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


    June 20, 2007
    Countdown with Keith Olbermann - June 20th, 2007

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • General Wesley Clark, former FNC contributor who 'left' the network for ultra left MSNBC. Now he is on Herr Olbermann's show. Coincidence? I think not
    • Requisite attacks on Bill O'Reilly who destroyed the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann last night in the ratings and that 'key demo.'
    • Nothing else, Olby can't get any guests that don't parrot him.

    8PM - P2+ (25-54)
    The O'Reilly Factor - 2,133,000 viewers (488,000)
    Paula Zahn - 559,000 viewers (185,000)
    Countdown w/ Olbermann - 577,000 viewers (171,000)
    Fast Money - 165,000 viewers (54,000)
    Nancy Grace - 833,000 viewers (278,000)

    Source

    Man, that lock on second is so firm I might choke. Nearly 500k in that 'demo' to 171k. Media Matters better go into overdrive. I hear tears hitting the floor over at Daily Kos HQ. MoveOn is at DEFCON 1. Congrats to "Man On Fan" Olbermann.

    The opening spiel was as lame as ever for Olbermahn this evening. The usual targets: Iraq dividing the country, dividing the Democrats (!), the Mayor of New York might run for President, soldiers in Afghanistan want to kill children, Abu Ghraib, Bill O'Reilly "gets the war wrong again." Olbermann's Olbsession knows no bounds.

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

    #5: Keithy admits that the liberal base is unhappy with Hillary Clinton. The Liberal "Take Back" conference. Olbersturmfuhrer surprisingly uses the word "liberal" in his fifth story spiel. Must be trying to recoil from all those third and fourth place finishes. Nancy Pelosi shouted down by anti-war activists. Jabba can hardly contain his excitement of the very liberal Bloomberg leave the Republican party. Welcome to Craig Crawford! Does the Democratic party know how vital getting out of Iraq is? "They know that now!" Wow, thanks for that insight. Dispariging remark about Pelosi having a "tin ear" (!). Something is amiss at Olbermann Spin Zone. Olbermann opines that perhaps people are "angry" at Congress for capitulating on the war. Of course they are. Or maybe on OlbyPlanet they are and at MoveOn.org. No matter, Olby knows all.

    The most "prominent" mayor leaves the Republican party. If he runs, who does he hurt? Yawn. Bloomberg was a Democrat up until his run for Mayor. The man is no eeeeeeevil Republican. He is and always has been a liberal but that doesn't stop Keith from getting super excited over someone "leaving" the Republican Party. Great Thanks Craig.

    Ah, the real story of the evening. Soldiers in Afghanistan killing children. They knew they were in there despite the fact a high value Al-Qaeda target was in there. Keith praises his network (never criticises) for reporting this story. Welcome Wesley Clark, still wanting to be President and still a member of the loony left. Why is he on Olby's show? I leave that to clear thinking readers. Olbermann clearly cares about the children here. Nevermind the children blown up and killed in Iraq, we are just going to portray the US Army as out to get the kids. "Does this not underscore the need for consistent reporting?" asks Olby. Of course, says the General who was fired for reasons that are still unknown today He manages to praise himself for his actions in Kosovo while discussing Afghanistan. Gen. Clark surprisingly agrees that the idea of reporting on terrorist attacks helps terrorists is bad. It's borderline censorship despite the fact the NETWORKS MAKE THE DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES - NOT THE GOVERNMENT. "Amen," says Hauptmann in response to Clark. Keithy asks a poignant question, "Are we devoting our resources to fighting the war on terror properly?" (paraphrase) Clark goes into some spiel about Saddam not being connected to 9/11 despite the fact that the President has stated on NUMEROUS occasions that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Again, on Olby Planet, irrelevant. Massive love fest ensues. Much easier for Clark to handle than O'Reilly. Jabba is extremely proud to have the fired general.

    #4: Abu Ghraib again. HOW BLOODY OLD IS THIS STORY? Olby believes that the President knew about everything despite lacking any evidence. He brings in General Karpinski who has been demoted and reprimanded for her behavior at Abu Ghraib. But I am willing to bet she thinks the President knew about everything that was happening. That's why she's on OlbyZone! Blab blab blab. Karpinski gets to talk for a while about nothing new. Donald Rumsfeld's name gets dropped a few times to suggest he was behind "torture" and "gitmoize" Abu Ghraib. Where was General Karpinski in all of this? Did she protest? Did she file complaints? Apparently not. She just received a demotion and reprimand, not to mention a book deal. Moving along. She has been unable to appear on a program that is not sympathetic to anti-Bush/Rumsfeld sentiments since her interview with O'Reilly way back when. Great Thanks.

    Oddball: Three point shot. Norwegian kids messing around with high speed train.

    Newsmakers: Some hotsauce thing. Some woman didn't win the lottery. Woman gets three days in jail for grabbing an officer's genitals and driving drunk. She's an aspiring model. Guess what kind of model says Olby? Hand model! Ha! The laughs never end.

    #3: Incredibly deep story about slander on the internets. It's nice to see Adam's Apple Olbermann concerned about nasty comments made about women. Not that he has ever said anything about Paris Hilton and her face. Karl Kronenberger comes in to help Constitutional Scholar Olbermahn with the first amendment. Not much happens here in the way of the vast left wing conspiracy. I'll spare you the inane nature of the interview. Great thanks.

    Keeping Tabs: Paris Hilton in jail and references to her face. Nancy Grace "driving Melinda Duckett" to suicide. O'Reilly not covering bombs in Iraq!

    #2: Um, there never was a number two story. Go figure. Maybe there was not enough vast right conspiracy material.

    #1: Finally, the most important part of the evening, more on the premier Olbsession of Mr. O'Reilly. You know, that guy that destroys him every night in the ratings despite getting no help from far-left websites like DailyKos and MoveOn.org? Olby fantasizes that O'Reilly upset he did not have the credentials to be in the Mets clubhouse. It's all about baseball. As usual, Olbermann and his Laughing Stagehand managed to pull about every clip of "stuff that does not matter" that "Fox Noise" thinks is important to prove Fat Ass's point. The funny part is that every story that Olbermann brings up is from the END OF THE SHOW. Sort of like how they do thing on OlbyLand with the women hating segments at the end of the show? O'Reilly does not do woman hating segments, but rather lighter ones. He saves the real stories for the first like any other news program. But you wouldn't know that the way Olby spliced everything together in his #1! story. Bring in FAR-LEFT Arianna Huffington to pleasure Keith's conspiracy theories. Of course, the sock puppet plays right into Adam's Apple Olbermann's profound questioning and Arianna suggests that O'Reilly has been talking about Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith's baby. Funny part is - HE NEVER DID! That was Greta Van Susteren - with all due respect. Again, a usual left love fest. I'd love to see Arianna on O'Reilly's program to actually get questioned rather than the softballs Olbermann comes up with. Arianna says O'Reilly is pretending to be a journalist. HA! The discredited Sports Guy, who never did anything except work on Sports Center and make not witty comments is somehow a real journalist? Ugh, I can't take it anymore. Really. I'm done for this evening. Watch it for yourself if you can stomach it.

    In the Media Matters minute, some guy flushing two items blocking a pipe (bra and underwear), thank you Keith for that. Someone named Woody for the silver - yeah ok whatever, DailyKos must be asleep this week. Gold: Newt Gingrich! There were way too many sources for this recapper to track but I found the right one: Think Progress. I should have checked there first. At least the Laughing Stagehand managed to find one conservative for tonight.

    NAME

    Olbermann's book The book that bears Olbermann's name collapsed at #4,539 on amazon.com (necessitating a 80% off sale - ha! HA!), but "Culture Warrior" is #375. (It's that 2-for-$25 sale!) You can have it for $4.59 - ha!. The OlbyTome is still limp and can't rank; O'Reilly's book is #1,039 there, and is one of the top five books of 2006 per Publishers Weekly. Tuesday's Hour of Spin managed a dismal, humiliating and MediaMatters backing lacking third place finish in total viewers coupled with a laughable fourth in that "money demo" Olbsession. Fourth Place. Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 1 [LOW]


    Posted by Edward Schatz | Permalink | Comments (252) | | View blog reactions

    252 Comments

    Keith is more a woman than most women.

    Ultra-smearing of Bill-O tonight. We may need to call in J$ for backup!

    It's official. It's been evolving to this point. As of today I loathe O'Reilly exactly as much as I loathe Olbermann.

    The O'Reilly Factor - 2,133,000 viewers (488,000)
    Countdown w/ Olbermann - 577,000 viewers (171,000)
    *************************************
    Uh oh..I smell a "Special Comment" coming soon.

    Keith is more a woman than most women.

    Posted by: Gleason at June 20, 2007 11:07 PM
    Hence, the term "metrosexual." Like the majority of his followers, the ones that shower, anyways.....

    NOBODY speaks: "Idiot!" says he/she/it
    Ain't got no name but still won't quit
    Dissing the right
    Can do it all night
    From Budweiser Lite quote unquote must be lit

    The smearing of "Bill-O" is just compensation for his lack of presence last week. Let's face it: without O'Reilly, Keef has no reason to get up in the morning. Back into the tub, KO!

    A "wesley" snippet.......

    This is the guy who received the Kosovo Campaign Medal after having been granted a waiver, although according to an article in Stars and Stripes (European addition), no one seems to know who granted the waiver in time for the general to get the first medal awarded. Even though he led the international alliance in its 78-day blitz against Yugoslavia, the waiver was necessary because General Clark's service did not meet the criteria for the award which required service in the actual theater of operation. It appears that Clark made no effort to secure similar waivers for the thousands of service personnel who supported the effort from bases outside the combat zone.

    On 17 July 2001, General Wesley Clark was confronted in an often heated exchange by his critics at Border's book store where the general was promoting his book, Waging Modern War. Although one of the axioms of Clark's book is that, "A Political Problem Cannot be Solved by Military Force," what he practiced and advocated in Kosovo was just the opposite. When confronted with questions about the misuse of air power and grossly exaggerating the results as exposed in a Newsweek article titled Kosovo Cover-Up of 15 May 2000, targeting civilian targets as stated by Sen. Joe Lieberman, and consorting with KLA terrorists such as Hashim Thaci and Agim Ceku, General Clark's replies were always the same: the questioner was wrong, Sen. Lieberman was wrong, and Newsweek was wrong. "I went to the presentation very much opposed to everything Clark stood for, but it wasn't until I heard him speak and answer questions that I realized how dangerous a man like this is," writes Col. George Jatras, USAF (Ret).

    Yes, Mr. Anonymous, why was he fired by a Democratic President/Administration?

    Just like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Peter Pace went into "retirement."

    Wesley Clark--Clinton's favorite General--you know--liottle boy blue Wesley was not going to get his fourth star--so what did this model of a modern major general do?Why he ran to clinton to put the fix in--and overode the board to give little Wesssy his fourth star.Hmm-and what did Wessy do?Why he waged clinton's illeagal and brutal war on Serbia--DESPITE IGNORING THE WILL OF THE WILL OF THE US CONGRESS, THE AMWERICAN PEOPLE, AND THE UN.78 days of wessy sending massive bombing strikes against old women and children--all the while it was wessley and clinton who were backing up the brinks truck to al-qeada Kosovo. And this asshole thinks he has any standing?His a tin soldier --who whore4d himself to clinton.
    As for the orange retard? He never palyed a sport in his entire life---went to a tony private school- went to another tony college--( although--it was not Harvard--where Bill O'Reilly went-- but then we all know the orange poutz is no Bill O'Reilly0-graduated with a degree in get this---hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha--communications ( HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA----GASP-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH---GASP-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA--OH GOD--communications--the basket weaving of college majors--where this orange ashley banfeild went on to read other ppls words on ESPN--where he was hated by weveryone who worked there---and was the olny person not asked back to mark the 25 yrs ESPN has been on? Hmmm--why would that be?Oh yea---the orange ashley is a total boob--whom no one can stand.

    "Bring in FAR-LEFT Arianna Huffington to pleasure Keith's conspiracy theories. Of course, the sock puppet plays right into Adam's Apple Olbermann's profound questioning and Arianna suggests that O'Reilly has been talking about Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith's baby. Funny part is - HE NEVER DID! That was Greta Van Susteren - with all due respect. Again, a usual left love fest. I'd love to see Arianna on O'Reilly's program to actually get questioned rather than the softballs Olbermann comes up with. Arianna says O'Reilly is pretending to be a journalist. HA! The discredited Sports Guy, who never did anything except work on Sports Center and make not witty comments is somehow a real journalist? "\
    Huffington? Can any straight man stand listening to this pig for more then five seconds?Isn't she the fag hag who was the beard for the gayest man in all of california?Wasn't she the putz who got caught cribbing her disertation ? Was'nt she the one who lead the charge against that liar and fraud DFavid Brock--only to swicth sides to the far radicval left when she could make a back off those dopes?Yet---hgere she is on the orange Ashley show---bad mouthing O'Reilly-----who was a real reporter on a real network--welll two networks---and who showed real courage leaving a hit show "Insuide edition"--to go back to another high level college---to get a masterts at Harvard?What was little orange Ashley doing? What was Huffington doing?Oh yea---fightiong over who got to wear the women's undershorts with her "husband" and passing others work off as her own.

    Edward Schatz, very good job tonight.

    One suggestion from my point of view. I would have enjoyed a bit more detail, especially re Afghanistan and Bill O.

    Thanks, Grammie

    Edward,
    I would of liked to have read your take on Keith calling out Newt Gingrich as the fat new good liar that he is.

    There is nothing the general wouldn’t do to pander for votes.

    We don’t know if his good-looking, Hollywood screenwriter son set up the deal, but Clark appeared as a “cover boy” on the national gay magazine, The Advocate. And this was no pose in uniform with his medals. Wes tried to “ape” Marlon Brando, wearing a black jacket, open to a white tee-shirt. Maybe he set a few homosexual hearts aflutter, but his supporters in Oklahoma and the Bible Belt would have blanched to see their candidate in such a venue.

    Most of the Clark campaign apparatus came from Clinton loyalists. What will Bill and Hillary do now to (1) set up a scenario where Hillary gets “drafted” at the convention; or (2) makes sure whoever the Democrat nominee is in Boston, he loses in November so the Hildabeast has a clear shot at the top prize in 2008?

    At least she doesn’t have to worry about Al Gore. The loser of the 2000 presidential campaign has self-destructed with his “kiss-of-death” endorsement of Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont and his shrill denunciation of President Bush as a "traitor" at a recent Democratic fundraiser. Gore won’t even figure into 2008 thinking. He has become politically irrelevant and a national joke.

    Gen. Clark was something of a cartoon character himself. On a recent CNN news program, he maintained he got in the race because “so many people” came to him and urged him to run. Probably a good number were sycophantic Army buddies who had benefited from sucking up to this little Napolean back when Wes almost got us into World War III.

    FIRED AS NATO COMMANDER

    In our earlier story, (see below), we quoted British Gen. Michael Jackson as rightly refusing Clark’s order to attack Russian troops moving on the Pristina airport in Kosovo. At the time, Clark was Supreme NATO Commander and Jackson leader of all ground forces in the region.

    “I won’t start World War III for you, sir,” snorted the tough British commander. When word of Clark’s instability reached Washington, even Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, managed to have the “moxie” to call Clark home early and “retire” him from the Army. No less than Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Army Chief of Staff, confirmed Clark had been “fired.” So we can all count ourselves lucky that the megalomaniac general has now left the political stage. Hopefully, for good.

    MilitaryCorruption.com received national exposure and hundreds of congratulatory e-mails when we “dissected” the general in our “Loose Cannon” story one week before the Arizona Primary.

    On the day we posted our investigative piece, the general was actually ahead in the polls here (albeit narrowly) according to KAET-TV and the Arizona State University Poll. One week later, on primary night in Arizona, Clark was drubbed badly, losing by a whopping 16% margin! And this was supposed to be one of his best states, after Oklahoma!

    We thank the many veterans groups, active duty military at the three major bases here, the veterans, retirees and their families who circulated our article from Flagstaff to Yuma and turned “thumbs down” on a man clearly unsuitable for being anywhere near the nuclear button.

    CLARK REJECTED BY MAJORITY OF VOTERS

    In reality, Wes coward Clark was his own worst enemy.

    RK, I'm not very familiar with General Clark's history.

    I know that I have gotten some good links from you in the past. I especially remember the link to the actual indictment of the Fort Dix Six.

    How about some links to the statements you made above.

