But oh, according to Mike and his Olbyloon buddies who haunt this site, that's not what Olbermann was doing at all! Face it, if he'd been the one doing the shooting at Virginia Tech, they'd still weave an excuse for him, blaming the victims or their favorite all-purpose whipping boy, George W. Bush.

Wonder when Olby will correct his mistake and acknowledge the FACT that this ban expiration had nothing to do with the type of ammo or weapons used in the assault?

Keith Olbermann was 100% right to bring up the FACT that an important and possibly statute had been allowed to expire. And yes, it was the right time to do it as well. That is the kind of information that most people never hear about at all unless it is connected to a major event.

And, once again, the notion that has been put forth on this site and others that Olbermann "blamed Bush" for the VT shootings is another outright lie.

rofl @ "...maybe hire an ombudsman."

and, yes, Keith was trying to take a jab at the GOP and Bush for "letting" the assault weapons ban expire, and even during his jab managed to get it exactly wrong what was banned under the Ban.

But he was WRONG Mike. I know that his lying and being constantly and consistently wrong don't matter to you, you want the truth warped and twisted beyond all recognition to promote your own political agenda, but the types of weapons used weren't applicable to that ban on assault weapons. Even had the statue been renewed, it would have had zero impact on the ability to obtain the types of weapons and ammo used in the attack on Monday. I know you're ignorant but must you constantly and consistently display it here for all to see?

And, once again, the notion that has been put forth on this site and others that Olbermann "blamed Bush" for the VT shootings is another outright lie.

Posted by: Mike at April 19, 2007 12:56 PM
Last month, "I don't defend Olbermahn!" This month, "I've been driven to defend him by you guys!" What's next month? Stay tuned....

Brandon: He was NOT at all wrong in bringing up the FACT that a statute that possibly could have applied had been allowed to expire.

I'm well aware that people like you don't EVER want to discuss any kind of gun control, but many Americans do, and timing a reasonable discussion about a legislative process that had recently occured concerning multi round assault weapons with an event like this IS going to happen every time, whether you like it or not.

And once again...the central point again: Keith did NOT "blame Bush for the VT shootings". If he had, I would be condemning him too.

Mike is a true Olbermann sycophant. The proof of Olbermanns disgrace is right in front of him and yet he ignores it. Keep spinning for Olbermann Mike and maybe he will hire you to come on his show and lick his boots.

Mike doesn't CARE about the facts, guys-
Mike doesn't CARE if Olby was WRONG- he just cares that the "topic" about what he was saying was right...

Its like when Dan Rather kept insisting that even though those National Guard records were clearly forgeries- their "essence" was right.

Get it?!?

Don't confuse or anger people like Mike- you never know the consequenses...

I have to, sadly, agree with KO's lovers. Or should that read KO lovers.

Have we all forgotten the ten year long era when no crime or murder happened with illegal weapons and banned ammo. Just look at how peaceful DC was. Why it became a pastoral haven for the law abiding and peaceful among us.

With enough laws murder, crime and psychopathic rampages will whither away and become distant memories.

PASS MORE LAWS NOW!

Grammie

Tell me Mike, why was Olbermann the only one to bring this up?

Look, here's Olby's direct quote:

"Clips like those [holding more than 10 rounds] were banned under the Assault Weapons Law of 1994..."

This is completely wrong. "Large capacity ammunition feeding devices" were banned only if they were manufactured AFTER the ban was enacted...ie, 1994. It was perfectly legal before, during, and now after the ban to have a clip that holds more than 10 rounds, or even to have a garage full of clips that hold more than 10 rounds.

his quote continues:

"...but Congress and President Bush allowed that law to expire more than two years ago."

Clearly he's saying it's Bush's fault the kid had clips that held 12 rounds, and if you want to follow his logic out, the day could have been saved if only the kid was packing 9-round clips.

Once again, 'clearly' he only stated the truth. Every argument I have read to the contrary is either splitting hairs, or putting words in his mouth.

