not one inaccuracy or error of fact cited. This from the man who demands "substantiation" of one of Olbermann's most notorious slurs.

    How come the righties are the ones who post the least intelligent comments ?

    Just an observation.

    "Again, insulting somebody's attire is not a racial slur, and Arabs/Muslims are not even a race." -Rico

    I have an experiment for you to attempt. Walk up to an Arab (Hopefully he'll be 6'4, 270 LBS), call him a "raghead" and wait for his reaction. For the 2nd part of the experiment walk up to anyone you come across and tell them "you're shirt is ugly". Although the 2nd person in the experiment may not be happy with you, I doubt it would match the reaction from subject A.

    Raghead is a racial slur. You're not insulting attire, but the person inside the attire.

    Stop now, Rico. You justifying this is painful to read.

    GO GATORS!!!

    P.S.- J$, have you noticed that Rico did not dispute using the word "raghead"? This, in itself, should show you he has in fact used it. You're a great AmeriKKKan, Rico!

    " . . .and Arabs/Muslims are not even a race." -Rico

    And to further beat down you're argument- being Jewish isn't a race either. By your logic it means you cannot be biggoted towards them either since they're "not even a race". SHEEESH.

    YOUR DEFINITELY GATOR BAIT TODAY, Rico.


    INEPT GOP SUPERSIZES TERRORISM IN BUNGLED IRAQ FIASCO

    -- French Allies Were Right All Along; BushCO Now Eating Crow, Not Freedom Fries --

    PARIS -- French President Jacques Chirac has unleashed a torrent of criticism against the US-led war in Iraq, saying the conflict, which he fiercely opposed, had boosted the spread of terrorism. In a wide-ranging New Year`s foreign policy speech Friday, Chirac fired a broadside at what he called Washington`s `adventure` in the Middle Eastern country, torn by sectarian strife almost four years after the invasion. `As France had foreseen and feared, the war in Iraq has sparked upheavals that have yet to show their full effects,` Chirac told the French diplomatic corps gathered in Paris. He said the conflict has `undermined the stability of the entire region, where every country now fears for its security and its independence.`


    Wow. Shocking stuff, anon. STOP THE PRESSES! CHIRAC CRITICIZES THE U.S.!

    Well, Proud, it's interesting you first deny that you've jumped to a specific conclusion on such a filmsy basis as someone not answering a question, to admitting it and trying to justify that tact.

    Of course you meant that there was no other valid conclusion but to think that Johnny is.... paid by O'Reilly (guilty).... simply because he ignored your question. I believe you phrased it that no one with a brain above their shoulders would be lead to believe otherwise than that "my CLAIMS are truth." In fact, you went beyond saying that Johnny's non-response LEAD you to believe something, to telling Anonyomous "He can deny it all he wants. But the fact of the matter is, he is an employee of the 'Big Falafel' (as KO would call him.)
    Posted by: PROUD to be a LIBERAL at January 6, 2007 11:01 AM

    How's THAT comment for saying someone is guilty until they prove themself innocent!

    I took you out of context? I don't THINK SO...


    You then write, "You are correct about the fact that I post freely. But I am correct when I say that taking my comments out of context is innacurate & furthermore serves no point other than to get in the way of an otherwise free argument.

    I should note, Cecilia, that if you continue to take my quotes out of context, I will no longer reply to your posts. Because that is my free right also..."

    Proud, YOU don't remember the context of your own posts, let alone anyone taking them out of it...


    More of your genius-- "Look out above, she's shitting again...."


    Well, here's how you began this Johnny accusation in this thread:

    "The answer to this question is obvious to any of us with brains of our own (my apologies for excluding you Cee, cecilia, Grannie, Red wolf, & others):" ....

    But you, poor baby, were shat upon....

    Damn right, putz. You ask for it and you'll get it everytime you write something stupid.

    Since that happens whenever you sit in front of a keyboard, better buy an umbrella.

    "I knew the "guilty until proven innocent" thing was a bit above your head and that you'd take it literary to mean that being a woman confers something "bad", but hey, there are some people here who can think abstractly and who might have enjoyed it.."

    Once again, I never said that being a woman was bad. (Unless of course, being that woman means being like you. In which case it is a VERY BAD THING!) All I said was that if he/she/IT was a woman, I was interested. 'Guilty until proven innocent thing?' Please... Spare us, cecilia....

    "About this whinning over me commenting on what you write, you post publicly with full knowledge that someone can point out your fallacies. Your stupidity is no one's problem but your own."

    You are correct about the fact that I post freely. But I am correct when I say that taking my comments out of context is innacurate & furthermore serves no point other than to get in the way of an otherwise free argument.

    I should note, Cecilia, that if you continue to take my quotes out of context, I will no longer reply to your posts. Because that is my free right also...

    Look out above, she's shitting again....

    "Jubilation,
    She loves me again,
    I fall on the floor and i'm laughing."


    Well, Proud, it's interesting you first deny that you've jumped to a specific conclusion on such a filmsy basis as someone not answering a question, to admitting it and trying to justify that tact.

    Of course you meant that there was no other valid conclusion but to think that Johnny is.... paid by O'Reilly (guilty).... simply because he ignored your question. I believe you phrased it that no one with a brain above their shoulders would be lead to believe otherwise than that "my CLAIMS are truth." In fact, you went beyond saying that Johnny's non-response LEAD you to believe something, to telling Anonyomous "He can deny it all he wants. But the fact of the matter is, he is an employee of the 'Big Falafel' (as KO would call him.)
    Posted by: PROUD to be a LIBERAL at January 6, 2007 11:01 AM

    How's THAT comment for saying someone is guilty until they prove themself innocent!

    I took you out of context? I don't THINK SO...


    You then write, "You are correct about the fact that I post freely. But I am correct when I say that taking my comments out of context is innacurate & furthermore serves no point other than to get in the way of an otherwise free argument.

    I should note, Cecilia, that if you continue to take my quotes out of context, I will no longer reply to your posts. Because that is my free right also..."

    Proud, YOU don't remember the context of your own posts, let alone anyone taking them out of it...


    More of your genius-- "Look out above, she's shitting again...."


    Well, here's how you began this Johnny accusation in this thread:

    "The answer to this question is obvious to any of us with brains of our own (my apologies for excluding you Cee, cecilia, Grannie, Red wolf, & others):" ....

    But you, poor baby, were shat upon....

    Damn right, putz. You ask for it and you'll get it everytime you write something stupid.

    Since that happens whenever you sit in front of a keyboard, better buy an umbrella.

    Did Chirac also speak of France's ruthless decades long campaign against Algeria? French loving slobbish Americans make me ILL.

    Here's the video of Olbermann saying that Pres. Clinton had been sandbagged by "a monkey posing as a newscaster"-- Chris Wallace.

    http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm??f=00&g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3&p=news_comment%20-%20analysis&t=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004160/&fg=&

    \"French loving slobbish Americans make me ILL.\"

    Especially when they\'re both right.

    "Especially when they\'re both right."

    Oy, the liberals embracing the French drives me nuts.

    EVERYTHING you guys complain about in the foreign policy-making of the Bush Administration is done by France in world affairs times ten.

    Unilateralism, arrogance, lack of concern about world opinion, et cetera.

    The French make Bush look like Jimmy Carter.

    You folks complain about Bush ignoring world opinion? And then embrace the French?

    Sacre bleu.

    OK, Johnnie FRAUD, here you go... You asked for it, you've got it... DO NOT EXPECT ME TO BE KIND REGARDING YOUR POOR JOURNALISM, THOUGH! (Oh, &, BTW, I realize that I am going to be labeled an 'Olbypologist' by you regardless, so this exercise in futility is rather futile of me. But I do it anyway, in the name of Justice.)

    "Really? You could have fooled me. Shall we put it to the test?"

    Sure... let's do that.

    "Did Olby LIE about O'Reilly Friday night? "

    I do not know... All I know is that I believe I heard Olbermann say that the interview was actually on Thursday night, not last night. I do not know if he watched the segment during commercial or during his 'taped segment,' if he actually talked to Andrea Mitchell, or what. All I know is that he was angry about what bill O' said...

    What say you to Olby's top 10 lies of 2006?

    I'd say that as far as a journalistic piece of work, it was truly grabage. You cite yourself so many times ity makes me sick, &, quite honestly, it was poorly written.

    Do you concede all of them, or even some of them, are, in fact lies?

    I do concede that some of these were lies. But let's go through them item by item.

    #10. Olbermann's ratings. I don't see any citations here (for instance, to Nielsen) to information that will give me a clear picture of this. So I do not know whether he was lying or not.

    #9. The Path to 9/11 movie. This movie was garbage. I will agree with you that Olbermann should have viewed it before critiquing it, but it was a false movie based not on facts but rather on guesses. Those that produced this movie should have to answer to the American people for it. I, myself, only watched about a half-hour of it, though, so I don't know.

    #8. The Duke rape case. Olbermmann was wrong to state that he was the only person who spotted the weakness of the case against the players on this team. That was a lie.

    #7. The Brit Hume quote was apparently a lie, also...

    #6. The drudge email. I know nothing about this email, even after reviewing all of your citations, & listening to the recording of the drudge report that you provided. I have no idea what this email was even about! But, if you must trust Matt Drudge (which I personally wouldn't) this seems like a lie also.

    #5. Your bosses quote. While this one is clearly a lie, it is very interesting the way you refer to Bill O'reilly as Mr. O (Whereas you refer to Olbermann by the term Monkeymann Ahab Olbermann, & Citzen Keith throughout the article... Suspicious, huh?)

    #4. The NIE on Iraq. While this was an oversight, it was not a lie. Go read your Daily Howler again, where they state that (paraphrasing) Olbermann should do a better job preparing for his evening newscast & less time on his afternoon sports show.

    #3. O'Reilly & Malmedy. Orelly is clearly the liar here. I watched both programs that night... (No, not at the same time..) & I clearly remember Bill O saying that Malmedy was an attack on the Nazis. I also recall Olbermann saying that Oreilly had changed the transcript in his favor, so I think i'll believe keith on this one.

    #2. The Habeus Corpus controversy. This one really gets my blood boiling, because it has to do with our rights as Human beings. I quote from the law:
    ‘‘(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to
    hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed
    by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who
    has been determined by the United States to have been properly
    detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination (S.3930 Section 7e(1)"

    While you are certainly correct that it does not infringe on the Habeus Corpus rights of any US CITIZEN, that only takes into account less than 1/20th of the worlds population. I, like Keith Olbermann, (& unlike President Tumbleweed,)believe in the rule of law. I am ABSOLUTELY against anything that limits the role of a fair judiciary to decide a case in favor of the rantings of one man. If it smells like fascism, if looks like fascism, if it tastes like fascism, it probably is fascism. Just like the signing statement regarding the right of the President to open our mail that was disclosed the other day, it ALWAYS smells of fascism to me when one man is given so much authority over the lives of another without judicial restraint. So, in conclusion, Keith was MOST CERTAINLY not lying about this one.

    #1. The 218 Consecutive shows. John Gibson is nothing but a republi-fascist, right wing, FOX News tool. He may accuse Olbermann of being a liberal all he wants. You are wrong on this one, Johnny FRAUD!!

    It is obvious to me (& to anyone who actually listens to your citations) that Olbermann never said that he was on 218 consecutive shows. That wasn't even the point of the Conversation that he & Craig Ferguson were having. Rather, the point was that he is not a liberal! So now you are taking Olbermann's views about his own political beliefs, attempting to spin them against him, by inferring that he lies in saying that he really is not a liberal? That's very petty.

    I did not get MSNBC on my cable system until around 2000, so unfortunately I couldn't watch Olbermann during the Blow Job Scandal. But, alas, I can see why one would not want to be associated with that.

    Our totals: 2 lies, & 2 maybes, & 4 that are somewhere in the grey area between lies & truth, & two outright truths... Your hitting .200... That's a pretty good batting average... For a pitcher!

    "Once we establish YOUR bona fides, then maybe we can get to your preposterous claim that my website identifies me as a woman, or that I secretly draw a paycheck from Bill O'Reilly."


    Of note, Johnny FRAUD, I'd like to say that the new picture up on your website is certainly a dorky looking fellow? Is that the real you? Or is it just another picture you took off some random website, (kinda like the picture of the girl that you had up there as of this morning?)

    Perhaps Olbermann went too far calling Wallace "a monkey posing as a newscaster."

    But to see this as some kind of anti-Jewish slur is ridiculous.

    Keith Olbermann is an embarrassment to Cable News!
    His lies are well documented and never ending.

    No need to read 308 posts.....

    My apologies...

    Our updated toals: 3 lies, & 2 maybe, & 3 that are somewhere in the grey area between lies & truth, & 2 outright truths...

    Wow... That's a.300 average... You might be good enough to play for the Pirates afterall...

    "Perhaps Olbermann went too far calling Wallace "a monkey posing as a newscaster."

    But to see this as some kind of anti-Jewish slur is ridiculous."

    Posted by: Paul Falduto at January 6, 2007 07:08 PM

    Awwwe, c'mon, Paul.... You are taking all of the fun out of these right wingers days! They aren't petty aboput anything, now, are they?

    Cecelia- are you kidding me? This video doesn't exactly prove or even hint that Olby is an antisemite. But thanks for posting it. It's always fun to rehash the day Clinton gave Wallace the beating, of beatings, of all intellectual beatings. This interview will forever label Wallace as "the guy that was humiliated" during an interview.

    Have a good night wingnuts! Because of this global warming thing you don't believe in, I'm getting on my GSXR during the first week of January. Oh, and don't worry- I always wear my helmet so I'll live another day to refute your nuttiness.

    GO GATORS!!!

    Below is the post from RedWolf late last night that Cee and Brandon defend as a justifiable response to people on the left attacking the Christian right for selling their religion into politics in this nation. They claim what Redwolf posted (see below) is to be equated with Christian persecution here on OW. The issue is racism not religious persecution. Do the people here on both the left or the right know the difference?


    Rico,
    These jokes will get the Left mad. Hey they can crack Christian jokes right!

    Q: How come the Taliban are not circumcised?
    A: It gives them a place to put their bubblegum during a sandstorm.

    (Q): A deadly snake and a Muslim are both approaching you rapidly, you are a dead shot, you have a gun, but only one bullet, which one do you shoot ?
    (A): The MUSLIM of course !! The snake only bites when provoke. We know the Muslim’s intention.

    I don’t personally have anything against Muslims.
    In fact, I think everyone should own one or two !!

    Q: What do female Muslims use for birth control?
    A: Their faces.

    Q: What’s the difference between a Muslim and a dead horse?
    A. It’s no fun beating a dead horse.

    Q. What’s the difference between an American BBQ and an Islamic BBQ?
    A. In America, Humans roast animals over a fire. In Islam, it’s the other way around.

    Q. What do you say to a Muslim with his arm all the way up a camel’s rump?
    A. “Having car trouble?”

    Q. What’s the difference between Cindy Sheehan and a terrorist enemy?
    A. I don’t know either.

    Q. What’s the difference between Michael Moore and a one ton CARE package?
    A. Michael Moore, if sliced real thin, can feed a larger Afghan village.

    Q: What’s the definition of a virgin in the Middle East?
    A: Any camel that can run faster than an Muslim.
    Posted by: Red Wolf at January 6, 2007 02:48 AM

    Most of the right-wingers on this blog have not only lost all sense of decency, they have lost all sense of proporation.

    I can understand disagreement with Olbermann's and his his guest's views, although he and they can't ALWAYS be wrong as the wingers here seem to think. If they were, they would lose their jobs.

    As terrible a President as I think Bush is, he isn't ALWAYS wrong.

    Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    "although he and they can't ALWAYS be wrong as the wingers here seem to think."

    That's an interesting way of looking at things.

    Question: Has Olbermann ever complimented Bush or the Bush Administration on ANYTHING they've ever done?

    I've watched his show (off and on admittedly) for most of the past 5 years or so. And I've never seen him give credit to this Administration for anything.

    Remember: This is "Olbermann Watch", not "Rightwing Critics of Keith Olbermann Watch".

    I shall grade PtBaL's test, and let the clear-headed readers decide if he is an OlbyPologist.

    > "Did Olby LIE about O'Reilly Friday night? " I do not know..

    Correct answer: Olby said O attacked him. The video is online and proves O never mentioned him, even in passing. So that is a lie, and that means 1 Olbypologist point.

    > #10: I don't see any citations here (for instance, to Nielsen)

    Correct answer: The links provide full documentation of all these ratings lies. What's more, you can look any of them up on sites like Inside Cable News to double check their veracity. OlbyPologist score is now: 2.

    > #9. The Path to 9/11 movie. This movie was garbage.

    Correct answer: Whether the movie was garbage or not, Olby said it blamed Democrats ALONE, when it clearly did not. Another lie. Olbypologist score: 3.

    > #8 and #7: Correct answers given here. Score still 3.

    > #6. The drudge email. I know nothing about this email...

    Correct answer: Not judge Drudge but also the Washington Post revealed it came from ABC, not the White House. Our student fudged his answer ("if you believe Drudge") so he's evading the point and trying to defend Olby. Olbypologist score: 4.

    > #5. Correct answer given here. Score still 4.

    > #4. The NIE on Iraq. While this was an oversight, it was not a lie.

    Correct answer: It could be considered an oversight on the day it was spoken. But as we explained in the setup to the list, we discarded any items where Olbermann issued a correction. When you don't do a correction, knowing that you have disseminated false info, and instead let the false info stand, at that point you are deliberately making what could have been a mistake into a lie. OlbyPologist score is now: 5

    > #3. O'Reilly & Malmedy. Orelly is clearly the liar here....I also recall Olbermann saying that Oreilly had changed the transcript in his favor, so I think i'll believe keith on this one.

    Correct answer: Probably the most blatantly Olbypologistic response on the entire test! I'm basing this not on the Malmedy controversy itself, which I'm giving PtBaL the benefit of the doubt on. But on his citing of the Olby LIE about the transcript, a lie which has been definitely rebutted. And he continued to tell that lie even after the transcript company (the same one that does his show) exposed it as a lie. Our student either didn't follow the documentation links on this one, or deliberately ignored them. OlbyPologist score is now: 6

    > #2 While you are certainly correct that it does not infringe on the Habeus Corpus rights of any US CITIZEN...Keith was MOST CERTAINLY not lying about this one.

    Correct answer: Our student is really showing his hand now. He admits that the habeas rights for US citizens are unchanged, but then insists that Keith wasn't lying when he said they WERE. I should add double points for this ridiculous argument, but in the interests of fairness, I'll just note that the Olbypologist score is now: 7.

    > #1: It is obvious to me (& to anyone who actually listens to your citations) that Olbermann never said that he was on 218 consecutive shows....

    Correct answer: He didn't? The Craig Ferguson video shows him saying it. Then he turned around and DENIED he said it, changing his "I" to a "we" so he could claim Gibson got it wrong. Then he lied about John Gibson because Gibson accurately quoted what he said in the Ferguson video. Note the trademark Olbypologist use of distraction ("that wasn't even the point") and counterattack ("Gibson is a republifascist"). He should get bonus points for these, but we'll give him what he deserves for blatantly falsifying the content of the Ferguson video.

    Final Olbypologist score for PtBaL: 8.

    I invite all clear-thinkers to note PtBaL's responses and evasions to the documented lies of Keith Olbermann. These include claiming a video doesn't include a statement it clearly does, agreeing that something Olby said was wrong but then insisting that it's still not a lie, demurring with "I don't knows", changing the subjects, attacking others, and in general muddying the waters.

    Fine, ohboy, if the wingers think Olbermann is always wrong, say so in a reasoned and sober way.

    But johnny's "analyses" and the vast majority of right wing comments I see here are neither.

    this site should be called "Olbermannbash.com" because that's exactly what johnny's nightly "analysis" is.

    Keith's a loon. He's lost it. Wolffie is nuts. "The Perfesser" is an idiot.

    Why? Doesn't matter why! they just are!

    Right.

    Wow... Only a score of 8... :-( Sucks to be me, I suppose.., Still, .800 is better than your bating .300, though.

    C'mon now, Paul... It's all because they don't agree with President Tumbleweed on everything!

    G-d forbid anybody ever disagrees with their one true G-d!!

    I was trying to find the cartoon image of a guy banging his head until blood spurts all over- I'm sure it has a name. That has come to mind several times while reading Proud's comments.

    You misunderstand the score. Your .800 means you were 80% wrong in coming up with .300 for me. If I'm being graded by an Olbypologist, I'm happy to be given a .300. The only thing better would be a .200, a .100, or a zero. Thank you so much.

    It's no mproblem... Now, are you ghoing to reveal your financial backers to all of us, Johnny FRAUD? Are you going to explain those pictures up on your website? Or are you going to blow bthat off also?

    Sure, if you can tell me what you're talking about?

    Oh, yes, & BTW... That .300 was to the truth's you told... SO, I'd imagine (being the wing-nut you are) that you would be proud of the rating. Afterall,your G-d Tumbleweed is a pretty good liar too... Not to mention your boss...

    So let me see if I follow this. JD has pictures of Fox news personalities on his website and it automatically makes him in the employ of Rupert Murdoch?

    So if I follow this line of reasoning it means the Olbyloons who set up websites to Mr. Egotistical and Biased are also then therefore employees of Olbermann's? Well that certainly explains a LOT.

    "But johnny's "analyses" and the vast majority of right wing comments I see here are neither."

    Then start your own site called "Olbermann Watch Watch".

    You can monitor critics of Olbermann who post here.

    Look, in all seriousness, Olbermann is a terrible "news anchor" and Countdown is a terrible "news show." The program is a tendentious and biased presentation of events. It is not a news show and he is not a news anchor even though MSNBC advertises it as so.

    If Olbermann wants to be a liberal O'Reilly or a liberal equivalent of Limbaugh, then openly acknowledge that the show is a opinion show and that he is providing news opinion or analysis.

    If he did that, I'd stop complaining (for the most part).

    It's the fundamental dishonesty of Olbermann and MSNBC that irks most of us.

    Bob,
    How your picture of Uncle Joe Stalin doing. Have you wiped it lately. Hey do you still have that shirt of Pol Pot or that Soviet Commisar uniform?

    johnny, I was reading some of your FAQs today and have a few more to add that would fit in just fine with others.

    Q: Is Keith ALWAYS wrong?

    A: Yes.

    Why?: He's always wrong because he's never right.


    Q: Does "Wolffie" really kiss Keith's ass?

    A: Yes.

    Why?: Because he's an ass-kisser.


    Q: Is "The Perfesser" really a loon?

    A: Yes.

    Why?: Because he says loony things.


    Q: What are "San Francisco values?"

    A: Values they hold in San Francisco.


    This site is one giant tautology.

    > So let me see if I follow this. JD has pictures of Fox news personalities on his website and it automatically makes him in the employ of Rupert Murdoch?

    No, no. Get your facts straight. It proves I'm in the employ of BILL O'REILLY. Didn't you read PtBaL. THat's a "fact"!

    KAF... Go read all of my posts before commenting again, please....

    PROUD to be a LIBERAL and Paul Falduto,
    Olbermann calling Wallace a Monkey is Racist. Muslims call Jews Monkets. It's an anti-Jewish slur. That make Olbermann anti-Semetic. Also during the Hizballah/Israel conflict he openly sided with Hizballah and blamesd Israel. He's anti-Semetic. Oh how about that NAZI salute?

    Liberalism is one giant tautology.

    Oh please, johnny, because Muslims use that term as a slur it means everyone who uses it also intends it a slur?

    That's ridiculous on its face.

    In this country, monkey or chimp is used as a slur against blacks, not Jews.

    Unfortunatly, I've heard plenty of slurs directed against Jews in my life, but monkey has never been one of them.

    Your absolute hatred of Olbermann has caused you to lose any sense of proportion in vindictive against him.

    "PROUD to be a LIBERAL and Paul Falduto,
    Olbermann calling Wallace a Monkey is Racist. Muslims call Jews Monkets. It's an anti-Jewish slur. That make Olbermann anti-Semetic. Also during the Hizballah/Israel conflict he openly sided with Hizballah and blamesd Israel. He's anti-Semetic. Oh how about that NAZI salute?"

    Posted by: Red Wolf at January 6, 2007 08:07 PM

    The "people" on this site really are too much. You really need help if you consider Keith olbermann a racist for calling somebody a monkey in a non racial context. All of you make me laugh with the extent of your stupidity. OK, red wolf, here goes nothing. You are a troublemaker. Am I now all of a sudden an anti-christian because I called you a troublemaker? Before you say anything more, remember, there were Jews who called Jesus a troublemaker right before he was Crucified...

    You make a whole lot of sense.

    And please provide some quotes showing us how Olbermann "sided with Hezbollah."

    Sorry, my last 2 posts were directed at Red Wolf, not johnny. My bad.

    PROUD to be a LIBERAL,
    Monkey is a racial term for Jews in Islamic society. Olbermann is Pro-Muslim. He knows the term is racist. My fiance who's Israeli, read his comments and ahe thought it was anti-Jewish. Also why did he do the Nazi salute? The ADL condemned him for that.

    Paul,
    During a broadcast during the conflict I remeber him blaming Israel and making Hizballah to be innocent victims.
    Why do you Lefties get touchy about Islam. You guys attack Christians but God forbid Muslims are attacked! I will continue to attack that Cult and savage society because that's the Left's achille heels. You guys get touchy about it. So I'll keep going there.
    Hey did you know Mohammed married a 9 year old name Aisha. Also do you know Muslims hate Dogs!
    How about Muslims cab drivers refusing to pick up blind people with their dogs. Isn't that descriminatory against the Handicaps? Why isn't the Left outrage over that?

    Forgive me Red Wolf if I don't trust your memory. Please provide some quotes.

    I no more "attack" Christians than I "defend" Muslims. If I "attack" anyone, it is the extremists of both religions.

    There are good people and bad people in every religion.

    QUOTE OF THE DAY !

    Wondering if the righties like Grim, Cecilia,Cee etc. are against investigations into corruption and war profiteering by this administration.
    =================================================
    I'll repost the response I made the first time to this:

    I love how people characterize me. Especially how I'm a "rightie bush lover" just because I'm not having a heart attack or breakdown from the fact that Bush is still alive.

    Here's an explination: I'm a "rightie" because I WANT as little government as possible. Let the investigations take place. Whatever. I'm certainly not one that's been completely pleased with Bush. The difference between us, is that I think he's doing about as well a job as anyone can as far as foreign policy is concerned, but I've certainly not been thrilled with his domestic policy.

    I mean, I thought you liberals were all about nuance, but you apparently can't see that someone MIGHT agree with bush about a few things, but not ALL things. Do you think LIKE bush? "If you're not against him, your for him" ?

    How very narrow of all of you.

    Paul
    Here goes Johhny's recap from July 31

    http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/07/index.html

    Hey how about those Muslim Cab drivers refusing to drive blind people with their dogs? Is that descrimination against blind people?

    PROUD to be a LIBERAL,
    "Monkey is a racial term for Jews in Islamic society. Olbermann is Pro-Muslim. He knows the term is racist. My fiance who's Israeli, read his comments and ahe thought it was anti-Jewish. Also why did he do the Nazi salute? The ADL condemned him for that."

    OK... So what do you think of (former) Senator George Allen's Macacah statement? you must absolutely hate that guy, right, red wolf?

    As far as the Nazi salute goes, I believe he was mocking the right wing when he did it. But I cannot answer for Keith...

    As for your bupcoming marriage, I congratulate you. However, you should realize that just because your fiance' says something is one way, does not make it that way automatically.

    I honestly do not know if mmonkey is a anti-semetic term somewhere in the world. I do not think that Keith did either. & in the CONTEXT he was using it, (via the video so graciously provided by our bird dropping friend,) it didn't come off as racist to me. But you may have your own opinion, (until Bush or gingrich or mccain take that right away also, that is!)

    Challenger Grim,
    When Bush is gone I'll feel sorry for these Lefties. What will they bitch about?

    "Paul
    Here goes Johhny's recap from July 31

    http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/07/index.html"

    Posted by: Red Wolf at January 6, 2007 08:40 PM

    Red Wolf.... i think that if you want to convince us of anything, that you should probably refrain from referenceing this site. I mean, if you want objectivity, Johnny FRAUD is certainly NOT going to give that to you!

    First of all, Red Wolf, I meant actual quotes from Keith, not johnny's spin on them.

    Second, I see nothing at all in that digest refering to support for Hezbollah. The only thing about Hezbollah mentioned is Olbermann asking a guest if Israel "miscalculated" when they went into Lebanon. That hardly indicates "support" for Hezbollah; many people (including me) who think that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization asked the same question. It is a question purely about military tactics, and does not in any way, shape or form indicate "support for Hezbollah."

    Try again.

    Proud to be a Liberal,
    "OK... So what do you think of (former) Senator George Allen's Macacah statement? you must absolutely hate that guy, right, red wolf?"

    I actually don't like George Allen. I hated him before the Macaca. He's an anti-Hispanic bigot. He was anti Immigrant wanted to make illegals felons and not give them a path to citizenship.
    If I had lived in Virginia I would've voted for Webb.

    My gosh, Red Wolf actually has an ounce of sense in him!

    Want to try for 2 ounces, Red Wolf? You're on a roll!

    LOLOLOLOLOL

    And tell me this, Red Wolf, why is anti-Hispanic bigotry so abhorant but your anti-Muslim bigotry OK?

    Shouldn't you be against both? I know I am.

    Paul Falduto,
    In that program or one earlier than that he condemned Israel.

    Hey what about the Muslims Cab Drivers refusing to serve blind people with their dogs? Answer that? Also why didn't Olbermann covered that the same way he covered the Iman's be detained?

    Proud to be a Liberal,
    "I honestly do not know if mmonkey is a anti-semetic term somewhere in the world. "
    Yes in the Islamic world Monkey is a term for Jews. In fact in the Koran Jews are reffered to as Monkeys. Olbermann knew damn well what he was doing.

    Of course you are correct, Red Wolf, we should condemn 1 billion Muslims because of the actions of a couple cab drivers.

    How could I have failed to see your point???

    Still no quotes, I see, Red Wolf.

    but of course, YOU KNOW it is true, so it must be.

    Once again, I have failed to see that you are indeed correct!!!

    Paul Falduto,
    Hispanics are here trying to take over America, Muslims are. which of the 19 hijackers wre hispanic? None. Also Hispanics belong to the same Judeo-Christian European Civilization as most Americans.
    Also my ancestors were almost genocidally wipe out by Muslims in their invasions of Spain and Sicily, so I hold a grudge. Hey some Blacks hold a grudge against white people for slavery, I'm entitled to hold my grudge.
    Let me put it better perspective for you,
    If Hispanics became the majority in this country, not much would change. If Muslims do, everything would. Sharia would be implemented and non-Muslims would be made Dhimmis.

    And even if Olbermann did "condemn" Israel, does that mean he "supports" Hezbollah.

    Isn't it possible that BOTH sides were wrong?

    You hold 12-century-old "grudges" Red Wolf?

    Ever hear of "closure?"

    "Isn't it possible that BOTH sides were wrong?"

    No, Israel is an American ally that was defending itself. Hizballah is a terrorist group with the blood of Americans on them?
    So let me ask you this. Going by Olby logic then the US was wrong to go into Afghanistan.

    Also anser my about the Muslim cab drivers. Why no condemnation of them from Olberloon and the Left?

    I answered your silly cab driver thing at 9:01pm.

    Honestly, I don't why I bother with you. I must be a masochist.

    And why is it always about you, Red Wolf?

    There are other people in this world, you know.

    Paul Falduto,
    So how about closure on the part of Jews, Blacks and Native Americans on what was done to them?

    Let me also add that I in no way support a cab driver refusing to take passengers because of their religious beliefs.

    Any one who does should be immediately dismissed in my opinion and if the cab company refuses, they should lose their licenses.

    But again, condemning a whole religion because of the actions of extremists makes no sense to me.

    Paul,
    the fact is Islam is an expanionist cult. Look at were Islam borders other civilizations there's conflict!
    Ethipia/Somaolia, Russia/Chechnya, Bosnia/Serbia, Serbia/Kossovo, Armenia/Azerberjian, Thailand/Muslim Thais, Philipines/Islamic Filipinos, France/Muslim Immigrants, Britian/Muslims immigrants, Netherlands/Muslim Immigrants, Pakistan/India and Isreal/Islamic militants. Obviously like all Leftists your blinded by Political Correctness. Because you on the Left control the Media and education systems people don't know the truth about Islam. My ancestors fought them for 700 years and I don't want my decendants to fight them for 700 years. I say nip problem in the bud now. No Islamic immigration to the US. There are plen of Hispanics, Indians, Non Islamic asians who're willing to come here! That will solve the problem.

    It appears to me that the vast majority of blacks, American Indians and Jews have done "closure."

    Red Wolf, I've seen many close-minded, uniformed, bigoted people in my day, but you take the cake.

    I don't know how anyone can go through life thinking the way you do.

    I pity you, I really do.

    And this is my last response to you. You are a hopeless case.

    "It appears to me that the vast majority of blacks, American Indians and Jews have done "closure."

    No there's no closure on their part. There shouldn't be. One should never forget what was done to your ancestors. The difference is that America has more than made up what happened to Blacks and Native Americans. As for Jews, Especially Israelis they hate Germany! They'll never forgive and they shouldn't. Muslims have nevr repaid Hispanics what was done to us for 700 years. taht's why there's no closue. I don't want them here.

    Sorry, I meant "uninformed" above, not "uniformed."

    Paul Falduto,
    My Israeli fiance who's cousin was killed in a suicide Bombing can tell you about Islamic tolerance.

    Paul Falduto,
    Your just a head in the sand Leftist. You obviously can't see the threat Islam is. Thanks to Hispanic immigration this nation will never be Islamic. Unlike Europe were Muslims will take over in the next 50 years.So too bad. There'll never be Sharia law in America thank God!

    Excellent cover story about Iraq in TIME this week, long but well worth reading:


    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1574148-5,00.html

    Key quote: "Bush's real exit strategy in Iraq may just be to exit the presidency first."

    "Hispanics are here trying to take over America, Muslims are."

    pat Buchanan would disagree with you on this one, Red Wolf! Just thought you'd like to know...

    Paul Falduto,
    Is Bush the focus of your life? everything you write is Bush, Bush, Bush. Take Johnny Dollar's offere write a guest summary and name it Bushwatch. This is Olbermann watch. Thepoint of this site is to expose Olbermann as the Propagandist fraud he is.

    "Thepoint of this site is to expose Olbermann as the Propagandist fraud he is."

    Posted by: Red Wolf at January 6, 2007 09:43 PM

    Wrong!! The point of this site is to bash Keith Olbermann... Just ask Johnny FRAUD!! He'll tell you that much... Or maybe he won't tell you anything... You never know with that jackass...

