Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    Philly wrote: Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. It's not shingles that makes you a ... [more](10)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

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

    In

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

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

    In

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

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

    In

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

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

    KO Mini Blog



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

    KO Countdown Clock


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

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

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

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


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

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

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

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

    ...they should be...

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

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

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

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

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

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

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

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

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

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

    Friends of OlbyWatch

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

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

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


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

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

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


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



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

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

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    April 19, 2007
    Keith Olbermann Slapped by RedEye for Blaming Bush for Virginia Tech Massacre

    Ian Schwartz and our good friends over at HotAir linked our post on Keith Olbermann blaming President Bush and the Republicans for the massacre at Virginia Tech.

    Last Night the good folks at Fox News Channel's RedEye program took Keith to task. While they credited HotAir not OlbermannWatch for the story (boo!), they repeatedly referred to Keith Olbermann as "Olby" (yea!) which is a sorta-hat tip to OW.

    Keith Olbermann scolded President Bush and the Republican Congress for allowing the assault weapons law of 1994 to expire. Olby says that so-called high-capacity clips like the ones used in the alleged shooter's Glock were banned under this law. We'll explain to Olbermann that magazine not a clip that the terms are not interchangeable as they describe completely different things. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a 9mm handgun that uses a clip. We'll also let Olby know that the 1994 law only banned the manufacturing of new high-capacity magazines not the sale or ownership of one's already made. Then we'll put it in sports terms so he can understand it: you're oh-for-two Olby. Maybe hire an ombudsman.

    Here's the video clip:

    If the YouTube clip will not play here is the QuickTime version:


    Posted by Robert Cox | Permalink | Comments (142) | | View blog reactions
    user-pic

    142 Comments

    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.

    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

    craigs-

    1.) I am not registered
    2.) Your mother wasn't offended, so how can I be an offender?

    Major, that was funny. In case you missed it, so was Sharon's link to the Geico Caveman re KO.

    Rush has some superb parodies about liberals. Yours were great too.

    Got to go now. I am having a sleepover with my littlest grandkids. Jimmy Neutron beckons.

    Grammie

    Major, I noticed right after refreshing this 'Hey gummie!'.

    That's funny. I would swear that that greeting was originally 'Hey Grammie'.

    I wouldn't expect less from Sheridan's Gramppie.

    Movie is back on.

    Grammie

    "1.) I am not registered
    2.) Your mother wasn't offended, so how can I be an offender?"

    I've been using that for months you'll have to pay me royalties. Which I'll use when your wife and I take our Hawaiian getaway.

    "Major, the point of the sex offender remark was obviously too subtle for me."

    It's just a non-sequitur. it could have just as easily been "You can't trust him, he doesn't like peanut butter"

    it wasn't meant to make sense.

    None of your posts make sense Craigs so how were we supposed to tell the difference?

    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

    Posted by: royalking at April 20, 2007 7:33 PM


    Yes, Royal, Mike is a moral colossus.

    Just ask him.

    Cecelia sez: "You routinely simultaneously make conflicting arguments and fail to make any commonsensical distinction when it comes to the guy you never defend."

    That entire statement is opinion...opinion Cecelia...only YOUR opinion! Your personal opinion! My statements seem to be 'conflicting' only in your own mind.

    In my observations about you, you seem to have difficulty separating opinion from fact, and that is MY opinion.

    Lets look a little closer at the two situations we've argued about:

    Now, Olbermann actually said "did we blink" & "Bush and Congress allowed" the controversial assault weapons statute to expire....those are established facts. You and I should fully agree about that...and if there is a discrepancy, it can easily be corrected by looking at transcripts.

    Everything beyond this point becomes OPINION or implication.

    - You can interpret what you think Keith 'meant', but that would be just your opinion.
    - I can also interpret what I think Keith 'meant', but that would only be my opinion as well.

    Neither one of us is necessarily 'wrong' or 'right'.

    Therefore, neither your interpretation or my interpretation can possibly be established fact, and therefore, it should never be portrayed as such. Only Keith himself can possibly answer what he 'meant'....or what he may have been trying to imply with either statement.