He was wrong Mike. The type of guns and ammo that the shooter used weren't applicable to the ban and the ban or lack thereof had absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with his ability to gain access to the weapons and ammo. You're wrong, Olby was wrong, but you're too big of a weasel and a hypocrite to admit it. Keep it up, spin for him, you just make yourself look like a bigger fool in the process, Mr. "I'm not an Olbypologist" Mike.

Once again, 'clearly' he only stated the truth. Every argument I have read to the contrary is either splitting hairs, or putting words in his mouth.

Posted by: Mike at April 19, 2007 4:31 PM

Yes, he really thinks the fact that Cho could have still purchased the magazine with the AWB in full effect, is only splitting hairs, but an argument on the possibilities of gun control laws is directly relevant "truth".

A direct quote, from the transcript of what Olbermann says and Olbypologist Mike still denies that's what Olbermann meant. That's the thing about the Olbypologists, they have to "interpret" what Olbermann meant in order to defend him. But I guess we should cut them some slack since they no doubt suffer from exhaustion from all the constant spinning they do to cover for his spectacular lies and screw-ups like the one above.

A direct quote, from the transcript of what Olbermann says and Olbypologist Mike still denies that's what Olbermann meant. That's the thing about the Olbypologists, they have to "interpret" what Olbermann meant in order to defend him. But I guess we should cut them some slack since they no doubt suffer from exhaustion from all the constant spinning they do to cover for his spectacular lies and screw-ups like the one above.

Posted by: Brandon at April 19, 2007 6:25 PM
Lets not forget the fact lil mikey has been very busy defending, spinning and denying his own lies, also. He must be very exhausted, delerious by now. Even more delerious, I mean.

Brandon: "Mike still denies that's what Olbermann meant."

The density of some of you people defies belief at times. YOU are the ones who keep trying to determine what Olbermann 'meant'.

All I have been doing is correcting the record about what Olbermann actually SAID, not what he 'meant'. You are the ones who keep trying to interpret what you think he 'meant', not me. That is a recurring theme on this site.

Once again, Keith never said "Bush is to blame for the VT shooting". He also never said "Bush caused the VT shooting", and he never said "Bush put the gun in his hand".

You can interpret what you THINK "he meant" all you please, but stop implying that he actually SAID something he didn't say. And stop accusing me of trying to convince you of what Olbermann actually 'meant', because I'm not at all the one who has been trying to do that. In my opinion, it doesn't really matter what he 'meant', as long as the very relavent question put forth makes one think.

That is ALL I have been arguing....is this clear enough for you now?

Mike, what was the "truth" that Olbermann stated?

We can read the transcript Mike. We know exactly what he said. Your denials show you to be the "dense" one here.

You can interpret what you THINK "he meant" all you please, but stop implying that he actually SAID something he didn't say. And stop accusing me of trying to convince you of what Olbermann actually 'meant', because I'm not at all the one who has been trying to do that. In my opinion, it doesn't really matter what he 'meant', as long as the very relavent question put forth makes one think.

That is ALL I have been arguing....is this clear enough for you now?

Posted by: Mike at April 19, 2007 8:03 PM
You can tap dance ad defend and lie all you want, we KNOW what he meant. You refuse to ADMIT what he meant. Clear enough for you, now?

Olby your 0 for 2,

Who was that guy? He is priceless!

Ya know Olby is Mr. Baseball, but what if he start screwing up on football, the way he does with the facts on Crapdown and people start calling him on it?

You can interpret what you THINK "he meant" all you please, but stop implying that he actually SAID something he didn't say. And stop accusing me of trying to convince you of what Olbermann actually 'meant', because I'm not at all the one who has been trying to do that. In my opinion, it doesn't really matter what he 'meant', as long as the very relavent question put forth makes one think.

That is ALL I have been arguing....is this clear enough for you now?

Posted by: Mike at April 19, 2007 8:03 PM

Same strawman, sans quotation marks.

Where's the erroneous quote, Mike?

"...but Congress and President Bush allowed that law to expire more than two years ago."

I have to say, this certainly seems to imply that he is trying to cast some responsibility for the shooting, the way of the president and the last congress..

I never get tired of being wrong. I just continue to spew out nonsense and I never leave this site. It is what I live for. My ego is so small, that if I actually had to admit my stupidity, I would wilt away.

There the missing link is! How you doing RK?

Cecelia: "Where's the erroneous quote Mike?"

I guess you missed the title line of this very thread.

I never get tired of being wrong. I just continue to spew out nonsense and I never leave this site. It is what I live for. My ego is so small, that if I actually had to admit my stupidity, I would wilt away.

Posted by: Mike at April 19, 2007 9:53 PM
lil mikey's closest thing to being honest, right here.

BovineQueen sez:

I never get tired of being wrong. I just continue to spew out nonsense and I never leave this site. It is what I live for. My ego is so small, that if I actually had to admit my stupidity, I would wilt away.

Posted by: Mike at April 19, 2007 9:53 PM
lil mikey's closest thing to being honest, right here.
Posted by: royalking at April 20, 2007 12:00 AM

Gee, Bovine, can't you see that's one of your half-brother/uncles hijacking Mike's name?

Of course not. Had you seen it, you wouldn't have come and "help" your case.

un-American pat, as usual you post before thinking. When will you guys learn?

I just love this video from RedEye. I wonder how many of Keith staffers had to drag him out from under his desk after seeing this?

Factor: "I wonder how many of Keith's staffers had to drag him out from under his desk after seeing this?"

He probably had to come out himself since you people keep claiming his staffers aren't allowed to go near him.

I guess you missed the title line of this very thread.

Posted by: Mike at April 19, 2007 10:07 PM

That's a quote?

Posted by: Cecelia April 20, 2007 5:08 AM

"Thats a quote"

If it is written, I can quote it can't I? If you go back and read all my posts on the subject, it might help you understand exactly where I was coming from on this.

The 'quotes' I was referring to were all made by various sources stating that Keith said something he didn't say.

Get it now?

"...but Congress and President Bush allowed that law to expire more than two years ago."

I have to say, this certainly seems to imply that he is trying to cast some responsibility for the shooting, the way of the president and the last congress..

Posted by: craigs at April 19, 2007 9:41 PM

That's why I like you, Major. You're a challenging opponent and intellectually honest.

"Thats a quote"

If it is written, I can quote it can't I? If you go back and read all my posts on the subject, it might help you understand exactly where I was coming from on this.

The 'quotes' I was referring to were all made by various sources stating that Keith said something he didn't say.

Get it now?

Posted by: Mike at April 20, 2007 5:13 AM

So you've moved from claims of erroneous quotations, put in quotes, as though Olbermann said them, to complaining about interpretations of Olbermann's words.

We don't take Olbermann's words out of context, you do. You act as though each sentence he utters is completely unconnected to the sentences before or after and therefore interpretations are impossible.

I'm still waiting to hear "the truth" that Olbermann stated.

Cecelia: Interpretations are just that, and nothing more...interpretations.

Interpretations are not at all 'impossible', but they should never be used to put words in someone's mouth that were never uttered.

Anyone reading any of the various title lines on this subject, such as the one at the top of this thread, would come away with the incorrect assumption that Olbermann actually blamed the VT massacre on Bush, and you and I both know that is a lie.

Anyone reading any of the various title lines on this subject, such as the one at the top of this thread, would come away with the incorrect assumption that Olbermann actually blamed the VT massacre on Bush, and you and I both know that is a lie.

Posted by: Mike at April 20, 2007 5:35 AM

To the extent that the magazine used affected the carnage, Olbermann did exactly that.

That is an accurate interpretation of Olbermann's very obvious implication.

With your logic, we should be just as concerned that someone reading the thread title would think Red Eye literally "slapped" Olbermann.

Anyone reading any of the various title lines on this subject, such as the one at the top of this thread, would come away with the incorrect assumption that Olbermann actually blamed the VT massacre on Bush, and you and I both know that is a lie.

Posted by: Mike at April 20, 2007 5:35 AM
lil mikey, you can't possibly think or dream that YOU could think what Cecelia is thinking. Only YOU think the oranged faced prick didn't blame Bush.

Olbermann is a royal sack of crap for trying to make a point like that, correct or not, in the heat and stench of human tragedy. Anything we do as a reaction to this other than an attempt to increase awareness of mental health issues will be a mistake. No laws can prevent it. Only individuals can, only maybe, and only in some cases. Mental illness is simply way too complicated a subject.

Just about everyone on tv and elsewhere yapping about this is (a) increasing the potential for future problems and (b) acting like a royal sack of crap. It is a case of a sad, sick boy who's illness metastasized in an explosive way. I find society's appetite for endlessly dallying it's finger through his feces, and relating every conversation to this event and this boy disturbing. I have no doubt it was exactly what the mentally ill boy had in mind and will be instructive to other similarly sick people in the future.

How long before Olbermann uses the VT tragedy to boast about his ratings "victory" over O'Reilly (never mind both got trounced by Paula Zahn on Wednesday night)?

No Cecelia: I haven't 'moved' anywhere. I'm making precisely the SAME point I was making with how the "did we blink" question ACTUAL comment somehow magically changed into "the US blinked" statement.

Once again, It is fundamentally dishonest to convert an interpretation into an implied quote. You wouldn't appreciate it if someone turned your own words around like that either.

Now, at the risk of straying away from the actual point I'm making....and REALLY confusing my heckler, I will give you MY interpretation of what his implication was.

I, for one have a different INTERPRETION of his VT comments. Your implication is that he 'blamed' Bush...absolutely untrue! He IMPLIED that the tragedy MIGHT possibly have been a little less severe if "Bush AND Congress" had not allowed the statute to expire. It was simply a question intended to induce thought among his listening audience...nothing wrong with that.

This is very different than claiming or implying that he literally blamed Bush on the entire thing, which he emphatically did not.

You know I'm right!

"That's why I like you, Major. You're a challenging opponent and intellectually honest."

You know I have to say I enjoyed discussions with you as well. You don't often change your mind, but I have watched you critisze both sides of the aisle, and in a debate you present compelling arguements.

If the ban had never been allowed to expire, the glock could not have been purchased in its current form...

If the ban had never been allowed to expire, the glock could not have been purchased in its current form...

Posted by: blindrat at April 20, 2007 2:19 PM
Your name fits you perfectly, you are blind and ignorant to think that.

"Your name fits you perfectly, you are blind and ignorant to think that."

You know RK, this in a nutshell is why I have problems with you: you never make an argument you just start flaming.

It makes you look like you are incapable of defending your beliefs that you have no idea why you beleive what you believe, that you are just following the herd.

Blind Rat. my understanding of the matter is that (I'm no gun expert) but that there is a difference between a magazine and a clip. that the clips mentioned by Olbermann were banned; but that the magazine used would not have been. (if anyone really knows how guns work jump in here) basically the jist seems to be no difference would have been made in the shooting whether the ban was in place or not.

Now I'm actually against gun control, but an argument could certainly be made that tougher legislation is the answer. but I think the argument that the ban would have dimininshed the impact of the shooting seems incorrect to me. based on what little I know of guns.

Glocks have never been outlined. Blind Rat is not only blind, they're deaf, dumb, and stupid too.

craigs,

Royalking has a problem with socialization, I would imagine.

Here is my biggest problem with the guns in this country. Why does ANYONE, with the exception of hunters, need more than one? It's all about the money...

Note to self, before calling someone else stupid, make sure I've used the right word in my post: OUTLAWED, not outlined. But the fact remains I'm right and Rat is wrong. Glocks weren't made illegal nor was that particular type of magazine under ANY federal law, EVER.

A glock holds 15 to 17 rounds, prohibited by the assault weapons ban...

"Here is my biggest problem with the guns in this country. Why does ANYONE, with the exception of hunters, need more than one? It's all about the money..."

Well, I understand your point. If say, home defense were the only use of a gun, I'd probably agree with you. But I just get a little nervous when the govemrnet gets involved. here. To me the 2nd amendment was a pledge of faith on the part of the founding fathers, basically they (in my mind) were saying we'll give you all these great freedoms and the means to protect yourself (arms) if we ever try to take them back.

I'm a liberal, so I'd say the majority of my friends disagree with me on this and I get the reasons... just don't quite agree with them.

I'd be curious to know how Canada, which has far more guns per captia than us, and far fewer of these shootings, manages to accomplsih this. Anyone know?

craigs, you seem HALF way intelligent, ok? My point is obvious to any one that is HALF way intelligent. Even if guns were completely banned in Virginia, this prozac infested lunatic would have still been able to buy a gun somewhere and do what he did. This whole argument on the expiration of the law is null and void. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Especially people on drugs as this psycho was. The blind rat is doing what all libs are trying to do, put the blame on Bush and Republicans.

Brandon,

A little extra for ya!

"...Law-enforcement officials say the Glock that Cho used had a 15-round ammunition magazine, prohibited under the federal assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004..."

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=shootguns18&date=20070418

But, let's hear from the fine folks at Fox, son:

"...Under the 1994 ban, the gun clips Cho reportedly used would have been illegal since under that law, magazines with more than 10 bullets are outlawed..."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266686,00.html

You said the GUN was illegal Rat. The GUN. Not the clip. Big difference, not that I'd expect a liberal pussy to know the difference but there IS a difference.

Poor Brandon,

Shot down and struggling to maintain face. Here's how to avoid that: Stop lying, child...

I know who you are now Blind Rat. You've been a busy little bee this afternoon haven't you? Jumping from website to website to protect your "man"? You might want to space out your website postings at all the little websites you go to defend Olbermann a little bit further apart. You're making it a little bit too easy for people to figure out who you are.

"You said the GUN was illegal Rat."

Actually, he said: "If the ban had never been allowed to expire, the glock could not have been purchased in its current form..."

We can ask BR to make sure but I think he meant that statement to include the gun, and all the components that contriubted to the efficency with which the killer used.

"The GUN. Not the clip. Big difference, not that I'd expect a liberal pussy to know the difference but there IS a difference."

Brandon, I know the odds are ohh os rare, but I'd give anything to meet you, so I could demonstrate what a liberal pussy I am upside your head.

Brandon has this image of Cho doing the same amount of damage without the clip, running down the hall yelling "bang, bang!"...

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Blindrat: As I said earlier, you're blind, deaf, stupid, ignorant and dumb. Despite what the article said on the Fox website, that gun nor it's ammo clip were ever illegal under the weapons ban act.

Here-click on the link in this post and read, (I'm quoting below):

"Part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was the so-called Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which was a ban on certain cosmetic features found on some firearms. It was, in fact, nothing more than "scary-looking gun" law.

Banned "assault rifles" were easily made legal again by manufacturers who merely had to remove the offensive accessories, such as flash hiders, pistol grip-style stocks, or bayonets lugs, none of which affected the rate of fire, accuracy or velocity of the firearms in question. Older firearms arbitrarily (and inaccurately) deemed assault weapons by the ban that were already in the market were grandfathered in, and the new "post-ban" assault weapons sold quite well during the length of the so-called ban.

Another provision of the ban was a ban on the manufacture of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices," which the law defined, again arbitrarily, as those rifle and pistol magazines that hold in excess of then rounds of ammunition.

Where Ross, ABC New, Olbermann and others are dead wrong is when they attempt to imply that the ban on the manufacture of new magazines of more than ten rounds was a ban on all high-capacity magazines. This is patently false.

There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of firearms in America primarily designed to use magazines of more than ten rounds. Most of these firearms were sold by the manufacturer with at least two magazines, and there was and is a robust industry for magazines for these firearms. By the time the "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" stipulation of the 1994 AW Ban provision was implemented into law, there were literally millions of such magazines in America, and hundreds of thousands more available for retail and commercial sale.

The AW Ban did not make owning nor selling such magazines illegal. As a result, magazines of more than ten rounds were available for uninterrupted sale during the entire ten-year life of the AW ban. It was never illegal to own, sell, or buy such magazines. All the ban actually did was to spur interest in purchasing such magazines, and manufacturers literally had to work overtime to meet anticipated demand prior to the implementation of the law.

As a result of supply and demand, once the "ban" (which it never was in any meaningful way) went into effect, some magazines increased significantly in cost, and some were even in relatively short supply, but they were always available in retail stores, catalogs and online, and they were always legal to own, buy, or sell.

I'm growing increasingly tired of journalists such as Brain Ross, ABC News, and Keith Olbermann spouting falsehoods, when they have obviously been too lazy--or perhaps just to agenda-driven--to simply read the law itself, or even point a web browser in the direction of Google.

These so-called journalists have forfeited their credibility by refusing to address the truth, and instead, decided to foist upon an unsuspecting public, blatant falsehoods to further a political agenda.

We've come to expect our media to be biased. We shouldn't have to deal with them blatantly, recklessly, and repeatedly lying to further their private policy beliefs."

Let me repeat: Under the old law, there was absolutely nothing that would have prohibited Cho from buying 10, 15, 20 or even 50 10-round clips.

More, "Any Glock 19 purchased at any point in history (before, during, or after the ban) would not be limited in the number of bullets it could contain, and as many guns stores typically carry pre-ban spare magazines for Glocks and other popular pistols, he could have purchased the 15-round magazine the pistol was designed to operate with on the spot if it did not already come with them.

The magazine wells on Glocks were never modified to force them to take different (lower capacity)magazines. From the first Glock 19 off the assembly line to ones produced today, they can all use the same magazines.

And it is magazines, not clips. Clips are narrow strips of sheet metal (typically spring steel) used to load magazines. Clips go into magazines, magazines go into firearms. The two are not the same thing nor are they interchangable, no matter how many times the media screws that up, as well. Each has a distinct purpose."

Most people don't understand the difference between clips and magazines or semi-automatic versus automatic weapons. It's hardly surprising that the AP articles on this issue were simply wrong. But Olbermann had a choice here to issue a correction after he was wrong on this issue and he chose not to. This is not a man who can admit he made a mistake unless it's over the most trivial of celebrity related kind of thing. He has no integrity, no spine, no humility, only a raging ego. And for whatever reason, he has fans who are willing to fight to the death to defend him, even when he's been proven wrong a million times over. One day they'll figure out he's exactly what he's been portrayed to be here at Olbermannwatch. Let's hope that we aren't all hurt by the flying debris of their tiny little heads when that day comes.

From what I understand, the 22 can not hold a magazine bigger than ten rounds, so that gun he had doesn't enter the debate.

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
U.S. Firearms
Legal Topics
Assault weapons ban
ATF (law enforcement)
Brady Handgun Act
Federal Firearms License
Firearm case law
Firearm Owners Protection Act
Gun Control Act of 1968
Gun laws in the U.S. — by state
Gun laws in the U.S. — federal
Gun politics in the U.S.
National Firearms Act
Second Amendment
Straw purchase
Sullivan Act (New York)
Violent Crime Control Act

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994) is a piece of legislation, sponsored by Rep. Jack Brooks and supported by Sen. Barbara Boxer on the heels of the 1993 101 California shooting and passed by the US Congress, which expanded Federal law in several ways. Its most famous provision banned the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic "assault weapons" as well as many others defined by a combination of 5 features. This law also banned possession of NEWLY manufactured magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Other provisions of the law included a greatly expanded Federal death penalty, new classes of individual banned from possessing firearms, and a variety of new and federal offenses, in areas such as immigration law, hate crimes, sex offenses, and gang-related crime." Caps for newly are mine.

Or from, the actual wording of the bill:

Google the the name of the bill, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and go to the third entry. The url is too long to paste.

" SEC. 110103. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
(a) PROHIBITION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as
amended by section 110102(a), is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
`(w)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful
for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition
feeding device.
`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer
of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully
possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection."

The second paragraph is the key. I have read that such magazines were produced in such volume before the Bill's enactment that they were readily available throughout the entire ban.

With two guns whose mags held a total of twenty five rounds he could reload at will and never be unarmed. It takes just a few seconds to release a mag and replace it. And unless there was someone there who was still physically able and had the training to act under such horrendous circumstances, like a combat vet, the few seconds he needed to reload two or three times less is meaningless.

Grammie

'Gunman?s Note' A Mistake

http://kilroyreport.townhall.com/g/ced9b9e8-585d-495c-bc20-46d178eea869

BLACKSBURG, Va. (KR) ? Papers mistakenly believed to be a suicide note left behind by Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech student responsible for the fourth largest incidence of mass murder in American history, have instead turned out to be a collection of political stump speeches, policy papers and other personal candidate correspondence the Democratic National Committee has confirmed.

The writings, which have been characterized as ?disturbing?, rail against ?rich kids? and denounce ?debauchery? and "deceitful charlatan(s)" have been confirmed to be excerpts from John Edwards? ?Two Americas? speech, Nancy Pelosi?s ?Culture of Corruption? Speech, and a letter to Al Sharpton from his mother, respectively.

The Edwards campaign was quick to distance itself from the Virginia Tech shooter declaring that ?we prefer to tax people to death?. Speaker Pelosi was said to be "in the shower" and unavailable for comment by a man who only wished to be identified as Bashar. Al Sharpton has called for the immediate firing of his mother.

UPDATE: In a related story, NBC claimed to have exclusive video and notes made by Cho during the killing rampage and sent to NBC by Cho. NBC News President Steve Capus described the nature of the notes as "incredibly difficult to follow" and "mostly threats and gibberish" and anchor Brian Williams called them "sick business". Those notes were later discovered to be scripts from an upcoming episode of COUNTDOWN - w/ Keith Olbermann concerning Fox News' dominance of cable news ratings. NBC has issued an explanation for the error stating "one cannot ignore the similarities between Cho's delusional rantings and the typical Olbermann commentary".

Cho, a 23 year old English major at the university, is believed to have first shot two people in a student housing area on campus before moving to a classroom in Norris Hall and opening fire on students and teachers there. The attack left 32 victims dead. Cho was also found dead of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.

The shootings make the Blacksburg tragedy the fourth largest case of mass murder in the nation?s history. In the largest, the September 11, 2001 attacks left 2,973 dead and 24 missing. The 19 hijackers responsible died in the attacks. The second largest attack was the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal Building by Timothy McVeigh on April 19, 1995 claiming 168 victims. McVeigh was convicted in federal court and subsequently executed for the attack. In the third largest attack 79 people, including 21 children, died in Waco, Texas at the hands of then Attorney General, Janet Reno. Reno?s current whereabouts are unknown.

Kilroy, that was deliciously brutal.

Remind me to always be the sweet, frail, gray haired Grammie that I am to you. :)

Grammie

anonyloons posting Seattle Times crap, they're not too far off the chart left willing to twist and spin to put the gun in Bush's hand.

"Kilroy, that was deliciously brutal."

Bah, it boring drivel from a registered sex offender.

Major, where is that famous and much heralded liberal sense of humor that I have heard about so often. I've been told many times that conservatives are incapable of good humor and laughter. Of course, this might lean towards a sharp wit than a jest.

Or is your objection that the butt of the joke is someone else's ox, perhaps your own. :)

Grammie

I, for one have a different INTERPRETION of his VT comments. Your implication is that he 'blamed' Bush...absolutely untrue! He IMPLIED that the tragedy MIGHT possibly have been a little less severe if "Bush AND Congress" had not allowed the statute to expire. It was simply a question intended to induce thought among his listening audience...nothing wrong with that.

This is very different than claiming or implying that he literally blamed Bush on the entire thing, which he emphatically did not.

You know I'm right!

Posted by: Mike at April 20, 2007 1:56 PM

We're basically arguing the same thing, Mike. Only in your world it's fine to imply that the president and GOP congress is reponsible for the killings to whatever extent the glock magazine enabled Cho to gun down more people, when I find that utterly repugnant.

"Incidentially"....it's also factually untrue!

Olbermann's implication is not only more direct, it's far more serious. That this, contrasted with your fear that someone might get the impression that Olbermann actually stated certain words, pales in comparision.