    PROUD to be a LIBERAL,
    I hate Pat Buchanan. He's a hypocrite. His ancestors are Catholic immigrants like Hispanics are. He's a nobody. A has been. If your trying to turn this into a Left vs. Right issue keep in mind I grew up in NYC. The most racist people I encountred were White Blue Collar Union Democtats and Elitists Manhattan Jews. So lets not go there. There are racists in both parties. Buchanan is a nobody. Frustrated old man who's views are irrelevent.

    Olbermann is also anti-Hispanic. I've seen him mock Spanish activities like tomatoo throwing, running of the Bulls and Bull Fighting by taking with a mock Spanish accent. But what do you expect. He's your typical NY Racist liberal.

    No Red Wolf, I was not trying to turn this into a left v. right issue... I was just pointing out that there are people within (or, in Pat Buchanan's case, perhaps without) your party who would disagree with you... I would agree with you that Buchanan is a frustrated old man. But to label someone who has gotten as much face-time on TV over the past couple of decades as Pat Buchanan irrelevent strikes me as a bit odd...

    PROUD to be a LIBERAL,
    I'm not a Republican. I've made this clear many times. There are plent of people in the Democratic party who're racists towards Hispanics. Especially in California and the Northeast.

    Accroding to the digest above, Dan Burton voted against the ethics bill because he thought it was too weak.

    Say what?

    Maybe it isn't everything he wanted, but its a major step forward and everyone but him voted for it.

    This doesn't pass the "smell test."

    Proud writes:

    "I honestly do not know if mmonkey is a anti-semetic term somewhere in the world. I do not think that Keith did either. & in the CONTEXT he was using it, (via the video so graciously provided by our bird dropping friend,)

    Actually, it was gleefully provided. Yer welcome..

    Contrast this statement of Proud's:

    "Yes, you most certainly DO have to substantiate yourself to me. BECAUSE, AS A JEW, I AM VERY INTERESTED IN THIS. I would like to see cites... As in an ACTUAL transcript from the show when he said this... Not some garbage from this website, like you cite in yoiur '10 toop lies' garbage..."


    With this statement after his demand was met:

    "I honestly do not know if mmonkey is a anti-semetic term somewhere in the world. I do not think that Keith did either. & in the CONTEXT he was using it,

    ****[the context is Olbermann being mad as a wet hen at Chris Wallace...]*****

    (via the video so graciously provided by our bird dropping friend,) it didn't come off as racist to me. But you may have your own opinion, (until Bush or gingrich or mccain take that right away also, that is!)


    Notice the last sentence in Proud's statement above. With this sort of honest and sincere inquisitiveness and response to having had your initial demand (and the implications thereof...) met, why wouldn't Johnny or anyone else just knock themselves out answering Proud's charges and demands...

    Hint--( Because he's the fraud.)


    Did Olbermann even know that Wallace is Jewish? It's news to me.

    Again, perhaps his comment was out of line. But to spin it as a anti-Jewish slur is just nuts.

    Here's an interesting little tidbit I found on the website of "Jewish News Weekly of Northern California":

    “60 Minutes” reporter Mike Wallace, 88, says that this season will be his last with the show.

    Last year, Wallace talked about his Jewish background to author Abigail Pogrebin. He recounted how he grew up in a moderately observant home and he says he still recites the Sh’ma prayer every night before retiring. However, he has not been a practicing Jew in his adulthood and only his first wife (he is now married to No. 4) was Jewish.

    Wallace says he was hurt by charges that he was a “self-hating Jew” because of some hard-hitting pieces he did on Israel and he defined himself in general terms as a supporter of Israel.

    He told Pogrebin that he has to remind his son, Fox cable newsman Chris Wallace, that Chris is, in fact, Jewish. (Mike had Chris with his Jewish wife.) Wallace explained that Chris was raised by a non-Jewish stepfather, is married to a non-Jewish woman and barely acknowledges being Jewish. (Why a Jewish couple named their son Chris is a question Pogrebin didn’t ask.)


    Comment from me: I really doubt, given the above, that Olbermann even thought of Chris Wallace as a Jew when he made his "monkey" statement. Apparantly, Chris Wallace doesn't even think of himself as Jewish, according to his own father.

    You all are way, way off base on this one!

    Right, Paul. Why should anyone be critical of someone bellowing at the camera that Chris Wallace is a monkey? Maybe he didn't mean it as the prototypical smear used by Islamicists ("Jewish monkeys and pigs"). Maybe he just meant to say, hey, you're a monkey.

    Of course, that same Olbermann reported a dozen times that George Allen called someone a "macaca", which, in certain societies, on certain islands, is considered to be referring to a monkey. That's WAY worse than actually calling someone a "monkey". Calling someone a monkey? Perfectly acceptable. Calling someone an obscure word that is taken as a reference to a monkey? Headline news for two weeks.

    Don't take this as defending "macaca", which I don't. Take it as illustrating again Olbermann's rank hypocrisy. If someone he dislikes does something, he'll rail about it and never let up. But then if HE does it, that's all right. He's Olbermann. He's above his own rules.

    Anon post at 10:51 was me.

    johnny, as I posted above, calling Wallace a monkey was wrong in my book. I'm not the "anti-johnny" here; I don't think Olbermann is always correct the way you think he is always wrong.

    But again, to spin this as an anti-Jewish slur is just nuts.

    "Comment from me: I really doubt, given the above, that Olbermann even thought of Chris Wallace as a Jew when he made his "monkey" statement. Apparantly, Chris Wallace doesn't even think of himself as Jewish, according to his own father.

    You all are way, way off base on this one!"

    If Chris Wallace's extremely famous father Mike Wallace is known to be Jewish to the extent that he's caught flak for being a "self-hating Jew" over pieces he's done that are critical of Israeli policy, then the level of Chris Wallace's identification with judaism is moot. People would identify the son with judaism because of his very famous father.

    I'm a pretty informed person and I never knew until reading comments about Chris Wallace on this thread that the Wallaces are Jewish.

    Isn't it possible Olbermann didn't know either?

    "Monkey" might be an Islamic slur for Jews, but it isn't one that is well-known in this country. I have heard it as a slur used against blacks, yes, but never Jews.

    Again, I think the total hatred you and others here have for Olbermann has made you lose all sense of proportion.

    Can't you just disagree with the man, do you have to make him out to be the devil incarnate?

    Paul:

    Red Wolf IS indeed a hopeless case and many on his OWN side have tried to point this out to him, but someone as thick headed as he is will never get it.

    He literally overwhelms this discussion board 24 hours a day with a never ending barrage of pointless, racist, but mostly hopelessly ignorant rants that are clearly the product of a disturbed mind.

    Yet he persists! ....Post, after post, after post, after post of intolerant rants branding everyone in the world except those with his own kind of perverted thinking with admittantly very creative derogatory labels. if 'victory' on a discussion board can be achieved through sheer persistance, he will be 'victorious' indeed.

    The thing he fears most is being ignored, so you have the right idea!

    > "Monkey" might be an Islamic slur for Jews, but it isn't one that is well-known in this country. I have heard it as a slur used against blacks, yes, but never Jews.

    Oh, well, if it's a slur against blacks, then it's OK for Olbermann to use it against a Jew. This opens whole new vistas for Olby Slurs. He can call anyone any racial slur in the book, as long as it applies to some OTHER minority than his victim's.

    It never occured to you, I suppose, that a grown man playing journalist on TV shouldn't bellow into the camera that ANYONE is a monkey? And whether he knew about the victim being Jewish or not, whether the victim WAS Jewish or not, anyone like Olby spouting that kind of invective should be reprimanded. And should apologize publicly.

    Nah, that can't be. Olbermann doesn't do apologies.

    When did I say it was OK to use it against anyone? In fact, I justed posted it was not, in my opinion.

    And, as usual, your last post makes no sense. Olbermann knew it was a slur against blacks, so he used it against a white man?

    Say what? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

    It was inapprpriate. But it is highly, highly unlikely that he intended it as a racial slur.

    Again, your total hatred against Olbermann makes you so nuts, you lose all sense of proportion.

    Oh, do you claim Olbermann did NOT know it's a slur against blacks? I'm confused. You say it's not "OK" to use it against anyone, but you then characterize my statement that he should have had the decency to apologize as "nuts".

    Are you saying he was "not OK" to say it, but it doesn't require a reprimand, it doesn't require an apology? What then does it require? Enlisting of Olbypologists to interpret it in the least-negative fashion and pooh-pooh even a suggestion that he should apologize?

    Olbermann is easy to hate. Dollar see's to it that we have fun doing it.

    He probably did know it is a racial slur against blacks, it is a common one I have heard many times, unfortunatly.

    But Wallace is not black! So how in the hell could it be a racial slur when it is one used against blacks, not whites or Jews.

    I've seen tortured contorted reasoning before, but you're one of the best at it I've ever seen, johnny.

    My gosh, if he wanted to insult his religion, there are unfortunatly plenty of common slurs against Jews he could have used.

    And once again, you twist my words: I never said it was nuts to say he should apologize, I said it was nuts to see it a racial slur.

    Incidentally, the "monkey" comment to Jewish Wallace was made after some pro-Jew groups hassled Keith for using the Nazi salute.

    If he had called a black man a monkey, it would very likely have been a racial slur, as again, that is a very commonly used slur against blacks in this country.

    But he didn't. End of story.

    Except in the mind of the Olbyhaters. To them, he is the devil and everything he says or does is not just wrong, but evil.

    Olbermann uses the Nazi salute as a bash against Bush, implying that Bush is a becoming a dictator.

    Inappropriate. Yes. Anti-Jewish? No way.

    > I never said it was nuts to say he should apologize

    Then what is your position? He should have apologized? He should apologize now? There was no need for him to apologize? He should have been reprimanded by MSNBC? MSNBC should not reprimand him? He should be allowed to call people such names? He shouldn't? Do you have a position other than calling me nuts?

    Johnny:

    I for one, have personally conceded some of Olbermann's many flaws more than once on this board. I truly wish this guy WOULD refrain from ever calling ANY newsmaker or other news personality something like 'monkey', etc. These are things he cannot ever take back and do nothing to further his point of view.

    That said, he DOES fill a very unique nitch in television news that would otherwise go unfilled, if not for him. I personally believe this is a very important nitch because no one else is doing it. The point of view he represents (except labeling other pundits and journalists with creative errogatory names) is very prevalent in today's America, and those of us who share this general point of view have felt an endless sense of frustration that literally no other TV 'journalists' are forcefully speaking out in a similar manner.

    For example, I have tried watching O'Reilly, the only real alternative in the time slot many times with a new set of eyes, but all I see is an intolerant and equally arrogant pundit who literally degrades anyone and everyone who doesn't follow his own narrow minded way of thinking. This man really believes nonsense like he is leading a "culture war", and that the so called "war on Christmas" was a serious problem for America, and clearly, judging by the ratings, he has succeeded in persuading many others....However, I personally cannot sit here and take anyone seriously who honestly thinks stories like the Duke rape case are major news stories, when we literally are stuck in a controversial war, and being 'led' by a controversial President who sorely needs more media scutiny, not less.

    I for one, hope you are eventually successful in getting KO to clean up his act and see that his antics are actually hurting his cause, rather than helping it. However, for the moment, he remains practically the only alternative.

    I like Keith Olbermann and think he has some good guests, usually journalists. His commentaries usually hit the mark, in my opinion, but not always.

    He isn't a god, he isn't always right, he says and does inappropriate things at times.

    But don't O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity say and do inappropriate things sometimes too? And, in fact, much more often that Olbermann? In my opinion, they do, especially Limbaugh.

    I have perspective, I have a sense of proporation.

    Most of you Olbyhaters seem to have these things, if you ever had them to begin with, that is.

    The last sentence in my last post should have read "...have LOST these things..."

    I really should preview before I post.

    Har! Har! Har! Har!

    Whether or not he apologizes is up to him and his network.

    I don't care, because while what he said was inappropriate, it was not a huge deal.

    Hell, if Rush Limbaugh apologized for every inappropriate comment he makes, his show would nothing but apologies!

    If it had indeed been used against Wallace as a racial slur, that would be a whole different thing. But there is no evidence at all that it was.

    Compared to the things you all say about him, it was in fact pretty mild.

    You are the one who sent the info making it clear that Mike Wallace has garnered enough ethnically oriented criticism over the years that most people in the media are likely to know that he is Jewish and to automatically assume his son is too.

    You were fine when you thought that info bolstered the case for Olbermann. Now that you understand that it makes it less likely that he didn't know Chris Wallace's ethnic status, you wave it all away and say this:

    "Can't you just disagree with the man, do you have to make him out to be the devil incarnate?"

    Paul, you should make up your mind about what sort of appeal you're going to make.

    Very well put, Mike.

    Mike, like me, has a sense of perspective and proportion that you all have lost.

    We do not endorse everything Olbermann says. We know he is not always right. We say he does and says inappropriate things. In other words, we think for ourselves, we don't just post knee-jerk reactions and ad-hominem attacks.

    But as Mike says, he is hardly the only one and far from the worst. And, as Mike also says, he fills a niche that is not otherwise there.

    Most TV polticial commentators are conservatives or middle-of-the road, there are few liberals.

    Mike
    "those of us who share this general point of view have felt an endless sense of frustration that literally no other TV 'journalists' are forcefully speaking out in a similar manner."
    How about Chris Matthews, David Gregory, Richard Wolffe, Johnathan Alter editor of Newsweek. CBS news, NY Times and CNN. Do hey count. Most of the media except ABC although leans Left is fair and Fox are nothing more than arms of the DNC. I don't understand why the Left denies this. If most of the media was Rightwing, I would admitt it and rub it in the Left's face.

    Cecelia, for the last time, I thought it was inappropriate and have said it at least 5 times now. Can I possibly make it any clearer?

    Perhaps Olbermann knew Wallace was born Jewish, perhaps he didn't, I don't know, I can't crawl into the man's head.

    But for gosh sakes, it is highly, highly unlikely he intended it as an anti-Jewish slur, especially since it is not commonly used that way in the US.

    Johnny, I ask you this:

    Just imagine an Olbermann show that was exactly the way it is, except it leaned heavily to the right, instead of the left.

    Would there still be an "Olbermann Watch", and would you still be running it?

    Paul Falduto,
    I'm not a fan of Rush Bimbo and Sean Vanity. They're no different than Olbermann in my book. O'Reilly I repect even though I disagree with him on the immigration issue, because he takes differnt stands. He's with the Left on how Oil companies are manipulating prices. He's with the right on culture issues, especially going against judges that let child molestors off easy.
    Other than Bush bashing and defending Muslims, what cause does Olbermann fight for? Why doesn't he go after Child predators the way O'Reilly does?
    He's a propaganda artist for thr DNC. He spouts their talking points and oly allows those he agrees with on. Yet he claims he's not biased or partison. Why does he lie?

    PROUD to be a LIBERAL,
    If I'm a terrorist than your a Maoist. How's your picture of Pol Pot look?

    Mike and Paul,
    Why not start Bushwatch!

    I would love to see a debate between Olbermann and Michael Savage. Savage would tear Olbermann apart piece by piece. Olbermann would then have his final breakdown. That's would be great tv!

    There's a new report out that says the world’s largest corporation...Exxon/Mobil... funded studies that cast doubts on the link between fossil fuels and climate change.

    These must be the studies Grim and the other members of the Flat Earth Society pull out to argue their global warming objections.

    Calling someone a "monkey" or "dog" or whatever is simply not right, whether is was intended as a racial slur or not (altough once again, it is highly unlikely Olbermann meant it that way).

    Using the Nazi salute to imply that Bush is rapidly on the road to becoming a dictator is simply not right. Period.

    As Mike said, I wish Olbermann would stop these things, as it demeans his show.

    But it doesn't mean that every single thing he does is wrong as you all believe. NO ONE is ALWAYS wrong. Even Bush isn't ALWAYS wrong.

    Moreover, why malign his guests too? They don't do these things. This site constantly bashes his guests when they have no control over what Olbermann says and does.

    > Just imagine an Olbermann show that was exactly the way it is, except it leaned heavily to the right, instead of the left. Would there still be an "Olbermann Watch", and would you still be running it?

    Impossible for me to say, since I don't run Olbermann Watch. And I've never seen a right-leaning show that was like Olbermann's.

    I guess johnny has never seen O'Reilly's show.

    It's far past my bedtime.

    Good night and good luck.

    "Perhaps Olbermann knew Wallace was born Jewish, perhaps he didn't, I don't know, I can't crawl into the man's head."

    Paul, I don't understand your frustration at me, when you were only too willing to "crawl into the man's head" by posting that info as a defense for Olbermann in the first place.

    Let me reassure you that I am not suggesting that it is UNDEBATABLE that Olbermann was making an ethnic slur.

    That said, if the info you posted was valid in your making the point that Olbermann could not have known Wallace is jewish, why is it now mere second guessing... when I use that same info to put forth a reasonable argument that it tends to imply that Olbermann most likely did know Wallace's ethnicity?

    And with that in mind, why in your opinion, is it completely out of the realm of reason and solely vindictive in nature for anyone to conclude that Olbermann was making an ethnic slur?

    I'm sure Olby didn't know, well we all know he's not the brightest bulb in the bunch. So it could be!

    And does it matter Paul will just be a big apoligist for the bottom barrel fish feeder of the cable ratings bunch.

    And then Paul will throw in a cheap shot at the end.

    Gee I thought libs were nice people and so above the fray? Olby didn't know, right Paul. Got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell me too?

    By the way I was checking out I.C.N.'s 2006 numbers, Is it true Olby didn't even make it into the top 20 for the year?

    I'm sure Paul will apologize and use the old line numbers don't matter. And don't forget that cheap shot at the end Paul. You're so in the know!

    Just a thought but since Olby was the great and all that sportscaster he claimed to be. Well then he knew about The Monday Night Football incident way back in the day when Cosell called somebody a monkey and caused a huge uproar.

    Ah, Paul will just apologize and say well that was a long time ago and Olby hit his head in the subway so thats why he doesn't remember that.

    Or Paul will say calling a Black person a monkey is bad. Calling a Jewish person a monkey not that bad. And then throw in a cheap shot at the end.

    Ya Paul that makes a whole lotta sense!

    Sure Paul whats next? Skinheads do Nazi salutes, very bad. Olby with a O'Reilly mask doing a Nazi salute. Oh, whats the big deal?

    How about this one Paul, Olby sold books because people lined up around the corner and down the block for days to get Olby's book. O'Reilly? That was bulk buying!

    olbermannwatch number #1 hate site. But it has nothing to do with the little cheap shots Paul and his friends leave here, that doesn't count.

    But really isn't this what Liberals are? Let's just look at Harry (handshake for a boatload of land) Reid "I was for the troop surge but now I'm against it."

    Ya thats right Harry, don't want Code Pink camping out in front of you're office.


    I could go on but why bother, I have to get up early.

    Oh, the Movie? "Miss Potter". It sputterd, stopped, and then the wheels fell off. Woman will pay for this!

    Oh one last thing. Somebody who calls himself proud to be a liberal said this.

    "You and you're employer Bill O'Reilly need help..."
    Ah liberal got proof? No I didn't think so. And until you do, I think we will just refer to you as "proud to be a Kool-Aid drinker". That is only until you come up with the proof. And don't worry we will be here waiting. Or I'm sure Johnny dollar will post it for all to see. Take you're time genius. We know you'll need it!

    Gee wizz I can't help myself. Paul says rush and Shawn are just like Olby. But notice how he spells Rush and Shawn. Nice way to be fair and balanced Paul. Or are you going to say you're a victim of outcome based education?

    And what has O'Reilly stated he is Paul? A "Traditionalist", or can you say. A free thinker?

    I would pay to see Olby and O'Reilly debate for one hour with a fair and balanced moderator. It would be a bloodbath. O'Reilly would be like a surgeon for that whole hour. Olby would never do it. Or he would have to make sure that the wingnuts from Columbia were in the crowd.

    Oh gee Paul left? Can't even use his own signoff. Has to use his buddy's that he thinks is just like Rush and Shawn.

    "Well blow me down", said Popeye.

    Puck is a stone cold idiot.

    He makes Red State look like a scholar.

    When Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, Fox News ran a banner under her video:" 100 hours to turn the US into San Francisco".

    (((The fair and balanced station))

    Wink ! wink !

    Just look how most of these people spent their Saturday night.Argueing if KO made an ethnic slur or not.

    "All the lonely people, where DO they all come from ".

    "Very well put, Mike.

    Mike, like me, has a sense of perspective and proportion that you all have lost."

    This is what you call "a sense of perspective and proportion"--

    Olbermann behaves badly sometimes and he acts unprofessionally, but his politics echo mine and his unvarnished criticisms aren't usually explicitly stated by journalists, so I ignore his misbhavior. Why can't you?


    Or how bout this sense of proportion---

    Sure Olbermann acts unprofessionally and embarrassingly, especially when he calls colleagues names he knows to be racially charged to at least one ethnic group.... but hell, why should a primetime cable "newscaster" apologize when a radio talk show host hasn't.

    Well, thanks for the straight about "perspective" as defined as cutting some lack for the lone tv voice for your thoughts...

    I'm most certainly applying a real sense of perspective when I consider the sincerity of your statements of disappointment at Olbermann's behavior and of your benefit of the doubt towards his mental state when using the pejorative he used.

    So much for the bias Paul fears from Olby Haters...

    "Just look how most of these people spent their Saturday night.Argueing if KO made an ethnic slur or not.

    "All the lonely people, where DO they all come from "."


    Since you're here and available on this Saturday night to comment, I guess at least one comes from your address.

    Actually, Anon, I believe it's Sunday morning!

    I'm aware that if we were properly socially adjusted, we should be recovering from a hangover.

    "All the lonely people, where DO they all come from "."


    Maybe there are some people who worked this evening and our also no longer inclined to sit in some bar all night sipping on another beer while watching tv and listening to some other lonely people trying not to be lonely talking out of there ass about this and that in between going to take a piss and making more room for more beer. Yes. All things considered, I'd rather be home writing some shit that no one really will read but me, about this and that under one of a few names that mean things only to me. Yep.

    Typical Mike...up at 1:25 AM on a Saturday night/Sunday morning to discount others.

    I'm getting up for a golf game at 6:30 AM. Unlike Mike, I'm actually employed and don't base my life around a message board. I don't support an anchor who clearly is bias AND put down others as a way of life.

    Seriously Mike, find something else to do. I know you stated that 911 wasn't a big deal and Bush is a biger threat to this country than those looking to cause mass death, but you need to find something else to do with your pathetic existence.

    To all the liberals who defend Olbermann's anti-Semetic remark "monkey" towards Mr. Wallace I say...."Shame on you."

    You come to this site with self-rightousness in hand accusing myself and anyone else as hate-filled and/or stupid. Well, not seeing the language Keith Olbermann used as unacceptable says something very important....you are NO better in terms of intellect, honesty or morality than the worse person you can choose to attack.

    I will quote the Genocide Convention regarding the small seeds, (first signs, if you will), showing people's weaknesses that lead to wholesale abandonment of a group of people (based on race, religion, political affiliation, physical attributes, whatever.....)

    "Symbolization - We use symbols to name and signify our classifications. We name some people Hutu and others Tutsi, or Jewish or Gypsy. Sometimes physical characteristics - skin color or nose shape - become symbols for classifications. Other symbols, like customary dress or facial scars, are socially imposed by groups on their own members. After the process has reached later stages (dehumanization, organization, and polarization) genocidal governments in the preparation stage often require members of a targeted group to wear an identifying symbol or distinctive clothing -- e.g. the yellow star. The Khmer Rouge forced people from the Eastern Zone to wear a blue-checked scarf, marking them for forced relocation and elimination.

    "Dehumanization - Classification and symbolization are fundamental operations in all cultures. They become steps of genocide only when combined with dehumanization. Denial of the humanity of others is the step that permits killing with impunity. The universal human abhorrence of murder of members of one's own group is overcome by treating the victims as less than human. In incitements to genocide the target groups are called disgusting animal names - Nazi propaganda called Jews "rats" or "vermin"; Rwandan Hutu hate radio referred to Tutsis as "cockroaches." Bodies of genocide victims are often mutilated to express this denial of humanity. Such atrocities then become the justification for revenge killings, because they are evidence that the killers must be monsters, not human beings themselves."

    ###
    So be careful with the dehumanization, people....including your most evil enemies....using terms like "monster." I have easily fallen into the base behavior and if I have dehumanized anyone, I ask for your forgiveness.

    Lastly, I have been called "trash," by many liberals on this site and I would like to point out that I cannot find "trash" as ever being a part of anthropological taxonomy.


    RedState:

    Talk about 'pathetic', You don't seem know how to do anything with this message board other than snipe at me, do you?

    I work my own business now, and before that, I was "actually employed" for over 30 years, and as you already know, before that, I served my country honorably during wartime in the military. Of course, none of that is really any of your business....but for some reason, you seem to have this strange fascination with my lifestyle (not to mention my grammar). If you want to know about my life, why don't you come out and ask me something, instead of taking Olbermann style snipes at me while hiding behind a computer?

    Now....little Miss 'Pathetic', you seem to have a really big problem understanding just how easy it is to periodically check on a message board with a computer, especially when I also constantly use this very same computer to conduct my REAL business. Wireless laptops are wonderful inventions, and they are incredibly versatile as well. Of course, if you are literally OWNED by somebody else for about half of your day as you are (as in being "actually employed"), this becomes more of a problem, doesn't it?

    Now, little Miss Pathetic, how about you showing me where I ever "stated that 911 wasn't a big deal". No, you can't....that's right, because that is an outright lie....you twisted my words again, didn't you! I believe the actual quote was more like "911 shook me to the core too"....

    You see little Miss Outrage, our system is government is built on checks and balances, and we the people are supposed to be part of the 'checks'.

    You've already suggested that "I leave this country". Boy was my wife amazed when she read that 'pathetic' piece of ignorance!

    Now, little Miss Bush lapdog, you questioned my patriotism when you don't even understand the meaning of the word. You can't hold a candle to my patriotism! You see, you 'pathetic' little darling, patriotism is not defined by blindly following the whims of a misguided elected 'leader'. In fact, thats exactly the kind of 'patriotism' that got Germany in trouble during the 1930s.

    Now, run along now to your owner! I'm sure he wouldn't accept sniping at a patriotic American on a message board as an acceptable excuse for being late.

    Golf....sounds kind of like a waste of the few hours of the week in which you actually own your time!

    Yeah working for an employer is just like slavery. My life is so hard. The glass is half empty. Whaaaaa Whaaaaaa Whaaaaaaa

    Mike,

    You should not 'dis golf. When you hit that ball and it flies through the air a couple of hundred yards, and it lands where you wanted it to, it is a beautiful thing to behold. For a moment you will feel like an artist, like a Zen master even. All is good in the world, all past ups and downs of the week past are forgotten or reduced to a state of unimportance. You are a golfer!

    Cee correctly stated, "You come to this site with self-rightousness in hand accusing myself and anyone else as hate-filled and/or stupid. Well, not seeing the language Keith Olbermann used as unacceptable says something very important....you are NO better in terms of intellect, honesty or morality than the worse person you can choose to attack."

    Exactly. The Keith apologists that flood this site and other sites on the internet are always quick to defend him when he makes comments that are clearly over-the-line. There have been so many times that he should have been apologizing for the awful things he said about women, his co-workers, etc but nothing ever happened. He's not man enough to do it himself and his fans twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain away something offensive he's said or done(again and again). They flood sites all over the internet to dream up alternative explanations as to why he did or said something (Nazi salute) or better yet, why evidence against him was "photoshopped" (when he himself admits later it wasn't). At some point you'd think they'd ask themselves why they seem to think such a man, clearly someone with deep seated mental issues and anger towards women, minorities, etc is worthy of defending? And why have they appointed themselves to do it?
    It is evident that being a Keith fan is really the same as being a Keith apologist and that apologizing for him is a full-time occupation.

    But calling women whores, sluts, using sexist, dergatory captions under stories, etc is not acceptable, except in their world. Making racist statements and flashing loaded symbols a la the Nazi salute, for whatever tenuous reason he might have been using it is also okay in the Keith-apologist's world just so long as it's Keith who is doing it. I really think that they think he's beyond any rule of decorum, any explanation of any kind for anything he does.

    I long ago suspected that he could go completely nuts on the air, pull out a machine gun and mow down the entire staff behind-the-scenes and they'd immediately begin with the spin to excuse him.

    Hey, maybe he'll end up like Jim Lampley, drunk, high, and beating up on his 20-something year old girlfriend and maybe then they'll realize that the guy on the camera is not the man off the air they seem to think he is and that he is not worthy of all the time, effort, and energy they expend in spinning apologies for him. But I kinda doubt it. The obvious seems to be beyond the average Olybloon/apologist/fan's grasp. He is not a good man. He's not even a very smart one. What he is, is egotistical, a fake, a fraud, someone who would sell his own mother for a ratings point or two. And who is using his new-found liberal audience to laugh all the way to the bank. Who needs PR agents when you've got devoted fans who will excuse anything you say or do and never demand accountability or an apology for it? I'm sure he laughs himself all the way to the bank thinking how gulliable his audience truly is.

    Who needs PR agents when you've got devoted fans who will excuse anything you say or do and never demand accountability or an apology for it? I'm sure he laughs himself all the way to the bank thinking how gulliable his audience truly is.

    Posted by: KAF at January 7, 2007 10:37 AM

    I think it very admireable that you and others hold a tv commentator to higher standards than most. I just hope you do the same to ALL of them. Do you visit other sites and state to other folks how Michele Malkin promotes her agenda or Bill Oreily, Brit Hume, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Reagen, Michael Savage,Ann Coulter, All the many right wing radio shows. I find it a little strange how one man comes along who dares to not be of the same mindset as all the above and he is the one to be exposed as laughing all the way to the bank.

    THE DUBIOUS QUOTE OF THE DAY :
    Lastly, I have been called "trash," by many liberals on this site and I would like to point out that I cannot find "trash" as ever being a part of anthropological taxonomy.

    Posted by: cee at January 7, 2007 07:05 AM

    "part of a anthropological taxonomy"

    surely you jest, Cee.
    Nobody speaks like that in the real world.
    Your attempt to "impress" us with your vernacular has the total opposite effect.
    Coupled with the fact that you are 99.245% full of shit with everything you say, just brings that baby home even more succinctly.


    Ah, 72 degrees in NJ and my roses are budding.

    Maybe if we disable our emissions controls on all our automobiles, we could have summer 12 months a year !

    Excuse me, but I need to get back outside and work on my tan.

    First of all, "puck" I never called Hannity "Shawn", I refered to him as Hannity and Limbaugh as Rush, which is his name, you know. Don't his own fans call him "Rush?" I believe it was your "fellow traveler" Red Wolf who used "Shawn"; it certainly wasn't me.

    And what "cheap shot" I threw in at the end is beyond me unless you mean my reference to O'Reilly, hardly a cheap shot: he does a lot of shitty things himself, but you seem blind to that, whereas I'll admit Olbermann does it. Mike did too. We again, have a sense of proporation and balance.

    And I guess you simply cannot read as I posted numerous times that I thought calling Wallace a monkey was wrong as is the Nazi salute. But they are NOT anti-Jewish, which you well know, but if you have to lie to make your point, you just say "Well Olby does it too," as if two wrongs make a right. Aren't you BETTER than Olby in your humble opinion? It appears to me you think you are.

    But just ignore that and tell me how I just want to defend Olbermann ALWAYS just as surely as you all ALWAYS bash him. Do any of you EVER have anything positive to say about Olbermann or even his guests? Or, if not, simply make your points without bashing and lying about him? It appears not, I never see a reasoned analysis of why he is wrong; all I see are mocking, smears and name-calling. johnny's digests are juvenile and knee-jerk, but the comments by most of you "Olbyhaters" make him look like a reasonable person in contrast to you all.

    Apparantly, you are "projecting" your faults onto me and other so-called "Olbypoligists," which is typical of out-of-control rabid right-wingers that you are.

    Typical winger: facts not on your side? Well, simply make them up, turn around and call liberals every bad name in the book and then accuse us of being "haters.

    Calling Olby names and calling him a liar etc. is an outlet for the wing nuts to release their hatred towards all liberals and anyone who doesn't blindly support the travesty that is the Bush Adminstration.

    They are still also very edgey about losing the election and are lashing out indiscriminitely in any direction and at any person that remains a target to them.
    Keith Olbermann is a convenient target because he doesn't mince his words and is accurate with most of what he says.
    That really pisses them off.
    Thus the Olbermann Watch.

    Good point, Donora. Anne Coulter says our troops should kill John Murtha and not a peep from their side.

    Malkin castigates the AP for "phony reporting" and then has to eat her own bile when it turns out she is wrong, yet again. But of course, she is "seeking the truth."

    O'Reilly claims that liberals "hate Christmas," but hey, that's just "ol' Bill" giving it to the liberals again, but who cares if it is true as long as he lands cheap shots?

    I'm not impugning all conservatives. Most are fine and decent people. But the rabid wingers are not and they seem to be the ones that populate this site.

    "PROUD to be a LIBERAL,
    If I'm a terrorist than your a Maoist. How's your picture of Pol Pot look?"

    Posted by: Red Wolf at January 7, 2007 12:16 AM


    Red Wolf... I'm still looking for the post where I caled you a terrorist. Please, find it for me, & re-post it.

    If you just want to call me a maoist for the heck of it, then do it... But there is no need to lie & accuse me of slandering you in your slanderous posts...

    Rico:

    My intention was not at all to 'dis' golf. Unless you count minigolf, I've never actually played the game but I am aware that there really is something to it, or so many wouldn't do it.

    I am a little ammused with this "RedState", and how she immerges from the peanut gallery every other day or so as to try take a vicious personal swipe at me. I say "peanut gallery" because all she ever does is take cheap shots at me and others who express views that displease her.

    She seems to be utterly blind to the fact that she keeps using tactics every bit as reprehensible as those she claims to abhor in KO....to those who have not even addressed her!

    "Ah, 72 degrees in NJ and my roses are budding.

    Maybe if we disable our emissions controls on all our automobiles, we could have summer 12 months a year !

    Excuse me, but I need to get back outside and work on my tan."

    Posted by: Anonymous at January 7, 2007 11:26 AM

    You aren't possibly inferring that you believe all of that bullshit 'made up' by the media & known as global nwarming, are you, anonymous. Steve forbes certainly doesn't believe that Bullshit, so why should you or I?

    Right, Johnnie FRAUD?

    "I am a little ammused with this "RedState", and how she immerges from the peanut gallery every other day or so as to try take a vicious personal swipe at me. I say "peanut gallery" because all she ever does is take cheap shots at me and others who express views that displease her."