    How do you know for a fact he was trying to 'imply' anything? Maybe those words were uttered just to make people think.

    I don't have to 'defend' what either you OR I THINK Olbermann implied in order to defend his right NOT TO HAVE WORDS PLACED IN HIS MOUTH...and then carried forth as implied fact that he had actually said what you think he implied.

    That said and unlike yourself, I don't see it as diabolical at all to question whether or not an action or an inaction by the Federal Government may have had serious consequences, OR may yet have dire consequesces in the future. The QUESTION should and will be asked every time something like this occurs.

    I personally blame Bush for many things, but I certainly DON'T blame him for the VT tragedy, and I'm not convinced Olbermann does either, but I guess it's possible...you'd have to ask him to answer that question, not me. That said, he's never had a problem coming right out and saying it when he actually blames Bush for something....so why would he feel a need to tiptoe around in this case?

    Personally, as someone who does not advocate strict gun control, I cannot begin to fathom why people should be allowed to possess assault weapons, because they have one purpose, and one purpose only....to kill other humans in mass. Whether you agree or disagree about that, It IS something we should be thinking and talking about at a time when we have just witnessed what one lunatic with access to multi round weapons can do.

    "None of your posts make sense Craigs so how were we supposed to tell the difference? "

    Brandon!

    Have you been studying your school house rocks? Let me known when you get through that and I'll move you up to some second grade material.

    Cecelai: "Mike is a royal colossus" "just ask him."

    Well, that certainly isn't the case in most normal venues...but everything IS relative you know.

    "That said and unlike yourself, I don't see it as diabolical at all to question whether or not an action or an inaction by the Federal Government may have had serious consequences, OR may yet have dire consequesces in the future. The QUESTION should and will be asked every time something like this occurs. \"

    Well, in the midst of an argument where you basically try to remove two words and one sentence from their context, it's refreshing that you finally admit that Olbermann "might" have been "guestioning" the govt and holding them accountable for their actions.

    Let me point out to you that were I to engage in the sort of specious.eh,,..stuff...(for lack of a better word....) that you engage in, I'd demand that you showed me the question mark, when you claim that Olbermann was presenting a question rather than an accusation about the consequences of allowing the assault weapons ban to expire.

    ****Lest you forget in your next post-- let me state we are now operating on your argument that if Olbermann "questioned" ...such and such...there is nothing wrong with that***

    If I were to argue that you were for a policy that led to a specific consequence of the death of 32 people, I'd feel that I had better have my facts right in charging it.

    That you'd feel this was perhaps too cautious a thing, when it comes to someone not holding YOUR POSITION, doesn't surprise me.

    That you would feel that whether or not it was factually untrue, was of little consequence because the charge it might possible be true in some future sense, doesn't surprise me either....

    The fact that you'd argue that this it is even legitimate in a discussion to blame the hideous consequences from the misuse of a right, on someone who has championed that right, ......doesn't' surprise me, either.....

    That you don't see that the timing of such an assertion, mere hours after the shootings, goes beyond mere intellectual discussion of an issue, into sheer partisan demagogery of the worst sort.....doesn't surprise me.

    There's nothing you can say or do that twists youself into a pretzel, that surprises, Mike.

    But he's not an Olbermann defender Cecelia. Because he tells us he's not! Gotta love LoonLogic--or the stunning lack of logic that marks their particular form of mental illness.

    Wasn't lil mikey criticizing someone a few weeks ago about "psychoanalyzing" posts? Now he is seems to be doing it, hmm. Our daily dose of hypocrisy from you know who.

    Cecelia, it is merely your OPINION that my positions "twist youself into a pretzel", and therefore that doesn't concern me in the least. Nor does it concern me that things I say don't "surprise you".

    As the song goes...."I wouldn't wanna be like you!"

    It is a little interesting that you are SO morally outraged about the perceived implication that your precious Bush Administration's policy MIGHT have impacted the number of deaths in a tradegy in which 32 young American lives were snuffed out....when this very same administration's dishonest and totally misguided policy has DEFINITELY resulted in the snuffing out the lives of well over 3000 equally worthy young American lives (approaching or exceeding 4000 if the contracters are also counted).

