Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

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

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

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

    In

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

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

    In

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

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

    In

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

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

    KO Mini Blog



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

    KO Countdown Clock


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

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

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

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


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

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

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

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

    ...they should be...

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

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

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

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

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

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

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

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

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

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

    Friends of OlbyWatch

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

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

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


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

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

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


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



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

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

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    April 19, 2007
    Random Thoughts

    I've been sadly lax in my Keith-watching routine the past few days. We were on the road last weekend and our son's wedding is this coming weekend. With relatives coming into town, we've been a bit more focused on cleaning and organizing, than on watching television. So, in advance of the Big Day, some random thoughts on All-Things-Keith.

    First, allow me to thank all of you who jumped into the comments on my last post about whether Keith is a "journalist". I'm amazed at the venom that flows from some of you! You're just downright cantankerous ! But, all debate is good debate. So, keep 'em comin'. And, keep things somewhat civil, if you will.

    Now, I understand The Big "O" is set to slide from "News Journalist" over to "Sports Journalist". Again. More power to him. If they guy doesn't need to sleep, so be it! NBC's "Football Night in America" will be better because of Keith. He knows his sports. He's learned how to "push the envelope" and I predict he has the green light to be outspoken. You won't see any Don Imus moments, but you will see something fun. Heck, it's Sunday night and you need a break. However, I know most of you folks won't be able to stomach another hour of KO, so I'll be watching for you! I'm betting we don't have a whole lot of football fanatics among the rabid anti-Olbermann faction around here, do we?

    Here's the basic question for you: What the heck difference does it make if Olbermann sits with a couple of other sports nuts on Sunday night and talks about football? I sense that some of you are just downright frightened that Keith is getting so much exposure. There is, after all, a philosophy that says exposure in broadcasting breeds popularity and that could translate into ratings. Why do you think O'Reilly does both radio and TV? Why does Hannity do both? For the same reason Keith still does the radio gig. There are people who listen to that, who might grow to appreciate Keith and end up watching the TV show. Football offers the same potential, multiplied.

    True, he may have an ego. That may be part of it. But, I'm betting the exposure is the main reason. His bosses realized that and asked him to do it. Keith is smart enough to know an opportunity when he sees it.

    And, in case you believe otherwise, allow me to say that sports and news are not mutually exclusive. Neither are television and radio. I've been guilty of going for the cross-platform "exposure" myself. When I was doing TV News, I jumped at every chance I had to do talk radio. At one point, I was anchoring the 6 & 10 pm newscasts on TV and running into do morning drive for a local radio talk station at 6 in the morning. Burning the proverbial "candle at both ends", that's true. But it was good for both positions. And, I discovered that I could touch topics via the radio gig that would have been risky on TV and I could let my personal opinions enter into the conversations, without jeopardizing the TV reputation. I'd do it, again, in a heartbeat. And, yes, that is a bit of ego talking! In fact, my wife will tell you that I was as excited as a 14 year old going on a first date when I was invited as a guest on a weekend talk show on Sirius Satellite Radio not long ago. Yes, it's ego. And feeling I have something to contribute.

    Some latitude , if you will, for Mr. Olbermann. The iron is hot. It's time for him to strike.

    Oh, since I'll be pretty much out of pocket for a few days, here's something else to feed the fires: For all of you who find your collective heads exploding because Keith slants his presentation on Countdown, consider the following as my "proof" that Fox does the same. Just a bit more obnoxiously.

    The Fox News Vonnegut Obituary

    You're welcome to watch the piece here. And, yes, it IS just as bad as they say. "Fair and balanced" Pfffft.


    Posted by Doug Krile | Permalink | Comments (100) | | View blog reactions

    100 Comments

    I have no problem with him being on the football show (I think it's a stupid move on NBC's part, but I don't blame Olby for jumping on it).

    Regarding your reference to Rosen... that was over the line, but last time I looked Rosen didn't have a nightly platform to spew his venom.

    Come on dude, even you had to cringe a little when Olby basically blamed Bush for the Va Tech shootings.

    And, when, on EVERY FREAKIN DAY, you're able to post examples of Fox's slanted untrue one-slided reportage (like this site does with Olbermoron) then we'll talk.

    I actually think it will be fascinating to see if Keith can maintain his composure, as far as not injecting politics into sports, if you do have a monster 2007 season by Reggie Bush, or conversely, if Bush were to have a three-fumble game or drop a pass in a critical situation.

    It will also be fun to see how well the egos mesh on the NBC set. You've already got Costas, and Chris Collingsworth also is not shy about either his opinions or his desire for air time. Even in widscreen HD 1080i, there may not be enough room on the screen for all three of them, and then it will be fun to see if anyone on the FNiA set tries to tweak Olbermann into expressing a political opinion, the way Dan Patrick does on his ESPN show with Keith.

    Of course, Dan has the advantage of being on a more low-profile medium with ESPN Radio, as well as on a competing company from NBC-Universal, so highlighting Olbermann's more ... eh ... verbose opinions in a joking way wouldn't bother the folks at ABC-Disney much. To have Keith's political side come out on a show that could create problems for NBC on two different networks might be a place they'd rather not go. So I would guess not only has Keith been told to keep his politics off the set, the others no doubt will be told not to try and goad him into expressing those opinions, less they create a Rush Limbaugh-Donovan McNabb situation for NBC.

    Why was this Keith Lover allowed to post on this site? First all conservatives love football moron. We don't like it when some wimpy left wing propaganda artist destroying the highlights with his "social commentary". I will watch the football games but when Keith is on, my TV will be tuned somewhere else.
    As for fox, they give fair coverage on every news item. Like it or not Kurt Vonnegut was a socialist/communist who hated this country. Reporting his useless opinions is a clear representation of the man. He was one of the many useful idiots of the left. The world is a better place without him.

    John,

    May I introduce you to the factor. besides being a strong advocate of free speach and outstanding literature. He is well informed opinionated news junkie who cross checks all the information he recivces, regardless of the cable news outlet he recieves it from.

    Although a football fan, on any given sunday you will find him curled up with the latest noble prize winning piece of literature and nt simply living his life around the happenings with the pigskin.

    He is one of Olbermann watches finest and most insightful commentators and can be counted on the never hold an opinion in the face of the contradictory facts. So here he is,

    the factor.


    Why was this Keith Lover allowed to post on this site? First all conservatives love football moron. We don't like it when some wimpy left wing propaganda artist destroying the highlights with his "social commentary". I will watch the football games but when Keith is on, my TV will be tuned somewhere else.
    As for fox, they give fair coverage on every news item. Like it or not Kurt Vonnegut was a socialist/communist who hated this country. Reporting his useless opinions is a clear representation of the man. He was one of the many useful idiots of the left. The world is a better place without him.

    I don't normally cruise forums like this (I found a link to it National Review's website) and I hate trolls but many of the responses to my comment deserve to be commented on. When I first posted I didn't realise I could curse on these posts. Cuss like a Sailor? You're damn right! Sorry if I sound a little arrogant when I write but we tend to be that way around civilians who don't have a clue about this war or the military in general.

    First, thanks to those who defended me. Yes, I absolutely did serve in Iraq. I am a Petty Officer First Class in the US Navy. I was what is known as an individual augmentee, an IA. The reason the Navy is sending IAs over there is because the Army can't recruit enough people to fill their ranks. Why? Because the people don't support the war. I was part of a Counter IED Task Force with the mission of suppressing the IED threat. Most of what I did is classified so the most I can say is we were very successful. Yes, people still die because of IEDs but the death rate is down. So tell me guys, what have YOU done to save the lives of Soldiers? You see where the arrogance comes from? An Army officer I met over there has a saying; America's not at war, America is at the mall. The Army is at war. I was with an Army Scout unit in Ramadi (if you don't know where Ramadi is, if it takes you more than 20 seconds to find it on a map of Iraq, raise your hand. Now, you guys can keep your mouths shut for the rest of the war. The same goes for those of you who can't explain the difference between Shia and Sunni.)

    "No John is a liar because he uses the same left wing talking points that Olbermann uses and no one in the military would ever watch Olbermann. You are a fool for believing some left wing coward was in the military. Keep praying for diplomacy with terrorists and I will watch you go over the cliff with the rest of the cowards."


    Posted by: The Factor at April 18, 2007 6:07 PM

    f--- you Factor. I use the talking points because THEY ARE TRUE. Don't try to Swiftboat me you jackass. How many combat missions does your pussy ass have? I have 47. Again, f--- you Factor. I've pulled the bodies of better men than you out of blown-apart HUMVEES. I've *shot* better men than you! At least they were willing to lay their lives on the line for what they believe in and I can respect that. You f---ers who cheerlead this war but wouldn't be caught dead in uniform (Get it? Caught dead? Hilarious isn't it?) can kiss my Navy ass. I'll expect an apology, you pussy! YOU DON'T GET TO QUESTION MY BRAVERY, CIVILIAN! But put your f---ing pom-poms down before you do apologise. I can guarantee that if we were face to face you wouldn't dare question my bravery. I'd break your pussy ass in half. If any of you think for a moment that the military is a bunch of right wing robots that live to watch Oreilly and Fox, then you don't have a clue. We would watch Countdown *everyday* at 0400 on AFN (Armed Forces Network) and The Daily Show and The Colbert Report at noon. We had a few people who were fans of ORielly but most of us couldn't stand him. Why? Because the rosy picture Fox would paint about how wonderful the war was going didn't match what we saw when we went outside the wire. They weren't realistic. Even the conservatives among our troop enjoyed Countdown, Daily, and Colbert. Yes, there are a lot of liberals in the military. AFN has a news channel that cycles through CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc. and when Fox comes on, the channel would normally get changed. Even the conservatives couldn't stomach it. At least, the conservatives who had been outside the wire. The clueless FOBbits (our term of derision for the troops who never left the base) still enjoyed FOX. Oh and by the way, have you ever seen FOX News outside the US? They lose a whole lot of their patriotism and don't wave the flag in their graphics. Sounds like a bunch of commercial sunshine patriots to me.

    "Gosh the veterans are just flittering in and out today. I can hardly get my hand back down from saluting one before that one is gone and another one walks in!

    Posted by: VOK at April 18, 2007 6:13 PM"

    f--- you too, VOK. Keep your pussy-assed civilian hand in your goddammed pocket and slink away with your tail between your legs like a good little civilian. Why don't you just go to the f---ing mall? I'm sure we couldn't count on finding you in an Army recruiter's office signing up to fight in this war you're so fond of? Didn't think so. The Army is now taking 42 year olds so age isn't an excuse. Don't have a high school diploma? The Army now waives it. Got a crimminal record? The Army will waive that too. Why? Because nobody want's to fight in a war that is destined for failure. And if you're older than 42, have you talked any younger Americans into joining the Army to fight this war you so believe in? Would you send you're kids? Didn't think so. a--hole.

    "Comprehending' the mission is not part of the soldier's mission, but it..."

    Royalking, you're wrong about that. A Soldier does need to comprehend a mission. In fact, the justifications and spin for this war have been so screwed up and convoluted that our First Sergeant had to have a Troop meeting with the Soldiers to *explain* the mission to them. If a Soldier sees his comrades dying and they don't understand the reason, how long do you think morale will stay high? Not very long.

    I can make the following statements because I've EARNED the right to do so.
    -If you support this war and aren't willing to join the military to help with the fight, you're a hypocritical pussy.
    -If you support this war but wouldn't want your kids to join the military, you're a hypocritical pussy.
    -If you support this war and you call people who criticise the war traitors, then you're a sunshine patriot hiding behind the flag.
    -If you support this war but haven't educated yourself about the country and the real picture on the ground then you're an ignorant sunshine patriot.
    -If you criticize the people who show the ugly side of war (for example, CNN's coverage of the hospital in Baghdad that was graphic) then you're a sunshine patriot trying to hide the truth from the rest of the people. We saw that CNN report over there and it brought tears to our eyes and we applauded them for showing the Americans At The Mall what they're really cheerleading for.

    In closing, I don't have time to sift through all of these posts to see what someone might have said in response to me. I'll check for the next day or so but after that I probably won't be back. I don't have time for this. I have though set up an email address for this topic that anyone can e-mail me at if you want to ask me anything or, maybe, apologise (yeah, that means you VOK and Factor) but you'd be more of a man if you did so publicly. The address is johnolbyfan@gmail.com.

    John
    The Angry Vet

    Same liberal talking points by good old John. If you aren't in the Military then you can't support the War effort. If you are not in the Military then you need to march with Cindy and the gang. This time he even tries to convince you he is a conservative by saying he was at National Review online. John forgets that last time he called a Gulf War One vet a coward. Your friends on the left are losing this war for a very simple reason that even you can understand. They want to humiliate republicans, period. They want to take back foreign policy. They want the UN deciding where United States troops go. Do us all a favor and don't check back here again. Go to Daily Kos or Huffington where you belong. I am sure you will get a lot of high fives.

    Factor,

    You girls have been losing the war all along. Blaming democrats for it is whining of the highest degree. Republicans should concentrate on growing a spine and admitting that they have no idea how to run a country...not pretend that the obvious isn't happening...

    John,

    If your goal is to vent your spleen, you did a fine job. If your goal was to try to persuade others of how superior Olbermann is to O'Reilly or any other Fox show, you failed miserably. While your service to this country is admirable, it doesn't make you exempt from having your asserions challenegd on the war or anything else. Your rant seems to suggest that your status as as a veteran gives you the right to demand that no one challenge you. This is, of course, is what many liberals were saying about Cindy Sheehan-- the fact that she had a son killed in the war gave her special status not to be challeneged. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Here's a question for you, John. Do you think Olbermann should permit others with viewpoints different from his on Meltdown or do you prefer that Olbermann stick with the format he currently has, in which Olbermann's "factual" assertions on the war are never challenged or open to scrutiny?

    "I can make the following statements because I've EARNED the right to do so..."

    Memo to Mr. John "The Angry Vet":

    Umm, by being citizens of this country we've all earned the right to make whatever statements on the war we want.

    One quick debating tip... name calling doesn't really enhance any of your arguments.

    The Factor is funny 'cause she thinks that she can call a combat veteran "coward" then pretend it never happened. She's lucky they don't draft women.

    I watch the NFL, but the tv coverage has become less and less about the game;
    they don't need more friggin' talking heads to offer their opinions. Just shut up, and show the game.

    As far as the V. piece, what's the b f d?
    V. was a pissy leftist.

    pissed off vet's posts tell me he abused a lot of drugs in his time. He is a lot like the "pissed off vet" at the puffington post. He is a stark raving lunatic, luckily he resides in Europe.

    Bob, how did you ever convince this brilliant and insightful individual to come here and give us the benefit of his wisdom and experience in the field of journalism?

    Doug agrees that Olbermann slants his show, but says ---pfffftttt--- Fox does too! Therefore, why should Olbermann allow rebuttal to the claims and accusations he makes on air!

    Since Fox News seems to be default mode for any criticism against Olbermann with so many keen and logical minds occupied with fielding criticism of Countdown, the fact that Fox News shows do allow opposition arguments, is again....pfffffttt. Fox is to be used solely as an example of what Olbermann need not do!

    It takes years of intellectual and personal training in the field of journalism to hone this sort of analytical ability, as we have seen here at OW. No novice here could have offered insight like that!

    I'm impressed too, by his thoughts about some of the issues the football fans have raised about Olbermann's expertise in that arena. That this is a great opportunity for Keith and that he's going for it, is certainly the sort nuanced perspective they'll be chewing on for a long time.

    Bob, please convey my thanks to Bill O'Reilly, Rupert Murdoch, the Bush Administration, and the Trilateral Commission. Mr Krile is certainly worth the amount they tender in compensation for his time and effort here.

    However, I do offer one suggestion, Bob. As brilliant as Krile is, every person has their strong and weak points. In the long run, it might be more timely to allow VOK or Craigs to give the professional journalist view here at OW.

    Although to my knowledge, neither man is a professional journalist, they are able to offer up just the same amount of insight as Krile. And, they're much better writers.

    So I guess John McCain can't support the war since he is not serving currently? He has not given enough for his country right? Just because his son is in the military doesn't mean he can support the war effort right?

    Real journalists don't let their biases show on air. Olbermann does. Time and time again, and then has the audacity to label his show as "news", not rightly as opinion. Doug here can say what he wants to about Fox but the news shows on Fox are news shows and the opinion shows are clearly labeled as such.

    I think we have to credit Bob Cox with his brilliant ploy of featuring a journalist who exemplifies every conservative stereotype of the profession.

    Very sneaky, Bob.

    I'm not trying to win debates here. I get too angry to win debates. However, if you need an insurgent shot or an IED defeated, call me, I'm your man. Yes, that was more than a little sarcastic. Does anyone really think that anyone on this list, especially the radical types, can be convinced of anything that doesn't conform to their views? Yeah, I do get a bit angry sometimes when I talk about this war. You might be angry too if you saw four of your friends killed in this war for no good reason. If you had dealt with Iraqi soldiers and police forces who by day wear a uniform and by night plant IEDs or who were cowards and would refuse to go on patrol. We can't win this war if the Iraqis won't stand up and fight! What's so hard to understand about this? Yes, you do have a right to cheerlead for the war but if you do that under obviously false (at least to someone who has been there and seen it without a hundred soldiers and gunships protecting him like McCain did) pretenses, do you have any credibility? No, not at all. You see, to you civilians, this is just a spectacle on the news and something to argue about on blogs. Unless you've been there or have a friend or family member over there, you don't have any stakes in the outcome of this war. And if you refuse to educate yourself on what's really going on over there, well, you're doing nobody but the pundits any good. Yeah, you might get browny points among your like-minded buddies but you're doing nothing meaningful.

    One of the big issues that the military has with civilians in this war is their lack of commitment. AFN doesn't show commercials, they show PSAs and such during the commercial breaks. Many of those PSAs are what they call video postcards of random Americans wishing us well "over there". It's great that Americans believe in us but what would upset us is the people who would say they support the war. Our response was, "Then get your ass to a recruiter." Talk is cheap and Americans talk a lot. I'm not trying to be combative here but I would honestly like to know why you guys and girls who support Bush and this war aren't willing to serve? Are you scared? Is your paycheck too big to sacrifice in this war? Pat Tillman walked the patriot's walk when he gave up his luxurious life to serve his country. He gave up millions, what are you willing to give up? John McCain walked the walk and gave up several years of his life in a Vietnam prison. Are you not willing to die serving in the military? Are you scared of orphaning your children? Guess what? Over three thousand Americans have died in this big mistake of a war. Is that why you don't serve something that is bigger than you are? Are you scared to die for what you believe in? Or do you just not believe in it to the degree you claim? "It's ok for them to die but not me." I mean honestly and without any anger, why don't you serve? The Army can really use you right about now. I'm not saying you can't be a cheerleader of the war (ok, actually I did say something along those lines, I was wrong. Imagine that, someone in this forum admitting they were wrong). What I'm saying is if you believe in this war so much, support it with more than just talk. Get your butt into a uniform. Your support and praise falls flat on the ears of those who actually do serve.

    John

    Oh, and Factor, by saying I was on the NRO website in no way implies I was saying I'm a conservative. I simply visited their website. I normally don't do political websites, just thought I would look at this one when I came across the link and after I get back to work (I'm sick and stayed home today) I probably won't come back. And royalking, f--- you, I've never done drugs in my life. What's your excuse? There I go again, name calling and failing to win a debate. Darn.

    John

    Thank you for your service, John.

    I do not expect monolithic opinion among members of the military, anymore than I expect it from civilians.

    I'm sure you agreed.

    Thanks, again. And thanks to you too, CDR Brian.

    John quit blubbering on this site and go to the Huffinton post. Quit acting like you speak for the entire military when you speak for no one but yourself. How exactly does you buddies Olbermann speak for the troops when he has never been to Iraq or even spoken to a troop. He sits behind his little desk and talks to his boot lickers as they nod their heads. Go vote for Billary or Obamanation next election. Will see how many of you military buddies follow your lead.

    So factor, why aren't you in uniform?

    And let me add factor, don't distort my words. I never said I speak for everyone in uniform. I even went as far to emphasize that many people in the military watch FOX. It's just not as monolithic as you assume. As far as Olberman goes, he's not always right just like Orielly isn't always right, they're both human and fallible. I'm simply saying I've seen what it's like over there. You haven't Olberman hasn't and Orielly hasn't. I know what I'm talking about, you don't. Once again, why aren't you in uniform? There's generally three reasons someone can't serve; they're too old, too fat, or too scared. Which are you?

    John

    "And let me add factor, don't distort my words."


    Might as well asked a fish not to fly. That is what the Factor does.

    And let me add factor, don't distort my words. I never said I speak for everyone in uniform. However I can speak for what I saw when I was there. "Quit blubbering and go to Huffington post"? Is that the way you are? Do you only want to hear voices that agree with you? Yeah, that's fun, that's productive. Are you afraid your views and assersions can't stand to be tested? I know mine can withstand scrutiny because I was there and know of what I speak. I even went as far to emphasize that many people in the military watch FOX. It's just not as monolithic as you assume. As far as Olberman goes, he's not always right, just like Orielly isn't always right, they're both human and fallible. I'm simply saying I've seen what it's like over there. You haven't, Olberman hasn't and Orielly hasn't. I know what I'm talking about, you don't. Once again, why aren't you in uniform? There's generally three reasons someone can't serve; they're too old, too fat, or too scared. Which are you?

    John

    Oops, sorry for the double post.

    factor = f---tard

    "One of the big issues that the military has with civilians in this war is their lack of commitment. AFN doesn't show commercials, they show PSAs and such during the commercial breaks. Many of those PSAs are what they call video postcards of random Americans wishing us well "over there". It's great that Americans believe in us but what would upset us is the people who would say they support the war. Our response was, "Then get your ass to a recruiter." Talk is cheap and Americans talk a lot. I'm not trying to be combative here but I would honestly like to know why you guys and girls who support Bush and this war aren't willing to serve? Are you scared? Is your paycheck too big to sacrifice in this war? Pat Tillman walked the patriot's walk when he gave up his luxurious life to serve his country. He gave up millions, what are you willing to give up? John McCain walked the walk and gave up several years of his life in a Vietnam prison. Are you not willing to die serving in the military? Are you scared of orphaning your children? Guess what? Over three thousand Americans have died in this big mistake of a war. Is that why you don't serve something that is bigger than you are? Are you scared to die for what you believe in? Or do you just not believe in it to the degree you claim? "It's ok for them to die but not me." I mean honestly and without any anger, why don't you serve? The Army can really use you right about now. I'm not saying you can't be a cheerleader of the war (ok, actually I did say something along those lines, I was wrong. Imagine that, someone in this forum admitting they were wrong). What I'm saying is if you believe in this war so much, support it with more than just talk. Get your butt into a uniform. Your support and praise falls flat on the ears of those who actually do serve."

    John, I'd like to suggest to you an appeal you should consider making as well with the reasoning you've put forward here and seem to feel is moral and logical.

    Consider making the same demands to anyone who has stated that they support the troops.

    Since we need more recruits to fight the war, as you have argued, and since even Pelosi has said that it looks like we are going to be fighting over there at least until after '08, doesn't it behoove anyone who explicitly states that they "support the troops" to leave their armchairs and go over and support them in the way that most matters to them?

    It is certainly possible to be against the war, and to do everything possible in order to bring the troops home, from the vantage point of serving in the military. I assume this is the role that you are in or were in at one time.

    If you follow your reasoning that one must actually be an innate part of something in order to support that thing (perhaps it's not enough to say support the police or firefighters, one must risk their life in order not be a hypocrite), then it is hypocritical to merely voice support for fighting men and women from the safety of your couch.

    Anyone who says that should also be over there helping to protect the troops with their own life, otherwise they are merely mouthing platitudes.

    Again, any political activism can certainly be done in that venue, or even in a stateside or European military base venue, and far more effectively and persuasively from the vantage point of appealing to one's experience as someone who has "been there", as doubtlessly you are aware.

    You're reasoning is interesting and I'm going to be helping you follow it out to its logical conclusions as best I can.

    Hold on there John

    Sorry to point this out to you but Mr. O'Reilly has been there. In fact he went over Christmas. Brought a planeload of stuff for the troops.

    Olby? New York, Los Angeles, and Tampa.

    At least Mr. O'Reilly made the attempt to go over and find out what was going on and report back. Mr. Olbermann just likes to point fingers with his talking parrots.

    Now Doug, if you don't like FNC. You don't like FNC. But just because you worked in the buisness, doesn't make you the know-it-all of it. News went one way for a whole bunch of decades the same way. Now because someone is doing it different, and getting ratings out of it. Some people have a problem with that.

    I also remember thanking you for stopping by and posting, and for that you say I spew venom? Bud you need to check your 'Huffington Post' at the door.

    Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, Bortz, Beck, Jerry Doyle. all prepair for their 2 or 3 hour shows. They open up their shows to phone calls Some debate more than others. But thats their radio shows in a nut shell.

    Olby? Shows up for one hour, takes no phone calls, talks about himself. Oh by the way, an hour he has to do in a studio in New York because he is BANNED from the ESPN campus.

    I was never a KV fan I read Slaughter House Five and it didn't thrill me. To each his own. It does seem odd that you send us to 'Crooks & Liars' to watch the tape.

    No Doug, Sublimital messages don't work here.

    Olby on NFL sunday night? If they offered him the job, even I would say take it. To not to would be a fool.

    Ego? I was once witness to Bob Costas at a Superbowl and watched him play with his hair for five hours before the game. I also have seen Costas put the verbal smackdown on Larry King once.

    That's why I think this could be fun to watch Mr. Olbermann in the hot seat this fall.

    On a "not Fox" show, Chris Matthew's of MSNBC's Hardball did a jam-up job on challenging both sides on the DOJ and Gonzales issue today at 5pm.

    It's probably being repeated on the 7pm edition of the show, now, if anyone wants to watch and make a contrast with Countdown-DNC.

    I don't want Keith Olbermann doing football. I didn't want Rush Limbaugh doing football either. It's not because I can't stand Keith Olbermann because he's a lying, hypocritical, racist, sexist, bias, water carrying jerk, it's because him and Sunday Night Football just won't work. Do you guys really want to have your football enjoying experience to include Keith Olbermann's depressed sounding robotic voice announcing the game? I sure don't.

    In regards to Doug's Fox News bashing, I would like to ask Doug who he thinks is a "fair and balanced" news channel. Do you think it's MSNBC? The news channel that's poster boy Chris Matthews said that the Democrats take over of Congress was "fantastic". The news channel that's newly contracted Keith Olbermann has called President Bush a "retard". Has called Attorney General Gonzalez a "house boy". Do you think it's CNN? The news channel that showed terrorist propaganda videos of terrorist snipers shooting American Soldiers dead. The news channel that aired a program called "Broken Government" every day up until Election Day. You may think that Fox News is the boogey man. But they're no worse than the other guys.

    Cecelia,
    I know I get a little fired up and radical about my military and those who do or don't choose to serve. I also understand that the military can't accomodate everyone in America who supports the war (or maybe it can, the numbers are pretty low). My attitude simply comes down to my distatste for those who think it's ok for others to serve and die for a cause they think is just but they aren't willing to do so themselves. The Army is in bad shape right now. Morale is low because of this mission and they desperately need people to serve. I know that I'm not going to convince anyone on this list to serve. That's the thing about bravery and integrity, you either have it or you don't. These cheerleaders *know* that the Army needs them but they aren't willing to step up. If you know the people you support need your help in a cause you truly believe in and you decline to help, then it points to a serious lack of integrity on your part and even hypocrisy. "Thanks but I'll pass, those other suckers can make the sacrifice I'm not willing to make." I expect those who look in the mirror and find themselves lacking won't have a good answer on why they won't back up their talk with action. Gee, there I go again getting all angry.
    It's been swell guys but the swelling's going down. I have to go back to work tomorrow so I won't have the time to play around on here. Have fun folks. Hope you enjoy each other's company more than I have.

    John

    It's probably being repeated on the 7pm edition of the show, now, if anyone wants to watch and make a contrast with Countdown-DNC.

    Posted by: Cecelia at April 19, 2007 8:23 PM
    I would watch, but, I can't stand to see a grown man slobber and spit all over himself. Does he go to the dentist everyday?

    John and Mike. You are both pussies, and about as sharp as a bag of wet cat hair to boot.

    John. Its called a volunteer army, dumbass. This isn't Israel. Maybe we should be more like Israel, but that's not the point. The point should be....If you support the war, and we then have to institute a draft, you'd better sign up, otherwise you're a pussy.

    I can actually visualize you getting pissed right now, John. You, just like Mikey, are a hater and a bonafide loser who needs to condemn others for your own failures. I guarantee I have earned the right to call you a loser.

    "I guarantee I have earned the right to call you a loser. "

    You're a child molester you don't have rights.

    Real intelligent post, Crash! Just what I would expect from you. As for the 'pussy' comment, when are you signing up? As for us being a 'hater', I see nothing but hate in every one of your bombastic posts.

    Yeah. If you served in the Military, that gives you carte blanche rights to condemn all others who support the military as hypocritical pussies. Just like I have been living in my parents' basement for a long time now, and that gives me the right to condemn all those who have not lived in basements. See, you can't possibly know about basements until you've lived in one and it is impossible for you to understand the sacrifice that it takes to sit here day after day playing D&D. It's hell.

    So screw all you who don't live in basements. You just don't understand.

    Hey Mikey. Still having trouble with your understanding of Individualism. Pick up "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead". I am sure you'll find Ayn Rand as a simpleton as well.

    f---ing liberals. They always try to go to the intelligence card.

    Hey everyone. This dumbass Mike actually said he didn't understand my point about individuality vs. collectivism because it was too simple.

    Loon, we gotta add that to your list. When you're proven to be a total moron go to the "It was too simple for me to understand" card. That is classic.

    Yeah, I am a mathematician who specializes in cryptography, but I don't get algebra. It's just too simple.

    Loon: "Yeah if you served in the military, that gives you carte blanche to condemn all others who support the military as hypocritical pussies."

    Not at all Mr Loon, but it certainly does give one "carte blanche" to challenge the cherished but false right wing stereotype that "supporting the troops" is the same thing as "supporting the mission".

    Nice Crash:

    Still spewing out your hate filled and profanity laced rants.

    You go Crash....I guess that's one way to play the "intelligence card".

    Not at all Mr Loon, but it certainly does give one "carte blanche" to challenge the cherished but false right wing stereotype that "supporting the troops" is the same thing as "supporting the mission".

    Posted by: Mike at April 19, 2007 10:29 PM


    Actually, John, did not challenge any conservative claiming that supporting the troops= support for the mission.

    He challenged war supporters as being hypocritical if they didn't go and enlist in the military.

    Crash's characterization is far more accurate than yours.

    "John, I'd like to suggest to you an appeal you should consider making as well with the reasoning you've put forward here and seem to feel is moral and logical.

    Consider making the same demands to anyone who has stated that they support the troops."

    That really only makes sense as a logical extension, Cecelia, if your understanding is that it is impossible to support the troops without being in favor of the mission they are being put on. That is, as you will agree, ridiculous, and not the scenario you go on to contemplate. If the soldiers were ordered to march into the sea, would there be any way to support both the troops and the mission? Does John think the mission is this impossible? We don't know, as he has left.

    John's explicit statement about the war is that he thinks it will be impossible to "win" without the Iraqis themselves taking over. And he seems rather despondant about the likelihood of that, and silent as to whether American participation at this point makes it more or less likely. He is rather angry that people who do not understand this reality, and do not directly suffer from it, nonetheless "cheerlead" people on to kill and die and send more. In other words, he does make a distinction for mission. He is saying "if you believe this should be done, then why don't you help do it?" You seem to be urging him to say "whether or not you think this should be done, come and help with it anyway, and then you can try and stop it from within if you want." That may be some related alteration to what he is saying, but it is in no way the conclusion of his logic, I think you will agree.

    I do think that anyone who talks with returning vets (I know 4) who actually did patrols (3) will find that they have no use for even the language that civilians use and are absolutely loaded with scorn for simplistic opinions about it on either side, but perhaps with a bit angrier words for rah-rah war supporters. In this, John comports rather exactly with my expectation. I would guess, though, that John had little belief in the mission from the outset. I know the three I've mentioned most rail about just how badly things were done, ala the explosives looting that became an election issue but with very localized particular instances. I take this as "it was possible and good, but it it is now fubar and it hardly matters what we do anymore.

    That is how I understand it anyway. BTW, what are you referring to when you talk about Crash's "characterization" that you think is accurate? A characterization of what John said? I don't see that even implicitly in Crash's posts.

    I don't remember reading Crash's characterization.

    John's appeal is one that is easily understood in that it is really it an emotional appeal to his authority as a soldier. It's assumed that this authority gives him the moral currency to define what is morally brave and patriotic support and what is not.

    It specifically suggests that there is no other realistic or pragmatic way to support the troops and by extension to support the war without direct service in the military. This appeal is underpinned by the direct assertion that all other avenues of support for the trooops and the mission, are inadequate for the stand of "war supporter" and are based upon selfishness. Therefore they are cowardly and hypocritical.

    That this reasoning is underpinned by a person's (John) particular and subjective view of the war and is given coinage by John's own experience, is exactly the point. This position essentially creates a scenario where people, who do not agree with John and who do not have the authority he assumes by what is out of the ordinary experience, must conform to the standard that he has meted out or else lose legitimacy.

    Of course this is not logical, one would not insist that in order to truly support your police or firefighter force, support from the vantage of private citizen (paying taxes, voting on measures you feel supportive to cops and fire fighters, private fund raising for retirement funds, etc), is insincere and hypocritical. One must enroll in either academy as a career in order to support these jobs.

    As I've said, John's position comes from a particular perspective, and from a particular appeal to a particular authority. It is not a position one that is inducive to discussion. It's the opposite. It tends to shut down contrary opinion. One must jump this life altering hurdle, or be called a coward.

    I am directly related to several family members who voluntarily, and for a variety of reasons, committed to the service. They did not set up this standard for troop support in peace time. They don't set it up now, after finding themselves in the military, and charged with certain duties, since our country is now at war.

    John seems to understand that the authority of his appeal can be challenged in that it is mitigated by what is, afterall his subjective opinion. Not all troops feel as he feels and he admits that. But John goes on to make a more pragmatic appeal. He argues that there is a need for more troops, that this need has demoralized the soldiers on the ground and puts our country at risk. This is an appeal that is more far more basic than a --practice what your preach challenge--- and if honestly proferred, must be made to a broader audience than one's own particular opponents. A highly pragmatic appeal of this nature must assume that any disagreement about "the mission" is utterly secondary to the direct protection of one's fellow Americans in the field and at home. Therefore this challenge extends to anyone voicing support for the troops.

    That war oppoents explicitly state, we aren't for the mission, but want to do everything we must to support the troops, is precisely the stand, that from war supporters (John's "opponents" on this subject) elicited his "practice what you preach" argument in the first place.

    I am have no quarrel with John (and with you now) telling me that he is utterly disillusioned with the war and that this has made him react to war supporters -- to those who don't hold his opinion--- in what is essentially an emotional way. My heart is pricked, but not my consciencous.

    And, it was a play on my consciencous, that John, on the basis of his authority, had attempted to make.


    Some Random Idiot spewed: "And, in case you believe otherwise, allow me to say that sports and news are not mutually exclusive"

    The fact is that most professional journalists don't regard "sports reporting" as true journalism. Chris Wallace (a real journalist) put it best when he sports compared Keith's sports journalism career to "working in the toy department".

    Looks like socialism could be a thing of the past in France...

    RK, thanks for pointing it out. I don't know where you got your info, but I read this from BBC NEWS Europe @:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6582007.stm

    I certainly hope the worm is turning in France. I have a strong French heritage on my mother's side. My grandfather was born in New Orleans in 1862 to parents who were here for only four or five years. My grandmother was born in France and immigrated with her family when she was a young child, three or four, in the late 1860s or early 1870s.

    My mother and all of her family were very proud of their heritage. This started to change during the seventies when France was the only western democracy still very strongly influenced by its communist and socialist parties. The election of Mitterand (?) in a coalition of socialists and communists was another blow to her. By the end of Ronaldus Magnificus' term her transformation from pride to chagrin to almost shame was complete, and went downhill from there.

    Grammie

    Ahem... as I was sayin'

    I AM NOT A BUSHWIPE!
    I AM NOT A BUSHWIPE!
    I AM NOT A BUSHWIPE!
    NEVER!!

    I AM A "REAL RAYGUN REPUGLIKUNT"

    RUDY (RRR rino) IN '08!!

    I'll bet lil mikey is proud to say you are a friend of his, bob. Real proud. Keep shinin.'

    Janet, I got my facts from Fox News, fair and balanced. Do you think cnn or anyone else would report something this? Not a chance.

    BovineQueen sez:

    I'll bet lil mikey is proud to say you are a friend of his, bob. Real proud. Keep shinin.'
    Posted by: royalking at April 22, 2007 9:24 PM

    As your Fountain of Repuglicunt Wisdom would say, "There you go again, Bovine..."

    How many times do I have to tell ya?

    I am Mike, Mike is me, LMAO too, some other 8 posters, and whoever else your paranoid hallucinations wish.

    As for the elections in France, once again you see things in black or white, my slow Bovine.

    The elections are so narrow, that one side's victory does not mean the defeated side will disappear.

    Oh, wait.
    Bovine is rooting for the RW'er Sarkozy, who "... created a nationwide council of Muslim leaders and proposed a kind of affirmative action and state funding for mosques, ideas that may resurface if he's elected..."

    Bovine, how do you like them RW'er muslim lovers?

    bob, go back to your cartoons.

    BovineQueen sez:

    bob, go back to your cartoons.
    Posted by: royalking at April 22, 2007 11:34 PM

    Why?

    When I have you BovineQueen, aka, Yosemite Sam, right here to amuse me.

    Say, Yosemite, ehr... BovineQueen, got them peepers checked out yet?

    "I don't wave a flag. I carry a gun."
    "I wear a cowboy hat. And my .44 within reach"

    bob, you forgot to insert 20 Bush Supporters in your childish rant. Back to your bong and Nickelodeon.

    BovineQueen sez:

    bob, you forgot to insert 20 Bush Supporters in your childish rant. Back to your bong and Nickelodeon.
    Posted by: royalking at April 23, 2007 12:01 AM

    No. Not even.

    Let's have a roll call.

    Bob.
    Johhny.
    Brandon.
    Cecelia.
    Gummies.
    Joker.
    Aaron Barnhart
    Eric Deggans
    Jason Clarke
    Lance Dutson
    Ron Coleman
    Victria Zdrok
    Doug Krile
    David Lunde
    Alex Yuriev

    I know these here Bush Supporters ain't enough for a healthy herd.

    What you say, Bovine?

    Can we brand them in the forehead and ass with a RRR
    (Real Raygun Repuglicunt)
    and sell them to the next conservative sucker that comes by?


    bob, I feel sorry for the person that has to dress you and feed you, what a job that must be.

    BovineQueen sez:

    bob, I feel sorry for the person that has to dress you and feed you, what a job that must be.
    Posted by: royalking at April 23, 2007 12:58 AM

    Bovine, don't feel bad, you have mistaken me for your hero Raygun.

    What a sight!

    Raygun sh-ttin and flinging his diapers at Nancy!

    What a fitting end to the enabler of Saddam and Osama.
    Peppered and covered with his own Raygun's shiet,
    mumbling "I don't remember"

    As I was saying, you repentant Bush Supporters use the Raygun crutch to run away from your loyalty to Moron in Chief.

    Please, keep doing it, all the way to '08.

    I AIN'T A BUSHWIPE!!

    I'M A REAL RAYGUN REPUGLIKUNT!!

    bob, you're right, you're an ASSWIPE and a disgrace to the liberals. Do you read the puffington post? You would fit right in over there. But, you already know this. I'm sure the puffpo is on your "favorites" list.

    >My heart is pricked, but not my consciencous.

    Posted by: Cecelia at April 20, 2007 6:18 PM

    Most people keep their heart and their conscience at least in the same zip code, so one cannot be affected without the other.

    Apparently Cecelia's done an admirable job compartmentalizing her psyche so she can keep supporting her president and her war without those guilty 'morning after' feelings.

    "I don't remember reading Crash's characterization."

    That's what confused me about you saying that his characterization was more valid than John's. I guess you just meant to prick him on because Crash had thrown around some vulgarities and such. He really didn't have such a characterization as I see it, and yet you referenced it.

    As for the rest of your response, it's fine as far as it goes. I'll agree that John is giving the soldierly perspective with his rather "emotional" put up or shut up thing. That's all it is. And you have relatives that didn't do that to you or others, and you think that's better. Good. That's all that is. All that is well and good.

    I still don't see where John's "logic" (which you now seem to be saying doesn't exist) mandates the conclusion you draw, that if by John's #reasoning# you DON'T support the mission you should equally go fight for it as those who do, and I guess try to end it from within. That does not follow from either his emotional sense or what you are calling his logical lack of sense. It is your own addition that you are arriving at independently.

    I guess if you are saying "that's nonsense, no more sensible than this nonsense" then it makes a kind of sense. But you phrased it as a logical neccessity from what he had stated which it certainly is not. It's both counterintuitive and does not follow IMO.

    Apparently Cecelia's done an admirable job compartmentalizing her psyche so she can keep supporting her president and her war without those guilty 'morning after' feelings.

    Posted by: LMAO at April 23, 2007 1:31 PM


    I know my heart AND my intellect to the extent that they can't be co-opted by sincerely hurting or the I"d sincerely like to hurt ... factions.

    But by all means... try again...

    "I still don't see where John's "logic" (which you now seem to be saying doesn't exist) mandates the conclusion you draw, that if by John's #reasoning# you DON'T support the mission you should equally go fight for it as those who do, and I guess try to end it from within. That does not follow from either his emotional sense or what you are calling his logical lack of sense. It is your own addition that you are arriving at independently."


    John made an appeal to the troops being in danger (life or death) because of depletion of their numbers and in danger (life or death) because of their lack of moral due to their lack of numbers.

    If it's logical to argue that you must join the military if you support the war, then it must also be logical to say that any negative oiutlook on "the mission" would take a back seat as to what John is saying about the reality for the troops....life or death...when it comes to numbers and support...right, John? Right troop supporters?

    VOK, LMAO we need you now.

    "John made an appeal to the troops being in danger (life or death) because of depletion of their numbers"

    I don't think he did. I quickly reread it and I don't see that. If he had, you should reprove him on that point, unless you agree with it. Stats show that the more people we have in Iraq, the more of them die and are maimed, quite simply.

    But that isn't his point as I see it. He says the military can and would definitely use people who support the war, not that it is being lost because of numbers. He is simply (rhetorically) saying 'you SAY you believe in the war and SAY that it can be won because it doesn't cost you anything, but you don't do anything, and that makes those who do sacrifice like myself angry.' He is saying, quite simply, put up or shut up.

    I think you are right that this is mostly emotional, and you are wrong to then try and draw logical conclusions from it. And then the conclusions you are drawing are themselves not warranted. Presumably the military does not particularly want people who have an ethical or practical objection to the mission, or people who are trying to end it from within. If you were open about that purpose in recruitment, I think you would be refused.

    I really think you are stretching here. I think this would be a stronger rejoinder: "Hey, I've spent $3,320 in taxes over the last couple years paying for your Iraq-related salary and equipment, so that is sacrifice, buddy!"

    VOK writes " I think you are right that this is mostly emotional, and you are wrong to then try and draw logical conclusions from it."


    Do you? I had never considered that. I'll think about it!

    Thanks, VOK!

    O.K. I see I guess. You really were just flippantly saying "look, I can be just as illogical as you! Whee." I'm always making the mistake of confusing you with someone who gives a rat's ass. I should learn.

    I'd still like to understand where this statement to Mike fit into the discussion:

    "Crash's characterization is far more accurate than yours."

    Did you mean "Crash gave no characterization at all, and no characterization at all is metaphysically more accurate than an incorrect characterization, or one that takes hysterical emotion seriously?"

    VOK, I responded to this:

    "I can actually visualize you getting pissed right now, John. You, just like Mikey, are a hater and a bonafide loser who needs to condemn others for your own failures. I guarantee I have earned the right to call you a loser."


    But otherwise you're a genius of the first order.

    Thank you for clarifying everything for me.

    "Thank you for clarifying everything for me."

    No problem. Sorry for what it got clarified into. Kind of a nasty ad-hominem.

    "But otherwise you're a genius of the first order."

    No, as you can tell, I seem to just make the same mistakes over and over. Any little bit of subtlety or dissembling and I am just like a babe in the woods. Ah well, one of these days I learn to recognize your special subtlety and then we'll be interlocutory equals.

    Generally speaking, Cecelia will take a person's argument, abstract it to the point where it is unrecognizable to the person who asserted it, then assume if they can't continue to debate FOR the argument in it's new warped and convoluted form, then she must be the winner.

    But meanwhile, she can't even back up her very own copied and pasted words.

    The archives are full of such 'debates.'

    One Trick Pony?

    Try One Trick Phony!

    But we like her that way, at least she's predictable...

    lmao, hows your domestic partner today?

    >lmao, hows your domestic partner today?
    Posted by: royalking at April 23, 2007 7:16 PM

    My wife's fine...How's your horse with women's make-up and wig?

    lmao, I thought you came out of the closet? Now you're back in?

    All behold the intellectual giant known as 'Royalking'...

    When he makes a mistake, he doesn't just admit it and move on like most fair minded folks...

    He makes homophobic comments to conceal his ignorance with bigotry and hatred.

    Here's a replay of Jeff and Cecelia trying to figure out the genders of the people they are debating, as though it mattered:

    RK,
    Thanks, but I am to her what you are to Mike.
    Rock on. :D
    Posted by: Cecelia at April 13, 2007 12:30 AM

    lmao is a her? Or vokie?
    Posted by: royalking at April 13, 2007 1:43 AM

    VOK is the one who's better at math...
    Posted by: Cecelia at April 13, 2007 1:52 AM

    former is correct?
    Posted by: royalking at April 13, 2007 2:15 AM

    Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong, but what else is new at OW?

    Laughing My Ass Off!

    (Not Rolling on Floor Quite Yet...)

    lmao, you're exposed so now you have to call me homophobic? That's all you got? Why not just admit it? Guess you're not so proud, after all.....

    lmao and lil mikey have something in common, they lack honesty. Hence, grasping at short to non-existent straws!

    George Soros behind left wing smear campaigns? This just can't be. Lil mikey says olbermannwatch and The Swift Boaters are the only smear merchants. I wonder what he'll have to say about this? I would guess Ulbermahn won't be happy to hear his banker's pyramid scheme being exposed, even more than he already was.

    "Generally speaking, Cecelia will take a person's argument, abstract it to the point that it is unrecognizable to the person that asserted it, then assume if they can't continue to debate FOR the argument in it's new warped and convoluted form, then she must be the winner."

    LMAO, you sure nailed that one. I was beginning to wonder if anyone else had noticed this?

    >LMAO, you sure nailed that one. I was beginning to wonder if anyone else had noticed this?
    Posted by: Mike at April 23, 2007 9:43 PM

    I'm guessing everyone's noticed except Cecelia.

    Jeff and Cecelia have something in common, they lack the ability to debate. Hence, bringing up gender, marital status, and sexual orientation.

    Posted by: royalking at April 23, 2007 8:04 PM

    You know, I never thought being a married white male was such a coveted position to be in. Apparently at OW, it's so coveted that any detractors just refuse to recognize such in a person.

    And yeah, Jeff, that's all I got (parroting Cecelia's response to my Friday post I see...) reason and common sense.

    That's all I got....

    And the ability to see that big pile of horse sh-t under your cowboy hat that you call a brain.

    So, I guess your back in the closet?

    Jeff, you are as annoying as the boy that tugs on Superman's cape.

    Except I ain't no Superman, and that ain't my cape...

    Let me know when you've had your fill, Chief, I've got other stuff to do.

    LMAO

    Those "annoying" little facts getting to ya? Do you and McGreevy buy your art from the same guy?

    Jeff knows if he can just get in the last post...he wins!

    VOK,

    Sarcasm aside.... in the case of John's argument, I "abstracted" it down to the point where I came to the exact conclusion that you did-- that it was essentially emotional and based on his "subjective" opinion.

    As for John's post being emotional and therefore not worth putting to the test of logic....(it contained the logical fallacies of an appeal to authority and a non-sequitur) well, great. We've seen that line of on the boards by quite a few war opponents here, which is why I addressed it.

    It's nice to see it deemed as not worth considering in a way other than an adjective describing some emotion.


    hahaha! He's John, I'm Cecelia.

    Sorry!

    >So, I guess your back in the closet?
    Posted by: royalking at April 23, 2007 10:49 PM

    So I guess the horse kicked you in the nuts again when it saw you coming through the barn door with your pants around your ankles?

    Generally speaking, Cecelia will take a person's argument, abstract it to the point where it is unrecognizable to the person who asserted it, then assume if they can't continue to debate FOR the argument in it's new warped and convoluted form, then she must be the winner.

    But meanwhile, she can't even back up her very own copied and pasted words.

    The archives are full of such 'debates.'

    One Trick Pony?

    Try One Trick Phony!

    But we like her that way, at least she's predictable...

    Posted by: LMAO at April 23, 2007 7:10 PM


    Been researching my archived arguments, LMAO?

    Enjoy! :D

    ROFLMAO!

    "It's nice to see it deemed as not worth considering in a way other than an adjective describing some emotion."

    What are you, Mister Spock? Whether the emotion was worthless or not, you took it in a direction that was no more ratiional and a mockery to boot. Our soldiers do not go to war for us because it is an essentially reasonable thing to do. You are wrong to ridicule the emotions that are assiciated with that. If John was saying "put up or shut up," I think your response to that made no sense, in either a strict or an extended way.

    I think his statement (and as I say I've heard this response in a variety of more muted ways from 3 boots on the ground guys) is a natural outgrowth of the way this war was sold as cheap and easy, requiring no sacrifice on the homefront. "America is not at war, America is at the mall," is the exact phrasing I have heard from two of them. You only seem to confirm that this is exactly how you view it. 'Just do your job and don't bother me with your worrywarting and moralizing--it's bothersome.'

    The reasonable response would have been to show that you really do what you can for the effort, be it financial support, resource conservation, something that shows action as opposed to hot air. I think anything short of that lends credence to his admittedly emotional accusation that despite your posture, you don't really care much.

    How did "john" get in your name field?

    The reasonable response would have been to show that you really do what you can for the effort, be it financial support, resource conservation, something that shows action as opposed to hot air. I think anything short of that lends credence to his admittedly emotional accusation that despite your posture, you don't really care much.

    How did "john" get in your name field?

    Posted by: VOK at April 24, 2007 11:14 AM


    The "reasonable response" to the "put or shut" (which is an argument that is assumed to be based on logic as well as emotion) dictate that John issued with his talk about the need for troops on the ground and his direct challenge to other posters of "why aren't you in Iraq" and that the reasons for not being there are "too old, too fat, or too afraid. Which are you?", is exactly what he got-- a logical tearing apart of what are logical fallacies in his reasoning and his attempt at emotional blackmail.

    No one here owes any poster any personal information based upon anything, let alone an emotional appeal to that poster's own authority or any other type of authority. Whether it's John's appeal or CDR Brian's claim that "real" support for troops must take the form he feels legitimate.

    Let me add that if you feel that in order to legitimately counter John it must be done in the fashion you suggest, then this must apply to war opponents as well, based upon the logical implications of John's own arguments.

    You can certainly feel the need to defend yourself in that manner, VOK, but to demand that other's do as well, is something more than an appeal for respect towards Iraqi war vets. It's an unreasonable demand that opponents jump the hurdles of your making or be declared illegitmate.

    That was John's demand in the first place. It's not any more "reasonable", legitimate, or honorable simply because you've changed the threat from a charge of cowardice to a charge of being cold and unfeeling. It's not any more reasonable, legitimate or honorable because that argument has now been taken up by you.

    Been researching my archived arguments, LMAO?

    Enjoy! :D
    Posted by: Cecelia at April 24, 2007 2:44 AM

    Actually, I was a witness to some and participant to others prior to them becoming archived.

    I thought your 'What the founding fathers REALLY meant' argument was the most compelling example of my assertion, although there are plenty others.

    I actually never go to the archive.
    Unfortunately for you (and a few others) my computer and I have good memories and fast processors. :D


    Unfortunately for you (and a few others) my computer and I have good memories and fast processors. :D

    Posted by: LMAO at April 24, 2007 4:02 PM


    Then you must have an ancient CPU, powered by a squirrel running a treadmill.

    But at least it sounds like your computer is new...

    Cecelia, I think that attempting to debate with VOK is a classic example of 'pissing against the wind'.

    He states his case and then goes on to tell his opponent what they should have said and really meant:

    "The reasonable response would have been to show that you really do what you can for the effort, be it financial support, resource conservation, something that shows action as opposed to hot air. I think anything short of that lends credence to his admittedly emotional accusation that despite your posture, you don't really care much.".

    How can he lose in his own mind?

    Grammie

    David Brock b. 1962, is an author and the founder of Media Matters for America. He was a prominent neoconservative[citation needed] journalist during the 1990s. During that time he was best known for his anti-Anita Hill book The Real Anita Hill and authoring the Troopergate story, which led to Paula Jones filing a lawsuit against Bill Clinton. After declaring he was gay, he claimed that he became a liberal; he now works to dismantle what he refers to as the "the conservative media machine" of which he was once a part. He tells his personal story in his memoir Blinded by the Right and describes how the "machine" operates in his book The Republican Noise Machine. His work on the latter book led him to found Media Matters for America, a non-profit organization that describes itself as a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."[1]



    How can he lose in his own mind?

    Grammie


    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at April 24, 2007 5:50

    I enjoy exchanges with VOK, Grammie and even find the "I'm going to take my ball and go home" stuff boyishly beguiling. :D

    "simply because you've changed the threat from a charge of cowardice to a charge of being cold and unfeeling."

    reference?

    "and even find the "I'm going to take my ball and go home" "

    reference?

    I'll admit I never should have gotten into this particular discussion. It is stupid all over. This is a pretty accurate summary I think:

    John: Put up or shut up
    Cecelia: Tell it to the liberals, too, John.
    Vok: That makes no sense. It would make sense to tell him what you do for the cause.
    Cecelia: Exactly. But don't tell me what to do.
    Vok: huh?
    Grammie: Cecelia wins!!
    Cecelia: I always win.

    I still want to know how you accidentally typed "john" in the name field. Oh and also, I'm taking my ball and going home.

    John: Put up or shut up

    Cecelia: Tell it to the liberals, too, John.

    *** based on the criteria he gave for issuing war supporters his imperative.****

    VOK (from a former post): "In other words, he does make a distinction for mission. He is saying "if you believe this should be done, then why don't you help do it?" You seem to be urging him to say "whether or not you think this should be done, come and help with it anyway, and then you can try and stop it from within if you want." That may be some related alteration to what he is saying, but it is in no way the conclusion of his**** logic****, I think you will agree."


    Cecelia: I argued that John's imperative was based on a non-sequitur and an appeal to authority and emotion. (Added later that others have tried this tact and it needs to answered)

    I showed that based on the criteria HE gave for his imperative to war supporters--he must include anyone who voices support for the troops.

    VOK (from a previous post): "I think you are right that this is mostly emotional, and you are wrong to then try and draw logical conclusions from it. And then the conclusions you are drawing are themselves not warranted"

    Cecelia: Yeah, the appeal was entirely illogical and emotional that's why it needed to be taken apart.. But glad you knew it all along...

    VOK: "The reasonable response would have been to show that you really do what you can for the effort, be it financial support, resource conservation, something that shows action as opposed to hot air. I think anything short of that lends credence to his admittedly emotional accusation that despite your posture, you don't really care much."

    Cecelia-- In other words John's illogical and emotional appeal should put me in a stance of justifying myself to him or else I'm proving to him that I really don't care.

    I think not, but that's a creative way of trying John's imperative under a new guise

    VOk: "Grammie: Cecelia wins!!

    VOK: "Cecelia: I always win!"

    Cecelia: whatevah...


    I still want to know how you accidentally typed "john" in the name field. Oh and also, I'm taking my ball and going home.

    Posted by: VOK at April 24, 2007 7:06 PM


    You want to know why I did something accidentally? :D

    I suppose I did it because his name was on my mind while we addressing the arguments he made.

    See you later today, or tomorrow, or the day after, VOK!...

    VOK, always the tantalizing promise, but never honoring your word.

    "....Oh and also, I'm taking my ball and going home.
    Posted by: VOK at April 24, 2007 7:06 PM

    What is a poor girl to think? :)

    Grammie

    >>>>Cecelia-- In other words John's illogical and emotional appeal should put me in a stance of justifying myself to him or else I'm proving to him that I really don't care.>>>>

    Well, at least we are talking about the same thing in the end. That is pretty much exactly what I am saying. John's "illogical" and emotional decision to defend his country does in fact earn him some consideration in my book. More consideration for his "emotional and illogical" distress at civilian apathy than the rhetorical and equally illogical "thank you but that does not compute" that you gave him. You SHOULD have to justify yourself. Especially if you supported the war and support the occupation. Is that really too much to ask? If you think so, then yeah, I'd say you don't really care much.

    I am saying
    1. that he obviously didn't really deserve strict logical scrutiny
    2. that you did not logically "disect" his "argument" but simply made a mockery by proposing something equally illogical that did not follow-- as you have (I think) agreed
    3. that IMO he and every other soldier does deserve an account of what we civilians are actually doing to aid the cause, if they ask. Are you paying higher taxes, cutting down your use of oil, sending care packages? Maybe she will disagree with your vision of positive sacrifice and action, but at least if you are doing something, it blunts the criticism that IMO is almost uniquely fit for this war, that we at home barely even notice it, that we take the laziest path of least resistance-- we don't want to pay for it, don't want to hear about it, and certainly don't want to change anything in our daily lives because of it.

    We are willing to open our lips and say "thank you," or "send more" or "send less" but that's about the extent of our collective effort. If you know current engaged military in Iraq I think you will find that regardless their original or current politics or stance on the war this is a common theme. I think that spirit should be met at very least with respectful silence, however "illogical" it may seem.

    I supported the invasion, am flabberghasted at how crappily this whole thing went, and now tend to think the occupation may as well end. I accept that I have some tiny responsibility for the war so I try to make some equally tiny amends. I saved 211 gallons of fuel oil this year by burning wood. Next year I hope to double that with a new system. I am taking the money saved and sending it straight to the Intrepid Fallen Heros Fund, which is an A+ rated charity that gives grants to families of the war dead and has already completed a $60M physical rehab center in Texas. Never had a backache that made me feel good before. My wife is trying to donate couseling time. And I'm trying to cajole my street into helping rehab a motorcycle that will be a thank you gift for our lone current Iraq service member when he returns, hopefully in time for his 21st bithday and hopefully in a physical state where he can ride a motorcycle.

    Cecelia posts here to show her 'support' for the war.

    Conveniently, she can show her contempt of Olbermann, Her support for the war, and Feed her ego all in the same small economical action.

    Very efficient, yet, much to her chagrin, very ineffective towards any of the three goals.

    "Cecelia posts here to show her 'support' for the war."

    I don't think I've really heard her say boo about the war. That would be first order content. She mostly limits herself to relativist criticisms of other people's criticisms. Then I come in with criticisms of her relativism and her criticisms of other people's criticisms. It's all bundled up in a website that critisizes an administration critic. These circles of critical hell expain why nothing ever actually gets discussed.

    I'm taking my ball and going home.

    Although most of my posts should be read with an obviously sarcastic tone, this one shouldn't be:

    Very astute observation VOK!

    Criticizing the critics that are criticizing a critic of an administration that's critically inept would be an apt description of what I strive for here.

    Hope that's not too critical...