    Kinda reminds you of another right-wing female (as I will not refer to her as a women) in here, doesn't it, Mike?

    But Paul there IS a problem with you being here defending KO. I only defend those that I believe to be strong and upright in character . I used to enjoy Keith's show, as I felt it was offbeat and different... but then it took a turn. Now on the same single show he can remark about Britney Spears running around without panties and then transform into an Edward Murrow figure and chastise our elected president for "lying" and "and tearing our country down." It was during one of these 'newscasts' that I witnessed countless conjecture that was more misinformation than news - more edits and lies than facts. And on that day I googled a site that exposed them. I was pleased to find Olbermannwatch. It amazes me how many people can come here and defend this guy. He's not as bad as O’Reilley or Rush. Who cares? There are endless sites to expose that hypocrisy. Keith is revered by many and this site does a hell of a job exposing Keith's flaws. And those who defend him tirelessly are also extremely flawed.

    I loved the exchange about the top ten lies between Johnny Dollar and PTBAL... Given the facts with IMPARTIAL ammo... PTBAL refused to accept that KO was full of shit on those 10 occasions. It was a microcosm of you KO defenders. Pick your battles. KO is now hero. He is merely Cindy Sheehan with a tool.

    Mike, go easy on the wingers. They got a major thumping at the polls in November and are obviously upset about it. They just don't see how we "women-hating" liberals, as KAF tells us we are, ever got control!

    Amazing! And then we turned around and elected the first woman speaker, just to continue our deception that we, in fact, don't hate women!

    How diabollically clever of us!

    Benson, I guess you can't read either, or at least you didn't read my posts above. I do not just reflexsively "defend" Olbermann; I critcize him when I think he is wrong and defend him when I think he is right. As I posted last night, calling Wallace a monkey and using the Nazi salute are wrong and I wish he would stop, but that doesn't mean he is wrong about EVERYTHING.

    He is not the "new Edward R. Murrow" in my opinion. No one is the new ERM, Murrow was unique.
    Oblermann is not "my hero," I do not "revere him."

    But he makes some good points and has very good guests, mostly well-repected journalists like Howard Fineman and Richard Wolffe and members of Congress.

    Olbermann's show is obviously not all "hard news." There is some "hard news," but most is commentary and too much is "fluff," but the producers are the ones that force that on him, as he often says. He has only so much control over what gets on.

    Oblermann is not all good, but he is not all bad either, and in my opinion, right more often than he is wrong.

    Mike,

    Redstate is kind of right. Remember "bee sting?"

    Yes Paul, I do recall how they kept saying do "we really want to make NANCY PELOSI speaker of the house" as a campaign slogan before the election. This was supposed to make millions of Americans recoil in horror at the thought. Theoretically, this was supposed to make them hold their nose and vote Republican once again.

    They just can't believe it didn't work!

    Good day and good luck.

    Actually Paul- Then I am most definitely not speaking about you. I don't think there is anything wrong with someone liking his show. His show tips over left more than it leans left and a democrat would enjoy the spin.

    I actually like O'Reilley's show, but would never defend any of Bill's actions. My problem is with the loon posters that defend all of Keith's flaws which are documented here. Gotta learn to pick their fights . Yet this site wouldn't be half as much fun if the loons didn't come here.

    Rico:

    Actually I don't recall "Bee sting". I really haven't been doing this for that long

    Donora opined: "I think it very admireable that you and others hold a tv commentator to higher standards than most. I just hope you do the same to ALL of them. Do you visit other sites and state to other folks how Michele Malkin promotes her agenda or Bill Oreily, Brit Hume, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Reagen, Michael Savage,Ann Coulter, All the many right wing radio shows. I find it a little strange how one man comes along who dares to not be of the same mindset as all the above and he is the one to be exposed as laughing all the way to the bank."

    First of all, Olbermann is NOT a commentator. He does not bill himself that way. His network does not bill him that way. They bill him as a NEWS ANCHOR and his program as a NEWS SHOW. If he would be honest and bill himself as a commentator, then I would at least respect him for being honest. But that's NOT what he's doing here. He's claiming to be an unbiased journalist in interviews and even you admit he's not so right there he's been exposed as a liar. He's still trying to claim he's an unbiased journalist with no agenda. And he's lying his ass off about that. And who can possibly respect a liar?

    And that list of GOP commentators you reeled through? They are all indeed COMMENTATORS and their programs are billed as such, not as NEWS. Is the difference really so hard for you to understand and the importance of NOT blurring those lies really that lost on you? And the name of the site yet again for the reading/brain-impaired is O-L-B-E-R-M-A-N-N WATCH. Not Conservative Commentator Watch.

    And one more thing? I'm a moderate/liberal Democrat so I have no interest in watching/listening to those shows whatsoever and don't. And so far as I know there is no other anchor who labels his show a news show and himself as a news anchor who is as biased as Keith. If Anderson Cooper was pulling this crap, I'd go somewhere and complain about him too but he isn't so I don't have to.

    The truth is that Keith is slanted, biased and is really nothing more than a very skilled actor and huckster who is professing to be "unbiased" in interviews but yet is selling a very different bill of goods on air. That's not "truth-telling", it's pandering to what he perceives as his core audience in a cynical attempt to exploit more ratings and fatten his checkbook. And if a network is billing someone as a newsanchor and their show as a news program, I want to see news, not opinion unless it's being offered up by a GUEST on the show, not the anchor. That is NOT journalism. It's opinionism and that's what Countdown is and that's what YOU even admit it is. So why can't Keith? Why can't MSNBC? Truth in advertising should be the standard here, that and ahderence to journalistic ethics if Keith is going to claim himself to be a journalist.

    "I think it very admireable that you and others hold a tv commentator to higher standards than most. I just hope you do the same to ALL of them. Do you visit other sites and state to other folks how Michele Malkin promotes her agenda or Bill Oreily, Brit Hume, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Reagen, Michael Savage,Ann Coulter, All the many right wing radio shows. I find it a little strange how one man comes along who dares to not be of the same mindset as all the above and he is the one to be exposed as laughing all the way to the bank."

    Posted by: Donora Pa at January 7, 2007 11:10 AM"

    Denora there may not be a consensus here among two people that Limbaugh or Hume have anything to apologize about. I don't know but you can poll though.

    What we do KNOW factually is that both Mike and Paul have stated that Olbermann engaged in embarrassing and unprofessional behavior when he called a fellow journalist a monkey...they wish he hadn't...they wish he wouldn't do things like that...it's wrong.. but no, they don't think he should publicly apologize for it.

    Mike goes as far as to say that although Olbermann does such unprofessional things, he tolerates the behavior because Olbermann says what Mike thinks needs to be said. Paul complimented Mike over this and called it a "sense of balance and perspective".

    Keep in mind they are both arguing that they don't make an issue of the unprofessional things Olbermann does because he tickles their ears, within a discussion where Paul, at least, is accusing Johnny of trumping up an hyperbolic charge because HE'S biased AGAINST Olbermann and Paul also accuses the rest of his opponents of having the same bias.

    So we're having our sense of balance, perspective, and objectivity questioned by two people who admit they ignore appalling behavior because of shared politics.

    Go figger...

    And that list of GOP commentators you reeled through? They are all indeed COMMENTATORS and their programs are billed as such, not as NEWS. Is the difference really so hard for you to understand and the importance of NOT blurring those lies really that lost on you? And the name of the site yet again for the reading/brain-impaired is O-L-B-E-R-M-A-N-N WATCH. Not Conservative Commentator Watch.

    Posted by: Brandon at January 7, 2007 01:14 PM

    Yes, I know the name of the site. If you want to have a place where you just share insults about Keiths girlfriends and his orange tan you are dissapointed huh. Too bad. As far as my list of "Commentators", most of them appear and Fox NEWS or give the latest breaking news story like Malkin and get caught in lies all the time. Keiths specialty is his special COMMENTS for the brain impaired who don't know. Your gripe with Keith is not that he poses as a newscaster, it is his opinions, which are shared by many on this site who WATCH OLBERMANN and comment on his outing of commentators who hoodwinked this country into thinking they represent conservitism when they don't.

    And for further clarification, let me add that the events of the past six years have made me realize just how full of crap the Democrats are. I've watched as it's been hijacked by extreme leftists who think Chavez and Castro are great guys, who have sympathy for terrorists, who believe that Saddam was a great guy and his death a damn shame, and who seem more concerned with preserving the rights of Mulsim extremists than protecting the citizens of the United States. And I'm sick of hearing/seeing the open cheering every time one of our troops dies in Iraq. I refuse to cheer for the terrorists and our enemies and against our troops nor will I ever support dictators and that seems to be what the Democratic party has become as evidenced by DU, Kos, etc. Nor will I ever apologize for being successful and for making money and enjoying spending it, something else apparently I'm not supposed to do.

    Olbermann's opinions have gaps in logic you could park an 18-wheeler through. And if he was unbiased as he contains to maintain he is, he'd be hitting both sides but he's not. Only one. Explain that away. And sorry the "but only the GOP is wrong" bs does NOT wash.

    So we're having our sense of balance, perspective, and objectivity questioned by two people who admit they ignore appalling behavior because of shared politics.

    Go figger...

    Posted by: Cecelia at January 7, 2007 01:20 PM

    We live in a strange time and get bombarded by bullshit on both ends of the spectrum. It's easier to get mad at one side and say everything the other side says is a lie. Trying to figure your way through the muck is a challange that I admit I don't always make it through all the way.


    "I'm not impugning all conservatives. Most are fine and decent people. But the rabid wingers are not and they seem to be the ones that populate this site."

    What you're doing Paul, is throwing out strawmen.

    Kinda reminds you of another right-wing female (as I will not refer to her as a women) in here, doesn't it, Mike?


    Posted by: PROUD to be a LIBERAL at January 7, 2007 12:02 PM

    "Proud to have Drunk the Kool-Aid", that's a perfect example of your logical reasoning abilities.

    Two people who happen to be of the same gender, slam you everytime you write something stupid and you deduce that they must be the same person...

    "It's easier to get mad at one side and say everything the other side says is a lie. Trying to figure your way through the muck is a challange that I admit I don't always make it through all the way."

    Well said.

    And for further clarification, let me add that the events of the past six years have made me realize just how full of crap the Democrats are. I've watched as it's been hijacked by extreme leftists who think Chavez and Castro are great guys, who have sympathy for terrorists, who believe that Saddam was a great guy and his death a damn shame, and who seem more concerned with preserving the rights of Mulsim extremists than protecting the citizens of the United States. And I'm sick of hearing/seeing the open cheering every time one of our troops dies in Iraq. I refuse to cheer for the terrorists and our enemies and against our troops nor will I ever support dictators and that seems to be what the Democratic party has become as evidenced by DU, Kos, etc. Nor will I ever apologize for being successful and for making money and enjoying spending it, something else apparently I'm not supposed to do.

    Posted by: Brandon at January 7, 2007 01:25 PM

    Brandon, I think you are lumping everyone who disagrees with republicanism as something you can easily dismiss. There are world leaders like Chavez out there who don't care to go along with America's ideals. What should we do about that? Kill him? As far as making money, show me how. Please. As far as cheering for death to our soldiers, you must be f---ing out of your mind. I won't even try to answer that.

    Mike,

    On Dec. 12, at 07:23 AM you said:

    "Nor did I say 911 was just a bee sting. I did use that analogy to make a point."

    I can't find the original quote but you did use the term "bee sting" in association with 911. You tell me in what context you used the expression.

    My apologizes, Puck, for having rendered your wonderfully dead-on and pithy new moniker for Proud--"Proud to be a Kool-Aid Drinker" into something much less pithy.

    "Proud to be a Kool-Aid Drinker" it is!

    Goodness knows we're forever in your debt for "Edward R. Moron".

    I would pay big big money to se O'Reilly interview the human sperman bank Olberfart. Why is it that all of Kooky Keith's guests are all feminine looking white males with thick sperm encrusted eyebrows?

    Interesting exchange posted on "Think Progress:"

    [BOB] SCHIEFFER: So, you’ve told him what you don’t want to do, and that is to expand the size of the force in Iraq even on a short-term basis. But what if he decides to do that? What will be your action then?

    [NANCY] PELOSI: If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request we want to see a distinction between what is there to support the troops who are there now. The American people and the Congress support those troops. We will not abandon them.

    But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it. And this is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions. And we’ve gone into this situation, which is a war without end, which the American people have rejected.

    Comment from me: This could not been any clearer. Democrats will NOT cut funding to support those troops already there. But they WILL NOT give Bush a blank check to escalate the war.

    Democrats: The Party of Responsible Government.

    Brandon, if you really believe what you said about liberals at 1:25pm, you are one sick puppy.

    Please talk to your high school guidance counselor and get some help. I am serious about this. There is a possibility you could be cured. Good luck.

    Cecelia:

    Since you chose to address some of my comments in your 1:30 post, here is my answer. As I stated clearly, KO is far from perfect, and yes, most of what is is commenting on "tickles my ears". You miss-characterized me on one point....I NEVER addressed the issue of whether KO should apologize for his transgressions or not.

    That said, none of the people whom I chose to call my friends are perfect either. There are things I would change about all of them, and I'm sure they would say the same about me. We tend accept people as they are, warts and all.

    I don't know, maybe you're different. Maybe you are perfect yourself, and only choose perfect friends to associate with? It would then be perfectly understandable that you would expect you're TV commentators and journalists to be perfect as well. I just don't know where you will find one, though.

    "I loved the exchange about the top ten lies between Johnny Dollar and PTBAL... Given the facts with IMPARTIAL ammo... PTBAL refused to accept that KO was full of shit on those 10 occasions."

    Posted by: Benson at January 7, 2007 12:03 PM

    How, Benson, were Johnny FRAUD's 'Fatcs' on his top ten list impartial? This man/woman/thing references his own biased, tired 'reviews' of each show to use in his top ten list with the exception of on THREE occassions. It is absolutely one of the worst written pieces journalistically I have ever read.

    "Democrats: The Party of Responsible Government. "

    Sorry, I don't think rejecting a plan that they haven't even seen is "responsible".

    Speaker Pelosi also believes that the only reason al-Qaeda is in Iraq is because we're there. If we leave, apparently she thinks they'll leave too.

    She said, re al-Qaeda in Iraq: "The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the President is resorting to it again."

    For some reason, Ms. Pelosi doesn't think al-Qaeda is in Iraq committing terrorism.

    That's hardly the type of "responsible" person I want making our foreign policy.

    Saying "No" is not much of a plan.

    I guess we'll have to disagree.

    Brandon and his "fellow travelers" here are so typical of today's right-wing reactionaries (note I did NOT say conservatives, I said reactionaries; there is nothing "conservative about these wingers).

    They see the world as black and white, no grey is possible.

    You either support everything Bush does or you support the terrorists and not just "hate" our troops but cheer when they are killed.

    You either think Keith Olbermann is not only always wrong, but is the devil incarnate or you think he is always right and is a god.

    No middle ground is possible for them. What a way to go through life.

    "You either support everything Bush does or you support the terrorists and not just "hate" our troops but cheer when they are "

    And I hope you're just as opposed to those who think that Bush is a greater threat than Islamic terrorists? Those who think Bush is the terrorist?

    Visit any leading liberal website and you'll see hundreds - thousands - of posts calling Bush evil and a terrorist and a greater threat than Ahmadinejad or Islamic radicals.

    DailyKos, anyone?

    Earth to ohboy, earth to ohboy, just where did Pelosi say that Democrats are going to reject the plan out of hand?

    And "stay the course plus 20000 troops" by itself is not a plan. The President will have to provide much more than that. Perhaps he will, we'll have to wait and see.

    And she clearly stated that Democrats will not cut off funding for troops already there.

    Democrats are waiting to see what the President comes up with. But unlike the previous congress, they will not abdidate the responsibility of oversight and will ask lots of questions.

    The may support the plan, they may not. But the days of giving the President a blank check and pretending that Congress is not a separate and CO-EQUAL branch of government are over.

    Sounds like "responsible government to me."

    I make it a habit to read the liberal blogs, websites, etc every day. And I can tell you that's exactly what the vast majority of crap on those sites says. Support Chavez, support Fidel, support communisim, socialisim, money is bad, the insurgants are "freedom fighters", terrorist-"rights" are being violated, screw America, the soldiers are bad, etc. And you've all seen it here as well and some of you have been guilty of posting it. You know that yet you try to pretend it doesn't go on, deny knowledge of it, etc. But you know I'm read.

    Reading that crap on a daily basis is what made me rethink of how I self-identified my political party and identity and how out of touch that the party had become with me and the rest of Middle America. Neither party is perfect but the left has way more than his average share of America-haters. If you're defending socialists and dictators, you're the one with the damned problem, not me.

    Now back to Olbermann. He is NOT a journalist. He is NOT an anchorman. He's a reader who is trying to disguise his opinions as fact and he gave up his right to be called a journalist when he decided to turn his show into one giant leftist tirade.

    Answer me this, if what he is doing so right, if there is nothing wrong with him airing his special comments and airing his little opinions on a NEWS show, then why does he go out of his way to claim he's not biased, he's not behind any political party, he's not pro-Democratic, etc in every single interview he gives?

    He knows he's crossed a line. And he's worried it's going to hurt his credibility long-term. But he relies upon the MSM to protect his fat ass and you uphold him even though you admit he's crossed the line into opinion but he will NOT admit it and you continue to defend his pretending to be a fair and impartial journalist when you know he's not and that he's pro-democratic all the way.

    That makes you all liars just like he is. You're lying to yourself, he's lying to you and you deserve one another but television and journalism deserve better. let him label his show as what it is: opinion and I'd leave him alone. But until he learns to tell the truth and you people admit he's lying about being un-biased, forget it.

    And let's just see how long it takes him to start attacking the Dems for their screw-ups. We know they make them every day just like the GOP does but let's see if he's got the guts to piss off what is now his core audience and call them on it. I say he does NOT. He loves the ratings, the attention and free PR from those lefty websites way too much to ever bite the hand that feeds. And that makes him a coward on top of everything else, not the brave "truthteller" you've potrayed him as being.

    Oh Boy appears to want more troops, increasing the death rate of those troops, with not much of a chance of anything being accomplished.

    Sound responsible ?

    Now add to the mix that this is against the will of the American people.
    The responsibility of our elected representatives is to serve the people and respect their wishes.

    Rico:

    If you're going to try to use quotes from fairly old posts against me, you might try doing the research yourself as to exactly what it was I actually said, and why I said it.

    Now let me clear that up again. The "bee sting" analogy referred to someone causing a head on collision and killing someone because they just got stung by a bee by while driving their car.

    The point in that analogy was OVER - REACTION, NOT comparing 911 to a bee sting! The person being stung has just killed somebody who had absolutely nothing to do with the bee that was in their car.

    Now, are we just a little more clear on that? Yes, we got 'stung' very badly after 911, but then we went after a country that had absolutely nothing to do with it. Once again, a clear over - reaction causing far more havoc than the original triggering event! Now do you understand?

    You and I can disagree all day long about whether or not we should have attacked Iraq, and I'm that sure we will, but don't miss-characterize my analogies. The Iraq war is far worse than 911, both in 'innocent' American lives, and treasure, and as you know, I am now in the majority in believing that this war has been totally counter - productive.



    Brandon, of course there are wacky leftists out there, in a land of 300 million, there are bound to be. But that's not relevant. Anyone can post any comment on a blog. That hardly makes them spokespeople for a political party.

    Name some members of Congress or party leaders who feel the way you say they do.

    And don't just make charges. Provide some quotes.

    And speaking of kos, yesterday he posted that we should NOT cut off funding at this point and a good number of posters disagreed with him.

    See, we liberals actually think, we just don't react in a knee-jerk fashion like you do.

    "I actually like O'Reilley's show, but would never defend any of Bill's actions. My problem is with the loon posters that defend all of Keith's flaws which are documented here. Gotta learn to pick their fights . Yet this site wouldn't be half as much fun if the loons didn't come here."

    Posted by: Benson at January 7, 2007 12:23 PM

    & whioch are the posters who defend ALL of Keith's flaws, Benson? Because I don't. Bob doesn't. Mike , Paul, & Donora certainly don't. As opposed, of course, to all of your right wing brethren (see Johnny FRAUD, Cee, his sister, that bird dropping bitch, Red State, Big Red, Red Wolf, Red tide, Red shit, etal.,)whose chief goal in life appears to be taking Keith Olbermann to task for every possible error (real or perceived,) defending the Tumbleweed administration regardless of how far they go towarfds limiting our individual rights, destroying our planet, & losing American lives abroad, & defending the moronic radio & television heros of the dittoheads.

    Learn to pick our fights, you say? Well, if I wasn't in the mood to beat up on some righties, I wouldn't be here. I think it's kind of like, I'm the fly, & all of you righties are the piece of fifty year old (read: still living in the fifties like most Conservatives.) shit.

    So, in closing, I am glad that you enjoy my presence. Because I enjoy being here... Even if you Righties are morons...

    Love Ya all!!

    Peace!

    > This man/woman/thing references his own biased, tired 'reviews' of each show to use in his top ten list

    I see the personal attacks continue. Since you seek to take off the gloves, I will reply in kind.

    You LIED that there was no documentation for Keith's Nielsen ratings lie, when the articles linked to the published numbers. You LIED about what Olby said in the Ferguson video, and in the transcript, and in the audio clip. You ignored Olby's lies about the 9/11 movie and about the O'Reilly transcript, documented and proven. Plus, you tell the ultimate lie: "I am NOT an Olbypologist".

    I can't think of one reason why anyone would give serious consideration to anything said by a vile, insulting hack whose only purpose is to defend a vile, insulting, repellent, hack broadcaster. Your arguments are dishonest, your tone is foul, and your making-up of facts out of your ass is redolent of the infamous, deplorable Olbermann himself.

    Lemme check...yeah, I think that about covers it.

    Bob:
    "Oh Boy appears to want more troops, increasing the death rate of those troops, with not much of a chance of anything being accomplished."

    You have no idea as to my views on increasing troops in Iraq, do you?

    I expressed no opinion either way, have I?

    That's because I have not seen the plan that will increase those troops.

    I like to see a plan before I reject it or embrace it.

    And let me also say that, even though there are some loony leftists out there, they are not even a majority on the left, much less a "vast majority."

    Again, Brandon, provide some back up for those charges. I read the comments on kos and DU fairly regularly and I see very, very little of the kind of things being said that you say represent "the vast majority" of opionion on the left.

    I certainly don't see them here. And by the "left" I mean the broad left, that is, people like me who are left of center but not out in the ozone. We are the "vast majority."

    Paul:
    "Earth to ohboy, earth to ohboy, just where did Pelosi say that Democrats are going to reject the plan out of hand?"

    Umm, like here?

    http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0021

    You're welcome.

    But from now on, you've got to start paying attention more. Okay?

    johnny, are you paid by Mr. Cox?

    Why do you ask?

    Comment from me: This could not been any clearer. Democrats will NOT cut funding to support those troops already there. But they WILL NOT give Bush a blank check to escalate the war.

    Democrats: The Party of Responsible Government.

    Posted by: Paul Falduto at January 7, 2007 03:43 PM

    Looks like the Dems will "stay the course". Same number of troops with the same funding.

    Democrats have certainly rejected the "surge" as have many Republicans AND military commanders, not to mention the vast majority of the American people.

    But that doesn't mean they will reject the whole plan. And it CERTAINLY doesn't mean there will pull funding for troops already there, in fact, that WILL NOT happen. Period.

    Not pulling funding for the troops already there is hardly "stay the course." Of course we won't pull the rug out from under the troops already there, again, we are responsible and have to deal with a President who is not. The President has left us with no good options in Iraq, we will unfortunatly have to find the best option amongst the all the bad ones. That's Bush fault, not ours.

    Democrats are thinking of the safety of the troops there, which is why we will not pull current funding. But we do not want to put more young people in harm's way through a "surge" that will do nothing to help. And that's what our military commanders are saying, not just me and my fellow "liberals."

    The days of congress rolling over and playing dead to an imperial presidency are over. Anyone who values our constitutional republican government should be thrilled about that.

    johhny, I'm just curious.

    Brandon:

    Agreed, lets wait and see what the President's plan actually looks like.

    To tell the truth, the assertion that he is going to actually have a 'plan' this time is somewhat refreshing, because it has been pretty clear that he has never actually had one before.

    Could it be that Bush is finally waking up to the reality that you must have a plan before undertaking a major endeavor?

    What we have had up until now is an "apprentice president" with no master. Boy, have we ever paid a heavy price for his 6 year OJT session!

    And actually, I was wrong to say that Democrats have already rejected the "surge."

    Let's just say they are highly skeptical. And again, it is not just the Democrats, quite a few GOP memberrs are skeptical too; Hagel calls it "folly."

    But, as Mike says, we will just have to wait and see what the President will propose.

    The most important thing now is that Congress, however it receives the President's plan, will not just give him a "blank check." Democrats, led by John Murtha, chair of Armed Services, will be asking a lot of tough questions and actually conducting oversight, which the GOP Congress failed to do.

    > johhny, I'm just curious.

    Well, I'm not sure why. After all, your fellow commenter (PtBaLiar) as already stated that it's a "fact" that I'm on O'Reilly's payroll. Why would Mr Cox have to pay me if I'm getting cash from Mr Bill?

    But seriously folks, I think I'd rather such questions be addressed to Mr Cox. He's runs this ship, and decisions about making public irrelevant internal matters such as that are up to him.

    The real "battlegound" is not going to the President's plan, it is going to be over the funding for it.

    The hearings on the supplemental $100 billion will be where the Dems make their stand, it appears.

    And I need to clarify something from my post above: Murtha is chair of the Armed Services subcommittee of Approprations, not the Armed Services Committee. That is Ike Skelton, another moderate Democrat.

    johnny, I beg to differ. I think it is very relevant to know if you do this because you really believe Olbermann is the devil you make him out to be, or if you are merely a "gun for hire."

    "But, as Mike says, we will just have to wait and see what the President will propose."

    Well, you've had about a half dozen posts rejecting it out of hand.

    Nancy Pelosi is not the Queen of Congress. There are 434 other members of Congress, a Congress almost evenly split between the two parties (the Democrats have a, I believe +12 margin?). In the Senate, the Democrats have a one seat margin.

    It is certainly conceivable that Bush could split off enough non-hating Bush types in order to get enough votes to pass his plan. There are some responsible Democrats who aren't blinded by their hatred of Bush or so afraid of the leftwing bloggers that they'll be willing to do what they think is in the best interest of the country.

    This is a representative democracy, a republic. Our representatives are sent to act in the best interest of the country and not blindly do what their constituents desire. True leadership is doing what is right even if it's unpopular.

    Let's see the plan first.

    Then why don't you just ask me if I really believe Olbermann is the devil, if that's what you want to know? Am I missing something here?

    Sure, ohboy, the only reason we are against escalation of the war is that we "hate Bush."

    You mean it is not all possible that we see what you can't: that it's a mess and no "victory" is possible? Henry Kissinger says that, and he is no liberal and I doubt very much that he "hates Bsy."

    I don't "hate Bush" at all. I don't even know the man, so how could I "hate" him. I sure do think he has done enormous damage to this country and that he is a terrible President, but I don't hate him.

    He may be a very nice man. But he is a terrible President. And that's the relevant point.

    Correction:

    The Democrats have a +30 seat margin in the House.

    Never trust your memory once you turn 40.

    so johnny, you don't know whether you get paid or not?

    That's hard to believe.

    You are one slippery fellow.

    ohboy, even many GOP members are highly skeptical of the "surge." It is hardly just Pelosi and the Demcrats.

    According to Bob Novak, only 12 of the 49 senators are on board with the "surge."

    Sorry, my last post should have read: "only 12 of the 49 GOP senators..."

    > so johnny, you don't know whether you get paid or not?

    Huh? What are you talking about?

    Huh? I asked if you were paid and you said "ask Mr. Cox."

    Why do I need to ask him? You should know if you are paid or not.

    You are here right now and could answer if you wanted to, so why do I need to seek out Mr. Cox and ask him?

    A simple yes or no from you will do.

    "Sorry, my last post should have read: "only 12 of the 49 GOP senators..."

    And my guess is that all 49 of them haven't seen the plan.

    If we don't help the Iraqis stabilize their country and help them create a government that is capable of defeating the terrorists - both al-Qaeda and the anti-democratic "domestic" ones (the ex-Baathists, et al.) - the consequences for the US will be horrific.

    Anyway, we'll see.......

    True enough, ohboy, certainly those senators who are skeptical may, in fact, be convinced to support it.

    But they are certainly not very amenible to it at this point.

    But, you are correct. We'll just have to wait and see what Bush comes up with how members of both parties react.

    > Why do I need to ask him? You should know if you are paid or not.

    You're playing games, since I obviously know if I'm paid, and never said I didn't know. Now I suspect you may not be what you seem, and I AGAIN answer your question as I did before: irrelevant internal matters regarding this blog should be addressed to Mr Cox.

    And of course we should help Iraqis stabilize their country, that's not the point. "We broke it, we bought it," as Colin Powell (who says that the "surge" probably won't help) has said.

    The point is whether the situation there now can be helped by our continued military occupation or whether we should withdraw our troops and help them find a political solution and provide them some kind of "Marshall Plan" to rebuild their economy and their country.

    Speaking of Powell, here's a couple paragraphs from the Internation Herald Tribune regarding his take on things:


    WASHINGTON: The former secretary of state Colin Powell said Sunday that badly overstretched U.S. forces in Iraq were losing the war there and that a temporary U.S. troop surge probably would not help.

    In one of his few commentaries on the war since leaving office, Powell quickly added that the situation could be reversed. He recommended an intense coalition effort to train and support Iraqi security forces and strengthen the government in Baghdad. Powell was deeply skeptical about increasing troop levels, an idea that appears to be gaining ground as President George W. Bush weighs U.S. strategy options.


    Sure I'm playing games with you johnny, which you should well know as you are a master at playing games yourself.


    Johnny:

    I'm not really trying to add fuel to this fire, but I think it is not 'irrelevent' at all as to whether or not you are paid to trash this man every single weekday of the year.

    One of your regular Olby haters made a reference to you "being paid the big bucks" to do this just a week or so ago, and you didn't respond. It does make one curious.

    An honest answer to that question would clear up the question as to whether you really are a "hired gun", or if you are just extremely motivated on your own.

    The answer effects credibility!

    Mike,

    The issue isn't whether a human being is "perfect" or that anyone expects Olbermann to be perfect. That is specious from the outset.

    The discussion was about whether Olbermann had issued a pejorative that could very well be a racial slur.

    In the context of THAT, it was astounding to read your testimonial to the fact that you wish Olbermann hadn't said what he did to Chris Wallace, but that you don't find that too repellent because he does indeed tickle your ears

    Your position was then characterized by Paul as exhibiting a sound "sense of balance and perspective" while Paul simultaneously charged others with being unfair to Olbermann because ---------he does not tickle our ears.

    It was also quite astounding in the context of a discussion on whether Olbermann intentionally called a Jew a racial slur, that we see your admonition now that "nobody's perfect". I'm not saying that you have agree with the charge against Olbermann in the slightest, but telling people who were arguing that he was anti-semitic with unrealistically seeking "perfection" is wry to say the least.

    I don't how this sort of political discussion comedy theater should be described, but casted with a veritable army of strawmen would be a start.

    Proud to be a Liberal,
    "How would we like it if China, for instance, were to bring their troops over here and tell us they are 'not leaving until America eradicates' all of our terrorists like Red Wolf. "

    You implied I'm a terrorist.

    > An honest answer to that question would clear up the question as to whether you really are a "hired gun", or if you are just extremely motivated on your own. The answer effects credibility!

    You mean like Olbermann? Is he a "hired gun"?

    And even though I am "playing games" with you johnny, "enquiring minds" really want to know and it IS a revelevant question.

    Mike hit the nail on the head, johnny, it's about credibility.

    If you not being paid, you surely are a "true believer."

    If, however, you are being paid, you may still be a true believer, yes, but you may also be doing it just to line your pocket. There's no way to for us to know. Money certainly can effect judgement, don't you agree?

    It seems to me that if you weren't being paid, you'd have said "no" immediately rather than dance around it. However, your slippery answers certainly lead me to believe that you are being paid.

    And nothing wrong with that. It's a free country and Mr. Cox can spend his money any way he chooses.

    Cecelia:

    As I see it, the continued inference from almost all the Olby haters is that we all should boycott his show because he is a flawed human being who crosses the line and if you believe Johnny's rather biased characterization, is an occasional liar.

    Sorry, but I will continue to enjoy the show, AND it's biases. We actually NEED a few more shows with this kind of bias.

    I've been reading this blog long enough to grasp that the ultimate goal of most of those obsessed with KO is to get him off the air, and to be honest, that actually offends me a little!

    You tell me, what IS the motivation of this little army of KO haters? After all, all they have to do is change the channel and 'vote' with their remote controls and never even have to think of him again.

    EVERY time I have asked this question, I get responses referring to his 'biases'. I say....SO WHAT....this is America! Change the channel!

    Paul Falduto,
    Is George Soros or the Iranian Ayatollahs lining Olbermann's pockets?

    >If you are being paid, you may still be a true believer, yes, but you may also be doing it just to line your pocket.

    You mean like Olbermann?

    We can do a surge. Pull our 70,000 troops out of Germany. Why do have troops in Germany for. Russian can take over Europe for all I care.
    Better the Russians than the Muslims. Also we should pull our troops out of Korea and Japan. They're rich they can defend themselves. If after a real surge we don't crush the Sunnis and their Al-Qaeda allies, we should leave. Let the Shiites and Kurds do it! IO say one more year and leave. Screw them.

    Mike,
    "We actually NEED a few more shows with this kind of bias."
    You mean like MNNBC and CNN?

    Paul writes "The may support the plan, they may not. But the days of giving the President a blank check and pretending that Congress is not a separate and CO-EQUAL branch of government are over."

    Paul, I enjoyed your love letter to the Democratic Party, along with the other posts accusing opponents of being partisan party hacks, but I do think you should consider one something.

    The vast majority of Democrats voted to approve all of Bush's appropriations bills for the war in Iraq. Does Pelosi call THAT giving Bush a "blank check"?

    Too, the majority of Democrats rejected Murtha's bill to pull troops out of Iraq, which was in direct opposition to Administration policy. Would Pelosi term that to be giving Bush a blank check?

    It seems that only now have the Dems decided not to give Bush a blank check, but they'll issue him a pretty large one going in along with the continuation of the war, although most of the people on Kos, including Kos, used the continuation of the war as a means of whipping up a political frenzy.

    But now there's no hurry to leave.

    Hey, I'm down with that and low and behold now Kos is too!

    Democrats-- the party of responsible government.

    Yeah. Aren't they all...