    Personally, as someone who does not advocate strict gun control, I cannot begin to fathom why people should be allowed to possess assault weapons, because they have one purpose, and one purpose only....to kill other humans in mass. Whether you agree or disagree about that, It IS something we should be thinking and talking about at a time when we have just witnessed what one lunatic with access to multi round weapons can do.

    Posted by: Mike at April 20, 2007 8:42 PM
    Have you ever been to a firing range? Last time I went shooting at mine there were several people there that had "assault" weapons. This a member only range that has strict membership guide lines which means none of the members have killed anyone or have any weapons violations, period. Hate to "debunk" your little theory, I couldn't resist. As far as your "multi-round" theory, he could have done the same thing with a single shot, he had ample time. He was locked in with chains on the doors. Debunk #2. Why do you people keep blaming the guns? Unbelievable. The school is accountable and will be held accountable in the end.

    "Wasn't lil mikey criticizing someone a few weeks ago about "psychoanalyzing" posts?"

    Where did he psychoanalyze anything RK?

    His assertion is that others are interepeting keith's words.

    Cec thinks there is not much to interpret, that Keith intentions are transparent. (or it seems that is the nature of their dsipute.)

    In anycase I don't see Mike trying to figure out the motivations of either Cecelia or Keith.

    RK this is a an honest to goodness argument. You should do this more.


    Have you ever been to a firing range? Last time I went shooting at mine there were several people there that had "assault" weapons. This a member only range that has strict membership guide lines which means none of the members have killed anyone or have any weapons violations, period. Hate to "debunk" your little theory, I couldn't resist. As far as your "multi-round" theory, he could have done the same thing with a single shot, he had ample time. He was locked in with chains on the doors. Debunk #2. Why do you people keep blaming the guns? Unbelievable. The school is accountable and will be held accountable in the end.

    craigs, lil mikey's 8:42 post was an "attempt" at psychoanalyzing which he condemned some one for, either Janet or Cecelia a few weeks ago for doing. Just pointing out his hypocrisy, no big deal. I must be getting used to it.

    We witnessed a beyond hideous and incomprehensible action this past week.

    A psychotic man killed 32 people and wounded others, and the pictures and the rantings of his madness, were blasted out to everyone... hour by hour.

    That any of his rantings contain anything sounding similar to the political, religious, cultural rhetoric of the day, is no more significant than the fact that this man lived in the world and embraced whatever chatter that could best fuel his rage.

    "craigs, lil mikey's 8:42 post was an "attempt" at psychoanalyzing which he condemned some one for, either Janet or Cecelia a few weeks ago for doing. Just pointing out his hypocrisy, no big deal. I must be getting used to it."

    Rk your making the same assertion but you are not showing where. I don't see it in this post. Can you give me the offending passage?


    "Have you ever been to a firing range?"

    Um yes! Including the times I was there doing M16 trainlng as the military serviceman you claimed I never was.

    "This a member only range that has strict membership guide lines which means none of the members have killed anyone"

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the VT nut had not killed anyone before last Monday either.

    "as far as your "multi-round" theory, he could have done the same thing with a single shot, he had ample time. He was locked in with chains on the doors."

    Uh...if I'm ever locked in a room with a madman with a gun, and given a choice, I'll take my chances with the single shot weapon every time.

    "The school is accountable and will be held accountable in the end."

    Oh, I get it now...the school shot those kids!

    32 young American lives were snuffed out....when this very same administration's dishonest and totally misguided policy has DEFINITELY resulted in the snuffing out the lives of well over 3000 equally worthy young American lives (approaching or exceeding 4000 if the contracters are also counted).

    Posted by: Mike at April 20, 2007 9:38 PM


    That you don't see that war by virtue of being "war" means death and destruction and that you'd then make a comparision of it with an argument about the consequences of the misuse of what some arguably feel is a Constitutional right, doesn't surprise me either.