It's quite astounding that implications that might give a false impression to anyone who didn't actually watch the clip.... are terrible....whereas as Olbemann's direct implication, broadcasted on tv, unelaborated upon, and uncorrected, is not of any particular concern to you or even of EQUAL concern to you.

No, I take that back. It's not astounding. It's par for the course. You routinely simultaneously make conflicting arguments and fail to make ANY commonsensical distinctions when it comes to the guy you never defend....

When you're not doing that, you're refusing to back up your argument at all, upon the claim that it's unreasonable to demand that you do.

Hey gummie!

I don't think being conservative makes you unfunny. In fact I think Dennis Miller is very funny and southpark in it's own snarky libertarian way is cute... Now the 1/2 news hour is so bad it is worthy of study, but that is another matter that I won't just pin on being conservative.

Now on to the writing of a registred sex offender:

It seems to me the joke in his writing is that the rampage of a man killing over 30 innocent College kids is basically equal to the rhetoric of leftist, particualry Olbermann but certainly including Edwards, Sharpton, and Pelosi.

Now I admit that's a cute and very clever use of hyborle. In fact i'm inspired to try my own hand it.

In watching the history channel I thought I was watching a documentary on Hitler but it turns out that it was a speech by.... George Bush.

Or here is a zinger, How do you know Dick Cheney is lying.... Wait for it.... His lips are moving!

Thank you, I'll be here all week.

Oh to answer your question. i don't care whose ox isin the fire I care if it is artfuly roasted.

To prove my intergirty on the matter I'll include some leftist jokes that are actually funny.

They say now that Clinton is stealing the spotlight from George Bush. I'm thinking 'Well, sure. He also stole the coffee maker, the fax machine, the computer..." —David Letterman

Bill Clinton's presidential library opened yesterday and cost $7 to get in. On the bright side, every night is ladies' night." --Conan O'Brien

On Thursday down in Arkansas the Clinton Presidential Library opens. The library will have tours. There's a replica of the Oval Office to tour, and then you can visit the Hall of Alibis."

Actually Grammie, if you think it's funny, that's ok with me. I found responding with a non sequiter amusing. I zingged back if you will, much to my own amusement.

that's hyperbole by the way.

If anyone wants really funny try this!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/bluemonkey0617/2006_1/f2.jpg

No, I take that back. It's not astounding. It's par for the course. You routinely simultaneously make conflicting arguments and fail to make ANY commonsensical distinctions when it comes to the guy you never defend....

When you're not doing that, you're refusing to back up your argument at all, upon the claim that it's unreasonable to demand that you do.

Posted by: Cecelia at April 20, 2007 7:01 PM
Cecelia, lil mikey came out of the closet the other day, kind of. He went from "I DON'T defend Olbermahn" to "I only recently started defending him because I was driven to defend him by you guys!" lol

When you're not doing that, you're refusing to back up your argument at all, upon the claim that it's unreasonable to demand that you do. By Cecelia to lil mikey.

Cecelia, I have told him the same thing at least 10 times and he denies it every time. I started getting a little frothy and forgot to remark on this part, sorry.....

Major, the point of the sex offender remark was obviously too subtle for me. The butt of the joke in this case, to my mind, was the correlation of liberal rhetoric, not anything else, juxtaposed against humanity at its almost very worst.

The whole basis for humor is the dark incongruity between opposing themes. And this was dark, biting humor.

I don't think those who were intimately involved or hurt will be surfing the net and happen across it. But the darkest events can inspire any human reaction. Think back to German Death Camp and Stalinist jokes that were concurrent with the events and frequently the work of those suffering the fate that befell them.

"It seems to me the joke in his writing is that the rampage of a man killing over 30 innocent College kids is basically equal to the rhetoric of leftist, particualry Olbermann but certainly including Edwards, Sharpton, and Pelosi."

This is where we diverge. He was not, to my mind, pillorying the rampage. His target was liberal ideas.

I have never been to a wake and funeral of a loved one that laughing at, about or metaphorically with those gone didn't give me a crutch to carry on. We are not intimately, or even tangentially, involved with the victims. I consider this a difference of degree, not kind.

Grammie