    Well, let's go through this point by point again... i am, for the rercord, getting TIRED of doing this for you though...

    "You LIED that there was no documentation for Keith's Nielsen ratings lie.... when the
    articles linked to the published numbers."

    No, i didn't. & no they don't... There are exactly FIVE (5) references in this part of the posting... &, (here's a surprise,) they all link to the same garbage reviews done by, (you guessed it...) JOHNNY FRAUD!! I urge all of you to go & check this... Because it is FACT!

    "You LIED about what Olby said in the Ferguson video, and in the transcript, and in the audio clip."

    How & where did I lie about this.... All I said was:
    "#1. The 218 Consecutive shows. John Gibson is nothing but a republi-fascist, right wing, FOX News tool. He may accuse Olbermann of being a liberal all he wants. You are wrong on this one, Johnny FRAUD!!

    It is obvious to me (& to anyone who actually listens to your citations) that Olbermann never said that he was on 218 consecutive shows. That wasn't even the point of the Conversation that he & Craig Ferguson were having. Rather, the point was that he is not a liberal! So now you are taking Olbermann's views about his own political beliefs, attempting to spin them against him, by inferring that he lies in saying that he really is not a liberal? That's very petty."

    How can that be characterized as lying... It is MY OPINION. There were no facts there on which I could lie!


    "You ignored Olby's lies about the 9/11 movie..."

    I did not ignore any 'lies' that Olbermann made about the 9/11 movie. All I said was that the movie was garbage, & that olbermann shouldn't have commented on a movie he had never seen. I do not know how that can be characterized as lying. I did say that I found the movie repulsive, however, from what I saw of it.

    "...and about the O'Reilly transcript, documented and proven."

    How, pecisely, (& by whom,) is the O'reilly transcript 'documented & proven' by? FOX News? The Drudge Report? The Daily Howler? O'reilly himself?? Or is it just documented & proven by that greatest authority of them all, Johnny FRAUD himself?

    "Plus, you tell the ultimate lie: "I am NOT an Olbypologist".

    I am not. But, even if I were, so what? Because I am not an Olby basher, like most on this site, I automatically get labeled an 'olbypologist?' This is absolutely pitiful behavior on your part, Johnny FRAUD, & just goes to show what a FRAUD you are.

    "I can't think of one reason why anyone would give serious consideration to anything said by a vile, insulting hack whose only purpose is to defend a vile, insulting, repellent, hack broadcaster."

    Once again, my only purpose is most certainly NOT to defend KO; Rather, it is to enjoy myself arguing with intelligent people. Unfortunately you are not one of those who possesses great amounts of intelligence. (Judging from both your writing style & your views.)


    "Your arguments are dishonest, your tone is foul, and your making-up of facts out of your ass is redolent of the infamous, deplorable Olbermann himself."

    My arguments, (unlike yours,) are fueled by my love for this country. I do not make up facts. As a matter of fact, I'd like to see one Citation (you know what those are, right, Johnny FRAUD) where I made up a fact. yes, there is a difference between an opinion & a fact, also. & despite popular opinion around here, those on the right are not "always correct." Nobody is perfect... (Well, except for Bill O'reilly, right, FRAUD?)

    "Lemme check...yeah, I think that about covers it."

    Posted by: johnny dollar at January 7, 2007 04:20 PM


    I agree... That does 'about cover it.'

    Peace.

    You are asking about JD's "Credibility"? You have got to be kidding me. After JD has repeatedly pointed out Olbermann's lies and dishonesty and bias and all of that, it's not Olbermann you're asking about but JD?

    And I've linked many, many times to hundreds of posts that show the prevailing opinions on those liberal websites to be widespread support for Chavez, Castro & the Iraqi insurgants. What goes on with these little posts that demand proof is that they count on moderates or conservatives who post here is that they will NOT go to those sites and hopefully just take the liberal apologists words that those kinds of attitudes aren't the prevailing opinion there when they most certainly are. And they know it but won't admit it. They try to claim they don't go to those places, they don't know they exist, etc or the biggest lie of all, the posts there that I quote don't represent the majority of posters on those sites when they most certainly do represent the majority of those who post on those kinds of websites.

    And re the people who moan, groan, and bitch that we call fatass Olby names: when he can make it through one single "news" cast without doing the same, I'll stop the namecalling.

    And why don't you demand "credibility" and 'accountability" from him? The circle jerk that is going on here would be funny if it weren't so outrageous. You want to challenge credibility? I guess it's attack the messenger and you don't like the message that JD has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt: Olbermann is a liar. Olbermann is biased. Olbermann is a Democratic party shill who cannnot for the life of him criticize what is now his core audience for fear of alienating them and risking losing that core audience. In short, Olbermann is a coward. And those of you who try repeatedly to change the subject to get the heat off of him and his dishonesty and bias and lies are every bit as guilty as he is. I guess that's why you've decided you'll go after JD now. Pathetic.

    Brandon:

    Once again you missed the point!

    There is no question about whether KO is getting paid or not.

    Attack the messenger? Exactly.....thats what this site is all about!

    Now for the question NOBODY on this site will give an honest answer to; Why do YOU care????

    "so johnny, you don't know whether you get paid or not?

    That's hard to believe.

    You are one slippery fellow."

    Posted by: Paul Falduto at January 7, 2007 04:59 PM

    No, Paul, He is not slippery... Just a FRAUD!!

    PEACE!

    Celelia:

    I saw someone else ask you this a while back. Where do you actually stand on issues such as the Iraq war?. I've read a lot of your posts and cannot tell.

    It MAY well be that you are about the ONLY anti - KO poster on this site who doesn't have a political axe to grind. If so, I comment you for that!

    Olbermann in an insult to journalism. And the idea seems to be with you apologists that he is beyond being criticized because he's telling the lies you want to hear, he's spinning the news the way you want to see it spun. It's wrong. He's a liar. He's biased and you even admit those biases but yet then you have the nerve to turn around and ask why it matters? Who do you think you're really fooling here?

    Whether JD gets paid or not is beside the point. I don't know and I don't care. If he does he does a damn good job with what he does and if he doesn't he's still doing a damn good job and a public service to boot. why does pay matter to YOU?

    johnny, we all know Olbermann is paid and we can judge his motives as we will. I personally am not sure what his motives are, he may not have any. He may just be judging things as he sees them, he may just be doing it for ratings. At least though we know it is possible it is the latter, for we do know he is paid. Same may be said of O'Reilly, for example. We know that either option (or both) are possible, but since we can't get into their heads, who knows for sure?

    We still don't know about your motives. Again, perhaps you are both a true believer and on the payroll.

    Since we can't get into your head either, we'll never know for sure. But at least we'll know its possible you are only doing it for the money, as we know it is possible that Olbermann is too.

    All this concern with who gets their money from where. The proletariat seems to be very agitated today. It must be because Nancy is getting ready to take the bourgeoisie down, and the little people are starting to froth at the mouth.

    I was just using you as an example... I do not really think that you are a terrorist. I am sorry if it came off thhat way...

    PEACE!

    Cecilia, of course Democrats overwhemingly voted for the Defense appropriations, again that shows we are responsible. Bush put the troops there and we aren't going to pull the rug out from under them and put them in harms way. The troops didn't ask to go, they acted on orders.

    Also consider that it was the GOP who drew up the bills without Democratic input, so it was either vote for funding or not and leave the troops dangling in the wind. We just will not do that. It isn't their fault Bush got us into a war of choice, nor is the Democrats.

    That proves we are responsible, not the opposite!

    Mike writes: "I've been reading this blog long enough to grasp that the ultimate goal of most of those obsessed with KO is to get him off the air, and to be honest, that actually offends me a little!"

    Personally, I have no problem with Olbermann staying on the air forever, but since he is under no compulsion by his supervisers to provide any contrary views to his own, I'm happy this site is around to do that, answer his fabrications, etc.

    Mike writes "You tell me, what IS the motivation of this little army of KO haters? After all, all they have to do is change the channel and 'vote' with their remote controls and never even have to think of him again.

    EVERY time I have asked this question, I get responses referring to his 'biases'. I say....SO WHAT....this is America! Change the channel!"


    Well, it's the sort of disconnect I see so often from Olbermann supporters that you would sit on a site dedicated to fisking Olbermann and tell us to change the channel. There are other websites if you are offended or feel the intention of the site is unfair.

    It might not have occured to you but it's obvious that you identify with the dynamics of the place because you do stay here. You do attempt to counter Johnny's blogs and opponent's posts here. So it's not quite that difficult for you to understand why we do this, now is it.

    Let me add that I also don't think it's really hard for you to understand why "EVERY time I have asked this question, I get responses referring to his 'biases", after all biases seem to be an issue. Afterall, you don't just continue to hang out here, you are asking Johnny about his personal info.

    > they all link to the same garbage reviews done by

    Each of which links to the Nielsen numbes it deals with. Tell the truth.

    > "...and about the O'Reilly transcript, documented and proven."

    Again, the links take you to the statement of the transcript company. Oh gee, you didn't mentiion that. Another lie.

    > I'd like to see one Citation (you know what those are, right, Johnny FRAUD) where I made up a fact.

    - You, & your employer Bill O'reilly need help
    - He can deny it all he wants. But the fact of the matter is, he is an employee of the 'Big Falafel' (as KO would call him.)

    There's two. I'm being exceptionally generous to a proven liar.

    "Cecilia, of course Democrats overwhemingly voted for the Defense appropriations, again that shows we are responsible. Bush put the troops there and we aren't going to pull the rug out from under them and put them in harms way. The troops didn't ask to go, they acted on orders."

    Well, then it's dishonest of Pelosi to characterize something she thinks is utterly necessary as Republicans "giving a blank check" to the president.

    "Also consider that it was the GOP who drew up the bills without Democratic input, so it was either vote for funding or not and leave the troops dangling in the wind. We just will not do that. It isn't their fault Bush got us into a war of choice, nor is the Democrats."

    No, they couldn't have left the troops dangling in the wind by not voting on appropriations that you insinuate might not have been to their liking. They were in the minority and the bills would have passed anyway.

    Isn't it much more realistic to say that they either agreed with these appropriations -- gave the president his blank check or they voted for the bills for political reasons. In which case either scenario makes Pelosi characterization dishonest.


    You said you wanted to know if I think Olbermann is the devil, but you don't ask me that. You ask who signs my paycheck. What will you want next, my Zodiac sign? The PIN to my bank account?

    > Again, perhaps you are both a true believer and on the payroll.

    Perhaps. Perhaps that's true of Olbermann. And perhaps not. So since you can never know, why do you keep asking irrelevancies? It's not going to answer your question. In strictest terms the answer is unknowable, just as it is with Olbermann. I judge Olbermann not by who signs his paycheck but by what he says. What's so hard about that?

    "Pull our 70,000 troops out of Germany. Why do have troops in Germany for."

    And once again, Red Wolf proves he is a MORON.

    Do you know WHY we have troops in Germany? Because when our soldiers get wounded on the battlefield, they are AIRLIFTED TO GERMANY - specifically, to Ramstein Air Base. It is the closest military hospital to Iraq and the "first stop" for soldiers treated in the field BEFORE they are returned stateside. Abandoning our military positions there RISKS American lives in Iraq because there would be NO major American medical facility to take them to within easy reach.

    Also, Spangdahlem Air Base is the MAJOR resupply hub for material bound for the Middle East. Without it, there are no major forward air bases close enough to get supplies there quickly.

    "Also we should pull our troops out of Korea and Japan. They're rich they can defend themselves."

    You do realize that we signed the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security with Japan, which means that U.S. forces provides security for Japan? And that Japan's constitution PROHIBITS it from having any form of military beyond a small Self-Defense Force?

    As for Korea, 30,000 troops is all we have deployed there, most of whom are not equipped for re-deployment into the Middle East.

    Rico said: "the proletariat seems very agitated today".

    Yea you got us Rico! I'm just sitting here on my wrap around reclining sofa watching my 52" HDTV opining about why KO doesn't have a Sunday night show as well. No problem....I really need to think about taking the long walk down the hall to my heated 2 car garage and do a little tuning on my vintage musclecar anyway. But maybe not, I'll just get back on my new wireless laptop and spout some more libral stuff since I don't feel like going all the way upstairs to turn on one of my desktop computers.

    Yes, I really hate being this deprived since I don't live in a gated community like Brandon does!

    Brandon, once again, who cares what "lefty" bloggers say (although I still say you have grossly mischaracterized what the majority do say)?

    These are not people with any power, some may not even be old enough to vote, so who cares.

    Again, name some Democrats with any power who say nice things about Chavez or Castro, or who say they are happy to see troops killed, or any other of your stale recycled Rush Limbaugh talking points you regurgitated above.

    It's easy to hurl out baseless charges, as you have shown. Now back them up or shut up.

    I wish Mr. Olbermann had half the willingness to have dissenting views on his program as JD and Bob Cox have at this site.

    No, make that 1/10 the willingness.

    Hell, at this point, I'd settle for Olbermann allowing one guest on his show to dissent from his views.

    As Cecelia so pointedly indicated, it is passing strange reading how the same people who tell us to turn Olbermann off if we don't like it then complain about the inappropriateness of this site.

    Passing strange indeed.

    Cecelia:

    You certainly are good at avoiding my question and then questioning MY motives.

    No problem, I'm here because I really DO want to get into the minds of the far right. No problem....I was utterly AMAZED (not to mention, depressed), when we lost the 2004 election and put a proven screw up right back in office as the CIC. Ever since then I have been really trying to understand the thinking of the folks that put him there. I won't find the answer to this question on DNC sites.

    I dislike O'Reilly intently, and I think his show is anything but "fair and balanced", but if there is an "O'Reilly Watch" site out there, you won't find me on it. Ditto for anti Rush, anti Hannity, etc. sites, if they exist.

    You see, I really am not particularly interested in being preached to by the choir....I can think and decide for myself whether a political show deserves my viewership. I don't need Johnny's help in doing that.

    But I'm STILL trying to figure out how the mind of an extreme right winger actually works?

    Cecilia, I guess you are just not reading my posts thorougly because once again, you mischaracterize what I have said.

    Of course Democrats supported the spending bills. The troops were there and the Dems knew Bush wasn't going to pull them out. And many times the GOP refused to hold hearings on these bills, just bringing them to the floor without hearings, or if they did hold hearings, they just left Dems out in many cases and did it on their own. Dems had little or no input; it was either vote for against the bill on the floor.

    So the choice is either reluctantly vote for the spending bills or vote to leave the troops hanging, which they would not do. Bush put them in a hell of a box. That's their fault? Aren't you blaming the wrong people here?

    Now that the Dems are in control, there will be no blank checks, there will be hearings with lots of questions about how this money will be spent and whether it is for supporting the troops now there or for a "surge," if Bush proposes such (which now seems highly likely).

    Once again, like everything else about this mess, there are no good options, only trying to choose the best of the bad ones.

    johnny, you should change your handle to "johnnydollarsthatmrcoxpaysme."

    PROUD to be a LIBERAL,
    I accept your aplogy.

    Ensign,
    I understand having the hospitals there, but 70,000 troops? Come on. Screw Europe.

    Ok Ohboy, I'll try the "free Market" approach to my question since you still won't answer it. Once again, I an NOT complaining at all about the existance of the site....IT'S FUN....I wouldn't be here otherwise!

    Now for the free market approach: You people preach how much you believe in the Free Market, and let the market rule. OK, why are you so offended by a show that puts out a 'product' you dislike??

    If you love Chevy's and hate Fords, what do you do? You go out and buy a Chevy and be done with it. You don't spend hours of your time posting on an anti-Ford site!

    uberloon blathers that he's gaining in the ratings. Looks like O'Reilly is STILL beating him at a nearly a 4:1 clip, and Meltdown is losing to direct competitors Zahn and Grace... and Keith wants a RAISE? Certainly not based on PERFORMANCE?

    Mike,

    Please describe your muscle car. I would love to know about it.

    Mike,

    Nobody is trying to shut down Krazy Keith. I, for one, would miss him if he were gone. This site is a "truth detector" for Keith's comments. When he is dishonest or goes a little bit over the top it is pointed out here, and it is done very well. They should be paying J$.

    Rico Baby:

    It's a 1986 Buick T-Type Grand National. Very lightly tweaked.

    Last 1/4 mile time posted was an 11.94 @ 114 MPH recorded 7 years ago when I used to race it for fun, routinely embarrasing Corvettes, Mustangs, Z28's, etc., etc. I'm getting a little old for that so now it mostly sits in the garage except for an occasional good weather drive.

    Any other questions?

    Rico, according to the digests posted by johnny every weeknight, Olbermann is always over the top and always wrong and his guests are too. There is no reasoned analyis of why, of course, it is just assumed that he and his guests are always wrong and they are called silly little "inside" juvenile names by johnny and the rest of you "Olbyhaters" (see, two can play at your game.)

    This is not "Olbermannwatch" it is "Olbermannbash." If it were thus correctly named, I'd agree that johnny does a really good job.

    Mike,

    Thanks. I didn't even know that any cars from the 1980s were called "muscle cars". Not my field of expertise.

    In the future, I will have more questions for you, and you probably won't like many of them.

    Paul,

    Evidently, you didn't read my post.

    If the Democrats didn't support the appropriations bills or didn't like the specifics of the bills, they could have voted "no" and still have not have left the troops hanging.

    Republicans were the majority AND they along with some pro-war Democrats made passage guaranteed.

    Again, if Dems had not liked the specifics of the bill they could have voted their conscience without it effecting the troops. The Dems overwhelmingly gave the president what Pelosi characterized as a blank check, because they agreed with the bills or because it was the politically expedient thing to do.

    Either scenario makes Pelosi's characterization dishonest.

    Either way, describing those scenarios as the Republcans giving a blank check to the president is dishonest.

    Rico:

    OK, but try to avoid asking me ridiculous questions like "if someone slapped me at work, what would I do to prevent it from happening again?", or if you do, fill in all the variables before asking it.

    Paul,

    At this site we don't claim to be "fair and balanced" or that we are "journalists". We bash Krazy Keith here and have fun doing it. If your only complaint is the name of the site then we ain't doin' too bad.

    We do think Krazy Keith is over the top and dishonest every show he does. And if the Olbermeister ever did a show fair to the right we would be checkmated.

    "If the Democrats didn't support the appropriations bills or didn't like the specifics of the bills, they could have voted "no" and still have not have left the troops hanging."

    "Again, if Dems had not liked the specifics of the bill they could have voted their conscience without it effecting the troops."

    In an ideal world, yes. But this is the REAL WORLD, and out here doing that would have given every wingnut commentator in the country license to say "The Democrats hate the troops." Doesn't matter if it isn't true, that would become the story.

    "Either way, describing those scenarios as the Republcans giving a blank check to the president is dishonest."

    If you have NO oversight of how the money is spent and NO real coherent plan on what to do, it sounds like a "blank check" to me (as in the original definition of being open-ended or vague).

    Thanks Ensign, you said it better than I could have.

    So, the Democrats who truly didn't want to vote for the war wait until 3,000 plus are killed and thousands injured before they make a stand? Amazingly as election time nears?

    Correction, I guess near election time it wasn't yet 3,000.

    No sharm, that's not at all the case. Democrats didn't put the troops there, Bush did.

    But once they were there, Democrats could not in good conscience vote to cut off funding because that would have meant the troops wouldn't have the supplies and equipment they needed.

    Plus, even if they wanted to cut off these funds and even if they could have suceeded, Bush would have just transfered other DOD funds to Iraq. He has proven time and again he will do what he wants, and Congress be damned, if need be.

    Consider that Dems must deal with a President who has contempt for Congress and our Constitution.

    Mike,

    I've questioned the logic of some of your statements, I'm not sure when I've questioned your motives. I assume your motives are to defend whatever political position you hold.

    The savenger hunt for nefarious motives, political ideologies, and paychecks, so you can further discount the opinions and arguments of those folks you say you seek to understand, seems to be quite an issue with your side of late.

    I only mentioned your being here at OW in the context of your asking me why we don't just change the channel when Countdown comes on.

    We too like to hear the opposition and to see the mindset of the far left as filtered through Olbermann. We like to view it and discuss it. Not so difficult or unreasonable a "motive"... no?

    That we think Olbermann should be billed as a pundit and offer alternative views and most certainly allow people he's accused of various things, on air to defend themselves is only natural. You'd be the first one clamoring for those things if Bob Cox censored comments and viewpoints here.

    I brought up your habit of being here--on a website with a mission that you find of questionable value, only to counter your statement that it made no sense for us to watch Olbermann when we question his value...as it were...and to help you understand why, by showing you that you do exactly the same thing.

    Otherwise, I no curiousity whatsoever about your motives or about why you make the internet site choices you make.

    Good point, Paul, about Bush doing what he wants:

    Most of ya'll think I'm nothing but a damned libral but, believe it or not, I used to listen to Limbaugm's show fairly regularly during the run up to the Congressional vote on the war.

    I distinctly racall Limbaughm's argument that a Congressional 'yes' vote was not at all necessary for us to invade Iraq, and it was going to happen regardless of the outcome of the vote. I think he was right!

    Paul,

    To use your phrase, in the real world, most politicians care about re-election. Theoretically, what you are saying is true. Pat Buchanon was against the war and for closing our borders, two points many Americans now favor. But because he is strongly pro-life (get rid or Roe), he never stood a chance as a presidential candidate (didn't even run last election.) Unfaithful Catholics like Peolosi made sure of that. He was painted into a racist maniac. He stood behind the president in wartime for the morale of the country and the troops. (which is what I tried to do). He stands for principle which only strangely, Kucinich has been doing. AT least he has enough guts to say cut the funds. There's enough money in the pipeline to get them home. Tying this into the purpose of this site, Olby stands for himself, not for truth.

    The key difference now is that the Democrats will not just give Bush what he wants without asking any questions about it, as the last Congress did.

    As Nancy Pelosi said today on "Face The Nation":

    "If the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it. And this is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions. And we?ve gone into this situation, which is a war without end, which the American people have rejected.

    "If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request we want to see a distinction between what is there to support the troops who are there now. The American people and the Congress support those troops. We will not abandon them."

    Democrats will hold hearings and examine the request and if they find it reasonable, perhaps they will go along with it or at least parts of it. Part of Bush's plan may be economic aid and certainly the Dems would look favorably on that.

    But no more "blank checks" for an open-ended, stay the course non-policy. And I think the vast majority of Americans agree with that.

    We can, and should have some trainers and advisers there, which I believe the vast majority of Dems would support, but our troops should not be the ones going house to house in Baghdad (which it appears to be the purpose of the "surge"), kicking down doors because the people in the house don't know what the hell is going on and why the troops want to go into their homes because our troops can't speak their language.

    If a soldier from a foreign country who couldn't speak our language came to your door and insisted on coming in, might not you resist it?

    We think we have a mess now? Just wait and see what happens if that comes to pass.

    "Unfaithful Catholics like Peolosi made sure of that."

    Why is Pelosi's faith at all RELEVANT to this discussion, sharm?

    Cecelia:

    Agreed, with one exception. If Mr. Cox censured opinions, I obviously wouldn't be on here, nor would I let it bother me one bit. I think this probably is a more successfull site because of the disenting viewpoints.

    I think even most of the Olby haters would find this site pretty dull if it were nothing but a contest of who could be the baddest KO basher!

    "If you have NO oversight of how the money is spent and NO real coherent plan on what to do, it sounds like a "blank check" to me (as in the original definition of being open-ended or vague)"

    Good lord.

    The point is that they voted AYE for that blank check. If they had disapproved of the amount of money or the earmarks they could have voted their conscience with no consequence to the troops and it would have shown that the Dems did not support the bills, or particular things within the bills, or giving "a blank check" to the president and that they weren't going to cooperate with it.

    Again their NO vote would not have kept the troops from getting their money.

    However,the opposite happened. The vast majority of Dems did not even issue a protest vote. That means that they either voted "yes" because they did not have any problems with the bills or they voted yes because they thought it would be politically dangerous for them to do otherwise.

    Either scenario conflicts with Pelosi's description of Republicans giving the president a blank check as though Dems weren't right there voting "yes" for all those checks... with them.

    Mike and Paul,
    The reason we come on this site is to expose Olbermann's propaganda. He repeats the same points night after night. He should come out and say he's a Leftist. Instaed he claims he's neutral. He also criticizes people for the same things he does. If he cam out and said, his show is Leftwing commentary as opposed to a Newsshow I would respect him more.

    First of all, it was an aside. To explain, Catholics routinely vote for candidates in favor of abortion, against their faith. Buchanon, who would not have gotten the U.S. into the war, and other pro-lifers (get rid of Roe), are practically non-existent in government. Buchanon would have made a really strong president. His view on the war (as well as immigration) echo public opinion. Olby is a Catholic basher. (I have heard numerous disrespectful comments since I have watched his show).

    "surely you jest, Cee.

    "Nobody speaks like that in the real world.

    "Your attempt to 'impress' us with your vernacular has the total opposite effect.

    "Coupled with the fact that you are 99.245% full of s--- with everything you say, just brings that baby home even more succinctly."

    The use of "Surely you jest," and the profanity tells me WAY more about "voice," than my tongue-in-cheek excess says about me. BTW, I find no need to impress anyone...I would not have apologized prior to my closing remark if I was so full of myself. Again, another example of projection....I humbly suggest some self-reflection.

    It is interesting that voice did not, nor did any of Keith Olbermann's supporters, refute my condemnation of dehumanizing opponents. The problem is, however, that I also have not heard an apology from those same tolerant, caring and progressive individuals for using dehumanizing characterizations.

    I was responded to the other day about how being a conservative is so bad, and how liberals are so good....LIBeration, progressive, evolved, thinkers, reality based....etc. The behavior and activity, however, tells the real tale. This is what I see in Keith Olbermann. He pretends to be open-minded, fair, modern and tolerant. The behavior, however, is much different. He lies, twists words and uses rhetoric Ann Coulter would blush at to make his points then cries foul over the silliest issues his targets make.

    This is what I saw in my liberal eduaction at university....Professors claiming to be "progressive," yet acting just as greedy, elitist and racist as the best Republican at Green Acres CC. This same jive is what I see when Proud, Paul, Sir Loin of Milquetoast and Professor Honeydew (Bob) condemn me for my views....intolerant hypocrites.

    Then I directly engage this two-faced group with a simple observation that their hero used a dehumanizing anti-Semetic term and ask, "where's the condemnation?" and I get a critique of my vocabulary....by someone claiming to be "voice of reason."

    As Dr. Evil would say......."Riiiight."

    Good night folks....I'll patiently review the leftist thuggery in the morning.

    "Olby is a Catholic basher."

    Do you care to elaborate? Maybe with some video links? I have a feeling this holds as much water as Olby hates Jews.

    GO GATORS!!!!

    Right on Cecelia (back to topic- no more Catholic stuff).

    "In an ideal world, yes. But this is the REAL WORLD, and out here doing that would have given every wingnut commentator in the country license to say "The Democrats hate the troops." Doesn't matter if it isn't true, that would become the story."

    So you're arguing that the majority of the dems voted FOR appropriations bills they dislike, for a war they don't support, on behalf of a president they dislike, in order to protect themselves from bad publicity from talk show hosts!

    Damn! You have a more negative opinion of THEM than I do!

    So the realistic statement Pelosi should have said is that the majority of Dems voted "yes" along with Republicans on giving the president what he wanted in order to protect their careers.

    Thank you for that.

    Now you and Paul argue that they won't hesitate to turn down the president because ...righwing pundits have been taken to heaven in the rapture?

    sharm, it is not at all true that most American want to "close the borders." They want to "control the borders."

    Huge difference.

    My last post for tonight. Good night and good luck.

    I don't want to anger anyone by a religious discussion. I will try to be brief. I tuned into Olbermann because I heard Imus state something that he said on his show that was funny. I used to watch with no big feelings. Then I noticed what other people here have and found this site. I don't have proof of specific examples of Catholic bashing and wasn't particularly looking for them. When a Catholic watches a show (one who cares) comments are blaring that wouldn't be to others. Olby is quite subtle (I don't doubt his intelligence, just his ability to be fair and admit mistakes.

    Mike:
    "If you love Chevy's and hate Fords, what do you do? You go out and buy a Chevy and be done with it. You don't spend hours of your time posting on an anti-Ford site! "

    Well, I'm not sure what your question is/was since, going about my day, I've lost track of this thread.

    Anyway, if you think Ford was a disreputable company wouldn't you promote your anti-Ford sentiments?

    The internet is filled with anti-"x" sites that monitor or critique companies and organizations and, in this instance, news commentators or journalists/media figures.

    There's a Hannity watch, a Limbaugh watch, a Fox watch (Newshound) and then there's Media Matters which watches and condemns anything or anyone to the right of Pol Pot.

    Simply add to the list, Olbermann watch.

    As to why Bob Cox and JD put the site together, you can ask them. Although I think they've made their reasons pretty clear.

    As for why I personally post here, it's largely because of the troubling promotion by a number of media critics in favor of Olbermann's "style" or method of reporting. These critics have applauded Olbermann's "news reporting" or "journalism".

    The latest was the media critic for "The New Yorker". Other critics (SF Chronicle, USA Today) have also celebrated Olbermann's "innovative reporting."

    No. What Olbermann is doing is not reporting or "news anchoring" by any definition.

    He's offering a lousy product. I'm complaining about it and don't want other news organization to offer similiar services.

    Nothing more than that.

    I meant close the borders to illegals Paul

    Olbermann bashes Evangelicals, Catholics and Jew regurlarly. He stciks up for Muslims all the time. I wonder why that is?

    Sharm, you went from saying "Olby is a Catholic basher" to "I don't have proof of specific examples of Catholic bashing". Are you kidding me? Sharm is a sham.

    IT'S GREAT! TO BE! A FLORIDA GATOR!

    I started watching his show when Saddams's sons were killed. I wasn't prepared to keep documents. The next time he makes one of his comments, I'll let ya know!

    Uday and Qusay are ed-day (Olbermann's comment that Imus was laughing about that made me tune in). I guess that would be very insulting to use pig LAtin- didn't Olby realize that was an affront to Muslims?

    "To explain, Catholics routinely vote for candidates in favor of abortion, against their faith. Buchanon, who would not have gotten the U.S. into the war, and other pro-lifers (get rid of Roe), are practically non-existent in government."

    Um, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is Pro-Life...

    "So you're arguing that the majority of the dems voted FOR appropriations bills they dislike, for a war they don't support, on behalf of a president they dislike, in order to protect themselves from bad publicity from talk show hosts!"

    Follow the logic to its conclusion, Cecilia...can you tell me ANY politician that could survive in this environment if they're smeared as "hating the troops"?

    "So the realistic statement Pelosi should have said is that the majority of Dems voted "yes" along with Republicans on giving the president what he wanted in order to protect their careers."

    Yes, so that when they COULD they could fight the fights worth fighting. It's kind of hard to be an agent for change when you've been booted from office because the right-wing spin machine paints you as "anti-military".

    "But once they were there, Democrats could not in good conscience vote to cut off funding because that would have meant the troops wouldn't have the supplies and equipment they needed."

    Yes, they could have and done it precisely in what you call "good conscience". The votes would have been there anyway so they could have voted their heart in a protest vote.

    I think Codas now has heavy competition in the cranial density department.

    Ensign Pro-life means no exceptions. Even Pres. Bush is not 100% pro-life. My husband must explain Sydney Crosby's fantastic goal to tie in the second period.

    Go Pens!

    I think I'll have to go with my real first name, Sharon. Even though I had filled out forms for a number of years for student loans, during my last year someone in the "higher education" department looked at my sloppy signature and changed Sharon to Sharm in the system. So credit cards, ... came to Sharm. My very best friend and her children call me Sharm. Now people on this site do and its weirding me out. So, please address me as Sharon- someone tell me how to change my name here-if you would be so kind. If not, I'll get to it sometime.

    Ensign writes: "Yes, so that when they COULD they could fight the fights worth fighting. It's kind of hard to be an agent for change when you've been booted from office because the right-wing spin machine paints you as "anti-military".

    If the rightwing spin machine had that much influence they wouldn't have a majority now.

    But I agree with you. Oh, do I agree with you.

    Anon:

    Thanks. I've asked the question a dozen times and yours is the best answer I've been given.

    Oh- just change it- duh

    That is just pitiful! No backbone when you know lives are at stake! OOOh, someone might paint me as anti-military. Not if you explain sincerely, that you believe you are saving their lives! Excuses! To go off topic once again, they (DEms) all thought it was terrible to get involved in the Terry Schiavo case but said NOTHING of record on the floor- can't get myself on record for something I believe is wrong!

    Celelia writes: "if the rightwing spin machine had that much influence they wouldn't have a majority now (speaking of the Dems, I assume)?

    Oh, do I disagree with you on that one. If the rightwing spin machine DIDN'T have as much influence as they do, the Dems would have a 100 seat majority right now!

    "Oh, do I disagree with you on that one. If the rightwing spin machine DIDN'T have as much influence as they do, the Dems would have a 100 seat majority right now!"


    uh huh In which case it would behoove you to be at those anti-Rush and Hannity sites, my friend...

    Olbermann critics are smart enough to be here exposing Olbermann and the stealth leftists.

    But that means I'd hafta listen to Rush! NOOOOO......!

    "But that means I'd hafta listen to Rush! NOOOOO......!"

    Yep. Within momemts you would be completely under his spell, hollering "megadittoes!" and hoping Alan keyes runs for office again...

    Sharm... How about that goal by Recchi?

    GO PENS!!

    Sharm... How about that goal by Recchi?

    GO PENS!!

    Sharm... How about that goal by Recchi?

    GO PENS!!

    "...each of which links to the Nielsen numbes it deals with. Tell the truth."

    I am telling the truth.... I did not, do not, & will not follow your links-upon-links-upon-links. I mean, if that were logically the right way to cite material, then there would never be a need for citations... (Because once one thing is cited, everything would be cited...) If you need help with this, I'd (personally) suggest the St. Martin's handbook for creative writing.


    "> "...and about the O'Reilly transcript, documented and proven."

    Again, the links take you to the statement of the transcript company. Oh gee, you didn't mentiion that. Another lie."

    Yup.... because you are always right, Johnnie FRAUD! You are such a pompous jackass... I can tell this just from your conversation with Paul.

    "> I'd like to see one Citation (you know what those are, right, Johnny FRAUD) where I made up a fact.

    - You, & your employer Bill O'reilly need help
    - He can deny it all he wants. But the fact of the matter is, he is an employee of the 'Big Falafel' (as KO would call him.)

    There's two. I'm being exceptionally generous to a proven liar."

    --Note this, Johnny FRAUD. Your conversation with Paul proves to me that you are owned by somebody else... & I feel bad for you because of this.