    Lest I only be seen presenting conservaative humour.

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/16466/1/TDS-Gonzo-Testimony.wmv/

    For a dailyshow clip

    Again Mike, since you and Olbermann don't seem to get the difference. I have two family members in Iraq currently. If they do, it will be in a war that they volunteered for. One joined well after we were already in Iraq so you can't claim he didn't know what he was getting into--he did but he wanted to serve his country. Both had the expectation when they joined the military that they might be called to serve in a war zone. War zones come with the expectation that you might die in a battle. I don't think anyone entering college, sitting in a college campus has the expectation that they are going to die there. That's the difference.

    Trust me Cecelia, I fully understand that "war by virtue of being "war' means death and destruction"...

    I understood that in early 2003 when it became obvious we we're going to do this come hell or high water. It seemed 70% of America thought we were embarking on a some kind of a remote video game. After all, we had "kicked ass' in Panama, Libya, Grenada, & Desert Storm". It was all one big party where we were gonna show the world "you can't mess with us and get away with it".

    Trust me Cecelia, I fully understand that war means destruction and death. Thats why I have been astounded by this administration's "kick ass" cowboy attitude from day one. I actually thought and hoped it all might be bluster at the time because NOBODY who actually become the president of the United States could POSSIBLY be THAT stupid.

    In the 1980's I watched a close personal friend of mine self destruct with rage and confusion after returning from a nightmarish stint as a front line medic in Vietnam. They now call it PTSD. I don't think it had a name then. In addition to his debilitating mental problems, he also suffered from Malaria. He ended up drinking himself to death to drown the pain.

    My brother in Law sits on death's door as I write this very post....this is after a long hard 20 year battle with lymphoma cancer caused directly by the Agent Orange they were spraying all around him in the jungles of Vietnam. He is now confined to a hospital bed needing constant care, and I just pray every day that my sister can continue to maintain the the strength to cope.

    Yes Cecelia, I've personally SEEN the overstretched VA system, and the way it could barely cope even BEFORE they made this fateful decision. No thought seems to have ever been given to the multitude of new former GI's with special needs that we will ned to care for for the duration of their lives, however long that might be.

    Yes Cecelia, I fully understand that war means death and destruction. I come from a family of proud veterans, and my father was a veteran of three wars, including the big one.

    I only regret Cecelia, that President Bush had understood all these things before he decided to play cowboy with the lives of others, and the future of America.

    Fighting and unnecessary war is not a game....we found that out in Vietnam...and now we've done it again in Iraq!

    I'm sure that the family and friends of those who died in Virginia this week will feel *so* much better knowing that the number of killed in one day in a two-hour time span on the campus of an American University matches that of a 10-day time span in Iraq.

    I'm sure that the family and friends of those who died in Virginia this week will feel *so* much better knowing that the number of killed in one day in a two-hour time span on the campus of an American University matches that of a 10-day time span in Iraq.

    "Wasn't lil mikey criticizing someone a few weeks ago about "psychoanalyzing" posts? Now he is seems to be doing it, hmm. Our daily dose of hypocrisy from you know who.
    Posted by: royalking at April 20, 2007 9:30 PM "

    RK, that would be me.

    I, however, resisted being backed into a corner and expressing any opinion.

    Some people are just so sensitive and take everything so personally. :)

    Grammie


    Grammie

    "war zones come with the`expectation that you might die in battle"...

    They also come with an expectation that their fate would be in the hands of someone at least as mature, competant, and responsible as themselves.

    It's always been amazing to me that we the people would accept a Commander in Chief who's professionalism and competence level is so far inferior to the very troops he is priviledged to command.

    It's always been amazing to me that we the people would accept a Commander in Chief who's professionalism and competence level is so far inferior to the very troops he is priviledged to command.