    Thanks,

    Grammie

    Yes, Jeff/rk, many thanks for the Wesley Clark smear. It confirms to all exactly what we all knew: For you the job of anyone in the military is to shut up, get wounded and die for George W. Bush/Dick Cheney. Why do you hold the military in such profound contempt? Are you just a guilt-ridden little chicken hawk? Do you blame them for the Bush/Cheney failures? Is this all some effort to pass the accountability for your own lack of judgment, your own failures and those of Bush/Cheney on to someone else? Does this really make you feel better about yourself? I really think any opinion you have about this war is worth squat. All you are doing is excusing monumental mistakes by Bush/Cheney and "its" supporters, including yourself, in the form of hatred for our miliitary and contempt for our troops. You are wrong, tragically wrong, Mr. Jeff/rk, it is the Iraq occupation policy/strategy which should be hated, not our military. It is you and others like you, Mr. Jeff/rk, who should be held in contempt, not our troops. I respect our military and I support our troops. I do hate the strategy, and I do hold you in utter contempt. In the end, you are nothing but a shameless, cowardly traitor, and I count your opinion worth less than a grain of sand. I hope others also reject your thoughts and that they too bring about a new strategy which seeks noble objectives and honors our troops. That will come, and it will be a tremendous triumph for our nation and an utter rejection of you and your kind.

    What a bunch of babble. Anon gets his ass handed to him in regards to the stability of Wes Clark and guess what happens...surprise..surprise...he goes into deflection mode. Facts are like kryptonite to left wingers.

    Grammie,

    Just pull up that comment on Wes Clark's words prior to the war in Iraq for our friend Anon. You wrote a very good comment about the "enemy combatant" case. I really want to address all those points against me when I have the time to make a better case. I did notice how my oint about what the President said in January was ignored because it can be documented. Later,...

    Grammie,

    The remarks are those of Glenn MacDonald, a traitor whose purpose in life is to trash the records of democrat veterans...

    One wonders if he is still working for the Viet Cong...

    He is at www.militarycorruption.com

    He blew Clinton for his fourth star
    Like Keith he was fired, that's par
    Wes Clark is not able
    Mentally unstable
    His brain must be filled with Kevlar

    Ms. Huffington isn't too bright
    The moonbat is making her flight
    She likes talking smack
    But she's just a hack
    Like Olby, the same sorry plight

    Nice write-up....

    Nearly vomitted after #1 story.
    What a Shakespearian farce on Olby planet.

    Nice to be back,

    Keith is a boob, who the other night must have lost his glasses and discovered Ashleigh Banfields under a couch somewhere......Keith, women's glasses are not a sexy look for you

    Neocons hate veterans...

    Makes sense. Neocons have to look at their own cowardly faces in the mirror everyday. They certainly don't want look at someone with more balls than they have...

    anonyloon @6:23, I don't hate the military, I have no idea how you came up with that. I guess lying is the best you can do. Contempt for our troops? Traitor? Would you mind explaining how you came to these conclusions, too? Is that the best you can do? Resorting to just making crap up? Anyone who reads my posts knows you couldn't be farther from the truth. You are just upset because I post facts on your hero Clark. Now, he is a traitor and a coward.

    Jeff doesn't 'prove' much on this board, but his Wesley Clark copy and paste smear piece above reminds us once again that anybody can be "swift boated" in today's dirty world of smear politics.

    Jeff sez: "Anyone who reads my posts knows you couldn't be farther from the truth."

    I read your drivel all the time and anon 6:23 is spot on in his analysis.

    Maybe they will ask Olbermann(D) to co-host the Price Is Right with Rosie.

    Raging,

    Didn't you hear, son? Olbermann has a job already...a multi-year contract. Earning more than you will in your lifetime, child...

    Republicans are jealous of people making more money than them...

    > Maybe they will ask Olbermann(D) to co-host the Price Is Right with Rosie.

    They'd have to change it to The Price Is Left.

    Blindrat-

    Olby cant stand the fact that the great Bill O makes at least twice as much annually than he does! Judging from his so called "news reporting", KO should be at an equal pay scale as a Burger King employee.

    Neocons think that they can read Olbermann's thoughts. It's amusing how child-like they are...

    ok, "mike" since you have made your first hypocritical post of the day by interjecting yourself, elaborate how I "hate" the military? Elaborate on how I am a traitor? Elaborate how I have "contempt" for our troops? Oh, blind sheik, O'Reilly makes 10 times what the orange faced enemy defender makes. O makes 10 mil a yr and your hero makes 1 mil per yr. $ mil for 4 yrs and he has to work more hours at nbc, not such a good deal, after all.

    rk,

    Soros makes more money than both of them put together. I guess that makes his opinion even better than O'Reilly's, eh son?

    And, your contempt for our troops is obvious in that you support a militarily inept president who cannot even keep body armor on his own troops for the first three years of the war...

    Chicken Blogger, there are no more original ways left to say that those who disagree with you are lying traitorous scum. I got that argument seared in my brain from the repetition.

    Try something new and different. Like make a rebuttal of the points made.

    Sharon steered me in a direction with her post and it seems that he suffers from that same malady that afflicted John Kerry. He was right behind the iraq War until he decided it was expedient to claim to have always been opposed to the war.

    You can find it at:

    http://www.factcheck.org/clark_waffles_on_iraq_war.html

    "Summary
    In the October 9 debate on CNN, General Wesley Clark claimed his “position on Iraq has been very, very clear from the outset,” adding, “I fully supported taking the problem to the United Nations and dealing with it through the United Nations. I would never have voted for war."

    But that doesn't square very well with what he said on earlier occasions. He said he supported a resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq when Congress was about to vote on it, and he wrote that “President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud” as Saddam Hussein's statue was being toppled by American soldiers in Baghdad."

    Details follow in the rest of the article.

    Grammie

    blind sheik, has your cult leader fixed the ac in your trailer, yet? P.S. you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The whole body armour crap was a left wing smear tactic that Olbermahn drummed up and blew out of proportion, nice try, though. Brainless fools like you suck it right up, though. You should try getting your info from people that actually have been to Iraq. Has Olbermahn been there? No. We have enough jackets for our troops and the Iraqi troops, as well.

    Sharon, so far you and Cee are the only ones to comment on my post re the Al Marri verdict. Thanks to both of you for the kind words.

    Grammie

    rk,

    >>you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The whole body armour crap was a left wing smear tactic that Olbermahn drummed up and blew out of proportion, nice try, though.

    Really, son? My source wasn't Olbermann.

    ..."There was not enough body armor, leaving my men to dodge bullets with Vietnam-era flak vests. We had to write home and ask for batteries to be included in our care packages."...

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/dems.radio/index.html

    For those of you who prefer Fox News:

    "..."Outrageously we've seen that (soldiers) haven't been getting what they need in terms of equipment and body armor," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who wrote legislation to have troops reimbursed for equipment purchases. "That's totally unacceptable, and why this directive by the Pentagon needs to be scrutinized in much greater detail."

    But another veterans group backed the move.

    "I don't think the Army is wrong by doing this, because the Army has to ensure some level of quality," said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "They don't want soldiers relying on equipment that is weak or substandard."

    But, Rieckhoff said, the military is partially to blame for the problem because it took too long to get soldiers the armor they needed. "This is the monster they made," he said..."

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189763,00.html

    Chicken Blogger, there are no more original ways left to say that those who disagree with you are lying traitorous scum. I got that argument seared in my brain from the repetition.

    -----

    For you, I would rebut. For Jeff/rk, I won'y waste my time. He is as ignorant as he is bigoted, and I am past the point at which I am willing to "discuss" repeated slander of the military. In essence, Jeff/rk is worthless, and I will treat him as such. His kind weakens a society and a nation.

    Jeff drones on: "ok "mike", since you made your first hypocritical post of the day by interjecting yourself"...

    I have been wondering for some time what Jeff meant by 'hypocritical', since he misuses the word so often, but now I have my answer; To Jeff, 'hypocritical' means 'interjecting' yourself. Nobody else, Webster included, defines the word hypocrital that way, but Jeff IS quite an anomaly.

    Now Jeff, you want ME to 'elaborate' about something I posted about you? How convenient! Think of ALL the times I've asked YOU to 'elaborate' or defend one of your silly musings only to receive silence or a deflected response.

    Now THERE'S a hypocite for you! Jeff wants me to elaborate on my assertions,.... but he never thinks it is incumbent upon himself to do the same.

    I want my glasses back.

    Royalking

    Calling a general a COWARD? You must have balls the size of church bells to make that statement without realizing the hypocrisy of it.

    At least he served, unlike ALMOST EVERY single mofo who's currently running this proud nation into the ground!

    I want my tanning lotion back.

    I want my talking points back.

    "mike," That's what I tought, as usual, you can't back your spew. Your a "hypocite" (your spelling) because you are always shooting your mouth off about other people interjecting themselves in others conversations, while you seem to think it's ok for you to do it, Got It?

    blind sheik, cnn and Dodd is all you got? Reikoff? Old York Times? Nice try.

    Schatz nice recap

    Jesus,

    As usual, I offer proof of my contentions while you stand in a diaper in a mud puddle whining with nothing to back you.

    You are a sad little girl...

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455

    Yea, there's no media bias, media types gave 9 to 1 to the (d) party.

    Jesus,

    As usual, I offer proof of my contentions while you stand in a diaper in a mud puddle whining with nothing to back you.

    You are a sad little girl...

    Posted by: blindrat at June 21, 2007 2:25 PM

    Didn't you mean allah?

    rk,

    I guess you realized that it would be best to divert from my bitchslapping you, eh son?

    I think that using Fox News was a nice touch, eh?

    Jeff being wrong AGAIN: "you are always shooting your mouth off about other people interjecting themselves in others conversations while you seem to think it's OK for you to do it, Got it?"

    Now lets take a look at what was actually said: You specifically stated that "anyone one who reads my posts knows you couldn't be farther from the truth".

    In other words Jeff, you made a direct challenge to anyone who reads your posts, including me.....and I disagree! Therefore, your assertion that "anyone who reads my posts knows you couldn't be farther from the truth"...is a lie. I simply answered your challenge.

    Sorry Jeff, no 'interjection' there!

    Now lets take a look at your so called patriotism and "support for the troops":

    1) - You continue to confuse support for this presidents misguided policies with 'patriotism' and "support for the troops". You couldn't be further from the truth. 'Patriotism' in America means standing up for what is best for the country. I can't count the number of times you have called someone a 'traitor' on this board because they have different ideas than this roque president as to what it best for the country...therefore, calling YOU a traitor because you blindly follow a self destructive and misguided policy you don't even understand yourself is not out of bounds at all.

    2)- You continue to confuse "support for the troops" with support for a misguided mission. You couldn't be farther from the truth there either, even as you quote that tired old right wing sound bite.

    3) - You continue to ignore and deny obvious signs that out military is being overextended, underfunded, misused, and on the road to demoralization.
    - Supporting and cheering on the current policies of extended and overlapping multiple 'tours' in a war zone is not exactly "supporting the troops".
    - Sitting on your sofa and cheering on the president while he sends more and more young Americans to their deaths under failed policies and leadership is hardly "supporting the troops".
    - True support for the troops would be working towards a way of getting them out from the middle of that civil war in which you cannot even articulate what you mean when you call for 'victory' yourself.
    - What would 'victory' be for us, Jeff? Have we been 'defeated' because we have failed to force fanatical religious factions who have been warring for centuries to get along? Only in the strange world of the Neocon does that constitute 'defeat'.

    Keep fooling yourself Jeff...what you have is false pariotism...selfish patriotism! You know nothing about true patriotism.

    I want that smoking back.

    Opinions are all you posted, no facts, "mike." Wiggle, wiggle, spin, spin, as usual.

    Whereas, rk gives us those great "articles" from blogs that he googles...

    I want the 'Wall of Sound' back. Plus that bitch I shot.

    blind sheik, you posted a quote taken from Fox News (#1) made by reikoff (old york times). Fox News (#1) is a network that welcomes both sides of the story, wrong as reikoff was, he was given a chance.

    I want my tee time back.

    I didn't kill anyone, but if I did, I'd want Nicole and Ron back, but since I didn't do it, I don't.

    I want Rosie back.

    mexican patty, you're late for the afternoon donkey show with your girlfriend......

    rk,

    You and I both know that I can give you more articles than that, child. And, how many have you provided?

    Oh...that would be zilch, eh son...?

    Hollaback.

    I vant ze zeppelin back.

    I want Freda back.

    Who wants my hairy back?

    Jeff groans: "opinions are all you posted"

    And when, Jeff, have you posted anything but opinions?

    I didn't 'wiggle' or 'spin' at all in that post, and as usual, you have absolutely nothing in response.

    "whereas RK gives us those great "articles" from blog that he googles..."

    Exactly....and the only time his posts show coherent writing is when he has lifted something from God knows where, and then posted it as if it were his own...with no attribution.

    "Tuesday's Hour of Spin managed a dismal, humiliating and MediaMatters backing lacking third place finish in total viewers coupled with a laughable fourth in that "money demo" Olbsession. Fourth Place."

    But how can that be? Why Olby just reminded us not so long ago of this:

    "It is, to some degree, a perfect setup," he said of his relationship with the network. "They leave me alone, I leave them alone, and I deliver what they need, both in terms of journalism and the money end of it, the ratings."

    Yeah, the mentally ill Orange Boy is really delivering isn't he? Keep up the inane jealous obsession with your superior competition Bill O (who ignores your pathetic existence) and watch those ratings climb, baby!

    Exactly....and the only time his posts show coherent writing is when he has lifted something from God knows where, and then posted it as if it were his own...with no attribution.

    Posted by: Mike at June 21, 2007 3:58 PM

    Second lie today. He's on a roll, now! Will it be hypocrisy or a lie next? Stay tuned....

    Announcer: Few votes in Congress are as important as funding our troops at war. Though John Kerry voted in October of 2002 for military action in Iraq , he later voted against funding our soldiers.

    Senate Clerk: Mr. Kerry:

    Announcer: No.

    Announcer: Body armor for troops in combat.

    Senate Clerk: Mr. Kerry:

    Announcer: No.

    Announcer: Higher combat pay.

    Senate Clerk: Mr. Kerry:

    Announcer: No.

    Announcer: And, better health care for reservists and their families…

    Senate Clerk: Mr. Kerry:

    Announcer: No.


    Come on everyone, the hairy back comment was pretty good.

    Mr. Smith owned a small business. He had two employees, Sarah and Jack. They were both extremely good employees - always willing to work overtime and chip in where needed.

    Mr. Smith was looking over his books one day and decided that he wasn't making enough money to warrant two employees and he would have to lay one off. But both Sarah and Jack were such good workers he was having trouble finding a fair way to do it. He decided that he would watch them work and the first one to take a break would be the one he would lay off.

    So, he sat in his office and watched them work. Suddenly, Sarah gets a terrible headache and needs to take an aspirin. She gets the aspirin out of her purse and goes to the water cooler to get something to wash it down with. Mr. Smith follows her to the water cooler, taps her on the shoulder and says, "Sarah, I'm going to have to lay you or Jack off."

    And Sarah says, "Can you jack off? I have a headache!"

    What's the orange faced lunatic going to say about nbc offering hilton 1 mil for an interview after she gets out of jail? Can't wait for that hard hitting piece of journalism from nbc.........

    Well Jeff...I see you are back to answering something with nothing. It's safer for you that way....you don't expose your silly arguments and beliefs to any scrutiny.

    But you DO continue to sound awful stupid. After all, screaming 'liar' or hypocrite' with no foundation, or lifting cut and paste opinions from elsewhere will only carry you so far.

    So it stands exactly as posted as posted at 6:23 this morning; you are a traitor....nothing but a smear merchant of real veterans, who doesn't really support the troops at all.

    Is it true what I heard.
    That Olbermann is an Iranian Shiite?

    Mr. Olbermann owned a small business. He had two employees, Katy and Jack. They were both extremely good employees - always willing to work overtime and chip in where needed.

    Mr. Olbermann was looking over his books one day and decided that he wasn't making enough money to warrant two employees and he would have to lay one off. But both Katy and Jack were such good workers he was having trouble finding a fair way to do it. He decided that he would watch them work and the first one to take a break would be the one he would lay off.

    So, he sat in his office and watched them work. Suddenly, Katy gets a terrible headache and needs to take an aspirin. She gets the aspirin out of her purse and goes to the water cooler to get something to wash it down with. Mr. Olbermann follows her to the water cooler, taps her on the shoulder and says, "Katy, I'm going to have to lay you or Jack off."