    That being said, I would like to know why Mr. Cox, Mr. O'Reilly, or whomever owns this website would hire such a shoddy journalist as yourself?

    I await the response from those in charge..

    PEACE!

    Don't hold your breath.

    Have no fear, Johnny FRAUD, I am not...

    "To go off topic once again, they (DEms) all thought it was terrible to get involved in the Terry Schiavo case but said NOTHING of record on the floor- can't get myself on record for something I believe is wrong!"

    Sharon, do you know HOW that happened? There were only 3 Senators (all Republicans) present on the floor, and only 261 House members. The Senate passed the measure by "voice vote", which means no record of votes exists.

    On the House side - 53 Democrats voted against it (out of 58 recorded no votes). But 100 Democrats were not present for the vote at all.

    And Sharon, no one can be 100% pro-life because such a position is logically impossible. If you are pro-life with NO EXCEPTION, then you accept that some mothers who cannot safely carry a baby to term WILL DIE. How can you be "100% pro-life" and accept some amount of death in this manner?

    I think Codas now has heavy competition in the cranial density department.

    Posted by: Cecelia at January 7, 2007 09:09 PM

    Hey!

    Donora is 25 miles south of Pittsburgh. You want to talk Penguins? I was a Penguin fan back to the Jean Pronovost days. Kansas City is courting Mario in an attempt to purchase them. Better never happen.

    Ensign,

    I watched what happened at the time. Where the other Democrats were, I can't answer. I saw statements made on the floor, mostly by Republicans. A couple of Democrats did speak out (don't remember who- Nailor I think was one).

    As harsh as it sounds, I do believe in pro-life 100%. The baby may not be able to be saved in some cases; but don't intentionally kill the child. I think most moms would say that they would take a bullet for their child. There is one who did that. (To get Catholic again). Pope John Paul canonized Gianna Molla, a physician was diagnosed with a tumor on her utererus discovered when she was pregnant. Having the baby was likely to kill her. She had the baby. Gianna lived long enough to hold her baby. I hope no woman ever has to be in that circumstance. By the way, Rebublicans don't have clean hands all the time either. I know that.

    It may be off topic but hockey is really a great example of what we should strive for in this crazy world. You have Russians playing along side of Slovaks, and Finlanders playing with the Sweedes for an American team playing a game in French Canada. And yes, there a few African decendants playing now. I might be mistaken but I don't think there are any Middle Eastern players yet.

    Donora,

    Too bad I don't agree with your treatment of Johnny Dollar. Lay off! I grew up not far from Donora (don't live there now). Sports was even a uniting factor for Iraqis during the soccer championship game.

    I watched one of the longest Pen games in history, I think in 1996(?) They beat the Capitals(?)

    Donora,

    Too bad I don't agree with your treatment of Johnny Dollar. Lay off! I grew up not far from Donora (don't live there now). Sports was even a uniting factor for Iraqis during the soccer championship game.

    I watched one of the longest Pen games in history, I think in 1996(?) They beat the Capitals(?)

    Excuse if posted twice

    I watched one of the longest Pen games in history, I think in 1996(?) They beat the Capitals(?)


    Posted by: sharon at January 7, 2007 11:31 PM

    If that's the game I think it was, it was won in overtime by a shot from Petr Nedved for the Pens. I went out side at 2:30 in the morning and screamed. My neighbors may have thought they lived next to a nut, but I knew someone out there heard me and enjoyed it as much as I did.

    I will probably write a few more useless comments because my two year old won't go to sleep. That was the game by the way. Mario's name will mean the same thing to Pittsburgh as yours does to Johnny if Pens leave. You know he got you.

    Mario is a hero to pittsburgh fans forever. Only Roberto Clemente comes close to him in reverence. If he sells the Pens to an outsider I will be unhappy but not at him. It will be the City of Pittsburgh I will be upset with. If you know this area, you know we look for victory in places like Hockey or Football etc... What do we have but bars, churches and a lot of good ethnic food from the many Italions, Slovs, and hunkys that live here.

    get me some halopkees (spelling ?)

    My dad worked in the steelmill for about 45 years-we grew up with Steeler football. Everybody within 100 radius cheered for the Steelers, except for my mother. She was a Cowboys fan. She thought the Steelers were just a bunch of old ugly guys.

    I had a friend who was a Cowboy fan back in the day. It did take a brave soul to be one then. Although the Mon Valley was and still is a very depressed area economicly, I love it here for the most part. My feet hurt, like a lot of folks here but I feel like I would be out of place anywhere else.

    I make it a habit to read the liberal blogs, websites, etc every day. And I can tell you that's exactly what the vast majority of crap on those sites says. Support Chavez, support Fidel, support communisim, socialisim, money is bad, the insurgants are "freedom fighters", terrorist-"rights" are being violated, screw America, the soldiers are bad, etc.

    I read a lot also, Brandon, and I don't know what YOUR reading, but I never read anyone saying "soldiers are bad, screw America,money is bad" just taking those 3 for now.
    Please provide some concrete examples of a responsible web site saying any of these things.
    I think it comes from your own warped perceptions. more than reality.

    "Answer me this, if what he is doing so right, if there is nothing wrong with him airing his special comments and airing his little opinions on a NEWS show, then why does he go out of his way to claim he's not biased, he's not behind any political party, he's not pro-Democratic, etc in every single interview he gives"?

    Maybe because that's the way he feels.He, like any American, is entitled to his beliefs .
    And what's wrong with having a news show WITH opinions?
    Most Americans want to hear the news. Some of this news is made up of incidents that demonstrate how badly this president is harming this country.
    Many Americans LIKE that they can hear someone blast this very president when he cuts off veterans' benefits the same day he's bragging how he'll never let the men in the military down.
    ....or how one day he says "we're definitely winning the war in Iraq and then a few weeks later says "We're not winning , we're not losing."
    I can give dozens of example of this type of hypocrisy.
    One thing that most of you Oblyhaters can't stomach is that he is exposing a lot of truths that you would love to not be heard.
    There appears to be this 'wink wink' 'nod nod' avoidance of the hypocrisies and bad policies of this president by you ostriches.


    get me some halopkees (spelling ?)
    Posted by: sharon at January 7, 2007 11:55 PM

    Close enough. The Mon Valley is full of them.

    "Where the other Democrats were, I can't answer. I saw statements made on the floor, mostly by Republicans. A couple of Democrats did speak out (don't remember who- Nailor I think was one)."

    So how can you say that the Dems didn't speak out when HALF the House Democrats and ALL of the Senate Democrats weren't present? And remember, it took just 3 hours from the time the bill was introduced to the House to it being passed. That does not leave a lot of time for rational, reasoned debate.

    It's moot anyway, because there was a side issue that the Federal Government violated the Tenth Amendment by interfering upon the sovereign powers of the State of Florida to interpret its own laws.

    "The baby may not be able to be saved in some cases; but don't intentionally kill the child."

    So the mother dies instead for a CHANCE that the baby may live? Seems a tad cold to me.

    What of rape? What of incest? I know that the percentages are small, but those are situations that DO occur. Are you saying that a woman who is the victim of rape or incest then has to carry her attacker's baby to term?

    Sorry for pulling us further off-topic, but I'm trying to see where this is going.

    Cecilia is SO concerned if KO committed a racial slur, but a hypocritial president and one responsible for botching a war in Iraq, not so much.

    That gal really has her priorities----in the dumpster.

    Donora is 25 miles south of Pittsburgh. You want to talk Penguins? I was a Penguin fan back to the Jean Pronovost days. Kansas City is courting Mario in an attempt to purchase them. Better never happen.

    Posted by: Donora Pa at January 7, 2007 11:15 PM

    You are damned right it better never happen, Donora... Unfortunately, Mario hasn't gotten his new arena yet, though... & with the absolutely senseless awarding of the casino to the North Shore group... (Costing us millions of dollars as area taxpayers, for an arena we need regardless...)

    It just makes me sick to think about...

    I live in Squirrel Hill, though...

    PEACE!

    Sharon:The Annenberg center is a very right wing think tank. I live a few miles from it.
    It has almost no credibility on the Penn Campus where it is located and far beyond it's borders.

    You googled, you tried, you're wrong.
    You had to avoid all the other sites that do talk about Bush's hypocrisy towards the troops.

    I know you can't handle the truth.
    I wonder if the Paralyzed vets,Iraqi War vets and the American Legion are LIARS.


    Paralyzed Veterans of America Denounces House Budget Committee's Funding Cuts in Veterans' Benefits and Services. "It is a dark day when Congress takes the budget knife to the hard-earned benefits and health-care services earned by the veterans of this Nation to support an ill-conceived tax cut,' said Fox. ' I find it unconscionable that a majority of the members of the House Budget Committee think it appropriate to strip benefits and health care earned on the field of battle and in defense of freedom to promote their tax cut proposal, particularly at a time when we are in the process of sending more young men and women into harm's way...."

    Veterans Against the Iraq War: Republicans Seek to Slash VA Budget. "Today the House of Representatives will vote on a resolution that if passed will devastate the Veterans Administration's budget and severely reduce its medical, disability, and benefit programs. On the verge of war in Iraq, the Republican Paty has placed in its cross-hairs American veterans from earlier wars..."

    The American Legion-- The World's Largest Veterans Organization: Veterans Battle Budget Cuts. "A fiscal year 2004 budget plan approved by the House Budget Committee would slash $470 billion from domestic spending, including health care and compensation for disabled veterans provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The House budget resolution would leave intact the $1.6 trillion Bush tax cut plan and allow huge spending increases on defense and homeland security. 'Veterans' pensions and disability compensation are parts of the costs of defending freedom. Our nation cannot, in good conscience, commit men and women to battle, and reduce the meager, yet well-deserved, compensation for those who are wounded,' said American Legion National Commander Ronald F. Conley. 'Of all the citizens who benefit from mandatory federal funding, none are worthier than those who are disabled today because they risked all of their tomorrows fighting for freedom. This budget defies common sense. We'll fight it with all our might.' ..."


    Sharon:The Annenberg center is a very right wing think tank. I live a few miles from it.
    It has almost no credibility on the Penn Campus where it is located and far beyond it's borders.

    You googled, you tried, you're wrong.
    You had to avoid all the other sites that do talk about Bush's hypocrisy towards the troops.

    I know you can't handle the truth.
    I wonder if the Paralyzed vets,Iraqi War vets and the American Legion are LIARS.


    Paralyzed Veterans of America Denounces House Budget Committee's Funding Cuts in Veterans' Benefits and Services. "It is a dark day when Congress takes the budget knife to the hard-earned benefits and health-care services earned by the veterans of this Nation to support an ill-conceived tax cut,' said Fox. ' I find it unconscionable that a majority of the members of the House Budget Committee think it appropriate to strip benefits and health care earned on the field of battle and in defense of freedom to promote their tax cut proposal, particularly at a time when we are in the process of sending more young men and women into harm's way...."

    Veterans Against the Iraq War: Republicans Seek to Slash VA Budget. "Today the House of Representatives will vote on a resolution that if passed will devastate the Veterans Administration's budget and severely reduce its medical, disability, and benefit programs. On the verge of war in Iraq, the Republican Paty has placed in its cross-hairs American veterans from earlier wars..."

    The American Legion-- The World's Largest Veterans Organization: Veterans Battle Budget Cuts. "A fiscal year 2004 budget plan approved by the House Budget Committee would slash $470 billion from domestic spending, including health care and compensation for disabled veterans provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The House budget resolution would leave intact the $1.6 trillion Bush tax cut plan and allow huge spending increases on defense and homeland security. 'Veterans' pensions and disability compensation are parts of the costs of defending freedom. Our nation cannot, in good conscience, commit men and women to battle, and reduce the meager, yet well-deserved, compensation for those who are wounded,' said American Legion National Commander Ronald F. Conley. 'Of all the citizens who benefit from mandatory federal funding, none are worthier than those who are disabled today because they risked all of their tomorrows fighting for freedom. This budget defies common sense. We'll fight it with all our might.' ..."


    Ensign,

    But why weren't the Democrats there?

    Rape and incest are horrible crimes. It is completely understandable if a victim would not want to raise a child who is the product of violence. But the life is innocent. Give the child up for adoption. It would be extremely painful to do, to go through 9 months of hell for something that should be a time of joy. An abortion would not erase the rape and would add yet another tragedy.

    The example I gave was of a healthy baby given the chance to live. It was the mother who had the tumor. If both mother and baby are in danger, you try to save both, but not intentionally kill the baby. The baby may die despite efforts because the chances are slim. I am talking about an intentional act.

    My position is one that is difficult to defend because it seems heartless. (no exceptions to abortion) Life begins at conception and needs defended. Women who experience pregnancies under any difficult circumstances need supported. If you look at a sonogram of two fetuses, one conceived in love, the other in violence, could you tell the difference? God will deal with the perpretators of the violence.


    This is the trouble with the right.They like to invent their own realities when it comes to Bush's( and the GOP congress) policies with the environment, not providing our troops with the proper body armor and truck armor, vets benefits cuts etc.

    http://www.americans-working-together.com/american_veterans/id66.html

    Now Sharon is pushing for this country to go back to the 50's with back alley abortions.

    I know abortion is a very personal issue, but there are two choices : let the woman decide and control her own body, or let the government step in and control a woman's body.

    Thank God for Roe vs. Wade.

    And to think conservatives are supposed to be for less government.
    What a laugh !

    More,

    if I were a philanthropist like Soros or any other billionaire, I would give whatever money a woman required to help her through a pregnancy resulting from rape/incest. I mean send her anywhere in the world, give her round the clock therapy, any attention she needs or desires. I am just a regular Jane. I don't hold my opinion just because I want to be judgmental. Certain truths cannot be denied.

    ABout the veterans, I just put the site there for your perusal. I didn't make any comments. If I bothered to look, there are plenty of dollars wasted that should be directed to the vets. Are the graphs from fact check wrong? I like to see specifics. I believe very few politicians actually care about anyone but themselves. The kind of politics you have to play to get into office leaves the just man out.

    Are the graphs from fact check wrong?

    yes they are.

    When a woman decides she wants a baby, it is suddenly not "my body" but "Look at the sonogram of my baby!" Life begins when a woman decides to have the baby. Seventy-five percent of women considering abortion who have a sonogram do not follow through.
    I have never heard of a "My body" shower. I wasn't around in the 50's, but if you look at the caliber of doctors who agree to perform abortions, there are some similarities to the back alley abortionists.

    I personally think abortion is a terrible but necessary thing ( at times)You can talk about the subject all u like...but the bottom line is still:
    Who should control a woman's body?
    The woman herself or the government?

    Roe vs. Wade will not be overturned anytime soon...so it's a moot point.
    Thank God.

    You say the facts are wrong, and they may be or they may not be. As I said earlier (much), I stood behind the president for morale. Pat Buchanon would have been my pick, but he is not the president.

    Why do guys re-enlist? Like Cindy Sheehan's son? From the blogs I read, they don't want their efforts to be in vain. Michelle Malkin is going over soon. (I know that brings joy to your heart). I'll be interested in her reporting.

    I have a child to get to bed. (who was "my body")

    "But why weren't the Democrats there?"

    Because 1) it was a Sunday, and 2) it was a religious holiday for several of them (Palm Sunday). The only difference was that Tom DeLay managed to keep enough Republicans around for the vote (his tactics to strong-arm votes is well documented).

    "It is completely understandable if a victim would not want to raise a child who is the product of violence. But the life is innocent. Give the child up for adoption."

    That's all well and good, except that for 9 months the VICTIM has to carry around a reminder of the crime committed against her.

    "My position is one that is difficult to defend because it seems heartless."

    To me, it is heartless. You are essentially saying that once women become pregnant the state has the power over them.

    "God will deal with the perpretators of the violence."

    Again, that's a nice sentiment. But divine retribution seems like little comfort.

    I agree that divine retribution would seem like little comfort. And that the woman suffers further by carrying an unwanted child for 9 months. No argument there. That is a different argument than it is "my body." The fetus is a separate entity. I have been kicked by a few of them.

    I don't know what happened to my last comment. It was something like this: No argument that retribution seems like little comfort and that nine months of further pain would be hell. That is a different argument than stating the baby is "my body". The fetus is a separate entity. I have been kicked by a few.

    ALthough it was Palm Sunday, some Dems could have shown up. Stop making excuses for them. It was an explosive issue that they circumvented.

    Stop making excuses for them. It was an explosive issue that they circumvented.

    Like the excuses you make for Bush ?

    Even the right wing NRA is now against Bush and his woeful environmental policies:

    By Blaine Harden
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Sunday, January 7, 2007;

    SEATTLE -- After years of close association with the Republican Party and hard-nosed opposition to federal land-use regulation, the National Rifle Association is being pressured by its membership to distance itself from President Bush's energy policies that have opened more public land for oil and gas drilling and limited access to hunters and anglers.

    "The Bush administration has placed more emphasis on oil and gas than access rights for hunters," said Ronald L. Schmeits, second vice president of the NRA, a member of its board of directors and a bank president in Raton, N.M.

    Observing President George W. Bush in action lately, we have to wonder if he actually watched the election returns in November, or if he was just rerunning the 2002 vote on his TiVo.

    In 2006, the voters sent Bush a powerful message that it was time to rein in his imperial ambitions. But we have yet to see any sign that Bush understands that. Indeed, he seems to have interpreted his party's drubbing as a mandate to keep pursuing his fantasy of victory in Iraq and to press ahead undaunted with his assault on civil liberties and the judicial system.

    I live in Squirrel Hill, though...

    PEACE!

    Posted by: PROUD to be a LIBERAL at January 8, 2007 12:20 AM

    Must be something in the water round about these parts that buils up an immunity against the brain washing techniques that have been used succesfully on most of the rest of the country. You meet the occasional deluded Republican here who thinks he/she is one because they have a 2 car garage and a 401k plan. For the most part though people here are solidly NOT behind a I got mine, if you don't got yours, your too lazy mentality. By the way, have faith. The Pens aint going nowhere but up in the standings thanks to Sid and Malkin and Jordan Stall.

    PEACE to you also.

    Eagles rock !

    Dallas' karma got them in the end.

    The Jets came down to earth.

    The Pats are still contenders.

    Did I mention the Eagles got heart !

    In watching the rerun of Meet the Press, and the insanity of it all is just mind boggling.

    Many Republicans are saying the president "bet his Presidency on Iraq and we lost" ('we' meaning the Republicans).

    By this kind of twisted thinking, it's not about gambling more and more lives in a failing war that should never have happened. It's about the future and the legacy of Republicans and their party.

    Does this sound as selfish and insane to others as it does to me?

    "Now Sharon is pushing for this country to go back to the 50's with back alley abortions."

    Well, she is an admitted Conservative, no? Thus, by definition, she will want to return us (at least) to the 1950's.

    If there's one thing I don't get about all of you dittoheads, it's the fact that you, quite literally, are against society moving forward & making progress!

    I don't know what I'd be doing if I were living in the 1950's right now, but I know my life would be neither as convenient nor as much fun as it is now... & I can only hope that in 50 years my grandkids can say the same thing!

    It's called PROGRESS people... It's what has gotten us here to the point we are at today. It is also (hopefully) what will take us into all of our tomorrows as well. It has been frequently stated (& with good reason) that the Roman Empire died because of stagnation. Am I the only one who sees the obvious parallells between Rome & The United States?

    "Mr. We could use a man like Herbert Hoover, again..."

    Peace!

    "Must be something in the water round about these parts that buils up an immunity against the brain washing techniques that have been used succesfully on most of the rest of the country."

    Gotta love that drinking water from the Mon!! lol... (& yes, I'll take my IC or Yuengling beer ANY DAY over a Coors beer from Colorado, a Budweiser from St. Louis, or a Miller from Milwaukee.

    "You meet the occasional deluded Republican here who thinks he/she is one because they have a 2 car garage and a 401k plan. For the most part though people here are solidly NOT behind a I got mine, if you don't got yours, your too lazy mentality."

    The craziest thing about that is, I'd agree with you, if only we had never had a Senator Rick Santorum. I only hope that his recent drubbing (the SINGLE WORST loss by an incumbent Senator since the Second World War) served notice on all of these Republifascist morons that they cannot take advantage of the gullability of Pennsylvanias voters ever again!

    "By the way, have faith. The Pens aint going nowhere but up in the standings thanks to Sid and Malkin and Jordan Stall."

    Not to mention Mark Andre & colby!! We have a great team... Now if only the Buccos would sell out to Cuban... I know, i'm a dreamer, but still...

    PEACE to you also.

    Posted by: Donora Pa at January 8, 2007 01:35 AM


    Have a great night!

    PEACE!

    Hey, voice, along with your inability to debate cogently, you also like to use other people's work without the proper sourcing....

    Voice posted the following propaganda:

    "Observing President George W. Bush in action lately, we have to wonder if he actually watched the election returns in November, or if he was just rerunning the 2002 vote on his TiVo.

    "In 2006, the voters sent Bush a powerful message that it was time to rein in his imperial ambitions. But we have yet to see any sign that Bush understands that. Indeed, he seems to have interpreted his party's drubbing as a mandate to keep pursuing his fantasy of victory in Iraq and to press ahead undaunted with his assault on civil liberties and the judicial system."

    As I read through the consistently flimsy arguments from the radical left this morning, I came upon voice's rather familar words....funny, they read exactly like that which I saw just yesterday on The NYT editorial page.....

    "The Imperial Presidency 2.0"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/opinion/07sun1.html?ex=1168837200&en=e38f2dbab42c846d&ei=5058&partner=IWON

    Please go and read the screed....it is the typical leftist talking points that Keith Olbermann will repeat all week long.

    I already know voice is incabable of putting at least two words together to make a decent sentence and the lack of profanity in the post
    also makes it clear that voice did not come up with the lovely entry.

    Despite another leftist's poor excuse for debate, let me remind us all of the following FACT....

    President Bush can CONSTITUTIONALLY attempt to formulate a coalition in The Congress that will continue to fund the pursuit of security and freedom in Iraq.

    If those who oppose our activity in Iraq had the guts to actually ACT on their CONVICTIONS, they would stop Bush in Congress by decreasing appropriations. Which side gets the most representatives would have their policy prevail.

    Yet, those sneaky and lying radicals can't expose themselves for what they really are out of fear of how thew 85% of the country would react.

    The editorial goes on to threaten the new congressional leadership, however, stops short with regards to the only real leverage congress has over Bush for the next two years with regard to Iraq.....funding.

    So again, I point to the radical 15% and ask why no one in Washington has yet to move forward on their agenda? STOP NIBBLING AT THE EDGES OF THE ISSUE OF WAR! These little off camera interviews with reps/former generals/pundits who, "question the administration's wisdom, these opinion polls in Iraq or here and these empty threats in the form of letters and editorials have not worked to move President Bush....in fact he may increase the forces! It is his CONSTITUTIONAL right to do so, and The Congress will be voting IN FEBRUARY on the additional funds needed to sustain the Iraq policy.

    VOTING.....Yes or no to the Iraq War.

    According to some posts on this site, (and Keith Olbermann), greater than 80% of the American people want the war over NOW and that requires democratic action...Ending the war now it is not President Bush's opinion (or mine) so I guess "force" will need to be used to end the conflict.

    Be strong liberals....cut the funds if this is such a strong moral issue for this country! Stop Bush.

    As a supplement to my last post...I read from The New York Times again, today....

    "War Could Last Years, Commander Says"

    It starts out...

    "The new American operational commander in Iraq said Sunday that even with the additional American troops likely to be deployed in Baghdad under President Bush’s new war strategy it might take another 'two or three years' for American and Iraqi forces to gain the upper hand in the war.

    "The commander, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, assumed day-to-day control of war operations last month in the first step of a makeover of the American military hierarchy here. In his first lengthy meeting with reporters, General Odierno, 52, struck a cautious note about American prospects, saying much will depend on whether commanders can show enough progress to stem eroding support in the United States for the war.

    "'I believe the American people, if they feel we are making progress, they will have the patience,' he said. But right now, he added, 'I think the frustration is that they think we are not making progress.'"

    And the article concludes.....

    "He said he understood the failing confidence among Americans, including some of those who had lost sons and daughters here, that the war was worthwhile. The general’s own son, Capt. Anthony Odierno, a 28-year-old West Point graduate, lost an arm when a bomb detonated during a patrol in Baghdad in 2004.

    "As a father as well as a commander, the general said, he did not doubt the sacrifices had been justified. 'I believe it’s worth it,' he said."


    ###
    Get that budget knife out liberals....it look like that will be the only way to stop these lunatics!

    Cee said: "according to some posts on this site, (and Keith Olbermann), greater than 80% of the American people want the war over now"....

    And so apparently does your Senator Graham, who cited that very figure last night in his "Meet the Press" appearance. Is he with the American people? Noooo....Mr. Graham has now joined hands with Bush in supporting the 'surge'.

    He keeps asking "think of what happens if we lose"? Trouble is, he doesn't KNOW what will happen if we lose! Neither do you Cee. All I know is the same crowd that crowed about the merits of starting this war are the ones now telling us what a "disaster it will be if we leave".....as if they had any track record of successfull predictions at all to stand on!

    As for "cutting the budget", everything I hear indicates it can't be done! The pres will get the (borrowed) money from somewhere to continue no matter what they do.

    And Cee:

    Now that Mr. Graham has come out in favor of the 'surge', he should now spend ALL of his time going to every single military funeral he can possibly attend. He should sit with, and comfort each and every family and make an attempt to comprehend their loss, as impossible a task as that might be.

    And if the surge doesn't work, as he himself ackowledged was a very strong possibility, if not the likely outcome, he should then go back to every single one of those families, hold their hands....and personally explain to them why their sacrifice was worth the gamble. Is he 'man' enough to do that?

    "As for "cutting the budget", everything I hear indicates it can't be done! The pres will get the (borrowed) money from somewhere to continue no matter what they do."

    Please tell me where he will get this money you talk about, Mike.

    The President can't change appropriations without approval....neither can individuals within the Defense Department, for that matter.

    It is outside his constitutional powers to "fund" anything and if he did this either covertly (highly unlikely and it would not work with the numbers we are talking about) or stridently, he would lose my support because, IMHO, he would now be violating The Constitution. Nothing I know about what Bush has done so far violates any portion of The Constitution so he continues to have my full support (I agree with the Justic Thomas' minority opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld).


    And all your liberal leaders in The House are doing right now is putting off 'till tomorrow what they have politically calculated not to do today.....

    From CBS.....

    "When asked about the possibility of cutting off funds, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer declined to say whether Democrats might do so, saying only that the current strategy clearly is 'not working.'

    "'I don't want to anticipate that,' said Hoyer, on Fox News Sunday.

    "Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has approved about $500 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan and other terrorism-fighting efforts. The White House is working on its largest-ever appeal for more war funds — a record $100 billion, at least. It will be submitted along with the president's Feb. 5 budget.

    "This war cost a trillion dollars if it ended now," Pelosi said. "But more important than that, the lives lost, the casualties sustained, the lost reputation in the world, and the damage to our military readiness. For these and other reasons we have to say to the president, in your speech ... we want to see a plan in a new direction because the direction you've been taking us in has not been successful."


    ###
    We will see if the left's moral stand against the Iraq War is strong enough to say, "no more" with a "pull of the purse-strings."

    "So when the bill comes ... it will receive the harshest scrutiny. What do we really need to protect our troops? What is there for an escalation? What is the justification for that?"

    We will see if the left's moral stand against the Iraq War is strong enough to say, "no more" with a "pull of the purse-strings."

    Maybe Cee is having trouble getting reception on his TV with those rabbit ears of his !


    Nancy Pelosi said the new COngress will not abandon the troops BUT she won't give Bush a blank check like he's gotten with the old GOP COngress.

    What a totally new concept for the Republicans !
    To actually account for the billions they continue to waste .

    The warmonger Lapdog would like the US to stay in Iraq FOREVER...with the casualties rising proportionately.
    How so noble of him...and predictable!

    If this new SURGE doesn't work as predicted,will Dr. Lapdog finally admit this war is lost ..or continue the illusion that victory is at hand for 5 more years...10 more years ???how long ?

    When Lindsey Graham , a big supporter of more troops was asked the same question I just asked Lapdog, "What happens THEN if this increase in troops doesn't change a thing ...he quickly changed the subject....and wouldn't answer.

    These warmongers have no answers other than to continue to send our troops to their deaths.
    let's see if Cee dodges the question just like his comrades in war do .

    Is Bob talking to himself again?

    Anon can't read well...b/c I put the question to cee...but why don't YOU answer the question too?

    or maybe you're afraid to ?

    still talking to yourself?

    still being an a--hole?

    still talking to yourself?

    Notice Anon won't actually engage in a dialogue or answer the question the right is stumbling over.

    I understand why Anon.

    Notice how Anon won't engage in a dialogue nor answer the question that the right is stumbling over.

    I understand why Anon.

    Three years ago I would have applauded Bush's offer of more reconstruction aid to Iraq but by now, it is way too little way too late. I have written that capitalism killed communism and it could kill terrorism too. I still believe that, however now that we are at least distrusted if not actually despised by the majority of the inhabitants in almost every other nation on the globe including Great Britain and Canada, we can't just go around waving a checkbook.

    This is what the childish neocons never understood. Nobody likes a bully. After World War II we were the energetic young nation, the only one still standing and ready to help. Now that we have proven ourselves to be highhanded imperialists that veto or back out of almost any global treaty that crosses our desk we can't just fix our global perception with just money. We're like Tony Soprano beating some poor schlub half to death with a pool cue and then tossing him a fistful of Benjamins.

    More to the point, the billions of dollars in aid that we have already spent has bought us absolutely nothing at all. Sixty percent of the water and sanitation projects have been scuttled because conditions are too unsafe.

    If we are ever truly serious about stabilizing Iraq we need to reduce our presence to near invisibility, however through the U.N. and the Arab League pump in massive aid. It's the Vietnam era all over again when Americans traveling abroad sewed Canadian flags to their backpacks.

    Guess where the geniuses in this administration are actually cutting aid? Afghanistan! Meanwhile the Iranians are building schools, roads, mosques and madrasas at a rate the Marshall plan would have envied.

    Bush's billion dollars had a familiar ring to me so I googled "Iran billion aid Iraq" and sure enough they have already pledged a billion dollars in aid. Though that aid only pleases the Shia, our aid pleases nobody.

    By Trey Ellis( novelist, screenwriter and educator)

    Nothing I know about what Bush has done so far violates any portion of The Constitution so he continues to have my full support .

    Cee really provides us all with a great many laughs.

    Psssssstt Cee. Constitutional scholars disagree with you, but what do they know!
    It's more important to not "THINK" and give Bush your full support !
    We hear ya, Cee.

    We need to give the president a chance.

    It's only been 4 years. We know he's a slow learner.

    This man really believes nonsense like he is leading a "culture war", and that the so called "war on Christmas" was a serious problem for America, and clearly, judging by the ratings, he has succeeded in persuading many others....
    ==================================================
    I go back and forth on my opinion of the whole "christmas" controversy (I think so much of christians' anger is over the double standard) but this seems pretty hard evidence.
    http://newsbusters.org/node/10015
    After Orel glances through the bar window at his father getting drunk and getting hit on by a gay man (his dad’s repressed gay desires are a constant theme of the show), he says, "Boy, God, this sure didn’t turn out to be the best Christmas ever. But you still have two minutes left, and I have faith in you." Then the camera recedes into the sky, and all you hear is the empty howl of the winter wind. The message is clear: Orel is a very stupid, misguided child to believe in God.

    It’s amazing to see people scoff in December at the idea that there’s a "war on Christmas."

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    However, I personally cannot sit here and take anyone seriously who honestly thinks stories like the Duke rape case are major news stories, when we literally are stuck in a controversial war, and being 'led' by a controversial President who sorely needs more media scutiny, not less.
    ==================================================
    I'm sorry, this made me laugh so hard. I mean I don't even get cable but even I can't escape the constant critism of Bush this and that. Are you basically saying you want EVERY journalist to be like Rather, reporting on every claim against Bush no matter how flimsy or false they might be?

    I'm sorry, this made me laugh so hard. I mean I DON'T EVEN GET CABLE but even I can't escape the constant critism of Bush this and that. Are you basically saying you want EVERY journalist to be like Rather, reporting on every claim against Bush no matter HOW FLIMSY OR FALSE THEY MIGHT BE.

    Posted by: Challenger Grim at January 8, 2007 11:21 AM

    Maybe you should spring for cable, Grim, then you won't sound so dumb.


    It's not surprising that two of the biggest idiots posting here don't get cable, Cee and Grim.

    It's easy living in your deluded world when all you have to do is cherry pick your right wing web sites and then come on here and expose your igrorance.

    I'm sorry, this made me laugh so hard. I mean I DON'T EVEN GET CABLE but even I can't escape the constant critism of Bush this and that. Are you basically saying you want EVERY journalist to be like Rather, reporting on every claim against Bush no matter HOW FLIMSY OR FALSE THEY MIGHT BE.

    Posted by: Challenger Grim at January 8, 2007 11:21 AM

    Maybe you should spring for cable, Grim, then you won't sound so dumb.


    It's not surprising that two of the biggest idiots posting here don't get cable, Cee and Grim.

    It's easy living in your deluded world when all you have to do is cherry pick your right wing web sites and then come on here and expose your igrorance.

    Psssssstt Cee. Constitutional scholars disagree with you, but what do they know!
    It's more important to not "THINK" and give Bush your full support !
    We hear ya, Cee.

    Posted by: Bushkill Falls, Pa at January 8, 2007 11:11 AM

    What are the Dems doing about the violations to the constitution? Shouldn't the Dems at least talk about impeachment? Liberals are full of hot air.

    Shouldn't the Dems at least talk about impeachment? Liberals are full of hot air.

    Posted by: Anonymous at January 8, 2007 11:39 AM

    And right wing extremists are full of shit.

    Tonight on Countdown:

    "Democrats aim to Replace Free Trade with Fair Trade"

    Special Guest: Karl Marx

    "What are the Dems doing about the violations to the constitution? Shouldn't the Dems at least talk about impeachment? Liberals are full of hot air." -Anon

    The Dems have been in power less than a week. Please try to pay attention.


    "What are the Dems doing about the violations to the constitution? Shouldn't the Dems at least talk about impeachment? Liberals are full of hot air."

    At this point, they would be seen as using it for political purposes (which was what caused it to backfire on the GOP when they tried to impeach Clinton).

    The Democrats need to INVESTIGATE first. Build a credible and strong case, THEN we'll talk about what to do about it.

    Tonight on Countdown:

    "Democrats aim to replace Free Trade with Fair Trade"

    Special Guest: Karl Marx

    Tonight on Countdown:

    "Democrats aim to replace Free Trade with Fair Trade"

    Special Guest: Karl Marx

    What are the Dems doing about the violations to the constitution? Shouldn't the Dems at least talk about impeachment? Liberals are full of hot air.