    Posted by: Mike at April 20, 2007 11:36 PM
    Wrong as it is, it's your opinion, only. Why aren't the troops saying the same thing? People that aren't over there cry "incompetence" bla, bla, bla. Yet, I don't hear the people that are over there saying that, in fact, just the opposite. Kinda makes a guy wonder.


    lil mikey wins the "best spin" award for the evening. First, I debunk your "assault weapons are for one thing, killing in mass" theory by proving that all people that own them don't kill people with them, you know, target shooting. You spin it by saying "he didn't kill anybody before last monday." Which, I hate to say, is right,but, I guess you missed the whole point I was making, again. I'll repeat it, assault weapons are not made for one thing! Next, you come back with your "if I had a choice" crap. Where did that come from? I don't think the prozac killer asked his victims which gun they wanted to be shot with. Again, the point I was making blazed right by you. Or, maybe you got it, but, just wanted to put a little spin on it, denial, I guess. Then, you put words in my mouth, something you are very good at. Law school, day 2, when you are on a school campus, the school is responsible for your safety at all times. I never said the school shot the students, obviously. Only a total buffoon would say that.....

    That's what I expect from you, nothing.

    Nothing begats nothing...LOL

    Olbermann's a dumb ass.

    Nothing begats nothing...LOL

    Posted by: Mike at April 21, 2007 1:21 AM
    Debunked in the worst way! Crickets.....

    Yes Cecelia, I fully understand that war means death and destruction. I come from a family of proud veterans, and my father was a veteran of three wars, including the big one.

    Posted by: Mike at April 20, 2007 10:44 PM

    Well, great, Mr. DeNiro Then quit making dumb comparisions between the realities of war and the aftermath of a crime.

    Cecelia: Wow, your ability to miss the entire point is amazing. But I think you did that intentionally to avoid confronting it head on. Better you had said nothing.

    Good for you Cecelia. I guess that makes it so much easier for you to defend the honor of the very person who dishonorably created all those 'realities' of this unnecesary war.

    Your ability to flippantly dismiss the human suffering of this war as simply the "realities of war" says volumes about you.

    Like the song says....I wouldn't wanna be like you!

    Rule #1 concerning debate: If you have to keep telling someone when they've been 'debunked', they haven't been debunked.

    Your ability to flippantly dismiss the human suffering of this war as simply the "realities of war" says volumes about you.

    Like the song says....I wouldn't wanna be like you!

    Posted by: Mike at April 21, 2007 3:49 AM


    What would you call your ability to work the war into a discussion on Cho and how Olbermann wrongly implicated the Administration and Congress in the massacre. That's the essence of treating the war flippantly.

    I had thought false accusations were something you were particularly sensitive to.... but no, you launch into a screed that is really a justification of Olbermann's false accusation based on your feelings about how the Bushies should be treated because they need to answer for the "bad policy" of the war...

    Just one more time you fail to amaze...

    Like the song says....I wouldn't wanna be like you!

    Posted by: Mike at April 21, 2007 3:49 AM

    Hell, no you wouldn't. If you were someone else you wouldn't want to write sanctimonious posts saying "I CARE!" and chiding others about "fundamental honesty".

    I wouldn't want you to be me, either, anymore than I'd want to put on wet wool.

    Cecelia:

    Olbermann made a VALID and what should have ben a thought provoking point when he made the 'comparison', but you Olbermann haters on this site continue to find diabolical motives for everything he does and wonder why sane people reject your irrationality.

    The VT shootings were indeed tragic and unprecidented, making it as newsworthy as it was treated by everyone, including Olbermann. He treated the event repectfully and with due reverance, as I would have hoped.

    Ah yes...the 'point'? WE ARE guilty of pretending the war and the resulting human suffering is not about us. The suffering and grief has been relegated to the background as a matter of policy. We're not SUPPOSED to see the suffering anf the grief it has caused. We are officually shielded from seeing the flag draped coffins coming home. This was by official design. Keep it all at a distance because Americans just can't handle the truth. Keep it all at arms length and mostly numbers.

    He was RIGHT to point out the descrepancy. We should be treating every soldiers death or injury as the tragedy it is. We SHOULD be made to feel the pain collectively. Instead, we've been told to keep shopping.

    The correct time to bring to emphasize a painful truth like this is exactly now....when it can be done by contrast when something really terrible happens closer to home like this.

    Only the really cynical Olbermann haters on this site and the very Neocons who want to continue to keep it all at arms length wouldn't appreciate this.

    Regardless of where you stand on the issue of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, here's a sobering statistic.

    There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of
    2,867 deaths.

    That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
    The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period.

    That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.

    Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.

    Mike,

    I have no issue with Olbermann's show, the day after the shootings, where he used the tragedy to make draw attention to the deaths of young soldiers being killed in Iraq.

    Yeah, it was a cheap and easy way to make an anti-war point and that there is a fine line between intense and true concern about the suffering there and in using that suffering as a mantra in order to drown out all contradiction, is a distinction lost on those who do it.

    But again, that's his opinion, there were no factual errors, and it was at least the day after the Va Tech masssacre.

    The subject at hand has been about Olbermann's implication that the Bush Administration was responsible for a greater number of deaths in Va that might have occured had the Assault Weapons ban been in place.

    That Olbermann aired the implication so quickly and without time to validate it, is very much in keeping with the views that you have articulated here. That is that the Bushies have a war policy in place that has dreadful consequences and that it is not so important that the VaTech charge be true, as much as it serves to illustrate a greater truth-- the deadily consequences from poor policy decisions--- IRAQ...

    Well, you can take that mode of thinking and put it where the sun never shines-- your psyche. You can have your hand-wringing and your appeals to experience and your making of war dead poster children to your declaration "I CARE!".

    If you really cared about truth, you'd be able to make some very basic distinctions. And if you really cared about doing any good about ending the war, you'd wouldn't be spending so much time on a Keith Olbermann site --you'd at least take your speeches to a war blog.

    That you enjoy your emotional odes to yourself there is no doubt. But this is about Olbermann and a show that tickles your ears and confirms you self-importance. It's about fielding complaints from folks who aren't getting their ears tickled. So let's be very clear about that.

    Let's completely can all pretentions about your being REALLY concerned about anything else PERIOD.

    Rule #1 concerning debate: If you have to keep telling someone when they've been 'debunked', they haven't been debunked.

    Posted by: Mike at April 21, 2007 4:10 AM
    I was stating the obvious, you were clearly debunked. You ran out of ways to spin your convoluted opinions.

    That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
    The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period.

    That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.

    Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.


    Posted by: kilroy at April 21, 2007 8:47 AM
    The anti-war/pro terrorist pundits don't want to hear stats like this. "The war is lost" says Dingy Harry. A very informative post, kilroy.

    "You were clearly debunked": ......LOL!

    Kilroy, how many IEDs do the statistics say have gone off in Washington DC in the last 22 months? How many suicide bombers have there been?

    Kilroy, as a follow up, I think you owe us a source for your 'statistics you quoted at 8:47....(and Jeff just swallowed it all without even questioning it....like a happy little canary).

    I just did a little bit of googling, and it appears that this information is WAAAAYYYY misleading, if not an outright lie. For example, if you compare the annual murder rate in DC to the death rate of troops in Iraq, you come up with figures closer to 44 per 100K in DC & 734 per 100K in DC (NOW you're comparing apples to apples).

    It turns out it is very difficult to actually compare apples to apples when it comes to the two places, it is pretty clear that they firearm death rate of US troops in Iraq is many times less than IED and other bomb related deaths. Of course the severe injury and mutilation rate is many, many times higher for troops in Iraq as well.

    The closest thing I could determine about the origins of Killroy's silly 'statistics' was that they came from a "pull out of DC email" that had been circulating.

    Someone else who has a little more time than I have today might be able to nail this thing down in much more detail.

    That said, I wouldn't necessariy be against pulling out of DC either....:)

    My second line should have read 734 troop deaths per 100K in IRAQ, not DC.

    Iraq is a war-zone. Washington D.C. presumably is not. It's an apple to oranges comparison. Troops die in battles. Citizens of the United States shouldn't have to worry about dying in the course of their daily lives in the capitol of the Free World.

    It's very obvious why all you can respond with is "lol." Because you can't prove me wrong, plain and simple. Run along with your tail between your legs lil mikey.

    lil mikey, what part of "firearm death rate" do you not understand? The stats that Kilroy posted don't include ied's or "mutilations" as you like to call them. Yet, you have the stupidity to call it an "outright lie," which it isn't. Again, calling someone a liar with not a shred of evidence!

    But Mikey claims he's opposed to name-calling.

    lil mikey says, "only when they call me names first, whaaa, whaa, whaa!" Our SECOND dose of daily hypocrisy from lil mikey. I don't beleive Kilroy has called him a single name. My earlier prediction was right. Will there be a THIRD dose of hypocrisy from our favorite olbyloon? Stay tuned......

    "I don't beleive Kilroy has called him a single name".....

    And your point is??

    Point is you're a freakin' hypocrite/blowhard, but, I'm not telling you anything you or anyone else didn't already know.

    "this information is WAAAAYYYY misleading, if not an outright lie"...

    Oh, I finally get it now...this is Jeff's and Brandon's definition of me calling someone a liar. The cranial density of you two is utterly mind boggling!

    Lets see now, for the reading impaired...I was questioning the validity of the INFORMATION Kilroy posted, NOT the honesty of Kilroy himself who apparently just passed on something he had seen...by posting it on OW. In case you missed it, I also mentioned the apparent source of those 'statistics'.

    You two could easily be the poster boys for why the right wing has picked up that stereotypical image of being DUUUMMMBBB!....I know, most right wingers are not really as dumb as you!

    Olbermman is such an IDIOT and Mike a bigger one for over-analysing. Even if Cho had 9 rounds available instead of 12, he would have needed to carry 5 more clips of ammunition to fire off the purported 170 shoots total announced in the media. 14 or 19 clips would not have made a big difference to the shooter. Maybe to carry less he would have opted to get an AK-47 on the black market and make the shooting go much faster.

    Anyone bringing up the blame based on a law that did not even affect the scenarion is an IDIOT. Maybe not an IDIOT, but definitely out with an agenda.

    First Juan Gamboa calls me an 'IDIOT', but then "maybe not an IDIOT, just out with the agenda". Make up your mind, Juan!

    My point was a simple one...and was never an attempt to analyze what Cho could or could not have done with fewer rounds per clip. I simply pointed out that there was no foul that a news commentator, made a TRUTHFUL notation that a POSSIBLY relevant assault weapons statute had recently been allowed to expire...and I stand by that (1 week later, I might add). Call me what you will.

    As I have already noted on this board, I am actually pretty neutral about gun control myself, but we do should and will continue to 'over-analyze' the facts whenever something tragic like this occurs.

    First Juan Gamboa calls me an 'IDIOT', but then "maybe not an IDIOT, just out with the agenda". Make up your mind, Juan!

    My point was a simple one...and was never an attempt to analyze what Cho could or could not have done with fewer rounds per clip. I simply pointed out that there was no foul that a news commentator, made a TRUTHFUL notation that a POSSIBLY relevant assault weapons statute had recently been allowed to expire...and I stand by that (1 week later, I might add). Call me what you will.

    Posted by: Mike at April 25, 2007 6:21 PM

    When making up your mind Juan, I suggest that you decide that Mike is BOTH an idiot and an agenda driven opportunist.

    Here you go again Mike arguing that Olbermann's statements should just hang in the air with no relevant context around them whatsoever.


    Cecelia: "here you go again Mike"

    Yep, there I go again...speaking truth to power...er, "agenda driven" Olbyhaters.

    Mike speak truth? That would be a first.

    "truth to power", coming from a liar and the biggest hypocrite on OW, how ironic.........Incidentally, you are either for gun control or against it, there is no "neutral." A little info for ya.

    Yep, there I go again...speaking truth to power...er, "agenda driven" Olbyhaters.

    Posted by: Mike at April 25, 2007 8:01 PM


    Just call you the Rubber Band Man.

    watch fox news and have an elephant sh-t on your head.

    Thanks lil mickey!