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 'EST/-5.0/no 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


    April 4, 2007
    Countdown with Keith Olbermann - April 4, 2007

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

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • DEMOCRATS VS. PRES. BUSH: Richard Wolffe, Newsweek chief White House correspondent and MSNBC political analyst
    • IRAQ: Paul Reickhoff, Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America founder
    • "AMERICAN IDOL": Maria Milito, radio host

    As Keith bellowed the opening spiel, what do you suppose led the rundown? A dozen people who protested an appearance by "Bush's Brain". Bush bashes the Democrats and "invokes 9/11 for political gain" and made a (gasp!) recess appointment. Obama's making money, more hitching a wagon to American Idol, Keith Richards, all that and (we're sorry to report) more on a Tuesday Hour of Spin. And be sure to watch for an Olbermahn so desperate that not only does he doctor a quote, he serves up Another Olbermann Lie, just so he can attack O'Reilly again. Only on OlbyPlanet.

    Update (Rcox): Transcript & Video

    Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly book Culture Warrior

    #5: Remember yesterday? "Mister" Bush didn't throw out any first pitches at any ballparks. Keitho just thought it would be nice to mention that again. But "his brain" was protested against by "more than a dozen protestors". Wow! Headline News! Olbermann regurgitated his old lie that Bush was claiming Iraq was involved in 9/11 (he wasn't). And the Evil in Chief also appointed an Ambassador during the recess. Quote from Kerry (D) opposed to the appointment. Quote from nobody in favor. Clip of Pelosi (D) in Syria.

    The Wolffe Man slithered in to hear Monkeymann running off a pile of anti-Bush anecdotes, culminating in: "Is none of this registering with the President?" Wolffie played his part to perfection: Bush's speech is "just a bunch of lines" he's used before, they're all no good at diplomacy, etc. Olby was worried that this will be used by the White House as an "excuse" to control appearances by people like Rove. Say what? Has Krazy Keith been lobbying for more Rove speeches? Has he been complaining that we don't hear enough from Karl? If he has, we've totally missed it. KO applied Rule #1 to say the White House "boxed itself into a corner" revisits to Syria. Did the Wolffe Man agree? His answer was "Totally". Awesome, man. Rad! Great Thanks!

    On to Iraq with (again) Reickhoff, the reliably anti-Bush war veteran (the only kind who gets invited to The Hour of Spin). Bush doesn't understand the military, he's insincere, he's driven us into a ditch, he shouldn't veto the bill, he's a hypocrite, yada yada. Then Mr Merkle served up a classic OlbySoftball, delivered in one of his endless run-on questions:

    Did anybody suggest, do you suppose, did anybody, any of the troops in the audience at Ft Irwin today, feel, do you suppose, um, some level of discomfort at the fact that the President visited the training facility where the two actual combat units will not get to train, uh, because of his surge, but he goes and speakers there, would that have registered?

    Reickhoff hit that one out of the park: Bush uses troops as political backdrops, and then there's John McCain, the soldiers are sick of all the bickering, the President has to stop being partisan, the Dems too, etc. Great Thanks.

    #4: After 13 days of ignoring the story entirely, Oralmann teed up the news of the hostage release as if his audience were intimately familiar with all the details. In fact, he has never said one word about it. But hey, now he can put an anti-Bush spin on it: the U.S. "blinked". And since there is no record of Olbermahn uttering even a peep about it until now, he can take whatever position he likes as long as it makes "Mister" Bush look bad. OlbySpin at its most elegant, and most repellent. Again Herr Olbermann suggested the US "blinked" as he introduced recycled NBC footage. But guess what? There was nothing whatsoever in the report about the US "blinking" or anything remotely like it. Olbermahn just dropped that in: it made the blue blogs happy, and so what if there was not one syllable of explanation or documentation presented? The loons won't care. Olby thanked the tape machine.

    Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly book Culture Warrior

    #3: Money and politics. This might have been a respectable segment if it weren't for the fact that the guest "expert" was none other than the quintuply-discredited David Shuster. He was there to tell us what "a lot of people are suggesting" and what "so many Democrats" feel and what "a lot of Democrats" think. Krazy Keith took another shot a Richard McCain and a good time was had by all. Great thanks.

    #2: An in-depth investigative report, the kind only Countdown can do on one of those critical political issues that are the heart and soul of The Hour of Spin. Does celebrity rehab really rehabilitate? Regurgitated NBC reportage followed. Plus Keith Richards and movie director Bob Clark. #1 brought yet another cynical attempt to hitch the sinking Countdown wagon to the success of American Idol. Those OlbyScoops (Michael Jackson will be a guest judge, Katherine McPhee to sing at Tom Cruise's wedding) were not discussed.

    In the Media Matters Minute, the first victim was "right-wing water carrier" and "nitwit" John Derbyshire for being critical of the British hostages (Blue Blog Source: Crooks & Liars). And in attack #174, "Man on Fan" Olbermann slammed O'Reilly for, what, saying we shouldn't be in the middle of an Arab-Persian War (Blue Blog Source: Media Matters)? There's really not a lot of there there, but that's never stopped Monkeymann. First he doctored the quote he read by skipping over the part where guest Nancy Soderberg agreed with O'Reilly. He had to do that because he then embellished it all with Another Olbermann Lie. He claimed that O'Reilly was so dense (despite the unreported fact that Soderberg had just agreed with him) that Soderberg had to "speak slowly, as if speaking to a child". A Pure Olbermann Lie. But, hey, it filled the Fox slot!

    Stories Olbermann refuses to report

    Buttoned-up bassets: What would Countdown be without Monkeymann pimping some internet video, usually from YouTube? Hey, Keith, how come you haven't gotten around to any of these? And what about all those condemnations of Richard McCain? You know, how he's "delusional" and "in denial" and maybe even senile because he sees signs of progress in Iraq? Do those smears also apply to ABC News? Well, do they? Herr Olbermann leaps at Gannett editorials in the Military Times when they suit his purpose. But they also publish stories that our favorite slovenly political hack won't touch. Not to mention the reaction.

    NAME

    Olbermann's book The book that bears Olbermann's name has soared to #25,017 at amazon.com, while "Culture Warrior" is #258. (It's that 2-for-$25 sale!) The OlbyTome is #3,974 at Barnes & Noble; O'Reilly's book is #691 there, and is one of the top five books of 2006 per Publishers Weekly. Tuesday Olbermoronn, while losing to Mr Bill by four-to-one, held on to second place both in total viewers and in the critical, beloved, all-important, coveted "key demo". Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 4 [ELEVATED]

    Update (Rcox): Transcript & Video

    Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

    Keith Olbermann breaks silence on Iran-UK hostage story

    UPDATE (RCox): There has been some question as to whether it could really be true that Keith Olbermann spiked the Iranian hostage crisis involving 15 British sailors. Not only did Keith spike the story, "Iran" was not mentioned a single time since the story first broke on May 23rd.

    March 23: U.K. says 15 sailors detained by Iranian navy
    MSNBC.com
    VIDEO: NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports.

    'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for March 23
    Word "Iran" appears ZERO times in the transcript.

    'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for March 26
    Word "Iran" appears ZERO times in the transcript.

    'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for March 27
    Word "Iran" appears ZERO times in the transcript.

    'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for March 28
    Word "Iran" appears ZERO times in the transcript.

    'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for March 29
    Word "Iran" appears ZERO times in the transcript.

    'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for March 30
    Word "Iran" appears ZERO times in the transcript.

    'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for April 2
    Word "Iran" appears ZERO times in the transcript.

    'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for April 3
    Word "Iran" appears ZERO times in the transcript.

    'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for April 4
    Olbermann mentions the word "Iran" for the first time in the entirety of the two week long crisis which dominated headlines around the world. It was teased twice (the second tease was between commercials and so now part of the transcript).

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

    Tease 1

    OLBERMANN: Iran released the captured British sailors. Did this country blink in some way to pave the way for their freedom?

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

    Tease 2

    OLBERMANN: The U.S. denying we had anything to do with the Iranian government's sudden decision to release 15 British sailors the release of an Iranian diplomat in Iraq this week thus must have been a coincidence.

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

    Fourth Story on Countdown

    OLBERMANN: What, the joke used to go, does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Once that made geographic sense, but not anymore.

    In our fourth story on the COUNTDOWN, you have been getting gouged at the gas pump recently as a direct result of an angry standoff between Iran and Britain over the capture of 15 British sailors, and an increasingly nasty war of words between the U.S. and Tehran over accusations that the Iranians are sending Iraqi insurgents more powerful weapons with which to attack American troops.

    Tonight, those British sailors and other service personnel are freed, and so is an Iranian diplomat. Did we blink?

    The story behind the story from our correspondent Jim Maceda in London.

    Jim?

    (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

    Taped report from Jim Maceda of NBC News

    (END VIDEOTAPE)

    OLBERMANN: Jim Maceda in London. Jim, thanks.

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

    END


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (217) | | View blog reactions

    217 Comments

    Kudos to Olbermann Watch! For pointing out the obvious about Keith Olbermann. What would all the rabid OlbermannWatch Dogs do without you guys throwing them the red meat of a biased recap of a show most admit they never watch. It’s sooooo much easier to have someone else formulate one’s ospinions. So Kudos to Olbermann Watch for helping all Clear Thinking Americans not do any more clear thinking than they absolutely have to!

    "Olbermann regurgitated his old lie that Bush was claiming Iraq was involved in 9/11 (he wasn't)."

    Not only was Iraq not directly involved in 9/11, NO ONE from the Bush Admin ever CLAIMED Saddam or Iraq was.

    Grammie

    Kudos to Olbermann Watch! For pointing out the obvious about Keith Olbermann. What would all the rabid OlbermannWatch Dogs do without you guys throwing them the red meat of a biased recap of a show most admit they never watch. It�s sooooo much easier to have someone else formulate one�s ospinions. So Kudos to Olbermann Watch for helping all Clear Thinking Americans not do any more clear thinking than they absolutely have to!

    Posted by: at April 4, 2007 10:10 PM


    By the tone and writing technique, that post must be from the "Crooks and Liars" site owner himself,...

    Johnny "The Wap" Amato.

    Um, yes, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Ms. Rice and many others did claim that Saddam and Iraq were involved in 9/11. You can keep denying it but the fact won't change, ma'am.

    Janet: "Not only was Iraq not directly involved with 911, NO ONE from the Bush Administration ever CLAIMED Saddam or Iraq was."

    Oh Janet, oh Grammie, oh Janet....WHY oh WHY would you even want to continue to defend the indefensible? There's a lesson in the psychology of human nature in all of this, but I can't think what that lesson might be right now.

    Avoiding making a direct "CLAIM", but continuing to imply a connection that simply wasn't there is fundamental dishonesty that borders on outright lies. We should expect better from our presidents...yes, even YOU should expect better, Janet.

    How can Olbermann's fans continue to defend him when they see the entire Iran-British soldier story not reported on, then lied about, i.e., "the U.S." blinked? I know his fan base aren't the most intelligent group of individuals in the world but seriously, is the only thing in the world that matters to them is that he bashes Bush and Republicans whether or not it's actually true? Wait, don't answer that question, sadly, I already know the answer.