    Posted by: Anonymous at January 8, 2007 11:39 AM

    It's being researched and investigated.It doesn't happen over night.

    My oh my, were you this impatient with the "Do Nothing " GOP Congress for the last 6 years?

    My guess is NO.

    partisan hack?

    My guess is yes.

    Plus the Democrats know there are not enough votes to pursue impeachment.

    Do you favor impeachment?

    What are the Dems doing about the violations to the constitution? Shouldn't the Dems at least talk about impeachment? Liberals are full of hot air.

    Posted by: Anonymous at January 8, 2007 11:39 AM

    It's being researched and investigated.It doesn't happen over night.

    My oh my, were you this impatient with the "Do Nothing " GOP Congress for the last 6 years?

    My guess is NO.

    partisan hack?

    My guess is yes.

    Plus the Democrats know there are not enough votes to pursue impeachment.

    Do you favor impeachment?

    (Anon just likes to piss on Democrats and avoid the failures of the GOP)

    The Dems have been in power less than a week. Please try to pay attention.

    Posted by: indierik at January 8, 2007 11:51 AM

    Isn't the violations to the constitution the most urgent of issues?

    What are the Dems doing about the violations to the constitution? Shouldn't the Dems at least talk about impeachment? Liberals are full of hot air.

    Posted by: Anonymous at January 8, 2007 11:39 AM

    It's being researched and investigated.It doesn't happen over night.

    My oh my, were you this impatient with the "Do Nothing " GOP Congress for the last 6 years?

    My guess is NO.

    partisan hack?

    My guess is yes.

    Plus the Democrats know there are not enough votes to pursue impeachment.

    Do you favor impeachment?

    (Anon just likes to pi#s on Democrats and avoid the failures of the GOP)

    Professor Honeydew said,

    "Nancy Pelosi said the new COngress will not abandon the troops BUT she won't give Bush a blank check like he's gotten with the old GOP COngress."

    Professor, all The House Speaker has to do is get enough people to vote for appropriations sufficient to redeploy the troops...this amount would be much less than Bush is asking for. The leverage would force Bush to withdrawal from Iraq....just like Nixon and Ford did after 1973.

    On the one hand, leftists like the professor say they have great power after the 2006 election, then say it's up to Bush to react....it is not necessary.....The Democratic Party now controls the money and CONSTITUTIONALLY may impose their policy....just like The Watergate Congress did 30+ years ago.

    Go for it....you guys are no longer just able to complain....like Pelosi said.....

    (You) "GOT THE POWER!"

    And in answer to your question, Professor Honeydew....I predict, that if allowed by The Congress, a surge of 20,000 to 40,000 US troops would result in progress in security and training of the Iraqi forces. However, if The President is not allowed to follow Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno's advice, then there will not be any progress towards a secure and free Iraq.


    WHITE HOUSE VISITOR LOGS CLOSED, PUBLIC SERVANT INFO OFF LIMITS TO PUBLIC

    -- Corrupt GOP Payola Whores In Bed With Big Business, Not The People`s Business –-

    WASHINGTON -- The White House and the Secret Service quietly signed an agreement last spring in the midst of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal declaring that records identifying visitors to the White House are not open to the public. The Bush administration didn`t reveal the existence of the memorandum of understanding until last fall. The White House is using it to deal with a legal problem on a separate front, a ruling by a federal judge ordering the production of Secret Service logs identifying visitors to the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. In a federal appeals court filing three weeks ago, the administration`s lawyers used the memo in a legal argument aimed at overturning the judge`s ruling. The Washington Post is suing for access to the Secret Service logs.


    Maybe you should spring for cable, Grim, then you won't sound so dumb.

    It's not surprising that two of the biggest idiots posting here don't get cable, Cee and Grim.
    ====================================================
    I don't know... you seem to have cable but aren't any smarter for it.

    And in answer to your question, Professor Honeydew....I predict, that if allowed by The Congress, a surge of 20,000 to 40,000 US troops would result in progress in security and training of the Iraqi forces. However, if The President is not allowed to follow Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno's advice, then there will not be any progress towards a secure and free Iraq.

    Of course The ultimate Bush lapdog DID NOT answer my question...just like Senator Grahmam didn't yesterday.

    Let me try again, Cee.
    If this new surge does not provide the desired results, as almost everyone predicts, what do we do now Lapdog?
    Would you then admit this war was a failure, or would you continue to push for more war and death?

    Easy question , Cee, so stop avoiding it !

    The wing nuts are soooooooo transparent !

    Why is it that "cut and run" is a paritisan talking point while "redoployment" is an acceptable alternative to the phrases leaving Iraq or retreat?

    Redeployment? Like its a military manuever.

    *In my best John Kerry impression*: "The time has come for swift and decisive action. We are gonna redeploy our troops.......to Tennessee."

    What? wait a minute? That doesn't seem like.....ahh never mind. Who am i to question? We are so gonna redeploy the shit out of our enemies.

    I don't know about Cee Bob, but I say we should hold a very public (and broadcast) referandum in Iraq. Let the people vote for us to stay or go or send more... whatever, let them decide.

    As Jonah Goldberg said, can you think of a more honorable way for us to depart? And think of the message it would send: "We won't bow to bombs, but to ballots."

    All you who use the term "Islamo-Fascist" should take a few minutes and listen to this:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5743773

    I don't know about Cee Bob, but I say we should hold a very public (and broadcast) referandum in Iraq. Let the people vote for us to stay or go or send more... whatever, let them decide.

    As Jonah Goldberg said, can you think of a more honorable way for us to depart? And think of the message it would send: "We won't bow to bombs, but to ballots."
    ==================================================

    True, but if every country that was being occupied and rebuilt got to choose when their occupiers left, their wouldn't be a modern day Japan,Germany,India, U.S., Israel. Some good. Some bad. Just saying that the occuupied rarely get to chose until the occupier is satisfied with their situation.

    Bush and his merry followers at this site haven't a clue as to what to do in Iraq.
    Bush and the GOP have wasted billions without any light at the end of the tunnel.
    Now they want the Democrats to fix their mess.

    There is no fixing this mess, none.
    So it's disingenous to keep asking for the democrats to fix something that "ain't fixable" !

    The Olbyhaters at this site have sat on their asses the past 6 years and swallowed WHOLE all the lies that Bushco thrown at them ...especially that WE ARE WINNING THIS WAR.
    Now that the truth is out( even though we've been RIGHT, AND BEEN SAYING IT FOR YEARS)
    they want the Democrats to ride in and save this president's legacy.

    His legacy is set in stone...and it's one of failure.
    And you Olby haters are cowards to not admit your part as cheerleaders for failed policy and doomed president.

    "I don't know about Cee Bob, but I say we should hold a very public (and broadcast) referandum in Iraq."

    Um...we did. It was called the 2006 Midterms.

    5 pro-war Senators in RED states (Allen, Burns, DeWine, Santorum and Talent) LOST. Santorum's campaign called for even MORE military action, and his defeat was so humiliating it was painful to watch.

    In fact, the only reason Lieberman won in Connecticut was by - making the campaign about anything EXCEPT the war. In fact, John McCain stated clearly after the election that had Lieberman's race been about Iraq HE WOULD HAVE LOST.

    Throw in the fact that MANY House Republicans who were pro-war found themselves unemployed after November 7th (and that NO Democratic incumbent in either chamber was defeated), it seems like there was a VERY CLEAR message sent.

    Ok, I must say something.....

    Will someone explain to me how I am supposed to answer the following questions....

    "If this new surge does not provide the desired results, as almost everyone predicts, what do we do now Lapdog?
    Would you then admit this war was a failure, or would you continue to push for more war and death?"

    Please help me figure out how you leftists communicate! The first sentence makes NO sense to my simple conservative mind....

    The professor uses two tenses in the same sentence....How do I answer in the present and in the future? Is this some kind of strange hypothetical question?

    Also, the second question.....

    Am I too assume Bush gets to do what he wanted to do or is The Congress restricting the defense department appropriations like they should (based on their pre-election and current rhetoric)?

    What time frame are you talking about....progress over the next 12 months? 24 months? 10 years?

    Also, are "more war and death" vs. "admitting the war was a mistake" my only two options?

    Please help me!

    I don't know about Cee Bob, but I say we should hold a very public (and broadcast) referendum in Iraq. Let the people vote for us to stay or go or send more... whatever, let them decide.

    Hey Grim...we already have, it was called the November elections. It WAS a referendum on the war.
    And if you need a similar one for the people in Iraq, that's been done also.
    There have been a number of polls in Iraq and the Iraqi people said overwhelmingly that they want the US OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY.

    What more do you right wingers need.
    The American people want us out and the Iraqi people want us out.
    Many of the Olby haters want to defy the wishes of both countries.
    How sweet !

    Thanks for responding, Grim.

    "There is no fixing this mess, none.
    So it's disingenous to keep asking for the democrats to fix something that "ain't fixable" !"

    THEN CUT THE FUNDING.....FORCE BUSH TO WITHDRAW THE TROOPS! STOP THE MADNESS AND HAVE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES USE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DO WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT FOR THEIR COUNTRY AND FOR THE IRAQIS!

    For once , cee, I agree with you...you do need help.

    I'll try again b/c both you and I know you're stalling( for obvious reasons)
    If Bush gets everything we wants...everything...and at the end of , let's say 18 months...almost to the end of his presidency, there hasn't been ANY progress, would you then admit this war was a failure or would you STILL push for a longer committment even though your boys have tried everything and failed.


    Again Cee...not a hard question, but it seems to be tying you up in a pretzel.

    (Bush, the coward , has already said the "next" president will have to deal with Iraq)

    All you who use the term `Islamo-Fascist` should take a few minutes and listen to this.
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5743773

    - - - - -

    I believe the correct term is Republo-Fascist, not Islamo-Fascist, as Islamic Radicals care little about state corporatism as Republican Radicals do. Leave it to the GOP dream machine to construct yet another erroneous, self-serving, propaganda label (Clear Skies Act, Healthy Trees Initiative).

    `Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.` -- Benito Mussonli


    THEN CUT THE FUNDING.....FORCE BUSH TO WITHDRAW THE TROOPS! STOP THE MADNESS AND HAVE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES USE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DO WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT FOR THEIR COUNTRY AND FOR THE IRAQIS!

    Is this your view, or are you the partisan hack I nailed you with?

    This is MY view, but I doubt the Democrats will cut off all funding and leave the soldiers stranded.THEY ALREADY SAID THIS !

    They are willing to give Bush ANOTHER chance to have success in Iraq.
    Sane people everywhere( except you) know he is just swinging in the dark, and there isn't much of a chance for success.

    Instead of sitting there anonymously and trashing the Democrats, why don't you go out on a limb and actually SAY SOMETHING, and say what you think should be done.

    I've challenged you a few times already, yet you seem to be frightened to answer.

    We see thru you until you do.


    Cee would rather gnaw off his right hand than admit that Iraq is a failure, thus his president.

    It's obvious why he's stalling.

    All you who use the term "Islamo-Fascist" should take a few minutes and listen to this:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5743773
    ==================================================

    HA! Religious Fundementalist just doesn't have the same ring to it. I disagree with that guy. For one, no group has ever been able to entirly pin down what facism is as it incorperates a number of different entities form various social, political, and economic ideologies.

    He says that Facism was marked by its dicatorship and its control of a state, which is incorrect since the nazi party existed in many countries without necessarily being in control. THere is no questions they were Facists. Even in Germany, the Nazis were for a time just another party within the weak democracy. Modern Nazi movements control no state and have no supreme leader, but they can still be classified as facists.

    His second mistake is stating that the presence of religion makes it impossible for islamist extremists to be Facists. The state was the religion in Germany. Perhaps not a religion in the traditional sense, but in the same spirit that the Japanese worshipped their empereor or the Romans worshipped the state and the ceasaer as a god. These were a form a religion, and so was the Third Reich.

    To me, Muslim extremists can be charaterized as facists because of their willingness to spread their ideals through violent and revolutionary ideals and because they do seek to create either a great state or at least an all Muslim world.

    But most importantly, Facism has virtually left the world. Few governments, even the worst dictaterships, still adhere to its biggest principles. Saddam's government might actually have been the closest, seeing as he actually somewhat inspired by Nazis, but he was still very, very far from a facist. In modern day, a facist is just a word to describe people who you dislike and i am actually fine with that. I have heard it applied to Democrats, Rebublicans, and most ironically North Korea and Cuba. The word has changed, which is fine since it was never well defined anyway. They call us facists, we call them facists. It doesn't really matter. Lets not get hooked on the wording and focus on whats important.

    "I didn't see any such posting, but if Keith Olbermann can insult a Jew by calling him a "monkey", then raghead seems pretty tame by comparison, no?"

    I never heard olbermann say that. but if Bill O'Reilly can insult mexicans by calling them "wetbacks" then monkey seems pretty tame by comparison no?


    Hawkeye says: "a fascist is just a word to describe people who you dislike, and I'm fine with that".....

    One thing some people seem very good at doing on this site is to change the definition of established words to fit their own purposes or worldviews.


    CONTROVERSIAL NEW LAW TO OPEN IRAQI OIL FIELDS TO BUSHCO CRONIES

    -- 3,000+ GIs Die For Grand Oil Party; America Now Less Safe Just To Further Big Oil`s Bottom Line --

    LONDON -- Iraq`s massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days. The law would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalized in 1972. Four articles based on a draft of an Iraqi law -- crafted with help from the US government -- were leaked to The Independent detail `How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches.`


    Hawkeye says: "a fascist is just a word to describe people who you dislike, and I'm fine with that".....

    One thing some people seem very good at doing on this site is to change the definition of established words to fit their own purposes or worldviews.
    =================================================

    Are you suggesting that the word facist has never been applied to describe people who disagreed with someone's opinion? Really, because everyone from Bush to Joe Kennedy to Kim jong Ill has been called a facist by people because they disagree with their opinions. None of them are. I did not say that thats what a facist is, i said that is what it has come to mean. In modern day, it is used to demonize your enemy, and since 1945 damn near every nation that has fought a war has done it.

    Are you saying the word facist has never been used wrongly to describe those that disagree with someones opinion. Bush, Joe Kennedy, Muslims, Saddam, Kim Jong Ill, have all been labeled facists by people who don't know what the word truly means. I did not say thats what a facist is, i said thats what it has become, a word used demonize your enemy or describe people you hate whether they are facist or not.

    One more thing...

    Nancy Pelosi has already said that there will not be a blank check for Bush and his "new improved" Iraq war strategy.
    He's going to have to account for the money requested. He will have to show how this money will be spent instead of the old GOP Congress just throwing filthy amounts of money at the war.
    Dr. Lapdog has NEVER made a comment of the waste and fraud us taxpayers are paying for b/c of the lack of oversight by this president and former GOP Congress.
    Not surprising !

    FYI: War profiteering investigations begin today.
    It took the Democratic Congress one week to do what the GOP Congress should have done the past 6 years.
    Harry Truman said some war profiteering was "treason", and worked to stop it.
    George Bush has done NOTHING ABOUT IT.
    Yet you don't hear the Olbyhaters holding him accountable even though it's their tax money.

    Wonder why ! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!

    Wonder how Halliburton is going to feel now that there is actually a Congress with oversight watching them ?

    Yes, Cee worships at the alter of a proven screw up. He thinks God is speaking directly to his imperial president, and therefore, anything Bush does has to be devinely inspired. Cee doesn't understand history, especially History revolving around the Vietnam war.

    Cee doesn't have cable, and therefore doesn't watch Countdown, yet here he is every day blasting KO and what he thinks KO has said based on biased reporting on a biased Website.

    Finally Cee has no problem with continuing to throw promising young lives into the Iraq fire for no apparent reason, as long as Cee can hold onto the elusive dream of 'victory' from the safety of Cee's living room, even though Cee can't really define what 'victory' actually would be!

    sorry about the double posts. I thought i lost what i had typed and so i did it again.

    A lot of words and labels are applied incorrectly by people when they find them convenient to fit their argument. It doesn't make it right to do that.

    "I never heard olbermann say that. but if Bill O'Reilly can insult mexicans by calling them "wetbacks" then monkey seems pretty tame by comparison no?"

    No, it's not tame by comparision. Both insults are hideous and to say that behavior is unprofessional is a disservice to society. It's shameful.

    If O'Reilly said that he should apologize and he should have been fired.

    A lot of words and labels are applied incorrectly by people when they find them convenient to fit their argument. It doesn't make it right to do that.
    ==================================================Again, not saying that its right, just saying thats what it has become, and i no longer let it bother me.

    When someone calls bush a facist, i dont care anymore because everyone misuses that word, including Bush himself. So who really cares? When some idiot calls Kim Jong Ill a facist, i no longer correct them (though i do sniker).

    Maybe Cecilia would like to jump into the question of the day.
    (I doubt it, for the same reason Cee is stalling)

    You appear to be a pro of finding everything on this site Cecilia, so I'm sure you read it.
    We'll wait your "surge" answer.

    What is the question of the day??

    If Bush gets the surge of troops he wants( along with the inevitable increase of American casualities) and there continues to be the same lack of progress after 18 months, would you then admit this war was a failure and support bringing our boys home ?

    Bob:

    Cecelia won't answer that question because she won't take a stand on actual isssues.

    "I never heard olbermann say that. but if Bill O'Reilly can insult mexicans by calling them "wetbacks" then monkey seems pretty tame by comparison no?"

    No, it's not tame by comparision. Both insults are hideous and to say that behavior is unprofessional is a disservice to society. It's shameful.

    If O'Reilly said that he should apologize and he should have been fired.

    I agree completly. I was just using the same logic johnny Dollar applied, when it was pointed out to him that someone he labled a "clear thinker" was using the term "raghead."

    Anon, so I'm not the only one that noticed that about Cecilia?

    Well, blow me down !

    Bob asked: If Bush gets the surge of troops he wants (along with the inevitable increase of American casualties) and there continues to be the same lack of progress after 18 mpnths, would you then admit this war was a failure and support bringing our boys home ?"

    Bob, thats letting them off WAY too easily!

    To me the more relevant question would be; What are you going to do personally for the families of all those additional troops yet to be killed needlessly because YOU wanted a 'surge'?

    I other words, where is the personal responsibility for supporting a disaster from the very beginning that has taken so many young lives, destroyed so many others, and bankrupted our treasury?

    And Grim was the only Bush supporter/Oblyhater( one in the same)that even attempted to answer my question.

    And to think all it needs is a yes or no.

    I hear ya Mike...I know it's letting them off way too easy...but to date no one has even dared answer it.

    Bob,

    I hate to mention that the silliest thing anyone on a discussion board can do is to jump into a car with a Chucky doll,who uses politics as a channel for volcanic and manical rage, so that he can drive you where HE wants to go...but that IS the silliest thing any one on a board can do...

    Take your sincere honest and inquisitive nature somewhere else. I talk about what I wish and when. So go hyperbolic over that, Chucky.

    So much easier blasting Olby about what he meant and what he said and yada yada yada.

    This is the crucial issue facing our country right now.

    Cecilia...I could have written your responsse for you. You're so predictable.....and a fraud.

    Chucky doll....TDF.

    Our president wants to do something that will increase the casualties of our young men and women, solely for the reason of trying to protect his failing legacy( IMO)

    To ask, what if it doesn't work is a totally reasonable question, but only the Bush Apologists like Cecilia and Cee and others spit and stammer and won't answer it....for totally obvious reasons.

    no WMDs.
    no imminent threat.
    but in this CEO White House of oilmen,
    the zionist-led neocons found
    plenty of greedy corporate conspirators
    to sell their PNAC wetdreams
    of forcibly democratizing Iraq
    and taking over the oilfields.

    -----------

    BP, SHELL, and EXXON meet with Cheney in 2001 to divide up the iraq oil fields.

    WASHINGTON POST -- 10/16/05
    `A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney`s energy task force in 2001. The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon, Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy.`

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


    BP, SHELL, and EXXON now set to divide up the iraq oil fields.

    LONDON INDEPENDENT -- 01/08/06
    `The new iraqi law would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalized in 1972.`



    duhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    connect the dots Olby haters, with the above oil points.

    Cecilia..but I won't answer, you just do this,you do that, I'm going to hold my breath...Bwaaaaa, bwaaaaaa

    Cecilia has been exposed---again.

    Mike writes:

    "Bob asked: If Bush gets the surge of troops he wants (along with the inevitable increase of American casualties) and there continues to be the same lack of progress after 18 mpnths, would you then admit this war was a failure and support bringing our boys home ?"

    No one can answer that until you define what "the same lack of progress" means.

    Mike "To me the more relevant question would be; What are you going to do personally for the families of all those additional troops yet to be killed needlessly because YOU wanted a 'surge'?"

    That's argument is ridiculous on its face. To suggest that everyone who supports any sort of public policy is also personally responsible for any failures of that policy belies any concept of the social contract that the essence of democracy. We elect leaders and they formulate public policy. Men in women in the military don't do us a favor by fighting, they're fulfilling a responsibility that signed up to fulfill. The same would be true if there were a draft and all qualifying citizens were called upon to fulfill the policy of freely elected leaders regardless of any drawbacks involve. History weigh costs in this sense. Not individuals.

    What excuses are you going to make for Democrats when they do not fight tooth and nail to quickly bring home troops from a war you find is an utter failure? Today you made an excuse for Pelosi and company not cutting off the war's funding because you say Bush would jiggle budgets and get such-and-such. Is that the way you hold Democrats accountable for not, at the least, going on record that they do not suport and that you feel makes everyone who does support it personally responsible for the fatalities involved? Are you going to insist that Pelosi and Reid personally apologize for not turning over every stone in order to stop it?

    So far you havent indictated that at all. You've done quite the opposite with your willingness to let the Dems sit back and not make any bold moves and to pre-empt the notion that they defunding is a start to ending a war you feel is so wrong.

    I will respond to Anon and Professor Honeydew (Bob) with a comment I made this morning....

    "So again, I point to the radical 15% and ask why no one in Washington has yet to move forward on their agenda? STOP NIBBLING AT THE EDGES OF THE ISSUE OF WAR! These little off camera interviews with reps/former generals/pundits who, "question the administration's wisdom, these opinion polls in Iraq or here and these empty threats in the form of letters and editorials have not worked to move President Bush....in fact he may increase the forces! It is his CONSTITUTIONAL right to do so, and The Congress will be voting IN FEBRUARY on the additional funds needed to sustain the Iraq policy.

    VOTING.....Yes or no to the Iraq War.

    Whether or not I admit a mistake was made in Iraq is irrelevent now, in 12 months or in 18 months. The issue is what I support now. You all know my position....everything possible to insure we keep our commitment to the Iraqi people, including conscription.

    My representative in this argument, President Bush, is pursuing policies that mirror his rhetoric.

    What are your representatives in this argument doing, Anon, professor, etc?

    TALKING, WRITING LETTERS, APPEARING IN FRONT OF EVERY CAMERA POSSIBLE.

    Big deal.

    Representative Kucinich has a great plan for phased decreases in Iraq War funding....it financially supports the redeployment of those troops already in harms way.....Why is Biden and Pelosi ignoring this plan?

    Senator Biden even lies and says Congress has no power to influence foreign policy!

    Article I, Section 8...
    [Congress is empowered]
    "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;"

    Additional monies deemed necessary by The Commander-in-Chief must be approved by a majority in Congress. Specific appropriations must be used for the specfied purpose, Bush cannot shuffle around the funds.

    February will see a request regarding the latest policy changes....what should Congress do?

    So, if in late 2008, no progress has been made, I will have the last 18 months to figure out why. If Bush gets everything he wants and the funding.....I would logically conclude that we could not be victorious over the radical islamists and support a plan for withdraw. If The Democratic Party and The Congress go down the same road The Watergate Congress did in 1973, then they should be held responsible for the defeat. Either way, the ball is in The Congress' court.....They have the power.

    Go Bush's way providing the resources for the increased troops.....

    or stop the surge by withholding funding.

    Hey guys, did you hear what Olby said?

    1,000 posts of drivel.

    Hey guys, what do you think about the president's plan to increase our troops casualities ?

    ----------------------------------------------------
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    ---------------------------------------------------
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>------------
    ------------------------------------------------
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Cecilia...I could have written your responsse for you. You're so predictable.....and a fraud."

    As though that wouldn't be your response regardless of whether any opponent let your drive the discussion or not.

    Our president wants to do something that will increase the casualties of our young men and women, solely for the reason of trying to protect his failing legacy( IMO)

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

    yeah, i'm sure iraqi lives didn't factor into the equation anywhere.

    And your question is bogus because this mission has already failed in the sense that what we get out of it will not match what we put into it. But i guess that means we should just say oops, come home and leave iraqi children to death squads. We screwed up. Bush screwed up. Now you want to make iraqis pay for Bush's mistakes. Why? Because they are Iraqi and you dont care what happens to them. You sound like a racist who wants Iraqis to die by the hundreds of thousands so you can make Bush look bad.

    Hey instead of sacraficing thousands of trained soildiers, lets sacrafice an entire country. Good idea. Let me ask you a question, do you feel we have any responsibility to Iraq after what we did? Or are they expendable so long as your party wins a few elections?

    What excuses are you going to make for Democrats when they do not fight tooth and nail to quickly bring home troops from a war you find is an utter failure? Today you made an excuse for Pelosi and company not cutting off the war's funding because you say Bush would jiggle budgets and get such-and-such. Is that the way you hold Democrats accountable for not, at the least, going on record that they do not suport and that you feel makes everyone who does support it personally responsible for the fatalities involved? Are you going to insist that Pelosi and Reid personally apologize for not turning over every stone in order to stop it?

    So far you havent indictated that at all. You've done quite the opposite with your willingness to let the Dems sit back and not make any bold moves and to pre-empt the notion that they defunding is a start to ending a war you feel is so wrong.

    Posted by: Cecelia at January 8, 2007 02:28 PM

    You said it muck better then I did, Cecelia....Talking and action (Bush) vs. just talking (The Congressional Democratic Leadership) is really starting to get on my nerves.....Get on with it already and we'll all live with the consequences!

    "My representative in this argument, President Bush, is pursuing policies that mirror his rhetoric.

    What are your representatives in this argument doing, Anon, professor, etc?"

    Not only is Bush pursuing policies that mirror his rhetoric, Pelosi has explicitly said that aside for their being no more rubber-stamping of appropriations bills by Democrats aas there was before the election, she feels that it's Pres. Bush's war to wage.

    That rhetoric suits me fine. I'm down with that. Makes sense. But why does this plan seem to suit Bob, Mike, Sir Loin, Bushkill, etc. whose rhetoric has been off the scale in denouncing the war and who view every casuality as an event for which anyone -- pols and private citizens alike--- who does not agree with them, should personally account.

    I think we know why.

    Cecilia:"No one can answer that until you define what "the same lack of progress" means."

    No one knows what's happening in Iraq now, right ?

    Give me a friggin break !

    Lapdog:If The Democratic Party and The Congress go down the same road The Watergate Congress did in 1973, then they should be held responsible for the defeat.

    Eveyone knew you'd blame Bush's war on the Democrats one way or another.

    So Cee was against the Watergate hearings too!!
    WOW !
    I always knew you were against any kind of accountability for Republicans, but to hear you say it, is startling !

    So after many more deaths and destruction and failure of your president, you would FIRST try to figure it out.I BET YOU WOULD...
    and then call for a withdrawal.

    So humane of you to accept so many deaths...but thanks for FINALLY answering.
    It is illuminating.
    ...to say the least.

    In the spirit of Bi-parisanship, and also in the fact that during these hectic, overbearing, hard working days the Democrats in congress and loon responders here at olbermannwatch are taking Today off. So they can watch a football game TONIGHT! I will give my post followed by the Tin Foli Hat Loon response.

    The New York Post reports some year-end cable news notes for 2006 are surprising:

    Larry King remains the king of CNN's ratings but the prince is Lou Dobbs, not the much-promoted Anderson Cooper, who is the third ranked personality.

    Nancy Grace and Keith Olbermann are in a virtual tie for the year, about 427,00 viewers each.

    Fox News Channel is the only news channel to break the cable's top 10 at #8.

    "TIN FOIL HAT WINGNUT LOON RESPONSE":

    Well what do you expect from that far right wing evil Ruport Murdoch New York Post! god Puck get a life!

    Wow! I didn't know multi-tasking could be this much fun!

    Damm next week when the Democrat congress takes off Monday.AGAIN!(What happen to that five day work week Pelosi was talking about?) I'm going to do this and watch my sister's kids too. Nancy Pelosi ain't got nothing on the old Puckster!!!!!!

    I'm sorry I can't help myself

    JT says Olbermann calling somebody "Monkey" no big deal.

    O'Reilly (and could you point me to the transcript,please.) Says "wetback", Should be fired immediately!

    Fair and balanced posting from your friends on the left.

    By the way Bob since your Mister Numbers guy what's up with 18 months? Why not 12? or 6? or 24?

    Why does you're boss at the Daily-Kos say the magic number is 18? You know most of the folks on your side are victims of out-come based education at our Public Indoctrination Schools and they might have trouble counting that high.

    I really don't get it. Bob, you and your crew run around saying all the time the war is a failure. Now you want to give it 18 months? Flip flopping? Is your boss at Daily-Koss or Truthout John Kerry? Nah! John Kerry work a day in his life?

    Thats like the democratic congress saying that they are going to work five days a week. But wait! they said that, didn't they? They also said this was going to be the most open...er, wait they shut the republican side for the first hundred hours. Well they are the most ethic congress.....No! they just gave that guy from Louisiana who had $99,000 dollars in his freezer(don't we all?) a standing ovation. Harry "The Handshake" Reid with his land deals. You get the picture. Well maybe not, All that fair and balanced reporting on Countdown.

    Oh Bob I get it, you think the war has been a failure all along. But what's another 18 months, and a few more bodies. Yep you and this crew hate Bush, Hate the war, Hate the tro....... common' Bob tell us how you really feel!

    You gotta love people that stand on their priciples! Like Bob.

    I think thats a better question of the day:
    "If Bob hates the war and calls it a failure, we lost, why does he want to give it another 18 months?" Why waste more money, time, and bodies.

    My response? more bodies helps Bob and his crew for 08, thats why the 18 months right Bob? That makes it next June and you and you're friends can have you're big anti-war get together at the capital. When the weathers nice.

    Somebody who has time look into permits in D.C. I will bet a steak dinner that some anti-war crew like A.N.S.W.E.R. has a permit for June.

    If Bush gets the surge of troops he wants( along with the inevitable increase of American casualities) and there continues to be the same lack of progress after 18 months, would you then admit this war was a failure and support bringing our boys home ?

    Posted by: Bob at January 8, 2007 01:51 PM

    Bob might want to ask this of the Dems.

    Bob has gone so far to the left, he is springing out the other side of the spectrum and becoming a racist. Its like pac-man.

    The lefty cheer.

    WE WONT PAY THE PRICE!!!
    WE WONT PAY THE FEES!!
    RUIN BUSH!!!! PULL THE TROOPS!!!
    MORE DEAD IRAQIS!!!!!

    Cecelia:

    A war is not just "any sort of public policy"! It is the most serious and consequential "policy issue" that can ever arise in any nation, regardless of it's form of governmant.

    We the people ARE in a sense largely responsible for public polcy issues that rise to this level. If the public outcry had been sufficient at any point in this disasterous endeavor, things probably would have been different. If the American People had paid more attention to what was actually happening, instead of ridiculous shows like 'Survivor', and "American Idol", I believe we would have a very different, and far more responsible America.

    If the American people had elected Kerry in 2004, instead of focusing on red herrings such as whether he was REALLY a war hero or not, I believe we, AND the world would already be in a FAR better place than it is today.

    As far as the Dems, you're inventing my position on them. Yes, I personally want them to take the Murtha initiative, but they have only been "in power" for 3 days, and it way to early to make a judgment yet. That said, they didn't create this mess, although I'm ashamed to say that some DID help.

    Our president wants to do something that will increase the casualties of our young men and women, solely for the reason of trying to protect his failing legacy( IMO)

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

    yeah, i'm sure iraqi lives didn't factor into the equation anywhere.

    And your question is bogus because this mission has already failed in the sense that what we get out of it will not match what we put into it. But i guess that means we should just say oops, come home and leave iraqi children to death squads. We screwed up. Bush screwed up. Now you want to make iraqis pay for Bush's mistakes. Why? Because they are Iraqi and you dont care what happens to them. You sound like a racist who wants Iraqis to die by the hundreds of thousands so you can make Bush look bad.

    Hey instead of sacraficing thousands of trained soildiers, lets sacrafice an entire country. Good idea. Let me ask you a question, do you feel we have any responsibility to Iraq after what we did? Or are they expendable so long as your party wins a few elections?

    Our president wants to do something that will increase the casualties of our young men and women, solely for the reason of trying to protect his failing legacy( IMO)

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

    yeah, i'm sure iraqi lives didn't factor into the equation anywhere.

    And your question is bogus because this mission has already failed in the sense that what we get out of it will not match what we put into it. But i guess that means we should just say oops, come home and leave iraqi children to death squads. We screwed up. Bush screwed up. Now you want to make iraqis pay for Bush's mistakes. Why? Because they are Iraqi and you dont care what happens to them. You sound like a racist who wants Iraqis to die by the hundreds of thousands so you can make Bush look bad.

    Hey instead of sacraficing thousands of trained soildiers, lets sacrafice an entire country. Good idea. Let me ask you a question, do you feel we have any responsibility to Iraq after what we did? Or are they expendable so long as your party wins a few elections?

    Puck: What language is that street talk you keep using? Is it 'Jive' or something like that, or is it just plain old high school "trash talk"?

    Professor, you are so ignorant.

    "The Watergate Congress" is an historical reference to the elected, Democratically controlled congress that, after Nixon left in 1974 that purused an abrupt cut in funding for the freedom loving people of South Vietnam.

    My correctly terming them, "The Watergate Congress" in no way implies I disagreed with the congressional investigation into the illegal activities of President Nixon and his administration.

    (BTW....I would have preferred Nixon had done as Clinton did.....The nation would have had about 2 years of a great political spectacle that would have distracted all from deserting the South Vietnamese through 1975.....and, after Nixon's conviction, Ford would NOT have been able to pardon him (Presidents can't pardon offenses resulting from impeachment)....Perhaps Jimmy Carter would not have been able to win the presidency.....oh to dream!)

    Read some history and find the dynamic in The Democratic Party at the time.....they were afraid of their own shadow after losing to Nixon in 1972.....they were lead around by the nose by the racist, intolerant radical left through to President Carter's election. The people of South Vietnam sufferred greatly because of the political opportunists on the left and I am afraid the Iragi people may as well.