    And Katy says, "Can you jack off? I have a headache!"
    _____________________________
    Great joke Thomas Whitmore, made a few minor name changes so that the OW crowd can appreciate it even more.

    What do I have to do to get coverage on Countdown? 16 count indictment not enough?

    What do I have to do to get coverage on Countdown? 16 count indictment not enough?

    Posted by: Cold Cash Jefferson at June 21, 2007 5:57 PM

    Legally firing 8 US attn is a much bigger story than what WJ did. The dnc would never allow the orange one to mention anything about WJ.

    P.S. nothing you say "stands," "mike." If you ever see me say anything that remotely resembles defending the enemy, feel free to call me a traitor, until then, shut it.....

    Please, no one tell Jeff/rk that the reason people make anonymous posts is that it drives up totally nuts, pushing him ever closer to that very nearby line divding sanity from insanity. The Great Investigator never figures out who is posting, and when he thinks he has, he is always wrong. Jeff/rk has no understanding of syntax or voice, no appreication for patterns of thought. The Great Moralist objects to anonymous postings, yet he posts idiotic drivel, racial slurs and slanders against military people under a nom de plume and under several other names.

    And, what is it with "cut an runners"? I thought the grammatical convention was that "an" is used when the word it precedes begins with a vowel sound, as in "an idiot" or "an f'ing idiot". But, what does "cut a runner" mean? Scratch a marathon participant? What is the relevance of that? I doubt most marathon runners are seated in front of a computer all day and night.

    I gather from how articulate and knowledgeable Jeff/rk is that he must be a Security Guard at Wal-Mart or the boy who scoops the crunchies out of the fry pits at Long John Silver. I suspect the latter since his time patterns indicate someone on a split shift, or perhaps someone just too cowardly to fight in the War of Terror or too lazy to work.

    Very truly yours,
    An Anonymous Source

    Some excerpts from a very interesting article concerning news bias:

    Journalists Give Campaign Cash
    Bill Dedman, MSNBC

    Whether you sample your news feed from ABC or CBS (or, yes, even NBC and MSNBC), whether you prefer Fox News Channel or National Public Radio, The Wall Street Journal or The New Yorker, some of the journalists feeding you are also feeding cash to politicians, parties or political action committees.

    MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

    Americans don't trust the news or newspeople as much as they used to. The crisis of faith is traced by the surveys of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. More than seven in 10 (72 percent) say news organizations tend to favor one side, the highest level of skepticism in the poll's 20-year history. Despite the popularity of Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann, two-thirds of those polled say they prefer to get news from sources without a particular point of view.

    http://www.nbc11.com/msnbcnews/13545427/detail.html

    6:21/olbyloon, an investigator, you are NOT. Nice try. P.S. your not as "anonymous" as you think......

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455

    Yea, there's no media bias, media types gave 9 to 1 to the (d) party.

    Posted by: royalking at June 21, 2007 2:56 PM

    "What do I have to do to get coverage on Countdown? 16 count indictment not enough?"

    Posted by: Cold Cash Jefferson at June 21, 2007 5:57 PM

    Listen Cold Cash Jefferson, I'm tired of people like you bitching because you don't like the news stories I cover. You don't like it? I'm a tough guy and will come kick your ass if you complain some more. You think I'm bluffing? Here's what I told SI when they interviewed me earlier this year:

    "I have never gotten a pie in the face or someone swearing at me. I have heard from others there have been players that have thought about it but when they see -- I am their height or bigger -- they decide maybe this confrontation is not really worth it."

    See, I told SI I'm a tough guy and I really am. See, I go out in public places where Bill O is and he won't even make eye contact with me, that shows you what a bad ass I am. I call out my colleagues here at MSNBC and tell them to their face that they are as dumb as a box of rocks. I tell people who heckle me over the Internet to "Kill yourself" I am not someone to be fucked with. Nobody fucks with the Edward R. Murrow of the 21st century.

    Mike, we all know that was you at 6:21. You really don't have any room to talk in the "grammatical" dept. either.

    6:21/olbyloon, an investigator, you are NOT. Nice try. P.S. your not as "anonymous" as you think......

    ---

    Maybe not, but you're as big an idiot as I think you are.

    Those crunichies are beginning to turn a little too brown. Get back to work.

    Being exposed by an "idiot" can't be good, can it?

    No Anon 6:44...that WASN'T me at 6:44! I post under my name (yes, my real name), and thats IT...unlike you.

    What in the hell is WITH you idiots on here thinking you have the clairvoyance to determine who is posting under other names and 'anon'?

    Jeff: You are "defending the enemy" as long as you keep blindly backing self destructive war policies that play right into enemy hands....like occupying Iraq.

    You little ole traitor you!

    Mike,

    I appreciate the kind words you spoke of me in the past, but I find these kind of statements totally objectionable:

    -Jeff: You are "defending the enemy" as long as you keep blindly backing self destructive war policies that play right into enemy hands....like occupying Iraq.

    -True support for the troops would be working towards a way of getting them out from the middle of that civil war

    Are you calling everyone who doesn't believe as you do, including a percentage of military people and their families, traitors?

    What efforts are you making to work towards getting the troops out, besides commenting here on a board called Olbermann Watch? Cindy Sheehan quit because of the pathetic efforts of those in power who "support the troops" according to your definition. You provide endless observations and analysis of RK . AAP gets so lonely when RK is absent from the board that he sends out Bovine calls. Maybe that is an element of evolution that a dissident Jesuit wacko can explain? C.S. Lewis has helped many intelligent people to find Christianity, BTW.

    STC you opened up a relevant point of discussion. What is your take?

    Liberal hypocrisy:

    In February, after Newsom admitted to having an affair with an aide who also was his campaign manager's wife, he said he was seeking treatment for alcohol abuse. Following these revelations, Newsom, 39, gave a television interview during which he was asked about whether rumors circulating at City Hall about him using cocaine were true. Newsom, however, did not directly answer the question, instead calling the rumors "absolutely laughable."

    But on Wednesday, Newsom fired back at his political rival for broaching the subject publicly and called the allegation "so gratuitous, so erroneous that it's just patently false." He also sent a letter to Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin requesting that the board address Daly's conduct.

    The cocaine comments created yet another scandal in City Hall, overshadowing Supervisor Ed Jew's headline-grabbing legal troubles. Jew faces criminal charges for allegedly falsifying records to meet residency requirements to run for supervisor last year, and the city attorney is seeking approval from the state attorney general to file a lawsuit to force Jew from office for not being a resident of his supervisorial district. He also is a target of a federal public corruption investigation for accepting $40,000 from businessmen facing city permit problems.

    Daly's statements ignited a whole new brouhaha, with Newsom on one side infuriated about having to answer questions about drug use in an election year and Daly on the other, saying he stands solidly behind everything he said and will not apologize.


    A cucumber, a pickle, a penis & Average Clinton C**k Sucker are sitting around a table talking about how much life sucks.

    The Cucumber says: Life sucks! When I get big, people cut me up and through me in a salad.

    The Pickle says: No! My life sucks! When I get big, people stick me in a jar with vinegar and other crap and it seems they leave me in there forever. But then they take me out and either cut me up or just bite into me.

    The Penis says: Oh yeah! My life sucks! When I get big, somebody sticks a raincoat over me, sticks me in a dark hole, and bangs my head against the wall until I throw up!

    A.C.C.S. says: No! my life sucks! I yell Bushwipes on a internet board, I make my mom copy and paste wacky left wing crap and people laugh at me!

    And to make matters worse! I'm in love with my cow of a manager at White Castle, yeah her bovine fat rolls drive me wild! But all she does is keep yelling at me telling me the fries are done, clean the parking lot, and stop playing circus seal in cars with Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers on them! Yeah life sucks!

    The Cucumber, the Pickle & The Penis: Ya know, maybe life doesn't suck after all.

    throw.....sorry

    Besides the braindead RK, no other poster's comments are ignored quicker than the empty-headed, got hit in the head with a PUCK.

    Posted by: at June 21, 2007 9:54 PM

    Is this how you "ignore" pucks comments? LOL! Thanks Bob!

    Sharon, I was going to ask "mike" what he was doing to help the troops and their efforts, regarding getting them out,but, I already know the answer, nothing.

    No Sharon, I am not calling everyone who do not believe as I do 'traitors'. I realize that I take the risk of offending other more rational posters than Jeff whenever I say something like that, but you have to keep in mind Jeff's history on this board.

    Jeff has called or implied many who don't think as he does 'traitors' and "enemy defenders" many, many times on this board. You and I both know that is nothing but a load of extreme right wing bull specifically intended to shout down or shame the anti-war crowd. I personally think that kind of rhetoric is aimed at the fence sitters more than anyone else.

    The rhetoric I am using against Jeff is intended to remind him that he is no more or less patriotic than those of us that disagree with him. There is certainly at least as rational a case as to why someone on either side of the fence isn't showing proper patriotism...therefore little right wing hack wannabees like Jeff should just cut the crap with their inane 'traitor' and "enemy defender" bull.

    Anyone who is sincere in their belief as to what is best for America, stays informed, and stands up for their beliefs are anything but traitors in my book...be they right or be they wrong.

    No Sharon, I am not calling everyone who do not believe as I do 'traitors'. I realize that I take the risk of offending other more rational posters than Jeff whenever I say something like that, but you have to keep in mind Jeff's history on this board.

    Posted by: "mike" at June 21, 2007 10:40 PM

    Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle!

    Jeff has called or implied many who don't think as he does 'traitors' and "enemy defenders" many, many times on this board. You and I both know that is nothing but a load of extreme right wing bull specifically intended to shout down or shame the anti-war crowd. I personally think that kind of rhetoric is aimed at the fence sitters more than anyone else.

    Posted by: "mike" at June 21, 2007 10:40 PM

    You "shame" yourself just fine without my help.

    Anyone who is sincere in their belief as to what is best for America, stays informed, and stands up for their beliefs are anything but traitors in my book...be they right or be they wrong.

    Posted by: "mike" at June 21, 2007 10:40 PM

    Staying informed? By watching Olbermahn twice every night? OMG!

    As usual, he avoids answering "What have you done to help the troops, there cause and getting out of Iraq." Nothing, like I said.

    As usual, he avoids answering "What have you done to help the troops, there cause and getting out of Iraq." Nothing, like I said.


    ---

    I don't know what Mike does to support the troops. Perhaps, nothing more than putting forth intelligent and articulate arguments proving why we should end our Occupation and participation in a remote civil war. I do know what you do, Jeff/rk: Set at a computer and cut and paste Extreme Right Wing arguments to justify failed policies of a failed President which resulted in the deaths of fourteen (14) of America's best in the last forty-eight (48) hours. You have never said or done anything which has shown the slightest care or concern for our troops. On the contrary, everything you have ever said or done diminishes them as people, reduces them to mere commodities in a gross, macabre game of tired and tiresome nitwits. Be honest enough to admit that what little you have contibuted to this effort has been a miserable failure. You ought to be remorseful and you ought to transform yourself and your views. Instead, you merely seek to comfort yourself and to prolong a continuing tragedy. I know like your great mentor you are not man enough to admit your mistakes, so I expect nothing from you other than what we have all been treated to repeatedly: the mere repetition of the same tired justifications, borrowed from others without the slightest bit of originality, for an ill-conceived and poorly-executed strategy. It all disgusts me.

    Very truly yours,
    Anonymous

    The thing that is endlessly amazing and frankly, irresistible thing about Jeff is that he has no shame or sense of embarrasment. He keeps coming back for more, even as he continues to look like a complete and utter fool.

    Jeff is kind of like that "whack-a-mole" game that is used so often as a metaphor for the war. Whack him here and he pops up there.

    He can ask the most moronic loaded questions, like the one he just asked again at 11:52....and then feign disdain when someone isn't stupid enough to take the bait.

    When you do choose to give this fool a thoughtful and detailed answer to one of his ridiculous questions or opinions, he comes back with something stupid such as "thats your opinion"....instead of taking the obvious challenge of composing an equally thoughtful answer.

    I really don't know what the draw is in arguing with this moron is for me? There is no challenge to it. Jeff is something to be laughed at and be dismayed about at the same time....while considering the sad probability that there actually are many more Americans out there THIS obtuse....and the really scary thing is that they can vote too!

    AAP, I think you have the right idea!

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485

    And i thought for sure the #5 story would be that 125 reporters gave to Dems and liberal causes and only 17 gave to republicans and conservative causes. Oh well I'm sure Keithy will get to that story tomorrow.

    AAP, I think you have the right idea!

    Posted by: "mike" at June 22, 2007 12:30 AM
    He avoids the question again!

    The thing that is endlessly amazing and frankly, irresistible thing about Jeff is that he has no shame or sense of embarrasment. He keeps coming back for more, even as he continues to look like a complete and utter fool. Really?
    Posted by: "mike" at June 22, 2007 12:30 AM
    This would be the second hypocritical post of the day from our favorite olbyloon.
    "I don't defend Olbermann!"
    "I was driven to defend him by you guys!"
    "I used to be a (R) but now I am a (D), I think!"
    "Rush Limbaugh made me change" LMAO!

    Poor little Wesley Clark gets his ass handed to him by O'Reilly so he runs to Keith's nipple. Now he can recite the talking points he gets from Media Matters to Keith.
    The Democrat congress hits an all time low in approval ratings. I guess that means its time for them to be impeached. Remember, we impeach based on poll numbers. They can take Trent Lott with them.

    With the spotlight placed squarely on his own idiocy, Jeff has again resorted to telling outright lies again.

    Those last two 'quotes' he just attributed to me are lies, and he knows it. The first two quotes were taken entirely out of context.


    Sorry Jeff, you can't take the 'imbOcile' spotlight off yourself....you've earned it.

    Funny thing 'Factor', I don't recall Wesley Clark "getting his ass handed to him by O'Reilly".

    What I DO remember clearly about one particular argument between the two was O'Reilly falsely blaming American troops for the Malmedy massecre.

    At least most of your compadres on this board see the obvious irony of defending a pompous jerk like O'Reilly while attacking Olbermann...but you're obviously not that smart!

    As for "talking points", your namesake hero is the only TV pundit I've seen who regularly insults the intelligence of his own audience by doing a 'Talking Point' lecture, and even names it as such.

    Anon from 12:12 a.m. and Mike.
    This is Mike's comment below:

    True support for the troops would be working towards a way of getting them out from the middle of that civil war

    I don't care if it was directed at RK (Jeff) because of his "history" here or not. The comment defines true support to whomever it applies. I pointed out that there is a percentage of military members and their families who don't hold Mike's view.

    "As for "talking points", your namesake hero is the only TV pundit I've seen who regularly insults the intelligence of his own audience by doing a 'Talking Point' lecture, and even names it as such." (Mike)
    ***

    I am not an avid fan or hater of O'Reilly. The "Talking Points" title is just a gimmick. One of the other segments of the show is called "Back of the Book." I think people who watch the show get it. At least he doesn't have people on to parrot his views. Despite the constant smear attacks, he never attacks Olbermann by name on air.

    NBC is giving Paris Ho $1.3 million for an exclusive interview after spending less than two weeks cuffed and stuffed. poor baby. Mom. You want to know how Keith would look when he went to jail. Well, there ya go. YOU wanna know what Keith looked like when his mommy took the pork chop off his leg, well, thereyago.

    NBC as CBS, has crossed the line in jounalism to tabloid. The other night one of those dogs on MSNBC said she was shocked when she got up one morning watching TV with her kids and she saw an ad for Girls GOne Wild. Then in prime time, MSNBC and NBC air To Catch a Predator where we see the web logs:

    "I want to stuff my big, fat, thick, long ^&**K in your *)*^(*^."

    "I would love to eat out your (*(^(&*^("

    "RU a virgin. I promise, I'll go slow when I slide my long c)(&)(& inside you and build up speed till I'm pumping you like the Hulk on steroirds.

    What a bunch of idiots.

    A few weeks ago NBC in their concern for our wounded troops "exposed" problems at Reed. Hum? Where are they now? Hum? They give this ho all this money. Why don't they donate it to Reed or some soldier support group. George Saros who made millions in the stock market he calls an evil today donates 10's of millions to liberals. Believe you me, the Lord will not look lightly to this. If He blesses someone with wealth, He expects good to come of it.

    And, since all the liberals are some of the ugliest and longest mugs that look more like silly putty, the odds are the whiners on this board fit right in.

    I have never seen an attractive liberals other than Kirsten Powers and here looks are starting to diminsh. Her once silky, blonde hair, is getting the frizzeis and dried out. Hate, it does a body good, if you are a liberal from my view.

    Ketih Olbermann walks up and sits down at the bar. "What can I get you?" the bartender inquires.

    "I want 6 shots of Jagermeister," responded Keith Olbermann. "6 shots?!? Are you celebrating something?" Yeah, my first blowjob." "Well, in that case, let me give you a 7th on the house."

    "No offense, sir. But if 6 shots won't get rid of the taste, nothing will."

    "True support for the troops would be working towards a way of getting them out from the middle of that civil war"

    Opinion. As is my equally valid statement...

    True support for the troops would be not giving those shooting at them hope that their war of attrition is succeeding.

    Millions of Americans hold to this idea, and many have loved ones in harms way that believe in the very mission given to them by their commanders, including George Bush. But short-sighted people like Mike simply dismiss their concerns for his own ideology and snipe....."The surge is lost" (even though it has only just started), "The sacrifice is worthless" (even though real people's lives have been made better by the generosity and fidelity of these brave men and women)....etc.

    If one is against the war then, instead of demeaning the people who support the policy (which accomplishes nothing), one should be out on the streets, in the halls of power, out on military bases doing something REAL to reverse such a bad policy.....

    What have you done to stop the killing that's been EFFECTIVE lately, Mike? Have you risked your freedom or livelihood to stop such a tragic policy....been arrested? civil disobedience?

    An idea: follow Sir Lon of Milquetoast's adivce that I continually repeat....

    "Lefties: Leave these pathetic drowning rats alone to stew in each other's juices. Get yourselves out in the street and fight this criminal administration in ways that really mean something, and that are noted by more than a handful of keyboard heroes!"

    Go on, do it.....get out there.....bring those pathetic protest numbers up from the couple of thousands to the millions!

    Cut the funds! Impeach Bush, Cheney and The AG! Be strong!

    And this is my post today, the 1,513th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

    I am cee, good night and good luck.

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    "Lefties: Leave these pathetic drowning rats alone to stew in each other's juices. Get yourselves out in the street and fight this criminal administration in ways that really mean something, and that are noted by more than a handful of keyboard heroes!" Sir Loin of Beef

    "American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it." DEMOCRAT Bob Kerrey

    "If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world." TONY BLAIR

    If we leave Iraq, as we should, the two factions can kill each other off. Al Qaeda will, of course, try to get a power hold on the country, but, since Iraq has never had an interest in Al Qaeda, it will be futile...

    If we stay, the two factions will kill each other off anyway, taking Americans with them and Al Qaeda will have the added recruitment power that Bush has given them...

    Laura Bush sez (in response to Sharon's comment that O'Relly "never attacks Olbermann by name on air": "thats better known as being a man"

    OK then, Mr. manly 'Laura', what do your own words say about YOU? You do noting but attack on this board by:

    1) - Questioning the manhood of political opposition....what are you, in the third grade?

    2) - Questioning the physical attractiveness of political opposition....wait, maybe the second grade?

    3) - Invoking god in your profanity filled rants....could this be the ultimate form of hypocrisy?

    4) - Constantly challenge the manhood of political opponants by name....see your own comment above about being "a man". By your own words, that doesn't make you much of a man....in fact, it makes you more like the 'whiners' you keep whining about.

    Finally 'Laura', it's not too surprising a childish mind like yours might prefer "Fox and Friends" to something more sober. I imagine you like "Red Eye" as well, another fairly childish Fox program.

    Sharon from 8:46: "I pointed out that there is a percentage of military member and there families who don't hold Mike's view."

    I am well aware of that Sharon.

    But your comment also illuminates the fallacy of invoking what "the troops think", as if that were somehow monolithic. We all know "the troops" have every opinion in the book, just like the general public does.

    Ketih Olbermann visits the troops in Iraq. On his orientation tour he noticed a very old, seedy looking camel tied out back of the enlisted men's barracks. He asked the Sergeant leading the tour, "What's the camel for?" The Sergeant replied, "Well Mr. Olbermann, it's a long way from anywhere, and the men have natural sexual urges, so when they do, we have the camel."

    Keith Olbermann says "Well, if it's good for morale, I guess it make sense." After he had been at the FOB for about 6 days, Keith could not stand it anymore, so he told his Sergeant, "BRING IN THE CAMEL!!!"

    The Sarge shrugged his shoulders and led the camel into Keith's quarters. Olbermann got a foot stool and proceeded to have vigorous sex with the camel. As he stepped, satisfied, down from the stool and was buttoning his pants he asked the Sergeant, "Is that how the enlisted men do it?"

    The Sergeant replied, "Well Mr. Olbermann, they usually just use it to ride into town."

    Nothing? Not even a snicker?

    You want praise for a very old joke with Olbermann's name put into it? Sad, son...

    1) - Questioning the manhood of political opposition....what are you, in the third grade?

    2) - Questioning the physical attractiveness of political opposition....wait, maybe the second grade?

    3) - Invoking god in your profanity filled rants....could this be the ultimate form of hypocrisy?

    4) - Constantly challenge the manhood of political opponants by name....see your own comment above about being "a man". By your own words, that doesn't make you much of a man....in fact, it makes you more like the 'whiners' you keep whining about.

    KEITH OLBERMANN has repeatedly done 1, 2, and 4. Does that put him in third grade, first grade, or pre-kindergarten? Oh wait, I know the answer. It puts him in FOURTH PLACE!

    Dollar,

    Thanks for all your examples...

    Why are you insulting me? It was a joke. You know humor. You laugh, I laugh, a bond is formed.

    Why is everyone so full of hate here?

    Jerry,

    I don't know the meaning of the word "hate", although royalking is helping me learn the words "abhor" and "despise"...

    But, if I know the punchline from the first sentence, it is difficult to be amused...

    Johnny, it's no secret that the olbyloons give Olbermahn a full pass for doing exactly what the loons criticize others for doing. Hypocrites, indeed, every one of them.

    I was smart enough to figure out you are a muslim and you despise me for that, alone? Or, are you still mad because I proved you wrong about the 20 thousand muslims supposedly in the service? A religion of "peace?" Guess not.

    Keith Olbermann goes into a drug store to buy condoms.

    The pharmacist says the condoms come in packs of 3, 9 or 12 and asks which the he wants.

    "Well," keith said, "I've been seeing this girl for a while and she's really hot. I want the condoms because I think tonight's "the" night. We're having dinner with her parents, and then we're going out. And I've got a feeling I'm gonna get lucky after that."

    "Once she's had me, she'll want me all the time, so you'd better give me the 12 pack."

    The Keith makes his purchase and leaves.

    Later that evening, he sits down to dinner with his girlfriend and her parents. He asks if he might give the blessing and they agree. He begins the prayer, but continues praying for several minutes.

    The girl leans over to him and says, "You never told me that you were such a religious person."

    Olbermann leans over to her and whispers, "You never told me that your father is a pharmacist."

    rk,

    I already proved the number of muslims in the service. You offered a non-sequitar, son. Perhaps you don't know the difference...but most people do...

    We both know that I am not a Muslim, child. And, neither are you a Christian...

    Keith and Katy have gone to bed.

    After laying there a few minutes the Olbermann farts and says, "Seven Points."

    Katy rolls over and says, "What in the world was that?"

    Olbermann replied, "It's fart football... I just scored."

    A few minutes later Katy lets one go and says, "Touchdown, tie score."

    After about five minutes the Olbermann farts again and says, "Touchdown, I'm ahead 14 to 7."

    Not to be out done Katy rips another one and says, "Touchdown, tie score."

    Five seconds go by and she lets out a squeaker and says, "Field goal, I lead 17 to 14."

    Now the pressure's on and Olbermann refuses to get beat by a woman so he strains real hard but to no avail.

    Realizing a defeat is totally unacceptable, he gives it everything he has, but instead of farting, he poops the bed.

    The Katy looks and says, "What the heck was that?" Keith replies, "Half-time. Change sides!"

    blindbat, The Pentagon facts that I posted is a "non-sequitur?" Ok, then. You are awful adamant about defending muslims for not being one, strange, indeed.

    Day 2 and "mike" still hasn't told us how he's working to get the troops out of Iraq, other than banging "how many troops have to die needlessly" every day from the comfort of his home.

    rk,

    The Pentagon article was about what active duty personel identified themselves as when they DID identify their religions. Ergo, son, a non-sequitar.

    If you were Muslim and wanted to serve your country, would YOU identify yourself as such? Just kidding, child: You'd never serve your country...

    ...except for those rigorous welcome home parties, eh?

    Jeff, I already pointed out that you were asking a rhetorical loaded question, and only an idiot would 'answer' such a question.

    That said, the only way we are going to get the troops home safely and keep thousands more from dying needlessly is to end the continuing support for this insanity from nuts like you.


    "That said, the only way we are going to get the troops home safely and keep thousands more from dying needlessly is to end the continuing support for this insanity from nuts like you."


    ###
    If you really believe that Mike, you're not as smart as I thought.

    I am certainly looking forward to Sunday's expose of the RNC Propoganda Ministry and its Minister. Sounds like it will be a real eye-opener, but not, of course, for bundists.
    It should all be fascinating, both the facts and the Ministry's efforts to spin. Bill-o will likely have another one of his tirades. I think he might even explode. And, when Jeff/rk quotes and cuts and pastes, the shrillness will likely cause monitors to explode all over the fruited land.

    By the way, Jeff/rk, neither Mike nor anyone else has any obligation to respond to any of the mindless drivel oozing from you. You don't listen and you are incapable of rational thought. Responding to you is like going on Bill-o and making a point with which he disagrees. Mindless abuse punctuated with grammatical errors is the sure result.

    -Jeff: You are "defending the enemy" as long as you keep blindly backing self destructive war policies that play right into enemy hands....like occupying Iraq.

    -True support for the troops would be working towards a way of getting them out from the middle of that civil war

    These are your words "mike." Now, you claim to support the troops, right? How are you "working towards a way of getting them out from the middle of that civil war?"

    I just noticed you called me a liar above. First, did you not flip flop from (R) to (D)? Yes, you did. Not a lie. Did you not claim you left the (R) party when Rush got caught with oxy? Yes, you did, I distinctly remember you saying that some monts ago. Not a lie. The first two quotes you said I took out of "context" were EXACT quotes from your posts. Out of context? No.

    Mindless abuse punctuated with grammatical errors is the sure result.

    Posted by: at June 22, 2007 1:40 PM
    Speak for yourself, mr. punctuation. You make errors left and right, I have better things to do than point them out. Since you have so much time, where are all of my errors? One of the positives of being an anonyloon, I guess, no accountability? Get lost.

    >"That said, the only way we are going to get the troops home safely and keep thousands more from dying needlessly is to end the continuing support for this insanity from nuts like you."


    ###
    If you really believe that Mike, you're not as smart as I thought.

    Posted by: cee at June 22, 2007 1:40 PM


    One day, when Cee's maturity level matches his chronological age, he will realize other people's intelligence is not and should not be measured by how much they agree with him.

    Until then, we'll have to suffer his massively and artificially inflated ego, tortured logic, republican boot-licking, and self-serving copy and paste jobs.

    Somebody tell a joke.

    Where did I say I wanted Mike to agree with me?

    So, you think it is reasonable to believe that rk's continuing support of the mission in Iraq is keeping the policy in place?

    Ok......this one is about as good as the other thread where some moron thinks a 14% approval rating for The Congress is good news for the democrats.....

    Oh, and about the democrats' support of our troops.....

    Do they even know who "the troops" are?....

    Are they Canadian?....

    The left's ruling class is A JOKE.....

    http://www.qando.net/Details.aspx?Entry=6282

    One day, when Cee's maturity level matches his chronological age, he will realize other people's intelligence is not and should not be measured by how much they agree with him.
    -Anon

    You need to apply that statement across this whole board!

    Katy decides to take Keith to a strip club for his birthday.

    They arrive at the club and the doorman says, "Hey, Keith! How ya doin'?"

    Katy is puzzled and asks if he's been to this club before.

    "Oh, no," says Keith. "He works at MSNBC."

    When they are seated, a waitress asks Keith if he'd like his usual and brings over a Pink Lady.

    Katy is becoming increasingly uncomfortable and says, "How did she know that you drink Pink Ladies?"

    "She's works for the caterer at MSNBC and moonlights here, honey," he says. "She knows everyone's favorites."

    A stripper then comes over to their table, throws his arms around Keith, and says, "Hi, Keith! Want your usual table dance, big boy?"

    Katy, now furious, grabs her purse and storms out of the club. Keith follows and spots her getting into a cab. Before she can slam the door, he jumps in beside her.

    He tries desperately to explain how the stripper must have mistaken him for someone else, but Katy is having none of it. She is screaming at him at the top of her lungs, calling him every name in the book. The cabbie turns his head and says, "Looks like you picked up a real bitch tonight, Keith."

    “C-SPAN lies when they say they offered to show the speech if Savage would present it in a theatre. No such offer was ever received by Michael Savage,” says a note on the Savage website. “Moreover, they lie when they say they never run a speech presented on a DVD. Numerous such speeches at events have been broadcast by ‘little man Lamb’.

    Now that Clinton and Boxer want a “legislative fix” for talk radio, `little man Lott’ should be dragged back into the big picture.

    Though they’re not exactly colleagues, between the two of them Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage OWN talk radio. The combination of their listening audiences must represent an impressive percentage of “we the people”.

    That makes politicians on both sides of the House who are busy selling the land out from under their own constituencies a tad queasy.

    A ‘Legislative Fix’ for talk radio is about as real as the ropes of pearls adorning Clinton’s and Boxer’s necks.

    Meanwhile, `little man Lott’, who does the bidding of Democratic ladyships, and `little man Lamb, who waited until Michael Savage was on holiday to take him on, will go skittering back to their corners on Monday, June 26. Right about the same time Limbaugh and Savage return to the airwaves.


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

    Canada Free Press founding

    And what's your point AAP?.....Are you defending the idea that the people you mention should not be allowed to express their point of view through some federal legislation that limits free speech?

    mexican patty, Last I checked it was Limbaugh #1, Hannity #2 and Savage #3. Was there a point to your "double counting" spew! The point to my post was "interesting news," something you have a hard time grasping, comprehending or providing.

    #1 Lush Rimjob #2 inSANNITY #3 Glum Pecker #4 Billdo #5 Who Cares .......#4006 Stewart Smally #4007 Quief Uddermann

    Chicken Blogger, I like your sense of humor.

    Grammie

    AAP

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

    Sounds like you have been standing on the milk stool again.

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

    I think you may have got a little "stool" on you to.

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

    I here cow pox on your Weiner are a bitch.


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

    Better rub some bag balm on that rash there son.


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

    Leave the chickens alone to.

    Lest we fall into the blinkered frame of mind that ascribes power hungry human nature solely to the pols of the "other" side, let's remember Trent Lott's tut-tuts over the success of talk radio in KOing the immigration bill.

    Is this site getting ready to shut down, again? It's awfully lame. New information is sporadic. In fact, this site is little other than the the illiterate, idiotic Jeff cutting and pasting his way into infamy. I guess the Institution gave up basket weaving for cutting and pasting. I just wonder how long it will be before one of the other "residents" knocks Jeff off the keyboard?

    Since I have been gone, I noticed: O'Reilly has gotten meaner and loonier; Jeff's Wiener has gotten loonier and meaner; Jeff is even more paranoid (you really have to get to Pill Line tonight); no one's fired Olbermann; the Surge has floundered; Cheney is still acting like the Sun King; Bush is still dropping and nearing the teens.

    Yes, indeed, the Clucker is back from Afghanistan, with lots and lots of thanks to the Frau for filling in for me. Fasten your seatbelt, Jeff. Your free ride is over.

    Cecelia, understanding that truism of human nature is the foundation that our founders built our Constitution around.

    I read an article years ago that has stuck with me The theme was that they were simultaneously idealistic, publicly good men and exceptionally cynical pragmatists because they recognized their own inner darkness and susceptibility to it.

    As the article pointed out the marvel that such a small pool of people as we were produced so many great men at the same time is almost miraculous.

    Grammie

    I suggest that if OW does go belly-up we all head over to Johnny Dollar's Place in order to have a meeting point for keeping up with each other.

    mexican patty, let's see here, you just lied about the talk radio ratings, I proved you wrong, then you go off on some "so what" tyrant/diversion! So what? Is that how you respond to being dead wrong? Then you accuse Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage of "double and triple counting" their ratings. Then you spew on to accuse Bob of "manipulating" his ranking. What was "mike" spewing about "no shame to his game?" I gues he doesn't read your crap/posts. Oh, you guys are sp's so it must be ok! P.S. You don't like JD's Place because he doesn't let you post your vial trash. Too bad they don't have the same rules here........

    Johnny BU$HWIPE believes *he* delivers the truth about Fucks News to, what?, 4 to 6 posters a day?

    Posted by:below average mexican Patty at June 22, 2007 7:50 PM

    Isn't that the same thing you have said about this site about a thousand times? Idiot.

    clucker, you haven't been anywhere, you're not sly.

    AAP, if you consider Fox News a "smear machine" what do you consider Countdown, who on a nightly basis tries to smear O'reilly and Fox News?

    Cecelia,

    I really do believe that the days of this site are numbered. If Schatz is the new guy, he is so inconsistent with the summaries. Reading the comments is getting more and more tedious. (Example, Clucker who talks about Jeff cutting and pasting but ignoring the page long cut and pastes from "Why Can't I Write Anything Original"). Is there any liberal besides Craigs who actually says something? I can't recall. I am only here sporadically. Anyway, if the site goes down, I would like to follow your suggestion.

    Anyone who interacts with Average American Puke should be considered to be engaging in mutual masturbation.

    The only reason he is here is for self gratification.

    Why anyone would acknowledge his presence defies logic.

    To be baited by his ignorant posts and bite is a sign of weakness.

    To engage is stupidity.

    To derive pleasure is mental.

    You kidding, right?

    Ever been to that dump?

    Posted by: Average American Patriot at June 22, 2007 7:50 PM


    I take it that if the worst happens to OW, we won't see you at JD's and we'll just have to live without reading another "BU$HWIPE$!!!!".

    Pity...

    As the article pointed out the marvel that such a small pool of people as we were produced so many great men at the same time is almost miraculous.

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 22, 2007 7:17 PM


    I think it was "miraculous", Grammie. Wonderfully miraculous and Providential.

    Cecelia,

    I really do believe that the days of this site are numbered. If Schatz is the new guy, he is so inconsistent with the summaries. Reading the comments is getting more and more tedious. (Example, Clucker who talks about Jeff cutting and pasting but ignoring the page long cut and pastes from "Why Can't I Write Anything Original"). Is there any liberal besides Craigs who actually says something? I can't recall. I am only here sporadically. Anyway, if the site goes down, I would like to follow your suggestion.

    Posted by: Sharon at June 22, 2007 9:04 PM


    We've had some good liberal posters here. The Major, VOK, Ensign Expendable, Erie Bob, Paul, are/were sensible worthy adversaries.

    On the not-so-sensible side, Sir Loin is always interesting and occasionally challenging.

    I think Democrats actually getting in control has dampened a lot of thoughtful liberal interest in Olbermann and the issue of the war because Dem pol reactions and ordinary political realities are so vastly different from pre-election rhetoric.

    So we're left with WDYCWMNI, chickenbloggers, and Mike.

    BTW, it is good to know that if something happens here we always have Johnny Dollar's Place. Of all the gin joints...well, you know the rest.

    Rush-12.5 mil per week
    Hannity-10.5 mil per week
    Savage-8.25 mil per week
    Olbermann-1.5 mil per week! LOL!

    Now, get lost BAMPuke.

    clucker, you haven't been anywhere, you're not sly.

    ---

    Jeff, please keep this on the QT. I don't want NWA/KLM to take all those FFM's away from me, and I would hate for the firm to fire me for staying home at my computer when I was suppose to have been on an assignment.

    I swear, are you the most ignorant man who ever took a breath? Do you have Wiener giving you mouth-to-mouth each night to keep some brain activity going?

    Great summary tonight, by the way. I suspect you, in all your various manifestations, under all your names and lack thereof, and all your equally enlightened fellow travelers might find a new home at Karl Rove's website in a few months. He's too toxic to be hired by a legitimate enterprise, so I suspect he is cyber-bound. It will be an excellent opportunity for the morbid and morose, the silly and the shrill, to reflect on the salad days of the Bush Administration.

    For my more high-minded friends: Heading back to the States, I did a 5 day layover in the Saarland and Alsace, and I found a pretty remarkable change in French and German coverage of Iraq. With the exception of a daily summary of casualities in Iraq, there was little coverage. The Middle East is still a huge issue, but the emphasis is on Palestine, Lebanon and Iran. While all were newsworthy during this admittedly brief window, I found it odd that Iraq had slipped to the inner pages. I think this is an indication that the Occupation is now viewed as a purely American phenomenon, without even lip service to the short-lived and unfortunate Coalition of the Willing, and a recognition that Iraq is simply the quagmire many of us knew it would become. I have to wonder if this is not the harbinger, if the Europeans are not a leading indicator of what will happen here. To be sure, as the number of American casualties climbs, this will always remain a more important story here, as well it should, but we may well come to see this more and more simply a burden, a corner we cannot turn. I think the Propoganda Ministry has even come to recognize this with its dramatic turn aways from Iraq analysis to more white girl gone missing and Rosie-like stories. I wish I had some sense that we would either make a true committment to win, something far more substantial that the phoney Surge, or a true committment to admit the mistake and move on. Either would be preferable to the festering wound the Occupation has become. Of course, even the most passionate (but logical) Bush supporter knows that the Administration will never admit to a failing or a mistake, so we will never make a substantive course change during the dreadful balance of the term. I suspect we will be looking at a cold turkey cessation a couple of February's from now. That is a true tragedy. "Cut and Run," or "Cut an Run" as Jeff might say, although never a policy objective by anyone in public office and merely a failed Rovian attempt to smear and exploit political opponents might now be an admirable goal. Actually, it is not, but the slow bleed of Administration inertia, the flow of which is possible only by the pulsing but false pride of those who saw some magic road to political prosperity in the Invasion and Occupation but found it a tragic dead end, now seems imminently worse. Of all this I am certain. What is less clear to me is whether the budding European view which now seems to have blossomed is about to become the catholic view as well. I suspect so, but when? Not soon enough it would seem.

    To the vast relief of the ever more insular and paranoid Jeff, I will not be joining the reunion at JD's when OW finally takes it last breath. I'd sooner find my way to Debbie Schlussel, but I wish you all well in your new home and I rejoice in the fact that Jeff will be your neighbor and not mine.

    clucker, nice job, you nailed all of the current far left talking points. I noticed many (dings), too mant to list!

    Thanks, Jeff. I can do the Far Right Talking Points even better (if only because Talk is all they are):

    9/11 ***** Be ye afraid, be ye very afraid. ***** 9/11 ***** The Mexicans are coming. ***** 9/11 ***** The final throes. ***** 9/11 ***** Mr. Bush, Built that Wall. ***** 9/11 ***** When they stand up, we'll stand down. ***** 9/11 ***** Science is bad. ***** 9/11 ***** It's a baby not a choice. ***** 9/11***** In 1886 dollars .... ***** 9/11 ***** I standy by Alberto. ***** 9/11 ***** Underlying crime .... ***** 9/11 ***** That information is privileged. ***** 9/11 ***** I only hope the smoking gun in Iraq/Iran/Syria/North Korea is not a mushroom cloud. ***** 9/11 ***** I will not comment when judicial proceedings are on going. ***** 9/11 *****

    About it?

    Then why the heck is he not getting impeached?

    Oh...that's right, right wingers don't actually READ newspapers.

    I don't consider myself a right winger but you do have to admit that you don't look behind what you quote. If you are really interested in facts, look at the links that you quote from and make sure they actually support your point. (Example, Professor Kelley ring a bell?)

    Sharon,

    Since you have an amazing ear for this, and though I don't really care, I would like to guage my own "ear" --- is it just me or does Why Do You Care What My Name Is, sound an awfully lot like our dear Prof Bob, aka "Chucky" and "Prof Honeydew"?

    Not only are the voters abandoning the GOP, Bush's own people are abandoning HIM !

    In your opinion, any Republican is scum of the earth. So why would loyalty to Bush remain among the representatives when their own careers are at stake? Wouldn't they throw their support behind impeachment?

    "Asked and answered around 20 times."' There have been many rebuttals to your impeachment argument that you just ignore.

    Cecelia, I nailed bob/nobody cares months ago, remember? Yes, he's all the ones you named and a couple more. Patty, don't go off on your "40 other posters" rant, I never said that!

    Well, Whatizname, ask and ye shall receive. I posted this a few days ago and nary a comment from the other side of aisle:

    "

    Just a few facts from the ruling, that I skimmed and read parts of.

    This is his third 'day in court' in front of three separate courts.

    In the middle hearing he was given the opportunity to present any evidence that disputed the gov's labeling him an enemy combatant in addition to arguing the legality of a legal resident apprehended in the US for terrorism being subject to the military tribunals as an enemy combatant. He presented no evidence at that hearing.

    The majority opinion took note of this and very clearly stated that they were making no statement of his innocence nor were they setting him free.

    There was a virtually (the dissenting Judge agreed that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals did have jurisdiction to hear and rule on the case) diametrically opposed dissenting minority opinion.

    With an appeal to the full court which will be followed by an appeal to the Supreme Court, by whatever side loses, he will have had at least five 'days in court' or possibly six if the Supremes consider it and send it back to the lower court with instructions.

    For a document and the system that it created to have been shredded and declared dead so often and so loudly by so many recently it sure seems to be not only alive and well but absolutely robust and doing exactly what it was designed to do and has done so well for over two hundred years.

    One man has gotten the full attention of our courts, our political systems, the press and citizens from every viewpoint on the spectrum. Al Marri is the only one in this particular situation but any final judgment will apply to him and any like him in the future. There will be no pitched battles in the streets, no military coups, no take overs by force of the Courts, the Legislature or The Executive by anyone.

    No matter on what side the decision comes down we will have those who applaud and those who scream opposition. And then we all will work our way through the differences and live with it.

    We have been fortunate beyond belief to be one of the smallest minorities in the world's history to have lived in our country and enjoyed its freedoms and blessings. Yet we are bombarded daily by cries and screams of Tyranny, Dictatorship, Fascism, Gulags, Despotism by those who obviously have absolutely no concept of the gruesome reality behind the words they so blithely use.

    Now that scares me.

    Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 21, 2007 1:10 AM"

    Try something new and different for a change of pace. Address the overall theme, underlying hypotheses and conclusion that I drew from the Al Marri decision.

    Grammie

    Is an "indoctrinator" considered a credential? From what I see, you should find a more accurate "reading" source. Since you mentioned you read newspapers, you must know that 9 out of 10 papers have FAR left agendas........Keep your face buried deep, especially usa today!

    Nice list of republicrats you made there, nobody cares!

    There are a few republicans who I like. People who DON'T follow the backward policies of your president, like Ron Paul, Chuck Hagel, Chris Smith,Chris Shays, Mike Castle etc.
    ***
    Whom do you think those Republicans voted for? Given the choice of Kerry or Bush, I choose Bush. I wanted Buchanan to win in 2000 but he withdrew. When I vote, it is not straight ticket. I won't vote for Giuliani if he is the candidate. If Leiberman would change his view on abortion, I would vote for him, if he ever chose to run. I was raised in a blue collar family. I believe in what the democratic platform used to be.

    Cecelia,

    A couple of things come to mind about whether Why Do You Care is Prof Honeydew. Both seem to like targeting me, both have quoted from a source without a careful reading (oh, here is another way to slam Bush, cut, paste). I remember late one night when the name Why Do you Care came into existence. There was some talk about name jacking or maybe posting anonymously, something like that. Why got angry (I think was anonymous prior to that burst of anger.) I started visiting this site in about October of last year so I could probably find it. He was the reason why I found A Soldier's Perspective. (CJ Grisham's site) I got tired of hearing how my viewpoint was invalid because I am not serving in the military and looked around for what soldiers think. I don't believe he is AAP because he has been pretty civil towards me. Why would not be able to contain his pent up rage. There is usually a give away in writing style or word usage or something unique. I remember the overuse of the & sign for . . . I can't remember who it was that got exposed. Out of curiosity, I may just examine it, given the hatred directed my way.

    Cecelia, I nailed bob/nobody cares months ago, remember? Yes, he's all the ones you named and a couple more. Patty, don't go off on your "40 other posters" rant, I never said that!

    -----

    Well, I guess the Paranoia Prince bunked that for you, Ceceilia, without your having said a word. And, Jeff's record at both bunking and debunking, as we all know, is excellent.

    -----

    So, now we can move onto a far less important point, and you can stop reading now, Jeff. Go pour some chocolate milk on top of your Cocoa Puffs. Top it with some Hershey syrup and enjoy a fantastic sugar high before you, thankfully, pass out.

    When, in a retort, you said some people view any Republican as scum of the Earth, you made a point, largely implicitly, that is very good, indeed. Being a Republican does not mean automatic membership in the Scum of the Month Club. All of us who lead normal lives have friends, neighbors, associates and colleagues who are Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals, Protestants and Catholics, Chrisitans, Jews and Muslims, Mayflower Descendants and recent immigrants. Some of the finest people in my circle are my Republican friends. We disagree on some issues, substantive disagreement, but we agree on far more matters, indeed, most matters. We want our children to go to good schools and colleges, we want people to have enough to eat and access to good health care, we want our country to be safe and to prosper, we want to be free from too much interference in our lives by the government. The problem, Cecelia, is that first Gingrich and then some of his fellow travelers decided if we could be divided, they would prosper. Gingrich wasn't all that successful in this effort, perhaps because he is, in the depths of his heart, a decent sort of guy, or perhaps because he was just inept. But, this "divide Americans for us to prosper theory" came to fruition in Rovian Republicanism, with Bush as its voice. And, it looked for a while as if it were going to work. But, the wall weakened, perhaps because the policies formed to divide us were poorly conceived and even more poorly executed. And, more importantly, because we finally said we reject this divisiveness. It is ugly, and it counter-productive. It does not reflect our essential goodness and worth as Americans. For those Republicans who rejected the Rovian turn, I have nothing but respect. And, that is the vast, vast majority of Republicans and independents who tend to vote Republican. Mired in the mid-20% support, I have to think that the Republicans who are still enamored of this Administration are the ideologues (and, I profoundly dislike ideologues of any stripe) and the intolerant idiots (like the hapless and hopeless Jeff). I am sure you are neither, and I rather imagine that even if you still see some merit in Bush and his policies, you see many flaws and failures, as I see flaws and failures in each leader in the Democratic Congress. You are right, Republicans are not scum. Rovian Republicanism, however, is distinctly unAmerican as, in an earlier time, Dixicrats were unDemocrat and unAmerican.

    Hopefully, Jeff is already out, and we won't be treated to an eruption of idiocy.

    Thank you for raising an excellent point, Ceceilia.

    BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY WOULDN'T VOTE FOR IMPEACHMENT !
    DUH.

    Loyalty among thieves is a powerful thing to break !

    Oh, so they keep their word now, even to the detriment of their own careers. So why are Bush supporters leaving in droves? You can't have it both ways!

    Clucker,

    That was me, Sharon, who made the retort to Why. Unless you are of the mind that 9/11 was an inside job, that event changed the course of Bush's presidency. Bush is not a strict conservative in all aspects (he has angered die hard conservatives) and he definitely is not liberal. Just assuming for argument purposes that Cheney already had it in mind to encourage war with Iraq, events certainly would not have played out as they did as a result of 9/11. Everyone who made a yes vote has to take responsibility for whatever ultimately transpires. That is part of the package.

    Why,

    I think you have a lot more time than most people on this Board. Speaking of which, I have more important things to do. Again, you get things wrong. I wasn't going to search to prove it, just to see if it is true or not- and that is not a priority of mine. I picked up on the & sign on the other "outing" because I found it totally annoying! Just like when you capitalize FACT all the time.

    Believe it or not, Why, I am ready for a new President. Not for the same reasons as you. Have a nice day!

    Comments like this is why RK will never be taken seriously.
    All daily newspapers use wire stories like the AP.
    These are the stories and facts that put everyone of the right wingers to shame at this site.
    The opinions are on the editorial page, doofus.

    Posted by: at June 23, 2007 1:46 PM
    I hope you are disagreeing that 9 out of 10 papers are left wing bird cage liners. It proves your idiocy!

    Sorry for the incorrect attribution, Sharon.

    As for the 9/11 conspiracy theorists: bollocks!

    Yes, 9/11 changed the Bush presidency. If you will recall, the Administration was plummeting in approval polls and floundering. 9/11 gave Bush some focus, but it also enable Rove to exploit fear. I am relatively certain "but-for" 9/11 Bush would have been a one (1) termer.