    Chicken Blogger, whichever chicken you are, surely you can cite chapter and verse to prove that the Bush admin ever claimed a DIRECT involvement of either Saddam and/or Iraq in 9/11.

    You seem to have a problem distinguihing the difference between direct and auxillary support.

    Based on your reading of history, the three Axis powers in WWII had no connection with each other at all. They were just complete strangers who happened to be at odds with the rest of the world.

    Grammie


    Grammie

    The U.S. blinked? Exactly how did the U.S. blink? Keith just never misses a chance to bash America. Even if he has to lie to do it.

    Brandon, Brandon, Brandon: Yes, we know how you feel about Olbermann. You've told us, and told us, and told us, and told us, and told us.....and did I mention that you told us you don't like Olbermann?

    That said Brandon, which is REALLY worse, a government that intentionally misleads it's people, or a news announcer who intentionally misleads his viewers?


    Avoiding making a direct "CLAIM", but continuing to imply a connection that simply wasn't there is fundamental dishonesty that borders on outright lies.

    Posted by: Mike at April 4, 2007 10:48 PM

    Wouldn't it be nice if you were able to take this statement (that you likely read somewhere) and apply it to what you implied about Janet's humanity.

    And for the, oh hell, I've lost count. This isn't Bushwatch. It's olbermannwatch. You seem to fail to grasp even the most simple of details Mike. Now please tell me how the U.S. "blinked" on a story that involved the U.K. and Iran? Does Olbermann's overuse of Viagra cause such vision problems that he couldn't read the story correctly? Or is he deliberately spiking news stories and/or flat-out lying about them to court liberal yahoos like you? whatever the strategy it doesn't seem to be working. His ratings last month were pathetic.

    The difference dear Cecelia, oh fierce defender of Grammie....is that Janet unnecessarily made the implied connection herself, and then dared me to agree.

    Cecelia, score another for us gals.

    What Mikey seems to be congenitally unable to understand is that there is a big difference between DIRECT AND INDIRECT.

    I don't think it will make a dent, but perhaps if Mikey looked up yhe word 'fungible' he might get a clue.

    Grammie

    The difference dear Cecelia, oh fierce defender of Grammie....is that Janet unnecessarily made the implied connection herself, and then dared me to agree.

    Posted by: Mike at April 4, 2007 11:20 PM


    So whether something is implied or not implied is solely a matter of your opinion?

    Brandon: "now please tell me how the US "blinked"".

    Hell I don't know Brandon, I didn't watch the show tonight, if I get time, I might watch the show later and see if that quote might have been taken out of context.....NOOO, that wouldn't happen HERE, would it Brandon?

    SO I ask you again...which is worse? A president who misleads, or a seemingly second rate news announcer who misleads?

    Oh yeah, I forget, "this isn't Bushwatch", it's OlbermannWatch!

    Hey, why don't you guys start "paintdrywatch.com? You'd certainly be doing something at least as significant as anything you're doing here.

    But oddly, here you are, night after night Mike. Apparently paint drying fascinates you.

    So whether something is implied or not implied is solely a matter of your opinion?"

    So, are we discussing Janet's humanity, Bush's implied lies...or are you trying to dredge up an earlier conversation?

    "Cecelia score another for us gals": The problem with this is that you're doing the scoring.

    The difference between "direct and indirect": Possibly much like the difference between "trying' and 'claiming'.

    So, are we discussing Janet's humanity, Bush's implied lies...or are you trying to dredge up an earlier conversation?

    Posted by: Mike at April 4, 2007 11:34 PM


    We're discussing why you are unable to ascertain that you did the same thing you are now calling dishonest.

    "We're discussing why you are unable to ascertain that you did the same thing you are now claiming dishonest."

    Well, thats your dishonest interpretation, but even if it were true, I didn't start a damned unnecessary war that has cost our country so much, and gained us absolutely nothing.

    http://www.watchingpaintdry.com/

    This an actual page. Not the same name as Mike suggested but at least we know there is a page of equal excitement as this page.

    How about Bushrescuewatch.com? Or how about "thelastsixbushsupporters.com"?

    foxfixbush.com

    iranslamsbush.com
    bushf---samericanreputation.com
    bushcheneycleptocracy.com

    Well, thats your dishonest interpretation, but even if it were true, I didn't start a damned unnecessary war that has cost our country so much, and gained us absolutely nothing.


    Posted by: Mike at April 4, 2007 11:44 PM


    You lied and smeared opponents via an implied connection and now you say "but I didn't start a war'. Well great....we should expect better things from presidents but not from Mikes... why aren't I surprised...

    That you now see this as solely being a matter of opinion when stated about you and a matter of fact when you state it about someone else, is par for the course.

    iranslamsbush.com
    bushf---samericanreputation.com
    bushcheneycleptocracy.com

    Posted by: Imadinnerjacket at April 4, 2007 11:51 PM

    youjonesforme.com

    Hey loons riddle me this dumbsh-ts. How is your life worse because of the Iraq War? I want concrete examples. What the French don't like you? I mean you gained more allies in your resentment of your country and inner hatred of yourself. sh-t Noam Chomski should be dancing in the streets; he's got millions more crazy bastards on his side.

    Well, thats your dishonest interpretation, but even if it were true, I didn't start a damned unnecessary war that has cost our country so much, and gained us absolutely nothing.


    Posted by: Mike at April 4, 2007 11:44 PM

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

    Wrong it has gained us the understanding that we can never let our guard down again. Never again let those religious fanatics attack our nation. Never again let Ted Haggard, Dr James Dobson, Pat Robertson and the rest of the vermin bible thumpers gain the political influence they did back in 2000 when they sold Jesus to the highest bidder so they could rub elbows with big name politicians at fund raisers for greasy hicks like Tom DeLay and Bill Frist.

    http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/18/scandal/index.html

    Mikey, you really DO ask for it.

    You really do seem to live in your own LaLa Land where you believe that whatever you say means what you mean it to mean at any point on the contimiumem.

    I know that you get very upset and out of sorts when others pull your direct words from the past and and attempt to hold you to account for them. That is so unfair!

    Let me copy and paste all the relavent comments for you:

    -----------------------------
    Mike, at least you are true to yourself in your fear that Texas, ranchers and war go together to the point that you recoil at the idea of another one.

    As you said to me some time back, EMOTION is your driving force and rightfully so in your political decisions.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at February 7, 2007 1:32 PM
    -----------------------------------

    Janet:

    I used to listen to Limbaugh regularly a few years ago (before he lost all credibility by bcoming a drug addict).

    I clearly recall how he used to preach that "conservatives use rational thought', while "liberals use emotion". Funny thing, I actually used to believe it at the time.

    I have come to find out over time, that in general, the opposite is true.

    One very important exception though: If you can't look at the prospect of war, with the inevitable death of good people with some emotion, then I can't help but question your humanity.

    That said, the Texas warmonger thing can actually be argued using pure logic. There is nothing emotional about the laws regarding trends and probabilities.
    Posted by: Mike at February 7, 2007 1:47 PM
    -----------------------------------

    Mike, what has Rush Limbaugh got to do with my reminding YOU of your OWN WORDS to ME re your emotions in your political positions.

    You said it and I responded in the sense of how dangerous that is when faced with real evil.

    What others say and do do not excuse you or place an onus on others. This is such a simple and logical point. Bill O, Hannity, Rush, Coulter etc do not give KO free reign and a pass on taking responsibility for HIS WORDS AND ACTIONS.

    And that goes for you, me and everyone else.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at February 7, 2007 2:23 PM
    --------------------------------------

    Janet:

    I was just using Limbaugh as an example of some of the false conservative arguments I used to believe myself, only to find out they were nothing but BS.

    Just ask my wife, I rarely use emotion as a basis for anything I do or believe...much to her chagrin at times! In fact, I worked in an electronics and engineering field most of my career, where logic is everything and emotion is nothing.

    That said, once again...when it comes to making decisions as grave as sending Americans off to WAR, and considering all the dire consequences of such, the rules have to change. Emotion has to be a major part of any equation involving war, and I can't help but question the humanity of anyone who believes otherwise.
    Posted by: Mike at February 7, 2007 3:21 PM
    -----------------------------------

    Mike, by your reasoning I lack humanity.

    By my reasoning you lack the ability to distinguish maudlin emotionalism from reality and the cold hard choices that determine ultimately the best outcome.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at February 7, 2007 4:51 PM
    --------------------------------------

    Janet:

    The people you admire failed to consider the reality of the inevitable "maudlin emotionalism" that they would stir up on both sides of the Atlantic, in the process of making their "cold hard choices".

    And that in a nutshell, is why we no longer have the option of 'ultimately' achieving "the best outcome". This is the new 'reality'.
    Posted by: Mike at February 7, 2007 5:02 PM
    ---------------------------------------

    Mike, you are getting more and more difficult to keep up with as you skip from point to so called point.

    You HAVE TO QUESTION MY HUMANITY. And this has something to do with the 'people I admire' per Mike.

    Are you capable of forming an opinion without ascribing moral turpitude to those who disagree with you?

    It must be comforting to be so morally superior in your own mind. How sad that you are not recognised in your own time as the universal arbiter of righteousness.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at February 7, 2007 8:17 PM
    --------------------------------------

    Janet:

    First of, I don't have a clue what you mean when you say "I skip from point to so called point to point." If you're referring to my stand on issues, I haven't changed one iota...just your understanding of my arguments.

    Yes, I have argued against this war AND this surge in moral terms and will continue to do so because I REALLY DO CARE about each individual soldier who has yet to die, and I want it to stop - NOW!... You seem to have a problem with my position on that, and then you defend yourself by calling this an 'emotional' response...but that's YOUR problem, not mine.

    You don't seem to think the argument should be framed in moral terms, as if it doesn't matter at all to you how many more have to die in a war that should have never been fought in the first place. Those are not just numbers over there getting killed; They are REAL Americans who will never know the joy of raising a family and building a life!

    Like I told you before, you cannot separate war from emotion, or emotion from war. If you don't understand that, than I don't understand you! And yes, sorry, but I can't help but question your humanity.
    Posted by: Mike at February 7, 2007 8:51 PM
    ---------------------------------

    Both of our words, Mike.

    What else could poor Mike do? Except pout and whine that Janet TRIED to back him into a CORNER and he had ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER CHOICE but to question her humanity.

    Par for the course for Mikey.

    Grammie

    I do not take personal responsibility for my failings. I would much rather blame someone, anyone. I know its Cheney's fault, no wait Bush's fault, Fox News maybe? I was lied to, and now I am mad. Sure Clinton lied under oath in a frivolous investigation, but that's okay. Its okay that Sandy Berger commited treason. I hate Scooter Libby cause he did the same as Clinton.
    I am batsh-t crazy. weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Is that the best you can do Cecelia? Because it's pretty pitifull!

    You just stated "I lied and smeared opponents with implied connections' without even citing what example you chose spin and twist for your own benefit. I could only guess.

    I on the other hand, simply gave you the unlikely benefit of the doubt in comparing the consequences of anything I did, with that of the President of the United States.