    Cecilia:"No one can answer that until you define what "the same lack of progress" means."

    No one knows what's happening in Iraq now, right ?

    Give me a friggin break !"

    You can't comprehend why there would have to be some sort of consensus as to what had defined Iraq as currently being a failure--- number of American and Iraq casualties.... lack of progress in Iraqi self-governance and security efforts... etc... in order for someone to make a judgement that if some SPECIFIC thing hadn't changed in --what was given as a SPECIFIC deadline of 18 months, then we should pull out?

    You don't understand that questions like-- can we take the same number of casualties if there were a greater number of plots foiled...etc..come into play?

    What do you want for a pixel, Chucky? The right to vent? You got that, that's why you're here.

    You set the terms, I'll tell you whether I think we should pull out in 18 months or not under those terms.

    J$- can you throw in some "open threads" on this site? It's great that each day you're getting so many comments, but it's kinda a pain in the ass to try and go through them all to get a feel for the flow of the day. Plus, nobody ever adheres to the purpose of this site (wingnuts bashing Olby/Olby fans defending him), so open threads would work wonderfully here.

    JUST A FEW HOURS AWAY FROM THE BUCKEYES BECOMING GATOR BAIT!!!

    the democrat play book.

    1. Three straight years of saying Bush's mistakes are responsible for this war and all the things that have gone wrong in it.

    2. Now saying Iraqi's are responsible for the security in their own country. They need to step up. America is not responsible.

    1=2. So Iraqi's need to step and take responsibility for Bush's three years of mistakes?

    wow!! thats a good play dems. Two contradictory statements that mesh together so well. Kinda of like saying we are less safe today from a threat that doesn't exist. You guys are gooooooood!

    Common' Bob another 18 months could mean another 1000 troop deaths right Bob? Who cares! They probibly would have voted Republican anyway.

    Common' Bob! tell us how you REALLY FEEL!!!!!!!!!

    Oh Bob I get it, you think the war has been a failure all along. But what's another 18 months,

    Hey hockey puck...still getting over that brain damage?

    I've made myself very clear with my stance.
    I want our soldiers home now..today...before another one gets killed.
    I don't want us to wait 18 months...or another day.
    I was playing this whole scenario out and asking this question b/c this is the reality of the situation.
    My question does illuminate the righties AND YOUR hypocrisy, hockeypuck.
    It is going to happen....
    Bush IS going to get his surge.
    We will have to wait how long our brain dead president comes to the inevitable conclusion that this war has been a failure.

    Just remember a few short months ago you wing nuts were saying this war is a success. Bush said in December," We're definitely winning" and then a few weeks later, " We're not winning , we're not losing"

    Bush's aides just revealed that he's been playing policics with this war , by waiting until the midterm elections to do anything different.
    Soldiers died while Bush played politics with this war.

    And frauds like puck,cee and cecilia don't call him on it. It's Olby's fault !

    Whether it's 1 month, 6 months or 18 months, the same conditions that have been put in place , the same regional differences , are not going away, which is the reason this surge is ridiculous and against the wishes of the American and Iraqi people.

    Common' Bob another 18 months could mean another 1000 troop deaths right Bob? Who cares! They probibly would have voted Republican anyway.
    =================================================

    ah snap!!! Dont tell libs the army is vastly conservative. they hate that.

    Remember Folks our new question of the day is:

    If Bob says the war is a complete failure. Which I guess means Bush and the troops because Bob said complete.

    Why does Bob want to give it another 18 months?

    Whats Bob's REAL end game.

    Go Bush`s way providing the resources for the increased troops ... or stop the surge by withholding funding.

    - - - - -

    infamous, deplorable false choice rhetoric
    so often favored by the tiny little minds
    who have so lemmingly followed BushCO
    to the brink of grave and deteriorating chaos in Iraq.

    very reminiscent of many other GOP talking point false choices:

    With.Us or Against.Us
    Fight.Them.There or Fight.Them.Here
    vote.DEM.terrorists.win or vote.GOP.terrorists.lose

    ----------

    all part and parcel of the dumbshit Irrational Right.
    and iraq is just what that kind of non-thinking begets.

    Soldiers died while Bush played politics with this war.
    ===============================================

    thank god Dems have never used a war to play politics.

    thank god Dems have never STARTED a war to play politics.

    Whats Bob's REAL end game.
    ================================================

    Bob seems racist, and it seems like he really wants to see Iraqis die.

    Dumbs**t irrational right

    Comming from poster who uses Anonymous. Just in case he turns out to be a wingnut he can say. Hey it wasn't me it was that other Anonymous.

    thank god Dems have never STARTED a war to play politics.
    ================================================

    You mean like the civil war? BOOYAH!!!!!

    "As far as the Dems, you're inventing my position on them. Yes, I personally want them to take the Murtha initiative, but they have only been "in power" for 3 days, and it way to early to make a judgment yet. That said, they didn't create this mess, although I'm ashamed to say that some DID help."


    Mike, you and yours work so hard in trying to trap someone into some argument or some admission that shows bias, hypocrisy...something false. But when confronted with the glaring reality that the extreme rhetoric you've used about the war utterl conflicts with that of fellow democrat pols and their current stance of it, you merely tsk and tsk and say "give them more time".

    NO ONE can say that individuals are personally responsible for military deaths because they support the war and then fail to remember that there was another Murtha bill not too long ago, for complete pull-out, that overwhelmingly was rejected.

    It's YOUR rhetoric. It's not mine, or even the Democratic majority. Why not take an occasional time-out from your ferverent desire to peer into the psyche of your political opposition and see only hypocrisy, to take a look in the mirror.

    "ah snap!!! Dont tell libs the army is vastly conservative. they hate that." -Anon

    Guess what fellas? Those in the service aren't exactly behind Bush's Iraq fantasy either. Check out this link from armytimes.com. Hardly a liberal publication.
    http://www.militarycity.com/polls/

    Yeah, the military is comprised of many conservatives, but they are still thinking men and women.

    I gotta get to the post office before it closes. I'll be back

    It was inevitable. As soon as the democrats won the election, the wing nuts were frothing at the mouth to blame the failure of the iraq war on them.

    6 years of a GOP congress& president that has led us into a war that have killed thousands of Americans, crippled many thousands more ,bankrupted our country, permitted war profiteering to run rampid , and now that the Democrats have been in office a week, it's all their fault.

    Nice.

    You really smart people.

    The Dems asked for the Iraq problem, or did they not see it coming. Change of direction in Iraq was the battle cry.

    Guess what fellas? Those in the service aren't exactly behind Bush's Iraq fantasy either. Check out this link from armytimes.com. Hardly a liberal publication.
    http://www.militarycity.com/polls/

    Yeah, the military is comprised of many conservatives, but they are still thinking men and women.
    ================================================
    didn't say they were Bush-lovers. Didn't say they were this policy-lovers. Said they were vastly conservative. and that would be ture.


    Thanks for answering todays question Bob!
    We knew you had it in you. Gotta go!

    It was inevitable. As soon as the democrats won the election, the wing nuts were frothing at the mouth to blame the failure of the iraq war on them.

    6 years of a GOP congress& president that has led us into a war that have killed thousands of Americans, crippled many thousands more ,bankrupted our country, permitted war profiteering to run rampid , and now that the Democrats have been in office a week, it's all their fault.

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

    i agree. What is wrong with Cindy Sheehan? Correction though, it didn't take her a week to start yelling at democrats, it took her about two hours.

    Indierik,

    GATORBUGERS, BABY!!!

    Each and every member of the Buckeyes is going to personally cut himself the material for a brand new pair of GATORBOOTS. Tonight. The Big 10 is back. Deal with it.

    Each and every member of the Buckeyes is going to personally cut himself the material for a brand new pair of GATORBOOTS. Tonight. The Big 10 is back. Deal with it.


    I am not all that excited about the Big 10 being back, cause when the Big 10 was sucking, my team was doing very well. This year, not so much with good.

    Bob writes: "And frauds like puck,cee and cecilia don't call him on it. It's Olby's fault !

    Whether it's 1 month, 6 months or 18 months, the same conditions that have been put in place , the same regional differences , are not going away, which is the reason this surge is ridiculous and against the wishes of the American and Iraqi people."


    Bingo...

    Bob is upset that no one said, yeah, after 18 months of troop surge, if the war is going like it is now, we should pull right out!

    Then he would have said something like, guess what Republican facist there's not going to be any troop surge so you think the war is a failure now and we shoulld immediately pull out!

    And he calls other folks "predictable"...

    Bob's all for wanting Cee and me to be chewing at the bit for troop withdrawal. With Pelosi he's fine with doing it sllllooooowwwwwlllllyyyy...

    The professor lies, lies, lies......

    I blame the radical islamists in Iraq for the current challenges we see in Iraq, professor. They are waiting to see the reaction to Bush's request for an increase in troop strength AND the subsequent fighting that will continue until the terrorists are stopped.

    IF your brave Democrats cut the funding, it's over....Bush cannot pursue the increase....redeployment will have to take place.
    The results will come....perhaps I am wrong and there will be peace in Iraq after the US leaves....then politically The Dems are golden and they were right.

    IF your cowardly Dems only call for troop reductions but vote in the end for the requested fund to increase numbers....then we'll see....I admitted to forseeing a mea culpa on my part in 2 years if things get worse....but I believe the opposite will occur and Iraq will slowly improve.

    Allow me to remind you, presently, the second scenario is AGAINST what you want, professor, and puts you in the difficult position of having to hold your nose and support people who really never did what they said they would do.....bring the troops home.

    Just remember a few short months ago you wing nuts were saying this war is a success. Bush said in December," We're definitely winning" and then a few weeks later, " We're not winning , we're not losing"

    Y'all couldn't see the duplicity in THOSE statements !
    Right Cecilia !

    I want all the wingnuts to imagine if it was a Democratic president lying to bring us to war, botching the war, lying about us winning , causing these thousands of deaths with his policies!
    Now would you still be crowing the same tune !

    Think about it.

    Then look in the mirror and call yourselves what you are.
    Hypocrites !

    Anon 2:58:

    Way to twist completely around an obvious moral question to create the illusion that it somehow vindicates your own side. Rush and Hannity would be proud of that!

    So tell me anon, just how the hell do YOU know that leaving will condemn "Iraqi children to death squads"? The answer is easy....you don't! You don't have a CLUE what is going to happen, regardless of what WE do! If fact these kinds of dire predictions are coming from the SAME idiots who got us in mired in this war in the first place. What a great resume!

    The arguments are reality vs PREDICTIONS. All of the arguments for the new and improved "stay the course" crowd are simply predictions about what will happen if we leave.....yet they don't know what will happen!

    Our continued presence may well be agrivating the situation. Leaving MAY in fact cause things to calm down a little. Iraq may become a puppet state of Iran, but then again that may not happen at all. If we were to succeed against all odds, of 'stabilizing' Iraq, it could easily fall apart again 6 months after we leave. WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW whats going to happen, and the idea that we can control it military is an illusion!

    The only thing that is practically irrefutable is that putting in more troops will probably increase casualties, and "staying the course" will continue to produce more and more American casulaties.

    Bob writes, "Nice.

    You really smart people."


    Well, we weren't blaming the Dems, we were holding YOU to YOUR rhetoric, but thanks you really disingenuous person.

    Puck you really should consider reading things a little more closely.

    "JT says Olbermann calling somebody "Monkey" no big deal."

    my post was a mockery of J$ Tu quoque fallacy by posting one of my own. it even used the exact same language puck to avoid confusion.


    O'Reilly (and could you point me to the transcript,please.) Says "wetback", Should be fired immediately!


    Google it. it's all over the internet. oh and Cecilia said oreilly should be fired for such a commnet. i did agree though.

    Gee Bob I pointed out that you hated the war can't you read?

    Oh yeah out come based education. now read slowly Bob.

    If Bob says this war is a complete failure why does he want to give it another 18 months? Thats what you asked Cee. If you hate the war then that made you're original question mute right?

    So we have Bob who says we lost bring the troops home. But no I'll keep them there another 18 months to prove a point.

    Like I said you gotta love loons that stand on their principles.

    my civil war comment didn't get a response. I totally booyahed that guy.....and nothing.

    What an a--hole.

    Bush's request for an increase in troop strength AND the subsequent fighting that will continue until the terrorists are stopped.

    First of all, many we are fighting in Iraq are iraqi citizens defending their country from the invaders.Simple fact Cee loves to forget...or not admit.

    2nd...Until the terrorists are stopped?

    Dr Lappdog needs to break out the meds he's giving his patients and start medicating himself.

    Name me one responsible human being who have ever said we can stop the terrorists.

    You are one totally crazed muthafcker.

    Cecelia:

    You keep trying to paint me in a corner because I won't attack the Democrats, who have been in power about 3 days.

    OK, I'm NOT at all happy with the Dems so far, but they ARE my ONLY hope for some sanity in government. They are at least going in the right direction, just not forcefully or quick enough!

    You, on the other hand, just seems to like to sit on your hands and try to point out perceived 'hypocracies' of others who take actual positions, something you yourself refuse to do! Since practically all of your criticisms have been aimed at the left and the anti-war crowd, I have to assume that you must be a winger by default.

    Way to twist completely around an obvious moral question to create the illusion that it somehow vindicates your own side. Rush and Hannity would be proud of that!
    ===============================================

    yeah, no room for morality in the world. Unless of course it is the morality of killing americans, right? You are a racist, as i suspected. NEXT!!


    And your right, if we pull out it will be peace and love. Shites will welcome to sunnis over to their house for tea. Sunni insurgents will look at their murdered family members and go "no harm, no foul" and Iraq will spring into a peaceful land of understanding with a chicken in every pot and a blog from every home. At least once we get those murderous, bloodthirsty, infidel americans out right?

    jt
    I don't use google could you post one web address or should I just go on that fair and balanced Media Matters website?

    First of all, many we are fighting in Iraq are iraqi citizens defending their country from the invaders.Simple fact Cee loves to forget...or not admit.

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

    yeah, those militias that dump about 50 sunni bodies on the street every day are sure taking it to those invaders. Those car bombs that kill dozens of shites are one of the most heroic forms of homeland defense i have ever seen. Seriously, you regonize that most of these violent groups aren't even targeting Americans any more.

    "jt
    I don't use google could you post one web address or should I just go on that fair and balanced Media Matters website?"

    I can see why. it's very tough to use. You have to go to "www.google.com" and then type a search string in the box labled "search" if you can't figure it out go here,


    http://www.nahj.org/nahjnews/archive/2003.shtml


    Oh and could you provide a link where Olbermann said "monkey?" You can't expect me to beleive the fair and balanced olbermannnwatch when they report it can you?

    "Seriously, you regonize that most of these violent groups aren't even targeting Americans any more." - roller

    Explain that to the families of the 5 servicemen killed over the weekend, you goddamn moron.

    Name me one responsible human being who have ever said we can stop the terrorists.

    Let us then give up. No use trying. The Clinton approach.

    monkey?

    seriously?

    were having an argument over whether or not olb called someone a monkey.

    Now i hate olby as much as the next guy, but .....Monkey?

    Stop the presses!!! Thems fighting words!!

    Does the professor understands that the US armed forces are present at the request of the elected government of Iraq....A represetative democracy?

    Even the founding fathers of our great country knew about the dangers of mob rule (Democracy).....this is why representative government is a good model to try and follow....

    HERE and in Iraq.

    Here.....The President has a four year term....he's gone in 2008....constitutionally he is required to protect the interests of our country as he determines them to be.....The Congress goes up again in 2008.....same thing....they can influence policy through the power of the purse.....they currently have chosen NOT to.....let's see if they ever do.

    In Iraq.....if the elected government does not bring order to the continuing terrorist lead violence through security and political means by 2008, I forsee the US withdrawing gradually. However, to not give them the best chance of success would not be right.

    Explain that to the families of the 5 servicemen killed over the weekend, you goddamn moron.
    ================================================
    as oppossed to how many iraqis dies this weekend. Oh thats right, you dont pay attention to their deaths because that would go against the whole "our presence is making it worse" idea. I said most groups, obviously not all. Am i the only one who noticed how Iraqi deaths go up and up every month while American deaths hold about steady. Oh thats right, Iraqis aren't the same worth as AMerican lives, my mistake. You = Racist.

    "You, on the other hand, just seems to like to sit on your hands and try to point out perceived 'hypocracies' of others who take actual positions, something you yourself refuse to do! Since practically all of your criticisms have been aimed at the left and the anti-war crowd, I have to assume that you must be a winger by default."

    Let me remind you of the difference.

    You wrote: "Bob asked: If Bush gets the surge of troops he wants (along with the inevitable increase of American casualties) and there continues to be the same lack of progress after 18 mpnths, would you then admit this war was a failure and support bringing our boys home ?"

    Bob, thats letting them off WAY too easily!"


    So Bob frames a question in the way that he wants and then demands that opponents answer this question. If they don't choose to answer the question because they don't agree with how it is framed, they want to discuss other things, etc... they are then derided as having ducked an issue.
    They have YOU in the background saying "Oh, don't let them off that easily, Bob".

    On the otherhand you use certain rhetoric about the war. No one has demanded that you answer certain questions that they hope are framed in a way to back you into a corner. YOU voluntarily state your position in highly emotionally-charged language.

    Contrast those two scenarios.

    When you later contradict yourself, it's NOT the same as an attempt to entrap you when someone point it out.

    As for whether your think I'm a "winger" ...that's just you, once again trying to find a reason for dismissing opponents and their statements.

    I'm a conservative. Use whatever pejorative that you will for that state of mind if it makes you feel better.

    Stick it up your ass, roller. You're nothing more than another "Guardian of the Keyboard". American deaths have spiked over the last 6 months, not holding steady, so it's apparent you haven't done your homework. You're right on one thing- I have buddies still in the service (2 currently in Iraq) and I would rather see them stay alive more than ANYONE else. Especially moreso than the gutless wingnuts on this site.

    I'll be back later.

    GO GATORS!!!

    "Does the professor understands that the US armed forces are present at the request of the elected government of Iraq....A represetative democracy?"

    An elected government that WE set up, whose Prime Minister has REPEATEDLY said does not want the job of governing and would collpase in a microsecond without the might of the U.S. military backing it up...some democracy there, yep.

    "Here.....The President has a four year term....he's gone in 2008....constitutionally he is required to protect the interests of our country as he determines them to be....."

    NOT by rewriting laws (via signing statement) or flat-out IGNORING the law (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). The President is NOT the be-all and end-all arbiter of what he can and cannot do.

    "In Iraq.....if the elected government does not bring order to the continuing terrorist lead violence through security and political means by 2008, I forsee the US withdrawing gradually. However, to not give them the best chance of success would not be right."

    Okay, considering the General on the gorund in Iraq says it could take 2 to 3 years just to stabilize Baghdad you've just created an impossible situation. Even if they started TODAY, there's no way that Iraq would be in that kind of position by 2008. Hell, it might not be there by 2010 or 2012 at the rate things are going...


    NEGROPONTE, LIKE GENERALS, REPLACED FOR RATIONAL THINKING

    -- New Intel Chief To Help Cheney Gin Up Next War Using False Intelligence --

    WASHINGTON -- The nomination of retired Vice Admiral John McConnell to be Director of National Intelligence is part of an effort by the Vice President to tighten the Administration`s grip on domestic intelligence and grease the wheels for a more aggressive stance towards Iran. Tensions soared after Negroponte made a public statement last year that countered the administration position that Iran was an immediate threat and that its alleged nuclear weapons program was in an advanced stage. Negroponte defended the published findings, attempting to push back against pressure from the Vice President`s office, and maintained his opposition to military action against Iran. `McConnell will go along with whatever Cheney tells him to do, and make sure that no objective National Intelligence Estimate comes out,` one former senior intelligence officer said.



    and heres the death rate for iraqis the last six months. (keep in mind, the actual number is much higher than these)

    Dec-06 1752
    Nov-06 1864
    Oct-06 1539
    Sep-06 3539
    Aug-06 2966
    Jul-06 1280

    Perhaps you'd like to compare spikes?

    There's a new report out that says the world’s largest corporation...Exxon/Mobil... funded studies that cast doubts on the link between fossil fuels and climate change.

    These must be the studies Grim and the other members of the Flat Earth Society pull out to argue their global warming objections.
    ==================================================
    Right Bob, because it's not like those scientists encouraging the global warming claims might have THEIR funding cut if they dont' find something wrong.

    Oh wait... they would. But of course they're completely immune to bias.

    oh wait....

    Puck obviously can't distinguish the difference between someone's personal opinion and the political realities that lie before us.

    That puck damage must be a bitch , Puck.

    You are the one who can't read.
    I stately plainly for all non brain damaged individuals that Bush WILL get his surge and then everyone will have to wait ( I picked an arbitrary time period, 18 months)to see if there is improvement in Iraq.
    That is what most likely will occur...but who knows how long people will wait to look for progress.

    And dear sweet Cecilia, one who ties herself up into knots with her verbage and then really says nothing at all , claims you were holding me to my rhetoric.
    YOU my dear were one who stuttered and stammered and reflexively wouldn't answer a simple question for fear of actually having to state an opinion.

    To both of you, a hypothetical question can be different from a personal opinion.

    And Cecilia if you had the balls to actually answer a question and said after 18 months and no progress you'd favor to bring the troops home, I'd least thank you for giving a response, like I did Cee.
    So as usual, you're wrong about my projected reaction.

    And Dr. Lapdog , I always find it amusing for you to tell me, a History Professor, to learn some history.The world according to Cee always has the Democrats as goats and the Republicans as conquering heroes.Have you noticed I rarely pinpoint your multiple historical errors.I'm not going to waste my time in this area with one as dogmatic as yourself.Plus correcting your revisionist views of history would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

    In case any of you haven't noticed, I don't follow lockstep with the democratic party as you two do your GOP.
    I've already told you how just one of my views differ from theirs.
    So your GOTCHA moment was just another of your illusionary moments that help you get thru boring daily grind.

    EE....

    Again, constitutionally The Congress will have hearings and may proceed with impeachment if what you claim is true..."NOT by rewriting laws (via signing statement) or flat-out IGNORING the law (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). The President is NOT the be-all and end-all arbiter of what he can and cannot do."

    All debatable opinions, BTW....

    Also, the courts can rule on his activity like in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld....I may disagree with the majority opinion, but I respect our process.....AS DID BUSH! He had Congress pass legislation regarding enemy combatants that still stands and will even after the 1st 100 days of this "liberating" new Congressional leadership does it's business....

    I wonder how many more people will been taken away without their habeus corpus rights in the next 100 days?

    Our free republic continues under our great President!

    BEWARE: the only poster herein as ignorant, unintelligent, and reality challenged as Puck is Red Wolf. so it`s very possible that they are the same poster.

    Anon at 3:44:

    You just called me a 'racist', but you had no valid argument at all for making such an absurd claim. Once again, Rush and Hannity would be proud of your twisted thinking. Just because you say it, it becomes true?

    You did not even attempt to defend your position as to your sarcastic "yea, if we pull out, it will all be peace and love" response. I SAID, you don't KNOW what is going to happen, whether we stay, or whether we leave....and guess what Einstein....you DON"T!

    Now, since you chose to call me a 'racist' for who knows what inane reason....maybe I should just pull an insult out of my ass to call you....No, I have more a little more class than that!

    And Dr. Lapdog , I always find it amusing for you to tell me, a History Professor, to learn some history.The world according to Cee always has the Democrats as goats and the Republicans as conquering heroes.Have you noticed I rarely pinpoint your multiple historical errors.I'm not going to waste my time in this area with one as dogmatic as yourself.Plus correcting your revisionist views of history would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
    ==================================================
    I always notice you seem to TALK about teaching history and "factual errors" rather than actually back up or explain any of them. (heck, just one or two would be nice)

    Insert reference to "all hot air" here.

    "Damm next week when the Democrat congress takes off Monday.AGAIN!(What happen to that five day work week Pelosi was talking about?) I'm going to do this and watch my sister's kids too. Nancy Pelosi ain't got nothing on the old Puckster!!!!!!"

    Let's see...Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio requested that no votes be held today because of the game. So you're blasting the Democrats for being generous?

    And next Monday is Martin Luther King day, so no business then.

    On to cee:

    "He had Congress pass legislation regarding enemy combatants that still stands and will even after the 1st 100 days of this "liberating" new Congressional leadership does it's business...."

    Yeah, and then he slapped a signing statement on it that basically amounts to "torture is defined however President Bush feels like defining it".

    Not to mention that after hyper-ventilating about Jose Padilla being a bad, bad man the Administration decided to pursue a criminal prosecution JUST AS his appeal was going to go before the U.S. Supreme Court (thus rendering the case moot).

    Bob:

    Obviously you've noticed that majority of wingnuts on this site want to sit back and do nothing but 'pick' at our arguments with false claims of perceived hypocracies, and then finish by spewing out a few tired rightwing talking points. I guess this is the only thing they have.

    I will give Cee credit for one thing; He is one of the few on that side who actually makes an honest attempt to stake out his position, and defend it.

    Bob: "And Cecilia if you had the balls to actually answer a question and said after 18 months and no progress you'd favor to bring the troops home, I'd least thank you for giving a response, like I did Cee.
    So as usual, you're wrong about my projected reaction."


    Bob, you pose a question and then attempt to compel and extort an answer from your political opponents by saying that anyone who doesn't immediately take it up is ducking the issue because they are unable to defend their opinion.

    I don't what graduate school you attended that would have taught you that such a tactic was in any sense genuine and fair-minded or that any human being on earth should do anything other than to ignore you for such a disgraceful attempt to bully someone into engaging you.


    Yet the only thing I asked in return for your juvenile attempt to shame me into a discussion is that you clarify what constituted continued failure in Iraq but you think it too much an imposition for you to do that!

    I never should have entertained dignifying your behavior by taking up the question in the first place. Unless it's about something I have stated, I'll not answer any question from you. Spare me and grow the hell up.

    I always notice you seem to TALK about teaching history and "factual errors" rather than actually back up or explain any of them. (heck, just one or two would be nice)

    I did more than once today...I guess you were too busy enjoying the view from your rectum.

    Ahhh the Grim Challenger says"I always notice you seem to TALK about teaching history and "factual errors" rather than actually back up or explain any of them. (heck, just one or two would be nice)"

    I did more than once today...I guess you were too busy enjoying the view from where the sun don't shine.

    I never should have entertained dignifying your behavior by taking up the question in the first place.

    You're right.I asked what would happen if Bush is wrong with the surge. You complained how I framed it yada yada.yes... How diabolical of me !

    Mike writes-- "Obviously you've noticed that majority of wingnuts on this site want to sit back and do nothing but 'pick' at our arguments with false claims of perceived hypocracies, and then finish by spewing out a few tired rightwing talking points. I guess this is the only thing they have."

    Well, it someone's spouting rightwing talking points it is certainly within your perogative to point that out and counter.

    In the meantime, if in the course of your voluntarily spouting stuff, you contradict yourself, then it is not unreasonable or unfair for someone to point that out to you...even if they mistakenly wandered in here, have no political opinions, would rather watch professional wrestling than hear anything about politics, and don't know how to spell Republican or Democrat.

    Ahhh the Grim Challenger says"I always notice you seem to TALK about teaching history and "factual errors" rather than actually back up or explain any of them. (heck, just one or two would be nice)"

    I did more than once today...I guess you were too busy enjoying the view from where the sun don't shine.
    ==================================================
    Yeah... though I enjoy the personal layer of hell they've given me, I do sometimes miss sunlight.

    Actually Bob, the truth is I've been busy and unable to follow this thread today (some of us have real jobs) and there's so much crap to wade through (normally I'd exempt your posts but for this one) I skimmed over the top of it. Now that I know there MIGHT (and this is hoping against experience) gem somewhere up there... I could go through the trouble of finding it.

    "You're right.I asked what would happen if Bush is wrong with the surge. You complained how I framed it yada yada.yes... How diabolical of me !"


    Yes poor you, Bob. I asked you to further EXPOUND on your question.

    And you've made it quite clear that this was diabolical of me!

    Professor Bunsen Honeydew (Bob) just can't face the fact that his opinion of the implications of historical facts don't always match the reality.

    I provided historical facts of the left's disregard for South Vietnamese refugees last week.....and the professor was silent...a brief reprise summed up in the left's hero own words.....

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam" George McGovern (Newsweek)

    I discuss the Congressional cuts in funding in the early 1970's and he dismisses the implications.

    Why?

    Because he is an indoctrinator, not an educator.

    Taking responsibility for the results of one's self-centered and immoral political ideology is a difficult thing.

    Again, I have seen many Professor Honeydews in my life....progressives in name only....in reality they are the same selfish, manipulative, opportunistic and ignorant people they condemn.

    Bob,

    We certainly had noticed that your rhetoric is different from Democrats in office and that you don't march in lockstep with them...

    What we have not noticed is your focusing your rage on THEM (or much criticism whatsoever) as you others who don't march in lockstep with Democrats....

    "Yeah, and then he slapped a signing statement on it that basically amounts to 'torture is defined however President Bush feels like defining it'."

    Also debatable.....and arguable in the judicial branch....give me a break, EE......The free republic flourishes under The great G.W. Bush!

    "Our free republic continues under our great President!"


    You really eat all this up, don't you, Cee... :D

    Grim writes: "Now that I know there MIGHT (and this is hoping against experience) gem somewhere up there... I could go through the trouble of finding it."

    Trust me...you're more likely to find a gem where Bob says your head had been.

    "Also debatable.....and arguable in the judicial branch...."

    Arguable by whom? Anyone who is an "enemy combatant" can't challenge the law because the court lacks jurisdiction over them, and anyone who isn't doesn't have standing to challenge because the law doesn't apply to them.

    But the more troubling aspect with this (as with many of the President's signing statements) is that he and ONLY HE claims to have the power to decide whether the law he signed applies to his actions. In other words, it becomes the modern equivalent of "the King can do no wrong".

    `Damm next week when the Democrat congress takes off Monday.AGAIN!(What happen to that five day work week Pelosi was talking about?) I`m going to do this and watch my sister`s kids too. Nancy Pelosi ain`t got nothing on the old Puckster!!!!!!`

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

    yes, taking a day off is pretty bad, almost as bad as ginning up an unnecessary war-of-choice-for-profit based on lies and torture.

    notice how in addition to backing off of vainglorious victory in iraq to the more sobering `honorable mission`, the irrational right keeps harping on and on about horrible hypocrisies of the liberal left:
    `I thought the Dems promised change!`,
    `They`re backing off their campaign promises!`,
    `What a bunch of hypocrites!`

    not only have the dems only been in power for a week, but whatever petty imperfections you harp on and on about cannot compare to the corruption and incompetence committed over the past six years by the current white house and former GOP majority.

    harp on all you want, losers ... it won`t change the fact that the U.S. body count in iraq is growing, as is the dire situation there, as is America`s impatience with your party of fools for getting us into this mess and propagating it further, despite what the public wishes. and the longer it lasts, the longer your party will pay for it, and justifiably so. great fun to watch.

    my civil war comment earlier didn't even get a response. I so booyahed that guy. How dissapointing.

    Cecelia.....My sarcasm comes from this simple observation....

    The President of the United States has thousands of constitutionally assigned people to keep a close eye on his activities. The simple truth that the new, very liberal House Speaker has already said Bush has done nothing impeachable speaks volumes to everyone except this radical fringe that posts here!

    Judges will decide if Bush's signing statements cross the line.....not EE. If Bush loses these arguments, I will bet my next paycheck he complies....like he did with Hamdi v Rummy.

    Nevermind the thousands of descent folk who work in the various governmental agencies doing the work that is characterized as unconstitutional.... or the armed forces who the left contiune to impugn as civilian killers, inflamming agents or whatever the flavor of the day happens to be.

    The country and The Constitution is doing just fine! Call me an ostrich with my head in the sand if you want, but you will have to say the same for many, many, many other people who only note benign political difference between themselves and President Bush.....not high crimes....

    This goes for Mr. Olbermann too.....the head cheerleader of Demogogue U.

    harp on all you want, losers ... it won`t change the fact that the U.S. body count in iraq is growing, as is the dire situation there, as is America`s impatience with your party of fools for getting us into this mess and propagating it further, despite what the public wishes. and the longer it lasts, the longer your party will pay for it, and justifiably so. great fun to watch.
    ============================================
    I'm glad you have great fun watching americans die so your party can win an election. Congratulations

    Cecilia :What we have not noticed is your focusing your rage on THEM (or much criticism whatsoever) as you others who don't march in lockstep with Democrats....

    And we all have noticed how you blindly agree with the worst president in our nation's history.
    And I may be wrong, but I can't recall you condemning the GOP Congress for what they haven't done the past 6 years .

    And isn't it the time of day where you should be getting your dinner for one ready ?

    Wow, talking about turning around an argument with convoluted thinking, look at anon's 6:00 post above!

    Wow, talking about turning around an argument with convoluted thinking, look at anon's 6:00 post above!

    Wow, talking about turning around an argument with convoluted thinking, look at anon's 6:00 post above!

    how is that a turned around argument? He said it is great fun watching the right fail in Iraq. He loves that the right is suffering. WHy is the right suffering? because soldiers are dying. So he clearly doesn't want this violence to come to an end for fear that it might make the right look good.


    and from what i have heard, your a racist.


    PELOSI: DEMOCRATS WILL NOT CUT OFF IRAQ FUNDING

    -- Dems Willing To Give Bush All The Rope He Wants To Hang Himself, GOP --

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday Democrats will not cut off funding for the war in Iraq, despite indicating earlier that she will not give President Bush a `blank check` to fund a U.S. troop surge in the war-torn country. `I`m going to be very clear: Democrats will not cut off funding for our troops,` Pelosi told reporters on Capitol Hill. Sunday on `Face the Nation`, Pelosi said, `If the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it. And this is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions.`


    -- Dems Willing To Give Bush All The Rope He Wants To Hang Himself, GOP --

    rope made of the lives of americans.

    `He said it is great fun watching the right fail in Iraq.`

    . . . . .

    no, great fun watching your party pay for it.
    not great fun watching your party trash:
    the middle east/american credibility/the constitution/the military/the rule of law/diplomatic relations/etc. etc. etc.

    "Arguable by whom? Anyone who is an "enemy combatant" can't challenge the law because the court lacks jurisdiction over them, and anyone who isn't doesn't have standing to challenge because the law doesn't apply to them."

    By whom?.....

    By the legions of dedicated lawyers of the ACLU....look at Hamdi....our society is so transparent that enemy combatants have lawyers quicker than the guy who slips in the local WALMART.

    Oy....Bush's signing statements are thouroghly vetted by professionals at The Justice Department....Lawyers who swear to up hold The Constitution of our country....The sworn and approved Attorney General as the chief law enforcement officer of the country even has to defend these statements in Congressional committees and in front of judges.