    In years to come, the defining chracteristic of the Bush Administration will be not its cronysim nor its scandals, but its ineptitude, its incompetence, perhaps along with its arrogance. If 9/11 seemed to give Bush some focus and purpose, Katrina showed us the Emperor had no clothes, and the Emperor has been naked since. Iraq came to be seen as ineptly handled only through post-Katrina eyes. In light of this, it would be foolish to believe the Bush Administration pulled of some elaborate conspiracy with 9/11. I doubt it could have pulled it off.

    Let me ask: Do you think Jeff/royal king posts as Eliza Doolittle on the Atlas Shrugged site and as Minerva Merriweather on News Hounds?

    The biotch Cececelia is more concerned over who posts under what name than the disintegration of her party and country under that party.

    Posted by: at June 23, 2007 12:53 PM


    And the destruction of all life as we know it.....

    Why is that chickenbloggers all sound like they write script for Space Ghost?

    You got it, I'm Bob, and SLOB and Mike etc and all the other posters at this site who put you braindead republikkkans in their place with the FACTS about your president and party.
    It's funny how none of these facts are ever refuted?( including you Sharon)
    It's a real tough job defending the indefensible !

    Posted by: Why Do You Care What My Name Is at June 23, 2007 1:09 PM


    Nah, Sir Loin is smarter than you. Mike is more self-satisfied and not nearly as angry. You're more like our manical Chucks!

    There is usually a give away in writing style or word usage or something unique. I remember the overuse of the & sign for . . . I can't remember who it was that got exposed. Out of curiosity, I may just examine it, given the hatred directed my way.

    Posted by: Sharon at June 23, 2007 1:43 PM


    Thanks, Sharon. I was just hoping my ear was getting better. Unfortunately a lot of these hyperbolic hystrionic sorts just all sound a like to me.

    I suppose I've just done WDYCWMNI a favor by piquing your curiosity. You're probably going to be the only person here who actually reads those long tantrums and cut-n-paste jobs.

    Whatizname, another screed is not a legitimate answer. You lamented the lack of factual rebuttal:

    It's funny how none of these facts are ever refuted?( including you Sharon)
    It's a real tough job defending the indefensible !
    Posted by: Why Do You Care What My Name Is at June 23, 2007 1:09 PM"

    You get a factual rebuttal using the Al Marri case to illustrate the points and you ignore everything else and give an answer that completely ignores the CONTEXT AND MEANING of everything to key in on one word (fascism) to say:

    "Grammie thinks that because we haven't descended to Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany that all the FACTS AND evidence against this president, VP, attorney general etc aren't true nor significant."

    I realize that holding more than one thought in your mind at the same time would over tax your brain, so lets just confine ourselves to the so called point you made that our system has not sunk as low as Nazi Germany's system but has started its long decline..

    How far have we descended, according to you, on any scale you choose into the judicial murderous madness of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

    Just to give you a heads up to dispute my overlying conclusion that our Constitutional Rights are not only shredded and dead but absolutely robust here is a quote from The Nuremberg Trials: The Justice Trial @ www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/Alstoetter.htm - 130k -:

    "In German legal theory, Hitler was not only the Supreme Legislator, he was also the Supreme Judge. On 26 April 1942 Hitler addressed the Reichstag in part as follows:

    “I do expect one thing: that the nation gives me the right to intervene immediately and to take action myself whenever a person has failed to render unqualified obedience....”
    “I therefore ask the German Reichstag to confirm expressly that I have the legal right to keep everybody to his duty and to cashier or remove from office or position without regard for his person or his established rights, whoever, in my view and according to my considered opinion, has failed to do his duty....”
    “From now on, I shall intervene in these cases and remove from office those judges who evidently do not understand the demand of the hour.”

    On the same day the Greater German Reichstag resolved in part as follows:

    “ . . . the Fuehrer must have all the rights postulated by him which serve to further or achieve victory. Therefore—without being bound by existing legal regulations—in his capacity as leader of the nation, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, governmental chief and supreme executive chief, as supreme justice, and leader of the Party—the Fuehrer must be in a position to force with all means at his disposal every German, if necessary, whether he be common soldier or officer, low or high official or judge, leading or subordinate official of the Party, worker or employee, to fulfill his duties. In case of violation of these duties, the Fuehrer is entitled after conscientious examination, regardless of so-called well-deserved rights, to mete out due punishment, and to remove the offender from his post, rank and position, without introducing prescribed procedures.”

    The assumption by Hitler of supreme governmental power in all departments did not represent a new development based on the emergency of war. The declaration of the Reichstag was only an echo of Hitler’s declaration of 13 July 1934. After the mass murders of that date (the Roehm purge) which were committed by Hitler’s express orders, he said:

    “Whenever someone reproaches me with not having used ordinary court for their sentencing, I can only say: ‘In this hour I am responsible for the fate of the German nation and hence the supreme law lord of the German people’.”

    The conception of Hitler as the Supreme Judge was supported by the defendant Rothenberger. We quote:

    “However, something entirely different has occurred; with the Fuehrer a man has risen within the German people who awakens the oldest, long forgotten times. Here is a man who in his position represents the ideal of the judge in its perfect sense, and the German people elected him for their judge—first of all, of course, as ‘judge’ over their fate in general, but also as ‘supreme magistrate and judge’.”

    You asked for a factual discussion and when you got your wish you fell back on the same old propaganda bromides and non sequitur attacks that is your meat and potatoes.

    Come on, big guy, tell us where on this scale you place Nazi Germany's judicial system and our judicial system.

    Grammie

    So again, why hasn't the Democratically controlled Senate and House sought to remove the president and vice-president from power? Don't tell me that with opinion polls at 29% for Bush that the majority of the American public wouldn't support such an action if the proper evidence were presented to them. The Republican controlled congress and senate proceeded with the Clinton impeachment when he was far higher in the opinion polls than Bush is currently. So what's the excuse exactly? Oh yeah, "we don't have the votes". How do you know unless you try?

    By the way, anyone see the CNN report the other night where they called all the Democratic congressmen & senators and asked them to disclose the pork they'd included in the next fiscal budget? Pelosi, she who promised "transparency" before the Dems won control of the House & Senate refused to provide such a list of her own earnmarks to CNN.

    The Democratic Party: Promise much, deliver nothing.

    Again, Brandon, and All the Marys in Heaven you're dense: There are not enough votes to remove the two. At least nine (9) Republicans would have to join in. There aren't nine (9) Republicans in the Senate with balls enough to do that. So, the Democrats proceed knowing they will not succeed? Sort of like what the Republicans did over that little matter of adult heterosexual consensual sex? Put the country through that, again? I think not. Apparently, the Democrats are more responsible, more concerned about the country than the Republicans were. You chastise them for that?

    Come on, big guy, tell us where on this scale you place Nazi Germany's judicial system and our judicial system.

    Grammie

    -----

    [YAWN]

    -----

    There is usually a give away in writing style or word usage or something unique. I remember the overuse of the & sign for . . . I can't remember who it was that got exposed. Out of curiosity, I may just examine it, given the hatred directed my way.

    Posted by: Sharon at June 23, 2007 1:43 PM

    -----

    You're dangerously close to becoming Royal Queen. Jeff has that effect on sane people, driving them to the edge. Be careful. You're better than that.

    Sharon and Cecelia, here are my thoughts, which as usual are too long verbose on the Bobo/Whatsizname question.

    Cecelia, I agree that Sharon has an unusual ear for discerning writing styles that show through any attempts by the writer to disguise his identity.

    To my mind Bobo had three distinctive patterns to his screeching tirades: a supercilious grandiose arrogance; an unusual self deluding ability to not only ignore but to misstate the opposition's points and go on to argue against the points he conjured up; the visual/composition aspect of his posts that string together short sentences, most alloted one line, with very few paragraph breaks.

    Just look a Whatizname @ 1:26 PM, 1:38 PM, 2:00 PM, 2:07 PM. With the exception of one two sentence paragraph it fits the mold except when he is quoting others.

    I've noticed the same pattern with a lot of 'Chicken Bloggers' (see 1:46 PM, 2:26 PM and 2:37 PM) and a few other 'Nom de Jours' who periodically pop up and as quickly fade away.

    I personally think we have at least one, or possibly a few juvenile delinquent types who when they were younger called people on the phone with those hilarious questions "Is your refrigerator running, you better catch it; or do you have Prince Albert in a can let him out"

    Grammie

    Clucker, I'm shocked and saddened by your comments to Sharon.

    Shouldn't you be at church, as the good Pharisee you are, making novenas (however many days constitute a novena) for her enlightenment and salvation?

    What has the world come to when the most pious among us forsakes his religious duties to attack those who disagree.

    Grammie

    Grammie

    Again, Brandon, and All the Marys in Heaven you're dense: There are not enough votes to remove the two. At least nine (9) Republicans would have to join in. There aren't nine (9) Republicans in the Senate with balls enough to do that. So, the Democrats proceed knowing they will not succeed? Sort of like what the Republicans did over that little matter of adult heterosexual consensual sex? Put the country through that, again? I think not. Apparently, the Democrats are more responsible, more concerned about the country than the Republicans were. You chastise them for that?

    Posted by: Clucker at June 23, 2007 3:58 PM


    Although, Brandon is dumb as shoe, no doubt, you're coming off a bit dense yourself. The gist of the question Brandon is asking is not an attempt to find fault with our Democratic leadership.

    It's an effort to shine some light on the hyperbole that passes for argument on this board.

    You can't engage in the sort of rhetoric that explicitly states that the president is a criminal and that the entire country is going down the ole crapper, with the him in charge, and then argue that Democrats are behaving responsibly by not at least making a show of giving this traitor and criminal what ...by these accusations...he would logically be due.

    I haven't read what you've written here, Clucker, so I'm not sure if your rhetoric has inspired this question. However, the guestion does naturally follow the rhetoric of many here.

    Just because that shoe might not fit you, doesn't mean it's not the perfect size for someone else.

    You're dangerously close to becoming Royal Queen. Jeff has that effect on sane people, driving them to the edge. Be careful. You're better than that.

    Posted by: Clucker at June 23, 2007 4:04 PM


    hmmmm....Sharon wonders aloud if one blogger might be posting under two names and clucker compares her to RK...

    Royal inspires more Olbyloon paranoia than a Mormon.

    I've noticed the same pattern with a lot of 'Chicken Bloggers' (see 1:46 PM, 2:26 PM and 2:37 PM) and a few other 'Nom de Jours' who periodically pop up and as quickly fade away.

    I personally think we have at least one, or possibly a few juvenile delinquent types who when they were younger called people on the phone with those hilarious questions "Is your refrigerator running, you better catch it; or do you have Prince Albert in a can let him out"

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 23, 2007 4:17 PM


    Good point, Grammie. There would be common traits exhibited among the chuckyesque...

    Sharon and Cecelia, here are my thoughts, which as usual are too long verbose on the Bobo/Whatsizname question.

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 23, 2007 4:17 PM

    Your thoughts may be over-long when it comes to this silly matter that I raised, Grammie, but that's not true in general.

    It amazes me that, despite your example of writing your OWN stuff(!) and that it is thoughtful, well articulated and argued, and not filled with juvenile rantings such as "You are pathetic human beings!", the chickenbloggers and WDYCWMNI don't take note.

    They don't even learn anything by the example of intelligent liberals who occasionally post here.

    Clucker,

    Robert Cox outed someone a few months ago and I pointed out the idiosyncrasy of the overuse of &. Regulars know this actually did happen. (Philbin was part of the name and was double posting as Rudy Ramirez)

    Now, this could be totally coincidental but here is another idiosyncrasy that I pointed out just a few hours ago about "Why" that I just found annoying:

    Just like when you capitalize FACT all the time.
    Posted by: Sharon at June 23, 2007 2:07 PM
    ***

    Here's another FACT for you to chew on and deny:
    Posted by: Bob at December 17, 2006 9:41 PM

    You got it, I'm Bob, and SLOB and Mike etc and all the other posters at this site who put you braindead republikkkans in their place with the FACTS about your president and party.

    Posted by: Why Do You Care What My Name Is at June 23, 2007 1:09 PM

    What do you say ladies? Is this a FACT? Don't think too hard on it. He capitalizes often in his anger but FACT just seemed especially irritating to me.

    Janet, you asked about links to wes clark info. Just search "wesley clark fired" and you will have your hands full. Have fun!

    What do you say ladies? Is this a FACT? Don't think too hard on it. He capitalizes often in his anger but FACT just seemed especially irritating to me.

    Posted by: Sharon at June 23, 2007 5:15 PM

    Good lord!

    I know none of that is conclusive, but you're either some expert working for law enforcement or intelligence gathering agencies or a former english teacher with an eagle-eye and near photographic memory.

    Sharon, the FACT that you illustrated above just proves again that GIRLS RULE and BOYS DROOL.

    That makes exhibit number four in the case against the cowardly 'Man With Too Many Names'.

    Oh dear, I think I made a faux pas. That should read 'The Obnoxious Little Boy Who Wannabe a Big Man'. :)

    Grammie

    Oh dear, I think I made a faux pas. That should read 'The Obnoxious Little Boy Who Wannabe a Big Man'. :)

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 23, 2007 5:51 PM


    I may have to revise my nickname for Bob from the manical psychopath-possessed doll that is "Chucky" to "Chucky Cheese"...

    Rod Serling voice-over: It was his own anger that ultimately came back to haunt him. But keep in mind this could be total coincidence. There was also someone at the board here today who may have posted as Kurt Kissel in the past. But, why stir up controversy?

    Cecelia, sign me up and swear me in.

    Chucky Cheese it is!

    Grammie

    LOL Chucky! I never knew that was the reason behind the name. If Chucky Bob is married, I wouldn't want to insult his wife with A Bride of Chucky discussion.

    BTW, I did not spend my afternoon on this. My children along with some others wanted to have the traditional lemonade stand. I told them they had to donate some of the proceeds to charity, to keep them honest. Have to go, hear mayhem. . . .

    Sharon, are you referring to our Resident Pharisee, Clucker?

    He especially put me in mind of KK @ 1:45 PM. No paragraph breaks (reminds me of Rudy Ramires too) from KK. Didn't KK also blow his own horn about his sophisticated and urbane sojourns in foreign capitals such as Paris and from his lofty and sophisticated perch hurl barbs at we backwards rubes?

    Grammie

    Get your tokens- Mike is always comparing the reasoning of RK to the wack-a-mole game which is an attraction at CC. Uncanny...

    Grammie,

    Right on. Afghanistan is key also. Maybe we three are "Charlie's Angels?" You know this is open season for us now. What were the angels' names? We can start posting under them.

    The trio consisted of Sabrina Ducan (Kate Jackson) best known for being the "smart angel," Jill Munroe (Farrah Fawcett) known as the "athelic angel," and rounding out the team was "street wise" Kelly Garrett (Jaclyn Smith). The Angels worked with their trusty male counter-part, John Bosley, played by David Doyle.

    copyright Charliesangels.com

    Whom do both of you fancy yourself as?

    Cecelia, I sometimes think you are truly uncanny. The first time I posted here you welcomed me with a Martini toast and as you now know I still have Chubby Hubby's Martini and mine every night.

    Earlier this week I had my birthday party and gifts from my kids. It was at my insistence:

    Dinner at Chucky Cheese's and unlimited tokens for my grandkids, compliments of the big kids.

    I had a great time!

    Grammie

    Sharon, that's a hard one.

    I pick, open to objections and suggestions of course, Kelley Garret.

    There is one caveat. I refuse to parade around in a skimpy bikini whenever we are in Hawaii or at the beach. :)

    Grammie

    I actually had you in mind for that role. I don't feel smart enough for the role of Sabrina (is it Duncan?) so I guess I'll take Jill. I'm not completely out of shape but got some work to do! I'm sure we can acquire some proper beachwear for you by some catalog shopping on the internet. (Excuse the typos from Charliesangels.com; I did a cut and paste)

    Actually, it's Chuck E. Cheese (had problem finding it in the phone book once). So is it Chuck E. or Chucky for the nickname? WE don't want confusion with the song Chuck E's in Love by Rickie Lee Jones.

    I suggest we let Cecelia pick the final name in honor of her sharp and incisive wit.

    Grammie

    I suggest we let Cecelia pick the final name in honor of her sharp and incisive wit.

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 23, 2007 6:49 PM


    Since they didn't have a shiftless martini swilling angel, I don't think I qualify.

    However, I do see you, Grammie, as Sabrina, Sharon as Jill, and AAP as the glamorous and classy Kelly.

    Since I'm the alledged gold-digger of the board, I'll settle for being Charlie's most consistent mistress.

    I'm hanging on to that rich bastard with all talons...

    I suggest we let Cecelia pick the final name in honor of her sharp and incisive wit.

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 23, 2007 6:49 PM


    I say we go with all the nicknames-- Chuck E. Cheese, Chucky, Bobo, Prof. Honeydew.

    Bob's got layers, ya know...

    Is there any liberal besides Craigs who actually says something? I can't recall.
    Posted by: Sharon at June 22, 2007 9:04 PM


    Sharon, the idea that there are no "liberals" saying anything here in your mind is probably more a reflection of what you determine "anything" is. I know that for myself anyway, it has become so very obvious to the vast majority of the country that what Keith has been saying all along is correct and I don't feel the need to come here and defend him. This place has become a gathering point for some on the right to help themselves feel superior or at least sane while the rest of the world waits for a new President and a renewing of American values that the right has pissed on. Believe me, Bush has done more damage to republicanism than you can dream. I just hope we get to the end of his reign alive.

    Charlie: (Bovine) OK, Angels, your mission: Find out who is that wascally wabbit hiding behind the Sir Loin moniker.
    Your clues: It might be AAP. I have reliable information from Bosley. Now, go fetch!
    I have a meeting with Dr. Weiners.
    *

    Posted by: Average American Patriot at June 23, 2007 6:42 PM

    Sir Loin is more Slyverster the Cat than Bugs, don't you think?

    Cecelia, SLOB is definitely more Sylvester, or possibly Tom, than Bugs.

    But I really see him as Yosemite Sam.

    And since Codas for some reason popped up as himself this time he deserves a name, too. I take it upon myself to name him after the ever hapless lifetime loser Wile E Coyote, beep beep!

    We must stop this unseemly frivolity. Our Chicken Bloggers are getting restless over the superficiality of it all. And you know what chickens do when they get upset. They become more frenzied with a lot of extra clucking and crapping. Before you know it they will have trouble laying. :)

    Grammie

    I just hope we get to the end of his reign alive.

    Posted by: codas at June 23, 2007 9:20 PM

    If the dems have their way we'll be nuked, how ironic, you're statement......

    Janet, I always really liked W.E. Coyete. Thank you. I had a friend when I was young who had a poster of him grabbing the road runner by the neck and saying "Beep beep my ass!".

    Cecelia is totally oblivious when the joke is on her.

    Go fetch !
    Good one !

    Posted by: at June 23, 2007 9:57 PM


    Oblivious? I enjoy AAP.

    Cecelia, SLOB is definitely more Sylvester, or possibly Tom, than Bugs.

    But I really see him as Yosemite Sam.

    And since Codas for some reason popped up as himself this time he deserves a name, too. I take it upon myself to name him after the ever hapless lifetime loser Wile E Coyote, beep beep!

    We must stop this unseemly frivolity. Our Chicken Bloggers are getting restless over the superficiality of it all. And you know what chickens do when they get upset. They become more frenzied with a lot of extra clucking and crapping. Before you know it they will have trouble laying. :)

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 24, 2007 12:09 AM


    I don't know, Grammie, Slyvester seems more capable of being a socialist than Yosmite Sam. Sam seems rather apolitical, but I can actually imagine Slyvester thinking that the bourgeois adored Twitty deserved to be lunch.

    As for Codas and the white-knuckled grim-faced "the sky is falling" chicken[little]bloggers, I've lived long enough to have the firm knowledge that in three years or so, they are going to look back at themselves and scratch their heads in wonder.

    anonypricks, 11:21 and 11:24, I would much rather read what Janet and Cecelia have to say then your hate filled rants. Speaking of substance, where are all of your posts with substance? Oh, you don't use a name so we can't tell, perfect!

    Chicken Blogger, just as with Whatizname, ask and ye shall receive.

    "Just a few facts from the ruling, that I skimmed and read parts of.

    This is his third 'day in court' in front of three separate courts.

    In the middle hearing he was given the opportunity to present any evidence that disputed the gov's labeling him an enemy combatant in addition to arguing the legality of a legal resident apprehended in the US for terrorism being subject to the military tribunals as an enemy combatant. He presented no evidence at that hearing.

    The majority opinion took note of this and very clearly stated that they were making no statement of his innocence nor were they setting him free.

    There was a virtually (the dissenting Judge agreed that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals did have jurisdiction to hear and rule on the case) diametrically opposed dissenting minority opinion.

    With an appeal to the full court which will be followed by an appeal to the Supreme Court, by whatever side loses, he will have had at least five 'days in court' or possibly six if the Supremes consider it and send it back to the lower court with instructions.

    For a document and the system that it created to have been shredded and declared dead so often and so loudly by so many recently it sure seems to be not only alive and well but absolutely robust and doing exactly what it was designed to do and has done so well for over two hundred years.

    One man has gotten the full attention of our courts, our political systems, the press and citizens from every viewpoint on the spectrum. Al Marri is the only one in this particular situation but any final judgment will apply to him and any like him in the future. There will be no pitched battles in the streets, no military coups, no take overs by force of the Courts, the Legislature or The Executive by anyone.

    No matter on what side the decision comes down we will have those who applaud and those who scream opposition. And then we all will work our way through the differences and live with it.

    We have been fortunate beyond belief to be one of the smallest minorities in the world's history to have lived in our country and enjoyed its freedoms and blessings. Yet we are bombarded daily by cries and screams of Tyranny, Dictatorship, Fascism, Gulags, Despotism by those who obviously have absolutely no concept of the gruesome reality behind the words they so blithely use.

    Now that scares me.

    Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 21, 2007 1:10 AM"

    I will copy the same thing I said to Whatizname. Try something new and different for a change of pace. Address the overall theme, underlying hypotheses and conclusion that I drew from the Al Marri decision.

    Grammie

    If you are looking for vapid, here is the answer I got from that intellectual giant Whatizname.

    ""Grammie thinks that because we haven't descended to Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany that all the FACTS AND evidence against this president, VP, attorney general etc aren't true nor significant."

    I responded to that with a question essentially how far towards Nazi jurisprudence did he think we had gone. You can read it at plus a qoute and link to a site that comprehensively covers the subject.

    How about you address the question @ 1:25 PM or 3:41 PM , either one.

    Grammie

    Chicken Blogger, just as with Whatizname, ask and ye shall receive.

    "Just a few facts from the ruling, that I skimmed and read parts of.

    This is his third 'day in court' in front of three separate courts.

    In the middle hearing he was given the opportunity to present any evidence that disputed the gov's labeling him an enemy combatant in addition to arguing the legality of a legal resident apprehended in the US for terrorism being subject to the military tribunals as an enemy combatant. He presented no evidence at that hearing.

    The majority opinion took note of this and very clearly stated that they were making no statement of his innocence nor were they setting him free.

    There was a virtually (the dissenting Judge agreed that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals did have jurisdiction to hear and rule on the case) diametrically opposed dissenting minority opinion.

    With an appeal to the full court which will be followed by an appeal to the Supreme Court, by whatever side loses, he will have had at least five 'days in court' or possibly six if the Supremes consider it and send it back to the lower court with instructions.

    For a document and the system that it created to have been shredded and declared dead so often and so loudly by so many recently it sure seems to be not only alive and well but absolutely robust and doing exactly what it was designed to do and has done so well for over two hundred years.

    One man has gotten the full attention of our courts, our political systems, the press and citizens from every viewpoint on the spectrum. Al Marri is the only one in this particular situation but any final judgment will apply to him and any like him in the future. There will be no pitched battles in the streets, no military coups, no take overs by force of the Courts, the Legislature or The Executive by anyone.

    No matter on what side the decision comes down we will have those who applaud and those who scream opposition. And then we all will work our way through the differences and live with it.

    We have been fortunate beyond belief to be one of the smallest minorities in the world's history to have lived in our country and enjoyed its freedoms and blessings. Yet we are bombarded daily by cries and screams of Tyranny, Dictatorship, Fascism, Gulags, Despotism by those who obviously have absolutely no concept of the gruesome reality behind the words they so blithely use.

    Now that scares me.

    Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 21, 2007 1:10 AM"

    I will copy the same thing I said to Whatizname. Try something new and different for a change of pace. Address the overall theme, underlying hypotheses and conclusion that I drew from the Al Marri decision.

    Grammie

    If you are looking for vapid, here is the answer I got from that intellectual giant Whatizname.

    ""Grammie thinks that because we haven't descended to Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany that all the FACTS AND evidence against this president, VP, attorney general etc aren't true nor significant."

    I responded to that with a question essentially how far towards Nazi jurisprudence did he think we had gone. You can read it at plus a qoute and link to a site that comprehensively covers the subject.

    How about you address the question @ 1:25 PM or 3:41 PM , either one.

    Grammie

    Sorry for the double post. I got a message that I had made too many comments in a short period, which I hadn't made any in hours, so I tried again immediately. Both went through.

    Grammie

    I see how this works, now. If you don't fall at the feet of our failed President and lie prostrate before his feet, you raise the ire of Janet and Cecelia, and then you're outed. Never mind that you make a reasoned, polite, articulate argument, the mere fact that you might have an opinion not straight from the RNC talking points makes you a threat. Never mind, either, that their conclusions have no foundation in fact. The accusation is made, and you're guilty. Please, continue patting yourselves on the back. You embody the very best in Rovian Republicansim.

    While I am at it, please accept my apologies for having a job which takes me away from my keyboard from time-to-time. I am sure that there must only be one person in the nation who travels on business to such European capitals as Afghanistan, the Saarland and Alsace.

    Do you have a referral to an RNC-sponsored brain-washing program so I can think just like the two (2) of you and learn how to sing the praises of Bush and Cheney in perfect harmony, without end? Perhaps, if I could do that and burn up my passport (God knows it will take years to get a new one with our perfectly functioning State Department), I could be just like you. I suppose that is not possible. Perhaps, you could be my mentors and I your protogee? My most fervent hope is that I think exactly like the two (2) of you.

    You are certainly a pair of easily threatened, closed-minded old broads. More like a Cagney and Lacey remake than Charlie's Angels.

    Well, as Big Daddy says, "Bull!" And, I say it too. Bull!

    Clucker, I didn't realize we had 'outed' (CA/LMAO/N du J objects very strenuously to that term in this context) you. So you are KK?

    I thought we three were having a little fun sharing our observations of personal idiosyncrasies in writing and grammatical styles, consistency in themes and general tone. That moved onto picking fictional characters and cartoon characters that some of us resemble. Patsy even joined in the fun to take a poke at both R Cox (nominated as Charley) and RK (nominated as Bosely).

    I really don't think that Patsy is a close minded spouting Republican talking points old broad. Just my own observation, mind you.

    I find it telling that in the context of many of the posters here and the comments they make that this is what irritated you enough to call posters down for lack of decorum.

    When you make your next Novena for God to correct the errors of your political opponents ways perhaps you should spend a little time meditating on this:

    "And why dost thou behold the mote that is in thy brother's eye, and the beam that is in thine own eye dost not consider?"

    Or, just lighten up.

    Grammie

    Clucker,

    In the midst of having some fun with Grammie and Sharon, the only point I have made was about the over-the-top rhetoric so many anti-Bush folks engage in here. Even though I made no other point you still carry on as though I had been arguing that Bush be installed as Pope.

    In the process of your acting as though Grammie denying that this country is on the verge of totalitarianism and your claims of people somehow being "outed" by some silly conjectures, along with all your other hysterical assertions of our partisan propagandizing, you prove the ONE point I did make only TOO well.

    Frankly, if you folks think that joking among old regulars on a blogboard is tantamount to fiddling while Rome burns then I'd suggest that things in the world are far too serious for you to be bothering with internet comment boards in the first place.

    Trust me. No one here will mind if you spend all your time on the campaign of whatever Democrat you think will be the next global savior.

    Onward ideological soldiers! You're far too serious and committed for the likes of us (and goodness knows most of you sound like you need to be committed).

    I thought we three were having a little fun sharing our observations of personal idiosyncrasies in writing and grammatical styles, consistency in themes and general tone. That moved onto picking fictional characters and cartoon characters that some of us resemble. Patsy even joined in the fun to take a poke at both R Cox (nominated as Charley) and RK (nominated as Bosely).

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 24, 2007 3:06 PM


    Obviouly, unlike AAP, Clucker and some the chickenbloggers are far too easily threatened and too close-minded to tolerate that.

    Key words, Grammie, lighten up.
    ****

    "see how this works, now. If you don't fall at the feet of our failed President and lie prostrate before his feet, you raise the ire of Janet and Cecelia... (Clucker)"

    A little melodramatic don't you think? Are you that much of a drama queen all the time?
    ****

    "I am sure that there must only be one person in the nation who travels on business to such European capitals as Afghanistan, the Saarland and Alsace." (Clucker)

    The only one who comments here about such travels.
    ****

    "Great minds discuss ideas, small minds discuss other people.
    Cecelia and Grammie certainly show where they fit in with that equation. (Anon)"

    You can't see the hypocrisy of that statement?

    ****

    "Why don't you two fag hags email each other instead of boring us to death with your drivel.
    (Same Anon)"

    There we go. When Rick Santorum was crucified for his view on homosexuality, I guess you were with him 100&.

    Cecelia and Grammie have posted extensively here. You can't hold a candle to them intellectually. You can't even come up with a name.

    It's ironic that the biggest complainers of us being too occupied with name posting are the ones who were outed and the ones who post anonymously.

    Clucker, I forgot to mention two things about you and Codas.

    I nominate you to be Cotton Mather.

    And besides Patsy, Codas took my jab at him in a very good natured way.

    BTW Codas, I adore Wile E Coyote. He is persistent and hopeful and never gives up. Beep Beep!

    Grammie

    New gal, you hurt my feelings.

    I have been assured innumerable times by posters here that I AM a FASCIST, along with various and sundry other little foibles like inbred, backwoods, ChristoNazi, murderer, traitor and on and on.

    The best you can come up with is 'wannabe fascist'.

    Oh dear, I hope I am not losing my touch. It's either that or you are way behind on the insult curve and have a lot of work to catch up with your compadres.

    I do hope, though, that you take a little time in your learning to answer this post of mine:

    "Chicken Blogger, just as with Whatizname, ask and ye shall receive."

    Just a few facts from the ruling, that I skimmed and read parts of.

    This is his third 'day in court' in front of three separate courts.

    In the middle hearing he was given the opportunity to present any evidence that disputed the gov's labeling him an enemy combatant in addition to arguing the legality of a legal resident apprehended in the US for terrorism being subject to the military tribunals as an enemy combatant. He presented no evidence at that hearing.

    The majority opinion took note of this and very clearly stated that they were making no statement of his innocence nor were they setting him free.

    There was a virtually (the dissenting Judge agreed that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals did have jurisdiction to hear and rule on the case) diametrically opposed dissenting minority opinion.

    With an appeal to the full court which will be followed by an appeal to the Supreme Court, by whatever side loses, he will have had at least five 'days in court' or possibly six if the Supremes consider it and send it back to the lower court with instructions.

    For a document and the system that it created to have been shredded and declared dead so often and so loudly by so many recently it sure seems to be not only alive and well but absolutely robust and doing exactly what it was designed to do and has done so well for over two hundred years.

    One man has gotten the full attention of our courts, our political systems, the press and citizens from every viewpoint on the spectrum. Al Marri is the only one in this particular situation but any final judgment will apply to him and any like him in the future. There will be no pitched battles in the streets, no military coups, no take overs by force of the Courts, the Legislature or The Executive by anyone.

    No matter on what side the decision comes down we will have those who applaud and those who scream opposition. And then we all will work our way through the differences and live with it.

    We have been fortunate beyond belief to be one of the smallest minorities in the world's history to have lived in our country and enjoyed its freedoms and blessings. Yet we are bombarded daily by cries and screams of Tyranny, Dictatorship, Fascism, Gulags, Despotism by those who obviously have absolutely no concept of the gruesome reality behind the words they so blithely use.

    Now that scares me.

    Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 21, 2007 1:10 AM"

    I've repeated the original post and this is same question posed to anyone and directly to several of our name shifting posters:

    "Try something new and different for a change of pace. Address the overall theme, underlying hypotheses and conclusion that I drew from the Al Marri decision."

    I got a truly intellectually brilliant answer from Whatizname:

    "Grammie thinks that because we haven't descended to Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany that all the FACTS AND evidence against this president, VP, attorney general etc aren't true nor significant."

    Of course he failed to answer my follow up question @ 3:41 Pm:

    "....so lets just confine ourselves to the so called point you made that our system has not sunk as low as Nazi Germany's system but has started its long decline..

    How far have we descended, according to you, on any scale you choose into the judicial murderous madness of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany."

    I only remember seeing one post from you and it was the same old song as above, just a slightly different melody.

    Are you capable of addressing the points I made and offering proof of the descent of our Jurisprudence into the depths of Nazi Jurisprudence and how far down we have sunk.

    Grammie

    New gal, I see you asked me a question while I was asking you a question.

    Give me the backup on your point and the sources and I'll see what I can do with it.

    Meanwhile, you have the source of my facts re Al Marri, the actual opinion of the Fourth Circuit and its three judge panel and the conclusion that I draw from it. You also have the source of my quotes re Nazi Jurisprudence.

    Grammie

    Sure did notice it and now you have the answer to my senility or lack of.

    Grammie

    The concept of this site seemed absurd: A full frontal assault on a particular television personality of no particular note and with no particular following. This, of course raised a number of questions. Some of us thought, mistakenly, this was some sort of ruse by Olbermann to create interest in himself. Another notion seemed more prevalent and promising: O'Reilly was financing this site. That notion did, in fact, resonate. After all, O'Reilly is a notoriously think-skinned and self-absorbed individual.

    At any rate, the site seemed worth checking out. Fairly quickly I saw that very little time or space in the discussion boards was devoted to Olbermann. Indeed, how could it be? It is not that engaging a topic and few of the posters seem to ever watch Olbermann.

    This site has always been more of a "Support the President" site along the lines of the Donald Segretti mode if there had been an internet at that time. One of the concerns about the RNC at the moment is the lack of quality internet outreach. It is generally considered that the RNC is years' behind the DNC in this area and that individual Republican candidates have not developed internet campaigning to the extent Democratic candidates have, This is not all that surprising. By its very nature, the Republican party and individual Republicans are not predisposed to change and innovation. Moreover, the Republicans had successfuly exploited the direct mail concept, and it seemed unnecessary to change. Somewhat related to that, we have the personal interest of the voice of Radical Rightwing Republicanism, Bill Kristol, still trying to protect his direct mail empire.

    As such, I was most interested to try to discern the impetus for this site and to also determined what lessons, if any, the RNC might learn from it.

    Most contributors to this site are Republicans and, more particularly, Republicans of the Far Right stripe. However, I am almost ready to conclude that the RNC has little or no direct involvement with this site. If it did, it seems likely that the site would either die or flourish. For some time now, indeed since the 2006 elections of the Olbermann contract renewal, this site has been largely floundering.

    Although I am far from certain of this, it does seem more plausible this was an O'Reilly site which began to flounder when Olbermann was renewed and O'Reilly would have lost practical interest in it.

    I suppose we'll never know with certainty how or why this site started.

    The continuing interest in this site for me is to examine behavior types drawn to this site. Certainly, we have a number of contributors who are interested in an honest exchange of ideas. This is negated by a larger number of contributors who are interested in a reaffirmation of their own views and are highly intolerant of divirgent views. Lastly, there is a small group of true Right Wing lunatics. This site seems to be the talk radio faction of the worldwide web.

    As a case study, this site has presented an interesting stream of political attitudes and internet behaviors. As a medium for the exchange of meaningful ideas, this site has been largely unsuccessful. Of course, I am not certain that was ever the intent, and "unsuccessful" is a outsider's conclusion.

    This site does lend itself well to recent studies about the "dumming down" effect of the internet in political discourse and in the use of language. The best of this site is as good as contibutors on the premium sites. However, I do think it can readily been seen that the "dumming down" effect is a reality. So, the interesting point to examine will be whether the increased participation made possible by the internet for political purposes will compensate for the general dumming down. That is a conclusion that cannot be drawn for several years, well after the time this site itself is but an archive.

    Dude....your wasting your time here....leave.

    The rest of your narcissistic Friends will be here.

    http://mediamatters.org/

    "Why are we not surprised that Grammie has taken the side she did in the Al-Marri case."

    I mentioned points from the actual opinion, sixty or so pages long. Although I do agree with the government's position, along with three federal judges, I used some factual points in the decision as the foundation for the argument I made re the viability of our Constitution.


    "The question raised by Al-Marri is a clear and simple one: Does the President have the power and/or should he have it to arrest individuals on U.S. soil and keep them imprisoned for years and years, indefinitely, without charging them with a crime, allowing them access to lawyers or the outside world, and/or providing a meaningful opportunity to contest the validity of the charges?"

    My point was and is that he was able to raise the question, have three cases heard by five federal judges on the question, three are judges on the second highest court in the land, three of the five judges who heard his case ruled against him, two ruled for him, he will have at least two more chances and possibly three in the highest courts of the land, his case has received wide publicity and great interest by the public, and he is the only one in question re his status as an enemy combatant because he is in the unique position of being the only legal alien resident to have been apprehended in the US and declared an enemy combatant subject to a military tribunal.

    Your contention that he was arrested and has been secretly held, has been been denied legal representation, multiple consideration by the courts and that the outside world knows nothing about him is factually wrong. All those things have come to pass and the end is in sight one way or the other.


    "How can that question not answer itself? Who would possibly believe that an American President has such powers, and more to the point, what kind of a person would want a President to have such powers? That is one of a handful of powers which this country was founded to prevent."

    For starters hundreds of Federal Judges, many Justices and quite a few Presidents have had similar cases heard and both sides of the coin have been upheld, Government and Litigant, for our 200+ year history. FDR interned hundreds of thousands of citizens and legal aliens of Japanese and German and a half dozen or more other countries descent for years. There were several court cases and the last Germans were released in either 1947 or 1948. This is not a new question and it has been handled by all the branches of our government the same way for those 200+ years.

    My conclusion was that our Constitution is not only alive and well but is robustly doing exactly what it was designed to do and has done from the beginnings of our Republic through the present.

    Al Marri has not languished in obscurity hidden from the world and the press while being denied access to our highest courts and an opportunity to prevail. In other words, the Constitution is being followed.

    You asked


    I notice you make no mention of this so I will ask your question of me back to you:

    "How can that question not answer itself? Who would possibly believe"that anyone could

    "Yet we are bombarded daily by cries and screams of Tyranny, Dictatorship, Fascism, Gulags, Despotism by those who obviously have absolutely no concept of the gruesome reality behind the words they so blithely use."

    Just as you purport to be astonished by all those who disagree with you that our Constitution has been decimated I am astounded by the absolute historical ignorance (both our own and others) and opportunism displayed when speaking of what is happening in our courts today.

    Grammie

    You're right, I haven't seen anything more than a quick glance or two on the latest Cheny brohaha. I've had almost nonstop Grandkids since the end of last week. I'll look into it and get back to you.

    This site does lend itself well to recent studies about the "dumming down" effect of the internet in political discourse and in the use of language. The best of this site is as good as contibutors on the premium sites. However, I do think it can readily been seen that the "dumming down" effect is a reality. So, the interesting point to examine will be whether the increased participation made possible by the internet for political purposes will compensate for the general dumming down. That is a conclusion that cannot be drawn for several years, well after the time this site itself is but an archive.

    Posted by: at June 24, 2007 7:53 PM


    Oh, darn.

    I was hoping we'd see your scholarly....nonassuming....objective.... politcal-pejorative-buzzword-free....conclusions.... long before then...

    "It's apparent that the only women that post here have their mouths totally secure to the ass of the republican power structure.
    You would think that after watching your little Bushman in action the last 6 years would have made you think just a little.
    But there is no low you Bush cultists will not stoop to in the defense of their Dear (mis)Leader."

    Posted by: New gal on the block at June 24, 2007 5:56 PM


    Exhibit A-- senile Republican butt-kissing Grammie is in for some quality political discussion with this....person....

    With some hard pounding of points and even more finesse, Grammie, maybe you can persuade New Gal to conclude that Bush is merely comparable to Idi Amin rather than Pol Pot.

    Cecelia

    New gal, i started researching your legwork that you so kindly did for my poor old legs. Were you a Girl Scout?

    I first googled 'Cheney's secret powers' and the first link was to a Dan Froomkin WaPo article from 6/22. There was very little that applied to the rest of your post and there was no mention of the other three parts. So I googled the phrase you used "Cheney Spies on White House Staffers".

    The first link was to the Brit Gaurdian, which I bypassed. The second was to Digg.com which was essentially a truncated headline (left out the "Washington Post") and comments. I linked to their headline and wound up at ThinkProgess.

    And Thinkprogress just happened to be the third link to my query. I quote both you (although there was no attribution by you or Digg) and ThinkProgress "Washington Post Profile Reveals Stealthy Cheney Spies On White House Staffers"

    From your third paragraph down you did a copy and paste from ThinkProgress and ineptly tried to pass it off as your own original thoughts. You obviously have a great deal of intellectual growing up to do.

    BTW, this burning issue that you claim has been at the forefront of all the news outlets was not discussed by Tim Russert and his guests today. The only mention of Cheney was in relation to Mitt Rommey's pardon policies. And that was very brief.

    No wonder you are like The Road Runner beep beeping your way at almost super sonic speed. You neither read for comprehension nor compose your own opinions.

    Your forte is limited to the repetition of the same same old ad hominems that many before you have done so much better. It's sad. You are not even very good at that.

    When you can formulate your own opinions based on the closest source documents and analysis by unbiased third parties and not your passion du jour fueled by your blinkered vision come see me.

    Grammie

    "I was hoping we'd see your scholarly....nonassuming....objective.... politcal-pejorative-buzzword-free....conclusions.... long before then..."

    Cecilia,

    This has Kurt Kissel's fingerprints all over it-- long, boring, sanctimonious and totally oblivious to the sorry standards of journalism employed by the mentally ill orange host of Meltdown.

    The whole diatribe is rife with error and smug professorial smarm, but the two quotes that are just rich with irony:

    "One of the concerns about the RNC at the moment is the lack of quality internet outreach. It is generally considered that the RNC is years' behind the DNC in this area and that individual Republican candidates have not developed internet campaigning to the extent Democratic candidates have . . ."

    Yes, I think the last Dem candidate who was supposed to have mastered the "internet outreach" thing was a guy named Howard Dean (sorry, Kurt, didn't mean to hit a raw nerve)

    "Certainly, we have a number of contributors who are interested in an honest exchange of ideas. This is negated by a larger number of contributors who are interested in a reaffirmation of their own views and are highly intolerant of divirgent views."

    Yes, the extent to which Olbermann is interested in exploring "divirgent" views is on display on a nightly basis for all who can manage to stomach this sorry spectacle.

    As one who travels widely in various European capital cities, please let me advise you I think you meant the GUARDIAN (all CAPS) and not the Gaurdian, That seems oddly Spanish, but it has been years since I have been in Madrid, although I enjoyed it GREATLY. Then, perhaps, this was only a typo, which we all make. Perhaps, CECEILIA can tell us with certainty.

    You know, Grammie, you just put new gal in her proper place. She came aknocking on your door and met someone with debating skills in political apologetics. Very few people have them.

    You know, Grammie, you just put new gal in her proper place. She came aknocking on your door and met someone with debating skills in political apologetics. Very few people have them.

    Posted by: Sharon at June 25, 2007 12:28 AM

    -----

    Absolutely! How dare New Gal not tow the party line! I think the two (2) of you ought to get a Cable Access show. In my location, we have an opening between the guy who talks about black helicopters flying into underground hangars and the woman who sings a duet with the coyote. Right now, it is filled with the man selling overtocked Ginsu knives and that is getting a bit old. A couple of mature women heaping mounds of mindless praise for every fart emanating from the Bush Administration ought to win that slot hands' down.

    Clucker, thank you for pointing out my transposition. But why wait for Cecelia?

    The all caps didn't net any results for me when I went agoogling. You are obviously the master with the key to these burning questions and their divine answers .

    Oh master, please enlighten us on the path to truth based on all CAPS and transpositions of letters made by inferiors such as me. :)

    Grammie

    As one who travels widely in various European capital cities, please let me advise you I think you meant the GUARDIAN (all CAPS) and not the Gaurdian, That seems oddly Spanish, but it has been years since I have been in Madrid, although I enjoyed it GREATLY. Then, perhaps, this was only a typo, which we all make. Perhaps, CECEILIA can tell us with certainty.

    ****
    And I am sure you meant to say these are European capitals you world traveler you!

    "I am sure that there must only be one person in the nation who travels on business to such European capitals as Afghanistan, the Saarland and Alsace." (Clucker)

    And who you calling "mature"? I am still breast feeding, sweetie!

    I bring up breast feeding because it is such a European thing.

    Sharon I think between us we may have pushed Clucker and his various personas over the edge that he has been teetering on for so long.

    Get a grip man/woman/whatever. It's only a blog.

    Grammie

    Goodnight Grammie!

    I probably should take a little break from here for awhile to do what I should be doing. Keep your head low and watch for shrapnel.

    Sharm

    Goodnight Sharm, sleep tight.

    Time will tell if Gal will respond or shape shift into someone else.

    Come back as soon as you comfortably can. I don't think I would have had the energy to make time to use the internet as you do when I was in your point in life.

    Grammie

    Absolutely! How dare New Gal not tow the party line! I think the two (2) of you ought to get a Cable Access show. In my location, we have an opening between the guy who talks about black helicopters flying into underground hangars and the woman who sings a duet with the coyote. Right now, it is filled with the man selling overtocked Ginsu knives and that is getting a bit old. A couple of mature women heaping mounds of mindless praise for every fart emanating from the Bush Administration ought to win that slot hands' down.

    Posted by: Clucker at June 25, 2007 12:46 AM


    It never fails.

    Someone new (or under a new name) appears here and immediately demands a response to some political charge while throwing out personal insults towards others (who have no idea if they've ever encountered the person before). When WE return the insults or treat them as mindless political hacks right back some Clucker whines that we have been unfair, partisanlly dismissive, or mean.

    In this latest incident here, Clucker thinks Grammie is engaging in a personal attack on New Gal by exposing her unattributed cut-n-paste job from a partisan blue-blog after New Gal had insinuated that GRAMMIE is a mindless partisan who doesn't think for herself...

    Generally, the next action is some whining about how we blinkered partisans assumed New Gal was an Olbyloon instead of accepting her as a thoughtful truth-seeker merely wanting interesting and challenging discussion...

    Come back as soon as you comfortably can. I don't think I would have had the energy to make time to use the internet as you do when I was in your point in life.

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 25, 2007 2:05 AM


    You wouldn't have what??

    I read the tenor of Gal's finalization --" How can that question not answer itself?" and know this person thinks "enemy combatant status" is something dreamed up by Dick Cheney five years ago and that a disagreement with her as to the applicability of the status now, will only be a sideline here. The entire discussion will chiefly be a pretext for more accusations of ass-kissing by her and the anonyloons.

    But you're more than up for that, Grammie. Frankly, I'd wager that you have more energy than all your grandchildren put together.

    Cecelia, New gal's penchant for plagiarism is worse than I originally thought. I should have picked up on it in the first so called comment of any substance she tried to palm off. If I omit the copy and paste from Glen Greenwald's article at Salon.com and my quote this is the sum total of her own words in her 6:58 PM post:


    " Why are we not surprised that Grammie has taken the side she did in the Al-Marri case."

    ........Greenwald

    ........Greenwald

    Our partisan Grammie writes:....Grammie

    Not surprised again why she totally ignores the others that have had this same treatment by her incompetent and reckless administration she blindly supports.
    Screw all the rest of them who have had such treatment eh Miss Grammie?
    Posted by: New gal on the block at June 24, 2007 6:58 PM"

    How old is this little twerp?

    Grammie

    BTW, I only skimmed the first part of his article but it seems to a well thought out analysis of the decision. He is totally con but he does mention some of the pro argument and rebuts it.

    Anyone interested can find it at:

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/13/al_marri/

    His bio says he was a Constitutional Lawyer.

    And Twerpy tries to pass his work off as her own. Chutzpah to the 10th power.

    Grammie

    How old is this little twerp?

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 25, 2007 10:44 AM


    Old enough to know better and possibly old enough to be not-new to this block, middle-aged man...

    How very rude, uber-partisan, and dismissive of you to point out the extent of New Gal On The Block's unattributed cut-n-pastes, oh senile weak-legged Bush automaton Grammie....

    tut-tut...cluck-cluck...