    Yes, Oh great one Cecelia...I DO expect a little more that average honesty and integrity from a president...call me a romantic that way.

    Janet: Did you have a lot of fun dredging all that up? Just can't break those bad habits, can you? Is there a moral of this story I'm supposed to 'get' here?.

    Clearly what you missed with the 'humanity' thing was that I'm a pretty nice guy. I actually felt bad about the thought that I might be hurting your feelings. It now is becoming more and more clear is that there may not have been any feelings here to be hurt. My bad!

    "Reickhoff hit that one out of the park: Bush uses troops as political backdrops, and then there's John McCain, the soldiers are sick of all the bickering,..."

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

    Who can get sick of all of the Bickering ?!?!?

    I hate Scooter Libby cause he did the same as Clinton.
    ============================================

    Delusional hog wash implanted in your tiny brain by Sean Hannity.

    As the saying goes. "Some body quick, give Bush a blow job so we can impeach him."

    Treason is when you out a CIA officer not when you lie about getting your dick fluffed under your desk.

    Can you be more ridiculous? I think not.

    Yes, Oh great one Cecelia...I DO expect a little more that average honesty and integrity from a president...call me a romantic that way.

    Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2007 12:04 AM


    So you've goin from arguing that we should expect presidents not to engage in implicatons that are fundamentally dishonest if not outright lies... to saying we should expect more than "average honesty" from them.

    Quite a downgrade.

    We get one more post showing how you've done the same thing you claim Bush has done, and you'll be arguing that ....well,,,, presidents should avoid white lies....

    Treason is when you out a CIA officer not when you lie about getting your dick fluffed under your desk.

    Can you be more ridiculous? I think not.

    Posted by: Imadinnerjacket at April 5, 2007 12:19 AM


    The reality is that Fitzgerald didn't bring one indictment on the charge of outting a CIA agent....but Clinton did have his law license suspended for intentionally misleading a Grand Jury.

    Evidently perjury only matters when some people engage in it...

    Issue 2 had a cool echo. Was that on purpose, or a clear technical mistake ?

    Clearly what you missed with the 'humanity' thing was that I'm a pretty nice guy. I actually felt bad about the thought that I might be hurting your feelings. It now is becoming more and more clear is that there may not have been any feelings here to be hurt. My bad!

    Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2007 12:11 AM


    Mike actually felt bad that he might have hurt you, Janet. But you have the gall to continue to actually feel hurt.

    How could you! Mike's a nice guy! But it's wasted on you, because you don't have any feeling anyway, or you'd feel for Mike!

    And for those Iraq War dead....

    Mikey, dredge up or copy and paste the entire scenario?

    My BAD HABITS or your aversion to be held accountable for your own words?

    I stand by my words.

    Yet you IMPLY an accusation of deviousness on my part by copying BOTH OF OUR WORDS.

    You are not only free to cite my words back at me, I encourage you to do so.

    I may have missed a relavent quote that changes the entire meaning of the exchange between us. If so, please present the evidence.

    Grammie

    "We get one more post showing how you've done what you claim Bush has done"

    Not at all. Once again that's simply your own dishonest interprtation of ..... well something.

    There were two arguments occuring simultaneously, or do you not understand the concept of 'if'?

    Man --- you come to one of these comment pages where it is between Mike, Grammie, & Cecelia and nothing gets done !!!

    Grammie, I don't even know what your point is?

    While I admit I didn't go over your dredged up quotes with a fine tooth comb, I see nothing I said there that I need to defend or take back.

    If you disagree, you might want to illuminate me on what part that might be, meanwhile I'll leave all the pointless cutting and pasting to you.

    And for those Iraq War dead....

    Posted by: Cecelia at April 5, 2007 12:28 AM

    You are trash Cecelia plain and simple trash.

    Jesus save us from your followers!

    Obama....what would you like to see done?

    There were two arguments occuring simultaneously, or do you not understand the concept of 'if'?

    Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2007 12:31 AM


    Yes, there are two arguments being made here.

    Yours is that what you think is factual and what others think is not.

    Ours is that you are a dishonest self-centered prig of the caliber that you shouldn't be issuing condemnations towards anyone, including lawyerrs and politicians...

    Man --- you come to one of these comment pages where it is between Mike, Grammie, & Cecelia and nothing gets done !!!

    Posted by: Obama Watch Us Bicker Formerly in Technicolor at April 5, 2007 12:34 AM

    Wrong! Cecelia just posted her sentiments about a person having feelings about the "war dead".

    The cold callousness of this American white bread culture is the exact reason the wacko Islamists want to kill every last one us.

    The culture of the Klan it just keeps on giving! Bozo idiots slicing minutia of he said she said while this democracy goes to the highest bidder.

    Tragic

    Mike: Nope, that is okay ... go ahead and fight . Sometimes I do not even know what the beep you are even arguing about, either ... but if it makes any ones of yous happy ... go ahead ...

    You are trash Cecelia plain and simple trash.

    Jesus save us from your followers!

    Posted by: Imadinnerjacket at April 5, 2007 12:35 AM


    Satan thanks for amusing us with yours.

    Yes, there are two arguments being made here.

    Yours is that what you think is factual and what others think is not.
    ===========================================

    Sounds to me like you could just as easily be talking about Granni Clampet

    The news today that Nancy Grace came in second place at 8pm in March beating Zahn and Olbermann and that his coveted 25-54 demos keep sliding down the tubes each month is bad enough....BUT, when Nancy Grace's 25-54's demos in her RERUN at 10PM usually KO the 8 PM "rock star's" you know things can't be good in Olbyland!

    "you are a dishonest self-centered prig" (what's a prig?).

    Ooohhh...getting mad and going into name calling mode again. I won't stoop to that level again...why? Because I discovered the other night that you're simply not worth getting mad at, but I will refer you to a comment made at 12:35 that I didn't make myself.

    You have yet to show me where I was 'dishonest', oh great one.

    Wrong! Cecelia just posted her sentiments about a person having feelings about the "war dead".

    The cold callousness of this American white bread culture is the exact reason the wacko Islamists want to kill every last one us.

    The culture of the Klan it just keeps on giving! Bozo idiots slicing minutia of he said she said while this democracy goes to the highest bidder.

    Tragic

    Posted by: Imadinnerjacket at April 5, 2007 12:40 AM


    Yes, CW it is indeed callous to suggest someone does not have feeling for Iraq casualities...

    Satan thanks for amusing us with yours.

    Posted by: Cecelia at April 5, 2007 12:41 AM

    Nothing more evil than a smug fake Christian who callously talks of war dead as an instrument to win an argument devoid of any content other than ploys to humiliate by way of frustrate. That is all you got Cecelia - frustrate to humiliate, and then you go off thinking you have some kind of worth in this world.

    Your discounting the seriousness and significance of "war dead" is exactly why this nation is hated today by more than a billion Muslims.

    You and your sick twisted ilk who fancy themselves as moral and ethical king pins of our culture are the bottom dwellers of pure evil. From evil comes evil.

    Spawn of Klan

    Ooohhh...getting mad and going into name calling mode again. I won't stoop to that level again...why? Because I discovered the other night that you're simply not worth getting mad at, but I will refer you to a comment made at 12:35 that I didn't make myself.

    You have yet to show me where I was 'dishonest', oh great one.

    Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2007 12:45 AM


    You're the expert on when emotions are appropriate or not. It doesn't take anger to tell you that you're a liar. However, you're words about me not being worthy of your anger might carry more weight if you hadn't yelled at me "bitch" with a multitude of exclamation points... at me just today.

    #4: After 13 days of ignoring the story entirely, Oralmann teed up the news of the hostage release as if his audience were intimately familiar with all the details. In fact, he has never said one word about it.

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

    Ohhhh wow ... hitting Keith Olbermann's audience ! I do not think that a percentage point of them go to Olbermann Watch, even as "Olbyloons" ... but hey --- they are a prime target to get, eh ?

    You're the expert on when emotions are appropriate or not. It doesn't take anger to tell you that you're a liar. However, you're words about me not being worthy of your anger might carry more weight if you hadn't yelled at me "bitch" with a multitude of exclamation points... at me just today.

    Posted by: Cecelia at April 5, 2007 12:49 AM

    Violins weep and moistened tissues abound

    Yeah your right Cecelia, it's a weakness I have. I should have just thought 'bitch' when it became apparent that you actually are one...instead of actually saying it.

    "Nothing more evil than a smug fake Christian who callously talks of war dead as an instrument to win an argument devoid of any content other than ploys to humiliate by way of frustrate. That is all you got Cecelia - frustrate to humiliate, and then you go off thinking you have some kind of worth in this world."

    Posted by: Imadinnerjacket at April 5, 2007 12:49 AM


    "Yes, I have argued against this war AND this surge in moral terms and will continue to do so because I REALLY DO CARE about each individual soldier who has yet to die, and I want it to stop - NOW!... You seem to have a problem with my position on that, and then you defend yourself by calling this an 'emotional' response...but that's YOUR problem, not mine.

    You don't seem to think the argument should be framed in moral terms, as if it doesn't matter at all to you how many more have to die in a war that should have never been fought in the first place. Those are not just numbers over there getting killed; They are REAL Americans who will never know the joy of raising a family and building a life!

    Like I told you before, you cannot separate war from emotion, or emotion from war. If you don't understand that, than I don't understand you! And yes, sorry, but I can't help but question your humanity.
    Posted by: Mike at February 7, 2007 8:51 PM

    Yeah your right Cecelia, it's a weakness I have. I should have just thought 'bitch' when it became apparent that you actually are one...instead of actually saying it.

    Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2007 12:52 AM


    Who cares if you say it or think it. The point is that it belies the statement you just made about not find me worthy of your anger, einstein.

    This is crossing "heated political argument" and entering into "touchy ego-driven fight" at a startling pace ...

    Mikey is a prince. He disdains to read my 'dredged up quotes', and at the same time fails to see the point. But then he so generously says this:

    "If you disagree, you might want to illuminate me on what part that might be, meanwhile I'll leave all the pointless cutting and pasting to you.
    Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2007 12:35 AM"

    Mike, that is as specious as most of your debates are. As dark and closed as your mind is, nothing could penetrate and illuminate it.

    Grammie

    Grammie

    Yes, CW it is indeed callous to suggest someone does not have feeling for Iraq casualities...

    Posted by: Cecelia at April 5, 2007 12:45 AM

    This kind of reversal will not remove the fact that you posted a comment for the purpose of tit for tat that took no notice of the significance of it's content. Claiming or suggesting that Mike or anyone is not sincere about their feelings about the dead and dying in this tragic war the voters who backed Bush are responsible for, is just a simple act of denial on your part.

    Denial that war dead are a real issue and denial that people who care about this issue are sincere.

    This is the kind of vile garbage that you hear from Sean Hannity when he talks about Cindy Sheehan.

    You and your ilk are disgusting piss poor excuses for human beings.

    Exactly what this nation expects from the spawn of the Klan.

    CW

    Was the Rosie O'Donnell on The Factor tonight or her sane twin? I knew when she got in front O'Reilly, she would snivel and cower. What a nut job. She back peddled on her gun control. Back peddled on conservatives. What a coward. I guess she can only beat up on Hasslebeck. The interview was done in 2002 but she would act the same way now. Confront a liberal and the shrink away like the cowards they are.

    Grammie,

    Don't you realize how much you've made this poor man suffer by being so selfish as to have hurt feelings over his implying that you were inhumane and carried nothing about the lives of American soldiers.

    Jesus save from people who criticise Mike!

    I have personally never met a Conservative who linked 9/11 with Iraq. That lie only lives on the left.

    Mikey is a prince. He disdains to read my 'dredged up quotes', and at the same time fails to see the point. But then he so generously says this:

    Anything, anything at all to disect and digest, anything except the realities of the Bush administrations policies.

    Let's argue about the value of a ten year old girl who lives in Bagdad who has 80% of her body covered in 3rd degree burns. And oh, her mother and father died in the same blast that burned her skin off.

    Should we increase aid for medical care for children like this by killing the tax breaks Bush created for the richest billionaires in this nation? Or should listen scum like Limbaugh and pretend we can't hear her cries across the ocean.

    I hear her cries can you?

    Grammie: So it stands that you're not going to clue me in to exactly what your bone of contention is with me?

    Fine...then lets forget about it and move on!

    One last thing though, Janet ... I DO want to thank you for reposting that exchange we had regarding the war and humanity. It's all as true today as it was at the time, but now how many more thousand young Americans have been killed or maimed since then? ... for nothing!

    CW has daily hissy fits. I love watching liberals live and die by their emotions. It's funny.

    "Claiming or suggesting that Mike or anyone is not sincere about their feelings about the dead and dying in this tragic war the voters who backed Bush are responsible for, is just a simple act of denial on your part. "


    CW, who did I accuse of not caring about the Iraqi War dead? I simply quoted Mike's claim about Janet and why she didn't feel things as he does.

    If you really gave one fig about half of what you're saying, you'd realize that--- by your own argument, I have a right to be outraged at Mike's words.

    I have personally never met a Conservative who linked 9/11 with Iraq. That lie only lives on the left.
    Posted by: Dr Fill

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

    I have never met a conservative that did not say "They have forgotten about what occured on September 11". They may not say it word for word, but they do indeed imply and use connotations to suggest that there was a role between 9/11 and Iraq.

    I have personally never met a Conservative who linked 9/11 with Iraq. That lie only lives on the left.

    Posted by: Dr Fill at April 5, 2007 1:05 AM

    Hey ace, you don't meet them you just listen to them on Fox News.

    Nations don't go to war based on who you meet. They go to war based on having their nation behind the government.

    Are you living in a fantasy world or what?

    "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

    CW has daily hissy fits. I love watching liberals live and die by their emotions. It's funny.

    Posted by: QQ at April 5, 2007 1:07 AM

    Trust me, CW and his emotions are very situational depending upon the WHO he thinks is saying what.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

    Who are the delusional guardians of morality??

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

    CNN and MSNBC rail Rosie more than Fox News.

    Do you wonder why this is?

    Cecelia: "I have a right to be outraged at Mike's words"

    Oh ho! You ARE 'outraged' at my words...good!

    I'll save my outrage for all the dishonest and selfish politicians, mostly Republicans, who voters like you have stuck us with...that have royally screwed up our country, possibly irreversably.

    CW has daily hissy fits. I love watching liberals live and die by their emotions. It's funny.

    Posted by: QQ at April 5, 2007 1:07 AM

    Trust me, CW and his emotions are very situational depending upon the WHO he thinks is saying what.

    Posted by: Cecelia at April 5, 2007 1:13 AM

    Content and subject matter?

    Nill

    I'll save my outrage for all the dishonest and selfish politicians, mostly Republicans, who voters like you have stuck us with...that have royally screwed up our country, possibly irreversably.

    Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2007 1:15 AM


    Well, CW and I will harbor outrage at those war critics who use Iraq War casualities as weapons in their attempt to imply that a war supporter cares nothing about them.

    Mikey, I am so glad you don't live in South Louisiana.

    Anything that crawls backwards and crawfishes out like you do would have gone in that pot a long time ago.

    So you go from disdaining it to read it and thanking me for posting it.

    I can't think of a better word to describe you than PRICK.

    Grammie

    And that is the last comment you will get from me, provided you don't revert to your usual MO of using multiple aliases.

    You are obviously NOT a man of your word, but I stand by my words.

    Content and subject matter?

    Nill

    Posted by: imadinnerjacket at April 5, 2007 1:16 AM


    Then scroll up and refresh your memory in your own screeds.

    "I can't think of a better word to describe you than PRICK."


    Oh, yeah. That's been well documented and argued and with CW's assistance.

    You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

    I'll save my outrage for all the dishonest and selfish politicians, mostly Republicans, who voters like you have stuck us with...that have royally screwed up our country, possibly irreversably.

    Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2007 1:15 AM
    Speaking of which, how 'bout that Bush, appoints Fox w/out congress! I love it, especially since Ketchup Kerry abused his power and asked irrelevant questions during the confirmation hearings. Go Bush!

    Royalking; When Keith Olbermann disses you --- Kerry is definately irrelevant !

    "I can't think of a better word to describe you than PRICK."


    Oh, yeah. That's been well documented and argued and with CW's assistance.

    You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

    Posted by: Cecelia at April 5, 2007 1:24 AM

    Tragic discontent when faced with a little perspective from a person who sees the world beyond his front door.

    Cry all you want. It is merely the truth that hurts you so bad.

    Prick? You flatter me!

    Speaking of which, how 'bout that Bush, appoints Fox w/out congress! I love it, especially since Ketchup Kerry abused his power and asked irrelevant questions during the confirmation hearings. Go Bush!

    Posted by: royalking at April 5, 2007 1:25 AM

    Poster child!

    Ooohh...Grammie just called me a'prick'...ouchee wouchee Grammie!

    Better to be a 'prick than to lack humanity in my book.

    Now Janet, who do you want to be associated with in this world? Proven liars like Jeff???? You seem to be aligning yourself with this moron by calling me 'mikey' and repeating his ridiculous LIES that I use multiple aliases.

    Now knowing what I know about you, just imagine the mischief I could do with YOUR name if I were to choose to take the low road too?

    You want to know if I am using multiple aliases...just ask Johnny. Remember, I already asked him to clear up the matter a couple of weeks ago, but I'm sure he's just sitting back and watching the show with bemusement.

    One thing I'm not is a liar, but lets just assume you don't accept this for a minute....just how stupid do you think I would be to use multiple aliases knowing that they could (and would) be exposed at any time, especially after the Philby incident?

    THINK Janet...and get the hell out of the gutter with Jeff. I still think you're better than THAT! Don't prove me wrong again.

    >I have personally never met a Conservative who linked 9/11 with Iraq. That lie only lives on the left.

    Posted by: Dr Fill at April 5, 2007 1:05 AM


    Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged

    By Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender , Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent, 9/16/2003

    WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.

    But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

    Democrats sharply attacked him for exaggerating the threat Iraq posed before the war.

    "There is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11," Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat running for president, said in an interview last night. "There was no such relationship."

    A senior foreign policy adviser to Howard Dean, the Democratic front-runner, said it is "totally inappropriate for the vice president to continue making these allegations without bringing forward" any proof.

    Cheney and his representatives declined to comment on the vice president's statements. But the comments also surprised some in the intelligence community who are already simmering over the way the administration utilized intelligence reports to strengthen the case for the war last winter.

    Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney's "willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding."

    In particular, current intelligence officials reiterated yesterday that a reported Prague visit in April 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent had been discounted by the CIA, which sent former agency Director James R. Woolsey to investigate the claim. Woolsey did not find any evidence to confirm the report, officials said, and President Bush did not include it in the case for war in his State of the Union address last January.

    But Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," cited the report of the meeting as possible evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link and said it was neither confirmed nor discredited, saying

    : "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

    Multiple intelligence officials said that the Prague meeting, purported to be between Atta and senior Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, was dismissed almost immediately after it was reported by Czech officials in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and has since been discredited further.

    The CIA reported to Congress last year that it could not substantiate the claim, while American records indicate Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., at the time, the officials said yesterday. Indeed, two intelligence officials said yesterday that Ani himself, now in US custody, has also refuted the report. The Czech government has also distanced itself from its original claim.

    A senior defense official with access to high-level intelligence reports expressed confusion yesterday over the vice president's decision to reair charges that have been dropped by almost everyone else. "There isn't any new intelligence that would precipitate anything like this," the official said, speaking on condition he not be named.

    Nonetheless, 69 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States, according to a recent Washington Post poll. And Democratic senators have charged that the White House is fanning the misperception by mentioning Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks in ways that suggest a link.

    Bush administration officials insisted yesterday that they are learning more about various Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda. They said there is evidence suggesting a meeting took place between the head of Iraqi intelligence and Osama bin Laden in Sudan in the mid-1990s; another purported meeting was said to take place in Afghanistan, and during it Iraqi officials offered to provide chemical and biological weapons training, according to officials who have read transcripts of interrogations with Al Qaeda detainees.

    But there is no evidence proving the Iraqi regime knew about or took part in the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush officials said.

    Former senator Max Cleland, who is a member of the national commission investigating the attacks, said yesterday that classified documents he has reviewed on the subject weaken, rather than strengthen, administration assertions that Hussein's regime may have been allied with Al Qaeda.

    "The vice president trying to justify some connection is ludicrous," he said.

    Nonetheless, Cheney, in the "Meet the Press" interview Sunday, insisted that the United States is learning more about the links between Al Qaeda and Hussein.

    "We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s," Cheney said, "that it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems."

    The claims are based on a prewar allegation by a "senior terrorist operative," who said he overheard an Al Qaeda agent speak of a mission to seek biological or chemical weapons training in Iraq, according to Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement to the United Nations in February.

    But intelligence specialists told the Globe last August that they have never confirmed that the training took place, or identified where it could have taken place. "The general public just doesn't have any independent way of weighing what is said," Cannistraro, the former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said. "If you repeat it enough times . . . then people become convinced it's the truth."

    That said Brandon, which is REALLY worse, a government that intentionally misleads it's people, or a news announcer who intentionally misleads his viewers?

    Posted by: Mike at April 4, 2007 11:10 PM
    The former never happened,so, the latter is much, much worse. Deplorable, disgraceful, pathetic are a few words that come to mind...

    Oh, I just heard the "U.S. "blinked"" quote on the second showing. It actually was a rather innocent "did we blink" question. Also, it was not an anti-Bush piece at all. The entire story was between Iran and England, and the 'conclusion' I got out of it was that Iran is the one who 'blinked'.

    That said Brandon, which is REALLY worse, a government that intentionally misleads it's people, or a news announcer who intentionally misleads his viewers?

    Posted by: Mike at April 4, 2007 11:10 PM
    The former never happened,so, the latter is much, much worse. Deplorable, disgraceful, pathetic are a few words that come to mind...

    Posted by: royalking at April 5, 2007 1:39 AM

    God are you ever living in a delusional world.

    Dumb hicks got nothin but denials. Nothin at all.

    Let's argue about the ten year old girl in baghdad with 80%...........

    Okay but can we also talk about the woman in Iran who was caught protesting and jailed and tortured by having a stick jammed up her ass for trying to practice free speech?

    Can we ask how she feels?

    Wait maybe it wasn't her ass. Nah, those are nice folks over there.

    Hey loons riddle me this dumbsh-ts. How is your life worse because of the Iraq War? I want concrete examples.
    Posted by: Crash at April 4, 2007 11:57 PM

    My brother is dead.

    He was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq.

    Is that 'concrete' enough?

    Janet: Did you have a lot of fun dredging all that up? Just can't break those bad habits, can you? Is there a moral of this story I'm supposed to 'get' here?.

    Clearly what you missed with the 'humanity' thing was that I'm a pretty nice guy. I actually felt bad about the thought that I might be hurting your feelings. It now is becoming more and more clear is that there may not have been any feelings here to be hurt. My bad!

    Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2007 12:11 AM
    Did you feel bad when you called Cecelia every name in the book, too? More than once, I might add? I seriously doubt it. Whacko.

    Janet: "So you go from disdaining it to read it and thanking me for posting it"

    Grammie! Are you have a senior moment? WHAT are you talking about?.

    When did I 'disdain' it?

    ....or a news announcer who intentionally misleads his viewers.

    And some people talk about being delusional?

    If you disagree, you might want to illuminate me on what part that might be, meanwhile I'll leave all the pointless cutting and pasting to you.

    Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2007 12:35 AM
    Proving a point to you is "pointless?" Unbelievable, I say. Squirming, again.

    "Did you feel bad when you called Cecelia every name in the book, too?"

    I didn't call her a moron...why? Because Cecelia clearly is not a moron...but YOU are Jeff!

    Imadinnerjacket/Coward Watch/Mrs. Philby,

    "Your discounting the seriousness and significance of "war dead" is exactly why this nation is hated today by more than a billion Muslims."

    So why do Muslims hate Thailand, the Phillipines, Christian Sudanese and Christian Nigerians?
    Why do Leftists like you always support Muslims?

    Wait maybe it wasn't her ass. Nah, those are nice folks over there.

    Posted by: puck at April 5, 2007 1:47 AM
    They're all fun loving happy go lucky, love they're families and neighboors over there, we are the bad guys, puck. You didn't know that? Just because they strap bombs on their kids and kill they're daughters for even looking at another man doesn't mean they are bad people, come on, know, puck.

    So why do Muslims hate Thailand, the Phillipines, Christian Sudanese and Christian Nigerians?
    Why do Leftists like you always support Muslims?

    Posted by: The Joker at April 5, 2007 1:59 AM

    The question is not why they other people you dim wit, the question is why do they the USA?

    The only support given to Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad (sounds like I'm a dinner jacket) is the support that Bush Cheney gave them by invading Iraq and thus proving Bin Laden correct - the USA is out to rob the Muslims.

    You are the one who supports Bin Laden and ahmadinejad not your so called "leftists" you love rant about.

    Bin Laden is not the hero he is because of Cindy Sheehan you dumb stupid a--hole. Bin Laden is a hero because bible belt boobs like you think what Limbaugh and Hannity shovel feed you is truth.

    You are the dumbest of the dumb. And this is why Bush was able to send more than 3300 of America's finest off to die on a lie.

    Saddam had nothing to do with 911 yet mush for brains idiots like you blame Cindy Sheehan for the Islamists boldness and commitment to die killing Americans. f---ing Fox News hog wash. They are dying to kill us because unlike our CNN and MSNBC (never mind Fox) their News television shows men women and children burnt and blown to pieces day and night on their televisions. But that is not in your front yard so you would know jack squat about that would you?

    Again Coward watch you avoid the point I'm making.
    Islam is a violent death cult that can't live with it's neighbors.
    They don't just hate the uS, they hate all non Muslims. What Leftists like you can't realize is that no matter how nice you are to them, they don't respect you.
    They divide the world into the Dar-es-Islam( House of Islam) and the Dar-el-Haab) The House of war, Non Muslims countries that must be conquered.
    Read some history of Islamic Imperialism and you'll realize that your Leftwing Stalinistic PC brainwashing is just covering up the fact that Islam is a death cult.
    Why are you Pro-Muslims?

    God are you ever living in a delusional world.

    Dumb hicks got nothin but denials. Nothin at all.

    Posted by: Imadinnerjacket at April 5, 2007 1:43 AM
    What did I deny, ahmadidajihadist?

    "their News television shows men women and children burnt and blown to pieces day and night on their televisions. "

    What about the people in Thailand they're killing?
    How come it's bad when Muslims get killed but it's ok for Muslims to kill others?
    Can you explain your logic or lack of it on this one Coward Watch?

    What about the people in Thailand they're killing?
    How come it's bad when Muslims get killed but it's ok for Muslims to kill others?
    Can you explain your logic or lack of it on this one Coward Watch?

    Posted by: The Joker at April 5, 2007 2:19 AM
    Remember when France was burning everywhere? Guess what, they were muslims,but, the msm wouldn't report that.

    royalking,
    I'm starting to belive that Coward Watch is a Jihadi. Notice his Pro-Islamic world view.
    It's very odd. Not even a Pro-Islamic Lefty would go as far as he has to justify Jihad.
    I hope Robert Cox gives his IP address to the FBI.
    I think he's a sleeper.

    Royalking,
    Notice that CW has the same arguments as Mrs. Philby. Pro-Muslim. I believe he's a Jihadi!

    Joker, cw and Mikey are buddies, too.

    Any surprise they support Ulbermahn?

    Take it easy, joker, I'm out.

    Royalking,
    Cowardwatch, Mrs. Philby and Rudy Ramirez are all one and the same.

    >Well, CW and I will harbor outrage at those war critics who use Iraq War casualities as weapons in their attempt to imply that a war supporter cares nothing about them.
    Posted by: Cecelia at April 5, 2007 1:19 AM

    Oh Cecelia...

    Outrage? At...Those....War Critics?

    (First of all, War Critics? Who in their right mind would criticize a war? War is good right? Everyone loves war! War Rules! Jesus Loved Wars, Right? Who would Jesus Bomb?)

    Who... Use ...the War Casualties...

    (How dare they 'Use' the war casualties. Casualties that wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for us! Those are our war casualties, damnit! We're supposed to use the casualties, not them!)

    As Weapons...

    (Yes! How dare them! Weapons! Using Weapons! How can they criticize WAR and then turn around and use WEAPONS! Those hypocrites!)

    To Imply...

    (Well, it's a good thing they're not just coming out and saying it! If they did, we'd have to shoot them. Damn War Critics. How dare they go IMPLYING anything!)

    That a ...WAR SUPPORTER...

    (Now there's some moral high ground for you, A War Supporter. Not the war on terror mind you, but a war of your choosing to invade and occupy a country that no one here seems to remember having anything to do with 9/11. Seems stupid now, but in 2003 it was all the rage!)

    Cares...Nothing....About.....Them...

    (How dare they imply the War Supporters Care NOTHING about the troops. How stupid can they be? Without troops the war supporters couldn't even have a war! What the hell is a war without troops to have die? Of course the war supporters care about the troops. That's why they're sending more. That's why the have the US flags flying behind them when they do press conferences...by god, that's why they have all those ribbon bumper stickers, because they CARE they CARE about those troops!)

    C'mon Cecelia. You can manufacture all the FAKE outrage you want.

    Your words typed on a keyboard don't even ring sincere.

    Outraged my ASS!

    I stopped listening to Limbaugh after he became a drug addict........

    On May 4 2006 Patrick Kennedy crashed his 1997 mustang convertable into a barricade on Capital Hill at apx. 2:45 a.m.. Officers at the scene said Kennedy smelled of alcohol and appeared intoxicated and was visibly staggering, but Kennedy claimed that he was merely disorientaded from prescription medications (Ambien and Phenergan)

    A Woman who works at the nearby 'Hawk and Dove Bar' said he had been drinking there.

    A second police report cites additional witnesses to Kennedy's drinking at the bar.

    Oh by the way. The Capital Police drove him home! (happens everyday right folks) Also no field test was given. (Hey! Kennedy was tired)

    On May 5th 2006 Kennedy admitted he had an addiction to prescription medication and announced he would be re-admitting himself.....(RE-ADDMITTING??? This has happened before? What! OxyCotin??????).....to a drug rehab in Minnesota.

    Wow! I'm sure we don't believe this guy for a second now do we!!!!!

    Well wait! On May 8th he was endorsed by The Rhode Island Democratic Party.

    Okay so what that means is if you become addicted to pills and your a Conservative talkshow host, we drop you and run to a party where you can do drugs, crash cars, boats, go into rehab a few times. And you get endorsed by your state party. And believed by certain people who use to listen to Conservative talk radio?????

    Hey I bet you can even get away with snorting Keith Richard's Dad!!!!!!!

    But don't you have a Conservative Talk Radio and get hooked even once!!!!

    Now what if Rush turned into a liberal and went to Air America. Could he do his show on a constant high and some people wouldn't have a problem?

    ....I stopped listening to Limbaugh after he became a drug addict........

    But these are the same people that believe somebody night after night, week after week, that rammed his head into a Subway poll.

    those who defend war do so because they live in fear. That is it.

    The cowards love war right up until they have to go and fight in it.

    Now we would not be having this discussion if it were our nation being attacked. If we were the ones dying by the hundreds of thousands. 911? I dare you to have a debate over who did that. Who allowed that to happen, I dare you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

    Coward watch,
    Your a pathetic fool. You're obviously Muslim because you justify their wars of agressions against non Muslims.
    I hope Mecca gets nuked!

    Puick show us the money. Wheres the meat? The only person who sent us to war is Bush (well Cheney actually).

    Try to be real instead of a loser like figure from the MTV Real World.

    God are you lame

    Grammie's High Ground:
    (...or is Grammie just High?)

    >When's the last time you got arrested after being butt f---ed?
    Posted by: Rico at January 14, 2007 6:55 PM

    >Rico, come on. That last comment was beneath you and out of line. Remember, slicing with a scapel is more painful than bludgeoning with a broadaxe. It also gives you the high ground, which by right, is ours anyway.
    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 14, 2007 7:07 PM

    Post the Rico Granny stuff mid day Thursday. That is great testimony of the realities of this page

    Coward watch,
    Your a pathetic fool. You're obviously Muslim because you justify their wars of agressions against non Muslims.
    I hope Mecca gets nuked!

    Posted by: The Joker at April 5, 2007 2:42 AM

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

    Yep just like Clarke right? All you got is this same old "Muslim apologist" bull sh-t. Can't you come with some more Savage sh-t than this?

    Post the Rico Granny stuff mid day Thursday. That is great testimony of the realities of this page
    Posted by: at April 5, 2007 2:59 AM

    Yeah, it pretty much says it all...

    I like how 'Brandon' is listed as a 'Contributor' to this site when all he does is show up mid-debate, start calling people names and then leaves.

    A very fine contribution indeed...

    I know for a fact that I've actually contributed to this site MORE than he has...

    Johnny Dollar,

    I was trying to find some articles on the reaction to the hostage situation and came across this story: notice the blink reference.


    There's no denying it. Iran's capture of 15 British hostages was a stroke of cunning -- and a brilliant one at that. The mullahs were in a pickle. They had decided to do two things which were going to push Washington closer to military action. They needed a diversion or a smokescreen -- some way to make the Bush administration blink. And so far, it has worked.

    httxp://www.aina.org/news/2007040294820.htmhttp://www.aina.org/news/2007040294820.htm

    Maybe the blinked reference is totally coincidental or the word was just used as a catch phrase. Curious as to your reaction.

    Imadinnerjacket,

    Giving this zombie hatesite one last chance, I've scanned the discussions from last night and I see your name, a new one to me, associated with the only posts trying to discuss actual issues. Everyone else is talking about themselves or engaged in pointless exchanges of vitriolic personal slander - just like they've spent countless months or years of their lives.

    You should leave this worthless site to the dead-enders and use your passion in a more productive forum - write your editors and congressmen. Good luck.

    For those inclined to want The House Speaker and her supporters to assume US foreign policy after her success in jumpstarting the Arab/Israeli peace talks....

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306.html

    I will quote.....

    "Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that 'Israel was ready to engage in peace talks' with Syria.

    "Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. 'What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel,' said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that 'a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel.' In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda."

    ###
    What a smart lady........I sure hope we change that ol' Constituion to allow the representative branch control our foreign policy like the left wants......It seems they are so brilliant in talking with people and knowing what they really think and want!

    What about that funding of the Iraq war? The Speaker has legitimate constitutional powers there to influence US foreign policy.....CUT THE FUNDS!

    To Sir,

    I noticed that when your name was mentioned the other night (during a discussion of figuring out posters) you suddenly appeared the next day. You know what this site is about. Why do you bother to come? Did Imadinner jacket really need you to educate him? The people who come to this board fall into one (or more) of the following categories:

    1) they support the mission of the site;
    2) they enjoy the banter
    3) they are sick and just keep coming back to either abuse or be abused.

    Keep it real, Sir.

    Well, Cee, at least it was clear to all parties that Pelosi never had the approval of the
    White House for her trip.

    Sharon,

    Sir Loin of Beef is Cowardwatch/Mrs. Philby/Rudy Ramirez.

    It's the same Far Left Pro-Jihad tilt.
    I see through this loser's game.

    Col. Jack & Imus were ripping the British soldiers/former hostages this morning. Col. Jack called them a "disgrace."

    Wonder if Olbermann will make them WPIW tonight, although I think he would be very scared of Imus's wrath.

    It's the "news show" the sane folks detest
    Krazy Keith and his recycled guest
    The Wolffe Man and Shuster
    Won't be a booster
    To Keith's ratings so give them a rest

    I know for a fact that I've actually contributed to this site MORE than he has...

    Posted by: at April 5, 2007 3:08 AM
    nice try lil mikey

    Yeah, it pretty much says it all...

    Posted by: at April 5, 2007 3:02 AM
    a certain loons alter ego, responding to his own posts...

    You should leave this worthless site to the dead-enders and use your passion in a more productive forum - write your editors and congressmen. Good luck.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at April 5, 2007 9:09 AM
    Hows the UK ole mrs philby/rudy?

    Sir Loin of Beef is Rudy/Mrs. Philby/Coward Watch.

    Will we see the Edwards For President Campaign be given WPITW for the following?........

    "EDWARDS CASHING IN ON WIFE'S CANCER"


    http://www.nypost.com/seven/04052007/news/nationalnews/edwards_cashing_in_on_wifes_cancer_nationalnews_maggie_haberman.htm

    Ah politics......one can hide from criticism behind certain stories but still try to capitalize.....I love this country!

    Cee and Royalking,
    You have to give Ulbermahn credit for one thing.
    He's great at Propaganda. He repeasts himself day in and day out. He stays focus like a laser promoting Far-Left and Jihadi viewpoints.
    He never wavers and keeps his focus.
    He repeats the same lies and even when proven to be a liar, he continues.
    He leaves out stories that are inconvenient for his viewpoint.
    When it comes to propaganda, he's great at that!

    ***** Spiked Story Alert *****

    From the Washington Post.... Keith will avoid this one or call in sick.


    Pratfall in Damascus
    Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy

    Thursday, April 5, 2007; A16

    HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

    Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

    Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

    Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

    I just found out I've been posting anonymously in my sleep again!....how do I DO that?

    Cee-

    Tell us why you post as

    'Cee' then
    'Katy Turic' then
    'Little Feechie'

    Is it because Cee is a holy roller that can't say the certain things you allow your alter egos Katy and Feechie say?

    I see you clutching a bible in your sweaty hand while wearing your deceased mother's underwear...

    Am I wrong?

    oh, I know, it must have been you're little angel defending you while you were "sleeping." Very ironic they were "anons."

    someone else is posting as little feechie?

    I'm little feechie...

    ko-ko-ka-cho

    It's amazing that someone could ask that question of Cee, and the person asking the question has himself posted under more than a half dozen different names.

    In fact the IP addresses show that Cee does NOT post as Katy Turic, Katy does NOT post as Feechie, and Feechie does NOT post as Cee. They are three separate people. In fact I can't find ANY instance of either Cee or Feechie posting under any name other than their own. Which is a lot more than can be said for the person who asked the question.

    > Am I wrong?

    Boy, howdy!

    Anon 1:32.....yes, you're wrong.....

    I only post under cee....

    There is no Bible in my hand.....I use both to type....

    I would post anything under my true name that I would say in front of my pastor, my wife of my mother....

    And speaking of her.....She is A/W, thank you very much for caring....likely leaving a message on my voice-mail presently, asking when she should arrive for dinner Easter Sunday.

    If anyone else (and they have) has decided to use cee (or Cee) to post then good luck trying to engage the loons....The typical leftist who posts here avoids me like Al Gore avoids a mirror.

    my wife OR my mother.... (whew what a typo!)

    Apparently someone name-jacked you, Johnny when other day you posted:

    to be fair:

    Cee=Katy Turic=Little Feechie

    After you 'Outed' the name-jacker.

    Just goes to show you can't believe everything you read on OW. And how!

    My mistake Cee, go on Holy Rolling....

    And have a great easter with your Wife / Mother...

    Thanks anon.....

    Johnny$ is Cowrad Watch Mrs.Philby/RUDY?

    In case anyone doesn't know what I was talking about (but inexplicably cares...):

    From April 2:

    Published to be fair... cee = Little Feechie = Katie Turic johnny dollar Countdown with Keith Olbe... 5 hours, 39 minutes ago

    That's all that's left of the post after Bob 86'd 'em.

    " httxp://www.aina.org/news/2007040294820.htmhttp://www.aina.org/news/2007040294820.htm

    Maybe the blinked reference is totally coincidental or the word was just used as a catch phrase. Curious as to your reaction.
    Posted by: Sharon at April 5, 2007 9:03 AM"

    Note, the http has an x in it.

    Sharon, a great find. Also the first truly credible explanation of a reason for the kidnapping of the Brits that I've seen.

    Grammie

    Jeff/RoyalKing AKA moron again: "Oh, I know, it must have been you're little angel defending you while you were "sleeping." Very ironic that they were "anons"".

    Not ironic at all, but it is somewhat 'ironic' that you are a MORON, and you continue to keep making a total ASS of yourself on this site.

    Incidently, I don't need or want anyone to 'defend' me....the facts are on my side, and thats all I need.

    MORON!

    Wow--an Olbyloon using multiple names? I'm shocked! Shocked I tells ya! Okay, I'm not shocked, not shocked in the least. Amused and bemused, but not shocked.

    Bemuse: To Bewilder or Confuse.

    Brandon admitting he's confused. Finally, he gets something right!

    Mike,
    What do you think of Ulbermahn covering up the Iran hostage crisis and then giving a Pro-Iran spin on it.
    Doesn't it bother you that Teheran Keith is Pro-Iran?

    Incidently, I don't need or want anyone to 'defend' me....the facts are on my side, and thats all I need.

    MORON!

    Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2007 2:47 PM
    Which facts are you referring to? Now I'm bemused and amused.....

    Not ironic at all, but it is somewhat 'ironic' that you are a MORON, and you continue to keep making a total ASS of yourself on this site.

    Incidently, I don't need or want anyone to 'defend' me....the facts are on my side, and thats all I need.

    MORON!

    Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2007 2:47 PM
    It's very understandable why you would be so upset when being exposed. Have you still not expanded your vocabulary from 12 to 13 words? I'm disappointed in you, lil mikey, to say the least.

    Johnny Dollar out of curiosity, do you post under different names? Given the prevalence of name-changers and double identities here, why not simply make the ip's public and listed in the signoff line? I've noted a certain "partisanship" in the outing of identity clowns.

    Also note that having a different IP does not mean it is a different poster by any means. Having the same one probably does mean it is the same, but the reverse is not true.

    > Johnny Dollar out of curiosity, do you post under different names?

    Nope. Too much trouble. The browser fills in all my info for me, and if I were to change names it wouldn't do that for me. Besides, there's something slighty shady/dishonest about pretending to be more than one person, but that's just my opinion.

    I ask because you seem to be the monitor the conversation rather closely but post only very rarely and briefly, which is odd, especially given your obvious loquacity, passion for debunking the evil Mr. Olbermann, and equation of the left with supporting or appeasing Iran and Islamic terrorism, the predominant theme of most of the poster's on this site.

    Well, I guess we'll just have to trust you to be fair and evenhanded in exposing identity clowns. Soldier on!

    Oh, also while I have you, are you paid for your work here or is it a labor of...well, I don't want to go with "love"...a labor of... you know, just wanting to summarize and restate really horrible things you don't like in a clearer way.

    Since there is advertising, and you do most of the work here, I think you should get paid.

    Anon,
    Are you Teheran Keith?
    Has ahmadinejad sent you a thank you email to keep your audience ignorant to the Ilsmaic threat.

    I'm sure Iran, Syria, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizb'Allah and scores other Islamic groups would say to you:
    GREAT THANKS!

    I'm Spartacus....

    Jeff AKA MORON again: "I'm dissapointed in you, lil mikey, to say the least".

    Good Jeff good....I sure as hell wouldn't want a lying scumbag moron like you to be proud of me!

    We are known by who we associate ourselves with...and I can assure you, I would never willingly associate with filth like you.

    "I'm Spartacus...."

    No I'm Spartacus!

    Joker to Mike: "doesn't it bother you that Tehran Keith is Pro-Iran?"

    Joker, that is the WRONG question. I sure you already know I don't agree with you even slightly that Olbermann is 'pro-Iran". If I thought he was, I wouldn't watch him...but you're never going to convince me he is just because you SAY he is over and over again.

    I read all of your posts, but I'm sure that you've noticed I don't answer any of the posts you make asserting that he is "pro-Iran". Whats the point...I don't agree at all, but you are free to believe what you want to believe, and post what you want to post...and there's just no point in me trying to argue the point with you.

    If you want to discuss something else, fine. Nuff said.

    >there's something slighty shady/dishonest about pretending to be more than one person, but that's just my opinion.
    Posted by: johnny dollar at April 5, 2007 3:41 PM

    Not everyone (I'm sure there's some) that uses different names or goes 'anon' is doing so to 'pretend to be more than one person.'

    If someone's name-jacking or carrying on a conversation or agreeing with themselves, etc, yeah....that's a little pathological.

    But some people, myself included, like to either use the name field for humor, irony, or to make a point, or simply go anonymous to force any detractors to judge the post on the content itself and not by who posted it. It's called forced anti-pigeon holing.

    I do think it's funny how some will cry foul (Grammie) when the name field is blank. It's a though unless they know who it is, they can't debate the post on it's own merit.

    If you want to discuss something else, fine. Nuff said.

    Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2007 5:53 PM
    You know what that means, joker.

    mikey, where's these "facts" that you have on your side? I am curious.

    ....The typical leftist who posts here avoids me like Al Gore avoids a mirror.

    Posted by: cee at April 5, 2007 1:40 PM


    Ha Ha! Where's YOUR picture on the internet, cee?

    Whenever someone actually tries to communicate some form of opinion about something, inviting honest debate, and takes the time to articulate exactly what they mean...

    It's usually met with Brandon calling them an 'Olbyloon' without evidence (apparently just being on this site and not kissing Johnny's and Bob's ass qualifies you as an Olbyloon)

    Joker calling them a Jihadist without evidence (apparently just being on this site and not wanting to carpet bomb a country because of it's deranged leader qualifies you as a Jihadist)

    And Jeff chiming in with "See, you've been debunked, See, we know you're lying, See, We've proved you wrong..."

    Followed by his trademark "lmao"

    Everytime Jeff laughs, he laughs his ass off, because that's where his head is at...

    There, I didn't capitalize an entire word in this entire post, so that Proves I'm not Mike. No? Then how does it prove I am Mike when I do?

    Typical Closeted Olbyspin!

    See, Jeff, you've been debunked, you've been debunked, I've proved it...

    We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

    Posted by: Little Feechie at April 5, 2007 12:59 PM


    Where is the parallel criticism of Rep. Issa, (R-CA) whose Syrian junket and personal meeting with Assad was concurrent with Ms. Pelosi's trip?

    Oh that's right - Republicans are incapable of intellectual honesty or consistency - my error.

    "After blasting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria, the White House has once again been caught in a web of hypocrisy. Many top Republicans - including the Bush Administration itself - have long worked with Syria without such criticism.

    The most recent example is an officially approved delegation of three Republican congressmen who visited Syria and met with its president just days before Pelosi. "It was done in cooperation with the administration," said Rep. Joe Pitts' chief of staff. Rep. Darrell Issa, an Arab-American with a history of visits to the region, praised the dialogue and said it "will go on continuously and constructively."

    Come to think of it, weren't those three Republicans (along with the one in Pelosi's delegation) doing exactly what was recommended by the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report created and authorized by Bush? Not to mention the fact that Bush sent then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to Syria in 2003.

    Besides, Bush himself has interacted far more closely with Syria than Pelosi did. Remember that the CIA kidnapped Canadian national Maher Arar while changing planes in New York and then flew him to be "interrogated" in Syria, where torture is even more legal than it is in America these days. It's hard to believe the Syrians would have done us any favors without something in return: this kind of deal required not only cooperation but also a deal of some sort. You know something suspicious is going on when the CIA has to outsource torture."

    http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/200

    All of this makes the White House's tough talk sound ridiculous, like when Cheney said Syria has "been isolated and cut off because of his bad behavior, and the unfortunate thing about the speaker's visit is it sort of breaks down that barrier." Especially considering Pelosi was given a briefing from the State Department before leaving and that a Bush spokesman said Wednesday they will "listen to what she has to say after she returns."

    George Bush must be absolutely terrified that a Democratic woman from San Francisco is upstaging him in not only the Middle East but across the globe. Even worse, Pelosi's use of diplomacy threatens to undermine Bush's tactics in Iraq and his plans for future wars. Without the facts or logic on his side, Bush's only recourse for defending himself is this hypocritical and ridiculous attack."

    Hey Beef Loin,
    How come u forgot to mention Pelosis 'screwup of giving Assad false info re: Israel. I guess its not convenient for your leftist pals to hear that. Kind of reminds me of what the impartial Olbermaniac does.

    But some people, myself included, like to either use the name field for humor, irony, or to make a point, or simply go anonymous to force any detractors to judge the post on the content itself and not by who posted it. It's called forced anti-pigeon holing.

    I do think it's funny how some will cry foul (Grammie) when the name field is blank. It's a though unless they know who it is, they can't debate the post on it's own merit.

    Posted by: Humor, Irony, or To Make a Point at April 5, 2007 6:12 PM


    I"m afriaid that Humor, Irony, or To Make a Point, is holding out on the biggest benefit to posting anonymously:

    After pigeon-holing, stereotyping, and bringing up any number of out of context past comments from other posters, an anonymous poster can always declare they are not "that anonymous poster" who wrote about anti-pigeon-holing, after his/her hypocrisy is pointed out...

    As Humor, Irony, or To Make A Point immediately did ala this comment below:

    "I do think it's funny how some will cry foul (Grammie) when the name field is blank. It's a though unless they know who it is, they can't debate the post on it's own merit."

    To Sir,

    I noticed that when your name was mentioned the other night (during a discussion of figuring out posters) you suddenly appeared the next day. You know what this site is about. Why do you bother to come? Did Imadinner jacket really need you to educate him? The people who come to this board fall into one (or more) of the following categories:

    1) they support the mission of the site;
    2) they enjoy the banter
    3) they are sick and just keep coming back to either abuse or be abused.

    Keep it real, Sir.

    Posted by: Sharon at April 5, 2007 11:01 AM


    The "mission of this site" is to take part in the mercenary facilitaton of the fascist conquest of this country by joining the cynical media cacophany designed to malign, marginalize, and drown-out any and all reasoned voices of dissent. That's why I bother to come here.


    The "mission of this site" is to take part in the mercenary facilitaton of the fascist conquest of this country by joining the cynical media cacophany designed to malign, marginalize, and drown-out any and all reasoned voices of dissent. That's why I bother to come here.


    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at April 5, 2007 7:33 PM


    You ought to join us, Sir Loin. We have great tee shirts!

    >After pigeon-holing, stereotyping, and bringing up any number of out of context past comments from other posters, an anonymous poster can always declare they are not "that anonymous poster" who wrote about anti-pigeon-holing, after his/her hypocrisy is pointed out...

    As Humor, Irony, or To Make A Point immediately did ala this comment below:

    "I do think it's funny how some will cry foul (Grammie) when the name field is blank. It's a though unless they know who it is, they can't debate the post on it's own merit."

    Posted by: Cecelia at April 5, 2007 7:29 PM

    Nice try Cecelia. How is using someone's own words against them 'stereotyping?' Explain that one to me.

    Woudl you have had that response if 'Grammie' wasn't mentioned. Hmmm, I think not. Not even you can judge a post on it's own merit.

    Like I've said before, I can't take credit for all the anonymous posters Brilliance, nor can I take the blame for all the anonymous posters Ignorance.

    But understand this, If you are debating me in 'real time' and want to know if a previous post is mine or not, or if I said something or not, or if I feel a certain way or not, I will tell you honestly. And if you don't believe that, why would you want to debate me in the first place?

    Intellectually dishonesty isn't exclusive to anonymous posters as Cecelia seems to imply.

    I write the same way, I argue the same way, I think the same way, (I even use the three little dots the same way ....) in all my posts. It's not like I'm trying to hide from anyone or anything.

    You ought to join us, Sir Loin. We have great tee shirts!

    Posted by: Cecelia at April 5, 2007 7:46 PM


    Your tee-shirts suck.

    I even repeat myself, over and over and over again because it seems my points are all lost on the person I am debating....

    Until finally after about 30 exchanges, (DING!) a lightbulb goes on (must be a GE conspiracy)...

    And they say something like, yeah, okay, maybe you're right...

    Hence the copying and pasting of other people's posts: Aint nothing quite like the old black and white. And they aint 'out of context.' It just feels that way to the Olber-Obsessed when they get their own words thrown back at them...

    (Gosh, did I really say that? It seem so stupid, now...)

    "intellectual dishonesty isn't exclusive to anonymous posters as Cecelia seems to imply"

    As Cecelia herself proves repeatedly.

    See, Jeff, you've been debunked, you've been debunked, I've proved it...

    Posted by: at April 5, 2007 6:47 PM
    The only thing you prove over and over is you are a psychopathic olbyloon, taking hte term "olbyloon" to a whole new level, congratulations!

    I write the same way, I argue the same way, I think the same way, (I even use the three little dots the same way ....) in all my posts. It's not like I'm trying to hide from anyone or anything.

    Posted by: at April 5, 2007 8:05 PM
    Making "anon" posts is a form of hiding in and of itself. Next?

    Jeff AKA moron: "Making "anon" posts is a form of hiding in and of itself. Next?"

    No, as long as there is a certain moron polluting this board 24/7, it's a way of being called 'mikey', without actually being 'Mike'.

    intellectual dishonesty isn't exclusive to anonymous posters as Cecelia seems to imply"

    As Cecelia herself proves repeatedly.

    Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2007 8:15 PM


    hmmm...this is sort of like being called a bimbo by Paris Hilton.

    How come u forgot to mention Pelosis 'screwup of giving Assad false info re: Israel. I guess its not convenient for your leftist pals to hear that. Kind of reminds me of what the impartial Olbermaniac does.

    Posted by: dreadster at April 5, 2007 7:27 PM

    According to Pelosi she told Assad what she had been asked by Olmert. If Olmert wants to augment the message after the fact that's not Pelosi's problem.

    Cheney on the Limbaugh show? You must be joking; no credence available.

    You know what Pelosi, Issa and the others were really saying to the Syrians? They were assuring them that Bush is a lame duck and on his way out, and that there are some grown-ups waiting in the wings to clean things up when he's gone. I'm not sure tey were successful though; two years is a long time and Cheney is making seditious statements about trashing the 22nd ammendment because of the perils of the "War on Terror" (sure, they could steal a third one).

    "hmmm...this is sort of like being called a bimbo by Paris Hilton."

    Well, I'd certainly rather be Paris Hilton than your typical bimbo.

    Well, I'd certainly rather be Paris Hilton than your typical bimbo.

    Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2007 8:33 PM


    Well, it's nice that you enjoy being Queen of the Bimbos.

    No, as long as there is a certain moron polluting this board 24/7, it's a way of being called 'mikey', without actually being 'Mike'.


    Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2007 8:26 PM
    Was I right, or was I right, he suddenly appears. Who's polluting this board? Mr. "anon?" I'm stll waiting for these so called "facts" you have to back you up.

    About the Pelosi thing, I have a VERY low level friend who works at the State Dept and she says that this sort of thing is done in Administrations as a good cop/bad cop sort thing. Evidently the scuttlebut around DC is that Pelosi and the WH are working together.

    Jeff AKA moron: "I'm still waiting for these so called "facts" you have to back you up."

    Yes Jeff, and I have a retarded (er...mentally challenged) nephew who reminds me of you waiting for me to take him to the movies again. Trouble is Jeff, I really don't want to have to sit all the way through "Happy Feet".

    'Debating' with you is just as childish.

    Yes Jeff, and I have a retarded (er...mentally challenged) nephew who reminds me of you waiting for me to take him to the movies again. Trouble is Jeff, I really don't want to have to sit all the way through "Happy Feet".

    'Debating' with you is just as childish.

    Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2007 8:54 PM
    This post answers more questions about lil mikey.

    "I have a VERY low level friend who works at the State Dept "

    What's a "low level friend"?

    "What's a "low level friend"?"

    A friend of a friend of her cousin's friend!

    Incidently, I don't need or want anyone to 'defend' me....the facts are on my side, and thats all I need.

    MORON!

    Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2007 2:47 PM
    Where's these "facts" you are referring to? Lets see 'em. If you don't have any, I will assume it to be yet another one of your many lies.

    Evidently the scuttlebut around DC is that Pelosi and the WH are working together.

    Posted by: Cecelia at April 5, 2007 8:44 PM


    Bullsh-t. We are supposed to believe that Pelosi would allow herself to be publically maligned by the White House ("talking to terrorists"; "very irresponsible") as part of a diplomatic scheme devised by the f---ing Keystone Cops? That desperate rumor was hatched as damage control against the huge politcal coup Pelosi has pulled off.

    Thanks, Cecelia, for pointing out the oh so obvious fallacy and hypocrisy of claiming that being a chicken blogger is so noble because it shows up the ignorance and hypocrisy of others. It also smacks of unbridled conceit.

    If you wish to have an honest debate than don't expect your debaters to have to count the number of dots you use or just ask you which one of the posts and posts for months and months are yours. Especially if you are fond of copying and pasting others remarks as a tool in your debate.

    I am going to repeat what I said earlier.

    Chicken Bloggers are as anonymous as any chicken in a chicken yard. They run around clucking, pecking and crapping. And you expect others to be able to pick out your chicken crap from another chicken's crap, assuming you can tell the difference yourself.

    You are actually one step down from the name hijackers and multiple name users. And that is pretty damn low.

    Grammie

    Jeff AKA moron: "If you don't have any, I will assume it to be another of your many lies."

    Yes Jeff, my retarded nephew also assumes I am lying when I tell him I don't have any more candy for him.

    Oh....did I mention that he's a lot like you?

    Bullsh-t. We are supposed to believe that Pelosi would allow herself to be publically maligned by the White House ("talking to terrorists"; "very irresponsible") as part of a diplomatic scheme devised by the f---ing Keystone Cops? That desperate rumor was hatched as damage control against the huge politcal coup Pelosi has pulled off.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at April 5, 2007 9:19 PM
    How big is your Palooza Pelosi poster in your house? Or, do you have a mural of her face so you can eat cheese and drink wine next to?

    Janet: "You are actually one step down from the name hijackers and multiple name users. And that is pretty damn low."

    But that is STILL one step above the ones making the false accusations that someone else is namejacking, using multiple alias's, or posing as "chicken bloggers".

    Sound like anyone we know Janet? .....Grammie?


    Jeff AKA moron again": "How big is your Pelosi poster?"

    My biggest Pelosi poster measures 3' x 5'!

    How big is your Palooza Pelosi poster in your house? Or, do you have a mural of her face so you can eat cheese and drink wine next to?

    Posted by: royalking at April 5, 2007 9:32 PM


    You may be a f---ing moron, royalking, but at least you are tangentially approaching some real issues - everyone else is just pathetically induging their cyber-egos.

    unbridled conceit:

    It also gives you the high ground, which by right, is ours anyway.
    Janet Hawkins

    >Especially if you are fond of copying and pasting others remarks as a tool in your debate.

    Wassamatta Grammie, ashamed of your own words?

    Perhaps you haven't figured this out yet...

    I couldn't possibly care any less whether You or Cecelia or Anyone else knows which posts are mine. That's your obsession, not mine.

    You're the one in a tizzy because of something I'm doing. Get over it.

    You sure have devoted quite a bit of time to someone you've labeled as 'insignificant.'

    Perhaps you weren't being honest with yourself when you said that...

    But you sure seem to know a lot about chickens. When did you retire from your position as fry cook at KFC?

    Or perhaps you were one of the senior citizens they like to have out washing the tables...

    "You may be a f---ing moron, royalking, but at least you are tangentially approaching some real issues - everyone else is just pathetically induging their cyber-egos"

    I have to be honest, that's why I'm here.

    "About the Pelosi thing, I have a VERY low level friend who works at the State Dept and she says that this sort of thing is done in Administrations as a good cop/bad cop sort thing. Evidently the scuttlebut around DC is that Pelosi and the WH are working together. "

    That's an interesting hypothesis. Frankly
    I'd be suprised if the Democrats and Republicans could get together to cook dinner, but it is kinda of neat to neat to think they might be doing that. (the diplomacy stuff that is not dinner)

    I have to be honest, that's why I'm here.
    Posted by: craigs at April 5, 2007 10:16 PM

    It certainly can't be for the intellectually stimulating debate.

    The Left has their mind made up that the Right are a bunch of idiots, and the Right obliges them by proving it.

    Incidently, I don't need or want anyone to 'defend' me....the facts are on my side, and thats all I need.

    MORON!

    Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2007 2:47 PM
    Where's these "facts" you are referring to? Lets see 'em. If you don't have any, I will assume it to be yet another one of your many lies.

    Posted by: royalking at April 5, 2007 9:16 PM
    Since you ran from another of your idiotic replys by making another idiotic reply it will be logged for future referrence as another lil mikey lie. Statting he supposedly has some kind of "facts" but when asked what they are, well what do you know? He has none, shocker.

    royalking,

    Why don't you shut the f--- up? You wouldn't know a "fact" if it crawled up your rancid Republican vagina.

    Why don't you shut the f--- up? You wouldn't know a "fact" if it crawled up your rancid Republican vagina.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at April 6, 2007 9:44 AM
    Did you and lil mikey go to the same school? The one that only has a 12 word vocabulary requirement? You far leftists are such nice people, almost as nice as the Iranians that captured 15 Royal Navymen just so they could feed them and take their pictures and buy them really nice suits!

    No one noticed the dog that didn't bark. J$ was asked if he was paid for this work. I can't say I'm sure whether it is better that he be paid or not...but if he is it certainly would make one wonder by whom. I'd like to know. Anyone else?

    VOK: The question about whether or not Johnny is being paid has been posed by several posters, including myself, more than once. If you succeed in getting a straight answer, you will have succeeded where the rest of us have failed.

    Johnny has danced around the question every time, while never flatly denying it. The last time I asked it, his ridiculous reply was "prove it', as if that were even possible.

    I for one, have concluded that he IS being paid to do this, and probably quite well. Nothing else makes any sense.

    The question about whether or not he is being paid IS very much relevant to credibility and SHOULD be part of the public record of this site....but we both know that credibility is not what this site is all about, and that is the very thing that makes it so despicable.

    Why would it matter if he is paid or who he is paid by? If I remember correctly, as quoted by lil mikey, "It's not who posts,but, the content of the post is what matters" in regards to the "anon" posters. I would think the same logic applys in this matter. Who pays you, VOK? Who pays you, lil mikey? Lil mikey, the queen of dancing around questions and saying he has facts when he actually doesn't, accusing someone else of one of his common practices....

    I am not paid for my fine work on this site. What I wanted to know is whether J$ is paid for his work on this site. I think he should be, but then I think he should also note that. And if he is going to expose identity clowns, he should do it for all of them.

    Personally I think he might be paid, since no one in their right mind would write up long inaccurate summaries of things they hate every single day of their lives just for kicks. But then on the other hand, who would pay him? There can't be 32 total eyeballs visiting this site, and several of those belong to people who clearly have some personal connection to it like Cecelia and Bob. So it just makes you wonder. Well, I don't thiink and answer is forthcoming.

    The question about whether or not he is being paid IS very much relevant to credibility and SHOULD be part of the public record of this site....but we both know that credibility is not what this site is all about, and that is the very thing that makes it so despicable.

    Posted by: Mike at April 6, 2007 11:41 AM


    Well, look at things from several sides and then decide whether it even matters:

    Assume Johnny is being paid by Bob Cox:

    Are you arguing that Johnny is being paid by Bob Cox to advance deas that he wouldn't bother to advance otherswise? Is that believable at all?

    Is it believable that the writers at The Nation are only advancing those viewpoints because they are paid to do so? Is it believable that this makes their viewpoints sullied or questonable because they happen to be paid for writing about them?

    Assume Johnny is being paid by Fox News:

    Does it still follow that Johnny is advocating ideas he doesn't hold? Does this mean that Johnny is merely a Fox News whore in the sense that's he's a mercenary hired to battle Fox News competition?

    If that's the case --then what is Olbermann? We UNDOUBTABLY KNOW he's paid by MSNBC and he runs down Fox Noise in some mannner EVERY night. Are we to assume that this means that all Olbermann says is just an MSNBC paycheck speaking in order to bash the Fox News competition? No "truth to power"....no "alternative viewpoint not seen on corporate television" just all whore all the time in order to bash a competitior, set forth a worldview, and do it by baiting a certain segment of society.

    Next scenario: Johnny is being paid....or isn't being paid....loves what he's doing....believes in it utterly ....and doesn't think he owes you any more explainations than Kieth owes O'Reilly as to who is paying Keith.

    We report...you decide...

    Cecelia, such "trashy" talk from a seemingly sophisticated woman, I like it! I didn't see how hypocritic the question really was until I read your response. I saw a little hypocrisy, but, you exposed a little more and gave a more elaborate answer than I. I,myself, like to keep my responses short and sweet, as you know.......

    "If I remember correctly ..."
    Posted by: royalking at April 6, 2007 11:56 AM

    Suffice to say you AREN'T remembering correctly. There was nothing truthful about your original assertion, so why would your memory of it be any different?

    I'm not Mike, Ace....

    Not that I care whether you know who I am or not, because I don't...

    Mike might be growing a little tired of it though...

    But it's really just further evidence of your pathology...

    Cecelia indicated that she thought it's easier to conceal contradictions in viewpoints when one posts anonymously....

    But Jeff debunks that theory.

    It's actually so much EASIER to reveal contradictions in viewpoints, as Jeff so valiantly illustrates below when you assume EVERYONE is the same person...

    >If I remember correctly, as quoted by lil mikey, "It's not who posts,but, the content of the post is what matters" in regards to the "anon" posters. I would think the same logic applys in this matter.

    Not that I care whether you know who I am or not, because I don't...

    Mike might be growing a little tired of it though...

    But it's really just further evidence of your pathology...

    Posted by: at April 6, 2007 7:05 PM
    Funny, all indications would tell me otherwise.

    >If I remember correctly, as quoted by lil mikey, "It's not who posts,but, the content of the post is what matters" in regards to the "anon" posters. I would think the same logic applys in this matter.

    Posted by: at April 6, 2007 7:12 PM
    The whole point blazed right over you puny little pin head, as usual. When I quote someone that doesn't mean I agree with them, I was pointing out hypocrisy in their original question. Think before you post.