    The fact that Bush IS so strident with his words and deeds should show he does what he says and says what he means.

    I prefer the simple, upfront words of Bush over the nuanced and manipulative propaganda of the previous administration......

    "It depends on what the meaning of is, is."

    harp on all you want, losers ... it won`t change the fact that the U.S. body count in iraq is growing, as is the dire situation there, as is America`s impatience with your party of fools for getting us into this mess and propagating it further, despite what the public wishes. and the longer it lasts, the longer your party will pay for it, and justifiably so. great fun to watch.


    I JUST WANT TO REPOST THIS SO THERE IS NO CONFUSION. PEOPLE CAN READ IT AND MAKE THEIR OWN CONCLUSION ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID.

    as is the dire situation there, as is America`s impatience with your party of fools for getting us into this mess and propagating it further, despite what the public wishes. AND THE LONGER IT LASTS, the longer your party will pay for it, and justifiably so. GREAT FUN TO WATCH.


    ONCE MORE JUST TO BE SURE.

    and the longer IT lasts, the longer your party will pay for it, and justifiably so. great fun to watch.


    so if its not great fun watching the war drag on, what is the "IT" you're referring to?

    Lapdog :I provided historical facts of the left's disregard for South Vietnamese refugees last week.....and the professor was silent...a brief reprise summed up in the left's hero own words.....

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam" George McGovern (Newsweek)

    I discuss the Congressional cuts in funding in the early 1970's and he dismisses the implications.

    This may come as a shock to the old lap puppy but I don't read or hang on every word you write.

    And based on face value of your above words about the LEFT 's disregard for the South Vietnamese refugees just make no sense whatsoever.
    Since when is an ideology responsible for another country's refugees ?

    You claim (dishonestly) to be so concerned about their plight yet you glaze over the 58,000 Americans who lost their lives ...for what ?
    For nothing at all but rich men's folly.

    and was George McGovern president and responsible for the refugees?

    Simple logical points that are lost on you....and not always worth taking to pen.


    Your historical ramblings usually make me laugh and shake my head, not scurry to take up writing about your misconceptions and avoidance of more crucial issues.

    And when you call George Bush a great president , you just make yourself look like a fool.Even his own party members don't even think he's a credible president none the less a great one.


    So cee...the joke's on you with your convoluted, embarrassing points of view.


    Democratic plans.

    Raise minimum wage - government controls what people get paid

    Fair Trade over Free Trade - Government controls trade, sets quotas, raises tarriffs

    and we're in danger of becoming a RIGHT-wing government? Riiiiight.

    Cee:I prefer the simple, upfront words of Bush.

    Like "we're definitely winning the war in Iraq" in December.
    and "We're not winning , we're not losing" a few weeks later.

    I could have fun with your ridiculous comment for hours, but I have better things to do right now.

    God Cee, you're such an idiot !...an educated one..but nevertheless an idiot.

    Can those that post as "anonymous" (both left and right) please reach for a little creativity and pick out a name. It's becoming annoying to decifer which anonymous is which.


    GO GATORS!!!

    Your historical ramblings usually make me laugh and shake my head


    Democrats owned slaves, started the civil war, and killed millions of americans. How does that party still exist?


    Are you shaking your head yet?

    Can those that post as "anonymous" (both left and right) please reach for a little creativity and pick out a name.


    No


    "By the legions of dedicated lawyers of the ACLU....look at Hamdi....our society is so transparent that enemy combatants have lawyers quicker than the guy who slips in the local WALMART."

    Tell me cee. If it's so damned easy to challenge these statements, why did Senator Arlen Specter (a Republican no less) introduce a bill to allow the Congress to judicially challenge signing statements?

    "The sworn and approved Attorney General as the chief law enforcement officer of the country even has to defend these statements in Congressional committees and in front of judges."

    Except the President operates from the "unitary executive theory", which pretty much says that the President can ignore or rewrite any provision of the law that HE feels encroaches upon his authority, regardless of whether it actually does so.

    And tell me, cee. Exactly HOW MANY of the over 700 signing statements that the President has authored have been challeneged in a court of law or before a Congressional committee? I would be surprised if that number exceeds 10...

    "The fact that Bush IS so strident with his words and deeds should show he does what he says and says what he means."

    Like being AGAINST nation-building in 2000, yet undertaking the largest nation-builiding effort since the Marshall Plan just 3 years later?

    Like not vetoing ONE spending bill in 6 years and now saying that he wants a balanced budget, deficit reduction AND permanent tax cuts?

    Like saying he's "listening" to the commanders on the ground, and then prepares to implement a plan that almost NONE of them support?

    You asked for it professor.....

    FORD'S FINEST LEGACY

    By Quang X Pham

    "Today, America can regain the sense of pride that existed before Vietnam. But it cannot be achieved by refighting awar that is finished as far as America is concerned. ... (T)hese events, tragic as they are, portend neither the end of the world nor ofAmerica's leadership in the world." President Gerald R. Ford uttered those words in a speech at Tulane University on April 23, 1975, in the final days of Vietnam's long war. The rowdy crowd roared and gave him a standing ovation. The military draft had ended and American troops and POWs had returned home two years earlier. America had washed its hands of Vietnam, yet millions of lives were still at stake. Halfway around the world, my family experienced the unfolding of those tragicevents in South Vietnam. For us, it was the worst of times. It seemed like the end of the world to me. I was only 10.

    Dwight D Eisenhower had sent American military advisers to Vietnam to help contain communism and prevent the "dominoes" from falling in Southeast Asia. John F Kennedy dispatched thousands more in a graduated response to a burgeoning insurgency. Lyndon Johnson broke his promise not to send "American boys nine orten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for them-selves." Richard Nixon prolonged the killing for another three years despite having a secret plan to end the longest American war ever. In the end, after two decades of flailing diplomacy in that tiny peninsula, Gerald Ford dealt with the aftermath: empty guarantees made to an ally, promises he could not keep and a "peace with honor" that the congressional Watergate class would not enforce. Years later Ford wrote a letter to the group of Marines who had evacuated the US Embassy in Saigon. In it he said, "April 1975 was indeed the cruelest month. The passage of time has not dulled the ache of those days, the saddest of my public life."

    But Ford became the savior to those lucky enough to escape the taking of Saigon by the North Vietnamese army. "I pray no American president is ever again faced with this grave option,'' Ford said at a public forum on the legacy of the Vietnam War 25 years later. "I still grieve over those we were unable to rescue.'' He added that he was thankful America was able to relocate 130,000 Vietnamese refugees (less than 1 percent of South Vietnam's population) and that "to do less would have added moral shame to humiliation."

    My family and those other blessed South Vietnamese found ourselves stuck in refugee camps across the United States. Outside the camps, public sentiment against Vietnamese refugees ran high, although at the time we did not feel itdirectly. The book on Vietnam had beenclosed for most Americans until the refugees arrived in unprecedented numbers. Only the Hungarian and Cuban refugee resettlements were of comparable scale. Newspapers portrayed the country as split on what to do with the refugees. In a May 1975 article in the New YorkTimes, Sen Robert Byrd, D-W Va, commented that "barmaids, prostitutes and crimi-nals" should be screened out as "excludable categories.'' Sen Joe Biden, D-Del.,"charged that the (Ford) Administration had not informed Congress adequately about the number of refugees''--as if anyone actually knew during the chaotic evacuation. "I think the Vietnamese are better offin Vietnam," sniffed George McGovern in Newsweek. At the time, unemployment in the United States hovered near double digits. Perhaps this had something to do with the anti refugee emotion.

    In Larry Engelmann's "Tears Before the Rain: An Oral History ofthe Fall of South Vietnam,'' Julia VadalaTaft, head of the interagency task force for refugee resettlement, recalled such opposition. "The new governor of California, JerryBrown, was very concerned about refugeessettling in his state. Brown even attempted to prevent planes carrying refugees from landing at Travis Air Force Base nearSacramento. ... The secretary of health and welfare, Mario Obledo, felt that this addition of a large minority group would be unwelcome in California. And he said that they already had a large population ofHispanics, Filipinos, blacks, and other minorities."

    The refugees were extremely fortunate. Our biggest supporter, outside of Julia Taft, was the president of the United States. Even though he had described the Vietnam conflict as "a war that is finished as far as America is concerned," Ford's attention was now focused on the refugees. In May 1975 he visited the camps, and soon after refugees began leaving to start new lives across America. The government wanted to disperse the refugees to spread the cost among many states and communities. By Christmas of that year, all refugee camps had been closed, and the refugees werere settled in every state.

    I am not aware of any other politicians, anti-war protesters, esteemed journalists or celebrities visiting Fort Chaffee, Ark, where my family was temporarily housed for two months. But Gerald Ford did.

    April 1975 was indeed the cruelest month for us. But thanks to President Ford's leadership, we experienced America's kindness and generosity during our darkest days. We owe him our deepest gratitude in remembrance.

    (The writer, who was born in Saigon,served as a Marine pilot in the Persian Gulf War. He is a businessman and the author of "A Sense of Duty: My Father, My American Journey.")

    LA TIMES-WASHINGTON POST 1/2/07

    The professor will likely ignore my post again because the facts it reviews goes against the liberal fairy tale that is taught about the behavior of people over the challenge that was Vietnam.

    And EE....please tell me that every one of the 700 signing statements Bush has written were controversal....or please spare me the paranoia.

    The right of the executive to preserve the power constitutionally guaranteed him is important.... you seem to want to continue the trend of the radical left in vesting great power in the unelected judiciary or worse....in the chaotic/prevailing wind checking legislative branch. CO-Equal means the executive also has the ability to use the powers granted to him or her. The founders were skeptical of monarchs...but also VERY skeptical of democracy....or mob rule.

    The yelling over the Bush signing statements are a red herring manufactured to scare people...plain and simple. Spector has his own opinion about the balance of power...I happen to disagree with him.

    We will see how future executives behave in comparison and the reaction of either radical pole depending on the executive's ideology. I hope we are all still posting at this site then so I can laugh at your hypocrisy.

    Anon 6:11:

    Your little name calling rant is kind of of funny! I've lived 55 years, served my country in the military during wartime, lived in many countries, and believed in diversity and tolerance ALL of my live.

    In ALL of that time NOBODY has ever called me a 'racist' until you did just now. Up until now, it had not even occurred to me that I had never been personally called a 'racist' before.

    You might just want to go back and articulate just what it was you read in any of my posts that made you think 'racist'....otherwise your insulting comment remains nothing but an ignorant and laughable insult that you pulled right out of your blissfully ignorant ass!

    Come on, show me what your talking about. You might know all about this because often it takes a 'racist' to know another one.

    "And we all have noticed how you blindly agree with the worst president in our nation's history.
    And I may be wrong, but I can't recall you condemning the GOP Congress for what they haven't done the past 6 years."

    Yep, Bob, I've been a big hypocrite for not living up to... what? Not living up to what I have NOT said (about this president, this congress or the past one)

    Whereas you, on the other hand, aren't living up to what you HAVE said! And "said" is a mild term considering the screeds you've laid down here.

    "Like saying he's "listening" to the commanders on the ground, and then prepares to implement a plan that almost NONE of them support?"

    And EE, you are better than comments like this.....read The NYT article I posted from this morning....the left is lying about a majority of troops and commanders NOT wanting an increase in their numbers.

    you are willing to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of arabs to save thousands of americans. its either racism or a belief that American lives are somehow superior to Iraqis. Either way, its a sad level of discrimination. I wonder if this were France or Great britain we were trying to keep peace in if you would feel the same way. You think this whole war is bush's fault, yet are willing to pull out and put his mistakes on the back of Iraqis. Is it because of their skin color, religion, or that they are not Americans.

    Anon 6:11 again, speaking of Bob's comment:

    What you are doing is taking one little part of Bob's post, taking it totally out of context, keying on that one little part of the quote, and then stretching it to read something there that simply is not there.

    I enough ot Bob's posts to know that he takes no pleasure whatsoever in soldier's dying. He, like I , are totally frustrated because we were against the damned invasion from the very beginning and have been able to do nothing about it.

    The "right is suffering" solely because they invaded and occupied a country that did not attack us and then scewed up every single facit of the operation after the initial invasion.

    I don't want another soldier to die! I want them home...yesterday, and I'm pretty sure Bob wants the same thing.

    Anon 6:11 again, speaking of Bob's comment:

    What you are doing is taking one little part of Bob's post, taking it totally out of context, keying on that one little part of the quote, and then stretching it to read something there that simply is not there.

    I enough ot Bob's posts to know that he takes no pleasure whatsoever in soldier's dying. He, like I , are totally frustrated because we were against the damned invasion from the very beginning and have been able to do nothing about it.

    The "right is suffering" solely because they invaded and occupied a country that did not attack us and then scewed up every single facit of the operation after the initial invasion.

    I don't want another soldier to die! I want them home...yesterday, and I'm pretty sure Bob wants the same thing.

    Then what is it that is so fun to watch? To look at this great debacle that is tearing our country apart and call any piece of it "fun" is pretty sick.

    Jt, hope you are still here. As promised:

    "Jt, this is the first post I made in response to you.

    "JT, I got to this point and somehow closed this page and lost it all. I definitely won't be able to finish today. The witching hour is fast approaching and I have some little goblins who are expecting me.

    JT RESPONDED:
    "Earlier this year, Talent co-sponsored a bill that would ban all embryonic stem-cell research and impose a $1 million fine and jail sentence on violators. That to me looks like the actions of someone who opposes embryonic stem cell research. He eventually withdrew his support but I am guessing his change of heart was more political than personal. Either way, given Fox�s own beliefs there is certainly reason to feel safer with the other candidate."

    GRAMMIE RESPONSE:
    Grammie cries 'Uncle' on this one. Don't get too excited. I have spent quite a while trying to find a definitive site that addresses this. Could I impose on you to cite some sources since you obviously have done some research yourself.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 31, 2006 01:22 PM"

    We have to quit meeting at holidays. If I don't get to making groceries and start cooking the headline will read "Mother and Grandmother Beaten to Death with an Unstuffed Turkey".

    If you can still find your sources re Talent or, if not, flesh out yout comments I would appreciate it.

    Will get back to you after Christmas.

    Merry Christmas to all and a Happy New Year!

    Janet Hawkins
    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at December 22, 2006 12:20 PM

    Grammie

    Anon 7:28 (give yourself a name please!)

    Just where did you pull out of your ass that I'm "willing to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of Arab lives to save thousands of Americans"?.

    Anon ole buddy, you CANNOT prove to me that we are saving Arab lives by being in Iraq! You cannot prove that hundreds of thousands of lives will be lost if we leave. You cannot even prove that our presence in Iraq is not making the murder and mayheim worse. You SImply DON'T KNOW....just like me!

    "The "right is suffering" solely because they invaded and occupied a country that did not attack us"

    ya know in some parts of the world, trying to kill a president is an act of war. But not in America. Saddam got what he deserved, and i can live, or die if necessary, with the consequences.

    Chew on this, cee:

    "I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future." - Gen. John Abizaid, Remarks to the U.S. Senate, November 15, 2006.

    Anon 7:28 (give yourself a name please!)

    Just where did you pull out of your ass that I'm "willing to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of Arab lives to save thousands of Americans"?.

    Anon ole buddy, you CANNOT prove to me that we are saving Arab lives by being in Iraq! You cannot prove that hundreds of thousands of lives will be lost if we leave. You cannot even prove that our presence in Iraq is not making the murder and mayheim worse. You SImply DON'T KNOW....just like me!


    thus why i used the word "risk." ya know, risk. To gamble without knowing the outcome. To take a chance. In your case, while betting with arab lives. Thats one hell of a RISK your willing to take. Wonder why? hmmmmmm?

    Bob was referring to the screw-ups who got us into this mess, not the debacle itself. Most of us on here can see the difference.

    Questions to anyone. Are signing statements constitutional or not? Do they expire with the term of the signing president or do future executives also benefit from them? If they are unconstitutional, how many presidents have engaged in this illegal activity?

    Janet Hawkins
    Grammie

    Mike,

    Bob is glorying in anything that makes Republicans look bad. He made an off the cuff comment, to be sure, but it shows the mentality of people who so hate the Republican party that bad news is good news. I really didn't think O'Reilly's question to Letterman (do you want us to win the war?) was fair but now it does seem like a fair question. When things go awry, why the celebration?

    Bob was referring to the screw-ups who got us into this mess, not the debacle itself. Most of us on here can see the difference.

    oh i get it know. Like how its fun to watch how the leaders of our country get people killed. Ha! Ha! Ha!.....wait. no thats still pretty horrible. But hey, who am i to judge. Laugh it up, chuckles.

    "Are signing statements constitutional or not?"

    No court has ever been asked to make that determination, though they have indirectly nullified some by decisions made on the underlying laws.

    "Do they expire with the term of the signing president or do future executives also benefit from them?"

    They do not expire, as far as I can tell. They can be nullified by decisions of the court with regard to the law they are attached to.

    "If they are unconstitutional, how many presidents have engaged in this illegal activity?"

    Many Presidents have used them to object to principles in law, but so far only President Bush has used them to explicitly state he will treat provisions of laws that he has signed as "advisory" and/or "subject to executive interpretation".

    Sharon:

    You seem to be a very reasonable person even though I have disagreed with you about some things.

    I certainly don't celebrate anything that is going on and I doubt if Bob does either. I watch the news every night with a sinking feeling in my gut. God, how I wish I had been wrong about invading Iraq and Democracy HAD flowered.

    Just watching the president get us in deeper and deeper and deeper leaves nothing but a sinking feeling for me.

    Sometimes, there is no pleasure in being 'right', and this is one of those times.

    Sharon:

    You seem to be a very reasonable person even though I have disagreed with you about some things.

    I certainly don't celebrate anything that is going on and I doubt if Bob does either. I watch the news every night with a sinking feeling in my gut. God, how I wish I had been wrong about invading Iraq and Democracy HAD flowered.

    Just watching the president get us in deeper and deeper and deeper leaves nothing but a sinking feeling for me.

    Sometimes, there is no pleasure in being 'right', and this is one of those times.

    I had to tell my wife that there's this guy over at Olbermann Watch that actually believes that George Bush is a great president.
    Her response was,"What's wrong with him?"
    I said..."a lot".
    She said," I don't know anyone who says that anymore" ( and we live in a conservative, very rural section of NJ.)
    She's correct.
    IN addition to most of the free world, Bush has most recently lost favor with the Christian right and the NRA for Christ's sake for his environmental policies. The NRA is up in arms for letting oil and gas companies plunder their once pristine hunting grounds.The Christian right has been upset that Bush is defiling God's green earth with his dismantling of the clean air laws.

    Dr. Lapdog is out on an island mostly by himself thinking George Bush is a great president.

    Chew and swallow this EE:

    TODAY....IRAQ

    "In Baghdad, Odierno said he proposed several approaches to Defense Secretary Robert Gates during his visit here last month, including a surge.

    "What I will tell you is when Secretary Gates was here with General (Peter) Pace, we offered several different courses of action. Some included surge of troops, some included a surge in economic capabilities." Others, he said, included boosting other Iraqi capabilities in the treasury, justice, and rule of law fields, "and some didn't include a troop surge."

    "Odierno arrived in Baghdad less than a month ago, replacing Chiarelli. During his tenure, Chiarelli repeatedly said that if more Iraqis had jobs, fewer would join a rogue group or shoot at American soldiers. The unemployment rate here is at least 25 percent, government officials estimate.

    "Both commanders said they believed that Iraqi forces should take the lead in enforcing security, while conceding that, while they are improving, Iraqis have faltered when given the lead. Some forces have been overtly sectarian. Others lost control of their communities, forcing U.S. troops to intervene. Both commanders said that U.S. troops should be on the periphery of areas handed over to Iraqi forces in case violence erupts.

    "Both said that U.S. forces must tackle not only Sunni insurgents but Shiite militias - yet both stopped short of advocating that U.S. forces go after firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who leads Iraq's largest militia, the Mahdi Army, and supports the Iraqi government.

    "I'm not sure we take him down," Odierno said. "There are some extreme elements (of the Mahdi Army) ... and we will go after them. I will allow the government to decide whether (Sadr) is part of it or not. He is currently working within the political system."

    "Both Odierno and Chiarelli said that the military could not do everything and that Iraq needs a political solution. Both also said that everyone should be patient with Iraq's nascent government, noting that it has been in power less than a year."


    ###
    It is a great challenge for this new government to gain control over inflammed sectarian passions (stoked, BTW by outside terrorist agitators whose ONLY goal is a civil war and US withdrawal). The commanders on the ground presented many options and some inculded more troops, EE.

    Chew on this, cee:

    "I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future." - Gen. John Abizaid, Remarks to the U.S. Senate, November 15, 2006.

    Posted by: Ensign Expendable at January 8, 2007 07:40 PM

    and then General Abizaid was relieved of his duties for telling the truth.
    Fits a pattern doesn't it ?

    Anon:

    So you agree Gambling is staying in, and gambling is getting out. One option definitely saves American lives, the other option may or may not save Arab lives, but may in fact cost Arab lives. You're taking a "hell of a risk" either way.

    Option 1 certainly sounds like the best one to me.

    So Ceals...how was that Hungryman dinner for one ?

    Option 1 certainly sounds like the best one to me.

    oh i know it does. Save the white people first, right? Well, at least you admit it.

    "So Ceals...how was that Hungryman dinner for one ?"


    My hungry man is terrific, thank you.

    Anon:

    There you go again with the 'racist' crap! "Save the white people first".

    Talk about being 'racist', you take the cake. The last I checked, our Army is consists of all races imaginable.

    You admitted yourself you don't KNOW which option will work best for the Iraqis.

    Staying in Iraq may well cost MORE Arab lives too. We DON'T KNOW! What is it about that thought process you fail to grasp!

    I admit, you are the first one I've ever heard who thinks of this issue in terms of 'Racism'. I would say that makes YOU the 'racist'.

    yep, i am the racist. The guy who is willing to die and sacrafice American lives to save arab muslims. Boy, i hope i get my KKK card in the mail. You're an idiot.

    Bob writes: "I had to tell my wife that there's this guy over at Olbermann Watch that actually believes that George Bush is a great president.
    Her response was,"What's wrong with him?"
    I said..."a lot".
    She said," I don't know anyone who says that anymore" ( and we live in a conservative, very rural section of NJ.)
    She's correct."


    Wow! That is a strong indictment, Bob!

    Bob's wife thinks Cee is wrong too, everyone!

    I don't really know if you're really a 'racist' or not, but you sure are a jerk! And you sound Anti-American as well to me.

    You've refused to make you're case as to just how sacrificing American lives is "saving Arab lives"...you know Why you didn't?....because you don't have one, and you call ME the 'idiot'?

    Ah Professor Honeydew (Bob) the ignorant historian is back.....

    Even with the small amount of exposure I have had to your silly and infantile ruminations, I can easily conclude that most normal people would rather just talk discuss the weather with you.

    You have no ability to free your tortured and indoctrinated mind to consider anything other than that spoon-fed to you by even lesser ethical individuals.

    Your glee over defeat, death and misery, as observed by Anon above, speaks volumes as does your silence about the dehumanizing slurs you and Mr. Olbermann have used. You have also shown anti-Semetic tendencies that place you in that group of pseudo-intellectuals I knew all too well in my undergraduate years.

    And what of the youth? The poor youth that are being exposed to the ramblings of Professor Bunsen Honeydew....May these Beakers somehow escape from the dangerous inventions the dull witted Bob pulls out of thin air!

    EE, are you sure that GWB is the first and only President to use Signing Statements in unconstitutional ways?

    You might want to check the following:

    http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

    It is the meorandum by Counsel to the President B Nussbaum wrote in 1993 advising President Clinton of his powers as executive.

    In it he addresses all the various reasons that legitimate SS have been made in the past. I quote one significant paragraph:

    " If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.(10) And indeed, in a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Federal Election Comm'n v. NRA Political Victory Fund, supra, the court cited to and relied upon a Presidential signing statement that had declared that a Congressionally-enacted limitation on the President's constitutional authority to appoint officers of the United States was without legal force or effect. Id. at * 11."

    "Conclusion


    Many Presidents have used signing statements to make substantive legal, constitutional or administrative pronouncements on the bill being signed. Although the recent practice of issuing signing statements to create "legislative history" remains controversial, the other uses of Presidential signing statements generally serve legitimate and defensible purposes."

    I very often get the impression that many who say GWB is the first President to do this or that unconstitutional thing really mean and believe that they object to GWB only exercising his constitutional powers because they don't support him and favor for this short time an emasculated and eviserated Presidency.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    14,343. that is the estimated number of Iraqi's killed not involving attacks against Americans or Iraqi security forces in 2006 (probably low like all death figures from Iraq and i am being generous no including security forces which would push the number over 35,000). These were the militas and sectarian violence. Not attacks agains American soildiers. THe insurgency is alive and well, but iraqi on iraqi violence has far surpassed. Why would that go away when we pull out? WOuld shites go, "now that AMericans are gone, we can stop killing Sunnis." Turn on the news. THere are more Iraqis killing Iraqis than IRaqis killing Americans. Nice work calling me anti-american a--hole. Bet it made you feel good.

    And finally, please, please, please tell me professor.....now that I know you are married......please tell me that there has not been progeny!

    Bunsen Honeydew Jr. would just be toooooo much.

    I wonder if Bob's wife is named Rosemary?

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    I'm well aware that Iraqi on Iraqi violence exceeds Iraqi on American violence. Being easier targets and more of them wouldn't have anything to do with that,would it? You STILL haven't made your case as to how our leaving will affect that, much less offer any proof! We sure as hell haven't stopped or prevented it so far!

    As for the name calling, which you started by calling me a 'racist' (several times before I responded in kind), it doesn't help a thing. Any idiot can throw out a derogatory term about someone they have a disagreement with.

    Mike, I am so glad to see you go on record with:

    " Any idiot can throw out a derogatory term about someone they have a disagreement with.

    Posted by: Mike at January 8, 2007 08:50 PM"

    Now I may not, as an 'racist lying theiving inbred fundy Christonazi daughter of the clan repuglicant reich wing war mongering greedy callous b***h crazy barbaric c**t' be credible.

    In fact, my applauding you may tarnish your reputation to some. Sorry about that.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Well Bob didn't like my question earlier today so here we go with number two.

    Now I'm not asking if you agree with question. It is who do you respect on principle more.

    Let me repeat that for the slightly slow crowd. "Who do you respect on principle more."

    Now Bob said he's against the war, hates Bush, the whole things wrong and he's always said thats what he stands for. But, he stated on this very thread, he was willing to give it 18 more months to prove a point.

    Rep. Dennis Kucinich has always stated he has disagreed with the war, disagreed with the president, and always called for congress to stop funding and to bring the troops home immediately he has never said give it more time (18 months) as Bob has said earlier on this thread.

    Remember I'm not asking you to agree with them. The question is who do you respect more for standing on their principle.

    Bob or Rep. Dennis Kucinich?

    Bob was refering to the screw-ups who got us into this mess. Not the debacle itself. And then Mike stood behind Bob's statement.

    So what Bob and Mike are saying is they blame the screw-ups in the White House not the debacle in the field. Okay I wish Mike and Bob would just come out and say They hate Bush, Hate the War, Hate the troops. Or at least say the troops out in the field are too stupid to know what they are doing. Right guys? You did say the debacle out in the field right? And if it wasn't the troops, who were you talking about when you said " The debacle out in the field"?

    I'm sure Mike or Bob will say George Bush talks in code through Fox News to the troops. Remember Fox News is the News channel of choice of the troops in the green zone. But Mike and Bob will tell you that the troops are forced to watch Fox News.

    It's one of my favorite questions I ask returning soldiers. "So, Fox News,CNN,or MSLSD? They laugh when I say MSLSD.

    Now Mike I fully expect the cheap-shot with you're post. Meanwhile let me go warm up the dance band for you two spinners.

    Two to Tango boys? Or the Flip-Flop Polka?

    Mike for the record I don't think you're a Racist.

    Janet,

    Chucky's bride is named Tiffany.

    Wow! Bob I didn't know you live in New Jersey?

    Mind asking you're wife why you keep voting in all those Corrupt Democrats into Office?

    Hey Bob I heard Jim McGreevy had his portrait painted. It was put up in the state capital. Should'nt it be put up in all the rest areas on the Turnpike that he use to troll?

    Ya know I should be giving Bob a lot of slack. Maybe he does know a little more about the war then the rest of us.

    Yeah, Bob talks about the debacle in Iraq. Bob should know. There's the debacle in Paterson, Camden, Elizabeth, Downtown Plainfield, East Orange, Jersey City. Yep Bob should know about debacles.

    Hey there's no go zones in Baghdad. And there's no go zones in Newark!

    "Now I may not, as an 'racist lying theiving inbred fundy Christonazi daughter of the clan repuglicant reich wing war mongering greedy callous b***h crazy barbaric c**t' be credible."

    Nobody's perfect, Grammie.

    "Remember I'm not asking you to agree with them. The question is who do you respect more for standing on their principle.

    Bob or Rep. Dennis Kucinich?"

    Kucinich, hands down.

    He says what he means and means what he says.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Puck:

    First off, I'm not sure why you said you "expected a cheap shot" from me. I'll be honest in saying that actually bothers me more than if you'd called me an idiot or something like that. I feel like I've pretty much avoided cheap shots, except in retaliation, and I'm working on that one too.

    I'll agree with 2 characterizations you made about me, but not the third: Yes, I hate Bush - but - I DIDN'T hate Bush until after he invaded Iraq...and did a lot of other things contrary to what he represented himself as in the 2000 election, in which I voted for him. I hate Bush for the damage he has done to my country. There is nothing irrational about it.

    And yes, I hate the war...nuff said about that!

    But I sure as hell DON'T hate the troops. I used to be a 'troop' myself. I hate the incompetent civilian dolts that the troops have been working for. They deserve better. The troops have done all that could be possibly asked of them and this debacle is not their fault. I also want them home so more of them don't have to die needlessly, and moral is not completely killed the way it was in Vietnam. Are you clear about that now, Puck?

    And Puck ole buddy:

    I don't have a clue who the troops watch nor have you seen me write anything about that.

    I did hear about one soldier's blog that claimed all cable news was BS, anf the bggest Offender was Bill O'Reilly.

    Corrupt Democrats....corrupt Republicans....I hate em both!

    Cecelia, Tiffany, Rosemary, Rosie or MoDo all sound reasonable to me. Maybe The Great One According to Himself will enlighten us.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    "Although the recent practice of issuing signing statements to create "legislative history" remains controversial, the other uses of Presidential signing statements generally serve legitimate and defensible purposes."

    And THAT, dear Grammie, is the issue. NO ONE can say what the President is doing is Constitutional. It is legitimate for the President to issue a signing statement that says "I disagree with this law but I will carry it out." But it is a much closer call when he says "I disagree with this law and therefore make some changes to it."

    The President is, in effect, exercising a LINE-ITEM VETO when he uses his signing statements in this manner. And the U.S. Supreme Court has already said the President does not have the power to exercise such a veto.

    And, EE, you stated that GWB was the first President to ever use a SS in such a way as to grab power to himself.

    I'll repeat the conclusion drawn by President Clinton's counsel:

    "Many Presidents have used signing statements to make substantive legal, constitutional or administrative pronouncements on the bill being signed. Although the recent practice of issuing signing statements to create "legislative history" remains controversial, the other uses of Presidential signing statements generally serve legitimate and defensible purposes."

    It clearly states, in 1993 long before GWB became president, that SS have been used by many Presidents make, among other things,LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL pronouncements with them.

    You are referring to the creation by the statement a 'legislative history'. And, according to Nussbaum, that had been done before also and was controversial but I gather has never been the basis of any ruling by the courts.

    I don't take exception to your disagreeing with any or all SS.

    I do, though, take exception with your assertion that GWB has made history in an unprecedented power grab.

    As I stated earlier I get the impression the objection is not the constitutionality or the alledged uniqueness of GWB asserting executive power. It is the fact that it is GWB and therefore it is wrong because GWB is always wrong and trying to create an imperial presidency.

    I happen to think that the worst thing to come out of Watergate was an unprecedented weakening of the Presidency and our national security apparatus.

    Any president any threat.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    "It clearly states, in 1993 long before GWB became president, that SS have been used by many Presidents make, among other things,LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL pronouncements with them."

    Have any of those prior signing statements ALTERED or CHANGED the actual text of the bill being signed, rather than merely challenging the VALIDITY of the bill?

    The President can use a signing statement to challenge the VALIDITY of the law, but not to RE-INTERPRET the law as he sees fit. That's not the power of the Executive. If he wants it re-interpreted, he can veto it and make Congress re-do it.

    Hi Janet,

    I couldn't find the source I used on that post (long time ago). it was an article on Cnn's website. I found one that says essentially the same thing on Talent though. Let me know if you need more becaue it was pretty easy to find..

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/24/162711.shtml

    EE, I wouldn't even know how to research to compare SS completely, what they claim, what they are based on and who made them. If you do, please let me in on it and I'll research it and consider the point.

    But I can read and comprehend what others, in this case B Nussbaum, not exactly a GWB crony plainly say.

    I'll repeat it one more time and the relavent paragraph from GWB's SS.

    ""Many Presidents have used signing statements to make substantive legal, constitutional or administrative pronouncements on the bill being signed."

    ""The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection."

    Quasi corporation or not, the Post Office is not a 4th branch of government, much less totally autonomous from the other three branches. The tension in this case is between the legislative and executive.

    If I parse GWB's words they mean that the executive will construe and administer this bill to meet exigent circumstances (hazmet, anthrax etc)and that physical searches AUTHORIZED by LAW for the purpose of foreign intelligence collection will take precedence over the provisions of the bill.

    If there is abuse I am certain it will come to light. The American people are not shy about contesting wrongs that they feel has been heaped on them and our courts are not shy violets either.

    I guess we will have to agree to disagree. But if you have any sources do let me know, please.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Thanks, JT. I have gotten better at doing this. I've only been using the internet for 3 or at most 4 months.

    It was only a month or so ago that I figured out what people meant when they said 'google' it. Up till then I was simply putting in jimtalent on that top line.

    Will look into it and have a response ready for the future when I see you on line.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php?year=2006&Submit=DISPLAY

    Grammie, this has every Signing Statement issued going back to the Hoover Administration.

    EE, I've been there and surely you don't expect me to research thousands of SS and at the same time relate them to the political climate at the time to have an opinion.

    You made the claim that this is an all time first in SS. Point me in the direction where you got this info and let me look into it.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    EE, have been perusing both sites. Nybooks I don't accept as an impartial source. The govexec site I would accept. I tried for quite a while and found a lot of info re Clinton's heavy use of Executive Orders, but no signing statements there.

    Just a progress report. I'll keep looking.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie